"Say what you want about Fox, it is a legitimate news organization."
No, it is not. No more than the National Enquirer is. They both endlessly engage in wild speculation and have crazy people either "write" articles or speak them. They hide behind the First Amendment as if that is the only thing that matters.
While you can find people that give Fox News credibility, I can find an equal number that give the National Enquirer credibility, so a vote would be meaningless. In fact, I'll bet you that I can find over a million people that would give a story about 'Aliens controlled Clinton's and Gore's brain' credibility. Does that mean it is true?
AustinRoth
· 1 month ago
No, it is not. No more than the National Enquirer is.
See. Typical Liberal attitude. My point of view is the only valid one. Any mindset that does not agree with me should be censored.
BTW - you are mixing up the National Enquirer with the World Weekly News.
AustinRoth
· 1 month ago
One interesting, and almost assuredly incorrect, theory about the Obama White House declaring Fox News 'not a legitimate news organization' revolves around campaign financing laws. The key one that could be in play is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which is the one SCOTUS asked to have reheard this year.
Should the FEC prevail, and should the FEC follow the White House lead and declare Fox News not a legitimate news organization, then they would be subject to those campaign laws 30 days prior to elections (which 'legitimate news organizations' are exempt from).
From Instapundit:
Bert Gall and Robert Frommer of the Institute for Justice have made a compelling case that the Obama administration’s word choice is quite significant. They think that by branding Fox as something other than a “legitimate news organization,” the White House is actually setting up a more brutal attack using campaign finance laws. News media organizations are exempt from campaign-finance laws’ speech regulations. But if Fox is not a “legitimate news organization,” then federal election authorities might be able to argue that its political speech can be regulated like that of any other non-news corporation.
I personally don't see this as likely, but it is ominous none the less for the White House to brand Fox as such. Disagreeing with a news slant or bias does not make it illegitimate. Otherwise the republicans would have shut down the NY and LA Times when they were in office! :-)
jkremmers
· 1 month ago
Thanks for pointing that out. I agree, it stretches the bounds of legitimacy if the government could make such a case. It would be a disastrous decision by SCOTUS.
michaelD
· 1 month ago
you're not serious?!!?! thats it? his biggest mistake is him [or his staff] taking on faux news?
newsflash: fox news isn't a news outlet. its a media outlet which sometimes reports news. that makes it virtually identical to all of the other media outlets. only the polarity varies. let's all get over it and move on, shall we? them taking on fox was silly but the reaction has been sillier.
let's consider some of his real errors so as to put your statement into perspective. the man appointed tim geithner to be his sec'y of the treasury. the same tim geithner who was president of the new york fed and who had a humongous hand in creating and not preventing the global financial collapse we've been enjoying so much for the last few years. thats not good enough? how about taking on larry summers who had a humongous hand in creating the last major financial crisis AND had a hand in this one as well. perhaps we could talk about renominating ben bernanke who has dramatically escalated the depth of the current financial crisis, perjuring himself before congress in the process. perhaps we could talk about the FDIC and sheila bair who has consistently failed to apply federal law to the nearly one-half of the US's nearly 8200 banks ... which should have been closed as required when they allowed their cash reserves go go below the minimum required by law.
perhaps we could consider the massive public debt he's building on our behalf as being nearly so important as the faux news tiff? after all, we're all going to so enjoy paying higher state and federal taxes to bail out the banksters and fund their bonuses.
could we consider his handling of health care reform as being nearly as important as the petulant spat with faux news? after all, he stirred the pot and then utterly failed to provide any leadership whatsoever. instead, he's leaving the bought-and-paid-for congress to deal with the 'insurance' co's who have every intention of keeping the status quo. i could go on and on and on ... his apparent support of warrantless wiretapping comes to mind.
with all the material available to you the one transgression you think deserves more attention than any others is this nonsense with fox?!?! if thats the best you can do you just aren't paying attention to the change we can't believe in.
Silhouette
· 1 month ago
I think the real problem is putting the words "Fox" and "news" together in any sentence.
The two are mutually exclusive. The most accurate term I've heard for the GOP propaganda dispensary is "Faux news". At least The Daily Show admits it's fake news heavily laced with slant.
ProfElwood
· 1 month ago
I can proudly say that I don't let any of them spoon feed me information. I get my information from a variety of sources and I have to say, not one of the main stream news organizations is even close to objective, and very few written ones are (the Christian Science Monitor often comes close). Even TMV gets it more balanced approach by mixing a variety of sources together.
In short: Fox is biased, so are the rest. Let 'em speak.
daveinboca
· 1 month ago
FoxNEWS has broken numerous stories of incompetence,malfeasance, and downright corruption by this White House and points out frequently its ridiculous mistatements for the outright lies that they are. Having worked for a few PR firms, for some news organizations and also having worked in political campaigns, it's easy to see that MSNBC is a PR firm for the DNC, and the three old-time networks are also almost always repeating DNC talking points. CNN gives less slavish adulation to the Obama Chicago-style political machine. Fox does point out absurd statements by Obama such as his claiming to be unaware that ACORN was receiving government funds [he was a counselor and advisor to ACORN for several years during the nineties] while the PR cable & nets accept every mistatement & outright lie, as the ACORN statement above was, at face value.
Thanks, Austin, for pointing out this FEC policized law case. It seems that the old "tyranny of the majority" might not be around for long, though.
VeratheGun
· 1 month ago
Seriously? Fox News, seriously? I hate to break it to you, but Fox News is a speck in Obama's sh*t. The only people who care about this are Fox apologists and justifiers. The rest of the rational world knows what Fox is--tabloid journalism, a latter day version of Inside Edition. They do a real good job preaching to the choir. But if you ain't in the choir, you're home sleeping in on Sunday morning.
AustinRoth
· 1 month ago
The only people who care about this are Fox apologists and justifiers.
No, the WH cares very much. They started it, and are concerned enough about it that Obama had a personal meeting with the CEO of Fox News to try and cool things down.
DLS
· 1 month ago
Obama owes a lot of people an apology. This was Stalinist suppression, or at its very most innnocent lightest, another example of play-pen leftist ineptitude. (That it's worse than mere ineptitude is indicated by the liberal media's objection to such mistreatment of heretical "traitor" Fox, for the rest of them know that with people in the Executive branch behaving that way, they, the liberal media majority, will be next.)
All Comments
No, it is not. No more than the National Enquirer is.
They both endlessly engage in wild speculation and have crazy people either "write" articles or speak them. They hide behind the First Amendment as if that is the only thing that matters.
While you can find people that give Fox News credibility, I can find an equal number that give the National Enquirer credibility, so a vote would be meaningless. In fact, I'll bet you that I can find over a million people that would give a story about 'Aliens controlled Clinton's and Gore's brain' credibility. Does that mean it is true?
See. Typical Liberal attitude. My point of view is the only valid one. Any mindset that does not agree with me should be censored.
BTW - you are mixing up the National Enquirer with the World Weekly News.
Should the FEC prevail, and should the FEC follow the White House lead and declare Fox News not a legitimate news organization, then they would be subject to those campaign laws 30 days prior to elections (which 'legitimate news organizations' are exempt from).
From Instapundit:
I personally don't see this as likely, but it is ominous none the less for the White House to brand Fox as such. Disagreeing with a news slant or bias does not make it illegitimate. Otherwise the republicans would have shut down the NY and LA Times when they were in office! :-)
newsflash: fox news isn't a news outlet. its a media outlet which sometimes reports news. that makes it virtually identical to all of the other media outlets. only the polarity varies. let's all get over it and move on, shall we? them taking on fox was silly but the reaction has been sillier.
let's consider some of his real errors so as to put your statement into perspective. the man appointed tim geithner to be his sec'y of the treasury. the same tim geithner who was president of the new york fed and who had a humongous hand in creating and not preventing the global financial collapse we've been enjoying so much for the last few years. thats not good enough? how about taking on larry summers who had a humongous hand in creating the last major financial crisis AND had a hand in this one as well. perhaps we could talk about renominating ben bernanke who has dramatically escalated the depth of the current financial crisis, perjuring himself before congress in the process. perhaps we could talk about the FDIC and sheila bair who has consistently failed to apply federal law to the nearly one-half of the US's nearly 8200 banks ... which should have been closed as required when they allowed their cash reserves go go below the minimum required by law.
perhaps we could consider the massive public debt he's building on our behalf as being nearly so important as the faux news tiff? after all, we're all going to so enjoy paying higher state and federal taxes to bail out the banksters and fund their bonuses.
could we consider his handling of health care reform as being nearly as important as the petulant spat with faux news? after all, he stirred the pot and then utterly failed to provide any leadership whatsoever. instead, he's leaving the bought-and-paid-for congress to deal with the 'insurance' co's who have every intention of keeping the status quo. i could go on and on and on ... his apparent support of warrantless wiretapping comes to mind.
with all the material available to you the one transgression you think deserves more attention than any others is this nonsense with fox?!?! if thats the best you can do you just aren't paying attention to the change we can't believe in.
The two are mutually exclusive. The most accurate term I've heard for the GOP propaganda dispensary is "Faux news". At least The Daily Show admits it's fake news heavily laced with slant.
In short: Fox is biased, so are the rest. Let 'em speak.
Thanks, Austin, for pointing out this FEC policized law case. It seems that the old "tyranny of the majority" might not be around for long, though.
No, the WH cares very much. They started it, and are concerned enough about it that Obama had a personal meeting with the CEO of Fox News to try and cool things down.
Obama's a Communist, too. See proof here: http://www.commieblaster.com/obama/index.html
And so are 80+ Members of Congress: http://www.commieblaster.com/progressives/index...