The American Spectator

Tim| 10.23.09 @ 10:54AM

Fox and hounds.

Warrior| 10.23.09 @ 10:58AM

I'll bet the Huffington Post was allowed unfettered access to the press pool event.

S.L. Toddard| 10.23.09 @ 11:36AM

"While some have tried to equate the administration's stance toward Fox with the Bush administration's criticism of, for instance, NBC, there is a clear distinction between complaining about specific aspects of an outfit's coverage and declaring that company "not really news."

Neither example is particular jarring when compared with the Bush administration’s truly sinister effort to control of the media:

“They explicitly threatened to prosecute New York Times journalists -- to criminally prosecute them -- for reporting on Bush's illegal spying program aimed at American citizens. They imprisoned numerous foreign journalists covering their various wars. The administration's obsessive and unprecedented secrecy -- Dick Cheney refused to disclose even the most basic information about his whereabouts, his meetings, or even the number of staff members he had -- was the ultimate form of media control. And what was the Pentagon's embedding process other than an attempt to control media coverage and ensure favorable reporting? One will search in vain for much media protests about any of that.

But it was the Bush Pentagon's "military analyst"/domestic propaganda program that was, far and away, the most egregious case in a long, long time of a White House attempting to control media content and political coverage in the United States. And with very rare exception, not a single television network or cable news program ever even mentioned any of that -- despite David Barstow's having won the Pulitzer Prize for uncovering it -- because all their networks were implicated by it. To see how extreme a form of "media control" that was, just look at what the Bush Pentagon itself said it was doing.

As part of that propaganda program, the Bush DOD -- as they put it -- "develop[ed] a core group from within our media analyst list of those that we can count on to carry our water." They then fed those water-carriers with exclusive, secret tips about what the Government was doing, to ensure that TV programs would be forced to rely only on pro-Bush sources -- armed with "exclusives" -- while ignoring their critics. Here's how the Director of DoD Press Operations explained that tactic in a memo to key Rumsfeld aides, including Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman:

By providing them with key and valuable information, they become the key go to guys for the networks and it begins to weed out the less reliably friendly analysts by the networks themselves . . . .

The Bush Pentagon had a program "to weed out the less reliably friendly analysts" from appearing on television networks. That would ensure not only that on-air pundits were "carrying water" for the Bush White House, but also that the networks' story choices and coverage of military matters would be shaped by those same water-carriers, since the networks' military analysts "have a huge amount of influence on what stories the network decides to cover proactively with regard to the military. . . . " It's hardly possible to imagine a more blatant effort to "control the media" than that. There is nothing the Obama White House has done regarding the media that even comes close.

Whatever else is true, Fox has taken on a political role that is very rare, at least in modern times, for a large American news organization. Its news coverage is not merely biased or opinionated; there'd be nothing unusual about that. Instead, it is a major participant -- the leading participant -- in organizing, promoting and fueling protests, including street protests, against the government. Fox has undertaken a role typically played by media outlets in, say, Venezuela or various unstable, under-developed countries -- sponsoring rather than reporting on protests against the government -- and it is difficult to recall any recent example that is similar.

Fox has every right to do that, but the pretense that it is a news organization is ludicrous -- transparently so -- and there isn't anything remotely wrong with the Obama White House saying so. Even those with high tolerance levels for blatant double standards should have a very hard time watching Bush officials of all people -- along with their media-star allies -- whine about criticisms of Fox coming from the White House, when the prior eight years were marked by an administration that attempted to dominate and control media coverage more than any in modern history, along with a media that seemed perfectly content, even happy, to be controlled.”

http://www.salon.com/news/opin.....index.html

If anyone has any substantive objections to make about the allegations above, please make them. If anyone cares to deny that the Bush administration threatened to prosecute the NY Times for reporting on the illegal domestic spying regime, or that they had numerous foreign journalists imprisoned, or that they planted Pentagon-controlled operatives, who deceivingly portrayed themselves as “independent analysts” to “carry (the administration’s) water” and control – directly – the stories the media chose to cover and how they chose to cover them, then please let’s hear it.

Otherwise let’s spare everyone the scary-talk about Obama controlling the media.

Dean| 10.23.09 @ 2:02PM

SL--

I'll assume that your passioned e-mail against the efforts of the Bush administration to silence the press means you are as equally appalled by the Obama administration's efforts to silence and deny access to Fox News.

Eric Cartman| 10.23.09 @ 5:22PM

A little editing is in line, here. Just a smidge:

If anyone cares to deny that the Bush administration threatened to prosecute the[traitorous] NY Times for reporting on [a secret NSA listening program that intercepted incoming foreign calls as part of an ongoing war against terrorists which there is nothing illegal about and saved lives] , or that they had numerous foreign journalists imprisoned [okay I just made that one up], or that they planted [former pentagon or military officials who agreed with them on news shows], who deceivingly portrayed themselves as [former pentagon or military officials] and control – directly – the stories the media chose to cover and how they chose to cover them [because there was nothing more scary to Tim Russert that a former pentagon/military official and he would never ask them tough questions] , then please let’s hear it [because S.L. wants to know].

Otherwise let’s spare everyone the scary-talk about Obama controlling the media [Yeah, see! Because Solon is an unimpeachable source!].

Okay. See? That cleared things right up.

S.L. Toddard| 10.23.09 @ 8:26PM

I honestly cannot tell if this is a joke. Are you really unaware of all of these things?

"If anyone cares to deny that the Bush administration threatened to prosecute the[traitorous]"

We really are lost when American citizens are so servile to the government, so worshipful of Authority, that when government crimes are exposed... they condemn those who shed light on them instead of their Masters (who committed the crimes) in Washington. It's the epitome of the peasant mindset.

"NY Times for reporting on [a secret NSA listening program that intercepted incoming foreign calls as part of an ongoing war against terrorists which there is nothing illegal about and saved lives]"

I have to assume that you are unaware, but it was in fact a *felony* to eavesdrop on the phone calls of Americans in America without a FISA warrant. That's not actually in contention. That's the whole reason it became such a scandal. Under FISA the gov't had two options, both of which they circumvented, thus committing felonies. They may either apply to a secret FISA court for a warrant (before or after initiating surveillance) or may authorize surveillance without a FISA warrant in the following fashion and if the attendant conditions apply:

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

xxxx://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1802 a 1 .html#14778446757181407970

(replace xxxx with http to make links work)

Since they did neither of these, they were guilty of multiple federal crimes:

xxxx://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html

And that's to say nothing of the NSA “collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans (1)”, monitoring “huge volumes of records of domestic emails and Internet searches as well as bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel and telephone records (2)”, eavesdropping on “hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home (3)”, intercepting “private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress (4)”, “routinely examin(ing) large volumes of Americans’ e-mail messages without court warrants (5)”

1)xxxx://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
2)xxxx://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120511973377523845.html
3)xxxx://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5987804&page=1
4)xxxx://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?_r=1&hp;
5)xxxx://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?scp=2&sq=eric lichtblau&st=cse

Sorry.

"or that they had numerous foreign journalists imprisoned [okay I just made that one up]"

Do you not have newspapers where you live? Perhaps news sites are blocked there - do you live in China?

Bush had Al Jazeera camera man Sami al-Haj caged at Guantanamo for six years - he was never charged with any crime, never convicted, he was beaten, prohibited from contacting his family etc. Most of the time they interrogated him not about terrorism (which makes sense, since he had nothing to do with terrorism) but about Al Jazeera. He was eventually released - after six years - because he'd committed no crime:

xxxx://www.cjr.org/cover_story/prisoner_345.php?page=1

xxxx://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17kristof.html?scp=2&sq=sami+hajj+kristof&st=nyt

In Iraq he had AP photographer Bilal Hussein imprisoned for two years with no trial of any kind. He was also released, convicted of nothing:

xxxx://cpj.org/2007/11/us-says-ap-photographer-in-iraq-will-be-charged.php
xxxx://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/wn_091706a.html

Since Sept of 2008 we've been holding Reuters photographer Ibrahim Jassam, despite that an Iraqi court ordered him released due to lack of evidence:

xxxx://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/photojournalism/e3i72ce5cb5941da1cdfa0b64dc6e34ce54
xxxx://cpj.org/imprisoned/2008.php#iraq

“or that they planted [former pentagon or military officials who agreed with them on news shows]”

Your ignorance is really astounding. You actually SHOULD read Salon. It was a Pentagon program to effectively control the news and how it was presented. You really don't know about this?

“who deceivingly portrayed themselves as [former pentagon or military officials]”

Uh, no. They portrayed themselves as independent analysts, never revealing their ongoing ties to the pentagon and/or defense contracting industry. Once the propaganda program was exposed the Pentagon speedily canceled it. Good God, man – it was a Pentagon-controlled program to infest the media with pro-goverment mouthpieces posing as independent analysts. Are you so worshipful of the state that you are literally incapable of knowing when you're getting screwed? You're okay with that Stalinistic news control as long as the perpetrators have an (R) next to their name? Why don't you read up on it a bit, and then come back and try to explain where Greenwald's summation – which included multiple quotes from Pentagon email messages, transcripts and records the NYT acquired in its two year Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Pentagon – has it wrong:

xxxx://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
xxxx://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN28303679
xxxx://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN19354225

Eric Cartman| 10.24.09 @ 1:16AM

mon·o·ma·ni·a (mŏn'ə-mā'nē-ə, -mān'yə)
n.

1. Pathological obsession with one idea or subject.
2. Intent concentration on or exaggerated enthusiasm for a single subject or idea.

Eric Cartman| 10.24.09 @ 1:32AM

See how fun it is getting Toaddard to start the cut and pasting sessions! Just point out that "eavesdropping" (a favorite bag-a-boo of his) on terror suspects calling INTO the U.S. is not illegal, and he'll have a conniption! He'll get all Clarence Darrow on ya, grumblin' about FISA this and Cheney that and cutting this lefty article and pasting that case law opinion, then he will paste a bunch of citations (like we're gunna waste our time on that!), then he gets all smug and self righteous! LOL. It's a BLAST! More fun than water-boarding I have to say!

S.L. Toddard| 10.24.09 @ 8:23AM

Of course. That's your idea of "fun" - having (what was supposed to be) your "argument" comprehensively annihilated.

Mr. Cartman, after the sort of thrashing you've been subject to it is, of course, entirely appropriate to feel humiliated. What I suggest you do *not* do, however, is indulge the juvenile impulse to pretend you were only joking in the first place. Rather than alleviating your humiliation it will instead compound it exponentially, as has happened here.

Have you a nice day, sir. Do come back when/if ever you construct an argument that will take me more than one response to demolish utterly.

Eric Cartman| 10.24.09 @ 10:46AM

HA! It doesn't get any better than this! Listen to this: "Mr. Cartman, after the sort of thrashing you've been subject to it is, of course . . ." He's Basil Rathbone! Or this one: "Do come back when/if ever you construct an argument that will take me more than one response to demolish utterly." I can't wait until he writes: "Sir, you will surely suffer at the point of my rapier-like wit!" LOL

Wait! He's Kieth Overdork! HE speaks like that, too! AND he seems to think the same way! LOL See?! It doesn't take much to have fun with the Toad!

Eric Cartman| 10.24.09 @ 11:22AM

mon•o•ma•ni•a (mŏn'ə-mā'nē-ə, -mān'yə)
n.
1. Pathological obsession with one idea or subject.
2. Intent concentration on or exaggerated enthusiasm for a single subject or idea.

Leeonious| 10.23.09 @ 8:28PM

Please pinch that bud send me a flame Toddardonious. When I was a kid my bestfreinds ole lady had a brother nammed DODDDDDD. Alas Dodd was more so, vapid as you. But what the fluck. Sara had large female protuberances. She was an easy feel ya know what I mean DODD, nudge, nudge wink wink.

Point is your naieve ignorane, DODD is so down right HI-LARRY-ASS it must be as worth it to the American Spectator to keep you around as worth it was to keep Sara around inspite of her ,rightiously stupid as you are seemingly sincerely ignorant

Leeonious

P>S> You know how the sixties were,,,, don't ya Toddie? Bag a grass, jug a wine and her sweet ass. At some point you must grow out of this phase you're having. Liten up buy a new pair of shoes, increase the metamucil a tablespoon or two what the fluck I got a boil on my ass so big, aw just forget about it allright.

DrTomVoter| 10.23.09 @ 1:41PM

This one must have hit a nerve. The "yes, but Bush" card usually isn't played until later postings.

L. Ross| 10.23.09 @ 4:13PM

Vegetard:

I dig the Salon reference. Way to find a unbiased source. I'm convinced.

Eric Cartman| 10.23.09 @ 4:41PM

A little editing is in line, here. Just a smidge:

If anyone cares to deny that the Bush administration threatened to prosecute the[traitorous] NY Times for reporting on [a secret NSA listening program that intercepted incoming foreign calls as part of an ongoing war against terrorists which there is nothing illegal about and saved lives] , or that they had numerous foreign journalists imprisoned [okay I just made that one up], or that they planted [former pentagon or military officials who agreed with them on news shows], who deceivingly portrayed themselves as [former pentagon or military officials] and control – directly – the stories the media chose to cover and how they chose to cover them [because there was nothing more scary to Tim Russert that a former pentagon/military official and he would never ask them tough questions] , then please let’s hear it [because S.L. wants to know].

Otherwise let’s spare everyone the scary-talk about Obama controlling the media [Yeah, see! Because Solon is an unimpeachable source!].

Okay. See? That cleared things right up.

Leeonious| 10.23.09 @ 8:38PM

Please sir, you obviously got the thumb on the pulse of Washington Machinations. Please, with your volumnious grasp of the whole kh kch cozzzzing up to thang..

Please extrapolate from the spectography , blinded by the light yawl, of the CAPo I mean DAley, I mean ACCORN 988k detergent time etc etc opps SEIU, AUTO WORKERS, Valerie Jarrretts monied freinds, EVERY SINGLE MEDIA OUTLET except FOX,,,,KINDA THAING has the current ocupant of the WHiTe HoUsE gotta going on,,,, whoooao, OUEEEE A WEE A O I'm all shook up.

Lay out the current scheme in a nonpartisan fashion. That's the hard part. Even a forgiving accessment is , well,,, DOWN RIGHT DAMNING YAWL.

LATER TERMATER

Liberal Reader| 10.23.09 @ 6:37PM

This is nonsense, Lawler.

The Bush administration cozied up with Fox. It repeatedly invited in right wing blatherers for special meetings.

The Bush administration also acted to "freeze out" MSNBC and the Times in the second term.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, has made itself available to Fox and will continue to do so: it just has stated what is a simple fact: Fox News promotes, consistently, in both its "news" formats and its "opinion" formats, an explicit conservative agenda. That's it.

There's no 1st Amendment issue here.

The 1st Amendment simply prevents Congress from passing laws that impinge on the press's freedom.

No one is contemplating any such thing.

So just for Christ's sake relax for once in your life.

NO LIBREADER/JEREMIAH| 10.26.09 @ 3:07AM

Obamabot whore--you would be embarrassed if you had any sense, libturd.