[Snow-i]

White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com

Originally Posted by fox news article

"What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points.

Although Dunn accused Fox News of being a "wing of the Republican Party," she said the network does not champion conservatism.

"It's not ideological," she acknowledged. "I mean, obviously, there are many commentators who are conservative, liberal, centrist -- and everybody understands that."

What in the hell is wrong with this guy (Obama)? Thankfully his idiocy will serve only to alienate millions of Americans, including a large proportion who voted for him.

That said, he's almost making it too easy for a Republican majority comeback, which I fear almost as much as a Democratic majority. They won't have to work hard to win the hearts and minds of the American public... At least do something right so that conservative and libertarian ideologies will have to work hard and under much scrutiny to achieve the majority.

The prestige of this president is fast becoming that of a two-bit insurance salesmen. Literally.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

conservative and libertarian ideologies

What does the Republican party have to do with any of this, and how would a Republican majority be a benefit to these ideologies in any way?

[ort888]

Too easy to skew the numbers.

A negative Obama story on CNN and a negative Obama story on FOX are two very different stories. It's not an either or situation.

[Snow-i]

Nor is CNN a "fair and balanced" news organization as Obama would have you believe. The numbers are easy to skew.

My original point and the crux of the OP remain unchallenged.

[stupendousman]

Nixon tried this sort of thing.

It doesn't work. Most of the pundits, even the ones who agree with him politically, have stated what a stupid idea it is to take this route.

I heard Shaun Hannity's radio show the other day. The very beginning features Obama laying into Hannity during the last election campaign. Makes Obama look really petty and partisan. Moderates don't like that sort of thing, dontcha know?!!

[Dork.]

Do you remember when Obama went on O'Reilly last year? It most certainly is a fact that if Obama appears on Fox, it will be in the context of debating the opposition. Fox knows who their audience is, and they cater to their audience successfully.

But this is part of a strategy on the part of the Democratic leadership to say that there is no leadership among the politicians of the Republican Party, so the party is being led by the talk show hosts. It's been going on for a while now. I think the strategy is starting to get old, myself.

[The Final Dakar]

How sis this any different than Bush's relationship with the media during his Presidency? Roles were just reversed then.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How sis this any different than Bush's relationship with the media during his Presidency? Roles were just reversed then.

Because Obama just won a Nobel prize in Not Being Bush, that's how.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Because Obama just won a Nobel prize in Not Being Bush, that's how.

Oh, I get it!

Well, I'll give him one point: "his idiocy will serve only to alienate millions of Americans, including a large proportion who voted for him" That applies to Bush and his effect on the Obama election, right?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh, I get it!

Well, I'll give him one point: "his idiocy will serve only to alienate millions of Americans, including a large proportion who voted for him" That applies to Bush and his effect on the Obama election, right?

Absolutely. Its absolutely sickening.

[The Final Dakar]

Well in that case, I'd say your problem hasn't anything to do with how the media is treated and everything to do with who is getting elected.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well in that case, I'd say your problem hasn't anything to do with how the media is treated and everything to do with who is getting elected.

Bingo!!!

[The Final Dakar]

Well good! Then what are you complaining about that needs a thread?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

What does the Republican party have to do with any of this, and how would a Republican majority be a benefit to these ideologies in any way?

Because Obama's inevitable crash and burn will certainly lead to another Republican take over.

Depending on how fast Obama hangs himself will correlate almost perfectly with how hard the republicans have to work, and with how much scrutiny their policies must come under. In theory, they would have to fall back on the conservative and libertarian values that those who support them, support them for. If the next election becomes another "I'm least like the previous president! Pick me!" this country will continue its counter-clockwise decent through the proverbial toilet.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Because Obama's inevitable crash and burn will certainly lead to another Republican take over.

Depending on how fast Obama hangs himself will correlate almost perfectly with how hard the republicans have to work, and with how much scrutiny their policies must come under. In theory, they would have to fall back on the conservative and libertarian values that those who support them, support them for. If the next election becomes another "I'm least like the previous president! Pick me!" this country will continue its counter-clockwise decent through the proverbial toilet.

Yes, and then that Republican's inevitable crash and burn will certainly lead to another Democratic take over. And the cycle will continue.

My question is about the link between the Republican party and conservative/libertarian values. If those are your values, you're naive if you think the Republican party supports you or will lean back on you. I'm not saying the Democrats will either - I'm saying you need a new team.

[Chuckit]

Just a point about the OP: The fact that I talk negatively about two people in roughly equal amounts doesn't necessarily mean I've treating them fairly. This becomes obvious if you replace "McCain" with, say, "Charlie Manson."

[Dork.]

The Daily Show (not the most unbiased source in the world, of course) had a good bit a few weeks back after the 9/12 / Tea Party thing where they showed Fox newscasters (note: NOT opionated talk-show hosts) talking disapprovingly about the participants, and about why it is they they Hate America. But it turns out those clips were from the anti-war protests a few years back. Then they showed clips from the newscasters' reactions to the actual 9/12 events, where they lauded the protestors for expressing themselves and taking democracy into their own hands. (my words, I'm paraphrasing everything but I think I got the essence of the scene correct.)

It probably didn't hurt that the 9/12 thing was Glenn Beck's idea, so the whole thing turned into one big Fox News advertisement. The participants in that movement were patriotically putting money in Rupert Murdoch's pocket....

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The Daily Show (not the most unbiased source in the world, of course) had a good bit a few weeks back after the 9/12 / Tea Party thing where they showed Fox newscasters (note: NOT opionated talk-show hosts) talking disapprovingly about the participants, and about why it is they they Hate America. But it turns out those clips were from the anti-war protests a few years back. Then they showed clips from the newscasters' reactions to the actual 9/12 events, where they lauded the protestors for expressing themselves and taking democracy into their own hands. (my words, I'm paraphrasing everything but I think I got the essence of the scene correct.)

I have to say, that's pretty brilliant.

[The Final Dakar]

I don't know if its brilliant. Call me a cynic, but I saw that coming a mile away (The hypocrisy, not the piece).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't know if its brilliant. Call me a cynic, but I saw that coming a mile away (The hypocrisy, not the piece).

Well, yeah, of course. But it's a nice way to show the hypocrisy — make it look like Fox News is at least being consistent, then yank the rug. Maybe "brilliant" is an overstatement, but whatever. I'm feeling complimentary. I think it's a pretty good way to tell that particular joke.

[The Final Dakar]

No, it makes for great TV. I suppose my issue is its a well that the Daily Show tends to go too often. I've seen a pretty weak version of the segment before. (But yes, that one was damn good)

[besson3c]

It's amazing that they can go to that well as frequently as they do. Somebody has to go to it.

[The Final Dakar]

It's not amazing with how shallow some of the pickings they offer are (Read: If your segment is heavily dependent on the Fox & Friends show, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel)

[besson3c]

Speaking of the Daily Show, yesterday they really laid into CNN...

'Daily Show' Destroys CNN For Fact-Checking 'SNL' Instead Of Their Guests (VIDEO)

Great sketch!

[SpaceMonkey]

I liked the companion piece where John Oliver was interviewing a small group of Tea Party people to get their advice for G20 protesters on how better to stay on message.

Here it is: Video: Tea Partiers Advise G20 Protesters | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not amazing with how shallow some of the pickings they offer are (Read: If your segment is heavily dependent on the Fox & Friends show, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel)

That segment that Dork. was talking about was not dependent on Fox and Friends.

[The Final Dakar]

Good thing I was replying to you and not Dork.

[besson3c]

Who are you replying to now?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

My question is about the link between the Republican party and conservative/libertarian values. If those are your values, you're naive if you think the Republican party supports you or will lean back on you. I'm not saying the Democrats will either - I'm saying you need a new team.

You're telling me. The current two political parties aren't any kind of solution to the problems of the United States on any level, federal or otherwise. Politicians on a national/federal level are all career politicians and therefore uninterested in actually doing anything that will help this country, versus doing things that will get more votes (and thus secure their position and paycheck as a government employee).

The only way there's going to be any real change from any political ideology is if someone other than career politicians has any weight on Capitol Hill. The chances of that happening are so far below zero it's laughable.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It probably didn't hurt that the 9/12 thing was Glenn Beck's idea, so the whole thing turned into one big Fox News advertisement. The participants in that movement were patriotically putting money in Rupert Murdoch's pocket....

You really think that's what it was about? Maybe in some areas, but not from what I experienced. I got somewhat involved in a local political activist group that held a Tea Party, among other events. The people who created the organization were not trying to line the pockets of Fox News. They actually care about making changes, starting with local government. One of the founders is actually running for the Indiana state Senate (or something like that; I forget the actual details) because he cares about taking action on his beliefs.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

My question is about the link between the Republican party and conservative/libertarian values. If those are your values, you're naive if you think the Republican party supports you or will lean back on you. I'm not saying the Democrats will either - I'm saying you need a new team.

The majority of Americans don't have true representation these days. Both the Republican party and Democrat parties are farther to the left than their respective membership, and it's because the power that "bigger government" provides is too tempting for the greedy.

The "fourth estate" for the most part is too far to the left because those in it are part of an elitist cult (along with those in Hollywood) who think they can run people's lives better than them because they are smarter and care more. The difference here though is that the media requires proof of use in order to survive and keep profiting. Technology has made it impossible for them to just force their viewpoints on people without any real competition.

I'm sensing though a big shift. People don't like to be ignored for too long. I think in a year or so, you'll see some changes. Of course, people will get lazy and go back to not paying attention to how those they've put into power have turned their backs on those they were put into office to represent, but never for too long.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You really think that's what it was about? Maybe in some areas, but not from what I experienced. I got somewhat involved in a local political activist group that held a Tea Party, among other events. The people who created the organization were not trying to line the pockets of Fox News. They actually care about making changes, starting with local government. One of the founders is actually running for the Indiana state Senate (or something like that; I forget the actual details) because he cares about taking action on his beliefs.

What I mean is that since Glenn Beck took it up as one of his causes, it's in Fox News' best interests to pump the hell of of it during their other shows. I'm not saying that the people involved are not sincere in their involvement, or that their concerns are baseless. But when Fox gives more coverage (and more positive coverage) to an issue like this than other networks, it has nothing to do with being more Fair or Balanced than the other networks.

(I also think we need to make a distinction between the Tea Party protesters, who I think have a point but are just a bit misguided, and the 9/12 "movement", which as far as I can tell is Beck's attempt to use the momentum from the Tea Party stuff to get people to watch his show. Maybe someone more familiar with the two can educate me on the difference.)

[imitchellg5]

Does anyone really like Fox News any more? It seems like these days nobody like them, left or right.

[besson3c]

I think plenty of people like them, but then again plenty of people are also the morons 24/7 cable news outlets seem to cater to these days with their infotainment.

[ironknee]

what up?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think plenty of people like them, but then again plenty of people are also the morons 24/7 cable news outlets seem to cater to these days with their infotainment.

and they are morons how exactly? Thats a pretty big blanket statement to make.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well good! Then what are you complaining about that needs a thread?

Those elected officials.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Does anyone really like Fox News any more? It seems like these days nobody like them, left or right.

I'm pretty sure they are still beating the pants off of most of the other cable news channels in the ratings. They were the last I checked anyways. If no one likes them, then people really must hate CNN and MSNBC.

[BadKosh]

FOX must be hitting pretty close to the mark. The Lefty press can't even quote a correct source on the Limbaugh football thing. I guess the lefty news has a much lower set of standards when it comes to who they want to pile on.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com




What in the hell is wrong with this guy (Obama)? Thankfully his idiocy will serve only to alienate millions of Americans, including a large proportion who voted for him.

That said, he's almost making it too easy for a Republican majority comeback, which I fear almost as much as a Democratic majority. They won't have to work hard to win the hearts and minds of the American public... At least do something right so that conservative and libertarian ideologies will have to work hard and under much scrutiny to achieve the majority.

The prestige of this president is fast becoming that of a two-bit insurance salesmen. Literally.

How is this different from Palin's complaints about the "liberal media"?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Those elected officials.

Maybe you should make better threads then, because your imagined war Obama is having with Fox is distracting from the point you're supposedly trying to make.

[hyteckit]

FOX forgot to cover the Gay Rights march in Washington.

Jon Stewart Takes On Fox News For Not Covering Gay Rights March (VIDEO)

Yet FOX was b*tching about other media news channels not covering the 9/12 event when they did. The 9/12 event that FOX promoted for months, encourage the crowd the yell, and believes the crowd in 9/12 march deserves a Nobel Peace Price.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5...Party-coverage

FOX news - we don't report, we distort.


Pres. Obama is right.

FOX - you lie!

[BadKosh]

So lets just give the lefty opinion as fact press a pass on their omissions and downright made up BS as it related to the Limbaugh deal. The number of 'nooze outlets' that repeated the false quotes and the half assed lies and spin leading up to the retractions should be a red flag to anyone paying attention to the overall performance of our news outlets.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

FOX forgot to cover the Gay Rights march in Washington.

Jon Stewart Takes On Fox News For Not Covering Gay Rights March (VIDEO)

Yet FOX was b*tching about other media news channels not covering the 9/12 event when they did. The 9/12 event that FOX promoted for months, encourage the crowd the yell, and believes the crowd in 9/12 march deserves a Nobel Peace Price.

Video: CNN's Rick Sanchez slams Fox News over 9/12 Tea Party coverage

FOX news - we don't report, we distort.


Pres. Obama is right.

FOX - you lie!

That's because gays already have the same exact rights as straight people. So why cover something like that when there's actual news to report...?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

That's because gays already have the same exact rights as straight people. So why cover something like that when there's actual news to report...?

You're right, of course, as long as the gay person has the foresight to find a partner of the opposite gender. All those gays who don't plan ahead and try to spend the rest of their lives in an actual gay relationship are just out of luck. It's their own fault for being gay in the first place -- who gave them the idea that would be tolerated in America?

Anyway, I digress. Even if the Gay Rights march really was much ado about nothing, by all accounts the 9/12 gathering was of similar size, and we can see which one Fox felt was more worthy to cover as news, and which one was safe to ignore because it's viewers wouldn't notice (and the cause wasn't being actively pumped by one of the stations' talk shows). No matter what the cause is, isn't any sizable gathering of protestors newsworthy?

[BadKosh]

News worthy or just being made fun of for unlike opinions and beliefs? Seems the lefty press did the Tea Party folks no favors.

[ebuddy]

I think it is silly for the President to mention Fox News without acknowledging his need to interview there during his campaign. In fact, if he was interested in being a little less divisive it'd do him a great deal of good to interview there now.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You're right, of course, as long as the gay person has the foresight to find a partner of the opposite gender. All those gays who don't plan ahead and try to spend the rest of their lives in an actual gay relationship are just out of luck. It's their own fault for being gay in the first place -- who gave them the idea that would be tolerated in America?

Anyway, I digress. Even if the Gay Rights march really was much ado about nothing, by all accounts the 9/12 gathering was of similar size, and we can see which one Fox felt was more worthy to cover as news, and which one was safe to ignore because it's viewers wouldn't notice (and the cause wasn't being actively pumped by one of the stations' talk shows). No matter what the cause is, isn't any sizable gathering of protestors newsworthy?

Gays have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, just like they rest of us.
Unfortunately, in the US, they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it is silly for the President to mention Fox News without acknowledging his need to interview there during his campaign. In fact, if he was interested in being a little less divisive it'd do him a great deal of good to interview there now.

I agree. He won't change anyone's minds by appearing on Fox. But he would at least have a chance to respond to the things that are out there in his own words, confident that the people who would never think to vote for him would at least listen. It would give the impression that he is at least listening to concerns from all sides, even if he doesn't agree with them. That would be Change We Can Believe In™.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Gays have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, just like they rest of us.
Unfortunately, in the US, they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Which is, of course, like defending "race purity" laws by saying everyone has the right to marry somebody of their own kind.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Which is, of course, like defending "race purity" laws by saying everyone has the right to marry somebody of their own kind.

Exactly.