My contention is that the Fox News approach to Obama tends to give a measure of credibility to some of the more radical attacks on him, such as the "birther" movement and the "Is he a closet Muslim?" question.

 

I don't remember any news outlets giving serious merit to the claims that Bush was responsible for 9/11 and the moveon.org comparison of him to a Nazi.

 

On the other hand, how many times over the last two years has the likes of Glenn Beck compared some of Obama's policies to those of Nazi Germany?

Glenn Beck isn't a news anchor or even a reporter. He's simply an entertainer, a bad one at that.

Glenn Beck isn't a news anchor or even a reporter. He's simply an entertainer, a bad one at that.

 

And as such, I've never been able to figure out why his show appears on Fox News rather than on plain old Fox.

Glenn Beck isn't a news anchor or even a reporter. He's simply an entertainer, a bad one at that.

 

And he would never describe himself as a news anchor or a reporter.

 

Katie Couric, Dan Rather, etc, however, all believe they're unbiased, objective news anchors, but realistically, they're almost as far left as Beck is right. They're just not so boisterous about it.

Was any news outlet giving serious merit to the anti-Bush claims, other than the notion that he may have misled the public about the presence of WMD in Iraq?

 

MSNBC. Giving guests a pulpit to make their charges is giving serious merit, isn't it?

MSNBC. Giving guests a pulpit to make their charges is giving serious merit, isn't it?

Were they discussing the charges, or advancing them?

Don't judge a book by its cover ... unfortunately, some in the Tea Party movement tend to do with with Obama.

 

As some the entire "tea Party" by it's cover

1) Comparing Obama's policies to those of Nazi Germany is not the same as calling the man Hitler, or at least calling him a Nazi, as happened with Bush.

 

2) I'm not a huge Beck watcher, but it seems what he generally does is show how the justification for Obama's policies coming from liberal leaders both inside and outside his administration draw reasoning and support from many of the same sources that were used to support the policies of tyrannical regimes such as those of Hitler, Stalin & Mao.

 

You mean much in the same way I did in Post #57?

I had wondered who would be the first one to claim the Republicans wins yesterday was based on race.

Would you like to list Olbermann's "bogus" claims?

I am not attempting to answer the question here, but where MSNBC started really losing credibility is when they put Olbermann and Matthews together to host their prime election coverage a few cycles back.

I had wondered who would be the first one to claim the Republicans wins yesterday was based on race.

Not sure since this article appeared before they even won

I am not attempting to answer the question here, but where MSNBC started really losing credibility is when they put Olbermann and Matthews together to host their prime election coverage a few cycles back.

No argument there ... I like Olbermann, but he has lost sight of when to put down the commentator/advocate hat and be a newsman. Matthews has drifted that way, too.

 

Scarborough would be a great choice as a balance, but I'm guessing he opted not to do the show.

No argument there ... I like Olbermann, but he has lost sight of when to put down the commentator/advocate hat and be a newsman. Matthews has drifted that way, too.

 

Scarborough would be a great choice as a balance, but I'm guessing he opted not to do the show.

 

Morning Joe is the only show I can watch on a regular basis.

Were they discussing the charges, or advancing them?

 

I would say they were advancing them when they treated them seriously. Serious questions and every indication that they bought in to them as there were no challenges issued. Happened on a regular basis during the previous administration. Nothing new here except the charges.

I would say they were advancing them when they treated them seriously. Serious questions and every indication that they bought in to them as there were no challenges issued. Happened on a regular basis during the previous administration. Nothing new here except the charges.

Which charges? Bush and 9/11? Or something else?

No argument there ... I like Olbermann, but he has lost sight of when to put down the commentator/advocate hat and be a newsman. Matthews has drifted that way, too.

 

Scarborough would be a great choice as a balance, but I'm guessing he opted not to do the show.

You like Olbermann and it seems like you at least did like Matthews but dislike Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity. Very interesting considering they're all peas in the same pod.