Hillary losing ground...

[lilithu]

Fox is doing the same thing the other networks are doing - so why jump all over fox?

Because FOX is the one that reported the misinformation about Barack Obama. FOX is the one that suggested that a U.S. Senator and presidential candiate had ties to Muslim extremists. Not any other networks. Just FOX.

 

[nutshell]

Because FOX is the one that reported the misinformation about Barack Obama. FOX is the one that suggested that a U.S. Senator had ties to Muslim extremists. Not any other networks. Just FOX.

But what FOX is doing is not any different than any other network.

 

[Mathematician]

But what FOX is doing is not any different than any other network.

Care to provide some examples of smeared news that compares to falsely connecting a presidential candidate with radical Islam?

Last I remember, Dan Rathers 'stepped down' after the memo scandal. CBS also fired four people connected with the story.

I do recall the Swiftboat liars, though.

 

[nutshell]

Care to provide some examples of smeared news that compares to falsely connecting a presidential candidate with radical Islam?

Last I remember, Dan Rathers 'stepped down' after the memo scandal. CBS also fired four people connected with the story.

I do recall the Swiftboat liars, though.

Looks like you just provided you own examples of smearing.

 

[Comprehend]

Because FOX is the one that reported the misinformation about Barack Obama. FOX is the one that suggested that a U.S. Senator and presidential candiate had ties to Muslim extremists. Not any other networks. Just FOX.

Um. Actually you might want to check your facts on this one. According to an article on CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html

Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.
Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa. (Watch video of Obama's school )
Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.
He called the story "an obvious right-wing hit job."
Insight stood by its story in a response posted on its Web site Monday afternoon.
The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post, The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News and a number of political blogs. (Watch how the Obama "gossip" spread )

but don't let facts get in the way ...:areyoucra

 

[Mathematician]

Looks like you just provided you own examples of smearing.

The difference is that CBS took an appropriate position of responce. :areyoucra Every 'journalist' still piping about this story should be fired and shunned until they apologize.

 

[lilithu]

Um. Actually you might want to check your facts on this one. According to an article on CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html

but don't let facts get in the way ...:areyoucra

OK. According to the CNN article, a magazine owned by the notoriously conservative Washington Times claims that the misinformation about Obama came from the Clinton camp, and FOX News repeated that claim that Clinton was behind it. So I was wrong that it was only FOX news. Apparently the New York Post and the Glenn Beck show repeated it also.

All you are doing is providing evidence that Hillary is being smeared by a cadre of conservative news outlets.

 

[Comprehend]

According to the CNN article, a magazine owned by the notoriously conservative Washington Times claims that the misinformation about Obama came from the Clinton camp, and several news sources repeated that claim that Clinton was behind it. It still remains that the original misinformation about Obama having ties to Muslim extremists aired on FOX.

All you are doing is providing evidence that Hillary is being smeared by conservative news outlets.

Yes, don't let facts get in the way. :areyoucra

Actually, all I did was to prove your previous post was wrong when you said

FOX is the one that suggested that a U.S. Senator and presidential candiate had ties to Muslim extremists. Not any other networks. Just FOX.

you claimed that ONLY FOX broadcast it. I proved you were wrong.

Those were the facts I was talking about. Thanks though.

 

[lilithu]

Actually, all I did was to prove your previous post was wrong when you said

you claimed that ONLY FOX broadcast it. I proved you were wrong.

Those were the facts I was talking about. Thanks though.

Yes, please see my edited post. I was wrong. It wasn't just FOX. It's a vast right wing conspiracy. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Comprehend]

Yes, please see my edited post. I was wrong. It wasn't just FOX. It's a vast right wing conspiracy. Thanks for pointing that out.

Ok. I see now. I had just seen the article on CNN (yes I read CNN) the other day and thought I would point out that other networks had indeed covered the story.

 

[lilithu]

Ok. I see now. I had just seen the article on CNN (yes I read CNN) the other day and thought I would point out that other networks had indeed covered the story.

Why would I assume that you don't read CNN?


Actually, I don't read CNN... obviously.

 

[nutshell]

And the liberal denial continues.

 

[PureX]

OK. According to the CNN article, a magazine owned by the notoriously conservative Washington Times claims that the misinformation about Obama came from the Clinton camp, and FOX News repeated that claim that Clinton was behind it. So I was wrong that it was only FOX news. Apparently the New York Post and the Glenn Beck show repeated it also.

All you are doing is providing evidence that Hillary is being smeared by a cadre of conservative news outlets.

Actually, there is a chain of fools involved in these kinds of slander. It begins with the neo-con zealots, who feel that it's OK to lie to the general public to get the public to support what the neo-cons know is right. (Example: "weapons of mass destruction", "Saddam supported 9/11 terrorists", etc. They tell whatever lie they feel will help them to do what they believe needs doing.) In this case, they of course feel that both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton should not become president, so what better lie to tell than one that sets them against each other and slanders both. But for their lie to work, they have find a news outlet that will spread it. And in America, today, we have a number of media outlets who have discovered that they can gain an audience and make a lot of money by stirring up people's fears and prejudices, and who will gladly latch on to any lie that will help them do this. They are professional muck-rakers, who have discovered that there is always an audience for muck. Rush Limbaugh is the modern reinventer of this mass-media much-raking, but it actually has a long history going back through people like Senator McCarthy and Father Charles Goughlin. Getting rich and famous by playing on people prejudice and hate is nothing new.

So now days it's media outlets like Fox and the Washington Times who are always looking for some good slander to boost their ratings or their circulation. And the neo-con zealots are happy to provide it to them. And this is how these stories get out into the public consciousness. All the more so as the mainstream media too often reports on the story but doesn't bother to actually track down the truth, expose the lies, and most importantly expose the liars. Doing this costs a lot of money, and takes some time, and these days even the main stream media is all about money, and profits, and so sadly all too often does not investigate such intentional slander. And the intentional slanderers know this.

So far the overwhelming majority of these kinds of slander incidents have come from the zealots on the right. But not exclusively. There have been instances of it coming from the zealots on the left as well. But in recent years, the Bush team has benefited greatly from such slander practices and have as a result said very little against it, while the democratic candidates have tended to renounce it more loudly and quickly when it has occurred supposedly for their benefit.

Keep in mind that this is completely different from a candidate's camp releasing TRUE information about their opposing candidates as a way of cutting into their support. This is something I suspect most candidates will do if they need to, and they have the information to do so. If the information about Barrack Obama had been true, I would suspect that it might have come from Hillary's people. But the fact that it's yet another outrageous lie, aimed at promoting ignorance, prejudice, and even hatred against two democratic candidates, and was released into the public consciousness through notorious muck-raking media outlets, well, it has all the earmarks of the Carl Rove slander machine.

This nonsense didn't come from Hillary. It comes from the same place it's been coming from for over a decade. It's the same fools pushing it, and it'll be the same fools believing it. Fortunately, their numbers are shrinking.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

so why jump all over fox?

Because FOX has O'Riely?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Because FOX has O'Riely?

Or as I like to refer to him, Der Fuhrer.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Actually, there is a chain of fools involved in these kinds of slander. It begins with the neo-con zealots, who feel that it's OK to lie to the general public to get the public to support what the neo-cons know is right. (Example: "weapons of mass destruction", "Saddam supported 9/11 terrorists", etc. They tell whatever lie they feel will help them to do what they believe needs doing.) In this case, they of course feel that both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton should not become president, so what better lie to tell than one that sets them against each other and slanders both. But for their lie to work, they have find a news outlet that will spread it. And in America, today, we have a number of media outlets who have discovered that they can gain an audience and make a lot of money by stirring up people's fears and prejudices, and who will gladly latch on to any lie that will help them do this. They are professional muck-rakers, who have discovered that there is always an audience for muck. Rush Limbaugh is the modern reinventer of this mass-media much-raking, but it actually has a long history going back through people like Senator McCarthy and Father Charles Goughlin. Getting rich and famous by playing on people prejudice and hate is nothing new.

So now days it's media outlets like Fox and the Washington Times who are always looking for some good slander to boost their ratings or their circulation. And the neo-con zealots are happy to provide it to them. And this is how these stories get out into the public consciousness. All the more so as the mainstream media too often reports on the story but doesn't bother to actually track down the truth, expose the lies, and most importantly expose the liars. Doing this costs a lot of money, and takes some time, and these days even the main stream media is all about money, and profits, and so sadly all too often does not investigate such intentional slander. And the intentional slanderers know this.

So far the overwhelming majority of these kinds of slander incidents have come from the zealots on the right. But not exclusively. There have been instances of it coming from the zealots on the left as well. But in recent years, the Bush team has benefited greatly from such slander practices and have as a result said very little against it, while the democratic candidates have tended to renounce it more loudly and quickly when it has occurred supposedly for their benefit.

Keep in mind that this is completely different from a candidate's camp releasing TRUE information about their opposing candidates as a way of cutting into their support. This is something I suspect most candidates will do if they need to, and they have the information to do so. If the information about Barrack Obama had been true, I would suspect that it might have come from Hillary's people. But the fact that it's yet another outrageous lie, aimed at promoting ignorance, prejudice, and even hatred against two democratic candidates, and was released into the public consciousness through notorious muck-raking media outlets, well, it has all the earmarks of the Carl Rove slander machine.

This nonsense didn't come from Hillary. It comes from the same place it's been coming from for over a decade. It's the same fools pushing it, and it'll be the same fools believing it. Fortunately, their numbers are shrinking.

Frubals to you for an excellent analysis of the subject.:bow:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or as I like to refer to him, Der Fuhrer.

Thought that was German, but I can't get a translation for Fuhrer.

 

[standing_alone]

Thought that was German, but I can't get a translation for Fuhrer.

It is German for "leader," but it's spelled "Führer," which is probably why you didn't get a translation for it.

 

[des]

The Insight article proves nothing. What happens with this sort of news
is a very minor outlet (Insight) finds a story, and then the story is picked up by a larger outlet (Fox).

I saw the CNN story which discussed Obama's supposed extreme Islam connections. One reporter visited the school Obama went to at age 6.

I didn't see the stories were at all the same.

As for smears, I think this one was pretty low.
CBS was wrong, and someone with a good record as a journalism was pretty much ruined on the basis of this single story. I think that's quite a consequence. I doubt anythign at all will happen for Fox's shoddy story. It was arguably a much more serious "charge" against an individual. CBS' was that George Bush is a slacker essentially. Fox's is that Obama is an extremist Muslim. Mind you this all doesn't defend CBS's story. I just don't think it was quite in the same league. Now if they had claimed that GWB was a closet Nazi or KKK member, that would be in the same league.

I have seen bad journalism on other networks-- though I think the biggest problem of journalism these days it isn't bold enough. The run up to the war in Iraq was a major problem. I think most of the journalism was very timid.

--des

 

[Mathematician]

And the liberal denial continues.

*Gestures at your avatar* Got a Vendetta against liberals, I see.