OUTRAGE! ABC to broadcast from the "White" House

[AggieTool]

But then there's this...:D


QYPb3SGrFkM

[yermom]

unprecedented!

Fox likes that word, apparently

[OUAlumni1990]

LOL, journalism credibility is dead? They just now catching onto this? LOL...

[OUAlumni1990]

unprecedented!

Fox likes that word, apparently

I'm imprecendented!!

[KABOOKIE]

Wow! Not even a close comparison. An in depth interview of GB from the White House or a pimping of bro's health care. Yeah. :rolleyes:

[SoonerStormchaser]

Gee it was put together by the daily KOS...there's a credible source. Got anymore Huffington Post articles to suppliment that craptastic video AggieFool?

[OklahomaTuba]

I wonder, did Fox ban any opposing viewpoints like ABC is doing, or is ABC and Obama the only ones censoring the viewpoint held by the majority of Americans on this issue????

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I liked how ABC refused advert $ from an opposing health plan. I refuse to watch ABC news now.

[TUSooner]

If a news source earns the label "liberal" it can be ignored as biased and unreliable. Many acts, even isolated ones, can earn a source that label; therefore many sources of information can be totally discredited as liberally biased without the bothersome need of critical analysis or even attention, in perpetuity. That leaves only approved conservative news sources which are presumed reliable. The presumption of reliability is essentially unrebuttable, since any attempt to rebut it is, by definition, a liberal act. This phenomeneon increases the right kind of knowledge and should be encouraged.
Sincerely,
Dr. J. Goebbels

[walkoffsooner]

fox = jealous

[OklahomaTuba]

If a news source earns the label "liberal" it can be ignored as biased and unreliable. Many acts, even isolated ones, can earn a source that label; therefore many sources of information can be totally discredited as liberally biased without the bothersome need of critical analysis or even attention, in perpetuity. That leaves only approved conservative news sources which are presumed reliable. The presumption of reliability is essentially unrebuttable, since any attempt to rebut it is, by definition, a liberal act. This phenomeneon increases the right kind of knowledge and should be encouraged.
Sincerely,
Dr. J. Goebbels

Wasn't Goebbels a socialist??

[OklahomaTuba]

fox = jealous
Of who, the pitcher or the catcher???

[1890MilesToNorman]

I ain't watched any of the network crap in 10 years and I'm happier for it. Well maybe 911 coverage but that was kinda big, or it used to be?

[Sooner_Havok]

Wasn't Goebbels a socialist??

I always thought Nazis were fascists, and that fascism was on the far right of the political spectrum. You know, the complete opposite of communism.

I have learned from reliable sources (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck) I have learned the unprecedented truth. Fascism is the same as communism! They are both composes of nasty radical left-wingers. Also, I learned that there is no radical component of the right-wing conservative movements. They are all sacrosanct, and that every bad horrible person in the world, ever, has been a nasty liberal.

Least that is what I get from watching and listening to those guys.

[Sooner_Havok]

Gee it was put together by the daily KOS...there's a credible source. Got anymore Huffington Post articles to suppliment that craptastic video AggieFool?


Ok here is the list of sites right-wingers cannot use:

Drudge Report

Michelle Malkin

The National Review

TownHall

The Weekly Standard


and left-wingers must refrain from posting material from these sites:

Daily Kos

Huffington Post

LiberalOasis

MoveOn.org

The Nation


Anything posted from any of those sites should be taken as being completely false and anti-american

[TUSooner]

Wasn't Goebbels a socialist??

He was a LIAR.

[sitzpinkler]

I wonder, did Fox ban any opposing viewpoints like ABC is doing, or is ABC and Obama the only ones censoring the viewpoint held by the majority of Americans on this issue????

Exactly! Because if there is anybody that has a handle on the viewpoint held by the majority of Americans, it's you. Hands down.

[rainiersooner]

Yeah, no administration has ever used the media for its own purposes. One thing I like in the UK is that newspapers, for example, don't pretend to be unbiased. If you're a liberal, you read The Guardian; if you're a conservative, you read The Daily Telegraph. There is no pretense of objectivity.

[rainiersooner]

Exactly! Because if there is anybody that has a handle on the viewpoint held by the majority of Americans, it's you. Hands down.

I have a handle on the viewpoint held by the majority of people I hang around; and I only hang around one kind of person!!

[TUSooner]

Yeah, no administration has ever used the media for its own purposes. One thing I like in the UK is that newspapers, for example, don't pretend to be unbiased. If you're a liberal, you read The Guardian; if you're a conservative, you read The Daily Telegraph. There is no pretense of objectivity.

I tend to agree. But I also like source that aspires to objectivity while admitting that "pure" objectivity is impossible.

[TUSooner]

But then there's this...:D


QYPb3SGrFkM

Is there any precedent for this?


It made me laugh.
Oh yeah, and maybe vomit a little bit, too.

FOX sucks in unprecedented ways.

[Sooner_Havok]

FOX sucks in unprecedented ways.

Eh, I kind of like that Shep Smith guy.

[SCOUT]

I don't really watch any of the news channels because they stopped providing news when MTV stopped showing videos. I did see a promo for the ABC bit with Obama and it looked like it was a policy presentation. The clips in the video linked in the OP were of personal interest type stories of the former President and Vice President. I am not sure those two things are comparable. A better comparison would be Ross Perot with his pie charts, IMO. Of course, Ross paid for that out of his own pocket.