Rove: My Street Cred. On Fox News is Not in Question - Page 2

bhkad · 07-17-08, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

I find complaints about the left wing bias trite due to the accusation being bandied about by the likes of NP every time Bush makes a rightfully criticized mistake. It's like the story of the boy who cried wolf, except this boy and his legions of mindless lackeys all have megaphones.

Karl Rove is the man who got and kept Bush in office using machiavellian tactics; he's the Republicans' freaking MVP! Hiring him as a political analyst is about as unbiased as hiring...well, who's the closest thing the democrats have...Bill Clinton?

Other news stations have their biases, but they lack that extra bit of hypocrisy that comes from claiming to be neutral at least once per commercial break.

Please stop arguing the theory of his being hired. Argue the results.

Results that I doubt some of you have bothered to even watch. So, pipe down until you watch. THEN comment. At least you wouldn't be so easily spotted as fakers.

bhkad · 07-17-08, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddytree

I do agree with you on how valuable he is to any institution that wants to educate on political science.

The problem is I can't quite allow myself to be taken with him.

You're right. That IS a problem. The fact that most Liberals can't control their emotions is the major source of problems in this country.

(Someone should start a thread addressing that contention.)

bhkad · 07-17-08, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox

I always find complaints about Fox News to be disingenuous just because of the implicit disregard for the massive amounts of left wing bias in most every other aspect of the mainstream media. It's like complaining about someone being rude to your mother while someone else is in the process of violently raping her.

I also don't see how hiring the most prominent political strategist in the country as a political analyst is demonstrative of bias. If they were, say, insinuating that Barack Obama, based on unnamed sources, is having an affair as a major part of their news cycle, or if they ceased to report on the war when things were going poorly (in case you've forgotten the New York Times running a front page story suggesting McCain might be having an affair based on unnamed sources, or noting how coverage of what's going on on the ground has dropped off almost entirely since the surge started to work, and only focuses on dead troops ignoring every single story indicative of progress) then you might have a point, but come on, hiring an extraordinarily qualified job candidate for a job, what bias does that demonstrate?

Fine post.

Sir Loin · 07-20-08, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

I find complaints about the left wing bias trite due to the accusation being bandied about by the likes of NP every time Bush makes a rightfully criticized mistake. It's like the story of the boy who cried wolf, except this boy and his legions of mindless lackeys all have megaphones.

It does not matter that Navy Pride or anyone else “bitches” about left wing media bias. They are of course correct, there is a left wing bias to the mainstream media. So what? Just because someone else (that you don’t care for?) makes note of a commonly accepted fact, does that mean you pretend there is no truth to their words?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

Karl Rove is the man who got and kept Bush in office using machiavellian tactics; he's the Republicans' freaking MVP! Hiring him as a political analyst is about as unbiased as hiring...well, who's the closest thing the democrats have...Bill Clinton?

Hiring political advisors to serve as commentators and analyst is not only common, but to be expected. As I type this email, three former Clinton administration officials are talking about the current POTUS election on CNN. All three of these people were hired directly out of the Clinton Whitehouse and put to work on the so called “most trusted news network” and you’d have to search far and wide to find anyone on the “left” who have issue with that fact. Either today or the day they were hired while Clinton was still in office.

News organizations make their hiring choice in this theater based on experience and political stature. This has been the practice for DECADES. Choosing to have an issue with Fox hiring Rove reveals much about the true nature of the person making the complaint, instantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

Other news stations have their biases, but they lack that extra bit of hypocrisy that comes from claiming to be neutral at least once per commercial break.

So far I can’t find any news network claiming they are “neutral” at all. Not a one. I reckon that if CNN can have their history and claim they are the most trusted news source, all without you batting an eye or bothering to post about it, then your “issues” with Fox are really just biased white noise. And reveal much about your intellectual honesty and knowledge of political pundancy. Meaning, willfully ignorant.

Befuddled_Stoner · 07-21-08, 06:10 AM

Did I disparage the fact that there is bias in the media?
You do recognize that there are fringe elements that see the world in black and white? And you see how they scream "left wing media!!!" at the slightest shade of gray?

These spurious declaimations have eroded the potence of similar claims, even valid ones, to the point where few but ditto-heads even deign to acknowledge them.

GED, "trite".
(this the proper usage of GED, right?)

I dislike how the media is not a neutral party that finds and delivers facts, how they merely accept the focus group tested talking points handed out by political officials...and then hand those point over to be masticated and reiterated by those officials' predescesors, who now have jobs as analysts. Instead of hiring people who sift out the bullcrap with little or no bias, they are hiring people inclined to rage against the other party while polishing the turds from their own.

I never paid attention to the practice before, since I never watch the news. I wasn't even aware of it until I heard about Fox hiring Rove, a man notorious for propigating the sort of bull****tery that I loathe. Thanks for pointing out that other stations are doing the same, it gives more weight to my assertions that the media is conservatively biased towards the status quo.

And regarding willful ignorance, isn't that the only thing that keeps people from being completely disillusioned?

Sir Loin · 07-21-08, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

Did I disparage the fact that there is bias in the media?
You do recognize that there are fringe elements that see the world in black and white? And you see how they scream "left wing media!!!" at the slightest shade of gray?

Yes, and they share that trait with their exact polar opposites, the ever present “Right Wing Media!! Fox News!” types. Tell me, what fringe element are you? It appears by your comments here you are clearly one of the “Fox News is” crowd. You don't even watch the news, yet you have an anti Fox stance? Curious indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

These spurious declaimations have eroded the potence of similar claims, even valid ones, to the point where few but ditto-heads even deign to acknowledge them.

Our little DP board is full of weekly anti Fox News rants. Weekly. The types who generally indulge in this are only upset that the bias they perceive is right wing and at Fox. Very few, very few at all have any issue with so called bias at all. Juts “bias” at Fox, which as I said before is instantly telling about them and their ability to grapple with intellectual honesty.

Speaking of invalid spurious declaimations,do you recall this one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

Haven't people to the left of Fox's target audience always complained about Fox being the mouthpiece of the Bush administration? And isn't Karl Rove widely acknowledged as "Bush's Brain"?

I'd imagine that Fox coming out and hiring Rove as an analyst is tantamount to them screaming "WE HAVE A STRONG NEOCON BIAS!!!" at the top of their lungs.

And considering this is the news channel that touts themselves as "Fair and Balanced," screaming their bias at the top of their lungs doesn't seem like a move that will increase their credibility. Does this mean that Fox is dropping the bull**** about their neutrality? Perhaps they've totally stopped giving a **** about viewers who aren't calcified republicans?

The pot called the kettle what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

I dislike how the media is not a neutral party that finds and delivers facts, how they merely accept the focus group tested talking points handed out by political officials...and then hand those point over to be masticated and reiterated by those officials' predescesors, who now have jobs as analysts. Instead of hiring people who sift out the bullcrap with little or no bias, they are hiring people inclined to rage against the other party while polishing the turds from their own.

Fox hired Rove as a political analyst, and not surprisingly he is very knowledgeable and fairly good on camera doing that. During the primaries his views on the races were spot on and accurate. I’ve yet to see him “rage” about a single thing. Since you say you don’t watch the news, do explain how you think otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

I never paid attention to the practice before, since I never watch the news. I wasn't even aware of it until I heard about Fox hiring Rove, a man notorious for propigating the sort of bull****tery that I loathe. Thanks for pointing out that other stations are doing the same, it gives more weight to my assertions that the media is conservatively biased towards the status quo.

Hiring former administration officials to comment on the news is a decades old practice and the fact that you don’t know that is a fairly shocking admission. Thanks for having the guts to admit it. For that reason, your declaration that you only feel more reinforced to view things the same way you did before you learned about one of the most common practices, is exactly the kind of “tell” I spoke about in my last post. So I guess thanks for helping to illustrate my point so well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner

And regarding willful ignorance, isn't that the only thing that keeps people from being completely disillusioned?

Willful ignorance is what we saw practiced at CNN and their Baghdad office. The ignorance you just admitted to was certainly willful. Yes, I’d agree that to shed or lose willful ignorance means to suffer from the disillusion of the previously held ignorant position. This is bad to you?

Befuddled_Stoner · 07-23-08, 12:36 AM

Did you just criticize me for listening to what you said? You find fault with me for reducing my opinions of everyone else? You would rather me improve my opinion of Fox just because you pointed out that everyone else does it?

new coup for you · 07-23-08, 04:22 AM

man McCain doesn't have any street cred, I never see him at any shows and I heard he buys all his studs and spikes from hot topic.

Navy Pride · 07-23-08, 09:47 AM

I think Rove is a brilliant political tactician and look forward to his commentary on FOX..........

shuamort · 07-23-08, 11:21 AM

I think Rove would bring something to Fox News. As I expressed in another thread, it'd be cool to see him team up with a democrat's "brain" (Stephanopoulus for example) and have them review the election as it transpired. I hope they keep his position to more of the Op-Ed variety though.

/On another point, he's as TV-friendly as James "Circus Ugly" Carville. Some people are better suited for radio.