Obama Threatening Press Freedom?

Home Forums Politics Obama Threatening Press Freedom?

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Author
  • #590671
    Y.W. Editor

    The Obama administration tried and failed Thursday to manipulate the White House news pool into isolating and excluding Fox News from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. Are you concerned that the Obama administration is threatening freedom of the press?


    Actually, rikki, it’s not called communism. Communism is an economic system whereby the means of production are jointly owned by everyone. The word you meant to use was authoritarianism.

    Most communist governments are also authoritarian. But so are fascist governments.

    NY Mom

    Yes, it very frightening what the Obama administration is trying to do. He wants to intimidate and silence all his critics, so that he can implement whatever policy he wants, with no regard to the wishes of the American people. Everyone should put pressure on their representatives to vote for policies which will help rather than harm their constituents.

    And what about his silence on what is going on in Iran? His dangerous hesitation regarding sending more troops to Afghanistan? His ineffective “stimulus” bill, which was just political payback for his supporters?

    He is going to go down as the worst president in American history. Even worse than Carter, if that is possible.


    Y.W. Editor-

    This is not threatening freedom of the press.

    This is playing favorites with the press.

    Fox is 100% free to report what they want and how they want it.


    Every communist government, from the original Soviet Union until present day has been a tyranny, with accompanying loss of personal freedom. Every single one, be it European, Asian, African, or South American.


    agrre witht above stated… I just hope that this eppisode with FOX will back fire at him/them!!


    The White House Press Pool is an official institution that agrees to pool the resources of the five major media organizations, and then share the interviews with the other media in order to facilitate the White House getting face-to-face interviews done in a practical manner. The media organizations themselves decide who will make up the pool and Fox News Network has been included since 1997.

    This pool is the representative of the American people and as such is not controlled by the White House. The President has no choice about which media organizations are included – that decision is made by the media itself.

    When this president attempted to change the make up of the pool in order to punish Fox News for reporting things which the Obama adminstration did not like, they wanted to delegitimize the messenger in order to discredit the information.

    President Obama can choose to avoid doing interviews on Fox, or not allowing his staff and other administration officials to appear on Fox – but he cannot try to strong arm the make-up of the official press pool.

    Yes, this is an attempt to restrict the freedom of the press, and it is a well known technique by community organizers to boycott what they perceive as unfriendly media. This is a tactic that Obama learned from Saul Alinksy – and one that while useful as a community organizer has no place as a tactic now that he is president (of all the people, even Republicans) of a democratic government.


    ICOT – I said “most” you said “every.” I won’t split hairs with you.


    This is why I am VERY glad to be living in EY.. so much for freedom of speech in the constitution.

    NY Mom

    ICOT: I hate to disagree with you, but this is just one piece of a very alarming puzzle. This administration and leaders in the Democratic party have also expressed interest in the so-called “fairness doctrine”. They are also proposing legislation which would give the would give the president “emergency control” of internet!

    This is scary stuff, people!


    “Net Neutrality” is another euphemism for control of information under the guise of fairness and openness.




    NY Mom-

    The Fairness Doctrine was a bad idea.

    Many people confuse it with the Equal Time law, which is actually an excellent law, and doesn’t allow the media to control elections.

    They are also proposing legislation which would give the would give the president “emergency control” of internet!

    There are certain times that freedom of the press should be abridged, i.e. in time of war.


    . . . and doesn’t allow the media to control elections.

    Don’t believe that the media don’t control elections. It was amazing that in the last election Ron Paul got any coverage at all.

    In the 2004 election there were three candidates on the ballot in Illinois: Bush, Kerry and Michael Badnarik. The media covered Bush, Kerry and Ralph Nader.

    On the day that Mr. Badnarik was speaking in Chicago, not one of the Chicago newspapers even mentioned it.

    On election day I heard several people question who Badnarik was, since nobody ever heard of him until they received their ballot.

    NY Mom

    ICOT – This administration is trying to punish Fox News by trying to coerce other news media from “following” Fox reporting. This was a result of the Van Jones (one of Obama’s czars who resigned) stories that Fax ran about his past comments and self-identification as communist. After they were embarrassed by their lack of coverage on this story, the New York times for one had met and instructed its reporters to follow more closely what Fox was reporting. The Obama admin reacted fast to dissuade the NYT and others from doing this, and this is the background to their war with Fox beside mere partisanship.

    The WHPP’s membership is not something the WH can or should be able to control, and to their credit the other networks chose to stand on principle rather than allow their institution to become compromised due to political pressure and the carrot of getting the better of one of their rival outlets.

    This is how true censorship begins, with willing participants among the press, favored media who choose to accept preferred treatment as one or more of their competitors are identified as “enemies” and shut out and discredited. They remain preferred only so long as they do not report the wrong kind of information.

    This WH is doing the same thing Richard Nixon did with his “enemies list” – it does not lead to a good place.



    “Net Neutrality” is another euphemism for control of information under the guise of fairness and openness.

    My understanding of Net Neutrality is that my ISP can’t decide:

    1) what I can and can’t access.

    2) who gets priority accessing particular areas.

    3) to slow access to competing sites.

    Is this your understanding?

    If so, why don’t you like it?


    Net Neutrality actually is the opposite of what you have been led to believe and the Internet right now is much more open than what will happen under Net Neutrality. In order for ISPs to operate under the FCC’s proposed rules, they will be forced to raise flat rates and/or charge per byte for use. These will end up bringing about exactly what the Net Neutrality camp is arguing they want to avoid with their rules: tiered subscriptions and reduced content.



    The media can’t control elections by allowing one candidate to explain his positions or editorialize without allowing his opponent(s) equal time. It also can’t accept advertising from one candidate without offering the other(s) a similar oportunity at a corresponding rate.

    I imagine the NY Times(just as an example) would never accept Republican advertising if it didn’t have to.

    NY Mom-

    Thanks for the link.

    The proposed law is very vague.

    I would think more people would support it if it defined emergency situations better, i.e.

    – Communication between known or suspected terrorists planning an attack

    – A cyber attack on government agencies or infrastructure

    – Attempts to reveal classified info

    – etc.


    I am not defending Obama’s attempt to muzzle Fox and intimidate other media into toeing the official line.

    The forced resignation of Van Jones (or any wacko) by exposing his loony past comment was one of the positive accomplishments of a free press.

    I think Obama has quite a way to go before he achieves Nixon’s (or Lyndon Johnson’s) press suppressing sleazy tactics.


    We already have no functional press in this country, asa was clearly demonstrated in the last election, as the entire mainstream press refused to criticize Obama. He is only trying to complete the destruction we have wrought on ourselves


    ICOT, I also don’t quite agree. Yes, he’s playing favorites but there’s some subtle subliminals going on. Like the Newsweek on death panels etc. I just read (I get them from the library so I’m a bit behind). Oh no, NO ONE’S talking about death panels, heaven forfend, we just want to give the elderly a vocabulary and permission to do what’s really best for them and society, ad nauseum. Very scary stuff.


    I am completely afraid that the government is already on the road to an authoritarian regime. The media is playing into Obama’s hands (except for Fox- thanks Fox news!). No matter what Obama said they conveniently forget that he contradicted himself and made remarks that showed his true intentions. They play around with the polling numbers. They dont tell you that 27% strongly approve of his actions while 40% strongly disapprove. and he started in the 70% approval…

    They are controlling the media, the press and maybe the internet soon as well.

    Now the BATFE is (illegally) compiling a national gun registration database on legally bought legal guns. Our constitutional right is being overtaken. The second amendment is being overrun, and it was put in place to protect our 1st amendment rights. soon it will be illegal to speak up against the govt….

    oh, wait- Obama already asked for “watchdogs” to report on people sending emails to others about the administration so they can “stop the spread of misinformation”. he wants the children to be told lies in the classroom…they cant even learn the truth! You are racist if you speak up against him, but he is never wrong…

    This Obama-nation is an abomination!



    The media can’t control elections by allowing one candidate to explain his positions or editorialize without allowing his opponent(s) equal time. It also can’t accept advertising from one candidate without offering the other(s) a similar oportunity at a corresponding rate.

    I imagine the NY Times(just as an example) would never accept Republican advertising if it didn’t have to.

    The media cannot limit coverage to one candidate, but they do limit it to two. In most presidential elections there are at least 3 candidates on the ballot in every state, and some states have more. Why is it the media never cover them?


    While Fox News seems to be reveling in the audacious attacks directed against it by the White House and Democrats, the evidence suggests those assaults are, in fact, accomplishing their objectives.

    Ratings for Fox may be higher, but its coverage suggests the intimidation is actually working.

    But when WND published a shocking book earlier this month called “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” based in part on a daring six-month undercover operation inside the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Fox News blacked out coverage.

    No interviews with the authors. No interviews with the interns who penetrated the unindicted terrorist front group at great personal risk. No interest.

    Fox played it safe.

    When WND pointed out that a White House adviser, Dalia Mogahed, a supporter of Islamic Shariah law, was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at CAIR’s annual fundraising dinner last weekend, again, Fox News took a powder.

    Mogahed is a senior analyst and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and serves on Obama’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She drew attention when she defended Shariah on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist Muslim group, insisting the majority of women around the world associate Shariah with “gender justice.”

    Why is Fox News AWOL?

    Is it because the network is gun shy after getting smeared by the White House and Democrats?

    Is it because princes from Saudi Arabia

    , where much of CAIR’s foreign sponsorship emanates, maintain key ownership holdings at Fox’s parent company?

    Or is it just a journalistic oversight?

    Time will tell.

    Why am I focused on Fox when the rest of the corporate

    media establishment was also AWOL?

    It’s not too late to tell the American people the truth about the Muslim Mafia and its tentacles in the White House and Congress. The bold investigative leg work has already been done in “Muslim Mafia.”

    CAIR held its 15th annual fundraiser two nights ago. In 2007, the Justice Department named the group an unindicted terrorism co-conspirator with ties to Hamas. Last year’s event was apparently supported by the Iranian government. It was also supported by nine members of Congress. This support came more than a year after federal prosecutors had names CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land terrorism finance trial.

    Is it not newsworthy that members of Congress were joined this year by a White House appointee?

    Is it not newsworthy that members of Congress and a White House appointee helped raise funds for a group with ties even to al-Qaida, as “Muslim Mafia” reveals?

    When do you think you’ll read, hear or see any of this reported elsewhere?

    Maybe it’s time to let those other news agencies know what you already know. Maybe it’s time for you to ask them why they are withholding the news from your neighbors. Maybe it’s time to insist these so-called “watchdogs” live up to their marketing slogans



    The European-style acceptance of death, promoting euthanasia, and doctor-assisted suicide is horrific, and I hope it never gains traction in the U.S.



    William Schakespeare ascribed to Julius Ceasar the infamous words – He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

    Our President is dangerous for precisely the opposite reason.


    ICOT – it’s a chicken and egg argument. People always say, “if so-and-so had any chance, the media would cover him.” And the media say, “nobody is interested, so we can’t cover the other candidates.”

    I’m sure it the media would cover the alternative candidates, people would be interested.

    NY Mom

    obamanaz: Why don’t you email/call Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck regarding what you wrote above. Those 2 don’t seem to back off these type of controversial topics. Even if emails go ignored or unread, if you call into their radio shows, you may get some air time. This is just the type of stuff they love to talk about.

    If you can talk about this subject as well as you write about it, I think you can get your point out there on their syndicated radio talk shows.


    (The following op-ed appeared in an abridged form in today’s NY Post.

    It is written by Thomas Sowell, an award-winning economist and conservative writer.

    Minor editing has been done to keep the article site-appropriate.)

    Freedom Founders

    Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

    Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

    Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

    Does any of this sound like America?

    How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

    How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

    We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

    How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

    Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to “change the United States of America,” the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

    Jeremiah Wright said it with words: “*** **** America!” (edited) Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

    Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote inappropriate personal behavior (edited) contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

    Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn’t know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

    Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration’s enemies list.


    wow. thanks for posting. The america of yesteryear has gone and a new, “changing” america is here. If you are ashamed to stand up for your rights, dont complain when they are forcibly taken away.


    I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. Get out now! Get out while you still can!

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.