Sorry folks, but it's not the job of the President to go after Fox News.

[Political Tiger]

Listen, I hate Fox as much as everyone else, and I bet Obama does too, but he was not elected President of the United States of America to go tit-for-tat with some cable "news" channel. That's not what Presidents do, unless you consider Nixon a hero, and I know many here do, but Presidents are not elected to monitor and decide what can and cannot be said on the air.

We have a little thing called the First Amendment, and like it or not, it guarantees no government interference with the press. Is this a precedent we want to set? That presidents get to decide what can be said and who can say it? Next time it might be a Republican President who decides he or she wants to take down Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow.

Now, I know Fox spouts nothing but lies, but under the First Amendment, they have that right. If they commit illegal acts, it's up to the justice system, and not the President of the United States, to deal with it. That's why we have courts, and judges, and juries.

[tabasco]

1. The malignant propaganda machine in one of this nation's greatest enemies.

It is certainly the President's job to expose it.

[Political Tiger]

6. What you state about Fox is an opinion, an opinion I agree with.

And it's the First Amendment that gives you the right to say that, the same Amendment also gives Fox the right to say what it wants to say.

Sorry, but we are still a Constitutional Republic, not a dictatorship, and we enjoy, and sometimes hate, having a free press.

[tabasco]

46. When did Obama try to squelch Fox's speech?

Maybe you're not as smart as you think .

[Political Tiger]

56. I didn't say anything of the sort.

So if I were you (and I'm thankful I'm not), I'd think twice about judging who is smart and who is not!

[derby378]

58. It's not an opinion - it's a stone-cold fact

Dictatorships are built using lies disseminated by media agents. See Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Pinochet, George W. Bush...

[Political Tiger]

66. And now some of you are complaining because Obama is NOT a dictator!

Oh the irony!

[derby378]

67. Stop trying to put words in my mouth...

...and take a peek at this instead:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x487631

[gateley]

2. Then under that First Amendment Obama has every right to criticize their

duplicity.

Or let a reporter ask Biden. :7

[Dr Fate]

5. Nothing in the 1st Amendment allows FOX news uninvited access to WH property either.

n/t

[Political Tiger]

35. I said this to another poster who said what you said and I'll say it again:

So you'll won't protest when the next Repug President kicks out whatever media outlets he or she doesn't like or agrees with? You'll be okay with that?

[Dr Fate]

49. And I answered you down thread.

n/t

[Political Tiger]

10. Of course he does.

But people are spamming the board with things like "Obama needs to take down Fox." No, he doesn't. He has enough on his plate, besides that, he would be lowering himself to their level.

Obama has slammed Fox in the past, and I'm sure he'll do it again, but it's not his job, or place, to "take down" Fox.

[Dr Fate]

14. Clinton would never had been impeached without FOX.

And Bush never would have been handed the election in 2000 either.

There is a good chance we would not even be at war either.

Remember that before you suggest to younger DUers or people with short memories that DEMS have better things to do than to fight & oppose media bias.

[Political Tiger]

27. You give Fox way too much credit!

n/t

[Uzybone]

37. Clinton wouldn't have been impeached without FOX?

The conservatives on the SCOTUS would not have voted 5 vs 4 to hand the presidency to Bush without FOX?

You have no clue what you are talking about.

[Dr Fate]

43. Repubs would not have had a 24/7 impeachment network w/o FOX.

Other networks would not have imitated FOX-as is the pattern we see to this day- and advocated impeachment 24/7 had there been no FOX.

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. Agreed. What short memories DU has. The WH got roasted by

some in the media, even "progressives" because they were granting sit downs with news outlets, and were refusing to allow a sit down with Major Garrett. When I still listened to Thom Hartmann, the lady with the British accent who does his news spots, was absolutely livid with the WH. According to her, they were trampling the first amendment. This was a step toward censorship. The "legitimate" journalists were rising to FNC's defense, and slapping the WH around in the process.

Have we forgotten this? It hasn't been that long.

[Dr Fate]

9. LOL! So our excuse is that some british lady might get mad. LOL!

Let her get mad- who gives a crap?

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. My point was that she and Thom Hartmann were agreeing that Fox..

shouldn't be excluded. At the time, there were many journalists, especially in the WH press corps who came to the defense of Major Garrett, and Fox. That was the only point I was making. It's been tried, and it failed.

The concensus seemed to be that the WH doesn't get to designate who's "news", and who's not.

[Dr Fate]

25. Oh- so Thom whats-his face is the one who is stopping us from doing this?

It was tried and it failed BEFORE FOX was busted putting out fake, racist tapes.

I have a feeling that other networks might not want to be associated with or seen as defending that. We can certainly FRAME them as doing so with no problem, should they take that course.

We dont know until we try. I guess making excuses is just plain easier though.

edited for spelling....

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. And I guess making up shit isn't just the province of Breitbart & Fox...

You seem intent on distorting what other people say to fit your agenda, so to avoid getting banned, I'll concede to your superior intellect. Good luck with your crusade. :eyes:

[Dr Fate]

36. I made something up in post in post 25? Where?

n/t

[Dr Fate]

4. Bush went after CBS and rather, then won his election.

Maybe one difference-besdies the fact that Rather was telling the truth while FOX was lting- is that the GOP realizes that winning is part of their job.

FOX news drove the impeachment of Clinton, handed the 200 election to Bush, and has lied and driven voters away from our party. Presidents may not go "tit for tat"- but I think they do need to fight this organization-unless the plan is just o let FOX do more lof the same. Is that your plan- to just liet them continue to attack our presidents, but not attack back?

Also, there is no government interference with the press if they FOX is simply denied access to the WH or to interviews with DEMS.

Any more excuses?

[Political Tiger]

17. Take a pill for God's sake!

You act as if the future of this country, indeed the world, is dependent on Fox News. We survived the Civil War, we survived Pearl Harbor, we survived 9/11.....we'll also survive Fox News!

[Dr Fate]

21. Clinton was impeached b/c of FOX news. Gore lost in 2000. Now we are in 2 wars.

Yeah- great point- I should stop worrying about RW media influcence on the electorate.

[frylock]

30. only on the DU is fox irrelevant..

but man, GAWD forbid anyone level any sort of criticism at obama for fear of costing dems the election. fuck me.

[Political Tiger]

31. Fox started in 1996. Clinton was impeached in 1998.

You think in just two years Fox had enough influence to impeach a president? If they have that much power, why haven't they impeached Obama yet?

And I think it was the Supreme Court (and Ralph Nader fans) that caused Gore to lose in 2000.

[Dr Fate]

42. Yup- and FOX was the impeachment network, 24/7.

And yes- FOX news called the election for Bush, and then all the other networks copied FOX.

A pattern you see to this very day.

When the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush, most people were so used to FOX & imitators reporting the "Gore just needs to step down- we have counted all the votes" meme that they saw noting out of the ordinary.

I think you are just down playing FOX b/c you know that DEMS are just too scared to take them on.

[BootinUp]

7. You got recs for this?

How come I didn't get any?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8791126

Ok, I guess you may have framed it better.

[Political Tiger]

12. I rec'd your post!

:)

[BootinUp]

52. thanks.

:)

[madmax]

16. I did too

but the unrec's are coming :(

BTW, great avatar. I have 4 Wes Clark pins. He was our first choice. A great man, would have made a great President, too - imo.

[BootinUp]

39. You know I have those same pins

I think you know me as Jim. :hi:

[madmax]

62. Didn't we meet at a Clark fundraiser in NYC

Frenchie was there and several other DU'ers. I have some great pics of the General. :hi:

[BootinUp]

64. Yep.

It was May 04 I think. Still have some pictures too.

[madmax]

68. Wow, what a great memory you have

Your old nick was Jim4Wes, I believe. Nice to know who you ;)

[KingFlorez]

8. They aren't entitled to a seat in the White House Press Room

I must have overlooked the part of the First Amendment that stated that. Why should an outlet that lies be awarded privileges?

[Dr Fate]

11. Sure- the 1st amendment is being brought up as AN EXCUSE.

Nothing more, nohing less.

Wouldnt it be neat if we had as many suggestions for WAYS TO FIGHT as we had excuses for why we should not?

[Political Tiger]

13. Damn that pesky First Amendment for getting in the way of our need for vengeance!

n/t

[Dr Fate]

18. Unless I missed a class in law school, the 1st amedment does not get in the way at all.

How does the 1st Amendment gurantee trans-national corporate media access to the WH or DEMS?

Care to show your work?

Also- keepping FOX news in check is not about vengence-it's also about exposing lies that often hurt our party and our election chances.

[madmax]

23. Since you're a lawyer

does Ms. Sherrod have legal standing to sue either or both, Brietbart and Fox? Libel? Slander?

[Dr Fate]

28. I believe she does- even if she's public figure. Now answer my question, or retract your assertion.

n/t

[madmax]

38. I think you replied to the wrong post.

I simply asked a question.

[Dr Fate]

44. Yup- I thought you were another poster- my bad.

Anyway- assuming that she would be seen as a public figure, I'd have to review the standards for actual malice, but I think it could be shown.

If she is not a public figure, then she has a really strong case- as the slander arguably pertained to her employment.

Just law school stuff here, BTW- I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer.

[madmax]

60. No problem - thanks for the information. :)

[Dr Fate]

63. A dirty secret for you-

Most anything law school graduate learns, you can study for yourself.

If you are really interested, try to find a con law lawschool outline for the 1st Amendment basics.

Maybe google terms like "unprotected speech" , "actual malice" "public figure"

The tort law "defamation of character" rules would be helpful too..

[madmax]

72. Thank you, found a good site.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

I'm now Perry Mason and ready to take a case. ;) Seriously, Thanks.

[Political Tiger]

22. So you'll won't protest when the next Repug President kicks out

whatever media outlets he or she doesn't like or agrees with? You'll be okay with that?

[Dr Fate]

34. You mean like Bush already did to CBS?

He discredited an entire network and got them to fire Rather. For telling the truth.

DEMS can do it to FOX- execpt they would actaully be justified in doing it.

In this case- we would just be holding FOX to standards of truth and honesty-they can come back- but they have fire Hannity first- at least those would be my terms.

Sure- I would oppose a President if he took on media for no good reason- in this case, America sees that we have a good reason.

[Political Tiger]

40. So you want Obama to be more like Bush. Well, isn't that special!

n/t

[Dr Fate]

51. I never suggested that Obama lie, commit fraud or do anything illegal.

In fact, I said that Obama has more standing to attack FOX, because unlike CBS, FOX really was lying about the entire story.

Anytime Liberals beg DEMS to stand up and fight for the TRUTH, we are accused of "being like Bush"-who never once fought for the truth.

[KingFlorez]

76. You brought up the first amendment, I explained why it doesn't apply to the press room seating

No network can use the First Amendment to keep a seat in the press room.

[Dr Fate]

84. And the president is not bound by law to any press corps mandate either. n/t

n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Doesn't the WH press corps choose it's members? I'm not sure how

the WH would go about expelling a credentialed "news outlet". Remember, Fox News has won a ruling from the highest court in the land, that they could actually lie, and call it news.

[Political Tiger]

45. The White House has nothing to do with it.

That's the job of the White House Correspondents Association, which is completely independent of the White House.

[Dr Fate]

53. The WH is not obligated to allow any individual or corporation on it's property.

And no DEM is obligated to appear in their studio or grant them interviews.

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. I vaguely remember when this came up before, we found out that the

WH doesn't get to choose the press pool, the WH correspondents do. So for all the huffing & puffing that's going on here about showing FNC the door, that choice won't & can't be made by the WH. Pres. Obama can refuse to do interviews with Fox, but he can't unilaterally decide to expel them from the WH. It's the people's house, and whether we like it or not, some of "the people" love Fox News. Go figure.....

[Dr Fate]

69. Could be. Show us the law that mandates that specific news source havta be invited to WH property.

Hey- I may have to concede to you- so let's see the law that mandates a seat for FOX news- that forces Obama to allow this corporation into his press room, even if he does not want them there.

If no law exists, then the correspondents can still choose any one they want- so long as they dont work for the network established as fraudulent.

Some people like Air America too, but I never heard of some law saying that Bush was forced to give them access.

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. Do we know that Air America applied for access to the WH press corps?

Moving the goalposts, in the face of evidence, just makes you look small-ER. You're groping to keep your outrage with the president alive, and failing miserably. It's pathetic. But fear not, I'm sure you'll find something else in the next 24 hours.

[Dr Fate]

82. If we found out, how would that mean that Obama is mandated to follow press corp mandates?

I do seem to remember NEWSMAX being there, and some dude named Jeff Gannon in the WH press corps as well.

'member that?

Wonder who wanted them there?

So- this "prestigious" press corps wanted Gannon and Newsmax among it's ranks? This is the respected organization that you think Liberals should be honoring to the tee?

If these are the types of people that the press corps allows, then I certainly have NO problem with Obama going against their choices.

No law says a president is bound by the suggestions of the press corps one or their independent org. one way or the other.

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. You can argue til you're blue in the face, and bring up all the Bush era crap you want...

but your argument is lame & debunked at this point. We spent eight years bitching about the excesses of the Bush WH, and now a part of DU wants this president to be the same jerk that Bush was? How quickly we forget, and how sad for you.

You've lost this argument, and invoking Jeff Gannon and Newsmax aren't going to make you right. If Bush had done to MSNBC what you're advocating, this board would have erupted (and rightly so) in the all too familiar outrage we've come to expect. But like I said, fear not...the next outrage is just around the corner...you won't have to wait too long.

[Dr Fate]

88. I realize that some DEMS would rahter make excuses than fight- but you have not debunked jack shit.

Why would Bush be JUSTIFED to "do to MSNBC" what I'm suggesting we do to FOX?

MSNBC never faked a fucking video tape in order to beand a gvt. employee as a racist.

In our case FOX LIED. MSNBC did nothing of the sort to the right or Bush.

I bring up FACTUAL examples of press corps abuse- ie Gannon/Guckert- while you are just making up hypothetical scenarios.

I lose the argument as soon as you show me a LAW that requires a president to follow a press corps mandate.

Does not exist- if Obama wants to reward proven liars & con artists with continued access, that will be his CHOICE, not anything anyone made him do.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

93. I asked you first. You seem to be saying that law mandates that Obama allow FOX into the WH.

So now, I want to see the law that requires him to do so.

Where is it?

LOL! Just b/c I'm not a constitutional attorney doesnt mean that I have to believe you when you tell me that Obama has no choice but give FOX access-especially without ever even showing me the law.

Also- court rulings as to FOX's previous slander has nothing to do with who Obama allows access to. Diff, issue.

It's simple- just show me the law you are talking aout. If it is a law that reads like you suggest, I'll concede. I'll even ask the mods to delete this the thread, unless you just prefer to leave it up.

Now show me the law you are talking about. Eveyone keeps saying it exists, but they cannot seem to present this law so we can read it.

I'd love to see where the 1st amendment or any subsequent rulings or laws gurantees a corporation or even a news organization a forum for free speech at the white house.

Absent such a law, then that shows you that Obama can deny them access. Show me the law, then I'll concede.

For me to show what law allows Obama to deny FOX corp. access to the WH, I'd have to show you every free speech case since the 1st amend was incorporated through the 14th amend, then we would find there is no such restriction or mandate on record.

Also- it's against DU rules to accuse people of lying-especially when you cant even establish what lie I told. I'd prefer that you edit that out as oposed to having the mods censor your whole post.

[Dr Fate]

94. Self delete- thanks mods!

Self deleted b/c this post orignally addressed a rule violation.

[Dr Fate]

54. No law requires the WH to allow FOX news or any other corporation on it's property.

At least no law I ever heard of.

[Political Tiger]

65. The WH does NOT own "it's property."

We do!

[Dr Fate]

70. That's right- the people own it, not FOX. The people elected Obama.

And the people-at least the good ones- are demanding honesty and integrity in news.

The people, at least the good ones, wont mind if proven liars are denied access.

In fact, it would make sense and would meet the approval of lot of "the people" who elected him.

And unless I see a law to the contrary, the President that the people elected does not have to allow FOX or any other trans-national corporation with a record of fraud and lying access to the WH press conferences.

I could be wrong, so I would love to see this law that people are saying is out there.

[Bitwit1234]

15. Reagan not only went after the media he screwed it up

he did away with the Fairness Doctrine. The one that is missing now that allows Fox to do what they want.

[madmax]

19. Where is that Fairness Doctrine ?

Must be an old moldy copy laying around somewhere. Can't it be resuscitated? :shrug:

[eleny]

24. FoxNews, imo, is a threat to our national security

[madmax]

41. Yes, A Clear and Present Danger

I'm watching way too many Harrison Ford flicks. ;P

[eleny]

47. _

[Warren Stupidity]

26. yes it is.

This is exactly what the rumored "bully pulpit" is supposedly for.

You cannot counter the bullshit torrent with 'let it sink', even worse, you cannot counter the bullshit torrent with whiplash reflex overreaction.

What kills bullshit is the truth, and lots of it. What Obama has is unlimited access to mass media. You don't have that, I don't have that, Maddow and Olberman don't have that. Obama does and he isn't using it.

[besdayz]

32. a

his administration should no doubt address their lies and try to win the perception battle. but he doesn't have to directly talk about them....part of me rejoices when he calls those quakes out, but then part of me cringes at a president wasting time on this garbage, and getting involved in quarrels against glorified bulliesa

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. +1. Why does everything have to begin & end at the steps of the WH?

Why don't we petition Congress to label FNC a race baiting, entertainment network?

[Booster]

50. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Problem solved.

[Dr Fate]

55. Good-but if we support that, wont FOX news attack us?

If the usual "centrists" refuse to support it, we will just make even more excuses and say that they "had to, or FOX would have attacked them."

[Booster]

57. Fox has been the best proof yet that the major networks "news"

departments need to have rules and regulations. Good Lord, even the "entertainment" divisions of the major networks have rules and regulations. I think Fox has proven that there is no difference between both of these departments; both deal in fictional stories.

[Dr Fate]

61. I agree 10,000%. Now I need elected DEMS to help me do something about it.

n/t

[Booster]

75. And, in a nutshell, that is our main problem. No one in Wash DC

really wants anything to change. It's just a game to all of them; a shell game that pays very, very well.

[Dr Fate]

77. Since FOX actually gets them un-elected, you would think tey would at least have a personal stake.

I guess fear is a powerful thing if people would rather lose an election than fight conservatives. Must suck to be a coward.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. The President has every right and duty to speak his own mind

about the press, and that is in fact how the wheel is set to turn. The list of Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, who have chastised members of the press, methodologies of the press, or entire media outlets is long, and reaches far into the the early days of our history as a nation. They have done it rightly, wrongly, and that has never been defined as messing with the First, but rather of making use of the First.
So why is it different for Obama?

[Dr Fate]

73. Thak you- the excuses are getting thinner and thinner. n/t

n/t

[jwirr]

74. You are right but he can ignore their news reporters at press conferences

and stop listening to their lies.

[Dr Fate]

78. I'm not sure the OP is even right- but I agree with you. Will he even do that?

?

[ProgressOnTheMove]

79. Likewise we have the right to debunk it and distribute that info more actively than ever to unspin..

the spin.

[ProSense]

81. No one cares if the WH actually goes after Fox

Whenever they do, it's ignored or met with cynicism.

White House Calls Out Fox By Name For Lying

Gibbs slams Fox News' coverage of Obama's nuclear policies

[Dr Fate]

83. I think about all those low info voters who now vote GOP instead of DEM, thanks to FOX lies.

Electing Bush twice, resulting in 2 multi-billion dollar wars.

Besides that, FOX is no biggie. Polls show that it hardly even exists, apparently.

Better for elected DEMS to just sit back, relax and let them do what they do best, right?

I mean, the polls say no one cares, so by all means FOX, go to it- give us your best shot- lie about us-unelect us- we love it!

[ProSense]

86. "Electing Bush twice"?

Besides that, FOX is no biggie. Polls show that it hardly even exists, apparently.

Better for elected DEMS to just sit back, relax and let them do what they do best, right?

What do you propose since Fox is off limits to Dems?

Do you think those low information voters who watch Hannity and Beck also watch Maddow and Olbermann?

[Dr Fate]

91. So your strategy is to get all those FOX viewers back to voting DEMS, by rewarding FOX access?

Yeah- that oughta work.

So the centrist plan would be to just let FOX carry on, recognize them as legit, an hopefully, someday, if enough DEMS go on their shows, we can turn the tide?

LOL! I thought you just said there was some big conspiracy where DEM who tell the truth-even ones with money- are denied access to the TV. Okay- but they CAN get on FOX. Good to know.

My plan would be to let the network dry up on the vine- with no one to interview but RWErs, half of their casual "flip on the TV and see what's on the news" type viewers will finally change the channel for good.

I admit that under my plan, we may never get back some those 90's era older low info voters who are now FOX viewers- but I dont think your non-plan will get any more of them on our side either.

My plan is to keep even MORE low info voters from viewing and then trusting FOX.

Better than your non-plan, which I can only assume is to just let elected DEMS sit there while FOX caries on as usual.

[Dr Fate]

85. The press corps allowed Jeff Gannon and Newsmax in it's ranks-dont forget that.

So I would not have a problem if Obama decides that their standards dont meet old fashoned, American standards of honesty & truth.

He is not obligated by law to follow their mandates in any event. He does not have to allow FOX or any other corporation into the press room.

[AtomicKitten]

90. I'm rather enjoying Keith and Rachel kicking Faux News in the nutsack. nt

[Dr Fate]

92. Me too. Now I want my elected DEMS in on that game. n/t

n/t

[AtomicKitten]

95. A synchronized ass-kicking would be awesome. nt

[Dr Fate]

96. As long as everyone is just content to make excuses, wont happen.

Just look at this thread- more excuses for not fighting than ways to fight. Usually the case.

[JoeyT]

97. I don't want to see him go after Fox.

I want to see him push something like the fairness doctrine.

[treestar]

98. I agree, in fact Faux Noise is beneath any POTUS

To talk about directly. That liar who doctored the tape ought to lost his job if Faux is to have any credibility as a "news" source.