fox news cuts guest short
 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...rly_after.html

just saw this on slate...making the rounds on the internet it seems. fox was interviewing a fellow about benghazi, and didn't like how he was answering it seems.

That's author Tom Ricks, one of the top experts in military matters and foreign policy in the country. It's hysterical. He shoves it up right up their giggy.

Looks like another avalance on bull$hit mountain to me.:D Fox operating as a wing of the Republican Party indeed.

i guess, like jack said, they couldn't handle the truth. how rude, invite someone on and then quickly end the convo. i mean, it's just a pulitzer he won...doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about!! lol

wonder if they've called ricks already from daily show to arrange a visit??

See you are a Stewart fan huh.:)
Oh, and change wing to Headquarters.:tro:

Yes, that Karl Rove thing rolling in floor funny. Megan Kelly hysterical without even trying.

Bet they have...that's too juicy to pass up..

i'd bet money on it.

A reporter/blogger for a Democratic defense policy think tank feels that "Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party."

I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked.

I don't blame them for ending the interview. The guy is supposed to be on there to answer questions about the Benghazi incident and instead he's just on there to attack the network. The guy obviously had nothing to offer on the subject. All he had to offer was cheap shots against Fox. What would have been the purpose of continuing the interview? The guy obviously had an ax to grind and had nothing of substance to say.

Having a differing viewpoint was not why the interview was cut short. It was cut short because the guy started taking cheap shops against the network.

By the way, you guys live in a dream world if you don't think Benghazi is a big story. Fox is hardly the only news source talking about Benghazi. David Gregory was on the Tonight Show a few nights ago and he was discussing the White House intentionally misleading people on Benghazi. I guess David Gregory must be operating as a wing of the Republican party. :zz:

the tonight show!? that's where i should tune to get the facts about terrorist attacks?

i thought ricks made good points about the whole thing, that it was blown out of proportion when compared to everything that's going on. let's not pretend that fox didn't go on and on about the attack for political reasons, rather than genuine concern.

How is that a cheap shot when it is the truth? Fox can't handle the truth!...David Gregory is a good reporter and not the only 'lamestream' reporter to make that assertion..

Absolutely :tro: They have no other agenda...

I think you have that backwards. ;)

Good point, on the :$:

Maybe I should have said truly or maybe I should put a question mark on it and let it be sarcasm.( as if, no they wouldn't dare!!)

Why would it matter which show David Gregory was discussing it on? He happened to be discussing it on The Tonight Show but that doesn't make his comments any less credible.

I don't think the incident was blown out of proportion. I would say it's a pretty big deal when one of our ambassadors gets assassinated. I think the last time it happened was 30 years ago.

I agree with you that if there is a negative story about Obama that Fox is more likely to run with it than the mainstream media. But on the other hand, if there is a negative story about a republican President, the mainstream media will be more likely to run with it than if the President is a democrat. Fox definitely leans right but the mainstream media definitely leans left. It's a wash as far as I'm concerned.

Fox is no more operating as a wing of the republican party any more than the other channels operate as a wing of the democratic party. Every reporter has a bias. Something like 90% of the media identify themselves as democrats. It's funny how some liberals think that republican reporters have some huge bias but that democratic reporters have no bias.

I agree with you that David Gregory is a good reporter. He wouldn't have gotten Tim Russert's former job if he wasn't. The reason that Gregory and many others in the mainstream media have talked a lot about the White House's handling of Benghazi is because there are very serious questions about the behavior of the White House with regards to this incident.

Fox News: Tom Ricks Apologized For Benghazi Criticism; Ricks: No, I Didn’t
 

>>>“When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself -- and his book," Clemente told THR via email. "He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly."

But that's news to Ricks, who told THR in his own email that he never offered an apology to Fox — privately or publicly.

"Please ask Mr. Clemente what the words of my supposed apology were. I'd be interested to know," Ricks said. "Frankly, I don't remember any such apology."<<<


Keeping the false Left-Right Paradigm alive and well.

You are trying to respond to a complete moron that only knows one song and is incapable of thought. He has no way to actualize information, he is only capable of blaming fox news and george bush for every problem he's ever had. Which is exactly what they need. Bands of zombies on each side bickering with each other while they rob what's left over.

Funny how ignorant gossip like this gets front page billing, and not a word discussed about how the world markets will react as the congress and the president continue to play politics like it's a game rather than get a deal done. All part of the plan.

but this....this can't be correct. fox news would never, ever report something as fact that didn't happen.



:D

Fox News Exec calls Ricks out - Surprised by his "Utter Dishonesty"

>>>Fox News Channel executive vice president Michael Clemente on Tuesday stood by his claim that author Tom Ricks offered a private apology following his appearance on the network, during which the Pulitzer Prize winner sharply criticized Fox's coverage of the September attack in Benghazi. Ricks denied that he ever expressed contrition, which Clemente countered in an interview with TVNewser.

“I’m surprised by the General’s utter dishonesty,” Clemente said. “I’ll refresh his memory – what he said following the segment was, ‘Sorry… I’m tired from a non-stop book tour.’ Perhaps now he can finally get some rest.”

Ricks is not a military general, although Clemente may have been making a reference to the title of the author's latest book, The Generals: American Military Command from World War III to Today.<<<

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...cks-dishonesty

so....he can remember that the guy said 'sorry' but can't remember that he's an author, not a general? maybe a for real general was talking to him, and he got the two confused!

when was ww 3?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-b...b_2198149.html

Back in 2009 when the White House pushed back against Fox News and correctly suggested it's not a "legitimate" news organization, but was instead acting as an "arm of the Republican Party," the channel was vigorously defended by journalists who scolded the administration for daring to critique Fox News and its openly partisan operation:

* Obama's Dumb War With Fox News

* First They Came For Fox. Journalists Should Defend Cable Network Against White House

* In Defense of Fox News

Today, that defense has mostly melted away. In the wake of Fox's unvarnished Mitt Romney cheerleading and its mindless attacks on the president during the campaign, it is no longer controversial for journalists to state publicly that Fox News isn't an independent or serious news organization.

In fact, more journalists are making the clear connection between Fox and its obvious attempts to boost the GOP. (As well as noting its complete failure to actually help the party in 2012.)

What Ricks said on television Monday likely reflects what lots of journalists now concede to be the truth. Ricks just had the guts to say it on Fox News.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...f58f_blog.html


i didn't realize fox paid some contributors to come on.

I could not agree more. It is all based on money, and Fox News caters to an affluent audience and blows away all the other news channels in terms of viewership. It translates into millions in advertising and they have no reason to change. MSNBC tries to counter, but it is laughable.

You will be told only what the corporations that own these channels want you to hear.

Case in point - Amber Lyons, a journalist for CNN at the time, was covering the atrocities in Bahrain during the Arab Spring. They were killing not only the protesters, but the doctors and EMT's that were treating anyone involved with the protest.

Did the world hear any of this? Nope. Why? Bahrain pays the parent corporation of CNN to keep this out of the world view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNBWLSNDFN0


Anyone who actually watches any of these "news" channels for actual unslanted, unbiased journalism is one brick short of a load.


So when someone with a chip on their shoulders gets muzzled, it really should be no surprise.

Too bad for them they couldn't do the same to Karl Rove on election night. ;)

yep, the press just isn't what it once was. fox is guilty of extreme bias, and very selective reporting. but i think the others are as well, because someone controls the purse strings. of course, it has been that way for some time. hell, each party 'back in the day' had it's own newspaper (andy jackson tangled with his party paper and the editor). then there was jefferson hiring a guy to write negative stories about alexander hamilton...but i digress.

some fox fans tout them as having so much more viewership. well, yeah. it's a matter of mathematics. the moderate to liberals have a wider selection of channels to choose from. the right-wingers all go to fox, because that's the only game in town for that point of view.

saw my parents at thanksgiving. my dad mentioned something he heard on rush. ugh. i don't know how anyone can listen to him.

I'd be guessing that's a typo on the part of whoever put up the post. Here's a link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Generals-A.../dp/1594204047

i figured it to be a typo...was hoping it was!

i have a book at home on patton, will probably start it after i finish this new one i just got on Grant.

Which bio of Grant? Is it a new one?

Definitely looked like an abrupt ending, but the clip shows an interview already underway. Do we have a clip that goes from introduction to ending?

yep.
h w brands. love his stuff.

'the man who saved the union' is the title.