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:
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.”
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.
Answer by grlygrlz2 at 1:53 PM on Oct. 20, 2009
Answer by gdiamante at 1:53 PM on Oct. 20, 2009
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?
Answer by grlygrlz2 at 1:55 PM on Oct. 20, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 1:56 PM on Oct. 20, 2009
People should know the difference between news and people who just are commentators like Beck ,Hannity...who sometimes are extremely biased.
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.
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.