FuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4211 times:
I absolutely agree with the White house 100% for going on the offensive against the so-called "News Network" Fox. It's so disgusting to sit back and listen to them pushing this GOP, ultra conservative agenda, then when they get accused of not being an actual news source, their feelings get hurt, and they call the accusations "childish" and "outrageous". I think it's safe to say that watching fox news is more like watching VH1 than watching BBC.
TheGov From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 408 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4200 times:
I think the fact that you are referencing MSNBC says a lot. As I see it, Fox is on one end of the political spectrum while MSNBC is on the other end. Just look at Keith Olbermann. I've always said that Bush could rescue an old lady from a burning house and Keith would say that he set the fire just to prove he could save someone. But Obama, on the other hand, could steal the same old lady's wallet and Keith would praise him for teaching her about redistribution of wealth.
So for me, the White House should beat a retreat and let the public decide who and what to believe. The more the White House talks about Fox, the more attention Fox gets.
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2018 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4171 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter): I absolutely agree with the White house 100% for going on the offensive against the so-called "News Network" Fox
Are you for real? Your use of an MSNBC story is like saying "the New York Yankees Suck." Source: www.bostonredsocks.com
I mean how blind are you? I find it amazing that you have no problem with the WH attempting to silence a media outlet they don't agree with. Have you ever heard of such people as Castro? Chavez? Kim Jong-il? They do the same thing.
Have you ever heard of Bush trying to shut up CNN? How about Clinton doing the same? Never. But Obama comes along and tries his best to quell his opponents that have every right to the freedom of speech and the press.
And you agree with it. You can call Fox news VH1 all you want, it's your right, and it's your right not to watch it. But an attempt to shut it down shows that they are afraid of it for a reason.
If Fox is nothing more than just a bunch of political hacks, then as the party in charge of EVERYTHING but the Supreme Court (for now) can just choose to ignore them and work on their plans to transform this country. Instead, they choose to fight a "war" trying to suppress free speech and press.
And, yes, once again, you agree with that.
Did you know Taylor Swift has a STAR to BNA named after her? No, I'm not kidding.
Fr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4156 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter): I absolutely agree with the White house 100% for going on the offensive against the so-called "News Network" Fox.
Why? Because Fox News disagrees with your point-of-view. But CNN, MSNBC and the others all see the world the way you do, so they're OK?
Unfortunately, news sservices are biased. It's just the way it is. It has always been this way. I was rather surprised as I read "Ben Franklin: An American Life", by Walter Isaacson, as to how biased the media has always been. And how vitriolic politics has always been. Mud-slinging was not invented in the 20th or 21st centuries.
You know how The White House could counter Fox News? By presenting the truth. But guess what? They're not willing, because, in my humble opinion, that's the last thing The White House wants out there.
I almost puked when Axelrod says FOX is just an agency that has a point of view. (obviously a Republican one)
I guess he doesn't watch his own cheerleaders. I mean if CNN isn't pro Obama I am Sugar Ray Leonard. Give me break already. The country is turning on the WH not because of the FOX but because you are a bunch of idiots that are failing big time and it has nothing to do with FOX or anybody else.
FuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4142 times:
Quoting TheGov (Reply 2): I think the fact that you are referencing MSNBC says a lot.
I'm not refferencing anything. I was actually on media matters ( which is a completely left wing advocacy website. They don't masquerade as a news channel), and I was reading an article that was dicussing this issue. I just so happened to find this article and toss it in there.
Again i'm not using the story, I just threw it in there because I just happened to see it on msnbc. The fact is it's been well known that they are news channel advocating for conservatives, and that's fair, it's more than completely fair. But I can't stand it when they claim "WE'RE FAIR AND BALANCED" because that is completely untrue. You know it, and I know it. If they advertise themselves as conservative media, I wouldn't care one bit, but the reason why I as well as other Liberals are constantly attacking fox news is because they claim they're a news channel, which is pushing it in opinion.
To say they are being attacked by Obama because they don't agree with his policies are an understatement. We've seen instances where they actually advocate and advertise for certain right wing rallies (see Glenn Beck and 9/12 rallies). They skew the news they recieve and report it how they want because that's they're agenda.
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
Seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 10716 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4139 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): Frankly it goes to show what a propaganda driven machine the Obama press corp is.
So, the pot calling the kettle black is.... what? Bad? Are we just supposed to keep up the charade that FOX is a real and credible news source? After all these years of Bush praising from them, why can't something like this be said?
Like I have been saying all along: The main reason I have a huge problem with FOX is they say they are fair and balance, but they are all about abolishing the Democratic party! How the hell is that "fair and balanced?" Because they give face time to left wingers? Because they have left wingers on the shows, even thought they don't allow them to say anything? Fair and balanced, my eye. Let the WH call a spade a spade, for pete's sake.
Zone1 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1034 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4120 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 7): They skew the news they recieve and report it how they want because that's they're agenda.
That may be true and can be debated, but it's not the job of the White House to call them out on it. The job of the White House is to make sure the stimulus is working and the such. They have more important things to do. Instead of whining why doesn't the White House just make available more people for interview on Fox News Sunday or something? Sitting back and whining about things doesn't help their position.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8369 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4097 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 7): The fact is it's been well known that they are news channel advocating for conservatives, and that's fair, it's more than completely fair. But I can't stand it when they claim "WE'RE FAIR AND BALANCED" because that is completely untrue.
I find opposing viewpoints far more often on Fox New programs than on their competitors. I don't watch Olbermann very often, but I can't remember when he had a conservative on and debate with him. Sure, Fox leans right, but they at least acknowledge that some people disagree and allow them to air their opinions.
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 8): The main reason I have a huge problem with FOX is they say they are fair and balance, but they are all about abolishing the Democratic party! How the hell is that "fair and balanced?"
I want a quote for that. Sourced.
Even the left-leaning press is saying that the Obama administration has gone off its rocker on this issue.
Here's one from The Nation - hardly a bastion of conservatism:
You have the well-established fact that most of the media is liberal and that Fox is the single right-of center voice on TV, and the Obama administration has given themselves the mission of silencing such opposition. This is all punishment of course for having broken the ACORN story and exposed the various self-avowed communists and radicals in the administration. Gosh - I thought that was the press's job - to keep an eye on our politicians.
And of course, MSNBC would never call Bush a fascist...
WarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7645 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4079 times:
I do not think the White House should have spoken up like it did either, there are so many ways to use surrogates and to stay out of the mess directly. Now as far as Fox being fair and balanced, NOT SO you could notice. I have no problem with what they show or say, but to use that claim is ridiculous. I watched a little the other night, it was so skewed to the right, it would be like saying that Pravda was Democratic during the USSR days, or even today.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
FuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4079 times:
Quoting Zone1 (Reply 9): Sitting back and whining about things doesn't help their position.
You're right, but just how long can they sit back and watch as fox news unfairly attacks and attacks the president and his policies from their skewed point of view? As a lot of people on A-Net have stated, fox's viewers are increasing by the weeks and that's just gonna give them more motivation to skew the news even more. Some of these attacks obviously are fair, but some make absolutely no sense and are used as a scare tactic against the democratic party.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): This is all punishment of course for having broken the ACORN story and exposed the various self-avowed communists and radicals in the administration.
How come fox never breaks any other curruption in the gov't? Oh that's right, they only latch on to stories that hurt the image of the Obama admin. Acorn? they latched on to that and rode it for about six months, and they've made up their mind that they'll go after everyone in the Obama admin (Beck said it). If they've ever said a swear word in the past or has made a mistake any one of us as humans has made, they'll use it against them and they will drive that point home. Now, does that sound like a news channel, or a propoganda news source?
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4042 times:
I was in a certain S American city recently and the hotel had both CNN and Fox. I got the impression that if I wanted actual information I had best try CNN, if I wanted to hear folk shouting, then Fox would do just fine. I watched enough just to know what it is that fires the Fox supporters on a.net. In a word, it seems to be hatred - sui generis at that.
However critics of the Fox saga might be best leaving it to self destruct. I suspect News Ltd must be a great deal closer to the bone than its Emperor cares to admit. Why else would he pick China to make a speech stating that News will charge for Web content. After he had been apprised of how much competition he faces in the English language from the BEEB and the ABC, he had recast from charging for everything to charging for the extras - as if anyone will want News corp extras!!!
There were two media dynasties in Aus. Packer and Murdoch. The Packer one decided to go into betting and is busy losing its shirt (congratulations to Las Vegas for this service to mankind) and I wonder if the Murdoch one is not close to self destructing. It has tried to do this before but struggled through, eventually the Murdoch bets will lose. No, you are correct, I have never forgiven Murdoch's father for opposing the appointment of Monash to command the Australian force in France in WWI - if you are going to hold a grudge, you might as well make it a good one.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 20474 posts, RR: 56 Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4034 times:
When you start claiming that setbacks for Obama are "victories for Fox Nation", you've pretty much lost your status as a proper news organization. So it's hard for me to defend Fox, who is leading the ever-continuing downward spiral of news coverage. Of course, MSNBC is tripping over themselves in an effort to follow Fox, and CNN would like to follow but really can't. So they're hardly blameless.
So no, the White House isn't wrong for calling out Fox, but I'm not convinced that it's really the best course of action. It's very troubling, because the proper functioning of the political system depends on an accurate and impartial media, and we're rapidly losing ours.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Herctech From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4028 times:
There are a lot of good points from both sides on this, I personally think it is a bad idea for government to come out a criticize the media in such a way.
But lets face it, both FOX and MSNBC are just as bad as one another, only from opposite sides of the political spectrum, and I dont think there is a true middle ground, in the United States anyway. I suppose that the best way to get a more balanced approach to political events(federally mostly) is to go to a credible outside source, the BBC for example. As for more opinionated journalism, well thats where the Fox's and MSNBC's fall in.
I must take issue with this quote though:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 4): I mean how blind are you? I find it amazing that you have no problem with the WH attempting to silence a media outlet they don't agree with. Have you ever heard of such people as Castro? Chavez? Kim Jong-il? They do the same thing.
Uh, maybe its time to take off that tinfoil hat of yours, the WH criticized FOX because they disagree with their stance and attacks(including some very personal ones) on the government. Please, please explain to me how this is some form of censure, or even an outright attempt to silence or shut down this media outlet. Its a criticism, not the best idea to do it(in my opinion), but that is all it is, a CRITICISM!!
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4027 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 15): So no, the White House isn't wrong for calling out Fox, but I'm not convinced that it's really the best course of action. It's very troubling, because the proper functioning of the political system depends on an accurate and impartial media, and we're rapidly losing ours.
But you do have the fairly admirable PBS - even if it is a little tainted by having to get ad revenue. Still streets ahead.
One recent attack from the "free" press is to demand that our ABC publish salaries of ABC presenters. The ABC is refusing on the grounds that it does not wish to make poaching its staff easier. Here we see the "commercial" media as being rather desperate. Maybe the US will prove to be different, but look at the strife in your main line newspapers, so likely the TV is under stress too. Relax and enjoy their pain would be one strategy???
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 20474 posts, RR: 56 Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4016 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 17): But you do have the fairly admirable PBS - even if it is a little tainted by having to get ad revenue. Still streets ahead.
PBS does not have to get ad revenue - they do have underwriting spots, but those aren't really the same as ads.
They also get perceived as having a liberal bias, though they're nowhere near the realm of MSNBC. But the one thing you can't deny about them is that you won't really find any of the sensationalism that you will find on the cable "news" channels.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4002 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 19): But the one thing you can't deny about them is that you won't really find any of the sensationalism that you will find on the cable "news" channels.
If you have Aus ABC no ad purity in front of you every day (and night) even the PBS "underwriters" come across as ads. I did say "a little tainted" more to cover myself when someone other than you Mir decided to tell me they too have ads (the bit I like on Lehrer is "People like you"). The other bit that is great is the usually excellent segments we get when you guys go off to your pledge sessions. For some reason, they are the best segments on the program, you just never know what they will be, or at least here you do not!! But if you want NEWS, then Lehrer seems a heck of an advance on most other US things around. With CNN there are headlines, repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated. Just as the tiems starts on something beyond the froth "we cross now to..." Those programs are made for gnats I fear, and in the case of Fox, savage gnats with a bad attitude.
What you poor folk don't generally know is how cut the items you get can be. Our more than slightly tainted by ads but nevertheless totally admirable SBS news shows many of the items BUT IN FULL (or at least a great deal more full) and commonly you get a very different impression. One way and another, the US is badly served for news. And it shows. Here even the commercial TV has to watch its Ps and Qs because just a flick away is some real news on ABC or SBS. Even then they are pretty awful. And ABC has its sins too. Though it also runs Media Watch that tries to keep everyone at least accountable. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/
The current program available on that link, should give some pause. Mark Scott, head of ABC think the current media conglomerates are in trouble. Who am I to argue with him. Worth a watch.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12675 posts, RR: 13 Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3964 times:
All Presidential Administrations have tried to control the news media in various ways to sustain power or to influence the public as to there views. Some will develop more with those networks more willing to support them or get their view out, Fox News did so by supporting Pres. Bush, MSNBC with Obama. The FOX News clearly is not supporting Obama and Democrats, seeing more revenue from presenting news with a view toward the 30% of Americans who are strong Republicans and 10% who are Republican leaning.
The major news channels, MSNBC, FOX and CNN, all have their biases they have developed over the last decade in part to attract the revenue from viewers. I wish they would go back to real news, without strong 'personalities'. We get too much of personal opinions and a perverse form of 'entertainment' and not real information we as citizens need to influence our political leaders. Instead of following 'baloon boy' or a 'missing white woman' (ie: local crimes), we need time devoted in detail to how the economy is affecting children and women or really the public at large. We need detailed coverage of what the various health care proposals and not of wingnuts at town halls who are shouting down politicians as didn't get accurate and unbiased information. We need to see a lot more coverage of our military activities in Iraq and Afganistan. We need more moderates and centerists in our media and getting attention and not extrmeists on either side.
Still, any Presidential Administration must realize they cannot or should not try to force any news media to give them favorably biased attention as it will just backfire and just keep the current biases of those channels.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7891 posts, RR: 27 Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3960 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter): I absolutely agree with the White house 100% for going on the offensive against the so-called "News Network" Fox.
I categorically disagree. Not only does White House whining legitimize the validity of Fox's position in the market, it gives them unprecedented ability to justify themselves to their audience and drive revenues ever higher. Remember: the more these talking heads make, the bigger their egos get, and the farther they push the limits. Just look at that fathead on the radio with the $400 million contract.
Why would they even want to do that? More proof that the advisers at Team Obama are outright idiots barely crawling through their political infancy.
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter): It's so disgusting to sit back and listen to them pushing this GOP, ultra conservative agenda, then when they get accused of not being an actual news source, their feelings get hurt, and they call the accusations "childish" and "outrageous".
Their feelings are not hurt. That's more fodder for people like you to read and react to, so their ratings will go up the next time Beck or someone else blows their top. And while FOX coverage is indeed largely disgusting, it's no worse or better than the claptrap on MSNBC. One White House Press Secretary should be enough without needing an entire network to sit on the guy's back. All of it is disgusting, including your one-sided Olbermannesque take on the issue.
Could it be because there is only one government at a time? And even you have to admit that we have never had an administration bring in this many radicals or near-radicals ever before - of course it's going to be a field day.
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 12): and they've made up their mind that they'll go after everyone in the Obama admin (Beck said it).
You have a source? I watch Beck pretty often, and have never heard him say this.
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 12): If they've ever said a swear word in the past or has made a mistake any one of us as humans has made, they'll use it against them and they will drive that point home.
Being a fervent admirer of Mao, Chavez, Castro and Marx when in your 40s or 50s hardly qualifies as a youthful indiscretion. It indicates someone we don't want anywhere near the White House.
Speaking of Beck, you know of his phoneline to the white house press office, right? Excellent move for him.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 14): I was in a certain S American city recently and the hotel had both CNN and Fox. I got the impression that if I wanted actual information I had best try CNN, if I wanted to hear folk shouting, then Fox would do just fine. I watched enough just to know what it is that fires the Fox supporters on a.net. In a word, it seems to be hatred - sui generis at that.
Shouting sometimes erupts when you have two disagreeing points of view. So the argument that Fox simply spouts one side of the story goes out the window right there.
Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 Dreadnought: It's hardly 'spin' - that's what they are doing. By the way, Check the ratings. Fox News creams the competition - in many cases getting more viewers
26 Falcon84: You are correct to a point. But FOX isn't just "biased". It is practically a PR and news arm of the GOP these days. I don't see any other network nea
27 Dreadnought: Where have you been Falcon? Then why don't they come on the shows and correct the record? Beck even installed a special phone on the set and invited t
28 Falcon84: I seem to recall not much myself, with the little I can stand to watch of FOX.
29 KC135TopBoom: It is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for an administration to control the press. It makes Obama look more like Chevez than Clinton. Political op
30 Revelation: In your opinion... As a friend of mine says, "Eat Sh*t - a billion flys can't be wrong!"
31 Baroque: The "standard" setting for your two sided story seemed from a short period of observation to be one Afro-American being shouted down by three other p
32 Dreadnought: I don't suppose you are talking about the O'Reilly show where one black guest told the other black guest to "get back on the porch" because he didn't
33 Baroque: Dunno, they were all shouting at each other. Could easily be, but
34 NIKV69: Guess you turned off the TV right before Ed, Matthews, Keith and Rachel came on. You want to see some hatred. Watch them. Please, CNN was so pro Obam
35 Revelation: Ok, folks, let's do WH vs FOX, quoting from the thread starter: WH: FOX: In summary: WH: Fox isn't a news organization, it's one-sided, and it is more
36 FuturePilot16: That's a good point. I never thought of that. Maybe all this poking by fox news is just to get the W/H to respond, because Glenn Beck has already com
37 KC135TopBoom: Apparently it is the Obama WH opinion, too, as they have said they control the media. In addition to CNN and MSNBC, there is also ABC (who has an off
38 Revelation: And if the WH is correct, those who turn on Fox will see that Fox is not a news channel, it's an entertainment channel. It's been the de-facto opposi
39 Seb146: I find it hilarious that the right wing supporters are so quick to defend FOX and attack CNN and MSNBC. It is fine for one side, but not for the othe
40 LMP737: The ACORN story is a legitimate one. However when Fox tries to portray themselves as "fair and balanced" and just doing their jobs I say hooey. Where
41 Dreadnought: Let's back that up. From Pew Reasearch: http://people-press.org/report/543/ Hell, Fox gets more favorable ratings from Democrats than it gets unfavor
42 DXing: Then where were the likes of th NYT, WP, any of the major networks? Fox didn't even break this story with its own reporters, it was broken by a film
43 KC135TopBoom: You know this how? Why doesn't Obama just take is teleprompter and do it himself? That sounds like a serious medical condition. I hope you are seeing
44 Mham001: I think most have missed the worst part. When the WH is urging other news organizations to in effect, boycott Fox, they have gone far, far beyond the
45 Dreadnought: Better yet, Axelrod's other message was pretty clear: CNN had better not repeat stories that come out of Fox (like the ACORN thing, Van Jones etc), o
46 FuturePilot16: Ohhh, that's a great response. Did you make it up yourself or did you steal it from Rush Limbaugh? I'll take the latter.
47 AGM100: I do too , I think it shows them for the hallow week miss guided whiners that they are. And it makes me admire the Bush administration for their clas
48 Seb146: Dodging my point. You talk about presidents, I talk about GOP supporters. And, then, people get all up-in-arms when FOX is attacked? It is okay to at
49 Revelation: Actually the article says: So, what is the source of your quote above?
50 Dreadnought: I was talking about interviews with the President, who has not been on Fox in over a year. As far as his close entourage is concerned, Axelrod, Clint
51 Starbuk7: And that is the point, since you can't stand to watch it, you never saw how much O'Rielly and Hannity criticized things that the Bush administration
52 Aloha73g: I find this all to be very entertaining. The overwhelming opinion seems to be that this tactic doesn't help the White House at all. Even Helen Thomas
53 Seb146: Only if he is a Democrat, apparently. Remember when Bush went running off to Texas every month or so? Well, he was the president, after all. He deser
54 AGM100: Silly like what ? Really ? things that a year ago would have seemed silly now don't seem so silly . Like a white house communication director who rea
55 KC135TopBoom: Nice try, little boy. Yes, I listen to Rush, I even agree with him about 80% of the time. I never quote him. So, yes, I made it up myself. Just in ca
56 Dreadnought: A president is 100% capable of doing his job at Camp David, the White House, and whatever residence of his choosing - in the case of Bush, his Crawfo
57 QANTAS077: anyone here who watches FOX and thinks that Murdoch & News Ltd have news as their main interest is kidding themselves...his crap in the US is no diff
58 AGM100: No were not .. we are capable of listening to FOX , BBC , CBS , PBS , and many other sources to get info. This is a common tactic .... make FOX viewe
59 N229nw: Best summary. Of course, there are media outlets besides TV. I've long been unable to stomach any American TV "news." I can't understand how anyone c
60 Revelation: I find FOX's rhetoric about themselves being a "nation" facing "war" with "enemies" to be counter productive. Oh well, as Henry Kissinger once said,
61 Dreadnought: Like hell. I've lived in Europe for 20 years, and people who consider Mao to be their primary philosophical influence would be considered far-left ev
62 Dreadnought: Here it is: Car Czar Ron Bloom: “The free market is nonsense….This is largely about power….We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes
63 AGM100: Sad really , Ya Glenn Beck opened a can on him yesterday . Where do these people come from ?? My guess ... career academics , never making a payroll
64 Seb146: No. What I was trying to say is that FOX attacks him on BOTH the issues AND on the "fluff" stuff. Then why the whole brou-ha-ha when Obama spent time
65 Dreadnought: That's not his residence. At a residence, the White House staff has the time to set up everything on a semi-permanent basis - for the next 4 to 8 yea
66 AGM100: My hope is that democrats take a hard look at the differences . I believe that most Americans are free-market , fiscal conservative types who want re
67 Baroque: So why are the markets so corrupt? And why so little interest in making them less corrupt - see Aarons thread?
68 AGM100: Frankly , if you look at the main players responsible for the "corruption" you will see that they are usually quasi government / private companies (
69 Baroque: I had not realised that Madoff was quasi government, nor that Raj Rajaratnam and his firm were part of government, just shows how isolated we are her
70 Santosdumont: This is one of those issues where the unquestionable "buzz" (as in booze, not as in media) that the White House will get in the short run by "targetin
71 Dreadnought: Buckley is deeply missed, but then you have all the democrats (and many Republicans) saying that Reaganism and the Buckley brand of Conservatism is d
72 Santosdumont: More important than anybody saying this type of conservatism is no more, you have high-profile Republican figures like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly ac
73 Dreadnought: Please explain that. (I consider this back on-topic - they are Fox News personalities).
74 Santosdumont: Easy. Compare and contrast these individuals' reliance on sheer loudness in their attempts to get their point across. If that (turning up the volume)
75 Dreadnought: Irrelevant. Sure they may have annoying mannerisms, but how do they prove that Reagan/Buckley Conservatism is dead?
76 AGM100: The FM's alone carried nearly a trillion dollars worth of toxic asset's ..... who are the FM's ? Huge Obama supporters , Barney Franks boy friend CEO
77 MSNDC9: Do you actually watch Fox News or are you simply regurgitating the views of ultra left hack Keith Olberman? Open your eyes buddy. Must be a B... havi
78 Santosdumont: Not only relevant, but central to the issue. And this is much more encompassing than "mannerisms". They prove that Reagan/Buckley conservatism is dea
79 Dreadnought: Santos, you are dealing in irrelevancies - or to be more precise, you are concentrating on Style over Substance. I don't care how childish/persuasive
80 Santosdumont: First and foremost, all three entertainers have co-opted the religious right's key talking points. O'Reilly's annual harangue about the "war on Chris
81 MSNDC9: I'm not so sure there isn't an unprising in our future. There's a lot of really pissed off people right now who have had it with where the GOP has go
82 Dreadnought: I disagree. I would think libertarians would have a serious problem with the way any mention of Christianity is being exterminated from the public ar
83 Santosdumont: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal But the virtue the Founders envisioned is the furthest thing from what the religious right is peddli
84 KPDX: To me this is a blatantly obvious ploy to divert attention away from the Obama administration, and this comes from me (a independant).
85 Okie: This is not an attack on Fox News This is an attack on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC that if they do not tow the line as to what the the White-house wants then t
86 Seb146: The National Socialist Party had never been a voice in the United States. And, my hope is Republican supporters and mouthpieces do the same. My quest
87 Cpd: I don't think the big commercial news networks need any protection. They are flat out hunting down (and attacking) the likes of the BBC, ABC and othe
88 Columba: For me as an observer from Europe who knows German and British media as well as American media I can say that Fox News is the most biased network in a
89 Dreadnought: Guys, after the administration critisizes Fox for not being a news service because it has opinions, Obama went and talked to Keith Olbermann and Rache
90 Seb146: So? I thought this was interesting. It is an exchange between Jake Tapper from ABC and press secratary Robert Gibbs: Tapper: "I'm not talking about t
91 Dreadnought: They are allowed to have opinions, no problem. But when they call for a boycott of Fox News, give veiled but not-so-subtle threats to other news serv
92 AGM100: Your opinion .. but there are Americans who choose to watch it. And to be honest its not true ..every show I watch on FOX usually has pundits from bo
93 Seb146: So, now, it is because of the administration? I thought it was because he is a wing nut. Which story is it? No. It's more like Starbucks: Put the pro
94 KC135TopBoom: So, you think the BBC, CBC, CNN, or MSNBC are not biased? What planet have you been getting your news from? YYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
95 Seb146: This is interesting: http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_b...ets_okay_to_misinform_public.html# From the end of the article: "The attorneys for Fox, ow
96 AGM100: The President is meeting with the personalities from MSNBC today ... in the white house .... did you know that ? They are a arm of the DNC ..the CEO
97 MSNDC9: Apparently you aren't familiar with their current platform and how the party in charge is following to the letter.
98 Cpd: Ah, however, the BBC (much like its Australian counterpart ABC) is accountable, while the others are not. The BBC is in some ways more like a public
99 Dreadnought: Today, the White House called in the Press Pool to interview Ken Feinberg, but expressly forbidding Fox News from participating. NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN
100 DXing: ???? I've lived in 5 different States and several different areas in those States in the east. MSNBC has always been a part of the basic cable packag
101 RayChuang: Sheesh. The Obama Administration attacking the Fox News Channel has turned counterproductive because they sent FNC ratings through the roof in the pas
102 Dreadnought: I think you are talking about CNBC, the business network. They can hardly give MSNBC away.
103 FuturePilot16: Proof fox news is nothing but a propoganda network. (This is from media matters which is an admitted liberal website and not a liberal website masquer
104 Dreadnought: Repeat it all you want - it does not make it true. If you want to convince us that it's true, how about explaining why they are not a news service. D
105 FuturePilot16: That's funny. Because the more Fox Entertainment repeatedly calls Obama a fascist and a nazi and a socialist the more you think it's true. There's yo
106 Baroque: And the point of doing this would be??? t is a common fallacy (see List of fallacies) to---in an ad hominem attack---accuse someone of being a hypocr
107 Dreadnought: Nothing in your rant gives any credence to the fact that in adition to a number of commentators, Fox has a sizable straight news organization, just l
108 Seb146: I, personally, get this all the time on this board. I hear it all the time in the media as well. If FOX really is "fair and balanced" (as they say) l
109 EA772LR: You need to crawl out of that cave and turn on MSNBC...good God!! There are times when you can't even see Olbermann or Maddow's faces they're so far
110 Windy95: A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans. “It’s a mistake
111 MSNDC9: Glenn Beck is not a newscaster. Or do you not understand this?
112 DXing: You're right. Name a network that did what you say that Fox did not do. Not commentators like Olbermann and Madow but actual news stories using verif
113 AGM100: So you think that someone who is a liberal .... can turn on FOX and be transformed into a conservative ? Do you really believe that they have that ki
114 AGM100: I am also thank-full that FOX reported that GOP presidential hopeful Tim Paulenty supports the " Cap and Raid" bill .... There is no way I can vote fo
115 L-188: Apparently all of the other five Washington Bureau chiefs told the Obama administration to stick it. The White House wanted to run out Kenneth Feinber
116 Incitatus: Those of you thinking that Fox News and the White House disagree - Have you ever seen Hannity spelling out what he wants to see in a Health Care bill?
117 Windy95: Insert MSNBC,NBC,ABC,CBS in the liberal manner negative Bush manner.
118 EA772LR: Where do Liberals come up with this crap?? When MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN all are literally in Obama's back pocket, thank God there is a FOX NEWS to b
119 KC135TopBoom: Which are you talking about? Fox Entertainment has nver said anything, good or bad about Obama, they are the Entertainment division, you know TV show
120 Cws818: No, a majority of voters did. Wow. Perhaps you should give decaf a try.
121 EA772LR: You left out this part of my quote: " and more Americans took the time to vet this clown of a president." The media certainly played their part in sm
122 FuturePilot16: I was being sarcastic, making a joke saying that fox should be called fox entertainment rather than fox news because, well that's what they are, an e
123 LTBEWR: " target=_blank>http://www.examiner.com/x-2927-Minne...tests As much as I despise the political positoins of Fox News, the attempt to exclude them in
124 Cws818: Whether or not a speech is "powerful" is inherently subjective - a matter of opinion. You think he gives duds at the podium, but a lot of people disa
125 Elite: In my opinion, whether Fox News is fair or not doesn't really make a difference: its that the White House shouldn't be telling people what news networ
126 KPDX: If anyone here argues that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and on and on and on, are not biased for Obama, then they shouldn't be in this thread arguing.
127 Seb146: In your opinion, everything Obama does is a mistake. Fox either gave a quick blurb about what Bush did and/or had a cheerleader there explaining why
128 AGM100: Oh ya I'm sorry .. I forgot that fact. You will all do as your told .... that is what you will do Pelosi knows it . You have a point about the type o
129 KC135TopBoom: Well, then, I guess you also would consider MSNBC to be a propoganda channel for the left wing masquerading as a news organization, too? I don't know
130 FuturePilot16: Proof that the Bush W/H attacked a News station (NBC). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJboVwW4T54&feature=player_profilepage
131 Cws818: No, a mere statement of logic. His current term has a bit over 3 years left in it. If he is reelected in 2012, then he will be president for the next
132 Seb146: And that is EXACLTY what the right-wing mouth pieces have said for years and years and years ignoring the fact that FOX does the EXACT SAME THING fro
133 Yellowstone: Yeah, about that? Turns out Fox News was (big surprise here) not telling the whole story. Here's what actually happened. Feinberg was going to give a
134 Ftrguy: " target=_blank>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJboV...epage Yes they did, and it was over two specific stories they ran. She is not demonizing the e
135 Yellowstone: In the words of Wikipedia, .