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

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by DaleGribble

yeah, but at the time of the conflict, Fox News less than a year old. But I get the idea, its just a bit misleading, especially since you literally said "Fox News"


Main point here is, if Bush, or any Republican, had done the same to MSNBC, the world would have exploded. Case and point for the bias of the media

The world would have exploded, that's case and point...

I bet the fall out would probably be similar to what's going on now, but I guess the world is exploding is another possibility...

[DaleGribble]

you honestly think the fallout would have been equal?

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by DaleGribble

you honestly think the fallout would have been equal?

Yes. Do you believe the world would explode? Where do you get your news man.

[DaleGribble]

i was being sarcastic..... clearly...
if Bush had done the same, it would have been mainstream news everywhere, there is no doubt. it you honestly can tell me you think the reaction would have been the same, you must not be paying attention or are exhibiting the same unscrupulous bias as the media has

[Dickie4:20]

Originally Posted by DaleGribble

if Bush had done the same, it would have been mainstream news everywhere, there is no doubt. it you honestly can tell me you think the reaction would have been the same, you must not be paying attention or are exhibiting the same unscrupulous bias as the media has

The reaction wasnt the same when Bush admin/Fox attacked the credibility of NBC news.
White House Slams NBC News - Marc Ambinder

The Raw Story | Fox host: Olbermann crossed line when he picked on my kid

Glenn Beck - Interviews - Glenn Beck: MSNBC blurs the lines#

Think Progress » Gillespie: ‘It Is Beyond Me’ Why Republicans Won’t Boycott NBC

[Raoul Duke II]

http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/...ml#post5892427

Let me clear this up. The general consensus isn't that they're all badz0rz and in to get us. However, the collective greed and power hunger of them all adds up to a big cluster-fuck of bureaucratic tyranny. The "liberal" media was all over everything the Bush administration did about how much freedom it would take away, and the "conservative" media's opinion was that liberals that oppose Republican executive power were unamerican and would be the downfall of the nation.

Fast forward 8 years, and look what we have. The roles have entirely reversed. It's pure politicking. These people have absolutely no morals and absolutely no "ideals." The only ideals they have are as follow: raise money, get elected, give money to corporations.

If you can't see the obvious reversal of "ideals" then you are blind as a bat. Each side always plays a good game when they're in the "opposition" to a functional majority rule, but why wouldn't they? They know they get to oppose things they would normally approve(*cough* Obama's bank and auto bailout *cough*), publicly denounce their corporate benefactors(all the while getting more money from them), and sling all sorts of shit without having to worry about the threat of their hypocracy being revealed("they're finally standing up to their values" as Hannity said, while those in power are the hypocrites for doing what they've previously denounced). They get to do all this, because they know regardless of what they actually do, or what they will do when they get elected/reelected, they know they will get elected/reelected. Simple politicks.

What's more is that despite their doublespeak, they never, ever, ever take away government power. They can bitch and moan all they want about some fascist/socialist/communist agenda, but never do they actually reverse thee policies when they take control. PATRIOT act? Housing policies the Republicans scream bloody democrat over? War on Drugs? War period? Nope, none of this is ever opposed by either side. I'll reiterate this from another post: The only things they ever disagree on are the things everyone should agree they have no business discussing.

I highly recommend you watch that War Made Easy video someone posted. Actually, I beg you to. I watched it and while I learned nothing new myself, it did a damn good job of showing how "both sides" of the media are in bed with the Pentagon. "Both sides" of the media do what the central power tells them to. We have a purely state run media, and their only job beyond that is to create the illusion there isn't.

War Made Easy

Would someone from either "side" care to tell me how I'm wrong?

[loopster]

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?

OBAMA needs to quit with the fucking press bullshit and attend the real issue at hand
this douche bag has been on the fucking TV more than Britney spear's cooter and i am fucking tired of it Jesus i am pretty sure a president shouldn't have this much fucking time to go vacationing all over then all these "talks" that he has...

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by DaleGribble

i was being sarcastic..... clearly...
if Bush had done the same, it would have been mainstream news everywhere, there is no doubt. it you honestly can tell me you think the reaction would have been the same, you must not be paying attention or are exhibiting the same unscrupulous bias as the media has

I guess you are gazing into your crystal ball, because you know for a fact all of what would and could be.

I see no evidence that the reaction would have been drastically different if it was reversed. It makes more logical sense that the fallout would be similar. What does the world exploding mean to you literally? What would have happened to bush that is not happening now? Tell me what you see in that crystal ball!

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

I guess you are gazing into your crystal ball, because you know for a fact all of what would and could be.

Come on now you're just playing dumb. We have many incidents to compare to when Bush was in and the media has acted completely different. The economy for example. They can find all kinds of solver linings for Obama's 10% unemployment and failed stimulus, yet Bush 5% unemployment and 1200 DOW was nothing but cause for criticism.

I'm so tired of guys like you who expect everyone to admit teir biases, but have nothing to say when it comes to your own.

I see no evidence that the reaction would have been drastically different if it was reversed. It makes more logical sense that the fallout would be similar. What does the world exploding mean to you literally? What would have happened to bush that is not happening now? Tell me what you see in that crystal ball!

No need for a crystal ball pal. We have memories that span more than a few weeks.

Totenberg: Bush White House 'More Like the Mob' in Freezing Out Media Outlets

Discussing the Obama White House's quest to discredit and banish the Fox News Channel, NPR's Nina Totenberg declared going “on the offensive publicly against Fox was not too bright” and she recalled how, in contrast, the Bush White House “just cut people dead, it froze them out, you know it froze whole institutions out, didn't talk about it.”

Putting it in the most-nefarious light, she charged on the weekly Inside Washington: “It was much more like the Mob.” Seemingly ruing Team Obama's miscue in not matching the Bush method, Totenberg asserted that “when you talk about it, you diminish your influence.”

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by Dronetek

Come on now you're just playing dumb. We have many incidents to compare to when Bush was in and the media has acted completely different. The economy for example. They can find all kinds of solver linings for Obama's 10% unemployment and failed stimulus, yet Bush 5% unemployment and 1200 DOW was nothing but cause for criticism.

I'm so tired of guys like you who expect everyone to admit teir biases, but have nothing to say when it comes to your own.

Have you heard of the term context? Bush started his Presidency with a surplus, and we watched with agony as poor decision after poor decision led from record surplus to record deficit.Obama started his presidency with record deficits and a historic recession under way. If we can find "all sorts of silver linings" that is a good thing. It has yet to be seen if we will continue to recover or not, but the Bush administration was a complete failure.

I'm so tired of guys who get upset i haven't specifically laid out my bias, but ask nothing specific about my opinion./sarcasm I'll lay it out so you can take me off the list of won't admit my own bias. My bias is mostly liberal, there are some issues where that is not the case. I get a majority of my news from the BBC via NPR and the internet. I rarely watch news on TV, but if i do it is on NBC, because I have only the local channels to choose from. I am completly dissatisfied with the Bush administration, but didn't think Kerry or Gore were much better options. I voted for Obama, and hold some hope he will make a positive change on America. When forming an opinion I read or listen to the opinions of others and compare them to the facts presented by media. Based on real accounts of people going through the situation firsthand, and what I can get from public radio and internet news I form my opinion and therefore bias. What is your bias?

Originally Posted by Dronetek

No need for a crystal ball pal. We have memories that span more than a few weeks.

Totenberg: Bush White House 'More Like the Mob' in Freezing Out Media Outlets

That article you remember is more than useless to your argument, it reiterates my point. According to your article "the Bush White House “just cut people dead, it froze them out, you know it froze whole institutions out, didn't talk about it.”

And low and behold the world did not explode after the Bush white house "froze out whole institutions" just like the current white house has done. Instead the information you provided indicates a small fallout, after boycotting of whole institutions, similar to what is going on now.

[DaleGribble]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

Have you heard of the term context? Bush started his Presidency with a surplus, and we watched with agony as poor decision after poor decision led from record surplus to record deficit.Obama started his presidency with record deficits and a historic recession under way. If we can find "all sorts of silver linings" that is a good thing. It has yet to be seen if we will continue to recover or not, but the Bush administration was a complete failure.

Surplus shmurplus. Just cuz Clinton juggled money around to look like we had a surplus doesnt mean its true. Im not sure what that has to do with this topic, but I agree with much of the rest of your post.

But wasn't Helen Thomas' raggedy ass front and center at every White House press conference?

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

Have you heard of the term context? Bush started his Presidency with a surplus,

Bush inherited a recession and a war that nobody knew about thanks to Clinton.

and we watched with agony as poor decision after poor decision led from record surplus to record deficit.

What are you talking about exactly? The wars were voted on in congress and promoted by both Republicans and Democrats. That is including Bill Clinton. The housing bubble was warned about by Bush and the circumstances leading to it was largely thanks to Democrats and groups like ACORN.

Obama started his presidency with record deficits and a historic recession under way.

He then doubled that deficit in the span of a few months. Notice how they suddenly aren't bad now that Obama is in office? Did you also know the economy really started going south after Democrats took control in 2006? At what point do you hold them accountable?

If we can find "all sorts of silver linings" that is a good thing. It has yet to be seen if we will continue to recover or not, but the Bush administration was a complete failure.

Well, Obama is president now and things aren't looking much better.

I get a majority of my news from the BBC via NPR and the internet. I rarely watch news on TV, but if i do it is on NBC,

Stop complaining about Fox then. You watch all networks that are all as bad as Fox when it comes to bias. NPR and NBC especially. The BBC's own studies show them to have a "consistent left wing bias".

because I have only the local channels to choose from. I am completly dissatisfied with the Bush administration, but didn't think Kerry or Gore were much better options.

Gore championed and supported the invasion of Iraq. People's perceptions of Saddam and WMD were based largely on the previous 8 years of Al Gore and Clinton telling us he had WMD, was dangerous and needed to be removed! Why are you ok with that under Gore, but not Bush? Do you just not know your history?

And low and behold the world did not explode after the Bush white house "froze out whole institutions" just like the current white house has done. Instead the information you provided indicates a small fallout, after boycotting of whole institutions, similar to what is going on now.

It did though. Anytime Bush refused to do an interview, it was touted as proof of his lack of transparency.

Originally Posted by DaleGribble

But wasn't Helen Thomas' raggedy ass front and center at every White House press conference?

Yes she was. I don't know what hes talking about.

[Dickie4:20]

Originally Posted by Dronetek

Bush inherited a recession and a war that nobody knew about thanks to Clinton.

Bullshit.

The U.S. economy went into a recession in March 2001 for the first time in ten years according to NBER.
The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001

Plus the NBER was headed by Martin Feldstein, a very close friend of Bush. NBER is widely respected and long recognized as the arbiter of recessions. If NBER said the recession started in March of 2001, it started in March 2001.

[littlefoot]

Originally Posted by DaleGribble

yeah, but at the time of the conflict, Fox News less than a year old. But I get the idea, its just a bit misleading, especially since you literally said "Fox News"


Main point here is, if Bush, or any Republican, had done the same to MSNBC, the world would have exploded. Case and point for the bias of the media

Main point here, stop buying into the US media propaganda machine.

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by Dickie4:20

Bullshit.

The U.S. economy went into a recession in March 2001 for the first time in ten years according to NBER.
The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001
.

Way to use Wiki. So, you think the recession just popped up as soon as Bush got in to office? It had nothing to do with the previous 8 years? What about the tech bubble?

Recession 1999? - Forbes.com

Recession 1999?
Peter Brimelow, 12.28.98

NEW YORK - NOTHING GROWS TO THE SKY, says the old Wall Street adage. Except the 1992- ?[!!!] Bush-Clinton economy. The recovery has been relatively weak (see chart, right). But if it gets past November 2000, it will be the longest expansion in American history.

It may not make it. "We're at the end of the rope," says former Federal Reserve Board member Larry Lindsey, now with Economic Strategies Inc. and author of the just-published Economic Puppet Masters(American Enterprise Institute). Lindsey expects GDP to be only slightly (1%) larger this time next year. He sees a significant chance that the year will include the two consecutive quarters of economic contraction that economists define to be a recession.

Funny how they were predicting the recession in 1998.