It is alternatively aggravating and amusing to watch the White House and their echo chambers in the left-wing media and among their allied activist organizations go after FoxNews. Never before (at least not since Nixon) has an Administration so attempted to discredit and isolate a news organization.
Even some left-wing bloggers and liberal pundits have questioned the strategy, with one reliably liberal commentator calling the “administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels“:
It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian — Agnewesque? — aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration’s substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters.
It certainly isn’t hurting FoxNews’ ratings. And indeed, it may be that Fox continues to lead the cable news market that so frustrates the President (drawing an audience that regularly exceeds that of MSNBC and CNN combined, and even exceeds its competitors if Headline News is thrown in the mix). The White House whining will only serve to increase those ratings, in part, because the hullabaloo will cause some people who might not otherwise check out the news network to do so.
And many, finding coverage more balanced than that on the other news networks, will continue to watch Fox.
Can’t they just accept that not all the news networks will fawn over the President as do the various anchors and reporters at MSNBC and CNN? Why do they so bristle at critical coverage, coverage similar to (but less hostile than) that received by the presisdent’s immediate predecessor on the three broadcast networks and those two cable news networks?
Maybe because they fear the other networks will pick up on the stories that Fox covers (and they neglect). Ben Smith believes
Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein nail the real explanation in their story today: The White House is working to prevent stories born on Fox from crossing over into more widely-viewed media.
Rob on Say Anything concurs, saying they want us to believe that stories on FoxNews don’t count:
But if they spread to another legitimate (in the eyes of Obama and liberals) media out like, say, MSNBC then it can be real news.
Meaning that the Obama administration is essentially trying to define for the media what is and is not news.
Many of the same media which screamed and yelled when they alleged then-President George W. Bush tried to do the same thing now prefer to let the White House define the news. Makes their job easier. Less shoe leather involved.
ADDENDUM: Calling the White House’s strategy “creepy,” Allahpundit offers:
Both Politico and Mediaite note that the expected righteous indignation at being lectured by politicians on what they should consider news is strangely absent from most of the press corps — with the important exception of Jake Tapper. Go figure. Even the reliably liberalRuth Marcus felt obliged to wonder what the reaction would have been had Dubya declared war on MSNBC and encouraged other news outlets to ignore the nightly spiel on “Countdown.” Olby would have duly clambered up onto the cross as a free-speech martyr — after a 40-minute special comment on freedom of the press and the “chill winds” of totalitarianism, natch — and the rest of the media would have gladly circled the wagons. Does anyone seriously think otherwise?
FURTHER ADDENDUM (addressed primarily to our critics who claim the Bush Administration also engaged in the behavior of Messrs. Axelrod and Emanuel and Mrs. Dunn): Yes, you can pull up some quotes showing that Bush Administration officials did, from time to time, criticize coverage of their policies in the news media. It’s one thing to question inaccurate reporting and quite another to trash an entire news network (without citing specific examples). You didn’t see a trio of Bush aides whining to the media about one particular network, nor did you see the White House press secretary confirming that strategy (as did Robert Gibbs in this exchange with Jake Tapper).
UPDATE: Howard Portnoy offers:
This weekend, the White House stepped up its assault on a news organization. The attack is beginning to bear fruit: FOX News’s ratings are reaching stratospheric levels, with new viewers tuning in every day.
As I noted here, attacking a news organization can’t possibly help any White House, but it can severely damage the reputation of this White House, which ran on a promised end to partisanship and petty bickering. You would think the administration would have learned its lesson from the blowback to Anita Dunn’s rant last Sunday.
Kind of hard to learn a lesson when applying what you’ve learned might undermine your entire campaigning governing strategy.
“Nixonian” isn’t the word that comes to mind by al lAmercians when they see what the WH is doing. What they automatically think of is ” this is exactly what dictators do. Go after their critics and try to shut all opposing voices down”.
The MSM got a kick in the nuts by the WH when they said “we control the news”. Everyone knows the WH didn’t control anything, the MSM was all to willing and eager to spend the last year down on their knees “servicing” Obama. However, Obama sticking to his usual MO took credit for something he didn’t do-duping the MSM. Add to that the war on FOX- a network not stupid enough to let themselves “be control” and Obama has given his water carriers a big “FU, we want the world to think we outsmarted you rather than you did our bidding without being asked”.
Nothing like thanking your water carriers by making them look like even bigger fools, isiots and asshats. Obama and the MSM deserve each other
All that anyone needs to know about the relationship between the Obama Administration and the MSM can be learned by checking out a screenshot over on failblog.org that was taken of an online poll that appeared on the Washington Post’s website several days ago. It’s hilarious and terrifying at the same time.
http://failblog.org/2009/10/15/online-poll-fail/
Au contraire. It distracts attention from the Obama administrations LACK of a substantive message, and that’s the entire point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-the-white-house-is-10_b_325986.html
Thank Glod blogdad blob showed up with his Huffpoo cream pie. I was worried that the liberal view might be lacking substance and nuance.
The Obama attack on Fox is all pout and uncontrolled showers of spittle and dandruff. They can’t make a case, so they shift into hissy-fit overdrive.
Having Gibbs explain the nuances and propriety of their righteous indignation to Jake Tapper is like having Gabby Hayes give diction lessons to Richard Burton.
But we can count on blogdad blob (aka boob; bob; ian; gillie; Tano; william; Daffy Duck) to make the case for The One and to carry Gibbs across the victory line.
There are times when watching paint dry is a longed for action sport.
Bret Baier notes this on his Fox News website:
—included MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
And the difference between Tehran and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is?
What truly amazes me is the shear dictatorial environment of this administration. Since when does the government, IN AMERICA, think they have the authority or CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, to suppress Free Speech, or legislate ANYTHING in our citizen’s private lives??! They played this game all thru the Primary with Hillary and Sarah Palin… I personally find it VERY disturbing… F! What’s next??? Piano wire in backrooms? With all that is in need of attention and discussion right now and these fools are obsessed with a news channel reporting of FACTS??!! Barky’s middle name should be changed to Stalin and he should rename those goofy fools Gibbs, Axelrod, Rahme, his PROPOGANDA Czars!
The left despises anything it cannot control. Witness Anita Dunn bragging about how the Obama campaign completely controlled and manipulated the establishment press during the campaign. Of the nine major networks — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, NPR, FoxNews, and Univision — all but one are willing propagandists for the Obama regime; who may offer an occasional half-hearted criticism, but are otherwise part of the team. They are controlled. So, the regime pats them on the head and gives them the occasional. The one that isn’t is considered a dangerous rogue.
Also, the War on FoxNews is a bright and shiny distraction to keep people from looking too deeply into the Health Care bill, the tanking economy, or the administration’s dithering over Afghanistan.
Look there is no doubt now that this White House has an enemies list. But can it be called that if it is right out in the open where all the people can see?
I’ve noticed on this blog that the new world of gay conservatism is developing its own caste system. I’m getting the positive message that it is OK to be a gay conservative. I am also getting the message that it is NOT OK to be a gay conservative who is a Christian.
One of the reasons I like Fox is that many of its commentators are openly Christian. I am the gay version of Huckabee–I agree with much of his worldview, with the exception of being gay. I also like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, et. al., who discuss God and the Bible as the basis for their conservative values.
I am a gay man who speaks their language. But here, when I try to relate my values to my Christian beliefs, I am largely chided. If this is going to be the Gay Conservative blog-of-record, it needs to be more open to gay Christians and not create the sense that basing your values on God makes you a second-class conservative, gay or otherwise.
I am also getting the message that it is NOT OK to be a gay conservative who is a Christian.
I’m one. Never had a problem with any of the regulars here telling me it’s not OK.
Marginalized is perhaps a better word than chided. Christians believe it is impossible to have a coherent value system without a belief in God. Therefore, you can’t have a system of laws which is not rooted in God’s revelation. So political discussion must begin with God–which is why the political commentary on Fox is so frightening to liberals. Many Fox commentators build their views on their faith in God.
I appreciate the fact that you’re a Christian, NDT–but you don’t bring it up very often. If that is the basis for your opinions, why not say it? Glenn Beck does. Sarah Palin does. Cal Thomas does. Sean Hannity does. Doug Giles does. Even Ann Coulter does. Why are you reticent about discussing your faith as it pertains to your politics on a gay board? Because gay conservatives are kind of in, but gay Christian conservatives are still sort of declasse’?
Yes it is… HAHAHAHAHahahaha!
You know what? I might, just might, have to finally buy a decent monthly cable package. So I can start watching Fox News.
Moving on…
Ash, I can’t speak for others with whom you have had difference, but I do know that I have never chided you for being a Christian. Ever. I have chided you for making wild claims (and occasionally, inappropriate ones – e.g., racial ones). I have chided you for not supporting your claims with evidence and argument. That’s different. “I’m chided / marginalized for my Christianity” would appear to be a drama that you are staging in your head.
Sure you can. Morality is neither intrinsic nor subjective; it is objective. While it may well be created by God in an ultimate sense, it remains “what it is”, regardless of any particular God’s revelation. Even St. Paul acknowledged that, in his opening paragraphs to Romans.
I should rather have said, Ash, that NDT expects people to be impressed by his evidence and by the logical content of his arguments – rather than waving his faith (like a flag) as a substitute for evidence and argument. I greatly admire NDT’s approach and NDT personally.
Ash, the way I’ve personally witnessed you going about it is, “I’m a Christian, therefore I value X. And that’s all the explanation I need to give for my wild claims. You should be impressed by me.”
I’m not. What impresses me, is evidence. I’m impressed by people who speak arguments in their own voice. I’m impressed by the approach, “I’m a Christian, therefore I have learned about X; I shall now give you the REASONS it is a good value – the objective reasons, that apply even for those who don’t share my form of belief.”
It’s worth noting that this blog’s current lead author, as a semi-secular Jew, is no Christian.
I’m a gay conservative Christian. Don’t care who knows it. If Obama wants to start a new list he can. Put me right at the top.
Why are you reticent about discussing your faith as it pertains to your politics on a gay board? Because gay conservatives are kind of in, but gay Christian conservatives are still sort of declasse’?
“Reticience” is an assumption on your part, Ash, apparently born of a difference in opinion between you and myself of to what degree one should be citing one’s faith as a basis for one’s politics.
To borrow from the phrase, being in the world requires you to be conversant with how the world organizes, thinks, and comes to conclusions; however, not being of the world involves what motivates your individual decision-making.
In the case of government health care, to use an example, my faith informs me that it is my responsibility to care for those who have less. However, since the Bible doesn’t then state that the best way is through government-run health care, it’s left up to my reason and logic to meet that guidance from my beliefs.
If reason and logic run contrary to faith, then it behooves me to follow faith; however, I must also be cognizant of the fact that it’s my faith, and thus others may not see the value of it.
Personally I’m amused, in a cynical way, by Ash’s declairation that now that his (nominally my) church has decided to change its stance, by a vote of men, that the Divine’s will has become clear.
I also find his blanket statement of ‘Christians believe X’ as flawed. I know several pagans who have a strong moral compass. Since I believe in the first commandment, I accept that they’re compass is pointing towards something, and it may not be the Divine as I accept him.
From a purely political point of view, I think that conservatives should know that there are such a thing as gay Christians. Many of the people we want on our side assume “gay” means “godless.” Most Christian conservatives still believe that people become gay as the result of rejecting God. Therefore, being transparent about my faith as the source of my values might help us bridge the divide between gays and conservatives.
Gays who are conservative for their own selfish, humanistic reasons aren’t going to impress most faithful conservatives. Gay Christians might have the ability to speak the language of those conservatives. For instance, Rick Warren has come out against the horrible new death penalty in Uganda for gays–and he has come out much faster than Obama. If there were more gay Christians lining up behind Warren, we might be able to make inroads into his large demographic.
No. NDT, V the K, Gene and others here are “transparent about their faith”. You do something different. As I’ve tried to explain. You try to ‘play’ your faith as a card against people who object to your wilder, more ill-supported claims. That’s different.
I happen to know a few exceptions. But, “whatever”. Tell you what, Ash. Build bridges to straight, religious conservatives in your way and in your free time, and let some of the other gay conservatives on this blog do it in theirs.
Funny, I don’t remember typing Ashpenaz.net.
I haven’t seen anyone sending that message other than the Christian-hating lefty trolls. Point it out when it happens and I will be happy to defend gay Christian conservatives.
Making every comment an advertisement for ELCA is a little tedious, but other than that, I don’t see what you’re talking about.
Gays who are conservative for their own selfish, humanistic reasons aren’t going to impress most faithful conservatives.
Ashpenaz, if someone espouses conservative views independent from faith, it is selfish? In any case, if what you say is true, then perhaps the problem is the latter group?
Funny how even the liberal trolls aren’t defending the President anymore.
Oh, yeah. The thread has a topic.
#15: “I should rather have said, Ash, that NDT expects people to be impressed by his evidence and by the logical content of his arguments – rather than waving his faith (like a flag) as a substitute for evidence and argument. I greatly admire NDT’s approach and NDT personally.”
Mega-dittoes.
Any Christian who openly discusses his faith is assumed to be waving a flag. But, if gay people talk about life through the lens of their gay experience, it’s considered sharing and transparency. If people discuss the homosexual experience openly and explain how it sheds light on issue, that is thoughtful dialogue. But when a Christian does the same thing, it is considered strident.
When I link to a thoughtful, well-reasoned document which combines human psychology, Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience and brings that all together to help find a better paradigm for homosexual morality, no one follows the link. People want to continue to believe stereotypes rather than examine evidence to the contrary. Does that sound familiar? I would think that gays would be people who want most to end unfounded prejudice. I guess as long as its prejudice against Christians, that’s OK. Remember, Christians face the death penalty in Muslim countries, too–when was the last time gays worked on their behalf? “Oh, go ahead, shoot the silly Christians–but the gays deserve human rights.”
Of course, Christianity is a CHOICE. It’s not like anal sex, which is inborn and immutable.
Do I sound like a whiny victim? Good–I’ve been trained by the best–“We’re here, we’re Christian, get used to it!”
I’m sure that Christianity owes much to closeted and self-loathing Christians like NDT–but isn’t it a better world when we can all tell the truth about ourselves?
Ash-
I agree and there have been a number of times that I point out that I’m a Christian as well as the gay thing.
I think you make a good point and I’ll try to do more. I’m always looking to challenge the “conventional wisdom” and a gay Christian in this day-and-age is a good one.
Let’s get back OT on Dan’s post now, please…..
Bzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Someone’s not reading / listening.
Who? (Note that Jesus never sounded like a whiny victim. And are you comparing yourself to Him again?)
Ash, that’s a pathetic insult on a fine contributor to this blog.
Bruce, will do.
Of course, Christianity is a CHOICE. It’s not like anal sex, which is inborn and immutable.
Ashpenaz, you’re kidding, right? I mean the latter part.
I’m sure that Christianity owes much to closeted and self-loathing Christians like NDT–but isn’t it a better world when we can all tell the truth about ourselves?
You’re kidding again, I hope. I think it’s clear to just about everyone on board that NDT is a Christian, a fact, that he has never shied upon. It’s also clear that this perspective is used when he makes his comments, and despite our squabbles, a perspective I usually agree with.
The point here is when one makes an argument that simply states something like “because I’m Christian” is just as weak as someone saying, “because I’m gay.” If I stated that it’s okay to be promiscuous and/or to be a predator, because I’m gay, I should be questioned about it, shouldn’t I?
Bruce, sorry for also going on this tangent, but this was an interesting topic.
Actually, I am kind of kidding. I’m doing the Ann Coulter thing–trying to point out what I see as a genuine issue by using confrontative and sarcastic language. Which is, actually, on topic–I see Fox News frequently doing the same thing. My point is that many people accept the idea of a “conservative gay” as cute but they really have a hard time with “conservative Christian gays.” I would love to see a conservative Christian gay on Fox, who could challenge Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on gay issues but support them on faith and politics issues.
Incidentally, the Swedish Lutheran Church announced it will marry gay couples. Go Lutherans!
At #14, Ashpenaz wrote:
At #30, Ashpenaz referred to:
Which of those would be “confrontative and sarcastic language”? Which was real, and which was snarky kidding around just like Ann Coulter or Jesus supposedly would have done? Because notice that both express the same basic (and toxic) idea.
Aargh, topic. Again sorry.
Read Jesus’ response to the Pharisees for some snarkiness. Read Paul to the Galatians. Read Jeremiah. Read about Elijah challenging the false prophets. (“Where is your god? Is he taking a poop?”) I think you’ll find snarkiness has a Biblical foundation.
Never before (at least not since Nixon) has an Administration so attempted to discredit and isolate a news organization.
That’s idiotic.
http://vodpod.com/watch/2373384-bush-spokesman-says-obama-spokesmen-shouldnt-criticize-media-after-bush-spokesman-criticized-media
There’s Dana Perino, specifically singling out NBC News. Not since Nixon, eh?
Let’s also not forget that the Bush administration specifically threatened certain journalists with jail time for reporting on Bush’s blatantly illegal activities, as well as detained/tortured a whole roster of foreign correspondents and journalists for years for ‘working with terrorists,’ when all they were really doing was documenting the havoc that Bush’s war started.
Meanwhile, a couple of Obama’s boys have come out and said that Fox News isn’t a news organization. That much is nearly indisputable, and quick Google/Youtube searches will find hundreds and hundreds of examples of Fox News violating every journalistic ethics rule in the book. Not since Nixon…. yeah right, you guys are morons.
You didn’t even watch the clip you linked to, did you?
[Citation Needed]
A quick scan finds liberal douchebag lying points. What we DON’T find is FNC blowing up cars to “prove” how unsafe they are, showing bodies after a jet crashes in the Everglades, shilling for Hamas, creating “military records” at Kinkos, shilling for Saddam Hussein, showing where our missiles are hitting etc. I think you’ll also find that FNC wasn’t bitching because they weren’t allowed to show dead bodies in New Orleans either.
Wanna try again, Levi?
LOL….TGC, what we forget is that we’re arguing with the equivalent of a teenage girl with a crush here. Levi is one of those liberals who believes that everything Obama does is right, that conservatives are always wrong, and that anyone who dares criticize Obama or disagree with him is a lying racist hatemonger.
Sit back and enjoy the delusion of the silly one screaming itself out by demonizing Bush for allegedly doing things that it cheers and claps Obama for doing. We’ve already watched Levi holler that anyone who continued to allow extraordinary rendition was a war criminal who should be impeached, only to reverse himself when it was pointed out to him that his Obama was doing it. The gymnastics will only get better from this point forward.