Why is this news to some of you? http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/10/hillary-clinton-foxnews-is-fair-and.htmlSaturday, October 24, 2009
Hillary Clinton: FoxNews is fair and balancedRemember this from a year ago?
Hillary Clinton: "There Were A Lot Of Times When I Appreciated" Fox News During Primary"
Hillary Clinton appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning, where she discussed sexism with co-host Gretchen Carlson and took the opportunity to say that she "appreciated" Fox News' balanced coverage of her campaign. ...
"We did call them on it at Fox, in fact I think you went on record saying that Fox was the most fair and balanced place during the time when you were running," Carlson said.
"There were a lot of times when I appreciated the commentators and reporters on Fox who did step up and make that clear," Clinton responded.Hillary Slams MSNBC...Praises Fox?!?
Clinton said that her staff had sent her "some independent study" "which seemed to suggest that" "in terms of the fairness of the coverage," Fox News Channel has treated her campaign more fairly than MSNBC.
"I really am troubled by this pattern of behavior and comments that you hear" on MSNBC, said Clinton.And there was this from then-Gov. Ed Rendell, D-Pa.
I rarely watch FoxNews or any other cable news show. During the day, when I happen to be in my office, I may have FNC on to listen to, but usually am listening to something on NatGeo or the History Channel. In the evenings I read or (and) watch a ball game or movie. This even though I was an interview guest on Bill O'Reilly's "O-Reilly Factor" in April 2005.
So I am not trying to carry FNC's water, which they hardly need me to do anyway. Bloggers or commentators who attack FNC cause me no dismay or distress, not because I agree with their criticisms but because that's part of the freedoms we enjoy.
But such attacks are not the right of the White House. The people have rights, the government has restraints and obligations to secure our rights, not undermine them. For the president of the United States to use the weight of his office and power to try to stifle FNC is simply untenable - not because FNC is correct on the issues but because no organ of government has the right to silence the people, especially when they are exercising their right to participate in political processes. It does not matter whether FNC really is biased against the administration because FNC has the right to be biased, just as Christ Matthews had the right to say Obama made a tingle run down his leg. The media have a right to be biased, no matter which side of the aisle their bias falls.
As far as the First Amendment is concerned, whether FNC is a "legitimate news organization" is not the slightest bit relevant. First Amendment rights do not belong exclusively to "reporters," whatever they are. But I have to wonder - if the White House thinks, as it's asserted, that FNC is just the publicity arm of the Republican party, why doesn't it revoke FNC's White House credentials? After all, for Major Garrett to have an office inside the White House is not a First Amendment right.
Dwight D. Eisenhower once observed, "When you put on a uniform, there are certain inhibitions you have to accept." Likewise, when you hold public office, there are certain inhibitions you have to accept. One of them is not to wrestle in the mud with news media- you both get dirty but only the media enjoy it. Or as Robert Heinlein wrote, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." The main inhibition relevant to this topic is to stay focused on issues, policy and procedure, not to take personally the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes of news reporting or public commentary.
This the White House does not do. This is an administration that seems reflexively to personalize and demonize opponents rather than deal with opposition to policy. The White House staff, from the president down, seems to think of themselves as children of light and the opposition as children of darkness. This is, of course, literally a religious word view, and worse, an apocalyptic one that moves inexorably toward a decisive showdown when the children of light crush their enemies absolutely.
It may work in Chicago, but how soon, as James Taranto asked in the Wall Street Journal, will Mr. Obama understand that following the Rules for Radicals
is not governing?
By Donald Sensing