Yes, I am known for inventing things.
THE NEW YORK TIMES article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html
Judicial Watch article:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-show-obama-white-house-attacked-excluded-fox-news-channel/
CBS Evening News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obamas-feud-with-fox-news/
Thanks for supplying the links, I knew you could do it. It also answered my question of why it was difficult to find, all three articles seem to refer to a single incident.
I find it difficult to see how you'd want to compare that incident with what's going on right now though.
What happened before was that under a barrage of defamatory and made up propaganda, the White House decided that they
were not dealing with a news agency, but more of a propaganda machine against the government. Like the network’s heavy coverage of some of the more intensely anti-administration activity at town-hall-style meetings on health care and Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
To make it clear once more, Fox
News is not a news agency. It's more akin to Talkradio. So when it came to a series of presidential interviews, it was decided by WH aids to exclude “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace” — which they had previously treated as distinct from the network. “We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,”
I'm not sure if that was a wise choice, but I can imagine that one would prefer serious journalists for such interview sessions, instead of talk-show hosts.
However, it seems to escape some folks what the difference is with what is happening now; the exclusion of serious news networks. It seems like perception bias is getting in the way of seeing things for what they're worth; Censorship, and a deliberate attack on the First Amendment.
I do not have too much of a problem with some of the news agencies that exhibit some bias in their reporting (by accentuating certain events, and keeping a low profile on covering others). That's how the (American) commercialized system works. One can only hope, maybe against better judgment in an entrenched and growing community divide, that people make an effort to inform themselves by following different information sources.
But I do have a problem with penalizing networks for exposing falsehoods, especially when coming from the President and his aides/advisors. All serious networks are exposing them, but some get selectively cut off from asking for firsthand clarification, and pose questions that others may not want to (to keep sponsors happy). All the more troubling because what does come out later officially is riddled with falsehoods, which proves that there is A NEED for a free press.
Cheers,
Bart
