Media Stands Up To White House Bullying

I'm looking for a little history lesson (since my history is fuzzy this morning): what other U.S. Presidents have tried what President Obama and his administration are trying (regarding pushing out Fox News)? All administrations try to steer the media, of course. But what others have singled out entire major news organizations?

I'm curious because many commenters I've read on other blogs are acting like this is the most blatant, most disturbing attempt at media blocking by an administration.

Joseph Stalin, Mao Tsetung, Kmir Roughe, Hugo Chavez.....


Oh....wait a minute...

You said "U.S" Presidents.

My bad.

Well JD, I'm familiar with THOSE nasty characters. But I'm serious here, is this unprecedented or not for a U.S. President and his administration?

While there have been many instances of administrations having strained relations with the press, I am not aware of a president ever blacklisting a specific news organization (people are trying to say Fox isn't actually a news organization, but come on let's get real here).

It's important to see how other news organizations like CBS are reacting to this. They realize the direction the White House is going is a very bad road to go down.

Finally C.L. I wish there was a way to make points without linking to partisan crap like Redstate.

No, T....I'd never compare our President to any of those notorious ones above.

To (seriously) answer your question..... The best I can come up with is FDR/Truman during WWII. But in that instance, the media concurred with the administration that control of info (propaganda) was paramount to the war effort. Maybe the justification was different (defense), but the means were the same. Any time an administration gags, leads, or boycotts mass media; it goes against the 1st Amendment IMHO. The "fourth estate" must be left totally unfettered.

"Finally C.L. I wish there was a way to make points without linking to partisan crap like Redstate."

Thank-you DaGoat for pointing this out. Linking to a rabid blog like redstate does nothing to help make anyones case. That said, I agree that attempts to block Fox are inappropriate. Yes, they may be a mockery of a real news organization, but trying to shut them out is the wrong way to handle it.

Like T-Steel I'm also interested in the history of the executive branch trying to control or limit the media. I hardly thing this is the most egregious case on the books. Far from it I expect.

I think you responded to my original comment that included an Obama comparison. I re-edited since you didn't go there. But thanks anyways for your answer.

FDR/Truman during WWII, eh?? I can understand somewhat control of propaganda during a war (especially of WWII's magnitude). But I agree with your statement "Any time an administration gags, leads, or boycotts mass media; it goes against the 1st Amendment IMHO".

The Obama Administration's actions just reeks of emotion. Like they are pissed off and lashing out at Fox News. We're in the Internet age. Trying to block media is nigh impossible. And the logical action is to just roll with it in my opinion; not roll in it!

"And the logical action is to just roll with it in my opinion; not roll in it!"

Agreed. Besides, I hold the Obama administration to a higher standard than I do Fox, which given Fox's track record should be an absurdly easy mark to hit.

Nixon kept an enemies list and quite a few member of the press were on that list...

There is no reason for the Obama administration to speak to Fox, since no matter what they say Fox will distort it.

If the Obama White House was smart instead of being a club for Ivy league elitist, they would flood Fox News and volunteer to be on every show is second tier political appointees. Either Fox News lets them on and thus gives them a forum or Fox News refuses and reinforces what the White House is saying.

Leo -- you have it right.

Fox isn't being attacked right now for being the "black sheep" among the liberal media family (actually, liberal orthodoxy establishment, with Fox being treated as a heretic and rebel).

The major clue is the previous Communistic informer "denunciation" campaign sought by ObamaCo against dissenters at "town hall" meetings.

This is a more forceful, uglier version of control being exerted over public opinion by ObamaCo, which has been manipulating it, exploiting the campaign and post-campaign personality cult phenomenon, which includes the continued "campaign" strategy (similar to Communist revolutions that never end, after the previous government is replaced with the revolutionary government) and staged press conferences, which already raised liberal media concern. They will often side with Fox, just as we and the UK sided with Stalin's USSR in World War II against Hitler, distasteful as Stalin and the USSR were to so many. Why will the media "choose Fox's side"? They have been subjected to abuse already, and they know that after Fox, they are next, that's why.

ObamaCo is so arrogant and imperious (and is currently failing, and so desperate about it) that they have abandoned "outreach" to Republicans, conservatives, and other critics, which was lukewarm at most previously, anyway.

ObamaCo is seeking to suppress dissent.

It is using the iron fist inside the velvet glove, which is manipulating public opinion.

I wonder if other models are being reviewed behind closed doors in Washington:

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/show/506

"The best I can come up with is FDR/Truman during WWII."

Don't forget World War I, the Civil War, and the Alien and Sedition Acts (nationalistic Federalists, 1798).

For those who are interested -- there's no need for Congress to pass legislation like this again, not even the lib Dems in the House. After all, after the media are done being broken, the Congressional members are next. (Kind of what FDR was ready to do, effectively, act on his own if need be to do what's needed.)

Obama can just issue an Executive Order that says:


EXECUTIVE ORDER

for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against
the PRESIDENT of the United States


If any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or publishing, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the PRESIDENT of the United States, with intent to defame the said PRESIDENT, or to bring him or her into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against him or her, the hatred of any Person in the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law or proposed law or regulation of the United States, or any act of the PRESIDENT of the United States, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat, any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any political nature against PRESIDENT of the United States, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two million dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.


If the foregoing is insuffient to achieve proper reduction of such crimes, more orders shall be forthcoming.

This is just silly on its face. The President has expressed displeasure with a media outlet; wasn't the first time, won't be the last. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press aren't going anywhere. Fox is still, and will continue to be, allowed to publish and broadcast the same slanted and biased misinformation it always has. It seems to me that moderates, by definition, should not be shoulder-deep in the paranoia and exaggeration that has turned the Republican party into a bastion of southern, white, male self-pity.

I guess none of you remember President Bush singling out NBC:

"guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 May 2008: The White House today accused NBC news of twisting George Bush's remarks on Iran and suggested that the television network had absorbed the bias of two of its star pundits.
The rare presidential condemnation of a news network comes days after Barack Obama lashed back at Bush for likening negotiations with US opponents in the Middle East to the appeasement of Hitler."

There are plenty of documented instances of Fox News (not just opinion personalities, but the news anchors as well) giving abject support to Republican causes, events and memes.

The administration did NOT exclude Fox News/Major Garrett from the interview pool; Fox was not one of the news organizations that originally asked for an interview, so they weren't on the list of those who had. They were eventually included. But given the shameful way the President has been treated by Fox News, the White House would certainly be within its rights to limit Fox's access to the President. If Bush could do it with NBC, and he most certainly did refuse interviews with NBC, then why is it such a hideous thing if Obama does it with Fox?

So there!

Of course, the rest of the media has routinely been worse than Fox has been, and MSNBC currently is obviously more activist than Fox is. Obama is cozier with his media syncophants than Bush ever was. But never mind that. The big issue remains the manipulation of public opinion and the out-of-touch as well as elitist attitude toward the public that Bush and his team never have approached. Bush did not continue his campaign after winning election, or attack critics of all kinds (not only those in the media).

Obama continues his campaign as well as trying to demonize his critics -- partly out of anger as well as frustration at the criticism, and also usefully as a distraction from his current failures and public relations setbacks. Though his people are out of touch with what so much of the public will accept or tolerate, it seems they do believe that their misconduct and exploitive behavior presents an opportunity to benefit, at least among those who also are so easily manipulated with other manipulation devices so far this year.

The Bush administration was not content with merely criticizing the media, which is, as far as I know, all that Obama has so far done. Do you remember that the Bush administration produced dozens of fake news stories, and then they were put on the air nationwide without any indication that they had been produced by government employees? Do you remember that the Bush administration paid pundits to promote its agenda without disclosing the arrangement? Does the name "Armstrong Williams" ring any bells? And let's not forget the retired generals appearing as pundits on the networks without disclosing that they'd been coached by the Pentagon on what to say. Do you remember that the Bush administration decided to just stop responding to FOIA requests if they were likely to aid in holding the government accountable? Do you remember that they wanted to remove restrictions on media ownership, so that there would be less media competition and more control over news in general? The current president hasn't done any of these things; he has criticized what he sees as opinion journalism masquerading as news programming. Interestingly, when Bush went after NBC, Fox News thought it was a great idea.

As for the claim that other networks are worse about bias than Fox News, I don't see any real evidence for it. Fox didn't seem to know the difference between promoting the so-called tea parties and covering them; most of the newscasters on Fox regularly take their marching orders from the opinion programs, in terms of what they cover and how they frame stories. I haven't seen any evidence that Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow have any influence at all on the MSNBC newscasts. And when is Fox going to give hours of time to a liberal commentator, the way MSNBC does to Joe Scarborough? About the only person on Fox who seems to make any effort at objectivity is Shep Smith.

Efforts to make Obama's feud with Fox News into some sort of plot to end journalistic freedom are overblown, paranoid rubbish. If journalism can survive the assault from the previous administration, I don't think it has much to fear from the current one.

Just this week on NPR they had a segment about past presidents and fights with the media. . .it went back to the beginning. . . and they protrayed Obama as rather mild compared to some in history. . . tried to find NPR link but couldn't. . . but did find this one from NY Times and will link it. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/...

"Not that they haven’t tried. 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.” Sometimes the strategy worked — or caused no lasting damage. McKinley, like Grant, was elected to a second term. Roosevelt also won a third and fourth.

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. When Vincent Foster, Mr. Clinton’s deputy White House counsel, committed suicide in 1993, he left behind a note accusing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page of lying. "

The lies, subterfuge, lies of omission, and, nefarious agendas of the Fox propaganda polit bordello cannot go unpunished. It is not free speech, it is seditious subversion pandering to the stupid. The only fair repercussion should be a raid, dragging them from their building and caning them in masse` in the street across car hoods, against lamp posts, ect., under the panning cameras of MSNBC and CNN. No commentary, just the sounds of screams and desperate squals of repentance for a joyous world to relish.

Finally C.L. I wish there was a way to make points without linking to partisan crap like Redstate.

I just liked their title. Anyhow I linked the NYT as well making exactly the same observation in the quoted sections.

I guess none of you remember President Bush singling out NBC

If I recall correctly, the Bush administration sent them a letter telling them what was found faulty about their coverage and editing. He did not try to cut their access to government officials or kick them or their parent company out of the news pool.

Edit:
here is that letter:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/...

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

it went on to list the various specifics and concluded with:

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

This was an e-mail and not a public statement, furthermore it was not an attempt to curtail access by NBC to administration officials.

BTW here is that link to the Guardian article mentioned above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/19/geo...

But NBC cut the programme to show only the first sentence of Bush's response, adding an introduction that said the president got a "cold reception" from Arab leaders after making his Iran remarks in Israel.

Senior Bush aide Ed Gillespie, in a letter to the NBC news president, called the editing "deceitful," "misleading" and "irresponsible".

I found this little tid bit while searching for reasons why Fox is different, I can think of no other news organization that has sued for the right to lie and won.

" On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.

Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.

In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”"

Found Here:
http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community...