PDA

View Full Version : Roger Ailes New Leader Of The Republican Party?



Gayle in MD
02-01-2010, 08:26 AM
Joe Scarborough seems to think so, or so he stated. Regardless, Fox News's Fair and Balanced non stop lies are so easily documented by so many sources, I wonder why their audience is so broad, and the only thing I can come up with is the vast appetite that some Americans have for the slutty and slanderous, lies and hateful kinds of trash that airs on Fox.

But the real story is Ailes last Sunday...and his denials of the facts, in order to protect Beck, who is hemmoraging sponsors.

As I have stated, the Fox audience is the reason why this country is being held hostage to propaganda which parades as news.

It is troubling, when I know I have read words written by a few from the right who post here, who I think, or thought, were atleast able to sort out fact from fiction, yet they have written about Beck's brilliance, and how he is always right!!!!

That is incredible, to me, given the vast consistant lies and slander that rolls out of the station, non stop.

G.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Share
Print
Email UPDATED: Roger Ailes, what "unfortunate thing" did Beck apologize for?
January 31, 2010 1:44 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

Just to add to Simon Maloy's point below about how Roger Ailes today claimed that Glenn Beck had "apologized" for the one "unfortunate" thing he'd said on Fox News over the last 13 months.

Of course, the most famously "unfortunate" thing Beck said last year was when he called the president of the United States (i.e. "this guy") a "racist" with a deep-seated hatred of white people. But Beck never apologized. Indeed, his stubborn refusal to apologize is why he's lost nearly 100 advertisers since his "racist" charge. But now Ailes seems to be spinning the facts to suggest Beck did apologize.

So here's my question: If Ailes is actually now conceding that Beck's "racist" attack was "unfortunate," then why didn't Ailes say so in real time when the shocking comment was made on Ailes' cable channel?

As I noted last September:

Despite media reports to the contrary, Fox News executives explicitly refused to distance themselves from Beck's claim that President Obama is a "racist," let alone reprimand the host for the shockingly hateful comments. Fox News' initial knee-jerk response of failing to question any of the gutter rhetoric Beck dishes out, and the cable news giant's decision to treat the transgression as a nonstory unworthy of a serious response, of course, is what led to the boycott drive.

The fact that nobody anywhere inside Fox News had enough sense to hold Beck accountable or to even suggest that calling the president of the United States (aka "this guy") a "racist" on national television was well outside the bounds of professional broadcasting -- the fact that Fox News could not even for a moment publicly contemplate that Beck had stepped over a glaringly obvious line of common decency -- is why those same executives have been forced to watch as an avalanche of A-list advertisers go public with their plans to make sure they are no longer associated with Beck.

Looking back, it's hard to imagine how executives at Fox News could have handled Beck's "racist" smear any worse. And it's hard to imagine how Fox News could have inadvertently cultivated the ground any better for a sweepingly successful advertising boycott than the cavalier way they dealt with Beck's presidential race-baiting.
</div></div>

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001310018


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Share
Print
Email On Fox & Friends, Orszag says Krauthammer's claims about government spending are "wrong" and "not true"
24 minutes ago
From the February 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
</div></div>

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002010004


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Share
Print
Email Quick Fact: Hannity falsely claims Obama "created" the "massive deficit" and that "stimulus is a failure"
January 29, 2010 1:31 pm ET 101 Comments
On his radio show, Sean Hannity claimed that President Obama "seems to be concerned about a massive deficit," which Hannity said Obama "created," and asserted that the economic "stimulus is a failure." In fact, the 2009 increases in spending and the deficit include the impact of policies enacted under former President Bush, and economists have estimated that the stimulus "raised employment" by as many as 2 million jobs through December 2009.


EMBED
Embed this video:
From the January 28 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: He lies about the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. I think the biggest lie of the night, "Well, we saved 2 million jobs." You've lost 4 million jobs. You know, he seems to be concerned about a massive deficit -- he created it. You know, a guy that, you know, believes the federal government should run pretty darn near everything in your life -- the auto industry, the banks, the insurance companies, student loans, health care, and it never ends.

What is appalling is the massive ego of this president, which was on full display last night, taking responsibility for nothing, learning nothing. It's arrogant. He's cold, he seems detached, and literally is insisting on dragging this nation off a cliff. And his stimulus is a failure, so we'll spend $30 million more on the stimulus.

Fact: Policies enacted before Obama took office comprised much of FY 2009 spending increase
CBO: TARP, Fannie, Freddie commitments comprised much of spending increase in FY 2009. CBO stated in its January 2010 Budget and Economic Outlook that "[m]uch of the rise in outlays in 2009 came from mandatory programs." CBO added, "Three initiatives accounted for nearly two-thirds of that increase. Outlays recorded for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) totaled $152 billion in 2009; net payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for another $91 billion; and fiscal stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), increased mandatory outlays by $80 billion." Spending for TARP and the Fannie and Freddie conservatorship was approved before Obama was elected.

$1.2 trillion of $1.4 trillion deficit was already projected before Bush left office. On January 7, 2009, CBO stated in its Budget and Economic Outlook that "[w]ithout changes in current laws and policies, CBO estimates, outlays will rise from $3.0 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009." This estimate included $240 billion -- in contrast to the $91 billion recorded at the end of fiscal year 2009 -- for "incorporating the two housing GSEs into the federal budget." Before Obama took office or signed any legislation, CBO had estimated that the deficit would be $1.2 trillion for fiscal year 2009.

Spending for unemployment benefits, Medicaid increased as result of recession. CBO also stated of fiscal year 2009:

Social Security outlays rose by 9 percent ($53 billion) last year, primarily because the 5.8 percent cost-of-living adjustment that took effect in January 2009 was the largest annual adjustment since 1982. Medicaid spending (excluding stimulus funding) increased by 9 percent ($18 billion) in 2009 -- exceeding its 7 percent average annual growth rate of the previous 10 years -- largely because higher unemployment boosted enrollment in the program. Medicare outlays (including an offset for premium payments) also rose at a faster rate than the average of the past decade, growing by 10 percent ($39 billion).

In addition, payments for unemployment benefits rose by $76 billion in 2009, pushing outlays for that program to more than double the level recorded in 2008. The jump was caused by substantially higher unemployment as well as increased and extended benefits to unemployed workers ($27 billion from ARRA and $17 billion from other legislation).

New York Times: Obama policies are "responsible for only a sliver of the deficits." According to a budget analysis by The New York Times, "Mr. Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies -- together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama -- account for 20 percent" of the increase between the FY 2008 and FY 2009 budget deficit estimates. The New York Times wrote that 70 percent of the increase is attributed to a combination of economic hardships, including "the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists' assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years" and "new legislation signed by Mr. Bush ... like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit."

Fact: Economic analysts estimate the recovery act increased relative employment by as many as 2 million jobs
Economists estimate stimulus "raised employment" by as many as 2 million jobs through December 2009. In a quarterly report issued January 13, the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimated: "As of the fourth quarter of 2009, the CEA estimates that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has raised employment relative to the baseline by between 1 and 2 million. The CEA estimates for both the effects on GDP and employment are similar to those of respected private forecasters and government agencies." The CEA cited Moody's Economy.com estimates that the stimulus increased employment by 1.6 million jobs through the fourth quarter of 2009. From the CEA's quarterly report:



</div></div>

see chart and Video:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001290035



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Share
Print
Email Fox Nation touts "hero" labeling of Obama photos, ignores that it's a photographic term
January 29, 2010 10:53 am ET 32 Comments
The Fox Nation highlighted a Mediaite post claiming that "the individual responsible for the naming convention of the presidential imagery on the official White House website has literally 'given' hero status to the photos" of President Obama because the file names of "all the Presidential images" begin with "hero_." But Fox Nation did not mention that the Mediaite post was later updated to note that "hero" is photographic terminology for "the image selected for final use. i.e. typically the best image from the selection" -- as conservative bloggers pointed out when the issue was raised in March 2009.




Mediaite: "Obama Named 'Hero' In Official White House Photos"
From a January 28 Mediaite post by Colby Hall:

Well this is potentially embarrassing. It appears that the individual responsible for the naming convention of the presidential imagery on the official White House website has literally "given" hero status to the photos. Any effort to save the lead photos off the Whitehouse.gov homepage saves a file that starts with "hero_." But its not ALL images on the site, nor the homepage. For example, the "Photo of the Day" is given the rather pedestrian name "P012710SA-0476.jpg." Cue conservative critics using this as an example of the administrations Messianic complex in 3, 2, 1...Updated

For the non-blogging set, allow me to explain. Somebody at the White House is in charge of updating images on the White House website. And it appears that either that person (or more likely his or her boss) created some sort of naming structure for images of President Obama. Alas, it appears that this individual (or perhaps group of people) thought it smart/clever/ironic to name all the Presidential images by starting with the following prefix "hero_".

Fox Nation repeats Mediaite item
Fox Nation promotes item, but ignores Mediaite's subsequent update. Fox Nation teased the Mediaite item on its front page on January 28:



The front-page tease linked to an article that in turn linked to Hall's Mediaite post. Fox Nation repeated the first two paragraphs of the item -- including the word "updated" at the end of the first paragraph -- but not the update itself:



Mediaite update: "Hero" is a photographic term for "image selected for final use"
From the Mediaite item:

Update -- a savvy commenter below points out the following: "Photographic Terminology & Glossary: When viewing a proof sheet or selection of images, the "Hero" image is the image selected for final use. i.e. typically the best image from the selection."

The definition is taken from a "Photographic Terminology and Glossary" page posted on the Benjamin Townsend Photography website.

Conservative bloggers highlighted "hero" shots in March '09, noted that it's a photography term
Malkin: " '[H]ero shot' is a common photography term to describe the best images of a series of shots." In a March 10, 2009, post on her blog, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin wrote:

Several bloggers are having good fun with the discovery of a subdirectory of White House photos categorized under the name "hero." (See Small Dead Animals, Jeff Emanuel, and Bob McCarthy).

What's amusing is not that the term "hero" was used -- "hero shot" is a common photography term to describe the best images of a series of shots.

What's amusing is that every damned shot that's ever taken of Dear Leader is classified as a "hero shot."

Outside the Beltway notes photography glossary definition. From a March 10, 2009, post on conservative blog Outside the Beltway:

UPDATE 2: Commenter Urbaniac may have solved our little mystery:

"Hero: When viewing a proof sheet or selection of images, the Hero image is the image selected for final use i.e. typically the best image from the selection." -- Photography terms glossary

Not necessarily the most efficient way of cataloging the images but it makes some sense. The folder is protected (as it should be) so I can't review the images collectively but it would indeed be useful to have the "heroes" in a separate folder.
</div></div>

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001290023

<span style="color: #000066">I mean, really, the lies never end!

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>SAVE THE NATION - TURN OFF FOX! </span> </span>

pooltchr
02-01-2010, 09:09 AM
for someone who despises FOX news, it seems someone sure spends an awful lot of time reading and helping to broadcast what they have to say.
It's ok to come out of the closet and admit that you actually love them!

Steve

LWW
02-01-2010, 11:13 AM
Media Matters is so easy to shred.

Just to take one ... Obama voted for the budget he "inherited" and then proceeded to make it worse.

That very same budget originated in a demokook controlled congress and then was passed on to a demokook controlled senate.

Only a completely moonbat crazy hyper partisan blog such as Media Matters would have the audacity to give them a pass like this.

But, if one is a completely moonbat crazy hyper partisan then it's the site du jour.

LWW