Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?

Biggins

An article in todays Washington Post.
Its about time someone took Fox news to task.
They are disgrace to the news reporting world. An absolute world recognised disgrace.
I couldn't believe the pure vile junk they were coming out with in the last few months, never mind during the presidential election.

Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?

One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical malpractice. It is this: Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?

Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals. This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: "The American people do not want health-care reform."

Fox repeats this as gospel. But as a matter of historical context, usually in short supply on Fox News, this assertion ranks somewhere between debatable and untrue.

The American people and many of our great modern presidents have been demanding major reforms to the health-care system since the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. The elections of 1948, 1960, 1964, 2000 and 2008 confirm the point, with majorities voting for candidates supporting such change. Yet congressional Republicans have managed effective campaigns against health-care changes favored variously by Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. Now Fox News has given the party of Lincoln a free ride with its repetition of the unexamined claim that today's Republican leadership really does want to overhaul health care -- if only the effort could conform to Mitch McConnell's ideas on portability and tort reform.

It is true that, after 14 months of Fox's relentless pounding of President Obama's idea of sweeping reform, the latest Gallup poll shows opinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation. Fox invariably stresses such recent dips in support for the legislation, disregarding the majorities in favor of various individual aspects of the reform effort. Along the way, the network has sold a falsified image of the professional standards that developed in American newsrooms and university journalism departments in the last half of the 20th century.

Whatever its shortcomings, journalism under those standards aspired to produce an honest account of social, economic and political events. It bore witness to a world of dynamic change, as opposed to the world of Foxian reality, whose actors are brought on camera to illustrate a preconceived universe as rigid as that of medieval morality. Now, it is precisely our long-held norms that cripple our ability to confront Fox's journalism of perpetual assault. I'm confident that many old-schoolers are too principled to appear on the network, choosing silence over being used; when Fox does trot out a house liberal as a punching bag, the result is a parody of reasoned news formats.

My great fear, however, is that some journalists of my generation who once prided themselves on blowing whistles and afflicting the comfortable have also been intimidated by Fox's financial power and expanding audience, as well as Ailes's proven willingness to dismantle the reputation of anyone who crosses him. (Remember his ridiculing of one early anchor, Paula Zahn, as inferior to a "dead raccoon" in ratings potential when she dared defect to CNN?) It's as if we have surrendered the sword of verifiable reportage and bought the idea that only "elites" are interested in information free of partisan poppycock.

Why has our profession, through its general silence -- or only spasmodic protest -- helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt? The standard answer is economics, as represented by the collapse of print newspapers and of audience share at CBS, NBC and ABC. Some prominent print journalists are now cheering Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp. (which owns the Fox network) for his alleged commitment to print, as evidenced by his willingness to lose money on the New York Post and gamble the overall profitability of his company on the survival of the Wall Street Journal. This is like congratulating museums for preserving antique masterpieces while ignoring their predatory methods of collecting.

Why can't American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team? His importation of the loose rules of British tabloid journalism, including blatant political alliances, started our slide to quasi-news. His British papers famously promoted Margaret Thatcher's political career, with the expectation that she would open the nation's airwaves to Murdoch's cable channels. Ed Koch once told me he could not have been elected mayor of New York without the boosterism of the New York Post.

As for Fox's campaign against the Obama administration, perhaps the only traditional network star to put Ailes on the spot, at least a little, has been his friend, the venerable Barbara Walters, who was hosting This Week, ABC's Sunday morning talk show. More accurately, she allowed another guest, Arianna Huffington, to belabor Ailes recently about his biased coverage of Obama. Ailes countered that he should be judged as a producer of ratings rather than a journalist -- audience is his only yardstick. While true as far as it goes, this hair-splitting defense purports to absolve Ailes of responsibility for creating a news department whose raison d'etre is to dictate the outcome of our nation's political discourse.

For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century ago, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party. And let no one be misled by occasional spurts of criticism of the GOP on Fox. In a bygone era of fact-based commentary typified, left to right, by my late colleagues Scotty Reston and Bill Safire, these deceptions would have been given their proper label: disinformation.

Under the pretense of correcting a Democratic bias in news reporting, Fox has accomplished something that seemed impossible before Ailes imported to the news studio the tricks he learned in Richard Nixon's campaign think tank: He and his video ferrets have intimidated center-right and center-left journalists into suppressing conclusions -- whether on health-care reform or other issues -- they once would have stated as demonstrably proven by their reporting. I try not to believe that this kid-gloves handling amounts to self-censorship, but it's hard to ignore the evidence. News Corp., with 64,000 employees worldwide, receives the tender treatment accorded a future employer.

In defending Glenn Beck on ABC, Ailes described him as something like Fox's political id, rather than its whole personality. It is somehow fitting, then, that Sigmund Freud's great-grandson, Matthew Freud, might help put mainstream American journalism back in touch with its collective superego.

This year, Freud, a public relations executive in London and Murdoch's son-in-law, condemned Ailes in an interview with the New York Times, saying he was "ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes's horrendous and sustained disregard" of proper journalistic standards. Meanwhile, Gabriel Sherman, writing in New York magazine, suggests that Freud and other Murdoch relatives think Ailes has outlived his usefulness -- despite the fact that Fox, with its $700 million annual profit, finances News Corp.'s ability to keep its troubled newspapers and their skeleton staffs on life support. I know some observers of journalistic economics who believe that such insider comments mean Rupert already has Roger on the skids.

It is true that any executive's tenure in the House of Murdoch is situational. But grieve not for Roger Ailes. His new contract signals that when the winds of televised demagoguery abate, he will waft down on a golden parachute. By News Corp. standards, he deserves it. After all, Ailes helped make Murdoch the most powerful media executive in the United States.

As for Fox News, lots of people who know better are keeping quiet about what to call it. Its news operation can, in fact, be called many things, but reporters of my generation, with memories and keyboards, dare not call it journalism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102523.html?nav=hcmodule

kev9100

Biggins wrote: »

Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?

Why don't honest journalists criticise Fox News? There's not really an easy answer but I do think that the biggest factor is that the US media, with a few notable exceptions, is now consumed in a race for ratings and is no longer intrested in real reporting.


Just look at Glenn Beck. The man is pretty much the opposite of what a good journalist should be. Yet for some reason he is one of the biggest names on FOX News, America's biggest cable news station. Why? Because he gets good ratings and as long as he continues to get good ratings, he can say whatever the hell he likes.

Biggins

True.
Ratings = points = money.
And thats what it all boils down to - the "truth" however being a price and lost also paid.

Nodin

Thing is, there's no legislative imperative in the states to provide 'balance'. Fox is just the logical outcome of that - forwarding a conservative agenda was its raison d'etre. It is a bit suprising that something as unsubtle and ugly as Glenn Beck is face of it, true, but theres no accounting for taste. Obviously the 'shock jock' thing can be translated from talk radio to television with a few tweaks.

Amerika

Please name me an "honest journalist," in your opinion.

Overheal

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

They just dont make them like they used to.

Amerika

Sorry, but wrong in my opinion. Walt was a big time liberal, and although considered a highly respectable journalist, far from an honest journalist in many a conservative mind. He once said that the smartest President he ever met was Jimmy Carter :eek:. Looks like the worms were eating away at his gray matter long before his demise.

(And I just don't see him taking on FNC any time soon.)

Overheal

Okay....

Brian Williams. Tom Brokaw. Larry King. Larry Kudlow.

But im guessing you'll find problems with any of my suggestions.

far from an honest journalist in many a conservative mind.

Could that be maybe because the Conservative mindset has been corrupted from the inside out by sensational hypocrites like Glenn Beck and O'Reilly?

I hate to put Jon Stewart on the list but he's the only one I see really ripping the covers off people, like Glenn Beck the Gold Shill.

Amerika

You are correct OH, and I couldn’t offer any that you would probably be comfortable with (besides maybe Brit Hume). The whole essence of the post is asinine. Just like me stating "Why don‘t honest journalists take on the likes of Jeffrey Immelt, NBC and MSNBC?"

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

You are correct OH, and I couldn’t offer any that you would probably be comfortable with (besides maybe Brit Hume). The whole essence of the post is asinine. Just like me stating "Why don‘t honest journalists take on the likes of Jeffrey Immelt, NBC and MSNBC?"

Please, don't use capitals letters.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

You are correct OH, and I couldn’t offer any that you would probably be comfortable with (besides maybe Brit Hume). The whole essence of the post is asinine. Just like me stating "Why don‘t honest journalists take on the likes of Jeffrey Immelt, NBC and MSNBC?"

But no comment on Beck's Gold Shillings?

Black Swan

Biggins wrote: »

honest journalists

... is an oxymoron?

An ABC producer I once met told me that the "news" was a form of entertainment media and a business. If broadcast journalists give the public what they want to hear this produces high ratings, draws in advertisers, and makes such studios profitable. In other words, the telly audience gets the best news that money can buy to entertain them.

Amerika

sorry, can’t view video
how about this: http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/an-open-invitation-to-howell-raines/
(see, no capitals letters)

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

sorry, can’t view video

Read: won't. :rolleyes:

Gotta hand it to Greta though: she does nothing to dispel the claims made by Howell:

Howell Raines, former executive editor of the New York Times, has an op/ed scheduled for publication in the Washington Post tomorrow. It is posted now on line. It is a trashing of Fox News Channel of which I contribute one hour each night in prime time....hence a quick note is appropriate.

Any time Howell Raines (yes, pushed out of the New York Times for a plagiarism scandal on his watch), wants to sit down with me and compare our two careers for accuracy and unbiased reporting, I am game. I have been in the journalism business for almost 20 years - and more than 8 have been at FNC.

I am proud of my work and working for Roger Ailes has been a great experience for me. He has given me free rein to do the best job I can. As an aside, in 8+ years, Roger Ailes has only once asked me - not told me - to do something...and that was to NOT report a small item about a Democratic candidate for president's family. He did not deem it news and thought it unfair to report it and thus gratuitously hurt the Democrat's family. I had already made my own decision - like his - and did not report it. It was not news. The New York Times did report it. )

Will Raines accept my invitation to compare our two careers for accuracy and lack of bias? or is he afraid?

Further to sourced Material in Howell's Editorial:

_Ted Turner. The CNN founder called Fox a "propaganda voice" of the Bush administration and compared its popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise in Germany before World War II. Briganti: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well."

_Tim Russert. A journalist asked the NBC Washington bureau chief whether Fox would get better treatment from the White House with Tony Snow as press secretary and he replied, "no more than they get right now." Fox's Paul Schur shot back: "Tim's sour grapes are obvious here, but at least he's not using his father as a prop to sell books this time around. That said, we wish him well on his latest self-promotion tour."

_George Clooney. Fox News branched out to Hollywood after the actor criticized O'Reilly. "We are disappointed that George has chosen to hurt Mr. O'Reilly's family in order to promote his movie," Schur said. "But it's obvious he needs publicity considering his recent string of failures. We wish him well in his struggle to regain relevancy."

_MSNBC correspondent David Shuster. After leaving a job at Fox, Shuster said that critical reporting on the Bush administration wouldn't have been welcomed at his former employer. Briganti came back with: "We can understand David's disappointment in being let go by Fox News Channel, but he's too young to be so bitter. We wish him well in getting his career back on track."

_Jonathan Klein. On the day the CNN U.S. president was hired, Briganti offered: "We wish CNN well in their annual executive shuffle." She later stuck the knife in further with: "We wish Jon well in his battle for second place with MSNBC."

Fox has essentially changed the language in the TV industry with its wishing well, turning a pleasantry into "take a hike."

Which reminds me...

Amerika wrote:

Looks like the worms were eating away at his gray matter long before his demise.

Sounds akin to

_Ted Turner. The CNN founder called Fox a "propaganda voice" of the Bush administration and compared its popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise in Germany before World War II. Briganti: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well."

20Cent

I agree with the article. I take from it that he is referring to proper journalism as in having evidence or back up for claims made. This doesn't mean that they can't have an opinion (it would be boring if they didn't) just that they don't broadcast blatant lies.
Fox has gone beyond being a news channel it is campaigning for an agenda without regard to the truth. More journalists should pull them up on this.

Amerika

And I take it that Raines just plain hates Fox News and can’t seem to rationally discern between their news programs and their opinion programs. For the life of me I can’t seem to remember any outrage from Raines when a noted “journalist” reported to the nation that he had tingles running up his leg while listening to Obama speak.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

And I take it that Ailes just plain hates Fox News and can’t seem to rationally discern between their news programs and their opinion programs.

Thats a load of crock. When exactly is FOX not running "An Opinion Program"?

Its FOX News not FOX Opinion. Or FOX Bias or FOX Propoganda. And yet - it is.

At least when CNN gives 2 hours to Wolf Bltizer its not 2 hours of Ol' Greybeard giving a talking points memo about someone being a pinhead because they slighted him. Not that they dont do opinion pieces - but its called the Cafferty File and its a little tiny segment like the Weather on the Hour. And I can't remember the last time Brian Williams blasted anybody. Thats not to say his first hand coverage of Katrina didn't humanize him a little.

For the life of me I can’t seem to remember any outrage from Ailes when a noted “journalist” reported to the nation that he had tingles running up his leg while listening to Obama speak.

I think a bunch of Black Journalists on - every channel - welling up with tears in their eyes when Obama won the election was a perfectly valid reaction.

You know whats not valid though is Glenn Beck driving up the price of gold on his show by telling americans the country is going to collapse. Did I mention he's a paid spokesperson for Goldline? And often speaks about the "stability" of gold, on his "Opinionews" Show? (!) Thats right I did. Hmm.

Amerika

It was a white journalist, not a black journalist (just google: tingle up my leg idiot, and you will see who it was). And do you really think Glenn Beck is affecting the world price of gold?

Elevator

Amerika wrote: »

Please name me an "honest journalist," in your opinion.

Walter cronkite (rip) was one

Amerika

Walter Cronkite was a well known, and often criticized, left-wing liberal. Yes, he was a skilled performer whose act instilled trust from the masses, but his act also aided to the decline of his profession.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

It was a white journalist, not a black journalist (just google: tingle up my leg idiot, and you will see who it was). And do you really think Glenn Beck is affecting the world price of gold?

In Glenn Beck's own words:

"In the time that I did my broadcast last night, the price of Gold Shot Up Fifty Dollars."

I refer you once more to the linked video, above. You can hear it from the horse's mouth.

And don't call me an idiot thanks.

As for the Tingling guy I believe it was Brian Williams that called him up on it first:

"Let's talk about that feeling Chris gets up his leg when Obama talks ... That seems to be the headline of this half hour." - Brian Williams

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg#ixzz0iMqOfypW

Amerika

idiot was in regards to Matthews, not you


Update: I see President Obama is appearing on FOX NEWS tomorrow with Bret Baier. Sure looks like this action legitimizes FOX NEWS.

I wish Bret would ask him about the illegal job offer he made to a member of Congress in order to drop out of a Senate race, since no legit journalist seems to have the journalistic integrity to confront him about it directly. But I doubt it (even thought I think FOX NEWS would be the only news agency to have the guts to ask him to his face). Unfortunately I’m sure Obama has set the agenda for the interview. I'm sure we will hear Obama state once again that the time for talk about health care is over (right before he goes on for an hour about health care).

amacachi

Amerika wrote: »

idiot was in regards to Matthews, not you


Update: I see President Obama is appearing on FOX NEWS tomorrow with Bret Baier. Sure looks like this action legitimizes FOX NEWS.

I wish Bret would ask him about the illegal job offer he made to a member of Congress in order to drop out of a Senate race, since no legit journalist seems to have the journalistic integrity to confront him about it directly. But I doubt it (even thought I think FOX NEWS would be the only news agency to have the guts to ask him to his face). Unfortunately I’m sure Obama has set the agenda for the interview. I'm sure we will hear Obama state once again that the time for talk about health care is over (right before he goes on for an hour about health care).

What time will he be on at? Promises to be some of the best TV of the year.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

idiot was in regards to Matthews, not you


Update: I see President Obama is appearing on FOX NEWS tomorrow with Bret Baier. Sure looks like this action legitimizes FOX NEWS.

I wish Bret would ask him about the illegal job offer he made to a member of Congress in order to drop out of a Senate race, since no legit journalist seems to have the journalistic integrity to confront him about it directly. But I doubt it (even thought I think FOX NEWS would be the only news agency to have the guts to ask him to his face). Unfortunately I’m sure Obama has set the agenda for the interview. I'm sure we will hear Obama state once again that the time for talk about health care is over (right before he goes on for an hour about health care).

Well since YOU have already made up your minds why bother watching it at all?

Amerika

There is always the hope I am wrong. But I believe he will talk about healthcare, and only healthcare, on the "hell freezes over" Fox News interview today. And unfortunately I fear healthcare will pass in the next few weeks hook or crook, ignoring our constitution, and we will go even more broke than we already are.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/mass-type_health_care_could_wi.html

Sand

Can anyone name some honest journalists? Who exactly is going to lead this crudade?

The push these days with 24 hours news seems to be not just report what happened, but to interpret it and put it in a particular context, all inside a 30 second piece, which allows an absolute field day for bias. So you end up with bad bias, "good" bias (good channels got to compensate for the bad bias on those bad channels) and pure inanity passing for news reporting like some cat getting rescued from a tree.

Even on radio these days I hear hosts who seem to think they are the news and spend interviews with experts talking over them and berating them and trying to show off.

20Cent

Here is part 1 can't find part 2.

Loaded questions and interruptions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5IlbgmTeRU

Amerika

I read the transcript of the interview. What were the loaded questions? I thought the questions represented pretty good journalism, and a representation of what America wanted to know. He pressed at times, but backed off at the appropriate moments as a show of respect for the office of president. Overall tough but fair in my opinion. Obama held his own, and he seemed to control much of the interview.
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/03/transcript-of-bret-baiers-interview-of.html

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

I read the transcript of the interview. What were the loaded questions? I thought the questions represented pretty good journalism, and a representation of what America wanted to know. He pressed at times, but backed off at the appropriate moments as a show of respect for the office of president. Overall tough but fair in my opinion. Obama held his own, and he seemed to control much of the interview.
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/03/transcript-of-bret-baiers-interview-of.html

"So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule?
Kind of like the do you beat your wife question.

There's also the handy via email questions to get some digs in.
"If the bill is so good for all of us, why all the intimidation, arm twisting, seedy deals, and parliamentary trickery necessary to pass a bill, when you have an overwhelming majority in both houses and the presidency?"

"If the health care bill is so wonderful, why do you have to bribe Congress to pass it?"

Amerika

All legit and timely questions a good journalist should ask, especially given his past comments on the subjects.

jank

Stephen Colbert!!

[End Thread!]

Amerika

When Colbert interviews Pelosi and takes her to task regarding her comment about ObamaCare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” then maybe we’ll talk. The current mood of the American people feels our Congress is either too arrogant or too ignorant (as indicated by the low 18% approval rating of the Democrat controlled Congress). And the tough questions need to be posed to our president, who right now appears to be a president of the party, not the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To&feature=player_embedded

jank

Tell you what you find me a One and one interview done my MSNBC and Bush Jnr and I will find that colbert "report";)

Amerika

Your MSNBC? Freudian slip perhaps?

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

All legit and timely questions a good journalist should ask, especially given his past comments on the subjects.

I'd beg to differ but not really interested in it tbh.

Amerika

Then why comment tbh???

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Then why comment tbh???

True lol.
Not much point discussing Fox and Journalism, its like discussing Manchester United and Hurling.

JohnMc1

Amerika wrote: »

When Colbert interviews Pelosi and takes her to task regarding her comment about ObamaCare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” then maybe we’ll talk.

Yeah can you imagine the moral outrage from here and CBS, the NBCs,CNN and every Obama lover "media" if Newt Gingrich or any Rep administration said that or tried to pull a fraction of what this administration has done? They would all be yelling to the top of their throats that they are morally outraged.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

When Colbert interviews Pelosi and takes her to task regarding her comment about ObamaCare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” then maybe we’ll talk. The current mood of the American people feels our Congress is either too arrogant or too ignorant (as indicated by the low 18% approval rating of the Democrat controlled Congress). And the tough questions need to be posed to our president, who right now appears to be a president of the party, not the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To&feature=player_embedded

No, I had not seen that. O_o

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

When Colbert interviews Pelosi and takes her to task regarding her comment about ObamaCare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” then maybe we’ll talk. The current mood of the American people feels our Congress is either too arrogant or too ignorant (as indicated by the low 18% approval rating of the Democrat controlled Congress). And the tough questions need to be posed to our president, who right now appears to be a president of the party, not the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To&feature=player_embedded

Very short clip there. Cuts off very fast, mid sentence in fact.

Amerika

Not much more, but a little bit more. It's about 20 seconds into the GB video. Very very very odd, but no other “news” source is reporting anything about this comment from Pelosi. So, how’s that for honest journalistic integrity?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4106820/in-pelosi-we-trust

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Not much more, but a little bit more. It's about 20 seconds into the GB video. Very very very odd, but no other “news” source is reporting anything about this comment from Pelosi. So, how’s that for honest journalistic integrity?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4106820/in-pelosi-we-trust

A rare moment of plausible journalism from Beck, soon marred by failing to provide a quotation or sound byte from the Science Czar on what was a very serious claim/paraphrase/accusation by Beck that the Science Czar wants to introduce "sterilants" [sic] in our municipal water and perform forced abortions.

For that first 30 seconds though, he had me. A constant reminder to keep my brain-condom on around that Network.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Not much more, but a little bit more. It's about 20 seconds into the GB video. Very very very odd, but no other “news” source is reporting anything about this comment from Pelosi. So, how’s that for honest journalistic integrity?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4106820/in-pelosi-we-trust

What do you think the story is?
The Bill has been available on the internet for months.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Your MSNBC? Freudian slip perhaps?

I used MSNBC as an example. Everytime Fox News gets brought up as a right leaning network, MSNBC gets brought up as a left leaning network. I never watched MSNBC so I cant really comment on what they actually say or dont say but FOX are always on about them so that alone means that they must the American version of Pravda.

But my question stands. Obama has done 2 interviews with Fox now in about 2 years. Bush was president for 8 so where was his interview that he had to step into the dragons den???

TBH its all horse $hit. Just watch a few episodes of the colbert report and thats what all this is, entertainment.

jank

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yeah can you imagine the moral outrage from here and CBS, the NBCs,CNN and every Obama lover "media" if Newt Gingrich or any Rep administration said that or tried to pull a fraction of what this administration has done? They would all be yelling to the top of their throats that they are morally outraged.

Yes they would actually....:rolleyes:

Oh sorry did I wake you up from your reality that you want to believe in?
Just forget the last 3 minutes and its business as usual.OK!

JohnMc1

jank wrote: »

Yes they would actually....:rolleyes:

Oh sorry did I wake you up from your reality that you want to believe in?
Just forget the last 3 minutes and its business as usual.OK!

Belligerant as always. Wow the MSNBC knobsloobers are turning on the Obama admin. They must really be a joke if those hacks are turning on them.

jank

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Belligerant as always. Wow the MSNBC knobsloobers are turning on the Obama admin. They must really be a joke if those hacks are turning on them.

Em, that clip was from CNN.:o

JohnMc1

CNN has also been very leftist so don't go breaking your patting yourself on the back.

Amerika

Yeah, not much point getting on about MSNBC and CNN. They are becoming more and more impotent each passing day, with is odd as their chosen one is at the helm of the country. Even Joe Biden poked fun at the media relationship with Barack Obama when he was talking about his Irish heritage the other day. Interesting how the Cartoon Network is now beating both MSNBC and CNN in ratings. The only domestic cable news outlets of consequence anymore is Fox News. The bogeyman will reign supreme (and remain forever hated).

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah, not much point getting on about MSNBC and CNN. They are becoming more and more impotent each passing day, with is odd as their chosen one is at the helm of the country. Even Joe Biden poked fun at the media relationship with Barack Obama when he was talking about his Irish heritage the other day. Interesting how the Cartoon Network is now beating both MSNBC and CNN in ratings. The only domestic cable news outlets of consequence anymore is Fox News. The bogeyman will reign supreme (and remain forever hated).

While I completely disagree with your opinion its worth noting that this thread is going to apparently, do nothing to sway anyone one way or the other, clearly.

The only thing I can say anymore is never trust anything anybody tells you without proof. That goes for your Blitzers your Hannitys and your Stewarts and Colberts. Just form your opinions from direct source material (like Pelosi's clip) and not off stuff where a journalist/anchor/entertainer (and JohnMc1, you've defended beck as an Entertainer not a Journalist on more than an occassion) tells you themselves and fails to back it up with anything. No more should you trust the administration out of hand that one of their packages will reduce the Deficit by a Trillion Dollars without being shown the Math.

Everyone will try to show you an image that conforms to their agenda. Pay attention to whats being shown to you no matter what the source.

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

(and JohnMc1, you've defended beck as an Entertainer not a Journalist on more than an occassion) tells you themselves and fails to back it up with anything. No more should you trust the administration out of hand that one of their packages will reduce the Deficit by a Trillion Dollars without being shown the Math.

While I will never deny Beck is outrageous [he looks sane compared to the MSNBC mad dogs like Olbermann, Maddow and Wallace] he does make very solid arguements unlike the clowns on MSNBC and the like that just go on anti- Republican, anti-Conservative, anti-Christian rants.