|
|
Post by melon1 on Oct 3, 2004 23:15:31 GMT -5
Bush as Caesar w/ Fox News, eh? A LOT more that way than Clinton being Caesar w/ CNN, right? Oh, but I forgot, they gave him hell about having an affair with a 21 yr old(?) intern in the White House. How could they? They largely ignored the Lubella Memo, the Cox Report, Filegate, Travelgate, Gary Aldrich, Johnny Chung, the FALN Clemency etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. but they nailed him on Monica. How could they be so mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Oct 3, 2004 23:51:30 GMT -5
Fair enough, but neither I nor CNN are claiming to be fair and balanced every five seconds. I'm not claiming there's no bias in the media, but it largely goes to which ever side is the most newsworthy, be it left or right. Foxnews on the other hand will not even entertain the idea that Bush has made a mistake. I have not seen them discuss the election in any other context then "Bush WILL be re-elected" unless they're in "fair and balanced" mode and then it's discussed as if it's just for shits and giggles. I don't have a problem with Foxnews being "America's #1 news source", but this no spin shit is...shit. American like Foxnews becuase it tells them what they want to hear. They give you the news, they give you two opinions of it. One of them sounds like a brand new car and the other sounds like a used unicycle. It's so clear isn't it? You even get to feel like you've made a decision. Watch Foxnews and feel like a good American...who wouldn't want that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Oct 4, 2004 0:13:55 GMT -5
the fun thing is that they constantly have to "remind" you that they're so "fair and balanced". mmm, true propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Oct 4, 2004 0:30:52 GMT -5
Thats odd, I watched the entire interview he had with Bush and I didn't hear him do that once....
I have heard O'Reily talk many times about the things he disagrees with Bush on.
Just because they don't bash the shit out of Bush and are respectful of the office of the Presidency doesn't mean they are biased. I think this is ONE reason they call themselves "fair and balanced".
On Hannity and Colmes, that show is suppose to have the right and left sides...duh Hannity being the right and Colmes the left. Hannity seems much more agressive than Colmes...who's fault is that?
Besides Colmes looks like Skelator. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Oct 4, 2004 1:36:01 GMT -5
Couple of things Shin ... First, Florida did not "decide" the 2000 election. Yes, it was the last state where the electoral votes wree determined. But it takes 270 votes in the electoral college to win. As a result, NO single state "decides" a presidential election. EVERY state Bush won decided the presidential election. Next, the accusation that you appear to be making (perhaps I'm wrong, in which case I will willingly stand corrected) that Bush's only reason for visiting the hurricane victims is for their votes hits a level of cynicism so huge I actually feel sorry for you. There are a lot of things that presidents do for political gain, but there are also things they do that are done simply because they're human and can recognize the right thing to do. With the stories I've heard from people who've just gone through ONE of those hurricanes, I can assure you that it's an absolutely devestating experience for them. I know of people who've been medicated since Ivan blew through, because they can't handle the way that their lives have been completely destroyed ... My parents were working with one of the releif efforts yesterday. While helping with the clean up outside, they'd periodically find a picture, or a stuffed animal, or some other personal item. When they took them to the woman whose yard working in, she'd get all excited saying "Oh, that belongs to the girl down the street, she'll be so excited". These people have been completely wiped out ... and the people in Stuart, where Bush was, haven't just bene through it once! Imagine being totally devestated, and just as you begin to organize your life to move forward, it's destroyed all over again. Yes Shin, Bush wasn't visiting voters in Stuart ... he was visiting Americans. Finally, the vacation time BS. It surprises me that Kerry supporters are still obsessed with the vacation time issue, ignoring that vacation for BUsh is actually a working thing ... his house is equipped with the secure lines, staff, etc so that he's working while he's there. More importantly, it surprises me that they're obsessingover it given that Kerry has shown up for how many votes in the Senate this year? One? Two? Thanks for reminding me that my grandparents, who live in Stuart, are Americans. And thanks for lecturing me like I didn't know that people who go through hurricanes have their lives torn apart, given that at one point, had their house been destroyed or even just damaged, my uncle and I were going to drive 1500 miles to fix the damage (which thankfully wasn't necessary). And thanks for ignoring this sentence: At no point did I say Bush didn't care. But he's not there JUST because he cares, nor is him being there PROOF that he cares. As an excuse for his debate performance, it's weak. And that was my point to begin with. And as for the vacation bit, Bush is president, not Kerry. If he's doing work at his ranch, then why not stay at Washington? Are photo-ops that important? Do they not have couches at the White House? Or maybe being the president is "hard work". Both Kerry and Bush spend far too much time (to us, anyways) doing photo-ops this campaign season. But such is the nature of campaigning. However, Bush also happens to currently be the leader of the free world. Not exactly similar jobs. So I don't really see how Kerry's senate record *this* year (not to mention that given the vicious nature of how congress works, with people voting against their own bills for political purposes, it's sometimes not even worth showing up at all) compares to Bush spending a sizable percentage of his ENTIRE PRESIDENCY (33% up to this point I've heard!) vacationing. ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 4, 2004 4:03:10 GMT -5
Apropos of the discussion on Fox...
Fox News apologises for Kerry fabrication
Oliver Burkeman in New York
Monday October 4, 2004
The Guardian
Fox News, the influential rightwing US television network, said yesterday it had "reprimanded" its chief political correspondent after its website carried fabricated quotes attributed to John Kerry, in which he called himself a "metrosexual" who enjoys getting manicures.
The network, owned by Rupert Murdoch, apologised for the article in which the Democratic challenger was quoted telling a rally in Florida: "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Comparing himself to the president, Mr Kerry was supposed to have said: "I'm metrosexual - he's a cowboy." Women voters, he purportedly added, "should like me! I do manicures."
The article appeared under the byline of Carl Cameron, who has been following Mr Kerry on the campaign trail. It had been posted on the site, the network said in a statement, because of "fatigue and bad judgment, rather than malice."
"Carl Cameron made a stupid mistake and he has been reprimanded for his lapse in judgment. It was a poor attempt at humour and he regrets it," a Fox spokesman Paul Schur told the Los Angeles Times, though he would not give details of what action would be taken against Mr Cameron.
The "metrosexual" story taps into a persistent theme underlying the election race, in which the Republican party and its supporters in the media have sought to make a campaign issue of the candidates' perceived masculinity.
At the party's convention in New York last month, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called Mr Kerry's advisors "economic girlie-men".
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Oct 4, 2004 8:36:59 GMT -5
the fun thing is that they constantly have to "remind" you that they're so "fair and balanced".
I'm going to actually, believe it or not, agree with Proud here. Although my favorite news source is Fox because I do believe we have reason to feel good about ourselves as Americans, I think there is one guy they should fire. I know that many of you want me to say O'Reilly. Sorry. It's rather this guy:"THE MOST POWERFUL NAME IN NEWS, FAIR AND BALANCED, THE FOX NEWS NETWORK." OR "THE MOST-WATCHED PRIMETIME." Something about that guy's voice irks me and I can't help but mock it everytime I hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Oct 4, 2004 8:44:35 GMT -5
I admit I've never watched Brit Hume's show but every time I've watched any of their commentary shows it's true they do air the liberal POV but only long enough to dismiss it. Which I guess seems perfectly natural to those who think the left is wrong anyway. All of the on air representatives of the left are either pussies or clearly not on the same debate level as the guy on the right. For example on the O' Reily Factor when he pretends to take the left for a consevartive guest he takes on a whiny tone or in the instance of his interveiw with President Bush he dismisses the idea before he even answers the question. He'll say "Some have said that you did such and such, what do you say to that?" "Well, I..." "...but you know how they spin things" "heh" "heh". On Hannity and Combs, Hannity (I think) is always ranting and raving and Combs almost never interupts. He gets a few seconds before they go to commmercial. Several of their host have a bad habit of turning people's mics when they don't like what they're saying (usually the liberal guest conviently). They go way out of their way kiss Bush's ass. It's not so much that they always lean right as they always have a "Bush can do no wrong" attitude. If it doesn't invovle Bush it might accually be reasonably fair, but if it's Bush...forget it, he's ceaser. I think that Fox is almost two different networks ... one for their prime time lineup, and one for the rest of the day. The people who criticize them for being right leaning always cite the prime programming ... as you've done here. When you look at their non-prime programming, such as Special Report, the feature level-headed well-spoken liberals who get their points out eqally as often as conservatives do. As for the mic-cutting claim ... I have seen them cut the mics of TWO guests before, when both guests continued talking over each other and were repeatedly warned. But I can't say I've EVER seen them just cut a mic becaus ethey didn't like what was being said. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Oct 4, 2004 8:50:15 GMT -5
Thats odd, I watched the entire interview he had with Bush and I didn't hear him do that once.... Watch it again. He did it three times in the first night alone. I didn't bother watching the next two. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Oct 4, 2004 8:55:44 GMT -5
And thanks for ignoring this sentence: I wasn't ignoring that sentence. I was responding to it. The implication, as I read it, is that politically Bush has no choice but to visit Florida. You stated (and claim I ignored) that there was no other political option. But I'm not cynical enoughto believe that EVERY SINGLE move a president makes is for political gain. Why, if that's not what you were implying, did you make mention of Florida's electoral votes and role in 2000? I think that Bush knew even in 2001 that the chances of his carrying New York were slim. So if votes is the only reason a president visits people who are suffering,why'd he go to NYC after 9/11? And as for the vacation bit, Bush is president, not Kerry. If he's doing work at his ranch, then why not stay at Washington? Are photo-ops that important? Do they not have couches at the White House? Or maybe being the president is "hard work". Why does he HAVE to stay in Washington? Isn't the goal to get the work done? If the work is getting done, who cares? Many of the days in that Crawford count that you and MIchael Moore appear at times to fixate on were hosting foreign leaders. There is a very differnt tone to reaching out to foreign leaders to forge relationships when you say "Come to my home" rather than "Come to the place my country designed intentionally to intimidate people like you". And I consider the "kerry isn't president" defese to be VERY VERY weak. Yes, Kerry isn't president, but he IS a United States Senator. As such, my tax dollars are going to pay him to do a job, and he is not doing it. It's not a matter of his being in Iowa and submitting votes there. He's completely blowing off his job in order to get another one. Bush is not. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Oct 4, 2004 8:57:08 GMT -5
Watch it again. He did it three times in the first night alone. I didn't bother watching the next two. DED, today alone, you've admitted to not watching all of the Bush interview with O'Reilly, and you've admittedto not watching any or much Fox News outside their prime time line up. Yet you criticize them all the time. Isn't that kind of like people who have not seen Farenheit 9/11 criticizing it? |
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on Oct 4, 2004 9:00:06 GMT -5
No, because you don’t need to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 to know what’s in it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Oct 4, 2004 9:02:30 GMT -5
I think that Fox is almost two different networks ... one for their prime time lineup, and one for the rest of the day. The people who criticize them for being right leaning always cite the prime programming ... as you've done here. When you look at their non-prime programming, such as Special Report, the feature level-headed well-spoken liberals who get their points out eqally as often as conservatives do. I'll agree with this becuase I don't get to watch during the day very often. I've seen O'Reily more then a couple times yell "You make me sick, just shut up! Shut Up! Turn his mic off! You Make Me sick!" You can time it before he starts yelling at people, it's part of his strategy. Every now and again he'll get someone that knows his timing and he gets even more pissed off. For a great example of this see Outfoxed. I saw him cut someones mic for criticising his boycott of France, he cut off another guys mic when they were argueing about rap artists. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Oct 4, 2004 9:05:40 GMT -5
DED, today alone, you've admitted to not watching all of the Bush interview with O'Reilly, and you've admittedto not watching any or much Fox News outside their prime time line up. Yet you criticize them all the time. Isn't that kind of like people who have not seen Farenheit 9/11 criticizing it? No, I have watched Foxnews and read the web site daily.I've admitting to not watching the day time stuff very often and not argued about it and seeing as I've only said anything about the first part of the interveiw with Bush I'm not sure how not watching the next two parts has any bearing on anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Oct 4, 2004 9:14:27 GMT -5
It's a 24 hour news channel vs. a 2 hour movie. I've easily seen 2 hours (much more actually) of Foxnews and all you guys have is some reveiws from conservative news sites. I'd say there's a big difference.
|
|
