• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News

Scorpion89 said:
Neither party from 2000-2002 the Dems controlled the House from 2003-2005 it was a split with the Rep having a 1 vote Majority in 2006 the Dems took controll of both the House ans Senate.

Oh and for the record it was the Dems who came up with and passed The Patriots Act, Go to War in Iraq and spend the so-called Clinton Surplus.

And futher more Our national Debt is ~12 Trillion dollars, of which 9.2 TRILLION (~3/40 was BORROWED in the years that DEMOCRATS controlled BOTH houses.

When Republicans Controlled both houses 1995-2000,2003-2006. Borrowed only 1.2 Trillion or about 1/10th.

the Republicans had 4 balanced or suplus Budgets in 4 CONSECUTIVE years, the ONLY TIME in our 233 year history.

The Democrats balanced the Budget in 1969.

So which party is more FISCALLY responsible. the Party that has balanced and given us surpluses 4 consectutive years.

So shall we try this once again.
Click to expand...

I'm bumping my post to GD so the rest of you Left can re-read it and thne come back and explain who was incharge again and who did what.
 
disneydude said:
If you think FoxNews is credible....that is the first problem.
Click to expand...


Please offer proof for this assertion. I'll just make some lunch and await your fascinating reply.

Since I would not want you to miss this post I'll PM you a link.

Now remember, we're all waiting for empirical evidence, no silly rants, blather-filled opinion pieces or embarrassing references that confuse commentary programming with news programming.

OK . . . GO!
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
Please offer proof for this assertion. I'll just make some lunch and await your fascinating reply.

Since I would not want you to miss this post I'll PM you a link.

Now remember, we're all waiting for empirical evidence, no silly rants, blather-filled opinion pieces or embarrassing references that confuse commentary programming with news programming.

OK . . . GO!
Click to expand...

How many times has this been asked this week, for someone on the left to back up their accusations? I'll tell you how many times... The exact number of times it has been ignored.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting.

.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I hope you don't truly believe that. The thing is, everyone has their own agenda. I don't buy for a second that these groups are watching Fox closely because they are about honesty and integrity. If they were they would be far more even handed in their approach and they wouldn't mainly go after news groups that are deemed "right wing".
Click to expand...


No, they are watching Fox News b/c they hate Fox News, I'd imagine. I don't think they purport to be a general media watchdog group (I hope not, cuz they're not).
 
Oftencold said:
Please offer proof for this assertion. I'll just make some lunch and await your fascinating reply.

Since I would not want you to miss this post I'll PM you a link.

Now remember, we're all waiting for empirical evidence, no silly rants, blather-filled opinion pieces or embarrassing references that confuse commentary programming with news programming.

OK . . . GO!
Click to expand...
*crickets*
 
Dr_Patrick said:
So you think that watchdog groups like News Hounds or Crooks and Liars don't have an agenda of their own? :lol:
Click to expand...

jackalope said:
Of course not, but this one's agenda is cataloging Fixed News' distortions, hypocrisies and lies :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Dr_Patrick said:
I hope you don't truly believe that. The thing is, everyone has their own agenda. I don't buy for a second that these groups are watching Fox closely because they are about honesty and integrity. If they were they would be far more even handed in their approach and they wouldn't mainly go after news groups that are deemed "right wing".
Click to expand...

jackalope said:
No, they are watching Fox News b/c they hate Fox News, I'd imagine. I don't think they purport to be a general media watchdog group (I hope not, cuz they're not).
Click to expand...


PS ~ Sorry Dr Pat, I answered your original question incorrectly. I 'read' your question with an extra word in it that wasn't really there. I thought you said, "So you really think ... ".

I was trying to say that of course I don't think they don't have an agenda.

Ehrr, that still sounds confusing. I meant to say that I know that NewsHounds has an agenda.
 
Ignore Fox Obama's right. It's time to stop ...

Ignore Fox
Obama's right. It's time to stop taking the network's skewed news seriously.
By Jacob WeisbergUpdated Saturday, Oct. 17, 2009, at 7:10 AM ET



Last week, when White House communications director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage.

Take a look at Fox's own Web story on the episode...

(snip ... ) Let's do a quick study of our own. Five people are quoted in this article. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense, morally or politically, for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased news story.

more ...

Obama's right. It's time to stop taking Fox's skewed news seriously. - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine
Click to expand...


Exactly so. Further down the article, the author says, "Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity and take pains not to load the dice in its own favor."

But Fox does not take it's responsibilities w/ regard to news seriously. Of course they loaded the dice in their own favor. That is their business model.
 
Oftencold said:
Please offer proof for this assertion. I'll just make some lunch and await your fascinating reply.

Since I would not want you to miss this post I'll PM you a link.

Now remember, we're all waiting for empirical evidence, no silly rants, blather-filled opinion pieces or embarrassing references that confuse commentary programming with news programming.

OK . . . GO!
Click to expand...

Well unlike my liberal friends I spend literally hours each night researching what I've "learned" from the "news" each day.. I prove FOX's integrity for myself daily.. maybe you should do the same and not expect others to prove what you haven't the will to discover on your own! You MIGHT have a different perspective of your beloved Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. If you did, you would know the truth instead of hiding from it and degrading those that do seek it!

This liberal tactic has grown quite old, maybe you should re-read your talking points and come up with something fresh!
 
Axelrod Says Fox News Isn't News

The White House stepped up its attacks on Fox News today with senior adviser David Axelrod declaring that the cable news network is "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is "not really news," reports Politico.

Said Axelrod: "It's really not news -- it's pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way. We're going to appear on their shows. We're going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view."


Axelrod Says Fox News Isn't News -- Political Wire
Click to expand...


From the linked Politico article in this blurb:

(snip ... ) White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on CNN's "State of the Union" that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

(snip ... ) POLITICO has asked Fox News for a comment and will add it.

On "Fox News Sunday," anchor Chris Wallace said the White House had declined to provide a guest.
Click to expand...


The WH clearly does not believe they made a mistake going down this path. I don't think they did either. It is a farce pretending they are a news organization.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly what Nixon did in '68, become the main talking point of your opponents and watch the rest of the world do the work. Criticize the President gently, but in all the right places at the right times. Then, as you attain the position of "Public Enemy No. 1" you can create a lake out of all your excess political, financial and moral capital.

Fox News doesn't even need to promote itself anymore. It is now President Obama's closest opposite on all matters, if it was a candidate - we know it'd have the GOP nomination completely cinched. As it is, we know its dominance as America's leading news organization is cinched.

When was the last time one of the Alphabet Soup news organizations recieved this sort of coverage? If you don't think it was bad for Obama to do this, and great for Fox News, you need to get your head checked. It's as simple as adding digits.
 
Metternich said:
This is exactly what Nixon did in '68, become the main talking point of your opponents and watch the rest of the world do the work. Criticize the President gently, but in all the right places at the right times. Then, as you attain the position of "Public Enemy No. 1" you can create a lake out of all your excess political, financial and moral capital.

Fox News doesn't even need to promote itself anymore. It is now President Obama's closest opposite on all matters, if it was a candidate - we know it'd have the GOP nomination completely cinched. As it is, we know its dominance as America's leading news organization is cinched.

When was the last time one of the Alphabet Soup news organizations recieved this sort of coverage? If you don't think it was bad for Obama to do this, and great for Fox News, you need to get your head checked. It's as simple as adding digits.
Click to expand...


Your post is interesting, b/c you mention Nixon's war on the press that commenced in '68, but then reach the conclusion that this was bad for Obama to do. Nixon rode that horse to a landslide re-election victory in '72. (Here's a snippet from an old 2003 Slate article about the press bias brawl):


(snip ... ) Unlike previous presidents, Nixon had no interest in cultivating and spinning the press in his favor. He assigned Vice President Spiro T. Agnew the task of labeling the fourth estate "nattering nabobs of negativism" and protesting the TV commentators' critical "instant analysis" of Nixon's speeches. Oddly, the anti-press blitz commenced in November 1969, after nine months in which the press essentially left Nixon alone. Greenberg theorizes that the press wasn't Nixon's only intended audience. He wanted to communicate a political message directly to the public: that the liberal press was out of touch with what he called "middle America." Or, to put it another way, he used the age-old resentment of the press to punish the liberal elite. Nixon's message helped propel him to a landslide victory in 1972.

The press bias brawl. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine
(snip ... )
Click to expand...
 
My attitude is....why should Repub Presidents be the only ones allowed to abuse Executive Branch authority when they are in power?.......If I was President I would threaten to pull Fox News' FCC licenses unless they register as the media arm of the GOP. :applaud

(then I suspend it anyway......Just for spite!) ;)
 
jackalope said:
Your post is interesting, b/c you mention Nixon's war on the press that commenced in '68, but then reach the conclusion that this was bad for Obama to do. Nixon rode that horse to a landslide re-election victory in '72. (Here's a snippet from an old 2003 Slate article about the press bias brawl):
Click to expand...

:doh

I'm talking about him winning the nomination, silly. How a failed national and gubernatorial canidate managed to win, only a few years later, a strong bid for the Presidency.
 
Metternich said:
:doh

I'm talking about him winning the nomination, silly. How a failed national and gubernatorial canidate managed to win, only a few years later, a strong bid for the Presidency.
Click to expand...


He actually didn't start his war on the press until 9 mos after taking office, according to the article.
 
;) I'm talking about Nixon's criticism of LBJ and LBJ later deciding that it was Nixon, not Nelson Rockefeller, who was the main opponent. Not any wars on the press, I'm talking about how great it is for anybody (be it Nixon or Murdoch) to become the President's idealogical opposite. Because, above all else, opposite implies equal and equal implies what usually follows: wealth, political pull et al.
 
Devil505 said:
My attitude is....why should Repub Presidents be the only ones allowed to abuse Executive Branch authority when they are in power?.......If I was President I would threaten to pull Fox News' FCC licenses unless they register as the media arm of the GOP. :applaud

(then I suspend it anyway......Just for spite!) ;)
Click to expand...

Then I would turn right around an sue your arse in Federal Court on 1st Adm Violation and then demand that Congress start Impeachment procedure.
 
Metternich said:
;) I'm talking about Nixon's criticism of LBJ and LBJ later deciding that it was Nixon, not Nelson Rockefeller, who was the main opponent. Not any wars on the press, I'm talking about how great it is for anybody (be it Nixon or Murdoch) to become the President's idealogical opposite. Because, above all else, opposite implies equal and equal implies what usually follows: wealth, political pull et al.
Click to expand...


oh, okay. Well, in any case, I can definitely see an upside for Barack Obama here, and seeing it, I don't feel the need to get my head checked, as you posted.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Then I would turn right around an sue your arse in Federal Court on 1st Adm Violation and then demand that Congress start Impeachment procedure.
Click to expand...

Your court case would be thrown out as frivolous & you guys have absolutely no say in Congress anymore! ...Get used to it.:lol:
 
Devil505 said:
Your court case would be thrown out as frivolous & you guys have absolutely no say in Congress anymore! ...Get used to it.:lol:
Click to expand...


Of course they have a say - an outsized one at the moment some on the left are complaining - be nice, smiling Devil.
 
This White House simply cannot take anything less than unmitigated genuflection towards their administration. They throw tantrums and start whining like babies without their pacifiers if someone has a disagreeable word about the littlest thing they say or do. :roll:

FOX News has the fairest coverage of all the news stations out there. Barack Obama is just upset that FOX's anchors don't get tingles up their legs whenever he spews his platitudinous and nonsensical talking points, and they don't treat him like Socrates when he gives a largely incoherent speech on an issue as vital as health care for an entire hour.
 
K-1 said:
This White House simply cannot take anything less than unmitigated genuflection towards their administration. They throw tantrums and start whining like babies without their pacifiers if someone has a disagreeable word about the littlest thing they say or do. :roll:

FOX News has the fairest coverage of all the news stations out there. Barack Obama is just upset that FOX's anchors don't get tingles up their legs whenever he spews his platitudinous and nonsensical talking points, and they don't treat him like Socrates when he gives a largely incoherent speech on an issue as vital as health care for an entire hour.
Click to expand...

Fox News was very pro Bush and is currently very anti Obama. 'Fair and balanced' is a joke.

It's called 'lets all scream at each other at the same time about current events and pretend it's news".
 
Last edited:
K-1 said:
This White House simply cannot take anything less than unmitigated genuflection towards their administration. They throw tantrums and start whining like babies without their pacifiers if someone has a disagreeable word about the littlest thing they say or do. :roll:
Click to expand...


It seems, rather, that it is Fox News throwing a tantrum and whining like a baby. I wonder when we can expect Chris Wallace's countdown til Obama interview clock to come back?

As to the WH that can't anything less than unmitigated criticism, would we be talking about the Nixon WH? Or possibly the Bush WH:
(snip ... ) It was, after all, George W. Bush who became the first modern president to refuse literally every interview request from the New York Times over the span of nine years. The NYT's Sheryl Gay Stolberg explained about a year ago, "[Bush] White House officials are quite open about the fact that we have not gotten an interview because they don't like our coverage."

... For that matter, the Bush White House went after NBC News in May 2008, accusing the network of deceptive editing and blurring the lines between "news" and "opinion." Officials from the Bush team began treating NBC and MSNBC as political opponents.

The Washington Monthly
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom