PDA

View Full Version : Lie to Entrap jAZ and Some Libbies Worked - Bush Not Hiring Fox Employees.


KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 06:15 PM
And he is too keep his job as a reporter on Fox.

I can't say who just yet, but it is a prominent host of Fox and he will keep his "day job" reporting his take while working full time as a campaign manager for the GWB/Cheney ticket.

What do you guys think? Moral, immoral, or unimportant?

Donger
09-08-2004, 06:17 PM
And he is too keep his job as a reporter on Fox.

I can't say who just yet, but it is a prominent host of Fox and he will keep his "day job" reporting his take while working full time as a campaign manager for the GWB/Cheney ticket.

What do you guys think? Moral, immoral, or unimportant?

I think that he should do one or the other. And, I'd feel the same way if it were a CNN reporter.

jAZ
09-08-2004, 06:19 PM
I think that he should do one or the other. And, I'd feel the same way if it were a CNN reporter.
Fox doesn't have any policy on conflict of interest like this. Carl Cameron was chosen to interview Bush while he was on the campaign trail in 2000 even though Cameron's wife was campaigning for Bush at that time. He even talked about the fact on camera before the interview with Bush.

Fox just doesn't care about objective journalism at all because they are a propaganda outlet for the Republican party.

Saggysack
09-08-2004, 06:20 PM
Kinda on the fence. Hopefully he will be able to abstain from campaign rhetoric into his 'fair and balanced' reporting.

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 06:20 PM
If Begalla and Carville can stay at CNN after joining Kerry's campaign, I guess what's good for the goose....

But, personally, I think it's unethical and a breach of the public trust.

Donger
09-08-2004, 06:21 PM
Fox doesn't have any policy on conflict of interest like this. Carl Cameron was chosen to interview Bush while he was on the campaign trail in 2000 even though Cameron's wife was campaigning for Bush at that time. He even talked about the fact on camera before the interview with Bush.

Fox just doesn't care about objective journalism at all because they are a propaganda outlet for the Republican party.

Cameron = Cameron's wife?

Saggysack
09-08-2004, 06:21 PM
Fox just doesn't care about objective journalism at all because they are a propaganda outlet for the Republican party.

You don't say... ;)

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 06:22 PM
Fox doesn't have any policy on conflict of interest like this. Carl Cameron was chosen to interview Bush while he was on the campaign trail in 2000 even though Cameron's wife was campaigning for Bush at that time. He even talked about the fact on camera before the interview with Bush.

Fox just doesn't care about objective journalism at all because they are a propaganda outlet for the Republican party.
I knew you would fall for it.

Actually, it is CNN and Carville - You know, the "objective" CNN you were praising just yesterday.

So, let's do the math, shall we? If a news station allows a full time employee to be a full time campaign advisor, they don't care about objective journalism as they are an outlet for the party in question.


Watch the spinning begin, my friends. The hypocrite detector has been pushed to overload.

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 06:22 PM
You don't say... ;)
Ahh, another sucker before the landing of the fish. Welcome aboard

KC Dan
09-08-2004, 06:23 PM
begala, carville, hannity, colmes, & the rest of the extremist hacks could jump off a bridge for all I care. I try really hard not to spend any of my precious lifetimes' minutes listening to their crap anyway. Both sides do it & its all bull****. Just my take...

Give me Cronkite with just the facts!

Ugly Duck
09-08-2004, 06:25 PM
"Right Wing Fox Reporter Given Campaign Duties"

Don't most of the Faux News reporters already work for the BushCo campaign? This ain't news....

jAZ
09-08-2004, 06:25 PM
If Begalla and Carville can stay at CNN after joining Kerry's campaign, I guess what's good for the goose....

But, personally, I think it's unethical and a breach of the public trust.
Well, as much as I hate Fox's commentary types... They aren't exactly "reporters". Guys like O'Reilly and Hannity are Republican shills. That's what they are paid for.

Same is true of Carville and Begalla.

But guys like Carl Cameron, Tony Snow, Brit Hume, etc who shill for the Republican party while pretending to be a objective journalists is the real problem.

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 06:26 PM
Cripes, I can't believe you got someone to fall for that trap, KCW.... it had springs the size of Nebraska ffs

KC Dan
09-08-2004, 06:28 PM
Well, as much as I hate Fox's commentary types... They aren't exactly "reporters". Guys like O'Reilly and Hannity are Republican shills. That's what they are paid for.

Same is true of Carville and Begalla.

But guys like Carl Cameron, Tony Snow, Brit Hume, etc who shill for the Republican party while pretending to be a objective journalists is the real problem.
And this clown isn't pretending to be "objective"? I tried watching this guy the other night & he is just as bad - left - as the righties on Fox. His name Aaron Brown.

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 06:28 PM
Cripes, I can't believe you got someone to fall for that trap, KCW.... it had springs the size of Nebraska ffs
Nobody claimed that zealots were particularly quick on the draw. It was like shooing jAZocrites in a barrel.

Donger
09-08-2004, 06:29 PM
I knew you would fall for it.

Actually, it is CNN and Carville - You know, the "objective" CNN you were praising just yesterday.

So, let's do the math, shall we? If a news station allows a full time employee to be a full time campaign advisor, they don't care about objective journalism as they are an outlet for the party in question.


Watch the spinning begin, my friends. The hypocrite detector has been pushed to overload.

Heck, I fell for it too...

jAZ
09-08-2004, 06:33 PM
Heck, I fell for it too...
When did Carville do anything for CNN but be a democratic shill? That's what he is paid to do.
Carl Cameron on the other hand is supposedly an objective reporter.

He's not supposed to be a Republican shill like Sean Hannity.
He's not supposed to be a Democratic shill like James Carville.

He supposed to be a reporter - something no one in their right mind would call Hannity and Carville.

headsnap
09-08-2004, 06:33 PM
Heck, I fell for it too...
shuddap!!!

I caught the sarcasm in your first post. ;)

Donger
09-08-2004, 06:35 PM
When did Carville do anything for CNN but be a democratic shill? That's what he is paid to do.
Carl Cameron on the other hand is supposedly an objective reporter.

He's not supposed to be a Republican shill like Sean Hannity.
He's not supposed to be a Democratic shill like James Carville.

He supposed to be a reporter - something no one in their right mind would call Hannity and Carville.

So, again, Cameron = Cameron's wife?

Donger
09-08-2004, 06:35 PM
shuddap!!!

I caught the sarcasm in your first post. ;)

What sarcasm?

:p

Saggysack
09-08-2004, 06:40 PM
Ahh, another sucker before the landing of the fish. Welcome aboard

I don't think I have ever commented on Carville playing a role in Kerry's campaign. Maybe you can point me to a post where I agreed with him doing such while still working for CNN. Aren't you just somewhat jumping to conclusions that I wholeheartedly agree with Carville doing both? And you call me the sucker, please.

Like I said in my earlier post. I'm on the fence. I would hope they could avoid the campaign rhetoric with their media employment.

jAZ
09-08-2004, 06:40 PM
So, again, Cameron = Cameron's wife?
Until Fox News came along, that's distinction was meaningless when it comes to journalistic conflict of interests.

Frankie
09-08-2004, 06:42 PM
I knew you would fall for it.

Actually, it is CNN and Carville - You know, the "objective" CNN you were praising just yesterday.

So, let's do the math, shall we? If a news station allows a full time employee to be a full time campaign advisor, they don't care about objective journalism as they are an outlet for the party in question.


Watch the spinning begin, my friends. The hypocrite detector has been pushed to overload.

Though I knew aboput Carville and Begala signing on with the Kerry campaign, I believed your topic header thinking that Fox just got even. Turns out your header was a LIE, sir. Are you going to admit that you lied?

Donger
09-08-2004, 06:42 PM
Until Fox News came along, that's distinction was meaningless when it comes to journalistic conflict of interests.

What in the world does that mean?

Are you implying that Cameron's reporting is influenced by his wife's involvment in the Bush campaign?

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 06:44 PM
..Fox just doesn't care about objective journalism at all because they are a propaganda outlet for the Republican party.

To paraphrase you jAZ, the liberal media outlets (MSNBC, CNN, The NY Times, The LA Times, etc) just doesn't care about objective journalism at all because they are a propaganda outlet for our party (the Democrats.)

That is at LEAST equally true, and you KNOW it...

headsnap
09-08-2004, 06:44 PM
Until Fox News came along, that's distinction was meaningless when it comes to journalistic conflict of interests.
you are a small small pathetic little man... :shake:

your hatred knows no bounds

jAZ
09-08-2004, 06:53 PM
I don't think I have ever commented on Carville playing a role in Kerry's campaign. Maybe you can point me to a post where I agreed with him doing such while still working for CNN. Aren't you just somewhat jumping to conclusions that I wholeheartedly agree with Carville doing both? And you call me the sucker, please.

Like I said in my earlier post. I'm on the fence. I would hope they could avoid the campaign rhetoric with their media employment.
Carville isnt a reporter.

He's a Democratic advocate. That's his role. He's paid for his very biased policial opinion. Same is true of O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, etc.

Carl Cameron on the other hand is a reporter assigned to cover the man his wife is campaigning for. That's an amazing conflict of interest.

That same summer (2000) CNN had a producer that was supposed to cover the Gore campaign, but she was pulled from covering the campaign (neither Bush nor Gore) because of the possible conflict of interest (or the perception of a conflict of interest) because her husband was a lawyer for the Gore team.

jAZ
09-08-2004, 06:55 PM
What in the world does that mean?

Are you implying that Cameron's reporting is influenced by his wife's involvment in the Bush campaign?
I'm saying that Fox doesn't care about jouralistic standards.

Donger
09-08-2004, 06:58 PM
I'm saying that Fox doesn't care about jouralistic standards.

I'm not a journalist.

Is there some journalistic standard that says that a reporter shouldn't cover a campaign if his or her spouse is part of that campaign?

jAZ
09-08-2004, 06:58 PM
Though I knew aboput Carville and Begala signing on with the Kerry campaign, I believed your topic header thinking that Fox just got even. Turns out your header was a LIE, sir. Are you going to admit that you lied?
The only lie that matters is that he claimed it was a reporter. That it was Fox or CNN doesn't really matter to me.

jAZ
09-08-2004, 07:00 PM
I'm not a journalist.

Is there some journalistic standard that says that a reporter shouldn't cover a campaign if his or her spouse is part of that campaign?
Not if you work for Fox News.

Saggysack
09-08-2004, 07:05 PM
Carville isnt a reporter.

He's a Democratic advocate. That's his role. He's paid for his very biased policial opinion. Same is true of O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, etc.

Carl Cameron on the other hand is a reporter assigned to cover the man his wife is campaigning for. That's an amazing conflict of interest.

That same summer (2000) CNN had a producer that was supposed to cover the Gore campaign, but she was pulled from covering the campaign (neither Bush nor Gore) because of the possible conflict of interest (or the perception of a conflict of interest) because her husband was a lawyer for the Gore team.

I understand what his role is. I still think however that it is his duty to present his case in a truthful manner rather than spouting campaign rhetoric while performing his duties to his other employer. Maybe it is just me but I doubt CNN hired him to outright lie. Then again if he is giving his honest opinion, even if may be biased, I don't see how he is lying.

Baby Lee
09-08-2004, 07:08 PM
You did kind of schniede the trap by referencing a Fox 'reporter.' Carville and Begala should be kicked off Crossfire, because their presence murkies up the campaign finance and equal time issues. There has always been the presumption of partisanship, but so what, they're partisan pundits. Their connection with the campaign raises a presumption of COORDINATION.
Hell, if the networks had to pull Schwartzenegger ACTION FILMS, and national radio hosts such as Howard Stern was stopped from interviewing during the recall election, this one is a no-brainer.

jAZ
09-08-2004, 07:13 PM
I understand what his role is. I still think however that it is his duty to present his case in a truthful manner rather than spouting campaign rhetoric while performing his duties to his other employer. Maybe it is just me but I doubt CNN hired him to outright lie. Then again if he is giving his honest opinion, even if may be biased, I don't see how he is lying.
I agree with that. I think its CNN, Fox News and all media outlets duty to make honest efforts at accurate factual reporting.

As I understand it the NYTimes has fact checking process even in its guest op-ed columns. And I understand that the WSJ does not.

It's harder to do in real time on TV, but there should be some process. Maybe something like "stat boy" from PTI at the end of each show. A factual corrections at the end of the show.

jAZ
09-08-2004, 07:16 PM
You did kind of schniede the trap by referencing a Fox 'reporter.' Carville and Begala should be kicked off Crossfire, because their presence murkies up the campaign finance and equal time issues. There has always been the presumption of partisanship, but so what, they're partisan pundits. Their connection with the campaign raises a presumption of COORDINATION.
Hell, if the networks had to pull Schwartzenegger ACTION FILMS, and national radio hosts such as Howard Stern was stopped from interviewing during the recall election, this one is a no-brainer.
That's an intersting case you make. BTW, I remember watching an Arrrnold movie during the recall election, so I don't think anyone had to pull them.

But the campaign finance issue is intersting.

As for the "equal time" issue, that's non-existant. Reagan elminated that in the 80's. That's how Fox News came into existance.

Baby Lee
09-08-2004, 07:27 PM
That's an intersting case you make. BTW, I remember watching an Arrrnold movie during the recall election, so I don't think anyone had to pull them.

But the campaign finance issue is intersting.

As for the "equal time" issue, that's non-existant. Reagan elminated that in the 80's. That's how Fox News came into existance.
I think, and this is purely from memory of Baba-Booie's explanation to How-id, but it's not non-existent. It's simply state-by-state now. That's why the NETWORKs couldn't run an Arnold movie, and why NATIONAL radio hosts like Howard couldn't interview him. CA's equal time laws governed.

FringeNC
09-08-2004, 07:44 PM
Well, as much as I hate Fox's commentary types... They aren't exactly "reporters". Guys like O'Reilly and Hannity are Republican shills. That's what they are paid for.

Same is true of Carville and Begalla.

But guys like Carl Cameron, Tony Snow, Brit Hume, etc who shill for the Republican party while pretending to be a objective journalists is the real problem.

None of those you mentioned even comes close to the partisanship of Dan Rather and Judy Woodruff, and what's her name on the Today show.

Donger
09-08-2004, 07:47 PM
Not if you work for Fox News.

Well, that's a non-answer.

Again, what makes you think that Cameron's wife being on Bush's campaign will influence Carl Cameron's reporting?

jAZ
09-08-2004, 08:10 PM
Well, that's a non-answer.

Again, what makes you think that Cameron's wife being on Bush's campaign will influence Carl Cameron's reporting?
The fact that he has a personal conflict of interest.

Saulbadguy
09-08-2004, 08:12 PM
They all are a bunch of losers.

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 08:13 PM
Though I knew aboput Carville and Begala signing on with the Kerry campaign, I believed your topic header thinking that Fox just got even. Turns out your header was a LIE, sir. Are you going to admit that you lied?
Sure - I lied. I proved hypocrisy in less than 3 minutes with my post.

I have no trouble admitting I lied. I had an ulterior motive, and I was successul in my endeavor.

Donger
09-08-2004, 08:14 PM
The fact that he has a personal conflict of interest.

How do you know that he'll be influenced by his wife, to the point of it influencing his reporting?

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 08:14 PM
The only lie that matters is that he claimed it was a reporter. That it was Fox or CNN doesn't really matter to me.
Whatever, spinmeister.

LVNHACK
09-08-2004, 08:29 PM
Sure - I lied. I proved hypocrisy in less than 3 minutes with my post.

I have no trouble admitting I lied. I had an ulterior motive, and I was successul in my endeavor.




LMFAO.........Nice job Russ.........

jAZ
09-08-2004, 08:31 PM
How do you know that he'll be influenced by his wife, to the point of it influencing his reporting?
Jesus these conversations with you have really gone south since you got bored. You ask the worst questions.

How do I "know"? I don't "know" anything about the future. I don't "know" what a man's personal motivations will be in the future.

But I do "know" that he has a personal conflict of interest. I also "know" that Fox News doesn't use the same standards in avoiding those conflicts of interest as its competitor.

That's been made clear 1 dozen posts ago. Everything between then and now is more wasted bandwidth.

:shake:

Braincase
09-08-2004, 08:37 PM
I blame Al Quaeda. What was the question?

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 08:42 PM
LMFAO.........Nice job Russ.........
Thanks, screw.

bkkcoh
09-08-2004, 08:43 PM
And he is too keep his job as a reporter on Fox.

I can't say who just yet, but it is a prominent host of Fox and he will keep his "day job" reporting his take while working full time as a campaign manager for the GWB/Cheney ticket.

What do you guys think? Moral, immoral, or unimportant?


CBS has been doing that almost the whole campaign!!!!

LVNHACK
09-08-2004, 08:44 PM
Thanks, screw.




If ya ever wanna go fishing for real, let me know I see you can reel in the whoopers............

Donger
09-08-2004, 08:47 PM
Jesus these conversations with you have really gone south since you got bored. You ask the worst questions.

How do I "know"? I don't "know" anything about the future. I don't "know" what a man's personal motivations will be in the future.

But I do "know" that he has a personal conflict of interest. I also "know" that Fox News doesn't use the same standards in avoiding those conflicts of interest as its competitor.

That's been made clear 1 dozen posts ago. Everything between then and now is more wasted bandwidth.

:shake:

Then why do you assume that he will be influenced?

Taco John
09-08-2004, 08:53 PM
If Begalla and Carville can stay at CNN after joining Kerry's campaign, I guess what's good for the goose....

But, personally, I think it's unethical and a breach of the public trust.


ROFL

How does a political science teacher constantly get away with some of the most ignorant takes on politics on the board?

Taco John
09-08-2004, 08:57 PM
Interesting... Apparently, reading further, the thread starter is just as ignorant...

Call me when Carville is hired as a journalist, and not a person who is paid to comment from the left... Equally, call me when Robert Novak is hired as a journalist, and not a person who is paid to comment from the right.

Talk about lacking any sort of understanding on what journalism, and advocate journalism is...

Totally weak...

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 10:09 PM
Interesting... Apparently, reading further, the thread starter is just as ignorant...

Call me when Carville is hired as a journalist, and not a person who is paid to comment from the left... Equally, call me when Robert Novak is hired as a journalist, and not a person who is paid to comment from the right.

Talk about lacking any sort of understanding on what journalism, and advocate journalism is...

Totally weak...
I made my point.

Waah, I used the word reporter. Had I said Bill O'Reilly, the reaction would have been the same from jAZ and you.

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 10:16 PM
ROFL

How does a political science teacher constantly get away with some of the most ignorant takes on politics on the board?

I understand the distinction between a pundit and a reporter; my point is any reputable organization would distance itself as far as they can from any employee who is directly involved in a political campaign....

Regardless of WHAT they do, such a conflict of interest diminishes any credibilty and violates professional ethics, and common sense. :shake:

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 10:18 PM
I understand the distinction between a pundit and a reporter; my point is any reputable organization would distance itself as far as they can from any employee who is directly involved in a political campaign....

Regardless of WHAT they do, such a conflict of interest diminishes any credibilty and violates professional ethics, and common sense. :shake:
Oh, John is splitting pubes because it wasn't a libbie that thought of the tactic to begin with.

LVNHACK
09-08-2004, 10:20 PM
Oh, John is splitting pubes because it wasn't a libbie that thought of the tactic to begin with.




He was spitting pubes before that..............

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 10:21 PM
He was spitting pubes before that..............
I said splitting, not spitting


LOL - Rep

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 10:22 PM
Oh, John is splitting pubes because it wasn't a libbie that thought of the tactic to begin with.

I recognized your intent right away, as my first post in this thread indicates...

For ANYONE to argue that "news" organizations can retain employees who are ACTIVELY campaigning for a candidate is complete lunacy. Anyone who doesn't understand WHY that diminishes the credibility of such "journalists" is completely blind....

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 10:27 PM
I recognized your intent right away, as my first post in this thread indicates...

For ANYONE to argue that "news" organizations can retain employees who are ACTIVELY campaigning for a candidate is complete lunacy. Anyone who doesn't understand WHY that diminishes the credibility of such "journalists" is completely blind....
Precisely, these guys just have their collective panties tightly wadded in their cracks because it is a liberal news agency violating such a trust.

LVNHACK
09-08-2004, 10:28 PM
I said splitting, not spitting


LOL - Rep




:evil:

jAZ
09-08-2004, 10:50 PM
For ANYONE to argue that "news" organizations can retain employees who are ACTIVELY campaigning for a candidate is complete lunacy.
This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever read. I'm waiting for all the Fox News fans to come in and agree with it.

ROFL

You know Fox hasn't fired Sean Hannity for the last 4 years haven't you. And despite all your protesations over the years. Shocking!

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 10:57 PM
This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever read. I'm waiting for all the Fox News fans to come in and agree with it.

ROFL

You know Fox hasn't fired Sean Hannity for the last 4 years haven't you. And despite all your protesations over the years. Shocking!

Eh, news for you Justin: I can't stand Rush or Hannity--both are demagogues, like Moore and Franken....I don't watch FOX....I generally watch CNN, NBC, MSNBC....read NY Times, Washington Post, and Minneapolis Star-Tribune.....Newsweek and US News and World Report....

I know that shatters your stereotype of us Zell Miller Dems, but it's the truth.

I know, I know, NOW I'm a liar too... :rolleyes:

:shake:

Taco John
09-08-2004, 10:58 PM
Carville and Begala should be kicked off Crossfire, because their presence murkies up the campaign finance and equal time issues.


Now THIS is a legitimate point...

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 10:59 PM
Now THIS is a legitimate point...

That's been MY point all along.... :)

LVNHACK
09-08-2004, 11:01 PM
Eh, news for you Justin: I can't stand Rush or Hannity--both are demagogues, like Moore and Franken....I don't watch FOX....I generally watch CNN, NBC, MSNBC....read NY Times, Washington Post, and Minneapolis Star-Tribune.....Newsweek and US News and World Report....

I know that shatters your stereotype of us Zell Miller Dems, but it's the truth.

I know, I know, NOW I'm a liar too... :rolleyes:

:shake:


ROFL .........Dude you crack me up........

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 11:02 PM
ROFL .........Dude you crack me up........

You makin' Saturday at Joe's, or the banquet? :hmmm:

We'll share a brew; and I'll crack you up in person.... :)

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 11:05 PM
This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever read....


IF that is true, your life has gotta be more pathetic than I've even imagined....which is saying something.... :shake:

jAZ
09-08-2004, 11:09 PM
Eh, news for you Justin: I can't stand Rush or Hannity--both are demagogues, like Moore and Franken....I don't watch FOX....I generally watch CNN, NBC, MSNBC....read NY Times, Washington Post, and Minneapolis Star-Tribune.....Newsweek and US News and World Report....

I know that shatters your stereotype of us Zell Miller Dems, but it's the truth.

I know, I know, NOW I'm a liar too... :rolleyes:

:shake:
I believe you. I really do.

I do think its funny that you've never once shared your very strong and broad statements about people like Hannity being on Fox news until it was someone from CNN campaigning for Kerry.

LVNHACK
09-08-2004, 11:12 PM
You makin' Saturday at Joe's, or the banquet? :hmmm:

We'll share a brew; and I'll crack you up in person.... :)



Naw, wife's having another surgery the week before, she'll be laid up.....

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 11:12 PM
I believe you. I really do.

I do think its funny that you've never once shared your very strong and broad statements about people like Hannity being on Fox news until it was someone from CNN campaigning for Kerry.

Sorry; I've never heard of Hannity campaigning for anyone actively....of course I don't follow him, so I wouldn't know.

UNLESS it was a reasonably "big" news story as the Carville and Begalla fiasco IS....and should be; if he does it, and FOX keeps him on board....I'd call that a bad decision.

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 11:15 PM
Naw, wife's having another surgery the week before, she'll be laid up.....

Can't sneak away for a few hours at Joe's....St. Joe is 35 minutes from Leavenworth as I recall... :hmmm:

Surely, the wife can handle 1 pm to 8 pm with her boyfriend, can't she? ;)

Joe Seahawk
09-08-2004, 11:19 PM
Hannity and Colmes is the exact same thing as crossfire..

I Haven't read through the thread, but noone should be suprised Hannity is pulling for Bush..Just like Carville and Begala are for Kerry..

headsnap
09-09-2004, 05:56 AM
This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever read. I'm waiting for all the Fox News fans to come in and agree with it.

ROFL

You know Fox hasn't fired Sean Hannity for the last 4 years haven't you. And despite all your protesations over the years. Shocking!
you have proof that Hannity is paid member of the Bush/Cheney campaign?

Saggysack
09-09-2004, 09:23 AM
Oops. I guess the thread starting mod forgot to change the title of his thread.

NewChief
09-09-2004, 10:02 AM
Oops. I guess the thread starting mod forgot to change the title of his thread.


We're waiting.

KCWolfman
09-09-2004, 10:03 AM
Oops. I guess the thread starting mod forgot to change the title of his thread.
Nope, I deliberately left it as such. But if you would like a change, I don't mind at all.

Saulbadguy
09-09-2004, 10:04 AM
"KCWolfmans Deliberate Bait thread"

KCWolfman
09-09-2004, 10:04 AM
We're waiting.
Done.

I think the new title is accurate.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Saulbadguy
09-09-2004, 10:05 AM
You might want to say "some" libbies, instead of just libbies. You didn't entrap all of them that participated in this thread.

KCWolfman
09-09-2004, 10:05 AM
You might want to say "some" libbies, instead of just libbies. You didn't entrap all of them that participated in this thread.
No Problem. Thanks

KCWolfman
09-09-2004, 10:06 AM
You might want to say "some" libbies, instead of just libbies. You didn't entrap all of them that participated in this thread.
Done.


Wow, no thanks from NYChief or Saggy?

NewChief
09-09-2004, 10:08 AM
Done.


Wow, no thanks from NYChief or Saggy?

Yup, thanks. You're illustrating the problem with revisionism beautifully.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 10:51 AM
Someone needs to go re-read my posts. This little game didn't work on me.

Which makes the thread modified from one lie to another.

Saggysack
09-09-2004, 10:55 AM
Done.


Wow, no thanks from NYChief or Saggy?

Well, geez. Hold your horses cowboy(npi).

Thanks, I guess.

jcl-kcfan2
09-09-2004, 11:38 AM
Someone needs to go re-read my posts. This little game didn't work on me.

Which makes the thread modified from one lie to another.


ooohhh yes it did...

NewChief
09-09-2004, 12:08 PM
BTW, Russ:

I'd actually prefer that the thread title remain the same. I like to have an accurate representation of the historical progression.

To me, changing thread titles in retrospect, whether to make the poster look better or worse, is a bad thing.


Errmmm...I hope this doesn't count as a flipflop

KCWolfman
09-09-2004, 12:38 PM
BTW, Russ:

I'd actually prefer that the thread title remain the same. I like to have an accurate representation of the historical progression.

To me, changing thread titles in retrospect, whether to make the poster look better or worse, is a bad thing.


Errmmm...I hope this doesn't count as a flipflop
I understand, but I do like the fact that jAZ looks like an idiot. In the future, I will refrain from changing my titles unless I notify otherwise in advance.

Lzen
09-09-2004, 12:42 PM
I believe you. I really do.

I do think its funny that you've never once shared your very strong and broad statements about people like Hannity being on Fox news until it was someone from CNN campaigning for Kerry.

Hannity is on a show that is fair and balanced because the liberal, Alan Colmes gets equal time to interview the guests and argue his point of view. That's the whole purpose of a fair and balanced news station. You libs are just to blind to notice since you've become so accustomed to getting your news from CBS and the NY Times over the years.

Plus, Hannity may support Bush but that DOES NOT mean that he is a paid campaign employee. There is a big difference.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 12:54 PM
Plus, Hannity may support Bush but that DOES NOT mean that he is a paid campaign employee. There is a big difference.
No there's not.

An highly partisan advocate for a candidate is a highly partisan advocate for a candidate.

Hannity stumps for Bush on nationwide TV every chance he gets.

He's a member of a "news organziation" according to SD's broad generalization. He's not a reporter at all, though. In fact he's paid by Fox specifically because he's a highly partisan advocate for Bush.

These guys are opinion leaders for their party, and they are paid for that duty by the networks.

I agree in general terms the bluring of entertainment and news is a terrible thing. That lax restrictions on the content of 24 hour "news" networks like CNN and Fox is a general problem I'd like to see corrected.

But there is nothing to comprimise when a partisan hack, talking head like Hannity or Carville shills (paid or not) for a candidate. They are already comprimised, and that's why they have a job at CNN or Fox to begin with.

Reporters on the other hand, are an entirely different animal.

KCWolfman
09-09-2004, 12:57 PM
No there's not.



Yes, there is

KCTitus
09-09-2004, 01:38 PM
what an interesting read...I like Jaz's squiggle into parsing the difference between reporter/jounalist and opinionmaker/shill...In his first post before the beans were spilled, he mentioned nothing in that regard. It was merely a commentary on how Fox has no ethics...but I digress.

More to the point of 'reporters' and politics is a very incestuous relationship...this is probably not a road that Jaz wants to travel.

Probably the most noteable and most recent politics to report transfer was George Stephanopolous.

There also was a democrat congresswoman that also recently became a news 'reporter' for one of the networks...I'll see if I can look her up.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 01:51 PM
Probably the most noteable and most recent politics to report transfer was George Stephanopolous.
Same is true of Chris Matthews... but both guys are hosts of pundit shows. They aren't journalists.

The distinction isn't clear enough for me. I've been saying that for years now. And it doesn't matter whether it's Fox, ABC, or CNN. The distinction between reporting and commentary needs to be obvious like it is in a newspaper editorial section.

It's also needs a fact checking and retraction system like a newspaper.

KCTitus
09-09-2004, 02:06 PM
Same is true of Chris Matthews... but both guys are hosts of pundit shows. They aren't journalists.

The distinction isn't clear enough for me. I've been saying that for years now. And it doesn't matter whether it's Fox, ABC, or CNN. The distinction between reporting and commentary needs to be obvious like it is in a newspaper editorial section.

It's also needs a fact checking and retraction system like a newspaper.

Yes, George does do 'this week', but I wouldnt classify that with the shoutdown that is Hardball--he hosts the program and lets the politcal pundits do the talking.. FWIW, Matthews politcal ties are in the Carter whitehouse as a speechwriter, staffer to sentators, Moss and Muskie, and top aide to Tip O'Neill.

ABC calls George their 'chief' political analyst--he is asked to provide insight when political issues are discussed on the news program.

I realize Im better off talking to a garden hose about this.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 02:20 PM
Yes, George does do 'this week', but I wouldnt classify that with the shoutdown that is Hardball--he hosts the program and lets the politcal pundits do the talking.. FWIW, Matthews politcal ties are in the Carter whitehouse as a speechwriter, staffer to sentators, Moss and Muskie, and top aide to Tip O'Neill.

ABC calls George their 'chief' political analyst--he is asked to provide insight when political issues are discussed on the news program.

I realize Im better off talking to a garden hose about this.
Maybe, because a garden hose wouldn't realize you just made my case for me.

KCTitus
09-09-2004, 02:46 PM
Maybe, because a garden hose wouldn't realize you just made my case for me.

I guess it's possible, if you attribute the word 'analyst' the same as a 'shill' or whatever you seem to be calling opinion makers now.

I dont, hence I see a difference between a Carville/Begala who work primarily opinion shows and those that work 'news' shows. Like the Sunday shows like 'This Week' and 'Meet the Press'...

I believe, Russert has some political connections on the left as well.

Here's the text from the abcnews.com web site...and you'll note that This Week is listed as a news prgram:

Prior to being named anchor, Stephanopoulos was an ABCNEWS correspondent, reporting on a wide variety of political, domestic and international stories for This Week, World News Tonight, Good Morning America and other ABCNEWS programs and special event broadcasts.

Stephanopoulos joined ABCNEWS in 1997 as a news analyst for This Week, and has since covered such diverse stories as the 2000 presidential election, the escalation of violence in the Middle East, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath, and the war on terrorism. In the hours and days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Stephanopoulos reported first from Ground Zero before traveling to Rome and Islamabad.

He regularly reported from the Middle East on the rising wave of violence there, and most recently reported from Cuba on President Carter's trip, and traveled with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to South Africa. He has interviewed a range of political figures and world leaders including the former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-faisal, and many others. Internationally, he has reported from Jerusalem, Rome, Islamabad, London, Amman, Johannesburg, Havana and elsewhere.

Stephanopoulos has covered a wide range of political stories during his six years at the network. During the 2000 elections, he traveled to a number of battleground states to report on issues of special interest to voters in those key regions. He covered the 2000 national party conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, and played a significant role in the network's team coverage of the 2000 presidential election and the Florida recount.

Im sure a garden hose would give me a more logical response to this.

Lzen
09-09-2004, 03:41 PM
....He's a member of a "news organziation" according to SD's broad generalization. He's not a reporter at all, though. In fact he's paid by Fox specifically because he's a highly partisan advocate for Bush....

Alan Colmes is paid by Fox specifically because he's a highly partisan dissentient against (is that proper grammar?)Bush. So, what's your point?

jAZ
09-09-2004, 03:50 PM
Alan Colmes is paid by Fox specifically because he's a highly partisan dissentient against (is that proper grammar?)Bush. So, what's your point?
My point is that he's not a journalist. He's an opinion leader. He's campaigning for Kerry every single night he's on TV (though he sucks at his job).

He' no "reporter".

That's been my point all long.

Reporters have an ethicical obligation that pundits don't.

Russ' game was mangled from the beginning because he confused a reporter with a partisan pundit. They standards of journalism don't apply to pundits and opinion leaders.

They should, but they don't. That's no different on Fox than it is at CNN. That's no different if you are a Dem pundit (like Colmes) or a Rep pundit (like Joe Scarborogh).

Neither is acting as a reporter. Neither is acting as a journalist.

Raiderhader
09-09-2004, 04:15 PM
No there's not.

An highly partisan advocate for a candidate is a highly partisan advocate for a candidate.

Hannity stumps for Bush on nationwide TV every chance he gets.

He's a member of a "news organziation" according to SD's broad generalization. He's not a reporter at all, though. In fact he's paid by Fox specifically because he's a highly partisan advocate for Bush.

These guys are opinion leaders for their party, and they are paid for that duty by the networks.

I agree in general terms the bluring of entertainment and news is a terrible thing. That lax restrictions on the content of 24 hour "news" networks like CNN and Fox is a general problem I'd like to see corrected.

But there is nothing to comprimise when a partisan hack, talking head like Hannity or Carville shills (paid or not) for a candidate. They are already comprimised, and that's why they have a job at CNN or Fox to begin with.

Reporters on the other hand, are an entirely different animal.


Not true. Hannity is paid because he is a highly partisan conservative. Bush just happens to be the republican in the WH at the moment. And I am willing to bet that since W is not a conservative, Hannity has called him out on an issue or two. But that is besides the point. The point is that Hannity is not paid to pimp George W on FoxNews, he is paid to pimp his conservative beliefs.

Your attempts to tie Hannity to Bush together will not hold unless you provide some documented evidence that the Bush campaign is paying him.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 05:02 PM
Not true. Hannity is paid because he is a highly partisan conservative. Bush just happens to be the republican in the WH at the moment. And I am willing to bet that since W is not a conservative, Hannity has called him out on an issue or two. But that is besides the point. The point is that Hannity is not paid to pimp George W on FoxNews, he is paid to pimp his conservative beliefs.

Your attempts to tie Hannity to Bush together will not hold unless you provide some documented evidence that the Bush campaign is paying him.
That's laughable.

You set false hurdles that mean nothing.

Hannity pimps Bush constantly on his show. He's paid to speak his views by Fox. He's not a reporter or a journalist.

The Hannity/Bush link is Hannity's doing. Not mine.

Raiderhader
09-09-2004, 05:15 PM
That's laughable.

I should remember that facts mean little to you.

You set false hurdles that mean nothing.

I have set no hurdles, false or otherwise.

Hannity pimps Bush constantly on his show. He's paid to speak his views by Fox. He's not a reporter or a journalist.

He pimps the guy who most closely represents his beliefs. Bush is just the guy the party has chosen at this time.

The Hannity/Bush link is Hannity's doing. Not mine.

The link that Hannity is connected to Bush in any way other than idealogicaly is your link (to which you have provided no proof).

jAZ
09-09-2004, 05:23 PM
I should remember that facts mean little to you.



I have set no hurdles, false or otherwise.



He pimps the guy who most closely represents his beliefs. Bush is just the guy the party has chosen at this time.



The link that Hannity is connected to Bush in any way other than idealogicaly is your link (to which you have provided no proof).
The "proof" of "the Bush campaign is paying him" is a false hurdle.

It means nothing in this context.

I'm not claiming he's paid by Bush. I'm claiming he's paid by Fox to espouse his views (and I'm not digging up a copy of his payroll check to prove it... nor his bank records showing a cleared check from Fox either).

Hannity pimps Bush constantly. Every show I think. On the radio too. And in his book.

He's a shill of the highest order. That's why he has a job as a "news entertainer".

There is no disputing that.

Carl Cameron is the bigger problem. He's supposed to be a journalist. And he's chatting up Bush about how his wife is out on the campaign trail stumping for him and just having a blast.

Raiderhader
09-09-2004, 05:33 PM
The "proof" of "the Bush campaign is paying him" is a false hurdle.

In that regard, so is saying that Hannity is connected to Bush.

It means nothing in this context.

You are the one trying to say there is a connection there.

I'm not claiming he's paid by Bush. I'm claiming he's paid by Fox to espouse his views (and I'm not digging up a copy of his payroll check to prove it... nor his bank records showing a cleared check from Fox either).

Actually, that is what I said. You said that he was paid to be a Bush shill. That is what this is all about, I am correcting your mistake there.

Hannity pimps Bush constantly. Every show I think. On the radio too. And in his book.

This changes nothing.

He's a shill of the highest order. That's why he has a job as a "news entertainer".

There is no disputing that.

I have not attempted to. I am merely disputing what type of news entertainer he is.

Carl Cameron is the bigger problem. He's supposed to be a journalist. And he's chatting up Bush about how his wife is out on the campaign trail stumping for him and just having a blast.

You really need to get off this. Husbands and wives can have different POV. Look Carville and Matilin. Arnold and Maria. Until you are ready to provide some sort of evidence to show that Cemeron's wife's allegiance to Bush is actually tainting his reporting, you need to let it go.

Your unsubstantiated accusations conspiracies are really getting old.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 05:42 PM
Actually, that is what I said. You said that he was paid to be a Bush shill. That is what this is all about, I am correcting your mistake there.
That's fine... then "nothing to see here" because I can accept that phrasing.
You really need to get off this. Husbands and wives can have different POV. Look Carville and Matilin. Arnold and Maria. Until you are ready to provide some sort of evidence to show that Cemeron's wife's allegiance to Bush is actually tainting his reporting, you need to let it go.

Your unsubstantiated accusations conspiracies are really getting old.
That's not true and another false hurdle.

I don't have to prove his bias or it's impact, that's not my point.

I'm pointing out how Fox has lowered the bar. Other organizations don't allow reporters to cover topics when they those kinds of personal relationships and potential conflicts of interest (or appearance there of).

Donger
09-09-2004, 05:46 PM
"False hurdle."

I like that. I'm going to add that to my jAZ lexicon.

Raiderhader
09-09-2004, 05:50 PM
That's not true and another false hurdle.

I don't have to prove his bias or it's impact, that's not my point.

I'm pointing out how Fox has lowered the bar. Other organizations don't allow reporters to cover topics when they those kinds of personal relationships and potential conflicts of interest (or appearance there of).


Bullshit. Terry Moran had the appearance of sucking of Gore during the 2000 race, yet he was not removed. There are countless other examples showing that there is a clear bias that is tolerated dating back before FoxNews was even around.

The only false hurdle here is the one you have created.

Raiderhader
09-09-2004, 05:54 PM
Bullshit. Terry Moran had the appearance of sucking of Gore during the 2000 race, yet he was not removed. There are countless other examples showing that there is a clear bias that is tolerated dating back before FoxNews was even around.

The only false hurdle here is the one you have created.


Another thing about Tery Moran, after he had spent the campaign covering (in more ways that one gauging by appearance) Gore, ABC then named him as their chief WH correspondant.

Get a life Justin, serioulsy.

KCWolfman
09-09-2004, 06:26 PM
That's laughable.

You set false hurdles that mean nothing.
.

Hello, Irony. How are you?