NowThisNews gained some attention when they put out a video that demonstrated how Fox’s reaction to Obama saying he would consider talking with NK was far less forgiving than their coverage of Trump doing that exact thing.
They just recently put out a new video show Fox levying various criticisms at Obama over the years that can objectively also be applied to Trump.
For example, they have a section of the video dedicated to Obama criticizing Bush by name, and how that was unpresidential, and how sitting presidents aren’t supposed to criticize their predecessors by name, or even to go after media outlets so strongly. It shows their criticisms of Obama budgets that didn’t decrease the debt/deficit despite him saying he would. And there were A LOT of criticisms about golf and vacations. You have Priebus lamenting that Obama “is in love with campaigning” (Trump declared for 2020 a matter of weeks after he was sworn in, and has been campaigning ever since).
The hilarious part is when it cuts to Tucker Carlson (a much younger looking Carlson) decrying that there are people that believe God anointed Obama to fix everything in one fell swoop. You have another who suggests Obama has become a blamer, and that he can never admit he’s wrong, and that he trash talks, or is thin skinned. Fox and Friends’ Steve Doocey (remember, Trump loves F&F and retweets them and acknowledges them regularly) stated that if you want people to work with you, you don’t call them names.
Neil Cavuto’s final statement of the video is sage advice that Trump should consider.
I do enjoy fox’s double standard a lot more than CNN’s. Each network has chosen a side. Only one chosen the conservative view. So what do you suggest doing about it?
Just goes to show how Democrats lower the bar. It’s not surprising that Republicans will do 1/10th of the things Democrats do and be criticized for it 100x as much. The media is in the tank for the Democrat party.
Baloney. Liberal arts coursework is designed to foster critical thinking skills. Both sides in any argument are made and defended. There is an open forum of ideas.
Guest speakers are invited from time to time. Bomb throwers, on the other hand, are not welcome.
Not baloney. So you did not see the video of a Trump supporter being punched out by a lib? Have you not seen the riots at Berkley? Have you not seen conservative speakers being run off the stage? Sorry dude. Just because your news sources doesn’t cover this kind of thing does not mean it’s not true.
I don’t think any news source is totally unbiased, but I wholly disavow punditry-I believe I’ve consistently held both sides to that standard. I visit everything. Honestly-if I see a Fox story linked on a topic of the day, I read it-and then I read CNN’s version, and NBC’s version, NPR’s version, and very often, TheBlaze, version, the Breitbart version, the WND version, the InfoWars version, as batty as they often are.
If a side presents facts, I generally don’t have a problem with it-what I do have a problem with is when an outlet presents a story-say, about the minimum wage, and the story only tells part of what the CEO said put them out of business, completely leaving out that the CEO also said they had considered closing down for a year because they were doing a lousy job managing the restaurant and no one was eating there any longer. Or, say, your network’s chief political anchor, just days before an election, telling the nation that his sources told him that a Hillary indictment was imminent, and that there was a near 100% chance that Hillary’s server had been hacked. He had to retract/walk back these claims days later, just before the election.
But the thing is, I didn’t immediately dismiss Fox’s initial reporting in either of these cases. What I did was spend a tiny fraction of my day visiting The Google to see if there were other stories on the subject. And I do the same when I hear a story on NPR on the radio during my morning commute ( I used to listen to AM talk, but they lost their local station, so I don’t pick them up, and my only other choice is country…no thank you), I go read about it elsewhere and see whether other stories are reporting consistent details, or whether they’re the only ones with the story-such as the Baier/Hillary story.
Does that sound rational to you? Or does that sound like the scrutiny a rabid partisan would show? I know far too many people in real life who cling to the first version of the story that they hear or read from their favorite source, and refuse any further diligence toward the information.
I’ll take my anecdotal experience of 6 years in higher education, as well as teaching at that level, over yours. In addition, all of the professional people I associate with and work with every day.
The coverage is obviously different. What isn’t taken into consideration is that Trump is a complete, bombastuous, sometimes obnoxious loudmouth that is so outside of anything we’ve seen in the WH that his unPresidential, petulant, childish behavior is…expected. He’s not living any way other than he already always has.
President Obama was more on a pedestal at first with great hopes and expectations from both sides. Beginning with the beer summit…he kept making blunder, after blunder, after blunder, yet put on a show like he has it all under control. This made the left constantly defend him and the right constantly attack him. It was a continuous dichotomy of descriptions.
It’s ironic but in some ways, Trump is the most honest President we’ve ever had. You know where he stands on things at a moments notice by his mouth or his tweets. No other President has ever been so utterly exposed to the public on such a large scale, as Trump…love him…or hate him?
