About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Special Report panel all clears Obama in photo ridiculousness

July 10, 2009 10:15 pm ET

From the July 10th edition of Fox News' Special Report:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by princeofwheels (July 10, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
      9  
      Is this a left-over April Fool joke? Did these guys just say that Hannity is full of $#*%(crap)?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by vwcat (July 10, 2009 10:52 pm ET)
      8  
      I have to give credit to these guys for bringing it up and showing what the truth really is. And for Krauthammer to say that Obama is not the type to ogle.
      These guys showed class and it should be applauded.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tsar_aaron8910 (July 10, 2009 10:53 pm ET)
         
      Holy crap, were they just being fair and balanced?!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 10, 2009 11:24 pm ET)
      8 1
      Charles deserves a handshake. Good to see that he has decency when it comes to this nonissue. Good work.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by paul8616 (July 10, 2009 11:46 pm ET)
      4  
      "Always trust your underlying assumptions and not your eyes" means that we're free to see whatever we want, Mr. Krauthammer. That's how this manufactured controversy came to be in the first place.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (July 11, 2009 12:26 am ET)
      9 1
      Not surprisingly,
      Fox is trying to cover their ass, lest the other corporate media "turn on them."

      Even Barnabus Collins made light of it. Fox is scum. Take a look Mr. and Mrs. America.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kfraz43 (July 11, 2009 12:30 am ET)
      3  
      I would like to say "thank you" to this panel. This is one of those moments when being on opposite sides is OK again - some depth of thought from folks who don't agree with the person that they are analyzing. I rarely agree with Mr. Krauthammer, but he showed that there is a faint glimmer of hope on the right. I would love to think that they can build on that, but history shows that this may be more of an isolated incident.

      What this does show, however briefly, is that the folks who are commenting on Obama for a living (e.g., in op eds, etc.) really don't carry the vitriole. It truly is the primetime Fox talk show element that is going for scandal. I may be overly naive, but I find this slightly encouraging.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 11, 2009 1:02 am ET)
      3  
      Agreed, thank you panel,
      Off in the distence I hear the pitter patter of executive shoes running for the Faux Bunker.
      And a tinny voice saying,"Engage victimhood protocols stat!"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by marco21 (July 11, 2009 1:32 am ET)
      8 1
      Sorry, I refuse to applaud these wingnuts who gleefully smear the President with abandon every chance they get because for once they showed some restraint, and they couldn't pull that off without being horrendously snide. Their employers are still pushing this junk and this panel seems to have learned everything they know of the French from Pepe Le Pew cartoons. They don't deserve accolades for finally trying, albeit with pained faces, to be a little honest. Their buddies have smeared the President as a man who chases teen tail while his wife and daughters aren't around. When they hit back against their fellow on-air "talent" for promoting the smut fit to serve the "family values" crowd, let me know.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (July 11, 2009 5:15 am ET)
        4  
        When they hit back against their fellow on-air "talent" for promoting the smut....
        Exactly!! Fox knew they went to far. On the big screen it is so obvious that President Obama's eye lids are nearly shut, he has to be looking down. He couldn't possibly be looking up at her tush. He is watching the step, his step and helping the girl down the step.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (July 11, 2009 6:27 am ET)
      4  
      I am so glad that the near ban on liberals appearing in cable news ended about three or four of years ago. If it hadn't ended, this "scandal" would have lasted for weeks.

      The only reason this panel even acknowledged the "scandal" was a lie is because they know that liberals now have a broader outlet to debunk right wing smears than in the past.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (July 11, 2009 11:43 am ET)
        1 1
        skiploader1111,

        Sounds to me like your implying that only 'liberals' would keep a pathetic worthless non-issue like this photo of Obama alive for weeks?

        I beg you to provide even one liberal on TV or radio that is wetting his/her pants over this garbage the way that the vast majority of the right-wing media is?

        These Fox-Noise neanderthals only realized that this non-issue would make them look even more foolish than usual... I give them kudos for seeing it that way, but that's it.

        As for your second sentence it sounds to me that your saying that these jerks would have gone ahead and done this story the way that Hannity, O'Reilly, Tammy Bruce, Rush, etc have, if not for your perceived assumption that 'liberals' own the airwaves instead of simply realizing that this truly is a non-issue... that in and of itself is the funniest thing I ever heard from a fellow poster.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kfraz43 (July 11, 2009 1:01 pm ET)
          3  
          actually, capt, I think skiploader was stating that before the advent of liberal TV (KO, Rachel, ED), there was no outlet for these manufactured "scandals" to be halted. The result was they had much more traction. If I'm reading skiploader correctly, he's happy that there is a broader liberal outlet, because it means that it keeps the clowns on the right in check...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by captfoster2 (July 11, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
            7  
            kfraz43,

            After rereading skiploaders post above, after reading yours as a reference, your right, I misunderstood what it was he was saying.

            I guess I could still hold to what I said, but instead say it with a clearer vision to his intent and not the intent I presumed.

            For that, skiploaders... I apologize to you for assuming that which you obviously did not mean.

            Next time I'll have to read posts more careful before replying to them...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by robyn20094113 (July 11, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
                 
              I've read enough of your past posts, that immediately I was sure you had misread his post.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by robyn20094113 (July 11, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
              1  
              I've read enough of your past posts, that immediately I was sure you had misread his post.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by kfraz43 (July 11, 2009 10:55 pm ET)
              1  
              capt, if you're on here long enough, you're going to misread something eventually. We're all on the defensive, because even though our guy won by an impressive majority, we always feel that our voices are the quieter ones.

              Your second paragraph is what separates us from the reich wingnuts - the recognition that you could stand by your original comment, but the ability to take a second look and not only accept a different viewpoint but apologize to the OP for your original assumption. Wingnuts would have spent the next week defending their original comment, other opinions be damned...
              Report Abuse
        • Author by skiploader1111 (July 11, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
          2  
          Exactly. I was implying exactly what you described. Only the fact that there are more liberals on the airwaves keeps a fake scandal like this one from taking off as rallying point for Republicans.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by yancy derringer (July 11, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
      2  
      Notice how the deceptive propagandists use the WP as the source of the photo. They make it sound like all they are doing is debunking a WP lie. The WP should be taken to task for this but the Fox deception peddlers don't mention the real origin of this lying smear - their fellow wackjobs at FReerepublic and Drudge - nor they mention their own website and hannity still promoting the lie.

      These poeople have no souls.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LIBERTY OR DEATH (July 11, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
         
      Oh the travisty of it all give me a break.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (July 11, 2009 5:31 pm ET)
      1  
      Guess we will really have to wait for Boss Limbaugh to straighten out these guys on Monday
      Report Abuse
    • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (July 11, 2009 9:24 pm ET)
      1  
      for once, fox news is actually honest and real about their opinions. they could have easily been like their buddy hannity and claimed he was doing what people assume, but they stayed classy. however, we'll expect for things to get back to normal very soon at fox news where they will continue to bash obama. i guess one day of decency is possible for these guys.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by layman26 (July 12, 2009 8:59 am ET)
         
      I found the most telling part of this segment was Wallace's citing of the Washtington Post as the source of this controversy. As if it was not discussed at every opportunity on his own network. I read the Washington Post on line as my primary new source and I did not see this anywhere. I have not read the web site in as much detail this week as others, but I could not find it even in a search this morning.
      Report Abuse