Anita Dunn...

[Oldandtired]

The top is 27-30%
The bottom is 21%-23%

A significant enough gap. What is more interesting is the trends though - only one source shows a continious upward trend over the years and that is NPR. Only one. I wonder why? (I'm not being sarcastic - I really do wonder because every other one declined).

Let's look at the chart:

We see that MSNBC, NBC, ABC and FOX are all at the same level credibility wise.

Are you trying to argue one percentage point is a huge seperation?

Even 30% is a really low figure and it was the highest given.

What the study shows me is most people don't believe the news, period.

Agree, but keep in mind there are those trying to make Fox out to be more believable than most other sources.

Sadly...you refer to a poll of "believability"....
Truth is...in todays age....when someone lies inj public, it gets out in one hour.

The real issue..and one that this poll does NOT address is the issue of what one reports.

Not reporting that the Pres has a man on his staff that referred toi himself as a communist is not lying...it is not reporting on something that should be reported on...but it is not lying.

So that poll is not at all relevant to the real issue.....

WHY DID THE MSM not know about Jones?
Why did 2 kids need to expose Acorn...and why did it take the MSM a week to follow up on it?
WHy did the MSM not report on Dunn?

Before Obama, if a candidate farted, it was news. If a candidate used a racial slur, he was a goner. If a candidate referred to color, he was done for the campaign. If he was found to have smoked pot when he was a kid, it was a week long news story. Gary Hart waws on a boat called Monkey Business and his campaign ended the next day...even though he did nothing wrong.

But....Obama does cocaine and writes about it and it is not on the newsd...He refers to color in his speeches and books and nada.....he has Van Jones and no one reports on his past....

So please....lets not talkj about believability....lets talk about NOT REPORTING.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Let's look at the chart:

We see that MSNBC, NBC, ABC and FOX are all at the same level credibility wise.

Are you trying to argue one percentage point is a huge seperation?

Even 30% is a really low figure and it was the highest given.

What the study shows me is most people don't believe the news, period.

So... your admiting that FOX News is only believeable some 30% of the time. Nice.

And your admitting to lacking the basic comprehension of reading a poll.

Nice...

Gotta agree here - Fox only got a 23

 

[Coyote]

It's argument for argument's sake.... I hope. {gulp!} Otherwise, we could only conclude that we're surrounded by loony-toons and there'd be nothing left to do but break out the butterfly nets.

Chairman Mao and Mother Theresa... and the libbies don't bat an eyelash?
Now, THAT's either seriously dedicated partisanship, or... the zombie apocalypse is nigh.

Because the only one's trying to make a comparison between the people are yourselves.

I will again suggest you listen to her speech. You are making an ass of yourself...and I would thasnk YOUR media for it.

Dunn is the one who used them in the same sentences as ones that she MOST admired.

But her accolades for Moa continued...she never brought up Mother Teresa after that......it was not her first line that was diusturbing....it was her obvilous adoration for Mao AND HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS that she discussed.

Stop commenting on something you did not watch entirely....it is not in the best interest of your credibility.

And yes...it is quite obvious you just listened to a snippet...if you listened to the entire thing, my guess is you would not even post in this thread,

THERE IS NO WAY ONE CAN SPIN WHAT SHE SAID.....liten to it...in its entirety....you will see my point.

Here is a transcript of what she said - are you saying it is incomplete?

A lot of you have great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together and that answers the why not question. There is usually not a good reason. And then the 3rd lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers. Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa, not often couple with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is you’re going to make choices, you’re going to challenge, you’re going to say why not. You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal, these are your choices, they’re no one else’s.

In 1947, when Mao Tse-tung was being challenged within his own party, on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side and people said how can you win, how can you do this, how can you do this against all odds against you, and Mao Tse-tung said “You fight your war and I’ll fight mine.” Think about that for a second, you don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices in the past. Okay. It is about your choices in your path, you fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what is right for you. You don’t let external definition how good you are internally. You fight your own war. You let them fight their’s. Everybody has their own path.

You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.

And then Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply: "Go find your own Calcutta." OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge.

 

[Coyote]

Let's look at the chart:

We see that MSNBC, NBC, ABC and FOX are all at the same level credibility wise.

Are you trying to argue one percentage point is a huge seperation?

Even 30% is a really low figure and it was the highest given.

What the study shows me is most people don't believe the news, period.

Agree, but keep in mind there are those trying to make Fox out to be more believable than most other sources.

Sadly...you refer to a poll of "believability"....
Truth is...in todays age....when someone lies inj public, it gets out in one hour.

The real issue..and one that this poll does NOT address is the issue of what one reports.

Not reporting that the Pres has a man on his staff that referred toi himself as a communist is not lying...it is not reporting on something that should be reported on...but it is not lying.

So that poll is not at all relevant to the real issue.....

WHY DID THE MSM not know about Jones?
Why did 2 kids need to expose Acorn...and why did it take the MSM a week to follow up on it?
WHy did the MSM not report on Dunn?

Before Obama, if a candidate farted, it was news. If a candidate used a racial slur, he was a goner. If a candidate referred to color, he was done for the campaign. If he was found to have smoked pot when he was a kid, it was a week long news story. Gary Hart waws on a boat called Monkey Business and his campaign ended the next day...even though he did nothing wrong.

But....Obama does cocaine and writes about it and it is not on the newsd...He refers to color in his speeches and books and nada.....he has Van Jones and no one reports on his past....

So please....lets not talkj about believability....lets talk about NOT REPORTING.

It all comes down to believability.

Why did the Fox reporters need to lie about never being rebuffed vis a vis Acorn?

Why did Fox need to exagerate Dunn's statements into something that they weren't ("hero worship" of Mao).

Why did Fox need to lie about Jones (convicted felon, arrested in the Rodney King riots, currently a communist).

And, most of all - why do you defend these lies?

 

[Murf76]

God Damn......some people will defend anything and everything.

It's argument for argument's sake.... I hope. {gulp!} Otherwise, we could only conclude that we're surrounded by loony-toons and there'd be nothing left to do but break out the butterfly nets.

Chairman Mao and Mother Theresa... and the libbies don't bat an eyelash?
Now, THAT's either seriously dedicated partisanship, or... the zombie apocalypse is nigh.

Because the only one's trying to make a comparison between the people are yourselves.

Well, THAT's true.. at least in terms of conservatives. But I have to say, in personal observation, that I've noted since Obama came on the scene there's nothing too gross or disgusting that modern liberals won't stoop down and put it in their mouths.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Let's look at the chart:

We see that MSNBC, NBC, ABC and FOX are all at the same level credibility wise.

Are you trying to argue one percentage point is a huge seperation?

Even 30% is a really low figure and it was the highest given.

What the study shows me is most people don't believe the news, period.

Agree, but keep in mind there are those trying to make Fox out to be more believable than most other sources.

Sadly...you refer to a poll of "believability"....
Truth is...in todays age....when someone lies inj public, it gets out in one hour.

The real issue..and one that this poll does NOT address is the issue of what one reports.

Not reporting that the Pres has a man on his staff that referred toi himself as a communist is not lying...it is not reporting on something that should be reported on...but it is not lying.

So that poll is not at all relevant to the real issue.....

WHY DID THE MSM not know about Jones?
Why did 2 kids need to expose Acorn...and why did it take the MSM a week to follow up on it?
WHy did the MSM not report on Dunn?

Before Obama, if a candidate farted, it was news. If a candidate used a racial slur, he was a goner. If a candidate referred to color, he was done for the campaign. If he was found to have smoked pot when he was a kid, it was a week long news story. Gary Hart waws on a boat called Monkey Business and his campaign ended the next day...even though he did nothing wrong.

But....Obama does cocaine and writes about it and it is not on the newsd...He refers to color in his speeches and books and nada.....he has Van Jones and no one reports on his past....

So please....lets not talkj about believability....lets talk about NOT REPORTING.

Lets talk about a liberal MSM who is invested in this president BIG TIME!

So much so, that they aren't willing to hold him accountable for anything.

It's disgusting.

 

[Oldandtired]

Agree, but keep in mind there are those trying to make Fox out to be more believable than most other sources.

Sadly...you refer to a poll of "believability"....
Truth is...in todays age....when someone lies inj public, it gets out in one hour.

The real issue..and one that this poll does NOT address is the issue of what one reports.

Not reporting that the Pres has a man on his staff that referred toi himself as a communist is not lying...it is not reporting on something that should be reported on...but it is not lying.

So that poll is not at all relevant to the real issue.....

WHY DID THE MSM not know about Jones?
Why did 2 kids need to expose Acorn...and why did it take the MSM a week to follow up on it?
WHy did the MSM not report on Dunn?

Before Obama, if a candidate farted, it was news. If a candidate used a racial slur, he was a goner. If a candidate referred to color, he was done for the campaign. If he was found to have smoked pot when he was a kid, it was a week long news story. Gary Hart waws on a boat called Monkey Business and his campaign ended the next day...even though he did nothing wrong.

But....Obama does cocaine and writes about it and it is not on the newsd...He refers to color in his speeches and books and nada.....he has Van Jones and no one reports on his past....

So please....lets not talkj about believability....lets talk about NOT REPORTING.

It all comes down to believability.

Why did the Fox reporters need to lie about never being rebuffed vis a vis Acorn?

Why did Fox need to exagerate Dunn's statements into something that they weren't ("hero worship" of Mao).

Why did Fox need to lie about Jones (convicted felon, arrested in the Rodney King riots, currently a communist).

And, most of all - why do you defend these lies?

Simple answer coyote.....they did not do what you claim.
They admitted that THEY were told by the kids that they were not turned away...and when the fessed up to it, Fox reported it.

Fox did not say that Dunn worshippede Mao...they reported that she said he was one of her two favorite political philosphers.

They did not lie about Jones. They reported that he was arrested..and he was.....and they pointed out how in the late 90's he declared himself as a communist...and so far, to date, there has not been a retraction from him for that statement. They offered him an opportunity to denounce his statement and he refused.

So it seems YOUR information are the lies.

You obviously dont watch Fix nbews......for if you did, you would not be posting the stuff you are posting.

You are allowing others to feed you words...and it is making you look foolish.

 

[saveliberty]

I found your poll numbers were exactly the same as a May 2008 NBC poll. Interesting as another poll put it this way:

Americans see:

-- Growing media attempts to influence public opinion and policies

-- Poor quality

-- A strong liberal bent in most media

-- Fox News, CNN and NBC as the most accurate

Americans Slam News Media on Believability | Reuters

Fox does poorly in believability - ranking in the bottom third according to Journalism.org- The State of the News Media 2009 which is the site what Nodog was referencing.

They ALL do poorly, according to the study, FOX would be 23% and many of the others are just 24%.

Trying to play this up is rediculous, the study also showed tremendous bias in favor of Obama.

Hardly a study to bring up to condemn FOX with.

I would err on the side of accuracy and leave "believability" up to history. Since liberals, in general, seem to immediately disbelieve Fox News, it is no wonder they have a low "believability" score.

 

[Oldandtired]

Fox does poorly in believability - ranking in the bottom third according to Journalism.org- The State of the News Media 2009 which is the site what Nodog was referencing.

They ALL do poorly, according to the study, FOX would be 23% and many of the others are just 24%.

Trying to play this up is rediculous, the study also showed tremendous bias in favor of Obama.

Hardly a study to bring up to condemn FOX with.

I would err on the side of accuracy and leave "believability" up to history. Since liberals, in general, seem to immediately disbelieve Fox News, it is no wonder they have a low "believability" score.

Ironically, when a lie is told on the news...ie Dan Rather...it is big news and all know about it.
Yet, with Fox news, people talk about their lies...but no one has proof of lies.

 

[Sinatra]

Sadly...you refer to a poll of "believability"....
Truth is...in todays age....when someone lies inj public, it gets out in one hour.

The real issue..and one that this poll does NOT address is the issue of what one reports.

Not reporting that the Pres has a man on his staff that referred toi himself as a communist is not lying...it is not reporting on something that should be reported on...but it is not lying.

So that poll is not at all relevant to the real issue.....

WHY DID THE MSM not know about Jones?
Why did 2 kids need to expose Acorn...and why did it take the MSM a week to follow up on it?
WHy did the MSM not report on Dunn?

Before Obama, if a candidate farted, it was news. If a candidate used a racial slur, he was a goner. If a candidate referred to color, he was done for the campaign. If he was found to have smoked pot when he was a kid, it was a week long news story. Gary Hart waws on a boat called Monkey Business and his campaign ended the next day...even though he did nothing wrong.

But....Obama does cocaine and writes about it and it is not on the newsd...He refers to color in his speeches and books and nada.....he has Van Jones and no one reports on his past....

So please....lets not talkj about believability....lets talk about NOT REPORTING.

It all comes down to believability.

Why did the Fox reporters need to lie about never being rebuffed vis a vis Acorn?

Why did Fox need to exagerate Dunn's statements into something that they weren't ("hero worship" of Mao).

Why did Fox need to lie about Jones (convicted felon, arrested in the Rodney King riots, currently a communist).

And, most of all - why do you defend these lies?

Simple answer coyote.....they did not do what you claim.
They admitted that THEY were told by the kids that they were not turned away...and when the fessed up to it, Fox reported it.

Fox did not say that Dunn worshippede Mao...they reported that she said he was one of her two favorite political philosphers.

They did not lie about Jones. They reported that he was arrested..and he was.....and they pointed out how in the late 90's he declared himself as a communist...and so far, to date, there has not been a retraction from him for that statement. They offered him an opportunity to denounce his statement and he refused.

So it seems YOUR information are the lies.

You obviously dont watch Fix nbews......for if you did, you would not be posting the stuff you are posting.

You are allowing others to feed you words...and it is making you look foolish.

Well done.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Well. I've drawn one clonclusion out of all this. The MSM is untrustworthy. Glenn Beck and FOX is considered MSM. Maddow and Keith Olbermann are considered MSM. CNN is considered MSM. Therefore none of them are turstworthy and I question everything on each program for political slant, Beck is no different, from any of the others. He has said in his own words he is not a journalist, he is a commentator an entertainer. I don't find political entertainment... entertaining, so I don't watch the show. I might start though, just to see what else is going on in Glenn Beck's Red America (heh). I talked to a guy who's invested in buying gold since the whole Communist America craziness began says gold is going threw the roof in value. Well... atleast he's good for something.

 

[Oldandtired]

Well. I've drawn one clonclusion out of all this. The MSM is untrustworthy. Glenn Beck and FOX is considered MSM. Maddow and Keith Olbermann are considered MSM. CNN is considered MSM. Therefore none of them are turstworthy and I question everything on each program for political slant, Beck is no different, from any of the others. He has said in his own words he is not a journalist, he is a commentator an entertainer. I don't find political entertainment... entertaining, so I don't watch the show. I might start though, just to see what else is going on in Glenn Beck's Red America (heh). I talked to a guy who's invested in buying gold since the whole Communist America craziness began says gold is going threw the roof in value. Well... atleast he's good for something.

Beck is not the news....no one says he is. Neither is Maddow...and thus I do not blast her for her show.

But I must ask...why is it Beck that uncovers Jones and Dunn?

Where are the investigative reporters?

It got out that Clinton smoked pot 30 years earlier and the media had reporters on every corner of the globe digging into it.

Beck reports that a man in the WH referred to himself as a communist and not one reporter cared to let you know about it.

This is a good thing?

What of Jones worked for Reagan? Would you have wanted to know?

 

[Sinatra]

Well. I've drawn one clonclusion out of all this. The MSM is untrustworthy. Glenn Beck and FOX is considered MSM. Maddow and Keith Olbermann are considered MSM. CNN is considered MSM. Therefore none of them are turstworthy and I question everything on each program for political slant, Beck is no different, from any of the others. He has said in his own words he is not a journalist, he is a commentator an entertainer. I don't find political entertainment... entertaining, so I don't watch the show. I might start though, just to see what else is going on in Glenn Beck's Red America (heh). I talked to a guy who's invested in buying gold since the whole Communist America craziness began says gold is going threw the roof in value. Well... atleast he's good for something.

Beck is not the news....no one says he is. Neither is Maddow...and thus I do not blast her for her show.

But I must ask...why is it Beck that uncovers Jones and Dunn?

Where are the investigative reporters?

It got out that Clinton smoked pot 30 years earlier and the media had reporters on every corner of the globe digging into it.

Beck reports that a man in the WH referred to himself as a communist and not one reporter cared to let you know about it.

This is a good thing?

What of Jones worked for Reagan? Would you have wanted to know?

So many in the media have invested in Obama - they believe Obama is as much a creation of their own making as any president before. And like faithful parents, they will defend and promote that creation until the very end...

 

[uptownlivin90]

But I must ask...why is it Beck that uncovers Jones and Dunn?

Because Beck is something we like to call "partisan" just like the rest of the media. Glen will only "expose" those who his said ideology is against, because just like MSNBC is biased toward Democrats FOX is biased towards Republicans. Therefore the game continues. Glenn is not a libertarian, neither is he convicted in what he believes, did you watch his show today? For the Hell of it I did. He went on about liberties and all that good stuff and then railed against the President's administration making marijuana "more available" which never happened. I'm sure he was refering to the states rights provisions that stop the Feds from getting involved when states legalize medical marijuana. Obama did not make any moves to give better access to marijuana to the public. In mtter of fact he made it a states issue and said that states not the feds should make that determination. How do you call your self a defender of "liberty" and states rights and then criticize Obama for defending liberty and states rights.

It took me five minutes of watching his show to determine that the man is neither convicted of anything he says or in anyway anymore of a serious journalist or commentator then any other that exists on MSM. He is dangerous simply because of the agenda not that he has but that he perpetuates. It is a christian right-wing small government unless we want to infringe our morals and values upon your life gospel of neo-conservative loonacy. THAT'S what he promotes, and he's using the Alex Jones type conspiracies, mixing them up and making it an issue of partisan slant. Alex Jones himself caught on to that one... I've got videos of Alex Jones exposing Beck. Beck has the conspiracy theory compacity of a baby, I've seen far better, far more convincing, and far more thoguht provoking conspiracy theories then what I've seen of what I watched on the show.

The guy has no integrity and stands for nothing. Anita Dunn is not a Maoist. The Koh guy never once said he was a fan of Sharia Law... I mean how sloppy can these theories get? The sole evidence for the Koh thing is some guy who says he was at a meeting where Koh said "I like sharia law". Whatever... I mean think about the theory they're putting together radical communism (Mao/Stalin) and radical Islamic nutjobs, working together in the white house. Together for what? Have you ever heard of an Islamic communist nation? Sharia Law and communism don't work, just ask an Iranian imam.

FOX knows they can get away with this because they know their 2 million a-day member audience doesn't know the first thing about Islam and doesn't know the first thing about communism. Nobody's going to question them and say hey, that doesn't make sense. As long as it makes Obama look bad it's good. As long as the news on MSNBC makes him look good it's good. It's a GAME!!! And your the sucker getting PLAYED.

 

[Sinatra]

But I must ask...why is it Beck that uncovers Jones and Dunn?

Because Beck is something we like to call "partisan" just like the rest of the media. Glen will only "expose" those who his said ideology is against, because just like MSNBC is biased toward Democrats FOX is biased towards Republicans. Therefore the game continues. Glenn is not a libertarian, neither is he convicted in what he believes, did you watch his show today? For the Hell of it I did. He went on about liberties and all that good stuff and then railed against the President's administration making marijuana "more available" which never happened. I'm sure he was refering to the states rights provisions that stop the Feds from getting involved when states legalize medical marijuana. Obama did not make any moves to give better access to marijuana to the public. In mtter of fact he made it a states issue and said that states not the feds should make that determination. How do you call your self a defender of "liberty" and states rights and then criticize Obama for defending liberty and states rights.

It took me five minutes of watching his show to determine that the man is neither convicted of anything he says or in anyway anymore of a serious journalist or commentator then any other that exists on MSM. He is dangerous simply because of the agenda not that he has but that he perpetuates. It is a christian right-wing small government unless we want to infringe our morals and values upon your life gospel of neo-conservative loonacy. THAT'S what he promotes, and he's using the Alex Jones type conspiracies, mixing them up and making it an issue of partisan slant. Alex Jones himself caught on to that one... I've got videos of Alex Jones exposing Beck. Beck has the conspiracy theory compacity of a baby, I've seen far better, far more convincing, and far more thoguht provoking conspiracy theories then what I've seen of what I watched on the show.

The guy has no integrity and stands for nothing. Anita Dunn is not a Maoist. The Koh guy never once said he was a fan of Sharia Law... I mean how sloppy can these theories get? The sole evidence for the Koh thing is some guy who says he was at a meeting where Koh said "I like sharia law". Whatever... I mean think about the theory they're putting together radical communism (Mao/Stalin) and radical Islamic nutjobs, working together in the white house. Together for what? Have you ever heard of an Islamic communist nation? Sharia Law and communism don't work, just ask an Iranian imam.

FOX knows they can get away with this because they know their 2 million a-day member audience doesn't know the first thing about Islam and doesn't know the first thing about communism. Nobody's going to question them and say hey, that doesn't make sense. As long as it makes Obama look bad it's good. As long as the news on MSNBC makes him look good it's good. It's a GAME!!! And your the sucker getting PLAYED.

Actually it's well over 3 million per day.

But who's counting...

 

[Oldandtired]

But I must ask...why is it Beck that uncovers Jones and Dunn?

Because Beck is something we like to call "partisan" just like the rest of the media. Glen will only "expose" those who his said ideology is against, because just like MSNBC is biased toward Democrats FOX is biased towards Republicans. Therefore the game continues. Glenn is not a libertarian, neither is he convicted in what he believes, did you watch his show today? For the Hell of it I did. He went on about liberties and all that good stuff and then railed against the President's administration making marijuana "more available" which never happened. I'm sure he was refering to the states rights provisions that stop the Feds from getting involved when states legalize medical marijuana. Obama did not make any moves to give better access to marijuana to the public. In mtter of fact he made it a states issue and said that states not the feds should make that determination. How do you call your self a defender of "liberty" and states rights and then criticize Obama for defending liberty and states rights.

It took me five minutes of watching his show to determine that the man is neither convicted of anything he says or in anyway anymore of a serious journalist or commentator then any other that exists on MSM. He is dangerous simply because of the agenda not that he has but that he perpetuates. It is a christian right-wing small government unless we want to infringe our morals and values upon your life gospel of neo-conservative loonacy. THAT'S what he promotes, and he's using the Alex Jones type conspiracies, mixing them up and making it an issue of partisan slant. Alex Jones himself caught on to that one... I've got videos of Alex Jones exposing Beck. Beck has the conspiracy theory compacity of a baby, I've seen far better, far more convincing, and far more thoguht provoking conspiracy theories then what I've seen of what I watched on the show.

The guy has no integrity and stands for nothing. Anita Dunn is not a Maoist. The Koh guy never once said he was a fan of Sharia Law... I mean how sloppy can these theories get? The sole evidence for the Koh thing is some guy who says he was at a meeting where Koh said "I like sharia law". Whatever... I mean think about the theory they're putting together radical communism (Mao/Stalin) and radical Islamic nutjobs, working together in the white house. Together for what? Have you ever heard of an Islamic communist nation? Sharia Law and communism don't work, just ask an Iranian imam.

FOX knows they can get away with this because they know their 2 million a-day member audience doesn't know the first thing about Islam and doesn't know the first thing about communism. Nobody's going to question them and say hey, that doesn't make sense. As long as it makes Obama look bad it's good. As long as the news on MSNBC makes him look good it's good. It's a GAME!!! And your the sucker getting PLAYED.

How Beck presents his commentary is his choice and his viewers may opt to watch it or not.

Yet people like you denounce his style and completely ignore tha facts he presents.

Dunn is not a Moaist? How do you know? He did not say she was...he siad there is reason to believe she is so he OPENLY ASKED her to explain what she meant when she said Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers....and she refused top respond and instead pout out a release saying she was joking around. Yet reviewing the film it is quite obvious she was not joking around....so now you must question why she has such a lame excuse.

So is she? You say no, Based on what? I say maybe...based on her own words. I dont say yes...I say maybe...and the longer she goes without explaining it, the more I will think she IS a maoist.

Is someone who says that Son of Sam was his favorite serial killer, a serial killer himself? Not necessarily....but would you question what he meant? Would you be concerned about him if he did not explain his reason for saying it? Would you let him babysit your child? Be part of your government?

I find your trust in people amusing. 70% of the people complained about Bush and said "If I had known, I would never have voted for him".......yet here we are....an administration that refuses to explain MANY strnage appointees....yet you are OK with them refusing to explain WHY....and you simply trust what they say....

Funny...no? If we ask our President to explain, we are obstructionists, racists, GOP plants.....yet those same people hated Bush as he "refused to explain"....

Pathetic.

 

[Coyote]

Agree, but keep in mind there are those trying to make Fox out to be more believable than most other sources.

The chart also tells me that many of the other news outlets have had huge drop offs in the last 10 years credibility wise.

FOX dropped 3 points from the furest tacking point they had, CNN dropped a whopping 12 points.

Only National Public Radio went up.

I believe the internet has a lot to do with all this, people can now find alternatives to what networks put out, and as we often see, within hours of reporting a bogus claim it is refuted on the net.

An example would be the famous ANG memo about Bush that CBS claimed was authentic was proven to be a fraud by bloggers shortly after it was broadcast, destroying dan Rather's career, a career he had built over 30 years.

We didn't have that 10 years ago.

I found it interesting that only public radio went - consistently - up during that time frame, and I'm not sure why. I do think one reason for the decline overall - particularly with cable - in believability is also more "niche marketing" and opinion type news and shows in order to retain ratings - MSNBC clearly for liberal bias, Fox clearly for conservative bias.

 

[Modbert]

This is an example of why I can't take anything Glenn Beck says seriously or Fox News really:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/92279-fox-news-must-be-having-budget-issues.html

 

[Charles Stucker]

Fox did not say that Dunn worshippede Mao...they reported that she said he was one of her two favorite political philosphers.

They did so in a sensationalist way designed to obscure the truth and succeeded to such an extent that even now people on this forum are calling for her head as a "Pink Commie Sympathizer" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Dunn's expressed attitude, listening to the entire clip can be summed up as
"Work hard for your goal and don't let someone else tell you what it should be."
Which part of that statement is unamerican?

 

[Oldandtired]

Fox did not say that Dunn worshippede Mao...they reported that she said he was one of her two favorite political philosphers.

They did so in a sensationalist way designed to obscure the truth and succeeded to such an extent that even now people on this forum are calling for her head as a "Pink Commie Sympathizer" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Dunn's expressed attitude, listening to the entire clip can be summed up as
"Work hard for your goal and don't let someone else tell you what it should be."
Which part of that statement is unamerican?

If she said "There is one quote of Mao that makes sense..."....and gave the quote, then I would agree with you.
But in the clip, she THREE TIMES said that Moa was one of her two fasvorite political philosophers....She sis not say she liked one quote of him....she made it quite clear that she admired MANY of his beliefs.

Now, beofre you argue......if I were to simply quote Hitler....I am quoting a notable man. But if I say Hitler is one of my two favorite philosophers...and then give one quote that I agreed with.....would you take it as a man I admired or a man who had one quote I admired?

Furthermore...if you watched Beck when he first broke the story he did not call her a maoist.....he simply said her speech was disturbing and asked for an excplanation...and rightfully so. If she simply quoted Mao...an explanation was not necessary.....but he asked her what she meant by calling him one of her two favorite philosophers.

As ooposed to responding, she put oput a press release saying it was a joke that fell flat.....but if you truly watched the clip you would agree that in no way was she joking...

So when you approach someone and ask them why and they do not say why...instead give an excuse that is noticeably not valid....is it not unuusal to then assume she does not want you to know the truth? And then do you not have reason to ask "why do younot want us to know the truth?" And then when such is nmot responded to, isnt it just natural to assume the truth based on the facts?