More Fox critics emerge on the right

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

O'Reilly interviewed Obama, so did Baier, Chris Wallace, and Major Garrett. O'Reilly interviewed Barney Frank a number of times - my favorite was O'Reilly calling him out (screaming at him) for fucking up the banking system (which Frank DID). Chris Wallace interviewed Bill Clinton. Mike Huckabee interviewed Michelle Obama. Al Sharpton is on Fox News regularly. Hillary Clinton has been interviewed by many on Fox News. Fox News' Michael Tobin interviewed Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salem Fayyad in 2009. Greta Van Susteren recently interviewed Harry Reid. Fox also interviewed Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

Those are off the top of my head, though I constantly see Democrats interviewed (e.g. congressmen/congresswomen, senators, etc.).

Believe it or not, Ollie North's weekend show (war stories) is amazingly good. He does an hour long documentary once a week, and he's also frequently on air from war zones where he risks his life (as other journalists do).

When Hannity (and a few others) comes on, the channel gets changed. FTW.
 
ppilot and bluefrog, I think you're confusing the Bill O'Reilly's, Sean Hannity's, Greta VanSusterns, Glen Beck's, etc. with the Bret Baier's, Brit Hume's and Chris Wallace's of the network.

Brit Hume and Chris Wallace often seem to interject their own feelings into how they report the news, especially when they have people in the booth that they talk to about the latest events....framing things with "Isn't it a little silly to suggest..." and such. While I'm not saying that an anchor/reporter can't inject some amount of their own thought, they strike me as always coming down on the side of Republican viewpoint.

Actually, on FOX News, I'd say Sheppard Smith is pretty reasonable. I don't watch the network a ton (nor do I watch MSNBC or CNN a ton) but when I do, Sheppard Smith doesn't seem to interject partisan spin.
 
BTW, why can't one be "anti-Obama" in a news story and not be objective? I think there were plenty of news stories that called out President Bush that were right on target. Being critical is part of the news.

Sure, I think being critical of the president is a normal part of reporting but there is a difference between being critical and being "anti-Obama". Have you ever seen a pro-Obama story in the headlines of Fox News?
 
Sure, I think being critical of the president is a normal part of reporting but there is a difference between being critical and being "anti-Obama". Have you ever seen a pro-Obama story in the headlines of Fox News?

I have and I don't watch cable news very much.
 
Wanna wager?

If foxnews.com runs no pro-obama story in the headlines for the rest of this week you have to quote me and write "Great comment Bluefrog" or something otherwise praising me for every post I write for the rest of the month.

If they run such a story in their headlines, name your terms for the rest of April.
 
I would call this a pro Obama news story from foxnews.com.

Today, in fact.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/12/obama-china-work-potential-sanctions-iran/

Obama, China to Work On Potential Sanctions Against Iran

The White House says President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao are instructing their diplomats to work on potential sanctions to make clear to Iran the cost of continued nuclear defiance.

WASHINGTON -- China agreed to work with the United States on a possible sanctions regime against Iran and Ukraine announced it would rid itself of nuclear bombing making materials as a U.S.-hosted nuclear summit got under way.

Obama opened the global security summit Monday night after two days of meetings with selected presidents and prime ministers of the 47 countries assembled to recharge efforts to keep nuclear material out of terrorist hands.

China's incremental move toward U.S. ambitions to sanction Iran and Ukraine's plans get rid of highly enriched uranium put some wind in Obama's sails as he presses global leaders to join him in locking down all nuclear materials within four years.

Obama's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao was the last of the summit warm-up sessions before the U.S. leader sat down with his guests at a working dinner.

After the Hu meeting, White House national security aide Jeff Bader said Iran was a major topic of discussion at the 90-minute session.

"They're prepared to work with us," Bader said, interpreting that willingness as "another sign of international unity on this issue."

The upbeat assessment reflected a recent warming of U.S.-Chinese diplomatic ties. Still, the meeting produced no breakthroughs. And Chinese spokesman Ma Zhaoxu did not mention sanctions in a statement on Hu's meeting with Obama.

Ma said China hopes all parties will step up diplomatic efforts and seek ways to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations.

"China and the United States share the same overall goal on the Iranian nuclear issue," the Chinese statement said.

Obama has been pressing the case that a fourth round of sanctions are needed to convince Iran to alter its perceived course toward a nuclear weapons capability.

China, while historically averse to tough sanctions and uneasy about potential damage to its trade relationship with Tehran, may indeed be coming on board with Obama.

The U.S. already has the robust backing of Great Britain, France and Germany. Russia, too, has shown a willingness to join the sanctions effort, meaning the required clean sweep of permanent members the United Nations Security Council.

But when pressed on whether China had committed to anything specific on the sanctions front, Bader was less direct.

"We are going to be -- we've started to work that and we're going to be working on that in the coming days -- coming days and weeks," he said. Obama wants agreement on sanctions before summer.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country currently holds one of the rotating seats on the U.N. Security Council, said at a speech on the sidelines of the conference Monday that his country does not want Iran or any other nation to have nuclear weapons.

While the United States worries about Iran's nuclear program, Turkey has its own concerns about Israel's nuclear program. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opted not to attend Obama's summit, and insiders said he had expected Turkey and Egypt to use the conference as a platform to challenge him over his country's widely assumed nuclear arsenal, which the Jewish state never has acknowledged.

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazee on Monday declared Obama's new nuclear policy, which excludes Iran from a U.S. pledge not to use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them, an act of "state terrorism" because it threatens nations with weapons of mass destruction.

"This policy of nuclear blackmail and terror" runs counter to international law and the U.N. Charter and "must be denounced by the international community and all peace-loving nations," Khazee told a General Assembly committee considering a draft Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainians, who gave a major boost to arms control in 1994 when they agreed to surrender the nuclear weapons they inherited in the collapse of the Soviet Union, agreed to get rid of their weapons-grade fuel by 2012.

Some details are yet to be worked out, including how and where the nuclear fuel will be disposed of, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

The material could be sent to the U.S. or Russia, but he declined to specify the amount, other than to say it was enough to make several nuclear weapons.

Canada, meanwhile, announced plans to send its spent nuclear fuel back to the United States as part of a global effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materiel.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the material from the Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario will be sent to the U.S. by the end of 2018 and converted into a form that is unusable in nuclear weapons.

When the summit begins in earnest on Tuesday, the talks will take up Obama's goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, with efforts to lock down materials to build those bombs an urgent first step.

Tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium are believed to be insufficiently protected from international criminal gangs and terrorist organizations.

"Al-Qaeda is especially notable for its long-standing interest in weapons-usable nuclear material and the requisite expertise that would allow it to develop a yield-producing improvised nuclear device," John Brennan, the White House anti-terrorism chief, told reporters Monday. "And its interest remains strong today."

The summit ends Tuesday with the assembled leaders expected to signed a joint declaration to guide future work toward locking away and cleansing the globe of materials still too easily accessible to terrorists.

Experts point to such a problem in Pakistan, for example. A new report from a Harvard nonproliferation expert, released Monday, finds that the South Asian country's small but growing stockpile faces "immense" threats and is the world's least secure from theft or attack.

However, Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani said his country's nuclear weapons are well-guarded. "Islamabad has taken effective steps for nuclear safety, security and nonproliferation through extensive legislative, regulatory and administrative framework," said Gilani.

Japan, the victim of two nuclear attacks and a country that gets 30 percent of its energy from nuclear power, believes it is its moral responsibility to help secure nuclear material, said spokesman Kazuo Kodama.

"There is a shared sense of crisis, a shared sense of urgency," Kodama said of the leaders gathered at the summit.

Japan, Kodama said, intends to provide money and experts to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to help in the efforts to stop the spread of nuclear technology and weapons.
 
Maybe you should look at foxnews.com and see they have actual news?
 
Maybe you should look at foxnews.com and see they have actual news?

I just took a gander and here are some of the hard-hitting, in-depth, top-notch journalism provided by foxnews.com on their front page:

Heidi Displays New Body

THEN/NOW: Montag showed off her surgically-created body to pool-going public for the first time | VOTE: Did She Go Waaaay Too Far?

*
Doesn't Want Son to See

EXCLUSIVE: Mindy McCready tells Fox411 she has a good reason to keep sex tape off Web | MINDY PHOTOS
*
Hef Glad Holly Left

POP TARTS EXCLUSIVE: Hugh opens up about getting his heart broken, and who helped him bounce back | HEF'S SPECIAL FRIENDS
*
She Wasn't Thin Enough?

Friends of actress Courtney Mazza grow concerned after Mario Lopez convinced her to lose weight, get breast implants, report says
*
Jesse's 'Sexts' Revealed

FOX411: Alleged mistress used these lewd text messages to leverage a sexual harassment settlement, report says | JESSE'S GIRLS
*
Conan to Return to TV

Months after leaving 'Tonight Show' gig on NBC, O'Brien pushes George Lopez show back an hour to make room for his new late-night talk show
*
Taming Green-Eyed Monster

There are different shades of jealousy, from the sort that hides behind the guise of being loving to the militant kind that is a corner stone for abusive relationships
*
We, Robots

SLIDESHOW: Got bot? On the eve of National Robotics Week, we take a look at the most colorful and creative bots from the Annual RoboGames
*
Oprah ... and John Tesh?

New book claims Winfrey and television star John Tesh lived together in 1970s before Tesh broke it off over pressures of interracial relationship
 
I have to agree with Denny Crane and maxiep that foxnews.com isn't bad. Most of the time I get my news from google news, which directs all the new news and most popular stories. But let's not get FoxNews and the talking heads on FoxNews' programs confused, they are clearly far right, just like MSNBC is far left.

As bluefrog said: "Now TV news is almost completely fragmented and viewers can surround themselves with programming that falls right in line with their own views."

If you are conservative watch FoxNews, if you are liberal, watch MSNBC. One thing you should not do, is complain that one is worse than the other.
 
O'Reilly interviewed Obama, so did Baier, Chris Wallace, and Major Garrett. O'Reilly interviewed Barney Frank a number of times - my favorite was O'Reilly calling him out (screaming at him) for fucking up the banking system (which Frank DID). Chris Wallace interviewed Bill Clinton. Mike Huckabee interviewed Michelle Obama. Al Sharpton is on Fox News regularly. Hillary Clinton has been interviewed by many on Fox News. Fox News' Michael Tobin interviewed Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salem Fayyad in 2009. Greta Van Susteren recently interviewed Harry Reid. Fox also interviewed Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Those are off the top of my head, though I constantly see Democrats interviewed (e.g. congressmen/congresswomen, senators, etc.).

Believe it or not, Ollie North's weekend show (war stories) is amazingly good.

That's not praise for Fox--that's praise for the Democrats who are open to coming on the network and getting lambasted. MSNBC can't get cowardly Republicans to appear on liberal programs. I see them offering on the air all the time to Republican congressmen to appear, and promising they'll be fair. Can't get them to come on the shows. As for Oliver North, who was convicted of 3 felonies for being a professional liar, his view of history just might be a tad tilted.
 
That's not praise for Fox--that's praise for the Democrats who are open to coming on the network and getting lambasted. MSNBC can't get cowardly Republicans to appear on liberal programs. I see them offering on the air all the time to Republican congressmen to appear, and promising they'll be fair. Can't get them to come on the shows. As for Oliver North, who was convicted of 3 felonies for being a professional liar, his view of history just might be a tad tilted.

I've seen plenty of GOP members on MSNBC. I've also seen plenty of Democrats on Fox. I think your own bias is clouding your judgement.
 
There are good clouds and bad clouds!
 
If you are conservative watch FoxNews, if you are liberal, watch MSNBC.

I'd say reverse that. Know thine enemy, and besides you might learn something.

barfo
 
That's not praise for Fox--that's praise for the Democrats who are open to coming on the network and getting lambasted. MSNBC can't get cowardly Republicans to appear on liberal programs. I see them offering on the air all the time to Republican congressmen to appear, and promising they'll be fair. Can't get them to come on the shows. As for Oliver North, who was convicted of 3 felonies for being a professional liar, his view of history just might be a tad tilted.

North's convictions were overturned because he was given immunity by Democrats who ran the committees investigating him.

But that's beside the point. You're commenting on something you likely haven't seen. His latest documentary was about unmanned aircraft (predator drones), how they work, and the staff of people needed to operate them. Some bias?
 
I just took a gander and here are some of the hard-hitting, in-depth, top-notch journalism provided by foxnews.com on their front page:

I just had a gander at Google News home page:

Conan O'Brien and TBS
Michelle's Bombshell to Sandra Bullock: "I know what you're going through"
New biography reveals Oprah's 'hidden' life
Jon, Kate have May 25 court hearing
Erin Andrews talks about her death threats
Gears of War 3 "Ashes to Ashes" trailer
 
I just had a gander at Google News home page:

Conan O'Brien and TBS
Michelle's Bombshell to Sandra Bullock: "I know what you're going through"
New biography reveals Oprah's 'hidden' life
Jon, Kate have May 25 court hearing
Erin Andrews talks about her death threats
Gears of War 3 "Ashes to Ashes" trailer

1) Those stories will change from region to region, user to user

2) They are not produced by Google, just a compilation of other news sources

3) Those stories are gathered based on complex algorithms that conisder searches being made and leading stories ran by major news outlets.
 
1) Those stories will change from region to region, user to user

2) They are not produced by Google, just a compilation of other news sources

3) Those stories are gathered based on complex algorithms that conisder searches being made and leading stories ran by major news outlets.

So you're saying fox news is like everyone else's news.
 
I think it's like saying, "foxnews.com has the same stories as google, which are a compilation of other news sources."
 
I think it's like saying, "foxnews.com has the same stories as google, which are a compilation of other news sources."

Your saying the same thing just a different way. "A porno shop has the same stories as a library, which are a compilation of other publishers"

I see what your trying to say but logic is just not there. Fox News typically writes and produces it's own stories. Their headlines are hand picked by a human being with an agenda. Just because other news sources are covering the same story it doesn't mean they're covering it from the same perspective.
 
Your saying the same thing just a different way. "A porno shop has the same stories as a library, which are a compilation of other publishers"

I see what your trying to say but logic is just not there. Fox News typically writes and produces it's own stories. Their headlines are hand picked by a human being with an agenda. Just because other news sources are covering the same story it doesn't mean they're covering it from the same perspective.

You think foxnews.com has some agenda against Oprah?

You do know the Wall Street Journal and Fox are both owned by Murdoch...
 


O'Reilly thinks he got Coburn good. But, like usual, he is an idiot. Lol at Fox.
 
Hmmmm...

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/66879-pelosi-bill-jail-for-no-insurance

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation reported that the House version of the healthcare bill specifies that those who don’t buy health insurance and do not pay the fine of about 2.5 percent of their income for failing to do so can face a penalty of up to five years in prison!

The bill describes the penalties as follows:

• Section 7203 — misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 — felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
 
Ok, so Dick Morris may be a biased source. How about ABC News and Obama himself?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.

“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance. That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.
 


O'Reilly thinks he got Coburn good. But, like usual, he is an idiot. Lol at Fox.


Good clip. Those young Turks shouldn't pick on O'Reilly though. He's a Peabody award winning journalist.

These politicians are playing strange game criticizing Fox publicly. On one hand distance themselves from the far right and appeal to more moderates but on the other hand they make a powerful adversary. Mark Twain said “Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel.”
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top