FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
Anita Dunne, the White House director of communications, has declared war against Fox News. She calls the network an arm of the Republican party. Now, some of you will agree with this thought, even though I have shown study after study in the past declaring them the fairest of the networks. That isn't the issue here. My question is, is it a wise political move for an administration to go to war against a television network?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I would like to cite several articles from Foxnews.com.
I will start by detailing the battle. Anita Dunn went on CNN and stated the Fox was not a legitimate news source.
Really? The commentators on Fox are conservative. The network was started that way, as an answer to CNN and MSNBC, which slant left, and according to a Harvard study, slant further left than Fox does right. Fine, I will grant you this point. But, please, tell me, Ms. Dunn, which story that they've run has been untrue? Is the education czar not a NAMBLA sypathizer? Is Van Jones not a communist? Did ACORN not offer advice, in multiple offices, on how to dodge taxes, run a brothel, and smuggle underage prostitutes into the country?
Ms. Dunn, what is wrong with Chris Wallace fact checking your administration? Should they allow you to lie, or should he catch you like he did? Isn't this a service to the nation? Isn't it the responsibility of a news network to fact check everything that goes on the air?
Ms. Dunn is completely out of line in her assertion that other news networks shun Fox because they fact checked the administration. Perhaps Fox speaks for the people who are tired of being lied to by the administration. This administration promised transparency in government, yet refuses to put any copies of the health care plan online. The simple fact is that the elderly are against this plan, the middle aged are against the plan, and the youth are for it. The fear of the administration is that if the bill is available online for the public, the youth might read it, realize that 10% of their money, on top of taxes will go to the public health care or they will have to pay a fine. The administration feels that the youth might revolt against them, so they hide the truth in hopes of maintaining the 48% approval rating they enjoy now. Is this transparency in government, or is this an administration lying to the people to pass a plan that they tried to ramrod down America's throat just this summer. What is the need to expedite legislation that doesn't take effect until 2013?
Ms. Dunn has been offered an avenue to call Fox on the lies she claims they tell. Enter Glen Beck's red phone.
Now, I know she won't call, but ever since Fox went on the offensive, I haven't heard the administration mention a specific lie. They have several daily press briefings, and multiple outlets to broadcast these lies, but they haven't done so. I believe the administration thought that they could count on support for their wild theory without actually checking on it first. Democratic strategists, from Donna Brazille to David Gergen have all called this a bad political move. The administration seems to think to alienating the number one news networks viewers is a good idea. They feel that these are votes they weren't getting anyway, but according to democratic pollster, Dick Morris, this is untrue. His polling indicates that Fox News' viewership consists of 50% conservatives, 30% liberals, and 20% moderates. Rasmussen's recent polling indicates that Obama is losing ground with moderates, and he is ignoring a large block of the people he needs to win a second term.
Obama has been avoiding the network. He has not been on it since an October 2008 interview with Bill O'Reilly. This interview has been credited with being the most fair interview Obama faced during his campaign.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838954,00.html
The attacks are not having the desired effect. First of all, Fox News' ratings are up 20% since the attacks started. The old saying goes, that it is stupid to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, and Fox certainly has barrels to waste.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/po...dumb_war_with_fox_news.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Furthermore, the attacks are making the administration look weak. Why are they not out discussing issues? It's not Fox that keeps them from passing any legislation. They have a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, and a rock hard majority in the house. It's the disorganization of the party that keeps them from succeeding, and passing the blame looks petulant and childish. They are not getting credit for standing up for themselves, they are looking like kids who dropped their lollipop and told the teacher that it was stolen.
In conclusion, I think the administration would serve itself to go back to the issues and stop with the attacks. This is a battle they cannot win. Do they think that they are going to take down the largest media conglomerate in the world by accusing them of lies with no facts? Of course not. They are trying to distract Fox from reporting on the issues and hoping that the MSNBC lovefest is enough to save their staggering approval ratings and faltering agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I would like to cite several articles from Foxnews.com.
I will start by detailing the battle. Anita Dunn went on CNN and stated the Fox was not a legitimate news source.
Really? The commentators on Fox are conservative. The network was started that way, as an answer to CNN and MSNBC, which slant left, and according to a Harvard study, slant further left than Fox does right. Fine, I will grant you this point. But, please, tell me, Ms. Dunn, which story that they've run has been untrue? Is the education czar not a NAMBLA sypathizer? Is Van Jones not a communist? Did ACORN not offer advice, in multiple offices, on how to dodge taxes, run a brothel, and smuggle underage prostitutes into the country?
Ms. Dunn, what is wrong with Chris Wallace fact checking your administration? Should they allow you to lie, or should he catch you like he did? Isn't this a service to the nation? Isn't it the responsibility of a news network to fact check everything that goes on the air?
Ms. Dunn is completely out of line in her assertion that other news networks shun Fox because they fact checked the administration. Perhaps Fox speaks for the people who are tired of being lied to by the administration. This administration promised transparency in government, yet refuses to put any copies of the health care plan online. The simple fact is that the elderly are against this plan, the middle aged are against the plan, and the youth are for it. The fear of the administration is that if the bill is available online for the public, the youth might read it, realize that 10% of their money, on top of taxes will go to the public health care or they will have to pay a fine. The administration feels that the youth might revolt against them, so they hide the truth in hopes of maintaining the 48% approval rating they enjoy now. Is this transparency in government, or is this an administration lying to the people to pass a plan that they tried to ramrod down America's throat just this summer. What is the need to expedite legislation that doesn't take effect until 2013?
Ms. Dunn has been offered an avenue to call Fox on the lies she claims they tell. Enter Glen Beck's red phone.
Now, I know she won't call, but ever since Fox went on the offensive, I haven't heard the administration mention a specific lie. They have several daily press briefings, and multiple outlets to broadcast these lies, but they haven't done so. I believe the administration thought that they could count on support for their wild theory without actually checking on it first. Democratic strategists, from Donna Brazille to David Gergen have all called this a bad political move. The administration seems to think to alienating the number one news networks viewers is a good idea. They feel that these are votes they weren't getting anyway, but according to democratic pollster, Dick Morris, this is untrue. His polling indicates that Fox News' viewership consists of 50% conservatives, 30% liberals, and 20% moderates. Rasmussen's recent polling indicates that Obama is losing ground with moderates, and he is ignoring a large block of the people he needs to win a second term.
Obama has been avoiding the network. He has not been on it since an October 2008 interview with Bill O'Reilly. This interview has been credited with being the most fair interview Obama faced during his campaign.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838954,00.html
The attacks are not having the desired effect. First of all, Fox News' ratings are up 20% since the attacks started. The old saying goes, that it is stupid to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, and Fox certainly has barrels to waste.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/po...dumb_war_with_fox_news.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Furthermore, the attacks are making the administration look weak. Why are they not out discussing issues? It's not Fox that keeps them from passing any legislation. They have a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, and a rock hard majority in the house. It's the disorganization of the party that keeps them from succeeding, and passing the blame looks petulant and childish. They are not getting credit for standing up for themselves, they are looking like kids who dropped their lollipop and told the teacher that it was stolen.
In conclusion, I think the administration would serve itself to go back to the issues and stop with the attacks. This is a battle they cannot win. Do they think that they are going to take down the largest media conglomerate in the world by accusing them of lies with no facts? Of course not. They are trying to distract Fox from reporting on the issues and hoping that the MSNBC lovefest is enough to save their staggering approval ratings and faltering agenda.
