It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Libertygal
IT is definitely by design. This is a very critical time and TPTB can not afford any mavericks out there.
see ATS One World Government? Globe may not be big enough where Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Secretary General, states to US Senators ""I would certainly expect the Senate to take the necessary action; that's what I have encouraged the senators, as soon as possible"
Americans are starting to give some credence to Climate Skeptics they are not enamored of committing economic suicide and most do not want the UN dictating US law. Fox News is the only wide spread news source likely to point these things out.
Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Libertygal
Yea it would be.
I dont normally follow his show(cause its on CNN), but I have caught parts of his shows, and he at least tries to go out of his way to look at both sides of the coin unlike the rest of the puppets on that channel. Seems as of lately, Fox has been grabbing up people from cnn and other news channels such as Beck, Imus, stossel, now maybe Dobbs.
The more the White house pushes away from Fox, the more inclined I am to watch Fox. So keep it up Obama, pretty soon you wont have anyone paying attention to the crap that comes out of your mouth, except those who are going to bash you afterwards.
Originally posted by Bratac
I can understand the White House not wanting people to appear on a program that has to fake its own stories to make a political point.
No one in the opening post says what they were actually told. And I find it interesting that no names were mentioned. I wonder if this really happened or if it's just another attack on the white house.
It's difficult to know what to believe, especially since many Democratic Strategists and politicians have appeared on FOX News.
Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by Libertygal
actually it is.
I am only suggesting the reason for which Obama is distancing the administration from such an obvious media whore troll (faux news)
Sorry that you disagree, but if you had read my entire post...you'd see that your comments weren't really necessary there.
Fox News is just like any other troll - they're going to get what they deserve.
Originally posted by Tyr Sog
Wow, this administrations tactics is like watching an old Hollywood movie about the Soviets.
Strong arming and mob tactics
[edit on 12-11-2009 by Tyr Sog]
If the constant lies from Faux News about Obama are not proof enough for you, personally, to believe what im telling you is true, then there is no hope for you.
renewed her attacks against Fox News as she praised the “investigative journalism” of Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and said MSNBC isn’t a biased cable news network.
“We’re under no illusions of what the political agenda of, you know, certain news networks are,” Dunn said of Fox. “We obviously have talked to them before. We’ll talk to them again in the future.”
Karl Rove, former President George W. Bush’s political adviser, said that cable news channel MSNBC had a left-leaning bias. Dunn disputed that contention.
Dunn also criticized Rove and the Bush administration for holding secret meetings in the White House.
“There are no confirmed television interviews in China,” she said.
What do you call it when the federal government pays a private company some money so that the private company will stump for the federal government’s agenda? Payola. Under the FCC rules and regulations, “When a broadcast licensee has received or been promised payment for the airing of program material, then, at the time of the airing, the station must disclose that fact and identify who paid for or promised to pay for the material.”
So what do you call it when the federal government steers money to a major broadcast network so that the major broadcast network will stump for the federal government’s agenda?
That’s precisely what’s happening over at NBC this week. According to the Associated Press:
NBC gives new meaning to the phrase “green screen” next week, spreading a pro-environmental message across five of its prime-time entertainment programs. “30 Rock,” where Al Gore takes a cameo role, leads the way. Environmental themes were also added to the scripts of “The Biggest Loser,” “The Office,” “Heroes” and “Community.” NBC Universal’s three-year “green” campaign has largely focused on off-camera issues like making company facilities more eco-friendly. News and information programs have also been enlisted to do stories on environmental issues, but except for one “30 Rock” episode two years ago, the campaign hasn’t touched the prime-time lineup.
Now, it’s clear that NBC has pushed this “green agenda” for years. And that makes sense – General Electric owns NBC, and General Electric is at the forefront in terms of producing “green products” like energy efficient lightbulbs. In May 2005, GE launched its $90 million “Ecomagination” advertising campaign, designed to demonstrate “GE’s commitment to address challenges such as the need for cleaner, more efficient sources of energy, reduced emissions and abundant sources of clean water,” according to GE CEO Jeff Immelt.
But something’s different this year. Now it’s not merely that NBC employees are supposed to recycle their paper. It’s not just that the news division focuses on stories about water and air quality. It’s that mainstream, prime-time programs have had their stories changed in order to accommodate these liberal messages.
So what changed? Couldn’t have anything to do with the Obama Administration’s stimulus plan, which pledged to spend billions on “green jobs,” could it? GE backed the stimulus package to the hilt, with Immelt leading the way:
NEW YORK (AP) - Investigators in New York City raided circulation offices at some of the nation's largest newspapers Tuesday as part of a union corruption probe, a law enforcement official said.
Investigators were seeking paperwork related to the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union...
by Robert Shaffer
Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the Associated Press' treatment of Palin's book seems an unprecedented move at the wire service
When the former Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor wrote her autobiography, the AP found a copy before its release date and assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages.
"Imagine that," the post read. "11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing."
Meanwhile, Palin is complaining about the cover of Newsweek that shows her posing in sports gear, including short runner's shorts, accompanied by the headline: "How do you solve a problem like Sarah?"
The photo was originally published in the August 2009 issue of Runners World. Palin accused the magazine of being "sexist" for using the photo out of context.
What on earth was Sarah Palin thinking when she posed in a pair of teeny-tiny gym shorts for a photograph that ended up on the cover of Newsweek -- a cover she has called "sexist"? Perhaps she was thinking that her image would only appear in the magazine she was posing for, Runner's World, and nowhere else, at least not for months and months. If so, she had good reason -- since, as DailyFinance has learned, the photographer who shot the picture violated his contract by reselling them to Newsweek.
As for whether the Newsweek cover is, as Palin says, sexist, editor Jon Meacham addressed that accusation Tuesday: "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do," Meacham said. "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."
Last month we heard that the AP might need to make hundreds of layoffs before the end of the year. Some of those layoffs, we hear, could be coming today.
The layoffs at the AP are indeed happening today. We're compiling a list of all the casualties—the ones we hear about and the ones reported elsewhere. Click through for our continuously updated list.
From a tipster: "At least one business news staffer let go today." [Not in NYC]. More from the same tipster: "Make that at least two biz news staffers, including NYC editor. Also likely a 3rd biz reporter in NYC." And the latest tally: "Here's the damage: 3 biz reporters (nyc, dc and pittsburgh) Also 1 nyc biz ed. A slew of ea's nationwide, some photogs and 2 national writers.)"
From a tipster: One staffer laid off in Dallas; and, "one of the news editors (a specific AP title — a supervisory position) in either Kentucky or Tennessee, so there will be one editor for two states."
From Erin Carlson: Five layoffs in the multimedia department in the Manhattan headquarters, "and one staffer is crying in the bathroom."
From Michael Calderone: One layoff in the Washington, DC research department.
From a tipster in DC: The word in the DC office is that there will be three layoffs today, and three more later in the week. UPDATE: Our tipster says the DC layoffs include a business reporter, a DC "enterprise team" reporter, and an assignment desk staffer. Three more layoffs there could be coming as early as this afternoon.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
November 18, 2009 - 10:27 ET
For several years as uneducated sycophants in the media gushed and fawned over every utterance from former Vice President Al Gore, NewsBusters has informed readers of just how absurd the junk science he's peddling really is.
Last Thursday, NBC "Tonight Show" viewers got a perfect example of how the Nobel Laureate basically makes things up, and that his poor grades in college were quite an indicator of just how little he understands about science.
So egregious was his departure from reality that the following clip should be mandatory viewing for all his fans in the media who seem to be just as scientifically-challenged (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, h/t Hot Air):
CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about ... you talk in the book about geothermal energy...
AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah.
O'BRIEN: ...and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth ...
O'BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?
GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...
On Tuesday, National Review's John Derbyshire noted:
If the temperature anywhere inside the earth was "several million degrees," we'd be a star.
This raises an obvious question: in a world where media fact-check a comedy skit and a book written by a former governor, shouldn't they equally scrutinize statements being made by a man who's actively pushing for the passage of economically impactful legislation currently before Congress?
Or is that asking too much from so-called journalists?
Consider that if Gore was a Republican, his numerous departures from fact would have so discredited him years ago that he would now be considered a total joke.
By contrast, because he's a Democrat who preaches liberal gospel, he can say whatever he wants without any regard for its accuracy and not only receive media's praise for his inexcusable errance, but an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize to boot.
By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
November 17, 2009 - 14:46 ET
Leftists including those in the White House who presumptively and obsessively attack Fox News will not be pleased with this.
At Forbes (HT Hot Air Headlines), S. Robert Lichter of George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs, asks the question, "Fox News: Fair And Balanced?" -- and answers in the affirmative. In the process, the GMU Professor of Communications also makes a number of interesting points about Fox's competitors, discusses the convergence of news and analysis, and provides useful historical context.
Using a methodology that would be difficult to refute, Lichter's work relating to campaign 2008 is in sync with what CMPA found in late 2007 (noted at the time at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) during the opening stages of the presidential campaign.
Here are key paragraphs from Lichter's commentary (bolds are mine):
Fox News has become embroiled in a nasty controversy over its ill treatment of President Obama. But are the charges true?
What if I told you that Fox gave Obama his worst press and John McCain his best press of any network during last year's presidential election? If you work for the White House, you'd probably take this as proof that Fox is just a mouthpiece for the opposition. Now what if I told you that Fox had the most balanced coverage of any network during the same campaign? If you work for Fox, you'd probably say we told you so.
But what if I told you that both scenarios are true?
While it seems unlikely, that conclusion is precisely the case, based on an ongoing study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). That both these seemingly contradictory scenarios are true tells us something important not only about the war between Fox and the White House, but about the changing nature of television news in America.
.... The CMPA study compares ABC, CBS 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.
.... 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.
Other points Lichter makes:
The historical pattern during a president's first year in office is that the establishment press tends to go negative. Lichter interestingly asserts that all networks have done so this year, with the Big 3 nets tallying 35% favorables for Obama vs. 27% for Fox on Special Report. Lichter's take is that "Fox's coverage has gone from being the worst of all to merely the worst among equals."
The White House claim that Fox "really isn't a news organization" is risible, given that in Special Report the channel at least runs "nightly news modeled on the broadcast networks." MSNBC and CNN don't even try.
Longtime NewsBusters and BizzyBlog readers will probably have a hard time with the final sentence of this assertion -- "Obama differs from his predecessors mainly in the false hopes generated by sometimes fawning campaign coverage from jaded journalists who temporarily let themselves get carried away by his eloquence and the historic nature of his candidacy. When politics returned to normal, their coverage returned to form." I definitely disagree, especially if you include the Big 3's morning shows, which attempt to position themselves as every bit as objective as their evening news counterparts. But if anything, they're worse. Perhaps a gravitation back to the norm has begun more recently, as the continued decay in the economy as people are experiencing it and the awful results of the administration's attempts to do something about become ever more obvious.
Leftists who will predictably howl that CMPA is conservatively biased (because SourceWatch says so, as if that proves anything beyond paranoia) are going to have to explain what is wrong with CMPA's scorekeeping methodology, which appears to be relatively immune from partisan slant, even if one had that as an objective. In any event, the footage is out there, and they are free to try to replicate and poke holes in what CMPA did any time. I bet they won't; whining is so much easier.