edit: Since you won't be able to find one by Obama, how about any president in the last 50 years?
>“The point is this, and it really needs to be made: Fox is not just another television network,” said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), a close Obama ally. “Fox has become the official/semi-official voice for the Republican Party, in opposition to the president. And I think calling them out is the only way to delegitimize them as political propaganda.”
>The effort hasn’t been a total blackout; White House press secretary Robert Gibbs still calls on Fox News reporter Major Garrett at press briefings
Obama decided not to go on some Fox talk shows one time which apparently hurt their feelings. It would be truly shocking if we had a president who wasn't nice to the press like that.
Thank god ours constantly reassures reporters that he would never have them killed, even though he hates them and thinks they are disgusting, and he has to remind us that he thinks people who kill reporters are bad people.
He did not ban them from press conferences, in fact his press secretary called on their reporters.
So they were still invited to the briefings and still called on.
>Obama last month granted five interviews to Sunday political shows to discuss healthcare reform, but he did not sit down with Fox
That's the worst he did.
>And there is no evidence of any joint strategy by Democrats at either side of Pennsylvania Avenue to coordinate their efforts against Fox.
No additional steps or coordinated effort was made to exclude Fox.
To call this the same thing is disingenuous and incorrect.
Suggesting this is somehow equivalent is way off the mark, at best it is grasping for straws.
Trump not sitting down with MSNBC to discuss immigration would be equivalent. Barring media outlets is completely unprecedented, because we have freedom of the press in the United States.
The difference in this case is how wildly inaccurate their reporting has been. Nearly everyday they're misrepresenting what President Trump has said, and sometimes they outright lie. It borders on hysteria. Which is ridiculous, because if they didn't ratchet everything up to 11, they could make serious points against Trump.
For instance in the latest Sweden nontroversy, Trump misspoke when he tried to make reference to a report he saw on the Tucker Carlson show. Instead of having articles that would point out that a President should speak more clearly and that we expect more from him, instead they stated that he made up a terror attack! Really?! Instead of making a point that we could all agree with, they made themselves look bad to those of us who are non-partisans.
And he didn't go on a Fox Sunday news show one time.
Not really helping your case here.
They don't lie about him, they don't have to; they represent him as he represents himself. He says something out loud and they describe it, it's not their fault he changes his mind about what he wishes he had said after the fact.
He has taken to blatantly and explicitly lying about simple verifiable facts, and doubling down on those lies when challenged. How should the press deal with that besides calling it what it is? Why should they give him the benefit of the doubt after that?
Who constantly questioned his legitimacy as president, made up the "terrorist fist jab", and gave him shit for asking for fucking dijon mustard.
My first comment in this thread was responding to a baseless comment about someone's own memory, so I didn't feel the need to put a lot of effort providing sources.
My first reply to billfor was a question asking for clarification on his comment.
I don't see in what way I'm being antagonistic. As to why would they choose to respond, I don't know, but they did choose to, so I don't see why asking for clarification is such a bad thing.
Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance?
Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.
>this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation".
Good, because that is what I meant. Until they can show the source of that information and can explain why they posted it I have no way of knowing if it has anything to do with the conversation.
>With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.
I do not consider just copying blocks of text at someone without any attempt at elaboration a constructive conversation. I asked a valid clarifying question and I feel no need to beat around the bush. Nothing in my comment was unnecessary or aggressive. Read it literally, as that is the way it was written.
Given the nature of internet forums with text being the only medium, you do need to take extra care to ensure the best possible reading of your comments. I wasn't the only one to read your comment in a negative way (as another commenter posted as well), and your comment didn't elicit the response from 'billfor that you were looking for. The bar needs to be higher. Although it happens much too often, HN isn't intended for battle or point-scoring debate: it's intended for substantive, constructive discussion.
Similarly, at this point I don't think I've done an adequate job in presenting what I've intended, so I'll leave it at that.
I do not believe I did so. Again: I asked an honest question to which I honestly want to know the answer.
"Media outrage at White House briefing is more 'Fake News' - Look ..."
Seems like some of the events disagree with the collation article:
>On Thursday, Fox News’ Ed Henry tweeted that MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell, as well as Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Fox News’ Juan Williams, had been invited for a private off-the-record chat with President Obama.
So not exactly the "lefty" conspiracy painted in the root article.
1. Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis.
2. Ask for sources.
3. Dispute illegitimate sources, while clarifying which sources are acceptable, without ability to see bias in "legitimate" sources.
4. Await response, assuming it will be hostile.
5. Respond with other hostile algorithm.
A block of text of potentially real, potentially fabricated dates and events without any clarifying text doesn't really fit this description.
I mean, if we want to throw arguments into algorithms I can just as easily point to:
1. Throw out dubious claims and/or unrelated/incorrect facts 2. Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value 3. Resist any attempts at clarification of argument 4. Claim opponent is disingenuous and declare victory.
>Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value
Assuming it is bills claim to ehich you refer, if you don't understand the context, how can it be a claim?