Fox News racist or just hates Obama?

[Gene L]

I was simply giving you a chance to actually have a productive discussion. What you do with that opportunity is your own choosing.

Actually, you do becuase I am not certain what YOU are call disgusting.

Is it disgusting that McCain is willing to war for 100 years?
Is it disgusting to highlight the human side of such a policy?
Was it taking McCain out of Context? Really, Ido not know what YOU think in this matter.

I ask relevance because we are discussing Fox news and their bias/insults made during news casts. mentioning an attack ad by a PAC doesn't even begin to make sense in this regard. You might as well mention your favorite knitting patterns for as much bearing it has on the topic.

Actually, I think it's been established that I don't.

Yours is an egocentric vew of debate, in that you place yourself in the center of this, and put your own limitations and expect me to recognize them. You would require me to kowtow to (or "tout")your view of the issue. It ain't gonna happen. It is idle to let somone else set the rules, whether a card game or a dabate.

Also, do you want to discuss the relevance of the BF above in regard to the discussion of Fox News bias, since you insist on staying on the topic?

For the record. The referencing of MSNBC's potential bias is at least on topic. I think it a poor argument, but it is at least on topic.

It's unfortunate you interpret my posts in such a way.

Please explain why this is a poor argument.

I can see you choose to avoid hard questions instead of debating them. Oh well, I guess you'll simply continue touting your 'liberals are bad' claptrap.

What are the "hard questions" to which you refer? All I've seen are slow balls across the plate.

 

[joobz]

Actually, I think it's been established that I don't.

Unfortunately, "it" in that sentence is undefined. Please be clear what you are refering to.

Yours is an egocentric vew of debate, in that you place yourself in the center of this, and put your own limitations and expect me to recognize them. You would require me to kowtow to (or "tout")your view of the issue. It ain't gonna happen. It is idle to let somone else set the rules, whether a card game or a dabate.

I'm simply asking you to focus yourself. You've been bouncing around in this argument like a spastic two year old. Perhaps you think that's an effectve debate strategy?

Also, do you want to discuss the relevance of the BF above in regard to the discussion of Fox News bias, since you insist on staying on the topic?

What's BF?

are you refering to my questions regarding the attack ad? If so, I was merely asking to figure out how they related to Fox News. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had a reason to link the topics.

Please explain why this is a poor argument.

It's a poor argument because Olberman is a pundit.
The "baby mama" and terrorist fist jab came from a news cast and a news anchor. This is night and day situations.

as I said earlier

If you had an example of MSNBC's newscasts making equally horribly illfounded accusations towards McCain, then there would be a point. Except the point wouldn't deminish Fox New's failing. It would simply mean that two news agency's are equally faulty. However, I will patiently await such data before making such a judgement

What are the "hard questions" to which you refer? All I've seen are slow balls across the plate.

Why is it acceptable to degrade a candidate in newscasts? I assume this is a hard question, because when asked, you've only dodged the issue.

 

[joobz]

I don't know about Cicero, but I don't have a clue as to what "Babys mama, baby's mama, or babies' mama" means. Nor do I understand what Obama meant when he brushed his shoulder at a comment (or statement, whatever) made by Sen. Clinton. Remember? I think it's an urban gesture, and one with which MSNBC understood, but not me.

Seriously?
I knew of the gesture well before JayZ. I always thought it was a cowboy thing.

What does "baby mama" mean?

It's a term for the unmarried mom of your child. It is a rather personal/informal/intimate term that would never be acceptable for a new cast to put underneath a person's name.

It is similar to having a news cast which would say, "Obama's Sweet Shortie" or "Obama's Honey bunny". Completely inappropriate.

 

[GreyICE]

Seriously?
I knew of the gesture well before JayZ. I always thought it was a cowboy thing.




It's a term for the unmarried mom of your child. It is a rather personal/informal/intimate term that would never be acceptable for a new cast to put underneath a person's name.

It is similar to having a news cast which would say, "Obama's Sweet Shortie" or "Obama's Honey bunny". Completely inappropriate.

God, the amount of ignorance here...

Baby Mama means unwed mother who had a kid to get the man to 'marry her.' It usually implies that she's a total goldigger and a rhymes with witch.

It is a remarkably insulting term. It is NOT an endearment.

 

[joobz]

God, the amount of ignorance here...

Baby Mama means unwed mother who had a kid to get the man to 'marry her.' It usually implies that she's a total goldigger and a rhymes with witch.

It is a remarkably insulting term. It is NOT an endearment.

Actually, you are wrong. it doesn't imply golddigger at all.

I didn't mean to imply it was purely endearing, but it is a term that blurs distinction. It can be self-imposed as a term of endearment, but it also can be used in a barbed fashion.
to claim it is entirely one or the other is simply wrong.

 

[GreyICE]

Actually, you are wrong. it doesn't imply golddigger at all.

I didn't mean to imply it was purely endearing, but it is a term that blurs distinction. It can be self-imposed as a term of endearment, but it also can be used in a barbed fashion.
to claim it is entirely one or the other is simply wrong.

Well let me put it this way - the common usage of the term as it arose is certainly not an endearment. It could be an ironic endearment, I guess, but I really don't see it.

In any case, I could only see it, being used in an impersonal context as an insult. There's no impersonal context where it would ever be an endearment - like, say, a TV 'News' broadcast.

For example, you might call your girlfriend 'my crazy girl' as a kind of joking endearment. But used impersonally, it's an insult.

 

[Gene L]

Unfortunately, "it" in that sentence is undefined. Please be clear what you are refering to.

Ah, the Bill Clinton argument about definitons. While it should be evident, the "it" is the assertion that I must explain the obvious.

I'm simply asking you to focus yourself. You've been bouncing around in this argument like a spastic two year old. Perhaps you think that's an effectve debate strategy?

I think it's an ineffective debate strategy to let someone else set the rules for the debate.

What's BF? Boldface. Should be "bf". It's an editor's mark.

are you refering to my questions regarding the attack ad? If so, I was merely asking to figure out how they related to Fox News. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had a reason to link the topics.

And I certainly appreciate your gift of the benefit of the doubt.

It's a poor argument because Olberman is a pundit.
The "baby mama" and terrorist fist jab came from a news cast and a news anchor. This is night and day situations.

You may think of Olbermann as a "pundit," and clearly he is that, but he is also a newscaster and believe it or not, his show is a newscast. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but it is described in this way: "The nightly news program ranks the day's top five stories. (Newscast)" I did not make this up, it's the info from the cable company, and presumably supplied by MSNBC. I will defer to MSNBC in this matter.

as I said earlier

Why is it acceptable to degrade a candidate in newscasts? I assume this is a hard question, because when asked, you've only dodged the issue.

[/QUOTE]

I don't think it is. That, sir or madam, is a question you should take up with Keith Olbermann.

 

[joobz]

Well let me put it this way - the common usage of the term as it arose is certainly not an endearment. It could be an ironic endearment, I guess, but I really don't see it.

In any case, I could only see it, being used in an impersonal context as an insult. There's no impersonal context where it would ever be an endearment - like, say, a TV 'News' broadcast.

For example, you might call your girlfriend 'my crazy girl' as a kind of joking endearment. But used impersonally, it's an insult.

that was entirely my point. I just wasn't clear about it.

 

[Gene L]

Further, the MSNBC official site not only says "Countdown" is a news program, they say it's an AWARD-WINNING news program.

The News Hole is "an award-winning blog" from the "award-winning crew and cast of Countdown "the award-winning television news hourCountdown with Keith Olbermann."

Ah. A "pundit" indeed.

 

[joobz]

Further, the MSNBC official site not only says "Countdown" is a news program, they say it's an AWARD-WINNING news program.

The News Hole is "an award-winning blog" from the "award-winning crew and cast of Countdown "the award-winning television news hourCountdown with Keith Olbermann."

Ah. A "pundit" indeed.

And Fox calls O'Reilly a news program as well. However, it's clear they aren't NEWSCASTS.

Bill O'Reilly heads arguably the best known, most written about, and most discussed cable news program around.

 

[Gene L]

And Fox calls O'Reilly a news program as well. However, it's clear they aren't NEWSCASTS.
[/B]

No no no no no. Countdown is an "award-winning newscast." This implies that someone actually give them an award in the newscast field. Not the op-ed field, the NEWSCAST field. (Cheesily, MSNBC even trademarked "award-winning newscast" and "award-winning cast and crew.")

What is clear is you just lost the debate!

Hoist by your own petard, as it were, skewered by your own argument, and now you'll have to condemn all those nasty nightly statements toward those whom Olbermann chooses. Which means Republicans, and HRC and her staff.

 

[abenja1]

The problem with Fox News is they are hiding behind the banner of Fair & Balanced when they are clearly not. They don't want Obama to win and will saturate their programming with anything that could hurt Obama. Now MSNBC, is in the Obama camp. They want him to win. All the newscasters/commentators there worship Obama. If both networks would come out and show their true colors, I honestly don't think anyone would care. Newspapers support candidates. Why can't MSNBC and Fox come out and do the same?

 

[joobz]

No no no no no. Countdown is an "award-winning newscast." This implies that someone actually give them an award in the newscast field. Not the op-ed field, the NEWSCAST field. (Cheesily, MSNBC even trademarked "award-winning newscast" and "award-winning cast and crew.")

You are correct. they do claim it as such. For shame on MSNBC.

What is clear is you just lost the debate!

If you think so. But you need to actually READ my full argument...
I'll post it again since you missed it the first two times.

If you had an example of MSNBC's newscasts making equally horribly illfounded accusations towards McCain, then there would be a point. Except the point wouldn't deminish Fox New's failing. It would simply mean that two news agency's are equally faulty. However, I will patiently await such data before making such a judgement.

I used BF to help you with the part you missed last time.

Hoist by your own petard, as it were, skewered by your own argument, and now you'll have to condemn all those nasty nightly statements toward those whom Olbermann chooses. Which means Republicans, and HRC and her staff.

Since he does his show in the facade of a newscast, Olberman is equally guilty.

I'm for raising the "temper" of the news, not seeking the lowest common denominator.

So, do you think MSNBC's actions excuse Fox's?

 

[Gene L]

So, do you think MSNBC's actions excuse Fox's?

No, but I think MSNBC's are a lot more egregious than Fox's, and therefore making Fox News pale by any measure of nastiness. It's every night on Olbermann, almost every paragraph. Nasty stuff.

As for Obama being insulted, there were two instances cited, one the "terrorist fist" thing, and the "baby's mama." It was acknowledged that the fist thing was a tease, and I accept that. It was a VERY minor bruise, if even that. The one I don't understand at all is "the baby's mama". If it's some sort of insult, it's not one that I've ever heard around here, and I've heard most racial comments, from both sides of the aisle. So, whoever made that comment could just as well said "the cactus armadillo" and it would have made the same sense to me. Which is nothing.

You hear far worse things (to the tenth power) every single night on Olbermann's show, and I find his show offensive. A NEWSCASTER should not be so biased as to be an open advocate. O'Reilly has views, and you know them, but I've never heard any attacks on Obama, Clinton, or McCain that would be equivilent in either frequency or nastiness to Olbermann's.

BTW, if you read the News Media blogs, Olbermann killed any chances he had in replacing Tim Russert on Meet the Press because of his bias. He lacks gravitas. While "Those Who Know" give Matthews a shot, it's a very, very long shot, basically for the same reasons, and also because he's supposed to be a bit of a loose cannon.

Tim Russert was a fine reporter, and you would never hear him on the air saying stuff like Olbermann, because he knew his credibility was one of the areas in which he was respected and revered.

 

[slingblade]

This is fascinating. You have no problem with the rabid anti-conservative comments and attacks on personalities made by MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams, Keith Olbermann and Raychill Maddow, who admittadly have a limited audience, but much larger than JREF website, but you upbraid me for using the term "libs" when discussing the bias at MSNBC?

I guess this means that MSNBC's crew have "weak arguments and the reasoning that forms them."

I don't watch that channel at all. I don't watch those shows, don't read the transcripts. I can't very well have or not have a problem with statements I never hear or read, now can I?

And I don't let TV pundits do my thinking for me. Not even Colbert.

Do you ever get embarassed jumping to conclusions like that one?

 

[varwoche]

And Fox calls O'Reilly a news program as well. However, it's clear they aren't NEWSCASTS.

Of course official news should be held to a higher standard. But I don't let the other programs off the hook as easy as you do for several reasons:

- These are 24 hour news networks. News is infused throughout the lineup and the networks are accountable for the programming.
- A relatively small amount of the programming is Official News. If we disregard a majority of the programming we're not getting the big picture.
- It's had to tell which show is official news -- it's all morphed together. On Fox, I thought it was Special Report with Brit Hume (despite that a large portion of the program is pure punditry). Someone else said it was Studio B. And I'll be damned if I can tell you which CNN program is The News and I'm quite familiar with the lineup.
- For anyone to tout a baseless smear is unacceptable. Why should hosts of TV shows on news networks -- in many cases professional journalists -- get a free pass?

 

[Pookster]

Of course it is the same thing.

It is? LOL Too cute. But thanks for that revealing bit about yourself.

 

[joobz]

No, but I think MSNBC's are a lot more egregious than Fox's, and therefore making Fox News pale by any measure of nastiness. It's every night on Olbermann, almost every paragraph. Nasty stuff.

As for Obama being insulted, there were two instances cited, one the "terrorist fist" thing, and the "baby's mama." It was acknowledged that the fist thing was a tease, and I accept that. It was a VERY minor bruise, if even that.

YOu say minor, but it goes towards the perputal claim of Obama being Muslim/terrorist. Fox news insinuations of being muslim as a youth, that he isn't patriotic/hates america (no hand over the heart in a photo), ... This was just another manifistation of that label.

The one I don't understand at all is "the baby's mama". If it's some sort of insult, it's not one that I've ever heard around here, and I've heard most racial comments, from both sides of the aisle. So, whoever made that comment could just as well said "the cactus armadillo" and it would have made the same sense to me. Which is nothing.

Because you are unware of a term, you view it as unimportant?

You hear far worse things (to the tenth power) every single night on Olbermann's show, and I find his show offensive. A NEWSCASTER should not be so biased as to be an open advocate.

I don't watch his show and if he is as nasty as you say then I agree he should not have the label of a anchorman/newscaster. It seems in looking though the MSNBC website that they save the real journalism for NBC and MSNBC gets the fluff.

O'Reilly has views, and you know them, but I've never heard any attacks on Obama, Clinton, or McCain that would be equivilent in either frequency or nastiness to Olbermann's.

No, but I've heard Hannity be quite nasty. And they interview Ann Coulter enough to fulfill the nasty quota.

BTW, if you read the News Media blogs, Olbermann killed any chances he had in replacing Tim Russert on Meet the Press because of his bias. He lacks gravitas. While "Those Who Know" give Matthews a shot, it's a very, very long shot, basically for the same reasons, and also because he's supposed to be a bit of a loose cannon.

Tim Russert was a fine reporter, and you would never hear him on the air saying stuff like Olbermann, because he knew his credibility was one of the areas in which he was respected and revered.

this is actually an interesting question. There should be a seperate thread discussing who would be a good replacment for Russert.

 

[gdnp]

Much of this pointless debate seems to revolve around GeneL's language problems.

He cannot distinguish the difference between statements like "McCain is starting to sound like a war monger" and "McCain is a war monger."

He cannot distinguish between statements like "sell (McCain) as a crazier version of Barry Goldwater" and "McCain is crazy"

The differences here are fundamental, and he seems entirely unable to grasp them. Perhaps a primer would help.

If I were to say "John McCain is shorter than Barack Obama", it does not mean that I think "John McCain is short"

If I were to say "John Smith looks like he is starting to go bald", it does not mean the same as "John Smith is bald"

If I state that "George Bush is using McCarthyite (or fascist) tactics in the war on terror", it does not mean that I think that George Bush is a McCarthyite or fascist.

If I state that "Bill O'Reilley is dumbing down the debate", it does not mean that I think Bill O'Reilley is dumb.

Gene L also does not seem to realize that some of us at least try to have a life. Thus assertions that Olbermann and Matthews make worse statements every night is not particularly helpful to those of us who do not watch these shows on a regular basis. I watched Olbermann for the first time last night. He hit pretty hard on the hypocrisy of McCain's "I never truly loved my country until I was deprived of her company" comment, and did a nice tap-dance on why Obama was not really going back on a promise by not taking federal funding. Clearly strongly partisan. But nothing that crossed the line, IMHO. He never even hinted that he did not believe that McCain loved the US.

 

[Gene L]

gdnap, I, Gene L, don't have any language problems.

If, for example, I said: I think you're crazier that either John McCain or Barry Goldwater, but I don't think you're crazy.

Your diatribe sounds sillier than Pee-Wee Herman's, but that doesn't mean I think you're silly.

Your ability with words is on a 4th Grade level, but that doesn't mean I think you're a primary school student.

it is clear that I would think you're crazy, silly, and illiterate, and the only question is how much. It's unfair.

If someone said about a politician, "He's more crooked than a Kennedy," the dig is the first noun, not in the degree. It's all there in a 5th grade grammare book.

Why, if I didn't know you better, I'd think you're trying to be nasty to me! In sort of a passive-aggressive way, of course, but you would only do that if you recognize you've lost the debate and are falling back on the time-honored internet tradtion of being bitchy

joobz:

Because you are unware of a term, you view it as unimportant?

I am strongly suspicious that you, also, are unaware of the meaning of the term as well, and quite possibly feel the term has no meaning. And yet you get upset about it.

Will you please explain what "Baby's Mama" means and why it's offensive? the meaning, or are you getting exercized over a round YOU can't define?