Title: Truth To Power
Description: We're In The Best Of Hands
petervonnostrand - October 28, 2009 12:16 PM (GMT)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...-fox-is-biased/try and get to sleep tonight with this thought: the president of the united states trusts this woman's judgment...
the potus is going to "speak truth to power?"
power = fox news
DR_PostingBillboard - October 28, 2009 01:19 PM (GMT)
don't you just hate it when the crazy right wing fringe of Fox News are the only ones actually that are right.
JohnDough - October 28, 2009 04:42 PM (GMT)
petervonnostrand - October 28, 2009 04:57 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (JohnDough @ Oct 28 2009, 12:42 PM) |
| Obama on the brain. |
trillions in new debt will do that to you
MyNameIs_Mud - October 28, 2009 05:21 PM (GMT)
"Speak truth to power"
:lol:
Obama was against "The Man". Now, he is "The Man".
Is Obama having conversations with himself?
petervonnostrand - October 29, 2009 02:17 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
Even more risible, though, is the claim that the administration “is going to speak truth to power.” Hello, Valerie? Your boss is the president of the United States! No one is more powerful. As we suggested Friday, it really seems as if Obama and his men do not understand what it means to be president. Because their power is constrained–thank you, Founding Fathers!–they labor under the delusion that they are powerless.
Yet while this is all hilarious, it is also scary when you think it through. Great power entails great responsibility. There is little to suggest that Obama and his aides appreciate their responsibility, and much, including their incessant complaining that the previous president did a lousy job, to suggest an attitude of total irresponsibility.
The job of those in power is not to “speak truth to power,” though it would be nice if they spoke the truth once in a while. |
MyNameIs_Mud - October 29, 2009 02:25 AM (GMT)
I'm still trying to figure out how Obama is going to speak "truth to power" when he IS the power. ;)
Frank Pentangelli - October 29, 2009 01:38 PM (GMT)
Why is the entire network considered "biased" on the sole basis of some of its opinion-oriented programming? The mere existence of the Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly programs does not mean that the news coverage is particularly slanted. In fact, on the off occassion that I do watch the Fox news coverage, I'm struck by how not so partisan it is--in spite of its reputation. Their choice of what to cover is discernible...they often cover stories that don't get covered elsewhere. So isn't there a value there, just as there is with, say, the BBC? Mara Liasson and Juan Williams are virulent right-wingers? Is Colmes still on there?
Look, every network has news coverage and they have opinion-type programming. The opinion programming tends to take a POV. Duh. Why is Fox any more illegitimate than PBS/NPR (which are the networks where I get 90% of my broadcast news)? PBS/NPR are decidedly left-leaning. There is no doubt of that. I hear it every day and I'm able to detect it and take that into account. I haven't turned into a tinfoiler even though I hear those positions every single day.
Media research shows that more than ever, the American public is getting its information from multiple sources and mediums. Increasingly, the public is seeing a more complete picture of the mosaic. So why the outrage about Fox? And why are my paid, elected officials wasting my tax dollars setting up websites and attacking 2-3 media outlets that happen to be critical of them?
petervonnostrand - October 29, 2009 01:50 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Frank Pentangelli @ Oct 29 2009, 09:38 AM) |
Why is the entire network considered "biased" on the sole basis of some of its opinion-oriented programming? The mere existence of the Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly programs does not mean that the news coverage is particularly slanted. In fact, on the off occassion that I do watch the Fox news coverage, I'm struck by how not so partisan it is--in spite of its reputation. Their choice of what to cover is discernible...they often cover stories that don't get covered elsewhere. So isn't there a value there, just as there is with, say, the BBC? Mara Liasson and Juan Williams are virulent right-wingers? Is Colmes still on there?
Look, every network has news coverage and they have opinion-type programming. The opinion programming tends to take a POV. Duh. Why is Fox any more illegitimate than PBS/NPR (which are the networks where I get 90% of my broadcast news)? PBS/NPR are decidedly left-leaning. There is no doubt of that. I hear it every day and I'm able to detect it and take that into account. I haven't turned into a tinfoiler even though I hear those positions every single day.
Media research shows that more than ever, the American public is getting its information from multiple sources and mediums. Increasingly, the public is seeing a more complete picture of the mosaic. So why the outrage about Fox? And why are my paid, elected officials wasting my tax dollars setting up websites and attacking 2-3 media outlets that happen to be critical of them? |
it isnt merely that paid officials are slamming dissent...it's that the most powerful elected official on the planet is sufficiently insecure that he feels the need to quash dissent...
it's enlightening, and it furthers several narratives...one, obama wants to be president more than he wants to do president...and don't think that world leaders aren't taking a measure of this lightweight...
Ralph Nader - October 29, 2009 03:21 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Frank Pentangelli @ Oct 29 2009, 02:38 PM) |
| Why is the entire network considered "biased" on the sole basis of some of its opinion-oriented programming? |
Apparently you didn't listen to what was said.
Frank Pentangelli - October 29, 2009 03:31 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Oct 29 2009, 03:21 PM) |
| Apparently you didn't listen to what was said. |
Set me straight then.
Ralph Nader - October 29, 2009 03:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Frank Pentangelli @ Oct 29 2009, 04:31 PM) |
| Set me straight then. |
"Actually, I don't want to generalize all of Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis," she said. "When we see a pattern of distortion, we're going to be honest about that pattern of distortion....
"We're actually calling everybody out. So this isn't anything that's simply directed at Fox. We just want the American people to have a really clear understanding," said Jarrett.
Couchpotato - October 29, 2009 03:49 PM (GMT)
That would be believable except for the fact that they havnt "called out" anyone but Fox.......
Frank Pentangelli - October 29, 2009 03:49 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Oct 29 2009, 03:45 PM) |
"Actually, I don't want to generalize all of Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis," she said. "When we see a pattern of distortion, we're going to be honest about that pattern of distortion....
"We're actually calling everybody out. So this isn't anything that's simply directed at Fox. We just want the American people to have a really clear understanding," said Jarrett. |
Except that the administration is focused on Fox, unless you mean Limbaugh. So she can say whatever she likes, but the reality is that they have only tried to exclude one network from the WH pool and it is only in response to dissenters that they have created this website. Any one who doesn't accept their spin of every issue is apparently "distorting." Whatever. You bitched about the same stuff under Bush. Now you defend it. Not surprising.
Moreover, the comment I made was a broader one than simply a response to Jarret's statements. Guess you didn't follow that.
Ralph Nader - October 29, 2009 03:58 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Frank Pentangelli @ Oct 29 2009, 04:49 PM) |
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Oct 29 2009, 03:45 PM) | "Actually, I don't want to generalize all of Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis," she said. "When we see a pattern of distortion, we're going to be honest about that pattern of distortion....
"We're actually calling everybody out. So this isn't anything that's simply directed at Fox. We just want the American people to have a really clear understanding," said Jarrett. |
Except that the administration is focused on Fox, unless you mean Limbaugh. So she can say whatever she likes, but the reality is that they have only tried to exclude one network from the WH pool and it is only in response to dissenters that they have created this website. Any one who doesn't accept their spin of every issue is apparently "distorting." Whatever. You bitched about the same stuff under Bush. Now you defend it. Not surprising.
Moreover, the comment I made was a broader one than simply a response to Jarret's statements. Guess you didn't follow that.
|
I forgot you're always right....carry on.
Frank Pentangelli - October 29, 2009 04:10 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Oct 29 2009, 03:58 PM) |
| QUOTE (Frank Pentangelli @ Oct 29 2009, 04:49 PM) | | QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Oct 29 2009, 03:45 PM) | "Actually, I don't want to generalize all of Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis," she said. "When we see a pattern of distortion, we're going to be honest about that pattern of distortion....
"We're actually calling everybody out. So this isn't anything that's simply directed at Fox. We just want the American people to have a really clear understanding," said Jarrett. |
Except that the administration is focused on Fox, unless you mean Limbaugh. So she can say whatever she likes, but the reality is that they have only tried to exclude one network from the WH pool and it is only in response to dissenters that they have created this website. Any one who doesn't accept their spin of every issue is apparently "distorting." Whatever. You bitched about the same stuff under Bush. Now you defend it. Not surprising.
Moreover, the comment I made was a broader one than simply a response to Jarret's statements. Guess you didn't follow that.
|
I forgot you're always right....carry on.
|
So apparently you see how inane your comment was and have decided to cut and run. Smart.
petervonnostrand - October 29, 2009 05:03 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Oct 29 2009, 11:45 AM) |
"Actually, I don't want to generalize all of Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis," she said. "When we see a pattern of distortion, we're going to be honest about that pattern of distortion....
"We're actually calling everybody out. So this isn't anything that's simply directed at Fox. We just want the American people to have a really clear understanding," said Jarrett. |
see, jp, she "said" it wasn't directed at fox...doesn't matter that it is...doesn't matter what obama has said or done (in the case of fox, and only fox, didn't do)...forget gibbs comments, forget withholding admin officials from fox until other networks ("stations" for the brainiac ms. jarrett) called foul...
it just matters what this official said...on this date...in this paragraph...
the american people deplore playing politics while engaged in politicking...their self-annoited rep has no problem with playing politics whilst governing...
solid as always, ralph...
Harrison Bergeron - October 29, 2009 05:09 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (MyNameIs_Mud @ Oct 28 2009, 07:25 PM) |
| I'm still trying to figure out how Obama is going to speak "truth to power" when he IS the power. ;) |
That, and the fact that he doesn't seem to have any inclination to speak truth to ANYBODY. Ever.
no one in particular - October 31, 2009 07:35 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Frank Pentangelli @ Oct 29 2009, 09:38 AM) |
Why is the entire network considered "biased" on the sole basis of some of its opinion-oriented programming? The mere existence of the Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly programs does not mean that the news coverage is particularly slanted. In fact, on the off occassion that I do watch the Fox news coverage, I'm struck by how not so partisan it is--in spite of its reputation. Their choice of what to cover is discernible...they often cover stories that don't get covered elsewhere. So isn't there a value there, just as there is with, say, the BBC? Mara Liasson and Juan Williams are virulent right-wingers? Is Colmes still on there?
Look, every network has news coverage and they have opinion-type programming. The opinion programming tends to take a POV. Duh. Why is Fox any more illegitimate than PBS/NPR (which are the networks where I get 90% of my broadcast news)? PBS/NPR are decidedly left-leaning. There is no doubt of that. I hear it every day and I'm able to detect it and take that into account. I haven't turned into a tinfoiler even though I hear those positions every single day.
Media research shows that more than ever, the American public is getting its information from multiple sources and mediums. Increasingly, the public is seeing a more complete picture of the mosaic. So why the outrage about Fox? And why are my paid, elected officials wasting my tax dollars setting up websites and attacking 2-3 media outlets that happen to be critical of them? |
Who mourns for Fox News?
Frank Pentangelli - October 31, 2009 08:46 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (no one in particular @ Oct 31 2009, 07:35 PM) |
| QUOTE (Frank Pentangelli @ Oct 29 2009, 09:38 AM) | Why is the entire network considered "biased" on the sole basis of some of its opinion-oriented programming? The mere existence of the Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly programs does not mean that the news coverage is particularly slanted. In fact, on the off occassion that I do watch the Fox news coverage, I'm struck by how not so partisan it is--in spite of its reputation. Their choice of what to cover is discernible...they often cover stories that don't get covered elsewhere. So isn't there a value there, just as there is with, say, the BBC? Mara Liasson and Juan Williams are virulent right-wingers? Is Colmes still on there?
Look, every network has news coverage and they have opinion-type programming. The opinion programming tends to take a POV. Duh. Why is Fox any more illegitimate than PBS/NPR (which are the networks where I get 90% of my broadcast news)? PBS/NPR are decidedly left-leaning. There is no doubt of that. I hear it every day and I'm able to detect it and take that into account. I haven't turned into a tinfoiler even though I hear those positions every single day.
Media research shows that more than ever, the American public is getting its information from multiple sources and mediums. Increasingly, the public is seeing a more complete picture of the mosaic. So why the outrage about Fox? And why are my paid, elected officials wasting my tax dollars setting up websites and attacking 2-3 media outlets that happen to be critical of them? |
Who mourns for Fox News?
|
Almost editoriale worthy....
ChampsX5 - October 31, 2009 08:56 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (no one in particular @ Oct 31 2009, 02:35 PM) |
| QUOTE (Frank Pentangelli @ Oct 29 2009, 09:38 AM) | Why is the entire network considered "biased" on the sole basis of some of its opinion-oriented programming? The mere existence of the Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly programs does not mean that the news coverage is particularly slanted. In fact, on the off occassion that I do watch the Fox news coverage, I'm struck by how not so partisan it is--in spite of its reputation. Their choice of what to cover is discernible...they often cover stories that don't get covered elsewhere. So isn't there a value there, just as there is with, say, the BBC? Mara Liasson and Juan Williams are virulent right-wingers? Is Colmes still on there?
Look, every network has news coverage and they have opinion-type programming. The opinion programming tends to take a POV. Duh. Why is Fox any more illegitimate than PBS/NPR (which are the networks where I get 90% of my broadcast news)? PBS/NPR are decidedly left-leaning. There is no doubt of that. I hear it every day and I'm able to detect it and take that into account. I haven't turned into a tinfoiler even though I hear those positions every single day.
Media research shows that more than ever, the American public is getting its information from multiple sources and mediums. Increasingly, the public is seeing a more complete picture of the mosaic. So why the outrage about Fox? And why are my paid, elected officials wasting my tax dollars setting up websites and attacking 2-3 media outlets that happen to be critical of them? |
Who mourns for Fox News?
|
The fact you (and the administration) think it's only about Fox says alot about what your intent is on dissent.
It's intended to influence what the other news organizations report more than stopping Fox's right to a free press and free speech.
no one in particular - October 31, 2009 09:05 PM (GMT)
those Fox News patriots....
Frank Pentangelli - October 31, 2009 10:28 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (no one in particular @ Oct 31 2009, 09:05 PM) |
| those Fox News patriots.... |
An admin hard at work wasting your tax dollars on this...
ComandantePepsi - October 31, 2009 11:17 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (petervonnostrand @ Oct 28 2009, 08:57 AM) |
| trillions in new debt will do that to you |
I'm sure the effect on your personal life is truly devastating...
ComandantePepsi - October 31, 2009 11:19 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Frank Pentangelli @ Oct 29 2009, 05:38 AM) |
| Their choice of what to cover is discernible...they often cover stories that don't get covered elsewhere. |
Their coverage of nonsense like ACORN, the kids in Jersey, and other right wing claptrap IS the bias.
Clarence Boddicker - November 1, 2009 01:28 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Oct 31 2009, 04:19 PM) |
| Their coverage of nonsense like ACORN, the kids in Jersey, and other right wing claptrap IS the bias. |
Yes.
Nonsense.
:lol:
ChampsX5 - November 1, 2009 02:49 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Oct 31 2009, 06:19 PM) |
| Their coverage of nonsense like ACORN, the kids in Jersey, and other right wing claptrap IS the bias. |
Likewise, the lack of coverage from the other networks shows their bias.
Whether you want to admit it or suppress it, those were newsworthy stories and should have been covered.
ComandantePepsi - November 1, 2009 07:30 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ChampsX5 @ Oct 31 2009, 06:49 PM) |
Likewise, the lack of coverage from the other networks shows their bias.
Whether you want to admit it or suppress it, those were newsworthy stories and should have been covered. |
ACORN newsworthy...lol
ChampsX5 - November 1, 2009 05:32 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 1 2009, 02:30 AM) |
| QUOTE (ChampsX5 @ Oct 31 2009, 06:49 PM) | Likewise, the lack of coverage from the other networks shows their bias.
Whether you want to admit it or suppress it, those were newsworthy stories and should have been covered. |
ACORN newsworthy...lol
|
You'll believe anything the far left tells you, won't you?
When you stand with a group of people, you are one of them.
thelogo - November 1, 2009 05:39 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Oct 31 2009, 11:30 PM) |
| QUOTE (ChampsX5 @ Oct 31 2009, 06:49 PM) | Likewise, the lack of coverage from the other networks shows their bias.
Whether you want to admit it or suppress it, those were newsworthy stories and should have been covered. |
ACORN newsworthy...lol
|
you are usta dumb
Clarence Boddicker - November 1, 2009 06:12 PM (GMT)
Pepsi is all for taxpayer funded organizations being recorded attempting to set up child prostitution rings and whorehouses.
DR_PostingBillboard - November 1, 2009 08:04 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 1 2009, 03:30 AM) |
| QUOTE (ChampsX5 @ Oct 31 2009, 06:49 PM) | Likewise, the lack of coverage from the other networks shows their bias.
Whether you want to admit it or suppress it, those were newsworthy stories and should have been covered. |
ACORN newsworthy...lol
|
losing credibility one post at a time...
ComandantePepsi - November 1, 2009 08:31 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (DR_PostingBillboard @ Nov 1 2009, 12:04 PM) |
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 1 2009, 03:30 AM) | | QUOTE (ChampsX5 @ Oct 31 2009, 06:49 PM) | Likewise, the lack of coverage from the other networks shows their bias.
Whether you want to admit it or suppress it, those were newsworthy stories and should have been covered. |
ACORN newsworthy...lol
|
losing credibility one post at a time...
|
Don't worry, you never had any credibility.
thelogo - November 1, 2009 08:34 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 1 2009, 12:31 PM) |
| QUOTE (DR_PostingBillboard @ Nov 1 2009, 12:04 PM) | | QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 1 2009, 03:30 AM) | | QUOTE (ChampsX5 @ Oct 31 2009, 06:49 PM) | Likewise, the lack of coverage from the other networks shows their bias.
Whether you want to admit it or suppress it, those were newsworthy stories and should have been covered. |
ACORN newsworthy...lol
|
losing credibility one post at a time...
|
Don't worry, you never had any credibility.
|
no smilie to go with that wit kali?
DR_PostingBillboard - November 2, 2009 05:19 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 1 2009, 04:31 PM) |
| QUOTE (DR_PostingBillboard @ Nov 1 2009, 12:04 PM) | | QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 1 2009, 03:30 AM) | | QUOTE (ChampsX5 @ Oct 31 2009, 06:49 PM) | Likewise, the lack of coverage from the other networks shows their bias.
Whether you want to admit it or suppress it, those were newsworthy stories and should have been covered. |
ACORN newsworthy...lol
|
losing credibility one post at a time...
|
Don't worry, you never had any credibility.
|
got any thing better than "I know you are, but what am I?"
maybe the 80's are just now getting to Brussels...