White House Tries to Bar Fox From Interviews
In an incredibly chilling move, the White House tried to freeze out Fox News from interviewing Obama’s Pay Czar, while granting interviews to all the other major news organizations. As the video notes, often the White House makes a particular official available to all the groups, one after the other, but today’s event broke with that tradition.
To the credit of the other groups, they all decided to not do any interviews unless Fox was allowed to as well. The administration blinked, and the interviews, from all news groups, commenced. Before, it seemed that only Jake Tapper of ABC cared about this situation, as it was something of a big deal when he asked his question of Robert Gibbs. However, this overreach by the Obama administration finally jolted all the other groups into action. "First, they came for Fox News…" and all that sort of stuff.
This proves, beyond all doubt, that this has no real equivalence in previous administrations of either party. This is a President and his staff shutting out a major news organization, and it is absolutely wrong. First, because of general First Amendment, freedom of the press issues. Secondly, because of the double standard employed in the reasoning. If Fox News isn’t a news organization because it has a perspective, we don’t have any news organizations in this country. And as I noted before, the incredibly liberal bias is merrily ignored, belying Obama’s motivation.
Not to mention liberal media "watchdogs" like Media Matters. Instead of recognizing this for what it was, they pilloried Jake Tapper for daring to ask such a question. And of course, if you look at their front page today, you’d think that Fox News was the only TV news organization in the country. For a group that supposedly knows the media business, it’s pretty clear that what matters to them is not the media, just their (dare I say it) perspective, especially when they cheer this sort of thing on.
Again, it has nothing to do with "perspective". It has everything to do with not wanting to deal with disagreement. The Van Jones issue, the ACORN scandal, Anita Dunn fondness for Mao, and many other issues, covered by Fox and virtually ignored elsewhere, clearly shows that, while you could make a case against Fox’s "Fair and Balanced" motto, they at least provide a fair hearing to otherwise ignored stories, and they provide the balance in the extremely one-sided new coverage in this country.
And the White House is trying to silence them. When did dissent stop being patriotic and start being a club to silence the opposition? Do rank and file Democrats really think this is okey dokey?
P.S. Ironic, isn’t it, that Obama says he is willing to talk to our enemies with no preconditions, but goes to war with a media organization that is challenging him (which is arguable what all media organizations are supposed to be doing, the whole 4th Estate thing). Good thing he’s already been given the "peace" prize.
Filed under: Doug • Media • Television
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Without full knowledge of all the specifics, I tend to agree with you. Obama appears to me to be wrong on his attempted Fox ban.
There may be reasonable limitations on “news” organizations that might be put in place. There are many less-than-legitimate “news” groups out there these days. World Net Daily comes to mind.
And certainly Fox News comes at news with an apparent agenda. Still, they are what I would consider a legitimate news group, if flawed. But then, that applies to all news agencies, yes? So, I tend to side with you on this one.
Limitations based, perhaps, on things like circulation/viewership I can see, and I think those are in place for the pool of groups that get these kinds of rotating interviews. I think there are only 5 TV networks plus 2 news services in that group. But Fox has been a part of that pool since 1997.
And heck, even WND gets a seat at press conferences.
But Pew research, and a liberal and former Fox News contributor say that while Fox is biased to the Right, it is less so than the other organizations are to the Left. To complain about Fox and ignore the rest is disingenuous.
(I gotta find that Pew study. Don’t have a link right now.)
I think the specifics are pretty much out, and the other news organizations have weighed in on this. Better late than never, and I’m heartened at this development.
I’d have to disagree with the Pew study, if it is as you recall. But that’s just one man’s opinion.
Fair enough. Could be wishful thinking on the part of some folks reading data tables.