Fox News racist or just hates Obama?

[Cicero]

Here is Olbermann's quote, from the transcript:



How is this insulting to Mrs. Clinton? The only "insult" I see here is that he is stating that Clinton staying in the race was becoming damaging to the Democratic chances in November. This could be construed as a claim that she is more concerned about her own self-interest than the good of the Democratic party to the point that Democratic leaders need to lean on her pretty strongly. Many others held similar opinions at the time. Olbermann did not call Clinton names. He did not question her abilities. Or her patriotism. He simply questioned (in an inappropriate manner) the advisability of her staying in the race. Thus he apologized for the inappropriate phraseology, but not the sentiment.

Nothing like questioning whether someone was doing a "terrorist fist bump".

You seem to be operating in a vacuum here. Even the Huff Po's Rachel Sklar described KO's comment thus:

"...it only mean one thing: Beating the crap out of Hillary Clinton, to the point where she is physically incapable of of getting up and walking out."

It seems KO was compelled to make numerous apologies to various people who were not as understanding as yourself. KO's apology to Sklar:

"It is a metaphor. I apologize: the generic "he" gender could imply something untoward. It should've been "only the other comes out -- from a political point of view." You could've called for reaction first if your main motive had merely been criticism." KO

Does KO check with his targets for WPITW before he goes on air with his diatribes?

MSNBC David Shuster apologized for his "pimp" comment about Chelsea. Chris Matthews apologized when he indelicately said "Hillary would be cleaning toilets in a Dunkin' Donuts if it weren't for Bill."

Imagine if Hill changed the latter reference to disparage Obama's wife? Would she be in any less hot water then her "terrorist knuckle knock" comment? Would anything but her show's cancellation satisfy people like you?

 

[gdnp]

Nice rant. Do you concede that Olberman did not insult Hillary Clinton in his comments?

Imagine if Hill changed the latter reference to disparage Obama's wife? Would she be in any less hot water then her "terrorist knuckle knock" comment? Would anything but her show's cancellation satisfy people like you?

Hill disparages Obama and his wife with the "terrorist fist bump", Hill "disparages" Obama's wife? What's the difference? in both cases a commentator is making insulting statements. Something Olbermann did not do, at least in the incident we have been debating.

And you really need to watch the straw men. Which part of this statement did you miss in post 275:

That being said, I would not have fired Hill for that statement.

I believe a TV personality would have to commit an egregious breach of standards to be fired for a single incident. The "fist bump" comment does not cross that threshold by a long shot, in my book. Never having seen her show, I cannot say if she was let go because others saw it as more severe or for an accumulation of other sins. Low ratings being the deadliest sin.

 

[gdnp]

Does KO check with his targets for WPITW before he goes on air with his diatribes?

Why are you asking me what Olbermann does? I have already told you I DON'T WATCH HIS SHOW. I don't even know what WPITW stands for.

Whether he checks with his "targets" or not is immaterial. If you think he has said something inappropriate, please post it. Preferably as a direct quote, since your skills at paraphrasing are limited.

 

[Snide]

As the person making the offensive remark, your "thinking" would be accompanied by a fat lip.

Oops...my bad there. I meant if I'm not the third party...shoddy proofing on my part. Apologies.

(If I were the third party in your laughable hypo, I can take care of myself well enough to handle any potential fat lip, thank you.)

Instead of pretending KO didn't make the implication,

No, you are the pretender here.

why not just accept the obvious as joobz has. Or is the obvious beyond your mental acuity?

Now that I've fessed up to typing and submitting too quickly, are you going to fess up that there is a huge difference between "beginning to look like" something and actually being one? Of course not. That would require a certain level of thinking capacity and honest self awareness.

 

[Snide]

In between your "ridiculing" and "moving" could you answer my previous question to you:

How would you react if a stranger called your mother using either characterization? You would laugh off the first and only get angry at the latter?

Come on. I waiting for your Dukakis inspired answer.

Totally irrelevant, and sadly not surprising, considering it's the kind of thing you've done (especially when you're losing badly) ever since we've known you here.

The point is not whether one comment is offensive and the other is not. The point is they are not the same, nor close enough to justify your lie about Olbermann. Please try to stay on track.

 

[Snide]

Strawman.

You asked how a person would react. I told you how I'd react.

But I do see a distinction between the two, because there is one, and I can prove it with simple substitution. Let's first set our terms:

"Looks like a slut." Dress, casual behavior, and mannerisms correspond to those which many people tend to associate with promiscuous sexual behavior, regardless of actual sexual behavior.

"Is a slut." Engages in sexually promiscuous behavior, regardless of actual mannerisms or dress.

Substitution:

"Looks like a bank manager."
"Is a bank manager."

"Looks like a movie star."
"Is a movie star."

"Looks like a teacher."
"Is a teacher."

Yep. I can certainly see a vast difference in the two phrases. Absolutely.

But if you called my mom a slut, or just said she looks like one, I would still laugh at you, for the reasons I gave in that post.

I'm laughing right there with you, but I just want to again make it clear that while you are correct, a fully correct comparison would read like this:

"Is beginning to look like a movie star."
"Is a movie star."

It's important to note because 1) there is even more of a difference between the two that way, and 2) so Cicero doesn't forget.

 

[Snide]

Sigh.

Looks like a child molester
Is a child molester

Looks like a gang banger
Is a gang banger.

Neither is a compliment, and Olberman's characterization of McCain was not meant to be a compliment. Duh. No one is claiming that Olbermann was complementing McCain. The statements are not, however, equally offensive, as you state. Therefore, it is incorrect to state, as you did, that "Olbermann called McCain a war monger"

If O'Reilley had claimed "Hillary is starting to dress like a slut." I would consider it an insult. I would not, however, start a thread entitled "O'Reilley calls Hillary a slut".

Is any of this sinking in?

"Is beginning to..."

Sorry, but we can't let Cicero off on this.

 

[gdnp]

"Is beginning to..."

Sorry, but we can't let Cicero off on this.

Your points are, of course, correct. However, Cicero seems to have trouble with long sentences, and since the point was made even without the "beginning to look like" part, it seemed superfluous.

Like commenting to someone that wears a Hawaiian shirt to a formal wedding that his tennis shoes don't match.

 

[Gene L]

After a number of brilliant and englightenng posts I must bow away from this morass you guys have created, where the credibility of a news organization lies with how much hate is expressed in a "terrorist fist" comment, meant as a joke, and the "baby mama" thing.

To argue further is idle, and will convince none of the posters who suffer left-wing myopia.

Long ago, I thought I'd given up playing with kids, but apparently the kids are now posting on the JREF forum.

 

[boloboffin]

a "terrorist fist" comment, meant as a joke

Manifestly not true. Where does E.D. Hill say anything about that comment being a joke? She says it was present in the media before she said it. Ostensibly the purpose in saying it was to give an overview of what people in the media are saying about this gesture.

If that's your level of adult contribution to this discussion, bye.

 

[Pookster]

Dr. Adequate, that comment is juvenile. Well, highschool cheerleder juvenile.

Did you get your feelings hurt, fluffy?

Nyah, nyah, nyah...

... Long ago, I thought I'd given up playing with kids, but apparently the kids are now posting on the JREF forum.

Buhbye!

 

[Lurker]

If FOX News is so biased, why did Terry Mcauliffe and PA Gov. Ed Rendell commend FOX News as "fairest and most objective" during entire primary coverage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64PRLw9nW2U

Hmm, both were Clinton supporters. Both probably appreciated that FoxNews attacked both Clinton and Obama equally. They did not appreciate how the other big media (ABC, NBC, CBS) favored Obama over Clinton. Of course, that does not mean that Fox attacks Republicans and Democrats equally since we all know that FoxNews saves their gunpowder for Dems only.

The problem is, you are using a subset to extrapolate their comments to the set as a whole.

 

[varwoche]

After a number of brilliant and englightenng [sic] posts I must bow away from this morass you guys have created

This will be quite a loss! Sure, we'll miss your brilliance Gene. More specifically, we'll miss the astute arguments you've posted backing up your keen observations. Also the outstanding resources you've linked to -- luckily they're preserved here so that we can revisit them time and time again. We'll also miss the way you deal straight up with every challenge issued, relentlessly sticking to the facts. Last but not least, let's not forget your mastery of the English language and whimsical turn of phrase.

 

[Cicero]

Totally irrelevant, and sadly not surprising, considering it's the kind of thing you've done (especially when you're losing badly) ever since we've known you here.

The point is not whether one comment is offensive and the other is not. The point is they are not the same, nor close enough to justify your lie about Olbermann. Please try to stay on track.

Of course the point is KO's comment is offensive as well as erroneous. How is using KO's words verbatim "lying" about him or his invincible bias?

You and KO share the same penchant for hysterical hyperbole and flummoxed flippancy. Not surprising, considering your JREFer comments, it is no wonder that you do not see the relevance. Here is a typical exchange with you

"I feel for ya. No one listened to me when I said Reagan had Alzheimers in the early 80s." Snide

Not being a physician, or ever having examined Reagan, no wonder your claim had zero credibility.

"The doctors said that they had not noticed any signs of the disease while he was in office and that they saw the initial signs of it around 1992. Anyone who believes he had Alzheimer's as president will have to find proof from an independent examination of his full medical records from those years and later.
LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3628450#post3628450

 

[Cicero]

since we all know that FoxNews saves their gunpowder for Dems only..

Come on. There are conservative pundits on FOX News that take pot shots at conservatives as well. Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc have ridiculed McCain, Huckabee, Paul, etc.

Now that both Hilary and Obama have been interviewed on FOX News by O'Reilly and Wallace, and gave perhaps their best performances on FOX, it is absurd to continue your denial that FOX News does not offer a fair forum for Democrats.

 

[Cicero]

Like commenting to someone that wears a Hawaiian shirt to a formal wedding that his tennis shoes don't match.

Reliving your nuptial faux pas may be nostalgic for you, but how does this advance your bizarre defense of KO? Perhaps you need to view more than one edition of "Countdown". Ed Schultz called McCain on his April 5 radio show a "warmonger." He left off the superfluous "beginning to look like" phony caveat.

 

[Lurker]

Come on. There are conservative pundits on FOX News that take pot shots at conservatives as well. Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc have ridiculed McCain, Huckabee, Paul, etc.

Oh please. Their criticisms of conservatives is predominantly limited to a wag of the finger while they reserve their red hot vitriol for liberals.

Now that both Hilary and Obama have been interviewed on FOX News by O'Reilly and Wallace, and gave perhaps their best performances on FOX, it is absurd to continue your denial that FOX News does not offer a fair forum for Democrats.

?? No, Fox does not offer a fair forum for Democrats. Again, look to see what the vast majority of the talking heads shows on Fox concern themselves with, it is with excoriating Dems. Heck, they even went so far as to "mistakenly" label some conservatives who had a scandal as Democrats. Odd how they never seem to make that same mistake in reverse.

 

[Cicero]

Oh please. Their criticisms of conservatives is predominantly limited to a wag of the finger while they reserve their red hot vitriol for liberals.



?? No, Fox does not offer a fair forum for Democrats. Again, look to see what the vast majority of the talking heads shows on Fox concern themselves with, it is with excoriating Dems. Heck, they even went so far as to "mistakenly" label some conservatives who had a scandal as Democrats. Odd how they never seem to make that same mistake in reverse.

You are still clinging to the DailyKos/Media Matters/moveon.org/MSNBC talking points. They implored Dems to stay away from FOX News. And when both Clinton and Obama finally ignored the bad advice, they found out that FOX News gave them a chance to reach the most number of people on cable and make their points without fear of being 'excoriated."

You obviously do not even watch FOX News as the silly label graphic incident is the go-to mantra of FOX perfidy by the above mentioned left wing sources.

 

[Lurker]

You are still clinging to the DailyKos/Media Matters/moveon.org/MSNBC talking points. They implored Dems to stay away from FOX News. And when both Clinton and Obama finally ignored the bad advice, they found out that FOX News gave them a chance to reach the most number of people on cable and make their points without fear of being 'excoriated."

Personally, I believe that FoxNews was so hurt by the major Dems boycotting them that they decided to be soft on Hillary and Obama. O'Reilly certainly spent pretty much every show begging them to come on. Of course, that did not stop them for blasting them every chance they got AFTER they were on their shows.

Cicero, it is not just the specific interview of the Dem that is in question. It is also the unrelenting negative analysis after said interview. Conservatives do not get that sort of treatment on Fox.

You obviously do not even watch FOX News as the silly label graphic incident is the go-to mantra of FOX perfidy by the above mentioned left wing sources.

How many times has it happened, Cicero? Once? Twice?

 

[gdnp]

how does this advance your bizarre defense of KO? Perhaps you need to view more than one edition of "Countdown".

Why? If the show is as biased as you say, I would think it would be a waste of my time. Of course, you have been unable to provide any further evidence of this. Besides, I do not need to bolster my defense of KO. You have yet to refute the previous one.

Ed Schultz called McCain on his April 5 radio show a "warmonger." He left off the superfluous "beginning to look like" phony caveat.

More hearsay from Cicero. This is becoming a pattern.

Sorry, never heard of the guy. Trying to change the subject and send us on another wild goose chase?

Post a link or a verbatim transcript, or stop wasting our time.