when fox news gave up on “fair and balanced” news and replaced it with shock-jock-style right-wing opinion hours, they lost credibility. their bias is obvious with all their bowing to the previous administration, being the republican echo chamber, and the championing of the iraq invasion.
fox made it clear that they don’t care to report what this administration considers important, while they choose instead to attack his policies and him personally by propagating and sometimes originating lies about both. to be a news organization, you sort of have to behave like one.
this administration is entitled to an opinion, just as the bush administration had an opinion on what it considered a “news organization”… jeff gannon ring any bells?

Anonymous
Do you ever listen to Fox News? I don’t believe they ever “bow” to the previous administration. They often state that many of the monetary woes we see today started with that administration. Perhaps you should tune into Fox and not take your spin from MSNBC.

jane, i stopped watching fox on a regular basis when i got off of the republican mailing list and registered as an independent. i got tired of fox news with their constant fawning over and leg-humping of george bush, dick cheney, rove, gonzales, and rumsfeld.
defend your favorite rightie propaganda machine if you want… it shows your allegiance to ignorance. for your information, jane, i don’t watch msnbc, either. what, you don’t think that people can see fox news for what it is without being told so by it’s competitors? well, you’re wrong. however, it’s nice to know that righties fear msnbc as the anti-faux-news.
fox opinion channel has competition now. good.

What’s the matter White House (sniff, sniff, blow)? Cant’ take one media outlet and lone renegade — Jake Tapper — daring not only NOT to contradict you but not smother your behind with kisses and never question you?? As an Independent voter, I can honestly say that I have never seen such a collection of whiners, wimps and spoiled brats. YOU ARE PATHETIC! If you can’t handle this, GOD help us if we get into real trouble. Get a spine.

You guys don’t get it. If you like fox news or not they have the right to employee people to report the news. You don’t have to like what they say, but they have the right to report it. I for one cannot stand Kieth Olbermann and feel Chris Mathews has lost it and became a shadow of his prior self, but they both have the right to cover the stories they feel are important to them. That includes making comments that I don’t agree with and sometimes even turns my stomach.
The issue at hand is a White House does not agree with the opinion of a group of people so they personally attack their credibility and try to define who has a right to say what about whom. Then they don’t stop there they try to get the other people in the news business to going in on the shunning and suppression of opposing points of view.
I we get to the point where we as Americans let an administration use one news organization attack and discredit another news organization then we are quickly on the road to losing our rights to free speech.
For this reason I have to say Jake Tapper is probably the best news man in the business. Because I have a feeling that Jake does not really care for Foxes tactics, but he realizes that the most important fact of free speech is allowing a person to speak and write what they want even when you don’t agree with their views.

mr anonymous reincarnate,
1) you cited no verifiable incidents of bias and therefore I am confused about what you are referring to.
2) since when is it the media’s responsability to “to report what this administration considers important” as you said it? i thought they reported on behalf of the people’s concern?
3) why is Jane Doe in allegiance with ignorance simply b/c she differs from you in perspective? what is that all about? do we teach children that we all have to agree with each other in order to get along?
4) did you also just use competition and msnbc in the same sentence? please go view the ratings for the last year and try to be informed next time.
you honestly should reconsider how you treat other people that differ from you in perspective and I wish you well regardless.

mr anonymous reincarnate,
1) you cited no verifiable incidents of bias and therefore I am confused about what you are referring to.
2) since when is it the media’s responsability to “to report what this administration considers important” as you said it? i thought they reported on behalf of the people’s concern?
3) why is Jane Doe in allegiance with ignorance simply b/c she differs from you in perspective? what is that all about? do we teach children that we all have to agree with each other in order to get along?
4) did you also just use competition and msnbc in the same sentence? please go view the ratings for the last year and try to be informed next time.
you honestly should reconsider how you treat other people that differ from you in perspective and I wish you well in trying to do so.

mr indypendent,
1) if you need for me to cite fox’s bias, then you you live in a cave or you’re devout fox customer (i.e. sold on their b.s.). it’s not my job to cite their bias, as it has been done by many other organizations dedicated to the task. i suppose that this is your first visit here, since i don’t recall you ever asking for the same sort of citations from rightwingers here when they regularly blab about the MSM “liberal bias”.
http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.newshounds.us/
there’s enough there to occupy you for a few years, if you care to read it. i doubt you will though.
2) who said that it was the media’s responsibility to report what this administration considers important? if fox wants to pursue the birther’s agenda to the ends of the earth, that’s their choice. but it’s also why they lose credibility as a news outlet. i don’t blame the white house for not catering to fox… it’s not their responsibility.
3) jane’s not in allegience with ignorance “simply b/c she differs” from me in perspective. it’s because she comes here to defend fox and believes their tag-line “fair and balanced” (see 1 and 2).
4) did you just make a claim and not supply verifiable citations? it’s okay for you, but i have to supply you with data? heh. no worries, because competition is competition – every person watching msnbc is one less tuning into fox. any “informed” person would know that. if it wasn’t an issue, righties wouldn’t keep mentioning msnbc and constantly attacking the “liberal” media.
you’re welcome to have a different opinion, but when you or jane or anyone else think that you can attack me or my intelligence and expect me let it go, you’re wrong. too bad you can’t live up to your own expectations.

jeff, the bush administration did this extensively (with the help of the right-wing echo chamber) to discredit the NYT, WaPo and CBS. do you remember? well, the media companies survived. and guess what? nobody lost their right to free speech! although dan rather did lose his job and nobody bothered to prove his story wrong, instead they attacked the messenger. can we assume that you thought the same thing back then?
so, what don’t we get, jeff? that the right-wing is full of hypocrites whining about nothing? trust me, we get it.
i think your response is extremist. nobody in the white house has is trying to define who has a right to say what about whom. or maybe you can back up that claim for my sake and for mr indy (i know he loves verifiable citations).
so what if they don’t like fox? the administration doesn’t have a responsibility to cater to every right-wing gossip/opinion mouth piece that rupert murdoch employs. as good as it is at playing the victim, the reich-wing media needs to get over itself.
even if the president said it was daylight out, fox would get it wrong and report that it was night, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. the sad commentary underneath it all is that fox news viewers would have to close the shades on the windows to better see the story that they were about to accept as gospel.
“never seen such a collection of whiners, wimps and spoiled brats”
wylie, i guess you haven’t watched enough of the fox opinion channel. i’ve seen plenty of clips of hannity, and especially beck and o’reilly whining up a storm and bawling their eyes out. aaaaw… snubbed by the popular guy hurts, eh faux news? i’m sure it’s especially so, considering the stark contrast from a year ago of almost a decade of mutual butt-kissing with the previous administration!

“The issue at hand is a White House does not agree with the opinion of a group of people so they personally attack their credibility and try to define who has a right to say what about whom”
Precisely.
It’s about destroying free speech and silencing opposing opinions.
IMO, we all should be concerned when the White house singles out an entity (private of public) for destruction.
Whose to say you who might support the WH “opinion” on Fox won’t be next?

What a bizarre assumption! The White House has to choose what media outlets to grant interviews to, what channels to do live appearances on, etc. They choose not to indulge FOX News because, like many “fair and balanced” viewers, they can plainly see that FOX is a partisan organization with a political axe to grind. An axe they’d like to “grind” on Obama.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
This has zero to do with censorship.
Transparency in the White House means telling the truth and sharing the opinions of the President. So when Gibbs shares some opinions about FOX News, the right wingers freak out like he ran over their dog. Ridiculous.

You can’t censor/shutout a legitimate news organization, which FOX is, because you don’t agree with their opinion. Before everybody starts spouting Right Wing Conspiracy theories, think Van Jones, Acorn, Anita Dunn..Those aren’t legitimate news stories? I don’t know about you but I would like to know that Anita Dunn is trying to “control the press” and that “the person she turns to the most philosophically is Mao” or that Van Jones is an unapologetic communist and a racist or that ACORN has defrauded the American taxpayers out of millions of dollars and is OK with stealing tax dollars to start brothels. The only place you’ll get that is at Fox. All other networks…silence. WHY? The press should be a watchdog. Fox is the only NEWS organization that fits that bill. The rest are in the tank-lapdogs-lackeys-suck ups. Where’s the press’s outrage? That’s a story in itself. Kudos to Jake Tapper for having a pair and stand up to a White House and a president who can’t take criticism and who tried to muscle other media outlets (talk about transparent!) with their goons Axelrod and Emanuel on Sunday.

“a president who can’t take criticism”
this one always makes me chuckle. this president takes plenty of criticism (being equated to hitler, called a racist, a communist, a socialist, a traitor just for starters), but he’s not afraid to set the record straight when fox news is propagating lies about him or his policies (federally funded abortions, death panels, free healthcare to undocumented immigrants, etc). at the same time, he’s one of the more self-critiquing presidents in decades. he admits he’s only human. he admits mistakes. how far did the previous president go down that path?
cosmo, there are several factual mistakes apparent in your comment, but i’ll just leave it at this: right-wing criticisms of censorship are ridiculous.

alleen,
This “right winger” is certainly not freaking out.
But you must be naive to think that President Obama is not trying to control the media, as stated by Ms. Dunn recently.
Isn’t it interesting that Fox has become a target of the Administration after Mr. Alies’ chat with Rahm? Wonder how that meeting went?
On second thought, I guess we do know…

I’ve been out of the loop lately and unable to comment. But here is my thought:
Whatever your opinion of Fox News or any other news organization is, MSNBC, CNN, etc., and whether you think they are right leaning or left leaning in their presentations, you should be very concerned when an administration seeks to define what is or is not a news outlet.
There is little doubt that those cheering on the administration on this issue or defending them in any way would be outraged if this was a cobservative administration doing the same thing to say, MSNBC. And your outrage would be justified.
Fast forward three or seven years and suppose a conservative is elected after one or two Obama terms in office. Suppose that that administration turns the tables and seeks to define ANY news outlet as NEWS vs. JUST OPINION. Suppose that news outlet is one you favor. You see where I’m going.
People wake up on this one. Today you may be cheering. In the future it may be one of your favored outlets which is under attack by an administration. In this sort of thing we all lose.

“People wake up”
ah, yes… the common “wake up” call (because everyone who doesn’t see things the way you do must be sleeping).
lea, you’re not getting it. we don’t have to imagine into the future. this has already happened in the past with pretty much every administration. my point is that it’s hypocritical for conservatives to be tossing such a hysterical fit just because it’s fox on the receiving end of it now. they have no room to complain.
i will be concerned when obama actually censors fox, pulls them from the air or some such nonsense as conservatives are claiming. until that day, this administration is entitled to its opinion of fox and fox viewers will continue to whine about it.

this has already happened in the past with pretty much every administration
Could you remind us all of the specifics of these past administrations’ such actions? I cannot remember such actions.
i will be concerned when obama actually censors fox
Short sighted that statement is. Wait till the government actually executes an abrogation of rights to become concerned. Hmmm. It should concern you that the administration seeks to marginal any entity which may put forth disagreeable information. You know, first amendment and such. This is so clearly a bullying tactic and seeks to intimidate Fox (which it will not. I’m sure they are enjoying their continued dominance in the ratings) and any others who dare to disagree.
But live on in your bubble world and hope that YOUR rights are not threatened.

Heh, heh, heh! Looks like the big O has faced the media and big o has backed down. Good for the MSM showing solidarity with Fox. How do you spell arrogance? O.
http://www.google.com/reader/view/?tab=my#stream/user%2F17689469684617542470%2Fstate%2Fcom.google%2Freading-list

“Could you remind us all of the specifics of these past administrations’ such actions? I cannot remember such actions.”
oh, come on. were you born yesterday? don’t play ignorant. never heard the term “liberal media”? the right wing has been pushing that meme for years, trying to marginalize the media and especially when they report anything negative about republicans and their conservative agenda!
as for past administrations battles with the media, david carr wrote a bit about this in the new york times this week:

In his second Inaugural Address, Ulysses S. Grant said he had ‘been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history.’ President William McKinley labeled a gathering of the press a ‘congress of inventors,’ and President Franklin D. Roosevelt assigned less favored press members to his ‘Dunce Club.’

“As Americans turned to TV for news, enmity from presidents soon followed. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew said ‘self-appointed analysts’ at the Big Three networks exhibited undisguised ‘hostility’ toward President Richard M. Nixon, subjecting his speeches to ‘instant analysis and querulous criticism.’ Later, in the dispute with The Times over the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, accused the newspaper of treason.

“Neither of the Bush presidents had a particularly cozy relationship with the press. George H.W. Bush finished the campaign in 1992 with a bumper sticker that suggested, “Annoy the Media. Vote Bush.’ And George W. Bush, in the words of ABC’s Mark Halperin, viewed ‘the media as a special interest rather than as guardians of the public interest.’ Bill Clinton, too, distrusted the press, as did others in his administration.”

abc (abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=6611536) also noticed this, with sarah palin’s war against the media:

“In excerpts of a Jan. 5 interview with a conservative filmmaker, Palin unleashed a barrage of criticism at CBS News’ Katie Couric, comedian Tina Fey and the media in general.”

and cnn (www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/palin.persistent/index.html) noted the same with the mccain/palin campaign:

“The mainstream media have long served as a punching bag for conservatives, even more so in 2008, when the McCain campaign itself publicly declared that many news organizations were ‘in the tank’ for Barack Obama.”

“Short sighted that statement is. Wait till the government actually executes an abrogation of rights to become concerned. Hmmm. It should concern you that the administration seeks to marginal any entity which may put forth disagreeable information. “
less short-sighted than it is realistic. i just don’t rely on opinions by right-wingers to tell me when i should be concerned or alarmed (they have a very bad record there, you know, being unconcerned when warned about possible attacks by al qaeda that were ignored and led to the 9/11 attacks, being unconcerned about the pending danger of hurricane katrina, being overconcerned about the non-existent wmd in iraq, being unconcerned about the oncoming depression, et cetera).
your claims of censorship and stifling of the first amendment under the obama administration are way off base and reek of hypocrisy.
what did you have to say when the bush administration kept protesters 150 yards away, while at the same event, bush supporters holding a “god bless george bush!” sign were allowed to stand 15 feet from the president. what did you say when the bush administration hauled people to jail when they wore anti-bush shirts, or harassed people who had “no blood for oil” bumper stickers, or attacked and endangered people who opposed their agenda (outing cia agent, joe and valerie wilson/plame). that was true subjugation in the face of the first amendment.
“But live on in your bubble world and hope that YOUR rights are not threatened.”
again, the knee-jerk reaction and the hypocrisy of the right-winger is hilarious!
i was concerned about our rights when the patriot act was passed under the bush administration!!! where were you then? i was concerned about the first amendment when bush said that the ten commandments should be posted in public schools. where were you then? i was concerned when the republican congress made a law to except a piece of public land holding a huge cross as a christian symbol. where were you then? i was concerned when republicans led a push of legislation to keep homosexuals from their right to marry. where were you then? i was concerned when the bush administration signed legislation that intruded into the schiavo’s personal freedoms. where were you then?
has obama eliminated the second amendment and taken your guns as was feared by the right wing? no.
has obama ordered the fetus be ripped from the womb of every pregnant woman, as was feared by the right wing? no.
has obama eliminated christianity and declared islam as the national religion as was feared by the right wing? no.
will obama stop fox from reporting any lies and misinformation it chooses? no. as you pointed out yourself, this has only increased fox viewership, actually bolstering the first amendment freedom of speech.

anonymous, you are good for a laugh, that’s for sure.
The examples you copied and pasted in are not close to what Obama has sought to do. D and R presidents have always had rocky relationships with some in the press. But trying to kick out an entire news outlet? Can you honestly say that you would shrug your shoulders and say this always happens if W had tried to do that to CBS?
i was concerned about our rights when the patriot act was passed under the bush administration!!! where were you then? [I SUPPORTED THE ACTION] i was concerned about the first amendment when bush said that the ten commandments should be posted in public schools. where were you then? [I AGREED] i was concerned when the republican congress made a law to except a piece of public land holding a huge cross as a christian symbol. where were you then? [I AGREED] i was concerned when republicans led a push of legislation to keep homosexuals from their right to marry. where were you then? [THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT] i was concerned when the bush administration signed legislation that intruded into the schiavo’s personal freedoms. where were you then? [I SUPPORTED TRYING TO SAVE HER LIFE]
has obama eliminated the second amendment and taken your guns as was feared by the right wing? no. [NO RESPONSIBLE PERSON HAS SAID THAT HE INTENDS TO ELIMINATE THE 2ND AMENDMENT. SMOKESCREEN]
has obama ordered the fetus be ripped from the womb of every pregnant woman, as was feared by the right wing? no. [NO RESPONSIBLE PERSON HAS SAID HE INTENDED TO DO SUCH. HE HAS INCREASED DEATH BY WOMB AND HAS SAID HE INTENDS TO WIPE AWAY YEARS OF PRO-LIFE LEGISLATION. FOCA]
has obama eliminated christianity and declared islam as the national religion as was feared by the right wing? no. [MORE NONSENSE BY YOU. SMOKESCREEN]

LMFAO! you’re not even a reasonable person worthy of conversing with. you believe all of the right-wing fairy tales you’ve heard.
“But trying to kick out an entire news outlet?”
show me evidence that obama has tried to put an end to fox’s free speech rights. real tangible evidence. good luck.
this stuff that you call nonsense by me is not stuff that i made up. that’s what’s so hilarious! these are things that your fellow nutjob right-wingers here believe. you have such fantastical fears!!
so, let me get this straight…
bush administration bypasses fica courts to spy on citizens (that is, without warrant)… a clear violation of the constitution and you’re okay with that.
you agree with bush that 10 commandments should be posted in public schools (that is, government endorsing one religion over others)… a clear violation of religious freedom in the first amendment.
you agreed with congress when it again put its support behind the christian symbol of the cross, again endorsing one religion over others… another blatant violation of the constitution.
you’re okay with denying a certain group of people the same rights of marriage that most others have.
you support the federal government intervening in family life/death decisions against the will of the individuals involved.
most of those were very real right-wing attempts to legislatively violate or remove rights from citizens, but you get your panties in a twist because the obama administration plays favorites with some media organizations over others? you need thicker skin and so do the whiners at fox.

you’re not even a reasonable person worthy of conversing with
Then why do you continue to do so? heh, heh.
bush administration bypasses fica courts to spy on citizens (that is, without warrant)… a clear violation of the constitution and you’re okay with that. [NO IT IS NOT. IF IT WERE, IMPEACHMENT WOULD HAVE ENSUED.]
you agree with bush that 10 commandments should be posted in public schools (that is, government endorsing one religion over others)… a clear violation of religious freedom in the first amendment. [WRONG AGAIN. NOT A VIOLATION. BUT OH YEAH, TROT OUT JEFFERSON'S WALL STUFF]
you agreed with congress when it again put its support behind the christian symbol of the cross, again endorsing one religion over others… another blatant violation of the constitution. [WRONG FOR THE THIRD TIME IN THIS STENCH OF COMMENTS]
you’re okay with denying a certain group of people the same rights of marriage that most others have. [HOMOSEXUALS HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO "MARRY" THAN A MAN HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE 5 WIVES OR MARRY HIS 9 YEAR OLD COUSIN]
you support the federal government intervening in family life/death decisions against the will of the individuals involved. [I SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT FULFILLING ITS RESPONSIBILITY IN JUSTLY PROTECTING INNOCENT LIVES]
See you in your next reply to one “not even a reasonable person worthy of conversing with.”

michele, i owe you an apology for thinking you were the farthest on the fringe of right-wingers in this group.
lea, thanks for being consistent in your irrationality.
i’m actually surprised that you didn’t include “and interracial couples” in your list of those you think have no right to marriage. it seems conservatives have evolved somewhat (or have just learned not to always speak what they believe). oh, just for the record, several states disagree with your stand on marriage rights for same-sex couples.
and as a learning exercise for you, because a president violates the constitution does not mean that impeachment is imminent. the supreme court rebuffed bush and republicans on more than one occasion regarding executive powers and the patriot act. it seems that impeachment only applies when there are extramarital affairs these days.

I think you have the irrationality thing backwards. You said I was not worthy to converse with, yet you continue to do so. So who is irrational?
Ah interracial couples. Long as it is a man and a woman, as even anyone with basic knowledge of natural law would agree is what constitutes marriage, then color/race matters not.
Surprise you with that one?
Yes several states do disagree with me and most Americans on that. And several states disagree with me on euthanasia and many other things. That does not make them right and my view wrong.
And I am fully aware what constitutes impeachment.

true, you’re not. you’re sort of like a rotten egg. i know you stink, and i know i should just walk away, but i just can’t help but poke you with a sick and watch what happens.
“basic knowledge of natural law”
natural law says nothing of same-sex marriage. it’s your religious beliefs that create an opposition to it.
“That does not make them right and my view wrong.”
actually, you are wrong. the constitution says nothing about denying rights to any particular group and it says nothing about marriage. back in the day, it may have been the thing to do to deny interracial couples the right to marry, but it wasn’t supported by the constitution, and the courts agreed. it’s been a few weeks since i reviewed the constitution, but i’m pretty sure that even now it doesn’t deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
you are allowed your myopic and conservative religious views, but in my country, we don’t rule by theocracy, and we sure as hell don’t allow a minority to keep equal rights from others. you will lose.
“And I am fully aware what constitutes impeachment.”
clearly not, if you think that any executive violation of the law or constitution is followed by impeachment.

OK, we’re a bit off topic, but since you brought it up…so you believe that the constitution “says nothing about denying rights to any particular group.”
NAMBLA had a resolution, “The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. (2) We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws.”"
Does the constitution allow for what they advocate? You OK with that?
Next: From here http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/29/2009-07-29_south_carolina_man_busted_for_having_sex_with_horse.html
“A South Carolina man was busted for having sex with a horse, while on probation for having sex with the same horse.”
Should he be allowed to marry the horse?
Just wondering…