BF2S Forums Who are you to decide what constitutes a news organization?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Someone needs to decide what is a news organisation and what isn't.

Fox is more a Rupert Murdoch propaganda organisation than a responsible part of the media much of the time.

Do you watch Fox news?

Now and then.

Most news sources use shit writing and they're all full of bias and propaganda. Hell whenever someone mentions the word facist it should be alarming. There is no fucking universal definition of facism, people just throw it around to mean "undesirable" same as how democracy and liberty is used for "something good."

DBBrinson1 wrote:

So msnbs is bashing him for not being left enough?... hmm.

Nope, they are calling him out for not living up to his promises....

contrary to what many people think, Obama has been a much more moderate candidate than what he actually campaigned on.. And the people that have wanted him to fail since before he was president still dont give a shit.  Its called a self fulfilling prophecy.. as a leftist I'm pretty sick of how much Obama is pandering.  Not that its that surprising though.  Still thanking god that Hillary or McCain or Palin are not in the oval office. 

This is evidence that "consensus building" especially nowadays just gets you fucked.  People are always talking about bipartisanship, on both sides, and quite frankly its sick about how Orwellian-ly ironic it is. 

If the Democrats and Obama were as rank and file as the GOP in the days of Bush the country would be torn apart.  Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.

Spearhead wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

So msnbs is bashing him for not being left enough?... hmm.

Nope, they are calling him out for not living up to his promises....

contrary to what many people think, Obama has been a much more moderate candidate than what he actually campaigned on.. And the people that have wanted him to fail since before he was president still dont give a shit.  Its called a self fulfilling prophecy.. as a leftist I'm pretty sick of how much Obama is pandering.  Not that its that surprising though.  Still thanking god that Hillary or McCain or Palin are not in the oval office. 

This is evidence that "consensus building" especially nowadays just gets you fucked.  People are always talking about bipartisanship, on both sides, and quite frankly its sick about how Orwellian-ly ironic it is. 

If the Democrats and Obama were as rank and file as the GOP in the days of Bush the country would be torn apart.  Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.

Right.  For not being left enough.  The big O hasn't had much of a choice.  Like it or not the country by in large is still socially conservative.  Politicians tend to enjoy being reelected.  I wanted him to fail becoming president then and now I want him to fail as a President.  And he is, thank god.  His agenda is reckless, radical and dangerous to the prosperity of the country, and he knows it.  As President, he took an oath to defend and protect the constitution.  I personally think he is neglecting that duty now and probably has since his first held position in public office.  Afghanistan is the most recent example.  The man is an embarrassment to prior Presidents and this great country.  To those that speak out against him, be warned and don't make fun of his ears.  He's got a complex about it.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Why should the administration "play ball"?  Its their job.  They answer to the people.  Not some of the people, but all of them.

I agree, but that would be a significant shift from the way W. ran things where he only played for his constituency, which is really what alienated the public and made the PBO win a landslide.

True, PBO and the Dems have a super majority, which is why I would have expected more push on their agenda, as their base expects. But as you correctly pointed out some Dems are not on board, not because they won't go along with PBO's agenda, but because they like the lobbyiest money better.... That corruption in DC for you and it plays on both sides.


If Fox gets shut out it because they are becoming organizers like Acorn... and its trheir own dam fault.

BTW has Fox every done a positive piece on PBO? I still haven't heard one example, because if they weren't biased, there should be at least some example of positive news to show balance... after all its the no spin zone right?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I agree, but that would be a significant shift from the way W. ran things where he only played for his constituency, which is really what alienated the public and made the PBO win a landslide.

True, PBO and the Dems have a super majority, which is why I would have expected more push on their agenda, as their base expects. But as you correctly pointed out some Dems are not on board, not because they won't go along with PBO's agenda, but because they like the lobbyiest money better.... That corruption in DC for you and it plays on both sides.

If Fox gets shut out it because they are becoming organizers like Acorn... and its trheir own dam fault.

BTW has Fox every done a positive piece on PBO? I still haven't heard one example, because if they weren't biased, there should be at least some example of positive news to show balance... after all its the no spin zone right?

I really think the media played a huge role in getting Obama elected.  I was frustrated that Bush refused to ram it home to the press when he was right.  The small smear shit stories snowballed the party.  Seriously though, Bush endured some of the most vicious and vile attacks from the media while POTUS.

I dunno about lobbyist money thought -Reps are generally rich (8mil) and Senators are twice as rich.  Here's a good site that you can follow the money on.

I'm sure the corruption is there, but then what does that say as to the controlling party's inability to get their agenda accomplished?  And FOX is nothing like ACORN.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you the first piece of positive news that came from FOX (I don't watch more than 20min of it a day).  O'Reily does go after the R's too though.  But honestly, I really don't think the man has done anything positive to shape the country.

@Kmar... That was about as funny as I've seen Leno as of late.  I'd wager that part of little "briefing" was a how to get the message out and trump Fox.  Ob sucks.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-10-22 15:57:00)

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Does anyone have a problem with Van Jones being outed...?
Or Acorn being exposed for what they are...?
Or Anita Dunn... the Crazy Mao lover lady?

Honestly, I think that depends on who you ask.  Obama never asked for Jones's resignation. He'd still be sitting in DC collecting $150k a year of your and my dollar if it wasn't for that pesky Opinion Station.

If I was a Democrat, I'd be insulted as hell that the administration picked such shady fuckheads for the administration.  I'd even be more insulted that they didn't think anyone would look in on it and they could slip it past America.  The people you run with speaks volumes as to your character.  That says a lot about Obama and what he really thinks about his constituents and the rest of America. Meh.  I'm preaching to the choir.

All American news outlets are shit.

/endthread

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I agree, but that would be a significant shift from the way W. ran things where he only played for his constituency, which is really what alienated the public and made the PBO win a landslide.

True, PBO and the Dems have a super majority, which is why I would have expected more push on their agenda, as their base expects. But as you correctly pointed out some Dems are not on board, not because they won't go along with PBO's agenda, but because they like the lobbyiest money better.... That corruption in DC for you and it plays on both sides.

If Fox gets shut out it because they are becoming organizers like Acorn... and its trheir own dam fault.

BTW has Fox every done a positive piece on PBO? I still haven't heard one example, because if they weren't biased, there should be at least some example of positive news to show balance... after all its the no spin zone right?

I really think the media played a huge role in getting Obama elected.  I was frustrated that Bush refused to ram it home to the press when he was right.  The small smear shit stories snowballed the party.  Seriously though, Bush endured some of the most vicious and vile attacks from the media while POTUS.

I dunno about lobbyist money thought -Reps are generally rich (8mil) and Senators are twice as rich.  Here's a good site that you can follow the money on.

I'm sure the corruption is there, but then what does that say as to the controlling party's inability to get their agenda accomplished?  And FOX is nothing like ACORN.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you the first piece of positive news that came from FOX (I don't watch more than 20min of it a day).  O'Reily does go after the R's too though.  But honestly, I really don't think the man has done anything positive to shape the country.

@Kmar... That was about as funny as I've seen Leno as of late.  I'd wager that part of little "briefing" was a how to get the message out and trump Fox.  Ob sucks.

Thanks for the website, I'm going to check it out.

the Fox = Acorn thing... just an off base comment on Fox organizing those tea parties. I always thought journalism was reporting the news not making the news, kind of like those national of Omaha Wild kingdom shows... "Look that baby whatever is about to get eaten by that snake... but we can't interfere because its nature..." then you find out the retards had the baby whatever tied to a stake and that they had starved the snake for a week in order to get it to eat the baby just so they could get the shot. Which then really blows the premise of what the show was about in the first place, that being a caught on tape display of some organic natural event. IMO Fox jumped the shark on that one and they embarrassed themselves as badly as those Acorn retards coaching fake pimps and prostitutes on lieing to the IRS.


I would like to see Fox differentiate their different shows better. To me they all blend together kind of like those infomercials that are meant to look like news programs. On Fox the closest guy to actual news looks to be Shepard Smith, I have seen some interesting stories done by him that weren't picked up by the other stations and the local Fox affiliates are generally straight up news.

As for examples of a liberal bias on other stations, I don't watch MSNBC at all because I don't get that chanel, so I have no reference to what they are like. However, CNBC I watch all the time and they are were extremely anti-PBO during the election, in fact every guest that I saw that they had on during the election went out of their way to say don't vote for Obama.

But anyway I do have to laugh at this
When you are talking about the opinion pieces on Fox and their protestor organizing activities

Fox has the biggest mix of conservs and libs/dems than any other station when it comes to guests and such.  someone did a study or something.  google if you dont believe it.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

But anyway I do have to laugh at this
When you are talking about the opinion pieces on Fox and their protestor organizing activities

Are you fucking ignorant?

You guys miss the entire point.

The_Sniper_NM wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

But anyway I do have to laugh at this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … lanced.png
When you are talking about the opinion pieces on Fox and their protestor organizing activities

Are you fucking ignorant?

http://www.modernconservative.com/metab … _msnbc.jpg

Btw, the whole point of fair and balanced was to add another side to an already left dominated media. It was not a claim that Fox new (by itself) was fair and balance. Most people loling at fair and balance are unaware of the origin of the statement.