*SHOCK* Obama Punishes FOX NEWS @ Press Conference

[tstew]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I will find it but I heard a report that a non-partisan media watchdog group rated Fox as the least biased news source above all others on television during the election. Folks don't flinch when the daily Palin attacks take place or the fawning Obama coverage (see Deborah Howell's editorial about media bias in the Washington Post Sunday) b/c the media has been attacking conservatives for years. But when a Fox News reporter asks a tough question Clinton goes ballistic, Obama shuts Fox out, MSNBC daily rails on Fox, the Democrats won't allow there to be a debate on Fox, on and on. I watch the coverage and they are equal opportunity journalists. Its just because they are the exception to the rule they stick out among the 75% of the journalists that are in the tank for the Dems. Liberals cant handle being scrutinized.

Did anybody take notice that when Palin finally was interviewed it was with ABC and CBS? Does a Democrat do their first interview with Fox? No way. Its Larry King or The View or Ellen or Matthews or Olbermann

DB, I hear ya, but you have to recognize the daily Obama attacks on Fox while they fawned over Palin. I think that the reverse is equally as true in this situation.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by tstew

DB, I hear ya, but you have to recognize the daily Obama attacks on Fox while they fawned over Palin. I think that the reverse is equally as true in this situation.

Could you give us some examples of this?

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Jeanie

Could you give us some examples of this?

I know this is TIC right? There is no debate that there are many liberal media outlets, but in my opinion, the conservative outlets are just as biased. We need solid non-partisan information that holds all politicians to the same exacting standards and the same level of healthy distrust and skepticism until they prove otherwise by their actions.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by tstew

I know this is TIC right? There is no debate that there are many liberal media outlets, but in my opinion, the conservative outlets are just as biased. We need solid non-partisan information that holds all politicians to the same exacting standards and the same level of healthy distrust and skepticism until they prove otherwise by their actions.

who are the conservative media outlets?

because if you are going to say talk radio, I would suggest that these arent Media outlets.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by tstew

DB, I hear ya, but you have to recognize the daily Obama attacks on Fox while they fawned over Palin. I think that the reverse is equally as true in this situation.

I try to watch Fox and didn't see what you are saying here???

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Ferd

who are the conservative media outlets?

because if you are going to say talk radio, I would suggest that these arent Media outlets.

Thank you Ferd. Good point. Of the top media outlets: these ten, CNN, FOX, MSNBC/NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, NYtimes, WashPost, LA times, Boston Globe, and Chicago Tribune are widely considered the top 10 most influential in America.

Only one of them, Fox, is conservative.


Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity etc, can hardly be considered news media outlets. They dont control and/or influence the flow of news information the way TV and newspaper outlets do. Limbaugh/Hannity and other talk radio personalities provide content, but they are not gatekeepers of information the way the other media outlets are.

In fact, conservative talk radio has risen in popularity largely becauses they serve as (at least attempt to serve as) a counterbalance to the predominantly liberal slant in the mainstream media as a whole.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Ferd

who are the conservative media outlets?

because if you are going to say talk radio, I would suggest that these arent Media outlets.

Ferd, I most certainly do consider them media outlets. I don't see how anybody can ignore the amount of influence that a Rush has. The listeners of Rush are more apt to follow his plain directives than listeners of most other outlets. When you can tell people to register and vote in the opponents primary and people all over the country do so, you are dealing with quite a bit of influence. I would have to say that people who faithfully listen to the Rushes of the world probably are more willing to believe and act on what he says than many others...just based on my personal experiences.

However, I was also talking about Fox News as well. They basically uniformly praised the Palin selection, and I honestly feel like there were many reasons to question it from the beginning. They even went so far as to criticize the potential Kaine pick for similar reasons.

[tamor]

Originally Posted by 1399

IF BO had run as a Republican, he would have lost!

I have to disagree with this statement.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by tstew

Ferd, I most certainly do consider them media outlets. I don't see how anybody can ignore the amount of influence that a Rush has. The listeners of Rush are more apt to follow his plain directives than listeners of most other outlets. When you can tell people to register and vote in the opponents primary and people all over the country do so, you are dealing with quite a bit of influence. I would have to say that people who faithfully listen to the Rushes of the world probably are more willing to believe and act on what he says than many others...just based on my personal experiences.

However, I was also talking about Fox News as well. They basically uniformly praised the Palin selection, and I honestly feel like there were many reasons to question it from the beginning. They even went so far as to criticize the potential Kaine pick for similar reasons.

Stew, there really is a lot here to deal with.

First of all, both Sean and Rush are quick to point out that they are NOT news organizations. They provide 2 things, first is entertainment and second is the conservative view point. They don't pretend to be about balanced unbiased news. The are most certainly NOT news outlets.

They consider their job to persuade people to believe/buy in to the conservative agenda. I think you are right about those that listen to them. I don't have a problem with that either. but that doesn't make them news.


IF they are news, then we have a real big problem in this country. because IF they are news, then CNN and CBS and the New York Times are then free to be the same as Sean and Rush and I don't think they are! They ought to be about balanced news.

As for Fox there is no question that they stand out as the only non-left leaning news organization out there. But your example of the Kane thing is off by a good bit. Rove isn't a fox NEWS guy. He is a talking head who is countered by the likes of Geraldine Farriro (sp) a liberal democrat and former VP candidate.

PEW Research clearly indicates (and I posted the information here) that Fox was the most balanced of all the major news outlets during the campaign.


and at the end of the day, when you have CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Newsweek, Time Magazine, Chicago Tribune all very much liberal outlets that slant very decidedly to the left both in editoral and in news content, and you compare that to Fox News on the other side,

SOMETHING IS REALLY REALLY WRONG.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by tamor

I have to disagree with this statement.

Why?

I can tell you from personal knowledge that a Black Republican VP would have sunk on the same ship that Sen. Mccain sailed.

If Sen. McCain was the VP and say Michael Steele was the Presidential candidate, they would have lost, badly. J. C. Watts-- no chance!


When we consider Gen. Colin Powell, he is an anomally-- widely popular simply because of how he has handled the awesome opportunities and responsibilities he has been given. The average political candidate DOES NOT have Gen. Powell's bio.