| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: Another failed attack on BOR and FOX NEWS |
Topic: Another failed attack on BOR and FOX NEWS
| Author | Message |
| jazzreport | Posted – 2/2/2008 9:21:56 AM | show profile An attack on fox news fails dismally. [Robert Greenwald VO] Take a good look at this man. He is Hollywood director Robert Greenwald ... a fanatical leftist who is obsessed with Fox News. Greenwald directed the absurdly dishonest "Outfoxed" documentary. A few days ago, Greenwald announced he would assemble some veterans to object to my telling John Edwards that the economy is not responsible for homeless vets. Addiction and mental illness is. The reason Greenwald did this was to try to embarrass The Factor, and he has plenty of time on his hands to do that since it seems the man cannot get a job. Why is that? ... perhaps because he presided over one of the biggest bombs in motion picture history ... the legendary "Xanadu" starring Olivia Newton-John -- Xanadu 1 Xanadu 2 Brilliant. Anyway, Greenwald called two corrupt entities in the press, the Rush & Molloy gossip column in the New York Daily News and NBC news, to try to get coverage of his vet exposition. The problem was Greenwald couldn't get very many vets ... no more than six ... and we talked with them yesterday -- [Vet Montage clip] Now, I feel sorry for those guys, and we'll help them if we can, but I don't feel sorry for the corrupt press. Rush & Molloy Rush & Molloy ... notoriously dishonest ... printed a hatchet job about the situation today, and even sent one of their minions to observe what happened -- [Daily News clip] And then there's NBC news ... what a tragedy. Steve Capus bio This man, Steve Capus, runs that operation and has totally lost control of it. We called NBC and asked why they would send over a camera crew to cover an obviously propogandist situation. They told us Capus didn't know anything about it. Well maybe the man should wise up. All in all, this is another example of Fox News Derangement Syndrome. NBC news hates us because we are costing them hundreds of millions of dollars. We are kicking their butt around the block. The print press doesn't like us because many of them are far left loons. The beat goes on. It's usually tedious, but in this case ... mildly entertaining. From Olbermannwatch Here's the video http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html They could only round up 6 vets,none had ever heard of BillO', and none knew what Bill O' said. This was sad to see.Fox haters ,Olbermann and NBC , you have to do better than this. |
| jazzreport | Posted – 2/2/2008 10:28:40 AM | show profile Me thanks the Fox Haters have dementia . |
| chucho | Posted – 2/2/2008 11:00:41 AM | show profile Rupert Murdoch's Star One is working WITH the Chinese government to censor its content. Rupert's son has implemented the state owned Chinese news agency web operations. I just think this is worth mentioning when people talk about FNS objectivity. News Corp. is happy to bow and sniff the throne for money. That makes it inherently untrustworthy. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 2/2/2008 11:29:50 AM | show profile You left-wing liberal Commie Pinko.... "I just think this is worth mentioning when people talk about FNS objectivity. News Corp. is happy to bow and sniff the throne for money. That makes it inherently untrustworthy." Oh noooo....NWS Corp is in biz to make a profit.... So is GE Lib(NBC&PMSNBC)....and GE trades with Iran. I wonder Lib...did you ever get hired by a poor guy? |
| jazzreport | Posted – 2/2/2008 1:08:33 PM | show profile Its funny how chucho cant saty on topic.---guess he is blinded by hate. |
| jazzreport | Posted – 2/2/2008 1:23:45 PM | show profile chucho you use Yahoo and Google.They both censor information. Does this make you "inherently untrustworthy" |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 2/2/2008 4:35:46 PM | show profile I will refrain from personal attacks or be banned. [this post edited by pip] |
| chucho | Posted – 2/3/2008 11:42:33 AM | show profile I never said Yahoo and Google doing what News Corp. is doing is OK. Seriously. Why all the straw men? Google and Yahoo are friggin' INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES, not one of the world's largest (ot the largest) news corporation. Seriously: News Corp. doesn't really need you rinky-dink defense mechanisms, so why so much rabid defense of it? And I just recently SLAMMED GE for cutting Kucinich out of the debate. So WTF is your problem? Every time somebody says something bad about FNS you go ape-s**t and start foaming at the mouth like an in-bred militant libertari-un from Montana. Seriously, you guys are wack. |
| chucho | Posted – 2/3/2008 11:50:17 AM | show profile And CNN was eventually kicked out of Iraq six times. That's something you conveniently fail to mention. Which makes you a bad person. CNN explained this many times -- they withheld certain information not because they feared losing such a wonderful real estate as Baghdad under Saddam, but rather because some information woudl have jeopardized the lives of sources, translators and correspondents. You're knowledge of covering despstic regimes is, quite frankly, pathetic and unsurprising for people who say things like Democrats are terrorist-sympathizers. And CNN isn't working WITH THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT to create state-censored programming. Your misrepresentations are not just foolhardy; they're vile and disgusting. |
| jazzreport | Posted – 2/3/2008 2:51:13 PM | show profile http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/02/oreilly-on-the-demonstration/#comments Heres the link that works.Bill O nails it ...This was lame. And chucho please.. why must you turn EVERY SINGLE thing you POST into a BASH FOX POST??? EVERYONE gets it. You HATE Fox.Its time to stop the hate and move on. |
| stvj57 | Posted – 2/3/2008 9:44:23 PM | show profile chucho, you said, "CNN explained this many times -- they withheld certain information not because they feared losing such a wonderful real estate as Baghdad under Saddam, but rather because some information woudl have jeopardized the lives of sources, translators and correspondents." well what you said has been debunked. but even if it had not been cnn could have removed the so called "endangered" and spilled the beans on saddam. of course that would have more than likely meant they would have had to give up the bagdad bureau. so it seems they chose to keep the bureau and keep their mouth shut, just as was said. |
| jazzreport | Posted – 2/4/2008 8:47:30 AM | show profile chucho also forgets at the time this story came out CNN was attacking Fox News for slanting their coverage. Got to love the liberal hypocrisy!!!!! |
| chucho | Posted – 2/5/2008 4:45:52 AM | show profile styv: How was that debunked? This is a ridiculous argument: that CNN was some kind of Saddam ally. I don't find it surprising to hear this kind of crap from people who reside on a side of the fence with people who say Democrats sympathize with terrorists and homeless veterans are homeless because they choose to abuse substances. It's all just a smear job. I don't specifically love CNN and I despise Wolf Blitzer, but I find it convenient that the Fox News lovers can attack CNN over years of Iraq coverage because FNS never bothered (until the war began) to have a presence in Iraq. This is all BS. CNN was trying to have a bureau in Baghdad while protecting its staff. Having worked in the Middle East and hung out with many journalists, I've seen this many times: you withhold certain privileged information in order to have access to other information and to try to remain in the country as long as possible before being kicked out. This particular smear campaign could only come from people who have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to covering despotic ME dictatorships, or any dictatorships for that matter. CNN plays the same game in Cuba and is constantly dealing with dancing in and out of the country over the years on the whims of local bureaucrats or objections to individual reporters. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 2/5/2008 1:34:12 PM | show profile Olby, are you now No You Didn't? |
| chucho | Posted – 2/5/2008 1:42:17 PM | show profile I'm saying it's OK to be given information that you do not report in order to get to more information that you do report. A very good example is how Saudi Arabia is covered. Reporters that want access to the country (or work from within) avoid talking about corruption in the royal family in order to be able to cover, say, the issue of women driving or abuse of workers. (The corruption coverage comes from outside of the country, by other reporters.) If the Reuters correspondent isn't tackling corruption from the royal family in order to keep his work visa to cover other important issues, is this really "slanted" coverage? If a correspondent comes into contact with information he or she knows could endanger the lives or freedom of sources, and they choose not to cover it, is that slanted reporting or protecting sources? My point is that when a reporter is covering Baathists at the height of Saddam's rule, that's not the same thing as covering school board elections in Duluth, Minnesota -- and you can't apply the same standards and rules of practice to to both. If you insist on this it's because you don't know what you're talking about. Over the years of Saddam's rule, CNN had been kicked out of Iraq six times, including when Wolf BLizter (a reporter I do not like) was showing Ameirca just how badly we were kicking Saddam's ass in Gulf War I. If CNN gets kicked out than later negotiates re-entry, only right-wing tools with their own personsal agendas woudl spin that to make it sound like CNN loves Saddam Hussein and kissed his ass and gave him glowing treatment. The fact that CNN was repeatedly kicked out and then re-negotiated permission is a sign that it's doing it's job. Right now it's consistently sending out feelers for establishing a presence in Saudi Arabia -- if they do that will they suddenly become throne-sniffers? Perhaps. Certainly the evil, lib-ril gay homo child molesting New York Times has refused Saudi's requisites for allowing a permanent presence in Riyadh. (Actually, they probably haven't even bothered asking, preferring instead of fly in and fly out correspondents -- but I think teevee news, which is inherently less substantive, doesn't have the same standards.) This is a delicate game, and your dumbed-down characterizations belie your ignorance in the matter. |
