...because it's tough to stick to the issues...

[AZhitman]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... o-america/

Although I'm not a fan, I honestly thought BO could stay above such petty nonsense.

Apparently we're all so stupid that we ONLY believe what we see on Fox.

[96Qowner]

Maybe Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) has morphed into FOX Derangement Syndrome (FDS). It's infecting people all over the place. All that hopey-changey, unicorn stuff woulda come true if not for FOX, it appears. I guess that's over now.

Now I've been hearing that it's the fault of some car in a ditch somewhere. That darned car. Does FOX own it or something? And what about all those people who watch FOX as their default source? They must all be deranged in a different way. It's gotta be SO hard to govern a nation of ignorant fools, and it's going to be even tougher after all those morons vote against Democrats on Tuesday.

Ya gotta have some compassion for BO. I did like hopey-changey better than the car, though, I gotta admit. That was way cool. Damn that FOX!

Here's an update on the car. Apparently it has an Obama bumper sticker on it now. Good news.

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/10/26/come ... ker-on-it/

[IBCoupe]

He took a jab at FOX early in his presidency, didn't he?

[audtatious]

Yes. Anita Dunn was attacking Fox ( http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ws-network ) and for a while the White House didn't want anyone associated with the Administration having a Fox interview.

Here's a New Yorker article on it which labels Fox as a politically biased organization ( http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2 ... alk_menand ). Kinda amusing as the newsbusters.org link above shows CNN discussed Ayres and such more than Fox did.

[srellim234]

What makes it tough to accept FoxNews as a true news source is its failure to adhere to the most basic tenets of journalistic standards. Fox openly allows (maybe even encourages?) its anchors to express personal opinion and editorial opinion while they are supposedly "reporting" the news. Mistakes and errors do not draw reprimands; mistakes are not even admitted to let alone retracted. Add to that the fact that even its company slogan is a lie (fair and balanced) and you just have a propaganda outlet. And it's all geared toward making money instead of getting to the truth.

News on the local Fox network is much more professional and trustworthy.

[IBCoupe]

Kinda amusing as the newsbusters.org link above shows CNN discussed Ayres and such more than Fox did.

To be sure, frequency of discussion does not necessarily mean much of anything. Five hours of heated, angry talk on Fox might just be more notable than twenty-five hours of cool-headed discussion on CNN.

[IBCoupe]

Srellim: go for it. I don't have the energy to pick another FOXNews fight. You might be right on this, but I don't anticipate contributing in a way more substantial than my above post.

[srellim234]

It's nothing that hasn't been pointed out in this forum before. Some people will blindly defend FoxNews; some people will insist it's all bogus. I dismiss it not because of who they are or what their political beliefs are. In many instances I might side with FoxNews but I dismiss it as journalism or reputable because when I hold the basics I learned in journalism 101 against it, FoxNews fails miserably.

[IBCoupe]

I agree 100% with what you just wrote, I just don't have the energy to write it anymore. I don't think it's just FOXNews abandoning journalistic principles (that's what blogs are for, right?), I just think they're doing it with the most success. MSNBC's commentary can't keep up.

[srellim234]

Please don't waste the energy on it. I love the energy, thought and research you bring to the table on other issues here. Whether I agree with you or not on an issue you make me think hard about it and many times you bring up points I haven't considered. As such I really appreciate it. I dislike hanging around only with those I agree with because I would stagnate.

[96Qowner]

You have to remember that most of what you see on FOX isn't legitimate news. The few actual news shows are fair and balanced. I know how absurd that sounds, but I've repeatedly flipped through the cable and national news channels during some big controversy, and FOX usually provides more raw information. The other channels pretty much echo each other while FOX will show that elusive conservative side. I know, I know, but it has honestly happened more than once.

FOX's panel shows are overpopulated with pretty women sporting lots of cleavage and pleasant vapid men. They're pretty much useless.

But the few actual news shows are fair and balanced, and it makes liberals uncomfortable to hear it. Conservatives are used to hearing the liberal side.

[AZhitman]

Blah, blah, blah.

This wasn't a thread about whether the outlet was biased or not - Hell, that goes without saying.*

My point was, I thought, fairly clear: The pettiness of getting down in the muck with a news outlet (really, Prez?) and saying something pathetically dumb: "[FOX News is ]"destructive to [America's] long-term growth."



*(...just because no one wants to tune in to a lefty news show, or lefty talk radio...)

[96Qowner]

He's just trying to pump up the base. Have you noticed how his cadence and demeanor has changed? He's targeting the faithful for turnout and this stuff is red meat to them.

I was reading the internals on the latest CBS/Times poll, and only 24% of the sample would consider their vote a vote in support of Obama. 13% are very satisfied with his Presidency. That's a pretty small constituency to be courting. Oh, and only 14% said they'd be more likely to support a local candidate if Obama supported him vs. 24% who said they'd be less likely.

http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-t ... f=politics

Ya gotta wonder. If he won't reach out to a wider constituency at this point, when every legislative seat matters, ... will he ever?

[AZhitman]

In all seriousness, and I'm not BO-bashing here, I think you're right.

It wouldn't take much, in fact. I've ALWAYS been more critical of the buffoons he surrounds himself with than the actual man himself.

What kind of meathead advisor does he have, who won't grab him by the lapels, shake him, and say: "QUIT harping on a damn news outlet - there are REAL issues out there, and you're being an arrogant a$$ in thinking that this Administration knows better than the people as to what's best for them."

[96Qowner]

Duh. And it drives bystanders to FOX to see what all the fuss is about. Duh deux.

Last fall, when Obama still kept appearing everyday with a speech somewhere about something, I started to wonder what the hell was wrong with Axelrod. The guy was clearly overexposed, yet, there he was again the next day with another speech somewhere about something. And then you read Woodward's behind the scenes stuff, and I dunno, I begin to think Axelrod is deluded, just not cogitating well anymore.

That was my big question two years ago. Who were/are Obama's people? No one cared. Oops.

[audtatious]

We just need to let Obama take over Faux News and pass the reigns to HuffPo or MSNBC for proper management. I'm sure they can mandate it somehow.

[IBCoupe]

I was reading the internals on the latest CBS/Times poll, and only 24% of the sample would consider their vote a vote in support of Obama. 13% are very satisfied with his Presidency. That's a pretty small constituency to be courting. Oh, and only 14% said they'd be more likely to support a local candidate if Obama supported him vs. 24% who said they'd be less likely.

I can't reach the link, but do they break that down by party affiliation? If that entire 24% is within the Republican party, what's he got to lose?

[srellim234]

The question was "Do you think of your vote for Congress this fall as a vote for Barack Obama, a vote against Barack Obama, or don't you think of your vote this fall as being about Barack Obama?"

For 24% Against 29% Obama not a factor 42% Won't vote 1% Don't know/no answer 4%

He's not playing to the 24%. He's playing to the 42% that he hopes he can convert by making Fox a factor. Republicans are a minority party among registered voters now. Most of them are probably included among the 29% against. Of the 42% "not a factor" he can probably safely assume the majority of them will vote Democratic if he can make Fox a factor since he isn't one for those voters.

[96Qowner]

The 24% wasn't broken down by Party affiliation. It's from a sample narrowed down to 600+ likely voters from an original sample of 1173.

Everything I'm reading says undecideds are expected to break hard toward Republicans. If Barry thinks he's reaching that 42% by trashing FOX, I'd have to say he's deluded. The FOX-haters are already Obama fans. By coincidence, 42% of the public chooses FOX as their primary cable news source. Trashing 42% of the electorate doesn't seem wise. We'll know soon enough.

[IBCoupe]

Alternatively, you could see it as 42% get it from Fox, 58% get it from anybody-but-FOX.

Maybe he's betting on the bigger number.

[96Qowner]

Beats hell outta talking about the Democrats' proud record.

[IBCoupe]

As if talking about one was mutually exclusive to the other. Fake outrage is fake.

[96Qowner]

Fox-bashing is more fun, too. They have to replace that Bush-bashing fix somehow or millions of people won't have anything to say when the subject of politics comes up. It always sounds so intelligent to bash FOX, doncha know. Obama himself proves the rule - he's brilliant, as we all know.

[IBCoupe]

It's cool that you're making no attempt to substantively challenge the criticism.

[96Qowner]

Can't find said "criticism".

[heliochrome85]

It's cool that you're making no attempt to substantively challenge the criticism.

LULZ
i am amused. Carry on.

[IBCoupe]

Can't find said "criticism".

You say "Fox-Bashing," I say "tomato."

[audtatious]

What's wrong with Fox bashing?

[heliochrome85]

tariq approves of this message.

as long as you cover her thumbs.

[audtatious]

It's just one