Politicizing the war
 

As was noted in another thread, the President went to Dover yesterday to pay his respects to those killed in Afghanistan over the weekend. That thread started getting a bit political which seems unnecessary, though perhaps inevitable. Sometimes I catch myself badmouthing our invasion of Iraq without really considering how disrespectful it must seem to those who have lost loved ones over there. It's a shame that it's come to that.

Some at Fox News, of course, think the President's Dover visit was all political:What a bunch of creeps. I used to say that they were a Republican network, but they might be morphing into something slightly different. They are becoming the anti-Obama network. Their disrespect of Obama has been there since 2008, but it seems to intensify as time goes by. Why are they so relentlessly hostile to him? Don't they believe that he is trying his best?

What else would you expect from fOX???????

He is a politician, what do you expect? Other politicians have come under fire before. Each day, the level gets raised. Tomorrow, somebody else will raise the bar even more. What of it? That is the role he signed up for as President. He knew that at the start. Every President gets the same treatment except it gets rougher each year because of "one upsmanship".

Did you object to the Quayle cartoons? Or how about the Bush and Bush II cartoons and commentaries or how about Cheney? Or is it just that if it goes against Obama it is bad but against a Republican, it is good? IOW, can we count on your denouncing a network if one of their reporters said similar things about a Republican in office or is your denouncement simply as one sided as theirs?

Right. Once again you hit the nail on the head. I am incapable of objective thought. If they attack my guy they must be evil.Absolutely.

So what is the big deal in this case? Presidents get ridiculed and their motives questioned every day. If he didn't go, he didn't give a crap about their sacrifice, one will say. If he goes, he is trying to get away from reality which is the budget situation another will say. It is par for the course. Besides, Obama is a politician. Politicians say and do whatever it takes to get re-elected. I have heard politicians say they care about (insert situation here) but yet they will do something else. Why would anyone believe their motives are pure?

Your remarks above are thoughtful and kind.

I got rid of my TV a number of years ago. Worked well for me.

You're sure not going to get me to defend Fox or virtually any other media. To suggest to any of these folks that their job is objectivity would fall on deaf ears.

I question if the total amount of biased-derisive content from the media directed towards Obama approaches the level Bush experienced in his later years.

Bush was given the benefit of the doubt, to some extent, after 9-11 but was pumelled as time passed.

So, when are you going to start denouncing MSNBC?

They are doing the job objectively, just not the job you think they are supposed to do. You believe they have to report the facts and nothing but the facts. Their job is to "sell newspapers". Remember how they got everyone wound up with the "record profit" buzzword? Same thing. Everybody knows the phrase and a few even know the number but NOBODY that I asked knew how much was spent to make that "record profit". If they knew it was 10% profit, it wouldn't be as sexy a story, now would it? One of the articles I read about that on page 1 had the phrase, amount of profit and a "continued on page 10". Finally, they mentioned what the XOM spent to make that profit.

I somehow think that it has increased over the years because of each group trying to top the other. So if this is level 5, you can bet a level 6 insult will come later either on this President or the next. Not sure exactly when but it will come.

That is the job he and any President signed up for. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

That seems equivalent to you? I guess I haven't watched enough MSNBC to judge, but they don't seem equivalent at all. Maybe you could cite some examples for us.

Exactly. The media was on his bandwagon early on because it was in their financial interests to do that. Once it became fashionable to bash him, they jumped on him with both feet. Maybe one difference is that W earned the hostility people had toward him.

Exactly

Pretty much says it all.

You would be a rare individual if you could see your own bias. When someone's bias matches your bias, it appears that they are objective.

I don't see it that way. To me, there is no such thing as an objective opinion. That's an oxymoron.

You seem to be suggesting that MSNBC is a left-wing version of Fox. Maybe that's true, but I don't see the evidence for it. MSNBC has decided to be a mostly left-wing network, but they are not as aggressive or dishonest about it as Fox. For example, does MSNBC selectively edit video clips in order to take the network's political opponents out of context? Fox has done it repeatedly. Does MSNBC organize political rallies and have its producers stand off camera and cheer on the demonstrators? Fox is a blatantly political organization masquerading as a news network. There is endless evidence of deception by Fox, all of which promotes the GOP and/or Tea Party. It is relentlessly anti-Obama and has been since before he ever took office. You say MSNBC is equivalent, but don't offer any evidence.