Fox News... the war in their heads.

[meesterperfect]

WTF?

IF the majority of the press in America (& the world) aren't left sympathizing syncohpants willing to carry water or overtly push an agenda irregardless of fact & truth, they're easily duped fools to lazy to collect information & too stupid to step back and get a real perepsective on what they are reporting...

.

Here here!
I say good show!

Actually they know exactly what they are doing.
the mouthpieces for the major networks aside from FOX are just working for someone, some people, with a definate plan.
A long term plan.
Its huge and has been happening for some time now and
its in full motion at this point.
But I don't have time to try to explain it.
Only they they've got their man in there now, they've got their congress, they've got their news media controlling public opinion,they've got the arab nations and the US at each others throats, they've got their bad economy, they've got the universitys and high schools teaching what they want, they've got their social and moral decay...........and the rest.
yep, the plan has begun to take effect.


back to the original post. If the war is in FOX news's head and not real than how do you explain Obamas appointment of Mark Lloyd as associate general counsel and Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission of the USA., a new position as enforcer for the fcc created by obama.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mark+Lloyd+fcc&search_type=&aq=f
Funny the only thing left on youtube about mark lloyd is from glenn beck.
The videos where he says in his own words his intentions regarding the news media plus the fcc chairman addressing congress about his concerns about him have been mysteriously deleted.
I wonder on who's behest?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Randi Rhodes just hit the bullseye with this

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/pages/randirhodes.html?an=Fox-News-the-war-in-their-heads

Thursday 10-22-2009 12:14pm PT


I want to say a few things about Fox News and how they are reporting the war. Not the war in Iraq, or the war in Afghanistan? the war in their heads. If you haven?t been watching (and I hope for your sake that you haven?t been) Fox News is going crazy insisting that President Obama is conducting a "war on Fox News." http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/do-not-adjust-your-tv-sets-high-pitc Here?s a dispatch from Earth to Fox News: There is no Obama administration "war on Fox News," guys. Just because someone is telling the truth doesn't mean they're at war with you. It just means they're at odds with you. OK, actually, Fox News is not just at odds with Obama, they're at odds with reality. There is no difference between 'opinion' shows on Fox and the news on Fox. They're both all opinion and no news. I guess that's a blessing, because their opinions are all wrong. I assume any news they gave would be wrong as well. Anyone relying on Fox News for their information will have no idea what is going on in the real world. You would be better off getting your news from the Cartoon Network. At least "Scooby Doo, Where Are You" occasionally intersects with reality. Everything on Fox News is fake. Fox News is to journalism what professional wrestling is to athletics.

Give Fox News credit: they went out and got a legal opinion justifying their actions? and they didn't even have to go to John Yoo to do it. They actually got it from a court. Back in 2003, Fox News got Florida appeals court to rule that it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie on a television broadcast. http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog...s/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html The attorneys for Fox argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. Fox News isn't content with getting it wrong, they wanted permission to intentionally make it wrong. And they got it. Of course, the right to lie applies to any news organization, but none of them seem to have zealously used it like Fox News has. Fox News stretches and abuses the First Amendment the same way Fox News viewers stretch and abuse the Second Amendment. And now they've applied their license to lie to a campaign of lies about themselves. Fox says they're item #1 on an Obama White House 'enemies list' like Richard Nixon had. One big difference: Richard Nixon had an enemies list because he was a delusional paranoid. Fox News thinks that Barack Obama has an enemies list because THEY are delusional paranoids.

What does it say about other media outlets when Harvard studies campaign coverage over a given period of time and finds Fox to be more objective than it's competitors?
http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Didn't Bush set records for least news conferences and interviews?
And the few times he and other republicans went on TV it would be almost always Fox.Sarah Palin eventually only talked to Fox when she was running.Thats not journalism, it's pro republican propaganda.

Republicans have had issues with the media in general for long time.Yes their claim is media liberal bias.Personally I think they just find it hard to defend their policys in many cases with someone who is not going to toss them softballs and not challege their right wing extremism.The main stream media is for the most part very moderate (all owned by mega billion $ corporations,not many left leaning types in corporations folks).

And people like Alan Colmes are at best moderates not leftists.Of course anyone sitting next to Sean Hannity an extreme right winger would look like a lefty so I understand the confusion.But take it from someone who considers themselves a progressive leftist,I don't hear very much of what I really think on any main stream media and for sure never think my POV will be fairly aired on something as extreme right as Fox.

Why do you think Conservatives bought up a dead format in the 1970's-1980's?
There was most definitely a market for conservative commentary on the news of the day. Many, many conservatives in the media have given advice to young journalists 'you have to stay in the closet about your views because it will ruin your career early on' is what Bob Novak told a conference of young conservatives on CSPAN .

And it's kind of laughable for you to say that they fear debate when Fox, ONE network is called out by the White House among all the others. The others are "fair and balanced" but Fox is not? Is that why so many media personalities have said that it made the White House look petty?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Didn't Bush set records for least news conferences and interviews?
And the few times he and other republicans went on TV it would be almost always Fox.Sarah Palin eventually only talked to Fox when she was running.Thats not journalism, it's pro republican propaganda.

Republicans have had issues with the media in general for long time.Yes their claim is media liberal bias.Personally I think they just find it hard to defend their policys in many cases with someone who is not going to toss them softballs and not challege their right wing extremism.The main stream media is for the most part very moderate (all owned by mega billion $ corporations,not many left leaning types in corporations folks).

And people like Alan Colmes are at best moderates not leftists.Of course anyone sitting next to Sean Hannity an extreme right winger would look like a lefty so I understand the confusion.But take it from someone who considers themselves a progressive leftist,I don't hear very much of what I really think on any main stream media and for sure never think my POV will be fairly aired on something as extreme right as Fox.

I agree with much of what you said, especially how Alan Colmes was set up nightly for Hannity and his guests to knock him down.

But as a progressive, I hope you agree that the attack on conservative media outlets is wrong. Why is it that many far left thinkers see differing opinion as anathema? Aren't conservatives entitled to their little piece of earth? It reminds me of how the far left in Europe practices "No Platform" where they literally attack those they deem to be unacceptable speakers.


Why is it that Revolutionaries have such trouble giving up control once capturing power? Because they know what's best for all of us, whether we know it/want it or not.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Yeah...biased "reporting" (not just commentary). Biased commentary or editorials is no problem. Biased reporting is not only practiced but mastered at Fox.

What determines whether we are in or out of a recession?

Where are there masses grouped opposing the wars where the news should be covering it?? While more significant under Bush they certainly weren't happening everyday....and far less under Obama. But you must admit there are other stories in the "news" today worthy of more coverage than 3 or 4 people protesting war that one of which the POTUS has said he's discontinuing. I mean duh!!! Every network has covered Obama's deliberation on Afghanistan "are you not watching ANY other news?" The difference is other stations aren't dwelling on the politics of it for the sole purposes of attacking the WH.



Cover it yes....make it a daily agenda item to bring the so call czars down like Fox..no. Again, the difference between biased commentary and biased reporting. Sotomayor was covered up and down....like any other Justice nom. Harriet Meirs wasn't getting ripped by everyone...not just Demos.


Again, "are you not watching ANY other news?"


Ahh I see...I suppose that's why the fear and hype merchants at Fox were complaining that Obama should close the border during the initial outbreak (a move that probably would have resulted in a more major economic catastrophe). I suppose they could just ignore it like they did with the SARS outbreak during the Bush presidency...wait a min....oh, they didn't ignore it..they hyped it just like everyone else did.:wave2:


Uh, okay....I read your rant there.... Was there a point?


"Fox leans right":rofl: Ever consider stand up?


Alan Colmes shared a show with Hannity...Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan and a few others have had their OWN shows on NBC's cable news nets. Again, Fox has NO SUCH ANIMAL on their network.


People don't look to Rhodes for reporting which is where we expect to find truth. People look to Rhodes for opinion and from that they find their own truth. Some people look to Rush and Fox for truth but all they find is truth, half truths, deceptions and opinions presented as facts or "news".

Limbaugh is on a radio network, Rhodes is on a radio network.


Fox is not Limbaugh, Limbaugh is not Fox.

 

[Hot Mega]

Limbaugh is on a radio network, Rhodes is on a radio network.

Point? I suppose I should say my point still stands.

Fox is not Limbaugh, Limbaugh is not Fox.

Ails was hired to create Fox after his venture to bring Rush to t.v. failed...so if you mean same bowels, different turd, I suppose that's fair.:thumbsup:

 

[HELLRAISER]

Fox News is on crack

 

[bodie54]

Actually they know exactly what they are doing.
the mouthpieces for the major networks aside from FOX are just working for someone, some people, with a definate plan.
A long term plan.
Its huge and has been happening for some time now and
its in full motion at this point.
But I don't have time to try to explain it.

You've been dancing around this for a while now, Mr P.
Why not just come out with it?
Are you talking about the so called Illuminati? The Jews?
I think I already know but I'd rather hear you say it.

 

[24788]

The fact that people trust the media is beyond me. I only trust CNN to be honest and that's not on political views.

 

[Jane Burgess]

I suppose we have to define what you mean by "go after". If that is to mean simply call them out on their outrageous bias...what's the problem with that? Like I said, whenever GOPers screw up or something goes wrong for them they can't make a statement without every other phrase being "liberal media" blah, blah, blah.... Exhibit A.) Sarah Palin makes a fool out of herself because she can't sit and give a coherent interview involving softball questions and it's the "lib media" attacking her...

If the WH uses it's power to unfairly target their right to b'cast...that's a different story and an abuse of power. They've done no such thing and why should the WH play ball with an organization bent on twisting the facts against them??

Fox has staked out it's position against the Demos, Obama and this WH....why are they complaining when they are not including in certain coverage? ...Made your bed, lay in it...:dunno:

Obama is the only president that has acted like this. All presidents have bad press and have had networks do unfavorable stories on them over and over again. It is silly to go after a news outlet because you don't like what they have to say about you. NBC and ABC are very Democratic. I didn't see George Bush try and ban them from anything. Obama and his fellow Dems need to grow thicker skin. They have more serious issues then Fox News. :2 cents:

 

[Jane Burgess]

First off I am not defending a moron. If Bush had banned MSNBC, all hell would have broke loose. Since it's the almighty Obama, oh whatever. All news organizations put their own spin on the news, just as all politicians are lying sacks of shit. Having an opinion is human nature, but if you are going to call bullshit on one side call it on the other as well. I don't care either way. I can watch any news program and make my own decision. I know it's a radical concept but sometimes you have too do it.

Nice posting. :thumbsup:

 

[JacknCoke]

The fact that people trust the media is beyond me. I only trust CNN to be honest and that's not on political views.

This is what I was thinking. Like has been stated before by a multitude of people report the facts and leave your own agenda out of it. I can surmise my own opinions with the relevant information.

 

[Hot Mega]

Obama is the only president that has acted like this. All presidents have bad press and have had networks do unfavorable stories on them over and over again. It is silly to go after a news outlet because you don't like what they have to say about you. NBC and ABC are very Democratic. I didn't see George Bush try and ban them from anything. Obama and his fellow Dems need to grow thicker skin. They have more serious issues then Fox News. :2 cents:

I really can't tell you how amazed I am a this....ALL we EVER here from GOPers is how mistreated they get by the so called "lib media" and MOST CERTAINLY the last WH fed Faux stories (obviously at the exclusion of the others) during build up and prosecution of Iraq war.

You're making me laugh JaneB....:glugglug:

 

[Friday on my mind]

Many presidents have had some problems with the media.Anyone who thinks that is not the case needs to read some.

Just for example go google Richard Nixon and his "enemies list".And that list was around before wategate.When the Washington Post (Woodward and bernstein) started running stories on watergate it was a whole new game.Both of them were lucky not to be arrested or worse.Someone like Nixon was not the type to just sit and let what he had worked for so hard go away without a fight. So compared to that things are pretty tame now.

It was well known the pubs in recent years had plans to not let themselves be defined by what they regard as a hostile media and would limit how much access they gave and would push back against anything they felt they could attack.The New York times got mentioned a lot under Bush.They called them traitors for exposing things like warrantless wiretaps etc,which is exactly what a free press is suppose to do.

Free press is suppose to expose things like watergate,warrantless wiretaps.Too bad they for a lot of reasons ,financial and otherwise have let us down in many cases,like the financial crisis and the lead up to the Iraq war and failed to dig and give us the truth in time.

 

[Hot Mega]

Many presidents have had some problems with the media.Anyone who thinks that is not the case needs to read some.

Just for example go google Richard Nixon and his "enemies list".And that list was around before wategate.When the Washington Post (Woodward and bernstein) started running stories on watergate it was a whole new game.Both of them were lucky not to be arrested or worse.Someone like Nixon was not the type to just sit and let what he had worked for so hard go away without a fight. So compared to that things are pretty tame now.

It was well known the pubs in recent years had plans to not let themselves be defined by what they regard as a hostile media and would limit how much access they gave and would push back against anything they felt they could attack.The New York times got mentioned a lot under Bush.They called them traitors for exposing things like warrantless wiretaps etc,which is exactly what a free press is suppose to do.

Free press is suppose to expose things like watergate,warrantless wiretaps.Too bad they for a lot of reasons ,financial and otherwise have let us down in many cases,like the financial crisis and the lead up to the Iraq war and failed to dig and give us the truth in time.

Shhhhh.....facts have no place in internet debates.

 

[HELLRAISER]

Shhhhh.....facts have no place in internet debates.

thats true, also true is facts don't have a place on Fox News either

 

[Jane Burgess]

I really can't tell you how amazed I am a this....ALL we EVER here from GOPers is how mistreated they get by the so called "lib media" and MOST CERTAINLY the last WH fed Faux stories (obviously at the exclusion of the others) during build up and prosecution of Iraq war.

You're making me laugh JaneB....:glugglug:

I laugh at anyone that thinks Obama's actions are ok. Yeah he is different and going to change things. To bad it isn't for the better. The people that fell for that must be kicking themsleves.


FYI I also never said the GOP was mistreated. Anytime you go after one specific news organization because you don't like what they say, you look like an idiot.

 

[Hot Mega]

I laugh at anyone that thinks Obama's actions are ok. Yeah he is different and going to change things. To bad it isn't for the better. The people that fell for that must be kicking themsleves.

:dunno:The guy is doing everything he said he was going to do so far. Not sure he can help having to deal the near depression he was saddled with and some of the choices that ensued. However, even you'd have to admit beyond that he's doing everything he campaigned on. If people who supported that now have misgivings...I don't know what to say since he spelled it all out on the campaign trail.

For example, some people kill me when they whine about why he's sending more troops to Afghanistan. I just have to ask WTF did they think they were listening to when he was saying he would for 2 years..

FYI I also never said the GOP was mistreated. Anytime you go after one specific news organization because you don't like what they say, you look like an idiot.

Well that's pretty much my point...you're complaining about one but apparently ignoring the other. GOPers have been at war with the mainstream media for about 20 years. And have being using anecdotes and narrow examples to attack the institutions which deliver mainstream news ever since.

But a spokesperson for this WH simply calls Faux out for being the shills they are (finally) and people on the right are all of the sudden running around looking for their Midol...

 

[Hot Mega]

I laugh at anyone that thinks Obama's actions are ok. Yeah he is different and going to change things. To bad it isn't for the better. The people that fell for that must be kicking themsleves.

 

[meesterperfect]

You've been dancing around this for a while now, Mr P.
Why not just come out with it?
Are you talking about the so called Illuminati? The Jews?
I think I already know but I'd rather hear you say it.

thats for noticing bodes.The truth is I dont know, I suspect its Jews,they control the money, but maybe a combination of people.
Either way there is something definitely bigger, a force in control that is trying to destroy the society in many ways, from many angles,
Its been sucking the blood out of the country for years and now its on its last big suck
It aint just republican/democrat. theres something'someone else in control.