Why are you asking Joe Klein? The guy is a follower, not a leader. All his ideas are second hand and second rate. I don't mean that as some kind of a joke--its the basic fact. None of these people are journalists in the old sense--they are paid to talk and talk they will. They aren't paid to think about real political issues, or historical issues, and think them through and prescribe actual policy.

aimai

The alternative? Why, be more like Bush! After all, he had such great respect for the media during his presidency!

Klien will take a pass. He'll say something to the effect that it's the WH that needs to come up with a solution that, like the one it's persuing, Klien and his ilk will find similar fault with. These guys are all in cahoots. So. I say let them all stew. They need Obama's press conferences for their newsey livlihoods more than Obama needs their condesending reporting and asinine critiques of how they are choosing to handle the other party's propoganda machine. Nauseating...

I see Fox the same way the White House sees Fox... as a harmful entity that needs to be exposed for what they are, a network for the very wealthy to spread lies and intolerence all to put more money into the pockets of the richest Americans without caring about the damage it is doing to the rest of us. Murdoch and Fox have done more harm to this country than any terrorist. The White House knows what they need to do and what they are doing is very effective. I applaud them.

The political journos who are objecting to the WH calling Faux News out are trying to have it both ways. They want the cloak of "journalistic independence" while (more) privately relishing their roles as part of the power structure in DC. A threat to Faux News is essentially a threat to the unacknowledged lie of "journalistic independence." They want neither the lie exposed nor to lose their seat at the Big Kids table. Klein wants to keep his seat, too.

Fox news caters to the Lowest Common Denominator audience with soundbites and talk show fights. Either get into the ring or let the FOX one sided staged fights go unchecked. A new MTV like news show that was faster paced would suck the life out of them. Fox News is entertainment - you can only compete with it in that market.

To be clear, Fox is an arm of the Republican Party. They just won't cop to it publicly.

There is no alternative.

But there is a simple strategy for almost every Democratic political problem: Listen to what Broder and the Villagers say - and then do the exact opposite.

Public option - Villagers No, then Yes.

Support Lierbermann - Villagers Yes, then No.

Attack Fox News, Villagers No, then Yes.

Attach Bush in 2006 and 2008, Villagers No, then Yes.

Of course - the Villagers hate the attacks on Fox News. It employs a lot of their friends and fellow travellers. The villagers hate it when it's made clear they're in the tank.

The more they scream - the harder the White House should go for it.

BTW - on the interview boycott. The White House should have just looked for local stations.

What should the White House do? Stick to the issues that matter to Americans: national security, family values, and honoring the memory of those killed on 9/11.

As Rush says:

We (the white house) need to bend over and grab our ankles, because the president (of fox news) is black (a rabid rightwing batshit crazy republican). There I've said it.

This is the villager's solution. I say, let them bend over and take it.

As they have enlivened McLuhan's observation, "the media is the message," over the years, FOXNEWSCHANNEL has worked to incert its own set of corporate values into the national discourse. It has employed obfuscation, deception and out and out misrepresentation of the truth. It is fair game for anyone, even the current Administration, especially since anyone who's been paying any kind of attention lately can discern "FOXNEWS'" desire to see the current Administration fail.

The trash talk on any given day at any given moment during any particular program on FNC is unbecoming of any decent news outlet, and gives strong testament to the hatred this "news" organization carries toward our current President and his Adminstration!

No, Joey Klein, the current Administrationn has every right to call out the shit being broadcast by Murdoch's empire! -Kevo

Wrong question, Steve. Right question: What do you expect JOURNALIST to do? They have to take sides, and they clearly can't side with Fox News, because its clearly a propaganda outlet, and they can't side with Obama because he's clearly a Democrat.

So their solution to this moral dilemma is to criticize the WH for being mean while admitting (as passively and quietly as possible) that the charges are true. That way they maintain their "independence" and their loose connection to reality.

aimai beat me to the punch. Joe Klein is notorious for wanting to thread the needle between opposing viewpoints and ending up being totally incoherent as a result. He's a full fledged member of the Church Of Broder that way....

I haven't read the FCC Act, so am coming from complete ignorance of what is possible in this regard. That being said, isn't there some jurisdiction the FCC has over the misuse of the "Public Airwaves" for spreading lies and slandering people? Why can the President of the United States of America be abused with lies and then be told that he is overreacting to such lies? If they, cable channels, are exempt from FCC jurisdiction, which I have read somewhere, isn't there some regulatory body that does have jurisdiction? When someone drops the "F Bomb" (how childish is that reference), aren't they subject to some fine? Why do Jon Stewart and others appearing on cable channels have their words bleeped out? Is that by law or some agreement they have made? What's the difference?

I have a lot of questions about this whole topic. Anyone have any answers, supported by "facts" (I know; not really relevant when discussing Fox)?

Like the whole nation is never ever suppose to question idiot white conservative dudes no matter how messed up in the head they are, how piss poor their performance is, how wrong they are, the white conservative dudes can not be held up to any normal standard. Never challenging that bullshit stance is what got us Fox, overpaid assholes that are as ignorant as the day is long.

Expecting more out of adults is not a bad thing. Pretending those sloppy adults do not exist gets us nothing but more crap.

I think since the media establishment has been so quick to defend Fox News, the White House should do what they can to force the media establishment to own Fox's opinions. Refer to ridiculous things Fox publicizes and call Fox out on the ridiculousness by getting the rest of the press pool to respond to it. "It appears that your colleagues at the Fox News network are promoting and even organizing protests against [administration's program], how can you ask [legitimate question] when your colleagues are trying to create the news while they cover it?"

I think the point people are missing here (including Krauthammer's idiotic op-ed in the WaPo today), is that Fox may be clearly a right leaning news organization, but they claim to be "fair and balanced", as if the others are all doe-eyed liberals.

MSNBC, by contrast, has both left leaning and right leaning people, and they are pretty up front about that. No one is going to mistake Maddow or Scarbourgh as being objective. I'm ok with that because it puts the biases front and center.

Fox claims it is impartial, which it is not, and until they admit that, they should be treated with scorn and ignored. If I was the administration, I would essentially tell Fox that until they admit to being a right-wing news org, they get minimal access. If they want to admit that, let Sean Hannity interview Obama. It will be hostile, but honest. As it is today, the Fox response to any push back is "Oh no, we're just offering the view of the American people" or some such nonsense.

Well, there IS one news organization that sucessfully 'attacks' Fox News several times a week- as well as CNN when need be.

Anyone?

Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.

And that's what the White House should do; hire some of Stewart's/Colbert's/Mahr's writers, and foil Fox's conflated bombast with biting wit. . .

st john, all cable companies are exempt from FCC jurisdiction. The reason that they censor "profanity" and the like is simply that they wish to remain free from regulation. All the cable networks recognize that if they were to air, for example, pornography, that they would have a huge surge in ratings, followed by an immediate bill proposed and passed in Congress to regulate them to within an inch of their lives. As a result, cable networks voluntarily censor their content.

Fox can get away with more because if anyone seriously suggested a bill to regulate the noxious putrescence that pours forth from their vile talking heads, that they would immediately be tarred attempting to stifle political discourse that they disagreed with. And, indeed, they would be.

The president can be abused with lies because he is the President of the United States. Slander requires proof of both knowledge that the slander was false and that there was deliberate intent to harm the target. Given that Fox tells something like 15 lies an hour, the volume of debunking alone protects them. Additionally, the prosecution would have to prove that Glenn Beck was deliberately trying to harm Obama, rather than, as he would surely claim, protect the United States.

The bottom line is that dealing with cretinous morons like Fox is the cost of a free society. Ideally, the rest of the press would be motivated to debunk the malicious lies of a failed morning zoo DJ. Unfortunately, it's far more profitable for their corporate masters to keep stirring the kettle of crap, for the same reason that it's more profitable for local news to cover crimes and fires than local government. It attracts more viewers. It's also stupidly easy to be a blowhard talking head if you ignore facts, after all, Rush, Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity do it day after day.

I agree with the posters intoning that Klien is afraid that the other shoe will drop and it may well be one "thrown" at him. Al Zaidi may have been more on target (even though he missed Bushit) than he could possibly have imagined. I think tossing shoes at Klien and others, even in a metaphysical manner, is a good place to begin.

They all know what's going on at FOX. They all may be greedy but they are not stupid (I think). I say call a press conference w/o FOX and see who is the first to break ranks with them. I'd bet a million that if only the Blogs show it'll exacerbate the truth that the MSM isn't doing their job anyway and who the hell reads TIME magaize anymore to boot. Eventually they will all realize that they need to compete for advertisers who won't continue to back these rough cable news stations if all they have on them are dead-enders preaching to their own ilk. At very least FOX would loose advertisers that would migrate to CNN etc. What fun...

Klein's problem here is seeing the issue in Beltway terms. Attacking Fox only raises its profile. Is that possible at this point? What Klein doesn't see is that this is a move by the White House to rile up its own base before a series of tough legislative fights. The right wing is already there. What better way to close the enthusiasm gap than engage the one entity every Democrat hates? Big picture, Joe. Big picture.

I don't have the link handy but I just read right now on Huffingtonpost.com that the WH tried to block Fox News from conducting an interview with their pay czar. They relented only after the executives of the other major networks refused to interview him unless Fox was included.

This seem a bit overreaching to me. It is one thing to "render" an opinion (as used by Gibbs) that Fox is not a news organization, but its quite another thing to actively do things that might possibly exclude them from reporting (or whatever they call it). I mean, why wouldn't they ask Major Garrett to stop coming to WH anymore?

To address the question of what strategy the White House should take, they should present their facts, and then question the media. Find specific examples of Beck or Hannity setting the agenda for the rest of the media. Take that case, and illustrate, in a press conference, how easy it is to debunk. Then directly ask the media, "It took 4 interns X hours to find the facts and debunk this story. It was reported in (List of establishments that reported it, and have reporters present). This is why we have had to directly address Fox. It is because you are not doing your jobs, and in the interest of protecting the American people, and providing them with factual information, we have had to do your jobs as well as ours. Why did we have to fact check your work? Why did you report this, without checking it?"

Point out that they're not doing their jobs, shame them into it, and show how some un-paid college students can do the work that, apparently, our millionaire journalists can't.

st. john, following up on Sisyphus, you asked about an obligation to use the public airwaves for the public good, and whether Fox violates that. the reason cable is regulated differently than broadcast channels (it is not quite true that the FCC doesn't regulate cable at all, but the regulation is very different and less directed at content) is that cable doesnt use the "public airwaves." broadcast networks are more tightly regulated as part of a trade-off for free use of limited spectrum.

any non-broadcast self-censorship is a matter of enlightened self-interest, a blurry and shifting implicit social contract that allows different standards based on what "tier" of cable you are generally on (i.e. can anyone access the channel, do you pay extra for it, is it explicitly a pay channel, is it pay-per-view). Part of the self interest is, as Sisyphus notes, keeping firmer regulation at bay. part is a matter of PR. part is gauging the right mix of edgy-but-not-over-the-line of your target audience. So Comedy Central bleeps some because it knows minors are likely watching and wants to stay on the good side of parents who pay the cable bill.

What Ailes our country? We are being Murdoched to death by hate

There is an alternative:

One should talk about the hate as much as one talks about the partisanship.
Dare to say Hate TV outloud.
Dare to provide video clips that demonstrate it.

That will put the bad guys on their heels.
You've got to make them play defense.
And this is still certainly true: Haters are losers.

Beginning right now, the White House should grant Fox zero access to administration officials. Kick them out of the Press Room, too.

I think when the White House called out Fox they indirectly called out everybody in the mainstream media that provides an echo chamber for the bogus stories coming from Fox. I am not surprised that the media is closing ranks around fox. They are like sheep and they don't like being called out.

Out of curiosity I watched a few minutes of Fox "news" this morning (10ish) and caught a segment on health reform in the form of an interview with Senator Bob Casey. Distracting from the interview was a continual series of "boxes" in the upper right hand corner of the screen stating things like: Obama on June 3, 2009 called for Congress to finish health care reform by the end of August, CBO estimates health care cost at over 11 billion, another high health care estimate ... While these message boxes may have contained factoids with elements of truth, all of them contained points that were adverse to health care reform and in a sense served as subliminal messages and talking points against health care reform. They were pointless or moot, but were all negative talking points. Finally, the one question to Senator Casey I heard was presented as a statement of fact and could have come from a RNC press release: "Wouldn't it present an unlevel playing field if the government provided health care, as it would be both a player and the umpire?" This all in the course of about 3 random minutes.

All week, there's been talk that the White House has launched a "war" against the Republican network. The claim itself misstates the case -- Fox News launched a crusade against Obama and Democrats, and the White House has felt compelled to respond. How? By acknowledging reality and encouraging others to do the same.

There's no boycott, no punishment, no vendetta -- this is just a situation in which the White House is calling Fox News what it obviously is. That's all. That's the whole controversy.
_________________________________________________

Gee Stevie, guess you didn't see or hear the story today where the Administration made the pay czar available to the network pool for interviews but wanted to exclude Fox News. The rest of the press refused to participate unless Fox was allowed back in. The Administration backed down but looked like utter morons for wanting to exclude Fox in the first place.

As for an effective alternative to their current brillant strategy, how about simply ignoring Fox and get on with the business of governing the country. Obama knows that you got his back so he can leave it to you and the rest of "legitimate news media" to deal with all the "lies and half-truths" that you claim Fox broadcasts.

aimai: "Why are you asking Joe Klein?"

Because this is what Beltway pundits do; i.e. feed off each other. The real question should be, why does Steve think any of us should care what Joe Klein, Matt Yglesias, Mike Allen, et al., writes?

Speaking for myself only, I've neither read nor listened to "Joke Line" since he was revealed as the formerly anonymous author of the Clinton hit-piece Primary Colors after vociferously denying such, both repeatedly and publicly on record. He a thin-skinned liar whose journalism is superficial at its best.

Make no mistake: With the obvious occasional exceptions, Beltway journalism and punditry is at once self-centered and self-absorbed and serves primarily the interests of those who work inside the Beltway.

At its best, Beltway journalism's collective work product serves only to highlight D.C.'s incessant internecine squabbles and partisan feuds. At its worst, its cast of characters will knowingly mislead the general public on serious issues and willingly obfuscate the facts on behalf of those whose oxen would be fatally gored were the honest-to-goodness truth to ever somehow come to light. As such, their analysis and prognostications should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Aloha.

WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?

1. Do their jobs well and invite favorable coverage from the supportive media.

2. Save their rhetorical ammunition (and energy and time) for effective attacks on actual political opponents as FDR did with his "Martin, Barton and Fish" speech. For sure, the Republican party has some indefensible targets (with your permission, they could effectively quote a bunch of posts by Steve Benen.)

Every president has had some news outlets that were resolutely opposed, and now it's Obama's turn. Attacking the opposition media, instead of opposing politicians, has always been self-defeating.

Take away their FCC license.

@Dilip at 2:12 PM
What would have happened if the WH called their bluff? Issue a press release from the pay (I won't use the c-word) and post it on their website. I bet all the alternative outlets would carry the story. Guess who loses? If I have to start going to alternative media for some of my "news", I may discover that they provide more in depth and authentic information than the usual news sources.

Just a thought!

The White House has been great on this issue and in my opinion the more people like Klein whine the more they should push it. At some point Klein and others will realize how stupid they are defending Fox and how they are on the wrong side of the issue when they wake up one day and realize they are standing with Glen Beck.

One alternative would be for the President to sit down with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, and, when the inevitable question arises about the White House "war" on Fox, President Obama is armed with specific lies and distortions from Fox' "straight" news reporters like Wallace, Baier, Kelly, et al, and throws them in Wallace's face. And, one of the conditions of the sit-down is that the White House has a camera crew filming alongside Fox, so that Fox cannot distort by editing.

chicounsel: "Gee Stevie, guess you didn't see or hear the story today where the Administration made the pay czar available to the network pool for interviews but wanted to exclude Fox News. The rest of the press refused to participate unless Fox was allowed back in. The Administration backed down but looked like utter morons for wanting to exclude Fox in the first place."

I'd have simply cancelled the press conference, and put the word out through other media sources that the reason it was cancelled was because the Whit House press fraternity brothers and sorority sisters threw a hissy fit over the president's refusal to further indulge the ficticious pretense that FOX News' work product constitutes legitimate objective journalism, rather than the partisan corporate shilling that it is.

And if you're truly a "counsel" as your handle implies, then I'd have to question your professional competence, since your own "analysis" on display here is worthy of Orly Taitz and John Woo, and you sound like a clown.

Robert Greenwald should update and reissue OutFoxed.

Fox abettors...

To Klein's name add Jill Abramson and Marcus Brauchli.

NYT: Behind the War Between White House and Fox

“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,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the deputy White House communications director. Later that week, White House officials said, they noticed a column by Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The Times, in which Jill Abramson, one of the paper’s two managing editors, described her newsroom’s “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” The Washington Post’s executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, had already expressed similar concerns about his newsroom.

Nixon tried the anti-trust threat with broadcast networks but I wouldn't hold that out as a model, even if cable networks were similarly regulated. Actually, it's a mistake to think that Nixon's approach was all bludgeons and sledgehammers. He actually tried a number of approaches to press relations, some negative, some positive.

As frustrating as it is for a President to have to explain in a townhall forum that his proposals don't mean the government is going to kill granny, kicking reporters for the network voters critical of him watch most frequently out of the pool isn't the answer. Whoever decided to try to kick the Fox reporter out of the press pool for the pay official's availability wasn't thinking clearly in terms of tactics. Since the other networks regard Fox's White House reporters as their peers, that type of move is going to backfire.

That's not to say a President's press and communications team can't push back against specific coverage or the overall tone that emanates from a network. Fact checking, truth squading, even humor such as Stewart's or FDR's famous ridicule of House leaders Martin, Barton and Fish would work, as a couple of posters have suggested. The challenge for the administration is to do this in a way that recognizes and respects the fact that many voters supported him because they were tired of hyperpartisanship, the existing playbook, and the tone that had come to envelop political discourse during the last few years.

The biggest challenge for Obama isn't with the Villagers or the Fox viewers (which Democracy Corps already identified as perceiving themselves as part of a "mocked minority" and who will only wrap themselves more closely in that mantle when FNC is attacked). It's with the swing voters -- the Independents and the moderates who went for Obama because they liked his vision of a can-do nation. "Grab a mop" will resonate with them; ban the Fox reporters won't. Pushing back against Fox the wrong way might discourage some swing voters (some of whom polls suggest already are anxious about deficits and fiscal policies). Emphasing policy achievements as they occur, pushing back against demonstrable errors in reporting, and acting like the grown up in the room all are more likely to be perceived well by swing voters than petty acts of revenge.

Attacking the opposition media, instead of opposing politicians, has always been self-defeating.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler

Yes, because we all remember when the Bush gang had their war with NBC. They froze out the network , and all the Villagers spent weeks attacking Bush, including comparing him to Nixon and going on and on about what a horrific idea it was for them to ... um ...

Oh, wait ...

I've yet to see FAUX say anything good about the president or the dems with all information intended to smear or belittle them. FAUX itself states it has an agenda, a mission to promote conservative/repub talking points, a repub agenda. "Fair and Balanced" is part of their hypocrisy akin to the repub's "Country First" (and then pick Palin for VP candidate). The WH has not started a war...they merely made an accurate observation and decided to deal with their "opposition" realistically. It's not about dealing with tough questions...Obama has never shied away from that...it's about dealing with petty questions designed to demean dems and based on misinformation so they can promote debunked stories (Birthers, death panels etc) instead of what really faces the nation.

The story is not about the actions the WH has taken toward FOX news...the story IS Fox news...Fox IS the problem...they are anti democratic, divisive, and extremely destructive to our nation's discussions because they lie at will and focus only on what they can make detrimental to the majority.

Anyone trying to justify the tactics of Fox news is dishonest, deceitful and part of the propaganda. Obama's WH was bold enough to say "the emperor wears no clothes" to Fox which is easily proven. Fox news IS the problem.

Regarding FOX vs WH. the unityof the journalists to Fox is a prime example of Corporatations leading the sheep along

When is Obama going on the Daily Show?

I don't mind reading criticisms of the Obama administration AS LONG as they are by journalists and "pundits" who also criticised the Bush Administration.

(Silence) (Continued Silence) (Even more Silence)

Silence, because very few, if any, journo and pundits did criticise the Bush Administration, until the last couple of years, and even then it was tepid at best.

Nope, from 2001 til 2007, these same professionals who wonder if Obama "is tough enough", "too mean", or "dithering", sat by and watched as our once great country hit the skids in a really major way. Nothing was said by anybody.

Maybe now they feel - collectively - that they were intimidated by the Bushites and that they won't be by Obama.

It's really too, too bad. They are helping to delay a - possible - renaissance.

But what's the alternative?

The Obama administration could resurrect the Alien and Sedition Acts. Using them, the Adams administration put opposition journalists and candidates in jail. They may have suppressed dissent, but they also contributed to the surge in the opposition party and to their repeal.

Mark D. Yes, because we all remember when the Bush gang had their war with NBC.

That was self-defeating, wasn't it?

"The bottom line is that dealing with cretinous morons like Fox is the cost of a free society."

Uh, I don't see anything like Fox in Canada and we're pretty free.

Calling out FOX for what it is resembles the controversy we had last spring over whether Rush Rush Limbaugh was the head of the GOP. Conservatives were angry then as well because they object to having their inner pathologies put on display, but this is hardly a crusade. All the White House did is provoke a an important national debate about both the nature of an extremist right wing and FOX News.

Obama said he wanted to change the tone of politics in Washington. And maybe what that involves is recognizing the Radical Right for what it is. He doesn't have to lead the charge himself. All he and his people have to do is make a few comments and let public opinion do the rest. If it's part of a plan I think its brilliant.

Good grief, why is this even an issue to the Kleins and other Beltway "journalists?" The Bush administration conducted "wars" on media outlets and journalists without a peep from Klein, Marcus, Rudin, et. al. Why have these supposedly "neutral" journalists/pundits suddenly taken to the fainting couch over something that by recent standards is fairly minor? It smacks of something else working behind the scenes.

From the Wilson administration, bring back the Sedition act of 1918. Klein is saying "Some of it borders on sedition" and "that Fox News spreads seditious lies to its demographic sliver of an audience".

Why wouldn't Obama have Fox management arrested?

Since Fox is not a real news organization, they don't have free press rights. Bring back the Sedition act and the American Protective League led by AG Holder.

That was self-defeating, wasn't it?

Posted by: MatthewRMarler

No. No it wasn't. By that time Bush was just phoning it in anyway.

Besides, my point was that what the Bush gang did was many factors more severe than what Obama gang is doing. Yet the Villagers didn't say a single fucking word about it. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

As usual, It's OK If You're A Republican

"So, in all seriousness, what's a White House to do? The pushback from journalists at legitimate outlets this week suggests the White House is just supposed to take it."

The judo move would have been to marginalize the "legitimate" outlets. At the press conferences, take questions from Fox exclusively until Fox runs out of questions. When the others complain, tell them as they now take direction from Fox (as they do) it's more time-efficient to do it that way. And then take questions from Helen Thomas until she runs out of questions.

It's a bit late I guess but one alternative would be an honest and effective MSM calling Faux News for feigning journalism while conducting a polictical witch hunt.

This is more Jerry Springer than thoughtful news. There is very little substantive journalism anymore. It seems like the cable outlets just wait for one side to utter some outrageous nonsense so the other side can repeat it, mercilessly. The requisite panel is assembled for comment, while the presiding pundit rudely interrupts while spinning like a Tasmanian devil in heat lusting after ratings. It so happens that the right wing can generally out-outrageous the left. Calling this gibberish journalism is farcical. At least Maddow seems to do some research on the issues. Characterizing a “war” between the WH and Fox generates a topic that requires no investigation and little thought….another mindless news cycle.

"The pushback from journalists at legitimate outlets this week suggests the White House is just supposed to take it."

It just proves these journalists ARE NOT from legitimate outlets.

That was self-defeating, wasn't it?

No. Next?

"It appears that your colleagues at the Fox News network are promoting and even organizing protests against [administration's program], how can you ask [legitimate question] when your colleagues are trying to create the news while they cover it?"

I like this very much. Another response also comes to mind when another lame-ass question is asked at the WH briefing:

"I can only conclude that your question is the product of watching the fulminations of Fox (so-called) News. Next?"

Gee Stevie, guess you didn't see or hear the story today where the Administration made the pay czar available to the network pool for interviews but wanted to exclude Fox News. The rest of the press refused to participate unless Fox was allowed back in.

Wanna know what's hilarious about this? This is the way that Fox News played it but, sadly for Chicounsel and Fox News, that's not what happened.

So all that Chicounsel has done, with this little vignette, is confirm that a) he's a total moron,
and b) Fox News is, in fact, not a news organization, precisely as has been claimed.

Always the left - FREE SPEECH as long as you don't disagree with me! Much of the reporting done on Fox rings true with me. Much of the reporting done by CNN, MSNBC, John Stewart, etc does not. I say let there be FREE SPEECH. All news is mostly opinion. Let the stories come out from different perspectives and stop being afraid. Control of the media no matter what the bias is something to fear. That is the prelude to tyranny. Stop calling speech you disagree with "hate". That is a code word for lets ban any point of view that doesn't agree with my own.
Either you believe in free speech or you don't. I would gather from most of the opionions here that most of you do not believe in free speech. That is a knife that will cut both ways in the future.