DNC joins GOP in crazyland

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Armadillo

Um, as soon as Fox news sent their broadcasters to Tea party events as celebrities, that kind of cemented them as a wing of the GOP. Sorry, Armadillo. I really can't blame the White House on this one.

Also, name the amount of times George Bush had been on other stations other than Fox. I'll wait.
I'll get back to you with a comprehensive list about half past never, but off the top of my head, he appeared on 60 Minutes multiple times, interviewed with Wolf Blitzer, interviewed on Dateline NBC, and the rest. I also don't remember the White House Communications Director under Bush singling out a particular news outlet like this Dunn lady did. I'm willing to be wrong on this, however, and welcome a link to that very thing happening.

This isn't even about me defending Fox or blasting MSNBC, CNN, or WGKS out of Omaha, it's about the White House Communications Director basically making it White House policy that FOX is not to be trusted, which is not something I like to hear from the government. Ya know, First Amendment and all. Now in fairness, the White House has not violated the First Amendment, but once you peg a news station like they have, the road to taking action against them is suddenly a hell of a lot shorter than it was before.
 
Um, as soon as Fox news sent their broadcasters to Tea party events as celebrities, that kind of cemented them as a wing of the GOP. Sorry, Armadillo. I really can't blame the White House on this one.

Also, name the amount of times George Bush had been on other stations other than Fox. I'll wait.
I'll get back to you with a comprehensive list about half past never, but off the top of my head, he appeared on 60 Minutes multiple times, interviewed with Wolf Blitzer, interviewed on Dateline NBC, and the rest. I also don't remember the White House Communications Director under Bush singling out a particular news outlet like this Dunn lady did. I'm willing to be wrong on this, however, and welcome a link to that very thing happening.

This isn't even about me defending Fox or blasting MSNBC, CNN, or WGKS out of Omaha, it's about the White House Communications Director basically making it White House policy that FOX is not to be trusted, which is not something I like to hear from the government. Ya know, First Amendment and all. Now in fairness, the White House has not violated the First Amendment, but once you peg a news station like they have, the road to taking action against them is suddenly a hell of a lot shorter than it was before.[/QUOTE]
So if the Enquirer had a news station and spouted things that were not only biased (which is to be expected) but continuously repeat things that are proven to be untrue (death panels, birth certificate, etc), then they would be wrong to call them out on it?
 
A

Armadillo

So if the Enquirer had a news station and spouted things that were not only biased (which is to be expected) but continuously repeat things that are proven to be untrue (death panels, birth certificate, etc), then they would be wrong to call them out on it?
I don't even remember the last time I saw the birth certificate thing brought up by Fox or any other legit news source, so I think that's a bit of a strawman, but this goes to what Fox's point is: they have hard, legitimate journalists, and they have opinion guys. Hannity and Beck are opinion guys, while Shepherd Smith, Major Garrett, and Chris Wallace are journalists. Obama doesn't have to give the opinion guys the time of day, that's not what bothers me. It's the ignoring of Fox as a whole because they're harder on Obama than the others. Dunn even admitted that they view Fox as "opposition," so does that mean they view CNN as "not opposition?" It just smacks of the White House being completely incapable of taking any kind of criticism, so they lash out at anyone who dares to question them. We've seen it with the tea parties, the town halls, Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, and the blogs.

It's unseemly for the White House to be engaging in a public pissing match with a cable news outlet, especially in light of all the important stuff going on right now.
 
I'll give you Shephard Smith, but Wallace is as big a hack as Hannity or O'Reilly. Don't really know Garrett.

For me, the difference between a journalist and a hack is a journalist will offer a correction when they are shown to be incorrect in their reporting.
 
Fox is not a news organization any more than the Sun or the New York Post is. They're outlets to broadcast Rupert Murdoch's view of the world and not much more. Their "reporters" aren't their covering the "tea parties" and "town hall protests". They're promoting them with the Fox personalities as celebrity appearances.

Lest ye forget, a former Press Secretary in the Dubya administration admitted to feeding talking points to Fox News. Where did Karl Rove end up mere months after leaving the White House? Fox News.

Any network that still thinks Jack Thompson is credible has no business being in the field of journalism.
 

Dave

Staff member
Fox is not a news organization any more than the Sun or the New York Post is. They're outlets to broadcast Rupert Murdoch's view of the world and not much more. Their \"reporters\" aren't their covering the \"tea parties\" and \"town hall protests\". They're promoting them with the Fox personalities as celebrity appearances.

Lest ye forget, a former Press Secretary in the Dubya administration admitted to feeding talking points to Fox News. Where did Karl Rove end up mere months after leaving the White House? Fox News.

Any network that still thinks Jack Thompson is credible has no business being in the field of journalism.
And MSNBC is on the other side and I've proven it several times based on coverage on certain stories that were beneficial to the GOP. There was one in particular about an Iraqi operation in the Bush years.

Fox - Extensive coverage.
CNN - Medium coverage.
MSNBC - NO coverage.

So rail on the right all you want, the left does the same thing.
 
Fox is not a news organization any more than the Sun or the New York Post is. They're outlets to broadcast Rupert Murdoch's view of the world and not much more. Their \"reporters\" aren't their covering the \"tea parties\" and \"town hall protests\". They're promoting them with the Fox personalities as celebrity appearances.

Lest ye forget, a former Press Secretary in the Dubya administration admitted to feeding talking points to Fox News. Where did Karl Rove end up mere months after leaving the White House? Fox News.

Any network that still thinks Jack Thompson is credible has no business being in the field of journalism.
And MSNBC is on the other side and I've proven it several times based on coverage on certain stories that were beneficial to the GOP. There was one in particular about an Iraqi operation in the Bush years.

Fox - Extensive coverage.
CNN - Medium coverage.
MSNBC - NO coverage.

So rail on the right all you want, the left does the same thing.[/QUOTE]

To quote a Republican icon, "There you go again."

This is not the same thing. Unless you have similar proof that the Democrats were feeding talking points to MSNBC.
 
30min Infomercial on ABC.

but hey the communication director of the White House doesn't speak for the whole administration. The only way that could be funnier is if it was Robert Gibbs who said that.
 

Dave

Staff member
Fox is not a news organization any more than the Sun or the New York Post is. They're outlets to broadcast Rupert Murdoch's view of the world and not much more. Their \"reporters\" aren't their covering the \"tea parties\" and \"town hall protests\". They're promoting them with the Fox personalities as celebrity appearances.

Lest ye forget, a former Press Secretary in the Dubya administration admitted to feeding talking points to Fox News. Where did Karl Rove end up mere months after leaving the White House? Fox News.

Any network that still thinks Jack Thompson is credible has no business being in the field of journalism.
And MSNBC is on the other side and I've proven it several times based on coverage on certain stories that were beneficial to the GOP. There was one in particular about an Iraqi operation in the Bush years.

Fox - Extensive coverage.
CNN - Medium coverage.
MSNBC - NO coverage.

So rail on the right all you want, the left does the same thing.[/quote]

To quote a Republican icon, "There you go again."

This is not the same thing. Unless you have similar proof that the Democrats were feeding talking points to MSNBC.[/QUOTE]

Remember, I'm on the left side of the aisle. I'm not saying these things because I'm all GOP WARRLGARRBL. But if you think that the right is the only side that has a media outlet you're a bit naive. I know that Fox is more blatant about it but MSNBC is just as bad the other way, even if they don't have support from the DNC.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that MSNBC is "just as bad" because to my knowledge they've never deliberately and openly lied, such as when a legislator in a scandal is mislabeled as a Democrat instead of a Republican, which has happened several times on Fox.
 
Remember, I'm on the left side of the aisle. I'm not saying these things because I'm all GOP WARRLGARRBL. But if you think that the right is the only side that has a media outlet you're a bit naive. I know that Fox is more blatant about it but MSNBC is just as bad the other way, even if they don't have support from the DNC.
I'm not saying that, but your reply was just more of the pot/kettle clustersmurf that passes for debate in here. Whenever someone comes in with one action or another that one side did, someone on the opposite side comes in with an "oh, yeah?" accusation about something else, thinking that will absolve their side from whatever.

Not going to claim innocence from that. Just sayin'...
 

Dave

Staff member
I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that MSNBC is "just as bad" because to my knowledge they've never deliberately and openly lied, such as when a legislator in a scandal is mislabeled as a Democrat instead of a Republican, which has happened several times on Fox.
Not familiar with that story. Do tell!

Remember, I'm on the left side of the aisle. I'm not saying these things because I'm all GOP WARRLGARRBL. But if you think that the right is the only side that has a media outlet you're a bit naive. I know that Fox is more blatant about it but MSNBC is just as bad the other way, even if they don't have support from the DNC.
I'm not saying that, but your reply was just more of the pot/kettle clustersmurf that passes for debate in here. Whenever someone comes in with one action or another that one side did, someone on the opposite side comes in with an "oh, yeah?" accusation about something else, thinking that will absolve their side from whatever.

Not going to claim innocence from that. Just sayin'...[/QUOTE]

Dig it, man. I feel ya. For the record, Fox news is evil, but MSNBC is on the dark side, too, even if they haven't fully fallen from the light side of the force.
 
There's a lot of people I don't like on MSNBC either. Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams are the top of that list.
 
J

JCM

Now, I know FOX doesn't have the best reputation in liberal circles, and they're most certainly not my first choice in a news outlet, but I don't particularly care for an administration singling out a particular network for their scorn and ridicule. I've always felt that the White House and the media should have a cordial-yet-leery relationship; the media is supposed to keep the government honest and the White House is supposed to be above the fray. With this move, they've made it clear that they view FOX News and FOX News ALONE as the enemy, while also seemingly saying that CNN, MSNBC, and the networks will \"go easier\" on them. Not a good precedent to set, but this White House has been all too eager to use their bully pulpit to go after American citizens they disagree with, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.
There´s a difference between bad news and pure outright slander.

Bitching about the government/people/anyone ridiculing Fox is basically the same as bitching a tabloid. Like Kissinger mentioned-
I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that MSNBC is \"just as bad\" because to my knowledge they've never deliberately and openly lied, such as when a legislator in a scandal is mislabeled as a Democrat instead of a Republican, which has happened several times on Fox.
And believe me, thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Heck, overseas its the only american cabe channel repeatedly criticized and warned against, like for example, by BBC-
http://www.justabovesunset.com/id193.html

The White house,
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/white-house-calls-out-fox-by-name-for-lying.php

It has been sued before, and found guilty of lying
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

Fabricating stories and comments-
http://mediamatters.org/research/200410040006

Even fabricating white house vandalism
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1689

But anyway, Fox does serve a purpose here in Brazil, in Universities and political debate, because when one quotes Fox or its point of view, it means a lot of laughter, and a quick win for the opposition, and only a neo-republican/"libertarian" would ever defend Fox.

And Gasbandit, of course. Now for the current White house attack, lets take a look at Fox´s lies-

RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT "HAD THE OLYMPICS." Glenn Beck said, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: VANCOUVER'S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010. Vancouver will host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games from February 12 – 28, 2010 and March 12-21, 2010, respectively. [Vancouver2010.com, accessed 9/29/09]


RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT "WAS LAST SEEN WITH THE NEA." Beck's guest, FOX News contributor Pat Caddell, said, "[Obama] is going to go [to Copenhagen] with Valerie Jarrett who was last seen with the NEA pumping up their use of, you know, money." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: VALERIE JARRETT WAS NOT ON THE NEA CONFERENCE CALL. Valerie Jarrett was not a participant in the August 10, 2009 United We Serve/NEA conference call.


RHETORIC: CHICAGO IS CLOSING THE GOVERNMENT SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE OPEN. Beck's guest Caddell said, "Chicago is closing the government several days a week because they cannot afford to be open. They are going to go and reward -- this is the biggest scandal." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: CHICAGO HAS HAD ONE REDUCED-SERVICE DAY IN 2009, AND WILL HAVE TWO MORE ON THE FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING AND ON CHRISTMAS EVE. On August 17, 2009, CBS Chicago reported, "If you planned to check out a library book, visit a city clinic or have your garbage picked up on Monday, you're out of luck. The City of Chicago is basically closed for business on Aug. 17, a reduced-service day in which most city employees are off without pay. City Hall, public libraries, health clinics and most city offices will be closed. Emergency service providers including police, firefighters and paramedics are working at full strength, but most services not directly related to public safety, including street sweeping, will not be provided. That also includes garbage pickup. Residents who receive regular collection on Mondays should expect trash to be picked up on Tuesday. Some other customers may experience a one-day delay as collectors catch up. As part of the 2009 budget, three reduced-service days were planned for 2009, days which are unpaid for all affected employees -- the Friday after Thanksgiving; Christmas Eve; and New Year's Eve. The City Council recently approved moving the reduced-service day planned for New Year's Eve to Monday. The 2009 budget anticipates saving $8.3 million due to the reduced-service days. In addition to reduced service days, all non-union employees were asked to take a series of furlough days and unpaid holidays, and most non-sworn union employees agreed to similar unpaid time off." [CBS Chicago, 8/17/09]


RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY. Beck asked, "Is it possible that she is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?" Caddell responded, "Well, that’s the word. She has certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: UPON ENTERING GOVERNMENT, VALERIE JARRETT DIVESTED ALL HER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLYMPIC BID. Valerie Jarrett divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell. This single real estate investment has been determined by White House Counsel and the independent Office of Government Ethics to present no conflict of interest in performing her duties as a White House advisor. It has nothing to do with the Olympic bid.


For more info, enjoy- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nd-others-repeat-claim-white-house-political/
Funnily, in 9 months he almost but recovered the reputation of \"USA being the world leader\" that it took Bush 8 years to destroy.

Just hope he can recover from the deficits of the last few Republican presidents, USA's debt might be big, but unlike Japan or some EU countries, its not even 30% of USA's gross national produce.
The truth is there are many more deserving people that have been outshone by Obama's glowing, warm, warming glow.
Nobody who can make a difference in the whole world more than the most powerful man in the world seeking peace, the disarming of nuclear weapons and diplomatic relations with everyone?
Santa?[/QUOTE]My point, exactly.

There isnt a man right now who CAN and is ABLE to make such an impact, and I dont see any reason but right-wing fanaticism, ignorance, or quasi-religious anti-democrat hate for one not to understand why he´d get a Nobel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top