• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hey Fatsquatch!!!!

Mike

Well-known member
You have an awful lot of nerve calling someone else a liar with you being caught in them so many times it's hard to keep a tally.

Poll: Obama administration less competent than Bush’s or Clinton’s, more say

Washington Post
By Sean Sullivan
June 4 at 7:17 pm

A majority of voters say the Obama administration is less competent than Bill Clinton's and a plurality say it is less competent than George W. Bush's according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Sixty-eight percent say the Obama administration is less competent that the Clinton administration. Forty-eight percent say it is less competent than Bush's, compared to 42 percent who say it is more competent. Seven percent judge Obama's and Bush's the same.

Fifty-five percent say that the Obama administration has made the country weaker; 35 percent say his administration has made it stronger.

The poll was conducted June 1-3 by the Democratic Anderson Robbins Research and the Republican Shaw & Company Research.

P.S. When the Washington Post starts announcing Fox news polls, you know your man is on the big downhill slide.

Are you really as stupid as you seem?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan said in his book and testified under oath to Congress- FOX News would publish anything to support GW without finding out its veracity...
That's about when I quit watching FOX as my main source of news....
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
As former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan said in his book and testified under oath to Congress- FOX News would publish anything to support GW without finding out its veracity...
That's about when I quit watching FOX as my main source of news....

Fox News is a lot more "fair and balanced" than you are.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
As former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan said in his book and testified under oath to Congress- FOX News would publish anything to support GW without finding out its veracity...
That's about when I quit watching FOX as my main source of news....

So who do you watch?
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
iwannabeacowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
As former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan said in his book and testified under oath to Congress- FOX News would publish anything to support GW without finding out its veracity...
That's about when I quit watching FOX as my main source of news....

So who do you watch?

Al Jazeera.

Allahu Akbar!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
iwannabeacowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
As former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan said in his book and testified under oath to Congress- FOX News would publish anything to support GW without finding out its veracity...
That's about when I quit watching FOX as my main source of news....

So who do you watch?

Several of them- NPR, CNN, the Hill, Politico, Reuters and sometimes FOX to see what their take on an issue is.... The thing is tho- often you can watch/read articles from 2 or 3 media sites and then watch/read about it on FOX and if you didn't already know about it, you wouldn't even recognize it as the same issue... :roll: They put such a political spin on some stories that its impossible for me to think of them as a responsible news outlet...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
iwannabeacowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
As former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan said in his book and testified under oath to Congress- FOX News would publish anything to support GW without finding out its veracity...
That's about when I quit watching FOX as my main source of news....

So who do you watch?

Several of them- NPR, CNN, the Hill, Politico, Reuters and sometimes FOX to see what their take on an issue is.... The thing is tho- often you can watch/read articles from 2 or 3 media sites and then watch/read about it on FOX and if you didn't already know about it, you wouldn't even recognize it as the same issue... :roll: They put such a political spin on some stories that its impossible for me to think of them as a responsible news outlet...

But then you're stupid and your response was totally expected and asinine. :roll:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
NPR is way more to the left than Fox is to the right. If NPR is where Oldtimer gets his knowledge, it is no wonder his views are so lop-sided.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
The very thing oldtimer accuses Fox of doing regarding skewing things is what he does all the time....

What I wonder is how in the heck he manages his new cattle ventures spending all the time watching all the news channels, plus all the time he spends on the web sites... Were those venture's another one of his many lies??
add in the time he spends researching to cut and paste, he has no time to tend to cattle or anything else :roll: :roll:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
It tells you where he stands because he looks for leftwinger crap to satisfy his needs. After all Fox is closer to center than NPR or CNN.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
The thing he doesn't get is fox is not right at all on their news. Granted the talks shows are more right. The leftwing talk shows won't pay the bills.

The lelftwing talk shows have a hard time surviving because their debates won't stand the scrutiny. The only way they can keep going is just like the leftwingernuts on this site. They resort to defining the right how they want to, downright distortions, and outright lies.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
iwannabeacowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
As former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan said in his book and testified under oath to Congress- FOX News would publish anything to support GW without finding out its veracity...
That's about when I quit watching FOX as my main source of news....

So who do you watch?

Several of them- NPR, CNN, the Hill, Politico, Reuters and sometimes FOX to see what their take on an issue is.... The thing is tho- often you can watch/read articles from 2 or 3 media sites and then watch/read about it on FOX and if you didn't already know about it, you wouldn't even recognize it as the same issue... :roll: They put such a political spin on some stories that its impossible for me to think of them as a responsible news outlet...

On Friday, CNN announced that David Chalian would be named as their new political director. Chalian is most famous for making an obnoxious remark about Mitt and Ann Romney during the 2012 Republican National Convention.

On August 29, 2012, in live video inadvertently distributed by ABCNews.com, the-then Yahoo! News Washington bureau chief claimed the Romneys didn’t care about New Orleans residents being hit by Hurricane Isaac as he blurted: “They aren’t concerned at all. They are happy to have a party with black people drowning.”

Yahoo! quickly fired Chalian. However, Chalian’s vicious anti-Romney remark didn’t affect his employment opportunities since then.

On Friday MediaBistro reported the following:

A Friday afternoon announcement within CNN named “Crossfire” supervising producer David Chalian CNN Political Director.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2014/06/06/cnns-new-political-director-2012-romneys-would-be-happy-have-party#ixzz34Hy9Vp7p
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Biggest Failure in TV History Refuses to be “Shamed” into Covering Benghazi
May 20, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Why waste time covering Benghazi when you can discuss whether a missing plane flew into a black hole? It’s not just a joke. It’s also the news network you sometimes watch if you’re in an airport.

CNN President Jeff Zucker said Monday that he didn’t know whether his network will cover the Republican-led hearings on the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, arguing that CNN will not be “shamed” into reporting on something if it has no news value.

“We’re not going to be shamed into it by others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums to shame other news organizations into covering something,” he said in an interview with the New York Times at the Deadline Club’s annual awards dinner in New York City, Mediaite reported.

“If it’s of real news value, we’ll cover it,” he added.

Other things of real news value on CNN include the possibility that a missing plane flew into a black hole.

CNN host Don Lemon raised the possibility Wednesday night that the missing Malaysia Airlines flight was swallowed by a black hole


If CNN ever reports on Benghazi, it will be to discuss whether Ambassador Stevens vanished into a black hole.

But it’s no surprise that Jeff Zucker can’t be shamed. The man has no shame. I’m surprised that he even knows the word.

CNN’s widely and deservedly mocked coverage of the missing Malaysian jet is a-ok with the network’s boss mostly because a ton of people watched it. “I’m incredibly comfortable with it,” Jeff Zucker said in an interview yesterday, as reported by Capital New York.

Other things that Jeff Zucker is incredibly comfortable with include… covering major breaking Justin Bieber stories.

“I’m incredibly comfortable with the way CNN covered the Justin Bieber story,” Zucker told the audience.

Also Jeff Zucker is comfortable getting fired for his incompetence…

“We had both gotten to the same place,” Mr. Zucker said. “He made it clear that they wanted to move on at the close of the deal, and I was completely comfortable with that.”

Zucker was incredibly comfortable with Keith Olbermann…

“A lot of the basis of your question really emanates from the tremendous emergence of Keith Olbermann‘s program at 8 o’clock. I think I’m incredibly comfortable with that program.”

And then Olbermann had to be forced out. Much like Jeff Zucker.

So what did Jeff Zucker do before becoming the President of CNN and becoming an expert on all things journalistic?

He produced Katie Couric’s failed talk show. Katie. Couric probably didn’t find the time to discuss Benghazi in between the cooking segments.

And before that Jeff Zucker was the biggest failure in television history who destroyed NBC.

President and CEO since 2007, Zucker oversaw a whopping decline in viewership during his tenure — with prime-time programming losing to not only ABC (DIS), CBS (CBS), and Fox (NWS), but reruns on basic cable. He led NBC Universal’s precipitous 28% fall in profitability between 2008 and 2009 and effectively destroyed the Tonight Show brand. In an op-ed by Maureen Dowd, an unnamed executive from another network referred to Zucker as “a case study in the most destructive media executive ever to exist.”

There is no doubt that Zucker’s legacy in Hollywood will be as one of the most disliked executives ever to head a Big Media company. His rival moguls laughed at his humiliations. The agents and managers and lawyers treated him like a buffoon. Even his own NBC show 30 Rock and anointed late night comic Jay Leno made jokes at his expense every chance they got. And each time he made an error in judgment, which seemed like all the time, he never paid a price for his mistakes, which made ”Zucked” and “Zuckered” part of the media lexicon.

You can guess what happened when Jeff Zucker was fired from NBC and then ended up becoming President of CNN.

Since Jeff Zucker was named president of CNN Worldwide, the cable network has been plagued with some of its lowest ratings ever. Yet, staffers who heard Zucker talk about the channel and his tenure at a company-wide town hall meeting last Wednesday said he made it seem like he had already piloted the cable channel to greatness.

That’s Jeff Zucker, consistently in last place. And now the last place news network run by a human black hole is announcing that it won’t cover Benghazi.

More viewers for FOX and MSNBC then. More failure for Jeff Zucker. Maybe he and Katie Couric can get together after all this is over and launch another talk show.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Ask most conservatives and they’ll tell you that NPR is a hopelessly left-wing news organization filled with liberal biases. Ask most liberals and they’ll tell you it’s a down the middle, mainstsream news outlet. Instead of getting into that debate, let’s get into another, more nuanced one. So, consider this statement made by the co-host of NPR’s On the Media:

“If you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd.”

Those are the words of Bob Garfield in the aftermath of the conservative “citizen journalist” sting against NPR, which caught on camera a now former fund raising executive smearing the entire Tea Party movement as racist and stupid.


Mr. Garfield was not saying NPR has a liberal bias, just that it’s journalists are “overwhelmingly” liberal. That is a great big problem all by itself. But more on that in a moment. Garfield’s guest, a liberal named Ira Glass, who is host of the NPR show “This American Life” predictably said, NPR is a mainstream news operation and has no liberal bias. End of discussion!

But let’s look it this way: Let’s say, if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, let’s say you’d find an overwhelmingly conservative, right-wing crowd — does anyone at NPR think that would be just fine; that such one-sidedness wouldn’t present journalistic problems; that such a news organization would present the news without filtering it through a conservative lens?

I don’t.

But somehow liberals at NPR think that it doesn’t matter if just about everybody in the newsroom is liberal. After all, the argument goes, they’re professionals. They can keep their biases to themselves. To which I have just two words: Juan. Williams.

In the “overwhelmingly” liberal bubble that is NPR, executives were appalled at Juan Williams comment to Bill O’Reilly that ““When I get on a plane … if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.”

This was so bigoted, in their view, that they had to fire Mr. Williams. In a statement explaining why they did it, NPR said: Williams’ words “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

But these same sensitive liberal souls let Nina Totenberg, NPR’s Legal Affairs correspondent, go on a Sunday talk show each week and spout all sorts of liberal nonsense. Who could forget her shot at then Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, a comment for which she later apologized. If there was “retributive justice,” in the world, Ms. Totenberg said, Jesse Helms would “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

Inside the liberal bubble Juan Williams is a bigot. Nina Totenberg isn’t.

That’s one of the many reasons it matters if a newsroom is “overwhelmingly” liberal – or conservative.

Another has to do with what a news organization chooses not to put on the air. It’s about what it doesn’t deem important or interesting enough to share with its audience. Not all bias can be detected by what actually survives the gauntlet and sees the light of day. I speak from first hand knowledge.

In December 2001, my first book came out. It was called Bias and it was about liberal bias in the so-called mainstream media. Terry Gross, who hosts a daily interview program on NPR called Fresh Air, showed no interest in having me on – despite the fact that Bias was number one on the holy grail of liberal booklists, the New York Times best seller list. And that’s perfectly fine. I have no right to be on any program. Terry Gross can pick and choose her guests as she sees fit.

But not long after the book came out she had a liberal professor on her show criticizing it. She never gave me a chance to defend my work. And then a full year after Bias came out, I got a call from NPR telling me that Terry Gross wanted me on Fresh Air. Why now, so long after my book came out? Because a liberal had just published a book condemning Bias, that’s why.

So I was of no interest to Terry Gross until I was in the liberal cross hairs.

I may have no right to be on her show, but she has no right to pretend she’s not part of NPR’s “overwhelmingly” liberal crowd, and one who has a very deep-seated liberal bias.

As for the current debate, about whether federal government money should go to NPR: I’m against it. And not because of liberal bias. If public broadcasting is as good as we’re constantly being told by its adoring and loyal supporters in places like Manhattan and Malibu, then it ought to be good enough to survive on its own, without taxpayer money, no matter how small.

In a 21st century media universe with thousands of radio and television outlets, NPR (and PBS) should find its niche in the marketplace. If it does, that’s fine with me. If it doesn’t, well, somehow I suspect we’ll all survive
- See more at: http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/no-liberal-bias-at-npr-just-ask-npr/#sthash.LTOKv5qA.dpuf
 
Top