Routinely, without disclosure, according to Scott McClellan; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-OpIXfXKO8

There seems to be something wrong when the "Most watched news channel" is secretly a mouthpiece for legislative branch propaganda.

7/26/2008 2:12:50 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=527139&page=3

7/26/2008 2:16:13 PM

so the reps have fox and the dems have cnn, nbc, nyt, and on and on... whoop-ti-do-da

7/26/2008 2:27:21 PM

and yet in the past 40 years dems been in charge 12....reverse psychology ftw?

7/26/2008 2:29:10 PM

Quote :

"so the reps have fox and the dems have cnn, nbc, nyt, and on and on... whoop-ti-do-da "

You obviously did not even watch the first 30 seconds of the video.

7/26/2008 2:32:02 PM

i don't have a problem w/ fox news media bias. all channels have a bias some are just bigger than others. It has been researched that people tend to migrate to sources of information that match their own viewpoints "cognitive bias". Fox News is merely just catering to the "conservative" market as many stations naturally lean left b.c of the liberal arts nature of media reporting.

The only thing that upsets is me about fox news is the denial of conservative bias or even the bold claim but right wingers that faux news is the only "unbiased" new source.

7/26/2008 3:59:31 PM

this is a lot worse than just having some bias

7/26/2008 4:18:59 PM

Quote :

"so the reps have fox and the dems have cnn, nbc, nyt, and on and on... whoop-ti-do-da"

Quote :

"Fox News is merely just catering to the "conservative" market as many stations naturally lean left b.c of the liberal arts nature of media reporting."

some of you are having a hard time discerning the difference between a bias, which occurs in one way or another in almost all media outlets, and a propaganda machine, which is what McClellan is stating Fox News is for the White House.
There is a difference between being favorable or "leaning" one direction, and getting memos from the White House and having your talking heads read them on the air as if they are their own thoughts, without disclosure.

7/26/2008 4:51:50 PM

Well, the White House when controlled by Democrats doesn't have to write talking points for the media--(1) most of them are in the tank for Democrats and (2) used to work in a Democrat president's administration or for a Democrat senator or representative.

Who the fuck needs talking points when you've got left-wing groupthink?

7/26/2008 5:08:47 PM

^

Quote :

"some of you are having a hard time discerning the difference between a bias, which occurs in one way or another in almost all media outlets, and a propaganda machine, which is what McClellan is stating Fox News is for the White House."

7/26/2008 5:21:00 PM

^

Quote :

"Who the fuck needs talking points when you've got left-wing groupthink? "

7/26/2008 5:34:35 PM

you right wing moonbat

7/26/2008 5:38:31 PM

there's really no point in debating with hooksaw about any topics relating to the democrat/republican divide it seems.

he has his mind made up, and we're all obviously complete idiots because we don't see his points as indisputable facts and then readily thank him for showing us the light.

7/26/2008 8:42:12 PM

the "Most watched news channel" is secretly a mouthpiece for legislative executive branch propaganda

7/26/2008 9:37:32 PM

[hooksaw]

having a major American news network act as mouthpiece for the Bush Administration is okay ...

...because it acts as a counterbalance to the fact that Outer Space Aliens have secretly brainwashed all the liberals and are controlling them from the planet Xenu in an attempt to create a New World Order.

[/hooksaw]



not that i ever really took his contorted attempts at political apologetics as anything more than entertainment value

but now after reading his posts in the "Aliens" thread, i just cant read a single thing he writes without picturing him sitting at his computer wearing a tinfoil hat








[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 10:18 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2008 10:14:58 PM

^ i don't think kooksaw takes the alien thing seriously, he just likes to troll, that's his MO.

Either that or he is just extremely gullible to think a show called "Hunt for UFOs" presents the unbiased reality (which probably explains his political leanings too).

7/26/2008 11:31:04 PM

Quote :

"the "Most watched news channel" is secretly a mouthpiece for legislative executive branch propaganda "

FAIL

7/26/2008 11:31:40 PM

yeh, you kind of brainfarted that first post didnt you

:-/

7/27/2008 12:32:06 AM

Quote :

"because it acts as a counterbalance to the fact that Outer Space Aliens have secretly brainwashed all the liberals and are controlling them from the planet Xenu in an attempt to create a New World Order. "

as long as we avoid talks about economic issues; i rather like this joe_schmoe guy he makes me laugh at the expense of the hardcore arrogant neo-con republican moonbats.

7/27/2008 4:20:33 AM

thanks, but i know that's only because you're posting that at 4:20

7/27/2008 12:03:58 PM

I don't see the big deal. WRAL prints/covers whatever tripe the cops feed them all the time, ridiculously uncorroborated shit like: MURDER RATE DROPS 70% THANKS TO LATEST CLICK IT OR TICKET CAMPAIGN.

Most news is just a government mouthpiece. It's the easiest place to get quotes.

7/27/2008 1:51:08 PM

^ haha

That stuff is usually accompanied by a "raleigh police report[verb]". And it's a lot different when the President is doing something like this than your local police station.

7/27/2008 2:06:01 PM

Are you kidding? All presidents have a scheduled daily reporter feeding time.

7/27/2008 2:11:02 PM

^ You don't seem to understand what happened. I suggest watching the video linked in the first post.

7/27/2008 2:15:23 PM

Quote :

"It is one of those things you kind of assumed to be true all along..."

7/27/2008 2:18:41 PM

RAWR

7/27/2008 2:22:58 PM

Quote :

"there's really no point in debating with hooksaw about any topics relating to the democrat/republican divide it seems. he has his mind made up, and we're all obviously complete idiots because we don't see his points as indisputable facts and then readily thank him for showing us the light."

LunaK

I do think many of you could be more thankful for my "indisputable facts."

Quote :

"i don't think kooksaw takes the alien thing seriously, he just likes to troll, that's his MO. Either that or he is just extremely gullible to think a show called 'Hunt for UFOs' presents the unbiased reality (which probably explains his political leanings too)."

actualmoron

As usual, you have your facts wrong.

1. I simply find shows about UFOs entertaining.

2. I simply find the idea of extraterrestrial life interesting--as do many other people.

Poll probes Americans' belief in UFOs, life on other planets
07/15/2008

Quote :

"Most Americans say it is very likely or somewhat likely that humans are not alone in the universe and that intelligent life exists on other planets."

Quote :

"People with strong political and ideological convictions -- self-identified 'strong Republicans' and 'very conservative' people as well as 'strong Democrats' and 'very liberal' persons -- are much less likely to report having seen a UFO than are politically moderate persons."

Quote :

"'People who are in the establishment are more likely to have distain for the whole UFO issue. That's something those of us in the field of UFO study have seen over and over again. But people who are independent are more open to the issue.'"

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/34758

It's not surprising that this poll indicates extremists--like you--have a hard time grasping these things.

3. The TV show at issue is called UFO Hunters.

Quote :

"JoeSchmoe, you're not changing anyone's mind about anything. We liberals are ashamed to have people like you try to speak on our behalves."

KG

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=523842

Truer words were never typed.

[Edited on July 28, 2008 at 5:25 AM. Reason : .]

7/28/2008 5:23:52 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw, you're not changing anyone's mind about anything. Conservatives feel their sphincters implode every time you try to speak on their behalves.""

7/28/2008 11:45:49 AM

You poor dumb gullible fuckheads:

Quote :

"Scott McClellan: I heard you say the truth matters and I agree with you. The truth is I messed up. . . . Some of your critics went "Aha! It has to be this!""

Quote :

"Bill O'Reilly: Do you owe me an apology?"

Quote :

"McClellan: [after stammering and deflecting for several minutes] I'm sorry, Bill. I didn't mean to do that."

Quote :

"O'Reilly: I want you to say to the people that are listening that, as far as you know, I never received talking points from the White House."

Quote :

"McClellan: I don't know that--I don't. I have no knowledge of that."

Quote :

"O'Reilly: But I never received talking points, correct?"

Quote :

"McClellan: I never said you did."

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/fgx239042719.html

"Judas" McClellan folded like a two-dollar suitcase here. Is this fat little fucking weasel really the guy some of you want to hold up as the oracle of truth--about anything?

7/30/2008 4:00:36 AM

Bill O'Reilly shouted a man into submission on his show.

Man, you must be right.

Wait, wait, I'm sorry. I apologize. I don't disagree. Please don't have a heart attack or anything, and please, for the love of Christ, no more genital pictures.*

*-The last sentence was an afterthought on the rest of my post, the thrust of which was that posting a conversation between Bill O'Reilly -- widely known as one of the most belligerent and intimidating men on television -- and someone he doesn't like is not a valid demonstration of evidence. I apologize for the misunderstanding to anyone who may have interpreted this post as being an attack on hooksaw, who alone among wolfwebbers is immune to insult because of his heart condition, which I assume was brought on by advanced age, or by a constant stream of apoplectic rage. You know, whichever.**

**-That last was intended as an apology and clarification, but I dicked it up. I'm sorry.***

***-I really did mean the part about how an O'Reilly interview doesn't prove jack-shit.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 4:14 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 4:17 AM. Reason : Also, the "FrumpyGOP" schpiel is a bit tired, may I suggest "DumpyGOP" as a breath of fresh air]

7/30/2008 4:13:35 AM

^ Um. . .it was a call-in interview on the radio, so little fat "Judas" McClellan didn't have to worry about O'Reilly beating him up or anything. What McClellan said concerning O'Reilly not receiving White House talking points appears to--finally--be the truth.

BTW, your stupid, smug post did absolutely nothing to refute McClellan's backpedaling. And FWIW:

1. There's a difference between commentators and reporters.

2. The line between talking points and everyday info sought by every applicable commentator, reporter, and correspondent has blurred.

3. I can't say for sure that no FOX News person ever received--and used in an improper way--anything that could be described as "talking points"; I don't have that information and you don't have proof they did receive same either.

4. As I've indicated here before, I don't even like O'Reilly that much--he's arrogant and doesn't let people finish their thoughts much of the time. But he's also number one. This is about getting closer to the truth, and not about me cheerleading for FNC or O'Reilly.

5. Believe what you will, Mulder--"the truth is out there."

7/30/2008 4:44:37 AM

Quote :

" some of you are having a hard time discerning the difference between a bias, which occurs in one way or another in almost all media outlets, and a propaganda machine, which is what McClellan is stating Fox News is for the White House."

I am not at all convinced.

First of all, McClellan very explicitly "separates out" the _journalists_ in his statement. i.e. those who are in the routine course of reporting news and who have an ethical, professional obligation to objectivity. The people who are basically reporters for Fox News are doing just that -- reporting, objectively, what they see and synthesizing the relevant facts. Based on this alone, I don't see how Fox News can lose claim to being Fair and Balanced since clearly straight journalism is the arena in which that matters most.

The commentators are a different matter; they are providing content that is editorial in nature and to cry foul at "bias" there is inane. Editorial content is biased by definition. It's supposed to be; editorials are all about opinion.

If they are receiving these talking points and reiterating them without much additional insight or color or "balance," as it were -- then that's their choice as editorial staff. The White House isn't somehow running a propaganda machine because nobody at Fox News is _obligated_ to reiterate their talking points. It seems to me that you can't just trot out the word "propaganda" because it suits you -- because you're excluding the very real possibility that the commentators at Fox News actually _agree_ with the talking points they receive.

Beyond that, I think the term "propaganda" in this context is really just being used as a pejorative without much substance behind it. Technically any information that the White House produces in a public relations capacity is "propaganda." The OED defines propaganda as:

Quote :

"The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view. Also: information disseminated in this way; the means or media by which such ideas are disseminated."

Clearly we're dealing in broad strokes here -- for example, when Condolezza Rice is invited to speak at the World Economic Forum about the White House's economic agenda, is she "propagandizing?" Probably. But of course no one is forced to accept her point of view. Likewise Fox News can receive faxes day and night from the White House, but its commentators make the call to take them to air.

Quote :

"Bill O'Reilly shouted a man into submission on his show. Man, you must be right."

Well ... he is? Did you listen to the interview?

7/30/2008 5:54:09 AM

I don't see why people give Bill O'Reilly so much shit all the time. He always starts off letting other people on his show express their opinions. Then after he carefully and eloquently dissects every point of view they offer from their small LIBERAL minds and they still can't see his correct point of view, he gets a little riled. You'd be the same way if you politely tried to tell people why they're stupid and wrong and they didn't listen. He's human. Stop hassling him for getting a little angry at all the people who are less right than he is.

7/30/2008 6:47:07 AM

Look, obviously it's Fox News's deal if they want to use what the White House gives them. I don't approve of much anything they do, and I'm there are lots of people with me on that. But it's a free world, they say what they want.

However, if they use talking points from the White House and don't disclose it, then that's clearly bad (duh), and indicates horrible quality of the news program (the details of this particular case don't look great the executive branch either).

Conservatives on the internet trying to defend this action is also retarded. Your political persuasion is not an exclusive club, you don't have to defend every conservative on Earth when they fuck up. That makes you look even worse. All of you.

7/30/2008 8:53:24 AM

Did any of ya'll actually watch O'Rielly last night when McClellan said he lied about the whole thing? He said he didn't care that he did and that he would let the people make up their own minds. When you give retards like ya'll on here false facts thats when you start living in lala land. the majority of ya'll are in lala land so you will actually believe what he says.

The guy don't have one shred of credibility left and ya'll still believe what he says.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 9:15 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 9:22 AM. Reason : .]

7/30/2008 9:13:12 AM

Quote :

"The guy don't have one shred of credibility left and ya'll still believe what he says."

.... are you talking about O'Reilly or McClellan?


anyway - back to the first post and the original subject. I think I remember McClellan saying basically the same thing on Fresh Air a couple months ago - that it was regular policy for the White House to draft talking points and position statements and send them around to media outlets, especially conservative ones. It didn't cause a shit-storm the first time he said it, but this time, Chris Matthews basically started putting words into McClellan's mouth, and McClellan started just agreeing with what Matthews said. If you watch the interview again, you'll see that McClellan made a general statement, then Matthews started drawing more conclusions and trying to pull it out more and more, and McClellan basically just started saying "yes" (or "certainly") to whatever Matthews said.

The Daily Show proves this almost weekly whenever they pull together all the soundbites of all the talking heads saying the same words and phrases whenever a new topic arises in the news

7/30/2008 9:38:56 AM

^ Um. . .yeah, Fresh Air hosted by Terry Gross, right? STFU.

Quote :

"A number of commentators have noted her tendency to question liberal guests more gently than conservative ones."

Quote :

"An October 8, 2003, interview with Fox News television host Bill O'Reilly, who walked out of the interview because of what he considered her biased questions, creating a media controversy fed by the ongoing presidential campaign. Toward the end of the interview, O'Reilly asked Gross if she had been as tough on Al Franken, who had appeared on the program two weeks before O'Reilly, as she had been with O'Reilly. Gross responded, 'No, I wasn't…we had a different interview.' Gross was later criticised by then NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin for 'an interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly.' Dvorkin described Gross's interviewing tactic of reading a critical quote of O'Reilly after he had walked out of the room as 'unethical and unfair.'"

Quote :

"A February 9, 2005, interview of Lynne Cheney, conservative author and wife of vice president Dick Cheney. The initial focus of the interview was on Cheney's latest history book, but Gross moved on to questions about Cheney's lesbian daughter Mary and her opinion of the Bush administration's opposition to gay marriage. Cheney declined to comment on her daughter's sexuality, but repeatedly stated her opposition to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which was being endorsed by President Bush. Cheney declined to discuss the matter further. Later, when Gross brought the interview back to issues of gay rights, Cheney again refused to comment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gross



I scoff at your outlets.

7/30/2008 1:18:54 PM

uhh, yeah, i'm fully aware of what kind of interviewer Terry Gross is and what her biases are.

If you had followed your own logic concerning how liberal she is, though, then the only logical conclusion would be that she should have been harsher than even Chris Matthews was, you ignorant piece of shit.

Terry Gross, by your own account, should have done everything she could to implicate Bush and the White House, since she was interviewing a guy who is obviously willing to do so himself, you dumb fucking redneck.

Terry Gross and Chris Matthews took the same information from McClellan - that the White House regularly sent talking points to conservative commentators - and Gross more or less let this potentially damning, or at least juicy, piece of information go, but Matthews jumped on it like like a rabid pitbull and backed McClellan into a corner where he was left babbling and agreeing with whatever Matthews said, you low life bottom dweller.

Nice job with the logical reasoning and missing a prime opportunity to show you have more than 2 working brain cells, you scum sucking inbred idiot.

7/30/2008 1:58:13 PM

^ Blah, blab, blather, slobber. STFU.

7/30/2008 2:31:53 PM

oh, right - that was a bit too complex for your little pea-brain to comprehend.
I guess what you lack in reading comprehension you make up for in dick-sucking technique.

7/30/2008 2:49:26 PM

you mean, dick-posting techniques. amirite?

7/30/2008 2:51:33 PM

agentlyins' hero: Terry Gross. The typical, urban, far-left moonbat who stinks of the art house. GG!

^^ and ^ Two more "Teeny tiny wee-wees"!


[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2008 3:57:18 PM

Well hell, if you're going to play the elitist card, how exactly would you characterize O'Reilly?

7/30/2008 4:00:21 PM

^ Can you not read, Boone-Tard--or are you being purposely obtuse?

From above:

Quote :

"4. As I've indicated here before, I don't even like O'Reilly that much--he's arrogant and doesn't let people finish their thoughts much of the time. But he's also number one. This is about getting closer to the truth, and not about me cheerleading for FNC or O'Reilly."

STFU.

7/30/2008 4:06:11 PM

Christ, Terry Gross has a face for radio, eh?

7/30/2008 4:08:54 PM

Yes, but in your frenzied, frothy fervor to discredit McClellan, you're using O'Reilly's word against Gross's, for reasons of butch-ness and elitism.

O'Reilly may not be as manly as Gross, but he's certainly her match as far as elitism goes.

7/30/2008 4:09:16 PM

Quote :

"agentlyins' hero: Terry Gross. The typical, urban, far-left moonbat who stinks of the art house. GG! "

you still don't get it, do you? you thick-skulled numbnut.

Gross could have taken the bits of information she got from McClellan on this topic and gone to town on Bush & Co. But she didn't, either because she didn't feel it was a worthy subject, or maybe she's just a bad interviewer. Either way, you're not going to catch me defending her. i don't listen to her show very much because her voice inflection and questioning-style grates on my nerves.

7/30/2008 4:09:53 PM

on a side-note. i really can't stand terry gross. i liked her for a while, but then you realize just how much of a caricature she is of the npr-host. there are other things too that annoy me about her, but i won't get into that. anyway. carry on.

7/30/2008 4:11:05 PM

^^ Well, I was just going by your post that indicated you listen to her. In any event, I'm sure Gross will be pitching some more softballs to al-Franken and his ilk soon.

^ I mean, seriously--she looks like something right out of central casting if one were to order a liberal NPR host, doesn't she?

Yeah, central casting? This is Frank over on the set. . .can you send over a snobby-looking but also militant lesbian-looking middle-aged woman for the NPR host role? Yeah, we're really going for the cliché here. Turtle neck? Even better!

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2008 4:13:33 PM

Finally, you said something funny without having to insult anyone.

7/30/2008 4:21:04 PM