White house is busted.

[dirtpoorchris]

YouTube - Fox News Busted

Ex-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan exposed Fox News as a propaganda tool for the White House on Chris Mathews Hardball.

Fox in the White House: It is one of those things you kind of assume to be true all along... and yet are shocked when hard confirmation actually comes. Our fourth story tonight, from the former White House press secretary himself, word that the Bush White House routinely sent--and as far as we know, still sends-- literal talking points to Fox News for its primetime propagandists, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and others... to spout, as if ventriloquist dummies, as if they had thought of it themselves, as if they had come to those opinions independently, as if there had been a process either fair... or balanced.

 

[Lerxst]

As if we needed Scott McClellan to tell us this. Good on him, and the others. Soon we will see a full scale "swift boating" of Scott.

Well, it's just more confirmation about the nature of the Bush Whitehouse and their relationship with Faux Nooz.

Ahhh....welll....hmmm....how anti-climactic.

 

[RedAkston]

As if we needed Scott McClellan to tell us this. Good on him, and the others. Soon we will see a full scale "swift boating" of Scott.

Well, it's just more confirmation about the nature of the Bush Whitehouse and their relationship with Faux Nooz.

Ahhh....welll....hmmm....how anti-climactic.

Hey, if you believe that, I've got some ocean front property in Iowa to sell you too! You do realize that McClennan is trying to sell books don't you? I'd give this a 50/50 shot at being true. And of course, Olbermann only has one guest in the clip to discuss this - Rachel Maddow from Air America. No one right of center to discuss it, someone from the far, far left. Maybe FOX News is more fair and balanced than MSNBC? Oh wait, they already are. And I loved how McClennan said that Matthews was an "independent minded guy" - that was funny as hell.

Now, there is a chance that this is true (highly unlikely, but a chance). If this was happening, it is a shame. I watch O'Reilly and I occasionally watch Hannity & Colmes. I don't believe O'Reilly took any talking points from the WH and used them, but it's tough to make a case against Hannity not accepting them if they were handed out. Hannity is rarely, if ever, critical of the Bush Administration whereas O'Reilly is. Some of the things that come out of Hannity's mouth seem to be nothing but regurgitation of what we hear out of the WH. I don't see or hear that from O'Reilly. So if it's true, it's horrible, but we get the same crap out of the media from the other side as well, just not at that high a level.

 

[Hatuey]

Now, there is a chance that this is true (highly unlikely, but a chance). If this was happening, it is a shame. I watch O'Reilly and I occasionally watch Hannity & Colmes. I don't believe O'Reilly took any talking points from the WH and used them, but it's tough to make a case against Hannity not accepting them if they were handed out. Hannity is rarely, if ever, critical of the Bush Administration whereas O'Reilly is. Some of the things that come out of Hannity's mouth seem to be nothing but regurgitation of what we hear out of the WH. I don't see or hear that from O'Reilly. So if it's true, it's horrible, but we get the same crap out of the media from the other side as well, just not at that high a level.

Out of curiosity what has O'Reilley criticized the Bush administration on?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Out of curiosity what has O'Reilley criticized the Bush administration on?

immigration.

 

[Hatuey]

immigration.

Could you provide an excerpt of his criticisms of the Bush administration regarding this issue?

 

[RedAkston]

Out of curiosity what has O'Reilley criticized the Bush administration on?

You obviously never watch the show. Immigration, the WOT, the Iraq War, Rumsfeld and others. I'm 99.9% confident that O'Reilly doesn't get talking points from the WH. Hannity, a different story - I can see how this might be the case. FOX News as a whole - seriously doubt it. I think McClellan needs more help selling books. There is motive for him to say something like this, and it's in his best interest if he does.

 

[Hatuey]

You obviously never watch the show.

If I did I wouldn't ask. Now settle down before I change tones too.

Immigration,

Provide some excerpts of his criticisms?

the WOT, the Iraq War,

Supports both. What exactly is he criticizing? Since when did O'Reilly become a critic of the war?

Rumsfeld and others.

Jumped ship like every other right wing anchor/commentator who subscribed to the 'We'll be greeted as liberators' school. Rumsfeld was a scapegoat for the immense failures of the administration as a whole.

I'm 99.9% confident that O'Reilly doesn't get talking points from the WH. Hannity, a different story - I can see how this might be the case. FOX News as a whole - seriously doubt it. I think McClellan needs more help selling books. There is motive for him to say something like this, and it's in his best interest if he does.

I find this very interesting of right wingers. McClellan is trying to sell books, George Tenet was trying to sell books, Collin Powel was a disgruntled employee. I find it amazing that so many people who worked with the former administration are all just trying to make a quick buck. Not a single person. Not even the high ranking officials have any truth behind their claims. They're all just trying to make some money. What a simple world we live in.

 

[RedAkston]

Could you provide an excerpt of his criticisms of the Bush administration regarding this issue?

YouTube - The O'Reilly Factor on Illegal Immigration (9/6/07)

This was just one. I'd search for more, but I watch the show with somewhat regularity and he does give Bush a much harder time that most will give him credit for.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Could you provide an excerpt of his criticisms of the Bush administration regarding this issue?

Politics of Bill O'Reilly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an interview with commentator Bill Maher, former CBS News anchor Dan Rather accused Fox News Channel of receiving "talking points" from the Republican controlled White House. O'Reilly criticized Rather heavily, saying he (Rather) did not offer any evidence to support the claim. O'Reilly cited his defense of Rather during the Memogate incident:

"As you may remember, I defended Rather in the Bush National Guard debacle. I said Rather did not intentionally put on a bogus story. He just didn't check it out, he was too anxious for the story to be true. Now many of you criticized me for that defense, but I'm a fact-based guy. And there's no evidence Dan Rather fabricated anything. It was sloppy reporting that did him in. But now the fabrication word is in play again. If Dan Rather has evidence of White House dictums coming to FOX News employees, he needs to display that evidence. We are awaiting his appearance. We'll let you know when it is.[73]"

Oil companies

O'Reilly has been critical of oil companies, claiming their record profits are evidence that they have price-gouged Americans with artificially high gas prices.[110] and has said he is personally boycotting products by Exxon-Mobil.[111] He has often taken an opposing point of view to conservatives such as fellow Fox News analyst and commentator, Neil Cavuto.[110]

O'Reilly claims that the United States is not doing enough to make itself independent of foreign oil, stating that "If Brazil can develop an ethanol industry that makes it completely independent of foreign oil, then the USA can".[112] He said blocking Brazilian ethanol imports was "awful" and has criticized both the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration for not doing enough to stem the cost of oil from "foreign predators"

And if our mind is still not made up:

Immigration and border control

O'Reilly has supported stricter border controls, including placement of the National Guard troops on the US-Mexican border and has criticized President George W. Bush for not allocating enough resources to make border security effective. He also criticized Ronald Reagan's act of amnesty, claiming that it made the illegal immigration problem worse.[17] In an interview with former Mexican President Vicente Fox, O'Reilly blamed Mexico for not providing a good economy for Mexicans to work in and how they would rather stay in Mexico than come to the United States. He also blamed the U.S. government for not enforcing immigration law.[18] O'Reilly separates the distinction between criminal illegal immigrants and non-criminals by saying that criminal illegal immigrants should be deported immediately. O'Reilly criticizes the lack of cooperation between local sanctuary cities and the INS.[19]

[edit]
The Iraq War

O'Reilly initially supported the invasion of Iraq. On March 18, 2003, O'Reilly appeared on ABC's Good Morning America and said, "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."[20][21][22] On February 10, 2004, he appeared once more on Good Morning America, stating:

"My analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. I was wrong. I'm not pleased about it at all.... What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?... I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at that time."[20]

O'Reilly has questioned the U.S. invasion of Iraq in hindsight, in particular the performance of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. However, he maintains that the United States "did a good thing by trying to liberate a country".[citation needed] O'Reilly says the war effort should continue as long as progress is being made. He has also said that some anti-war activists are actively rooting for the United States to lose:

Do I win now? =)

 

[RedAkston]

If I did I wouldn't ask. Now settle down before I change tones too.

Two things, my post wasn't in a bad tone. Secondly, don't tell me to settle down. Our past several conversations have been very civil. I didn't take "a tone" with you, but I don't tell you what to do, how about the same in return?

Provide some excerpts of his criticisms?

I just did in my last post in this thread.

Supports both. What exactly is he criticizing? Since when did O'Reilly become a critic of the war?

If you watched the show, you would know.

Jumped ship like every other right wing anchor/commentator who subscribed to the 'We'll be greeted as liberators' school. Rumsfeld was a scapegoat for the immense failures of the administration as a whole.

If you watched the show on a regular basis, you'd see it differently. When so many people get their O'Reilly quotes from places like "MoveOn" or "MediaMatters", they only get snippets. They cut and paste what they want to and don't take context into consideration.

I find this very interesting of right wingers. McClellan is trying to sell books, George Tenet was trying to sell books, Collin Powel was a disgruntled employee. I find it amazing that so many people who worked with the former administration are all just trying to make a quick buck. Not a single person. Not even the high ranking officials have any truth behind their claims. They're all just trying to make some money. What a simple world we live in.

I didn't dismiss what any of the three you mentioned have said. I did point out that there is motive involved. In McClellan's case, he is probably the least believable of the three you mentioned. I find it funny that he mentioned this on MSNBC and not on FOX. Can you imagine him telling O'Reilly that he gets talking points from the WH when in fact he in all probability doesn't? I can see O'Reilly lunging over the table at McClellan and ripping his head off his shoulders. Not because it's true, but because it is a fabrication.

 

[DarkWizard12]

lol, Hatuey is skipping over my post http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/34407-white-house-busted.html#post1057690782 for some reason!

P/N, is this a win?

 

[Lerxst]

lol, Hatuey is skipping over my post http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/34407-white-house-busted.html#post1057690782 for some reason!

P/N, is this a win?

No.



:2wave:

 

[DarkWizard12]

No.



:2wave:

Hi P/N!

or wait, are you hatuey?
anyway, I think its pretty much confirmed that McClellan is lying. At least in O'Reilly's case. O'Reilly uses his own mind or if he has recieved talking points, he hasn't used them. As to hannity or some of the others, I don't know, don't watch them.

 

[Singularity]

As someone who leans to the left on social issues, I find Bill O'Reilly to be pretty balanced. He's a traditionalist, so he does lean right on a lot of things, but he isn't a conservative. It confuses me whenever the far left labels him as such--I mean, I can certainly see how he isn't a far lefty. Anyone can. But a conservative? Maybe i'm missing something.

I don't understand why many liberals don't listen to him more than they do, because when he goes head-to-head with conservatives it can get pretty hilarious. I listen to his radio show a lot, and he's had conservatives on his jock all summer, it seems. After his Hillary Clinton interview and the California Supreme Court's decision it was pure entertainment, I tell you.

Just my two cents, of course, but I really don't see him as a conservative.

 

[Lerxst]

Hey, if you believe that, I've got some ocean front property in Iowa to sell you too! You do realize that McClennan is trying to sell books don't you? I'd give this a 50/50 shot at being true. And of course, Olbermann only has one guest in the clip to discuss this - Rachel Maddow from Air America. No one right of center to discuss it, someone from the far, far left. Maybe FOX News is more fair and balanced than MSNBC? Oh wait, they already are. And I loved how McClennan said that Matthews was an "independent minded guy" - that was funny as hell.

Fox news is in no way fair or balanced. Please don't come in here and play this game. Some things are self evident. I don't know who McClennan is, but Scott McClellan is just one in a long list of individuals who have broke ranks to tell the story the White House wishes they wouldn't. Trying to sell books? Okay, sure he is. But that doesn't mean he's lying. He was there, you were not. You have no way to prove him wrong at this point. Your side said the same thing about Richard Clark and George Tenet. When the heavy lifters turn on their masters they are immediately subjected to a cutthroat character assassination. But none of it is successful because the same propaganda machine that fed us the manufactured cause for the Iraq war is the same machine that is trying to convince us that these guys are just liars and disgruntled employees.

Run your pro-Bush inspired campaign at someone else, I don't buy one bit of it.

Now, there is a chance that this is true (highly unlikely, but a chance). If this was happening, it is a shame. I watch O'Reilly and I occasionally watch Hannity & Colmes. I don't believe O'Reilly took any talking points from the WH and used them, but it's tough to make a case against Hannity not accepting them if they were handed out. Hannity is rarely, if ever, critical of the Bush Administration whereas O'Reilly is. Some of the things that come out of Hannity's mouth seem to be nothing but regurgitation of what we hear out of the WH. I don't see or hear that from O'Reilly. So if it's true, it's horrible, but we get the same crap out of the media from the other side as well, just not at that high a level.

So is it a highly unlikely chance or 50/50? You need time to think about this or what? The man was an integral part of the machine, he was there, he saw it go down. He throws himself under the bus almost as much as he throws the Bush admin under the bus. He quit and decided to talk about his experiences. He was a trusted ally until he opened his mouth...now he's disgruntled and can't tell the truth. Riiiggghhhtttt.

 

[Lerxst]

Hi P/N!

or wait, are you hatuey?
anyway, I think its pretty much confirmed that McClellan is lying. At least in O'Reilly's case. O'Reilly uses his own mind or if he has recieved talking points, he hasn't used them. As to hannity or some of the others, I don't know, don't watch them.

How is it confirmed that McClellan is lying? Because you and P/N say so? First of all, do not try to tell me this is an all or nothing issue. Because it is not. So, prove that McClellan is lying. Prove that O'Reilly didn't get talking points from the White House and run with them to one degree or another.

 

[DarkWizard12]

How is it confirmed that McClellan is lying? Because you and P/N say so? First of all, do not try to tell me this is an all or nothing issue. Because it is not. So, prove that McClellan is lying. Prove that O'Reilly didn't get talking points from the White House and run with them to one degree or another.

No because o'rielly, who MCCLELLAN named, has criticised the Bush admin. on more than several occasions. (as is PROVED), unless McClellan switches his story around and says "well, the WH WANTED O'rielly to criticized them", then as of now, he is lying.

 

[Lerxst]

No because o'rielly, who MCCLELLAN named, has criticised the Bush admin. on more than several occasions. (as is PROVED), unless McClellan switches his story around and says "well, the WH WANTED O'rielly to criticized them", then as of now, he is lying.

Negative. Just because O'Reilly has criticized the White House in the past does not mean he wouldn't have ran with White House supplied talking points in the past. They are not mutually exclusive. O'Reilly has also staunchly supported the White House on several occasions.

You have yet to prove McClellan is lying.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Negative. Just because O'Reilly has criticized the White House in the past does not mean he wouldn't have ran with White House supplied talking points in the past. They are not mutually exclusive. O'Reilly has also staunchly supported the White House on several occasions.

You have yet to prove McClellan is lying.

*yawn* you seem to be confused, here, let me clarify:

I said "pretty much confirmed". Meaning well, exactly what it means. There still uncertainty but it can be said with a straight face.

Second, I did not say McClellan was lying, I said he was lying at least when it comes to O'reilly because with O'reilly there is reason to believe that either a) he doesn't get memos from the WH, or b) if he does, he doesn't use them.

Now, for once, read. Your giving me a headache having to explain every tiny word and phrase. I said it once, I've said it in that post you quoted, I'll say it again, and I'll say it in that BS colloquial you understand.

When it comes to O'reilly, there is good reason to believe that McClellan is lying. Evidence for that can be found in the last post of the 1st page.

O'rielly is no crony of the Bush admin.

 

[Lerxst]

*yawn* you seem to be confused, here, let me clarify:

There is no confusion. You were making a definitive statement and I am calling you on it.

I said "pretty much confirmed". Meaning well, exactly what it means. There still uncertainty but it can be said with a straight face.

Is that like "a little bit pregnant?"

confirm
: to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact

Second, I did not say McClellan was lying, I said he was lying at least when it comes to O'reilly because with O'reilly there is reason to believe that either a) he doesn't get memos from the WH, or b) if he does, he doesn't use them.

So you said McClellan was lying about O'Reilly. Very good. Prove it. "Reason to believe" does not equate to "McClellan is lying." There is just as much if not more reason to believe that he is telling the truth. Since you made the claim he is lying, I am asking you to substantiate your claim.

Now, for once, read. Your giving me a headache having to explain every tiny word and phrase. I said it once, I've said it in that post you quoted, I'll say it again, and I'll say it in that BS colloquial you understand.

I read every post I respond to. Now please back up your claim with some kind of evidence. You called the man a liar. Prove it.

When it comes to O'reilly, there is good reason to believe that McClellan is lying. Evidence for that can be found in the last post of the 1st page.

That is not evidence. That is nothing more than a deductive fallacy. Just because O'Reilly criticizes the White House is not proof that he didn't take talking points from them. This is not an incident dictated by mutual exclusivity. It's not either/or. See the fact that he has also supported the White House. I am asking for evidence that McClellan is lying, not your reasoning.

Evidence.

something that furnishes proof

Proof.

something that induces certainty or establishes validity

O'rielly is no crony of the Bush admin.

I never indicated that he was. He is however an employee of Fox News, which is the point that was made in the video. They are not necessarily beholden to the White House, they are beholden to Fox. Fox however, is another story altogether.

McClellan isn't the first person to allege this kind of conduct by the Bush White House.

So, I'll have that evidence if you please.

 

[DarkWizard12]

There is no confusion. You were making a definitive statement and I am calling you on it.

Ah, I see. The root problem with you exposed in the first sentence. YOu obviously have never heard of 'uncertainties' in the english language, have you?

I know what I say. On a political forum such as this, I am very careful on the way I phrase my sentences. I've been called on like this hundreds of times before. I've literally spent nights learning to naturally phrase my sentences so that when needed I can add a degree of uncertainty and different outcome. In fact, this was the whole reason I said "pretty much confirmed" even though I was thinking "is confirmed". That way, if I was called on by some noob who doesn't understand english, I can just say "I didn't say it is "true", I said it is "pretty much true", which means we can only make a decision from what little we know about a big story.

Now that your point has been sorta blown away right now, I don't understand the meaning behind the rest of your post so, there you have it. Oh and my roommate calls you a ****ing ****bag. I'd tell you to report him but, you know, he isn't a member.

 

[1069]

Ah, I see. The root problem with you exposed in the first sentence. YOu obviously have never heard of 'uncertainties' in the english language, have you?

I know what I say. On a political forum such as this, I am very careful on the way I phrase my sentences. I've been called on like this hundreds of times before. I've literally spent nights learning to naturally phrase my sentences so that when needed I can add a degree of uncertainty and different outcome. In fact, this was the whole reason I said "pretty much confirmed" even though I was thinking "is confirmed". That way, if I was called on by some noob who doesn't understand english, I can just say "I didn't say it is "true", I said it is "pretty much true", which means we can only make a decision from what little we know about a big story.

Now that your point has been sorta blown away right now, I don't understand the meaning behind the rest of your post so, there you have it. Oh and my roommate calls you a ****ing ****bag. I'd tell you to report him but, you know, he isn't a member.

Insomniacs always get the last word in the end, if only because our opponents have to sleep, at some point.

 

[RedAkston]

Fox news is in no way fair or balanced. Please don't come in here and play this game. Some things are self evident. I don't know who McClennan is, but Scott McClellan is just one in a long list of individuals who have broke ranks to tell the story the White House wishes they wouldn't. Trying to sell books? Okay, sure he is. But that doesn't mean he's lying. He was there, you were not. You have no way to prove him wrong at this point. Your side said the same thing about Richard Clark and George Tenet. When the heavy lifters turn on their masters they are immediately subjected to a cutthroat character assassination. But none of it is successful because the same propaganda machine that fed us the manufactured cause for the Iraq war is the same machine that is trying to convince us that these guys are just liars and disgruntled employees.

What game am I playing? It seems as though you are playing "Let's put words in someones mouth". Where did I say (of have I said) that FOX News is fair and balanced. By your own quoting of me, I said "FOX News is more fair and balanced than MSNBC" and they are. As someone who watches all three networks, FOX News is more fair and balanced than CNN or MSNBC. MSNBC is the least balanced of the three. Try reading some of my older posts where I dispute the accuracy of the network television media outlets then come back here and apologize. I don't expect it because you would rather look like a dancing monkey than have an honest debate.

And exactly what side is "my side"? I'm a conservative. The man serving in the WH is not a conservative, he is a Republican. I didn't say anything about Clark or Tenet. So once again, you are the dancing monkey and I'm getting a kick out of watching you dance.

And are you telling me that democrats haven't done the same thing in the past? Are you giving them a pass and only pointing out when republicans do it? How intellectually dishonest of you.

Run your pro-Bush inspired campaign at someone else, I don't buy one bit of it.

Once again, read some of my older posts. I've been very critical of the Bush administration. I believe some shady things have happened under his watch (and possibly his direction, although I think Cheney plays a far bigger role in the shady dealings than Bush himself does). But shady things happen under every administration. Should I drag out examples from the Clinton administration for you? Unless you suffer from memory loss, my bet is that you are once again being intellectually dishonest.

So is it a highly unlikely chance or 50/50? You need time to think about this or what? The man was an integral part of the machine, he was there, he saw it go down. He throws himself under the bus almost as much as he throws the Bush admin under the bus. He quit and decided to talk about his experiences. He was a trusted ally until he opened his mouth...now he's disgruntled and can't tell the truth. Riiiggghhhtttt.

Did I say he was disgruntled? Show me where I said that, I dare you. I'll save you he time and let you know that it never happened. I did point out that he is trying to sell books, which you already admitted. He may be lying and he may be telling the truth. Does he have proof of this or are we just taking him on his word? You strike me as the type that doesn't believe a word that anyone in the administration says anyway. Why do you believe him now? Is it because he said something that supports your belief system?

He may be telling the truth, and maybe only some of it is actually true. But he may be lying to sell books. Being a realist, I can see both sides of it. As I stated in my original post in this thread, it would be a shame if what he alleges were actually true. I also stated that I don't believe for a minute that O'Reilly got, accepted or even used any talking points received from the WH. McClellan (sorry for the typo earlier, I was really tired) should provide some solid proof for his claims. If he can't then I have a tough time believing him word for word. There may be some truth to it, but the onus is on him to prove it with hard evidence.

You don't strike me as someone who looks at all the facts or every angle before jumping up and down with your foot in your mouth, and I base this on several of your past posts I have read, not just this one. Next time if you are going to paint me as someone I am not, maybe you should do some research before you look so damned ignorant. This would be where you should apologize, but I'll be shocked if it actually happens.

 

[RedAkston]

lol, Hatuey is skipping over my post http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/34407-white-house-busted.html#post1057690782 for some reason!

P/N, is this a win?

I don't look at this as a "win". I'm not debating with Hatuey to "win". Hatuey admitted to not watching the show. When all you hear about O'Reilly is from internet blogs and word of mouth from people that don't watch the show either, you can't get a good picture of who the person is or what they stand for. I can comment on O'Reilly because I regularly watch the show. I don't watch Glen Beck with any regularity, nor do I listen to Limbaugh at all. I wouldn't jump to their defense as I did in this case because I don't have a working knowledge of them like I do O'Reilly.

I think it's great that Hatuey was asking questions rather than pulling what I will now refer to as a "Merriman" (jumping to conclusions that simply aren't there while being intellectually dishonest at the same time). As Singularity pointed out, O'Reilly is far more balanced than a vast majority of those left of center will ever give him credit for. He is more of a traditionalist than the fire-breathing neo-con so many paint him as. If they watched his show on a somewhat regular basis, they might actually see that. But it's far more interesting watching people like Merriman go on and on about something they know little of.

I'm not here to "win", I'm here to debate. Sometimes I will lose and sometimes I won't. Hatuey approached this issue the way he should have and I have a lot of respect for him for having done that. Had he pulled a Merriman, I would have responded to him much differently than how I did. Hatuey wanted examples of O'Reilly saying what we said he has said many times before. I think we provided him with that so he can more easily form an educated opinion on the matter than he could before. It's not about winning or losing, it's about being right about what you know and looking to learn more about the things you don't. Hatuey may have his moments where he's a complete dick, but don't we all? I think you should give him credit for trying to learn something about O'Reilly that he didn't know before. It's obvious that Merriman didn't and entertaining at the same time - how ironic.