Is Foxnews a real news organization? (in Debates)


QBRanger October 20 2009 2:55 PM EDT

The White House has stated that Foxnews is NOT a real news organization.

Here is the article about that WH decision:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/20/white-house-cites-opinion-shows-basis-fox-news-complaints/

So, do you agree that Foxnews is not a legitimate news organization?

I believe the WH is now trying to suppress free speech and those who disagree with its and Obama's policies. Very similar to what Nixon tried to do.

What is opinion programming and what is real news should be obvious to the WH, however it seems not to be.

Most concerning in this article is the attempt to get the other news organizations to isolate Foxnews and ban them from the reporters pool in the WH.

If this is not an attempt to suppress free speech, then I am speechless.

QBRanger October 20 2009 2:58 PM EDT

And I see little difference between Beck or Hannity on Fox vs Olbermann or Matthews on MSNBC.

I for one can certainly see they are opinion shows.

It is sad to see Obama not see this clear distinction.

PearsonTritonRaveshaw October 20 2009 3:10 PM EDT

I don't watch the news. I'd rather not have other peoples opinions rammed up my bum.

Cube October 20 2009 3:33 PM EDT

They do cover news. They also cover opinion. The white house is fine to criticize the opinion, as that's their opinion. Of course they can tell the difference between the opinion and the news coverage, it's pretty clear what their target is. The white house isn't confused.

I think excluding Fox News from the reporter pool would be wrong. I'd also bet that they won't actually exclude them with odds of 1 to 1,000.

QBRanger October 20 2009 3:39 PM EDT

Cube,

Perhaps you missed the article and others of its ilk.

They have claimed Foxnews as an entire organization is not a news organization and therefore should not be treated as a news organization.

There was nothing in the WH statements about it being partially opinion and partially news. It was a blanket statement about Foxnews as an entitiy.

Something that worries me very much about the current people in charge of this country and where they want to bring this country.

Here is the transcript from Gibbs conversation with someone from ABC:

Jake Tapper, ABC News: It hasn't escaped our notice that in the last few weeks the White House has decided to declare war on one of our sister organizations saying it's not a news organization and tell the rest of the news media to not treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to say one of them is not a news organization and the rest of the media should not treat them like one.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: We render opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: That's a pretty sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from, say another, say ABC, MSNBC, Univision?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight or five this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programs. Or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That is our opinion.

Carol E. Lee, Politico: Does that mean the White House doesn't believe they should be part of the press pool?

Gibbs: The press pool is decide by the White House Correspondents Association.

Lee: So you have no opinion on whether they should be ...

Gibbs: I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job.

AdminNightStrike October 20 2009 3:46 PM EDT

If they were to go this route, I would say it's best to condemn all media outlets, instead of just one, aside from CSPAN (personal note: it's the only news network I watch, other than Naked News........ but that gets dull).

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 20 2009 3:47 PM EDT

Yeah this is weak, but at least it's being done in the open, which is a still a step up from the frightening low levels we've stooped too of late in controlling media. I'd much rather see citizens deal with this sort of problem by voting with their wallets.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 20 2009 3:51 PM EDT

I'm not going to try and change Ranger's mind or anyone else for that matter. If you watch Fox News, then they are obviously showing you things you agree with, personally I find a lot of their coverage horribly biased, and at worst inaccurate. They do report the news, but so does TMZ and The National Enquirer.

However, I will post links to organizations that report on media inaccuracies and biases and let you make up your own mind.

Media Matters
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
On the Media
FactCheck.Org

I don't watch TV news, I read the web for all my news, that way I don't have someone telling me "this is how it is!" I can make up my own mind about a story based on reading the facts as presented in a multitude of ways. Some people prefer being told the facts and how they should feel about things, to each their own.

QBRanger October 20 2009 3:51 PM EDT

Unfortunately the current administration is more concerned about their public perception than actual governing.

And those that fail to follow the party line is going to feel their wrath.

It started with Humana and now is progressing to Foxnews. A very typical path tyrants follow. Control the media to control the populace.

Here is the Humana link for those who watch MSNBC as they had no coverage of this huge story:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/09/24/cnns-lou-dobbs-program-picks-obama-humana-gag-order-controversy

Eventually the gag order was lifted due to public outcry, not because the Obama administration realized their mistake.

Cube October 20 2009 4:54 PM EDT

"There was nothing in the WH statements about it being partially opinion and partially news. It was a blanket statement about Foxnews as an entitiy."

Where can I find this statement?

Here are two quotes from the page you linked..
"render (that) opinion based on some [of] their coverage and the fairness of that coverage."
"Gibbs mentioned the channel's 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows, in an explicit reference to 'Beck' and 'Hannity'"

...am I missing something?

TheHatchetman October 20 2009 5:19 PM EDT

"So, do you agree that Foxnews is not a legitimate news organization?"

Yes... Very much so.


"I believe the WH is now trying to suppress free speech and those who disagree with its and Obama's policies."

When you invite someone over, and the crap on your lawn. Then you repeat the process a thousand more times, eventually you stop inviting that person over, no? Fox News (or what I've seen from it) is not running around pointing out patches of crabgrass or weeds in the garden, the are simply crapping on the lawn.


"And I see little difference between Beck or Hannity on Fox vs Olbermann or Matthews on MSNBC."

Gonna have to agree there too... tbh, either force them both into factchecking and accuracy, or into another business, or off the air entirely. Fox News, nor MSNBC should really call themselves news, or be allowed to, for that matter...



"If they were to go this route, I would say it's best to condemn all media outlets, instead of just one, aside from CSPAN"

Bingo!

QBRanger October 20 2009 5:37 PM EDT

Cube:

Did you just not read this Q and A?

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programs. Or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That is our opinion.

Sounds like a blanket statement to me.

Sickone October 20 2009 6:02 PM EDT

Most things called "news organisations" nowadays are no longer what we used to call a "news organisation" half a century ago.
Most of them are simply sensationalism-seeking, viewpoint propaganda-spewing, ratings-oriented ENTERTAINMENT monsters.
Some however cross the line between news and entertainment so far that they no longer have anything relevant in common with the "news" origins for issues that do matter.
"Fox News" is the most outrageous and well-known (yet not the only) example.

Lord Bob October 20 2009 6:57 PM EDT

"Is Foxnews a real news organization?"

It is not. It is merely the propaganda wing of the Republican party. Fox has no interest in educating its viewers, its agenda is only drumming up support for it's cause. It is as much a news organization as any campaign.

That doesn't mean it is not disguised as a news organization. That, it is. But one has to be able to look past the curtain and see who's really running the show, and what the show really is.

"I believe the WH is now trying to suppress free speech and those who disagree with its and Obama's policies."

As I wrote verbatim to another member recently: a politician's refusal to participate on a network openly hostile to him and his party's platform has nothing to do with free speech, and is in no way contrary to our First Amendment. Nowhere in American law does it state any elected official must make an appearance on the opposition's "news" channel, or even acknowledge them at all.

I'll add, nor does criticising the opposition's subtly veiled smear campaign amount to an infringement of Fox's right to free press or speech.

"What is opinion programming and what is real news should be obvious to the WH, however it seems not to be."

Fox is about 90% of the former and 1% of the latter. The remaining 9% is Glenn Beck's fake crying.

"And I see little difference between Beck or Hannity on Fox vs Olbermann or Matthews on MSNBC."

Correct. But the president does have a right to pick which networks he participates on, and who's allowed in the press room. That is not a restriction on free speech. It's kicking your enemy out your front door.

"personal note: it's the only news network I watch, other than Naked News........"

Dude, the girls on NN are so not hot. At all.

[P]Mitt October 20 2009 7:08 PM EDT

I find it ironic that the article you cite is by Fox. I'm not saying that you can't find similar articles on other news sites, just saying that it isn't particularly inspiring that you cite the source that is also claiming to be under attack.

It's like citing the North Korean media's claims as proof that the US has spies in its countries. What would be more convincing would be an article by US News or someone other than the accused that describes said situation.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 20 2009 8:21 PM EDT


No.

RaptorX October 20 2009 8:41 PM EDT

I see many "news" organizations omiting contrary opinions to their own views and I see clearly they all have their own views. Fox is just on the opposite end of MOST of them so it is viewed as biased. Which is simply ridiculous and scary to me and is simply the beginning of banning of 'free press'.
Remember 'Joe the plumber' and how Obama attacted him? That was wrong - It was ridiculous and this is too. All news organizations ought to be held accountable. None are. It is hard to know what to believe. News on the web isn't any different IMO - they seem to all be biased one way or another. (Though I haven't checked out some that were mentioned in this post.)
An example - It is OK to NOT think 'Global warming' is real and is caused by our CO2 pollution, though I think it is hard to know what to believe since they arguements on both sides - and it depends which 'news' site or radio show you like. People and cows - all living things produce Co2 - so if we want to get rid of 'greenhouse gases' we need to all die I guess. That may be the next thing - limiting life on the planet.

kevlar October 20 2009 9:23 PM EDT

It is a real news organization. Would Acorn have been discovered if MSNBC was the standard? How many times has Obama adjusted his actions due to the reporting done by them? Finally meeting with McCrystal, Obama's statement about the police with the Harvard prof. and policeman, etc.

The thing that makes Fox news stand out so much is because nearly every other form of media is liberal (newspaper, other stations, internet.. Think about it... Fox is the only mainstream Right focused source out there, and the Government wants to shut them up. Checks and balances?

If it weren't for Fox news, a lot of people wouldn't be as informed (or annoyed) about such issues such as:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/09/gores_green_car_89_k_529_m_loa.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2FVEe7wCzs
This is just recent stuff.

And for the Government to act in a way to boycott and want to silence them, it IS an attack on freedom of speech, and though some disagree, I truly feel Fox is hitting a nerve and uncovering a lot more than the administration wants the people to know about.

Pay attention to the internet control issue, videos are being removed left and right from YouTube (China anyone?)... an example of something that was just on the radio yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/index?ytsession=JrR2EO8PAN7kZoPG3xlxPLPlMe7TOrzMdcwilQHyoYORaoYemTmOdWDd67nmXYSV4bmDMA12V-aYiyhy7cBsvrN0qugAIbU27_Dzm_kgV0bAp9jtzMk4l08qvfEVagzmKMroyda2LQ8ZI3LQbflLr4pBTtWhctv-MRWNfvhI5OkLktDnrQvnwaDE6k1Ejef3BjERi1OAL3aiQNcJGzEvL7-nY5CZC9ZAUmGCf69KeIuDbn4hN7s8-qucaUnRymiXe27lK5NNZ4DQZ-ORc30_7KTGbRGzTnmAVAItYc7KiGqEh3LcvxzvQcK_rAxRObDVuXRfeGNabTly7ZKGc7ZZRHW1-5fI1Dkuc7_AzgNndBc

Cube October 20 2009 9:52 PM EDT

Yes, Ranger I saw that quote also, but it seemed like the majority of their statements recognized that FOX is a large organization. Give them a little credit, you may disagree with the White House, but they aren't complete idiots.

And the idea of catching one statement that sounds wrong, and blowing it out of proportion is getting old. In fact many of these people who have been branded 'Radicals' simply agreed to something or misspoke once.

The ACORN story was broken by some journalist students not employed by FOX. Sure, FOX covered it a lot, but they also blew it out of proportion. Upon learning about the videos, congress did stop funding ACORN.

Kevlar, I truly do not consider someone mentioning Mao in their speech a big story. In fact, upon further investigation, she picked up the quote from a Republican, and used the term 'favorite' ironically. FOX often takes stuff out of context and sensationalizes it.

That video you linked has been taken down actually. I'm not sure what the video was going to talk about, but certainly, in China censorship has been going on for a long time.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 20 2009 10:02 PM EDT

The mention of Mao could have been said because China gives us money and handmade shoes.
Never know, but we can pretend to.

kevlar October 20 2009 10:11 PM EDT

^could be... could also be the reason the "Sears Tower" (now Willis Tower...) was lit up with China's flag colors to celebrate their 60th anniversary of the communist takeover.

QBRanger October 20 2009 11:02 PM EDT

"The ACORN story was broken by some journalist students not employed by FOX. Sure, FOX covered it a lot, but they also blew it out of proportion."'

How did Fox blow this story out of proportion? What in the story was exaggerated? The helping people to smuggle 16 year olds to work as prostitutes? The lying on ones taxes to get a tax break on illegal income? What exactly was so blown out of proportion to get the government, who typically works at a snail's pace, to immediately vote to suspend their funding?

I see it is great investigative reporting by 2 independent journalists attempting to get to the truth. Much like what thousands of journalists do each day. Except this was going after a liberal organization who helped Obama get elected. That is a no-no in this society.

It is reasons like this that the Obama administration is attacking Foxnews. For showing the garbage that is occurring

Lord Bob October 20 2009 11:24 PM EDT

"We Control the News Media - Anita Dunn Barack Obama's Communications White house Director
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y"

See, this is exactly what I've been saying about Fox being propaganda and not news.

Fast forward to 1:00. Listen for a minute.

At 2:02, she says: "we controlled it," referring to campaign communications.

By the headline in this video, Kevlar would have us believe that she meant "we (the White House) control the news media. Free press be darned!!!"

The reality of what she is saying is so far off from the right wing spin on it to be negligent and dangerous. This is an example of a campaign using media to it's advantage, not using government to enforce censorship.

Sure, this wasn't actually Fox, but this is the brand of "journalism" Fox engages in.

"White House Communications Director Anita Dunn Loves Mao Zedong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2FVEe7wCzs"

Ok, now that's suspicious.

Still, it has little to do with today's elected officials and political challenges. It's just yet another "gotcha" moment, which is what the Right has come to rely on to forge a formidable campaign.

..oh, and she's not in China by any chance there, is she?

"And for the Government to act in a way to boycott and want to silence them,"

As explained above, boycotting the network is not akin to using governmental might to silence them or strip them of their constitutional rights.

"Pay attention to the internet control issue, videos are being removed left and right from YouTube (China anyone?)... an example of something that was just on the radio yesterday: "

Bad link.

"It is reasons like this that the Obama administration is attacking Foxnews. For showing the garbage that is occurring"

No Ranger, it is for covering morons like the birthers and the teabaggers favorably. The liberals abandoned ACORN as well.

Cube October 20 2009 11:59 PM EDT

I find it silly to paint a whole organization as corrupt based on this. I'm sure there is plenty of good work that they do as well.

It was a good thing that practices like this were exposed.

Lord Bob October 21 2009 12:41 AM EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html?slidenumber=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/white-house-feud-with-fox_n_327314.html

Not news. Propaganda.

Lord Bob October 21 2009 12:43 AM EDT

And then there's this butthole: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/glenn-beck-smears-progres_n_327860.html

AdminTitan October 21 2009 12:44 AM EDT

So, there are no national news stations.. got it.

Lord Bob October 21 2009 12:45 AM EDT

"So, there are no national news stations.. got it."

A fair assessment. *grin*

Canibus October 21 2009 2:08 AM EDT

Gotta just go with CSPAN, just watch everything live then decide. FOX or MSNBC are biased like you wouldnt believe.. well you americans do believe and know that ofcourse, but in other countries it wouldn't pass - well if you dont think of one-channel oligarchies etc. Yet saying MSNBC is liberal is also a sign of weakness - or at least something. In the US there is Right (dems, private enterprice etc) and Hyper-Right (the gop, random morons, birthers etc etc). Yet to see something truly liberal coming out of there.
Give more coverage to Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky etc etc and 24 cable news would be a little more, than making people less free thinking by idiotic narratives and sillyness. Or dont watch cable news nor any other form of national media at all :) Read books and fact reports - skip the narrators and pundits.

QBJohnnywas October 21 2009 4:43 AM EDT

Don't be surprised to find Fox News changes it's allegiances if there is a sniff of policy making that may affect their business. It's how Rupert Murdoch works. In the UK he has backed both the left and right depending on how they are seen in the country, how it affects his business and how much power he can gain for himself at the time.

Murdoch's news businesses have a long history of political bias being priority over real news. Political opinion in fact over news. To suggest so is nothing new.

kevlar October 21 2009 4:50 AM EDT

"The reality of what she is saying is so far off from the right wing spin on it to be negligent and dangerous. This is an example of a campaign using media to it's advantage, not using government to enforce censorship."

LB seriously, listen to the video... she clearly states how during the campaign they avoided reporters and just had what they wanted conveyed. Why should you avoid reporters? Aren't reporters the foundation of the media? Her talk was a prelude to what is being experienced now with the 'control' aspect of things. If they can't control it, they will attempt to shut it down.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 21 2009 7:40 AM EDT


No. That is not how journalism works.

QBRanger October 21 2009 8:15 AM EDT

But that is how socialism starts.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 21 2009 10:02 AM EDT

is comedy central allowed in the white house press pool?

Lochnivar October 21 2009 10:50 AM EDT

Are you sure socialism is the word you are looking for there Ranger?

... I'm pretty sure it is an economic term...

QBRanger October 21 2009 11:18 AM EDT

Wikipedia defines socialism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people.

Social as well as economic term.

Canibus October 21 2009 11:24 AM EDT

Given that I got some credit from being from a "socialist" country, Norway, I can assure you Ranger, the US is nowhere close to being socialistic, and neither are any of the states in Scandinavia, the usage of the word socialism reminds me either of the red scare in the past, or red necks in the present :) (split the last word in two for the rythm of it o_O).
Most countries got way more concrete problems than silly labels - which arent even remotely true. Spending time using the word socialism or fascism incorrectly retards political debate, and well, you see how well "debates" work on the 24h news - barely time to repeat the same propaganda between the breaks, spin and few facts.Oh well,tons of digresses and prolly no points across, english is hard :x

Lord Bob October 21 2009 11:48 AM EDT

"LB seriously, listen to the video... "

*sigh*

Kev, had I not listen to the video already I wouldn't have been able to point out the glaring flaws in your argument now, would I?

And nobody is attempting to "shut down" anything. I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but a boycott is not the same as censorship.

If you would like to collect and present actual facts to support your case, I'd be willing to address them. If not, please stop grasping at straws and taking every single thing ever out of context.

"But that is how socialism starts."

Thanks for again demonstrating you have no grasp of what socialism is (but you can quote wiki!) and no grasp of Obama's or the Democratic party's economic agenda.

Seriously, thank you for that.

kevlar October 25 2009 10:51 PM EDT

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view.bg?articleid=1206970&srvc=rss#

done and done.

Warning, Glenn Beck link (for all those who think the world is out to trick you into watching links about politics)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAttT0WcWU

LB I respect your passion for your stance, but I think you go completely overboard with your opinion and what you think about other people and their's. I'm going to respectfully leave this debate :)

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 26 2009 12:05 AM EDT

Kevlar, I don't think you read what Sute said in that other thread. Posting links without context is wasting our time.

The first link is about the White House letting Fox back into the press room, and the second link is some rambling junk from that Beck guy. What are either of these links supposed to prove? You are supposed to tell us what they prove to you, and then you present them to us so we can either agree or disagree and have some context.

As it is, you are wasting our time. I have no idea what the purpose of those two links are, also when posting 6 minute youtube links, remember to add #t=01m20s to the end of the link to point to specific point in the video, not all of us are willing to sit through 6 minutes of Beck blather.

QBRanger October 26 2009 12:09 AM EDT

The first link is to show the other news stations agree that Foxnews is a real news organization. They finally grew a pair and stood up to the White House.

The 2nd link is a "Wag the Dog" type link. Something liberals tried to state when W was in the WH.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 26 2009 12:17 AM EDT

Thanks Ranger! Yeah, as much as I don't find Fox News coverage fair and balanced, I think it's best to have your friends close, but your enemies closer.

QBRanger October 26 2009 12:22 AM EDT

Well Veri,

The Pew Organization found Foxnews to be the most fair and balanced during the 08 Presidential Campaign.

Right now, of course it is right leaning, just as much as MSNBC and NBC are left leaning.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 26 2009 12:37 AM EDT

I couldn't find any specific links stating Fox News as the most fair and balanced for the '08 election, so it would be nice to have a link for that one. But I did find this report, from what they've found was that the public's view of the media's accuracy has hit a two-decade low. Which seems to underline my point that watching multiple news sources is the only counter to inaccurate coverage.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 26 2009 12:41 AM EDT

Another thing, since it seems like we have a fair bit of debates that involve politics, can we all agree on a few sources that are more accurate and less biased then others? I've noticed some people don't care about some sources or just paint some sources as "too biased" and therefore don't get any sway in debates here. Is the Pew Research Center admissible as factual information in regards to debates then, Ranger?

kevlar October 28 2009 1:34 AM EDT

Fex, it isn't about having your enemies closer, it is more of an epiphany of "hey... this could happen to us!" It's interesting to see how different people interpret the situation.

As for a statement "wasting our time" ... one using the word "our" is a very strong statement as you are assuming that 100% of this forum views that as a waste of time. Noone forces anyone to watch any video through its entirety, if you choose to, then it is on yourself isn't it? I have clicked MANY links in these forums that are long and closed them early. I really am surprised with your comment on that.

Revs October 28 2009 3:00 AM EDT

At best this whole "debate" seems to center around whatever political party lines the respondent happens to ally with. If you support the current WH administration and all that goes with it, then of course you're going to support the claims that they may make. If you bought the bail out plan that's left 8 trillion USD unaccounted for in the Federal Reserve books, then how hard can it be to buy into their opinion that a certain site is not "real news" because it tends to cater to a party that is in the minority?

Fox has historically catered to the conservatives, because that is the market they have chosen to report to and base it's ratings upon. Is there media bias involved? Probably, but no more than the media bias exists to the left on other news sites. And even there, I think it's based more on media personalities than the networks themselves.

So I think as the network reports news, as gathered by reporters, you would have to say it is a "real news organization" just as much as any other news reporting network. To deny Fox as being "real news" is to deny any "real news" from any network, as the bias is inherent in the system.

I think the greater question would be,

1) Is it possible for news to exist without bias and agenda?

2)Or is it possible for a news station to exist without choosing "sides" on a self serving basis?

3)Or maybe even, if it's ok for a government to polarize it's citizens by opinion, does that mean they can also deny rights deemed necessary by the constitution that same government was formed upon?

If they can censor (directly or indirectly) a news agency they disagree with, then should they also be able to control information on the internet? Or censor your own voice as well?

Lord Bob October 28 2009 4:36 AM EDT

"http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view.bg?articleid=1206970&srvc=rss# "

I will post on the article itself later, but let's look at the ads chosen at the bottom of the site, shall we?

"
Socialism
Do You Describe President Obama as a Socialist? Tell Us Now.
*
Anti-Obama T-shirts
Annoy a liberal with our obnoxious anti-Obama stickers and t-shirts
*
Obama: Secret Econ Report
You think the recession is over? We say otherwise. What Obama is hiding
"

URLs omited because I refuse to propagate that crap.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 28 2009 4:39 AM EDT

Once upon a Cronkite time the flighty vultures didn't have to stake claim on red or blue corpses. All politics does is give bodies and victims. 24 hour news is now the biggest bane of TV. Bigger than most reality shows combined. To be fair, all these over opinionated news slots are considered real news when the crawler is running. You want today's news without opinion? Watch CSPAN.

The white house only pushed for a shift in the public opinion spectrum. Weakly. With a bad PR department. Can any of you constitutionalists show me where these evil liberal masterminds sought to banhammer loons from that hazardous nest? Legally or by force?

This should be carnage blender in name alone. Get out of the fallout shelter. Quit the hate-mongering. Ask Verifex about Cgen. ;)
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002uLE">Is Foxnews a real news organization?</a>