Conservative candidates stump on Fox during lead-up to elections
In the two weeks leading up to their November 3 elections, Conservative Party congressional candidate Doug Hoffman, New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell appeared on Fox News and its personalities' radio shows at least 16 times for live interviews lasting a total of 114 minutes 36 seconds.
Christie: At least five appearances, almost 37 minutes on Fox News and its personalities' radio shows
Christie on Fox News. Christie appeared on the October 26 edition of Hannity, the October 27 edition of Fox & Friends, and the November 2 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto, for a total of 18 minutes 47 seconds.
Christie on radio. Christie appeared on the October 27 and November 2 editions of Fox News host Sean Hannity's radio show for a total of 18 minutes 6 seconds.
McDonnell: At least three appearances, 18 minutes on Fox News and its personalities' radio shows
McDonnell on Fox News. McDonnell appeared on the October 22 edition of Your World and the October 30 edition of Hannity for a total of 10 minutes 24 seconds.
McDonnell on radio. McDonnell appeared on the October 27 edition of Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham's radio show for 7 minutes 46 seconds.
Hoffman: At least seven appearances, almost 60 minutes on Fox News and its personalities' radio shows
Hoffman on Fox News. Hoffman appeared on the October 23 edition of Your World, the October 26 edition of Glenn Beck, and the November 2 edition of Hannity for a total of 16 minutes 54 seconds.
Hoffman on radio. Hoffmann appeared on the October 26 and November 2 editions of Hannity's radio show and the October 21 and November 2 editions of Glenn Beck's radio show for a total of 42 minutes 39 seconds.
He did not find it odd that in all three cases, all the video showed was 'Vote for Hoffman, Christie and whoever the elephant is in VA'.
I heard somewhere that VA always elects a Governor that is not of President's party. No one on his show or the liberal MSM waned to give that fact any coverage. Instead, it is all about referendum on Obama and his policies.
When will we have a responsible media?
By watching the station, I've confirmed for myself that Fox is a full-time Republican propaganda machine.
I do believe most of what I see at this site, as it's mostly well-documented and factual. That is, I believe the stuff exists, not the BS presented by right wing media.
Is there material here that you think should not be believed? For example? Because there's a whole lot of stuff on Fox that only a fool would believe.
I'm not a Fox shill. I listen to/watch both sides. For all the hate you say is on the right, you all need to look in the mirror.
So you're saying you prefer two partisan hacks yelling over one another? Or Hannity/Billo cutting someone's microphone when they back them into a corner?
I prefer Olbermann/Maddow where they often have other JOURNALISTS discuss the topics of the day. You know, the people that actually do the REPORTING.
No wonder Fox News viewers are grossly misinformed. They can't even realize they are being misinformed in the first place.
You mean Fellow Travelers like ol' Mika...
Mika admits Journalists left wing
Just like this here Echo Chamber...
BTW...doesn't look good for Barry tonight. He even lost Ed Schultz...for the night at least. Barry better listen to the people. Will he listen or will he continue to be led around by the nose by his handlers and the fringe left?
If you look at both sides, and don't see Fox as a GOP propaganda outlet, I guess you're entitled to that opinion. Accusing me of being disingenuous for thinking otherwise is your opinion too.
I realize your "10 times more opposing opinions" is just another made-up right wing statistic, but can you find any examples of misinformation on the MSNBC shows that compare to the well-documented bias of Fox ?
On a side note i just wanna say that you guys are bigots, you do exactly what other bigots do. You stereotype all right conservatives and right wingers into a group and hate them all, insult them all, label them all just like other bigots do to other groups. Your no better so get over yourselves.
First, list of broken promises. Do you realize that President is elected to a 4 year term. It's hard to tell what promises Obama has broken when he hasn't been in office even for an entire year yet isn't it?
Lack of jobs, yes, the recession did provide for a certain lack of jobs, and a high rate of unemployment, but do you really think that was Obama's doing? Hmm, it probably was not. The economic recovery that we're seeing now is a combination of policies that President Bush put in towards the end of his 2nd term, and also policies that President Obama has implemented since taking office.
What weakness in foreign matters? You guys keep saying that, but there isn't any proof that he's weak in foreign policy. You mean weakness like how Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors into their secret nuclear facility after it was revealed to be in existence by Obama? Or like how Iran agreed to start sending out non-enriched uranium to other countries (France and Russia) to have THEM enrich it for use in power generation reactors, and to generate medical isotopes? Or, do you mean how he has increased the number of troops in Afghanistan, per his campaign promise? Or, that the rest of the world now views American positively since Obama has been in office? Or his Nobel Peace Prize? Yeah, he's been such a disaster for foreign policy so far, I'm surprised we let him leave the country!
The health care push comes at this point in time as a good thing, since a lot of people's financial crises are caused by, yes, health care, or more directly to the point, NOT having insurance. This is where the most bankruptcies are generated each and every year in the US, because of lack of insurance. Not to mention the people that die every year, because of lack of coverage, and health care.
What new taxes? Do you make more than $250k/year, or more than $300k/year as a married couple? If so, then guess what? Your taxes haven't gone up (yet). You're still being taxed under the Bush tax cut rates. If you make less than that, guess what? You, like me, got a tax CUT. What new taxes? You're making that up.
Obama has always stated that gay marriage is a State issue, and interestingly enough, States are doing their own law making in that regard.
Obama will get a 2nd term, you can bank on that. Especially considering who is probably going to be running from the republican side of things.
I can tell you're a talking points robot, due to calling Obama Jimmy Carter, of course, totally ignoring everything he's done thus far.
Obama wasn't ready to be President & should have been kicked from the campaign trail the instant he didn't know or refused to place his hand over his heart and pledge his loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America - the country he wants to lead but continually denigrates and apologizes for. That alone should have disqualified him. However, his many nefarious associations with criminals, terrorists, racists, liars & thugs should have cinched the deal ... all of that was overlooked BECAUSE he was black and was promising FREEBIES to everyone under the sun. Forget his "color," he is a liar and scam artist of humongous proportions who should have gone to jail with Rezko.
Did you read what you just said prior to that? LOL Pot meet kettle in the mirror.
In fact, you're a case study of the oblivious conservative, you have no self awareness. You repeat the standard rightie baloney about Democrats being weak on foreign policy, even though Obama has made great strides in restoring trust abroad in America. You feign the same deficit concerns the same as every other fringie, despite the necessity of deficit spending conservative economics wrought on the country. It's not like you guys batted an eye when our government was giving billions we didn't have to the Blackwater mercenaries. You go into tax vapor lock even though you have no other alternative for actually paying for the deficits the last Republican president rang up. And that Jimmy Carter talking point. How many times do you reckon we've heard that from the cons who post here?
Dude you are a stereotype, so stop whining and come up with some ideas for fixing problems instead of sucking your thumb and crying about liberals.
Having said that, I agree with you that Obama has been a disappointment. He's been too damned timid to ride the wave of energy he generated in the election and effect the change we need. You guys on the right really dodged a progressive tidal wave because Barack is too worried about compromise to fulfill his mandate. The time has past for change. Now we're stuck with luke warm capitulation to pressure from the progressive base.
Have you forgotten that he's a politician? That all of our 'elected officials' are politicians?
And if you think that the Obama Administration only consists of Obama, and not hundreds of other people helping enact change, and if you think that he's the kind of person who can't multitask, it's your severe lack of understanding and common sense that's on display.
Agreed, He's doing what he can. Better than Ol' Bush playin' 18 holes then going to the 19th Hole for a cold one while he's at war and America was on their knees.
It's about how the nonsense from FoxNews poisons our national debate because they get more credibility than they deserve.
FoxNews doesn't help our nation. They hurt it because too many people believe what they say, and too often they lead and the MSM follows.
We need to stop them from being able to influence the debate as they do currently. They shouldn't have the prestige they have. They shouldn't have the credibility they have.
And one of the signs that they get more credibility than they deserve is because they allowed conservative candidates to stump on FoxNews. No legit news organization would do that! That behavior should be highlighted and it should be a mark against them when people evaluate their standing in the news media marketplace.
Like it or not, there are people who want to watch Fox and we all know liberals think those that do are all idiots and they know better to tell them what they should be watching, like MSNBC or something. But once again, you stick your nose where it doesn't belong.
And if you think you are the arbiter of credibility and appropriate debate, you aren't, for anyone but yourself. We can get by without you.
And yeah, we should publicize this as much as possible to try to help our nation out. I understand that this hurts your cause, but, too bad, so sad.
We aren't sticking our noses in places they don't belong. Our nation deserves to have our national debate unpolluted by nonsense that's given credibility it doesn't deserve. When we have to talk about non-issues, it stops us from being able to talk about the real issues. When we have to debunk stories about imaginary death panels, it stops us from being able to discuss the real benefits of end-of-life counselling, for example. When a news organization hosts only conservative candidates and doesn't vet their platforms fairly, it's toxic to our election process, and it is our job to do everything we can to block that kind of omission of relevant info.
And I understand that you have a bug up your butt towards me. Again, too bad, so sad. No one cares who irritates you. In fact, we like it when you get frustrated. It entertains us.
Try this, if you don't like Fox then you and your liberals should get together and try to overcome their dominance in the free market. Put out a product that competes with them and that people will watch. Beat them at their own game, be competitive instead of whining about them 24/7 and telling people they poison this or poison that and you know better what people should be discussing or debating in this country.
You look pitiful and toothless.
Why don't we operate in the here and now, instead of worrying about some misrepresented notion of what I might do in the future? You say that FOX is illegitimate. That's fine for you, apparently. When Dolly says that this is a problem, that they shouldn't have credibility, then that's somehow inappropriate.
Why?
Your failure to grasp how you come across to others has no bearing on how your behavior is perceived.
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.
Sorry for the misquote. Enjoy your afternoon.
But you're not going to explain how you can say that FOX is "crap" and "illegitimate" without suggesting that they shouldn't have credibility, anyway. That's really the point here, as opposed to your misquote distraction.
I think the proof is directly above this.
You misquoted him, then determined what he meant when he said something different by using the words you misquoted.
So that's why I said
That's pretty funny, actually, that he tried to pin you down with a totally bogus quote that significantly distorted the meaning of what you actually wrote!
So yeah, he wants to be accurately quoted, and he doesn't want you to use a misquote to twist the meaning of what he actually said! What he wants is totally reasonable, of course.
It was you who twisted the meaning here. He said that he wants to operate in the here and now as compared to your assertion that anything you said in the future, because he used the word "wrote", which means evaluating what's already happened versus "write", which means evaluating it in the future!!!
You need to start your drinking games later in the day, because this argument you're trying to make is looney.
One thing they should do is be good stewards of our nation. Another is they should be honest, and yet another is respectful of the minority party.
We need to package our political philosophy in good, easy to understand soundbites to maximize the average joe's ability to understand and buy into it.
But beyond that, we should also fight against some things. One of those things we should fight against is nonsense from people like you, and from groups like FoxNews, and from other right wingers like Rush Limbaugh. We should fight against you and your ilk getting more credibility than what you deserve.
I am not sure why you think that this is off base..... do you think that Consumer Reports shouldn't exist? That no factcheck.org should exist? How about the FDA, or USDA, or OSHA checking product reliability and safety?
Because the reason they exist is the same reason we fight against FoxNews getting more crediblity than they deserve.
As we always have to remind you, the person whining here is you. Whining is feeble complaining. That'd be you. We have incontrovertible evidence that backs up our complaints about FoxNews.
LOL!! Finally, a bit of smug elitist arrogant honesty from you. Thank you for admitting the liberal philosophy of packaging soundbites so average people will buy into it.
Like every product manufacturer doesn't do that?
Like everyone on a first date doesn't do that?
Honesty about how products or ideas are sold is not bad.
The issue was you were claiming that it was inappropriate to both highlight one's good qualities and one's opponent's bad qualities! You asserted that the only legit thing I could do was highlight the liberals good qualities, and I had no right to discuss the right's bad qualities.
And that was more nonsense from you. I acknowledged the part of your argument that was accurate, that we should be competitive, as well as debunking your argument that it's inappropriate for us to publish how bad your side is.
Hypocrite that you are, you implicitly deny that packaging FoxNews' "political philosophy in good, easy to understand soundbites to maximize the average joe's ability to understand and buy into it" is exactly what your side already does! You act like this is a disreputable thing to do. It's not.
You specifically laid out a path for liberals to follow. And in order to sell your political philosophy to idiots out there, (or as you condescendingly label them "average joes"), you must package it with soundbites so they will buy into it. In other words, detailed policies spelling out exactly what you advocate isn't the way to go for liberals because the average joes won't buy it. They need to be hoodwinked into buying the liberal philosophy because liberals aren't supposed to tell you what they really believe. Because those idiots you covet won't buy into it.
As I have always said, liberals never want to reveal their true intentions - they want to package it in soundbites so fools out there will buy into it.
You said it way better than I ever have. I just knew it.
Maybe it just settles their nerves to type gibberish. I'm glad they have an outlet here, but it's a real time saver to skip over most of the comments that start off sounding like Fox "news" in the first sentence.
Escalation: White House Tries to Exclude Fox From Press Pool Interview
The White House sent out an alert today to the press pool that "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg would be doing a press availability— a round robin with the major news networks, in which Fox is customarily included. The administration specified that everyone was invited except Fox News, according to Bret Baier on "Special Report" tonight.
The press pool, acting in the interest of its members, admirably stood up to the White House bullying. All the other networks declared that if Fox was not getting an interview, they would not be conducting interviews. The White House responded by cutting Feinberg's time with the networks from five minutes to two minutes.
The White House can dole out access to various administration officials, to be sure, but when dealing with the actual press pool, it has to deal with the White House Press Association—the independent group of journalists charged with looking out for WH reporters' best interests in covering the executive branch. That's much trickier than just talking trash about Fox on TV.
The title of the article says, "tries" to exclude FoxNews from Press Pool Interview.
So did they try, or did they actually do it?
Escalation: White House Tries to Exclude Fox From Press Pool Interview
White House draws criticism for trying to exclude Fox from press pool
There are numerous other links to this story but these were the first two I found.
I found this on the White House Press Association's website:
WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS' ASSOCIATION OFFICERS AND BOARD
Since 1914, the White House Correspondents' Association has operated independently of the White House and the White House credentialing process. We intend for the White House Correspondents' Association to remain independent of that process.
Consistent with the First Amendment, the White House Correspondents' Association stands for inclusiveness in the credentialing process so that the White House remains accessible to all journalists. We hope that individual episodes do not obscure the broader principles of a fair and evenhanded credentialing process that serves the goal of free and full exchange of information.
It turns out this is all according to Fox "News" Brett Baier. There are no links to any official White House statements (but then again, we know how conservatives hate backing up their arguments with actual evidence/substance) AND the White House spokesman actually said: "I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job."
Another fake "controversy" trumped up by Fox "News" it seems.
Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).
But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview.
The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.
Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.
TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue.
Wiki (for those who can't remember, like me, exactly when Faux News 'went on the air' [cable])
And FOX News has been around since 1996, not since the 1980s.
If that's who you're referring to, you should also be equally aware that FOX Propaganda has yet to air any legitimate criticism of Obama's policies. Do they care what mustard he puts on his cheeseburger? Sure. Do they raise legitimate questions about health reform? Nope. They raise mobs, astroturfing with the help of health insurance companies and big pharma, then they promote the rallies, sponsor the rallies, help pay for the rallies, and finally cover the rallies, all while claiming no one else is noticing. Which is kind of funny, because the full page ad they ran had, as background, an image from a CNN camera tower at the even they claimed CNN didn't cover!
Which you can find proof of here...
1. They are the propaganda machine of the GOP
2. A few Republican victories could be toted as a trend toward a return to Republican power.
3. Obama is campaigning for some of them and Fox would treat their loss as failure on Obama's part, similar to the Olympics, and a sign of his 'waning influence' (a talking point they were pushing on Fox this morning).
The truth is, Fox wants them to win because they want Obama to fail. Frankly I fail to understand why the MSM feels the need to give these races so much coverage.
I would say if the coin was flipped you'd think it was very important.
First off, Virginia went Democratic last year for the first time in a long time, and secondly, for the last generation Virginia has voted for the opposition party for Governor. A different result would be the big deal. The expected result is not a big deal. FoxNews (and you) are trying to pretend that it's a big deal.
And Corzine has a lot of baggage that has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats in general. If he loses, it's not a sign of anything. And if he wins, well, he was well behind, and it would be a sign of the cratering of support for his opponent.
So yeah, politicians want media exposure. FoxNews dishonestly gave that exposure to one side but not the other side.
Lord help NY.
One example of something I read from most conservatives is that Obama is taking their freedoms away. There is no evidence of this. They're still able to do the same things today that they were able to do before January 20, 2009.
A little research on whether they are still free to live where they are living, whether they have been told that they can no longer keep their jobs and homes, whether they are destined for FEMA camp or not, whether travel restrictions have been put in place to prevent interstate/ intrastate/foreign travel, whether gun shops/shows have stopped selling guns, etc, instead of repeating far rw talking points would clear up these and other issues. It is unbelievable that a few rw entertainers/pundits/radio tools could persuade millions of people to be afraid of something that is not happening.
As a person of color, my assessment of the basis of these fears is the fact that President #44, according to American history, ideology, and culture, is considered an outlier, thus, although highly qualified for the job is deemed unqualified for the job due to the persistence of some Americans in continuing the false meme of the message underlying the phrase, "It's called the White House for a reason."
Socialism never works ... know your history.
Big words and long sentences to play the race card. Again.
And what about all those who voted President #44 into the "White House". Or are they racist now but not before? So silly for you guys to be so hung up on the color of skin. Pathetic.