fox news cuts guest short

[Rupert Pupkin]

I don't blame them for ending the interview. The guy is supposed to be on there to answer questions about the Benghazi incident and instead he's just on there to attack the network. The guy obviously had nothing to offer on the subject. All he had to offer was cheap shots against Fox. What would have been the purpose of continuing the interview? The guy obviously had an ax to grind and had nothing of substance to say.

Having a differing viewpoint was not why the interview was cut short. It was cut short because the guy started taking cheap shops against the network.

By the way, you guys live in a dream world if you don't think Benghazi is a big story. Fox is hardly the only news source talking about Benghazi. David Gregory was on the Tonight Show a few nights ago and he was discussing the White House intentionally misleading people on Benghazi. I guess David Gregory must be operating as a wing of the Republican party.

[Danzig]

the tonight show!? that's where i should tune to get the facts about terrorist attacks?

i thought ricks made good points about the whole thing, that it was blown out of proportion when compared to everything that's going on. let's not pretend that fox didn't go on and on about the attack for political reasons, rather than genuine concern.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the tonight show!? that's where i should tune to get the facts about terrorist attacks?

i thought ricks made good points about the whole thing, that it was blown out of proportion when compared to everything that's going on. let's not pretend that fox didn't go on and on about the attack for political reasons, rather than genuine concern.

Absolutely They have no other agenda...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the tonight show!? that's where i should tune to get the facts about terrorist attacks?

i thought ricks made good points about the whole thing, that it was blown out of proportion when compared to everything that's going on. let's not pretend that fox didn't go on and on about the attack for political reasons, rather than genuine concern.

Why would it matter which show David Gregory was discussing it on? He happened to be discussing it on The Tonight Show but that doesn't make his comments any less credible.

I don't think the incident was blown out of proportion. I would say it's a pretty big deal when one of our ambassadors gets assassinated. I think the last time it happened was 30 years ago.

I agree with you that if there is a negative story about Obama that Fox is more likely to run with it than the mainstream media. But on the other hand, if there is a negative story about a republican President, the mainstream media will be more likely to run with it than if the President is a democrat. Fox definitely leans right but the mainstream media definitely leans left. It's a wash as far as I'm concerned.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't blame them for ending the interview. The guy is supposed to be on there to answer questions about the Benghazi incident and instead he's just on there to attack the network. The guy obviously had nothing to offer on the subject. All he had to offer was cheap shots against Fox. What would have been the purpose of continuing the interview? The guy obviously had an ax to grind and had nothing of substance to say.

Having a differing viewpoint was not why the interview was cut short. It was cut short because the guy started taking cheap shops against the network.

By the way, you guys live in a dream world if you don't think Benghazi is a big story. Fox is hardly the only news source talking about Benghazi. David Gregory was on the Tonight Show a few nights ago and he was discussing the White House intentionally misleading people on Benghazi. I guess David Gregory must be operating as a wing of the Republican party.

How is that a cheap shot when it is the truth? Fox can't handle the truth!...David Gregory is a good reporter and not the only 'lamestream' reporter to make that assertion..

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

How is that a cheap shot when it is the truth? Fox can't handle the truth!...David Gregory is a good reporter and not the only 'lamestream' reporter to make that assertion..

Fox is no more operating as a wing of the republican party any more than the other channels operate as a wing of the democratic party. Every reporter has a bias. Something like 90% of the media identify themselves as democrats. It's funny how some liberals think that republican reporters have some huge bias but that democratic reporters have no bias.

I agree with you that David Gregory is a good reporter. He wouldn't have gotten Tim Russert's former job if he wasn't. The reason that Gregory and many others in the mainstream media have talked a lot about the White House's handling of Benghazi is because there are very serious questions about the behavior of the White House with regards to this incident.

[Rudeboyelvis]

>>>“When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself -- and his book," Clemente told THR via email. "He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly."

But that's news to Ricks, who told THR in his own email that he never offered an apology to Fox — privately or publicly.

"Please ask Mr. Clemente what the words of my supposed apology were. I'd be interested to know," Ricks said. "Frankly, I don't remember any such apology."<<<


Keeping the false Left-Right Paradigm alive and well.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

>>>“When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself -- and his book," Clemente told THR via email. "He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly."

But that's news to Ricks, who told THR in his own email that he never offered an apology to Fox — privately or publicly.

"Please ask Mr. Clemente what the words of my supposed apology were. I'd be interested to know," Ricks said. "Frankly, I don't remember any such apology."<<<


Keeping the false Left-Right Paradigm alive and well.

but this....this can't be correct. fox news would never, ever report something as fact that didn't happen.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but this....this can't be correct. fox news would never, ever report something as fact that didn't happen.

Fox News Exec calls Ricks out - Surprised by his "Utter Dishonesty"

>>>Fox News Channel executive vice president Michael Clemente on Tuesday stood by his claim that author Tom Ricks offered a private apology following his appearance on the network, during which the Pulitzer Prize winner sharply criticized Fox's coverage of the September attack in Benghazi. Ricks denied that he ever expressed contrition, which Clemente countered in an interview with TVNewser.

“I’m surprised by the General’s utter dishonesty,” Clemente said. “I’ll refresh his memory – what he said following the segment was, ‘Sorry… I’m tired from a non-stop book tour.’ Perhaps now he can finally get some rest.”

Ricks is not a military general, although Clemente may have been making a reference to the title of the author's latest book, The Generals: American Military Command from World War III to Today.<<<

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...cks-dishonesty

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Fox News Exec calls Ricks out - Surprised by his "Utter Dishonesty"

>>>Fox News Channel executive vice president Michael Clemente on Tuesday stood by his claim that author Tom Ricks offered a private apology following his appearance on the network, during which the Pulitzer Prize winner sharply criticized Fox's coverage of the September attack in Benghazi. Ricks denied that he ever expressed contrition, which Clemente countered in an interview with TVNewser.

“I’m surprised by the General’s utter dishonesty,” Clemente said. “I’ll refresh his memory – what he said following the segment was, ‘Sorry… I’m tired from a non-stop book tour.’ Perhaps now he can finally get some rest.”

Ricks is not a military general, although Clemente may have been making a reference to the title of the author's latest book, The Generals: American Military Command from World War III to Today.<<<

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...cks-dishonesty

so....he can remember that the guy said 'sorry' but can't remember that he's an author, not a general? maybe a for real general was talking to him, and he got the two confused!

when was ww 3?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Fox is no more operating as a wing of the republican party any more than the other channels operate as a wing of the democratic party. Every reporter has a bias. Something like 90% of the media identify themselves as democrats. It's funny how some liberals think that republican reporters have some huge bias but that democratic reporters have no bias.

I agree with you that David Gregory is a good reporter. He wouldn't have gotten Tim Russert's former job if he wasn't. The reason that Gregory and many others in the mainstream media have talked a lot about the White House's handling of Benghazi is because there are very serious questions about the behavior of the White House with regards to this incident.

You are trying to respond to a complete moron that only knows one song and is incapable of thought. He has no way to actualize information, he is only capable of blaming fox news and george bush for every problem he's ever had. Which is exactly what they need. Bands of zombies on each side bickering with each other while they rob what's left over.

Funny how ignorant gossip like this gets front page billing, and not a word discussed about how the world markets will react as the congress and the president continue to play politics like it's a game rather than get a deal done. All part of the plan.