Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The people are still able to get the message from the president. But the president can chose the conduit for the message. Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?
And just because "Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors" doesn't make Fox a legitimate news organization.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: judging a news organization's legitimacy and credibility based on ratings is like saying Foghat made better music than Mozart based on album sales. It just is not an honest assessment.
If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.
Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.
Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.
What the hell does anything I just said have to do with being partisan?
As I stated, in the post, I feel MSNBC is just as bad, in the other direction:
FoxNews, like it's liberal counterpart MSNBC are not "media watchdogs"
And how is calling out a media outlet, or in this case, multiple media outlets, for being Yellow Journalists, "Partisan"??
If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.
Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.
Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.
What the hell does anything I just said have to do with being partisan?
As I stated, in the post, I feel MSNBC is just as bad, in the other direction:
FoxNews, like it's liberal counterpart MSNBC are not "media watchdogs"
And how is calling out a media outlet, or in this case, multiple media outlets, for being Yellow Journalists, "Partisan"??
None of them are 'watchdogs', you have 'lapdogs' and one station who is biased in the other direction.
Actually, Fox does not hold much of a journalistic standard. They have shown many times that they report directly from GOP talking points memos from the national committee, house and senate GOP caucuses and campaign press releases. They are not gathering the news, they are regurgitating the message of one political party.The people are still able to get the message from the president. But the president can chose the conduit for the message. Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?
And just because "Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors" doesn't make Fox a legitimate news organization.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: judging a news organization's legitimacy and credibility based on ratings is like saying Foghat made better music than Mozart based on album sales. It just is not an honest assessment.
Disliking Fox does not make them any less legitimate than any others. When Fox reports news, they do so with about the same professionalism as any other media organization - not that that is a particularly high standard. It is their opinion shows that cause a stir - but that does not make them illegitimate either. Whether you like them or not is not the issue. The fact is that they are part of the WH press pool and should be treated as such.
The issue, for the media, is that this Administration will one day be gone. If the media allow a WH to dictate terms now, then what is to stop the next one treating one of the others in the same manner? So, if it is okay for Fox to be pushed out now, will you be equally as comfortable with a new Administration pushing out one of the others?
Fact: The POTUS is a servant of the people - he does not dictate terms. No one elected him as God, just President - for 4 years.
The Bush administration made similar attacks on MSNBC, the New York Times and CBS news. It's wrong for a president to single out media outlets like this. And it's counter productive for a president to 'punch down'. His efforts should match his office, and lending prestige to a lesser foe is cheap.
Disliking Fox does not make them any less legitimate than any others.
When Fox reports news, they do so with about the same professionalism as any other media organization - not that that is a particularly high standard. It is their opinion shows that cause a stir - but that does not make them illegitimate either. Whether you like them or not is not the issue. The fact is that they are part of the WH press pool and should be treated as such.
The issue, for the media, is that this Administration will one day be gone. If the media allow a WH to dictate terms now, then what is to stop the next one treating one of the others in the same manner?
None of them are 'watchdogs', you have 'lapdogs' and one station who is biased in the other direction.
Talking with your enemies: good idea, or bad?
Talking with your enemies: good idea, or bad?
It is not just Fox that has lowered their professional standards. They all have. Fox are no different. To say that one is less or more professional is ridiculous... They are all as bad as the other.
The POTUS is supposed to be a fucking grown up. Bush was an ass with certain media outlets - that does not mean that this POTUS should do likewise.
Talking with your enemies: good idea, or bad?
Talking with your enemies: good idea, or bad?
Good Idea.
Allowing your enemies to name the forum, and giving them all editing control?
Bad Idea.
read minds much lately? 
None of them are 'watchdogs', you have 'lapdogs' and one station who is biased in the other direction.
You were the one who implied that FoxNews was a "watchdog" in the style of "old media watchdogs". Not I.
None of them are 'watchdogs', you have 'lapdogs' and one station who is biased in the other direction.
You were the one who implied that FoxNews was a "watchdog" in the style of "old media watchdogs". Not I.
I certainly did not imply that Fox are a 'watchdog'. I have stated, time and again, that I view Fox as no better and no worse than the rest. That you struggle with comprehension is not my problem. However, it does give me a better understanding of why you say what you say.
The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.
It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.
Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?
It's a good article.
Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.
Regular viewers of FoxNews will never vote for Democrats. Nor will they ever approve of anything a Democrat does.
Why should Obama give a shit what they think?He shouldn't he should keep up his winning strategy
The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.
It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.
The Job of a "media watchdog", as far as the executive branch goes of the US Government goes, is to find the faults with the policies of an administration, and to point them out.
FoxNews is not doing this, FoxNews is criticizing the administration no matter what it does, good or bad. Not that I've noticed.
They are also blatantly making stuff up about the president, and then tying it all together in a narrative that attempts to paint the administration as a Totalitarian Socialist takeover of the United States.Such as?
That is not what a "media watchdog" does, that is what a propaganda outlet does. obamalama talking points?
When the major networks criticized past presidents, NONE of them ever called a sitting president a "Nazi" or a "Stalinist".
Such behavior would have gotten them fired, no matter who was president.
FoxNews, like it's liberal counterpart MSNBC are not "media watchdogs", they are disgusting yellow jounalist media outlets, in the true spirit of Hearst Publishing.
And Hearst Publishing was responsible for the assassination of a least one president.
And again I will point out to you, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there will anyone hear it fall?The people are still able to get the message from the president. But the president can chose the conduit for the message. Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?Such As?If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.
Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.
Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.
And just because "Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors" doesn't make Fox a legitimate news organization.Talking Points. how's that working for ya?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: judging a news organization's legitimacy and credibility based on ratings is like saying Foghat made better music than Mozart based on album sales. It just is not an honest assessment.
Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?
Bullshit premise as usual.....
a. Fox is a NETWORK
b. There are op-ed shows on Fox and there are news shows on Fox
c. They are not the same
d. The news on Fox is much more balanced than the news on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc.
Should Obama goe on Hannity? Who cares? But to dismiss the entire network because of Hannity is childish. What Obama is saying is that he will only go on a station that fawns all over him and asks him his opinion of the weather. Which in essence is to say that he has no spine. If his policies are so well defined and defensible, then what the hell? He should be able to take a few hard questions.
So far it has been nine months of Fox this and Fox that and blame Bush. He's looking very small and very childish,
None of them are 'watchdogs', you have 'lapdogs' and one station who is biased in the other direction.
You were the one who implied that FoxNews was a "watchdog" in the style of "old media watchdogs". Not I.
It's a good article.
Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.
Regular viewers of FoxNews will never vote for Democrats. Nor will they ever approve of anything a Democrat does.
Why should Obama give a shit what they think?He shouldn't he should keep up his winning strategy
The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.
It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.
The Job of a "media watchdog", as far as the executive branch goes of the US Government goes, is to find the faults with the policies of an administration, and to point them out.
FoxNews is not doing this, FoxNews is criticizing the administration no matter what it does, good or bad. Not that I've noticed.
They are also blatantly making stuff up about the president, and then tying it all together in a narrative that attempts to paint the administration as a Totalitarian Socialist takeover of the United States.Such as?
That is not what a "media watchdog" does, that is what a propaganda outlet does. obamalama talking points?
When the major networks criticized past presidents, NONE of them ever called a sitting president a "Nazi" or a "Stalinist".
Such behavior would have gotten them fired, no matter who was president.
FoxNews, like it's liberal counterpart MSNBC are not "media watchdogs", they are disgusting yellow jounalist media outlets, in the true spirit of Hearst Publishing.
And Hearst Publishing was responsible for the assassination of a least one president.
Kerry On!
