I just finished reading this poor excuse for what has come to be journalism and it made my blood boil. Peter Nicholas, a Times staff writer reported today that he was told by democratic strategist not to appear on Fox News again or else. At least that's what the Journalist seemed to be conveying.
The lede of the story sounds so ominous:
At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.
Ooh, at least one strategist. There may be many others, in fact there could possibly be open revolt in the white house. I'm thinking to myself, I wonder who the strategist is?
Continuing with the ominous tone:
he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said(emphasis mine).
And then what really steams me
The message was, " 'We better not see you on again,' " said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue"(emphasis mine).
Now that sounds really bad. (Vince Foster came to mind) At least it did to me and I was pissed that the strategist didn't have the guts to use his own name. He wanted to remain anonymous. At this point, if I had been Peter Nicholas, I would have put my pen down and politely said to my source, "look Dick (it could have been Dick Morris)I can't really report this alleged intimidation if you're not at least willing to come out of the Obama closet so to speak. What's the worst that could happen? You'd be exposed and then you could go on Fox full time as the balanced Democratic consultant like say Patrick Caddel. He get's gigs on Fox all of the time and speaks badly of everything Democratic. No name, no story."
That's what I would have done if I were a journalist, but what do I know?
Peter, the journalist in this case, then presents his balance by quoting Anita Dunn:
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Thursday night that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.
Ahh, I could calm down. Journalistic balance. But then in the next paragrah:
But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for President Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.
Wow a Fox News contributor!! There's some balance.
Then finally this that set me over the top:
Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not-too-subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself"(again emphasis mine).
My blood pressure really started to rise. Pat Caddell. Isn't he that asshole that used to be a Democratic consultant back in the day and now just spews anti Democratic party bullshit on Fixed News?
You can read the rest of the article for yourself, but I realize why traditional journalism is dying. Lousy journalists.
You can send your love to the Times staff writer.
peter.nicholas@latimes.com