She attributed the administration's visceral reaction to attacks from Fox to a naive sense of invincibility generally held by new presidents, like she noticed with President Garfield

It's over. The fat lady has sung.

This lady was banished to the back rows for asking tough questions when Bush was president. Did she tell Bush to stop attacking the NYTimes? I think Obama has proven he knows what he is doing and I think events will work to his advantage. Fox's 24/7 attack mode since he took office hasn't even brought his poll numbers down, I think most Americans have realized Fox is a shill for big corporate interests and that they incite the uninformed to emotional responses to imaginary threats. Sure they have a solid core of viewers but most halfway intelligent people are slowly finding better places to get thier news without their daily dose of liberal bashing.

I wouldn't fuck with Helen Thomas. She knows Her shit. I'd hate to get reprimanded by Her.Woooooweeeeee not My Thang.

Larry

I think most Americans have realized Fox is a shill for big corporate interests and that they incite the uninformed to emotional responses to imaginary threats. Sure they have a solid core of viewers but most halfway intelligent people are slowly finding better places to get thier news without their daily dose of liberal bashing.

#3 | Posted by danni

Solid core? People slowly finding better places? Their viewership has never been higher. And you would love Juan Williams, Danni. There are plenty of other lefties on the panel shows.

"And you would love Juan Williams, Danni. There are plenty of other lefties on the panel shows."

NPR is so proud of his involvement with Fox that they won't even allow him to mention his association with NPR. No, I don't need to watch Fox for anything except comedy. Great for sit coms, horrible for news or opinion.

It's about time someone called fox for what it is: a shill, a loud voice for the looney right. That's ok in itself, but call it for what it is...extreme rightwing mouth breathing, weeping, lying, racist ideologues.

No, I don't need to watch Fox for anything except comedy. Great for sit coms, horrible for news or opinion.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-19 06:25 PM

Now I understand why you are such a prima donna. And idiot.

Fox's 24/7 attack mode since he took office hasn't even brought his poll numbers down

I guess his poll numbers are down because he broke all of his campaign promises then.

That's ok in itself, but call it for what it is...extreme rightwing mouth breathing, weeping, lying, racist ideologues.

#7 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-10-19 06:30 PM

Can you provide an example of your claim from a news program on FOX?

Or is it you that is the extreme leftwing mouth breathing, weeping, lying, racist ideologue?

NPR is so proud of his involvement with Fox that they won't even allow him to mention his association with NPR.
#6 | Posted by danni

Baloney. They mention it every time he's introduced. Same thing with Marla Maples. It tells me you haven't watched it lately. I'll bet you think Greta Van Sustren, Geraldo Rivera and Chris Wallace are a Conservatives too. LOL

Danni get her information from Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Who are two of the most left leaning, bias, non professional punks in the industry. You know they are the two losers NBC executives wanted removed from the election coverage. That was funny.

They're "Fair and Balanced". And don't forget Rachel. She questions Obama's every move when not bashing George W. Bush. Fucking bitch needs a 2009 calendar.

"It tells me you haven't watched it lately."

You are definitely right about that.
The last time I watched Glenn Beck was explaining the Communist symbolism of the art at Rockefeller Center.

"Williams tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox," Shepard wrote. "As a result of this latest flap, NPR's Vice President of News, Ellen Weiss, has asked Williams to ask that Fox remove his NPR identification whenever he is on O'Reilly."

The last time I watched Glenn Beck was explaining the Communist symbolism of the art at Rockefeller Center.

Not a news show.

As a result of this latest flap, NPR's Vice President of News, Ellen Weiss, has asked Williams to ask that Fox remove his NPR identification whenever he is on O'Reilly.

More suppression of opinion from the left. You can hear the boots in the halls of government. Maybe some patriots should visit Ellen Weiss and she if she would reconsider. If not, remove her tongue.

Oh, sorry. I forgot Weiss is a carpet muncher. Removing her tongue would be very mean. I apologize.

"Williams tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox," Shepard wrote.

So he's two-faced. I told you they had Liberals on Fox. He reminds me of our President when he isn't getting his way.

Really though folks, what is Fox going to do???
Attack Obama???
Er.....hate to break it to you but that's just about all they do anyway.
If they increase the attacks the only thing it would really do is reduce what little credibility they have left.
I sort of think that is the Obama administration strategy....force Fox to come off as even more extremist....

I sort of think that is the Obama administration strategy....force Fox to come off as even more extremist....

#19 | Posted by danni

I think he's a fool for going after them. Not very Presidential. Even the "Chimp-in-Chief" had more brains than to attack a network. Helen is right.

"force Fox to come off as even more extremist...."

See what I mean Ange. The left like this are too far gone. Only they could think telling the truth and exposing corruption in the WH is extremist.

And the fact they view Fox as a bigger threat than terrorists by their actions is pretty telling.

Also shows the extreme immaturity and arrogance that is displayed by the Obama WH and admin.

#6 | Posted by danni

They introduce Juan with NPR--every time.

Like the other networks don't have their perspective--leaning to the left.

Helen is correct.

She knew it Murph. She was just spitting in the wind to see where it would land.

So breaking the ACORN story is attacking Obama?

Doing the story on Van Jones is attacking Obama??

How about their story on Anita Dunn right now?? She loves Mao--in fact he is her hero philosopher along with Mother Teresa. She's a bloody idiot, Dunn is..

It only empowers Fox more and shows Obama being petty.

An attack is an attack when a new company runs a false story aimed at a candidate (Rather?).

Heaven forfend Fox actually investigate President Obama's staff and policy proposals.

No, I don't need to watch Fox for anything except comedy. Great for sit coms, horrible for news or opinion.

#6 | Posted by danni - FLAG: gets hard news from Olberman & Maddow

#6 | Posted by danni - FLAG: gets hard news from Olberman & Maddow

#26 | Posted by markh - FLAG: get hard from Hannity & Beck

#26 | Posted by markh - FLAG: get hard from Hannity & Beck

#27 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-10-20 01:23 AM | Reply | Flag: Self-servingly pays for markh's Fox News Channel cable subscription

Baloney. They mention it every time he's introduced. Same thing with Marla Maples. It tells me you haven't watched it lately. I'll bet you think Greta Van Sustren, Geraldo Rivera and Chris Wallace are a Conservatives too. LOL

#11 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-10-19 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

And how about that Elliott Hennican? I've seen O'Reilly (who I like) get his ass handed to him by this Fox News liberal. This guy knows his stuff.

And smart, articulate Liberal guests like Mike Farrell? Even Al Sharpton gave him a run for his money for pete's sake.

I'd like to see something like this on say, Olbermann? HAHA! No way.

She attributed the administration's visceral reaction to the cable outlet to a naive sense of invincibility generally held by new presidents.

Far be it from Spud to call the illustrius Helen Thomas naive but that is what this statement reads like to Spud.

While there is certainly truth to her werds about new Presidents undergoing a "reality check" moment or two after the honeymoon is over Spud feels Ms Thomas fails to appreciate the difference between "attacking" FOX and defending oneself from the continual onslaught of attacks from FOX.

Spud'll agree that attacking FOX, or more properly their messenger bois and gals, is st00pid.

Spud hopes HT appreciates the fact the not defending oneself is even st00pider.

Be Well.

#30 Spud you're wrong. It should be beneath the dignity of the WH to defend itself against the media. That's for dictators and rogues in s---hole countries - not the US.

Same goes for Canada.

I have to applaud the old gal.

And idiot.

#8 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-10-19 06:30 PM

Gotta love the self retort.

Calling Fox News a "news" outlet is akin to calling the Daily Show a "news" outlet.

Foxnews has the predetermined outcome and base their agenda an "news" reports to fit the agenda. That is not reporting, that is opining.

Look at the other lies they perpetrate... "We report, you decide. Fair and Balanced. The No Spin Zone."

What fricking jokes.

If Foxnews wants to be political commentary shows, they should at least have the common decency to their audience to be honest with them and tell them such.

"#30 Spud you're wrong. It should be beneath the dignity of the WH to defend itself against the media. That's for dictators and rogues in s---hole countries - not the US."

That is simply a talking point floating around, it doesn't have any basis in fact. It perfectly within the "dignity of the WH" to defend itself when repeatedly attacked by a major network. It would be foolish for them to ignore it, silence can be construed an admission of guilt on some issues.
What is beneath the "dignity of the WH" is for a major network to so willingly disregard truth in an effort to push their own agenda.

I think President Obama shrinks in stature when his White House goes after Fox News like this. It makes it look like the cable network is a legitimate threat to his presidency.

Instead of fighting Fox head on, the White House should focus on how to counter its message through other means and do what all politicians do, which is to work the media behind-the-scenes to get better treatment.

If Fox stopped getting any access to White House officials, they'd be at a competitive disadvantage to the other news networks.

Fox definitely has an anti-Obama, anti-liberal agenda and holds very little credibility to me as a news organization. Still, I'm not sure Obama does himself or his office much good by criticizing it.

I doubt the WH is going to continue this line of attack, but they seem to have succumbed to the temptation to tell the truth, even if it's not a great idea.

Another possibility is that FOX viewers are high percentage Indies, and if the WH doesn't occasionally strike back, the Indies just accept the nonsense they hear on FOX.

Fox is the mouthpiece of Rupert Murdoch
and his and Mr. Ailes Rightwing version of
America...

It's fairly easy to tell it is extremely
slanted.

A better policy by Obama, rather than
attacking it and giving it more ammo
for Glen Beck Weep-a-thons for the mentally
weak, would be to simply treat it with
just deserved disregard.

When people bring it up, just laugh and
say, "No, we prefer to do interviews on REAL
news stations".

Disregard them, ignore them, refuse to do
one sided interviews with them. And leave it
at that...

should have been a political consultant...
(grumbles about his above average but still middling salary)...

Fox must be fairly balanced since studies have revealed that the percentage of democrats (probably excludes far leftists) that watch Fox are a little less then repubs. A large number of independents watch Fox. And that's probably why the obama administration is apoplectic and wanting to criticize a news outlet that will cover corruption and news that the other outlets will put their blinders on due to their bias. Is Fox biased?-- absolutely, they're biased to traditional values, biased against corruption, and biased against bias. The attacks on them will only drive their ratings higher since individuals will be drawn to them to see what all the fuss is about and will the expand fox's viewership further. The other news channels (newspapers as well) will see their ratings and viewership continue to slip until their business models change and they go back to reporting all the news and no longer be selective based on bias.

-Is Fox biased?-- absolutely, they're biased to traditional values, biased against corruption, and biased against bias.

Flagged: Stockholm Syndrome

Another possibility is that FOX viewers are high percentage Indies, and if the WH doesn't occasionally strike back, the Indies just accept the nonsense they hear on FOX.

#37 | Posted by Corky

And accept the nonsense coming outta the White House instead

Certainly not an improvement no matta how hard you try to spin it

Hey, Corky, all I wrote about was facts-- pretty difficult to argue against facts, isn't it?

The folks at the White House loves Mao and the Chinese govt has reciprocated by issuing OBA Mao T shirts.

Thx Helen for scolding Obama like a big sister.

The label 'naive' is solid against this Prez and most of his staff... they apparently will not learn progress much further than the 'backup' steps they have taken, until the light bulb goes off into the real world for one of them....
they are too deep in the candy store to understand the toys they are playing with each day..
the attacking of FOX is just another strong indication of the continued arrogance that will not gain any points...
of course, on the other side, they do not like being outed on their consistent turncoat philosophy and policy making.. mirrors in this WH only reflect Hollywood makeup..!!!!

Whether or not FOX is biased is an opinion, not a "fact".

But then, wingers aren't usually too interested in the difference.

If Fox stopped getting any access to White House officials, they'd be at a competitive disadvantage to the other news networks.

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2009-10-20 08:38 AM | Reply

Yeah, that would show them. And teach the press not to question anything the admin is doing. When does the remaining press get fitted for their boots?

In reality the other media outlets should be defending FOX. But the role of the 'forth estate' has long since turned into a tool of the admin.

Of course Fox News is biased. But so what? Most major cities once had a "Democratic" and a "Republican" newspaper; each offered opinion that was slanted in the direction of their readership. Fox News is slanted one way and MSNBC is slanted the other. So what's the problem? Watch whichever one you want and quit trying to silence / shutdown / spread lies about the other.

Is everyone assuming that all other 'news' networks are not biased as hell..????

Fox definitely has an anti-Obama, anti-liberal agenda and holds very little credibility to me as a news organization.

Fox News is also completely addicted to lurid stories about crime and celebrity scandal. When it's on at one of the local restaurants it drives me nuts. Who watches that crap?

Yeah, that would show them. And teach the press not to question anything the admin is doing.

Fox News isn't just questioning the administration, it's running the GOP party line 24/7. There's a difference between asking tough questions and being a bought-and-paid-for arm of one political party.

Fox News is slanted one way and MSNBC is slanted the other.

MSNBC's news programs are not slanted in the way Fox News' news programs are. When Bush was president, Fox News was actively distributing White House talking points to its personnel and telling them to repeat them. Show me a story where that's alleged of MSNBC or CNN or anyone else.

Actually, Drsoul, you should show a little compassion toward the president. The guy is drowning and you won't throw him a lifeline. There are so many more individuals in this country probably more qualified to be president and he's going to need all the support he can get-- can you imagine if all you had on your resume (real work) was to be a community organizer and never run any organization in your life and were suddenly thrust into a job where for the first time in your life you had to make major decisions instead of pontificate from the sidelines? I know it's a scary scenario and that's why you should be there to help prop the president up.

Fox News is doing a good job as watchdog against Obamegalomania. Funny that lapdog CNN and others in the worship of Obama are opening their platform as attack launch pad against Fox.

And Fox News sings... 'catch me if you can' to all the Networks that are lagging way behind in rating.

"There are so many more individuals in this country probably more qualified to be president"

President Obama has a qualification none of the others have, he was elected by a majority of American voters. That is the only qualification that matters. So far he seems to be doing a pretty good job, seems to be slowly passing the agenda he campaigned on, keeping promises, bringing back public confidence in the economy, stabilizing the nation after the disastrous economic crisis which occurred just before he took office. I honestly can't think of anyone else I would rather have in the oval office.

"Who watches that crap?"--- more people then all the other major (minor?) news stations combined. And by the way, that talking points issue was totally debunked later.

The sad part is that no matter how many lifelines this guy gets, he is not smart enough to use them.. that is the problem... why should everyone else jump on a sinking ship that has NO life rafts..
yes, we are stuck with him... but he has a very LONG road to overcome his arrogance and to build ANY credibility before someone intelligent can really buy into this comedy...
his lack of decisions not only costs us more military life each day..which does not really seem to get through.. but, the priorities are terribly off track... hard to show compassion for one who continues to do everything he can to destroy any credibility he has remaining...

Danni sounds like all of the poor bastards who voted for Bush and were too proud to acknowledge the mistake..

"Fox News is doing a good job as watchdog against Obamegalomania."

They make lots of noice but it sure looks as though health care reform will pass and now probably with the public option. Whatever Fox is doing, their bull shit doesn't seem to be swaying the majority of Americans. Obama's popularity is holding, public option's popularity is growing, both in spite of 24/7 attacks by Fox. I think Fox will become more and more shrill and dishonest as they realize they are having less and less effect on the majority of Americans.

Helen Thomas is wrong on this one.

If FOX is so great let HER go WORK THERE.

FOX news and their owners want to fight a CULTURE WAR.

So be it - they have declared war and they are the enemy - why should the Obama white house do them ANY favors?

If they want to make money off the news fine but the White House has no legal or moral obligation to assist this effort.

"Who watches that crap?"--- more people then all the other major (minor?) news stations combined.

I know people watch that crap. I just don't understand why anyone would consider that a worthwhile use of their time. When Fox News isn't shilling for the GOP, it's wallowing in lurid crime news and empty-headed celebrity infotainment.

#49 - Rogers, I think that lurid crime/celebrity scandal stuff is Murdoch's doing. And don't forget the news honeys. Get those delicious babes out front to pull in the guys. His background is in tabloids, so it's a formula that works for him. Thank God for conservative media like Fox for exposing us daily to all the Hollywood filth and liberal depravity! Look how naughty those liberals are! (Wait, wait, where's the slo-mo?!)

#53...being elected is not a 'qualification'... let's look at this in true perspective..
Barry is the 'Bernie Madoff' of the political world.

Fox will continue to do what they do as long as they get the ratings. Until then, I wouldn't expect anything different from them.

Remember, their goal is SELLING, not a predetermined political agenda. They have a product to sell and a right slanted agenda is it.

If there were a market for a left slanted agenda (to the extremes that Fox goes) then you would see it. There simply isn't (Olberman and Maddow aside).

Danni, I won't be enumerating all the broken promises of this administration since it would take me the next 3-4 hours-- just one little one-- when he promised to close Gitmo and hasn't,oh, another one, to pull our troops out of Iraq, oh, another one, to negotiate with the insurance companies and other players in health care in front of the American people (transparency)-- he's done it behind close doors and cut all kinds of deals. Sorry, I got a little carried away but it's difficult not to unfrock a Bernie Madoff political con artist. If you desire I can list a ton of other broken promises but I would have to charge you an hourly rate.

When Fox News isn't shilling for the GOP, it's wallowing in lurid crime news and empty-headed celebrity infotainment.

That proves you are an avid Fox watcher and apparently watch very little of the other networks.

If you watched the others you would know that, other than the GOP shilling, ALL networks are "wallowing in lurid crime news and empty-headed celebrity infotainment".

unfortunately that is a HUGE product that sells too.

Actually, Eberly, you make a good point--- in this country, it's (unfortunately) too often about following the money-- it often ends up badly.

Danni #3 - "This lady was banished to the back rows for asking tough questions when Bush was president."

Danni, I thought Bush gave Helen Thomas a front row seat with her own name plaque.

Danni, I thought Bush gave Helen Thomas a front row seat with her own name plaque.
#66 | Posted by citizen_x

That was her welcome back honor. Before that, she did lose her seat for a while.

in this country, it's (unfortunately) too often about following the money-- it often ends up badly.

the media will take the low road everytime if means $$$$$$ through ratings.

"Here Comes Govt Controlled Journalism"

Eberly, I would disagree with one area. For years, the media has had a liberal agenda and view. I stopped watching NBC, CBS, and ABC years ago (along with most of the major newspapers) because of that. CNN was a disaster. All I wanted was to have all the news reported (instead of always editorializing)regardless of political party, circumstances, etc. You're right that FOX is more center/right then the other outlets and it's healthy since it has brought a balance to what has been too long a dishonesty in news reporting. It over time should force these other media outlets to move in a direction that will allow them to exist in the future-- the American people on the whole get it and are voting with their feet.

I think most Americans have realized Fox is a shill for big corporate interests and that they incite the uninformed to emotional responses to imaginary threats. Sure they have a solid core of viewers but most halfway intelligent people are slowly finding better places to get thier news without their daily dose of liberal bashing.

#3 | Posted by danni

TRANSLaTION

NBC being run by GE doesnt count
NBC being manipulated by the white house..FAGETTA BOUT IT
include msnbc and cnbc to that of course

CNN...a worldwide conglomerate with its own agenda
HEY....'aint no thang'....

"incite the uninformed" my big fat white rosey ass.
you simply have no clue what you are saying...THATS what I might type but you see young lady..I know that you know better...you just cant keep from repeating the same old nonsense from people like BILL MAHR...

"halfway intelligent"...well golly gee...
DUH,....uh..er...uh...which way did they go???

ayuk ayuk ayuk.....
where did I put that butterfly net????

"when he promised to close Gitmo and hasn't,oh, another one, to pull our troops out of Iraq, oh, another one, to negotiate with the insurance companies and other players in health care in front of the American people (transparency)"

Gitmo's closing in progressing, troops in Iraq have been pulled back out of combat and some have already left the country and the insurance industry doesn't seem to want to negotiate if it will reduce their profits....instead the Dems are pushing for the Public Option which will force insurance companies to negotiate with customers or....lose customers. He's only been in office eight months so it would be foolish to expect all of his promises to be completely fulfilled but he is working on it. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do.

NPR is so proud of his involvement with Fox that they won't even allow him to mention his association with NPR. No, I don't need to watch Fox for anything except comedy. Great for sit coms, horrible for news or opinion.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-19 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

young lady

what better proof do we need to know that you dont watch them at all
there is never a time that NPR isnt mentioned when he is introduced or when his name is put on the screen
I think you need to watch it sometime maybe...
IM not trying to be 'catty' here but I know that you are wrong here...
watch it today and see.........

It's about time someone called fox for what it is: a shill, a loud voice for the looney right. That's ok in itself, but call it for what it is...extreme rightwing mouth breathing, weeping, lying, racist ideologues.

#7 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-10-19

what a pathetic example of nonsense and liberal gibberish...

but thats not your point above is it...the point is to silence any and all critics of the progressives in the white house because to allow them to keep looking and talking will turn the public into more than 'Halfway intelligent' people is I believe the way danni put it..

in ALL FACISTS govts...the critics MUST BE SILENCED..
just ask the people of venuzeula...

Danni, I don't what polls you're watching but Obama's popularity ( the American people are catching on---"you can fool some--")is dropping and those against the public option is now over 55%. The only group that support it (majority) yet are us youngsters and that's because when you're young it's easy to be duped-- that changes as you age because of life experiences and it's easier to spot a con when it's there (some people never get it though). The young folks will change their view on this "conceptual bill" coming out of congress (which won't be put on-line due to "obama transparency"--another broken campaign promise) when they realize they will be forced to purchase health insurance and their premiums will be taxed --oops, I bet you didn't know that-- another Obama broken promise-- not to increase taxes except for those making more then $200,000 per year.

Gitmo's closing in progressing,

translation = it is still open and way past the promised date.

troops in Iraq have been pulled back out of combat

not a promise Obama made...timeline set previously.

the insurance industry doesn't seem to want to negotiate if it will reduce their profits..

did Obama promise anything on behalf of insurance companies?

Most of what I just posted is not a criticism of Obama but I would prefer more transparency on the healthcare issue.

if you weren't a shameless shill, you would too.

"Danni, I don't what polls you're watching but Obama's popularity ( the American people are catching on---"you can fool some--")is dropping and those against the public option is now over 55%.

This morning on Morning Joe they were quoting polls showing 60% in favor of public option...and you're right "the American people are catching on"...without a public option insurance companies will just continue to rape them.

It over time should force these other media outlets to move in a direction that will allow them to exist in the future-- the American people on the whole get it and are voting with their feet.

At the very least it should compell news outlets to be more upfront in their agenda (if they have one)

"translation = it is still open and way past the promised date."

OK but it will be eventually, you want him to rush it and just force states who don't want those prisoners in their states to take them???

"not a promise Obama made...timeline set previously."

Yeah, I remember when it was set....and coincidentally it agreed with the timeline he campaigned on. People were joking at the time that Bush was taking orders from Obama and he wasn't even elected yet.

"if you weren't a shameless shill, you would too."

I voted for him, so now I should stop supporting him, especially when he is doing what I elected him to do??
I have criticized him for some things though, slowness to deal with imbalance of trade, slowness to reign in greedy banks, slowness to start anti-trust action against big monopolies, Don Siegelman's case, etc.

"in ALL FACISTS govts...the critics MUST BE SILENCED.."

Has Fox news be shut down????

Nothing like just paranoid dilusions.

Danni, you're right,even though Obama committed to having almost all the troops out of Iraq by now, we should give him more time since it's easy to make campaign promises when you're naive and looking for votes but it's another thing when you are president and have to be more realistic and responsible. And that's why it's tough to vote for these folks since the intelligent know when they're blowing smoke and it's painful to watch the grovelling buying the con.

I voted for him, so now I should stop supporting him, especially when he is doing what I elected him to do??

I voted for him too and i am specifically referring to the transparency on the health care issue.

It would be better for ALL of us if dems were demanding this more.

Danni, the poll you mention that supports a public option, has nothing to do with a federal mandated public option but instead is a "public insurance option"-- it would be administered by the states and would be limited to those without access to affordable private insurance-- that is a far cry from the Obama public option for everyone and at least this discussion is moving in a better direction. The irony of all this is that the system may ultimately save Obama's derriere from himself.

^.^

"No, I don't need to watch Fox for anything except comedy. Great for sit coms, horrible for news or opinion."

Well, Shep Smith does the evening news, and he's not a shill for conservatives ... he's not exactly a huge spokesman for the Left either, so I'd say MEH on that one...

However, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck don't even pretend to be newsmen, although O'Reilly started out as a news reporter for ABC, and Sean recently did a news story on the drought conditions in central California.

There is a clear dividing line between the news people and the opinion people, just as there should be in good journalism.

Now, as to Thomas's comments, she is RIGHT. When a President stoops to attacking one news outlet, it makes HIM appear small, and it's not effective. FOX News is simply responding to the President's attacks, and it is driving their numbers further up, which is alright by me.

Both O'Reilly and Hannity have invited Obummer and his officials to do their shows. No surprise, they haven't. And Glenn Beck had a dedicated phone on his set to receive a call from the White House. No surprise, no takers on that either.

And just so you know, I'm speaking of any President, any time. If George W Bush attacked the NY Times, it made him look small then, just as Obummer attacking Fox News makes him look small and unpresidential now.

As others on this thread have said, Helen Thomas may be a Liberalista whack job, but when it comes to the strategy behind things in the news business, she knows her stuff.

Eberly, thank you for your comment-- Americans regardless of their party affiliations have to start to hold accountable whomever they have voted for. That's why I'm an independent. If more people would hold those in office to their campaign promises and vote them out if they didn't you would get more integrity in the system and those running would be more careful in their promises (not to just get votes).

#84-- amen.

This morning on Morning Joe they were quoting polls showing 60% in favor of public option...and you're right "the American people are catching on"...without a public option insurance companies will just continue to rape them.

#77 | Posted by danni at 2009-

so I guess you consider the sellout scarbourogh as your REPUBLIcAN voice???? not quite.......

^.^

"Baloney. They mention it every time he's introduced. Same thing with Marla Maples. It tells me you haven't watched it lately. I'll bet you think Greta Van Sustren, Geraldo Rivera and Chris Wallace are a Conservatives too. LOL"

Yes, Juan Williams and Mara Liason are both mentioned as working for NPR when they are introduced for the panel on Special Report. Out of the people you mentioned, Chris Wallace is probably the most conservative, but for the most part, he shelves that for a cool professionalism that I really like in Special Report. Greta Van Sustren I think is middle of the road, and people liek Geraldo Rivera and Alan Colmes are definately liberal.

Fox at least tries to live up to its own plugs as fair and balanced. I don't see that from the other networks.

Nothing like just paranoid dilusions.

#80 | Posted by danni

so what was the name of the bush communications director who waged war on the leftwing media even remotely to the level of anita dunn
did bush send two operatives to say the SAME THING on sunday tv even remotely similiar to the two bozos called rhom and axelrod
AXELROD last sunday...AND RHOM...now trying to tell the others to treat fox the way the white house is treating them...
and gibbs said yesterday I believe that fox was
"all about profits'...OH MY GOD NO........

AND A CLIP OF OBAMA with chris wallace on FEB 3, 2009

"HOW DEMOCARCY IS SUPPOSED TO WORK" when talking about fox...
so whats changed???
EASY>..."the truth shall set you free"

^.^

BTW, Olberman was supposed to be a sports guy until PMS-NBC gave him his own opinion show, and he demonstrated how much of a hate-monger he could be.

Rachel Maddow is just a whiney girl pretending to be an opinion journalist.

"Danni, you're right,even though Obama committed to having almost all the troops out of Iraq by now,"

No he didn't. He said it would take about 16 months.

"Danni, the poll you mention that supports a public option, has nothing to do with a federal mandated public option but instead is a "public insurance option"--

Federally "mandated" public Option...what the hell is a mandated option??? IT was for the same public option that we've been talking about all along....there are several ideas on how to get it, one idea was to allow states to create their own public insurance but that is not probably the one that will be passed and not the one most Americans want. What they don't like to talk about is that if they could most Americans would like tobuy right into Medicare. These days for most Americans cost is the biggest issue.

Fox at least tries to live up to its own plugs as fair and balanced. I don't see that from the other networks.

John B.
www.politicscity.com

#88 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-20 11:00 AM | Reply

I agree and I still cant see how others cant.
but IF you only watch cnn and msnbc then you might not know
and HERE is the real hypocricy charge I have
the left here attacks the right for what THEY say is a blind eye toward both sides when THEY ARe usually the ones who only get one side of an issue.
conservatives I know watch almost every channel on thier remote when it comes to political issues..

AnD if you REALLY watch, you will see fox having MANY MORE left voices than the others..
the ONLY conservative worth a shit on cnn is bill bennett and the few times that mary maitlin is on with the COBRA HEAD carville.

"did bush send two operatives to say the SAME THING on sunday tv even remotely similiar to the two bozos called rhom and axelrod"

Bush didn't need to, he'd just tell Rush, SEan, Laura, Bill and the rest of the right wing pundits what he wanted them to say.

oh yeah

and time and time again on orielly and greta..not so much on hannity but it happens often..
at the end of the story they say two words that the others dont

"you decide"...

"Fox at least tries to live up to its own plugs as fair and balanced."

Riiight. If you believe that then you are just plain dumb.

"BTW, Olberman was supposed to be a sports guy until PMS-NBC gave him his own opinion show, and he demonstrated how much of a hate-monger he could be.

Rachel Maddow is just a whiney girl pretending to be an opinion journalist."

Pretending????

So tell me, what qualifies the right wing pundits???

I dont believe there were any reports of daily phone calls going out from the bush white house like there have been and ADMITTED to from this one..

everyday at 8:30 EsT....

and at least they both PATTED the others on the head and said

good little boys and girls....

so whats more representative of what we consider to be american and freedom and all that

to have NOT A SINGLE NETwork reporting anything but PAP and shit from the white house..
and YES...remind me of my comment here when repubs are back in power...LOL

Is Obama's Communist, Muslim Jihadist, pedophile agenda good for America???

You decide.

"...remind me of my comment here when repubs are back in power...LOL"

Hate to break it to you but you may be pushing up daisies by then.

Riiight. If you believe that then you are just plain dumb.

#95 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-20 11:

come on danni

your npr and juan comment already proved you dont watch fox that much..

and the real hypocricy...you call us idealougues...well when you arent calling us "dumb"...

oh PUUULLEASE.........

The White House's condemnation of Fox News justifies them as a legitimate news source for those who hate Obama. The best way to silence Fox News would be to appear on it on a regular basis and have the words they claim you said come from your own mouth rather than through their's.

"I dont believe there were any reports of daily phone calls going out from the bush white house like there have been and ADMITTED to from this one.."

Karl Rove didn't make phone calls????

You are you kidding????

Rogers, I think that lurid crime/celebrity scandal stuff is Murdoch's doing. And don't forget the news honeys. Get those delicious babes out front to pull in the guys.

True. They do offer some serious newsbabe.

That proves you are an avid Fox watcher and apparently watch very little of the other networks.

I know the other networks wallow in that too -- Nancy Grace is a freak -- but it seems like Fox News goes further with it. It's tabloid TV.

Rachel Maddow is just a whiney girl pretending to be an opinion journalist.

That's sexist crap. Maddow's a Rhodes scholar with a doctor of philosophy from Oxford. She had a brilliant academic career ahead of her when she got sucked into the pundit business, and is an insightful commentator on the news who doesn't just parrot the conventional wisdom like most of the other talking heads.

Is Obama's Communist, Muslim Jihadist, pedophile agenda good for America???

You decide.

#98 | Posted by danni at 2009-

ah thanks for the laugh right before lunch

"...remind me of my comment here when repubs are back in power...LOL"

Hate to break it to you but you may be pushing up daisies by then.

#99 | Posted by danni at 2009

OUCH!

in the words of the cutest teeny bopper movie of all times..

"oh way harsh"....

lol

"The best way to silence Fox News would be to appear on it on a regular basis and have the words they claim you said come from your own mouth rather than through their's."

Baloney. There is no way to silence Fox News and no one is trying to. They are just trying to get the message out that this WH doesn't even consider them to be a legitimate news channel. They aren't trying to stop anyone from watching but they are saying they won't take them seriously as journalists or reporters. I think they are saying Fox News will be given the same respect they would give Jeff Gannon.

Karl Rove didn't make phone calls????

You are you kidding????

#102 | Posted by danni at 2009-

a daily phone call to white house 'operatives' on cnn who are SUPPOSED to be objective and all that journalistic stuff..
YEs I think im right...did he not make calls to people to get thier side out...of course....

remember too comments from ANITA DUNN..the lover of the MURDERER MAO....
she was shown talking about how obama even NOW and during the campaign CONTROLS THE MESSAGE....

is that wrong??? I guess not but at least admit it.

'operatives'

Was Karl Rove an "operative'????

Baloney. There is no way to silence Fox News and no one is trying to. They are just trying to get the message out that this WH doesn't even consider them to be a legitimate news channel. They aren't trying to stop anyone from watching but they are saying they won't take them seriously as journalists or reporters. I think they are saying Fox News will be given the same respect they would give Jeff Gannon.

#106 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-20

no further proof is needed that the obama white house...BY proxy of these comments from danni..

the white house has no interest in getting the hard interview because for instance if you think that rhom and axelrod got anything other than party line sunday..you werent watching....you know LIKE US UNINFoRMeD "DUMB" people on the right

#26 | Posted by markh - FLAG: get hard from Hannity & Beck

#27 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-10-20 01:23 AM | Reply | Flag: Self-servingly pays for markh's Fox News Channel cable subscription

#28 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-20 01:29 AM | Reply | Flag: Troll; Tweedle Bob must not be around

All this proves is how unprofessional and immature the white house staff is. All the other media outlets have a "perspective" so don't be a cry baby.

"YEs I think im right...did he not make calls to people to get thier side out...of course...."

He gave them specific talking points every day and they repeated them like parrots. Sorry, CNN may lean to the left but it is not a mouthpiece for the WH like Fox was for Bush. Funny how Rove ended up at Fox News isn't it???
After that how could anyone consider them anything except the mouthpiece for the Republican party.

#28 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-20 01:29 AM | Reply | Flag: Not on Rig; Pathetic Liar

hey I cant deny that rove was a hardline, hardcore, attack dog or whatever...there is no denying that...
but to deny that rhom and others like him are just obama choirboys singing out...well thats silly too.

but just look at the numbers...and CNN for instance...watch it for any length of time at all and you will see a definite bias and thats okay but just admit it

and nOTICE THAT nothing is being said from the white house about msnbc and I bet that there would be a consensus EVEN here that they are leftwing all the way...okay...there is joe scarbourough...OHHHHHHH...not exactly a john bircher...

its too bad its lunchtime because your comment about fox being the 'mouthpiece of the republican party' is just silly and is a 'parrotting' of the leftwing democrat white house...

LUNCH TIME...so which margarita mezkin place will it be today????

^.^

"And how about that Elliott Hennican? I've seen O'Reilly (who I like) get his ass handed to him by this Fox News liberal. This guy knows his stuff.

And smart, articulate Liberal guests like Mike Farrell? Even Al Sharpton gave him a run for his money for pete's sake."

It's actually Ellis Hennican, but you're right. Hennican and Farrell, and even Al Sharpton are very good debaters who know what they're talking about ... which is good. I like honest debates. If you can't get your beliefs challenged, then they aren't very good beliefs, and you become logic-lazy.

Sometimes the guests on the FOx opinion shows get a bit out there ... the woman from Code Pink, and the guy who called Juan Williams a House Negro come to mind, but for the most part, the guests are pretty good.

^.^

"Spud'll agree that attacking FOX, or more properly their messenger bois and gals, is st00pid.

Spud hopes HT appreciates the fact the not defending oneself is even st00pider."

I agree, except in this case, the White House started this spat, and is now whining like little bitches when Fox retaliates.

I remind you that Fox gave some of the most even-handed coverage of the 2008 campaign, and they gave numerous opportunities for ALL of the candidates to get on the airwaves and make their case. There are open invites for the President to do the same. It only hurts him to avoid FOX.

Danni, you said that most Americans would vote for Medicare and the issue is cost. Both of those comments are factual (applause)-- the problem is the oxymoron "cost efficient medicare"-- the problem is that medicare is going broke and I might add much faster then social security. Aaaaah, nothing is so simple.

John B.-- the "dude" didn't call Juan Williams a "house negro" directly, but he did indirectly by telling him to get back on the porch.

Gitmo's closing in progressing

#72 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-20 10:20 AM | Flag: Ignores Bagram for Obama

"the problem is that medicare is going broke and I might add much faster then social security."

If Medicare could raise rates as easily as insurance companies there would be no problem with Medicare. If insurance companies raised their rates only at the rate Medicare does their rates would be 1/3 lower right now. If an insurance company only insured the elderly and the disabled...gee...I wonder what their rates would be????
All younger healthier people into Medicare and it becomes more solvent and everyone saves money. Only losers....insurance company leeches.

" It only hurts him to avoid FOX."

then you should be happy. Seems to me it is President Obama's choice about how to deal with Fox News and I don't think any of the Obama detractors ever expected him to get himself elected to POTUS.
He figured it out, he's smarter than any of us on this site about politics. I think he knows exactly what he is doing.

FOX is very trashy. But a large powerful government attacking a media outlet that is currently the main voice of dissent goes against the better ideals this country was founded upon.

Spin it any way you want, either you believe in a free press or you don't.

Danni, you're correct about Karl Rove on Fox. When (which isn't too often ) I tune into Fox I generally don't place much relevance in what he says just as I don't when Rahm and the Axelrod come on other news channels. I'm glad you're watching Fox once in awhile since with time you may acquire a more balanced factual position on people and issues. Congratulations.

"Spin it any way you want, either you believe in a free press or you don't."

Responding to them isn't the same thing as censoring or shutting them down. This has nothing to do with the freedom of the press. Fox News can say whatever they want but so too can the administration.

"When (which isn't too often ) I tune into Fox I generally don't place much relevance in what he says just as I don't when Rahm and the Axelrod come on other news channels."

Rahm and Alexrod speak for the administation when they go on news shows, Rove is an employee of Fox News. Hardly comparable. And no, I don't watch Fox, and that probably does account for my ability to understand events without the Fox slant added to it.
I simply don't need someone to tell me how to think, and I've been thinking the way I do for longer than cable TV has even existed. Nothing has really changed since Nixon. Same battles, just different details.

Danni, the congressman that raised the medicare possibilty admitted that they would have to raise the reimbursement rates for the providers of care-- that would drive the costs even higher.

Danni, Rove still speaks (indirectly) for an administration that existed, whenever issues that come up have a synergistic relationship with past administration policies.

"He figured it out, he's smarter than any of us on this site about politics."

The same nonsensical arguement could have been made to defend everything Bush did too.

#126--- Are you telling the world you've been indoctrinated for years and that open thought processing and change is difficult-- psychologists would refer to that as rigid.

"The same nonsensical arguement could have been made to defend everything Bush did too."

No, Rove perhaps, not Bush. Plus Bush's daddy made him a national figure, without his daddy he wouldn't have ever been anything. Obama did what he did on his own.

"Are you telling the world you've been indoctrinated for years and that open thought processing and change is difficult-- psychologists would refer to that as rigid."

No, I'm telling you that I don't play silly games with trolls.

"that would drive the costs even higher."

But still no where near as high as for profit insurance. Remember, Medicare only insures the elderly and the disabled, private insurers would charge ridiculous amounts to insure those people.

Bush didn't need to, he'd just tell Rush, SEan, Laura, Bill and the rest of the right wing pundits what he wanted them to say.

#93 | Posted by danni

Do you mean that Bush 'told' these individuals to bash the Meiers nomination?

What about the Dubai port deal?

What about criticisms of his fiscal recklessness?

It doesn't matter.

You already believe what you believe and NOTHING will ever change that.

PS to Rcade: What's up with the formatting? I have to scroll back and forth in order to see all of the text. It's annoying and tedious.

First Limbaugh and now Fox.

Have any of you asked yourselves this question:

Who's next?

If CNN starts getting even slightly critical in their covereage, are they the next one to be black-balled?

Where does it stop?

What I also find funny is lefties who can never
get over the fact that the liberal ideology no
longer has a monopoly on the media. Fox dares to
be different and it causes a lot of lefties to go
apeshit. Some of you cheerlead these attacks without
even considering the broader and possibly insidious
implications. It boggles the mind. Bush was
a bit hostile toward the media, but he never took
it to anything close to these levels.

So much for the unifier-in-Chief.

But still no where near as high as for profit insurance. Remember, Medicare only insures the elderly and the disabled, private insurers would charge ridiculous amounts to insure those people.

#133 | Posted by danni

The providers of care to the elderly service them
at a loss. Every time. That's because government
has the coercive power to simply dictate what it
will pay.

Here's an honest question:

Please cite for me which attacks Fox launched on
Obama that were baseless.

Seriously, put up or shut up.

Who's next?

Easy. Whoever comes out as the frontrunner for the Republicans in 2012. Lefties only bitch about Rush and FoxNews because they need some sort of target to ride out the storm before election season starts again. It's easier than defending their own points of view.

"It boggles the mind. Bush was
a bit hostile toward the media, but he never took
it to anything close to these levels."

Tell that to Dan Rather and CBS News.

Doubt if any of the lefties have ever watched FOX. They probably watch that Fox reject Keith Obermann's daily obsessive rants about Fox on MSNBC and take it, like lemmings, as Gospel.

The intolerant left can't stand differing political opinions anymore than our current President's ego can accept any idea that deviates from his own not so very well disguised socialist bent.

This "we are politically perfect" attitude of the current crowd of progressive socialists who are in temporary charge of the country will continue to make many more Obama supporters into ex-Obama supporters like me.

"Easy. Whoever comes out as the frontrunner for the Republicans in 2012. Lefties only bitch about Rush and FoxNews because they need some sort of target to ride out the storm before election season starts again. It's easier than defending their own points of view."

It's even easier to sit on the sidelines and vote for the worthless Loonytarian party and then scream at everybody "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Irrelevant".

"Fox provides forum for Luntz's talking points
May 15, 2009 3:53 pm ET

EMBED
Embed this video:
SUMMARY: Megyn Kelly and Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel echoed talking points from a recent memo by conservative pollster Frank Luntz that is intended to help defeat President Obama and congressional Democrats' health-care reform initiative."

Tell that to Dan Rather and CBS News.

Rather and CBS didn't do their homework and got burned by....you guessed it....conservative media.

To the best of my knowledge Bush, nor anybody in his administration, did not attack CBS. If I am
wrong about this, I will happily recant.

Danni,

First off, I don't pretend that Fox is unbiased.

Secondly, your link, as far as I can tell, doesn't
articulate a Fox 'attack' that was baseless.

The recent media attacks on Limbaugh were baseless.
They were predicated, in large part, on comments
he never made; yet said comments were picked up and
repeated ad nauseum as if they were fact.

^.^

Let's see, people again whining about Fox's taglines...

"We report, you decide."

Yes, they have news reporting, and their news reporting is generally free from bias, allowing the viewer to decide how to take the news, therefore, they report, you decide.

"Fair and Balanced."

FOX's opinion shows have a balance of both conservative and liberal commentators, as I have pointed out in my previous posts on this thread. Therefore, FOX is fair and balanced in its mix of commentators.

"The No Spin Zone."

This is a Bill O'Reilly specific motto, but it reflects his policy of not allowing guests to spin a story to enrich or better themselves while ignoring the other side, or ignoring facts altogether. With this in mind, Bill runs as much of a no-spin zone as you will find on TV.

Danni,

Serious question:

Does Media Matters watchdog ALL media sources, or just conservative ones?

I ask because I do not know.

"They were predicated, in large part, on comments
he never made"

Except that I've heard the audio recordings that say differently.

"I ask because I do not know."

I think they focus more on conservatives because the guy who started it used to be part of the extreme right himself and he finally realized what they were doing to this country.

"With this in mind, Bill runs as much of a no-spin zone as you will find on TV."

Riiiiight. Far to the right, in fact.

Except that I've heard the audio recordings that say differently.

#147 | Posted by danni

You heard him say that slavery had its merits?

Seriously, can you link that?

You want fair, try NPR's Lehrer News Hour.

"You heard him say that slavery had its merits?"

No, I didn't hear all of the statements but some of them definitely.

I find that Bill Press and Thom Hartmann have very fair radio shows.

#148 | Posted by danni

If that's true, don't you find it troubling that
such a partisan group is a tax-exempt 'charity' organization?

No, I didn't hear all of the statements but some of them definitely.

#152 | Posted by danni

OK. Which comments did you hear?

I am not even asking you to link them, just recall
them as best you can.

Jackass,

Thom Hartmann is pretty fair, but he's boring as
whale-shit.

NOTE: Jack Huberman is standing by his quotes and Rush Limbaugh has yet to sue him for libel

Danni,

I used to be a regular Rush listener.

I just got tired of his incessant deflections every
time a legitimate criticism was levied against Bush.
Then, when he openly admitted he was shilling for
the GOP (at least he was honest about it) I decided
enough was enough. I bring this up because during
my time of listening, I never once heard him make
any racist remarks.

#156 | Posted by Corky

Are you OK with that rap-star whose album has lyrics
saying all sorts of ridiculously nasty shit about
'whitey' being a part-owner of an NFL team?

I have personally heard enough of Rush's hate talk without needing quotes to verify it.

So, that makes it OK to make shit up about him that
isn't true?

-So, that makes it OK to make shit up about him that isn't true?

One would have a hard time topping the true stuff. And if the stuff isn't true, why hasn't Rush sued?

-OK with that rap-star

Have no idea what you are talking about. Why, did someone decide to research all the part-owners and investors to come up with an excuse comparison for Rush?

I must say this - Realclearpolitics has several
op-eds linked on this war between Obama and Fox.
Not one of these op-eds supports Obama on this issue.

I think the thinly-veiled threat that Emannuel/Axelrod
levied, telling the media not to treat Fox as a
legitimate news organization, went over like a lead
balloon.

The reason I bring this up is that Realclearpolitics always
does an excellent job of linking all sides of an issue.
On this issue, there doesn't appear to be any Obama support.

regardless of what people say about Fox, it did expose the truth about Van Jones and ACORN. Even if you don't like Fox news, it functioned in connection with these 2 issues, as exposing truth. The consequences led to reforms (i.e. Van Jones out, ACORN being weaned off the government teat).

This is, after all, what the news is intended to do - not suck up to government, but be its watchdog.

But, by all means, cry on...

why hasn't Rush sued?

Apparently he's considering it. Also, unless you are suggesting that EVERY person who is libelled ends up suing, your point is a non-sequitur.

did someone decide to research all the part-owners and investors to come up with an excuse comparison for Rush?

Sort of. Although, I would say it's more of a
pointing out hypocrisy-thing than anything else.

One would have a hard time topping the true stuff.

Racist comments? Name a few.

Jeff, Rush Limbaugh's comments one way or the other are really not a big concern of mine. I didn't care if he got an NFL team either, I'm not exactly a big football fan. Al Sharpton's involvement made it even more less interesting.

Somoco,

The NYTimes refused to even cover Van Jones.

They only did so after the fact, as a blurb, with
zero mention of his comments and advocacies that
lead to his eventual ouster.

Given how syncophantic the press has been toward
Obama, you'd think liberals would be grateful for
the likes of Fox - shouldn't we ALL want a press
that is critical of our elected leaders???

Danni,

Up above you indicated you heard sound-bites of
racist comments eminating from Rush.

All I am asking is you to paraphrase some of those
comments to the best of your recollection.

"This is, after all, what the news is intended to do - not suck up to government, but be its watchdog."

Two fairly minor stories that the network made a big deal of but on much larger issues, when it was Republicans in the WH, they were silent. How many times did you hear them trying to find out where the 8 billion missing from the Iraq reconstruction fund went???? How quickly did they shift the blame for the economic crisis to Barnie Frank.

Randi Rhodes used to call for investigations daily. Whatever happened to her?

There's only one thing dumber than picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel -- picking a fight with people who don't even have to buy ink. The Obama administration's war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman's advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration's substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters.

Sure, it's legitimate -- and standard practice -- to dispense access and coveted interviews to favored reporters and news outlets. So is subtly doing the opposite: letting a reporter who's filed a tough story know that he or she is in the doghouse by leaking a scoop to a competitor. The Bush administration routinely briefed conservative columnists before a big presidential speech; the Obama White House tends to call in ideological sympathizers. This is the way the game is played.

Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC. "Opinion journalism masquerading as news," White House communications director Anita Dunn declared of Fox. Certainly Fox tends to report its news with a conservative slant -- but has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently? Or is the only problem opinion journalism that doesn't match its opinion? On "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace replayed a quote from an Obama interview: "I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lock step here."

^.^

"MSNBC's news programs are not slanted in the way Fox News' news programs are. When Bush was president, Fox News was actively distributing White House talking points to its personnel and telling them to repeat them. Show me a story where that's alleged of MSNBC or CNN or anyone else."

Oh pluhease. When I attempted to see if the alternatives to FOX were more neutral, I found Keith "the Hatemonger" Olberman, and Rachel "Whiner" Maddow, and all they did was take pot shots at the Bush administration. I wrote a blog
article on it as well.

I like the point that someone else made here ... Fox is Republican/conservative, MSNBC is Democrat/liberal ... pick your flavor, and leave the other channel alone.

"No, Rove perhaps, not Bush. Plus Bush's daddy made him a national figure, without his daddy he wouldn't have ever been anything. Obama did what he did on his own."

No he didn't.

How quickly did they shift the blame for the economic crisis to Barnie Frank.

#166 | Posted by danni

Can you point out where they reported that the
economic crisis 'was all Frank's fault'?

Or, is it simply not OK to bring up Frank's
involvement with Fannie and Freddie and their
substantial contribution as a basis of policy to
the mortgage bust? BTW, Kit Bond (R) is every bit
as culpable as Frank on this.

Danni: Revealing a blatant hoax is bias??????????????????

How many times did you hear them trying to find out where the 8 billion missing from the Iraq reconstruction fund went????

I remember Bremmer being questioned about it and
giving a fairly lame answer, and then, not much
more came of it.

You bring up a good point. That is a LOT of money
and the implications of corruption are vast.

It should have gotten far more scrutiny and outrage.

"Up above you indicated you heard sound-bites of
racist comments eminating from Rush."

I definitely heard the comment about McNab that got him kicked off of the sports gig he had.
I really don't care about him, the NFL, or this controversy. I don't like Sharpton either.

It's even easier to sit on the sidelines and vote for the worthless Loonytarian party and then scream at everybody "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Irrelevant".

#141 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10-20 12:40 PM

It's even easier to sit on the sidelines and vote for the worthless Loonytarian party and then scream at everybody "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Irrelevant".

I see. So in order to not be considered "on the sidelines" by some blogging douchebag stoner, I need to vote for one of the two corporate sellout parties. No thanks.

"Can you point out where they reported that the
economic crisis 'was all Frank's fault'?"

Barnie Frank was in the minority party at the time. Freedy's and Fannie's significance in the overall collapse of the houseing market was not a large part of it. There was far more responsiblity in Greenspan's and Bush's laps than in Barnie Frank's.
He was just a convenient Democrat, why didn't they ever bring up the Congressmen who chaired the committee at the time and who controlled the agenda of the committee??? It would be like blaming a Republican Congressman now for bad decisions made in the Democratic controlled committees writing the health care bill(s).

How quickly did they shift the blame for the economic crisis to Barnie Frank.

#166 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2009-10-20 01:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG

So what? Do you not think that the economic crises involved a number of contributing factors - one of which being the loosening of lending standards compliments of Frank?

If those two issues were so minor, why did the government respond? And so decisively?

I don't begrudge the Washington Post for its work on Watergate based on politics. Liberals should begrudge Fox news for what it does.

Danni, I agree that Bush got to where he was partly on his "daddy's" coattails. Obama got to where he is on pure "con" and some of that stuff in barnyards.

"I see. So in order to not be considered "on the sidelines" by some blogging douchebag stoner, I need to vote for one of the two corporate sellout parties. No thanks."

You aren't on the "sidelines" when you vote for one of the smaller parties. You effect the outcome by taking one vote away from whichever of the two major parties you most agree with. Example, a Nader voter took one vote away from Gore. A Buchanan voter took one vote away from....er....Dole?? I can't remember.

when it was Republicans in the WH, they were silent. How many times did you hear them trying to find out where the 8 billion missing from the Iraq reconstruction fund went???? How quickly did they shift the blame for the economic crisis to Barnie Frank.

#166 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2009-10-20 01:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Again so what? When the stories you care about were being covered by CNN and MSNBC, did you see Bush attacking those news organizations as being illegitimate? I think not. It is hypocrisy.

"So what? Do you not think that the economic crises involved a number of contributing factors - one of which being the loosening of lending standards compliments of Frank?"

Generally though you would report on the most significant people, events, etc. first.

"I don't begrudge the Washington Post for its work on Watergate based on politics. Liberals should begrudge Fox news for what it does."

The Washington Post has had many stories about Democrats over the years. They are a legitimate news outlet, Fox is just a mouth piece for the Republicans.

Danni, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac's leverage was 60:1 and it was well known that Bush attempted to get it under control and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Obama and others blocked that attempt. By the way since you don't know what you're talking about Franklin Raines, a political appointee as CEO (democrat) and his cronies lied about the financial condition of Fannie and based on financial performance goals walked away with millions in pay and bonus. The guy should be in jail.

You effect the outcome by taking one vote away from whichever of the two major parties you most agree with.

No - I would never vote for either of them in the first place. The sooner you realize that, the better.

They are a legitimate news outlet, Fox is just a mouth piece for the Republicans.

#182 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2009-10-20 01:34 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

And CNN and MSNBC (with all of Matthews's leg-tingling) can be said to be mouth pieces for the Democrats. Again, so what? That does not justify the administration from attacking the press, shutting them out, and encouraging other networks to shut them out. That is using government influence and resources to de-legitimize an organization that has, obviously, done some good in its watchdog role.

Again, you didn't see Bush doing this. It is hypocrisy, and an abuse of power.

Somoco, you hit it right.

Danni, I saw a comment that you weren't that impressed with Al Sharpton. Hey, good for you-- maybe there's hope yet for you.

"That is using government influence and resources to de-legitimize an organization that has, obviously, done some good in its watchdog role."

You can't de-legitimize something that has deligitimized itself long ago.

This discussion could go on forever and no one will ever change their minds. Obama and his administration are going to do what they decide to do in regards to Fox News and it will make the defenders of Fox mad. I think Obama knows that but figures those people would never support him anyway.
I think he is speaking to those who are not mostly Fox viewers.

#188. i understand your position. i think, however, that he does this at his political peril.

I'm not a defender of Fox therefore I'm not mad-- I just don't think it was good judgement when the big O's goons went after them. Nixon went after the press too and it never did anything positive for him.

"Nixon went after the press too and it never did anything positive for him."

Huh???? Many people still say the press has a "liberal bias" and much of that started with Nixon and Agnew. Nixon's problems came from actual crimes and the cover-up, the press revealed it but then there was a real investigation and his goose got cooked.

Just an interesting antidote:

Viewing images of the 'Tea Party' held in Washington D.C. this summer I recall seeing images of hand made posters created by the participants and there was one poster that had all the media symbols, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc., all of them X'ed, crossed out, out except for FOX.

Somewhat having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one's own, ya think?

What do they call it when your self-absorbed, self-obsessed? Egocentric?

#176 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-20 01:26 PM | Reply

You have a point, Joe. You voted for the Libertarian candidate, and now we are seeing the most positive changes in drug policies in decades. Thanks, Joe!

Is Joe still trying to grok this whole 2 party system thingy?

Legalization gains popularity in Americas

The Global Post ran a piece on the legalization movement in Central and South America. Mexico and other Latin American countries are moving toward drug decriminalization and Washington isn't complaining.

Thank you Ron Paul!

--Joe

"Thank you Ron Paul!"

What??? NO thanks to the Mexican drug cartels???
They are as responsible as anyone for the legalization movement.

Danni, Nixon went after the press far before Watergate happened.

"What do they call it when your self-absorbed, self-obsessed? Egocentric?"
#192 | Posted by Massai

Uh, Obama?

"Danni, Nixon went after the press far before Watergate happened."

Nattering Nabobs of Negativity.

Sprio Agnew

BTW, we named our dog Spiro back then, great dog, not such a great VP.

#199

Apparently Pat Buchanan wrote that. I saw his take on this on TV, and he while he agreed it's hard to win this kind of argument with the press, sometimes, he said, you have to take them on or watch your ship go down.

He ought to know, having been on several sinking "ships."

#192---"What do they call it when your self -absorbed, self -obsessed? Egocentric?"--- No, you call it traits of NARCISSISM or "NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER." I would encourage readers to read an opinion on Obama's personality. It's by Dr. Sam Vaknin, a world recognized authority on narcissism. He is the author of "Malignant Self Love". I would also recommend you do some heavy reading on the breakdown of narcissism and it might open some eyes and comments.

ABC/Washington Post Poll Spells trouble for GOP:

"Less than one in five voters (19 percent) expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decisions for America's future while a whopping 79 percent lacked that confidence.

Among independent voters, who went heavily for Obama in 2008 and congressional Democrats in 2006, the numbers for Republicans on the confidence questions were even more worse. Just 17 percent of independents expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decision while 83 percent said they did not have that confidence.

(While Obama's numbers on the confidence question weren't amazing -- 49 percent confident/50 percent not confident -- they were far stronger than those for Republicans.)

On the generic ballot question, 51 percent of the sample said they would cast a vote for a Democratic candidate in their congressional district next fall while just 39 percent said they would opt for a GOP candidate. (As late as this summer, Republicans had seemingly narrowed the wide generic ballot lead Democrats enjoyed for much of the last two election cycles.)

And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)

These numbers, coming roughly one year before the 2010 midterm elections, show that any celebration on the GOP's behalf is premature as the party has yet to convince most voters that it can be a viable alternative to Democratic control in Washington today."

The cult that is today's GOP/FoxNews crowd isn't in good standing with America.

I wonder how many narcicists graduate from Harvard Law School and then go to work as a community organizer, with very low pay.

199/201

Actually, while spiro criminal agnew spoke it, William Safire, who recently passed away, wrote, "Nattering nabobs of negativity"
among other rw bullshit.....

I love to use it for the party of NO, now though.

The other thing is how some are calling Obama's people commies for quoting mao.....

Problem is, the aide was quoting Lee Atwater in irony.....though she should know, repugs aren't smart enough to understand irony....

If in your grand design to advance youself--- How many us would go to the University of Chicago Law School on a fellowship and be asked to write a book on "race relations" and then instead write our own autobiography?

btw

scaarooo handjobbity and crybaby becky, along with bully o'lielly and unkkkle kkkarl and all the murdoch fks.....

why is anyone listening to a group of australian controlled fkrs anyhow?

almost as bad as reading wash times....owned by rev moon....

Buy American!

Matsop are you talking about BArack Obama???

Danni, Richard Nixon in all likelihood had paranoid traits or bordered on paranoid pathology: I wouldn't be surprised if Obama either was heavy into the narcissistic trait category or the actual pathology. Danni, do me a favor, open your mind and read Vaknin's book-- one of the traits of people (victims) that buy into the "cult of personality" is they're unable to distance themselves from that cult-- eventually they're frustrated by this helplessness and angry at themselves for having failed to see through the narcissism earlier.

Danni, that's right, many of these individuals are highly educated, in fact, I know 2 personally, one of them a multimillionaire (lawyer) and another one a cardiologist.

This is like the shrink who was diagnosing Bush, sorry two things here.
1. I have littel faith in psychiatry.
2. I have less faith in psychiatry done to sell books by people who haven't even personally examined the subject.
3. There are so many books around right now that I want to read I would hardly waste my time on that one. I am still trying to finish the long and tedious tome Freedom from Fear which, though very good, is a long hard read for me.

I've been reading Trusting Yourself, by M.J. Ryan and I highly recommend it danni

^.^

"President Obama has a qualification none of the others have, he was elected by a majority of American voters. That is the only qualification that matters."

Actually, it matters that the man have some experience or expertise at handing the matters that will come before him as President, and not just want the job because it is bright and shiny.

Yes, the American people elected Obummer, but according to your logic, George W Bush was just as qualified to be President because according to you, the only thing that counts was that he was elected.

Twice.

The guy that wrote the book isn't your run of the mill junk book writer-- he is truely wellknown. I hope you get to have some time to read it-- I think you would find it fascinating-- just a hope.

LUNA

Do you count as "elected" having his brother disenfrachise hundreds of thousands of votes in predominately dem counties, having his cousin call the election for him after midnight-after he got a bare majority, and then having his daddy's cronys on scotus stop a legal recount when it became obvious he wouldn't be able to keep his tiny margin and APPOINT him potus........

Remember how all of us who voted Gore a half a million popular vote majority didn't raise too much of a stink, since Al said it was for the best? (He's since recanted that, eh?)

Remember how all of us who didn't vote for him still supported him (90%) after he allowed 911 to occur on his shift?

What we are seeing now, with the sour grape repugs, the party of NO, is a bunch of loudmouthed town hall jerks attempting to shout down debate about healthcare reform and goofball tea parties with people not intelligent enough to know what's in their own best interests, and pure and simple racists-who won't support a black as potus regardless of the law and constitution......and giant global war/oil/health/pharma/media conglomerate corps who don't give a shit about America, is pathetic...

GOP=party over country

JUNAHQ7 experience us bit a good indicator of the quality of the president. Lincoln had very little. Bush had been a two term governor but was a poor president IMHO. I think the ability and desire to ask the right questions and listen to the answers from advisors, generals, ambassadors, etc. is more important than what job you happened to occupy before entering the WH.

You have to have something besides just an ear and questions...you are expected to have the ability to make DECISIONS and timely ones, with substance.. not continue to waffle for almost a year and show very little accomplishment.. unfortunately, this guy came to the WH without ANY real experience for decision making and it shows.. also without any real understanding of the office or what real leadership is and understanding the real problems of the country... he can listen and ask all day, but NO ACTION is the problem here, supported by the fact that just a diploma and a Hollywood role will not get the job done...!!!!

And you have to be able to make those decisions, after listening to your advisors, keeping an open mind, and regardless of public opinion that you are acting too slow, or too fast, or not doing enough or doing too much......

Since obama seems to drawing the ire of both sides of the political spectrum, I would say he is probably doing exactly what's right when the time is right, not before and not later than that.

I amazed at how many experts reside on these blogs that know exactly what to do, based on the limited info they have and the political bias of their sources.

It ain't over til it's over
Yogi Berra

Do not assume, WOKE, that every comment is based on a political bias.. that would be a show of pure ignorance.. excuse your man all you want, but the clock keeps ticking and the results still total to 'zero'...

What "results" were you expecting????

Was the economy supposed to be all fixed by now??

The war in Afghanistan won???

The debt paid down???

What???

Who's YOUR man DRSOUL?

My "man" is the President of the United States.

He inherited a clusterfuck in foreign policy and economic policy disasters that have occurred over the last 8 years.

He didn't create it but he's trying to fix it.

As he goes, so goes the USA.

Why would you not be wishing him to succeed?

Cool name, btw.

^.^

"The White House's condemnation of Fox News justifies them as a legitimate news source for those who hate Obama. The best way to silence Fox News would be to appear on it on a regular basis and have the words they claim you said come from your own mouth rather than through their's."

I agree. Treat FOX like any other news outlet, and the hyper numbers they are getting from this dust-up will possibly drop.

"I agree. Treat FOX like any other news outlet, and the hyper numbers they are getting from this dust-up will possibly drop."

The Obama administration doesn't really care about Fox's ratings. They are more concerned, I think, with branding Fox as an anti-Obama network so that whatever they say in the future it will be heard with that in mind. I watched Fox for a little while tonight and it seems that the various personalities are somewhat alarmed. A news network has its credibility as its most important asset, if that is reduced then so is their importance.

^.^

Two points, before I retire for the evening...

"Dr. Sam Vaknin" is a psychology hack, who was once diagnosed with NPD. Since then, he has written all sorts of materials that have been thoroughly debunked in the field of psychology. If you want an expert in NPD, do not go to this guy.

As to those who started in on my post about te qualifications to be President, I myself was responding to someone who said that the only qualification that mattered was that people elected him. Now, you may want to fight the old tired George Bush battles again, but in the end, he was as qualified as any other President, because he was ELECTED.

I specifically mentioned Bush, because I knew I would get that knee-jerk, whiny response. If the only qualification that matters is being elected, then you can't bitch when that qualification is used to justify the Presidents you didn't like.

I again state that there needs to be some amount of experience and expertise in the person we elect to be President ... hence I voted for McCain (which oughta stir up a whole new load of excrement...)

^.^

Oh, BTW, I also have a MS/P degree from the University of Phoenix, so I kinda know what I am talking about when it comes to psychology hacks. Vaknin, and "Dr" James Lehman are two people who should be avoided like the freaking plague.

Evidently the white house has lots to hide to be bashing Fox News, wonder why Fox wasn't scared off, or bought out by the liberal loonies???
Fox News by my exprience is the only News outlet that tells the News like it really is, and is not biased in their News reports as NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, is. I think I will begin buying stock in Fox News as long as they continue with unbiased News Casts, but if they begin biased and liberal leaning toward the loonies like the main News affiliated blathering traitors then I will discontinue supporting them...

He's the one they call Dr Feelgood hes the one that makes you feel alllllrightttt

Kudoes to Tapper from ABC news. He really got after Gibbs and wouldn't let him dodge the Fox news issue today. Maybe this is the beginning of a promising trend in the "mainstream" media.

A news network has its credibility as its most important asset, if that is reduced then so is their importance.

#224 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2009-10-20 08:18 PM

faux neocon network has already went to court to prove it's NOT a "news" organization, winning a judgement that they don't have to tell the truth...

Only a braindead idiot (dupe) or a paid political prostitute (shill) would watch faux neocon network and expect to get the truth.

If they tell the unvarnished truth, why would they go to court to say they don't have to tell the truth?

Hello?

What's really sad is that since the 2000 election fiasco, they have been feeding their special brand of "news" to all the other networks who lap it up and regurgitate it in the form of "cavutos", like this:

Obama hates white people?

Obama, a communist?

Obama wants to kill your grandma?

Obama caused our debt?

blah, blah, blah

Time we all woke up, isn't it?

Helen Thomas can say what she wants. So can Fox. So can the White House.
Fox is shit. It's about time Democrats said so.

Say what you want about Fox.

This is bad politics.

Plain and simple.

This is a losing strategy and it appears to anger an otherwise fawning media.

As biased as almost everyone in the MSM is, they don't take kindly to being told how to do their job "you shouldn't treat Fox as a news organization", even when such directive comes from the big-O.

Obama needs to shit-can his political advisors damn quick.

I can't believe how shitty his tack has been since his inauguration. He sold himself as a hope/change/unity candidate yet all he ever does is viciously attack his detractors and constantly take cheap shots at his predecessor.

I can't believe how crass and petty this guy is.

I knew that I would staunchly disagree with his agenda.

I knew that he'd likely be in over his head when it came to foreign policy.

I knew he'd struggle, especially early, with governance as he had no prior experience whatsoever.

What I DIDN'T know was that he'd be such a dick.

I really thought that, if nothing else, he'd conduct himself with class. I truly believed that.

I expected all of the other problems. The fact that he's proving to be a cock is what I find to be terribly disappointing.

I ummmmmmmmmm I ummmmmmmmm I aaaggree jjjjjeefff Jjjjjj. The Press no matter political persuasion must have access to the White House. It's why there is a First Amendment after all.

Larry

EXCEPT for this.

I can't believe how shitty his tack has been since his inauguration. He sold himself as a hope/change/unity candidate yet all he ever does is viciously attack his detractors and constantly take cheap shots at his predecessor.

#233 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-10-21 02:10 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

He tried to work with the Republicans and they gave Him the finger. Oh and as far as cheap shots I remember many that You Yourself made against Candidate Obama way before He was even a Primary winner. Flag pin calling Him Hussein all the time. Claiming He was a secret muslim that went to those waabie schools. So You Yourself aren't so squeaky clean in that regard JeffJ.

Larry

Oh and how many times has Dick CHeney and Dubya criticised Obama after they left office. You pitched a royal bitch fit about Carter doing it.

Just Saying.............

He tried to work with the Republicans and they gave Him the finger.

No, he didn't. He wasn't willing to make ANY meaningful concession of any kind and that's fine - he has big majorities in both houses; he didn't need to comprimise. But don't sit there and act as if he made any real effort at bi-partisanship...he didn't.

Flag pin calling Him Hussein all the time.

I thought he gave a bullshit answer to the flag-pin question. I called him by his middle name in order to needle his supporters. When I witnessed how fricking apeshit his supporters went over it I stopped. Seriously, when was the last time I called him Hussein? Also, to this day, you still refer to Bush as "dumbya", so please look inward before you jump over me for calling Obama by his middle name for a period of about 2 weeks.

Claiming He was a secret muslim that went to those waabie schools.

I never made any such claim.

Ever.

He was born and raised early on as a Muslim. For over 20 years he has been verifiably a Christian. Those are the facts.

Oh and how many times has Dick CHeney and Dubya criticised Obama after they left office. You pitched a royal bitch fit about Carter doing it.

Just Saying.............

#236 | Posted by LarryMohr

Dick Cheney?

A ton.

Dubya?

To the best of my knowledge, not at all.

Personally, I have no problem with former VP's criticizing a sitting prez. I DO however have a problem with former presidents criticizing a sitting prez. If Bush ever spouts off, I will call him out.

The Press no matter political persuasion must have access to the White House. It's why there is a First Amendment after all.

Absolutely.

Bush was fairly hostile toward the press and I didn't like it.

GE a $170,000,000,000 (with a B) owns NBC/MSNBC.

Big corporation.

News Corp is barely 20% of the size of GE.

Uneducated Liberals....a lame attempt.

Perino admits the Bush administration essentially froze out MSNBC towards the end.'
As part of the ongoing White House v. Fox News battle, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace complained yesterday that "as they've done every week since August, the White House refused to make any administration officials available to FOX News Sunday.'" On Fox and Friends this morning, host Brian Kilmeade tried to paint a contrast between the Obama administration and the Bush administration, telling former Bush press secretary Dana Perino, "not only did you not go after" networks critical of Bush, "you gave them interviews, as did the president." Perino corrected him, however, saying that "towards the end," the Bush administration largely froze out MSNBC

Personally, I have no problem with former VP's criticizing a sitting prez. I DO however have a problem with former presidents criticizing a sitting prez. If Bush ever spouts off, I will call him out.

#238 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2009-10-21 02:29 A

Google "bush criticizes Obama" and get your knowledge base informed...

And, remember bush saying, "I honor his service" about John Kerry, while his operatives smear lied his way to victory in 04?

Here are the family and political connections that the smarmy bastard didn't admit to, while having to fire TWO of his own campaign staff, after saying he wasn't connected to those smear liars.

"Web of Connections" - Oct 19

WEB of CONNECTIONS. President Bush. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. SBVT: Close Friend (Spaeth),. BUSH: Campaign Co-Chair ...
www.yuricareport.com/
Campaign2004/
web_of_connections.pdf

When will you learn what a lying ah bush was?

#30 Spud you're wrong. It should be beneath the dignity of the WH to defend itself against the media. That's for dictators and rogues in s---hole countries - not the US.

~Mr Fairlyunbalanced.

Whaa?!

Dictators from third world shitholes (a distressing amount of whom have been supported in their crimes by America, one should note) do NOT defend themselves from media with words.

They own media.
They control media.
They attack media they don't own.
They crush critical media mercilessly.
They bomb newspaper offices.
They kidnap, torture and murder journos.
Threaten owners and force them to flee for their lives.

The American President, otoh, is essentially, a public employee.

He werks fer you.

He should NEVER be above answering questions from the media and countering them when they get the facts wrong, either through ineptitude, as sometimes happens, or as a matter of policy, as we see on FOX "news" regularily.

K?

Be Well.

Tell that to Dan Rather and CBS News.

#139 | Posted by danni at

yo sweety
go to THE DRUDGE RETORT helps with CANT REMEMBER SHIT desease thread

they were LYING thier ass off.....

FOX is very trashy. But a large powerful government attacking a media outlet that is currently the main voice of dissent goes against the better ideals this country was founded upon.

Spin it any way you want, either you believe in a free press or you don't.

#123 | Posted by Sully at 2009-10

Yo...you got half of it right,....so I guess you are officially a halfwit..
BA DUMP DUMP

more people here should subscribe to your 2nd part.
BUT The white house doesnt...
check out reports about the fairness doctrine assault and what obama czars have said in the past
BUT TO SEE THOSE clips you have to fall out of love with olberman and matthews and watch fox.

Responding to them isn't the same thing as censoring or shutting them down. This has nothing to do with the freedom of the press. Fox News can say whatever they want but so too can the administration.

#125 | Posted by danni at 2009

Im really not picking a fight with just you but it is fun....

problem is that obama has the full weight of an oppressive govt behind him and most all of the other media outlets

BUT DONT TELL JAKE TAPER THAT>
GREAT exchange late yesterday between him and Gibbs..

so the other networks...IF SMART will wonder..
well will they come after US if we dont TOW THE WHITE HOUSE PARTY LINE?
I think without a doubt the white house will unleash an attack
LOOK at what they are now saying about insurance companies and reports on HEAlth care reform ...
AND TODAY even going after doctors
I THought the drs were ALL ON BOARD....with thier white coats and all

Afkabibblebabblespoogedribblin gdownherchin = Celisary?

The posting styles seem to be merging.

Fox News can say whatever they want but so too can the administration.

#125 | Posted by danni at 2009

Hold the phone! Did Danni just say it is OK for the administration to say "whatever they want?" Bush lied and people died is now invalid or was it the honesty requirement for the White House that changed?

Afkabibblebabblespoogedribblin gdownherchin = Celisary?

The posting styles seem to be merging.

#247 | Posted by Reagan58 at

uh...not quite...while our CAP fingers may have something in common...at least this post didnt have cocksucker, motherfucker, RACIST RACIST RACIST in it...

#243 - No it's not "'K", missy. And it's not OK either. The WH should not stoop like this.

And YES Fox IS a news channel. Watch their actual news and you will find it is truly just news just like any other cable news cahnnel. The fact that they have a lot of Right-leaning talking heads - so what? The others have a bunch of Left-leaning talking heads. WHo gives a shit?

You guys are so hung up on what you've been hearing that the Fox commentators are saying, you can't really through all your own froth.

Mr Spud - get a grip.

Mr President - get to work.

Hold the phone! Did Danni just say it is OK for the administration to say "whatever they want?" Bush lied and people died is now invalid or was it the honesty requirement for the White House that changed?

#248 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-21 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag

KAN - I can explain. Danni just got her check from Party HQ and is so excited she's just blubbering. It always happens.

"You can't kill the messenger."

Mr President - get to work.

#250 | POSTED BY MRFAIR AT 2009-10-21 01:52 PM

1. Nationally disses faux neocon network as a propaganda tool of neoconservative repugs

2. Cut's ceo pay in half for any corp recieving taxpayer funding

3. Public option continues to GAIN support with the people

4. Obama is rightly waiting to see what happens politically in Afghanistan before committing more troops or not.

5. Boosts small business lending in response to suggestions

6. Puts pressure on health insurers by discussing ending the antitrust exemptions.....

7. GOP Whitman drops in NJ in polls....as Obama supports Corzine.

The repugs/corporate lackeys wish he'd take one of those dubya vacations, eh>?

5. Boosts small business lending in response to suggestions

How about a link to that one. Oh you can't huh? I know you can't cause you pulled that one out of your ass.

Tell you what, I'm tired of doing you DR bloggers homework for you.....

Google: Obama small business lending

or just read the google news page until you find it......

Cannot find it?

Jest come back on here again and say that same shit....#254, and then I'll post it for you and rub your nose in it, if that's what it takes.

Nevermind, here I'll rub your nose in it anyway.....but you'd think all the times I've backed up my assertions and debunked bs on here already, posters like yourself would begin to realize something......I don't bullshit...

October 21, 2009, 10:05 AM
Are Obama's Small-Business Lending Proposals Also About Health Care?
By ROBB MANDELBAUM

Update | 12:59 p.m.

The Obama administration has gone public with the details of its initiatives on small-business lending, and they closely track what The Agenda reported today.

On the Small Business Administration side, the administration will ask Congress to raise the loan limit on the 7(a) lending program to $5 million; on the 504 program to between $4 million and $5.5 million, depending on the type of loan; and on the microloan program to $50,000. These caps are identical to those proposed in legislation by Senator Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican, whose support is crucial to the administration on another front health-care reform.

October 21, 2009, 10:05 AM
Are Obama's Small-Business Lending Proposals Also About Health Care?
By ROBB MANDELBAUM

Update | 12:59 p.m.

The Obama administration has gone public with the details of its initiatives on small-business lending, and they closely track what The Agenda reported today.

On the Small Business Administration side, the administration will ask Congress to raise the loan limit on the 7(a) lending program to $5 million; on the 504 program to between $4 million and $5.5 million, depending on the type of loan; and on the microloan program to $50,000. These caps are identical to those proposed in legislation by Senator Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican, whose support is crucial to the administration on another front health-care reform.

I understand and am told that the statement on Barack's desk is "the buck starts here."

5. Boosts small business lending in response to suggestions

I get the news same as you. Your statement sounded like something he already did. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

This is just another one of his goals like closing Gitmo.

The repugs/corporate lackeys wish he'd take one of those dubya vacations, eh>?

#253 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-21 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe they do, but what I'm saying is he should stick to President Work, and not doing a Rosie O'Donnell-style media-crap-wallow.

Fox will report real news and it will also host some outrageous right-leaning Talking Heads. It will also provide a forum for right and left types to argue, which is sorely missing from other MSM outlets.

But in any case - "So what?" Should be the WH response.

But in any case - "So what?" Should be the WH response.

#258 | Posted by MrFair

IMHO Fox is fanning the flames of violent extremism. Read about all the threats? Up 4X's over Bush. There are some real wackos out there.

Fox will report real news and it will also host some outrageous right-leaning Talking Heads.

Except that Fox's so-called "real news" consists of stuff that is just as biased, partisan and agendised as their maniacal talking heads plus tabloid teevee fluff bits largely brought to you by NILFs aka newsbabes.

Hardly "real news".

If they ever stop making the National Enquirer look like quality journalism in direct comparison then Spud will give them the credit due but at present they are still seriously in arrears.

No credit fer FOX.

Be Well.

Except that Fox's so-called "real news" consists of stuff that is just as biased, partisan and agendised as their maniacal talking heads plus tabloid teevee fluff bits largely brought to you by NILFs aka newsbabes.

Hardly "real news".

If they ever stop making the National Enquirer look like quality journalism in direct comparison then Spud will give them the credit due but at present they are still seriously in arrears.

No credit fer FOX.

Be Well.

#260 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-10-22 04:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

You've just exposed yourself, Spud and I tell you it ain't pretty seeing a 'tater peeled like that. Admit it. You haven't been watching Fox's actual news programming. You're just joining the DR anti-Fox dogpile.

Yes, Fox has right-leaning talking heads. The other guys have mostly left-leaning talking heads. Does this mean we have NO real news organizations in this country? Bah.

At least Fox invites and allows some pretty heavy opponents to speak out on its channel, compared to the other cable guys.

BTW - if you want to be fair & balanced, I suggest you watch The O'Reilly Factor, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, some CNN, some of Fox's actual news, and listen to NPR's Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Car Talk. You have plenty of eyes, after all! ;0)

Yes, Fox has right-leaning talking heads. The other guys have mostly left-leaning talking heads. Does this mean we have NO real news organizations in this country? Bah.

First, the idea that because the rest of the American MSM isn't as obviously biased and partisan as FAUXnews makes them all left leaning has become almost a truism amongst some on the right despite having no basis in reality wotsoever.

Saying the same thing over and over again does not make it any less of a lie than the first time it's sed.

Secondly, yer MSM is, first and foremost, a corporate entity who exist to sell soap, maintain the status quo, and service the agendas of the powers-that-be. In terms of informing the masses, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable it has FAILed almost entirely.

BTW - if you want to be fair & balanced, I suggest you watch The O'Reilly Factor, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, some CNN, some of Fox's actual news, and listen to NPR's Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Car Talk. You have plenty of eyes, after all! ;0)

Spud watches and listens to all of the above.

/Particularily fond of the "Puzzlers" on CT.

Spud has watched much of wot passes fer "real news" on Faux and still finds it wanting.

Wot part of that are you failing to get here?

Be Well.

Spud has watched much of wot passes fer "real news" on Faux and still finds it wanting.

Wot part of that are you failing to get here?

Be Well.

#262 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-10-22 05:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

That last bit. I have on a given day compared Fox's news briefs with say, CNNs and found them almost identical. Sometimes Fox will obsess over a Natalie Holloway or maybe an important Van Jones-type story that no one else will touch, but otherwise very similar. What part do YOU not get?

Also - take NPR's "This American Life" in small doses or else Ira Glass's voice will drive you to heavy drink, drugs and/or earplugs. As I mentioned before, he has a distinctive voice that was just made for silent film.

Sometimes Fox will obsess over a Natalie Holloway or maybe an important Van Jones-type story that no one else will touch

So you admit they are prone to tabloid teevee like the Holloway case and you admit that FOX regularily obsesses over stories like Van Jones in an effort to discredit the Obama administration.

And not just "sometimes".

They are pretty much consistent with that typa shiat.

Not to mention becoming an organiser and cheerleader for multiple anti-Obama demonstrations.

Can you find equivilancy with CNN on that score?

Didn't think so.

Yer not being Fair here, ya know.

Be Well.

/If you think Spud thinks CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS et al are all just peachy keen news organisations then you've got another think coming.

"If you think Spud thinks CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS et al are all just peachy keen news organisations then you've got another think coming."

#264 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-10-22 05:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

So Spud do you think the WH should attack them too, because they are not peachy-keen?

"So you admit they are prone to tabloid teevee like the Holloway case and you admit that FOX regularily obsesses over stories like Van Jones in an effort to discredit the Obama administration."

No I do not admit this at all. What I should have said was that they obsess over a Natalie Holloway and they PICK UP stories (ex: Van Joenes) that others won't follow. Or would you rather this type of story were silenced? So you know what's best for MY country eh?

So Spud do you think the WH should attack them too, because they are not peachy-keen?

You once again fail to differentiate between attacking someone fer no good reason and defending oneself from a continual onslaught.

What I should have said was that they obsess over a Natalie Holloway and they PICK UP stories (ex: Van Joenes) that others won't follow.

Faux werk to build up rage in the already hate-fueled right by specifically picking up a story like Van Jones and hyping the hell out of it. One of their favorite tricks is to take one of their "Mountain outta a molehill" storiesw and then make the story the story by "reporting" that they are the only ones "brave" enuff to pick it up.

And you fall for it.

Every single time.

Sad is that.

Be Well.

/Outtie
stage left.

Spud - apparently a lot of people "fell for it" - even the President or he wouldn't have accepted the guy's resignation.

Fox will report real news and it will also host some outrageous right-leaning Talking Heads. It will also provide a forum for right and left types to argue, which is sorely missing from other MSM outlets.
But in any case - "So what?" Should be the WH response.

#258 | POSTED BY MRFAIR AT 2009-10-22 03:46 AM |

Mr. Fair (and balanced, i presume?),

So, Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are missing from nbc/msnbc now? Since when?

Name some "lefties/libs" on faux neocon network.

You think it's perfectly normal for talking heads with their own shows to all be going after our potus, calling him a racist, saying he want's to kill your grandma, misrepresenting, misinforming, making shit up, eh?

Newscorp, which owns faux and now wall st journal and many other media outlets is owned/operated by an Australian, Rupert Murdoch. Apparently, he has no idea of what "fair and balanced" means.

Buy American

Oh, I'll be waiting to see that list of lefty/libs who have their own shows on faux, or even appear there, from you.

If you say Dick toe sucker Morris, who bashes dems at everytime he speaks, I'll know you are just another disengenuous rwr yourself.

btw, Just out of curiosity, WHERE do you get your "news"??????

#255 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-10-21 10:44 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

5. Boosts small business lending in response to suggestions
I get the news same as you. Your statement sounded like something he already did. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
This is just another one of his goals like closing Gitmo.

#257 | POSTED BY MYSTERYTOY AT 2009-10-21 10:52 PM

Oh, ok. I guess you are aware then that small business loan boosts were already part of the first stimulus, but it was felt that it wasn't quite good enough yet?

So, do you watch tv/cable "news" or read articles from credible sources?

btw, I like your screenname.

And you fall for it.

Every single time.

Sad is that.

Be Well.

/Outtie
stage left.

#266 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-10-22 06:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Spud you poetic SOB. Drop the punctuation and skip the upper-case and you could be a regular ee cummings.

No I DO NOT fall for it every single time. The fact that I am willing to see the benefits of watching Fox simply means I am trying to be fair. I already gave you some advice on how to be fair in your choice of media outlets and you seemed to agree. Why now keep poking at Fox?

I even check the Guardian and WND on the same day. Are you able to comprehend that or will it blow some kind of anti-Murdoch fuse in your potato head?

You know - the idea of getting info from VARIED sources? And are you able to trust that millions like me are able to sift the info from the BS and that we are capable of figuring things out and making up our own minds without the government telling us which are the correct thoughts to have?