Weekly Krauthammer fix

[donhaas 18]

Enjoyed Chucky K's piece; here's something for you all to read, too...

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091109/alterman

 

[Excerpt]

 

What all these critics fail to address is that the administration's argument is right on the merits. Fox's pretense of being an actual news network is hardly more convincing than, say, Milton Berle in a bra and garters posing as a woman. By refusing to acknowledge Fox's open and avowed partisanship, its MSM defenders are not only flacking for Ailes & Co.; they're diminishing the work of honest journalists who try to play fair. Ask yourself:

 

§ Would a genuine news network reproduce a Republican press release, replete with typos?

§ Would a genuine news network run, over a five-day period, twenty-two excerpts from healthcare forums in which every single speaker was opposed?

§ Would a genuine news network allow a producer to cheerlead, off camera, anti-Obama protesters?

§ Would a genuine news network take out full-page ads to complain of insufficient coverage of antigovernment protest marches it had promoted?

§ Would a genuine news network run the following headlines, trumpeting each story as a "Fox Nation Victory"?

Senate Removes 'End of Life' Provision

Congress Delays Health Care Rationing Bill

Anti-Tea Party Reporter Dumped by CNN

Obama's Drive for Climate Change Bill Delayed

Obama's 'Green Czar' Resigns

(Note: I have not had to quote the lunatic ravings of Messrs. Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly to make my case.)

 

Fox is not a news organization; it is a propaganda outlet, and an extremist one at that. Is it any wonder that according to survey after survey, Fox News viewers are among the worst informed Americans when it comes to politics, despite their obsessive interest? A recent study by Democracy Corps finds that this audience believes "Obama is deliberately and ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt our country and dramatically expand government control over all aspects of our daily lives," with the ultimate goal of "the destruction of the United States as it was conceived by our founders and developed over the past 200 years."

[naomi 343]

For those of you that watch the Brett Baier news hour, did it come off deferential to the Bush admin? Or can you remember some objective criticisms. I know it's hard to quantify that kind of thing, just curious.

[phillybear 364]

Why would anybody be against news organizations questioning the ethics of, what I consider a corrupt, administration, save for partisanship? Why was it OK to blast Bush, but not Obama? Why are people so eager to work against criticism?

 

You're all insane.

[donhaas 18]

Why would anybody be against news organizations questioning the ethics of, what I consider a corrupt, administration, save for partisanship? Why was it OK to blast Bush, but not Obama? Why are people so eager to work against criticism?

 

You're all insane.

 

Was FOX blasting Bush for his massive, massive, massive 8 years of spending? Were they getting Republicans all riled up and hateful and sticking teabags on each other faces every other weekend like they are now?

 

Did this really happen?

 

How did I miss it?

[naomi 343]

Fox News viewers are among the worst informed Americans when it comes to politics, despite their obsessive interest? A recent study by Democracy Corps finds that this audience believes"Obama is deliberately and ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt our country and dramatically expand government control over all aspects of our daily lives," with the ultimate goal of "the destruction of the United States as it was conceived by our founders and developed over the past 200 years."

 

That's what I think about some international players (most of them aren't representatives but influence them) that want a central economic governing structure. Most presidents of the modern era have given them deference. The politcal philosophy that characterized Bush's time and what seems to be where Obama is coming from seem different in their aims, but towards their end they're actually complimentary. That crap has been and will go down while we're paying attention to what's immediately in front of us. Or I'm completely paranoid, I've stopped paying attention, left off after having that impression reinforced.

[phillybear 364]

Was FOX blasting Bush for his massive, massive, massive 8 years of spending? Were they getting Republicans all riled up and hateful and sticking teabags on each other faces every other weekend like they are now?

 

Did this really happen?

 

How did I miss it?

 

No, every other network other than Fox was, when the polls turned. 9/11 bought that jackass Bush plenty of time to be loved. But eventually, it was a witch hunt. And yes, apparently you did miss it.

 

Spending? You are talking about spending? Obama is the King of All Spenders already. And Bush's spending wasn't supported by anybody on this site. So who are you trying to call out?

 

Holy fock. Are all political threads full of such stupidity? This is why I need to stay away more often.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Was FOX blasting Bush for his massive, massive, massive 8 years of spending? Were they getting Republicans all riled up and hateful and sticking teabags on each other faces every other weekend like they are now?

 

Did this really happen?

 

How did I miss it?

 

That was the job of ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, PBS, CNBC....etc, etc, etc..........

 

Moron.

[Korben Dallas 0]

No, every other network other than Fox was, when the polls turned. 9/11 bought that jackass Bush plenty of time to be loved. But eventually, it was a witch hunt. And yes, apparently you did miss it.

 

Spending? You are talking about spending? Obama is the King of All Spenders already. And Bush's spending wasn't supported by anybody on this site. So who are you trying to call out?

 

Holy fock. Are all political threads full of such stupidity? This is why I need to stay away more often.

 

 

I know you say you don't watch Fox, but Obama being the "king of all spenders" is a good example of someone poorly informed. Bush just refused to include the TWO WARS in his budgets, thus giving the impression that he wasn't. We'll have to wait to see if Obama can match the massive numbers.

[donhaas 18]

No, every other network other than Fox was, when the polls turned. 9/11 bought that jackass Bush plenty of time to be loved. But eventually, it was a witch hunt. And yes, apparently you did miss it.

 

Spending? You are talking about spending? Obama is the King of All Spenders already. And Bush's spending wasn't supported by anybody on this site. So who are you trying to call out?

 

Holy fock. Are all political threads full of such stupidity? This is why I need to stay away more often.

 

My point is that it wasn't protested every focking day by dooshbag teabaggers.... it wasn't even mentioned!

Not once.

In 8 focking years.

Just massive spending we're talking about... much of it not even on Americans...

Not a single focking peep....

 

But now that a few F-students (Rush, Hannity, and Beck) tell you to go stick your scrotums over each other faces, you can't teabag yourself enough....

 

It's just hypocritical garbage...

 

 

You do need to stay away from these threads..... go back to setting yourself in front of FOX news and await further instructions

[donhaas 18]

That was the job of ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, PBS, CNBC....etc, etc, etc..........

 

Moron.

 

Are you saying that FOX is not really "Fair and Balanced"?

That its not their job for just once in 8 years to incite people to stick teabags on each other over Bush's massive spending?

Is that what you're saying?

[Korben Dallas 0]

I'm a dedicated Libertarian, which is no secret. I don't watch Fox News. If MSNBC was being left out of the mix or vilified, I would be just as passionate about this topic.

 

It's true that I get frustrated with the liberals more than the conservatives. But you can't call yourself a moderate when every single time you take a very liberal stance on every single issue. Obama is the polar opposite of what a well thought out, independent thinking person like myself would support. Most Americans now disagree with the radical president, which is a glimmer of hope for the future. The media is very biased. You don't understand the first thing about propaganda. You are a very brainwashed person. A borderline nutjob. Which I can appreciate at some level.

 

I am never wrong.

 

I know you are. Which I can respect because you at least appear to truly believe in. Libertarian is a great contrarian political philosophy that has a place in dialogue. I think of it as a check against government.

 

Fox isn’t being “left out” of anything, any more than MSNBC, who WAS left out time and time again.

I’m not afraid to say that I have a moderate – left stance and I am definitely progressive when it comes to domestic policy. I detest the right wings position on nearly everything. However, not because there isn’t a legitimate opposing argument, but because the right doesn’t support that either. They seem to only support greed, theft and screwing the American public. See the war, health care, education, science, taxes, you name it. If not wanting to be in the highest tax bracket while Cheney and his friends aren’t, then damn right I’m a liberal. Most American’s approve of this president and it doesn’t matter because the GOP approvals are the lowest EVER.

 

As far as the personal attacks

Of course the media has bias-just not the imaginary one you think, I have a master degree in political communication and have forgotten more about the propaganda model that you know. We’re ALL brainwashed. And I may be a nutjob, but I’ve got a pretty decent majority of the country playing along with the same delusion.

 

Face it, conservativism failed, its dead, its really been dead for about 20 years, you replaced it with fascism, none of it was never a good idea in the first place, every conservative idea has turned out to be a bad one. Move on.

 

 

Also, I enjoy each and every one of you. Don't ever change.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Are you saying that FOX is not really "Fair and Balanced"?

That its not their job for just once in 8 years to incite people to stick teabags on each other over Bush's massive spending?

Is that what you're saying?

 

No, I'm saying all those networks are leftists, and the fact Fox isn't leftist irks Obama and you Obamatrons to no end.

 

Woot!

[Strike 3,975]

Seriously, doesn't the FACT that all the other news organizations refused to do an interview yesterday with one of Obama's Czar's unless FOX was included give any of you liberal dooshes pause that maybe the WH is wrong for once?

 

[Korben Dallas 0]

No, I'm saying all other primary media sources are classic moderate news organizations, and the fact Fox supports fascists and ignorance and dishonesty irks Obama and educated americans to no end.

 

Woot!

 

 

Fixed

[donhaas 18]

No, I'm saying all those networks are leftists, and the fact Fox isn't leftist irks Obama and you Obamatrons to no end.

 

Woot!

 

You didn't answer the question.

Is FOX "fair and balanced"?

If so, why not one single teabagging mention in 8 massive years of spending.

If not, it's clearly a GOP propaganda machine... which is fine; but let's not call it anything else.

 

 

But I really wish there were some smart conservative news stations..... ones that appeal beyond the lowest-common-demominator sensibilities of a Recliner Hillbillie Pilots

 

Do they just think that there is not a big enough audience of smart conservatives? Is that it?

Because God knows if there is an audience, a station (if not 20) will immediately be made...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Do they just think that there is not a big enough audience of smart conservatives? Is that it?

Because God knows if there is an audience, a station (if not 20) will immediately be made...

 

Um, Fox brings in more viewers in every time slot, news and opinion, than CNN and MSNBC combined.

[naomi 343]

My point is that it wasn't protested every focking day by dooshbag teabaggers.... it wasn't even mentioned!

Not once.

In 8 focking years.

Just massive spending we're talking about... much of it not even on Americans...

Not a single focking peep....

 

It's just hypocritical garbage...

Here's my best shot at gauging what drives the teabagging people:

 

When it came to the war many people were conflicted about whether we should stick in it or not. And if in the end, the war set us back on every front, the spending was specific to the period of the war and the 'rebuilding of Iraq.'

 

When it comes to domestic policy that sets a foundation for future spending, it feels like a machine is being set into motion...the harder it is to stop the more momentum it picks up. With Iraq we can not make that mistake again (not that we won't, but it's what's decided in people's minds at the time).

 

One situation is easier to clean up (not that it is over there, and not that it won't continue to cost us for a while), and the people feel like they have the power to let it be left off with.

 

Can you conceive of a person validly more alarmed by the spending now than war related spending, because of the dynamics associated with each? Know there was hefty non-war spending, what of that do you have in mind?

[parrot 789]

When it comes to domestic policy that sets a foundation for future spending, it feels like a machine is being set into motion...the harder it is to stop the more momentum it picks up. With Iraq we can not make that mistake again (not that we won't, but it's what's decided in people's minds at the time).

 

One situation is easier to clean up (not that it is over there, and not that it won't continue to cost us for a while), and the people feel like they have the power to let it be left off with.

 

Where was the outcry when Republicans strong-armed Medicare part D to passage?

[MDC 5,891]

Link

 

Kudos to the other reporters for boycotting when they wouldn't let the Fox news guy in. Jeebus, it's not like it was Sean Hannity or something, it was a news pool reporter. Hope and change, baby.

 

I really don't see how this is any different from Bush and Cheney repeatedly calling out the New York Times, NBC, and other "liberal" news outlets. Except that Obama is a Democrat, so blowhards like Krauthammer are going to get their panties in a twist.

[jerryskids 5,206]

I really don't see how this is any different from Bush and Cheney repeatedly calling out the New York Times, NBC, and other "liberal" news outlets. Except that Obama is a Democrat, so blowhards like Krauthammer are going to get their panties in a twist.

As I said before with no response, if the Bush admin ostracized any of those outlets from press events, then I agree that they were equally wrong. Nobody seems to want to respond to it though. Perhaps you will be the first?

[naomi 343]

Where was the outcry when Republicans strong-armed Medicare part D to passage?

Have to familiarize myself with that (was 17 when it passed). Won't be able to remember a general feel of where people were coming from in how they responded to it.

[phillybear 364]

You do need to stay away from these threads..... go back to setting yourself in front of FOX news and await further instructions

 

I'm not going to spend my Friday night responding to 20 posts instead of drinking, or I might do both. But this quote bothered me, especially after...

 

I'm a dedicated Libertarian, which is no secret. I don't watch Fox News.

 

I want to commend you on your attention to detail.

 

The only time I pay attention to the station is if Jimmy Norton or Anthony Cumia are guests on one of their shows, and then I watch the clips for the comedy.

[MDC 5,891]

As I said before with no response, if the Bush admin ostracized any of those outlets from press events, then I agree that they were equally wrong. Nobody seems to want to respond to it though. Perhaps you will be the first?

 

Did the Obama White House block FOX from attending / covering otherwise open press events? I'm not being a smartass - I didn't see that in the original article.

[Voltaire 4,559]

Deligitimizing Fox News is a bit like attempting to deflower Paris Hilton.

 

Yeah but only one is worth the effort to try.

[Voltaire 4,559]

But now that a few F-students (Rush, Hannity, and Beck) tell you to go stick your scrotums over each other faces, you can't teabag yourself enough....

 

I learned what teabagging meant prior to 2009 from Bill Maher.

 

Too funny.

[Greedo 13]

"Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American"

 

Highlights from an article by Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek.

 

- Fox denies bias, while confirming bias with it's coverage. Example: in it's web coverage of the White House's assault on it, Fox quotes five people. Two of them work for Fox. All five reject the administration's argument. No one is cited supporting Dunn's side of the story.

 

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF BIASED JOURNALISM.

 

- A legitimate organization would cover this story fairly, and use it as a test of integrity. Fox merely provides dirision and demands for evidence that, when provided, are ignored.

 

- This is, as wiffle alludes to, a phony debate. An idiot can watch Fox for 5 minutes and detect its bias. That Roger Ailes pretends it doesn't exist is pathetic. Because this corrupted coverage works, the left, including MSMBC and CNN, are shifting in a way that makes all news unpleasant and unreliable.

 

- This coverage may be allowed thanks to freedom of the press, but it is not independent - it serves political parties, not the public. Therefore, Rupert Murdoch, is creating un-American politicized media. That Fox claims on top of all that to be fair and balanced is deceitful.

 

We've had threads before that address that there are no real neutral sources any more - an intelligent person must wade through all the BS to arrive at something approaching the truth. It's too bad.

 

And BTW - I know the right loves Krauthammer as one of few remaining intellectuals writing today, but keep in mind that he represents exactly zero swing voters.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

"Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American"

 

Highlights from an article by Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek.

 

- Fox denies bias, while confirming bias with it's coverage. Example: in it's web coverage of the White House's assault on it, Fox quotes five people. Two of them work for Fox. All five reject the administration's argument. No one is cited supporting Dunn's side of the story.

 

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF BIASED JOURNALISM.

 

- A legitimate organization would cover this story fairly, and use it as a test of integrity. Fox merely provides dirision and demands for evidence that, when provided, are ignored.

 

- This is, as wiffle alludes to, a phony debate. An idiot can watch Fox for 5 minutes and detect its bias. That Roger Ailes pretends it doesn't exist is pathetic. Because this corrupted coverage works, the left, including MSMBC and CNN, are shifting in a way that makes all news unpleasant and unreliable.

 

- This coverage may be allowed thanks to freedom of the press, but it is not independent - it serves political parties, not the public. Therefore, Rupert Murdoch, is creating un-American politicized media. That Fox claims on top of all that to be fair and balanced is deceitful.

 

We've had threads before that address that there are no real neutral sources any more - an intelligent person must wade through all the BS to arrive at something approaching the truth. It's too bad.

 

And BTW - I know the right loves Krauthammer as one of few remaining intellectuals writing today, but keep in mind that he represents exactly zero swing voters.

 

Great job bringing an article from Newsweek judging the integrity of Fox. What next, something from dailykos?

 

Too fukking funny.

[phillybear 364]

- This coverage may be allowed thanks to freedom of the press,

 

Thread over. Thanks for coming. Drive home safely.

[Greedo 13]

Great job bringing an article from Newsweek judging the integrity of Fox. What next, something from dailykos?

 

Too fukking funny.

 

I'll wait for you to point out a single inaccuracy in the post.

 

Thread over. Thanks for coming. Drive home safely.

 

That free speech is allowed is not the point. No one disputes Fox's ability to air what it wants within the boundary of the law. The point is that it does not serve the public interest, and that it isn't journalism.

[Birdseed 1]

allowing people like Glen Beck a national forum to spread conspiracy, sedition, and treason.

 

 

Korben really is a dumbass. Jeez.

[KSB2424 3,083]

I literally cannot believe some of the things I have read in this thread. Wow. Incredible.

 

Hannity and Beck are opinion based shows. Those two are really the only shows that can even be labeled "out there". The other 20 hours a day of programming is generally straight forward. Of course it has a conservative slant, but that was the whole purpose of Fox New's existence in the first place.

 

Fair and Balanced means: The main stream media is left of center so we are here to balance it out. That is only fair. It doesn't mean that Hannity has to be a centrist in his opinions.

 

The fact that Charlie Gibson didn't even know what ACORN was is the reason why Fox News was created. The fact that not one major news channel ran with the Van Jones story is why Fox News was created.

 

If the White House wants to take on somebody for a "lie" or and "inaccuracy" that is well and fine. I would want them to set the record straight. But they are going beyond that, prolly because they don't really have a retort for most of it.

[Mike Honcho 4,034]

Fair and Balanced means: The main stream media is left of center so we are here to balance it out. That is only fair. It doesn't mean that Hannity has to be a centrist in his opinions.

 

[KSB2424 3,083]

What's the problem? This is common knowledge to anyone that has watched the network. Hannity or Beck or O'Reilly don't hide the fact they they are right of center. They own it. It's no big secret.

 

Fox News was created because they saw a market place for a news channel that balanced out the lefty MSM. It was a great business move. They saw a void in regards to the news media and filled it. That's what successful businesses do.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'll wait for you to point out a single inaccuracy in the post.

 

Let's start with one.......and then we will move on.

 

 

Unless you can prove this claim your entire post is the usual BS you are known for:

 

Rupert Murdoch, is creating un-American politicized media.

 

Now, you posted this claim so back it up with some "un-American" examples.

 

I'll wait.......