JackBauer

I would be fine excluding Fox. They're a political operation, not a news organization. They organized friggin' tea party rallies, for christ's sake.

PatsWSB47

That's both scary and dangerous. II have issues with some fox programming but they also have legitimate news coverage. This America. Who made the White House Lord of the media?

FYI CNN has had reporters openly challange, criticize and try to humiliate people at the tea parties as part of their "interview" at the event. It wasn't on an opinion program, it was a news report. All ooutlets have their political faults. MSNB is as bad as Fox. So who decides who ghets cnesored?

JackBauer

This is hardly unique to the Obama administration.

PatsWSB47

Two wrongs don't make a right

Wolfpack

And how would you feel if a Republican administration tried to exclude NBC? They push a left wing agenda much moreso than Fox pushes the right.

I guess if Obama doesn't give you a tingle up your leg, you're just not welcome on the press train.

wistahpatsfan

Yes, yes...we know. Government can't help itself when it comes to abusing its power. It doesn't matter whether it's Carter or Reagan. We need the press to have access and we need to make up our own minds which press outlet is worthy of credit.

Do you or anyone else on this forum think this behavior - any President of the United States censoring any member of the press - is acceptable? Regardless of who he is or who they are, this practice threatens the transparency of government and puts us all at risk, IMO.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

JackBauer

LOL.

This might be the singular most absurd and preposterous thing I've read on this forum. Congratulations.

By the way, the previous administration, per Dana Perino, did freeze out MSNBC in the second term. In summation: boo hoo, cry me a river.

JackBauer

I have no issue with the President restricting access to a political propaganda organization masquerading as a news organization.

Here's a helpful little post explaining the distinctions: Kausfiles : What's Your Beef With Fox, Mr. Dem-Basher?

Wolfpack

I think your bias is clouding your ability to see this in a reasonable light. No surprise.

wistahpatsfan

Your link makes too many suppositions. There are many ways to judge a news outlet's credibility. The author claims that one of them is "neutrality" and the second-most important one is "independence" which is a farce. There is no such thing as the independence he claims to be ultimately the most significant. Maybe FOX is the worst offender, but it is on a continuum that includes all the news outlets. MSNBC is a very close second to FOX, IMO - and that's the problem. When one gets into the territory of ranking the "independence" or "objectivity" one treads on very thin ice. Where is the line of credibility drawn? No one can legitimately claim to know. That's the problem with opening this Pandora's box.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.