The Obama administration is denying Fox News certain coverage of white house operations, because it claims that Fox News is a propaganda machine.
I feel like it is impossible for an outsider to gauge whether or not something that claims to be a news organization is a propaganda machine. Yes, everyone can have their opinions but until you are inside the organization and see what information is being chosen to published and what information is not, you cannot say that a news organization is solely a propaganda machine.
I believe that there is harm to our democracy when an administration shows favoritism to certain news organizations while excluding others from coverage. It is not the government's job to decide who and who cannot have access to coverage. The media should have a right to have access to coverage, it keeps a variety of news organizations, representing various viewpoints, afloat.
It is likely that past administrations have showed favoritism with news organizations, however, I feel as if it was not widely publicized. I am not sure about that past administrations had denied access.
I feel that the Obama administration should not be able to exclude certain media organizations because I feel that every media outlet, no matter how questionable, should have the right to be informed to produce news. I feel as if a variety of media organizations are necessary in order to keep a public forum open and make sure that a variety of viewpoints are represented. I hope that the Obama administration reconsiders its decision and allows Fox News coverage once again.
Good post, in general.
ReplyDeletePerhaps some of these issues might become clearer if you provide more specific examples. What KINDS of stories is Fox being excluded from? What kinds of coverage have they provided in the past that might have contributed to the decision to exclude?
I do think there is a line of exclusion out there. For example, the National Enquirer and the Star do not usually get media credentials to White House events. Rush Limbaugh is not issued media credentials and has little direct access to the White House or the president.
So how should this line be regulated? I think there is a tension here that needs more exploration.
Also, when you suggest that there LIKELY have been exclusions in the past, I think you should dig a bit deeper. How many times did George W. Bush appear exclusively on Fox News programs? How many exclusive interviews to the Washington Post did he grant? Were there particular outlets that received more access than others? Why or why not? What about Clinton's coverage?
And finally, perhaps the above could be addressed by a clearer explanation by what constitutes (to you) the right to "to be informed to produce news." Where does direct access play into this? If I blog regularly, so I have the right to have direct access to the president? Why or why not?
Some things to think about. Keep at it.