Jump to content


Head of Fox News makes Obama/Osama joke


Rune
 Share

Recommended Posts

(cnn)A Nevada Democratic presidential debate that was to have been co-hosted by Fox News Network was canceled by organizers, in part because of a joke by Fox Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes about presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama.

 

Democrats canceled the debate Friday. They said a comment by Ailes during a Thursday night speech to a group of radio and television news directors indicated the network was biased against their party.

 

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said, deliberately confusing the Illinois senator's name with that of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. "I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

 

Even before Ailes' remarks, there was intense pressure from the liberal group MoveOn.org to cancel the August event as part of its boycott of Fox.

 

Ailes has served as a campaign adviser to Republican candidates, including former Presidents Reagan and Bush.

 

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards dropped out of the debate Thursday, citing, in part, Fox's participation.

 

Fox News Vice President David Rhodes responded to the debate cancellation with a written statement saying MoveOn.org owns the Democratic Party

 

I know some on this board will point to the source and claim its the left wing media damaging a rival but the quotes are taken directly from context.

 

Everyone knew Roger Ailes ties to Republican leadership but honestly if you're going to lead an organization claiming to be a straight news source shouldn't you hope to damper some of your own rhetoric?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah some of my Republican friends have already made this joke. It's really cool being delusional I guess.

 

But, dood, their names sound alike! Obama. Osama.

 

There's, like, a one letter difference.

 

:mischief

 

Yeah and Obama's a Democrat! And we all know Osama would vote Democrat right?!?!?! RIGHT?! :shifty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah some of my Republican friends have already made this joke. It's really cool being delusional I guess.

 

But, dood, their names sound alike! Obama. Osama.

 

There's, like, a one letter difference.

 

:mischief

 

Yeah and Obama's a Democrat! And we all know Osama would vote Democrat right?!?!?! RIGHT?! :shifty

 

They should run on that platform.

 

"A vote for democrats is a vote for terror!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah some of my Republican friends have already made this joke. It's really cool being delusional I guess.

 

But, dood, their names sound alike! Obama. Osama.

 

There's, like, a one letter difference.

 

:mischief

 

Yeah and Obama's a Democrat! And we all know Osama would vote Democrat right?!?!?! RIGHT?! :shifty

 

They should run on that platform.

 

"A vote for democrats is a vote for terror!"

 

Don't kid yourself, I'm sure some of them will do just that. Not in so many words perhaps...

 

 

 

and back to the article, I'm not sure if this part is valid or not:

Fox News Vice President David Rhodes responded to the debate cancellation with a written statement saying MoveOn.org owns the Democratic Party.

but even if that's the way you feel, blurting that out as the VP of a major news network ain't the way to go about making you look "fair and balanced".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

 

I disagree with you. MSNBC is not biased at all. Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough are two big conservatives that have their own show on MSNBC. Granted, Olberman is a complete lefty. But overall I think it is balanced. I consider myself left of center (but not totally liberal) and watch Scarborough every night. I often disagree with him, but he's very intelligent and makes reasonable arguments. His arguments are based on true conservative political philosophy and he is extremely consistent. Most of the pundits on Fox, however, make knee-jerk Republican arguments. They simply agree with what Bush and the Republican party says, no matter how consistent it is with conservative philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

 

I disagree with you. MSNBC is not biased at all. Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough are two big conservatives that have their own show on MSNBC.

 

:lol

 

Hannity and Colmes gives Fox News a liberal voice, does that make them unbiased?

 

Anyway, re: Obama:

 

If his father's Muslim and race/religion is always a tremendous issue for the office of the President (rightly or wrongly) why isn't stuff like this in play? Sure playing the "name game" isn't particularly intelligent, but it's not as if these allusions are completely off the wall.

 

Is comparing him to a terroirst fair? No, but it's not fair to compare the armed forces to a collection of high-school drop-outs either. Stupid stuff is said when partisanship comes into the picture and Obama has a plethora of questions to answer, and just because he's black and part muslim doesn't mean that those questions should be out of bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

 

 

Um, what were you reading when Kerry made that comment about the troops? He got absolutely destroyed by the news media, CNN and MSNBC included. Foxnews could barely hide it's glee that a dem could be undermining the impending mid-term election. His presidential bid was declared officially over. Where in the world are you pulling this argument from?

 

And nobody has ever refuted the point prinmemito made. CNN has absolutely no liberal commentators. MSNBC has numerous conservatives to its one liberal. Foxnews has zero liberal to its multitude of conservatives.

 

 

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

 

I disagree with you. MSNBC is not biased at all. Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough are two big conservatives that have their own show on MSNBC.

 

:lol

 

Hannity and Colmes gives Fox News a liberal voice, does that make them unbiased?

 

Anyway, re: Obama:

 

If his father's Muslim and race/religion is always a tremendous issue for the office of the President (rightly or wrongly) why isn't stuff like this in play? Sure playing the "name game" isn't particularly intelligent, but it's not as if these allusions are completely off the wall.

 

Is comparing him to a terroirst fair? No, but it's not fair to compare the armed forces to a collection of high-school drop-outs either. Stupid stuff is said when partisanship comes into the picture and Obama has a plethora of questions to answer, and just because he's black and part muslim doesn't mean that those questions should be out of bounds.

 

Alan Colmes has admitted he is not a liberal. And how is it ok for Hannity to get to hand pick his debate partner? Maybe in the world where everyone to the left of Limbaugh is a liberal, this idea works.

 

Your defense of this guy is pretty weak. How are these allusions even remotely relevant? Your point makes no sense. Are you saying it's proper or improper to use race and religion as a consideration? Or are you saying it is improperly done so we shouldn't get mad when it is done?

 

And what does Kerry making a foolish remark have to do with the fairness of comparing him to a terrorist? Are you basically admitted that the comment made by him was just as stupid and partisan as what Kerry said? Look back at how republiacns reacted to that. Don't tell me Kerry got off and now people shouldn't be upset with Ailes.

 

Btw, here is the White House blasts Kerry for Iraq remarks thread

 

http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...68546&st=25

 

Im sure the two of you were making freedom of speech arguments and "it happens in partisan politics, no big deal" comments in that thread right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately what you're all wrong about is that the pundits aren't what determine if a station is biased or not. A show like scarborough or chris matthews are supposed to be slanted b/c theyre basically editorial shows. Where the liberal/conservative slant is dangerous and unacceptable is whent he regular news is slanted. For example, Fox has brit hume and cnn has wolf blitzer. I dont get my news from the internet, i usually watch it on TV and anyone who knows anything about political theory can tell that when either of these gentlemen is tlaking about news stories, their ideological slant can be seen clearly. And it isnt just them, next time you watch the news look for it. So the pundits argument is irrelevant. Furthermore, i don't know what news you're watching but when Kerry made his 'botched joke'. CNN and MSNBc presented it as a botched joke about bush that offended members of the military and their families. Fox reported it as just a statement made that offended the military. Calling it a botched joke about Bush is a liberal slant b/c it gives Kerry the democrat, the benfit of a doubt. Not saying it was a joke at all is a conservative slant.

 

Furthemore, it isn't about how republicans responded to Kerry's remark, as I stated above its how certain media groups portray the same set of facts differently. In my opinion, the Kerry statement and the Obama joke are just stupid partisan remarks, that should be criticized and should notn have been made b/c of political consequences. But that doesn't change the fact that the liberal media outlets use more condemning language for this than for kery. and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following your argument.

 

I too realized my argument sounds like a ramble, I apologize, I typed that up while i was doing some work. My argument is the measure of a media entity's political slant/bias is not measured by the number of pundits it has that lean a certain way, rather it is measured by the slants in their supposedly unbiased news coverage.

 

I have no problem w O'Reilly being conservative or Chirs Matthews being liberal. My problem is when the anchors and reporters add political slant to the straight news stories, which anyone that has training in political theory can pick up on such slanted statements quite easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following your argument.

 

I too realized my argument sounds like a ramble, I apologize, I typed that up while i was doing some work. My argument is the measure of a media entity's political slant/bias is not measured by the number of pundits it has that lean a certain way, rather it is measured by the slants in their supposedly unbiased news coverage.

 

I have no problem w O'Reilly being conservative or Chirs Matthews being liberal. My problem is when the anchors and reporters add political slant to the straight news stories, which anyone that has training in political theory can pick up on such slanted statements quite easily.

 

Gotcha.

 

Give me an example or two of political slant to the straight news stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following your argument.

 

I too realized my argument sounds like a ramble, I apologize, I typed that up while i was doing some work. My argument is the measure of a media entity's political slant/bias is not measured by the number of pundits it has that lean a certain way, rather it is measured by the slants in their supposedly unbiased news coverage.

 

I have no problem w O'Reilly being conservative or Chirs Matthews being liberal. My problem is when the anchors and reporters add political slant to the straight news stories, which anyone that has training in political theory can pick up on such slanted statements quite easily.

 

Gotcha.

 

Give me an example or two of political slant to the straight news stories.

 

The example I gave which of course F-M will disagree is the Kerry 'you'll end up in Iraq statement'.

 

Whne I watched it on CNN it was presented as John Kerry makign a stupid mistake by botching a joke about Bush and offending some military members and their families.

Fox presented the same story as Kerry made a statement portraying service men and women as people who are uneducated.

 

Seems similar, but an unbiased way of saying it would be, Some servicemen and women are complaining that a statement Kerry made during...(whatever the occasion was) was offensive to them.

 

Now I dont read online news, I usually read the paper or watch TV so these aren;t direct quotes. But if you watch newscasts and listen attentively you'll see these slants. The CNN slant gives Kerry the benfit of the doubt that the joke was indeed about Bush, but he botched it. The fox slant assumes the joke was directed at the service men and women.

 

Now when I watch O'Reilly I expect to hear the conservative side, or when I watch Chris Matthews I expect to see a liberal slant. But thats ok, thats what those shows are for. But I want my newscasts to be direct.

 

Another example is CNN says suicide bombers, Fox says homicide bombers. CNN says insurgents, Fox says terrorists. Technically both sucide bomber and homicide bomber correctly describe these people. But which one to chose is a slant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following your argument.

 

I too realized my argument sounds like a ramble, I apologize, I typed that up while i was doing some work. My argument is the measure of a media entity's political slant/bias is not measured by the number of pundits it has that lean a certain way, rather it is measured by the slants in their supposedly unbiased news coverage.

 

I have no problem w O'Reilly being conservative or Chirs Matthews being liberal. My problem is when the anchors and reporters add political slant to the straight news stories, which anyone that has training in political theory can pick up on such slanted statements quite easily.

 

Gotcha.

 

Give me an example or two of political slant to the straight news stories.

 

The example I gave which of course F-M will disagree is the Kerry 'you'll end up in Iraq statement'.

 

Whne I watched it on CNN it was presented as John Kerry makign a stupid mistake by botching a joke about Bush and offending some military members and their families.

Fox presented the same story as Kerry made a statement portraying service men and women as people who are uneducated.

 

Seems similar, but an unbiased way of saying it would be, Some servicemen and women are complaining that a statement Kerry made during...(whatever the occasion was) was offensive to them.

 

Now I dont read online news, I usually read the paper or watch TV so these aren;t direct quotes. But if you watch newscasts and listen attentively you'll see these slants. The CNN slant gives Kerry the benfit of the doubt that the joke was indeed about Bush, but he botched it. The fox slant assumes the joke was directed at the service men and women.

 

Now when I watch O'Reilly I expect to hear the conservative side, or when I watch Chris Matthews I expect to see a liberal slant. But thats ok, thats what those shows are for. But I want my newscasts to be direct.

 

Another example is CNN says suicide bombers, Fox says homicide bombers. CNN says insurgents, Fox says terrorists. Technically both sucide bomber and homicide bomber correctly describe these people. But which one to chose is a slant.

 

1. You're wrong on the Kerry CNN argument. Here is the proof that CNN, on numerous occasions, used the Foxnews interpretation. Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews, and CNN took that approach.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611010004

 

In addition, a number of CNN reports that I saw after Ailes' comment presented the supposed defense that he meant it as a joke for Bush.

 

2. Your Chris Mathews point only reinforces what I said earlier. Yes, if you classify liberal as everything to the left of Bill OReilly, you would be right. But that is only true for the type of people who listen to what OReilly says. Matthews is not a liberal. Yes he worked for Carter, but he is not a liberal. Watch his show. He fries attacks all the time. He compared Bin Laden to Michael Moore. How is that liberal.

 

 

 

3. I love the whole suicide bombers vs. homocide bombers stuff. Don't conservatives rail against political correctness? I guess political correctness is ok in that context? Everyone knows that a suicide bomber is a bad person. So why do we need to alter the lexicon?

 

4. What happend when CBS put out the story on Bush's national guard service that was eventually undermined? Rather resigned and the network apologized right? So how has Foxnews gotten away with putting a story on Obama and the school in Indonesia he went to possibly being a fundamentalist Islamic one? Why no apology or punishment after that flimsy baseless crap was proven false? Where is the outrage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

Knuclehead the joke was about Bush and that was really taken out of context for malicious political gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

Knuclehead the joke was about Bush and that was really taken out of context for malicious political gain.

 

I'm glad you can read Kerry's mind.

 

F_M, the homicide v. suicide bomber point is still an example of the slant, which you didn't disprove in your post. You gave a reason why you think its conservative hypocrisy, but that doesn't change the fact that its slanted. Not only that but 'homicide bomber' was a word used I believed by Dr. Jenkins in his research on terrorism and thats how it caught on.

 

I edited my post, because I was going to contest the is Matthews liberal question. The problem when deciding if a person is a liberal or a conservative is very hard to do because of the subjectivity of it. To one person he may not be liberal, but to another he may be. The truth is he is on MSNBC as a liberal commentator. Now, some people may feel that a show is best served by attacking everyone on the show in a more seemingly objective way, which is what Scarborough does as well. Others may rather use the O'Reilly approach, where he attacks from an idelogical viewpoint. Regardless it changes nothing. Editorial type shows are not relevant in this discussion. Your source about Dobbs does not disprove my point, b/c of A) the source its coming from and B) one example from the internet does not alone negate the truth, I challenge you to watch for the next few days and be objective and you'd be surprised in what you see. And finally the suice v. homicide bombers debate shows the slant quite clearly, the hypocrisy of it is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

Knuclehead the joke was about Bush and that was really taken out of context for malicious political gain.

 

I am certainly no conservative but my first interpretation of Kerry's statement was that he was trying to say the uneducated get sent over to war. But I can see how he was making a joke about Bush. In reality, I think it could be interpreted either way. Not sure that interpreting it one way over the other makes it more or less liberal. That's just my take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

Knuclehead the joke was about Bush and that was really taken out of context for malicious political gain.

 

I am certainly no conservative but my first interpretation of Kerry's statement was that he was trying to say the uneducated get sent over to war. But I can see how he was making a joke about Bush. In reality, I think it could be interpreted either way. Not sure that interpreting it one way over the other makes it more or less liberal. That's just my take on it.

 

 

Interpreting it as against Bush gives Kerry the benefit of a doubt, the other way it doesn't. The truth is theres no way to know what he was really thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but CNN and MSNBC are completely unbiased and straight news. Its only OK to exercise your freedom of speech if your joke offends the armed forces but it was intended allegedly to be about Bush. Its also ok to refer to Bush or Cheney as evil, greedy, or similar to Hitler or Nazi's. Yet you can't make a joke, god forbid, about a democrat. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, nothing wrong with what he said. Of course fox is conservative, but CNN and MSNBC are liberal .American media for the most part is terrible. And, I must add, I don't have a problem with Barack Obama. Too bad they didnt make a Hitlery joke

Knuclehead the joke was about Bush and that was really taken out of context for malicious political gain.

 

I am certainly no conservative but my first interpretation of Kerry's statement was that he was trying to say the uneducated get sent over to war. But I can see how he was making a joke about Bush. In reality, I think it could be interpreted either way. Not sure that interpreting it one way over the other makes it more or less liberal. That's just my take on it.

 

 

Interpreting it as against Bush gives Kerry the benefit of a doubt, the other way it doesn't. The truth is theres no way to know what he was really thinking.

 

Right. So this means that if you interpret it against Bush you give Kerry the benefit of the doubt and if you interpret it not against Bush you don't give him the benefit of the doubt and he comes across as a jerk. This means that FOX interpreted in a conservative slanted way. If any news organization really would have wanted to interpret this in a balanced way it would have said both were possibilities and left the conclusion to the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...