White House lashes out at Fox News for 'lies'

[Heracles 417]

In all fairness though, are they any different to MSNBC? which is rapidly becoming the left wing channel. I watched Keith Olbermann a good 15 times, from start to finish, before I realized this guy spends 96% of his time discussing what he thinks of conservatives and their views; yes, even after the repubs have been out of office for a good 10 months now. I can count on one hand the number of times Keith has actually put forward an idea of his own, that does not relate to attacking a conservative. What I didn't do is watch a handful of snippets on Keith and hate him for it.

To the contrary, many who hate Beck or Oreilly clearly have not watched their shows. The thing I enjoy about these guys is that they do not spend more than 5% of their show discussing their opinion on the views of particular libs. Agree with them or not, their show is about their views. Something Keith, John Stewart and the other rug muncher on MSNBC doesn't seem to grasp.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Booyah!

[Peikko 1,575]

You need to be very leery of worshiping at false alters - or is that a christian concept? If so, carry on worshiping at the faux alter of fox news

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

[Peikko 1,575]

In all fairness though, are they any different to MSNBC? which is rapidly becoming the left wing channel. I watched Keith Olbermann a good 15 times, from start to finish, before I realized this guy spends 96% of his time discussing what he thinks of conservatives and their views; yes, even after the repubs have been out of office for a good 10 months now. I can count on one hand the number of times Keith has actually put forward an idea of his own, that does not relate to attacking a conservative. What I didn't do is watch a handful of snippets on Keith and hate him for it.

To the contrary, many who hate Beck or Oreilly clearly have not watched their shows. The thing I enjoy about these guys is that they do not spend more than 5% of their show discussing their opinion on the views of particular libs. Agree with them or not, their show is about their views. Something Keith, John Stewart and the other rug muncher on MSNBC doesn't seem to grasp.

Views and opinon are not news and should not be peddled or consumed as though they are. It's perfectly fine for any channel to have entertainment shows with whatever host they choose with whatever content they choose but it is not nor should it be labeled as current affairs, news or politics, but that which it properly is, a chat show.

[Heracles 417]

Views and opinon are not news and should not be peddled or consumed as though they are. It's perfectly fine for any channel to have entertainment shows with whatever host they choose with whatever content they choose but it is not nor should it be labeled as current affairs, news or politics, but that which it properly is, a chat show.

Well the US does not have any actual 24/7 news channel, like sky news.

It's why BBC World had to be modified for the American market. Hence, BBC America. Or hence CNN international vs CNN US.

[Peikko 1,575]

That is certainly part of the problem and suggesting that fox news is a model that other channels should follow is not a solution - not that you were but there are those who do.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That is certainly part of the problem and suggesting that fox news is a model that other channels should follow is not a solution - not that you were but there are those who do.

FNC would actually prefer not to be copied, so that they can keep 6 out of the top ten most viewed cable shows, according to Nielsen, week after week.