Fear of Fox News, back of the bus- young man
Once again, I (and millions of other conservatives) are being told to get on the "back of the bus."
Because Hillary Clinton appeared on Bill O'Reilly and Barack Obama was interview by Fox News' Chris Wallace, left wing bloggers are upset.
There is some kind of "secret code" that the elite liberals have in which conservatives are NOT allowed on the mainstream media.
Even today, as far as we have advanced…
Conservatives are NOT allowed at the front of the bus. We must head to the back of "the media bus."
Obama and Hillary broke some kind of "trust" that liberals have. (Although, liberals are giving Obama a pass on it.) "Never, ever. Under any circumstance, give a conservative credit for anything.." Do not appear on conservative shows.
If the mainstream media were a drinking fountain, conservatives would be told to use the drinking fountain out back.
Do you remember how it was years ago?
When CNN was the only game in town..??
There would be 3 liberal democrats and one "token" conservative- debating. The token conservative usually had a goofy bow tie on (Tucker) and CNN would give the conservative 15 seconds to explain the conservative philosophy. Then the three liberals would use the remaining 23 hours to explain why the conservative was wrong. (Such was life under the rule of Ted Turner.)
Remember when Merv Griffin would give William F. Buckley the final 5 minutes of his show? Merv, to his credit, would allow Buckley to speak. However, Merv would break in by saying- "Fascinating.. But now a word from Preparation H.."
We have come a long way from those days, but we still must fight on.
Fox News is the number one cable news network in the United States. Bill O'Reilly is the highest rated cable news show.
And yet, liberals would like to see Fox shut down.
But Fox is number one…
Why wouldn't a politician want to be on Fox News..??
Because liberals do not want to recognize Fox News.
They do not believe a conservative viewpoint is worthy, or important.
For example, on Friday- MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had this to say about Hillary and O'Reilly-
"…I am the East Coast Distributor of "Fixed News" Outrage…"
(Keith likes to call Fox News- "Fixed News." Isn't that cute..!! I wonder if he thought of that on his own..??)
Keith Olbermann continues-
"…But hasn't the most telling explanation about the surprisingly-yawny Billo interview struck anybody? She did it because it was serious free television time and if it costs much more than free, she can't afford it.
She was doing a freakin' info-mercial…"
So, let me see if I understand this…
When Hillary appears on Fox News, it is an "info-mercial." But when Hillary appeared on Keith Olbermann's show (like she did ten days earlier) it WASN'T an "info-mercial"..??
Let's forget the fact that a host from the lowest rated cable network is poking fun at a host from the highest rated cable news network, because you are always going to have "sour grapes" between competitors with small minds.
Let's forget that…
I like to dig deep and find out why liberals do not want democratic politicians to appear on Fox News?
Hillary and Obama have appeared on MSNBC, CNN, and other networks many times.
But Obama on Chris Wallace, and mainly Hillary on O'Reilly, has caused a fuss. WHY..?? Because elitist liberals and progressives pretend that Fox News is not real.
They pretend that Fox News will go away someday. That it is only "stupid" people who watch that channel.
Rather than compete against Fox News, progressives "HOPE" that if they boycott Fox News and say bad things about Fox, it will disappear. Someday, it will go away.
Fox News isn't going to go away.
Matter of fact, Fox News will get bigger if we have a democratic president.
Wishing that Fox News would disappear is not going to make it happen.
(And Keith, calling Fox News silly little names like "Fixed News" or "Faux News" isn't going to make Fox go away either. You should have learned that in the 4th grade.)
A News show becomes number one because people like the host. A News show becomes popular because they discuss topics the others are not covering. A News show becomes number one because they are asking the questions that people want answers to.
They do not become number one by wishing, or pretending that the other show will go away.
Let's face your biggest fears, because Fox News isn't going anywhere.
(And, Obama and Hillary NEED middle America's vote, so they will appear on Fox more in the future.)
So let's look at the top three "Fears of Fox" that liberals have.
Progressives- "Fear of Fox": number one- "Appearing on Fox News will give the network credibility and make Fox more popular."
This fear is a complete myth because Fox WAS number one WITHOUT the democrats appearing on the network. (So boycotting Fox did nothing to harm ratings.)
Progressives- "Fear of Fox": number two: "Fox is NOT a real news channel. They will be unfair to the democrats.."
Another liberal myth.
Anyone who watched Chris Wallace interview Barack Obama, and also watched the last ABC Democratic debate, cannot say that Fox was unfair to Obama.
ABC was much tougher on Obama than Wallace was.
Hillary appeared directly into the "belly of the beast," The Bill O'Reilly's show. Hillary still has all of her fingers and toes. She seems physically and mentally OK.
So what is your freaking problem..??
Was Chris Wallace fair to President Bill Clinton..??
Or did Wallace bring out a side of Bill Clinton that you didn't know existed?
Liberals "Fear of Fox" number three- That just appearing on Fox might cause the democrat to wimp- out and become conservative. (OR- Somehow become "tainted" in some way- shape- or form.)
What are we talking about here..?? Some type of "tag" game? Like "cooties"? I realize we have the name calling, but do we really get "cooties" by appearing on Fox?
Dude, if your candidate is so weak, that just appearing on Bill O'Reilly will cause a melt-down, then you have bigger problems ahead of you. Good Luck..!!
Boycotting Fox News is no skin off my conservative backside.
McCain will appear on any news outlet that will have him. Every freaking channel on the dial. (Including the Food Network.) Sure, liberals will call McCain names like "McSame" and they will giggle. But his face will be everywhere. Every dam place you look.
Forcing your candidates to only appear on liberal shows is not a smart way of getting the progressive message out into the general public.
But if it works for you, I am fine with it.
Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republican
9 comments on Fear of Fox News- Back of the bus, young man
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
"Fixed News?" Isn't he clever. Now I don't watch alot of news, and I don't pretend to be well informed. After all, there is so much Brittany Spears and KFed I can take from the established media outlets.
But hasn't CNN had to "fix" itself after it aired incorrect stories about agent orange in Vietnam? Didn't NBCs Tom Brokejaw make an on-air remark about Gore needing to win Pennsylvania? (that was before we found out Penn was full of gun nuts, now who would WANT their electoral votes?) CBS had it's secret Bush file showing that he never attended his training and that he was injecting heroin in the cockpit and dropping bombs on civil rights marchers when he did show up.
Radio host Boortz in Atlanta offered a $10000 reward to anyone who could find bias in a "Fixed News" network story. So far nobody has been unable to collect.
Now, now…
We have moved on from Britney Spears and are focused on Miley now. Where the News should be- "Hanna Montana."
You are correct, the BIG mainstream media outlets have to "fix" themselves all the time.
I hadn't heard about Boortz's offer, that is interesting.
Sorry, nobody has been "able" to collect. Someday I will learn to proof read before I add a comment.
Jsut maybe.
"Because elitist liberals and progressives pretend that Fox News is not real."
Its not that we think it isn't real, Its just that we think it is not REALLY news, but a propaganda machine of the conservative republican movement. I mean, If you want to pretend that studies conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks findings that...
"Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions."
Or if you want to pretend that Fox News never engaged in a lawsuit in the Florida appeals court in Feburary 2003 and won for the right to lie, or as they put it...
"During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so."
That does not make "Factual News", that makes propaganda. So, I say, have a conservative "NEWS" channel by all means, go ahead. But don't sit there and think Fox News is it, because they aren't.
$10,000?! Wow, and he hasn't gone bankrupt yet...
Well eky I never agree with you but I have to admit you are earnest and do your research. You are never lazy.
I am tired of beating this horse but did we not find sarin and mustard gas in Iraq? It doesn't matter if it was old or in small quantities it was there. Also, those buried Mig jets would have been an ideal delivery system.
Didn't it come out that Iraq sent a delegate to the Al Queda conference in the Pacific before 9-11.
And finally the Akres lawsuit was overturned. Maybe it had merit, it sounds like it, but if you go to the Media Research Center you will find dozens of examples of blatant to overt liberalism in the mainstream media.
I know you are honest and willing to learn so plese do not take my word for it. Just look at the examples cited.
Take care,man.
Yep, it was old, mostly decomposed, and if I remember correctly a gift from the Reagan administration to aid their war against Iran. We only cared about him gassing the Kurds when the other excuses were found to be full of it, they certainly didn't care when aiding Iraq in their war with Iran.
"a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague."
Oh yea, ther buried Mig Jets, the ones whose armaments are primarily Air to air combat. Friend of mine sent me the email about those. Not exactly WMDs by any stretch of the imagination from what I have read so far.
Bush when governer had the Taliban in texas, if having a delegate conference (which the Senate Intelligence report on ties between Iraq and Al Queda found no conclusive evidence of cooperation, and quite a bit of animosity between Saddam and them) is all it takes, then we definately need to waterboard the decider naked in Gitmo for a nice 5 year term before charging him with anything.
Will check into more on the Akres situation, hadn't seen anything recent on that one. Just the fact they would try to make their case that they don't have to report honest news is enough for me to dismiss that channel as propaganda. Liberal or conservative "bias" is one thing, Manipulating facts is another all together....
I thank you for the comment, EKY..!!
You are always going to have reporters leave networks and claim bias. Benard Goldberg wrote several books on CBS and Dan Rather's liberal bias. I am glad the conservative people have a network that doesn't "miss" important stories, and focus on liberal idealism.
I wasn't trying to say that Fox News was a "perfect" place to get news. I'm saying that Fox is a force to be reckoned with. (Not avoided)
There is no "one" perfect place to find news. I usually check the AP Wire, Drudge, Fox, and The NY Times, (along with others.)
Any source can report "who, what, where, and when." We would be bored to tears if that was all they reported. Everyone wants to know "why" something happened, and that is where the political bias comes in. (Try explaining "why" terrorists bombed a city. You will either give a liberal or conservative reason.)
My whole point is that democrats boycotted Fox, but now are appearing on Fox News. In doing so, they have angered some of their progressive base.
30 years ago, when conservatives were hard to find in the mainstream news, we had no choice BUT to appear on bias news shows. It is the only way to get your message out. Only sticking with your "party favorite news outlets" is kind of like preaching to the choir. You already have their votes.
Are you angry that Obama appeared on Fox? That he might do The O'Reilly Show in the future?
If Fox is the number one cable news network (in America), YET- you believe they are bias; shouldn't your candidate show up and set them straight?
That is what I am saying with this editorial:
Why avoid Fox, or boycott it?
Take Fox on..!!
Not bad, but you are trying to put frosting on a turd.
The WORLD, (not just America) placed an embargo against Saddam because of the way he took control of Iraq. However, Iran took Americans as hostages and held them for 444 days. When Iraq and Iran went to war, THE WORLD, (not just America)- France, Germany, Egypt, Israel, England, etc- wanted the embargo lifted because Saddam was about to get his @ss handed to him. NO ONE WANTED IRAN TO WIN and control that whole region. We, (France, Germany, Egypt, Israel, England, etc) lifted the embargo to allow Saddam to receive weapons. It has never been proven that America sold anything to Saddam. But we did offer tech support. (IE- satellite images on Iran troop formations.)
I am going to trick you here EKY, so be careful..!!
You have a leader of a country that surrendered in a war. He is NOT allowed to make weapons. But you believe that he is making weapons. However, you cannot prove it. This leader attacked two countries. This leader claims he wants to regain land that should be rightfully his land.
This leader has his military shooting at American pilots, which is an act of war.
Should this leader be removed..??