Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love how some posters can't recall conservative media having their own meeting with the president.
Our current president meets with both sides of the spectrum of journalists.
Agreed, that was the point of this thread. I fail to see how the WH benefits in any regard by attacking Fox. I wanted to know what benefit if any the WH receives by attacking Fox and thus far no one has been able to provide one.
It may be a manifestation that they have run dry on options.
Ever played cards or a game with someone, and they had two crappy hands or sets in a row, using their wild card the first time around? Then on the next round they have nothing to play but a bluff or something.
We may be looking at the same thing. Not so much a bluff, but that Obama backed himself into a corner, with no good cards to play.
So, what do we take away from this little exercise of power? The WH launched a full frontal attack on Fox. It failed. Not only did it fail, it actually made the "enemy" stronger (increased ratings), and it caused it's own allies (MSM) to break rank and support Fox!!
Lets hope they do a whole lot better with the real wars.
So, what do we take away from this little exercise of power? The WH launched a full frontal attack on Fox. It failed. Not only did it fail, it actually made the "enemy" stronger (increased ratings), and it caused it's own allies (MSM) to break rank and support Fox!!
Lets hope they do a whole lot better with the real wars.
I'm hoping it was a wake up call to the Press. I do hope we get more real news and see articles on both sides of an issue. I also hope we get no more "staged" events. I hope the Press shows what the real Americans feel.
I'm hoping it was a wake up call to the Press. I do hope we get more real news and see articles on both sides of an issue. I also hope we get no more "staged" events. I hope the Press shows what the real Americans feel.
Agree completely. I'm naive enough to hope that this blatant power play sparked some feelings of professionalism among journalists who having been carrying the water for too long (both sides over the years). Jake Tapper was an encouraging start.
In 2003 a FOX station in Florida fired several of their "News" staff, when they refused to tell the lies their boss wanted them to broadcast as "News". The employees sued and got a judgement against the station based on the Journalistic Code of Ethics which prohibits lying to the audience when you know better.
Fox NETWORK appealed the suit based on a defence that FOX Networks "NEWS" is not Journalism but is Entertainment Programing, like wrestling, so it "owes no duty to the truth or the Journalistic Code of Ethics". They won the appeal so the Federal Courts have agreed that they are NOT NEWS.
Since the Federal Courts have determined that FOX is NOT NEWS, why would anyone owe them a seat at the table with News Agencies. Since there is no such Federal Court Decision on the Onion or the Daily Show, both have more Credibility than FOX.
You only have two other posts in this thread. That's 9 out of 11 posts where you're beating the same dead horse. Do you have ANYTHING of value to add? Or are you just here to bash Fox?
You only have two other posts in this thread. That's 9 out of 11 posts where you're beating the same dead horse. Do you have ANYTHING of value to add? Or are you just here to bash Fox?
It'll be a dead horse when it gets through a few thick skulls who think fox is credible.
I understand they don't find Fox News favorable since it provides a conservative angle to news however I fail to see the strategy in trying to limit Fox access and openly criticize them. It seems that action would boost Fox's ratings and reflect poorly on the White House as being petty and not honoring the concept of a free press. Those who have read my posts and know my reputation understand that I'm fairly centrist who has criticized Fox News and Glenn Beck in the past so I'm not being biased. I just don't understand what the White House seems to gain by doing this?
Did you watch or have you read the transcripts of the two Sunday programs and Gibbs's shrugging comment, and thus for some reason just refuse to put this into proper context, or what?
You only have two other posts in this thread. That's 9 out of 11 posts where you're beating the same dead horse. Do you have ANYTHING of value to add? Or are you just here to bash Fox?
It wouldn't be so bad if his posts were accurate, but they are not!
It'll be a dead horse when it gets through a few thick skulls who think fox is credible.
I guess only left-wing news stations are "credible."
After all, we can't have ONE non-leftist news station out there, can we?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
