Main > Everything Else
"Propagannon" confirmed : Fake reporter in WH press conferences.
Dartful Dodger:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on March 01, 2005, 04:12:00 pm ---P.S. I'm posting this not because I feel that it validates the story - it *is* still FOX after all
--- End quote ---
That link goes to americanblog.
fredster:
Yeah, he won't even directly link to Fox. He can't do it, he just won't let himself do it.
I saw that segment. It puts forth both sides. I can decide. My opinion is it doesn't freaking matter. Simple.
That was the Fox News Watch show where they critique news segments and the media every week. One many of the fair and balanced shows on FoxNews. (and if somebody disagrees, I'd like to know if they every watched Fox)
He had a pass that you could get MR.C. If they start screaming about people not using thier names, why not go after Larry Zeigler and Gerald Riviera ? (Larry King and Geraldo Rivera )? How many people have pen names?
In the pre-election surveys we find that over 80% of the press want to vote democratic. Wow. 20% won't. Wow. So do we have to sort through them? Do you think that they didn't pitch Clinton some softball questions?
--- Quote ---Gannon existence in the WH was a tremendously huge breach of security and a tremendously huge breach of ethical standards.
--- End quote ---
Sloan.com was there too. Did you rifle through the list to see who else didn't belong? Maybe we could sort.
--- Quote ---so-called "Liberal Media."
--- End quote ---
Read the NYT, the LAT, watch Dan Rather, hell, read "biased".
Keep in mind the media maybe keeping a real cap on the story because there was issues like this on both sides. It makes them (the media) nervous to be the story.
How many other shakey criedentials are there on the left we don't know about? Or are they totally blameless and honest? :angel:
Besides, we need both sides of an issue don't we? The plus and the minus. that Yen and Yang thingie.
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote ---Yeah, he won't even directly link to Fox. He can't do it, he just won't let himself do it.
--- End quote ---
Conspiracy theories aside, here's a link that provides a direct copy of the transcript. You can search FOX.com yourself.
--- Quote ---He had a pass that you could get MR.C.
--- End quote ---
Your assumption is 100%, absolutely, unequivocally FALSE. ESPECIALLY using a FAKE NAME. I am working w/ several other individuals in an attempt to acquire a day pass to the WH press pool. I may film the process for a short documentary...I'll fill you in on how that goes. However, since this story broke, several, more qualified individuals than myself have applied for a daily pass and have been denied. Other agencies have commented on how difficult the process is for just a one-day pass. Let alone a day pass, everyday for two years.
From the Augusta Free Press:
"Yes, we have been through the process for obtaining White House day passes.
And let us just say that it is not at all an easy process to get through.
Needless to say that it is difficult to think that it could have been done using a fake name - the Secret Service needs your real name so it can do a background check on you before letting you inside the gate.
Several phone calls placed over the course of a two-week period were needed to get us inside.
And that was for a one-shot deal."
--- Quote ---Keep in mind the media maybe keeping a real cap on the story because there was issues like this on both sides. It makes them (the media) nervous to be the story.
--- End quote ---
Totally agree that this *may* be exactly why we aren't hearing about the story, which doesn't exactly support yours and Drews theory that there is "nothing here."
Even the loonies at FreeRepublic get it, fredster:
"To me, the only thing the name has to do with anything is that McLellan knew his real name as written on the application, yet remembered to call him by his stage name. It's more evidence that McLellan knew him well, which is one of the prerequisites for being a plant."
--- Quote ---How many other shaky criedentials are there on the left we don't know about? Or are they totally blameless and honest?
--- End quote ---
Ya' know, quite bitching and go find them then. You disparage the work done by those on the left when they expose right-wing propaganda machines, by accusing them of fostering the same methodologies, yet you won't make any effort to prove it. Dan Rather? At least he uses his real name.
--- Quote from: fredster on March 01, 2005, 05:34:33 pm ---One many of the fair and balanced shows on FoxNews.
--- End quote ---
Dude! I watch FOX and it's the most right leaning channel on the face of the planet. Murdoch and Ailes are staunch BIG 'R' Republicans who have shown a sophisticated penchant for spinning stories in favor of Bush.
The administration couldn't PAY for better press. FOX friggin' counts ANN COULTER as a frequent guest for christsakes. O'reilly? Hannity? Cameron? You ever see Michael Moore on CBS? And don't even start with Dan Rather, he got "fired"..er, resigned. Fox's "hard news'" segments are running shorter than commercial breaks lately, as they're being replaced with more and more right-wing op-ed segments. This is the FIRST and probably the last time they'll report on the Guckert story because it is so potentially damaging for this administration. I am absolutely stunned that they even went so far as to suggest Rove is linked to it somehow. My guess is that they took a shot across the bow of Rove's political machine in order to press for some sort of further favoritism. Nothing is left to chance when Murdoch is involved.
Just because they allow some pathetically week-kneed liberal like Colmes attempt to counter Hannity with his doormat mannerisms, doesn't make them "Fair & Balanced." You think they are fair because you are right-leaning and they report what you want to hear. I consider them shills for Bush because they report absolutely nothing I want to hear. They constantly choose angles for stories favorable to the Bush administration. They featured the debunked Swift Lairs incessantly during the 2004 election, Carl Cameron fabricated quotes online to smear Kerry directly, and was promoted for it on Bush's 2nd inauguration day. They don't even hide the fact that they shill for Bush anymore. I've seen news "anchors" vehemently DEFEND Bush against factual, legitimate criticism. These aren't the editorial segments either, I'm talking about anchors that are supposed to at least feign impartiality.
There is no WAY that FOX can be considered "balanced" by even the loosest use of the term. I just won't accept it, and you have no proof to the contrary. I, on the other hand, can provide documented instances of their extreme bias.
Following are examples of other FOX News "hard news" correspondents' and anchors' engaging in falsehoods, distortions and smears:
fredster:
Yep, I was right, he can't go to foxnews.com even.
And I bet you don't watch FoxNews do you Mr.C.?
They lean right, no doubt about that. But they balance the story out pretty well. If you don't watch, you don't know do you? Don't worry. Fox is no.1 and soon will own the rest.
If you don't watch it, then you won't know for sure will you? You are just taking the word of bloggers. Great souce of info. Want me to post powerline or little green footballs? What blog are you pulling this from? I know you aren't writing this stuff yourself.
Didn't "Gannon" use his real name for the pass? He had a pen name and then he used his real name. Just like Larry Ziegler would and write as Larry King? No issue there.
Major Garret wrote a new book on the success of the '92 republican party and a review of the Contract for American recently, you left that out.
Jim Angle quoted a reported quote. Is that all?
Nah, I'm going to stop there. It's no surprise that journalists have bias. Look at Dan Rather and his former boss. Look at Ted Turner and CNN. Is it surprising?
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: fredster on March 02, 2005, 01:48:03 pm ---And I bet you don't watch FoxNews do you Mr.C.?
--- End quote ---
Actually, I do....and I have proof. I don't link to them, because I don't support them (via traffic) if I don't have to. A transcript is a transcript. If it makes you happy to ignore it based on the fact that it's not on FOX, you are welcome to do so.
The other day, I was lucky enough to have been watching FOX when Ann Coulter, hate-mongering terrorist and Right-wing media darling, made another in a loooong line of unsubstantiated claims by calling Alan Colmes a liar, instead of answer the question she had been asked. Colmes, in a rare case of "spine", called her on it and left her quivering. I didn't want this event to be lost in the annuals of TV-dom, so I immediately contacted a media watchdog group I'm familiar with and they tracked down the segment, encoded it for the web, and hosted it on their site. I had also spread the word amongst the largest left-leaning blogs on the net and by the end of the night...the video is everywhere.
While I *am* boasting because I'm proud, it *does* provide a documented trail leading to proof of my FOX viewership. So *nah* *nah*!!!
Here's the trail:
9:26PM - I see the event live on FOX.
10:00PM - I start a diary on dailyKos, it immediately gets promoted to the top 'recommended diaries'.
10:05PM - I tip my contact at Crooks and Liars. He begins searching for the feed. I tip several other top bloggers.
10:10PM - Crooks and Liars, posts the video and quotes my diary entry.
11:15PM - Oliver Willis points to the video and it makes the rounds all over the blogsphere.
How's that egg on your face taste, does it compliment the foot in your mouth? You don't know anything about me fredster (well mostly, outside of our PM's), and you assume too much.
I continually watch FOX because I help document it's falsehoods. I stay in contact w/ individuals associated with various watchdog groups, and I do what I can to help document false claims and erroneous reporting on FOX. Why FOX? Because they are *by far* the worst offenders and they are the most widely viewed. So their sin is even more egregious. CNN is horrible, but their ratings reflect that. CBS? Why waste my time. Wingnuts are falling over themselves trying to catch them in another "Rathergate." MSNBC is actually the most "balanced" in their coverage...but I haven't had a lot time to watch them.
Working together with organizations like Media Matters, the right-wing spin machine can be held accountable for the misinformation they so readily spread.
mrC