White House Calls Out Fox By Name For Lying

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

0 posted 2009-10-01 10:50 AM

"Last night Fox News continued its disregard for the facts, in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts to win the Olympics for the United States."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-Turning-a-Point-of-Pride-into-a-Moment-of-Shame/

Good to see the Obama Administration is bringing out the truth about how Fox talk show hosts lie to their viewers.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

1 posted 2009-10-01 04:37 PM

"Last night Fox News continued its disregard for the facts

Good to see that whitehouse.gov can't even distinguish between Fox News and a talk show.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

2 posted 2009-10-01 05:15 PM

"The Fox News Channel (FNC), commonly referred to as Fox or Fox News, is a major American cable news and satellite channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group."

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

3 posted 2009-10-01 07:56 PM

I think the White House calling ANYONE else a liar is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Anyway, Glenn's reply:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/31387/

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

4 posted 2009-10-01 08:25 PM

Here's a source you may like even better, Denise, it's got LOTS of juicy bits: http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/little-reality-check-for-reality.html

You get to the point much faster when you don't have to sort through Beck's histrionics.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

5 posted 2009-10-01 08:32 PM

Glenn made a good effort to cover his you know what, think he'll do it again when he finds out, gosh darn it all, he misspoke twice?

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

6 posted 2009-10-01 09:54 PM

Did you read the facts in the link you provided, Jennifer?

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

7 posted 2009-10-01 10:43 PM

Yep, sure did, Denise. Though quite honestly, I'm not sure why I posted the link. Happens sometimes, something strikes me at sort of a sub-conscious level that takes a while to surface. Anyway, if nothing else, maybe fuel for the fire?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

8 posted 2009-10-02 12:35 PM

the standard m.o

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

9 posted 2009-10-02 04:06 AM

     I am unclear what you meant by that comment about the standard m.o., Mike.  Exactly what would that be?

     Do you mean the White House calling Glen Beck on the specific lies he voiced during his broadcast?  Would that the White House made more of a practice of doing exactly that!  I got the impression that you were not at all bothered by the outright lies that Glen Beck was giving voice to but were upset that somebody might think that Glen Beck wasn't a talk show.

     I suspect that telling lies on a talk show listened to by large numbers of true believers and telling lies on a news show listened to by large numbers of true believers might actually be two different things.  But then you'd still have to explain why all those Fox viewers ended up believing all those lies about the Iraq war, such as 1) Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11; 2) There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and 3) The rest of the world supported the US intervention in Iraq.  While the number of viewers of PBS who believed such lies was far, far lower.  You may dislike Wikipedia, but their citations are pretty good, and you can check them out for yourself.

     Lies like those of Beck and Hannity are often taken by Fox viewers as the truth, as though they were news and not, charitably, opinion, and they go quite a distance in helping form the opinions of those viewers, despite the fact they they are often false.  I use the information about the Iraq war here as a benchmark, since that's been pretty well established, and even President Bush has acknowledged that the information given out in the early days of the war was false, though Vice President Cheney would often contradict President Bush's statements very quickly thereafter.  You may remember some of our conversations on those subjects.

     This business about "m.o." and "finger-pointing" sound very much like ad Hominem attacks to me, Mike.  If you have something telling to say about the subject, then tell it.  I find that stuff of interest, and I think it furthers the conversation on Fox News here, which is what I believe we're trying to talk about.

BK

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

10 posted 2009-10-02 06:58 AM

I guess the "lies" of Fox News convinced Bill Clinton and the majority of the members of Congress that WMD existed?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

11 posted 2009-10-02 08:27 AM

maybe fuel for the fire?

That's the standard m.o., Bob. Nice to see it admitted, although it's been obvious for some time.

Yes, Denise. It was FOX news who caused Clinton to call Iraq the most dangerous threat to the U.S. FOX caused the majority of Congress at the time to call for war against Iraq, FOX caused Kennedy to advocate using all force necessary up to and including nuclear weapons to stop Iraq, saying he had "irrefutable proof" of the existense of WMD's. FOX sent Monica to seduce Billy so they could initiate another "right wing conspiracy" against him. FOX caused Frank to stand up and declare the Fanni and Freddie were in great shape, even at the time they sere sliding down into eventual ruin. It was ll FOX news.

Didn't you know?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

12 posted 2009-10-02 08:32 AM

You may dislike Wikipedia, but their citations are pretty good, and you can check them out for yourself.

Actually, Bob, you may recall that I used to use references from Wikipedia as the Bible, until a few folks educated me to the fact that Wikipedia was a place where everyone could enter info and even edit which I, in my gullibility, wasn't aware of. Seems I recall you were one of those who educated me to that fact but I could be wrong.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

13 posted 2009-10-02 11:11 AM

Fox lies? Wanna see a whopper?

Here you go. Not only is the headline a lie, so is the pic.
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/105636/original.jpg

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

14 posted 2009-10-02 07:04 PM

     Actually, Mike, about Wikipedia you are wrong.  I said then and I say now that it's an excellent reference source with flaws, and that if you don't accept the truth of everything you read in print, it remains excellent.  Wikipedia is actually improving with its new color coding system, for what it's worth.  Even at the time when you were fooled by the spurious right wing insertion into Wikipedia I told you that it was OK, and that it could happen to anybody.

     Perhaps you have trouble remembering that I actually do like you and am sympathetic to a lot of stuff you say and try to do at times.  But it is the truth, though we have our real enough differences.  Other hands though Wikipedia less trustworthy.  Their references are a good resource for further reading and study.  As always, a single reference isn't really enough structure  to build a firm foundation for a thesis. More is better.

     I still don't understand what you mean by m.o. in this case, even with your explanation, which I found as cryptic as the original remark.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.