Fox News racist or just hates Obama?

[Cicero]

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.



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

Since FOX News has remained the cable ratings leader, whether the Dem candidates appeared on their network or not, how exactly was FOX News hurt, again?

What negative analysis of either interview are you referring to? Come on. Start providing some evidence to go along with your sweeping generalities.

Liberal politicians do not get any scrutiny on the other network and cable channels unless their is a fatality during an automobile 'accident."

 

[Cicero]

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.



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.

Since you rely on the JREFer forum for your news, I will gladly oblige you regarding the well-reported Schultz comment:


http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/04/2008-04-07-CNN-AM-Schultz.mp3

 

[Lurker]

Since FOX News has remained the cable ratings leader, whether the Dem candidates appeared on their network or not, how exactly was FOX News hurt, again?

ACtually, Fox gained tremendously by having on Clinton and Obama. It raises their gravitas among the news orgs. They appear more important by doing this.

What negative analysis of either interview are you referring to? Come on. Start providing some evidence to go along with your sweeping generalities.

Sure. It is more than you provide since you rarely source anything you claim.

Fox & Friends May 1 2008. They commented how Clinton was able to restrain her hideous laugh during the interview. They criticized her points about income tax rates. they said she was not her usual "stiff, stilted, Stepford wife" persona.

Liberal politicians do not get any scrutiny on the other network and cable channels unless their is a fatality during an automobile 'accident."

This is hyperbole, right? Liberals are examined at length by the major news orgs and cable news ogs. Heck, MSNBC and CNN by YOUR OWN WORDS trashed Clinton pretty regularly as they raised Obama up on high. Did you forget how you on another thread talked about how they insulted Clinton greatly?

 

[Cicero]

ACtually, Fox gained tremendously by having on Clinton and Obama. It raises their gravitas among the news orgs. They appear more important by doing this.


Sure. It is more than you provide since you rarely source anything you claim.

Fox & Friends May 1 2008. They commented how Clinton was able to restrain her hideous laugh during the interview. They criticized her points about income tax rates. they said she was not her usual "stiff, stilted, Stepford wife" persona.


This is hyperbole, right? Liberals are examined at length by the major news orgs and cable news ogs. Heck, MSNBC and CNN by YOUR OWN WORDS trashed Clinton pretty regularly as they raised Obama up on high. Did you forget how you on another thread talked about how they insulted Clinton greatly?

You have a strange definition of the word "hurt." Now you are changing the word to "gained." So Fox News was not hurt by not having obama/Hillary on, but rather, gained by having them on?

Clinton does have a hideous laugh. Is stating the obvious also considered to be off bounds? Hillary does have a Stepford Wife persona, only without the requisite sexiness of the true Stepford Wife. But F&F is a show in the mold of Regis and whomever. Did news anchor the criticize her appearances on O'Reilly or with Wallace? Of course not.

The only reason MSNBC trashed Hillary is because she was in the way of the more liberal Obama. Did we not cover this earlier? Aside from the Bosnia snipery stuff, which was well deserved, MSNBC only got on Hillary when she was in Obama's way, not because they have any real problems with her ideology.

If I have not provided a link in a post it is because one would have to be lviing on Atlantis to not have heard of the info. The Ed Schultz thing is a perfect example.

 

[gdnp]

Since you rely on the JREFer forum for your news, I will gladly oblige you regarding the well-reported Schultz comment:


http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/04/2008-04-07-CNN-AM-Schultz.mp3

Thanks. Schlutz thinks McCain is a war monger. He explained why. What's your point?

 

[Snide]

Of course the point is KO's comment is offensive as well as erroneous.

No. The original point was KO did not say what you said he said, which is what I called you out on.

You then tried to say it was the same, and when you failed at that, you added the red herring that what he said was still offensive, as if that was relevant.

How is using KO's words verbatim "lying" about him or his invincible bias?

You know, what I so often find humorous about your posts is how you actually think you are making yourself like good. (Note I simply said it was a lie, nothing about an "invincible bias.")

Anyway, to answer your question, you lied by saying he called McCain a war monger. You then used his words verbatim to try to back it up, and were called on it because those words did not back you up. You lose. Good day, sir.

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

Ooh, a "look over here" argument from you when you are looking foolish. More of the same...ironic that you bring up "typical" exchanges.

But thanks for posting the link. I encourage anyone here who cares to go back and read the entire dialogue for context, beginning with Beeps' Carter joke, all the way through to my last comment on page 2 of the thread.