O'Reilly challenged Rather to "put up or shut up" for claiming that Fox News echoes White House
On the December 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly attacked former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather for his criticism of Fox News Channel, telling Rather that he "needs to put up or shut up." On the November 17 edition of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Rather asserted that "I think it's fair to say, Bill, in fact, I know it is, that Fox News operates at least in a somewhat different way than every other news organization that I know. ... They have their talking points ... from the White House." Rather defended his claim during the December 17 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources. Responding to Rather's assertions, O'Reilly stated that he "want[ed]" Rather to provide "some documentation of his accusation" when Rather appears on The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly asserted that Rather "can't" "back ... up" his claim; suggested Rather was "dishonest"; and stated that Fox News is "balanced" because the channel employs O'Reilly himself, hosts Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, and Greta Van Susteren, as well as analysts Kirsten Powers and Michelle Malkin. In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, Fox News anchors, contributors, and correspondents routinely forward White House talking points in their own reporting.
ECHOING WHITE HOUSE TALKING POINTS
- As Media Matters noted, on the December 7 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, Fox News chief White House correspondent Brett Baier claimed that President Bush had "praised the report and the members on the Iraq Study Group [ISG] for tying any withdrawal [from Iraq] to commanders' assessment of the conditions on the ground in Iraq." But in suggesting that the ISG's recommendations were consistent with Bush administration policy, Baier failed to note that the report recommends that "[i]f the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government."
- After an exchange during the December 6 White House press briefing between NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory and White House press secretary -- and former Fox News host -- Tony Snow over the ISG report, numerous Fox News hosts echoed Snow's suggestion that Gregory was asking a "partisan" question about the report. For instance, as Media Matters noted, on the December 7 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said that Gregory is "a partisan," that he is using "loaded questions," and that "[h]e has come to the conclusion that Iraq is a loser and bases his questioning upon that belief." On the same day's edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that "[i]t's all about David Gregory. It's never about the issue with that guy," adding that Gregory "talks to Tony Snow as if he wants to be famous and he wants John Kerry and Al Gore to be re-elected." Co-host Steve Doocy claimed that Gregory "never lets Tony Snow finish a sentence," called Gregory "Dick Gregory" and "Grouchy Gregory," and asked if "NBC [should] ditch David because he's asking partisan questions."
- On the October 23 edition of The Big Story, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron repeated the Bush administration's misleading claim that it has created "some five million jobs" in the last "five years." In fact, because there was a net loss of 2.6 million jobs from February 2001 through July 2003, there has been a net gain of 3.2 million new jobs in the first 68 months of the Bush presidency, as Media Matters previously documented.
- In late March, Bush and White House officials advanced the argument that mainstream news outlets' Iraq war coverage was not providing a "complete picture" of the situation there. As Media Matters noted, by March 23, the same day then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan began to advance the argument, the White House's message reverberated across Fox News. On the March 23 edition of Special Report, host Brit Hume posed the question of whether the media is "suppressing or underreporting the good news in Iraq" to his "All-Star Panel." Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke complained that "you never see anything about American heroes" in the media's coverage of the war. "Whoever is winning Silver Stars, we don't know anything about it," Kondracke said. On the March 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Hannity noted Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Iraq coverage earlier in the week before agreeing that "the story is not being told about the good news and about the progress." He continued, "There is lazy reporting going on. It is somewhat institutional, and there is partisanship on the part of the media." Earlier in the day, on Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto asked his audience, "Is the media hopelessly biased against President Bush?"
- On July 13, 2005, Fox News correspondents and commentators, including Cameron and Fox News analyst Newt Gingrich, echoed deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove's reported assertion that former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, authorized Wilson's trip to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium from that country.
- Following a June 22, 2005, speech by White House senior adviser Karl Rove, Hume and Cameron both parroted the White House's defense of Rove's controversial remarks that "[c]onservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." On the June 23, 2005, edition of Special Report, both echoed the White House talking point -- that Rove was discussing "different philosophies" rather than specific Democrats. Cameron reported that "Rove compared liberal and conservative philosophies," and Hume prefaced a discussion of the issue with this disclaimer: "Now it's probably worth noting at the outset here that Rove directed his criticism and his comparison at ... liberals as opposed to conservatives.
- On August 10, 2004, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly cited a bogus statistic propagated by the Bush administration to claim that "[s]o much [federal education] money has poured into the states that they can't spend it, that most states are going to have to give back to the Treasury Department between 20 and 12 percent of the federal money coming in." In fact, at the time, states had spent 99.5 percent of the federal money for K-12 education allocated for the most recent year for which all relevant deadlines for state expenditures of that money had passed.
- On the August 6, 2004, edition of Special Report, the "Fox All-Star Panel" attempted to put the best possible spin on disappointing job numbers for July, discussing the new data using almost the same language as the Bush administration and the Republican National Committee (RNC), as Media Matters documented.
ADOPTING WHITE HOUSE TERMINOLOGY
- As Media Matters noted, days after the Bush administration adopted new rhetoric to describe its warrantless domestic surveillance program, Fox News reporters and anchors began using the White House's terminology, misleadingly referring to it as a "terrorist surveillance program." On January 22, the White House Press press office released a backgrounder -- called "Setting the Record Straight" -- on the National Security Agency [NSA] spy program, in which the term "terrorist surveillance program" appeared 10 times in reference to the program. Bush first used the term publicly during a January 23 speech at Kansas State University. On the January 24 edition of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends, co-hosts E.D. Hill and Steve Doocy used the term "terrorist surveillance program" while discussing the president's speech, and then concurred that the White House's terminology "sounds better" and "is more accurate." The following day on Fox & Friends First, Doocy and Kilmeade announced their intention to refer to the program as "the terrorist surveillance program." By January 25 -- during a week that saw the administration go on the offensive to promote its practice of spying on U.S. residents without obtaining warrants -- Fox News began slipping the term, without qualification, into its news reports and commentary. The term "terrorist surveillance program" is misleading, as it suggests that only known terrorists' communications have been targeted, when, in fact, thousands of innocent Americans were reportedly spied on. As The New York Times noted, the NSA forwarded the Federal Bureau of Investigations "thousands of tips a month," nearly all of which "led to dead ends or innocent Americans."
- As Media Matters for America has also noted, Fox News followed the White House's lead in replacing the terms "suicide bomber" and "suicide bombing" with "homicide bomber" and "homicide bombing" to describe attackers who kill themselves and others with explosives. On April 12, 2002, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer adopted the term, and Fox News immediately followed suit in its reporting. According to an April 13, 2002, Associated Press report, "Dennis Murray, executive producer of [Fox News'] daytime programming, said executives there had heard the phrase ["homicide bombing"] being used by administration officials in recent days and thought it was a good idea." On a February 23, 2005, Media Matters documented the Fox News website's doctoring of AP articles about terrorist attacks in the Middle East to conform to Bush administration terminology -- even altering a quote from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) to fit White House jargon.
INTERNAL FOX NEWS MEMOS
As documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald's film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism and Media Matters have noted, internal Fox News memos bearing the name of Fox News Senior Vice President, News Editorial John Moody often appear to direct employees to frame coverage favorably for conservatives. Most recently, as Media Matters noted, after the Democrats won control of Congress in November, Moody reportedly authored an internal memo stating, 'The elections and [former Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld's resignation were a major event, but not the end of the world," and: "The war on terror goes on without interruption." The following is a sample of reporting instructions contained in memos from 2003 and 2004.
- [T]he pictures from Abu Graeb [sic] prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf? It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb [sic] situation in perspective (5/5/04).
- Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force". We won't be among that group (4/4/04).
- The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers (4/6/04).
- If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for the terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance (4/22/04).
- The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Iraqi officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved (4/4/04).
- [L]et's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground [of pictures coming out of Fallujah] as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation (4/28/04).
- [Le]t's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which [th]e President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are [qu]alified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views [on] one issue -- abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in [th]e days to come (5/9/03).
- [Sen. John] Kerry [(D-MA) and Democratic presidential candidate at the time], starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia. There's a near-meaningless primary in Illinois (3/16/04).
- John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican [sic] "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign (3/12/04).
- [Th]e president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: [pu]tting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day (6/3/03).
- The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).
- [At] the UN, Catherine Herridge will follow the US sponsored resolution calling [fo]r the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. Not surprisingly, we're facing [re]sistance from our erstwhile European buddies, the French and Germans (5/9/03).
- The pictures shown in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom (4/1/04).
- [Th]e tax cut passed last night by the Senate, though less than half what Bush [or]iginally proposed, contains some important victories for the administration. [Th]e DC crew will parse the bill and explain how it will fatten -- marginally -- [yo]ur wallet (5/22/03).
- For everyone's information, the hotel where our Baghdad bureau is housed was hit by some kind of explosive device overnight. ALL FOX PERSONNEL ARE OK. The incident is a reminder of the danger our colleagues in Baghdad face, day in and day out. Please offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine) (3/24/04).
O'Reilly also appeared on the December 19 edition of Fox & Friends, where Doocy asked O'Reilly "what ... Dan Rather [is] smoking." O'Reilly asserted that Rather has "got a little confusion in his life," to which Kilmeade replied: "I think he's gotta get a therapist." Additionally, Doocy complained that Rather allegedly "comes on" Fox News "when he needs to sell something." But seconds later, Doocy plugged O'Reilly's new book Culture Warrior, saying: "Culture Warrior would make a perfect Christmas gift. ... Fits right in that stocking." Also, in Doocy's last appearance on The O'Reilly Factor on October 20, he promoted his book The Mr. & Mrs. Happy Handbook (HarperCollins, October 2006).
From the December 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Also, Dan Rather needs to put up or shut up.
RATHER [video clip]: I want to be specifically clear. Bill Reilly [sic] may never get White House talking points, and I believe him when he says that he didn't get it.
O'REILLY: We'll have the latest on the Dan Rather-Fox News controversy.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right. Now, right after that, we invited Mr. Rather on the Factor. He said he would come on in the future, but he was very busy. However, he did find time to go on CNN and say this.
RATHER [video clip]: First of all, Bill has invited me on the program, and I intend to be on the program. I stand by what I said on the Bill Maher program. Not only is it true, but it's widely known to be true, and I do know it to be true.
I want to be explicitly clear. Bill Reilly [sic] may never get White House talking points, and I believe him when he says that he didn't get it. I also believe him when he said he checked with top management and top management said, "We never see pieces of paper, what have you."
O'REILLY: Now, Rather can't have it both ways. If he says Fox News gets White House talking points, he'd better be able to back it up. And so far, he can't, no matter how many interviews he does with CNN.
Mr. Rather is welcome here to explain himself, but he should have done that already.
Joining us now with their takes on this, Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers in New York and Michelle Malkin in Washington, D.C.
Look, I know you're not a fan of Rather. My estimation of Dan Rather, to be brutally honest, is declining rapidly, because all I want -- this is simple. This is a simple deal. All I want from Dan Rather is some documentation of his accusation. He's made it twice, HBO and now CNN.
Too busy to come here, but he can go on CNN. Because he knows he's not going to be challenged. But back it up, Dan, and he can't.
So now I'm starting to re-evaluate my quasi-defense of him in the National Guard thing, when I said he didn't do it on purpose; it was just sloppy reporting.
You, Michelle, you may have been right and I might have been wrong.
[...]
O'REILLY: He never struck me as being a dishonest man, ever. All right? But now, this is so simple. You either put up, Dan, or you apologize to Fox News. Am I right?
MALKIN: Absolutely. Of course. Welcome to the club, Bill, and I'm glad you've joined it. And it's better late than never I suppose.
O'REILLY: I'm still going to let him come on here, now.
MALKIN: Well, look, he's not going to produce any documentation. And if he does, you better be very careful, because it will probably be typed on the same typewriter as those fake memos were.
And I agree with you. I think Dan Rather owes an abject apology to Fox News if he can't back up those slanderous statements. And I think you and [Fox News president] Roger [Ailes] ought to take a big lump of coal and send it to him for Christmas if he doesn't.
O'REILLY: All right. Kirsten, how do you see this?
POWERS: Well, I think that it was -- I was a little bit confused following back and forth, because he makes the accusations, and then he says that it's not happening, then it is happening. So it's a little unclear.
O'REILLY: It is. I mean, he can't have it both ways.
POWERS: And if it is happening, it is bad, or maybe it's not bad. The whole thing is very confusing.
O'REILLY: He is a little confused.
POWERS: But also it's pretty clear that he maybe was watching Outfoxed on Netflix or something, because this is --
O'REILLY: But he knows -- now look, here's the -- here's the deal. I mean, Fox News is under fire from every left-wing loon in town. All right? Every nut in the world is trying to bring this network down on the left, far left. All right? We're used to it.
When a guy like Dan Rather, who has a following and has access to the media, makes an accusation that we're all on the take -- that's what he's basically saying, we're on the take.
POWERS: Right.
O'REILLY: On the pad, all right? The White House tells us what to do and we do it. That's a serious thing.
POWERS: Yeah. And you're right. He should -- he should give you some documentation for it and tell you where he got that. And he said he would come on your show.
And I think that, you know, I saw an interview with Rupert Murdoch [CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News] not that long ago, at the anniversary, and he said Fox was founded in response, basically, to the liberal media. As opposed to -- there are, you know, the conservative bent to it. Certain shows are more conservative.
There's nothing wrong with that. And in my experience in doing a lot of television is that other places lean very left. And I think that --
O'REILLY: I basically say, look, we have people like you on. We have Michelle on. This is balanced.
POWERS: Sure.
O'REILLY: And you have me. You have Alan Colmes. You have Sean Hannity. You have Greta Van Susteren.
From the December 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Just one other thing, Bill, about your program last night. I was watching, and we've got about a minute left. What has Dan Rather been smoking?
O'REILLY: You know, I just think that, and you guys might remember, I kinda stuck up for him in the National Guard memo scandal.
DOOCY: Yep, yep.
O'REILLY: I said he didn't do it on purpose; it was sloppy reporting. But then he goes out and attacks Fox News and say we're getting talking points from the White House, which is just not true.
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): After he was on our show, by the way.
O'REILLY: Yeah, and then he goes on, after I call him on it, then he goes on CNN and says the same thing. And then says, "Well, I don't think O'Reilly gets it, and I do believe him when he says the management doesn't get it either." Well, what are you talking about?
DOOCY: Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.
O'REILLY: It doesn't. So -- and then he goes on CNN, of course. He said to us that he was too busy to come on our show. You know, I think Dan's got a little confusion in his life.
DOOCY: That's a nice way to put it.
KILMEADE: And he's angry, and he still comes on here, so I think he's gotta get a therapist.
DOOCY: He comes on here, the number one channel, when he needs to sell something.
KILMEADE: Right, right.
O'REILLY: Look, I'm not going to ascribe any motivations to him. I think he made a mistake. He compounded the mistake on CNN, and we're just awaiting his visit to the Factor.
DOOCY: Yes indeed. Of course you can watch The O'Reilly Factor weeknights at 8 p.m. Eastern Time. Bill will be following the search efforts for the missing hikers, as they develop. Bill, really excellent stuff in Iraq. That was really nice of you to go all that way, take up your weekend to say thank you to all those men and women over there.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, thank you, guys. Merry Christmas to everybody.
DOOCY: Thank you very much. And speaking of "Merry Christmas," Culture Warrior would make a perfect Christmas gift.
CARLSON: It would.
DOOCY: Fits right in that stocking.
CARLSON: A lot of people are getting it in their stocking.
other than Fox News vapid talking heads really believe they're fair and balanced?
Can they stop pretending now? Really. It's old.
Fox News self-activates and approves of White House Talking Points unconsciously. That's why they are in such denial. They do it so automatically that it doesn't even register in their brains. Just Kidding! Dan is exposing the truth about Fox News and they will now start attacking Dan Rather.
Dan is correct and O'Really knows it. Fox News looks, talks, walks, and even smells like a White House Talking Points Turkey.
Dan doesn't have to produce any proof of something that is so very widely known. Fox News has the burden of proof here.
Fox says they are FAIR & BALANCED Well I say prove it Fox News!
...journalistic integrity in the distilled product of a great big Dan Rather beer-and-pickled-egg fart than there is in BO's entire body.
i fell off my stool laughing so hard. ..............
people that believe fox news does not parrot white house talking points are the 30-percenters.
the fact that they continue to deny it, just adds to how great of a parody of themselves they have become.
however, if they admit to the fact that they parrot white house talking points, they can no longer claim that what they do is actually news. so, in order to claim they are an actual news organization, they have to vigourously deny the truth.
Here's how MMFA is trying to dupe you all on this one.
Rather's claim with which O'Reilly has the biggest beef is not that FNC "echoes" WH talking points, as MMFA claims!
Rather has explicitly claimed that FNC actually receives talking points from the WH. For this, there is not a shred of documentary evidence, and it is that claim that O'Reilly is challenging.
MMFA is not being totally forthcoming with what the issue actually is. This is a classic bait-and-switch move. Not cool, J.M. Tsk-tsk.
My 2 cents. Thank you.
Where does Rather explicitly make that claim?
Real Time With Bill Maher, HBO, Fri. November 17, 2006:
RATHER: ... [S]omebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House ...
(one link among several)
I'll buy it... he should have chosen his words better.
I don't think he meant to imply that the White House is coordinating with FNC, but he should have been clearer.
My opinion is they don't need to coordinate - FNC stays "on message" for their (or Ailes's) own reasons.
Yeah, he meant to say that Fox gets the talking points right from the White House, that's pretty clear.
If he has proof, I'd like to see it. If not... it just gives the other side a very easy target to shoot down. It should have been enough to point to the "celebrating insurgents" memo and some of the examples listed above... instead, we have to talk about whether Roger Ailes gets the talking points by fax or email.
Rather used to be a kick-@ss reporter... it saddens me to think he has lost it.
Saying they GET their talking points from the White House doesnt necessarily mean they get Email from the WH saying you guys need to say this. It would also be a correct characterization if they just shape their talking points based on what they WH is saying or putting out, uncritically parrotting them or just repeating what they say uncritically. He didnt say they get their marching orders directly from the WH or that the WH tells them what to do.
gives more of the impression that he is alleging coordination:
"In other words, somebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House, and they can say, 'Well, we don’t always take those talking points.'"
The active verbs "get" and "take" suggest something more than what I - and probably most of us - think is the case: that they pay attention to the WH message and craft their coverage accordingly.
Fox News waits for the official line, spin or lie from the White House and/or republican party on an issue and parrot it back verbatim to their witless audience hence they get their talking points from the White House. Another thing Fox News does is parrot the official White House and/or republican party line on an issue while praising it and giving the democratic position while disparaging it or misrepresenting it.
A bit of spin maybe.
I find it hard to see the distinction between recieving the talking points and just parroting whatever the white house says.
I agree, it's become a bit of a smokescreen.
O'Reilly may have the technical point, but the far more serious underlying allegation seems patently obvious.
MMFA is trying to dupe you all
Oh, for pity's sake. You can't possibly be that thick. Rather said Fox gets its talking points from the White House. That is no different in conventional use from someone saying "I get my news from television" or "I got that tidbit from this book I'm reading." Trying to turn it into some kind of conspiracy theory accusation that the Bushites submit a list of talking points directly to Faux News displays a truly sorry excuse for thought.
The most, the most that can be made of Rather's statements is that when the WH sends out its press packs, the Fox hierarchy immediately pushes down the line whatever phrasing, slogan, or spin the Bushites put out - which they do, as MMFA amply demonstrated.
So no, I don't think you can be that thick. I think rather that by deliberate misstatement you are attempting, as those of your ilk so often do when trapped by the truth, to change the subject.
the truth comes out.
It looks like Media Matter has put up--Big Time--now it's time for Billy to crawl home.
because they have a bunch of reich wing commentators with virtually no counter to disagree with them. And those leaked memos asking reporters to work hard to find any link possible between dancing arabs and democrats? Coincidence, right?
This gives him something to babble about... They're all whores.
Bill O'Really can't be serious. Proving that Fox echoes WH talking points is like proving the sun is warm and gives light. MMFA's list could go on for a thousand pages. I congratulate them on their restraint.
O'Reilly is right in asking Rather to prove his assertion and backup his allegations that Fox spouts White House talking points. There are dozens of circumstances detailed here, but to be fair there is no absolute proof......and that is the thin line O'Reilly is standing on here. For he probably knows there is no way Rather could prove it, actually - unless he either witnessed them being delivered to the newsroom or some other eyewitness account of their existence in the hands of Fox personalities.
However, O'Reilly and Malkin just look foolish here........for who doesn't know that Fox is a mouthpiece for the Bush administration - whether they actually have talking points or not is irrelevant. They know the White House position and they promote them in their best possible light consistently.
Fair and balanced they are not......to defend that silly slogan of theirs only lessens their credibility. They need to stop and replace it with "From the Right, and Proud of it!"
But it should be "Far From Right..."
We even have pictures showing only conservative news reps meeting with Bush in the whitehouse not on one, but several occasions. Why do they need to meet with bush in a meeting if not to get talking points?
In the arena of proof, a meeting between conservative newsies and Bush doesn't translate into anything about receiving WH talking points. Unless in the picture you describe there is a handoff of some sort?
Look, I am not disagreeing that they do spout them constantly..........but there is no definitive proof of them receiving them from anyone at the White House. In that assertion from Rather, O'Reilly is correct. I just said he looks ridiculous pushing for it when everyone assumes it anyway.
but I do seem to recall reading about how these people are connected via fax and phone to ensure they all spouted the same point verbatum. And Tony Snow is familiar with FOX operating policy. Like my daddy always said, if it looks like a pig, and it grunts like a pig, it's probably a pig.
...here at work so I can't find out from the clip. If Rather is saying "they get a printed document" or insinuates that, or otherwise suggests there is a working relationship, then I think he over-reached.
The summary here doesn't indicate that Rather made such an allegation.
It's either more concrete thinking on your part or you're once again deliberately misrepresenting what Rather said. When Rather asserts that Fox gets their talking points from the White House, he isn't claiming that there's some talking points hotline that goes directly from the White House to the editorial staff at Fox or that a White House courier delivers an actual list of talking points to the Fox studios. If you're going to take on a contrarian viewpoint on every single thread, at least attempt to make an honest argument.
It does make it more fun when there is someone taking the other side of the debate, however in this case (as with the "Rovian" teapot-tempest in the other thread) I think you are trying a little too hard.
Your argumentativeness is boring. We are finished.
I pointed out the weakness of your position, which I expect you to do with me.
Don't go home mad!
With Clams.
...because Valentinian is saying the same thing that I am.
He/she actually has a little bit of common sense. That's something that I've seen very little of from you.
...that Valentinian and I are in fact saying the same thing in this thread. Here are two quotes from this thread, the first from Valentinian and the second from myself. You tell me how they are different. (Hint: they're not.)
"Despite obvious evidence that FNC uses the publically available WH talking points, the fact that there is no proof that the White House hand-delivers an actual document to FNC headquarters is trotted out to debunk the whole point. Come on guys. If you're going to come down here, at least bring your "A" game."
"When Rather asserts that Fox gets their talking points from the White House, he isn't claiming that there's some talking points hotline that goes directly from the White House to the editorial staff at Fox or that a White House courier delivers an actual list of talking points to the Fox studios. If you're going to take on a contrarian viewpoint on every single thread, at least attempt to make an honest argument."
The message is pretty much the same, but the tone is different.Valentinian implied that our argument wasn't up to par, and you implied that Tommy and I were both lying about what Rather said. In fact, we weren't lying. Go back to the first page and read the second comment that the poster Shoes made on this subject. You'll see a quote that is different than the one MMFA provided.
i saw a comment, as you put it, by shoes as to what rather was really saying. but i did not see a "quote" by rather. seems you're a little mixed up.
Here's the quote: RATHER: ... [S]omebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House ...
You should read a little more carefully next time.
but i was reading the "second comment" in his first post. and your quote is still the same thing. it does not say explicitly that they are getting actual talking points from the white house. it's beyond dispute that they do repeat what they say. as has been documented on here, every once in awhile they do slip up and say something like "we" when they mean to say "the white house " or "republican party".
...if you're able to discern a difference in tone between those two posts. I guess wasting time worrying about which poster is the nicest and which one is the meanest is a great way to avoid any real debate. You can try to turn it into a war of personalities, but I'm not playing along. I'll continue to address the topic, while you and Tommy whine about my tone.
I read Shoes quote--in fact I'd already watched the clip from Maher's show--and you're still interpreting Rather's words the way you want to in order to support your argument. O'Reilly did the same thing. Again, Rather never said anything about actual e-mails being sent or marching orders being given directly from the White House. Obviously we do know about internal marching orders, but to "get talking points from the White House" does not necessarily mean that they're hand delivered. But we've already gone over and over this in this thread, so I'm sure you'll keep sticking to your own interpretation.
Rather claims Fox News gets it talking points from the WHouse. He has no proof. There is no weakness or inaccuracy in those statements. So, I am not sure where my weakness lies, in your eyes?
My take on this has been explained fully. If you don't agree or accept it, that's your business. I appreciate your honest discussion. As opposed to others here who just want to argue because they don't like the fact that an opposing opinion appears here and challenges their weak arguments. With them, I am done.
...revolves around our interpretations Rather's statement "They have their talking points ... from the White House."
Now, I don't know what was there before the ellipsis was added (Again, I can't play the clip here at work). If he says or implies that they GET their talking points directly from the White House, then one would certainly want to see proof of such an allegation.
My read of what we was saying is that they "have" their talking points (from, say, Ailes) and they "echo" (as MMFA puts it) the WH talking points.
Rather did not say they "echo" WH talking points. He said have their talking points from the WH......that is quite different from echoing them. He didn't back it up with any proof - as I said, there probably is none anyway and in that respect O'Reilly is right.
Rather should choose his words more carefully and he wouldn't have to have some here trying to allow him wiggle room out of what he said.
but since I can't go to the original source, we're stuck there, it's just a difference of interpretation.
I agree that if he said or suggested that there was a working relationship that he should prove it. I do not see such a suggestion being made.
Having read the partial transcript, it seems your reading was the correct one. I think it is clear as can be that FNC "echoes" the White House talking points... if there is proof "that they get talking points from the White House" I'd like to see it.
Look, you take a contrarian stance in every single thread; in fact, you recently admitted that you do it just for the sake of stirring things up (I believe someone else rightly pointed out that this is the definition of a troll). I have no problem with opposing viewpoints, I'm only asking that you at least make an attempt at offering an honest viewpoint, as opposed to putting up strawmen and blatantly misrepresenting the statements of others.
I have no respect for you or your argumentative, childish tactics anymore. I am sorry if that's blunt and pointed, but you Sir, offer nothing of substance for me to respond to. You can blame me for whatever suits you, that is fine. I take responsibility for whatever clashes we have had, I have no problem with it. Therefore, to continue any exchanges with you is pointless. We do not agree, we are constantly at odds, and as stated, any respect towards you, from me, is gone.
Find another poster to engage you.
Merry Christmas.
...then feel free to ignore me, as you rarely have a rebuttal that abides by any rules of logic or honest debate anyway. But I will continue to respond to the nonsense that you try to get away with here. I don't post to provoke. I post to combat ignorance and dishonesty, and it's hardly my fault that you keep finding yourself on the wrong end of that debate. You seem to personalize a lot of this debate and you obviously think that declaring your lack of respect for me implicates me in some sort of dishonest behavior (interesting that you only pulled this card after a string of incidents where YOU deservedly lost the respect of a number of posters). Bottom line: Your respect isn't required. Even if the name Tommy wasn't attached to your posts, all of my responses would be the same. I'm not engaging you, as I have absolutely no idea who you are, nor do I care. I'm simply responding to your words. Stop talking sh*t all the time, and I'll stop responding to your posts. Until then...
That was pretty decent post.
Have you gone from Republican to Moderate?
I have never been a Republican so I couldn't have gone from there to anywhere. What I am is conservative, libertarian leaning "something or another". Moderate, maybe?
They're not any farther to the right then CNN and MSNBC are to the left. Fox probably leans to the right a little bit, but they at least make a legitimate attempt to be fair and balanced. CNN and MSNBC on the other hand, are sometimes blatantly biased. I'll admit that O'Reilly's show is somewhat conservative, but Hannity and Colmes is obviously fair and balanced, and Brit Hume and Shepherd Smith just give the straight news without any opinion. John Gibson leans to the right as well, but he is very independent minded much like O'Reilly. He often criticizes President Bush for certain things.
But I disagree. Have you watched the commentators they have on from the left? They are woefully inept and inadequate. Colmes is no match for Hannity, poor Alan........all their segments have a decidedly rightward slant to them from the get-go. So there is nothing fair and balanced about that show.
And there other liberal guests and commentators must be instructed to kiss up and fawn over the conservative hosts all the time - it's sickening.
The liberals on Fox know their place, they disagree nicely and make their points, but then they are soundly dismissed and reminded who pays their salaries.
That's my take on it anyway, you disagree.
My position is that Fox News is an organization that leans slightly right, but I don't think that they're a rabidly partisan news organization. I believe that O'Reilly himself has mostly conservative positions, but he is very independent minded and doesn't carry the water for anybody. He's not a partisan like Limbaugh and Hannity are. I also think that Colmes can be effective at times. He isn't nearly as aggressive as Hannity, but Hannity can sometimes come across as being too arrogant. But Colmes repeats most of the Democratic talking points that are contained on left wing websites.
But you're entitled to your opinion. I just disagree. I actually know some conservative people who think that Fox News has a liberal bias. So not everybody agrees 100% on this issue.
...but with a different emphasis than you seem to have I see Fox as neither "rabidly partisan" nor, obviously, "liberal." I think Ailes genuinely feels the media leans too far left and sees himself as providing balance. I disagree with him on both points.
I think what bias exists at other news organizations is largely subconscious. I think Fox's bias is more conscious and intentional. I think it's fine, there's a market for it, but I think when they actively distort news (overemphasizing certain aspects, diminishing others), they do real harm to the body politic. Note, for example the disproportionate number of FNC viewers that think we DID find WMD in Iraq, or that Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers.
Note, for example the disproportionate number of FNC viewers that think we DID find WMD in Iraq, or that Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers.
"The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland ... reveals those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."
[link to www.worldpublicopinion.org]
I see nothing specifically about Fox News here, only Bush supporters. Nothing about the 9/11 hijackers being Iraqis. This poll is over three years old.
"Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."
I have no idea what you clicked.
I said nothing about when the poll was taken, but I don't see why that should be relevant. It was an offhand comment on my part, but one which I backed up with a reference like I was writing a paper.
I skimmed it quickly and didn't see Fox at first.....my apologies. However, I stand by what I said about the hijackers and the relevancy of a poll taken over three years ago.
[link to 65.109.167.118]
The only reason I mentioned it, again in passing, is that I think that Fox's bias does real damage in misinforming people. Goes to credibility, Your Honor.
the old saying is look before you leap. maybe you can read before you post.
it only makes him look like a buffoon. Well that and his trollishness
leaned any further to the right, the whole planet would tip over.
even when someone points out the huge jug of water on his back. He might put the water down for a minute to slug his accusers, but he'll pick it right back up again afterward.
Alan is a big time Wimp and Hannity's a junk yard dog, a school yard bully. Sometimes Alan is so weak, that it makes me think he's been hired to take the fall most of the time.
Regarding Rather, I'm not concerned if he doesn't have proof. I don't really care if Dan did not make his point in a perfect way. Dan's basic message is that Fox is not Fair, Balanced and promotes White House Points. That's common knowledge.
You just show me one person who believes Fox News is Fair and Balanced and I'll show you one person who has serious mental
O'Really's just interested in winning a small meaningless battle with Dan.
Fox knows Dan is correct. I'm placing the burden of proof on Fox News. I call on Fox News to show proof that Dan Rather is wrong. Fox is the laughing stock of the news business. I communicate this to Fox and others all the time.
Fox is Fair & Balanced? - - My Ass!
Happy Holidays O'Really, Where ever you are.
At the end of Paragraph Three:
has serious mental PROBLEMS.
If you thought those baseless assertions were a point, you were mistaken, CNN and MSNBC are not anywhere NEAR far to the left. Thats a rightwing talking point without substance. I am a liberal and they dont parrot MY point of view. That may be the view from Planet Wingnut but it in no way reflects reality. Fox is conservative. MSNBC and CNN are a bit less conservative and there is no left version of Fox News.
Now that would be the lefty version of the Fox Channel. Unfortunately, AFAIK, her program Democracy Now is only available on the LinkTV channel. Not sure how many people in the u.s. receive it, DirecTV used to carry it though.
Peter Werbe (progressive radio host in Detroit) is another character that would be a fine addition to that lefty cable network that only seems to exists in the minds of wingers.
Which one has Noam Chomsky on regularly?
You really are very far to the left if you think that CNN and MSNBC are conservative as well. Try to be objective for a moment. CNN doesn't have a single conservative who works there. Fox News at least tries to be fair and balanced. They have a good number of liberals who work there who at least partially balance out the conservatives. CNN also has a raving left wing populist in Lou Dobbs. Every night he talks about the "War on the Middle Class" and how the evil Republicans are suppressing middle class people. He disagrees with the White House on every single issue. Right before the election they had a week long documentary called "Broken Government." How is that not biased? Republicans were the ones who were in charge of the government at the time, and that documentary was simply designed to persuade people that it was time for a change. That was as biased as you can possibly get.
Also, you said that these stations don't share your liberal views. What about Keith Olbermann on MSNBC? He regularly attacks and demeans conservatives on his show, much like you do on this website. He compares Bush to Hitler and the Republicans to Nazis. That type of lunacy proves that he is at least as far to the left as you are.
Wow. That's amazing.
Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News. Wolf Blitzer is neutral-leaning left.
on what your definition of "center" is.
I would put Wolf in the center leaning towards the rich and powerful he dines and parties with.
I would put Colmes in the center-left, humping Hannity's leg.
What makes Colmes anywhere near centrist? His views are as liberal as most liberals' views on this site. He holds absolutely NO conservative views. I don't possibly see how you can say Colmes is moderate in any way.
Colmes is unabashedly liberal. He is just more of a quiet and disciplined liberal whose role on his program his quite clear, at least to me. He is there as a poster boy from the left for the Fox Newsies to point to as evidence of "fair and balanced".......so he is obliged to take the left viewpoint and argue on it's behalf.
However, he knows his place and that is to be Hannity's whipping boy, or most conservative guests who appear. That's not to say he doesn't make good points now and then, but almost in an apologetic way for being the voice of dissention. If he isn't making himself look inept and lame, Hannity usually patronizes him into it.
"However, he knows his place and that is to be Hannity's whipping boy"
I don't think Colmes views it this way. I think that he considers himself to be an equal with Hannity. I would agree that Hannity is stronger and the better debater of the two, but I don't think Colmes views it that way.
Colmes to admit to it...or even whether he's keen enough to figure it out, but he never gets too confrontational - which is the hallmark of that program more than any other when it comes to Hannity vs. any liberal - and always debates with that "do I look stupid" smirk on his face.
Alan may view himself as the fair and balanced alternative to Sean, but in reality he is being played most of the time like a violin.
Hannity is not a strong debater he is an idiot. Now I dont like Limbaugh or Savage but they are intelligent people. Hannity is a moron. He couldnt debate his way out of a third grade playground argument.
"Now I dont like Limbaugh or Savage but they are intelligent people."
Wow! I've never actually heard a liberal call either Limbaugh or Savage intelligent. That has to be a first. If you think that Hannity is a moron, then I guess there isn't much of a bias in Hannity and Colmes. If Hannity and Colmes are both morons, then I guess that means that the show is pretty much fair and balanced.
I am not suprised. Balance would be Hannity and Chomsky their IDEOLOGY not thier intelligence.
Now I dont like Limbaugh or Savage but they are intelligent people.
******************
This is an interesting turn of events. I could have sworn you have railed against both of these rightwingers with quite a bit of fervor in the past, and I don't remember "intelligent" being included in any of your posts as a description of either.
Be that as it may, Christmas or not - be prepared for the unrivaled assault you are in for from your fellow liberals for that little admission.
Though rarely since their intelligence is usually not the issue addressed. Usually its Limbaugh's lying and misleading or cruel insensativity and Weiners insanity. I have posted this before though.
it's what you define as "center." To me, liberal is "center-left." When I hear Alan Colmes advocate the right to health care, a trade policy based on worker and environmental rights, and an economic policy that doesn't favor corporations and investors... then I'll call him a leftist.
"When I hear Alan Colmes advocate the right to health care, a trade policy based on worker and environmental rights, and an economic policy that doesn't favor corporations and investors... then I'll call him a leftist."
I guess it just depends on your perspective. I think that someone who wants universal health care is part of the far left. Universal health care would be quasi-socialistic in nature, and it's something that many liberals oppose. I consider Bill Clinton to be a mainstream liberal. He was someone who was pretty liberal on most issues, but he realized that at least some globalization was good for our country. So again, I guess it all depends on your perspective.
"When I hear Alan Colmes advocate the right to health care, a trade policy based on worker and environmental rights, and an economic policy that doesn't favor corporations and investors... then I'll call him a leftist."
I guess it just depends on your perspective. I think that someone who wants universal health care is part of the far left. Universal health care would be quasi-socialistic in nature, and it's something that many liberals oppose. I consider Bill Clinton to be a mainstream leftist. He was someone who was pretty liberal on most issues, but he realized that at least some globalization was good for our country. So again, I guess it all depends on your perspective.
That is the fantasy you have made up in your head. Or else America is a far left since a large majority of Americans favor universal healthcare
[link to abcnews.go.com]
In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.
"That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments".
********************
Off topic, but I know you didn't want to mislead and leave out half the story. Granted, our health care system needs major work, and I haven't heard a good solution yet. But Universal government run health care is light years away from any solution. The government can't even help victims of Katrina, they spend our money recklessly, little to no accountability, bureacratic red tape at every level, incredible inefficiency in every department.........need I go on?
And people want to entrust their health care and lives to that?? No THANKS!
You are assuming that universal health care would of necessity entail a lack of doctor choice, long waiting times etc. I don't know that is necessarily so. I can't choose any doctor I want, I have to go to the ones that accept my HMO.
I agree there is probably no perfect solution, but I think 40 million uninsured is a problem that really needs to be addressed.
WRT Katrina: this is a new development. Look at FEMA under James Lee Witt. I think government can do positive things to help people, but I know I speak heresy.
A more accurate statement would have been that the Republican government couldn't even save the Katrina victims.
There have been disasters in this country that were responded to efficiently by effective government entities. True enough citizens must help each other and team up with private groups to coordinate relief efforts but to portray government as inept is counterproductive.
This group of Republicans has undermined and sullied any vestige of good government that existed prior to Bush.
In the context it was used here is what TD said
"When I hear Alan Colmes advocate the right to health care, a trade policy based on worker and environmental rights, and an economic policy that doesn't favor corporations and investors... then I'll call him a leftist."
I guess it just depends on your perspective. I think that someone who wants universal health care is part of the far left. Universal health care would be quasi-socialistic in nature, and it's something that many liberals oppose.
Nothing there about specifics of universal healthcare. A broad statement ABOUT universal healthcare. Therefore ONLY the broad category of universal healthcare is RELEVANT. Your inferrence that I there was anything misleading about my RESPONSE to this post shows a decided lack of reading comprehension by you.
Secondly there is no reason why A limited choice of doctors (which HMO's already foist upon us) or any worse waiting lines for non emergency care than are already the reality would be part of Universal healthcare all we have to do is change the way its paid for not how it is administered. The entire rest of the industrial world has universal healthcare. Healthcare should be a right you have not a commodity you buy.
It all depends on how you ask the question. In this case, they asked the question in such a way that made the results come out as they did. A large number of people probably don't know what universal health care is and what it would entail. They simply want something different than what we have right now. I think that if you asked the question this way,
(Do you favor a market based health care system or a government run healthcare system?) then the results would be completely different. This has been proven as there have been different results from different polls depending on how the question is worded.
Why can't we have universal healthcare that mixes some elements of the free market with some government oversight and/or control?
I don't see that it all has to be one or the other. The free market system can be altered by federal/state legislation to work better. There can be varying degrees of government involvement from only collecting revenue and/or disbursing payments all the way to complete government control of healthcare. There are many shades inbetween you are ignoring. Your comments only serve to marginalize the debate.
people dont know what UNIVERSAL means? Anyway how is it relevant? THAT is the claim you made, that anyone that wants universal healthcare is far left. I just showed THAT definition would include more than 60% of the country. YOU dont know what it would ential either, the devil is in the details, you made up another story in your head about what universal healthcare would be and IMAGINE that it has some connection to reality. There are many ways to add more doctors, to assure access, its all about the allocation of resources. Right now a huge amount of the resources go to insurance, including millions to the CEOs of those insurance companies, doesnt give an asprin or set a bone.
Indeed... I am using the same spectrum as the rest of the industrialised West, where universal health care is not "far" left, it is government policy.
The U.S. is the only Western country where the "center"has been dragged so far to the right. Reasonable people can debate whether this is a good thing or not, but it's so... and a fairly recent development to boot.
As a moderate. He is not as liberal as I am or most of the posters on this site. To you anyone not to the right of Atilla the Hun is a liberal but that just isnt reality.
I don't care what Colmes describes himself as. A lot of liberals describe themselves as moderate simply because they don't like the term liberal. But the fact remains that Colmes doesn't hold any conservative positions. He's liberal on all the major issues and spouts talking points from left wing websites. Also, I am pretty objective when it comes to tracking where people are at on the political spectrum. A lot more so than you are. Most rational people would admit that Colmes is a liberal, even if he's a quiet and reserved liberal.
Exactly: a centrist!
You may THINK you are but the list of your delusions would be booklength. You are NOT pretty objective about the political spectrum. YOU think anyone to the left of Attilla the Hun is a communist. I have watched Hannity and Colmes a few times and he seemed pretty moderate to me. Barney Franks is a liberal, I am a liberal, Colmes is a moderate and exactly why would YOU be the final arbiter on this subject, how in the world would YOU know more about Colmes political orientation than HE does? Does this involve your amazing mind reading powers again?
I have some Headline News for you TRUTH DETECTOR.
FIRST OFF: You were not a Truth Detector when you posted that CNN -- ("CNN doesn't have a single conservative who works there.") Hey, all you have to do is watch the Situation Room and other shows where they have both staff and invited guests for both sides. William (Bill) Bennett works there. He is known for putting forth loads of false information and wild comments like this one. September 28, 2005, comment on his radio show that ("If it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime ... you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.")
THEN: You said ("Beck is on Headline News") Well I have some Headline News for you Truth. CNN is CNN is CNN. It's all the same News Company. Beck works for them. Plus Beck gets lots of promotion and invites to other Network shows.
You were correct on this one! ("Fox News at least tries to be fair and balanced.") They TRY, but they fall far short of being Fair & Balanced. I think you must know this. Everyone else knows it. Truth, your not being truthful. Shame on you for supporting Fox News.
Looks like when a news outlet speaks the truth you label it Liberal Media Bias.
Such as Blitzer, Dobbs and Olberman. Media Matter has exposed false info at CNN and MSNBC often when they have supported Conservatives.
Wolf gets both sides out. Lou is a defender of us Middle Class Citizens which is most Americans. He never called Republicans evil and he was very correct (as verified by the election)with his remarks about Republicans and Democrats. He blasts both parties and he's right on. Does that mean he's Liberal? No. He' just telling it like it is.
AARP puts out info that says we Now Have a Congress that will be more favorable concerning legislation for Seniors. Does that mean AARP is Liberal? No, they are just telling the truth.
How is telling the Truth a Bias?
Keith's views are also truthful. When Bush told us that he is the DECIDER, and does not care what our Generals, our Voters and prominent experts are calling for.....Well now isn't that sort of like a Dictator? Yes it is. That's why Olbermann invoked the name Hitler. I admit it's not nice, but it is the Truth. I never heard Keith say that. I guess you did?
Happy Holidays - Merry Christmas to All !!
Its known as reality, some day hopefully you will learn to tell the diffference. Reality doesnt conform to those delusions you make up in your head. I certainly dont see Wolf as neutral left. Rather middle right. This is fairly subjective but surely you arent going to claim Soledad O'Brien is not a conservative. NO ONE on CNN is an out and out liberal. MSNBC does have Olberman they also have Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson. Both networks show up here regularlly. The bottom line is I am a liberal and niether of these stations are pushing my point of view. YOU arent the sole arbiter of what constitutes conservative and what constitutes liberal. Its insane to pretend CNN and MSNBC are as liberal as Fox is conservative. They arent liberal at all. The Nation magazine is liberal. Democracy Now is liberal.Barney Franks is libearl Alan Colmes is a moderate.
"Alan Colmes is a moderate."
That says it all right there. You just lost any credibility you might have had with that last sentence. Colmes is as liberal as they come. Just because he isn't as combative as Hannity doesn't mean that he's less partisan. Colmes definetely isn't as angry as most liberals, but that doesn't make him any less of a liberal. He's liberal on every single issue. He holds absolutely no conservative views.
Your delusions are legendary. Colmes describes HIMSELF as a moderate. To get someone as far left as Hannity is to the right you would need Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. I am a liberal. Colmes is a moderate and YOU repeating otherwise wont change that. I keep trying to tell you that there is no amount of times you can repeat something that will magically make it true.
Alan Colmes is the Fox News resident Liberal Fall Guy. That cancels out everything else. He falls down on just about every single point he should be making.
Alan is a big time Wimp and Hannity's a junk yard dog, a school yard bully. Alan is so weak, that it makes me think he's been hired by Fox to take a beating from Hannity everyday.
Yes Alan is a Liberal but........If Fox really cared about allowing Democratic ideas to be on this show, then Fox News would fire Alan Colmes and hire a Democratic person who would be taking Hannity to the wood shed for a good tongue lashing.
A person like a Paul Begala at CNN, would make Hannity look like the Conservative false information idiot I truly believe he is.
Truth Detector, you show me one person who believes Fox News is Fair and Balanced and I'll show you one person who has a serious mental problem. I find it very amusing when you and Fox defend such an obviously unbalanced and unfair Fox News.
But as nomal tommy-boy wants to spout nonsense and reframe it to something he can (in his mistaken belief) put down. Bull asked for proof of it happening, in this csae MMFA has provided many examples, and there are many many more, but on course the America-haters like tommy-boy keep whinng it is not enough when all it takes is one.
If you want to have an intelligent debate about the issues, then I'm up for it. But all you do is come in here and call names and spout nonsense. If you want to have a reasonable debate on the issues, then go ahead and reply to me and Tommy. But if not, you'd be better off not replying. You really make yourself look ridiculous. Merry Christmas!
...PLEASE take your own advice. Two way street. Thank you.
To compare Truth's arguing style with that of Zero's is completely unfair. Truth argues his points forcefully and honestly, without the bombthrowing insults of Zero.
The two are not even in the same league.
... I think you've been good for him in this thread for sure. He's taking your lead and learning to play nice. That's good! Past posts, however, have been a little different (IMHO).
That you rightwingers want the exclusive franchise on calling names and no one compares to you for spouting nonsense. No one NEEDS you to tell them what to do did you think you were the message board protocol manager? You really should keep your pious scolding for the children that MIGHT take it seriously instead of the adults here who will only laugh at the hypocrisy of it.
"But all you do is come in here and call names and spout nonsense."
-----
Once again, a poster who has no rhetorical tactic other than the ad hominem attack decries it in others.
There's really not much point of responding to someone like you. Your username shows plenty. It shows that you're just another unhinged liberal that would rather call conservatives names than debate them on the issues.
You do realize that you're getting your logical argument from a Michele Malkin's book title, don't you?
Wingnut who regularly insults liberals, and thinks that its unfair when others treat him the way he treats us. When are the crybaby conservatives going to stop snivelling?
You're the one who always whines and complains. I simply come here and debate the issues. You simply can't stand hearing a right of center point of view. I debate the issues without using any personal attacks, which is something that is unheard of at this site.
Would you maybe all shut up? I know I've said this before, but you're lowering the level. Every time one of you spouts off, another one has to. You're like three year olds! I don't care who started it! Perhaps I'll open my own G##-D#*ned site, and invite only posters who display an above-kindergarten level of common courtesy and respect. hell, why not quote John Stewart on this one... STOP HURTING AMERICA!!!
"Perhaps I'll open my own G##-D#*ned site, and invite only posters who display an above-kindergarten level of common courtesy and respect."
If you did that, you wouldn't even be able to post comments on your own site.
I'm trying to stem an epidemic here. and you are correct. perhaps I was a bit overly zealous in my phrasing. this once. but I'm referring, in my post, to people who constantly and belligerently come here looking for a fight, instead of a debate. By the way, my use of (self-censored) profanity was not directed at anyone in particular, but was instead an expression of disgust at THE ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS of a large segment of the posting community. feel free to call me out on my words as you see fit. the argument remains.
Or my mother? You are not, you dont get to tell me what to do. I will decide how I post and you can bite me.
Sure... I think it's fine to have 'conservative' values (whatever that even means anymore. But, to call yourself 'right of center' is a laugh. Not sure where you live or who you cavort with...but, you should get out more.
To be honest, I appreciate your mellowed tone. You're learning some manners... hell, you may even learn some other things too. Good work.
You insult liberals all the time. You have no idea what debate even is. Baseless assertions, mischaracterisations and strawmen arguments are logical fallacies not debate tactics.
"You insult liberals all the time"
Correction. I insult the liberal ideology all the time. I don't insult people personally. Calling someone "far left" or out of the mainstream is not a personal insult. It's merely a description of their political ideology. A personal insult is words like liar, wingnut, moron, etc. which you and others use on a regular basis.
And you know it. I will say you have been far more circumspect in THIS thread but it IS a lie for you to make this claim: I debate the issues without using any personal attacks, In that very post you called liberals unhinged, and you have done far worse on other threads,now on Planet EARTH that is known as a personal attack. Phrasing it so it is a personal attack on all liberals doesnt make it any less of a personal attack. Since I am a self professed liberal its a personal attack on ME. As for me do I return personal attacks and insults you bet I do. Want to just argue the points? I am all for it. Leave out the personal taunts about liberals, it would help if you actually MADE a point once in a while instead of thinking your baseless assertions and mischaracterizations of our postion actually add to the discourse in any way. Or continue to insult us and I will continue to answer in the tone you earn. I can play either side of the fence
How many fact challenged statements has O'Reilly spewed over the years that can't be backed up? Let's see ...... thousands? tens of thounsands? O'Reilly should be careful about challenging a real journalist like Dan Rather. Rather might pull a fact sheet on him and thing would get messy.
What kind of a "real journalist" uses forged documents in his presentation?
The documents have never been proved to be forged. Yes, he - and, more importantly, his staff- should have vetted the document better, but calling it a forgery, with the implication that Rather knew it was bogus, is a cheap shot.
To this day, nobody has come up with any evidence that Bush did the service he was supposed to have done... but Rather's rep is shot, and George Bush is still The Decider.
Is what is necessary for the PROPAGANDA therefore on Planet Wingnut, where Truthdefective gets his talking points it became true for THAT reason alone.
The Right forged them in order to discredit Rather and ruin his career. You can see the pride they take in their success.
The hypocrisy makes my head spin. If O'Reilly had to back up all the nonsense claims he made his show would be two minutes long.
Daily Show often did peices showing the FOX commentators and Rush Limbaugh repeating the exact same phrases the same day as the White House spokesman. The documentary "OutFoxed" goes into detail about the daily memo that comes down from Ailes office telling them what to say that day, which also happens to be what Ari Fleischer would also say at that day's press conference. It's all one huge coordinated propaganda campaign.
In that whole little diatribe that Media Matters put up, not once did they provide any proof that Fox News receives and repeats talking points that the White House gives them. Rather's assertion is baseless, and even Media Matters can't help him out. He was simply repeating what he heard from different far left web sites. The last time that he made a false claim he at least came up with a fabricated document to try to back it up. This time he doesn't even have a fabricated document.
If you stop skimming and read you may for the 1st time find out what the issue is and what the answers provided really were. it would be quite refreshing for you I believe.
I did read it all. Nowhere did Media Matters provide any proof that the White House sends Fox News emails that Fox News then uses in their programming. They didn't document any of these "emails" that Fox News supposedly gets from the White House. They provided examples of certain conservative commentators like O'Reilly agreeing with a White House position, but they provided no proof that the White House actually sent them talking points. That is the issue here.
that makes your reply nonsense at best, dishonest or just thoughtless at worst.
does Rather make the allegation "that the White House sends Fox News emails that Fox News then uses in their programming."
That is not the issue here. The issue is that a media organization generally presents one side of the stories of the day, tracking remarkably well with the Bush administration's spin, and calls it "news."
to say one 'gets their talking points from the WH' does
not
have to mean he/she actually, physically 'gets their talking points from the WH'!!You are correct. The laugh about this piece is that O'Reilly (as Tommy pointed out initially, I think) is playing this angle because he knows he won't get caught. O'Reilly knows... everyone knows... what Rather really meant. That is, except for a few posters here.
Not quite sure what happened there... not a champ at the HTML tags.
makes hash of HTML.
You've finally acquired a new tactic.
Now, in addition to ad hominem you are becoming proficient at creating straw men.
It doesn't make your posts more logical, and they definitely still aren't truthful, but they are more varied, and provide more humor than before, for those who laugh at poor logic presented with smugness.
I think you may have bought your "Truth Detector" from the same outfit Wyle E. Coyote buys his stuff from.
Do they also sell a "Gay Detector"?
I just finished patenting a "Horny Detector" and will guarantee that it works every time in any bar or club.
We should now refer to him as The ACME Truth Detector.
Rather does not say that talking points on paper are actually delivered from the White House to Fox News studios in New York. In fact, he says they repeat White House talking points, which is shown above.
What needs to be "proved" in this instance? Rather made an assertion, based on his observation, which seems do be adequately supported in this post.
TD and tommy are either skimming and assuming lots of stuff and thus simply come of as stupid. Or one or both are quite deliberatly mis-framing things in order to put up strawmen to cover their dishonesty.
Keep posting. For your pitiful lack of substance and civility is more than made up with pure entertaining drivel.
Thanks and Happy Holidays!
I will continue to be vocal when I see someone tryin to pull a fast one, and when you reply like that you only confirm I am doing a good thing by calling your BS.
This was Rather's exact quote. "They have their talking points ... from the White House." He was saying that the White House emails Fox News talking points that they use in their programming. What do you think the words "From the White House" mean? The issue here is whether or not Rather has the emails on hand that the White House supposedly sent to Fox News. So far Rather hasn't provided any proof that these emails exist.
now you are pushing the tin with that leap of faith.
I guess we just interpret what Rather says differently. When he says "They have their talking points from the White House," I think it's fair to say that he is implying that the White House sends Fox News talking points to use on their shows. When Rather says "From the White House," that implies that Fox News is receiving talking points from the White House. Like I said, there's no documentation that the White House has sent these talking points to Fox News.
It is just quite possible that Tony keeps his fox contact line open, don't ya think? It can be as simple as a lunch between Tony and friends to pass on any "talking" points. True, I have no proof, but it would be totally ludacrous to assume Tony cut every tie to take this job. He would be the most likely point of contact, not the white house direct.
Yes it's possible, but like you said you don't have any proof. That's been my point through this whole thread.
That Rather meant what you CLAIMED he meant is WHAT again? Oh you dont have ANY WHATSOEVER? Thats what I thought.
The fact you ADMIT you are INTERPRETING it to suit your argument belies any ATTEMPT at fairness. You are setting up a strawman, a weak and pathetic strawman. You cannot SHOW this is what he meant therefor YOU HAVE NO POINT.
Once again, go back to the first page and read the quote by Rather that the poster Shoes put up. There's no other possible way you can interpret this quote other than coming to the conclusion that the White House sends Fox News talking points.
And bone up on your reading comprehension. Your claim doesnt rise to the level of absurdity as has already been pointed out ad naseum, taking their talking points from the white house press releases, speeches and agenda would abslutly fit what Rather said. You just make these things up in your head then somehow convince yourself that your delusions are the only possible way things could be. Here on Planet Earth reality isnt defined that way.
"Your claim doesnt rise to the level of absurdity as has already been pointed out ad naseum"
Are you claiming that Valentinian is absurd as well? She now agrees with Tommy and I on this point.
...and leave him out of your arguments!
I think the wording is a bit ambiguous, you can plausibly read it either way. I think Rather should have been smarter to word it in such a way as to avoid the, IMHO, stupid meta-debate that obscures the obvious reality that FNC presents White House spin as news.
He should know better, after the Killian debacle.
Sorry. I was just assuming that you were a she based on your username. I thought that the word valentinian sounded like a name a female would use. It sounds close to the word valentine. Sorry for the mistake.
I thought you might be a She simply because you don't use personal attacks in your arguments. You actually seem to have a little bit of civility, which is rare for most liberals on this site.
Just kidding... I take it as a compliment.
I'm not that evolved, I just got into some flame wars ion the past that I would as soon were not saved for posterity...
It is not evidence of anything, its just her opinion. I think she is a good poster but I dont think she has the last word on this subject. Its the semantics of what was said not what this or that person THINKS about their interpretation of what was said this is a logical fallacy. It is a form of the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
and then blaming him for your own lie.
He was saying that the White House emails Fox News talking points that they use in their programming. - Truthiness Detector
An attempt at a standard version of a strawman argument: Take something someone said, interpret it in the most extreme way imaginable, and then attack your own cartoon version of the statement.
However, in this instance the interpretation is so transparently ridiculous so as not even to stand as a good example of the technique. Like I said, you clearly need more practice.
Oh, and before you sneer "what else can it mean?" I've already answered that: It can mean the same thing it means in everyday conversation: If you say "I get my news from television," you do not mean that the TV beams news into your brain to you and you alone, to the exclusion of and in secret from, others. You mean that the material the TV stations provide is the source of your news.
In the same way, "Fox gets talking points from the White House" means that Fox is looking at what the White House says to determine how to frame its news coverage - i.e., the Bushites are the source for those talking points. There is no reason to take it to mean that the White House is "emailing talking points" directly and exclusively to Fox.
There's this little thing called the "White House News Service". It sends out official press releases daily from the Presidential press office, aka Rove's boys. FOX treats these releases like the Gospel.
Nah, FOX isn't simply repeating what the White House tells them to....NOT!
Just because you WISH it was. How many times do you have to be reminded that you do NOT have amazing mind reading powers and have to be content with what is SAID not what you WISH it meant?
Go back and read the quote by Rather that the poster Shoes provided on the first page. It's different than the one MMFA provided. Even Valentinian agrees with us now after reading the quote.
"This was Rather's exact quote. 'They have their talking points ... from the White House.' He was saying that the White House emails Fox News talking points that they use in their programming.
-----
What was in the portion of Rather's quote that was conveniently omitted from your post? The word "email" was never once uttered by Rather.
Your straw community is gaining population by leaps and bounds. Perhaps you need to be issued a straw condom to prevent such outbreaks in the future.
This is the quote that Shoes posted.
"[S]omebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House"
One main difference is that in this quote Rather references the Fox News hierarchy. He's saying that Rojer Ailes or someone else in the hierarchy get their talking points from the White House. The words "From the Whitehouse" imply that the White House sends Fox News the talking points. How can you still be in denial about this? Even Valentinian agrees with us now.
Another subtle but significant difference is that in this quote Rather uses the word "get" instead of the word "have." In the first one he said "They HAVE their talking points from the White House." Reading this version, you could possibly say that Fox News simply watches T.V. like the rest of us and gets the talking points from that. The new quote says "They GET their talking points from the White House." The word "get" implies that they are receiving something. You have to receive something in order to get it. Any reasonable person wil tell you that Rather's point is that the White House sends Fox News talking points. And like I've said all along, Rather has no proof of this. It's just another case of him making stuff up.
Ailes or whoever makes policy gets his talking points from the White House is still NOT saying that the WH emails them or contacts them and tells them what to say. It would still be consistant with whoever it is that sends out those messages Fox is famous for telling them to shill this or that talking point gets them, that is takes their cue from, the WH agenda and message, what THEY are putting out lately. I will admit that if THIS quote is correct your inferrence has more credence but it still isnt the only way to look at it.
I left out the last part of the quote. There's even more.
"In other words, somebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House, and they can say, 'Well, we don’t always take those talking points.'"
When he says, "We don't always take those talking points," he's implying that the White House at least offers to give Fox News the talking points.
I think Rather exaggerated, or else he has evidence that he can't share, or he just pulled it out of his @ss. Not sure.
However, "even Valentinian" still thinks this technicality is being used to try and disprove the sort of obvious point that FNC echoes the WH. If we can agree that's the case, I'll feel better about saying "I agree with Tommy and TD."
That is pretty good. I have to say that with that full quote it looks like you were right and I was wrong. That does make it look like he means the White House is directly sending talking points to Fox News. Now I wouldnt be suprised but I didnt see Dan back that up and it isnt unreasonable for Fox to demand he do. Good job. I was wrong on this one.
I know ESL Korean exchange students with a better grasp of the english language than you if you believe what you just wrote.
"Rather does not say that talking points on paper are actually delivered from the White House to Fox News studios in New York."
-----
Why has no one pointed out that a former Fox News anchor is now White House Press Secretary? It's as if he never changed employers.
He did not check the authenticity of the document, but Dan Rather did check with the woman who was alleged to have typed the document. She backs up the story that CBS ran on 60 Minutes II with Dan Rather.
Rather rushed to the air, which was wrong, but the truth of the story stands. George W. Bush should have been activated into the full time military for his actions. I've never heard of anyone else being allowed to transfer to help in a political campaign.
He did not check the authenticity of the document.......
************************
And that's one of the reasons Rather is gone from CBS, his reputation tarnished, and his obvious bias, which renders his opinions on Fox, or any other rightward entity, suspect.
In a career that goes back more than forty years? I can cut the guy some slack. Dan is an old time journalist. He's not just a talking head like most today. He screwed up. But I'd still listen to anything he had to say on any topic before I'd listen to any of Murdoch's minions.
anything but what it seems to be.
In the Rather case, the wingers claimed to have debunked the issues surrounding Bush's Guard service on the basis of one questionable (but not authoritatively refuted) document, despite copious evidence to the contrary.
Here, we see the exact same game being played. Despite obvious evidence that FNC uses the publically available WH talking points, the fact that there is no proof that the White House hand-delivers an actual document to FNC headquarters is trotted out to debunk the whole point.
Come on guys. If you're going to come down here, at least bring your "A" game.
one of the reasons Rather is gone from CBS, his reputation tarnished, and his obvious bias....
Actually, there was talk even before the show aired that Rather was thinking of retiring. Personally, I suspect that's why the document didn't get vetted as it should have been: Rather was caught up in the idea of going out in a blaze of scoop-glory and so no one looked too closely.
However, I don't know that his reputation is "tarnished" in the eyes of anyone except the rightwingers who always suspected him of the dreaded "liberal bias" - I especially think he hasn't been too tarnished in the eyes of those who know that the actual content of the apparently forged document was accurate: Killian really did think Bush got special treatment.
And as for claim of his "obvious bias," it becomes a bit hard to maintain when we recall that in the wake of 9/11 he raised different questions about his ability to cover news impartially when he said on David Letterman "wherever he [i.e., Bush] wants me to line up, just tell me where."
NO ONE claimed they RECIEVED anything from the White House. He said they HAVE their talking points from the WH. Its not the same thing. This has already been pointed out. It is not saying that FOX recieves emails or phone calls telling them to say this or that. It is saying they take their cues from the WH and are mouthpieces for this administrations agenda. I think that is axiomatic. Who in their right minds could argue the point?
O'Reilly CONVEINENTLY refuses to respond to Media Matters numerous examples of Fox News conservative hackery so he can continue living in his dream world. A world where cupcakes impregnate you, it's Christmas everyday and SHUT UP has replaced "Good Morning."
Fox does the bidding of the White House after reading the above and - I dunno - watching Fox News every once in awhile.
You've got to be kidding us all, Truth Detector. Denying the obvious is O'Reilly schtick. Let him have it. It doesn't suit rationale people.
"The pictures shown in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom (4/1/04)."
I thought Fox had already won that race.
I realize many readers here do not listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
What you are missing on Mondays is Rush going over the various weekend TV political talk shows. He routinely deduces what the Democrat talking points were for that weekend by how various key people give inappropriate answers to questions. The McLaughlin group is taped on Fridays, and Eleanor Clift often does this, echoed by other liberals on the network shows. Yes, Rush Limbaugh covers the Democrat talking points.
I do not mean that Rush gets them from the Democrats, but he relays them just the same.
The various cable news networks broadcast 24/7. I would expect them to broadcast both Democrat and Republican talking points within that generous timeframe. If as Rather implies, Fox News is exclusive in revealing the Republican talking points, I wonder why the others do not.
Finally, how many times have we read MMFA say that someone "baselessly" claimed something? Here O'Reilly is asking Rather to provide the basis for his claims. MMFA should be happy that a non-liberal commentator is doing this.
talking points, smocking points Fox is a far Right bomb throwing network helmed by rabid dittobots...end of story
there isn't a liberal equivalent to the characters Fox puts out there as news folk
Bill O, you rascal, you. That's some good entertainment you provide. Awesome. Grade A++++ Would buy from again!!!
No seriously, once you've won 7 Peabody Awards like ol' Danny, then perhaps I'll quit using your arguments to drain my spaghetti.
I said "Peabody," not "Polk." There is a difference.
In the name of protecting Fox's so called "fair and balanced" brand, Fox pundits already attack the online media watch groups; but when mainstream people reveal Fox, you know Fox is going to get nervous and will send the dogs after those people too. I don't know how many remember, but during one of the recent elections, Fox newsman Brett Hume said "we won" when referring to a Republican victory.
Using intimidation against news agencies and reporters. Evading the press (Cheney get your gun and others -- WMD, the Iraq Conflict). The creation of unlabelled, friendly news pieces that were sent to the media in the US and using a similiar practice in Iraq w/ the newspapers. With Ailes' past. The fact a high profile reporter of theirs is now the Press Secretary for the White House. And the fact that on at least one occasion Brit Hume made a Fruedian slip and "referred to the GOP-led House as "we" (MMFA, Monday, July 24, 2006 7:25PM ). I think the odds are good they are in bed with the GOP leadership, which, I am just guessing includes the White House. Rather is right.
Really when you look at it the WH giving FOX marching orders is really small in their lists of sins.
Fox and friends have Bush brown rings around their NECKS. For example. When soldiers die in Iraq, Fox and freaks says they were killed fighting the "war on terror," not the Iraq War. At 6am every morning, while CNN starts the day with the NEWS, on Iraq or politics, Fox and freaks goes on some tirade about some Hollywood star that said something they didn't like. Or when Hillary reamed Rummy at some hearings, F&Fs went off on Hillary instead of addressing the abysmal quotes from the top generals, or they portrayed Rummy as the "poor victim of the evil Hillary monster."
And, last night I decided to watch Brit Hume, and they had this religious Christian graphic with Christmas wishes. It's fine with me, but don't call yourselves "fair and balanced."
To hear O'Riley say anything about the obvious bias of Fox is insulting to even the dolts who watch that station and believe their crap. Why does the "Worst President Ever" and Cheney run to the network when they interview? Because they know the softball game is about to start. Great job by Media Matters for showing the hypocrisy of the right.
Fox parrots the RNC and WH almost verbatim on a daily basis. Rather is absolutely correct. I think those people denying this are Twisting what was actually said by Rather and when he goes on The factor Bill is going to get his a$$ handed to him easily.
Yeah, like all of them.
And no, it is NOT OK for news to lean in either political direction.
Sadly though, most news agencies out there are leaning to the right. FOX is just the bastardized version of this trend.
of someone who knows that *all* those documents got shredded.
Now just about everybody knows that Faux news is a game, a racket. Except MAYBE some of those who watch it.
Now Faux is adding to the game by proclaiming to their disciples that anyone who challenges them needs a therapist?
Maybe they'll need hospitals when we start doing to them what they deserve. They're nothing but Stalinists...and they know it!
this is a sign that progressives are making great strides. Three, four years ago Fox would have been proud of their role in "catapulting the propaganda." They would have called anyone who didn't support the president by repeating the White House talking points an unpatriotic cowardly "Saddamite."
this thread is getting trolled to death. And hair split to death. Anybody with half a brain knows that Fox "News" gets their talking points from the WH. There's no controversy here, just more trolling from Tommy and Truth distracter. What's so fun about going back and forth with nimrods? If they had a cogent or challenging point to make, maybe. But come on.