"Fox is not a traditional news organization and we believe that change is bad."
Posted on 01/20/2010 6:56:06 AM PST by AIM Freeper
How misleading! For decades, ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC have had "points of view" which tilted their news and features to the Democrats. More recently, their "points of view" went all the way to the Far Left in blatant ways.
And Pfeiffer dares object to an organization which, in his mind, has a "point of view"?
This White House continues to "misunderestimate" the intelligence of the American public in an age of instant communications! How arrogant and condescending!
"Fox is not a traditional news organization and we believe that change is bad."
Big surprise.
Of course they don't...having a point of views requires some degree of intelligence. Have you seen the jellyfish on those networks. Utterly devoid of anything that might resemble conscious thought.
In one word: CLONES!!
Their’s is not a point of view, Alfalfa, it’s the truff.
Does anyone happen to know where I could grab a copy of NewsMax....or is it online only? I REAAAAALLLY want to read the ‘Obama Hates FOX News’ article. It looks delish.
Nothing short of STALINISM
"I have the same view of Fox that Anita [Dunn] had, which is that Fox is not a traditional news organization. They have a point of view. That point of view pervades the entire network both the opinion shows, like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, but also through the newscasts during the day," Pfeiffer said."We don't feel an obligation to treat them like we would treat a CNN or an ABC or an NBC or a traditional news organization. But there are times when it would make sense to communicate with them and appear on the network."
but what about...
Mark Halperin Memo at ABCDisney News - Friday October 8, 2004
It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite graveI do not want to set off an endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
PS. Mark Halperin is now the big wig at Time(Lies) magazine.
FUBO
FUBO, sell your lies elsewhere.
No one will be able to remember this loser’s name in a year from now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.