Fair and Balanced Inaugeration Coverage

Submitted by: buddy 12 years ago in
/media/93115_fairandbalanced.asf
You know what, I have to say that Fox is letting the other viewpoint in here. It"s a pretty good debate.
There are 45 comments:
Female 80
THE LADY THAT SPOKE FROM VANITY FAIR IS SO right! Bush should have used that money more wisley, AND WHY IS HE PRESIDENT AGAIN? HE SHOULDNT BE HAVING SO MANY PARTYS THAT COST MILLIONS(SO STUPID) ...HMM...DONATE TO A STUPID INAUGERATION OR DONATE THAT MONEY TO THE TSUNAMI POEPLE, OR MAYBE EVEN THE WAR THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR.. THAT LADY FROM FOX IS WRONG.
0
Reply
Female 325
We`re all here commenting on this page cuz, well, we don`t have anyting better to be doing with our time :-P

And cpux is right... not much difference between screaming rep`s and screaming dem`s... just what they`re screaming about. Put an elephant and a donkey together, and all you get is a lot of poo to clean up.

go libritarian!

0
Reply
Female 7
If the only thing people have to complain about right now is the amt of money that was spent on the inauguaration then let them... i mean think of how much Kerry would have spent... i`m sure ketchup lady would have thrown quite a party! and whoever it was that pointed out the fact that all the money that was spent was from private donations that were meant for this occasion. Just get over it people... there has to be better ways to spend your time!
0
Reply
Male 2
I love hearing democrats rant and rave...expecially when it`s broadcasted live on televison. Thank you Vanity Fair Lady for proving to the world that the only agenda you think about is your own. Oh...and by the way...how much did your outfit cost...the SUV you drive...the luxurious house you live in...damn hypocrite!
0
Reply
Male 115
Arrogant democrats, arrogant republicans, what`s the difference?

(.....don`t answer that)

Anyway, she had every right to say whatever she wanted so long as it wasn`t advocating violence toward the Bush administration. Likewise, Fox News has the right to never let her grace their cameras again. Of course her facts weren`t all there, but politics is like poker; you don`t win by showing your entire hand.

0
Reply
Female 368
"Michael Moore is wrong because he didn`t actually put facts in his movie, misrepresented interviews, and clearly used 9/11 to pad his bank account and get an oscar."

Hmmm, interesting, since every fact in his movie is very well documented and you could find out where he got his facts from if you even took one second to find out.

"Regardless of what the Vanity Fair lady said, that woman from FOXNews was blatantly defending Bush. The guest is allowed to voice her opinion, the anchor is not supposed to."

I totally agree, anchors, regardless of their political affiliations are supposed to at least act like they are unbiased. She didn`t even try to hide her obvious bias towards Bush, but then again neither does anyone else on FOXNews.

0
Reply
Female 368
"Just a sidenote, Bill Clinton`s inaguration cost @ 35 million (Adjusted for inflation) and most have cost around 30-40 million for the last 15-20 years. Also, corporation pay the vast majority of the cost - not taxpayers."
I don`t think his inauguration should have been that lavish either, but you are also missing the important fact that we were not in a war, and we did not have these massive budget defecits.

And if you think the people giving these $40 million are just giving it to be nice, then you are very naive, they are trying to buy political favor, that`s how things work. Corporations donate tons of money to politicians so that they will help them out later.

0
Reply
Female 325
I love political debates... fox news, like all news, is bias...(if they don`t voice your point of view, they`re obviously bias...oh wait...) the vanity fair chick, dispite having a somewhat valid point of view, did not go about voicing it the right way... she could have been a lot more sly and underhanded, and less smug about it. NPR rocks, and I don`t care if people think it`s liberal, I`ve heard plenty of both sides on NPR. It`s like democracy... sure it`s not a perfect system, but it`s the best option we got.

I`d be all for communism if it weren`t for human nature... lazy ass, selfish humans.

0
Reply
Male 22
WHAT A BYACH ON THE LEFT. AND WHAT THE HELL IS A CRIPM, OR HUMMVY?
0
Reply
Male 176
"Privately Funded Donations"??? More like money given to the president to greases him up so that these compnies who "donate" get all kinds of special kickbacks and privelages. Do you think anyone actually gives millions of dollars for no reason?

And I love the lady on the right and applaud her for being so gutsy...it turned me on. Come to papa you sexy cougar you, I`ll reward you for your bravery.

0
Reply
Male 7
A. The majority of humvee`s are armored already.
B. Franklin Delano Roosevelt`s first inauguration, held during the worst days of the Great Depression, was "the most lavish" of all the presidential inaugural celebrations.
In 1865, crowds overran the White House for President Abraham Lincoln`s second inauguration as the Civil War was drawing to a close. In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower`s first inaugural was the biggest staged up to that time, and President Richard M. Nixon`s 1969 and 1973 inaugurals -- held amid the divisive Vietnam War -- weren`t scaled down.
C. Michael Moore is wrong because he didn`t actually put facts in his movie, misrepresented interviews, and clearly used 9/11 to pad his bank account and get an oscar. "Everybody" knows that.
0
Reply
Male 9
It`s so drating typical for the republican american to critisize an opinion on false premises and badly oriented claims! Well - when the democratic reporter is telling the facts, then what does a republican have to say to his defence? "The interview wasn`t supposed to be about that! It was supposed to be about the weather! She abused her air-time! Booo!!"
The same thing is happening with the republican attack on Michael Moore. Instead of argumenting like adults, they bring on uninteresting claims like "He`s fat!" and "He live in a sky high-expensive apartement on Manhattan. Thats why he`s wrong!!"
As in this case, everybody knows that the millions of dollars Bush used for the party could have done plenty of use elsewhere.
Everybody knows that the war has gone on for way too long.
Everybody knows that the woman in the video made a pretty good point.

0
Reply
Male 7
She is defending Bushs` right to have a party, not his politics by the way. The vanity fair lady was a total #^$@! about it too. I think the anchor lady was very nice and accomidating to her considering how offensive and rude the vanity fair lady was, and the fact that the vanity fair lady was clearly misrepresenting actual facts taken out of context.
0
Reply
Male 955
Mustang, the news is supposed to be unbiased, I believe that is why she should have kept her mouth shut. Even though we already know that the news is supposed to be unbiased, I think she took Bush`s side more than what she needed to do, and ran with it.
0
Reply
Female 1
Correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it the $40 million is all private donations and just $4 million is taxpayers money used for security. Now if people keep on insisting he use the privately raised money for the tsunami victims and the military then so should the academy awards,the golden globe awards should have canceled and they should have donated all of there money they spent for there dresses to the victimsof the tsunami(they don`t have drinking water but Hollywood elaborate jewels and dresses) Mardi Gras should be cancelled, The Superbowl,concerts,and any party or celebration you are having or that vanity fair woman is having. HOW MUCH DID SHE SPEND ON THAT OUTFIT AND THAT HAIR? DAMN HER TO HELL IT SHOULD ALL GO TO THE MILITARY AND THE TSUNAMI VICTIMS!! Oh please give me a break Bush has the right to have his party!!!
0
Reply
Male 7
She does not make valid points at all. Those of you complaining about the cost would be singing a different tune if it had been Kerry`s inauguration. Bush won - get over it. The inauguration is historically a lavish event - It is supposed to be over the top. As far as money going to a better cause, I suppose it could have, but I think welfare could be put towards a better cause as well, rather than just throwing money at people when a lot of them just freeload with no attempt to better their circumstances. The armor thing is complete BS as someone posted earlier. Baker_9900 is correct on the FDR issue - so where are the valid points? So what if the anchor was defending Bush, or is it not ok for her to have an opinion? Why can`t the anchor voice her opinion? Should have told Dan Rather that a while back.
0
Reply
Male 34
Sirstealalot, she makes valid points, so who cares where she works? Even if Bush`s party was paid by private donors, that money still could have gone towards any number of much better causes. If you can`t see that for the fact that it is, then you`re blind.
0
Reply
Male 70
Then Shame on Bill Clinton too! I am a Dem, but I am tired of them using that FDR inauguration out of context. The reason it was a small party was not because of war, it was because we was sick and could barely stand. He gave a two minute speech.
0
Reply
Male 7
Just a sidenote, Bill Clinton`s inaguration cost @ 35 million (Adjusted for inflation) and most have cost around 30-40 million for the last 15-20 years. Also, corporation pay the vast majority of the cost - not taxpayers.
0
Reply
Male 1,407
"ITS A WAR. thats what happens."

What`s what happens? $40-million parties?

Regardless of what the Vanity Fair lady said, that woman from FOXNews was blatantly defending Bush. The guest is allowed to voice her opinion, the anchor is not supposed to.

0
Reply
Male 42
PRI is the best but geez was that lady on the right a `you know what`, or was it just me? they both very dumb. but come one lady on the right, ITS A WAR. thats what happens.
0
Reply
Male 117
The Chick works for Vanity Fair i really dont think anyone cares about her views. I mean dont get me wrong people are allowed to have their opions, but when you have a job to do you dont turn it around and talk about politcis.
0
Reply
Female 785
"Just because you support someone, does not mean you have to agree with everything they do and justify all their actions." -systemdwn

Whoah!!! :-O That is honestly the first time I have ever heard a Bush supporter say that!!! :-O

0
Reply
Male 616
Sometimes you need an arrogant democrat to "balance" out FoxNews.
0
Reply
Male 3
I`m not british, I`m american. :)
0
Reply
Male 31
i think thats cause you british people are being sheltered too much... BBC takes over your lives. i would probably run away if i were you.
0
Reply
Male 337
Wow, she came off as an arrogant democrat who thought she was king for sneaking her message into a live telecast. If she wanted a debate thats what O`Reilly is for. Poor newscaster was expecting a friendly conversation about the weather and this stereotypical liberal throws half truths and ignorance into the mix.
0
Reply
Male 3
Ahh yes, but those are single networks. BBC runs almost ever facet of news in the UK. And it isnt only funded by the government... the government has a big say in what goes into the news.
A lot of people seem to have a beef with Foxnews so imagine if foxnews was the ONLY choice of news you had in all of the US. Sure, you have tons of different stations you can change the channel to but they are all run by fox news whom everyone seems to see as rediculasly biased. Now, how do you think the other side would get its view across if this were the case? BBC radio.. BBC television...
I dont think there are any news stations I would completely trust. That was mainly my point.
0
Reply
Female 368
"HA! The BBC is run by the government."

So are NPR and PBS but I trust them more than most other US sources...

Just because they are funded by the gov`t doesn`t mean they are going to say only positive things about the gov`t, promote gov`t policies, etc.

0
Reply
Male 3
HA! The BBC is run by the government. I`m sorry but if you honestly think you can trust the BBC for "real" news you are sorely mistaken. I live in Europe and I see their crap everyday.
Not that I`m saying you can trust all the American media all the time either but certainly don`t put a lot of faith in the BBC.
And as far as the main point this woman was making... they have already said it basically isn`t true. Even when that Army Reserve soldier asked that question more than 80% of the Hummers were armored, they were cranking out more armored ones as fast as possible, and the ones that AREN`T armored arent being used in convoys or in bad areas (IE: they are getting used on bases in non hostile areas). I`m in the military... I`m not going to say I was there and saw this with my own eyes but I`ve heard from others that this was just basically NOT true. At least not currently. A year ago, yes... they were going into battle with unarmored hums but that problem was already
0
Reply
Male 331
that was funny!!
0
Reply
Male 72
The right wing wackos on fox news finally get a little taste of unintended justice delivered right to their little narrow minded network
0
Reply
Male 33
To all those who attack Bush for having "the most expensive inauguration party ever"... all $40 million came from private donations, donations that were made with the expressed intent of supporting the inaugural celebrations. Are you going to tell me it is morally or ethically wrong to accept *private* donations from friends and supporters?
0
Reply
Male 3,060
i`m a c-span guy, myself....but i still can`t get this to play. any ideas?
0
Reply
Male 164
Nothing`s wrong with peoples opinions, but when you start forcing them down the throats of people like that, it becomes an issue. You could tell that the reporter was shocked. That`s not what they had the lady on the show to discuss. She abused her air time to send a political message across. :\
0
Reply
Male 214
they both seemed pretty stuck up and annoying.
0
Reply
Female 368
Yes, I love the BBC. Definitely trust them more than most US news sources.
0
Reply
Male 5
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Real News, no democrats, no republicans, wow, they`re not even American and they know more than we do.

0
Reply
Male 3,060
figures. something political and i can`t get it to play. :-/

this doesn`t happen to be video coverage of that stupid protest outside of the white house on thursday - is it?

0
Reply
Female 368
Ha, saw that the other day. Very funny. They definitely didn`t expect her to say that. :-) The "reporter" looks so shocked. Heh.

Unfortunately though, this reminds me of the fact that there was very little balanced coverage on any network (don`t expect it from FOXNews anymore, but the other networks aren`t usually as bad...not usually very good but not as awful as FOX). Check out this link: http://mediamatters.org/items/2005012200...

0
Reply
Male 2
why aren`t people allow to voice their opinions anymore? I think she brings up some valid points...regardless of party lines! I support bush for the most part; I don`t support his rational for having the MOST EXPENSIVE innaugeration party ever! It makes him seem more delusional with reality of the situation. Just because you support someone, does not mean you have to agree with everything they do and justify all their actions. :-)
0
Reply
Male 164
Looks like another pissed off democrat trying to argue with whoever will give them a chance to speak :\
0
Reply
Male 5
Ah, the objective republican corporate whore media... gotta love it.
0
Reply
Male 154
umm, i dont understand
0
Reply
Male 10,115
Link: Fair and Balanced Inaugeration Coverage [Rate Link] - You know what, I have to say that Fox is letting the other viewpoint in here. It`s a pretty good debate.

I do think the parties were much too lavish myself.

0
Reply