What will Fox say?

[DiveCon]

[/URL]

Newser.com is not a blog...

When I find that fox apologized, will you accept that as credible....? It will be from fox. Give me a little time.

Newser

i'd say it was
same as Drudge Report

Why admits it here...comments?

Internal Fox News Email Addresses “Standards” After 9/12 Flap


Internal Fox News Email Addresses “Standards” After 9/12 Flap | TV | Mediaite

Still wont say Fox did this? STILL WONT ADMIT IT?

again, another fucking BLOG
lol

 

[Zona]

Newser.com is not a blog...

When I find that fox apologized, will you accept that as credible....? It will be from fox. Give me a little time.

Still waiting on that Fox apology!!

Do you need the link to what they said and how they said they wont do it again?

 

[Dr.House]

Newser.com is not a blog...

When I find that fox apologized, will you accept that as credible....? It will be from fox. Give me a little time.

Still waiting on that Fox apology!!

Do you need the link to what they said and how they said they wont do it again?

Make sure it includes the word "apologize" please... Those were your words, AutoZona...

 

[DiveCon]

Newser.com is not a blog...

When I find that fox apologized, will you accept that as credible....? It will be from fox. Give me a little time.

Still waiting on that Fox apology!!

Do you need the link to what they said and how they said they wont do it again?

except your link was to a BLOG
do you have proof they didnt FAKE that alleged email?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Newser.com is not a blog...

When I find that fox apologized, will you accept that as credible....? It will be from fox. Give me a little time.

Still waiting on that Fox apology!!

Do you need the link to what they said and how they said they wont do it again?

I want a link that states exactly what you claim it states. Something along the lines of "we're sorry" or "we apologize" would suffice. Anything less is not an apology.

 

[logical4u]

Mainly fox play George S's tough question where he asked the President if this "required" medical insurance was a tax. The President ducked and dodged. He does not answer the hard questions. Fox guys laugh about the "President" being afraid of the FNC. This is the man that said he would unify the nation, stop partisan politics and give us a better standing in the world. We/he looks like wieners.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Obama is afraid of Fox news. He knows they would pin him down on specifics and not throw softball questions. George S. to his credit did attempt to give a hard interview. But he pussied out in the end.

 

[Zona]

"The employee is a young, relatively inexperienced associate producer who realizes she made a mistake and has been disciplined,"

Howard Kurtz On Obama's Media Blitz and the Fox News Snub - washingtonpost.com




Here is the memo..

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:25 PM
To: 005 -Washington
Subject: standards

For those of us who have only been at Fox for a relatively short period of time, it’s useful to remind ourselves that, as journalists, we must always be careful to cover the story without becoming part of the story. At news events, we’re supposed to function as dispassionate observers, not active participants. We are there to chronicle the news, not create it.

That means we ask questions in a fair, impartial manner. When approaching interviewees, we identify ourselves, by both name and news organization, up front. We seek out a variety of voices and views. We take note of the scene in order to bring color and context to our viewers.

We do not cheerlead for one cause or another. We do not rile up a crowd. If a crowd happens to be boisterous when we show it on TV, so be it. If it happens to be quiet, that’s fine, too. It’s not our job to affect the crowd’s behavior one way or the other. Again, we’re journalists, not participants — and certainly not performers.

Indeed, any effort to affect the crowd’s behavior only serves to undermine our legitimate journalistic role as detached eyewitnesses. Remember, our viewers are counting on us to be honest brokers when it comes to reporting — not altering –the important events of the day. That is nothing less than a sacred trust. We must always take pains to preserve that trust.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please stop by.



Did they say sorry? Of course not. Did they admit they were wrong, hell yeah. Actually its hilarious...them saying they are not cheerleaders....

They were the reason this stupid 70k person thing happened!

 

[Zona]

Obama is afraid of Fox news. He knows they would pin him down on specifics and not throw softball questions. George S. to his credit did attempt to give a hard interview. But he pussied out in the end.

I agree. I remember all the hardball question Fox would give bush when Bush gave exclusive interviews to them.

i remember the unbelievably hard ball question Hannity asked Palin. Remember that....?

That was Brutal!

Why did Bush give exclusive interviews to fox? Makes you think.

 

[sitarro]

to be fair, i do not believe president bush ever paid a visit to any of the talk shows on msnbc his entire presidency!

i think in 2004 he did do meet the press on nbc, but not msnbc like chris matthews, olberman, or yahdeedah show at the time?

maybe i am wrong, but i think president bush did do FOX cable with an interview?

I'm curious Care, why is it, when the all knowing, all seeing, 21st century Messiah is criticized, a comparison is made to the former President that most on the left felt was wrong all of the time, unqualified for anything much less the Presidency, a moron and evil? I thought you guys felt you were voting for CHANGE and HOPE......... by justifying his actions by comparing them to those of President Bush, are you saying he is the same? All of you guys do it, so you must believe it.

 

[sitarro]

Obama is afraid of Fox news. He knows they would pin him down on specifics and not throw softball questions. George S. to his credit did attempt to give a hard interview. But he pussied out in the end.

I agree. I remember all the hardball question Fox would give bush when Bush gave exclusive interviews to them.

i remember the unbelievably hard ball question Hannity asked Palin. Remember that....?

That was Brutal!

Why did Bush give exclusive interviews to fox? Makes you think.

Why don't you answer the same question I just asked Care, or are you too much of a fucking moron to do it?

 

[chanel]

The people who are questioning and/or opposing Obama's health care watch FOX. It would have behooved Obama to go on FOX in order to try and sell - or explain - his plan to these folks, as they are the ones he is trying to reach. All the zombies who are already sold on the plan watch the other channels. So basically, he's just preaching to the choir this weekend.

Obama will never, EVER be able to change that brilliant gene pool at fox. Those fans are idiots. Do you honestly think anyone there will change their minds? Obama is smart, whats the damn point going there? Hannity and Beck will suddenly say, yes, everyone should have affordable healthcare?

I want to list all the things fox will say about this weekend on Monday.

Hannity and Beck have always said we need more affordable healthcare. Obviously you dont watch and/or whomever you do watch must be making up lies.

Calling a good segment of the population idiots seems to be the strategy of the left these days. Keep it up. It's backfiring.

Obama and Hillary both appeared on O'Reilly and scored some points.

Hey Zona - what about the idiots that don't watch the news at all? My guess is they voted for Obama.

 

[DiveCon]

The people who are questioning and/or opposing Obama's health care watch FOX. It would have behooved Obama to go on FOX in order to try and sell - or explain - his plan to these folks, as they are the ones he is trying to reach. All the zombies who are already sold on the plan watch the other channels. So basically, he's just preaching to the choir this weekend.

Obama will never, EVER be able to change that brilliant gene pool at fox. Those fans are idiots. Do you honestly think anyone there will change their minds? Obama is smart, whats the damn point going there? Hannity and Beck will suddenly say, yes, everyone should have affordable healthcare?

I want to list all the things fox will say about this weekend on Monday.

Hannity and Beck have always said we need more affordable healthcare. Obviously you dont watch and/or whomever you do watch must be making up lies.

Calling a good segment of the population idiots seems to be the strategy of the left these days. Keep it up. It's backfiring.

Obama and Hillary both appeared on O'Reilly and scored some points.

Hey Zona - what about the idiots that don't watch the news at all? My guess is they voted for Obama.

if you haven't figure it out yet, zona is a complete and utter MORON

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"The employee is a young, relatively inexperienced associate producer who realizes she made a mistake and has been disciplined,"

Howard Kurtz On Obama's Media Blitz and the Fox News Snub - washingtonpost.com




Here is the memo..

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:25 PM
To: 005 -Washington
Subject: standards

For those of us who have only been at Fox for a relatively short period of time, it’s useful to remind ourselves that, as journalists, we must always be careful to cover the story without becoming part of the story. At news events, we’re supposed to function as dispassionate observers, not active participants. We are there to chronicle the news, not create it.

That means we ask questions in a fair, impartial manner. When approaching interviewees, we identify ourselves, by both name and news organization, up front. We seek out a variety of voices and views. We take note of the scene in order to bring color and context to our viewers.

We do not cheerlead for one cause or another. We do not rile up a crowd. If a crowd happens to be boisterous when we show it on TV, so be it. If it happens to be quiet, that’s fine, too. It’s not our job to affect the crowd’s behavior one way or the other. Again, we’re journalists, not participants — and certainly not performers.

Indeed, any effort to affect the crowd’s behavior only serves to undermine our legitimate journalistic role as detached eyewitnesses. Remember, our viewers are counting on us to be honest brokers when it comes to reporting — not altering –the important events of the day. That is nothing less than a sacred trust. We must always take pains to preserve that trust.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please stop by.



Did they say sorry? Of course not. Did they admit they were wrong, hell yeah. Actually its hilarious...them saying they are not cheerleaders....

They were the reason this stupid 70k person thing happened!

Now highlight the part where it says "we apologize" or "we're sorry".

 

[crpravens]

This is a very smart move by Obama. By ignoring Fox, he is isolating it from any real "player" status in the broadcast game. It will talk to its particular group, who all believe that Obama is bad anyway, and they can't influence anything or anybody except themselves. Very smat Obamamove.

All he's going to be doing is talking to the people who already agree with him...what good will that do? He needs to go on a station (namely FOX) who the conservatives watch and talk to US about his healthcare and everything else. WE'RE the ones that are stopping these bills from going through....WE'RE the ones he needs to convince that it'll be good for us. What he's doing now is alienating us even more. He needs to brighten up a little!

Do you think Beck and hannity would suddenly say ..yes, affordable health care is a good thing?

As dumb as beck is, his fans are worse. There is no way obama would change one persons mind on Fox. Not ONE.

Smart move Mr. President.

Who is saying they are against affordable health care?

The government running health care will not suddenly make it affordable and would only cause it to be more expensive. I am positive it would hurt quality of care. On top of it the federal government has no business being invovled in health care.

As you say Beck is dumb but he is making a hell of a lot more money then you.

 

[DiveCon]

All he's going to be doing is talking to the people who already agree with him...what good will that do? He needs to go on a station (namely FOX) who the conservatives watch and talk to US about his healthcare and everything else. WE'RE the ones that are stopping these bills from going through....WE'RE the ones he needs to convince that it'll be good for us. What he's doing now is alienating us even more. He needs to brighten up a little!

Do you think Beck and hannity would suddenly say ..yes, affordable health care is a good thing?

As dumb as beck is, his fans are worse. There is no way obama would change one persons mind on Fox. Not ONE.

Smart move Mr. President.

Who is saying they are against affordable health care?

The government running health care will not suddenly make it affordable and would only cause it to be more expensive. I am positive it would hurt quality of care. On top of it the federal government has no business being invovled in health care.

As you say Beck is dumb but he is making a hell of a lot more money then you.

zona is a total moron

 

[EriktheRed]

"The employee is a young, relatively inexperienced associate producer who realizes she made a mistake and has been disciplined,"

Howard Kurtz On Obama's Media Blitz and the Fox News Snub - washingtonpost.com




Here is the memo..

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:25 PM
To: 005 -Washington
Subject: standards

For those of us who have only been at Fox for a relatively short period of time, it’s useful to remind ourselves that, as journalists, we must always be careful to cover the story without becoming part of the story. At news events, we’re supposed to function as dispassionate observers, not active participants. We are there to chronicle the news, not create it.

That means we ask questions in a fair, impartial manner. When approaching interviewees, we identify ourselves, by both name and news organization, up front. We seek out a variety of voices and views. We take note of the scene in order to bring color and context to our viewers.

We do not cheerlead for one cause or another. We do not rile up a crowd. If a crowd happens to be boisterous when we show it on TV, so be it. If it happens to be quiet, that’s fine, too. It’s not our job to affect the crowd’s behavior one way or the other. Again, we’re journalists, not participants — and certainly not performers.

Indeed, any effort to affect the crowd’s behavior only serves to undermine our legitimate journalistic role as detached eyewitnesses. Remember, our viewers are counting on us to be honest brokers when it comes to reporting — not altering –the important events of the day. That is nothing less than a sacred trust. We must always take pains to preserve that trust.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please stop by.



Did they say sorry? Of course not. Did they admit they were wrong, hell yeah. Actually its hilarious...them saying they are not cheerleaders....

They were the reason this stupid 70k person thing happened!

Now highlight the part where it says "we apologize" or "we're sorry".

Who cares? Here's the part I'm going to highlight:


"The employee is a young, relatively inexperienced associate producer who realizes she made a mistake and has been disciplined,"

If I recall, somebody denied there was any proof this individual was even related to FOX News in the first place.

 

[DiveCon]

"The employee is a young, relatively inexperienced associate producer who realizes she made a mistake and has been disciplined,"

Howard Kurtz On Obama's Media Blitz and the Fox News Snub - washingtonpost.com




Here is the memo..

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:25 PM
To: 005 -Washington
Subject: standards

For those of us who have only been at Fox for a relatively short period of time, it’s useful to remind ourselves that, as journalists, we must always be careful to cover the story without becoming part of the story. At news events, we’re supposed to function as dispassionate observers, not active participants. We are there to chronicle the news, not create it.

That means we ask questions in a fair, impartial manner. When approaching interviewees, we identify ourselves, by both name and news organization, up front. We seek out a variety of voices and views. We take note of the scene in order to bring color and context to our viewers.

We do not cheerlead for one cause or another. We do not rile up a crowd. If a crowd happens to be boisterous when we show it on TV, so be it. If it happens to be quiet, that’s fine, too. It’s not our job to affect the crowd’s behavior one way or the other. Again, we’re journalists, not participants — and certainly not performers.

Indeed, any effort to affect the crowd’s behavior only serves to undermine our legitimate journalistic role as detached eyewitnesses. Remember, our viewers are counting on us to be honest brokers when it comes to reporting — not altering –the important events of the day. That is nothing less than a sacred trust. We must always take pains to preserve that trust.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please stop by.



Did they say sorry? Of course not. Did they admit they were wrong, hell yeah. Actually its hilarious...them saying they are not cheerleaders....

They were the reason this stupid 70k person thing happened!

Now highlight the part where it says "we apologize" or "we're sorry".

Who cares? Here's the part I'm going to highlight:


"The employee is a young, relatively inexperienced associate producer who realizes she made a mistake and has been disciplined,"

If I recall, somebody denied there was any proof this individual was even related to FOX News in the first place.

no, somebody, ME, asked for PROOF they were
which no one gave when asked