Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama: Fox More Talk Radio Than News

Posted by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet at 11:00 AM on October 22, 2009.


When pressed, Obama slapped down Fox.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Asked to comment on the White House's escalating conflict with Fox News, President Obama said in an NBC interview that the organization operates more like talk radio than a news outlet. Here's the transcript of his comments, via Newsbusters:

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Another issue in the news is the news: we asked the president what he thinks about some of his advisers saying Fox News--known for conservative opinion--isn't really a news organization.

GUTHRIE: So you think it's appropriate for the White House to say what is and what is not a news organization?

BARACK OBAMA: I think the American people are a lot more interested in what we're doing to create jobs or how we're handling the situation in Afghanistan.

GUTHRIE: Fair enough, but your advisers raised this issue.

OBAMA: Well, no, I think that what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes. And if media is operating basically as a talk-radio format, then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over.

Digg!

Tagged as: fox, news, obama, white house


ACORN: Another Super Villain with Super Powers
For the trembling patriots of the right.
Post by Steve M.. November 21, 2009.
Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Someplace where they're all wusses.
Post by BarbinMD. November 21, 2009.
What Sarah Palin's "Jewish people will be flocking to Israel" prediction really means
Palin's associated with a religious tendency whose leaders promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theory
Post by Bruce Wilson. November 21, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
The Emperor (Murdoch) has no clothes!
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Oct 22, 2009 12:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have told too many provable lies to be considered a news organization. A lie unchallenged tends to stand as truth, however. An amazing number of people believe that "they couldn't say it on TV if it wasn't true." MSNBC doesn't count, of course. "Everything those Commies say is a pack of lies!"

Since FOX hosts wave the flag and call everybody else commies, they must be God fearing patriots who are in touch with the "higher truth." Until you prove that they repeatedly lie, that is.

Until they are challenged directly, that isn't really possible. Treating them with the respect a news organization actually deserves, not only encourages them, but legitimizes all the lies.

They must be ridiculed and marginalized for anything like truth to prevail. The teabaggers have shown themselves to be belligerent clowns. The Republicans have exposed themselves as habitual liars. That is why only 20% are calling themselves Republicans these days. It is embarrassing - like admitting a taste for kiddie porn.

Fox can be made a laughingstock - a joke on all the stupid people - and it must. The thinly veiled calls to violence are becoming too influential (with the crazies) and pervasive.

Then we should kick Murdoch's fascist ass out of the country and break up his media empire. Yesterday.

If Obama keeps this up, he just might get back my support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Emperor (Murdoch) has no clothes! Posted by: independentthinker
http://www.uggboots-home.net
Posted by: adan on Oct 22, 2009 8:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atta-boy, Mr Prez
Posted by: gregii on Oct 23, 2009 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kudos to the Prez for saying the obvious. Makes my day a little brighter. Please, Sir, continue and expand this dynamic of your leadership?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Networks slap down Obama
Posted by: gabbyone on Oct 23, 2009 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday, the four Obama networks refused to iterview the Pay Czar if Fox News was excluded.
It is great to see the press finally wake up and realize that they are not emebedded with
the President as loyal allies. The strength of Democracy lies is a free press. The attack on Fox finally woke them up to the fact that if they cross this Administration they will be slapped down and they decided it was time to slap first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to say nothing in 100 words or less:
Posted by: franklyspanking on Oct 23, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OBAMA: Well, no, I think that what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes. And if media is operating basically as a talk-radio format, then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over.

"...take it as it comes"?

"...that's one thing...than that's another..."

I mean, huh? Have all the proper nouns slipped out of his majesty's ears? And curious use of the word 'our'. Fancies himself royalty a bit, lol?

Take Fox News (please) or leave it, Obama has a profound ability to utter the most vapid of sentences in response to a pointed question: 'Do you believe it is appropriate for the Whitehouse to decided what constitutes a news outlet?'

At least we could occasionally get a stupid, honest answer out of his predecessor.

I mean, c'mon: there were 299,999,999 folks in this country who could have run on a platform of "not being GWB". This is your fella?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama and Maddow
Posted by: willymack on Oct 23, 2009 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are two highly educated, highly refined, articulate, people, and TOO GODDAM POLITE.
They're at their best when they're angry, and let's face it; there's plenty to get angry about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who does the news? Not progressives
Posted by: leonardfeingold on Oct 23, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who exposed the dealings of Acorn? Fox. OF course, since progressives support child prostitution apparantly it did not bother them what Acorn abetted. So much for progressives.

Huffington post puts on Al Sharpton to brag about how he stipped Rush;
Imagine: Sharpton of the Twanda Brawely fame; responsible for the killing of innocent jewish visitor from Austrailia and the the burning down of a business in NY--these are the heroes of the left and progressives. Che, Castro, etc. Who on Fox has contributed to cutting back free speech? No one. The left has always gone after free press and Progressives continue in that vein even tho Fox is a lonely minority in the news business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chickens (been) hit?
Posted by: T.I.M. on Oct 23, 2009 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The spineless clucks in the oval office are afraid that Fox really is watching this hen house.

What is the "most transparent" administration afraid of -- having the truth exposed?

While Obama gets a free pass from most of the media, they go into panic mode when a news source brings up facts that are uncomfortable.


Joe Wilson was right. The Obama White House not only has trouble telling the truth, they go out of their way to suppress it.

We got hope. Maybe now it's time for change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fair and balanced?
Posted by: T.I.M. on Oct 23, 2009 5:57 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it just me, or are all the pro-Obama comments rated 5 while all those not praising him are rated 1? (Exception for the boot spam) Does this mean your title should be altered net?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fair and balanced? Posted by: melloe2
links of london
Posted by: linksoflondon00 on Nov 6, 2009 4:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
links of london links of london cheap links of london cheap links of london links of london jewellery links of london jewellery links of london jewelry links of london jewelry links of london sale links of london sale link of london link of london links london links london links of london Charms links of london Charms links of london Charm links of london Charm links of london Necklaces links of london Necklaces links of london Necklace links of london Necklace links of london Bracelets links of london Bracelets links of london Bracelet links of london Bracelet links of london Sweetie Bracelets links of london Sweetie Bracelets links of london Sweetie Bracelet links of london Sweetie Bracelet links of london Friendship Bracelets links of london Friendship Bracelets links london Rings links london Rings links of london Friendship Bracelet

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]