The White House has done a brilliant job during the last several weeks of continuing its push against conservative media. In interviews this past week, members of the administration have made the rounds to push forward Communications Director Anita Dunn’s initiative to no longer have FOX News considered “actual news.” White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod said, “They’re not really a news station ... it’s pushing a point of view.”

The persistent efforts of the left to marginalize or diminish conservative media are nothing new, but the new levels to which the White House is reaching are surprising. On Oct. 23, the White House gave members of the media pool the opportunity to interview Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation Kenneth Feinberg. There was, however, one condition: FOX would be excluded from the interview.

This was an unprecedented move. The five major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX) share the costs of covering the White House and thereby share equal access to officials and events. The White House, by excluding FOX, was attempting to control which news outlets had access to which information. The media pool recognized this, rejecting the proposal on the grounds that it set a bad precedent. The White House’s move threatened not only the balance of the pool but also the freedom of the press.

However, there is a second side to the administration’s efforts: part of its media offensive has been aimed at the other networks. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that the administration does not want other news networks to “basically be led [by] and following FOX.”

This, however, raises a question: Why shouldn’t the other networks follow FOX’s example? Whatever FOX is doing works ­— ratings for the network have skyrocketed, and in almost all time slots FOX outperforms the viewership of CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined. So how is FOX causing problems?

It is common knowledge that FOX is often the most openly critical of the major networks. This is often accomplished through nothing more than choice of material covered; incidents like the ACORN hidden camera exposure put them at odds with the president. Most other networks, conversely, have been extremely supportive of the president: ABC featured the White House’s health-care agenda in what critics called an “infomercial” back in June, and CNN’s Campbell Brown pointed out last week that the White House has been silent on MSNBC’s openly liberal bias.

Conservative commentators like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, however, cannot be ignored. Their analysis of the president’s agenda has been instrumental in FOX’s success. John Reiniers wrote in Tampa Bay’s Hernando Today that despite controversy, Beck “is the only one who seems to be breaking new ground revealing the socialist tinge to Obama’s inner circle.” But instead of addressing his content ­— a fact Beck mocks with a red phone on his set that can only be called by the White House to correct false information — the administration chooses to attack the whole FOX network.

So what is it the administration is warning other networks against? Criticizing the president? Sharing information the administration cannot refute? Or, are conservative commentators actually telling the truth?

The administration’s attempt to oust FOX from the media pool was the worst way to respond to its success. Attacking the network, rather than its content, verifies the fears of those who believe the left is trying to silence its opposition.

President Obama needs a new approach with FOX News. If the administration’s goal is to correct what they deem false information, then engaging that content is a sure plan. Their current actions, however, suggest a less favorable outcome.

David Giffin is a College senior from Charleston, Ill.