White House vs. Fox News - Page 13

mtutiger · #**481** (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Yeah, Carl Levin and Ronald Reagan had very divergent views on most issues so I don't understand how someone interesting in policy could basically vote both ways on every issue.

As someone who votes for a variety of different politicians as well, policy isn't everything. Proper representation helps as well.

CMRivdog · #**482** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 09:09 AM

YouTube - Grouch Trashes Fox News

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » ‘Sesame Street’ Trashes Fox News

Quote:

Add one more soldier to the Left’s war on Fox News: Oscar the Grouch.

Last week, in a re-broadcast of an episode that originally aired two years ago, Oscar starts his own news network, GNN (Grouchy News Network). An irate viewer calls in to berate him that the news is not grouchy enough:

“I am changing the channel. From now on I am watching ‘Pox’ News. Now there is a trashy news show.”

Later in the episode, Anderson Cooper from 4th place CNN, guest stars as a reporter for GNN. He interacts with “Walter Cranky” and “Dan Rather-Not” — Muppets representing real-life liberal news personalities — and they talk about “Meredith Beware-a” and “Diane Spoiler.” But no affectionate nicknames for Fox News personalities; no Spill O’Reilly or Brittle Hume — nope, and the only disparaging characterization of real-world news is reserved for Fox: Fox is a POX. It is trashy. They didn’t even attempt to try “MessyNBC.”

If Mom and Dad watch cable news, it’s better than 50/50 they watch “POX News.” So what gives? PBS — a network partially funded with my tax dollars — has the right to tell my kids that their parents watch “trashy” news? The message is clear, I can’t even sit my kids in front of “Sesame Street” without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority. And don’t tell me, “If you don’t like it change the channel.” There are no channels left! It’s everywhere. Just last week I had Obama’s service and volunteerism promoted on every single major network, including Disney and Nickelodeon.
…by the way, why SHOULD I change the channel? This is MY channel, I’m paying for it!

The fact that this is a re-run from an episode written during the Bush Presidency only reinforces that this is nothing new. The Left has been doing this for years now. All of us have seen it and felt powerless to mention it, because if we do, we’re ridiculed and dismissed (thank you, Mr. Alinsky).

Who is the Drizzle? · #**483** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 09:21 AM

Wow. Sesame Street now? They're analyzing Sesame Street?

The author clearly missed the 'trashy' pun.

Oblong · #**484** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 09:24 AM

Is that a new episode because it's on my son's DVD and we haven't gotten a new Elmo DVD in over a year.

CMRivdog · #**485** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 09:32 AM

Its about 2 years old, Brietbart forgot to mention GNN (Grouch News Network)

Oblong · #**486** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 09:36 AM

That has to be a joke.

CMRivdog · #**487** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 09:37 AM

I thought it was pretty funny.

Who is the Drizzle? · #**488** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 09:52 AM

Damn, usually I catch the jokes. Of course you never know what idiots write blogs.

MAROTH4MVP · #**489** (**permalink**) 11-04-2009, 10:26 PM

I can't believe there is thirteen pages on this topic.

JohnJMS · #**490** (**permalink**) 11-11-2009, 05:43 PM

Obama Grants FOXNEWS Interview, DRUDGE has learned; Major Garrett will conduct interview in China next week...

Finally. Obama's WH retreats from this absurd strategy:

Quote:

The one weapon all administrations can wield is access, and the White House, making it clear that it will use that leverage going forward, informed Fox News not to expect to bump knees with the president until 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/we...carr.html?_r=1

I wonder if the White House will now start supplying people to Fox News Sunday again too. That might tick off MOVEON.org though. I wonder what MOVEON thinks about this since they were trying to use Obama's boycott as a way to get all Democratic Senators and member of Congress to boycott Fox?

Quote:

All year, FOX has worked 24/7 to block President Obama's agenda—repeating lies about "death panels," promoting Tea Party protests, and whipping up fake political scandals.1

Now, President Obama is fighting back. The White House communications director said FOX is a "wing of the Republican Party...let's not pretend they're a news network."2 To draw attention to its biased coverage, President Obama will not appear on FOX for the rest of this year.3

It's about time Democrats stood up to FOX! Can you sign this petition asking Democrats to support President Obama's stance by staying off FOX as long as he does? We'll deliver it to Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Boxer and Rep. Lee.

MoveOn.org Petition Asks Democrats to Boycott Fox | PEEK | AlterNet

Edman85 · #**491** (**permalink**) 11-11-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAROTH4MVP

I can't believe there is thirteen pages on this topic.

I can't believe your grammar are so bad.

belcherboy · #**492** (**permalink**) 11-11-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edman85

I can't believe your grammar are so bad.

I literally lol'd at that!

pfife · #**493** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 09:42 AM

Video: Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

getting all "fair and balanced"y again on us. Or "news-y".

sub rosa · #**494** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Fox News host Sean Hannity apologized on his show Wednesday night after it was revealed by comedian Jon Stewart that the program had used archived footage of a well-attended rally and passed it off as a recent health care protest in Washington, D.C.

Hannity spent the last 30 seconds of his show addressing the controversy, giving no explanation and calling the use of 2-month-old footage in a current news package "inadvertent."

"He was correct," Hannity said. "We screwed up."

Sean Hannity to Jon Stewart: You're right, we faked footage | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Boilerfan · #**495** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sub rosa

Sean Hannity to Jon Stewart: You're right, we faked footage | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

That has to be the first time that fox has lied right.

Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg | Media Matters for America

Mark The Shark · #**496** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

That has to be the first time that fox has lied right.

Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg | Media Matters for America

Making stuff up is the one subject that MM is an expert on.

Oblong · #**497** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:01 PM

all these people out there that defend Sean Hannity and Fox News as being bastians of impartiality have egg on their faces......

JohnJMS · #**498** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfife

Video: Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

getting all "fair and balanced"y again on us. Or "news-y".

Kinda like MSNBC getting that major quote they tried to hang Limbaugh with wrong?

pfife · #**499** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

Kinda like MSNBC getting that major quote they tried to hang Limbaugh with wrong?

elaborate, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Boilerfan · #**500** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Making stuff up is the one subject that MM is an expert on.

If you look at these you will see they are well documented.

pfife · #**501** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

If you look at these you will see they are well documented.

dude don't obstruct a solid ad hom.

Mark The Shark · #**502** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

If you look at these you will see they are well documented.

Media Matters making stuff up is well documented. Hell, the guy who founded it admitted to it.

I'm utterly unsurprised that Hannity did the same thing.

JohnJMS · #**503** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfife

Video: Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

getting all "fair and balanced"y again on us. Or "news-y".

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

Kinda like MSNBC getting that major quote they tried to hang Limbaugh with wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfife

elaborate, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I know you'd like to be all gleeful about FOX showing an inaccurate video of a meeting/protest. But what's worse? That - or engaging in libel for 2 days vs. a partisan enemy? I can't believe you actually didn't hear about this. Or do you only pay attention when FOX gets stuff wrong?

What cracks me up the most is your "I'm not sure what your talking about" nonsense - when there was a thread out here you participated in called "CNN & MSNBC lie about Limbaugh". Or is your memory that bad?

Anyway - here's a refresher:

"During the 3:00PM ET hour of live coverage on MSNBC Friday, co-host David Shuster admitted that racially charged quotes he and other hosts attributed to Rush Limbaugh had not been verified: “MSNBC attributed that quote to a football player who was opposed to Limbaugh’s NFL bid. However, we have been unable to verify that quote independently. So, just to clarify.” Shuster did not formally retract the quote or apologize."

and the video link

Breitbart.tv » MSNBC Admits â€˜Unable to Verifyâ€™ False Limbaugh Quote But Issues No Retraction or Apology

billms · #**504** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Making stuff up is the one subject that MM is an expert on.

Could be. Can you please elaborate? Or are you referring to their founder and his past doing that for conservatives?

billms · #**505** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

Kinda like MSNBC getting that major quote they tried to hang Limbaugh with wrong?

doesn't appear to be like that at all to me - unless you are suggesting that they knew the quote was wrong - is that your point?

billms · #**506** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Media Matters making stuff up is well documented. Hell, the guy who founded it admitted to it.

I'm utterly unsurprised that Hannity did the same thing.

Seriously - I obviously read their stuff and am interested - if its so well documented can you please point me to what MM has made up?

I've seen stuff that I thought they were over analyzing or taking something ambiguous in the worst possible light. But as has been said they provide great context and links to the original sources so you can compare and judge for yourself.

billms · #**507** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

I know you'd like to be all gleeful about FOX showing an inaccurate video of a meeting/protest. But what's worse? That - or engaging in libel for 2 days vs. a partisan enemy? I can't believe you actually didn't hear about this. Or do you only pay attention when FOX gets stuff wrong?

Both are bad. But other than that they are not alike. MSNBC ran with something unverified - checked later - and apologized. Fox made up a lie out of old tapes - ran that - and apologized when caught.

One may be intentional - or incompetence. The other is intentional.

Oblong · #**508** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:47 PM

Actually.... MSNBC ran with something unverified.... was told later that it wasn't true, didn't want to get sued, and admitted they were were unable to verify it. I never heard an apology. Just an admittance that it was unverified.

billms · #**509** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 01:58 PM

You cannot sue them for running an unverified quote - particularly a public figure like rush - they were not concerned about that.

Oblong · #**510** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 02:02 PM

you can sue for any reason you want, can't you? You may not win.... but you can still sue.

Either way, they did not apologize, like you claimed they did. That was my point.

billms · #**511** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 02:25 PM

Sure - if you sue for no basis the other guy is not concerned.

If your point was that they did not apologize why the other stuff? Regardless - I assumed they did. Hannity clearly did fwiw.

JohnJMS · #**512** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oblong

Either way, they did not apologize, like you claimed they did. That was my point.

You are correct, MSNBC did not apologize. That was made clear in both the report I quoted, and the video I linked to (where they didn't apologize). Anyone saying they apologized if free to show where and when, otherwise they don't know what they are talking about.

billms · #**513** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 03:08 PM

Oh John, you are a coy one!

sub rosa · #**514** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 03:13 PM

does anyone know if limbaugh apologized to obama for attributing a quote to him that was false recently? it was the quote about his college thesis or something...

belcherboy · #**515** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sub rosa

does anyone know if limbaugh apologized to obama for attributing a quote to him that was false recently? it was the quote about his college thesis or something...

I recall a big hullabaloo made about him NOT apologizing.

billms · #**516** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 03:20 PM

speaking of getting sued - i'm getting tired of referring to the fort hood guy as "alleged shooter" - which i've heard several times

he may or may not be found guilty of a crime - but there really isn't any doubt that he was the shooter is there? how could a new agency be afraid to say that?

pfife · #**517** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

I know you'd like to be all gleeful about FOX showing an inaccurate video of a meeting/protest. But what's worse? That - or engaging in libel for 2 days vs. a partisan enemy? I can't believe you actually didn't hear about this. Or do you only pay attention when FOX gets stuff wrong?

Why is it an either/or?

Quote:

What cracks me up the most is your "I'm not sure what your talking about" nonsense - when there was a thread out here you participated in called "CNN & MSNBC lie about Limbaugh". Or is your memory that bad?

Yes - it is that bad apparently. I'm not sure if you're talking about the quotes during the football ownership thing (some of which are in dispute, but not all) and perhaps something else. Further, I'm of the opinion that some of those quotes are actually correctly attributed - so I'd like to know which one we're discussing.

Are you referring to this post where I said I stoped paying attention to the story?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfife

I kinda stopped paying attention to this story because I really think that even if you don't even consider the racist statements of questionable attribution, I *still* think he gets rejected. I just can't see what's in it for the NFL be involved with someone like him. Taking the racist statements out of the discussion, he's still way to outspoken and controversial.

That said, I did read some of his defenses, and I didn't see him defend, specifically, the bone-in-nose comment. Snopes also says it's true... Has this quote been debunked?

So of course I'm interested in knowing which quotes.

There's really no need to get personal... yet again...

Quote:

Anyway - here's a refresher:

"During the 3:00PM ET hour of live coverage on MSNBC Friday, co-host David Shuster admitted that racially charged quotes he and other hosts attributed to Rush Limbaugh had not been verified: “MSNBC attributed that quote to a football player who was opposed to Limbaugh’s NFL bid. However, we have been unable to verify that quote independently. So, just to clarify.” Shuster did not formally retract the quote or apologize."

They didn't verify them? That doesn't mean they're false, it just means they're not verified.

Mark The Shark · #**518** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfife

They didn't verify them? That doesn't mean they're false, it just means they're not verified.

That's lame. If I said "pfife said in another post he loves terrorists" -- I don't get to come back several hours later and say "well, I couldn't verify that pfife said he loves terrorists, but that doesn't mean its false."

JohnJMS · #**519** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfife

Why is it an either/or?

Huh? It was a simple question. I don't understand why you seemingly can't answer it. But that's fine. No biggie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfife

They didn't verify them? That doesn't mean they're false, it just means they're not verified.

That's funny. So they can say anything they want, then later say - "it's not verified", and that's fine with you? Good. I hope you don't mind FOX using those standards either.

TheCouga · #**520** (**permalink**) 11-12-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

That's lame. If I said "pfife said in another post he loves terrorists" -- I don't get to come back several hours later and say "well, I couldn't verify that pfife said he loves terrorists, but that doesn't mean its false."

What if it was verified that pfife said similar things in many other instances in the past?