ScottaWhite wrote:is anyone else thinking that this may be an opening salvo to restrict foxnews access to the whitehouse by simply equating them with tabloid status or the like?Wait a minute... are you implying that they are MORE THAN a glorified 24 hour tabloid station?
RuggedZ wrote:somebody's pissed because Fox News kicks the @!#$ out of the other news stations, ratings-wise and everything else-wise.
bk3k wrote:ScottaWhite wrote:is anyone else thinking that this may be an opening salvo to restrict foxnews access to the whitehouse by simply equating them with tabloid status or the like?Wait a minute... are you implying that they are MORE THAN a glorified 24 hour tabloid station?
RuggedZ wrote:somebody's pissed because Fox News kicks the @!#$ out of the other news stations, ratings-wise and everything else-wise.
They have ratings but not because they are good at accurately delivering news without bias or flash, but because they sell sensationalist nonsense to the gullible. They have high ratings in a nation where more people know who Angelina Jolie is dating than know who the first president of the United States is. Seriously.
Facts don't sell well. Glamor, flash, sensationalism - these things sell. All the other so called cable "news" stations have been trying to emulate the formula of "marketing" (more like slashing and mutilating) real news into short 'n simple, detail limited, sensational circus clips - where is allowable to take a little "liberty with" the truth. An example would be MSNBC amping up Keith Olberman(just as bad - opposite side of the same coin).
The result of Fox's success is that there is NOTHING on TV worth getting real news from.
...and this is telling enough. Also fairly humorous IMO.
ScottaWhite wrote:I pulled the story from yahoo news. And the author quoted axelrod and Anita. Whether he is a hack, as you put it, does not negate what the two whitehouse aides said... Does it?
I am fully aware of the spinto the right on fox. However, the post was about the whitehouse's claim that foxnews wasn't a legit news source. If by definition, they meant, an organization that copies down quotes and information and then relaying verbatim to the public, then foxnews fails the test, as does everyone else.
Their problem isn't so much with the news they report, but rather how they question the "official word" of Dear Leader, and especially the wildly successful and influential oreilly/beck tandem
ScottaWhite wrote:I'm implying nothing of the sort... David Axellube did.We can do better than that. David Axlerod... David Ramrod. Go team Ramrod!!
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:Sorry Scotta. I was quoting bk3k, not you, as he's the one who brought up Ed Brayton. I just found it kinda cute that he was defending his charge of bias on FOX' part by referring to an equally biased "news" sourceactually I wasn't really referring to that guy - I've really never heard of him specifically. I stumbled upon that page more or less, and it has a daily show clip on it. Something tells me you didn't actually read any more the moment you saw that guy's face, or you might have noticed that.
I personally don't think the WhiteHouse does itself any favors by applying pressure to FOX. Very dodgy strategy, could backfire hard.
ScottaWhite wrote:I pulled the story from yahoo news. And the author quoted axelrod and Anita. Whether he is a hack, as you put it, does not negate what the two whitehouse aides said... Does it?I think I could have summarized this entire thread with what is in bold..
I am fully aware of the spinto the right on fox. However, the post was about the whitehouse's claim that foxnews wasn't a legit news source. If by definition, they meant, an organization that copies down quotes and information and then relaying verbatim to the public, then foxnews fails the test, as does everyone else.
Their problem isn't so much with the news they report, but rather how they question the "official word" of Dear Leader, and especially the wildly successful and influential oreilly/beck tandem
bk3k wrote:ScottaWhite wrote:I'm implying nothing of the sort... David Axellube did.We can do better than that. David Axlerod... David Ramrod. Go team Ramrod!!
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:Sorry Scotta. I was quoting bk3k, not you, as he's the one who brought up Ed Brayton. I just found it kinda cute that he was defending his charge of bias on FOX' part by referring to an equally biased "news" sourceactually I wasn't really referring to that guy - I've really never heard of him specifically. I stumbled upon that page more or less, and it has a daily show clip on it. Something tells me you didn't actually read any more the moment you saw that guy's face, or you might have noticed that.
I personally don't think the WhiteHouse does itself any favors by applying pressure to FOX. Very dodgy strategy, could backfire hard.
bk3k wrote:Quick - I'd like to think you are kidding, sadly I know you aren't. Fox gets debunked... alot. I wouldn't necessarily take any broadcast station on their word for anything - always verify of course(it doesn't count to check what a Conservative told you with another Conservative source anymore than it would count to check what a Liberal told you by using MoveOn.org) - but to think that Fox News is somehow less inaccurate and/or dishonest in their reporting than any of the other failures called news stations... that is a bit naive at best.Just to clarify something for you, I don't watch Fox News very often. However, with regard to the many times you claim they have been debunked, I have seen many of the times I think you're talking about, and they were supposedly debunked by one of the liberal mouthpiece stations, and I easily found actual facts to prove that Fox was actually correct. Most recently, with regards to the healthcare debates, when MSNBC reported that Fox had mislead people by reporting on the lies of Obama saying that he wasn't trying to get tot a single payer system. The highly disingenuous Chris Matthews kept claiming that President Obama never said the quotes Fox had repeated. Every statement he made included an accentuated "President", because it's true, the times Obama had been quoted as saying that, he was not the president. So Matthews was misleading without actually crossing that line of telling an out-and-out lie, but Fox was indeed reporting factually, as could easily be proven by finding the video clips online of Obama speaking to the AFL/CIO. Just one example, but a typical one.
But it does fit your persuasion, so why question? The reason is - you should be even more skeptical when you hear something similar to what you already believe. The easiest way to sell a lie is to seed it in truth(or at least what has been accepted as truth). This is where you - or anyone - would be most vulnerable to accepting BS as truth. Heavy left Liberals believe what they believe for the same reasons - It's not that they are crazy so much as it is this phenomenon multiplied over time This is how same people come to accept crazy ideas.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:and this guy ^ now claiming: "I don't watch Fox News very often." That's rich.LOL. Didn't take you long to jump in and make the argument personal again, did it?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
@ Fox not being one sided, and this guy ^ now claiming: "I don't watch Fox News very often." That's rich.
Oddly 8 years of Bush politics, and no links to be found here on JBO with Fox news as a source in regards to the right wing and "exposing" any wrong doing.![]()
Carry on.
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote: Argue all you want that Fox is biased, but the truth of the matter is that the Whitehouse is trying to control what people know, and they are trying to destroy anyone who exposes the truth about them.