Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- I Haven’t Deserted You
- Can You Relate?
- Tis Better To Give Than To Receive
- Commander-In-Chief
- Got A Minute?
Recent Comments
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- ~J~ on Bar-B-Que
- ~J~ on Taking The Charity Out Of The Church
- ~J~ on Back In The Swing Of Things Soon..I Hope
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
Here’s an example of what wing nuts on either side can accomplish.
Liberal activists who claim Fox News Channel is not a legitimate news source said that cooperation by several groups was key in preventing the network from hosting debates by Democratic presidential candidates.
Robert Greenwald, a producer/director who hosted a panel discussion Tuesday at the liberal Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C., called collaboration “the C word” — the element without which their “victory” would have been “totally, completely impossible.”
Greenwald’s earlier film “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” accused Fox News Channel of a right-wing bias. He began Tuesday’s discussion by showing a video posted at his FoxAttacks.com website.
The video begins with Christiane Brown, a radio host on KJFK — a local affiliate in the liberal Air America network — recalling the morning of Feb. 16, 2007: “I opened up my email, and I saw that the Nevada state Democratic Party was partnering with Fox News [in planning a debate], and … I could not believe it.”
Greenwald is then shown saying: “People immediately got upset about it, but the question was: Can we do anything about this? … Can we convince them that this is a mistake of serious proportion?”
The video shows Adam Green, civic communications director for the liberal group MoveOn.org, saying that his organization learned of the proposed debate from online bloggers. “We immediately issued a call to action” and started a petition drive for Nevadans to tell the state party not to allow FNC to host the debate.
On his website, Greenwald then posted video clips of what he calls “erroneous and slanted stories Fox ran” about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), a candidate for his party’s 2008 presidential nomination.
“We decided to bring these campaigns together,” Green says on the video. MoveOn.org joined local and national bloggers in distributing Greenwald’s videos - an example of what Green called “mutually reinforcing activism.”
And then the candidates began to withdraw from the Fox sponsored debates.
This makes me wonder what these people would do as president if they’re so afraid of Fox News as candidates?
Written by ~J~
Ayschlay Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 7:14 amVisit Ayschlay
Why is this “filth?”
We could call it ill-advised, or wrong-headed, but filth?
The word filth makes me think of smear campaigns, like doing push polling (a survey designed to create opinions rather than measure opinion) that led to a whisper campaign against McCain in the 2000 primary in South Carolina, where the word was put out that McCain’s adopted Bangladeshi child was really his black child born out of wedlock. Or another whisper that McCain’s time as a POW had made mentally unstable. This was likely the work of Karl Rove, who has long history of doing whatever it takes to win.
See Richard Davis’s Op-ed in the Boston Globe, “Anatomy of a Smear” 21 March 2004, or this Atlantic Monthly article or Suskind’s Esquire article.
~J~ Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 7:25 amVisit ~J~
Ayschlay,
I’d call it filth if it were the Republican wing nuts doing it.
I think it’s dirty and to me it’s filth, but the reader may call it what he or she wants. Those are my words and anyone is free to disagree with them.
I notice you back up your thoughts with Republican dirty tricks or filth also, even though I was not talking about any party. I was showing what goes on to influence various candidates and it could have been Republican if the story was about them. It just happened it was about Moveon.org.
No smear intended and use your own terminology to call it what you wish, but it certainly was not meant as a contest to see who can pee higher on the wall—the Republicans or the Democrats. It’s the wing nuts from each party and this was just the example I found.
Ayschlay Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 8:33 amVisit Ayschlay
Sure, Democrats can smear, too. But since I’m a designated “liberal” here, I naturally thought of Rove.
This CNS story doesn’t directly mention a party, but it’s all about the left wing of the Democratic party (e.g., MoveOn) trying to punish Fox for what it considers to be biased news coverage.
I guess I was just surprised that you find this so reprehensible that you would use the word “filth.” You have much higher standards than me in regard to proper politics.
Sue Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 8:36 amVisit Sue
Ayschlay:
Do you have absolute proof that Karl Rove put out false stories about John McCain in 2000. I mean other than something read in the paper or heard on television? I would like to see something with Roves name signed in his hand which would prove this.
I read both links and while informative, they could have the names of Democratic operatives inserted and I could pluck that name out and say the same about any one of them.
Obviously, whatever you choose to believe, Rove must not have the powers some think..it comes to mind that the Democrats now have the majority in both houses.
I do not put much stock in articles with sources who will not reveal themselves.I believe that is much of what is wrong in Washington today. Everyone has a story to tell but wants to remain anonymous.
Both sides have “ruthless” operatives, and if you can provide me the proof that Karl Rove spread this infomation on John McCain I will be the first to condemn his actions..as I would codemn anyone who smears another just for political gain.
Ayschlay Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 9:24 amVisit Ayschlay
No, Sue, I don’t have absolute proof. That’s why I said “likely” when referring to Rove, but I admit you could still acuse me of rumor-mongering.
I believe Rove is capable of such tactics because of the way his character comes across in the articles I cited earlier, and other reporting.
But I just perused Frontline’s show on Rove at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/. The interviews with reporters and politicos who’ve had a lot of interaction with Rove were interesting, and Rove comes across as tough, savvy, loyal but not an ideologue. Hardly a monster.
But neither Bush or McCain ran positive campaigns in the South Carolina primary. Here’s what one local paper reported when McCain announced a week before the primary election that he was going to stop the negative ads and called on Bush to do the same:
Bush’s advisers say they plan to air another ad this weekend that is sharply critical of the Arizonan. Though they may be forced to tone down upcoming ads in response to McCain’s challenge, aides said they do not plan to abandon their strategy to redefine McCain.
“This guy runs two weeks of negative ads comparing us to Bill Clinton and now he wants ease up? This is a guy who will say one thing and do another,” said Bush strategist Karl Rove. “He’s bowing to the negative consequences of accusing us of being like President Clinton.”
McCain strategist Mike Murphy said his candidate was forced to attack after Bush went negative, and was returning to his positive instincts. “We had to punch back to let our supporters know we’re not like Bill Bradley,” Murphy said, referring to the Democratic candidate who was slow to respond to Al Gore’s criticisms. Ron Fournier, “Fearing backlash, McCain drops negative ads” The Associated Press State & Local Wire (11 Feb 00).
And the later Bush-Gore contest was full of attack ads on both sides. So it would wrong of me to point the finger only at the GOP and Rove.
~J~ Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 9:26 amVisit ~J~
Just to be clear on the subject, A: I would have called it filth if I had read a similar article about Republicans.
Politics is a filthy game, and for us to pretend otherwise is foolish, in my opinion.
It’s kind of like watching sausage being made when you read articles like this.
The whole purpose was to show how the wing nuts from either party (and this happened to be the Democrats) can influence the candidates, and that’s not good.
If elected the candidate will be the president of all the people and cannot be the president of just the wingers of his or her party.
I personally believe the Moveon.org people and some others have gotten too big for their breeches due to the last election. We hear of them threatening to withdraw support of Congress if they don’t get what they want and when they want it. That isn’t the way it works and they act like spoiled brats. Just as the conservative wingers act like spoiled brats over immigration.
Moveon.org was started to convince people we should move on from the Clinton impeachment. That goal has been accomplished so why are they still in business? They found a golden lining there and want to be the voice of the people. We are all capable of deciding for ourselves what we think.
To brand Fox as unworthy because they lean left would be tantamount to the Republicans refusing to go on NBC or CNN because the reporters there lean left.
The Republican debate hosted by Fox News was pure, hard-hitting questions from seasoned newsmen.
Fox has a lot of opinion shows but they brand them as such. News shows are branded as news shows and reported without opinion.
If they can’t stand up to a news network will they stand up to anyone or anything once elected? That’s my question.
~J~ Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 9:27 amVisit ~J~
PS, you are not our “token” liberal. We wanted liberal opinions and appreciate what you bring to this blog. If you get the urge to post something conservative that’s fine too. Don’t feel I have put any boundaries on how you post, please.
Sue Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 9:39 amVisit Sue
A:
That is my point exactly. Both sides are equally guilty and not only R’s against D’s, but against one another for political gain.
I say enough. Let’s have honest, open debate like we did in years past (or perhaps once upon a time.) I can dream I suppose.
By the way, thanks for some great links.
Guss Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pmVisit Guss
Fox news is a legitimate news source.
Guss Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pmVisit Guss
I don’t have to prove it. I already believe it.
~J~ Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 1:49 pmVisit ~J~
On their news programs they are. You can even go to their website and see a lot of their articles are from the AP, which I would assume you consider a legitimate news source.
~J~ Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pmVisit ~J~
So you believe anything anyone tells you if it happens to agree with your political thinking? Interesting.
Guss Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pmVisit Guss
I don’t think you have to believe everything someone tells you to know that Fox News is a conservative network.
I have been around a longtime and I think I’m pretty good at making my own decisions.
Guss Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pmVisit Guss
I haven’t heard any Democrat say that they’re afraid of Fox News. Exactly where did you get that information?
Big Mo Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 3:03 pmVisit Big Mo
Come on, Guss, Fox IS a legitimate News source. Unfortnately, sometimes you have to wade through the infotainment to get it.
I’m not joking, either. Britt Hume — a registered Democrat, by the way — is one of the absolute best journalists in the country.
Democrats are doing themselves a disservice by refusing to do Fox debates because it shows a real pettiness on their part. It also shows that to those of us on the right, they ARE afraid of being asked questions that aren’t the softballs they get from ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NTY/LAT/Wash Post/etc.
Now, is Fox a “conservative” network? Maybe, especially to someone like you, on the left. But just as you say, “you (don’t) have to believe everything someone tells you to know that Fox News is a conservative network,” right back at you: you don’t have to beleive everything someone tells you to know that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN are Democrat/liberal networks, and the New York Times and Washington POst are incredible liberal.
Right?
~J~ Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pmVisit ~J~
Sorry I left the conversation but I had a hair appointment.
Fox is a conservative-leaning network on their non-news shows, but on the news they actually just report the news.
If the Democrats are not afraid of Fox News why did they boycott the debates to be sponsored in part by Fox News?
None of them said they were afraid of Fox News but they refused to appear on it because it slants right. What do their actions tell you?
Howard Dean and John Kerry wouldn’t appear on Fox News and made quite a big deal of it.
On the other hand, when the Republicans had their debate on Fox News there were no softball questions lobbed at them. When they strayed from giving an answer they were brought back on point and told to answer the question.
If Republicans can debate on CNN and MSNBC, which both slant left, why can’t Democrats appear on Fox, which slants right but not in its news?