What do you think is going on with Fox News?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
59 Answers
Ran out of “Obama’s a baby-eating Muslim” stories?
We’ve had a little discussion about Fox earlier. It seems they are trying to hire more liberal commentators. They want to move a little to the center. It might be a business decision. They may have been losing readers and viewers and are trying to fix that by becoming a little less extreme to the conservative side. That’s my guess, anyway.
^^^Or, oerhaps, shocking, left?
I wondered that myself @wundayatta. Wondered if all the derision they’ve been facing has finally made an impression. They were losing their credibility….but this is an odd time to try and get it back, at the expense of the presidential hopeful they supposedly wanted to win.
Do you think they’ll ax Rush Limbaugh? (I mean, cut him. Not ask him anything!)
It’s not much different than MSNBC having Republican host Joe Scarborough where this author of the front page piece is Sally Kohn who is an ardent Obama supporter…
“Sure I’m a Democrat and want President Obama to win re-election” Not sure if one person reporting for the other side of the isle qualifies them as a now fair and balanced media outlet though!
And as far as the planes Romney and Ryan get to use?? They sure ain’t the small Air Force Obama gets to use. 9 cargo planes?? Seriously??
But it’s the fact that they’d even host an opposing voice! I’ve never seen them do that before.
But in view of the republican screaming outrage over every dime Obama spends that they think is wasteful (see your own angry, sarcastic comment above, @Cruiser,) you’d think Fox would be careful about allowing anything remotely comparable involving Ryan to be printed. That’s the only point I was making. I could care less if Romney has a custom jet. He’s rich. His campaign is rich. Rich people get lots of things. Don’t care.
@Dutchess_III Your link about the new jet planes then threw me off as I took that as an affront on your part to them having a decent mode of transportation with all the traveling they have to do.
Your post prompted me to do some checking around as I was wondering the same thing about this change of heart at FOX. The first thing I usually do is to follow the money. No surprise I wound up a Rupert Murdoch’s door step. I also stumbled across a young lady who did some serious research and has in her estimation concluded ALL the major news and media outlets are owned by big corporations back by just 6 families of big money.
And she intones that it is these few mega rich families that are controlling not only our news but our politics and international endeavors. How accurate her research is IDK but if you are curious it is an interesting Read
Plus maybe FOX took notice of how Morning Joe is one of MSNBC’s highest rated shows and he is an hardcore conservative and is trying to see what a little Liberalism can do for their advertisers.
That was interesting, @Cruiser. Thanks.
But it seems to me that Fox is shooting Romney in the foot at this point, and that seems odd.
@Dutchess_III As you know I am a conservative but not to a fault. That said I just don’t see this drastic move on FOX’s part to put Romney in a bad light you do. I mean look at the front page and it heralds a great beginning to the Romney campaign.
You pulled your link and question from an opinion piece which I just would not ascribe much weight let alone take as a change of heart on Fox’s part.
I agree, @Cruiser. I’m just surprised that Fox had the link on their front page. And I’m surprised they put Sally Kohn’s piece on the front page. It’s just so out of character from their usual reporting.
I don’t think it’s a “drastic move…to put Romney in a bad light.”
I was wondering about this myself, @Dutchess_III. I asked on Facebook, “Has hell frozen over?” Fox has such a history of disallowing opinions they don’t agree with, I was amazed that they even let the opinion piece stand! The timing does seem odd.
Thank you for putting it so succinctly, @augustlan.
What could be going on is Fox is trying to fulfill the notion of it being Fair and Balanced. One or two positive remarks vs a hundred negatives about Obama sounds fair. ( I think I forgot to take my meds. )
One wonders if they are regretting their last four years of support of the Tea Party and the Conservative party. Maybe they feel that they have backed the wrong horse – that they have more to lose when Obama is reelected because they were so acidic with him the first four years.
I absolutely do NOT accept that they are being more “fair and balanced”. Whatever they are doing – what ever is behind this – is calculated for political reasons. We just don’t know what those reasons are.
@Cruiser Wow. One positive remark about Obama in 4 years? Wow!
The Dazzling, Deceiving, Distracting story is actually about Ryan, not Romney.
Yes, Fox News dumped on Romney, Ryan, and Eastwood. Those three are way too liberal for Fox.
There have always been token liberals and moderates on Fox. Remember Colmes? And Shepherd Smith has always been a force for (relatively speaking) good on the network.
Yes, @Qingu…but for Fox, it seems to me, the timing is awful. To have an occasional liberal or moderate post when it’s slow, and no on is reading, is one thing…but to have a HUGE article speaking negatively about Ryan thanks who ever corrected me on that on the heels of the RNC, with almost no counter point is…odd.
I think the answer is that those in charge at Fox do not care for Romney and are willing to sacrifice him and this election to be able to say “see, we told you he couldn’t win, next time go for the more conservative candidate like we told you to!”
@rojo Whoa. This is getting surreal!
Well, that was kind of a cool visual @rojo ! Took me a minute though. And another beer. ;)
@rojo and @Dutchess_III Putting Sarah Kohn on their front page with links to other op-eds is simply good for business. Just look at the responses here and you have prima facie evidence that there strategy is paying off in spades. They win with their sponsors AND they can still push Romney’s agenda until they are blue in the face. You can just hear the high fives all around the board room at FOX.
But from where I sit, @Cruiser, it’s a BIG plus for Obama, coming as it did,hot on the heels of the most important convention the republican’s had for their nominee. It wasn’t some lame town hall meeting.
@johnpowell From your link. “Fox News chief Roger Ailes has taken to publicly dissing Palin, saying he hired her only because “she was hot and got ratings” and claiming she had “no chance” at being elected president.”
@Dutchess_III Problem for Obama is everything Clint pointed out about him is true. Only Clint can get away dissing the Pres as he did and the best the Dems can do is dismiss him as old and frail and neither can remove the truth of his words. IMO major score for the anti Obama team as Mr. Eastwood is not beholden to any PAC or media outlet and has the creds to be one to never blow smoke up anyone’s a$$.
He made my day! :-)
I didn’t hear the speech. Just heard bits a pieces. Can you give me some examples of what he said that are “true”?
@Dutchess_III – on one level what Ailes said is sexist and reprehensible. I thought we were past hiring people because they were “hot” – I thought we hired them because they were talented. I guess not at Fox.
But then, TV, much more than radio, is a visual medium, so perhaps Ailes is just playing the game.
@Dutchess_III
-I haven’t cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country.
-You’re getting as bad as Biden. Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party…Kind of a grin with a body behind it.
-Politicians are employees of ours. And—so—they are just going to come around and beg for votes every few years.
-I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we—we own this country.
We—we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.
And—so—they are just going to come around and beg for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just think it is important that you realize , that you’re the best in the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether you’re libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.
-We do not have to be [mental] masochists and vote for somebody that we don’t really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys
-Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn’t close Gitmo….OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City.
-
#1. sure the unemployment is high. Has been climbing since 2008 when the housing bubble burst. That was Bush. However, it has been steadily dropping since the end of 2009, the year Obama took office.
#2 Biden: Doesn’t mean anything to me. I don’t know what he was talking about.
#3 Politicians: Yeah. And?
#4: Owning the country. And?
#5. What? Must be the geriatric rambling they were referring to. He repeated #3 and #4, kind of, and that doesn’t even make sense. Except that “you are the best.” That is something Obama would say.
#6: I am not voting for Obama because he’s a “nice guy.” Neither is anyone else that I know of. I’m not voting for him because he’s black, either.
#7. He wanted to close Gitmo. “This plan was thwarted for the time being on May 20, 2009, when the United States Senate voted to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States.” Wiki. Don’t get the “trying terrorists in downtown NYC” part at all.
I understand now why people thought he was rambling incoherently. Thanks @Cruiser.
@Dutchess_III He wanted to close Gitmo. And that is the most hair brained idea EVER without adding in the dumb suggestion of trying Gitmo detainees at ground zero.
The second anyone sets foot on American soil they are automatically afforded full legal rights to civilian legal representation. We are talking terrorist war criminals here who do not deserve a cozy jail cell and immunity from military court proceedings. An for anyone to suggest we parade terrorists through downtown NY near ground zero is just dumb dumb dumb.
Why did he want to close gitmo? And what are you talking about, “parading them through downtown NYC”?
@Cruiser This is America. That means people have rights. Even terrorists. If we can’t convict terrorists under American law, then we don’t deserve to call ourselves Americans.
The terrorists should have rights to civilian legal representation. They aren’t warriors, anyway. They are criminals, pure and simple. Why some people think of them as enemy combatants, I’ll never understand. That is the wrong way to go about it. We never should have dignified them with the idea of going to war. They were criminals, and we all we needed was police action to go after them, and all we need now is civil action to put them away where they can’t harm anyone.
Anything more is giving them far more respect than they deserve. Why conservatives respect these terrorists, I have no idea, but that’s what the no closing gitmo policy is about: respecting terrorists and being more afraid of them then we need be.
@wundayatta I will never ever understand how you or anyone can call a foreigner suicide bomber, hijacker, terrorist hell bent on killing innocent American men, women and children mere criminals and want to afford them legal rights on our soil. That is insane to me. They are scum enemies of our country and should be held as enemies of our country and processed under our laws that address enemy combatants of our country. End of story.
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Actually he didn’t close Gitmo because the Republicans blocked his attempt to close Gitmo… because Republicans are ignorant savages.
And did you know that some people at Gitmo are actually innocent? Who would have thought! Bush released dozens of them, if you’ll recall. And then there are the people who we’ve abducted and held without trial for ten years. I wonder how many of them are innocent.
How many do you think are innocent, Cruiser? Can you give us your best guess?
By the way, do you think mass murderers like the kid who shot up the theater in Colorado should be held in Gitmo for years without trial or due process?
Or just brown people who are citizens of other countries?
@Qingu Your ignorance to the issue at hand is stunning and your sheer stubbornness to use your brains to formulate an intelligent informed question is equally stunning. The Gitmo detainees are or were there because they were caught doing something as in fighting in the war or assisting in terrorist activities, they have information that would be useful to fighting our war on terror and in any case all detainees are guilty in this regard. Enemy combatants are tried by military courts but they have to be charged with a crime to get that luxury. Thanks to President Obama, he single handedly not only didn’t close Gitmo, not that he didn’t try, but took it upon himself to make sure this Gitmo loophole of infinite detention remained in tact….
“William Lynn, Obama’s Deputy Defense Secretary, sent a letter to inquiring Senators that expressly stated that the Obama administration intended to continue indefinitely to imprison some of the detainees with no charges of any kind.”
@Qingu I think you should be tossed in Gitmo indefinitely for even bringing Mr Holmes heinous murderous act into this discussion. Please spar us these moronic and desperate attempts to hide your ignorance to these issues.
@Cruiser, let me get this straight. Because what you said is extraordinary. You believe:
• Every single detainee at Gitmo was either a terrorist or had information useful to the war on terror. (Even the ones Bush released?)
• That “having useful information” means someone is “guilty.”
Amazing.
I’m glad you brought up indefinite detention. Do you support it? Are you against it? I’m against it. But the few cases where it is applicable under Obama involve people who we cannot charge (due to lack of evidence or evidence obtained from torture) but who have apparently expressed allegiance to al-Qaeda during their decade long imprisonment. Maybe you can enlighten us with what you think should be done with them?
Or is this more about finding ways to criticize Obama than about finding solutions for problems?
Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
@Cruiser It seems like one minute you’re vilifying Gitmo, the next you’re defending it.
@Cruiser, got it. Many people in Gitmo has been charged with a crime, so we don’t know if they’re guilty or not.
So when you said,
• “in any case all detainees are guilty in this regard”
• what “regard” did you mean?
@Dutchess_III Gitmo is IMVHO essential to.doing what is needed to bring attention to, arrest and rough up as needed to terrorist criminals and suspects with the goal of preventing further harm to innocents and American nationals. These are not drug dealers and purse snatchers, these are scum hell bent on hurting us just because we are Americans. I am not happy we have to waterboard, engage in infinite detention, play Tom Jones in their cells 24/7, but IMO this is no better way than Gitmo to get results and to bring them here and let them have access to high priced lawyers who will exploit the legal system while their only goal is to make red mist out of our bodies is what drive my views on this subject.
@Qingu “Many people in Gitmo has been charged with a crime”
Source please.
Sorry, I meant the opposite: many people there have NOT been charged with a crime. Which you’ve acknowledged.
You’ve said repeatedly that everyone in Gitmo is a murderous terrorist. I am wondering how you know this is the case, since as you have pointed out we have not charged some of them with crimes and are holding them indefinitely without even military trial.
Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Response moderated
@Qingu Just as much as I support shooting an unarmed terrorist in the head and making it look like John Wayne F’n hero move. War sucks but so does watching innocents jump to their death from a burning building.
Why don’t you go over the Gitmo list and point out who should get to go home and why. If your reason(s) are good enough I will join you in a letter writing campaign to see if we can set them free.
[mod says] Please don’t use racial slurs.
@Cruiser All he’s saying is some of them could be perfectly innocent of any crime, and they may be there just because of racial profiling. The Japanese American citizens were all interred in camps during WWII just because of their race. They didn’t inter the German-American’s however.
@Dutchess_III From what I have read and seen, they have a pretty stringent algorithm they use when qualifying a candidate for Gitmo. They have already put those detainees through some pretty rough paces before they even come close to Gitmo. Knowing what the Afghans and Iraqis do to their prisoners, many are probably lucky to be there in Gitmo with their heads still on their shoulders.
Can you share some of what you’ve read about that @Cruiser?
We are not the animals to our prisoners that Afghan and Iraq are.
@Cruiser, please tell us about this stringent algorithm you have read about and seen.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
