Nov 9, 2009

Fox ‘news’ rolls out another false war

Like the false “war on Christmas” rolled out every single year by Fox “news,” the latest made up war by fox is just as false.

The rightwing media is all aflutter about the false “war on Fox ‘news’” by the Obama Administration. The problem is it’s just made up. The claim is that the White House is attacking Fox for asking tough questions of the President, but that is a typical rightwing lie.

The President chose not to appear on “Fox News Sunday” in favor of real network shows, and Chris Wallace began appearing on every single fox segment whining about it. The simple fact is that Fox is not a news source. It claims its prime time line-up is like the editorial section of the newspaper, but the fact is even the alleged news is nothing but Republican talking points.

The GOP claims MSNBC does the same thing, and that is true for its part-time line-up. However, the news is straight. Plus, we have to endure rightwing Republicans Joe Scarborough, R-Fla., for three hours.

Where is the Democrat or liberal on fox?

The fact is there is a big difference between access and choosing to decline an invitation to appear on the opposition party’s propaganda arm. The White House has not said it will not appear on fox, but they want to make it clear that when they do, they are simply appearing on the opposition network. This crap about “the White House has declared war on Fox” is ridiculous.

However, the White House has not barred any so-called fox “reporters” from asking questions at the White House press briefing, traveling with the President or denied them any of the same access real reporters enjoy. But the fox viewers have drank the Kool-aid that they are being denied access.

Oceola Township resident Betty Cole wrote in a letter to the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus that, “For a sitting president to attempt to block a news station from attending a White House news conference because the White House does not like what the station has to say is unthinkable in our great United States of America.”

I could not agree more, Ms. Cole, but your letter is about eight years too late. The Obama Administration has never barred access to a fox “reporter.” Choosing not to endure their lies and misinformation is not denying access.

You will recall the Bush Administration’s real hatred and war on the press. You will remember during the campaign in 2000 Bush and Dick Cheney were caught on a hot mike calling a New York Times reporter “a major league asshole.” There was no apology, and the war continued.

Former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino let it slip out - on fox “news,” of course - that they froze out MSNBC. Cheney has called the media un-American, and barred the New York Times from his airplane when he traveled. Bush froze out the New York Times, and in eight years he may have talked one-on-one with a NYT reporter three times, and no one made the claim about the “war on the New York Times.”


Not Anonymous said...

On June 5, 2001, New York Times reporter Frank Bruni had what he described as Bush's first "one-on-one interview" since Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties and threw control of the Senate to the Democrats. "We're looking at a different landscape, but still on the same continent," Bush said. "The same votes. The members haven't changed."

• On Aug 26, 2004, Bush gave a half-hour interview to the New York Times as he campaigned through New Mexico. Bush told the newspaper that he did not believe Sen. John Kerry lied about his war record, as some groups alleged during the campaign.

• On Jan. 27, 2005, a week after he started his second term, Bush spoke with New York Times reporters for 40 minutes, discussing troop levels in Iraq and domestic issues such as gay adoption, abortion and Social Security.

This is what happens when you allow Rachel Maddow to be your source for facts. You end up factless. Either that or you just prefer lying.

Communications guru said...

I never used Rachel Maddow as a source, but after reading the piece you stole word for word with no link, I’m not sure she’s wrong, even though she issued an on air correction. Here’s the link to the info you ripped off word for word, anonymous.

Funny, they say the NYT is “one of the largest newspapers in the country,” yet they do not have a single link to the three instance in eighty years they claim Bush talked to the one of the largest newspapers in the country.

But, I’ll still correct my post.

Johnny C said...

"The Rachel Maddow Show told us they were going off a Los Angeles Times blog post that was based on Stolberg's comments. The blog post was incorrectly headlined, "Nine years later the N.Y. Times still awaits its Bush interview." from your own source nonetheless Not A.

Once again Not Anonymous you provided me a chance to shit on your little right wing parade and I'm going to take it. The part I quoted again comes from your source and I notice you left that part out because it doesn't fit in whatever lame ass point you was trying to make.

And I remember Rachel Maddow indeed issue a correction oops there goes your response.. But here's the question to you Not when mistakes or falsehoods are pointed out to Rush, Rush's ass plug Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity's script writer Mark Levin and Glenn Beck do they take time to correct it? No they don't.

The larger point of Guru's post is that Robert Gibbs isn't stopping Major Garret from taking his seat when Gibbs start his press briefing. Or white house officials chasing off Fox News reporters off the front lawn with a water hose.

Here's the difference between Fox News and MSNBC

Fox News: No real liberal counterpart to off set the right wing commentators. And Greta Van Susteren doesn't count.

MSNBC: Three hours of Cup of Joe with right wing Republican Joe Scarborough that off set the three combined hours of Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow.

Fox News: Even their straight news is plague with Republican talking points i.e. they got caught repeating a RNC memo word for word including the typo.

MSNBC: For the most part it's straight but they still get their knuckles cracked by the media matters' ruler.

Fox News: during their point/counterpoint segments Fox News gets someone who's a centrist or a moderate or in some case a conservative Democrat to argue the liberal point of view while having a fire breathing right winger to argue the right wing point of view.

MSNBC: while they get liberal point of view they also book very conservative/ right wing guest to debate them i.e. Hardball with Chris Matthews, even the Ed Show he has right wing guest to debate people like Bill Press.

Again Not I've proven that not only you're a liar, you're a selective liar.

Not Anonymous said...

Imagine Comm if you had done your research before you actually typed it out. You wouldn't have had to dig up a link to prove my point. You still question the veracity of it even though you removed it from your blog.

It's really simple. If you don't lie, you don't have to edit, after the fact, that which you have written.

Not Anonymous said...

Little Johnny, it's simple really. I listed three times that Bush granted interviews.

I didn't claim that Maddow didn't issue a correction. I don't listen to her. I don't watch her. I don't know who she is. I don't care who she is. But since your only source for saying that she corrected it, is your own memory, I have my doubts as to whether she did correct it. You've already proven yourself not credible.

I don't listen to Hannity. I rarely listen to Rush. I realize that this is a terrible blow to you, but I don't get my marching orders from a talk radio host or television personality. You make a lot of assumptions in everything you talk about and I have yet to hear you say anything correctly, and that can apply to the topics as well as to your poor language skills. And that didn't even touch on your lack of tolerance for others opinions nor you lack of vocabulary.

Not Anonymous said...

Little Johnny, oops. I missed one thing. You haven't proven I've lied about anything. You make assumptions of what I believe, who I listen to, what I think, but you haven't shown even one lie that I supposedly told. After all, all I did was list three interviews that Bush did give to the NYTimes after it was said that he never did in this blogs whining about Fox News.

As for the White House refusing Fox News to appear, they did try. But, and I'm amazed at this, the other networks refused to carry it if they didn't include Fox News.

Communications guru said...

I did my research, little anonymous. I had to dig up a link because most of the time you simply make up stuff out of thin air. Ever heard of the word plagiarism? You should look it up. I do question the veracity of anything you say, but because I never lie and am accountable, I corrected it. You will never se that on a rightwing blog.
Again, why are there no links to these alleged interviews with one of the country’s largest newspapers?

You don't listen to Hannity, and you rarely listen to Rush? Good one, little anonymous.

Pointing out facts is not whining.

Wait, are you serious, little anonymous? “As for the White House refusing Fox News to appear, they did try. But, and I'm amazed at this, the other networks refused to carry it if they didn't include Fox News.” What are you talking about? President Obama decided not to appear on the GOP/fox “news.” He shouldn’t.

Johnny C said...

Not Anonymous you set up a faulty argument to defend the right wing point of view on the subject but again you overlook the larger point the post presented.

Now you're the one that brought up Rachel Maddow and the New York Times yet you left out the parts where Maddow say she's going to correct herself and why she was lead to believe that Bush froze out the times during his term as president.
Another area the right is once again wrong is MSNBC, again to counter balance the three hours of progressive programing MSNBC has three hours of a right wing congressman Joe Scarborough.. Can Fox say that? Of course they can't.

As for the Obama white house again President Obama simply said when he goes on Fox he knows he's dealing with the opposition. Again Robert Gibbs isn't running out Major Garret nor is a white house official running off a Fox News White House reporter.

And Not anonymous 99.9% of your post contain a lie for example you claim you don't listen to Rush, Hannity and their clones.

Not Anonymous said...

Poor little Johnny. You just don't get it. The blogger said that Bush didn't grant any interviews to the NYTimes. I only put out the information that he had. My only comment about Rachel Maddow was that when you listen to her, you get poor quality information. If she corrected it, fine, but so far, you're the only one that has said so, and you're basing it on your memory. Knowing your spelling and poor use of the English language, you could have meant according to your mammory for all I know.

I don't care if Fox doesn't have liberals with their own programs, although it's interesting that you want Greta Van Susteran left out. Why? Because she's liberal and that ruins your argument? Well, let's apply the same standards to your position. MSNBC only has liberal hosts and no conservatives and don't tell me about Joe Scarborough.

As for Obama trying to blot out Fox, you should do a little research. He just tried to exclude them from some press briefing or event, but the other networks stood up for Fox. Shocking in itself.

What I said was that I "rarely" listen to Rush and I don't listen to Hannity. Now, if you are peeking in my windows, or hiding out in my backseat of the car, I'd say that you have a bigger problem than whether or not I listen to any of them and how often.

So how's your trial going? Did they convict you yet of beating your wife or will you get away with it?

Communications guru said...

Poor little anonymous; you just don’t get it.

Here’s the point you continue to ignore, little anonymous. Fox “news” has ginned up another false “war” on nothing, yet more was done to MSNBC and the NY Times - real news outlets - by the Bush Administration and there was no outcry.

The blogger - that’s me I think - said that Bush didn't grant any interviews to the NYTimes, and I still believe that. However, to be fair and with flimsily evidence you didn’t even provide, I retracted that statement.

Johnny is right you brought up Rachel Maddow, yet you then make the stupid claim you don’t know who she is. We know you’re a lair, but you are making it too easy to catch you.

It does matter that fox doesn’t have liberals on. Because it debunks another lie about being “fair and balanced” because they are neither. MSNBC, on the other hand, is both. Greta Van Susteran is no liberal. She was their Nancy Grace, but she dumped that in favor of the GOP party line. Johnny is referring to the ridiculous comment by Roger Ailes - the media consultant for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush and the head of fox “news” - that she is their liberal. Not true, and when you see how she slobbered over the Palins - especially Todd - by no stretch of the imagination can she be called a liberal.

I did a little research, and President Obama has never tried to exclude them from some press briefings or events. Bush did that all the time, but never President Obama.

You need to stop listening to Rush and Hannity and get some real facts.

Johnny C said...

Not I would take Rachel Maddow over anything you would consider information source any day of the week. Again Not you just outed yourself as a liar you claim you don't watch or listen to her so how the hell would you know how valid her information is?

That's one of the right talking points to discredit Ms.Maddow, call her a liar yet they have little to no evidence to back up the claim..And you did what typical right wingers do which is selective fact checking, yet at the end of your OWN source Maddow admitted her mistake and issue a correction on her own show. That's something Sean Hannity would never do on either of his shows.

Before I get to my Greta point come on now not before Joe Scarborough got moved to the morning, his primetime show "Scarborough Country" was MSNBC's version of "Hannity" so Joe isn't some RINO he's a righty.

I'm not surprised that you don't care Fox News don't have liberals on to counter balance Fox's right wing bomb throwers. Because truth and facts have a well known liberal bias. As for Greta Van Susteren I stand by the comment, how many liberals you know nod their heads in agreement with the likes of Newt Grinich and Karl Rove?
Just in case here's proof and if Guru hasn't seen it yet.
Outfoxed Link:

Not Anonymous said...

Wow. A tag team. Not a problem. Two people that can't handle the English language but continue to try to make excuses for this administration.

Ok, My first post, I copied and pasted three dates that Bush gave interviews to the NYTimes. I don't care what else the website said about Rachel Maddow. It gave three dates that refuted the bloggers claim of no interviews.

Because you guys have cited Rachel Maddow, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out she's one of your extremist socialist Democrat talking heads.

I don't watch Great Van Susteran, I don't watch nor listen to Hannity and I rarely listen to Rush. You see, Rush and Hannity are on when I'm working. Are you familiar with the concept of work? Oh, of course not. You're the ones that don't health insurance on your wives. My mistake.

I don't like O'Reilly, nor Hannity on television because everyone talks over everyone else and I can't undestand them. I spend my time instead with my kids until their bedtime.

I don't watch Greta because I'm usually in bed or watching a DVD before I go to bed.

I do watch Fox in the morning for an hour and I'll watch Special Report when something happens during the day that catches my interest.

I also read many websites when I'm able, to keep up with the current events. That would be newspapers, magazines. Both here and abroad.

So while you two operate as a tag team explaining what the other one of you two socialist Democrats meant when they said something, I'm out earning a living, paying my taxes so that you two deadbeat, welfare recipient freeloaders can sit at home in your mothers basements mouthing off about things you have no knowledge.

It is fun to watch you two spin. One says that it's his "memory" that she recanted her statement, while the other says he doesn't believe it even though he removed it from his blog.

Between the two of you, you don't have enough common sense to turn on a light switch but you are very entertaining.

Communications guru said...

Not a tag team at all. When you lie, anonymous, you will be called out on it. I can’t control who else calls you pout. If that bothers you, don’t comment here. Go to a rightwing blog where they do not allow people who disagree with them to post. I’m certainly a better writer than you, anonymous, but that’s not saying much. This administration does not need anyone to make excuses for it.

No, what you did was plagiarize some info. Not only did you not provide a link, you didn’t say where it came from. I had to do that, but I’m used to fact checking your lies. Again, you refuted nothing.

I never cited Rachel Maddow. What I did was call you out on your lie that you don’t know who she is. Once again, anonymous, there is no such thing as a “socialist” Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point. If you want to see an extremist, go to a “tea party.“ What Rachel Maddow is, is a Rhoades Scholar who backs up her opinion with documentation, and if she makes a mistake, she corrects it. A concept foreign to the right-wingers you worship.

I don’t watch Van Susteran. Excuse me if I’m skeptical about your claim in regards to Hannity and rushbo. Yes, I am familiar with the concept of work, and that’s why I work two jobs.

I’ve never collected welfare in my life. Unlike you, I don’t hide behind an anonymous screen name like you when you make personal, false attacks. You are just an anonymous coward. But, when you can’t refute what I write with facts, this is where you have to crawl.

Again, I don’t believe your claim that Bush gave the New York Times any interviews. I’m still waiting for the links. But I am fair, and I changed the post based on a reference I found and you plagiarized.

Johnny C said...

Tag team? Like Guru said if you want to repeat right wing talking points without any challenge there's plenty of right wing blogs in Michigan you can comment on.

You confused catching you telling a lie as double team, you made an claim and I just pointed out you left out a important part from your source when you tried to discredit Ms.Maddow regarding Bush and the Times..

And you further compound your troubles by making the claim you don't consume right wing media when you spew various amount of their taking points or bullet points of the day when you and Guru go back and forth.

Going back to Fox News so you don't mind a news network that has no opposing views to counter their clear right wing bias? You and your fellow knuckle draggers C.H.U.D.S go after MSNBC when they do have both right wing and progressive voices on air. And prove MSNBC isn't a far left wing network as you guys claim it to be Media Matters still correct MSNBC when they air right wing talking points as true.

As your lame attack dude I just got my degree in political science and thanks to your political party for crashing the economy it's difficult to find something. And what job allow their employees to post comments on a political blog during the afternoon?