BOB WOODWARD: Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time'

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/potus-notes/2009/nov/13/anita-dunn-msnbc-different-from-fox-news/

An interview with Valerie Jarrett who pretty much confirms that Obama was involved in trying to shut down Fox.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Can you explain this? You mean like reporting on Benghazi? Reporting the news? Let's see, where did the leak come from about Seal Team Six killing bin Laden? Oh, yes, that would be from the White House........talk about putting our troops at risk. The Seals were pretty upset about this.
You mean like reporting on Fast and Furious CBS broke that story, but Fox was the only one that pursued it. Do you mean reporting the news that Benghazi was not a result of a video?
CNN found the memo that Stephens was worried about security--but Fox was the group that pursued it.

Tell me, please. Why is Fox the only news agency that criticizes the White House? Isn't that part of the job of the press? The fourth estate?

Yes, all the media should be willing to report stories that are critical of the White House. But, let me ask you, did Fox do that during the Bush Administration? Here Republican Bruce Bartlett tells how he was banned from Fox after publishing a book critical of George W. Bush:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/publicist-confirms-it-fox-news-blacklisted-book-critical-of-george-w-bush/2012/11/28/0a59c044-3975-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_blog.html

Also, news organizations should be accurate when they report the news. Has Fox always been accurate? Here is a description of how Fox wrongly reported that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was broadcast by a live video feed from two drones. In fact, there were no such drones providing a live feed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-news-and-benghazi-video-for-real/2012/11/09/79410b04-29d8-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_blog.html

New organizations should not selectively edit video to change the meaning of what a speaker is saying. This is something Fox does routinely. Yet Fox famously selectively edited Obama's "you didn't build that" statement:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/16/fox-amp-friends-deceptively-edits-obamas-commen/187146

Here is another example involving taxes:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/21/fox-news-edits-clip-obama-taxes/

So, here is a "news" organization that changes its reporting style depending on which party holds the White House, misreports "facts" in order to further its political agenda, and selectively edits quotes in order to harm its political enemies. Is such an organization actually a legitimate "news" organization?

Plus, it is very difficult to get over the fact that repeated studies show that Fox News watchers are the most misinformed people of all news consumers. I thought "news" organizations are supposed to inform, not misinform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Fox news does not report the news. It is an arm of the republican party. As such, it should not be treated as a news outlet. A lot of their "reporting" puts this country and our troops at risk.


It seems somewhat Stalinist to me to want news sources to only report your point of view. I tune into Fox and I read the Post. I am glad that MSNBC and the Times exist. I assume that the truth sometimes lies in between them all, but that if any were to vanish the lies and half truths would go challenged far less frequently.

There is a difference b/t reporting facts and just making stuff up. Fox makes stuff up for political gain( live video of Benghazi, Friends of Hamas, etc). Fox also employs most of the republican's presidential candidates and takes directions from the republican party on what to stories to run. Again Fox news is not a news source. The subversion of the facts shown as news is Stalinist- fox news. Your fox watching has done you a disservice. No where in the post is anyone saying "one news source". It's a false argument.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/potus-notes/2009/nov/13/anita-dunn-msnbc-different-from-fox-news/

An interview with Valerie Jarrett who pretty much confirms that Obama was involved in trying to shut down Fox.

I know accuracy is not a priority for you guys, but is it too much to expect that you get the basics correct? I mean, even the URL you provided says that the interview is with "Anita Dunn" rather than Valerie Jarrett. If you can't even get that much right, why should we trust you about anything else?

Nevertheless, what do you mean by "shut down Fox"? Do you mean that they want Fox to close its doors and stop doing business? The article doesn't suggest that. Do you mean that they want Fox to change it's reporting style? The article doesn't say that either. All the article says is that Dunn was going to criticize Fox and that the President had likely authorized that criticism. So, are you suggesting that in defense of freedom of speech, the President and his staff should not have freedom of speech where criticism of Fox is concerned?

[Anonymous]

How about ABC editing out Mrs. Obama's incorrect statement about the shooting in Chicago? --that was just this week.

All of the news media does this--certainly NBCNEWS is particularly guilty. I don't approve of Fox doing this--but they are no more guilty than the others.

Another example, NBC editing the 911 call of George Zimmerman to make it appear racist. I don't know if he is a racist or not--but, one thing for sure, this edit will have a great impact and puts a fair trial in jeopardy--for the prosecution and the defense.
How about NBC editing the meeting where the poor man was talking about gun control and Sandy Hook?

Again, I don't approve of Fox editing--but NBC has done far more damage.

[Anonymous]

I stated very clearly that the interview was with Valerie Jarrett. The url was alluding to the fact that Anita Dunn was "in charge" of this war.

I know accuracy is not a priority for you guys, but is it too much to expect that you get the basics correct? I mean, even the URL you provided says that the interview is with "Anita Dunn" rather than Valerie Jarrett. If you can't even get that much right, why should we trust you about anything else?

[Anonymous]

As far as Fox reporting on the live feed. I agree that was incorrect. However, if you watched the Cspan hearing of Charlene Lamb ( the head of security at State), she did imply that they were watching in real time. Apparently, she meant that they were constantly "in touch". She said that they knew everything that was happening in real time.

[Anonymous]

NBC edit of Paul Ryan--just last month.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/18/MSNBC-Host-Are-Republicans-Against-Obamas-Immigration-Plan-Just-Because-His-Name-Is-On-It

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:who comes up with a really bad idea with the intention of it nevery going into effect, but actually passes it into law? This is a crazy idea (Obama's) and dumb that it hasn't been repealed (Obama's and Congress's fault). That Obama continues to demonstrate a lack of leadership is not anyone's fault but our own. He has zero leadership skills. Zero. Instead of getting to work on a solution, he's out stumping again. For goodness sake, do some real work, please!!

He's a president in a system of separated powers and checks and balances. Study some presidential history. "Stumping" is one of the key real powers of the president to get things done. Presidents make their case to the American people who, in turn, pressure their legislators to enact the president's agenda. I'd suggest starting with any decent biography of FDR, but really, you could choose almost any successful president in the modern era.

[Anonymous]

As Hillary Clinton said in 2008: What have you ever done, Barack Obama, other than give a speech in 2004?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous



As Hillary Clinton said in 2008: What have you ever done, Barack Obama, other than give a speech in 2004?

Killed Obama and won two terms. Time to put him on Mount Rushmore. It is funny, like it or not, he will go down as a great president.

[Anonymous]

Yeah-Michelle and the girls already checked out Mount Rushmore last year. Maybe they were picking out the spot.

Historic, yes. Great? NO!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/potus-notes/2009/nov/13/anita-dunn-msnbc-different-from-fox-news/

An interview with Valerie Jarrett who pretty much confirms that Obama was involved in trying to shut down Fox.

I know accuracy is not a priority for you guys, but is it too much to expect that you get the basics correct? I mean, even the URL you provided says that the interview is with "Anita Dunn" rather than Valerie Jarrett. If you can't even get that much right, why should we trust you about anything else?

Nevertheless, what do you mean by "shut down Fox"? Do you mean that they want Fox to close its doors and stop doing business? The article doesn't suggest that. Do you mean that they want Fox to change it's reporting style? The article doesn't say that either. All the article says is that Dunn was going to criticize Fox and that the President had likely authorized that criticism. So, are you suggesting that in defense of freedom of speech, the President and his staff should not have freedom of speech where criticism of Fox is concerned?

I'm afraid PP is beyond rational argument. This is actually a symptom of long-term exposure to Fox News.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about ABC editing out Mrs. Obama's incorrect statement about the shooting in Chicago? --that was just this week.

All of the news media does this--certainly NBCNEWS is particularly guilty. I don't approve of Fox doing this--but they are no more guilty than the others.

Another example, NBC editing the 911 call of George Zimmerman to make it appear racist. I don't know if he is a racist or not--but, one thing for sure, this edit will have a great impact and puts a fair trial in jeopardy--for the prosecution and the defense.
How about NBC editing the meeting where the poor man was talking about gun control and Sandy Hook?

Again, I don't approve of Fox editing--but NBC has done far more damage.

This all sounds fascinating. But, again, assume I don't watch Hannity all day and actually back this stuff up. What was the "incorrect statement"? How did they edit the Zimmerman call? I'm sure it sounded compelling when Steve Doocey laid it all out for you, but unfortunately we weren't there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about ABC editing out Mrs. Obama's incorrect statement about the shooting in Chicago? --that was just this week.

All of the news media does this--certainly NBCNEWS is particularly guilty. I don't approve of Fox doing this--but they are no more guilty than the others.

Another example, NBC editing the 911 call of George Zimmerman to make it appear racist. I don't know if he is a racist or not--but, one thing for sure, this edit will have a great impact and puts a fair trial in jeopardy--for the prosecution and the defense.
How about NBC editing the meeting where the poor man was talking about gun control and Sandy Hook?

Again, I don't approve of Fox editing--but NBC has done far more damage.

This all sounds fascinating. But, again, assume I don't watch Hannity all day and actually back this stuff up. What was the "incorrect statement"? How did they edit the Zimmerman call? I'm sure it sounded compelling when Steve Doocey laid it all out for you, but unfortunately we weren't there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/jeff-burnside-nbc-miami-wtvj-fired-george-zimmerman-edited_n_1453679.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/30/msnbc-reviewing-newtown-heckled-video/