Fox is smarter

October 23rd, 2009 5:22 pm · 86 comments

And then, as if on cue, we get this:

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to exclude Fox News from participating in an interview of an administration official, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Treasury Department on Thursday tried to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the network pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.

You know, I can’t say I think it appropriate to directly try and ace Fox out this way - though I think it’s fine that Obama declines to appear on Fox News Sunday - but once again, this is the media sticking up for its brethren… not quite understanding that Fox would never, under any circumstances, do the same for them.

Did Fox go to bat for the New York Times when the Bush administration was talking about prosecuting the Times for running stories on the NSA wiretapping? No? Gee, I wonder why that was…

And didn’t Fox just run print ads ripping the rest of the media for “missing the story” of the Fox News-promoted tea parties?

The rest of the media doesn’t understand that Fox is as intent on taking down its “sister organizations” as it is the White House. But this just shows you how stupid, collectively, the media is.

You want to cut my throat? Here, take this knife!

Ah, but maybe Fox will return the favor next time we have a Republican in the White House.

Right.

Maybe Fox’s dominance over its rivals is appropriate. It’s obviously way smarter than these other networks are.

Update: Or not. Fox seems to have made it up.

Smarter or not, Fox is absolutely more cunning than the other networks.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  86 comments  Tags: Media · Fox News

There are currently 86 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
rspicer
10/24/09
1:09 PM		Fox is not a news organization. They're a political organization.
gsmart
10/25/09
1:49 AM
QUOTE (rspicer @ Oct 24 2009, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Fox is not a news organization. They're a political organization.


They're trying to be a political organization, I think they're trying to advance an agenda - a conservative agenda.

It's not always the same thing as a Republican agenda but it tries to co-opt the Republican agenda, to become the Republican agenda. The network is used as a political club for the free market ideology. "Free markets" are what got us into this mess in the first place.
Kate
10/25/09
1:18 PM
QUOTE (rspicer @ Oct 24 2009, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Fox is not a news organization. They're a political organization.
Look again. The link below is all US news that is not political.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/index.html
Save-the-Land
10/25/09
1:44 PM		Both Spicer and Gil (wow...what a surprise) are spreading propaganda and untruths. Have either of you ever watched Fox News? I mean the real news programs? Yes, Fox News has programs that are opinion based shows (Hannity, Beck), but so does MSNBC......Olbermann is the worst! Matthews is biased as well. At least Fox doesn't mix the two - opinion and news. Olbermann and Matthews host election results shows which is a news reporting activity...all the while carrying out their attacks and outright hatred of Repulicans and conservatives on their own shows.

There is NO evidence that Fox News (the actual reporting of the news) is biased and doesn't accurately report the news. Please name a few incidents of a Fox News show where this happened. I think you'll find that Fox News is as fair and balanced as any other network....maybe even more balanced.

After the Dan Rather debacle, and other major news networks mishandling of so many issues, it really shows your bias to pick on Fox...and ignore the gaffs and faults of the other news shows and networks.
Save-the-Land
10/25/09
1:58 PM
QUOTE (gsmart @ Oct 25 2009, 01:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
They're trying to be a political organization, I think they're trying to advance an agenda - a conservative agenda.

It's not always the same thing as a Republican agenda but it tries to co-opt the Republican agenda, to become the Republican agenda. The network is used as a political club for the free market ideology. "Free markets" are what got us into this mess in the first place.


If you agree that the PBS Frontline series are well produced shows you should have watched "Inside the Meltdown", dealing with what really caused the financial meltdown and how certain individuals were stopped from trying to warn Congress and the press about the dangers of our financial system (toxic assets and the derivatives market). As the special so clearly points out, it was in the 90's during the Clinton years that so many of these problems started including the deregulation of many of our financial markets. This didn't just happen during a Republican admin....but right under the nose of Bill Clinton by people appointed by him. Yes, Bush is culpable as well, but lets be FAIR AND BALANCED about this.

Look, there is plenty of blame to go around, but let's stop blaming GW Bush and Fox News for this most recent financial crisis......the roots of which go deep into the Clinton Admin....as well as many well placed Dems protection of Fannie Mae, etc.

If you haven't seen the special watch it please. It might change your mind who is at fault for all of this...if you can be open minded enough to watch it.
lee41
10/25/09
2:12 PM
QUOTE (Kate @ Oct 25 2009, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Look again. The link below is all US news that is not political.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/index.html


They are all AP stories.
lanzate
10/25/09
2:13 PM
QUOTE (gsmart @ Oct 25 2009, 01:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"Free markets" are what got us into this mess in the first place.


No, the markets were not free which is why we got into this. Risk was not allowed to fall where it was supposed to go. If banks would have been forced to carry their due risk they would have regulated themselves. Government manipulated the markets by removing risk.
lee41
10/25/09
2:31 PM
QUOTE (Save-the-Land @ Oct 25 2009, 01:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There is NO evidence that Fox News (the actual reporting of the news) is biased and doesn't accurately report the news. Please name a few incidents of a Fox News show where this happened. I think you'll find that Fox News is as fair and balanced as any other network....maybe even more balanced.


Oh, so that's why so many Fox viewers believed (or still do) that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 - they were just reporting the news?

Hours and hours of coverage of the 9/12 demonstration (before and during) in WDC but nothing about the gay/lesbian demonstration the next weekend?

Obama does not love the USA? Obama was born in Kenya? Their 'normal' coverage is designed to form public opinion, not just report information.
Bustina di tè
10/25/09
3:53 PM		The story I got was Faux didn't even bother to ask for a reporter to be present at this Q&A with Feinberg. So they weren't excluded. But then what can you expect from today's journalists?
Pericles
10/25/09
4:16 PM
QUOTE (Lancaster Online @ Oct 23 2009, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.


What would have been your reaction if the Bush administration had tried to do the same thing to MSNBC?

Your response would have been consistent? I doubt it.
notveryhow
10/25/09
5:03 PM
QUOTE (Save-the-Land @ Oct 25 2009, 02:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There is NO evidence that Fox News (the actual reporting of the news) is biased and doesn't accurately report the news. Please name a few incidents of a Fox News show where this happened. I think you'll find that Fox News is as fair and balanced as any other network....maybe even more balanced.


Can anyone tell me, which ones are the Fox News shows? Yes, I watch Fox on occasion, and I'm still looking for the unbiased, unslanted coverage and interviews.
lee41
10/25/09
5:19 PM
QUOTE (Pericles @ Oct 25 2009, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What would have been your reaction if the Bush administration had tried to do the same thing to MSNBC?

Your response would have been consistent? I doubt it.


What do you mean "if the Bush administration had tried to do the same thing"? They did, but that didn't prevent MSNBC from reporting the news. I don't recall them playing victim and making up being excluded from news conferences or interviews. Fox was the Bush/Cheney go-to network for softball interviews. For anyone else they wanted questions in advance.
citizen-too
10/25/09
5:36 PM		If you really want to entertain yourselves, listen to the Fox network talk shows and take some notes. Next, listen to the other talk show networks and also take notes. Wait 6 months and read your notes. You will find, that in at least 90% of the cases, Fox network was right on track. Maybe they missed a few details here and there but, If they weren't the people doing the stuff, they won't be able to know ALL the details before hand. The financial crash? Fox did a few shows on it and I paid attention. I watched the market and when it did EXACTLY what they said it was going to do, I moved my entire 401K into different investments. I didn't lose a penny, in fact, I gained aboout 11%. Since moving things around again, this year I've gained about 32%. The other networks didn't warn about anything, they denied any forthcoming problems and a lot of people lost most of their retirement money. Just do your homework and make intelligent comparisons. Don't stand behind a network because they are Democratic or Republican, stand behind the truth. It will get you a lot farther in life. But you all know that, your mommy taught you that when you were growing up.
The truth isn't always nice but, it certainly is always accurate, it's the truth.
notveryhow
10/25/09
5:52 PM
QUOTE (citizen-too @ Oct 25 2009, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you really want to entertain yourselves, listen to the Fox network talk shows and take some notes. Next, listen to the other talk show networks and also take notes. Wait 6 months and read your notes. You will find, that in at least 90% of the cases, Fox network was right on track. Maybe they missed a few details here and there but, If they weren't the people doing the stuff, they won't be able to know ALL the details before hand. The financial crash? Fox did a few shows on it and I paid attention. I watched the market and when it did EXACTLY what they said it was going to do, I moved my entire 401K into different investments. I didn't lose a penny, in fact, I gained aboout 11%. Since moving things around again, this year I've gained about 32%. The other networks didn't warn about anything, they denied any forthcoming problems and a lot of people lost most of their retirement money. Just do your homework and make intelligent comparisons. Don't stand behind a network because they are Democratic or Republican, stand behind the truth. It will get you a lot farther in life. But you all know that, your mommy taught you that when you were growing up.
The truth isn't always nice but, it certainly is always accurate, it's the truth.


Let's see. WMD's in Iraq. Fox did such a good job of obfuscating this issue that to this day many more Fox viewers than others still believe that we did find WMD's. Where are they?

WMD's to Syria. I saw several interviews and rehashing of this nonsense on Fox. Again, where are they?

Obama attended a Muslim Madrassa. This has been sooo thoroughly debunked it barely rates mention, and yet Fox repeated it without checking.

These are not little lies. These are BIG lies. And this is just off the top of my head. I can find many more. So, yeah, I'll "stand behind the truth".
ArtVandolay
10/25/09
5:52 PM
QUOTE (lee41 @ Oct 25 2009, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What do you mean "if the Bush administration had tried to do the same thing"? They did, but that didn't prevent MSNBC from reporting the news. I don't recall them playing victim and making up being excluded from news conferences or interviews. Fox was the Bush/Cheney go-to network for softball interviews. For anyone else they wanted questions in advance.


Could you elaborate on this? I don't recall the Bush Admin organizing an official, genuine anti MSNBC campaign.

And can you elaborate on FOX making up being excluded from interviews from President Obama?

Links from reliable sources would interesting to view.
notveryhow
10/25/09
6:02 PM		Spooked Bush snubs 86 year old woman. Too hot for the Prez?

QUOTE
At his televised news conference last week, President George W. Bush deliberately snubbed several reporters he ordinarily calls upon, including journos from the Washington Post, Newsweek, and USA Today. But the most conspicuous recipient of the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. freeze-out was longtime UPI reporter Helen Thomas, who has barbed and grilled every president since John F. Kennedy and almost always gets to ask a question. Bush pointedly ignored her.

Bush then dealt Thomas a second slight. By custom, Thomas concludes White House press conferences at the president's signal by saying, "Thank you, Mr. President." Bush denied her that supporting role, ending the conference with his own sign off, "Thank you for your questions," and flushing a decades-old White House custom.


http://www.slate.com/id/2080034/
ceejay
10/25/09
9:33 PM		Dear Mr. Smart:

For one who is part of the media you either show a remarkable lack of understanding of this issue, or else you get it perfectly and this is just another one of your disingenuous frothing anti-Fox, anti- Right bait pieces.

This issue is about a pool report agreement among TV media outlets. It is a formal agreement. And for a change, the media outlets did the right thing. Exclude one, you exclude all.

This is about free speech and a free press. It has nothing whatsoever to do with content of stories and rivalry among print media, and you know that very well.

And you might take note that readers online aren't as stupid as you seem to think we all are. We got it. And either you don't/didn't get it (astonishing) or this is all feigned. Either way, you aren't earning back any of the respect you lost with me when you became a one-note years ago.

ReverendAlobar
10/25/09
10:14 PM
QUOTE (ArtVandolay @ Oct 25 2009, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And can you elaborate on FOX making up being excluded from interviews from President Obama?


Here you go.
ceejay
10/25/09
10:44 PM
QUOTE (ArtVandolay @ Oct 25 2009, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Could you elaborate on this? I don't recall the Bush Admin organizing an official, genuine anti MSNBC campaign.

And can you elaborate on FOX making up being excluded from interviews from President Obama?

Links from reliable sources would interesting to view.

No, here's the real story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/f...e_n_332707.html
ReverendAlobar
10/26/09
8:05 AM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 25 2009, 10:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, here's the real story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/f...e_n_332707.html


What makes that the "real" story? Normally, you'd scoff at anyone using Huffington to cite a claim. Not when they're saying something you want to hear, I guess.

Here's more.
ArtVandolay
10/26/09
8:33 AM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 26 2009, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What makes that the "real" story? Normally, you'd scoff at anyone using Huffington to cite a claim. Not when they're saying something you want to hear, I guess.

Here's more.


Sorry Rev. This doses not answer my quetions about when the Bush Admin had an organized effort to discredit a media outlet. And to say that The Fox Claims of not getting interviews is made up?

Someone forgot about a couple of Sundays ago when Obama's love fest with the rest of the media was pre scripted and totally fake and nothing new. Soft balls galore, with the exception Of George Steph who challenged him on some issues.

Meanwhile, please go back to yesterday's Sunday Perspective section of the printed paper.
Read Gil with his over use of emphasis outrage and go across the page to read and Charles Krauthammer.

Tell me Krauthhammer is simply sticking up for Fox, and yes he is FOX contributor.

He's not simply copying today's talking points to defend the Obama Presidency...a bad habit that we see here a bit too much, don't you think?
gsmart
10/26/09
8:49 AM
QUOTE (lee41 @ Oct 25 2009, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What do you mean "if the Bush administration had tried to do the same thing"? They did, but that didn't prevent MSNBC from reporting the news. I don't recall them playing victim and making up being excluded from news conferences or interviews. Fox was the Bush/Cheney go-to network for softball interviews. For anyone else they wanted questions in advance.


Glenn Greenwald had a comprehensive piece on this last week, the manner in which - over the course of 8 years - the Bush administration went out of its way to manipulate the media:

All that hand-wringing rhetoric: why? Because the Obama administration threatened to criminally prosecute Fox? Or because the adminstration surveilled its reporters' telephone calls? Or illegally obtained their telephone records? Or shot missiles at hotels in which they were staying? Or dropped bombs on their offices? Or imprisoned them for years without charges? Or barred Fox reporters from riding on administration planes? Or conspired to "weed out" any critical voices from being heard on network and cable news programs? No, those are all things that the Bush administration did to reporters (see the links) -- all well above and beyond the numerous, constant rhetorical attacks from the Bush White House on media organizations they perceived to be hostile. Where was Tucker Carlson when that was happening, or Ruth Marcus, or Anderson Cooper, or David Carr?

I'll be real interested to see conservative reax if/when Obama threatens to criminally prosecute Fox for one of its investigations.

Do you think they'll be outraged?

As for whether the news side of Fox is biased - see its "coverage" of the tea parties. As Lee says elsewhere - if Fox was interested in being consistent there would have been at least a fraction of the tea party coverage of the event the following weekend.

There wasn't. That was an ideological decision.

Let's not forget that Roger Ailes - former media consultant for Roger Ailes and Ronald Reagan - is the president of Fox News.

Consider a news organization run by James Carville. Do we believe that for one nanosecond that conservatives would consider such an organization "fair and balanced?

Fox is the final evolution of the Ailes/Nixon media strategy - why settle for bashing the media when you can BE the media, and have your partisans declare that only your strategy is "fair and balanced?" But that strategy now has hit the wall, as right-wingers are forced to defend not only Fox but the role of the media in general; decades of attempting to undermine the traditional media and now Fox is forced to seek cover from the media. It's pretty humiliating.
ArtVandolay
10/26/09
9:23 AM
QUOTE (gsmart @ Oct 26 2009, 08:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Glenn Greenwald had a comprehensive piece on this last week, the manner in which - over the course of 8 years - the Bush administration went out of its way to manipulate the media:

All that hand-wringing rhetoric: why? Because the Obama administration threatened to criminally prosecute Fox? Or because the adminstration surveilled its reporters' telephone calls? Or illegally obtained their telephone records? Or shot missiles at hotels in which they were staying? Or dropped bombs on their offices? Or imprisoned them for years without charges? Or barred Fox reporters from riding on administration planes? Or conspired to "weed out" any critical voices from being heard on network and cable news programs? No, those are all things that the Bush administration did to reporters (see the links) -- all well above and beyond the numerous, constant rhetorical attacks from the Bush White House on media organizations they perceived to be hostile. Where was Tucker Carlson when that was happening, or Ruth Marcus, or Anderson Cooper, or David Carr?

I'll be real interested to see conservative reax if/when Obama threatens to criminally prosecute Fox for one of its investigations.

Do you think they'll be outraged?

As for whether the news side of Fox is biased - see its "coverage" of the tea parties. As Lee says elsewhere - if Fox was interested in being consistent there would have been at least a fraction of the tea party coverage of the event the following weekend.

There wasn't. That was an ideological decision.

Let's not forget that Roger Ailes - former media consultant for Roger Ailes and Ronald Reagan - is the president of Fox News.

Consider a news organization run by James Carville. Do we believe that for one nanosecond that conservatives would consider such an organization "fair and balanced?

Fox is the final evolution of the Ailes/Nixon media strategy - why settle for bashing the media when you can BE the media, and have your partisans declare that only your strategy is "fair and balanced?" But that strategy now has hit the wall, as right-wingers are forced to defend not only Fox but the role of the media in general; decades of attempting to undermine the traditional media and now Fox is forced to seek cover from the media. It's pretty humiliating.


After geting past Palin's secret sexual fantasy about Olberbann, I read the Greenwald piece. Nothing in there even resembles what Obama's team is trying to accomplish with it's concerterd team effort to hurt Fox - and it's effort to sway the rest of the media to stay away from stories that are broken on Fox. For example Van Jones and the ACORN tapes.

Yes - it discusses some Bush admin security related issues about the Iraq war...but then complains that when Obama was a senator, he was against these Bush policies but now embraces them.

This attack on Fox is a waste of time, is unprecedented and with more important issues to focus on they should be thinking of solutions to the nations problems.
It also shows the immaturity of the administration, the paranoia about bad publicity hurting them and that leads to a total Nixonian model of keeping the Presidency.

If Fox is prosecuted, it should be the liberal media to be outraged. I don't get your statement about not forgetting who Roger Ailes is/was. So what? And it's bad that the tea parties were covered?? The left is getting crazy - it was news, not just your kind of news. And since the left can't organize a decent protest, it's even worse for them. Listen to liberal talk radio's lamenting the fact the libs won't organize...and now the right does. After all that's their territory!
grieker
10/26/09
9:25 AM
QUOTE (gsmart @ Oct 25 2009, 01:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
They're trying to be a political organization, I think they're trying to advance an agenda - a conservative agenda.

It's not always the same thing as a Republican agenda but it tries to co-opt the Republican agenda, to become the Republican agenda. The network is used as a political club for the free market ideology. "Free markets" are what got us into this mess in the first place.


Sucks thinking you're a journalist when all know you aren't.

I think MSNBC and CBS NBC CNN and ABC are the ONLY news anyone should watch - if you want to remain an ignoranus (dumb azz) the rest of your life.
clanker
10/26/09
9:42 AM		I'm all for Fox news keeping the wingnuts corralled in some kind of warped zombiland. It'll serve to keep a large segment of the GOP marginalized and fading over the horizon and allow politics to evolve in a better direction with perhaps independents playing a larger role during elections.
ReverendAlobar
10/26/09
10:19 AM
QUOTE (ArtVandolay @ Oct 26 2009, 08:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sorry Rev. This doses not answer my quetions about when the Bush Admin had an organized effort to discredit a media outlet.

I wasn't responding to that part. That's why I didn't quote it.
QUOTE (ArtVandolay @ Oct 26 2009, 08:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And to say that The Fox Claims of not getting interviews is made up?

My response had to do with this. If you don't want to believe what you read on the TPM article, that's your choice. But it explains exactly how FOX's claims were fabricated.
QUOTE (ArtVandolay @ Oct 26 2009, 08:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Someone forgot about a couple of Sundays ago when Obama's love fest with the rest of the media was pre scripted and totally fake and nothing new. Soft balls galore, with the exception Of George Steph who challenged him on some issues.

Meanwhile, please go back to yesterday's Sunday Perspective section of the printed paper.
Read Gil with his over use of emphasis outrage and go across the page to read and Charles Krauthammer.

Tell me Krauthhammer is simply sticking up for Fox, and yes he is FOX contributor.

He's not simply copying today's talking points to defend the Obama Presidency...a bad habit that we see here a bit too much, don't you think?

Krauthammer's piece was as speculative as it was ridiculous.
QUOTE
Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand "the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties." They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other — and an otherwise imperious government.

Factions should compete, but also recognize the legitimacy of other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize and destroy is not Madisonian. It is Nixonian.


So, the White House press secretary and co. counter the steady stream of misinformation and "opinion journalism masquerading as news" from FOX, a contest that fits his Madisonian template of competing factions to a "T," and Krauthammer calls it unfair, accusing the White House of "seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize and destroy" FOX News. He audaciously makes this claim while ignoring the fact that it is FOX News that has actively, conspicuously and deliberately attempted to undermine, delegitimize and destroy the Obama administration since before the election.

Krauthammer is not defending legitimate, significant dissent. He is trying to legitimize illegitimate, insignificant dissent by portraying FOX News as victim. Nothing new here. That play is older than Rove's handbook.
grieker
10/26/09
10:27 AM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 26 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>



QUOTE
FOX News that has actively, conspicuously and deliberately attempted to undermine, delegitimize and destroy the Obama administration since before the election.


And the specifics are? C'mon Rev - how bout specifics? Tell us where fox is wrong in what has been reported! You certainly must have the talking points by now!
ceejay
10/26/09
10:38 AM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 26 2009, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What makes that the "real" story? Normally, you'd scoff at anyone using Huffington to cite a claim. Not when they're saying something you want to hear, I guess.

Here's more.

Evidently it's all about what YOU want to hear. You jump all over me if I post a site that is right-leaning. Oops, then jump all over the Huffington post site that I post. No, Rev. This is all about you dismissing anything whatsoever that I happen to post. Which is why I ignore you. And will continue to.

Check the date on your first link to a site. Then check the Huffington post I made, which was the LATEST (by 2 days). Get over your disappointment. As to "scoffing"? I would never infringe on your marked out territory.
notveryhow
10/26/09
10:41 AM
QUOTE (grieker @ Oct 26 2009, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And the specifics are? C'mon Rev - how bout specifics? Tell us where fox is wrong in what has been reported! You certainly must have the talking points by now!


I'm sorry. I've been reading these Fox News debates for a few weeks here, and for you to, yet again, say "Tell us where fox is wrong" can only mean that you only read your own posts. One gets tired of repeating themselves. Good God, read the dam ned threads.
ceejay
10/26/09
10:43 AM
QUOTE (grieker @ Oct 26 2009, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And the specifics are? C'mon Rev - how bout specifics? Tell us where fox is wrong in what has been reported! You certainly must have the talking points by now!

Now, now. You know that it isn't nice to actually report the Obama Administration member's very own words, or drag into the light actually film footage (darn that YouTube anyway!!!) of them praising Communists and Communism. And, c'mon! How offensive of Fox to be the only news outlet revealing them in their own words and shaming CNN et al into having to grudgingly cover the story after the fact.

Makes Gil Smart look his usual stupid, and you know how much he hates that! (Not enough to actually try to be a reporter and not a shill for the fringe left -- making him a wingnut of another color).
ReverendAlobar
10/26/09
10:53 AM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 26 2009, 10:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Evidently it's all about what YOU want to hear. You jump all over me if I post a site that is right-leaning. Oops, then jump all over the Huffington post site that I post. No, Rev. This is all about you dismissing anything whatsoever that I happen to post. Which is why I ignore you. And will continue to.

Check the date on your first link to a site. Then check the Huffington post I made, which was the LATEST (by 2 days). Get over your disappointment. As to "scoffing"? I would never infringe on your marked out territory.


My, my. You get cranky when someone points out your hypocrisy. This is not about you. It's about your blatant hypocrisy and your "my link is right and your's isn't" attitude. My response would have been the same to anyone else who tried to counter that way.

Check the dates? Really? Your argument now is "if it's the most recent, it's more true." Ha! Well, check the dates yourself. My second link is dated Oct. 25. Your link is from the 24th. If that's really how you want to defend yourself, I won.

You countered my link with "Here's the real story," in an attempt to negate the accuracy of the TPM article by using a site that you repeatedly denounce as partisan and unworthy of valid citations. You couldn't be more hypocritical if you tried.
notveryhow
10/26/09
11:01 AM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 26 2009, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My, my. You get cranky when someone points out your hypocrisy. This is not about you. It's about your blatant hypocrisy and your "my link is right and your's isn't" attitude. My response would have been the same to anyone else who tried to counter that way.

Check the dates? Really? Your argument now is "if it's the most recent, it's more true." Ha! Well, check the dates yourself. My second link is dated Oct. 25. Your link is from the 24th. If that's really how you want to defend yourself, I won.

You countered my link with "Here's the real story," in an attempt to negate the accuracy of the TPM article by using a site that you repeatedly denounce as partisan and unworthy of valid citations. You couldn't be more hypocritical if you tried.


Never get in a pi$$ing match with a skunk. wacko.gif
grieker
10/26/09
11:22 AM
QUOTE (notveryhow @ Oct 26 2009, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm sorry. I've been reading these Fox News debates for a few weeks here, and for you to, yet again, say "Tell us where fox is wrong" can only mean that you only read your own posts. One gets tired of repeating themselves. Good God, read the dam ned threads.


As I thought, no specifics. That's quite alright, it's never stopped you before.

For some reason I'm getting an image of an empty suit.
ceejay
10/26/09
12:56 PM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 26 2009, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My, my. You get cranky when someone points out your hypocrisy. This is not about you. It's about your blatant hypocrisy and your "my link is right and your's isn't" attitude. My response would have been the same to anyone else who tried to counter that way.

Check the dates? Really? Your argument now is "if it's the most recent, it's more true." Ha! Well, check the dates yourself. My second link is dated Oct. 25. Your link is from the 24th. If that's really how you want to defend yourself, I won.

You countered my link with "Here's the real story," in an attempt to negate the accuracy of the TPM article by using a site that you repeatedly denounce as partisan and unworthy of valid citations. You couldn't be more hypocritical if you tried.

biggrin.gif You start with a rebuke of me, then say "it isn't about you" biggrin.gif Uh-huh.

Go pull the wings off flies, hypocrite.

(And your first link was from the 23rd, brainiac. My response was 24th. Can't even keep dates straight??? Get help.)
Shirley U Geste
10/26/09
1:18 PM		Appears Obama and the liberal media fell into Fox's trap!

Fox News Ratings Up 8% Since Squabble With White House Began

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/10/26/...house-began.php
ReverendAlobar
10/26/09
1:38 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 26 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
biggrin.gif You start with a rebuke of me, then say "it isn't about you" biggrin.gif Uh-huh.

That wasn't a rebuke of you. It was a thinly veiled insult.
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 26 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Go pull the wings off flies, hypocrite.

To quote the great Inigo Montoya, "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 26 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
(And your first link was from the 23rd, brainiac. My response was 24th. Can't even keep dates straight??? Get help.)

I know my first link was from the 23rd. That's why I said, "My second link is dated Oct. 25," brainiac.
ceejay
10/26/09
2:00 PM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 26 2009, 01:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That wasn't a rebuke of you. It was a thinly veiled insult.

To quote the great Inigo Montoya, "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I know my first link was from the 23rd. That's why I said, "My second link is dated Oct. 25," brainiac.

And once again, the great superlative ReverandAlobar hijacks a thread to make it a pi$$ing contest. What a waste of time and energy you are.

Your second link had nothing to do with my post whatsoever. And you knew that. Keep playing the date stamp shell game, brainiac. But it will be a game of Solitaire.

Whenever I post a conservative website link, you object.
I post a leftie website, you object.
Well, I am just flat-out shocked. biggrin.gif
Go find a hobby. I am not it.

For everyone else, look at the Huffington post link. There has been follow-up and comments by many well-respected liberal columnists. When even the left thinks its leftie President is making a huge mistake, it might be time for the TB lefties to stop defending the stupidity.
gardenguy
10/26/09
2:07 PM		Rev, you are never gonna win that one, trust me on that...even though you are right, you aren't gonna win. It's best to just walk away and let it rant on and on. smile.gif
ReverendAlobar
10/26/09
4:10 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 26 2009, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Your second link had nothing to do with my post whatsoever. And you knew that. Keep playing the date stamp shell game, brainiac. But it will be a game of Solitaire.


What are you talking about? My second link was a direct response to the Huffington article you cited. It was an update added to the end of the first TPM page I cited.

How can you possibly say that this---
QUOTE
After TPMDC posted Friday about the latest in the Fox News v. White House saga related to an interview with Ken Feinberg, a Fox executive stood firm to say the White House had excluded the network.

Several readers brought a Huffington Post story to our attention this weekend. They have an interview with Fox VP Michael Clemente where he claims White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs apologized for the situation.

I spoke to a Fox media relations aide this morning with another interview request for Clemente or the D.C. bureau chief. The aide referred us to this story in Mediaite, which also features Clemente saying Gibbs apologized. The aide would not make him available for an interview.

I circled back again, and a White House official was adamant that Gibbs did not apologize. The official insists that doesn't make any sense, since Fox got the interview and there would be no need for an apology.
---has nothing to do with your link?

What have you been huffing?
ceejay
10/26/09
4:20 PM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 26 2009, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What are you talking about? My second link was a direct response to the Huffington article you cited. It was an update added to the end of the first TPM page I cited.

How can you possibly say that this---
---has nothing to do with your link?

What have you been huffing?

As usual, drag it out over days and posts in response to posts and then huff and puff and bluster. The only one huffing is you ... and puffing. As usual. All noise, signifying nothing. Wait. That's what you defend about the Obama Administration. Well then, I take it all back. How appropriate.
Nativeson
10/26/09
4:53 PM
QUOTE (clanker @ Oct 26 2009, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm all for Fox news keeping the wingnuts corralled in some kind of warped zombiland. It'll serve to keep a large segment of the GOP marginalized and fading over the horizon and allow politics to evolve in a better direction with perhaps independents playing a larger role during elections.

Here's a tip that will probably go right over your head: A news organization isn't marginalized if the administration keeps mentioning it and trying to discredit the work it does.

QUOTE (grieker @ Oct 26 2009, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As I thought, no specifics. That's quite alright, it's never stopped you before.

For some reason I'm getting an image of an empty suit.


Think cutoffs and a dirty tee-shirt.
ReverendAlobar
10/26/09
7:20 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 26 2009, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As usual, drag it out over days and posts in response to posts and then huff and puff and bluster. The only one huffing is you ... and puffing. As usual. All noise, signifying nothing. Wait. That's what you defend about the Obama Administration. Well then, I take it all back. How appropriate.

You have a very childish way of conceding defeat.
clanker
10/26/09
7:40 PM
QUOTE (Nativeson @ Oct 26 2009, 04:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Here's a tip that will probably go right over your head: A news organization isn't marginalized if the administration keeps mentioning it and trying to discredit the work it does.



I didn't say the news organization would be marginalized, I said the wingnuts who feed at that trough would be (and presently are) marginalized and it's becoming clearer and clearer to the majority of the public in general that Fox is indeed a political shill for the far right. I hope you believe that you are part of a movement to bring back the America that Fox envisions so that you too will be part of the crowd that is left back at the station when the next election cycle comes around.
notveryhow
10/26/09
8:07 PM
QUOTE
And the specifics are? C'mon Rev - how bout specifics? Tell us where fox is wrong in what has been reported! You certainly must have the talking points by now!


One last time:

The Right Wing media spin cycle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQnmxW-UyKo
====================================

Glenn Beck (opinion) and Chris Wallace (News?) joined at the hip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7MCCMsWVcI
=======================================

CNN debunks Fox News false Obama story.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/
=======================================

Cavuto allows guest to repeat bogus claim that there were "approximately 2 million" people at the 9/12 protest

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910260026
========================================

John Stossel of Fox News will join a conservative activist group for rallies designed to build opposition to health-care reform.

Americans For Prosperity (AFP) has announced that Stossel, a "renowned health care reporter and analyst," will participate in three "Health Care Town Halls," starting next week in Arkansas.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...thcare_refo.php

Also joining in on the fun, Republican Asa Hutchison. Fox and GOP, BFF.

Asa Hutchinson Recorded Robocalls For Anti-Reform Rallies Featuring Fox's Stossel

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...orm.php?ref=fpb
========================================

On a related note:

Dana Perino, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Frank Luntz and John Bolton all have found a home at Fox.

A revolving door exists between the Republican Party and Fox News Channel, with a number of former Bush administration officials, former and potentially future GOP presidential candidates, and Republican strategists on Fox's payroll and airwaves. A Media Matters for America review of Fox coverage since September 1 reveals that these individuals, typically hosted alone or on unbalanced panels, often use their airtime to advance false and misleading claims about Democrats and progressives, as well as to fundraise, further demonstrating that Fox is effectively a conservative political organization and not a legitimate news outlet.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910260005
=======================================

Fox & Friends hosts Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade cited a year-old Pew Research Center survey to misleadingly suggest that Fox News' audience is "more balanced" between Republicans and Democrats than CNN and MSNBC, and an on-screen graphic falsely claimed that the report found that Fox News "has most unbiased coverage." In fact, similar to numerous other surveys that show that Fox's viewership skews to the right, a Pew Research Center survey from September shows that more than three times as many Republicans as Democrats consider Fox News to be their main source of news;

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210006
======================================

Beck: Obama is a "racist" and "has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture."

Fox hosts falsely claimed that Kevin Jennings covered up sexual assault.

Hannity falsely claimed that State Department official Koh wanted Sharia law in the United States.

Fox News promoted fake murder story from ACORN video.

Fox personalities falsely claimed White House official opposed rat elimination, supported forced organ donations.

Beck claimed Van Jones was a "convicted felon."

Beck falsely claimed Anita Dunn "worships" "her hero" Mao Zedong.

Fox trumpets CAIR conspiracy theory charges made by author with anti-Islam history.

Fox News doctors Biden quote to falsely claim he was praising economy in March.

Fox News reporter distorts Obama comments on health care.

Video links for all these statements:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910170002
==================================

And I'm only up to page 3 of 129 pages on Fox at Media Matters. Haven't even touched Robert Greenwald or Newshounds.
ceejay
10/26/09
8:31 PM		http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupPr....asp?grpid=7150

After reading the descriptor, follow the links on the left side.

Mediamatters is a George Soros axe to grind leftie group that only ever targets Conservatives. They are not a neutral all-media watchdog as they would feign to have you believe.

ReverendAlobar
10/26/09
9:02 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 26 2009, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupPr....asp?grpid=7150

After reading the descriptor, follow the links on the left side.

Mediamatters is a George Soros axe to grind leftie group that only ever targets Conservatives. They are not a neutral all-media watchdog as they would feign to have you believe.

They never claimed to be. The first paragraph from the Media Matters "About Us" page:
QUOTE
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501©(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

(emphasis added)

FOX News, on the other hand, claims repeatedly to be fair and balanced while flying in the face of reality.
notveryhow
10/26/09
9:11 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 26 2009, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupPr....asp?grpid=7150

After reading the descriptor, follow the links on the left side.

Mediamatters is a George Soros axe to grind leftie group that only ever targets Conservatives. They are not a neutral all-media watchdog as they would feign to have you believe.


Thanks, Reverend. I pointed that out to her yesterday. guess she didn't read it.

I don't understand how anyone can think that a site which posts VIDEOS is somehow misreporting, whatever it's orientation.
ceejay
10/26/09
10:22 PM		That's okay, boys. I will continue to post the same link every time you all post media matters links ad nauseum as if they were unbiased and not just exactly like what you accuse Fox of being except leftie. Just for you. Just so no one gets snookered by the misleading. wink.gif
citydweller
10/26/09
11:39 PM		Fox made the whole thing up, again, using a grain of truth mixed with pure-grain stoopid, to create yet another cocktail that the masses flock to drink faster than Jimmy Jones' kool-aide.

The thing I don't understand is where they don't get the part where if they actually bring the country down, they don't become supreme emperor or something - they just go down with the rest of us. That's like sociopathic suicide or something.
notveryhow
10/26/09
11:48 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 26 2009, 11:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's okay, boys. I will continue to post the same link every time you all post media matters links ad nauseum as if they were unbiased and not just exactly like what you accuse Fox of being except leftie. Just for you. Just so no one gets snookered by the misleading. wink.gif


I get it. You won't even look at any clip of Fox News footage on MM because MM is Left. It's your own private version of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "La, La, La". I'm beginning to understand your knowledge of science.
ceejay
10/27/09
2:17 AM		biggrin.gif Hate to disappoint, but I am actually an MSNBC faithful viewer -- HardBall, Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow -- know your enemy, right? I catch only O'Reilly on Fox, and really only the first 15 minutes or so because I can't stand all the fluff stuff he adds. The rest are not worth wasting time on the histrionics and dog and pony show. But I will always defend the rights of free speech, free exercise, and free press even when I think they are full of it. It's why I don't tell any of you to go away or shut up. A shame the same cannot be said for you. biggrin.gif
ReverendAlobar
10/27/09
7:53 AM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 27 2009, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
biggrin.gif Hate to disappoint, but I am actually an MSNBC faithful viewer -- HardBall, Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow -- know your enemy, right? I catch only O'Reilly on Fox, and really only the first 15 minutes or so because I can't stand all the fluff stuff he adds. The rest are not worth wasting time on the histrionics and dog and pony show. But I will always defend the rights of free speech, free exercise, and free press even when I think they are full of it. It's why I don't tell any of you to go away or shut up. A shame the same cannot be said for you. biggrin.gif


Now you're trying to play the "Free Speech" card. No one is trying to censor FOX News. Many are pointing out how FOX News isn't really a news organization, and many more are pointing out every time FOX News spreads misinformation and outright lies. But no one is trying to censor them. And no one is trying to censor you, either.

My guess is, if you watch FOX News as little as you say, you're not defending their right to a free press. It's hard to defend a right that isn't even being violated. You're defending them because you empathize with them, now that they're playing the victim.
grieker
10/27/09
8:55 AM
QUOTE (notveryhow @ Oct 26 2009, 08:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
One last time:


And I'm only up to page 3 of 129 pages on Fox at Media Matters. Haven't even touched Robert Greenwald or Newshounds.


Beck: Obama is a "racist" and "has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture."

QUOTE
Fox hosts falsely claimed that Kevin Jennings covered up sexual assault.


Jennings did cover up the sexual assault and admits it was wrong of him to do so. Kevin Jennings has apologized for failing to report pedophilia to the authorities when a high school sophomore revealed that he was having an affair with an older man that he met in a bus station. Jennings told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom!" Jennings says now that he should have reported the incident.


Hannity falsely claimed that State Department official Koh wanted Sharia law in the United States.

QUOTE
Fox News promoted fake murder story from ACORN video.


Fox promoted the ACORN video which happened to have a confession of a murderer (she lied) claiming to have killed her husband.

Fox personalities falsely claimed White House official opposed rat elimination, supported forced organ donations.

QUOTE
Beck claimed Van Jones was a "convicted felon."


True, Beck should have stopped after the word convicted. He is an ex-con out of prision now.

Beck falsely claimed Anita Dunn "worships" "her hero" Mao Zedong.

Again Beck is not a news guy, but Anita's words:
QUOTE
but the two people that I turn to most


Fox trumpets CAIR conspiracy theory charges made by author with anti-Islam history.

Fox News doctors Biden quote to falsely claim he was praising economy in March.

Fox News reporter distorts Obama comments on health care.

Okay, I have notified (obviously Media Matters didn't get the memo) them that Beck, Hannity, Oriely are not news programs.

And you are aware that MediaMatters isn't biased laugh.gif
ceejay
10/27/09
10:22 AM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 27 2009, 07:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Now you're trying to play the "Free Speech" card. No one is trying to censor FOX News. Many are pointing out how FOX News isn't really a news organization, and many more are pointing out every time FOX News spreads misinformation and outright lies. But no one is trying to censor them. And no one is trying to censor you, either.

My guess is, if you watch FOX News as little as you say, you're not defending their right to a free press. It's hard to defend a right that isn't even being violated. You're defending them because you empathize with them, now that they're playing the victim.

The W.H. is trying to marginalize FOX.
The W.H. has targeted Fox.
The W.H. is trying to exclude FOX.

And of course you are trying to censor me! It is the only reason you show up making mountains out of molehills. Didn't work with FOX. More people watching FOX than ever. Won't work with me either.

And I empathize with anyone being targeted. It's easy to "play the victim" when being victimized. When the W.H. press secretary or Obama or one of his other hatchet people all over the Sunday news shows (I watch all of those, taping if need be) like Rahm mention FOX in a pejorative way in every single miked opportunity for the past few weeks, is FOX "playing the victim" or being targeted? You will always side with the bully. In this case, the bully pulpit is looking a whole lot worse for the President than it is for FOX.

And stop attributing motivation. You don't know me or a single thing about me. I would even defend you and your little entourage of online bullies. Not your pushing people around, but your right to your opinions. Free speech is free speech. And a free press counts even for Becky and lipnews even if I can't stand a single word she publishes.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-...fox1_10-19.html

(Can't wait to see what you will blast a pbs/JimLehrer link for! And yes, I watch that and BBCnews too) biggrin.gif

edit to change an s to an n
notveryhow
10/27/09
10:44 AM		Some observations on Fox News from the "Great White North".

QUOTE
Meanwhile, in the United States, just after he won the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama went to war – against the Fox News Channel, no less. Okay, maybe he didn't personally go to war against the barking-mad gasbags Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.


QUOTE
Few things in the TV racket are richer in humour than the sight and sound of Fox News pundits spewing self-righteous venom for the delectation of the cranky old guys who watch Fox.


QUOTE
It's Obama's “just watch me” moment, a snarl at both Fox, which has set itself up as a 24/7 anti-Obama administration opposition, and at those weak-kneed Democrats who think Fox is best ignored.


QUOTE
It's Fox News that has set that tone. Fox News pundits have promoted and encouraged viewers to attend those “tea party” protests and town-hall meetings. The insufferable Glenn Beck has ranted that Obama's health-care-reform agenda is a means by which Obama can effect “reparations for slavery.” It's Fox that continually suggests Obama's policies have the taint of socialism or even communism and reinforces this by always referring to officials in the Obama administration as “czars.” It's ludicrous, it makes no sense (the commies were getting rid of the czar, actually), but it plays well to cranky old men who can't be bothered to check facts but are deeply energized by hate.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/t...article1338989/

They even get it north of the border.
ceejay
10/27/09
10:48 AM		http://newsbusters.org/

Works both ways, boys.
Scalewoodman
10/27/09
11:04 AM		As a Conservative, I am not a fan of FOX News Channel any more simply because I can't stand all the shouting over each other and outlandish debate on the various shows-- It's stressful and boring-- but I enjoy Sean Hannity in the car because its a more conversational tone. MSNB and CNN do their fair share of shouting, too. And it's obvious to everybody that's being honest that the mainstream press leans towards a Liberal agenda and especially cow tows to the Obots, partly due to the oversensitivity towards race (brought on primarily by those of 'color' such as Jackson and Sharp).

Just like the Editorial Page, guys like Glenn Beck have their say-- call it entertainment or whatever you would. Rush Limbaugh falls into this category. News is news. Colbert, Franken, and all the 'Liberals' have equal opportunity except the listeners migrate to the Conservatives-- it's really anybody's right to do this unfettered by the Obama administration or anybody else for that matter!

2 guys witness the same event (the Gospels are a good example of this) and the facts are colored by personal experiences, context, and tone. It is not possible to purge personal bias from words.

One person has a life event and attributes it to God; another calls it 'luck' or Karma or whatever.

The FCC regulates 'news' and information delivery-- Fox is fully compliant in reporting news and this is the only reasonable intrusion into the whole free speech thing. All of the other stuff is presented as opinion and discussion, entertainment, or 'Editorializing'. This is fair and reasonable.

Bottom line: In a free market, the consumer chooses. The 5th Amendment guarantees free speech and expression.

FOX viewership is through the roof these days. The viewers are consumers who vote for products with their $dollar$. They are free to flip the dial and watch whatever they want and lately have been choosing FOX News.

It might surprise you but advertisers buy time to reach and influence their customers! They do not spend their advertising dollars for political purposes or to espouse a specific political agenda. IF target customers are Fox News watchers, these are precious dollars well spent! Trying to influence advertisers by manipulating the market for their target buys is probably not something that should be done in a free market economy-- especially by the President and his team, who were elected to serve all the people.

Everybody has their pals that think like they do and this leads to natural relationships, Helen Thomas (disrespectful and offensive in my opinion) deserved to be pushed to the back of the room, however she's entitled to her opinion and the public deserves to hear it through whatever media outlet they choose.

The Obots can do anything they want with that, including blackballing Fox News, however that would fall under the category of media manipulation, something that is not typically done in a free society-- especially willful and public-- even though it's probably not illegal.

It does make them seem to be ineffective, thin skinned, defensive, and more concerned about image than truth-- not a flattering picture.

I am much more concerned about the Obots manipulating the flow of information to the public than I am about anything Fox News would do. When it comes to TV news we control the dial (and the volume control). When it comes to our governmental leaders we deserve full access and cooperation regarless of any intended spin.

That's how the system works.


notveryhow
10/27/09
11:13 AM
QUOTE
Beck: Obama is a "racist" and "has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture."


And you believe that? Why? No, don't tell me. But I find that statement laughable if it wasn't so nasty and pandering to white racists.

QUOTE
Jennings did cover up the sexual assault and admits it was wrong of him to do so. Kevin Jennings has apologized for failing to report pedophilia


The boy was 16! There was no "sexual assault" and there was no "pedophilia". Whoever told you that is lying. And there was no apology for covering them up. “Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently." is what he said.

QUOTE
Beck falsely claimed Anita Dunn "worships" "her hero" Mao Zedong.


Her words "but the two people that I turn to most". So how do you reconcile Mao and Mother Theresa as her heroes? Makes no sense, unless she was making a speech and looking for a way to introduce what she thought were profound thoughts that would further the point she was making in her speech. And I watched the Beck clip where he was raving about this. he didn't even mention the Mother Theresa part of her statement. but went on and on about the gulags and "70 million dead", and then said that Mao is her Dunn's hero. Do you really believe that Dunn admires Mao because he killed 70 million and wants ot put the tea Partiers in the gulag? That was one of the most egregious intentional skewing of a persons words that I ever heard in my life.


QUOTE
Fox News doctors Biden quote to falsely claim he was praising economy in March.

Fox News reporter distorts Obama comments on health care.

Okay, I have notified (obviously Media Matters didn't get the memo) them that Beck, Hannity, Oriely are not news programs.


But those clips were not from Hannity or O'reily. They were from Fox News supposed news coverage. So that dodge does not apply/

QUOTE
And you are aware that MediaMatters isn't biased


MM is quite upfront about what they do, unlike some who call themselves "Fair and Balanced". Their mission statement was posted earlier. However, even if they have an agenda, that does not in any way change the content of the clips that they post of Fox News.

It's a campaign commercial.

And why did they cut the clip? The woman was still talking. For a campaign commercial, it's fine (if slimy) to do things like that. But if a news organization (does Newsdusters do news?) plays a clipped statement, you have to wonder what they are clipping out, and what is their intent.
notveryhow
10/27/09
11:21 AM		I'm having edit failure. Let's try again.

QUOTE
http://newsbusters.org/

Works both ways, boys.


It's a campaign commercial.

And why did they cut the clip? The woman was still talking. For a campaign commercial, it's fine (if slimy) to do things like that. But if a news organization (does Newsdusters do news?) plays a clipped statement, you have to wonder what they are clipping out, and what is their intent.
ReverendAlobar
10/27/09
12:29 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 27 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The W.H. is trying to marginalize FOX.

The W.H. is trying to marginalize FOX's lies, misinformation and opinion masquerading as journalism.
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 27 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The W.H. has targeted Fox.

The W.H. has targeted FOX's lies, misinformation and opinion masquerading as journalism.
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 27 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The W.H. is trying to exclude FOX.

Once, on a Sunday. It's still not censorship.
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 27 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And of course you are trying to censor me! It is the only reason you show up making mountains out of molehills. Didn't work with FOX. More people watching FOX than ever. Won't work with me either.

Disagreeing with you and correcting your lies and misinformation is not censorship. I have never tried to shut you up, though I have repeatedly tried to get you to admit when you are wrong, stop being hypocritical and get your facts straight. No luck, so far.

QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 27 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-...fox1_10-19.html

(Can't wait to see what you will blast a pbs/JimLehrer link for! And yes, I watch that and BBCnews too) biggrin.gif

There's nothing wrong with that pbs piece. It presents facts from the host and some opinion from the guests. It does not, however, backup your claim that FOX News is an innocent victim. Quite the opposite is true.
QUOTE
Dunn's words came after months of pounding and harsh rhetoric from FOX talk show hosts like Glenn Beck...


If FOX News thinks they deserve better treatment from the White House, they should consider changing their behavior. Right now, they're being treated exactly how they deserve to be treated.
ceejay
10/27/09
2:02 PM
QUOTE (notveryhow @ Oct 27 2009, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm having edit failure. Let's try again.



It's a campaign commercial.

And why did they cut the clip? The woman was still talking. For a campaign commercial, it's fine (if slimy) to do things like that. But if a news organization (does Newsdusters do news?) plays a clipped statement, you have to wonder what they are clipping out, and what is their intent.


Have you lost your mind? No. I forgot. It is just that narrow. biggrin.gif

I didn't post the address for the first clip! Scan through the whole site. The "Cheney eats Jewish and Muslim babies" is my personal favorite.


QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 27 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The W.H. is trying to marginalize FOX's lies, misinformation and opinion masquerading as journalism.

The W.H. has targeted FOX's lies, misinformation and opinion masquerading as journalism.

Once, on a Sunday. It's still not censorship.

Disagreeing with you and correcting your lies and misinformation is not censorship. I have never tried to shut you up, though I have repeatedly tried to get you to admit when you are wrong, stop being hypocritical and get your facts straight. No luck, so far.


There's nothing wrong with that pbs piece. It presents facts from the host and some opinion from the guests. It does not, however, backup your claim that FOX News is an innocent victim. Quite the opposite is true.


If FOX News thinks they deserve better treatment from the White House, they should consider changing their behavior. Right now, they're being treated exactly how they deserve to be treated.


So, we disagree on every single point. Wow. I am just shocked.

I am shocked however that you think "once, on a Sunday" is fine for censorship, or that being only once and on a Sunday (???) means it isn't censorship. Huh. Dictionary doesn't list "free days" when definitions don't apply.

You want to censor Fox because they disagree with you, and Mr. Obama.

And you don't need to waste your sorry life trying to get me to do or see or say anything whatsoever! Move on. Find another target. Oh. That's right. Obsession fixates on one target and never lets go without a restraining order.
notveryhow
10/27/09
5:18 PM
QUOTE
Have you lost your mind? No. I forgot. It is just that narrow. biggrin.gif

I didn't post the address for the first clip! Scan through the whole site. The "Cheney eats Jewish and Muslim babies" is my personal favorite
.

I was going to ask you who Mike Malloy is , but I went and answered my own question. I'd never heard of him. So that's a biased news report? Or a rave in very poor taste?

Bumped into this. Malloy must be a fellow really commited to principals over party.

Mike Malloy's Anti-Obama Rant

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-peete/m...r_b_117412.html

Martha Coakley's Sister Can See The Middle East From Her House

We've dealt with this. And yes, it's media bias and dishonesty, on the part of Newsbusters. They post a campaign ad that clips a candidates statement to make her look stupid. By gosh, that's something Fox would do.


ABC Heavily Promotes New HBO Documentary on Obama: He’s so ‘Zen’ and ‘Normal'

A fluff piece on ABC "The segment, which ran six and a half minutes",is "heavily promoting"? Did they repeat the piece every hour all day long, and pick it up hourly for the next 3 weeks like Fox did with the 9/12 bus thing?

WaPo Website Clips Kristol to Lament Lack of 'Moderate, Sophisticated, Temperate'
GOP

Can you even tell me what that's about??

Newspaper Circulation Drops

Air America Jumps on Olbermann

What's that about? is that bias.


On 'Hate Crimes Day,' Remembering Media Blackout of Jesse Dirkhising's Death

Now there is a good one. Two thugs rape and kill a guy. Not because he was straight, but because they were thugs. He11, were they even gay, or did they just want to brutalize the poor guy. And that's the same as 2 guys targeting and killing Matthew Shephard because he was gay. So if the Klan kills a black man for being a black man, that is the same as a black man killing a white man because he was there. Media blackout? Good heavens.

Just in Time: Poll Shows Support for 'Public Option' at New High

So the only thing wrong with this poll is that it was timely? And now the WSJ is liberal media???

Obama 2007: Healthcare Won't Pass With 50-Plus-One Strategy

So if the media does not poke at Obama for a statement that Obama made in 2007, it shows bias. Perhaps it shows bias when a media outlet does poke at Obama for a statement on bipartisanship, particularly with even US Senators repeating this death panel nonsense.

Mediaite: Is Rachel Maddow the Glenn Beck of the Left?

A snark at Rachel is media bias.

Vanity Fair Columnist and MSNBC Guest: Fox News 'Not Very Popular in this Country'

Well, God bless them. They posted a video, something that MM does consistently. Unfortunately for them, the video disproves what I assume to be their point, that the guest says Fox is "not very popular". Newsbusters falsely construes this to mean ratings, but if you listen to the clip, Wolfe acknowledges the ratings. he is talking about the negative connotations that Fox has among the 327 million people who don't watch Fox. I'd call this media bias, on the part of Newsbusters.

This is too dam ned easy. I'm sure you can direct me to one post at Newsbusters that you think is undeniably "liberal bias" or misinformation, and write a post explaining why you think that.

But speaking of Newsbusters, why are the articles so very short. Why no transcripts and detailed analysis, complete with video, which is what Media Matters does. Seems like a real shoestring operation aimed at people who don't like to think real hard. Or don't conservatives like to read. Is that why they rejoice that newspaper circulation is declining?
ReverendAlobar
10/27/09
5:31 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 27 2009, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, we disagree on every single point. Wow. I am just shocked.

I am shocked however that you think "once, on a Sunday" is fine for censorship, or that being only once and on a Sunday (???) means it isn't censorship. Huh. Dictionary doesn't list "free days" when definitions don't apply.

You want to censor Fox because they disagree with you, and Mr. Obama.

I'm not implying that it's not censorship because of it's rate of occurrence. It's not censorship because it does not fit the definition of censorship. Excluding someone from conducting an interview is not censoring them. I didn't get to interview Obama that Sunday. Does that mean the White House censored me? No.

I do not want to censor FOX. I would prefer they stick to facts and admit when they are wrong, you know, like a reputable news organization would. I would also prefer that they stop claiming to be fair and balanced when they are clearly neither.

Freedom of speech works both ways. You and FOX News are both free to spread lies and misinformation. And I and the White House are free to point out those lies. Doing so does not inhibit your free speech in any way, nor does it make us censors. But please go on believing that it does. You're free to pretend you're the victim as much as you want, and I'm free to point out that you're not.
ceejay
10/27/09
5:41 PM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 27 2009, 05:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not implying that it's not censorship because of it's rate of occurrence. It's not censorship because it does not fit the definition of censorship. Excluding someone from conducting an interview is not censoring them. I didn't get to interview Obama that Sunday. Does that mean the White House censored me? No.

I do not want to censor FOX. I would prefer they stick to facts and admit when they are wrong, you know, like a reputable news organization would. I would also prefer that they stop claiming to be fair and balanced when they are clearly neither.

Freedom of speech works both ways. You and FOX News are both free to spread lies and misinformation. And I and the White House are free to point out those lies. Doing so does not inhibit your free speech in any way, nor does it make us censors. But please go on believing that it does. You're free to pretend you're the victim as much as you want, and I'm free to point out that you're not.

Hey, I would prefer that MSNBC stick to the facts, that the network news would actually report the facts before Fox's reporting shames them into it a week later!

I would prefer that my President not be such a woosie that he needs to only have simpering media surrounding him with acclaim and shivers running up their leg.

I would have preferred that MSNBC not disseminate lies about Sarah Palin. God only knows the air-headed ditzy empty suit could have been neutralized simply by playing clips of her winks and "You betchas"! But the MSM and MSNBC ran with lies and misinformation night after night. And where were you and your faux nobility about Truth when that was going on? You absolutely do not prefer sticking to facts. You don't stick to facts! The only thing you are good at is commenting disparagingly about my posts. Not about the thread. Never about a topic. Never just making a statement of your own opinion. Not once. Ever. How sad for you.
ReverendAlobar
10/27/09
8:21 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 27 2009, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hey, I would prefer that MSNBC stick to the facts, that the network news would actually report the facts before Fox's reporting shames them into it a week later!

I would prefer that my President not be such a woosie that he needs to only have simpering media surrounding him with acclaim and shivers running up their leg.

I would have preferred that MSNBC not disseminate lies about Sarah Palin. God only knows the air-headed ditzy empty suit could have been neutralized simply by playing clips of her winks and "You betchas"! But the MSM and MSNBC ran with lies and misinformation night after night. And where were you and your faux nobility about Truth when that was going on? You absolutely do not prefer sticking to facts. You don't stick to facts! The only thing you are good at is commenting disparagingly about my posts. Not about the thread. Never about a topic. Never just making a statement of your own opinion. Not once. Ever. How sad for you.

I did not defend MSNBC. They are almost as far left as FOX is far right. I have argued that MSNBC is a direct response to FOX News. Both are badly biased, and I watch neither. If someone had started a thread specifically about misinformation and lies from MSNBC, and I agreed they were guilty of such things, I would have criticized MSNBC on that thread. This thread is about FOX. There is ample, incontrovertible evidence to illustrate FOX's chicanery on it. These are the facts to which I am sticking. Please tell me how exactly I do not stick to facts. When have I ever spread misinformation? Never. You can't find it because it never happened.

You're clueless. And the fact that you're now giving the "they did it, too" defense that you have repeatedly bashed others for using, on many different threads, is further proof that you are a world-class hypocrite.

Get a new M.O. Crying bully every time you lose an argument is getting very old.
ReverendAlobar
10/27/09
9:48 PM
clanker
10/27/09
10:36 PM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 27 2009, 09:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>



MSNBC may be perceived as being far left, but Maddow somehow comes off as being very logical and measured in what she says. I get the sense that she speaks plain truth.
citydweller
10/27/09
11:24 PM
QUOTE (clanker @ Oct 27 2009, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
MSNBC may be perceived as being far left, but Maddow somehow comes off as being very logical and measured in what she says. I get the sense that she speaks plain truth.


I have to agree, even though she really comes off as a guy, which is a little bit creepy. She clearly likes to be snarky, but "snarky" isn't the same thing as "OBAMA IS A KENYAN-BORN SOCIALIST BABY-KILLING MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE THAT'S GONNA KILL YOUR GRANMA!!!!!". She's just completely over the apoplectic ballistic antics of the Fox-right actors and wants to set things closer to straight than they've been skewed to, in her own snarky words. Olbermann could learn a thing or two from her.
Bustina di tè
10/28/09
1:00 AM		Guess we will find out with the 2010 elections who was right.
grieker
10/28/09
2:53 AM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 27 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The W.H. is trying to marginalize FOX.
The W.H. has targeted Fox.
The W.H. is trying to exclude FOX.



And all the W.H. has to do to succeed is REFUTE the "lies" and "untruths".

What better way to discredit FOX.

Unfortunately THEY CAN'T, believe me they would have by now.

ATTACK s what you do when you can no longer defend.

I'm with ja on this one.

C'MON WHITE HOUSE SPEAK.

P.S. I also just fired off an email to http://www.speaker.gov/ and asked Nancy where the outrage is to that boy from Florida calling that wokam a K Street Whore.

I thought she was tired of the rhetoric.

One-way streets still apply I guess.
Goldilocks
10/28/09
7:43 AM
QUOTE (citydweller @ Oct 27 2009, 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have to agree, even though she really comes off as a guy, which is a little bit creepy. She clearly likes to be snarky, but "snarky" isn't the same thing as "OBAMA IS A KENYAN-BORN SOCIALIST BABY-KILLING MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE THAT'S GONNA KILL YOUR GRANMA!!!!!". She's just completely over the apoplectic ballistic antics of the Fox-right actors and wants to set things closer to straight than they've been skewed to, in her own snarky words. Olbermann could learn a thing or two from her.


Maddow is a lesbian, which may be the reason she comes off as a guy.

Since Obama decided to weigh in on matters less than presidential, such as trashing a news organization, that news organizations viewership has sky rocked. Looks like it backfired on him, just as the accusation of the police acting stupid in the Gates incident. What next, a few beers in the garden with the big shots who own Fox, to patch up his mistake.

Just saying....carry on.
clanker
10/28/09
8:48 AM
QUOTE (Goldilocks @ Oct 28 2009, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Maddow is a lesbian, which may be the reason she comes off as a guy.

Since Obama decided to weigh in on matters less than presidential, such as trashing a news organization, that news organizations viewership has sky rocked. Looks like it backfired on him, just as the accusation of the police acting stupid in the Gates incident. What next, a few beers in the garden with the big shots who own Fox, to patch up his mistake.

Just saying....carry on.



What mistake? Fox viewers are always spouting off how important their channel is, how the ratings are through the roof. Why then is it a mistake for the WH to address the issue of this important entertainment show causing divisivness and unrest through it's lies and innuendo? A segment of society is being mislead by this propoganda and it's a good idea to call them on it, to point out that they have a long history of mean spirited bias and function to stir up fear and hate. Addressing it hasn't backfired, just the opposite. It's brought the issue out into discussion and the more we really look at Fox, the more people see it for what it really is. But like I said before, I hope Fox stays on track and keeps the wingnuts marginalized through the next election cycle.
ArtVandolay
10/28/09
9:02 AM
QUOTE (ReverendAlobar @ Oct 27 2009, 05:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not implying that it's not censorship because of it's rate of occurrence. It's not censorship because it does not fit the definition of censorship. Excluding someone from conducting an interview is not censoring them. I didn't get to interview Obama that Sunday. Does that mean the White House censored me? No.

I do not want to censor FOX. I would prefer they stick to facts and admit when they are wrong, you know, like a reputable news organization would. I would also prefer that they stop claiming to be fair and balanced when they are clearly neither.


It's not "Censorship", censorship.
Goldilocks
10/28/09
9:10 AM
QUOTE (clanker @ Oct 28 2009, 07:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What mistake? Fox viewers are always spouting off how important their channel is, how the ratings are through the roof. Why then is it a mistake for the WH to address the issue of this important entertainment show causing divisivness and unrest through it's lies and innuendo? A segment of society is being mislead by this propoganda and it's a good idea to call them on it, to point out that they have a long history of mean spirited bias and function to stir up fear and hate. Addressing it hasn't backfired, just the opposite. It's brought the issue out into discussion and the more we really look at Fox, the more people see it for what it really is.


Getting involved with issues such as the Gates debacle and now this, is a mistake, because he is the president, for goodness sake, he has far more important matters to attend to. Opening his trap on the issue has backfired, because the viewership has sky rocked. I think his intent was the opposite.

Oh and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann isn’t causing divisiveness and unrest through his lies and innuendo? Why doesn’t Obama go after them? We all know why, he wants to silence his critics.

QUOTE
But like I said before, I hope Fox stays on track and keeps the wingnuts marginalized through the next election cycle.


Another tactic of this president, marginalize and silence those who disagree with him. Sounds like some communist leaders of the past. However that may backfire as well, the more people listen to Fox, the more they may see how off base, the left is.










clanker
10/28/09
9:19 AM		I really doubt Obama himself is spending a lot of time on this and is indeed spending his time with more important matters.

QUOTE (Goldilocks @ Oct 28 2009, 09:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Another tactic of this president, marginalize and silence those who disagree with him. Sounds like some communist leaders of the past. However that may backfire as well, the more people listen to Fox, the more they may see how off base, the left is.



So it reminds you of Bush?
Bustina di tè
10/28/09
10:29 AM		Do opinion shows, on Faux Spews and MSNBO, get a pass when they use lies as the basis of those opinions?
I'm for a law that requires, Hammity, Beck, O'Reilly, Maddow, Matthews, and Oblowme to wear big red rubber ball noses when they are on the air, as a reminder that they are a bunch of posing buffoons.
Goldilocks
10/28/09
10:46 AM
QUOTE (clanker @ Oct 28 2009, 08:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I really doubt Obama himself is spending a lot of time on this and is indeed spending his time with more important matters.




So it reminds you of Bush?


Was Bush a communist or socialist ?

About Bush, he came across as a buffoon at times, and this president and his wife are no better.
ReverendAlobar
10/28/09
10:58 AM
QUOTE (ArtVandolay @ Oct 28 2009, 09:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's not "Censorship", censorship.


It's not any kind of censorship. You can't change the dictionary just because you want to pretend FOX News is the victim here.

QUOTE (Bustina di tè @ Oct 28 2009, 10:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Do opinion shows, on Faux Spews and MSNBO, get a pass when they use lies as the basis of those opinions?


It's not a question of getting a pass. They have the right to spew any demonstrably wrong opinion that they wish. And we have the right to call them out on it. So does the White House.
grieker
10/28/09
11:18 AM
QUOTE (Bustina di tè @ Oct 28 2009, 10:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Do opinion shows, on Faux Spews and MSNBO, get a pass when they use lies as the basis of those opinions?
I'm for a law that requires, Hammity, Beck, O'Reilly, Maddow, Matthews, and Oblowme to wear big red rubber ball noses when they are on the air, as a reminder that they are a bunch of posing buffoons.


If there are lies, why doesn't the White House SPEAK UP AND REBUKE THEM?

It is a simple process, really it is. When the White House hears a LIE have them, during the EVERY DAY BRIEFING from Gibbs, rebuke them instead of brushing it off?
ceejay
10/28/09
11:36 AM
QUOTE (grieker @ Oct 28 2009, 11:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If there are lies, why doesn't the White House SPEAK UP AND REBUKE THEM?

It is a simple process, really it is. When the White House hears a LIE have them, during the EVERY DAY BRIEFING from Gibbs, rebuke them instead of brushing it off?

Now, now. You know they had to fire/accept the resignation of the last "lie". biggrin.gif
clanker
10/28/09
12:18 PM
QUOTE (grieker @ Oct 28 2009, 11:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If there are lies, why doesn't the White House SPEAK UP AND REBUKE THEM?

It is a simple process, really it is. When the White House hears a LIE have them, during the EVERY DAY BRIEFING from Gibbs, rebuke them instead of brushing it off?



Fox plays rope-a-dope with the facts by presenting much of their lies as questions and then letting the viewer decide if there is any truth. It wouldn't help for Gibbs to spar with them. They should just be ignored and the public informed why they should be ignored.
ceejay
10/28/09
1:22 PM
QUOTE (clanker @ Oct 28 2009, 12:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Fox plays rope-a-dope with the facts by presenting much of their lies as questions and then letting the viewer decide if there is any truth. It wouldn't help for Gibbs to spar with them. They should just be ignored and the public informed why they should be ignored.

Wow, you are right! That is just HORRIFYING that Fox would actually let the viewers decide if there is any truth!!!! blink.gif

And of course, Democratic voters need to gather together (a la Jim Jones!) to be TOLD why they should avoid anyone saying anything that the Administration doesn't want them to hear. Is that where they dispense the kool-aid?
grieker
10/28/09
1:38 PM
QUOTE (clanker @ Oct 28 2009, 12:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Fox plays rope-a-dope with the facts by presenting much of their lies as questions and then letting the viewer decide if there is any truth. It wouldn't help for Gibbs to spar with them. They should just be ignored and the public informed why they should be ignored.



Fox plays rope-a-dope with the facts.

SPECIFICS please.

Gibbs sparring the way he does is like my saying that everyone dies within six months of their birthday!

Give me specifics.
clanker
10/28/09
2:16 PM
QUOTE (grieker @ Oct 28 2009, 01:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Fox plays rope-a-dope with the facts.

SPECIFICS please.

Gibbs sparring the way he does is like my saying that everyone dies within six months of their birthday!

Give me specifics.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqdtZlec0s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXJIV4f4ZQ0...feature=related
clanker
10/28/09
7:47 PM		http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-frank...x_b_337043.html

Pretty much sums things up.
grieker
10/29/09
7:51 AM
QUOTE (clanker @ Oct 28 2009, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-frank...x_b_337043.html

Pretty much sums things up.


Great source - didn't see anything specific in there however I will look at the youtube you attached later.

Thanks
View Topic | Comment on this blog
Home | News | Sports | Business | Entertainment | Lifestyle | Opinion | Spanish | Classifieds | Jobs | Homes | Autos
Terms of Service | Contact Us | Ephrata Review | Lititz Record | Lancaster Farming
Copyright 2004-2009