Why won't obama call out fox news???

[WillowTree]

Maybe because FOX has already proven to everyone smart enough to understand, that thye have NO desire to report fairly or even report at all? If FOX wants to cry about it (which they have not to my knowledge), they will need to clean up their act first.

They gave up the pretense of "fair and balanced" long ago.

Name the conservatives that give their POV's on ABC, CBS ,NBS, MSNBC and CNN.

Here's a partial list of Liberals that frequent Fox.

Ellis Heinican, Susan Estrich, Chris Wallace, Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Bernie Sanders, John Edwards, Mark Mellman, Terry McAuliffe, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sen. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Charles Rangle, Minister Hashim Nzinga, Geraldine Ferraro, Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis, Joe Lieberman, Tammy Bruce, Pat Caddell, Neal Gabler, Jane Hall, Jeff Cohen, Juan WIlliams, Mara Liason, Morton Kondracke, Rosie O'Donnell, Ed Asner, Steven Baldwin, Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon, Mile Farrell etc... And this list doesn't include who knows how many who have been interviewed for various stories.

Add your list and we'll compare.

Douglas Kennedy appears on Fox.

 

[WillowTree]

They shout down and interupt all the other people who's views oppose their own when I watch - which is admittedly VERY rare.

MSNBC just doesn't invite people who have opposing viewpoints. It's not better journalism, but it's more polite.
Everytime I turn it to Fox when they have someone on with a differing opinion, I see someone ask a question, then wait about 8 seconds before they interupt. If the person tries to keep talking, the interviewer just gets louder and louder and will wind up shouting if that is what it takes to drown out the person who is just trying to answer their question.
It's bad journalism AND very rude.

I don't watch either.

I'd agree about Hannity. I think O'Reilly is a bit more measured. At least on the occasions I've seen him (which is not frequently). But I would still be interested in watching Obama defend his policies on Fox.

I VERY rarely see Hannity - but the times I've seen O'Reilly, he does exactly what I described. The last time I saw him in fact - he asked a lady a question and she got about four seconds before he interrupted her and used the rest of the time for the interview monologuing. I had to ask myself, who would go to the trouble of showing up for THAT?

that sounds a lot like chris spittle matthews tingle foot. you sure you weren't watching chris spittle matthews tingle foot?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I VERY rarely see Hannity - but the times I've seen O'Reilly, he does exactly what I described. The last time I saw him in fact - he asked a lady a question and she got about four seconds before he interrupted her and used the rest of the time for the interview monologuing. I had to ask myself, who would go to the trouble of showing up for THAT?

I have to agree with you, nodog. These guys drive me nuts because they don't let the people they're talking to fully answer the questions because they do interrupt. O'Reilly is a pita with it. The Barney Frank interview (the first one) is a prime example. If he wanted to hang Frank, he should have shut up and let Frank talk so he could get enough rope to do the job. They're (a lot of these cable types, not just Fox) too busy preparing their answers to be bothered to pay attention to what's being said. They should all take a course on effective listening.

I watch Lou Dobbs (with the nutcracker teeth) sometimes. He won't let anyone interrupt and he makes it a point to let the other guy finish. If someone tries to interrupt him he gives them the 'Lou' look, maybe a few words, and waits until they shut up and then finishes what he was saying. He extends them the same.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Straight news reporting is a dying art. Editorializing has become the norm.
The information age has become the disinformation age. It's all too easy for people to tune into or log onto an "information" source that only supports their own preconceived notions and in that cocoon of hyper-partisanship they delude themselves into believing that they are "informing" themselves.


They insist that the "information" source that caters to their own bias is the only "truth" out there.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And for those clinging to the delusion that I am only calling out Fox, I'll remind them of my post that MSNBC engages in poor journalism as well.
The difference that I've seen is that MSNBC hosts rarely if ever invite someone on with a different view than their own. This is poor journalism as well and fails to give their viewers a balanced view of the issues.
It is more polite than inviting someone on just to shout them down, but it is STILL poor journalism imho.

 

[WillowTree]

I VERY rarely see Hannity - but the times I've seen O'Reilly, he does exactly what I described. The last time I saw him in fact - he asked a lady a question and she got about four seconds before he interrupted her and used the rest of the time for the interview monologuing. I had to ask myself, who would go to the trouble of showing up for THAT?

I have to agree with you, nodog. These guys drive me nuts because they don't let the people they're talking to fully answer the questions because they do interrupt. O'Reilly is a pita with it. The Barney Frank interview (the first one) is a prime example. If he wanted to hang Frank, he should have shut up and let Frank talk so he could get enough rope to do the job. They're (a lot of these cable types, not just Fox) too busy preparing their answers to be bothered to pay attention to what's being said. They should all take a course on effective listening.

I watch Lou Dobbs (with the nutcracker teeth) sometimes. He won't let anyone interrupt and he makes it a point to let the other guy finish. If someone tries to interrupt him he gives them the 'Lou' look, maybe a few words, and waits until they shut up and then finishes what he was saying. He extends them the same.

I got news for you Zoom. O'Reilly calls it the no spin zone for a reason. The minute the liberal loons start the spin he does interupt them and they know he will do that before they agree to go on. Notice how they try to just keep on talking over him just to get those talking points said.. It's the no spin zone. The last great episode of that that went down was when bawney fwank was on and tried to spin that fannie and freddie were't causing the problems, I thought O'Reilly would stroke..











[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU[/ame]

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's obviously not a "no spin zone" it's a "No spin except O'reilly's zone"

 

[WillowTree]

It's obviously not a "no spin zone" it's a "No spin except O'reilly's zone"

bawney the coward. and the liar.. no spin

 

[nodoginnafight]

wow what a truly intelligent and insightful post.
Is this the level of discourse the "disinformation age" produces.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I VERY rarely see Hannity - but the times I've seen O'Reilly, he does exactly what I described. The last time I saw him in fact - he asked a lady a question and she got about four seconds before he interrupted her and used the rest of the time for the interview monologuing. I had to ask myself, who would go to the trouble of showing up for THAT?

I have to agree with you, nodog. These guys drive me nuts because they don't let the people they're talking to fully answer the questions because they do interrupt. O'Reilly is a pita with it. The Barney Frank interview (the first one) is a prime example. If he wanted to hang Frank, he should have shut up and let Frank talk so he could get enough rope to do the job. They're (a lot of these cable types, not just Fox) too busy preparing their answers to be bothered to pay attention to what's being said. They should all take a course on effective listening.

I watch Lou Dobbs (with the nutcracker teeth) sometimes. He won't let anyone interrupt and he makes it a point to let the other guy finish. If someone tries to interrupt him he gives them the 'Lou' look, maybe a few words, and waits until they shut up and then finishes what he was saying. He extends them the same.

I got news for you Zoom. O'Reilly calls it the no spin zone for a reason. The minute the liberal loons start the spin he does interupt them and they know he will do that before they agree to go on. Notice how they try to just keep on talking over him just to get those talking points said.. It's the no spin zone. The last great episode of that that went down was when bawney fwank was on and tried to spin that fannie and freddie were't causing the problems, I thought O'Reilly would stroke..

I get that, and also know that this is what O'Reilly says, but . . . . he often seems to interrupt them before they even finish making their point. I wish he wouldn't do that, I wish he'd let them make their point (not ramble onto something else) then question them or whatever. yeah, I'm sure Frank would have just blathered had O'Reilly not interrupted but when he just interrupts it becomes nothing but a shout fest. I say let them have just enough rope to hang themselves.

And that Frank interview? egads, I thought O'Reilly's head was going to explode. He was pissed. Eh, he probably lost a bundle in it all which further fueled his anger. lol I have noticed that since that interview O'Reilly hasn't flown off the handle like that again (granted I don't watch him a lot so just from what I've seen). I think he got his wrists slapped after the Frank explosion.

 

[VaYank5150]

I got news for you Zoom. O'Reilly calls it the no spin zone for a reason. The minute the liberal loons start the spin he does interupt them and they know he will do that before they agree to go on. Notice how they try to just keep on talking over him just to get those talking points said.. It's the no spin zone. The last great episode of that that went down was when bawney fwank was on and tried to spin that fannie and freddie were't causing the problems, I thought O'Reilly would stroke..

This is such BULLSHIT. I cannot stomach to watch O'Reilly. He cuts EVERYBODY off. Why even bother to have guests on? It's not like he gives a shit about what they have to say. If he did, he would actually LISTEN to them before he shouted them down. Speaking of O'Reilly, did he ever get charged with anyting after stalking that female? Or how about after he incited violence on the Dr. Tiller?

 

[Meister]

I got news for you Zoom. O'Reilly calls it the no spin zone for a reason. The minute the liberal loons start the spin he does interupt them and they know he will do that before they agree to go on. Notice how they try to just keep on talking over him just to get those talking points said.. It's the no spin zone. The last great episode of that that went down was when bawney fwank was on and tried to spin that fannie and freddie were't causing the problems, I thought O'Reilly would stroke..

This is such BULLSHIT. I cannot stomach to watch O'Reilly. He cuts EVERYBODY off. Why even bother to have guests on? It's not like he gives a shit about what they have to say. If he did, he would actually LISTEN to them before he shouted them down. Speaking of O'Reilly, did he ever get charged with anyting after stalking that female? Or how about after he incited violence on the Dr. Tiller?

Obviously you don't watch O'Reilly, but refer back to the liberal talking points.

 

[VaYank5150]

I got news for you Zoom. O'Reilly calls it the no spin zone for a reason. The minute the liberal loons start the spin he does interupt them and they know he will do that before they agree to go on. Notice how they try to just keep on talking over him just to get those talking points said.. It's the no spin zone. The last great episode of that that went down was when bawney fwank was on and tried to spin that fannie and freddie were't causing the problems, I thought O'Reilly would stroke..

This is such BULLSHIT. I cannot stomach to watch O'Reilly. He cuts EVERYBODY off. Why even bother to have guests on? It's not like he gives a shit about what they have to say. If he did, he would actually LISTEN to them before he shouted them down. Speaking of O'Reilly, did he ever get charged with anyting after stalking that female? Or how about after he incited violence on the Dr. Tiller?

Obviously you don't watch O'Reilly, but refer back to the liberal talking points.

I have watched O'Reilly in the past and am forced to do so whenever I visit my in-laws. Now, were you trying to make a point or were you simply here trying to post lies about me?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I got news for you Zoom. O'Reilly calls it the no spin zone for a reason. The minute the liberal loons start the spin he does interupt them and they know he will do that before they agree to go on. Notice how they try to just keep on talking over him just to get those talking points said.. It's the no spin zone. The last great episode of that that went down was when bawney fwank was on and tried to spin that fannie and freddie were't causing the problems, I thought O'Reilly would stroke..

This is such BULLSHIT. I cannot stomach to watch O'Reilly. He cuts EVERYBODY off. Why even bother to have guests on? It's not like he gives a shit about what they have to say. If he did, he would actually LISTEN to them before he shouted them down. Speaking of O'Reilly, did he ever get charged with anyting after stalking that female? Or how about after he incited violence on the Dr. Tiller?

I have no idea about stalking or inciting violence but the rest of your post mirrors my own experience in watching O'Reilly as well.

 

[Meister]

Let's assume he went on FOX. What do you think the Faux News interviewer is going to ask him that won't be asked by any of the other 6 network interviewers?

1. Have you read the entire reform proposal? And if so, was there anything there that you have not addressed as fully as you perhaps should have up to this point?

2. What would or could you say to those who appeared on the White House Lawn this past Saturday that would ease their minds and concerns about the current proposed legislation?

3. There are several different ways to interpret the numbers that have been presented concerning the actual numbers of uninsured in this country. By what standards are you basing the numbers on that you have used in past speeches.

4. You say that you are prepared to call out anyone who makes false claims about the proposed reform. If you are forced to make good on that, what should the accused be prepared for?

5. If the issue over death panels was NEVER true, why was that portion of the bill that was in question removed?

6. ACORN....still in support of their practices???

7. If competition among insurance providers is one of the things you would like to see increase, why not simply remove the restrictions on purchasing insurance from state to state? Wouldn't this be a great way to drive costs down while improving the service to the consumer?

8. You use the term "stability" alot when talking about the reformed version of healthcare. Where do you see things stabilizing the most and how will it improve the overall aspect of heatlhcare in this country.

9. Should the woman who admitted to killing her husband during the ACORN video be arrested?

10. If you are successful in passing the current reform to healthcare as it is written today, how will it be paid for?



There's a few

I would be willing to bet you at least half of these questions will be asked. Maybe not in the exact form you have presented here, but asked just the same.

What I have noticed with people who do ask those kind of questions...the answers are usually answered with a song and a dance, and the person that asks the original question does not follow up to press for a direct answer.

 

[Meister]

This is such BULLSHIT. I cannot stomach to watch O'Reilly. He cuts EVERYBODY off. Why even bother to have guests on? It's not like he gives a shit about what they have to say. If he did, he would actually LISTEN to them before he shouted them down. Speaking of O'Reilly, did he ever get charged with anyting after stalking that female? Or how about after he incited violence on the Dr. Tiller?

Obviously you don't watch O'Reilly, but refer back to the liberal talking points.

I have watched O'Reilly in the past and am forced to do so whenever I visit my in-laws. Now, were you trying to make a point or were you simply here trying to post lies about me?

All of the boldened lines in your post are talking points from the left that i have heard long before you posted them. Just an observation on my part is the point I'm making.

 

[VaYank5150]

Obviously you don't watch O'Reilly, but refer back to the liberal talking points.

I have watched O'Reilly in the past and am forced to do so whenever I visit my in-laws. Now, were you trying to make a point or were you simply here trying to post lies about me?

All of the boldened lines in your post are talking points from the left that i have heard long before you posted them. Just an observation on my part is the point I'm making.

Then, in the future, please say that as opposed to calling me a liar. Deal?

 

[Meister]

I have watched O'Reilly in the past and am forced to do so whenever I visit my in-laws. Now, were you trying to make a point or were you simply here trying to post lies about me?

All of the boldened lines in your post are talking points from the left that i have heard long before you posted them. Just an observation on my part is the point I'm making.

Then, in the future, please say that as opposed to calling me a liar. Deal?

Please show my post where I even called you a liar. If you can, I will apologize to you.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Part of The O'Reilly Factor's problem, imo, is that he tries to pack too much into the show and doesn't leave enough time for his guests to talk, even without interruption. Maybe that's why he interrupts, I don't know. If he would cut 2 or 3 things out there'd be more time for actual discussion. Like I said, Lou Dobbs and his guests all speak their points (and Lou will reel them in if they start to ramble off topic) without interrupting each other. Just my 2 cents.

 

[nodoginnafight]

so Meister is it your contention that "He cuts everyone off" is just a "talking point" are you saying he really doesn't do this. It's all a fabrication? I'd say the observation has probably been made many many times before because it is something that people consistently observe him doing.

So simply saying that other people have said it before, isn't really discrediting the observation now is it?