Media Research Center President Brent Bozell today applauded ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN for uniting with Fox News in response to the Obama White House excluding Fox from an interview with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg. The networks said none of them would speak with Feinberg if Fox was excluded, and the White House subsequently reversed its decision.
"Not even Richard Nixon would have dared try this. This was a White House attempt at censorship and brass-knuckle intimidation. But it backfired.
"This was more than a strike at Fox News. It was a calculated and frightening declaration of war on our First Amendment right to a free and unfettered press. And it might have been successful had ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC caved to the pressures of the White House.
"But they did not yield and for that, they should be commended. These networks recognized this as a direct assault on free speech. I applaud their dedication to operating on the vital truth that freedom of the press trumps everything, including ratings and market share.
"I urge these networks to remain vigilant in demanding that this Administration take our American rights to free speech seriously, as this is surely not the last attempt by a radically left-wing White House to bully the press."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Rare
October 23, 2009 - 15:24 ET by MES41067But kudos.
(Lenin called them "useful idiots" I for one have no use for them.)
Thank You
October 23, 2009 - 15:25 ET by ConservativeClarkThank you Mr. Bozell. Thank you very much for speaking up for what many of us are thinking and wish we could say to this administration and know that we are being heard. I have serious doubts that this administration takes any criticism to heart and would have the heart to change on morals and decency alone. It was only thru collective understanding of the 1st amendment that this Chicago style bullying was halted.
Once again, I thank you and the rest of Newsbusters for doing a great job.
Now, if the other networks will only report that story!
October 23, 2009 - 15:26 ET by Mike BrattonAnyone seen any reportage on those networks' laudable response to the Obama dictatorship?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
None whatsoever. But I'm
October 23, 2009 - 17:57 ET by ThisnThatNone whatsoever. But I'm hearing some individuals beginning to make the claim: "Well, it was probably just an honest mistake on the part of the WH. At least I hope it was."
These people still don't recognize the real and present danger this administration is to this nation.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
Honest mistake defense?
October 23, 2009 - 19:28 ET by JerInteresting, that's the one explanation I haven't heard. Many have vigorously condemned the WH action, others have fully endorsed it, and some have tepidly justified it, but acknowledged it was probably bad politics. Yours is the only "honest mistake" rationale I've encountered.
Jer
Many? Can you steer me to some examples?
October 25, 2009 - 06:45 ET by Mike BrattonI know NPR came down against it, then backtracked from their "vigorous" condemnation. Other than that, I've seen no one really dinging our dictator-in-chief on this.
If you could provide a few examples, that would be great.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Hi Mike... Does 'yours
October 26, 2009 - 13:12 ET by JerHi Mike...
Does 'yours truly' count as an example? If so, I'm sure I can steer you to my personal condenmnation and "dinging of our dictator-in-chief." Beyond that, to borrow a phrase, I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "vigorous" is, but I have seen and [very] briefly skimmed a few articles clearly opposing the WH action. If I can locate same, I'll read more closely to determine just how "vigorous" was such opposition and to whom it was directed.
Later, Jer
BTW...what about Helen Thomas' reaction which was blogged about here? To be honest, I didn't read the entire piece. But, it was apparent she disfavored the exclusion of Fox from interview pools.
That's marvelous, Jer, but I need "many" examples.
October 26, 2009 - 13:36 ET by Mike BrattonAnd if my failing memory serves, "vigorous" was your word, not mine--so however you define "vigorous" will work for the purposes of this discussion.
The upcoming ABC miniseries "V" reminds me (unintentionally, I'm certain) of the Obama administration's attitude regarding the press when one of their aliens (pun intended) tells a report he must "be sure not to ask anything that would paint us in a negative light."
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Mike...
October 26, 2009 - 13:51 ET by JerPoint taken (re "vigorous"), and I actually thought about noting that in my reply, but figured it was a.) obvious and b.) regardless of who first used the term, it is still somewhat elastic in interpretation. In other words, an example of "strong critcism" could be cited and still be rejected by you for failure to meet your definition of "vigorous condemnation". No?
And how many is "many" examples?
:-)
Jer
MikeB
October 26, 2009 - 14:33 ET by MrShyNow Jer wants to know how many "many's".
When you ask Jer a simple question, there will undoubtably be, on average, 7-8 requests for clarification on semantics, hypotheticals, etc., before the question is answered... well, answered half-cocked, at least.
He usually can't answer the question, so he's biding his time.
We love Jer.
Mike
October 26, 2009 - 13:40 ET by MrShyLook, above! Jer's argument/debate tactics:
1) He claims there were many "vigorous" condemnations -- using an adjective of his choosing.
2) You ask him to provide some examples.
3) He returns empty-handed and asks if the definition of the word "vigorous" (his chosen adjective) can be clarified.
Fun fun with Jer.
Shy...
October 26, 2009 - 13:58 ET by JerI would tread lightly with criticism of other's debate tactics, inasmush as your favorite ploy seems to be attacking someone by "proxy". Why not respond directly if you have a point to make?
I had just logged on for the first time in a couple of days, noticed Mike's post and responded immediately.
Honestly, don't you have something better to do than engage in such trivialities?
Jer
Mike...How about
October 26, 2009 - 17:10 ET by JerMike...
How about "Obama's dumb war" penned by the liberal, Ruth Marcus, of The Washington Post. And, not surprisingly, Charles Krauthammer, a conservative Post columnist absolutely eviscerated the administration's behavior.
The LA Times published an article just today entitled "Fox News relishes Obama administration scorn" which was more matter-of-factual, but it certainly didn't endorse the administration's position.
Nor did the NYT which opined that the Obama administration had "brought a knife to a gunfight", and closed with (in typical Times understatement)...
"The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it's time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html?fta=y
Although most at dKos understandably supported Obama against Fox, this diarist expressed a contrarian view:
"The wars I think about every single day are occuring in Iraq and Afghanistan--senseless horrible and destructive. I for one am not going to enlist in a war against Fox News. It's a stupid surge that may fire up knee-jerk-us-against-them reaction, but I do not see a winning end game."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/23/43521/064
Jer
Jer
October 26, 2009 - 17:20 ET by MrShySorry to interject, but of these, only one (the WaPo one -- plus Krauthammer's, of course, but he's a Fox regular) quasi-"vigorously" "condemns" the Obama administration's behavior.
Okay, Shy... Back up a
October 26, 2009 - 17:38 ET by JerOkay, Shy...
Back up a minute. Mike was originally referring to [presumably] offical network positions regarding the Obama adminstration vs. Fox. But ThisnThat specifically mentioned "individuals" starting to offer the "honest mistake" excuse. Note it was ThisnThat's post to which I responded.
I have seen many vigorous objections from individuals, mostly from conservatives, but some from liberal commenters on websites (who have expressed strong disapproval as I have done). Frankly, it seems the major organs of the MSM take a rather dim view of the administration's anti-Fox policy. One manifestation of that is the subject of Brent's laudatory blog.
What I have yet to see is the "honest mistake" rationale advanced by TnT. Perhaps he can provide some examples.
Jer
Jer
October 26, 2009 - 17:48 ET by MrShyFair enough regarding TnT. We await his findings.
But that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of finding us at least a few examples of people in the media really, "vigorously" "condemning" (I put that one in quotes, too, to emphasis your key chose of words) Obama's war with Fox.
Krauthammer appears to be the only one who truly did this. WaPo seems to "lament" the administration's choice to go this route, as do the others. Hardly condemnations, much less vigorous ones.
Well, Shy... At least
October 26, 2009 - 19:15 ET by JerWell, Shy...
At least your proving the need for precision in wording--the very thing you frequently ridicule me for attempting to ensure.
Maybe "condemnation" was an overstatement on my part--if it's applied soley to media figures and not extended to commenters in general. But, I'll stand by "vigorously" no matter what the context. In my opinion, Helen Thomas' criticism was vigorous. Certainly the remarks of Donny Deutch would qualify. Both of those incidents were blogged about here at NB. And, Jake Tapper of ABC left little doubt how he felt about the policy.
Time to shift the focus to TnT's allegation. Agreed?
Jer
Well, good for them!
October 23, 2009 - 15:31 ET by motherbeltThe opening line is the money quote:
"Not even Richard Nixon would have dared try this.
It goes to show just how arrogant this President is, thinking he could get away with this.
I wonder who he will blame it on.
PS: I asked jokingly a few days ago, during this brouhaha, if Fox is not a news network, why are they allowed at WH press conferences? WorldNetDaily was excluded for a long time because they were "not a legitimate news organization."
More proof that you really can't make this stuff up.
Arrogant? No. More Like Dangerous.
October 23, 2009 - 17:17 ET by Gat New YorkI am one who believes that Obama is Soros' puppet and is surrounded by hired guns who are loyal to Soros. I don't think Obama is smart or experienced enough to actually be calling the shots.
This Administration is flagrantly seeking to breach the Constitution in order to transform this country into socialism.
One of the most fundamental rights we have is the freedom of speech and NO President has sought intentionally to negate that freedom by overtly censuring the news.
This only happens in banana republics and dictatorships.
Maybe this was the tipping point where the mainstream press realizes that they are being played and will start to actually do some news reporting.
Obama is trying this stuff
October 23, 2009 - 18:00 ET by ThisnThatObama is trying this stuff too soon. They believe all the stones are in place, and all they have to do is call the shots for the final coup on this nation. But there is still some resistance left; he's not able to do everything he wants -- yet.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
Bozell applauds networks
October 23, 2009 - 15:29 ET by holeinthehullHoleinthehull
What the MSM did for Fox news by standing up to the Whitehouse about excluding Fox from the Feinberg interviews is something the news agencies consider hallowed ground and untouchable. This administration with its Saul Alinsky techniques of separate, marginalize, and destroy those that speak against this President, and the liberals in congress, hopefully will back off before they find themselves marginalized by the voters in this country come 2010. These are trying times, we need to remain standing tall for that which we believe in.
Integrity?
October 23, 2009 - 15:50 ET by Army BratNo. They have no integrity any more than they have ethics.
They are however very aware of the effect the setting of a precedent like this would have on "journalism" in general.
What's to stop the next President,(almost undoubtedly a Conservative one...) from pulling the same crap on those "journalists" that do not "toe the line" for a Conservative agenda?
Is Chavez advising Obama? I wonder...the similarities are beginning to become unavoidable.
Obama is a liar and Truth is
killing his Marxist agenda.
" This administration ...
October 24, 2009 - 13:07 ET by MikeB" This administration ... hopefully will back off before they find themselves marginalized by the voters in this country come 2010." Why would you want this administration to back off what they are doing? The more the sheeple are forced to see this administration for what it is, the better chance we have to get conservatives elected to Congress in the mid-term elections. Take a look at how the pre-election polls are doing in Florida between Rubio and Crist, and in NY-23 between Hoffman and Scuzzyfava. In both cases, the conservative candidate is passing the RINO (or DIABLO) candidate quite handily. If the TEA partiers will go to the polls this fall, there may be a chance to elect some conservative Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents into Congress, and thereby stop Obama from Changing America from a shining beacon on a hill (thanks, Mr. Reagan) into just another third world cesspool.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
WHO Let the Kooks OUT?
October 23, 2009 - 15:36 ET by ptsonThe kooks in the media pounced on FOX with all kinds of non-sense to justify the Obama attacks on free speech. We are celebrating ONE DAY of FREE SPEECH support from the networks? My, what a lofty goal. WHO let the kooks OUT? Obama did! If we still have free speech after the next presidential inaguration, then we can celebrate!
"Self Interest"
October 23, 2009 - 15:42 ET by mad53PAIt would be nice to be able to compliment the "other" real news networks for standing up on principle, but alas we know better.
At the end of the day, human nature is to do what is one's own best self interest.
To stand by and let Fox be excluded, would establish a ground rule that future Administrations (Republican) could follow.
The media was not about to let themselves be open to any type of exclusion down the road.
It was a stand on "self interest" being praised on principle.
Very good point.
October 23, 2009 - 15:47 ET by ConservativeClarkI hope its because they all respect the first amendment, but i wouldnt be suprised if it was just a case of future CYA.
Even
October 23, 2009 - 15:48 ET by JustAl. . . a lap dog will bite when pushed too far. Kudos to the association of useful idiots for one day of integrity.
so proud
October 23, 2009 - 15:51 ET by LilyPearlI am so proud of these other networks for realizing what was really happening. They are to be commended.
I've defended Obama and
October 23, 2009 - 15:58 ET by JerI've defended Obama and his staff against charges of (being) "avowed communists and socialists", but I can't and won't defend them in their war with Fox against charges of sheer stupidity.
Jer
How can you defend Obama
October 23, 2009 - 16:27 ET by bse5150How can you defend Obama and his staff of being avowed Communists and Socialists - now Maoists, when everything they do and all the people around them is/are less like Capitalism literally by the day? He has ADMITTED Maoists in the organization, ADMITTED Communists, and his most fervent followers are hardcore Socialists and Leftists.
I don't know how much more evidence you need that the President is a Socialist/Communist/Maoist himself.
Jer
October 23, 2009 - 16:39 ET by MrShyWhy/how you're not scared s***less by this administration is beyond pretty much all of us here.
EDIT: There's just such an amazingly vast array of evidence, newly revealed almost daily and highlighted on NB, that only points to one very scary trend... oh well. Jer whistles past the graveyard.
Will you defend this?
October 23, 2009 - 17:37 ET by Mike BrattonOne reason Obama wants journalists to be cowed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
An interesting day. Mr. Bozell and Helen Thomas on same page.
October 23, 2009 - 16:32 ET by Gary HallI can almost take a breath - for a moment.
(;~> gary
Gary... You and me
October 23, 2009 - 16:47 ET by bigtimerGary...
You and me both.
Been simply amazing this week eh?
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
bt
October 23, 2009 - 17:15 ET by Gary HallYou want to know what's odd here? OK, sure you do. I'm running into folks - on that side of the spectrum - that were, in these cases, rather strong Obama supporters, but who's news reading and watching are limited to such MSM stalwarts as the LA Times, NY Times, Newsweek and the nightly news - and they don't know what's going on out there this week. A political war has been waged - and they still believe that this WH is squeaky clean, protecting the constitution, focused on winning in Afghanistan, and is the most open and transparent in recent history.
It may pass and not be a part of history.
Of course, nothing surprising there.
(;~> g
ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN
October 23, 2009 - 17:17 ET by nolotrippenWelcome to professional ethics.
“It is almost impossible to distinguish a politician from a gangster.” (Will Durant, 1931)
The Press briefly acknowledged the 800lb gorilla in the room
October 23, 2009 - 18:09 ET by katainkentI'll reserve judgement until I see what they do with it.
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
Me too
October 23, 2009 - 18:55 ET by general companyThey aint snapping out of it that quick
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I sense a hairline crack in
October 23, 2009 - 18:44 ET by Kat Outta the BagI sense a hairline crack in the Kool-Aid pitcher.
Well I think this is Gibbs' little plan
October 23, 2009 - 19:11 ET by nwahsI don't think Gibbs is particularly intelligent, and this little blunder has his fingerprints all over it. I'll be surprised if he isn't replaced before Obama's term is out.
I disagree nwahs...I think
October 23, 2009 - 19:37 ET by JerI disagree nwahs...I think it was a conscious plan hatched at, and orchestrated by, the highest levels of the administration, including senior staff and Obama himself, to confront Fox directly, marginalize the network, and "teach it a lesson".
I'm anything but a Fox fan, but this was puddin'headed strategy--a colossal blunder which has backfired, and rightly so.
Jer
Can. You. Dig. It?
October 23, 2009 - 20:21 ET by Free StinkerJer!
Good for you! You win the the "Juan Williams, Very Liberal, but Still Honest" award.
Everyone, let's give it up for Jer! w00t !!
Golf
October 23, 2009 - 20:24 ET by general companyclap,
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Thanks, Free....
October 23, 2009 - 20:45 ET by JerThanks, Free...
Coincidentally, Juan has invited me over to sit a spell with him on his front porch and talk about it. ;-)
Jer
thanks free---
October 23, 2009 - 22:55 ET by matthewdeanhi there jer,
glad to see that that while you stick up for your beliefs, as you should, you very admirably zinged the current administration, and i liked the phrase, for their - sheer stupidity -.
consider yourself commended.
your rejoinder - juan has invited me over to sit a spell with him on his front porch-
was up there with the great ones.
too funny.
cheers.
md
You know guys I have always respected Juan.
October 23, 2009 - 23:30 ET by MightyMouthI think it's a shame he has been called an "Uncle Tom" (by the "true" blacks) is tragic and hurts the man(and his race for that matter) but as a middle age white man I have known real discrimination ever since everyone else got their "freedom"!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
w-a-s-m
October 24, 2009 - 00:29 ET by matthewdeanyep.
white-anglo-saxon-male.
only non-protected, non-entitled breather on the planet earth.
political correctness is hammering us around, down, and into the ground.
irony of ironies - absolutely none of the entitlement pods in our society today would have what they have if not for the efforts of the aforementioned species, the hated, good-old-boy-network that was generally made up of older, successful, white males.
sad.
md
I just think we simply lost
October 24, 2009 - 00:52 ET by general companyOur sense of humor,,,,,,, Our pc world has made everyong worry about getting their feelings hurt. We should be able to make fun of each other. Seems some folks are never happy, unless they are defending themselves.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I gotta agree, Jer-
October 23, 2009 - 20:41 ET by SickofLibsI don't believe Gibbs has any input into strategy at this level. He's strictly a satellite bookshelf speaker, and a piss-poor one at that.
nwahs~
October 23, 2009 - 20:16 ET by Kat Outta the BagYou're giving Gibbs far too much credit. He's simply a mouthpiece for the Obama administration, nothing more.
WHOOSH
October 23, 2009 - 21:33 ET by cajun2That whoosh was a one handed applause. I am not convinced until I see them with stories with substance not discourse on how fox would have covered it or why they covered the story first. Gibbs is not smart enough to plan this attack all on his own. It appears to be a very detailed plan of action by this administration. But it will be interesting to see if this trend of watchdog continues. I will wait for NB to let me know because I still dont have the starch to watch the Fringe media myself. Thanks anyway Mr.Bozell.
The problem is.....
October 24, 2009 - 09:43 ET by Patriot IIThis arrogant ass in the white house is believing his own press releases!!!