White House vs. Fox News

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Right, he only worked in the news and was President of CNBC.

Wait, doesn't that make him a "news man?"

His wikipedia page shows 30 years of GOP political consulting, 3 years as president of CNBC (not a news role but management) and no news experience.

My claim was that they are the only one not having a news person running them. Thus - it is implicit that running them (or CNBC for example) can't make you a news man. Right?

Anyways, no, your list doesn't make him a news man. Please let me know what news experience you are referring to and I'll happily admit my mistake - I don't claim to be an expert on his bio.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Quick glances at their bios show all three cable networks are run by people with news production backgrounds. Fox's in the only one with past political involvement, but he's still a news person.

Not the bio I looked at. What did you find?

[billms]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Rupert Murdoch runs Fox, a newsman, he is the man at the top as the poster I responded to referred to.

No - I did not refer to Rupert Murdoch.

He is a business man who is in the business of media starting with news papers. I could see how you could interpret that to mean news man - I meant a person who worked reporting and producing a news operation. As far as I can tell he did not do that. Regardless Ailes is the CEO of FNC not Murdoch.

[billms]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

You forgot the part where Roger Ailes worked for that bastion of conservatism, NBC. In 1993, Ailes became President of the cable channel CNBC and began planning another NBC cable channel, America's Talking, which morphed into MSNBC. 89 additional employees of the NBC networks left with Ailes to help with the creation of FOX NEWS CHANNEL.

So I guess FOX is actually just the son of NBC. Kinda like the Cylons were actually created by man in Battlestar Galactica. Does that mean Ailes is kinda like Baltar?

CNBC is business news - not what I was referring to. And he obviously had a business position there not a news position.

[billms]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

So there was no media bias in the mainstream press before evil Fox News came along? Now that's rich.

Yes - anybody who believes that is a **** tard. Who believes that Deeds? Nobody - thats who.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Edman85

But didn't you just...

yes he did - that addresses extent - obviously - not existence

he said fox started taking things to that extreme - he did not say there was no bias

[billms]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Dear God, you are a stubborn ***.

and you are suddenly turning into one of the ruder people here which is unexpected

[MrDeeds]

And on the 10th page, God said "thou shalt this thread be cast away to the gutter"

[billms]

And thus Deeds spoke his word, and by his word made it so.

[billms]

About what I thought: the AP says the whole "pool reporter" fiasco was made up.

A number of news outlets asked to talk to his czariness - Fox was not one of them. The WH asked to send a pool reporter but did not specifically ask for Fox to be there becuase Fox did not ask to be there. Fox cried about how they were excluded and the WH said "what? send the pool like we asked - isn't fox in the pool?"

But the Foxophiles eat it up.

The Associated Press: Tiff over White House camera crew and Fox

[Chevycola]

Originally Posted by billms

About what I thought: the AP says the whole "pool reporter" fiasco was made up.

A number of news outlets asked to talk to his czariness - Fox was not one of them. The WH asked to send a pool reporter but did not specifically ask for Fox to be there becuase Fox did not ask to be there. Fox cried about how they were excluded and the WH said "what? send the pool like we asked - isn't fox in the pool?"

But the Foxophiles eat it up.

The Associated Press: Tiff over White House camera crew and Fox

Mayor of Wrongville BILLMS strikes again.
Did you even READ your own quoted article?
You say that "FOX cride about how they were excluded and the WH said "what? send the pool like we asked - isn't fox in the pool?".

In reality, it was, as earlier reported, the other network bureau chiefs that contacted the WH - not a "crying FOX" as you put it.

From your own article;

The White House said Fox had not asked for an interview and the White House sent its request for a pool reporter without including Fox. Bureau chiefs held a quick conference call and decided that their networks would not do the interviews unless Fox was given the opportunity, said a network executive who spoke on condition of anonymity because the person did not wish to be a part of the White House-Fox tiff.

After this decision was relayed, the White House quickly agreed to include Fox

At best what we have here is a White House/Fox he said/she said. Fox says they were excluded, the WH says they didn't ask to be there.

YOU however lie through your teeth because nowhere does the AP say this story was 'made up'.

And the billmsphiles on MTS eat it up.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

About what I thought: the AP says the whole "pool reporter" fiasco was made up.

A number of news outlets asked to talk to his czariness - Fox was not one of them. The WH asked to send a pool reporter but did not specifically ask for Fox to be there becuase Fox did not ask to be there. Fox cried about how they were excluded and the WH said "what? send the pool like we asked - isn't fox in the pool?"

But the Foxophiles eat it up.

The Associated Press: Tiff over White House camera crew and Fox

Media Matters would be proud of your spin on this article. Because "the AP" doesn't say anything of this sort.

The story says "the White House says" that Fox didn't ask to be included. The story says that "the White House says" that is the reason they didn't include Fox. The story also CONFIRMS the detail about the Fox story that:

Bureau chiefs held a quick conference call and decided that their networks would not do the interviews unless Fox was given the opportunity, said a network executive who spoke on condition of anonymity because the person did not wish to be a part of the White House-Fox tiff.

The story then CONFIRMS the detail that the White House allowed Fox to interview the pay czar after the conference call between the networks took place:

After this decision was relayed, the White House quickly agreed to include Fox, the person said Friday.

"The White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox from ... television interviews," administration spokesman Joshua Earnest said Friday, "but yesterday we didn't."

[billms]

Chevy I defy you to show me where I said Fox cride.

More to the point you are right the AP did not say "the whole thing is made up". They implied that. Which is why I did not put it in quotes the first time.

Why is this so personal to you? Why do you have to go off on me personally - I'm a liar - in response? And I lie through my teeth as well - not just a normal lie but an dental one as well.

You might want to dial it down a bit and back off of the personal insults. Just a friendly suggestion.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

Chevy I defy you to show me where I said Fox cride.

Originally Posted by billms

Fox cried about how they were excluded

You're off your game today, billms! I guess that's what happens when you're stuck reading patents...

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Media Matters would be proud of your spin on this article. Because "the AP" doesn't say anything of this sort.

The story says "the White House says" that Fox didn't ask to be included. The story says that "the White House says" that is the reason they didn't include Fox. The story also CONFIRMS the detail about the Fox story that:



The story then CONFIRMS the detail that the White House allowed Fox to interview the pay czar after the conference call between the networks took place:

Mark - was there every any question wrt the call among the news organizations and the fact that Fox joined in afterward? I hadn't heard any and never raised any. And its an uninteresting part of the story because it does not go the heart of the matter - was the WH trying to exclude Fox or not. You are right - they talked and the WH agreed (apparently without any reported push back) that fox could join in. So? That does not confirm the central suggestion of scienter assigned to the WH and in fact suggests against it.

[Chevycola]

Originally Posted by billms

Chevy I defy you to show me where I said Fox cride.

More to the point you are right the AP did not say "the whole thing is made up". They implied that. Which is why I did not put it in quotes the first time.

Why is this so personal to you? Why do you have to go off on me personally - I'm a liar - in response? And I lie through my teeth as well - not just a normal lie but an dental one as well.

You might want to dial it down a bit and back off of the personal insults. Just a friendly suggestion.

Facts are not insults. You deliberately misled the board with what you said that article was about. Describing it as a lie is completely factual.

And you are so silly, unless you are going to pick on a typo, here is where you said FOX cried;

Fox cried about how they were excluded and the WH said

Go back and read your own post. Consider yourself DEFIED Mr. bill.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

You're off your game today, billms!

Actually I'm not at all Mark. Just slumming down to the level of laughing at a spelling error to a man who tells me I'm lying through my teeth.

[Chevycola]

Originally Posted by billms

Actually I'm not at all Mark. Just slumming down to the level of laughing at a spelling error to a man who tells me I'm lying through my teeth.

HA! The lies continue. Nobody with common sense believes that except you bill.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

Mark - was there every any question wrt the call among the news organizations and the fact that Fox joined in afterward? I hadn't heard any and never raised any. And its an uninteresting part of the story because it does not go the heart of the matter - was the WH trying to exclude Fox or not. You are right - they talked and the WH agreed (apparently without any reported push back) that fox could join in. So? That does not confirm the central suggestion of scienter assigned to the WH and in fact suggests against it.

I don't think it suggests against it. Certainly the networks thought there was a suggestion of scienter when they called the WH and told them "include Fox or nobody shows." Moreover, there is strong circumstantial evidence to support a finding of scienter, given the WH's admitted willingness to exclude Fox from interviews. Given the totality of the circumstances, there is strong evidence to support -- rather than refute -- a finding that this was an intentional act by the WH.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Chevycola

Facts are not insults. You deliberately misled the board with what you said that article was about. Describing it as a lie is completely factual.

And you are so silly, unless you are going to pick on a typo, here is where you said FOX cried;



Go back and read your own post. Consider yourself DEFIED Mr. bill.

Actually an insult can be factually true. Its not in this case but your reasoning is faulty none the less. Yes Chevy - I was laughing at your typo - obviously.

Perhaps you should consult a dictionary for both spelling and meaning - they do come in handy.

[Chevycola]

Originally Posted by billms

Actually an insult can be factually true. Its not in this case but your reasoning is faulty none the less. Yes Chevy - I was laughing at your typo - obviously.

Perhaps you should consult a dictionary for both spelling and meaning - they do come in handy.

I'm laughing at you! Do you know how many typos are out here on MTS? If that's what you are clinging to, you surely are a silly silly man.

Originally Posted by billms
Chevy I defy you to show me where I said Fox cride.

Originally Posted by billms
Fox cried about how they were excluded and the WH

Now it's about a spelling issue? LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



Okay Mr. Mayor of Wrongville. You go ahead and make it about that. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[billms]

Originally Posted by Chevycola

HA! The lies continue. Nobody with common sense believes that except you bill.

Say.... what?

You had a weird misspelling that I didn't use in the post you responded to. And I repeated that misspelling in my post without quoting it. Clearly to mock you. But you just *know* that nobody else with common sense would believe that....

Right....

What I said was literally true - childish and not amusing because it was a base ridicule of your spelling screw-up - but true none the less. And your only response is to assert that I am again lying about this. You need to get a better grip on reality and your emotions Chevy - things are spinning out of control in your head.

And lets not miss the real important point - Fox took an opportunity to manufacture a scenario with themselves as the victim and then publicized the hell out of it. Good business for them no doubt.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

And lets not miss the real important point - Fox took an opportunity to manufacture a scenario with themselves as the victim and then publicized the hell out of it.

If you believe the White House's version.

Which the other networks apparently did not; hence the conference call.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

I don't think it suggests against it. Certainly the networks thought there was a suggestion of scienter when they called the WH and told them "include Fox or nobody shows." Moreover, there is strong circumstantial evidence to support a finding of scienter, given the WH's admitted willingness to exclude Fox from interviews. Given the totality of the circumstances, there is strong evidence to support -- rather than refute -- a finding that this was an intentional act by the WH.

Actually I think it suggests that the networks saw a problem - not necessarily that they saw this as a sign of misdeed on the part of the WH. Perhaps the WH told them the same thing and they just pointed out that the pool rules are the pool rules and they wanted to clearly go forward with them or not use the pool.

I've missed the part of the AP story - or are you referring to something else - where the WH admitted to a willingness to exclude Fox from the interviews. What they said is that they did not indicate a need for fox to be there.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Chevycola

I'm laughing at you! Do you know how many typos are out here on MTS? If that's what you are clinging to, you surely are a silly silly man.

Laugh all you want. My son laughed at me a lot when he was six months old. I'm seeing a comparable level of sophistication.

Chevy the spelling mock was made by me once. You are the one who is clinging to it.

[Chevycola]

Mr. Bill manufacturs in his head what the AP article says. Claims Fox cried, then denies it by issueing his tough guy "I defy you" proclimation.Then he gets defied, and then claims it was all about MY typo. LOL. You should be a comedian. Do you know how full of **** you sound?

Anyway, thanks for giving me some late morning laughs Mayor. You keep spinning like a top out here and I will check back later for some more laughs.

You should use this as your avatar;

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

If you believe the White House's version.

Which the other networks apparently did not; hence the conference call.

The other networks have reported on the "Fight with Fox" right?

Have they reported on this? As I said - everything I've found other than the AP is sourced to Fox - hardly a disinterested party.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

I've missed the part of the AP story - or are you referring to something else - where the WH admitted to a willingness to exclude Fox from the interviews.

Third to last paragraph:

"The White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox from ... television interviews," administration spokesman Joshua Earnest said Friday, "but yesterday we didn't."

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

The other networks have reported on the "Fight with Fox" right?

No idea. I don't regularly watch any of the other networks.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Chevycola

Mr. Bill manufacturs in his head what the AP article says. Claims Fox cried, then denies it by issueing his tough guy "I defy you" proclimation.Then he gets defied, and then claims it was all about MY typo. LOL. You should be a comedian. Do you know how full of **** you sound?

Anyway, thanks for giving me some late morning laughs Mayor. You keep spinning like a top out here and I will check back later for some more laughs.

You should use this as your avatar;

Mr. Bill - so now its clever names huh? Ok... if thats what you are going to cling to. (Thats me mocking you again - I don't really think that is all you are going to cling to). Do you have any original material? Mr. Bill - and stealing from Shabba - now thats just not civil.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

No idea. I don't regularly watch any of the other networks.

Neither do I. Do you regularly watch Fox?

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Third to last paragraph:

Ah... you did say from interviews not from this interview. My mistake - sorry about that.

On the other hand the WH is willing to exclude any news organization from interviews and has done that with all of them when they do 'exclusive' interviews. By the way I hate that term - oh you've got an exclusive - so nobody else is asking obama the question *right now* but after you get done he's going to be on the next network - so whats the value of the exclusive?

That being said the WH has indeed shown an increased willingness to exclude fox from interviews compared to other news outlets.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

Neither do I. Do you regularly watch Fox?

Not really. Sometimes I'll catch Special Report (Brit Hume's old show), though.

[billms]

Thats what I expected. I'm pretty much the same way. I've tried to watch Olberman or Maddow mostly for the amusement but its just much more efficient to pick up the highlights that somebody else identifies.

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by billms

Chevy I defy you to show me where I said Fox cride.

More to the point you are right the AP did not say "the whole thing is made up". They implied that. Which is why I did not put it in quotes the first time.

Why is this so personal to you? Why do you have to go off on me personally - I'm a liar - in response? And I lie through my teeth as well - not just a normal lie but an dental one as well.

You might want to dial it down a bit and back off of the personal insults. Just a friendly suggestion.

What are you arguing for here, that he should have called you a liar in a friendlier manner? The only defense you have for your misrepresentation of the article is that you didn't understand the article or didn't read it, if he would have called you stupid I don't think you would have liked that either.

Just admit you misrepresented the story, and we can move on, it is a good tactic from time to time to concede the point, especially on minor issues.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by Edman85

But didn't you just...

Reading comprehension, my friend. If you can't see the middle ground between no bias at all, and a channel that was produced specifically to advance a narrow, biased agenda, than there will be no further reasoning with you.

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Bam goes the hammer, Edman with the decisive blow.

LOL. Nice try.

[billms]

What are you arguing for here, that he should have called you a liar in a friendlier manner? The only defense you have for your misrepresentation of the article is that you didn't understand the article or didn't read it, if he would have called you stupid I don't think you would have liked that either.

Just admit you misrepresented the story, and we can move on, it is a good tactic from time to time to concede the point, especially on minor issues.

I agree with your final point - as I indicated to mark just this morning.

I certainly presented the article in the light most favorable to my view of the issues. Not much uncommon about that. I don't think I misrepresented it - particularly since I left a link there. Though we can choose to disagree about it.

By the way - the issue isn't that I didn't like him calling me a liar but rather that this is not conducive to dialog in the forum. Yes - sometimes putting a veneer of civility on our thoughts is encouraged. There is an entire thread pinned on this subject in fact. He can call me a liar all he wants - or stupid - I don't really care. I think its pretty clear what I think of his analytical skills in general. But when any of us sink to those depths they encourage the overall discussion to sink further and they risk getting kicked. Now both of those things I do think are a bad idea.

Mark and I disagree - he may totally agree with Chevy's analysis and characterization. But we don't call each other stupid or liars. Shabba and I may on occasion but we've been through enough context to know its not serious and personal.

Is it too much to ask for even some patina of civility - or lacking that the cover of a sharp wit?

[Oblong]

Why do you guys even think there was a "market" for Fox anyway? Because the majority of people were tired of the way the "real" media was handling things. Why were they tired? Because the "real" media is biased. So Fox came along and exploited the biases of the other half of the country.

It's laughable and in some ways sad and pitiful, that some cling to the belief that the likes of CNN and MSNBC may be a little bit biased, it was nowhere near as bad until big bad Fox came along and made them do it. I don't think they really believe it though. They're just saying what they were told to say by the likes of Move On and Media Matters.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

It says that they aren't idiots and realize that someday the GOP will be in power. They don't want to be the tat to Obama's *** with Fox.

Tucker Carlson and the right's perpetual self-victimhood - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

All that hand-wringing rhetoric: why? Because the Obama administration threatened to criminally prosecute Fox? Or because the adminstration surveilled its reporters' telephone calls? Or illegally obtained their telephone records? Or shot missiles at hotels in which they were staying? Or dropped bombs on their offices? Or imprisoned them for years without charges? Or barred Fox reporters from riding on administration planes? Or conspired to "weed out" any critical voices from being heard on network and cable news programs?

No, those are all things that the Bush administration did to reporters (see the links) -- all well above and beyond the numerous, constant rhetorical attacks from the Bush White House on media organizations they perceived to be hostile.

Where was Tucker Carlson when that was happening, or Ruth Marcus, or Anderson Cooper, or David Carr?

There has been a horde of media figures rushing to condemn the Obama administration merely for criticizing Fox's "reporting." Many of these same media figures -- probably most -- were silent in the face not only of identical Bush White House attacks on reporters they disliked, but far more serious and actual threats to press freedom over the last eight years.

[Oblong]

salon.... that's funny. I'll go dig up something from freerepublic or worldnet daily. Or CNSNews.