Clinton on Faux: How could Roger Ailes be so confused?
There's been so much whine coming from the direction of the "Fair & Balanced" network that you'd think they were based in Napa. "Boo hoo, Bill Clinton raised his voice! Waaaah, Bill Clinton looked at me angry! Mommy! Mommy! Mommmmyyyyyy!" Today, Fox even tried to portray Clinton's forceful response to their interviewer as an attack upon all of journalism. Why Ailes confused Fox News with journalism, I have no idea.
To hear them tell it, Clinton ripped off his shirt, turned lime green and feasted on poor Chris Wallace's intestines before relieving himself on the First Amendment. That's not exactly how it happened.
Meanwhile Keith Olberman has a different take on it:
6 comments:
Oh, please. Try watching an entire show, then. The "special comment" segment comes at the end of the show, but it's always preceded by and based on a longer, factual segment at the beginning of the show.
Oh, and when I hear someone say "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" (the actual name of the party), I pretty much "discount the message and the messenger."
I also find it hard to take you seriously now, since you dismiss Olberman who uses indisputable facts (even if you can dispute his analysis), but say that Bill O'Reilly is fact-based, when he's constantly making up "facts" that just aren't true.
You always say that you haven't said what "team" you're on, but your posts make that very, very clear. Pretend to be an impartial observer all you want, but it's clear you're a Republican (or "Republigoon," since we're all now changing the name of each other's parties) through and through.
Not "entirely." The fifth definition of "discount" is to "disregard," which is the same thing as "to dismiss."
Why do people try to nitpick grammar when they disagree with someone? Just another way to try and dismiss (sorry, "discount") that person's message.
Your historical humor excuse doesn't wash in today's climate, where "Democrat Party" is STILL used as a pejorative, but of the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party. There isn't a comparably easy way to change the name of "Republican Party," which leaves your side at an advantage, and you people sure do press that advantage.
Olberman rules!
A lot to agree with in your last post - especially the use of the term "Democratic" ;-)
I don't remember you offering what political party you belong to, but I'll point this out: I went in not knowing what party you belonged to, and then concluded you must be a Republican after reading several posts where you expressed your views. That's the opposite of knowing you're a Republican, and then having that color the way I read your posts.
I should point out, in light of my last comments, that I really enjoy reading your posts, Paul. They always strike me as well-informed and good-natured, which is rare on the Internet. There are just a few things that press my buttons (people dismissing people such as Olberman and Cafferty is one, people saying "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party," for whatever reason, is another), so I get a bit testy when that happens.
Drudge Report is definitely right-wing. You can tell by their headlines and what they choose to cover. For example, when Clinton went on Fox, Drudge blared "Purple-faced rage." When Bush gets just as indignant as Clinton in his interviews (like that one last week with the guy from the Today Show), Drudge ignores it. The headlines and unflattering (often open-mouthed, in mid-blink, etc.) photos Drudge uses with Democrats often seem like they're trying to make Democrats look crazy. Compare that with the neutral headlines he uses about Republicans and the headshot-quality photos he uses for Republicans.
That stuff may sound frivolous to you, but it matters.
Post a Comment