FoxNews

[Bean Bag]

...just fox news.  That's all.  

I don't watch a whole lot of news (negative and depressing and I feel helpless against the corruption and degenerate slobs who have my money)... but if I do, it's FoxNews.  When I flip over to the Old Democrat Media, they're talking about crap and spinning it -- acting like I don't know they're spinning it and like I don't have access to other more truthful reports.

God Bless Roger Ailes and FoxNews.

--------------

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/13/Ailes-Award
"Ailes noted Fox News Channel finished its 137th consecutive month in first place in cable news and said part of the reason for the network's success is that it relentlessly covers news stories like Benghazi "we know others will not."

Imagine that... journalism as "niche."

"We covered Benghazi when four Americans were killed, even though no other network would touch the story," Ailes said.

Well it mustn't have been newsworthy...


"It’s an important story because it involves two hundred years of our military ethos, which is: If we ask you to ... risk your life for America, we promise that we will backstop you... In Benghazi we did not do that."

Well, I'm sure there's a good reason...

Ailes and Fox News were ultimately vindicated when evidence came to light that the Benghazi attacks did not occur due to a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video.

Video?  Wait... who said -- why would anyone say it was a video?  And how does that equal NOT helping your guys on the ground??!!!

HOLD ON!!  It was caused by a video!!  Stand down!!!  I repeat - stand down!


Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both implied that an anti-Islam video was responsible for the attacks even though evidence now suggests they both clearly knew that was not the case.

Ok, what?  Wait... hold on.  I'm still not sure why videos = stand down.
But... why did they say it was a video?

Am I drunk?

[Mendota Heights]

John Stossel, Andrew Napolitano and Ben Swann are great.

[Jason]

Stossel and Napolitano are good to keep up with, but otherwise I can't stand the channel.

[Bean Bag]

True.  Not much difference from other news outlets.  Same formula, pretty faces, dumbed-down reports, music intros.  But they at least cover news other outlets pretend to miss.

Stossel is awesome -- simpatico.  Napolitano.  Don't know Ben Swann.  Hannity's good and Van Susteren is decent at old school gumshoe journalism.

Glenn Beck -- scared the crackers out of me.  Really opened my eyes to the vast network of the Left -- all the tax-exempt shadow organizations that exist - masking as charities and community organizations.  All run by the same people!  I give him credit for giving "the folks" the stones to form the Tea Parties.  "You surround them."

[Mendota Heights]

Ben Swann is the Reality Check guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2psqUDTS9w

[SMiLE Brian]

Glen Beck is a huckster, he saw the fear after Obama was elected and used it to become a millionaire.

[Bean Bag]

I learned a lot from Beck -- the nature of our founding, about how organized and powerful and shadowy the Big Left has become.  Stuff I knew, but he put A LOT of it together.  The creeping "iron curtain."  Saul Alinsky.  Cloward and Piven.  More than I could stand.  But yes, he made his empire.

Hucksters?  Obama, Algore and the left... I see them as the hucksters.  They're the one's terrifying the townsfolk -- robbing them of their fortunes, selling magic beans and skipping town with a jalopy full of  Benjamins. 

[Alex]

As a left-leaner, I think all the cable news networks are big jokes. I just go with Stewart and Colbert for my cable news. When I want real, serious news, I'll go with the BBC. I'm sick of the blowhards, idiots, and pretty boys on the "news" channels. (This applies equally to O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Bob Novak, Lou Dobbs...). Why did Walter Cronkite's heyday have to be before I was ever conceived?

[Bean Bag]

Jon Stewart.  Yep, a lot of people have migrated to Jon Stewart for their -- as I call it -- highly-sweetened, news "fiber" breakfast cereal.  Ironically, he is today's lefty Walter Cronkite (who was also a leftist).

The problem I have with Stewart is he's obviously just another Lefty.  His program exists to laugh at people like me, which is fine -- but it's frustrating because I could show him to be the buffoon quicker than his cue card guy could get his punchline cards in order.

Also -- I don't watch him enough to know if this applies to him -- but like most leftists, they pretend to NOT be leftists and instead masquerade as impartial "journalists" or "entertainers" or whatever.  I assume this applies to him too, right?

Stewart's a quick, bright guy -- but the whole cloak of dishonesty is probably where I would start.  Square him up and out him.  It would take me 60 seconds to get "kicked off" his program.  Honesty is a powerful weapon!!  

But, anyway... back to reality... I can get the leftist opinion on any issue by sticking my head in a blender -- so I don't really "need" Jon Stewart.  While Stewart's delivery is fresh to the left -- accustomed to sour professors and "serious" dan rathers-types -- his views are still antiquated and wrong.

[Jason]

The Daily Show is low-information entertainment for low-information people. Kind of like MSNBC and Fox News, y'know.

[Bean Bag]

I think Daily Show is more than their entertainment.  I think it's their "fiber" too!    It's their news.  Their sarcastic, cultural sounding board.

That said... I'm just glad to see any Leftist with a sense of humor.

[Paulos]

I watched bit of the Fox News channel round a friends a few weeks ago and was convinced it must be a parody as I couldn't quote believe what I was watching. I think it was a 'debate' along the lines of 'Obama will come into your house, rape your children, steal your medicne and give it the poor!'. I say debate - there were 6 people, 5 of whom where republicans, who just kept yelling at the 1 democrat guy. Is it always like this? What the hell do they have to talk about when there's a republican president?

[SMiLE Brian]

*sigh* Welcome to America, Paulos.....

[Bean Bag]

Oh yeah, I saw that episode!  Classic.

What actually happened was, some right-wing maniac named, Debbie Washerman Shlitz or something, bit the head off of a bat and redefined marriage - LIVE ON TV -- as a union between a basketball and wax paper.  It was nutz!!


Here she is... now...  Look at this crazy, right wing nut!!!



I think the show ended with her proclamation that aliens should do Pilates with richard simons inside of dom deluise's butt.  It made nooooo sense!  I'm still deeply shivering.

[Alex]

What the hell do they have to talk about when there's a republican president?

When Bush was President they kissed his ass and told everyone to just blindly trust the government. After Obama took office, all of a sudden it was "government is bad, fight the evil liberal conspiracy", which is actually just a complete 360 back to how they were during the Clinton years. Doesn't matter if Clinton, Bush, and Obama all took the same stance on an issue, if Clinton or Obama push(ed) a particular policy, it was bad, but if Bush pushed the exact same thing, they'd gush over it.

[Jason]

Don't pretend that Fox News is more partisan than CNN or MSNBC. The latter two networks have found themselves loving the same sh*t Bush started and Obama continued merely because the latter has a (D) after his name and is an "oppressed minority". They have their heads so far up Obama's ass just like Fox News had their heads so far up Bush's ass.

[Bean Bag]

When Bush was President they kissed his ass and told everyone to just blindly trust the government.

Who are they?  It wasn't Conservatives.  It wasn't Libertarians.  It wasn't the Tea Party.  I'm not being flippant, that's a serious question.  They who?

Jeb Bush to award Hillary Clinton with 2013 Liberty Medal
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/jeb-bush-award-hillary-clinton-2013-liberty-medal/

[Alex]

When Bush was President they kissed his ass and told everyone to just blindly trust the government.

Who are they?  It wasn't Conservatives.  It wasn't Libertarians.  It wasn't the Tea Party.  I'm not being flippant, that's a serious question.  They who?

Sorry, by "they" I meant Fox News.

[Alex]

Don't pretend that Fox News is more partisan than CNN or MSNBC. The latter two networks have found themselves loving the same sh*t Bush started and Obama continued merely because the latter has a (D) after his name and is an "oppressed minority". They have their heads so far up Obama's ass just like Fox News had their heads so far up Bush's ass.

I don't even bother with the cable news channels. Never have. Some days it seems like The Onion and Weekly World News are more reputable than the "real" news.

[Rocky Raccoon]

The only news show worth watching is the PBS Newshour with Gwen Ifill.  They're unbiased and they present the news with class.

Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are terrible, I do like Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow but even they're a little extreme sometimes.

But Bill O'Reilly, Fox & Friends, Chris Wallace, Joe Scarborough, Glen Beck... those guys are at the very bottom of television journalism. 

PBS, NPR, New York Times; that's where you should get your news.

(As for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, those guy are comedians, they've never tried to be serious journalists and while I'm a big fan of both of them, I would never get my news exclusively from them.  Though when they point out what's wrong with Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, you have to admit they are absolutely spot-on.)

[Alex]

The only news show worth watching is the PBS Newshour with Gwen Ifill.  They're unbiased and they present the news with class.

You mean Jim Leher?

[Bean Bag]

PBS, NPR, New York Times; that's where you should get your news.

Unfortunately, those are just fake journalists spouting Left Wing Propaganda -- without the courage and human decency to admit they're Left Wingers spouting "raw-raw" Left Wing Propaganda.  That's a real character flaw in my book -- and at one time, a character flaw in every American Male's book.

I sincerely recommend Rush Limbaugh to balance out the bias and lack of manhood in your "news."  You would seriously benefit from it.  Plus he's honest about his positions, whereas the "news" organizations you mentioned pretend and lie about being impartial.  Pretty weenie when you think about it.  Plus Rush is witty and doesn't read from a prompter (Like Obama) with hackneyed propaganda written by some isolated, moronic college grad who "knows everything."  Rush just tells you what he thinks... like I do.  Like all honest men used to.

I do like Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow but even they're a little extreme sometimes.

Yeah, you definitely need some more "real manliness" in your news perspectives.  Those two men are wimpy turds.

But Bill O'Reilly, Fox & Friends, Chris Wallace, Joe Scarborough, Glen Beck... those guys are at the very bottom of television journalism.  

O'Reilly's not bad.  He has an agenda, but he does great interviews.  Both he and Wallace are not afraid to ask the obvious, tough questions... which is probably something you're not used to.  Bill's famous interview with that fat sh-t Barney Frank is what journalism should be -- holding criminals accountable... again, not something you would be used to I suspect.

(As for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, those guy are comedians, they've never tried to be serious journalists...

Serious?  No.  But they do pretend to be journalists.  And they're dishonest -- as are all leftists -- especially leftist pretending to be journalists.

[Alex]

PBS, NPR, New York Times; that's where you should get your news.

Unfortunately, those are just fake journalists spouting Left Wing Propaganda -- without the courage and human decency to admit they're Left Wingers spouting "raw-raw" Left Wing Propaganda.  That's a real character flaw in my book -- and at one time, a character flaw in every American Male's book.

I sincerely recommend Rush Limbaugh to balance out the bias and lack of manhood in your "news."  You would seriously benefit from it.  Plus he's honest about his positions, whereas the "news" organizations you mentioned pretend and lie about being impartial.  Pretty weenie when you think about it.  Plus Rush is witty and doesn't read from a prompter (Like Obama) with hackneyed propaganda written by some isolated, moronic college grad who "knows everything."  Rush just tells you what he thinks... like I do.  Like all honest men used to.

Limbaugh's not a journalist. He's an opinion guy, more entertainer than informer.

I do like Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow but even they're a little extreme sometimes.

Yeah, you definitely need some more "real manliness" in your news perspectives.  Those two men are wimpy turds.
[/quote]
I've never got the whole macho thing. Not you specifically, but just machismo and the whole "tough-guy" thing in general.

But Bill O'Reilly, Fox & Friends, Chris Wallace, Joe Scarborough, Glen Beck... those guys are at the very bottom of television journalism.  

O'Reilly's not bad.  He has an agenda, but he does great interviews.  Both he and Wallace are not afraid to ask the obvious, tough questions... which is probably something you're not used to.  Bill's famous interview with that fat sh-t Barney Frank is what journalism should be -- holding criminals accountable... again, not something you would be used to I suspect.
[/quote]
Like Limbaugh, O'Reilly's a pundit, not a reporter. If you fall on his side of the fence, he's good for entertainment value; But I wouldn't call screaming at and berating his guests "holding them accountable". It's actually nothing more than plain old "yelling and screaming".

(As for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, those guy are comedians, they've never tried to be serious journalists...

Serious?  No.  But they do pretend to be journalists.  And they're dishonest -- as are all leftists -- especially leftist pretending to be journalists.
[/quote]
Those guys are comedians. "Pretending" to be a journalist is part of their act, just as much as Limbaugh going on mean-spirited angry tirades over dumb non-issues is part of his act. The comedians and the pundits are both laughing all the way to the bank. The big difference is Stewart and Colbert's audiences are laughing with them, where Limbaugh and O'Reilly are laughing at their audiences for actually taking them seriously.

[Jason]

Talk radio hosts are about 5% news and 95% opinion. I listen to Michael Savage; I by no means take him for more than what he's worth - one guy giving an opinion on current affairs. Same goes for Rushed Limpballs, Sean "The Wallbanger" Hannity, Mark Levin, and all of these so-called "conservative" talk radio hosts.

[Dunderhead]

Rachel Maddow is a huge joke. I never knew how bad she was really until 2010. During the midterms some scientist or professor from a west coast university was running as a republican for the house. I saw her "interview" takedown piece of him being passed around and I was really surprised what a smarmy little pos she was to him.

As a professor he had put out a newsletter for years. In one place, in the 80s or 90s, this guy had written a few paragraphs offhand in his newsletter saying basically, "the scientific community has more or less agreed the hiv causes aids. I feel as if political motivations have maybe led to this hypothesis being accepted more quickly than was prudent as recently these specific studies X, Y, and Z have raised some challenging questions for this hypothesis." I remember then the final line was something pretty close to "ultimately it will only take a single paper to settle the matter".

I was really disgusted how the last line was being deliberately misinterpreted, as if to say "and *this* is that paper", but it's clear he wasn't considering his newsletter to be a scientific paper, he was simply saying more research was needed. Which I don't care how politicized and tumultuous the aids issue is/has become, that's a fucking good thing. Period. It's what science should always be doing every day regarding every piece of information it believes it knows.

In this interview she just constantly interrupted him, and then when he complained about being interrupted, she actually had the gaul to start mocking him for not understanding satellite delay by saying he "didn't understand the speed of light" or something like that. Even taking that delay into account there's no question she was interrupting him though, and just being generally rude and dismissive.

This video was proliferated across the internet by smug, asshole liberal democrats, who patted themselves on the back and jerked one another off about how smart and progressive they all were, and how republicans were all so woefully regressive and bad.

...

I would say, that was the exact moment I consciously abandoned leftism and turned my back on the democrats for good.

I don't trust any journalism. I like al jazeera well enough for their fairly balanced coverage, but dislike the opinions of their editorial staff a lot. zerohedge is great. Hyperbolic, somewhat too eager, and not to be trusted (like all economic news) when it comes to concrete predictions certainly, but really perceptive and intelligent from a pure econ standpoint. I check drudge report sometimes as well, but in general there is no single news website I really trust or endorse.