Programs: UA 1K, IC RA, Marriott Silver, SPG Gold, ¤
Posts: 26,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by COS_Flyer
So is the AP now suspect like Fox? You asked about whether the refusal of a soldier to deploy would merit coverage (from Fox, I guess) apart from a connection to Obama. I provided the evidence that Fox had in fact covered and Bill O'Reilly had interviewed such a person. I regret that I cannot provide video of the interview. My DVR was off that day I'm not sure what else would satisfy you. Clearly, it was NOT just an Obama thing.
I think you are wrong.
I'm asking you if you personally think this coverage approaches the coverage given to the birther craze. What do you think?
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA, Marriott Silver, SPG Gold, ¤
Posts: 26,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dugernaut
I love this objective quote from Lee Cowan at NBC after he was selected by his editors to cover the Obama campaign;
“When NBC News first assigned me to the Barack Obama campaign, I must confess my knees quaked a bit....I wondered if I was up to the job. I wondered if I could do the campaign justice.”
— NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an article for NBC’s “The Peacock” advertising supplement, March 23-29.
I don't follow. Do you think this is a smoking gun or something?
This is the sort of political strategy that appeals to the far Left and nobody else. The best way to counter what you deem unfair criticism is to go on Fox and give your side of the story. The WH should reconsider this strategy if they've got any political smarts.
This is the sort of political strategy that appeals to the far Left and nobody else. The best way to counter what you deem unfair criticism is to go on Fox and give your side of the story. The WH should reconsider this strategy if they've got any political smarts.
agreed. I think every political strategist I've seen comment on this (outside of those working for the current administration) has said this is a bad move...how does that saying go? "don't roll in the mud with pigs...you both get muddy, but only the pig enjoys it"...or something like that.
agreed. I think every political strategist I've seen comment on this (outside of those working for the current administration) has said this is a bad move...how does that saying go? "don't roll in the mud with pigs...you both get muddy, but only the pig enjoys it"...or something like that.
Yes, we're supposed to believe an administration that is too scared to go on Fox is going to get Iran to give up its nukes? Give me a break - the administration should grow a pair and go on Fox and give its side of the story. They certainly aren't getting much traction talking to MSNBC's 12 viewers every night.
It's important to remember that Dan Rather and a few members of the CBS News Staff continue (even to this day!) to insist obviously forged documents that claim Bush skipped out of National Guard service are real. And they unveiled these photos right before the 2004 election, in an obvious "October surprise" intended to win John Kerry the election.
Yet the previous administration continued to speak with CBS right until the very end of its second term. Refusing to talk to people who disagree with your administration comes across as petty at best, and Nixonian "enemies list" type paranoid at worst.
Programs: NW silver, Spirit Somebody; DL, CO, UA once gold now dirt. AA & US for magazines.
Posts: 6,003
Re: OP. Fox has crossed a real line with its promotion of tea-party events. Even if you carve those like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck out of the "news" part of the operation (they're commentators and are there to express opinions), the fact that it was all orchestrated and, most importantly, coordinated with the "news" side of the operation, crosses the line into advocacy (If further proof were needed, the footage of Fox producers trying to whip up the crowd for a camera shot circulated).
A real news organization like CNN would still let someone like James Carville do advocacy work, but they wouldn't try themselves to organize all their Carville types behind a "movement." Most importantly, even if they all did vocally get behind the same cause at the same time, the news branch would take great pains against appearing to show favoritism in coverage. They'd likely avoid showing too much of their "own" people talking, and if they did they'd be sure to disclose that ____ is a commentator for CNN. And if that person came on an opinion-oriented show, the advocacy role would also be disclosed.
There'd be a real church-and-state separation there between the "commentary" side and the news side that Fox hasn't been willing to have.
Of course, the Fox types like nothing better than to play the victims or the persecuted, so you'll get that spun version in spades.
Programs: AA EXP 1MM, UA 1K MM, Hilton Diamond, Costco General Member
Posts: 19,359
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILuvParis
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreequentFlier
Well, it's what they're doing in Argentina as we speak.
I read the Argentine Senate just approved a change in the law, but it's not quite that bad, is it?
Wait. We live in Argentina now? Damn it, nobody tells me anything anymore!
__________________
"And the only sound that's left after the ambulances go
Is Cinderella sweeping up on Desolation Row"
I'm not sure what else would satisfy you. Clearly, it was NOT just an Obama thing.
