Page 1 of 4

Way to go Fox News.....

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:57 pm
by MD-2389
http://www.halifaxlive.com/artman/publi ... _123.shtml
Fox News Suggests Canadian Katrina Generosity Meant To Embarrass George W. Bush

By D.L. McCracken
Sep 13, 2005, 16:31

Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna during an interview by Fox news reporter Frank Gibson last week was grilled by Gibson on Canada's motives for reacting so quickly to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.

The interview was shown during the September 9 episode of The O'Reilly Factor, All Things Considered and was titled, "KATRINA: Is Canada Doing Enough to Help?" The interview segment was introduced after Fox news man Tony Snow reported to Bill O'Reilly the fact that Canada "continues to ship oil relatively cheap" to the northern US states. Bill O'Reilly then introduced the interview segment by saying, "I don't know what the situation is with Canada, they've helped us out before but I'm gonna let them have a pass on this".

John Gibson took over and after thanking Canada through Ambassador McKenna for sending extra oil during the disaster, Gibson then added, "You kind of embarrassed us..the Vancouver Search & Rescue team showed up in St. Bernard's Parish before uh..any of the American Search & Rescue teams. We appreciate the help but ya know you're not supposed to embarrass us".

It gets worse.

McKenna appeared to be slightly taken aback by Gibson's statement, chuckled and went on to assure his host and the American public that it was not Canada's intention to embarrass the U.S. but to "help our neighbours".

At that point Ambassador McKenna went on to provide a detailed list of aid being sent to the Gulf region including three Canadian warships laden with supplies but Gibson again interrupted McKenna mid-sentence with an outrageous suggestion.

Gibson asks, "You know uh..Ambassador McKenna um..uh..uh..you know..just lemme uh..have you..uh..lemme address one thing. Uh we know that there's lots of people in Canada on the left side of the political spectrum who don't like George Bush. Is there any..any part of this..big Canadian help designed to..maybe embarrass the President?"

Ambassador McKenna deserves credit for maintaining his cool at this point in the interview and immediately assured Mr. Gibson that nothing could be further from the truth adding, "This has got nothing to do with George Bush, nothing to do with our relationship which is excellent by the way. This has got to do with the fact that we have been neighbours and friends for hundreds of years. You have come to our aid when we've been in trouble and Canada wants to be with you when you're in trouble. It's as simple as that".

Gibson perhaps chastened but probably not, then proceeded to list everything that Canada and Canadians have contributed to the relief efforts thus far, a detailed and rather long list. At one point as Gibson was naming various individual organizations and provinces who have donated assistance, he named Nova Scotia saying in an obviously astonished tone of voice, "Nova Scotia donated $100,000." At that point the interview ended.

It should be noted that Fox News and Frank McKenna could never be thought of as fast friends. Just this past July Ambassador McKenna spoke out against the U.S. news network and their penchant for spreading "disinformation" which can create a "false picture" of Canada. McKenna referred to this as the "Fox Factor" and urged all Canadians living in the United States to at least be aware of this fact.

Looks like Ambassador McKenna was right - who else but Fox News would actually question a country's generosity amidst a tragedy and suggest that our generosity was based on ulterior motives, in this case a desire to embarrass the United States?

The only embarrassment here should be experienced by Fox News for allowing their reporters to continually insult friendly nations.
:roll:

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:08 pm
by Iceman
[edit]Consider the source

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:14 pm
by MD-2389
Ya know, it helps if I post it in the right forum. ;)

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:16 pm
by CDN_Merlin
Why does FOX still have viewers I don't know. I would of slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by. The nerve of him to ask such questions.

Next time we'll call Bush and schedule our arrivals so that the US help gets there first so we don't "embarrass" them. :P

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:31 pm
by Ferno
they're not seriously saying Canada exploited the hurricane, are they?

not supposed to 'embarrass' the States? they really expect Canada to just wait around til the USA says, 'ok you can come in now'?

utterly rediculous.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:33 pm
by fliptw
Someone needs to move this to E&C.

MD got a bit too eager to post this.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:44 pm
by Mobius
CDN_Merlin wrote:I would of slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by.
Of course, we know you meant to type: I would HAVE slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:24 pm
by Krom
Oh please, Canada reacting faster then our own overloaded search and rescue means Canada is trying to embarrass the US? What a load of BS, it's embarrassing that we got so pwned by that storm, it would never have been a problem if some bunch of morons hadn't decided to live on the coast in a city that is largly below sea level.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:36 pm
by pATCheS
Mobius wrote:Of course, we know you meant to type: I would HAVE slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by.
would've :P

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:19 pm
by Ned
FauxNews=propaganda

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:14 pm
by Top Wop
Ned wrote:FauxNews=propaganda
Yes, because anything conservative is utterly evil and must be abolished, right? :roll:

Until someone posts the actual transcript of the show im going to treat this like the other accusation that Heraldo Riviera pushed aside an aid to help a guy in a wheelchair not to help but to get a photo-op. Typical spin. On top of that the source is suspicious. Dont believe everything you read because any idiot can post ★■◆● on the internet and it will be deemed valid. Show me a transcript and I will believe you.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:11 pm
by Ferno
wait just one minute...

topwop you actually believe fox news? and exactly why is a halifax newspaper susicious?


O'Reilly Factor transcript:
JOHN GIBSON, GUEST HOST: In the second "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight, generous offers of hurricane aid have been pouring in from around the world, but the donation of one close neighbor piqued Bill's interest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Canada not sending any money. Two helicopters, 32-person rescue team, medical supplies. Not a big showing from Canada.

TONY SNOW, HOST, "THE TONY SNOW SHOW": Yes. That's an interesting one because the State Department is making the argument in the case of some of these countries they've made offers. And we've said, you know, "We don't need all that. Here's what we need."

O'REILLY: Right.

SNOW: I've been told by friends in the northern, especially the upper Midwest, Canada is still shipping oil relatively cheap, which is why you get your gas a lot cheaper in Minnesota than you do, say, New York or Washington, D.C.
ADVERTISEMENTS

O'REILLY: I don't know what the situation is with Canada. They've helped us out before. But I'm going to let them have a pass on this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GIBSON: OK, well, we're going to find out what the situation is. Frank McKenna is the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. He joins us now from Washington.

So Mr. McKenna, welcome.

FRANK MCKENNA, CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: Thank you.

GIBSON: Bill was looking for lots of cash. I suppose the very first thing you'd want to tell me is that Canada is exporting to the United States an extra 91,000 barrels of oil a day to help ease supply disruptions. And that sounds pretty good and thank you.

MCKENNA: Look, thanks for saying that.

And unfortunately, Bill was sent some wrong information here. And I appreciate the chance to correct the record.

Not only are we turning on the taps in terms of oil and natural gas, but we've had one of the most generous and one of the most rapid responses of any nation in the world.

We have four ships that are sailing down as we speak, filled with provisions. We've opened our own national emergency stockpiles. We have Red Cross workers there. Air Canada planes have been down there. We have a dive team, 45 divers, Army and Navy, that are down there. We've had search and rescue people down there. We've had donations from provinces of cash.

GIBSON: Mr. McKenna, you kind of embarrassed us. The Vancouver search and rescue team showed up in St. Bernard's Parish before any of the American search and rescue teams. Appreciate the help, but you know, you're not supposed to embarrass us.

MCKENNA: Well, you know, the intention is not to embarrass. But we -- we're neighbors. And you've got a problem here, and Canadians -- look, I have to tell you this. Members of Parliament and cabinet ministers in Ottawa tell me their phones have rung off the hook from Canadians, demanding that Canada get in and be generous and be quick, because our neighbors were in trouble and our neighbor is in trouble. And we're really pleased to be there.

GIBSON: You know, Ambassador McKenna, just let me have you address one thing. We know that there are lots of people in Canada on the left side of the political spectrum who don't like George Bush. Is there any, any part of this big Canadian help designed to maybe embarrass the president?

MCKENNA: The -- the president today was kind enough to single out the Canadian contribution, and we've received that kind of praise from legislators across the country.

This has got nothing to do with George Bush. It's got nothing to do with our relationship, which is excellent, by the way. This has got to do with the fact that we have been neighbors and friends for hundreds of years. You have come to our aid when we've been in trouble, and Canadians want to be with you when you're in trouble.

It's as simple as that. It transcends everything else. It is simply a case of uncompromising support at a time when a neighbor is in trouble.

GIBSON: All right. Now Ambassador McKenna, let me just list some of the other stuff that Canada is contributing.

Four military ships and helicopter detachments with four military divers; British Columbia's 45-man Vancouver Urban Search and Rescue Team; 20,000 beds and 20,000 blankets.

Air Canada provided rescue flights to evacuate New Orleans. A convoy of logistical support vehicles and health supply provisions was sent.

The Canadian Red Cross sending its disaster personnel to the area. Nova Scotia donated $100,000 to the Canadian Red Cross for use there. The Canadian embassy in D.C. is holding a fundraiser.

Transport Canada has arranged to waive the toll at the Canada-U.S. border, which is a big deal.

Several private banks donated one point -- $3.5 million to Katrina relief funds. And of course, Celine Dion is pledging $1 million in relief.

Ambassador Frank McKenna, I've got to run. Thanks a lot for bringing us up to date and coming in. We appreciate it.
here's something our buddy bill neglected to mention.

Officials said Friday that they will set up their forward logistics site in Pensacola, Fla., to support four Canadian vessels, three Sea Kings and future flights bringing additional relief supplies to the hurricane-stricken area.

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:12 pm
by roid
CDN_Merlin wrote:Why does FOX still have viewers I don't know...
The same reason George Bush is in power.

i won't say that what reason is. i'm sure you all know it without me saying.

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:14 pm
by Top Gun
roid wrote:
CDN_Merlin wrote:Why does FOX still have viewers I don't know...
The same reason George Bush is in power.

i won't say that what reason is. i'm sure you all know it without me saying.
Nope, can't say that I do. :P

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:44 pm
by roid
what is your theory as to why Fox news still has viewers?

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:04 pm
by Vander
O'REILLY: Canada not sending any money. Two helicopters, 32-person rescue team, medical supplies. Not a big showing from Canada.
I forget, why is his show dubbed the "No Spin Zone?"

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:17 pm
by Stryker
Mobius wrote:
CDN_Merlin wrote:I would of slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by.
Of course, we know you meant to type: I would HAVE slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by.
If you're not careful, the content matter might come to you... ;)

Roid, you live relatively close to Mobius, why don't you do the honors? :P

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:20 am
by SilverFJ
O'R: Ok I'm right and you're wrong
Guest: But if you look at the infor...
O'R: No you don't know what you're talking about
Guest: I'd like to explain tha...
O'R: I'm going to have the last word here. You're wrong. Get off my show.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:45 am
by Top Gun
roid wrote:what is your theory as to why Fox news still has viewers?
Plain and simple: the entertainment factor. I used to at least make some feeble attempts to defend them, until I actually sat down and watched a few of the shows. It's not the bias that gets me; every media talk show ever produced has been biased one way or another. It's the language that most of the newscasters use, combined with the over-sensationalized bylines, that cracks me up. :P

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:28 am
by roid
and what kindof person would prefer that to actual news?

the answer to that is the answer to the original question.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:42 am
by Vertigo 99
the problem is that all news in the united states is corporate run; thus, it needs to make money, thus, it needs advertising, thus, it needs viewers, thus, it needs to be entertaining.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:39 am
by Dedman
More proof that there are wingnuts on both sides of the aisle.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:09 am
by Iceman
Amen to that

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:19 am
by woodchip
Maybe I'll give a answer here...just not right now.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:21 am
by roid
★■◆●, it's a good thing your breakfast cereal is brightly coloured. or you might all starve! :lol:

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:42 pm
by Behemoth
i used to watch msnbc, but now im just way out of the loop with all that stuff havent really even watched tv in years :)

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:17 pm
by Ferno
When O'Rilley is losing he cuts his guest's mic.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:43 pm
by woodchip
Ferno wrote:When O'Rilley is losing he cuts his guest's mic.
Better than cutting their throat eh?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:32 pm
by Dedman
Top Wop wrote:
Ned wrote:FauxNews=propaganda
Yes, because anything conservative is utterly evil and must be abolished, right? :roll:
No. It's propaganda because it's a mass media news organization.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 3:35 pm
by Palzon
Top Wop wrote:
Ned wrote:FauxNews=propaganda
Yes, because anything conservative is utterly evil and must be abolished, right? :roll:

Until someone posts the actual transcript of the show im going to treat this like the other accusation that Heraldo Riviera pushed aside an aid to help a guy in a wheelchair not to help but to get a photo-op. Typical spin. On top of that the source is suspicious. Dont believe everything you read because any idiot can post **** on the internet and it will be deemed valid. Show me a transcript and I will believe you.
you're knee-jerk underreation is worse than a knee-jerk overreaction. especially since now that the transcript was posted you've yet to admit the validity of the story and that your doubting it was wrong.

but as you say...any idiot can post ★■◆● on the Internet :P

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 pm
by Ferno
Yea I'm waiting for his response aswell Pally.

I doubt it will come tho. ;)

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:48 pm
by Phoenix Red
You know, fox news embodies media more brazenly than most. That is to say it recognizes its first function is to make money, so it approaches its content with a target audience in mind.

They just happen to target the sensationalism-addicted crowd who looks on news as entertainment. They LIKE watching the unfortunate but totally irrelevant stories about random people, and they LIKE watching discussions that are "edgy" and borderline uncivil. Because if you don't really care about the content, it's more exciting.

And look, they've kicked up a stir on an obscure internet BB. I guess it's working.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:14 pm
by SilverFJ
Feeeenix the Rojo wrote:And look, they've kicked up a stir on an obscure internet BB.
I guess it's working.Thats because after 8 years the only thing we havent run out of to talk about is current events.

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:51 pm
by Will Robinson
You know if you just read the text without adopting any of the interpretations offered here, and if you assume Gibson wouldn't really think that any other country should limit it's contributions so as to not embarass the U.S.
Well then, it reads like he was engaging in a bit of nationalistic self deprecating humor, acknowledging the extreme generosity and not really meaning to correct the Canadians for giving too much while symotaneously suggesting that the lefties in Canada, who have expressed outright hatred of Bush on more than a few occassions, might be enjoying the side benefits of their sincerely offered charity, which is that it might make Bush a bit uncomfortable to be beholding to those that call him an idiot or moron or whatever the hell they have been saying for years now. Like when Castro offered to send poll watchers to Florida for the last presidential election to make sure things were done right...

I don't know, maybe I'm just being too optimistic here but the notion that Gibson would actually think the canadians shouldn't have given so much, as if it's even possible to give too much in that case...
Well that theory just doesn't sound right to me, he's a boob but he's not a complete idiot.
More like he acknowledges the generosity but he's looking to stir up some of the rivalry, maybe hoping to get the guy to say something like: 'Well Bush is certainly a moron but when your neighbors house is flooded out you give him a hand, even if he is a moron.'

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:04 am
by Palzon
Yeah, and as Bill Hicks would say...

If you play the Rodney King tape backwards, you see the police help KIng up and send him on his way.

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:52 pm
by Top Wop
Knee-jerk under-reaction, eh? Actually I did not have a chance until today to browse these forums. Blame it on RealLife.

I dont often watch TV and I rarely watch Fox News. Do I actually believe in Fox News?

Do you actually believe in CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS, NBC Nightly News? Or Halifaxlive.com? You all seem to.

I take what I read and judge for myself. I do not let one media outlet dictate what I should hear and be my only source. But you assume that way about me because ether im conservative or I am defending Fox, or both. Its very easy for quotes and even transcripts to be taken out of context and the meaning of those words be twisted (and you all know it!) because the expression and the tones are not there if you were to see them on air. Will Robinson pretty much covered that department.

But this all boils down to vicious partisan rivalry, and Fox being attacked because it is seen by you all as a bastion for conservatism. It is not. And nether is it my source. Mayby John Gibson (ive never known about him til this thread) was serious. Or mayby he was joking around and someone trying to undermine Fox (and there are people who try to look for these things, how else do people find memorable quotes of their hated conservatives or content like in this article?) took what he said and try to put his take on the words without the readers of the article actually having a chance to view the show. I dont know because I do not watch Fox news as often as some of you may think I do and I did not watch that particular show. Yet you criticize one media outlet yet read another's like it was gospel without an ounce of criticism or doubt of the article's credibility. That to me is hypocracy.

And here you thought I was not going to post a response because you thought I got owned or something? :roll:

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:08 pm
by Palzon
I'm not criticizing one media outlet versus another. They can all kiss my ass. I'm criticizing you for lacking the stones to pony up and admit that you were wrong.

You were wrong and yet you refuse to admit it. First you want the transcript and now that it's posted you want to claim it could be taken out of context.

Plus, you are the one guilty of giving preferential treatment to a media outlet in the first place! Halifax is suspect but FOX gets the benefit of the doubt? Whatever, fella.

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:36 pm
by Ferno
you forgot filibustering and dodging Pally. :)

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:49 pm
by Ned
Top Wop wrote: But this all boils down to vicious partisan rivalry, and Fox being attacked because it is seen by you all as a bastion for conservatism. It is not.
Really?

http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:30 pm
by MD-2389
heh, so its being taken out of context? Prove it Top Wop. Wheres YOUR transcript backing that claim up? What proof do you have?