Press wanted every tick-tock of Pres Bush during 9/11 - why not require the same of Pres Obama during 9/11/12 #Benghazi ?
— martha maccallum (@marthamaccallum) May 31, 2013
H/T Twitchy
Love it!!! It is awesome that Martha Maccallum called out the rest of the media for being derelict in their duty, and the biggest hypocrites. You can be darn sure if a Republican president (which he/she wouldn't have been that dumb or lackadaisical in their responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief) had allowed the same situation to happen in Benghazi that happened on Sept. 11, 2012 under Obama then the Ministry of Progressive Propaganda would be harping all over Benghazi, demanding answers and a witch hunt would have ensued. It would be nice if the newscasters actually reported the news, the facts as they are, whether or not it reflected badly on the president, Republican or Democrat exposing the truth is most important.
Here are a few cartoons:
21 comments:
What would we do without Fox? Without them, Bill Clinton would still be President.
Maggie@MaggiesNotebook
http://maggiesnotebook.com
Thank goodness for unbiased reporters and media. I usually find my news from AFR, FOX news, Breitbart, lots of other media sources that just tell the truth and allow the readers and listeners to make up their own minds.
Fox on one side, MSNBC on the other; easy media for everybody.
Cable news is the journalistic equivalent of Toddler's and Tiara's.
Well Maggie, we can actually thank the Constitution and presidential term limits for Bill's departure. But without Fox there certainly wouldn't be much accountability during Democratic administrations.
I find my news from various sources Leticia. I like to read both perspectives, at least when I am able to. I'll be honest usually the local news coverage of national events is the most unbiased. Although the major news networks usually don't report on half the newsworthy stuff that Fox News reports on.
Whoa Constitutional Insurgent, comparing Fox News with MSNBC, that's just wrong. MSNBC consists mainly of progressive propaganda and advancing Obama's agenda. Fox News when it is able to presents both sides of issues, does simple news reporting, and a small portion of it's shows do conservative spin, and even that is based on fact. Yes, there is a conservative leaning which doesn't come close to MSNBC's liberal infusion into their covering of the news, misreporting and flat out not covering news.
You're welcome to your opinion, and I'm sure it's only coincidence that the outlet that 'leans' in your political direction, is the only one that presents reporting sans agenda.
I might presume that you think it's appropriate for a mainstream media outlet to foster an unabashedly partisan blog, and act as a virtual farm league for politicians of a particular party? Is it appropriate for the Senior VP of Programming for a mainstream media outlet to proclaim, only during the Administration of a particular party, that his network is the "voice of the opposition?"
Many Democrats espouse the exact sympathies about MSNBC as you do about FNC. Dueling ideologies don't equate to one side reporting with an agenda and one without. Actions can however, shed light on those agendas.
Double standard? Naw ... The news media yesterday were so glad to have sexual harassment in the military to report on. They do so hate the military.
Constitutional Insurgent,
Fox News reported on all sorts of stuff that were critical of President Bush but MSNBC and the major news networks have either completely left out or skimmed over many important news events that would have negatively affected (or put a negative light on Obama) President Obama. Actually, Fox News has conservatives, liberals, and at least one Libertarian writing for them. Fox News is the most Fair and Balanced out there as far as showing both sides of the story and reporting on the most news stories.
In a previous comment I did say that IMO the short and sweet national news coverage is the most unbiased when they report on a news story. But Fox News covers more of a wide variety of news stories so Fox News is by far Fair and Balanced when it comes to cable news in comparison to CNN and MSNBC. Although I will say that CNN has gotten better about reporting on newsworthy stories since a few months before the 2012 election.
Who would a thunk it Odie? The double standard is so glaring that the sun seems like it's only a few miles away. The media sure do salivate over a good military scandal. It would be nice if they salivated over other important scandals.
Theresa - I'm happy for you that you've found a comfort zone in the media. Almost a little jealous, because there's certainly no MSM outlet that appeals to my ideology.
Having been at one time, a fervent Fox Fan, with my mug and my small collection of books autograpohed by the leading lights of the channel, I worked hard [and still do] to avoid relying on confirmation bias in reporting. Most people don't; they gravitate towards what supports their preconceived notions.
What you posted above is just restating your opinion. You didn't touch on the facts I offered, though you would surely find fault with those paradigms, had they been part of MSNBCs strategy.
The only thing said about Power is that she called Hillary a monster. No vetting of these anti Semitics Rice and Power and the danger they bring to Israel and our country. Syria, here we comel
Martha does a great job, as does Megan Kelly. Thank goodness for FNC.
Yes, indeed TCL. I just wish I could see more of it than what's on the internet.
Constitutional Insurgent,
You may want to read this if you haven't seen it already -- http://www.mediaite.com/tv/roger-ailes-in-new-biography-fox-news-is-not-programming-to-conservatives/
That's true. None of the other news networks present a conservative point of view along with a liberal viewpoint. Or at least it is very rare.
Actually I did touch on your facts. Actually most of what you posted is your opinion, which you're entitled to. Most of the other networks have one token conservative or a token libertarian but Fox News has 2 libertarians, a number of liberals, and quite a few conservatives who appear and write for Fox News. You have avoided or missed my short critique of Fox News versus the other networks.
Bunkerville,
What do you expect? This is the same media who didn't vet Obama? And they cover up for him so them vetting or being critical of anyone in the Obama administration would be a miracle.
I have to say at least under Bill Clinton at least they reported news and didn't cover up for him near as much as they do for Obama. They may have defended him but at least they reported negative news on the Clinton administration.
Theresa - Thank you for the link, I had seen it previously. I might even agree with the title of the piece, but that's because I don't really consider the GOP to be terribly Conservative. But you have to admit, the CEO of an MSM outlet touting the virtues of his own programming isn't exactly paradigm shaking news. Does Phil Griffin have a similar resume with the Democrats as Murdoch or Ailes does with the GOP?
I'd would be appreciative if you could point out where opinion exited in my post. Is it opinion that Fox's Senior VP Bill Shine made that statement? Is it opinion that FNC runs Fox Nation, which has no counterpart in the other MSM outlets? Is it opinion that GOP politicos rotate in and out of FNC with a regularity that is utterly unmatched in any other MSM outlet?
Is it opinion that MSNBC has a host [not merely a contributor] who is a Republican? And before you might make the comparison to Scarborough being a Rhino [which is fine, he's not my ideal of a Conservative by any stretch], take a moment to think about how the liberals who appear on Fox are viewed by the left.
The problem with media bias [which I'm not claiming doesn't exist, but that it exists on both ends of the spectrum] is that the typical layman's method of measuring it, is by emotional reaction of degrees. The plain truth about media bias is that it exists [or doesn't] in the eyes and ears of the beholder. So while I can respect your opinion that FNC is 'not' the right wing corollary to MSNBC because that paradigm is true for you.....I hope you can respect mine, that as a Conservative, I put them on near equal footing with each other. And that cable news does a journalistic disservice to all of us.
I can respect your opinion Constitutional Insurgent. Listen, I have been dealing with health problems for months and today is a bad day for me so this will be short and sweet for now. I would equate CNN and Fox as being similar as far as Conservative vs. Liberal and their coverage of news. I don't consider quite a few of the GOP conservative either. There is a small number who fit that description, such as Ted Cruz for example. Jeff Immelt would fit that bill at the very least for having major influence over NBC and MSNBC.
Fox Nation is a blog with opinion and factual articles. MSNBC has blog content on their site. So does CNN. Fox News has various viewpoints whereas the other networks back the president's agenda and don't make it secret. They push Obama's agenda and don't really cover the other side. Fox News usually covers both sides of a story. Fox News has people who are against and for Obama's agenda on the network consistently debating. The others use token Republicans some of whom are RINOS or squishy and are appeasing to Obama's agenda.
I think I understand where you're coming from, perception matters to people...and perception differs amongst people. When I look at questions of media bias, I tend to only count specific and tangible metrics....such as Fox's VP's statement...not found at any other MSM outlet. That politicians rotate through one network at a rate unlike the other networks combined is a simple fact, no perception needed. Reporters from a particular network caught on video coaching a crowd prior to going live, to achieve a desired effect. The use of partisan chyrons, the framing of Fox as NOT being an MSM outlet, and a host of other dissections of story selection and coverage lead me to the assessment that if MSNBC and Fox were the official propaganda outlets for the two major parties, would they look any different than they do currently?
I tend to place a lower priority of perceptions or intensity of coverage...because it's all framed within the bias of the beholder. For example, I see both parties statements and points of view represented on all of the cable outlets. But I see a far kinder treatment of particular political parties, depending on the network.
I also see the self described partisans on these networks uniformly viewed as either true representatives or 'squishy' and milquetoast, based only on the beholders partisan affiliation.
Perhaps it's easier for me to come to my assessment because I'm a Libertarian, and equally despise both major parties. For me, MSNBC is a joke and Fair and Balanced is a punchline. That doesn't mean that one can't get facts from either, but one has to wade through competing agendas to do so. They're both more tabloid than investigative….and we're all the worse for it.
I hope you feel better, and wish you a speedy recovery from what ails you.
"I hope you feel better, and wish you a speedy recovery from what ails you."
Thank you Constitutional Insurgent. Unfortunately that is easier said than done. Had a hysterectomy and still having a lot of trouble. And my other troubles my doctor can't figure out what is causing trouble with my red blood cells.
I totally get what you said in your last comment. I don't have access to cable news anymore except what's on the internet so I mainly watch ABC. I do more research than before with whatever I hear or see in the news. I see more things in terms of being Catholic rather than conservative, liberal, or libertarian, at least much more than I used to whenever possible. Plus I read a wide array of sites on the internet and have been surprised at times who I agree with and disagree with or what I agree or disagree with.
Post a Comment