US Republican Party: Evil Incarnate.

[Essence]

No argument here, dude.  All I'm saying is that

I havent heard a single thing they say that isnt supported by facts.

means you're not listening very well.

[BluePriest]

No argument here, dude.  All I'm saying is that

I havent heard a single thing they say that isnt supported by facts.

means you're not listening very well.

Who said that?

And who are we suppose to believe if 2 different news sources say different things?

I remember at the time of the tea party that you linked to them "lieing" about the numbers the fox station saying that the other stations were lieing about it.

[Essence]

First of all, YOU said that. 

And if two news sources say different things, you're supposed to do your own independent research and establish the facts for yourself -- or decide not to care and not to espouse either view.

I've done that, time and time and time again, and I've largely come to the conclusion that trusting pretty much any American or Israeli news source is a bad idea (Al Jazeera, oddly, has pretty incredibly factual reporting except on a few major Middle Eastern hotbutton issues) -- but Fox News in particular is the worst news station in the world that I've ever come across when it comes to getting facts wrong; so much so that it seems like it couldn't be anything other than a deliberate policy on behalf of the station.

And they almost universally support the Republican party, which becomes guilty by association.  Just to bring this back around to the given thread topic. 

[BluePriest]

First of all, YOU said that. 

*Looks through the topic*

Hey, I did, what do ya know!


Just to clarify, as I dont want to misunderstand

And they almost universally support the Republican party, which becomes guilty by association.  Just to bring this back around to the given thread topic.

Are you saying fox news is evil because the Republican party is evil?

[Essence]

Just to clarify, as I dont want to misunderstand

And they almost universally support the Republican party, which becomes guilty by association.  Just to bring this back around to the given thread topic.

Are you saying fox news is evil because the Republican party is evil?

No -- the other way around. 

[Belthus]

"Evil" is melodramatic and inflammatory. In the context of the OP and the racist comment made by an elected Republican official, I would say that the Republican Party, especially in the South, is soft on bigotry. For example, read up on Council of Conservative Citizens. Also, South Carolina was the place where the "whisper campaign" that the McCains had a Black child influenced the primary in 2000.

To talk about Fox News and the Republican Party as if they were separate entities is absurd. Fox News personalities get the Republican talking points and use them. It's a propaganda machine. There is no equivalent for the Democratic Party. You won't see Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper parroting Democratic talking points, day in and day out.

[BluePriest]

Are you saying fox news is evil because the Republican party is evil?

No -- the other way around. 
[/quote]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100604/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2410_7


Nuff said.

If that was enough said then that was saying that that was all the info you needed to know they are evil. You didnt need to know anything about fox news. And btw, I already showed that all news sources are evil since I can find a ton of lies told by any of them.

"Evil" is melodramatic and inflammatory. In the context of the OP and the racist comment made by an elected Republican official, I would say that the Republican Party, especially in the South, is soft on bigotry. For example, read up on Council of Conservative Citizens. Also, South Carolina was the place where the "whisper campaign" that the McCains had a Black child influenced the primary in 2000.

To talk about Fox News and the Republican Party as if they were separate entities is absurd. Fox News personalities get the Republican talking points and use them. It's a propaganda machine. There is no equivalent for the Democratic Party. You won't see Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper parroting Democratic talking points, day in and day out.

I think the most racist thing was last year when obama decided that the police department acted stupidly even though he knew next to none of the details.

And I consider them to be VERY seperate entities. You dont hear anyone talk about the issues like they do.

You won't see Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper parroting Democratic talking points, day in and day out. talking about the issues at all.*

*Changed by me.

[Boingo]

To talk about Fox News and the Republican Party as if they were separate entities is absurd. Fox News personalities get the Republican talking points and use them. It's a propaganda machine. There is no equivalent for the Democratic Party. You won't see Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper parroting Democratic talking points, day in and day out.

Actually, you do see this happening. All the time.  Here's one example from this week:

Mika Brzezinski (MSNBC) literally reading off White House talking points on air--and even admits it (http://politipage.com/2010/06/21/morning-joe-mika-im-working-with-white-house-on-oil-spill-talking-points/)

[Belthus]

Actually, you do see this happening. All the time.  Here's one example from this week:

Mika Brzezinski (MSNBC) literally reading off White House talking points on air--and even admits it (http://politipage.com/2010/06/21/morning-joe-mika-im-working-with-white-house-on-oil-spill-talking-points/)

I believe that Mika was reading from Obama's schedule of meetings, which the White House released after Giuliani criticized Obama for not doing enough about the BP spill. As far as I can tell, the White House did not send the schedule to her specifically with the idea that she would push its agenda. Also, she is being open about her source.

Contrast that with the Bush White House. Scott McClellan (http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/fox-news-given-talking-points/69fogaj) said that the Bush White House provided Fox News commentators with talking points - not schedules or reports, but talking points.

[Boingo]

Actually, you do see this happening. All the time.  Here's one example from this week:

Mika Brzezinski (MSNBC) literally reading off White House talking points on air--and even admits it (http://politipage.com/2010/06/21/morning-joe-mika-im-working-with-white-house-on-oil-spill-talking-points/)

I believe that Mika was reading from Obama's schedule of meetings, which the White House released after Giuliani criticized Obama for not doing enough about the BP spill. As far as I can tell, the White House did not send the schedule to her specifically with the idea that she would push its agenda. Also, she is being open about her source.

I can only provide the link--I can't actually watch it for you too.  In her own words, Mika refers to her document as "White House talking points" which in this case included a list of meetings compiled by the WH to back up their claim they've "been on top of it" since the first day of the oil spill.  She didn't refer to it as "a schedule the MSNBC staff compiled" or "something I whipped together before we aired"--no, she clearly calls them "White House talking points." 

And if she weren't working with the White House on this, how else can you explain this line:

"I have a file that I've been working on with the White House, and I'll be very transparent about that."

[Belthus]

1. Is Mika or some other liberal host using Democratic points regularly, as McClellan says happened with Fox News when he was Press Secretary for Bush?

2. Do you not see the difference between saying, "The Democrats/Republicans say this, and I agree," vs. "I say this" with no mention of the source? I am sure that Fox News employees are, by this point, self-selected to be 100% Republican, so they don't need convincing. But I have seen video clips where Fox News personalities and Republican politicians are saying the exact same words, again and again. It's one thing to agree on a stance, but to have different people repeating the same exact words in different venues is not a coincidence.

3. Who is the equivalent of Roger Ailes on a liberal network? The man is a political operative, in the same mold as Rove and Atwater. There is documented evidence of top-down control, not just of commentary, but of news coverage.

[Boingo]

1. Is Mika or some other liberal host using Democratic points regularly, as McClellan says happened with Fox News when he was Press Secretary for Bush?

Watch anything on MSNBC and tell me there is no connection to the Democratic party/White House.  As they say, it's all about "message control."  I don't recall any Bush press secretaries taking Fox employees on a tour of the White House (

).  That's just a fluff piece for free positive airtime for the White House.  Don't they appear a bit too chummy to somehow claim they'll later report on the WH with an objective viewpoint?  So yes, I have every reason to believe Mika (and some other liberal hosts) is very much working with the White House on talking points on a regular basis.

2. Do you not see the difference between saying, "The Democrats/Republicans say this, and I agree," vs. "I say this" with no mention of the source? I am sure that Fox News employees are, by this point, self-selected to be 100% Republican, so they don't need convincing. But I have seen video clips where Fox News personalities and Republican politicians are saying the exact same words, again and again. It's one thing to agree on a stance, but to have different people repeating the same exact words in different venues is not a coincidence.

I do see a difference, though at this point I have no faith that the current network "news"/cable "news" available has an independent view or that any story is presented without a political bent.  At this point, it's just shades of partisanship on either side.  An example of the current administration distributing its talking points through various outlets:

Here's WH chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (http://www.breitbart.tv/media-elite-use-talking-points-from-secret-phone-conferences-from-obama-white-house/) giving an interview claiming Rush Limbaugh speaks for the RNC followed by clips of George Stephanopolous, James Carville and Paul Begala magically hitting the same talking points.  The last 3, of course, somehow came up with these talking points independently since they do not reference anything like "I agree with Rahm" or "these are the WH talking points that I agree with."

3. Who is the equivalent of Roger Ailes on a liberal network? The man is a political operative, in the same mold as Rove and Atwater. There is documented evidence of top-down control, not just of commentary, but of news coverage.

If you care for more clips of new coverage control with a liberal bent, I can provide those too, but at this point I think I've made my original point:  there are instances of liberal bias in the media and that the Obama WH is no different than previous administrations in desiring message control by providing content which is not always presented as coming from the WH.