BuzzMachine

Fox News: We don’t report the news, we make the news!

>”Just heard Fox News call ”

Figures that the faux fox news dino watches fox news but if CNN came calling to have him on as a liberal democrat he’d be glad to appear so that he could tar and feather some real democrats.

With dems like you and loserman who needs enemies.

Go Ned Go!

Oh, come on, Jeff, according to your pals on the right Joe McCarthy was just misunderstood. Hillary Clinton murdered a guy!

Well, Jeff, you had to know you’d shake the trees of some recidivists if you questioned their altar of ‘fair and balanced’ propaganda. Hillary Clinton polarizes the right wing. It’s the new way of saying They Hate Her. When the wingers accuse the left leaning Dems of hating Bush, they’re projecting, and there are no surprises in that. The first step to healing is facing the problem. And polarizing the base by intemperate statements such as Cheney’s left-baiting ones is not recognized as a problem by the truly base, any more than is the Hillary-bashing.

FOX News counts on their viewership having an incredibly short memory to the point where nostaligia for them is reminiscing what they had for breakfast.
(with apologizes to Harlan Ellison for appropriating an old quote)

To Andrew, I must respond:

You said this:

When will people realized that how some feel about George Bush is how others feel about the Clintons?

How some feel about Fox is how others feel about CNN?

Your second statement is very flawed, because you infer that CNN is a liberal Fox News. Um. I only wish. CNN has spouted as many RW/GOP talking points as Fox News. The only difference is they couch it within that unbelievably disengenuous “most trusted in news” mantra. If CNN is the liberal’s Fox News, why do I spend more time now than ever sending scathing e-mails to them in their trumpeting RW propaganda? They, like all of the MSM drummed up support for the Iraq War and enabled the Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth” to spread their lies, without a shred of evidence to back up their spectacular charges. Good journalism was thrown out the window in the name of higher ratings for tabloid level talk shows. The truth is that for liberals, ALL 3 cable networks are a torture to watch (only exception is Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, but even he can fall into the Karl Rove trap) as they bash and poke fun of Democrats every day, while the message the WH wants out there, they bend over backwards to accomodate. I suppose you’re mad about their reports on Iraq War, but, in fact, conditions there for ordinary Iraqis are WAY worse than reported.

And, just for the record, Hillary Clinton is no liberal. I go by her voting record in the Senate, more in line with John McCain, than what Fox News has to say about her. Go to the liberal blogosphere, and you will find barely a whimper of support for her in ’08.

I should add, especially if that pundit or guest was speaking specifically about the conservative point of view. “Polarizing” is in the eye of the beholder. Bush is not a “polarizing” figure at all for Republicans, even though conservatives differ with him on many issues, but Bush is clearly a polarizing figure for Democrats. Hillary *is* a good candidate for one of the most polarizing figures from the conservative point of view. Really, “polarizing” has never been the right word, anyway, because it assumes that people don’t know their own minds until the right politician comes along. Left-right is just *naturally* polarized; if a figure comes along who represents *one side* very well, that person is said to be “polarizing” by the other.

Point-of-view is the biggest problem for liberals in media. They think their POV is the only allowable POV, and all other POV is illegitimate.

“he is not at all polarizing to conservatives”

Wow, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve seen today.

Leadership is exhibited by leaders who are able to transcend the divide between parties, by leaders who even though they disagree with the opposite party, do not pretend as if it doesn’t exist. This is where George Bush has miserably failed where Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and other presidents have prevailed.

Wolfowitz? Perls?
;-P

I’ll hush up now. (BTW just now found your blog; TechFave deff.)

TTFN

LOL. Another example of FoxNews scewing things for an agenda.

Actually what does this say about the President or another elected official if Hillary Clinton, in only a few short years, is able to gather more thunder then they are? I am not sure that Fox is actually doing their party any favors with these kind of out there pronoucements.

I’m not going to let this one go. Look carefully at Jeff’s list of figures he considers more polarizing than Hillary. Remove Lincoln, the one historical figure:

Richard Nixon Republican
Joseph McCarthy Republican
Spiro Agnew Republican
Lester Maddox Dixiecrat
Joe Lieberman “Turncoat” Democrat

See a pattern? Yes, these are all people who are “polarizing” to *modern liberal Democrats*. (Lincoln’s inclusion in the list is the exception that proves the rule; no one would say that liberals are polarized by this ancient President, yet his is the only case where polarization is literal, in the form of Civil War; the others are there because they all share the uniform trait of being Democratic party boogeymen)

So, Jeff, liberal Democrats aren’t polarizing? *Ever*? “Most polarizing ever” is clearly hyperbole, but the word polarizing itself is automatic hyperbole; it is an intangible that cannot be properly measured.

Well, thank you, but — no offense, who are you, and what does it matter if you acknowledge that those Democrats are “polarizing” figures deep in a BuzzMachine thread?

Look up “polarizing” through Google News, find out who the press identifies as polarizing. Apart from Lieberman trying to call Lamont polarizing, and references to broader topics, here are some of the latest examples:

* “border activist Russ Dove, a polarizing figure” Arizona Daily Star, AZ
* “Perhaps no politician in America is as polarizing as Congresswoman Katherine Harris, R-Sarasota” WBBH, FL (Hillary as most polarizing is laughable, but no politician in America is as polarizing as minor leaguer Katherine Harris!)
* “Connecticut voters will choose between a veteran incumbent who proudly works with a polarizing Republican president” Boston Globe, United States
* “Fox News seems bent on polarizing our political views” iMedia Connection, CA
* “Falwell carries the weight of being a polarizing figure.” Wyoming News, WY
* “Clinton would stand a good chance of defeating an ideologically polarizing Republican candidate” Forbes
* “…this nation has never seen a more polarizing politician than George W. Bush” New York Post, NY

If there are any recent references in media to “polarizing Democrats”, I can’t find them, apart from one blog. Look up polarizing and Jimmy Carter: nothing. Al Sharpton: nothing. Dean: references again to Bush being the most polarizing president (this nation has never seen a more polarizing president!) Same results with Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson, matches, but nothing calling *them* polarizing.

And, of course, it’s Jeff Jarvis who breezily dismissed the idea of Hillary Clinton being more polarizing than… Joe Lieberman!!! Do a poll of non-news junkies, and you’ll find that many don’t even remember or know who Lieberman *IS*.

Ruth, do you have any kind of rational, adult counter-point to Carson’s observations?

Again.

Ruth, do you have any kind of rational, adult counter-point to Carson’s observations?