Thread: Someone is giving this administration bad advice.

Originally Posted by mhailey

You are correct in that it is an answer. It is a non-responsive answer, but it is an answer.

JMS: wouldn't you say that this steps way over the line. Is this Venezuela? Cuba? NO (to all of that)

Do I think that Anita Dunn was correct by saying that Fox News is opinion masquerading as news? YES

Do I think that the White House should continue the discussions about Fox publicly? NO

Should the Administration silence a news outlet for being critical? I hesitate to answer this because I don't think the White House is trying to silence Fox News, and I think that the initial comments were made because of factual errors and opinions, not criticisms.

Originally Posted by commiecat

JMS: wouldn't you say that this steps way over the line. Is this Venezuela? Cuba? NO (to all of that) So you don't think the Obama Administrations actions step way over the line?

Do I think that Anita Dunn was correct by saying that Fox News is opinion masquerading as news? YES

Do I think that the White House should continue the discussions about Fox publicly? NO

Should the Administration silence a news outlet for being critical? I hesitate to answer this because I don't think the White House is trying to silence Fox News, and I think that the initial comments were made because of factual errors and opinions, not criticisms.

Please see the above question in red.

Also, what about the Adminitration's attempts to marginalize Fox News, either publicly or out of the public's view (i highly doubt that Fox could be silenced. Its viewership is too large, and continues to grow by leaps and bounds)?

"silence or marginalize Fox News"

Who said anything about silencing or marginalizing Fox News? Just because the Administration contends that network isn't quite as "fair and balanced" as they claim to be is hardly comparable to the idea of silencing them.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Please see the above question in red.

Also, what about the Adminitration's attempts to marginalize Fox News, either publicly or out of the public's view (i highly doubt that Fox could be silenced. Its viewership is too large, and continues to grow by leaps and bounds)?

No, I don't think they stepped over the line. Even if it continues, it's not over the line.

All the news outlets have an influence over the people. The White House has an influence over the people. If Fox is going to use their influence in favor of or against certain politicians, then I think those politicians -- or their aides, in this case -- have just as much of a right to do the same against Fox.

Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist was, in my opinion, exponentially worse than what Anita Dunn said.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"silence or marginalize Fox News"

Who said anything about silencing or marginalizing Fox News? Just because the Administration contends that network isn't quite as "fair and balanced" as they claim to be is hardly comparable to the idea of silencing them.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."
"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."


Is that not marginalization?

Originally Posted by mhailey

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."
"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."


Is that not marginalization?

It's an attempt at marginalization, but their ratings have improved (consistently... which is something I'll not comment on) so I'd say NO to your question.

"Is that not marginalization?"

YOU used the term "silence" to suggest the administration was trying to silence Fox News. Not exactly sure what you mean by "marginalization". If the idea is that the administration is suggesting Fox News has an agenda/anti-ideological posture which is seeping into its reporting of the news, I have no problem with that (surprise!), since I wholeheartedly agree that Fox is not acting as an independent news service. What Fox is doing, IMHO, is catering to its viewership, many of whom are avid listeners to the political commentary talking heads the network features (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc), by presenting its news in a fashion that compliments its commentators. You may of course disagree with this analysis, but the administration is within its rights to "marginalize" those who it perceives to be a biased and unobjective source of information.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"Is that not marginalization?"

YOU used the term "silence" to suggest the administration was trying to silence Fox News. Not exactly sure what you mean by "marginalization". If the idea is that the administration is suggesting Fox News has an agenda/anti-ideological posture which is seeping into its reporting of the news, I have no problem with that (surprise!), since I wholeheartedly agree that Fox is not acting as an independent news service. What Fox is doing, IMHO, is catering to its viewership, many of whom are avid listeners to the political commentary talking heads the network features (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc), by presenting its news in a fashion that compliments its commentators. You may of course disagree with this analysis, but the administration is within its rights to "marginalize" those who it perceives to be a biased and unobjective source of information.

Please review. Any time i said "silence" it was followed by "or marginalize."

If there is one in this thread which was not so qualified, please point it out.

We need to be very leary of a President that wants to control the media.

Edit: Here is what I mean by "marginalize" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marginalized

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

but the administration is within its rights to "marginalize" those who it perceives to be a biased and unobjective source of information.

So, as Hugo Chavez asserts: "if it weren't for the attack, the lies, manipulation and the exaggeration" of the private media networks, the Venezuelan government would have the support of at least 80 percent of the population.

Edit: Got to control that Media from "biased and unobjective" sources of information (well biased and unobjective as far as the Administration's opinion is concerned).

Originally Posted by mhailey

So, as Hugo Chavez asserts: "if it weren't for the attack, the lies, manipulation and the exaggeration" of the private media networks, the Venezuelan government would have the support of at least 80 percent of the population.

Instead of admitting that any attempt to single out and marginalize a news station is a dangerous precedent that needs to be stopped with a big no-no, the liberals are willing to accept anything from their untouchable leader. Look at all the passion and arguments about how bad that news station is, AS IF THAT MATTERED.

Imagine if Bush said anything remotely comparable. The scream of the liberals would be deafening.

This country is ripe for a dictatorship. My 2c.