And why is that?
The media throws soft ball questions and Hillary, Gore, Kerry, ect... all day long.
I did not see the coverage on Tuesday on FOX, but I did see CNN for an hour and a half...
Why would Cheney go on a network that covered his story for 70% of their morning news?
They NEVER did more than one story that was not about Cheney before going back to two or three stories about him. The anchor's were laughing, they were giddy from the news.
This is what the average person does not get. I'm sure the FOX interview was not as hard hitting as if someone from CNN conducted it, but this is the norm on the other side. Doesn't it seem so weird when it is done on the right? Doesn't it seem out of place? That is because FOX rarely does it, while CNN softball's pictures to liberals constantly...
Wouldn't this be the pot calling the kettle black?
Thursday, February 16, 2006
CNN slams Cheney for going over to FOX
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
You are exactly right, Game. why bother with a network that's an obvious mouthpiece for the left. There is no "fair and balanced" at CNN. There's only "gotcha" journalism and smirking, dimwitted pundits.
Fox, while not perfect, is much more balanced than CNN, ABC, NBC, could ever hope to be. It's laughable that they really expected to be contacted for an interview after their snarky coverage.
Why goto CNN when their ratings are in the dumper? No one watches MSNBC and or CSPAN. Where else would the VP go for maximum coverage and at least some semblance of fairness?
Finally, I don't want to hear one word out of Jim or Rhyno on this subject until Hillary or Algore parks their asses in a Chris Wallace or Brit Hume interview chair.
Not one word.
great point EH,
but this is what the left does...
They yell and complain when they don't like what is going on....but when the Right might actually do the same thing, they yell again that the Right is mean spirited...
Hilary and the Left will complain about Cheney on FOX, yet Hilary would never be interviewed by Hannity or Oreilly
It is interesting, isn't it, that Fox News omits Cheney's acknowledgement that he'd had a beer at lunch. It wasn't aired on the broadcast, it's not on the video on the Fox website, and it's not in the transcript on the website. But it is on the Whitehouse website.
Sounds biased to me.
Hannity and O'Reilly are both proven partisan liars. Why would anyone appear on either show? Would Cheney appear on the Franken show?
Where are all these lies?
Jim, stop using the liberal tactic of just saying people do things and not back it up with facts. Hannity and O'Reilly are not two of the highest rated news people in the USA for nothing...
Bill O'Reilly:
Many lies here:
http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/
and
Bill O'Reilly Lies
and
Bill vs Bill
Just two of many on Hannity:
Junk Journalism, The Case Against Sean Hannity
June 21, 2004 – Hannity pounds home one of his favorite lies, that Clinton was offered bin Laden by the Sudan. This story has been discredited over and over again. You see, what Clinton said, is that he urged the Saudis to take bin Laden from the Sudan, who had never offered him to the US. The 9-11 commission also found that such an offer never existed. However, that does not stop Sean from printing it in his book and repeating it every week to his viewers in the hope that the big lie sticks.
July 9, 2004 – Hannity accuses Kerry of being hypocritical for chastising American companies who outsource jobs overseas, while his Wife’s company, Heinz, outsources a high percentage of their jobs as well. Of course what Sean the Prevaricator neglected to tell you (in his defense, since he really isn’t a journalist he may have simply believed the White House talking points instead of actually doing research and checking facts) was that Heinz is a multinational corporation with 50 affiliates operating in 200 countries, employing over 38,900 workers worldwide. Heinz generally provides jobs based on where the product will eventually be sold.
More at TV (Lies) News
Sean Hannity Lies About FISA
Need more?
I don'thave time to look at the links, but the two Hannity things you pasted are very weak, so I'll assume the rest are too...
Well, sure, it's OK to lie about Clinton and Kerry because, well just because everybody does it.
Hannity: "If Osama Bin Laden calls the United States, they're [Democrats] saying we need to go spend 76 hours and get a court order before we can record that phone conversation-that's how asinine their logic is." - January 5, 2006 [This is a blatant lie. Nobody, much less Democrats, is saying this, for one reason because it is absurdly false.]
Hannity: "The only thing he [Kerry] seems consistent on is that, throughout the 19 years he was in the Senate, he voted to raise taxes consistently 350 times." [This is a disgraceful lie. It is a distortion of a phony statistic put out by the Bush campaign. The Bush campaign lists 350 of Kerry'’s votes for, quote, “higher taxes.” Almost all of these are votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged, such as a 1987 vote against a repeal of the “windfall profit” tax on oil. Taxes would have remained the same if his side had prevailed.
Bush'’s list even includes votes that Kerry cast in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts. On Bush's list, there’'s only one actual tax increase that Kerry voted for, which incidentally is counted twice. It’'s his vote for Clinton’s 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which raised taxes on the top 1% and cut taxes on people at the bottom, and was followed by eight years of unprecedented growth.]
Post a Comment