While I find this all a bit of a 'side show' since I already consider anything Murdock puts out as trash and illegitmate news making, the fact of the matter is, the media doesn't seem to be able to sufficiently police itself. That is the saddest aspect of this entire mess. They seem to allow what they aren't supposed to and call it Freedom of Speech.
Harassment of the Public is NOT Freedom of Speech, it is INDOCTRINATION. Why the media seems threatened by a bogus media mogul is beyond me and I find it unwise for them to continue to oppose the White House on this, they are only proving how COMPLETELY dysfunctional they are.
Murdock 'rewards his guests' with money. They come on the show because they have been paid. What does that do to legitimate journalism in tainting the truth? People aren't thinking, they are seeking to find 'what sells' and they don't care their craft has been corrupted.
Since when does Murdock decide the outcome in elections? I thought the electorate was supposed to be well informed. Being lied to and indoctrinated isn't being informed, it is be 'strategized' for a political outcome. No. No. That isn't democracy. That IS a form of communism whereby propaganda controls the electorate. No more !
It is perhaps not unsurprising but still disappointing that several in the mainstream media rallied around Fox News this week following the White House's well-warranted castigation of the network as an "arm" of the Republican Party. The most prominent defense of "one of our sister organizations" came from ABC News' Jake Tapper, who was baffled as to why the White House would declare Fox News "not a news organization." On Tuesday, he had the following exchange with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:
Tapper: It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations "not a news organization" and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one --
(Crosstalk)
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: But that's a pretty sweeping declaration that they are "not a news organization." How are they any different from, say --
Gibbs: ABC --Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight. Or 5 o'clock this afternoon.
Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a "news organization" -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Gibbs: That's our opinion.
Of course, Tapper was lauded by Fox News and other conservatives. (Which is not the first time.) Glenn Beck called Tapper a "watchdog of freedom," while Sean Hannity praised Tapper's ability to "recognize the great quality of Fox News." Bill O'Reilly said Tapper did "pretty good" and "really challenged" Gibbs, and the Fox & Friends gang called him a "great reporter" for his defense of Fox. Lou Dobbs called it an "extraordinary exchange."
