fox news cuts guest short

[Danzig]

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.

[Kasept]

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.

[cal828]

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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

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.

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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cal828

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

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

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by cal828

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

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

[cal828]

Originally Posted by bigrun

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

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

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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

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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

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

i'd bet money on it.

[OldDog]

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

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.

[Danzig]

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.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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..

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

Absolutely They have no other agenda...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

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

I think you have that backwards.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I think you have that backwards.

Good point, on the

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I think you have that backwards.

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!!)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

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..

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.

[Rudeboyelvis]

>>>“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.