Pres Obama is like Nixon???

tuna55 wrote: He is trying to marginalize, which is, in effect, the same thing, but much more devious.

No. It's not. Censorship means you are blocked from publishing or airing a story. Marginalizing is just another PR technique for trying to manage the news. Every politician tries to manage the news. Not just Obama. So does every Corporation and Organization. The fact that politicians manage the news is ......well.......not even news.

You might want to go to a dictatorship like Cuba to see how real censorship works. If Mr. Castro wants to kill a news story, he just shuts down the transmitter and sometimes even imprisons or kills the guy who wrote the story.

Big difference.

Not really. I'll end my participation in this thread at this point, but the fact that other countries have more oppressive dictatorship doesn't mean it is right, or not alarming to see our President marginalizing any news organization.

The fact that other Presidents have done it doesn't make in any less alarming either.

It's still alarming, it's still wrong, and it doesn't fall within the governments constitutional powers.

I didn't drudge through all of the drivel and generalizations here, but I'll say this:

Glenn Beck's program is not the only program on Fox News. As far as I know, Glenn Beck doesn't claim to be a news anchor. He gets on my nerves. That being said, Beck pretty much single-handedly exposed Thee Obama's "green jobs" czar for the miserable, worthless piece of E36 M3 he is, and his "resignation" came roughly a week later. IIRC, he was also the first to break the most recent of the ACORN scandals, you know, the one it took Charlie Gibson, Crunty Couric, Diane Sawyer, and the rest of the tingle in their collective nether regions' Obamaworshipers to report. Both saved the taxpayers money.

Whether they're "technically" a news channel or not is completely berkeleying irrelevant. There are shows on Comedy Central that aren't funny. There are plenty of shows on MSNBC and CNN that are 'opinion journalism,' etc. So why is it somehow uncouth, unethical, or otherwise for Fox News to have the word "news" in the name of their network?

SVreX wrote: Interesting political point, Toyman01. It is bad politics to marginalize the portion of your constituents who represent the viewership of a program which is the overwhelming leader in prime time, regardless of whether or not you agree with what they are watching. If President Obama is trying to be a uniter, this is an odd way to accomplish the goal.

Obama is NOT going to get the support of Fox News viewers no matter what he does. It's kind of like the American Nazi Party going to the local Temple to see if they could round up a few Jewish votes. Not going to happen. Moot point. Waste of time.

He might as well bash, marginalize and jump up and down on his podium screaming Fox News sucks until his voice gives out. They already hate the guy. None of this would be censorship under the Constitution, but if he goes too far he might come off looking like an idiot.

aircooled wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: ...."Fox News also was the overwhelming leader in prime time Thursday, averaging nearly 2.9 million viewers. Here's how the competition fared: MSNBC with 1 million, CNN with 718,000 and HLN with 496,000."....

As a note, those numbers appear to be for Cable news only, not the broadcast networks. I would be interested to see how they compare with the big 3, I suspect they will still be up there.

Finding hard numbers is proving difficult. On average it looks like the 7:00pm network news has between 5 and 10 million viewers. Fox's 7:00pm show comes in around 2 million. CNN is in the 600K range.

Dancing with the Stars on the other hand gets about 16 million viewers. I guess we know what is most important to the general population.

Hi Poopshovel,

Although the “green jobs” Czar scandal got tons of publicity, I believe FOX News gets credit for forcing the President to E36 M3 can a total of three Czars he snuck past everyone.

To FOX’s credit, they consistently said that “the ferreting process wasn’t rigorous enough”.

Bhahaha…of course the President knew exactly who he was surrounding himself with.

FOX could have cited the old adage “you learn a lot about a person by the company they keep” but they didn’t…they gave the President the benefit of the doubt and blamed “poor ferreting”.

I see FOX take the classy, polite position often but some others can’t appreciate it as their world view has been so wildly skewed by incessant liberal propaganda that anything sort of Obamaworship seems inappropriate and laughable to them.

Snowdoggie wrote: but if he goes too far he might come off looking like an idiot.

Whoops.... too late. He's already done that about a half dozen times.

Snowdoggie:

I see your point on the difference between censorship and managing one's political adversaries.

But I didn't say censorship, and neither did the NPR show.

They compared his efforts to those of Mr. Nixon, who also did not practice censorship.

The question is not whether President Obama has censored anyone. The point was he is attacking his political and journalistic adversaries in a similar manner to former President Nixon. Many people (from both parties) didn't like that, and still don't.

SVreX wrote: Snowdoggie: I see your point on the difference between censorship and managing one's political adversaries. But I didn't say censorship, and neither did the NPR show. They compared his efforts to those of Mr. Nixon, who also did not practice censorship. The question is not whether President Obama has censored anyone. The point was he is attacking his political and journalistic adversaries in a similar manner to former President Nixon. Many people (from both parties) didn't like that, and still don't.

Censorship was brought up on the thread, not on the NPR show.

There is no doubt that by attacking the press he is doing the same thing that Nixon did. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Nixon was an astute politician and that the media was going after him with a vengence, even before Watergate. Even with the media against him, he managed to get elected for President twice. Strategically speaking, Obama would be better off being a Nixon than being a Jimmy Carter. Nixon got re-elected. Carter didn't.

I'm not sure I agree this would be a bad strategy for Obama. He will not be getting votes from Fox News viewers no matter what he does so bashing Fox news isn't really hurting him as much as you might think. On the other hand, bashing Fox News will help him rally the troops, just like bashing homosexuals and abortionists rallies the troops for the other side. He could lose 100% of the votes of Fox News viewers and still gain re-election. On the other hand, If he angers his supporters who hate Fox News to the point that they won't show up at the polls, he loses. If the campaigns against Glenn Beck and his 'Teabagger' supporters who wave guns around in front of town meetings, it might be just as effective a stereotype to run against as the lazy communist hippie was for Nixon. I think Obama just might have a winning strategy here, and yes, he took it from Nixon's playbook.

It is interesting that many of the people who are so critical of this strategy are the ones who did not vote for him in the last election and who won't be supporting him even if he does decide to 'play nice' with Fox News. Maybe they are afraid this strategy just might work.

Snowdoggie wrote: I'm not sure I agree this would be a bad strategy for Obama. He will not be getting votes from Fox News viewers no matter what he does so bashing Fox news isn't really hurting him as much as you might think.

You're making the presumption that every Fox viewer did not or will not vote for Obama.

Facts, please. Or are you just expressing an opinion?

Is it not possible that viewers believe they receive more information (whether through "news" or "opinion" programs) by watching Fox than using other media outlets?

oldsaw wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: I'm not sure I agree this would be a bad strategy for Obama. He will not be getting votes from Fox News viewers no matter what he does so bashing Fox news isn't really hurting him as much as you might think.

You're making the presumption that every Fox viewer did not or will not vote for Obama. Facts, please. Or are you just expressing an opinion? Is it not possible that viewers believe they receive more information (whether through "news" or "opinion" programs) by watching Fox than using other media outlets?

I would like to see a survey as to who viewers of Fox News voted for, but I'm sure you won't find a lot of Obama supporters there. Most of what I see on Fox is anti-Obama and some of it is even anti-Moderate Republican. RINOs and all that stuff.

I don't have to analyze the chemical composition of water to understand that it is 'wet' nor do I have to survey the viewers of Fox News to know that most of them did not vote on the Democratic side of the ticket.

you're forgetting that by drawing attention to "the dissenters" at fox, he is going to have people that might not otherwise take a look at what fox is presenting "out of curiosity" and finding out that they might not have been asking enough questions of all the things they've been told on CNN et al.

If the campaigns against Glenn Beck and his 'Teabagger' supporters who wave guns around in front of town meetings,

Just FYI, it was MSNBC who reported about the white racist from the hate group carrying his rifle outside of the townhall meeting in Phoenix:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

Oh. Um. Wait. Nevermind. He's black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfGF-wI6KUw

That's good ole fashioned unbiased reportin' right there.

Strizzo wrote: you're forgetting that by drawing attention to "the dissenters" at fox, he is going to have people that might not otherwise take a look at what fox is presenting "out of curiosity" and finding out that they might not have been asking enough questions of all the things they've been told on CNN et al.

Have you watched Lou Dobbs lately? He has been roasting Obama pretty badly lately and some of it is justified. Obama has gone after Lou as well. You don't have to go to Fox News to get that. I also know liberals who never watch Fox News, never will and want that place on their tuner removed from the television set. How many right wing Republicans subscribe to Mother Jones Magazine and watch Michael Moore movies. I know guys who are so far to the right that they will not go to see one because they don't want Moore to get their money.

I think that overall most people watch the news that supports their point of view. There are a few news junkies, people in the business and people who are trying to figure out what the truth is who watch everything but they are few and far between. It is good to get your news from different sources but most people don't do that.

Snowdoggie wrote: I don't have to analyze the chemical composition of water to understand that it is 'wet' nor do I have to survey the viewers of Fox News to know that most of them did not vote on the Democratic side of the ticket.

Without the survey we'd all like to see, you're using a broad-brush to paint the network's viewers - "CLEAN-UP on AISLE 3".

Independents and disenfranchised conservatives/Republicans were the key to Obama's election. Ignoring their influence on the election results only serves to reduce your presumption to opinion.

But airing-out opinions is a good thing because it encourages a healthy debate of ideas.

Unless you're the President, who prefers to throw a hissy-fit instead of engaging an honest defense of his agenda.

poopshovel wrote:

If the campaigns against Glenn Beck and his 'Teabagger' supporters who wave guns around in front of town meetings,

Just FYI, it was MSNBC who reported about the white racist from the hate group carrying his rifle outside of the townhall meeting in Phoenix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI Oh. Um. Wait. Nevermind. He's black. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfGF-wI6KUw That's good ole fashioned unbiased reportin' right there.

Do you really think Obama's political operatives care where they get their stereotypes from? They are in the business. They watch everything and they will use this in the next election, if they are smart enough to use Nixonian tactics. Or maybe they won't, and maybe they will lose the election.

My point is that if they do use Nixonian tactics they will use a stereotype to invoke fear from their supporters. Your average liberal Berkeley hippie is a little bit afraid of guys with Southern Accents who carry guns. If Obama wants to use a reverse Southern Strategy he would promise to take the guns away from these guys to protect his liberal supporters, IF he really wants to use a fear based Nixon strategy to rally his troops. The 'Teabagger' stereotype is just like the 'pot smoking hippie' stereotype. Its something your supporters fear and something a politician will promise to do something about. Come to think of it, Rachel Maddow at MSNBC is the one who coined the term 'Teabagger'. Yes, she is a liberal and a lesbian.

All I am saying here is that both sides have their stereotypes.

oldsaw wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: I don't have to analyze the chemical composition of water to understand that it is 'wet' nor do I have to survey the viewers of Fox News to know that most of them did not vote on the Democratic side of the ticket.

Without the survey we'd all like to see, you're using a broad-brush to paint the network's viewers - "CLEAN-UP on AISLE 3". Independents and disenfranchised conservatives/Republicans were the key to Obama's election. Ignoring their influence on the election results only serves to reduce your presumption to opinion. But airing-out opinions is a good thing because it encourages a healthy debate of ideas. Unless you're the President, who prefers to throw a hissy-fit instead of engaging an honest defense of his agenda.

Nice tactic here. Try to marginalize me by picking one small part of what I am saying and try to prove me wrong by asking me to quote statistics to prove it while missing the entire point that I agree with you. Obama is using a Nixonian strategy.

You can take all the surveys you want about who watched CBS news and who read the National Review in 1968 but you can't deny the point that Nixon did win elections.

Snowdoggie wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: I don't have to analyze the chemical composition of water to understand that it is 'wet' nor do I have to survey the viewers of Fox News to know that most of them did not vote on the Democratic side of the ticket.

Without the survey we'd all like to see, you're using a broad-brush to paint the network's viewers - "CLEAN-UP on AISLE 3". Independents and disenfranchised conservatives/Republicans were the key to Obama's election. Ignoring their influence on the election results only serves to reduce your presumption to opinion. But airing-out opinions is a good thing because it encourages a healthy debate of ideas. Unless you're the President, who prefers to throw a hissy-fit instead of engaging an honest defense of his agenda.

Nice tactic here. Try to marginalize me by picking one small part of what I am saying and try to prove me wrong by asking me to quote statistics to prove it while missing the entire point that I agree with you. Obama is using a Nixonian strategy. You can take all the surveys you want about who watched CBS news and who read the National Review in 1968 but you can't deny the point that Nixon did win elections.

Nixon played hard-ball politics, but marginizing media opponents didn't guarantee his elections. His approach alienated a lot of his potential base as much as it invigorated his supporters.

He got elected because (in spite of his tactics) he campaigned on a center-right platform that represented the majority of the voting constituency.

Obama campaigned on a centrist platform then revealed his "left" and "left of center" programs (to a country that is still center-right) and doesn't have the fortitude to defend them to the people who elected him.

Yup, it worked for Nixon but I don't think Obama really wants to achieve the same status as a predecessor that is held in such low regard.

this is (in part) his answer as to why he isn't saluting (civilian style (or not in uniform))

"This is just so irritating," Obama responded. "This was not the Pledge of Allegiance. This woman was singing the Star Spangled Banner. Now, I was taught by my grandfather that you put your hands over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. The Star Spangled Banner, you sing. So that's what I did."

when I was in the Navy we saluted when any countries anthem was being played... maybe things have changed since the 60's

Snowdoggie wrote: I would like to see a survey as to who viewers of Fox News voted for, but I'm sure you won't find a lot of Obama supporters there. Most of what I see on Fox...

First survey entry...

Fox viewer #1-Snowdoggie- presumably Democrat, and likely voted for Obama!

wbjones wrote: this is (in part) his answer as to why he isn't saluting (civilian style (or not in uniform)) "This is just so irritating," Obama responded. "This was not the Pledge of Allegiance. This woman was singing the Star Spangled Banner. Now, I was taught by my grandfather that you put your hands over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. The Star Spangled Banner, you sing. So that's what I did." when I was in the Navy we saluted when any countries anthem was being played... maybe things have changed since the 60's

Well, my conservative self will have to stick up for Obama on the anthem thing. My dad taught me the same way his granddad taught him. I don't think I have ever placed my hand over my heart during the anthem, only during the pledge.

That being said, the US code of etiquette does say that all citizens should salute during the anthem. So I guess we are both wrong.

It is interesting that I had a discussion in my Journalistic Writing class today (last gen-ed class!) that is very relevant to this whole mess.

News and opinion HAVE become helplessly blurred and mixed. We had someone local who started their own independant internet news "paper" come in and talk to us in our last class. Today we were discussing the work and content. I brought up how he repeatedly focused on his own opinion and was very light on reporting fact, but heavy on how he felt on it. My professor agreed with me. He said that he took the guy to lunch as a thanks and that asked him about it and that he looked at him like he was nuts. The guy didnt see and difference between reporting the news and reporting opinion.

It is a sad reality that the media in general has broken down to the point that the only way to get the real news is to read in between the lines of what these "news organizations" think on a subject.

as far as most disgusting news channel.. to me that dishonor goes to HLN news. When I cant watch my preferred news (more on that in a sec) I try to divide between Fox and MSNBC and read between the lines.

IMHO the best news that I can find, which I only get at my moms house, is BBC world news. Its sad, but they dont seem to have nearly as much bull to cut through. (although some aspects of US news dosent really feed through and it can be slanted in its own unique way from the international angle)

as for the thread title.. I heard someone comparing Obama to Hitler, but that didnt hold up. Hitler actually got Germany the Olympics!

In reply to Toyman01:

Last time (and every time) I've been to a football or baseball game, everyone takes their hat off and puts it over their heart during the anthem. No hat? Hand on heart.

Snowdoggie wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

If the campaigns against Glenn Beck and his 'Teabagger' supporters who wave guns around in front of town meetings,

Just FYI, it was MSNBC who reported about the white racist from the hate group carrying his rifle outside of the townhall meeting in Phoenix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI Oh. Um. Wait. Nevermind. He's black. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfGF-wI6KUw That's good ole fashioned unbiased reportin' right there.

Do you really think Obama's political operatives care where they get their stereotypes from? They are in the business. They watch everything and they will use this in the next election, if they are smart enough to use Nixonian tactics. Or maybe they won't, and maybe they will lose the election. My point is that if they do use Nixonian tactics they will use a stereotype to invoke fear from their supporters. Your average liberal Berkeley hippie is a little bit afraid of guys with Southern Accents who carry guns. If Obama wants to use a reverse Southern Strategy he would promise to take the guns away from these guys to protect his liberal supporters, IF he really wants to use a fear based Nixon strategy to rally his troops. The 'Teabagger' stereotype is just like the 'pot smoking hippie' stereotype. Its something your supporters fear and something a politician will promise to do something about. Come to think of it, Rachel Maddow at MSNBC is the one who coined the term 'Teabagger'. Yes, she is a liberal and a lesbian. All I am saying here is that both sides have their stereotypes.

My point was that if the administration's attacks on Fox News are based on the fact that they are "biased," and support the conservative agenda, then why not attack NBC and others who obviously, unabashedly support a liberal agenda?

If the administration's attacks on Fox News are based solely on the fact that they don't support Thee Obama (duh) then it's a bullE36 M3, unethical, and unnecessary move on the administration's part. Perhaps someone should remind them that we're fighting 2 wars, are rapidly approaching double digit unemployment, and a pile of my hot wing and whiskey fueled fecal matter is worth more than the dollar.

Good news is, the old "any publicity is good publicity" adage is ringing true for Fox News, as they're still dominating the ratings.

The White House just blinked:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Then cried in spilt milk with it's media sycophants -

Obama's comments also came after he met Monday with political commentators Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson, E.J. Dionne, Ron Brownstein, John Dickerson, Frank Rich, Jerry Seib, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, Gloria Borger, and Gwen Ifill.

Mao and Marx were also invited, but both were otherwise occupied.

BTW, Bush entertaining a group of radio talk-show hosts didn't sit well with me either.