Fox News to move to front-row White House briefing room seat

[Modbert]

Yes, I try to catch crazy ed every day at 5 and tweety too. I did miss both of them today.

how much fox do you watch?

Depends on the day. Can range anywhere from not at all to a few hours a day. I figure whatever is being said on Fox will be the top talking points on USMB that day.

 

[WillowTree]

Yes, I try to catch crazy ed every day at 5 and tweety too. I did miss both of them today.

how much fox do you watch?

Depends on the day. Can range anywhere from not at all to a few hours a day. I figure whatever is being said on Fox will be the top talking points on USMB that day.

so then tell us MODMORON what is the one thing Fox News has that no other cable network news has?

 

[saveliberty]

Reasons why Fox made it to the front row:

1. They earned it.
2. The Press Corp does not want to appear too liberal.
3. They can point to this as some sort of meaningful gesture.
4. Most news outlets want to look fair and balanced.
5. Perhaps seniority plays a role.
6. That is where Gibbs usually lands his spittle.
7. Maybe Fox pays a bigger tab for the television equipment than the others considered.
8. Maybe Fox News is actually less visible near the wall than in the center of row two.

 

[Modbert]

so then tell us MODMORON what is the one thing Fox News has that no other cable network news has?

The comedy stylings of Glenn Beck?

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, I try to catch crazy ed every day at 5 and tweety too. I did miss both of them today.

how much fox do you watch?

Depends on the day. Can range anywhere from not at all to a few hours a day. I figure whatever is being said on Fox will be the top talking points on USMB that day.

so then tell us MODMORON what is the one thing Fox News has that no other cable network news has?

VIEWERS

of which bert is one

 

[Modbert]

VIEWERS

of which bert is one

Popularity means little to me when it comes to anything media or entertainment. Twilight sold the most books in 2009, doesn't mean it's good literature. (Spoiler: It's garbage)

 

[saveliberty]

Care to refute any one of the eight points made in post #183?

 

[Modbert]

Reasons why Fox made it to the front row:

1. They earned it.
2. The Press Corp does not want to appear too liberal.
3. They can point to this as some sort of meaningful gesture.
4. Most news outlets want to look fair and balanced.
5. Perhaps seniority plays a role.
6. That is where Gibbs usually lands his spittle.
7. Maybe Fox pays a bigger tab for the television equipment than the others considered.
8. Maybe Fox News is actually less visible near the wall than in the center of row two.

1.) Wut? That's not a fact. It's a subjective opinion.

2.) To whom? This didn't change anyone's mind about the media. So the WHCA knew it wouldn't change anyone's minds.

3.) This is the same as #2.

4.) This is the same as #2.

5.) NPR has been around since 1967, Fox News since 1996.

6.) Thats not really a point. Besides, they're not in the middle.

7.) Wut?

8.) Nobody in the first row is going to get ignored when it comes to questions. Typically only people in the first four rows get to ask questions.

 

[WillowTree]

VIEWERS

of which bert is one

Popularity means little to me when it comes to anything media or entertainment. Twilight sold the most books in 2009, doesn't mean it's good literature. (Spoiler: It's garbage)

talking points talking points talking points talking points..

 

[saveliberty]

Reasons why Fox made it to the front row:

1. They earned it.
2. The Press Corp does not want to appear too liberal.
3. They can point to this as some sort of meaningful gesture.
4. Most news outlets want to look fair and balanced.
5. Perhaps seniority plays a role.
6. That is where Gibbs usually lands his spittle.
7. Maybe Fox pays a bigger tab for the television equipment than the others considered.
8. Maybe Fox News is actually less visible near the wall than in the center of row two.

1.) Wut? That's not a fact. It's a subjective opinion.

2.) To whom? This didn't change anyone's mind about the media. So the WHCA knew it wouldn't change anyone's minds.

3.) This is the same as #2.

4.) This is the same as #2.

5.) NPR has been around since 1967, Fox News since 1996.

6.) Thats not really a point. Besides, they're not in the middle.

7.) Wut?

8.) Nobody in the first row is going to get ignored when it comes to questions. Typically only people in the first four rows get to ask questions.

1. They were recognized by their peers. That is earning it inmost cases.

2. The public. They view the media as liberal leaning clearly.

3. You don't find the move a gesture of some sort? What do you think it meant then?

4. So you think news outlets WANT to appear slanted?

5. It may not be by company, but by the representative's tenure.

6. I didn't say anything about the middle. It was meant as comic relief, so thanks.

7. It was actually a listed reason for why they won the placement. "It was a very difficult decision. The board received requests from Bloomberg and NPR in addition to Fox for relocation to the front row and felt all three made compelling cases. But the board ultimately was persuaded by Fox's length of service and commitment to the White House television pool."

In wake of Helen Thomas departure, Fox News moves to front row in W.H. briefing room - Lynn Sweet

8. Fox was already in the second row middle, so you helped your own point fail. I was referring more to camera angle.

 

[WillowTree]

answer the question modmoron.

 

[saveliberty]

Stick to your talking points libs. Here I'll help you:

What a Terrible Move, writes liberal John Cole at Balloon Juice: "It’s just obscene to reward them, but as we know, in the beltway, this isn’t about journalism... Who cares about these people. It isn’t like any news has ever been broken in the briefing room."

Breathe, People, writes the liberal Political Carnival blog: "Let’s be mature about this. They’re just chairs. In a room. With other chairs with people in them. Okay, I hate it too, but what can we do about it other than write it up in snarky posts and tweets?"

Did Fox News Deserve the Front Row White House Seat Over NPR? - Yahoo! News

 

[Modbert]

talking points talking points talking points talking points..

No, what you used is a talking point. Because if MSNBC became the most popular news station by next year, you'd say it doesn't matter. Ratings have never and will never matter to me.

Do you know what show gets better ratings than all news shows?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He-LBIyBUz8]YouTube - Spongebob Theme Song (WithLyrics)[/ame]

 

[Modbert]

1. They were recognized by their peers. That is earning it inmost cases.

2. The public. They view the media as liberal leaning clearly.

3. You don't find the move a gesture of some sort? What do you think it meant then?

4. So you think news outlets WANT to appear slanted?

5. It may not be by company, but by the representative's tenure.

6. I didn't say anything about the middle. It was meant as comic relief, so thanks.

7. It was actually a listed reason for why they won the placement. "It was a very difficult decision. The board received requests from Bloomberg and NPR in addition to Fox for relocation to the front row and felt all three made compelling cases. But the board ultimately was persuaded by Fox's length of service and commitment to the White House television pool."

In wake of Helen Thomas departure, Fox News moves to front row in W.H. briefing room - Lynn Sweet

8. Fox was already in the second row middle, so you helped your own point fail. I was referring more to camera angle.

1.) Except if their peers are carrying out the Obama agenda, then why would they give a front row seat to Fox News?

2.) My point is that this didn't change anyone's mind about how the media is. Didn't change yours, didn't change Dive's, and didn't change Willow's. WHCA knew this, they knew that it doesn't matter what they decided, all of a sudden the fox news fans wouldn't suddenly stop calling the MSM the "Liberal media" or anything like that. It's such a bullshit and naive point to make.

3.) If they are supposedly carrying out the Obama agenda, they wouldn't validate Fox News in this manner.

4.) You don't seem to get it. See #3. Plus, you should read some of my prior posts to Dive about this exact same thing. We all know that Fox News and MSNBC cater to a certain group of people.

5.) Link to show that?

6.) I know, I laughed.

7.) That point is somewhat vague and yet not so vague.

8.) I know you were referring to camera angle. Point is, the point doesn't work because nobody in the first four rows gets ignored. Especially the first row too.

 

[saveliberty]

1. They were recognized by their peers. That is earning it inmost cases.

2. The public. They view the media as liberal leaning clearly.

3. You don't find the move a gesture of some sort? What do you think it meant then?

4. So you think news outlets WANT to appear slanted?

5. It may not be by company, but by the representative's tenure.

6. I didn't say anything about the middle. It was meant as comic relief, so thanks.

7. It was actually a listed reason for why they won the placement. "It was a very difficult decision. The board received requests from Bloomberg and NPR in addition to Fox for relocation to the front row and felt all three made compelling cases. But the board ultimately was persuaded by Fox's length of service and commitment to the White House television pool."

In wake of Helen Thomas departure, Fox News moves to front row in W.H. briefing room - Lynn Sweet

8. Fox was already in the second row middle, so you helped your own point fail. I was referring more to camera angle.

1.) Except if their peers are carrying out the Obama agenda, then why would they give a front row seat to Fox News?

2.) My point is that this didn't change anyone's mind about how the media is. Didn't change yours, didn't change Dive's, and didn't change Willow's. WHCA knew this, they knew that it doesn't matter what they decided, all of a sudden the fox news fans wouldn't suddenly stop calling the MSM the "Liberal media" or anything like that. It's such a bullshit and naive point to make.

3.) If they are supposedly carrying out the Obama agenda, they wouldn't validate Fox News in this manner.

4.) You don't seem to get it. See #3. Plus, you should read some of my prior posts to Dive about this exact same thing. We all know that Fox News and MSNBC cater to a certain group of people.

5.) Link to show that?

6.) I know, I laughed.

7.) That point is somewhat vague and yet not so vague.

8.) I know you were referring to camera angle. Point is, the point doesn't work because nobody in the first four rows gets ignored. Especially the first row too.

You assume 0bama is carrying out the liberal agenda liberals want. They are making a point with 0bama.

 

[Modbert]

You assume 0bama is carrying out the liberal agenda liberals want. They are making a point with 0bama.

Woah Woah.



Let's get something straight, I have been on here for months saying as a Liberal, Obama has been a disappointment to myself and many other Liberals. If you seriously think the so called Liberal media is stupid enough to "make a point" to Obama by giving validation to one of the most Conservative media outlets there then you are clearly grasping for straws.

My point throughout this entire thread has been this:

You and others therefore cannot hold these two simultaneous thoughts:

1.) The Media is full of a bunch of Liberals who are spreading propaganda for the Obama Administration or are willing to excuse the Administration because they are leftists.

2.) Fox News's peers all agree that Fox News is such a respected news source that deserves the front row seat for all their hard work.

So using your own logic, either the media is a bunch of Liberal elitists and your statement is false, or they aren't and your statement is true.

The media cannot be Liberal elitists pushing the Obama agenda and give Fox News the front row seat. It makes no sense.

 

[Dr Grump]

How many Yanks watch Fox? 4 million? 6? out of 300! Big fucking deal. Their ratings are in the margin of error, as with most cable news outlets.

 

[JiggsCasey]

and Shepard Smith has said he was a moderate, but i've read things before(that i cant find now) that showed he was more of a liberal
on Greta, that one is so widely known asking me to prove it is ignorant

oh, he's conservative all right... and very gay... you know, the closeted kind con that is usually so self-loathing that he agrees to work for a very anti-gay, conservative propaganda machine.

sorta like this guy:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Vs5570pKw[/ame]

 

[xotoxi]

it proves they are a respected news source
why else would they be VOTED there unanimously by their PEERS

But wait a minute Dive, if the media is full of a bunch of Liberals who do nothing but spread propaganda to people in order to fulfill the Obama agenda then why would said "peers" vote for them to have a seat and be considered a respected news source?

You and others therefore cannot hold these two simultaneous thoughts:

1.) The Media is full of a bunch of Liberals who are spreading propaganda for the Obama Administration or are willing to excuse the Administration because they are leftists.

2.) Fox News's peers all agree that Fox News is such a respected news source that deserves the front row seat for all their hard work.

So using your own logic, either the media is a bunch of Liberal elitists and your statement is false, or they aren't and your statement is true.

Which is it?

 

[JiggsCasey]

How many Yanks watch Fox? 4 million? 6? out of 300! Big fucking deal. Their ratings are in the margin of error, as with most cable news outlets.

the ratings are meaningless... Faux only wins the ratings war because they enjoy the consolidated viewership of the entire right... Meanwhile the other moderate news channels have their viewership divided up amongst themselves. ... It's simple pie-chart math here.

If I divide a pie into 5 equal slices for 4 people, and 1 of those people is a dyed-in-the-wool con man who gets 2 slices, and one each for the moderates, does that mean the conservative has the majority of the pie? Think.

Wake up, cons. Squawking "look at the ratings!!! look at the ratings!!! <bacaw!!!>" over and over again doesn't mean much of anything. It just means you all congregate to the one news outlet that feeds you the "news" just the way you like it. ... With a religio-paranoid, separatist, class dividing, privatize-everything, bomb-more-brown-people kind of slant. ...

Mmmm, delicious "Fair and Balanced" News, with hot, leggy blondes!!!