Research and communications arm: Fox News is home to GOP in exile
A revolving door exists between the Republican Party and Fox News Channel, with a number of former Bush administration officials, former and potentially future GOP presidential candidates, and Republican strategists on Fox's payroll and airwaves. A Media Matters for America review of Fox coverage since September 1 reveals that these individuals, typically hosted alone or on unbalanced panels, often use their airtime to advance false and misleading claims about Democrats and progressives, as well as to fundraise, further demonstrating that Fox is effectively a conservative political organization and not a legitimate news outlet.
Bush administration in exile
Karl Rove: Ubiquitous in Bush White House, on Fox News. Karl Rove, who served as George W. Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff throughout most of his eight-year presidency, is a ubiquitous figure on Fox News. Since September 1, for instance, he has appeared at least 17 times -- roughly twice a week -- on prime-time programs such as Hannity and The O'Reilly Factor in his capacity as Fox News contributor and political analyst. In all but one of those instances, he has appeared alone opposite Fox hosts. (On the October 18 edition of Fox News Sunday, he appeared opposite former Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe.) Moreover, Rove has repeatedly misled and misinformed during these appearances, including falsely claiming that Kevin Jennings, a Department of Education official, had engaged in "high-profile, in-your-face advocacy of things like NAMBLA and gay rights and queering elementary school curricula" and advancing the dubious claim, contradicted by the Congressional Budget Office, that the House health care bill will lead employers to "dump" coverage.
Dana Perino: From Bush White House podium to Fox News desk. After serving as Bush's press secretary, Perino became a Fox News contributor and Fox Forum columnist, appearing on Fox News' prime-time programs at least nine times since September 1, most frequently on Hannity, according to a search of the Nexis database. Perino typically appeared with other guests: She appeared with a Fox Business Network reporter in four instances, she appeared twice with Democrats or liberals (Bob Beckel and Julie Menin), and she appeared once on a Fox News Sunday panel with syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, as well as Mara Liasson and Juan Williams of NPR. She appeared alone twice. During these appearances, Perino has falsely suggested that allowing federally subsidized health plans to cover abortion is inconsistent with current law and suggested that the White House is doing "like dictators do" by criticizing Fox.
John Bolton: Bush ambassador to Fox Nation. John Bolton, formerly Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, now serves as a Fox News contributor and has appeared alone opposite Fox prime-time hosts nine times since September 1. During his appearances, he has advanced misinformation, such as joining Fox host and conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck in suggesting that the Obama administration supports a one-world government.
Home for recent and potential GOP presidential, gubernatorial candidates
Mike Huckabee: Former GOP presidential candidate uses Fox perch to fundraise for his PAC. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee became host of the Fox News program Huckabee after his failed bid for the GOP's presidential candidate in 2008 and has guest-hosted The O'Reilly Factor at least three times during 2009, according to a Nexis search. Moreover, in his capacity as Fox host, Huckabee has directed viewers to "go to balancecutsave.com," which redirects visitors to a Web page soliciting donations for Huckabee's political action committee, which financially supports Republican candidates and also pays his daughter's salary. Additionally, Huckabee has advanced falsehoods during his Fox appearances in 2009, including falsely suggesting that Vice President Joe Biden disclaimed responsibility for the economy and that Bush did not claim to have "inherited" a weakening economy.
Newt Gingrich: From House speaker to Fox contributor to ... 2012 GOP pres. candidate? Fox News political contributor Newt Gingrich, who "joined the network in 1999, marking his first television deal since leaving Congress" that year as Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, repeatedly appears on Fox News prime-time programs alone opposite Fox's conservative hosts -- while considering a run for president in 2012. Since September 1, Gingrich has appeared as a contributor or analyst on Fox News at least 10 times, including four appearances on Hannity and two appearances on The O'Reilly Factor, according to a Nexis search. In seven instances he appeared alone, he appeared twice with his wife, Callista Gingrich, to promote their documentary and books, and he appeared once on a Fox News Sunday panel with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), former DNC chair Howard Dean, and Obama transition team head John Podesta. During these and other appearances on Fox, Gingrich advanced baseless and outrageous claims, including wondering if White House communications director Anita Dunn wants to subject Fox commentators to a "Cultural Revolution" and smearing then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor by claiming that she "clearly supported racial quotas" in the Ricci v. DeStefano case.
John Kasich: Fox host turned Ohio GOP gubernatorial candidate. Former Ohio Republican congressman John Kasich, who hosted the now-defunct Fox News program Heartland with John Kasich, guest-hosted The O'Reilly Factor at least twice in 2009 prior to announcing his bid for Ohio governor on June 1. Kasich appeared on Hannity the day that he announced his candidacy and three times thereafter, according to a Nexis search. Additionally, Kasich's gubernatorial website features an article in its news section that identifies him as "Fox News' Kasich."
(Image from the News section of Kasich's gubernatorial campaign website taken 10/22/09.)
During his Fox News tenure, Kasich has advanced misinformation, including forwarding the false Republican talking point that Democrats, for all their criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy, had no plan of their own to deal with Iraq, terrorism, and national security in general. Media Matters has also documented that he claimed that the Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder and chairman of the Moral Majority Coalition, is not "some sort of extremist."
Fox provides a perch for GOP strategists and pollsters
Dick Morris uses Fox appearances to smear Obama White House, fundraise. Fox News political analyst and Republican strategist Dick Morris is a ubiquitous presence on Fox News' prime-time programs, appearing nearly three times a week every week since September 1, according to a Nexis search. Morris has appeared alone opposite a Fox host since the beginning of September at least 20 times, appearances that are fairly evenly split among The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. During the 2008 election cycle, Morris repeatedly urged viewers to donate to an anti-Obama political action committee without disclosing that that PAC had paid a firm connected to him; in recent days, he has repeatedly used his appearances to fundraise for a conservative group opposed to health care reform for which he is chief strategist. Additionally, while on Fox, Morris has repeatedly smeared Obama and his administration, claiming, for instance, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may challenge Obama in the 2012 primary and that Obama "delay[ed] the decision to commit troops to Afghanistan ... because he wanted this [Nobel] prize."
Frank Luntz doctors words, facts while on Fox. GOP consultant and pollster Frank Luntz has repeatedly appeared during Fox News' prime-time shows since September 1, interviewed alone a total of six times on Hannity and The O'Reilly Factor and appearing twice on Glenn Beck with several 9-12 Moms. During his Fox News appearances, Luntz -- who authored an anti-reform health-care talking points memo intended to help conservatives defeat the Democrats' health reform initiative -- has repeatedly misinformed about health care reform. For instance, he has falsely suggested that reform legislation reduces physician payments and spawned another GOP talking point, asserting that the Democrats' proposed public insurance plan is a "government option" not a "public option, which is what the White House calls it." Beck also hosted Luntz to instruct his audience on the signs "the tea party people should be carrying."
The more Hate you Spew the better your chance for a High Profile Position.
Don't take my word for it ask Mark Furman?
At Fox News "Hate" is treated the same as a good Religious Sermon.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
He hurt a Woman (Andrea Mackris) & treated it Irresponsibly & Slyly.
The Main Stream Media seems to be willing to just move on.
"The Poet" sees things differently & i intend to hound "Bill-O the Clown" until he shows true Contrition or he is Gone.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
The "Truth" was chocked off at this Net-Work a long time ago & now Deception & Lies are its only Connection.
I go after Fox News hard because this is no Joke.
News Corp's goal is to Separate us by Race, to get us to Mis-Trust each other & to Fear one another, in their stretegy even George S. Patton would call it a Master Stroke.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
We've been told here by other posters that this is a waste of time, energy and attention. We've been told that when the Obama Administration directs their attention and the MSM's attention towards FoxNews, it's distracting from the real issues and it's a waste of time and energy and it's demeaning to Obama.
But that's not true. FoxNews distracts us. They derail the conversations we should be having about Afghanistan or Healthcare Reform or economic recovery. It's urgent that their distortions and omissions get called out, so that eventually everyone except FoxNews fans will see them for what they are, and begin the process to treat them like they should be treated - as an unreliable news source that is slanted right.
It's okay for them to be slanted right, but it's not okay for them to pretend they aren't - they still call themselves "Fair and Balanced." But it's not okay for a news source to use distortions and omissions when presenting the news to people, nor is it okay to be misleading about the known facts, even on opinion shows in prime time. And their misleading stuff in the evening has been shown to bleed over into their news shows.
DumbDolly, do you really think it's the MSM's responsibility to pay attention to the issues which your chosen one tells them to? Maybe the Obama staff should simply take over all the newsrooms, and direct the coverage. They already have a strong foothold in at msnbc and nbc, with the administration's primetime mouthpieces.
Notwithstanding the far left lemmings (you, of course, included), I think most sane people don't want the Obama White House to "[tell] the rest of the MSM [what] to pay attention to." That is to say, most sane people want a media that is totally independent from the white house.
Of course I understand and appreciate the White House's angle on this, and don't fault them for taking advantage of an overwhelmingly compliant media in order to direct coverage. But it's simply ridiculous that the same media and political personalities who literally deify Obama are appalled at Fox's tilted coverage. Let's hope that others follow the lead of journalists like Tapper, and realize that the White House by nature is not the proper source to be directing which stories should be covered by the media
"an overwhelmingly compliant media"
"personalities who literally deify Obama"
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOUBLE FAIL
--------------------------------------------------------
Because it is not my desire to only preach to the choir.
Show us or take the hit to your credibility.
Apparently you are too busy to notice. Watching Fox, perhaps?
These guy's got nothin'. They just accept FOX's view shameless and baseless bashing of thier competition becuase it fits their ideology, preconceieved notions and world view.
-------------------------------------------------------
No tolerance for cognitive dissonance, you see.
Olbermann has been critical of the Administration and the Dem's almost every night for the last month for waffling on the Public Option and less frequently, but just as strongly, for some time now for waffling on the tortue memo's and the investigation of the pprevious administration.
Maddow has criticised the Administration for failing to act to repeal the DOMA and on being so slow on "Don't ask / Don't tell."
This much is FACT. There are transcipts available.
Criticising Republicans does not make one a "groveling supporters of this administration." It merely indicates that one is smarter than the average earthworm, more principled that the average pig and more patriotic than the average weasel.
-----------------------------------------------
Calling out Republican malfeasence is about as difficult as putting on a hat.
You need to learn to understand the difference between NEWS and opinion.
-------------------------------------------------
Liberals judge opinions based on the facts. Conservatives judge facts based on their opinions.
They continue to be perplexed about the difference between s**t and Shinola, and cannot distinguish their a$$es from their elbows...... :-)
OK. As unique, complex and multi-faceted an individual as I'm sure you are, let me guess:
You're Conservative.
If you're not a hard-core Republican, it's becuase they've "lost touch with their base" or some such thing that basically means, "they're not conservative enough."
You like Reagan, hate Obama and are luke-warm on Bush'43 because he "wasn't a real Conservtaive." (And you can't find anything wrong witrh Clinton legislatively, but don't like him all the same.)
You say things like "Rush doesn't speak for me" but you never really refute anything he DOES say.
You believe the media to be biased, and Fox to be more objective and/or factually accurate that their competition becuase of this.
You're some denomonation of Christian, and whether or not you are hard-core, you do practice in some capacity, and also buy the Republican's line on "family values." (Anti-Abortion, Gay Marriage, Comprehensive Sex Ed, Bill Clinton, etc...)
How am I doing so far?
Let me try for the extra points:
You were for the war in Iraq, accepting whichever reason W. was giving at the time.
You think what the CIA did/is doing with their EIT's is OK, as a matter of defending our security and our values. (And either you don't want to clsoe Gitmo, or don't want terror suspects on US soil.)
You trust private, for profit corporations inherently more than you trust the gov't.
You hate all the spending under Obama, CLAIM to have hated it under Bush, but voted for him all the same.
And most importantly: You question the accuracty of MMFA and what you call the mainstream media, or even liberla media, because you feel that an accusation of liberal bias is somehow ebough to refute the evidence presented.
This is more than enough to support any statements I've made. If I'm WAAAY OFF? Then you have my apologies. Seriously.
----------------------------------------------
If I'm so-so so far, and you want more: let me know. I just love the sound of the voice in my head. ;)
34 Then shall the King say unto them … inherit the kingdom prepared for you … 35 For I was a hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. …40Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also…Depart from me, ye cursed…42 For I was hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 42 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.…45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Of course, I understand some Conservatives are looking at a new revision of the Bible, perhaps, they're planning on editting this out?
It's called the PROSPERITY GOSPEL. Jim Bakker preached it back in the 1980's. He's since recanted, but it's what drives pretty much ALL of the Right-Wing preaches these days.
AND IT'S THE SINGLE MOST FLAWED AND DANGEROUS PIECE OF THEOLOGY TO COME ALONG SINCE WE STOPPED BURNING WITCHES.
Check it out, and consider how these people think, and the implications that has. It's pretty scary, yet it explains a lot.
Or else simeply parrotting what he heard Rush Limbaugh and/or Sean Hannity saying, when they refer to President Obama as "The Messiah" or "The Annointed One".
Aren't brain-dead dittoheads pathetic?
What raving liberal is on Fox to counter George Will of ABC ?
By the way, where's your outrage about Fox pushing the GOP/Conservative agenda?
And if the MSM is ignoring the elephant in the room, then I don't care who tells them. I would be okay with a Republican White House telling the MSM the same thing if they were missing misbehavior coming from some on the left! See, I am consistent.
You are absolutely right pongotwistleton, the above by Dolly is the most arrogant, elitist idiotic thing I have read around here in a long time. She is basically advocating a state run media where the powers that be dictate to the news media what they should cover. No WH, no matter what party, has any damn business pointing out the behavior that the mainstream media pay attention to.
Liberals, they get a little power and they get drunk and think they change the rules. Then wait until they are out of power and screaming when the other party does it. If they ever thought through what they want based on logic and common sense instead of some emotional payback, they'd be better off.
Dana Perino was on FoxNews this weekend complaining about the use of the term "illegitimate", so I understand why you're following your talking points and trying to demean the use of the word. It's wholly appropriate, so go suck an egg.
That you think that the use of the word illegitimate means that FoxNews can't do any damage to our nation is another sign that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Maybe you think that word means 'impotent'. It doesn't.
We need to get rid of the nonsense from FoxNews. If there were a similarly slanted news source on the left that regularly distorted information, we'd need to get rid of them too!
We shouldn't let nonsense get picked up by the MSM. If we need to shame the MSM since they seemed incapable of policing themselves, then then end result will be worth it.
That's really what all this is all about, isn't it? It isn't about factual information, or opinions bleeding into news or any such thing. It's all about an incredibly popular anti-liberal news network that has liberals spinning their wheels with increasing disgust.
Especially now with Fox's ratings going through the roof, when liberals rejoiced last fall with Obama's election when they thought that would silence Fox and automatically put them in their place, it hasn't. They are more the ratings powerhouse than ever before, and liberals are hopping mad and seething with anything that will bring 'em down.
Silence the opposition, shut them up, "get rid of them". That is the agenda, and thanks to simpletons like DellDolly, it exposes itself now and then, despite their best attempts to hide behind some lofty goal of integrity in the newsroom. Liberals don't give a damn about that but that is what they try and sell. All they want is to "get rid" of Fox.
Maybe Obama and the rest will finally say what they really want. Would be refreshing for liberals as they never really want people to fully know their agenda.
Another great example, thanks Sue (DellDolly)
Dolly specifically mentioned shaming the MSM because they haven't policed themselves. What is wrong with that, exactly?
Huh? I mean Huh? I said Fox is crap, actually. But I don't encourage our government to get rid of them.
As for your other comment, I made no mention of it.
Huh? I mean Huh? I said Fox is crap, actually. But I don't encourage our government to get rid of them.
As for your other comment, I made no mention of it.
You're flying off the handle over nothing at all.
"How would you go about getting rid of the nonsense on Fox but not Fox itself" ???
"Is there acceptable content on Fox that doesn't require getting rid of?" ???
"If so, what?" ???
"If not, then the whole network needs to gotten rid of, right?" ???
Seriously, though, I'm not sure how that doesn't answer your question. She specifically said that she had no problem with the network being slanted to the right, as long as there's no "distortions and omissions", and as long as they admit that they're biased. How does that not clearly address your question about how one would get rid of their nonsense without getting rid of the entire network?
Her post would imply that any honest reporting does not require getting rid of.
I said multiple times, and I meant it every time, that it's the distortions, lies and omissions from FoxNews that need to go to benefit our nation.
You, on the other hand, have shown your goals, and you should be terribly embarrassed by them. I sure hope you're being paid enough for the soul you've clearly sold to the highest bidder.
My comment?
We need to get rid of the nonsense from FoxNews. If there were a similarly slanted news source on the left that regularly distorted information, we'd need to get rid of them too!
His dishonest cropping implies that I only was for getting rid of the opposition! My second sentence clearly says that it's not the opposition, it's the dishonesty from that opposition that distorts information, and clearly says that if some news media on the left did the same thing, I'd object too.
What a dishonest person RightON is to deceptively crop what I said in order to give it a slant that I clearly didn't ever intend.
I don't care. My opinion doesn't matter on this topic. It's simply another one of your efforts to derail a thread even more.
As I have said multiple times (and you have replied to many of the comments, so it's undeniable that you've seen them), the problem is the credibility that they get that they don't deserve. And it's the distraction that they provide which leads us all away from civil discourse that's a huge problem. And it's their denials of their documented behaviors that insult all Americans and debase political discourse. I have repeatedly said, in your presence, that a vibrant two party system is an imperative. We don't have that now.
But, dishonest person that you are, despite the fact that you've seen these opinions voiced by me, you claim that I want to shut down the opposition, and I want the whole network to go.
On the contrary, it matters, it just makes no sense.
There are 3 options. They choose to cease to exist, they choose to straighten up their acts and regain credibility that they never should have had in the first place because they weren't honest, or they continue on the path they are on and they lose the credibility they never deserved. This make total sense. If you want to admit that your lack of common sense makes this seem confusing to you, go ahead, be my guest. We already were aware of your lack of consistency, honesty and credibility.
It's not my opinion here that's under discussion.
It was your attempt to further derail the conversation by making it about me instead of about the topic being discussed. You aren't fooling anyone.
I think Fox News is definitely an affront to democracy, but I'm not sure I'll go as far as to say it's usurping it.
I don't see that in what she says. Having the White House tell media what they should pay attention to is not the same as compelling them to do so. I can spend all afternoon telling you what you should be saying and I seriously doubt that you'd feel compelled to follow through. It's the same with what DellDolly states. The White House is free to tell the media that they are wasting time on and also tell them what they think should be covered. The media is free to go along, make adjustments or disregard.
There is nothing in what she said about a state-run media. That's just poor reading or a paranoid fantasy. Your last paragraph falls firmly into the latter category.
Well goodie for that. Because that would directly contradict our constitution wouldn't it? Thanks for the clarification.
"We've been told here by other posters that this is a waste of time, energy and attention. We've been told that when the Obama Administration directs their attention and the MSM's attention towards FoxNews, it's distracting from the real issues and it's a waste of time and energy and it's demeaning to Obama.
But that's not true. FoxNews distracts us. They derail the conversations we should be having about Afghanistan or Healthcare Reform or economic recovery. It's urgent that their distortions and omissions get called out, so that eventually everyone except FoxNews fans will see them for what they are, and begin the process to treat them like they should be treated - as an unreliable news source that is slanted right.
It's okay for them to be slanted right, but it's not okay for them to pretend they aren't - they still call themselves "Fair and Balanced." But it's not okay for a news source to use distortions and omissions when presenting the news to people, nor is it okay to be misleading about the known facts, even on opinion shows in prime time. And their misleading stuff in the evening has been shown to bleed over into their news shows.
"most sane people want a media that is totally independent from the white house." (You're talking about FOX?! Give me a break!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're right, and THAT message was heard loud and clear last November.
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration.
He is free to tell them anything he'd like. And I am free to tell him it is none of his business and a ridiculous waste of time spending one precious minute of his very important time speaking to illegitimate news outlets. If you feel that is time well spent, you are free to do that.
And aren't you the same person who wanted Obama to go on FOX to talk to them? So how is it that you think he shouldn't spend any time speaking to illegitimate news outlets?
The "legal restrictions" line was in reference to this:But then you'll criticize him for it. Obviously he's "free" to say whatever he likes, because there are no legal restrictions.
And again:
Where in the world did you come up with some legal context in THAT? Wow.
As for your last question, I answered it below "Complaining about an illegitimate entity is whining. Pointing out factual errors in a legitimate entity is constructive criticism"
I don't know why liberals can't understand that very simple distinction.
Neither of those things is consistent with adult discussion.
Don't you mean "whining"?
Your argument was a strawman. There's no whining going on. As I have explained to you in the past (but clearly you're at best a slow learner), whining is feeble, peevish complaining. But the White House and MMFA have not participated in whining. They've been documenting the problems with FoxNews.
The White House and MMFA have been pointing out factual mistakes by the MSM in giving FoxNews too much attention and credibility! It's constructive criticism that's necessary and desirable.
I know why you can't understand that very simple distinction.
It's not true. There's plenty of bandwidth in any competent Administration to handle this kind of stuff, and it's constructive criticism that is necessary and desirable that will eventually help our nation discuss the issues that need to be addressed without facing all this corrupt junk that FoxNews spews out every day.
It would be you who needs to grow up. You've the only one who has confused whining with documentation. It is you who won't/can't support his own argument. It's you who parses words, and crops other's statements in a dishonest way.
And yeah, I am not surprised that you don't feel a need to stop the dishonesty. You dishonest, unpatriotic, disloyal, traitorous American. Honest, patriotic Americans want a fair debate of the issues, and don't like this partisan nonsense that's been going on.
Wow, you hauled them all out there didn't you SuzyPhony? Sounds like your temper, which has always been your worst enemy far more than any conservative on this website has, will get you banned again. I hope not, you're too delicious for that.
Honesty about your dishonest, unpatriotic, traitorous support for continuing to condone FoxNews's behavior is not anger.
But your continual personal attacks surely show your anger at being bested in this forum.
If you had a brain, you couldn't support your positions.
Ah DumbDolly, you outdo yourself with each post.
To paraphrase what you said: No on in the white house is complaining about Fox News. The White house is complaining about Fox News getting too much legitmacy from the msm.
Are they complaining about Fox news or not? Is your brain that shallow that you see no disconnect in what your wrote. Any way you put it, their complaint stems from Fox's coverage of the administration.
The remainder of your post is revealing to the extent that you insist that the msm should heed the White House's advice in terms of which news outlets or stories are worthy of coverage and respect. Do you not see that the msm should not be led on a leash by the white house, no matter which party is in power?
And I am not led by a leash when someone points out a fact that I was unaware of or had missed, and then I proceed to form an opinion based upon that information.
No one is suggesting that the White House should lead the MSM. But the MSM should stop letting FoxNews lead them on a leash, that's for sure, and if the White House helps the MSM become aware of the fact that FoxNews has been dishonestly leading them by the leash, then so be it. I would have been happier with a MSM that could have figured it out on their own, but however they figure it out would be terrific for our nation.
It's necessary and desirable to have the MSM continue to give FoxNews undeserved credibility. Our nation needs to be able to have fair debate from different political philosophies, and we can't do it while the nonsense from FoxNews gets credibility they don't deserve.
No one is suggesting that the White House should lead the MSM. But the MSM should stop letting FoxNews lead them on a leash, that's for sure, and if the White House helps the MSM become aware of the fact that FoxNews has been dishonestly leading them by the leash, then so be it. I would have been happier with a MSM that could have figured it out on their own, but however they figure it out would be terrific for our nation.
So you're suggesting that it's terrific for our nation that the White House instructs the msm regarding which other media outlets are legitimate. But on the other hand, you're of course not suggesting that the White House lead the msm. You contradict yourself in nearly every paragraph you write.
Up above you state similarly, about how wonderful it is that the White House tells the media which stories to pay attention to.
Slow down, and think about what you want to say before indulging in your rants.
Acting upon accurate, factual information provided by others is not being led on a leash.
You're the one whose argument collapses upon any investigation, not me. You're the one who tried to attack my arguments the only way you know how, by distortion, omission and outright lies, yet even with those tactics, you were unsuccessful. Must suck to be you.
GollyGeeDolly admitted it earlier, and the usual suspect rushing to parse what she really meant and we all know it. They think we're stupid and they can rescue her, fail. They want Fox out of business, shut down because they hate them and their high ratings and their anti-liberal stance and it drives them nuts. That is exactly what this is about. And Dolly has the nerve to call me unpatriotic when she is calling on the damn government to shut down a media outlet she doesn't like. Incredible. Phony and transparent.
All you're doing is mind-reading. Liberals don't really feel a certain way. They just don't. You can't explain why you think that, but anyone who challenges you on it needs to "grow up", for some reason.
This is one of those times.
And this is supposed to make you look reasonable?
And the next time you feel misrepresented, it's now known that the person doing so can simply attribute a motivation to "conservatives" and then apply that to you, no matter what you wrote.
Oh, and whatever makes you "feel" like you've won the argument. You go ahead and do whatever you have to, I guess. Doesn't say much for how you intend to have an "adult discussion" in the future, does it?
Obviously the only way you can get around the concept that the ludicrous standard of behavior that you demonstrate here can be turned around on you is to assert that I have some plans of doing so. But that's just more "reading between the lines", right? It's simply not possible that a liberal might act honestly, apparently.
And then say this "It's simply not possible that a liberal might act honestly, apparently".
You were the one who advocated using a dishonest argument against me, and then you wonder why?
My track record of defending people I disagree with when they are misrepresented is far too solid for you to be making this accusation, and I think you know this from personal experience. You won't find anyone even remotely respected, from the right or the left, who thinks you've "caught" me doing anything inappropriate.
Yet you have spent the last few posts parsing your way around your own words (behavior), refusing to hold yourself accountable for suggesting a dishonest tactic be used against me to win some argument, and that I should just sit there and take it.
Well, my suggestion to you would be to police your own behavior before you worry about anyone elses.
He never said he would use those tactics. You said he would. We have evidence that you will use those tactics. He then explicitly said he wouldn't use those tactics. His behavior is not the issue here. It's your behavior, and your rejection of that same behavior being used against you.
What a moronic statement Sue. It's his opinion that I use dishonest tactics because that allows him an excuse to use them against me and not be accused of it. That is the behavior that I called him on, and he won't take responsibility for.
And if someone uses dishonest tactics arguing against me, I don't argue with them with any seriousness. I don't try and think up dishonest tactics myself to feel superior, it's ridiculous. And a waste of time. Think about it.
Brabantio suggested it, condoned it, and I will not be surprised if he employs the tactic for future discussions, if he hasn't already. I just didn't take his bait and he got caught.
So again, if it's not dishonest, then why are you complaining about the same thing being done to you? I don't see you making any distinction between the behavior I described and the description of the behavior that would be done to you, but you run with "dishonest" like it's not even in question.
You can say the same thing for three days straight if you like, but I'll shoot it down every time. Mentioning a possible scenario is not the same thing as advocating someone to make it happen or revealing a "strategy" to do it myself.
And again:andObviously you can't address either of these, so you have to keep pretending that you've been greatly maligned somehow.
You misunderstood. I will be generous and say that it was an honest mistake, but it was a mistake. I didn't say, nor did I mean, what you said I meant.
Continuing on after that, insisting that I meant something I clearly did not, is a dishonest tactic. That's not just one person's opinion - that's a fact. Continuing to distort what someone said after they've told you that your distortion is not valid is dishonest. Then to apply that distorted meaning to a whole group with a generalization is even more dishonest.
So no, it's not "his opinion" that you used a dishonest tactic. You did. So, your strawman argument that he used that as an excuse to try to punish you by using a similar tactic against you is ludicrous. And he never said that he would use that tactic against you at all - he suggested that if you were using that tactic, it would be hypocritical of you to object if someone else, anyone else, were to use it against you in a similar way!
What a troll you are. I understand from other's comments that some people used to think of you as a poster that they could interact with in a fair way at times. I cannot imagine how that could ever have been so.
Let's actually parse the comment in question to demonstrate, though, since it seems to be necessary:"...you feel misrepresented..." - does not suggest my personal involvement at all.
"...the person doing so..." - again, nothing connecting me to this scenario at all.
"...can simply attribute..." - can, not should. This is an important one. How would you ever inform someone that they're opening themselves up to an attack without "suggesting" that someone do so, in your opinion? If "can" is out-of-bounds, then any description of this situation would also be "advocating".
There's not even anything to suggest that I personally wouldn't defend you in that situation, really. The point is simply that you would be a hypocrite no matter how you "parsed" your words in defense. You make your bed, you lie in it. "Accountable for your behavior".
As for patting myself on the back, that's the reward for having standards and a sense of objectivity. I miss out on the (supposed) fun of hypocritical partisan sniping, so it balances itself out in other ways. You choose your path, and accept where it takes you.
So no matter what I write, which would include a perfectly genuine honest disagreement, you feel it is also perfectly appropriate to use dishonesty to counter it, "no matter" what I write.
I will be on the lookout from now on. Oh, and if those are the rewards you bestow upon yourself for "standards and a sense of objectivity", I think I will forgo those rewards, thank you.
It has nothing to do with "appropriate". It's "available", because you've made such tactics available to yourself.
If all you have in your arsenal is dishonest arguing tactics and your urging of others to do the same in order to do whatever it takes to "win" some argument, then considered this one argument you've won. If you're so inclined.
I'd rather stick to honest disagreements instead of pimping my arguments out to disingenuous and sleazy maneuverings just so you can feel superior as an anonymous poster on a website. Whatever thrills you.
Hey right ON, they are not "liberals". Check the definition. The core of liberalism is liberty. So calling Statist Progressives "liberal" is insulting to actual liberals but not an insult to the Statist Progressives who view the infringement on individual liberties by the Government for the good of the individual or society as benign.
I'll take Liberals over Statist Progressives any day!
Listen and learn
Sound familiar?
Hi again! Bye again!
It's called being a hypocrite.
Why is it that you seemingly enjoy having your dishonesty displayed for all to see?
My very first post on this topic didn't say that I wanted them shut down. And neither did my post about "nonsense".
For context, here's what I did say.
We need to get rid of the nonsense from FoxNews. If there were a similarly slanted news source on the left that regularly distorted information, we'd need to get rid of them too!
We shouldn't let nonsense get picked up by the MSM. If we need to shame the MSM since they seemed incapable of policing themselves, then then end result will be worth it.
And the context of "get rid of the nonsense from FoxNews" was in terms of getting it out of the public discourse as given to us by a complicit MSM. You've repeatedly tried to distort what I said, and take it out of context, but we haven't let you and aren't going to let you.
It's not up to me. I don't care how this is resolved. They can cease to exist, they can straighten up their act and become legit and be welcomed back into polite society, or they can continue on the same path they're on and they can be ostracized by the MSM instead of pulled into the fold of the old boy's network.
I don't care. My opinion doesn't matter. And your whining that I must answer your demand to tell you how I'd like to get rid of the nonsense is just that - whining. It's like you're a whining child who hasn't gotten his way. You're the angry one, you're the frustrated one, you're the dishonest one.
You tried to pretend that my saying that we needed to lose the nonsense meant that I wanted to shut down debate and suffocate the opposition party. Your exact mischaracterizations of what I supposedly wanted was that I was "basically advocating a state run media where the powers that be dictate to the news media what they should cover."
And "Silence the opposition, shut them up, "get rid of them". That is the agenda, and thanks to simpletons like DellDolly, it exposes itself now and then, despite their best attempts to hide behind some lofty goal of integrity in the newsroom. Liberals don't give a damn about that but that is what they try and sell. All they want is to "get rid" of Fox."
But neither of those was close to what I was saying. Ever. Your dishonesty was caught, early on, and that frustrated you and made you angry. Too bad, so sad.
The Administration wants the MSM to be reactive to reality, rather than blindly supporting FoxNews despite their behavior. They want that because our nation deserves it, and FoxNews doesn't deserve the loyalty. And again, there is not true debate about FoxNews' behavior - that ship has sailed.
What's the purpose of this? It doesn't make you look reasonable, and it doesn't make Dolly look stupid.
Your strawman argument that I am calling on the 'damn government to shut down a media outlet I don't like' is made up of two blades of grass, and is easily blown over. I don't care if FoxNews ceases to exist, straightens up their act or continues on, but the MSM should stop giving them credibility if they don't straighten themselves up.
Unpatriotic person that you are, you'll stop at nothing to smear another American, huh?
And it's clear to all who's the angry one here. Don't worry though, your workday is almost over.
But again, I can hardly believe you get paid enough to sell your soul as you do. Nothing could be sufficient to make me behave in the traitorous, disloyal way that you do.
You are more delicious than a gooey dessert. Considering the viciousness of your posts, you have the nerve admonishing anyone of smearing another American. The only smearing directed at you is over your moronic arguments.
When you stop smearing Americans and start acting like a loyal, patriotic American, I'll stop saying that you aren't acting that way, and I won't accuse you of smearing anyone. It's all under your control. Pretty clearly you can't stop yourself - your argument was totally debunked, yet you are still trying to maintain that my argument is moronic - the last refuge of a scoundrel is whining, and that's what you're doing now.
and to quote you:
You make the call.
Again: zero challenge.
Alas, the holodeck is available only to starship personnel in television's fictional "Star Trek." So Republicans, stripped of their real-life power, must resort to real-life means in acting out their fantasies. In that case, what better "holodeck" simulator than Fox News?
Jerry Elsea
It's sounds like welfare for Republicans, it's their own little stimulus package. All you have to do to receive benefits is sign your name on the dotted line... in blood.
Hey, read your response from last thread. You make great points, but truthfully they created more questions for me. Will sports figures, movie stars, musicians all be required to seek parity as well? Guys like Gates, Jobs, and other innovators, will they be enticed by a system that limits the upper boundaries of wealth? How do we retain or sustain an economy when work or production can be done cheaper in emerging nations and economies? I have lived in a wide range of the socio-economic strata in my life, from working poor with no health insurance or any other benefits to fairly affluent (over 200k a year). I was never unhappy in any of those situations; I never blamed anyone for my situation; and I always felt that if I kept at it, looked for opportunities and lived up to my potential I would eventually succeed. I not an academic, I've worked since I was 14, actually younger if you count my yard work jobs, I don't resent those with wealth because to this day I've never earned a dime working for a poor person although I have received a lot of satisfaction volunteering and feeding folks less fortunate than I.
I'm an advocate for government programs that encourage work as a more attractive alternative to welfare. It always annoyed me that if you went to work you would be less secure than if you remained on public assistance. My feeling was that it was poor policy for folks moving from welfare to the work force to loose health insurance etc. for making a positive change and in fact lead to fraud because it would drive those who actually received joy from being productive to skirt the system and work off the grid while still collecting assistance because they couldn't afford to loose the other benefits.
Honestly, I don't claim to know the answers, but history and human nature seem to be stubborn obstacles. I have a lot of ideas, theories and questions, but I'm not sure there is an absolute solution.
With regard to my apparent right-wing politics, you'd be surprised at some of my philosophical beliefs. I just get annoyed when one group decries the actions of another and then engages it the same rhetoric in order to "combat" them but then complains when those tactics are used by others and so on, and so on. I notice some folks here are what I refer too as "pokers", they don't have anything thoughtful to say, they just tow the rhetoric line in opposition to FNC and attack anyone they think might challenge their assertions. Yet I just watched a video by MM that has the same fear-mongering tone that they seem to oppose. The people that you might be calling wack jobs or fringe all have one thing in common; they're people. They have fears, hopes and beliefs. Out in the world I try to speak with and show good will to everyone I meet because the out come of my life will be the same no matter what; I'll spend a certain amount of time alive and eventually I will die. I can choose to be angry and afraid or I can try to understand and reason with my fellow man. It seems that FNC and MM have something in common; they attempt to polarize their respective ideologies. I don't find that constructive from either, but I vote with my remote, my keyboard and my subscriptions.
I think I'm done here, I've found my couple of "honest men". If you care to respond, you can reach me at libertycop@gmail.com - Take care and best of luck to all.
I do, however, entirely agree with the WH's statements, and then some. Fox has again and again demonstrated that they are far more committed to being partisan than they are to being responsible journalists. I think it is certainly time for Fox to become a real news organization if that's what they would like to be, and if not, then to acknowledge what it is they actually do, which is anything but fair and balanced.
..
Pretty sure at least one of these times was after 9/1/09
..
Unfortunately, some previously legitimate journalists have found themselves desperate enough to climb the cargo netting , and main-streamers like Clarence Page are in a precarious dilemma as are some others who had colleagues find jobs at Fox News.
As much as they want to see Fox News sunk they don't want to look into the eyes of their old comrades sinking into the abyss. I found Page defending Sean Hannity in his column this morning. I think he's trying to keep Fox Afloat to save his friends down in the cargo hold, but the only solution is to bring the ship down as quickly as possible and rescue the legitimate journalists before they destroy their own careers by towing the Fox News line.