Community | October 24, 2009 | 198 comments

Why Fox News is Un-American

source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192

Image
cztheday
Last week, when White House Communications Director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage.

Consider Fox's Web story on the episode. It quotes five people. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased journalism. (Click here to follow Jacob Weisberg.)



If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw the familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list, the rest of the news media is in Obama's corner, Obama should get back to governing, and so on. On The O'Reilly Factor, Alan Colmes, the network's weak, battered house liberal, mumbled semi-agreement while "Doctor" Monica Crowley and Bill O'Reilly lit up the scoreboard with these talking points.

Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.

There is no need to get bogged down in this phony debate, which itself constitutes an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media. One glance at Fox's Web site or five minutes' random viewing of the channel at any hour of the day demonstrates its all-pervasive slant. The lefty documentary Outfoxed spent a lot of time mustering evidence that Fox managers order reporters to take the Republican side. But after 13 years under Roger Ailes, Fox employees skew news right as instinctively as fish swim.

Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking" about the president's health-care proposal is provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating people for swine flu. With this misinformation campaign, Fox stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers.

That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable.

What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.

Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalist
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   US Politics,   Opinion,   4 more
  2. tags:
    Fox News,  Fox News Watch
  3. recommended by:
    current89
  4.     
    |

198 comments // Why Fox News is Un-American

  • dc133
    • 0
      dc133  

    • Only state truth.. FOX must learn this... Never go against the president, especially after someone left america in shambles...

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • dc133:

      That's to say that the next president is even fixing anything. Just because you like the President doesn't mean he's doing a good job.

      You can place a demon next to the Devil and the demon would look better. Doesn't mean he is good.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • rdrnnr_beep_beep
    • 0
      rdrnnr_beep_beep  

    • Again, Anger and Zeal betray you. Any time where anger and words result in loss of congnative function and emotion over riding the brain and cursing and name calling results, means you have hit the end of your logical discussion and your emotions have over ridden your intellect.

    • 2 years ago
  • eden49
    • 0
      eden49  

    • ..."if it bleeds it leads"...hopefully Fox will achieve exsanguination in the not too distant future, and pale into insignifance...

    • 2 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • eden49:

      Amen, kiddo. Though if you think about it, wouldn't you rather have the kind of folks who are riveted by Fox News sitting firmly in their recliners rather than out on the streets mingling with an unsuspecting public? Hmmmm. Does that make FN a public service organization? Maybe I should call Rupe and tell him he might able to apply for a tax exemption...or not...

      I hope you are having a good day today, Eden! I turned down that job offer and felt SUCH RELIEF. 30 minutes later, I received an e-mail from the managing partner asking if I would be willing to stop by for coffee tomorrow morning because he would like to add a few items to the mix. Sigh.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
    • 0
      Mark701  

    • FOX "News" will eventually burn. Their problem is, even though they have x number of viewers, those viewers represent a relatively small percentage of people who take an exceptionally narrow and contradictory view of the world and politics. I'm sure FOX management is aware of this which is why they have gone over the top by allowing psychopaths like Beck and fools like Hannity spew their special idiocy over the air waves. In short, when you yell and you don't feel people are listening, you start screaming to attract attention. What they fail to realize is if no one wants to listen to them when they yell, even fewer will want to listen to them scream.

    • 2 years ago
  • rdrnnr_beep_beep
    • 0
      rdrnnr_beep_beep  
    • Mark701:

      Sir,

      I have traveled the world, been to Japan, Korea, China, Australia and a few islands, Mexico and the Caribbean.

      I have spoken with these people. My Family is Chinese. I am Irish, Scotch Irish descent. But 100% American.

      But your comment is divisive pure and simple.

      I know what most of the world thinks of us.

      I have friends from India, Pakistan, and the Middle East. Also friends from Europe.

      Ugly American comes to mind in many cases.

      Narrow Minded, completely lacking manners or a clue of how to interact with their surroundings.

      So self absorbed and selfish that they have little if any time for anyone other than themselves.

      That my friend, is what they see from us.

      American's rarely give a care of any one else's Customs and only comment on what does not match our own norms.

      That is what I have heard.

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  
    • Mark701:

      "Road Runner", your comments on American's are harsh, but representative of much of the World's opinions. I have traveled extensively and live overseas, thus have had the opportunity to observe the behavior of many people outside of the U.S. By and large, Americans are some of the most polite and kindhearted people walking the Earth. I will refrain from mentioning, the public spitting, hawking of phlegm, drunkeness, cursing, pushing, shoving, and ignorant, rude behavior exhibited by most of the World's population, outside of the U.S. I suggest spending some time in the U.S. and refrain from so much reading of the liberal prop. Your comments are not based on facts, but a simple minded refrain formulated by political agenda.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nettle
    • 0
      Nettle  

    • Both of you be nice to each other. I will be monumentally pissed if either one of you gets banned.

      Jay, you wanted me to warn you when you were getting hot.

      Cz, I won't forgive you if you let Jay touch a nerve and get the best of that cool, calm confidence that I like so much. He has a different opinion; that doesn't make him wrong.

    • 2 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • Nettle:

      Nettle,

      With your indulgence, I would just like to make three (incredibly verbose) points:

      1. I don't look to pick fights with Jammer. I don't read any of his original posts and very, very rarely even read his responses to MY posts. He, on the other hand, seems determined to follow me just about everywhere I go so that he can post highly critical responses to my posts -- which is fine -- but also regarding the evil, awful, dishonorable person I am. For the most part, that isn't a big deal, either. He has no real idea who I am, and I consider the source. But the sheer volume IS tedious. It is like having my own personal malevolent shadow. It's just kind of creepy.

      2. It is also clear from the few posts of his that I HAVE read that he expects me to treat his opinions with the kind of seriousness I would treat the opinion of a PEER. The Internet levels the communications playing field so that one has ACCESS to people one would likely not otherwise have. But that doesn't mean that the fundamental fabric of reality has changed so that suddenly everybody's opinion is equally valid.

      For example, I don't know how old Jammer is -- I am guessing 16-19. Well (and bear with me here before you get offended) if someone that age were to wander into my office and start telling me their opinion on whether Obama was qualified to be President, my usual reaction would be to page my assistant and ask him to put Jammer in a conference room with a nice juice box while I conversed with his parents.

      BUT the beauty of "Internet Anonymity" is that when a 16-19 year old who has exceptional insights posts original and/or thought-provoking comments, I have the pleasure of making that person's acquaintance BEFORE I make the mistake of judging them prematurely by their age instead of the quality of their minds.

      Likewise, the 48-year-old whose posts are so mindless and lame that they are better dropped into the drool cup strapped to his aging chin rather than posted for public viewing and (God forbid) debate, is anonymous, so he or she does not automatically receive deference simply because of his or her age.

      Wonderful. The thing is...YOU, my dear Nettle fall into that exceptional category of young people. And there are a few other young people on this site whose wisdom, discernment and sound judgment astound and delight me. I believe you may even have formed something of a close, personal attachment to/with one of them, no?

      Watching your minds at work on the issues and problems of the day...or even just engaging in good-natured hilarity is frankly heartwarming because it gives me hope that I am not sending my own children out into a world where the only mentality they will encounter is that reflected in so many of the dark, narrow-minded, intolerant, willfully ignorant opinions expressed by such a dismayingly large number of commenters on this site alone.

      For my own part, admittedly I may very well need fitting for that drool cup, but I will not go gladly or without a fight into the long night. In the meantime, I am pleased that the Internet has taught ME to be more open-minded to the possibility of peers who are a third my age.

      But Nettle, Jammer is NOT my peer. In the real world, even if Current has taught me to hear out the opinions of someone so young on the off chance that a "Nettle" has come along, dispensing pearls of wisdom, I have heard enough from Jammer to know that my assistant can find him a nice juice box while someone calls his parents (grandparents?). And lastly:

      3. You say that just because he has a different opinion doesn't make him wrong. Sigh. Come on, Nettle. People have wrong opinions all the time. One person on Current (not Jammer, to be clear) has expressed the opinion to me that women are intellectually inferior to men simply because of their gender. I strongly disagree with that opinion. Are you REALLY saying that neither of those opinions is wrong?

    • 2 years ago
  • Conniepae
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • Nettle:

      Nettle dearest....

      Condescending, pretentious and totally on high horse is only three things that come to mind whenever someone posts.

      Never trusts a flatterer. They'll stab you just like they stab everyone else---they only speak highly when the need to speak down on someone else is something they can't avoid. Pay attention to when they comment on how great you are--do they do so without insulting someone else? Because if they can't...then their flattering words are quite questionable.

      It is the trouble with people you think know how to use words. They do so not to be anything but above everyone else.

      I could state BUT to suggest that I wait to make my judgment calls but most people that BUT their thoughts are lying before they BUT and telling the truth afterwards. I am judgmental and 99% accurate on that account. Of the 1% I do make the mistakes on I am ready to apologize for.

      There are giants that need to be slain and when people don't do it they grow bigger and bigger and before you know it they think they are untouchable and knowledgeable enough to suggest that someone can become President because they were senator for two spits and piss.

      It is creepy to have a stalker. I have one on Current. They take the time to follow me around call me names. That is what an internet stalker does. It's creepier when someone calls someone a stalker or a shadow when it's not even true. It's like they are begging for a fan base. Egotistical.

      On another note I don't think CZ is a bad person. I would state what I actually think, but I wasn't asked that. I was just accused of thinking of him as a terrible person. I would have to disagree with that. But that wouldn't be the first time he's lied about what I thought--I don't count it to be the last.

      ---oh and on ignoring on the internet. It's not about ignoring those that annoy or you think are stupid because that's a joke. I've posted on many boards for many years and people like to toy with those they think are stupid to get them to continue to post stupid things. Those that annoy them they simply do not comment when they post.

      When someone goes out of their way to state that they are ignoring someone it's because that someone is a formidable foe. And why stand up to someone that will nail you to the floor and make you lose your fake control?

      People think that they are a great show of strength until something comes along to test that and then they want to avoid it because it'll show that they aren't nearly as strong as they had professed.

      Some people like to sail through life and opinions without challenges. They should just state that that's how they are instead of pretending they are a critical thinker.

      Staying comfortable in thought is like stating you love stale bread. MmmmMM....in this case stale thought.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nettle
    • 0
      Nettle  
    • Nettle:

      Oh god, you both wrote so much. :sobs into hands as I struggle with 14-hour train ride induced headache:

      Ok, I steel myself. And I'm going to make my points very short.

      CZ

      Jay treats everyone with the same amount of comments. He's not following you around and I don't think you're on every story all the time like I am to see that.

      You should treat him like a peer. I won't tell you how old he is (because that's not mine to share) but the idea that you think because he's younger than me that he's somehow less qualified to have any sort of weight to his opinions is bogus.

      Opinions can be unfair and gross, but you are not in a place to declare them wrong. I'm an agnostic atheist, you're a Christian, Jay won't tell me (I'm going to assume Christian). Now, our ideas are all fundamentally different: I believe there is no god, whereas you put your faith in a higher power. Who's wrong? No one is wrong because that's an opinion. There is monumental evidence in my favor, but there's also questions that can't be answered by science in your favor. No matter how much proof either side can provide, we will still never come to terms because our OPINION is not for anyone to disprove.

      So what? Jay thinks a president should have more experience than what Obama had (and I agree that he did have very little even though he seems to be doing quite well at the moment). Does it really bother you that much?

      Jay

      Never trust a flatterer? I guess I shouldn't trust you after that message you sent me. =P

      You have a lot of haters here on the site, so I'm honestly not surprised you have a stalker. I actually tried reaching out to a spammer one time, asking him why he did what he did. He ended up getting banned and naming his next profile after me. Pretty creepy.

      And I understand what you mean by the stale bread and when people don't ask your opinion. I see it all the time and it's rather disturbing.

    • 2 years ago
  • eden49
    • 0
      eden49  
    • Nettle:

      Dear Nettle...I have reticence to weigh into this ongoing thread, as I feel my respect and admiration for the man, I know as Cz, will only come across as one sided, and I've always tried to see both sides. However, to not comment on CZ, would have me at odds and ends. I know him on a personal level, and although, that is neither here nor there, apropos, to put forth an unbiased opinion, I would just like to add that, regardless of his views, it's all in the delivery. And I tend to shy away from anger & continuous personal attack, which seems to be the norm for our other colleage...respectfully...Eden...

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • Nettle
    • 0
      Nettle  
    • Nettle:

      ^_^ Eden. I actually know Cz on a very personal level as well. We've had in depth messaging conversations and I'd like to think of him as forbidden fruit (thus the flirting and beefcake jokes I throw at him).

      But I know Jay pretty well. Well actually I don't cuz he's quite secretive and doesn't like it when people get too close, but I'd like to think I know a bit more of him than the average user.

      My point being that I don't like watching my friends fight.

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • Nettle:

      I just read all of this in the last two minutes and my head is spinning just a little. The one clear thought that springs immediately to mind is I don't recall anybody holding a gun to Moon's head and forcing him to read any of this.

      Nettle, much of what you say in your posts here frankly confuses me. For example, I don't recall suggesting that you should believe in God for ANY reason let alone just because I do. My reasons for my beliefs are entirely my own. I would never even SUGGEST that someone else should believe in God, let alone ENCOURAGE them to do so. That decision is just too personal.

      I would really hate to lose your friendship (I don't have that many friends who consider me to be forbidden fruit, after all...well there IS my former college roommate, but since he is happily married with three children, I suspect he MAY be just teasing me -- the man is incorrigible).

      But as Eden suggested (thanks for the support, lovely Eden!) this whole discussion is a little surreal. I think it is great that you are so open-minded that you could be good friends with both cztheday AND jammer. But I am utterly baffled that you don't seem to see much difference between us.

      You mentioned to me your concern that if he continues to get in trouble he might be banned from Current. I did not realize that he was skating that closely to the edge with the folks who monitor such things...but they haven't heard any complaints about him from me - I don't believe I have ever flagged one of his posts.

      But I did not realize how much anguish this was causing you, and I refuse to cause you any more pain. So as far as I am concerned the matter is closed. If you would like to continue to be friends, I don't see why we ever have to discuss this topic again. There are an infinite number of infinitely more pleasant topics we can discuss...

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • Nettle
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  

    • LOL

      And there's something presidential about being a student?

      A senator?

      hahaha.

      Governor is closer than a senator at knowing what it would be like.

      People must think Obama has more experience than Clinton. Wow...that would be one group of stupid people.

      Of course it doesn't----but that doesn't mean people still don't think they are "all important."

    • 2 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  

    • Only someone who truly has NO idea how goverment works could possibly think that being Governor of Texas bears even the slightest resemblence to being President of the United States. The same is true of someone who would describe being a law professor as "school." Being a law professor is utterly unlike being a law student. Probably the most ridiculous aspect of this constant harping by the brainless right on Obama's so-called lack of qualifications is that not a single instance of this allegation has been accompanied by a detailed discussion of what a President does during the course of a typical day. I DO know, so I know that being aware of the subtleties of Constitutional interpretation is infinitely more useful to a President than the mundane trivialities that occupy the time of a state Governor. I meet with our Governor every two or three weeks. That doesn't make me at all important, of course. It is just part of my job. But we talk all the time about what he has been doing and what he will be doing going forward...as well as what his fellow governors are doing. There is NOTHING Presidential about those duties.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • cztheday:

      This has got to be one of the worst arguments I have read by you. Clearly being a state executive (Governor) prepares one for being the national executive better than being a Senator or community organizer. Governors actually have to deal with budgets and make tough choices base on limited resources.

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  
    • cztheday:

      'Governor' Palin can't name a major news publication nor describe accurately what the VP does nor name a single SCOTUS decision besides Roe v Wade.
      Yeah, she's got the experience from that governor gig.
      Obviously, any pandering moron loke Palin or Bush can become a governor if they nurture the right connections.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  

    • Obama was barely in a senator and then OMG I quit that and become President instead so I could pimp Chicago to be an Olympic city. Oh yeah.

      Bush was Governor. He had "job training".

      School isn't experience.

      Only someone who is straining to be right would use School as such.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • J_Jammer
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  

    • Actually, "funny" is when someone who barely has sufficient intellectual capacity to scratch their name in the dirt with a stick claims to know what "qualifies" someone to be President. For example, the solemn oath a man or woman swears on Inauguration Day focuses on the President's obligation to uphold the Constitution. Bush not only could neither read nor comprehend the Constitution, he was quite openly contemptuous of both the document and those who believe it is the bedrock upon which our society rests. Obama studied Constitutional law as a graduate student and then became a professor of Constitutional Law at one of the finest and most competitive law schools in the world. I have yet to meet a conservative who can even grasp the significance of that distinction. But yes, if being a serial failure in private industry after decades of drug and alchohol abuse qualifies one to be President, then Bush was about as prepared as an incoming President could be.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • sugarlilly
  • Zurama
    • 0
      Zurama  

    • Say what you want, but Fox has been reporting on things that the rest of the media has not.

      Journalist are supposed to be the watch dogs for the people, no be in the can with any government administration.

      Perhaps Glen Beck is right and the media has become a little shivering Chihuahua, to afraid to cross the current regime-except for Fox-Good for them!!!

      The first amendment must be protected even when you don't like what your hearing. More then one around here and in the white House seems to be forgetting this.

    • 2 years ago
  • courage
    • 0
      courage  

    • ALL the other networks are sycophants of the democrats do you watch nbc abc cnn msnbc cbs npr current all of them Belong to the democrats.Funny how it was ok for networks to basically get a democrat with no qualifications elected on personality and ok for them to actively try and destroy Bush and do everything they could to make us lose 2 wars and now fox is unamerican.
      Insurance companies are trying to stop the goverment from destroying them so democrats punish them with a new law.Bank owners arent doing as there told so the goverment goes outside the constitution to punish them fox isnt going along radio isnt falling in line so the Obamites seek to use the Force of the goverment to punish them this party this administration is a disgrace.Nixon cared more for the rights of the people than Obama and his chicago thugs do

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  

    • WH: We're Happy To Exclude Fox, But Didn't Yesterday With Feinberg Interview

      The version Fox has pushed all day is that the network was excluded from an interview roundtable with Feinberg yesterday, and that bureau chiefs from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN came to Fox's defense.

      TPMDC dug into it, and here's what happened.

      Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).

      But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview.

      The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

      Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.
      TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue.

      "If any member had been excluded it would have been the same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues," the bureau chief said. "It's all for one and one for all."

      A Treasury spokesperson added: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."

      But the White House isn't backing down from its feud with Fox.

      "This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

      An administration source wondered if the networks were annoyed Fox disclosed logistical negotiations since they are treated as off the record, but the bureau chief did not view this in the same light as discussions about, for example, the president going to Iraq.

      As for the ongoing battle, Earnest said: "The president and other high ranking officials and people like Ken Feinberg have done interviews with Fox in the past and will do them in the future."

      We clipped video of Garrett discussing the issue.

      Video at link...

    • 2 years ago
  • cmdinc
  • rdrnnr_beep_beep
    • 0
      rdrnnr_beep_beep  

    • A large number of responses are of the Liberal Left.

      My Question here is this.

      If this is so Un-American, then do you Support Hugo Chavez's style of Government where He and His Government Run the Media and the Story that is put to us as News is His Version? Also the Government is running most of the businesses? That is what this is all about! Power. Pure and Simple.

      Liberals believe the Government should govern all people as we do not know what is good for us.

      Conservatives believe there should be limited if any government such that only what is necessary to run the basic functions necessary interact with our people and the world.

      Or Do you Advocate Freedom of the Press? If you support Freedom of the Press, then you must support the Constitution and also our Freedoms.

      You know the Bill of Rights?

      That is why the News Pool said that if there is NOT Fox then No One would Interview the Pay Czar.

      This is about freedom of News to Report what they see. It is not always what we want to see or hear, but it is what they see. No two people see the same thing exactly the same. Each persons perspective is always different based on their back ground and level of education and where they were educated.

      First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      If you understand our government, that means this is Congress'/Legislative Branches business and NOT the President/Executive Branches business or his staff.

      The Judicial Branch is there to Enforce the Law's of the Country and Ensure the Laws are Constitutional.

      The Congress is the Law Maker, the President Signs these into law.

      The House (Supposedly Our Voice) Initiates. Senate (Suppose to be state voice) but that was nullified with an amendment to the Constitution. Senate was suppose to be protecting States Rights and also from Tyranny of the Masses. In this case the Minority voices.

      But as we all know from what is going on, the House is not listening to the people. Their approval ratings prove that. The Senate still further is not listening and their approval ratings show that. The Executive Branch's approval ratings have dipped greatly.

      Why you ask? The News. How can one media outlet have such an impact?

      Plus why would the Executive Branch go after many including the news media (Fox).

      Many say that fox (opinion shows Glenn Beck and Hannity) are the issue. Mind you there is an entire news network here. Those two shows are only 2 hours of a 24 hour programming schedule.

      If those two shows are the problem, then there is something else that is going on.

      Have any of you truly watched these shows and actually listened to the message and not the messengers? Tried to determine for yourselves if the message is true or false?

      Contempt Prior to Investigation - “There is a principle which is a bar against any evidence, and which is proof against any argument – that principle is contempt prior to examination.”

      So if you have never investigated the claims yourself and you deny their being valid, then you are exercising contempt prior to examination.

    • 2 years ago
  • JeremyTG77
    • 0
      JeremyTG77  
    • rdrnnr_beep_beep:

      If conservatism is supposedly about getting the government out of people's lives, why do the majority of conservatives continue to support the failed War on Drugs, which violates much of the same rights you claim to support, including states' rights?

      You're also not going to get anywhere responding to some of the cookie-cutter liberal comments here with a cookie-cutter conservative comment.

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  

    • Former Fox News Contributor Says She Left Because of Lack of Debate

      This morning on Reliable Sources Howard Kurtz, former Fox News contributor Jane Hall shared her own personal criticisms of Fox News, saying that she wasn’t bothered so much by Fox’s Republican bent as the network’s lack of discussion and debate. She added that she’s outright scared of Glenn Beck.

      Jane Hall: The reason I left [Fox News] is because I think they have less debate than they used to but it is a fair point to say how much debate is there on MSNBC … we have a bifurcation of the media.

      Howard Kurtz: The reason you left is because you think they have less debate than they used to? In other words, it used to be Hannity and Colmes, not it’s just Hannity …

      Hall: I think there’s less debate than there was, and I’m also frankly uncomfortable Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top and it’s scary. [8:20 ff]

      Kurtz welcomed two other guests to rehash (for the umpteenth time) the recent exchanges between Fox News and the White House. The panel covered all of its bases, discussing the Obama-Nixon comparison and FNC’s [accidental] exclusion from the Pay Czar pool interview.

      Nico Pitney, national editor of the Huffington Post, pretty much toed the party line, calling Fox News a “24-hour campaign against the Obama administration.” The Washington Times‘ Amanda Carpenter channeled George Stephanopoulos from last week, saying the White House’s strategy is backfiring and the other networks have no choice but the cover the back and forth.

      To be fair, though, Kurtz can spend as much time as he wants on the Fox-White House tiff because he really blew it open on his show three weeks ago.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • RFIDemocracy:

      Jane Hall was on staff when I was a professor at American University. She is a vacuous Democrat supporter no matter what she is faced with. The truth could not set her free because she could not find it.

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
    • 0
      hunzedog  

    • you can stick to chicken bones and cloud reading if you want to. i wont believe the oligarchy is looking out for my benifit. they have been going downhill for years....

    • 2 years ago
  • AaliasChrisCarter
  • hunzedog
    • 0
      hunzedog  

    • americans are tired of getting screwed by banks and pharmacies. fox does that shit too. they are whores for viagra and pharmasweatacules and booze and gm. fu)k em both. but still, fox dont run the country...did you see the episide where cnn got a f ? they havent asked again but i was like, get the fu)k out my house ! they all have agendas but they are not on trial here...

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
  • stephenthomson
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • Image

    • Chomsky's 3 strikes ;)

      1) "The real mass media are basically trying to divert people." ... "Let everybody be crazed about professional sports or sex scandals"– Noam Chomsky

      2 ) "As long as each individual is facing the television tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege" – Noam Chomsky

      3) "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." - Noam Chomsky

      Epitaph by Gonzo :)

      The TV business is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the journalism industry, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs, for no good reason. There's also a negative side.

      Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage." ~ Hunter Thompson

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
    • 0
      hunzedog  

    • its that whole my enemy's enemy, is my friend thing. it doesnt matter what fox says. if the gubment dont like it. better for fox..thats why the ratings are higher than all the other shows combined. . the banks and drug companies are not supposed to run our country ! WE ARE ! becky didnt break this country on purpose, the banks did..its ogligarchy !

    • 2 years ago
  • dwb2585
    • 0
      dwb2585  

    • Fox news and msnbc are just two teams playing the same game-divide the people. This article (partisan propaganda) just plays along and so does Current.

      Kill the tv and read the the bills that are being pushed/passed and it's not hard to see that the Obama admin is the same as the last.

    • 2 years ago
  • denmarc
    • 0
      denmarc  

    • The writer is quite rignt to point out FOX's motivation in skewing its coverage of events to drive the ratings...but the problem with that is you don't have journalism...and the average viewer doesn't know the difference.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnA
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  
    • JohnA:

      You are mis-identifying "Liberal" Democrats. What 'Liberal" Democrats resemble neocons?

      Is it Bio-defense maven John Murtha or major defense contractor (her husband) Dianne Feinstein?

      AIPAC acolyte Jane Harman?

      These are not 'liberals'. They are Democrats.
      1/2 point.

    • 2 years ago
  • cmdinc
    • 0
      cmdinc  

    • @CZ,
      Although we don't see eye to eye CZ i have always respected 1)your point of view 2) your attempt at factual information. With one post you have blown that out of the water.
      first you post Limbaugh who has nothing to do with FOX
      2nd you post from a OPINION writer who has on many occasions had to pull his stories for inaacurate information.

      you of all people should understand the consquences of the WH choosing which media can ask questions, that. To say FOX can't ask questions is the unamerican aspect. We were built on this freedom, even back to the founding of our country there was some who wnated the meetings non-published but the fore-fathers said no way, every paper should interpert as they see fit.
      I challange you to this. Find a story put out by the NEWS portion. Remeber Beck, Hannity are opinion pieces. That has had to be pulled for inaacurate information or facts.
      next i challange you to do the same for the opinion pieces. Don't pull up the media matters list as i have allready beat that one to a pulp.

      Again we don't have the same views, but we do have logical and pointworthy debates. Your creditbility is certianly under question with this post.

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  
    • Image
    • cmdinc:

      I'll bite. Up to 2003

      March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.

      March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."

      [After my last article, one sniveling neocon after another wrote me to tell me I was unqualified to assess defense matters because I wasn't a "defense analyst" (never mind that the article wasn't on the war, and the "real" defense experts made one wrong prediction after another on this war). It's interesting how these sniveling Frumsters cheer on the college-uneducated Hannity and Limbaugh when they make defense analyses supporting the neocon view. I do know enough to say that the informed Bevelacqua's suggestion that a MOAB would be used on a bunker was puzzling to say the least (given the reports of less-than-dazzling performance of daisy cutters outside caves in Tora Bora). Anyway, later reports confirmed that GBU-28 bunker busters were used during The Decapitation That Apparently Failed.]

      March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped. A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common. His points are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day (March 24). Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides.

      [Jennifer Eccleston has to be the worst reporter employed by any network. She began one segment with a "Hi there!" – in no response to any segue from the relaying anchor at Fox headquarters in New York. Her bangs are long and constantly blowing in her face in the wind. Her head wobbles from side to side with her nose tracing out a figure 8 all the while arbitrarily syncopating a monotone voice with overemphasis on the last syllables of different words (e.g., Bagh-DAD’). The old, white-haired flag-waving yahoos like her not for her professionalism – she has none – but because of her innocent Britney Spearsesque beauty; i.e., she's a typical young piece of meat which dirty old men with too much time on their hands fantasize about.]

      March 24: Oliver North reports that the staff at the French embassy in Baghdad are destroying documents. [How could he know this?]

      March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV. [The context of the discussion makes it clear that she doesn't know the difference between Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV!!!! Juliet Huddy is a beautiful woman but not very bright.]

      March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents.

      April 7: Fox, echoing NPR, reports that U.S. forces near Baghdad have discovered a weapons cache of 20 medium-range missiles containing sarin and mustard gas. Initial tests show that the deadly chemicals are not "trace elements."

      [In the coming weeks, this embarrassing non-discovery is quickly stomped down the Memory Hole. The missiles were never mentioned again.]

      More at link...

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
  • cmdinc
    • 0
      cmdinc  
    • cmdinc:

      although an interesting list, there is no proof there. find a story fox news has had to recant or pull. do you know shep was wrong in the first case?
      maybe you dont inderstand what i mean. CBS having to recant, apologize for the Bush Natioanal Guard lie.

    • 2 years ago
  • JollyGoodFelon
    • 0
      JollyGoodFelon  

    • Alan Colmes is such a political whore. Does anyone believe he is actually what he claims? They chose the goofiest looking troll they could find to pretend to be a "lefty" or whatever terms the "two party" idiots are using lately. He looks like he is wearing swimming goggles all the time.

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • The Republican Apocalypse

      The religious right has been a major power player in politics for several decades now, but during the last election cycle, they remained relatively quiet. But don't let that silence fool you - they are still working towards controlling the American political system. But their latest activities should give even the staunchest curmudgeon the creeps. The religious right is increasingly relying on the Book of Revelations to come true and bring about the end of the world. And they are doing whatever they can to help speed along the rapture. Mike Papantonio talks about this new "End of Times" Religious Right with Frank Schaeffer, author of the new book "Patience With God."

    • 2 years ago
  • Maeveeo
    • 0
      Maeveeo  

    • Everyone has there rights , right to this , rights to that ,
      and the right to be WRONG , ah right to be fooled , ah right
      to be mocked ,& ah right to be lied to ( Bush did it ) & ah right to be told some foolish bullshit ( FOX NEWS does it all the time i see now ) & the right to be complete ASS HOLES ( which they are ) but you also have the right to change the channel & never watch this type of Crappy
      TV , let the people who like this kinda shit watch it because they have a right to hear this kinda shit !

    • 2 years ago
  • nkeg87
    • 0
      nkeg87  

    • Theres nothing wrong with disagreements. In fact, it fosters brilliant discussions.The problem is that these disagreements aren't based on facts with any merit.

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  

    • The headline is ridiculous. Fox is no more un-american than the next channel. Some people on this site like to blame the boogeyman (in this case FOX).

      Again, less than 1% of the population watches any FOX news show except O'Reilly who draws just over 1%. How much influence can a cable entertainment channel have? More Americans are influenced by WWE than FOX.

      The White House going after FOX only serves to distract people from the issues of the day--Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, the economy, equal rights for all, etc.

    • 2 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  

    • Jeremy,

      I certainly take your point...but I didn't see anything in the article I posted from Newsweek that defended poor journalistic practices by the other networks. I am sure you are not suggesting that Fox's transgressions are somehow excused by the old "everybody else is misbehaving too excuse.

      As a general rule I don't watch television, but I HAVE made a bit of an exception these past six weeks because my favorite NFL team is still undefeated. During commercials and halftime, I have visited a few of these news sites...briefly. The last time I saw Lou Dobbs was probably a year or more ago. He was never an accomplished journalist to begin with, and by that time he had essentially become a cartoon version of himself.

      I haven't seen Olbermann in longer than that...and have no compelling reason to go find him. There was a time long ago when Wolf Blitzer actually had a certain gravitas. I saw a few minutes of him last week and was appalled. I don't believe I have ever seen MSNBC...couldn't tell you who reports the news on the program...couldn't care less.

      But from the viewing I HAVE done, it is clear that Fox is simply the worst of a bad lot. GIven that television success is measured by ratings (and ratings have nothing to do with quality, of course...or Lady GaGa would be considered the finest composer since Beethoven), I am not surprised that the others are trying to emulate at least certain aspects of the Fox formula.

      The most revolting segment I saw during this channel surfing was Ann Coulter moaning on at some length to some obscure Sunday night talk show host about how all the other networks were "out to get Fox." I was getting all weepy, so I flipped it back to Sunday night football.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • cztheday:

      You have not seen the other channels in a while but you think you have enough to go on to state Fox is the worse?

      And the article didn't mention others because he accepts them as ok. You can't focus on one and be mad at it for certain things when the others are just as guilty....unless you have hate for one more than the others. So he excuses the rest by not mentioning them.

      I love that you ignore me. I can do this a lot. Thank you.

    • 2 years ago
  • JeremyTG77
    • 0
      JeremyTG77  
    • cztheday:

      "I am sure you are not suggesting that Fox's transgressions are somehow excused by the old "everybody else is misbehaving too excuse."

      Not at all.

      And I haven't watched any of the cable news networks in a while myself.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
    • 0
      artemis6  

    • This is the best thing for fox news - they will cry victim so loud for the next decade , we will not hear the end of it ...... I hope Obama has more to this plan than that . I talked to a woman today who said she likes them because they break things down , easy to understand . Rupert Murdock needs to go to JAIL , for undue influence . No one elected him king .

    • 2 years ago
  • eden49
    • 0
      eden49  

    • ...everything has just gone too "Hollywood". I used to watch the cable news outlets, but now I just switch on the radio of a morning, and just get the headlines...ps. how much for that swampland...lol...and how far is it from St Helena?

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  

    • The prime directive of most media is to influence public opinion. News serves as a secondary source of income to support political agendas. Entertainment value also drives reporting formats. Randolph Hearst and "ALL", media moguls, including Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, and dare I say, Al Gore, have all used media to advance their own particular agendas for financial gain. Anyone doubting this fact is welcome to purchase my swampland in Florida.

    • 2 years ago
  • JeremyTG77
    • 0
      JeremyTG77  

    • Another thing I'd like to add---which will undoubtedly anger people on both sides---is that whatever can be said about its political slant, Fox News really isn't all that different in how it does the news than the other cable news networks and the Big Three media conglomerates. It engages in scaremongering and coverage of whatever the latest moral panic is this week at least every bit as much as its competitors.

      Not that I'm defending Fox's prime-time talking heads, of course. Glenn Beck appears to have gone off the deep end since Obama won, and Sean Hannity isn't called "Sean Vanity" even by other conservative talk-radio hosts for nothing. But are they any more biased and egotistical than, say, Keith Olbermann?

      Also, Lou Dobbs is currently promoting the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory on CNN (which is something that even Beck won't touch), so it's not just Fox that's the problem.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  

    • Worst written article I've read in a really long time.

      Might as well said "I hate Fox and would sleep with Obama for free." Then he would have been more entertaining than the dribble that he presented as something worth reading.

      And the picture for this article shows hate as well.

      Obama is surely bringing this country together with such awesome followers.

      Ick.

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
  • J_Jammer
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  
    • Image

    • The price of Glenn Beck Day: $17,748.85.

      Last month, Bud Norris, the mayor of Mt. Vernon, WA, controversially decided to award hometown boy Glenn Beck the ceremonial key to the city and declare Sept. 26 “Glenn Beck Day.” In response, approximately 800 people turned out to demonstrate — “the largest protest anybody could remember” in the town — and the city council unanimously passed a resolution that distanced itself from the mayor’s decision. Now, the Seattle Times reports that the event cost the small town $17,748.85, an amount that has stunned the Mt. Vernon finance director. Additionally, the event didn’t make the $10,000 the mayor had expected to donate to a local theater:

      There were 577 tickets sold that generated $14,425, before expenses.

      Income from ticket sales would have been higher if 92 comp tickets hadn’t been given out.

      Norris says he gave comps to Beck’s family, “community leaders, people in leadership roles. … I’m told that’s pretty common.”

      So the tickets sales netted $5,746.83 — after $5,754.17 was deducted for the hall rental, and $2,924 deducted for radio ads.

      Why radio ads for an event that received such free publicity and was sold out in one day?

      “The radio advertising was to make sure we sold tickets. I didn’t know what kind of response we would get. I didn’t want to go through all this and have 50 people show up,” says Norris.

      Nevertheless, Norris has no regrets: “I don’t go to bed at night worrying about what people are saying about me on the Internet or blogs.”

    • 2 years ago
  • tangibleparadox
  • RFIDemocracy
  • ScottyT
    • 0
      ScottyT  

    • The more I think about this story, the more it makes sense. This is nothing more than a divide and conquer tactic. It's not a matter of whether the Administration or Fox news wins this pissing contest. But rather, it's a matter of keeping the false left/right paradigm of U.S. politics in place.

      Stop thinking with your hearts and start doing some real thinking. There really isn't any difference between Democrat and Republican in America. They both support undeclared wars, unsustainable economic and monetary policies, expansion of centralized power at the expense of our civil liberties, and increasing control over everyone's day to day lives.

      It's corporate media anyway you look at it. They don't give a shit about reporting real news anymore than they care about our freedom or prosperity. You'll be better served by just turning off your television.

    • 2 years ago
  • dragon1984
  • CalgarC
  • Dpm
  • EmperorThan
    • 0
      EmperorThan  

    • This crap is the stupidest thing Obama's done in his whole administration. I voted for Obama but this country is founded on free speech and anyone can say any stupid ass thing they want, and Fox News surely will as long as they're around.

      And morons has a right to listen.

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
  • esserius
    • 0
      esserius  

    • If you honestly consider any major news network to have any objective understanding of news, you're an idiot. Fox, NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC are not there so you can gain perspective. They're networks at the sole discretion of entertainment. Anything they show should be put under more than vicious scrutiny and seen as largely laughable. If you watch people like Bill Maher, The Daily Show, the BBC, PBS or even Current's Vanguard series, you'll quickly understand that what a 24 hour news network does is not news. It's just noise.

      The major news networks are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
  • esserius
    • 0
      esserius  
    • esserius:

      While I don't disagree, when PBS does some meaningful investigative journalism, it tends to be some of the best. They recently did a piece on Latin music that offered an excellent view of its evolution in America, Cuba and Mexico.

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  
    • esserius:

      It's true, PBS hasn't entirely lost it.
      But I yell at the TeeVee, though, when I see Judy Woodruff interviewing a lefty and a righty about health insurance reform and the one guy claims that a majority of Americans don't favor a public option (the same day as a series of polls reveled the opposite to be true) and she lets it pass. Woodruff is arguably the most senior correspondent on Lehrer.

      Sheesh.

      Then there is NPR who has had a long-standing policy of refusing to call torture 'torture'.

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
    • 0
      hunzedog  

    • fox is number one. everybody attacks fox now. why ? they arent the ones stealing money from me. they are not the ones on trial.

    • 2 years ago
  • larrysnotes
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  
    • hunzedog:

      And flies are attracted to fecal matter in vast quantities, as are maggots to rotting flesh.
      I could argue with neither but it's not for the majority, unless one believes 1% constitutes a majority.

      But you were about to make a point...

    • 2 years ago
  • larrysnotes
  • larrysnotes
  • tangibleparadox
    • 0
      tangibleparadox  

    • @metalcookiesxy70 : i'll admit, i used to be naive enough to believe that all news station reported the news, straight up. i also, once upon a time, used to watch FOX for my news. the only things from TV i watch now are on youtube or a news site when linked... but, realizing that i have blindly accepted everything i saw and read as truth makes me feel ashamed... and having once been an avid watcher of FOX is why there's a special resentment there. who knows how much information i absorbed without question, when it was quite possibly slanted and misrepresented? it is, i admit, a personal bias to take news from FOX with extra criticism.

      however, even if it's from a liberal-leaning site (which i feel the liberal view tends to be what i agree with), i now do my best to include information from a variety of sources to be sure i've got the story right.

      my prime example (not to start a debate on another topic) that i give friends is thus: when i heard about and wanted to get more information on obama's czars, i got three quite different numbers as to how many he had appointed/created : a very conservative news site claimed 32; a very liberal blog claimed 8; and another site of unknown bias (perhaps none?) claimed 16.

      okay... no more pointless rambling from me... ;P

    • 2 years ago
  • slarabee
  • eden49
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • Can't remember why I do it,
      Oh, maybe I can.
      An honest man these days is hard to find.
      I only know we're living in an unforgiving land.
      And a little lie can buy some real big piece of mind

      Oftimes I wondered what might I have become,
      Had I but buckled down and really tried.
      But when it came down to the wire
      I called my family to my side
      Stood up straight, threw my head back and I lied, lied,lied

      Big hat, no cattle
      Big shoes, well you know...
      Big horse, no saddle
      He goes wherever I go

      Big hat, no cattle
      Right from the start
      Big guns, no battle
      Big belly, no heart

      - Randy Newman

    • 2 years ago
  • carmalite
    • 0
      carmalite  

    • Fox is not unamerican but its Fascist just like GW's grandfather.
      They support corporatism all the way and do all they can to promote racism and class divisions. Just like HItlers's propagandist.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • 0
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • carmalite:

      actually that sounds more like the obama administration.

      "Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know, the other side, they just kinda sometimes do what they're told. Democrats, y'all thinkin' for yourselves." -Barrack Hussein Obama (MMM! MMM! MMM!)

      no that doesnt sound divisive to me at all

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • RFIDemocracy
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • 0
      ibrake4rappers13  

    • if the white house is willing to say that fox news isnt a news network just because it critical of obama's policies nbc cbs abc cnn shouldnt be considered newss networks either because theyre only lap dogs for this administration. where are the tough questions?

    • 2 years ago
  • metalcookiesxy70
123
1 - 100 of 202
more from Community:
from the community

top videos