I’m just dumbfounded by all the incredible stuff **Diogenes **“knows”.
I notice you haven’t provided cites for any of this.
And Fox doesn’t deserve to be in the Press pool. Fox isn’t part of the Press.
I’ll be borne out by Obama’s approval ratings, which will be completely unaffected (or go up). Fox’s rating will likewise be unaffected.
This link says nothing of the sort. It contains an alleged quote from Brian Williams quoting a *different *reporter, Lee Cowan, who said it’s difficult to remain objective (not “I am biased in Obama’s favor”) when covering Obama because of the popularity he has with the public.
Again, not quite. It is the ombudsman from the Washington Post reporting that *readers *perceived a slant in the Post’s (and not “the media’s”) coverage, and acknowledging that there were more news stories about Obama than McCain and more “laudatory” pieces on the opinion page about Obama (unsurprising, as he was the candidate they endorsed).
Fair enough, and he’s certainly entitled to his opinion. Having been himself dragged through the slime by the right in 2004, after his memo to ABC news staff covering instructing them not to “reflexively and artificially hold both sides [i.e., Kerry and Bush] ‘equally’ accountable” for factual “distortions” arising during the campaign, one might imagine that Mr. Halperin is keenly interested in avoiding all appearance of bias.
I remember when the right wing tried to create this story during the campaign. Five minutes of reading uncovered that this was a flat out lie, but Fox News ran with it anyway, and reported it as fact. News organization, please!
I wouldn’t go so far as “piss off” … heck, they didn’t even bother to report it. AFAICT, though, none of them bothered to report it. It would seem newsworthy, and they had the cameras already there…
I give up. I can’t argue with either the logic or the spelling. Or, to quote John Mace’s reply to you:
I don’t know if this has been covered in this thread (I went through several pages looking for this, but didn’t find it), but I think attacking Fox is a brilliant strategic move by Obama. Now the people at Fox are talking quite a bit about how the White House doesn’t like them and is trying to censor them and exclude them etc., instead of talking primarily about how evil health care reform is.
Again if this has been brought up, sorry. This is just something I noticed as I watching Fox News for a while last night. Health care never even came up.
Oh, man, that’s a good point.
Two videos for your perusal:
I’d love for a single person to come back with coverage by Fox that was complimentary of Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ&feature=player_embedded#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU&feature=player_embedded#
Scary.
News, yeah. quote “Obama’s health care plan is scarier than cancer. Why one patient needs to fear for her life”.
You’ll be borne out by Obama’s ever-decreasing approval ratings?
*"Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years…
Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April…
His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating."*
My favorite part was when that one loon insinuates that Obama had gay sex with Hugo Chavez.
Rahm Emanuel’s enemies list mentality is beneath the office of the President and nothing good will come if it. Trying to isolate Fox is something even friendly news outlets will recognize as a danger to a free press. The White House should not be surprised if there is a circling of wagons among the other network news groups.
Helpful of the ever-objective Telegraph to provide links to some of their related bias-free Obama articles, including “Barack Obama’s oratory loses its oomph” and “Barack Obama ratings fall as polls show honeymoon may be over.”
To the credit of the other news organizations, the circling has already begun. Cite
You know, I had high hopes for Obama – relatively speaking, that is. But more and more I’m finding it hard to think he has a clue about what he’s doing. He seems to feel that as long as he comports himself in a calm, unhurried manner and utilizes his relatively good speaking skills, all will be well. T’aint so.
On a practical level, I suppose that given his experience this should come as no surprise. Still…
And on preview: Vinyl Turnip, I didn’t mention the other articles so I don’t see what they have to do with what I said. Do you contest the reported Gallup results?
His approval rating is ridiculously high for a President dealing with a recession and two wars.
Telling the truth about Fox will not drop his approval by a single point.
Not when you consider that he inherited them all and is only nine months into dealing with them. Still, I think that the more he dilly-dallies over sending more troops to Afghanistan, his approvals will drop accordingly.
I think it will to a certain degree. As others have said, it’s beneath the office and makes him look amatuerish, petulant, clumsily combattive and clumsily controlling. These are not good qualities to see in the nation’s president.
Wish in one hand, shit in the other. His approval ratings are fine, and will remain fine.
Actually putting some thought into what he does with human lives is not going to hurt him either, so don’t get your hopes too high.
I suppose so – as long as you consider dropping fine.
Haven’t his generals – you know, the ones who know about war – been telling him that their soldiers’ lives are being put at much greater risk without the additional troops that are needed? Paralyzation by analyzation is not the same as thoughtfulness.