• 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

Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

Yhis is you dodgng my question and my request for a credible source to back your assertions.

As I said:
You're going to have to do better than paraphrase from memory for any of this to mean anything.

And my question -- the one you did NOT answer -- was:
Isn't checking facts and challenging the statements of thosein government things the press is SUPPOSED to do?

But linking to fox wouldn't be a credible source goobie. You're calling what they do fact checking but that's not what they do when they need their own fact checking fact checked. Talking about non-existent death panels in a bill isn't fact checking. Talking about a non-existent death book isn't fact checking. Calling the guy a muslim isn't fact checking. Why don't you tell us which fact checking their news anchors do?
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

But linking to fox wouldn't be a credible source goobie. You're calling what they do fact checking but that's not what they do when they need their own fact checking fact checked. Talking about non-existent death panels in a bill isn't fact checking. Talking about a non-existent death book isn't fact checking. Calling the guy a muslim isn't fact checking. Why don't you tell us which fact checking their news anchors do?
You still have not addresses my post.
One more time:
As I said:
You're going to have to do better than paraphrase from memory for any of this to mean anything.

And my question -- the one you did NOT answer -- was:
Isn't checking facts and challenging the statements of those in government things the press is SUPPOSED to do?
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

You still have not addresses my post.
One more time:
As I said:
You're going to have to do better than paraphrase from memory for any of this to mean anything.

And my question -- the one you did NOT answer -- was:
Isn't checking facts and challenging the statements of those in government things the press is SUPPOSED to do?

Here you go again repeating yourself as if you love hearing yourself speak. Again you haven't defined when Fox has been fact checking statements the government makes. When did they do that during the last administration? It seems they're selective. The press is supposed to do that but Fox doesn't.
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

You still have not addresses my post.
One more time:
As I said:
You're going to have to do better than paraphrase from memory for any of this to mean anything.

And my question -- the one you did NOT answer -- was:
Isn't checking facts and challenging the statements of those in government things the press is SUPPOSED to do?

Give it up Goobieman. your repetition act is pathetic. you can't win an argument by merely staying on offense. scroll back a page and see the question from Pogue you yourself dodged.

So are you saying that opinion shows that state things emphatically as being true but don't state that its just their opinion is totally okay with you?

as well as this one from me.

why did the Fox story leave out relevant context from Dunn when they quoted her?

and how about another. how well did Fox do it's "job" in 2001-2008? huh?
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

Here you go again repeating yourself as if you love hearing yourself speak. Again you haven't defined when Fox has been fact checking statements the government makes. When did they do that during the last administration? It seems they're selective. The press is supposed to do that but Fox doesn't.

I'm a little woried about fox news reporting on fox news.
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

I'm a little woried about fox news reporting on fox news.

I'm a little worried about Fox news reporting on fox news supposed fact checking that needs to be fact checked
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

Here you go again repeating yourself as if you love hearing yourself speak.
Actuially no -- its me not letting you toss out red herrings in an attempt to change the subject.

YOU claimed that reporters and anchors said this and that -- you havent shown this to be true.

Since you have not shown this to be true, you have no basis for your assertion that FNC needs it fact checks checked.

Without any of that, you have nothing -- and nothing you very clearly have.

And even if you DID have someting, it doesnt change the fact that bu checking the facts in question, FNC was doing whatit is supposed to do.

FNC did its job, and The Administration took offense, blacklisting FNC in response -- and you have no problem with it.
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

Actuially no -- its me not letting you toss out red herrings in an attempt to change the subject.

YOU claimed that reporters and anchors said this and that -- you havent shown this to be true.

Since you have not shown this to be true, you have no basis for your assertion that FNC needs it fact checks checked.

Without any of that, you have nothing -- and nothing you very clearly have.

And even if you DID have someting, it doesnt change the fact that bu checking the facts in question, FNC was doing whatit is supposed to do.

FNC did its job, and The Administration took offense, blacklisting FNC in response -- and you have no problem with it.

Aww red herrings now. Which statement was a red herring? How was fox doing what it was supposed to be doing? Do you have proof of that? Or you're just saying it to see yourself write.

So in other words when the Bush Administration went after the NY Times and NBC, NY Times and NBC were doing their job.

Did you pay attention to your own statement you basically said forget the evidence even if you showed me them making false statements that it doesn't matter because it is their job to attack democrats. There we get to the gist of your argument
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

Aww red herrings now. Which statement was a red herring? How was fox doing what it was supposed to be doing? Do you have proof of that? Or you're just saying it to see yourself write.
The part where you try to change the subject from FNC doing its job bu fact-checking to (your unsupported claim of) FNC not doing its job previously? That's a red herring.

And so, even if you DID have someting, it doesnt change the fact that bu checking the facts in question, FNC was doing whatit is supposed to do.

FNC did its job, and The Administration took offense, blacklisting FNC in response -- and you have no problem with it.
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

FNC did its job, and The Administration took offense, blacklisting FNC in response -- and you have no problem with it.

Check out this excerpt:

When Dunn was asked whether the president refused to accept interview requests from Fox because the White House sees the network as "a wing of the Republican party," the communications director responded: "Is this why he did not appear? The answer is yes."

source
according to the link, Obama didn't go on Fox because Obama didn't respect the network.

a different reality is portrayed in Fox's version of the story.

Obama refused to appear on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on Sept. 20, the day he appeared on five other Sunday shows. At the time, the White House characterized the snub as payback for the Fox Broadcast Network's decision not to air an Obama prime time appearance. But last weekend, Dunn blamed Fox News Channel's coverage of the administration for Obama's snub of Fox News Sunday.

"Is this why he did not appear?" Dunn said. "The answer is yes."

why did Fox create a misleading context for Dunn's answer, Goobieman?
 
Looks like somebody has got goobie pegged. :rofl
You only think that because when you see me you get such a hard-on that you BP drops and your brain goes all fuzzy.
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

The part where you try to change the subject from FNC doing its job bu fact-checking to (your unsupported claim of) FNC not doing its job previously? That's a red herring.

And so, even if you DID have someting, it doesnt change the fact that bu checking the facts in question, FNC was doing whatit is supposed to do.

FNC did its job, and The Administration took offense, blacklisting FNC in response -- and you have no problem with it.

So you're going to generalize. Which statement of mine was a red herring? I didn't change the subject. You said they're supposed to fact check. I pointed to several anchors out and out lying and not fact checking which you said you don't care about.

When was Fox doing what it was supposed to be doing? You still haven't pointed out when news anchors on fox have done actual fact checking you just continue repeating the line as if saying it more times will make your statement correct. Did you take offense when MSNBC was blacklisted by the bush administration?
 
So Goobie if you had a crazy neighbor who constantly yelled at you to get off their lawn, Clint Eastwood Gran Turino style even though you never stepped foot on their lawn would you go up and talk to them? Invite them to dinner give them any level of credibility?
 
You only think that because when you see me you get such a hard-on that you BP drops and your brain goes all fuzzy.

Uh, no. I tend to like my men a little evolved and capable of holding a conversation that doesn't break down into grunt and point. :2wave:
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

So you're going to generalize. Which statement of mine was a red herring? I didn't change the subject.
Look, if you're just going to lie about it, there's no sense in continuing the conversation.

Right here, in your own post, is proof:

You said they're supposed to fact check.
Yes, I did.
Youhave yet to agree to this.

I pointed to several anchors out and out lying and not fact checking which you said you don't care about
Aside from the fact that I said no such thing and tha you have not proven this to be the case -- this is the red herring. This is you diverting the issue away from what it is to something else.

That you CLAIM that FNC did not previously fact check certain other stories does not in any way change the fact that they DID fact-check this particular one, that them doing so was a perfectly legitimate thing for them to do as it is part of the job, and that The Administrations reaction is reprehensible.
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

Look, if you're just going to lie about it, there's no sense in continuing the conversation.

So you can't point out the red herring and you're just using words that you have no idea the meaning of.

Right here, in your own post, is proof:

Proof of what? That fox is supposed to fact check but doesn't

Yes, I did.
Youhave yet to agree to this.

I would if I actually saw them doing the job of the media and fact checking they didn't do it during the Bush Administration not seeing much of it now.

Aside from the fact that I said no such thing and tha you have not proven this to be the case -- this is the red herring. This is you diverting the issue away from what it is to something else.

Yeah you already stated that you don't care if they didn't fact check by your statement below:
and even if you DID have someting, it doesnt change the fact that bu checking the facts in question, FNC was doing whatit is supposed to do.

You already told me even if I gave you direct links that it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't change your partisan opinion. You say they're there to fact check but if shown proof that they've lied that it doesn't matter to you because you already have your storyline all worked out.


That you CLAIM that FNC did not previously fact check certain other stories does not in any way change the fact that they DID fact-check this particular one, that them doing so was a perfectly legitimate thing for them to do as it is part of the job, and that The Administrations reaction is reprehensible.

How do you fact check a story about oneself? The administration is treating them with the disregard they deserve. Throughout the election the network lied about him constantly, now they've lied about the health care bill, lied about his religion, the school speech, etc. Besides when Obama gave a speech all networks covered it except fox and now he's not giving them coverage in return. You seem to have no problem with the Bush administration doing it to MSNBC and the NYtimes when they were doing their job. Was it equally reprehensible back then?
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

So you can't point out the red herring and you're just using words that you have no idea the meaning of.
Did you read the rest of my post?
Where I did just that?
Where I siad:

Aside from the fact that I said no such thing and tha you have not proven this to be the case -- this is the red herring. This is you diverting the issue away from what it is to something else.

That you CLAIM that FNC did not previously fact check certain other stories does not in any way change the fact that they DID fact-check this particular one, that them doing so was a perfectly legitimate thing for them to do as it is part of the job, and that The Administrations reaction is reprehensible.

Thatls your red herring, bub.

Proof of what?
Your offer of a red herring.

That fox is supposed to fact check but doesn't
This is a statement you have not yet supported, even after being asked to do so several times.

You already told me even if I gave you direct links that it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't change your partisan opinion.
:shock:
Look... whatever drugs you're on, dont stop taking them, as I don't think you'll survive the crash.
 
Last edited:
ironies abound

axelrod claims fox is biased and pure opinion journalism while answering a question on abc's sunday talk posed by george stephanopoulos, top clintonista in 1992

stephanopoulos moderating a news panel is exactly analogous to karl rove doing the same

the white house feels hassled by fox fact checking and encourages msm's like the alphabet networks and cnn not to follow suit while cnn fact checks snl comedy skits yet fails to do the same to bogus bulletins attributed to the harmless fuzzball

indeed, cnn for several days energetically promotes those made up slurs assigned to rush

and keith olbermann---the WORST PERSON IN THE WOOORRRLLLDDD---hosts an nfl show

anita dunn, white house communications director, who started the fox war 8 days ago on howie kurtz' reliable sources, cnn's media exam of the media, embraces mao as her favorite philosopher and brags her admin "controls" the news so as to avoid "having to actually talk to reporters"

and ZERO msm's find the story worthy of 15 seconds' interest

only fox

irony is when a fire station burns down
 
I would have thought that The Obama WH would have learned form history that it really does not pay off all that much to fight the media or parts of the media. LBJ, Nixon, and Bush II did it. That is not exactly a Troika of tremendous intellectual thinking that anyone should mimic.
 
meanwhile, as the white house continues its preposterously petty, feeble minded and suicidal attack against fox, health care is being crafted in complete SECRECY by a compact cabal of insiders behind harry reid's closed door

except that the majority leader abandoned dc last thursday to go home to nevada to fight for the seat he's likely to lose

and obama the campaigner pledged all along to legislate all this stuff on cspan

i guess brian lamb's public service channel is opinion journalism too, warrants another presidential boycott

oh well
 
Re: White House [continues to] Escalates War on Fox News

according to the link, Obama didn't go on Fox because Obama didn't respect the network.

a different reality is portrayed in Fox's version of the story.

Funny that the White House doesn't dispute anything particular thing they say, isn't it?



why did Fox create a misleading context for Dunn's answer, Goobieman?

They didn't. They were absolutely accurate on Dunn.
 
I'm still amused they think this is somehow going to alleviate their problems. They are decreasing their audience and rallying loyal (or perhaps even passive) viewers against their administration by making them watch more Fox News. They shouldn't continue to focus this. Yes, make references over a period of time, but to make a campaign of it is getting them nowhere.

This blackout technique by the Democrats for the past couple of years seems so flat out stupid to me.
 
I'm still amused they think this is somehow going to alleviate their problems. They are decreasing their audience and rallying loyal (or perhaps even passive) viewers against their administration by making them watch more Fox News. They shouldn't continue to focus this. Yes, make references over a period of time, but to make a campaign of it is getting them nowhere.

This blackout technique by the Democrats for the past couple of years seems so flat out stupid to me.

I agree overall, as accurate as the WH's characterization of FNC as not a legitimate news network may be, there is little to be gained by having to what boils down to semantics debate about the integrity of editorial shows on a 'news' network.

To fully understand what is being discussed, the listening/viewing audience needs to have basic understand of journalism, editorial and propaganda. How many Beck/Hannity fans consider their favorite show to be 'news'?

What's been disturbing is the number of people in this thread who don't even question the objectivity of Hannity's 'fact-checking' segments. Yet, they will dismiss any vetting of these segments.

Again, people with various backgrounds and occupations, may have no clue that what they're watching is NOT, by definition, news, but editorial or opinion.

Fox does market itself as a 'news channel' and I think to the extent other legitimate new outlets do a better job of calling them out and identifying them for what they are--this could get some FNC regulars to watch their shows with a more of critical eye for bias.

I tune into FNC to get their perspective (which I know to be right-leaning) and challenge my own views. Do all FNC viewers watch in this manner?
 
This is a brilliant move by the Whitehouse. Obama said, during his speech before the joint session of congress, that he would start "calling people out" if they interject a bunch of nonsense into the public debate while grown folks are discussing business. Fox is so rabidly right-wing that any neutral observer will quickly reach the same conclusion Obama did. Now, anyone citing Fox News as a source will be immediately discredited and even if Fox gets more viewers they will definitely have less believers. Great Move Obama!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom