It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

page: 5
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


I didn't take anything you said out of context... I quoted everything you said in the entire first half without redaction...

How disingenuous to say I did when you know I didn't.


And as for thinking for myself... Taking issue with the assumption that this is some sort of infringement on the 1st amendment IS THINKING FOR MYSELF!!!

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm not thinking for myself...




[edit on 23-10-2009 by HunkaHunka]




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Why would they be included? Fox doesn't do news, they do commentary at best and works of parody at worst. It's not about American right and left media, it's about whats reality and whats opinion and as far as I know, they don't invite talk show hosts to these sorts of interviews, right? So then why would Fox expect to be present?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Why would they be included? Fox doesn't do news, they do commentary at best and works of parody at worst. It's not about American right and left media, it's about whats reality and whats opinion and as far as I know, they don't invite talk show hosts to these sorts of interviews, right? So then why would Fox expect to be present?




How do you feel about MSNBS?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by WarIsASport
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I'll ask again... was there a law or something which was broken by excluding Fox News?

[edit on 23-10-2009 by HunkaHunka]


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And oh yea, its freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Why would they be included? Fox doesn't do news, they do commentary at best and works of parody at worst.


You see.

This is a patently false statement that anyone who watches the network would know is not true.

What you are saying is an almost direct quote of those from the administration on last Sunday's news programs.

Fox News has plenty of commentary programs, as do all of the cable news networks.

They do however, like all the news networks, have their hard news programs that are at least as good as any of the others and in my own opinion and the opinion of millions, are better.

You may disagree, but to deny that Fox does news is ridiculous.

So, when your schedule permits, why not watch Special Edition or Fox News Sunday for starters and then you can see what hard news is really about.

Compare Bret Baier or Chris Wallace with any other and do so in an objective manner and I believe that you too will conclude that Fox New does news.

Now, I will grant you that you may not like Beck, or O'Reilly, or Hannity. I get tired of all of them from time to time, too.

That however, doesn't keep me from understanding the difference between the news shows and topical commentary.

At least these three do give voice to conflicting opinion. Not all of the commentators on the various networks do.



[edit on 2009/10/23 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


While Fox isn't my favorite new station, well none of them are favorites, are you kidding? Which station would you consider to be more favorable? MSNBC? Noooo, they are too far left. CNN? Well, maybe. But c'mon. To deliberately exclude a station? That's pretty czarisssssttt in my book. Or maybe a better word would be dicatorissshhh.

I_R



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
In my America (not the prefabricated America Glen Beck and Fox News is handing out) Fox News is one of the biggest problems. The are the opposite of progress and all there stories are biased. Don't even try to reply and say "Apparently you don't watch it because ________________."



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RDR17

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Why would they be included? Fox doesn't do news, they do commentary at best and works of parody at worst. It's not about American right and left media, it's about whats reality and whats opinion and as far as I know, they don't invite talk show hosts to these sorts of interviews, right? So then why would Fox expect to be present?




How do you feel about MSNBS?


I wouldn't watch it, or recommend that people do.

MSNBS isn't even in the same league of BS as Faux "News" though. MSN skews stories, but the original story is generally intact surrounded by additional unnecessary crap. Fox doesn't even bother with that much, if it can't find a story to force into their artificial narrative, they just create one. News orgs are supposed to report the news, not manufacture it for ratings.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Why would they be included? Fox doesn't do news, they do commentary at best and works of parody at worst. It's not about American right and left media, it's about whats reality and whats opinion and as far as I know, they don't invite talk show hosts to these sorts of interviews, right? So then why would Fox expect to be present?


Exactly



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
And MSNBC doesn't do commentary? What planet are you reporting from?

I_R



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
In my America (not the prefabricated America Glen Beck and Fox News is handing out) Fox News is one of the biggest problems. The are the opposite of progress and all there stories are biased. Don't even try to reply and say "Apparently you don't watch it because ________________."


Well, then why don't you enumerate some factual data to support your position?

When you make such a statement without substantiation, you set your self up for skepticism.

What does prefabricated America mean?

What sort of problems does Fox News create?

In what way does Fox News stand in the way of progress?

Give us some examples of biased reporting.

Which reporters are consistently biased? (I'm talking about reporters, not commentators, who are expected to defend a position.)

[edit on 2009/10/23 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Why would they be included? Fox doesn't do news, they do commentary at best and works of parody at worst.


You see.

This is a patently false statement that anyone who watches the network would know is not true.

What you are saying is an almost direct quote of those from the administration on last Sunday's news programs.

Fox News has plenty of commentary programs, as do all of the cable news networks.

They do however, like all the news networks, have their hard news programs that are at least as good as any of the others and in my own opinion and the opinion of millions, are better.

You may disagree, but to deny that Fox does news is ridiculous.

So, when your schedule permits, why not watch Special Edition or Fox News Sunday for starters and then you can see what hard news is really about.

Compare Bret Baier or Chris Wallace with any other and do so in an objective manner and I believe that you too will conclude that Fox New does news.

Now, I will grant you that you may not like Beck, or O'Reilly, or Hannity. I get tired of all of them from time to time, too.

That however, doesn't keep me from understanding the difference between the news shows and topical commentary.

At least these three do give voice to conflicting opinion. Not all of the commentators on the various networks do.

[edit on 2009/10/23 by GradyPhilpott]

[edit on 2009/10/23 by GradyPhilpott]


If it's so easy to tell the difference between commentary and real news, why do so many people parrot the commentary as if it provided real facts?

I realize the difference and even concede that there may be some real content, barring the commentators, but my concern lies with the general consensus of those watching. The crap people get from Fox commentary, which they mistake for news, is seriously damaging America. Whether you and I can see the difference between Glenn Beck and the news at 6 doesn't reflect well on everyone else, so it would seem.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
For me, I will take a stance that is opposite of my "normal" in regards to this administration. I think this whole deal is ludicrous. The White House is in the wrong here. And I believe that they should allow Fox News full access. The wider Fox opens their mouths, the deeper in they can place their foot in it. Let them fail on their own merits...

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Aggie Man]


The problem is that FoxNews is the most popular of them all with the most viewers and over half are Independents and Democrats. Only the extreme Party Line crowd is against them.

Why would anyone limit their information based on a bias or bigotry. I watch them all. I'm informed on what is going on on all sides. How is that not the smartest way to view the news? Where exactly am I wrong?

If you limit yourself to one and only one point of view, you leave yourself wide open to be controlled, brainwashed and manipulated. Both Parties are crawling with lowlifes and evil people. Both Parties have wreaked havoc. Both are responsible for this mess. Unless of course you lie to yourself or are already brainwashed by one side.

Independents have surpassed both Parties in size and now control what happens. Being an Independent rather than being a Partisan of one Party leaves a person open to view each subject with a clear unbiased mind. Viewing issues through a single myopic viewpoint based on a single Parties current stance is dangerous.

Both Parties have changed dramatically since Kennedy which is where my experience starts. I'm sure the same will happen again. Both Parties have produced some really bad, really incompetent people. Both Parties have done huge damage to all of us and our lives.

On Topic -

Wonderful! This is without a doubt the scariest thing done by any Administration since Nixon nearly had to be forcefully removed from the White House. Remember his "enemies list".

I think it is clear the other Media finally realized they were next and this evil Administration is on a path to control speech and the media. I don't see how anyone with an IQ over 12 could not see what is going on. Other Presidents have made me angry but this one scares the crap out of me.

Self professed Marxists, Maoists and Communists appointed to his Administration and to top that off they are all his personal friends. There is something very dark and very wrong going on here. Anyone who is not afraid of this man has their blinders firmly in place.

Look at how easily he throws his friends aside. He can not be trusted. He is on a mission and the way he throws people away like the leader of his chosen church for 20 years and even his own family shows how scary this man is. He bows only to his own alter, the alter of Obama.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Has Team Obama just been handed their first defeat?
What's the next defeat going to be?

Cap & Trade?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

If it's so easy to tell the difference between commentary and real news, why do so many people parrot the commentary as if it provided real facts?


Well, the short answer is that they believe the commentary and agree with it.

Commentary is not a bad thing. News analysis is not a bad thing. You may choose to agree or not.

What is constantly asserted is that Fox News does not present a fair and balanced treatment of the news and I say that anyone who says that is probably not watching, because I watch the news programs almost every day and I know that to the extent possible Fox News presents as many sides to an issue as is possible.

I don't believe that any other news source has as many contributors as Fox News has and they represent the full spectrum. Many of them anger me to no end every time they speak, but they are there.

No one has to like Fox News. People are free to choose to watch what they please. That's why ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and other can exist simultaneously.

But, please be fair about it.



[edit on 2009/10/23 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Do you believe in Freedom of the Press? You say why you think this was wrong but you don't say if you are for a government controlled media which is clearly this Administrations goal.

You would have to lie to deny he has nearly all of the media in his pocket. The CEO who controls NBC is one of his appointees. How do you feel about that exactly? Is it right for a President to do this or is it wrong for a President to attempt to control the media so they can control what information we see and hear?

This single issue is not the only thing happening here. The Fairness Doctrine is scheduled for resurrection with this Administrations blessings. He is also for Net Neutrality which gives the government full control of the Internet and its content. Does any of this bother you? At all?

He probably won't succeed on some of this because even his own Party members are turning on him, but his actions make it clear what he is up to.

- Control our information sources.
- Control our thoughts and opinions.
- Control us and our minds.

It is OK to not agree on issues and to debate them. In fact it is healthy. It is NOT OK to attempt to control us in this way. Be afraid. Be very afraid. You have been conned by a highly skilled confidence man. It does not matter if you yourself are a member of his Party. He is not a Democrat. He is something else entirely.

I tried to give him a chance. I tried to remain neutral and wait and see. I can't any longer because he has exposed his hand and his real plans.

To show where my heart is at, I voted for Clinton the second term because he did such a good job. I'm a real fan of JFK. On the other hand I voted for Reagan and am happy I did. This man though is a new thing altogether. I never expected to see this type of man in the White House. He is a genius of manipulation but his arrogance and megalomania keeps revealing his hand thank God.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
It's amusing to see some of the "outrage" and expressions of "unprecedented" on this issue. How quickly one forgets all that the bush admin did to exclude the "liberal" media from coming near bush...

Rachel Maddow does a great job today "setting the record straight" on the White House vs. fox news on the related issue of fox going ballistic of her and Keith Olbermann meeting Obama:

videocafe.crooksandliars.com...

It's worth the 8 minutes to watch this clip and and see how karl rove accuses the Obama admin of locking conservative talking heads out when 1. Obama met with conservative talk radio and tv commentators at George Will's home before he did the same with more progressive commentators, and he has met with them since; and 2. during the bush admin, karl rove was the mastermind behind completely locking out progressive media from the White House - while at the same giving daily passes and taking friendly questions from fake reporter (remember jeff gannon) to White House press briefings.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
[Bush] was terrible with Hurricana Katrina....



I believe that if you were to review the facts you would find that Bush did nothing at all wrong with Katrina. Whatever failures there were were the fault of Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco, and an inadequate infrastructure.

Michael Brown was crucified by the media, but a video tape that was released after he left his position revealed that he was calling for action long before Blanco or Nagin put in the call for support.

At the time, emergency services were a bottom up arrangement that did not allow for federal intervention until local and state agencies requested help.

Since then, the protocol has changed dramatically.

A few facts would clear up this matter in short order.

[edit on 2009/10/23 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Oh my God! Fox News is so powerful that the POTUS can't even stop them! Even after they have gone to war with Faux Snooze!



Of course. When it comes down to it, what news agency would really want the government to ignore, probably the highest rated news agency, because they disagree with their reporting. Um.......well, because, um......crap, of they can do this to Fox, then, um...........they could do it to me!!! Is this a little wake up call? I don't know.

My opinion is, if you can't hold your own against O'Reilly
, or Hannity,
you got no business being in politics in the first place.

Don't let anyone bully you. I don't care if they say, "this is my show." No it isn't. You invited me, so let me speak.

Here's my favorite:

O'Reilly: Okay, you have the last word. 30 seconds. Go!"

Heh, in about 10 seconds O'Reilly interrupts and gives "the last word".


Oh, yeah, it happens on CNN, and the other alphabet networks, too.

And I guarantee you, if Fox gets to interview someone of any importance at all, the folks there give them the utmost in respect and allow them to speak their minds. Just look at whenever Al Sharpton is interviewed. No cutting of the mikes. No talking over him unless the Rev wants it to happen that way.


Meanwhile, I did write someone of importance. Sorry, I used Al Sharpton as an example.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by aCurious1
It's amusing to see some of the "outrage" and expressions of "unprecedented" on this issue. How quickly one forgets all that the bush admin did to exclude the "liberal" media from coming near bush...


So two wrongs make a right?

You are painting people with a pretty broad biased brush there.

Many of us on ATS were and are equally outraged at both Bush and Obama. It is wrong to assume everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican when in fact Independents are the largest voting block.

This game of people making excuses for Obama by yeah but Bush did wrong is childish and tedious. If people are completely in Obama's corner they should defend him and explain why instead of arguing like children on a playground. Yeah, but Dad you let Johny do it


So, why is it OK for Obama to manipulate the press, or any President for that matter? You clearly think he did nothing wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join