It’s a good thing we have you around to tell other people what they really believe.

Oh, and by the way… Olbermann, just this week, said on his show that he “sometimes does opinion,” but mostly presents the facts. And has said numerous times that he’s not biased, he’s “just right.” Your selective outrage is hardly suprising… but thankfully, it’s hardly convincing either.

Last time I checked Beck claimed to be independent and a “libertarian” – every time he says “Democrats” he has to add “and Republicans too” in order to further his faux non-partisan independence. He’s a conservative down to the bone.

O’Reilly claims somehow he’s independent too by calling himself “a traditionalist” (which basically is conservatism with another name) – not mentioning that he’s a registered Republican: http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/images/registration1.jpg O’Reilly is a conservative down to the bone.

Olbermann? He has called himself a liberal on air multiple times.

LOL, the people here claiming it’s apples and oranges are looking at one example of the Bush admin’s criticism of the media (a tree) and ignoring the forest. Silly…

I though for sure that would be a big headline here.

Obama lost this battle, I hope he moves on now. The game today was a play too foul.

Brit Hume anchored. He is a conservative, not non-partisan. He writes for the conservative Weekly Standard.

>So, I ask again, what was the catalyst for this attack on FOX?

About every single thing Fox News has done since 1996.

All three networks to opinion after 5, what’s the big deal? I don’t think FOX has tried to hide the fact that Beck, O’Relly, Hannity or Greta are opinion. Hell, it’s not like any of those three were ANCHORING the presidential elections.

So, I ask again, what was the catalyst for this attack on FOX? Was it one particular story where FOX edited some footage or was it when Beck showed VanJones to be a truther? Or, was it when the opinion people started to point out all of the problems with the healthcare bill?

I still believe that the entire fight is BS and the WH is just trying to distract from their own problems.

Of course, the Times kept it’s “Bush illegally spying on Americans” story under wraps until after the 04′ elections in hopes of currying favor with the Republicans, but alas to no avail.

I guess Obama will have to check on the Republican playbook of planting faux reporters in news conferences, paying “independent columnists” to write favorable stories of their policies, staging mock news conferences with FEMA employees, planting ex-military officers with vested interests as “independent” war advisors on news networks, etc.

Obama’s guys need to call in Ari Fleischer on how to warn people “to watch what they say”, they’re just new to this game and need a little help from the propaganda pros!

Opinion. The same argument Fox News uses in its defense against that claim.

How dare the President get upset when a network edits and falsely reports what he said!

And Olbermann is disgusting.

This is apples and oranges.

Specific examples given by the White House compared to the b.s. of what the White House is doing these days.

Why are you wasting the bandwidth with this nonsense?

1) As I mentioned in another thread today, pointedly going after a news network for a SPECIFIC bit of bias (as your examples show) is part of the normal back-and-forth between the White House and the media. The difference between the current attacks, and the previous ones, is that this is a blanket attack, with no specific focus, no specific “outrage,” just an unfocused effort to silence ALL criticism. There is a big difference.

2) Yet again, video evidence and logic collide, proving Olbermann will do and say anything, despite the overt and blatant hypocrisy contained within.

Here’s another example from this week…

Olbermann recently met with Obama… yet, back in 2006 he said the following on his program after Hannity (and others) met with Bush:

“The born again and the born talkers: The President takes 90 minutes worth of your taxpayer dollars to entertain right-wing radio yack-ers in the Oval Office,”

and…

“In January, the President consulted with 13 former Secretaries of State and Defense about Iraq, spoke for 40 minutes, allowed discussion for 5 to 10 minutes. The figures for the 5 conservative radio show people is double that. Is there an explanation of that that does not include the President using the Oval Office for purely political purposes and even indirectly for political fund-raising?”

Why he feels it’s acceptable to be such a gigantic hypocrite, IMO says a lot about how he views his audience. Someone who respected their audience would feel self-conscious about this stuff… but KO knows that the audience is just going to eat it up because it’s so pro-Liberal, it doesn’t need to make sense. In other words, KO thinks his audience is too stupid to notice or care.