Columnist writes that Obama's war on Fox News is bad strategy

Amazing! Obama’s hypocrisy - his pretending to a believer in 1st Amendment rights - is so blatant, that even a liberal like Clarence Page can recognize it!

The other thing that this episode shows is how thin-skinned the Obama administration is. They simply have no tolerance for dissent or diversity of thought.

Among my news sources, I watch FOX News about 3-4 hours per week, mostly Greta Van Susterne and O'Reilly/ Cavuto on occasion. I have no use for such an overtly political network as NBC or one that would hire a former political hack (ABC/ George Stephanopoulos) as a news anchor. I notice two differences between FOX and CBS/ CNN (3-4 hours per week). First, FOX News tends to cover stories the others won't/ don't. Lately, I've noticed that the other networks will cover a story after FOX- most recently the ACORN debacle. Second, FOX News tends to put people on who are on both sides of a political story. With the other mainstream media that I watch, you only get the Obama administration side of a story and it is presented as an uncontestable fact.

In the end, I think a diversity of responsible news sources is optimal and the Obama administration's obsession with FOX is only benefitting FOX. The Obama administration's handling of this minor issue is another indication that they are not ready for prime time.

Wait until more Americans figure out this guy's agenda.

I think the administration is afraid to reveal how much in common they have with the Newscorp.ideology. Indeed, on all important matters there is complete agreement within the 6 corporations that control all information in this country, and they are desperate to promote the "two party" angle to every issue even while showing polls that indicate widespread distrust and disdain for both parties among the citizenry...the 'agenda' is no different than the last administrations'.

You admit to watching Fox 3-4 hours a day? I'm sorry for you. You really think you are getting comprehensive information when you do that?

I'm really glad Obama called out Fox, as it's been said before Fox is nothing but infotainment propaganda. Did you hear what Shep Smith said yesterday? He actually apologized for interviewing only the republican candidate in the NJ race. He admits how flawed his network is. Also, Dana Perino admitted the other day that the Bush administration was totally ignoring MSNBC near the end of it's term, also, Bush never, not once, in 8 years gave an interview to the NYT so everyone should step back and look at the precedent.

Fox News is willing to call both sides of the aisle on the carpet? Hah! The sole result of the ACORN scandal was that Fox News bullied Congress into passing a bill of attainder. Let's see them call themselves out for that. Legitimate news organizations don't promote political rallies. Their producers don't coach crowds on how to best cheer for the cameras. And when other news organization don't follow their lead, they don't take out misleading full-page ads in major newspapers to complain about it.

As for the supposed hard news shows on Fox, they take their cues from the opinion shows. Bret Baier followed Glenn Beck's lead to smear Anita Dunn as a Maoist. Chris Wallace followed Glenn Beck's lead comparing President Obama to Al Capone. Bill Hemmer followed Glenn Beck's "czar" hysteria to smear Kevin Jennings as soft on rape. Megyn Kelly followed Rush Limbaugh's lead to accuse Sonia Sotomayor of reverse racism. And so on and so forth everyday for years on end now.

As far as the so called liberals that balance out the commentary on Fox, besides the fact that they are always has-beens and people with little following, centrists don't provide balance against the far right, they provide them with cover that helps them disguise their extremism. And if they make Bill O'Reilly mad, he'll cut their mic!

The bottom line is that Fox News is a partisan organization that should rename itself GOP-TV.

Mike C. - There are far more regular liberal contributors to the FNC than conservative contributors to CNN or MSNBC.

People vote with their remote controls. FNC has superior ratings to the other cable networks for a reason.

I get both side there, with regular commentary from Bob Beckel, Doug Schoen, Juan Williams, and other liberals.

The Obama Administration, in attacking a news network, is setting a dangerous precedent. If the next Republican President attempts to freeze out CNN what will you be saying then?

What goes around comes around.

Mr. Caetano: The bill defunding ACORN and any other organization which violates federal or state election laws is not a bill of attainder. I understand that Democrats have whined about that being the case, but: (1) the bill had a legitimate nonpunitive legislative purpose, and (2) no organization has a right to federal grants or contracts, and hence there can be no "punishment" in the form of the deprivation of a vested property right.

Glenn Beck, who is a conservative news commentator (as he will readily admit), actively promoted the 9/12 rally in Washington. So what? Glenn Beck is not a journalist, nor does he pretend to deliver hard news. His opinion show is no different that Lou Dobbs' show on CNN, or Keith Olbmerann's show on MSNBC. Do you believe that CNN and MSNBC are not legitimate news organizations?

You use anecdotal evidence to claim Baier, Wallace et al. do not deliver hard news. You fail to sustain your burden. What's more, apparently you do not believe Anita Dunn's expressed admiration for a mass murderer, communist like Mao was newsworthy. Perhaps that is not newsworthy in your world; perhaps you even admire Mao. Many Americans would consider that newsworthy as reflecting upon the type of people this President surrounds himself with (Van Jones being another example). Again, you may have no problem with Van Jones being a radical liberal. But the American people deserve to know about the people this President empowers. And they deserved to know that Sotomayor, on the heels of sanctioning discrimination against white males in a case that was later overturned, had made the commment that a Hispanic female judge, by virtue of her background, could render a wiser (not different) legal decision than a white male judge. Again, perhaps you are fine with her views along those lines, but the American people deserve to know those views.

The bottom line: If you do not like Fox News, turn the channel. However, that obviously is not good enough for you and your liberal ilk. You want to marginalize Fox News. You want to use the so-called Fairness Doctrine to silence conservative talk radio. In short, you are afraid of, and wish to stifle, the broadcast of any ideas which do not conform to your world view. On the other hand, we conservatives do not wish to silence the major networks, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc. We also welcome many liberal voices on Fox News so that both sides are presented. Why is that? Because we are confident that in the marketplace of ideas, conservative ideas will prevail.

CNN and MSNBC aren't the issue, so please don't try to change the subject.

Ratings aren't the issue either, but if you want to go there, more people don't watch TV than do, so ultimately the discussion is moot.

The commentary you get from Fox News ranges from the center to the far right with the emphasis on the right. Beckel, Schoen and Williams play the role of liberals for FNC. Put them on any other network and they're centrists pushing the Beltway Establishment consensus. The last true liberal on FNC was Neal Gabler, but he left Fox News Watch for PBS. And then Eric Burns left and I stopped watching.

What Dunn said that started this flap hardly constitutes an attack. "The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party." Italics mine to emphasize the hedging in her claim. Moreover Dunn never said the White House intended to freeze out Fox News. "Obviously, he'll go on Fox, because he engages with ideological opponents and he has done that before, he will do it again." Dunn's remarks provided Fox News another opportunity to perform the persecution rituals it uses to pump up it's viewer's sense of privileged self-righteousness.

The dangerous precedent you fear was set by Nixon when he sued to prevent the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. And again when Alberto Gonzales threatened to prosecute James Risen and Eric Lichtblau for exposing the warrantless wiretapping program undertaken by the Bush administration and Dana Priest for exposing the overseas network of secret prisons run by the CIA for the purposes of torturing terror suspects. That's what attacking the news looks like.

What goes around comes around indeed.

ACORN has not been found guilty of violating federal or state election laws. Allegations don't count. The bill targeted a specific organization for denial of discretionary benefits. That makes it punitive under U.S. v. Lovett and Paul v. Davis, among other rulings, and thus a bill of attainder.

Fox News heavily promoted the April Tea Parties and followed the progress of the Tea Party Express as it made it's way to DC. At the rally it's news producers prompted the crowd to cheer on cue for the cameras. Fox News exaggerated the attendance figures for the rally in DC by several orders of magnitude. Afterward it took out an advertisement falsely complaining that CNN et al. neglected to cover the story. Fox News clearly behaves like a political operation.

Glenn Beck admits he's a rodeo clown, not an opinion journalist. He's nothing like Olbermann and Dobbs. But again, the issue isn't CNN or MSNBC, so please don't change the subject.

My claim was that the so-called hard news shows on Fox takes their cues from the opinion shows. This should come as no surprise given that Fox News devotes 15 hours a day to it's opinion shows. The so-called hard news shows don't dare present information that might contradict the views expressed during the majority of it's programming.

Anita Dunn is no more a Maoist than she is a volunteer worker with the Missionaries of Charity. Your take on her comment regarding Mao reflects the degree to which you've been mislead. Here is her complete sentence: "The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before." The rest of your comment is nothing more than an effort to cast aspersions at me, so I won't dignify it with a response. I will agree with you, however, that the American people deserve to know about the type of people the President surrounds himself with but they deserve honest accounts, not the smear jobs pushed by Fox News.

As for competition in the marketplace of ideas, last November's election showed that voters know enough to reject adults who argue like petulant children - changing the subject, blaming others for failings of their own, assigning guilt by association, conflating one issue with another, refusing to cooperate, mudslinging, fabricating, throwing tantrums and shouting no no no! It's humorous if not pathetic. There are more than two sides to any given subject, but as long as conservatives remain stuck in a Manichean view of the world, the public will continue to reject their project and their candidates. As a consolation, conservatives will still be able to find solace in the Fox News echo chamber.

Let's just be realistic here. I think it's quite obvious that if a network doesn't give the kind of news leaning in the direction you want, then you consider them slanted. We're all like that. If a network doesn't bash Obama then it favors him and therefore must be liberal. If a network does bash him, then it doesn't like him and therefore must be conservative. Gee, didn't we all see this in reverse during the last 8 years? So what difference does it make? Who cares? Watch what you like to hear.

Has it occurred to anyone that those on the left see nothing but conservative dominated news on Fox (owned by Rupert Murdock, a Republican), and those on the right see channels like CNN (owned by Ted Turner, a Democrat) as leaning left? And it's no secret that these two media oligarchs hate each other.

Now if I were to throw in my, what-difference-does-it-make, two cents I would offer up some back ground. This bit of bio on Rupert Murdoch for one:

In 1964, Murdoch launched The Australian, Australia's first national daily newspaper, which was based first in Canberra and later in Sydney. The Australian, a broadsheet, was intended to give Murdoch new respectability as a 'quality' newspaper publisher, as well as greater political influence. The paper had a rocky start that was marked by publishing difficulties and a rapid succession of editors who found it impossible to cope with Murdoch's persistent interference. Touted as a serious journal that was devoted to covering the affairs of the nation, the paper actually veered between tabloid sensationalism and intellectual mediocrity until Murdoch found a compliant editor who was able to tolerate his frequently unpredictable whims.

In 1972, Murdoch acquired the Sydney morning tabloid The Daily Telegraph from Australian media mogul Sir Frank Packer, who later admitted regretting selling it to him. In that year's election, Murdoch threw his growing power behind the Australian Labor Party under the leadership of Gough Whitlam and duly saw it elected. As the Whitlam government began to lose public support following its re-election in 1974, Murdoch turned against Whitlam and supported the Governor-General's dismissal of the Prime Minister.

A little note; my wife, an Australian, hates Rupert Murdoch, an Australian, because he tried to start up a new league of Rugby League called Superleague. He offered up tons of money to try and entice the great Rugby League teams and players over to his new league and break up Rugby League. This is something you don't do and he pissed off the Australians in a big way. He's never really been welcomed back. Think of Donald Trump trying to start a new football league and entice the best players and teams over to his league with large sums of money therefore breaking up the NFL. It wouldn't sit well at all.

Or, this I found on what some on the right might consider a liberal website:

MSNBC is owned by General Electric who donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign. The "MS" in MSNBC means microsoft. The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected.

DISNEY (owns ABC) donated 640 thousand to GW's 2000 campaign.

Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA) and Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.

Also, I can't really credit Fox for being balanced when they bring in conservative heavy weights and put them up against light weight moderate liberals like Juan Williams. I've heard Juan bash Obama plenty of times. Hell I've even bashed Obama a time or two and I'm a supporter. I just find it hard to believe it when Republicans can't a find ANY fault with George W. during his 8 years. Let's be realistic.

So what does it all mean? Who cares. Watch what you like but don't call it the unbiased absolute truth because it's all geared to be what you want it to be, and often reflects the persuasion of the writers and/or owners. That's the ugly underbelly of the media business.

By the way, I asked my dad, who's a long time conservative Republican and a daily reader of the Fresno Bee for the last 29 years, which direction he thinks the Bee leans. He said, "A little to the left, but there's one columnist, Jim Boren, who seems to lean to the right."

In short, we watch that which reinforces what we want to be the truth, and then we defend that because it coincides with what we believe. For example, those who believe in God consider that to be the truth, and those who don't believe in God consider that to be the truth. We don't believe in one thing and then agree that those who oppose us are right.

You almost totally agreed with me that we seek different truths as diverse people, but you still had to throw in one more dig on the liberals. That's our desire to feel right and superior by lowering the other side. It's just human nature, and one of our flaws if you ask me....but don't let me take the fun out of the debate.

If you think my post did not make sense, how about pointing out where it didn't make sense? I provided a lot of details, so, yes it's very possible, and not at all disingenuous (you really ought to look that word up because you don't appear to understand what it means). If you want to say that only people who watch Fox News should be allowed to criticize it, then you should say it.