Billy, I am with you. Reminds me of Niemöllers... "First they came for the..." You can fill in the blanks.
Their actions puts a whole new meaning into the word "Bully Pulpit"... They are bullies alright, although in penny loafers instead of black boots. . // Lennart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:40 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Centroids : > I have tried to say as little about the Obama administration as possible > this past year > inasmuch as I said plenty, mostly in opposition, during the campaign of > 2008. > Moreover, I'm not exactly gung ho about defending Fox TV, primarily because > its opinion shows, specifically Hannity and Glenn Beck, make me sick. > > However, ( 1 ) news analysis shows like Special Report are another matter, > and ( 2 ) yesterday the WH did something so outrageous that it is necessary > to > speak out. The "outrageous" conduct had two parts, first, Barack Obama > himself > characterizing all of Fox News as the equivalent of "talk radio," by which > he apparently > meant the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, and, secondly, a new > requirement > that the news pool at the WH, which has included Fox along with CBS, CNN , > etc > for many years, should now exclude Fox specifically. > > The other news networks did something noble and refused to go along with > the WH > edict , saying that unless Fox was included they would not participate > themselves. > > In any case the WH crossed a line that it should never have crossed, and > the > utterly careless, if not craven, characterization of Fox uttered by > President Obama, > has no place in American politics. > > The following article pretty much says what needs saying on the issue. The > only thing > to add is that WH anti-Fox policy has been just about universally condemned > by > journalists of all political stripes. The impression given is that the > admin is essentially > incompetent when it comes to understanding the media, and is basically > ignorant of the content of Fox News, if not ignorant of other news networks > also. > > Billy > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > [image: washingtonpost.com] <http://www.washingtonpost.com/> > > *Fox wars > The 'post-partisan' president makes an enemies list* > > By Charles Krauthammer > Friday, October 23, 2009 > > Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he's put a > horse's head in Roger Ailes's bed. > > Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn't scare easily. > > The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications > director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as > news <http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1929058,00.html>." > Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), > senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news > station<http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/transcript-axelrod/story?id=8846323>." > And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led > [by] and following Fox." > > Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration -- from > exposing "green jobs" czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to > exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in > proposed health-care legislation -- the other news organizations should > think twice before following the lead. > > The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a > federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year > but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, > autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox. > > > At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the > administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The > Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for > interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations -- except Fox. The > other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg > unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down. > > This was an important defeat because there's a principle at stake here. > While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the > current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any > significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly > told Politico that they're engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize > and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber > of Commerce. > > There's nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor > unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of > legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms. > > Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against > tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was > to understand "the greater security afforded by a greater variety of > parties." They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and > restraining each other -- and an otherwise imperious government. > > Factions should compete, but they should also recognize the legitimacy of > other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating > democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize and destroy is > not Madisonian. It is Nixonian. > > But didn't Teddy Roosevelt try to *destroy* the trusts? Of course, but > what he took down was monopoly power that was extinguishing smaller > independent competing interests. Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular > minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. > Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be comical -- and that doesn't even > include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, > flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite > newspapers. > > Fox and its viewers (numbering more than those of CNN and MSNBC combined) > need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently > unleashed its fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical > of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark that > CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh? > > Defend Fox *from* whom? Fox's flagship 6 o'clock evening news out of > Washington (hosted by Bret Baier, formerly by Brit Hume) is, to my mind, the > best hour of news on television. (Definitive evidence: My mother watches it > even on the odd night when I'm not on.) Defend Fox from the likes of Anita > Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a > speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing > stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority > for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. > Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass > uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion > worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book? > > The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high > schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to > instruct the country on truth and objectivity? > > [email protected] > > > © 2009 The Washington Post Company > > _______________________________________________ > Centroids mailing list: [email protected] > http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com > Archives at > http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/ >
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
