Thread: Someone is giving this administration bad advice.

"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.

Originally Posted by sparq

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.

I'd say that's what we had under Bush. At least now our President considers the Constitution a bit more than just a goddamned piece of paper.

Health care for all citizens? SOCIALIST! Nobel Peace Prize? UNDESERVED! Trying to bring the Olympics to Chicago? HAHA! HE LOST! An aide calling opinion journalism "opinion journalism"? OUR DICTATOR IS WAY OUT OF LINE!

Originally Posted by sparq

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.

Ripe for a dictatorship? Heck, I think the wheels have been in motion with allusions to it for some time and just recently we're seeing visible signs of an actual and real push toward that end.

On a note more specific to the issue on this thread, does anyone recall any prior administration raising such a public opposition to a media outlet's coverage and interpretation of said administration?

Chris L

I don't believe the narrative that JMS posted. Coming from FoxNews's website there is a conflict of interest, right there.

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't believe the narrative that JMS posted. Coming from FoxNews's website there is a conflict of interest, right there.

You call them liars. Are you saying that this a lie, too?

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."

David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile." Gergen added that White House officials have "gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest."

"The faster they can get this behind them, the more they can treat Fox like one other organization, the easier they can get back to governing, and then put some people out on Fox," Gergen said on CNN. "I mean, for goodness sakes, you know, you engage in the debate.

Originally Posted by sparq

You call them liars. Are you saying that this a lie, too?

Do you believe everything you read on the internet, or you pick and choose, if the later, what do you base your selection on?
Actually, this would take it way off topic, so feel free to not answer and continue posting on the topic.

Fox crushes the competition in Cable News. No wonder the Obama Administration is trying to marginalize it.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/19...-16-2009/30899