Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Obama tries to bar Fox News from interviewing pay czar…and fails, embarrassingly so

Has anyone checked the forecast in Hell today?  Details:

Today the White House stepped up its attack on Fox News, announcing that the network would no longer be able to conduct interviews with officials as a member of the Press Pool. The Pool is a five-member group consisting of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC organized by the White House Correspondents Association. Its membership is not subject to oversight by the government.

Before an interview with “Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg, the administration announced that Fox News would be banned from the press pool. This marks the first time in history that an administration had attempted to ban an entire network from the press pool.

To their credit, the other networks objected. They told the White House that if Fox were banned, none of the other networks would participate. The White House relented, but in an apparent act of petulant retaliation, it restricted each network to a two-minute interview instead of the standard five.

That’s right: ABC, CNN, and others actually threatened to boycott the interview if Fox was not allowed to participate.  So while B.O. and his bunch may not see FNC as anything more than an extension of talk radio, FNC’s brethren in the MSM apparently don’t see it that way.

Allah has a theory, and I suspect it’s dead-on accurate:

The other networks deserve the praise they’re getting for standing up to the Baby-in-Chief, but if they had acquiesced in this freezeout, a precedent would have been set that would have been eagerly used by future Republican presidents to close them off too. And don’t think they weren’t all keenly aware of it.

Probably true.  Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that the other MSM outlets did this out of the goodness of their hearts.

If the rest of the MSM sits back and giggles like Barney Frank at a Village People concert while Fox gets skewered by Uhhhhhhhbama’s attack dogs, they know that the precedent will be set whereby the Republican who throttles Chairman Zero in 2012 will feel free to give the NYT, CNN, and MSNBC (assuming they’re all still around then) the same treatment.  How do you think Olbermoron and Leg Tingle Matthews would like hearing President Romney/Huck/Pawlenty/(fill in name here) say “Well, MSNBC isn’t a real news organization.  We’re sorry if this offends both of their viewers!”?

Anywho, this is humiliating for President Training Wheels, and it’s a clear slap across his Marxist face.  For this country’s sake and our soldiers’ sakes, let’s pray that he manages the war in Afghanistan better than he ran this ill-conceived war against Fox News.

October 22, 2009 - Posted by crushliberalism | CNN, Fox News, Obama, media bias

4 Comments »

  1. “For this country’s sake and our soldiers’ sakes, let’s pray that he manages the war in Afghanistan better than he ran this ill-conceived war against Fox News.”

    As far as I can see, he’s losing that war too.

    Comment by TheBad | October 22, 2009

  2. Awww, heck, GWB infamously restricted access to certain news organizations. He might not have specifically done this, but W certainly manipulated his news coverage.
    I’m glad that the other news networks stuck together though, we don’t want to set a bad precedent. Btw, I don’t have a problem with a Conservative News Network, or a Liberal News Network. But I do have an issue with Fox labeling itself “Fair and Balanced.” They’re just not. Even some of their hard news segments are slanted to favor Conservatives. Again, that’s fine, but please don’t use deceptive marketing campaigns claiming to be impartial. Maybe if Fox was more honest about their mission statement the White House would be more accommodating to them?

    Comment by DDM | October 23, 2009

  3. Presidents have their preferred and/or favorite news organizations and attempt to position themselves, even manipulate, to get the most favorable coverage. I get that. Bush was no different than anyone else in that regard. Where Bush was different, though, was that I do not recall him calling out a specific network or newspaper for their coverage (Rather’s forged documents, anyone?) and prohibiting them access. Heck, I wished he had done that with the NYT when they started running stories with sensitive and classified national security information.

    But why is your issue with Fox calling themselves “Fair and balanced”? While that may not be the slogan of the rest of the MSM, they tell us that they (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ABC, NYT, etc.) are indeed “objective”…and you and I both know that it’s not true. So please tell me that your point of contention with Fox that they aren’t really objective is also your point of contention with the aforementioned MSM sources, and I will commend you for your consistency. However, if you are ludicrously claiming that the aforementioned MSM sources are indeed unbiased and objective, please say so, so that I may ignore you henceforth.

    BTW, you and I will have to “agree to disagree” on your statement that “Even some of their hard news segments are slanted to favor Conservatives.” I don’t think there’s anything slanted about showing newsworthy stories such as ACORN, Van Jones, Anita Dunn’s praise of Mao Tsetung, or Tea Parties, since FNC is simply filling a huge void left by the leftstream media sources who refuse to cover those stories. Now if we were to hear a Fox News anchor say “This is a Fox News alert! The Communist in Chief was kissing Iranian madman booty today when…”, then I would totally agree with your statement.

    And if you believe that “if Fox was more honest about their mission statement the White House would be more accommodating to them”, then I’ve got a massive tract of swampland I’d like to sell you. :lol: That’s the point of this post and others like it, dude: B.O. is so supremely thin-skinned and has such an inflated image of himself that he doesn’t process criticism (real or imagined) very well. He’s had it so easy his whole political career in the bluest of blue areas that he just assumed everyone adored him (and based on his coronation from the MSM last year, I can see where he’d get that idea). Now that he’s been elevated to Prez, he’s stunned to see it’s not true, and he’s getting bullyish and petty. If people object to his tax-happy, deficit-ballooning, Marxist policies, it MUST be Fox News causing that backlash…it couldn’t POSSIBLY be him or the sheer unpopularity of his ideas!

    Comment by crushliberalism | October 23, 2009

  4. DDM must have a point in there somewhere. I mean it must be FNC because I couldn’t be smart enough to figure out on my own that I don’t like the decisions this Liar-in-Chief has been making!

    Comment by tnjack | October 23, 2009


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »