Fox News Receives Front-Row Seat in White House Briefing Room

[Dos Equis]

You mean the same company that the president said was not a real news organization and tried to censor is now in the front row?  What happened?  

Fox News Receives Front-Row Seat in White House Briefing Room
Published August 01, 2010 | FoxNews.com

The White House Correspondents’ Association on Sunday announced that Fox News will get a coveted front-row seat in the White House briefing room.

The Associated Press will take Helen Thomas' old seat, while Fox News will now occupy AP's former seat.

Thomas, who worked most recently as a columnist for Hearst Corporation, abruptly resigned her seat in early June following an uproar over comments she made about Jews in Israel. She was filmed saying Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and suggested they go instead to Germany, Poland and the United States. Thomas apologized and later resigned.

Thomas had covered every president since Dwight Eisenhower. She is approaching her 90th birthday.

Fox News White House Correspondent Major Garrett previously sat directly behind Thomas in the second row. Other news outlets represented in the front row are: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Reuters and the Associated Press.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/01/fox-news-receives-row-seat-white-house-briefing-room/?test=latestnews

[Straw Man]

maybe prince al-Waleed bin Talal had something to do with it

[Skeletor]

Has Fox complained about not being in the front row?

[24KT]

maybe prince al-Waleed bin Talal had something to do with it

Yep. I was thinking the exact same thing myself.

[MCWAY]

You mean the same company that the president said was not a real news organization and tried to censor is now in the front row?  What happened?  

Fox News Receives Front-Row Seat in White House Briefing Room
Published August 01, 2010 | FoxNews.com

The White House Correspondents’ Association on Sunday announced that Fox News will get a coveted front-row seat in the White House briefing room.

The Associated Press will take Helen Thomas' old seat, while Fox News will now occupy AP's former seat.

Thomas, who worked most recently as a columnist for Hearst Corporation, abruptly resigned her seat in early June following an uproar over comments she made about Jews in Israel. She was filmed saying Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and suggested they go instead to Germany, Poland and the United States. Thomas apologized and later resigned.

Thomas had covered every president since Dwight Eisenhower. She is approaching her 90th birthday.

Fox News White House Correspondent Major Garrett previously sat directly behind Thomas in the second row. Other news outlets represented in the front row are: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Reuters and the Associated Press.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/01/fox-news-receives-row-seat-white-house-briefing-room/?test=latestnews

Hey, Beach, you should hear the lefties on Huffington Post. They're almost in mourning (look for sackcloth and ashes within the next month or so).

[Danny]

You mean the same company that the president said was not a real news organization and tried to censor is now in the front row?  What happened?  

Fox News Receives Front-Row Seat in White House Briefing Room
Published August 01, 2010 | FoxNews.com

The White House Correspondents’ Association on Sunday announced that Fox News will get a coveted front-row seat in the White House briefing room.

The Associated Press will take Helen Thomas' old seat, while Fox News will now occupy AP's former seat.

Thomas, who worked most recently as a columnist for Hearst Corporation, abruptly resigned her seat in early June following an uproar over comments she made about Jews in Israel. She was filmed saying Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and suggested they go instead to Germany, Poland and the United States. Thomas apologized and later resigned.

Thomas had covered every president since Dwight Eisenhower. She is approaching her 90th birthday.

Fox News White House Correspondent Major Garrett previously sat directly behind Thomas in the second row. Other news outlets represented in the front row are: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Reuters and the Associated Press.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/01/fox-news-receives-row-seat-white-house-briefing-room/?test=latestnews

Fox News and Associated Press were competing for Helen Thomas's seat, AP won, they moved up front, Fox came in second and moved up to take the seat vacated by AP.  So technically FOX lost. but ssssssshhhhhhhhhhh don't spoil the right's celebration. They don't know yet.

[Dos Equis]

Hey, Beach, you should hear the lefties on Huffington Post. They're almost in mourning (look for sackcloth and ashes within the next month or so).

I believe it.   

Republicans in November and 2012 should be all over the attempted censorship of a news organization by the president.  How on earth does Obama reconcile that attempt with giving Fox a front row seat?   

[MCWAY]

I believe it.   

Republicans in November and 2012 should be all over the attempted censorship of a news organization by the president.  How on earth does Obama reconcile that attempt with giving Fox a front row seat?   

Well, to clarify further, some are in sackcloth and ashes because Fox has a front-row seat. Others are high-fiving each other, because Fox didn't get the specific seat, once held by Helen Thomas.

[Straw Man]

Well, to clarify further, some are in sackcloth and ashes because Fox has a front-row seat. Others are high-fiving each other, because Fox didn't get the specific seat, once held by Helen Thomas.

and the large majority of people couldn't give less of a shit either way

[Dos Equis]

Just as a reminder, here is how the president tried to censor the news organization he has now put on the front row:

Obama's team again rips Fox News - but says aides will appear on shows
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Monday, October 19th 2009, 4:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Fox News is an important voice in American politics - but just don't call it fair and balanced, top White House aides said Sunday.

President Obama's advisers chose napalm to fuel the feud on the Sunday talk show circuit rather than making peace with a TV network the White House and its supporters consider red meat for red states.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told rival cable channel CNN's "State of the Union" that Obama considers Fox News "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

"And that's a different take," compared with other news outlets, Emanuel added.

Obama's closest political adviser, David Axelrod, told ABC's "This Week" that Fox News "is really not news. It's pushing a point of view."

Fox News' reaction was strong.

"Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars," Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said in a statement.

The White House has blackballed Fox News amid its scathing coverage of the health care reform debate and hasn't accepted invites in months to appear on its programs.

Last week, White House communications director Anita Dunn charged, "Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."

The two Obama advisers yesterday shrugged off boasts by News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch that his cable network's ratings have soared since the White House made it a target. Murdoch also owns the New York Post.

Axelrod said Murdoch "has a talent for making money," and insisted that Obama aides will "appear on [Fox] shows and participate" anyway, despite the alleged bias.

But no one in the administration did yesterday.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/10/19/2009-10-19_bam_team_again_rips_fox_news_but_says_aides_will_appear_on_shows.html


Administration Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview
Published October 23, 2009 | FOXNews.com

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to exclude Fox News from participating in an interview of an administration official, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

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.

Several top White House advisers have appeared on other news channels to criticize Fox News' coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news network.

On Wednesday, Obama, speaking publicly for the first time about his administration's portrayal of Fox News as illegitimate, said he's not "losing sleep" over the controversy.

"I think that what our advisers simply said is, is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama said when asked about his advisers targeting the network openly. "And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."

Obama's comments also came after he met Monday with political commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC; Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post; Ron Brownstein of the National Journal; John Dickerson of Slate; Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert of the New York Times; Jerry Seib of the Wall Street Journal, Gloria Borger of CNN and U.S. News and World Report, and Gwen Ifill of PBS.

House Republican leaders rushed to the defense of conservative commentators Thursday after the president's comments.

Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said conservative commentators speak more for Americans than the national media outlets that have targeted them for criticism.

"Goaded on by a White House increasingly intolerant of criticism, lately the national media has taken aim at conservative commentators in radio and television," the Indiana Republican said on the House floor. "Suggesting that they only speak for a small group of activists and even suggesting in one report today that Republicans in Washington are 'worried about their electoral effect.' Well, that's hogwash."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/administration-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

[Straw Man]

Fox news has already admitted in court that it deliberately distorts the new (aka LIES) and will continue to do so as they see fit and a Florida court agrees with them.

Only an idiot or someone with extremely low self esteem would be OK would go to a source (person, magazine, website, tv show) where they know they will be lied to on a regular basis

[Straw Man]

Just as a reminder, here is how the president tried to censor the news organization he has now put on the front row:

just a reminder  -   the FACT that they distort and falsify the news is not a matter of debate

Fox has admitted so in court

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

[LurkerNoMore]

just a reminder  -   the FACT that they distort and falsify the news is not a matter of debate

Fox has admitted so in court

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

Some surprise.

[Dos Equis]

lol

[Straw Man]

Some surprise.

actually pretty old news

what suprises me is Fox's faux indignation about the White House claim (echoed by so many others) that they are not really a news organization  when they've admitted in court that they distrort the new to push their own point of view, please their advertisers and in the case last year with riots in Paris, to please their large shareholder.   

it's no suprise at all the people who get their "news" from NewsMax and World Net Daily don't give a rats ass about being lied to.

there's no hope for those types of people

[Al Doggity]

Well, to clarify further, some are in sackcloth and ashes because Fox has a front-row seat. Others are high-fiving each other, because Fox didn't get the specific seat, once held by Helen Thomas.

Almost as pathetic than the high-fiving  over a network moving up a row going on in this thread. Almost, but not quite.

I believe it.   

Republicans in November and 2012 should be all over the attempted censorship of a news organization by the president.  How on earth does Obama reconcile that attempt with giving Fox a front row seat?   

Not making administration officials available for interviews isn't "attempted censorship". There would have been nothing preventing Fox from continuing to cover a particular story. As it's already been established, Fox feels no obligation to report facts as a matter of policy, so their involvement in any interviews with this administration is pretty much pointless anyway.

[Dos Equis]

Almost as pathetic than the high-fiving  over a network moving up a row going on in this thread. Almost, but not quite.

  Not making administration officials available for interviews isn't "attempted censorship". There would have been nothing preventing Fox from continuing to cover a particular story. As it's already been established, Fox feels no obligation to report facts as a matter of policy, so their involvement in any interviews with this administration is pretty much pointless anyway.

   Except that's not all the White House did.  They told the public that Fox News wasn't a legitimate news organization and tried to get other networks to exclude Fox from the network pool.  That is clearly censorship, particularly when it comes from the most powerful man on the planet. 

To now put them on the front row at the White House is irreconcilable with their prior conduct/statements. 

[Al Doggity]

  Except that's not all the White House did.  They told the public that Fox News wasn't a legitimate news organization and tried to get other networks to exclude Fox from the network pool.  That is clearly censorship, particularly when it comes from the most powerful man on the planet. 

To now put them on the front row at the White House is irreconcilable with their prior conduct/statements. 

They didn't try to have Fox excluded from the network pool. They tried to deny them access to an interview with an administration official. That isn't censorship. Fox could have still covered any story they wanted, they just wouldn't have had the White House's cooperation, if the administration got its way.

They didn't say the White House wasn't a "legitimate news organization." They said it is not news in the sense that it pushed a point of view.And they're right. All throughout this, Fox has had a seat in the WH briefing room, so the fact that they are now in the front row isn't some shocking about face.

[Dos Equis]

They didn't try to have Fox excluded from the network pool. They tried to deny them access to an interview with an administration official. That isn't censorship. Fox could have still covered any story they wanted, they just wouldn't have had the White House's cooperation, if the administration got its way.

They didn't say the White House wasn't a "legitimate news organization." They said it is not news in the sense that it pushed a point of view.And they're right. All throughout this, Fox has had a seat in the WH briefing room, so the fact that they are now in the front row isn't some shocking about face.

Oh please.  They wanted the other networks to exclude Fox from all future interviews.  The interview with Feinberg was the first step.  It failed.  He refused to appear on Fox News opinion shows, while at the same time appearing on Olbermann's show.  Clear and unmistakable attempted censorship.     

Obama said Fox News is "not really news."  That's a load of horse manure.  If he really believed that, he wouldn't have them on the front row as part of the White House press corps.

What the president did was try and silence his critics.  Anyone not wearing partisan blinders can see that.  He lost that fight.  It blew up in his face.  What he tried to do is indefensible.   

The fact he has now put an organization that he doesn’t' believe is a legitimate news organization on the front row isn't shocking.  It's just egg on his face.   

[Al Doggity]

Oh please.  They wanted the other networks to exclude Fox from all future interviews.  The interview with Feinberg was the first step.  It failed.  He refused to appear on Fox News opinion shows, while at the same time appearing on Olbermann's show.  Clear and unmistakable attempted censorship.     

Obama said Fox News is "not really news."  That's a load of horse manure.  If he really believed that, he wouldn't have them on the front row as part of the White House press corps.

What the president did was try and silence his critics.  Anyone not wearing partisan blinders can see that.  He lost that fight.  It blew up in his face.  What he tried to do is indefensible.   

The fact he has now put an organization that he doesn’t' believe is a legitimate news organization on the front row isn't shocking.  It's just egg on his face.   

  Obama appeared on O'reilly the same week he appeared on Olbermann.

Fox news pushed a perspective. They aren't a news organization like the other chairs in the front row.
Not cooperating them is not, by any means, censorship.  While you see the administration's refusal to participate in merciless hackjobs as "indefensible", I see FNC's virtually mandated lies and distortions as much worse.

Fox news has always been in the briefing room. The fact that they are now in the front row isn't shock. It isn't egg on the president's face, either. It's a non-story.

[Dos Equis]

Obama appeared on O'reilly the same week he appeared on Olbermann.

Fox news pushed a perspective. They aren't a news organization like the other chairs in the front row.
Not cooperating them is not, by any means, censorship.  While you see the administration's refusal to participate in merciless hackjobs as "indefensible", I see FNC's virtually mandated lies and distortions as much worse.

Fox news has always been in the briefing room. The fact that they are now in the front row isn't shock. It isn't egg on the president's face, either. It's a non-story.

  Whatever.  He only appeared on shows after his attempted censorship failed.  It's obvious what the man was trying to do.   

You (and the president) can say Fox News isn't a news network (lol), they lie, blah blah blah, but the fact is they're on the front row of the White House press corps.  Why?  Because they're a legitimate news network that kills CNN, MSNBC, and every other news network and the president can't justify censorship.

His strong-arm Chicago-style politics didn't work this time.   
   

[Al Doggity]

  Whatever.  He only appeared on shows after his attempted censorship failed.  It's obvious what the man was trying to do.   

You (and the president) can say Fox News isn't a news network (lol), they lie, blah blah blah, but the fact is they're on the front row of the White House press corps.  Why?  Because they're a legitimate news network that kills CNN, MSNBC, and every other news network and the president can't justify censorship.

His strong-arm Chicago-style politics didn't work this time.   
   

No censorship occurred. Fox inserts more opinion in their stories and has more of a political bent than other news organizations.

[Dos Equis]

No censorship occurred. Fox inserts more opinion in their stories and has more of a political bent than other news organizations.

  No censorship occurred.  There was attempted censorship that failed.  Miserably. 

Fox News has two basic segments:  news shows and opinion shows.  The news shows report the news.  If you actually watched them you'd know this.  The opinion shows have a blend of news and lots of opinion.  When the press secretary was in the middle of the censorship attempt and being pressed to identify the portions of Fox News that are not really news, he identified the Hannity and Beck opinion shows.  Hilarious.  That's the equivalent of saying Joy Behar is a news show.    

The Fox News shows (not the opinion shows) report the same news as CNN.  I watch them both every day.  There is very little opinion in the news segments (by the reporters/hosts).  They (Fox) almost always have people from both sides of an issue on the news segments.  Even the opinion shows do this. 

The vast majority of the criticism of Fox News is right in line with the liberal approach to opposing viewpoints:  if you can't beat them, silence them.  Liberals are incredible hypocrites when it comes to speech.     
 

[MCWAY]

just a reminder  -   the FACT that they distort and falsify the news is not a matter of debate

Fox has admitted so in court

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

Just a reminder, that left-wingers continue to spew this crap, forgetting one minor detail.

This lawsuit was against WTVT, a local TV station in the Tampa Bay area (where I grew up). That station carries Fox's programming, such as "Family Guy", "House", and (my personal favorite) Tampa Bay Buccaneerss football.

Let's look at the details, not included in this silly distortion:

Akre began her career at a small radio station as a news reporter and occasional disc jockey in 1978. She moved around the country as a news reporter and news anchor until spending some time at CNN.[1] Following her firing from a Tampa-area station, she joined WTVT, a Fox Broadcasting Company affiliate.[2]

Following her issues with WTVT, she took a series of jobs and was featured in The Corporation regarding her whistleblower lawsuit.In 2007 Akre became the editor-in-chief of the national news desk at InjuryBoard.com.[3]

[edit] Whistleblower lawsuit
In 1997, Wilson and Akre began work on a story regarding the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a milk additive that had been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration but also blamed for a number of health issues. Wilson and Akre planned a four part investigative report on Monsanto's use of rBGH, which prompted Monsanto to write to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel, in an attempt to have the report reviewed for bias and because of the "enormous damage that can be done" as a result of the report.[4]

WTVT did not run the report, and later argued in court that the report was not "breakthrough journalism." Wilson and Akre then claimed that Monsanto's actions constituted the news broadcast telling lies, while WTVT countered looking only for fairness. According to Wilson and Akre, the two rewrote the report over 80 times over the course of 1997, and WTVT decided to exercise "its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause,"[5] and did not renew their contracts in 1998. WTVT later ran a report about Monsanto and rBGH in 1998, and the report included defenses from Monsanto.....[6]


Following Wilson and Akre's contract not being renewed, the two filed a lawsuit concerning WTVT's "news distortion" under Florida's whistleblower laws, claiming their termination was retaliation for "resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the Monsanto recombinant bovine growth hormone story."[7] In a joint statement, Wilson claimed that he and Akre "were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story," and "were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto (the powerful drug company that makes the hormone) and also ... by members of Florida’s dairy and grocery industries."[8] The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425000 and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the 1934 Federal Communications Act and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission.

An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes[9]. ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes[10], Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[11] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[12]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

Notice that the issue is with WTVT, NOT the Fox News Channel, nor any of the shows on the Fox News Channel.

[Al Doggity]

  No censorship occurred.  There was attempted censorship that failed.  Miserably. 

Fox News has two basic segments:  news shows and opinion shows.  The news shows report the news.  If you actually watched them you'd know this.  The opinion shows have a blend of news and lots of opinion.  When the press secretary was in the middle of the censorship attempt and being pressed to identify the portions of Fox News that are not really news, he identified the Hannity and Beck opinion shows.  Hilarious.  That's the equivalent of saying Joy Behar is a news show.    

The Fox News shows (not the opinion shows) report the same news as CNN.  I watch them both every day.  There is very little opinion in the news segments (by the reporters/hosts).  They (Fox) almost always have people from both sides of an issue on the news segments.  Even the opinion shows do this. 

The vast majority of the criticism of Fox News is right in line with the liberal approach to opposing viewpoints:  if you can't beat them, silence them.  Liberals are incredible hypocrites when it comes to speech.     
 

  No attempted censorship occurred. Nothing that has been described in this thread could be accurately classified as censorship. Limiting access to an invariably hostile reporting agency is NOT censorship, anyway you slice it.


And the way Fox covers news is markedly different than the way the majors and other cable networks report. An administration spokesperson made a point of noting this during the whole "censorship  scandal". It wasn't just the commentary shows, it was the actual reporting. And they're right. You check the Fox News site at any point during the day and you see it's as much about stoking a certain type of animosity and pushing a viewpoint as it is reporting the news.