OMG! Laura Bush is a Maoist Scholar!

[IPorange]

what network DOESN'T throw softball questions at anyone? particurally the WIFE of a major politician.

It would quite ridiculous to grill a former First Lady, under the circumstances of a book interview.

 

[utvolpj]

It would quite ridiculous to grill a former First Lady, under the circumstances of a book interview.

she should be forced to explain her husband's foreign and domestic policies in great detail when being interviewed. Anything less is a failure by the network and obvious media bias

 

[KB5252]

I personally was unhappy that the WH relented in their initial war of words with the Fox network. If I were press secretary, I'd have taken the position either that 1) they are banned from the WH altogether; or 2) they can come, but no question they ask will be answered.

It's time someone stood up to them and called a spade a spade, here.

So you are in favor of administrations banning or limiting the access of networks with opposing views?

If this had been the Bush admin banning MSNBC you'd be crying murder from the highest mountain tops you could find. It is a shot across the bow to freedom of the press and the same rival networks who berate fox news saw it as such and let this admin know it was wrong and wouldn't be accepted.

LG you show yourself to be a radical more and more with every post it seems.

 

[Vol Mania 21]

So you are in favor of administrations banning or limiting the access of networks with opposing views?

If this had been the Bush admin banning MSNBC you'd be crying murder from the highest mountain tops you could find. It is a shot across the bow to freedom of the press and the same rival networks who berate fox news saw it as such and let this admin know it was wrong and wouldn't be accepted.

LG you show yourself to be a radical more and more with every post it seems.

Truth

 

[volinbham]

Interesting that other press outlets were the ones putting pressure on the WH to back off Fox News. They will be next in the LG Jihad.

 

[utvolpj]

Interesting that other press outlets were the ones putting pressure on the WH to back off Fox News. They will be next in the LG Jihad.

because they realized the next guy might see them as the enemy. Of course that would pretty much leave only a handful of reporters in the press room

 

[tigervol9802]

i'm going to very much enjoy this thread when laura bush goes and promotes her book on the other networks which will surely happen.

She's already been on Oprah.

 

[droski]

She's already been on Oprah.

and I bet oprah grilled her about her husband right?

 

[tigervol9802]

and I bet oprah grilled her about her husband right?

She may have showed off her husband's grill on the tour of the family ranch......

Her First Interview: Former First Lady Laura Bush, Plus Twins Jenna and Barbara - Oprah.com

 

[volinbham]

She may have showed off her husband's grill on the tour of the family ranch......

 

[lawgator1]

and when a Repub pres did it to MSNBC in 2012 he would be crucified. It's ridiculous to suggest the WH should start deciding who the press is (although I'm sure the Dems would be all for it)


also no network wants that to start happening (like cnn, msnbc)

The difference is that MSNBC reporters are news reporters. They do have commentary shows, yes, but they are clearly labeled as such. Fox is pure propaganda and pretty shiney stuff for morons.

That figures coming from the left, only softball questions from the far left media are allowed. You don't want anyone there that will actually ask tough questions.

Sure I do. But not questions that are loaded and designed to be "tough" in order to score cheap and misleading political points, which is the definition of Fox.

Its not even "News Light." It is bereft of news. It abhors news. It runs away from news.

i'm going to very much enjoy this thread when laura bush goes and promotes her book on the other networks which will surely happen.

She will. But she'll start where she knows she gets a happy giddy audience that is just thrilled that she is giving us the benefit of more insights from people who are totally divorced from reality.

So you are in favor of administrations banning or limiting the access of networks with opposing views?

If this had been the Bush admin banning MSNBC you'd be crying murder from the highest mountain tops you could find. It is a shot across the bow to freedom of the press and the same rival networks who berate fox news saw it as such and let this admin know it was wrong and wouldn't be accepted.

LG you show yourself to be a radical more and more with every post it seems.

I am opposed to allowing people in under the guise of them being a news service when they are anything but.

If Fox showed more restraint in its news reporting and did a half way decent job of separating out their editorial content from the reporting of news, I'd not have a problem with that. But their news division, such as it is, is inseparable from their messenger service for the GOP. In my view, that disqualifies them from participating.

They can fix it. No one is stopping them. But someone needs to stand up to them and smack them in the proverbial nose until they cut it out. Which so far they haven't.

 

[BigPapaVol]

LG, the distinction you are drawing is a joke. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Keith Olbermann are "news" people too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utvolpj]

far cry from what was said by the Bush WH. Thought Dems were all about inclusion

"The briefing room ought to be an inclusive place," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. Historically, he said, the White House has admitted "the traditional media and the nontraditional media, as well as colorful individuals with certain points of view from the left and the right."

 

[droski]

She will. But she'll start where she knows she gets a happy giddy audience that is just thrilled that she is giving us the benefit of more insights from people who are totally divorced from reality.

there isn't a news network on earth that won't kiss her arse. i assure you her approval ratings are far far higher than her husbands. any network that went after her would have a backlash of unbelievable purportions.

 

[droski]

Laura Bush's approval ratings have consistently ranked very high.[38] In January 2006, a USA Today/CBS/Gallup poll recorded her approval rating at 82 percent and disapproval at 13 percent.[1][39][40] That places Bush as one of the most popular first ladies.[1] Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, "She is more popular, and more welcome, in many parts of the country than the president... In races where the moderates are in the most trouble, Laura Bush is the one who can do the most good."[39]

Laura Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tigervol9802]

You know he's got a massive grill/smoker set out back on the patio.

 

[KB5252]

The difference is that MSNBC reporters are news reporters. They do have commentary shows, yes, but they are clearly labeled as such. Fox is pure propaganda and pretty shiney stuff for morons.



Hannity and Beck are no different in this regard than Olbermann or Maddow


Sure I do. But not questions that are loaded and designed to be "tough" in order to score cheap and misleading political points, which is the definition of Fox.

Sure they do, for evidence see Maddow just recently with Paul

Its not even "News Light." It is bereft of news. It abhors news. It runs away from news.

You have this opinion because you simply dislike Fox and most republican views






She will. But she'll start where she knows she gets a happy giddy audience that is just thrilled that she is giving us the benefit of more insights from people who are totally divorced from reality.



Once again this is no different than any person on the left who writes a book and tries to promote it.

I am opposed to allowing people in under the guise of them being a news service when they are anything but.

Once again you dislike their views and there's nothing wrong with that but the simple fact is they are no better or worse than MSNBC you just choose to give slack because you agree with their views

If Fox showed more restraint in its news reporting and did a half way decent job of separating out their editorial content from the reporting of news, I'd not have a problem with that. But their news division, such as it is, is inseparable from their message messenger service for the GOP. In my view, that disqualifies them from participating.

Once again you have a problem in the intellectual honesty department until you admit the same from other outlets like MSNBC and others.

They can fix it. No one is stopping them. But someone needs to stand up to them and smack them in the proverbial nose until they cut it out. Which so far they haven't.

See bold above.

As for the last comment you once again have no logical basis for argument or moral superiority until you are willing to admit the same for other outlets. Their message and slant stands out to you because you adhere to the same beliefs they do. Until you are willing to admit there is an equal problem elsewhere you lose the debate and look naive in doing so.

 

[kptvol]

I personally was unhappy that the WH relented in their initial war of words with the Fox network. If I were press secretary, I'd have taken the position either that 1) they are banned from the WH altogether; or 2) they can come, but no question they ask will be answered.

It's time someone stood up to them and called a spade a spade, here.

Yeah, Fox News rarely gets criticized. Give me a freaking break. Take a look at yourself. You've gone farther off the deep end than the guy you brag about having on your ignore list.

 

[Vol Mania 21]

The difference is that MSNBC reporters are news reporters. They do have commentary shows, yes, but they are clearly labeled as such. Fox is pure propaganda and pretty shiney stuff for morons.
.

wow, u can't be serious with that comment.

below is LG

 

[droski]

LG, the distinction you are drawing is a joke. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Keith Olbermann are "news" people too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

the difference being that beck and oreilly have never claimed to be newsman or unbaised.

 

[kptvol]

The difference is that MSNBC reporters are news reporters. They do have commentary shows, yes, but they are clearly labeled as such. Fox is pure propaganda and pretty shiney stuff for morons.

Unbelievably untrue.

Sure I do. But not questions that are loaded and designed to be "tough" in order to score cheap and misleading political points, which is the definition of Fox.

Shouldn't have a problem coming up with plenty of examples of these loaded questions, I assume. Surely it's nothing like the black Republican being asked if he supports racism.

Its not even "News Light." It is bereft of news. It abhors news. It runs away from news.

Sort of like all other news networks conveniently decided nothing about Obama's past was newsworthy during the Presidential campaigns?

I am opposed to allowing people in under the guise of them being a news service when they are anything but.

Chris Matthews has specifically said his job is to make Obama a success. I guess that's what qualifies as news.

They can fix it. No one is stopping them. But someone needs to stand up to them and smack them in the proverbial nose until they cut it out. Which so far they haven't.

pssh

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Who am I?


I can't hold a job at ESPN

I can't hold a job at Fox Sports

I am a respected news journalist on msnbc

 

[lawgator1]

there isn't a news network on earth that won't kiss her arse. i assure you her approval ratings are far far higher than her husbands. any network that went after her would have a backlash of unbelievable purportions.

My approval rating, which is zero, is higher than his.

the difference being that beck and oreilly have never claimed to be newsman or unbaised.

But its not Beck and O'Reilly who go to the WH under the pretense of being newsmen. I'm not talking about them. They can be commentators all they want.

(You will notice, by the way, that I am FAR less critical of O'Reilly than I am Beck. O'Reilly tries to reason things out and he's not just some ideologue nutcase prancing around in a jacket and deck shoes, thinking he's clever for writing on chalk boards. In fact, I like O'Reilly's style of interviewing and arguing with people. I think he's far more honest. )

What I AM talking about are the faux news reporters from Fox. The Brit Hume types. They are not journalists, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[droski]

My approval rating, which is zero, is higher than his..

and hers is about 85% higher than yours.

But its not Beck and O'Reilly who go to the WH under the pretense of being newsmen. I'm not talking about them. They can be commentators all they want.

(You will notice, by the way, that I am FAR less critical of O'Reilly than I am Beck. O'Reilly tries to reason things out and he's not just some ideologue nutcase prancing around in a jacket and deck shoes, thinking he's clever for writing on chalk boards. In fact, I like O'Reilly's style of interviewing and arguing with people. I think he's far more honest. )

What I AM talking about are the faux news reporters from Fox. The Brit Hume types. They are not journalists, by any stretch of the imagination.

O'Reilly knows less about economics than virtually any person on television (maybe why you agree with him? sorry had to be said ). he's practically at the retard level. Beck for all of his problems at least appears relatively intelligent.

 

[volinbham]

What I AM talking about are the faux news reporters from Fox. The Brit Hume types. They are not journalists, by any stretch of the imagination.

Brit Hume was an anchor and is now a commentator.

If you are referring to Major Garrison or Carl Cameron I don't see them as any different than Jake Tapper, Chuck (I have a book deal with Obama) Todd etc.