That is not the least bit by accident, either.

So it's ok for Clinton to lie UNDER OATH to a Federal Grand Jury?

But your opinion is that fox news lies and that is not ok.

Do you see a bit of hypocracy here?

So now reporting something is now advertising

Were O'Reilly's interviews with Clinton and Obama not fair? I thought they were some of the best interviews buy anyone in the business.

The tide is turning. With the other media outlets standing up for Fox in the Feinberg case,they realize freedom of the press is in danger. Just as the Nixon Administration went after the Washington Post,the Obama Administration has gone after Fox. No matter how liberal the press may be,they don't want to see the loss of freedom of the press. The Nixon Administration was one of th most corrupt,I think the Obama Administration is just as bad,if not worse. be seeing you

Politico reported this afternoon that it was primarily the Treasury Department that was in charge of arranging whether or not Fox News would attend the round of interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg, as opposed to the White House. And according to Mediaite, the Treasury Department has denied any attempt to exclude Fox News, saying:

There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.
As for Fox's claim that other Washington bureau chiefs came to the network's rescue over the alleged snub, TPMDC reports that it spoke with one of the other network bureau chiefs, who apparently was surprised to learn that Fox was describing the situation that way.

"If any member had been excluded it would have been same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues," the bureau chief said. "It's all for one and one for all."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.html

IT GETS WEIRDER EVER DAY

Fox’s report should have raised red flags immediately with its lack of key details. First of all, Fox omitted the fact that it was the Treasury Department that handled the interviews, not the White House. They also failed to produce the press announcement for the event, which Mediaite has obtained, or any direct quotes from the bureau chiefs involved. Most glaring, to me, was the fact that they didn’t initially interview Major Garrett who conducted the Feinberg interview, for their report. Garret later filed a report on the incident, providing a much fairer account than that first report. Still, he doesn’t address whether Fox requested the interview. The whole thing smacked of an oversell, a minor snafu being spun into a scandal.

As the story spread yesterday, there was no on-the-record confirmation of the story from any source other than Fox News. None of the other network bureau chiefs stepped forward to take credit for this “courageous stand,” and no other documentation surfaced to support it.

Last night, Mediaite was first to learn that the Treasury Department denied the story, telling us “There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.”

Now, TPM is reporting that the Treasury Department did omit Fox News from a list of networks requesting an interview with Feinberg because Fox didn’t request one. The press bulletin for the event stated, “This is a pen and pad briefing only; no cameras or recording devices for broadcast purposes will be allowed.” The requests for on-camera interviews were a special request.

The other networks insisted on Fox’s inclusion on the basis of their mutual pool arrangement, not as some show of solidarity. In fact, when Treasury brought the matter to the White House’s attention, it was the administration who approved Fox News’ inclusion. TPM also points out that logistical negotiations of this sort are usually treated as off-the-record.

The White House, for its part, isn’t looking to make nice with Fox News, telling TPM “This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not.”

While the Obama administration’s handling of Fox News has veered into heavy-handedness recently, this episode should help to quell the notion that the White House is just picking on Fox’s opinion hosts.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/foxs-white-house-bans-fox-news-story-completely-unravels/

The White House, for its part, isn’t looking to make nice with Fox News, telling TPM “This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not.”


The WHITE HOUSE SPEAKS?..lol

Anyway,, another trend in this thread. The failure for immediate improvement upon the shabockle Obama inherited is DIRECTLY attributed to OBama, the positive changes under Clinton though,,are not so easily attributed to him? double standard there?

This thread is further proof that anyone anywhere can find a 'news' story that will support their position. Being that 'sources' are usually anonymous, information is usually unable to truly be confirmed and so we have a nation of people running around like chickens with their necks cut off anytime a 'news' conspiracy is posted on a website or broadcast on an idiot box. Never thought Id say it,,but bring back the days when we had THREE major networks, alot less confusion and alot more PRESSURE to sale the TRUTH not just to sale the most. I almost dont believe anything that doesnt come directly from the subjects lips anymore. As for Clinton, I didnt feel he lied,, he said he had no sexual relations. Sexual relations doesnt mean the same thing to everyone. I think he worded his answer quite carefully but we still spent money and time making a big deal of it , which is sad. I think Bush lied when he said he based his decision for war on intel, but noone could ever prove it anymore than they could prove Clinton 'lied'.
But bad choices rarely end well. It was a bad choice to have the affair and to answer the question at all and it was a bad choice to rush into war. All involved have hopefully learned something from it.

Dont have affairs. Learn the words 'thats a personal matter between my family and I'. Dont use WAR to unite people, it rarely works but for a moment.

IM stunned they still talk about Clinton.
If a republican government ran acountry in the ground in every way imaginable some of these folks would support t hem (allready hapened)

If the republicans were proven to be pedophiles and closet drag queens they would still support them(allready happened) for their strong sence of sexual morality.

Are you seriously comparing lying about sex to what's on Fox news? Really?

It's not lying about sex, it's lying UNDER OATH!!!

Contempt of court citation
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[13]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...." [13]

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign.


A little diferent than someones opinion that fox news lies.
I haven't seen fox taken to court for telling lies.

there is no way to logically, nor accurately, access who is BIASED, and "agenda driven", without revealing WHO OWN'S WHICH NETWORK???

cut thru the rhetoric, cut thru the illusion's, and look up WHO OWN'S THESE AND ALL MEDIA OUTLET'S, AND TO WHOM SUCH THOSE ARE AFFLILIATED WITH???

and by day the illusion was expertly propogated throughout the world, that there was much dissent, and much rivalry and animosity between the ruler's, and by night, ALL gathered in the circle, to discuss the noise that would be released tomarrow, that could, would, and should, take the minds of the brains to where was wished, setting out bait that kept the dog's chasing their tails declaring each itself, how wise itself was...

it has come to be that billion's are told to "take our word for it", and have dutifully swallowed such, simply due to the natural inclination to indulge oneself, such making one simply "feel" important and smart???

TO ****ING HOPE, WHEN THE LOVE'S OF ALL DEPEND ON IT???

WHAT IS WANTED TO BE SEEN, IS SEEN, WHAT IS WANTED TO BE HEARD, IS HEARD...

occupy the minds, hypnotizing the wannabee smart, with meaningless jargon that can be debated to infinity, as all the power's that be, of ALL media outlet's, know there is NO DEFINABLE END TO ANYTHING OF ANY OF THESE ISSUE'S, AS THE ONLY SINGLE TOTALLY "DEFINABLE" IN THE UNIVERSE IS "PROOF"...

WITHOUT PROOF, all data is simply affording a thrill of "feeling" like one know's something, believing such speak empower's self to what???

accept oneself is right about all itself think's???

what has one achieved???

what difference has one made???

there is NO DIFFERENCE TO MAKE, WITHOUT PROOF OF ALL THAT IS REALLY HAPPENING???

ALL with clout who are connected already know the plan, the end of the means, as agreed upon behind closed door's, LONG AGO...

the plan for the nation, and the world, left up to "TAKE MY WORD FOR IT"???

the "fate of all human life", left to "trust me", I AM ON YOUR SIDE THEIR GOOD BUDDY???

that is indeed what it is, in a world where to ask for proof, leave's one accused of being unpatriotic, a zealot, a bigot, an unkind, a dissenter, an extremist, EVEN A POTENTIAL TREASONIST, as ANYTHING against power NOW, EQUATE'S TO POSSIBLE TERRORIST, or, just against power, so for terrorism???

A TERRORIST, A TREASONIST TO WHAT???

the only patriotism IN THE UNIVERSE, is to the whole truth, and the truth IS BUT PROOF IN ALL CASES...

WHEN HUMAN LIVE'S HANG IN THE BALANCE, AND THE LIVE'S OF EACH CHILD'S FUTURE, is left to "beleive me, and if you don't, you are the bad guy, ALL live's hang in the balance, except of course, those who hold the "lever" to ALL CONTROL???

just the fact that all these label's are thrown around, by the MOST SMARTEST "AND" MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, is the MOST tell, something AIN'T RIGHT...

"extreme power" is WAY TOO SMART, to use such language and jargon, without an implicit bigger reason, as such did not get where they are, by being childish and acting like kindergarten's throwing insults and label's across the playground...

OH, BUT MAYBE THEY DID...

show me the proof, or your word's are but smack, and to smokem' is to live as on crack...

I'm sure there are many more important things to worry about than Clinton lying about sex. Right?

Then go worry about them.

Hi,Emily. be seeing you

Hi

God forbid that some people would look into what companies are using these channels as advertising outlets.
News is business and it's not wheather the news is true or not, but how many people will watch it.

Most people keep ignoring the fact, that several news networks and tv channels belong to the same owners and they push their own private propaganda and will not display news that would hurt their budget.

There are about no more than 9 or 10 giant corporations, which own all tv channels on the TV.

In most cases who owns it probably doesn't matter anyway. I am sure the owners do not have a "personal relationship" with each and every station and show.

Not sure about that. BIll Gates owns quite a bit and Im sure he has something to do with the marketing and development of those things. One never knows.

DOSEN'T MATTER!!!???

if a car is stolen, DOES IT MATTER WHO THE OWNER IS???

WHO ELSE HAS THE MOST "SELF INTEREST" IN SUCH AFFAIR???

if a child is raped, DOES IT MATTER WHOM THE PARENT IS???

DOSEN'T MATTER!!!???

does one understand, that the ENTIRE LIFE, THE ENTIRE EMPIRE, THE ENTIRE LEGACY OF THE OWNER, DEPENDS ON ALL THAT INVOLVE WHAT ITSELF OWN'S???

where is the logic in the "owner dosen't matter"???

does the owner of a vineyard not have interest in it's harvest???

it seems there is none that could be used for such a denial used but to deny reality???

if there is MONETARY GAIN, THEN THERE IS SELF INTEREST!!!???

WHAT OWNER HAS "NO SELF INTEREST"???

please girl, stop fighting just to "win" a self argument, and the whole essence of