10/15/2009 9:24:52 PM

haha, i didn't even notice that.

i was gonna say, i think that A.C. is generally a pretty good reporter. He might lean left, but his show is usually pretty decent. i was surprised to see them present the show that way.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 9:26 PM. Reason : wasn't really watching...just had TV running in background]

10/15/2009 9:25:48 PM

^ if you're talking about Anderson Cooper - i really just enjoy looking at him.

sad that he's gay and taken though


met him once, he's really nice and rather tall actually

10/15/2009 9:31:18 PM

Quote :

"I was trying to look up that quote about ink and the barrels online"

Lou Holtz just used the "ink by the barrel, paper by the ream" quote on his Dr Lou segment.

10/15/2009 9:42:35 PM

^^ haha, i've always figured that he's either the homosex, or bangs beautiful women half his age by the dozens.

10/15/2009 9:45:09 PM

He's gorgeous

10/15/2009 9:47:46 PM

why don't you marry him then

10/15/2009 9:49:03 PM

Read above. He's gay.

10/15/2009 9:51:44 PM

haha, i've always figured that he's either the homosex, or bangs beautiful women half his age 10 year old boys by the dozens.

10/15/2009 10:02:32 PM

hey no reason to polanski him

10/15/2009 10:11:51 PM

^^^^^

I'd really like to do it to his sidekick, Erica.




wait, i like this one better:



[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2009 11:23:53 PM

haha - i thought for a second you were calling me Erica and I was all confused.... but now I understand

10/16/2009 8:57:47 AM

Quote :

"The White House escalated its offensive against Fox News on Sunday by urging other news organizations to stop "following Fox" and instead join the administration's attempt to marginalize the channel. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization." "Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way." By urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama aides officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month, when White House communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news." On Sunday, Fox's Chris Wallace retorted: "We wanted to ask Dunn about her criticism, but, as they've done every week since August, the White House refused to make any administration officials available to 'FOX News Sunday' to talk about this or anything else." The White House stopped providing guests to 'Fox News Sunday' after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." "She criticized 'FOX News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check.""

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/

10/19/2009 1:23:06 PM

CNN, which fact-checks SNL sketches is a "real" news organization, while Fox News, which fact-checks administration officials, is not. So says the administration. Hmmm.... go figure!

IT ISN'T CREDIBLE BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT!!!

10/19/2009 1:53:10 PM

You do know that News Corp sued in court for their right to legally lie on the airwaves, right?

10/19/2009 2:02:09 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192

Quote :

"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. Consider Fox's Web story on the episode. It quotes five people. 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 for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased journalism. (Click here to follow Jacob Weisberg.) If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw the familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list, the rest of the news media is in Obama's corner, Obama should get back to governing, and so on. On The O'Reilly Factor, Alan Colmes, the network's weak, battered house liberal, mumbled semi-agreement while "Doctor" Monica Crowley and Bill O'Reilly lit up the scoreboard with these talking points. 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. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored. There is no need to get bogged down in this phony debate, which itself constitutes an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media. One glance at Fox's Web site or five minutes' random viewing of the channel at any hour of the day demonstrates its all-pervasive slant. The lefty documentary Outfoxed spent a lot of time mustering evidence that Fox managers order reporters to take the Republican side. But after 13 years under Roger Ailes, Fox employees skew news right as instinctively as fish swim. Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking" about the president's health-care proposal is provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating people for swine flu. With this misinformation campaign, Fox stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers. That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable. What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time. Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalists—I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson—should stop appearing on its programs. A boycott would make Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox, shall we? And no, I don't want to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss it. Jacob Weisberg is also the author of The Bush Tragedy and In an Uncertain World: Tough Choices from Wall Street to Washington. "

interesting editorial

10/19/2009 2:16:04 PM

10/19/2009 2:40:40 PM

^^ so if I read this guy's editorial its ok to be biased to the left but to be biased on the right is wrong. He is also accusing Fox News of being the reason that MSNBC and CNN have their left leaning opinion shows. That may be true. What touched this battle off was how the major networks, CNN, and MSNBC handled the 2000 election vs. how Fox approached. Fox showed it from the right's perspective while the others showed it from the left's perspective.

What scares me most about this "journalist's" take on Fox is that people should ignore the right's perspective on anything does he honestly think that everyone thinks exactly like he does along with rest of the left. I honestly hope this comes back to bite the left in the 2010 midterm election. Fox may sensationalize things but so does every news network and CBS Evening news. If you want the real news watch the BBC. There are no real journalists anymore there is bias in everything its just that the majority is the bias of the left a small percentage bias to the right.

10/19/2009 3:30:23 PM

I think he's accusing Fox of being the reason that every other news network sensationalizes things, and I'm pretty sure they were doing it before the 2000 election.

10/19/2009 3:36:30 PM

^^

And there's a huge difference between MSNBC and Fox. Huge.

10/19/2009 3:38:27 PM

While I agree with the premise of the article, it's going way too easy on CNN and MSNBC.

10/19/2009 3:42:20 PM

Quote :

"And there's a huge difference between MSNBC and Fox. Huge."

yea exactly, MSNBC is extreme left and Fox is extreme right..i'd say that is a huge difference.

10/19/2009 3:50:05 PM

Fox News is extreme right...I'm pretty sure even the viewers would, or should, admit that. MSNBC and CNN...I honestly can't see how they could be called extreme left. Maybe you could pick out something that seems like a leftist slant, every now and then...but extreme left? I just don't see it.

10/19/2009 3:53:26 PM

Quote :

"yea exactly, MSNBC is extreme left and Fox is extreme center right..i'd say that is a huge difference."

You almost had it.

10/19/2009 3:54:28 PM

center right from dick cheney maybe.

but msnbc i do feel is incredibly biased so i don't even watch. i'll watch fox news some times because its so extravagantly right that its comical and i like the lawls.

cnn i think is fairly balanced. whatever perspective provides the most sensationalism and viewers they'll shoot for, but they aren't particularly choosy either way.

10/19/2009 4:03:03 PM

^ That's absurd and you can't prove it.

^^^ That's because you honestly don't want to see it.

Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left

Quote :

"Having a prime-time lineup that tilts ever more demonstrably to the left could be risky for General Electric, MSNBC's parent company, which is subject to legislation and regulation far afield of the cable landscape. Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News. 'It happened naturally,' Phil Griffin, a senior vice president of NBC News who is the executive in charge of MSNBC, said Friday, referring specifically to the channel's passion and point of view from 7 to 10 p.m. 'There isn't a dogma we're putting through. There is a "Go for it."'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/06msnb.html

Yeah, MSLSD's admitted tilt "ever more demonstrably to the left" happened "naturally"--just as most groupthink does.

[Edited on October 19, 2009 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2009 4:04:48 PM

^^^^Watch any of the news segments where they throw questions at two commentators teleconferencing; a liberal and a conservative. The liberal will, invariably, get led into easy, agreeable answers while the conservative receives tough questions worded in such a way that the conservative position sounds wrong before he opens his mouth.

Their non-news commentary/pundits are markedly liberal, but they don't cultivate a following like the Fox News talking heads. The leftist news networks don't have frothing, proselytizing hate-farmers running their commentary shows.

[Edited on October 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2009 4:05:21 PM

^^^^was going to post the same thing

its easy say thats how it seems at first viewing, but when nearly every other thing you have to compare it to is extreme left, thats just the lens you've got to view the world through

this might be an attempt to polarize the now somewhat left leaning independent portion of the population in an effort to cement those points of view more thoroughly. less work/money to exert on the campaign trail for at least one election cycle.

bad move most likely when you consider that fox's primary audience watches fox because they've become skeptics of the other news giants. i can easily see this backfiring by forcing people to make a decision they've been reluctant to make for years: switching to fox news


lastly: what the fuck is the US federal government doing trying to dismantle dissenting views? Seriously undermines the image of integrity I know the white house wants to exude



[Edited on October 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM. Reason : cv]

10/19/2009 4:13:40 PM

^ It's the case with most leftists I've encountered. They simply want to silence opposing viewpoints--I've seen it and experienced it time and again.

10/19/2009 4:21:58 PM

Quote :

"[quote]yea exactly, MSNBC is extreme left and Fox is extreme center right..i'd say that is a huge difference."

You almost had it.[/quote]

I found the post in the thread that is the furthest from reality.

10/19/2009 4:45:48 PM

Quote :

"Watch any of the news segments where they throw questions at two commentators teleconferencing; a liberal and a conservative. The liberal will, invariably, get led into easy, agreeable answers while the conservative receives tough questions worded in such a way that the conservative position sounds wrong before he opens his mouth."

I just watched two segments with Cavuto on Fox news. There wasn't even an effort to provide an opposing viewpoint in either of them.

The first was an interview with this guy promoting his documentary questioning The Inconvenient Truth. Cavuto asked questions that only helped to support the guy, like, "You have people who hate what you're doing. How do you feel about that?" He was presented as a victim of the liberal elite, and was allowed to give his speech unchallenged.

The next was a pundit who provided commentary about Russia's supposed new missile they have developed. He basically blames Obama for canceling the missile defense program in europe and being a pushover. His view is unchallenged.

10/19/2009 5:11:36 PM

Quote :

"Maybe you could pick out something that seems like a leftist slant, every now and then...but extreme left? I just don't see it."

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/California-Ammo-Fingerprint-64455787.html


Fox isn't the peak of refined journalism by a long shot, but they fill a niche which obviously has demand. Why is there reason for this demand? Well, because Fox's audience obviously felt that the perspective they picked up from the other outlets didn't square with their perception of the world.


FWIW, here is a brief article from the Economist regarding Fox and a few other channels: http://ow.ly/15VTsE


I've illustrated in other threads that bias does exist in the media, even if the other major outlets present it in a more subtle sense. But don't take my word for it:

Apologies to the Fox table sound bite  Barack Obama sound bites

10/19/2009 6:30:27 PM

I tuned into Fox last night and there were 2 women with Hannity debating whether Obama was an ideologue or an empty vessel/extremist (references to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright were made).
I guess this is what they mean by "Fair and Balanced."

10/19/2009 8:17:31 PM

Hannity is an opinion show, not a news show. That is like expecting Maddow, Matthews, or Olberman to be fair and / or balanced.


If we're going to discuss journalism let's stick to something like Shepherd Smith or Brett Baier.

10/19/2009 8:30:55 PM

^ Special Report--specifically the segment known as "The Grapevine"--is where I get a lot of my info. And from frequent panelist Charles Krauthammer.

And there's this:

War on Fox: Is this best use of White House talent?
October 19, 2009

Quote :

"I have been thinking all day and much of the night about Week 2 of the White House attack on Fox News Sunday. You can read my Sunday post on it here under the headline 'Emanuel, Axelrod offer more bad media criticism.' The administration's criticism is that Fox isn't somehow a 'real news network,' but rather an opinion 'arm' of the Republican Party, to quote White House communications director Anita Dunn. I have said before, as many problems as I have with Fox News, I am fundamentally opposed to any administration trying to bully any part of the press into submission as this one is doing. Beyond that, though, I am troubled by the hypocrisy of the West Wing press critics who 'call out' Fox for its emphasis on 'opinion' journalism, but not MSNBC. Is MSNBC a 'real news network'? The highly-partisan, pro-administration channel doesn't even cover the news on weekends. It runs prison documentaries instead -- something I have also complained long and loud about. But here is what kept me up most of the night thinking about this: all of the people I know who have lost their jobs in the last year as the recession and Wall Street greed savaged the economy. The White House chief of staff and President Obama's most trusted strategists aren't out there on the Sunday morning talk shows offering plans to put people back to work or at least trying to rally the spirits of the unemployed and the millions of others who fear they will soon lose jobs. Think Franklin Roosevelt, radio and his White House team. No, the Obama brain trust is instead spending Sunday morning TV capital attacking a cable news channel with bad arguments. Where are their priorities? (And let's not even go into how cowed this administration still seems to be by Wall Street.) I will take the press critics in the West Wing like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod seriously when they condemn MSNBC for the same sins and worse than Fox. And I will take this administration more seriously when it starts doing the real work of governing instead of worrying primarily about its image and trying to silence anyone who would be critical of it. There is something wrong with President Obama running from TV interview to TV interview with everyone except Fox, while his highest-paid and most trusted presidential advisers spend their time on Sunday morning TV trying to take down Fox instead of building up the country. Maybe they should spend a little more time on the reality of where this country finds itself today instead of trying to use the media to polish the president's image and punish any outlet that doesn't co-operate."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/10/white_house_fox_news_attack_em.html

[Edited on October 19, 2009 at 8:43 PM. Reason : Hear, hear!]

10/19/2009 8:34:01 PM

Quote :

"center right"

Laughable. Why can't you just admit it?

If Fox News commentators are center-right, then who's far-right?

10/19/2009 10:11:06 PM

hooksaw

10/19/2009 11:18:53 PM

Fox news commentators are Right sprinkled with chunks of near extreme right.


The news is rarely objective, maybe sheppard smith (maybe).



Its not always what they say, its more how they say it as if there is a secret plot behind every small step by the administration or that the step is the worst decision ever.



If you have to tell your viewers every few minutes that you're fair and balanced, you probably aren't. But if you tell them enough (200 times) they will start to believe it.

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 1:16 AM. Reason : f]

10/20/2009 1:11:16 AM

Today at 7:40am:

CNN: Bio story about the first female drill instructor at a military school
FOX: Live performance of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders outside the Fox News Studio

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

10/20/2009 8:57:59 AM

like we couldn't find a point in time when fox news led with a more newsworthy item while CNN was covering Kate + 8 or something like that

Quote :

"Its not always what they say, its more how they say it as if there is a secret plot behind every small step by the administration or that the step is the worst decision ever."

You might be surprised to find out that those words have been the ongoing complaint by conservatives for DECADES about the MSLM...


oh, and... IT IS CREDIBLE BECAUSE I AGREE WITH IT!!!!

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 9:09 AM. Reason : s]

10/20/2009 9:07:23 AM

Quote :

"like we couldn't find a point in time when fox news led with a more newsworthy item while CNN was covering Kate + 8 or something like that"

Feel free to come up with an example, then, if you are so sure.

10/20/2009 9:21:35 AM

CNN's fact check of SNL is enough of an example that they're full of bullshit just like Fox

10/20/2009 9:54:46 AM

Online poll on Fox's website:

Quote :

"The White House is still attacking Fox News, 10 days after its original comments. Why? They want to shoot the messenger: 53% They don’t have a good case to make: 29% They confuse News and Opinion: 16% I don't know: 2% Total Votes: 158,616"

I like their choice of options... a) they're wrong b) they're wrong c) they're wrong d) I'm stupid

10/20/2009 10:00:51 AM

^^That's a different kind of bullshit. It's harmless bullshit.

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 10:01 AM. Reason : ]

10/20/2009 10:01:31 AM

Quote :

"CNN's fact check of SNL is enough of an example that they're full of bullshit just like Fox"

I don't agree with you.

10/20/2009 10:01:33 AM

^^

Quote :

"FOX: Live performance of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders outside the Fox News Studio"

How is this not harmless?

^ just to clarify, are you saying that it wasn't bullshit? or that it's not the same level of bullshit?

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 10:16 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2009 10:15:06 AM

Quote :

"Today at 7:40am: CNN: Bio story about the first female drill instructor at a military school FOX: Live performance of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders outside the Fox News Studio You can't make this stuff up, folks."

God Damn

Aren't people associated with a TV show allowed to promote it?

Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders: Making the Team

http://www.cmt.com/shows/dyn/dallas_cowboys_cheerleaders_making_the_team/series.jhtml

Uh-oh--looks like FOX News fired Dr. Hill:

Murdoch: Fox News liberal pundit fired
Mogul says White House criticism of channel boosts ratings
Oct 16, 2009

Quote :

"NEW YORK -- Rupert Murdoch continued Fox News Channel's duel with the White House on Friday while also announcing the termination of the network's left-leaning analyst Marc Lamont Hill. Asked about the White House's recent suggestion that Fox News is acting like an arm of the Republican Party, Murdoch simply said at a shareholders meeting that the criticism has 'tremendously increased their ratings.' White House officials have recently stepped up pointed criticism of Fox News in blog postings and media appearances. Murdoch also said that Hill has been fired. He revealed the move after a shareholder had raised the question of how Hill was hired, citing his 'reputation of defending cop killers and racists.' Hill, a frequent guest on 'The O'Reilly Factor' and other Fox News shows, has been the target of increasing criticism on the blogosphere for alleged sympathies to controversial figures including Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Though Hill bills himself as an expert on hip-hop culture, he also drew fire for serving as a liberal foil for various Fox News personalities on subjects far from his stated area of expertise. Hill also recently defended ousted White House official Van Jones on 'On the Record With Greta Van Susteren.'"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i9f25616ad2abf49dad78fca9c8ad031c

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2009 11:24:43 AM

Sure, they could have run a promo segment on the production of the show..... instead of having a POV shot of the gyrating hips of the cheerleaders with no mention of the show.

10/20/2009 11:35:23 AM

^ Most heterosexual men don't mind such things.





[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM. Reason : You mean like this?]

10/20/2009 11:41:44 AM

Of course. Does this mean that we should just have Fox and Friends be two hours of bare breasts? According to you, that is good journalism.

10/20/2009 11:42:45 AM