Anita "Over" Dunn: "Let's not pretend they're (FOX) a news network the way CNN is"

[Cicero]

This is the same White House Communications Director who said her favorite political philosophers are Mother Terresa and Mao Tse Tung. That explains a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp1xAl77OM8&feature=related


http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/fighting-words-fox-news-lashes-back-at-white-house.php

[gtc]

I would hope Fox is not a news network like CNN*; considering that last week CNN was fact checking a SNL skit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/daily-show-destroys-cnn-f_n_318295.html) but didn't bother fact checking the fake quotes (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/10/16/video-cnns-rick-sanchezs-air-apology-running-fake-limbaugh-quote) from Rush Limbaugh they broadcasted.


*I would hope this but I know that the likes of Fox and MSNBC are no better than CNN in their fact checking and probably worse.

[Marc39]

I would hope Fox is not a news network like CNN*; considering that last week CNN was fact checking a SNL skit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/daily-show-destroys-cnn-f_n_318295.html) but didn't bother fact checking the fake quotes (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/10/16/video-cnns-rick-sanchezs-air-apology-running-fake-limbaugh-quote) from Rush Limbaugh they broadcasted.


*I would hope this but I know that the likes of Fox and MSNBC are no better than CNN in their fact checking and probably worse.

Post of the Week, so far. That's a fact.

[geni]

This is the same White House Communications Director who said her favorite political philosophers are Mother Terresa and Mao Tse Tung. That explains a lot.

She's going to combine some of the best gorilla fighting tactics in history with solid PR work?


Sounds like a reasonable plan.

[Ziggurat]

She's going to combine some of the best gorilla fighting tactics in history

You mean she's going to be throwing her own feces? :monconfused:

[geni]

You mean she's going to be throwing her own feces? :monconfused:

Guerrilla

[Marc39]

She's going to combine some of the best gorilla fighting tactics in history with solid PR work?


Sounds like a reasonable plan.

She's set to leave her job, soon. The Obama administrtion is sending her out in a flame war with Fox.

[Peephole]

This is the same White House Communications Director who said her favorite political philosophers are Mother Terresa and Mao Tse Tung. That explains a lot.
Ah, another talking point in the Republican's war on Obama hits the JREF forum.

In an e-mail message, Ms. Dunn said, “My source for the Mao quote was actually the late Lee Atwater, either in an article or bio I read after the 1988 election. Now that I’ve revealed this I hope I don’t get Keith Olbermann angry with me. Let it be noted that I also quoted Mother Teresa, but no one is accusing me of being a saint!”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/white-house-vs-fox-chairman-mao/

But hey, don't let facts get in your way!

And yes, how dare she offend Fox News, the channel that just branded her a Maoist. You'd think she'd be a little more friendly after that.

[Marc39]

Ah, another talking point in the Republican's war on Obama hits the JREF forum.

In an e-mail message, Ms. Dunn said, “My source for the Mao quote was actually the late Lee Atwater, either in an article or bio I read after the 1988 election. Now that I’ve revealed this I hope I don’t get Keith Olbermann angry with me. Let it be noted that I also quoted Mother Teresa, but no one is accusing me of being a saint!”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/white-house-vs-fox-chairman-mao/

But hey, don't let facts get in your way!

And yes, how dare she offend Fox News, the channel that just branded her a Maoist. You'd think she'd be a little more friendly after that.

The decision to go on the offensive against Fox is poor political instinct, but, this adminstration exemplifies political immaturity.

[geni]

The decision to go on the offensive against Fox is poor political instinct, but, this adminstration exemplifies political immaturity.

It's a fairly reasonable decision. Fox has little appeal to anyone who might consider voteing for Obama. In any case it's not as if they can piss off newcorp any more than they will do if they ever go after tax havens.

[Cicero]

Ah, another talking point in the Republican's war on Obama hits the JREF forum.

War? More like a police action. If you wanted to see a war you should play back some memories when Bush 43 was the target of an all out lib offensive. Or did you not notice those threads on JREF?


But hey, don't let facts get in your way!

Facts? She said Mao was one of her favorite philospohers. She was not quoting Atwater.

And yes, how dare she offend Fox News, the channel that just branded her a Maoist. You'd think she'd be a little more friendly after that.

"Whether or not you like Fox News, all of us in the press need to be concerned about the administration of President Barack Obama trying to 'punish' the cable news channel for its point of view," David Zurawik Baltimore Sun TV critic

[Marc39]

Fox has little appeal to anyone who might consider voteing for Obama. .

Untrue.

A sizeable segment of Fox's viewership consists of Indies and Dems, who are crucial.

Furthermore, you can never win a war with the media, as a pol, as Nixon and others have learned all too well.

[Cicero]

It's a fairly reasonable decision. Fox has little appeal to anyone who might consider voteing for Obama. In any case it's not as if they can piss off newcorp any more than they will do if they ever go after tax havens.

That is absurd. Many people who watch FOX News voted for Obama. If Obama relied only on the voters who watch MSNBC/CNN, he would still be in the Senate. FOX News is not like the BBC. While the BBC only provides the liberal POV, FOX News manages to give voice to both sides.

[Peephole]

Since when are you so concerned about Obama getting his message out to his voters?

And what the hell does the BBC have to do with this?
Facts? She said Mao was one of her favorite philospohers. She was not quoting Atwater.
Humour is lost on you, not surprisingly.

Another nontroversy we can add to the list.
"Whether or not you like Fox News, all of us in the press need to be concerned about the administration of President Barack Obama trying to 'punish' the cable news channel for its point of view," David Zurawik Baltimore Sun TV critic
Wow, if some guy said something about it, I guess it must mean something.

If Obama doesn' want to be nice to Fox News that's his choice, just like Bush refused to talk the New York Times. If Fox News doesn't like it and wants to stop crying, perhaps it should consider adhering to a couple of journalistic standards. The bar to be considered a legitimate news organisation reallly isn't that high in the U.S., so they shouldn't have any problem with it. Of course, they're perfectly comfortable with being the Republican party's progaganda station, so they won't change.

[geni]

Untrue.

A sizeable segment of Fox's viewership consists of Indies and Dems, who are crucial.

Evidences?


Furthermore, you can never win a war with the media, as a pol, as Nixon and others have learned all too well.

Which is why you generaly avoid challangeing the entire media.

[Marc39]

Evidences?

Pew has conducted research on Fox's demographics. I've read the hard copies, but, I imagine their data are floating around in cyberspace.

Which is why you generaly avoid challangeing the entire media.

Which is why Obama does not have the luxury of ignoring Fox and their viewers, given the steep decline in Obama's numbers.

[geni]

Facts? She said Mao was one of her favorite philospohers.

And you think it would be a bad thing why? Mao knew a lot about winning wars and all that hearts and minds stuff. If you want to understand how to win such wars Mao is a very good place to start.

Rejecting methods of warfare because they come from people you don't like is a mistake a number of former powers have made.

[Cicero]

Since when are you so concerned about Obama getting his message out to his voters?

Why would I not want him to get his message out to the widest audience and also be subjected to non soft ball questions?

And what the hell does the BBC have to do with this?

It has to do with Geni's comment about Fox news not having viewers who voted for Obama.

Humour is lost on you, not surprisingly.

Too bad Dunn was completely serious when she made her comments about Mao being one of her favorites. If you fell for her, " I was only joking" schtick after she was caught with her knickers down, that's your problem.

Another nontroversy we can add to the list.

No controversy. Just part of the record.

Wow, if some guy said something about it, I guess it must mean something.

Your own posts are a paradigm for a guy saying something that defies any meaningful content.

If Obama doesn' want to be nice to Fox News that's his choice, just like Bush refused to talk the New York Times. If Fox News doesn't like it and wants to stop crying, perhaps it should consider adhering to a couple of journalistic standards. The bar to be considered a legitimate news organisation reallly isn't that high in the U.S., so they shouldn't have any problem with it. Of course, they're perfectly comfortable with being the Republican party's progaganda station, so they won't change.

Odd. Candidate Obama had his best interview with FOX News Chris Wallace. It is his benighted Communications Director Dunnderhead who has a problem with FOX news. But by her own defintion of a proper news media, CNN and MSNBC are as illagitmate as FOX in that they are the Democratic Party's mouth piece. But hey, Larry King/Wolf Blitzer/Mathews/Olbermann/Maddow share her idology so they are excused.

[Peephole]

Another secret communist exposed!

If only she had been aware the camera's were rolling!

[Marc39]

Odd. Candidate Obama had his best interview with FOX News Chris Wallace. It is his benighted Communications Director Dunnderhead who has a problem with FOX news. But by her own defintion of a proper news media, CNN and MSNBC are as illagitmate as FOX in that they are the Democratic Party's mouth piece. But hey, Larry King/Wolf Blitzer/Mathews/Olbermann/Maddow share her idology so they are excused.

Wallace is not the problem.

It's more Beck and Hannity whose Right-Wing bombast tends to color the news side of the fence.

[Cicero]

And you think it would be a bad thing why? Mao knew a lot about winning wars and all that hearts and minds stuff. If you want to understand how to win such wars Mao is a very good place to start.

Rejecting methods of warfare because they come from people you don't like is a mistake a number of former powers have made.

“Mao was the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. Much of the killing was direct, as in the torture and purges at Yan’an. After the Communist seizure of power in 1949, the practice became countrywide. Mao set his numerical targets openly, and stressed the ‘revolutionary’ importance of killing.” It is said of Mao — who was responsible for the death of some 70 million Chinese — that he derived a “sadistic pleasure” from seeing people put to death in horrible ways.Arthur Waldron

Are you saying that even if Mao were not actually (as much as Dunn wishes it were) the political and military model of the Obama Administration, he should be?

[Peephole]

Why would I not want him to get his message out to the widest audience and also be subjected to non soft ball questions?
You're not going to get hard hitting questions from Fox News, all you're going to get is some empty Republican rhetoric. Search in other avenues if you want better questioning of Obama. Criticise how the White House (this White House and previous ones) deals with the press, not with which parts of the press they deal with.
It has to do with Geni's comment about Fox news not having viwers who voted for Obama.
Still no link to the BBC.
CNN and MSNBC are as illagitmate as FOX in that they are the Democratic Party's mouth piece. But hey, Larry King/Wolf Blitzer/Mathews/Olbermann/Maddow share her idology so they are excused.
http://i36.tinypic.com/9l8qwj.gif

[Cicero]

Another secret communist exposed!

If only she had been aware the camera's were rolling!

If only she had been aware her mouth was moving.

[Cicero]

You're not going to get hard hitting questions from Fox News, all you're going to get is some empty Republican rhetoric. Search in other avenues if you want better questioning of Obama. Criticise how the White House (this White House and previous ones) deals with the press, not with which parts of the press they deal with.

So you never saw FOX News Wallace interview Obama? OK. You prefer to spout nonsense instead of dealing with facts.

Still no link to the BBC.

http://i36.tinypic.com/9l8qwj.gif

And what does this have to do with my post #18?

[Marc39]

You're not going to get hard hitting questions from Fox News, all you're going to get is some empty Republican rhetoric. Search in other avenues if you want better questioning of Obama. Criticise how the White House (this White House and previous ones) deals with the press, not with which parts of the press they deal with.

Still no link to the BBC.

http://i36.tinypic.com/9l8qwj.gif

Not true at all.

O'Reilly's interview with Obama duriing the campaign was, far and away, the most hard-hitting interview Obama had done, certainly, one of them.

The sycophants in the MSM toss Obama softballs, which helps nobody.

[Cicero]

Wallace is not the problem.

It's more Beck and Hannity whose Right-Wing bombast tends to color the news side of the fence.

Nobody is expecting POTUS Obama to appear on Beck or Hannity. But the Adminstration has zero reason to boycott Wallace other than just being petulant petty putzs.

[Brainster]

She claims that she was being ironic or sarcastic or something, but the video does not show that at all, even though she does make the (weak) joke that Mao and Mother Theresa are not often coupled with each other). Plus apparently she was talking to a high school crowd, so I doubt how many of them got it (there is faint amusement from the audience, but very faint).

As for the topic of the OP, it certainly looks like these are the talking points for the next few days; in Newsweak (http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192), Jacob Weisberg recycles the same, "They're not news" line.

[Cicero]

Not true at all.

O'Reilly's interview with Obama duriing the campaign was, far and away, the most hard-hitting interview Obama had done, certainly, one of them.

The sycophants in the MSM toss Obama softballs, which helps nobody.

O'Reilly interviewed "Snipery" hillary. Wallace interviewd Obama.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html

[Whiplash]

I see the administration is still caught up in excuse making and demonizing the right, rather than getting anything accomplished. Marc is right. It's amateur hour over there, and has been for 10 months. They have never gotten out of campaign mode, still, after all this time.

[Marc39]

Nobody is expecting POTUS Obama to appear on Beck or Hannity. But the Adminstration has zero reason to boycott Wallace other than just being petulant petty putzs.

I don't disagree. That said, the more vituperative personalities on Fox have contributed to the overall image of Fox as an outlet for the RNC.

[Marc39]

I see the administration is still caught up in excuse making and demonizing the right, rather than getting anything accomplished. Marc is right. It's amateur hour over there, and has been for 10 months. They have never gotten out of campaign mode, still, after all this time.

And, you wanna know the irony of it all? On nearly every political chat show today, the administration sent out talking heads to talk about...why they won't talk to Fox News.

Either way, Fox wins.

[Marc39]

O'Reilly interviewed "Snipery" hillary. Wallce interviewd Obama.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html

O'Reilly has intrviewed both.

[Cicero]

O'Reilly has intrviewed both.

You are indeed correct.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/foxs_bill_oreilly_obama_interv.html

So what is this bad experience Dunn claims her boss has had while appearing on a FOX News program?

[Whiplash]

I would never pretend that Fox is the paragon of fair and balanced reporting. But the way they are made out to be so incredibly untrustworthy and constant attacks on their credibility are over-kill. Way over the line. Lacking any subjectivity. Outright rhetoric.

Especially when coupled with a belief that MSNBC and CNN are actually fair. People couldn't possibly be more skewed in their views of reality.

[Marc39]

You are indeed correct.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/foxs_bill_oreilly_obama_interv.html

So what is this bad experience Dunn claims her boss has had while appearing on a FOX News program?

She's out to lunch. She complained that "Fox" didn't broadcast an Obama event. Turns out, it was Fox's entertainment channel.

In fact, Fox News did broadcast the Obama event.

They need to hire a few adults to senior roles in the admin.

[DavidJames]

This thread has been very helpful. I'm no longer thinking Cicero and Marc39 are the same person.

[Marc39]

This thread has been very helpful. I'm no longer thinking Cicero and Marc39 are the same person.

Well, have you ever seen the two of us in the same place at the same time?

[Policenaut]

I find the biggest problem here is that the administration is conflating all of Fox as opinion as if they don't have any straight news coverage throughout the day. Sure their nightly lineup is filled with opinion shows but so is MSNBC and most of CNN/HLN. That and starting a public war with a news outlet (the most popular cable news outlet...by a LOT) is not a smart idea.

[Policenaut]

The Fox News war continues with help from Newsweek: Fox News is Un-American.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192

[David Wong]

I find the biggest problem here is that the administration is conflating all of Fox as opinion as if they don't have any straight news coverage throughout the day.

That news coverage is just slightly less biased than the opinion shows.

And I think it's a great idea to call out Fox. Why let them get away with it? Be honest with the American people about what Fox is doing. Not like the teabaggers who believe in Fox News were ever going to vote for Obama anyway.

So why pretend?

[Cicero]

That news coverage is just slightly less biased than the opinion shows.

Evidence? Examples?

And I think it's a great idea to call out Fox. Why let them get away with it? Be honest with the American people about what Fox is doing. Not like the teabaggers who believe in Fox News were ever going to vote for Obama anyway.

So why pretend?

As long as ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN/PBS etc can "get away" with their liberal bias news shows the Administration should abstain from attacking them? OK

[Whiplash]

The way I see it, this is just par for the course for the left. They always deny it, but it's going on right in front of you here. The offensive on Fox news is the latest example of it.

That being that when pressed, you attack the arguer as opposed to the argument.

Arguments are personalized. People are demonized. And the subject at hand is lost in the mayhem.

Just look at these forums. While I don't say that everyone here who is on the left does this, I could name at least a few names that do. You've all seen it:

Questioning your intelligence. Implications that you must be a fool. Some of the more partisan here use that one right out of the gate, every time. The responses you get will be layered with dripping sarcasm regarding your intellect, and patronizing to the point of being offensive.

Questioning your real motivations. Are you really just racists? Do you really just hate black people? Don't you really just hate gays? Aren't you really just trying to kill old people?

Using extreme hyperbole to discredit the other side. You only stand against healthcare because you want people to die. Or you are selfish, and don't care if people suffer. All when there are perfectly valid concerns about the entire thing.

Questioning your level of consistency or hypocrisy. You didn't complain when Bush spent money! You didn't have a problem with this sort of thing when <whatever>. Certain people here make this type of attack their primary means of discrediting you.

All of these things add up to only one thing. Attempts to discredit opposition members specifically, thinking that this also discredits their message.

Don't deny it folks. Please don't tell me again something about how this never happens and it's all in my imagination. Surely you can do better than that.

Even when you get someone who is honest and will admit that this is going on, the best they will ever resort to (in the end) is that "the right does the same thing!". I shouldn't even have to go into why that's a failed argument.


This offensive on Fox news isn't going to get them shut down. I hope no one here is naive enough to think that. It's going to empower them, and make their supporters even more emboldened. Can't you guys see that?

Say what you want about Bush, when he was president, and people were attacking him non-stop, he still went ahead and did the things he felt needed to be done. He didn't let it bother him. He didn't whine about it. He just continued to do what he thought was right and outright ignored the wailing from the left.

The left on the other hand has the biggest control of this country they have had in decades, if not forever. Huge majorities in both houses, and the White House. But they continuously whine that Republicans are getting in their way of getting anything done (when they can't do anything to stop them).

Don't any of you recognize the irony in the way you have been posting things like "Is this the end of the Republican party?" and questioning whether the Democrats will end up being the majority party, forever.. While at the same time you complain that you can't get anything done because they are in your way. Which is it? Are they a completely neutered party of fools that screwed up so bad that they can never hope to achieve any power again? Or are they actually strong enough to stop you, even when you have huge majorities and the White House?

You can't have it both ways, and I'm already enjoying this immensely, considering the kind of messages we've seen around here for months now, about the final nail in the coffin of the Republicans. Certain more moderate democrats even lamenting that they aren't sure if a world that doesn't have a balanced government is a good idea. So certain that the Republicans have been marginalized into obscurity.

Yet the fact is the Republican's represent the views of a hell of a lot of people in this country. Some of them were angry and came over to vote for Obama, because they hated Bush, and it was an historical election. They weren't giving up their ideals. This is a center right country. You aren't getting anything done because there are too many of them standing up to be heard, and it's scaring the pants off the people who are up for re-election soon.

That's reality. People like Limbaugh, and Hannity.. or Fox news.. they don't create opinion, they reflect opinion. Whether you like it or not. The reason Fox news was created was in response to the fact that most on the right felt they were not getting a fair shake in the mainstream media. That they were not being heard, and their point of view was not being accurately reflected anywhere in the current media.

It wasn't some conspiracy to turn the world into a fascist state. Take that **** to the CT forums. Use your heads.

[Marc39]

That news coverage is just slightly less biased than the opinion shows.

Not based on Fox's demos, which include a significant amount of Independents and even Dems.

Many are so used to the MSM's coverage of the news that has been favorable to the Democrats that positive coverage of the Republicans is viewed as skewed, when it isn't necessarily.

[Lurker]

Evidence? Examples?
Wasn't FoxNews heavily promoting the Tea Parties? Not just reporting on them but actually promoting them.

[Marc39]

Wasn't FoxNews heavily promoting the Tea Parties? Not just reporting on them but actually promoting them.

Promoting or merely covering? While the other news outlets ignored them.

[Cleon]

Promoting or merely covering?

Promoting.

While the other news outlets ignored them.

Not remotely true.

[Darth Rotor]

She claims that she was being ironic or sarcastic or something, but the video does not show that at all, even though she does make the (weak) joke that Mao and Mother Theresa are not often coupled with each other).
1. Mother Theresa was a nun, not likely she coupled with anybody.

2. Fox News has a combination of standard new coverages, and commentary shows/editorial/pundit stuff like Hannity and O'Reilly. The ones who seem to get people all in an uproar over Fox News are the pundits and opinion piece hosts. (Oddly enough, CNN is similarly formatted, as is HNN, which didn't used to be. Headline News now has Nancy Grace and other stuff that isn't news either). Used to be a channel I could click on at any time and just get some leading stories. Now, it's not worth switching on at all).

Rupert Murdoch knows how to make money, does he not? ;)

I am going to guess that his business model includes the following statement of principle --

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." (Originally from Oscar Wilde)

DR

[Marc39]

Promoting.

I'll concede Fox's coverage of the TBs was at times over the top and veered from reporting to advocacy, and, I went so far as to admonish them.

At the same time, the other networks ignored them, except to ridicule them, so, it balances out.

[Cleon]

I'll concede Fox's coverage of the TBs was at times over the top and veered from reporting to advocacy,

Your uncharacteristic acknowledgment of reality is noted.


At the same time, the other networks ignored them, except to ridicule them, so, it balances out.But this is still not remotely true. (And your attempt to move the goalposts is noted as well.)

[Marc39]

Your uncharacteristic acknowledgment of reality is noted.

But this is still not remotely true. (And your attempt to move the goalposts is noted as well.)

If you say so.

Frankly, it's a beautiful day and I can't be bothered with such nonsense.

Have a good one.

[Lurker]

2. Fox News has a combination of standard new coverages, and commentary shows/editorial/pundit stuff like Hannity and O'Reilly. The ones who seem to get people all in an uproar over Fox News are the pundits and opinion piece hosts.

Even their alleged standard news is biased. Ever see Brit Hume's Grapevine segment where he would provide anti-Democrat anti-liberal news?

Bret Baier definitely is a conservative and his bias shows.

Shep Smith not too bad.

Fox & Friends masquerades as news and is clearly rabidly partisan.

The opinion shows bill themselves as news and all of them are conservative. I would have less of a problem if some liberal hosts balanced out the conservative ones but they are all conservative (even Greta who clearly campaigned for Palin). Also, these shows make a pretense of having liberal guests on yet always outnumber them with conservatives. I recall a conservative argued with me years back that since Bush and Republicans controlled more govt then logically conservatives would be more represented. I wonder what his excuse now would be? Further, the liberals they have on are faux-liberals. Many times they just agree with the conservative talking point and usually they put up no fight whatsoever. At least on CNN the conservatives fight hard for their side (Krauthammer, Buchanon, etc)

[Dancing David]

That is absurd. Many people who watch FOX News voted for Obama. If Obama relied only on the voters who watch MSNBC/CNN, he would still be in the Senate. FOX News is not like the BBC. While the BBC only provides the liberal POV, FOX News manages to give voice to both sides.

Um, the people I know who voted for Obama do not watch FOX News as news (except for the Morning Joe), they maily watch it for the loony factor. Like laughing at Glenn Beck.

It is apparent you haven't listened to much BBC.

[oldhat]

The reason Fox news was created was in response to the fact that most on the right felt they were not getting a fair shake in the mainstream media. That they were not being heard, and their point of view was not being accurately reflected anywhere in the current media.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

-Stephen Colbert

[Cicero]

Even their alleged standard news is biased. Ever see Brit Hume's Grapevine segment where he would provide anti-Democrat anti-liberal news?

Bret Baier definitely is a conservative and his bias shows.

Shep Smith not too bad.

Fox & Friends masquerades as news and is clearly rabidly partisan.

The opinion shows bill themselves as news and all of them are conservative. I would have less of a problem if some liberal hosts balanced out the conservative ones but they are all conservative (even Greta who clearly campaigned for Palin). Also, these shows make a pretense of having liberal guests on yet always outnumber them with conservatives. I recall a conservative argued with me years back that since Bush and Republicans controlled more govt then logically conservatives would be more represented. I wonder what his excuse now would be? Further, the liberals they have on are faux-liberals. Many times they just agree with the conservative talking point and usually they put up no fight whatsoever. At least on CNN the conservatives fight hard for their side (Krauthammer, Buchanon, etc)

You obviously have no clue about FOX News programing. Once again it is time to list the bona fide libs that routinely appear on FOX News.

Dr.Marc Lamont Hill,
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson,
Jane Fleming,
Mora Liasson,
Jane Hall,
Geraldo,
Kirsten Powers,
Ellis Henican,
Marvin Kalb,
Al Sharpton,
Lanny Davis,
Amy Stoddard,
Flavia Colvin,
Mort Kondracke,
Juan Williams,
Rachel Sklar,
Geraldine Ferraro

Shepherd Smith, the FOX News anchor, is not "too bad?" What does that mean? He is one of those "faux" liberals?

Do you complain that NPR does not have a show hosted by a conservative? The ratio of libs to conservatives on Diane Rehm's Friday News Roud-Up is 3 to 1.

The reason Buchanon is on MSNBC is because he can be counted on to criticize Israel, advocate isolationism, and snear at Republicans. That is why he will always be welcome there and on PBS.

[Cicero]

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

-Stephen Colbert

Wow! The tired go-to Colbert quote didn't make it on to a thread about FOX News until the 2nd page. The libs are slowing down.

[Cicero]

Um, the people I know who voted for Obama do not watch FOX News as news (except for the Morning Joe), they maily watch it for the loony factor. Like laughing at Glenn Beck.

It is apparent you haven't listened to much BBC.

You confirmed that people who voted for Obama do watch FOX News. That will be news to geni.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2240427.ece

[Marc39]

So people who voted for Obama do watch FOX News? That will be news to Geni.

Presumably, yes, given Fox's considerable viewership among Independents and Dems.

[oldhat]

Question: Do people who watch Fox News actually become stupid and misinformed or are they already stupid and misinformed? (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewers-misinformed/)

[Marc39]

You obviously have no clue about FOX News programing. Once again it is time to list the bona fide libs that routinely appear on FOX News.

Dr.Marc Lamont Hill,
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson,
Jane Fleming,
Mora Liasson,
Jane Hall,
Geraldo,
Kirsten Powers,
Ellis Henican,
Marvin Kalb,
Al Sharpton,
Lanny Davis,
Amy Stoddard,
Flavia Colvin,
Mort Kondracke,
Juan Williams,
Rachel Sklar,
Geraldine Ferraro

Shepherd Smith, the FOX News anchor, is not "too bad?" What does that mean? He is one of those "faux" liberals?

Do you complain that NPR does not have a show hosted by a conservative? The ratio of libs to conservatives on Diane Rehm's Friday News Roud-Up is 3 to 1.

The reason Buchanon is on MSNBC is because he can be counted on to criticize Israel, advocate isolationism, and snear at Republicans. That is why he will always be welcome there and on PBS.

Excellent post.

There are additional Libs appearing regularly on Fox, such as Dem consultant Susan Estrich.

How many Conservatives have been on Krazy Keith's show? That would be zero.

[oldhat]

There are additional Libs appearing regularly on Fox, such as Dem consultant Susan Estrich.

Susan "I'll Do Anything to get on Teevee" Estrich is a "liberal"?

[Lurker]

You obviously have no clue about FOX News programing. Once again it is time to list the bona fide libs that routinely appear on FOX News.

Dr.Marc Lamont Hill,
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson,
Jane Fleming,
Mora Liasson,
Jane Hall,
Geraldo,
Kirsten Powers,
Ellis Henican,
Marvin Kalb,
Al Sharpton,
Lanny Davis,
Amy Stoddard,
Flavia Colvin,
Mort Kondracke,
Juan Williams,
Rachel Sklar,
Geraldine Ferraro


And how many of those people host shows on FoxNews? I would also say that some of the more regular gustes that you have listed above fall into the category of faux-liberals.


Shepherd Smith, the FOX News anchor, is not "too bad?" What does that mean? He is one of those "faux" liberals?
I have no idea if he is liberal or conservative but he seems pretty fair in his coverage.


Do you complain that NPR does not have a show hosted by a conservative? The ratio of libs to conservatives on Diane Rehm's Friday News Roud-Up is 3 to 1.
That would be imbalanced, I agree.

[Lurker]

There are additional Libs appearing regularly on Fox, such as Dem consultant Susan Estrich.

Next they will trot out Tammy Bruce as a liberal. :)

[Lurker]

So, on the Fair and Balanced news network that FoxNews purports to be, are there ANY liberal hosts?

[Cicero]

Question: Do people who watch Fox News actually become stupid and misinformed or are they already stupid and misinformed? (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewers-misinformed/)

Do people who cite the George Soros funded CAP/Think Progress link have any credability?

[geni]

“Mao was the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. Much of the killing was direct, as in the torture and purges at Yan’an. After the Communist seizure of power in 1949, the practice became countrywide. Mao set his numerical targets openly, and stressed the ‘revolutionary’ importance of killing.” It is said of Mao — who was responsible for the death of some 70 million Chinese — that he derived a “sadistic pleasure” from seeing people put to death in horrible ways.Arthur Waldron

Are you saying that even if Mao were not actually (as much as Dunn wishes it were) the political and military model of the Obama Administration, he should be?

Political? Nah. Millitry? Not dirrectly of course. Mao was fighting most of his wars at an active disadvanatage in terms of material and availible forces. But in terms of ability to get people to fight for him rather than the Kuomintang? He was darn good. Hey if it were otherwise shining path and the maoists in nepal would have been far less annoying.

You need people to support you over the taliban and since you don't have the shear ruthlessness of colonial europeans other options must be found.

[Cicero]

So, on the Fair and Balanced news network that FoxNews purports to be, are there ANY liberal hosts?

Name those in my list that you consider to be "faux" libs and please attempt to submit proof to back up your assertion.

[Cicero]

So, on the Fair and Balanced news network that FoxNews purports to be, are there ANY liberal hosts?

Geraldo. Next question.

[Praktik]

But hey, Larry King/Wolf Blitzer/Mathews/Olbermann/Maddow share her idology so they are excused.

Wait, Blitzer has an ideology? Isn't that jumping ahead a little bit?

First he has to have an idea, and I've seen no evidence that these kinds of things can occur in the environment of his "mind".

[Marc39]

Susan "I'll Do Anything to get on Teevee" Estrich is a "liberal"?

I have seen Susan only on Fox, at least, on a regular basis. Democratic consultants tend to be Liberal.

[Cicero]

Wait, Blitzer has an ideology? Isn't that jumping ahead a little bit?

First he has to have an idea, and I've seen no evidence that these kinds of things can occur in the environment of his "mind".

Blitzer did evetually recognize the significance (with the help of Larry King's prodcuer yelling into Wolf's ear piece) of Falcon Heene's "We did it for the show" comment.

[oldhat]

Do people who cite the George Soros funded CAP/Think Progress link have any credability?

Hey Circero, NBC News and the Communists at the Wall Street Journal conducted the poll.

Try reading?

[oldhat]

Next they will trot out Tammy Bruce as a liberal. :)

Lanny Davis, too. Ha!

These people think Geraldo counts as a liberal?

[Marc39]

Lanny Davis, too. Ha!

These people think Geraldo counts as a liberal?

Well, considering Geraldo is a Lib, I imagine so.

Didn't Lanny work for both Clintons?

[Dancing David]

Promoting or merely covering? While the other news outlets ignored them.

Hmm, then why was there coverage of the Tea Party movement? On outlets other than FOX, or did you mean something else?

[Lurker]

Geraldo. Next question.

Hmm, I looked him up and his show is on Sat/Sun 10PM. Pretty far from prime time there, eh? :)

Anyway, to answer your post, I am not too familiar with Geraldo. My memories of him have him more concerned about non-political news concerning himself more with Hollywood and tabloid style news items than anything that could be construed as pro-liberal or pro-conservative. I may be wrong in this characterization so if you know where transcripts for his show reside I would be happy to go through them with you.

[Lurker]

Well, considering Geraldo is a Lib, I imagine so.

Didn't Lanny work for both Clintons?

Didn't Dick Morris work for Clinton?

(I hope my response shows how ridiculous your response was)

[oldhat]

Didn't Lanny work for both Clintons?

Yes, so did Dick Morris.

If you actually paid attention to what people said and wrote instead of using the typical "Associated With Either Clinton? Therefore, Must Be Liberal" litmus test, you'd understand.

The Geraldo as a standard bearer of liberalism thing is hilarious. Fox News conservatives are so cute in their ignorance.

[Cicero]

Hmm, I looked him up and his show is on Sat/Sun 10PM. Pretty far from prime time there, eh? :)

Anyway, to answer your post, I am not too familiar with Geraldo. My memories of him have him more concerned about non-political news concerning himself more with Hollywood and tabloid style news items than anything that could be construed as pro-liberal or pro-conservative. I may be wrong in this characterization so if you know where transcripts for his show reside I would be happy to go through them with you.

Where did you state the time they must appear on FOX News to be considered legitimate liberal hosts? Getting a hernia from the movement of goal posts? However, "Geraldo At Large" is on at 10PM ET which means he is on at 7PM in the west. You are channelling Geraldo's day time network talk show and "Now It Can Be Told." Here he is on FOX News shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yej5OESrUtI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zul3y-EY8Gw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3U9ENaTPLY

Any doubts?

[oldhat]

Anyone who criticizes Rush Limbaugh is liberal!

This is like some Stalinist loyalty test, for Republicans.

[Cicero]

Anyone who criticizes Rush Limbaugh is liberal!

This is like some Stalinist loyalty test, for Republicans.

Why not provide the list of liberal credentials one must have in order to be regarded as a bona fide lib, and we will see how Geraldo measures up to your requirements?

[Lurker]

Where did you state the time they must appear on FOX News to be considered legitimate liberal hosts? Getting a hernia from the movement of goal posts?
Chill out, dude. I was making a quick observation but then I went on to address your post directly with no goal post movement.

However, "Geraldo At Large" is on at 10PM ET which means he is on at 7PM in the west.
Are you serious? I've never lived on the west coast so had no idea that they did not change their TV schedule at all.


You are channelling Geraldo's day time network talk show and "Now It Can Be Told." Here he is on FOX News shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yej5OESrUtI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zul3y-EY8Gw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3U9ENaTPLY

Any doubts?

Sorry, can't view videos.

[Lurker]

Why not provide the list of liberal credentials one must have in order to be regarded as a bona fide lib, and we will see how Geraldo measures up to your requirements?

I would say that if you spend more of your on-air time criticizing liberals than conservatives then that is the first clue that you might be a faux-liberal.

[Brainster]

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

-Stephen Colbert

And people say the Republicans don't realize Colbert's joking.
:rolleyes:

[TheBigKahuna]

Wallace is not the problem.

It's more Beck and Hannity whose Right-Wing bombast tends to color the news side of the fence.

Beck's an independent conservative leaning libertarian who was ripping on Bush too. Amazing how he keeps coming up with stories like Acorn that the media misses, maybe they should watch more for story ideas. He also was accused of 'slandering' Van Jones, mostly by running video of Jones running off at the mouth. I can see why you would hate that.

Hannity is a partisan republican of the Reagan bent, but he constantly has liberals on his show and even let's them talk. None of the other news channels do that, except Dobbs.

[oldhat]

Here's Cicero's criteria for being liberal:

If you say mean things about Rush Limbaugh being a race hustler and Bill O'Reilly shouted at you because you don't support deporting children, that makes you a liberal.

Nothing about abortion rights, gay marriage, a social safety net, supporting public institutions, progressive taxation, free speech, separation of church and state, banning torture and extrajudicial punishment, limiting foreign conflicts, the environment, etc., etc., etc.

Geraldo doesn't have opinions about any of those things because his primary concern is a) Geraldo and b) being on TV.

[TheBigKahuna]

That news coverage is just slightly less biased than the opinion shows.

And I think it's a great idea to call out Fox. Why let them get away with it? Be honest with the American people about what Fox is doing. Not like the teabaggers who believe in Fox News were ever going to vote for Obama anyway.

So why pretend?

Independent research shows FNC has far more independents and liberals on than the rest of the media has conservatives combined. The rest of the news is all liberals who think Obama is the second coming. Better censor Fox, only liberals deserve 1st amendment rights after all.

[TheBigKahuna]

So, on the Fair and Balanced news network that FoxNews purports to be, are there ANY liberal hosts?

They're balancing out the rest of the media

[TheBigKahuna]

Anyone who criticizes Rush Limbaugh is liberal!

This is like some Stalinist loyalty test, for Republicans.

Rush is an idiot

[GStan]

Independent research shows FNC has far more independents and liberals on than the rest of the media has conservatives combined. The rest of the news is all liberals who think Obama is the second coming. Better censor Fox, only liberals deserve 1st amendment rights after all.

link?

[TheBigKahuna]

link?

Didn't someone post a link the the Pew poll conduct within just a few days ago? Or-my standard consulting fee for doing the research for you is $250/hr- 10 hr min.

[Lurker]

Beck's an independent conservative leaning libertarian who was ripping on Bush too. But was he crying whilst ripping Bush? Was he promoting demonstrations?

Amazing how he keeps coming up with stories like Acorn that the media misses, maybe they should watch more for story ideas. I guess everyone missed out on the fact that ACORN was aiding and abetting child prostitutes.


He also was accused of 'slandering' Van Jones, mostly by running video of Jones running off at the mouth. I can see why you would hate that.

Look, I have a hard time trusting anything Hannity "shows" us on TV. He has a cadre of masterful editors that are quite accomplished at taking quotes completely out of context. But hey, if you like those sort of tactics don't let me dissuade you from watching.

[I can provide quite a supply of Hannity twisting quotes out of context if you like)



Hannity is a partisan republican of the Reagan bent, but he constantly has liberals on his show and even let's them talk. None of the other news channels do that, except Dobbs.What? Hannity expecially likes liberals that don't confront him too strongly although I give Hannity credit for having on Beckel with some regularity. Anyways, Beckel is usually outnumbered 3-1 on the panel.

[Lurker]

They're balancing out the rest of the media

So you are either saying that the rest of the media is neutral or that the FoxNews is heavily biased to the right to compensate for the three other stations which it must balance.

[Cicero]

Here's Cicero's criteria for being liberal:

If you say mean things about Rush Limbaugh being a race hustler and Bill O'Reilly shouted at you because you don't support deporting children, that makes you a liberal.

Nothing about abortion rights, gay marriage, a social safety net, supporting public institutions, progressive taxation, free speech, separation of church and state, banning torture and extrajudicial punishment, limiting foreign conflicts, the environment, etc., etc., etc.

Geraldo doesn't have opinions about any of those things because his primary concern is a) Geraldo and b) being on TV.

Geraldo meets and exceeds these lib standards:

abortion rights: √
gay marriage: √
a social safety net: √
supporting public institutions: √
progressive taxation: √




free speech: What conservatives are agianst this?

separation of church and state: Where is this being violated?

banning torture and extrajudicial punishment: POTUS Obama has GITMO open for business, still does renditions, and warrantless wiretaps.

limiting foreign conflicts: Tell that to Wilson/FDR/JFK/LBJ/Clinton/Obama

the environment: Does that mean being a true beleiver in MMGW?

[Cicero]

I would say that if you spend more of your on-air time criticizing liberals than conservatives then that is the first clue that you might be a faux-liberal.

So now cite which, if any, of the libs that routinely appears on FOX News does this? Please provde examples this time instead of imagination.

[rustypouch]

Fox is news?

Every time I have watched it, I thought it was satire. People actually take it seriously?

[Lurker]

Didn't someone post a link the the Pew poll conduct within just a few days ago? Or-my standard consulting fee for doing the research for you is $250/hr- 10 hr min.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1073

Shows that right-wing think tanks are cited far more often than left-wing think tanks.



http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=136

Shows the guest list for comparison between CNN's main news program at the time and FoxNews's. Win a cup of coffee if you can guess which balanced Dems and Republicans better. :)

[Cleon]

Y'know, if people are going to keep calling people "libs," I think it only makes sense to refer to conservatives as "cons."

[Marc39]

So you are either saying that the rest of the media is neutral or that the FoxNews is heavily biased to the right to compensate for the three other stations which it must balance.

Roger Ailes helped create Fox because he recognized there was a vacuum in the media marketplace in terms of its conventional Liberal bias and took advantage of it.

Fox's enormous success is not built on smoke and mirrors but on fulfilling a need.

[Lurker]

So now cite which, if any, of the libs that routinely appears on FOX News does this? Please provde examples this time instead of imagination.


Juan Williams. Jan 26 2009 O'Reilly Factor. Said that Michelle Obama's instinct was to "blame America" and play "the victim". Called her "Stokely-Carmichael in a dress". (Stokely-Carmichael being a black radical from the 1960's.)

Juan Williams. Aug 10 2008 Hannity. Said that in Obama's Chicago style politics you're supposed to think that America is a bad place, it's a racist place.

I am not saying that Juan Williams is consistently pro-conservative, he just has a tendency to support them more than what we see in the reverse from say Krauthammer.

I can go on, if you like.

[Lurker]

Roger Ailes helped create Fox because he recognized there was a vacuum in the media marketplace in terms of its conventional Liberal bias and took advantage of it.

Fox's enormous success is not built on smoke and mirrors but on fulfilling a need.

I agree but PT Barnum also filled a need and made a lot of money. So does the National Enquirer. I agree that Ailes/Murdoch are savvy businessmen.

[Cicero]

Fox is news?

Every time I have watched it, I thought it was satire. People actually take it seriously?

So now you can tell us your source for TV/Cable news.

[oldhat]

So now you can tell us your source for TV/Cable news.

Mine apparently ranks last in stupid and misinformed viewers. (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php)

[Cicero]

Juan Williams. Jan 26 2009 O'Reilly Factor. Said that Michelle Obama's instinct was to "blame America" and play "the victim". Called her "Stokely-Carmichael in a dress". (Stokely-Carmichael being a black radical from the 1960's.)

Juan Williams. Aug 10 2008 Hannity. Said that in Obama's Chicago style politics you're supposed to think that America is a bad place, it's a racist place.

I am not saying that Juan Williams is consistently pro-conservative, he just has a tendency to support them more than what we see in the reverse from say Krauthammer.

I can go on, if you like.

Good. Once a year, Juan may be audacious enough to make a comment that the DNC didn't clear. How does this fit into your theory that Juan, or any FOX News lib is "spending more of your on-air time criticizing liberals than conservatives?"

[oldhat]

Good. Once a year, Juan may be audacious enough to make a comment that the DNC didn't clear. How does this fit into your theory that Juan, or any FOX News lib is "spending more of your on-air time criticizing liberals than conservatives?"

http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=juan+williams&x=0&y=0

[GStan]

Didn't someone post a link the the Pew poll conduct within just a few days ago? Or-my standard consulting fee for doing the research for you is $250/hr- 10 hr min.

No big deal. Rather than do work for you, or pay you, I think I'll just dismiss your unsubstantiated claim. No hard feelings.

BTW: Your claim = Your research, not mine.

[Cicero]

Mine apparently ranks last in stupid and misinformed viewers. (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php)

That "study" does not include FOX News as it is about the Fox Channel. It also forgot to go after MSNBC. Perhaps there numbers were too embarrassing to print?

[Marc39]

I agree but PT Barnum also filled a need and made a lot of money. So does the National Enquirer.

Big difference. I'm not aware of any Fox retractions, ever, in their history.

[Cicero]

http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=juan+williams&x=0&y=0

Did you even read your own source? Out of the six Juan Williams examples, in three of them he is towing the lib line.

[oldhat]

That "study" does not include FOX News as it is about the Fox Channel. It also forgot to go after MSNBC. Perhaps there numbers were too embarrassing to print?

Interesting deflection, considering Fox doesn't have a national news broadcast. The study referred to Fox News.

I'm sorry that your primary source of news is about as useful as a Happy Meal placemat.

[oldhat]

Did you even read your own source? Out of the six Juan Williams examples, in three of them he is towing the lib line.

So if he's a so-called "liberal" half the time (denouncing Bill Kristol's frothing attacks on Obama like any sane person would, for instance) and right wing the other half, that makes him liberal?

Because on Planet Reality, where I live, that makes him a centrist.

God, you are funny.

P.S. There weren't six items about Williams in that list, all of them have relate to his comments. PROTIP: Sometimes you have to read the article itself instead of just lazily scanning the title to understand.

[Cicero]

So if he's a so-called "liberal" half the time (denouncing Bill Kristol's frothing attacks on Obama like any sane person would, for instance) and right wing the other half, that makes him liberal?

Because on Planet Reality, where I live, that makes him a centrist.

God, you are funny.

P.S. There weren't six items about Williams in that list, all of them have relate to his comments. PROTIP: Sometimes you have to read the article itself instead of just lazily scanning the title to understand.

Half the time? Juan is on just about every day of the week and weekend. But in lib land, three instance where Juan dared to be critical of Dems means he is a "centrist?" Now we know your definiton of a centrist.

I can't wait to see you and Lurker attempt tp spin Dr. Dyson and Dr. Hill as "centrists."

[Cicero]

Interesting deflection, considering Fox doesn't have a national news broadcast. The study referred to Fox News.

I'm sorry that your primary source of news is about as useful as a Happy Meal placemat.

FNC is international. The Fox Channel is not cable.

[Lurker]

Good. Once a year, Juan may be audacious enough to make a comment that the DNC didn't clear. How does this fit into your theory that Juan, or any FOX News lib is "spending more of your on-air time criticizing liberals than conservatives?"

I see you have moved the goalposts. I can provide more if you wish but don't really relish you responding by copying your comment above and modifying the "Once a year" part to "Once a semester", "Once a trimester", "Once a month", etc...

You asked, I gave, you moved goalposts. I can provide more.

[oldhat]

FNC is international. The Fox Channel is not cable.

facepalm.jpg

[Lurker]

Big difference. I'm not aware of any Fox retractions, ever, in their history.
I'm not sure what to make of this comment. Are you saying that Fox has never made an error or that they have and never bother to retract? The first seems improbable and the second seems objectionable.

[Lurker]

Interesting deflection, considering Fox doesn't have a national news broadcast. The study referred to Fox News.

I'm sorry that your primary source of news is about as useful as a Happy Meal placemat.

I dunno. Maybe Cicero is getting his news from Kent Brockman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Brockman

[Cicero]

I see you have moved the goalposts. I can provide more if you wish but don't really relish you responding by copying your comment above and modifying the "Once a year" part to "Once a semester", "Once a trimester", "Once a month", etc...

You asked, I gave, you moved goalposts. I can provide more.

More of what? I have yet to see evidence that any FOX News lib commentator is;

"spending more of your on-air time criticizing liberals than conservatives?"

To recap, Geraldo is a bona fide liberal who hosts a show on FOX news.

Juan Williams, who also works for NPR, the pace where oldhat gets his news, has said some unflattering things about Dems on several occassions, but still tows the lib line on the majority of his time on FOX News.

That leaves the rest of the folks on the list of FOX News bona fide libs whom Lurker and oldhat can try and scramble to prove they are "faux" libs.

[Lurker]

More of what? I have yet to see evidence that any FOX News lib commentator is;

"spending more of your on-air time criticizing liberals than conservatives?"

I made a glib reponse to your query and did not mean for you to infer that this would be the only defn of faux-liberal. Anyway, Dick Morris certainly meets the standard above. Is Fox and Hannity still promoting Dick as former Clinton staffer allowing viewers to infer he is a liberal and thus criticisms of liberals by him are not merely partisan attacks? I would say that Dick is supporting Hannity at least 75% of the time.

The conservatives on CNN do a much better job of ardently defending their side than the Fox liberals who seem to do it rather half-heartedly.

[Lurker]

Anyway, Cicero. No matter what evidence I provide you would dismiss as anecdotal. I would be happy to go over transcripts with you if you like. We could use Hannity or O'Reilly if you are so inclined. We can choose dates in the future as the test timeframe so it would be blind. Interested? I know FoxNews used to put up transcripts of segments but I think they are limited now but I would be willing to tape and watch the shows in question if you are.

[Cicero]

I made a glib reponse to your query and did not mean for you to infer that this would be the only defn of faux-liberal. Anyway, Dick Morris certainly meets the standard above. Is Fox and Hannity still promoting Dick as former Clinton staffer allowing viewers to infer he is a liberal and thus criticisms of liberals by him are not merely partisan attacks? I would say that Dick is supporting Hannity at least 75% of the time.

The conservatives on CNN do a much better job of ardently defending their side than the Fox liberals who seem to do it rather half-heartedly.

Can we at least keep the goal posts in the stadium? Do the conservatives on FOX News defend their side as ardently as those on CNN? Do the libs on MSNBC shows of Olbermann/Maddow even give voice to conservatives? On The Maclaughlin Group, isolantionist/anti-semite Pat Buchanon agrees with lib Elanore Clift more times than he disaagerees with her. That is why he is on MSNBC.

[Skeptic]

Isn't she the same 60s reject who just claimed Mao was one of her favorite philosophers?

[mhaze]

I made a glib reponse to your query and did not mean for you to infer that this would be the only defn of faux-liberal. Anyway, Dick Morris certainly meets the standard above. Is Fox and Hannity still promoting Dick as former Clinton staffer allowing viewers to infer he is a liberal....I think that is inaccurate, he self defines as a newby Republication or independant or something. He doesn't self define as a liberal or Democrat.

[Lurker]

I think that is inaccurate, he self defines as a newby Republication or independant or something. He doesn't self define as a liberal or Democrat.

OK, I have not been keeping up. I know he used to be introduced as former Clinton Staffer or Aide or whatever. Implicit in that introduction was that he was a Democrat at the very least. If they have changed his intro then good on them.

[Lurker]

By the way, I'll add that just last Friday Juan Williams guest hosted for O'Reilly and went on the attack of Hollywood for propagandizing for Obama's health care plans. For example he criticized a TV show for mentioning the number of uninsured.

[Whiplash]

It's very unfortunate that Juan Williams is seen as a centrist or conservative rather than what he is. An honest liberal. Someone that many of the rest of the left should take cues from. Someone who can step away from all the outrageous hyperbole and rhetoric and be honest about the story at hand. Someone who recognizes the places that liberalism is wrong (as opposed to being convinced that it has no faults at all).

He's fair, and honest. And honorable.

He's the one who's living in reality. Not those who besmirch him just for having been on Fox news. But the ideological blinders are too much to overcome for some, I guess. I have no more to say on this. It's frustrating to try to deal with people who are being willfully ignorant.

[mhaze]

OK, I have not been keeping up. I know he used to be introduced as former Clinton Staffer or Aide or whatever. Implicit in that introduction was that he was a Democrat at the very least. If they have changed his intro then good on them.Yeah, I've got two or three of his books around here, and they are very anti-Clinton/Obama. Also, for some weird reason mailings come here from "Dick Morris" which are for anti-Obama campaigns.

I'll admit to not seeing the guy name himself as a Repub, though. Good question.

Re Juan Williams, he is seriously a Democrat. But he disagrees with some of the things going on currently.

I'm not much on watching TV, though. Not that it does much in the way of convey information or facts....

[mhaze]

Isn't she the same 60s reject who just claimed Mao was one of her favorite philosophers?Yes, to a high school graduating class. It is an objectionable speech, but also very, very naive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY

This sort of shallow prosetylzing is very dangerous. Dunn sugar coats a barbaric recent history, which the Chinese themselves have utterly rejected and have moved forward from.

An amusing, corrective action in that high school graduation ceremony, when Dunn began to praise Mao, would have simply been to shout a certain four letter word beginning with "F" followed by "Mao".

That would have fixed it, and we would now be watching a much more entertaining Youtube video.

[SezMe]

Juan Williams, who also works for NPR, the pace where oldhat gets his news, has said some unflattering things about Dems on several occassions, but still tows the lib line on the majority of his time on FOX News.
That's the second time you've done that. It's "toes".

[SezMe]

Do people who cite the George Soros funded CAP/Think Progress link have any credability?
As oldhat noted, it was a poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal. Don't shoot the messenger. Now, please address the substance of that poll and report. Thanks.

[Cicero]

That's the second time you've done that. It's "toes".

Actually Juan doesn't "toe the line" since he does step over the boundaries of being what oldhat/Lurker expects from a bona fide liberal. What he does do is to pull his weight as a bona fide liberal, so he does tow the line.

[oldhat]

It's very unfortunate that Juan Williams is seen as a centrist or conservative rather than what he is. An honest liberal. Someone that many of the rest of the left should take cues from.

Juan Williams is a third string journalist NO ONE on the left even recognizes the name of or cares about. He has no influence. None. He's someone they hired to give Fox News the fig leaf of "balance" (black guy) even though he's not a liberal, because in the minds of the conservatives, anything less than an extreme right winger like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or being a journalist at NPR means you're a liberal.

It just shows you how pathetic the standards are at Fox News. Do you honestly believe that tripe, the slogans and "fair and balanced" that chumming the waters for the truly stupid and uneducated among their viewers? I expect a little more from the conservatives in this thread because you know how to spell.

Furthermore, he's a paid guest.

There isn't a single liberal who has a show on Fox, this gibberish about Geraldo being a liberal aside.

[Peephole]

Yes, to a high school graduating class. It is an objectionable speech, but also very, very naive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY
This has already been debunked at the start of this thread.

Stop spreading lies.

[Cicero]

As oldhat noted, it was a poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal. Don't shoot the messenger. Now, please address the substance of that poll and report. Thanks.

"Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants (55%)"

Because of a loop hole, health care would have to be available to illegal aliens. Seems FOX News viewers are better informed.

"Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill"

"The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan."

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/858764545?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1012

[Cicero]

This has already been debunked at the start of this thread.

Stop spreading lies.

Sure. You are obliged to believe Dunn was joking, so, therefore, it has to be "debunked." Too bad she was in earnest when she made this speech.

[Cicero]

Juan Williams is a third string journalist NO ONE on the left even recognizes the name of or cares about. He has no influence. None. He's someone they hired to give Fox News the fig leaf of "balance" (black guy) even though he's not a liberal, because in the minds of the conservatives, anything less than an extreme right winger like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or being a journalist at NPR means you're a liberal.

It just shows you how pathetic the standards are at Fox News. Do you honestly believe that tripe, the slogans and "fair and balanced" that chumming the waters for the truly stupid and uneducated among their viewers? I expect a little more from the conservatives in this thread because you know how to spell.

Furthermore, he's a paid guest.

There isn't a single liberal who has a show on Fox, this gibberish about Geraldo being a liberal aside.

There are no conservatives who have shows on NPR. You know, the same place where you get your news and where Juan Williams works.

FOX News contributors Dr. Hill and Dr. Dyson are also black and liberal. I guess they are also fig leafs? FOX News actually pays people it employs? Wow! Does NPR not pay Juan?

[rustypouch]

So now you can tell us your source for TV/Cable news.

I prefer the BBC World Service or the CBC.

[Cicero]

I prefer the BBC World Service or the CBC.


No wonder.

"Confessions of a BBC liberal
The BBC has finally come clean about its bias, says a former editor, who wrote Yes, Minister"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2240427.ece

[tyr_13]

While I find the 'reporting' on Fox largely laughable (it's on a lot at my house), I don't think it's a good idea for the press secretary to be commenting on it. That only gives propagandists on the right ammo. The correct strategy would be to keep silent and let the opposition hang itself. It's hard not to pick on Fox, I know, but that's what should be done by the administration.

'But MSNBC is liberal' is a piss poor excuse to hide behind for presenting blatantly biased (as in the teabagger rallies where Fox news reporters were leading chants) 'reporting'. Even worse are the claims of being 'fair and balanced' and 'no spin'. The more those things are put forward as 'fact' the more obviously they cannot be fact. It's like bragging about being humble.

[Cicero]

While I find the 'reporting' on Fox largely laughable (it's on a lot at my house), I don't think it's a good idea for the press secretary to be commenting on it. That only gives propagandists on the right ammo. The correct strategy would be to keep silent and let the opposition hang itself. It's hard not to pick on Fox, I know, but that's what should be done by the administration.

'But MSNBC is liberal' is a piss poor excuse to hide behind for presenting blatantly biased (as in the teabagger rallies where Fox news reporters were leading chants) 'reporting'. Even worse are the claims of being 'fair and balanced' and 'no spin'. The more those things are put forward as 'fact' the more obviously they cannot be fact. It's like bragging about being humble.

So you also watch FOX News and voted for Obama?

[tyr_13]

So you also watch FOX News and voted for Obama?

No. I'm routinely exposed to Fox, and it doesn't matter who the hell I voted for.

[Cicero]

No. I'm routinely exposed to Fox, and it doesn't matter who the hell I voted for.

I guess that means either your roomates, significant other, kids, or parents are watching FOX News? So when you have control of the remote, what news channel are you selecting? Well, if you do watch FOX News, and happened to vote for Obama, then it is another example that undermines geni's conclusion.

[Dancing David]

Beck's an independent conservative leaning libertarian who was ripping on Bush too.

Data, evidence?

Where is this ripping?

[Dancing David]

Independent research shows FNC has far more independents and liberals on than the rest of the media has conservatives combined. The rest of the news is all liberals who think Obama is the second coming. Better censor Fox, only liberals deserve 1st amendment rights after all.

Nice citations, any data or evidence?

[Dancing David]

Didn't someone post a link the the Pew poll conduct within just a few days ago? Or-my standard consulting fee for doing the research for you is $250/hr- 10 hr min.

Sorry this is a sceptic's forum, your claim, your burden.

Epic fail.

[Snide]

Fox clearly hires and invites many left-of-center voices. My problem with them is they manipulate the news as well as the programming to lean favorably to the right at the end of each broadcast day through the number of conservative voices, story selection, and general attitudes toward the left viewpoints, while pretending to be fair and balanced.

As for the pundits inviting liberal guests while MSNBC does not invite conservatives to anywhere near the same degree, I would much rather O'Reilly, for example, be honest about who he is, at least try to always be honest in what he says, and then go ahead and invite only those who generally agree with him, instead of trying to fool people into buying his schtick.

[MikeMangum]

Data, evidence?

Where is this ripping?

I haven't actually watched Beck since he moved to Fox, but I did watch him on occasion when he was on CNN. He did indeed regularly rip on Bush, largely for spending, but for other things as well.

[Policenaut]

Fox clearly hires and invites many left-of-center voices. My problem with them is they manipulate the news as well as the programming to lean favorably to the right at the end of each broadcast day through the number of conservative voices, story selection, and general attitudes toward the left viewpoints, while pretending to be fair and balanced.

But this is the case with all news programs/channels/papers out today. They all have biases and with smoke and mirrors shape and create the news they want. You want unbiased news? Impossible, at least from a single news source.

[MikeMangum]

Oh, about the original attack by Team Obama on FOX news...don't they know you are only supposed to punch UP in politics? If you punch down, you always lose, even if you win.

[Snide]

But this is the case with all news programs/channels/papers out today. They all have biases and with smoke and mirrors shape and create the news they want. You want unbiased news? Impossible, at least from a single news source.I do not necessarily want unbiased news.

[Snide]

Oh, about the original attack by Team Obama on FOX news...don't they know you are only supposed to punch UP in politics? If you punch down, you always lose, even if you win.Yeah, which is why I'm always puzzled by O'Reilly's tactics against his rivals.

[Policenaut]

I do not necessarily want unbiased news.

Exactly which is why it doesn't exist (except maybe CSPAN). If there is demand for it then someone will try to do it. Obviously there is no demand and people are happy with the choices they have. Plus they can go on the internet and find any slant on the news they want. What I am saying is that all news outlets have an agenda and to single out Fox is hypocritical of the administration.

[rustypouch]

No wonder.

"Confessions of a BBC liberal
The BBC has finally come clean about its bias, says a former editor, who wrote Yes, Minister"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2240427.ece

So more anecdotal evidence.

Did you know that Fox News fired reporters for refusing to lie, and in fact went to court to uphold their right to falsify news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

[willhaven]

It's hard to portray Fox as the most balanced TV news source in the US. They're far from it. They're definitely further right than MSNBC is left. CNN isn't exactly center, but probably the closest of the 3.

[Brainster]

The Nation's John Nichols (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/13/opinion/main5381640.shtml) tells the Obama Administration to get over itself:

An administration that won the White House with an almost always on-message campaign and generally friendly coverage from old and new media is now frustrated by its inability to control the debate and get the coverage it wants.

Helen Thomas tells the administration to end the Fox fight (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63659-thomas-to-white-house-stay-out-of-fox-news-fight):

In an interview with MSNBC, the columnist -- who is promoting her new book on presidents and their campaigns -- also stressed the White House ought to "stay out of these fights."

"They can only take you down. You can't kill the messenger," said Thomas, who has covered every president from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama.

Apparently the "they" she's referring to in the second paragraph is "these fights", not FoxNews.

David Carr, in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html) points out the painful history of presidential battles with the press:

Ah, but pretending has traditionally been a valuable part of the presidential playbook. Smiling and wearing beige even under the most withering news media assault is not only good manners, but also has generally been good politics. While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence.

Why are they all telling Obama's people to cool it with the arguments against Fox? Well, this (also from the NY Times article) gives me a pretty good clue:

So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president

DOH!

[Skeptic]

Yes, to a high school graduating class. It is an objectionable speech, but also very, very naive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY

This sort of shallow prosetylzing is very dangerous

(Sigh)

Naive speech given to high school graduating class? You don't say...

More seriously, though, I agree with your main point. This woman is not really a Maoist. She'd run screaming from the room if she ever were to meet one of Mao's real henchmen and murderers. She is simply a naif, one of those fools who believed Maoism and communism were, like, cool, man, in the 1960s.

She reminds me of Morris Berman, the author of that highly-regarded (for some reason) book, "The Twilight of American Culture". He gives a sobering account of the inevitable decline and fall of America due to its lack of culture and depth and civilization... and then starts praising Mao and Lenin. Yes, gulags and famines are so much deeper and civilized, I guess.

By the way, I've read Mao's little red book. A collection of banal trivialities by a senile, yet murderous, bureaucrat. I'll bet SHE didn't read it.

[Policenaut]

Not to dwell on Dunn's speech but I thought it was beyond stupid. You can't think of a better person to use as an example? Really? You needed to use Mao to convey the simple point that kids should be thinking outside the box? Also to describe him as a favorite political philosopher is bizarre.

[mhaze]

So more anecdotal evidence.

Did you know that Fox News fired reporters for refusing to lie, and in fact went to court to uphold their right to falsify news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_AkreThat's certainly a weird one. But be realistic - you've got one oddity there, dating from 1997, with a local FOX owned station, with local reporters working for that station.

That is not Fox News.

Are the difference clear?

[mhaze]

(Sigh)

Naive speech given to high school graduating class? You don't say...

More seriously, though, I agree with your main point. This woman is not really a Maoist. She'd run screaming from the room if she ever were to meet one of Mao's real henchmen and murderers. She is simply a naif, one of those fools who believed Maoism and communism were, like, cool, man, in the 1960s.

She reminds me of Morris Berman, the author of that highly-regarded (for some reason) book, "The Twilight of American Culture". He gives a sobering account of the inevitable decline and fall of America due to its lack of culture and depth and civilization... and then starts praising Mao and Lenin. Yes, gulags and famines are so much deeper and civilized, I guess.

By the way, I've read Mao's little red book. A collection of banal trivialities by a senile, yet murderous, bureaucrat. I'll bet SHE didn't read it.Well, I've read it too and a lot more than that. Boatloads. I'm not referring to Marxist intellectual crap, but actual history of recent China. And the lady (excuse my French, I'm really, really tempted here to use the "B" word) had it exactly, 100%, dead wrong.

She could have discussed how the mainland rejection of Mao and communism led to the increase in individual rights, and the vast multiplication of wealth in China today. How the Chinese people respect and honor the US, beginning with Nixon's visit to China and proceeding gradually. How the fax machine, and later, computers, internet and cell phones affect the freedom of the individual, and empower them beyond the capability of a collective society to chain them down.

One could go from that to look at remaining issues in the mainland from various points of view, such as the many remaining issues with individual rights and liberty. Absolutely.

Conversely, we could look at the enslavement and simultaneous impoverishment of the mainland under the chains of central planning of Maoism.

To Anita Dunn, this is a idealistic goal.

[mhaze]

While I find the 'reporting' on Fox largely laughable (it's on a lot at my house), I don't think it's a good idea for the press secretary to be commenting on it. That only gives propagandists on the right ammo. The correct strategy would be to keep silent and let the opposition hang itself. It's hard not to pick on Fox, I know, but that's what should be done by the administration.

'But MSNBC is liberal' is a piss poor excuse to hide behind for presenting blatantly biased (as in the teabagger rallies where Fox news reporters were leading chants) 'reporting'. Even worse are the claims of being 'fair and balanced' and 'no spin'. The more those things are put forward as 'fact' the more obviously they cannot be fact. It's like bragging about being humble.

Umm,,,, no. It is shaping up that we have a bit of a problem with the other news networks.

If they cannot, do not or will not report on stories such as:


Acorn and the takedown by Hannah Giles
Anita Dunn being a Communist sympathizer

Then they are missing out on "scoops", they will lose viewers to Fox, and they are not covering that part of the news which reflects poorly on the current administration.

Disclaimer: I don't watch much TV at all, think it is obsolete totally.

[tyr_13]

If they cannot, do not or will not report on stories such as:


Acorn and the takedown by Hannah Giles

They 'can and did'. Fox claiming that they did not is another straight up Fox lie. Of course perhaps by 'report' they mean, 'blow out of proportion and devote hours of time to'. Oh, wait, so did the other news networks!


Anita Dunn being a Communist sympathizer




Wait, what? Admires Mao (obviously for the genius he displayed in the field she freaking works in) does not equal a Communist sympathizer.


Then they are missing out on "scoops", they will lose viewers to Fox, and they are not covering that part of the news which reflects poorly on the current administration.

Disclaimer: I don't watch much TV at all, think it is obsolete totally.

It's easy to get confused when you just hear snippets. Every time I think 'Fox can't be that crazy' I am proven dreadfully wrong.

[Lurker]

It's hard to portray Fox as the most balanced TV news source in the US. They're far from it. They're definitely further right than MSNBC is left. CNN isn't exactly center, but probably the closest of the 3.

This is my opinion as well.

[Skeptic]

By the way, the Chinese today -- long after Mao -- have a lousy human rights record. But nothing compared to his murder of tends of millions, and to be fair, I can see what China's leaders fear.

China has 1.2 billion and more, many living on close to subsistance level. If there is ever chaos or anarchy, the result would be starvation on a scale of, probably, 100,000,000 or 150,000,000 or more, a number of dead that would make the victims of WWII look like small change, holocaust and all.

I can therefore see why they have a closed, more hierarchic and controlled society as much as I despise its abuses.

[manierisme]

It seems that the main point Fox keeps making is that their critics aren't able to separate their "opinion" shows from their "hard news." But this is actually what stands out about Fox so much to me.

While MSNBC in prime-time is every bit as much a left-wing opinion outlet as Fox is a right-wing one (although despite his Obama mancrush, Matthews is really a centrist. he was pretty much in the tank for GWB from 2000 up until the beginning of the Iraq War), I really find it hard to believe that anyone who has actually watched a good deal of MSNBC and Fox's mid-day "hard news" would try to argue that they are mirror images of one another, they just aren't and Fox's strikes a much more partisan tone. The prominent exception here would be MSNBC's Shuster, who can't seem to keep his raging-leftiedom to himself, but I don't think he tips the scale nearly enough to make the two sides equivalent.

MSNBC also has a 3-hour morning block starring a former Republican congressman with a lifetime 95% rating from the American Conservative Union.

For what it's worth, I think Anita Dunn is not very bright (Mao is arguably the single worst person in history in terms of how he impacted people's lives) and that this is a terribly inept strategy from the White House.

[Dancing David]

By the way, the Chinese today -- long after Mao -- have a lousy human rights record. But nothing compared to his murder of tends of millions, and to be fair, I can see what China's leaders fear.

And the US after George Washington has a great rack record as well. How many Jews did the US State Department deliberately prevent from emmigrating to the US, how many Mexicans were killed by the Texas Rangers?

Your point is specious.

Someone said something stupid. And she did not say as others have intimated "I have based my whole life upon the teachings of Mao Dze Dung."

Glenn Beck is famous for saying Hitler was a 'great mind', so lots of people say stupid things that are not germane.

[mhaze]

They 'can and did'. Fox claiming that they did not is another straight up Fox lie. Of course perhaps by 'report' they mean, 'blow out of proportion and devote hours of time to'. Oh, wait, so did the other news networks!.....A long time later, they started to report on the Acorn/Giles mess. Really, now. Do not say the coverage was equal, what would be the point of that?

As for what Fox claimed, I have no idea and could not care less.

I make a claim, you make a claim. Go look for the first date of coverage of Acorn/Giles by the major networks. You'll find I'm right.

Wait, what? Admires Mao (obviously for the genius he displayed in the field she freaking works in) does not equal a Communist sympathizer. .....Well, I don't quite know what to say to that, grasshopper....

How about the fine distinctions between words are irrelevant, and she's one dumbA** idiot?

[mhaze]

... Your point is specious.

Someone said something stupid. And she did not say as others have intimated "I have based my whole life upon the teachings of Mao Dze Dung."

Glenn Beck is famous for saying Hitler was a 'great mind', so lots of people say stupid things that are not germane.Actually it is your point which is specious.

Beck's comment about Hitler was directly to show the impropriety of the Dunn comment about Mao.

It was on the same show, in the same discussion.

[tyr_13]

A long time later, they started to report on the Acorn/Giles mess. Really, now. Do not say the coverage was equal, what would be the point of that?

What is a 'long time latter'? I first hear the ACORN thing at work on CNN before coming home and seeing it on Fox.

Of course let's contrast that with the Fox coverage of the gay rights march on Washington.


As for what Fox claimed, I have no idea and could not care less.

I make a claim, you make a claim. Go look for the first date of coverage of Acorn/Giles by the major networks. You'll find I'm right.

The fact that CNN, MSNBS, etc might have waited for confirmation doesn't mean they didn't cover it. Didn't some Fox supporters slam CNN for the National Guard thing? One can't have it both ways.


Well, I don't quite know what to say to that, grasshopper....

How about the fine distinctions between words are irrelevant, and she's one dumbA** idiot?

I'll agree that it was a dumb thing to say that lacks perspective. A military strategist espousing the genius and effectiveness of the blitzkrieg shouldn't be viewed as Nazi sympathizers and I don't think a press secretary looking at Mao the same way should be viewed as a Commie or Communist sympathizer. She was foolish however to think that people wouldn't spin that, and that it wouldn't be taken as a support of Mao as a whole.

And again, it's foolish for her to take swipes at Fox. It's a no win from her position.

[Policenaut]

It seems that the main point Fox keeps making is that their critics aren't able to separate their "opinion" shows from their "hard news." But this is actually what stands out about Fox so much to me.

While MSNBC in prime-time is every bit as much a left-wing opinion outlet as Fox is a right-wing one (although despite his Obama mancrush, Matthews is really a centrist. he was pretty much in the tank for GWB from 2000 up until the beginning of the Iraq War), I really find it hard to believe that anyone who has actually watched a good deal of MSNBC and Fox's mid-day "hard news" would try to argue that they are mirror images of one another, they just aren't and Fox's strikes a much more partisan tone. The prominent exception here would be MSNBC's Shuster, who can't seem to keep his raging-leftiedom to himself, but I don't think he tips the scale nearly enough to make the two sides equivalent.

CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all have biased people on in the afternoon. Some more obvious than others. A few try to be totally down the middle but they are rare. And to conflate the problem they all intertwine interviews/conversations with partisan pundits about topics throughout the day. Is it necessary to add a hack's opinions about every news story? No but they all do it. It further taints the news and blurs the line between hard news and editorial.

[Newtons Bit]

What is a 'long time latter'? I first hear the ACORN thing at work on CNN before coming home and seeing it on Fox.

Of course let's contrast that with the Fox coverage of the gay rights march on Washington.



The fact that CNN, MSNBS, etc might have waited for confirmation doesn't mean they didn't cover it. Didn't some Fox supporters slam CNN for the National Guard thing? One can't have it both ways.



I'll agree that it was a dumb thing to say that lacks perspective. A military strategist espousing the genius and effectiveness of the blitzkrieg shouldn't be viewed as Nazi sympathizers and I don't think a press secretary looking at Mao the same way should be viewed as a Commie or Communist sympathizer. She was foolish however to think that people wouldn't spin that, and that it wouldn't be taken as a support of Mao as a whole.

And again, it's foolish for her to take swipes at Fox. It's a no win from her position.

The criticism I've seen of the other networks was the manner in which they were reporting the ACORN matter. Little details, like the fact that the couple also got help for creating a brothel of El Salvador (or wherever it was) children was left out or that ACORN representatives were allowed to respond to the videos without the viewers/readers ever seeing the whole picture themselves.

Here's Breitbart's criticism of the networks: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909180011

You'll note his criticism of CNN is not that they did not cover it at all. That particular dishonor falls to NBC and ABC. CBS covered it, but a bit late.

[oldhat]

This is why people who watch Fox "News" are the least informed:

YRx5ethd8JU

[Cicero]

It's hard to portray Fox as the most balanced TV news source in the US. They're far from it. They're definitely further right than MSNBC is left. CNN isn't exactly center, but probably the closest of the 3.

How did you arrive at this bizarre conclusion?

MSNBC is crafted around Keith Olbermann. MSNBC's version of Rush Limberger.


MSNBC shows hosted by bona fide libs:

Andrea Mitchell
Ed Schultz
Chris Matthews
Keith Olbermann
Raychill Maddow

Contessa Brewer-News Anchor

MSNBC shows hosted by cons:

Joe Scarborough


FOX News shows hosted by cons:

Hannity
Beck
Cavuto
O'Reilly

FOX News hosted by bona fide libs:

Geraldo

Shepherd Smith- political ideology unknown- News Anchor

[Cicero]

This is why people who watch Fox "News" are the least informed:

YRx5ethd8JU

A Media Matters presentation. Don't ever complain about out of context snippets.

[oldhat]

A Media Matters presentation. Don't ever complain about out of context snippets.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/noahyzimmerman/YouMad.jpg

Nice ad hominem.

This is Fox "News" own words.

Are you still under the impression that Media Matters is a George Soro-funded far left smear site, in the words of Bill O'Reilly?

By the way, waving your hand and saying something is "out of context" without explaining how it's "out of context" (as if that means something in an of itself) is the laziest defensive device imaginable. No wonder Bill O'Reilly uses it all the time.

[Peephole]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html

[Neally]

Are you still under the impression that Media Matters is a George Soro-funded far left smear siteAre you saying that MM is NOT a left wing biased, anti-conservative site?

[oldhat]

Are you saying that MM is NOT a left wing biased, anti-conservative site?

Yes, I agree, it's a far-left, George Soros funded smear site that takes exact quotes and clips of people lying and otherwise saying stupid, ill-informed things from the conservative media universe and posts them on the web.

The exact strategy Edward R. Murrow used when he went after Joe McCarthy.

If Fox News and the rest of the right wing media wanted to put MM out of business, all they'd have to do is stop lying, distorting and acting as the media arm of the Republican Party. Then MM would have nothing to quote and no clips to run. But they make MM's job easy because they're such horrible partisan hacks PR spokesmen "journalists."

[dudalb]

While I find the 'reporting' on Fox largely laughable (it's on a lot at my house), I don't think it's a good idea for the press secretary to be commenting on it. That only gives propagandists on the right ammo. The correct strategy would be to keep silent and let the opposition hang itself. It's hard not to pick on Fox, I know, but that's what should be done by the administration.

'But MSNBC is liberal' is a piss poor excuse to hide behind for presenting blatantly biased (as in the teabagger rallies where Fox news reporters were leading chants) 'reporting'. Even worse are the claims of being 'fair and balanced' and 'no spin'. The more those things are put forward as 'fact' the more obviously they cannot be fact. It's like bragging about being humble.


I agree the White House engaging in a feud with Fox News is not a good idea.
That old saying about never get into a fight with somebody who has a endless supply of ink and paper is still valid.
The White House would have been better advised to get someone not an official spokesman to go after Fox.
Fox news is hopeless biased toward the right. That is a given. What annoys me is after nearly ten years the Libs still get into a frenzy about it. You think they would just accept that Fox News is biased and move on, rather then go into a rant at the mere mention. Pointing out Fox's bias is one thing, endlessly moaning about "the end of news" is another.
And for Fox News and MSNBC to accuse each other of being biased deserves some kind of a "Pot, Meet Kettle" award.
As for MM, I treat it the same way I do Fox News:As a biased source which has to be treated with caution. MM is very good on selecting only those items which makes Conservatives look bad.
Of course I don't expect the Left Ideologues to see that, just as I don't expect the Right Ideologues to see Fox News as anything but the unbiased truth.
A professor in college once told me which talking about taking biases in account that is is easy to see bias when it is bias against your personal opinions, but what is much harder, and much more important, is to see bias when it AGREES with you personal viewpoint.
You don't see a superabundence of that here, sad to say.

[NWO Sentryman]

What about this Fairness Doctrine that Len Hart and other left wingers promogulate?

existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2009/04/murrow-why-fairness-doctrine-must-be.html.

[theprestige]

Five pages into this thread, and I'm still trying to figure out how we benefit from the most powerful person in the nation trying to marginalize an independent news organization that opposes him.

[Skeptic]

Someone said something stupid. And she did not say as others have intimated "I have based my whole life upon the teachings of Mao Dze Dung."

She said he was one of her two favorite philosophers. That's not exactly basing her whole life on it, but significantly more than "saying something stupid".

Glenn Beck is famous for saying Hitler was 'a great mind'

Glenn Beck is a private citizen; Glenn Beck does not have an influential political position in the US government.

Also, Glenn Beck would have less influence -- significantly less influence -- if the mainstream media did its job, and would actually break the stories about ACORN's pimping, Anita Dunn's Maoism, Limbaugh's "racist" quotes being proven to be a total fabrication, children being taught songs in praise of dear leader, and and a few other things they preferred for some reason to ignore in favor of "fact checking" a SNL skit's jokes about Obama.

[dudalb]

What about this Fairness Doctrine that Len Hart and other left wingers promogulate?

existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2009/04/murrow-why-fairness-doctrine-must-be.html.

Because hardline ideologues, Left or Right, secretly would love to silence the opposition.
And forcing Rush (whom I despise) ,Beck and Fox off the air is ,among some ,not all on the left a major league obssesion. They seem to blame Rush and Fox for any sucess the right had had..which IMHO is giving them far too much importance. I have a feeling they are preaching to the converted, and had little impact on undecided or marginal voters. But is so emotionally satisfying to have somebody to blame for all your defeats, rather then admit that maybe you did not do a very good job of presenting your point of view.

[Drysdale]

Because hardline ideologues, Left or Right, secretly would love to silence the opposition.
And forcing Rush (whom I despise) ,Beck and Fox off the air is ,among some ,not all on the left a major league obssesion. They seem to blame Rush and Fox for any sucess the right had had..which IMHO is giving them far too much importance. I have a feeling they are preaching to the converted, and had little impact on undecided or marginal voters. But is so emotionally satisfying to have somebody to blame for all your defeats, rather then admit that maybe you did not do a very good job of presenting your point of view.

This is what I really cant understand, much of the MSM and apparently this administration seems to feel that without Fox News,Hannity,Limbaugh,etc al
the right would disappear. Umm, I think they won a few elections before any of these were around though. Why so much fuss about them now?

[oldhat]

Five pages into this thread, and I'm still trying to figure out how we benefit from the most powerful person in the nation trying to marginalize an independent news organization that opposes him.

It's not a news organization.

Calling the major tentacle of Rupert Murdoch's media empire "independent" is pretty eye popping.

[Cicero]

"For no matter how often their hollowness is exposed, the jocks still reweave the myth of their own power. They still ride the airwaves claiming to speak for millions. They still confuse listeners with voters. And they are aided in this endeavor by their enablers. They are enabled by cynical Democrats, who love to claim that Rush Limbaugh controls the G.O.P. They are enabled by lazy pundits who find it easier to argue with showmen than with people whose opinions are based on knowledge. They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.

So the myth returns. Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist." David Brooks, New York Times

Brooks is absolutely correct.

[Skeptic]

Fox news is hopeless biased toward the right. That is a given. What annoys me is after nearly ten years the Libs still get into a frenzy about it. You think they would just accept that Fox News is biased and move on, rather then go into a rant at the mere mention. Pointing out Fox's bias is one thing, endlessly moaning about "the end of news" is another.

Quite true on both counts, I think. I have an explanation, however, for this puzzling phenomena. For a conservative, a media outlet biased against his views is a matter of course, not worthy of too much emotional investment. Liberals, however, are so used to the media going along with every scheme they have, that the very idea of a non-liberal news network or newspaper is seen as some sort of freakish monstrosity.

[Cicero]

It's not a news organization.

Calling the major tentacle of Rupert Murdoch's media empire "independent" is pretty eye popping.

HarperCollins, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., published these books that lambaste Republicans.

Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,

The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time

The Conservative Soul

Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11

[Region Rat]

It's not a news organization.

Calling the major tentacle of Rupert Murdoch's media empire "independent" is pretty eye popping.


OK, lets say you're right, and FOX is not a news organization. Here's the quote (with apologies to theprestige)

Five pages into this thread, and I'm still trying to figure out how we benefit from the most powerful person in the nation trying to marginalize an independent news right wing opinion organization that opposes him.

Does this make it any more reasonable for the President to pursue? I still think not.


I just love seeing certain left wing idealogues get their panties in a bunch whenever FOX is mentioned. Very entertaining.

Waaaaah, Waaaahhh, FOX news still on the air!

How childish. Just what are you afraid of?

[Lurker]

I don't care that FoxNews is on the air. I just want them to be truthful. Stop the lying. Stop the misquotes. That they are biased is not the end of the world. I would rather they have more appearance of neutrality. I find it odd when a reporter is hyping a crowd for the camera. I'm not sure that is "honest" reporting of a news event.

[Eyeron]

I wish the same thing for CNN.

[mhaze]

I don't care that FoxNews is on the air. I just want them to be truthful. Stop the lying. Stop the misquotes. That they are biased is not the end of the world. I would rather they have more appearance of neutrality. I find it odd when a reporter is hyping a crowd for the camera. I'm not sure that is "honest" reporting of a news event.

Ok, I don't care either that Fox News is on the air. I ask the following, not really picking on you but your post was handy to click on:

What would you do to get what you want from the dastardly FoxNews? Would you rule, force, legislate, or otherwise compel them to your desires?

Last I heard people voted with their TV remotes on these matters.

[oldhat]

So if you're rich enough, like Rupert Murdoch, you can lie and misinform the public all you want and if you think that smacks of plutocracy and say something about how much they lie and misinform people, you're nothing more than a liberal whiner?

[Grizzly Bear]

Has anyone figured out yet what justification the administration has for trying to alienate FOX news? ...Er besides not liking Hannity or Glenn Beck... I find the reason Gibbs gave a rather resounding, thumpingly dumb justification for the media warfare...

[Ziggurat]

Has anyone figured out yet what justification the administration has for trying to alienate FOX news?

Many Obama supporters here are trying to argue that the accusations against Fox are correct, but that really doesn't answer the question of why they're making Fox a target. Frankly, just being right isn't a good enough reason to get in this sort of fight. They certainly aren't going to change Fox's behavior this way, and they're not going to dent its viewership either. What are they hoping to accomplish? The only rational reason I can think of for launching this attack is because they keep being the first major network to cover stories damaging to the administration (like ACORN, Van Jones, etc), and they're hoping that they can scare the other networks away from touching such stories.

Either that or they're just monumentally incompetent, which, well, I really can't rule out that possibility.

[Region Rat]

So if you're rich enough, like Rupert Murdoch, you can lie and misinform the public all you want and if you think that smacks of plutocracy and say something about how much they lie and misinform people, you're nothing more than a liberal whiner?

Don't sell yourself short. You're a lot more than a liberal whiner.

[Skeptic]

So if you're rich enough, like Rupert Murdoch, you can lie and misinform the public all you want

Yes. It's called "freedom of speech". Look it up.

Otherwise, the government can get to decide who is lying about it and who is telling the truth about it, and ban those who are (in its view) lying from speaking, which simply means that you'll have a dictatorship with no freedom of speech.

As J. S. Mill said, and in this particular case I agree with him, the way to fight lies is with truth, not with censorship.

[Skeptic]

they can scare the other networks away from touching such stories.

Doubt it. The other networks don't seem to want to touch stories which make THE ONE(tm) look bad on their own accord.

No need for the POTUS to try and "scare" people who love him so much, just for being who he is.

[AlBell]

So if you're rich enough, like Rupert Murdoch, you can lie and misinform the public all you want and if you think that smacks of plutocracy and say something about how much they lie and misinform people, you're nothing more than a liberal whiner?
Are you of the opinion that the powers controlling all mainstream news media are not rich enough to also "lie and misinform the public "?

[MikeMangum]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/todays-qs-for-os-wh-10202009.html

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

[applecorped]

Are you of the opinion that the powers controlling all mainstream news media are not rich enough to also "lie and misinform the public "?

poor people never lie. :boxedin:

[Skeptic]

In the book "Three Men in a Boat", the narrator wonders if, supposing his friend Harris became famous, there would be signs in pubs showing he visited the place. Let me quote:

I wonder now, supposing Harris, say, turned over a new leaf, and became a great and good man, and got to be Prime Minister, and died, if they would put up signs over the public-houses that he had patronised: “Harris had a glass of bitter in this house;” “Harris had two of Scotch cold here in the summer of `88;” “Harris was chucked from here in December, 1886.”

No, there would be too many of them! It would be the houses that he had never entered that would become famous. “Only house in South London that Harris never had a drink in!” The people would flock to it to see what could have been the matter with it.

I think the analogy is obvious.

[willhaven]

How did you arrive at this bizarre conclusion?

MSNBC is crafted around Keith Olbermann. MSNBC's version of Rush Limberger.

...The voracity with which numerous Fox anchors fly off the handle in regards to the current administration over the littlest things seems to outweigh what I've seen from MSNBC in recent years. Especially when you consider that Fox pretends to be fair and balanced. MSNBC strikes me as unabashedly left leaning when Fox attempts to paint all media left of it as being extremely liberal and not balanced.

Olbermann went off on a million anti-Bush rants in the last 5+ years, many of which were undeserved or blown out of proportion. But from what I see from the likes of, say, Glenn Beck who makes seemingly random tangential connections to socialism and oligarhies, praising Thomas Paine while also bashing "spread the wealth" mentalities which Paine helped create just strikes me as comical.

From my POV:
-Fox is a hilarious sideshow filled with clowns who spout outright lies and distortions more often than the other major cable outlets.

-MSNBC is unabashedly left leaning and will harp on every tiny detail no matter how inconsequential it is in the big picture. They tend to lie and intentionally distort far less often than Fox, but the lengths they go through to make a point day in day out get tiresome, even if you agree with the general premise.

-CNN seems a lot more evenly tempered than the above, but I think their colors (mostly blue) still show through. Tidbits and news stories from CNN seem to make the headlines far less often than the hyperbolic rantings from Fox or MSNBC. I think that lends credence to the argument that CNN isn't out there to sensationalize the news to the extent that MSNBC and Fox do. Just the other day Anderson Cooper was just fuming about the "balloon boy" coverage. I could tell he was pissed that he had to cover that BS while more important things were pressing.

If I were forced to rely on one source, it would be the BBC. I don't think any source is unbiased, but I'd rather take a 3rd person perspective than to throw my hat in the CNN, MSNBC or god forbid the Fox ring.

[AlBell]

poor people never lie. :boxedin:
Sure they do. What they usually don't have is mainstream media coverage to spread their lies to larger audiences.

The impact of blogs, forums, etc may be increasing, but "larger audiences" for them are just not in the picture, barring strange circumstances such as recently befell the Heene Balooning Fiasco.

[mhaze]

The WH could be worried about some stones being turned over that have not yet been turned over.

Just speculation, of course.

The sharks are not yet circling, but it is definitely time to discredit and smear the ocean.

[Cicero]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/todays-qs-for-os-wh-10202009.html


Bravo! ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper.

Gibbs continues to struggle as WHPS.

"We think Major Garrett (FOX News White House reporter) is a legitimate reporter,” Dunn said.

I guess Gibbs didn't get Dunn's memo?

[Cicero]

I don't care that FoxNews is on the air. I just want them to be truthful. Stop the lying. Stop the misquotes. That they are biased is not the end of the world. I would rather they have more appearance of neutrality. I find it odd when a reporter is hyping a crowd for the camera. I'm not sure that is "honest" reporting of a news event.

Were you dissapointed in the lack of truthfulness when MSNBC Edited film of man with AR-15 at POTUS Obama Phoenix Rally.

[Region Rat]

Were you dissapointed in the lack of truthfulness when MSNBC Edited film of man with AR-15 at POTUS Obama Phoenix Rally.

Personally, I enjoyed the CBS/ Dan Rather made up National Guard letter. That's a classic.

"OK, the letter itself was fake, but its really the truth anyway"

[Cicero]

Personally, I enjoyed the CBS/ Dan Rather made up National Guard letter. That's a classic.

"OK, the letter itself was fake, but its really the truth anyway"

I wonder why Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan , Tony Snow, or Dana Perino didn't publicly brand CBS as "not a news network." I guess they didn't have the Gibbs flair for benighted comments.

[MikeMangum]

I wonder why Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan , Tony Snow, or Dana Perino didn't publicly brand CBS as "not a news network." I guess they didn't have the Gibbs flair for benighted comments.

No, they just didn't want to be publicly branded as "not a real White House"! :boxedin:

[SezMe]

Disclaimer: I don't watch much TV at all, think it is obsolete totally.

Go look for the first date of coverage of Acorn/Giles by the major networks. You'll find I'm right.
How can you be so cocksure of the sequence of reporting when you "don't watch much TV at all..."

[Peephole]

Gingrich even quoted a political leader not previously known to be one of his influences. "War is politics with blood; politics is war without blood," said the Speaker, citing the late Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910160010

It all started on New Year's Eve in 2005. President Bush asked what my New Year's resolutions were.

...

We recommended volumes to each other (for example, he encouraged me to read a Mao biography; I suggested a book on Reconstruction's unhappy end).

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910150036

“I was reminded of the words of Chairman Mao -- it’s always darkest before it’s totally black,’’ McCain said in his opening remarks at a “town hall’’ session in Round Rock, Texas.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/mccain_quotes_chairman_mao_and.html
Commies. http://users.telenet.be/peephole/emoticons/emot-argh.gif

[Policenaut]

Just quoting someone as controversial as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao says very little about the person. It depends on context and of course with Dunn she was making a simplistic point that in no way shape or form needed a Mao quote/history lesson to convey. It seems like a dumb idea though to use quotes from genocidal mass murderers under any circumstance especially when you could likely find a similar line from someone just a tad less controversial. I'm ignoring the "favorite political philosopher" part because that was a dumb thing to say but if you read every word she said "I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point". The last part of that quote is left off when Beck is talking about it which changes her from being a lover of Mao's philosophy to her liking to use this one quote to convey a message. Like I said before though the point was truly simple as she herself said and using Mao and mentioning some Mao history seems totally unnecessary.

[Skeptic]

J I'm ignoring the "favorite political philosopher" part because that was a dumb thing to say but if you read every word she said "I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point".

"Like Goebbles said, 'people believe a big lie better than a small one" -- might be dumb to do in a high school graduation, but hardly evidence one is a nazi.

"Goebbles is my favorite political philosopher, the one I turn to most to deliver a simple point" -- something quite different, don't you think?

[Dancing David]

Strange roads my friends, I forget how here in Politics the only thing needed is a bad analogy.

Like the fact that dan rather got sacked for one thing makes CBS comparable to FOX which has um a history of stretching the truth on many things.

Later, I can't stay remotely reasonable. Time for a break.

[Lurker]

Ok, I don't care either that Fox News is on the air. I ask the following, not really picking on you but your post was handy to click on:

What would you do to get what you want from the dastardly FoxNews? Would you rule, force, legislate, or otherwise compel them to your desires?

No, legislation against their sort of newscasting would be wrong. I would vehemently oppose such.

What I do want is for FoxNews to stop lying, misrepresenting. As long as they appear to be the chief culprits, all while calling themselves Fair and Balanced, I will bemoan them

[Region Rat]

Strange roads my friends, I forget how here in Politics the only thing needed is a bad analogy.

Like the fact that dan rather got sacked for one thing makes CBS comparable to FOX which has um a history of stretching the truth on many things.

Later, I can't stay remotely reasonable. Time for a break.

Well, that wasn't really an analogy, let alone a bad analogy. More of an example of how even your favorite 'news' source is not immune from trying to make someone they don't like look bad.

However, I will say that 'stretching the truth' and 'fabricating false physical evidence' are two quite different things. Has FOX ever been caught typing up a phony birth certificate for Obama, or anything like that?

This one sided FOX is the only bad guys out there theme is just hilarious.

[tyr_13]

This one sided FOX is the only bad guys out there theme is just hilarious.

What an absurd straw man.

[Region Rat]

What an absurd straw man.

Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
Wasn't FOX singled out as the only bad actor by the WH administration?

Straw man? Come on.

[Peephole]

"Goebbles is my favorite political philosopher, the one I turn to most to deliver a simple point" -- something quite different, don't you think?
Yeah, it's a great example of Republicans' obliviousness to the concepts "irony" and "humour".

[mhaze]

How can you be so cocksure of the sequence of reporting when you "don't watch much TV at all..."Someone who watches TV would wind up with an impression of such things as the sequence of reporting. But unless he watched it with a notepad in hand, and took notes, and used TIVO, he would be unable to determine empirically anything such as lags in breaking stories.

In turn this means that "watching TV" is largely irrelevant to the question posed.

The way to be "cocksure of the sequence of reporting" is simply to look up or have the facts. They are available - these days, on the Internet of course.

[Whiplash]

please delete, screw it, I should no better than to continue to engage on this subject. It'll just make me more and more angry. I am walking away and unsubbing this thread. I won't change any opinions, and the lies will continue unabated.

[AvalonXQ]

By all attempts at actual objective analysis, Fox News is the least biased in its news coverage. It's also the least flattering and the most critical of the administration. And it is the accuracy of Fox's coverage, not its bias or mistakes, that is the reason the Obama Administration is attacking it.

[tyr_13]

Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
Wasn't FOX singled out as the only bad actor by the WH administration?

Straw man? Come on.

You don't see the difference here? Try this one. "He is a bad man," versus "He is the only bad man."

Or to be more accurate, "he does bad things and it's wrong," versus, "he is the only one who does bad things and it's wrong."

By all attempts at actual objective analysis, Fox News is the least biased in its news coverage. It's also the least flattering and the most critical of the administration. And it is the accuracy of Fox's coverage, not its bias or mistakes, that is the reason the Obama Administration is attacking it.

Evidence? People have posted link after link showing Fox to be extraordinarily biased and, more importantly, wrong in it's facts. Just to make Region Rat happy, I'll point out that this says nothing about when other news agencies are wrong being bad.

[Cicero]

Just to make Region Rat happy, I'll point out that this says nothing about when other news agencies are wrong being bad.

Why not make yourself happy and recognize the point of this thread is that when these "other news agencies" are "wrong and bad," Dunn believes they are still bona fide "news agencies."

[tyr_13]

Why not make yourself happy and recognize the point of this thread is that when these "other news agencies" are "wrong and bad," Dunn believes they are still bona fide "news agencies."

Does that challenge anything I've said? If Dunn believes that Fox has crossed the line with their political activism and distortions from legitimate news agency into a political entity, that's her opinion. It's one that isn't terribly difficult to support. I've seen nothing to make me believe that the other major news entities do it to the degree that Fox does. It's still opinion though.

It was still foolish to express it in her position. Did you miss me saying that, twice?

Would you had enjoyed it more if she had called them commies or unpatriotic?

[Region Rat]

You don't see the difference here? Try this one. "He is a bad man," versus "He is the only bad man."

Or to be more accurate, "he does bad things and it's wrong," versus, "he is the only one who does bad things and it's wrong."



Evidence? People have posted link after link showing Fox to be extraordinarily biased and, more importantly, wrong in it's facts. Just to make Region Rat happy, I'll point out that this says nothing about when other news agencies are wrong being bad.

Nope. To the point of this thread, I will concede only when the WH comes out and states that it is not targeting one specific news organization, it is instead targeting bad reporting in general. Since the WH press sec stands in front of a room FULL of reporters representing news organizations from all over, and specifically aims its guns at FOX, one can only come to the conclusion that they do not feel anyone else is doing bad reporting.

If I go into a room full of murderous thugs, and point to one murderous thug and tell everyone "This man is a murderous thug and I refuse to do business with him", and then proceed to do business with the other murderous thugs, I am in effect saying that he is the only 'bad' murderous thug, and all the rest of the murderous thugs are OK by me.

[Region Rat]

Does that challenge anything I've said? If Dunn believes that Fox has crossed the line with their political activism and distortions from legitimate news agency into a political entity, that's her opinion. It's one that isn't terribly difficult to support. I've seen nothing to make me believe that the other major news entities do it to the degree that Fox does. It's still opinion though.

It was still foolish to express it in her position. Did you miss me saying that, twice?

Would you had enjoyed it more if she had called them commies or unpatriotic?

Re: bolding- No, its not. As an official in the WH press office, it is an official WH statement, on the record. And it was backed up by the WH press secretary. She doesn't get off that lightly.

[Cicero]

Re: bolding- No, its not. As an official in the WH press office, it is an official WH statement, on the record. And it was backed up by the WH press secretary. She doesn't get off that lightly.

Exactly! If a Bush 43 offical made this statement about any news agency, I wonder if tyr_13 would dismiss it as an "opinion" and not the Administration's policy?

[Cicero]

Does that challenge anything I've said? If Dunn believes that Fox has crossed the line with their political activism and distortions from legitimate news agency into a political entity, that's her opinion. It's one that isn't terribly difficult to support. I've seen nothing to make me believe that the other major news entities do it to the degree that Fox does. It's still opinion though.

It was still foolish to express it in her position. Did you miss me saying that, twice?

Would you had enjoyed it more if she had called them commies or unpatriotic?

But you already said that your only acquaintance with FOX News is when someone in your household has it on that channel. It seems that you rely on Media Matters more for information about FOX News rather than your own viewership experience. So either you are not watching FOX News or the other "major news entitities" enough to make the hilited determination.

[oldhat]

Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
Wasn't FOX singled out as the only bad actor by the WH administration?


Because objectively huge percentages of their viewers are fundamentally misinformed and believe myths and falsehoods about major issues like, say, the US starting foreign wars and health care reform. They also spread lies about the Obama administration.

They're not in the "news" business in any real sense of the word, they're propagandists.

Pimping the tea baggers and promoting Glenn Beck's little 9/12 get together? That's advocacy, not journalism. No other "news" organization does that.

If Fox News can dish it out but not take it, they're a bunch of wimps.

[Region Rat]

Because objectively huge percentages of their viewers are fundamentally misinformed and believe myths and falsehoods about major issues like, say, the US starting foreign wars and health care reform. They also spread lies about the Obama administration.

I'm sure you can cite some unbiased evidence of this?

They're not in the "news" business in any real sense of the word, they're propagandists.

Opinion noted.

Pimping the tea baggers and promoting Glenn Beck's little 9/12 get together? That's advocacy, not journalism. No other "news" organization does that.

Childish description aside, you really need to be able to separate a news program from an opinion program, and understand that the network is promoting its opinion programming just like every other network. Just because you happen to disagree with the opinion does not make it pimping.

If Fox News can dish it out but not take it, they're a bunch of wimps.

FOX seems to be taking it quite well. It looks to me that they are enjoying the exposure, and taking great delight in showing the hypocricy.

The people who can't seem to take it are the people on the other end of the spectrum. Who brought it up in the first place, hmmmm?

[oldhat]

I'm sure you can cite some unbiased evidence of this?

The two polls I posted upthread that you didn't bother to read.

[Ziggurat]

Because objectively huge percentages of their viewers are fundamentally misinformed and believe myths and falsehoods about major issues like, say, the US starting foreign wars and health care reform.

I recall a study which purported to demonstrate this. But it was... problematic, to say the least. In particular, it only tested for misconceptions which one would associate with right-wing viewpoints, and did not include any tests of misconceptions which one would associate with left-wing viewpoints. It was, in short, nothing more than cherry-picking. But the leftists just gobbled it up. Nothing like confirmation bias to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

They also spread lies about the Obama administration.

You mean like how CNN spread lies about Rush Limbaugh, or CBS spread lies about Bush? Sorry, not seeing Fox as worse than other networks.

If Fox News can dish it out but not take it, they're a bunch of wimps.

Fox News can take it. Trust me, this isn't going to hurt their ratings. That's not the issue, though. The fact that Fox News can take it is actually one of the reasons this attack is so baffling: what do they hope to accomplish? That's the question which has no good answer, and the question you appear to be studiously avoiding.

[tyr_13]

But you already said that your only acquaintance with FOX News is when someone in your household has it on that channel. It seems that you rely on Media Matters more for information about FOX News rather than your own viewership experience. So either you are not watching FOX News or the other "major news entitities" enough to make the hilited determination.

I've been to the Media Matters site about five times. I've been almost daily exposed to Fox news for hours at a time.

That's a piss poor argument against my having any idea what I'm talking about. I get to yell at the tv all the time.

Media Matters and my own viewership experience seem to be in agreement. I'm not relying on Media Matters.

[tyr_13]

Exactly! If a Bush 43 offical made this statement about any news agency, I wonder if tyr_13 would dismiss it as an "opinion" and not the Administration's policy?

Obama didn't make this statement, but I'm glad you exposed your reasons for being so attached to this matter. You think it's all about Obama.

Bush wouldn't have said this. He would have called them 'major league ********.'

[oldhat]

I recall a study which purported to demonstrate this. But it was... problematic, to say the least. In particular, it only tested for misconceptions which one would associate with right-wing viewpoints, and did not include any tests of misconceptions which one would associate with left-wing viewpoints. It was, in short, nothing more than cherry-picking. But the leftists just gobbled it up. Nothing like confirmation bias to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Cool story bro.

I wasn't aware that making fundamental misconceptions about reality like Saddam Hussein having WMDs or health care reform meaning the government will come to kill your grandma were left/right issues, I thought they were stupid/not stupid issues. Guess which side most Fox News viewers came down on.

[Cicero]

Cool story bro.

I wasn't aware that making fundamental misconceptions about reality like Saddam Hussein having WMDs or health care reform meaning the government will come to kill your grandma were left/right issues, I thought they were stupid/not stupid issues. Guess which side most Fox News viewers came down on.

Like the one you are laboring under?

"Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants (55%)"

FOX News reporting on this was correct.

Because of a loop hole, health care would have to be available to illegal aliens. Seems FOX News viewers are better informed.

"Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill"

"The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan."

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/858...s_iv_ctrl=1012

[Ziggurat]

I wasn't aware that making fundamental misconceptions about reality like Saddam Hussein having WMDs or health care reform meaning the government will come to kill your grandma were left/right issues, I thought they were stupid/not stupid issues.

You would be wrong. They are both. People are more likely to believe misconceptions which reinforce or support their existing viewpoints, and are less likely to believe misconceptions which undermine their viewpoints. So while conservatives might be more likely to believe that Saddam nad lots of WMD's, liberals are more likely to believe (incorrectly) that the US sold WMD's to Saddam, or that we were a major arms supplier to him, or that no WMD's were found in Iraq, or that Bush refused an order to attend a flight physical, etc. It is rather easy to formulate a "test" which will show either liberals or conservatives as being less informed. Well, easy for anyone who knows what they're doing, I can't speak for you. The survey which demonstrated Fox viewers as being less informed than viewers of other networks was exactly this sort of test, and to fail to recognize it as such is... guess what? Irony of ironies, a display of stupidity and ignorance. Or maybe just dishonesty.

[Cicero]

Obama didn't make this statement, but I'm glad you exposed your reasons for being so attached to this matter. You think it's all about Obama.

Bush wouldn't have said this. He would have called them 'major league ********.'

I didn't say he did. I said spokespeople for his Administration did. That means it is not an expression of an opinion, as you seem happy to characterize it, rather it is stated policy by Administration officials.

Bush 43 had 8 years to do so. Could you cite the occassion where he did refer to any media outlet as 'major league ********.

[Region Rat]

The two polls I posted upthread that you didn't bother to read.

Unsupported supposition, I'm afraid.

I said unbiased.

[oldhat]

Unsupported supposition, I'm afraid.

I said unbiased.

Don't like the results of a public opinion poll conducted using standard polling methods? Just say it has a liberal bias!

It's easy to dismiss things you don't like when you're a conservative!

[tyr_13]

I didn't say he did. I said spokespeople for his Administration did. That means it is not an expression of an opinion, as you seem happy to characterize it, rather it is stated policy by Administration officials.

Bush 43 had 8 years to do so. Could you cite the occassion where he did refer to any media outlet as 'major league ********.

Yet your theoretical situation had Bush 43 saying something, and still does, not any of his press secretaries. Why always the theoretical situations?

It only must be taken as the stated policy of the administration if everything the press secretary says during conferences is taken as official administration policy. Surely as silly proposal.

H.W. Bush did call press members (at least one) 'major league ********'.

[Region Rat]

Don't like the results of a public opinion poll conducted using standard polling methods? Just say it has a liberal bias!

It's easy to dismiss things you don't like when you're a conservative!

Ziggurat has pointed out the flaws in the polling system. I will not repeat them.

It's a good thing I'm not a conservative, or I might take offense at your comment. As it stands, I find the extremist views from both ends both amusing and disconcerting. With a position in the middle, its very easy to see the bias on both sides, and to take it into account, rather than to believe that MY side is the correct and unbiased view, and THEIR side is the (stupid and) incorrect and extremely biased view. See, in this way I can better pick out the truths on both sides and dismiss the falsehoods and come away with a fuller picture, than with your way. But to each his own, I guess.

[Region Rat]

It only must be taken as the stated policy of the administration if everything the press secretary says during conferences is taken as official administration policy. Surely as silly proposal.


I guess I have to respectfully take exception to this. The WH press secretary is not a policy maker, and his job is not to give his opinion on matters. His job is to convey the administration's position to the press. He is a mouthpiece of the WH, a representative of the President himself, not just some guy making things up as he goes along. ( I know, I made myself laugh at that one, but its really the truth).

[Skeptic]

It's easy to dismiss things you don't like when you're a conservative!

True, alas. Both sides have their favorite 'dismissal words'. For the conservatives it's "liberal media bias". For the liberals it's shorter: "racist!".

[SezMe]

It's a good thing I'm not a conservative, or I might take offense at your comment. As it stands, I find the extremist views from both ends both amusing and disconcerting. With a position in the middle, its very easy to see the bias on both sides, and to take it into account, rather than to believe that MY side is the correct and unbiased view, and THEIR side is the (stupid and) incorrect and extremely biased view. See, in this way I can better pick out the truths on both sides and dismiss the falsehoods and come away with a fuller picture, than with your way. But to each his own, I guess.
My, my, my, aren't you perceptive. I'll bet your poop don't stink, either.

[Cicero]

Don't like the results of a public opinion poll conducted using standard polling methods? Just say it has a liberal bias!

It's easy to dismiss things you don't like when you're a conservative!

Too bad the the Think Progress reported CBS/Wall Street Journal poll was not only flawed in how the poll was conducted, but the FOX News report about health care covering illegal alens, that the poll sponsers say is not true, is indeed true. Why would you continue to cite this poll as proof that the FOX News audience are misinformed when the entity conducting the poll is woefully ignorant about the valid information being reported by FOX News?

[Lurker]

Nope. To the point of this thread, I will concede only when the WH comes out and states that it is not targeting one specific news organization, it is instead targeting bad reporting in general. Since the WH press sec stands in front of a room FULL of reporters representing news organizations from all over, and specifically aims its guns at FOX, one can only come to the conclusion that they do not feel anyone else is doing bad reporting.

If I go into a room full of murderous thugs, and point to one murderous thug and tell everyone "This man is a murderous thug and I refuse to do business with him", and then proceed to do business with the other murderous thugs, I am in effect saying that he is the only 'bad' murderous thug, and all the rest of the murderous thugs are OK by me.

You ignore that the degree of thuggishness might be in question. One might engage in mor thuggery than the next thug. It is not as if everyone is either a thug or not a thug. Such black and white thinking rarely applies.

[Drysdale]

No, legislation against their sort of newscasting would be wrong. I would vehemently oppose such.

What I do want is for FoxNews to stop lying, misrepresenting. As long as they appear to be the chief culprits, all while calling themselves Fair and Balanced, I will bemoan them

What lies are you referring to?

[Region Rat]

My, my, my, aren't you perceptive. I'll bet your poop don't stink, either.

No, you're quite wrong. I just took a righteous dump after lunch, and I gotta tell ya, it cleared out the room.

Does that mean that I'm not as perceptive as I try to be?

[dudalb]

So if you're rich enough, like Rupert Murdoch, you can lie and misinform the public all you want and if you think that smacks of plutocracy and say something about how much they lie and misinform people, you're nothing more than a liberal whiner?


If you go on endlessly about it, yes.