|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> FOX and the henhouse....,, /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1492690444 Message started by raydawg on 04/20/17 at 05:14:04 |
|
Title: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/20/17 at 05:14:04 I still find it strange after all of these years of FOX NEWS success, that the media still appears clueless. As why Trump won the election, as bad as he is, and I do believe that..... It's the same factor that propels both to what appears as success. And that element is a choice from the "mainstream" of what you are told to believe, and if you question it, you get labeled with negative connotations. FOX was a escape from that mentality and mindset, nothing more, as you see these so called deplorable voted for Obama too, who represented change in his first campaign. It is not about personality of those reading script, O'Reily was a loud mouth, and that was his gig, not that he was a wizard.... Funny, how the press thinks it's all about them, and in a sense it is, but only because they try and make it about them.... http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/19/fox-news-future-roger-ailes-bill-oreilly-237377 |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by pg on 04/20/17 at 06:26:38 I don't believe Fox will have the popularity & influence without Roger & Bill. I do find it a little interesting that Bill just had his contract renewed and he really was the "face" of Fox news. I suspect their is a power struggle between the elder Murdoch & his sons..... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/20/17 at 07:16:17 I probably sent Bill about six Scathing emails ridiculing his lame attempt to create his own buzz word. He was just determined to have Homicide Bomber replace Suicide Bomber. If I heard it, I sent another email. Really Bill? An English teacher promoting such a ridiculous label? So tell me Bill, what Other Grand Goals do these Suicide Bombers HAVE? What are the options? Homicide Bomber, as opposed to what? A Cookie Delivery Bomber? Aaand he finally shut his stupid mouth. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/20/17 at 08:12:32 6A7D7B7778681A0 wrote:
FOX figgered out the void, of news reporting and filled it.... Not so much the content, as a lot of real estate exsist between the two opposing factions. This is the market that holds sway, FOX prolly believed it was them, and lost their understanding that a void existed, and became a polar opposite of CNN, MSNBC, etc, as they became what they were originally looking to expose, reporting bias. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by oldNslow on 04/20/17 at 18:53:59 5C4B4D414E5E2C0 wrote:
The sons won that struggle. Fox is gonna get pus*y whiped into being indistinguishable from CNN, ABC,MSNBC etc .Six months, maybe a year from now, there won't be an old white guy on any prime time show. Bimbos and queers,mostly,instead. Wait and see. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/20/17 at 19:15:08 I'll LMMFAO if you are right. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/20/17 at 19:37:56 4D73727E6C70711F0 wrote:
The sons won that struggle. Fox is gonna get pus*y whiped into being indistinguishable from CNN, ABC,MSNBC etc .Six months, maybe a year from now, there won't be an old white guy on any prime time show. Bimbos and queers,mostly,instead. Wait and see. [/quote] From a business sense yours doesn't... That market is already saturated to the point of me riding my savage,in my speedos, on a rainy day...... You never leave biting fish, to find hungry fish ;D |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by oldNslow on 04/21/17 at 05:02:31 Quote:
I didn't say I thought it was a good idea. It's just what I think is going to happen. These decisions are largely driven by advertising revenue. Advertisers are astonishingly spineless and terrified of anything controversial or offensive. The simplest way to not scare the sponsors away is to pay close attention to whatever the PC orthodoxy of the day is, and never cross that line. Workplace sexual harassment, however it's defined. and regardless of the actual credibility or motivations of the accusations, is one of those lines. Anything that can be remotely construed as racist is another. O'Reilly became a liability from a revenue standpoint. That's all this really is. Television news is a mass market product. At the end of the day it isn't any different from dish detergent, over-the-counter- allergy medicine, sneakers, or deodorant. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/21/17 at 07:29:41 O'Reilly became a liability from a revenue standpoint. That's all this really is. Television news is a mass market product. At the end of the day it isn't any different from dish detergent, over-the-counter- allergy medicine, sneakers, or deodorant. That's a sad truth. The IDEA that these News Outlets are Filling the deep , wide valley of ignorance in our lives because They FEEL a sense of duty to their country and fellow man is a load. They are selling a Product. Once DeFile me is so tainted that his audience drops,, BuhBye BillyO.. He's a jerk IMO, I've disliked him ever since the BuzzWord thing. So obvious, so cheap, so telling. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by WebsterMark on 04/21/17 at 07:43:08 I only listened to him a couple of times. He's like Chris Matthews; interrupts constantly. Egotistical doesn't even begin to describe him. I don't care if he's around or not. Only interesting thing is Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby and Bill O'Reilly all have something in common. Must be something about the name Bill! |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/21/17 at 10:20:59 You go back to the early days at fox, them had commentators of both stripes.... But they morphed into all right wing because the left didn't want honest exchange. Bill only became himself because no real opposition was aired that could pull people. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/21/17 at 10:27:23 71627A67627464030 wrote:
FOX figgered out the void, of news reporting and filled it.... Not so much the content, as a lot of real estate exsist between the two opposing factions. This is the market that holds sway, FOX prolly believed it was them, and lost their understanding that a void existed, and became a polar opposite of CNN, MSNBC, etc, as they became what they were originally looking to expose, reporting bias. [/quote] You see a conflict between this and your last post? |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/21/17 at 10:42:58 Not really, mane it's the way you read it, or I hate typing in my phone and therefor don't elaborate well, but in my mind it makes perfect sense, like in non sense [ch129299] |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/21/17 at 10:48:16 Bill only became himself because no real opposition was aired that could pull people. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/21/17 at 13:41:19 554A4C4B5651605060584A460D3F0 wrote:
Yes, I agree |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by Trippah on 04/22/17 at 19:14:53 The truth is whatever, the dirty old men who ran fox news (as compared perhaps to the men who own it) simply followed the standard for their times; grab any puss88 you want cause you got the power. They morphed into the blue collar skin head white guys club non news, telling them what they wanted to hear, that the mainstream is run by queers etc. Frankly, for the kind of severance package they all got, it might be worth grabbing some. ;D |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/23/17 at 08:22:06 36100B1212030A620 wrote:
Ya know, as one of those men you want to pigeon-hole, who grew up drooling over Playboy magazine mentality..... I would give your opine much credence if it's scolding retort was equally applied to both sides of the isle. What the left did to those women who accused Slick of the same actions, and the so called feminists who piled on, abandoned any rightful claim to such an argument, denying, minimizing, etc. only proved to me party is more important than truth, if it's to be challenged. This mindset and tactic has led to Trump. When you won't engage honestly in dialogue, all that is left is warfare. Folks pinned their noses and cast their votes for a man who stinks morally, you can not defend the indefensible, as much as the left did with Slick ;D You can see it being executed in all the wedge issues politically, race, immigration, environmental, etc.... It is a losing game plan, as evidenced by the last 8 years of election results. Funny thing is I really believed Obama wanted dialogue, you saw it with the middle east talks, but not to many folk gave him support, and as that failed, hope and change, the party leadership took over and co-opted his administration and agenda. Proof is in the pudding. You can see where we are now, when you had academia, mainstream media, etc, pushing the opposite agenda of this Trump...... Not even sure what his agenda is, for if I listen to the left, he has done nothing but golf, so I am not sure of any damage the man has inflicted or been successful at, other than propaganda, you know, the same tool the left likes to utilize..... A real hate me because I remind you of yourself, mentality/argument ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/23/17 at 09:30:01 Democrats can't be hypocrites for the same reason blacks can't be racists. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by Trippah on 04/23/17 at 19:17:23 I was being serious, not demeaning. The simple fact is, power attracts people who like sex, and sexual favors as a trade for glory. Always has, always will. I could care less if the players are consenting adults and none are my wife. The use of a position of power to extort sexual favors is illegal. I was in the position for many years of hiring speech pathologists for a state facility. My friends called it my harem. Rumor had it that I was fooling around with an audiologist and that is why she left her husband. None of it was true or accurate. A am too old fashioned. Since the day I asked my girlfriend to marry me (if I managed to return from Nam) I haven't fooled around. That was back in 68; however, I still drool on occasion. ;D What I was pointing out is that to most of us, the punishment to the two old guys totaling 40 Million doesn't seem like a punishment but rather a handshake hurt their Rolexes. Yes, to Ailes and Bill it might seem like a punishment, but to me..well. And for all the complaints about Bill and I didn't have sex with that woman, I also didn't care as there was no indication of force; rather it was consensual albeit stupid. The republicans made a big deal out of Bill, now the Dems are making a big deal about Trump. As JOG has pointed out, it really is just noise. As for Fox, I agree that it is a power struggle but I do not watch it so no big deal to me either. More importantly, my Bruins are DONE FOR! :'( |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/23/17 at 20:10:09 You were doing so well... Bill raped this one. Broaddrick: “Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip (she cries). Just a minute... He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. (crying) And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen (crying) but he wouldn’t listen to me.” Myers: “Did you resist, did you tell him to stop?” Broaddrick: “Yes, I told him ‘Please don’t.’ He was such a different person at that moment, he was just a vicious awful person. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/23/17 at 21:07:40 I was not accusing you Trippah of sexual misconduct, I'm glad your honor your word. It was you who brought others who view FOX into the equation, as if they condone such behavior. As to consensual sex, maybe you meant Monica, but you don't think Slick used his position and authority to take advantage of this very young woman? :o How about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations How about those who attacked these women on a personal level because they accused Clinton? How about James Carvelle explaining you can find women like this by just dragging a 20 dollar bill through a trailer park? He was never asked to leave the Clinton organization. How about Al Gore and his molesting a hotel worker in Oregon? http://people.com/celebrity/al-gore-accused-of-sexual-assault/amp/ I think you aptly proved my point. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by Trippah on 04/24/17 at 07:53:50 My real point is very little has changed, despite all the talk. (This isn't a surprise). The obscene amount of money Fox has paid the two caballeros seem more of a wink wink..you bad boys. :o :o I would have preferred that the cases had gone to court, perhaps they will. This is corporate wrist slapping, the advertiser's have fled the scene like someone had opened a skunk. (Perhaps they did)!FOX wants the advertisers to return. But again, the truth is out there, where there are rich old men, there will be women trying to snuggle up so they can have access to the wealth. Was always this way, always will be. And judging from the gal that ran my local Woolworth when I was in Jr. High, the gals aren't afraid of making use of their positions of power either. ::) |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/24/17 at 08:12:31 5C7A6178786960080 wrote:
Ah, be careful my friend.... Your last statement can get you hung by your ballz if ever a movement believes you an obstacle to their power grab. You do understand the ramifications of that observation, yes? |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by Trippah on 04/24/17 at 09:27:59 I do (He squeeks)! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by WebsterMark on 04/24/17 at 19:30:56 The Two Bills: Clinton And O'Reilly April 21, 2017/ Francis Menton Over the past few weeks, starting with the New York Times on April 1, there has been a well-coordinated effort to take down Bill O'Reilly. That effort has now succeeded. It is not my purpose to defend O'Reilly. From my perspective, TV hosts come and go. I admit to having been a relatively frequent viewer of O'Reilly's program. Compared to other hosts, he has a pretty good sense of humor, and is relatively entertaining. He's also a blow-hard, but aren't they all? I did not find him to be particularly conservative, let alone libertarian, although he did have at least some skepticism about unchecked government power -- which cannot be said of his competitors at CNN and MSNBC. Maybe I would agree with his point of view about 40% of the time; but that's 40% more than I would agree with the point of view of his competitors. But what is to me most interesting about the O'Reilly story is the comparison of the accusations made against him to those made against the other Bill, Clinton. Or to put it another way, there is no comparison. Now, I don't know whether any or all of the accusations against either man are true. Except that, in the case of Clinton, one of the very most serious allegations (Lewinsky) was proved rather definitively; not so as to O'Reilly, who apparently denies everything. But assume for these purposes that all of the accusations in both cases are true. For one Bill (O'Reilly), these are accusations of failed jokes, allegedly inappropriate looks, allegedly condescending remarks, and, in the most recent case that brought matters to a head, an invitation to a hotel room which was declined and not pursued further. For the other Bill (Clinton), it is accusations of rape, blatantly improper sexual contact including with a young intern and a babysitter, numerous instances of forcible contact and groping, and attempted seduction. And yet the same voices that are raised so stridently against O'Reilly have never have raised a peep against Clinton, even up to this day. No amount of accusations against Clinton make so much as a dent in his reputation. He's a liberal icon! It's almost as if this really has nothing to do with standing up for maltreated women, and only has to do with bringing down our enemies and supporting our friends. Let's look at some of the respective accusations. BuzzFeed here has a roundup of accusations against O'Reilly. Examples: From Caroline Heldman, a professor at Occidental University who was a frequent guest on O'Reilly's program from about 2008 - 2013: "The first time I met him in person he said, 'when I was in college professors didn't look like you,'" she recalled. "He likes to stare at legs and breasts. He was belittling as well as flirtatious. . . . He tried to rattle me and other female guests," she said. "He would say condescending things like, 'OK ladies, try and be smart today.'" From former Fox News employee Perquita Burgess (a black woman and not an on-air personality): "One day he walks past my desk ... he walks past and says 'Hey, hot chocolate,'" Burgess said. "I didn’t respond. I was mortified ... I took that as a very plantational remark." From Wendy Walsh, a psychologist and former regular guest on the program (and source of the most recent accusations that brought the matter to a head): Wendy Walsh claims the talk show host asked her to come to his hotel room and, when she declined, he retaliated by dropping her as a regular guest on his show and reneging on an alleged promise to help her land her own show on Fox News. (Via PowerLine) From Jehmu Greene, another former regular guest on the program: Greene, who was a regular Fox guest and later became a contributor, reported that in 2007, O’Reilly told her she should show more cleavage. The most serious allegations that I find come from a former regular guest named Juliet Huddy, and relate to events in 2011: Juliet Huddy . . . said that Mr. O’Reilly pursued a sexual relationship with her in 2011, at a time he exerted significant influence over her career. When she rebuffed his advances, he tried to derail her career. . . . [Huddy's allegations include] that Mr. O’Reilly had called Ms. Huddy repeatedly and that it sometimes sounded as if he was masturbating. He invited her to his house on Long Island, tried to kiss her, took her to dinner and the theater, and after asking her to return a key to his hotel room, appeared at the door in his boxer shorts, according to the letter. (From an article in the New York Times, January 10, 2017.) There are more, but that gives a good flavor. The closest thing there to actual physical contact is Huddy's allegation that O'Reilly "tried to kiss" her. There are no allegation of touching, nor of groping, nor of force, and certainly not of rape. Now consider Clinton. You already know about Monica Lewinsky. Here are a few others: Juanita Broaddrick: "And then as he points over my shoulder, he grabs me and turns me to him. And that was a shock. And I tried to push him away. And I only weighed about 120 pounds at that time. He was a very large man. And I kept telling him, 'No. I don’t want this at all.' And he grabbed me again, very forcefully. And started biting on my top lip. And this was extremely painful. I thought he was going to bite my lip off. And that’s when he pushed me back onto the bed." It goes on from there. (Via Breitbart) Kathleen Willey: Willey was a volunteer in Clinton’s White House Social Office in the early 90s. She said she was sexually assaulted by then-President Clinton in the Oval Office when she allegedly went there to speak to him about a job. In her book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton, she says she was subjected to threats and extreme intimidation by goons purportedly hired by Hillary Clinton. (Via The Daily Caller) Paula Jones: “And he sat down really fast and he dropped his pants,” she recalled, after being escorted to the hotel room by an armed state trooper. And he was fondling himself. And he asked me to kiss it. Now that is disgusting. And I said, ‘I am not that kind of girl.’” (Via Breitbart) Here is a roundup of six other accusers (Eileen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Becky Brown, Helen Dowdy and Christy Zercher). One of them (Gracen) is again an accusation of forcible rape, and several others involve extensive unwanted physical contact and groping. Again, not meaning to stand up for O'Reilly, but clearly the accusations against Clinton are on an entirely different level. What is the reaction of corporate America to these respective allegations? Forbes here has a list of more than 50 national advertisers who dropped their support of O'Reilly's program just since April. It's a who's who, from automobile manufacturers (Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Hyundai, Lexius) to Big Pharma (Pfizer, Sanofi, Lilly, GSK). to insurers (Allstate, Esurance, Pacific Life), and on and on. For comparison, from ZeroHedge here we have a list of some $26.6 million of paid speeches given by Bill Clinton to major corporations over just a two-plus year period from January 2013 to May 2015. All of the allegations against Clinton were well-known by that time. Admittedly I don't find exact overlap with the O'Reilly droppers. But Clinton's list of non-droppers is an even more prestigious who's who, starting with most of the big banks (Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan, UBS, Deutsche Bank), software and tech companies (Oracle, Microsoft, SAP), insurers (Zurich, Standard Life), and so on. What, there's no problem associating your name with this guy? Sometimes the term "double standard" has been used to describe circumstances like these, but I don't think that term really comes close to a fair description. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/25/17 at 04:16:56 Web...... I hope you are not expecting a reply, even tho you took time to lay out a good example of what folks see as the extremely distinct reactions to pretty much the same claim. This mindset, and rigidness of not yielding or engaging the opposition in constructive dialogue is what is driving the deplorable away from the democrat party...... You saw the little blow up recently of a candidate who differed his views on abortion, was getting backing and endorsements, until the party hierarchy lowered the boom..... They will self destruct because they won't even allow constructive differing in their own party, its like HEIL HITLER, or else.... And, they are out feeding their crickets ;D |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by Trippah on 04/25/17 at 06:37:35 Which proves my point, they is all guilty of being lecherous. I seldom accept news from Breitbart as accurate; again it is a shame these accusers didn't take their assaults to court. p.s. I was never a Clinton supporter, he is too slick. Smart as Hell but just sooo slick. The consensual oral sex with dingbat is not criminal. The reports of rape have yet to be prosecuted and need to be, where evidence and due process might help clarify what did or did not take place. Unfounded but usually well funded accusations should not be the basis of decisions, about O'Reilly or Clinton. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by T And T Garage on 04/25/17 at 07:37:42 Too easy.... It seems billo-o has wille beat by 3... 3 accusers that is. Further, bill-o's buddy roger paid about $13 million to keep the women quiet over several years. Remember, willie was having CONSENSUAL adultery. bill-o was just a pathetic letch. Not defending willie at all - just the facts... That is all. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/25/17 at 07:49:39 Clinton BIT Juanitas LIP to hold her dammit.He RAPED her. |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by raydawg on 04/25/17 at 08:12:08 61475C4545545D350 wrote:
I agree with you AND credit the conscious reporting, promoting, etc, by the left on matters of sexual discrimination, assaults, etc. They raised the awareness to those who didn't readily see it, or experience it personally. However, when you parse out the indignation(s) based on affiliation(s) it cheapens the whole argument and shows partisan disengenous behavior, and motivation, WHICH.... Is the root cause of the claim to begin with, leaving the criminal aspect aside. Do you see what I mean? |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by T And T Garage on 04/25/17 at 08:15:10 5B444245585F6E5E6E56444803310 wrote:
Allegedly... (wikipedia) Broaddrick had once signed a deposition, under oath, stating that no sexual contact had occurred with Bill Clinton; although she subsequently stated that she had made this claim because "I didn't want to be forced to testify about the most horrific event of my life." In 1999, Slate magazine published an inconclusive piece on whether Broaddrick was telling the truth. She was then subpoenaed but denied under oath that Clinton had raped her, in order, she later said, to protect her privacy, her husband and her horse-farm business. During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Broaddrick changed course and publicly alleged the President had raped her to ABC news. Yeah.... sounds like a rock-solid case..... SMH |
|
Title: Re: FOX and the henhouse....,, Post by T And T Garage on 04/25/17 at 08:18:13 2B38203D382E3E590 wrote:
I agree with you AND credit the conscious reporting, promoting, etc, by the left on matters of sexual discrimination, assaults, etc. They raised the awareness to those who didn't readily see it, or experience it personally. However, when you parse out the indignation(s) based on affiliation(s) it cheapens the whole argument and shows partisan disengenous behavior, and motivation, WHICH.... Is the root cause of the claim to begin with, leaving the criminal aspect aside. Do you see what I mean?[/quote] I see it VERY clearly. I've got two words for you - dennis hastert. Yeah, let's talk about partisan hypocrisy... |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |