Quote :

"actually, it kind of is"

Actually, it kind of isn't.

There's a million things that people are stupid for believing.

Some people believe that those magnetic bracelets you can buy for $49.99 cure cancer. Do they have the right to believe that? Of course. Do I think they're idiots for doing so? Of course.

10/23/2009 11:58:51 PM

How intolerant of you.

10/24/2009 2:40:52 AM

Quote :

"He sold weapons to Iran and funneled the profits to the Contras in Nicaragua and then shredded all documents regarding his activities. But, let's give him a show!"

That makes him a criminal, not a "war criminal".

10/24/2009 3:46:35 AM

This is too much...

And they'll claim "hey, we're just asking the question."

[Edited on October 24, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2009 2:49:04 PM

Well, given that we've been told by the administration that the stimulus has already had its largest effect, what else could it really be, frankly? If the stimulus was so good that all it did was lead to more unemployment, then can Obama really take any credit at all?

10/24/2009 4:17:33 PM

^point taken, but can Bush?? I mean, come the fuck on. Take off your fucking slant cap.

10/24/2009 5:19:35 PM

haha, I'll agree. Bush hasn't done shit, either. But, one might make the case, a lame one at that, that TARP helped fuel the recovery. And that was a Bush thing...

10/24/2009 8:20:18 PM

Rachel Maddow weighs in on the White House war on Fox News:

Quote :

"The expression of opinion about the news is not the difference between Fox News and the rest of the media. The difference between Fox and news is that Fox is now actively organizing and promoting a protest movement against the U.S. government. "

10/26/2009 10:51:16 PM

yes, but she's much uglier than the chicks on Fox News.

therefore, whatever she says is stupid.

10/27/2009 12:32:48 AM

New York Times Still Awaiting First Interview With President George W. Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/12/inew-york-timesi-still-aw_n_143380.html

10/27/2009 10:39:37 AM

10/27/2009 11:03:11 AM

Greta Van Susteren: 538,000
Keith Olbemann: 223,000
Nancy Grace: 222,000
Anderson Cooper: 211,000

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/cnn-drops-to-last-place-among-cable-news-networks/

1. MSNBC topping CNN in many slots makes me sad. Is hack-itude directly proportional to ratings in cable news?

2. Can conservatives even be cocky about their ratings (assuming high cable news ratings are something to be cocky about)? They're equal with the combined efforts of the "liberal" news channels (leaving out Nancy Grace, because she's in an entirely different realm). Add to that the "liberal" network news, and "conservative" news gets trounced.

Whenever I get riled up at Fox, I just remember that at any given time, more people are watching Law and Order reruns on TNT than watching Fox News.

10/27/2009 11:31:04 AM

^ but Fred Thompson is on Law on Order.

10/27/2009 11:40:47 AM

I flipped over to the news channels for the first time in years cause i was looking for someone covering the ares launch. I flipped to fox for a sec and god damn they've just given up on even pretending theres no bias.

I didn't spend much time on the other channels either because they didn't seem to be discussing any actual news.

10/27/2009 11:57:20 AM

Does HLN still jsut report news, or have they gone all talky too?

10/27/2009 2:50:01 PM

Weighing In On White House Vs. Fox News: An Apology
Ken Rudin
October 22, 2009

Quote :

"I made a boneheaded mistake yesterday, during the Political Junkie segment on NPR's Talk of the Nation, one that I'd like to correct right away. It was part of a conversation regarding the White House's war with Fox News. I happen to think that the administration made a mistake in deciding to take on Fox. Yes, you can make the case that Fox 'started it,' as the White House is saying, though that sounds a bit juvenile to me. Fox News has been baiting President Obama from Day One -- and before. Yes, there are commentators on Fox (Glenn Beck comes to mind, but there are others) who trash the president on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Yes, there are some days where the work of good, legitimate Fox journalists -- such as Major Garrett, for example -- get overlooked because of all the attention directed at the rancor coming from its commentators. But for Obama, who ran for president and who for the most part has governed as an above-the-fray 'Mr. Cool,' to wage war with the network is anything but cool. Or wise. To spend a Sunday and go on five networks to sell his health-care proposals -- but conspicuously skipping Fox in the process -- is childish. And why skip Fox? Because it's like a 'wing of the Republican Party,' says White House adviser Anita Dunn. Because it 'shouldn't be treated as a news organization,' says David Axelrod, the president's chief message guru. I'm not sure who that hurts more; if anything, Fox News has shown a surge in ratings since Obama became president. Having the White House as its declared enemy can only be sweet music to Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, whose viewership -- and it dwarfs the cable competition -- is considerably anti-Obama. At the same time, I think that by crediting Beck and Fox News for the controversies over ACORN, and Van Jones, completely overlooks the mistakes that the aforementioned ACORN and Jones made on their own Clearly, Fox was itching for a fight. In my view, the White House obliged. And I think it was a mistake. But here's where I went too far, embarrassingly so. Yesterday, in expressing my belief that the White House should have known better, I actually said this on the air: 'Well, it's not only aggressive, it's almost Nixonesque. I mean, you think of what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list and their attacks on the media; certainly Vice President Agnew's constant denunciation of the media. Of course, then it was a conservative president denouncing a liberal media, and of course, a lot of good liberals said, "Oh, that's ridiculous. That's an infringement on the freedom of press." And now you see a lot of liberals almost kind of applauding what the White House is doing to Fox News, which I think is distressing.' Where do I begin. I will tell you, that the Nixon 'enemies list' is the first thing I thought of when the topic came up. And obviously, that's what was going through my mind during yesterday's conversation. But comparing the tactics of the Nixon administration -- which bugged and intimidated and harrassed journalists -- to that of the Obama administration was foolish, facile, ridiculous and, ultimately, embarrassing to me. I should have known better and, in fact, I do know better. I was around during the Nixon years. I am fully cognizant of what they did and attempted to do. I still think the Obama administration showed a childish, thin skin in its dealings with and reaction to Fox. But childishness is a far cry from illegal and unconstitutional activities. And for that I apologize for a dumb comparison."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/10/weighing_in_on_white_house_vs.html

Except that I think Rudin, NPR's political editor, made an apt comparison--I've made the same comparison myself. Saying that something is "Nixonesque" is not saying that it's exactly the same as Nixon or his actions; it's simply noting the resemblance.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 5:08:30 PM

^The conclusion I'm drawing from it amounts to:
Fox News is being a bunch of real-life trolls, and the Obama Administration is naive enough to be letting themselves get trolled by responding to it.

Obviously there's more to it than that, but it's the most accurate gross oversimplification/analogy that I can come up with.

10/27/2009 5:13:13 PM

^^ it wasn't too long ago that the previous administration skipped over certain networks. They weren't as vocal about it then, but the reasons were obvious.

But then again, there's no liberal version of Glenn Beck that continuously misrepresents the administrations positions, and tries to organize a protest with the backing of the single most-watched news channel.

This is not to say that it's okay because Bush did it, but it is to point out the idiocy and hypocrisy inherent in trying to claim the Obama admin is uniquely "nixonesque" when they not only are very far from Nixon, they are still far more transparent than the Bush admin was.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2009 5:13:45 PM

^^ and ^ Absolute rubbish.

10/27/2009 5:15:40 PM

^

Quote :

"the idiocy and hypocrisy inherent in trying to claim the Obama admin is uniquely "nixonesque" when they not only are very far from Nixon, they are still far more transparent than the Bush admin was. "

10/27/2009 5:18:54 PM

My post is anything but rubbish, unless one simply does not know what the definition of an internet (or in this case, real-life) troll is... And for the record, it essentially amounts to trying to provoke a hostile response by spouting something the troll knows isn't true and/or something the troll doesn't actually believe.

...I suppose someone could also oppose my statement if you're under the impression that the Fox News Network does not ever lie, but that would be an absurd statement. It would be like saying politicians keep promises and have things like scruples.


Besides, hooksaw... you of all people should be agreeing with me. I did, after all, call the Obama administration naive.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:21 PM. Reason : as per the earlier definition, it is possible I am being trolled right this very moment.]

10/27/2009 5:21:09 PM

^ You could ask hooksaw to "explain it--or STFU. The language seems pretty clear to me" if you don't mind borrowing a trollhooksaw-ism from this thread: http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=549171&page=26#13393360

10/27/2009 5:32:07 PM

^^ What has FOX News said about the Obama administration that is untrue?

^ And you can't explain your position because it's nothing but bullshit. The meaning of the quotation at issue in that thread is exactly as it reads, doofus.

I guess it's fun for you to pretend that others can't understand things when it's you who can't actually grasp them. Does it help you deal with your inferiority and sleep at night?


[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 5:41:28 PM

Quote :

"it wasn't too long ago that the previous administration skipped over certain networks."

I'd nearly forgotten that Cheney talked almost exclusively to Fox.

Quote :

"Does it help you deal with your inferiority and sleep at night? "

Dude, keep bumping that administrator's pay thread. It's a constant reminder to everyone on the board of who really has the inferiority complex.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2009 5:57:34 PM

didn't glenn beck call the president a racist and say he hates white people?

that seems like it may be untrue. i heard it on the tv though, so i'm not sure what i should think. and i guess that's his opinion, so it's totally cool.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 6:04 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 6:01:32 PM

^^^ what's fun is laughing at how dumb you are, but you don't realize it. I'm not sure if it helps me sleep at night, but i'm flattered you are thinking about me.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2009 6:01:44 PM

^4http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/fox-news-corrects-false-claims-about-gay-obama-education-adviser-will-hannity-do-the-same/

Of course, that was false claims made about a MEMBER of the Obama Administration. I guess you could split the hair pretty thin and say it's not the same thing, but you'd be wrong.

BTW, that correction constituted a small blurb on their website, not an on-air apology after Hannity had been parroted by Fox News's actual news shows in calling for Jennings dismissal.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 6:04 PM. Reason : /]

10/27/2009 6:02:10 PM

^^^^ I will keep bumping it. Every new scandalous report further proves my point.

^^^ Beck hosts an opinion show. You're free to boycott or write letters.

^^ You're an idiot troll and everyone here knows it.

^ Hannity based his comments on Jennings' own comments. Jennings claimed at one time that the boy in question was 15 years old--so no correction, only a clarification, is requred on FOX News' part.

And Jennings admitted that he handled the situation poorly:

Quote :

"'It's not as though, "Oh, this was a youthful mistake I made as a brand-new teacher," but now that I'm an adult I realize that I handled it wrong.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-admits-bad-handling-teen-sex-case/

10/27/2009 6:13:17 PM

Yeah.

What's with FOX saying "clearly the White House can't distinguish between opinion and news."

3/5th of Fox's primetime schedule is opinion. Do they not understand why this is a problem?

10/27/2009 6:27:00 PM

Quote :

"What has FOX News said about the Obama administration that is untrue?"

While I go look up what should be trivially easy to find examples, I present to you the whole "DEATH PANELS" issue:

While, yes, the only people saying that Obama's health care plan would include death panels were not technically part of the news but rather a presentation of "opinions" (speaking of which, since when has it been okay to present verifiably false information as "opinion" segments rather than debunking it as "blatant lies"? After a certain point of opinionizing the news, the only actual information will be the little scrolling update bars), anyone with access to any sort of fact checking (that is to say virtually everyone, thanks to the internet) is practically obligated as a decent human being to debunk such easily-debunked fake information. This moral obligation should go doubly so for any news outlet... or really for anyone broadcasting on television at all. To have the most-watched 24-hour news outlet at your disposal and not immediately say to these people some variation of "you are trying to feed us utter bullshit, now get off my show you piece of slime" is simply irresponsible.

This is of course not exclusive to Fox at all. Every 24-hour news channel amounts to little more than a direct stream of absolutely useless fake information, and sometimes shitty human interest stories with the occasional shitty viral video. People continuing to watch them is just encouraging their bad behavior... like a parent who sees a kid hurt himself by running around the house and decides to hand that kid a boxcutter to play with. Then again, the American public are adults, so if they're actually absorbing all the tripe then I suppose they deserve whatever bleak fate awaits them.

Of course, while the last two paragraphs are also just my opinion on the preservation of truth and integrity, my point here is that the TV news in general is grossly lacking in both of these things.


Anyway, my point about trollling could also be made by proving that Fox News doesn't actually believe what they say. While this is basically unverifiable through specific sources and quotes, their talking heads throw out enough contradictions and double-standards that we can assume that at least someone in charge there can't possibly be buying in to all of it.


Ah, here we go. I would have added this in an edit, but ended up finding it before I even posted this message:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-Turning-a-Point-of-Pride-into-a-Moment-of-Shame/
...Yes, yes, consider the source and all that, but verifiable facts are verifiable facts (frankly I would have expected some more concrete examples of Fox lies from the fucking white house, though. consider me disappointed in their fact-finding committees. seriously, Beck's show is such an easy target that even a lot of political comedians are ignoring him now). If I feel like it I might try to find a better example. I probably won't care enough to bother, though.
Also, as for the fact that most of these are debunking Glenn Beck, consider the previous paragraph about trolls also not having to believe what they say. Whether or not they are billing it as an opinion segment, Fox News pays the man to have his own show and talk words into a camera.

Either they agree with him and think he's not crazy and/or a liar, or they are basically saying to the consumer, "Here is a man we don't necessarily agree with (for legal reasons!) that we are paying to lie at you for your entertainment. Nevermind that this network is called Fox News, thus implying that our primary product is news... and nevermind that verifiably false information shouldn't technically be called an opinion. None of that matters, now let your brains eat our shit."
The fact that they are giving the man a show makes them trolls by definition -- either they agree with the false information he gives, or they are just throwing out an opinion on their network that they don't actually believe, for the sake of controversy.

And once again, presenting an opinion one does not believe in for the sake of creating controversy and entertainment qualifies as trolling. That's basically how it's worked from the day internet message boards began, and Fox is doing a real life version of it with resounding financial success. It works because even on the internet, where the practice has been going on for at least a decade and is widely know about, few people actually have the foresight and control to not impulsively respond to a guy who is obviously wrong, even when they strongly suspect that he may just want to stir up shit. There shouldn't be any surprise that the tactic works well enough on the general populace for Fox (and basically every other 24-hour "news" network at this point) to turn a huge profit from it.


Posts like these make me realize that I tend to be long winded and abusive of parenthetical explanations/asides.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 6:34:42 PM

i read all that. well done.

10/27/2009 10:31:41 PM

Quote :

"3/5th of Fox's primetime schedule is opinion. Do they not understand why this is a problem?"

So I guess MSNBC and CNN air all news during primetime. But those shows are ok because they don't openly throw down the gauntlet on the President or the Democratically controlled congress. Everything is about Republicans (mainly out of office Republicans like Dick Cheney) or political commentators like Rush.

To say Fox is the only news broadcast to sensationalize the news is absurd.

But I get it a majority of young people aren't conservative so they see Fox News as being everything thats wrong with the world.

10/27/2009 10:56:53 PM

Shep Smith apologizes for lack of balance during coverage of NJ gubernatorial race:

10/28/2009 12:42:29 AM

man fuck, no one posted ANY of the at least THREE different headline pictures for the newest episode of curb your enthusiasm. different picture and headline combos for the "story" were up all morning. couldn't post 'em from work though

10/28/2009 5:04:54 PM

wtf are you talking about? post them.

10/28/2009 7:12:48 PM

Quote :

"couldn't post 'em from work though"

1st grade reading comprehension fail.

10/28/2009 7:43:46 PM

"couldn't"

Ever heard of the past tense? You dumb cum-guzzling sperm dumpster.

10/28/2009 7:49:01 PM

Quote :

"at least THREE different headline pictures for the newest episode of curb your enthusiasm. different picture and headline combos for the "story" were up all morning."

Failure part two. Like you said, past tense not present. They're down now.


Go make an ass of yourself somewhere else.

10/28/2009 7:53:26 PM

Oh, I am guessing it was just so quick nobody could have captured it... it being up ALL MORNING and everything.

Go fuck yourself you ass-licking prostate groper.

10/28/2009 7:55:43 PM

yes, i was at work and couldn't post to TWW

yes, the pictures are down now

no, i didn't "capture" them

here's the article though, if you're interested

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/10/28/catholic-league-blasts-larry-david-curb-episode-urinates-jesus/

p.s. the comments are hilarious

[Edited on October 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM. Reason : /]

10/28/2009 10:47:58 PM

i'm guessing the fine folks at Fox News didn't appreciate Larry pissing splashing on Jesus?









So what was their angle?
"This is so offensive to Christians"
"Has 'Curb' Gone Too Far?"
"Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld are Jews, and should be more respectful to Our Savior"
"Would 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' defile a picture of Mohammad?"

There was nothing else going on in the world this morning....?

10/28/2009 10:58:50 PM

ah, Bill Donahue of the Catholic League will be on Fox and Friends on Thursday morning, re: Curb and Jesus
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/oh_give_it_a_rest_bill.php

10/29/2009 12:01:14 AM

that shit is hilarious ... people need to get a grip

10/29/2009 12:41:52 AM

im offended.... offended at how unoriginal and uninspired popular humor has gotten.

andres serrano already did Piss Christ 20 odd years ago. this Curb thing is just borderline plagiarism.





whatever. throw the jews down the well.

10/29/2009 3:07:26 AM

so my country can be free

10/29/2009 3:17:06 AM

^^ Serrano bothers me because crap like that not only passes for "art" but received federal funding as well. Simply being controversial does not make you a good artist.

10/29/2009 4:52:28 AM

I don't think we need the federal government trying to determine what is or is not high art.

10/29/2009 12:42:57 PM

Quote :

"On the show's most recent installment, which aired Sunday, David urinates on a painting of Jesus Christ, causing a woman to believe the painting depicts Jesus crying."

ha

10/29/2009 1:40:57 PM

Quote :

"i'm guessing the fine folks at Fox News didn't appreciate Larry pissing splashing on Jesus? "

Let me fix this for ya.......

I'm guessing that many fine folks AROUND THE WORLD, Christian and Non-Christian, didnt appreciate Larry splashing on Jesus.

[Edited on October 29, 2009 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2009 4:01:06 PM

whoopity doo

10/29/2009 4:03:49 PM