Obama Wins Peace Prize

[Lithium]

Nobel Peace Prize for controlling the media and flow of information in the leftist perspective.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/obama-team-continues-effort-isolate-fox-news/

[Tbone]

Oh please. Let's not even get started on how biased Fox News is. I don't care what side of the fence you are one, everyone agrees Fox News is an extreme right wing network. My family and friends back home in Mississippi say "All we watch is Fox News. They're the only people who are right!". Yeah, because they tell you what you want to hear. Or more like try to give weight to the whacko fears that extreme conservatives have.

Nearly every rumor about Obama during the campaign was started/fueled by FOX. It isn't a news program and it sure as hell isn't a "fair and balanced" news program. They freakin LED the Tea Party Protests but didn't even cover the National Equality March consisting of tens of thousands of people.

I think they are right to call out Fox News. People see "news" and associate it with "truth" and Fox uses that to fuel not just a right-wing agenda, but also a lot of hate speech that is increasingly getting more and more dangerous.

If Obama is ever assassinated, I bet the guy who pulls the trigger will have gotten over half of his reasons for doing so from Fox News. And I'm not even gonna get started on how hypocritical they are when something is pro their agenda versus against. Their hypocrisy gives The Daily Show and Colbert Report half their freakin comedy fodder.

Fox News is controlling the flow of information. The Obama administration isn't interfering with Fox's freedom of expression. They're simply trying to raise awareness to a lot of ignorant people who still go to Fox for the "real news".

If the Enquirer asked for an interview with Obama, do you think they would get it? Same difference. The truth quota for both news sources is set about the same.

[Lithium]

Wow is that hypocritical or what? A liberal, who doesn't vote, mind you. One who does not agree with the other side of the argument, spits out a bunch of statistics that don't make much sense and then says, "there will be no more discussion" in by locking down the topic.

I'll easily argue the "mainstream" media is the corrupt media. They 'freaken' LED the Obama's fund raising and advertising campaign. Every comedy sketch show invited him on. They didn't break the ACORN fraud until Fox uncovered it. They didn't talk about Van Jones the "Green Jobs Czar" being a self-proclaimed socialist until when? oh, until Fox news found out.

It goes on and on...

You want to talk about corrupt figures let's talk Micheal Moore.

[Fuse]

If Fox News are liars and idiot, then so are the majority of cable news watchers as Fox has more viewers than the rest combined.
(EDIT:OK, after some ACTUAL FACT checking, sometimes it's more than the rest combined, and sometimes not. For instance, according to tvbythenumbers.com Fox had a total viewer count of 1,507,000 last Thursday. The rest combined hit just 205,000 viewers over that at 1,712,000. So not quite "more than the rest combined" as I had mentioned. Yet that is still over %46 of the cable news viewers over 2 years old (P2+).

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,507,000 viewers
CNN – 713,000 viewers
MSNBC –428,000 viewers
CNBC – 187,000 viewers
HLN –384,000 viewers
)

Personally, I get my news from multiple outlets because they're all bias to a degree. (No matter who you voted for it's hard to deny that CNN kisses democrats asses and consistently ignores vital information). I've found some of the best new agencies are foreign. Fox brings up great points that while may be from a certain perspective, does not make them wrong. They have many questions that if the WH would answer honestly, wouldn't be issues anymore - or would show the truth to every other liberal.

[Tbone]

Wow is that hypocritical or what? A liberal, who doesn't vote, mind you. One who does not agree with the other side of the argument, spits out a bunch of statistics that don't make much sense and then says, "there will be no more discussion" in by locking down the topic.

I'm not sure what you're referring to locking a topic, and I'm not sure what me missing the deadline to get registered to vote has to do with things either, but please avoid personal attacks. If you can't debate without directly attacking the other person, then stay out of it.

And Fuse, I'm aware of how many viewers Fox has. Fox represents an entire party - almost half of the population. That's the scary part about it. They should be more responsible with that many people tuning it. The reason the other networks aren't like that is because the democrats don't have one single huge extreme leftist media outlet. The democrats get support from many outlets and not through such an extreme capacity as Fox, but more of just common sense people promoting smart ideas :-P

[Tbone]

Michael Moore makes movies that you can choose to see or not to see. He isn't given his own show on a huge news network and allowed to tote his opinion as the truth that everyone needs to see. If Michael Moore had his own show on CNN, you could begin to make the comparison. The closest person you'll get to Glenn is Rush, who is also on your side of the fence! lol

[Fuse]

democrats don't have one single huge extreme leftist media outlet

You are joking, right?

Lith is referring to the fact that after his post at the top of the screen, the thread was locked. Then you posted. Then the thread was locked again. A glitch in the matrix?

Fox does not represent one party. I'm not sure where liberals get that idea. The questions they are asking should be asked by everyone - republican, democrat, libertarian, independent, and all Americans. I don't identify with any party, yet I'm glad someone is asking the right questions and the fact that the WH refuses to answer tells me (and the rest of the country) that they're on to something.

The largest increase in Fox's numbers are NOT from republicans. It's from independents, libertarians, and conservative democrats. If you don't believe me I'll pull the numbers for you on that as well. Might take me a while to track them down again though.

[Fuse]

He isn't given his own show on a huge news network and allowed to tote his opinion as the truth that everyone needs to see

I watch a lot of news through the day (too much according to the wife) from tons of sources, and not once have I heard the fox opinion shows claim to be anything other than opinionated fact checkers. In fact, the recent shows of Glenn that I've caught he's stressed for WH officials to tell him exactly what he's wrong on. He presents the evidence he's found, asks the WH to explain that evidence, and gets no answer back. The WH has three options. They can answer him and other conservatives honestly. If they have nothing to hide, then this would have already happened. So this leads me to think they only have answers they want hidden from the public. Option #2 is that they attack the source. This sends a stronger message of guilt than option #3 which is ignorance. If they truly believed Fox has it wrong they can just ignore it and let the truth come out through other means.

I fail to see why Beck stirs up so much emotion in the WH and in liberals unless he's right. People notice when good questions go unanswered.

[Tbone]

According to your logic, I can only assume Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. He has yet to answer any questions about the issue:

http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/

[Tbone]

Lith is referring to the fact that after his post at the top of the screen, the thread was locked. Then you posted. Then the thread was locked again. A glitch in the matrix?

?

I didn't lock this thread. Did someone else try to lock it?

[Fuse]

According to your logic, I can only assume Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. He has yet to answer any questions about the issue:

http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/

The difference between you and me seems to be that I think if there is evidence that proves this, I believe he should be brought up on charges and he should answer to the allegations - as anyone should; especially this administration. (EDIT:Second thought, "this administration" is bad wording, yet I'll keep it here for full disclosure. It should be "ANY administration" because Bush had a shitload to answer for that he never did either)

The biggest difference (admittedly without going further than the main page of that site) is that site clearly states it is only a rumor and has no proof. Fox presents true evidence in most cases and still gets laughed at.

So yes, by my logic you are correct that he should answer to that if proof is presented. Until then you should assume it is only, as that website says, a rumor.

[Tbone]

I don't actually believe the website. It's a parody site. It says so both at the top and the bottom. It was meant to shed some light on the tactics used by Glenn Beck:

"Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven't yet seen proof that he didn't. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation."

This same tactic was used to spread propaganda about Obama such as he is Muslim and wasn't born in the US. Err...here's more info about it:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2009/09/03/internet-hoax-says-glenn-beck-raped-murdered-young-girl-in-1990.htm

Basically I feel that if people like Beck would stop the fear-mongering and hyperbolic demonizing of the other side, they would have a much better chance of getting any LEGITIMATE questions/concerns addressed. Instead, they make it over-obvious that their ultimate goal is to have their party elected in 2012. Everything they do for these four years is about 2012.

Just use health care as an example. 2008, Glenn Beck rants about how horrible our health care is after undergoing surgery. He tries to create a huge panic on how we need drastic health care reform. 2009, Glenn Beck raves about how we have the best health care in the world and how everyone else in the world comes to us for the best health care and that saying otherwise is un-American. What changed in a year? The White House administration did...

So I don't take ANYTHING he says seriously and neither does anyone else with half a brain. Does he have some valid points and does he raise good questions? Maybe? Who knows. I don't trust what he says and I'm not going to validate his craziness with any sort of legitimacy. FOX pays the guy, so they are responsible. Keep the "crazy shit to get ratings" out of there and stick to rational news reporting. If you're going to have an opinion show on a major news network, don't give the show to a guy who tells people the President is better off putting a bullet in your head because he wants to set you on fire. And certainly don't validate that same guy by saying he deserves a response from the White House on the matter.

[Fuse]

T, I can tell you don't watch him and am following the typical line of those who disagree with him without actually listening to what he says because, put simply, you are wrong in your assumptions. I have no urge to defend "Glenn Beck" as a person, but if your beleifs about politics are based on arguments against him, perhaps you should watch him for a couple weeks to get a clue. I've seen him as recently as 2 days ago talk about the broken healthcare system. Your logic suggests that if you don't agree with the way it should be fixed then you think it's perfect? No where on Fox have I seen any push for 'their party' in 2012 - if anything it's just a "get the corruption that's currently there now out!" camaign, which I'm still trying to understand why you're ok with it there. This isn't about parties, and Fox tries to makes that very clear.

By the way, do you claim that CNN or MSNBC are fair? Do you think their coverage of republican events and Bush's administration were fair and balanced? If you say they were then it's my beleif you're part of the problem. If you admit they're just as (moreso?) bias then perhaps you should take ANYTHING they say as serious either.

As far as his antics: If you can't grasp the concept of sarcasm and satire, and take everything litterally then you're a fool.

Take everything in, but witha grain of salt and don't ignore or rely on any one source because everyone has an agenda.

[Tbone]

As far as his antics: If you can't grasp the concept of sarcasm and satire, and take everything litterally then you're a fool.

Take everything in, but witha grain of salt and don't ignore or rely on any one source because everyone has an agenda.

Ah, but see, therein lies my point. You and I can grasp that concept just fine, and then there's no harm. But out of all of the people watching, there are plenty plenty plenty of people who are "fools" and are not grasping that concept. They are taking EVERYTHING literal and taking it all as fact. And when you ask them how they know it is true or where in the world they heard it, they say "I heard it on the news. On Fox News." My own grandmother said "Yeah, I think I heard it from Glenn Beck", and then I had to explain to her that not everything Glenn Beck says is fact and truth. But even when I tried to explain that, she probably just assumed I was tainted by "liberal corruption".

(My grandmother told me that Obama was planning on limiting the number of children people could have to one per household. She stated it as a fact - something that was very likely to happen. She heard it on Fox, and I think she specified Beck.)

My grandmother isn't a moron either. When you're surrounded by it, it's just something you assume. Everyone around you says and feels that FOX is the only "unbiased, true news network" and takes everything they say on FOX very literal and serious. Unfortunately, it doesn't take being a fool to buy into the "fool's gold".

The difference in Beck's case is provoking an intelligent response versus an emotional response. I feel Beck goes for an "emotional response" to the sacrifice of an "intelligence response", and that's dangerous.

[Lithium]