Quote :

"Previous Page: I guess he got tired of the liberal slant bullshit."

He was released. CNN got tired of being protested for his views.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM. Reason : /]

11/12/2009 12:59:31 PM

I think they got tired of giving a racist a prime time slot.

11/12/2009 1:29:18 PM

^ I don't give a fuck about Dobbs, but please provide evidence.

11/12/2009 2:07:29 PM

he got replaced with John King,
king is a pro but he is very boring, yet i still think CNN is in good shape long term, cause people will tire of the BS and exaggerated hate they see on Fox and MSNBC primetime

11/12/2009 2:09:28 PM

http://youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=dobbs+racist

11/12/2009 2:09:35 PM

maybe I'm beating a dead horse but WRT:

Quote :

"I’m sure if a news agency reported on it in an extremist muslim area, they would get pissed, just like how our more looney christians are getting pissed, but we in the US wouldn’t really have to worry too much about our news agency spending much time discussing how upsetting it is to them."

Quote :

"NEW DELHI: Early last month, when Federal Bureau of Investigation detectives searched David Headley’s luggage, they discovered a data stick with footage carefully documenting the environment around the Jyllands Posten newspaper’s office — the target of an operation intended to punish the newspaper for publishing satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. A growing number of experts in India’s intelligence community believe that Pakistan-born Headley, or his associate Tahawwur Rana, may have generated similar footage from Mumbai and other cities. It may have facilitated the training of the fidayeen who carried out last November’s tragic attacks in Mumbai — and strikes yet to come."

http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/13/stories/2009111360061000.htm

11/12/2009 6:14:38 PM

"Cotton-pickin'" is actually a pretty common slang modifier in the south.

Not even in a deliberately derogatory setting.

11/12/2009 7:08:39 PM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120351492&sc=fb&cc=fp

Quote :

"In one instance, Dobbs was forced to apologize for his characterization of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce — a mainstream business group — which he said was "effectively an organization that is interested in Mexico's export of drugs and illegal aliens to the United States." Dobbs sometimes overstated or misrepresented the facts as he sought to connect illegal immigrants to crime or other societal ills, a frequent theme. In one instance, Dobbs and a CNN reporter seemed to attribute a startling rise in leprosy cases to illegal immigrants from Latin America. There was no such startling rise — and what cases there were would have been more likely to have had Asian origins."

11/12/2009 9:01:16 PM

^^ i vaguely recall hearing that in bugs bunny cartoons as a kid (although I may be misremembering), and as a kid, I certainly didn’t know it was racist. Dobbs is old enough though where he could conceivably know the origin of the phrase and how it was normally used.

It’s not inherently racist anyway, but that’s just how language works I guess.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 11:25 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2009 11:23:44 PM

GG FOX NEWS PROPAGANDISTS!

big lulz go to Sean Hannity on manipulating footage to falsely portray the recent healthcare teaparty event as appearing four times as large as it actually was.

official attendance was put at around 10,000 people. fox news wanted to claim 40,000 people. to bolster their claim they mixed actual crowd footage from the event, with crowd footage from an event from several months ago

the event's overcast fall weather with fallen leaves off trees apparently didnt blend well with footage from several months ago, summer blue skies and leaves on trees.

And so Hannity was forced to apologize to Jon Stewart. On air. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/hannity-jon-stewart-was-r_n_354887.html

11/12/2009 11:33:10 PM

11/13/2009 9:25:48 AM

^^ Their video has been removed by youtube. You'd think HuffPo could spring for their own servers.

Still, in the whole of the misrepresentation that comes out of Fox News, that one was pretty mild. And now Hannity can act all contrite next time he lies and say "see, when I really lie I apologize so I must not be lying now"

------------

Seems like the place to post this clip from The Daily Show.
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3908917

Makes me really feel like Fox News needs to have O Fortuna (or perhaps Mozart's Requiem in a pinch) playing in the background for all their newscasts/commentary.

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 9:47 AM. Reason : .]

11/13/2009 9:34:51 AM

Quote :

"Their video has been removed by youtube. You'd think HuffPo could spring for their own servers."

That's not how the Internet works. If YouTube offers hosting, you use it.

11/13/2009 9:51:20 AM

True, but any time you put copyrighted material up on Youtube (especially when it's something likely to garner lots of hits) there is a strong risk of them pulling it down in a day or so.

If you're serious about people seeing it, host it yourself and deal with the consequences.

11/13/2009 9:57:37 AM

it works for me
besides huff post loses money most years so no, they cant afford servers

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM. Reason : .]

11/13/2009 10:46:29 AM

Greg Craig

11/13/2009 10:57:10 AM

Quote :

"Still, in the whole of the misrepresentation that comes out of Fox News, that one was pretty mild."

It's mild, but it's also a very concrete, tangible example of what Fox normally does, but that them and their supporters are going to have a harder time weasling out of.

11/13/2009 11:10:11 AM

Quote :

"If you're serious about people seeing it, host it yourself and deal with the consequences."

There are plenty of serious blogs that rely on YouTube and other free video hosting services. Again, this is a common thing these days.

11/13/2009 11:27:06 AM

11/14/2009 12:42:23 AM

clearly they need more Mao bell

11/14/2009 12:54:01 AM

Obama oo Mao Mao, bama oo Mao-Mao

11/14/2009 3:04:33 AM

^^lol

11/14/2009 7:05:23 PM

I'm at a relative's house watching Fox for the first time in forever (I don't have cable).


1. Huckabee was given his own show. Hah.

2. Beck's "Obamacare: a second opinion" was hilarious.

3. The news-opinion echo chamber was apparent. The reports on the "controversy" over trying the 9/11 suspects in civil court cited only conservative commentators appearing on Fox News.

[Edited on November 14, 2009 at 10:06 PM. Reason : ]

11/14/2009 10:01:16 PM

you don't notice the liberal echo chamber

11/15/2009 12:42:19 AM

Of course we do.

At least we acknowledge it.

11/15/2009 12:57:05 AM

who here refuses to admit that Fox news is conservative??

11/15/2009 12:58:44 AM

many Foxtards still say fox is fair and balanced
they also say iraq war was a good idea, palin was qualified, earth is flat, etc

11/15/2009 4:18:39 AM

ha, yeah, I don't get why they bang that "fair and balanced" drum so hard. unless their standard followers really are that snowed that it's inconsequential.

I watch Fox News pretty often, because they DO offer other angles, and even cover some things not covered by other outlets. BUT, to say they're balanced is just silly--maybe even a blatant lie. Fair? I dunno. What's fair in political banter anyway?

11/15/2009 8:59:25 PM

11/17/2009 8:56:33 PM

^^ NYT claims to be unbiased and credible journalism... It's just a necessary claim to be in the news industry. No one actually believes their claims unless they happen to be a dumbass partisan that agrees with the particular media organization that is claiming it.

11/17/2009 9:02:14 PM

at least teh NYT has conservative and liberal viewpoints
Fox News doesnt even try anymore

11/17/2009 9:23:52 PM

blehhh... "at least"

the last refuge of the lost argument.

11/17/2009 10:08:41 PM

"at least" you're just hard trolling and don't believe that Fox News has even half the credibility as the NYT.
.
FTR, he can remove "at least" from his statement and it's still true.

11/18/2009 12:08:56 AM

Fox News: Fair and Balanced? A report suggests yes

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

Quote :

"The CMPA study compares ABC, CBS ( CBS - news - people ) and NBC evening news shows and the first half hour of Fox News Channel's Special Report, which most closely resembles its broadcast news counterparts. (CNN and MSNBC have no comparable flagship evening news show; more on Fox's polarizing talk shows momentarily.) So how could Fox have both the most balanced and the most anti-Obama coverage? Simple. It's because the other networks were all so pro-Obama. CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain. In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar--within a few percentage points--at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates' prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.) Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall. "

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM. Reason : more quote]

11/18/2009 11:39:27 AM

Congrats to Fox News for being mostly balanced for exactly 30 minutes of the day. I'm not surprised at the findings, considering the CMPA is funded by conservatives and is headed by a former Fox News contributor.

11/18/2009 1:36:57 PM

Quote :

"evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain."

I don't get how this shows bias. What if one is a better candidate? What if we just have a better president than before?

11/18/2009 1:54:10 PM

Well I guess that's all in the eyes of the beholder, isn't it....

OH wait... isn't that what bias is? d'oh!

11/18/2009 3:25:49 PM

1. ^^Yeah-- there's nothing to indicate that 50/50 was the ideal number.

2. Like that 30 minute sample was valid, anyway.

3. His smugness regarding CNN and MSNBC's lack of "real news" was pretty obnoxious. Both CNN and MSNBC have traditional news shows on sister stations (Headline News, NBC Nightly News).



^ Is there anyone here that would've given the Obama and McCain campaigns exactly equal positive coverage? The McCain campaign was a train wreck; the Obama campaign was hella well-run.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2009 3:46:02 PM

Yeah, if you consider the reality that Obama's campaign really was better run than McCain's, Fox's coverage just looks silly.

Seriously though, there wasn't a lot of negative things to say about Obama's campaign because it was so slickly pulled off. In order to get 68 percent negative comments, Fox News must have talked an unreasonable amount of shit about Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers (if you recall, that's actually what they did).

Any study that tries to present their campaign coverage as more fair and balanced than other networks is just being obtuse.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2009 3:54:52 PM

I wonder if he consideres all coverage inherently biased one way or the other, or if coverage can, in fact, be completely neutral.

11/18/2009 3:58:16 PM

^^right on

11/18/2009 4:17:14 PM

I think this whole thing comes from the flawed mentality that "50/50" is some sort of ideal.

11/18/2009 4:25:18 PM

I'm enjoying how all the liberals are patting themselves on the back congratulating themselves on being right all the time and running perfect campaigns, which is evidenced by and the reason for all coverage from the MSLM.

Circular reasoning FTW.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM. Reason : s]

11/18/2009 5:00:51 PM

^...or perhaps the fact that Obama ran a better campaign is evidenced by the fact that he won the fucking presidential election?

Shit, it wasn't even very close. The Obama campaign turned NC into a blue state, as well as (if I recall correctly) a couple other swing states that tend to lean conservative.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 5:04:22 PM

The smug douchebag is enjoying himself. Noted.

11/18/2009 5:07:20 PM

^^^ 'publicans did the same thing when they were in power. How's this anything new? rawr rawr rawr

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 5:08 PM. Reason : car]

11/18/2009 5:07:52 PM

except for the fact that the MSLM certainly did not fawn all over bush...

11/18/2009 5:30:35 PM

Between McCain having to fire his campaign staff, and his bizarre performance during many of the debates, you'd have to be an idiot to not see why he may have gotten more negative coverage.

^ they did actually, until a good year or 2 after 9/11.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2009 5:31:57 PM

sure! confirmation bias matched with selective memory is a wonderful thing (for both of us!)

11/18/2009 5:40:45 PM

^What evidence exists to suggest that McCain ran a campaign that was better than (or even reasonably equal to) that of Obama?

11/18/2009 5:42:57 PM