There may be hope

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
So the Obama mob decides to make the pay czar available to the white house press pool, minus fox. The other 5 bureau chiefs got together and decided to tell the Ossiah thanks but no thanks, unless Fox was included. It the media lust for Obama finally starting to wear off? We can only hope.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Yeah, the general consensus among the rest of the liberal media is that while Faux may be on the other side of the spectrum, they're still fellow journalists (I use the term loosely).
A big mistake on the part of the White House, or a trial balloon to see how far govmint can go in censoring the media? Not sure which yet, but I lean toward the latter.
Either way, we're teetering on a brink here...
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
My opinion on it is that it's the equivalent of appointing a Cabinet member while avoiding having to get Congressional approval, i.e. it's sidestepping the Constitution.
 
scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
Maybe the lamestream media realizes that if Fox isn't around to ask the tough questions... then they'll have to do it.
The administration is taking a real gamble here. IMO taking on the press directly runs a serious risk of being labeled as trying to suppress free speech and free press. Worse, it just makes it look like they are trying to kill opposing viewpoints. It's going to lead to distrust of the administration, which absolutely slaughters popularity.
Frankly I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. Should be fun to watch. I'm going to go make popcorn.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I said all along the Democrats would let arrogance get the best of them, they are worse than the Republicans about that.
I think the other media bosses fear that is that is allowed to happen to FOX either
A) It could happen to them
B) The incident would further increase FOX's viewership more than it already has.
C) Both
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3159768
Yeah, the general consensus among the rest of the liberal media is that while Faux may be on the other side of the spectrum, they're still fellow journalists (I use the term loosely).
A big mistake on the part of the White House, or a trial balloon to see how far govmint can go in censoring the media? Not sure which yet, but I lean toward the latter.
Either way, we're teetering on a brink here...
I think FOX is far and ahead of the other media as far as journalism goes but then again I just happen to like the format of seeing both sides allowed to discuss the issues.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
I don't like Fox. I don't think Rupert Murdoch is any more fair or balanced than William Randolph Hearst was. Then again, I don't like MSNBC either for the same reasons.
Fox's definition of conservatism, and MSNBC's definition of liberalism are both Fascist.
God forbid I should sound Conservative, but my general fear is that we have become the Weimar Republic...
 
angler man

angler man

Member
God forbid I should sound Conservative, but my general fear is that we have become the Weimar Republic...
Glenn Beck talks about the Weimar Republic all of the time. We are in some deep do do.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3159894
I don't like Fox. I don't think Rupert Murdoch is any more fair or balanced than William Randolph Hearst was. Then again, I don't like MSNBC either for the same reasons.
Fox's definition of conservatism, and MSNBC's definition of liberalism are both Fascist.
God forbid I should sound Conservative, but my general fear is that we have become the Weimar Republic...
The fact Fox has people from both sides of issues on make them more "fair and balanced" than any other network I have seen. And I have watched them all. And If Murdoch is such a staunch partisan why did he host a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate run? You do know Murdoch owns the Washington post as well don't you? Guess you think they are in the tank for the bublicans too
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member

Originally Posted by Angler man
http:///forum/post/3159936
God forbid I should sound Conservative, but my general fear is that we have become the Weimar Republic...
Glenn Beck talks about the Weimar Republic all of the time. We are in some deep do do.
Uh oh! Thinking like Beck
 
tekisui

tekisui

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3159937
The fact Fox has people from both sides of issues on make them more "fair and balanced" than any other network I have seen. And I have watched them all. And If Murdoch is such a staunch partisan why did he host a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate run? You do know Murdoch owns the Washington post as well don't you? Guess you think they are in the tank for the bublicans too

You sure about that? Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal, are you sure about WaPo?
 
sulley

sulley

Member
the fact that he owns both just shows the length he will go to make a buck....and to say that FOX shows both sides is a joke...in that case so does oberman.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by sulley
http:///forum/post/3160224
the fact that he owns both just shows the length he will go to make a buck....and to say that FOX shows both sides is a joke...in that case so does oberman.

Unless you think Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckle, Marc Lamont Hill, Nancy Skinner, Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Julian Epstein, and a lot of other nationally known liberal liberal strategists and activists who are on the FOX payroll and make regular appearances have changed their political views Fox does indeed show both sides.
Fox does have their opinion shows slanted to the right as a counter to all the other media that has a left bias but when it comes to hard news nobody can touch FOX when it comes to being balanced.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3159937
And If Murdoch is such a staunch partisan why did he host a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate run?
I've been saying for some time that party affiliation has nothing to do with politics.
I didn't say Murdoch was a partisan. He is a businessman, however. Getting along with the so called opposition is good business. Partisanship can get in the way of what would otherwise be a good opportunity.
Party affiliation is about working within a machine. Politics in general is about business.
Take a look at the campaign contributions for McCain and Obama. Many of the same corporations contributed roughly equal dollar amounts to both candidates. Why?
News corporations do not exist to disseminate information. They exist to make money, just like any other corporation. Ergo, what they broadcast is what they believe will be most readily consumed. Remember that when you choose your truth.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Also, please bear in mind that Rupert Murdoch is Australian. In addition, Fox is in part owned by the Saudi's Wahabi Caliphate (to the tune of ~18%, if I remember correctly.)
So, the only "conservative" television news organization is majority owned by foreigners.
Might that possibly have an impact on its editorial stance?
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3161011
Biggest single shareholder of NBC's parent company is foreign too, so what?
Ummmm, OK, never mind. Corporations w/o borders are a good thing. Let the Chinese build our military vehicles. It's all good.
Information is the most important weapon in war, and who controls it is the most powerful player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top