White House Attacks Fox News Again

#51
#51
What amazes me is that FOX generally has video of these people that work in the White House, including Obama, with their own words. Just like the new one FOX runs where Obama says that he will have all Health Care debates shown on C-SPAN. I don't know what some people call a lie, but in my book it ranks right up there with the best of them.
 
#52
#52
SWIL said:
Fox News is composed of a bunch of journalistic hacks. Dumb move by the BO admin? Maybe. But it's nice to see them put in their place.
Click to expand...

You mean the place of being the sole news organization asking this administration the tough questions and doing the job all news outlets have traditionally done for the public?

Your criticism of FOX isn't unwarranted but lets face it, if the other outlets were doing their job FOX wouldn't look as if they were on an island right now. The cheer leading leading up to Obama's presidency was shameful. The passes that the "mainstream (whatever that means)" news media has given are almost as bad.

Obama has made it very clear, opposing voices will have no seat at his table, he will ostracize anyone who he believes stands in his way. In many respects he more closely resembles Nixon in how he deals with those he disagrees with.
 
#53
#53
KB5252 said:
You mean the place of being the sole news organization asking this administration the tough questions and doing the job all news outlets have traditionally done for the public?

Your criticism of FOX isn't unwarranted but lets face it, if the other outlets were doing their job FOX wouldn't look as if they were on an island right now. The cheer leading leading up to Obama's presidency was shameful. The passes that the "mainstream (whatever that means)" news media has given are almost as bad.

Obama has made it very clear, opposing voices will have no seat at his table, he will ostracize anyone who he believes stands in his way. In many respects he more closely resembles Nixon in how he deals with those he disagrees with.
Click to expand...

Then why did he fill his cabinet with nothing but opponents and rivals?

Fox News shouldn't even be classified as a news organization; as they blantantly spin, misconstrude, and at times, flat out lie about facts and issues.

They dress it up like news then spoon feed it to the misinformed and disgruntled.

They've been doing this long before BO.

Hell, all American news outlets have agendas- Fox just happens to be the worst. It's so bad, I have to rely on a foreign country to get anything close to unbaised news in America - BBC.
 
#54
#54
SWIL said:
Then why did he fill his cabinet with nothing but opponents and rivals?
Click to expand...

when did this happen?

SWIL said:
Fox News shouldn't even be classified as a news organization; as they blantantly spin, misconstrude, and at times, flat out lie about facts and issues.
Click to expand...

seems like someone is having trouble separating news from talking heads
 
#55
#55
SWIL said:
Then why did he fill his cabinet with nothing but opponents and rivals?

Fox News shouldn't even be classified as a news organization; as they blantantly spin, misconstrude, and at times, flat out lie about facts and issues.

They dress it up like news then spoon feed it to the misinformed and disgruntled.

They've been doing this long before BO.

Hell, all American news outlets have agendas- Fox just happens to be the worst. It's so bad, I have to rely on a foreign country to get anything close to unbaised news in America - BBC.
Click to expand...
concluding with the BBC as an unbiased news source is damn near emmy award for comedy funny.
 
#57
#57
SWIL said:
It's so bad, I have to rely on a foreign country to get anything close to unbaised news in America - BBC.
Click to expand...

BBC unbiased? :eek:lol: :lolabove: :rofl:

I suppose the New York Times is too? And ABC?
 
#58
#58
I'd much rather hear an outsiders perspective than listen to the bullsh1t coming from the left and the right media in this country.

Facts and truth are continuous casualities amongst the finger pointing, mud slinging, and constant bickering amongst our leaders and our media.
 
#59
#59
SWIL said:
I'd much rather hear an outsiders perspective than listen to the bullsh1t coming from the left and the right media in this country.

Facts and truth are continuous casualities amongst the finger pointing, mud slinging, and constant bickering amongst our leaders and our media.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding about the BBC being unbiased? I sure hope you are.
 
#60
#60
Oldvol75 said:
What amazes me is that FOX generally has video of these people that work in the White House, including Obama, with their own words. Just like the new one FOX runs where Obama says that he will have all Health Care debates shown on C-SPAN. I don't know what some people call a lie, but in my book it ranks right up there with the best of them.
Click to expand...

Obama was lying to himself if he actually thought that he would have those debates televised, but there is no way that you can truthfully suggest that a comment like that "ranks right up there with the best of" Presidential lies, can you?
 
#61
#61
SWIL said:
Then why did he fill his cabinet with nothing but opponents and rivals?
Click to expand...

you've bought into the Obama as Lincoln "Team of Rivals" BS.

other than Hilary and Biden, who did he bring into his cabinet that can be considered a rival?
 
#63
#63
SWIL said:
I'd much rather hear an outsiders perspective than listen to the bullsh1t coming from the left and the right media in this country.

Facts and truth are continuous casualities amongst the finger pointing, mud slinging, and constant bickering amongst our leaders and our media.
Click to expand...

do you read the Christian Science Monitor too?
 
#64
#64
It seems this White House actually does have a problem with folks expressing an opinion that is critical of them: :dry:

RAW DATA: Transcript of Gibbs Discussing Fox News

They resemble Chavez and his thugs more and more with each passing day...

I have a new respect for ABC, or at least for Jake Tapper for stepping up with the question.

"First they came for Fox News, but I didn't care because I was not employed by Fox News..."
 
#65
#65
volfanjustin said:
Are you kidding about the BBC being unbiased? I sure hope you are.
Click to expand...

CNN, Fox News and MSNBC are all profit driven and have to come up with innovative story lines and tricks to entice viewers and advertisers. They are into sensationalizing and exaggerating stories to keep you focused, hot, and bothered. They also enjoy leaving certain facts (good stuff!) out that could possibly give you a balanced perspective.


BBC is much like PBS in the USA and CBC in Canada, it's a public broadcaster owned and paid for by the taxpayers, meaning there is no incentive to make money, they are a news agency that is designed to seek the truth and present the news as they see it.

Is any news outlet 100% unbiased?? No. The BBC is a helluva lot closer than corp. American sources, IMO.
 
#66
#66
The profit angle is a canard. BBC still has to put out a product that people want to engage with. Public funding certainly hasn't removed bias from PBS - it's about the people in charge and the editorial direction as opposed to the source of funding.
 
#67
#67
SWIL said:
CNN, Fox News and MSNBC are all profit driven and have to come up with innovative story lines and tricks to entice viewers and advertisers. They are into sensationalizing and exaggerating stories to keep you focused, hot, and bothered. They also enjoy leaving certain facts (good stuff!) out that could possibly give you a balanced perspective.


BBC is much like PBS in the USA and CBC in Canada, it's a public broadcaster owned and paid for by the taxpayers, meaning there is no incentive to make money, they are a news agency that is designed to seek the truth and present the news as they see it.

Is any news outlet 100% unbiased?? No. The BBC is a helluva lot closer than corp. American sources, IMO.
Click to expand...

PBS? Have you seen Jim Lehrer's fawning interview of Obama?
 
#68
#68
312670132v2_350x350_Front.jpg
 
#70
#70
J-P said:
It seems this White House actually does have a problem with folks expressing an opinion that is critical of them: :dry:

RAW DATA: Transcript of Gibbs Discussing Fox News

They resemble Chavez and his thugs more and more with each passing day...

I have a new respect for ABC, or at least for Jake Tapper for stepping up with the question.

"First they came for Fox News, but I didn't care because I was not employed by Fox News..."
Click to expand...



Why is it that the "commentators" on Fox are allowed to call Obama a racist, a communist, a socialist, and even to suggest that there is something to the claims that he isn't allowed ot be president, but Obama just has to sit there and take it because they are saying it on a network?

I mean, if they wrote that in some trashy weekly shopper, no one would blink an eye if the White House attacked it. But just because they are on tv, he has to be willing to just let them make their incendiary attacks on him?
 
#71
#71
lawgator1 said:
Why is it that the "commentators" on Fox are allowed to call Obama a racist, a communist, a socialist, and even to suggest that there is something to the claims that he isn't allowed ot be president, but Obama just has to sit there and take it because they are saying it on a network?

I mean, if they wrote that in some trashy weekly shopper, no one would blink an eye if the White House attacked it. But just because they are on tv, he has to be willing to just let them make their incendiary attacks on him?
Click to expand...

I don't watch FOX very often but I have never heard anyone say this. Who said it?

Just about every president has had to deal with "incendiary attacks" during their presidency. Obama has just chosen to handle them like a bully, instead of ignoring them and going about his duty.

I am not a big fan of Bush but he could certainly take a lesson or two from the man in respect to how he deals with those who oppose him in the media.
 
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
Why is it that the "commentators" on Fox are allowed to call Obama a racist, a communist, a socialist, and even to suggest that there is something to the claims that he isn't allowed ot be president, but Obama just has to sit there and take it because they are saying it on a network?

I mean, if they wrote that in some trashy weekly shopper, no one would blink an eye if the White House attacked it. But just because they are on tv, he has to be willing to just let them make their incendiary attacks on him?
Click to expand...

so you mean a major network news broadcast presenting fake documents just to make the Pres look like a liar would be bad?
 
#73
#73
lawgator1 said:
Why is it that the "commentators" on Fox are allowed to call Obama a racist, a communist, a socialist, and even to suggest that there is something to the claims that he isn't allowed ot be president, but Obama just has to sit there and take it because they are saying it on a network?

I mean, if they wrote that in some trashy weekly shopper, no one would blink an eye if the White House attacked it. But just because they are on tv, he has to be willing to just let them make their incendiary attacks on him?
Click to expand...

No, but if his defense is to just try to shut them down without actually addressing the situation with his side of the story, it certainly says a lot about him.
 
#74
#74
TennTradition said:
Obama was lying to himself if he actually thought that he would have those debates televised, but there is no way that you can truthfully suggest that a comment like that "ranks right up there with the best of" Presidential lies, can you?
Click to expand...

Yes I can, thats just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to saying what he was going to do to bring change and openness that has never been seen in Washington before.. Well what he has brought is not the change we need.
 
#75
#75
volinbham said:
The profit angle is a canard. BBC still has to put out a product that people want to engage with. Public funding certainly hasn't removed bias from PBS - it's about the people in charge and the editorial direction as opposed to the source of funding.
Click to expand...

are you implying NPR isn't unbiased? :lolabove:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top