So, the White House is attacking Fox News. Of course, that will, in the end, only drive more people to Fox, but that doesn’t seem to stop the administration. Their attack on Rush Limbaugh caused him a 30% percent increase in his ratings, so I’m not inclined to protest their tactics.
So why attack Fox? Why say that they’re NOT a news network? Why accuse them in engaging in a “witch hunt” against the President’s advisers? To explore this, let’s answer another question; what is Fox doing?
Well, in terms of the advisers, Hannity and Beck are showing videos of the czars making some pretty extreme statements. They are also showing excerpts from books that some czars wrote. They are using the WORDS of the czars. They are citing their associations and memberships, and essentially exposing them for what they are…radical leftists that want to change our nation, and FOX is helping to raise awareness of this fact.
Additionally, they showed videos of the POTUS and others stating their support of a single payer plan, and (for some) that the public option is designed to lead to single payer. All of this was reported during the time that the administration was denying that a single payer plan was the objective. This has cause many people to doubt the sincerity of the POTUS and his allies in Congress. Combine that with…
1. The mad rush to pass a health care plan that doesn’t take effect until 2013.
2. That the legislation itself was filled with unclear legalistic jargon.
3. That the legislation was to be passed prior to the August recess, insuring that no one would have been able to even read it.
..and you can see that FOX’s coverage of the health care debate was instrumental in at the very least creating more public debate on the issue, as well as arming people with information with which to debate.
So, at least in terms of information, they were again using the WORDS of public officials. All sources are well documented and verified.
For another example, take Keith Jennings, the “safe schools czar.” Fox reported that Jennings wrote about an encounter in which a HS sophomore told him that he was having sex with an adult male. Jennings response? He advised the kid to use a condom! The left has attacked Hannity for saying that the student in question was 15. The student has come forward and said that he was 16 at the time, making the incident legal, but still, in the opinion of many, unethical. Two things are missed here. One is that Hannity quoted Jennings for the age, from MULTIPLE sources. Again, this is easily verified. Hannity also acknowledged that the student came forward, and that the quote regarding the age came from Jennings, but the left seemed to ignore that. The second issue is the one that most everyone seems to have missed. Jennings initial claim was that he was not properly trained in the guidelines for being a mandated reporter. The incident did occur in the 80’s, so the left ran with that. However, he was still relating this story in public appearances and print, as late as 2007. So, two years ago, he was still not making the connection that an adult having sex with a 15 year old was statutory rape? Again, it was Jennings that said the kid was 15. So, after a long career, we’re supposed to trust a safe schools czar that as of two years ago STILL didn’t know about when a case of abuse is to reported? Unfortunately, this question is not asked, as the administration is too busy attacking the people that exposed the situation, and the MSM is too busy supporting the administration to report anything against them.
Next, lets consider Anita Dunn, who has been seen on video (courtesy of FOX), bragging that the Obama campaign controlled the media during the election. They certainly controlled ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC, but did they “control” FOX? I think we all know the answer to that. So, we are left with a situation in which the administration has a tight lock on every major TV news source, with the exception of one. The one that is not controlled is exposing the administration’s broken promises, their false statements, their high level of radicalism, and the potential crimes and irregular behavior of their allies. Considering these circumstances, is it any wonder that The White House is attacking them?
There is more. This “attack” on FOX is nothing more than a variation of the Alinsky method perpetrated by community organizers. Remember Rules for Radicals? “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Now, the situation was already polarized, they are certainly personalizing it, particularly in the case of Beck, and they are attempting to freeze it with the attack. They haven’t stopped FOX, but from what I have seen in the least two nights, the FOX hosts are covering the attack extensively. However, while FOX is covering this, and in essence, defending themselves, are they covering the substantive issues concerning Obama’s agenda? I think that this is also the administration’s attempt to seize the initiative, and force FOX into responding to the attacks, and not what the administration is saying or doing. They may not be able to eliminate FOX, or it’s influence, but they can try to manipulate them into being less of a threat.
When I’m looking at the claims against FOX, especially some of this weekend’s comments from the administration, like Rahm Emanuel’s masterpiece that FOX isn’t a real news network because they have “perspective,” I start to draw comparisons. This is a common claim against FOX, but there is a simple answer. For one, for the majority of the day. FOX is simply a straight up news network. They report breaking news, interview people involved in events, and so on. Then, FOX’s evening/night schedule has several opinion shows. But there is something about those shows that set them apart. For example, I know that Beck is a Libertarian and that Hannity is a Conservative. How do I know this? They state it openly! I know that they are biased-they have openly disclosed their beliefs. I know that Hannity’s show is Conservative. It’s advertised that way. They make no pretense in that regard.
Now, contrast that with the MSM. All summer, we were told that we were racists, astroturf, wearing Nazi uniforms, terrorists, ignorant rednecks, and so on. All these claims were either made or echoed by the MSM. This was offered as objective news, allegedly unbiased, with no one from the “other side” to explain the views of the opposition. They showed no videos or images, or even witnesses to justify their claims, they simply made them with no substantiation. Conversely, there was little to no coverage of single payer, the czars and their statements, Obama’s broken promises, or ACORN promoting child prostitution. For all of these stories, there were significant amounts of video evidence. But ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC… they’re objective? They are the ones that are disingenuous. They cloak themselves with “objectivity” yet, they are biased from top to bottom. A short look at the Newsbusters website will show you the daily bias perpetrated by MSM.
That leads us to another question; Would you prefer honest bias, or fake objectivity, in your news coverage? The only difference is that one is lying, and one is being truthful.
Update: I have been writing this post for two and a half days now. Every time I come back to it, there’s more to the story. Here’s the latest.
David Axlerod gave us this classic:
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is “not a news organization.”
“Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way,” Axelrod counseled ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re not going to treat them that way.”
So, do I detect a hint of intimidation here? It really reads to me like…
“If ya know what’s good for ya, you won’t be covering any of these stories. Ya wouldn’t want to get on our bad sides, would ya?”
Also, MoveOn has decided that all Democrats should boycott FOX. So the George Soros funded President and the George Soros funded astroturf organization are in lockstep. How nice.
Interestingly enough, there are some encouraging signs. There are members of the MSM starting to question the administration on this. Whether or not this is some feigned concern remains to be seen, but it might be an encouraging sign.
For today, at least, let me sum this up with a question for the MSM; Are you going to continue being a lapdog for these people, or are you starting to see them for what they are? If you have a single shred of integrity left, you MUST resume your Constitutional duty as the watchdog of this Republic. Report it all, good, bad, and ugly. No matter what side of the political spectrum it falls, regain some sense of objectivity. You are NOT activists, you are supposed to tell the truth-all of it!