Sunday, October 25, 2009
Faux News Part Deux
As I said, Fox news ANCHORS reflect the bias of their 100 percent conservative-led opinion shows way more than any other station or news outlet. You might LOVE Fox's news political slant, which is fine and dandy, but to argue that the station doesn't report news from a blatantly conservative point of view is to deny reality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
No one is denying that Fox news is conservative.
What I have been saying is that it is absolutely no different from the left leaning news networks like MSNBC and CNN. Rachel Maddow and Keith Oberman are every bit as far to the left as Glen Beck and Sean Hannity are to the right. And they make no secret of it.
The only difference is that now we have a Liberal president in office who whines about being talked about negatively. Bush never went public with any whining about the beatings he took DAILY from Maddow and Oberman. Oberman was especially cruel to Bush. The difference is that Bush was a man, and Obama is a whiny little baby who can't take the heat.
Even worse, he is a whiny baby who would resort to censoring people who don't agree with him. He tried to keep Fox from an interview and all the other networks stood up for the first amendment and refused to take part unless Fox was included.
How long before a new "czar" will be appointed to censor the media or internet?
Perhaps some selective memory going on here.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/19/perino-msnbc/
The difference between FOX and every other TV station is that FOX NEWS ANCHORS and shows promoted as "fair and balanced" push the conservative line, much more than any other station. The entire channel focuses on stories and storylines that advance a conservative, and anti-obama, slant.
So, you are saying that MSNBC and CNN do not push the liberal line? You are saying that Olberman and Maddow are fair and balanced?
Maybe to you they are.
I don't think no will argue that Fox News has a Right-of-Center slant. What I have a problem is Pres Obama's Advisors specifically targeting Fox News because they are Right-of-Center, and making a public announcement saying they (the WH) do not recognize Fox as a legitimate news organization, though they have been one for 15-20 years. Even Pres Clinton didn't go that far, and Clinton disliked Fox. Even his wife went on the record saying Fox was "Fair and Balnaced". I found this blog entry online today. I think it sums it pretty well:
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/10/hillary-clinton-foxnews-is-fair-and.html
I think the larger issue here is censorship. Will Obama stoop to censoring the media that doesn't agree with him?
Even to a liberal like yourself, that should be hard to stomach. After all, your job requires a certain amount of freedom of the press, and if the POTUS gets to decide which press gets freedom, and which doesn't, you could find yourself out of favor every four years, depending on which group gets elected.
I think Obama is an idiot to make this such a public feud. A feud he can't possibly win without defying the First Amendment. A feud that has already seen FOX News' ratings go up.
There has been a czar appointed for this already, his name is Mark Lloyd, the FCC czar. I recently viewed a taped video of him wherein he 'praised' Hugo Chavez and his incredible revolution. He also stated in that speech how important it was to control the media!!
Just for the record, the Obama Admin is not singling Fox out because of their far right of center slant. They are singling them out because of the lies they have used to incite their viewers and their attempt to use "opinion" as "news."
I can tell by the words used in this forum that many are viewers of FOX. One thing I would like to point out is that under Bush II, there were 47 czars created and appointed (which exceeds any other President and lands him as the "Czar King"). Do we need to move on to Bush I and Reagan?
MSNBC's Olberman and Maddow are not marketed and delivered as news, which is what Fox does with their made up stuff.
Not going on talk shows and not including Fox in a pool interview that they apparently did not even request is not censorship. Censorship occurs when government won't provide records/information the law says they should, or when authorities try to keep such information from being published. Unfortunately, there's no right to interview any government or elected official. In fact it happens all the time at lower levels of government when some elected official gets ticked at a newspaper or tv station and won't talk to them any more.
The problem here is that Fox attempts to call itself a "fair and balanced" news channel, when it makes no such effort. If it just came out and admitted that it reports from a conservative view and advocates conservative arguments, then it wouldn't have to pretend it needs the legitimacy of the other networks.
I would love to hear some of these so called lies that FOX news is spreading that you liberals don't want us to hear.
MSNBC is far left, Fox is far right. What's the big deal? Does the President now get to decide which outlets are news outlets and which are not?
And Fox is beating the pants off of the other networks, so what does that tell you?
Yes dear editor and you are so fair and balance in your reporting on your blog huh? You truly believe that we are raciest if we don't like the president. Idiots if we don't believe in the far left radical thinking. I think you should be careful who you are calling bias here.
Maybe if you are not interested in hearing/seeing what they call fair and balanced, you should turn the chanel? It's a hard concept to grasp, but sounds like it would save you a lot of turmoil.
I don't watch FOX news much myself, but I disagree with the idea that because they lean to the conservative side that they are somehow not a news organization. You lean to the liberal side, does that make your paper less of a news organization? (many in town think so).
some shows on MSNBC and CNN lean just as far to the liberal side as Fox does to the Conservative side, yet because they are on board with anything Obama says, they are a news organization and Fox is not?
And the Rachel Maddow and Keith oberman shows are the exact same thing as the Hannity or Beck or O'reilly shows, all of which are opinion based shows.
It's okay for the goose, but not for the gander, is that it?
And, I at least have seen FOX bring on a lot of guests with liberal views to debate their side, and I don't see that a lot with MSNBC or CNN. BTW, I watch CNN and MSNBC a lot more than I do FOX, but only for Lou Dobbs and Morning Joe.
When Obama decides to censor the media that doesn't agree with him, will you stand up and fight for the First Amendment, or let it go because it's Obama, and he can do no wrong? Remember, the next POTUS may be a republican.
First of all, Reagan is one of the best presidents that we have ever had. Second, Bush 2 didnt appoint czars, thats a communist russia invention. I do agree that he grew the government, but to compare Bush 2 to this clown we have in office now is rediculous.
Here's an instance where Fox News was given the "OK" to mislead the public, or lie, by an appeals court.
Here's a obviously biased website that provides a recent list of misleading stories and comments made by Fox News.
Here's a link to a group that found many lies in Ann Coulter's (Fox Staple) book.
Here's a link to a slide show at Huff Post that claims to show the News shows lying, not any of the opinion shows.
I am not a fan of Fox. I do see why they are taking heat for their "news" misleads. To use a tactic that Glen Beck uses quite often, only not as clever as this, I offer the following that I found while researching this post...
Fox:
–verb (used with object)
to deceive or trick.
Add that with "News," and I think the name speaks for itself.
Yes Anon @ 6:21PM, it is "rediculous" (sic) to compare Obama to Bush 2, for so many reasons. Secondly, you proved the point that was being made by your comment about czars. Obama does not create or appoint "czars." How do you measure "best" in terms of presidencies? Huge deficits?
So, do the people who received speeding tickets on East Madison get their money back? Since it was supposed to be 45 all along? When is this town going to get things right the first time?
to anon @ 8:11am. You say that Obama does not appoint czars. If that is true, then can you explian why he calls evryone he appoints to certain positions czars? He is a marxist. There is no denying it. Thats not an emotional remark either. It's a fact. Look aT his voting record and his stance on the economy. Almost completely Marxist! Things like "Spread the wealth" and "Limiting the pay one can earn", are just a couple of examples.
Now, as far as what I define as the best president, I want to clarify that I said Ronald Reagan was one of the best, not the best, although I beleive he would be in the top 5. The deficits you speak of were in part necessary for this country to win the Cold War. You do remember out spending the Russians and financially ruining them right? However, some of those deficits were passed on to Reagan from the former administration. You do remember that whole economic mess right? Reaganomics brought us out of that pretty well, and set in motion the prosperity we enjoyed throughout the 90's and into the new millenium. But you didnt here him say things like inherited and limiting pay or spreading the wealth did you? Prosperity, Reaganomics, ending the cold war all while making us feel good about who we are as Americans, and never apologizing to our enemies for anything. thats a pretty good definition of the best if you ask me.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
---Groucho Marx
Yes, Reagan was a great politician. Or is that being too Marxist for you?
Wes listed four 'links' that showed how Fox news was dishonest through distortion of facts. I checked all four of them, then did a little research as to who funded Media Matters, Huffington Post, ceaasespin.org, and lo and behold they are ALL funded by the liberal left and progressives, so it is no wonder that they are all in agreement as to the distortions by Fox News. I only know this, that the division between Americans seems to propulgated by both the 'right' and the 'left' to a degree that I have never seen before!! Young men are dying everyday so that pigheaded people like us can speak freely, and I'm getting sick of hearing about the rights of illegal aliens while they hold jobs that I would like to have, or whether a gay boy has the right to change times and laws, let them procreate their own race if homosexuality is not contrary to the laws of nature, AND TO HELL WITH ANY POLITICIAN THAT WISHES TO SERVE MORE THAN 2 TERMS!!!
Yes, I thought I pointed out that they were "biased" websites. But, how would a Fox apologist explain the content of the clips? Did these left-wing progressives alter the tapes like Fox did to Biden? The proof is in the puddin'...
Anon 9:07pm Reagan Did not misdiagnose problems, he fixed them. But thank you for admitting Reagan was a great politician. I only wish we had more like him to vote for.
I geuss I dont understand the whole Groucho Marx thing your getting at. Maybe he is the Al Frankin of the early 20th century? Surely you dont rely on comedians to define poltics for you.
yes, I think the left wing progressives would do whatever is necessary to disprove Fox! I think it was Voltaire that said 'politics is war without bloodshed'.
I only lean toward Fox because of the constant references they have to our Founding Fathers philosophy on freedom and the role of government in a free society, coupled with the administrations own words regarding their desire to "fundamentally change America"!!
"Surely you dont rely on comedians to define politics for you."
Nor do I rely on bobbleheaded actors.
If you look at his administration and the exchange of advanced weapons to Iran(!!!!!)in exchange for Iran paying for congressionally disapproved military invasions in Nicaragua, you will see that Reagan was almost as big a moron as GW Bush.
Reagan gave us "plausible deny-ability", the technique of using old age and poor memory to cover up illegal activities. It worked for Reagan because everyone believed that he had poor memory and honestly couldn't remember what he had done.
A great president? Hardly.
Maybe in history one of the worst.
I think Glenn Beck is the man and his show yesterday was very insightful. Barack insane Obama could learn something from George Washington and the fellas. Real men real American values.
Ronald Reagan was investigated several times for the Iran Contra Scandals and found to be completely innocent every time. But even if he was guilty of trying to convince Iran to reject terrorism with arms, while opposing communism in Nicaragua, why would you believe that to be bad? But then again, every time liberals get a chance they protect the bad guys. Guantonamo Bay, rights for terrorists, turning a blind eye to Israels right to exist. So it doesnt suprise me that you would still be upset about another good president going after the bad guys. Ole W. was investigated 3 or 4 times and found to be innocent every single time, but the libs cant let that go. Just another case of the good guys going after the bad guys, and the dems trying to sabotage it. Funny how it seems that the last dem to go after the enemy was J.F.K. yet no dems today follow his example. I wish that we could all get on the same page when it comes to national security. The enemy is the enemy, they will be our enemy no matter what we do, and the only option is to defeat them. Is it so bad to want America to win? Ofcourse when it takes several weeks, excuse me , MONTHS, to make a decision on sending troops to our current war, it makes you wonder if the current pres has our best interest in mind. To me its a no brainer. But I'll bet the same people vote for him in 2012.
On a lighter note, I enjoy these conversations we have. Please, keep writing.
"The enemy is the enemy, they will be our enemy no matter what we do, and the only option is to defeat them."
Or we could bow to them, and apologize to them, and tell them how bad America was before we were President. That's Obama's strategy.
Post a Comment