So, Chris Wallace interviewed Clinton and Slick Willy got defensive. Can anyone really blame him? Does anybody take Fox News seriously? The thing that got me was a clip I saw of another Fox News guy interviewing Chris Wallace about his interview with Clinton. This guy was saying "nice job" to Chris Wallace and pretty much cheerleading him. I know CNN, ABC, CBS lean to the left but Fox is the most arrogantly, blatantly biased news channel in the US by far.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/09/24/1889602-ap.html">http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/ ... 02-ap.html</a><!-- m -->
I just caught highlights of the interview on CTV Newsnet; Bill was really givin' it to Wallace.
What I read was that the question Wallace gave Clinton was pretty innocuous and then Clinton got all defensive. Of course, Fox "News" isn't really a news station at all so...
I just watched the video of it and I've come to the conclusion that Clinton did a fine job of expressing his views. At one point, Clinton asked Wallace a 'yes' or 'no' question which Wallace refused to answer and kept avoiding. You are correct though, Fox isn't a news station anyway. Regardless of whether you are on the side of Democrats or Republicans, Fox has a well deserved reputation as a radical, right wing station that makes the biased left wingers of CNN and CBS look bi-partisan. The goal of Wallace was to try to make Clinton look like he and his gov't failed miserably with the way they dealt with Afghanistan and Bin Laden. Unfortunately for Wallace, Mr. Clinton is a smart guy (unlike Mr Bush) who can formulate his own ideas and articulate them without stumbling over every second word and looking nervous. Clinton knew what to expect and he was prepared.
I was camping at a star party this summer (astronomer's camping weekend) and there was an older retired American couple from NYC who stayed in Nova Scotia during the summer. We were discussing world events etc. They were pro Bush and he said to me that we here in Canada are brainwashed daily by the CBC news and that it was nothing but pure lies and anti-American propoganda. Then added that Fox News and CNN were the best, honest news sources in the world. After containing my laughter, I simply stated that we here in Canada think that Fox News and CNN are the must deceitful, untrusted, Bush-biased networks on the planet, and it appears they've gotten to him. He didn't take that well, me being a Canadian and all.
He then tried to tell me that he and his wife moved to upstate NY and felt they would be safe if there were a nuclear explosion in NYC :roll:
cratch:
How can one constructively argue which such narrow-mindedness? I didn't.
I saw the Clinton interview and thought he did great. He was very clear, and honest in his response. I am a Clinton fan, so I was glad to see him respond like that.
Fox news, and all the major networks really, are just infotainment. They rely on sound bites to spin the stories whichever direction they like, hoping viewers and advertisers will stick with them.
I think the people who watch Fox News do so for the same reason some people listen to Howard Stern: they want to know what he's gonna say next.
As for the 'left-wing bias' of some of the networks, thats pretty much a myth. It's somthing politicians say often, and apparently it has gained currency, but if anything the networks are right-wing. Doesn't it make sense for a massive conglomerate to support the politicians that will keep them rich?
highlander Wrote:I was camping at a star party this summer (astronomer's camping weekend) and there was an older retired American couple from NYC who stayed in Nova Scotia during the summer. We were discussing world events etc. They were pro Bush and he said to me that we here in Canada are brainwashed daily by the CBC news and that it was nothing but pure lies and anti-American propoganda. Then added that Fox News and CNN were the best, honest news sources in the world. After containing my laughter, I simply stated that we here in Canada think that Fox News and CNN are the must deceitful, untrusted, Bush-biased networks on the planet, and it appears they've gotten to him. He didn't take that well, me being a Canadian and all.
He then tried to tell me that he and his wife moved to upstate NY and felt they would be safe if there were a nuclear explosion in NYC :roll: cratch:
How can one constructively argue which such narrow-mindedness? I didn't.
I'm with you that CNN and Fox News are both biased, but I wouldn't necessarily put CNN in the always pro-Bush camp. At the same time, principled reporting isn't exactly a media staple in Canada either.
Jon Stewart had a good bit on the coverage of the Clinton interview last night. It basically showed how all the networks completely ignored the facts that Clinton presented, and completely hyped up the fact that he 'freaked out'.
If you get the chance to see a re-air of it I recommend it.
highlander Wrote:Then added that Fox News and CNN were the best, honest news sources in the world. After containing my laughter, I simply stated that we here in Canada think that Fox News and CNN are the must deceitful, untrusted, Bush-biased networks on the planet, and it appears they've gotten to him. He didn't take that well, me being a Canadian and all.
CNN and FOX are both terribly baised and disingenuous, and FOX is definitely pro-Bush, but I don't know how one could possibly think that CNN is pro-Bush.
CNN is as left-wing as American corporate media can get without vanishing in a blink of paradoxical self-contradiction.
Seems that Senator Boxer thinks that Fox News is fair and balanced...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.break.com/index/fair_and_balanced.html">http://www.break.com/index/fair_and_balanced.html</a><!-- m -->
chris Wrote:Seems that Senator Boxer thinks that Fox News is fair and balanced...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.break.com/index/fair_and_balanced.html">http://www.break.com/index/fair_and_balanced.html</a><!-- m -->
It's not so much that they are a right wing network. It's that they take every opportunity to claim that they AREN'T that is the annoying part (not that i watch fox news, just the odd clip on the internet which is enough). A real tough guy doesn't have to go around saying he's a tough guy, just as a balanced news network doesn't have to go around saying it's a fair and balanced news network.
Esthethe, I actually agree with you about CNN. It seems to me that they lean to the left.
LoftyPines Wrote:Jon Stewart had a good bit on the coverage of the Clinton interview last night. It basically showed how all the networks completely ignored the facts that Clinton presented, and completely hyped up the fact that he 'freaked out'.
If you get the chance to see a re-air of it I recommend it.
While I agree that Fox News can get a tad annoying with their "fair and balanced " on air hype, I have to point out that CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are just as slanted in their coverage, if not more in some instances, as Fox News is. The network media come across, in my opinion, as patiently biased in their coverage and presentation of the facts. They are not interested in a broad overview of the facts, but on the facts and opinions they think will grab people's attention, thus generating high ratings. If it bleeds, it leads. And the network media is not above making deals with the devil or pursuing stories in an effort to make somebody look bad.
For instance, CNN routinely ignored or supressed evidence of Saddam's torture and killing of his fellow citizens that came from their reporters at their Baghdad bureau. They did this because they wanted to keep access to Baghdad for their reporters, because on the ground live feeds from Baghdad increased viewership and thus ratings. They claim they suppressed those reports because they were worried about the safety of their local reporters, but I highly doubt this was the case.
Dan Rather pursued a story about Bush's Air Guard service in an effort to "get the president". I don't think he did it out of personal bias, but mainly out of fear that his source would go to another network and he'd lose a big scoop. My main fault with the network media in Washington generally isnt their politics, its their obsession and game of "getting" the president or anyone they think should be brought low. It's an old saying in the Washington press corps that if you aren't a source, then you are a target and that's not what news reporting should be.
More to the point of LoftyPines's post, I think that while Clinton did make an effort to get Bin Laden, I think he did it in a way that was penny wise and pound foolish. He says he contracted with groups to kill Bin Laden, but when he had a chance to eliminate him, he bungled the opportunity. They had a chance to arrest him or do something with him when he was based in Sudan in 1994, but all they managed to do is to get him ousted by the government of Sudan, whereupon he set up base in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Bush is accused of being too chummy with the Saudi's, but Clinton is as guilty as Bush in not being decisive enough to force the Saudis to take Bin Laden down or bring him to justice. Another point, when Clinton retaliated for the embassy bombings in Africa, the best he can do is cruise missile strikes against an Al Queda compound of in Afghanistan and a pharmacutical (sp?) factory in Africa? Meanwhile his secretary of state warns the Pakistanis that an air strike is imminent so they can deal with the diplomatic repercussions. It just boggles the mind how inept Clinton's anti-terrorism policy was.