W.H.: Media shouldn't follow Fox

[Goldblum]

Originally Posted by CRM114

MSNBC was allied with the war effort early on. Plus no one watches MSNBC. If a tree falls in the woods...

...MSNBC will report it having fallen due to global warming.

[Shoveler]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Correct term -

Why not use the proper words - proper words?

Fixed (unless that is the font you reserve for lies spread by the White House and TPMDC )

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by Shoveler

Fixed (unless that is the font you reserve for lies spread by the White House and TPMDC )

1. You're 4 days late.

2. Fixing posts is not allowed in this forum.

3. Way to miss the point of my joke.

4. It sounds way more like a miscommunication than a lie to me, since there seems to be no plausible motive for the White House to lie and say Fox never requested an interview then immediately grant an interview when Fox says "We'd like an interview."

Other than that, superb post.

[Shoveler]

Originally Posted by JasonF

1. You're 4 days late.

2. Fixing posts is not allowed in this forum.

3. Way to miss the point of my joke.

4. It sounds way more like a miscommunication than a lie to me, since there seems to be no plausible motive for the White House to lie and say Fox never requested an interview then immediately grant an interview when Fox says "We'd like an interview."

Other than that, superb post.

1. Sorry, I missed the expiration date on your post, didn't realize there was a statue of limitations.

3. Way to miss the point of my post.

4. No plausible motive?! How about because they knew how bad it would look if they said "Hell yeah, we denied Fox the interview... and we'd do it AGAIN!!!" They didn't grant the interview when Fox requested it, only after the other networks refused to go along with the blacklisting.

2. Saved this one for last because it will probably be lengthiest... You're absolutely right, and I should read and know the rules before posting. No excuse, I'm currently just a casual/infrequent browser and poster in this subforum, if I ever feel inclined to post again, I'll try to remember to revisit the rules before doing so.

HOWEVER.... (bear in mind that I am not claiming to have read the rules and crafted a post that skirted those rules. Had I acted responsibly, I would have constructed my post to avoid use of the "Fixed" gimmick)...

The rules state:

No "fixing" posts: This means when someone posts an opinion or point of view you're not allowed to edit or add a couple of words in the quoted portion and write "fixed" after it. This is done in order to limit misrepresentation, and since in most cases its use seems to be done in a manner that is tantamount to a threadcrap or personal attack, "fixed" posts are not allowed in the Political Forum. Such posts will simply be deleted by the moderators and continued abuse may lead to further action. The proper response is to quote the original post exactly and then make your comments outside of the quoted portion.

To address the 3 bolded sections of that rule...
1) I neither edited nor added to your words, they are verbatim; the rule does not state that you're not allowed to quote someone verbatim and write "fixed" after the quote
2) I agree that the post is not allowed (but only because I used the word "fixed"
3) I actually did quote the original post exactly, and then made my comments outside of the quoted portion (albeit after my inappropriate use of the word "fixed")

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by Shoveler

1. Sorry, I missed the expiration date on your post, didn't realize there was a statue of limitations.

I'm just saying -- you come across as much less witty if you take four days to come up with a zinger.

3. Way to miss the point of my post.

Way to miss the point of ... wait, what were we talking about?

4. No plausible motive?! How about because they knew how bad it would look if they said "Hell yeah, we denied Fox the interview... and we'd do it AGAIN!!!" They didn't grant the interview when Fox requested it, only after the other networks refused to go along with the blacklisting.

Do you really think the White House is so inept that they'd try a ploy so easy to defeat, then immediately fold at the first sign of pushback? Probably you do. I disagree.

2. Saved this one for last because it will probably be lengthiest... You're absolutely right, and I should read and know the rules before posting. No excuse, I'm currently just a casual/infrequent browser and poster in this subforum, if I ever feel inclined to post again, I'll try to remember to revisit the rules before doing so.

HOWEVER.... (bear in mind that I am not claiming to have read the rules and crafted a post that skirted those rules. Had I acted responsibly, I would have constructed my post to avoid use of the "Fixed" gimmick)...

The rules state:




To address the 3 bolded sections of that rule...
1) I neither edited nor added to your words, they are verbatim; the rule does not state that you're not allowed to quote someone verbatim and write "fixed" after the quote
2) I agree that the post is not allowed (but only because I used the word "fixed"
3) I actually did quote the original post exactly, and then made my comments outside of the quoted portion (albeit after my inappropriate use of the word "fixed")

You'd make a great lawyer. FYI, that was meant as a compliment, not a personal attack.

[jfoobar]

Originally Posted by JasonF

You'd make a great lawyer. FYI, that was meant as a compliment, not a personal attack.

It doesn't matter how you meant it. It was still an insult.

[Brack]

and probably racist.

[Hank Ringworm]

Originally Posted by Brack

and probably racist.

[Willy]

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

[TheBigDave]

Looks like the War On Fox continues:

White House: FOX off-limits -- strategist

At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

Political consultants are a staple of cable television talk shows, analyzing current events based on their own experiences working on campaigns or in government.

One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, "We better not see you on again,'' said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue.''

In urging Democratic consultants to spurn Fox, White House officials might be trying to isolate the network and make it appear more partisan.

A boycott by Democratic strategists could also help drive the White House narrative that Fox is a fundamentally different creature than the other TV news networks. For their part, White House officials appear on Fox News -- but sporadically and with "eyes wide open,'' as one aide put it.

David Plouffe, the president's campaign manager and author of a new campaign book, The Audacity to Win, was scheduled to appear on Fox's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren last night as he promotes his book. His appearance, pre-empted by the breaking news of the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, has been rescheduled for Monday.

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Thursday night that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues'' and they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an email.

But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for Democratic President Jimmy Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.

Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White House. "They know better than to tell me anything like that,'' he said.

Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not too subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself.''

THE REST OF THE ARTICLE IS A RECAP OF PREVIOUS EVENTS. READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT THE LINK BELOW.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...mits_stra.html

[CharlieK]

So an anonymous Dem strategist, who is cirticizing the WH, but won't give his name because he doesn't want to upset the WH, is saying the WH doesn't want him on FN because this strategy will make FN seem even more partisan. Conversely, a close connection with the WH is able to reschedule an appearance on FN without retribution.

Furthermore, a FN guy says that he's also talked to other Dem strategists that say the exact same thing as the original Dem strategist, but he won't name names. Helluva article. Hard hitting.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by JasonF

4. It sounds way more like a miscommunication than a lie to me, since there seems to be no plausible motive for the White House to lie and say Fox never requested an interview then immediately grant an interview when Fox says "We'd like an interview."

You are painting yourself into a corner with this one. If Fox News never requested an interview, then every other news organization that has picked this story up don't know how to be journalists, because it is never mentioned by them. Also, if what you say is true, the WH apologized for absolutely nothing to appease Fox News. And all the other news channels in the pool stood up to the White House and made them "cave" over something that wasn't true. And the WH didn't tell the pool that Fox didn't request the interview.

That sounds more plausible to you than the WH simply escalating something they started?

C'mon, it is one thing to be a liberal or an Obama supporter, but this is devotional, apologist stuff that I wouldn't expect from anyone but Brack.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by CharlieK

So an anonymous Dem strategist, who is cirticizing the WH, but won't give his name because he doesn't want to upset the WH, is saying the WH doesn't want him on FN because this strategy will make FN seem even more partisan. Conversely, a close connection with the WH is able to reschedule an appearance on FN without retribution.

Furthermore, a FN guy says that he's also talked to other Dem strategists that say the exact same thing as the original Dem strategist, but he won't name names. Helluva article. Hard hitting.

Kind of like Watergate. Just who the hell does Woodward think he is respecting his source. That's not journalism!!! Woodward and Fox News are the only people in the media to ever pass along information from someone who is only willing to do it if they can do it anonymously. This is a freaking first since Watergate.

C'mon, really?

[Hank Ringworm]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

You are painting yourself into a corner with this one. If Fox News never requested an interview, then every other news organization that has picked this story up don't know how to be journalists, because it is never mentioned by them. Also, if what you say is true, the WH apologized for absolutely nothing to appease Fox News. And all the other news channels in the pool stood up to the White House and made them "cave" over something that wasn't true. And the WH didn't tell the pool that Fox didn't request the interview.

That sounds more plausible to you than the WH simply escalating something they started?

C'mon, it is one thing to be a liberal or an Obama supporter, but this is devotional, apologist stuff that I wouldn't expect from anyone but Brack.

JasonF will gladly paint himself into a corner, so long as he gets to repeat the administration's talking points. It's his thing now, if you haven't noticed.

[Sean O'Hara]

Originally Posted by CharlieK

So an anonymous Dem strategist, who is cirticizing the WH, but won't give his name because he doesn't want to upset the WH, is saying the WH doesn't want him on FN because this strategy will make FN seem even more partisan. Conversely, a close connection with the WH is able to reschedule an appearance on FN without retribution.

Furthermore, a FN guy says that he's also talked to other Dem strategists that say the exact same thing as the original Dem strategist, but he won't name names. Helluva article. Hard hitting.

Yeah. Why would someone who's been threatened with professional blackballing by the White House want to remain anonymous when reporting the threat? Everyone knows anonymous whistle-blowers are cowards who should never be given credence.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

You are painting yourself into a corner with this one. If Fox News never requested an interview, then every other news organization that has picked this story up don't know how to be journalists, because it is never mentioned by them.

Welcome to the world of the modern media. Most "journalists" these days seem more interested in repeating talking points than doing any substantive work, and ill-informed opinion shouted as loudly as possible has replaced thoughtful and substantive analysis.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by Hank Ringworm

JasonF will gladly paint himself into a corner, so long as he gets to repeat the administration's talking points. It's his thing now, if you haven't noticed.

I'd report this post to a Mod, but why bother? You'll get a warning, everyone will continue to make posts intended to score points rather than advance substantive discussion, and the people who can be counted on for intelligent discussion will continue to avoid this place.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Welcome to the world of the modern media. Most "journalists" these days seem more interested in repeating talking points than doing any substantive work, and ill-informed opinion shouted as loudly as possible has replaced thoughtful and substantive analysis.

C'mon, seriously? Maybe journalists are lazy today, but you still have the WH apologizing, etc. You can't really think this. I think you just don't want to believe that liberals can act this way....with enemies lists, etc.

I've said before that Obama seems to think that national politics can be played the same way that local politics can, and I don't think he is correct.

And I love you.

[X]

Originally Posted by Hank Ringworm

JasonF will gladly paint himself into a corner, so long as he gets to repeat the administration's talking points. It's his thing now, if you haven't noticed.

You should address the issue instead of the person.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

C'mon, seriously? Maybe journalists are lazy today, but you still have the WH apologizing, etc. You can't really think this. I think you just don't want to believe that liberals can act this way....with enemies lists, etc.

Do I think the White House dislikes Fox News, or is treating them like the propaganda arm of the GOP? Absolutely. I simply don't think that in this particular instance, there was a deliberate attempt to freeze Fox News out of the pooled interview followed by an immediate capitulation. That doesn't make sense to me.

I've said before that Obama seems to think that national politics can be played the same way that local politics can, and I don't think he is correct.

How do you think local politics are played? How do you think the administration is trying to play things now? I've followed President Obama's career for a decade. Believe me -- he recognizes the differences between being a state senator, being a Senator, and being the President.

And I love you.

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by JasonF

How do you think local politics are played? How do you think the administration is trying to play things now? I've followed President Obama's career for a decade. Believe me -- he recognizes the differences between being a state senator, being a Senator, and being the President.

I don't think he truly recognized how many people would be watching his every move and reminding him of the things he had said. I say that because I don't believe he is so genuinely opposed to telling the truth. I don't think he thought people would think twice about having bills online 3 days for public review, and I don't think he anticipated resistance, because he doesn't deal with it like a liberal, he deals with it like a Nixon.

This administration is all about getting a publicist and ad agency out of the press. See how ABC was treated, and then what they treated as newss

I will give this up because we obviously are both so far away from being even able to see a little of what the other believes as credible. This administration is with the press just like the head alien on V is. And the idea that the press stood up to a Fox mistake is laughable, and that the WH, in turn, apologized for a Fox mistake. If it was a Fox mistake, they needed to fight back, because this makes them look terrible to everyone who likes the idea of a press that keeps the powers honest. This story sounds so awful, and they just bent over and apologized when it wasn't true? Like I said, we are a long ways off. I'm against the Vs and you are joining their youth program.

[CharlieK]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

Kind of like Watergate. Just who the hell does Woodward think he is respecting his source. That's not journalism!!! Woodward and Fox News are the only people in the media to ever pass along information from someone who is only willing to do it if they can do it anonymously. This is a freaking first since Watergate.

C'mon, really?

Your powerful "C'mon really?" really woke me up. This is all just as serious as Watergate. A WH administration is fucking with a news organization. Whatta scoop! We've never seen anything like it. God bless this brave anonymous American who's really sticking his/her neck out for such an important story.

Anonymous sources have their place, and at times can be invaluable, but they are used far too often today for even the silliest bullshit like this. The article highlights an anonymous Dem pundit bemoaning a WH trying to keep them off FNC, while the only attributable fact in the piece is about how someone close to Obama is rescheduling an appearance on FNC. You don't see a disconnect there? It's a shitty article.

[kvrdave]

I see the the bemoaning of someone wanting to keep their identity hidden, and it probably has to do with not wanting repercussions. I don't find that unusual. There was a bunch of it at the Fort Worth shooting. If you want people to speak about things that they don't really want to because they fear the consequences, you need to protect their identity. This isn't new, and if journalists want to find out more about a story, we always will.

Go google "condition of anonymity" and see if you think you would have those stories if you didn't have this. If you are a Dem pundit, you make money by being in good with the Dems. Wouldn't it seem very understandable to not want to be identified?

[CharlieK]

Probably not the result you were expecting, but interestingly this was the first article that popped up when I took your advice:

"Last week the Public Editor of The New York Times, Clark Hoyt, criticized the paper’s common practice of using anonymous sources, often in flagrant violation of its own policy. Drawing on several recent examples, Hoyt demonstrates that casually granting anonymity facilitates personal attacks without repercussion, provides cover for those who make false or misleading statements, and generally damages the credibility of the paper."

MessyMatters.com 4.1.09

And while I agree with your post, the above is the crux of my problem with anonymous sources in the media. They're used far too often it seems with the goal of writing a sensational story as opposed to an even-handed, fact-based story.

[creekdipper]

Originally Posted by JasonF

I'd report this post to a Mod, but why bother? You'll get a warning, everyone will continue to make posts intended to score points rather than advance substantive discussion, and the people who can be counted on for intelligent discussion will continue to avoid this place.

Why not report the post & try to get the poster banned and silence him?

That's the approach the Obama White House would take.

Regarding your last "point": You seem to blindly defend the White House's attempt to avoid blame regarding the media gaffe, as if this administration has not already done some incredibly inept things (such as nominating Cabinet personnel with tax problems). In another recent thread, you totally misrepresented Deputy Dave's post in which he said Obama's speaking off the teleprompter made him "look like" a fool...which I got on first reading...and you implied that Dave was calling Obama a stammering fool. Those sort of things do not "advance substantive discussion"; rather, they simply come across as partisan comments that refuse to acknowledge any faults in your favored political party.

IMHO, your nit-picky comment about a humorous rebuttal to your red-letter day came across as being snarky & defensive rather than "substantive". Some posters may only check in occasionally & don't stay glued to the computer; for instance, I haven't checked the forum for days & only now saw this thread, which is already five pages or so. To me (although you apparently disagree), a posted comment is fair game for a response REGARDLESS of then the original post was made. For anyone to insult a poster and rank his 'wittiness' based upon the timeliness of the post seems to me to be a bit childish.

For someone who has been described as being brilliant, a genius, and uncommonly intelligent, Obama can come across as indecisive, vindictive, and short-sighted in some respects. One can't pin the blame on his advisors, either, since they were hand-picked by Obama himself.

It takes a large degree of gullibility to believe that the omission of Fox from any news events in which the rest of the WH pool of reporters is invited is merely a coincidence or "oversight". To me, the smart thing for a confident White House...one which is trying to prove that they are 'above the fray' and are taking the high road when being criticized...would be to make sure that their critics are not left out. Isn't that what "transparency" is all about? Instead, we hear words such as "Nixonian" being mentioned in the same breath as the way this incident was handled.

Not a great way for the White House to impress its intelligence and openness upon others.