Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –
(Crosstalk)
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –
Gibbs: ABC -
Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?
Gibbs's response? "That's our opinion."
Here's another question that Tapper ought to ask. If the White House feels that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization, why does it continue to give Fox press credentials at the White House? Why is Major Garrett, Tapper's opposite number at Fox, even in the room? Wouldn't you like to hear Robert Gibbs explain that one?
23 comments:
Faux Newz is finally on Obama's Enemies List.
Remember the outrage when W referred to a NY Times reporter as an "a-hole"? Those were the days. And where are Nuke and Annie to warn of a "chill wind" blowing on free speech while their buddy Chavez shuts down all the newspapers and radio stations that criticize him? Why do lefties not only hate free speech, but are the leaders when it comes to banning it? Obama and his crowd must want nothing but "real" news agencies such as Tass.
Maybe Obama should hire Jeff Gannon and the Talon News organization to replace Garrett and FOX. But Gannon might be a little too busy with his 'other' job.
Don't you think this is good for the WH and for FOX?
Just wondering.
Rich
K-Rod,
I suspect Faux Newz has been in the crosshairs from the get-go. It's pretty strange to see the WH act this way, though.
NW, excellent point about the Robbins and Sarandon.
Rich, sure it's beneficial to Fox to be The Enemy. I see no benefit to the White House, though. Maybe you can explain what it is, because I sure don't see it.
IMHO, citizens ought to be more concerned about the propaganda being served to the masses as "fair and balanced," rather than what the WH thinks of said propaganda. Perhaps they allow a continued presence in the press room in order to give them the opportunity of occasionally reporting truth, who knows.
Uh, Amanda -- you do know, of course, that the entire point of Robert Gibbs's job is to be a propagandist, right? And surely you don't take Gibbs's statements as probative, right?
Oh, and before I forget, good job on bringing up Jeff Gannon, Rich. I'd pretty much forgotten about that eminently forgettable fellow.
Funny, I remember other news organizations being caught falsifying evidence during an election cycle, but not Fox. I wonder why Fox makes the enemies list, but not CBS and Dan Rather?
Oh yeah, C-BS is useful to Zero.
Didn't Nixon have an enemies list?
Why is it now OK?
....
"...propaganda being served to the masses..."
Amanda, you would come across as more credible if you substantiated your accusations. Were you referring to the CBS MemoGate?
Ha ha, Gannon and the planted softball questions. It is soooo much easier when ABC/NBC/CBS does it. Yep, way easier.
As for his 'other' activities, that's not really any of my business, but I will let Rich delve into those details and judge away.
Fox News is primarily made up of news analysis shows. That's where show hosts will give their opinions on the issues. Yeah, that's a funny thing about opinions: They usually are tinged with one's biases.
What the WH seems to be contending is that the news reporting by Fox is bias, to which no evidence is ever provided.
Where the "Fair and Balanced" mantra comes through is in each show's guests. There is typically both sides of the aisle appearing on a particular show (i.e. Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity), opining on the issues of the day. It really doesn't matter what the hosts of said shows believe as much as how effective the guests are in airing their points of view. Sure, the hosts offer up their own editorials, but that's no different than the rabid lefty triumverate of Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow at MSNBC.
Excellent points Brad.
Now compare those points to Dan Rather's news report on a fake memo... or the media trying to call FL for Gore before the polls were closed in the panhandle... or relying on exit polls to predict the actual poll... or the many retractions that are like a soft whisper compared to the scream of the original false story... or the old gray lady's Jayson Blair scandal...
There is nothing that is written without some form of slant. That being said, the administration wasn't very intelligent with their disclosure.
Keith Oberman and MSNBC are at least as "slanted" as Fox.
The enemies list was distastful in the 1970's and it is now as well. As an aside, I suspect we all have an enemies list to some degree, we just don't make it public.
Let's start a list and compare:
"...Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg."
What self proclaimed "journalist" said it was his "job" to make the Obama presidency "work"?
Amanda, do you have any examples?
Uh Mr. D, it's the job of a news organization to strive for objectivity in what they present as hard news. It's the job of a presidential administration to promote their agenda (in a Democratic government, this is supposed to align with the agenda of the people who vote the administration into power). So in other words, yes, I'm familiar the use of propaganda in goverment. Thanks!
Mark,
The group Obama needs to warm up to the most right now isn't conservatives, it's liberals. Picking a fight with FOX can only endear him to the far left, who is collectively threatening to walk away from any health care plan that lacks a public option, and is ambivalent, at best, about the prospects of escalating the Afghanistan War. I think this is pretty obvious, this is music to their ears.
Also, the reason this is not really anything like Nixon's enemies list is that the Nixon Admin enemies list was meant to be secret. This is anything but that. And where is it written that you have to be nice to or even like everyone.
Lastly, I hate to answer a question with a question, but how do you think this hurts Obama? I just don't see it.
Regards,
Rich
I guess I have more.
Brad - I am willing to accept the reasons you state for "fair and balanced" but overall the station puts this label on stories they declare as "news," as well as their opinion/analysis. I turned it on today, just to remind myself, and sure enough they said it in the first 30 seconds to describe their news hour.
K-Rod - Please. Isn't the fact that right-leaning commenters immediately rise to defend, proof enough? I agree that MSNBC is biased toward the left, but their "opinions vs. news" stories are clearly labeled as such. If you demand an example, please read a post I wrote a few days ago on my own blog (the topic wasn't Fox, but it mentions the station).
"...overall the station puts this label on stories they declare as "news,"..."
Again, you would come across as more credible if you substantiated your accusations. I am not here to defend Faux Newz and I might join you in condemning them if you were to show us some proof.
BTW, I don't consider Comedy Central a news source.
Whoops - I don't mean to keep coming back - "Isn't the fact that right-leaning commenters immediately rise to defend, proof enough?" - I misspoke there. That was in reference to bias, not whether FN is propagandistic.
Uh Mr. D, it's the job of a news organization to strive for objectivity in what they present as hard news.
Good in theory, but it doesn't happen in practice. And historically it hasn't been the case at all. Look at the careers of Hearst and Pulitzer for examples. Hell, look at the career of Luce, or Bradlee, or anyone else. And it's certainly never been the case in the European media.
I know Fox leans right. I also know MSNBC leans left. As such, I don't necessarily trust either. I'd prefer that others who lean left (e.g., the remainder of the MSM) would be more upfront about their biases. Lately Newsweek has given up the charade of being an objective news source and I applaud their honesty.
Lastly, I hate to answer a question with a question, but how do you think this hurts Obama? I just don't see it.
Two reasons: shoring up the base alienates those in the middle. Obama needs both to effectively govern. And relatedly, it puts the lie to much of his shtick from the campaign about transcending politics. That won't help him either. My guess -- his overall behavior will bite him in the ass eventually, although it's far more likely to bite Pelosi and Reid in the ass first.
Of course, I never believed his shtick in the first place. :)
...although it's far more likely to bite Pelosi and Reid in the ass first.
There's not enough mouthwash in the whole world...
There's not enough mouthwash in the whole world...
I picture Hoover Dam, holding back a Lake Mead full of Scope.
Post a Comment