White House Ups the Ante "dramatically" against FOX News

by smkovalinsky | October 19, 2009 at 04:18 pm
156 views | 10 Recommendations | 10 comments

Photos

Washington DC | Photo 02

Washington DC | Photo 02

see larger image

uploaded by donnaf6

In a puzzling escalation,  White House officials continue to alienate FOX News Network.


Senoir White House Correspondent and one of the most seasoned liberal journalist in the nation,  Helen Thomas,  has advised the Obama Administration to "quit beating up on FOX News"  and has  rebuked their attempt to "shoot the messenger":  


The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece. 

Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News. 

But several top White House officials have taken aim at Fox News since communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news" in an interview last Sunday. 

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." 

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization." 

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way." 

Asked Monday about another Axelrod claim that Fox News is just trying to make money, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that while all media companies fall under that description, "I would say sometimes programming can be tilted toward accentuating those profits." 

But by urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month with Dunn's comments.

Below,  Helen Thomas' take on the escalating war between the White House and FOX:  

Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since Jack Kennedy, advised the White House to abandon their attacks on Fox News today. She attributed the administration's visceral reaction to the cable outlet to a naive sense of invincibility generally held by new presidents (video embedded below the fold).


Asked by Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' what "we want our president to know and do," in reference to the title of her new book, Thomas immediately replied "stay out of these fights... They can only take you down. You can't kill the messenger."

Thomas's coauthor, CQ reporter Craig Crawford, added that "presidents are better off, Joe, when they punch up and not down."

recommend Add a comment
0
jefhow22

Obama is going to by-pass Socialism and go directly to Communism!

1
Hugh Askew

Hope Obama listens to the lady.....he will get his nose bloodied if he doesn't.

Even the liberal press knows that he is wrong on this one.


Good article, smk


0
AGK

Thanks kindly,  Hugh.  smk

2
QueensHart

I thought this was worth passing on:

President Barack Obama’s demonization of Fox News is comparable to that of the Nixon administration’s media enemies list, according to former Bush adviser Karl Rove.


Rove, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said Obama is engaging in his own version of former President Richard Nixon’s enemies list by shunning Fox News’ questions that officials in his administration don’t like.

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list," Rove said in response to a White House criticism of the network. "It's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do."



Rove  said the White House was engaging in “Chicago-style” bare-knuckle politics by attacking Fox News as “not really a news organization.”

"This is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people,” Rove said. “And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you and they're going to cut your legs off."


0
AGK

Thanks for that,  Q,  interesting,  and yes,  there is the air of Chicago-style politics in this.  

1
Roy C

Even the NYTimes disagree with Barrack Hussein Obama over this.

The Media Equation
The Battle Between the White House and Fox News
By DAVID CARR

The Obama administration, which would seem to have its hands full with a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, opened up a third front last week, this time with Fox News.

Until this point, the conflict had been mostly a one-sided affair, with Fox News hosts promoting tax day “tea parties” that focused protest on the new president, and more recently bringing down the presidential adviser Van Jones through rugged coverage that caught the administration, and other news organizations, off guard. During the health care debate, Fox News has put a megaphone to opponents, some of whom have advanced far-fetched theories about the impact of reform. And even farther out on the edge, the network’s most visible star of the moment, Glenn Beck, has said the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

Administration officials seemed to have decided that they had had enough.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, said in an interview with The New York Times. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Ah, but pretending has traditionally been a valuable part of the presidential playbook. Smiling and wearing beige even under the most withering news media assault is not only good manners, but also has generally been good politics. While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence.

Not that they haven’t tried. In his second Inaugural Address, Ulysses S. Grant said he had “been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history.” President William McKinley labeled a gathering of the press a “congress of inventors,” and President Franklin D. Roosevelt assigned less favored press members to his “Dunce Club.” Sometimes the strategy worked — or caused no lasting damage. McKinley, like Grant, was elected to a second term. Roosevelt also won a third and fourth.

As Americans turned to TV for news, enmity from presidents soon followed. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew said “self-appointed analysts” at the Big Three networks exhibited undisguised “hostility” toward President Richard M. Nixon, subjecting his speeches to “instant analysis and querulous criticism.” Later, in the dispute with The Times over the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, accused the newspaper of treason.

Neither of the Bush presidents had a particularly cozy relationship with the press. George H.W. Bush finished the campaign in 1992 with a bumper sticker that suggested, “Annoy the Media. Vote Bush.” And George W. Bush, in the words of ABC’s Mark Halperin, viewed “the media as a special interest rather than as guardians of the public interest.” Bill Clinton, too, distrusted the press, as did others in his administration. When Vincent Foster, Mr. Clinton’s deputy White House counsel, committed suicide in 1993, he left behind a note accusing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page of lying.

Even though almost all the critiques contained a kernel of truth, in each instance the folks who had the barrels of ink, and now pixels, seemed to come out ahead. So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president.

0
rng

Barrack Hussein Obama

Why is the Hussein reference required? Even the Barrack is superfluous really

1
Babel-Fish

I can not blame them I stop watching fox four years ago because I thought it was not a valued news channel in fact now days I only view the BBC and Australian news channels as the quality is far better.

The American news channels are too political and very plastic. Let's say almost at gutter level and at times arrogant to say the least. .

 


1
René

Good Grief, babel, BBC is just the voice of Britain. another with an agenda, dear.

0
Hugh Askew

If we, as a nation, are better served with opposing political parties, then why would we not want/need news sources with differing viewpoints?

Hardly seems like a "free press", if only the administration is allowed to tell their side of the story.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

jefhow22
First Flagged at 5:11 PM, Oct 19, 2009 by jefhow22
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (10)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from