jericho Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 An attack on the Fox News station by liberals and OBAMA. The article is actually written by a Liberal who fears that if one news outlet is targeted, then others not falling in line will be too. Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters. AND In fact, this is the signature line of Media Matters in discussing Fox News, which they say they exist to destroy. Their CEO, David Brock told Politico in 2011 that their strategy was a “war on Fox” that is executed by 90 staff members and a $10 million yearly budget, gratis liberal donors.Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze. Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn't a news operation? A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it’s right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees. It complains of the “pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club” and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any “slanderous” comments they make about progressives on air Read more: Obama vs. Fox News -- behind the White House strategy to delegitimize a news organization | Fox News But some have pused back on Obama. Conservative media watchdogs push back on Obama's Fox News attack | Fox News
Clyde Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 I've never gotten the angst generated by many in regards to Media Matters. They don't make news. They don't keep news outlets from reporting whatever they want. They comment on the veracity of it. They hate Fox and make no bones about it. That doesn't mean that what they post about Fox is inaccurate.
Clyde Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 As to the WH choosing to be pro- or anti-Fox that's not new. Fox got talking points from the WH in order to help spread the gospel. The WH using the press is as old as the building itself.
Bluto Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Here you go.... [ATTACH=CONFIG]38870[/ATTACH] Yep. They've been giving Obama (& Democrats) a "Media Lewinsky" for years now.
75center Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Keeping Fox off the conference calls is very disturbing if true. Favoring a network? Ok. That's happened forever. Keeping a network out of the loop? Seems like that would be contrary to freedom of the press, wouldn't it?
75center Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Here you go.... [ATTACH=CONFIG]38870[/ATTACH] Beautiful!
Getslow Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Keeping Fox off the conference calls is very disturbing if true. Favoring a network? Ok. That's happened forever. Keeping a network out of the loop? Seems like that would be contrary to freedom of the press, wouldn't it? Freedom of the press gives someone the freedom to print whatever they wish. I don't know that it's a guarantee of access.
Clyde Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Freedom of the press gives someone the freedom to print whatever they wish. I don't know that it's a guarantee of access. Agreed. I assume not every "press" outlet gets press passes.
CBDV Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Freedom of the press gives someone the freedom to print whatever they wish. I don't know that it's a guarantee of access. The Constitution did not foresee the use of internet, radio, and t.v. so banning someone from access must be banned.......
Getslow Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 The Constitution did not foresee the use of internet, radio, and t.v. so banning someone from access must be banned....... I haven't read the article, merely responded to an earlier comment. So then, who gets access and who doesn't?
Bluegrasscard Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 None the networks - MSM or cable - do any 'investigative' reporting anymore. That includes Fox. The administration at least needs one pseudo-enemy in the press.
75center Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I haven't read the article, merely responded to an earlier comment. So then, who gets access and who doesn't? I would think one of the biggest networks would. Like I said, disturbing.
jericho Posted January 30, 2013 Author Posted January 30, 2013 For any President to deny access to a news station is absurd. I personally think msnbc is worse on criticism of others than fox is.
Henry521 Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I want to see Katie Curic question Hillary the same way she did with Manti. I want Katie to look Hillary in the eye and say "you are lying". HAHAHAH We all know that will never happen. Pick on a 21 year old kid but the Liberal media will never ask the tough questions that the country "really" wants to know the answers to.
.png.ffa34568722b20f38e3c3ecfcb9a2cd2.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.