Answering your critics is justifiable - showing where Fox is forwarding their own agenda is certainly acceptable, especially when you are doing it in the open.
I would agree that answering your critics isn't just justifiable, it's the responsibility of government to answer to the public.
However, the administration isn't doing that. They aren't answer any of their critics. They've instead chosen to smear and defame. Charge them as liars and call their legitimacy into question.
As stated, I agree, any administration has both a right and a responsibility to the public to answer their critics directly and honestly. The Obama administration appears to be deliberately avoiding that.
Behind closed doors, or on private junkets, is a terrible standard
We can address the behind closed door stuff later. For example, you've conveniently avoided all of the discussion regarding the Obama administrations abuse of power by trying to use the NEA as a propaganda arm or the "Participation Campaign" being discussed earlier today.
If you really want to talk about clandestine stuff that White Houses have done or more importantly ARE DOING, we can certainly do that. "They've done things before" is never an excuse. If your claims had any merit, the only consensus it should lead it is, "well maybe it's time that they all stopped and we expected more."
And the administration has just started to use this policy - just last weekend - I am sure they need to figure a way to go about this - this is uncharted territory.
You've just acknowledged that this is uncharted territory !?
But you've been trying to equate it to past events through this entire thread.
You're damn right it's uncharted territory. That was MY point from the beginning. And it's not some place I think any political administration should be.
What has come of the NEA story....
I don't need you to spin and excuse what happened.
There's an entirely separate thread that you dismissed specifically dealing with that.... but since you seem so interested in talking about it.... I'll bump the post back up and discuss this here.
Your description of what happened and who was involved is
100% wrong.
Let's continue that here:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=57052
I don't think you will see the White House standing up for Van Jones
No, but they did let him resign at about midnight on a holiday weekend
How convenient, but since he resigned in the middle of night over a holiday weekend, the administration never had to answer the IMPORTANT questions surrounding Van Jones.
Who hired him. Why did they hire him. Were they aware of who he was. What was he doing. Who is he associated with.
If they knew all about him yet hired him anyway, we need to know.
If they didn't know, that shows rampant incompetence, and we need to know.
The fact of the matter is, they DID know about Van Jones. Van Jones wasn't ideological out of place in that administration. They just never expected anyone in the media to actually critically examine them. He was hand picked and they had been following his activist career for several years.
YouTube - Valerie Jarrett on Green Jobs Czar Van Jones
And what does Nancy Pelosi think of him?
YouTube - Nancy Pelosi's Opinion Of Van Jones
social justice and environmental justice......
I thought it was Beck that broke the Van Jones story - not Fox News. Beck isn't News, nor would he ever say that he was.
No, Beck isn't a news reporter. He's considered a commentator.
A distinction that the White House has also conveniently attempted to blur.
The story broke on the internet. However, it was mentioned virtually no where else but on Glenn Beck and later the Fox News.
You won't find any connection between the Color of Change and the white house regarding the boycotting of Beck
Van Jones worked for the White House- among other places- and was the co-founder of Color of Change. The two are linked directly. The 'boycott' came about in an effort to silence Beck after he intensified his focus on Van Jones.
And even now, though Van Jones resigned from his Green Jobs adviser/czar position, they simply moved him into an office over at the Center for American Progress. The George Sorros funded, John Podesta founded organization.
No-I am saying that when one media source is obviously working a biased agenda,
You mean like MSNBC?
The news organization that gets thrills up their legs when Obama speaks? That one?
Oh, you mean the one that actually asks the reasonable questions at press conferences.
the 'other side' has a right to target them like they would the opposing party.
So you've concluded that the Fox News Network has an "obviously biased agenda." Based on what? The fact they are the only network that consistently aired reports and opinions that are critical of the administration?
And because they are performing their constitutionally necessary role of watchdog, you think that the regime in power right now has the RIGHT to treat them like political opponents? That they should "take them out" using smear tactics, lies, defamation, and investing time and energy into delegitimizing them?
Wouldn't it be better to have the administration just answer the tough questions? I know that Obama and this administration have extremely thin skin and are not accustomed to actually having to deal with criticism, but don't you think that would be the preferable thing to do in a Republic like ours?
Fox is now a political target - because that is the route they have decided to take. It is profitable for them, but they need to take the punches as well as throw them because they are now a political entity.
Fox is a political target.
They are the "opposition."
They are an enemy of the administration.
And you think it's appropriate that Obama uses the power of the White House to destroy them.
Now, I'm not worried about well being of the network right now. From a short term business stand point, this will only strengthen the network and likely drive up viewership. That's not the point though.
You seem to think that by merely being critical of the administration that it's appropriate for the administration to invest resources in attacking, smearing, and lying about the source- because in your world, everything is political.
I still disagree that the Fox
NEWS division is biased or political. That is the distinction that you periodically have seemed to forgotten and the White House wishes to gloss over.
But why is the WHITE HOUSE treating CITIZENS like political adversaries when they are simply confronting them with extremely reasonable questions?
Odd that many, many people who have worked for Fox speak out the very same way
And it's odd that many,many, more people
don't speak the same way.
Once again - let them spew whatever they want - I don't care. Just label it what it is - 24 hour commentary.
No, it's not.
The
NEWS DIVISION is not commentary.
For example, Chris Wallace is not a conservative or a Republican.
What is the political ideology of Brett Baier?
What about Wendell Goler?
What's terribly unfortunate is that some of the commentary guys, like Beck, are doing more news reporting than the rest of the media!
But the administration can't have that. They don't want to respond to their critics. They don't think they have a responsibility to answer to the public. Fox News, and some of the commentators, are impeding their progress, so... just as you so eloquently stated,
they need to be taken out...
Private media can be a problem like that sometimes.
For example, in Venezuela. What does Obama's recently appointed "diversity czar"- a newly created position....
I mean "chief diversity officer" at the FCC have to say about that:
YouTube - Mark Lloyd praises Hugo Chavez
There's nothing to be concerned about....
They wouldn't lie to us........just like you wouldn't.
