I have to vent to some one.
Entrapment? Besides, who cares? These workers were fired, like they should have been. And at this point ACORN has lost its funding. So now this is no news and not sure what it ever proved other than in a large organization that largely hired low income individuals, some weren't the best.
Steve - the behavior/attitude comes from the top. It filters down to the "hired low income individual".
Oh Steve, I'm disappointed in you. Seriously, I thought you had downed the Kool-Aid but I didn't realize you've already hitched a ride on the spaceship behind Haley's Comet. America cares- the real story here is how 2 kids with a $3,000 out scooped all major news sources and then in turn all major news sources ignore the story. Michael Jackson's death is still being covered my major newsorces in more depth than this scandal. I thought at least on this one you'd open up the mind- just a little bit. If you can't admit that 1- This is a major story and 2- it is being compeletly ignored by the mainstream media you have lost any semblance of credibilty.
BTW- Entrapment is a term refering strictly to law enforcement- not journalism (thank you Catherine Zeta Jones and Sean Connery!)
Right, but I'm not sure if they actually did anything illegal here. I have seen the MSM do stories on it. It's how I knew the funding had been cut. Calling it journalism is a stretch, unless YOU consider Michael Moore to be a journalist too, even I don't. I mean, you could go into almost any business in this country, ask some borderline illegal advice, and people might give it to you. I'm not saying that is right or ok, but not that shocking. But again I ask, it is done and over with now, so like Jackson, this story is dead.
"I have seen the MSM do stories on it."You've seen the MSM do stories about the story the two non-MSM kids made. That's not the same thing.Really, there's two things here. One, the MSM got completely scooped by two kids. That's what Jon Stewart is railing about in the clip. Two, in multiple offices all over the country, ACORN employees have shown themselves to be hideous people. Describing them as "some weren't the best" just doesn't cut it, and is actually pretty offensive. This is not the only documented instance of hideous people working for ACORN. At what point do we comfortably say it's systemic?
Fox News is MSM right? Are they giving 24-7 coverage of this "breaking" "critical" story?
Sherpa - Excellent point. I did see stuff on FoxNews about this, as well as CNN and ABC, so how can you say the MSM isn't covering "the story"? I love how the most watched news channel and the "most listened to man in America" rail against the MSM!!! haha. I mean, by definition, aren't THEY the MSM and say CBS, which is the LEAST watched of the news industry be less mainstream them they? Just pointing out the failed logic to rail against MSM from these two sources.
That's pretty weak.Detailing how the original MSM is losing viewership and clout (because of errors like getting scooped on the ACORN story) isn't much of an argument. I would say that Fox is MSM, but how main stream could they be if the President picks Univision over them for his interview marathon?Again, the MSM did not cover the ACORN story. They got scooped by a couple of kids. Then, after being dragged kicking and screaming into covering it, the most they could muster was reporting that ACORN had its funding cut.There's absolutely nothing there about the real story.
I would say that Fox is MSM, but how main stream could they be if the President picks Univision over them for his interview marathon?Um, is Fox news in spanish? Last time I watched it, it looked just like CNN, MSNBC etc. An English language network with many, many white anchors and reporters.
So you're telling me that the president grants consecutive interviews to CBS, NBC, ABC...and Univision while leaving out Fox who as you've noted is the most watched news channel, and there's no message being sent there?The message is to stop talking about this ACORN thing or I'll stop talking to you.
Cameron,I think that is a big stretch. I think the President didn't choose to go on Fox b/c 1) he didn't feel like he would reach the audience he wanted (which Univision clearly is), 2) possibly he felt he wouldn't like how he would be treated on there, and 3) why does he have to go on ALL the networks? Is it possible FOX didn't want him?!?! Sure, they may 'whine' about it, but how do you know that isn't a front? Media bias works in both ways, obviously.
From the NY Times:No other president has been a guest on so many Sunday talk shows at once, which signaled how much Mr. Obama wanted to reclaim the health care debate and persuade skeptics that his plans would not increase taxes on the middle class. But for so well-spoken and confident a president, the lack of spontaneity on Sunday was striking. So was the homogeneity: Mr. Obama appeared on Univision, but he drew the line at Fox. Mr. Obama declined to discuss his proposals on the one outlet guaranteed to find fault (or change the topic to the Acorn scandal). And that made his star turn look less like a media blitz than Medici vengeance — Fox did not broadcast Mr. Obama’s health care speech to Congress on Sept. 9, so Mr. Obama did not speak to “Fox News Sunday.”That omission was not as tactical as it was telling: a rare sign of frustration, and payback, by a White House that prides itself on diplomacy and an even keel. But Mr. Obama chose to make a statement — and raise a distracting fuss on Fox News — by declining to speak.And Fox milked it. When he was not talking about Acorn, Mr. Wallace bemoaned the presidential slight, asking, “Whatever happened to reaching out to all Americans?” He told Bill O’Reilly that the White House aides were “a bunch of crybabies.”Apparently, the feeling is mutual. “We figured Fox would rather show ‘So You Think You Can Dance’ than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform,” a White House deputy press secretary told ABC News on Saturday. “Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon.”
Right, like I said. Fox of all channels should know control of the message is more important in pushing your ideology than the substance of the message. :) Where was all their "fair and balanced" during the previous 8 years? I think they, as a business, got what they deserved. Besides, like the article stated, it only helped their cause and gave them something more to rail about. Win-win for them.
Clearly this shows that Fox is different. So to say, "well, I saw the story on Fox, and Fox is MSM" isn't a good argument. Clearly it shows that this administration likes to punish news outlets who don't slobber all over them."not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."What, are we 13 now?
"What, are we 13 now?"Exactly, why whine about it? Report the "news" and "facts" as they see it and be done with it. You reap what you sow in the 'infotainment' business they run.
So it's cool that Fox is the only station who reported on the ACORN scandal, and now the president won't talk to them? You're ok with a presidency bullying a news organization like that? Have you always been ok with that?
I mean, it's not like they did an expose on the president with documents they knew to be false. Every news outlet on the planet immediately ran with that story - until they found out it was fake.But now a real story about a huge organization with ties to many many politicians in this country - shhhhh, nothing to see here folks.
Steve says "this is no news"."no news" ... he said.If only 1 of the mid-atlantic state offices they visited did this it still would have been news, but it wasn't just 1. It was 3 out of 4. 3 OUT OF 4! And this is where you and I live! That's not news?!Make no mistake: this news disgusts me ... but not because it's reported, but because it's true. And since when did "entrapment" excuse this? On record ACORN offices repeatedly supported, sanctioned, and even attempted to nurture underage sex-slavery.That's "news", Steve, and if you don't think so that says something very unsavory about you. I've respected your opinion until now, but you might want to change your stated opinion in this matter unless you want me to think you a total dirt-bag. I'm all for diverse opinions, but nurturing underage sex-slavery ... with MY tax dollars?Whether that's news is not up for debate here. I'm sorry to see you're way on the wrong side of this fence.
Was harsh there, sorry Steve because I know you're just going with the flow, but when you look at this for what it is, the whole liberal establishment for calling this "not news" is committing a grievous sin of omission. I find it astonishing.I can not imagine for the life of me anyone with little daughters (as I have) looking at what ACRON employees said and saying that's "not news". I'm not a huge fan of Jon Stewart, but he hit the nail on the head this time.Jon at least know that just because you're part of an establishment it doesn't mean you can't be critical of it. I would that all people, liberal or conservative were that way.This is one case where it would do you well to say, "Well, I'm not a robot and I can disagree with my party line where my integrity is at stake". This is one of those cases.
Lost in all this outrage (seriously, we don't have more important things to worry about as a country with wars, famine, and unemployment going on!!!) is the fact that one of the accused offices DID report the perps to police as soon as they left the office. I guess the reason I don't think it is 'big news' is b/c some little outreach office isn't high up in my priority list. I have bigger fish to fry. :)
Post a Comment