White House lashes out at Fox News for 'lies'

[rebeccajo 14]

So we have ONE Walmart in the state

Not according to Wal-Mart.

1. Berlin, VT 05602

2. Williston, VT 05495

3. Rutland, VT 05701

4. Bennington, VT 05201

Dog 4

Gary 1

What's the big fascination with WalMart anyway?

Pretty weird to be advocating for the introduction into your society of another arm of another mammoth corporation instead of advocating for small business creation.

Edited October 4, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So we have ONE Walmart in the state

Not according to Wal-Mart.

1. Berlin, VT 05602

2. Williston, VT 05495

3. Rutland, VT 05701

4. Bennington, VT 05201

Dog 4

Gary 1

What's the big fascination with WalMart anyway?

The bargains they have. Bargain = something you don't need at a price you can't resist.

People love to buy cheap imported ####### and then turn around and complain about the disappearing American jobs. Well, Wal-Mart shoppers, anyways.

[rebeccajo 14]

So we have ONE Walmart in the state

Not according to Wal-Mart.

1. Berlin, VT 05602

2. Williston, VT 05495

3. Rutland, VT 05701

4. Bennington, VT 05201

Dog 4

Gary 1

What's the big fascination with WalMart anyway?

The bargains they have. Bargain = something you don't need at a price you can't resist.

People love to buy cheap imported ####### and then turn around and complain about the disappearing American jobs. Well, Wal-Mart shoppers, anyways.

I have this love-hate relationship with Wal-Mart. I'll be honest about that.

I know directly of an instance at one of our local stores wherein they were extremely kind to an employee who was suffering a degenerative mental illness. The man started out in maintenance. His condition was a rapidly advancing one - as his dementia worsened the store moved him into other jobs which required less of him. On one occasion I saw him being assisted by another employee in re-stocking returned items. The job helped give him dignity.

On the other hand, I hate going there. It's too big, too crowded and too tempting. I probably wouldn't go there at all except they are the only store in town that stocks HE detergent and they have a loaf of bread in their bakery we love.

The most positive thing I can see that WalMart has done for the country in regards to consumerism is the $4 generic drug program. Nearly every pharmacy chain now has a similar program and I think that's a great boon to society.

[NickD 202]

Until Reagan, FCC forbade any foreigner or foreign corporation from owning any on air broadcasting system or major entertainment industry. Because of that change we have Thompson, a French corporation, Sony, a Japanese corporation, and Rupert Murdoch, a foreigner owning a good majority of our broadcasting and entertainment business.

All Obama has to do, and now he has the power, is to return to that long standing FCC regulation. While he's at it, can also restore health insurance, anti-trust, and banking regulations. This was a good country back then, but sure going to hell today.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

So they should keep quiet while Fox talks shee-yit about them?

It is a sad day when the administration directly attacks a news source. The white house should do its job and let people say what they will in a country with free speech. Obama does not need to be running around "cirrecting" Glenn Beck , though Glenn Beck loves the attention. Since when did George Bush run around correcting Keith Oberman? I men thi sis just pitiful, pathetic. Obama has the control knobs, his actions will disprove his critics IF he takes the right actions. He needs to grow a thicker skin and do his job.

This would make sense were he dealing with a news source, but he's not. We are very clearly talking about a propaganda operation. That is clear, at least, to anyone who hasn't bought into the propaganda. The list of falsehoods that are promoted as "fair & balanced news" is quite long. If we were to list them all (even with all the supporting evidence) those brainwashed by the propaganda will say "No, that's true!" despite the lack of any supporting evidence in reality and clear evidence to the contrary. So it does no good to challenge the lies that the indoctrinated believe. It is like challenging the god of a true believer. Reality has no bearing on their belief system.

Someone above celebrates the "You lie!" outburst. A classic example. This was said in response to a claim that a bill that contains the words, "nothing in this bill shall be construed as to offer any benefit or coverage to anyone not legally residing in this country." doesn't cover illegal aliens. To most people who can read English, the truth is obvious. In the face of this obvious problem, they seized on the fact that the White House agreed (duh) that, like any law, details of enforcement will have to be worked out once the bill is passed. So this person supporting the "You lie!" outburst would have felt that when they changed the federal interstate speed limit, even though the speed limit is spelled out in the bill, the Democrats would have been right and appropriate to yell, "You lie!" because the details of changing the signs and other enforcement issues would be worked out after the fact by the agencies charged with enforcement. Of course they wouldn't have. It isn't part of his religion. Coverage for illegal aliens that is expressly forbidden in the bill magically appearing after passage of the bill is a part of his religion and so the actual English words in the bill become secondary to his religious beliefs.

Fox is responsible for the rise of "he said- she said" journalism in America, which allows them to present lies (that they know are lies) alongside someone who is telling the truth. They use their position in the debate to prop up the lies and then they say, "Our viewers are smart enough to decide for themselves whether the person we supported or the one we vilified is correct." In fact, the viewers don't have the knowledge or experience to decide and are looking to a "news" source for truth. However, if you aren't the sharpest crayon in the box and TV tells you that you are smarter than climate scientists, smarter than constitutional scholars, etc, etc, then you happily accept Fox's version of reality and cling to it because of how much smarter it makes you feel compared to all those people you've been taught to distrust and despise.

Fox has given voice to the birthers, the tenthers, and has actively promoted the teabaggers and bizarre ideas like Obama's "czars" are going to take the country away from us. Ever watched any of the interviews from other sources with these people? They are genuinely surprised and shocked to hear that the "czar" concept originated with Reagan and was greatly expanded by Bush. So to make the case that Fox has "informed" these people (or "infromed" them as a recent teabagger sign thanked Fox for doing) about the truth prior to sending them out to scream completely loony slogans, would be highly difficult at best. These are the most uninformed and most vulnerable among us, who are being used to support the agenda of rich folks that they themselves will never benefit from.

Very few on the left would be upset at any news agency challenging an elected official on a lie that they told, no matter what office or party we are talking about. That is journalism and that is how journalism and freedom of the press serves the people, by challenging what they would like us to believe and reality checking it. Fox does none of that and unfortunately their style has begun to seep into other media. That doesn't justify it or make it appropriate journalism. It is just how these types of critical problems spread in dysfunctional societies. (Example: How many times was Cheney allowed to say unchallenged that "not a drop" of oil was spilled in the Gulf by Katrina? It is very easy to find the info that about 180,000 gallons spilled, that the slick was large enough that it was observed from the International space station, etc. Why was he never asked how 180K gallons, or what the industry would define as about 9 "major" oil spills, could be characterized as "not a drop.")

Remember, that this was all well planned over a long period of time. First, the idea was promulgated that the media had a left wing bias. Was that ever demonstrable by unbiased examination of news stories? No, it failed to be shown many times but how did people know it was true? They destroyed St. Richard when he lied, so it must be true. They disagreed with St Ronnie when he lied, so it must be true. Then, you don't need those left wing hooligans to tell you the truth! We got truth right here in the temple right-wing righteousness and gosh darn it, if you'll just put us in power forever we will make something "trickle down" if it takes a millennium! We won't stop trying! So, when the time was right, behaving like the diaspora returning, they rebuilt the temple that never was and dedicated it to the lies that would find a home there. And they called it Fox. Not wanting the "enemy" to know it was a temple and come to destroy it, they put the word "News" after the name. "We will tell you what to believe and you will believe it. Like any religion we have a catchy phrase for that. We will call it, "We report, You decide (to believe us)" You must follow the rules of the other religions however. If you look too closely at reality or listen to those liberal heathens called scientists, it will appear that we are wrong or stupid or both. You must avoid reality at all cost and like all the other religions, respond with slogans, illogical arguments which we will supply, and venom. Ad Hominem is our friend and is used to protect our gods but when used against us we will cry like little girls who've had their Barbie doll ripped away.

So we really shouldn't be thinking that Obama is in any way avoiding a news organization. If Obama makes a media tour of crazy fringe religions like Scientology, then we ought to think it appropriate that he'd visit Fox as well. I'm not sure how Obama or the country would benefit from such a tour however. In conclusion:

1) You can't attack a news source that isn't a news source.

2) To stand up for truth and shun feeble liars is in no way "sad"

3) If we had people on this forum with the degree of dishonesty of Fox spreading misinformation about the immigration process, I doubt that you would feel sad that they were corrected or banned. Why would you feel differently about an outfit proclaiming itself a news source?

4) Therefore, there's no reason to feel sad for the propagandists at Fox

and in addition

5) Agree or disagree with how Olbermann said it, there is an obvious reason why Bush couldn't "correct" what was said, although if you take a look at Fox you will see that efforts were made through this propaganda wing of the government to counter the arguments made by Olbermann and reinforce Fox lies

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So we have ONE Walmart in the state

Not according to Wal-Mart.

1. Berlin, VT 05602

2. Williston, VT 05495

3. Rutland, VT 05701

4. Bennington, VT 05201

Dog 4

Gary 1

What's the big fascination with WalMart anyway?

The bargains they have. Bargain = something you don't need at a price you can't resist.

People love to buy cheap imported ####### and then turn around and complain about the disappearing American jobs. Well, Wal-Mart shoppers, anyways.

I have this love-hate relationship with Wal-Mart. I'll be honest about that.

I know directly of an instance at one of our local stores wherein they were extremely kind to an employee who was suffering a degenerative mental illness. The man started out in maintenance. His condition was a rapidly advancing one - as his dementia worsened the store moved him into other jobs which required less of him. On one occasion I saw him being assisted by another employee in re-stocking returned items. The job helped give him dignity.

On the other hand, I hate going there. It's too big, too crowded and too tempting. I probably wouldn't go there at all except they are the only store in town that stocks HE detergent and they have a loaf of bread in their bakery we love.

The most positive thing I can see that WalMart has done for the country in regards to consumerism is the $4 generic drug program. Nearly every pharmacy chain now has a similar program and I think that's a great boon to society.

Wal-Mart isn't all bad and evil. They wouldn't have grown as they have if it was an all around bad company. That said, I avoid the store most of the time and rather shop at my local stores. The prices ain't that much lower at Wal-Mart as far as I can tell. Produce is fresher and less expensive at the local farmers market. The local grocery has better deli meats and a better bakery department - buy what's on sale and you have something different every week and pay less than at Wal-Mart. Meats are best at a local Latino store here. I just don't see the "value" in Wal-Mart.

[Heracles 417]

Capitalism creates its own rules and boundaries, government cannot do a better job than the free market. Sears was the "world's Largest Store" until they forgot about their customers and Walmart has pushed them to oblivion. Now Walmart is doing the same thing and has recently committed to spending millions to improve customer service, store appearance, etc. Maybe it will work and maybe it will not. If not, someone else will take their place just as Walmart did to Sears.

In fact I live in a state (Vermont) with many of the same rules you talk about. We have an "anti-Walmart" law, as it is called, that imposes draconian taxes and "impact fees" on any store over a certian square footage (I forget the square footage but it is just under the usual Walmart size store) So we have ONE Walmart in the state (built before the law passed) And what? We pay more for almost everything here. It is ridiculous. I drive a short distance across a bridge to New York to buy groceries...20-50% cheaper than here! Before the bridge was there I drove into Canada, around the top of the lake and back into New York, two international border crossings!, to get out of this high priced state to buy groceries. Vermont is so "anti-big-business" which is supposed to help the "little guy" and all it does is raise our cost of living to a level it has no business being for a rural state. Say what you will about the high cost of living in New York or Massachusetts, I go to Boston quite often and we load up on groceries in MA where it is even cheaper than Northern New York. Even my Ukrainian wife can spot the difference instantly.

The regulations have just artificially raised the price of everything. We pay MORE here because capitalism is not allowed to set its own price as it is in other states. I dare say the price of things in Australia is generally higher than things here.

Having one major retailer walmart is bad for both the country and for the consumer, as there is no competition. Competition, after all, is exactly what the free market is all about. The lack of competition is why so many people dislike government options. It's just strange to me that in one breath people say they hate the government ( a single entity) operating something, yet in another they endorse a single business doing the same. That's hypocritical. Furthermore, I am yet to see an essential service carried out by the private sector be any better. Once again, people are not focusing on the actual problem, which is not government. The problem is how the government is run and administered. Something us conservatives nipped in the butt back in AUS. Government departments now run no differently to a modern corporation. As a result, they understand and factor in customer service, performance, have quarterly reviews, are paid accordingly etc.

Vermont is more expensive as it should be. What Vermont is doing is not wrong, the issues is that not everyone else is doing it. It's the whole problem with allowing every state to do as they please. You guys have tried the repub every man for themselves / no tax approach and what is the end result? Poverty, crime, dilapidated cities, internationally mocked infrastructure etc. Maybe this is not the case in Vermont, for reasons you are criticizing but certainly the case in most other places in the US that now look like 2nd world countries. The US has been down this road since Regan and the end result is quite pitiful. Yet some of you actually want more of this. That is lunacy. The country needs to start collecting reasonable taxes, to pay for things. People should be promoting the country and companies increase the bar rather than lower it, by demand fair wages for everyone. Rather than the status quo were the Bank of America CEO, who is resigning, walks away with $53 million. Some people here clearly want to lower it. Some actually think lowering the bar will make us more competitive; Simply erroneous.

You know after the US lost the Olympics bid I received a range of emails from people abroad mocking the country. With one comment from a bud in France jokingly stating the American dream is over and that I should just accept it and leave. What angers me is that instead of being able to say #### you we are doing this and this, I have nothing to say. Unfortunately the we have the constitution and freedom is laughed at abroad, so it cannot be used. How do I respond when I myself see places like Detroit, amongst many cities, look Hiroshima after being nuked? Furthermore, I think of all of these republicans, let alone the new crazies Libertarians, who just don't want to improve the country. Who would rather save the 5 to 15% in tax and continue on the downward spiral. Who would rather Americans stay poor because "they're just lazy". The biggest shame of it all is that people in other developed countries are right. So before anyone criticizes states like Vermont, I would have a cold hard look at reality.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You know after the US lost the Olympics bid I received a range of emails from people abroad mocking the country.

Bullshit. Blowhard.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So they should keep quiet while Fox talks shee-yit about them?

It is a sad day when the administration directly attacks a news source. The white house should do its job and let people say what they will in a country with free speech. Obama does not need to be running around "cirrecting" Glenn Beck , though Glenn Beck loves the attention. Since when did George Bush run around correcting Keith Oberman? I men thi sis just pitiful, pathetic. Obama has the control knobs, his actions will disprove his critics IF he takes the right actions. He needs to grow a thicker skin and do his job.

This would make sense were he dealing with a news source, but he's not. We are very clearly talking about a propaganda operation. That is clear, at least, to anyone who hasn't bought into the propaganda. The list of falsehoods that are promoted as "fair & balanced news" is quite long. If we were to list them all (even with all the supporting evidence) those brainwashed by the propaganda will say "No, that's true!" despite the lack of any supporting evidence in reality and clear evidence to the contrary. So it does no good to challenge the lies that the indoctrinated believe. It is like challenging the god of a true believer. Reality has no bearing on their belief system.

Someone above celebrates the "You lie!" outburst. A classic example. This was said in response to a claim that a bill that contains the words, "nothing in this bill shall be construed as to offer any benefit or coverage to anyone not legally residing in this country." doesn't cover illegal aliens. To most people who can read English, the truth is obvious. In the face of this obvious problem, they seized on the fact that the White House agreed (duh) that, like any law, details of enforcement will have to be worked out once the bill is passed. So this person supporting the "You lie!" outburst would have felt that when they changed the federal interstate speed limit, even though the speed limit is spelled out in the bill, the Democrats would have been right and appropriate to yell, "You lie!" because the details of changing the signs and other enforcement issues would be worked out after the fact by the agencies charged with enforcement. Of course they wouldn't have. It isn't part of his religion. Coverage for illegal aliens that is expressly forbidden in the bill magically appearing after passage of the bill is a part of his religion and so the actual English words in the bill become secondary to his religious beliefs.

Fox is responsible for the rise of "he said- she said" journalism in America, which allows them to present lies (that they know are lies) alongside someone who is telling the truth. They use their position in the debate to prop up the lies and then they say, "Our viewers are smart enough to decide for themselves whether the person we supported or the one we vilified is correct." In fact, the viewers don't have the knowledge or experience to decide and are looking to a "news" source for truth. However, if you aren't the sharpest crayon in the box and TV tells you that you are smarter than climate scientists, smarter than constitutional scholars, etc, etc, then you happily accept Fox's version of reality and cling to it because of how much smarter it makes you feel compared to all those people you've been taught to distrust and despise.

Fox has given voice to the birthers, the tenthers, and has actively promoted the teabaggers and bizarre ideas like Obama's "czars" are going to take the country away from us. Ever watched any of the interviews from other sources with these people? They are genuinely surprised and shocked to hear that the "czar" concept originated with Reagan and was greatly expanded by Bush. So to make the case that Fox has "informed" these people (or "infromed" them as a recent teabagger sign thanked Fox for doing) about the truth prior to sending them out to scream completely loony slogans, would be highly difficult at best. These are the most uninformed and most vulnerable among us, who are being used to support the agenda of rich folks that they themselves will never benefit from.

Very few on the left would be upset at any news agency challenging an elected official on a lie that they told, no matter what office or party we are talking about. That is journalism and that is how journalism and freedom of the press serves the people, by challenging what they would like us to believe and reality checking it. Fox does none of that and unfortunately their style has begun to seep into other media. That doesn't justify it or make it appropriate journalism. It is just how these types of critical problems spread in dysfunctional societies. (Example: How many times was Cheney allowed to say unchallenged that "not a drop" of oil was spilled in the Gulf by Katrina? It is very easy to find the info that about 180,000 gallons spilled, that the slick was large enough that it was observed from the International space station, etc. Why was he never asked how 180K gallons, or what the industry would define as about 9 "major" oil spills, could be characterized as "not a drop.")

Remember, that this was all well planned over a long period of time. First, the idea was promulgated that the media had a left wing bias. Was that ever demonstrable by unbiased examination of news stories? No, it failed to be shown many times but how did people know it was true? They destroyed St. Richard when he lied, so it must be true. They disagreed with St Ronnie when he lied, so it must be true. Then, you don't need those left wing hooligans to tell you the truth! We got truth right here in the temple right-wing righteousness and gosh darn it, if you'll just put us in power forever we will make something "trickle down" if it takes a millennium! We won't stop trying! So, when the time was right, behaving like the diaspora returning, they rebuilt the temple that never was and dedicated it to the lies that would find a home there. And they called it Fox. Not wanting the "enemy" to know it was a temple and come to destroy it, they put the word "News" after the name. "We will tell you what to believe and you will believe it. Like any religion we have a catchy phrase for that. We will call it, "We report, You decide (to believe us)" You must follow the rules of the other religions however. If you look too closely at reality or listen to those liberal heathens called scientists, it will appear that we are wrong or stupid or both. You must avoid reality at all cost and like all the other religions, respond with slogans, illogical arguments which we will supply, and venom. Ad Hominem is our friend and is used to protect our gods but when used against us we will cry like little girls who've had their Barbie doll ripped away.

So we really shouldn't be thinking that Obama is in any way avoiding a news organization. If Obama makes a media tour of crazy fringe religions like Scientology, then we ought to think it appropriate that he'd visit Fox as well. I'm not sure how Obama or the country would benefit from such a tour however. In conclusion:

1) You can't attack a news source that isn't a news source.

2) To stand up for truth and shun feeble liars is in no way "sad"

3) If we had people on this forum with the degree of dishonesty of Fox spreading misinformation about the immigration process, I doubt that you would feel sad that they were corrected or banned. Why would you feel differently about an outfit proclaiming itself a news source?

4) Therefore, there's no reason to feel sad for the propagandists at Fox

and in addition

5) Agree or disagree with how Olbermann said it, there is an obvious reason why Bush couldn't "correct" what was said, although if you take a look at Fox you will see that efforts were made through this propaganda wing of the government to counter the arguments made by Olbermann and reinforce Fox lies

Excellent post.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry, Nick. Rupert Murdock has had dual Austrailian-American citizenship since 1985.

Until Reagan, FCC forbade any foreigner or foreign corporation from owning any on air broadcasting system or major entertainment industry. Because of that change we have Thompson, a French corporation, Sony, a Japanese corporation, and Rupert Murdoch, a foreigner owning a good majority of our broadcasting and entertainment business.

All Obama has to do, and now he has the power, is to return to that long standing FCC regulation. While he's at it, can also restore health insurance, anti-trust, and banking regulations. This was a good country back then, but sure going to hell today.

[Jamaican JNR 2]

In the past few months, Fox News' critical coverage of the Obama administration has been the subject of scornful scrutiny by left-leaning pundits and political satirists. But now the White House appears to be willing to get dirt on its own hands, jumping into the fray by blasting the network's "disregard for facts" in a post on the official White House blog.

Written by White House Online Programs Director Jesse Lee, the post takes issue with Fox News' coverage of the president's attempts to help the city of Chicago secure the 2016 Olympics, saying that Rupert Murdoch's cable news juggernaut, which famously bills itself as being "fair and balanced," has "continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts" to convince the International Olympic Committee that the U.S. should host the games.

Lee specifically takes issue with Glenn Beck, who in July accused the president of being a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture," for showing that "nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings." Lee then goes on to "reality check" a number of assertions recently made by Beck on his afternoon program, in addition to directing readers to the St. Petersburg Times' Politifact site, which rebuts accusations made by Fox News' Steve Doocy against Patrick Gaspard, the director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.

The move by the Obama White House sets a new watermark in its seemingly escalating war with Fox News. Back in June, President Obama gave an interview to CNBC in which he criticized the network for being "entirely devoted to attacking my administration," and later promised to "call out" anyone who misrepresents him when he delivered his address on health care reform to a joint session of Congress. Taking it a step further, Obama slighted Fox News during the White House's recent pro-health care reform PR blitz, appearing on five Sunday news shows, not to mention Late Night with David Letterman, while declining to grant an interview to a single Fox News program, a move that led Chris Wallace, host of the network's Fox News Sunday, to label the Obama White House as the "biggest bunch of cry-babies I've ever seen." Some objective observers of politics and the media feel that the ire expressed by Wallace is somewhat understandable. After all, the Obama administration's frustrations stem not from non-partisan hosts like Wallace, but from Fox News' roster of unabashedly partisan hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity, who've both gone so far as to compare the Obama White House to Hitler's Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

While many are raising hay about the White House acting aggressively to combat perceived smears from Fox News, it isn't unprecedented for a president and his administration to feud openly with the media. George W. Bush and CBS came to blows in 2004 after Dan Rather alleged on 60 Minutes II that Bush had used his family's connections to manipulate his enlistment in the National Guard to avoid serving in combat in Vietnam, an incident that led to the firing of CBS producer Mary Mapes and badly tarnished Rather's reputation as an objective newsman. Prior to that, Hillary Clinton famously alleged that forces in the media were involved in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to destroy her husband's presidency, while Nixon's infamous enemies list contained numerous names of media members and the news organizations they worked for. In short, animosity existing between the White House and the media isn't anything new.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama did what many presidential candidates of both parties have done over the years: promised to "change the tone in Washington." By using the White House blog to defend itself from perceived media distortions, the Obama Administration may be unintentionally signaling that their promise to alter the nation's political discourse was a lofty notion that they might fail to fulfill, just like every past presidential Administration to make the same promise.

link

the white house said so - fox news is evil! obey obama and condemn fox news!

I personally stop watching fox news long time ago. They are in my opinion bias towards the Dems. If you are in the business of broadcasting news, then you should be fair to both side of the fence.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The White House is a propaganda source that talks sh!t about America. The reason that this regime and their brown-nosers hate Fox is because they don't kiss his azz like CNN. NBC, ABC, MessNBC and the rest of their media sychophants do.

The IOC didn't admire Obama as much as he does either. I send them my love.

So they should keep quiet while Fox talks shee-yit about them?

It is a sad day when the administration directly attacks a news source. The white house should do its job and let people say what they will in a country with free speech. Obama does not need to be running around "cirrecting" Glenn Beck , though Glenn Beck loves the attention. Since when did George Bush run around correcting Keith Oberman? I men thi sis just pitiful, pathetic. Obama has the control knobs, his actions will disprove his critics IF he takes the right actions. He needs to grow a thicker skin and do his job.

This would make sense were he dealing with a news source, but he's not. We are very clearly talking about a propaganda operation. That is clear, at least, to anyone who hasn't bought into the propaganda. The list of falsehoods that are promoted as "fair & balanced news" is quite long. If we were to list them all (even with all the supporting evidence) those brainwashed by the propaganda will say "No, that's true!" despite the lack of any supporting evidence in reality and clear evidence to the contrary. So it does no good to challenge the lies that the indoctrinated believe. It is like challenging the god of a true believer. Reality has no bearing on their belief system.

Someone above celebrates the "You lie!" outburst. A classic example. This was said in response to a claim that a bill that contains the words, "nothing in this bill shall be construed as to offer any benefit or coverage to anyone not legally residing in this country." doesn't cover illegal aliens. To most people who can read English, the truth is obvious. In the face of this obvious problem, they seized on the fact that the White House agreed (duh) that, like any law, details of enforcement will have to be worked out once the bill is passed. So this person supporting the "You lie!" outburst would have felt that when they changed the federal interstate speed limit, even though the speed limit is spelled out in the bill, the Democrats would have been right and appropriate to yell, "You lie!" because the details of changing the signs and other enforcement issues would be worked out after the fact by the agencies charged with enforcement. Of course they wouldn't have. It isn't part of his religion. Coverage for illegal aliens that is expressly forbidden in the bill magically appearing after passage of the bill is a part of his religion and so the actual English words in the bill become secondary to his religious beliefs.

Fox is responsible for the rise of "he said- she said" journalism in America, which allows them to present lies (that they know are lies) alongside someone who is telling the truth. They use their position in the debate to prop up the lies and then they say, "Our viewers are smart enough to decide for themselves whether the person we supported or the one we vilified is correct." In fact, the viewers don't have the knowledge or experience to decide and are looking to a "news" source for truth. However, if you aren't the sharpest crayon in the box and TV tells you that you are smarter than climate scientists, smarter than constitutional scholars, etc, etc, then you happily accept Fox's version of reality and cling to it because of how much smarter it makes you feel compared to all those people you've been taught to distrust and despise.

Fox has given voice to the birthers, the tenthers, and has actively promoted the teabaggers and bizarre ideas like Obama's "czars" are going to take the country away from us. Ever watched any of the interviews from other sources with these people? They are genuinely surprised and shocked to hear that the "czar" concept originated with Reagan and was greatly expanded by Bush. So to make the case that Fox has "informed" these people (or "infromed" them as a recent teabagger sign thanked Fox for doing) about the truth prior to sending them out to scream completely loony slogans, would be highly difficult at best. These are the most uninformed and most vulnerable among us, who are being used to support the agenda of rich folks that they themselves will never benefit from.

Very few on the left would be upset at any news agency challenging an elected official on a lie that they told, no matter what office or party we are talking about. That is journalism and that is how journalism and freedom of the press serves the people, by challenging what they would like us to believe and reality checking it. Fox does none of that and unfortunately their style has begun to seep into other media. That doesn't justify it or make it appropriate journalism. It is just how these types of critical problems spread in dysfunctional societies. (Example: How many times was Cheney allowed to say unchallenged that "not a drop" of oil was spilled in the Gulf by Katrina? It is very easy to find the info that about 180,000 gallons spilled, that the slick was large enough that it was observed from the International space station, etc. Why was he never asked how 180K gallons, or what the industry would define as about 9 "major" oil spills, could be characterized as "not a drop.")

Remember, that this was all well planned over a long period of time. First, the idea was promulgated that the media had a left wing bias. Was that ever demonstrable by unbiased examination of news stories? No, it failed to be shown many times but how did people know it was true? They destroyed St. Richard when he lied, so it must be true. They disagreed with St Ronnie when he lied, so it must be true. Then, you don't need those left wing hooligans to tell you the truth! We got truth right here in the temple right-wing righteousness and gosh darn it, if you'll just put us in power forever we will make something "trickle down" if it takes a millennium! We won't stop trying! So, when the time was right, behaving like the diaspora returning, they rebuilt the temple that never was and dedicated it to the lies that would find a home there. And they called it Fox. Not wanting the "enemy" to know it was a temple and come to destroy it, they put the word "News" after the name. "We will tell you what to believe and you will believe it. Like any religion we have a catchy phrase for that. We will call it, "We report, You decide (to believe us)" You must follow the rules of the other religions however. If you look too closely at reality or listen to those liberal heathens called scientists, it will appear that we are wrong or stupid or both. You must avoid reality at all cost and like all the other religions, respond with slogans, illogical arguments which we will supply, and venom. Ad Hominem is our friend and is used to protect our gods but when used against us we will cry like little girls who've had their Barbie doll ripped away.

So we really shouldn't be thinking that Obama is in any way avoiding a news organization. If Obama makes a media tour of crazy fringe religions like Scientology, then we ought to think it appropriate that he'd visit Fox as well. I'm not sure how Obama or the country would benefit from such a tour however. In conclusion:

1) You can't attack a news source that isn't a news source.

2) To stand up for truth and shun feeble liars is in no way "sad"

3) If we had people on this forum with the degree of dishonesty of Fox spreading misinformation about the immigration process, I doubt that you would feel sad that they were corrected or banned. Why would you feel differently about an outfit proclaiming itself a news source?

4) Therefore, there's no reason to feel sad for the propagandists at Fox

and in addition

5) Agree or disagree with how Olbermann said it, there is an obvious reason why Bush couldn't "correct" what was said, although if you take a look at Fox you will see that efforts were made through this propaganda wing of the government to counter the arguments made by Olbermann and reinforce Fox lies

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Peikko 1,575]

Fox news is not the current day representation of evil, that's clearly ridiculous but it's not the only 'fair and impartial' news channel either - to be honest such a thing does not exist and I am not quite sure when this expecatation for there to be one started.

What one should demand of journalists and news pervayors is rigorous fact checking which should be the basis for all news stories regardless of any slant that is attributed to it but that's expensive so it's not something that very many tv channels bother with any more.