# Fox Wars



## tigerbob (Oct 28, 2009)

Interesting column from a very good writer.  I didn't live in the U.S. during the Bush administration so I don't know whether this is a new thing or not, but I personally find the stated goal of marginalizing a news network to be troubling.  

The Blair Government tried the same thing in Britain for a few years, led by uber spin doctor Alastair Campbell.  However, as that Government's policies and (stated) successes began to fray around the edges, so did the attempt to manipulate public opinion.  Obama would do well to remember that even the most partisan media outlets will only remain onside while there is plausible success to report.  When the juicy tidbits that were being fed to them are no longer palatable, all media will quite happily bite the hand that was doing the feeding.



> *Fox Wars
> by Charles Krauthammer*
> 
> The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led (by) and following Fox."
> ...


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

It's a good article. 

Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration. 

The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them. 

It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 28, 2009)

Over the top but on the mark

If you can get by the histrionics and theatrics, talk jock Glenn Beck does a nice job of weaving together what might appear to be disparate scenarios, but when viewed as a whole, leave you with the nagging feeling that Obama and his team are much further left than his campaign rhetoric led us to believe.


 I can only take so much of Beck, and catch his show only because he comes on when I'm working out on the treadmill or elliptical, and bored to death. He is as far to the right as MoveOn.org is too far to the left. (If either moved another inch they'd fall over.) Yet, now I find myself watching him for breaking news! That sounds like a bad joke.

Over the top but on the mark


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> It's a good article.
> 
> Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.
> 
> ...



I agree and disagree.  I think the media has also shot itself in the foot by moving more and more towards "opinion" journalism and less and less on simply reporting the news and on accuracy (ie - Dan Rather) - espcially reporting the news beyond sound-bite portions.  Marginalizing didn't start with Obama - the former administration had it's own battles and boycotts with news networks.  Prior to that - I don't recall it being as much of an issue.

It's not good because the media is supposed to be a watchdog and it has for some time failed miserably.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Coyote said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > It's a good article.
> ...



Yep, fair points. I would say that this Administration has taken the usual 'game' between WH and media to a whole new - and disgraceful - level. 

A lot of the problems, I think, stems from a 24/7 news cycle - too much air time is as bad as too little. Also, the blurring of lines with so many journalists voicing opinion where they should stick to facts. 

Then throw into the mix, the bias that comes from each outlet (and I mean ALL of them).

Add into that the emergence of new media - where there are no professional standards, no regulation. 

Hey Presto, we now have a mess where lies are deliberately started and regurgititated until it is not possible to distinguish between fact, opinion and pure fiction.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Well said!  I couldn't agree more on all those points.  It brings to mind the endless hours of puking speculation after, say, a disaster - nothing to report so regurgitate what we know in a hundred different ways, speculate on what we don't know and find anyone and everyone willing to give an opinion on what we think we know.

The lack of professional standards (and by extension accountability) is disturbing but I don't see any good way to address it without inhibiting a free press.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Coyote said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I currently live in the UK and even the BBC seems unable to report fact without inserting its own slant. 

I would like the press to see how vital their function is and to recognize their responsibility to their audience. Will that happen? Nope. Well, it's highly unlikely unless they realize that that is a huge part of the reason for their collapsing audience group.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



But the audience is supposed to drive it.  All mainstream media (and that includes cable) are driven by the market in terms of audience ratings more than the need for good content.  

I think collapsing audience groups which is reflected all over has more to do with the expansion of  non-traditional media and the fact that everyone can find their own media echo chamber to tune into.  If I were to be less cynical I would say it's in the process of sorting out and shaking down and something good will emerge in the end.

I also think that having so much media in the hands of a few corporate giants is a problem.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> It's a good article.
> 
> Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.



Regular viewers of FoxNews will never vote for Democrats.  Nor will they ever approve of anything a Democrat does.

Why should Obama give a shit what they think?



> The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.
> 
> It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.



The Job of a "media watchdog", as far as the executive branch goes of the US Government goes, is to find the faults with the policies of an administration, and to point them out.

FoxNews is not doing this, FoxNews is criticizing the administration no matter what it does, good or bad.

They are also blatantly making stuff up about the president, and then tying it all together in a narrative that attempts to paint the administration as a Totalitarian Socialist takeover of the United States.

That is not what a "media watchdog" does, that is what a propaganda outlet does.

When the major networks criticized past presidents, NONE of them ever called a sitting president a "Nazi" or a "Stalinist".

Such behavior would have gotten them fired, no matter who was president.

FoxNews, like it's liberal counterpart MSNBC are not "media watchdogs", they are disgusting yellow jounalist media outlets, in the true spirit of Hearst Publishing.

And Hearst Publishing was responsible for the assassination of a least one president.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > It's a good article.
> ...



If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken. 

Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President. 

Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.


----------



## Thinman (Oct 28, 2009)

"Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see."  I don't know who originally said this, Mark Twain, Will Rodgers, I'm not sure, but I remember first hearing this when I was a young man, more than half a century ago.  So, even though distrust of the press is not new, you are right about the 24 hour news cycle.  We have to decide for ourselves, on each issue, what we believe to be true.  This is why we must keep an open mind and listen to and evaluate all points of view.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.
> 
> Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.
> 
> Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.


The people are still able to get the message from the president.  But the president can chose the conduit for the message.  Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?

And just because "Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors" doesn't make Fox a legitimate news organization.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: judging a news organization's legitimacy and credibility based on ratings is like saying Foghat made better music than Mozart based on album sales.  It just is not an honest assessment.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.
> ...



Disliking Fox does not make them any less legitimate than any others. When Fox reports news, they do so with about the same professionalism as any other media organization - not that that is a particularly high standard.  It is their opinion shows that cause a stir - but that does not make them illegitimate either. Whether you like them or not is not the issue. The fact is that they are part of the WH press pool and should be treated as such. 

The issue, for the media, is that this Administration will one day be gone. If the media allow a WH to dictate terms now, then what is to stop the next one treating one of the others in the same manner?  So, if it is okay for Fox to be pushed out now, will you be equally as comfortable with a new Administration pushing out one of the others? 

Fact: The POTUS is a servant of the people - he does not dictate terms. No one elected him as God, just President - for 4 years.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


Actually, Fox does not hold much of a journalistic standard.  They have shown many times that they report directly from GOP talking points memos from the national committee, house and senate GOP caucuses and campaign press releases.  They are not gathering the news, they are regurgitating the message of one political party.

The Bush administration made similar attacks on MSNBC, the New York Times and CBS news.  It's wrong for a president to single out media outlets like this.  And it's counter productive for a president to 'punch down'.  His efforts should match his office, and lending prestige to a lesser foe is cheap.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 28, 2009)

I'm kind of torn on this issue. I don't think any network should be boycotted, but at the same time, all they do-do is bash the mother-fucker and you can't really argue that. 

Put a negative spin and speculation on everything I do in life, then ask me for a favor. tsk, tsk.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.
> 
> Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.
> 
> Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.



What the hell does anything I just said have to do with being partisan?

As I stated, in the post,* I feel MSNBC is just as bad*, in the other direction:



> FoxNews, like it's liberal counterpart MSNBC are not "media watchdogs"



And how is calling out a media outlet, or in this case, multiple media outlets, for being Yellow Journalists, "Partisan"??


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Over the top but on the mark
> 
> If you can get by the histrionics and theatrics, talk jock Glenn Beck does a nice job of weaving together what might appear to be disparate scenarios, but when viewed as a whole, leave you with the nagging feeling that Obama and his team are much further left than his campaign rhetoric led us to believe.
> 
> ...



But you have to say about Beck, he gets his facts right - whether or not the links he draws are correct - he's as accurate as hell. I wish he'd tone down the ranting and stop crying but each to their own.

Made me laugh to hear that caller on Rush's show tell him that when she called the FBI for an update on ACORN, they told her to watch Glenn Beck... even the FBI watches Beck! That's funny!


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

And I didn't say "all viewers of FoxNews are GOP", I said "regular viewers of FoxNews would not vote for Democrats".

Just like regular viewers of MSNBC would probably not vote for Republicans.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Disliking Fox does not make them any less legitimate than any others.* When Fox reports news, they do so with about the same professionalism as any other media organization* - not that that is a particularly high standard.  It is their opinion shows that cause a stir - but that does not make them illegitimate either. Whether you like them or not is not the issue. The fact is that they are part of the WH press pool and should be treated as such.



I don't think so.  Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, in one of their State of the Media reports noted that Fox reporting contained considerably more opinion mixed in with their news than other stations.  They used reporting of the Iraq War for this.  I don't find that professional.  I also think their opinion shows personality drive their news reporting rather than vice versa - there isn't a sharp enough line.  That affects their credability.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Over the top but on the mark
> ...



No, Beck doesn't.  He was the one that said Van Jones was a "convicted felon" and served time for the Rodney King riots for example.  That's just one of many errors in "facts".

(I think the FBI might have been pulling her leg)


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> The people are still able to get the message from the president.  But the president can chose the conduit for the message.  Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?



Clearly he should not, just like MSNBC did not get any interviews with President Bush in the second half of his presidency.

The President's responsibility is to tell the public what he is planning and what he is doing.  It is NOT his responsibility to show up on any specific network.



> And just because "Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors" doesn't make Fox a legitimate news organization.
> 
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: judging a news organization's legitimacy and credibility based on ratings is like saying Foghat made better music than Mozart based on album sales.  It just is not an honest assessment.



That's for sure.  Popularity sure as hell does not coincide with jouralistic accuracy in the Media business.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.
> ...



None of them are 'watchdogs', you have 'lapdogs' and one station who is biased in the other direction.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



You mean one "lap dog" and one former "lap dog"?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



It is not just Fox that has lowered their professional standards. They all have. Fox are no different. To say that one is less or more professional is ridiculous... They are all as bad as the other. 

The POTUS is supposed to be a fucking grown up. Bush was an ass with certain media outlets - that does not mean that this POTUS should do likewise. 

I had HOPEd for a CHANGE with this Administration - even if I disagree with them on policy - I had thought that Obama was more intelligent than he has shown himself to be with the media. 

He is an ass, just like his predecessor.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 28, 2009)

Talking with your enemies: good idea, or bad?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Disliking Fox does not make them any less legitimate than any others.



No, it doesn't, you're absolutely right about that.

FoxNews' inaccurate reporting of the facts combined with it's mixing of Opinion with journalism to the point where they're indistinguishable is what makes them less legitimate.

I don't like the Wall Street Journal, but I never thought it was "less legitimate" than other news sources.  In fact their level of journalistic integrity, outside the small op-ed section, was second to none.

Of course, who knows what will happen to it now that Murdoch has taken over.



California Girl said:


> When Fox reports news, they do so with about the same professionalism as any other media organization - not that that is a particularly high standard.  It is their opinion shows that cause a stir - but that does not make them illegitimate either. Whether you like them or not is not the issue. The fact is that they are part of the WH press pool and should be treated as such.



They mix opinion and news left an right.  Half the guests on the hard news shows are opinion show hosts and vice versa.

In addition, they only report news that is advantageous to the narrative they are putting forth and COMPLETELY IGNORE news that does not fit their picture.

Again, this is not just FoxNews that does this.  MSNBC is just as bad.



California Girl said:


> The issue, for the media, is that this Administration will one day be gone. If the media allow a WH to dictate terms now, then what is to stop the next one treating one of the others in the same manner?



When was the last interview George W Bush did on MSNBC?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> None of them are 'watchdogs', you have 'lapdogs' and one station who is biased in the other direction.



You were the one who implied that FoxNews was a "watchdog" in the style of "old media watchdogs".  Not I.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 28, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Talking with your enemies: good idea, or bad?



I think we should let this marinate, before responding.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Talking with your enemies: good idea, or bad?



Depends on whether my enemies have chocolate chip cookies to offer....


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> It is not just Fox that has lowered their professional standards. They all have. Fox are no different. To say that one is less or more professional is ridiculous... They are all as bad as the other.



That is completely false.

When Dan Rather brought up false information on an "Opinion" show (60 Minutes), he was FIRED IMMEDIATELY.

FoxNews lies every single day, using the title of "Opinion Show" as cover.

No other network, except for MSNBC, as we already discussed, has EVER called the president of the United States a "Nazi", a "Stalinist" or a "Racist" on air.  NOT ONCE.  If anyone on any of the major networks did such a thing, they would be fired.



> The POTUS is supposed to be a fucking grown up. Bush was an ass with certain media outlets - that does not mean that this POTUS should do likewise.



And as a grownup, it is his responsibility to punish, or disown, childish media outlets that make outrageous false claims about the president.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Talking with your enemies: good idea, or bad?



Good Idea.

Allowing your enemies to name the forum, and giving them all editing control?

Bad Idea.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Talking with your enemies: good idea, or bad?
> ...



 read minds much lately? 

(although, cookies can be good incentive)


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > None of them are 'watchdogs', you have 'lapdogs' and one station who is biased in the other direction.
> ...



I certainly did not imply that Fox are a 'watchdog'. I have stated, time and again, that I view Fox as no better and no worse than the rest. That you struggle with comprehension is not my problem. However, it does give me a better understanding of why you say what you say.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




Wow, that's strange, because I could have sworn you wrote this:



> The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. *The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them*.
> 
> It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and *the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating* and presenting alternative views.



(Emphasis added)
In the second posting of this thread.  

But apparently I'm just talking out my ass for some mysterious reason that only you seem to understand.

Hmmm.....


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

> Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?



Bullshit premise as usual..... 

a. Fox is a NETWORK
b. There are op-ed shows on Fox and there are news shows on Fox
c. They are not the same
d. The news on Fox is much more balanced than the news on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc.
e. The op-ed shows are conservative for the most part... so what?  Ever watch the "Today Show"?  That's supposed to be a news show.. it is about as left leaning and biased as they come.  What about "HEadline News"?  

Should Obama goe on Hannity?  Who cares?  But to dismiss the entire network because of Hannity is childish.  What Obama is saying is that he will only go on a station that fawns all over him and asks him his opinion of the weather.  Which in essence is to say that he has no spine.  If his policies are so well defined and defensible, then what the hell?  He should be able to take a few hard questions.

So far it has been nine months of Fox this and Fox that and blame Bush.  He's looking very small and very childish,


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > It's a good article.
> ...



Kerry On!


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.
> ...


*And again I will point out to you, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there will anyone hear it fall?*

Kerry On!


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



90% of FoxNews and MSNBC programming is "Opinion".  In addition their "Opinion" invades every other aspect of their programming, all 10% of it, by having "Opinion" hosts interpret the news they do happen to report.

In addition, in the short time they allot to actual news reporting, the Channels cherry-pick a few stories that back up the narrative they are trying to convey that day.

Usually neither channel blatanly tells a lie in their actual news reporting, *they just lie through omission, by only reporting events that support their opinion, and nothing else.*


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > None of them are 'watchdogs', you have 'lapdogs' and one station who is biased in the other direction.
> ...



Yep,, It was fox who investigated ACORN and the CZARS and that's what has pissed off the wh.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




OK:
1.  Don't edit my posts, thanks.  
You and your buds attacked me for like 2 days for leaving out portions of your posts when I first joined these boards, so why don't you take your own advice.

and

2.  As was stated, multiple times now, I hold MSNBC in the same contempt, so your attempt to pass this off as some kind of partisan attack is a ludicrous argument.

But hey, you've always been one to try and "Bush the Boundaries" of truth.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > It is not just Fox that has lowered their professional standards. They all have. Fox are no different. To say that one is less or more professional is ridiculous... They are all as bad as the other.
> ...



too fucking funny.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

> 90% of FoxNews and MSNBC programming is "Opinion".



I wholeheartedly disagree... the NEWS segments on Fox are very well balanced.. much more so than anything on MSNBC or the so called majors.

Like I said, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc... totally different story. Then again, they are not news shows... and they will be the first to admit it. So, who cares?  That's why I don't watch Olberman... or Maher... or Maddow....  Or O'Reilly... or Geraldo...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

And most of all.... I don't watch that PSYCHO Nancy Grace.  I mean really.. WTF is wrong with that woman??


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


Ever actually watch what passes for reportage on Fox?  Ever see Glenn "I wish I had paid attention in school" Beck try to dissect the Obama administration?  Fox is a propaganda outlet, not a news gathering organization.

And still I contend that judging a news organization based on ratings is like saying McDonald's food is superior to all other cuisine based on french fry sales.  I don't understand your "Talking Points" comment.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Absolutely right. This Administration - more than all the others - brooks no dissent from the populus. I hope it comes back to bite him in the ass. Hard.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

> And as a grownup, it is his responsibility to punish, or disown, childish media outlets that make outrageous false claims about the president.



Oh God.. wher to start dissecting this lunacy?

It is the president's responsibility to "punish" the media?  To "disown" them???  Like what outrageous, fake claims?   WTF is wrong with you?  In the words of Wayne Campbell... "are you mental"????


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Yep,, It was fox who investigated ACORN and the CZARS and that's what has pissed off the wh.




Yes, there are Czars.  Reagan started with them, and Bush had more than Obama.  
What's your point exactly?

And ACORN.  Wow, FoxNews got ONE story right.  I guess that makes them the most credible news station on the planet, eh?

How about the WMD story?  They sure did get that wrong.

Or the Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq story?  Yeah, they got that one wrong too.

Or when they reported that the insurgency in Fallujah was just a "flash in the pan" that would "last a few days"?  Wrong again.

But I guess some members of ACORN being corrupt was just a much more important story than any of those.

After all, those other stories didn't do much, just helped us get into a war.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree... the NEWS segments on Fox are very well balanced.. much more so than anything on MSNBC or the so called majors.
> 
> Like I said, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc... totally different story. Then again, they are not news shows... and they will be the first to admit it. So, who cares?  That's why I don't watch Olberman... or Maher... or Maddow....  Or O'Reilly... or Geraldo...




Here's a question.

Prime time is from 8 PM to 11 PM.

What fills those time slots?

And please don't try to compare either FoxNews or MSNBC to any other channel, both are partisan as hell.  

The only saving grace MSNBC has over Fox is that they don't pretend to be "Fair and Balanced", but that doesn't really make me respect them any more.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

> Ever actually watch what passes for reportage on Fox? Ever see Glenn "I wish I had paid attention in school" Beck try to dissect the Obama administration?



My God you people are mental.....  

Ok, let's try this again... GLENN BECK IS NOT A NEWS SHOW.  GLENN BECK IS AN OPION SHOW.  HE CAN SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS.  IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CONSTRUED AS NEWS, EXCEPT BY AN IDIOT.

Good fucking grief.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

> Prime time is from 8 PM to 11 PM.
> 
> What fills those time slots?



a.  I have no Earthly clue what fill sthese slots.
b.  What does this have to do with Fox news shows?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

Seinfeld comes on at 8, sometimes Family Guy....  relevance?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

House on some chanels.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



what part of what Beck says is incorrect?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 28, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with point A.  Fox is a network.

I'll go along with point B.  There are op-ed shows on Fox.

I concur that point C is valid.  They are not the same.

It's point D that goes over the brink.  The news on Fox is much more balanced than the news on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc.

How on earth can you say that with any credibility, intellectual honesty or a straight face?  More balanced?  According to what measure?

And it's waaaay beyond Sean Hannity.   Listen objectively to the Fox commentators and tell us how "fair and balanced" they truly are.

Putting words into the president's mouth serves your purpose well.  "What Obama is saying is that he will only go on a station that fawns all over him and asks him his opinion of the weather.  Which in essence is to say that he has no spine."  But it points out your obvious bias and lack of intellectual curiosity.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



"News gathering organization"? WTF? None of them are 'news gathering organizations'! 

This is the sort of post that makes me realize that there is no further point in debate. Some just don't know enough about the function of the news media to debate with. No offense intended.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > I wholeheartedly disagree... the NEWS segments on Fox are very well balanced.. much more so than anything on MSNBC or the so called majors.
> ...



what, in your view makes Fox unbalanced?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 28, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > Ever actually watch what passes for reportage on Fox? Ever see Glenn "I wish I had paid attention in school" Beck try to dissect the Obama administration?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is supposed to be construed as at least _true_.  And that's where Glenn "I cry because it boosts my ratings" Beck falls short.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

> Which in essence is to say that he has no spine." But it points out your obvious bias and lack of intellectual curiosity.



No, it points out that a person with a clearly defensible position hasn't  a need to ensure that he only gets questioned by a sympathetic third party.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > And as a grownup, it is his responsibility to punish, or disown, childish media outlets that make outrageous false claims about the president.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, I don't know claims like:

"Obama is a Nazi." - Glenn Beck

"Obama is a Stalinist." - Sean Hannity

"Obama is a racist with a deep seated hatred of white people" - Glenn Beck

"The Health Care Plan is a plot to bring Nazi Eugenics to America". - Glenn Beck  

"The National Debt is a plot by the Obama administration to increase the power of the executive branch in an attempt to turn America into a Totalitarian State" - That fat black guy from Fox Business Channel

Do you need more?

And just because these claims are made on "Opinion" shows, doesn't mean that FoxNews isnt' still making the claims.

They do not run any retractions, do they?


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Yep,, It was fox who investigated ACORN and the CZARS and that's what has pissed off the wh.
> ...



???


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 28, 2009)

> It is supposed to be construed as at least true. And that's where Glenn "I cry because it boosts my ratings" Beck falls short.



My Dad was right... don't argue with fools.

Buh bye.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > > And as a grownup, it is his responsibility to punish, or disown, childish media outlets that make outrageous false claims about the president.
> ...



What is it about obamalama that makes you think he is not a Marxist?


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > It is not just Fox that has lowered their professional standards. They all have. Fox are no different. To say that one is less or more professional is ridiculous... They are all as bad as the other.
> ...



Wrong on the 'immediately' and the 'fired':

Poynter Online - Dan Rather Timeline and Resources

*September 8, 2004
*60 Minutes II report on President George W. Bush's Air National Guard service. (Poynter Online coverage)

*November 23, 2004*
Dan Rather announces his retirement as anchor of the CBS Evening News.

*March 9, 2005
*Dan Rather *retires as the anchor* of the CBS Evening News.

*June 20, 2006*
Sean McManus, president of CBS News and Sports, announces that Dan Rather will be leaving CBS. 

July 11, 2006
It is announced that Dan Rather will produce and host Dan Rather Reports for HDNet.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Congressional Budget Office and Politifact debunk Glenn Beckâs âliesâ: Clean energy economy costs only a postage stamp a day « Climate Progress

Beck falsely accused Reid of lying about support for public option | Media Matters for America

Achenblog - Glenn Beck, Time and Media Matters [Updated]

Should I go on?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 28, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > It is supposed to be construed as at least true. And that's where Glenn "I cry because it boosts my ratings" Beck falls short.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well argued.  Just like a trapped animal, you'll chew off your own foot before admitting your mistake.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...


Try the actual defintion of "Marxist" for starters.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...





not necessary, media matters is all you had to say.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



and?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > Prime time is from 8 PM to 11 PM.
> >
> > What fills those time slots?
> 
> ...



YOu disagreed that 90% of FoxNews is "Opinion" programming.  Thus the question.

Here's the lineup during all the hours people might be not working and watching:

5:00 - Glenn Beck (Opinion)
6:00 - Bret Baier (Opinion)
7:00 - Sheppard Smith (News)
8:00 - Bill O'Reilly (Opinion)
9:00 - Hannity (Opinion)
10:00 - Greta Van Sustren (Opinion)
11:00 - Bill O'Reilly (Opinion)

So, one out of eight shows on their most-watched lineup are Opinion.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

And now I remember why I commented in my first post in this thread.  It is impossible to have a discussion about news without some blithering idiots who can't tell the difference between a 'commentator' (Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) and 'news'. 

If you cannot differentiate, then there is no point in discussing the issues surrounding the sorry state of US news media.


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 28, 2009)

Main Entry: Marx·ism 
Pronunciation: \&#712;märk-&#716;si-z&#601;m\
Function: noun 
Date: 1887
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

&#8212; Marx·ist  \-sist\ noun or adjective 
Marxism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Sounds like Obama to me.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Annie said:


> Wrong on the 'immediately' and the 'fired':
> 
> Poynter Online - Dan Rather Timeline and Resources
> 
> ...



Except that as we all founud out later, said "Retirement" was forced.

Which is why Dan Rather sued CBS later on.

Oh, and a month is pretty damn immediate, compared to the FoxNews history of *NEVER *firing people for passingn false information.


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong on the 'immediately' and the 'fired':
> ...



6 months does not equal 1 month. He did not sue for firing, he sued for not being given air time on 60 minutes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/business/media/20cbs.html?pagewanted=print


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> And now I remember why I commented in my first post in this thread.  It is impossible to have a discussion about news without some blithering idiots who can't tell the difference between a 'commentator' (Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) and 'news'.
> 
> If you cannot differentiate, then there is no point in discussing the issues surrounding the sorry state of US news media.



I can surely tell the difference between a "Commentator" and a "Journalist".  

Apparently, however, you don't understand the concept of "Synergy", especially where it applies to having all your news and comments adhere to a specific narrative.

Also you appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of "Lying by Omission".

I would suggest reading Ken Auletta, he describes the concept of "Synergy" quite well, epecially in relation to the Synergy between Media and Advertisers.

I would also suggest you try another tactic to argue this point, because calling people who disagree with you "blithering idiots" really doesn't prove your point.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Main Entry: Marx·ism
> Pronunciation: \&#712;märk-&#716;si-z&#601;m\
> Function: noun
> Date: 1887
> ...



Hmm, so Obama has had the government take over the means of production for the entire country???   Wow, that's interesting.

And Obama has taken the profits from said means of production and redistributed it to the proletariat?   Really interesting.

As far as I can tell, Mr Obama has had the government take control of ONE company, GM, and that was in the direst of circumstances, imminent bankruptcy.

This makes Obama a "Marxist"?   Wow, that's quite a statement.

Does this also make him a "Stalinist", as Hannity called him?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > And now I remember why I commented in my first post in this thread.  It is impossible to have a discussion about news without some blithering idiots who can't tell the difference between a 'commentator' (Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) and 'news'.
> ...



I've read everything worth reading regarding the media. I know the business extremely well, thanks. I work with 'commentators' and 'journalists' etc pretty much every day.


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 28, 2009)

I hope you knock them around every chance you get.

For the most part, they're ASSHOLES.

Carry on.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...




Reality.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Annie said:


> 6 months does not equal 1 month. He did not sue for firing, he sued for not being given air time on 60 minutes:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/business/media/20cbs.html?pagewanted=print




From your link:



> Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on 60 Minutes after forcing him to step down as anchor of the CBS Evening News in March 2005.



In other words, CBS forced him to retire, which he did a month after the incident, and then didn't let him back on the air after his actual date of retirement.

Sounds like getting "Fired" to me...  'Course I guess I just don't understand all this media stuff...


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> I've read everything worth reading regarding the media. I know the business extremely well, thanks. I work with 'commentators' and 'journalists' etc pretty much every day.




Well, then you must know exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Main Entry: Marx·ism
> ...






so what do you think his agenda is? Based on those he surrounds himself with? Based on his own words?


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > 6 months does not equal 1 month. He did not sue for firing, he sued for not being given air time on 60 minutes:
> ...



Yet that wasn't the lawsuit, the facetime was. Also, it was 6 months, not 1 month before he was off the news.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Here's the deal. Other than attack Fox News, the left cannot defend the radicals that are now in the wh. They are radicals and no amount of pussy footing around is going to polish that image. 

attempts have been made but they fail

calling the opposition
traitors, extremists, seditious, racist, southern, biased, and illegitimate ain't working out for you huh boys?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Hmm, so Obama has had the government take over the means of production for the entire country???   Wow, that's interesting.
> 
> And Obama has taken the profits from said means of production and redistributed it to the proletariat?   Really interesting.
> 
> ...



Please feel free to send us a link or a quote where Mr Obama expounds on his plan to take over manufacturing and production and turn the US into a communist state.

I'm sure it must be out there, since it's so obvious, right?



so what do you think his agenda is? Based on those he surrounds himself with? Based on his own words?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Annie said:


> Yet that wasn't the lawsuit, the facetime was. Also, it was 6 months, not 1 month before he was off the news.




OK, let's say all that is true.  Was he forced off the air (aka fired), or not?

Now, when was the last time that happened on FoxNews for someone giving false information on the air in an opinion show?


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Coyote said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



like what for instance?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Here's the deal. Other than attack Fox News, the left cannot defend the radicals that are now in the wh. They are radicals and no amount of pussy footing around is going to polish that image.
> 
> attempts have been made but they fail
> 
> ...



Blah, blah, radicals, blah, blah, left-wing conspiracy.

But no proof.

Fail.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, so Obama has had the government take over the means of production for the entire country???   Wow, that's interesting.
> ...


[/QUOTE]



Look up above ya asswipe. You have me quoted as saying something someone else said. And you have the balls to challenge me to prove something I did not say! Ya wanna fix that? or are ya gonna live with the humiliation?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Look up above ya asswipe. You have me quoted as saying something someone else said. And you have the balls to challenge me to prove something I did not say! Ya wanna fix that? or are ya gonna live with the humiliation?



As I thought.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the deal. Other than attack Fox News, the left cannot defend the radicals that are now in the wh. They are radicals and no amount of pussy footing around is going to polish that image.
> ...



translation: can't answer the question? "how's that working out for you huh boys."


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Look up above ya asswipe. You have me quoted as saying something someone else said. And you have the balls to challenge me to prove something I did not say! Ya wanna fix that? or are ya gonna live with the humiliation?
> ...



you don't think, otherwise you would not misquote me. and so how can we expect you to discern good or poor news! sadly, we cannot. Kerry on.


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Yet that wasn't the lawsuit, the facetime was. Also, it was 6 months, not 1 month before he was off the news.
> ...



There isn't a like situation with Rather and FOX, as was already shown on another thread. You are just spinning.

BTW, it's not 'let's say all that is true...', it is true.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Oct 28, 2009)

I like for my news broadcasters to get on the air and simply state the facts.  I am a smart enough guy to make up my own opinion about issues and I don't need somebody else to tell me what I should be thinking.  Just tell me what happened in the good old who, what, when, where and why format.  I'll figure the rest out by myself.  Fox isn't a perfect news network but their ratings are the highest because in my opinion they are the only news channel that even comes close to reporting the news in a responsible way.  The other news channels are only cheer leaders for Obama and the Democratic party.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I like for my news broadcasters to get on the air and simply state the facts.  I am a smart enough guy to make up my own opinion about issues and I don't need somebody else to tell me what I should be thinking.  Just tell me what happened in the good old who, what, when, where and why format.  I'll figure the rest out by myself.  Fox isn't a perfect news network but their ratings are the highest because in my opinion they are the only news channel that even comes close to reporting the news in a responsible way.  The other news channels are only cheer leaders for Obama and the Democratic party.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Annie said:


> There isn't a like situation with Rather and FOX, as was already shown on another thread. You are just spinning.
> 
> BTW, it's not 'let's say all that is true...', it is true.




Dan Rather was removed from CBS because he based a report on an opinion program about the President of the United States on false evidence.

You're right though, there is no comparison, *because Fox does this every single night, and thinks nothing of it.*

That's because CBS has some journalistic integrity, while FoxNews lacks even an ounce of it.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I like for my news broadcasters to get on the air and simply state the facts.  I am a smart enough guy to make up my own opinion about issues and I don't need somebody else to tell me what I should be thinking.  Just tell me what happened in the good old who, what, when, where and why format.  I'll figure the rest out by myself.  Fox isn't a perfect news network but their ratings are the highest because in my opinion they are the only news channel that even comes close to reporting the news in a responsible way.  The other news channels are only cheer leaders for Obama and the Democratic party.



Their ratings are 'highest' for their OPINION shows, not for their news shows.


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I like for my news broadcasters to get on the air and simply state the facts.  I am a smart enough guy to make up my own opinion about issues and I don't need somebody else to tell me what I should be thinking.  Just tell me what happened in the good old who, what, when, where and why format.  I'll figure the rest out by myself.  Fox isn't a perfect news network but their ratings are the highest because in my opinion they are the only news channel that even comes close to reporting the news in a responsible way.  The other news channels are only cheer leaders for Obama and the Democratic party.
> ...



Once again, you lie:

Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - TV Ratings, Nielsen Ratings, Television Show Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com

Cable News Ratings: Fox News Remains Dominant - 2009-10-27 14:36:12 EDT | Broadcasting & Cable



> Cable News Ratings: Fox News Remains Dominant
> CNN slips to fourth in weeknight prime demo
> 
> By Marisa Guthrie -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/27/2009 2:36:12 PM
> ...


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Psst, nothing you put in there makes me a "liar".

First of all, the study didn't include any news programs from the non-cable, non-24-hour, major networks, WHICH ARE ON AT 6:00, but instead only included statistics from 24-Hour News networks, and then only after 7:00.

Duh.

Oh, and all the prime-time shows that were highest-rated are what?  Say it with me, OPINION SHOWS.


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Psst, nothing you put in there makes me a "liar".
> 
> First of all, the study didn't include any news programs from the major networks, WHICH ARE ON AT 6:00, only from 24-Hour News networks, and then only after 7:00.
> 
> ...



Blah, blah. Now you're switching to apples and oranges. On that, it's a matter of time. May not be FOX but the 'networks' are dinosaurs.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Psst, nothing you put in there makes me a "liar".
> 
> First of all, the study didn't include any news programs from the major networks, WHICH ARE ON AT 6:00, only from 24-Hour News networks, and then only after 7:00.
> 
> ...



you are a liar. You quoted me as saying something I did not say and haven't bothered to correct it. You, sir, are a liar.


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Psst, nothing you put in there makes me a "liar".
> ...



Seems he is on many levels. I've not a problem with partisans, but liars get me nuts.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

And even the ratings for Sheppard Smith's "News" show are just carried over because his time-slot is surrounded by OPINION shows.

Because, as was previously stated, a vast majority of FoxNews' programming is OPINION shows, which work in synchronicity with the actual "news" stories Fox chooses to run.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Annie said:


> Blah, blah. Now you're switching to apples and oranges. On that, it's a matter of time. May not be FOX but the 'networks' are dinosaurs.



How am I switching anything?  And why would I care about Fox's comparison to MSNBC?  I hate them both.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

But again, Ratings have no bearing on "truth" at all.

In fact, generally, the more controversial, biased, and false the show in question, the higher it's ratings.

That's why Fox's Opinion shows do better than their actual news shows.  Because they can lie all they want with impunity.


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Blah, blah. Now you're switching to apples and oranges. On that, it's a matter of time. May not be FOX but the 'networks' are dinosaurs.
> ...



Not just MSNBC, it's the whole report. In any case, you've exposed yourself, anyone reading can make their own conclusions.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> And even the ratings for Sheppard Smith's "News" show are just carried over because his time-slot is surrounded by OPINION shows.
> 
> Because, as was previously stated, a vast majority of FoxNews' programming is OPINION shows, which work in synchronicity with the actual "news" stories Fox chooses to run.



Now you're coming across as Mr Whiny McWhine. You cannot possibly back up your comment about why Sheppard Smith's show is popular. It's an opinion - oh my God! You stated an opinion as fact!


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > And even the ratings for Sheppard Smith's "News" show are just carried over because his time-slot is surrounded by OPINION shows.
> ...



Too true! It's funny how FOX makes their head's explode! Seems it's now their programming directors, guess the other cable networks hire fools? The networks must be hiring from the newspapers, as they are losing at comparable rates.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Annie said:


> Not just MSNBC, it's the whole report. In any case, you've exposed yourself, anyone reading can make their own conclusions.




Sure, I did.  Whatever you say.  Of course they will.

Because ratings are surely a measure of truth in the first place.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 28, 2009)

Uh oh, looks like the righties are ganging up on me, desperate to defend their cult of FoxNews.

So sad.

It's only crazy partisans like you people that can stand to watch FoxNews or MSNBC on a regular basis, much less than go off about how "Fair and Balanced" they are.

ROFL.

Have fun drinking the Kool Aid in your private little bubble world.  Out here in the world of reality, I have to go have a social life.

Later.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Uh oh, looks like the righties are ganging up on me, desperate to defend their cult of FoxNews.
> 
> So sad.
> 
> ...



I'm not a defender of any media outlet. You assume that an explanation equals support. It is no wonder you struggle with news programs.

And, just for a point of fact: The kool aid is only drunk by the left - Jim was a friend of the left, not the right so the kool aid label doesn't work. Idiot.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Uh oh, looks like the righties are ganging up on me, desperate to defend their cult of FoxNews.
> 
> So sad.
> 
> ...



spoken like a true liberal, when all else fails pull out your victim card! adios.


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Not just MSNBC, it's the whole report. In any case, you've exposed yourself, anyone reading can make their own conclusions.
> ...



Right, you aren't backing up and trying, though failing to cya:



			
				Vast LWC said:
			
		

> Psst, nothing you put in there makes me a "liar".
> 
> First of all, the study didn't include any news programs from the non-cable, non-24-hour, major networks, WHICH ARE ON AT 6:00, but instead only included statistics from 24-Hour News networks, and then only after 7:00.
> 
> ...





			
				Vast LWC said:
			
		

> Their ratings are 'highest' for their OPINION shows, not for their news shows.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 28, 2009)

Annie said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



Your point appears to be well made, but in the numbers from that ratings link is something I find rather sad.

5PM:  Glenn Beck 2,676,000 viewers
6PM:  Special Report with Bret Baier 2,032,000 viewers
7PM:  The Fox Report w/ Shep 1,899,000 viewers
8PM:  The OReilly Factor  3,124,000 viewers
9 PM:  Hannity 2,866,000 viewers
10 PM:  On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren 2,374,000 viewers

Of all the programming over this 6 hour period, the least watched show on Fox News is.....the news.

When did watching the raw news and making up one's own mind become so much less important that watching the news opinion shows and being told what the news means and what the story behind the news 'really' is?

I haven't checked, but I suspect the same is true for other cable news channels.  I'm prepared to be corrected if anyone else would care to look it up.

No wonder the left and right can hardly stand to be in the same room with each other.


----------



## Annie (Oct 28, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



All I can say is that I rarely watch the 'opinion' shows. Only when there is something 'big' that I pick up off of yahoo or another source, such as 'Lieberman says..."


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 28, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



The only one I watch with any regularity is the O'Reilly Factor. and yep O'Reilly has an opinion which dosen't fall to the right all the time. Secondly he always let's the other side voice their opinion. it sometimes even dissolves into shouting matches but hey everybody gets heard. The only person I know of who O'Reilly said won't be invited back is that dude who told Juan Williams to go sit on the porch. His invitations has been withdrawn.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 28, 2009)

For VastBrainless -- This is the prime-time lineup at FNC:

5:00 - "Glenn Beck" -- Glenn Beck (Political Opinion/Talk)
6:00 - "Special Report" -- Bret Baier (Straight political news, D.C.)
7:00 - "The Fox Report" -- Sheppard Smith (Straight News, world and national)
8:00 - "The O'Reilly Factor" -- Bill O'Reilly (News magazine, opinion/talk)
9:00 - "Hannity" -- Sean Hannity (Political Opinion/talk)
10:00 - "On the Record" -- Greta Van Susteren (News Magazine, variety)
11:00 - Bill O'Reilly (Re-run of the 8:00 show)

Baier's show is straight news. The only interviews are with reporters. There is NO opinion anywhere in it, ever. It used to be Bret Hume's news show. It focuses on political news, mostly out of D.C.

Each of the rest of the shows present both sides of every issue. Which is getting a tad harder to do, since very few far-lefties will come on FNC. But they manage. Each of the rest of the shows have standing invitations for anyone in the administration or in Congress to come on anytime they wish. And this is why they are kicking the SNOT out of all competition on a consistent basis.

You should do what millions more are doing since this "war" started -- actually tune in and watch.

Now, on to Rather.

You continue to assert he was "fired" after only one month after his faked Booooosh service documents, even after it's been shown to you in this thread that's not accurate. So, you're giving the definite impression you don't want to be an honest participant in discussion.

Summary: The WH "war" on FNC is a complete backfire. FNC's ratings are hitting the stratosphere. The more you bots lie about it, the more people tune in and see you're lying. And they STAY.

What Obama should do instead of the juvenile, childish boycotts and Nixonian attacks is, GO on the shows. Maybe even just one, such as O'Reilly. His sit-down with O'Reilly during the campaign got him MY vote, as it did no doubt millions of others. He's stupid to demonize such a large group of Americans who watch FNC, by demonizing FNC.

He should confront the talk hosts directly, on their shows, if they are "lying" or, just ignore them.

Booooosh isn't a good devil anymore, so the cult had to invent another one. FNC was the choice. And you mindless, indiscriminate imbibers of the WH kool-aid just lap it right up and regurgitate it, never even wondering if it's a good idea or not. You have willingly suspended all critical thinking in order to enjoy being in the cult. It's the same as when movie-goers willingly suspend disbelief, in order to enjoy a sci-fi or horror movie. And you're blissfully unaware of it.

Your obvious drawback is, FNC is going to still be around long after Obama is gone. They are going to be here today, tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade. You cannot "win" a "war" with a media outlet -- it's been tried! Obama and all of you faithful cultists should take the Nixon lesson and apply it.

Before it's too late.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 28, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> The only person I know of who O'Reilly said won't be invited back is that dude who told Juan Williams to go sit on the porch. His invitations has been withdrawn.


Yup, Warren Ballentine basically said Juan wasn't a "real" black, and basically called him a Uncle Tom. Which Williams is as far from that as it gets.

But this is nothing new, demonizing blacks who don't toe the mark is old hat for the far-left. Here's Williams' retort, which also shows the offense:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_z-Iyus8SY]YouTube - Juan Williams Fires Back at Warren Ballentine for Being Told "Go Back to the Porch"[/ame]

There's no excuse for it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 28, 2009)

G.T. said:


> I'm kind of torn on this issue. I don't think any network should be boycotted, but at the same time, all they do-do is bash the mother-fucker and you can't really argue that.
> 
> Put a negative spin and speculation on everything I do in life, then ask me for a favor. tsk, tsk.



Bash him or  put him under well deserved scrutiny? 
How much Fox news  do you watch to arrive at your opinion?


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 28, 2009)

G.T. said:


> I'm kind of torn on this issue. I don't think any network should be boycotted, but at the same time, all they do-do is bash the mother-fucker and you can't really argue that.
> 
> Put a negative spin and speculation on everything I do in life, then ask me for a favor. tsk, tsk.



The treasury tried to run a boycott of Fox, a WH pool news organization, by making an interviewee available to all pool members but Fox.  By expecting to be included in the interview, do you really think Fox was expecting a favor?  I don't think so.  Apparently nor did the other news organizations.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm kind of torn on this issue. I don't think any network should be boycotted, but at the same time, all they do-do is bash the mother-fucker and you can't really argue that.
> ...




Bash him. And before him, bash "the left" in any way shape or form. C'mon, I'm a grown assed man not a political hack. I watch Fox because I enjoy controversy, and they draw some fucked up conclusions that don't really belong, which is entertaining. That's why I watch, and have been watching for years.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm kind of torn on this issue. I don't think any network should be boycotted, but at the same time, all they do-do is bash the mother-fucker and you can't really argue that.
> ...



No, by that statement I was merely talking about how the Pres. himself isn't going to do a Fox interview.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Ah, OK, but I'm not sure I see a distinction between the President giving interviews to all the networks but Fox, and the salary Czar giving interviews to all the networks but Fox.

I'm gonna have to mull this one over.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Ah, OK, but I'm not sure I see a distinction between the President giving interviews to all the networks but Fox, and the salary Czar giving interviews to all the networks but Fox.
> 
> I'm gonna have to mull this one over.



Well, my only thing is this, and I'll say it in a Rapper's voice so that it's more entertaining to read, and so blatant that you can't lose anything in translation. I actually am a Rap fan and an actual Emcee myself  :

" you think I'm bout to let these muh fukkaz diss me all day, and I'mma kick back from my busy assed schedule and break bread with these bitches? I'm a grown assed man dogg, you gon' disrespect me like that, and then expect me to break bread witchu? Naw dogg, that shit aint proper. that shit aint cool. Better evaluate yer fukkin minds you think imma let some dude in your prime time call me a racist and shit. my mom was white, you raggedy assed mario bros. goomba lookin muh fukka(Beck)."


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Like a fish doesn't know its wet .
Thanks for answering hack.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Blah blah inaneness, blah blaqh blah.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, OK, but I'm not sure I see a distinction between the President giving interviews to all the networks but Fox, and the salary Czar giving interviews to all the networks but Fox.
> ...



Well, I won't rap my response because I can't (be bothered), but I will say that there are some jobs where you put yourself in a position that requires you to earn respect.  The most obvious example is politics, and the top job in politics is POTUS.  One does not earn respect by being petulant with one's critics.  If you can't take the heat...


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Well, I won't rap my response because I can't (be bothered), but I will say that there are some jobs where you put yourself in a position that requires you to earn respect.  The most obvious example is politics, and the top job in politics is POTUS.  One does not earn respect by being petulant with one's critics.  If you can't take the heat...



I'm not buying this. Calling him a Racist, The elected President of the United States? He hasn't earned not being called THAT? Aight, we will disagree here. 

I also think your synopsis works well with FOX itself. They're not earning any respect by being vile, thus, they don't deserve the legitimization of being respected as a News Organization by the POTUS. N'or does MSNBC, but I gather FOX supporters take that level of "even" and over-look it to vehemently go "poo poo" on anyone speaking against their network.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I won't rap my response because I can't (be bothered), but I will say that there are some jobs where you put yourself in a position that requires you to earn respect.  The most obvious example is politics, and the top job in politics is POTUS.  One does not earn respect by being petulant with one's critics.  If you can't take the heat...
> ...



I've got to go out now, but before I go this is my final thought on the matter, because that wasn't really the point I was raising in the OP.

I don't disagree with you about some of the comments that have been ascribed to Fox commentators.  If indeed they have been made by Fox.  I know posters all over the board have been saying Fox have been calling him a nazi, and marxist (Nazi _and_ Marxist - hah!), a racist, etc.  I don't know whether these are direct quotes or misquotes (I don't watch Fox and I try to avoid threads that go down this route).  I don't need links to prove it one way or the other thanks, but let's just agree for the sake of argument that all these quotes are direct.

I can see both sides of the coin here.  While I would prefer to see news organizations limit themselves to less inflammatory language, I'd be living in cloud cuckoo land if I realistically expected this to happen.  Every election campaign you have the candidates accusing each other in fairly colorful and forthright terms of pretty much every sin, lack of judgement and crime imaginable.  The media lives in the same world.  It is a world the candidates themselves create, and the eventual election winner should not therefore expect a four year moratorium on name calling just because he expects that the dignity of the new office to which he has been elected should be respected.  The dignity of the office has been dragged through the mud for months by the time the results are known.

All of which is actually beside the point.

The point I was originally making is that trying to lock any legitimate (and Fox and MSNBC are both legitimate) member of the WH news pool out of a round of interviews is very worrying behavior.  I am drawing a distinction here between the bullshitmongers like Hannity and Olbermann and the actual news shows.  As President, Obama needs to rise above this and treat the media even handedly.  Certainly he can respond to their criticism, but trying to marginalize them by taking the ball home with him is, in my view, petulant behavior.

For the record though, I do believe that a number of Fox commentators go over the top in the language they use.  As I said in the OP, I didn't live in the US during the Bush years so I don't know what treatment GWB got from the likes of CNN and MSNBC.  Knowing Olbermann's M.O. however, I'd be surprised if he was blameless in this regard.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > And now I remember why I commented in my first post in this thread.  It is impossible to have a discussion about news without some blithering idiots who can't tell the difference between a 'commentator' (Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) and 'news'.
> ...




I think this is a good point which seems to be ignored by the Fox-supporters.    I can't find the quote but I think you (or another poster) also pointed out how Fox often has it's "opinion hosts" as guests on it's news shows.  It seems to me this blurring of opinion/straight news is why it is increasingly difficult to regard Fox (and for that matter MSNBC) as credible news organizations.  They want to claim their opinion is seperate from their news for credability purposes yet their actions show otherwise.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

There does seem to be some confusion on USMB about the 'press pool' and the WH. So, I thought it might help anyone who is interested to take a look at some straightforward, non partisan, information about the press and the white house.

White House Press Corps - What is the White House Press Corps

*The White House press corps consists of several dozen reporters from major print, broadcast and online news outlets who are stationed full-time at the White House, covering the press conferences held there and the activities of the president. 

Not surprisingly, the White House beat is a coveted one, so reporters assigned there are some of the hardest-working and most accomplished around. Typically they have a fair bit of experience covering politics at the national level, and have often covered the president on the campaign trail long before he is elected. The U.S. Secret Service issues press passes for White House correspondents - after, of course, doing security checks. *

So, the 'press pool' which includes Fox, and the other major broadcasters - along with the major print media share costs, information, and on occasion use a pool camera team - that is a camera team provided by one of the broadcasters who then shares all the footage with the other members. They do this when space or access is very limited. 

This has gone on for decades. Certainly, each Administration has fallen out with a journalist or a media outlet but never to the extent that this Administration has. That is my issue - not that it is Fox but that it is stepping outside the boundaries of accepted behavoir for the pool.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> No, by that statement I was merely talking about how the Pres. himself isn't going to do a Fox interview.


Which, if you _really_ think about it, is stupid.

Doesn't the President need ALL of his tools to help get his agenda passed? He's leaving a major one in the holster by not doing interviews on FNC. This boycott hurts him and helps Fox. It's not only looking juvenile and childish, it's also counter-productive.

Didn't you see earlier where I stated Obama got my vote via his appearance on O'Reilly? Everyone should watch that interview. He _sold_ Bill, Bill probably voted for him too, and by contrast when McCain went into the no-spin zone, he looked and sounded like a fidgety, mealy-mouthed chump.

This is a mistake, and indicative of how Obama's team fails to learn the lessons of history, and therefore were doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

California Girl said:


> There does seem to be some confusion on USMB about the 'press pool' and the WH. So, I thought it might help anyone who is interested to take a look at some straightforward, non partisan, information about the press and the white house.
> 
> White House Press Corps - What is the White House Press Corps
> 
> ...




That is going to far on the part of the White House - I can see why the other journalists are protesting it.  I did not realize they were trying to cut Fox out of the press pool.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> I did not realize they were trying to cut Fox out of the press pool.


Actually they weren't. They were trying to cut FNC out of _one_ pool interview. That's unprecedeted, never before tried, and the other networks, being partners in the pool -- sharing all WH pool expenses, equipment, uplinks and costs with FNC -- said, "No way. It's all of us or none."

It was purely a pragmatic, practical business decision.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I did not realize they were trying to cut Fox out of the press pool.
> ...



If it had been a one off, then I would agree but that the WH has made statement after statement about Fox - even to the extent of saying they are not a legitimate news organization - is taking the whole game way too far off track. 

Simply put, if they had gotten away with cutting Fox out of one pool interview, who's to say they wouldn't have gone further and tried to cut them from the pool. That is the issue here - I've said time and again, it is not about Fox - it is about the big picture. 

The whole thing shows a complete disregard for the accepted rules around press access and the WH has not come out of this looking good. They do not have the right to decide who is and who is not legitimate, nor do they have the right to decide which media are part of the pool.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


It was. Remember, there's a difference between word and deed. This was deed.





> Simply put, if they had gotten away with cutting Fox out of one pool interview, who's to say they wouldn't have gone further and tried to cut them from the pool.


Unclear how they would accomplish that, since the pool agreement is between the networks and has nothing to do, per se, with the WH.

But there's no question, this was a stupid move. One which makes clear thinking people say to themselves, "how did this stupid idea pass through so many hands, so many brainiacs, and still happen anyway?"

It's very reminiscent of this, on the towering stupidity level:

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=PuhznM0pFEc]YouTube - Jet Airliner[/ame]


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Give an example of a "straight" news report that offered opinion. I understand that after some reportage has been made guest are called upon to give an analysis of the subject, but most often than not, Fox offers both conservative and liberal perspectives.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



I don't have a specific story in mind but in a survey conducted by Pew Center for Excellance in Journalism (which I've linked to before), they noted that Fox offered the most amount of opinion with their news reporting.  The news topic they used to measure this was the reporting on the Iraq war.

As to offering conservative and liberal perspectives - that's debatable.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> As to offering conservative and liberal perspectives - that's debatable.


Not if you've bothered watching.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I actually agree with you on all of that. 

I don't think they do enough liberal input. I would certainly like to see more of it but their liberals are very articulate which I find preferable to some of the liberals I've heard on other networks!  

I think Fox - and most other media now - struggle to keep their news and opinion separate.  Personally I think most of the US media suck at 'news'.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I'm not sure about that - I think Fox more and more is driven by their opinion shows - that's where the ratings are and the larger audiences.  Opinion is also entertainment of a sort (look at Beck's antics).  MSNBC is probably the same but I watch it less and I admittedly (as a liberal) would proably be more biased towards it 

I haven't watched enough Fox News to say how articulate their liberal commentators are - I've watched more of that on their opinion shows where some fo the liberals seem only marginally liberal.  I also don't care for it when they are treated rudely - interrupted, words attempted to be put in their mouths etc (ala O'Reilly) - but that is all in the opinion shows.

I do agree with you on the state of the U.S. media and it's been in a fast credibility decline for the last decade.

What I most listen to is NPR, that is my personal bias.  But I  like how they present things, the respectful way they question in interviews and, I learn something about other sides of the issues.  I feel like I come away from it having actually gained something and if I don't change my mind on an issue, I have a better understanding of the other sides.  This could be because being radio, it's less geared towards short attention spans, sensationalism and soundbites.  Who knows.  I'm a cynical bitch


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > No, by that statement I was merely talking about how the Pres. himself isn't going to do a Fox interview.
> ...




Conversely, FOX looks juvenile and childish for the stupid conclusions they make out of thin air just to bash the guy.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



And the WH has behaved like grown ups in this dust up with Fox? I think not. If you read what I said about the WH press pool etc, you will see that the Administration has behaved like a bunch of schoolyard bullies - and that, with the media, is a seriously stupid thing to do.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> I haven't watched enough Fox News to say how articulate their liberal commentators are


They routinely have some of the very best, from Bob Beckel to PBR's Juan Williams, to Kristen Powers to Dr. Marc Lamont Hill to Tanya Acker to Al Sharpton to Robert Reich to Laura Schwartz... Just to name a very few. Hell, take your pick.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Baloney.

If you believe the commentators, the talk show hosts, represent the views of FNC as a whole... Well, as Obama said to Michelle about the campaign's wild enthusiastic crowds cheering, "They're drinkin' the juice!"

But, nice to see you (apparently) agree with me on what towering, titanic stupidity and infantile, thin-skinned behavior this administration displays daily.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't watched enough Fox News to say how articulate their liberal commentators are
> ...



AL SHARPTON?

One of the best???????

Sharpton is a crackpot mediawhore with zero credability.  

That would be like using Sean Hannity instead of George Will for a conservative viewpoint....


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

California Girl said:


> And the WH has behaved like grown ups in this dust up with Fox? I think not. If you read what I said about the WH press pool etc, you will see that the Administration has behaved like a bunch of schoolyard bullies - and that, with the media, is a seriously stupid thing to do.



Come to my house shooting eggs.

I don't call the Cops. I whoop-ass. 

You can call it childish, call it whatever you want. All I know, is I can relate.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 29, 2009)

Krauthammer? ROTFL! How can anyone cite his work then pontificate about integrity in journalism?


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Baloney.
> 
> If you believe the commentators, the talk show hosts, represent the views of FNC as a whole... Well, as Obama said to Michelle about the campaign's wild enthusiastic crowds cheering, "They're drinkin' the juice!"
> 
> But, nice to see you (apparently) agree with me on what towering, titanic stupidity and infantile, thin-skinned behavior this administration displays daily.



I think that it represents FOX as a whole, yes. Only because it's their final decision what they send on the air, and I see the decision they've made. Obama's a Racist! Yea, I get it. Yea, they're children to me but responding in-kind is also ok with me. I'm a child I guess, I dunno. Doesn't really bug me.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Sharpton answers the "articulate" meter. That was the standard coyote was asking for.

Sharpton's as credible as anyone, if you want to set that meter.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Baloney.
> ...


So, you also believe op-ed columns, syndicated ones, in newspapers represent the views of the newspaper?

C'mon now, that one little sliver of intellectual honesty you have left is clamoring to be let out!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Krauthammer? ROTFL! How can anyone cite his work then pontificate about integrity in journalism?


Who cited Krauthammer?

And, he's not a journalist by the way.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> So, you also believe op-ed columns, syndicated ones, in newspapers represent the views of the newspaper?
> 
> C'mon now, that one little sliver of intellectual honesty you have left is clamoring to be let out!



Do you have to toss in insults with your responses? Seriously. 

No, but I think if a Newspaper had say, 90% op-ed columns, all repeating the same sort of montra, then yea it would pretty much represent the Newspaper. 

You're not going to change my mind, I watch the channel and have for years and years. It's glaringly obvious what it represents, and that's alright with me. MSNBC is the exact same thing, and that's alright with me also. But I don't blame a guy for holding a grudge, because if I had to hear all this loony bin rhetoric about myself being said to millions daily, I might be peeved as well. I can relate. That's childish, sure.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > So, you also believe op-ed columns, syndicated ones, in newspapers represent the views of the newspaper?
> ...


Never confuse the truth with insults.





> No, but I think if a Newspaper had say, 90% op-ed columns, all repeating the same sort of montra, then yea it would pretty much represent the Newspaper.


FNC doesn't have 90% op-ed talk shows. And it's "mantra."





> You're not going to change my mind


No shit. I knew that going in. Wouldn't presume to even _reach_ your mind, much less try to change it!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> But I don't blame a guy for holding a grudge, because if I had to hear all this loony bin rhetoric about myself being said to millions daily, I might be peeved as well. I can relate. That's childish, sure.


First of all, he doesn't have to hear any of it. Secondly, there's a large gulf between holding a grudge and actually limpwristically playing the thin-skinned victim card.

If he truly were offended, he would confront the malfeasants directly instead of demonizing an entire network and all of its viewers. What part of counter-productive do you not get? Only his cadre of sycophants like what he's doing here, because he is making a purely emotional appeal.

What part of being Presidential do you not get? Growing a thick skin should be the first prerequisite for that job.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

MidnightMarauder,

You are an ass hole. You are small, bout....hrrrm....       . <-- that big. 
You are not even cool enough on your "baddest-ass," most insulting of insulters-day, to chill with me at the spot on say................a Tuesday or a Wednesday night. 

You are not, repeat, are NOT a douchebag. You're the shit the douche is squirting at, you're the inspiration for the cleanse. 

If you could imagine not being a total **** for 35 seconds, I may offer a giggle or two at one of your cool-man jokes. You're so intellectually inferior, as evidenced by your deflection to "the insult," that this post will actually make you a titty smarter. And by titty, I mean a round piece of flesh with a dark pink nipple attached to it, but only it squirts ink into your eyeballs everytime you behave like a fuckface, and offer insults out of the blue into conversation. 

_*
THIS ONE IS SO EASY, EVEN A NOOB MOD CAN DO IT.
DON'T DO IT AGAIN.

~~DUDE*_

I told you I can relate to responding in kind, I'm just better than you. At everything. Go to bed.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 29, 2009)

Liberals think anybody that appears on TV is a journalist... you gotta love it.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't blame a guy for holding a grudge, because if I had to hear all this loony bin rhetoric about myself being said to millions daily, I might be peeved as well. I can relate. That's childish, sure.
> ...



I'm a viewer. I was not demonized. I watch for entertainment, not news.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 29, 2009)

I mean.. they think that psychopath Olberman is a journalist.. worse yet.. Katie "Cutsie"  Couric!!!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> MidnightMarauder,
> 
> You are an ass hole. You are small, bout....hrrrm....       . <-- that big.
> You are not even cool enough on your "baddest-ass," most insulting of insulters-day, to chill with me at the spot on say................a Tuesday or a Wednesday night.
> ...


Looks like you're a little sissy, thin-skinned crybaby. _No wonder_ you like Obama demonizing FNC, it appeals to your feelings of inadequacy!

You believe you were insulted. I believe I was merely correctly labeling you. Clearly the shoe must have fit, and your attempts at insults are feeble and laughable, much like your cult leader's attempts to "stand up to that mean old bully Fox News!" I'm not insulted, because unlike you I have very thick skin and no feelings of inadequacy whatsoever. You're throwing bb's at a battleship! 

Our president is feeling bullied by a news network. THE most powerful man on the planet. Is feeling bullied.

And you like it?

See my thumb? Gee you're dumb!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> I'm a viewer. I was not demonized. I watch for entertainment, not news.


Either you don't watch at all, or your retention level is about what a two year-old's is.

Myself? I watch it for the BABES! Especially that oh so hot hot Jenna Lee!

TV Anchor Babes


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > MidnightMarauder,
> ...



Responding in-kind, for me anyways, is not akin to being bothered. I was being insulted, because you questioned my integrity. You said that I'm dishonest, and I pride myself on honesty, hence it being an insult fuckwad. Just because "you" feel that "you" correctly labeled me, neither makes "you" correct n'or "not an insult." 

You could call someone who engages in hand to hand combat as a sport a sissy, because he responds to insults with insults, sure. Your world is dreamy, perhaps, old men need their day naps and all of that.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Responding in-kind, for me anyways, is not akin to being bothered.


It's just being a little limp-dicked crybaby.

And, you stupid-assed fucker, your post bumped us to a new page, hiding Jenna's beautiful smile!

SLOW DOWN little crybaby bitch, and take a moment to enjoy the finer things in life!


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

My chick is alot hotter than that, but I can see your infatuation with TV stars being your genuine prick attitude probably yielded you all 2's and 3's on the ten-scale. 

I could probably make you a real happy man and let you fuck some of my ex's, though.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> My chick is alot hotter than that, but I can see your infatuation with TV stars being your genuine prick attitude probably yielded you all 2's and 3's on the ten-scale.
> 
> I could probably make you a real happy man and let you fuck some of my ex's, though.


She's not a TV star, yet. She's just getting started well. If you had EVER watched FNC, you would know that, fucking liar.

Your flailing however is quite amusing. I always love to see little limpwristic weenies get their hackles up over _forum board posts_.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



You upped the standard by claiming "They routinely have some of the very best".


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > My chick is alot hotter than that, but I can see your infatuation with TV stars being your genuine prick attitude probably yielded you all 2's and 3's on the ten-scale.
> ...



I dunno man, but ever since I responded to your insult with an insult, you been seeming really salty with the name calling and what have you. followed by 20 lol's? Who's got their hackles up? Pot meets kettle much. 

I was just calling a spade a spade, fella. If that makes me a sissy, I'll be a sissy all dayum day. You're a prick, prick.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


"Very best" answering YOUR "articulate" meter.

And they are.

And also some of the most credible.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Having fun slapping little sissies like you around is not the same as what we see here with you, getting all bristled up and angry. I am having a really good time, you are not.

See the difference?


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Having fun slapping little sissies like you around is not the same as what we see here with you, getting all bristled up and angry. I am having a really good time, you are not.
> 
> See the difference?



You ain't slappin shit c'ept your dick to FOX News. Sad, really. No, I'm not angry, but being wrong never stopped your trout mouth. You have plenty of enemies man, I get reps for dissing you. Jesus Christ, you this dickish all the time? Can't even get along with people over an internet forum? lol wowza. Porps for the reps, though. 

On a parting note, whatever slapping around you're feeling you're doing to me, enjoy. It'd never happen in the oh-so-overrated "real world," Grandpaw.  Keep on with those day naps, and you might be able to make the mail-box once again without the aid of wheels!!


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Interesting entry on Wikipedia: Infotainment.  Never heard that term before but it certainly seems to be describing the direction many news shows (at least cable) are headed:




> 'Infotainers are entertainers in infotainment media, such as news anchors or "news personalities" who cross the line between journalism (quasi-journalism) and entertainment within the broader news trade. Notable examples in the U.S. media are Barbara Walters, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Maury Povich, Deborah Norville, and Geraldo Rivera among others.  Barbara Walters, though not the first to cross the line between news and personality stories, is for many the quintessential news-media icon. Her career dates back to the 50s, and her current prominence at ABC is largely due to celebrity interviews, with a long running co-anchorship on 20/20 with Hugh Downs and, later, John Stossel until 2004, and her overlapping morning infotainment show The View.  When Geraldo Rivera became the host of his own news-oriented talk show on CNBC, others within the NBC organization voiced their protest, including Tom Brokaw who was reported to have threatened to quit. Rivera had a notorious history as a "sleaze reporter" and daytime talk show host, where he and one or two others were representative of "Tabloid talk shows"; television seen to have little social value or redeeming intelligence, but still popular with viewers.  Fox News is sometimes classified as infotainment as it increasingly relies on loose fact checking policies, distortion of facts and celebrity personalities to present a more entertaining, although less factually accurate, version of events.[6]"]Infotainers are entertainers in infotainment media, such as news anchors or "news personalities" who cross the line between journalism (quasi-journalism) and entertainment within the broader news trade. Notable examples in the U.S. media are Barbara Walters, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Maury Povich, Deborah Norville, and Geraldo Rivera among others.
> 
> Barbara Walters, though not the first to cross the line between news and personality stories, is for many the quintessential news-media icon. Her career dates back to the 50s, and her current prominence at ABC is largely due to celebrity interviews, with a long running co-anchorship on 20/20 with Hugh Downs and, later, John Stossel until 2004, and her overlapping morning infotainment show The View.
> 
> ...


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Having fun slapping little sissies like you around is not the same as what we see here with you, getting all bristled up and angry. I am having a really good time, you are not.
> ...


You doth protest too loudly. It's fun to watch you flail, getting posts edited, losing your cool completely, while I sit here and laugh at you.

Obama's limpwristic, thin-skinned crybaby mantra of "mean old bully fox news is picking on me!" act appeals to you, because like him, you a limpwristic little shitbag, thin-skinned crybaby, who was also probably bullied on the playground.

It makes me LOL out loud and stuff!


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



You seem to be weaseling.

I didn't set any meter by the way.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Sounds like you're getting a tad emotional here.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...


 aight there, hoverround.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > And the WH has behaved like grown ups in this dust up with Fox? I think not. If you read what I said about the WH press pool etc, you will see that the Administration has behaved like a bunch of schoolyard bullies - and that, with the media, is a seriously stupid thing to do.
> ...



Again, you miss the point. 

The point is about Fox being part of the press pool - they pay the costs, provide facilities, etc. They have a fucking right to access. Grow the hell up.  Stop being such a partisan ass and look at facts.... just once.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



If consider Sharpton credible than I question whether anything you say has any credability


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Again, you miss the point.
> 
> The point is about Fox being part of the press pool - they pay the costs, provide facilities, etc. They have a fucking right to access. Grow the hell up.  Stop being such a partisan ass and look at facts.... just once.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


_You're_ weaseling. You DID set a meter, a standard, by saying you didn't know "how articulate their liberal commentators are."

"Articulate" was the meter, and I blew that bullshit right out of the water with many good examples, and you have been backpedaling ever since.

Then you tried to move the goalposts, like a weasel, by saying _one_ of them wasn't "credible." I happly accepted the new position of the goalposts, and blew another football right down the middle of them anyway.

Stop flailing, it's unbecoming.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

And there we have it. What could be a legitimate discussion about the media and white house turns into yet another whiny bratfest.

Why are so few people capable of thinking outside their partisan box.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> If consider Sharpton credible than I question whether anything you say has any* credability*


You don't consider Al Sharpton a credible liberal commentator? And yet, you can't even spell "credibility?"

'Nuff said.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

California Girl said:


> And there we have it. What could be a legitimate discussion about the media and white house turns into yet another whiny bratfest.
> 
> Why are so few people capable of thinking outside their partisan box.



If you knew anything about me, you'd know I'm not a partisan. Disliking FOX news doesn't make one a partisan, especially if they equally dislike MSNBC. 

This much is obvious, but it can be ignored I guess, for whatever point you were saying about how I should stop being "partisan." Don't know how I invoked partisanship in anything I personally said, you can show me if you'd like.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


I suppose humor is emotional, yes.

Note the big difference between that, and angry, like good ol' reliable G.T. is displaying!


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

You're a projectionist, fitting since it's from your era.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > And there we have it. What could be a legitimate discussion about the media and white house turns into yet another whiny bratfest.
> ...


Haha!

I am gonna NEED Obamacare to get these stitches in my SIDE fixed!


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I've made at least 6 posts elsewhere just today, opposing Obama's Afghanistan stone-walling. Feel free to think what you'd like, feel free to remain wrong.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


I've made several _defending_ his Afghanistan actions, and offering up what I think he might actually, hopefully be doing.

So?

I have known you to be a blind partisan hack for a very long time.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> You have plenty of enemies man, I get reps for dissing you.


True, actual non-partisans have lots and lots of enemies. That's good!

You're getting repped? Aww, ain't that sweet? Hopefully it'll help salve the lesions on your stupid ass myself and others are giving you daily!


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I've made several _defending_ his Afghanistan actions, and offering up what I think he might actually, hopefully be doing.
> ...


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > And there we have it. What could be a legitimate discussion about the media and white house turns into yet another whiny bratfest.
> ...



Then you should be able to understand that for the WH to overstep the boundaries of its established protocols with the press is, in fact, not appropriate. 

I have outlined why those protocols are in place and why they are important. Yet, time and again, you insist that the WH that is right and Fox that are wrong. GT, that is simply not true. So, either your blinkered by a dislike of Fox or just too dumb to recognize what the WH was trying to do.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 29, 2009)

I was once employed in the media and have been a media watcher for a very long time since moving on to other things.  A few observations at this point:

1.  Objective polling groups, including a UCLA study, clearly indicate that there is detectable partisan and cultural bias in the media and that bias tilts mostly left.   That would include most programming on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, a few radio outlets, and most of the nations newspapers and news magazines.

2.  The internet seems to be relatively evenly divided ideologically and Fox News Network does not offer news and political analysis but leaves that up to the local affiliates.

3.  Fox News (not the network), a couple of religious cable channels, most successful talk radio, and a  handful of newspapers and magazines tilt right.

4.  On television, Fox News remains #1 of all cable news outlets and more and more is beating the free network newscasts as well.  This is because they are essentially fair and balanced, they give both sides of every issue, and they are the ONLY source that is reporting on many issues.  Without Fox, the American public would be getting only one side of the issues and wouldn't be hearing about many of the issues at all.

5.  All the other news outlets have to do to compete with Fox is to start doing their job which means that they couldn't, as they are now, be lapdogs or advocates for or surrogate spokespeople for the Administration and leftists in Congress.

Most of the voting electorate aren't stupid and most people want the truth, not orchestrated propaganda.   They feel they can get that from Fox News more competently than they can get it from other sources.

You would think with steady erosion of their ratings and advertisers, the other media sources would wise up.  Perhaps they are hoping the war against Fox will be successful and clear the way for them to continue to be blindly partisan and culturally biased.  Those of us who still love our freedoms better hope the war on Fox is not successful however, because if it is they'll come after us here on these message boards and other informative websites too.   Nothing emboldens anybody as much as success whether it be for good or evil.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> It'd never happen in the oh-so-overrated "real world," Grandpaw.  Keep on with those day naps, and you might be able to make the mail-box once again without the aid of wheels!!


Oh, how funny! You again resort to ageism bigotry! Which is really a hoot, considering you don't even know my age!

But, I remember us having this same issue before! You are a bigot. We established that last time!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Google is your friend. I think you have me mixed up with someone else, or, you're also taking my criticisms of decietful talking heads as me being "political."
> 
> No, that's just simpleton thinking on your part; my views are what make me "partisan" or not, and my views are pretty center. Therefore, I don't shill for a side. I do; however, shill against decievers because that's just how the fuck I roll.
> 
> Now, go google me right quick and take your old man slippers out yer mouth.


I don't have you mixed up at all.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 29, 2009)

California Girl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


You either can't read, or you're reading someone else. I actually acknowledged it was childish, and never called it the "right" decision, I simply said it's what I would do myself (knowing it's childish and not giving a shit). 

So, re-read what you've been reading and get back to me. I never insisted the WH was right. Not once, but you said "time and again" I have. If you're going to critique what I'm saying, address what I actually say.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Ah, I see where I said that - I was looking at Caligirls post where articulate was initially mentioned.

mea culpa.

I would never, ever call Sharpton the "best" of anything but bullshit and considering him representative of liberal views is like considering Glenn Beck representative of conservative views.  Having him as "liberal commentator" is an insult.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Foxfyre said:


> I was once employed in the media and have been a media watcher for a very long time since moving on to other things.  A few observations at this point:
> 
> 1.  Objective polling groups, including a UCLA study, clearly indicate that there is detectable partisan and cultural bias in the media and that bias tilts mostly left.   That would include most programming on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, a few radio outlets, and most of the nations newspapers and news magazines.
> 
> ...


I too worked in radio, TV and newspaper media. Writing, producing, reporting, talking, directing and just good ol' being a jock.

What I remember most though, was my junior year in college, the Dean of Journalism and the Director of Student Publications pulled me into an office one day (I was news editor of the campus paper and they were looking at me for EiC next semester) and said, "if you're going to really make it in this business you have got to become more liberal in your views." I told them I didn't know what they were talking about, what "liberal" was (I didn't) and they began to explain political correctness to me.

I left that meeting going, "hmm.... Did they realize they were talking to a soon to be journalist, a newsman?" And then proceeded to write a award-winning column about that meeting, with verbatim quotes, and all.

Imagine their chagrin. Oh and I turned down the EiC post!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Ah, I see where I said that - I was looking at Caligirls post where articulate was initially mentioned.



Post #140



> mea culpa.


I applaud that. It's so rare to see here.



> I would never, ever call Sharpton the "best" of anything but bullshit and considering him representative of liberal views is like considering Glenn Beck representative of conservative views.  Having him as "liberal commentator" is an insult.


Clearly you have never listened to the man when he is presenting his arguments. I strongly suggest it, you might come away with a whole new perspective of him.

I seldom agree with him, you understand. But that doesn't stop me from respecting him. But if you want him off my list, fine. I have 7 or 8 others there you didn't know about, which we can discuss.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> I too worked in radio, TV and newspaper media. Writing, producing, reporting, talking, directing and just good ol' being a jock.
> 
> What I remember most though, was my junior year in college, the Dean of Journalism and the Director of Student Publications pulled me into an office one day (I was news editor of the campus paper and they were looking at me for EiC next semester) and said, "if you're going to really make it in this business you have got to become more liberal in your views." I told them I didn't know what they were talking about, what "liberal" was (I didn't) and they began to explain political correctness to me.
> 
> ...



I was probably in the business well before you.  In my day ANY detectable bias in a news story whether for print, radio, or television, got your knuckles rapped by the News Desk and, if blatant, would get you fired.  We were expected to report Who, Why, What, Where, When, and How and nothing else, and our loyalty was to be to the truth with accuracy and nothing else.  Any information that could affect ANYBODY's business, livelihood, privacy, or reputation had to be carefully multiple sourced and verified so that there was no question before it was printed.  (Now they put it out there if anybody anywhere says it, even if it is somebody within their own news organization.)

I got out of the business when emotion became more important than hard facts, and I've never regretted leaving.  Unfortunately that left most of the media saturated with leftists who deal in emotionalism and facts are almost an afterthought if they are presented at all.  Certainly there isn't a lot of effort to be fair and balanced.

Talk radio is often not fair and balanced, but it does at least provide the other side of the story we are getting from the leftist media near monopoly.  And Fox News is just about the only mainstream television source we have where we are getting most or all of the news of the day--they will tackle hot button issues that the other media groups ignore or deep six.

So kudos to you for standing on principle.  I am hoping that Fox's success will persuade more and more of the media to choose to do so.  It won't happen if the Administration is successful in their war on Fox, however.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I see where I said that - I was looking at Caligirls post where articulate was initially mentioned.
> ...



My view of Sharpton is colored by how he handled the Duke University incident, I lost any respect for him (not that I had a whole lot anyway) and I tune him out.  You are right though - I should listen


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

It sounds as if many people are making excuses for Fox by saying that even though it is biased to the right - that is ok because everyone else is biased to the left?  If if true that doesn't make it accurate news or excuse it's journalistic lapses.  It seems as if people are willing to condone a lower journalistic standard if it favors their ideology.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Foxfyre said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > I too worked in radio, TV and newspaper media. Writing, producing, reporting, talking, directing and just good ol' being a jock.
> ...


On the high school level, in Journalism 101, it was that way. But when I got into college is where I saw the change. And it's systematic, I saw it elsewhere as well.

Like you, I left the business too, but for greener pastures. I can always make money writing when I'm 60, no need to waste my good years in that rat race. One of my friends, he's been stuck at a medium-low circulation newspaper all his adult life, and has (ooooooh) moved up to _assignments editor_!

We used to meet annually, comparing our income and drinking beer. I was always making twice, at least, the money he was. And he's miserable, feels trapped. I feel sorry for him, I really do. He's done everything right, everything they have asked, except change some of his strongly held views.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 29, 2009)

Foxfyre said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > I too worked in radio, TV and newspaper media. Writing, producing, reporting, talking, directing and just good ol' being a jock.
> ...



LMAO.... let's not get into a pissing contest over who has how much experience with the media. I'd lose anyway - I'm not old enough to have that much. 

Let's just all agree that the WH was fucking stupid to take on an established member of the press pool.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> It sounds as if many people are making excuses for Fox by saying that even though it is biased to the right - that is ok because everyone else is biased to the left?


That's actually almost a paraphrase of what Rupert Murdoch himself said. That's also where the "fair and balanced" motto comes from, he felt that other networks weren't giving fair hearing to all sides, and weren't balanced in their approach.

Initially, FNC wasn't carried on most cable systems due to ownership of those trying to stop it from getting a foothold. It took a landmark lawsuit to get that wrong righted.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Let's just all agree that the WH was fucking stupid to take on an established member of the press pool.


I think everyone save the sycophants agree this "war" on a media outlet is toweringly stupid, counter-productive and fails to learn the lessons Nixon taught us all on that.

But, like Nixon, Obama is paranoid and exceptionally thin-skinned. And obsessed with "controlling the message."


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> On the high school level, in Journalism 101, it was that way. But when I got into college is where I saw the change. And it's systematic, I saw it elsewhere as well.
> 
> Like you, I left the business too, but for greener pastures. I can always make money writing when I'm 60, no need to waste my good years in that rat race. One of my friends, he's been stuck at a medium-low circulation newspaper all his adult life, and has (ooooooh) moved up to _assignments editor_!
> 
> We used to meet annually, comparing our income and drinking beer. I was always making twice, at least, the money he was. And he's miserable, feels trapped. I feel sorry for him, I really do. He's done everything right, everything they have asked, except change some of his strongly held views.



The change started happening in the 70's actually as the 1960's flower children graduated college and began infiltrating the media en masse.  By the 1980's it was becoming obvious to those with media savvy, and by the 1990's it was obvious to anybody who cared at all.  A true conservative had a really tough time getting hired into the media at all, and frequently found it a very uncomfortable climate if s/he was hired.  (That is also unfortunately true in Academia too which no doubt accounts for so many mushbrained observed among the young and perpetuates the problems in the media and Academia.)

And it is true that most in journalism at any level do make fairly mediocre salaries any more unless they can land an anchor job or rise to the top.  A modern American consevative has a really tough time doing that too.

So I hope both the Left and Right appreciate the tremendous and necessary service that is being given us through Fox News and talk radio.  Without it many of us would have little or no knowledge of many of the issues that affect our lives and chip away at our freedoms.  Even some dyed-in-the-wool leftists value freedom.   Defend Fox News.  Don't help them destroy it.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Foxfyre said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > On the high school level, in Journalism 101, it was that way. But when I got into college is where I saw the change. And it's systematic, I saw it elsewhere as well.
> ...


It's been a generational degradation to get it to the point where it is now. Slow infiltration....


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Foxfyre said:


> Without it many of us would have little or no knowledge of many of the issues that affect our lives and chip away at our freedoms.  Even some dyed-in-the-wool leftists value freedom.   Defend Fox News.  Don't help them destroy it.



I defend their right to speak and present the news as I do any news network.  But I do not agree with their partisan character smears.  They've carried it to new lows but I think that has been going on in the media for while now.

What will we end up with I wonder?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Without it many of us would have little or no knowledge of many of the issues that affect our lives and chip away at our freedoms.  Even some dyed-in-the-wool leftists value freedom.   Defend Fox News.  Don't help them destroy it.
> ...


Again: The _opinions of the opinion show hosts do not represent the opinion of Fox News_. Any more than syndicated columnists represent the opinion of the newspapers they are printed in.

If Glenn Beck wants to call Obama a racist, that is HIS opinion. Not FNC's. By the same token, if Warren Ballentine wants to call Juan Williams an Uncle Tom by saying "get back on the porch Juan" that's HIS opinion, not the show host's or the network's.

When Janene Garafalo called all the "tea baggers" racists, no one said that was MSNBC's opinion.

Most people instinctively know this.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Agreed but - what if it spills over?  Is news driving opinion or opinion driving news on Fox?  When they have their opinion hosts on the news as commentators - they blur that distinction and, it is blurred even more by the high percentage of opinion mixed in with the news by their commentators.  That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Do you watch it? At all?

Their straight news shows stay straight. Their opinion shows stay opinion. Their feature shows stay feature.

If one of their opinion show hosts makes news, they might interview him/her _about that news_. I have never seen that yet, on one of the straight news shows. Baier has never had Hannity, Beck or O'Reilly on. neither has Shepperd Smith. Neither have the morning shows, the afternoon drive, or even Cavuto. You won't see Julie Banderas or Brit Hume interviewing Glenn Beck on their straight news shows.

Beck appearing on O'Reilly isn't blurring any lines, for example. Limbaugh on Greta's show, same thing.


----------



## Mike458877 (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...





Midnight, your spot on. Well said.

Mike


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



I don't watch it often - which I've said.  But I have noticed opinion* on the news* mixed in *with the news* as part of the "banter" - more so than other news channels where the banter is mostly irrelevant.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Without it many of us would have little or no knowledge of many of the issues that affect our lives and chip away at our freedoms.  Even some dyed-in-the-wool leftists value freedom.   Defend Fox News.  Don't help them destroy it.
> ...



I wonder how you define partisan character smears?   Whether or not you agree with say a Glenn Beck that President Obama in a racist in his views on whatever, so long as the characterization is explained with verifiable criteria, is that a partisan character smear?  Did the treatment of Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and many others on the right qualify as character smears?   How about treatment of Jimmy the Greek, Don Imus, Marge Shott, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Trent Lott, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin?   Was any of that partisan character smears?

Are you sure that you want to characterize personal opinion of public figures as character smears?


----------



## Coyote (Oct 29, 2009)

Foxfyre said:


> I wonder how you define partisan character smears?   Whether or not you agree with say a Glenn Beck that President Obama in a racist in his views on whatever, so long as the characterization is explained with verifiable criteria, is that a partisan character smear?



What verifiable criteria?  Racist is an incredibly strong word.  



> Did the treatment of Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and many others on the right qualify as character smears?   How about treatment of Jimmy the Greek, Don Imus, Marge Shott, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Trent Lott, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin?   Was any of that partisan character smears?



Depends on what was said by whom and what distortions were made and what facts supported what was said.  You've lumped a whole lot of figures into one generalization here.



> Are you sure that you want to characterize personal opinion of public figures as character smears?



No.  I'm characterizing *some *reporting as character smears.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




All msm sucks but the main difference with Fox is we already have the unfiltered admission it has political agendas yet it proclaims "we report, you decide."  Frankly, anyone who denies this contradiction is either ignorant or a liar.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


You should start watching it, perchance to have an informed, first-person opinion of it. Guests interviewed on news shows get to express their opinion. That doesn't make it the opinion of the interviewer or the network.

Know what's on right now? Cavuto. Know what he's doing? He's got the certified, Guinness Book world's fastest reader Howard Berg on, reading the latest 1,900 page House health care bill, live! You're simply not going to see anything like this anywhere else, and THIS is why the rest are getting their asses kicked!

Creativity that is also very informative. Because Cavuto keeps cutting back to this poor man, asking him what it says so far, and the dude not only knows, he tells us!

Where else are you going to see this? Nowhere. It's humorous and entertaining, yes. But also quite informative. Cavuto is a business news, talk/opinion show. Cavuto keeps it straight news until the end, where he sometimes has an editorial comment that is labeled as such.

THIS is why FNC is killing the competition, in a nutshell. They are winning in the arena of _ideas_.

Cavuto just ended. He didn't have an editorial today. Beck is on now.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


There's been no "admission" of a political agenda, filtered or otherwise. You're an indiscriminate imbiber and regurgitator of the WH kool aid.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

Coyote said:


> No.  I'm characterizing *some *reporting as character smears.


If a opinion show host says something, anything... It's NOT reporting.

Get it yet?


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Krauthammer? ROTFL! How can anyone cite his work then pontificate about integrity in journalism?
> ...



I did.  Check out the OP.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Oct 29, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Duh. I read the OP and forgot you had Krauthammer's column in it.

The point is still valid, Krauthammer's not a journalist and doesn't claim to be. And Curvelight would rather attack people than actually read what they say then see if he/she agrees with it, and why.

Very narrow, closed minded wouldn't you say tigerbob?


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 29, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Krauthammer? ROTFL! How can anyone cite his work then pontificate about integrity in journalism?



OK, so you believe that CK lacks integrity.  Care you say why, or do you normally leave your opinions unsupported?

Unless of course you were attacking my views, in which case perhaps you could give an example of something specific that you disagree with.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 29, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



It is true that Krauthammer was not trained as a journalist, but I think it is a stretch to say that he is not one given his prolific writings including his much quoted syndicated column and the impeccable research and journalism that he puts into it.  He is also a Pulitzer Prize winner with a very impressive, bipartisan bio:

MyHeritage.org: Biography of Charles Krauthammer


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 30, 2009)

Foxfyre said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



Yes that was my view.  It appears Curvelight (whoever he or she may be) disagrees.  As to why, we may never know.


----------



## tigerbob (Oct 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Yes, probably.  Or possibly just juvenile.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 30, 2009)

Wow, some writer from Jon Stewart must have been reading my posts in this thread.  LOL.

Check this out:

The Daily Show Full Episode | Thursday Oct 29 2009 | Comedy Central

Though, admittedly, the Daily Show did all the real legwork needed to point out exactly what I meant clearly.

Man, Jon Stewart is a true genius.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 30, 2009)

Just watch the first 10 or 15 min.  He explains EXACTLY how FoxNews blends news and opinion, as I was explaining earlier in this thread.

The Daily Show Full Episode | Thursday Oct 29 2009 | Comedy Central

Freakin' hilarious.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 30, 2009)

California Girl said:


> I'm not a defender of any media outlet. You assume that an explanation equals support. It is no wonder you struggle with news programs.
> 
> And, just for a point of fact: The kool aid is only drunk by the left - Jim was a friend of the left, not the right so the kool aid label doesn't work. Idiot.



You're a partisan hack.

The metaphor is a common one, and is not the property of the right.

You seriously need to come back to reality and come out of your little right-wing bubble.

And, yes, what you wrote does in fact "equal support", and is not just providing an "explanation".

(I notice you didn't make any defensive statements about MSNBC, now did you?)


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 30, 2009)

I seriously love it when I see someone write dozens of posts supporting Right-wing politicians and media sources, or write dozens of posts bashing the left without any criticism for the right, and then claim to be "independents" or "not right-wingers".

Just like Bill O'Reilly claimed to be an "Independent" for all those years, while he was supporting the right.

Who are you trying to convince exactly?  Yourselves?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 30, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Your point appears to be well made, but in the numbers from that ratings link is something I find rather sad.
> 
> 5PM:  Glenn Beck 2,676,000 viewers
> 6PM:  Special Report with Bret Baier 2,032,000 viewers
> ...




YES!!!  Exactly!

Which is why I absolutely HATE both MSNBC and FoxNews.  They are truly the worst offenders at spouting opinion and then tying it in with a couple of "real news" shows to make themselves look like they have some sort of integrity.

You get exactly what I'm saying.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Baier's show is straight news. The only interviews are with reporters. There is NO opinion anywhere in it, ever. It used to be Bret Hume's news show. It focuses on political news, mostly out of D.C.




Since apparently you didn't get what I was saying, watch the Jon Stewart link above.

He spells it out succinctly.  I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 30, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Now, on to Rather.
> 
> You continue to assert he was "fired" after only one month after his faked Booooosh service documents, even after it's been shown to you in this thread that's not accurate. So, you're giving the definite impression you don't want to be an honest participant in discussion.




*LOL, I love this.

This has to be the most-used tactic of the Right-Wing talking heads.

Argue a semantic point, pretend it's a valid falsehood, and then try to use it to invalidate the entire argument.

Priceless.*

And so typical.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 30, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Give an example of a "straight" news report that offered opinion. I understand that after some reportage has been made guest are called upon to give an analysis of the subject, but most often than not, Fox offers both conservative and liberal perspectives.



Watch the Jon Stewart clip I posted above.

He did his homework.


----------

