We can debate these points, surely. But it is the case that Maoist symbols and slogans have become fashion items in recent years, somewhat akin to the Che Guevara iconography.
Now, I don’t think most people sporting Maoist stars and slogans are even aware of the political implications of such, anymore than the wearers of the Che Guevara shirts are. But let’s remember the trouble Prince Harry got into when he wore an Afrika Corps uniform and swastika to a costume party.
Why is Nazi iconography beyond the pale, even in a costume, while Maoist bags are just fine to tote around? Frankly, IMHO, the Maoist bags ought to be treated as the Peruvians treated them.
Several times in this thread it has been asked,“What if Bush had done this to MSNBC?”, but as far as I can recall he didn’t call on them during press conferences.
Am I wrong?
Fox is now about 99% commentary and 1% highly selective and heavy editorialized “reporting.” Do you even watch it?
And no, MSNBC is not comparable. MSNBC has an editorial stance, but is not to the extent that Fox does (Fox invented this new genre of partisan cable news networks. The liberals haven’t caught up yet), and it does not let the partisanship infect its straight reporting the way Fox does. MSNBC also allows opposing vioewpoints on its panels and lets conservatives have their own shows. Fox does not have any liberal hosts, and few liberal guests. Even if it does allow a liberal guest, Fox has a standing, written policy that any liberal voice has to be “balanced” by at least two conservatives. Fox panel shows are often comprised of 4 or 5 conservatives and no liberals. Fox actually tries to pass off Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich as objective objective analysts. Fox is a joke, and it’s a joke without an opposing analogue in the US. It’s not a news organization. As I said, it’s most analogous to a television version of a conservative radio network.
CBS News used forged documents to try to discredit Bush’s service on the eve of the election in 2004. Bush did not tell people that CBS News was not a legitimate news source.
Mark Halperin sent out a document telling his reporters at ABC News to slant their coverage against Bush to try to keep him from being re-elected. Bush did not not tell people that ABC News was not a legitimate news source.
Fox News does not give Obama the kind of fawning press coverage he expects and receives from everyone else. Obama tells people that Fox News is not a legitimate news source.
Fox is giving Obama exactly the sort of coverage the SDMB would like to see given to any President (except a Democratic one).
There is no such thing as “Mao Chic.” Just FYI. I’m on the far left. I’ve never seen it. Most kids today probably couldn’t even tell you who Mao Tse Tung was. So no, that’s imaginary. It doesn’t happen. Don’t believe everything you see on Sean Hannity, folks.
I remember that flap because it was the only time I’d ever heard of such a thing. And it still is. I’ve never encountered it on this board, I never saw it in college, and I’ve never seen it anyplace. I’m not stupid enough to say “nobody believes this, it’s too stupid” - but it’s news to me.
Having watched this thread it’s apparent to me that this is red meat for the Democratic base and really nothing else. If they’re still going to talk to Fox News it doesn’t make a lot of difference what they say about Fox News. It’s still a waste of time with no positive impact for anybody, but the practical impact looks to be zero.
I have no objection to a news organization asking pointed questions, calling out the WH on dubious information and checking all “facts” handed out in press conferences, whether in the Obama WH, the Bush WH or any other WH. In fact, I think it’d be nice if ANY of the news networks would do that; they seem to have lost the knack. But Fox isn’t doing that. Fox is, in the words of one of their own favorite people, “making stuff up”.
CBS didn’t forge the documents themselves, you know. They deserved a whack on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper for poor factchecking but I didn’t see them actually manufacturing lies and innuendo about Bush, and the questions about Bush’s military records had legitimate precedent and have been supported in other sources (for which you (Shodan) have been given cites multiple times here). Have you conveniently forgotten all this?
And where were the Glenn Becks and Sean Hannitys of ABC? Where were the MSM heavily editing clips of Bush speeches to make it look like he was saying the exact opposite of what he actually said? Surely there must be loads of examples of this, if those networks are so much worse than Fox?
Fortunately, my universe does not include the conviction that mindless, automatic, knee-jerk denials of even the most obvious phenomena achieves anything. Yours obviously varies.
So why don`t you make your point with somebody who said otherwise? It’s a totally legitimate attack. I was only disagreeing with someone who said it wasn’t representative of the White House’s position when it clearly is an organized effort. Luckily I didn’t say anything to suggest it’s an unwarranted position.
Oh, please. :rolleyes: This attempt to portray the Dems as innocent victims who are mere punching bags for the Pubs is sad.
I think it was unnecessary, and yes, I think it will cause a distraction. Perhaps that’s what Obama et al wanted…a distraction, a new place and subject to fight about. I don’t know if it will be a big distraction or a 24 hour wonder, but I’m fairly sure it’s already creating noise on the right wing…my dad mentioned this to me along with a whole string of talking points about how Obama wants to shut down any and all opposition to him, blah blah blah.
If you don’t think this could cause a serious distraction to Obama, consider what a blow job did to Clinton’s second term sometime…
Well sure, but then you oooooze bias, so perhaps you aren’t the best judge here. It’s fairly clear that you don’t actually watch Fox and have an over inflated view point of the content, probably picked up as talking points from whatever news source you DO follow (most likely a left wing equivalent to Fox, irony included). Myself, I don’t particularly enjoy watching Fox because it’s too loud and too flashy, but in all honesty, I don’t like to watch CNN or MSNBC for the same reasons. And while their content and spin are different I’d have to say that they (and the main stream televised news assets like ABC and CBS) are pretty much equivelent as far as content. YM obviously does vary, but then I’d have to say it doesn’t look like you’ve done more than seen a few YouTube clips from Fox, and are basing your opinion on a less than informed understanding.
To me this has the potential to cause a huge stink, and perhaps a slippery slope by setting a precedence where presidents ‘shun’ news outlets that don’t kowtow to them or say what they want to hear. While I’m certain that the Obama fans would LOVE him to get tough with Fox, I don’t think this will play well with those less fervent in their support…and I can guarantee that it’s going to cause an explosion with the right wingers. Even folks without foam on their muzzles are going to have some serious questions about all of this and it’s possible future implications.
Or you can hold your breath and await the coming of enlightenment from the millions of folks who watch Fox to ‘realize that they’re making their “news” up’, despite the fact that they can see that the news parts of the show are news just like any other. I hope you can hold your breath a LONG time…
… yet true. Of course, I in no way am implying that Dems (or the Left in general) are blameless. However, it’s a simple fact that Fox News has a blatant bias for the Right. To say otherwise is “sad”.
Funny, I thought it was the witch hunt and subsequent ongoing, continuous, unending court time which caused most of the “distraction”. It seems to me that the Obama Administration saying, “We’re not going to treat Fox News as a serious news outlet” is actually quite the reverse; it allows them to ignore Fox News, or even to treat them as hostile… allowing the admin to focus on getting shit done.
I never claimed to be unbiased. Fox News, however, has.
And I’ll just ignore the rest of your attempt to paint me as ignorant of Fox News’ “impartiality”. Given how you just said that you don’t like to watch it (or any other news, apparently), I’d say my opinion is just as valid, or moreso, than yours. Anyone who can, with a straight face, claim that Fox News is as fair and impartial as they say they are is clearly deluded.
Five minutes- or at least that was my record back in high school, when I was on the swim team. It’s probably a lot less, now. But that’s neither here nor there.
I watch Fox. Most of the political commentary I consume on televison and the internet is conservative. I’m morbidly drawn to it. Fox actually has changed from what it was even a couple of years ago. It’s taken a decidely more openly partisan turn now. If you haven’t really sat down and watched it in a while, you should. It used to be recognizably biased, but with some pretense, some general verisimilitude, of being a coinventional news organization. That’s gone now. It’s nothing but open warfare on Obama.
Can anyone show examples of MSNBC or CBS organizing and promoting political rallies? Did they ever intentionally alter videos to give false impressions of what the President was saying.
I don’t want to hear about the stuo[id CBS memo either. I know the righties think that’s their big trophy, but a.) that story was still true in all its essentials, and b.) CBS did not intentionally forge anything. They may have been duped by a forgery, but that’s not the same thing.
If Fox is balanced, where’s the balance for Bill Kristol? Bill is for ending all regulation of everything, slashing taxes, slashing spending, slashing the size of the government, preemptively bombing Iran, North Korea etc. etc. You’d need to have a pretty far left liberal type to balance that but (of the very little I’ve seen of Fox, basically youtube clips), I’ve never seen any real liberal/progressive people on their pundit panels or on Fox at all.
They aren’t the same, they’re the opposite. Bush embraced Fox because it’s the propaganda arm of the Republican party, and Obama is criticizing it for the same thing. Obama’s not playing favourites like Bush did.
You seem to be attempting to repaint what you said…and what I said. This, despite that anyone reading the thread can actually, you know, scroll up and look. Just to clarify, I wasn’t speaking to Fox at all with this comment…and what is sad is how the Dems want to paint themselves as victims and punching bags, as if they don’t use the same tactics.
Sort of like the witch hunts that constants rattled around when Bush was president? Yeah, it’s the same noise as before, only the source has changed. Well, that and where the outrage is coming from and directed too these days. Other than that, same ole same ole. You see it differently of course because now it’s YOUR ox that’s getting gored…
They lie. But I’m gratified that you don’t. I don’t either…I, like everyone, has a bias.
Again, you attempt to paint the a different conversation than that which took place (and this just after I said I was gratified about your attitude…c’est la vie). I never said Fox was impartial, or some model of impartiality…what I SAID was that denying they are a news outlet (albeit one with a bias) is silly and counter productive. You may not LIKE their bias, but denying they are a news outlet is counter productive. Even right wingers need to have a voice and get their message out.
Possibly it is…you certainly are going to get more traction here with your opinion than I am, so if that is the measure of relative worth then I bow to the superior popularity of your position.
That said, I think I’m a touch less biased on this one than you are. Yeah, I don’t like Fox, but I’ve watched a lot of it over the last several years as my dad has become more and more hooked on it. I argue all the time with him over the bias (which, conversely to you and others here, he doesn’t see, while pointing out the massive bias on other news outlets.). I can see that Fox commentary is certainly and highly biased, and is also highly hostile towards Obama and the Dems (though not ALL of it is the same, so even that is painting with a broad brush. Depends on who the commentator is and what the subject is). However, commentary does not make up the whole of Fox programming, and saying they aren’t a news outlet is just as silly as saying they are ‘Fair and Balanced’.
Clearly this is true…good thing I didn’t say that, ehe? Equally clearly, anyone who can, with a straight face, claim that Fox isn’t a news outlet has been drinking too deeply from the kool-aid dispenser. OH YEAH!
You won’t make it then, sadly. I’m guessing it will never happen, but if it does it will take significantly longer than 5 minutes…
Even assuming that the poll is accurate, my faith in public opinion as a reliable indicator of reality was beaten severely by the “only 4 in 10 believe in evolution” result, and delivered a coup de grâce by the staggering number of American home scholars who concluded that Saddam Hussein rode astride a 767, Slim Pickens style, directly into the WTC.
I’m also reluctant to believe that McDonald’s in the “Best Burger Place in Town,” despite its yearly sweep of the reader’s poll on several local websites.
