Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Fox News- Attempted Ban by Obama

This is logical so,,,I would be surprised to see this happen.

Who would be next on the cutting block? This is the reason the others stepped back and said "Without them? No, way." They were protecting them selves as well. Nothing would be sacred at that point and it would just be one step closer to utter control for the Obama admin.

yep. what role does the media have? should it be regulated? and if so, by whom??

profits, viewership, PC'ness, and objectivity. can a media outlet be objective, anymore?? if so, how??

The Neolibs, aka Marxist Socialist Fascist Democrats, never, ever, disengage. They merely regroup and come at us from another direction, with even more fury.

L.W.

"I'm not losing much sleep over it", so says our Dear Leader.

It's not about you, dummy...

LW,
What I wonder is how many of the libs in this country aren't 'Neolibs?'
I mean, I am anything but a liberal, but I can't help but think there are quite a few of them(libs) out there that can tell which way the wind is blowing.
And this development bodes ill for libs and conservatives alike,IMO.

Totalitarian ambitions do not mix well with uncontrolled media.

Nevertheless I am surprised that Barack Hussein Obama and his Marxist team have been so blatant about it.

This is not going to be the end! You can bet that they are going to continue working at shutting down dissenting voices.

340 BOY, after spending 35 years in Los Angeles, in a racket that is probably 95% populated with Neolibs -- show business -- I've determined that mostly they are the "true believers" when it comes to far left ideological politics. Of course, much of the like-thinking mega wealthy businessmen and women (I call them the Mega Millionaire Marxists & Billionaire Bolsheviks), plus the professors, teachers, etc., walk in lock step with them.

After a total of about 50 years studying politics, I believe not only these people, but the rank and file Neolibs throughout the country walk in the same ruts.

I created a phrase years ago for those people. They consider themselves "Members of the King's Court." They truly believe that once their much longed for Great Brave New Marxist Socialist Fascist Police State Utopia is achieved, they'll live in Nirvana forever 'n ever.

This is all based on their naive and emotional, idealistic way of thinking, rather than on logic, examination of history, and knowlege of Human Nature.

What they are unable to comprehend, nor would it ever enter their egomaniacal minds, is they are not "Members of the King's Court," they are really nothing more the King's jesters. Useful for entertaining and raising huge amounts of money for the King, but once their usefulness is over, they are fully expendable.

That is why today, whatever the King, The Great Lord Obamacus Rex The Magnificent, The One Mighty And Strong, The Most Righteous Savior Of Mankind does is very acceptable to them. They can not even fathom their "usefulness" will someday come to an end.

I also came up with another sobriquet for them, years ago: "Bliss Ninnies."

L.W.

Now there's a reliable source.

This has the earmarks of another fake FOX "news" story. What I did hear the WH spokesman say was they beleive FOX has a 'perspective" but they will continue to speak with them, but with the knowledge that FOX isn't all that objective or journalistic. (my words, not theirs.)

Sad deal, LW.

To be fair, Bush did meet with certain members of the press in private, and excluded others. At the time, Olberman made a big stink out of it - but it's ok now that he's doing it.

Check NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Behind the War Between White House and Fox
By JIM RUTENBERG
WASHINGTON � Late last month, the senior White House adviser David Axelrod and Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive of Fox News, met in an empty Palm steakhouse before it opened for the day, neutral ground secured for a secret t�te-�-t�te.

Mr. Ailes, who had reached out to Mr. Axelrod to address rising tensions between the network and the White House, told him that Fox�s reporters were fair, if tough, and should be considered separate from the Fox commentators who were skewering President Obama nightly, according to people briefed on the meeting. Mr. Axelrod said it was the view of the White House that Fox News had blurred the line between news and anti-Obama advocacy.

What both men took to be the start of a frank but productive dialogue proved, in retrospect, more akin to the round of pre-Pearl Harbor peace talks between the United States and Japan.

By the following weekend, officials at the White House had decided that if anything, it was time to take the relationship to an even more confrontational level. The spur: Executives at other news organizations, including The New York Times, had publicly said that their newsrooms had not been fast enough in following stories that Fox News, to the administration�s chagrin, had been heavily covering through the summer and early fall � namely, past statements and affiliations of the White House adviser Van Jones that ultimately led to his resignation and questions surrounding the community activist group Acorn.

At the same time, Fox News had continued a stream of reports rankling White House officials and liberal groups that monitor its programming for bias.

Those reports included a critical segment on the schools safety official Kevin Jennings, with the on-screen headline �School Czar�s Past May Be Too Radical�; urgent news coverage of a video showing schoolchildren �singing the praises, quite literally, of the president,� which the Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson later called �pure Khmer Rouge stuff�; and the daily anti-Obama salvos from Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

There followed, beginning in earnest more than two weeks ago, an intensified volley of White House comments describing Fox as �not a news network.�

�It was an amalgam of stories covered, and our assessment of how others were dealing with those stories, that caused us to comment,� Mr. Axelrod said in describing the administration�s thinking.

The heated back-and-forth between the White House and Fox News has brought equal delight to Fox�s conservative commentators, who revel in the fight, and liberal Democrats, who have long characterized the network as a purveyor of right-wing propaganda rather than fact-based journalism.

Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of mostly liberal columnists and commentators, including Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times, Mr. Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the network, according to people briefed on the conversation.

Then, in an interview with NBC News on Wednesday, the president went public. �What our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes,� he said. �And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that�s one thing. And if it�s operating as a news outlet, then that�s another.�

In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox�s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a �pool� camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration�s treatment of �one of our sister organizations.�

White House officials continue to interact with Fox News correspondents whom they have complimented as professional, including Major Garrett and Wendell Goler.

But Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox, said the White House was conflating the network�s commentary with its news coverage. That, Mr. Clemente said, �would be like Fox News blaming the White House senior staff for the Washington Redskins� losing record.�

�I think we�re doing the job we�re supposed to be doing,� he said, �and we do it as well as anyone.�

Mr. Clemente suggested that the fight was part of a larger White House strategy to marginalize critics. He cited a report in Politico about a strategy session in August at which officials discussed plans to move more aggressively against opponents.

White House officials acknowledged that Fox News did come up at that meeting, although not, they said, as a central topic. A number of issues had been added to the White House�s list of grievances by then, including the network�s heavy coverage of some of the more intensely anti-administration activity at town-hall-style meetings on health care and Mr. Beck�s remark that Mr. Obama �has a deep-seated hatred for white people.�

The first real shot from the White House, however, came when aides excluded �Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace� � which they had previously treated as distinct from the network � from a round of presidential interviews with Sunday morning news programs in mid-September.

�We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,� said Dan Pfeiffer, the deputy White House communications director. Later that week, White House officials said, they noticed a column by Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The Times, in which Jill Abramson, one of the paper�s two managing editors, described her newsroom�s �insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.� The Washington Post�s executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, had already expressed similar concerns about his newsroom.

White House officials said comments like those had focused them on a need to make their case that Fox had an ideological bent undercutting its legitimacy as a news organization.

Fox News Channel certainly seems to be enjoying a row it considers ratings candy, having devoted hours of news coverage and commentary to the fight.

But White House officials said they were happy to have at least started a public debate about Fox.

�This is a discussion that probably had to be had about their approach to things,� Mr. Axelrod said. �Our concern is other media not follow their lead.�

I only have disregard for what Hollywood thinks or does, but since you spent so many years there among them, working with them, making a living off them, doesn't that sort of cheapen your superior attitude toward them?

And, do you feel the same about Hollywood types that supported Bush (neocons?), or how about Reagan himself. My thinking is that conservatives and liberals have equal percentages of dolts in their ranks, as the normal curve would predict.

BTW: I'm located in Boise as well. Where do you go for beer?

I'll change that to "..he simply commented on a fact that has been acknowledged by the world, the universe, Washington, MSM, etc."

Dang, Dude-You're just a Goebbels, whoops not PC, so you are endangered as of right now.

It seems obvious that ony one looking at things the least bit objectively would see that "ideaological bent" could as easily apply to MSMBC and others as well. Are they being marginalized?

FOX news should not be the news. It is the White House that has decided to make them so. The news reporters should never be used as shields to deflect attention from the "news" by the makers of said news - as the WH seems to delight in.

The radical left which included radical homosexuals supported Adolf Hitler until he had no more use for them. The Night of the Long Knifes.

Humiliated? Not in their minds. Don't forget the agenda, the direction will change, etc. the end game is still the same. It is absolutely amazing how anyone would agree with the Libtards in Washington. Kooks and far left phaggs excluded due to mental deficiencies of course.

I don't care much for the way "they" think either, other than I do know very well that the Neolibs have a great desire to destroy the United States Constitution and this country as a Constitutional Republic.

As for your little "dig" there -- " ... cheapen your superior attitude ... " -- that is a standard ploy to marginalize my opinion and analysis of those in an industry in which I worked (and still am active), just so you know I know what you are doing. The fact that I recognize what these people seek, has nothing to do with "superior attitude." It has to do with their blatant hypocricy.

Actually when I broke into "the Business" some time ago, many of the people with whom I worked were "conservative." Today, most of them are either dead or retired. They paid me for a product I created. Were that product not to their liking, they would not have paid me for that product. I've also worked for some people who made no bones about being "to the left of Fidel Castro." Still, my and their politics had nothing to do with the quality of my work.

I've never run into a Hollywood denizen who voted for Reagan or G.W. Bush, who sought to institute a dictatorial Socialist Fascist Utopia, whereas I could list many, many very high powered Hollywoodites today, writers, directors, actors, and producers, who actively seek such a state for this country. As I said, "members of the King's Court." Speaking of superiority.

Today, in Hollywood, it can be disasterous to one's career to be known as a "conservative." There is rampant, deliberate discrimination against anyone who is not "progressive." Yes, some of the very successful, conservative people still work, but fortunately they have what is called "F.U. money," and they are so popular with the "worker peasants" in the hinterland the "progressives" will use them for eithr ratings or box office. They can't really be hurt by the discrimination. That is the way the "progressive" Neolibs deal with "non-progressives." Speaking of hypocrites, Hollywood is full of them.

As for "dolthood" in either party, sure there are plenty to go around. But my concern is the great amount of Democrats or "progressives" who seek to destroy virtually all I hold dear about this Constitutional Republic: individual Rights, individual Liberty, individual Freedom. The Great Collective so envisioned by "progressives" is anathema to me.

I don't drink much anymore, having done my fair share in Los Angeles, college, and the Army, but perhaps one of these days -- after elk and deer seasons -- we can meet for a beer.

L.W.

Well that explains your turd-like behaviour.

�This is a discussion that probably had to be had about their approach to things,� Mr. Axelrod said. �Our concern is other media not follow their lead.�


You can betcher ass that scares them more than Fox News themselves, they are worried that their little minions might slip away from the fold.

No kidding, this is mud in the face of Obama..that's a few more points in the polls.