"That is true. It's gone a bit overboard, but Fox did bring this on themselves.

Just look at yesterday's Fox apology for showing video footage purported to be from a recent Teabagger rally this month.

The most trusted source in news, Jon Stewart showed an excerpt from this Fox video where the first few seconds showed a few marchers next to bare trees under an overcast sky, and then when the Teabaggers rounded the corner, there were suddenly ten thousand people marching next to trees with full leaves under a sunny sky.

Fox thanked Jon for watching...

So their credibility is under attack for a reason.

I just think it is sad that people give Fox respect as if they were a news organization (and that has nothing to do with Obama freezing them out, which I think was record stupidity).

It's not even entertainment, but a carnival barker's desire to draw people into the tent, no matter what has to be said to make it so.

Conflict never failed to make money, even if you have to invent it or greatly exaggerate it."


Fox's credibilty under attack? By who - you? Anita Dunn? Jon Stewart ?

Bulletin: Fox News makes mistakes. Fox News leans right. Your types don't have a problem with the first statement as much as the second. My guess is that you spend a fair amount of time on other channels and reading Left-leaning publications. So be it.

But do you find fault with the errors made by MSNBC? Hardly. More importantly do they apologize for their errors? Grudgingly if at all (witness their recent half-hearted climb-downs after smearing Limbaugh with unproven quotes). Do the once-a-month apology and retraction pieces in the NY Times get you lathered-up?

As Left-leaning media outlets around the country are finding fewer readers and viewers Fox News propers not because they are error-free but because they offer an alternative to the liberal drivel heard and seen elsewhere. But, to those that equate them to "carnival barkers". they are not a news organization.

Is Sheppard Smith not a 'news man'? Is Jim Angle a "carnival barker" ? Is Neil Cavuto just trying to "draw people into the tent"? In your silly view Steve Centanni, Brit Hume, Major Garrett & Michael Barone all need to be advised they are not, after all, at a bonafide news organization. People like you amuse me.

That you find Obama's thugish attempt to isolate Fox stupid is amusing in that your seem to share the view of Obama's henchmen Axelrod, Dunn & Emanual. Obama's people made the case that "Fox ought not be treated as a news organization...." and you bemoan the fact that Fox gets respect "...as if they were a news organization...."

As for your use of the vulgar term used in a juvenile manner to describe Tea Partiers it speaks volumes about you. Not to worry though - it's been heard on more than one of the networks you might deem more of news organization than Fox.

Have THEY apologized?

JJM

I don't have cable TV or satellite, so I am spared the rants and raves of the left and the right, not spending any time on "those channels".

I've never been much of a fan of spectator sports, and that's what many of these channels are about.

Poor Cleveland.., first the Browns now this,, and I heard the NBC station actually used a Brown bear cutout

I find it funny that people put down Fox news and then act like MSNBC which actually sells Obama merchandise in their shops that says "Yes we did" is actually objective.

Come to think of it I think I'm getting a tingle down my leg as I write this. If you want to talk about bad journalism just take a look back at this past election when we witnessed the death of real journalism.

"As the original poster, I beg to differ.
I posted it not because it was on Fox but because it was, IMO, an example of journalism at it's worst.

Once again, I wouldn't care if it was CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.
Bad journalism is bad journalism no matter where it comes from."

Mike


C'mom who's kidding who? I finally just saw the actual video and lord knows Fox doesn't need me to defend them but you're taking a shot at Fox much more than merely commenting on the current state of journalism.

Sure it was comical and poorly done - it was a low budget local Fox News affiliate. This is what you represent as the decline in journalism? A silly wild bear piece seen by a couple hundred thousand viewers?

You could spend a long night at your computer on YouTube watching endless videos of similar stuff from local TV stations coast -to-coast. You know this but you single out Fox.

We have national "mainstream" media outlets who were first determined to drag Obama across the finish line and since stopped asking the difficult questions. They are now slowy dying. Just ask and I'd be happy to supply you with a large number of examples of how the media have long since abandoned their skeptical, aggressive reporting ways and instead embraced liberal advocacy.

Marc's reference above to Chris Matthews "getting a tingle up my leg" is representative. We can only imagine the outrage if such a thing was uttered by a Fox News election night news anchor. Matthews continues to distinguish himself by asking recently (about Hassan activities) "...is it a crime to call Al Qeada?"

Nope, your original post is too much like finding fault with Fox like there was a reward in it. The snarky way you end your original post tells me you're an Obama supporter. Doesn't make you a bad person, just naive.

JJM

In last year's election, I thought most people agreed with W.C. Fields:

"I never vote FOR, I only vote AGAINST!"

I've been a fan of John McCain for 25 years (because of his work to reduce pork, together with Tom Coburn (R-OK), but I like many others had a concern about his 1 in 3 actuarial risk of dying during his term, which would have placed the Mayor of Wasilla by the nuclear ("nucular") button. A risk no one should take lightly.

Obama himself was surprised, and I fear that he thinks that a majority of Americans voted FOR him rather than AGAINST the alternative.

There have been a number of scientific studies of the "mainstream media" and they were not able to find a liberal bias. They just hammered (or ignored) whoever was in power.


The Republican party is a sad sight today. They're not FOR anything, only AGAINST.

No plans of their own (oh, I almost forgot: they have an alternative health care plan that will increase the number of uninsured Americans, and let health insurance companies cherry-pick which state laws they want to follow, as well as reject customers for any reason (including having had the sniffles 20 years ago), and build up their monopolies or oligopolies from 80% in one state to 100%, so nobody can start their own new business because they can't get health insurance). Nice work, guys.

We had eight recent years of a socialist White House creating a huge and very expensive entitlement plan, Medicare Part D, which gives the elderly free prescription meds (except in the infamous donut hole), and the government by law has to pay full retail prices to Big Pharma even though Uncle Sam is a VIP customer who should be getting at least 60% off. Add to that the 3 Trillion Dollars added to the national debt from the Iraq and Afghanistan "wars" (the amount according to non-partisan government auditors).

And the previous socialist administration (Bush II) didn't put a stop to socialized roads, socialized retirement programs (Social Security), socialized military (instead of a private militia that can be hired by those who need it to protect their land), socialized police and fire departments, socialized car registration, and all the other hallmarks of a socialist country?

When will we finally get an anarchist country without income taxes and with full freedom for all to do whatever they want without government interference?

You could spend a long night at your computer on YouTube watching endless videos of similar stuff from local TV stations coast -to-coast. You know this but you single out Fox.

Once again, I didn't single out Fox.
I singled out poor journalism.
I found out about it from a Facebook posting by a friend of mine.
I personally never watch any American news channels.

Nope, your original post is too much like finding fault with Fox like there was a reward in it.

Sloppy news reporting is sloppy news reporting no matter what kind of spin you put on it.

The snarky way you end your original post tells me you're an Obama supporter. Doesn't make you a bad person, just naive.

First of all, I'm Canadian.
Second, I like Obama much better than his precedessor.
Third, I get my news from a newspaper or CBC radio, our national broadcaster.
Fourth, I can't remember when I last watched any news on TV.
For that matter, I can't remember the last time I watched TV.
I've got better things to do with my time.

Mike

'I've been a fan of John McCain for 25 years (because of his work to reduce pork, together with Tom Coburn (R-OK), but I like many others had a concern about his 1 in 3 actuarial risk of dying during his term, which would have placed the Mayor of Wasilla by the nuclear ("nucular") button. A risk no one should take lightly.'

In response to COURSEDESIGN, how is anybody supposed to take seriously anything said by a person who is a fan of somebody for 25 years but doesn't vote for them. Their reason is the fear of him dying and they'll get the Mayor of Wasilla meaning, this person immediately gets the community organizer as Prez. A person who has never met a payroll or managed anything, never run or owned a business, never been responsible for others. A person who's chief accomplishments are two autobiographies and having voted "present" over 120 times.

No wonder the rest of your post reads like a Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

JJM

When voting, I have to look at the overall picture.

I can't just say that because I'm a conservative, I have to vote for the Republican candidate on the assumption that he will be more conservative. Sometimes in American history, Democrats have provided the more conservative candidates even.

Assaulting a sovereign nation because its ruler insulted the Prez's dad would not have been the choice of a conservative, and tax payers will be paying off the $3 Trillion Dollars for many years to come, while pondering that the now executed sociopath who was running Iraq was keeping Al Qaeda out of the country at no cost to U.S. taxpayers.

Today we have the bill, and a resurgent Al Qaeda in Iraq.


I'll reserve judgment on Obama, as I think it's just too early to either condemn or congratulate anyone.

You seem to know more about "Keith Olbermannn Special Comments" than I do, because I have no idea what that is. I don't watch MSNBC or any other cable channel, as I find myself just busy enough with my own life.

"Assaulting a sovereign nation because its ruler insulted the Prez's dad would not have been the choice of a conservative, and tax payers will be paying off the $3 Trillion Dollars for many years to come, while pondering that the now executed sociopath who was running Iraq was keeping Al Qaeda out of the country at no cost to U.S. taxpayers."

With the backing of the United States Senate, multiple UN resolutions, many foreign allies and the majority of Americans we deposed Saddam. The war was mismanaged at first and we found that virtually the entire world was wrong on WMD's. Bush can be faulted for much.

But for you to say what you have above is not only laughable but demonstrates you are merely one more mindless person afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Below is just one example of the many early warnings (here by Dems) of Saddam's presumed WMD capability and the threat it was thought to hold. Watch the video below then square that and the fact that 23 million Iraqi men, women and children have been freed from a murderous regime with your juvenile comments above.



You are not a serious person. Done with you.

JJM

I'm not faulting Bush. He was a compassionate human being who was being used as a façade for people who had no interest in or respect for ordinary Americans and knew that this showed to the point where they were not electable. So they hired a nice face and told him what to do.

Yes, Senate Dems were scared out of their pants after 9/11. The UN resolutions came about because of immense pressure from the country that pays most of the UN's bills (hint, it's us again).

The few foreign allies (most of which were former Soviet bloc states who were eager to collect the billions of dollars they got for lending legitimacy to the assault by sending a few hundred soldiers from their "coalition" countries.

The majority of Americans strung along, because they had been told that the U.S. had incontrovertible proof of WMDs (not just the ones that U.S. had provided when Saddam was a U.S. ally, including nerve gas used against Iranians and Kurds), and President Cheney must have known that the "evidence" of this was simply fabricated. Remember the Italian connection that never had any credibility until he offered to say the right things for pay? And the aluminum tubes that were pumped up to be WMDs?

And I'm sure the 23 million men, women and children are lying awake at night wondering how it was necessary to kill upwards of 600,000 Iraqis when even Saddam couldn't kill that many?

Yes, Saddam's was a murderous regime.

His and several dozen more. So can we agree to budget this next time, so that tax payers know how much they're in for?

The average American family is already on the hook to pay $40,000 in net net income taxes just for the Iraq and Afghanistan adventure.

Was it worth it?

Wishful thinkers will say, "Well, the Chinese own our public debt now. Let's have a massive inflation and pay them back with American Pesos, that way it won't hurt much."

But the Chinese take a long term view. They'll find a way to get paid, and it will probably come through a reduction in our sovereignty. Might be good to pick up a Rosetta course in Mandarin?

Where does all this money to fight a war go? Follow the money to a few corporations and banks that own everything including the media and all political parties


First they destroy foreigners when they are finished with them turn on their own , from blood thirsty Caesars “ Kaisers ,Tars ” Charlemagne, Stalin, Hitler, to Churchill , Roosevelt to present leaders from world powers Bush etc all have a common thread .Do a little research .Start with the logo in the clip

On the pretext of caring about you and I they produce garbage like this


they are the cause of what they are trying to protect us from .

On the Margin another… Hillary Clinton on violence against girls

You mean like little girls in Iraq Hillary?

We are all one human family for years they have had a policy of divided and conquer .to get us to hate and kill off our brothers and sisters
Now all of a sudden they want to create peace and security, why?

Because it is coming but not from them or their fake organizations.

Sorry about the rant but they make me very angry.

I wonder why this journalist never made it on any of the mainstream news media


http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=Lord+Monckton&rlz=1R2ADFA_enZA347&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=hRwBS77oD5fbjQfd_vmUCw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQqwQwAw#

last time while you folks were on holiday sleeping your currency was being dismantled and replaced by the Amero
this holiday your whole country is being dismantled

but hey keep voting LEFT RIGHT while they slice you in the middle……did you good folks vote on this? …I wonder