White House lashes out at Fox News for 'lies'

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

In the past few months, Fox News' critical coverage of the Obama administration has been the subject of scornful scrutiny by left-leaning pundits and political satirists. But now the White House appears to be willing to get dirt on its own hands, jumping into the fray by blasting the network's "disregard for facts" in a post on the official White House blog.

Written by White House Online Programs Director Jesse Lee, the post takes issue with Fox News' coverage of the president's attempts to help the city of Chicago secure the 2016 Olympics, saying that Rupert Murdoch's cable news juggernaut, which famously bills itself as being "fair and balanced," has "continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts" to convince the International Olympic Committee that the U.S. should host the games.

Lee specifically takes issue with Glenn Beck, who in July accused the president of being a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture," for showing that "nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings." Lee then goes on to "reality check" a number of assertions recently made by Beck on his afternoon program, in addition to directing readers to the St. Petersburg Times' Politifact site, which rebuts accusations made by Fox News' Steve Doocy against Patrick Gaspard, the director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.

The move by the Obama White House sets a new watermark in its seemingly escalating war with Fox News. Back in June, President Obama gave an interview to CNBC in which he criticized the network for being "entirely devoted to attacking my administration," and later promised to "call out" anyone who misrepresents him when he delivered his address on health care reform to a joint session of Congress. Taking it a step further, Obama slighted Fox News during the White House's recent pro-health care reform PR blitz, appearing on five Sunday news shows, not to mention Late Night with David Letterman, while declining to grant an interview to a single Fox News program, a move that led Chris Wallace, host of the network's Fox News Sunday, to label the Obama White House as the "biggest bunch of cry-babies I've ever seen." Some objective observers of politics and the media feel that the ire expressed by Wallace is somewhat understandable. After all, the Obama administration's frustrations stem not from non-partisan hosts like Wallace, but from Fox News' roster of unabashedly partisan hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity, who've both gone so far as to compare the Obama White House to Hitler's Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

While many are raising hay about the White House acting aggressively to combat perceived smears from Fox News, it isn't unprecedented for a president and his administration to feud openly with the media. George W. Bush and CBS came to blows in 2004 after Dan Rather alleged on 60 Minutes II that Bush had used his family's connections to manipulate his enlistment in the National Guard to avoid serving in combat in Vietnam, an incident that led to the firing of CBS producer Mary Mapes and badly tarnished Rather's reputation as an objective newsman. Prior to that, Hillary Clinton famously alleged that forces in the media were involved in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to destroy her husband's presidency, while Nixon's infamous enemies list contained numerous names of media members and the news organizations they worked for. In short, animosity existing between the White House and the media isn't anything new.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama did what many presidential candidates of both parties have done over the years: promised to "change the tone in Washington." By using the White House blog to defend itself from perceived media distortions, the Obama Administration may be unintentionally signaling that their promise to alter the nation's political discourse was a lofty notion that they might fail to fulfill, just like every past presidential Administration to make the same promise.

link

the white house said so - fox news is evil! obey obama and condemn fox news!

[PlatyPius 5]

So they should keep quiet while Fox talks shee-yit about them?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, it's not just the White House lashing out at the stupid soldiers of Murdoch's RWN Network. Lindsay Graham, when asked what he thinks of Glenn Beck, says that "only in America can you make so much money crying". He labeled Beck a cynic and the birthers crazy. But then Graham is probably just a RINO now that he said that...

[Danno 1,228]

You know, it's not just the White House lashing out at the stupid soldiers of Murdoch's RWN Network. Lindsay Graham, when asked what he thinks of Glenn Beck, says that "only in America can you make so much money crying". He labeled Beck a cynic and the birthers crazy. But then Graham is probably just a RINO now that he said that...

Actually, to many he was considered a Rino long be fore he said that.

He lost a lot of respect when he supported Bush's plans to give Amnesty to the Illegals way back when.

His new code name... Amnesty Grahamnesty.

[Heracles 417]

I was watching fox news today. When it comes to the word socialism or government run, they are quite disingenuous. Like bullcrap that Europe has abandoned it and is moving towards the US style, every man for himself, capitalism.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I was watching fox news today. When it comes to the word socialism or government run, they are quite disingenuous. Like bullcrap that Europe has abandoned it and is moving towards the US style, every man for himself, capitalism.

Why do you hate capitalism?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I was watching fox news today. When it comes to the word socialism or government run, they are quite disingenuous. Like bullcrap that Europe has abandoned it and is moving towards the US style, every man for himself, capitalism.

why do you watch fox news?

[Heracles 417]

I was watching fox news today. When it comes to the word socialism or government run, they are quite disingenuous. Like bullcrap that Europe has abandoned it and is moving towards the US style, every man for himself, capitalism.

Why do you hate capitalism?

I don't. I just hate that in the states, it has no rules or boundaries. When I think about it, They're actually more capitalist in Aus than the US. SS is private. Public transport is private. Students can go to private schools (even religious oriented ones) and receive funding from the government. Multiple providers for telecommunications, broadband, electricity and gas.

So what's the difference?

1. The government sets the rules to ensure an equal playing field and no dirty business shenanigans; including minimum service requirements. - For example, $49.95 cell plan means you pay $49.95 (including tax, fees etc) No hidden fees permitted.

2. The government promotes competition and will break monopolies. - Walmart would be broken up. Government promotes competition in every sector.

3. The well off, as in those who can afford it, pay their fair share in tax. They pay 47% rather than 35%.

4. Everyone gets a fair pay, rather than just CEOs, small business owners, executives, bankers etc.

I hated Aus's left wing social stance when I left. Ask anyone there who knows me and they have all heard my opinion on welfare and tax. However, now that I have seen both, social-democracies are a clear winner. They're also the reason why you will not find a Detroit or a ghetto or run down towns or crime ridden communities there. So for an extra 5 to 12% in tax, Australians get to avoid the majority of the United states problems. Whereas, my fellow conservatives here seem to think the country will end by doing so and prefer the country to remain as it is.

Don't make the mistake of looking at France, who is the extreme. Look at countries like Aus, where people pay just a bit more, yet receive so much more out of it. It really is an investment.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I was watching fox news today. When it comes to the word socialism or government run, they are quite disingenuous. Like bullcrap that Europe has abandoned it and is moving towards the US style, every man for himself, capitalism.

Why do you hate capitalism?

I don't. I just hate that in the states, it has no rules or boundaries. When I think about it, They're actually more capitalist in Aus than the US. SS is private. Public transport is private. Students can go to private schools (even religious oriented ones) and receive funding from the government. Multiple providers for telecommunications, broadband, electricity and gas.

So what's the difference?

1. The government sets the rules to ensure an equal playing field and no dirty business shenanigans; including minimum service requirements. - For example, $49.95 cell plan means you pay $49.95 (including tax, fees etc) No hidden fees permitted.

2. The government promotes competition and will break monopolies. - Walmart would be broken up. Government promotes competition in every sector.

3. The well off, as in those who can afford it, pay their fair share in tax. They pay 47% rather than 35%.

4. Everyone gets a fair pay, rather than just CEOs, small business owners, executives, bankers etc.

I hated Aus's left wing social stance when I left. Ask anyone there who knows me and they have all heard my opinion on welfare and tax. However, now that I have seen both, social-democracies are a clear winner. They're also the reason why you will not find a Detroit or a ghetto or run down towns or crime ridden communities there. So for an extra 5 to 12% in tax, Australians get to avoid the majority of the United states problems. Whereas, my fellow conservatives here seem to think the country will end by doing so and prefer the country to remain as it is.

Don't make the mistake of looking at France, who is the extreme. Look at countries like Aus, where people pay just a bit more, yet receive so much more out of it. It really is an investment.

Why do you hate the United States?

[Heracles 417]

why do you watch fox news?

I watch all news channels. After CNBC, fox is my second choice.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So they should keep quiet while Fox talks shee-yit about them?

It is a sad day when the administration directly attacks a news source. The white house should do its job and let people say what they will in a country with free speech. Obama does not need to be running around "cirrecting" Glenn Beck , though Glenn Beck loves the attention. Since when did George Bush run around correcting Keith Oberman? I men thi sis just pitiful, pathetic. Obama has the control knobs, his actions will disprove his critics IF he takes the right actions. He needs to grow a thicker skin and do his job.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

So they should keep quiet while Fox talks shee-yit about them?

It is a sad day when the administration directly attacks a news source. The white house should do its job and let people say what they will in a country with free speech. Obama does not need to be running around "cirrecting" Glenn Beck , though Glenn Beck loves the attention. Since when did George Bush run around correcting Keith Oberman? I men thi sis just pitiful, pathetic. Obama has the control knobs, his actions will disprove his critics IF he takes the right actions. He needs to grow a thicker skin and do his job.

granted that bush did it too, although in that particular scenario it resulted in a few people being fired.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I was watching fox news today. When it comes to the word socialism or government run, they are quite disingenuous. Like bullcrap that Europe has abandoned it and is moving towards the US style, every man for himself, capitalism.

Why do you hate capitalism?

I don't. I just hate that in the states, it has no rules or boundaries. When I think about it, They're actually more capitalist in Aus than the US. SS is private. Public transport is private. Students can go to private schools (even religious oriented ones) and receive funding from the government. Multiple providers for telecommunications, broadband, electricity and gas.

So what's the difference?

1. The government sets the rules to ensure an equal playing field and no dirty business shenanigans; including minimum service requirements. - For example, $49.95 cell plan means you pay $49.95 (including tax, fees etc) No hidden fees permitted.

2. The government promotes competition and will break monopolies. - Walmart would be broken up. Government promotes competition in every sector.

3. The well off, as in those who can afford it, pay their fair share in tax. They pay 47% rather than 35%.

4. Everyone gets a fair pay, rather than just CEOs, small business owners, executives, bankers etc.

I hated Aus's left wing social stance when I left. Ask anyone there who knows me and they have all heard my opinion on welfare and tax. However, now that I have seen both, social-democracies are a clear winner. They're also the reason why you will not find a Detroit or a ghetto or run down towns or crime ridden communities there. So for an extra 5 to 12% in tax, Australians get to avoid the majority of the United states problems. Whereas, my fellow conservatives here seem to think the country will end by doing so and prefer the country to remain as it is.

Don't make the mistake of looking at France, who is the extreme. Look at countries like Aus, where people pay just a bit more, yet receive so much more out of it. It really is an investment.

Capitalism creates its own rules and boundaries, government cannot do a better job than the free market. Sears was the "world's Largest Store" until they forgot about their customers and Walmart has pushed them to oblivion. Now Walmart is doing the same thing and has recently committed to spending millions to improve customer service, store appearance, etc. Maybe it will work and maybe it will not. If not, someone else will take their place just as Walmart did to Sears.

In fact I live in a state (Vermont) with many of the same rules you talk about. We have an "anti-Walmart" law, as it is called, that imposes draconian taxes and "impact fees" on any store over a certian square footage (I forget the square footage but it is just under the usual Walmart size store) So we have ONE Walmart in the state (built before the law passed) And what? We pay more for almost everything here. It is ridiculous. I drive a short distance across a bridge to New York to buy groceries...20-50% cheaper than here! Before the bridge was there I drove into Canada, around the top of the lake and back into New York, two international border crossings!, to get out of this high priced state to buy groceries. Vermont is so "anti-big-business" which is supposed to help the "little guy" and all it does is raise our cost of living to a level it has no business being for a rural state. Say what you will about the high cost of living in New York or Massachusetts, I go to Boston quite often and we load up on groceries in MA where it is even cheaper than Northern New York. Even my Ukrainian wife can spot the difference instantly.

The regulations have just artificially raised the price of everything. We pay MORE here because capitalism is not allowed to set its own price as it is in other states. I dare say the price of things in Australia is generally higher than things here.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So we have ONE Walmart in the state

Not according to Wal-Mart.

1. Berlin, VT 05602

2. Williston, VT 05495

3. Rutland, VT 05701

4. Bennington, VT 05201

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So we have ONE Walmart in the state

Not according to Wal-Mart.

1. Berlin, VT 05602

2. Williston, VT 05495

3. Rutland, VT 05701

4. Bennington, VT 05201

Dog 4

Gary 1