Chip Bok for October 19, 2009

Fair and balanced, I think not. Extreme to the right, I think so.

cjr53 Why don’t you watch Fox News so you can learn what BO is afraid of. Surely you don’t believe your getting any truth from the elite media of MSNBC and the rest of those Leftist and off balanced socialists?

If attacking Fox makes its news producers look a little closer at presenting facts and news, and not commentaries, on its news programs, then something will have been accomplished.

Repeat post:

Here’s my wish for Fox: That it continue to professionalize its news programs; that it fact checks claims before it airs them on news programs; that it no longer uses a lead in to news stories with “some say;” that it stop using screaming partisans in place of people who can discuss an issue with knowledge from all sides of the political spectrum on its news programs; and that informing people comes before entertaining people on its news shows.

Know what my wish is for CNN? The very same thing.

Fox has some liberal commentators, such as: Juan Williams, Geraldine Ferraro, Alan Colmes, Bob Beckel, and others. ABC has George Will as its token conservative. Can you think of anybody non-liberal at CBS or NBC?

petergrt, the three networks don’t really have the type of hosted opinion shows that both Fox and CNN have. (And MSNBC, I guess, though I don’t get it on cable, so can’t watch it.)

ABC’s Sunday morning news commentary always has a balanced panel of conservatives/progressives. NBC’s Meet the Press isn’t structured with a panel, isn’t it just one guest at a time? (I don’t watch it much) and I confess I haven’t watched Face the Nation in a while, but it presents a balanced panel too, I think. I prefer the Sunday morning news commentary programs that have a single moderator and a guest(s) because it’s more informative, no matter where on the political spectrum the guest is. There’s more time to explore the person’s views in depth.

I enjoy Charlie Rose on PBS because he usually has only one or two guests per hour and by the end of program, I feel I understand their views fairly well. He recently did several nights worth of programming on Afghanistan, with guests with widely divergent views ranging from “get out now” to “commit more troops.” What I especially appreciate about Charlie Rose’s program is that he doesn’t just put on blowhards or politicians. It’s people with a real expertise in the field, or in the case of Afghanistan, he had two reporters who have been covering Afghanistan for almost two years. it’s worth hearing what they have to say.

Well, my point was that while Fox provides for divergent views - fairly extensively, the other networks don’t.

Take a look at Fox News Sunday, being moderated by Chris Wallace (not exactly a conservative), and panel has two liberals (from NPR) and two conservatives. You can see it at http://www.hulu.com/fox-news-sunday

Peter, FOX has done more than its fair share of “presenting” relatively unimportant news instead of what is critical. Afghanistan, Healthcare - remember when all those were secondary to the scandal that someone at ACORN, one or two guys in a mammoth organization, paid a hooker? No politician on the right who got in a similar scandal (and there have been a few like that on both sides of the aisle) got this treatment. Why? Because a) Acorn could be linked to Obama (oooh, we get to smear Obama) and b) it was a sensation.

As for conservatives on MSNBC, I don’t watch much of it but it has seen its fair share. Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, I think Liz Cheney comes every now and then.

And of course if we are talking about “liberals”, MSNBC’s are not exactly stellar. Yes, Olbermann can trash-talk Bush as much as he likes (I do think there is a lot to blame Bush Jr. for), but he has been just as hard on some on the left, if for other reasons. Remember his treatment of HRC during the Democratic Primary? Good God, Bill O’Reilly didn’t have as much venom for her as Olbermann did. Or shall we talk about Chris Mathews and his fawning towards Bush before 2002, or how he behaved during the Clinton/Gore years? And that is the supposedly most liberal network.

Well, for Anandy, et al, if Glenn McCoy and Fox BOTH share a point of view, that makes two unimpeachable sources; it must be true!

If Glenn Beck actually cries on air, it’s even more true.

OLD - tarbaby? It’s a voodoo doll. You slipped.

dear believe in no commonsense if bho wanted news people to get closer to presenting facts and news he would have appointed as czar to go after cnn and msnbc

petergrt, sheesh. this is like pulling teeth. Fox news Sunday program has same format as ABC, one moderator, and panel of two liberals and two conservatives. CBS and NBC Sunday morning news shows have a wide variety of guests from across the political spectrum with more in-depth discussion of topics in the news that week. I haven’t watched John King’s State of the Union on CNN, so can’t comment.

So Fox is doing same thing as the other networks. To suggest ONLY Fox offers divergent views is really quite …. laughable.

wbr, it’s obvious from your posts you have no use for facts and you’ve abdicated common sense thinking for spewing Fox talking points. Keep drinking your Kool-Aid.

” … scandal that someone at ACORN, one or two guys in a mammoth organization, paid a hooker?”

Actually, the real scandal is that the MSM didn’t investigate ACORN - 0bama connection, before the elections. NY Times killed the story.

Your belittling of the story is either indicative of your ignorance or of your support of their (ACORN) activities.

ACORN is indeed a BIG THING. It is essentially a criminal syndicate, not unlike Hoffa’s Teamsters - and I speak from a couple of personal and direct experiences with them. Unfortunately though, it is but a tip of the ice berg, for it is but one of countless like organizations that in effect form a movement akin to brown shirts.

Beck is a bit too melodramatic for my taste, but I guess it makes for a more interesting show.

More importantly though, he makes some pretty strong charges / accusations, that is of course unless you are a Marxist, in which case they are compliments, but no one has thus far even attempted to refute them. Except, perhaps for the grotesque attempt at explaining Anita Dunn’s (WH Communications) stated love affair with Mao’s political philosophy, in a peach to 6th graders, as humorous.

Beck makes charges alright, trouble is he uses innuendo and rumors in place of facts. Makes massive assumptions and leaps of of faith (his own) without logic. He’s the Joe McCarthy of the 21st century.

McCarthy is arguably the most maligned American politician of 20th century.

Interestingly, when KGB archives were open, though for a limited time, most, if not all of his allegations were in fact confirmed. Start with Alger Hess …

That said, I have seen a few of Beck’s programs on the net, and I didn’t find him to use innuendos and rumors much. In fact, in the shows that I have seen, he provides video, audio or verifiable written evidence, as the basis for his musings.

As I said before, his accusations haven’t been challenged.

“ACORN is indeed a BIG THING. It is essentially a criminal syndicate, not unlike Hoffa’s Teamsters - and I speak from a couple of personal and direct experiences with them.”

And here I disagree. The ACORN case, while not minor, was far from the uber-scandal some pundits, pardon my word, pimped it out to be. It had little or no effect on the actual voter lists for the election, and ACORN central had even less intent for it.

Let’s get back to the basics - what actually happened in the voter registration scandal. Canvassers hired by ACORN submitted faulty reports. So basically a few idiots, losers or crooks fudged the reports, probably to get a few extra bucks from ACORN itself. ACORN was the one who reported the whole thing. So the guys who were defrauded by employees and blew the whistle on it so no actual fraud occurs are at fault? Yeah. To be sure, they do deserve some blame for their hiring practices, but given that there were no significant consequences this is a fairly minor thing.

Unless, of course, someone wants to blow it up for partisan reasons, which is why imo FOX went all over on it. The other media didn’t pay so much attention, maybe because they didn’t think there was much there. As you can guess from the above, I agree with them. As it is, ACORN was made into a symbol for the GOP supporters to use and thus any dirt that could be dug on it was considered important.

“The other media didn’t pay so much attention, maybe because they didn’t think there was much there. As you can guess from the above, I agree with them.”

It is because you are all on your knees at the 0bama altar.

Facts and truth are however pesky things - they just are, and often times, they even supplant a perceived reality.

The GOP would do well to remember the ultimate folly of embracing the McCarthys of our time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Herblock1950.jpg

The term McCarthyism, coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy’s practices … is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.

My point exactly:

“McCarthy is arguably the most maligned American politician of 20th century.”

Check out the facts (as ascertained post Cold War) about the ‘unsubstantiated accusations’, and you will find that it is McCarthy that is the subject of such unsubstantiated accusations.

Check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=10870970&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749

I bet that most of you would agree with the interviewer.

sorry to hear you’re a McCarthy fan, peter. Fortunately you can’t rewrite history on your own.

It isn’t so much a question of rewriting history, as it is a matter of getting it right. You know, those pesky facts again.

I am not a fan of McCarthy, for I do believe that there was a witch-hunt element to his investigation. But the fact is that it wasn’t just a witch-hunt, and considering the emergence World Communism, he, indeed America had plenty of reasons to be concerned.

McCarthy is synonymous with smear tactics and witch hunts for his tactics of intimidation, unsubstantiated charges, guilt by association and creating red herrings. Beck uses the same smear tactics. You make the distinction between being in or out of government and smearing people in or out of government. Not for me, I condemn the tactics.

Defend him all you want, don’t bring me into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Herblock1950.jpg

The term McCarthyism, coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy’s practices … is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.

“It is because you are all on your knees at the 0bama altar.

Facts and truth are however pesky things - they just are, and often times, they even supplant a perceived reality.

I agree. I think I gave you facts to support my reasoning, mind you.

“I think I gave you facts to support my reasoning, mind you.”

fact (fakt) n. 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: scientific facts about plant growth. 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened. 5. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

You gave us a bunch of conjectures attempting to impeach facts.

There is Pat Buchanan and Morning Joe who are conservatives on MSNBC.

im-peach (im peech’) v. n. v.t. 1. to accuse (a public official) of misconduct in office by bringing charges before an appropriate tribunal. 2. to challenge the credibility of: to impeach a witness. 3. to bring an accusation against. 4. to cast an imputation upon: to impeach a person ’ s motives.

Actually, if you look at the early posts in this series, the debate centered around Becks shows …

I said that no one has actually challenged the accusations and facts presented there.

Piglet sought to belittle or denigrate those facts - in a legal brief, impeach.

To be honest, impeachment would have required piglet to present evidence to refute the facts in question, which of course he did not.

In other words, I have extended a much greater recognition to his belittling gibberish than it deserved.