It's all right to have a discussion about Fox News reporters, everyone has their own opinion. As for me I completely agree with Svetlana's statements. Most of reports are fair and balanced. Now Sean Hannity continues Glenn's Beck investigation on Obama's tsars. This time is Kevin Jenning, he is the founder of gays, lesbians and straight education network.
And that war, which WH with Obama started against Fox News only diminishes his role as a president.

Hmm.. where was Glen Beck with Bush tsars?
I think Bush had more of then then Obama on the last count...

well, Beck was not on TV then...plus Bush had to appoint a lot of them because of the new national security measures, plus lots of conservatives did criticize Bush for growing the Federal government...and the most important thing conservatives like Beck don't trust people like Obama and people he appoints with the socialistic background...*-) :-)

the count is Bush-31, Obama-32
********en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

I just looked at that website with all the czars...and I see why Beck has so many objections - most Bush's czars were confirmed by the Senate (meaning they have gone through the vetting process...Obama's czars have not..that's WHY Beck has to do an investigation on them...(dt) (hu) :-)

most Obama tsars have been confirmed
***********.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/
In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.

********blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/capitol-hill-turns-up-the-heat-on-criticism-of-president-obamas-czars-.html
well, something wrong about that site - factcheck - the number of Bush's czars is wrong and the confirmation doesn't coincide with wiki...even democrats are worried about Obama's czars...

feel free to check sources listed on factcheck.org
i have done it several times before and they checked out every time.
i will believe them way before wikipedia, but if you like i can fix the wiki entry right now.

here you go..I felt something was odd...
Senator Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the ChicagoAnnenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the AnnenbergFoundation.the one with a board connected to William Ayers and BarackObama.
fackcheck is owned by Annenberg

it's not owned.. it's funded by the foundation..
but if you think factcheck is biased for Obama read this:
********factcheck.org/2009/02/fact-checking-obamas-speech/

FactCheck.org is a non-partisan,[1] nonprofit[2] website that describes itself as a "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."[3] It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation


Where does it say owned?

I wonder if there is an official government site with all the czars and confirmations...

***********.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26779.html
this is what I found...according to this, only 6 have been confirmed..

i suggest your read the factcheck article and not just scan it.
there is also a lot of supporting info.

***********.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf
check this out - they claim Bush had this many czars, but then list deputy secretaries and undersecretaries as czars...those are not czars - those are positions within the cabinets...

I wonder if there is an official government site with all the czars and confirmations...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
czar is not an official title, so how can there be?
whitehouse.gov lists all2009 nominations and appointments, and factcheck has a list of Obama&39;s czars
***********.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf, if one has nothing better to do, they can go through them one by one...

check this out - they claim Bush had this many czars, but then list deputy secretaries and undersecretaries as czars...those are not czars - those are positions within the cabinets...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
don't they do the same for Obama?

for good fox news programming check out their website - in the morning it's mostly news, in the afternoon it's special programming plus news every half hour...
just to conclude this issues with czars
1. Even if there was less criticism about this issue during Bush doesn't mean the issue doesn't deserve attention now (in defence of Bush, he was intially against the Homeland Department creation and special postions, but then he caved in to the pressure)
2. The quality of people Obama appoints make people vey suspicious of the whole process and its legality...
3.Only nine out of over 30 Obama's 'czars' have been confirmed, at least 15 for Bush...
4.Always a good thing to question your government and their action...kinda slows them down...))maybe....

3.Only nine out of over 30 Obama's 'czars' have been confirmed, at least 15 for Bush...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I'm missing something about this czar confirmation process... but, Bush served 2 terms, Obama has been in office less than a year...

4.Always a good thing to question your government and their action...kinda slows them down...))maybe....
--------------------------------------------------------------
even better when it's done without ulterior motives and not just to the opposing side...

2. The quality of people Obama appoints make people vey suspicious of the whole process and its legality...
---------------------------------------------------------------
because GW's appointees were beyond reproach... *-)

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. For example, today some leftist Limbo haters put a false accusation of him on Wiki. Limbaugh is sending every single commentator or politician ( like Al Sharpton) who cited that wiki reference a letter, demanding the proof of facts. And the second letter demanding an apology or retrieval of the accusation.
And after that -libel lawsuit? I hope he succeeds with those creeps. Thank God he has enough $$$ to beat the crap out of those liars.

the point was NOT who has mot tsars.. probably Obama will have more by the end of the term..
the point was to show that people like Beck are not fair and balanced..
Not that there is anything wrong with it..

4.Always a good thing to question your government and their action...kinda slows them down...))maybe....
Especially when Republicans are in power. Then Fox News is the ultimate place that questions the government. :-)

Democrats in Congress who never questioned Bush's czars are now worried about Obama's...are they not fair and balanced?
Beck WAS very harsh on Bush and his bailout and spendings (don't remember about czars)...
Bush had EIGHT years to appoint various czars (some positions lasted only a year or two)...the reason it worries so many people IS because it's not about to stop and they want check and balances (oversight of the Congress)...otherwise, those czars have unlimited power because most of them report only to the president...
remember very well people like Savage was mumbling on the Radio about Bush's czars....

Алексей, republicans were very harsh on Bush too...it's just people with your views would not see it because they issues that worries them are vastlt different - conservatives brought Bush's immigration reform down, were very much against all bailouts, stimulus...
they did, however, supported him on the war on terror issues...

Svetlana, how do you know what my views are? Do you even know if I vote Democrat or Republican?
Yes, Beck was critical of Bush. :-) I remember him defending Bush's handouts to oil companies: "...this helped companies. Oil companies are companies. Deal with that" [very close to actual text. Google it to see what he said exactly]. It was very nice to see him to attack Obama's handouts to car companies with the same vigor. It makes him a very unbiased and well-balanced journalist.

what handouts to the oil companies? show me the link...:-)
aren't you a liberal?
and conservatives also were critical of Bush's Supreme Court nominee, so she took her name down...so they don't support whatever Bush does 100%...

A couple of formulas:
1. BBC + NPR + CNNHeadlineNews - FoxNews - MSNBC = good reporting.
2. Glen Beck = Keith Olbermann
Unfortunately, there is not a single unbiased news outlet. Only the aggregate source + some personal "unbullsh#ting" would give you a somewhat unbiased news.

FOX was never really harsh on Bush, even when he was fucking up.
They are very harsh on Obama, does not matter what he does.
But, i assume, most people watch FOX with understanding this is
what they would do.
The same reason people read NYT or watch MSNBC because they wanna see more left commentary.

Yeah, what is my definition of "is". :-)
"+" means "combined with". As I said, only watching several outlets could give you a somewhat unbiased point of view.

Like I said before - conservatives on Fox were critical of a lot of things republicans in Congress wanted to do but the conservative base didn't agree with, and they were not shy to be critical about it...has Fox been fair to Bush?..I think so...but fair doesn't mean not critical...
There has been a lot of criticism about Obama on Fox...the good thing is a lot of Obama supporters are invited to let them state the other side of the story...other channels have never done it with Bush - the republican side rarely has an opportunity to respond to the criticism there...

Sveta, i don't watch FOX or any other news organization a LOT, but it's very clear how FOX is biased..
It was great actually on Jon Stewart yesterday..
There was a pretty large gay rally in DC (70,000 people +) and FOX spent 3.5 minutes within 24 hour period covering it.
They spent more time covering some school protest.
If this is not bias i don't know what is.

Mike, I didn't say that. I did say that they serve as a source of information. And they have less BS than Fox and MSNBC.

what gay rally? I didn't hear anything about the gay rally...
I did read about it on Drudge - gays protesting Obama not paying attention to their "issue"...
Aлексей, if you support auto-bailout and you are fair, you have to give credit to Bush for doing - the republican base is not supportive of it and rightly so because it's a waste of taxpayers money - nothing will help a failing company run by the unions...

oh, I see your point - they were not covering it enough...but what's there to cover?...

.otherchannels have never done it with Bush - the republican side rarely hasan opportunity to respond to the criticism there...
So, it is not Glenn Beck, who I see on CNN from time to time? I got to check my vision... :-)

Aleksey, IMHO NPR is like the bullshit champion of the world..
besides being totally annoying and constantly asking for contributions their shows have more bias then MSNBC and FOX combined.
Sometimes when i drive long distance NPR is the only station i get and i find myself yelling at the radio "you are lying idiots!!!" :-D
Don't know about BBC, never watch.

it's a waste of taxpayers money
Ok. Let's take Flint -- a city that was defined by car industry. Plants close, people lose jobs and go on welfare. Who pays for welfare? Taxpayers? Crime goes up, property prices go down, other businesses leave the city. A very good business model.

Beck was on the main CNN, he was on their Headline news channel, I think...
Doesn't that invalidate your initial point though?