Sunday, 23 March 2008

THE HUFFINGTON POST LIES ABOUT FOX NEWS

Ken Berwitz

It is hardly a revelation that the left hates Fox News Channel (FNC).  Aside from the fact that they hate its heterodoxy when it comes to news reportage, the fact that, ratings-wise, FNC also runs all over the more reliably leftward competition, like CNN and MSNBC just might have something to do with it.

But do they really have to lie about Fox? 

The Huffington Post's lies are far from the first I have seen about FNC from the left.  But this instance is so blatant that I think it should be singled out.

Here is the article from www.huffingtonpost.com, complete with the videos which are supposed to verify its verbal content.  Please, please, watch them both.  Or go directly to the blog itself by clicking here.  That will both validate what I am saying and resolve any problems you might have viewing the videos:

Mayhem At Fox News: Anchor Walks Off Set, Wallace Rails Network For "Obama-Bashing"

Huffington Post   |   March 21, 2008 10:53 AM

Fox News' very own anchors are speaking out and walking off over what they perceive to be "Obama-bashing" on their network.

This morning on "Fox and Friends," Brian Kilmeade walked off the set after a dispute with his co-hosts Gretchen Carlson (she who celebrates deadly floods) and Steve Doocy over Obama's comment that his grandmother is a "typical white person." Kilmeade argued that the remark needed to be taken in context and eventually got so fed up with his co-hosts that he walked off set.

Later, "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace came on the show and railed against "Fox and Friends" for what he called "Obama-bashing."

Watch both clips below (refresh your page if they don't load properly):

Brian Kilmeade walks off set over Obama dispute:

Chris Wallace rails against "Fox and Friends" for Obama-bashing




Update: Later that morning, Chris Wallace
called into Brian Kilmeade's radio show to talk about the incident (apparently Steve Doocy was genuinely mad). Wallace also indicated that Fox execs might not have agreed with his position. You think? Find the audio here.

Firstly, the article states Fox News anchors - plural -  are walking off.  That is a lie.  Only one person "walked off", not two, and he is not an anchor.  Great start, guys.

Next we have the reason that Brian Kilmeade "walked off".  It had nothing to do with the disagreement about Barack Obama's comments.  It was a JOKE walk-off because they CHANGED the discussion to good-naturedly poke fun at him personally. 

Specifically, after discussing and disagreeing on the "typical White person" quote from Mr. Obama, Steve Doocy asked "If I said you're a typical sports guy would you take offense at that?".  The female host (whose name I do not know) laughed when it was said.  Why?  Because it was a funny way to end the political disagreement.

Upon hearing the SPORTS GUY reference - not anything about Barack Obama - Kilmeade got up immediately, and the camera followed him off the set and out of the studio as the remaining two amusedly made reference to him.  Whereupon the female host, laughingly, told Doocy he better not call her a typical woman and Doocy went "Whew!!!" in mock fright.

Would they be laughing about this if it were serious?  Would Fox have its camera chronicling a real walk-out?  Of course not and of course not.

As far as the Chris Wallace incident, yes there was a disagreement about Mr. Obama's motives.  But, despite the clear indication that he walked off in the blog's wording, he did not.  The disagreement simply played out verbally.  Neither Doocy nor Wallace raised his voice or left his chair.

Again, I urge you to watch the videos and see for yourself

Then I urge you to think about how, if these disagreements CAN be voiced on Fox, the network can be called one-sided.

Finally, I urge you to think long and hard before believing what you read at the huffington post.


THE REPUBLICAN ELECTION STRATEGY

Ken Berwitz

If Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for President, how will John McCain run against him?  What will Republicans say?

Sheldon Alberts, of Canada's National Post, think he knows.  Here is an excerpt from yesterday's column, in which he lays it out for us::

WASHINGTON -It is already easy to imagine the Republican attack ads against Barack Obama.

They open with video of his wife, Michelle, saying she was proud of America "for the first time in my adult lifetime" because of her husband's presidential candidacy. Cut to the Illinois Senator explaining that he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it is a "substitute for true patriotism." Then flash a clip of Obama explaining that his Caucasian grandmother was a "typical white person" because she uttered racial epithets and was afraid of black people.

Finally, the coup de grace, pictures of Obama's angry, arm-waving preacher blaming the United States for 9/11 and shouting "God Damn America" to the rafters of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

Game, set, election, John McCain.

Sound implausible? Hillary Clinton doesn't think so.

The former first lady's best --and, possibly, only --chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination now hangs on a fragile thread. Far behind in delegates and the popular vote, and with re-votes unlikely in Florida and Michigan, Clinton must convince Democratic superdelegates -- the party officials who have become the kingmakers of the race -- that Obama has been so tainted by controversy that he is unelectable.

"The more that the voters learn about Barack Obama, the more his ability to beat John McCain is declining compared to Hillary," Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, wrote in a campaign memo this week. "For a long time we have explained that poll numbers for a candidate who has not yet been vetted or tested are not firm numbers, and we are beginning to see that clearly."

Which part of that analysis is wrong?  I don't see one, do you?

And let's not forget who he would be running against, therefore compared to.

If Mr. Obama gets the nomination his opponent will be a far more qualified candidate with a track record of appealing to moderate Democrats -- and an amazingly courageous war hero who sacrificed years of his life in Vietnam out of personal integrity and principle. 

How does that stack up against the Senator from Illinois?

Alberts is just as correct about Hillary Clinton's chances.  The only way she can win this nomination is to torpedo Obama on electability. 

Clinton's problem, however, is that this strategy requires attacking Obama in a way that is guaranteed to lose massive numbers of both Black voters and what Mario Procaccino, former New York City mayoral candidate, used to call "limousine liberals". 

If Ms. Clinton loses any appreciable number of voters from those segments (and she will), McCain wins anyway.

So there is your rock and your hard place.  A battle to the finish between unelectable and unelectable. 

I wonder what color drapes Cindy McCain would like in the Lincoln bedroom?


WOULD THEY HAVE CENSORED 'PISS CHRIST'?

Ken Berwitz

It is Easter Sunday.  Along with Christmans, one of the two most important Christian holidays of the year. 

With that in mind, I am even more outraged by this following story, which comes to us courtesy of Reuters :

 
Web host suspends site planned for anti-Koran film
23 Mar 2008 01:27:50 GMT
 AMSTERDAM, March 23 (Reuters) - A U.S.-based web service, which Islam critic and Dutch right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders planned to use to show his film critical of the Koran, said on Saturday that it had inactivated the site due to complaints.

"This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy," the company said on the site www.fitnathemovie.com.

Wilders, who has given few details about his 15-minute film, has said he plans to release 'Fitna' on the Internet before the end of the month after Dutch broadcasters declined to show it. Fitna is a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife".

Wilders still plans to show his film despite the setback, Dutch agency ANP reported.

"If need be, I will personally distribute DVDs in the Dam," ANP quoted him as saying. The Dam is the central square in Amsterdam, popular with both the Dutch and tourists.

Wilders' film has triggered fury in the Muslim world. The Dutch government has distanced itself from Wilders' views, fearing a backlash against the country in the Muslim world, similar to that against Denmark in 2006 after newspapers there published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

On Saturday, about a thousand Dutch gathered in the Dam to protest against Wilders and his film.

The film is not so much about Muslims as about the Koran, Wilders wrote in a commentary in Dutch daily De Volkskrant on Saturday. He said Fitna was a last warning for the West.

Wilders had previously warned of a "tsunami of Islamisation" in a country home to almost one million Muslims.

He has been under heavy guard due to Islamic death threats since the 2004 murder of Dutch director Theo van Gogh, who made a film critical of Islam's treatment of women.

There are only two reasons that this film is being censored.  Fear and cowardice.

It is not for reasons of decorum.  It is not for reasons of fairness.  And it certainly is not for reasons of respect for religion.

Does anyone doubt for even one second that andrew mapplethorpe's disgusting "art", with a figure of Jesus Christ soaked in urine, would present any problem to these people?  Or that painting of the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung that was proudly hung in New York's Brooklyn Museum?

Christians may be furious beyond words at these sacrileges.  Individuals might even try to deface them (funny choice of words, when the "art" itself is the grossest form of defacement).  But no one will lose any sleep over the prospect of countless thousands of people in the street threatening violence, even death, because they exist.

I don't know if "Fitna" is a worthwhile film.  Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.  But I do know that no one has any right to tell me I can't see it and find out for myself

So let's again call this what it is.  Fear.  And cowardice.

It covers The Netherlands in shame and dishonor.

free Not just the Netherlands, this is a US company that suspended his website. Makes me sick. (03/23/08)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!