SnyderShrugged Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Hey if it was fair then, then why not now? Its not about "your side did it" its about "you didn't have a problem when your side did it". except he doesnt really have a side politically and if he did, well, it didnt do this to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Go back and read my first post in this thread. Your position on this would please the DNC greatly.So a candidate who ran on "change" and a promise of not continuing the "status-quo" in Washington, and who had a "grass roots" campaign that overwhelmingly stated that things could not stay the same in Washington, is now given a pass when they take what the previous admin was doing and one-ups it? Bush excluded reporters. Obama tried to exclude a network, and one of the largest at that. No free pass should be given. I have been saying this since 2004, the two party system is driving a wedge into this country and both sides are becoming more and more extreme. I hate to say it, but we are starting to politically resemble the African model: the victor tries to eliminate the opposition. We have not fallen into actual genocide of the opposition, but social extermination is being attempted - by the Reps and the Dems. All Dems have to say to create a base now is to mention the GOP. They took the battle plan of the GOP (making LIBERAL a 4 letter word) and expanded it. It is rather disgusting, and I am done with it. Well according to ya'll he's doing something that hasn't been done before, therefore he is changing the status quo. Oh and I thought Fox was not part of the MSM and now all of the sudden they are "one of the biggest" networks, how does that work? What's more is that in your analogy to the African model you yourself as others have in this thread tacitly acknowledged that Fox is part of the DNC competion i.e. they are not neutral they are part of the Right Wing and as such they void their journalistic integrity. Fox did this to themselves, don't blame the villagers for killing Frankenstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 except he doesnt really have a side politically and if he did, well, it didnt do this to begin with. I wasn't saying "you" the person I was responding to, I was saying you in the 2nd person plural "you" as in everyone bellyaching about Obama when they turned a blind eye to Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I wasn't saying "you" the person I was responding to, I was saying you in the 2nd person plural "you" as in everyone bellyaching about Obama when they turned a blind eye to Bush. I see. I thought you were speaking to shf directly. but again, as bad as Bush was, I dont think he ever did this. (and the msnbc thing isnt a case of the same thing, I checked it out too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Burgold, couldn't Bush have used the same logic to only invite Fox News to cover his admin? CNN, MSNBC smeared the Bush admin at every opportunity. What the Obama White House is complaining about Fox for doing, Olbermann was doing for 4 years. What would the reaction have been like if Bush attempted to ban MSNBC? From the first page... Hated when Bush played the exclusion game (although they tended to blacklist reporters and not whole networks... although I think they did blackball a couple of papers and magazines). This is not smart by the Obama WH just creates more of an us v them atmosphere and gives them credibility if they ever want to say... "The White House is afraid of scrutiny" or "is hiding something." I agree with you that Obama should not do this and it really is counterproductive to a healthy argument and a comprehensive analysis of government. I actually want our biggest critics to review everything (I also want them to be honest critics), because the more snap shots you get the better chance you have of actually telling the true story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I see. I thought you were speaking to shf directly. but again, as bad as Bush was, I dont think he ever did this. (and the msnbc thing isnt a case of the same thing, I checked it out too) Sure, its not "exactly" the same, but I really don't have a problem with it. I've long held that Fox isn't news and they aren't about journalism as such they don't qualify as the Fourth Estate. They are in essence the professional hecklers. If they were even remotely "Fair & Balanced" this never would have come about, again Fox has made their own bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Either that our she's just understating what they really did in order to save face and not come across like a complete hypocrite.Fox is not news, and until they reform what they are then why should they be allowed to be in the PRESS room? How is Fox not news? I hear this all the time from the left but have never actually heard a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 You have to have a problem with asbury, cause it's stupid politics. I will never, ever justify Obama doing something just because that loser did. I just can't understand what's behind this, thiebear had the closest thing to a rational explanation (distraction) that I've seen. Though I don't really believe that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 How is Fox not news? I hear this all the time from the left but have never actually heard a reason. Well that depends on the definition of the word. Fox would fail to be classified as "news" if the definition contained anything about being fair/balanced, or having things like intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity. On the other hand, if by "news" you mean some kind of information on current events, then yeah Fox is news. By the way I think Fox does have segments that could be called news under the first definition. However, the amount of time allocated for those segments on Fox is rather small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Sure, its not "exactly" the same, but I really don't have a problem with it. I've long held that Fox isn't news and they aren't about journalism as such they don't qualify as the Fourth Estate. They are in essence the professional hecklers. If they were even remotely "Fair & Balanced" this never would have come about, again Fox has made their own bed. I'll say to you what I've said to my conservative friends. When someone on your side does something foolish it is better to call them foolish than defend them. Gives you more credibility when you need to defend your guys for doing something difficult, complex, or controversial. It's rarely a good idea to give anyone the silent treatment. Even if FOX is the talking arm of the GOP, President Obama is the President of all the citizens of the United States and has an obligation to reach out and communicate with all of them. Even the ones that disagree with him. I can understand the inclination to not want to talk to these guys or to get fatigued with their defamations and distortions, but still, the principle is the thing. President Obama does himself little good by giving these guys the silent treatment and might do harm by giving those predisposed to disliking his ideas or those on the fence ammo to be suspiscious with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 How is Fox not news? I hear this all the time from the left but have never actually heard a reason. News is supposed to be fair, they are supposed to try and stay as objective as possible when reporting. Fox does not, instead they frame their reports so that they align with their bias. Some will make the excuse that all have bias, and that is true the main difference is that most don't intentionally frame their reporting to mirror their bias, which is what Fox does. In essence they are no better than what Rush Limbaugh does and I don't see him being invited to be part of the press corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 It's rarely a good idea to give anyone the silent treatment. Even if FOX is the talking arm of the GOP, President Obama is the President of all the citizens of the United States and has an obligation to reach out and communicate with all of them. Even the ones that disagree with him. So Obama has a responsibility to reach out to Rush Limbaugh then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Well that depends on the definition of the word.Fox would fail to be classified as "news" if the definition contained anything about being fair/balanced, or having things like intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity. On the other hand, if by "news" you mean some kind of information on current events, then yeah Fox is news. By the way I think Fox does have segments that could be called news under the first definition. However, the amount of time allocated for those segments on Fox is rather small. Seems even some dems think Fox was during the campaign at least. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/01/hillary-supporter-ed-rendel-fox-has-done-fairest-job-covering-campaig As opposed to MSNBC who gets that tingly feeling down their leg when they talk about Obama? I guess you're only fair until you dissent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 You have to have a problem with asbury, cause it's stupid politics. I will never, ever justify Obama doing something just because that loser did. I just can't understand what's behind this, thiebear had the closest thing to a rational explanation (distraction) that I've seen. Though I don't really believe that's the case. When are we going to stop pretending that Fox is a legitimate news organization? Once that masquerade is done then we'll see Fox for what they really are, and I don't see any President inviting the opposition party leader into their press corps yet we're gonna accept Fox even though they are clearly lined up with if not leading the GOP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 So Obama has a responsibility to reach out to Rush Limbaugh then? Yup. (Reach out. Reach out and smack him. Take your pick) Seriously though, there are many Americans out there who may miss out on the opportunity to hear the President first hand if he tunes out FOX and that isn't cool. I'm actually not a fan of playing a fifteen second sound bite and then having analysts discuss the thirty minute speech and spinning it, but that scenario is even more prevelent if you have to rely on tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 When are we going to stop pretending that Fox is a legitimate news organization? Once that masquerade is done then we'll see Fox for what they really are, and I don't see any President inviting the opposition party leader into their press corps yet we're gonna accept Fox even though they are clearly lined up with if not leading the GOP? personally. I dislike fox, along with all the rest. that aside, even the other members of the press corps, who stood with the fox folks on this acknowledge their legitimacy simply by standing with them. I understand the train of thought you have, but it isnt actually correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 When are we going to stop pretending that Fox is a legitimate news organization? Once that masquerade is done then we'll see Fox for what they really are, and I don't see any President inviting the opposition party leader into their press corps yet we're gonna accept Fox even though they are clearly lined up with if not leading the GOP? Like it or not, and I don't like them, a lot of people do think of them as news and they are for a few hours a day. Shepard Smith is a fine journalist and I enjoy his presentation. Everyone knows which of their employees red op ed and which are journalists. Keep Hannity out but it's just a loser (even if your right) to take this tack. And that's dumb and counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Thought this was interesting, probably been posted before but eh. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/msnbc-confirms-liberal-media-bias/ As Dedman sees it, "The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms..." But yeah, let's get rid of that stupid Fox station, bias has no place in the media! DOWN WITH FOX!!!! Once again, dissent brings on the criticism in the MSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 And that's dumb and counterproductive. Personally, I agree, the timing of this is stupid and it takes them off message. But, I agree with the heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Seems even some dems think Fox was during the campaign at least.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/01/hillary-supporter-ed-rendel-fox-has-done-fairest-job-covering-campaig This is a Hillary supporter praising Fox for going after Obama... Funny quote from there: "Fox has done the fairest job, has remained the most objective of all the cable networks: you hate both of our candidates. No, I'm only kidding." (heh btw I don't think he was really kidding) Of course, saying that some people think something doesn't make it so, even if those people are Dems. As opposed to MSNBC who gets that tingly feeling down their leg when they talk about Obama? I guess you're only fair until you dissent. I would not classify MSNBC as a news organization either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam@section118 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Well according to ya'll he's doing something that hasn't been done before, therefore he is changing the status quo. Oh and I thought Fox was not part of the MSM and now all of the sudden they are "one of the biggest" networks, how does that work? What's more is that in your analogy to the African model you yourself as others have in this thread tacitly acknowledged that Fox is part of the DNC competion i.e. they are not neutral they are part of the Right Wing and as such they void their journalistic integrity.Fox did this to themselves, don't blame the villagers for killing Frankenstein. I do not post much on politics because there is no point, but I agree with most of this. Sadly, instead of trying to better ourselves as a part we would rather be "good right wingers" or "good left wingers" and do everything possible to tear down the other party. If Fox News is not news, then neither are any other network. I just had a person in class today tell me that Fox News should be called "Bush News", but in the same breath shouldnt CNN be changed to "Controlled News Network" or "Clinton News Network"?..... The truth is all news, like any orgazization, has a slant but that never justifies anyone trying to shut out a whole network. (FTR, not that anyone cares, but I try to watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and BBC at least once a day and I am always following the news via my iphone or the internet.) It is aftr discussions like this I wish we spent more time and energy on making this country better for our kids and grandkids and less time and energy or tearing apart of the other party. Just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Now, how is the press free if the government they are supposed to be covering excludes them from any news coverage? I will give you that the White House is not Congress, and did not in fact try to make a law excluding Fox. But bases on precedence from the courts on this issue, I think we can all agree that an action of this magnitude would constitute an affront of the 1st Amendment. If the press wants to talk to ME, I have the right to say no, or to choose which members of the press to speak with. If Obama is REQUIRED to talk with certain people, than HIS 1st amendment rights are being infringed upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 This is a Hillary supporter praising Fox for going after Obama... Funny quote from there: "Fox has done the fairest job, has remained the most objective of all the cable networks: you hate both of our candidates. No, I'm only kidding." (heh btw I don't think he was really kidding) Of course, saying that some people think something doesn't make it so, even if those people are Dems. I would not classify MSNBC as a news organization either. In that case I have no problem with you denouncing Fox News, as long as you aren't blind to other medias' biases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 If the press wants to talk to ME, I have the right to say no, or to choose which members of the press to speak with.If Obama is REQUIRED to talk with certain people, than HIS 1st amendment rights are being infringed upon. Um.. no. The news stationss just said no until Obama said yes to Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I watch Fox fairly often and I am constantly amazed at all the ex Bush people who now act as "fox contributors" talking about the current admin. Really, fair and balanced? Actual news?? A large part of the programming is GOP propaganda...Hannity? Beck? Carl Rove? Ann Coulter etc. etc. Lies, half lies and gross distortions run a muck. I know this because I get my news from other sources so I know when they are, in many cases, just making stuff up... And to be fair and balance MSNBC is almost as bad... The mud slinging on both sides is sometimes amusing but when you're claiming fair and balance and are also claiming to be NEWS, it's sad really.....:doh: If you watch Fox, then you know they have a good amount of Dems on there, that OReilly catches flack all the time for defending Obama, or at least not flambasting him. Just last week he had on Dr. Lamont (young black guy he has on quite a bit, who also is on hannity and is a huge Obama supporter)- This young man actually was mad at Obama and mad at OReilly for defending him. Juan Williams, a Dem and Obama supporter is on there a lot. Several Ex Clinton people are on there a lot (some who now oppose Obama, yet are still Dems). So for all of you who bash Fox, it seems like you don't really watch it. If you did, then you would know all of this. I also watch MSNBC (I'm a channel flipper), and I can not recall ever seeing anyone Republican, or conservative on Olberman, Maddow (unless they do during day hours when I'm at work). And all I ever hear on MSNBC is them making fun of fox, making fun of conservatives. Wow, I'm proud of the media industry standing up for their competitor like that. I'm glad about it too, gives us hope I'd be extra pleased to see Fox someday do the same. Not saying that havnt or wouldnt, I'd just like to see it as a form of solidarity. second that Just to play contrarian a little bit, in a way FOX did do this to themselves. By always taking the most negative view, by almost always spinning things within a micrometer of slander, and frequently outright lying you got to realize that you won't be making many friends. By having their analysts frequently paint the President of the United States as the enemy, as a racist, as a socialist monster bent on destroying everything American, as a monster so vile that he is unfit to even address school children... I certainly can imagine the WH saying, "Who needs these bums! We're never going to get a fair shake out of them anyway!"Afterall, who wants to invite the class brat to your birthday party? Did you watch the interview OReilly did with Obama before the election? Have you seen him talk about Obama in the last few months? Do you watch Fox on a regular basis or are you equating Rush with Fox news or taking a couple minute clips and equating them with the entire organization? By the way, a couple weeks ago Glen Beck added a phone to his show, and made sure that the WH staff (forgot the specific ladys name) had the phone number- her staff confirmed they did. Beck invited them to call at any time they felt he was lying or not telling the story correctly. So far, no one has called to challenge him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.