Quote :

"Regardless of the Sherrod story timeline, the Obama administration had the sole power to fire her--and they hastily did so. FOX News was just the major news network that published the story without checking it out and then backtracked, changed published dates, and tried to pretend like they never talked about it."

8/2/2010 9:01:18 PM

Quote :

"Accept what you will--nobody cares."

Quote :

"Misdirect and attack."

8/2/2010 9:08:36 PM

you seem to care!

And this is the Fox News thread, so this is where we discuss their fuck-ups and whatnot, this would be one of them. But I'm sure you'll just quote yourself again, so carry on buddy!

8/2/2010 9:18:20 PM

Obama administration, NAACP, and oreilly have all accepted their responsibility for this fiasco
Fox News Organization, Hannity, and Breitbart are the ones who continue to make excuses and point fingers

hows that for accountability

8/2/2010 9:19:56 PM

There's at least a couple of stories here:

Fox News gets front-row White House seat
Aug. 1, 2010

http://tinyurl.com/39w6yda

As Fox News takes its front row seat, reporters complain about handling of briefings
Aug. 4, 2010

Quote :

"Llewellyn King, host of PBS television show White House Chronicle and a Hearst Newspapers columnist, who has been covering the White House since Richard Nixon's administration, said Gibbs has been the worst press secretary he's ever seen. One of Gibbs' moves that rubbed King the wrong way was doing away with a morning 'gaggle' for print reporters."

http://tinyurl.com/2c8f26t

8/4/2010 3:18:24 AM

Well at least they can doctor up some falsified hit pieces from close range.

8/4/2010 9:24:55 AM

CNN's ratings woes not limited to Campbell Brown and Larry King
July 27, 2010

Quote :

"While CNN is spending much of its time focusing on jump starting its 8 and 9 p.m. hours, it might want to start paying a little more attention to the 7 and 10 p.m. hours as well. That's what a quick look at the July ratings reveals. At 7, John King's show is off 42% in viewers and 36% in adults 25-54 from what Lou Dobbs was averaging last July, according to Nielsen. Last year, Dobbs averaged 723,000 viewers, and while that was far behind Shepherd Smith's show at Fox News, he was beating everyone else. Now, though, CNN has dropped to fourth in that hour. Anderson Cooper also doesn't have a lot to smile about. His 10 p.m. show had a disappointing July, averaging only 575,000 viewers. Not only is that down 56% from July 2009, it is the second-least-watched month ever for Cooper who spent much of his time on the road covering the British Petroleum oil spill and the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. CNN is working hard to revamp the 8 p.m. hour. Campbell Brown recently left her show, citing its disappointing ratings as one of the causes for her exit. CNN is going to launch a political chat show featuring former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and columnist Kathleen Parker this year. That show was seen as a shift toward the more debate and issues approach to cable news of its rivals. Larry King also gave notice that he will be leaving the 9 p.m. hour he has anchored for over two decades this fall. However, there apparently isn't a lot of sentimentality regarding news of King's exit because his July audience was off 55%. Of course, last July King was able to milk the death of Michael Jackson for big ratings. CNN is certainly struggling in the ratings right now and is off 53% in prime-time viewers compared to last July, but its stronger rivals can't crow too much. Fox News is still on way out on top, but its prime-time average is down 11% in viewers compared to the same month a year ago while MSNBC was off 9%. CNN's sister channel HLN saw 20% of its audience disappear."

http://tinyurl.com/2vmq5yr

8/6/2010 4:26:17 AM

Bill O taking Laura Ingraham's decently looking ass to task supporting the First Lady's initiative to get public schools to offer healthier food choices and encourage more exercise for kids. Her notion that this is somehow a bad idea boggles the mind. While I agree that parents need to be more engaged when it comes to the health and food choices of their kids, like Bill said, you can't legislate parenting but you can direct public school policy.

8/6/2010 5:21:02 AM

^ I hear you, but we're talking about CNN's dismal ratings right now.

8/6/2010 8:26:12 AM

foxnews.com has fallen off with me since they fired the old gfx guy

8/6/2010 8:26:37 AM

^^ Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know I wasn't permitted to talk about Fox News in the Fox News thread. My bad.

8/6/2010 10:18:33 AM

It's hilarious how proud conservatives are of the success of their punditry.

"When it comes to not thinking, WE'RE #1, WE'RE #1"

8/6/2010 10:37:28 AM

CNN has a terrible line up, john king is the most boring & unwatchable news man on tv,
but i have high hopes for spitzer's new show

i also think MSNBC should get rid of the guy between mathews & olbermann, that guy is way not very bright

8/6/2010 8:14:56 PM

Pay me, piss spot.

8/6/2010 8:16:32 PM

^^ Heh?

5 p.m. - Hardball with Chris Mattews

6 p.m. - The Ed Show

7 p.m. - Hardball with Chris Matthews

8 p.m. - Countdown with Keith Olbermann

9 p.m. - The Rachel Maddow Show

10 p.m. - Countdown with Keith Olbermann

11 p.m. - The Rachel Maddow Show

At first I thought you were trying to make some ill attempt at a joke about Rachel but not even that is backed up by the schedule. Not to mention, Rachel is extremely intelligent and bitch slaps Beck and Bill O everytime they want to throw down.

8/6/2010 8:25:23 PM

I don't get why the ratings continues to get brought up over and over again. Fox has a monopoly on the 50% of the country that wants to have their view confirmed. The other half of the country gets to choose from CNN, MSNBC, and I guess HLN to some extent. When you add the latter 3 together, it's pretty damn close to FNC. So why do people continue to bring it up again and again?

8/6/2010 8:42:55 PM

^agreed but you must also factor that most younger people are more libral than conservative and they either dont watch news or get it online
a lot of tv viewers have switched to online and that needs to be part of the ratings outlook

^^obviously im talking about the Ed show, forgot mathews came on twice before olbermann

8/6/2010 9:02:22 PM

I agree about the Ed Show. I only watch tv post midnight so he comes on at 3am right after Rachel and that's about the time I switch over to Red Eye or NatGeo/Science Channel.

8/6/2010 10:35:15 PM

I'm sure that there is a band which only sells their music on Cassette tapes
That way they can brag about being the top music cassette sellers of that year

Likewise Fox News seems to be bragging about being king of television news when most people have migrated to the internet

8/8/2010 8:48:43 PM

^^ Well, then we have at least a couple of things in common. I, too, occasionally watch Red Eye--it's often pretty funny. And I was just watching the Naked Science episode about lightning the other night.

8/9/2010 3:51:59 AM

Damn, so was I! I found it strangely ironic that that particular episode came on within a day of us having those very intense thunderstorms. Good stuff indeed!

8/9/2010 4:48:13 AM

i love when they interrupt some important guy they're interviewing to say they have breaking news when they have breaking news every 90 seconds and its usually more like 'obama's daughter lost a tooth'

8/9/2010 3:56:25 PM

Yo dawgs, throw them Gallup media polls in here

8/14/2010 2:43:41 PM

hey Lafta.

when are you goign to pay Froshkiller the $5.00 you owe him?

or are you content with being labelled a welcher for the rest of your life?

8/14/2010 10:46:59 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Fox_parent_gives_1_million_to_RGA.html

Quote :

"Fox parent gives $1 million to RGA News Corp., which owns Fox News and the New York Post, gave $1 million to Haley Barbour's Republican Governors Association this year, according to the RGA's most recent filing. The company's media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and the GOP."

8/18/2010 2:54:32 PM

^ As long as it wasn't FOX News itself. I would have a major problem with that.

Did you check to see if, say, GE, the soon-to-be former parent company of NBC Universal, donated to Democrats? Just asking.

Oh, looky--they did:

Quote :

"It is hardly unusual for media companies to support candidates and political parties. General Electric, which owns NBC, has given $245,000 to the Democratic governors and $205,000 to the Republican governors since last year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081801469.html

[Edited on August 18, 2010 at 3:05 PM. Reason : Facts are stubborn things. ]

8/18/2010 3:00:51 PM

They gave an almost equal amount to each side; Fox gave double GE's total donations to one side. How can you even draw equivalence?

And this makes sense. GE has a financial interest in having politicians' ears, regardless of their ideology (aviation, energy, finance, RR, healthcare).

News Corp has a political interest in seeing their side win. One could easily argue that a GOP takeover would be bad for business, given that conservative outlets' ratings go up when liberals are in power.

8/18/2010 6:27:13 PM

GE versus Newscorp is apples and oranges as far as political contributions.

GE is an industrial company that just happens to own a communications company. Newscorp is a news company that happens to own... well more news companies. I mean the only thing they own that isn't news or news distribution related is Fox Films.

Also, it wouldn't be a problem if their main front face didn't consistently claim to be "fair and balanced" while going around donating 1mil to one specific side. Granted everyone knows that the "fair and balanced" thing is a crock of shit, but it's still out there. I've never heard NBC claim to be fair and balanced. I could be wrong about that though, I'm sure someone will post a red link with a bold title and copy and past a vague paragraph that could be construed one way or another depending on how sideways you want to look at it.

8/18/2010 6:44:18 PM

newscorp is not some evil company out to convert you to christianity or whatever dumb shit you think. Murdoch is a businessman first and republican candidates have a much longer history of being pro-his company than democrats. Not only that but if anyone makes a stink about it he can have fox news go on and claim democrats are attacking him to solidify his ratings.

If money could be made in by an extreme left wing network then it would exist (and murdoch would own it)

[Edited on August 18, 2010 at 7:08 PM. Reason : l]

8/18/2010 7:07:58 PM

Quote :

"Murdoch is a businessman first and republican candidates have a much longer history of being pro-his company than democrats."

Historically, yes. But that model doesn't explain the $1 million.

They only hot political issue pertinent to News Corp is net neutrality, but as a content provider, wouldn't it be in favor of it (i.e. with the Democrats, or most of them)?

8/18/2010 7:37:20 PM

proposed net neutrality rules are terrible. They'd end up fucking everyone except a few private network owners, customers most of all. Anyone with valuable content is probably ok either way since they're going to be able to afford edge caching in either instance. Murdoch isnt an idiot so he knows the worst thing he could do is ally himself with Google's internet vision (one where google steals his content and uses it to sell their own ads).

Giving out chump change in order to get a few republicans into office who might prevent future outbreaks of horrible crap like the "fairness" doctrine is no big deal. In fact I bet its more to solidify support from the fox news viewership than anything else. If he had some nefarious purpose and wanted to hide the funds he'd launder them through a non-profit like everyone else.

8/18/2010 9:19:21 PM

Fuck the FCC!

Let the FCC control the internet!


[Edited on August 18, 2010 at 10:07 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2010 9:38:32 PM

Quote :

"(one where google steals his content and uses it to sell their own ads)"

oh my jesus

Quote :

"the "fairness" doctrine"

What company spends a million to hedge against something that won't happen in a million years?

8/18/2010 10:59:44 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/us/politics/18donate.html?_r=1&ref=us

Quote :

"The contribution from Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and other news outlets, is one of the biggest ever given by a media organization, campaign finance experts said."

Quote :

"Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said seven-figure donations from anyone to “527” associations were unusual, but a $1 million donation from a news organization was particularly rare."

Quote :

"While many news organizations reported Tuesday on the $1 million gift, a late-afternoon search of Fox News’ Web site produced no mention of it."

8/18/2010 11:28:39 PM

Oh, so it's just the size of the contribution by News Corp. that some of you object to? Well, if the mainstream liberal media had better ratings and more readers, maybe they could afford to donate more.

And do any of you know for sure that News Corp. hasn't also donated to Democrats? I'm pretty sure they have. BTW, how many millions of dollars did MSNBC "donate" while functioning as Obama's on-air campaign headquarters?

8/19/2010 12:00:21 AM

If ad rates are based on ratings then not nearly as much as Fox News "donated" to the McCain campaign for acting the same way during the same time period. Nor nearly as much as Fox News has been "donating" to the Republican Party for the last few years.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/17/news-corps-governors/

Fun note from NewsCorp's own "Standards of Business Conduct" (who knew FoxNews was supposed to have standards?).

Quote :

" B. Dealing With Government Officials Employees who have dealings with government officials shall conform to the following standards: 1. All employees who contact public officials must be familiar with the applicable lobbying laws and public disclosure requirements, particularly those laws or regulations pertaining to registrations or filings that must be made by the Company. 2. No payment shall be made to, or for the benefit of, any public official in order to induce or entice such official to: enact, defeat or violate any law or regulation for the Company’s benefit; influence any official act; or obtain any favorable action by a governmental agency or official on behalf of the Company. 3. Social amenities, entertainment and other courtesies may be extended to government officials or employees only to the extent appropriate and reasonable under applicable laws and customs. Gifts of greater than nominal value to, or lavish entertainment of, public officials are prohibited. No gifts in the form of cash, stock or other similar consideration shall be given, regardless of amount. Any gift about which an employee is uncertain should not be made without the prior written approval of the Company’s General Counsel. Any expenses incurred by a Company employee in connection with the matters discussed herein shall be accurately recorded on the Company’s books and records"

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason : I can copy/paste and bold too! It's so much easier than actually having to express myself!!!]

8/19/2010 10:11:52 AM

^ You're fallaciously assuming there's a quid pro quo. And you've proved nothing of the sort.

8/19/2010 10:19:27 AM

Quote :

"oh my jesus"

Googles entire business model is using other people's content to sell their own ads. For people who generate worthless content its fine, but for people who can make money of their content they're better off keeping it away from google.

Also, would Murdoch start paywalling his stuff if his motivations were ideological instead of monetary?

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 10:48 AM. Reason : g]

8/19/2010 10:44:34 AM

You're right, I made a statement without backing as a counter to the statement you provided without backing.

You claimed that MSNBC went out of it's way to get Obama elected, I claimed that Fox News has gone out of it's way to get every Republican running elected.

Of course, I made this claim in the Fox News thread, which has reached 52 pages of worth of pointing out the Republican (not conservative, Republican, real conservatives don't seem welcome on Fox News) bias on Fox News. A thread which has pointed out how the parent company of Fox News has just made a very large single gift to an organization dedicated solely to electing Republicans into office.

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

Sidenote: considering that MSNBC's parent company's parent company (grandparent company?) made nearly equivalent donations to both sides while New Corp is making very one-sided donations then your'e right, there is no quid pro quo on this page of the thread at all, there's just false equivalence and bias from New Corp.

8/19/2010 10:48:39 AM

^ I didn't just "claim" that MSNBC helped get Obama elected. Two anchors were removed from election coverage for left-wing bias and one of those later said that Obama gave him a thrill up his leg and that it was his job to help Obama.

Giving equal amounts or nearly equal or not is irrelevant. Under your scenario, it's whether something was expected in return for the money. And, again, News Corp. also gives to Democrats.

So, really, the objection here is (1) that Rupert Murdoch has a lot of money and (2) that he gave some of his pocket change to Republicans. Isn't that about it?

8/19/2010 10:59:59 AM

$1 million is an extremely large and rare amount for a news provider to be giving to a single party.

This according to purportedly left-wing non-profit public radio.

8/19/2010 11:03:47 AM

Quote :

"Googles entire business model is using other people's content to sell their own ads."

You describe it as if it were parasitic.

Quote :

"For people who generate worthless content its fine, but for people who can make money of their content they're better off keeping it away from google."

Murdoch said as much a few months ago, yet this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=hello+site%3Afoxnews.com

...still works, and Fox articles are still on the Google News feed. They're just a robot.txt away from abandoning Google. Yet they haven't.

He must have realized that without Google, no one would view his content in the first place.

Quote :

"Two anchors were removed from election coverage for left-wing bias"

How many Fox anchors were removed for their bias?

And let's be clear that this wasn't Rupert Murdoch donating the money-- it was New Corp.

8/19/2010 10:34:12 PM

8/21/2010 2:44:43 PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

worth a watch

8/24/2010 2:45:38 PM

Quote :

"Colleen Cottle, who is the matriarch of one of Wasilla’s oldest families, and who served on the city council when Palin was mayor. She says she and her husband, Rodney, will pay a price for speaking candidly about Palin. Their son is one of Todd Palin’s best friends. “But it is time for people to start telling the truth,” Colleen says. She describes the frustrations of trying to do city business with a mayor who “had no attention span—with Sarah it was always ‘What’s the flavor of the day?’ ”; who was unable to take part meaningfully in conversations about budgets because she “does not understand math or accounting—she only knows buzzwords, like ‘balanced budget’ ”; and who clocked out after four hours on most days, delegating her duties to an aide—“but he’ll never talk to you, because he has a state job and doesn’t want to lose it.” This type of conversation is repeated so often that Wasilla starts to feel like something from The Twilight Zone or a Shirley Jackson short story—a place populated entirely by abuse survivors."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010?currentPage=6

It’s probably no surprise to anyone here that Palin has no clue what she’s talking about, but Palin is on Fox’s payroll, and she might be the future of conservatism in America.

9/3/2010 8:05:45 PM

^Wow, some of that article actually sets her up as a believably tragic figure... her personal life getting completely fucked up by the political machine and the need to present an absurd caricature to the American public in order to seem electable... even despite the childishness and sense of entitlement she'd supposedly had for a while.

I'd feel sorry for her if she hadn't been so aggressively pro-ignorance during the campaign... or if she'd even been a half-decent governor, according to that testimony... or if she hadn't taken a job at Fox News.

9/3/2010 9:01:39 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/obama-fox-news-is-destructive-to-america/?iref=NS1

Quote :

"(CNN) - President Obama is pulling no punches when it comes to Fox News, declaring the cable news outlet to be "destructive to [America's] long-term growth." In a more than 8,000-word interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Obama compared the cable news channel to papers owned by William Randolph Hearst at the turn of the 20th century that unabashedly pushed the media titan's own political views. "You had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition – it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view," Obama told the magazine. Officials in the Obama White House have long made Fox News a punching bag, launching a full blown offensive last year when aides declared the network to be "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said the cable outlet "operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," and top aide Valerie Jarret called Fox "clearly biased." But the new comments from Obama constitute the president's most direct attack yet on the network owned by business mogul Rupert Murdoch. Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said. "But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number one concern is, it's that Fox is very successful." Fox has yet to respond to the president. But during the administration offensive against the network last year, network spokesman Michael Clemente slammed the White House for continuing "to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about." "

9/28/2010 11:34:51 AM

Obama looks weaker and whinier each time he complains about Fox.

Bush was CONSTANTLY attacked by the media from all sides. it comes with the job. what a bitch-ass.

9/28/2010 12:33:36 PM

for one thing, Bush didnt get attacked by Fox News. all they did was toss his salad.

9/28/2010 12:53:38 PM

ok, so while fox was tonguing his asshole, CNN, MSNBC and the rest were raping his face.

again, it comes with the job. Obama should go have a whineburger and some frenchcries and quit being such a whiny bitch.

NO EXCUSES. PLAY LIKE A CHAMPION.

9/28/2010 1:01:40 PM