Growing up in New York in the thirties and forties, there were at least eleven daily newspapers, all spouting varying opinions from both left and right perspectives. Offered by the news organizations were a potpourri of praise and anger, mostly anger, at perceived abuses, both social and governmental.
The din was loud, a Tower of Babel of opinions. There were public parades and protests. The Daily Worker was at its zenith. Hate speech and hate news outlets were commonplace. It was one big free speech and free press orgy, a massive free- for-all.
Having grown up in that atmosphere, I am appalled by the White House’s attempt to put the squelch on Fox News. Free speechers and free pressers should be up in arms. Every media outlet in America should be castigating the administration for instigating such a desperate act of deliberate discrimination. It cannot masquerade as merely depriving access. You and I both know the dirty word, censorship, the enemy of free speech, the scourge of a free press.
Indeed, the first act of a dictatorial power grab is to silence critics. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Chavez is doing it. Castro did it. And on and on, wherever a nation is under the heel of a dictatorial government. If the so-called powers that be can get away with this, then every outlet for free expression will soon be under siege.
This is the way dictatorships acquire absolute power. If it works, expect other outlets to follow. It’s like a virus and, heaven forbid, it might even extend to the Internet, as it does in such places as China, Iran, Russia, and other nations that restrict free speech, especially in many Arab lands and Africa.
By the so-called acceptable media not standing up to this distasteful and dangerous act by a new and obviously inexperienced administration, the media is collaborating in this travesty. Where the devil are the critics? Where is the outrage? Does the President get a pass on this?
And since when does the White House decide who qualifies as a news outlet? Obviously their definition is based on a blatantly false and ridiculous premise that Fox is “merely” nothing more than talk radio. Is that the next step? Muzzling talk radio hosts?
My defense of Fox News is based solely on their right to say whatever they damned please, whatever their biases and predilections. I once got into a fist fight in a Washington bistro with a major newscaster after alleging that TV News was becoming little more than entertainment. Pow! was the newscaster’s immediate response. He considered himself a serious journalist and he was. It happened around midnight and we were both two sheets to the wind, but, in an odd way, we were both partially right.
Nor is this the first time that Presidents have tried to isolate their critics. Imagine if George Bush decided to take action against his critics. His press conferences would be the least attended events since Mark Twain cancelled a performance because of a sore throat.
It was Harry Truman, when President, who said if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Our new President and his advisors, who are obsessed with control, just can’t get it through their heads that an open society demands differing opinions, debate, protest, rudeness, emotional outbursts, loud noises, strained nerves and bad tempers. Democracy is a sloppy form of governing. But our shrewd founding fathers instinctively knew the dangers of forced censorship and made the free speech and our free press the very first amendment to the Constitution.
Don’t think our Constitution came easy to those august participants. They were a recalcitrant group of strong minded cunning argumentative individuals and what they hammered out was nothing short of a miracle. The sycophants around the President should reread the travails of President John Adams and how his attempt at censorship trampled his political career.
The President has said he doesn’t lose sleep over this attempt to throttle a free press. He might slumber peacefully, but there are a lot of us out there whose worries about encroaching governmental attempts at censorship interfere with our tranquility and do induce some bad dreams.
Frankly, I do believe that there are many journalists who are offended by the White House’s heavy-handed tactics. It has got to make them uncomfortable, even if their bosses are not losing any sleep over this tactic. The fact is that trying to pull the curtain down over Fox news, whether you agree with their predilections or not, is an egregious wrong-headed stupid, dumber than dumber and chilling idea.
Perhaps this rant might seem somewhat hysterical. No, I don’t believe the White House has a sinister long term plan to control the media, although it certainly might want to slap down its opponents. But perception presents its own dangers and to be perceived as deliberately punishing one’s critics does induce in some of us an inflammatory reaction….like this one.
Worse, as was true of all Presidents who tried this before, it does reflect a certain naivete and inexperience and is bound to create, aside from outrage, a loss of credibility.
Maybe some smart staffer should poke the President in dreamland, disturb his sleep and tell him that this action was a stupid idea.


Comments: 54
President Obama is not attempting to muffle Fox News or anyone else. He is simply expressing his views on that particular news channel. He enjoys free speech just like everyone else. There is absolutely no hint of censorship in the actions of the White House.
We saw obvious attempts at censorship with the President George Bush administration. That White House was successful. Even the New York Times admitted that they squelched a story because of the pressure put on them by the President Bush administration. And, Vice President Richard Cheney was very blatant about whether or not the press had the right to criticize the administration during a time of "war."
President Obama is doing none of that. Fox News is not even being asked to curb their silly nonsense (I have the right to put that in my comment because of my own free speech rights.). But, this administration is expressing their concerns about responsible journalism. That is their right. No action has been taken to censor or even stop them from any news stories or commentary. Much of this article is fear based and cannot be trusted to discuss the matter rationally.
Please explain how the President of the United States has silenced Fox News.
You must watch FOX
please give us an example of that, Linda. Obama is now the president, why would he foment rebellion against government when he currently IS the government?
I suppose that the famous "I am the decider" declaration by the previous president didn't reveal an inner desire to be a dictator.
If President Obama isn't free to share his thoughts and ideas about responsible journalism and name names, the American experiment is over. The critics reveal other inner desires that are equally as anti-American. They continually give themselves away. It is all so middle-school.
President Obama's hire for FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer, Mark Lloyd says: Here are his own words: “It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”
Mark Lloyd .. part of the context Obama has created into which the continuuing attempt to castigate Fox News fits like a dining room chair under it's matching table.
He wouldn't say it outright. But that's what he means. I've read most of his book, Prologue to a Farce and it's painful to read because of his ideas of how communication should be handled.
As an example of where his heart leans and his ideology sits, take a look and a listen to what Lloyd says about Chavez:
Lee interjects: Of course the property owners rebelled ... Chavez was shutting them down and nationalizing privately owned businesses . . . mmm...
Sooo... Mark Lloyd admires what Chavez did in Venuzuela. If you like Chavez, no big deal. But just in case, here is a description of the social reforms and democratic revolution that kind of man in general, and one of Chavez's good buddies in particular, have brought to their countries; it's the exact kind Mark Lloyd finds "incredible" ...
And in context with Van Jones, Anita I-admire-mao Dunn, this deal with Fox . . . and more; the writing is on the wall if we will just read it.
Jennifer R. Oct 26, 2009, 8:39am EDT
I don't think him stating his focus not being on Freedom of Speech was saying because I'm not focusing on it we are going to do away with it.
I am heartened by the solidarity of the pool news networks when Obama tried to exclude FOX news from the Pay Czar's interview. They know that if FOX is silenced, they will be next.
The USA allows free speech which includes editorializing, discussions, lampooning of public officials and more. Do we really want to surrender to a dictator who will spoon feed censored news to favored media? I don't.
I believe that any news announcer who starts a sentence with "In my opinion..." or "It seems to me..." is expressing opinion, hopefully based on facts in evidence. It may also be speculation, but they are entitled to say it and we are entitled to hear it. That is freedom of speech.
If Fox (news?) doesn't like the story, they make a story up. How is that news?
Besides, with the Internet it is virtually impossible for governments to censor any message. Well, except in the case of China.
If Obama were able to silence Fox, sooner or later somebody else would seem to need silencing. And with every power grab, Obama would feel just a little less secure in his power, and would need just a little bit more.
It may seem to be a classic slippery-slope argument, but it isn't. It's history, and human nature.
Good article, Warren.
I am glad that you do not believe that, since it is obviously false. Obama is simply trying to inject a bit of reality here. It's a pointless effort, as it plays to Fox's strong suit: Unreality. If Obama is wise, he will give up this effort, as I said earlier in my own post on this topic.
None of the above should be construed as an endorsement of Fox so called news. It is partisan gossip and rumor-mongering. Similar to MSNBC, but less reality based.
Faux Noise has been assailing Obama since the elections.
I admire him for NOT letting them swifboat him.
Faux Noise viewers are the most clueless of ALL cable News watchers.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewers-misinformed/
And this guy is talking about dumb and dumber? at first I thought this article was about Bush and Cheney.
Poor Faux Noise getting a visit from the Gestapo, thrown in one of those FEMA camps etc.
Never to publish their propaganda LIES again, the dung beetles will starve to death.
Wow!!! All kinds of Faux attacks on Obama.
Any Idiot who really thinks Faux is fair and Balanced should check out these Faux noise videos.
http://foxattacks.com/
Something as simple as Castro predicting an Obama win, Faux Propaganda ministry distorts to an endorsement of Obama and the dung beetles eat it up.
They eat so much dung, guess what they have for brains?