Thread: FOX "news"

Originally Posted by youneverknow

A Fox News host just doesn't get it. She may have proven herself the biggest ignoramus at the ignoramus network during this interview.

The Interviewer was shockingly bereft of interviewing skills.

The Subject was a defensive, pretentious ass with a victim complex. It seemed to me that he kept attacking himself and blaming her.

Fox News whines ‘far left media’ making fun of our ‘most embarrassing interview’ ever

By Eric W. Dolan


Fox News host Shannon Bream on Wednesday complained that “very far left media” had criticized the news network’s recent interview with a religious scholar who happened to be Muslim.

“The liberal media has remained quiet on the subject matter of the book but cannot control its outrage over that question: Why did you write it?” she said.

A Fox News interview with Reza Aslan last week went viral after BuzzFeed labelled it “the most embarrassing interview Fox News has ever done.”

Fox News host Lauren Green began the interview by asking why a Muslim was interested in writing a book about Jesus Christ.

The initial question alone was innocuous. But after Aslan explained his interest in Jesus — he was a former evangelical Christian and a religious scholar — Green continued to question his motivations. She insinuated the book was a secret attack on the core tenets of Christianity and that Muslim scholars could not write an accurate book about the historical Jesus.

Bream said Wednesday that Green was “taking so much heat” because people of the Muslim faith were overly sensitive.

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube, below:

Seems we got a Salman Rushdie case, once again a writer mustn't voice his opinion on a religion.

Yes, and being picked on by bigoted religious airheads as well.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Yes, and being picked on by bigoted religious airheads as well.

This thread is about FOX and the connections to the GOP, not the Taliban.


Oh wait..

Originally Posted by bsnub

Reza Aslan accuses Fox News of ‘inherent anti-Muslim bias’

I read the article, thanks bsnub.

There is bias against Islam. It is a violent and intolerant ideology.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by MrG

The Interviewer was shockingly bereft of interviewing skills.

The Subject was a defensive, pretentious ass with a victim complex. It seemed to me that he kept attacking himself and blaming her.

She's clearly a moron.

The guy seemed pretty reasonable to me; he stated his points clearly and precisely.

The interview isn't actually that bad; after having read about it, I expected worse. She's an idiot, Fox is pure propaganda, but no new news there... I've seen far far worse on Fox; around 8 or 9 years ago, I lived in a condo that had cable tv, the only English speaking channel was Fox. I've seen them do similar all day every day and worse quite often...

Yes, she's an idiot working a script on a one-note issue: Muslims are bad.

But he should never have kept repeating his credentials. I made him look at once defensive and pretensious. He should have just answered her question simply as to why he wrote the book--because he's a scholar of religeons--and the subject interested him because...and left it at that.

The difference is that she is the professional in this, he just needs somemore practice as an interview subject.

Originally Posted by MrG

I made him look at once defensive and pretensious.

I can see your point. I thought he made his point well initial, but he did go on a bit and he was pretentious in that San Francisco style he exhibited...

Originally Posted by MrG

The difference is that she is the professional in this, he just needs somemore practice as an interview subject.

Yes. The presenters on Fox, mostly, are extremely poor at their jobs. Regardless of their politics, you expect some standards on a news channel, even a political infotainment propaganda channel such as Fox. But, sadly, not so...

A nun does what Fox News couldn’t do: an interview with Reza Aslan | The Raw Story

Sister Rose Pacatte and religious scholar Reza Aslan discussed Biblical literalism and other topics in an interview published by the Ignatian News Network on Thursday.

Aslan and his new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth have received massive amounts of attention thanks to a recent Fox News interview that went viral. During the interview, Fox News host Lauren Green insinuated that Muslims could not write books about Jesus.

In her interview, Pacatte covered similar ground, but in a notably less accusatory and more sympathetic fashion. She began the interview by noting that many mainstream Catholics believed “everything in the Bible is true and some of it really happened.”

“Part of the foundation of evangelical Christianity is the conception that scripture is God-breathed, it’s inerrant, it’s literal, every word of it is actual fact and truth,” Aslan replied. “Well, from an academic perspective what’s fascinating about that is that’s a very new idea. I think a lot of the people who believe that think that’s what Christians have always thought for 2,000 years. That notion of inerrancy is only about 100, 120 years old.”

“It’s true,” Pacatte remarked. “It’s more recent, from the Plymouth Brethren time.”

Aslan said it was key to understand the difference between religious truth and historical fact.

“The ancient mind did not think of history the way that we think of history,” he explained. “We think of history as a collection of observable and verifiable dates and events. That conception, that definition of history would have made no sense to the Gospel writers for whom history was not about revealing facts, it was about uncovering truths.”

Pacatte also questioned Aslan about his personal faith. A point of contention during his Fox News interview.

Aslan explained that he believed all scriptures were divinely inspired and that all religions contained some truths. He said he considers himself a Muslim because the metaphors and symbols of Islam resonate with him personally. Citing the Buddha, he said he’d rather dig one six-foot well than six one-foot wells.

“But I also recognized that the water I am drawing from is the water that everybody else is drawing from,” Aslan said. “I’m perfectly comfortable with everybody else’s well, even though there particular sets of symbols and metaphors are ones that are less familiar to me.”

Here's the interview...

Originally Posted by barbaro

There is bias against Islam. It is a violent and intolerant ideology.

So is Christianity if the good book is to be believed.

Originally Posted by MrG

But he should never have kept repeating his credentials.

I thought that was the best part of the interview,she was trying to claim that him being a Muslim somehow did not allow him to write a book on Christ and he came out with..he has 4 degrees, PHD in religious studies,20 years experience, can read ancient biblical Greek etc..I thought he came across very well, he made her look like a complete twat.

^
agreed.

she was trying to define him as only a muslim, when he approached the writing of the book as so much more than that.

he destroyed her in the interview...and the fallout is that his book has climbed the best seller charts in a way it never would have.

^
^^
I really don't have a dog in this fight. I don't blame him for trying to establish his credentials clearly, I just wouldn't have gone about it by repeating myself.

Still, she was such a persistant little yap dog, he came out the better in the exchange. She sold a lot of books for him, too.

I liked the way he insisted on his credentials in spite of the fact that millions watching would call him "pretentious" or whatever else the dull and uninformed use to defend their right to be stupid and proud. Took courage.

It's great that the book has taken off. I like the thesis. It's been around for a while and it has always been my favorite way of thinking about the historical Jesus.

After watching the fiasco the other night I went on and watched him debating with Sam the bio-fundie-bigot Harris. The same issue came up again and Aslan insisted on his credentials again: Harris repeatedly says things like "Millions of Muslims think..." or "Most Muslims feel..." and Aslan pointed out that they don't, actually and that as a sociologist of religion he had actually spent years studying and traveling Among the Believers as it were.

It's nice to see someone not buy into the pretence that all opinions are equal and the phony insistence on a kind of humility that really just acts to big up the petty.

He was too defensive. Should have counterattacked, asking if Foxnews believes that he mustn't write a book about Jesus because he is a Muslim, and repeat this question again and again.

He was there to talk about his book, not do a critique of FOX. It was exactly the right thing to do NOT to go on about being a Muslim or not.

^ Fox does seem to be culling it's more cringeworthy neanderthals, so Hannity may well be on the chopping block. The only real crowd puller they've got is Bill O'Reilly. Heck, I'd much rather cringe at some dumb but nice T&A, than at Hannity.

Originally Posted by sabang

Heck, I'd much rather cringe at some dumb but nice T&A, than at Hannity.

So you're saying Rachael Maddow doesn't do it for you any more?

Originally Posted by sabang

Heck, I'd much rather cringe at some dumb but nice T&A, than at Hannity.

I'm not so sure Kelly is dumb, she tore that radio guy a new arsehole over his comments about maternity leave and then left Karl Rove looking like the prick he is on election night 2012.

She may well be a FOX shill but every now and then she seems to have moments of clarity.

Hannity is a lying coward and scum.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

and then she seems to have moments of clarity.

despite wearing too much make-up and looking like a cheap whore,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

and then she seems to have moments of clarity.

despite wearing too much make-up and looking like a cheap whore,

Heh...bring on that cheap whore!

Earlier this week, Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus went apoplectic over the announcement that NBC Entertainment was developing a miniseries based on Hillary Clinton’s post-White House life. With no script, or even a firm decision to go forward, the GOP, and their PR division, Fox News, lashed out at the network for even considering such a thing. Priebus threatened NBC and CNN (who are considering their own Clinton documentary) calling it “appalling” that they “have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton’s campaign operatives.” He continued…

“If they have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC’s Summer Meeting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote stating that the RNC will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor.”

Both networks waived off Priebus’ threats saying that he was prematurely judging the projects that are both in very early stages of development. They also pointed out that the projects would be produced by their respective entertainment divisions and that the news divisions would have no role whatsoever in their content. Priebus dismissed those responses and persisted in his assertion that the programs would be biased and that he would not permit his Party to be engaged with the networks should they proceed. He does not believe that the distinction between the news and entertainment divisions has any merit.

Well, today this melodrama became significantly more complex. The New York Times is reporting that NBC is in talks with Fox Television Studios to produce their miniseries. Fox has confirmed the report. NBC’s decision to go with Fox would be influenced in part by Fox’s extensive experience with long-form television.

The problem for Priebus and the GOP is that now they would have to exclude Fox News from holding any of their primary debates. After all, if they are going to take it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton’s campaign operatives, then the GOP would be forced to show them the same treatment they show NBC and CNN. And Priebus couldn’t argue that Fox’s entertainment division is separate from their news division because he already rejected that argument.

So now the Republican Party may not be able to have debates on any of the cable news networks. This leaves them with only ABC and CBS. Well, technically, there is also the highest rated national network, Univision, but that doesn’t seem like a good fit for the Hispanic-hating GOP. Perhaps they could work something out with Al-Jazeera America. The GOP is getting closer to Rush Limbaugh’s ideal. Yesterday he offered some advice to Republicans:

“Do ‘em on your own network. Put on your own debates with your own moderators,” he said, because “Wherever you go outside of Fox, you are going up against the Democrat Party.”"

The opportunities for Republicans are getting narrower every day. I continue to believe, as I wrote last week, that the best thing that could happen to the Democrats is for Republicans to sequester themselves in the bosom of Fox News. It would limit their exposure to the broader electorate and the independents they need to win. It would also insure that their candidates were unvetted and unprepared for the real-life battles of a campaign. If they spend the primary season being fluffed by Fox, when they eventually face the general election they will be surprised by sharp criticisms from which they were shielded in their chummy primary.

But now they may not even be able to go to Fox. What will become of them? Will they wander the countryside looking for local broadcasters to carry their debates? Will they abandon TV altogether and have their debates on talk radio? I’m sure Limbaugh would appreciate that. Or more likely, they will retreat from their pompous rhetoric and consent to have their debates wherever they are fortunate enough to get an invitation. That is, if they’re smart. So don’t hold your breath.

News Corpse » The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay: