Opinion Forum

When News Isn’t

October 19th, 2009

I suppose that by now everyone is aware that a state of war exists between Fox News and the President. It’s common knowledge that Fox refused to “roll over” like the rest of the media and has been a source of much anti-administration reporting. The White House even went so far as to circulate a rumor saying such a rift existed but made no up-front declaration until Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that such was the case.

Emanuel, for those who don’t know, is an ex-congressman and was an aid to Leon Panetta during the Clinton years. His revelations come as a surprise in light of denials by the media and the White House that the national media shows any kind of favoritism toward this President. Emanuel laid out in no uncertain terms what he and his boss are expecting from the media.

Emanuel had this to say (video at the end of the article):

No, it’s not so much a conflict with Fox News. But, unlike I suppose the way to look at it, and the way we, the President looks at it, we look at it is it’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly is not have the CNN’s and the others in the world basically be led and following Fox as if that what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides’ sense of a valued opinion.

Emanuel and other Obama staffers spent the weekend taking shots at Fox and trying to convince the public that there shouldn’t be any version of anything except the one released by the White House. Undoubtedly this is the President’s way of persuading us that no one else has an opinion that counts. Even more important, we the viewers should not form opinions based on Fox News.

Fox draws more viewers than all the other cable news networks combined. This Fox following has created a much more savvy population. Flawed legislation such as national health care cannot be easily slipped though and signed into law if the people know it’s happening.

My own opinion is that we are very close to manipulating the First Amendment in order to control the media. This President and those around him will do whatever it takes to modify this nation. Watch these people closely, they are preparing to destroy our nation as we know it.

Articles written by Larry Ennis
Tags: First Amendment, Fox News, Obama, Rahm Emanuel
Categories: Media, News, Politics | Comments (10) | Home

10 Responses to “When News Isn’t”

Clarissa | October 19th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

When I first came to the US and saw Fox News, I was absolutely sure that it was a comedy channel. I was dismayed to find out later on that some people actually consider this idiocy a new channel. I can’t imagine any grown-up reasonable marginally educated person using this silly thing as a news source.

Tom | October 19th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

I haven’t had many chances to watch Fox News much. From what I’ve seen, the straight news shows aren’t too bad — certainly no less biased toward conservatives than all the other guys are toward liberals. The opinion shows, however, are all conservative, with one poor liberal trying to hold his own with Sean Hannity. But the comparison still holds; go to all the other mainstream TV news channels, and you get opinion programs that are almost all liberal-oriented. But I don’t think it’s that big a deal. Watch what you want, get entertained, and turn it off when it gets tiresome.

Larry, this “they are preparing to destroy our nation as we know it” business is over the top, in my opinion. Everyone is free to like or dislike Obama and his politics, and to state whatever opinions they wish, but he isn’t the antichrist.

Randomman | October 20th, 2009 at 1:47 am

IMO the media should be free from all politcal influences. Otherwise, what’s the point? we may as well buy one paper and have the option of 6 colours that is put out by the government, or watch one news channel and comes with a 24 hour cooling off period on all ‘sensitive’ stories.

Keep it free, and don’t punish a news outlet for not bending over…at least that’s my opinion 🙂

nice site btw.

Tom | October 20th, 2009 at 6:35 am

Aside from all other points, the White House campaign against Fox News is just plain dumb, in terms of the Administration’s own interests. Ruth Marcus makes that point in a commentary at The Washington Post. Quotes:

The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian — Agnewesque? — aroma at worst. …

Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC.

larry | October 20th, 2009 at 8:53 am

Tom
I do indeed fear for our nations welfare under an Obama/Democrat reign. In my opinion, if the first ten months are an indication, I have ample reason to worry. Our system although flawed has served the citizens of this nation for two hundred plus years. It has also proven itself to be far superior to any other governing system in the world. Obama is and his agenda plainly runs counter to our political systems welfare. As to whether or not this sort of thinking is over the top is a matter of conjecture. I also have a favorite saying, none are so blind as those that will not see.

Lisa | October 20th, 2009 at 11:27 am

The White House antics has brought more viewers to Fox News. It is scary that they cannot foresee the ramifications that result from their slam on Fox News. Let’s hope they are better able to strategize the outcome of more important issues.

Jan | October 20th, 2009 at 8:50 pm

For those of us with long memories, Nixon as president had an enemies list of people in the media he didn’t like. More than once, his White House aides called major networks such as CBS NEws and told them not to air news programs on certain topics. Nixon’s attorney general threatened The Washington Post, which owned TV stations that needed to get licenses renewed, to drop its investigation into Watergate.

Harvey | October 20th, 2009 at 10:45 pm

Larry: your sensible voice is a relief!

If your thoughts are over the top I’m obviously right there with you!

As to the point of your post: This frontal, public attack first on Rush Limbaugh and now on Fox news has already had its backlash — both Rush and Fox, which already had higher ratings than their competition, are now gaining even more of an audience. That tells me that soon the big guns will be drawn by the Liberal majority in Congress and the “Fairness Doctrine” will be polished up and presented to the world as the “only fair alternative to the biased reporting of Obama’s disloyal opposition.” That doctrine, however, will probably not be fairly applied to the White House network, MSNBC, because all they do is, very factually, report the party line.

Brian Bagent | October 20th, 2009 at 11:44 pm

Right you are Jan. That would make Obama no better than Nixon (or Clinton, for that matter…three peas in a pod).

Tom | October 21st, 2009 at 7:15 am

All presidents and their administrations have tried, one way or another, to control the media. The Nixon and Agnew attacks were the most serious in recent history — who can forget Agnew’s description of the press as “nattering nabobs of negativism?” It’s usually a mistake, and the Obama Administration’s offensive against Fox News will prove to have been a mistake, too.

The best approach would have been to treat Fox on the same basis as other cable news operations. Being interviewed by Chris Wallace or John King is pretty much a news process in either case. However, any president or senior administration staffer should stay off opinion shows like O’Reilly or Olbermann.

I don’t think there’s much chance the Fairness Doctrine is coming back. The FCC doesn’t have the gumption to do it on their own (which they can), and Congress isn’t going to impose it if it includes TV in addition to radio, which the public would demand.