Political YouTube Clips Thread

Remove all ads!

I understand they suck, from the little I know about this stuff. There was all this local hype about the Texans when they first appeared, and it seems that they haven't done very well. A lot of local people hate the Cowboys, especially the local good ole' boys, who adored the previous bunch of losers, the Oilers. But no, I couldn't name a single player on either team. My only involvement in local sports is absolute opposition to local funding for sports stadiums. Which brings us back to the topic (sort of): It seems a lot of the same people who have a big problem with government programs, have no problem with the government building their pet stadiums, and subsidizing local sports, even though a lot of people gain little benefit from it. Talk about a deluxe, special interest group.

 

Oh, I disagree with that. The most rabid fans I know are older. To steal from a famous quote:

Those who can't play, watch.​

 

T2 is definitely right. Multi-Media has only recently developed and has drawn the younger crowd. Most of the older guys only know sports and are technologically challenged. Plus, only the older guys can afford to buy tickets, the prices are astronomical these days. My dad use to take me to Phillies games for $7.00 a ticket, now the Seventh Heaven seats are like $40.00 and your so far away you can't even see the numbers on the jerseys.

 

I definitely agree that the older guys are the ones buying the tickets to the stadiums. I heard that the season tickets at the new Yankees Stadium START at $20K per year, and the better seats go for way more than that. Speaking only for myself though, I was much more passionate about sports (both as a fan and a participant) when I was younger.

 

Funny how things can get this far off topic....

 

Then in an effort to get us back on topic, I offer this. For those who wonder why some of us have such a problem with Fox News and why it makes such a mockery of journalism, here's a very good example:



Words honestly fail. This is, allegedly, a "news" network.

 

****ing pathetic. It's somehow Obama's fault if individuals submitting misleading e-mails to the Obama administration leave the address(es) of origin on it? Obama asked for the emails, not the addresses, and anyone concerned about lots of people getting access to his email address probably shouldn't be forwarding or starting chain e-mails. Way to only report the facts that fit within your pre-decided narrative, FOX!

 

It's not surprising, does anyone take Fox news seriously????

 

Yes. Millions of Americans consider it the only trustworthy TV news source. And that's the problem.

 

Well, realize that 90% of people probably don't realize they can delete the original email address when they forward it, they just hit the forward button.

I agree with this. I would point out, though, that the White House press person really didn't answer the question until the reporter actually answered it for him. In fact, he seemed to go out of his way to avoid answering it until she cited the law. Mind you, I don't think email lists would be very effective for anything other than a spam campaign, but he really didn't handle it well.

I'd also like to point out that the press person was given quite a free hand in his discussion after he answered the question that was the point of the whole thing. There was only a problem when he was trying to divert the topic to something else (the 'death pannels'), which was only brought up as part of an example.

All in all, I think Fox handled it well. They wanted the answer to a question that was a serious news issue. They got the answer without letting the speaker go off-topic. They then gave the speaker some free-reign.

 

Oh come on. They were trying to trap him into confirming their BS narrative that Obama was putting together an "enemies list" (her words, 3 times in that piece) and further scaremongering that they were asking for questions in order to keep track of critics and ask Americans to "report on their neighbors." They weren't addressing a serious issue, they completely avoided the issue at hand, which was the need for the Obama administration to address the misinformation about their efforts.

This is another example of the "Obama is a spooky Nazi" crap I was talking about before, only this time it's not some yahoo with a hand-drawn sign at a rally, it's a prime-time, top-tier newscaster at a "fair and balanced News" network. You can't honestly watch that clip and argue with a straight face that Fox News gives a sh*t about "balance," can you?

Before you answer that, I'll remind you Nog that this is the same "news" network that defended and supported the Bush administration's efforts to scour entire ISP's and email accounts for anything the NSA wanted to search for (without a warrant), all in the name of "defending Americans." But now according to Megyn Kelly, the White House asking people to voluntarily forward emails about healthcare questions they have - so they can be addressed directly - is somehow a horrible, free-speech killing gestapo practice. Sure, the guy didn't handle it very well, but it's obvious what was going on here.

 

No. Just...no. FOX did not handle this well, because they had no reason whatsoever to think that Barack Obama was building an enemies list in receiving and addressing misleading chain emails on behalf of concerned constituents. They brought him into an ambush, and he knew it. He knew damn well that the only way he was going to get "his side" of the story in was by stating it prior to directly answering her question, because no matter what he said, no matter how reasonable, the narrative was going to be "Barack Obama is building an enemies list". Knowing that, he rightfully made her state plainly what we all knew already, because by making her spell out that his administration wasn't even allowed to alter the content of the emails (and by consequently responding with "why would we do that?" in answer to her question) it made as plain as possible just how ludicrous, how criminally stupid, how utterly ignorant someone would actually have to be to believe this bull****. This is one of the dumbest, most asinine accusations FOX has yet to show, and the Obama administration shouldn't even have to grace it with a response. If that's journalism, I'm a giant taco that ****s ice cream, farts roses, and pisses Coke Zero. Thirsty?

 

Wouldn't it be prudent to build an enemy list? By enemy list I means the really hard core nutcases who are sending threats and ranting incoherantly (like Rush Limbaugh). I really wouldn't blame him (or his secret service team) for making a watch list.

 

I think we're agreed that Fox was looking to stick it to him, but changing the topic doesn't really look any better. A good response (one that took be 5 seconds to come up with) would have been something like, "It's actually illegal for us to delete anything that comes in for the President." Follow that up with more detail on the law, like she did, and then remind people that they don't need to send the address, just the email content, and it'd be pretty good.

I think the first 5 seconds covered the story about Obama wanting to counter the mis-information. I think the rest of it is the kind of thing that a press agent should be trained to handle. It's his job. He did it poorly.

And remember that she never actually accused the Administration of making an enemies list, just said other people were.

Now this is my problem, he didn't try to state his case beforehand, he tried to change the topic entirely. It's like interviewing a Mayor:
Press: Now, Mayor, you've been accused of stealing millions of dollars from the government. How do you respond?
Mayor: Well, Cindy, I just want to remind everyone that I'm planning to expand the City Initiative for Tree Welfare...
He'd get 5 seconds of that before he was cut off, just like this guy.

This I disagree with because it's a real accusation that's been going around! They had every reason to give this guy a chance to de-bunk and clarify the situation, which he could have, but didn't.

Actually, I didn't. I was vaguely familiar with the fact of the law, but not enough to put 2 and 2 together. I'm glad someone put it out.

Are you kidding, Drew? These days, that's good journalism. At least they addressed an issue, as opposed to spending just as long talking about Obama's swagga, or how the public thinks he's athletic.


Now, sure, Fox may have had an alterior motive, and that did look a lot like a trap, but it was a piss poor trap that could have been completely eliminated with about 5 minutes of preperation. Fox didn't make any accusations, worded the question to be open (it wasn't "are you making an enemies list", but rather "what's happening to the emails?"), and gave him time to talk after the question had been answered. It's not the best reporting I've ever seen, and they probably could have better spent the time covering a bank robbery, but it was journalism. I've seen worse on Fox, I've seen worse on NBC, I've seen worse on CNN and ABC.

 

No. NOG, they did no such thing. Rather, FOX made up an issue and pursued that instead of talking about real issues that we actually face. Making **** up and pretending it actually matters and then acting as if the onus to disprove your inane bull**** lies with Obama is not journalism. Since there is no evidence whatsoever -- no evidence of any kind at all -- to indicate that Obama is building an enemies list, FOX news is once again just making up stories and pretending they actually mean something. They don't.

 

Wow. I move to have that statement stricken from the record as it makes you come off as completely naive.

This is a very common - and much maligned - tactic employed by Fox News, in which they bring up some ridiculous slander by qualifying it with "some people are saying," as a way of making the accusation without actually making it. I'll give you an example.

Say I'm a newscaster, and on the crawler beneath me appears the words "Did NOG ass rape a donkey?" I further go on to say "Now while NOG maintains that he kept a safe distance from the farm animal, questions still remain about what really happened." Then you (or a spokesperson) answer the allegation, outraged at me for phrasing it like that, to which I reply "Whoah whoah, sir, I"M not saying you ass-rape donkeys, I'm just acknowledging that there are questions out there that need to be addressed. Some people are concerned. What do you have to hide?" See? I've simultaneously furthered the idea in the consciousness of my viewers that you actually ass-rape donkeys without having to offer a shred of evidence to back it up, all while putting you on the defensive and insulating myself from charges of slander. I mean, I'm just asking a question, right? Clever, isn't it.

They did this to Obama with the flag-pin BS ("Does Obama really love America?"), and the secret Muslim BS ("Is Obama really a Christian?"), and the Ayers BS ("What kind of company does he really keep?"), and now with the Nazi enemies list BS. It is as plain as day. You have some major blinders on if you don't see it.

 

...more commonly known as weasel words, in which unqualified words or statements are thrown around in an attempt to appear neutral, while aatempting to be misleading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

 

Drew, to say Fox "made up" the issue implies that Fox was the one spreading rumors that the President was building an enemies list this way. That's flat out wrong. I've heard these concerns, and I barely watch news any more. Fox didn't make up the issue. They just responded to an issue they saw.

DR, I've seen worse on other news networks. I've seen blatant accusations of rumors on other networks.

Yes, but DR, those were all real questions at the time! Now, yes, they were politically inspired questions, and rather jaded ones at that, but there were a lot of Americans that doubted Obama's love of country (especially after his wife's gaffe), his Christianity (especially after his gaffe responding to it), and his association with Ayers (and if I need t remind you of that, you weren't paying attention).

Now, since those were real concerns of many people, and no news agency should presume to put out an answer themselves (as in never saying "Now we all know X didn't really happen, but...), how exactly would you expect them to address the issue? And don't say they shouldn't address it at all. That's like saying CNN shouldn't have addressed any of Bush's gaffes in office, or any of the paranoid concerns over certain bills that were passed, or any other critical incidents.



To be perfectly clear, this is a real concern of a growing portion of the right wing. It's not a very logical concern, but it's up to the news media whether to address it or not. Fox decided to, and they asked a press agent to clarify it. Whether or not that was a trap (and I'm sure it was) is another issue.

 

This again makes you come off as naive. I would bet good money that the people you heard this from got it directly from Fox News or talk radio. Did this not occur to you?

So that excuses Fox News from doing it now? Could you provide some examples of "worse?"

Nog, they were "real" questions because a-holes like Megyn Kelly were asking them and putting them out there! They doubted his love of country because a-holes like Megyn Kelly kept insinuating, over and over, that disdain of patriotism was why he didn't wear the flag pin. They doubted his Christianity because a-holes like Megyn Kelly insinuated that he was a Muslim! Where do you think these "real questions" originate? How do you not see this?

These never originated as genuine concerns, they were always innuendo and insulting BS.