Fox requested interview with Pay Czar, according to article by known right-wing outlet the Huffington Post:
Quote:
A Fox News executive told the Huffington Post Saturday that the network "absolutely" did request an interview with Obama administration "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg and that the White House acknowledged a mistake on the part of a Treasury department staffer in failing to initially include Fox News in the round of interviews Feinberg conducted Thursday.
"Of course we requested an interview," Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente told the Huffington Post.
This directly contradicts reports by the Associated Press and Talking Points Memo, both of which reported that the White House had excluded Fox News because it did not request an interview.
Whether Fox News requested an interview was irrelevant in this case, however, as the interview was conducted a pool including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News.
Clemente said that CBS News Washington Bureau Chief and current pool chairman Chris Isham — who did not respond to phone or e-mail requests for comment Saturday — received a call from the Treasury Department Thursday saying that Feinberg would be available to speak to all of the networks in the pool except for Fox News, and that Bloomberg would be included instead.
Clemente said that when Isham presented that scenario on a conference call with the other pool members — including Fox News — "they unanimously said, instantly, no, that's not gonna fly. Either Fox is in or none of us is doing it."
Once Isham relayed that message to Treasury, Treasury cleared it with White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who approved Feinberg's interview with Fox News' Major Garrett.
Clemente said, however, that there was now a catch: every network would get two minutes with Feinberg instead of the previously planned five.
"That's not very normal," he said. "I'm told that whoever was there was absolutely militaristic about the time limit. Usually two or four or five minutes means, 'Ask your last question,' with a little flexibility. But there was none."
Clemente added that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged to Fox News' White House Correspondent Major Garrett that a low level Treasury staffer made a mistake in attempting to exclude Fox from the pool interviews.
The pool is designed to save both time and money by using one camera and crew for interviews to air across all pool member networks.
"If any member had been excluded it would have been the same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues," one pool network bureau chief told TPM Friday. "It's all for one and one for all."
CBS News' Chip Reid described the situation Friday on the "CBS Evening News."
"All the networks said, that's it, you've crossed the line," Reid said.
These accounts contradict a Treasury Department statement to Mediaite Friday, which said, "There was no plot to exclude Fox News."
__________________
I hate Sydney Crosby
2010 Adopted Tiger -- DH (hopefully) Carlos Guillen
Previous adoptees: Gerald Laird (2009), Zach Miner (2008), Dusty Ryan (2007),
Last edited by Mark The Shark; 10-25-2009 at 06:25 PM.
You still don't understand, the same people don't watch the channel 24/7. I noticed you missed that poll in your response to me. The Nielsen ratings in no way contradict this poll, get it, they aren't related, the ratings give you a snapshot of viewers within a certain timeslot, they don't say the same people are watching the channel 24/7 7 days a week.
Go back to your web site where they told you to use that argument, and find out what your next move is when people don't accept the Nielson ratings for an hour of programming as the total viewership for the channel.
Here is a quote on attacking sources from earlier in this thread.
Wrong.
Nielsen ratings also measure unique viewers, and they are nowhere in the neighborhood that Dick Morris' poll would suggest.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
But I wouldn't expect any better from a known pathological liar such as Morris.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
Really - if we can't agree that morris is among the scum of the earth, what can we agree on?
Mark - help me out here - what do you think?
No objection. But choosing who to believe between Morris and MM is kinda like choosing who to root for in the Ohio State - Wisconsin game. You're kinda hoping "Tornado."
__________________
I hate Sydney Crosby
2010 Adopted Tiger -- DH (hopefully) Carlos Guillen
Previous adoptees: Gerald Laird (2009), Zach Miner (2008), Dusty Ryan (2007),
If you really find the people here to be so self-righteous, smelly, stupid, and dishonest why do you come by? Really - why come by?
Dont make generalizations about my post when Ive been specific. I dont think most of the people out here are self-righteous, smelly, stupid, and dishonest. Just a few.
Gee, do you think Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch love being The White House's least-favorite news channel? Duh, of course they do.
Here's a chart comparing network ratings from the period 9/28/2009-10/11/09, which is when Anita Dunn slammed the network, and the two weeks after that ("post feud"). The numbers on the bottom right of this chart show the sequential gain for all demos (+9%( and the 25-54 year old demo (+14%).
Maybe Murdoch will contribute to the Obama campaign in 2012.
Breaking: FishbowlDC scoops that Fox News SVP Michael Clemente met with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs this morning and the two reached what some are calling a "truce" in the ongoing and very public war of words between the Obama administration and the news network.
Clemente, who oversees FNC's news coverage, then met with staffers at the Washington bureau and encouraged them to remain "fair and balanced," reports FBDC's Matt Dornic.
An Obama administration official confirms with TVNewser that Clemente and Gibbs met this morning at the White House.
__________________
“Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be, but, thank God, we ain’t what we was.” - MLK 1959
Sure. As George Will pointed out, the liberals have academia, the majority of the news media, Hollywood - so FOX "balances" that out. I think it's fair that the conservatives get 1 network since the liberals have 2 cable nets, and 3 broadcast nets!
Cons get 1 network... couldn't have said it better myself.
__________________
“Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be, but, thank God, we ain’t what we was.” - MLK 1959
Fox News is part of a corporation, as are most of the other major news outlets in the United States. Congress and state legislators have chosen to exempt them from the ban they have placed on other corporations’ political speech. However, under current Supreme Court precedent there’s no legal reason that lawmakers cannot take that exemption away. As a result, government officials are constantly tempted to manipulate the exemption and silence those who disagree with them.
With the Obama administration now arguing that Fox News is a partisan political group masked as a news outlet, expect politicians to call for the government to revoke the network’s media exemption and use the campaign finance laws to mute its speech. Other networks will be on notice that they could suffer the same fate if they are too critical of the administration.
Of course, if the media’s speech becomes illegitimate — and thus subject to restriction — when it turns critical, then the same is true for everyone else, including ordinary citizens. For example, take grassroots groups such as the tea party protesters, who were the bane of politicians’ existence this past summer. Looking for payback, politicians are now proposing to subject those groups to so-called “disclosure” laws that will discourage them from protesting by wrapping them up in miles and miles of red tape if they dare to continue to speak out.
Quote:
Fortunately, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court is about to remind politicians that free speech is a right, not a privilege subject to their mercurial whims. In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will issue a decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC. The Supreme Court is expected to hold that the government cannot prevent corporations from spending money to express their views about candidates. In doing so, the justices can make clear that the government cannot stifle the speech of any group — corporate or non-corporate — simply because it is forsaking “legitimacy” by not toeing the government line.
The good news for the administration? The Supreme Court’s decision should be of interest to all media, so the White House won’t have to tune into Fox News to hear all about it.
Sure. As George Will pointed out, the liberals have academia, the majority of the news media, Hollywood - so FOX "balances" that out. I think it's fair that the conservatives get 1 network since the liberals have 2 cable nets, and 3 broadcast nets!
You can have Hollywood. Hollywood is a bunch of irrelevant freaks. Plus, the great conservative icon of awesomeness came straight from the movies to become our first spokesmodel president.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
You can have Hollywood. Hollywood is a bunch of irrelevant freaks. Plus, the great conservative icon of awesomeness came straight from the movies to become our first spokesmodel president.
After a stint as the Guv of California.
__________________ What I received has no receipt or price tag. I can't take it back and I can't give it away. It's mine and always will be.
You can have Hollywood. Hollywood is a bunch of irrelevant freaks. Plus, the great conservative icon of awesomeness came straight from the movies to become our first spokesmodel president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hueytaxi
After a stint as the Guv of California.
Just another forgotten fact from the one who came from liberal academia. Oh, and don't forget to blame the start of class warfare on him 29 years ago like you tried earlier today. I love how Couga seems to now want to talk about Presidential qualifications. I'll stack up President Reagan's pre-presidential political career against President Obama's any day.
Just another forgotten fact from the one who came from liberal academia. Oh, and don't forget to blame the start of class warfare on him 29 years ago like you tried earlier today. I love how Couga seems to now want to talk about Presidential qualifications. I'll stack up President Reagan's pre-presidential political career against President Obama's any day.
He was a spokesmodel in California, too.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
anybody who questions Reagan's qualifications to be President, setting aside his political beliefs, just exposes their ignorance on the subject and no further debate is necessary. They're either being obtuse, which I don't have a problem with, just admit it, or they're just plain stupid.
I've posted this before but I'll do it again since it appears necessary for some.
While not a total revelation — it was caught by a few early Reagan biographers — there was an event that occurred 40 years ago this month that has gone underreported and certainly unappreciated. The event concerns not only Reagan’s political life but that of an equally well-known rising star of the time: Robert F. Kennedy. It should be a permanent part of our mental history of Reagan’s rise, if not a permanent video exhibit at the Reagan Library and Museum.
On May 15, 1967, there was a fascinating debate between California’s new Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, and New York’s new Democratic senator, Robert F. Kennedy. The subject: the Vietnam War. The debate was titled “The Image of America and the Youth of the World,” and was billed by CBS as a “Town Meeting of the World.” It was broadcast from 10:00-11:00 P.M. EDT by CBS TV Network and CBS Radio Network. It was produced by later 60 Minutes brainchild Don Hewitt and hosted by CBS News correspondent Charles Collingwood. The debate was watched by a huge audience: 15 million Americans.
There was total agreement, including among media sources who revered Bobby Kennedy, from the San Francisco Chronicle to Newsweek, that Reagan overwhelmingly won the debate. “To those unfamiliar with Reagan’s big-league savvy,” reported Newsweek, “the ease with which he fielded questions about Vietnam may have come as a revelation.” Newsweek judged that “political rookie Reagan … left old campaigner Kennedy blinking when the session ended.” Not having a crystal ball into the tragic year ahead for Kennedy, Newsweek pondered whether the debate might be a “dry run” for a future set of “Great Debates” between these two promising presidential aspirants.
The late historian David Halberstam acknowledged that “the general consensus” was that “Reagan … destroyed him.” Lou Cannon, in a 1969 book on Reagan and California assemblyman Jesse Unruh, agreed that “Reagan clearly bested Kennedy.” Another of Reagan’s first biographers, Joseph Lewis, recorded that the “tanned and relaxed” Reagan “talked easily and precisely without a hint of uncertainty or hostility,” and “deflated” the “anguished” Kennedy, who “gulped in restrained agony” when answering questions. Kennedy, said Lewis, “looked as if he had stumbled into a minefield.”
Lewis’s metaphor was a good one, since the hostile questioners treated both Kennedy and Reagan like war criminals. Truthfully, this was not a debate between Ronald Reagan and Bobby Kennedy. Rather, it descended into a venomous America-bashing session by a panel of extremely rude international students, who seemed to bask in their big chance to unleash their torrent of anger on the two available representatives of the country they despised. Newsweek rightly described the leftist students as “interrogators.” Among them, there was one American student, Bill Bradley, the Princeton basketball star, future NBA all-star, and future U.S. senator, who at the time was studying at Oxford, and appeared troubled and overwhelmed by the level of bile directed at his country. Also among them was a beaming Soviet student, clearly thrilled with what he was witnessing from this group of young dupes who had obviously swallowed every dose of Kremlin propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Reagan and Kennedy ended up debating the group of students, not one another. And it was there that Reagan was so effective, whereas Kennedy was passive, meek, and apologetic. Alarmed viewers looking for a defense of the United States as anything other than history’s greatest purveyor of global misery were frustrated by Kennedy’s lame responses but buoyed by Reagan’s strong retorts.
The fiasco began with a “question” from a female British student, who started: “I believe the war in Vietnam is illegal, immoral, politically unjustifiable, and economically motivated.” That opening salvo set the tone. In one particularly repulsive moment, the students mockingly laughed out loud when Reagan said (obviously correctly) that the people of Mao’s China had never chosen their government. At that moment, Mao Zedong was smack in the middle of his Cultural Revolution, where he was busy fulfilling his rightful role as the greatest mass murderer in the history of humanity: 60-70 million dead in under two decades. And yet, in an up or down vote, this group of students might well have elected Mao secretary general of the United Nations.
In another exchange still difficult to watch, a contemptuous Brit named Jeff Jordan, whom Kennedy permitted to roll all over him, complained that the Diem regime, with the alleged help of U.S. advisers, had incarcerated six million Vietnamese in “forced prison camps.” A smiling Reagan informed Jordan that there was no record whatsoever to confirm the allegation and that there were only 16 million people in all of South Vietnam. These facts did not rattle Jordan; like the others, he was not there to listen. Newsweek was at least impressed by this exchange, noting that Reagan “effortlessly reeled off more facts and quasi-facts about the Vietnam conflict than anyone suspected he ever knew.”
The most disturbing feature of the evening was the moral equivalency that was applied to every situation. Moral equivalency is a game the Soviets excelled at exploiting, and that the Left gobbled up; no doubt, it was a central part of the education these students received in college. Moral equivalency stated that neither the U.S.S.R. nor the United States could claim a moral high ground in the Cold War, both were equally culpable for its start and continuation, and neither nation’s political system was superior to the other. In one of its manifestations during the debate, a very confused student from Ghana lectured Reagan: “Excuse me, sir…. You think something is good; he thinks something else is good. You want him to give up some of his hostile views. You are not prepared to move back one inch from yours.”
The young man was hardly alone: The student who represented Japan taunted Reagan for the alleged hypocrisy of supporting the spread of his preferred system but not accepting the Kremlin’s spread of its preferred system. The English students, in particular, simply could not distinguish between the American Founders’ movement for self government and individual rights and the totalitarianism of Communist “national liberation movements.” The well-trained Soviet student seized the moment, urging Reagan to see that both the USSR and United States had their own self interests and each side must recognize, respect, and accept those interests.
Such reasoning was employed again and again to browbeat Reagan and the United States. For his part, Reagan detested moral equivalency and took it on each time it reared its ugly head during the evening. Kennedy did not.
Especially notable, but forgotten by history, were Reagan’s remarks that evening concerning the Berlin Wall. The governor asserted: “When we signed the Consular Treaty with the Soviet Union, I think there were things that we could’ve asked in return: I think it would be very admirable if the Berlin Wall, which was built in direct contravention to a treaty, should disappear. I think this would be a step toward peace and toward self-determination for all people, if it were.”
Here was possibly Ronald Reagan’s first public call for the removal of the Berlin Wall, offered in May 1967, 20 years before his famous challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev.
Once an hour had passed, Chris Collingwood jumped in to mercifully stop the spectacle. Kennedy interrupted, requesting a final word. Stating that he was speaking on behalf of Reagan as well, he concluded with a patronizing statement about “how much we’ve enjoyed” the internationally broadcast inquisition and the importance of “dialogue,” which, of course, this discussion was not. Kennedy’s compliment was obviously untrue and even more obviously undeserved; this group of petulant brats had earned not gratitude but a good spanking. Embarrassingly, Reagan felt it necessary to second Kennedy’s gesture. On the plus side, perhaps both men showed these 19-year-old know-it-alls a thing or two about civility.
Reagan performed so well that his presidential boosters sought to use clips from the debate during the 1968 Oregon presidential primary, and requested a copy from CBS. Kennedy, however, reportedly did not want the video to be made available; CBS, naturally, acceded to his request. Kennedy himself conceded defeat to Reagan, telling his aides after the debate to never again put him on the same stage with “that son-of-a-*****.” Kennedy was heard to ask immediately after the debate, “Who the f—- got me into this?” Frank Mankiewitz was that aide, as Kennedy was quick to remind him a few weeks later: “You’re the guy who got me into that Reagan thing.”
RFK had his reasons for shelving the debate. History, however, has no such excuse. Whether one is interested in presidential history or Cold War history or simply an entertaining blast-from-the-past, this is a moment that needs to be pulled off the shelf, observed, appreciated, and, most of all, remembered.
I think it is laugh-out-loud funny that you try to portray yourself as a liberal elsewhere while lauding Ronald Reagan (not to mention other Republican politicians)
I think it is laugh-out-loud funny that you try to portray yourself as a liberal elsewhere while lauding Ronald Reagan (not to mention other Republican politicians)
And I find it interesting that you cannot read. Or are intentionally dense. I have NEVER said I am liberal. Let alone FAR LEFT. You can't possibly be this stupid. Not even you. I have said I am a MODERATE. Some views tend to be liberal, some conservative. I have also said that the local chapter of the GOP wouldn't let me in the door. And they wouldn't. And even if I did maintain I was a liberal or Democrat - many Democrats supported Reagan. You don't win 49 states without a major plurality. Never heard of Reagan democrats?
In your hasty attempt to discredit me, you once again discredit yourself.
And I find it interesting that you cannot read. Or are intentionally dense. I have NEVER said I am liberal. Let alone FAR LEFT. You can't possibly be this stupid. Not even you. I have said I am a MODERATE. Some views tend to be liberal, some conservative. I have also said that the local chapter of the GOP wouldn't let me in the door. And they wouldn't. And even if I did maintain I was a liberal or Democrat - many Democrats supported Reagan. You don't win 49 states without a major plurality. Never heard of Reagan democrats?
In your hasty attempt to discredit me, you once again discredit yourself.
I believe in the past you have said you have more liberal views than conservative. Calling you far-left was sarcasm.
I believe in the past you have said you have more liberal views than conservative. Calling you far-left was sarcasm.
I believe you couldn't discuss the topic and decided to make it about me. So I will comply, but I'll actually put out my thoughts, instead of having you incorrectly label me.
You seem to have an absolutist partisan outlook. I voted for Ronald Reagan. I actually worked on his re-election back in 1984. Why? Because Walter Mondale would have been a freakin' disaster. I have also voted for Carl Levin, and Sander Levin. Why? Because the people that were running against them would have been DISASTERS. I don't subscribe to partisan crap. I belong to no party. Out here on MTS, I may appear more conservative because the topics that are discussed seem to be my more conservative positions. Start a topic about gay marriage and see how conservative I look.
The reason I seem more like a conservative out here isn't because of ideology, it's because of behavior and attitude. The pompous, arrogant, belittling, hair splitting attitudes out here by the Four Horsemen of the Liberal Far Left make me sick. (Some may think that's a description of me too - that's fine) Prime example: I think with most people out here I can sit and agree that while Fox tilts to the right, MSNBC tilts to the left.
However there is a group out here that just can't see that. It has to be
FOX = EVIL AND BAD
MSNBC = FINE PULITZER PRIZED BALANCED REPORTING
(yes - that's sarcasm)
That "we're" the good guys, the adults, and the GOP is the bad guys attitude drives me nuts more than anything. Because when people act like that - the only guarantee is that NOTHING gets solved. The main problem with some of this board's far left posters is that they don't realize that not only have they become that which they claim to hate, they've become worse. I can sit here and read what someone I generally don't agree with says, and find common ground. Take Subrosa for example. We both tend to disagree about a lot, but I've been able to find common ground with him. Or with Buddha, I tend to agree with him on Afghanistan. But I've watched posters here that have made it SO personal that that because I'm echoing buddha's thoughts that normally they would probably agree with - they STILL CAN'T HELP but argue with me. An example would be when I debated with pfife when he took the side that the Helmand Province a success when CLEARLY to anyone with eyes it hasn't been, shows just how blinded by partisanship some are. He was arguing that Afghanistan's Helmand policy WORKED! If I came out and said SATAN IS EVIL, I'm betting some of you would defend the devil. So at the end of the day, you can't win a debate with you and some of the others. You just have to hope you have shown the rest of the objective people out here just how fanatical and absurd some behave. And you usually comply.
I believe you couldn't discuss the topic and decided to make it about me. So I will comply, but I'll actually put out my thoughts, instead of having you incorrectly label me.
You seem to have an absolutist partisan outlook. I voted for Ronald Reagan. I actually worked on his re-election back in 1984. Why? Because Walter Mondale would have been a freakin' disaster. I have also voted for Carl Levin, and Sander Levin. Why? Because the people that were running against them would have been DISASTERS. I don't subscribe to partisan crap. .
Yeah, Carl Levin and Ronald Reagan had very divergent views on most issues so I don't understand how someone interesting in policy could basically vote both ways on every issue.
I love how Couga seems to now want to talk about Presidential qualifications. I'll stack up President Reagan's pre-presidential political career against President Obama's any day.
Linear Mode
