And, again, that that appears to be true. But I’m fairly sure that Fox News is spinning “no action” as “failed”. Could be wrong, I suppose, though I doubt it - otherwise why would they even bring it up?
Personally, I plan to be patient, to wait and see what happens in time. Frothing at the mouth makes a mess of my beard, and I’d like to have a good reason for it. While ice cream cones are always a good reason to mess up my beard, inane blathering from Fox News is not.
I’ll add, in a separate post, that Portuguese Water Dogs are horribly ugly, and that the Obamas should instead get some sort of undocked spaniel.
What they should do is get a mutt from a pound. That way there’s no conern about puppy-milling, there won’t be a sudden run on whatever breed they actually DO get (followed by the inevitable glut of that breed), and it will remind people that there are millions of abandoned dogs sitting in shelters.
-Joe
I guess we’ve hijacked this pretty badly…
The Obamas supposedly committed to getting a rescue dog. I don’t know whether they actually did so; Portuguese Water Dogs are relatively rare (for now!) and I’m told it’s very hard to adopt one that way, with an extremely long waiting list. So I’m not sure what they did there.
No, I think you have to cut them a break there: one of the girls has allergies and they got a hypoallergenic dog. I’m not sure how you arrange for a hypoallergenic mutt, but maybe I’m lacking in imagination. It would be wrong for them to get a dog that irritates the girl’s allergies just to prove a point about shelter dogs.
ETA: I wasn’t the first Doper to pick Obama as a potential president, but I think I was the first here to recommend a PWD for them.
Could everyone please stop using that stupid term? “Faux” does NOT rhyme with “Fox” at all! Not even close!
And am I the only one that noticed that the OP didn’t comment on how Fox News interpretted the results? For all we know, they said “Wow, he’s really ahead of the curve here.” I hate these massive pile-ons of media outlets. There’s usually no basis for it.
Perhaps the only one who didn’t read the OP. Care to try again?
Plays on words are not required to rhyme. Just FYI.
Precisely. Although it is in fact a legitimate rhyme. Such rhymes are known as sight rhymes in poetry, ie rhymes which don’t sound alike but have some similarity in spelling.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned this, but to me the most obvious stupidity in the Fox News story is the implication that all campaign promises are of equal importance. For example, he could be the best president ever just by fulfilling 4 of his promises (bail out economy, fix health care, fix Afghanistan, fix Iraq). A simple enumeration tells us nothing!
Portugese? Surely they can get an American water boarding dog. Our dogs are just as smart as the Portugese, I’m sure the CIA can teach them, too.
Except that would require the intellectual capacity of gravel, since Fixed Noise never misses an opportunity to slam a Democrat, especially over shit they made up or purposely misinterpreted.
It’s a common fox pass
Either Fox News thinks its audience is really, really stupid, or Fox News knows that its audience is really, really stupid.
::rereads OP:: Nope. Doesn’t say. Here’s the summary-
OP is in the gym, sees a Fox News report
FN reports that another entity has calculated that Obama has kept 17 promises thus far.
OP goes off on sarcastic tirade accusing FN of bashing the President though it’s not even FN’s stat.
Now where does it say that they bashed him? They could have said “He’s at 17. That’s pretty damn good!” You could hand the same exact script and graphics to the local 11 o’clock news team and have them deliver it, and no one would bat an eyelash. But throw it on Fox News and the SDMB jumps on it like rabid wolves. Why do you people go after Fox News when there’s perfectly good witches that need hunted?
I wouldn’t say they’re stupid – just brainwashed.
Besides the fact that Fox exploits public ignorance by advancing misinformation and propaganda, it is an adjunct of the Republican Party. How does propaganda, thinly veiled as news, fit into the concept of a free press or a democracy?
I think I understand where you’re coming from. If the OP said a Girl Scout happened to mention it to him (perhaps he and his wife fell off their regime and were buying cookies), everyone would be piling on Politifact with nary a mention of the girl. You’re right, Enderw24 said nothing (directly) about her personal belief or how she repeated or presented the statistic. To assume that it was done in a negative manner would be outside the scope of the OP. If instead of a Girl Scout, the OP referred to an article in the New York Times, it is likely (my assumption here) that folks would pile on Politifact for statistical shenanigans and the Times for sloppy journalism.
However, there are two aspects that justify Fox-directed mud-slinging in this thread. First, this is the Pit, and the OP was clearly pitting Fox, from the title on down. I daresay it’s fair to assume that as the target of a Pit thread, the OP meant to ascribe some journalistic malfeasance on Fox’s part—that they didn’t say “that’s pretty damn good!”. It would be one thing for you to claim you saw/heard the same story and lash out at the OP’s baseless rant, or even to suggest that Fox really is fair and balanced and this is an unfair pitting. But to say that people are groundlessly going after Fox like rabid wolves (apt metaphor) is itself groundless.
Second, while I don’t subscribe to grand notions of Fox being a propaganda machine of the right or having some politically-motivated cabal behind it, I don’t think it a stretch to suggest that Fox is filling a marketing niche by catering/appealing to the right/conservative-inclined. One outcome of this is the notion that their news reporting follows that bent. Pitting Fox for exercising the editorial discretion to run the story—even if it was presented as neutral as possible—is an outcome of that bias. Bias because the underlying story is so inherently weak and foolish as to be laughable (for reasons articulated upthread), and treating it as news is journalistically shameful. Add back in the repeated tendency of their news to portray Obama and the left with mild-to-open derision, and insinuations based on that pattern become reasonable.
Oh, and since this is the Pit, let me see if I can get out an insult.
Fox News: the Eric Cartman of journalism.
Probably that the free market has found that they like their biases getting confirmed an reconfirmed (and re-reconfirmed) so much that they will regularly and happily tune into thinly-veiled propaganda “news” that reinforces those biases.
-Joe
You’re correct. I didn’t explain HOW Fox News presented the story in my OP. I simply presented that it was run.
Again, because it was at the gym and there was no sound, I am unable to confirm that “For he’s a Jolly Good Fellow” was played when they showed a picture of Obama. Likewise, I cannot verify that a Slow Clap started with the Fox producers and fed into a standing ovation by the crew from cameramen down to wardrobe.
I am able to state definitively that balloons weren’t falling from the ceiling, nor was there a scrolling banner with the words “keep up the good work, Mr. President!”
So I guess we’re in the middle here. It could really go either way on this one.
Let’s look at the tape then, shall we? Go to the end of the article summarizing the piece.
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/03/11/hannity_ready_to_pronounce_obamas_presidency_a_failure.php
Perhaps a slight nuance, but there is a (subtle?) difference between Fox News Channel *news *and Fox News Channel *commentary *-- that was a Hannity clip, no?