Yesterday the Obama Emperor’s administration had a major #failure in their feeble and unconstitutional move to exempt Fox News from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg.
They unsuccessfully tried to make Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except, you guessed it, Fox News. I guess that mojo thing isn’t working.
The bureau chiefs of the five TV networks had a meeting, and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was brought back into the fold. I bet asshat Keith Olbermann’s panties are in a wad, and he’s probably already called for their bureau chief, Mark Whitaker, to go sit in the corner.
“I’m really cheered by the other members saying “No, if Fox can’t be part of it, we won’t be part of it,’” said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, calling the move to limit Feinberg’s availability “outrageous.”
The Emperor’s administration relented. Fox wins, Obamassiah loses.
Related posts:
- No wonder they call ABC the “All Barack Channel” From Fox: The refusal by ABC...
Entries (RSS)
omg… the TV critic finds it outrageous… what are we gonna do…
So, Pravda style leadership is acceptable to Americans? Good, our blackmarket will go far.
its not really unconstitutional the white house cant grnt access to anyone they like. its very uncouth and sets a dangerous prescident which is why the other networks balked. trust me fox would go on if the white house shut them out in fact i think they would prosper far more than they are already.
once again weve seen this hand and ignored the other the gut wrenching decision by the fcc to control the internet.
The Heritage Foundation called it “Entering into potentially unconstitutional territory..”
While no law has been made by Congress, the case can certainly be made that Obama has been “abridging the freedom of the press.”
@Zeak, I assume you’re referring to Glenn Beck’s recent analogy of a magic show… “watch this hand” spot from Wed. PM?
The claim in this article “unconstitutional”, is false. “potentially heading into unconstitutional” is a stretch. Fox News has a disease, the need help. I turn Fox off after a few minutes every time I watch because I always need to fact-check them. It’s not worth my time to be entertai-news-ed, I just want news.
Those who are interested in Government will keep up with the current events, those that do not, are not required to sign off on any legislation before our elected officials vote to pass. Then they whine and moan because it now affects them.
@meta no i was not reffering to beck i was reffering to what i said. it is not unconstitutional for the whitehouse to keep a news agency at bay. if you dont like fox dont mention it and please dont be condescending your no smarter than anyone else here and your sources arent any better either. the fact is the bigger story is the potential infringement of our internet rights not wether the white house lets fox have 2 minutes with a pay csar
@dan you dont need to quote the first amendment i know what it says and the white house not allowing fox to interveiw a non figure is their perogative it has nothing to do with the first amendment. i guess you will tell me next obama is required by the constitution to go on fox. guess what he doesnt and fox doesnt have to cover obama which they have done numerous times. i dont care what the heritage foundation says the white house is not obligated to treat news outlets fairly in fact they dont have to deal with them at all. stop granting more powers to the constitution than it actualy states i think this is what conservatives have been griping about for the better part of 20 years and now because you think this benefits your side you want to intrepret it differntly. it is what it is
Just another “amateur” move by the student council at White House High School. These guys are comical.
Hey zeak the first amendment refers directly to the white house when it says government and directly to Fox news when it refers to the government not abridging the freedom of the press. How I would like to know does the governments’ abridging of a major part of our press’ freedom to ask our government questions not apply to this situation? That amendment was put in place to specifically stop the government from banning an entity of the press (who are suppose to be the watchdogs of our republic-stop fixating on glenn cause yes he says this, but no he isn’t the first to say it) from asking anything they want of an entity of the government at any given time. Our presses job is to ask demanding questions and our governments job is to fear them because they are suppose to rep us. The only reason the guy is a non-figure as you put it is because he has been made a ‘prince of pay’ with no government vetting process, just an appointee of the President, I would like to see where it says in the Constitution that our President has the right to appoint anyone to oversee the salaries of private citizens or any of his other czars. Hint you won’t find that either.
Not to pick nits… but the first amendment refers to Congress when it says “Congress shall…” House & Senate referred to in the full bi-cameral sense becomes congress (the opposite of PROgress)