Scott McLellan blows whistle loudest

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

My parents are news junkies. When I came back to Canada last year, I lived at home for a few months until I found a place. Every day the TV would be left on some news channel, so I've seen my fair share of the ridiculous things they "cover" on Fox. Like Anna Nicole Smith. Such important news. And that loser with the bow tie - I want to punch him in the face.
I don't know how anyone can take that channel seriously. I can't believe my parents pay for it.
Of course, CNN isn't much better. They're just as annoyingly one dimensional. Whatever is the topic of the day, they drone on and on about it. OMG! Britney cut her hair!!1! Lindsay got drunk in public and flashed her cootch!!1! Paris made another sex tape!!1!!

I remember in 94 during the OJ trial my dad just left the tv on CNN 24/7 so that whenever he walked by or sat down to watch a little telly, the tv was already yapping as he walked in the room. I think that is why I'm not a tv watcher. And why I moved out about 13 seconds after high school.

Can't argue with any of that. I've been without cable television for about 2 months now, and I honestly think it's made me a happier person.

Of course it'll have to change in October, but I guess I'll cross that bridge when it comes.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Wanna put money down on Olbermann getting some of his talking points from the Democratic Party?

I'll put money on that. There's no doubt he does. Probably from the Republican party as well. He's a journalist.

There's nothing wrong with the Republicans trying to get their message out through FOX or anyone else, but McClellan is saying that FOX would pretty much take what the administration gave them and say it on the air.

I'm sure they sent the same message to all the other networks too, but he singled FOX out as being the most, ahem, "receptive" to the specifics of their message.

It's not a left/right or Democrat/Republican issue. The Republicans are not guilty in this. It's a dream come true for politicians on any side of the ledger. If the Democrats could get Olbermann to be a free and allegedly impartial spokesman, willing to say exactly what they want him to say, they'd do it too.

[AnarChrist]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Wanna put money down on Olbermann getting some of his talking points from the Democratic Party?

I would take that bet as well. The Democrats don't seem to be able to agree anything amongst themselves and get on a unified message, so how could them manage a series of talking points and feed them to the media. If they were doing such a thing, you would hear the same story in the same words across the varying forms of media like you do with the conservative sources.

The issue with Fox is that the issue is institutionalized. The guy running Fox was a big time Republican operative at one time and has been caught promoting memos with daily talking points in the past. This was finally an admission from the White House that they did provide talking points to Fox and that they did use those talking points consistently. This is an new low for news and really does stink.

[onetwo_threefour]

Guess I don't have to take the bet, you've got several already. However I find it doubtful that Olbermann gets his teleprompt feed directly from the DNC unlike say Bill O'reilly. As has already been said, there is no strong consensus of what the democratic position even is on most issues. In the US pretty much everyone who doesn't consider themselves strongly conservative seems to be a democrat. That could encompass anything from socially liberal fiscal conservative to a pinko liberal.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'll put money on that. There's no doubt he does. Probably from the Republican party as well. He's a journalist.

Agreed, not likely and not at all. I have little doubt that Olbermann makes most of his own speaking points as do O'Reilly and such....but I highly doubt any Republicans would send him anything as he is so obviously in opposition to them. As for Olbermann being a journalist.....I don't think so. He is a talking head, a loudmouth opinion machine, O'Reilly looking glass image.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I have little doubt that Olbermann makes most of his own speaking points as do O'Reilly and such

Until someone from the Democratic Party comes out and says "we sent Keith stuff to say and he said it as if they were his own words", I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by HOZ

....but I highly doubt any Republicans would send him anything as he is so obviously in opposition to them.

I'm not going to pretend I know what goes on in these big fancy news joints, but I'm sure the Republicans/Bush administration do send their version of the story to MSNBC.

In the parlance of the interwebs, it would be an "epic fail" if they ignored any major news outlet.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Until someone from the Democratic Party comes out and says "we sent Keith stuff to say and he said it as if they were his own words", I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.



I'm not going to pretend I know what goes on in these big fancy news joints, but I'm sure the Republicans/Bush administration do send their version of the story to MSNBC.

In the parlance of the interwebs, it would be an "epic fail" if they ignored any major news outlet.

And the Democratic Party doesn't, i.e. making an epic fail? Plus you give Olbermann the benefit of the doubt?

A bit hard to believe.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Plus you give Olbermann the benefit of the doubt?

A bit hard to believe.

Because a Republican biased news source got caught reading the White House script a Democrat biased source must do it too?

Erm... no. It doesn't work that way.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

And the Democratic Party doesn't,

I think you misunderstood, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

Both parties send their "talking points" to all major media outlets. Of course they do.

Originally Posted by HOZ

Plus you give Olbermann the benefit of the doubt?

A bit hard to believe.

What's so hard to believe about it? I half-heartedly believed that FOX was coming up with their own stuff before McClellan said otherwise.

Nobody from the Democrat Party has yet said "Olbermann says what we tell him to say" so until they do, yeah, I'll assume that he doesn't.

If I'm not mistaken, in an earlier post you mentioned that you've only watched FOX news a handful of times. Why are you so defensive about this?

[Azure]

I half-heartedly believe that Olbermann takes his talking points from the Democratic Party.

Give me 8 years and I'll prove it to you.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I half-heartedly believe that Olbermann takes his talking points from the Democratic Party.

Give me 8 years and I'll prove it to you.

I'll take that bet. The Democrats wish they had Olbermann's stones.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think you misunderstood, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

Both parties send their "talking points" to all major media outlets. Of course they do.



What's so hard to believe about it? I half-heartedly believed that FOX was coming up with their own stuff before McClellan said otherwise.

Nobody from the Democrat Party has yet said "Olbermann says what we tell him to say" so until they do, yeah, I'll assume that he doesn't.

If I'm not mistaken, in an earlier post you mentioned that you've only watched FOX news a handful of times. Why are you so defensive about this?

Defensive? Nah....Just surprised that you can say this....

Both parties send their "talking points" to all major media outlets. Of course they do.

And then say this
Nobody from the Democrat Party has yet said "Olbermann says what we tell him to say" so until they do, yeah, I'll assume that he doesn't.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Defensive? Nah....Just surprised that you can say this....

Both parties send their "talking points" to all major media outlets. Of course they do.

And then say this
Nobody from the Democrat Party has yet said "Olbermann says what we tell him to say" so until they do, yeah, I'll assume that he doesn't.

That doesn't make sense.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Defensive? Nah....Just surprised that you can say this....

Both parties send their "talking points" to all major media outlets. Of course they do.

And then say this
Nobody from the Democrat Party has yet said "Olbermann says what we tell him to say" so until they do, yeah, I'll assume that he doesn't.

I think you genuinely don't understand that the issue here isn't, and never was, bias. O'Reilly and Hannity have every right to be conservative--what they don't have, is the right to use public airwaves to become unofficial spokesmen for the White House.

Let me give you an example: George F. Will. I can't stand the guy (though I respect him a lot). Arch-conservative, huge supporter of the Bush tax cuts even today, hugely biased (and also very smart). Will is biased beyond belief--he's never going to wake up one morning and say "you know, maybe poor people ain't so bad..."

But does he parrot White House talking points? Never. He's his own person, and he recognizes that to do so would be a massive disservice to his readers. His opinions are his own, and he comes by them honestly, and he sees his job as to express his opinion--it's an unwritten compact between him and his readers that he arrives independently at his judgements, and his journalistic ethics are beyond reproach.

Olbermann is biased, sure. But he sounds pretty different from the Democrats--he's more strident, for one thing. He's not singing from the same song sheet.

What Rouge is saying is that it's okay for the parties to send their talking points to the media. But not okay for the media to present those as if they were their own opinion. And I agree. It's actually not a small difference at all.

And by the way, even if it were true that Olbermann does it too, that wouldn't make it better. He shouldn't do it either--no-one should. It violates that unwritten compact that I was talking about.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That doesn't make sense.

No it doesn't. The mental gymnastics you went through is amazing.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think you genuinely don't understand that the issue here isn't, and never was, bias. O'Reilly and Hannity have every right to be conservative--what they don't have, is the right to use public airwaves to become unofficial spokesmen for the White House.

Let me give you an example: George F. Will. I can't stand the guy (though I respect him a lot). Arch-conservative, huge supporter of the Bush tax cuts even today, hugely biased (and also very smart). Will is biased beyond belief--he's never going to wake up one morning and say "you know, maybe poor people ain't so bad..."

But does he parrot White House talking points? Never. He's his own person, and he recognizes that to do so would be a massive disservice to his readers. His opinions are his own, and he comes by them honestly, and he sees his job as to express his opinion--it's an unwritten compact between him and his readers that he arrives independently at his judgements, and his journalistic ethics are beyond reproach.

Olbermann is biased, sure. But he sounds pretty different from the Democrats--he's more strident, for one thing. He's not singing from the same song sheet.

What Rouge is saying is that it's okay for the parties to send their talking points to the media. But not okay for the media to present those as if they were their own opinion. And I agree. It's actually not a small difference at all.

And by the way, even if it were true that Olbermann does it too, that wouldn't make it better. He shouldn't do it either--no-one should. It violates that unwritten compact that I was talking about.

What issue? I am not saying it is good or wonderful but this is hardly surprising. This has been going long before GWB. Each an every administration/Party has always had it's media guys that they used to get "their" message across....for more than a century now!

But somehow you think it is only Fox.

Why did you think Clinton was complaining about Olbermann, Mathews and MSNBC? They turned on Clinton like Rabid dogs. Where do you think they got their talking points from?

And what if O'Reilly and Hannity agreed with what the Bush Administration was saying....doesn't it then make it THEIR opinion? Even if they are more strident than the administration?

You guys are really trying hard to make this a FOX is the root of all evil thing. It is two sides of the coin. These talking heads are the same.

Here I will give you a hockey analogy of what I think you are doing.

Canucks: The cheapest, dirtiest, do anything to win even if it meant injuring another team's member. They hook, spear, trip, hold, cross-check, elbow, take cheap penalties.

Flames: They are the cleanest team, never take penalties. When they win they win by playing totally by the rules.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No it doesn't. The mental gymnastics you went through is amazing.




What issue? I am not saying it is good or wonderful but this is hardly surprising. This has been going long before GWB. Each an every administration/Party has always had it's media guys that they used to get "their" message across....for more than a century now!

But somehow you think it is only Fox.

Why did you think Clinton was complaining about Olbermann, Mathews and MSNBC? They turned on Clinton like Rabid dogs. Where do you think they got their talking points from?

And what if O'Reilly and Hannity agreed with what the Bush Administration was saying....doesn't it then make it THEIR opinion? Even if they are more strident than the administration?

You guys are really trying hard to make this a FOX is the root of all evil thing. It is two sides of the coin. These talking heads are the same.

Here I will give you a hockey analogy of what I think you are doing.

Canucks: The cheapest, dirtiest, do anything to win even if it meant injuring another team's member. They hook, spear, trip, hold, cross-check, elbow, take cheap penalties.

Flames: They are the cleanest team, never take penalties. When they win they win by playing totally by the rules.

So..... Olbermann is also a mouthpiece of the democrats, except when he's "turning on them like a rabid dog"? Okee-dokee then.

Your hockey analogy is poor--because it once again reflects that you misunderstand the basic issue here. Look again at what I said about George F. Will. He's a guy who is biased--but his words are always his own. In spite of what you say, THAT is the norm in media punditry. Pundits are strident, they have opinions, but they're only on the side of their own opinions.

According to your logic there's also nothing wrong with PRAVDA. In a democracy, governments don't get their own media mouthpiece that doesn't offer equal time to their opposition. If you don't understand why it's a problem that the White House had their own pet television station that would say whatever talking points they cooked up in their political offices, then I have to conclude that you have no idea what the role of media in a democracy is supposed to be.

And no--this isn't a "Fox is the root of all evil" argument. This is a "Fox shouldn't do that" argument, with a good measure of "Fox isn't a legitimate News organization" thrown in. I note with interest that this is the best defense anyone has mounted of these actions--that we all supposedly knew or should have known that this was happening. But millions of Americans don't know. And unless people speak out and demonstrate that this is not okay it will continue to happen, perhaps in other news stations as well if it isn't already. This IS important--and you should care about it regardless of your political stripe--because a government that controls the media is one step closer to a totalitarian government.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No it doesn't. The mental gymnastics you went through is amazing.

Yeah, I'm a regular Mary-Lou Retton.

Here, I'll recap my gold medal winning routine.

Pundit A:
1. Gets "talking points" from the Republican Party
2. Gets "talking points from the Democratic Party
3. Comes up with his/her own opinion
4. Says that opinion on the air

Fox Pundit:
1. Gets "talking points" from the Republican Party
2. Gets "talking points" from the Democratic Party
3. Repeats Republican talking points on the air

Pundit A did his job. Fox Pundit did not. I don't know if I stuck the landing.

As has been pointed out many times, the Republicans didn't do anything wrong.

Any respectable conservative journalist would recognize this as a "bad thing" on Fox's part. Anne Coulter wouldn't even do this.

And this didn't come from some dreadlocked h0mo commie, it came from the former press secretary himself, a Republican through and through. Why you don't believe him is beyond me. I'm sure you did when he was on the government payroll.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know if I stuck the landing.

You stuck it, Mary-Lou. Best post of the thread so far.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, I'm a regular Mary-Lou Retton.

Here, I'll recap my gold medal winning routine.

Pundit A:
1. Gets "talking points" from the Republican Party
2. Gets "talking points from the Democratic Party
3. Comes up with his/her own opinion
4. Says that opinion on the air

Fox Pundit:
1. Gets "talking points" from the Republican Party
2. Gets "talking points" from the Democratic Party
3. Repeats Republican talking points on the air

Pundit A did his job. Fox Pundit did not. I don't know if I stuck the landing.

As has been pointed out many times, the Republicans didn't do anything wrong.

Any respectable conservative journalist would recognize this as a "bad thing" on Fox's part. Anne Coulter wouldn't even do this.

And this didn't come from some dreadlocked h0mo commie, it came from the former press secretary himself, a Republican through and through. Why you don't believe him is beyond me. I'm sure you did when he was on the government payroll.

Now I am sure you don't even read my replies to you. I have no idea how you could have and then say this, "Why you don't believe him is beyond me. I'm sure you did when he was on the government payroll."

I thought we were talking about Olbermann being possibly the same as O'Reilly and how I am not surprised that it happened at FOX (and other networks) since these sort of things have been going on for more than a century.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So..... Olbermann is also a mouthpiece of the democrats, except when he's "turning on them like a rabid dog"? Okee-dokee then.

Your hockey analogy is poor--because it once again reflects that you misunderstand the basic issue here. Look again at what I said about George F. Will. He's a guy who is biased--but his words are always his own. In spite of what you say, THAT is the norm in media punditry. Pundits are strident, they have opinions, but they're only on the side of their own opinions.

According to your logic there's also nothing wrong with PRAVDA. In a democracy, governments don't get their own media mouthpiece that doesn't offer equal time to their opposition. If you don't understand why it's a problem that the White House had their own pet television station that would say whatever talking points they cooked up in their political offices, then I have to conclude that you have no idea what the role of media in a democracy is supposed to be.

And no--this isn't a "Fox is the root of all evil" argument. This is a "Fox shouldn't do that" argument, with a good measure of "Fox isn't a legitimate News organization" thrown in. I note with interest that this is the best defense anyone has mounted of these actions--that we all supposedly knew or should have known that this was happening. But millions of Americans don't know. And unless people speak out and demonstrate that this is not okay it will continue to happen, perhaps in other news stations as well if it isn't already. This IS important--and you should care about it regardless of your political stripe--because a government that controls the media is one step closer to a totalitarian government.

I am not the one with the misunderstanding of the issue.

You are now saying Pundit = New Organization (PRAVDA) which is simply not the case.

Pundits are there for their opinions on the news...not news reporting. New organizations are there for their News reporting not for their opinions. To compare what a couple of Fox pundits did to Pravda is asinine!

Do you not understand why Newspapers actually have OPINION SECTIONS vs NEWS HEADLINES? One is subjective the other is factual. Dowbiggin vs Boxscores.

What O'Reilly, Olbermann and the rest of the talking heads provide is subjective. Not factual. Try an NOT avoid this question twice.

And what if O'Reilly and Hannity agreed with what the Bush Administration was saying....doesn't it then make it THEIR opinion? Even if they are more strident than the administration?

Oh, just so you and Rouge don't get anymore misunderstandings.....

at 1:44 of that he made a very distinct difference between journalists reporting the news.

Just to add....

Rouges Pundit A vs Pundit B. I'd take Pundit B too, but it's OPINION. What is the saying about Opinions and ????? Everyone has one.....