Obama's Lame Attack On Fox News' News
Posted by Joe Rivett on 10.20.2009
Why attack Fox News when IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID...
Sometimes I really wonder about Obama and his team. Considering the amount of enemies they have, why are they picking on Fox News? They claim Fox News isn't news. Sometimes that may be the case and sure, they create news such as firing up the tea party crowd or covering an anti-Obama rally at a school that no one attended. They are biased, very biased, but it still is news. I still remember seeing Shepard Smith in the water during Katrina. Yes, many of their shows are commentary but you can say that about the other cable news networks.
In psychology, we study the idea of "the victim." People play the victim to shift attention away from them. If Obama is going to send his advisers to talk shows to whine about Fox News, then it seems they care more about something that draws 2 million viewers rather than the 50 million suffering without health insurance or the millions who have lost their jobs. Do they think we'll forget about many of their broken promises by picking a fight with Fox News? There is nothing to gain by picking on Fox News! It makes Obama look arrogant which is a criticism that he has yet to disprove.
Furthermore, it gives Fox News FREE PUBLICITY! Having the president's team criticize them legitimizes them. I remember when Edwards in the Primary Campaign decided to boycott a Fox News debate and others followed suit; never mind that the network attracts more Democrats than CNN and MSNBC. Those Democrats may like Fox News and now you are insulting them?
One of the great turning points in the 2006 midterm disaster for the Republicans was Bill Clinton blowing up at Chris Wallace for not asking the Bush Administration why they didn't do more to prevent 9/11. It was the first time a Democrat had any balls to blame Bush for not stopping 9/11 or why the media never pressed the Bush Administration and it happened on Fox News.
I choose not to watch Fox News because of the bodacious personalities, (I still remember watching John Gibson tell me to make more white babies) not because the Obama administration doesn't like them. Vince McMahon has always said any publicity is good publicity. If that is the case then shut up and focus your attack on the people who are stalling reform and stand up for those that put you in office.
Memo to George HW Bush: If your son was the leader of any other country in the world, he would have been prosecuted for war crimes. While Olbermann is an asshole, calling him a sick puppy makes you sound as pathetic as David Axelrod. You sure had no problem approving Willie Horton ads and slandering Bill Clinton's draft record so don't get mad when Olbermann does the same crap.
First of all, Al Gore was the one who started in with Willie Horton. Also, what was untrue about anything said about Clinton's draft dodging?
As to your main point, you're on the money. But this is what happens when you put a bunch of petulent kids and egotistical douchebags in charge of things.
And for the record I don't watch Fox News except for Red Eye and the occasional Saturday morning stock market show.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 20, 2009 at 10:54 PM
I think it's a calculated risk. On "Real Time with Bill Maher" someone brought up the point that they could be going after Fox as a way to placate the left-wingers who are going to be disappointed in the final healthcare legislation.
As a strategic move, normally, I'd say it's a bad idea. If they could thread the needle and marginalize Fox (more so), then it might be worth it in the long run.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on October 21, 2009 at 01:59 AM
Fox News is saying what the other stations aren't. If Fox News seems biased... its because THEY HAVE TO BE or certain news wouldn't be reported. Obama has every other new station worshiping him, like every liberal has, and he has the nerve to complain when he has all but one?
Obama is a NARCISSIST. A huge one.
Reported, journalists, and writers now have zero integrity and let their own agendas do the talking.
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 02:28 AM
I just watch Fox For Shep and Red Eye. However, this helps FOX News more than anything. Also, the Obama Administration (I'll save my criticism for him later) seems to have the same mentality as Liberal Art College kids who've never worked thanks to Mommy and Daddy. I mean, where are going into Nixon territory talking about disrespecting news outlets. Someone look for his enemy list which will probably not include a single terrorist.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 02:32 AM
-"Vince McMahon has always said any publicity is good publicity."
Or P.T. Barnum or Oscar Wilde... meh, one carnie fruit is as good as the next, I guess.
Posted By: Guest#6758 (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 02:43 AM
Obama is a racist and Fox News is unfair and unbalanced. Whats your point?
Posted By: Truff (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 03:09 AM
Obviously FOX, MSNBC and rush limbaugh are not news. They provide editorial comment on the news from their political point of view not NEWS. But when the White House starts acknowledging and arguing with them it strengthens them by an appearance that their attacks are a legitimate threat.
Posted By: GTM (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 03:25 AM
Red Eye is terrible. Fox News has gotten really bad in the last year or so. I used to watch Fox because I liked their coverage on some things, but it's all to anti-Obama preachy nonsense now.
I don't think the White House should fight them, but I understand their dislike of Fox. Their entire primetime lineup isn't news, it's opinion, usually factless slander and it's pretty bad.
Even my boy O'Reilly is turning more and more into the characture of himself than what he used to be.
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 04:13 AM
I guess 'egotistical douchebags' means 'people smarter than me'; this is why my side of the world view Obama so differently to the sore losers of the US: we regard it as a great thing that the US have embraced an intellectual who can actually empathise with other people rather than stick to selfishly-motivated, ignorant views. You lot see it as an affont to your moronity.
And Fox News ain't news mate. They so rarely approach any current event subject by simply *reporting* the damn thing; certainly not any political topic. It's absolutely ridiculous that a 'news' station can be so unabashedly partisan.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 05:38 AM
Fox news challenging the Obama administration is no different from what MSNBC did during the Bush admin. the only difference is that people actually watch Fox news.
I think the real question here should be why is Obama so scared of criticism?
Posted By: dan (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 06:03 AM
O Reilly Factor.
Glenn Beck.
Cashin' In.
Fox News is the bees knees.
Posted By: Propagandhi (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 06:42 AM
This is pathetic, actually. REALLY lowering my view of the current administration. Bias or not, its none of their business.
Posted By: C (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 08:41 AM
Calling Fox News real news would be like calling pro wrestling a real sport. They are both entertainment, not to be taken seriously.
Posted By: Guest#3547 (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 08:53 AM
Screw that. It's high time someone called Fox on their bullshit.
There are still a large number of spineless people like yourself that have the abused wife mentality of "oh just be quiet and hope he doesn't get angry again" but now many people on the left are saying "screw keeping quiet, this is wrong and we're going to say it's wrong."
People are not going to start watching Fox just because the Obama administration says "hey, these guys are in bed with the Republican party, we know it, and we're going to keep it in mind when we appear on that network."
The Republican party just spent 8 years calling every network that wasn't Fox News an arm of the Democrat party, and we didn't see much change in their ratings, did we? Sorta blows your publicity theory all to hell.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 09:26 AM
Joe, is there an Obama quote or a link to something specific his messengers said? Other than a vague article at Huffington Post telling me there's a feud, I can't find any reason for this story to exist.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on October 21, 2009 at 09:55 AM
Maybe there is an ulterior motive for this.
Isn't there a 'fair opinion' bill making its rounds amongst the democrats that would force networks to air equal amounts of opposing opinion - thus, by penalty of law, Fox would be forced to allow left-wing opinionaters on their network?
It seems that this is a backhanded approach to softening public opinion, making it easier to pass that bill.
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 09:59 AM
Fox News accounts for almost a 50 share in the ratings department. All other major cable news makes up the difference.
Every primetime Fox show, Beck, O'Reilly, etc. puts up huge ratings every week.
There are several studies that talk about media bias. I actually wrote a paper about media bias a few years ago- Fox is bias, but so are all the others...
Fox gets all the attention because they are the only true conservative bias program...and being the only one they draw almost that entire demographic. The remaining liberal bias news outlets must split the liberal demographic.
But, saying that "Fox is bias" is no different than saying "MSNBC" is bias. Fox is still the largest news media company and still has more viewers then everyone else.
And I think that it's laughable that Fox gets slammed for the "tea partys" when there actually was a pretty large turn out- Fox was the only media organization that would cover it due to their bias...
What does that mean about the rest of the media?
And why no blurb about Obama's media mogul bragging about "Controlling the media?".
Or how Fox was the only network to cover the ACORN scandal for almost two weeks before the other news would talk about it?
Or even General McCrystals troop request?
Fox may be bias, but they are the only ones keeping Obama honest. That is why we have freedom of the press- and Obama is trying is damnest to silence them.
That should scare even liberals.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Registered) on October 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM
It's stupid to go after FoxNews, and does offer free publicity for them. Screw Fox. If they were so influential, we'd have vice-president Palin right now. They're a joke, an entertaining joke, that I admittedly watch, but a joke none-the-less.
For all of their shilling for the rightwing, look at how the past couple elections(06, 08) have turned out? They have no juice, and it's stupid to for the Obama administration to act like they matter, or rightwing radio either for that matter.
Obama, you won. Act like it, and get to work on getting healthcare passed with a public option.
Posted By: A. Shakoor (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I find it interesting and fascinating that both of the commentators that have an issue with the direction he is moving in both immediately put qualifiers on how much they watch Fox. Why the need to feel defensive about it?
I don't like this move because it's one of those "appealing to your base" moves. I don't feel that Barack needs that right now. The divisions in the Democratic party are natural - some people are more concerned with budgeting issues than others, for example. I am more concerned with a Republican party that operates in lockstep (barring the rare Snowe or Specter pre-jump) than a Democratic party whose fissures represent realistic philosophical differences from varying parts of the country/culture.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM
If FOX news ISN'T news, what is? Certainly not CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, or the L.A. Times. All those "news" organizations are Obama nuthuggers. Even so-called entertainment stations like HBO and Showtime got a mouthful of Obama spuzz. If FOX seems so biased to the right, it's only by comparison. And as some of you so rightly point out in other columns, Obama inherited Bush's economy, the same way Bush inherited the terrorist problem Slick Willie Clinton pretended didn't exist. So while blaming Bush for 9/11 is useful propaganda, I submit not much more could have been done to prevent it, given the mentality of the day. Hindsight is 20/20.
Posted By: Dick Wolf (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Thank you for your life time of service Mr. Bush. Keith Olberman couldn't hold your jock-strap, sir. I didn't vote for you in 1992, but will always recognize your service and contribution.
My only question is why are people so wee wee'd-up at a Sunday night NFL highlights broadcaster? Stay Classy...
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 11:49 AM
so...JD Dunn isnt for free speech. nice...let him write some more articles...by all means.
Posted By: anti-messiah (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Fox News is not news. This is fact. They are heavily biased and rarely report real news. Granted, most American news stations have some form of bias, but Fox is the worst example.
Obama's defending himself much like previous presidents have done. Yes, Fox will get more publicity, but only people with a lack of brain power view their news as fact, so it really doesn't matter.
Honestly, why is it everyone besides America likes America's new president? It hardly makes sense.
Posted By: ZeroVX (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I just wonder when we as a society are going to be finally fed up with things that are TECHNICALLY true. I mean, we have many entire websites now devoted to decoding and fact-checking because we can't trust what comes out of the politicians in this country and we can't trust the mainstream media. This will continue because it makes money, and above all, people want to be excited. Conflict is exciting. People watch it, so media puts it on TV. Politians want to be on TV, so they engage in hyper-partisan behavior. Then we all talk about how terrible the behavior is and tune in for the next episode. If we want a rational country back, we have to vote out people that behave this way and turn off channels that report this way. For profit news has killed this country!
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Shockmaster,
The article, I think, stems from Axlerod and Emanuel going on the sunday shows saying fox was not a "news" network. They also implied other media outlets should not treat them as such. That and Obama refusal to go on fox a couple of weeks ago to sell his health care bill.
As for Fox. Well, were else would we have heard about ACORN and Van Jones? If these two things were not "news" then why did the New York Times apologize for missing the story?
This comes down to a vein, thin skinned man who has gotten used to fawning coverage. Obamas quote to the media " you all voted for me" He expects everyone to be like Olbermann and Mathews.
Anyone remember when the media was supposed to be a watch dog for goverment? Remember how the left trumpeted Hillary Clintons statement" WE have the right to speak out against any administration!!!"?
What happened?
Typos due to blackberry.
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 01:56 PM
We also need to recognize the context in which the comments were made. FOX, in an attempt to kill health care reform, is reporting wild speculation like death panels and rationing as FACTS. Not to mention all the press they gave to the birthers, etc. Then they refused to air a press conference on network TV in favor of dancing with the stars. Yeah, I can see why the administration doesn't want to play ball with them.
And to all of you who say that MSNBC are just a bunch of cheerleaders for the administration-Have you actually watched Countdown or Maddow lately? They basically spend an hour calling him a gutless, incompetent appeaser every night. That's cheerleading?
Posted By: black hole of charisma (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 03:01 PM
Oh, you mean like how NBC covered a protest consisting of FOUR people?! BIAS? Have you watched CNN lately? Hell, last year they were called the "National Enquirer of Cable News" after the John Cena-interview flap! Or how about the fact that CNN, MSNBC, etc listed the march on 9-12 to be "tens of thousands" when even the BBC admitted there were 1.5-2MILLION people there and around 30 MILLION nationwide!
Obama and his people are all idiots, racists, bigots, radicals, and socialists! Why don't you idiots actually LOOK INTO what people like Glenn Beck say instead of just bashing him?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Isn't "liberal" supposed to mean "open-minded"?
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 03:27 PM
Grant, you left out the average age of the Fox News viewer. There's a reason why advertisers go to MSNBC or CNN - they're not in the market for the almost-dead consumer.
And can anyone name one liberal voice on the entire Fox News network? Yet Joe Scarborough gets 3 hours every day on MSNBC.
When Fox News reports anything positive about someone on the left, then they might be fair and balanced. Instead, they are exactly what the White House is saying: a conservative entertainment outlet serving the right.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 03:29 PM
Wrestling is fake.
Posted By: Guest#4518 (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 03:51 PM
Fox News is not news, right. Hey look at MSNBC, its Chris 'leg-tingle/liberal Democrat' Mathews! Oh who's next? Air America's own, Ed Shultz! Now Chris Mathews again! Now who? Oh wow, Keith 'HOW DARE YOU SIRRRR' Olbermann! Now what? No no, not .. not RACHEL MADDOW! If only Fox could be as unbias as MSNBC. Here's the truth: If you bash Fox for being bias yet watch MSNBC (Obama Admin.), you're a tool. All the liberal snark in the world won't take that. Now cut to my smarmy guest who agrees 100% so we can stroke each others egos.
Posted By: C (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 04:01 PM
I think these people who live in socialist european countries are jealous of the freedoms that we Americans continue to desperately cling to. When they take away my FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT rights and freedoms is when I grab my survival gear and head for the hills.
Just because these people "accepted" socialism doesn't mean that Americans will necessarily go so peacefully.
I don't always completely agree with any news source including the internet, but I will defend my right to choose.
Posted By: Deborah (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 04:03 PM
Adm,
I agree with you, but remember that Bush 41 is so wee wee'd up because this is about his family. Although his statements did not do much to reinforce the point about civility he had been in the process of making, he's gotta get a pass to defend his son.
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 04:17 PM
"If that is the case then shut up and focus your attack on the people who are stalling reform and stand up for those that put you in office."
It seems to me that FOX is playing an integral role in stalling reform.
As for this notion of "victimization", both sides play it. For conservatives, it means saying "the 'mainstream media' and universities are all biased against us".
Posted By: Guest#4470 (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 04:27 PM
Obama has every other new station worshiping him, like every liberal has, and he has the nerve to complain when he has all but one?
Obama is a NARCISSIST. A huge one.
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 02:28 AM
Arent bland generalizations just the best way to get your point across?
Posted By: Guest#0662 (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 04:28 PM
Grant raises an interesting point when he states that Fox News accounts for most of the audience in cable news. The point being that if Fox News dwarfs its competition then wouldn't that indicate a conservative bias in the media? If there are more "liberal" news sources couldn't it be argued that their impact is almost non-existant due to Fox or that more are needed to compete with Fox's reach?
Posted By: Rob S. (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 04:50 PM
Correction,
Well of the top of my head, libs on FOX include Geraldo Rivera, Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, General Westley Clark, Juan Williams........I can keep going, but you should get the point.
Know name me a conservative who appears on countdung with Keith "bath tub boy" Olbermann
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 05:28 PM
hmmmm. Im losing support on my health care agenda. my own supporters are bailing on me. i cant make up my mind on what to do about Afghanistan...oh i know..i will distract the american people with a meaningless fued with a right wing news network....im sure to get the Nobel peace prize for sure next year. Obama is sinking like a steel duck, where are all of the Obama t shirts? where is all the hope and change?Where is the massive sweep in healthcare? He has the house and the Senate, why cant he get these things done? maybe Mr. Obama should spend more time doing his job and spend less time picking fights with Rupert murdoch..how about Mr. President...DO YOUR FUCKING JOB
Posted By: Jeff Albertson (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 05:35 PM
think it's a calculated risk. On "Real Time with Bill Maher" someone brought up the point that they could be going after Fox as a way to placate the left-wingers who are going to be disappointed in the final healthcare legislation.
As a strategic move, normally, I'd say it's a bad idea. If they could thread the needle and marginalize Fox (more so), then it might be worth it in the long run.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on October 21, 2009 at 01:59 AM
Dunn, I would argue that Obama was elected becuase of independents, not the left. Does this really inspire those voters?
I would think Obama should spend less time defining cable news outlets and more time focusing on unemployment, Afganistan, health care, etc....
Seems petty and thin skinned to me.
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 08:23 PM
Okay, I'm just going to quote one of the Press Secretaries of the White House being quoted in Time. "When people are SERIOUSLY debating whether or not the government wants to kill grandmothers, the normal rules don't apply."
There is SERIOUS DEBATE on Fox News about Obama trying to create a Stalin-like cult of personality. There is SERIOUS DEBATE about whether or not the man is a genuine citizen of the US -- as if that'll actually overturn the election results, AND as if there's anything TO debate! There are accusations ranging up to and including killing Bambi's mother on that channel.
I'm not gonna say MSNBC is any better -- I think they're a hair closer to being called left-center than Fox is to being called right-center, but when Olbermann calls a pro wrestler/FBN commentator the Worst Person in the World(tm) for hawking an energy drink AND fails to ever mention the fact he was employed by CNBC... that was the eye opener in my case. Sometimes they're as bad as Maher. (And Limbaugh. Felt like leading with the leftist asshole before the right-wing asshole just to shake things up.)
Still, I think the only real news, ironically, is the 'fake' news on the Daily Show. Seriously, Jon Stewart will kick ANYONE's ass for double standards (see mostly Fox News, of course) or going back on promises (See... Obama when he welshes on DADT in the military, I presume).
Posted By: MadmanJack (Registered) on October 21, 2009 at 08:52 PM
What's wrong with surging against Fox instead of Afganistan? Obama should declare war against fox, Limbaugh, etc. They are the real threats to our society.
If they will not fall in line then Soros, media matters, unions and progressives will shut down Fox and talk radio. We can not have any distractions from our progressive goal to change America.
Its worked for Chavez, it will work for Obama. Anita Dunn had it right when she admired chairman Mao. Marx was misunderstood. You right wingers better watch out.
I am tolerant and smarter than you. Quote captain lib.
Posted By: captain lib. (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 08:55 PM
I guess the free press is dead. If this was any other president, the media would be going crazy.
Posted By: Guest#2860 (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Anyone else get irritated when Chris Mathews blurts out his HA!.....Sounds like Lewis from revenge of the nerds.
I expect Mathews and Booger to go cruising for Omega Moos any time now.
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Well of the top of my head, libs on FOX include Geraldo Rivera, Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, General Westley Clark, Juan Williams........I can keep going, but you should get the point.
Know name me a conservative who appears on countdung with Keith "bath tub boy" Olbermann
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest)
EJ Dionne for one. Mancow Muller after he was waterboarded for another. Maddow invites on conservatives regularly, yet most decline to appear (her takedown of one of the phone conservative "grassroots" organizers was great though). Ed Shultz has on a conservative commentator every episode, usually Tom Tancredo. And Pat Buchanan has his own cot in the MSNBC green room.
But you have to stretch and say that Geraldo Rivera and Juan Williams are liberals? Ha.
Besides, those are guests in segments, not hosts of their own shows. Yeah, MSNBC has liberal hosts - and conservative hosts. Name one liberal host on Fox News. You can't. Shep Smith might not drink the kool-aid every day, but he's no liberal. Add in that their supposed "news" coverage during the day also features a conservative slant, usually leading into whatever stories their talking heads want to cover that night, and you have what is clearly a network with a conservative bias. Not so with MSNBC or CNN. Counter-programming is way different from pushing an agenda.
But you keep up with the 3rd grader insults. Makes me want to take you seriously. Maybe you can come up with something clever about Maddow's sexuality, or maybe that's too mature for you.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 02:20 AM
ABC news attacked Spokesman Gibbs over his comments on Fox...
I found that to be shocking.
I can't imagine any reporter wanting to be known as bias, and i doubt any would want to be called sheep either.
Obama's "calculated risk" was not calling Fox bias, but assuming that the rest of the media would be okay with being called sheep...
It was fucking stupid, and when ABC starts defending Fox, you know it will back fire.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 07:41 AM
Did you happen to see the edited footage on MSNBC covering up a gun-owners RACE (he was black) in order to push the story that it was about RACISM? If the answer isn't "no," you've got balls to say MSNBC isn't bias. And this was in a NEWS program, not an opinion program. As for liberals on Fox, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, who was fired by Fox, and has appeared on MSNBC and CNBC, has stated that there is MORE liberal slant at NBC than there is conservative slant on Fox. Do you also remember the Rush Limaugh 'Republican Leader' thing that was pushed through all the media by CNN analysts (Carville and Begala) who had DAILY breifings with Rahm Emmanuel on strategies for influencing the media?? Oh, and lets not forget Dunn explaining how they manipulated the media so that 'by the end of the campaign, nothing communicated through the press wasn't in our direct control.' Shall we go back further to 'RatherGate?' Or how about last week when MSNBC and CNN circulated FALSE racist Limbaugh quotes which only CNN had the balls to retract. Oh, and the hits keep on coming. How about this past Monday where Obama invited Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow for a BRIEFING which included remarks about FOX? Take off the "left/right" blinders and SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS. Remember the firestorm when it was ALLEGED that Fox got talking points from Bush? Now you have prominent MSNBC members being BRIEFED by Obama and Rahm Emmanuel giving daily briefings to CNN analysts and we're supposed to just forget about it? Disgusting. The administration, if it keeps down this path, is gonna lose a LOT of its voters. The only downside to this is we may have to endure another fucking Republican after this mess. And ooooh, wait till the Repub's take advantage of all these new standards the Democrats have set. Get ready for daily briefings with Glenn Beck and a smear campaign against Paul Krugman. Oh what a wonderful media we have.
Posted By: C (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Uh, Dionne is a liberal, although compared to bathtub boy I guess it is easy to confuse him with a conservative.
Shep is a liberal. Greta isn't a conservative. O'Reilly isn't a conservative, he's a populist. Geraldo is a major lefty.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 12:12 PM
"I think these people who live in socialist european countries are jealous of the freedoms that we Americans continue to desperately cling to."
Actually most of us quite like universal health care, a proper safety net for the unemployed and not having a Government which executes educationally sub-normal 17 year olds.
Europeans define their "freedoms" around a different set of tests than Americans.
I'm not even saying one system is better than other, but don't kid yourself that the rest of the world sees America as the shing light on top of hill.
Back on topic - Fox sucks and wouldn't be allowed in Europe (seriously most of Fox's output would be illegal in Britian during election campaigns). But Obama is still a fool for going after them - its just a pointless division.
Posted By: bemused brit (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 01:23 PM
when did this site become so conservative? it's horrible...during the election things were fine here....it has gotten so bad
Posted By: xtopnotchx (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 01:53 PM
I'd be laughing at the commenter who referred to Obama as an intellectual if it wasn't so sad.
Posted By: Harvard Grad (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 03:46 PM
I'd be laughing at the commenter who referred to Obama as an intellectual if it wasn't so sad.
Posted By: Harvard Grad (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 03:46 PM
And what exactly is sad about it?
Posted By: Guest#3343 (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 06:37 PM
Maybe there is an ulterior motive for this.
Isn't there a 'fair opinion' bill making its rounds amongst the democrats that would force networks to air equal amounts of opposing opinion - thus, by penalty of law, Fox would be forced to allow left-wing opinionaters on their network?
It seems that this is a backhanded approach to softening public opinion, making it easier to pass that bill.
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 09:59 AM
Actually there isn't a serious bill, and Nancy Pelosi has said if there was she wouldn't even let it on the floor and Obama has said he wouldn't sign it. The "fairness doctrine" is just a bullshit talking point like conservatives will be sent to concentration camps and Americorps is Obama's private army.
Posted By: black hole of charisma (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 10:22 PM
"O'Reilly isn't a conservative, he's a populist."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Thanks for the laugh. Not as good as tonight's Office, but still funny. Anyone who thinks O'Reilly isn't a conservative is either trying to be funny or completely delusional.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Have you looked at the positions O'Reilly takes? He's a center-right populist. All you have to do to realize that is read one of his books or watch him back when oil prices spiked.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM
He probably doesn't know what a populist is.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on October 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
"Europeans define their "freedoms" around a different set of tests than Americans."
Ok, one paragraph later...
"Back on topic - Fox sucks and wouldn't be allowed in Europe (seriously most of Fox's output would be illegal in Britian during election campaigns)."
I guess you really don't value freedom, dissenting speech is still free speech in this country, even if you don't agree with it. I guess one system is better.
Posted By: joeypeeps (Guest) on October 25, 2009 at 03:59 AM
STAY CURRENT