Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Faux News at it again
- Thread starter Popeye
- Start date
Werbung:
Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
Devil505
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 317
If he cared half as much about the American people as he does about tanning himself....(fill in the blanks)
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Seems like the left just can't get rid of their hate for anyone who opposes their anti-American activities. However, as they usually do, they lie about the basis for this hate. The real reason is they hate their loss of control on the American people, and their loss of control over the media.
Prior to Fox appearing on the scene in 1994, or there abouts, the left had absolute control of the cable media along with the print media. On the airwaves there was this guy called Rush Limbaugh that was gaining a lot of attention, and taking great numbers of listeners from the left. Suddenly, the left feared losing its influence over the people especially with the GOP revolution of 1994. Suddenly the "opposition" was able to reveal the agenda of the left, and it scared the hell out of them. Since that time they have spent billions of dollars trying to defeat this new enemy. They tried the "Fairness Doctrine"; they financed groups such as MediaMatters to further try to discredit the Conservative voices; they tried to finance left wing radio like Air America, and it failed; they tried other measures through the FCC when it was under their control; and even now they are attempting to pass legislation that would greatly suppress the Conservative voice.
And as they do so, their attempts fail thus frightening them even more. The one thing that scares the hell out of the left is the truth. People are quitting watching MSNBC, CNN, HLN, etc., the left wing "news networks" in droves. "Newspapers" like the LA Times, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., are going bankrupt while the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and other Conservative outlets are doing just fine.
Basically, with the appearance of groups like the Tea Party, and the growing numbers of Conservatives as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, the left wing is running scared. So, the only tool left for them is their hatred as expressed by the left wing posters on this forum.
Pay close attention to who the group is that authored this opinion. Another reason why the left wing is scared to death.
http://aacon.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/obama-v-fox-why-obama-hates-fox-news/
What news organization does not have some sort of bias in its reporting? CNN? Newsweek? MSNBC, maybe? The New York Times is regarded as a legitimate news organization, yet it has by its own admission, quashed coverage of the corrupt, and possibly illegal, connection between ACORN and the Obama campaign. The standard for being a legitimate news organization should be whether it reports news honestly, and accurately, regardless of what bias it displays. A news outlet does not have to fill its airwaves with reporters who feel a thrill run up their legs, or openly weep with joy at the election of President Obama, to meet that standard. Fox’s critics should be hesitant to throw such stones, due to the glass houses in which they, themselves, live.
It is then false for the Obama Administration to declare Fox as illegitimate. It is also suicidal for the American people to allow them to do so. Recent observations of governments declaring what is, and what is not, “legitimate” all point to the potential dangers to free speech that follow. In Russia, for example, the press, according to the Washington Post, “is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin’s rules of the game. Helpful questions are often planted. Unwelcome questions are not allowed. And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool.” Similarly, during a recent pool interview with Pay Czar Feinberg, the White House attempted to declare that all but Fox could have the right to ask questions of him. And this administration seems to make far more frequent use of the ‘planted helpful question’ than most administrations in the past. Is this what we want for our country? Kremlin-style journalism? Or take Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez recently began closing radio stations for failing to be in compliance with that country’s version of the Fairness Doctrine. If we allow government to attack private news organizations in such a way, how long before news organizations generally uncritical, but perhaps not uncritical enough of Obama, or news organizations who are critical of Obama from the Left instead of from the Right, such as those who oppose his position on Afghanistan or gay marriage, become subject to the same treatment?
Yet there are some outside of the Obama White House who are so sympathetic to the White House that they support Obama’s attack on a news organization simply because that news organization does not share in their support of the White House, regardless of the potential consequences of such an attack. One, Jacob Weisberg, writing in Newsweek, even declared Fox News “un-American,” not for trading with the terror-sponsoring Iran, like MSNBC’s parent company GE, but for its anti-Obama bias. Such a charge is stunning in its ignorance of both American history, and the relationship American presidents have always had with the press. It is almost as if Mr. Weisberg thinks attacking the president in the press is a new thing. Look at the criticism our two greatest presidents have had to endure during their administration, which, by the way, make the criticism thrown at President Obama seem relatively mild.
As the blog Mr. Snitch once wrote, “Lincoln was called just about every name imaginable in the press of his day, including: A ‘grotesque baboon’, a ‘third-rate country lawyer who once split rails and now splits the Union’, a ‘coarse, vulgar joker’, a dictator, an ape, and a buffoon. The Illinois State Register [published in his adopted home state] labeled him “the craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an [American political] office.” Highly regarded 18th century journalist Benjamin Franklin Bache wrote, as reported in infoplease.com, that George Washington was “treacherous,” “mischievous,” “inefficient;” and complained that his “farce of disinterestedness,” his “stately journeyings through the American continent in search of personal incense,” his “ostentatious professions of piety,” his “pusillanimous neglect,” his “little passions,” his “ingratitude,” his “want of merit,” his “insignificance,” and his “spurious fame.”
Clearly then, criticism of presidents by journalists have been a part of American history since our country’s inception. Although journalists have been punished, here and there, for their attacks, history has also shown us that the general consensus is that attacks on the President are endurable by the nation, and by the president. Further, that the consequence of attempting the alternative of suppressing the voice of the press is far worse. A journalist attacking the president is not “un-American.” A president attempting to suppress the journalist’s right to do so, clearly, is.
So, then, why is Obama doing it? At first blush, the attacks on Fox seem to be Chicago-style retribution on a critic. However, a further look reveals that there is much more to it than that. It is not Fox News’ right-wing commentary, or slant on the news that bothers Obama so much. It is Fox’s actual news reporting that has made it such an enemy to the White House.
Prior to Fox appearing on the scene in 1994, or there abouts, the left had absolute control of the cable media along with the print media. On the airwaves there was this guy called Rush Limbaugh that was gaining a lot of attention, and taking great numbers of listeners from the left. Suddenly, the left feared losing its influence over the people especially with the GOP revolution of 1994. Suddenly the "opposition" was able to reveal the agenda of the left, and it scared the hell out of them. Since that time they have spent billions of dollars trying to defeat this new enemy. They tried the "Fairness Doctrine"; they financed groups such as MediaMatters to further try to discredit the Conservative voices; they tried to finance left wing radio like Air America, and it failed; they tried other measures through the FCC when it was under their control; and even now they are attempting to pass legislation that would greatly suppress the Conservative voice.
And as they do so, their attempts fail thus frightening them even more. The one thing that scares the hell out of the left is the truth. People are quitting watching MSNBC, CNN, HLN, etc., the left wing "news networks" in droves. "Newspapers" like the LA Times, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., are going bankrupt while the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and other Conservative outlets are doing just fine.
Basically, with the appearance of groups like the Tea Party, and the growing numbers of Conservatives as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, the left wing is running scared. So, the only tool left for them is their hatred as expressed by the left wing posters on this forum.
Pay close attention to who the group is that authored this opinion. Another reason why the left wing is scared to death.
http://aacon.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/obama-v-fox-why-obama-hates-fox-news/
What news organization does not have some sort of bias in its reporting? CNN? Newsweek? MSNBC, maybe? The New York Times is regarded as a legitimate news organization, yet it has by its own admission, quashed coverage of the corrupt, and possibly illegal, connection between ACORN and the Obama campaign. The standard for being a legitimate news organization should be whether it reports news honestly, and accurately, regardless of what bias it displays. A news outlet does not have to fill its airwaves with reporters who feel a thrill run up their legs, or openly weep with joy at the election of President Obama, to meet that standard. Fox’s critics should be hesitant to throw such stones, due to the glass houses in which they, themselves, live.
It is then false for the Obama Administration to declare Fox as illegitimate. It is also suicidal for the American people to allow them to do so. Recent observations of governments declaring what is, and what is not, “legitimate” all point to the potential dangers to free speech that follow. In Russia, for example, the press, according to the Washington Post, “is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin’s rules of the game. Helpful questions are often planted. Unwelcome questions are not allowed. And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool.” Similarly, during a recent pool interview with Pay Czar Feinberg, the White House attempted to declare that all but Fox could have the right to ask questions of him. And this administration seems to make far more frequent use of the ‘planted helpful question’ than most administrations in the past. Is this what we want for our country? Kremlin-style journalism? Or take Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez recently began closing radio stations for failing to be in compliance with that country’s version of the Fairness Doctrine. If we allow government to attack private news organizations in such a way, how long before news organizations generally uncritical, but perhaps not uncritical enough of Obama, or news organizations who are critical of Obama from the Left instead of from the Right, such as those who oppose his position on Afghanistan or gay marriage, become subject to the same treatment?
Yet there are some outside of the Obama White House who are so sympathetic to the White House that they support Obama’s attack on a news organization simply because that news organization does not share in their support of the White House, regardless of the potential consequences of such an attack. One, Jacob Weisberg, writing in Newsweek, even declared Fox News “un-American,” not for trading with the terror-sponsoring Iran, like MSNBC’s parent company GE, but for its anti-Obama bias. Such a charge is stunning in its ignorance of both American history, and the relationship American presidents have always had with the press. It is almost as if Mr. Weisberg thinks attacking the president in the press is a new thing. Look at the criticism our two greatest presidents have had to endure during their administration, which, by the way, make the criticism thrown at President Obama seem relatively mild.
As the blog Mr. Snitch once wrote, “Lincoln was called just about every name imaginable in the press of his day, including: A ‘grotesque baboon’, a ‘third-rate country lawyer who once split rails and now splits the Union’, a ‘coarse, vulgar joker’, a dictator, an ape, and a buffoon. The Illinois State Register [published in his adopted home state] labeled him “the craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an [American political] office.” Highly regarded 18th century journalist Benjamin Franklin Bache wrote, as reported in infoplease.com, that George Washington was “treacherous,” “mischievous,” “inefficient;” and complained that his “farce of disinterestedness,” his “stately journeyings through the American continent in search of personal incense,” his “ostentatious professions of piety,” his “pusillanimous neglect,” his “little passions,” his “ingratitude,” his “want of merit,” his “insignificance,” and his “spurious fame.”
Clearly then, criticism of presidents by journalists have been a part of American history since our country’s inception. Although journalists have been punished, here and there, for their attacks, history has also shown us that the general consensus is that attacks on the President are endurable by the nation, and by the president. Further, that the consequence of attempting the alternative of suppressing the voice of the press is far worse. A journalist attacking the president is not “un-American.” A president attempting to suppress the journalist’s right to do so, clearly, is.
So, then, why is Obama doing it? At first blush, the attacks on Fox seem to be Chicago-style retribution on a critic. However, a further look reveals that there is much more to it than that. It is not Fox News’ right-wing commentary, or slant on the news that bothers Obama so much. It is Fox’s actual news reporting that has made it such an enemy to the White House.
Devil505
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 317
The length of this document defends it well against the risk of its being read.
Winston Churchill
Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
Well, we haven't done as well as "conservatives" who've murdered doctors & beaten Gay-people, senseless....or, to death....but, we're always hopeful.
OK, so Fox News is a needed counter to other outlets with a liberal bias. Countering one bias with the opposite is understandable, if you buy the rather simplistic concept of a left to right continuum.
But, don't the people running Fox understand what a pie chart is? They've done this same thing before. One wonders whether they think their viewers can't add, or don't understand how to use charts and graphs. The result is that they give ammunition to their opponents to shoot them down.
Do they think they can gain support for Republicans by labeling miscreant Repubs as Democrats as they've done at least twice?
If they think that their adherents don't catch that sort of thing, then they must have a low opinion of their own viewers, don't you think?
Would accuracy be more likely to sway people to their way of thinking, or are their viewers really as uncritical as Fox producers seem to think?
But, don't the people running Fox understand what a pie chart is? They've done this same thing before. One wonders whether they think their viewers can't add, or don't understand how to use charts and graphs. The result is that they give ammunition to their opponents to shoot them down.
Do they think they can gain support for Republicans by labeling miscreant Repubs as Democrats as they've done at least twice?
If they think that their adherents don't catch that sort of thing, then they must have a low opinion of their own viewers, don't you think?
Would accuracy be more likely to sway people to their way of thinking, or are their viewers really as uncritical as Fox producers seem to think?
Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
.....While they encourage WHITE-WING TERRORISTS!!
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Well, we haven't done as well as "conservatives" who've murdered doctors & beaten Gay-people, senseless....or, to death....but, we're always hopeful.
Well, your right. You only have PETA, ELF, the Unabomber, The Black Panthers, (or the New Black Panthers), the KKK, the Vietnam protest bombers like Bill Ayers, the Unions, abortion doctors who have killed millions of viable babies, etc., to your credit.
Seems to me you are far ahead by the numbers.
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
I owuld say that they have made far fewer mistakes then Matthews, Maddow, Olbermann, Mahrer, and Schultz. Is just that the left wing always makes a story out of the few mistakes Fox does make, and distorts most everything else.
And I say you only think that because Fox tends to tell you what you want to believe.
Can you cite instances of CNN reporting that a Democrat is a Republican, or vice versa? How about showing a pie graph that adds up to over 100%? What errors have you picked out from CNN?
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
you asume there are "Errors" ever notice how most of the "errors" always favor there side? Scandal breaks with a Republican...they keep labeling him a Dem...They show a chart, its skews right with its errors, they show video of crowds...that are not the crowd they are talking about..its much much bigger then the one they are actually talking about...for the right...when you think its a error, they already won.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Werbung:
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Again you make ASSumptions without any facts. I usually watch C-Span, CNBC, and HLN. Then there is the local news programs. I did like Lou Dobbs when he was still on CNN. So, it is evident you are the one who is just doing as you are told.
BTW, I hear a lot of people who share your braindead syndrome on Washington Journal.
Well, I will start out with your heroes at MSNBC, ok? If you want more I am sure I can find it for you since you are obviously so braindead as to not be able to find them for yourself, and think left wing "news" is infallible.
MSNBC confused by black leaders; mistakes Jesse Jackson for Al ...Oct 22, 2009 ... This mistake just reminds me more of the failure of blacks to take advantage of the obvious failings of mainstream media and establish a ...
http://www.blogs.tampabay.com/media...s-mistakes-jesse-jackson-for-al-sharpton.html
MSNBC Confuses Bernie Mac And Bernie Madoff (VIDEO)Mar 10, 2009 ... MSNBC Mistakes Bernie Madoff as Bernie Mac from That Happened! .... being responsible for stealing billions became known to the news media. ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../msnbc-confuses-bernie-mac_n_173663.html
Reid: GOP budget, 'same mistakes' - First Read - msnbc.comApr 1, 2009 ... Tax mistakes or War Crimes ? Which do you prefer, Richard ? ..... revenue curve is the perfect rate to maximize return? how about it MEDIA, ...
http://www.firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/01/1873925.aspx
They All Look Alike: MSNBC Mistakes Jesse Jackson for Al Sharpton ...Oct 21, 2009 ... They All Look Alike: MSNBC Mistakes Jesse Jackson for Al Sharpton. Reverends! All reverends look alike. Jesse Jackson was on MSNBC today to ...
http://www.gawker.com/.../they-all-look-alike-msnbc-mistakes-jesse-jackson-for-al-sharpton
Did MSNBC's Chris Matthews Just Say Obama was Making “Carteresque ...Nov 23, 2009 ... was Making “Carteresque” Mistakes? Does Barack Obama's words no longer send a thrill up the leg of MSNBC media lap dog Chris Matthews? ...
http://www.scaredmonkeys.com/.../di...st-say-obama-was-making-carteresque-mistakes/
MSNBC mistakes a 'fake Al Sharpton' blog for the real thing | The ...Aug 26, 2007 ... MSNBC mistakes a 'fake Al Sharpton' blog for the real thing ... AM PDT: It's always good to have one or more idiots within the news media. ...
http://www.news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-9766397-36.html
MSNBC Mistakes Reverend Jesse Jackson for Reverend Al Sharpton ...Oct 21, 2009 ... MSNBC Mistakes Reverend Jesse Jackson for Reverend Al Sharpton ... MSNBC daytime anchor Contessa Brewer was betrayed (or so she says) by her prompter into .... Copyright © 2010, New York Media LLC . All Rights Reserved. ...
http://www.nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/.../msnbc_mistakes_rev_jesse_jacks.html
Similar threads
