Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My two cents:
Okay then? It really doesn't matter, it's a chair. Everyone in the room should have a right to ask a question if they so choose (believe there are like 40-80 people in the room) and this isn't going to change anyone's opinion about Fox News whether they like the channel or not.
Some people can call it symbolism if they like that they get to be in the front row, but I do believe it's something more akin to high school.
That little bit about NPR would seem to invalidate your supposition that the MSM has no real gripe about FNC. Not that NPR, with it's dozens of listeners, is a media giant.
Your question is flawed, as well. The "symbolic" (and I'm sure well butt-sprung) front row seat formerly occupied by Helen Thomas did not go to FNC. They got A front row seat, not THE front row seat.
Why? Cuz ignoring them is starting to look a little silly. And who else would it go to?
Wrong, NPR did not want comments that they feel do not reflect them to be stated as representing NPR. Any organization has that right. If NPR had such a problem with that, they would of fired Juan Williams, would they not?
My question isn't flawed. NPR and Bloomberg were the other candidates up for the seat. If the Liberal MSM is out for Fox News's blood, then why didn't they give the seat to NPR or Bloomberg?
All I'm seeing is what ifs, and insults toward me in response to my question.
Fox's upgrade is an acknowledgment of its "length of service and commitment," the association's board said in a statement.
The bid from Fox for a front-row seat sparked a protest from some over the network's perceived right-wing leanings. The advocacy groups Working Assets and MoveOn.org launched an online campaign through social media website Facebook to lobby the WHCA to give the seat to NPR.
In a statement posted on the Working Assets website Credo Action on Sunday, the group said, "While we're disappointed that the seat did not go to NPR, we're delighted the board found a way to avoid giving the coveted front-row center seat to Fox."
WRONG, the guest were split 50/50
A study by Media Matters conducted through January and February 2006 found that the number of conservatives and Republicans brought on as guests outnumbered the number of liberals and Democrats by margins of 72%28% in January, and 67%33% in February. Of the solo interviews that were conducted on the show, 80% of the interviews are conducted with conservatives and Republicans.[9]
And I do see your premise as flawed. Nothing personal. You're asking why, "if the Liberal MSM is out for Fox News's blood" FNC got a front row seat. The liberal MSM didn't award the seat. The WHCA did. The lib bloggers are just a little miffed about it, is all.
Your own comments about FNC are not exactly charitable. Or accurate. Which side of your question are you on? Hard to tell.
wiki and mediamatters?WRONG, the guest were split 50/50
Once again, you have no evidence. However, I do!
Hannity & Colmes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A study by Media Matters conducted through January and February 2006 found that the number of conservatives and Republicans brought on as guests outnumbered the number of liberals and Democrats by margins of 72%28% in January, and 67%33% in February. Of the solo interviews that were conducted on the show, 80% of the interviews are conducted with conservatives and Republicans.[9]
again, just because they are a member of a liberal organization does NOT make them as individuals LIBERALSAnd I do see your premise as flawed. Nothing personal. You're asking why, "if the Liberal MSM is out for Fox News's blood" FNC got a front row seat. The liberal MSM didn't award the seat. The WHCA did. The lib bloggers are just a little miffed about it, is all.
Your own comments about FNC are not exactly charitable. Or accurate. Which side of your question are you on? Hard to tell.
The WHCA is full of the so called Liberal MSM as I showed on Page 1. I don't know why you're trying to separate the two.
My comments about FNC are as charitable as my ones on MSNBC. Only reason we're discussing FNC is because nobody is trying to say MSNBC is a fair network. My comments however are accurate, none of which has been unproven.
go look in the first 40 posts
i've answered it SEVERAL times, i'm done answering it
the WHCA showed that they dfo not agree that FNC isnt a respected news outlet, nothing more
And I do see your premise as flawed. Nothing personal. You're asking why, "if the Liberal MSM is out for Fox News's blood" FNC got a front row seat. The liberal MSM didn't award the seat. The WHCA did. The lib bloggers are just a little miffed about it, is all.
Your own comments about FNC are not exactly charitable. Or accurate. Which side of your question are you on? Hard to tell.
The WHCA is full of the so called Liberal MSM as I showed on Page 1. I don't know why you're trying to separate the two.
My comments about FNC are as charitable as my ones on MSNBC. Only reason we're discussing FNC is because nobody is trying to say MSNBC is a fair network. My comments however are accurate, none of which has been unproven.
again, just because they are a member of a liberal organization does NOT make them as individuals LIBERALS
what part of that is so fucking hard for you to get into your pathetic thick skull?
Well, alright.
It occurs to me that no one from FNC is on your list of WHCA members. Hmmm ... Just an observation.
it proves they are a respected news source
why else would they be VOTED there unanimously by their PEERS
just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it any less an answeragain, just because they are a member of a liberal organization does NOT make them as individuals LIBERALS
what part of that is so fucking hard for you to get into your pathetic thick skull?
Link? Why would organizations that supposedly want to support the Obama agenda put members on the WHCA organization stuff that would vote against their interests?
Again, another non-answer.
wiki and mediamatters?
LOL
FAIL
WRONG, the guest were split 50/50
Once again, you have no evidence. However, I do!
Hannity & Colmes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A study by Media Matters conducted through January and February 2006 found that the number of conservatives and Republicans brought on as guests outnumbered the number of liberals and Democrats by margins of 72%28% in January, and 67%33% in February. Of the solo interviews that were conducted on the show, 80% of the interviews are conducted with conservatives and Republicans.[9]
just maybe because they value their individual integrity more than the organizations they work for?Well, alright.
It occurs to me that no one from FNC is on your list of WHCA members. Hmmm ... Just an observation.
And yet, they got the coveted seat that according to Divecon:
it proves they are a respected news source
why else would they be VOTED there unanimously by their PEERS
And their peers include the previously mentioned NPR who was in the running for the seat. Again, if the Liberal MSM was out to protect the Obama Administration, why would they validate the FNC?
Well, alright.
It occurs to me that no one from FNC is on your list of WHCA members. Hmmm ... Just an observation.
And yet, they got the coveted seat that according to Divecon:
it proves they are a respected news source
why else would they be VOTED there unanimously by their PEERS
And their peers include the previously mentioned NPR who was in the running for the seat. Again, if the Liberal MSM was out to protect the Obama Administration, why would they validate the FNC?
Mr. SMITH: There are a lot of people on our channel who want you to think like they do. We just want to give you some information to help you think. I don't much care for ideologues within my newscasts. There's plenty of it out there; you don't need any more.
fox news is number one and it drives media matters and modmoron nutz.. End of story.
I've answered that twice now. Cuz ignoring their stature looks stupid. I quoted the board's statement, which cited FNC's "length of service and committment." What do you want to hear?
Is your contention that FNC is respected at the WH? By the talkers on MSNBC? By the NYT? But the cons won't admit it? Is that your point?
And American Idol got better ratings than Fox news. Doesn't mean American Idol is a trusty worthy news source, it just means people are entertained by it.
