Dana Summers by Dana Summers

?fh=482f230a58624536957bb007c8e9c781

Comments (34) Jump to Comments Form

  1. spicecakes69

    spicecakes69 said, about 1 month ago

    Get a life Summers. They are NOT a news channel or they would have covered the gay march on DC - especially because they are calling Obama out on moving too slowly.

    Keep drinking O’Reilly’s kool aid - perhaps he will come loofah you from behind.

  2. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Nixon kept a secret enemies list; Obama’s Communications Director is hardly keeping her disdain for Fox secret, she’s flat out announcing it. And if it makes Fox take a look at it’s so-called “news” programs, all the better.

  3. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    Left-wing inbreeding is showing up as intellectual degeneration, afflicting cognitive capacity.

    Symptom 1, inability to distinguish between news / data, and opinion about such.

  4. HOWGOZIT

    HOWGOZIT said, about 1 month ago

    She shows disdain for anyone and anything that doesn’t pat Obama on the back.

  5. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    here’s the thing … I don’t know if it was wise to criticize Faux News so openly … and BTW, petergrt, Anita Dunn, the communications director, DID distinguish between the news programs and the performing artists like Hannity and Beck.

    But there are so many blatant examples of how their “news” people are biased and unbalanced, if her comments slow them down or make a news producer here or there look at how they cover things, maybe it will do some good.

    But personally, I doubt it. When Fox kept up the drumbeat that it was the only broadcast media that covered the teabaggers march in Washington, in spite of ample proof otherwise, they displayed the concern with facts was, shall we say, minimal at best.

  6. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    “When Fox kept up the drumbeat that it was the only broadcast media that covered the teabaggers march in Washington, in spite of ample proof otherwise, …”

    Now you are not being intellectually honest.

    “teabaggers”? Who coined the phrase? Wasn’t it CNN?

    The Washington march was simply too large to have been completely ignored by the ‘mainstream’ media. So, yes there was some, very limited and biased coverage. Sarcasm was the prevalent theme of the ‘reporters’.

    I don’t have a cable, so I didn’t see Fox coverage, on TV.

  7. Ken Warren

    Ken Warren said, about 1 month ago

    Those who hate assume everyone is like them and hate also and would do everything the same as hey do.

  8. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    petergrt, CNN covered it continually, including having one reporter that followed them across country. When they demonstrated in D.C., it was on CNN constantly. There was indeed ample proof, which CNN provided after Faux ran its ad campaign saying no other broadcast media covered it. A big lie, as usual.

  9. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    “Those who hate assume everyone is like them and hate also and would do everything the same as hey do.”

    And you call Bush an idiot?

    believecommonsense:

    Your proclivities are showing.

    I have no cable, so I can only judge the over the air - mainstream media outlets, so, were it not for the Internet, I would not have known about any of this …

  10. charliekane

    charliekane said, about 1 month ago

    “Empty suit” and “wearing no clothes”.

    Am I confused?

    MSNBC and Fox have something in common.

    CNN, CBS, etc., not so much with those two.

    Subjectivity cannot be entirely divorced from news reporting, but the difference between MSM news and opinionated entertainment is obvious.

    Maybe not to our friends above, but to most.

  11. lalas

    lalas said, about 1 month ago

    Does anybody remember when they released poll numbers on which viewers believed that Iraq was tied directly to 9/11? Fox viewers were by far the LEAST informed. NPR listeners were the most informed.

  12. Magnaut

    MagnautGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    teabaggers was coined by spice cakes’ 69ers……… the tea party goers are just PO’d people not the insurance industry and not the republicans…go to one and see or don’t and remain ignorant……Obama’s counting on your BLISS

  13. rikoshayrabbit

    rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago

    I like it when ANandy always calls Obama BozOTUS because then it reminds me that ANandy always calls Obama BozOTUS. And ANandy is here to remind us that she thinks Obama is BozOTUS, because ANandy thinks Obama is BozOTUS. Also, don’t forget that ANandy thinks Obama is BozOTUS. Hey, ANandy… where did you get YOUR name from?? Is it from the “Amos ‘n Andy” show?

  14. wbr

    wbr said, about 1 month ago

    r r rabbit being ANandy better than being a rodent

    hey s c 69 they gave the 10000 or less more coverage per person than teabaggers got

  15. johndh123

    johndh123 said, about 1 month ago

    This is my very first post here….

    “Get a life Summers. They are NOT a news channel or they would have covered the gay march on DC…”

    Huh??? so much for the intelligent discourse I expected…
    (not really….wink)

  16. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    petergrt, my proclivities are showing? Nope, your ignorance is showing. (1) Fox ran ads citing all broadcast media by name and stated none covered the tea party demonstration.
    (2) CNN covered the tea party express bus traveling across the U.S., as well as the demonstration in D.C. itself. (3) Therefore, Fox lied, and because it is broadcast media, it’s all easily verifiable by the hundreds of clips of their news coverage.

    You distract by talking about what you didn’t see on ABC, NBC or CBS. Wrong. If someone cites 5 facts and 2 of them are correct, it doesn’t mean they didn’t lie about the other three.

  17. treered

    treered said, about 1 month ago

    Fox: “well, some people say…” repeating gossip does not qualify as reporting.

  18. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

    How about some scary numbers? 91% of radio shows identify as “conservative.” But 45-50% of radio listeners identify themselves as “liberal” or “progressive.”
    “It’s because people want it - it’s free trade.” No, not so much; studies also show that it correlates with the domination of the airwaves by a small number of conservative companies like Clear Channel. They are reducing choice, quite deliberately.
    Why do they hate the “Fairness Doctrine” so much…? Because it would reduce their domination of the airwaves!
    “Liberal mainstream media,” in a pig’s eye!

  19. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    “Fox ran ads citing all broadcast media by name and stated none covered the tea party demonstration.”

    All this histrionics is about a TV add?

  20. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    “But 45-50% of radio listeners identify themselves as “liberal” or “progressive.” ”

    So how come every attempt at a ‘liberal’ radio has bombed? AirAmerica is still around, but bleeding $$$$$$$

    It couldn’t possibly be that many of the ‘conservative’ radio hosts actually discuss issues? Indeed many, as Medved and Prager, for example, actually prefer to talk to those with opposing points of view.

    Try that on AirAmerica.

    Fairness Doctrine = affirmative action for left wing nuts.

  21. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, about 1 month ago

    Ahh. Let’s re-visit the Fox ad that got the other networks and the left in such a tizzy.

    The full page ad showed a sea of protesters with their description “Anti-Tax, Anti-Big Government Taxpayers March in DC, 9/12/09” in small print, and the headline “How did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?” (and their tag line “We Cover all the News”)

    If I were one of the corporate big-wigs that had to approve the ad, I wouldn’t have– not because it’s inaccurate (it isn’t)– but because they should have known the reaction and cries of inaccuracy from the MSM it would cause, and Fox didn’t need the grief.

    It’s called a “concept piece”. Just because the other networks covered the protest doesn’t mean they didn’t miss the story. They did, and they still do. They still don’t “get it” that taxpayers are sick and tired of tax-and-spend, Big Government, “spread the wealth” corrupt politicians running our country. It’s not that they didn’t cover one specific story, it’s that they don’t “get” or report the back-story.

    The competing networks (and their enablers) insist on taking this ad literally. They then say that quotes and videos of “cabinet members” advocating sterilization of the masses, takeover of the media, or praise of Castro, Chavez or Mao should not be taken literally.

    Funny how that works.

  22. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    churchillwasright:

    Thanks for clearing it up.

    The fact that the MSM is so obsessing about an add, is indicative of their scraping of the proverbial bottom of the barrel, to detract from their malfeasance.

  23. HOWGOZIT

    HOWGOZIT said, about 1 month ago

    FOX, GOP and Bush have caused everything that poor ol Messiah has on his “full” plate.

  24. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    petergrt, thank goodness you don’t pretend to be a journalist. A lie is a lie and it sure ain’t news. But, in reality, it doesn’t matter because those who believe Faux News aren’t interested in journalism.

    church, as usual, practices the art of distraction and obfuscation.

  25. parkersinthehouse

    parkersinthehouse said, about 1 month ago

    hey john d welcome to the circus

  26. Ken Warren

    Ken Warren said, about 1 month ago

    Yes it is a circus, and a circus is fun, but sometimes, when it is all over, all you end up with elepant shit.

  27. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    Well, my darling, I don’t get my news from TV adds.

    I get WSJ and LA Times (so that I know what the enemy is up to). But I find myself more and more reading on line news from several newspapers and other news sources. Additionally, since I am illiterate in 5 languages, I scan foreign press as well.

    I usually known the major news of the day before the evening TV network shows, which I watch more like a sport rather than in search for information. It is quite amusing to see what and how they present - spin, the stories. The leftist proclivities are not even attempted to be hidden. I don’t get Fox, so I don’t know about them.

    I am tempted to say that thing have changed, however, I believe that were there Internet during Cronkite’s time, he would not have been the ‘most trusted’ person, he was so often considered. We would have., for example, learned the truth about the Tet offensive. It might have saved a few million lives …

  28. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    “church, as usual, practices the art of distraction and obfuscation.”

    I am sure that Churchill doesn’t need me to come to his defense, but the statement is grotesquely absurd.

  29. Obamascares

    Obamascares said, about 1 month ago

    I saw the Gay Pride march in Washington, and the week before that, I saw thousands of Muslim men praying for peace in front of the White House on Fox News.

    Before you criticize Fox News maybe you should watch it first.
    You might learn what’s really going on in the world.

  30. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    petergrt, this feels like a rerun of a dialogue I had with another poster. Fox news claimed it was the only broadcast media that covered the tea party rally in D.C. and not just with its big ad in print media. While reporting on the tea party, its news anchors and commentator/performers continually claimed that no one else was covering it. However, if you hit the remote and tuned in to CNN, there was CNN covering it extensively. Fox lied. and it kept lying even after everyone knew it was lying because the friggin news clips were proof. News media aren’t supposed to lie. It isn’t news.

  31. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

    Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist Gene Lyons wrote: “Obama Triples Budget Deficit to $1.4 Trillion,” reads a typical headline on the Fox Web site. In reality, the Congressional Budget Office projected the fiscal 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion before Obama took office. Media Matters for America has compiled an encyclopedic list of similar absurdities.
    …According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, “72 percent of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79 percent of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69 percent think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75 percent believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.”
    Almost needless to say, all of these things are categorically false. The “death panels” falsehood, for example, was invented by serial misinformer Betsy McCaughey (financed by the right-wing Manhattan Institute with money from tobacco giant Philip Morris), amplified by Sarah Palin, and then broadcast day and night by Fox News. And so it goes, day after day.

  32. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    “72 percent of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants”

    Absolutely correct.

    Though there is no specific language in the bill that would state that, any amendment that would have specifically prohibit such was defeated.
    More importantly however, illegals are getting free health-care now, from the states. In fact, Californians attempted to outlaw such provision of care to illegals by a plebiscite, only to be overturned by a court.

    “79 percent of them say it will lead to a government takeover”

    Absolutely correct:

    Its the slippery slope argument, that is confirmed by public statements by many if not all Democrat politicians, as their ultimate objective.

    “75 percent believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.”

    That is also a fact of life. Is there specific language to that effect? In the earlier versions there was a provision for a ‘panel of professionals’ to establish standards of care. 0bama himself said that we have to limit unreasonable costs, as for example, instead of getting a new hip - take a pain pill (his words … !).
    The fact is that there are such limitations being imposed
    even now. And I, for one, think that it is silly to give a 90-year old a new hip, when a pill might do the trick, but it should a matter for the patient and the doctor, and not for some apparatchik to decide.

    If those are true representations of Fax viewers, than I must applaud Fax for keeping the public well informed.

  33. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

    petergrt, you know better than this. There’s a big difference between “it is officially forbidden by the bill but people might slip through the cracks due to lack of an enforcement method (thus far)” and “it will give coverage to illegal immigrants,” which is deliberately deceptive.

  34. petergrt

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    Plausible deniability is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

    More importantly however, it is not a matter of “lack of an enforcement” or “slip through the cracks”.

    According to federal judges, it is illegal for government to treat illegal aliens differently than other citizens. Consequently, they are using with impunity all of the largess of our governments - all governments.

    Since no laws providing such assistance, have a specific restriction against such usage, Republicans have offered several proposals to include such a specific language, that judges, might respect.

    The refusal to accept such a language is tantamount to willfully providing the largess to the illegals, plausible deniability notwithstanding.