Maddow/Olbermann Invited to White House Chat with Obama, But Fox Isn't real news?

[H2O420]

I've posted this before but I'll post it again

The Media
/\
Corporations > Government
/\
The People

[DaleGribble]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

MSNBC is biased, but there viewers are far less likely to believe in untruths, compaired to with fox news viewers who statisticly are more likely to believe in things like Sadam Hussein was responsible for 9\11.

or are liberals more likely to believe that about conservatives because they are so arrogant?

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

but this is the level of debate in this place. one person rags on MSNBC and everyone joins in.

Hahahah. yeah, Grasscity is a bastion of conservatism. If you haven't realized the entire internet when it comes to forums is overwhelming and insanely biased to the left? What point were you trying to make here?

Originally Posted by Ramulux

This talk was planned as a meeting between the president and various leftist commentators. Maddow and Olbermann do not host real news shows by their own admission, they are opinion shows like O 'Reilly and Glenn Beck. The white houses criticism of Fox news comes from the fact that their so called "straight" news shows consistently have a conservative tilt. There are opinion shows and there are straight news shows and Fox news is unable to make that distinction. That is why the white house is ignoring Fox news, because they are not a real news organization, they are partisan press. Obama made the decision to speak with liberal commentators just like every other president has done with their specific party's commentators. Also unlike other presidents he has done quite a few interviews with right wing TV and radio hosts. Is Obama not allowed to reach out and speak to those who represent his party in the media?

Poppycock.
So MSNBC can't be known for its plethora of RAGING liberal shows, but Fox can be for the opposite? ANd no, MSNBC isn't devoid of bias in "news" anyways.

[skoinkins]

Originally Posted by kstigs

The White House's stance against Fox seems to be just another distraction from the real problems. They're just trying to perpetuate the two-party system by creating sides.

....you're right, obama doesn't need ANY opposition, we should all be a member of one party, perhaps we can call it the marxest party, and we can make it illegal for fox news to broadcast, then all of our media will be run by one view point, and we can all agree on everything, or go to jail!!!!!! you're so smart!

[skoinkins]

the thing is, as american citizens we have 5 major news sources that lean left, and then we have 1 major news source that leans right. every year fox new's ratings go up because they report things that the other bias media doesn't. if the last acorn situation didn't proove anything to you about how selective our media can be at what it wants us to know, then i am afraid i cannot help.

fox news would have no market if the rest of the media would just report the unbias storys that fox news airs every day(alot of the times with a bias oppinion attached, but the story its self was not bias.) but every year our media selectively chooses it's news to help support a certain group, and because of this americans are forced to go to an outside news source to get educated on EVERYTHING that is going on in the world today.

and everyone knows that fox is right leaning, but all of the left media outlest try to feed us their news as an "unbias news report" when just like with the interview with rush limbaugh the other day they put multiple snide undertones, and the way they ask questions they make republicans look like corperate assholes, which is why that's what you think, you watch their news and their news only, and after a while you don't even see how bias it is, but if every news outlet is bias......then they all share the same opinion, so noone would be bias, it would just have to be accepted as our opinion, because it's the only information we would get.

[UnbyJP]

Originally Posted by skoinkins

....you're right, obama doesn't need ANY opposition, we should all be a member of one party, perhaps we can call it the marxest party, and we can make it illegal for fox news to broadcast, then all of our media will be run by one view point, and we can all agree on everything, or go to jail!!!!!! you're so smart!

Uhh, you totally missed the point. He was saying that they are perpetuating the illusion of a two party system by creating the illusion of two opposing sides, when in fact there really is just one that puts on a show of opposition towards each other for the public, while covertly agreeing on almost everything that actually matters. In other words, we already have the one party you just tried to mock kstigs about, but apparently most people rather not recognize this for whatever reasons. A one party system, mind you, that is far worse than the blatant example you gave because it has most people convinced that it doesn't exist.

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

MSNBC is biased, but there viewers are far less likely to believe in untruths, compaired to with fox news viewers who statisticly are more likely to believe in things like Sadam Hussein was responsible for 9\11.

Not according to my statistics, MSNBC viewers actually believe in just as many untruths:

- The possibility of a benevolent state ("reform")
- FDR saved us from the great depression
- SUV's are melting the ice caps and killing polar bears
- Obama is different from Bush
- Self determination is evil

I could go on...

[DaleGribble]

please don't.

[aaronman]

calm down.

[DaleGribble]

sorry, it just gets old when every thread gets turned into a generic "t3h gobernmint is badz0rs" rant.

[letsgetPOD]

All news is controlled, take your pick, good luck in not being programmed and downloaded with ideas. Its all a script for a higher plan. We can argue about trivial shit all day. I mean all of you grew up with these news anchors, of course they wouldnt lie to you on a daily

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by Dronetek

Maddow/Olbermann Invited to White House Chat with Obama, But Fox Isn't a News Organization?
Look at that list of people who were invited. All of them, blatant Obama shills. You might say they are the Hannitys and Becks of the left. I bet Mathews is sulking in a dark corner right now.

Is it not right to talk to whomever you want? I do not fault the president for deciding who he would like to speak with off the record.

He did not refuse to answer any questions fox has, so what is the problem?

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by letsgetPOD

All news is controlled, take your pick, good luck in not being programmed and downloaded with ideas. Its all a script for a higher plan. We can argue about trivial shit all day. I mean all of you grew up with these news anchors, of course they wouldnt lie to you on a daily

Knowing this, does the concern about Fox make sense? Why is the white house worried about one network and some AM radio hosts that doesn't cater to the left wing point of view? By your own logic, aren't all the left wing media organizations a much larger problem?

Look at the demonetization going on at TIME now. Its like certain left wing figures in the media have been given the green light to attack.

OutFoxed? - Swampland - TIME.com

I don't understand why the White House would give such poisonous helium balloons as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity the opportunity for still greater spasms of self-inflation by declaring war on Fox.



If the problem is that stories bloated far beyond their actual importance--ACORN's corruption, Van Jones's radical past--are in danger of leaching out of the Fox hothouse into the general media, then perhaps the Administration should be a bit more diligent about whom it hires and whom it funds.


If the problem is broader--that Fox News spreads seditious lies to its demographic sliver of an audience--the Administration should probably be stoic: the wingnuts will always be with us. The best antidote to their garbage is elegant, intelligent governance. The next-best antidote is occasional engagement: I thought Obama came away from his O'Reilly and Chris Wallace interviews much the better for it. (Though you don't want to sit down with a thug like Hannity or a weirdo like Beck.)

These partisan douche bags attack people like Beck and Limbaugh, while ignoring their own. Chris Matthews, Stephinopolis, Olberman, Joy Behr, The view, Oprah, Contessa Brewer, George Soros, Ted Turrner, Rick Sanchez, Medow, Schultz, Cooper, Blizter, Shuster, the countless magazine & newspapers, Air america and Hollywood!


Talk about utter and blatent hypocrisy! emot-sotw.gif

Just watch

YouTube - Why Fox News isn't news

YouTube - MSNBC: Gun-Toting Protesters are...

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

Is it not right to talk to whomever you want? I do not fault the president for deciding who he would like to speak with off the record.

He did not refuse to answer any questions fox has, so what is the problem?

You should probably be concerned when your media gets wined and dined by the President; that certainly adds to their infatuation with the man and will further enforce your own bias.

The problem with this is the hypocrisy. Not only has the White House insisted the FOX isn't news and then invites two MSNBC clowns to the White House, but this is something Olbermann himself had a fit over when Bush and FOX were in bed together.

You should fault the President for trying to influence the media, especially media that serves only to implant opinions.

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by aaronman

The problem with this is the hypocrisy. Not only has the White House insisted the FOX isn't news and then invites two MSNBC clowns to the White House, but this is something Olbermann himself had a fit over when Bush and FOX were in bed together.

MSNBC’s Olbermann and Maddow: Nothing Wrong with Off-the-Record Obama Visit, Since Bush Did It

Throughout the previous administration, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann would nightly attack President George W. Bush and members of his administration and regularly bash some conservative personalities for being too cozy with Bush.
However, when he and his MSNBC colleague Rachel Maddow engage in the same brand of coziness, meeting with President Barack Obama earlier this week, it's no longer an indiscretion. Instead, it becomes justified - since Bush did it. Olbermann appeared on the Oct. 23 "The Rachel Maddow Show" and he and Maddow responded to critics. Maddow asked him to respond to particular comments from former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, now a Fox News contributor, that there would be an outcry had the Bush administration committed something similar.

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by aaronman

You should probably be concerned when your media gets wined and dined by the President; that certainly adds to their infatuation with the man and will further enforce your own bias.

The problem with this is the hypocrisy. Not only has the White House insisted the FOX isn't news and then invites two MSNBC clowns to the White House, but this is something Olbermann himself had a fit over when Bush and FOX were in bed together.

You should fault the President for trying to influence the media, especially media that serves only to implant opinions.

I am not concerned if members of the media eat while talking to the president. If you are you scare very easily. My own bias is drafted from a far greater pool than that of FOX verse MSNBC, and not in any danger by a meal thanks.

Fox is completely biased, and no one denies it. By being a slanted news station FOX has made their own bed. By when and were in bed together, do you mean still are and will be? If they did not purposely skew facts to hurt the president he might want to have dinner. He is not refusing to answer any questions FOX has, and he is in no way obligated to approach them to chit chat.

The media does influence opinions, but that is not the sole purpose it serves. You can learn facts from the news, and it is up to each individual to seek information from a wide variety of outlets and draw an opinion of there own.