Baier repeats accusation that Huffington Post "coordinate[d]" with Obama to ask question
June 23, 2009 7:40 pm ET
From the June 23 edition of Fox News' Special Report:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
Fox's Trotta savages Stephanopoulos over possible move to Good Morning America
November 22, 2009 2:45 pm ET -
Thomas claims about health care reform: "It is an outrage, it is a sham, euthanasia is coming."
November 22, 2009 1:47 pm ET -
-
-
-
MacDonald response to Hardy's statement that "the government invented ... the Internet": "No, Al Gore did"
November 21, 2009 11:48 am ET
-
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
by Eric Boehlert - 1 hour and 17 minutes ago -
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
by Simon Maloy - November 20, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
by Greg Lewis - November 20, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
So Smiley telling us "we (the media) have to help make him a great president" or Keith Olberman's tingling feelings aren't evidence of a liberally biased media. How about Charle's Gibson's attitude toward Palin? Nah, the soft balls launched at Obama during a press conference by certain media outlets mean nothing either. Does the banning of Fox news demonstrate Obamas fear of real question's during ABC's helth infomercial? How about the informercial itself and the choice of media outlet? How about lack of reporting by these outlets of Obama's corruption both past and present?
How about the print media where one can find the political party of a corrupt politician mentioned in the headline or beginning of a story if it is a Republican and mentioned only late in the article if at all when it is a Democrat? How about Republican scandals often making front page news while Democrats often found buried in the paper in small articles if, once again, anything i mentioned at all.
Nah, there's no liberal media. And to hold back your predictable rebuttal, I admit Fox news' slant to the right.
Until the dissolution of the "fairness" doctrine by Reagan one might believe this to be true. The fact of the matter is, in the final analysis, they are all politicians and as such should be kept under watchful eye (left or right). Ever notice that when talk radio (dominated by the right) gains traction on an issue, the complacent television media (dominated by the left) eventually, and often begrudgingly, picks up on it? There are many issues you would not hear about otherwise.
One would think, now, the bias is obvious with the slobbering reporting on Obama. I can admit the faults and bias' in my own party. I also hold them accountable. Try having the intellectual honesty to do the same.
As for the "slobbering" reporting on Obama, I haven't seen much of that. I keep hearing about it from the Troglodytes, but I think it lives in the same cave with Sasquatch.
I respect their newly-hatched perspectives, but also recognize that given the chance, they'd hop right back on that partisan bandwagon if it became fashionable again.
I've yet to see any debunking thus far. Yes, I am first and foremost a conservative. I've not strayed from that in the slightest. I hold to Thomas Paine's idea that "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one". If we had a real Conversative run, you're damn right I'd give my full support. However, your statement, "I respect their newly-hatched perspectives, but also recognize that given the chance, they'd hop right back on that partisan bandwagon if it became fashionable again." is very telling of what is wrong with the Republican party today. Notice how there wasn't very much real enthusiasm for John McCain? If a REAL conservative had run, Obama would've been creamed at the polls. As far as partisan politics are concerned, look no further than the left for sterling examples. Apparently their talk of bipartisanship is enough for you because, well, it ain't happening unless it's someone like Specter who was practically a Democrat anyway. Good riddance.
Anyhow, still waiting on the debunking...
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/
Ever notice that when talk radio puts out a major lie the media picks up on it? They are so busy broadcasting right wing lies that there is little time left to actually discuss the truth.
Nice attempt to rewrite history, but the press is so slobberingly loyal to the 4th reich that it's no wonder no one listens to the news anymore. Now would be a good time for you to actually practice what you are preaching and go hold the right accountable for their lies and inaction.
If by 4th Reich you mean Democrats. Nice allusion to Republicans = Nazis. The sad reality is, the left has far more in common with national socialism than the right.
"Now would be a good time for you to actually practice what you are preaching"
I do and OMG! The vast right wing conspiracy has too!
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/24/bastard/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/25/sanford-scandal-latest-blow-republicans/
This is relative to the print media, and yes, in some small examples you might find that but not so in larger outlets like the NY and LA times, etc.
"Give it up the media is far more right than left."
In the case of talk radio I agree. Televised and print media, whole 'nother story.
"Bush gave FOX unpresident access during his time in the Oval Oficce."
And I was against it. The public needs a truly objective media. I tend to watch both, though the slobbering over Obama is a bit much to bear from leftist outlets lately. You will also find that Fox is more criticial of the right than the remaining outlets are of the left.
"Fox news lies and the courts have said it can."
Remind me again, who intentionally used false documents about Bush's Air Guard service? And that's just one example. As far as the court lie goes, Fox did not sue for the right to lie. Read the court documents. A LOCAL (as opposed to the national outlet in the previous mentioned example) Fox station in Florida sued regarding the terms and application of whistleblower protection concerning the Bovine steroid controversy, not the right to lie. Stop believing everything you're told and do some research.
You can't be serious. Please return to reality.
Extra! Extra! Read aaaallll about it! Get yer red hot talkin' points here! Extra, extra! Hurry up, they won't last long! Extra!
As far as Palin, she was treated with KID gloves by the media. I mean, how hard is a question like, "What magazines do you read?", or "How do you feel about the Bush doctrine?"
Obama hasn't banned FoxNews. He gave an exclusive, to ABC. Presidents of all stripes and political persuassions have done this for years and decades on end. Happens all of the time. Someday, it will be Fox's turn. And, you show yourself by calling it an infomercial, especially since it hasn't even happened yet. ABC promised opposing viewpoints to counter what the President is proposing.
I am afraid you are going to have to show that Tavis Smiley was refering to the media and not the American people. When he made this quote, he was speaking to Harry Reid who had said that he did not work for Barack Obama. Tavis told him to, "put down the crack pipe," and said we all are working for the President. Not sure where you got the idea that he was refering to "the media." It was actually Chris Matthews who made the statement that it was his job to make the President a success... which takes us to the next part.
Once again, this was Chris Matthews who had the tingling feelings. It doesn't seem to me like you have a problem with three different Journalists... just one.
What about it?
A free press is free to ask what ever questions they wish. What question would you like to have asked of the President at one of these press conferences?
Banning? What banning?
I am going to assume your objection to this is that you believe ABC to be biased and partisan towards the President. Feel free to explain.
Please provide examples of corruptions "past and present" and we will tell you if we have heard of them. That should help to prove that there was adequate reporting of any corruptions that may have existed.
Now I can think of some very specific examples, including an Illinois Govenor, that prove you to be very wrong about this.
I see no reason why we can't agree here.
So for retribution, Politico and the MSM run with the completely bogus notion that there was a "conspiracy" between Obama and HuffPo.
This was a classic example of the self-indulgent media elites not taking American's problems seriously.
As I recall, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney became so frustrated with the incompetence of reporters that they often just questioned themselves at news conferences...
And when that didn't work, they just bagged the press conferences and invited wingnut radio hosts over for a "friendly chat":
Huff Post is finally getting its due and being seen as the new main stream (non-corporate owned)... oh wait... I get it... you and your fellow corporate whores are upset that this president is not completely owned by other corporate whores.
Its going to take the Huff Post, MMfA, Center for American Progress, BradBlog, and all the other progressive sites to stay the course and keep our elected officials on their toes!
I hope that Obama has the audacity to keep doing this!
Americorps comes to mind. How about those lobbyists he placed in his administration. Nah, he's perfectly above all of that. /sarc
"keep our elected officials on their toes!"
You mean keep them in office right?
...is merely the limitation of your perspective based on your own experience.
As they are starting to realize after the fact, when they bought everything they were told by Obama and a complacent media. They also failed to listen to dissenting voices (which are proving themselves prophetic) prior to the election and make a reasoned decision. It's called buyer's remorse.
"the desire for good government over partisan cheerleading is the pervasive state of mind."
I wholeheartedly agree. Sadly, we're instead sold a bill of goods.
"is merely the limitation of your perspective based on your own experience."
A news anchor telling us that it is the media's responsibility to insure that Obama succedes is an experience that reasonably effects my perspective. The soft handling of Obama by a majority of media outlets is further validation.
And don't try to change the subject of your "keep him in office" statement. Those outlets mentioned by CaptFoster have all questioned Obamas policies, been critical of some, and are NOT "a majority of media outlets".
Another non-story made into a BIG story.
Beginning to feel a little sorrow for the "littleness" being shown by the Right. Why don't they just take their balls and go home? They can come out and play again in 2016.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Would you be saying that if it were a conservative blog and president? Me thinks not.
Obviously, we are presented with another powerful force of Hannity intellect, only not so strict on details. Once can only admire how they reach such bulls-eye dead on deductions with not only a scarcity of information, but even in an environment adversely littered with misinformation.
Yes, it is not new. However, it is widely known (or at least heard about) and relative to the issue at hand making it more useful as a means by which to reach even the least politically astute and uninformed. It is more useful in this environment as opposed to a real debate forum.
"Once can only admire how they reach such bulls-eye dead on deductions with not only a scarcity of information"
So far, not to excuse my limited responses, I have seen no better from the constituents here. However, that is not the point. There is something to be gained by brevity and when that does not suffice, ideas can be expounded on. I prefer to start with the simple and then build toward the complex. It also helps keep the conversation on track. This is simply my preferred means of debate.
Yes, it IS new. The old fact was that Chris Matthews said that Obamas speaking style made him feel a "thrill going up" his leg.
And it's that attention to detail, or lack thereof, that is indicative of faulty reasoning based on (I hate to repeat myself, but it's necessary to clarify for some) "a scarcity of information, but even in an environment adversely littered with misinformation."
Brevity is fine in debate, as long as both parties can agree on the concept being abbreviated. Statements of misinformation, however, are the first warnings that there is a broken link along one partys chain of logic.
"troll in need of lots of attention"
Personally, I enjoy rigorous debate, but call it what you will. It is your environment afterall.
If you haven't noticed, people who have supported OBama have also loudly disagreed with him, case in point, large groups of homosexuals.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I agree with this assessment with only one exception that I'm aware of but Thom Hartmann is the one I listen too to get my daily dose of sanity and information.
There are two other possible exceptions since I consider the need to laugh and scream essential to a healthy life along with the need for knowledge... I listen to Stephanie Miller and Mike Malloy.
I know there are others, but there is only so much time in the day to listen to the radio.
To repeat what I said in my post above, I do believe that blogs are the future of journalism and reporting and I do think that it would be best for President Obama to keep calling on them, often!
Mr. News
Note to reporters and news corporations: check the Adverse Posession laws in your state.
LOL, smiley wickedly.
The above statement is the real reason the fairness doctrine might not be needed anymore. Contrary to the disinfo that the right wing spouts about the FD, the reason for it in the first place was because there are (were) only a limited amount of Federally leased airwaves. That being so it was (and did become with Raagen dereg) possible for all the airwaves to be owned by conservatives (lke Ruppert Murdoch).
Clearly that isn't/wasn't good for the public and democracy.
One of the reason the wingnuts hate the blogisphere is that it allows smaller players like Huff Post" to get the truth out.