A superficial comparison. This does more to antagonize the debate than shed light on new information.

This strikes me more as a partisan opinion piece than a straight news analysis. Right off the bat, the anonymous authors show their liberal bias by calling Anita Dunn's criticisms of Fox News 'entirely justified.' While I applaud the depth of the research documenting prior GOP attacks against media outlets, it doesn't make up for the fact that this article is intentionally partisan. Until Media Matters adopts a more neutral approach to fact-checking, they will remain part of the ... More »

I don't think the White House is synonymous with the Democratic Party, so I'm not sure of the comparison they are trying to make it apt.

This report lists numerous cases in which Republicans have labeled a particular news outlet the enemy, thus presumably vindicating the Obama administration's position on Fox news. However, nowhere does it address whether the Obama administration's tactic is wise or in the interest of better government.

They missed a few. The Bush White House used to routinely cut off access to administration sources if they did not like what a reporter wrote. Is this any way to run a democracy? No. Is it common? I'm afraid so. It's only a story because Fox is making it into one. They don't much like it now that the shoe is on the other foot.

The well researched report gives a history tour that exposes the hypocrisy of the faux outrage and hyperbole coming from Fox when they are criticized for their extreme partisanship and lies.

This is what it says -- a research article.