White house goes after Fox News

[Inquartata]

It depends on how you define "frittering". The administration needs to deal with the opposition,

Why?

Maybe someone should tell them about the concept of the "ignore list".

Seriously---does anyone think that other news organs were unaware of Fox's tendencies, such that they needed the Administration to wag its collective finger at them and remind them of it? I mean, I know that it thinks it's as much of an ultimate moral authority as the Bush administration did, but it might at least try being a little more subtle about it than they were...

[keith]

1) They go beyond saying "We are not going to treat them like a news organization" to urging other news organizations that "you shouldn't, either".

They are? How exactly are they managing that. There seems to be a lot of commentary along the lines of; it is accepted wisdom that you do not challenge media entities* so this policy must be proven to be a bad strategy.

2) They are frittering away their time and attention on a petty squabble that means little and will probably accomplish less, at a time when there are a few little issues to which they might just more profitably devote that time and attention. ( I mean, deciding what to do about Afghanistan, maybe? )

How is it different from wasting time defending against the pre-policy allegations?

I also shake my head at all of these statements about what the Bush administration did. Whatever happened to the Obama administration's moral high ground, its supposed superiority to the tactics and practices of "the worst President in history"? Now he's adopting some of the same tactics and practices, and it's suddenly OK?

Now you are stating to sound like Slim .

I'm curious of this requirement for perfection. After all it's not as if the GoP even considered meeting him halfway. FoxNews didn't shrug it's shoulders and modify its editorial stance after the American People rendered their opinion (which is an interesting contrast to NewsCorp newspapers in the UK). To get back to your Afghanistan point, do the republicans really think Obama should flood Afganistan with troops or are they just talking up the maximum request in the belief that Obama won't make that call?

*This despite the fact that media favoritism is as old as politics.

[Inquartata]

They are? How exactly are they managing that.

You realize that the actual quote made it even more explicit, right?

According to David Axelrod, ""The bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way."

To get back to your Afghanistan point, do the republicans really think Obama should flood Afganistan with troops or are they just talking up the maximum request in the belief that Obama won't make that call?

Personally, I'd just like to see him make a decision. ANY decision. Do SOMEthing, instead of endless dithering while the situation for the troops deteriorates and the Taliban wax.

This is why I was so concerned about his lack of executive experience in any capacity back before the election...

[Slim]

But do your assumptions hold true?

Sure FOX has good TV ratings, but what does that mean in regards to the voting public?

First off, there is only one far right network so the others split the rest of the political spectrum. That makes FOX appear bigger than any individual competitor, but not bigger than the whole. It's like the PC industry, compare Mac versus PC and Mac loses big time, but compare Apple to any individual PC manufacturer and they look pretty strong.

Second, the last election showed a very clear correlation between age and voting preference. The Republicans do very poorly among young voters and gain votes as the age increases until you see most seniors voting conservative. This relates to TV viewing in that seniors are much more likely to get their news from TV while the younger demographic has shifted online. This means that Republicans are probably over-represented as a percentage of the TV news viewing population which would skew ratings away from actual voting trends.

Finally, there are some who believe that at some point you must speak truth to idiocy and not just sit silently and hope it will go away. There are many who believe that Obama has been far too conciliatory to the frothing naysayers, and that he needs to get tough and wield the power he's been given as he sees fit; it worked for Cheney.

Note: Your commenting on intellectual honesty was a good laugh. Certainly there are biases in commentary from various networks, but FOX blatantly lies and distorts to support their agenda, and that is unacceptable. Intellectual honesty would be nice though...

Truth to idiocy. Yeah. A crusader of good. Purveyor of honesty.

Silly liberal.

[Slim]

You realize that the actual quote made it even more explicit, right?

According to David Axelrod, ""The bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way."



Personally, I'd just like to see him make a decision. ANY decision. Do SOMEthing, instead of endless dithering while the situation for the troops deteriorates and the Taliban wax.

This is why I was so concerned about his lack of executive experience in any capacity back before the election...

Its called voting "present".

[Hauptman]

Truth to idiocy. Yeah. A crusader of good. Purveyor of honesty.

Silly liberal.

As usual you post your opinion and then when there is a logical refutation of your flawed position you simply ignore it, and follow up with ridicule instead.

Nice job, Slim. You are nothing if not consistant.

[Slim]

As usual you post your opinion and then when there is a logical refutation of your flawed position you simply ignore it, and follow up with ridicule instead.

Nice job, Slim. You are nothing if not consistant.

Sorry, you invalidated your entire argument when you jumped on Fox for "Blatantly" lying and distorting...like it never happens on any other network.

I was with you until that point, but you're silliness was called out. Again.

[Hauptman]

Personally, I'd just like to see him make a decision. ANY decision. Do SOMEthing, instead of endless dithering while the situation for the troops deteriorates and the Taliban wax.

This is why I was so concerned about his lack of executive experience in any capacity back before the election...

What is with people on this issue?!!

The final goal of our being in Afghanistan is to have a reliable democratic gov't in place there that can maintain rule of law, right? SO in case nobody was paying attention they just had an election with a very poor outcome.

So the expectation is that Obama should just hurry up and make a decision before this election debacle is sorted out? You don't think it's a good idea to wait until the election is resolved before making these crucial decisions?!

Why is this an issue? If they can't even hold fair elections and have a basic functioning gov't then our being there is a moot point. He should be waiting to see how this essential element of a stable gov't plays out.

[Slim]

What is with people on this issue?!!


The final goal of our being in Afghanistan is to have a reliable democratic gov't in place there that can maintain rule of law, right? SO in case nobody was paying attention they just had an election with a very poor outcome.

So the expectation is that Obama should just hurry up and make a decision before this election debacle is sorted out? You don't think it's a good idea to wait until the election is resolved before making these crucial decisions?!

Why is this an issue? If they can't even hold fair elections and have a basic functioning gov't then our being there is a moot point. He should be waiting to see how this essential element of a stable gov't plays out.

Sucks when people dont see your way, huh?

Obviously you've never been in the military, nor have any family or close friends currently deployed in Afghanistan. Dont lie now...only Fox does that.

If its that much of a mess, we GTFO. Otherwise we double down and finish things.

But you prefer we continue to sit around letting our guys continue to be targets while Obama figures out the nuances of the situation and how his decision will effect his poll numbers and his ability to force a healthcare bill down our throats.

Personally, I'd like to see it all paved over, but I'm a mean spirited conservative. (who thinks weed and prostitution should be legalized)

[jessicasimpson]

If its that much of a mess, we GTFO. Otherwise we double down and finish things.

Why would we limit ourselves to only 2 choices?

[jessicasimpson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ

I can't find anything like this about MSNBC

Edit: My favorite was when they insinuated that Obama had gay sex with Chavez

[Hauptman]

Sucks when people dont see your way, huh?

Obviously you've never been in the military, nor have any family or close friends currently deployed in Afghanistan. Dont lie now...only Fox does that.

If its that much of a mess, we GTFO. Otherwise we double down and finish things.

But you prefer we continue to sit around letting our guys continue to be targets while Obama figures out the nuances of the situation and how his decision will effect his poll numbers and his ability to force a healthcare bill down our throats.

Personally, I'd like to see it all paved over, but I'm a mean spirited conservative. (who thinks weed and prostitution should be legalized)

Here ya go, Slim... no strawman this time.... that is what you call a false dichotomy.

Personally, I think that our troops would rather the current president take the time to make a smart decision rather than the quick decisions made by the previous president that got them into this mess.

I do agree with you on that last part though.... legalize pot and prostitution, and yes, you are mean-spirited.

[I_luv_saber]

Shame on you. Backpeddling. At least stand your ground.

I wish I could take back my reps to you.

Oh, I'm not. I said it applies to almost no one here.

But if it really bothers you, I'll give 'em back

[I_luv_saber]

I'm curious of this requirement for perfection.

You misunderstand. It's not a requirement for perfection, it's calling shenanigans when people fall back on "Well Bush did it too" when their whole platform was to do things better. Sorry, that doesn't sound super unfair to me.

It's not asking for perfection - it's asking not to cop out with a "Well Bush did it too" argument. Just because the other guy was wrong, doesn't make you right.

[Bayou Bum]

What is with people on this issue?!!

The final goal of our being in Afghanistan is to have a reliable democratic gov't in place there that can maintain rule of law, right? SO in case nobody was paying attention they just had an election with a very poor outcome.

So the expectation is that Obama should just hurry up and make a decision before this election debacle is sorted out? You don't think it's a good idea to wait until the election is resolved before making these crucial decisions?!

Why is this an issue? If they can't even hold fair elections and have a basic functioning gov't then our being there is a moot point. He should be waiting to see how this essential element of a stable gov't plays out.

What ever happened to having an exit strategy and timelines? Wasn't that what the democrats were screaming for when GB was in charge in Iraq? Why should it be any different for Obama. And isn't our goal in Afghanistan to kill the terrorist that caused 9/11. Why do you hold Obama to different standards than you did Bush? Never mind the last question, we all know the answer.

[keith]

You realize that the actual quote made it even more explicit, right?

According to David Axelrod, ""The bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way."

.... and if they don't? The trouble here is that sabre rattling is just that. What exactly are they actually doing (other than traditional outlet favoritism)? Fine for folk to use words like threaten, attack, silence but unless the White house actually does something it's so much hot air. Sounds to me as much about reminding folk that just because the previous administration went with Foxnews talking points, don't expect this one to.

Personally, I'd just like to see him make a decision. ANY decision. Do SOMEthing, instead of endless dithering while the situation for the troops deteriorates and the Taliban wax.

This is why I was so concerned about his lack of executive experience in any capacity back before the election...

In doing something you mean like getting Karzai to back down over vote fraud and agree to a run off?

I'm not sure that making a quick decision on troops is such a big deal - the situation was pretty bad, and whatever Obama does confirms his ownership of the policy and the outcome. Although amidst all the cheesy talk of a new national Chicago politics I'm surprised the Italian option isn't getting more consideration.

[MdA]

.......
Why is this an issue? If they can't even hold fair elections and have a basic functioning gov't then our being there is a moot point. He should be waiting to see how this essential element of a stable gov't plays out.

They won't have a stable government if we don't win the war. If the President doesn't make a decision now, the troops won't get there in time for the Taliban's Spring offensive. That is the entire point.

[keith]

It's not asking for perfection - it's asking not to cop out with a "Well Bush did it too" argument. Just because the other guy was wrong, doesn't make you right.

Actually yes you are. After all if the claim is that the Obama administration can not in any way, ever, act like any previous administration then it's silliness.

Politicians are elected with legislative agendas, they do stuff to get those through. Sure you expect them to do it legally but beyond that .

Would the stuff that the Obama administration does be different if FoxNews was running some sort of serious discussion of the issues around health care? I suspect it would be. Although I'd agree that the silliest election claim was a new dawning of non-partisan politics. After all it kind of depends on the other guys .

[lindajdunn]

What ever happened to having an exit strategy and timelines?

Before you have an exit strategy and timelines, you first need to have a goal, which leads to...

And isn't our goal in Afghanistan to kill the terrorist that caused 9/11

If that's the goal, it's one that's not worth the resources we're expending to achieve it. Revenge might make some people feel better and - as a short term goal - it's not necessarily a bad one but it's not going to do anything to prevent another attack. The goal should, imho, be to eliminate the conditions that have led to the growth of terrorist organizations in that country and especially to the focus of terrorists organizations upon US interests.

The Russians spent at least 10 years in Afghanstain and accomplished nothing. We seem doomed to repeat their mistakes.

[keith]

They won't have a stable government if we don't win the war. If the President doesn't make a decision now, the troops won't get there in time for the Taliban's Spring offensive. That is the entire point.

I think that is the reason to actually have a good long think. If you double down, and given the territory size that is probably an order of magnitude out, what are you doing it for?

If there is no functioning government it's a bust.

If Pakistan doesn't hold the line on activities in it's territory it's a bust.

If the GoP suddenly decide to turn tail and denounce 'Nation Building' it's a bust.

Now I sign on to the Colin Powell line that if you break it you fix it. The trouble is there is no stomach anywhere on the political spectrum to actually do that.