"FOX is un-American"

Get it straight.

The left has been called un-American for not supporting a war based on lies, and now that we call a "news" organization the same for blatantly lying in their reporting (and going to the Supreme Court to retain that right to LIE), it is our fault how? Faux wouldn't be so evil if they were the "Fox Neo-Con Opinion Channel", but they masquerade as a "Fair and Balanced News Organization", which is far from the truth. Blatantly lying to viewers, distorting reality, mind@!$%#ing the ignoramus' of the country, all for more Corporate profits, yeah, I'd say that's pretty un-Goddammned-American.

and the right has poor reading comprehension.
murdoch is australian.. he is not an american.

Oh yes I suppose you have forgotten all the lies from the BO admin havent you and their cronies like Anita calling a murderer of millions her favorite philosopher now these are true Americans lets give her an award also and lets dont forget about msnbc and the likes for their perfect and truthful news.

And in the end Yota, once the world is freed from the scourge of FOX News; we are left with the type of attitude, ideas and thought that pervades your two previous postings? We can all safely lock arms and march in step knowing that the demons of FOX News have been exorcised? And with FOX News eradicated from the TV landscape, we can all breathe a sigh of relief knowing that “the ignoramus’ of the country” are securely in the arms of MSNBC or CNN or the main stream media; further assured that these media outlets are not in the least concerned about Corporate profits? Heaven help us all!

Rick-

What lies from the Obama admin are you referring to? Proof? Anita who? And nobody ever said MSNBC is 100% accurate, but at least they, for the most part, ARE truthful in their reporting and obviously aim to be accurate. Which is completely the opposite of Faux Noise's mission statement, which is to fabricate news, distort reality to fit the dittoheads that listen to their vomit, and justify their idealogues to any cost. BIG difference. Anybody on MSNBC ever say how much they HATE the 9-11 widows? Cause I've heard that statement made NUMEROUS times on Faux.

You tards need a checkup from the neckup.

Brent-

He never PROMISED unemployment would stay under 8%, nobody could or would make such a promise. To try to take steps to PREVENT that from happening after YOUR GUY made it so is completely different.

Gitmo is only still open because of right-wing paranoia about "housing terrorists in our prisons on our soil" BS. It WILL be closed by Jan, so that again is not a LIE.

Last time I checked, the bills have been posted online, maybe not a full 5 days, but days in advance nonetheless. So again, NOT A LIE.

And the last 2 lines of your post speak volumes about your character as to side with Ann @!$%#er over the only ones who actually lost loved ones on 9-11 and didn't just watch it on tv like you and me.

But we aren't going to talk about the actual war crimes your peeps perpetrated, are we? Like lying us into unnecessary war, ousting undercover CIA agents, warrantless wiretapping, death squads, Halliburton and KBR killing soldiers and getting no-bid contracts, etc. All you can spew is "you damn libs". Get real.

Obama did say unemployment would stay below 8%-that paranoia was used to push the bill through without a 5 day public viewing period-NO PUBLIC VIEW AT ALL. Check again.

Gitmo is only open because of Republican paranoia? Get real. YOUR idiots are in charge. Hole them accountable for once.

The widows used the attacks for political gain. I agree with Anne. Attack my character all you want.

War crimes? Get real. Pelosi already investigated: No lies. No crimes. Move on.

Plame wasn't "Undercover". Armitage outed her and he's a Democrat-he wasn't punished. Warrantless wiretapping (the Patriot Act) is STILL GOING ON TODAY. That's right, Oblahblah renewed it.

Do some research before spewing your ideological babble.

PWT, you don't find it at all troublesome that there is only one news agency that doesn't regurgitate Obama talking points?

Even the NY Times admitted they blew it on the Acorn thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html

Honestly, does it matter to you about Van Jones? If a Republican called Democrats generically "A$$holes", I would be on your side. He crossed the line.

Hey Yota,

Judging by the vast amounts of Foxtards in the last vine column, it won't be long.

So Fox (or as you put it "Faux" - very clever by the way, how long did it take you to think that one up?) is un-American and people who don't agree with that are Foxtards. I get it.

The left has been called un-American for not supporting a war based on lies

So if this is such an illegal war, how long until your guy pulls us out of it?

yeah, I'd say that's pretty un-Goddammned-American.

God damn America....hmm, where have I heard that before? Spoken like a true Obamatard.

May the force be with you.

You might find this off topic, but, I'll say it anyway.

The Left finds any opposition to Obama a, Nazi, Racist, Brownshirt, Stupid, dumb, uninformed, killer, wishing death etc... and Paul, you find your comment above makes sense when you say :

Unless you can counter that argument somehow, you've got no ground to stand on and all you've accomplished just now is revealing yourself to be someone who talks without knowing what you're talking about. The only question I have for you is if you're also someone who doesn't care when it backfires in your face.

And you find Pelosi's fake tears on Teabagging, a pure response of heartfelt thinking and warmth, a Norm.

You have no clue!

That rhetoric from the Left is backfiring all over the place, and you choose to ignore it. Better to ignore. Makes you "FEEL" relevant, I guess.

Thanks, Yota...

One of my favorite things is hearing people accuse Obama of "lying" about not doing something they themselves support. If Gitmo had been closed, over the screaming about how terrorists would destroy America from within the walls of a Federal Super Max prison, they’d be just as hysterical over how Obama had closed Gitmo and made America unsafe… even though there are many terrorists who have been tried in New York and placed in these prisons under the Bush Administration years ago. Why weren’t these same people screaming then?

It's like watching monkeys in a cage at the zoo, screaming and throwing feces and at each other. All you can do is watch in amazement and laugh.

Robert, the reason we have Gitmo is so we can put our enemies in detention until the war is over, just like we have in every war. If the terrorists gets caught on US soil, then we can use our legal system to put them in US prisons.

That's the thing liberals just don't get. Overseas vs. Domestic.

There's no CSI: Afghanistan. When we capture combatants on the battlefield, we don't do DNA tests, gather fingerprints, or get witness statements.

When a terrorist is dumb enough to conspire or commit terrorist acts IN THE US, then we imprison them in federal prisons after going through the court system.

Why do you think we held German/Japanese/North Vietnamese prisoners OUTSIDE of the US?

Everything I see and hear is nothing more than rhetoric! I do not know who is more pathetic, the media or the politicians.

While this article seems to be so much fun for ideological arguing, it is distracting us away from the most important issue of our lifetime! The crash and burn of the American Dollar and the aftermath that will follow once our currency is worth ZERO! Conservatives and Liberals a like will all have one thing in common, WE ARE ALL BROKE!! Doesn’t that sound fun!!

The largest financial crime in modern history has taken place right under our noses! While we are fist fighting over fox news and whether or not they are a news network or not, the insiders in D.C. and the financial elite has stolen trillions of dollars of our wealth.

Let me help you guys with this;

NEWSFLASH – Fox news is a right wing news network! AND NBC/MSNBC is a left wing news network and supports Obama with all they have. Especially since GE is preparing to profit Billions in Obama’s cap n trade deal! Al Gore stands to make billions as well in Cap n Trade. I would be beating the streets over global warming too if I have deposited over 125 million in my bank account doing it!! The politicians are dumbing us all down!! They our laughing how gullible we all are! WATCH GOLD and natural resources, Then WATCH THE DOLLAR!!

You mean all of the POW camps we had outside of the US, except the "511 Camps containing over 425,000" POWs in almost every State in the nation by the end of WWII...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_POW_camps_in_the_United_States

You mean like those camps?!

And do you mean terrorists except the ones who bombed embassies in Africa, yet are still in US Prisons?

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/terrorists-are-already-imprisoned-in-the-us

Pleeeez!

If it's presented from a point of view then it's not news, it's entertainment.

I am relatively new to the Vine and in the honesty of full disclosure I am about as conservative as you get. I hate both parties because parties have only one thing in mind and that is to enrich themselves – not serve the people. I also vowed to not call people or groups names because I don’t agree – I do make an exception for both parties in Congress.

Paul – you state that it if news comes from a point of view isn’t news but being on the other side of the political spectrum I see other news sources as being completely biased.

Recently there was a bogus email from the Chamber of Commerce stating they accepted the Cap-And-Trade bill and they wanted a carbon tax. Reuter’s ran the story and CNBC picked it up and repeated it. The Washington Post and the New York Times also posted the story without ever checking a single fact in the story.

I also read this – ‘The first job of a newspaper is to set the agenda for the community. Howard M. Ziff, journalism professor at the University of Illinois’

The White House made a point they were so happy that they now ‘control the media’. They said that during the election they managed every detail of what was said to the media and that they got the media to report what Obama said and not why he said it.

Couple all of this with a story over the weekend about Anita Dunn from the White House who criticized FOX for fact checking an Obama Administration guest. They didn’t say the facts FOX brought up were wrong but that they dared check what they were saying.

So what is it? Fact check or not? Set an agenda or just present the facts to the readers.

I find this stunning that a media source is scolded for daring to review what a guest has to say. If Mitch McConnell were on NBC and said something that wasn’t true I would expect NBC to hammer him. If Chris Dodd were on FOX and did the same thing – FOX should hammer him. Reverse the people and networks and I would hope they did the same. People don’t like Glenn Beck but he hasn’t made any friends in either party by calling out their corruption.

You don't find it at all troublesome that a supposed news organization is laughing at having their credibility questioned, or that they seem to be profiting from it?

Bottom line the only reason ANY network, paper, or radio program are there for one reason – to make money. MSNBC and CNN don’t give away commercial time, they charge based on the number of people tuned in to the shows. Like it or not the sole responsibility of these media outlets is to make a profit for the shareholders if they are publically owned or to their private investors.

So FOX draws from an audience that feels that the other networks don’t represent their views. Do people tune in from the right to hear Keith Olbermann trash what they believe? The same goes for the left – they won’t tune in to Rush because he attacks what they believe. Guess what – Keith isn’t working for free – and I am glad he has the right to make as much money as he can.

Here's a novel idea, why don't you turn off FNC and just start reading press releases from the RNC. You'll get the same "news" and it'll be free.

The problem is that MSNBC does the same for the White House. Plus – the RNC isn’t smart enough to coordinate a talking points memo to FOX. And here is the bottom line. If we silence FOX because they don’t agree with Obama, are we going to silence MSNBC because they don’t agree with a conservative president?

Without dissenting viewpoints, either party has the ability to get away with whatever they want.

;

Why do you think we held German/Japanese/North Vietnamese prisoners OUTSIDE of the US?

Thanks Robert! German/Japanese prisoners of war were interred at camps inside the United States. Brent fails at History 101.

Nazis and Japanese POW's held inside the US. But heaven forbid we do that with terrorists! We need secret prisons. We want secret prisons. Just kidding.

It amazes me how people can make claims without researching and without facts.

Robert, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong. I am a retired submariner and did not know we housed WWII POWs in the US.

Still, the guys at Gitmo were captued fighting us. The terrorists you link that are in US prisons have been through the legal system and been found guilty.

Question: If Obama wants Gitmo closed, why not charge or release the prisoners?

Good work though.

Just like Faux "News"... Say anything. No one else will have the means to refute whatever crap you make up and throw out there anyway. So, go with it.

However, unlike Faux, this is a much more intimate forum, and it's much easier to get your "bosoms" caught in the wringer.

Thank you, Brent. I appreciate that. But most the "the guys at Gitmo" were not captured fighting us. That's why the majority of them have been released. All that had to happen at that time was to be accused of something and then be thrown in jail.

The thing that pisses me off is that most of these people sat in jail for 7 years, without even having been charged with anything! And I don't give a crap whether they're called "detainees", "terrorists" or pizza delivery guys, and I don't give a damn whether it's regular court or a military tribunal or whether they are tried in the US or on Mars.... Freaking charge them and try them or set them free!!!

This country is supposed to be based on principals of fair-play and treating other human beings with decency! If we can't do it, regardless of what we think someone might have done, then we truly are no better than anyone else!

I don't have total numbers on Gitmo, I just know that they are the ones we feel would be trouble trying to convict in court. Otherwise, they'd already be in a Federal prison or released. Granted, they are being held without being charged, but that's the situation we're in.

I truly believe Obama would try them or release them if he felt comfortable about either decision. That concept needs to be considered. Because the guys we fight don't wear uniforms or symbols, it puts us in a bind.

It's this simple... We don't have the evidence to charge or try them, which means they will never be released unless someone intervenes to let them go. This is all about politics now. But people are sitting in jails because we're really, really, really sure they're guilty but have no evidence, and we're afraid that if we let them go they'll go back to Iraq and fight us, and/or be used for propaganda purposes. What kind of crap is that?

I'll just put it this way... If you sat in an Iraqi prison for 7 years without being charged with anything and no one had the evidence to convict you, how much would you love Iraq? And would you take consolation from an argument that said... "they are being held without being charged, but that's the situation we're in"???

I doubt it.

Robert, there are no easy answers in this one. Both Bush and Obama struggle with Gitmo. I'm just being honest. This is what happens when we fight an enemy of this nature.

Paul,

You can't possibly be serious with this post. To criticize Fox while pretending to be in denial about the Obama News Network (MSNBC) is absurd. Those empty talking heads at MSNBC don't have time to criticize Dems because they are still trashing Bush who has been out of office for nine months now.

On top of that Maddow had the audacity just last week on MSNBC (what a joke of a news network) to blame Bush for "his wars" plural as if he was to blame for the war in Afghanistan, like 9/11 never happened.

Paul, find a way to spend your time more wisely than trying to pass criticism of FOX off as legitimate. Anyone with an IQ over 50 can read through this total BS.

It's obvious that MSNBC and FOX are both biased. It's also obvious that FOX is just much worse.

Math,

Not obvious also not true. I am loving this. No one came to the defense of Bush when MSBNC was laying the wood to him every night (and they still do nine months after his administration ended). Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the current administration chooses to wage war on a news network while ignoring the fact that we are in a real shooting war. Sadly, there is no leadership in this White House.

The White House is right to isolate FNC because FNC is not a news organization, and that's really all there is to it anymore.

Paul - Saul Alinsky would be proud. 'If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.' Keep up the good work because you seem to have a large following.

I don't really care what kind of audience Fox draws, the only thing that matters is what Fox does and whether or not we accept that kind of behavior

I am feeling the love - and if I read all of the comments I would be led to believe that only conservatives hate or don't care about other view points.

murdoch is australian.. he is not an american.

So then, Murdoch isn't un-American...he's non-American.

FOX's claims are more ridiculous and filled with hate in general. Keith Olbermann is an annoying son of a @!$%# but he is nothing compared to Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, et al.

Anyhow, we're kind of getting off-topic. The title is "FOX is unAmerican." I have to actually disagree, because America is all about freedom of speech, right? Well, some people (*cough, cough* FOX News, *cough cough*) like to use the freedom of speech to replace their lack of the use of freedom of thought.

Geez PWT you are so far gone there is no hope for you. Are yo sure you're not that moron Robert Gibbs the Family Guy? You sound just like him.

Keith Olbermann is an annoying son of a @!$%# but he is nothing compared to Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter

I agree, he is NOTHING compared to them. And since Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter are associated with networks that actually have good ratings, they get to annoy a lot more people. Honestly, Olbermann doesn't annoy me at all. You can't be annoyed by someone you never see or hear.

Paul William;

people who don't appreciate an unbiased and fiercely independent press

If you are even half correct in your anti-FOX fixation, People have yet to even SEE "an unbiased and fiercely independent press"

I haven't paid much attention to the big Media (Mainstream Media?) since Walter Cronkite left - and have held precious little actual trust in any "newspeople" besides him and Jon Stossel (who is moving to FOX? That might be something).

I shall get a bit more experience with FOX (haven't seen much since it's debut) and perhaps take this further. At the moment, most of my experiences are with the deplorable, self-serving "old" news media that has left a bitter, cynical taste.

Perhaps the upstart is exactly what the country needs to give it an occasional kick in the a$$.

JF, the left will continue to spew their hate. it obvious to see this everytime someone doesn't agree with them. they get mad, start swearing, and name calling.

I have little enough use for NYT, though it is sometimes all that I have available - and there is a lot in it. I have not entertained McClatchy directly, before and will reserve on that one until I have. NPR is still up in the air for me, though I still listen sometimes. I am still able to listen and read varied opinions and bias - how else to form my own opinions? It gives me more to think about

Exactly what lie was Stossel "caught" in? A differing of opinion (minimum wage, global warming, vouchers, public education, etc) or was there something he said he did for ABC, was paid for, but didn't provide? Beyond those, one would also have to implicate ABC for poor oversight - or collusion.

If it is a differing opinion, it is extremely rich that anyone with an opinion opposite his should call him a "liar"; and his bias compels him to look in different and possibly unique directions than his brethren. I find the difference refreshing.

I do not use the same sources as he, but I find I agree with the vast bulk of the positions he reports from - even if not the details. Understand: I agree because he echos my belief (not a normal occurrence with many newspeople) - not that his report sways me.

http://cornhusker4palin.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/23/3414718-three-tactics-progressives-use-to-discredit-their-opponents?last=1256419602&threadId=708450&sp=0&pc=25&commentId=10266811#c10266811 Proof enough that the left will say or do anything to damage or destroy Fox News or any other opponent of theirs.

Paul,

You said:

"I blame him for his wars, too. Bush may not ultimately have been responsible for starting the war, but he is obviously responsible for the failed occupation. If 9/11 compelled the decision to go to war, it became Bush's the moment he gave the order to move in troops. At that point it was incumbent upon him to win it and get out, and he didn't do that."

Every single part of this statement is wrong. Al Qaeda started this war, not Bush. To blame Bush for Afghanistan like Maddow did and you are doing is insane. And it was not and is not an occupation. It was and is the removal of the tyrannical Taliban regime who aided and abetted bin Laden and his thugs. If you want to lay blame, lay it on Clinton whose failed leadership and incompetence let Al Qaeda plan 9/11 unabated for eight years. And what was Clinton's response to the Cole attack? Absolutely nothing. That is truly failed leadership. We need strong decisive leadership in a time of war, not the self-serving behavior of Clinton and the naive mind-set of Obama.

That's not what America wants. That's what you want. You want appeasement. That didn't work against WWII's tyrants and it won't work against today's tyrants. By the word "tyrant" I am referring to bin Laden, A-jad, Chavez, and Kim Il Sung. You probably thought I was referring to Bush.

One more time. Bush did not launch "multiple wars". He showed leadership where Clinton didn't by responding in an effective way to Al Qaeda's declaration of war on us years earlier when Clinton was busy attending to his personal needs. I repeat, when the enemy hit the Cole and killed 30 sailors, a clear act of war, Clinton did NOTHING. That leaves him (and you could argue Jimmy Carter) the two most worthless presidents in U.S. history.

You don't speak for America. Just look at the comparative ratings between FOX and all the other networks to understand that fact.

Yes Dave, yes! Four stars!

PWT; Sorry so late getting back - I'm afraid I almost forgot this thread.

As I understand it, the health piece was, indeed, an hour long and done - but ABC chose to forgo airing it and replaced it with something else they thought would be better received (more viewers). Micheal Jackson, maybe?

That constitutes a business decision - not a lie. There are numerous long and short pieces - by many contributors - that get sidelined in favor of others. That is what editors are for and they need choices.

As for his leaving ABC; his views and ABC's have been diverging almost since Day 1. The critical views he represents are putting much of the Media in a poor light and ABC is included. Unfortunately many of these Media - including ABC - have a "position" and are not un-biased. Stossel's style and views provide contradiction to that position and can be seen as impugning ABC News.

Can't have that - so rather than abandon it's "position" and present all sides in an un-biased fashion, they have to let him go.

That is also a business decision.

Paul,

You said:

"Obama, in contrast, campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq and eventually Afghanistan, and using diplomacy with Iran and other Middle Eastern nations."

Guess what: we are still in Iraq with no plans to leave soon and he will most likely continue to add troops to Afghanistan. So I guess Obama lied to the American people to get votes, right? Those are the facts.

To my tyrant comment, you said:

"Three out of those five men were elected, amusingly, and one isn't a head of state at all. I guess your definition of tyrant is a lot like Karl Rove's math:"

So what? Hitler was elected too. Does that mean he doesn't fit your particular definition of a tyrant?

You said:

"Regardless of what you think the appropriate response to 9/11 should have been, there is little point in trying to argue that war was automatic and that we had no choice. Clearly we did have a choice, go to war or not go to war."

I ask you: What planet do you live on? We had no choice. We were attacked without warning. Try to sell your lame argument to anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11 and good luck with that. That inane statement of yours pretty much totaled your credibility all the way around.

Last point: history proves again and again that trying to negotiate with terrorists and tyrants never works. You liberals will just never understand that and liberal reasoning like yours is the reason history always seems to repeat itself.

You are extremely naive if you think we have gained any ground on cooperation with Iran. A-Jad is playing Obama like a fiddle because, like you, Obama is naive. Even the French president called Obama out for being soft on dealing with Iran. What is this world coming to when we are soft compared to the French?

Regarding options after 9/11, this is not a classroom course in Logic. This is the real world. Why don't you get your head out of the sand and start living in it. Unless you are a card-carrying member of Move-On.org, you cannot deny that Bush did the right thing going after those Islamist extremist murderers. You are trying to evade the issue with your Logic exercise but its not working for me and it sure as hell won't work with anyone who lost a loved one on that awful day.

Unless you are a card-carrying member of Move-On.org, you cannot deny that Bush did the right thing going after those Islamist extremist murderers.

Except he didn't. He started going after the Islamist extremist murderers in Afghanistan, and then well before that mission was complete he diverted the majority of our energy and resources away from that mission to go after Iraq, a nation which was entirely uninvolved with Islamic extremism. Iraq was led by a tyrant, but at least he was a secular tyrant. Now our invasion of Iraq has put Nouri Al-Maliki in power. You may have heard of him, he was in charge of the Islamicist Al-Dawa party's jihad office, the same jihad office that directed the terrorists responsible for the 1983 bombings of the American and French embassies in Kuwait.

Bush's actions post 9-11 put an Islamic terrorist INTO power. But you're calling Obama naive?

You said:

"Bush's actions post 9-11 put an Islamic terrorist INTO power. But you're calling Obama naive?"

So how long have you suffered from amnesia? Let me remind you. Islamic extremists hit the WTC in 1993, the Khobar towers in 1996, the two embassies in Africa in 1998, and of course, the Cole in 2000. Did I mention that Clinton did absolutely nothing in response to the Cole? Bush didn't put them into power. They were very much already there. Bush, unlike the ineffectual Clinton, hit back. He showed leadership where Clinton failed to and where Obama is currently failing to do.

Also, all of your liberal heros (hypocrites) voted to go into Iraq so don't blame Bush. You really should seek some help for your amnesia issues.

PWT;

Absolutely not, that [making money] is the purpose of an entertainment channel. The only reason a news organization exists is to serve the public interest by reporting the news. The news is not a business and shouldn't be treated like one.

News has been BUSINESS for over a century, in this country alone. You can attribute journalistic nobility to reporters or editors, if you want - but the organization is capitalist, money-making, pandering-if-necessary business.

As I understand it, the health piece was, indeed, an hour long and done - but ABC chose to forgo airing it and replaced it with something else they thought would be better received (more viewers). Micheal Jackson, maybe?

That constitutes a business decision - not a lie.

It's amazing that people think I would say something that isn't true:

I am not sure I understand where you are coming from: do you think I'm calling you a liar? I hope not and anyone who reads through the threads would see that YOU were calling the actions in that situation a lie - where it is simply ABC's business decision.

Then - since I do not know you personally - I have no frame of reference regarding your personal integrity: so I try to verify. I expect you to do likewise. In this instance, our opinions differ - as our sources may differ - and no one implies you are being dishonest in this issue.

Dave:

Bush didn't put them into power. They were very much already there.

Please read what I wrote. I did not say that Bush put all Islamic terrorists into power, I said he put a particular one into power. Nouri al-Maliki was NOT head of Iraq before we deposed Saddam, in fact he was an enemy of Saddams. Now he, head of the Jihad office of the same group of terrorists that attacked our embassy in 1983, is in charge of Iraq and is forging close ties with Iran. Bush "hit back", but in doing so he made our situation worse, not better.

By the way, speaking of amnesia, we didn't actually know for certain that the attack on the Cole was committed by Al Qaeda during Clinton's watch. We wouldn't find out until after Bush took office:

Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told the Commission that when the administration took office on 20 January 2001, "We knew that there was speculation that the 2000 Cole attack was al Qaeda... We received, I think, on 25 January the same assessment [of al-Qaeda responsibility]. It was preliminary. It was not clear."

Newsweek reported that on the following day, "six days after Bush took office," the FBI "believed they had clear evidence tying the bombers to Al Qaeda."^[23] The Washington Post reported that, on 9 February, Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on bin Laden's responsibility "without hedge."^[24]

[USS Cole bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

So, if you have a beef with the fact that there was no response to the Cole, take it up with the president who actually knew who the culprits were and did nothing:

According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he "made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'" The administration instead began work on a new strategy to eliminate al-Qaeda.^[26]

[USS Cole bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

Paul,

You said:

"It's hard for me to sit here and not just call you a liar, because at this point you're clearly going out of your way to poison the debate with distortions and exaggerations."

I can't call you a liar, because in your case that would actually be a promotion in rank.

You aren't coherent enough at this point to even recognize truth from fiction. Fact is, based on your aimless and pointless ramblings, I think you are delusional. Second, what useful information can be derived from:

"bin Laden determined to strike U.S."? How? When? Where? That memo was useless.

Bush had to deal with the mess that Clinton left behind due to his indecisiveness in the face of all of the Al Qaeda attacks I have already described which happened during his presidency.

Clinton had a real attack on a U.S. warship that he totally ignored. How irresponsible for a supposed Commander in Chief! And don't try your lame tactic of supposing that someone else did the Cole. How pathetic of you to even suggest that. You think maybe a radical Amish sect is behind it.?

I would tell you to just "get real" but, like I said before, you are so far off the deep end that becoming a liar would actually represent progress for you unfortunately.

One more thing: you libs quote the NY Times, Washington Post, and Wikipedia like they are totally unbiased sources. In particular, the first two are at least as far left as FOX is far right. Try to get more credible sources to make a case for your naive viewpoints. When we are fighting Iran, as we will most likely be in a few years once they have attacked our ally, Israel, your delusional viewpoints will be exposed for what they are, way off point. You need to understand the truth before you can intentionally lie. You don't.

Paul,

Congratulations! You are apparently the only person on the planet who denies that the NY Times is liberal. What astounding information do you have that everyone else is missing?

You are just chock full of amazing insight: like accusing Fox of inaccuracy when the facts would indicate otherwise. Is MSNBC a bone fide news organization? Did I just imagine that Dan Rather was taken down b/c of fabricated lies about Bush and the National Guard?

And this incredible insight you have about Iran's true intentions. You must have keen insiders in foreign intelligence.

Who am I to lecture you? You are right up there with Ghandi and Einstein.

OK. Now for a reality check. You have no clue whatsoever about Iran's goals so stop pretending that you are informed on the subject. You have no solid foundation of evidence on any of your statements, do you? So stop with the "informed intellectual" image you project and hope others will buy into.

Lastly, and here is your biggest shortcoming. You have no insight whatsoever into history. You look at things in the moment and have not grasped the concept that historical events are connected to each other. Events from the 1930's have an impact on events today. You are totally clueless to that fact.

Thus endeth the lesson. This was a free lesson by the way. I will waive the charges.

You said:

"It's not my fault that I've looked into the matter more than you have, if you're embarrassed about it then maybe you should try doing something about it instead of heckling people who aren't as lazy as you are. Iran simply does not have the technical capability to attack Israel – that is a proven fact. Israel is armed with the latest in American military technology. They fly our planes, drive our tanks, drop our bombs, and use billions in aide that we give them every year to buy it all with. All that, on top of a stockpile of at least 100 nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them anywhere they wish."

A couple of points here:

1. How pompous of you to apply labels to someone you have never met. But pomposity is a trait of liberals so I am not surprised.

2. You are obviously incapable of understanding the big picture in the Middle East. You search aimlessly through Wikipedia for meaningless and suspect statistics as if they will provide a cover so no one will notice your ignorance. What is funny is your charade as it applies to pretending to know finite military capabilities on either side.

3. Big Picture here. Pay attention. It is not about numbers of tanks, missiles, planes, or troops. It is about ideology. Iran is an fundamental Islamist dictatorship. It considers itself the emerging leader state of a world wide Islamist movement whose mission at its core is the destruction of Israel at whatever cost.

When the real stuff starts flying, you will understand. Right now, quite honestly, you are simply and totally clueless. No empty rhetoric here; just brutal honesty.

I will add "reading and comprehension" to your growing list of inadequacies. If you think I didn't respond to your lame argument about Iran's inability to attack Israel, you obviously can't read and comprehend. Did I use too many "big words" for you to understand in point three? North Korea considers itself a "republic" too. So, do you really think that North Korea is a republic? I sure hope not for your sake. Iran is an Islamist fundamentalist regime, period. Or did you just choose to ignore their government's brutal reaction to their own people's protests against A-jad recently, killing protesters in the streets. Is that how a republic behaves?

How arrogant of you (just like Keith Olbeman) to point out the splinter in my eye and be, at the same time, oblivious to the log in yours. It is you who is continually tripping over your own errors in judgment and interpretation. It is classic defensive behavior to claim I use "empty rhetoric" as it allows you to ignore and deny your own obvious inadequacies, which I have just highlighted above. History will judge which one of us is right. I am confident that I am right on this and you are dead wrong.

Anyone like you who thinks censorship is ok whether you like the station or not is the traitor if you dont like them dont listen to them and you call all of their viewers traitors also I assume what a nut job you are one sided ding bat. Anyone who questions BO admin is suppose to keep their mouth shut yea right you loser and the same for Axelrod losers period.

I am not a fan of Fox, but then what do you call MSNBC? How do you define Maddow, Oberman, Matthews and those like them? MSNBC is just as much left, as Fox is right. No?

tjwhalen

close but no cigar.. yes msnbc coppied somewhat fox's model However.
MSNBC HAS TWO republicans with their own shows.. scarlsboro and bucannon.
MSNBC is only partisan on it's pundit shows.. it's news is uneffected.
Fox has been busted passing out memos to it's NEWS casters saying they had to tout the bush WH line.

Fox often.. like dozens of times mislabled corrupted goprs as dems.
You cant find msnbc doing this more than once.

Once is an accident.. dozens of times is not.

FOX promoted the anti obama tea parties and encoruages people to go.
Fox promoted the anti obama groups at teh health care town halls to shout down anyone with a question anbd to bring guns.
Fox was also busted rallying up people for the cameras.

MSNBC however never promoted the anti war rallies or any of the anti bush protests.. they reported them but they did nto promote or encoruage people to go.. or change their programming so that they are reporting it 17 hours a day/.

Saying MSNBC Is like FOX is sayign a knife is like a nuclear bomb.. both can kill.

I supect you think I am wrong.. want to do a link battle? tjwhalen
it shouldnt take much google to prove i am wrong if i am wrong.

I guess I dont feel that tingle up my leg like you do and yes they(msnbc) helped to promote them loser look it up not hard to find the connection between them and acorn and their afiliates all libs thinking they can do what they want but if someone stands up to them they call them traitors etc no one was forced to go to the ralies and they never tried to cover up that they were supporting them. Now BO wants everyone to basically boycott them what a loser he is going public with BO censorship-if you dont agree with me lets do away with them lets shut them down and call their viewers traitors, losers is what his admin is and always will be losers period.

Joules, I'd like you to source your claims. It shouldn't be hard, the liberal left is everywhere! LOL Attack away.... ; )

Personal note to you, your arrogance is a little overwhelming. Telling me my opinion is "close but no cigar" is a little elitist. Again it's just my opinion, I know you will want to reply to this, but let's see if you can hold back. Your discipline is on the line here. LOL

I wonder if Joules will reply... It must be killing him!

LOL

Rick- in what ways has FOX been censored? You surely cannot mean that saying FOX isn't news is censorship? FOX has not been barred from airing their 'news'. No one has been censored.

Andi, the censorship is the White House telling the other news media to stop covering anything that Fox News says or does. Coming from the President is chilling and reminiscent of the Nixon days. Beside that, it is childish and petty.

Anytime you try to quiet some one elses views whether it is a person or an entity like fox news it is censorship and what they are trying to do is shut them up we all know that and asking others to join in what a joke.

tjwalen

Joules, I'd like you to source your claims. It shouldn't be hard, the liberal left is everywhere! LOL Attack away.... ; )

Personal note to you, your arrogance is a little overwhelming. Telling me my opinion is "close but no cigar" is a little elitist. Again it's just my opinion, I know you will want to reply to this, but let's see if you can hold back. Your discipline is on the line here. LOL

but you're wrong...she didn't attack your opinion....you asked a question.

I am not a fan of Fox, but then what do you call MSNBC? How do you define Maddow, Oberman, Matthews and those like them? MSNBC is just as much left, as Fox is right. No?

and your question was answered.

Pat Buchanan?

Are you kidding!

Using that as non-partisan for MSNBC? And Morning Joe has a woman that went drug induced, and couldn't answer a question correctly.

I have to laugh! HAHAHAHAHA!

Paul: I am sorry I posted here, you take the fun away. Your article lacks any real substance, as do every one of mine. Keep drinking the koolaid.

Joules - Friend request coming. I may not agree with you (ever), but I agree with your ability to state an opinion and stand your ground!

Later gator!

Paul, I was only joking. Note the you take the fun out of it part. Not your article, understand, again misleading mindless trash from me.

LOL, Paul, hang in there man, life is good!

Sincerely, you raise a good argument here. Folks, I stand corrected, Paul is not a koolaid drinker! I didn't mean to lower your IQ.

Peace...

You're cool Pablo, I get you. I hear the "right wingers are crazy" stuff all the time. I am more of a conservative than a Republican, I just want to be left alone by my public officials and I don't want, or believe in, handouts. Yet, I feel some in our country need a hand from time to time. Almost a temporal rift in the space-time continuum!

I think the only true change that will ever come to Washington is with Term Limits.

Hang in there!

This is a "fly in the ointment" annoyance for liberals. Like all good Stalinists, they're distressed that they don't have COMPLETE control over the dissemination of information. It's why they hate Fox and talk-radio and why they're fighting to silence them. Democrats in office, and the MSM are one and the same.

JJ, the traitors are the ones who think freedom of speech is okay as long as it is only the left doing so.

P W T, so it's okay as long as the left does it? freedom of speech is not okay? who cares what the repubs think? I care that the left is attacking freedom of speech, that is what this article was about. I'd say the same thing if the repubs would have said it. the government doesn't need any more control than it has already!

""""""""Fox News = traitors to America. You just noticed?""""""""" Congreesman Grayson, D-Fla. is that you?

JJ;

Fox News = traitors to America. You just noticed?

What country you from? To equate an entity such as FOX - and it's viewers - as traitors is ludicrous (CoH restricts some more descriptive words)!!!

Traitors would be those who violate Constitutional provisions (government) or directly endanger the Republic as a whole (anyone). FOX's actions no more directly endanger the Republic than ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or any other such organization.

In fact, by the above definition, I would strongly suspect fully half of our Federal electeds, since 1920, would qualify to greater or lesser degrees.

That would include some Presidents.

You disagree with the "incredibly loose definition", yet support that with an example of what that definition would describe as "directly endanger the Republic as a whole " ??

Could it be that you are quite comfortable, then, with dropping the first part? Should an elected representative knowingly and willingly violate both their oath of office and the Constitution; that would be fine with you? Perhaps you are fine with such means as long as they achieve the ends you desire (at least to your limits)?

Yes - my definition is "loose", and thereby implicates (on both parts) what could easily be the majority of Federal electeds (and appointees) today, as traitors. This does not necessarily state I think they should all be hanged - though if their action causes loss of innocent lives, it might be considered - just that they should be removed.

You disagree with the "incredibly loose definition", yet support that with an example of what that definition would describe as "directly endanger the Republic as a whole (anyone)." ??

Could it be that you are quite comfortable, then, with dropping the first part? Should an elected representative knowingly and willingly violate both their oath of office and the Constitution; that would be fine with you? Perhaps you are fine with such means as long as they achieve the ends you desire (at least to your limits)?

Yes - my definition is "loose", and thereby implicates (on both parts) what could easily be the majority of Federal electeds (and appointees) today, as traitors. This does not necessarily state I think they should all be hanged - though if their action causes loss of innocent lives, it might be considered - just that they should be removed.

Paul you mean like calling someone a racist because they don't agree same as koolaid drinker.... Like when they call someone who agrees with fox and not obama or you.

Wow Paul you must have powers that are heavenly. Either you don't really believe what you say or you just like to here you self talk. To just look at someone and know what is in their hearts. Reed, Pelosi, you must posses the power to judge someone just for disagreeing with you . Just like anyone who agrees with FOX is a racist. Wow must be nice to have that kind of power, rather god like. Keep trying to down play where this country is headed and we will all pay the price.

LOL no what is hillarious if that the british made fox rename it self.. it is not allowed to call it self news.
WHY CASUE THE ENTIRE PLANET can see the bull @!$%# like promoting the tea parties.
Tell me greg have you ever seen msnbc promote any protest at all?

No, the entire planet wants a new world order. We've been lagging behind that garbage thinking, but now, our president is pushing us right into that failed thinking Joules.

Hitler used the 'new world order' statement, too.

Joules, if the "entire planet can see the bull", why do they still watch?

Joules never responds. I think he's a plant.

2 hour siestas a day for all, according to Joules!

This whole thread and all like it are funny! Seriously. Do they think that attacking Fox News is going to stop any of us from watching it? Of course not. We only watch it more. I mean everytime I see a thread like this I watch more of it just to spite the people who think like this and to boost the ratings and ad revenues. I have even bought more shares of Newscorp over this. Please cll us more names for watching. Coming from the left here, we wear them as nadges of honor. If Fox news were just GOP talking points and only GOP people were watching, Obama would never have attacked it as he never had those votes anyway. The reality is that about half of Fox's viewers are independents and democrats. Obama is afraid of losing the support of those viewers.

if you do not agree with the left, they will attack, swear at you, and call you names. it's their best offense.

P W T, thanks for changing my comment again. it just proves my comment in the first place. I'm glad that's all you can find to do or say! look at the comments in this article.

Oh, wait, you got a word wrong, hold on..

if you do not agree with the left right, they will attack, swear at you, and call you names. it's their best offense.

There, now it makes sense.

When the cycle gets going like this, it's the most fun; "he says, she says" and finger-pointing to "who started it" - yet always ignoring that BOTH sides do it.

Where did it begin? Probably some early cave folk - or their children? But as an intentional "tactic", I believe Saul Alinsky was the first to write it down

If you compare all the names the right has smeared the left with even over just the past three or four years

The Right doesn't have to smear the left, the leftist smear themselves, example Van Jones, ACORN idiots ETC., they just can't help it it's ingrained in them.

One or two smears from the left doesn't equal systematic character assassination from the right that has been taking place for more than a decade.

If the shoe fits..... If the left had more reason, there would be more smears, bet on it.

Paul William Tenney,

Names like socialist? Communist? Marxist? Traitor? Terrorist sympathizer? Like un-American? Don't forget @!$%#, faggot, Hilter, and of course heathen for all those dirty atheists.

Thank you.. The Democratic Party in a nutshell.

Paul , this "mom he hit me" "mom he is touching me is really getting tired. I would bet most of us lean to more of a conservative view than just out right republican view. So don't paint everyone the same because we are on your a** like a wet diaper. Oh and you elitist attitude really makes you look like an a**. Talk about childish. We are right and you are wrong.....lets see whats next.

I personally believe all media should report without bias

agree 100%....

the biggest issue is fox bills themselves as fair and balanced and they aren't even close... maddow, olbermann, matthew, admit they have a bias, some of them more than others.... I rarely see an opposition to any of the opinion or news shows on fox I always see them on the other stations... it's just telling

do I think they are un-american,,, no... very poor news and reporting very much so...

Agent, Fox says they are "Fair and Balanced" because they bring (at least) two people with opposing views to discuss issues. O'Reilly does it a few times per show. Hannity does it-was better with Combs, but Combs quit. Chris Wallace does it.

That's your fair and balanced.

Did you think Van Jones or Acorn was a story? If you do, thank Fox because none of the other networks ran them.

funny... you can keep them,,,

ACORN and Van Jones were only stories because Fox wouldn't stop reporting on them nonstop. They kept spinning and manufacturing BS to get their viewers into a tizzy about an organization that registers poor and minorities to vote (who tend to vote Democrat) and a guy who was in charge of creating green jobs. There wasn't a story to be told about either, and that's why nobody else picked up the "story", they saw it as reaching for straws and outright making @!$%# up and manufacturing faux outrage over nothing. The right will keep trying to spin stuff like this on the left to try and demonize them more than they already do, if that's possible. And to destroy your first paragraph that you wrote, search for OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism to see how funny the "Fair and Balanced" moniker is for them. Sadly it's anything but that.

Agent, I plan on it.

Yota, Acorn has made substantive changes and Jones is gone. Touche.

Keep trying though. What grade are you in?

well people can argue the merits or lack of about fox all day,, won't change what people think,,, or the organization...

Agent, that we can agree on. I will continue to get my news from an agency that has not made deals with the White House.

Agent, that we can agree on. I will continue to get my news from an agency that has not made deals with the White House.

LOL.. the current one anyway....

Paul,

I read both the article seeded and Jacob's whole opinion piece. My notions are the same. Jacob like many others are singling out Fox news.

Jacob is even blaming Fox News for MSNBC and CNN's bias! Way to excuse the liberal bias and be fair huh...

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 addition, he labels Fox as un-American because the owner of Fox News is Australian...

The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American,

He claims that Murdoch pushed his Australian-British "politicized media" in America and therefore the news reported is now "un-American".

Anyway, the guy can express his opinion about Fox all he wants but for him to actually have any credibility he would have to be fair and balanced and call out and condem all media bias but apparently he is unable to. Total hypocrite.

Yota, why didn't any of the other news organizations bring up any true statements about ACORN or Van Jones that would offset what FOX news said? why didn't they even say what FOX was saying was a lie?

How did I know that would happen on this article!

I guess this is found to be on topic:

Yet another conservative who clearly didn't read the story. Does it ever get embarrassing, speaking without thinking first? It must, because that's all that conservatives seem capable of doing. FNC was called un-American because it stands accused -- Murdoch stands accused, really -- of importing biased, opinion-based "journalism" from Europe and Australia and polluting America's formerly independent and unbiased news industry.

Do you understand on any level what that means, what the implications are?

Should have been more LEFT on my comments.

Guess where the above italicised comment came from? OOOPPSS!

Can we say a biased commentator?

My guess would be that you know I strictly moderate my column to keep all discussions on topic

Except for your own comments.

COME ON!

P W T, are you the only one who can go off topic?

I remember hearing Hillary Clinton yell...

I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.

I guess maybe she meant only the Republican administrations?

She meant when there is an honest and open debate, not a bunch of loonies spewing lies and rhetoric and redmeat BS to feed their mindless base and gain short-term political points. Repugs have proven they cannot have an HONEST and OPEN debate devoid of lies, for if they could, they would have successfully debated against healthcare reform months ago, since it is so evil and fascist.

Nah, Fixed News has always been un-American. The American news industry used to -- and to some degree still does -- set itself apart from the media in other nations by not being uncritical mouthpieces for a cause or an administration. Fixed News attacks and attempts to destroy that long American tradition by uncritically sponsoring Republican events, repeating incessantly Republican talking points, ordering its news anchors to speak well of Republicans while attacking Democrats, and outright lying on the air while still calling itself a news organization.

BWHAHAHA Yes, Fox News has always lied? How quickly we forget, can we say Dan Rathers?

Your holy than thou attitude towards our news vs European News is totally uncalled for, and if you think news in America has not been a mouth piece for policy your entirely deserving of our future.

That is manifestly un-American.

haha, yes, and being against the war is Unpatriotic.

--The Whiz

So now that you've been backed into a corner your only response is to ramble incoherently? Why don't you try addressing what I said. I dare you to even try arguing that the label doesn't fit under the argument.

I'm pretty nearly everyone who reads that will know exactly what I meant, so I'm not sure what you need clarification on.

Beyond that the label of the media being a mouth piece for politics, DOES fit, my argument is it isn't exclusive to a single network.

CBS fired Dan Rathers because CBS has integrity. How many liars have been fired from Fox over the years?

How many lies have you cited? Dan Rathers, was fired arguably against his contractual agreement and only to save face, not as a direct result of the report, but reaction to it.

CBS / NBC / CNN/ ABC are not in the same class as news as Fox, they only report what the white house tells them, Fox has questioned the White House... and the fact that the Media is under White House Control is the White Houses' words, not mine.

--The Whiz

it's funny how the majority of the united states citizens watch fox news and they are the ones who are misinformed? the left needs to rethink who they are watching! it's pretty obvious they are misinformed!

RLWellman:

Apparently you guys on the right ARE misinformed. For instance, you're apparently very misinformed about the number of united states citizens watching Fox News. Fox averages roughly 2.5 million viewers. The population of the US is roughly 304 million. In case the math escapes you, that means less than 1% of the population of the US watches Fox News. Hardly "the majority of the United States citizens".

Apparently you guys on the right ARE misinformed. For instance, you're apparently very misinformed about the number of united states citizens watching Fox News. Fox averages roughly 2.5 million viewers. The population of the US is roughly 304 million. In case the math escapes you, that means less than 1% of the population of the US watches Fox News. Hardly "the majority of the United States citizens".

How wrong you are! That 2.5 m number is the average for the three prime time hours on weeknights. They average 1.5 to 1.7 million perhour all day including prime time, mid day and middle of the night. Assuming the bottom number which I can prove they had on Monday per Nielson, 1.5x24+36million viewers a day. Since people sleep and work in different shifts there is no way you can maintain that only a small number of total people watch them each day.

Cornhusker4Palin, thanks.

J, apparently you don't know what the majority means. fox news has a bigger percentage of people watching them than any other news outlet. thus, a bigger percentage or majority of people.

RL Wellman:

J, apparently you don't know what the majority means. fox news has a bigger percentage of people watching them than any other news outlet. thus, a bigger percentage or majority of people.

Sorry, no. A larger percentage is not a majority.

A majority, also known as a simple majority in the U.S., is a subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group. This should not be confused with a plurality, which is a subset having the largest number of parts. A plurality is not necessarily a majority, as the largest subset may be less than half of the entire group.
[Majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

This is why the majority shareholder of a company is a person or group with more than 50% of the shares in a company, rather than just the person or group with the most shares.

Play god again PAUL!!!!!! Wow censorhip can be fun. DELETE!!!!!

George Bush didn't have the right to cancel his subscription to the NY Times? lol

Rick, I agree. this isn't only for this administration, but for all administrations. not only for in the past, but in the future also!

To Paul William Tenny

Can you prove Fox News is un-America?

Do not give any propaganda just the fact. A neutral source

Well, 12.5, it will be interesting to see what he comes up with to "prove" that that somehow Fox News is un American. I think he'll let the seed die out rather than try to prove a lie to be a truth.

ZeroX:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047

If you actually read it, you'll find that every instance of distortion, doctored videos, and outright GOP talking points published on-air unedited on Fox News are documented in such a way that you can check their accuracy yourself.

Then ask yourself: is this the way the media in America is supposed to behave? The FCC certainly doesn't think so, their website states "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest."

Yes fix news is un American because its owned by a non American.

So I guess you believe that what you get on the other end of the dial is journalism? Fox does have a "perspective", as do the others, but at least they are asking some questions. The press conferences have been a joke and you can't say, with a straight face, that the likes of Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews and Blitzer is journalism, can you? Seriously?

Firstly, did I say that any of those liberal political pundits you mentioned were any better? No. My comment was general and broad. But nice assumption of what I believe.

The President made himself part of the issue by using his henchpersons to question and attack the Fox News Channel. As you your precious thread starter OP, it is itself a lie. partisan media is not a European import unless you are talking prior to, during, and after the times of the founding fathers some of whom came from Europe, all of whose ancestors did. Our history is filled with examples of overtly partisan media. We did switch to a supposed more "objective" media some time ago. It worked well when we debated between liberal and moderate and post depression/WWII when we were debating democrat vs. democrat lite. Ever since the rise of the conservative movement, the mainstream media abandoned objectivity and openly took sides. If most Americans believed that the media was representative of all beliefs and treated them reasonably equally, CNN would have been the last News outfit to have been founded.

Bravo!

If a liberal doesn't like what's on TV, they change the channel.
If a conservative doesn't like what's on TV, they demand the show be taken off the air.

If a liberal doesn't want an abortion, they don't get one.
If a conservative doesn't like abortion, they try to pass laws telling other people what they can and can't do with their bodies -- making personal choice and personal liberty a crime against the state.

Buddy, I can do this all day, and trust me, you won't win. And FYI your entire comment is off-topic. Why can't conservatives focus for more than 10 seconds? It's like dealing with little children.

Discuss the seed or go play in someone else's sandbox.

After a non-topic response like that, you better restore Brent's and my comment, unless your partisan to "I Like Pauls comments only"!

If a liberal doesn't like what's on TV, they change the channel.

WHAT???? More like, they call it un-American, have a president who wastes our time commenting on it, or try to bully advertisers into boycotting it (in the case of Glenn Beck). And then they put up thread after thread after thread complaining about it. Then maybe they change the channel, if they ever watched what they were complaining about in the first place.

Come on PAUL, What's the new definition of "On Topic" nowadays?

Discuss the seed or go play in someone else's sandbox.

After what I read about liberals and conservatives, the right and the left, republican and democrat in other posts, I thought this would fit right in and was on topic even though the article didn't mention any of those things.

But as you said about sandboxs, your right it's your sandbox and if you don't like what someone says, you have the right to delete it. You have my blessing to delete my post. I expected it in the first place as it was clearly an opposing post in a biased thread. If you were to take on honest pen to this thread, you have to delete just about all the posts, liberal or conservative, because hardly any are on topic. To your supposed standards anyway. Anything with these words or phrases are off topic (liberals and conservatives, the right and the left, republican and democrat) Delete away.

Buddy, I can do this all day, and trust me, you won't win. And FYI your entire comment is off-topic. Why can't conservatives focus for more than 10 seconds? It's like dealing with little children.

I won't eh? Your superior intellect won't allow that I take it? Your probably right since you have the power to delete the posts. If the playing field was level though, I doubt you'd feel so confident in your assumption.

Here's something that is on topic. Telling someone that something is un-american is un-american in and of itself. Who has the right to tell someone that something or anything they like or feel is news, isn't news and is un-american?

FOX News is a foreign construction that flies in the face of a century of American media independence. It is per se un-American

Yet the author doesn't think FOX should have independence to report what it and others feels is news. LOL I almost spit up my coffee when I read that. Talk about a contradiction in terms.

Why can't conservatives focus for more than 10 seconds? It's like dealing with little children.

Paul - why all of the anger towards conservatives. Venting at FOX is just part of it but there is more towards your hatred then a TV channel.

I don’t watch MSNBC – remember that GE’s president is a White House Adviser and was appointed to the Federal Reserve board by Obama – but I don’t cry for its removal from the air.

Frankly I have had to go to the British papers to get any real in depth analysis of news especially on what effect the massive debt (thanks to both parties) will have on the economy and the future of this country. The boy in the balloon was a bigger story for the news networks than the fact that every American owes $38,751 in government debt.

So is FOX un-American – absolutely not. Was MSNBC un-American when Bush was in office – again no. Is it un-American for Anita Dunn to scold FOX for fact checking their guest? The answer is NO!

I don't know how better to describe conservatives anymore

Paul – the GOP isn’t conservative - and lets both agree that McCain is a pathetic fool. I dropped my republican affiliation when Bush thought amnesty was a good idea. The GOP and the DNC have one thing in common and that is to fleece the electorate and stuff their pockets with our money.

Plus the GOP isn’t smart enough to team with FOX when it comes to pushing their agenda. So go off on the GOP all you want but don’t lump all conservatives in with those crooks.

Thanks for reposting my conservative vs. liberal comparison list. It so fits here!

murdoch is australian.. he is not an american.

So what does make an American? Is it somebody born in this country or is it someone who has citizenship in this country?

I'm waiting for your answer Joulesbeef.

You know as much as you say how the Conservative movement has failed it's been in the last few months that I have seen this site grow leaps and bounds from an all Obama fan club with me and a few others saying that something isn't right to a much more balanced club. I'm sure you have seen the difference lately too Paul.

Enjoy.

If a liberal doesn't like what's on TV, they change the channel.
If a conservative doesn't like what's on TV, they demand the show be taken off the air.

Actually they scream about Fox and complain. Conservatives just don't watch MSNBC.

Actually, Conservatives constantly scream and complain about the "liberal media"... everything except Fox. Hell, some conservatives are screaming so much about liberal bias, they're re-translating the Bible to remove the "liberal slant".

I wonder how many threads there are on this website by conservatives complaining about the "liberal media" compared to how many there are from liberals crying about Fox News. Pointing out that most media has a liberal slant is not the same thing as screaming and crying about it. And I see a lot of threads dedicated to Fox News and the people who have shows on it. Far more than I see about the left slanted media stations.

JF:

Well, let's see... "liberal media" is mentioned on newsvine 6,970 times according to google. "Fox news is biased" is mentioned 17,600 times. Anyone know roughly what the percentage of liberals on newsvine is compared to conservatives? 2.5 to 1 sounds about right to me. Indicating that, most likely, each side complains about biased media just as much. There are just fewer on your side here.

And again, liberals complain about one network, Fox. Conservatives complain about every network but Fox. Could it be, just maybe, that the facts have a well-known liberal bias, and conservatives are just mad that most stations report them?

I haven't seen a thread calling for any Media Station to be taken off the air by Conservatives but on the Liberal front you can find at least one or two calling for Sedition Acts to be put in force and to shut Fox down.

The numbers don't lie. Ratings wise more people get their News from Fox than the other Media Networks combined. If the other Media Networks were doing there jobs then we would see a more spread out line but we don't.

I could care less that a News Caster grovels at the name Obama but when it affects there ability to do their job then I have a problem with it. They are there to help keep the President and Congress in check by letting people know the truth and to ask the hard questions. The media isn't there to lie in bed with the President and tell us that he's the most wonderful thing since sliced bread.

That Obama's Administration has admitted to controlling and manipulating the Media should make everyone pause; his attacks upon Fox News should make everyone scared. We are about to loose an essential Freedom in this country that haven't been taken away since the days of Woodrow Wilson.

I haven't seen a thread calling for any Media Station to be taken off the air by Conservatives but on the Liberal front you can find at least one or two calling for Sedition Acts to be put in force and to shut Fox down.

Historically speaking, shutting down a "news" source that engages in outright lies would be a positive and very American act. Why do you think we have laws on the books against public dissemination of falsehoods, ranging from laws against false advertising to laws against libel and slander? Why do you think that FCC policy states "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest"?

The numbers don't lie. Ratings wise more people get their News from Fox than the other Media Networks combined. If the other Media Networks were doing there jobs then we would see a more spread out line but we don't.

Here are some other numbers that don't lie:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

To sum up that article, 80% of Fox viewers believed one or more pieces of misinformation regarding Iraq.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1319/death-panels-republicans-fox-viewers

To sum up again, viewers of Fox News were nearly twice as likely to believe misinformation about "death panels" in the health care bill.

Fox News is lying to its viewers, whether it is to get ratings or to push a Republican agenda. They have even gone to court to assert the right to broadcast a "false, distorted, or slanted story". You don't see this as getting in the way of their ability to do their job as broadcast journalists? They may not be in bed with President Obama currently, but they clearly have been in bed with the Republicans and the Bush administration. Their tactics are not about trying to "ask the hard questions", they are about waging a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

Obama's administration has not admitted to anything other than knowing how to manage an interview to stay on-message. I'd be rather worried if his Press Secretary didn't have that ability, it's a rather basic one in the field of communication. The fact that it gives you pause really just demonstrates your naivete about the modern political process. As for his "attacks"... exactly what should scare anyone? The fact that he won't be appearing on a specific news station? The fact that he has called out a station that misinforms Americans for misinforming Americans? What actual governmental power is he bringing to bear against Fox News that has you fearing for the freedom of the press? You seem to have managed to survive just fine with the New York Times banned from the White House. Obama hasn't even gone that far, and yet you claim he is precipitating the greatest loss of freedom of the press seen since the days of Woodrow Wilson? Perhaps you should give a bit more thought to the matter, before shouting that the sky is falling.

Jarandhel

Solid post!