Why did the other media outlets stick up for FOX regarding pay Czar inte

Why did the other media outlets/network pool stick up for FOX regarding pay Czar interview?


They genuinely believe in the first amendment.
They are sticking up for one of their own members of the network pool.
They worried that this might set a precedence for other presidents to exclude them.
other.



I don't believe for a second they are doing this because of the belief of first amendment rights. They are doing this to protect one of their own,worried that this might give the next republican president to exclude certain media outlets and so that they do not have to interview any czars.





Administration Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview - Political News - FOXNews.com
The Treasury Department on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the network pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks "ought not to treat them that way."

Media analysts cheered the decision to boycott the Feinberg interview unless Fox News was included, saying the administration's gambit was taking its feud with Fox News too far. President Obama has already declined to go on "Fox News Sunday," even while appearing on the other Sunday shows.

"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, calling the move to limit Feinberg's availability "outrageous."

"What it's really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy -- we know this -- only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information," he said.

I think they were worried they could be excluded arbitrarily at some point.

It makes perfect sense.

I wont attack these organizations for my personal beliefs.


I give them credit where credit is due.


There was a line, and they clearly did not cross it. I applaud them....

jamesrage said:

They genuinely believe in the first amendment.
They are sticking up for one of their own members of the network pool.
They worried that this might set a precedence for other presidents to exclude them.
other.

Click to expand...

All of your answers seem plausible to me. I disagree with your assessment that they have no genuine belief in the First Amendment; it's very difficult for me to imagine anyone pursuing a career in that field who didn't genuinely believe in freedom of the press.

This whole fight is stupid. Frankly I don't know why Obama is lowering himself to this; FOX may not give him the most favorable coverage, but that's a ridiculous reason to specifically exclude them. Members of the Bush Administration appeared on MSNBC, which did not exactly shower them with praise.

Yeah, that one's pretty obvious. If they go along, and don't behave the next time, it'll be their turn in the barrel. That's the goal of all socialist despotisms.

Kandahar said:

This whole fight is stupid. Frankly I don't know why Obama is lowering himself to this; FOX may not give him the most favorable coverage, but that's a ridiculous reason to specifically exclude them. Members of the Bush Administration appeared on MSNBC, which did not exactly shower them with praise.

Click to expand...

I'ts what socialists and stupid people do.

After all, if the Messiah was competent, he wouldn't be dribbling basketballs while US troops are dying in Afghanistan.

I voted for all three of your choices. I think they are intertwined with one another.

If I had to rate them, my number one choice would be that there is a journalistic brotherhood and professional collegiality that extends beyond network allegiances. They are above all, fellow journalistic professionals and they respect their colleagues as such, the same way that doctors and other medical professionals do.

They all are familiar with the basic ethical foundation of their profession, the same that doctors and nurses are. Free speech is the absolute ethical rock that is supposed to guide them, and is the the highest good that their profession is supposed to uphold, when all is said and done.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

After all, if the Messiah was competent, he wouldn't be dribbling basketballs while US troops are dying in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

What? Presidents sleep, too? While soldiers are dying in Afghanistan?
I really think there ought to be a law specifically prohibiting any behavior that's not directly related to governing while a war is going on.

I chose all three. I can't see them not believing in the first amendment, but it's mainly to avoid bad precedents. I can also see why they'd want to keep their network pool alive too, as no matter what Obama says or does, it will be considered a legitimate news station and watched by a large percentage of America.

They know that the Libbos won't be in charge forever and if it becomes ok for Libbos to shun FNC, it will just as acceptable for a Conservative president to the same thing to them.

Kandahar said:

All of your answers seem plausible to me. I disagree with your assessment that they have no genuine belief in the First Amendment; it's very difficult for me to imagine anyone pursuing a career in that field who didn't genuinely believe in freedom of the press.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with your assessment here, but have seen a few wingnuts on either side of the political spectrum that are for freedom of speech when it is convenient or agrees with their position, some in the media are pro-fairness doctrine, which is anything but free speech, there are some that try to silence through ridicule, and other such behaviors, overall, however, I think that this was a free speech issue and all of the options had some play in this position, but I specifically didn't vote for the first option since I don't see it as quantifyable.

I voted for setting a president and for other. If they allowed the Administration to have their way here, what networks can attend the press meeting what next? I'm sure some of the people behind the scenes could see that it would result in an increasing amount of control of access and possibly even what can be reported.