- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Fox News said:The White House Correspondents’ Association on Sunday announced that Fox News will get a coveted front-row seat in the White House briefing room.
The Associated Press will take Helen Thomas' old seat, while Fox News will now occupy AP's former seat. NPR and Bloomberg
also applied for the position.
"It was a very difficult decision," the White House Correspondents' Association said in a statement. "The board received requests from Bloomberg and NPR in addition to Fox for relocation to the front row and felt all three made compelling cases. But the board ultimately was persuaded by Fox's length of service and commitment to the White House television pool."
The White House Correspondents Association, made up of the following people (from their website)
WHCA OFFICERS 2010-2011
President: David Jackson, USA TODAY
Vice President: Caren Bohan, Reuters
Secretary: Steve Scully, C-SPAN
Treasurer: Doug Mills, New York Times
WHCA Board Members 2010-2011
Carol Lee, Politico
Michael Scherer, Time Magazine
Julie Mason, DC Examiner
Don Gonyea, NPR
Ed Henry, CNN
Decided that Fox will NOT get the coveted Helen Thomas Seat, but will instead give that seat to AP. Fox will take AP's old seat which also was in the front row. Given the list of members on the WHCA - there was no way in hell Fox was going to get Thomas' old seat. I'm fairly sure they are hating themselves for having to concede to put Fox in the front row at all.
Well, I do congratulate Fox News on their front row win.
They're doing something right. They own cable news, and it's not because they are full of lies & deceit... it' because millions of people are fed up with decades of propaganda serving as news, and want hard questions asked not only of Republicans, but Democrats too.Bet a dollar to a donut that they STILL won't get it right. LOL!
You talking about that chick with the Morning Joe who keeps getting updates from the White House?Well Zimmer, when you mix entertainment with information and blend the lines between them of course you get more people. It doesn't hurt to have a bunch of blonde blue eyed honeys that probably have no idea what the hell they are talking about because they are to busy updating their twitter status.
Yeah, people prefer to watch someone who doesn't have obvious disdain for this country.Hmm let me think..Baywatch babe or Rachel Maddow...I think you know what most people would rather stare at for an hour straight.
Like this never happened before? Whenever you get both sides facing off, it can get heated... when you have a group of leftists agreeing with one another... you generally don't. You might enjoy the leftist circle jerk, I prefer to see an honest, aggressive clash of ideas.A bunch of people yelling at eachother like baboons in "Brady Bunch patch/Hollywood Squares" format, or a calm civil discussion representing both sides?
ROTFLOL... again... you think people watch FOXNEWS because it's Baywatch or a Freak Show... nice try.Lastly, take a look at Howard Stern, more people listened to him than liked him just to see what crazy **** he would say next, see people like Bill O' Reily and Glenn Beck.
??? WTF does that mean???I think though this really isn't a story, at least it isn't because Fox got their way and can't spin it in anyway.
Plenty of Democrats do appear on Fox.
...Fox also has a stable of regular commentators, some under contract to the network, who pop up frequently as representatives of the Democratic or progressive viewpoint.
Shall we file this under "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while"? Balance is a rare thing at CNN, having been an avid consumer of their pap. We won't bring up their sister network MSNBC.I obviously separated my points out so you knew exactly what I was talking about. Also I was unaware that when State of the Union on CNN interviews a Republican senator from SC and then a Democrat from NY that makes them unbalanced?
Pretty angry... ROTFLOL... I find your take more than amusing... and spell it out as I see it. Let's just say, you'd be a fine chairman of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC or CNN. You've got the mindset to take them to greater depths.Also you seem to be a pretty angry guy towards me for no apparent reason.
You make hilariously false accusations about the success of FOXNEWS... like it's some porn network, and the masses tune in because babes have nice breasts, legs and faces. Ahhh... may I suggest that's a pretty immature take on why FOXNEWS kicks the crap out of its competitors.How am I getting my "ass thumped"? Are you telling me you would rather not understand what the hell anyone is saying, would rather people yell louder (because the louder you are the more valid your point becomes!) than actually get a better understanding of the topic?
FOX's opinion shows are excellent, Cavuto is a stud, Shep... you don't know what side of the aisle he's on and that's more than fine, and their hard news beats the others because it has more balance; they actually have representation of what the right believes... a refreshing oddity after decades of leftist monopoly.Look I will admit, I will switch between the big 3 back and forth, and I like to watch me some O Reily (he is probably the only sane one on that entire network) and I just LOVE Beck's history lessons but if I want actual intelligent discussions I typically turn to PBS or CNN.
Bet a dollar to a donut that they STILL won't get it right. LOL!
A bunch of people yelling at eachother like baboons in "Brady Bunch patch/Hollywood Squares" format, or a calm civil discussion representing both sides?
Yeah... damn that Fox News for starting the yelling with shows like Crossfire.... :shock:
Well Zimmer, when you mix entertainment with information and blend the lines between them of course you get more people. It doesn't hurt to have a bunch of blonde blue eyed honeys that probably have no idea what the hell they are talking about because they are to busy updating their twitter status.
Hmm let me think..Baywatch babe or Rachel Maddow...I think you know what most people would rather stare at for an hour straight.
A bunch of people yelling at eachother like baboons in "Brady Bunch patch/Hollywood Squares" format, or a calm civil discussion representing both sides?
Lastly, take a look at Howard Stern, more people listened to him than liked him just to see what crazy **** he would say next, see people like Bill O' Reily and Glenn Beck.
I think though this really isn't a story, at least it isn't because Fox got their way and can't spin it in anyway.
I loved Crossfire.
It was about the only show where they had both sides equally presented and some decent spokesmen from the right.
With CNN's tanking ratings, they might be wise to bring it back.
If they had good representatives from the right, they might be able to make a dent in the ratings against FOX at least that time slot.
.
So trite, so easy, and so incredibly wrong. But spew on.
I'm not fond of the night time opinionators on Fox either, but the BS spewing from Olbermann and Maddow is so twisted and so blantantly and purposefully straight from the adminstration, it's obvious even to those at CNN, who seem to be noticing they're paltry numbers more and more and are giving up some of their unfettered support for Obama.
Fox' chair in the press room is the only one seeming to even care to get it right.
Bad analogy and here is why:No doubt they have a bias as do any of the cable network channels. However as is the case with CNN judging a network's worth or integrity based solely on ratings is a fatal misstep. It would be like claiming The History Channel is less valid because MTV has Jersey Shore, or if you would want to take it that far, The Colbert Report is more valid than any show on network cable news due to their viewership, or even worse Tosh.O (although you can't hate on Tosh!)
Shall we file this under "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while"?
.
No doubt they have a bias as do any of the cable network channels. However as is the case with CNN judging a network's worth or integrity based solely on ratings is a fatal misstep. It would be like claiming The History Channel is less valid because MTV has Jersey Shore, or if you would want to take it that far, The Colbert Report is more valid than any show on network cable news due to their viewership, or even worse Tosh.O (although you can't hate on Tosh!)
So let me see if I get this 100% straight; the people defending Fox here (the conservatives here) believe that Fox news has no conservative bias whatsoever?
The White House Correspondents Association, made up of the following people (from their website)
WHCA OFFICERS 2010-2011
President: David Jackson, USA TODAY
Vice President: Caren Bohan, Reuters
Secretary: Steve Scully, C-SPAN
Treasurer: Doug Mills, New York Times
WHCA Board Members 2010-2011
Carol Lee, Politico
Michael Scherer, Time Magazine
Julie Mason, DC Examiner
Don Gonyea, NPR
Ed Henry, CNN
Decided that Fox will NOT get the coveted Helen Thomas Seat, but will instead give that seat to AP. Fox will take AP's old seat which also was in the front row. Given the list of members on the WHCA - there was no way in hell Fox was going to get Thomas' old seat. I'm fairly sure they are hating themselves for having to concede to put Fox in the front row at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?