The Obama Administration is playing dirty. Trying to put a price tag on access — either a news organization plays ball and accepts what they dish out without challenge, or the news organization is excluded, punished. Check this out:

Fox News has been aggressively reporting on Benghazi because it is newsworthy when 4 Americans are MURDERED and because it was obvious the Obama Administration was telling “silly stories” that didnt’ make sense and were not supported by the facts. The Administration’s Benghazi story got more curious when the Administration sent out Ambassador Susan Rice to sell the silly stories on 5 news shows. Two months later, the American people still don’t have the straight story. It is our job to get the facts. We are trying.

The Obama Administration has done everything but give us the straight story and they are fighting us on getting the facts.

And why do I say the Obama Administration should grow up? Because the Obama Administration is trying to punish Fox for trying to get the facts from the Administration (do I need to remind anyone that 4 Americans were murdered?) The Administration in what looks like a coordinated effort is denying Fox access to information that they are handing out to other news organizations. Why exclude Fox? That is simple – to punish — to try to teach us a lesson not to pry, not to look further for facts.

Here is my proof. The Administration is now 3 out of 3:

1/ The State Department called a media conference call the night before its employees testified on Capitol Hill and OMITTED FOX FROM THE CALL; (they claimed it was an accidental oversight);

2/ About 2 weeks after the above State Department conference call to all in the media, the CIA had a media wide briefing and released their timeline. The CIA invited major news organizations to the briefing but THE CIA EXCLUDED FOX FROM THOSE INVITED TO THE BRIEFING


3/ and now the latest…. DNI Director James Clapper told Capitol Hill last week that the DNI did not know who took the term Al Qaeda out of the talking points that was given to Ambassador Susan Rice. It turns out that is not true and the DNI released a memo to the media last night indicating that DNI Director James Clapper was wrong last week when he said that (incidentally two plus months after the murders.) The DNI / Intelligence removed Al Qaeda from the talking points memo given to Ambassador Susan Rice. But that’s not all – it isn’t just the “who is on first” at the DNI, it is also what the DNI did to Fox last night. The DNI LEFT FOX NEWS CHANNEL OFF ITS DISTRIBUTION LIST last night when it released this new memo to the media.

You know why Fox is left out 3 out of 3. We at Fox are not simply accepting what they say, what they dish out. We are looking for facts and corroboration when there are inconsistencies and discrepancies. To the extent we get anything wrong is because the Administration is doing whatever it can to thwart us from getting the facts.

They are trying to punish us into going away — hoping we get their message that we will never have access to them as long as we dare to challenge what they put out. And guess what? What they have put out and what we have challenged shows they are cagey and not giving the straight story.

PS – The above note about the Obama Administration and my admonition that it should “grow up” is what I think. The American people deserve the facts, they deserve the truth. The Administration is acting in a disgraceful manner.

I have no idea what my colleagues think or what Fox Management thinks. I have not spoken to any of them about this. I speak only for myself and not for Fox.

DNI Director James Clapper told Capitol Hill last week that the DNI did not know who took the term Al Qaeda out of the talking points that was given to Ambassador Susan Rice. It turns out that is not true and the DNI released a memo to the media last night indicating that DNI Director James Clapper was wrong last week when he said that ...

 whembly wrote:
The Plame thing is "much ado about nothing" when compared to Bengahzi... 'cuz 4 PEOPLE DIED! That was his point.

Where's the journalistic "gusto"?

 whembly wrote:
That was EXCELLENT investigative reporting!

Now... where is it now?

 whembly wrote:
And some ya'll think I'm looney?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Fox Network isn't a News Network.

 Zathras wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Fox Network isn't a News Network.

In your opinion.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zathras wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Fox Network isn't a News Network.

In your opinion.

And that's all Fox News is at this point. Even when they air news stories, the anchors go out of their way to make sure that you don't just get the news story but you get their opinion of the news story.

When a "News" Network is dominated by opinion, you're not a News Network.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zathras wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Fox Network isn't a News Network.

In your opinion.

And that's all Fox News is at this point. Even when they air news stories, the anchors go out of their way to make sure that you don't just get the news story but you get their opinion of the news story.

When a "News" Network is dominated by opinion, you're not a News Network.

Does the same apply to MSNBC, out of curiosity?

whembly wrote:Should FoxNews be "punished"?

whembly wrote:And some ya'll think I'm looney?

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Should FoxNews be "punished"?

They're not being punished. They've been given the same access that any other not-news program, such as Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones has been given. Think of it more like a well-deserved status downgrade.

When you consistently prove to be a bad driver, you lose your license.

whembly wrote:And some ya'll think I'm looney?

"Looney" isn't the word I would use.

 Seaward wrote:
Does the same apply to MSNBC, out of curiosity?

whembly wrote:
Wow... such bias...

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Should FoxNews be "punished"?

They're not being punished. They've been given the same access that any other not-news program, such as Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones has been given. Think of it more like a well-deserved status downgrade.

When you consistently prove to be a bad driver, you lose your license.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
Wow... such bias...

If by "bias" you actually mean "not brutally biased in your favour", then yes, I suppose so.

I prefer to examine all my sources, irrespective of what claim they're making. However, Fox News has wasted so much of my time miscontruing facts that I no longer even bother to expend the effort to prove/disprove their claims. I can just disregard them as not being factually based and be correct 95% of the time.

They really do have about as much credibility left as a the Weekly World News.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Fox does report news. That they do it with a clear, consistent, and directed editorial bias, in favor of specific political views and one of two parties in the US, doesn't negate that. It makes them a BAD news channel, but doesn't stop them being a news channel at all. As other folks have noted, MSNBC* has similar issues, albeit perhaps not quite with the same level of directed editorial control.

Given that the info above is just coming from Fox, I'm curious for more info on it. Whether any third party can confirm any of it, for example. And whether any other news organization has previously been treated in the manner described. I'm wondering if previous administrations might have considered restricting access to media organizations which are considered hostile or actively partisan politically.

*Ouze: They just renamed the website, right? The cable news channel is still MSNBC.

 Mannahnin wrote:
*Ouze: They just renamed the website, right? The cable news channel is still MSNBC.

 whembly wrote:
Like I said, I seem to get suckered into these discussions (even though I blame myself for stirring gak).

 whembly wrote:
As for other confirmation, I saw this on my twitter feed from various journalist who linked that article.

 whembly wrote:
I don't watch Greta.. .but, isn't she one of the more balanced-neutral host on FoxNews? (unlike that partisan blowhard Hannity)?

The Obama Administration is playing dirty. Trying to put a price tag on access — either a news organization plays ball and accepts what they dish out without challenge, or the news organization is excluded, punished.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Like I said, I seem to get suckered into these discussions (even though I blame myself for stirring gak).

Well, it's hardly "getting suckered in" to a discussion that you start.

 whembly wrote:
As for other confirmation, I saw this on my twitter feed from various journalist who linked that article.

Linking an article is not (even slightly) the same thing as confirming the accuracy of its claims. They could be linking it out of shadenfreude, for that matter.

 whembly wrote:
I don't watch Greta.. .but, isn't she one of the more balanced-neutral host on FoxNews? (unlike that partisan blowhard Hannity)?

Hannity living in a special world of idiocy doesn't mean Greta is good.

The Obama Administration is playing dirty. Trying to put a price tag on access — either a news organization plays ball and accepts what they dish out without challenge, or the news organization is excluded, punished.

Putting a "price tag on access" would be libelous if it wasn't so clearly just a dirty, bad metaphor. The idea that there is no middle ground between accepting "what they dish(es) out without challenge", and presecuting a purely partisan witch hunt, is simply laughable. It's a dishonest claim, consistent with their silly tagline of "fair and balanced", which has been terribly ironic for some years.

 Kanluwen wrote:
On the other hand, I agree with shutting them out.

It's not like Jon Stewart gets invited to these press conferences.

Why should Fox?

 Zathras wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
On the other hand, I agree with shutting them out.

It's not like Jon Stewart gets invited to these press conferences.

Why should Fox?

I know you're joking but let's not go down that road shall we.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zathras wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
On the other hand, I agree with shutting them out.

It's not like Jon Stewart gets invited to these press conferences.

Why should Fox?

I know you're joking but let's not go down that road shall we.

I'm actually not.

Fox's personalities consistently try to paint Stewart as the "face of the liberal media" and continually lambast him as though he's a serious journalist.

The man is on Comedy Central. He's not a journalist. He's a satirist.

 Kanluwen wrote:
What happened isn't censorship. It's denial of access.

They're not the same thing.

Oh, and I'm for them being denied access because at this point Fox is not relevant as a news network. They go out of their way to twist all the information they get fed to suit their own agenda.

The sooner Fox is dead and gone, the better.

 Zathras wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What happened isn't censorship. It's denial of access.

They're not the same thing.

Oh, and I'm for them being denied access because at this point Fox is not relevant as a news network. They go out of their way to twist all the information they get fed to suit their own agenda.

The sooner Fox is dead and gone, the better.

But you're fine with MSNBC sticking around because you like them? If Fox goes so should they as they are the left's version of Fox and are as relevant as they. Hell the hosts on MSNBC, past and present, are worse than Fox wen it comes to partisanship but you won't see me calling for their death like you are doing with Fox News.

Mannahnin wrote:Cheers.

Like I said before, I'm curious about it and would like to hear more. Even though I think Fox is terrible, and bad for American discourse, that doesn't mean I agree with shutting them out.

I just can't really give them any credibility on any claim they make that's critical to someone they politically oppose, without independent confirmation.