When a president disseminates information attempting to influence people toward a policy with which you disagree it's called propaganda. When he disseminates information to influence people toward a policy with which you agree it's called leadership.

When a president disseminates information attempting to influence people toward a policy with which you disagree it's called propaganda. When he disseminates information to influence people toward a policy with which you agree it's called leadership.

 

Shooter, it quits becoming info when it only goes to the friendly folks.

 

For the record, I am not against the President whom I voted for.

So this is a semantics issue? I'd be hard pressed to distinguish between an "anchor" and a "commentator" on Fox. Aren't they all commentators/anchors? If I'd have used MSNBC instead of Fox I would not have been smearing Brian Williams as I would have said "MSNBC" which would preclude Mr. Williams from most people's mind.

 

In this case, I "heard" it as O'Reilly/Hannity since they are the two biggest shows. As I said, it was reported that McClellan later verified that O'Reilly was one of the recipients.

 

So, I guess if your argument is that Brit Hume was impuned, I stand corrected. I think most read this and immediately thought of O'Reilly/Hannity but if you didn't, I've clarified my point. With that, how does that change the story that the two most watched Fox News guys were not speaking independently and were, in essence, puppets?

No, I think most of us who are really familiar with Fox News read "main anchors" and thought "main anchors" such as Britt Hume, who McClellan specifically excluded from his comment and Chris Wallace. This is not a question of semantics, but if you do not want to back up your assertion or admit a mistake, that is fine with me.

No, I think most of us who are really familiar with Fox News read "main anchors" and thought "main anchors" such as Britt Hume, who McClellan specifically excluded from his comment and Chris Wallace. This is not a question of semantics, but if you do not want to back up your assertion or admit a mistake, that is fine with me.

 

Lets make it official so you can address the real issue.

 

With all due apologies to any and all ANCHORS at Fox News, I apologize for lumping you in with the talking heads/puppets on a string ie Bill and Sean.

 

Now, are you going to tell me that if a liberal President ONLY gave official talking points to Keith Olbermann that you wouldn't have 38 threads on here already?

Lets make it official so you can address the real issue.

 

With all due apologies to any and all ANCHORS at Fox News, I apologize for lumping you in with the talking heads/puppets on a string ie Bill and Sean.

 

Now, are you going to tell me that if a liberal President ONLY gave official talking points to Keith Olbermann that you wouldn't have 38 threads on here already?

If you want to believe that Chris Matthews received no information from inside the Clinton White House or that Sidney Blumenthal refused calls from Dee Dee Myers and Hillary during the same period, who am I to shatter your delusion? :lol:

 

Maybe Hannity has heavily criticized George W. Bush's pathetic handling of the illegal immigration problem just to make things look good.

 

Those who find the revelation that the Bush White House sends position papers to Hannity, O'Reilly, and other commentators answer this question. If you were in the political commentary and the White House Press Secretary wanted to lay out the administration's policies for you, would you refuse to take the information? Would you also decline inside information from Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Is not access to political insiders a necessary part of being a good political commentator?

 

What Scott McClellan described is no different than what goes on in any administration and it is no different than the information flow that occurs between various members of Congress and their media allies. Based on the heavy Obama media bias, it looks to me like the Bush White House has done a dismal job in finding allies in the media.

 

Those who find the revelation that the Bush White House sends position papers to Hannity, O'Reilly, and other commentators answer this question. If you were in the political commentary and the White House Press Secretary wanted to lay out the administration's policies for you, would you refuse to take the information? Would you also decline inside information from Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Is not access to political insiders a necessary part of being a good political commentator?

 

If I'm Woodward or Bernstein, yes. However not for a political commentator who passes themselves off as having original thought and one who expresses opinions.

 

Lastly, laying out the policies can be done at a presser each and every day. That's not what was being shared.

I watch O'Reilly on a nightly basis. Generally, on each segment, he has a panelist which represents each side of the issue. Sounds pretty fair and balanced to me. During the past month, I decided to watch the MSNBC program with Keith Overman in order to see how it compares. This show reminds me of an elementary school playground. The panelists and host continually gleefully attack and poke fun of any conservative individual that happens to be in the news this week. There is hardly ever any opposing viewpoint. Overman also seems to have an obsession with O'Reilly as he continually takes quotes out of context and makes a major issue. Thank God the month is over and I can go back to O'Reilly. I challenge any of you O'Reilly haters to do what I have done. If you're basing your opinions of "The O'Reilly Factor" on hearsay, watch the show for a month. If you still don't like him, so be it.

According to her bio on Wikipedia, Linda Vester was never a Fox News Channnel "anchor." She hosted an afternoon news/talk show called "Dayside" before she left the network. She had previously worked as an anchor/correspondent for NBC News.

She was a host. The other one was an anchor, best I recall, but I can't remember which one.

I watch O'Reilly on a nightly basis. Generally, on each segment, he has a panelist which represents each side of the issue. Sounds pretty fair and balanced to me. During the past month, I decided to watch the MSNBC program with Keith Overman in order to see how it compares. This show reminds me of an elementary school playground. The panelists and host continually gleefully attack and poke fun of any conservative individual that happens to be in the news this week. There is hardly ever any opposing viewpoint. Overman also seems to have an obsession with O'Reilly as he continually takes quotes out of context and makes a major issue. Thank God the month is over and I can go back to O'Reilly. I challenge any of you O'Reilly haters to do what I have done. If you're basing your opinions of "The O'Reilly Factor" on hearsay, watch the show for a month. If you still don't like him, so be it.

 

Olbermann is very left. He makes no bones about it.

 

I'm not an O'Reilly guy. It seems like the person suckered into the role of the other side is nothing more than a punching bag for Bill. I usually can't hear what that person is saying . Of course, now I'm wondering if he's saying what he thinks or .......

If I'm Woodward or Bernstein, yes. However not for a political commentator who passes themselves off as having original thought and one who expresses opinions.

 

Lastly, laying out the policies can be done at a presser each and every day. That's not what was being shared.

How do you know what was being shared? You have a few words uttered by a former staffer appearing on a competitor's TV show. Scott McClellan is selling books and cashing in on his fleeting fame.

 

Political commentary is not just about original thought. Good political commentary requires first hand knowledge of the political process and personal relationships are a big part of the job. Uninformed political opinions are something that any of us can deliver. If you believe that Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly support Bush down the line, then you obviously do not watch either man's show very often. Hannity in particular has been very critical of John McCain as well.

She was a host. The other one was an anchor, best I recall, but I can't remember which one.

Fair enough. Although I watch Fox News far more than the other news networks, the amount of non-news and gossip on all of the so-called cable news networks annoys me and all of the networks mix news and commentary a little too closely. I prefer hearing my news from people who do not give obvious clues about their political opinions while delivering the news.

 

Sam Donaldson, back when he pulled some duty as an anchor, was one of the best, IMO. Dan Rather was the worst at delivering the news with a poker face and I was not surprised when he tried to go on air with forged documents just before the 2004 election.

 

I wish that Fox News and the other cable networks would eliminate the non-news programming and draw a brighter line between commentary and news, but Fox News' format has yielded strong ratings and the other networks are trying to keep pace. I keep hoping that CNN will lure Greta and Geraldo away from Fox.

How do you know what was being shared? You have a few words uttered by a former staffer appearing on a competitor's TV show. Scott McClellan is selling books and cashing in on his fleeting fame.

 

Political commentary is not just about original thought. Good political commentary requires first hand knowledge of the political process and personal relationships are a big part of the job. Uninformed political opinions are something that any of us can deliver. If you believe that Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly support Bush down the line, then you obviously do not watch either man's show very often. Hannity in particular has been very critical of John McCain as well.

 

 

This may surprise you but I do listen to Hannity - mainly his radio show as I'm driving through the midwest. He has been critical of the administration especially on the issue of immigration and border patrol. However, if there is one network that is friendly to the administration , its Fox. You don't have to walk lockstep with them to be considered friendly.

 

When it comes to intelligence with historical backing, KO is hands down #1. However, his hatred for the current administration derails him and the show. I watch it because its not what you hear on Fox and the majority of talk radio. It allows one to have perspective IMO. However, you have to be smart enough to read through the agenda and discern what is important and interesting.

 

IMO watching only Fox or only MSNBC is akin to not learning about other races or cultures. How can you discern what is good about your side if you don't know the other side's thinking?

McClellan said today that O'Reilly was not one that received the talking points.

McClellan said today that O'Reilly was not one that received the talking points.

I heard the McClellan interview on the radio and he ultimately ended up apologizing to O'Reilly.

I watch O'Reilly on a nightly basis. Generally, on each segment, he has a panelist which represents each side of the issue. Sounds pretty fair and balanced to me. During the past month, I decided to watch the MSNBC program with Keith Overman in order to see how it compares. This show reminds me of an elementary school playground. The panelists and host continually gleefully attack and poke fun of any conservative individual that happens to be in the news this week. There is hardly ever any opposing viewpoint. Overman also seems to have an obsession with O'Reilly as he continually takes quotes out of context and makes a major issue. Thank God the month is over and I can go back to O'Reilly. I challenge any of you O'Reilly haters to do what I have done. If you're basing your opinions of "The O'Reilly Factor" on hearsay, watch the show for a month. If you still don't like him, so be it.

 

I am going to try to take you up on your challenge. I will watch FoxNews during the times that I would normally watch CNN. Watching Greta Van Susteren at the moment.