http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_fox_news

beck o'reily, hannity, Yeah they are commentators. That is very true (albeit very troublesome common taters)

is anyone else thinking that this may be an opening salvo to restrict foxnews access to the whitehouse by simply equating them with tabloid status or the like? Perhaps a revival of the fairness doctrine is in the works once again?


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

somebody's pissed because Fox News kicks the @!#$ out of the other news stations, ratings-wise and everything else-wise.





Check out my build thread!

ScottaWhite wrote:is anyone else thinking that this may be an opening salvo to restrict foxnews access to the whitehouse by simply equating them with tabloid status or the like?

Wait a minute... are you implying that they are MORE THAN a glorified 24 hour tabloid station?

RuggedZ wrote:somebody's pissed because Fox News kicks the @!#$ out of the other news stations, ratings-wise and everything else-wise.

They have ratings but not because they are good at accurately delivering news without bias or flash, but because they sell sensationalist nonsense to the gullible. They have high ratings in a nation where more people know who Angelina Jolie is dating than know who the first president of the United States is. Seriously.

Facts don't sell well. Glamor, flash, sensationalism - these things sell. All the other so called cable "news" stations have been trying to emulate the formula of "marketing" (more like slashing and mutilating) real news into short 'n simple, detail limited, sensational circus clips - where is allowable to take a little "liberty with" the truth. An example would be MSNBC amping up Keith Olberman(just as bad - opposite side of the same coin).

The result of Fox's success is that there is NOTHING on TV worth getting real news from.

...and this is telling enough. Also fairly humorous IMO.

I'm implying nothing of the sort... David Axellube did. If foxnews reports some crap that van jones did, is that lying? Sheesh, to here some of y'all go on about foxnews, you'd think they'd be shoulder deep in retractions a libel lawsuits.... I wonder why THAT ISNT THE CASE? And unless bk3k, you are getting the stories yorself...first hand... On the whitehouse lawn... Then you are one of the gullible as well, for as you seem to put it, it's all a bog circus of lies for us dumb ignernt types...."Dirk a Durr"


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

of course the whitehouse would say that because they are liberal and fox news puts a right wing spin on the news just as cnn does for the left. No war topic here just common knowledge.

bk3k wrote:

ScottaWhite wrote:is anyone else thinking that this may be an opening salvo to restrict foxnews access to the whitehouse by simply equating them with tabloid status or the like?

Wait a minute... are you implying that they are MORE THAN a glorified 24 hour tabloid station?

RuggedZ wrote:somebody's pissed because Fox News kicks the @!#$ out of the other news stations, ratings-wise and everything else-wise.

They have ratings but not because they are good at accurately delivering news without bias or flash, but because they sell sensationalist nonsense to the gullible. They have high ratings in a nation where more people know who Angelina Jolie is dating than know who the first president of the United States is. Seriously.

Facts don't sell well. Glamor, flash, sensationalism - these things sell. All the other so called cable "news" stations have been trying to emulate the formula of "marketing" (more like slashing and mutilating) real news into short 'n simple, detail limited, sensational circus clips - where is allowable to take a little "liberty with" the truth. An example would be MSNBC amping up Keith Olberman(just as bad - opposite side of the same coin).

The result of Fox's success is that there is NOTHING on TV worth getting real news from.

...and this is telling enough. Also fairly humorous IMO.

I'm hoping this is a hoax...or do you really intend to present FOX as a "biased source" while you quote as biased a hack as Ed Brayton? If you do, you need to realize that you just nullified your own argument. Attacking bias with bias results in a complete cancelling-out.

Bias + Bias = Null

I pulled the story from yahoo news. And the author quoted axelrod and Anita. Whether he is a hack, as you put it, does not negate what the two whitehouse aides said... Does it?

I am fully aware of the spinto the right on fox. However, the post was about the whitehouse's claim that foxnews wasn't a legit news source. If by definition, they meant, an organization that copies down quotes and information and then relaying verbatim to the public, then foxnews fails the test, as does everyone else.

Their problem isn't so much with the news they report, but rather how they question the "official word" of Dear Leader, and especially the wildly successful and influential oreilly/beck tandem


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

I'd believe it if Hannity was the only one on Fox News. That guy is a @!#$in looney.

Beck, I dunno. Seems like he has his days. Some days he seems to be a little less fair than other days.

Bill O, definately not biased. My favorite part about watching him is when PETA is up to no good, then he invites them on the show. They're stupid and show up, not remembering the owning they got last time they were on his show.





i find it amusing that SHOoff has nothing better to do but follow me around & be an unhelpful dick in even cross-forum. - Jon Mick

There's a simple fact of the matter at hand which spells it out:

The people who are trying to discredit Fox right now are all of the people who Fox has been exposing. Anita Dunn is pissed because she got slammed for her speech holding Mao Tse-Tung as one of her favorite political filosophers. Of course she's going to come out and criticize them. This is, of course, after she tried to pass it off as a joke. If you've heard or seen the speach, you know it's not the case.

Then you have Axlerod and Emmanuel, who have been running a compaign to sell Obama to the country which didn't stop on innauguration day. They must be seriously unbiased and objective in this matter, right? They would in no way be trying to squash the people reporting the truth about them.

It's laughable how often Fox News gets brushed off around here as some crazy biased organization pushing right-wing propaganda. More often than not, their reporting can be backed up by a little searching for yourself, while the twist coming from CNN, NBC, and MSNBC can be discredited quite often by the same amount of searching.

in my own experiences, i've found fox news to be the least biased news source out of the bunch.

the only way to be less biased is to watch it happen on c-span for yourself.





Check out my build thread!

Fox seems to do a good job of reporting news around where I live. You get reports much faster than the other local stations most of teh time. I have a hard time believing that they are so incredibly biased that they are working for the GOP. I have seen them rip apart the lies of a GOP lawmaker before.

I've seen them rip on Michael Steele multiple times, so you know they can't be that bad





Check out my build thread!

ScottaWhite wrote:I pulled the story from yahoo news. And the author quoted axelrod and Anita. Whether he is a hack, as you put it, does not negate what the two whitehouse aides said... Does it?

I am fully aware of the spinto the right on fox. However, the post was about the whitehouse's claim that foxnews wasn't a legit news source. If by definition, they meant, an organization that copies down quotes and information and then relaying verbatim to the public, then foxnews fails the test, as does everyone else.

Their problem isn't so much with the news they report, but rather how they question the "official word" of Dear Leader, and especially the wildly successful and influential oreilly/beck tandem

Sorry Scotta. I was quoting bk3k, not you, as he's the one who brought up Ed Brayton. I just found it kinda cute that he was defending his charge of bias on FOX' part by referring to an equally biased "news" source

I personally don't think the WhiteHouse does itself any favors by applying pressure to FOX. Very dodgy strategy, could backfire hard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, October 19, 2009 1:14 PM

ScottaWhite wrote:I'm implying nothing of the sort... David Axellube did.

We can do better than that. David Axlerod... David Ramrod. Go team Ramrod!!

Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:Sorry Scotta. I was quoting bk3k, not you, as he's the one who brought up Ed Brayton. I just found it kinda cute that he was defending his charge of bias on FOX' part by referring to an equally biased "news" source

I personally don't think the WhiteHouse does itself any favors by applying pressure to FOX. Very dodgy strategy, could backfire hard.

actually I wasn't really referring to that guy - I've really never heard of him specifically. I stumbled upon that page more or less, and it has a daily show clip on it. Something tells me you didn't actually read any more the moment you saw that guy's face, or you might have noticed that.

I could have possibly linked directly to that clip, but there are enough people here who are instantly biased against Jon Stewart - despite him only being a comedian. There is this funny notion that he always sides with whichever Liberal against whichever Conservative - but people who think that really don't understand him. He's not afraid to directly expose Nancy Pelosi as a blatant liar(simply by playing clips of her at different times) - for example. He is just a man who points out and mocks absurdity. Naturally, this often leads him into political matters. Most of what he points out needs no commentary.

Quick - I'd like to think you are kidding, sadly I know you aren't. Fox gets debunked... alot. I wouldn't necessarily take any broadcast station on their word for anything - always verify of course(it doesn't count to check what a Conservative told you with another Conservative source anymore than it would count to check what a Liberal told you by using MoveOn.org) - but to think that Fox News is somehow less inaccurate and/or dishonest in their reporting than any of the other failures called news stations... that is a bit naive at best.

But it does fit your persuasion, so why question? The reason is - you should be even more skeptical when you hear something similar to what you already believe. The easiest way to sell a lie is to seed it in truth(or at least what has been accepted as truth). This is where you - or anyone - would be most vulnerable to accepting BS as truth. Heavy left Liberals believe what they believe for the same reasons - It's not that they are crazy so much as it is this phenomenon multiplied over time This is how same people come to accept crazy ideas.

ScottaWhite wrote:I pulled the story from yahoo news. And the author quoted axelrod and Anita. Whether he is a hack, as you put it, does not negate what the two whitehouse aides said... Does it?

I am fully aware of the spinto the right on fox. However, the post was about the whitehouse's claim that foxnews wasn't a legit news source. If by definition, they meant, an organization that copies down quotes and information and then relaying verbatim to the public, then foxnews fails the test, as does everyone else.

Their problem isn't so much with the news they report, but rather how they question the "official word" of Dear Leader, and especially the wildly successful and influential oreilly/beck tandem

I think I could have summarized this entire thread with what is in bold..

I think the correct criticism wouldn't be to ask why the Obama administration would criticize Fox News in this manor, but rather why would criticize ONLY Fox News?!

And I think the reason is too obvious to name.

bk3k wrote:

ScottaWhite wrote:I'm implying nothing of the sort... David Axellube did.

We can do better than that. David Axlerod... David Ramrod. Go team Ramrod!!

Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:Sorry Scotta. I was quoting bk3k, not you, as he's the one who brought up Ed Brayton. I just found it kinda cute that he was defending his charge of bias on FOX' part by referring to an equally biased "news" source

I personally don't think the WhiteHouse does itself any favors by applying pressure to FOX. Very dodgy strategy, could backfire hard.

actually I wasn't really referring to that guy - I've really never heard of him specifically. I stumbled upon that page more or less, and it has a daily show clip on it. Something tells me you didn't actually read any more the moment you saw that guy's face, or you might have noticed that.

Oh, gosh no! After looking at the Daily Show clip, and looking at the "journalist's" commentary, I had to dig deep to find out what a hack he really is, lol. His angle is really subversive too...his sites are designed to not seem to be the enclaves of biased liberal thought that they really are.

Speaking of liberal bias...have you actually spent any time studying The Daily Show?

"Quick - I'd like to think you are kidding, sadly I know you aren't. Fox gets debunked... alot.". -bk3k

it must happen a lot... And so frequently on issues of importance, or you wouldn't have stuck your wee wee in the blender. I ask you now to prove that allegation... Else I press "liquify".





“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

bk3k wrote:Quick - I'd like to think you are kidding, sadly I know you aren't. Fox gets debunked... alot. I wouldn't necessarily take any broadcast station on their word for anything - always verify of course(it doesn't count to check what a Conservative told you with another Conservative source anymore than it would count to check what a Liberal told you by using MoveOn.org) - but to think that Fox News is somehow less inaccurate and/or dishonest in their reporting than any of the other failures called news stations... that is a bit naive at best.

But it does fit your persuasion, so why question? The reason is - you should be even more skeptical when you hear something similar to what you already believe. The easiest way to sell a lie is to seed it in truth(or at least what has been accepted as truth). This is where you - or anyone - would be most vulnerable to accepting BS as truth. Heavy left Liberals believe what they believe for the same reasons - It's not that they are crazy so much as it is this phenomenon multiplied over time This is how same people come to accept crazy ideas.

Just to clarify something for you, I don't watch Fox News very often. However, with regard to the many times you claim they have been debunked, I have seen many of the times I think you're talking about, and they were supposedly debunked by one of the liberal mouthpiece stations, and I easily found actual facts to prove that Fox was actually correct. Most recently, with regards to the healthcare debates, when MSNBC reported that Fox had mislead people by reporting on the lies of Obama saying that he wasn't trying to get tot a single payer system. The highly disingenuous Chris Matthews kept claiming that President Obama never said the quotes Fox had repeated. Every statement he made included an accentuated "President", because it's true, the times Obama had been quoted as saying that, he was not the president. So Matthews was misleading without actually crossing that line of telling an out-and-out lie, but Fox was indeed reporting factually, as could easily be proven by finding the video clips online of Obama speaking to the AFL/CIO. Just one example, but a typical one.

@ Fox not being one sided, and this guy ^ now claiming: "I don't watch Fox News very often." That's rich.
Oddly 8 years of Bush politics, and no links to be found here on JBO with Fox news as a source in regards to the right wing and "exposing" any wrong doing.

Carry on.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:and this guy ^ now claiming: "I don't watch Fox News very often." That's rich.

LOL. Didn't take you long to jump in and make the argument personal again, did it?

I've stated before that when I watch the news on TV that it's usually CBS, because the station in my area on that network has the best local news. Nice try on the "now claiming" part, with the obvious intent of insinuating that I flip-flop. Better luck next time.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote: @ Fox not being one sided, and this guy ^ now claiming: "I don't watch Fox News very often." That's rich.
Oddly 8 years of Bush politics, and no links to be found here on JBO with Fox news as a source in regards to the right wing and "exposing" any wrong doing.

Carry on.

And yet, the same goes for MSNBC, CNN, etc in the opposite direction.

Carry on

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sold my beloved J in April 2010 -

Heck if 10,000 people gathered in DC to protest orange colored yarn, those guys would have it front page like they had found the Lindberg baby. But thousands protesting against their boy....yawn


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Did you actually look into the results of that? Or just believe that it was true what they said in their ad?



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sold my beloved J in April 2010 -

This might give you some insight as to why the Whitehouse doesn't like Fox:



There is Anita Dunn explaining how they controlled the media coverage during the campaign (and still trying now) to only report what they say. In other words, the media is only supposed to get the propaganda that the Whitehouse wants out there.

When they are exposed, they're pissed. No other explaination necessary. Argue all you want that Fox is biased, but the truth of the matter is that the Whitehouse is trying to control what people know, and they are trying to destroy anyone who exposes the truth about them.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote: Argue all you want that Fox is biased, but the truth of the matter is that the Whitehouse is trying to control what people know, and they are trying to destroy anyone who exposes the truth about them.

It really is that simple. What Fox bashers DON'T do is watch it apparently. Or they'd see that EVERYTHING fox reports about mis-steps in the white house comes backed up with direct quotes from either video bites or sound bites. Directly from the mouths of the people that say them...that includes Obama himself. And anytime ANYONE opposes him the mainstream media either ignores the story (tax protesters in D.C.), or calls them liars (Fox)

All Fox does is report the news you're not allowed to hear and ask the questions you're not allowed to ask.

Anita Dunn went on various news programs and claimed Glenn Beck is a liar and anything that comes from his mouth is a lie. So he set up a direct phone line just for her with a guy standing next to it to answer it at all times. All she has to do is call him when he tells a lie on the air and correct him if he is lying, and she has not called once during any of his live shows to correct him. Could it be because he's telling the truth? And the only REAL reason they hate him is because....he reports the news you're not allowed to hear and asks the questions you're not allowed to ask? Is that so hard to believe?

Why would the White House be so mad otherwise? If they are so inaccurate then why doesn't Obama or ANY of Obama's staff have the balls to come on ANY Fox show and debate it? They refuse to appear on Fox News. Why be so scared of them if they are a joke, can't tell the truth and not real news? Seems like it would be pretty easy to make Fox News look stupid and make them eat their words if everything they report is bullsh*t.

Why are they so scared that the White House can only comment on Fox on other news stations from a safe distance? Seems like a pussy move to me.



"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net