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