Instead, the message was this: the administration went on all the networks (except Fox) to say: you guys deliver real news; and Fox is not a legitimate news organization.
The White House must have an unusual definition of news. To me, news is something new, that I did not know, that is relevant.
For instance, to most networks, (except Fox) ACORN was something that fell off trees. But on Fox, I learned about the systemic corruption from this "community organizing group" that illegally registers ineligible voters and was even willing to provide government subsidies to a group that told ACORN that it engaged in under aged prostitution. You see, that was news to me. And it was relevant.
It was on FOX that I learned about the ACLU rats that are photographing CIA members and then showing those pics to terrorists in Gitmo. I considered that real news.
It was on Fox that I learned about Obama's school security czar. And how this man, when told by an under aged boy that he had sex with a man in a bus station, he advised the kid on the merits of condoms. I found that very relevant. And newsworthy. Don't hold your breath expecting Katie Couric to tell you about it.
How bout Van Jones? The former green czar for Obama? Why is he a former green czar? Because Fox exposed him as a Marxist who signed onto the whacked out "President Bush is responsible for 9-11" petition. The New York Times, their first story on Jones appeared after Jones was fired. Please explain it to a simple person like me: If the Fox News stories about Van Jones were not news, than why did the White House get rid of him? If the stories were lies, the White House presumably would have refuted them, right? If the charges were not newsworthy the White House would have yawned. Instead, they added Jones to the unemployment rolls.
These are just a few of hundreds of recent examples of news stories Fox has reported and that the main stream media has gone in the tank on.
That's why it is over for them. Their ratings are lower than Daniel Simpson Day's GPA. I could yell out my window and it would reach more people than MSNBC's prime time audience.
As for the New York Times, they just had to borrow some serious cake from a Mexican billionaire just to stay solvent. Its over Johnny.
Now to be fair, you should watch CNN if someone like Merv Griffin dies and his real and imagined Hollywood friends gather around Larry King telling stories.
What does the Manson Family, hockey fans, and MSNBC viewers have in common? There are not many of each, but their followers are rabidly devoted.
The credibility of the major networks as news organizations is so low, Fox could broadcast the Christmas yule log and still double the audience of CNN (Commie News Network) & MSNBC (Mostly Showing Nothing But Commies).
But ain't it good to know that the President thinks he can decide what is a legitimate news organization and what is not?