Fox news is at it again

[stefan]

fox news is at it again ... character assassination

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/10836367/detail.html

Obama Rips Fox News Over Madrassa Story

[color=darkblue][i]WASHINGTON -- With a staffer declaring, "We will not be swift-boated," Sen. Barack Obama fought back Wednesday against an allegation that he was educated at a radical Islamic school as a child in Indonesia.

Interviews by The Associated Press and CNN at the elementary school in Jakarta found that it's a public and secular institution that has been open to students of all faiths since before the White House hopeful attended in the late 1960s.

Obama, who was born in Hawaii, moved to Indonesia at age 6 to live with his mother and stepfather, attending schools in the country until age 10, when he returned to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents.

"The allegations are completely baseless," said Akmad Solichin, the vice principal at SDN Menteng 1, who added, "Yes, most of our students are Muslim, but there are Christians as well. Everyone's welcome here ... it's a public school."

A spokesman for Indonesia's Ministry of Religious Affairs said claims that Obama studied at an Islamic school are groundless.

"SDN Menteng 1 is a public primary school that is open to people of all faiths," said the spokesman, Sutopo, who goes by only one name. "Moreover, he studied earlier at Fransiskus Assisi, which is clearly a Catholic school."

The contention that Obama was educated at a radical Muslim madrassa surfaced on the Web site of the conservative Insight magazine the day after Obama announced he was jumping into the 2008 presidential race. Conservative Internet blogs and the Fox News Channel picked up the story and spread the charges just as his candidacy was getting off the ground.

The following is part of a memo released by Obama's office Wednesday:

"In the past week, many of you have read a now thoroughly-debunked story by Insight Magazine, owned by the Washington Times, which cites unnamed sources close to a political campaign that claim Senator Obama was enrolled for 'at least four years' in an Indonesian 'Madrassa' The article says the "sources" believe the Madrassa was 'espousing Wahhabism,' a form of radical Islam.

"To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa."
- Obama statement

"Insight Magazine published these allegations without a single named source, and without doing any independent reporting to confirm or deny the allegations. Fox News quickly parroted the charges, and Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy went so far as to ask, 'Why didn

[JP]

fox news is at it again ... character assassination
So, when the Communist News Network commits character assassination against any Republican, it's called news? Wow, what a double standard. :roll:

[donny h]

fox news is at it again ... character assassination

That's bad journalism, no doubt it's agenda driven.

The question is, did you have the same sense of morale outrage when Dan Rather/CBS not only failed to fact-find the Jillian documents(falsified papers slamming Ws stint in the NG, the story broke just before the 04 elections), but reported that they had been authenticated?

Or is media bias okay as long as they slander the right guy?

[stefan]

That's bad journalism, no doubt it's agenda driven.

The question is, did you have the same sense of morale outrage when Dan Rather/CBS not only failed to fact-find the Jillian documents(falsified papers slamming Ws stint in the NG, the story broke just before the 04 elections), but reported that they had been authenticated?

Or is media bias okay as long as they slander the right guy?


nope it's NEVER okay ... and, if you are outed, you certainly need to right the wrong ... i believe rather did that to some degree with his public apology.

[Cirrus2000]

It's kind of scary in a pluralistic society when the only chance you have of becoming president is to profess most strenuously that not only are you a Christian, but that you were never raised by your atheist father.

Because either of those is effectively disqualifying. Apparently.

[donny h]

i believe rather did that to some degree with his public apology.

Yes, after making multiple statements in the ensuing chaos defending his original statements, after stating on the evening news that critics of his story were just "partisan political operatives", after the papers had been thoroughly discredited by multiple sources, after being verbally clubbed about the head and shoulders for his obtuseness, he finally made a lame apology.

Twelve days later.

In more recent interviews, he still claims that the story was accurate, thereby mooting his lame apology, and cementing his place in history as a quasi-journalistic-mouthpiece of the far left.

Which, if you ever watched him, you knew all ready.

[scoutabout]

That's bad journalism, no doubt it's agenda driven.

The question is, did you have the same sense of morale outrage when Dan Rather/CBS not only failed to fact-find the Jillian documents(falsified papers slamming Ws stint in the NG, the story broke just before the 04 elections), but reported that they had been authenticated?

Or is media bias okay as long as they slander the right guy?


nope it's NEVER okay ... and, if you are outed, you certainly need to right the wrong ... i believe rather did that to some degree with his public apology.

To this day, he claims the story was true. He can't defend the falsified documents, but he somehow thinks it's true.

CNN and numerous other places reported the same Obama story. Where's your outcry against them?

[stefan]

i believe rather did that to some degree with his public apology.

Yes, after making multiple statements in the ensuing chaos defending his original statements, after stating on the evening news that critics of his story were just "partisan political operatives", after the papers had been thoroughly discredited by multiple sources, after being verbally clubbed about the head and shoulders for his obtuseness, he finally made a lame apology.

Twelve days later.


agreed ... but my only point was that it was admitted ... hence 'to some degree.'

it IS troublesome, the damage that is caused when the media reports something incorrect or gives an unfair assessment ... as it leaves a lasting impression EVEN if it is corrected.



In more recent interviews, he still claims that the story was accurate, thereby mooting his lame apology


this i wasn't aware of ... any citations?

[Rev. Coyote]

fox news is at it again ... character assassination
So, when the Communist News Network commits character assassination against any Republican, it's called news? Wow, what a double standard. :roll:


Republikkkans have no character, so there's nothing to assasinate.


Try again sonny.

[accadacca]

:lol8: :lol8: :lol8:

http://www.gwebspace.de/zero9999/oh_the_drama.png

[donny h]

In more recent interviews, he still claims that the story was accurate, thereby mooting his lame apology
this i wasn't aware of ... any citations?

Here is the most notable instance, Nov 7 2006 in a radio interview, Danny Boy claims over and over that the story was true (mp3 link, I hope):

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/media/donnamartinezdanrather.mp3

Here's Danny-O on Larry King, June 2 2005:

RATHER:Important point, that we don't know whether the documents were fraudulent or not.

KING: Are you saying the story might be correct?

RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.

KING: Do you have that view?

RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.

What's interesting about that whole Rather deal is that it didn't really hurt his credibility with that many folks.

He lost all his credibility to many observers back in the Reagan administration, by being such an obvious tool of the far-left, by the time he flubbed the Killian papers, he only had credibility with folks who approved of his slanted journalism, and he is still popular with those folks, because he only slanders the correct targets, from their myopic point of view.

[stefan]

In more recent interviews, he still claims that the story was accurate, thereby mooting his lame apology
this i wasn't aware of ... any citations?


so let me ask you something. is it not true that these documents have neither been authenticated nor debunked?

essentially the problem is that they were NOT authenticated ... which is enough for me to say that it should NOT have been broadcast in the manner in which it did.

so we have no clue whether they were real or not. i am sure you are confident that they are fake. i couldn't possibly make such a conclusion about it, as i have very little information ... and have heard too much speculation ... the only thing i can say is that this story shouldn't go on the air without authentication, and whatever dan rather wants to believe on his own personal time -- on or off the record -- is up to him.

sounds like dan's put a rather large chip on your shoulder ... (sorry i know that was terrible)


oh and ... the confederate yankee? interesting place to say the least.
sounds like jp's kinda place. :haha:

[donny h]

so let me ask you something. is it not true that these documents have neither been authenticated nor debunked?

Maybe not to the standards some agendized individuals would like, but anyone who looks critically at the issue with an unbiased eye cannot believe they are authentic. There are just too many problems with them, source aside.


so we have no clue whether they were real or not.

Yes, we do. Read up on it, and drop the bias. Pretend the story was about Clinton, and substitute Bill O'Reily/FNC for Rather/CBS.


whatever dan rather wants to believe on his own personal time -- on or off the record -- is up to him.

It goes to bias. Proving over, and over, Rathers bias, and it always came through in his reporting, always.


sounds like dan's put a rather large chip on your shoulder ...

Chickens coming home to roost. The whole thing amuses me to death. To hear lefties complain about bias at Fox, that all of a sudden media bias is a problem because there is a news channel with a blatant right wing agenda, is just hilarious.

Media bias has been prominent for 20-25 years, left wing bias, from all the majors, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.

For the most ultra-biased of them all, Rather, to get caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and to continue to defend his absurd position because he's painted himself into an ideological and intellectual corner he can't see out of, is hilarious. Chickens coming home to roost.

P.S. The yankee site was just the result of a google search for the radio interview.

[stefan]

so we have no clue whether they were real or not.

Yes, we do. Read up on it, and drop the bias. Pretend the story was about Clinton, and substitute Bill O'Reily/FNC for Rather/CBS.


sorry, i was writing quickly, the language "no clue" was stronger than i intended ... i simply meant that a definitive answer hasn't been given. and this is coming from a number of quick things i read, including one from foxnews. look, i didn't think much of the situation in the first place, it didn't cause me to think any differently ... there is no bias here on this. i just don't have enough information, and i am not about to make a conclusion. if you have definitive or convincing evidence you think i should see, then show me if you like. if i actually cared enough to sit down and look at the evidence, i might make a decision. but if something, such as this, isn't remotely definitive or convincing to me, i try to nullify it and ignore it until necessary.

on the other hand, if you might permit a wise crack ... dan rather had as much authentication on these papers, as the bush administration had with weapons of mass destruction/ties to al qaeda and iraq.




sounds like dan's put a rather large chip on your shoulder ...

Chickens coming home to roost. The whole thing amuses me to death. To hear lefties complain about bias at Fox, that all of a sudden media bias is a problem because there is a news channel with a blatant right wing agenda, is just hilarious.

Media bias has been prominent for 20-25 years, left wing bias, from all the majors, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.

For the most ultra-biased of them all, Rather, to get caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and to continue to defend his absurd position because he's painted himself into an ideological and intellectual corner he can't see out of, is hilarious. Chickens coming home to roost.


i enjoyed the tirade ... but, i just want to point out that it was only a joke, or more appropriately, a horrible pun.

[scoutabout]

sorry, i was writing quickly, the language "no clue" was stronger than i intended ... i simply meant that a definitive answer hasn't been given.

Definitive answers have been given. It's been widely proven that the documents were fabricated. Either you haven't researched it enough, or your ideology is getting in the way. What happened to Rather's pledge to track down the truth about these documents? He already knew they were false. Kinda like OJ looking for the real killers.

When politics and ideology are more important than truth and progress, it's pretty sad. Don't worry, Nancy. There are idiots wearing blinders on both sides of the isle.

[scoutabout]

fox news is at it again ... character assassination
So, when the Communist News Network commits character assassination against any Republican, it's called news? Wow, what a double standard. :roll:


Republikkkans have no character, so there's nothing to assasinate.


Try again sonny.

I didn't know you were a Republican.

[psl53]

Hey isn't Fox's motto: We make it up.....You decide. :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

[JP]

I didn't know you were a Republican.
Really :haha: It comes out every once in awhile :lol8:

[nefarious]

fox news is at it again ... character assassinationYou said "again," so I wonder if you're talking about another incident in particular or if you're just referring to Fox character assassination in general.

My favorite Fox sandbagging was the unprovoked hit job they did on Clinton a few months back; getting him to speak with Chris Wallace on false pretenses so they could blindside him with accussations that 911 with his fault. That's chutzpah! :lol8:

Anyway, Fox is now claiming that Hillary Clinton had something to do with spreading the nasty rumors about Obama. Is there any truth to that in your opinion, or did Fox just set its sights on an easier target? :whistling:

[nefarious]

nope it's NEVER okay ... and, if you are outed, you certainly need to right the wrong ... i believe rather did that to some degree with his public apology.Good answer. It's all the tuo quoque-addicted partisan stooges that enable media outlets to become political campaign committees by proxy. I'm glad Rather didn't get away with his "mistake," but it's too bad that Fox probably will. I guess right wingers don't mind being lied to, for them it's all about who is doing the lying and about what. :(

[Rev. Coyote]

I guess right wingers don't mind being lied to, for them it's all about who is doing the lying and about what. :(

And there you have it.