3/21/09 11:50 PM

'Did You Just Say Probably Not?'

J$P Video! Shep and Mark Lamont Hill revved up about Wright:


From Studio B, April 28 2008




Rob
So sad to see the glazed over look in the eyes and the diluted reasoning.
Very cultish.
April 28, 2008, 5:21:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Shep just asked common sense questions and followed up on the answers he got. No attempts at finessing the subject or talking over it.
April 28, 2008, 5:22:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply


S. Smith
Wright believes the US govt. invented AIDS for the purposes of exterminating black people yet the only evidence he gives is the Tuskegee Experiment and a reference to some book that I'll bet makes no such claim! And this "rev" "professor" clearly meant to say, before he was forced to clarify the issue, that he leaves open the possibility that the US government (i.e., the white people who run the US govt.) are morally capable of doing such a thing.
April 28, 2008, 6:06:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Missy
This Lamont character talks so fast I didn't even hear the "probably not" response. I'm glad Shep was paying close attention.
April 28, 2008, 6:55:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
Fox's continued obsession with this story speaks to their bias, but not much else. Was Fox News outraged over John McCain's seeking of Falwell or Hagee's endorsement. Falwell basically claimed that America invited the 9/11 attacks for tolerating homosexuality and abortion?
 
But hey, that's not an outrage, he's a Republican and so that's ok.
April 28, 2008, 7:24:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
Like conservative-Republican columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote about Fox, "It does lean to the right, primarily in its opinion programming but also in its story selection (which is fine by me) and elsewhere."
 
It's pretty easy for someone to believe that a news organization is biased AGAINST them, because people like to believe they have the deck stacked against them. But it's fairly difficult to believe that a news channel is actually in the tank for you unless it's actually true.
April 28, 2008, 7:31:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


VinceP1974
Uh oh.. attack of the Anti-Fox Turing Machines!
April 28, 2008, 7:36:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Since when did Jonah Golberg become the arbiter of fairness on the airwaves? Maybe we should take Ken Allard's opinion of MSNBC as gospel. Or Glenn Beck's view of CNN? Is that what you're suggesting, Melissa?
 
What is it, some sort of rule that once every six months, somebody has to come here and quote Jonah Golberg? Unless it's the same person each time...
April 28, 2008, 7:43:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


VinceP1974
I'm glad Shep didn't let that idiot get away with his stupid (paraphrase) "The Govt could have possibly engineered HIV" comment.
April 28, 2008, 7:43:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
I will Smith kudos for one thing. Fox News generally does not do a lot of one-on-one interviews with Democrats. And certainly not unless a Democrat is being attacked for something and therefore this is their response.
 
Republicans, on the other hand, are brought on to talk about their books and ideas. Not the same for Democrats unless they're a major politician.
 
That's the key difference on Fox. Republicans are brought to discuss their ideas. Democrats are brought to defend themselves from attacks. If the Wright controversy weren't going on, Smith wouldn't be interviewing a Democrat.
 
Just think about it. How often do you see O'Reilly or H&C bring on a Democratic or liberal guest simply to talk about a new book they've written or an idea they want to discuss? Phil Donahue is probably the only one in the last two months. It Almost never happens. They're usually only brought on if they've been accused of something.
 
Prediction for tonight. The number of Republicans on H&C will outnumber the Dems by a 2-1 to margin, at least, and the Wright issue will dominate at least three segments of the show.
 
Care to make a wager, Johnny?
April 28, 2008, 7:45:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
That's completely illogical, Melissa. Because any person believes any thing most certainly does not make it "true".
April 28, 2008, 7:46:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> Fox News generally does not do a lot of one-on-one interviews with Democrats.
 
Yeah? How many did they do today?
 
> How often do you see O'Reilly or H&C bring on a Democratic or liberal guest simply to talk about a new book they've written or an idea they want to discuss? Phil Donahue is probably the only one in the last two months. It Almost never happens. They're usually only brought on if they've been accused of something.
 
Well just off the top of my head: Ed Begley was brought on to talk about his book on green living, and that was in the last week or two. Must you make stuff up?
 
Ooh counting the guests. This is all starting to have a deju vu feel about it.
April 28, 2008, 7:47:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
"What is it, some sort of rule that once every six months, somebody has to come here and quote Jonah Golberg?"
 
Ace of Spades, if you prefer:
"Fred Thompson should have enjoyed a fairly warm reception at conservative-leaning, Reagan-revering Fox."
 
And then there's Debra Saunders:
 
"AS FOX NEWS celebrates its 10-year anniversary, media watchers should appreciate how Fox, which tilts right, has provided balance to major new operations such as CNN and the New York Times, which tilt left. "
 
I'm curious Johnny, here's an objective way of measuring it.
 
Here's the Fox News Channel's regular panel on the Special Report
 
Kondracke
Barnes
Krauthammer
Hume
 
Hume admits he's a conservative, and so do Krauthammer and Barnes. I've never heard Kondracke say he's a liberal, or even a conservative Dem.
 
So, feel free to explain how this is a "fair and balanced" political panel. If you can, you win the debate. If you can't, it means you know Fox is biased.
April 28, 2008, 7:50:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
"Well just off the top of my head: Ed Begley was brought on to talk about his book on green living, and that was in the last week or two."
 
That's it, that's the only person you can name? I love you said "the last week or two". O'Reilly and H&C have a combined 10-12 guests a night. And in the last two weeks, you can only pinpoint a single Democrat?
 
Not very convincing.
 
This is the entire problem with people like you Johnny. You're not an idiot. You're simply being dishonest. You know Fox is bias and that it's guest list tilts to the right, but you're so obsessed with the idea that the rest of the media is liberal that you refuse to admit Fox is biased in your favor.
April 28, 2008, 7:52:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I win the debate because you just didn't tell the truth. Krauthammer is not part of the regular panel. He's a fill-in. Neither is Hume, he's the host and does not give opinions. The third panel member is actually Mara Liason from NPR.
 
Bzzt. You lose, but thanks for playing.
April 28, 2008, 7:52:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> That's it, that's the only person you can name?
 
Off the top of my head I at least answered your question. I'm waiting for you to answer mine: hoe many one-on-one Democrats have been interviewed on Fox today? We're waiting for your answer.
April 28, 2008, 7:54:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Oh by the way, I'll name Ed Rendell and Terry McCauliffe, both of whom have been on Fox lately, alone, and multiple times. But back to your claim. How many Democrats were interviewed on Fox today? We're still waiting.
April 28, 2008, 7:55:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ttc
Fox's continued obsession with this story speaks to their bias, but not much else. Was Fox News outraged over John ?
 
I noticed that MSNBC (and CNN?) also televised the Rev. Wright appearance at the National Press Club. Apparently FNC is not the only "obsessed" network.
 
McCain's seeking of Falwell or Hagee's endorsement. Falwell basically claimed that America invited the 9/11 attacks for tolerating homosexuality and abortion
 
Melissa: You must have forgot to watch TV one day; Falwell died last year!
April 28, 2008, 7:55:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> You must have forgot to watch TV one day; Falwell died last year!
 
LOL! Gotta get new talking points!!
April 28, 2008, 7:56:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
"I win the debate because you just didn't tell the truth. Krauthammer is not part of the regular panel."
 
You're wrong, it's as simple as that. He is a regular member of the panel. The best argument you can make is that he's only there 50% of the time.
 
Additionally, the fact that you claimed he's a "fill in" also supports my argument. Know why?
 
Liasson is supposedly a liberal, despite admitting publicly that she's formerly a registered Republican and WAS when she joined Fox News. So when Liasson isn't on the panel, why would they replace her with Krauthammer, who is admittedly a conservative?
 
In a word?
 
Bias.
 
"hoe many one-on-one Democrats have been interviewed on Fox today."
 
Oh, I'm the one who has to provide documentation of this, right? You're the one with a website established to claim Fox isn't biased. You're the one with something to prove.
 
So prove it. Count up all the Dems and Reps today.
 
I'll count up the Republicans on O'Reilly and H&C tonight. I suggest you do the same for the Dems.
April 28, 2008, 7:58:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
"Melissa: You must have forgot to watch TV one day; Falwell died last year!"
 
Wow, so because Falwell is dead, that means he was any less of a bigot and a fanatic?
 
Gotta love Republican logic.
 
By the way, you're making a fool out of yourself for using that argument, because your precious Fox News used that EXACT argument after the Foley debacle, when all the Fox hosts were running around whining about "Gerry Studds", who is dead.
 
Gotcha.
April 28, 2008, 8:00:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> formerly a registered Republican and WAS when she joined Fox News.  
 
Another falsehood. Quote her where she says she was a Republican when she joined Fox. You are racking up an impressive list of falsities in just a few minutes time.
 
> Oh, I'm the one who has to provide documentation of this, right?
 
That's right. You're the one who said it almost never happens, and your reluctance to back up your charge shows that, as suspected, you made it up. Exposed again.
 
You can count the Republicans tonight (better include Greta too) but don't post it in this thread. It has already gotten way off the topic of what the post is about. If you want an easier job, try counting the Republican on Countdown.
April 28, 2008, 8:02:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
I'm still waiting for an answer about why conservative columnists keep mistaking Fox for their personal mouthpiece. But I don't expect one. Your tactic seems to be to ignore the other person's argument, and then demand documentation which you yourself already presumably have, since you tape Fox.
April 28, 2008, 8:03:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
"MT had a telephone conversation with Liasson on August 14, 2001, in which she emphatically denied having told FOX News she was a Republican before being hired for FOX News Sunday (a charge relayed by FAIR), but confirmed that she was at one time a registered Republican (but is no longer)."
 
http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofileprinterfriendly.php?personID=108
 
"That's right. You're the one who said it almost never happens, and your reluctance to back up your charge shows that, as suspected, you made it up. Exposed again."
 
No, actually, your reluctance to provide videos showing I'm wrong, is, in fact, proof that you're making it up.
 
I've said I'm willing to post all the names tonight for H&C and O'Reilly, but it looks like you don't want me to do that.
 
Wonder why?
 
"You can count the Republicans tonight (better include Greta too) but don't post it in this thread. It has already gotten way off the topic of what the post is about."
 
ROFL. That's the funniest thing I've ever seen. You're basically admitting you know what the outcome is going to be so you don't want me to post it because it'll make a fool out of you.
 
That's hillarious. I love your reference to Countdown, too. "Keith is biased so we can be biased too!"
 
[remainder of message deleted for rules violations: personal attack, name-calling]

Edited By Siteowner
April 28, 2008, 8:07:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> confirmed that she was at one time a registered Republican (but is no longer)
 
So where does she say she was a Republican when Fox hired her? Or even when NPR hired her? She doesn't. Another example of claiming something without evidence.
 
I demand documentation from people who make up stuff and claim it's true. The burden is on the accuser. If you can't document what you insist is true, I can only conclude, from the other stuff you said that is false, that you're making this up too. You said Fox hardly ever does one-on-ones with Democrats, and yet you can't even say what Democrats they interviewed today. That's called making it up! And readers can draw their own conclucions. Once again, this is all not relevant to this thread so let's leave it at that.
April 28, 2008, 8:07:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


VinceP1974
Why hasn't one typically Catholic-hating leftist directly quoted the alledged anti-Catholic statement that Hagee made?
April 28, 2008, 8:09:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
[message deleted for rules violation: off topic]

Edited By Siteowner
April 28, 2008, 8:09:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Melissa
http://www.catholicleague.org/chatterbox.php
 
The Catholic League is chaired by Republicans, not Democrats. So there's a good place to start.
April 28, 2008, 8:11:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
It looks like Saunders is saying the other cable channels tilt left. Does her word suffice as being gospel there as well?
April 28, 2008, 8:13:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
OK, let's restrict this discussion to the topic of the post. There are other threads where discussing other cable news biases are appropriate but not this one. I will wield my mighty axe if necessary!
April 28, 2008, 8:19:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Johnny, don't you understand? Melissa made a claim, and we must assume that she's correct... because, um... she made that claim.
 
It's YOU who have to prove her wrong!
 
And while you're at it, I'll make some claims:
 
Bill O'Reilly can fly.
Sean Hannity has monkeys locked in his basement.
Alan Colmes was at one time a lizard, but met a magical troll, and was transformed into a human.
 
I've made the claim... now (I guess) you have the burden to prove me wrong.
 
Oy vey.
April 28, 2008, 8:47:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Missy
MELISSA,
 
(yes, I'm screaming, but to get your attention).
 
You are correct - Rev. Wright has been on TV constantly - in fact, that's all that's been on all day.  
 
But guess what? I've had neither Fox nor CNN on at all today. Sorry to break this to you, but MSNBC has been on Rev. Wright coverage non stop, all day today! And with the exception of Ed Schultz (your side's equivalent of El Rushbo), the entire punditry believes that Wright is out to torpedo Obama's campaign.
 
So knock it off with the Fox bashing. BTW, one of the pundits on MSNBC (sorry - can't remember who) stated that CNN aired Wright's Sunday speech THREE TIMES in it's entirety, thereby nixing the idea that he was taken out of context.
April 28, 2008, 9:01:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ttc
Melissa: I will give you this one (and this is as good a thread as any to get this gripe off my mind).:
 
Many of the early prime and prime shows on Fox are dominated by three political analysts who appear almost like clockwork: Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris and Karl Rove, which as a loyal FNC viewer I find redundant and disturbing.
 
Even though Dick Morris' basic politics are liberal, during this campaign his hated of Hillary has made him a true "one trick pony." Karl Rove is very good on election nights where his knowledge of the political tendencies of cities, towns and counties in invaluable but he really is predictable otherwise.
 
Then there is "Mr. Speaker," "Mr. Speaker," Mr. Speaker." Unfortunately in addition to Fox prime time, Gingrich is all over Hannity's radio show. He is way, way, way overexposed.
 
Kirsten Powers, Juan Williams and Bob Beckel are OK but the three above mentioned analysts seem to dominate Fox in this election season.
April 28, 2008, 9:13:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Grammie
Missy, do you agree with me?
 
I think that the reason for the almost overwhelming coverage of The Reverend Wright is a direct function of The Reverend's obsessive love affair with any mic wielded by anyone as long he is the focus of attention?
April 28, 2008, 9:26:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Rove is getting a lot of play because he's new. Morris is just good television. Gingrich has been overexposed for a long time, and it seems he always gets two segments. Beckel is the best Dem pundit, but Juan Williams and KP have their points. The Strategy Room on Sunday nights really lets Beckel shine. He's in his element there.
 
I guess I'm not doing too well keeping this focused on the topic of the main post! This talk really is more appropriate for the open thread. Sigh.
April 28, 2008, 9:42:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply


VinceP1974
I miss Tammy Bruce.
 
I love the one joke she said about Hillary needing to carry around little sized containers of fabric cleaner and then Beckels delayed reaction.
April 28, 2008, 9:50:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
That was a fascinating back-and-forth, johnny and Melissa.
 
On topic, I watched the entire NAACP Rev. Wright speech last night. Wright is apparently very much into equality of races. Funny that he said that at an NAACP dinner.
April 28, 2008, 10:24:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply


VinceP1974
FF: Have you watched the Q&A at the National Press Club?
April 28, 2008, 10:40:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
No, linky?
April 28, 2008, 10:44:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ttc
Johnny: Tonight Morris and Gingricjh were both on Hannity and Colmes.
 
Reliable prediction: tomorrow night, Morris will appear with O'Reilly and Gingrich with Greta. Rove will guest on H&C. Then Wednesday night "Mr. Speaker" will go on The Factor with Greta talking to Rove. Then Thursday it will all repeat.
 
Very reliable prediction: the merry-go-round will not stop until November 3rd!
April 28, 2008, 10:58:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Missy
Grammie, yes I do agree!
 
Who would have guessed that a Patsor would be acting as he's done? I actually feel sorry for Obama!  
 
From listening to the pundits tonight, it sounds like Wright is resentful of Obama - he's not happy that one of his "flock" is outshining him. Wow. Now who does Obama go to for counsel when his "spiritual mentor" is the one who's betrayed him?  
 
Wright is wrong!
April 28, 2008, 11:07:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
The winner of this ideological cage match (I love that phrase I coined Saturday), and still champion, Johnny Dollar!
When there were only two comments posted here, I was tempted to write what I'm about to write, but decided not to:
As with most times when an anchor interviews a guest and a robust debate breaks out, it's just that: robust debate. When the debating is over, interviewer and guest are still on friendly terms. This is especially true on "The Factor."
April 28, 2008, 11:11:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
I was talking about FNC anchors, hosts, and BOR. I didn't include "H&C" because some interviews tend to end with a guest filibustering until the mic is killed and a pre-commercial teaser begins.
April 28, 2008, 11:25:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olbysucks
It's usually colmes getting in the last word.
April 28, 2008, 11:41:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olbysucks
Wright is apparently very much into equality of races. Funny that he said that at an NAACP dinner.
Fox Fan | 04.28.08 - 10:29 pm | #  
 
Oh, the irony is off the chart!
April 28, 2008, 11:44:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


VinceP1974
FF: See the first video in this (opinionated) article:
 
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/04/pastot-wright-1.html
April 29, 2008, 12:13:56 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> Count up all the Dems and Reps today. I'll count up the Republicans on O'Reilly and H&C tonight. I suggest you do the same for the Dems.  
 
Gee, "Melissa", I haven't heard back from you on your count. It's not on topic for this thread so come on over to the new open thread and give us your results. In case you don't show up, I've done the math myself and you can see it there. Somehow I doubt we'll be hearing from you.
April 29, 2008, 1:00:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Missy, I think the most accurate analysis of Wright's behavior comes from Grammie and the Cable Gamer.
 
Wright's entire philosophy hinges on America being incapable of electing an African-American president and Wright has fallen in love with his face on tv.
April 29, 2008, 9:18:55 AM EDT – Like – Reply


VinceP1974
This is my take on the Wright/Obama thing:
 
Wright’s view of society is a direct function of his theology which is Black Liberation Theology. It’s premise is that blacks are brutalized in a White soceity and that they will not have their human diginity until they (the blacks) get their national independence and sovergnity.
 
I would imagine Wright preaches his nonsense very consistantly because it’s the bread and butter of his entire view of life.
 
What got Obama upset today is not Wright’s theology. Not Wright’s disgusting views about America, etc…
 
You would have to be on drugs to go to that church and not know what that church is about.
 
Do a little thought experiment… recall the video of his sermons.. and pay close attention to the video of the members of the church. They are PASSIONATE ,.. they are INVOLVED.. they are STRIDENTLY in agreement with Wright… even on the Sunday after 9/11
 
Do any of you think you could sit in a crowd like that if you DISAGREED with the basic validity of what was being said? And bring your family?
 
When you think about it in thsoe personal terms like that.. how can anyone come to the conclusion that Obama is sincerely surprised at what Wright has been preaching his entire career?  
 
Obama is angry that he is exposed. That is why he’s angry.
 
Perhaps Obama thought that Wright would join with Obama in an unspoken agreement that Obama would have to say certain things against Wright to get elected, and Wright would just have to “take it” in order to help Obama.
 
Perhaps Obama thought that Wright would compromise his theology of blacks being the forever victim and help a member of his very church become the most powerful man ion the world.
 
I guess Wright believes his own theology a lot more than Obama does.. and now Obama is angry.
April 29, 2008, 10:18:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olbysucks
You would have to be on drugs to go to that church and not know what that church is about.
 
posted by vincep
 
God point. I don't think the 'good reverend' would pass a pea test, either.
April 29, 2008, 11:42:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Grammie
Vince whatever year , I do think that you have articulated some points that I had not thought about or focused on myself, especially the view that you pointed out of Wright's parisheners.
 
Beyond that I have a somewhat different take on the underlying philosophy, or total lack thereof, of Reverend Wright.
 
I think that Wright has no bedrock foundation other than his own profit and advancement. I have no hard proof or evidence, just my personal opinion.
 
I had suspected that was the case since he first debuted on the cable news scence. However, his self serving histrionic performance at the National Press Club sealed the deal for me.
 
It really comes down to the very bread and butter basics for Wright. If Obama is nominated as the Dem canditate poor Wright is going have his Black Liberation foundation weakened substantially. 
 
If Obama is elected POTUS Wright and his wealth, fame and life's legacy is going to be blown out of the water.
 
That was the long explanation. The short explanation is that Wright knows what side his bread is buttered on and has no desire to eat dry stale unbuttered bread.
April 30, 2008, 12:09:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
I don't think the 'good reverend' would pass a pea test, either.
---
I always go for the fresh English, although many Americans like limas, and the fondness for black-eyed peas in the South cannot be overlooked.
 
(Sorry for the off topic, but I needed a good laugh.)
April 30, 2008, 8:10:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I think you're dead right, Grammie.
 
Watching the clips of Wright's performance on F & F this morning, it's evident that it's particularly galling for a personality like Wright to have a prize like a U.S. senator once sitting at his feet, and then slowing easing backwards out the door from him.
April 30, 2008, 9:47:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply


olbysucks
I have a feeling the 'good reverend' is hittin' the pipe. Good enough, philby?
April 30, 2008, 2:58:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply