<p>Ha… last laugh is on her.</p>
<p>She lost her show today (will be ‘reassigned’ to other duties at the network).</p>
<p>You’re kidding! She was reassigned over the “terrorist fist jab” comment? I’m surprised. They should have allowed her to apologize for suggesting (even in jest) that the Obamas might be secret terrorists, and just move on from there. I guess I feel a bit sorry for her. I doubt she really had any nefarious intent when she made the comment. My guess is she was trying to drum up interest for the segment. Wow, what a tough lesson.</p>
<p>[Obama’s</a> Fist Bump Dissected Minutely By Media (VIDEO) - Media on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Obama's Fist Bump Dissected Minutely By Media (VIDEO) | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>[MediaMatters</a> Offers A Pictoral History Of The Fist Bump - Politics on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>MediaMatters Offers A Pictoral History Of The Fist Bump | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>[Media</a> Matters - Question for Fox News: Do you think any of these people might be terrorists?](<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200806100001]Media”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200806100001)</p>
<p>[Is</a> Dick Cheney a terrorist?](<a href=“http://a2.vox.com/6a00b8ea067a51dece00e398afe2aa0004-320pi]Is”>http://a2.vox.com/6a00b8ea067a51dece00e398afe2aa0004-320pi)</p>
<p>What she said was reckless. </p>
<p>I give Fox credit for addressing this matter as quickly as they did.</p>
<p>It is an uncommon and positive development for any of the networks to step in and take responsibility for their “talent.” </p>
<p>Amongst the networks there have been some far more serious violations of journalistic standards that were given a pass or allowed to linger on and on.</p>
<p>Good move.</p>
<p>Why is anyone surprised she lost her job? She compared the Democratic nominee for president to a terrorist 4 months before the general election, and in the process alienated probably half of the group of 6 people that watch her show on the news.</p>
<p>Oh wait, sorry I mean opinion segment that can’t be seperated from the news because its not a newspaper. You’re right, it is quite a mouthful.</p>
<p>And as long as we’re on the subject, lets be honest… Fox News is not the most popular because it provides “a wide variety of news topics,” its the most watched because it often provides a biased view of mainly one side of the argument that it knows some people will agree with. CNN, however “boring” it may be to you, provides in my opinion the most objective, balanced reporting and analysis possible on commericlal television.</p>
<p>And yes, I have watched Fox News in addition to other news channels for a while. I’m not just throwing out blind spite.</p>
<p>Fox News is the most popular because it throws out raw meat to the wolves. I don’t think it cares about the viewpoints, really.</p>
<p>
If you want honesty, Fox news is the most balanced and accurate of the cable news channels. What separates Fox news from the other cable channels is that it is transparent. For example, everyone knows that Hannity is a conservative and Combs is a liberal. Other cable news channels like MSNBC and CNN are stocked with liberals who pretend to be objective journalist.</p>
<p>Speaking of CNN, it was CNN who hosted a Republican debate and planted Democrats in the audience to ask questions. CNN didn’t plant any Republicans in the audience when it held Democratic party debates. CNN’s bias is blatant at times. CNN has an international correspondent who’s one of the most liberal and anti-American journalists I have ever listened to. I will admit that CNN has gotten better since the Ted Turner days, but it still has a long way to go to matching Fox news.</p>
<p>I’d be interested if somebody who is a polical moderate thinks that Fox News is biased or is “fair and balanced.” It seems to me that I’ve only heard conservatives say that it’s balanced, and liberals say that it’s biased right.</p>
<p>I don’t think Fox is “fair and balanced,” but its very being balances the obvious liberal bias of the “mainstream” media, which I think is a very good thing. I think the public, in general, has become much more informed with the rise of Fox. What is wrong with giving the public different takes on various subjects and letting them form their OWN opinions?</p>
<p>razorsharp - CNN planted the Democrats? Last I checked, they simply allowed questions to be asked without regard to party status, based on the questions themselves. That’s not partisan, that’s explicitly non-partisan.</p>
<p>I see a lot of bias in MSNBC, for example, but CNN is by far and away the best news channel for informative reporting. There’s really just no comparison.</p>
<p>
CNN knew who the questioners were prior to airing their YouTube questions and audience questions. CNN let a John Edwards supporter ask questions, it let a John Kerry supporter ask question, etc. CNN has a lot of smart people and it knew what it was doing. If it didn’t know, then CNN’s employees are idiots. A simple Google search revealed just about everything anyone wanted to know about the Democrats questioning Republicans. CNN has long favored Democrats just as does the main stream media.</p>
<p>[Michelle</a> Malkin Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants: Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union act](<a href=“http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/]Michelle”>Michelle Malkin Archive - The Unz Review)</p>
<p>Which proves that CNN is biased? Last I checked, their criterion for selecting questions was the quality of the questions, not the political credentials of those asking - as it should be. Though of course this is just speculation, I suspect that the same thing (cross-party questions) would have been done for the Democrats, had there been Republicans with worthwhile questions. If you have some kind of source that definitively shows that that is not the case and the people were direct and acknowledged plants that were not replicated for the Democratic debate, by all means provide it, but otherwise you’re just randomly speculating based on your already-formed point of view.</p>
<p>
Oh, Pleaz! CNN knew what was going on. </p>
<p>“Worthwhile” is a judgment call. Given that CNN is full of democrats, what they view as “worthwhile” is have Democrats ask questions of Republicans but not have have Republicans ask questions of Democrats. CNN decided to have is was worthwhile for American to have democrats ask questions but not tell anyone that information so that the questioniers would appear to be just regular people out there in America wanting to know information about Republicans. What CNN decided was “quality” was to have questions that were most likely to embarass the Republicans to favor the Democratic Party nominees. It was sleazy and it tells you all you need to know about CNN and bias.</p>
<p>See this is called circular logic. “CNN is full of Democrats because they allowed Democrats to question Republicans but not vice versa, which I know is based on their bias because they’re all biased Democrats.”</p>
<p>CNN may have more Democrats, but CNN Headline News is full of Republicans</p>
<p>
Those are your words, not mine.</p>
<p>Your logic is that the quality of the question determine whether it is or should be asked asked and completely ignores that liberals at CNN would view quality much different than would conservatives. The fact is that the quality of a question lies in the eye of the beholder and the eyes of democrats are different than the eyes of republicans.</p>
<p>razorsharp: That’s a cop out - and also a bit more circular logic. You have yet to provide an a priori reason that the questions were unacceptable other than that they were created by “liberals” - and one of your reasons for calling them liberals is that they created the questions!</p>
<p>What problem, exactly, do you have with the questions? They were important issues, coming from Democrats or Republicans. I would hope that Democratic contenders had to answer questions on important issues as well - national security and the like (I don’t remember the debate perfectly, so they may or may not have).</p>
<p>
My H is a true moderate and he considers Fox News slightly bias to the right but far less bias than the rest of main stream (leftist) media. He thinks most of US media are left of center and more liberal than most of the voting public.</p>
<p>I don’t know that I am a moderate, but I most often imagine myself that way when comparing myself to my peers. Compared to Mini, for instances, I would suppose myself to be a fascist; compared to Razorsharp, a commie. </p>
<p>So, to me there is nothing outrageously wrong with Fox. </p>
<p>I do think that they have a more than usual amount of conservative commentators…but then, that is only when I compare them to the gaggle of liberal commentators elsewhere.</p>
<p>For instances, it has never crossed my mind to think that Anderson Cooper might be a conservative, he is quite clearly a liberal and a pretty good journalist; Chris Matthews is a self-described liberal and it shows; **the other guy on MSNBC<a href=“can’t%20think%20of%20the%20name”>/b</a> is an angry liberal on amphetamines.</p>
<p>Pick your poison. </p>
<p>I do find Fox to be the most fun with the best sense of humor. CNN seems to be dry and very newsworthy, in a dry-newsworthy sort of way. When they try to be fun it almost hurts.</p>
<p>TV, for me, in the end, comes down to a choice between watching sitcoms, political shenanigans and DVD’s with the family: I liked to be entertained by TV. I’ll get enlightened elsewhere. </p>
<p>If I want more than fun --and I do-- I will read a book, newspaper, journal…talk to a friend, for god’s sake–and I do.</p>
<p>
You keep focusing on the questions as if that is the only measure by which to determine bias. It isn’t. Bias can be demonstrated by different treatment in identical circumstances. The identical circumstance is a debate. The different treatment is Democrats ask questions of Republicans in one debate, non-Republicans ask questions of Democrats in another debate. There is no reason to make a difference. Your assertion that the quality of the question someone explains everything is simply silly. Republicans are more than capable of asking good questions of Democrats yet they did not appear in any of the CNN democratic party debates. Why? Probably because CNN"s liberals did not consider any questions submitted by Republicans to be of “quality” or “worthwhile”. CNN wanted a more civil debate for their democratic party candidates.</p>