Obama attempting to ignore an entire network was stupid politically, finally a CHANGE in the right direction...

Will Fox News lob the softball questions that were afforded to the last administration?

May the ten minutes seem like a lifetime to cic bowsdown.

Will Fox News lob the softball questions that were afforded to the last administration?

#2 | Posted by 726

FOX NEWS hates being shut out, so I am sure if there are ANY hardball questions they would come from any network but FOX...

Anita Dunn, White House communications director is leaving her post at the end of the month. Dunn who set back the image of the presidency at least fifty years is most famous for taking on the Drudge Report and losing and then taking on Fox News and Losing: Dunn...

I wonder if the White House is rethinking their position now that Anita Dunn has left...

"I wonder if the White House is rethinking their position now that Anita Dunn has left..."
#5 | Posted by ATaxpayer

Didn't her husband take over her job?

Where is the list of preconditions?

No, I believe he is in a counsel position. Dan Pfeiffer is replacing her.

P.S. Her husband's name if Robert Bauer.

Where is the list of preconditions?

#6 | Posted by KBM at 2009-11-17 04:27 PM

I am sure all the questions will be preapproved, that being said FOX NEWS is not about to hardball Obama. The ratings for FOX NEWS have sky rocketed since the White House put them on ignore, this policy has not served the White House very well at all...

"I am sure all the questions will be preapproved, that being said FOX NEWS is not about to hardball Obama..."

Riiiight. Because they're part of the Obama-loving MSM. ROTFLMAO!

Riiiight. Because they're part of the Obama-loving MSM. ROTFLMAO!

#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Oh Come on DOC just give them a chance, after all they have been left all alone in the sandbox for some time. I would say it is going to take a little time before FOX NEWS asks any REAL questions

Ignoring FOX has only made their ratings go up, not exactly what the White House wants to see...

Hasta Laredoo...

"I would say it is going to take a little time before FOX NEWS asks any REAL questions"

After spending eight years serving as the Bush Administration's lapdog? Yes, you have a point.

I am sure all the questions will be preapproved, that being said FOX NEWS is not about to hardball Obama. The ratings for FOX NEWS have sky rocketed since the White House put them on ignore, this policy has not served the White House very well at all...

#9 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2009-11-17 04:35 PM

And they still don't even come close to matching CBS, ABC or NBC evening newscasts in ratings, or share.

"...finally a CHANGE in the right direction..."

Yeah, far right. Beck, Hannity or O'Lielly on the mound? My advice: skip it. herm

Will Fox News lob the softball questions that were afforded to the last administration?

#2 | Posted by 726

I sure as hell hope not.

I would hope that you agree - softball questions from the media are a bad thing regardless of who is occupying the White House.

I would hope that you agree - softball questions from the media are a bad thing regardless of who is occupying the White House.
#16 | Posted by JeffJ

Just because they won't be "softballs" of the variety that were visited on Bush, does not mean that they will be legitimate questions. We'll have to see what happens.

Fair enough, Hag.

Having said that, let me put this another way - Do you find it at all disturbing that the toughest questions asked of Obama thus far have come from a former-member of the Clinton cabinet?

I understand and appreciate consternation toward Fox's obvious bias. What bothers me is an utter lack-of willingness to acknowledge an even arguably more blatant bias coming from ALL of Fox's competitors and a vast majority of print media.

Case-in-anecdotal-point:

I read from beginning to end a Sunday section (just a couple of days ago) of the Detroit Free Press that was titled Opinion and news (it was all opinion). This section (if memory serves) consisted of 12 articles (give or take 1). All but 1 towed the leftist line to a "T". That means that less-than 10% of the op-eds in that section, on that day, espoused a conservative viewpoint.

You know, recently my brother sent me an email with all sorts of hilarious pics and subtitles. One of my faves was your quintessential, white-trash bitch posing in front of a late-90's model Camaro. The subtitle was: "Stereotypes are based upon reality".

I know an awful lot of lefties scoff at, and even loathe the notion of a liberal bias in the MSM. Sorry, but it exists AND it's easily proveable a vast majority of the time.

"Do you find it at all disturbing that the toughest questions asked of Obama thus far have come from a former-member of the Clinton cabinet?"

Reporters have dual, and conflicting, interests, generally speaking. One is to ask questions, but the other is to write stories. If the questions you ask affect your ability to write stories, i.e. if they threaten your access to those about whom you are intending to write those stories, then where are you? Its a catch 22 and even during the last admin, they were way behind the curve with their willingness to speak truth to power.

Eventually they'll snap out of it.

"What bothers me is an utter lack-of willingness to acknowledge an even arguably more blatant bias coming from ALL of Fox's competitors and a vast majority of print media."

I think that the way that you determine the existence of "liberal" bias has a lot to do with where you are personally, politically, and not where the country is. From my perspective, I find most of the MSM far too conservative, even MSNBC (Though I think that Maddow is doing a good job).

I'd love to see reporters put real liberal-minded questions to the President, it would demonstrate the contrast between him and liberal philosophy. IMO, that is their mistake, to our loss.

"The Bush WH went ballistic when their guy got cornered by Irish television journailst Carol Coleman"

That was a great interview.

"My job is to do my job"

"Nobody cares more about the dead than I do."

And they still don't even come close to matching CBS, ABC or NBC evening newscasts in ratings, or share.

But they sure kick the shit out of the LeftWing MSNBC and CNN!

oh please..what a load of nonsense from several of you.
the last interview on fox of obama was orielly and if you think those were softballs then you are really clueless.
that INTERVIEW was also the last time obama was asked anything remotely tough.

and I trust that major garrett asked him good and tough questions.
we will find out later this evening.

SO DOC

you like an english journalists

have you seen the latest on obama from 'der spiegal'.

#1 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER
"Obama attempting to ignore an entire network was stupid politically, finally a CHANGE in the right direction..."

A major network, yes. But an ENTERTAINMENT network.

Is there actual hard news on Fox?
Of course there is, but it's specifically and intentionally done in a certain way, from a certain viewpoint, to ENTERTAIN, not inform.

It is not "fair and balanced", nor does it attempt to be, and we all know this, regardless of politics. It's a catchy phrase, but an empty one.

People whose viewpoints match the FNC's are entertained (and emboldened) by the news coverage and opinions expressed.

Even those of us whose viewpoints do not match FNC's can still be entertained, just in a different way.

But informed? Enlightened? No.

Being interviewed on FNC is like being interviewed on The Daily Show. Except the Daily Show is a lot funnier.

"Being interviewed on FNC is like being interviewed on The Daily Show. Except the Daily Show is a lot funnier."

And a lot more accurate.

And a lot more accurate.

It's a sad state of affairs when a comedian has more credibility than several 24-hour news networks.

Is there actual hard news on Fox?
Of course there is, but it's specifically and intentionally done in a certain way, from a certain viewpoint, to ENTERTAIN, not inform.

It is not "fair and balanced", nor does it attempt to be, and we all know this, regardless of politics. It's a catchy phrase, but an empty one.

People whose viewpoints match the FNC's are entertained (and emboldened) by the news coverage and opinions expressed.

Is there actual hard news on MSNBC?
Of course NOT. It's specifically and intentionally done in a certain way, from a certain viewpoint, to ENTERTAIN, not inform. People whose viewpoints match the MSNBC's are entertained (and emboldened) by the news coverage and opinions expressed.

From my perspective, I find most of the MSM far too conservative,
#19 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Jesus.

You must define Stalin as "center".

Seriously, pick up a copy of last Sunday's Detroit Free Press the big op-ed section is 92% liberal.

How liberal do you expect the MSM to be?

120%?

Jesus.

You must define Stalin as "center".

Jesus. You must define Genghis Khan as a "liberal". Hagbard is right. The MSM is part and parcel of the corporate state/matrix/ruling class, etc. When Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader appears on the broadcast MSM 1% of the time that Pat Buchanan does, let me know.

"Seriously, pick up a copy of last Sunday's Detroit Free Press the big op-ed section is 92% liberal."

Maybe you could subscribe to the New York Times instead?

"You must define Stalin as "center".

Actually I define him as a mass murderer. You don't?

"How liberal do you expect the MSM to be? 120%?"

As opposed to where they are now? I'd be happy with 50%. I'm not greedy.

Hagbard is right.
#30 | Posted by nullifidian

NW Flag

"When Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader appears on the broadcast MSM 1% of the time that Pat Buchanan does, let me know."

And Amy Goodman doesn't count, right?

"NW Flag"

lol Nothing like promoting yourself through flagging.

lol Nothing like promoting yourself through flagging.

#33 | Posted by nullifidian

Would you believe I just figured that little gimmick out?

It was a good post though.

Would you believe I just figured that little gimmick out?

Yes I would.

I heard the interview and it was pretty good.

I thought Garrett asked some good questions and I thought Obama gave pretty good answers.

Maybe you could subscribe to the New York Times instead?

Almost every article and op-ed I see linked on Realclear politics from the Times has a liberal slant.

Actually I define him as a mass murderer.

So do I.

"Almost every article and op-ed I see linked on Realclear politics from the Times has a liberal slant."

I'd say the culprit there is Realclear Politics and not the Times. Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert are probably the only two bona fide liberals on the Op-Ed staff.

A major network, yes. But an ENTERTAINMENT network.

Is there actual hard news on Fox?

#25 | Posted by TheTom

I guess you failed to notice FOX NEWS was the only network to cover VAN JONES and ACORN...

ABC CBS & NBC are the real news networks according to liberals, so how is it they are SCOOPED by FOX NEWS on such colossal news events, could it be the MSM you worship buries their heads up their asses every time Obama steps on his dick and simply refuse to report stories like VAN JONES. If you want the news to be sanitized for you then by all means keep watching the MSM...

Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert are probably the only two bona fide liberals on the Op-Ed staff.

Maureen Dowd is awfully liberal, although she shows no hesitation toward bashing liberal icons.