Free all the hatred for Fox News

[Pogo]

I'm sure I could google and find stories of MSNBC complaining about Bush pushing them out, but I don't really feel the need. The issue to me is, does the president have the right to marginalize the media hand of the opposite party? I say, yes. Bush had the right to deny MSNBC and Obama has the right to deny Fox.

Happy to help...

(L-R: Mike Gallagher, Neil Boortz, Laura Ingraham, George W. Bush, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved)​

""Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Ed Schultz all stopped by the White House to discuss the President's fiscal cliff proposal. Can anyone even imagine how the press would have reacted if Fox News hosts and conservative personalities had stopped by the Bush White House to discuss policy? They would have been rightly outraged." -- Laura Ingraham


Selective memory. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Interesting photo. What was the event? Who initiated it? Was anybody invited who declined the invitation? Who is in the foreground who is not named? Is it photoshopped? A lot of questions to be asked yes?

Well, that's why I linked it. Here's the original article that ran the photo--

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 (2006) — On an overcast Friday morning last month, White House aides ushered an influential group of conservative radio hosts into the Oval Office for a private audience with the president.

...“This was clearly, clearly an effort to kind of rally the troops when the troops need rallying,” said Mike Gallagher, who attended the meeting and whose daily program reaches at least 3.75 million people each week. “They know that we’ve got an audience of people who may or may not be on the political fence right now.”

Mr. Gallagher said that he and the other hosts — Mr. Hannity, Ms. Ingraham, Neal Boortz and Michael Medved — talked about the experience on their programs “for days and days and days.”

(Mr. Limbaugh said that he met with Mr. Bush and Karl Rove, the president’s chief strategist, in the Oval Office in June, but generally tried to keep his distance to maintain independence.)

here's Dana Perino describing those events, on Fox Noise (at 0:32)

""we would, sometimes, need to do some things like a talk radio row, I think we called it -- it was brilliant. We had all the conservative talk radio hosts lined up, and we would put -- get a whole bunch of interviews so that they could be convinced and persuaded to President Bush's point of view."

 

[Pogo]

Will just agree to disagree, Pogo. I have been doing some research using sources that are more credible than MediaMatters, etc. and apparently the meeting with conservative media personalities did happen during George W. Bush's term of office. And. . . .Rachel Maddow says she was unable to get an invitation to such events. So be it. I don't know one way or the other, but the preponderance of the evidence does support Bush currying favor with conservatives. Just as Obama does with liberals. I honestly don't have an opinion about whether that is a reasonable thing or not and don't care enough to form one.

But I still say that officially Bush was not singling out any media personality or news group for criticism, which was my initial point.

As a former media person and long time media watcher, I have my reasons for seeing things as I do. As I am sure all the rest of you do too.

Umm... actually all MediaMatters was used for here is the video from "Fox and Fiends", so if the source is not credible, keep in mind the source is Fox Noise. I know you referred to MediaMatters as "dishonest" earlier, but you gave no documentation for it. But in this case all we're showing is Dana Perino confirming what we just said about the Bush meetings with ultraconservative media. That's not opinion; it's documentation.

I hate to say it but I hear this from "your side" all the time, "oh it's MediaMatters, I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears , but what makes them useful is the direct evidence from Fox Noise and Lush Rimjob and whoever else. So that rhetorical escapism is duly noted.

Besides, you just said yourself that you confirmed it from quote-unquote "credible" sources so that undermines your own claim.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Since conservatives outweigh liberals on USMB, and since liberals, for all of their faults, tend to be pretty supportive of the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment, I think I know the general outcome of this poll.

 

[Pogo]

Since conservatives outweigh liberals on USMB, and since liberals, for all of their faults, tend to be pretty supportive of the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment, I think I know the general outcome of this poll.

Hey don't spoil the plot now. I like this suspense.

 

[Dot Com]

Will just agree to disagree, Pogo. I have been doing some research using sources that are more credible than MediaMatters, etc. and apparently the meeting with conservative media personalities did happen during George W. Bush's term of office. And. . . .Rachel Maddow says she was unable to get an invitation to such events. So be it. I don't know one way or the other, but the preponderance of the evidence does support Bush currying favor with conservatives. Just as Obama does with liberals. I honestly don't have an opinion about whether that is a reasonable thing or not and don't care enough to form one.

But I still say that officially Bush was not singling out any media personality or news group for criticism, which was my initial point.

As a former media person and long time media watcher, I have my reasons for seeing things as I do. As I am sure all the rest of you do too.

Umm... actually all MediaMatters was used for here is the video from "Fox and Fiends", so if the source is not credible, keep in mind the source is Fox Noise. I know you referred to MediaMatters as "dishonest" earlier, but you gave no documentation for it. But in this case all we're showing is Dana Perino confirming what we just said about the Bush meetings with ultraconservative media. That's not opinion; it's documentation.

I hate to say it but I hear this from "your side" all the time, "oh it's MediaMatters, I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears , but what makes them useful is the direct evidence from Fox Noise and Lush Rimjob and whoever else. So that rhetorical escapism is duly noted.

Besides, you just said yourself that you confirmed it from quote-unquote "credible" sources so that undermines your own claim.

Where'd Foxfyre (R) go?

 

[American_Jihad]

Will just agree to disagree, Pogo. I have been doing some research using sources that are more credible than MediaMatters, etc. and apparently the meeting with conservative media personalities did happen during George W. Bush's term of office. And. . . .Rachel Maddow says she was unable to get an invitation to such events. So be it. I don't know one way or the other, but the preponderance of the evidence does support Bush currying favor with conservatives. Just as Obama does with liberals. I honestly don't have an opinion about whether that is a reasonable thing or not and don't care enough to form one.

But I still say that officially Bush was not singling out any media personality or news group for criticism, which was my initial point.

As a former media person and long time media watcher, I have my reasons for seeing things as I do. As I am sure all the rest of you do too.

Umm... actually all MediaMatters was used for here is the video from "Fox and Fiends", so if the source is not credible, keep in mind the source is Fox Noise. I know you referred to MediaMatters as "dishonest" earlier, but you gave no documentation for it. But in this case all we're showing is Dana Perino confirming what we just said about the Bush meetings with ultraconservative media. That's not opinion; it's documentation.

I hate to say it but I hear this from "your side" all the time, "oh it's MediaMatters, I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears , but what makes them useful is the direct evidence from Fox Noise and Lush Rimjob and whoever else. So that rhetorical escapism is duly noted.

Besides, you just said yourself that you confirmed it from quote-unquote "credible" sources so that undermines your own claim.

Media Matters Mistakes Jay Leno Skit - Google Search

"The spoof video was created by The Tonight Show… ... I am just having a hard time believing that media matter is truely this stupid"

...

 

[Foxfyre]

Will just agree to disagree, Pogo. I have been doing some research using sources that are more credible than MediaMatters, etc. and apparently the meeting with conservative media personalities did happen during George W. Bush's term of office. And. . . .Rachel Maddow says she was unable to get an invitation to such events. So be it. I don't know one way or the other, but the preponderance of the evidence does support Bush currying favor with conservatives. Just as Obama does with liberals. I honestly don't have an opinion about whether that is a reasonable thing or not and don't care enough to form one.

But I still say that officially Bush was not singling out any media personality or news group for criticism, which was my initial point.

As a former media person and long time media watcher, I have my reasons for seeing things as I do. As I am sure all the rest of you do too.

Umm... actually all MediaMatters was used for here is the video from "Fox and Fiends", so if the source is not credible, keep in mind the source is Fox Noise. I know you referred to MediaMatters as "dishonest" earlier, but you gave no documentation for it. But in this case all we're showing is Dana Perino confirming what we just said about the Bush meetings with ultraconservative media. That's not opinion; it's documentation.

I hate to say it but I hear this from "your side" all the time, "oh it's MediaMatters, I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears , but what makes them useful is the direct evidence from Fox Noise and Lush Rimjob and whoever else. So that rhetorical escapism is duly noted.

The photo itself linked back to a decidedly pro-leftist anti-Bush site. It is my I believe informed opinion that the George Soros funded MediaMatters exists ONLY to discredit anything conservative or anything that might criticize liberalism and I do not trust them to be honest or objective about anything and certainly do not trust them to be fair in their analysis and reporting. I do not trust an exclusively pro-conservative, anti liberal site to present it objectively either, though, which is why I look for other sources before buying anybody's particular point of view.

And again, who among the media gets to chat with the President, no matter who he is, is not a big issue with me. If the President disallows any group at a press conference or excludes them from other official information, however, then I have a huge problem with that.

I have not ever criticized President Obama from currying favor from the press. I have long criticized the media for dishonestly presenting information to favor a political figure. And I do not think it Presidential or proper for the President to single out a media figure or news group just because they are critical of him and/or his policies.

As for highly biased and dishonest sites getting it right, sure any of them can get it right now and then. A clock that is stopped is right twice a day.

 

[bripat9643]

Since conservatives outweigh liberals on USMB, and since liberals, for all of their faults, tend to be pretty supportive of the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment, I think I know the general outcome of this poll.

You have to be joking. Liberals have been making war in the First Amendment since the Wilson Administration.

 

[Pogo]

Will just agree to disagree, Pogo. I have been doing some research using sources that are more credible than MediaMatters, etc. and apparently the meeting with conservative media personalities did happen during George W. Bush's term of office. And. . . .Rachel Maddow says she was unable to get an invitation to such events. So be it. I don't know one way or the other, but the preponderance of the evidence does support Bush currying favor with conservatives. Just as Obama does with liberals. I honestly don't have an opinion about whether that is a reasonable thing or not and don't care enough to form one.

But I still say that officially Bush was not singling out any media personality or news group for criticism, which was my initial point.

As a former media person and long time media watcher, I have my reasons for seeing things as I do. As I am sure all the rest of you do too.

Umm... actually all MediaMatters was used for here is the video from "Fox and Fiends", so if the source is not credible, keep in mind the source is Fox Noise. I know you referred to MediaMatters as "dishonest" earlier, but you gave no documentation for it. But in this case all we're showing is Dana Perino confirming what we just said about the Bush meetings with ultraconservative media. That's not opinion; it's documentation.

I hate to say it but I hear this from "your side" all the time, "oh it's MediaMatters, I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears , but what makes them useful is the direct evidence from Fox Noise and Lush Rimjob and whoever else. So that rhetorical escapism is duly noted.

The photo itself linked back to a decidedly pro-leftist anti-Bush site. It is my I believe informed opinion that the George Soros funded MediaMatters exists ONLY to discredit anything conservative or anything that might criticize liberalism and I do not trust them to be honest or objective about anything and certainly do not trust them to be fair in their analysis and reporting. I do not trust an exclusively pro-conservative, anti liberal site to present it objectively either, though, which is why I look for other sources before buying anybody's particular point of view.

No, actually the photo came from Eric Draper, the White House Photo Director and Personal Photographer for George W. Bush. And my original link went to "NY Mag" which got it from the NYTimes, which got it from the White House. Don't try to snow me if your name ain't Tony.

And once again, all I used MediaMatters for is that they had the video of Fox Noise. That's the Fox telecast talking, not MediaMatters. There is no "analysis" in watching a video. I don't know how you can make this false equivalence with a straight face. If I found the same video on a Breitbart page, the video would still say the same thing, so this cheapo ad hominem just ain't workin' out.

Video is video. It doesn't analyze. We do that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Umm... actually all MediaMatters was used for here is the video from "Fox and Fiends", so if the source is not credible, keep in mind the source is Fox Noise. I know you referred to MediaMatters as "dishonest" earlier, but you gave no documentation for it. But in this case all we're showing is Dana Perino confirming what we just said about the Bush meetings with ultraconservative media. That's not opinion; it's documentation.

I hate to say it but I hear this from "your side" all the time, "oh it's MediaMatters, I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears , but what makes them useful is the direct evidence from Fox Noise and Lush Rimjob and whoever else. So that rhetorical escapism is duly noted.

The photo itself linked back to a decidedly pro-leftist anti-Bush site. It is my I believe informed opinion that the George Soros funded MediaMatters exists ONLY to discredit anything conservative or anything that might criticize liberalism and I do not trust them to be honest or objective about anything and certainly do not trust them to be fair in their analysis and reporting. I do not trust an exclusively pro-conservative, anti liberal site to present it objectively either, though, which is why I look for other sources before buying anybody's particular point of view.

No, actually the photo came from Eric Draper, the White House Photo Director and Personal Photographer for George W. Bush. And my original link went to "NY Mag" which got it from the NYTimes, which got it from the White House. Don't try to snow me if your name ain't Tony.

And once again, all I used MediaMatters for is that they had the video of Fox Noise. That's the Fox telecast talking, not MediaMatters. There is no "analysis" in watching a video. I don't know how you can make this false equivalence with a straight face. If I found the same video on a Breitbart page, the video would still say the same thing, so this cheapo ad hominem just ain't workin' out.

Video is video. It doesn't analyze. We do that.

MediaMatters will often selectively edit the videos they feature and omit any extenuating information from whatever impression they are trying to sell. Those who don't CARE whether it is the truth, the whole truth, but agree with the message, won't bother to check it out from less hatefully biased sources. Those who want the real skinny on something will.

The photo you posted has this URL:
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/i...s-conservative-talk-radio.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

While not exactly a leftwing propaganda publication, NY Mag is decidedly pro Obama. anti conservative, and cited MediaMatters as their source without qualification. That alone makes the photo suspect; however after checking two or three more objective sources, I am inclined to believe the photo is the real deal.

 

[Pogo]

The photo itself linked back to a decidedly pro-leftist anti-Bush site. It is my I believe informed opinion that the George Soros funded MediaMatters exists ONLY to discredit anything conservative or anything that might criticize liberalism and I do not trust them to be honest or objective about anything and certainly do not trust them to be fair in their analysis and reporting. I do not trust an exclusively pro-conservative, anti liberal site to present it objectively either, though, which is why I look for other sources before buying anybody's particular point of view.

No, actually the photo came from Eric Draper, the White House Photo Director and Personal Photographer for George W. Bush. And my original link went to "NY Mag" which got it from the NYTimes, which got it from the White House. Don't try to snow me if your name ain't Tony.

And once again, all I used MediaMatters for is that they had the video of Fox Noise. That's the Fox telecast talking, not MediaMatters. There is no "analysis" in watching a video. I don't know how you can make this false equivalence with a straight face. If I found the same video on a Breitbart page, the video would still say the same thing, so this cheapo ad hominem just ain't workin' out.

Video is video. It doesn't analyze. We do that.

MediaMatters will often selectively edit the videos they feature and omit any extenuating information from whatever impression they are trying to sell. Those who don't CARE whether it is the truth, the whole truth, but agree with the message, won't bother to check it out from less hatefully biased sources. Those who want the real skinny on something will.

The photo you posted has this URL:
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/i...s-conservative-talk-radio.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

While not exactly a leftwing propaganda publication, NY Mag is decidedly pro Obama. anti conservative, and cited MediaMatters as their source without qualification. That alone makes the photo suspect; however after checking two or three more objective sources, I am inclined to believe the photo is the real deal.

I already check anything I bring in. If you're a media maven, you know as well as I do that's imperative.

Again, simply declaring "they selectively edit" is a very different thing from providing evidence thereof (again see above) so this doesn't impress me. There's a lot of myths pushed about taken as gospel that when held up to the light just don't wash. Until you bring evidence, this has to be another one, so no, "that alone" doesn't make anything "suspect". Talk is cheap -- nomsayin'?

And in any case you confirmed that the story is legit, so your dishonest, selectively editing Soros-funded commie pinko website whose unethical behaviour you can't document would seem to have hit the nail right on the head anyway.

Who knew.

Love ya Foxy.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, actually the photo came from Eric Draper, the White House Photo Director and Personal Photographer for George W. Bush. And my original link went to "NY Mag" which got it from the NYTimes, which got it from the White House. Don't try to snow me if your name ain't Tony.

And once again, all I used MediaMatters for is that they had the video of Fox Noise. That's the Fox telecast talking, not MediaMatters. There is no "analysis" in watching a video. I don't know how you can make this false equivalence with a straight face. If I found the same video on a Breitbart page, the video would still say the same thing, so this cheapo ad hominem just ain't workin' out.

Video is video. It doesn't analyze. We do that.

MediaMatters will often selectively edit the videos they feature and omit any extenuating information from whatever impression they are trying to sell. Those who don't CARE whether it is the truth, the whole truth, but agree with the message, won't bother to check it out from less hatefully biased sources. Those who want the real skinny on something will.

The photo you posted has this URL:
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/i...s-conservative-talk-radio.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

While not exactly a leftwing propaganda publication, NY Mag is decidedly pro Obama. anti conservative, and cited MediaMatters as their source without qualification. That alone makes the photo suspect; however after checking two or three more objective sources, I am inclined to believe the photo is the real deal.

I already check anything I bring in. If you're a media maven, you know as well as I do that's imperative.

Again, simply declaring "they selectively edit" is a very different thing from providing evidence thereof (again see above) so this doesn't impress me. There's a lot of myths pushed about taken as gospel that when held up to the light just don't wash. Until you bring evidence, this has to be another one, so no, "that alone" doesn't make anything "suspect". Talk is cheap -- nomsayin'?

And in any case you confirmed that the story is legit, so your dishonest, selectively editing Soros-funded commie pinko website whose unethical behaviour you can't document would seem to have hit the nail right on the head anyway.

Who knew.

Love ya Foxy.

Love you too Pogo. But if you tell me you check everything and you think MediaMatters is a reliable source for information, I just gotta believe you're either delusional or full of it. ((hugs))

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Since conservatives outweigh liberals on USMB, and since liberals, for all of their faults, tend to be pretty supportive of the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment, I think I know the general outcome of this poll.

You have to be joking. Liberals have been making war in the First Amendment since the Wilson Administration.

How so? Because more media sources are left-biased than right-biased? If that is your premise, that doesn't prove that leftists are at war with the Free Speech Clause, except with rare exceptions like the Gores.

Moderate Republican that I am, I still lean slightly to the right. The main credit I give to conservatives is their tendency to be more morally consistent than liberals, which probably has something to do with why I am a Republican. Leftists may manipulate, bias, skew, etc., and maybe even more so than righties, but I am the first to admit that Free Speech is a value that most leftists are pretty serious about. If they weren't, then the results of this poll wouldn't be so devastatingly obvious. Leftists HATE Fox News, but that doesn't mean they agree with shutting it down.

 

[Pogo]

MediaMatters will often selectively edit the videos they feature and omit any extenuating information from whatever impression they are trying to sell. Those who don't CARE whether it is the truth, the whole truth, but agree with the message, won't bother to check it out from less hatefully biased sources. Those who want the real skinny on something will.

The photo you posted has this URL:
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/i...s-conservative-talk-radio.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

While not exactly a leftwing propaganda publication, NY Mag is decidedly pro Obama. anti conservative, and cited MediaMatters as their source without qualification. That alone makes the photo suspect; however after checking two or three more objective sources, I am inclined to believe the photo is the real deal.

I already check anything I bring in. If you're a media maven, you know as well as I do that's imperative.

Again, simply declaring "they selectively edit" is a very different thing from providing evidence thereof (again see above) so this doesn't impress me. There's a lot of myths pushed about taken as gospel that when held up to the light just don't wash. Until you bring evidence, this has to be another one, so no, "that alone" doesn't make anything "suspect". Talk is cheap -- nomsayin'?

And in any case you confirmed that the story is legit, so your dishonest, selectively editing Soros-funded commie pinko website whose unethical behaviour you can't document would seem to have hit the nail right on the head anyway.

Who knew.

Love ya Foxy.

Love you too Pogo. But if you tell me you check everything and you think MediaMatters is a reliable source for information, I just gotta believe you're either delusional or full of it. ((hugs))

Wa'al ah'll tellya... I've been hearing this MediaMatters as dishonest/selective-editor song and dance for years, and I have yet to see the evidence, so on this one I'm from Missouri. At the same time I do know there's a whole lotta mythmaking going on. Until proven otherwise I just keep in mind that ad hominem is not legitimate debate.

On the other hand it's quite easy to document selectively edited video from, say, Fox Noise.

And ah'll tellya whut, when I've heard this argument before it's the same circumstances: posting a video from Fox or Rush or wherever. Then they want to attack the messenger as if that somehow negates the content of the video itself. It boggles my mind that people can think that way with a straight face, but on they go. I have to seriously wonder if many people really understand the difference between fact and opinion. Doesn't seem so.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

MediaMatters, just like it's countless conservative counterparts, rarely "lies" about anything.

But they just as rarely tell the whole truth.

 

[Foxfyre]

MediaMatters, just like it's countless conservative counterparts, rarely "lies" about anything.

But they just as rarely tell the whole truth.

Failure to tell the whole truth out of limitations of column space or time restraints is one thing. Failure to tell the whole truth to give the illusion of fact that is nowhere near the truth is something quite again.

While I have caught Fox News in factual errors, I have not caught them in any intentional misstatement intended to mislead the public or promote a lie. Fox News is pretty good to admit and correct their errors when called on them too. MediaMatters not so much.

I do believe FoxNews goes to some lengths to be honorable about their slogan: "We report fair and balanced. You decide." MediaMatters makes no such effort. Too many people equate O'Reilly and Hannity as the face and voice of Fox News when in fact they host one hour nightly in weeknight programs that are promoted as commentary and not as straight news reporting.

Their news reporting is as good as anybody else's and better than some.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Media Matters openly lies - constantly.

?MEDIA MATTERS Watch? : Media Matters? Falsehoods Exposed!

 

[MarcATL]

How many liberals will vote to shut them down? Poll to follow!

I bet you didn't expect these results right?

Lemme ask you this?

How many conservatives will vote to start a new conservative tv network or two?

 

[MarcATL]

Media Matters openly lies - constantly.

?MEDIA MATTERS Watch? : Media Matters? Falsehoods Exposed!

Yes, because replaying the footage of Republicans spewing nonsense is now considered lies.

 

[MarcATL]

How many liberals will vote to shut them down? Poll to follow!

Your thread inspired me Willow: http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/277553-let-conservatism-run-rampant-on-television-as-well.html

Thanks!