Why won't obama call out fox news???

[nodoginnafight]

The big difference I see in Fox coverage is

Interupting & Shouting down answers that do not reflect the approved Fox agenda
Loaded questions that assume fringe opinions are facts

 

[tigerbob]

I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but just because a network doesn't just sit down and read the GOP talking points word for word doesn't mean they're biased in favor of Obama.

This doesn't shock me at all. I expected that kind of response. The sheep always stays with the flock. And the flock always stays with the shepherd.

But if you expect me to believe that the networks he's appearing on are not pro-Obama, then I am a little bit shocked at your obtusiveness.

They're not pro-Obama. Before the health care speech, for example, I flipped back and forth between CBS and CNN. CNN was having a pretty calm and rational discussion. CBS had Reid and Couric spouting off the GOP talking points as if they were gospel truth.

With respect, it's not so much the main questions that expose the leanings of a network (everyone will ask broadly the same questions) but the follow-up questions and the examples they cite. All politicians are well prepped for the headline questions. It's the follow ups that can be tricky.

 

[txlonghorn]

Let's assume he went on FOX. What do you think the Faux News interviewer is going to ask him that won't be asked by any of the other 6 network interviewers?

1. Have you read the entire reform proposal? And if so, was there anything there that you have not addressed as fully as you perhaps should have up to this point?

2. What would or could you say to those who appeared on the White House Lawn this past Saturday that would ease their minds and concerns about the current proposed legislation?

3. There are several different ways to interpret the numbers that have been presented concerning the actual numbers of uninsured in this country. By what standards are you basing the numbers on that you have used in past speeches.

4. You say that you are prepared to call out anyone who makes false claims about the proposed reform. If you are forced to make good on that, what should the accused be prepared for?

5. If the issue over death panels was NEVER true, why was that portion of the bill that was in question removed?

6. ACORN....still in support of their practices???

7. If competition among insurance providers is one of the things you would like to see increase, why not simply remove the restrictions on purchasing insurance from state to state? Wouldn't this be a great way to drive costs down while improving the service to the consumer?

8. You use the term "stability" alot when talking about the reformed version of healthcare. Where do you see things stabilizing the most and how will it improve the overall aspect of heatlhcare in this country.

9. Should the woman who admitted to killing her husband during the ACORN video be arrested?

10. If you are successful in passing the current reform to healthcare as it is written today, how will it be paid for?



There's a few

I would be willing to bet you at least half of these questions will be asked. Maybe not in the exact form you have presented here, but asked just the same.

The key there is the form of the question and how they allow it to be answered. You see the difference will be in whether the interviewer will let Obama give pat answers or really push for something new that we've not heard yet. I'd be willing to bet that alot of what you will hear Obama say about healthcare is going to be the talking points that he has used in the other 115 speeches he's given so far. Nothing new....general terminoligy.... nothing concrete.

He'll press the sense of urgency. He'll push the bounds of public option without committing to it. He'll probably have some touching story about some family that is without coverage and going broke or already there. Then we'll hear that same old tired line about "Nobody should go broke in America just because they get sick."

I want someone to ask him about terminal coverage. What can a person with pancreatic cancer expect to recieve in the latter stages of treatment? How will pre-existing conditions be addressed and will the public option garuntee that availability to quality medical care will not be adversely effected? Will we see the same long lines and limited attention that is found in Europe? Will technology continue to advance or will it be slowed to compete with costs? Will we still be paying 14 bucks for an aspirin and paying 2500 dollars a night for hospital stays???

I dont' see these things being asked of him. Just don't think they are going to pin him to questions he can't answer.

Plus, it's already been suggested that certain questions will be 'off limits' in order to get the interview to begin with. What do you think about that?

 

[tigerbob]

The big difference I see in Fox coverage is

Interupting & Shouting down answers that do not reflect the approved Fox agenda
Loaded questions that assume fringe opinions are facts

I'd be extremely surprised in anyone at Fox shouted down the President.

Interruptions I have less of a problem with, since Obama has demonstrated that he will happily expound his beliefs for 15 minutes at a time unless he is reined in.

 

[txlonghorn]

No it wouldn't. They're not TV networks. It would be like criticizing Bush for not sitting down with MSNBC.

Except that for most of the Bush years, MSNBC had on as many conservative voices as liberal ones. Tucker Carlson had a primo timeslot, as did Joe Scarborough.

And now there's Keith, who is every bit as much the hack as Sean.

Don't forget that Maddow witch. They could at least find an attractive person to spew that crap. It's hard enough to listen to her, but I can't bring myself to look at her at all. Hell, even people who agree with her don't watch. It's unbearable!!!

 

[Andrew2382]

why sit with a network that would actually question your motives.

Much better to go on shows where you get a handjob during the interview

 

[Polk]

No it wouldn't. They're not TV networks. It would be like criticizing Bush for not sitting down with MSNBC.

Except that for most of the Bush years, MSNBC had on as many conservative voices as liberal ones. Tucker Carlson had a primo timeslot, as did Joe Scarborough.

And now there's Keith, who is every bit as much the hack as Sean.

They had Keith then too, but that's not the really the point (all I'll agree that Keith is as much of a partisan as Sean). The point is MSNBC was representative of both sides at that point in time. Fox's lineup consists of right, righter, and rightest.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The big difference I see in Fox coverage is

Interupting & Shouting down answers that do not reflect the approved Fox agenda
Loaded questions that assume fringe opinions are facts

I'd be extremely surprised in anyone at Fox shouted down the President.

Interruptions I have less of a problem with, since Obama has demonstrated that he will happily expound his beliefs for 15 minutes at a time unless he is reined in.

They shout down and interupt all the other people who's views oppose their own when I watch - which is admittedly VERY rare.

MSNBC just doesn't invite people who have opposing viewpoints. It's not better journalism, but it's more polite.
Everytime I turn it to Fox when they have someone on with a differing opinion, I see someone ask a question, then wait about 8 seconds before they interupt. If the person tries to keep talking, the interviewer just gets louder and louder and will wind up shouting if that is what it takes to drown out the person who is just trying to answer their question.
It's bad journalism AND very rude.

I don't watch either.

 

[tigerbob]

1. Have you read the entire reform proposal? And if so, was there anything there that you have not addressed as fully as you perhaps should have up to this point?

2. What would or could you say to those who appeared on the White House Lawn this past Saturday that would ease their minds and concerns about the current proposed legislation?

3. There are several different ways to interpret the numbers that have been presented concerning the actual numbers of uninsured in this country. By what standards are you basing the numbers on that you have used in past speeches.

4. You say that you are prepared to call out anyone who makes false claims about the proposed reform. If you are forced to make good on that, what should the accused be prepared for?

5. If the issue over death panels was NEVER true, why was that portion of the bill that was in question removed?

6. ACORN....still in support of their practices???

7. If competition among insurance providers is one of the things you would like to see increase, why not simply remove the restrictions on purchasing insurance from state to state? Wouldn't this be a great way to drive costs down while improving the service to the consumer?

8. You use the term "stability" alot when talking about the reformed version of healthcare. Where do you see things stabilizing the most and how will it improve the overall aspect of heatlhcare in this country.

9. Should the woman who admitted to killing her husband during the ACORN video be arrested?

10. If you are successful in passing the current reform to healthcare as it is written today, how will it be paid for?



There's a few

I would be willing to bet you at least half of these questions will be asked. Maybe not in the exact form you have presented here, but asked just the same.

The key there is the form of the question and how they allow it to be answered. You see the difference will be in whether the interviewer will let Obama give pat answers or really push for something new that we've not heard yet. I'd be willing to bet that alot of what you will hear Obama say about healthcare is going to be the talking points that he has used in the other 115 speeches he's given so far. Nothing new....general terminoligy.... nothing concrete.

He'll press the sense of urgency. He'll push the bounds of public option without committing to it. He'll probably have some touching story about some family that is without coverage and going broke or already there. Then we'll hear that same old tired line about "Nobody should go broke in America just because they get sick."

I want someone to ask him about terminal coverage. What can a person with pancreatic cancer expect to recieve in the latter stages of treatment? How will pre-existing conditions be addressed and will the public option garuntee that availability to quality medical care will not be adversely effected? Will we see the same long lines and limited attention that is found in Europe? Will technology continue to advance or will it be slowed to compete with costs? Will we still be paying 14 bucks for an aspirin and paying 2500 dollars a night for hospital stays???

I dont' see these things being asked of him. Just don't think they are going to pin him to questions he can't answer.

Plus, it's already been suggested that certain questions will be 'off limits' in order to get the interview to begin with. What do you think about that?

Agree.

As someone who was born and lived most of his life in Britain, and can post the many good things about the NHS but also a few things that are truly appalling, those are pretty much exactly the issues I would like to see him pressed on. I have greater faith that Fox will get a tight grip on these points and will not let go until Obama either attempts to address them or visibly glosses over them.

 

[txlonghorn]

The big difference I see in Fox coverage is

Interupting & Shouting down answers that do not reflect the approved Fox agenda
Loaded questions that assume fringe opinions are facts

You are entitled to your opinion. A news interview with the president on Fox would not be a shouting match. Get away from the town meeting mentality. But also realize that there was an equal amount of shouting from both sides of the issue. You're demonizing only side.

Every question is loaded for something. Truth or otherwise. Wouldn't it be nice to just get the truth all the time?

 

[Wicked Jester]

No it wouldn't. They're not TV networks. It would be like criticizing Bush for not sitting down with MSNBC.

Except that for most of the Bush years, MSNBC had on as many conservative voices as liberal ones. Tucker Carlson had a primo timeslot, as did Joe Scarborough.

Yeah, and since those two were not affraid to challenge their employer, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, they were either fired or relegated to a time slot nobody tunes into.
But then, seeing how MSNBC'S ratings are completely tanking, Very few people are tuning into their loony liberal gabfest's anymore.
No, those people are tuning into FOX news where they get THE TRUTH!
The ratings are proving it to the point that IT CAN'T BE DENIED!

 

[nodoginnafight]

The big difference I see in Fox coverage is

Interupting & Shouting down answers that do not reflect the approved Fox agenda
Loaded questions that assume fringe opinions are facts

You are entitled to your opinion. A news interview with the president on Fox would not be a shouting match. Get away from the town meeting mentality. But also realize that there was an equal amount of shouting from both sides of the issue. You're demonizing only side.

Every question is loaded for something. Truth or otherwise. Wouldn't it be nice to just get the truth all the time?

maybe you missed my previous post.

 

[Polk]

I want someone to ask him about terminal coverage. What can a person with pancreatic cancer expect to recieve in the latter stages of treatment? How will pre-existing conditions be addressed and will the public option garuntee that availability to quality medical care will not be adversely effected? Will we see the same long lines and limited attention that is found in Europe? Will technology continue to advance or will it be slowed to compete with costs? Will we still be paying 14 bucks for an aspirin and paying 2500 dollars a night for hospital stays???

I dont' see these things being asked of him. Just don't think they are going to pin him to questions he can't answer.

Plus, it's already been suggested that certain questions will be 'off limits' in order to get the interview to begin with. What do you think about that?

The reason a lot of those questions don't get asked is because they're copy/paste of GOP talking points. For example, the rubbish about long lines and limited attention. Americans have longer waittimes than in most European nations and less likely to keep the same doctor. The argument of technology versus costs is also bogus. Many of these technology advances do little to nothing to improve the quality of care, but they drive up costs massively.

 

[nodoginnafight]

They shout down and interupt all the other people who's views oppose their own when I watch - which is admittedly VERY rare.

MSNBC just doesn't invite people who have opposing viewpoints. It's not better journalism, but it's more polite.
Everytime I turn it to Fox when they have someone on with a differing opinion, I see someone ask a question, then wait about 8 seconds before they interupt. If the person tries to keep talking, the interviewer just gets louder and louder and will wind up shouting if that is what it takes to drown out the person who is just trying to answer their question.
It's bad journalism AND very rude.

I don't watch either.

Get away from the town meeting mentality. But also realize that there was an equal amount of shouting from both sides of the issue. You're demonizing only side.

I'm not talking anything about town halls - FOX News has that mentality and has had that mentality for quite some time. The way I "get away from the townhall mentality" is to change channels. And If you'll read my entire post, you'll realize that I am NOT "demonizing only (one) side"

 

[tigerbob]

The big difference I see in Fox coverage is

Interupting & Shouting down answers that do not reflect the approved Fox agenda
Loaded questions that assume fringe opinions are facts

I'd be extremely surprised in anyone at Fox shouted down the President.

Interruptions I have less of a problem with, since Obama has demonstrated that he will happily expound his beliefs for 15 minutes at a time unless he is reined in.

They shout down and interupt all the other people who's views oppose their own when I watch - which is admittedly VERY rare.

MSNBC just doesn't invite people who have opposing viewpoints. It's not better journalism, but it's more polite.
Everytime I turn it to Fox when they have someone on with a differing opinion, I see someone ask a question, then wait about 8 seconds before they interupt. If the person tries to keep talking, the interviewer just gets louder and louder and will wind up shouting if that is what it takes to drown out the person who is just trying to answer their question.
It's bad journalism AND very rude.

I don't watch either.

I'd agree about Hannity. I think O'Reilly is a bit more measured. At least on the occasions I've seen him (which is not frequently). But I would still be interested in watching Obama defend his policies on Fox.

 

[Polk]

No it wouldn't. They're not TV networks. It would be like criticizing Bush for not sitting down with MSNBC.

Except that for most of the Bush years, MSNBC had on as many conservative voices as liberal ones. Tucker Carlson had a primo timeslot, as did Joe Scarborough.

Yeah, and since those two were not affraid to challenge their employer, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, they were either fired or relegated to a time slot nobody tunes into.
But then, seeing how MSNBC'S ratings are completely tanking, Very few people are tuning into their loony liberal gabfest's anymore.
No, those people are tuning into FOX news where they get THE TRUTH!
The ratings are proving it to the point that IT CAN'T BE DENIED!

Tucker was released at the end of his contract due to poor ratings, while Scarbrough was given the morning show spot, to which he's converted to a real force in morning news (I think it's the highest rated cable morning show, but don't hold me to that one). Furthermore, MSNBC's ratings aren't tanking. MSNBC is seeing improved ratings over time. The current ratings are down from a year ago, but that's because we're no long in the thick of a presidential campaign (which increases ratings for news networks across the board).

 

[txlonghorn]

The big difference I see in Fox coverage is

Interupting & Shouting down answers that do not reflect the approved Fox agenda
Loaded questions that assume fringe opinions are facts

You are entitled to your opinion. A news interview with the president on Fox would not be a shouting match. Get away from the town meeting mentality. But also realize that there was an equal amount of shouting from both sides of the issue. You're demonizing only side.

Every question is loaded for something. Truth or otherwise. Wouldn't it be nice to just get the truth all the time?

maybe you missed my previous post.

No I saw it. Again we have different views of controlling an interview. No matter what network you work for, you have to maintain control of the conversation if the person you're talking to is not be honest or spinning off subject. Points of view are all different. Your's and mine for example. We could probably very easily get into a shouting match. But to avoid interviews with people in order to seem more polite...well...that's just poor journalism.

For much of my earlier adulthood, I was a radio commentator. I know that if you don't maintain control, you lose on a lot more than just making your point. The really good hosts can keep it civil and low key. But the guest has alot to do with that. If he gets loud, the host gets loud. Sometimes it works in reverse, but that's a reflection on the host. It's in his best interest (from a job security issue) to try to keep it calm. But if it gets loud, his boss is also expecting him to hold his ground and control the interview. Trust me, it's not just on FOX that this happens

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'd be extremely surprised in anyone at Fox shouted down the President.

Interruptions I have less of a problem with, since Obama has demonstrated that he will happily expound his beliefs for 15 minutes at a time unless he is reined in.

They shout down and interupt all the other people who's views oppose their own when I watch - which is admittedly VERY rare.

MSNBC just doesn't invite people who have opposing viewpoints. It's not better journalism, but it's more polite.
Everytime I turn it to Fox when they have someone on with a differing opinion, I see someone ask a question, then wait about 8 seconds before they interupt. If the person tries to keep talking, the interviewer just gets louder and louder and will wind up shouting if that is what it takes to drown out the person who is just trying to answer their question.
It's bad journalism AND very rude.

I don't watch either.

I'd agree about Hannity. I think O'Reilly is a bit more measured. At least on the occasions I've seen him (which is not frequently). But I would still be interested in watching Obama defend his policies on Fox.

I VERY rarely see Hannity - but the times I've seen O'Reilly, he does exactly what I described. The last time I saw him in fact - he asked a lady a question and she got about four seconds before he interrupted her and used the rest of the time for the interview monologuing. I had to ask myself, who would go to the trouble of showing up for THAT?

 

[oreo]

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A senior administration official confirms that President Barack Obama will appear on five Sunday morning talk shows this weekend. The president will sit down with CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Univision. The official said Obama will not be appearing on FOX.


He said himself, the if anyone spreads lies about OBAMACARE, they he would call them out. Well, here's a great opportunity. But you won't see our fearless (well, almost) leader on FOX News this weekend fielding questions about the healthcare reform or ACORN disaster. Why??? What a great chance he would have to address the LARGEST news audience with an interview on FOX. Chris Wallace is harmless. We're not talking about sitting him down with Hannity or another uncomfortable meeting with O'Rielly. It's Chris Wallace for Christ's sake!!! ACORN's leader isn't scared. She's brave enough to sit down with Chris on Sunday. And I'm sure he will ask her some pretty tough and to the point questions. But strangely, Obama seems to be a little affraid to put himself out there. I guess it's much easier to swim downstream.

I'm just curious why the man who promised transparency and bi-partisanship to all Americans won't give equal time to the ONE network that challenges the views and opinions of the left? I mean, if I had a chance to speak directly to the audience that seems to be the most vocal and entrenched, I'd be telling Univision that I will try to get to them next time.

Univision???? Seriously???? How very patético.

Obama--complains about FOX News all of the time. Yet, continually Bill O-Reilly--Shawn Hannity have invited him on their programs for interviews. Obama will avoid FOX news--at all costs--because they will ask very tough questions, regarding his polices. While we learned from Helen Thomas--that Obama gets his interview questions well in advance from ABC, CBS, NBC & MSNBC for the great coverup & rehersed answers from the man that can give a perfectly pronounced speech.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you saw my previous post - then you must have realized I wasn't reffering to town hall meeting coverage - I was reffering to a style of "journalism" that I witnessed virtually everytime I turn on Fox News and that I called MSNBC poor journalism as well so I'm obviously not just demonizing one side.

And you STILL posted:

Get away from the town meeting mentality. But also realize that there was an equal amount of shouting from both sides of the issue. You're demonizing only side.