President Obama's Feud with FOX News

(CBS)  After months of taking incoming fire from the prime-time stars of Fox News, the Obama White House is firing back, charging that FOX News is different from all other news.

"FOX News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director.

"If media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another," Mr. Obama said.

And the White House has gone beyond words, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield. Last Sept. 20, the president went on every Sunday news show - except Chris Wallace's show on FOX. And on Thursday, the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press.

"All the networks said, that's it, you've crossed the line," said CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.

Tension between presidents and the press is as old as the Republic. FDR was so incensed by the war reporting of one New York Daily News correspondent he tried to present him with an Iron Cross from Nazi Germany. John Kennedy tried to get New York Timesman David Halberstam pulled out of Vietnam; and Vice-President Spiro Agnew's assaults on the network press is legendary.

"We have more than our share of nattering nabobs of negativism," Agnew said.

What gives this dust-up special irony is that FOX News success comes in no small part from its ability to convince its viewers that the "mainstream" media are slanted to the left. Now, the White House is arguing that the network is not a real news organization at all, and that has brought some mainstream media voices to its defense.

There's no question that FOX's prime-time voices come from the right. Moreover, its owner, Rupert Murdoch is a staunch conservative, and its first and only CEO, Roger Ailes, is a veteran of Republican media wars.

But MSNBC in prime-time has its own lineup of commentators - all of whom are on the left side of the spectrum, some of whom met with the president the White House this week.

So why is the White House out to "de-legitimize" FOX? Not because it has opinions, but because its opinion voices are so hostile to Mr. Obama - and because FOX News is, as it has been for a decade, by far the most watched of the cable news networks. In fact, its ratings have increased 13 percent this summer. So if FOX is feeling any pain from the White House's stance, it's crying all the way to the bank.

[openthewindow]

Hello, Mr Greefield,
I wonder if you and Mr. Chip Reid have done more homework on the Ken Feinberg interview furor? How about this report?

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=10704

As with most claims coming from Fox, this turned out to be a lie. Christina Bellantoni looked into the story:

Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).

But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who?d asked for the interview.

The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn?t on the list, was told that they hadn?t asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox?s Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

Simple as that, we?re told, and the networks don?t want to be seen as heroes for Fox.

TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue.

?If any member had been excluded it would have been same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues,? the bureau chief said. ?It?s all for one and one for all.?

A Treasury spokesperson added: ?There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.?

[itsok2be3350]

It would be comical that the Obama Administration is targeting Fox, if it wasn't for the sinister implications of their actions on our rights to freedom of speech. Apparently Mr. Obama would like to amend the First Amendment. Henceforth, all speech is permitted, as long as it isn't something he doesn't want to hear. The general news media conceded that it was "in the tank" for Obama during the election. Newsweek, MSNBC and CNN gave up news reporting for leftist dogma years ago. I have no problem with this, as I am willing to listen to anyone's viewpoints and arguments. I will, in fact, watch MSNBC for the amusement value. The use of the President's office (and my tax dollars) for purposes exerting a chilling effect on freedom of speech, however, should be disturbing to all Americans.

[Craigcp]

Fox News ratings have gone up 20% So all you left wing loons out keep it up and media, more you put FOX news down the more people watch, sweet revenge.

[jgsharpe]

Thanks for a good job of reporting on the Obama/Fox dust-up. The polarization in this country is very sad, and the Obama administration, for all its high-toned rhetoric, is only making things worse! I've become completely disillusioned with news outlets in general and get most of my news from the newspaper and the web, unless there's a real crisis to follow on the three 24 hour networks. Didn't someone say: "Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see?" If someone didn't, they should have!

[tele40]

...meant, 'put more money into promoting more jobs, not "costs" jobs (typo)_

[tele40]

Whatever economic model you ascribe to. The bare bone one makes sense: Less taxes and regulation for small biz, the more jobs, re-investment, goods and services made hear-means more jobs and innovation.

No one can tell me that higher taxes and energy taxes for his workers that must pay utilities and fill gas in their tank to get to work (as we concomitantly come up with bio fuel technology that is workable) translates to more jobs.

All this overhaul must be done right-uninsured must be insured by not compromising too much, and it may not be the time. Let's get a baseline catosteph. insurance, and put more money into initiatives that will cost jobs. I somehow am not buying that the health care will not come from the deficit. Again my thoughts: are about what would be necessary on how to move the country along.

We need someone who is proactive and liberal about science but a crude biz man that know show to get it done!

[tele40]

In responding to my comment : the onus is on you to bear responsibility and tell me how CNN and CNBC deal with the same interrogation that fox brings up on regarding eventualities of Obama's programs. In my estimation, they just talk about largely what Obama's programs will do, as from Obama's mouth. Why would I spend my time watching CNN when i could just read the ticker news in times Square for this?

[tele40]

Fox gives empirical reasoning why many of Obama's policies cannot be long sustaining based on in part by the fact that even Obama does not have his facts straight on how much proposed initiatives will cost. "Let's see lets buy a jet and go on vacation, wait how much will it cost know it will be much cheaper, wait how much do we have in the bank, no it's much more. no need to cross examine"
Even if you cite Fox being pro-Bush, the other left leaning networks never had programs examining empirical facts to prove or disprove what Bush was doing. All you ever heard it dissatisfaction and rhetoric, but never why. I guarantee that someone will respond to me telling me what Bush did, but wont think through why he did it-that's not examination that's an alarmist who merely reports what he sees without any more thought. That is a pamphlet news.

[owlk]

As a person who graduated in Philosophy and history, it pains me to observe american citizens characterizing FOX as "news." Like many other conservative "sources," FOX is nothing more then a modern day leaflet printed by a crazy person. If the same tripe were presented in 1870 on a pamphlet, certain people would also believe it. However, a cursory attempt to "factualize" FOX comments, or to ascertain their veracity leads almost invariably to either a dead end, as in there was no such event as they describe, or to facts that are literally 180 contradictory to what they announce as their conclusion. An example would be their nonsense about how Mexicans were "stealing jobs." Now, we have conservative republican farmers going out of business because they can't find cheap labor. With two wars and massive deregulation for 8 years, FOX blames the last 8 months or so for our present condition. FOX is notorious for publishing gossip that is unproven, "facts" that have already been discredited and innuendos about people that they have no hard evidence to back up. FOX is a talk radio puff piece, not a news service.

[tele40]

so in the same breath how do u resist not exploring or account for the liberal slanted networks and their inability to cross examine Obama admin policies?? is that under reporting or bringing to us a "thought police" initiative?? it is what is NOT SAID, not always what is said.

[tele40]

If you have studies history-you know then that every pres who inflated gov't and tried manipulating the markets-suffered a bearish economy.
Every point in history. Also, our country were founded on free -enterprise ideas- and Obama and wall street do not see eye to eye.
Even in the mess we are in, which is unprecedented.

[tele40]

There is no them and us-it's all us. The news ought to be a mirror of what really is going on. It does not take a genius to see the love fests surrounding Obama admin. in under-reporting, and in some instances not reporting at all (in most circumstances reporting it, but not giving it much coverage ) anything other then what Obama would want to be reported. Are they in bed with Obama?
I guarantee you that anti-Fox viewers are operating under blind faith assumptions spewed from main stream sources which have been not impartial, objective and slanted to the right, and unequivocally never watch fox to objectively cover their bases. It really is a blind loyalty to rhetoric. Also, compound that with most people coming up now have been brainwashed to think that any other proposed viewpoint (even though it is indisputably the only fiscally adaption) that is not their routed in their affiliated base-and all of a sudden the repetitive soundbytes fill the air Stepford wives leaving their roost, "oh my gosh, there the lunatics go again". I just discount these people as mental midgets then never ran a biz, and are all me, ,me, me and don't have a measure of success in anything financial.
Fox is the only channel that presents both sides. Hannity and Beck are opinion slated stories that invite and pool guests who hold all positions on political and social discourse. The problem stems from belief in agenda. If you are not fiscally sensitive to summize as a biz minded person that the budget on all these programs that Obama is over-leveraging himself on has historically way off the target on who much more it will wind up costing...well then you just do not have an real world business sense, and never ran a biz. Your fiscal plan is always against forward expenditures and mitigating risks. There has been no transparency or fiscal sensitivity presiding over this administration and this is what the rest of us, from this country (nit Fox or news networkds are disappointed are blind mice and have not taken biz 101 and lay your trust in a man who filters all decision through his agenda despite the fact that China will eventually not fund our debts Obama believes in magic beans and apparently much of you do too.
Compare this with Maddow and and what's his face from Hardball who rarely have invite guests with opposing opinions, and just the other night they had each other. I have always prided myself in taking opinion on issues instead along party lines. It seems surprising to me that liberal minded people ( I am liberal in areas of science, freedom speech, pro-choice, equality) are so stubborn about examining how they formulate opinions on factual economic data, and lack common biz sense. Fox must speak up because they have every right to put the admin under a microscope for not managing forward risk and running the risk of sinking this country financially. A whole bunch of Nobel prize winning financial analysts spoke vehemently against proposed Obama economic policy directions. If he really wanted to cover the % of US legal citizens who want a paid health care program he could most certainly fund it out of pocket and not take on the risk of employing a govt;t machine to run a biz. The very real implications it can cause (and there is a longitudinal study which exists when other countries tried this) overshadow the chance of it promting healthy competition but most who understand deregulated markets and the presence of a legislative body not policing but also providing services has the effect of undercutting private competition. Don't you think Obama should spend more time looking at this as a means of stave off equality over competition because it affect you individual choices? or do u not think? Obama finds convenient ways to find solutions to problems that do away with any further need to think, and ask questions. Going after a news organization shows that he is cornered. The good people at Fox are the only people who see up the road, and it is not really difficult to predict....I am a Fox viewer and I have compared them to the other networks and like to think things through, and marvel that many people out there do not.

and mincing the delivery service aspect of quality health care by allowing suits in DC make choices in sensitive areas.