Sunday, October 18, 2009

What's the end game here?

Why is the President picking on Fox?

This administration may be many things. But they are not stupid. While their foreign policy to date has been marked by an apparent lack of long range vision, these guys know politics - and they play hardball.

Today's NY Times piece by David Carr concludes that "trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common" I just have a hard time believing that the White House would be playing like rank amateurs in the world of power politics.

So what is the end game? Take this quote about Fox from White House Communications Director Anita Dunn in the same article. "we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

Then here's Rahm and Axelrod today too, a report that "Both advisers made the point that Fox is not a legitimate news outlet..." quoting Axelrod as saying about Fox "...as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization."

Another site gives Rahm's quote in his "State of the Union" interview on CNN "It's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." (We heard the same comments back in 2007 from the moveon.org but that was not the White House.)

What is the difference between a legitimate news organization and not? Access is one. Is there more? Do we really want the White House telling us what speech is legitimate?

I hope not.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home