Pres. Obama has completely lost it: Calls Foxnews 'destructive'

[trenchfoot]

Some posters in here want me to believe that freedom of speech as it refers to fox gives this network the moral high ground to blatantly lie, deceive, obfuscate, misdirect, misinform, slander, misconstrue, bamboozle, disinform and insidiously sensationalize to its viewers to propagandize them into supporting murdoch's neocon ideology.

OK! If fox's viewers like being treated that way and are stupid enough to buy into that childish chicanery then I guess they don't mind being looked at in that light. Just don't get indignant over it and accept the fact if you think like fox, you will act like fox and your values or owned by fox.

Rachel Maddow is comparable to Glenn Beck and O' reilly? LOL She continuously calls out their deceptive practices as well as the repubs in general, and guess what? fox doesn't deny any of it. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[spacejamz]

Some posters in here want me to believe that freedom of speech as it refers to fox gives this network the moral high ground to blatantly lie, deceive, obfuscate, misdirect, misinform, slander, misconstrue, bamboozle, disinform and insidiously sensationalize to its viewers to propagandize them into supporting murdoch's neocon ideology.

Just because you don't agree with something does not mean it is not protected under freedom of speech...

 

[dank69]

Just because you don't agree with something does not mean it is not protected under freedom of speech...

Just because he is calling it destructive does not mean he is trying to shut it down.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Can anyone here name a news outlet that is completely unbiased? I can't think of any.. Besides whats the big deal, I know there are news sites I can go to that are either conservative, liberal, progressive or libertarian in nature. If you don't like the channel then go to one that tells the story the way you want to hear it. I keep going back to this one jokwe I heard..

A reported was driving thru a quite neighborhood and he witness two young brothers being attacked by a pit bull. The bigger brother hits the pit bull in the head with his skate board and kills it. The reporter runs up to the children saying " I saw everything, I can see the headlines now. Young democrat saves brother from vicious Pit Bill attack". The older brother saids, "We're not democrats we are republicans". The next daythe the headlines read, " Young republicans kill beloved family pet"

This one little joke explains the new organizations of today. Every story can truthfully be told a variety of ways... If you don't like the news you are hearing then change the channel. Republicans didn't even have a news channel to change the channel to, until Fox News came along. Now you can keep watching your news channel that spews your liberal viewpoint like CNN, MSNBC and all the major networks and quit worrying about one little news channel that doesn't share your same liberal viewpoint.

99% of the news is told with a liberal slant, why isn't that enough? I guess that 1% of news that is told by a republican or a conservative is just enough to rock your liberal world for whatever reason.

You guys are fucking incredible, and you actually expect inteligent rational people to believe your drivel. One minute your the poor underdogs fighting uphill against the liberuuul media which is against you 99:1, and the next instant your "We the people" and have the support of the overwhelming majority

 

[spacejamz]

Just because he is calling it destructive does not mean he is trying to shut it down.

No one accused him of trying to shut it down...

It is pretty sad that liberals here cannot see the problem of a President lashing out against a media outlet that doesnt agree with him.

Other presidents have been criticized harshly in the past and none have ever gone on record to bash a national news organization. The president should be dealing with issues directly and not be concerned with the opinions of those who follow Fox news.

He should be confident that his policies will fix this nation and not worry that those who watch Fox will not fall in line with his policies. This just demonstrates his lack of leadership skills.

 

[woolfe9999]

Are you sure read the right article??

Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.

Basic reading comphrension quiz. Foxnews is a) a media organization b) a viewpoint. This is not a trick question.

Obama was criticizing the viewpoint being espoused by Foxnews because that viewpoint, he says, is economically destructive. This is being said in the context of a campaign season where the economy is issue number 1. The dems are running against republicans and conservatives in November, not Foxnews. Foxnews is one mouth piece of conservatism.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

This is not rocket science. "People on the right" are not the POTUS, and yes, being just some shmo you can say a lot more than the president, just like some shmo on the street can say a lot more than you'd expect a member of the SCOTUS to say. Someone like the president generally doesn't get their hands dirty in political mudslinging, they have people in the party do that for them.

Just like when Joe Wilson said "you lie!". True or not is irrelevant, it was not appropriate.



Again, you seem to have a hard time with this concept. The public, the media, commentators are free to level whatever vitriol they want. The president should not engage in that kind of behavior. Can you think of any previous instances of presidents who specifically attack a particular network (one that is critical of their policies) repeatedly? Do you remember GWB saying "yeah, those morons over @ MSNBC do nothing but try and destroy the country"? I can't, because it didn't happen. You have lackeys do that for you. The president is supposed to represent ALL the people, whether they like him or his viewpoints or not. His party lackeys on the other hand are free to attack as they wish.

Either a sign of an inexperienced president who simply doesn't quite understand his role as a statesman yet, or hubris of one that does and simply doesn't give a crap about the office and what it stands for.

It isn't only Joe Shmoe. It's also republican politicians and candidates. That said, I don't disagree with your premise that a certain degree of presidential decorum is always called for. However, we'll have to agree to disagree that Obama saying the opposing viewpoint is destructive to economic growth and the middle class violates that decorum. I think it isn't even close. Off the top of my head, GHWB referring to Clinton and Gore as "bozos" probably fits. Saying the opposing agenda is economically destructive? Not so much.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

Are you sure read the right article??

Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.

Obama hates the Sin, not the Sinner.

 

[spacejamz]

Basic reading comphrension quiz. Foxnews is a) a media organization b) a viewpoint. This is not a trick question.

Obama was criticizing the viewpoint being espoused by Foxnews because that viewpoint, he says, is economically destructive. This is being said in the context of a campaign season where the economy is issue number 1. The dems are running against republicans and conservatives in November, not Foxnews. Foxnews is one mouth piece of conservatism.

- wolf

By calling their viewpoints destructive, it is not logical to conclude that the organization that has that viewpoint is destructive as well? I am not sure how you separate the two in this instance considering we all know that Obama doesnt care for Fox news...

He should have just kept to the higher ground and kept his mouth shut about them to avoid us having this discussion...

 

[hal2kilo]

By calling their viewpoints destructive, it is not logical to conclude that the organization that has that viewpoint is destructive as well? I am not sure how you separate the two in this instance considering we all know that Obama doesnt care for Fox news...

He should have just kept to the higher ground and kept his mouth shut about them to avoid us having this discussion...

Just put your hands over your ears and yell LA LA LA LA LA LA LA if you can't handle the criticism of your beloved echo chamber.

 

[sandorski]

By calling their viewpoints destructive, it is not logical to conclude that the organization that has that viewpoint is destructive as well? I am not sure how you separate the two in this instance considering we all know that Obama doesnt care for Fox news...

He should have just kept to the higher ground and kept his mouth shut about them to avoid us having this discussion...

Sure, but to infer that Obama did that is a Lie. Aka, one can make the argument, but just because an argument can be made does not mean that it is the Only argument to be made, thus being the correct answer.

Many have made the argument that the Twin Towers were purposely brought down with explosives. Just because they made the argument, does that mean they are correct?

 

[woolfe9999]

By calling their viewpoints destructive, it is not logical to conclude that the organization that has that viewpoint is destructive as well? I am not sure how you separate the two in this instance considering we all know that Obama doesnt care for Fox news...

He should have just kept to the higher ground and kept his mouth shut about them to avoid us having this discussion...

I understand your point. However, the objections to Obama's remarks so far in this thread have been more on decorum than on substance. On the matter of decorum, there is a difference between saying "Fox news is destroying America!" and saying, "Fox news is espousing a viewpoint which is destructive to economic growth and the middle class." The intent of the latter statement is to take a shot at the opposing ideology in an election season. He is just using Fox-as-mouthpiece as the vehicle to make this rather typical campaign season jab at the other political party. He has made similar comments about the republican agenda in that very interview and in recent campaign speeches.

If OTOH he had said "Fox news is destroying America," which is the version paraphrased by several Obama critics in this thread, that is different from the standpoint of presidential decorum, because it sounds as though he is attributing too much negative influence to Fox alone, i.e. it sounds like hyperbole, which itself is intemperate. Rather, he is only identifying them as one espouser of a destructive viewpoint, along with every other espouser of it. Conservatives likely think the same thing of liberalism, that it's destructive, meaning by implication every single person or organization espousing it is destructive in their own limited way.

I view his remark as typical campaign rhetoric during an election cycle and I don't think it is better or worse than you usually see from sitting politicians. The only thing that is a little different is placing it in the context of a specific news organization, but there again, he was asked by the interviewer to comment on Fox, and after criticizing Fox, he took it as an opportunity to take another pot shot at the republican agenda.

- wolf

 

[spacejamz]

Just put your hands over your ears and yell LA LA LA LA LA LA LA if you can't handle the criticism of your beloved echo chamber.

I don't watch FOX news

 

[werepossum]

It isn't only Joe Shmoe. It's also republican politicians and candidates. That said, I don't disagree with your premise that a certain degree of presidential decorum is always called for. However, we'll have to agree to disagree that Obama saying the opposing viewpoint is destructive to economic growth and the middle class violates that decorum. I think it isn't even close. Off the top of my head, GHWB referring to Clinton and Gore as "bozos" probably fits. Saying the opposing agenda is economically destructive? Not so much.

- wolf

Has there ever been a time in your opinion when the Messiah stretched a toe over the decorum line? Is it even possible to step over the decorum line in criticizing the not-left?

When he attempted to seize control over the White House Press Corps (a media-controlled group, NOT a government group) to deny FoxNews a seat at the table, did that action cross any lines?

What about reporters at "mainstream" news organizations like NBC or MSNBC - should the President publicly attack them if they fail to show sufficient fervor in promoting the party line? Since we know that FoxNews' 6 percent Obama-favorable slant is insufficient, how much of a favorable coverage advantage represents the minimum acceptable advantage to avoid government censure? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[woolfe9999]

Has there ever been a time in your opinion when the Messiah stretched a toe over the decorum line? Is it even possible to step over the decorum line in criticizing the not-left?

When he attempted to seize control over the White House Press Corps (a media-controlled group, NOT a government group) to deny FoxNews a seat at the table, did that action cross any lines?

What about reporters at "mainstream" news organizations like NBC or MSNBC - should the President publicly attack them if they fail to show sufficient fervor in promoting the party line? Since we know that FoxNews' 6 percent Obama-favorable slant is insufficient, how much of a favorable coverage advantage represents the minimum acceptable advantage to avoid government censure? Inquiring minds want to know!

First of all, I reject your "messiah" characterization. So far as I know, once upon a time, during primary season, Oprah Winfrey referred to Obama as "the One." And ever since, conservatives have been having a field day with this "Obama as messiah" talking point. It doesn't add much to a discussion.

So far as whether or not he has ever broken decorum, give me a specific example, with quotation marks, and I'll give you my honest opinion. I can't recall ever thinking that Bush or Clinton did, but I might well have missed something or forgotten about it. I did mention as an example GHWB referring to Clinton/Gore as "bozos" during the 1992 campaign as an example, because honestly that is the most recent one I can remember which definitely qualifies.

- wolf