TPMDC

WH: We're Happy To Exclude Fox, But Didn't Yesterday With Feinberg Interview

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!


Fox News Logo, Treasury Department Special Master Ken Feinberg

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Adding to the Fox News v. White House feud today is a dust-up over an interview with pay czar Ken Feinberg. Turns out, it was a sort of miscommunication, but the White House adds that if they had left Fox out it would be a case of "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

The version Fox has pushed all day is that the network was excluded from an interview roundtable with Feinberg yesterday, and that bureau chiefs from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN came to Fox's defense.

TPMDC dug into it, and here's what happened.

Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).

But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview.

The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.

TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue.

"If any member had been excluded it would have been the same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues," the bureau chief said. "It's all for one and one for all."

A Treasury spokesperson added: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."

But the White House isn't backing down from its feud with Fox.

"This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

An administration source wondered if the networks were annoyed Fox disclosed logistical negotiations since they are treated as off the record, but the bureau chief did not view this in the same light as discussions about, for example, the president going to Iraq.

As for the ongoing battle, Earnest said: "The president and other high ranking officials and people like Ken Feinberg have done interviews with Fox in the past and will do them in the future."

We clipped video of Garrett discussing the issue.

Late update: Both Fox and the White House are sticking to their stories this weekend.

Join the Conversation!

96 comments

Recommend Recommend (5)

October 23, 2009 6:15 PM   

Great work. I'm glad to see this is actually the case, instead of the early versions I read on this story.

"It's all for one and one for all."

is how it should be in these situations.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:45 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Fake reporters defending fake reporters is how it should be? They should all be ignored since they're not journalists. When real reporters get hired and used then they can come back.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 8:44 PM    in reply to JayR

I agree. Fox isn't a news agency anyway. Neither is CNN. CBS, NBC and ABC were casualties of corporatism long ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 11:16 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

Too bad no one was bitching about the networks un-favored by the Bush admin.

Fox is talking about free speech? The same people who tried to sue Al Franken for calling his book "a fair and balanced look at the right?"

Please. And don't even get me started about the Bush admin's abuses of the press.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 12:40 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Three Musketeers time all around the jolly press watering hole?

I have a few quibbles with that. Please understand my personal context for the quibbles as well. I worked as on-air talent for a local NPR affiliate for 2 1/2 years. I worked in a marketing and communications department for five years. For the past 10 years I run the multimedia development (including web development) for one of those casino-owning Native American tribes in the Midwest. Of course that also means I was one colleague removed from Jack Abramoff's nefarious dealings and leaned, truly only second-hand, of how those tendrils snaked past Rove and into the WH of the Rethugs.

My nits, and the picking:

1. Anybody can deny access for interviews to anybody else. That's not a First Amendment issue, it's just practicality. Should this WH ask if Michael Steele wants to interview the president, any of his cabinet members or any other WH staff? No. Of course not. That would be silly — and nobody would raise a fuss about the WH denying an RNC chair such access.

2. Fox is not one of the "all" for which one would be for in this case. Which other news organization actively promotes and co-sponsors anti-government rallies? Not one of those others. The rest may pepper their reporting with criticism or skepticism, and that's just fine. That's the American Way. That's Freedom of the Press un-infringed.

But, if you are to be considered part of "the press" you should do everything you can to resist or control becoming part of the "news" on which you report. And you damn-straight never sponsor and/or promote a political event that favors only one party or political perspective.

So, yes: They all get a bite at offering political debates. Those are political events. As a news organization you are technically part of the "news" you report because you play host and get to ask questions. Like ABC proved, those questions themselves might even have a whiff of favoring one side over the other. But remember that ABC also caught heat over that whiff. Still, because you offer the opportunity for different sides in the debate to have air time, you are minimally fulfilling the function considered to (pardon me) "fair and balanced."

Where were the "one for all and all for one" other news organization in supporting Glen Beck's 9/12 Project? The one he clearly said was designed to rescue the country from the racist, white-hating threat to America government run by Democrats? The one that Fox promoted by cutting free promos that they ran for no ad dollars on-air in advance of the march on DC? (That, BTW, is considered an in-kind contribution; that is actually, honest-to-frak economic sponsorship.) What ABC or CNN or NBC or MSNBC staffer was caught, on camera, revving up the crowd before the cameras went live for the on-air stand-up coverage? Just as you would do if you were, say, airing a live-audience taping of the Tonight Show or Daily Show or Letterman?

No. Fox is hips-deep in the political weeds here. They are an anti-government, anti-Democratic and anti-democratic tool of the political opposition.

They are not one of the "all" for whom "all" is for. And, as such, they do not have to be invited in as if they were.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 25, 2009 9:16 PM    in reply to TheRealFish

Kudos, TheRealFish.

An enjoyable, educative, and incisive read. A spot-on editorial.

You haz blog for to read, RealFish?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 6:38 PM   

Of course, the White House takes the high road again. Way to go, smart ones...Hand them more stuff to use against you willingly.

When will they learn?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 12:59 PM    in reply to Kuyleh

This is a Fox story, not a WH story. Assuming Christina's research of the timeline of events is accurate, Fox turned this into something it's not (okay: lied) — just because that's what they do. They didn't ask to be in on the interviews, they weren't initially, and they lied saying that the WH shut them out.

Which part of that was WH mismanagement? This is just another example, if one were needed, proving that Fox is an enemy camp and will do absolutely anything to deride, denigrate and destroy their enemies. They created the "news" of this event and sucked actual news agencies into buying their manufactured news, giving it legs and run-time.

How exactly could the WH have prevented this? Should they bow in fear of The Great and Mighty Oz...er...Fox and invite them to ask for an interview because they might just lie about their not being there?

WTF.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:51 PM    in reply to TheRealFish

That's what I meant. If I'm understanding it right, they didn't bother to do their job, but the White House gave them the video of the interview anyway. And we know they aren't going to cover it as it was presented.

So they handed Fox more to use against them. Sorry for not making that clearer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:13 PM    in reply to Kuyleh

I think that regardless of what ammo the WH gives Fox et al, they will find something to complain about it. Fox will always find a way to twist the words to suit their stories, and if the WH went silent, Fox would seize that to twist photos into some crazy conspiracy theory... This crap is just a fact of life for now until people maybe smarten up and stop paying Fox's rent by listening to the crazy crap they spin.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 6:42 PM   

Thank you TPM - knowing the source of the first report, I knew there was something more to it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:41 AM    in reply to VivaAmerica!

Thank you TPM - knowing the source of the first report, I knew there was something more to it.
Never believe anything reported only by Fox Isn't News. Always demand another source.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 1:01 PM    in reply to Joe Steel

Word.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 6:46 PM   

I am listening to Katie Couric right now and she is reporting how the WH freezed out Fox and how there has NEVER been any feud like this and how Obama is to blame.... kind of.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 6:58 PM    in reply to FebM

Yes I just saw the piece on CBS reported by Jeff Greenfield that basically just repeated the FOX version of events. Does New York even talk to their people in DC???

And it missed the point again that issue is that FOX "news" and their opinion shows aren't different - they mentioned MSNBC which does have a difference between their news segments and shows like Countdown.

Now I'm confused again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:33 PM    in reply to cadfile

And this is an example of why I never watch news from the MSM. MSNBC is NOT the same thing as FoxNews. MSNBC has never organized anti-Bush rallies, which is what FoxNews did with the anti-Obama rallies. It is like night and day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 10:21 AM    in reply to charlie8080

It's not anti-Obama rallies....it's anti-US Government rallies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 10:25 AM    in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird

Obama is the elected President representing the US Government.
It's one thing to protest a particular policy....but these guys hate everything.
That's why Republicans are the party of NO.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 1:06 PM    in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird

Makes you wish for enforcement of sedition laws, doesn't it? Of course, with the resulting violent backlash that would surely unleash (since that's the dog whistle rhetoric they foment), I guess I can understand some reticence to get it on. We would all have to be prepared for that probable outcome.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 6:51 PM   

Sigh. Thanks, TPM.

So here's Major in the video pretty much prevaricating, getting the story into the bloodstream, and now the rest of the MSM is following. The business model in action.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 1:01 PM    in reply to fbacon2

His biggest distortion in his reporting on this is failing to mention that Fox News forgot to ask for an interview. I.e., Fox are the ones who caused this screw up in the first place. And, what's with the other pool members? They were told that Fox hadn't asked and then insisted that Fox be included anyway. Are they really in the business of being their brother's keepers or did they see a chance to keep the pot boiling?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 1:38 PM    in reply to Observerinvancouver

"Did they see a chance to keep the pot boiling?"

It's certainly possible, though "network pool crew" Christina referenced typically don't push editorial content. They're mostly just gear-geeks (I'm one of those; I also employ camera and audio guys).

However, given that that's typically true, it makes the insistence Fox be notified to feel even more strange. It's more likely one of the interviewers standing around, thumb inserted wherever, probably fielded the tip off — which makes your raised question feel even more likely.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:03 PM   

I never believed it for a minute because the first I saw it was big headline at Huffington Post so I knew it was b/s without knowing the full story

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 3:24 AM    in reply to lousgirl84

Huffpost has become the Drudge report of the left. The only problem is that at least Drudge is loyal to Republicans. Huffpost takes every opportunity they can to swipe at this administration and the Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:05 PM   

Never believed it? Why not? The White House has excluded FOX before (Obama interviews just a few weeks ago ...)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:10 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

Why not because it is a lie. That's why. Aren't you lost???

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:16 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Two points.. First of all I was only saying that to never believe a story in the first place represents bias, and considering the WH actions in the past its not so far-fetched that they would REPEAT them again.

And second, the article above even quotes a WH rep saying they have "demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews" - ingenious political strategy? Yes... Democratic? ...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:22 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

Dont even go there. Do not preach democracy and fox news here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:37 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

My mistake, didn't mean to make you uncomfortable

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 6:45 AM    in reply to lousgirl84

I am among those that do not believe Fox is a News organization. (Not that the other network/cable organizations are that much better.) And, quite frankly, it wouldn't bother me if they froze Fox out the way Bush froze the NYT. But Rightover does have a point; If you decided that the headline must be wrong without even seeing the content, it does betray a level of bias. Now, if you said you were skeptical, given the source, that would be understandable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:51 AM    in reply to cawleybo

But Rightover does have a point; If you decided that the headline must be wrong without even seeing the content, it does betray a level of bias. Now, if you said you were skeptical, given the source, that would be understandable.
You're counseling skepticism rather than bias but that doesn't seem appropriate in Fox News' case. They've proven themselves to be fact manipulators rather than fact reporters. Bias, in this case toward doubt, seems a better attitude toward Fox.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:42 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

"WH actions in the past"

Do you really think the world started on Jan 20, 2009? The Bush WH boycotted MSNBC news for their entire term. They were asked to be interviewed and kept refusing. At the same time, both Bush/Cheney were interviewed on FoxNews time after time.

And MSNBC NEVER organized anti-Bush rallies. On the other hand, FoxNews has organized anti-Obama rallies. Why should Obama let himself give favors to the propaganda outlet for the American Taliban?

This is the same TV station (owned by a foreigner) that cheered when the United States did not get Olympics. And then they showed their outrage when an American a week later won the Nobel Peace Prize. It really makes you wonder on whose side FoxNews is on, doesn't it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 25, 2009 10:14 AM    in reply to rightoverhere

You're just too blind and/or stupid to accept the fact that fox news is nothing but a right wing smear machine for the Anti-American Republican Party trying to overthrown a democratically elected President!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:36 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

Re-writing history are we?

The WH did not include FoxNews in those set of interviews because foxNews refused to (unlike all the other networks) air Obama's press conference. FoxNews apparently thought "Dancing with the Stars's was more important to the American people. FoxNews (with the biggest crybabies in the world) asked for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:49 PM    in reply to charlie8080

If I were a news organization, I wouldn't air a so-called press conference when the questions were pre-meditated and answers rehearsed. That was not a press conference, it was an infomercial. And just like Obama attempted to do with the Olympics (shoving it down Chicago's throat when half of its inhabitants didn't want to see it come to town) he was and still is force-feeding America universal healthcare, regardless of what its people seem to want.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 23, 2009 8:22 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

Read polls much? Or do you simply know in your heart that the people prefer the Insurance Company Death Panels we have all seen in action?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 3:06 AM    in reply to rightoverhere

Oh wow a rasmussen poll that is off compared to all the other pollers. what a surprise.. /eyeroll

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 4:01 AM    in reply to musgrove

link?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 1:08 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

Just go Real Clear Politics and check President Obama's job approval ratings. Rasmussen stands out like a sore thumb and has for months. They are such a joke you can come to only one conclusion about why RCP includes them - fellow travellers. Heh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:51 AM    in reply to rightoverhere

25 for and 33 against with 39 undecided. Heck, you can probably count me with undecided.

I don't know what's going to be in the final bill. Neither do you. Neither do the people in the survey. Thus, the survey is kind of meaningless.

I bet you would had similar polls numbers when they were discussing the Medicare bill decades ago. And we both know how popular that bill is now. Even Republicans wouldn't dream of repealing it as they know people would be angry with them.

Furthermore, most Americans were for the Iraq war in 2003. This does not mean it was a good decision. This war will ultimately cost more money than health care reform. And God knows how many more terrorists/enemies we have created as a result of it.

Polls are for the most part meaningless. Leaders make decisions. If they are good decisions, people will follow.

Bush decided to attack Iraq. It was a terrible decision, which is why most rational people are now against the war.

If Congress adopts a good health care bill, most people will eventually be for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 24, 2009 10:41 AM    in reply to rightoverhere

Haven't read all your poll there but it appears consistent with the Kaiser 10/8-15 results (available at Pollster.com):

Do you think _______ would be better off or worse off if the president and Congress passed health care reform, or don't you think it
would make much difference?
You and your famly: 41% Better off, 27% Worse off, 28% No difference.

Those polled also thought that passing health care reform would make the country better off in the long term and preferred the public option.

So the bottom line seems to be that the public want health care reform and their problem with Obama's current plan is that it is too weak. Hardly forcing it down their throats -- more like dangling red meat in front of a hungry dog.

There are unnecessary deaths occurring and most people don't like that or hadn't you noticed?


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 8:38 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

If you actually thought before you typed (assuming you're not just a paid hack spreading astroturf), you'd realize all press conferences are fundamentally staged "infomercials"--to greater or lesser degrees. That's the point. In a democracy people push their points of view.

Your beloved W used to do that all the time with his annual news conference where friendly reporters would ask staged questions. Your beloved Fox has been known to stage their press reports as well--even including the organizing of tea bags to make a more sensational story. All networks have anchors that tend to push points of view.

Also, not everyone agrees with you. Such is life. You'll get over it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 10:11 PM    in reply to Homefries

W had press conferences?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 8:46 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

I feel your butthurt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:41 AM    in reply to rightoverhere

You are again, just like fox"news", creating your own reality.

Obama's press conference rehearsed? Fox"News" own Major Garrett asked a question! Was that part of rehearsal to? I mean, seriously!

By the way, why did foxNews then broadcast every Bush press conference? How do you know they were not rehearsed? Or are you going by what fox"news" tells you to think?

You think Obama forced chicago to host the Olympics. Good grief! It was Bush who 18 months earlier was in Chicago and helped Chicago launch its bid. Just because you try to re-write history based on what Fox"news" tells you to believe does not mean it is reality.

Force feeding America health care? I am glad you and your fox"news" is happy with America's health care situation. We are ranked 37th in the world based on WHO. I am very fortunate to have health insurance eventhough the premiums went up 20% over last year. But poll after poll shows that people want reform. Why do heck do you think Obama won by such a great margin? Why the heck do you think Dems have such huge majorities in Congress? And why do you think poll after poll show people want reform? I bet fox"news" doesn't tell you any of this, do they?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 8:54 AM    in reply to rightoverhere

Force feeding Chicago the Olympics????? That's quite a statement and you gave away any semblence of partiality with that numbskull remark. Straight out of the Limbaugh playbook.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 8:01 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

Yeah, you're right. None of Bush's conferences should have been aired. Oh, and you forgot to mention that his people made sure the audience was only full of his faithful supporters beforehand, as well.

Maybe you should wake up and start talking about the current administration, if you really insist on continuing this debate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 8:07 PM    in reply to charlie8080

Actually, it was "So You Think You Can Dance," which is a competition of professional-level and skilled street dancers, unlike ABC's / Disney's show that shamelessly provided a forum to try to rehabilitate Tom DeLay's public image.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:54 AM    in reply to Mr.E.

I stand corrected. I don't watch either show, but thanks for the correction.

I did hear about Tom Delay. Wasn't there some honest people who had NOT been indicted that they could have chosen instead? What a great model they chose!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:57 PM    in reply to rightoverhere

You have alot of balls to whine about Obama saying he's ok with excluding Faux. They refuse to cover anything of his speeches, lie about everything else he does, and how this.

And you're complaining that he sees no need to toss them any more bones? Go back to Faux's website and imagine more victimization with your buddies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:09 PM   

I just emailed Rachel and Keith to give them heads up on the phony story.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TM

user-pic

October 23, 2009 7:14 PM   

Major Garrett is a major douchebag. He crafted that report so as to not outright lie by way of facts presented. I wonder if he did that to not look like the shill he is to the rest of the press corp. Or was that the fair and balanced part?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:40 PM   

So how much more evidence do we need that Faux Newscorp Inc. can't do basic journalism?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:47 PM   

The White House has a spokesman named Josh
Earnest??

Josh

Earnest

its too good

no offense to our congenial host

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:50 PM   

Clearly, this is grounds for impeachement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 7:54 PM   

It's almost like Fox News needs babysitters or chaperones ... or their mamas ... to tell them how to cover the news and not lie about it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 8:02 PM   

Then the Administration is doing a poor job of getting the truth out because the usual pundits are advancing the Faux News meme on the cable news chat shows.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 8:25 PM   

Fox is the exception to the rule. No real (emphasis on real) news outlet should ever be excluded. Fox understands & is playing on that from all ends.
This is just something like the bonus round with double points, in their game. It's fine if they want to play, the White House is just informing everyone that that is what they're really doing & informing Fox that they're playing alone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 8:44 PM   

So the problem is that FOX simply didn't ask for a video interview.

Face it. If FOX were REALLY a news organization there is no way a professional news person would have failed to ask for that video interview.

Did they actually forget or were they attempting to set up a whine session? That's what a propaganda network would have done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 11:27 PM    in reply to Richardxx

That's it. You're right.

FOX doesn't request a video interview and when they show up to do one, guess what? They're shut out. Garrett essentially admits this in the beginning of the interview.

This thing reads like a set-up when you look at the details. FOX staging a manufactured war...where have I heard that before...nevermind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 5:25 AM    in reply to chaunceybaker

Check out 0:45 where he basically lies his face off: "Initially, the treasury department, and the treasury department doesn't do this without the White House approval, at least indirectly, had assembled a list of networks that would get interviews with Ken Feinberg. Initially, FOX was not on that list." Completely omits the part where they didn't ask to BE on that list.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 9:34 PM   

The Obama White House is full of neophytes; they’re not nearly ready to ‘control the press’; they’ve not even learned yet to ‘manipulate the press’. As a public service, I suggest: (1) military men could appear as unbiased commentators on all networks (all secretly paid for and briefed by the Pentagon to rattle-off White House talking points; those who don’t, are to be eliminated; a la the Bush Pentagon & all news networks, including those so suddenly righteous); (2) the White House could provide talking points and articles, written by White House staffers, to be printed under the bylines of selected newspaper reporters and payment could be made of up to $240,000 to the reporters who use them but don’t disclose the source (a la Bush White House & Armstrong Williams); (3) fabricate and plant individuals into the ‘press corps’, provide them with advantageous venues, call on them for ‘questions’ (a la the Bush White House with Jeff Gannon – bonus: provides instant celebrity to the ‘reporter’); (4) manufacture a ‘soldier hero’, then manufacture a story about him or her being maligned and spat upon by ‘East Coast liberals’, have Fox news ‘pickup the story’, give the individual the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award and have them appear with the Vice President (a la Matt Sanchez and Fox Noise); and (5) hold a press conference in which all reporters’ questions and all the President’s responses have been previously screened (a la the Bush White House and White House ‘reporters’ canned ‘press conferences’ in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq). Now, I realize the Democrats can’t afford an entire network like the Republicans or a phalanx of pseudo-think tanks whose 'experts' are at the ready to be called on by the media (the conservative pseudo-think tanks are funded at $173 million while the progressive manage a paltry $33 mil), but the Obama White House and the Democrats can build on the past. I offer these suggestions as a public service to our current Democratic White House, so, should they be inclined, they can benefit from the same practices proven (at least, for a time) beneficial to their predecessors.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 9:46 PM    in reply to bill

Bill you pined the last 8 years when it comes to the media right on the mark.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 9:42 PM   

FOX may very well be one of the most serious threats to our national security. I hope the administration have thought about that. FOX is the enemy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 9:55 PM   

The issue is not that FOX News is critical of the Democratic party and everything Obama. The issue is that they are critical simply to be critical. Their boss (Ailes) has publicly acknowledged that their main mission shall be to criticize Obama's policies, no matter what they are, and hence they have lost all objectivity.

FOX News network is no longer merely reporting the news.  They are creating the news by promoting controversial events before they have taken place (e.g., tea-bagging, 9/12 rallies),  promoting fear and hatred against a subset of the population (e.g., portraying all illegal aliens as violent vermin, demonizing abortion clinic physicians) and proselytizing a specific agenda with the stated goal of assisting the GOP in its desire to play the role of obstructionist in Congress. In addition, they will filter out any story that they perceive will cast a positive light on Obama's administration.

They have reduced themselves to be a propaganda tool for the conservative base. That is certainly their right, but they lose the right to claim "fair and balanced" and to behave self-righteous and indignant when called out on it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 10:06 PM   

TPM... good work! Someone needs to ask the MSM why they didn't take the time, like TPM, to make a few phone calls and get the facts. All day long I have heard and read reports that the WH froze out FOX when it appears that's not really true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 23, 2009 11:45 PM   

CBS News' Chip Reid on Fox News and the administration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnMiqIW5e1Q

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 12:11 AM   

Why does your headline say WH scheduling snafu when it was a treasury Dept snafu? You are feeding into the Fox spin .

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 12:23 AM   

This site is like the twilight zone. How come no other news outlet is saying it was a mistake? I'm dizzy from the spin in this article. Wow. Do you have a direct feed from the White House?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 2:14 AM    in reply to whatasite

My sentiments exactly. What they say about conservatives they demonstrate very well on their own: liberals believe what they want to believe.

facts or no facts

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 3:08 AM    in reply to rightoverhere

Either that or the MSM sucks, and given history between TPM getting things right compared to the MSM, iam going to go with the latter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 8:01 AM    in reply to whatasite

All US news outlets "reported" the same thing about Iraq when Bush prepared to launch his war in 2003. Nobody in the US media bothered to report independently or ask critical questions. This is just an example of the US media being outright lazy.

If it happened then, why don't you think it can't happen again?

Thank you TPM for actually taking your job seriously.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 12:11 PM    in reply to charlie8080

Do you really think if it was a mistake the right arm of the White House (MSNBC) would have reported that right away? They would have been all over it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 12:27 PM    in reply to whatasite

MSNBC is the right arm of the White House? Let me guess, you got that from Fox.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 12:32 PM    in reply to musgrove

No, I got that from MSNBC.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 1:21 PM    in reply to whatasite

OK, let's try this: IF MSNBC is the right arm of the White House, then how do you explain Morning with Joe? Three hours of right-wing talking points every morning!

Let's take it one step further: how many anti-Bush rallies did MSNBC organize? That's right, not single one.

FoxNews has helped organize God knows how many anti-Obama rallies. They even have "reporters" that help cheer them on.

FoxNews is owned by a foreigner, hell-bent on over-throwing the elected government of the United States. That makes them pretty much similar to the Taliban. Is this the side you are on?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 5:06 PM    in reply to charlie8080

If you really believe Morning Joe is right wing talking points then, I'm afraid there is no hope for you. Who else on the show is on the right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:03 PM    in reply to whatasite

I don't know. Ever hear of Pat Buchanan? He's got a seat on the Morning Joe panel almost daily. For awhile there, Liz Cheney was getting pretty comfy as a regular panelist, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 1:44 AM   

ChickaBOOMer -- TV Networks to WH: "That's it. You've crossed the line."
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/10/tv-networks-to-wh-thats-it-youve.html

NewsBusters: CBS Takes Up White House Quest to 'De-Legitimize' Fox News, 'Irony' FNC Enabled Attack
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/10/23/cbs-takes-white-house-quest-de-legitimize-fox-news-irony-fnc-enabled-at

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 9:41 AM   

Everyone knows this site is leftwing but why turn it into a rag by calling a deliberate attempt to silence FOX by calling the decision a 'snafu'?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 24, 2009 10:49 AM    in reply to amabo666

It's called a snafu because them's the facts. Fox didn't ask, so wasn't automatically on the list and got put back on when the other media pointed out that Fox probably wanted to be there.

If the White House had wanted to shut Fox out, they could have just said no.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 12:30 PM    in reply to AJM

I'm sure with the clout that TPM has with the administration. They got this exclusive. By the way, anyone want to buy some beach front property I have in Arizona? It's a bargain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 1:25 PM   

Hey, you ... are you a brilliant lawyer? Think fast. Fox news? Hmmm! False advertizing! The only question is, which court has jurisdiction. Even the White House has your back. If nothing else, you will make a name for yourself for trying.

Make your move, NOW.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 3:07 PM   

Is the WH saavy enough to know that goading Fox by ignoring them on that Sunday cycle would lead to this kind of behavior? Fox acting like a sulking teenager that needs an invitation to dinner?

Fox News is smart enough to navigate the treacherous waters of of a shared pool. They obviously decided not to, so that the conservative movement would have yet another cross to nail themselves to.

Cheaper than real journalism.

However, I don't agree with the WH on this "Happy to exclude" stance. There's a big difference of not going on the Sunday snoozefests that nobody watches**, and possibly withholding the people watching Fox New's access to government officials.

I think that most things Fox "News" suck, but fair's fair. Don't exclude them and take away the 5 minutes of actual news among the 23 hours, 55 minutes of Republican propaganda they broadcast daily.

(**People seriously still watch Sunday shows? What news has ever broken from them? It's just the same old villagers rehashing what was covered in the last week. Boring and useless.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 3:19 PM   

Actually, "Sulking Teen Syndrome" describes a lot of conservative behavior since Obama's election.

The inchoate "I hate you!" outbursts of the Teabagger movement. The "I'll show you! You'll miss me!" threats to run away of the Galtists. The self-destructive "cutter" behavior of the Failists such as Rush Limbaugh who now cheer our country's failures.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 3:22 PM   

If Major Garrett is so concerned about FAUX Access to The White House, he should have done better news analysis of what it was like when Bush was in the Oval Office.

He could have reported the "ALL The Facts", like Rachel Maddow did the other day.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908#33441578

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 4:34 PM   

So, now Mediaite is weighing in, and they seem to agree with the Fox News account of what happened. Also, Fox News' Michael Clemente claims to have already received a WH apology, from Gibbs and others.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/white-house-admits-to-fox-news-pay-czar-interview-exclusion-a-mistake/

I don't think the Mediaite piece offers any new information, other than the Clemente quotes. What the hell is going on here?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 4:41 PM   

Just wanted to add... re-reading Steve Krak's piece for Mediaite, although his headline reads "White House Admits To Fox News: Pay Czar Interview Exclusion “A Mistake"", the article doesn't contain any confirmation from the White House that they have "admitted" a "mistake." Mediaite's piece only quotes FNC's Michael Clemente.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 7:51 PM   

No news organization would lie.

Oh... wait.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 8:12 PM   

If TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief then TPMDC should have no problem identifying which network bureau chief gave the information about the FOX News incident:

ABC News Washington Bureau
1717 DeSales St NW, Washington DC 20036
Tel 202-222-7300
Fax 202-222-7684
DC Bureau Chief : Robin Sproul

CBS Washington Bureau
2020 M St NW, Washington DC 20036
Tel 202-457-4321
Fax 202-659-2586
DC Bureau Chief : Christopher Isham

CNN Washington Bureau
820 First St NE, Washington DC 20002
Tel 202-898-7900
Fax 202-898-7923
DC Bureau Chief : David Bohrman

FOX Washington Bureau
400 N Capitol St NW Washington, DC 20001
Tel 202-824-6300
Fax 202-824-6426
DC Bureau Chief : Bryan Boughton

NBC Washington Bureau
4001 Nebraska Ave NW, Washington, DC 20016
Tel 202-885-4200
Fax 202-362-2009
DC Bureau Chief : Mark Whitaker

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 24, 2009 9:39 PM   

ChickaBOOMer: Kenneth, What's The Frequency?
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/10/kenneth-whats-frequency.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 25, 2009 11:12 AM   

Lazy thinkers and sheep accept the status quo without further inquiry. Maybe if as citizens of this country we took our personal responsibilty seriously and stopped sucking in what the media feeds us regardless of the source, we would be a little more discerning when choosing our leaders. I am sick to death of both political parties, and am not in the least surprised that the "hope and change" mantra is facing an uphill battle. We are dealing with reallife human beings, flaws and all. Perhaps we would be better served by not blaming each other so quickly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 25, 2009 6:39 PM   

really? is this really happening?


network

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 27, 2009 9:57 AM   

I watch Fox News, and I did not read anything in this report by Christina Bellantoni that I did not already learn from Fox News. All she did was spin the story to try and make it look like the White House made a mistake rather than deliberately exclude Fox News. Considering that the White House has declared that they do not consider Fox News to be a news organization, I think Bellantoni's inuendo that the White House was incompetent in this particular case is unlikely to be true. Furthermore, her spin hinges on two lies: 1) that Fox News did not request an interview, and 2) that the other news organizations did not say, "that's it, you've crossed the line." It was CBS, not Fox, who first reported that the networks said, "That's it, you've crossed the line." I think the CBS Chief White House Correspondent Chip Reid should know what was said by the other pool members, and what motive would he have to misreport the reaction of the other news organizations? Furthermore, Chris Isham, the CBS pool chairman, said he received a call from the Treasury Department saying that all the networks except Fox News would be included, and that Bloomberg would be included instead. Even the Huffington Post reported that Fox News did request an interview, so it seems clear that the lies are not coming from Fox News but from certain White House officials and commentators like Christina Bellantoni who believe the White House PR efforts over individuals directly involved with the situation. If you look at Bellantoni's report carefully, you will see that there is really no facts to her story, but spin based upon White House public relations propaganda.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular