Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Fox News Channel: They're Crazy Like a.....(Vaulted)

BennyB

By BennyB
in Political Network Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 334
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

SmithW6079
SmithW6079

Seventy-five percent of Americans identify as Christian of some denomination. Christians are not an oppressed minority on the verge of extinction; it's time to put that trope to rest. Pointing out the

Moose135
Moose135

Nearly 20 years in the newspaper business has taught me that the media is only as liberal as their conservative corporate owners allow them to be.

lovinbob
lovinbob

What Gingrich meant: "You're so fascinated with calling out womanizers like me, and sexual predators like Trump, and hypocrites like the two of us and so many others, on our bullshit and privilege and

junemeatcleaver

junemeatcleaver

Jut curious, but if you hate FNC so much why do you watch it?  It's usually bundled with CNN & MSNBC for cable and satellite packages.

 

Why is it assumed that if one is critical of the, IMO, pile of dog poo that is FNC that they're fans of CNN and MSNBC?  Is it years of FNC and right wing radio calling those networks "liberal"?  The closest thing to leftist on satellite tv is Free Speech TV.

 

FNC is still garbage.

  • Love 10
magicdog

magicdog

Why is it assumed that if one is critical of the, IMO, pile of dog poo that is FNC that they're fans of CNN and MSNBC? 

 

It's because that's how it usually pans out.  Although I blame cable/satellite providers since we can't have channels a la carte.  If we could, a lot of channels which are supported by ones we would watch would disappear. 

 

 

FNC is still garbage

 

 

Not everyone agrees with that statement although I will admit that as a FNC viewer for over 15 years, I do admit it's not as good as it once was.  The constant "News Alerts" that pound my screen on stories that aren't breaking news annoys me no end.  After I catch some important news items, I move on to internet news sources.

It's also important to keep in mind who runs the show at Newscorp and even they don't let everything go out on FNC.  There are some individuals who haven't been invited back for interviews because they are willing to comment on things the upper level news execs don't want to get out.  Jerry Doyle and Mike Savage are but two of them.  As for those we DO see on FNC the most keep in mind that they play the game because they have books to sell and lecture tours to promote.  Some are great in what they do, but they ultimately tread lightly with the top brass.  CNN, et al are just as guilty of this.

 

The closest thing to leftist on satellite tv is Free Speech TV.

 

 

Never heard of them - I don't think my local dish gets that channel.  Have you watched the Newsmax channel or Blaze TV?  Now and then I try to mix things up.

magicdog

magicdog

stop giving Donald Trump a platform

 

 

Obviously he has a contract with FNC to do these weekly phoners so viewers must be looking forward to them.  I have to admit there are times I'm curious as to his opinions on various issues,  as they are no less valid than yours or mine.  I DO hate how he teases about running for President.  Considering the money and power he has now, why take it a step down to become President?  He'll never run - at least not in a serious "I want to win" campaign.

aradia22

aradia22

 

Obviously he has a contract with FNC to do these weekly phoners so viewers must be looking forward to them.  I have to admit there are times I'm curious as to his opinions on various issues,  as they are no less valid than yours or mine.

Not to knock them, because putting my opinions aside, they seem to know what they're doing based on their successes but I do think they make choices that viewers aren't fans of. It's just that those things aren't publicized. I find it hard to imagine people are clamoring to hear what he has to say but I also don't think that most Fox viewers would turn off Greta or whoever just because he happens to be on so there's no way of gauging the success/merit of his appearances unless people complain. My issue is exactly what you said. His opinions are no more valid than yours or mine. And actually, given his propensity to spout pompous nonsense and outright lies and slander to fill air time I think they are less valid.

  • Love 2
junemeatcleaver

junemeatcleaver

Megyn Kelly admonishing the rest of the media over their lack of ethics in their reporting of the Duggar story was one of the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.   I wonder if she really believed that nonsense or if she was playing her part in rehabbing the Duggars' image and reaffirming her core audience's belief that the "liberal" media is corrupt.

  • Love 4
aradia22

aradia22

O'Reilly tonight. No, marijuana use is not "literally Russian roulette."

 

Also, a fun moment when he tried to convince his guest that he (the guest) was wrong and that O'Reilly's correct statistic came from the NIH only for the guest to say that he was a council member of the National Institutes of Health... and to be proven right.

  • Love 3
magicdog

magicdog

(edited)
Trump is running

 

 

 

Heh.  Heh.

 

 

Now the race just got interesting!  Personally, I think he'll drop out due to his reality show commitments.  NBC has too much on the line to let this go too far unless it turns into a reality show about running for president.

 

They really need to drop that story of the nut who pretends to be black.   She’s had way too much airtime between all the news networks as it is.  Plus, it’s just not that important a story in the grand scheme of things.  Find another story please producers.

Edited by magicdog
aradia22

aradia22

It's been a long time since I was rooting for a Republican candidate but still... it's just ridiculous that these guys (unless I missed something, they're all guys, right?) cannot put their damn egos aside so that a viable candidate can actually have a good shot at winning. It's going to just like last time where there are too many people and each person doesn't have enough time to be heard but they do have enough time to keep bickering and throwing mud until by the end of the primary we hate all/most of them and the one who faces the Democratic candidate is already tarnished before he's even up against his real opponent. Ridiculous and childish. 

 

They really need to drop that story of the nut who pretends to be black.   She’s had way too much airtime between all the news networks as it is.  Plus, it’s just not that important a story in the grand scheme of things.  Find another story please producers.

Finally, we can agree on something. Why is this even a thing?

  • Love 3
Rick Kitchen

Rick Kitchen

With Rupert Murdoch retiring, his two sons are taking over 20th Century Fox.  And that means that Roger Ailes of Fox News will be reporting to them, and no longer to Rupert.  And word is that the sons hate the lack of journalism at Fox.

 

Roger Ailes had Fox News put out a report that he would still be reporting to Rupert, but Twentieth Century Fox put out their own PR comment that that is not true.

  • Love 5
magicdog

magicdog

 

they're all guys, right?

 

You're forgetting Carly Fiorina. 

 

 

it's just ridiculous that these guys.....cannot put their damn egos aside so that a viable candidate can actually have a good shot at winning.

 

 

Because that's the plan.  This may sound like I've been shopping at a tin foil millenary, but my personal observations as both a voter and journalist show me that this ends the same way - only the worst possible candidates that [supposedly] have no hope of winning are selected to run.  Think Bush 41 (who won on Reagan's goodwill but remember what happened when he broke his "no new tax pledge"),  John McCain (who almost won because he didn't count on Sarah Palin to become so popular) or Lindsey Graham. More recently, Republicans have been ignoring or defying their constituents' wishes (especially in my state) and fermenting anger and resentment.  They almost never say anything definitive, just some rah rah speeches but never have anything specific planned.  The people can't decide who they're behind and not every candidate can bring unity.  Ultimately, voters trust no one and are disgusted.  By contrast, the Dems almost always select the slick guy and the party has no problem getting behind him.  They are like a glacier.  I give Trump credit for at least naming names and offering up legit figures and specific plans.  That's more than the current crew has done so far.

 

To me, they're all a bunch of stooges. In the end, no matter who wins the WH, we lose.

 

 

With Rupert Murdoch retiring, his two sons are taking over 20th Century Fox.  And that means that Roger Ailes of Fox News will be reporting to them, and no longer to Rupert.  And word is that the sons hate the lack of journalism at Fox.

 

 

This is going to get interesting.  If true, I hope this means the network will become more watchable and start doing more than analyzing  the same 3 stories all day long!

 

I also really hope they'll stop with the "alert" effects they keep showing even though they're alerting us to nothing that hasn't already been discussed to death.

aradia22

aradia22

 

You're forgetting Carly Fiorina.

What are there, like 50 Republicans running now? I didn't even know she was in the race. 

 

More recently, Republicans have been ignoring or defying their constituents' wishes (especially in my state) and fermenting anger and resentment.

I'm genuinely curious. What kinds of things have they been ignoring. More extreme positions or more liberal/moderate positions? Or is it just general inaction?

aradia22

aradia22

O'Reilly tonight on gun control. Chicago has tough guns laws and it hasn't resulted in a reduction in crime. An example of these tough laws is laws against illegal firearms. I'm less concerned about whether you have a license and more concerned with how you use that gun. Unpopular opinion: the second amendment is outdated.

  • Love 3
aradia22

aradia22

Things said on Lou Dobbs tonight (not by Lou) paraphrasing, of course:

It's so easy to pick on someone with Donald Trump's wealth and power.

Is it though? When did that happen? How is it easy to go after someone like the Koch brothers for their transgressions and really make an impact? Also, yes, you're so brave, Fox News for being willing to go after people who don't have wealth and power. Truly, you're heroes.

 

The pageant contestants are the real victims. Trump won't be hurt by this.

Really? OK, first of all, none of those women are victims. You're not a victim because you don't get to be on TV. Also, while he's not going to be in the unemployment line, I'm pretty sure you can't count the loss of these endorsement deals and TV appearances, etc. as a net positive.

 

Things said on O'Reilly tonight, by O'Reilly

Liberals don't care about whether gay and lesbian people can get married. They just want to hurt organized religion.

What? I refuse to dignify this with a response. I get re-framing the conversation but this is idiotic.

 

Example of whether a baker should be forced to cater a Nazi rally. Making an equivalence to a gay wedding.

I can't sometimes.

  • Love 5
GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

Wait!

 

A friend told me that after that Preacher threatened to set himself on fire after the ruling on same-sex marriage, that Huckabee threatened to do the same thing to himself.  Yet, I see he's still around. What was his reason for backing down/changing his mind? Is he waiting to see if the ruling will be reversed? 

  • Love 1
magicdog

magicdog

A friend told me that after that Preacher threatened to set himself on fire after the ruling on same-sex marriage, that Huckabee threatened to do the same thing to himself.

 

 

 

What preacher was this?  I don't know of any who made this threat.  As for Huckabee, I have never heard of him making such a threat either.  If he did so seriously, I want proof, not hearsay.

 

 

 

Liberals don't care about whether gay and lesbian people can get married. They just want to hurt organized religion

 

         

      

     What? I refuse to dignify this with a response.

 

 

 

Allow me:  Masha Gessen in her own words.  The key stuff begins about 6 minutes in.

GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

What preacher was this?  I don't know of any who made this threat.  As for Huckabee, I have never heard of him making such a threat either.  If he did so seriously, I want proof, not hearsay.

 

 

I don't know. I just know that I saw the news link in my Face Book feed, but I wasn't interested in hearing what he had to say. And it isn't hearsay or second hand information.

 

I was going to find the links, but Chattygal saved me the trouble.

  • Love 2
aradia22

aradia22

 

Allow me:  Masha Gessen in her own words.  The key stuff begins about 6 minutes in.

magicdog, I'm not going to that link. It's enough that he implied that ALL liberals, be they members of the LGBTQI community or straight allies don't see this as a victory for love and compassion and civil rights but as a victory against organized religion. This is why I'm still posting here. Because of the nonsense they think they can get away with saying because no one is policing them 24/7.

  • Love 10
magicdog

magicdog

(edited)

Also Rush Limbaugh, who said he'd leave the country if Barack Obama was elected

 

I  don't recall him saying this.  Do you have a link?

 

 

GHScorpiosRule:  If I offended you, I apologize.  However, as someone who's been in the news biz (TV and print) for some time, I'm accustomed to verifiable facts, not hearsay or spurious outbursts about people on various areas of the political spectrum.  Everyday I run into people who believe something is true because their cousin's sister's boyfriend's best friend's roommate said so, not because they personally witnessed it or bothered to seek out the details.  If the object of the news is someone they despise (regardless of reason) then they believe it all the quicker without facts - or that only part of the story is told but the proper context is lost.  I'm definitely an advocate of the "primary source" method of research and storytelling. 

 

arcadia22:  YMMV.  I led you to water, the rest is up to you.

Edited by magicdog
junemeatcleaver

junemeatcleaver

MSNBC and CNN are still talking about the treasonous Confederate battle flag coming down in Charleston, SC.  Fox News immediately moved on and is talking about Iran, which surprised me since I thought they were going to go to their current topic to get their audience riled up, "illegals" and sanctuary cities.

 

Never change, Fox News.  Never change.

aradia22

aradia22

OK, I'm cheating a little bit this is sort of related to Fox News of late... Well, it has to do with pageants and the "debate" on evolution so I say it counts. 

 

 

Thank goodness for Miss Connecticut and Miss Vermont. California tried though her phrasing made it sound like humans have been evolving which... no. This is not X Men. Delaware threw me off because I wasn't sure if she thought evolution was the same as sex ed. You know what, points to Louisiana and Michigan and Minnesota too. What are you even talking about, Nevada? Woo, New Mexico. I'm disappointed in you, New York. 

 

Also, the parody video because it's hilarious.

junemeatcleaver

junemeatcleaver

O'Reilly tonight. How are African Americans dying in police custody after traffic stops related to allegations against Planned Parenthood and criticisms of "sanctuary" cities? You didn't actually make a point. You just changed the topic. 

 

It just sounds like a mish-mash of topics his target audience is outraged about.

  • Love 1
Kromm

Kromm

(edited)

So Faux News is holding the (sure to be hilarious) Republican Debate.

 

Not to go into detail on the debate itself (I've been told in no uncertain terms that's DEFINITELY outside the purview of this board--no debate coverage topic), but just in terms of Faux itself (and it's staff)... is Chris Wallace going to be any good at this?

Edited by Kromm
aradia22

aradia22

I think he's one of the most neutral people they could have called on. That is, not inflammatory (O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs) or fawning/friendly (Gretchen Carlson, Elisabeth Hassleback). Not a complete idiot (Hannity, Doocy, Varney) or too competent to let the BS slide (Megan Kelly, Greta Van Susteren). Just the perfect level of bland and personality-less to ask the questions and get out of the way. The other options I could have seen would be Shep Smith and Bret Baier but I think if Trump got too outrageous even they wouldn't be able to sit back. 

  • Love 1
GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

I think he's one of the most neutral people they could have called on. That is, not inflammatory (O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs) or fawning/friendly (Gretchen Carlson, Elisabeth Hassleback). Not a complete idiot (Hannity, Doocy, Varney, or a veritable MAROON-Elisabeth Hasselback) or too competent to let the BS slide (Megan Kelly, Greta Van Susteren). Just the perfect level of bland and personality-less to ask the questions and get out of the way. The other options I could have seen would be Shep Smith and Bret Baier but I think if Trump got too outrageous even they wouldn't be able to sit back. 

 

 

There. Fixed that for you!

  • Love 2
aradia22

aradia22

 

 

So Faux News is holding the (sure to be hilarious) Republican Debate.

Not to go into detail on the debate itself (I've been told in no uncertain terms that's DEFINITELY outside the purview of this board--no debate coverage topic), but just in terms of Faux itself (and it's staff)... is Chris Wallace going to be any good at this?

I know you were dying to hear something from me, even if it wasn't a point by point breakdown but I treated myself to an amazing night of musical theatre instead. I feel very confident that was the right decision. Happiness and love vs. anger and hate. Apparently there were actually two debates with different hosts? What craziness is this? It would have been so much more fun to let every candidate try and get through all their talking points in 2 minutes. 

  • Love 2
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...