I agree that it shows how weak Obama is. He can't tolerate even one network not slavishly promoting him. Certainly the others might as well be run by the White house Communications office. That's where they get their marching orders. I think there is a larger significance however. This administration is filled with hardcore leftists. They are anything but tolerant of dissent. This demonization of Fox is their way of laying the groundwork for trying to silence Fox and any other critics. Look what has happened in Venezuela. Media Matters is hardly an unbiased third party. It is funded by Soros and was started by Hillary Clinton and Soros specifically to attack conservative media. Typically they take comments out of context, then try to label them as "lies" or "bias." Or, as in the case of this "Safe Schools Czar/radical homo activist", they take minor factual disputes and try to use them to discredit the larger point. In this case, the man was counseling a young student who revealed he had gay sex with an older man he had met in a bus station. He seemed to think it was ok if they used a condom. Is the important point here exactly how old the student was or is it that this is the kind of radicals Obama is appointing to sensitive positions?
If they had anything to back it up they would just ignore it. You are a little twit after all aren't you.
How do you like this?? <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y6xWGvdRQ9Q&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y6xWGvdRQ9Q&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
"If they had anything to back it up they would just ignore it." Now that is a truly retarded statement. Besides they don't have to back it up, Media Matters did it for them and I'm spreading the message. You are a little bitch after all, aren't you?
Name ONE major newspaper that has screamed the headline: "10 YEAR DECLINING TEMPERATURE TREND, CONTRARY TO THE GLOBAL WARMING CULTIST PREDICTIONS, HAS NO END IN SIGHT!" when you provide me that headline, I'll agree Fox News has no legitimate place
The sharks are smelling blood in the water. Fox News Isn't Just Bad. It's Un-American. Published Oct 17, 2009 From the magazine issue dated Oct 26, 2009 Last week, when White House Communications Director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage. Consider Fox's Web story on the episode. It quotes five people. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased journalism. If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw the familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list, the rest of the news media is in Obama's corner, Obama should get back to governing, and so on. On The O'Reilly Factor, Alan Colmes, the network's weak, battered house liberal, mumbled semi-agreement while "Doctor" Monica Crowley and Bill O'Reilly lit up the scoreboard with these talking points. Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored. There is no need to get bogged down in this phony debate, which itself constitutes an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media. One glance at Fox's Web site or five minutes' random viewing of the channel at any hour of the day demonstrates its all-pervasive slant. The lefty documentary Outfoxed spent a lot of time mustering evidence that Fox managers order reporters to take the Republican side. But after 13 years under Roger Ailes, Fox employees skew news right as instinctively as fish swim. Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking" about the president's health-care proposal is provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating people for swine flu. With this misinformation campaign, Fox stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers. That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable. What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independenceâthat it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time. Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalistsâI'm talking to you, Mara Liassonâshould stop appearing on its programs. A boycott would make Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox, shall we? And no, I don't want to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss it. Jacob Weisberg is also the author of The Bush Tragedy and In an Uncertain World: Tough Choices from Wall Street to Washington
i've seen the video of Anita Dunn declaring Mao as one of her most influential philosophers ... "Unamerican" ? gullible twat .... OF COURSE FOX IS BIASED .. AND THANK GOD FOR IT
It's about distraction. The Obama administration is failing miserably on economic policy and in Afganistan. Heath care debacle is a daily circle jerk. Let's see, we can talk about the issues, or we can attack anyone that points out our failures. Great short term solution to their problem, horrible come 2010.
Obama is a huge letdown to a lot of folks, including some who voted for him. kupcake2k2 = Typical idiot that cannot take dissent just like the Adm.