Going back into the memory bank a few years, I recall while a reporter in Orlando, being subject to what I still feel was one of the worst infringements on the media I’ve ever personally seen. We were black-balled, frozen out by the local Sheriff’s department because the top brass didn’t care for some of our negative and critical stories on the agency.

We would show up at a crime scene or accident and the public information officer would let all of the other tv, radio and newspaper reporters under the crime scene tape to a secure area for a briefing on what happened and leave our station’s crews on the sideline wondering what we were missing out on. This went on for weeks. Obviously, being in the news telling business, it put us at a severe disadvantage. As the dominant television station in the market it also posed a danger to our viewers.

If at a murder scene, the police wouldn’t tell us what happened, what a suspect might look like or describe a getaway vehicle…how would residents be warned? How would they know who to look out for or how to best protect themselves?

It seemed, and was irresponsible.

These days, there’s another cold shoulder out there…this one, comes from the White House.

And feeling that chill exclusively is Fox News Channel.

(Regardless of your viewing habits or political persuasion I think this is a legitimate concern)

It is understandable that the Obama administration wouldn’t be tuning in to the conservative ideology with whimsical excitement or anxious anticipation to hear the critics spout off…however, snubbing Fox doesn’t exactly follow Mr. Obama’s vow to (like Presidential greats of the past) surround himself with people of opposite views. A premise he has often described as “healthy”.

Instead, the White House has started a media blockade against the network, saying "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration...That's a pretty big megaphone. You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front."

In a New York Times interview, White House communications director Anita Dunn went a step further. “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent”.

Granted, none of us enjoy being verbally battered or criticized. Heck, even an occasional tough word from a spouse can sting…let alone, a television station watched by millions.

However, it flies in the face of what the President says he represents or the spirit of his office. If you believe enough in your plan, such as health care reform, you should be willing to defend it even against your harshest of detractors. Some might argue it is exactly that group and its viewers you should be targeting the most. Try to convince them, Mr. President, that your plan is both beneficial to its loyal watchers and worth a second glance to any who’ve already written it off.

Running a media blockade, refusing to do interviews (Mr. Obama recently sat down with all major networks including Univision but NOT fox news) and trying to downplay a news station’s significance, no matter the distaste, is counterproductive. Especially considering that network is leading the cable news race in terms of viewers by a hefty margin.

I say go on. Do interviews. Face them head on. Sit down with any and all of their anchors and defend your proposals. Dispel the “myths” or fears you say are diminishing your efforts. For if you ostracize a large number of people, even those who doubt you, aren’t you really just limiting your message to supporters?

 Have confidence in your mission. Don’t turn your back on those who disagree. If they can’t be swayed, fine, but at least you shared your message in a fair way and let the cards fall where they may. You want to look like a unifier intent on representing all Americans, not the red-faced local sheriff I dealt with, bitter over some bad press. After all, even he eventually realized stone-walling us was both wrong and irresponsible.

“

"Wait! I want to see daddy get arrested.”

It’s not a phrase you hear too often, I’m guessing (especially coming from a small child being held in his mother’s arms)…but a prime example of just how passionate the debate over Afghanistan is getting.

I was standing outside the White House watching more than 50 protesters chain themselves to the fence, lie on the sidewalk or reenact water boarding to display, let’s say, their distaste for the Obama administration’s handling of the war.

That’s when I heard those words uttered and I turned around to see mom beaming with pride, her child in her arms, and both looking lovingly at their husband/father. It was tough to tell which one was him considering the orange jumpsuit and black hood to imitate a terror detainee.

The crowd was eating it up. They were indeed, on the President’s front doorstep and making a spectacle that would be hard to ignore.

“Mourn the dead, heal the wounded, end the war,” they chanted.

As police warned them over and over to break it up and unchain themselves, supporters grew louder. A bus pulled up. Zip-cuffs pulled out. And soon enough, the protesters (most of them retirees) were detained and taken away.

But even though the protesters eventually disappeared, the problem is here to stay. And Mr. Obama has some tough choices to make.

Do we add 40,000 troops to the mix or pull out and let drones do all the dirty work? (The administration has already said withdrawal is NOT an option)

That however will only embolden the hundreds who marched to the White House Monday carrying caskets draped in flags and signs that read “Where’s the change?”

While Obama certainly didn’t promise to get troops out of Afghanistan, this group claims he did give them the impression he would find a way to end the war. All wars.

Instead, they now find themselves in a position they wouldn’t have predicted. They would gladly have held this display a year ago when Bush was in office…but now? No! Not toward their savior! This was an unfortunate necessity they said.

They wanted peace, and they wanted it now. And while all of their concerns (despite the sensational side shows) may be valid…that doesn’t mean they are realistic. At least, not to this White House and not at this moment.

So the fake cages, feigned torture, screaming and need for bail money won’t ebb anytime soon. In fact, that intensity will likely only ramp up.

And as a result, I guess I won’t be so surprised the next time I hear a toddler’s tantrum, that mommy wants to leave before daddy gets carted off in cuffs.