Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Is the Obama Administration trying to "Contain" FOX News?

Do Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein nail the real explanation? in their story today: The White House is working to prevent stories born on Fox from crossing over into more widely-viewed media. Most Americans still haven't heard of Van Jones, for instance; and the strategy is now all about containment:

 
grlygrlz2

Asked by grlygrlz2 at 1:51 PM on Oct. 20, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (106,530 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (70)
  • It boils down to this if you are all for this admin strong arming a news channel ..dictating to others what to listen to or not...then you are just plain wrong..

    Hilarious how FOX made it possible for ACORN to be exposed and Van Jones but people don't want those truths? lol crazy
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 2:54 PM on Oct. 20, 2009

  • But most of all, [the goal is to] get other journalists to think twice before following the network’s stories in their own coverage.


     "We're doing what we think is important to make sure news is covered as fairly as possible," a White House official told POLITICO, noting how the recent ACORN scandal story started because Fox covered it “breathlessly for weeks on end.”


    “And then you had a couple days of breast-beating from The Washington Post and The New York Times about whether or not they were fast enough on the ACORN story,” the official said. “And it's like: Wait a second, guys. Let's make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories, and what's being driven by a network that has a perspective. Being able to make that point has been important.”

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 1:52 PM on Oct. 20, 2009

  • To some media observers, it’s almost the definition of a “chilling effect” – a governmental attempt to steer reporters away from negative coverage – but the White House press corps has barely uttered a word of complaint.

    That could be because of the perception among some journalists that Fox blurs the line between reporting and commentary - making it seem like not the most sympathetic victim.


    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28497.html


     

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 1:53 PM on Oct. 20, 2009

  • Well, there hasn't been an administration EVER that hasn't hated media outlets and wanted to find a way to marginalize them. That goes all the way back to the town crier.

    But it's a strategy that will backfire, just as it did for Nixon vs. the Washington Post.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 1:53 PM on Oct. 20, 2009

  • I agree with gdiamante.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:55 PM on Oct. 20, 2009

  • ...Some of the lack of protest from the mainstream press may be driven by the sense that the assault on Fox is actually strengthening the network....


     Do you think result of White House Hype will boost FOX news ratings?

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 1:55 PM on Oct. 20, 2009

  • Is the Obama Administration trying to "Contain" FOX News?

    I hope so, and I hope they are successful, someone needs to shut them up.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:56 PM on Oct. 20, 2009

  • No.


    People should know the difference between news and people who just are commentators like Beck ,Hannity...who sometimes are extremely biased.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:59 PM on Oct. 20, 2009

  • Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –


    Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.


    Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –


    Gibbs: ABC -


    Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?


    Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.


     


     

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 2:04 PM on Oct. 20, 2009

  • Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?


    Gibbs: That’s our opinion.


    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/todays-qs-for-os-wh-10202009.html


     

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 2:04 PM on Oct. 20, 2009