Soros Grantee Aids Soros Grantee: NPR Covers 'Scandal' of Fox News VP Calling Obama a 'Socialist'
In the same week, leftist hedge-fund billionaire/philanthropist George Soros announced he was giving millions to Media Matters for America and to National Public Radio. So NPR might have found it wise to avoid publicizing Media Matters initiatives and risk being seen by many as a walking conflict of interest. That’s not what’s happening. Instead, Soros is happily seeing his grantees play very nicely together. On March 26, Politico reported that Media Matters declared "war on Fox" and a campaign of "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" against not just Fox, but Rupert Murdoch's empire in general. Three days later, on the March 29 All Things Considered, NPR was participating in it.
It began with Media Matters giving the world a tape of FNC executive Bill Sammon on a 2009 fundraising cruise for Hillsdale College proclaiming that he thought 2008 charges that Barack Obama was a socialist were "rather far-fetched," but thought Obama made it very plausible upon taking office. Media Matters said the tape showed "Lying" by Sammon. NPR media reporter David Folkenflik, already looking like a robot-for-hire in his reporting on NPR’s Schillergate scandal, became the wind beneath their wings in promoting it.
Folkenflik’s story didn’t scream about "lying" like Media Matters, and contained no quote from an MMFA official. Only Sammon was quoted. But the bias was in the story selection. Why is this a story, not just a small factoid? Besides acting like a cog in the Soros Journalism Machine? NPR’s Sammon hunt began like this:
MICHELLE BLOCK: Controversy now around a top political news executive at the Fox News Channel. It centers on a lecture he gave in 2009. In it, the executive confided that he had suggested on the air that then-candidate Barack Obama was socialist, even though he didn't believe that to be the case. As NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik reports, audio of the lecture was obtained by the liberal press advocacy group Media Matters For America, a frequent critic of Fox.
DAVID FOLKENFLIK: Bill Sammon is vice president for news and managing editor of the Washington bureau at Fox News. He made the remarks while aboard a cruise in the Mediterranean for attendees of a fundraiser for Hillsdale College, an explicitly conservative campus in Michigan, back in the summer of 2009.
It is easy to imagine that NPR green-lighted this story as yet another way to try and dim the lights on Schillergate. They may have delighted in the opportunity to air another story of "secret" remarks by corporate executives that make consumers question the news product. Except Folkenflik underlined Sammon oversees news coverage (he's not a fundraiser like Ron Schiller):
FOLKENFLIK: In an interview today with NPR, Sammon said he was trying to characterize what conservatives thought.
SAMMON: I was, frankly, astonished that that was a serious topic of conversation in a presidential campaign, if for no other reason than it just isn't the kind of thing you normally hear someone talking about with a presidential candidate.
FOLKENFLIK: Sammon's speech focused largely on Mr. Obama's emotional tumult over his abandonment by his father and his racial identity. Sammon says calling his remarks mischievous speculation was inartful and that he hues to Fox News' promise of a fair and balanced approach to news coverage. He says he would not label Obama a socialist.
SAMMON: I have refrained from drawing judgments like that. I don't take it's the place of somebody like me to be saying, this guy's a capitalist or this guy's a socialist.
FOLKENFLIK: Fox's top opinion hosts are all, to varying degrees, conservative. Sammon, on the other hand, oversees news coverage. And Media Matters has previously released memos from Sammon guiding coverage that seemed to encourage specific phrases unflattering to the White House policies under Mr. Obama. Sammon says he just wants to make sure both sides of every story are covered.
Is NPR serious? It's a scandal that a news executive would "encourage specific phrases unflattering to the White House"? As if the job of every journalist was to flatter the White House when Obama is president? Does NPR want to suggest that leftist executives like former NPR veep Ellen Weiss -- the one with the liberal rabbi husband on Obama's commission of faith-based experts -- never "encouraged" a tilt to reporters? Or was the encouragement utterly unnecessary?
Speaking of socialists, Folkenflik didn't suggest it was a scandal when PBS omnipresence Bill Moyers gave a wild-eyed socialist speech at a 2005 "Media Reform" conference of lefties, even though it demolishes any notion that PBS is a network for fair and balanced journalism. Moyers attacked "the radical right of the Republican Party...because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth." Was it fair for Moyers to call his opponents the "radical right" if it was unfair to call Obama a "socialist"?
Actually, David Folkenflik covered that speech -- but not with Moyers in the scandal seat. On the May 20, 2005 Morning Edition, the scandalous figure was again a conservative journalist -- Kenneth Tomlinson, chairman of the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, who dared to suggest that there was a liberal bias on PBS and NPR. Even as Folkenflik cited executives like NPR president Kevin Klose suggesting Tomlinson had "no facts" on NPR's bias, Folkenflik brought in Moyers for support, not glaring rebuttal:
FOLKENFLIK: Tomlinson felt the PBS program NOW with Bill Moyers was not balanced. `Moyers is an unfettered liberal and populist whose Friday-night shows, reporting and commentary reflected his often fiery tone.' But Moyers says many conservatives have appeared on his show for extended and even-handed interviews. Moyers no longer appears on the show he created. It's been cut to 30 minutes. At Tomlinson's urging, PBS started a show centered around The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board to balance "NOW" on Fridays. At a recent speech in St. Louis, Moyers took direct aim at Tomlinson, and he says he got into hot water because he broke the rules of Washington journalism.
BILL MOYERS (PBS Host): Those rules divide the world into Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.
FOLKENFLIK: Other figures in public broadcasting are also critical. NPR's Klose says Tomlinson has failed to explain what he's doing and why he's doing it.
KLOSE: If I had any criticism at all, in addition to his inability to show any kind of a cooperative embrace of all the diversities inside public radio, he's not been very eloquent or actually even very clear or straightforward about what it is he intends.
FOLKENFLIK: PBS President Pat Mitchell is set to give a major address in Washington. She's expected to defend PBS and to express concerns about the CPB board's motivations in trying to assert more control over public broadcasting. After complaints by two congressional Democrats, CPB's inspector general is investigating whether Tomlinson's activities broke the law by engaging in illegal political interference in public broadcasting. Tomlinson says he's simply acting to ensure that its news programs are balanced. David Folkenflik, NPR News, Washington.
This story came before Tomlinson was shown the door -- and PBS crushed the two short-lived right-leaning shows The Wall Street Journal Editorial Report and Tucker Carlson Unfiltered. What came next was the newest version of an hour-long Bill Moyers Journal. Once again, Folkenflik was more cog than fair-and-balanced reporter.
No listener should ever trust public broadcasting when the subject is journalistic bias and media ethics. They have major troubles with both.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Yawn.
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:39am.
He was a member of and endorsed by the New Party which was a socialist party. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and TELLS me it's a duck. I'm going to call it a duck.
O. K., I Won't...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:49am.
O. K., I won't call Obama a Socialist but I will call him a Marxist! Put that up your Liberal Numbskull Pukey Rageio Bong and inhale it!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
This is all they've got?
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:55am.
They're reduced to saying that Sammon was lying by opining???
What's next...he's a poopy head???
Sheesh.
That was my exact thought.
Submitted by inquiringmind on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:20am.
That was my exact thought. That's all you've got? Sammon was lying?
Not the poopy head thing though.
Not the poopy head thing though.
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:56am.
Me neither. I was thinking "do-do head."
Isn't calling Obama a socialist just reporting the news?
how about Mr Poopy Pants?
Submitted by theduck6 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:51am.
I would actually challenge anyone to debate that he isn't a Marxist socialist.
Given his documented (by himselfBTW) admitted upbringing it would have taken an extreme intervention for him to not lean extreme left. ( Hey if Chuck U Schumer can overuse extreme, so can I) I have no evidence that intervention ever happened. To the contrary he embraced and sought out "Marxist and radical professors " in college according to his own writings. He has never said he saw the light, quite the contrary. Dad (for whom he had enough regard for to write a book telling what he learned from before he bailed out was an avowed uberMarxist. Mom was too until she bailed on little Barry too. Grandma (who he couldn't find the time to attend the funeral of,) was an uberlefty. His admitted role models, mentors and icons were the who's who of socialism, Marxism and progressivism. His former and current associates, czars and "spiritual advisers" are rabid redistibutionists and Marxists (anti-American to boot)
I double dog dare you to prove he isn't a dyed-in-the-wool frothing Marxist.
How could he have turned out any other way?
Media Matters wants Bill
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 2:08pm.
Media Matters wants Bill Sammon fired for this? Wow. Calling Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman names is OK.
This war that Media Matters has declared against Fox and Rupert Murdock is getting sillier by the minute.
Andrew Wilcow was talking today about this place where they sit around and have computers monitor all conservative talk nationwide. This goes on from 5 AM to 1 AM. The computers are programmed to pick up certain phrases or names. He dedicated some of his show to making comments that he was sure they would pick up. He said they never picked up anything he said and made sound bites of it so he was hoping they would find something today. He made fun of the people working there that they wore diapers so they didn't have to leave the monitoring long enough to go to the restroom.
We all know what conservatives say is tame compared to the toxic stuff being said by the brain dead host of MESSNBC and Mike Malloy.
I love it....
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:58am.
They have declared a war of wits and rhetoric and the have no ammunition. Obama is in fact a socialist. Sammon stated that he thought that was a bit over the top during the campaign, but since his innauguration his actions have changed his mind and he now thinks it might be plausible. NPR tries to spin this as lying???!! As if reality was not allowed to change someone's opinion???
Oh, I forgot. That is a prime tenenat of liberalism...never let reality interfere with a perfectly good ideology.
The more that the go down this road, to more they expose themselves for being the Soros pupets that they are.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
I always suspected....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:24am.
So a VP at FOX didn't think Obama was a socialist back in 2008? I had a sneaking suspicion that FOX News was soft on communists.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
As much garbage that was
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:07am.
As much garbage that was thrown against Joe McCarthy history has proven that he was right about the commies. I wish we had one Republican today that would open hearings to expose the commies in the Ice Cream Emperor's administration. We have one that is proud of it Bernie Sanders.
Very True
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 3:40pm.
After studying and reading about WW2 for almost 45 years, I thought I understood about all of it until I read "1945: The War That Never Ended", by Gregor Dallas. The book details the last year of WW2 and the continuing Cold War conflict that developed from the legacy of the war.
While not the book's focus, the history of communist appointments inside the Roosevelt Administration is laid out at length and in meticulous detail. The author goes far in proving his contention that these communist appointments and infiltrators where a major factor in enabling the Soviet Union to propagate the Cold War for as long as they were able.
You don't get this sort of info on the History Chanel.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
This is a symptom of a far larger problem
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 1:55pm.
Most of government-schooled America wouldn't know a communist if one was standing on their chest and staring them right in the face.
There is one staring them in the face right now from the oval office (or from a local golf course), that is dimantling their country right before their eyes by engineering government takeover after government takeover, destroying whatever the government doesn't take over, and very rapidly spending what's left into oblivion.
Obama was raised by, spent his formative years around, and befriended mostly communists, but he's not a communist.
Right, and a pig's arse isn't pork, either.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Juxtaposition
Submitted by Garlock on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:42pm.
So, an NPR executive of fund-raising relays, in a private conversation, some things a couple of Republicans had said to him. Those thoughts are deemed racist, and the misleadingly edited tape makes it seem as if the NPR exec was the one who actually had said/believed them. In order to address the perception that NPR supports or is connected with people who may or may not have held racist beliefs, NPR chooses to not only fire that fund-raising exec (who is also not involved with the news/programming side) but to fire their CEO as well.
Contrast that with with the Bill Sammon situation. A Fox News executive in charge of news programming admits to lying about something on the air that he does not believe personally. He then says later that what he said may have been true simply because many people now hold that belief; or in other words, because his viewers believed his lie. His belief that Obama is a socialist has permeated large sections of America and has resulted in large consequences, politically and economically. And what happened to Mr. Sammon? Nothing. He gets to keep his job, not even a reprimand.
This isn't a big deal to you guys? How is that possible? Just imagine if the shoe was on the other foot: an NPR executive in charge of news lied on the air about a big issue that had wide-ranging effects. What would have your response been then? Surely it would not have been "Eh, no scandal here, move along, nothing to see here."
This is a simple matter of ethics in broadcasting and journalism. One organization has ethics, the other does not.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 5:36pm.
Garlock the SLGT: His belief that Obama is a socialist has permeated large sections of America and has resulted in large consequences, politically and economically.
Let's hear it Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll. How has Mr. Sammon's belief resulted in large consequences, politically and economically? I don't buy News Corp. stock because the dividend sucks. But if it can have that kind of power that one little man and his beliefs can sway and entire political and economic system, an economic system that is 25% of the world's GDP. Well then, I ought to change my mind.
Please hurry GtSLGT. My 401k depends on you. BACK IT UP.
Consequences
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:10pm.
I dunno, how about the fact that millions of people watch and are influenced by what Fox News says. This then translates into public opinion, which is supposedly represented in government. I would call that a political consequence.
There was also this thing called the Tea Party that is heavily promoted by Fox and influenced by what Fox says. This is in addition to the millions of other conservatives who take cues from Fox. Almost all of these people, especially Tea Partiers, believe that Obama is a socialist (at the very least, a very bad man). They are also very engaged politically, and obviously showed it in the 2010 midterms. I would call that a political consequence.
These political consequences then lead to economic consequences. Republicans and the Tea Party have a very different economic perspective/agenda than Obama and Democrats, that should be abundantly obvious. Thus, when they try and make major changes in economic policy and make tens of billions of dollars in cuts, that is an obvious economic consequence.
Moreover, the constant refrain from Fox and conservatives that Obama is a socialist and taking the country in the wrong direction significantly decreases confidence. Confidence in consumers and in business that the things we're doing might be helping the economy get better, so that they can spend more, invest more, hire more, take more risks. If you don't believe confidence is important, than you also shouldn't believe in any of that "Obama is increasing uncertainty" meme.
Did I answer your question well enough?
GtSLGT read minds and farts facts! Next show at 11.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:38pm.
GtSLGT: ...This is in addition to the millions... Almost all of these people, especially Tea Partiers, believe that Obama is a socialist...
Oh please lying little child. Tell us what MILLIONS of people you have never met or interacted with think and believe. MmmmKay?
You don't interact with adults very often do you?
You want to back up that little LIE now?
Back-up
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:45pm.
"Three quarters (75 %) of Tea Party conservatives believe that President Obama’s policies are socialist compared to 40% of non-Tea Party conservative"
"When this group asked 1000 voters in mid June “How well does the term ‘socialist’ fits President Obama?”, 55% said well or very well."
"According to the poll, 63 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist"
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:00pm.
His first link - 440 people from 7 states. What, couldn't find 440 people in your own state?
Here is the choices presented to the 400 people.
When it comes to Obama’s policies, which statement is closest to your views?
Support policies 17% (75) 26% (65) 5% (10)
Socialist 55% (247) 40% (97) 75% (150)
Misguided 28% (124) 34% (85) 20% (40)
Oh dear, people said his POLICIES being socialist are closer to their view than 2 other choices. Either you support them or try to claim his policies are misguided when they seem deliberate as hell.
YOU LIE AGAIN TROLL.
GtSLGT: ...This is in addition to the millions... Almost all of these people, especially Tea Partiers, believe that Obama is a socialist...
YOU SAID ALMOST ALL YOU LYING LITTLE CHILD. YOU SAID THEY BELIEVE HE IS SOCIALIST LYING LITTLE CHILD.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:07pm.
His second link PROVES him WRONG.
What an idiot.
The second link talks about James Carville's poll that found 55% of ALL VOTERS think Obama is a socialist.
ALL VOTERS.
ALL OF THEM. Democrat and Republican.
ALL VOTERS.
So even if his statement is true ---
GtSLGT: ...This is in addition to the millions... Almost all of these people, especially Tea Partiers, believe that Obama is a socialist...
Than Tea Partiers would have the same opinions as 55% of ALL voters.
Idiot.
That means they are no different than anyone else.
Idiot.
Link to stuff that beclowns you.
"Beclowns"
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:45pm.
Yes, I know the poll is of "all voters." But let me ask you a question. How many liberals/Democrats do you know who say Obama or his policies are socialist? Any of them? Because I don't know any who think that, and I know several liberals. What this poll shows is that, even with many Democrats undoubtedly saying he isn't a socialist, there is still a majority who say he is, which means those who say he is are largely concentrated on the Republican side and represent much more than 55%.
You don't interact with adults ever do you?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 11:00pm.
Garlock the SLGT: But let me ask you a question.
No. You cannot.
You really are quite stupid aren't you? Let's quote The Vet boys and girls.
Best of The Vet # 1667 -
#44 That will be $100. I accept PayPal.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:40pm
You want a education from the people here. Pay for it.
I am sick of your nonstop unending question after question after question just to keep the adults in the room. You want an education from us. Pay for it. Otherwise. You got a point. Make it. You got some facts. Source them.
Knock it off with expecting us to be you AnswerSlaves. Little lying stupid child. Act like you have interacted with Adults before
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:10pm.
His third link, a poll about Republicans. HIS LIE WAS ABOUT THE TEA PARTY.
A new poll of self-identified Republicans released Tuesday shows a large slice of the GOP believes President Barack Obama is a “socialist” who was not born in this country, should be impeached, wants the terrorists to win and only won the 2008 election because ACORN “stole” it for him.
The survey of 2003 self-identified Republicans, who typically trend much more conservative than voters who “lean” Republican, was conducted by Research 2000 for the liberal blog Daily Kos.
Yes. The idiot actually brought a poll about Republicans from the LYING Daily Kos when his original lie was about Tea Partiers.
You do not interact with adults often do you?
Amazing
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:50pm.
1) My original statement wasn't just about the Tea Partiers, it was about conservatives as well as the Tea Party. You know this too, because you've quoted the line where I say that a half dozen times on here already.
2) The poll wasn't from Daily Kos, it was from Research 2000. It says it clearly in the article as well as the quote you show above.
I checked PayPal.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 11:02pm.
There is only $100 in there from WillyWaver466 from Pampers.com. Unless that is you, I am still waiting for your remittance. I do not provide free entertainment for trolls to lie endlessly.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:48pm.
Garlock the SLGT: ...they try and make major changes in economic policy and make tens of billions of dollars in cuts, that is an obvious economic consequence.
Oh little lying boy, do I need to quote WHAT YOU SAID. Yes I do --- ...resulted in large consequences, politically and economically... You said LARGE little lying boy. Now your example is 10's of billions out of a 3.456 TRILLION dollars in federal spending.
We don't have a completed 2011 budget yet. So we have to use last years figures. Federal Spending 2010: 3,456 trillion
I believe the compromise is something like 30 billion last I checked. Since the little boy only said 10's of billions, we will have to go with that. 30 billion out of 3.456 trillion is .8%.
Hardly LARGE little lying boy.
Try again. Try starting with the truth this time.
YOU
SAID
LARGE
CONSEQUENCES.
Try again.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:50pm.
GtSLGT: ...the constant refrain from Fox and conservatives that Obama is a socialist...
Prove it. Now. Back it up.
Why is it you open you mouth and you just have more and more lies you need to back up?
Seriously?
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:48pm.
This is unbelievable nit-picking. I really need to "prove" that Fox News, conservatives, and Republicans are constantly talking about how Obama is a socialist or advocating socialist policies? There is NO NEED for me to prove that, unless you simply haven't turned on the TV in the past few years. Why don't YOU prove that they don't?
Pack sand troll. Pack it tight. Pack it hard. Leave it smooth.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:14pm.
Once again. I am sick of schooling you.
You made an accusation -- ...the constant refrain from Fox and conservatives that Obama is a socialist... --- now you expect me to prove a negative? --- Why don't YOU prove that they don't?
Why don't you just hand in the keys to your self respect.
Sick of schooling
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:53pm.
You're sick of schooling me? About what? About the fact that Fox and conservatives don't constantly talk about how they think Obama is a socialist? Because that's some schooling that is impossible to teach, since it's demonstrably false.
Stupid Lying Garlock Troll's new lies listed.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 11:06pm.
Lies and Stupid numbers 55 through 66.
The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:53pm.
GtSLGT: ...the constant refrain from Fox and conservatives...significantly decreases confidence.
Prove how the constant refrain from Fox and conservatives SIGNIFICANTLY decrease confidence.
Whip out some charts MmmmKay? Show us.
YOU.
LIE.
AGAIN.
Minutiae nit-picking
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:49pm.
Minutiae nit-picking. Distract from the larger point. All part of the plan.
Pack sand troll. Pack it tight. Pack it hard. Leave it smooth.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:16pm.
You made an accusation. Back it up. Or shut the hell up.
GtSLGT: ...the constant refrain from Fox and conservatives...significantly decreases confidence.
Show us how the refrain from Fox AND conservatives SIGNIFICANTLY decreases confidence.
You made the accusation. BACK IT UP.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:09pm.
GtSLGT: ...millions of people watch and are influenced by what Fox News says. This then translates into public opinion...
FOXN 3,213,000 -- Wowzeewowzers. One percent of the population of the United States watch Fox News. How does that make it a LARGE consequence?
We know you don't interact with adults often. At least ACT LIKE IT.
Anytime you want to man up and back up one of the many many many lies here today, as usual, we will be waiting.
Haha
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:56pm.
Yet more absurd distraction. Yes, 3 million people is 1% of the population. 3 million people is also a large audience. Fox News itself certainly boasts a lot about it. I'm sure any business would say having 3 million customers is a large customer base. Having 3 million people in the military would have a large military consequences.
How about 10 million? Is that larger? Did you know that it's almost 1% of the Chinese population?!? WOWZEEWOWZERS I CAN DO MATH!!!
Moreover, the 3 million are just those who actually watch Fox News. There are millions more who are influenced by those 3 million.
Pack sand troll. Pack it tight. Pack it hard. Leave it smooth.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:20pm.
GtSLGT: ...millions of people watch and are influenced by what Fox News says.
This then translates into public opinion, which is supposedly represented in government. I would call that a political consequence.
Prove how the viewers of Fox News translate to pubic opinion which has LARGE CONSEQUENCES.
LARGE CONSEQUENCES.
YOUR ORIGINAL LIE.
I see
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:56pm.
I've already discussed how viewers of Fox News have had an effect on politics and the economy, but I see what you're getting at here. Your whole plan is to distract from the entire conversation in order to debate what constitutes something as "large." Clever.
Care is extra.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 11:08pm.
$100 to school stupid lying trolls. Mumzi or Duddy Trolls credit cards accepted.
$25 extra to fake caring what the stupid lying little troll is on about today.
Garlock the confirmed 60 time liar is calling someone a liar.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 6:35pm.
Wow. How about that justaposition?
Now. Prove he lied. You gonna go throwing accusations around. BACK IT UP. Where is the lie?
From your love love love hearty teen crush Media Matters you so so so lovingly quote time and time again ---
"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around,' " said Sammon. "At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."
Let's see. Then Senator Obama tells someone we need to spread the wealth around. Then Sammon speculates on TV that he may be advocating socialism. Gasp. Why that cannot be. We cannot speculate someone is a socialist when the talk like one. Gasp. Oh Golly. Wow. Even if we don't believe it to be true, why just talking about it is not allowed. Oh Golly. Gee. Wow. Can't do that at all. He hangs out with Marxists, Domestic terrorists, has Marxist friends, but to go on national television and discuss it, why no no now. Can't do that at all now can we? Whether we believe it or not. Cannot be discussed ever because the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll might go spastic and CALL PEOPLE LIARS.
Prove he lied. Now. Back it up.
In an interview, Sammon says his reference to “mischevious speculation” was “my probably inartful way of saying, ‘Can you believe how far this thing has come?’” The socialism question indeed “struck me as a far-fetched idea” in 2008. “I considered it kind of a remarkable notion that we would even be having the conversation.” He doesn’t regret repeatedly raising it on the air because, Sammon says, “it was a main point of discussion on all the channels, in all the media”—and by 2009 he was “astonished by how the needle had moved.”
Sammon notes that in the same talk on the cruise, he pointed out that George W. Bush had his own stimulus package and had spent half the TARP bailout money: “I was talking about both sides being big spenders.” (True; he also told the cruise guests that “when it comes to spending money, Obama makes Bush look like a piker.”)
In that speech, Sammon said he eventually concluded that what he had thought was baseless speculation among Obama’s socialistic views turned out to be accurate:
“Now imagine my surprise when this year, I witness President Barack Obama standing in the cross hall of the White House and having taken over the American car industry, look into the camera, and announce to the nation essentially, that he would personally vouch for the warranty on your car’s muffler. All of a sudden, the debate over whether America was heading for socialism seemed anything but far-fetched…The debate over whether America is headed for socialism seems all too real, especially to those who still believe in capitalism.”
NO. Not allowed. Even if you think something is far-fetched. You cannot discuss it evah. Oh dear. I thought it was far-fetched too. BUT I DISCUSSED IT ANYWAY.
NOW. BACK IT UP. HOW DID THE MAN LIE?
Seriously?
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 6:54pm.
It's like you don't read my comments. Ever. I clearly explained how he lied. Hell, he says it himself that he lied! His WHOLE POINT with this admission on the cruise was that he didn't believe the stuff he said on-air back in 2008, but he said it anyway. I dunno, maybe you have some weird convoluted definition but last time I checked, saying something you didn't believe was called lying.
Oh but wait, you think he's not lying because what he said was true and "turned out to be accurate." Are you serious? If you say in front of millions of people that you think the sky might be green, and then millions of people believe you and decide the sky is green, that means that you're not lying because other people share the belief that you influenced them to have? If so, then apparently all the racist propaganda that Goebbels pushed is true, simply because he said it and hoards of people believed him.
Plus, I'm sorry but no reputable person thinks Obama is a socialist. Look at his policies and what he's done, it should be clear.
Why yes little lying boy. That is proof enough.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:07pm.
Repeating yourself really does count as evidence. Thank you. Too bad we can't introduce that into courts of law.
I said PROVE IT. NOW. Prove that believing something is far-fetched is the same thing as COMPLETELY DISBELIEVING IT.
Or repeat yourself, repeat your accusations, talk about the sky, talk about Goebbels. Whatever. You do that so well. Anything but tell the truth.
How's this
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:21pm.
How about if you went on Fox and adamantly pushed the idea that I might be smarter than you. Privately, you think this idea is pretty far-fetched, but for some reason you wanted to tell millions of people multiples times that I am most likely smarter than you.
Playing semantic games with what I will or will not do.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:33pm.
That does not constitute evidence either. You don't interact with adults very often do you?
Semantic games
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:03pm.
Are you serious? Your WHOLE POINT is about semantics! Whether or not there is a difference between repeatedly saying someone advocates socialism/hangs out with Marxists/is heavily influenced by Marxism and outright calling someone a socialist is most definitely playing a semantics game.
You made an accusation. I said BACK IT UP.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:16pm.
Now you want to again act the part of the little child and say it is all about semantics? Now you telling LIES about me again. Just like you do every single time.
GtSLGT: ...A Fox News executive in charge of news programming admits to lying...
GtSLGT: ...because his viewers believed his lie...
GtSLGT" ...His belief that Obama is a socialist --- WHEN DID HE SAY THAT? LIAR.
The Vet: Prove he lied. You gonna go throwing accusations around. BACK IT UP. Where is the lie?
GtSLGT: Hell, he says it himself that he lied
I.
SAID.
BACK.
IT.,
UP.
Now you have another lie that I was being semantic when I told you to back up your LIE.
Vet: "Now you want to again
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:08pm.
Vet: "Now you want to again act the part of the little child and say it is all about semantics?"
45 minutes earlier...
Vet: "Playing semantic games with what I will or will not do"
I've already given the proof and backed it up. Whether or not you believe it is up to you. But I'm not going to argue about this with you any more, because it's simply not worth my time to argue with incoherence.
Pack sand troll. Pack it tight. Pack it hard. Leave it smooth.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:23pm.
Whatever. I am tired of schooling a stupid lying troll whose only response to someone pointing out his lies is to repeat over and over I already did.
As usual, the little boy thinks no one can see his lies here. He thinks he can walk away like it was some private conversation on a sidewalk.
Whatver troll. Yeah, you made your case. Whatever.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:18pm.
Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: I'm sorry but no reputable person thinks Obama is a socialist...
Who are you talking about now GtSLGT? When did Mr. Sammon SAY he was a socialist?
YOU. LIE. AGAIN.
AGAIN.
AGAIN.
AGAIN.
Sammon: ...some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism...
Speculating about whether someone is advocating socialism is now calling someone a socialist? YOU. LIE. AGAIN.
scorecard
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:25pm.
Troll: -5,087
The Vet: +287,917
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Wow
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:00pm.
You really are grasping for straws here, bunkered down in that minutiae. Let's look at some of that "speculation."
- Repeatedly saying Obama's remarks were "tantamount to socialism."
- Repeatedly highlighting references to socialism and Marxism in one of Obama's books
- Repeatedly discussed Obama's "affinity to Marxists" and how he is "drawn to Marxists and socialists" and how "I think his heart is really towards the hard left, and we may see whether that comes out as he governs, if in fact he wins."
That sounds like he's calling him a socialist to me. It reminds me of all those situations conservatives get bent out of shape over. For instance, when a liberal makes some comment about a Republican doing/saying something similar to what Goebbels did/said, and then that liberal gets attacked by conservatives for calling that person a Nazi. Lord knows that liberals have said less explicit things about conservatives and have received harsh attacks in return.
Besides, what if I started talking about how I think some of the things you say remind me of stuff Hitler said? What if I said, "Well, it seems like you're advocating Nazism, Vet. If you win the presidency, we may find out what Nazism is like." Would your response be, "Oh SLGT, stop that speculation about whether I'm a Nazi!" or would it be more like "SLGT LIES AGAIN! I AM NOT A NAZI, I NEVER SAID I WAS A NAZI, STOP CALLING ME A NAZI STUPID LITTLE SLGT! NEVER CALL ME A NAZI AGAIN YOU STUPID LITTLE LYING CHILD!"
I'm thinking it would be most likely the latter. But you know, that's just speculation on my part.
Garlock admits to his lie.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:22pm.
GtSLGT: That sounds like he's calling him a socialist to me.
The Stupid Lying Garlock troll admits the truth once again. He has no proof. Only his opinion and what sounds like.
YOU LIE AGAIN. And get BUSTED again.
And starts in with his what if game like we are schoolchildren.
Yes Stupid Lying Garlock Troll. If a frog had wings he would not bump his ass so much. Has nothing to do with you lying like you are paid for it now does it?
Admission
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:59pm.
There was no admission that I lied. I used what is known as a "figure of speech". Look it up
Acting is extra
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 11:11pm.
$100 to school stupid lying trolls. Mumzi or Duddy Trolls credit cards accepted.
$25 extra to nod approvingly when you tiny stupid lying troll continues to lie.
Where did you go Stupid Lying Garlock Troll?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 8:46pm.
You forgot to tell us. How do you go from sounds like to calling the man a liar? How do you go from the opinion of a now 70 or 80 time lying troll to accusations of LYING?
Still waiting for you to tell us how the man lied.
Because he says he did not.
FOLKENFLIK: Sammon's speech focused largely on Mr. Obama's emotional tumult over his abandonment by his father and his racial identity. Sammon says calling his remarks mischievous speculation was inartful and that he hues to Fox News' promise of a fair and balanced approach to news coverage. He says he would not label Obama a socialist.
SAMMON: I have refrained from drawing judgments like that. I don't take it's the place of somebody like me to be saying, this guy's a capitalist or this guy's a socialist.
Anytime you want to stop acting the part of the lying little child and man up with something substantial in proving the man lied. As usual, we will be right here waiting.
Yeah
Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:11pm.
Sammon says that NOW, not THEN. Plus, what about all those other times he's said NOW about how it's funny how all the stuff he said before turned out to be true?
That will be $100. I accept PayPal.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:26pm.
I don't school idiots for free. You want to continue, pay up. You know the address.
The_Vets_school_for_lying_stupid_trolls@TheVetsManySchools.com
Sounds Like MM Pulled A James O'Keefe, And Not In A Good Way...
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:51pm.
You'd think people on the left or the right would learn by now that the kind of crass investigative journalism and selective editing that James O'Keefe specializes in will not work more than once, and that instance was the ACORN scandal. After that, O'Keefe's track record, as I've said before, resembled that of M. Night Shyamalan's movie career after The Sixth Sense. It appears Media Matters has decided to follow the same crass reporting style as O'Keefe, and that, it seems to me, will actually make Newsbusters a more credible media watchdog. That is, of course, unless Newsbusters decides to continue this new trend of reporting propaganda like the installation of antiabortion billboards and such.
It only works once, Sticks? Really? Tell that to Lila Rose.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:00pm.
You know, the She-Devil.
Really?
Submitted by theduck6 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 8:21am.
While I personally prefer a dispassionate debate that is strictly fact based it would appear we have spawned a culture where you can't get someone's attention by laying out the facts and letting them form their own conclusions. Too many want their news wrapped up in a bow telling them what they are supposed to take away from the item. The MSM is all to happy to provide that opinion.
Not a fan of gotcha journalism but to let one side practice it with the current culture is, unfortunately, suicide for the opposing side .
Selective editing?
Submitted by Plumb Bob on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:12am.
James O'Keefe, unlike every other news organization in the world, made the unedited tapes of his conversations available to the public in the wake of his investigations. If that is not sufficient to put to rest any suggestion of his work being supported by "selective editing," then nothing can, and the objection has no meaning.
Therefore, for you to use the claim of selective editing to disparage O'Keefe's work while continuing to endorse the more manipulative tactics of the mainstream press, who have never made their unedited tapes generally available, is to join the ranks of the mindless and untrustworthy.
If Media Matters actually chose to follow "the same crass reporting style as O'Keefe," they would make their unedited tapes available to the public for examination. They never have, and for good reason: unlike James O'Keefe, Media Matters is interested only in partisan propaganda, not in truth.
Allow me to encourage you to join the ranks of those who do practice "the same crass reporting style as O'Keefe." It would be a dramatic improvement for you.
Notice the formula
Submitted by Plumb Bob on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:03am.
In the closing paragraph of the quote block near the end of the article, pay attention to the Alinskyite formula for denouncing disagreement with the Democratic party: It is...
(1) Contrary to facts;
(2) Engaging in "spin"; and
(3) Probably ILLEGAL...
... to disagree with Progressive politics. By contrast, Bill Moyers is bravely telling truth to power by hawking the progressive line instead of giving "...each side an opportunity to spin the news."
You will hear this same pattern, over and over and over again, if you listen to the progressives' objections to any reporter who takes a position unflattering to the progressive line. It sounds like the old-style Soviet disinformation because it IS the old-line Soviet disinformation.
They really do intend to criminalize opposition. They have done so like clockwork in every nation they've ever taken over. Pay attention, and point out the formula everywhere you can. Your liberty depends on it.