Is Fox News A "News Organization"?

|

Via Instapundit, a remarkable exchange between reporter Jake Tapper and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

Tapper: It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations "not a news organization" and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that's a pretty sweeping declaration that they are "not a news organization." How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC –

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight. Or 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a "news organization"—why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That's our opinion.

NEXT: Prosecutor Wants To Know Journalism Students' Grades

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ratings have results, lol. Of course, I’ve always felt free to label the Obama administration “a complete clusterfuck of idiots shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over again”, and advise others to treat them as such, so I can’t really begrudge them their opinions.

  2. No offense intended. Sheesh, in our opinion we don’t work for an “administration.”

    1. Well, that’s like, your opinion, man.

      1. I would have fucked you in the ass Saturday. I fuck you in the ass next Wednesday instead. Wooo! You got a date Wednesday, baby!

        1. But Brandt can’t watch, unless he pays a hundred.

        2. 8 year olds, dude,

        3. Shut the fuck up, Donny, you’re out of your element.

          1. Mark it zero!

      2. Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, but at least it’s an ethos.

        1. Who gives a shit about the fucking marmot?!

        2. It is “fucking ethos” .. I know it is one of my favorite lines.

  3. My opinion is that Obama and his minions are wusses. Can’t stand the heat? Then get out and leave the executive to someone with some intestinal fortitude.

    1. I prefer to refer to it as “testicular fortitude.”

      Cause it’s funny when ladies have it!

      [snicker]

    2. Obama is a very, very, very little man.

    3. In my opinion Obama would withstand any criticism and then react, dismiss, explain or acknowledge error and will improve. But FOX is just used to be propagation of GOP interests, which given what has happened to USA since Reagan is not in interest of whole US population, which is what administration should have in mind (not like Bush, why they went to Iraq, but really?). And FOX is not reporting, they just saying things to make you think whatever they wanted to. It is very easy, in my country, this is how communism was established. Do not let them create new Rome, new empire. USA is great country and in sake of human civilized life on planet, think for yourselves.:)

  4. Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

    I hope he pronounced “Univision” correctly.

      1. Hottest network EVAH!

        False.

  5. Hypocrisy in politics has reached a new high (low?)

    Can you imagine if GW Bush pulled that on MSNBC?

    What a bunch of fucking pussies.

    1. I hope this is sarcastic.

      Dana Perino admitted on FOX that Bush had basically frozen out MSNBC during his last term.

      1. Did Dana Perino announce during a press conference that MSNBC is not a news organization?

        Yeah, politics is politics so of course they’ll try to freeze out opposition press. But to say that the opposition press is not press because they disagree with you? That’s something quite different (and more troubling in my estimation.)

        And whether or not Bush did something similar is beside the point–it’s still hypocrisy.

        1. Did Dana Perino announce during a press conference that MSNBC is not a news organization?

          No, but so what? They still froze out media they considered unfriendly. I guess it’s only a “problem” when you admit it or something?

          And whether or not Bush did something similar is beside the point–it’s still hypocrisy

          It’s also quite hypocritical to have a problem when Obama does it, but to defend Bush doing it.

          1. Are you wearing your Che t-shirt and beret as you type?

          2. There are many implications of declaring a new organization “not media” that are not present in simply freezing out news organizations. It’s not a question of admitting it or not. If they’re not media today, what happens to their press pass at the daily White House briefings? What happens to their ability to cover elections?

            When did I ever defend Bush? My sentiment was politics is politics and I can see freezing out an opponent–not Bush can do it but Obama can’t.

            If your implication is that Republicans are hypocritical for having a problem when Obama does “it” (which is notably different in degree from Bush’s “it”) and defending Bush doing “it”, then I fully agree. It is hypocritical. But they’re not the party in power, so I couldn’t give two shits about their hypocrisy at the moment.

            1. If FOX is not a news organization then the White House should revoke all of their federal press crecentials. If they actually mean what they say.

              Do they ever mean what they say or is it all Omamaese? (hope I spelled that language correctly)

              1. Press Credentials – what a concept.

                1. Press Credentials – what a concept.

                  Scary, huh?

                2. Maybe Obama just needs to give Jeff Gannon, male prostitute, press credentials just like Bush did.

              2. You think they aren’t preparing the way so they can do just that?

          3. So you’re cool with MSNBC having been frozen out? It’s a genuine question; you may very well be.

            1. (Above was addressed to ChicagoTom.)

            2. So you’re cool with MSNBC having been frozen out? It’s a genuine question; you may very well be.

              Actually, it doesn’t bother me at all. Why would I care who gets frozen out and who doesn’t? Why wouldn’t any political organization avoid someone they believe is hostile to them? They don’t have much to gain.

              Just like Bush hardly ever called on Helen Thomas (and tried to move her to the back of the room) during the gaggle. I can’t condemn him for that. Why would you put yourself in the line of fire?

              MSNBC or any network/journalist isn’t entitled to get interviews or access or anything.

              1. Why wouldn’t any political organization avoid someone they believe is hostile to them?

                Because we’re a free country and the press is supposed to have an adversarial relationship with politicians.

              2. One big difference is that Bush never campaigned on “transparency.” Obama accused Bush of being non-transparent, promised a different way of doing things, but turned out to be every bit as bad.

                Maybe he deserves a Pulitzer for just promising the transparency?

              3. Access isn’t nearly so important to me as is the administration deciding what does and does not constitute as news.

          4. Big diff between freezing out a news org and publicly attacking them, repeatedly.

            1. Not really, except in the mind of a partisan.

              One is an explicit attack the other is not explicit.

              I don’t see why people are upset for Obama treating Fox for what it is, a partisan propaganda outlet.

              If that’s how he perceives it, why is it so abhorrent to state it? Is Fox (or any network) some kind of sacred cow?

              1. Not really, except in the mind of a partisan.

                Thank God we have an expert here for that.

              2. The difference between explicit and not is huge. It’s the difference between not inviting someone to a party and yelling at them when they show up.

                And why is it bad for them to state their opinion? It makes the administration look petty and whiny. And some of us aren’t comfortable with the force of the Presidency being brought against a private organization that has broken no laws.

              3. Tapper, if he had any balls, should have told Gibbs that he doesn’t consider Obama a President.

      2. CT-

        You know that these guys have an enemies list. The last group did and all those before.

        1. You know that these guys have an enemies list. The last group did and all those before.

          Every political organization has an enemies list. What’s your point, exactly?

        2. Bit it is okay when the right people do it 🙂

          1. Bit it is okay when the right people do it

            No, it’s only bad when TEH LEFT does it, apparently.

            1. So what are you saying here exactly, Dipstick? That because previous administrations have behaved similarly, that for the next thirty-nine months, everytime the Obama administration pulls something like this, they get a pass? Thirty-nine more months with this? Can you be more adolescent?

      3. Imagine that, coming from a Leftist with Chicago in his handle. The wonders never cease at Reason.

        1. John Tagliaferro

          Sure, to a right wing whack job like yourself, everyone who doesn’t bow to alter of Fox News is a Leftist.

          1. ROFL! I hope you are not under the impression that I am Social Right or something.

            BTW, I don’t even have ‘teh cable’ in my home.

            1. The sad thing is, he actually knows where he is right now (I would think due to frequent posting), but still can’t get over the Hates Obama = Partisan Republican-Rush Nut-licker knee-jerk reaction. Which demonstrates a lack of cognitive capacity in my opinion.

              1. Sir, I am in complete agreement with your opinion.

      4. “Dana Perino admitted on FOX that Bush had basically frozen out MSNBC during his last term.”

        So does this qualify as Hope or Change?

        1. Didn’t Obama run as a post-partisan something or other. Overcoming the Democrat/Republican divide and so forth?

          I know centrists and libertarians who supported him because they thought that he was going to rise above that shite.

          1. I think we both need another Omabanamese lesson.

          2. A bunch of those retards write for reason and comment here.

      5. So Bush did do something similarly hostile to the less-right-wing press, but didn’t receive as much criticism?

        I guess that means the left hates press freedom in general, not just for opposition viewpoints. Good to know!

      6. STFU, ChicagoTom. You are engaging in unbridled jackassery of the most pure kind.

        What you apparently fail to realize is that this is a libertarian blog, and as such, the majority of us who hang out and post here and dislike that fuck job Obama do not do so because we love Bush, who pretty much was his own version of a cluster fuck. We do not critize Obama out of some stupid loyalty to Bush and Cheney. They sucked too.

        And you “argument,” such as it may be, is pathetic, lame and indefensible. You’re basically saying, “well your guy did it too!” Whatever happened to a post-partisan, totally transparent administration? Whatever happened to hopeychange?

        Did the Bush administration shut out MSNBC at the end? Maybe. Does that mean Our Dear Leader and his ass fuck Chicago thug cronies get to shut out some other news organization? Shit no. If it was wrong when Bush did it, are you really saying it’s o.k for Obama to do it now? Really?

        The Obama Administration is wasting its time with this stupid war on Fox. And showing that they’re a bunch of circle-jerking pussies who can’t take some well-deserved, righteous criticism. They have reached a new high in manipulation of the media.

        How about if he spent some time living up to some of his promises, instead? Obama and his cronies have proven to be liars, demagogues and narcissists of the worst kind (as if there were degrees).

        Fuck you, you useless Obama-fellating drone.

        1. Your comments made me smile.

    2. Speaking of MSNBC, their morning news milf, Mika Brzezinski, got into it a few moments ago with their token Republican, Joe Scarborough, over the FOX issue. Mika spoke of “potential” liberal bias in the media. Joe pushed her hard, got her flustered. But there, in the MSNBC studios, where Maddow and Olbermann and Schultz ply their daily tirades against all things Republican while kissing the Administration’s ring, their names never came up. They’re the 600-pound sleazeball gorillas in the room.

      1. Freezing out MSNBC is like freezing out Grit. No one watches MSNBC. They’re the 6 milligram spider in the wall.

  6. Not since the Nixon Administration have so many paranoid whiners occupied the White House. Not an enviable position, Mr. Obama. And more and more people are noticing it.

    1. Did you forget about FDR or just not know about their shenanagans?

    2. My bad, you said since, not ever.

  7. Isn’t this the same admin that says it can go after trade associations because they aren’t “the press” (i.e. aren’t really “news organizations”)?

  8. Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

    Gibbs: Sabado Gigante is a prime example of what we consider acceptable for a news organization. You should you watch it at 9 o’clock Saturday night.

    Tapper: But….

    Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

    1. If only someone in the briefing room would dress up as El Chacal.

  9. I have never seen a bigger bunch of cry babies in my life. A collection of extremists, tools, and douche bags. I thought it couldnt get any worse than the Bush administration, boy was I wrong.

    1. And they’re just getting warmed up!

    2. But my college professor told me Bush is pure evil. And Obama is anti Bush. Ergo, Obama must be our Lord Jesus Christ and can do no wrong. Word.

    3. Which is what I told people incessantly during the Bush years.

      ‘You know we could actually have someone worse? And that’s more likely to happen if you can’t recognize someone worse since all you do is shout Bushitlerneoconchimp.’

  10. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander: Obama is not the leader of America.

    1. He’s nothing but a little commie fuckbag.

  11. Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

    Gibbs: Obama said it, I believe it, that settles it.

  12. Completely off-topic, but did you know Joe has a fanbase?


    # Anthony Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    joe from lowell: I may have asked this before, but do you have a blog? If not, you should. I?and, I’m sure, many other commenters here?would fast become loyal readers.

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress……nt-1686457

    1. Wait — is that joe joe?

      1. the one and the same.

        1. a BIG fan base, from the looks of it. He seems to have really found his people over there at yglesias.

          # LaFollette Progressive Says:
          October 20th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

          Joe wins the internet.

          1. It’s kind of depressing, actually, that someone could spend so much time at a place like this — willingly immersing themselves in libertarian arguments — and still walk away a dyed-in-the-wool liberty-hating leftist.

            Kind of makes you wonder if all the noise really makes a sound.

            1. You can lead a horse to water, as they say….

              Joe didn’t come here to learn, he came here to argue. And when his arguments failed too many times, he left for more leftist pastures.

              Same thing happened with me at DailyKos, except replace “left” with “banned”.

              1. That’s some classic joe-ness right there. If you catch him in top form again, be sure to let us know.

                1. Awwwwww shit. You said his name 3 times.

                  Honestly, I don’t blame him for leaving. I was on a very lefty-leaning computer list for many years and finally got fed up with the partsan nonesense that permeated the list, mostly by the list owner. I don’t miss it one bit.

                  It was shooting fish in a barrel, responding to their lefty silliness, but after a while, even that gets tiresome and banal.

              2. It was less that joe’s arguments failed as, with Bush out and his side in, there were going to be few threads in which he was on the side of the consensus here. As well as the psychic pain of having to defend Obama’s flip-flops on surveillence and stuff.

                1. The psychic pain hasn’t hit him yet. He’s still basking in Obama’s godhood at Unqualified Offerings.

                  http://highclearing.com/index……5#comments

                2. What psychic pain? He’s still blowing Obama at UO.

                  http://highclearing.com/index……5#comments

                3. perfect!

                  imagine joe being here and having to defend the stuff his side is doing.

          2. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king…

    2. He’s found safe a home where nobody every compared the president to a chimp.

    3. Kill me now, kill me now, kill me now, kill me now.

    4. i ‘ve been looking here for Joe since obama took office! THANKS!

      btw, anyone knows where “Thoreau” went; he was an otherwise reasonable seeming guy that wouldn’t agree dems could be worse than bush.

  13. I’m flabbergasted that they think this is a wise tactic. Unless the plan is to get all Putiny and Chavezy or something, this won’t turn out the way they want.

    1. A. I wouldn’t put it past them.

      B. The Administration really is simply that out of touch. Look at a lot of their goals and ideas. It’s very clear that a good portion of them don’t understand the way reality actually works. And the portion that does are liars.

      I don’t know what exactly to think anymore of Obama and his fools. It kind of seems like they don’t understand that their word is not gospel or at the very least that The One has lost his sheen in the eyes of many.

    2. I’d say Fox News is going to lose out on this flare up.

      As it stands, they have conceded that their evening talk lineup is biased.

      More importantly, they’ve actually entered a debate about what their programming is, perhaps for the first time. Before they just said “fair and balanced” and then chuckled to themselves. But now they are part of an actual debate and thus have to defend their record. For example, Megan Kelly — one of their most biased anchors who is a big part of their daytime “news” lineup.

      1. Her name isn’t Megan Kelly.

        And I’m not sure Fox has “conceded” anything about their evening lineup that hasn’t long been “conceded.”

        1. Her name isn’t Megan Kelly

          Sorry Mr. Pedant…Megyn Kelly

          And she is still biased as fuck and is a big part of their supposed straight “news”

          1. I am pedantic, yes. That means my brain works better than yours. So nyah-nyah-nyah.

          2. And she is still biased as fuck…

            *citation needed

        2. True, the O’Reilly/Hannity/Beck folks are the equivalent of columnists. Saying they prove that Fox is biased is as silly as saying that Krugman/Dowd/Rich are proof the NY Times is biased. As for regular news on Fox being biased, I haven’t see a lot of evidence for that. To me it seems less biased than the straight news in the Times, but maybe it’s just me.

          1. Saying they prove that Fox is biased is as silly as saying that Krugman/Dowd/Rich are proof the NY Times is biased.

            Not really. Since the Times also has conservative columnists as well. What liberals does Fox have?? So your comparison is not really valid.

            As for regular news on Fox being biased, I haven’t see a lot of evidence for that. To me it seems less biased than the straight news in the Times, but maybe it’s just me.

            Of course you haven’t. They reinforce your existing beliefs so they must be objective, unlike the “liberal” NY Times which is obviously biased.

            If Fox were merely conservative, it wouldn’t be a problem. But Fox is quite pro-GOP. They don’t even have a real ideology. They attack based on who is delivering the message. They will defend a message from the GOP but attack that same thing if it comes from a liberal.

            They didn’t care about authoritarianism when it was Bush in Office, but now that it’s Obama doing some of the same shit they defended it’s the end of our country.

            1. Not really. Since the Times also has conservative columnists as well. What liberals does Fox have?? So your comparison is not really valid.

              “You can go back on the porch.” Tom.

            2. “They attack based on who is delivering the message.”

              Go watch the ED show.

              1. I think that qualifies as torture under the Geneva Conventions.

            3. David Brooks and Irving Kristol are NOT conservatives.

            4. O’Reilly and Hannity have regularly attacked the GOP. O’Reilly is sort of a hard-to-pin-down populist, and Hannity makes it pretty clear he’s a conservative and not a Republican. And they disagree on a number of issues, so I think it’s a stretch to say that Fox has an ideology.

              I’ve seen Fox do straight news that was not at all helpful to the GOP. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of the Times suppressing or ignoring stories harmful to Democrats. A personal favorite was a few years ago, when they got all hepped up about a country club that wouldn’t admit women. They ran about 40 stories on this supposedly huge issue. And when the day came for the big demonstration, it consisted of one bus with about 25 women, fewer than the number of stories the Times had devoted to this important controversy. Maybe there are examples, but I’ve never seen Fox have their prejudices revealed in such an embarrassing manner.

              1. I’ve seen Fox do straight news that was not at all helpful to the GOP. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of the Times suppressing or ignoring stories harmful to Democrats.

                Why go back years when you can just point out Acorn.

            5. They reinforce your existing beliefs so they must be objective, unlike the “liberal” NY Times which is obviously biased.

              Do you watch MSNBC, which, last I checked, the almighty Obama Administration (praise be unto them) continues to deem a “real news organization”? Defend that. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow? These people and that channel are not simply a mouthpiece for the left? They are unbiased? Fuck that. The rank and fetid hypocrisy here is – well, rank and fetid.

            6. They reinforce your existing beliefs

              By the way, how in the world would you know what my “existing beliefs” are?

            7. Dude – you are seriously over reaching – please take your chill pill

      2. I’d say Fox News is going to lose out on this flare up.

        Thanks Hugo. Burned any good books lately?

      3. Has Fox ever claimed their opinion based shows were not opinion based? It’s their straght news coverage that got the “fair and balanced” tagline.

        1. “The No Spin Zone” ?

      4. I’d say Fox News is going to lose out on this flare up.

        The White House press corps, led by the venerable Helen Thomas, are calling the administration on their shit over this. Meanwhile, Fox News’ ratings keep going up and up and up. There’s simply no way this will end well for the administration, or badly for Fox News.

  14. Ha! Of course fucking joe posts at Yglesias.

    1. What is funny is that compared to the others posts there he is better on the economics.

      Maybe he did not leave here entirely unchanged

  15. It’s fairly simple logic. Obama is the Messiah. His word is Gospel. Anyone who doesn’t spread the Good News can’t be a news organization.

    1. I was just about to say that!

      Gibbsy, et al: I’ve never heard any criticisms of BHO by a news organization other than Fox News, ergo Fox is not a news organization.

    2. We already have one Chicago Tom here.

      DRINK!

  16. Tapper: But you’re public servants. You work for us.

    Gibbs: Silly rabbits.

  17. Joe hit the nail on the head.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d46_1256068514

    This isn’t about stopping people from viewing Fox. This about stopping the rest of the media following Fox.

    All I have to say is “Here’s your shovel. When you hit China don’t call me for a ride home.”

    1. Rahm is about to learn what it is like to play with the big boys outside of the world of politics. Where you threaten a Chicago knee capping with a Louisville Slugger and they show up at your door with a bazooka that looks like a camera.

      I’d say this was an Axelrod move, but to be honest I don’t think he has the intellect to think something like this up. He is dumb enough to follow this turd as it swirls.

    2. This isn’t about stopping people from viewing Fox. This about stopping the rest of the media following Fox.

      I don’t think they are that sophisticated. Fox is mean to Obama and so Obama is mean back. That is the extent of it.

      The media talent of the Obama ended after they got elected….and even that required Bush.

      The only thing I see that Obama has done so far that can be described as clever or a display of talent is that he beat Hilary in an election.

  18. I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports.

    Then you aren’t talking about Fox news.

    Why is it controversial to treat Fox news like what it really is? An appendage of the Republican party.

    And please don’t trot out the bullshit MSNBC is “liberal” crap. MSNBC gives 3 hours a day to Joe Scar, and treats the raging right-wing racist Pat “Whites are rightfully upset about losing their country” Buchanan as a respectable journalist.

    How many liberals host shows on Fox? How many liberals are allowed to spout off like Buchanan on Fox? Even their one token liberal (Alan Colmes) got the boot.

    1. Does this mean we can treat NBC and its affiliates as appendages of the administration? How about the others that fawn over the administration?

      You might want to check the polls and ratings for the political viewership and airtime given to partisans on Fox. And then look at the other cable networks.

      I know. Why let those pesky research numbers get in the way. They are probably bias right?

      1. Does this mean we can treat NBC and its affiliates as appendages of the administration? How about the others that fawn over the administration?

        The delusional world some of you people live in is hilarious.

        Who exactly is fawning over this administration? Except for Fox, all the networks are treating the current President of the USA the same as the previous one…with deference and respect. I guess in your sad little world, if the network is reporting that “some people think” that the president is a secret Muslim Communist, they are fawning over him.

        You want to see fawning?? Look at how Fox covered Bush, and compare that to how they are covering Obama.

        You might want to check the polls and ratings for the political viewership and airtime given to partisans on Fox. And then look at the other cable networks.

        To tell me what exactly?

        You have to deny reality pretty hard to pretend that Fox doesn’t have a pro-GOP/anti-Dem bias when it chooses which stories to cover and how it chooses to cover them.

        Fox was even directing some of the teabagger rallies…instead of covering the news they were creating it, and then covering it like it was some spontaneous event.

        1. Dear god. How many bails of straw did you use for that post?

          My world is just fine. Although it could use more unicorns and rainbows.

          Interesting rant of ad homs. I guess you don’t have much to add but you’re a neenner neener and Fox sucks. I got a kick out of “the current President of the USA.” That carries a slight tinge of the tried and true unpatriotic fallacy we have seen so much of.

          1. Hey skippy, I think Joe might agree with me. Maybe. I’m not sure.

            The looks on the other peoples faces as he keeps speaking are priceless.

            https://reason.com/blog/2009/10…..nt_1424956

        2. You want to see fawning?? Look at how Fox covered Bush, and compare that to how they are covering Obama.

          The network that broke the story of his DWI, right before the election, during an interview with him? That one?

          1. The network that broke the story of his DWI, right before the election, during an interview with him? That one?

            Yeah that’s the one. Are you seriously implying that they sprung it on him — that he didn’t know they were gonna bring it up — and that it wasn’t a ploy to make sure it had already been addressed if/when other networks ran with it? What are you 5 years old?

            Wow you are stupid if you really think that is an example of them going after Bush. And the fact that this is the best example you could come up with is pretty telling.

            1. To quote an obese sodomite: on what planet do you spend most of your time?

              1. CT is to Obama as MNG is to Gaza.

        3. all the networks are treating the current President of the USA the same as the previous one…with deference and respect.

          OK, remind me about the primetime special ABC did to promote any of Bush’s domestic legislation?

          1. Remind me again how many news organization questioned any of Bush’s lame rationales for the Iraq war?

            Like I said, if you really think that any network other than Fox is treating this President any different than the previous one, you are fucking delusional.

            1. All of them and they weren’t lame.

              Gearing up for the big Rachel Corrie Pancake Breakfast on Sunday?

              1. .. and they weren’t lame.

                But you aren’t a right winger.

                They were all lies — every single justification for the war and only a righty would still defend them.

                1. Don’t mind me. I’m just a faggot.

                  1. I don’t care who smokes you. I was trying to beat MNG to the Gaza sidetrack.

            2. OMG we Soooooo need an Iraq War for the Obama administration.

              Possibly on health care. Maybe Obama will do for health care what Bush did for Iraq. With similar electoral consequences. We can only hope!

            3. OMG we Soooooo need an Iraq War for the Obama administration.

              Possibly on health care. Maybe Obama will do for health care what Bush did for Iraq. With similar electoral consequences. We can only hope!

              1. You’ve already got one. It’s called Afghanistan. And it isn’t going to be getting any better for the Obama Administration.

            4. Remind me again how many news organization questioned any of Bush’s lame rationales for the Iraq war?

              The same number that questioned Clinton’s military inventions? But you’re changing the subject.

        4. Was not that the network that thought using Olberman and Matthews to host convention coverage was a peachy idea?

        5. See, this is why we really have to put a stop to illegal immigration.

        6. Who exactly is fawning over this administration? Except for Fox, all the networks are treating the current President of the USA the same as the previous one…with deference and respect.

          I hate to be the one to break it to you Tom…but this is a libertarian blog. Any deference and respect given to any President of the US will be judged here as bias. And if you were a critical thinker at all you would agree with that judgment.

          He is a fucking public servant…not a being worthy of respect let alone deference.

          Seriously when did you become such a sap? Do you think union leaders treat him with respect and deference? Do you think any insider political power on the Dem side does?

          For someone who carries the handle ChicogoTom you sure are naive.

    2. Are you really from Chicago, Tom?
      That explains much.

      1. That was rhetorical. I can tell.

    3. “MSNBC gives 3 hours a day to Joe Scar”

      So that makes it a “news organization” how? Isn’t it a little bit plausible that Fox has such a big right wing bias because NBC,ABC,CBS,PBS,CNN,MSNBC are all tipping the other way?

      You and the administration treat these organizations as having a civic duty to report the unbiased news. Do you really think advertisers care about that duty? There’s really only about an hour of actual hard news a day to report. What are they supposed to do with the other 23 hours, smarty pants?

      1. Isn’t it a little bit plausible that Fox has such a big right wing bias because NBC,ABC,CBS,PBS,CNN,MSNBC are all tipping the other way?

        No it isn’t. Not even a little. It might be plausible that some networks, after seeing the success of Fox, have decided to tip left, or at least be less objective.

        You have to not watch cable news to think that Fox has an equivalent on the left.

        You and the administration treat these organizations as having a civic duty to report the unbiased news.

        I have done no such thing…..but just because someone puts “news” on their title doesn’t make it so.

        They don’t have any duty to be objective, but they also aren’t entitled to be treated like an unbiased/objective source either.

        What are they supposed to do with the other 23 hours, smarty pants?

        Any 24 hours news organization could use the extra hours to do in depth reporting or investigative journalism or long form pieces.

        1. Is the name for what you have hard to spell?

        2. “It might be plausible that some networks, after seeing the success of Fox, have decided to tip left, or at least be less objective.”

          So it’s plausible, but since you see no bias in MSNBC,CNN,ABC… as a whole they do not offset Fox’s bias, correct?

          Just want everyone to see how you interpret reality.

          And Fox does report *some* news, just like all the other networks report *some* news. I found out all about balloon boy there. I know it was news (and newsworthy!) because all the other channels were reporting it. They also had wall to wall coverage of MJ’s death, like the rest of the networks.

          But it’s legitimate for the administration to single out Fox for not reporting enough news, right?

          1. So it’s plausible, but since you see no bias in MSNBC,CNN,ABC… as a whole they do not offset Fox’s bias, correct?

            I don’t see the types of bias I see at Fox at the other networks listed. Most networks try to be objective and play it straight with their news. Fox does not. Fox is a propaganda outlet. (Dick Cheney insinuated as much when he was pushing the Saddam/Al Quaeda ties) The other networks are not. It’s really very simple.

            But success breeds copy-cats. I think ABC (Disney) and NBC (GE) are more conservative now than they used to be, and I think MSNBC has tried to pull more liberal viewers in their prime time programming — but I don’t think their “news” is biased as Fox.

            But it’s legitimate for the administration to single out Fox for not reporting enough news, right?

            Yes it is. It’s legitimate for any administration to call out any organization if they perceive bias. Why is it illegitimate ? Why is any network sacred? It’s just a business like any other one. Why is it such a problem to say “we don’t consider them news”?

            1. By the way, did I mention I’m a retard? Durr durr durr.

            2. “but I don’t think their “news” is biased as Fox.”

              Yes, but your mechanism for judging bias is itself biased — and based on your posts, I’d have to say in a left wing direction.

              If you were being honest with yourself, you’d have to account for the error in your own instrumentation, and adjust both Fox and other news outlets leftward by your own personal bias-assessment bias.

              At any rate, the “we don’t consider them news” assessment is probably disturbing mainly because the government has decided it has the power to strip away press rights from individuals by simply alleging that they are not press and thus undeserving of those rights. Also because of their support for regimes that have been willing to forcibly shut down opposition news stations.

              That means it could essentially try to strip press rights from any organization at any time simply by defining them as unworthy of rights. Now, it would be hard with individuals, but the government is already fighting to maintain a distinction between corporations that deserve first amendment protection and those that don’t, and Fox is a corporate entity. Besides, it just has a vibe of wrongness to you — can you honestly say that Bush’s “free speech zones” didn’t creep you the hell out? It was just single, fairly harmless step, but it was a reminder of the existence of a much more dangerous slope.

              Kudos to ABC for, if nothing else, having the perspective to remember that if it’s Fox now, it could be ABC in the inevitable GOP successor.

            3. I don’t see the types of bias I see at Fox at the other networks listed.

              Well then I would respectfully suggest that you open your fucking eyes and unplug your ears, which apparently are full of shit.

              The irony here is so thick, it’s hilarious that you’re unable to see it. Here you accuse everyone here of being so far to the right and supportive of Bush that they can’t see Fox’s bias (apparently you’r a little confused as to the philosophy of most regulars here), yet you are so far left clearly are completely blind to the obvious bias of the major networks. MSNBC is so blatantly left wing, it’s nauseating. Can you seriously be saying Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are not propagandists and water carriers for Our Dear Leader BHO? Really? No, really?

              I don’t consider them news.

            4. If you haven’t seen that the majority of the commenters here are just as critical of the Fox News crowd as the MSNBC crowd, then you haven’t been looking very hard.

              If you’re wondering why some people here might have some sympathy for Fox news now, consider that these are libertarians. Libertarians are critical of those in political office. Recently the people on Fox have been more critical of the Obama administration than other outlets. It isn’t rocket science, but maybe it’s too much to expect from someone who thinks that everyone who dislikes Obama must fit into a neat little Right-Winger box.

              Personally, I don’t trust Fox (I’m generalizing here, different people on Fox do have different views) to remain anti-State for any longer than Obama is in office. But that doesn’t make Obama any less of a hypocrite.

              1. Recently the people on Fox have been more critical of the Obama administration than other outlets.

                And what has happened recently that made them change their tune towards the President and gov’t in general?? This is the same news outlet that would repeatedly equate criticism of a president during war time (wars which is still going on) with treason. Maybe because of exactly what I have been saying…they are a partisan propaganda outlet. I mean they have sponsored pro-GOP/anti-Dem political rallies…news networks don’t do that.

                So apparently libertarians are fucking morons…because the fact that a network only becomes anti-government only when one party is in power isn’t a reason to rush to their defense when someone rightly points out that these guys are just fucking partisans and will change their anti-gov’t tune as soon as their side is in control.

                It isn’t rocket science, but maybe it’s too much to expect from someone who thinks that everyone who dislikes Obama must fit into a neat little Right-Winger box.

                Your small mindedness is showing. I have no problem with people who dislike Obama or oppose his policies — I have a problem with people who are dishonest. It’s your pathetic bias that causes you to think that anyone who defends anything this administration does is an Obama-bot or a raging lefty.

                Maybe it’s too much to expect from you dishonest losers that despite ideological differences, reality is still in fact reality. Fox is a part of the GOP apparatus.

                And anyone who pretends fox is just like any other news network is full of shit.

                When Fox attacks GOP pols in the same manner that they attack Dem pols, then I will gladly defend them and admit that they are just an ideological channel and I will be happy to defend them. But while they continue to get talking points direct from one party, and treat one party in a preferential manner from the other, they should be treated like the partisan hacks that they are.

        3. Again with the “They did it first” meme. Shouldn’t you be practicing your violin for the middle school talent show? I’ve got a good feeling this year.

    4. Why does it matter? Opinion journalism isn’t prtected by the 1st amendment?

      1. Just the “correct” opinions are protected. Pigs are more equal and all of that.

      2. What does the 1st amendment have to do with this? Is anyone threatening to shut them down? Or to prevent them from publishing and distributing their propaganda?

        1. Maybe just kicking them out of the White House Press Corps. Not letting them attend briefings, etc.

        2. We’re talking about freedom of the press and you ask what does the First Amendment have to do with this? I’m done with you.

    5. This was like watching the windmill defense every 5 year old uses to stop their older brother from giving them a wedgie. Just keep swinging. Sooner or later something will connect.

  19. Fox News just reported that those present in Gibbs’ office included invited guests Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. You can vomit now.

    1. Those present in Gibbs’ office when?

      1. When sucking his and Obama’s tiny dicks.

  20. At the morning “gaggle” as Tapper refers to it in the linked story.

    1. Oh, my bad. I assumed this had occurred at the standard daily press briefing.

      1. I assume it’s a routine, private meeting with Gibbs, but evidently not off the record.

  21. Don’t forget this gem from White House Communications Director Anita Dunn from a few weeks back. Fact-check our selfless public servants at your own risk:

    KURTZ: Take Major Garrett, he’s the White House correspondent for FOX News. Do you think he’s fair? Do you think he’s masquerading as a newsman?

    DUNN: I will say — and I’ve done this in my interviews. I’ve differentiated. No, I’ve not said — I’ve differentiated between Major Garrett, who we view as a very good correspondent, and his network, and Major knows this. Major came to me when we didn’t include Chris.

    KURTZ: Chris Wallace.

    DUNN: In the round of Sunday shows, Chris Wallace from the Sunday shows. And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show, something I’ve never seen a Sunday show do, and Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks’ guests.

    We asked Chris for example where he had done that to anybody besides somebody from the administration in the year 2009, and we’re still waiting to hear from him. When they want to treat us like they treat everyone else — but let’s be realistic here, Howie. They are — they’re widely viewed as, you know, part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points and put them on the air. Take their opposition research and put them on the air, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.

    1. Tulpa-

      Seems like Obama and his posse have you…..

    2. I dont know the standard, but are they really complaining about fact checking? Really? No wonder I dont watch the fucking sunday shows.

      1. No, they are complaining that certain people get fact checked and others don’t.

        Now I think everyone should be fact checked, but isn’t it something to note when a show doesn’t normally fact check their guests (especually like minded ones), but does fact check administration guests?

        You really don’t understand why someone would be bothered by the different treatment?? You really don’t think it should be pointed out if they only fact check one party?

        1. I think they should be proud to be fact checked because all of their facts were right.

          I think it is sad that everyone isnt fact checked, but I sure the fuck wouldnt complain about being first in line.

          1. My point being, and see my earlier post below, is that you shouldnt ever complain about someone doing something the right way, even if they are singling you out to do it right.

            1. I totally agree with that. i don’t think that was a smart complaint.

              But that doesn’t mean that the criticism isn’t valid. If they are going to treat their guests differently they should get called out — and if I am going to judge whether or not a news org is legit, that would be something I would look at.

              1. Wrong, the criticism isnt valid. Criticize them for doing the wrong thing (not fact checking others) not for doing the right thing (fact checking me).

                1. The Administration is complaining that somebody finally said “Whoa” to the Sunday morning talking-points orgies that we’ve all grown accustomed to. Moderator asks a question, guest replies with talking point #1. Moderator follows up with the same question, guest replies with #2, and so on. It’s a well-established set piece with unspoken rules, and FOX had the temerity to break those rules and actually do what journalists are supposed to do. That’s why the White House is pissed off.

              2. If it was an idiotic complaint as you imply, how can it also be valid? Did you fail Logic 101, or just ignore everything you learned in that class?

        2. If the current administration was not a herd of lying, word-twisting, semantic game-playing, disingenuous, hypocritical fucks, maybe fact-checking would not be necessary. Unfortunately, however, they are constitutionally incapable of being direct, straight, honest and genuine.

        3. Pretty funny for her to complain about that on CNN of all places, ChicagoTom. I don’t recall Wolf Blitzer fact checking any SNL skits about Dubya.

    3. They are — they’re widely viewed as, you know, part of the Republican Party.

      I have my doubts…people watch Fox news…when was the last time anyone listened to a Republican.

  22. Maybe it’s just me being paranoid, but it is a little suspicious that the White House’s charge that Fox news is an “extension of the Republican Party” party mirrors the Federal Election Campaign Laws and what would be needed to exclude Fox News from the broadcast station exception to electioneering communication ban.

    (B) Exceptions. The term ‘electioneering communication’
    does not include?
    (i) a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

    1. I was going to say that this all sounds like a possible setup toward declaring FOX a terrorist organization, something that has been allowed of Presidents since the 1977 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (to label foreign organizations, groups, or individuals as terrorists) and more recently with the post-911 consortium of NSDD/HSDD/EO types of directives.

      I think your suspicion is closer to the truth than mine, but with an identical thrust: To send the message that FOX is a propaganda outlet. Of course, all the MSM are this same sort of creature, so I believe Obama’s tactic is to circle his ideological wagons by now giving his supporters–the most unthinking zealots of them–the ability to point and scream with an official hand on their shoulder.

      1. God it’s totally appalling. These people freaked when Bush planted a blogger in the White House Press Corp throwing softball questions. Now Obama wants to outright ban anyone from the newsmedia who doesn’t throw him softball questions.

        1. These people freaked when Bush planted a blogger in the White House

          Right because planting a gay male prostitute fake reporter to give you softballs is exactly the same as calling out a news organization for being a bunch of partisan hacks.

          What a weird mindset people have.

          I still don’t see why Fox is so sacred that they can’t be called out for being the partisans that they are.

          1. How does being Partisan make you not a news org?

            Some of the best news orgs in history where blatantly partisan.

            1. robc–Silly rabbit, it’s not partisan when *they* do it. Just the other guys.

          2. Do you have a problem with gay male prostitutes, you lifechoiceist?

          3. Who’s balls you callin’ soft, big boi?

          4. There’s a distinction between allowing someone into the press conference because they are friendly to you, and barring someone from the press conference because they are unfriendly.

          5. So now you hate gay prostitutes? What the fuck is your problem?

        2. HM,

          He is the new FDR, with a bigger budget.

      2. I was going to say that this all sounds like a possible setup toward declaring FOX a terrorist organization, something that has been allowed of Presidents since the 1977 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (to label foreign organizations, groups, or individuals as terrorists) and more recently with the post-911 consortium of NSDD/HSDD/EO types of directives.

        They better not harm a sing hair on Heather Nauert’s head!

        1. I was going to say Jane Skinner, but yeah, same thing.

  23. There’s something disturbingly whiny about the Obama administration. It’s like the Obama administration, with its Democratic majorities in both houses could win it all if only it weren’t for Glenn Beck…

  24. Marketing idea that I hope many adopt.
    Obama in a Che beret and goatee.

    Can sell tons to both sides of any protest.

    Maybe SF can get on that with his graphix skillz?

    1. Or Anita Dunn as the Director for the Ministry of Information… oh wait…

  25. These guys make the Kennedy administration look humble and the Carter administration seem competent.

  26. I’m waiting to hear Chomsky slam the Administration and defend Fox News…

    1. I have a 30-year old bottle of single malt Highland Scotch whiskey earmarked for just such an occasion.

      1. That would be spelled “whisky” then, Captain.

  27. ChicagoTom,

    Lets make it clear: I want to see every news network tear every fucking president down.

    Fox is the only one doing it now. They sucked before this year, now they are awsome.

    If, as you say, the others are treating Obama the way they treated Bush, then they sucked then and now.

    ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK

    Note: I never watch any of them. ESPNSEC pisses my off enough with their bias.

    1. Lets make it clear: I want to see every news network tear every fucking president down.

      Im with your robc. But not just the president, but every politician.

      The problem is that if you ask hard questions then they wont come back on your show. Access is quite important and news producers, in order to get the big name guests (and have them come back) don’t want to make them uncomfortable.

      1. Fuck access.

        Tear them the fuck down. If they dont come on the show, Im sure you can find some big name members of the other party who will come on to help you tear them down.

        News orgs shouldnt concern themselves with access.

        On the reverse, I agreed with Bob Knight that the media should have to buy tickets like everyone else.

      2. Then why the fuck are you complaining about Fox News? Are you really that schizophrenic?

    2. Good god, yes.

      It should be a constant maelstrom of outrage every day on every news channel.

      Every single guest who’s a current member of congress or the administration should be ruthlessly hammered by the hosts.

  28. Fox has more experience than Obama.

  29. It’s really intersting to watch lefties become unhinged at the mention of Fox News. It’s truly awe-inspring stuff; the eyes widening, the blood vessels pulsing, the stress levels rising. I get the biggest kick out of it.

    They just can’t stand the idea of the nerd at the football jock and cheerleader party. NEEERRRD!!!!

    1. What’s interesting is watching the unhinged reaction of people who think Fox News is some sacred cow.

      “How Dare Obama call it like it is and treat Fox like the GOP propaganda outlet that it is”

      1. I cna’t speak for that, I’d just as soon shoot all the sacred cows and have steak, but you have a serious RDF going on if you think that Fox’s on-the-sleeve partisan stance is unique in news.

        It’s not. They’re just the only ones almost honest about it. The rest of the MSM crew dance around with pretensions about their supposed objectivity.

        I honestly don’t care if a news organization has a stated or demonstated partisan editorial policy. Just don’t be dicks about it claim to be something else when everyone knows that you aren’t.

      2. Your case of the vapors is becoming critical.

      3. I find more interesting at how leftists become unhinged at the mere fact Fox News exists.

      4. I have a problem with the President of the United States, a country with, presumably a long, sacred history of press freedom, acting like the president of a Latin American banana republic.

    2. Throwing Fox bombs into the Huffpo comments can be entertaining. Actually I have yet to not see it be entertaining.

      1. I’ll have to try that. Should I get drunk first?

  30. I took a shit in Chicago once. Seemed apropos.

  31. Fox = Susquehanna Hat Company

    1. Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to Bagel Street?

  32. Does anyone else think the remake of “V” is coming at exactly the right time?

    “Don’t ask any questions that would put us in a bad light.”

    “Excuse me?”

    At least Morena Baccarin is easier on the eyes than Gibbs.

    1. They’re going to fuck it up with newfangled CGI shit just like they did to Willy Wonka. Odds are 1:1 that Donovan comes off as a pedophile.

    2. Yeah MJ, the parallels are striking as the Obama administration are carnivorous reptiles that would like to enslave the earth. And you know who the heroes of Earth are? Why people like you of course!

      1. PUT ON THE SUNGLASSES!

      2. That’s oronic of you, considering that the series itself is pretty obviously an allegory for the McCarthy era.

        Yes, McCarthy was a carnivorous reptile that wanted to enslave the earth!

        1. It seemed more like a Nazi metaphor to me….

          I simply won’t watch this one if they make Ham black or something…

          1. Obviously, the Nazi analogy is equally absurd. The Nazi’s were NOT carnivorous reptiles bent on enslaving the Earth!

      3. I think I touched a nerve there.

        I figure the writers probably thought they were allegorizing the Bush administration. How were they to know that their trailer would appear with those lines the moment the Obama decide it would be a good ide to attack the legitimacy of a major news network?

        Honestly, I have always seen progressives as carnivorus reptiles bent on world domination. Nor do I see the distinction between them and nazis as being especially large.

  33. For your entertainment pleasure, my blogger buddy Suki posted som great pr0n. If you are into hot girl-on-girl European office action. Not safe for work.

    Yes, a pleasing break from CT’s rantings.

    1. Oh Jesus, Suki has a blog? That explains a lot actually…

      1. Good Lord, MNG finally discovered that? Miracles never cease.

        1. It helps explain her posts; the desperate plea for attention combined with the usual display of profound ignorance of pretty much everything…

      2. Better take a pill. Guess who her co-blogger is?

        Sorry if that quiz was too hard.

        1. Just a question John, why would someone as unread and unlearned as you or Suki feel the need to pronounce your views across the internet? You have to know that you don’t know much, and that there are many, many more able spokespersons for the stunted ideology you two share, so wtf is up with your personal needs to have a, er, blog?

          1. MNG, you must have some knowledge to share will all of the other readers here. Want to post our resumes or give eveybody a rundown on our backgrounds?

          2. so wtf is up with your personal needs to have a, er, blog?

            Needs? We just want. I know, it is beyond your comprehension. She helps me write books too. Perhaps you have heard of books.

            I am not here as much as her but I can already tell, if one does not agree with you they are, well, just what you described us as being. Something less than ‘worthy’ of expressing an opinion.

          3. Your opinions are bad, and you should feel bad!

  34. Ah, the Obama White House…full of sound and Chavismo, and signifying nothing.

  35. Hell, Obama’s finally showing some balls. Fox News is worse than Russian state television. It’s pure propaganda designed for 70 year old shut-ins and morons. As long as Obama’s not shutting it down, who cares? He has a right to piss all over them just as Fox has the right to piss all over Obama.

    1. The difference being that Russian state television is actually controlled by the Russian state.

      1. The same way the Obamanoids want ours.

        1. Yes, they think that professional journalism needs to be subsidized by the state.

          Hmmm. Could Obama’s attacks on FOX be related to the MSM’s lobbying for state subsidies? You know, fund the news outlets who are “objective” and “professional” (i.e. the ones that agree with us).

          Obviously, FOX isn’t going to qualify for any state funding when the Obama administration starts bailing out the newspapers.

      2. Right Hazel, big difference! Fox is simply controlled by one of the two major parties in the US, not the state.

        1. Indeed, we actually have two parties in this country. It’s not a one-party system.

          Fancy that!

          1. And so, having an outlet controlled by one of the two major parties=that outlet is as good as any other. OK Hazel…

            1. Yeah. Having at least one outlet that is unsympathetic to the party in power is a good thing.

              I guess that makes me some kind of fascist.

    2. I just want to say right now that I’m not paying vanya anything to show up on cue to *really* prove my point.

      1. John, you don’t have any point. Any. Please go play with whatever toys you have.

        1. I feel like I’m talking to Charlie from Always Sunny.

        2. It’s very easy to identify who you are talking to.

          “John”, our house conservative, posts under the handle, “John.” I sometimes spell as badly as he does.

          John Tagliaferro, also named “John”, posts under “John Tagliaferro.”

          I’m JW. 2 letters, no John.

          Give it a try.

  36. Fox is simply not a news organization in the way that, say, NBC, the Washington Post or NPR Morning Edition is. They are simply not equivalent. Perhaps the reporters in organizations I listed have biases. But they simply are not organized to deliver the kind of product Fox News Channel is. Fox News Channel is organized and driven to be an organ of movement conservatism while the others are organized to engage in journalism for profit. Imagine, just imagine, if those organizations had as their president a long-time Democratic Party paid operative (a la Roger Ailes), or if NPR devoted three hours a night to the equivalent of O’Reilly and Hannity. It’s unthinkable actually, because they are’nt comparable.

    1. Of course. Everyone knows there’s no profit in pandering to conservatives. There’s only money to be made by pandering to lefties.

      Seriously? This is your whole point?

      1. C’mon JW, don’t be a total pussy, address the actual points I made. Is NPR, the WP, NBC, etc., run by a life-time Democratic operative as Fox is? Do they have anything like three hours of Hannity and O’Reilly a night?

        1. I’d guess yes, they are. Lifetime democrats and of the worst stripe: the limousine liberal/champagne socialist, rattling their jewelry at the riff-raff in the cheap seats.

          That they aren’t a bona-fide political operative like Ailes isn’t really the point if the end results are largely the same.

          And I did address your main point that Fox’s primary goal is advancing conservative dogma at all costs.

          1. “That they aren’t a bona-fide political operative like Ailes isn’t really the point if the end results are largely the same.”

            In other words, “no, I cannot name a single outlet that matches that.” Thanks for playing John!

            1. Ooo! Ooo! You couldn’t come up with something that indetically matches my totally arbitrary standard! Ha ha!! I win!!

              Easy there Massah, we don’t want you throwing an embalism over the continued existence of Fox.

    2. I was trying to think of sillier talking points than the ones Tom was excreting above, but was stumped. Thanks, MNG, I can always trust you to come through in a pinch.

      One might expect the “for-profit” news orgs to have better ratings than the “ideologically-driven” one.

      1. see my response to JW above (tulpa, the bar on the right hand side allows one to “scroll” up to read comments posted higher up than this one, position your mouse on the bar above the small section indicating the current position and simply click, it allows you to read things that come before this! Next in my helping hints: how not to be a total conservative tool!)

        1. And this is the point in the thread where MNG arrogantly rags on someone because he thinks they’re not as smart as he is, while actually proving himself to be a hubristic idiot.

          This goes against my “give fools enough rope to hang themselves” policy, but I’ll give you a helpful hint of my own: look at the timestamps on my post above and your response to JW, fool.

    3. Neither NPR, the Washington Post, nor NBC is a round the clock cable news channel.

      I believe James Carville and George Stephanopolos have both, at one time or another, been paid TV pundits. Both are openly Democratic party operatives.

      1. Hazel
        Those two guys run news organizations? Oh, snap, they don’t, now do they. So what you said is not even close to equivalent.

        1. Well shit, I didn’t realize that Roger Ailes owned Fox. Or that Rupert Murdoch actually worked fort he Bush administration.

          1. Yeah Hazel, he just RUNS the company, he doesn’t own it. Man, awesome point, because we all know James Carville RUNS major MSM outlets…

            Hazel, just say “dude, I was wrong, it was a stupid right wing feint of mine that was ill-informed.” Get it over with dude!

      2. CNN is a round the clock news channel. I await you pointing to the equivalent of the three hour block of right wing bullshit Fox runs every night. C’mon Hazel, cat got your tongue (or fingertips in this case)?

        1. Are you seriously arguing that CNN’s “journalism” is elevated and professional?

          1. Hazel
            I wasn’t aware English was your second language and logic was your second thought process. I’ll repeat myself:
            “I await you pointing to the equivalent of the three hour block of right wing bullshit Fox runs every night.”

            C’mon Hazel, don’t puss out on us for the THIRD post!

            1. Since i don’t actually subscribe to ‘teh cable’ I can’t comment one either whether FOX’s lineup qualifies as “right wing bullshit” or whatever CNN on MSNBC has is not “left wing bullshit”.

            2. They don’t put it in a three-hour block, they just spread it more evenly throughout the day. E.g.: fact-check an SNL skit about Obama, but run with absurd quotes supposedly by Rush Limbaugh without any fact-checking.

            3. MNG, you want to talk about FOX news being an organ for a political party? And you uphold CNN as a counterpoint?

              LET ME REMIND YOU, that CNN had ACTIVE-DUTY USArmy Psychological Warfare personnel “conducting missions” out of the CNN newsrooms during the Kosovo operation during the Clinton Administration.

              But of course, CNN is nothing like an official organ of state, right?

              Right?

        2. The one that admitted that their world news was a broadcast for whichever thug’s country they were broadcasting from so they could have “access?” That CNN?

    4. You can go back on the porch with CT.

    5. “Fox News Channel is organized and driven to be an organ of movement conservatism while the others are organized to engage in journalism for profit.”

      I’m sorry — do you think there’s some sort of crystalline logic to this statement, or something? Because one could easily say:

      “Fox News Channel is organized to engage in journalism for profit, by serving as an organ of movement conservatism, while the others are organized to engage in journalism for profit, by serving as organs of leftism.”

      Just because you take for granted the leftism we’re suffused in, just because you see it as the default, doesn’t mean it’s not actually leftism. You’re like the fish in water who thinks it’s the creatures up on land who are the oddballs.

      1. OK Tom, man up. These outlets that serve as organs of leftism, do they have anything like the O’Reilly/Hannity bloc? Are they run by a long-time Democratic Party operative? So how again are they equivalent? STFU goofball

        1. You could just as easily argue that Ted Turner is a Democratic Party operative.

          His political views and syupport of lefty causes is well known.

          How is Turner’s political activity any different from Ailes?

          1. OK MNG, name another news organization run by a guy in a 3-way marriage with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden.

        2. Trying to discredit the source, the last resort of the lazy leftist.

        3. I’ve listened to Air America… and they sounded exactly like O’Reilly/Hannity. Exactly like them.

          1. Indeed they do, perhaps even worse. I think Air America and FOX news are among the most disgusting partisan hackery “news” I’ve ever heard, but to try to pressure the Washington DC press corps not to follow FOX leads by smearing FOX as ‘not a news organization’ is right down the Big Brother rabbit hole.

        4. MNG, you want to talk about FOX news being an organ for a political party? And you uphold CNN as a counterpoint?

          LET ME REMIND YOU, that CNN had ACTIVE-DUTY USArmy Psychological Warfare personnel “conducting missions” out of the CNN newsrooms during the Kosovo operation during the Clinton Administration.

          But of course, CNN is nothing like an official organ of state, right?

          Right?

      2. Tom
        Does your ass hurt? It’s not the usual evening rec activity you engage in this time, I just spanked you bro. Now hey, its 9:30, go watch Hannity. Your stupid ideology will be softly craddled, held, protected and loved, much like your mom did for me last night.

        1. Hold up. Are you worth debating with, or not?

          1. Tom
            Look, to some degree this kind of thing is going to be mighty subjective; what you think is left wing bias is what the left wing guy thinks is “proper reporting” and what the left wing guy thinks is right wing bias is what the right wing guy thinks is “proper reporting.”

            But there are some fairly objective differences. Fox is run by a long time political operative of the GOP, and the same is simply not true of the MSM outlets. And I cannot think of MSM outlets that have anything like the Hannity/O’Reilly block. So I cannot think of the two as equivalent by a long shot.

            1. So because part part of their programming contains editorial content supports views that you don’t believe in they aren’t a news organization. headshake

              1. MNG, your thinking encapsulates the worst of Big Bully might-makes-right mob rules thinking: Someone you don’t like is singled out by your Big Brother, and you are right there to join in on the bullying. I’m confident that if this were happening to a news organization–which FOX is–that you ideologically agreed with, you’d be off the rails talking about creeping authoritarianism.

                You’re a fucking hack.

                It’s clear to me now what MNG is, and his/her opinion is no longer relevant to me.

  37. When people don’t have to go to Fox to hear an opposing viewpoint, then it will no longer be the conservative darling that it’s become.

    CNN has introduced the other side’s views to its evening line up. Now people don’t have to switch channels to hear those views. Smart.

    1. I wouldn’t bet on that. CNN has been playing catch up for a while. And all they have managed to do is to lose ground a little slower.

      How about those holographic models!

      Jesus what a fucking train wreck.

      1. CNN’s version of ‘the other side’ still consists of wry smiles and pat-on-the-head ‘there aren’t you a cute little retard’ sort of programming.

        They’re trying to play catch-up, and do so in a way that still tries to marginalize those viewpoints.

        Look, when CNN the other day had four times as much airtime given to “black womens’ relationship with their hair” than they did to a previous piece on the Afghanistan war, you can throw any concept of meaningful ‘reporting’ right out the fucking window.

  38. I love this. There is nothing but upside for Fox and nothing but downside for the administration.

    Seriously who thought this was a good idea? This isn’t the 70s and a few rag newsprints. It’s the largest cable network with the largest viewership. The containment strategy currently being executed against Fox has to read like a PeeWee league football playbook. I can just see Rahm and Axelrod making little X’s and O’s and naming them with administration and Fox anchor names.

    1. hmmm
      There are people in the world called “liberals.” Likely, you either don’t believe in such people, or you believe in them like many Christians do the Devil, they exist, but somewhere far away and hard at work at nefarious purposes. Trying to understand where these people are coming from is, of course, useless, they are simply agents of Evil rarely encountered but known to exist at some level somewhere…

      Well, as a liberal, let me tell you that there is great “upside” to this move, as we have always thought Fox news is an organ of the GOP and our politicians should not treat it like a news organization unless it actually acts like one…

      1. Yes, you can’t stand the fact that there’s ONE channel that caters to people you hate.

        You want ALL the news networks to parrot the obvious truth of your beliefs.

        1. And he wants that one news channel destroyed for not agreeing with him and his fellow droids.

          Just scroll up and see his opinion on those who do not agree with him or has a shudder BLOG!

          1. This thread subject has aptly demonstrated what a repugnant creature MNG truly is: A might-makes-right, Big Brother bully arm-waving show-tard.

      2. Likely, you either don’t believe in such people, or you believe in them like many Christians do the Devil, they exist, but somewhere far away and hard at work at nefarious purposes. Trying to understand where these people are coming from is, of course, useless, they are simply agents of Evil rarely encountered but known to exist at some level somewhere…

        PS: This is seriously fucking unhinged of you, MNG. Seriously fucking unhinged.

        1. Meanwhile, FOX is playing it perfectly. Even when they note the obvious bias of NBC, CBS, MSNBC and others, they rarely mention those organizations by name. While Olbermann, Schultz, Matthews and Maddow are spewing their daily screeds, and calling out Beck and O’Reilly by name, the FOX guys ignore them. This must drive them nuts.

      3. It was a dumb fucking idea when Nixon did it.

        As a liberal you should see that attacking the largest cable news network is not a productive or even viable strategy for an administration. There is no upside for the administration and nothing but upside for Fox. Of course, don’t take my word for it. Listen to the people from both sides of the aisle and both industries (since government is damn near an industry) about how fucking retarded this move is. If anything the upside is the mouth frothing huffpo liberals will maybe be dumb enough to see this in a good light and stop bashing the Big O for breaking damn near every promise to them.

        You are losing your trolling skills. The rainbow dust and unicorn elixir must be rotting your brain.

        1. I think it’s actually dumb compared to Nixon. Nixon was rallying a majority of voters in a center-conservative country against a liberal media that didn’t represent them well. That made some degree of political sense. Obama is rallying a minority of voters against the most popular cable news channel, whose viewers include very large numbers of Democrats and independents. That may appeal to his lefty base, but loses independents and many Democrats. Suddenly he’s no longer the post-partisan uniter who’s above petty politics.

          1. “Suddenly he’s no longer the post-partisan uniter who’s above petty politics.”

            Gotta love it when the curtains get pulled aside for all the Wizard’s political base to see.

            Only the most brutal of thinkers (people like MNG who let’s face it would probably kill any of us if he felt a Presidential pardon was waiting with his name on it) will see this as a sign of confidence and leadership. The rest see it for the epic fail that it is.

      4. Fascism requires all speech to be GoodFact, not RealFact.

  39. I spent some time lurking the thinkprogress blog that oaktownadam linked to, and in the comment section of the post about Glen Beck, I found this jewel.

    ombakersays: when i go down to the homeless shelter with food, i always administer a political affiliation test before passing anything out.i tell the homeless righties (yes, there are) that they’re getting exactly what they deserve ? nothing.October 20th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    1. That’s gotta be a plant. Come on … I don’t know any progressive who is THAT big of a bastard.

      1. You haven’t ever lived in California…. have you?

        1. RD,

          The proper phrasing is: “Do you now or have you ever lived in the glorious People’s Republic of California.” 🙂

      2. If their idols — Mao, for example — are any indication, that’s the crux of their worldview.

      3. Seriously? I can think of about a half dozen lefties that I know personally that would roll that way.

        Conservative partisans are generally entertaining in that asshat sort of way, annoying, but entertaining just the same. Too often, debating them is like kicking kittens.

        Lefty partisans, IME, are just crazy stupid scary in their GO TEAM BLUE – KILL TEAM RED obsession. It’s tribalism gone very, very bad.

    2. I had a friend from Calcutta who told me that Mother Theresa did the exact same thing, only her test was theological in nature.

      1. Is that true? If so then Mother Teresa was a right awful cunt.

      2. To expand on my post above, Mother Theresa would have been like the Maytag Repair Man if she only served Catholics in FUCKING CALCUTTA. If your friend actually exists, he or she is a stinking liar who does not shrink from slandering a saintly old woman.

        1. Dude, watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit about Mother Theresa. That lady was kinda a bitch who got some sexual kick from preventing dying people from seeing their families or receiving medical treatment because dying alone and in pain supposedly brings one “closer to God”. Of course, she would fly to world-class clinic in California whenever she got sick. I hope she’s burning in hell right now.

      3. So if Anita Dunn’s favorite people are Mousy Tongue and Mother Theresa, what conclusion do we draw?

    3. on the other hand, I understand “Oaktowneve” puts out for the asking…

  40. None of the posters denounced him, and one even agreed.

    1. Enyap: This just in: You are a dumbass dupe!

  41. All this elevates AIles to his exalted position.

  42. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/…../#comments

    I don’t exactly see people rushing out of the woodworks to denounce him FNA.

  43. First, they came after FOX. And I did nothing because I don’t watch FOX.

    Then . . .

  44. This thread makes me miss Steve Smith.

    1. Why, are you finally able to sit normally now?

  45. “If only someone in the briefing room would dress up as El Chacal.”

    Thank you, EJM, I know who I’m gonna be this Halloween. Number 2 was hot, along with number 5, and her mama. I’ll be in Home Depot.

  46. This thread makes me miss Steve Smith.

    STEVE NOT POST LATELY. PIGS IN BARTERTOWN GIVE STEVE FLU. FRIEND BLASTERBLASTER MAKE STEVE WORK ANYWAY. STEVE RESUME RAPE SOON.

  47. And, from a real news organization – the NYT – we get this…

    “Wall St. Giants Reluctant to Donate to Democrats”

    and this text is 3/4 of the way down…

    (Republicans relied more heavily on their party to support their presidential candidate in 2008, and the party’s Wall Street fund-raising has fallen even further.)

    not that they are biased or anything

    1. Aw geez, you just don’t get it, though – they allow some conservatives to comment in their newspaper now and then (although it pains them to do so, they will lower themselves to the rare occasion), so therefore they are an unbiased “true” news organization.

  48. And, from a real news organization – the NYT – we get this…

    “Wall St. Giants Reluctant to Donate to Democrats”

    and this text is 3/4 of the way down…

    (Republicans relied more heavily on their party to support their presidential candidate in 2008, and the party’s Wall Street fund-raising has fallen even further.)

    not that they are biased or anything

  49. *MASTERBLASER*

    STEVE SORRY FOR TYPO.

  50. damn itchy mouse finger…

  51. Even if FOX News was indeed some kind of arm of the Republican party, so what? Political parties have had “party newspapers” for a couple hundred years. What the hell is wrong with having a party TV station?

    Why don’t the Democrats just up and open their own TV station with the own version of the news. What’s stopping them?

    1. Yeah, I think they already got it covered. Especially since Fox is the only media outlet the administration has a problem with.

      In an ideal world, the press and the government would NOT be cordial towards one another.

  52. http://www.icfshop.com
    Christmas is around the corner: And old customers can also enjoy the gifts sent by my company in a can also request to our company. Gifts lot,Buy more get the more?Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is “Best quality, Best reputation , Best services”. Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress

    —**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 —**** NFL Jersey $ 35 –**** NBA Jersey $ 34 —**** MLB Jersey $ 35 —**** Jordan Six Ring_m $36 —**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45 —**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 —**** Jacket_m $ 36 —**** Hoody_m $ 50 —****Manicure Set $ 20HOT SELL Product Brand is below: Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk: $32 Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&F ??T-shirt:Coach /Gucci/Lv/Ed Hardy/D&G/Fendi ??Handbag:$35 Christian Louboutin/Lv/Ed Hardy/Gucci/Coach/Lacoste/ Timbland??True Religion/Coogi/Evisu/Ed Hardy/Prada ??Jeans:$30 New era/Gucci/Ed hardy ??cap : $13 Okely/Coach/D&G/Fendi/Gucci/Armani ?sunglass:$15Nike shoes: 32$, True Religion jeans:30$, Ed Hardy, t-shirts:12$, NFL Jersey:20$,Boots UGG:50$

  53. Here’s another thing….

    Just like people who become cops tend to be assholes that want to exert their authority, people who become journalists do so because they want to influence people’s opinions.

    Believing that “professional” journalists aren’t biased and aren’t trying to unduly influence your opinion is about as stupid as believing that no cop would ever lie in a report or abuse a suspect.

    1. But what kind of people tend to become blog commenters? I’ll guess fat.

      1. Wrong… but if I was fat that would be pretty juvenile.
        As it stands it merely is ineffectual.

        1. The plank is in my own eye.

          Besides, I know you’re not fat from that one time Lonewacko creepily showed us your picture.

      2. I was thin when I started.

  54. Or Obama wanting the FCC to fine FOXNews:
    http://bit.ly/Su2kF

    1. As delicious as this story is, can anyone find anything corroborating this report? This ‘right hand pitcher’ story is the only thing saying this. Hannity has it on his blog, and he links to the ‘right hand pitcher’ story. I think this is dubious. Prove me wrong and we’ll all be very happy to compare Obama to Chavez. But until then… this just looks like a rumour gone wild…

      1. The ‘right hand pitcher’ is going to be a catcher when I’m through with him.

  55. Look guys, let’s all admit that Fox News is extremely biased overall and that Glenn Beck deserves every drop of ridicule he gets for trying be the next unhinged Howard Beale. Of course, MSNBC is just as biased in the opposite direction. CNN is left-leaning but not as extreme as either station.

    Media has bias because the media is made up of people. Businesses are angling for specific markets. Fox News has a market because of the widespread antipathy towards the “liberal media” among conservatives.

    However, bias doesn’t mean that Fox is any less a news organization, lest MSNBC is also not a news organization. Indeed, CNN has a penchant for engaging in tabloid journalism to a degree of stupidity that it might be hard to consider it “journalism.” At least the big Fox News and MSNBC commentators focus on things of depth instead of motherfucking Jon and Kate or that some reality tv show star is pregnant like Larry King does.

    But regardless, how is the White House going to win by their petty attack? Most likely, it’s just a soundbite, but it is reflective of the thin skin and Nixonian paranoia within the administration. The predestined immortality for Obama must not be in any way hurt by reality. It’s just too transparent for political observers; while Fox News will only gain from being perceived as the anti-Obama (with that sentiment growing), I can’t see what this will win Obama besides a few wahoos from the Left (whom he continues stabbing in the back with policies that more or less perpetuate Bushism.)

    1. Also, ChicagoTom,
      We should be concerned about what Obama said because if Fox is labeled as “not a news organization” but a wing of the Republican Party, some sort of PAC disguised as a news organization, that voids their freedom of the press and obligates them to comply with campaign finance reform laws. Indeed, this does seem like the definition of “chilling effect” on criticism towards Obama. They have the right to make fun of Fox’s stupidity and correct their inaccuracies, but this seems like it is going a little far for comfort. And I say this as someone who doesn’t ever watch Fox News after how they shilled for Bush.

      1. Also, it sets a precedent. The next time we have a Republican administration they might decide to declare MSNBC “not a news organization”, shut them out, and grant Fox special priveleges.

  56. Thread well on the way to eclipsing the Kerry Holey one

  57. This is seriously amatuer hour at the White House. Russia is making moves like it did with JFK, the administration is openly declaring war on people that disagree with it, a ram rod mentality is rapidly forming, and every staffer seems to be a clueless dipshit, crony, or satanist. Fuck me this is Nixon, JFK, Carter, and Bush Jr. all rolled into one while trying to be FDR and Johnson.

    IT’S ALIVE!!!!

    1. Obama is the US’s own Gorbachev. I bet he has a birthmark on his forehead that’s covered up by the extra melanin.

      1. Holy, shit! You are prophetic. This just uncovered at FNC – http://symonsez.files.wordpres…..bachev.jpg

        Give it 2 weeks and the rest of media will reluctantly run with it.

    2. The cancer is overwhelming the patient. Soon we will need to start heavy chemo. Parts of the body may die, but the patient can still survive live.

    3. To add to the list of Obama’s incompetencies, if he had half a clue he would not continue pitting his own party against itself on the “public option”. He’d pick a fucking side.
      Thankfully we benefit from that one.

      On occasion the thought even occurs to me that Obama is actually some kind of manchurian candidate who is deliberately undermining his own party.

      He appears to be deliberately turning health care reform into clusterfuck, and at the same time, can you think of a WORSE company to nationalize than General Motors? Why the fuck would the state want to be saddled with that albatross? It’s like a deliberate plan to undermine the notion of “corporate progressivism”.

      1. But he has picked a side. The middle one.

  58. Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

    That’s when Morbo’s show is on, right?

  59. Obama isn’t a President; he is nothing but scum.

    1. Obama is the President. He will always be the President, just as all those who came before him. The will of the Democrat elite and the electorate made him thus.

      We must respect the position, even if we can not respect the man.

      We must use this administration as a “teaching moment” to show those on the right and left who disrespect the Constitution exactly what it leads too.

      Down with concentrations of power. Down with Imperialist Presidents.

    2. Scum is not the right word. I don’t think the man is evil.

      He’s a mediocre politician who got elevated to the highest office by being likeable and not Bush. But his wierdly paranoid behavior toward his opponents makes him look like a mid-20th-century Latin American despot.

  60. I got the windows police pro trojan on my computer and it’s a total bitch. Disabled virus protection, QA&DLT;, safemode – a total shut down.

    I need to format my harddrive but need a little prep to do so, but the funny thing is when I try to respond to CT my computer pops a site on luxury living – go figure?

  61. # ChicagoTom|10.20.09 @ 7:39PM|#

    # I don’t see why people are upset
    # for Obama treating Fox for what it
    # is, a partisan propaganda outlet.

    But even partisan propaganda outlets can be legitimate (albeit odious) news organizations. Have you never read about “yellow journalism”?

    The problem isn’t with the administration expressing disfavor at any particular representative of the press. It is with the administration arrogating to itself the power to decide what is or is not “press.”

  62. The problem isn’t with the administration expressing disfavor at any particular representative of the press. It is with the administration arrogating to itself the power to decide what is or is not “press.”

    This.

    ChiTom, what the fuck happened, man? You used to at least know what a libertarian was. Now your entire argument boils down to: “Criticize Obama? How DARE you, Republican swine?”

    1. Xeones,

      What happened to this site? It used to have lively discussions, not it has people yelling OBAMA lover anytime someone dares not hate what the president is doing.

      I have never once reflexively defended Obama. I have defended my ideological preferences (Universal Health care, progressive taxation, less corporate giveaways, etc) just like libertarians do. It has nothing to do with Obama. And the fact that I keep getting accused of being reflexively pro-Obama shows a lack of cognitive ability on some peoples part. There are lots of things I criticize Obama for (the Wall Street bailouts, his stance on state secrets, his stance on the drug war, his stance on indefinite detention, his escalation in Afghanistan, his support for Patriot, his FISA vote) so to say that I call anyone who criticizes Obama a GOPer is a sad joke.

      In fact, I don’t even care for Obama that much. He’s just another corporate stooge in the WH (like Clinton and the Bushes before him)

      But when people start making ridiculous assertions (like Fox isn’t a partisan, pro-GOP outfit or that because the WH criticized a partisan “news” organization somehow there is a threat to free speech) I have to speak up. And if it seems that I’m calling lots of people right wingers, it’s because they are acting like fucking right wingers. Reflexively defending a media outlet or pretending all media is liberal when the truth is much more complicated. Most media entities are owned by corporations (DISNEY, GE, VIACOM, News Corp) that are quite statist, but necessarily liberal.

      I know what a libertarian is and it isn’t being a water carrier for the fucking GOP — which is what this site has turned into lately.

      The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend, and just because the Dems are in power doesn’t mean libertarians should start fellating the GOP again. It’s not like they are gonna be small government types if/when they get back in power.

      I don’t get why Fox News is a Sacred Cow around here. (Is it because they are the only outlet that puts Nick Gillespe on TV?) They are no different than Democracy Now (who was quite anti-government when the GOP was in office), yet for some reason so-called “libertarians” weren’t singing their praises during the Bush years.

      Just because Fox are anti this current government doesn’t mean that they are friends of libertarians.

      1. To say I’m calling anyone a Republican is a joke, but when a libertarian publication makes a ridiculous assertion like the WH threatening free speech is a threat to free speech, I’m going to neer at you and call you Republicans. You should be feeling very ashamed, and you should be echoing my chamber; but for some reason you are lambasting me. I just don’t get why Fox News is a Sacred Cow around here.

  63. We must respect the position, even if we can not respect the man.

    Assume the position.

    1. Go into doggie submission?

  64. That’s okay. The US isn’t really a democracy or republic either so it only makes sense that Fox isn’t a news organization. But then, during the Bush years, I always though it was the govts propaganda wing?

    1. How about CNN during Clinton’s illegal Kosovo operation when it had active duty USArmy Psychological Warfare personnel ‘conducting missions’ out of the CNN newsroom in Atlanta? Does that count as a propaganda wing?

  65. I’m sure Gibbs would tell you if you want real news go to “organizing for America”

  66. This Administration is either going to wind up as the biggest fn failure ever in the history of the world or end up with tanks guarding the Whitehouse & Capitol.

    1. Point in fact, tanks guarding the government is proof of epic fail.

  67. WHOA, WHOA!! I’m sorry I’m late on this.

    You guys are missing the point of this “battle” with FoxNews. This is brilliant (however, despicable) strategy.

    The more minutes Fox spends on this feud, and they’ve already spent HOURS, that’s less time they’re spending criticizing policy. That’s the White House’s aim here. Personalize the battle and have people choose sides, meanwhile, they can get the real stuff done without a mention. They do the same thing with the “fairness doctrine”. It makes talk radio get all distracted – and the left loves it. Doesn’t matter if it passes or not, just that their spending their time talking about that instead of other more important things.

    1. The problem is he will be in office for at least 3 more years, a long time to carry on a running feud.

  68. Mark Evanier said it best a couple days ago:
    “The question is not whether Fox News is a news channel. The question is whether any channel these days is.”

  69. Ask yourself, what are biggest news stories that have broken about the Obama administration?

    I would certainly put ACORN-gate and Van Jones on that list.

    Who broke those stories on national news?

    Fox. I would also include the story about the Mao-loving Obamatron as well, but I’m not sure Fox took that one national.

    Who is and isn’t a news organization, again?

    1. Which is the EXACT reason why the White House would rather have them talking about some ridiculous feud. It takes air-time.

    2. More proof of my point.

      The Acorn story wasn’t even a big story. And Van Jones?? Really? That’s a scandal?

      The Acorn people actually reported the fake pimp and ho to the police….in essence they didn’t really do anything wrong.

      but if you watched Fox news, you never would know about that fact. The whole “scandal” was much ado about nothing, but Fox pimped it and pushed for a week.

      Yeah that’s a real “news” outlet. The only people who care about ACORN are the only people who have been attacking them for the last 4 years….registered republicans.

      1. Only Republicans? I guess that’s why the House joined the Senate (by a 345-75 vote) in cutting off federal funding to the organization.

        http://www.boston.com/news/pol…..es_to.html

  70. Unamerican huh? When ever anyone tries to dissent they are branded as unamerican. Unamerican is the party that is out of power. Partisans in both political parties act the same way when they are in and out of power. After 8 years of books and speeches about how Bush was turning this country into a theocracy. Now we have Obama envoking the name of … Read MoreGod even more than Bush did but its ok to liberals when Obama does it but not when bush did it. The dixie chicks spoke out against and were punished by their conservative consumers.When the whole foods CEO spoke out against obamacare his liberal consumers went nuts.

  71. My sincere kudos to you Jake Tapper for standing up free speech in America. You may be liberal, but you’re an honest liberal like we had in years past.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.