Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:


However, as to Fox, Obamas staff have said (quote) "The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece."

also,

“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network....”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Further, I'd like to ask you specifically what you consider to be "free speech", and who specifically you think it applies to. I realize you think you should be able to say anything to anyone at any time, but do these rights that you hold to be universal also apply to the President of the United States? In other words, does the President (or any of his staff or administration) have any right to say that he considers a certain news organization to be a pathetic joke? "

The President is a U.S. citizen (PLEASE dont snark on this one), so he and his staff can say whatever they want.

However, by calling for a boycott, it is essentially creating an embargo on free speech.

And again, who are his handlers, and why are they trying to control information? To, in essence, control the propaganda that is put forth?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


OR OF THE PRESS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"What is it that you find "un-Constitutional" in Obama's staff saying that Fox News isn't really a news organization? What specific constitutional breach did they commit? How EXACTLY did they "silence" either Fox News OR Lou Dobbs?"

Again, I didn't say Lou Dobbs.

However, as to Fox, Obamas staff have said (quote) "The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece."

also,

“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network....”

I will link here, TO Fox for this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-
control-internet/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

The President is a U.S. citizen (PLEASE dont snark on this one), so he and his staff can say whatever they want.

---

Quote:

---

However, by calling for a boycott, it is essentially creating an embargo on free speech.

---

Quote:

---

And again, who are his handlers, and why are they trying to control information? To, in essence, control the propaganda that is put forth?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Those quotes wern't from Fox.

---

Quote:

---

October 19, 2009
White House Steps Up Assault on Fox News

The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.

Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

"So, in your opinion, would it be okay for me to put a story out on MSNBC that says "This just in - with photos to prove it - Ron Paul blows goats!" and then put up pictures with the face blocked out, claiming it was Ron Paul blowing a goat? Would that be within my "free speech" rights, or would that, in your estimation, be crossing a line by simply making shit up that isn't true (as far as you know), and then backing up the claims with doctored or misleading photos?"

lol Yeah itd be fine. PN does it all the time, so do supermarket tabloids.

The problem is of course, that you would no longer be considered a "legitimate" news agency.

When you are considered legitimate, your "news" and "facts" have more weight and are believed and trusted by more people.

---

Quote:

---

What is happening is that this administration is trying to discredit a news agency, in order to silence a dissenting opinion. To, make Fox out as a supermarket tabloid, so that people will no longer listen to them.

---

Quote:

---

ETA: Lets say this was 3 years ago, and Bushs team was saying the same kind of things about NPR, or CNN?

---

Quote:

---

lol I always WANT to hear a dissenting opinion. I want to hear "NO". I would get very nervous if I didn't. Because nobody, and no ones ideas are perfect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Actually I got it from one of those other smaller sites I was talking about. Now let me go see if I can find the link..


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64271-obama-suggests-
fox-news-is-talk-radio

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I thought I should say this: Calling for a boycott is not even a violation of Free Speech to my mind. Calling for a boycott is actually an expression of free speech.

Enforcing a boycott IS a violation of Free Speech. Making the sale of Book X illegal, for instance. Or having the FCC shut down FOX.

I would be delighted if the Obama administration called for a boycott on Fox news, and any news agency that refuses to sever ties with them. I would be ecstatic if the relationship between the White House and the news agencies became hostile. Just so long as the White House doesn't actually censor the news, I'm happy.

Personally, I think the government and the news agencies are a bit too chummy for my taste. Rather than passing along official Press Releases all day, it would be nice if the news agencies did some actual investigative journalism.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Niki2:


The only thing I can figure about the push-back on trying the terrorists is that usually “Party of no” thing…ANYTHING Obama or the Dems do has to be ripped apart (if possible)and be claimed to be socialist, making us unsafe, or whatever argument they can imagine to come up with. Isn’t that about how it’s been all along? I believe trying them in a military tribunal does exactly what you said, make martyrs of them and acknowledge that we ARE afraid of them, which is what terrorism is all about. Trying them as criminals to me lessens them to that category, says we don’t consider them or their “war” on us as legitimate, and shows we believe in the court of law. But tell a right-winger that…

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Niki2:


Mike, I don’t think “they're trying to force them to live up to what a "journalist" is supposed to do” at all. I think they know the futility of such a thing, as do all sane people, I think they were just saying “we know it too”, in the hopes that MAYBE someone was listening. Unfortunately, it did no good, only give Fox Noise something to cry about and make more noise about...

---

Quote:

---

Wow, you guys really truck. Dunno if I can catch up, but I'll try:

---