Read a little. Learn a lot. • Tightly-written news, views and stuff • Follow us on TwitterBe a Facebook Fan
 

Posted on October 25, 2009 | tags

 
 

Chatter: What’s the upside to the White House’s “War on Fox News”?

  • If the White House could persuade moderates that any story originating with Fox is politically motivated and hence suspect, it might reduce the initial impact of Fox-generated content. What the White House appears to be trying to do is reduce the migration of stories from Fox to other cable, broadcast, and print.
  • Kathleen Hall Jamieson • The director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, describing why the Obama administration seems to be so quick to go after Fox News, even though it’s a fairly controversial tactic. Maybe it’s self-preservation, since they seem to be going after Obama administration officials. Maybe it’s pushing for the moderates, not the far right. There has to be some upside here. • source
 

3 Responses to What’s the upside to the White House’s “War on Fox News”?

  1. NamelessCynic says:

    What exactly is Ms Jamieson’s defin­i­tion of a “war,” anyway?

    The White House hasn’t denied any of their reporters creden­tials, and hasn’t tried to take Fox off the air. They just don’t feel like sitting down and having to deflect massively spun questions, distor­tions and half-truths from what they’ve rightly described as the propa­ganda wing of the GOP.

    (And for all this current mania to say the White House is being “nixon­ian” lately, look up Roger Ailes’ background sometime.)

    This “war” is entirely in the drug-addled mind of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. The White House’s “attacks” are to merely say “nope — don’t want to be inter­viewed by you.” The remain­der of their input is to explain this reason­able policy, when asked. It’s Fox making the actual attacks.

    So, how is this a war? I’m just curious.

  2. NamelessCynic says:

    What exactly is Ms Jamieson’s defin­i­tion of a “war,” anyway?

    The White House hasn’t denied any of their reporters creden­tials, and hasn’t tried to take Fox off the air. They just don’t feel like sitting down and having to deflect massively spun questions, distor­tions and half-truths from what they’ve rightly described as the propa­ganda wing of the GOP.

    (And for all this current mania to say the White House is being “nixon­ian” lately, look up Roger Ailes’ background sometime.)

    This “war” is entirely in the drug-addled mind of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. The White House’s “attacks” are to merely say “nope — don’t want to be inter­viewed by you.” The remain­der of their input is to explain this reason­able policy, when asked. It’s Fox making the actual attacks.

    So, how is this a war? I’m just curious.

  3. terrence says:

    http://www.lastingliberty.com today has a good article about this today: “Fox News Obama’s Only Friend”. The author makes a great point.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Cool links!

More in Chatter (5 of 5 articles)