Yahoo: Fox News headline of Obama’s kids book draws criticism

[Larry]

Never mind.

Laughing is better for my mood.

[Bang]

I think that's a logical complaint. You'd be all over Bush for the same thing. It was pointed out that he wrote it in between his election and inauguration. I said that's fine. I didn't know that.

Psst.. the thread is about Fox making up a ridiculous headline. Not the president's 31 page kids book. It's about the Fox propaganda machine.

Again.

~Bang

[jnhay]

Obama should be doing more important things than being involved, at any level at all, in the writing of a children's book. He's the president of the United States.

EDIT: They should be devoting all resources to fixing our debt. Kids have enough history books already. This one isn't going to be any better.

Is it that difficult to write a children's book? This is equivalent to criticizing him for playing backgammon in the evenings. Is he really too busy to write a "31 page" children's book?

[Chicken Fried]

Psst.. the thread is about Fox making up a ridiculous headline. Not the president's 31 page kids book. It's about the Fox propaganda machine.

Again.

~Bang

The thread is about whatever is in the OP. Obama's writing a book is in the OP. Therefore, this thread is about Obama's writing a book.

[Chicken Fried]

I would like to know once and for all why y'all get so mad about Fox. If they make up headlines and don't report fairly, then don't watch it. Very few actually believe they are "fair and balanced." They are a conservative news group. That appeals to me, and so I watch it, knowing you can't take everything literally. I just don't know why you get so angry about it, especially when we point out that MSNBC is clearly bent to the left with such a bias that it is unwatchable for a conservative. Are you mad that they have better ratings than your favorite news show? Do you feel threatened by Fox? What is it? I think you're looking for one thing to focus your conservative hatred into. Beck and Limbaugh are old targets, so you move on to Fox, or should I correct myself for ASF and say "Faux?"

[Bliz]

or should I correct myself for ASF and say "Faux?"

That bit was played out a long time ago. He needs to update.

I like to call it Fox "News"

[The 12th Commandment]

I would like to know once and for all why y'all get so mad about Fox. If they make up headlines and don't report fairly, then don't watch it. Very few actually believe they are "fair and balanced." They are a conservative news group. That appeals to me, and so I watch it, knowing you can't take everything literally. I just don't know why you get so angry about it, especially when we point out that MSNBC is clearly bent to the left with such a bias that it is unwatchable for a conservative. Are you mad that they have better ratings than your favorite news show? Do you feel threatened by Fox? What is it? I think you're looking for one thing to focus your conservative hatred into. Beck and Limbaugh are old targets, so you move on to Fox, or should I correct myself for ASF and say "Faux?"

Because it gets your side unreasonably stirred up over non-issues, exaggerations and hyperbole (when there are plenty of real issues) and there are enough of you where we wind up seriously considering the possibility of a Sarah Palin for President (for example). Maybe you don't go for Palin personally but a lot people using that same defense on the comment sections of this article would. Then again, maybe you do.

Frankly, I watch some Fox to see what you all are being fed, but I never, ever have even watched MSNBC because I already know what I'm after. Don't think I'm alone in that either as Fox so frequently points out they have really low ratings.

[twa]

NrblFKj314U

:pfft:

[Bang]

I would like to know once and for all why y'all get so mad about Fox. If they make up headlines and don't report fairly, then don't watch it. Very few actually believe they are "fair and balanced." They are a conservative news group. That appeals to me, and so I watch it, knowing you can't take everything literally. I just don't know why you get so angry about it, especially when we point out that MSNBC is clearly bent to the left with such a bias that it is unwatchable for a conservative. Are you mad that they have better ratings than your favorite news show? Do you feel threatened by Fox? What is it? I think you're looking for one thing to focus your conservative hatred into. Beck and Limbaugh are old targets, so you move on to Fox, or should I correct myself for ASF and say "Faux?"

Because propaganda is bad.

Read your world history and you'll see plenty of reasons why.

Big giant huge awful bad reasons.

Propaganda is bad.

And even if I choose to not watch Fox, those that do are still swallowing propaganda, and as is easily indicated by this particular story about this particular headline, you can see how news even as innocent as a children's book is manipulated to cause maximum anger and outrage among those who are the audience.

You know, in the middle east when they have the huge protests that end up with burning flags and death chants,, the riots.. we've learned that the crowd that is protesting is whipped up by a very small group of radical people who infiltrate the crowd and begin the inlfammation that leads to the violence.

It's the same thing. Propagandists manipulating their audience for their own agenda, regardless of whether or not what they're saying is anywhere close to fair, balanced, or truthful. The end result is all they're concerned with, and as this distorted headline shows, it doesn't matter to them how they get it.

~Bang

[Chicken Fried]

Because it gets your side unreasonably stirred up over non-issues, exaggerations and hyperbole (when there are plenty of real issues) and there are enough of you where we wind up seriously considering the possibility of a Sarah Palin for President (for example).

Maybe they are issues, but the liberal media downplays them. There have been a number of what I saw as important stories that were not reported anywhere except Fox. Fox has an agenda, but so does every other news channel. And your Sarah Palin example of Fox News stirring up support for a candidate they like only works if you don't like Palin. I don't think anyone reasonably expects she could win, but Fox has supported a number of other candidates, most recently Rand Paul. They have Huckabee on his own show. Rove is on all the time. Republican congressmen are on all the time. They aren't centering all their efforts on getting one person elected. I think they appeal to a wide group of conservatives. You have Rove and the gang for the average Republican, then you have Palin and Paul for the libertarians.

[Chicken Fried]

Because propaganda is bad.

Read your world history and you'll see plenty of reasons why.

Big giant huge awful bad reasons.

Propaganda is bad.

And even if I choose to not watch Fox, those that do are still swallowing propaganda, and as is easily indicated by this particular story about this particular headline, you can see how news even as innocent as a children's book is manipulated to cause maximum anger and outrage among those who are the audience.

You know, in the middle east when they have the huge protests that end up with burning flags and death chants,, the riots.. we've learned that the crowd that is protesting is whipped up by a very small group of radical people who infiltrate the crowd and begin the inlfammation that leads to the violence.

It's the same thing. Propagandists manipulating their audience for their own agenda, regardless of whether or not what they're saying is anywhere close to fair, balanced, or truthful. The end result is all they're concerned with, and as this distorted headline shows, it doesn't matter to them how they get it.

~Bang

I think you're exaggerating Fox into some radical conservative machine bent on causing a second civil war. I don't see "propaganda." But if you want to play that card, look what the liberal media made the Tea Party out to be. One guy brings an AR-15 to a rally to demonstrate the 2nd Amendment, and all of a sudden the Tea Partiers become loonies who are going to wage guerilla warfare on Washington until they take over the government. As for me, I'm still wondering why Obama included Sitting Bull as an American hero. You can take the side that he opposed America or you can take the side that he was fighting for his homeland. Choosing him to include in the book was unnecessarily controversial and can't help but show Custer and his soldiers as being the enemy. I just think it's strange.

[The Evil Genius]

Choosing him to include in the book was unnecessarily controversial and can't help but show Custer and his soldiers as being the enemy. I just think it's strange.

Tell that to the US Postal Service.

They honored Sitting Bull with a stamp back in 1989.

[MattFancy]

how anyone watches fox news is beyond me

[Bang]

I think you're exaggerating Fox into some radical conservative machine bent on causing a second civil war. I don't see "propaganda." But if you want to play that card, look what the liberal media made the Tea Party out to be. One guy brings an AR-15 to a rally to demonstrate the 2nd Amendment, and all of a sudden the Tea Partiers become loonies who are going to wage guerilla warfare on Washington until they take over the government. As for me, I'm still wondering why Obama included Sitting Bull as an American hero. You can take the side that he opposed America or you can take the side that he was fighting for his homeland. Choosing him to include in the book was unnecessarily controversial and can't help but show Custer and his soldiers as being the enemy. I just think it's strange.

And I see that it's nothing but proaganda.

I'm not exaggerating that into anything. That is a fact, and it's a fact shown pretty clearly by this particular story.

And since you brought up the Tea Party being pigeonholed as radicals, do you not see how that is propaganda as well? You're complaining about it still, so it obviously did affect you, and it did piss you off that the left media distorted that one guy into the whole movement. So why is it you have such a hard time seeing this propagandas for what it is?

Like i said,, history shows you why this is bad, and why we Americans should not tolerate it. And it shouldn't be tolerated if it comes from your side or their side,, understand this,, when they do this, you're not on either side. All you are is the pawn.

You choose to ignore it, even when you see a distortion as blatant as this one. What is the point of it except to cause anger and outrage?

And if you do look thru your history, you see that when people use them as tools, nothing good comes of it.

You should not tolerate it, you should not excuse it, you should not accept it, you should not minimize it, and you should not ignore it.

~Bang

[Chicken Fried]

Tell that to the US Postal Service.

They honored Sitting Bull with a stamp back in 1989.

Congratulations?

[Chicken Fried]

And I see that it's nothing but proaganda.

I'm not exaggerating that into anything

Like i said,, history shows you why this is bad, and why we Americans should not tolerate it.

You choose to ignore it. Even when you see a distortion as blatant as this one. What is the point of it except to cause anger and outrage?

And if you do look thru your history, you see that when people use them as tools, nothing good comes of it.

~Bang

Let's just put it this way: CNN and MSNBC aren't going to tell me all I need to know about the political situation. They're going to tell me one side and part of the other, but not the whole thing. Fox News - take it or leave it - whether you think it's propaganda or not - it fills in the holes nobody else will report because they make the administration look bad, which of course they don't want.

[Bang]

Let's just put it this way: CNN and MSNBC aren't going to tell me all I need to know about the political situation. They're going to tell me one side and part of the other, but not the whole thing. Fox News - take it or leave it - whether you think it's propaganda or not - it fills in the holes nobody else will report because they make the administration look bad, which of course they don't want.

That is hardly the point

If fox just gave you the news, no problem.

But they don't, and this story exemplifies exactly what I'm talking about.

THIS is propaganda. Plain and simple. Devised for one reason and one reason only.

Read the headline they cancelled again:

"Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General"

If you can't see how that is designed to work and what it is designed to do, you are a willing participant in the problem, a willing participant in the subversion of everything the media should be.

~Bang

[Henry]

As for me, I'm still wondering why Obama included Sitting Bull as an American hero. You can take the side that he opposed America or you can take the side that he was fighting for his homeland. Choosing him to include in the book was unnecessarily controversial and can't help but show Custer and his soldiers as being the enemy. I just think it's strange.

From Wikipedia:

The Hunkpapa chief provided resources to sustain the new recruits. Native Americans were attracted to the camp not only for security but by its generosity. Over the course of the first half of 1876, Sitting Bull's camp continually expanded, as natives joined him for safety in numbers. It was this large camp which Custer found on June 25, 1876. Sitting Bull did not take a direct military role in the ensuing battle; as a head chief, he was charged with defensive responsibilities. His leadership had attracted the warriors and families of the extensive village, estimated at more than 10,000 people.

Kinda funny how even though Fox changed the title, it's still wrong.

[twa]

.

THIS is propaganda. Plain and simple. Devised for one reason and one reason only.

/QUOTE]

Making money?

[Bang]

Well, I guess that's ok then. So long as they're making money.

That says even more about the lack of respect they have for the intellect of their viewer.

~Bang

[zoony]

Those getting their panties in a twist about making Sitting Bull a "hero" I'm sure would, in their very next breath, claim Robert E Lee was a great general and worthy of remembrance.

For the record, they both were "native" Americans who were born, raised, fought and died on American soil fighting for the values they held dear. Not sure what's more American than that.

[Chicken Fried]

That is hardly the point

If fox just gave you the news, no problem.

But they don't, and this story exemplifies exactly what I'm talking about.

THIS is propaganda. Plain and simple. Devised for one reason and one reason only.

Read the headline they cancelled again:

"Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General"

If you can't see how that is designed to work and what it is designed to do, you are a willing participant in the problem, a willing participant in the subversion of everything the media should be.

~Bang

Well of course the headline is designed to get people riled up. For one, I think it's fine to get a little riled up. As for what Henry posted, he didn't fight, but it looks like he was still a general of sorts for the Indians. I don't think anyone expected from the title that Sitting Bull killed Custer himself. If anything, Obama should have known this would cause controversy, rightly or wrongly, and just swapped Sitting Bull for someone else.

I don't deny that Fox has an agenda, but I still don't think that it's to the degree you put it at, a degree so high that it's called propaganda. I just don't see it as being that radical. Their average news story is fair and balanced, but overall, Fox is obviously not fair and balanced.

[JimboDaMan]

Making money?

Well, maybe there were two reasons. Hard to argue that Fox's rightward bias is only a ratings ploy to make money when the corporation gave away a million dollars to Republicans.

[zoony]

Well of course the headline is designed to get people riled up. For one, I think it's fine to get a little riled up. As for what Henry posted, he didn't fight, but it looks like he was still a general of sorts for the Indians. I don't think anyone expected from the title that Sitting Bull killed Custer himself. If anything, Obama should have known this would cause controversy, rightly or wrongly, and just swapped Sitting Bull for someone else. .

So, since you're the next to post.. care to go on record with your thoughts on General Lee and the confederacy? :cough:

[JimboDaMan]

Well of course the headline is designed to get people riled up. For one, I think it's fine to get a little riled up. As for what Henry posted, he didn't fight, but it looks like he was still a general of sorts for the Indians. I don't think anyone expected from the title that Sitting Bull killed Custer himself. If anything, Obama should have known this would cause controversy, rightly or wrongly, and just swapped Sitting Bull for someone else.

Oh please. There is nothing controversial at all about this except for partisan whiners and the most thin-skinned of candy asses. You said it yourself, you like to get riled up and have a good whine.