How is Fox News Fair and Balance? How is Fox news the only non-currupt news station?

[Wax]

Fox News clearly picks a side when it comes to debates. How do you consider this fair and balance?


How can they claim they are they only non-corrupt network? What did Obama gave CNN? What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked?

[russ_watters]

"Fair and balanced" is an advertising slogan.

Gilette, on the other hand, really is the best a man can get and Wendy's really isn't fast food, but is good food fast! :rolleyes: How can they claim they are they only non-corrupt network? Can you cite that claim for me please? I've never seen it. What is that Obama gave CNN? I'm not sure that's a complete sentence... What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked? For broad questions like that, the best place to start is often with the wiki on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

[noblegas]

Glad foxnews is bringing john stossel aboard. At least they will bring in a conservative/libertarian journalist that doesn't agree with everything the republican party values. Both msnbc and Fox news are slanted; msnbc will defend the obama adminstration and fox news defended the bush adminstration.

[kyleb]

I don't pay much attention to any cable news, but I know MSNBC at least has one Republican in a prominent position on their network, Joe Scarborough.

[Wax]

"Fair and balanced" is an advertising slogan.

[/url]

So news stations can post up lies in advertising slogans? :uhh:

[Jasongreat]

Fox News clearly picks a side when it comes to debates. How do you consider this fair and balance?


How can they claim they are they only non-corrupt network? What is that Obama gave CNN? What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked?

Ive never heard them claim another network to be corrupt. CNN doesnt seem too tilted one way or the other but lets not forget CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, they are all decidedly tilted to the democratic side. The belief in a non-biased media, be it fox or cnn or any of the others is false, heck the belief in a non-biased opinion is faulty.
And "fair and balanced" is just a catch phrase, kind of like a restraunt claiming their food is homemade, or a buisiness claiming the best burgers in the world. Do you really believe every slogan you hear?

[noblegas]

I don't pay much attention to any cable news, but I know MSNBC at least has one Republican in a prominent position on their network, Joe Scarborough.

Fox news did have alan colmes on their network.

[russ_watters]

So news stations can post up lies in advertising slogans? :uhh: Who decides that it is a lie and who makes the consequences for it? Why do you consider it more important than the other arrogant advertising slogans I listed?

[Wax]

Who decides that it is a lie?

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity? Yeah...they seem to be the most fair and balance guys I've ever seen. :rofl:

[russ_watters]

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity? I didn't say that and no, I don't consider Fox to be "Fair and Balanced".

Answer my questions.

[edit] I didn't answer your question directly: No, "fair and balanced" is not a lie. It is not a fact-based statement, it is a value judgement - an opinion. Just like "best" or "good" in my other two examples.

[Office_Shredder]

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity? Yeah...they seem to be the most fair and balance guys I've ever seen. :rofl:

So are you suggesting Wax should be the media czar, censoring and editing every piece of information that is released to the public to ensure fairness?

Alternatively, who should fill that role?

[Jasongreat]

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity? Yeah...they seem to be the most fair and balance guys I've ever seen. :rofl:

With sean hannity you might have a point, but glenn beck has called out bush the same as he has called out obama, that seems fair and balanced to me. Did you believe CNN was fair and balanced when glenn was on their network, or were they just right wing hacks because he was on their network?

[russ_watters]

With sean hannity you might have a point, but glenn beck has called out bush the same as he has called out obama, that seems fair and balanced to me. Not exactly. Bush was criticized by guys like Beck and Limbaugh for not being conservative enough.

[Jasongreat]

Not exactly. Bush was criticized by guys like Beck and Limbaugh for not being conservative enough.

He was still criticized. I thought this post was about just following a party line, not being objective. Then again I guess I have seen a few liberal pundits claiming obama isnt liberal enough. So I guess by my reasoning I will have to remove cbs,nbc,abc,pbs,msnbc from the non-critical category. sorry from rambling, i agree with you after all. Thanks for straightening me out Russ.

[Pinu7]

Fox news did have alan colmes on their network.

He hardly can be considered "liberal." Fox news promoted him to be a far lefty so conservatives actually believe Fox is balanced, when, in reality, he is just a moderate who is being over powered by Hannity.


On a side note, Fox is news is conservative, but most of the rest of the media is liberal. Not surprising since most journalists are registered Democrats.
Also, http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=286090

[math_04]

Not exactly. Bush was criticized by guys like Beck and Limbaugh for not being conservative enough.

Yes, well Obama has not faced the criticism that Bush faced! Well at least they are frightened of Obama, that has got to be a good thing :rofl:

[drizzle]

Yes, well Obama has not faced the criticism that Bush faced! Well at least they are frightened of Obama, that has got to be a good thing :rofl:

that made me cry laughing :rofl:

[TheStatutoryApe]

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity? Yeah...they seem to be the most fair and balance guys I've ever seen. :rofl:

Please note that Hannity, O'Reilly, ect all have their own shows they are not actually on Fox News and nor are they reporters. They are affiliated with Fox News.


And before anyone wants to jump on me; I do not watch Fox News nor do I feel that Fox News is particularly neutral in their reporting.

[kyleb]

No, "fair and balanced" is not a lie. It is not a fact-based statement, it is a value judgement - an opinion. Just like "best" or "good" in my other two examples.
Are you suggesting Fox News does attempt to be fair and balanced, or suggesting there is nothing dishonest about claiming as much even not attempting to live up to the claim?
Please note that Hannity, O'Reilly, ect all have their own shows they are not actually on Fox News...
What channel are their shows on?

[russ_watters]

Are you suggesting Fox News does attempt to be fair and balanced No. I said nothing of the sort. I don't have any idea what their real philosophy is, if they even have one.

Heck, maybe people are misreading the slogan! Maybe "Fair and balanced" means providing the conservative view to balance out the liberal news services for the purpose of fairness*. It doesn't really matter though: again, it is an advertising slogan. It isn't really useful to read into most advertising slogans, especially ones not making clear factual claims (drug advertisements are a clear exception). ...or suggesting there is nothing dishonest about claiming as much even not attempting to live up to the claim? I don't know if they are trying to live up to it or not. Does any news company have such discussions or written policies? Do advertising people ever talk to production people? I really have no idea how the day to day operations of a news organization work. What channel are their shows on? Fox News is on Fox News. I think they also have the news broadcasts on the Fox local afiliates.

*One of the headlines on their website right now is: "Silent on Scandal: CNN.com & MSNBC.com tried but couldn't ignore the Van Jones scandal".

[TheStatutoryApe]

What channel are their shows on?

Ah, so Family Guy was fair and balanced then? The Simpsons? Smallville? If one show on Fox says that its fair and balanced then they are all supposed to be?

[kyleb]

Heck, maybe people are misreading the slogan! Maybe "Fair and balanced" means providing the conservative view to balance out the liberal news services for the purpose of fairness*.
Surely that would be better described as a case of them misphrasing their slogan? I mean "fair and balanced" does not rightly suggest such an attempt to provide contrast a you propose, while something along the lines if they called themselves "the fair balance" would suit that purpose.

It doesn't really matter though: again, it is an advertising slogan.
So if one advertised dried manure as "creamy and delicious", would you also suggest that not a lie but rather only a value judgement? And do you suggest that standard should apply universally aside from advertisements for drugs?

I don't know if they are trying to live up to it or not.
Can you cite any notable evidence to suggest they might? Even for as little as I see from them, I can cite plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary.
Ah, so Family Guy was fair and balanced then? The Simpsons? Smallville? If one show on Fox says that its fair and balanced then they are all supposed to be?
Does Fox (http://www.fox.com/) use the "fair and balanced" slogan? I am only familiar with it being used on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/).

[russ_watters]

Surely that would be better described as a case of them misphrasing their slogan? I mean "fair and balanced" does not rightly suggest such an attempt to provide contrast a you propose, while something along the lines if they called themselves "the fair balance" would suit that purpose. I don't really know. It is only a hypothetical and not really important. Just pointing out a possibility.
So if one advertised dried manure as "creamy and delicious", would you also suggest that not a lie but rather only a value judgement? And do you suggest that standard should apply universally aside from advertisements for drugs? AFAIK, the standard only applies to claims of a clear factual nature. Even then it is difficult to prove/enforce. I've heard of a few of the "oxygenated water" ads being challenged, for example, but such things are rare AFAIK. Can you cite any notable evidence to suggest they might? Even for as little as I see from them, I can cite plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary. I just stated I don't know. I'm sure you can cite evidence of Fox's bias. So what? What's your point?

Kyleb, you are really arguing a usless line of thought here. You don't have to argue your way into a point about Fox's bias: I agree that Fox is biased. So now what?

[mgb_phys]

The do at least try and stand up for the multi-billion $ global corporation against evil governments.
Sky (the FOX news channel in Europe) are campaigning to get the EU monopoly regulators to ban BBC news as unfair competition

[russ_watters]

A primer on the concept of "false advertising": http://www.aboutfalseadvertising.com/index1_files/False%20Advertising%20Primer.pdf

Note, in particular, the section on "puffery".

[TheStatutoryApe]

Does Fox (http://www.fox.com/) use the "fair and balanced" slogan? I am only familiar with it being used on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/).

Fox News is a news show in the Fox Network. All of the shows I have mentioned, including Hannity O'Reilly ect, are shows on the same network. The only difference between the entertainment shows and the political commentary shows are that the political ones are 'affiliated' with Fox News.

Fox News uses the tag line "Fair and Balanced". Personally I have never seen the O'Reilly Factor before. Does this separate show use the tag line "Fair and Balanced" as well?

Is it really that hard to realize that they are separate shows? and that commentary shows discuss the news they do not report the news?

[russ_watters]

AFAIK, "Fair and Balanced" is the slogan of the network (it appears next to the name on the website). However, I don't think that should be taken to imply that everything on the network or website is pure news, as they do have a clearly labeled "opinion" section (for example) under which Glen Beck's name appears.

[Office_Shredder]

So to confirm

http://www.foxnews.com/fnctv/

These are the shows on the Fox News Channel. This is separate from basic TV's Fox television network channel which people are apparently getting confused by.

It should be noted that
1) Not everything is billed as a news show
2) The Fox News Channel is generally billed as a channel for news-oriented shows, and has only shows that focus on topics in the news, if in an opinionated way.

The Fair and Balanced slogan is trademarked by the broadcasting station Fox News Channel, not by the Fox News show

[drankin]

So to confirm

http://www.foxnews.com/fnctv/

These are the shows on the Fox News Channel. This is separate from basic TV's Fox television network channel which people are apparently getting confused by.

It should be noted that
1) Not everything is billed as a news show
2) The Fox News Channel is generally billed as a channel for news-oriented shows, and has only shows that focus on topics in the news, if in an opinionated way.

The Fair and Balanced slogan is trademarked by the broadcasting station Fox News Channel, not by the Fox News show

Fair and Balanced, towards the right.

[WhoWee]

With sean hannity you might have a point, but glenn beck has called out bush the same as he has called out obama, that seems fair and balanced to me. Did you believe CNN was fair and balanced when glenn was on their network, or were they just right wing hacks because he was on their network?

I like the blend of opinions with Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Dennis Miller and others.

Hannity is a Reagan man through and through.

O'Reilly makes an attempt at balance - but he calls them like he see's them. He's one of the few people on TV who isn't afraid to go head to head with Barney Frank. Yes, he's tough on Obama but it's because the rest of the media has laid down and he sees an opportunity to establish himself as truly fair and above the bias. On health care, he called for Obama to explain his plan for about 3 weeks prior to "the speech". His take was that he graduated from Harvard and couldn't understand the Bill. He also wrote a very favorable piece in Parade magazine a few months ago on Obama and took significant criticism from the Right.

Glen Beck is a totally different animal. He basically started the Tea Parties and set in motion the 9-12 march on Washington last weekend. He also put the heat on Van Jones leading to his resignation and is all over Acorn and the SEIU. Likewise, he doesn't openly support any Republicans and has spoken out repeatedly about runaway spending under Bush. He is also very consistent in recommending that the Tea Parties remain independent of both parties. Beck has connected with a lot of people and BOTH parties have taken notice. His books are best sellers and his radio show a major hit. Beck is a self educated, reformed drunk, and average guy - he's achieved more than he ever hoped to and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him. That makes him very dangerous to anyone that openly challenges him. I find the whole phenom very interesting.

With a little luck, the movement Beck started might just morph into a conservative small business party representative of the currently unrepresented, lobbyist free, tax paying middle (business) class.

[TheStatutoryApe]

AFAIK, "Fair and Balanced" is the slogan of the network (it appears next to the name on the website). However, I don't think that should be taken to imply that everything on the network or website is pure news, as they do have a clearly labeled "opinion" section (for example) under which Glen Beck's name appears.

Sorry. I've been in a bad mood and my posts probably have not been very thoughtful.

I do not believe that there is any legal reason why a company motto/tag line must accurately represent all of the individual projects under its umbrella. The individual shows all have their own producers, sponsors, ect, and are responsible for themselves. If they do anything illegal on their own then it goes up the chain. Otherwise there is no down the chain legal responsibility. O'Reilly is not legally responsible for any claims made by Fox and Fox is not legally responsible for making sure that O'Reilly fits their company motto.

[mheslep]

Glen Beck is a totally different animal. He basically started the Tea Parties ...You're mistaken. He may have publicized the 9/12 march.

[mheslep]

Ive never heard them claim another network to be corrupt. CNN doesnt seem too tilted one way or the other...Please. Anderson Cooper started the vile 'teabag' cracks on the air. Yuk Yuk.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/04/15/cnns-anderson-cooper-its-hard-talk-when-youre-tea-bagging

[WhoWee]

You're mistaken. He may have publicized the 9/12 march.

Beck started something back around April called the 9/12 Project. The date is symbolic to heightened awareness after 9/11.

I commented that "He basically started the Tea Parties ..." because he used his radio show and TV show to encourage people to form groups - not that he was a designated leader.

[mheslep]

Beck started something back around April called the 9/12 Project. The date is symbolic to heightened awareness after 9/11.

I commented that "He basically started the Tea Parties ..." because he used his radio show and TV show to encourage people to form groups - not that he was a designated leader.Multitudes of people encourage other people to form groups. Beck did not start or even inspire the Tea Parties of this past Spring, nor was he some kind of guiding force behind them. If he cheered them, well so did thousands of others and he happened to have a microphone.

[russ_watters]

Nor did Beck have anything to do with the march in Washington last weekend. That's discussed here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=336730

[Al68]

What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked?This is just too easy. CNN continuously refers to health care "reform", and portrays the two sides as those in favor of health care "reform" and those against it.

If that bias isn't obvious, here's an analogy: Suppose that when discussing the "No Child Left Behind Act", a news station repeatedly portrayed the two sides as those in favor of "leaving children behind" and those against it.

Most would recognize the bias immediately, and that the news station was either deliberately taking sides or had an ideology that prevented them from recognizing the bias.

Any news source that depicts the current health care debate as those in favor of "reform" and those against it is obviously taking sides in the same way.

This is one example of thousands for CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS every week for decades. I know that the bias is difficult to recognize for those it favors, but it's just as obvious to the rest of us as the hypothetical for or against "leaving children behind" would be for anyone that bias was against.

If anyone wants more examples, there is no limit. But I can't be thorough, since it would be like counting grains of sand at the beach. This is the kind of bias that has been denied for years, possibly because it just isn't as obvious to those it favors.

[kyleb]

Kyleb, you are really arguing a usless line of thought here. You don't have to argue your way into a point about Fox's bias: I agree that Fox is biased. So now what?
I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?

[drankin]

I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?

It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point? "Fox Network has dishonest marketing!". So friggin what. Most marketing slogans are. To take it seriously and cry fowl is laughable. It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.

All news channels state what they consider facts, but the facts are simply a perception of facts from a point of view. As Al68 is saying, just because we don't like this health bill doesn't mean we are against "reform"! Most of us who do not like this bill want "reform".

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point? "Fox Network has dishonest marketing!". So friggin what. Most marketing slogans are. To take it seriously and cry fowl is laughable. It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.
Besides even this, to sue for false advertising one must be a consumer of the product who was misled by the advertising and can demonstrate and quantify damages incurred as a direct result of the false advertising.

[Proton Soup]

good grief. why do you guys get so upset about Fox? it's pretty much the only right-leaning network on the air. most others lean left. MSNBC leans far left. CNN is pretty close to center. most all the political leanings of any of them comes out in editorial fashion, not straight news. and even in editorial shows where hosts lean one way or the other, they will invite commentary from representatives of opposing views.

[kyleb]

It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point?
I wasn't making a point there, I was asking a question about a point another poster made.

It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.
Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.
Besides even this, to sue for false advertising one must be a consumer of the product who was misled by the advertising and can demonstrate and quantify damages incurred as a direct result of the false advertising.
Did anyone suggest legal action here?

[Proton Soup]

Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.


totally subjective statement

[TheStatutoryApe]

Did anyone suggest legal action here?

What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?

[kyleb]

What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?
Who are you accusing of saying Fox is guilty of false advertising? Who is doing the hand waving here?

[drankin]

What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?

Exactly. I've been following this thread for a few days just amazed that it keeps going. To me this thread seperates the subjective minds from the objective. The naive continue to cry fowl about an obvious marketing slogan as if some sort of moral crime has just been discovered. How dare a media outlet claim to be totally objective and then be successful to boot! Obviously, it's not the SLOGAN that makes the network successful. If one is going to fault the accuracy of the news (not the commentary), at least support it with the incriminating content.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Who are you accusing of saying Fox is guilty of false advertising? Who is doing the hand waving here?

http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2345473&postcount=5
http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2345483&postcount=9
http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2347540&postcount=19
http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2348076&postcount=22

So there is no discussion in these posts regarding claims made in advertising and their accuracy? Are we reading different threads or something? Are we going to start splitting hairs now? You were only saying you thought it was dishonest, not that it was false advertising? Kind of like saying you didn't mean that MrX murdered any one only that it seemed he had dealt a lethal blow to the person with malice and intent.

[kyleb]

You were only saying you thought it was dishonest, not that it was false advertising?
Right, I see nothing honest about it, but nothing illegal either. I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.

[TheStatutoryApe]

I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.

Shouldn't you then feel that 'dishonest advertising' should be illegal?

[kyleb]

It seems you have mistaken me for an authoritarian. I don't believe anything should be illegal other than that which demonstrability infringes on the rights of others, and that is hardly the case here.

[russ_watters]

I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too? "Water is dry" is a fact-based statement.

In any case, did you have a look at any of the reading materials I provided about false advertising? The one about "puffery" covers this exactly. Puffery is an obviously exagerrated, non-fact-based claim that an intelligent consumer immediately recognizes and ignores.
Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one. Even if someone holds a contest and finds that I make the worst steaks in town, nothing has changed. Subjective is subjective. Did anyone suggest legal action here? People are searching for a point in your posts, kyleb. If you're not suggesting a remedy for this, then you're just arguing to be argumentative:

You think it is dishonest. Fine. Assume for the sake of argument that I agree completely. Now what?

[russ_watters]

Right, I see nothing honest about it, but nothing illegal either. I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.
The two sentences seem to contradict each other. Are you saying in the first that it is not, in fact, illegal and in the second that you believe it should be illegal?? It seems you have mistaken me for an authoritarian. I don't believe anything should be illegal other than that which demonstrability infringes on the rights of others, and that is hardly the case here. So then you think that ethics are the basis of our laws, but you don't think they should be?

[russ_watters]

Lol, jack, I'm a moderate to medium conservative Republican. I'm not sure that post you replied to gave any clues to that, but neither do I think it implied I wasn't!

[WhoWee]

Lol, jack, I'm a moderate to medium conservative Republican. I'm not sure that post you replied to gave any clues to that, but neither do I think it implied I wasn't!

That's pretty funny.:uhh:

In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.

[byronm]

That's pretty funny.:uhh:

In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.

A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.


But hey, if i was a farmer and i heard they were conserving water for fish i'd be pissed to.. But look at it this way.. if you kill those fish and all the fish that eat those fish just to have short term water supplies that won't meet the water demands of 10 years from now then not only will the farmers continue to suffer but the fisherman, the sport fishing and commercial fishing sectors and wildlife in general that depends on any fish protein that is up the food chain from those little minnows.

Easy to blame environmentalists.. however.. maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using that much water anyway that we have to risk entire species of fish to survive in conditions that obviously aren't sustainable for the farmers and the environment. If we're sucking natural resources dry and willing to kill off the native species of animals in that area to milk our farms for more then something is wrong (and it aint them darned environmentalists hehe)

[WhoWee]

A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.


But hey, if i was a farmer and i heard they were conserving water for fish i'd be pissed to.. But look at it this way.. if you kill those fish and all the fish that eat those fish just to have short term water supplies that won't meet the water demands of 10 years from now then not only will the farmers continue to suffer but the fisherman, the sport fishing and commercial fishing sectors and wildlife in general that depends on any fish protein that is up the food chain from those little minnows.

Easy to blame environmentalists.. however.. maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using that much water anyway that we have to risk entire species of fish to survive in conditions that obviously aren't sustainable for the farmers and the environment. If we're sucking natural resources dry and willing to kill off the native species of animals in that area to milk our farms for more then something is wrong (and it aint them darned environmentalists hehe)

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

[Wax]

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

What do you expect from Fox News, especially Hannity...

[Cyrus]

That's pretty funny.:uhh:

In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.

I'm not sure whats worse: sean hannity, or the fact that you bothered listening to him....

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

Do believe anything you hear (from Faux News)? Seems so....

[WhoWee]

What do you expect from Fox News, especially Hannity...

Not so fast. We still don't have a link that supports any of this.

"A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein."

[Wax]

Not so fast. We still don't have a link that supports any of this.

"A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein."

I saw the exact show you were talking about and the environmentalist said the same thing. The fish provides jobs up north but Hannity keeps cutting him off before he could finish saying anything.

[WhoWee]

I saw the exact show you were talking about and the economist said the same thing. The fish provides jobs up north but Hannity keeps cutting him off before he could finish saying anything.

Well, I guess there are arguments on both sides. I give Hannity credit for a least putting the environmentalist on the show - that's in the spirit of "fair and balanced".

http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_california_reels_savetheminnow/

"Wanger ruled pressure from the massive pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (that move water from Northern California to 25 million Californians and three million acres of farmland) endangers the tiny minnow. He has given the state 60 days to come up with a better biological plan to save the smelt than what has been offered so far. In the meantime, there will be no pumping — as the smelt is in danger of being sucked into the two pumping stations operated by the federal and state governments.

Those who want to preserve the smelt say the minnow is a benchmark for the ecological health of the Delta. It apparently has no other benefit to mankind. No one has said it is the only indicator of Delta ecological health.

The judge's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Natural Resources Defense Council and other so-called environmental organizations which claim the pumps are threatening the endangered species.

Defendants, the State Water Project, the federal Central Valley Project, farmers and others, agree the smelt is endangered. However, they contend the pumps only account for 5 percent to 15 percent of the causes that are affecting the smelt population. Other factors are having greater impacts on the smelt numbers. Defendants contend loss of food supplies and the introduction of foreign plant and fish species into the Delta have dramatically altered the smelt's environment and put it at risk. Criminal toxic chemical dumping into the Delta has killed fish. Defendants also contend sewage is impacting the health of the Delta. In addition, the lack of fish screens on pumps in the Delta is impacting the smelt.

But Judge Wanger did not buy any of those arguments.

In the past, the pumping has been briefly stopped, and water deliveries have also been reduced to protect fish. But the possibility of a longer shutdown is sending ripples of anxiety throughout the state."

[byronm]

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

I think the information regarding the minnow is confusing at best.. there is a WSJ article that focuses on it but most of the other stuff i find is what the farmers are saying and not necessarily the environmental policy itself.

Its easy to blame fish but looking more into the political side there is also the fact the state can't afford an aquifer upgrade big enough to sustain the growth and doesn't seem to be getting any concessions from the farmers in the area to conserve.. so in other words.. its your typical political fiasco with fish put in the middle as if its as simple as choosing between minnows, salmon and sturgeon or people.

won't ever solve anything with that kind of debate.

[WhoWee]

I think the information regarding the minnow is confusing at best.. there is a WSJ article that focuses on it but most of the other stuff i find is what the farmers are saying and not necessarily the environmental policy itself.

Its easy to blame fish but looking more into the political side there is also the fact the state can't afford an aquifer upgrade big enough to sustain the growth and doesn't seem to be getting any concessions from the farmers in the area to conserve.. so in other words.. its your typical political fiasco with fish put in the middle as if its as simple as choosing between minnows, salmon and sturgeon or people.

won't ever solve anything with that kind of debate.

Hopefully Hannity's coverage will focus the debate on solving the problem - as he did present both sides and reached out to the President to investigate.

[Wax]

Hopefully Hannity's coverage will focus the debate on solving the problem - as he did present both sides and reached out to the President to investigate.

No, he talked over the guy and didn't give him a chance to talk.

[Cyrus]

Hopefully Hannity's coverage will focus the debate on solving the problem - as he did present both sides and reached out to the President to investigate.

................HAAHAHah. Thanks for the laugh (Seriously). The best thing Hannity can possibly do is shut his mouth and listen.

[TheStatutoryApe]

C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
Hurting the economy even more isn't going to make anything better and the less the farmers can produce the more it will hurt others in and outside of the area that are dependent on their success. The valley is a significant agricultural center for the state.

D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
City's like LA aren't planned. They just happen and the the city 'planners' just try to figure out how to deal with it.

E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.
http://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/www/Faculty/Joe/treadmill/swanson02a.pdf
Screening looks like a good idea. I'm not really sure why they are not doing it. Or maybe they are working on it and we are just not hearing about it.




By the way,to the rest of the thread, the delta smelt is apparently considered endangered which is why the fish, game, and wild life agency has been able to stop the pumping.

I heard the lawyer for the farmers on the radio earlier today and he didn't not sound like he had a very strong case. He says their case is based on the idea that the federal government, through the fish and game agency, are over stepping their authority as outlined in the constitution. Considering that it was not the agency itself that made the decision but rather the California court to which they appealed that made the decision I don't think that they have any basis for their case there.

[SpaceTiger]

Fox News clearly picks a side when it comes to debates. How do you consider this fair and balance?


Of course not, Fox News goes out of its way to make sure that it's *not* fair and balanced. That's how they make their money.

There is bias in any news source, but the tragedy of Fox News is that they began to purposefully package it with their product. As a result, they took the conservative part of the audience from other networks. Since the other networks want to appeal to their remaining audience, they intentionally pander to a liberal customer base. Now conservatives get their news from one source and the liberals get their news from another and now both are getting purposefully slanted information.

It really sucks, I'll tell you. Sometimes I try to get US news from the BBC, but it often isn't detailed enough. I'd read news from both conservative and liberal sources, but really, who has the time to work out all the discrepancies? Although I'd love to see a news source that both markets and genuinely practices unbiased news, I'm sure any such source would be accused of bias and quickly get blacklisted by one side or the other...

... and don't get me started on the Fox News pundits. Those guys would happily start an armed revolution if it got them ratings.

[WhoWee]

................HAAHAHah. Thanks for the laugh (Seriously). The best thing Hannity can possibly do is shut his mouth and listen.

Good advice for a lot of people that have nothing productive to say.

[seycyrus]

You guys are smoking crack. (edit: I of course mean that in a figurative way)

Fox News makes a much greater attempt to put on proponents of the opposing side than any other network. That's the balance.

I watch both Fox and CNN in great amounts. MSNBC for a little. Listen to NPR on the radio during the day.

Alot of peopel get their views of fox from the neat little blogs they watch or the little snippets, that have been mined and put up on various websites.

The typical response = "Watch if for myself? I already KNOW what's on there..."

To which I respond with a hearty laughter.

[TheStatutoryApe]

The typical response = "Watch if for myself? I already KNOW what's on there..."

The last time I stated here that I listen to a Fox News affiliate and have not seen much bias in their news I was challenged to provide transcripts to prove it. :-/

[Ivan Seeking]

Today on his noon broadcast, Rick Sanchez called Fox News out on a dishonest ad.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/09/rick_sanchez_cnn_fox_news_912.html

[Wax]

At 3:15pmET today, CNN's Rick Sanchez delivered an impassioned editorial regarding the Fox News ad we reported on earlier today that claimed ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN "missed" the story of the 9/12 protests.

Sanchez said the ad is "an offense to myself and to my colleagues who risked their lives for our viewers in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world to break the news. They're actually telling people that we didn't cover a rally on Washington. Really?" Sanchez then showed a series of clips from CNN's 9/12 reporting. He also showed a clip of Bill O'Reilly discussing CNN's coverage of the even

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hQFy9C-miC4/SrP2p_XtEsI/AAAAAAAAMCo/q1qGOUNYvf4/s1600/foxlies11.jpg

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-cnns-rick-sanchez-calls-fox-news.html

Summary of video:

Fox places ad in magazine that claims CNN didn't cover 9/12.
Fox uses CNN's own picture for the ad.
Rick shows a clip from O'Reilly Factor saying that CNN did cover the event.

His final words, "We did cover the event. We just didn't PROMOTE the event. That's not what real news organizations do."

Then he gave them two words, "You Lie".

[Cyrus]

Good advice for a lot of people that have nothing productive to say.

Yep, namely: Sean Hannity.

[WhoWee]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hQFy9C-miC4/SrP2p_XtEsI/AAAAAAAAMCo/q1qGOUNYvf4/s1600/foxlies11.jpg

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-cnns-rick-sanchez-calls-fox-news.html

Summary of video:

Fox places ad in magazine that claims CNN didn't cover 9/12.
Fox uses CNN's own picture for the ad.
Rick shows a clip from O'Reilly Factor saying that CNN did cover the event.

His final words, "We did cover the event. We just didn't PROMOTE the event. That's not what real news organizations do."

Then he gave them two words, "You Lie".

Just out of curiosity, was CNN's coverage "fair and balanced"?

[Cyrus]

Just out of curiosity, was CNN's coverage "fair and balanced"?

All you do is ask questions. For once, do some research on your own. Please...

[Wax]

Just out of curiosity, was CNN's coverage "fair and balanced"?

It generally is. They give both sides of an issue and have the user decide. They don't have people like Glenn Beck to promote fear and Sean Hannity who cuts off people before they can talk. That's not real news, it's propaganda. The march on Washington was started by Glenn Beck. How much more agenda driven can you get?

[mheslep]

It generally is. They [CNN] give both sides of an issue and have the user decide. They don't have people like Glenn Beck to promote fear and Sean Hannity who cuts off people before they can talk. That's not real news, it's propaganda. We Report, You Decide? Right. Sanchez and many others are way out there. His bias and like self important ilk among the media are the reason the shout meisters on Fox and talk radio exist. If CNN really just reported Fox et al would not exist.

Here's Anderson Cooper 'reporting'.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8362435811542029429&ei=Bz60StieG4SSrAKkpY2PAg&q=CNN+anderson+cooper+teabagger&hl=en

Gergen: "They have not yet come up with a compelling alternative"
Cooper: "Teabagging, they got teabagging"
...
Gergen: "They're searching for their voice"
Cooper: "Its hard to talk when your teabagging"

On this one "I decide" that Cooper is trying to crudely decide for everyone else.

[BoomBoom]

Alot of peopel get their views of fox from the neat little blogs they watch or the little snippets, that have been mined and put up on various websites.

The typical response = "Watch if for myself? I already KNOW what's on there..."

To which I respond with a hearty laughter.

If you are making the case that Fox News is not this way...then I shall join you! :rofl:

I have watched alot of Fox News (although one can only take so much without destroying their TV), and it is exactly what the "neat little blogs" and the "little (mined) snippets" characterize it as being.

[Count Iblis]

The BBC is one of the few news organizations that brings the news in a completely unbiased way. CNN comes next, it is not always unbiased.

Fox News? That's an oxymoron.

[Wax]

We Report, You Decide? Right. Sanchez and many others are way out there. His bias and like self important ilk among the media are the reason the shout meisters on Fox and talk radio exist. If CNN really just reported Fox et al would not exist.

Here's Anderson Cooper 'reporting'.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=CNN%20anderson%20cooper%20tea-bagger&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=CNN+anderson+cooper+teabagger&hl=en&emb=0

Gergen: "They have not yet come up with a compelling alternative"
Cooper: "Teabagging, they got teabagging"
...
Gergen: "They're searching for their voice"
Cooper: "Its hard to talk when your teabagging"

On this one "I decide" that Cooper is trying to crudely decide for everyone else.

How is that bias? Anderson cooper used his exact words from his website that called Obama an "Indonesian muslin turned welfare thug". Your claim that CNN is bias compared to Fox News is like day and night. Sean Hannity actually cuts people off before they can finish talking. Glenn Beck actually promoted 9/12 and fear. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity has yet to apologize to the ACORN employee that they got fired because they failed to investigate tape 4. The list is countless...


Edit: I see, you're talking about that video 3 clips down. Do you know what teabagging means? It's a joke and no bias there.

[russ_watters]

Today on his noon broadcast, Rick Sanchez called Fox News out on a dishonest ad.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/09/rick_sanchez_cnn_fox_news_912.html He seems mad. Is he getting jealous of MSNBC and wanting in?

Anyway, what's your point here, Ivan?

[russ_watters]

The march on Washington was started by Glenn Beck.
You really need to stop saying it. It is factually wrong and you know it.

[Wax]

You really need to stop saying it. It is factually wrong and you know it.

No, it is not wrong. There were tea parties before 9/12 but Glenn Beck is the sole person who created and promoted that exact date.

[Wax]

Watch the first 10 seconds of this video. Glenn Beck in his own words even said, "A while back I laid out a plan called the 9/12 project". Before he laid out this project, the tea parties were scattered and had no real theme behind the protest. Glenn Beck is the person who actually gave those people some type of meaning and an exact date to protest, 9/12. Glenn Beck is not news. He's a commentator who has an agenda who promoted the 9/12 project. Before Glenn Beck, there was no such thing as 9/12. Glenn Beck created 9/12.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG7WnNFkU8

[WhoWee]

All you do is ask questions. For once, do some research on your own. Please...

This is a collection of your last 3 posts in this thread.

"Yep, namely: Sean Hannity. "

"................HAAHAHah. Thanks for the laugh (Seriously). The best thing Hannity can possibly do is shut his mouth and listen."

"All you do is ask questions. For once, do some research on your own. Please..."

Do you ever make a real contribution to the discussion - or do you only criticize?
(that's a double question by the way)

[Wax]

Google "9/12 project" and you'll see that Glenn's name is next to almost all of the links. The date 9/12 is Glenn's project.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=PYn&q=9%2F12+project&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1g-s1g8



Edit: This is Glenn Beck's coverage of the 9/12 project. Scroll to 40 seconds and you will see that Judge Andrew Napolitano gives full credit to Glenn Beck for starting the 9/12 project. Glenn does not disagree; not one bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmdNC-E0d_A&feature=related

Edit 2: Scroll to time 3:00 in the same link and a protester thanks Glenn Beck.

[xxChrisxx]

The BBC is one of the few news organizations that brings the news in a completely unbiased way. CNN comes next, it is not always unbiased.

Fox News? That's an oxymoron.

All British based news services have to be impatial. When they arent they get hammered by Ofcom.

I remember Murdoch saying that he wanted Sky News to be more like Fox as a counter point to BBC News 24, but couldnt becuase of the impartiality rule. Which goes to show just how balanced it is when its owner basically declares it isnt.

[Ivan Seeking]

He seems mad. Is he getting jealous of MSNBC and wanting in?

He explained the problem - false advertising [what a shock!]. Didn't you understand?

Is MSNBC also accusing Fox of false advertising?

[Ivan Seeking]

The only anchor I like on CNN is the Wolf Man. Sanchez is too fluffy, but he has a point on this one.

I hope CNN sues Fox.

[mheslep]

Edit: I see, you're talking about that video 3 clips down. Sorry fixed the link - direct to video now.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8362435811542029429&ei=Bz60StieG4SSrAKkpY2PAg&q=CNN+anderson+cooper+teabagger&hl=en
Do you know what teabagging means? It's a joke and no bias there. It's a crude slur about a political movement - it's ridiculously biased for major network anchor to use it on the air.

[Ivan Seeking]

So, how many Fox fans object to the blatently false claim in the Fox ad cited by Sanchez?

Have we had one objection from the right yet; anywhere?

[WhoWee]

So, how many Fox fans object to the blatently false claim in the Fox ad cited by Sanchez?

Have we had one objection from the right yet; anywhere?

I think Sanchez is going to find himself defending CNN coverage (or lack of) quite often in the future.:biggrin:

[TheStatutoryApe]

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity has yet to apologize to the ACORN employee that they got fired because they failed to investigate tape 4.

Blatantly false accusation which I have already pointed out to you in the ACORN thread. Apparently you are unable to even pay attention to the news shows you do watch.

Please let us know when and if you send out an e-mail to Fox apologizing for spreading this lie, thanks.

[Wax]

Blatantly false accusation which I have already pointed out to you in the ACORN thread. Apparently you are unable to even pay attention to the news shows you do watch.

Please let us know when and if you send out an e-mail to Fox apologizing for spreading this lie, thanks.

Link? I haven't been back to that thread yet. Hmmm.. let me go see


Edit: Nope, you are wrong. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck has not apologized or even mentioned a word of it. It might have been another news caster on the Fox News channel but both Hannity and Glenn Beck has not lifted a single finger after the fact.

[WhoWee]

Edit: I see, you're talking about that video 3 clips down. Do you know what teabagging means? It's a joke and no bias there.

If Hannity, Beck, or ANYONE on Fox made a joke like that - there would be pickets marching the sidewalk screaming for their scalps. Cooper should apologize to his audience (as well as mom Gloria).

[russ_watters]

No, it is not wrong. There were tea parties before 9/12 but Glenn Beck is the sole person who created and promoted that exact date.
Wax, you started a thread about it a week ago where I linked the organization that organized it: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=336730
Watch the first 10 seconds of this video. Glenn Beck in his own words even said, "A while back I laid out a plan called the 9/12 project". That's nice. Nevertheless, he didn't organize the events of 9/12. I linked the organization that did. Google "9/12 project" and you'll see that Glenn's name is next to almost all of the links. The date 9/12 is Glenn's project. Yippeee for him, he got a name that got hits on Google. That isn't what spawned the rally, though, Wax.

Try this: link a Glenn Beck site that actually discusses and promotes the rally that happened on 9/12.

[edit] Lemme help you. On Glenn Beck's website is this link: http://912dc.org/agenda/
Note the national sponsor. Note the names of the coordinators. Hint: Glenn Beck isn't one of them.

[russ_watters]

He explained the problem - false advertising [what a shock!]. Didn't you understand? Sure, I understood fine. What I was discussing was why.

I linked a paper about the law when it comes to advertising a couple of pages ago. You said this is false advertising: So tell my why CNN hasn't sued Fox News over this. Why hasn't anyone sued Fox over their advertising?

I'll answer it for you: this is all just mental masturbation. People enjoy taking shots at Fox News and CNN wanted in because they saw it was working for MSNBC. Fox News popularized pointed political news from the right, MSNBC quickly followed to grab the other side, and CNN sees their ratings dropping and wants in.

Heck, that's what this thread is about, isn't it? There isn't any real point here, just a bunch of pot shots, right? Right? If you disagree, make and argue a point! I tried a couple of pages ago with Kyleb when he seemed to be implying that he might have had a point, but he declined to make/argue the point he was implying. If you have a point, go for it, Ivan! I hope CNN sues Fox. Me too! But they won't, you know why? Yeah, you know why...

[russ_watters]

:rofl:So, how many Fox fans object to the blatently false claim in the Fox ad cited by Sanchez?

Have we had one objection from the right yet; anywhere?
AFAIK, we don't have any Fox fans on this site. I haven't seen any, at least.

[edit] Then again, in Howard Stern's book, it said that people who hated him listened twice as long as people who liked him (at least in the beginning). Does that make them Howard Stern haters or fans? Do Howard Stern's advertisers care about the distinction? Heck, Ivan, I think you're more of a Fox News fan than I am!

[TheStatutoryApe]

Edit: Nope, you are wrong. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck has not apologized or even mentioned a word of it. It might have been another news caster on the Fox News channel but both Hannity and Glenn Beck has not lifted a single finger after the fact.

SHE WAS NOT FIRED!!!

You have some seriously selective perception.

Edit: Besides, Hannity and Beck did not make the videos. Someone else made them and hosted them and they just discussed them on their programs. Anything that happened to the people caught in the videos is their own fault for not acting professionally. The woman you have claimed was fired is on suspension with pay while she undergoes retraining due to her lack of professionalism. Had she acted appropriately she likely never would have even wound up on TV.

[Proton Soup]

The only anchor I like on CNN is the Wolf Man. Sanchez is too fluffy, but he has a point on this one.

I hope CNN sues Fox.

blitzer's alright. kind of an alex trebek type.

sanchez is worse than fluffy. my deep hatred for the man began when i saw him interviewing victims who had lost their homes in a big fire (think it was cali) and was trying to manipulate them into having an emotional outburst in front of the camera.

and so now Sanchez is doing what? the rivalry with people bigger than you are to try and boost your own ratings by riding their coattails? Keith Olbermann likes to do that with Bill O'Reilley. still, either no one knows, or cares, who Olbermann is. he'll never be a Maddow.

[WhoWee]

You have to watch Beck to understand him.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/30208/
Read the entire interview and notice how he mixes in ELF. He has a unique style that works for him. He talks to the audience as though he's sitting at the kitchen table and makes the political issues relevant to the average person.

By comparison, Rick Sanchez often sounds - well (how about) "pissy"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/rick-sanchez-grills-rick_n_253389.html

I'll use a marketing analysis. Sanchez does a hard sell - a one call close. Beck has a SPIN selling technique - he probes and monitors the pulse of his audience. He explains his topics in great detail (even uses a chalk board and other graphics) and builds relationships. Beck has a consistent product and provides support after the sale.

Customers are more likely to stay loyal to Beck and only buy from Sanchez when he has a special offer.

I personally keep a news channel on at all times in my office.

For years it was tuned in to CNN. As their programming changed, and instead of reporting I started to hear (very Liberal) opinion based reports from Carol Costello and Soledad O'Brien, I switched to Headline News.

I enjoyed Robin in the morning and found their weather reports adequate while traveling. But, other than a Glenn Beck show predicting economic troubles ahead (he called it on his Headline News show), last August/September Headline News economic and election coverage was pathetic. Until then, I wouldn't even turn Fox on - partly because I didn't want to see Geraldo and mostly because I had always heard they were biased and slanted pro-Bush. I have never been a Bush supporter.

I was surprised to find that Fox was reporting stories that I couldn't find elsewhere. Cavuto understands the financial markets and interviews a diverse group of guests. While I had viewed it once or twice before, Hannity and Colmes proved itself to be one of the best shows on TV leading up to the election.

I also started watching Bill O'Reilly and was surprised to find, while definitely conservative, he does maintain a balanced forum. I was also glad to see Dennis Miller and counter-arguments by Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis, Marc Lamont Hill and others.

By comparison, the Wolf B. and Anderson C. CNN political panels appeared so biased during the election they made my teeth hurt. At this point, I think John Stewart (Comedy) is more fair and balanced than CNN, MSNBC, and NBC.

[Vanadium 50]

At the risk of wrecking a perfectly good political discussion with the injection of facts, I would suggest that anyone who is interested in media bias read the study of Groseclose and Milyo (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm).

The introduction is a hoot:

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public. Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.

These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists.

What they determined is, not surprisingly, that different media outlets had different political slants. What was surprising was that the degree of these slants was not terribly large. Two of the most left-leaning outlets were, again, not surprisingly, the New York Times and CBS Evening News. These were significantly more conservative than the average Democrat in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Joe Lieberman. Two of the most right leaning were, again not surprisingly, the Washington Times and Fox News. These were significantly more liberal than the average Republican in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Susan Collins. The average outlet they studied ended up at about the same place on the political spectrum as John Breaux.

[Ivan Seeking]

So, how many so-called liberal news agencies have intentionally started a political movement like Beck's 12 nonsense? That isn't even news. It is political activism. It is downright terrifying that so many people here can't tell the difference. He is not an anchor. He is an activist. It isn't news. It is propoganda [with tears included].

Russ, this business happened yesterday. It is ridiculous to ask why no law suits have been filed yet.

I have often revealed my preferred news sources. I don't recall you ever revealing your sources, Russ. It is pretty easy to guess given your position on issues, but why don't you fess up.

Also, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh or any right-wing radio?

Also, do you condemn Fox news for their false claim or not? Cut the hyperbole and answer a direct question for a change; yes or no?

To say that people watching Beck aren't Fox fans is absurd. Clearly we have Beck fans, for starters.

[Ivan Seeking]

Who here watches the PBS News Hour; Washington Week; Meet the Press; This week with Stephanopolis? Those are quality news programs.

Note also that PBS anchors are the preferred option for Presidential debate moderators. Gee, I wonder why.

[Ivan Seeking]

blitzer's alright. kind of an alex trebek type.

sanchez is worse than fluffy. my deep hatred for the man began when i saw him interviewing victims who had lost their homes in a big fire (think it was cali) and was trying to manipulate them into having an emotional outburst in front of the camera.

and so now Sanchez is doing what? the rivalry with people bigger than you are to try and boost your own ratings by riding their coattails? Keith Olbermann likes to do that with Bill O'Reilley. still, either no one knows, or cares, who Olbermann is. he'll never be a Maddow.

I have never seen anything quite that bad, but I agree that he [Sanchez] is a sensationalist. By no means do I consider him to be a quality news anchor. I only keep CNN on for the headline news, less Blitzer. I do like Wolf Blitzer. You say Alex Trebek, I say fair and balanced and not sensational. He is a true professional and he never cries for the camera. He never yells at the camera. And he never injects personal opinions about partisan subjects.

You really can't compare Fox to CNN. You have to compare the anchors. It is possible that Fox has some good anchors, but in my many attempts to give Fox a chance I was always disappointed. It is a propoganda channel. The proof is that they have people like Beck. Here is a key test: Even Beck calls himself an entertainer.

Most anchors on CNN are benign and simply report the news. As for Anderson Cooper, imo he is mostly a human interest fluff reporter. He has done good stuff, but he is almost always going for the emotional content. I stopped watching AC360 long ago because of the fluff.

However, to take shots at Sanchez for reporting the Fox advertising lie is absurd. Of course he was mad. Fox lied about CNN's reporting. Why would you defend that? They should be sued and I hope CNN sues them.

When Dan Rather was tricked into making a false claim, it cost him a 40 year career. So much for the liberal media.

[WhoWee]

Who here watches the PBS News Hour; Washington Week; Meet the Press; This week with Stephanopolis? Those are quality news programs.

Note also that PBS anchors are the preferred option for Presidential debate moderators. Gee, I wonder why.

George Stephanopoulos:rofl:- now there's a guy with no political leanings - a real fair and balanced journalist. Don't get me wrong, I like George - from his book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uRCVwv87nkMC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Stephanopoulos,+Tsongas,+Dukakis,+and+Clinton&source=bl&ots=aZE-liZ387&sig=65yynQgKKecxtxzW_VxZfFqJ8wg&hl=en&ei=EzS1StChGY7IMJPEzNcO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Proton Soup]

Who here watches the PBS News Hour; Washington Week; Meet the Press; This week with Stephanopolis? Those are quality news programs.

Note also that PBS anchors are the preferred option for Presidential debate moderators. Gee, I wonder why.

Meet the Press has always been a quality program.

Stephi was a political advisor to Clinton.

PBS has a definite liberal slant, they're just boring. kind of a secular religious left.

I have never seen anything quite that bad, but I agree that he [Sanchez] is a sensationalist. By no means do I consider him to be a quality news anchor. I only keep CNN on for the headline news, less Blitzer. I do like Wolf Blitzer. You say Alex Trebek, I say fair and balanced and not sensational. He is a true professional and he never cries for the camera. He never yells at the camera. And he never injects personal opinions about partisan subjects.

You really can't compare Fox to CNN. You have to compare the anchors. It is possible that Fox has some good anchors, but in my many attempts to give Fox a chance I was always disappointed. It is a propoganda channel.

just because you agree with it, or it has less emotional content, doesn't mean it isn't slanted or isn't propaganda. you can inject partisanism just by what questions you decide to ask or not ask, or what subjects you cover and omit.


Most anchors on CNN are benign and simply report the news. As for Anderson Cooper, imo he is mostly a human interest fluff reporter. He has done good stuff, but he is almost always going for the emotional content. I stopped watching AC360 long ago because of the fluff.

However, to take shots at Sanchez for reporting the Fox advertising lie is absurd. Of course he was mad. Fox lied about CNN's reporting. Why would you defend that? They should be sued and I hope CNN sues them.

When Dan Rather made a false claim, it cost him a 40 year career. So much for the liberal media.

i love when they send Cooper out in the field to some dangerous situation. he always looks so uncomfortable. they should have kept that punk on late-nite.

i'm taking shots at Sanchez for being Sanchez. i'm sure you can read. i've hated him for a long time.

Rather had one foot out the door anyway. He had ample opportunity to correct/retract, he just didn't want to. Rather is gone because of his own hubris and thinking he can do anything he wants because he's Dan-freaking-Rather.

[Ivan Seeking]

Meet the Press has always been a quality program.

Although, I must admit that it has lost its edge since Russert died. Cripes, when he died I actually cried.

Stephi was a political advisor to Clinton.

However, he is always fair and balanced. He even allowed Liz Cheney to rant and be rude, rather than embarrassing her as he should have done. George Will is there almost every week for the right. If not, he has some hard-core conservative to take his place. The panel discussions almost always have two righties and two lefties, like the Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman. Krugman is a semi-regular.

PBS has a definite liberal slant,

A bit, but by far they are the most balanced of any news source on television. Again, who do the Presidential candidates want for impartial moderators? PBS anchors.

kind of a secular religious left

That is absurd and I challenge you to provide an example.

they're just boring. .

And there you have it in a nutshell. A quality news program is boring. That is the heart of the problem and why we have Fox. Propoganda sells far better than real news and quality programming. QED.

Btw, you are the second Beck fan to tell me that PBS is boring, over just the last few weeks. That is also a comment made by many Fox viewers. But what really got me was when a Limbaugh fan told me that PBS's Frontline is not trustworthy. Now THAT is downright hysterical!

[Proton Soup]

Although, I must admit that it has lost its edge since Russert died. Cripes, when he died I actually cried.



However, he is always fair and balanced. He even allowed Liz Cheney to rant and be rude, rather than embarrassing her as he should have done. George Will is there almost every week for the right. If not, he has some hard-core conservative to take his place. The panel discussions almost always have two righties and two lefties, like the Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman. Krugman is a semi-regular.



A bit, but by far they are the most balanced of any news source on television. Again, who do the Presidential candidates want for impartial moderators? PBS anchors.



That is absurd and I challenge you to provide an example.



And there you have it in a nutshell. A quality news program is boring. That is the heart of the problem and why we have Fox. Propoganda sells far better than real news and quality programming. QED.

Btw, you are the second Beck fan to tell me that PBS is boring, over just the last few weeks. That is also a comment made by many Fox viewers. But what really got me was when a Limbaugh fan told me that PBS's Frontline is not trustworthy. Now THAT is downright hysterical!

look, i'm not even going to address the rest of what you said now, because i am not a beck fan. i think he's emotionally unstable, in fact. and i actually listen to NPR often when i'm driving. haven't listened to limbaugh in years, and most of you doofs complaining about him don't listen either, you just parrot what you hear somewhere else. seriously, just go listen to whatever makes you the least uncomfortable and stop whinging about whatever anyone else watches.

[Ivan Seeking]

At the risk of wrecking a perfectly good political discussion with the injection of facts, I would suggest that anyone who is interested in media bias read the study of Groseclose and Milyo (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm).

The introduction is a hoot:



What they determined is, not surprisingly, that different media outlets had different political slants. What was surprising was that the degree of these slants was not terribly large. Two of the most left-leaning outlets were, again, not surprisingly, the New York Times and CBS Evening News. These were significantly more conservative than the average Democrat in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Joe Lieberman. Two of the most right leaning were, again not surprisingly, the Washington Times and Fox News. These were significantly more liberal than the average Republican in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Susan Collins. The average outlet they studied ended up at about the same place on the political spectrum as John Breaux.

What matters is how they determine slant. Do they consider only the subject or do they include delivery and personal bias; do they include crying for the camera on a weekly basis? Do they include fear mongering? How can you comparse a channel that blatently engages in political activism, to one that simply reports the news? Even based only what you say, the study is almost certainly too limited to be of use.

I don't need a study to tell me what I see and hear.

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems that CNN has raised the ante. I just saw a new ad claiming that "Fox News is distorting, not reporting", and watch CNN... etc.

[Ivan Seeking]

I will offer this as my only complaint about The News Hour. The essayist Anne Taylor Fleming is a hard-left X-hippie whom I completely ignore now. She only does occasional stories, perhaps one every two weeks or so and mostly human interest stories, but I find her to be sappy trite left and infinitely ignorable.

[WhoWee]

It seems that CNN has raised the ante. I just saw a new ad claiming that "Fox News is distorting, not reporting", and watch CNN... etc.

I'm in favor of a marketing and competition - hopefully they'll both become a little more balanced. This feels a little like the "Cola Wars" or "Where's the Beef".

It's a bit trickier for CNN - they have to pretend they're looking down upon Fox (even though ratings say otherwise) and make sure they don't become the "Liberal" brand.

At the end of the day, cable wins and broadcast loses (even more viewers).

[WhoWee]

I think Obama is making a mistake tomorrow - selecting Univision over Fox. He taped interviews with CBS, NBC, ABC, Univision, and CNN regarding health care.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090918/pl_politico/27300

[LewisEE]

If we look at the Univision/FNS snub at face value, apparently Al Punto's show gets better ratings than Wallace does. So the White House can claim that they simply want to reach more voters. The number comes from Univision itself so who knows its truth, but still.

Source: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/18/al-punto-versus-fox-news-sunday/

[Vanadium 50]

I don't need a study to tell me what I see and hear.

Taking anecdotal experience over a statsitical study doesn't sound like a very scientific position to me. Nor does deciding the study must be flawed because its conclusion doesn't agree with your initial opinion.

I'll bow out now. As I feared, injecting actual facts into this discussion would not be appreciated.

[TheStatutoryApe]

So, how many so-called liberal news agencies have intentionally started a political movement like Beck's 12 nonsense? That isn't even news. It is political activism. It is downright terrifying that so many people here can't tell the difference. He is not an anchor. He is an activist. It isn't news. It is propoganda [with tears included].

Russ, this business happened yesterday. It is ridiculous to ask why no law suits have been filed yet.

I have often revealed my preferred news sources. I don't recall you ever revealing your sources, Russ. It is pretty easy to guess given your position on issues, but why don't you fess up.

Also, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh or any right-wing radio?

Also, do you condemn Fox news for their false claim or not? Cut the hyperbole and answer a direct question for a change; yes or no?

To say that people watching Beck aren't Fox fans is absurd. Clearly we have Beck fans, for starters.

When has Beck ever been a News Anchor? I believe he just does an opinion show yes?

I listen to Rush on occasion. He is pretty ridiculous, sometimes even funny to listen to.

I don't watch TV news, I listen to news and commentary on the radio. The radio station I listen to is a Clear Channel station and Fox News affiliate. If there were a liberal news radio station I might listen to it but the only non-conservative station I know of is NPR and they don't cover much of my local news. As I mentioned before I do not find the news I get to be very slanted or biased. Even the conservative talk show hosts I listen to tend toward moderate on most issues and try to present the facts as facts regardless of their own opinions.

Case in point, the ACORN videos were reported about on the station I listen to. The reporting and commentary I got on the matter was apparently fair, balanced, and detailed enough that I knew what was going on better than our friend Wax who was complaining of Fox's alleged unbalanced reporting in this matter. Not only that but in the case of Kaelke the hosts I listen to practically cheered her actions, stood up for her, and ridiculed the silly 'documentary director' dressed like he was going to a halloween party.

So I don't really know what they are like on TV or what they are like anywhere else but from my actual experience listening to Fox News on the radio they fairly well live up to their motto.

[kyleb]

"Water is dry" is a fact-based statement.
Surely you don't mean it is a statement based in fact? A "falsehood-based statement" seems a more fitting description to me. However, in pondering the concept of "value statements" you expressed, I wondered; considering some fluids demonstrate wetness beyond that of water, could not "water is dry" be excused as such a statement? More generally, I'm simply interested in understand what grounds your "not a lie" claim is founded in.

In any case, did you have a look at any of the reading materials I provided about false advertising?
I didn't, and didn't even understand what prompted you to post it, as I was never suggesting there was anything illegal here. As for puffery with the worst stakes in town, of course it isn't illegal to claim the opposite, but I'm still at a loss as to how one could not classify it as dishonest. You suggest it is a subjective matter, but I don't follow your argument there. This being Physics Forums, I'm guessing you've read Einstein, and his lightning bolts hitting a train come to mind. Saying one bolt hit before the other is clearly a subjective matter, but would you argue that claiming there was no lighting to be seen is a subjective matter too? And if not, how is that any different from claiming one has the best stakes in town when not making any attempt to do anything of the sort?

People are searching for a point in your posts, kyleb. If you're not suggesting a remedy for this, then you're just arguing to be argumentative:

You think it is dishonest. Fine. Assume for the sake of argument that I agree completely. Now what?
There is no reason to be searching here, I explained to Drankin previously in the post you quoted from; I wasn't attempting to make any argument, but rather looking to better understand the one you made. If you chose to reverse your argument, then I'd still be curious as to why you made it in the first place, and then also curious as to brought you to change your mind. That said, I do suggest that calling a spade a spade in itself is a remedy for much of the troubles of our world.
Are you saying in the first that it is not, in fact, illegal and in the second that you believe it should be illegal??
...

So then you think that ethics are the basis of our laws, but you don't think they should be?
You got the first part right in each case, but I'm at a loss as to how you've read the latter parts into what I've said, as I've never said anything to suggest anything of the sort.
Taking anecdotal experience over a statsitical study doesn't sound like a very scientific position to me.

Citing a a couple of conservatives who attempted to made the liberal media argument look scientifically founded though an exceedingly narrow and dubious statistical analysis nearly half a decade ago doesn't sound very relevant to the discussion at hand.

[WhoWee]

If we look at the Univision/FNS snub at face value, apparently Al Punto's show gets better ratings than Wallace does. So the White House can claim that they simply want to reach more voters. The number comes from Univision itself so who knows its truth, but still.

Source: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/18/al-punto-versus-fox-news-sunday/

I wasn't aware of Univision's reach. It seems Obama should have done 6 interviews and not snub anyone who is interested.

[Al68]

Most anchors on CNN are benign and simply report the news. Would you call continuously referring to Obama's health care plan as "reform" and labeling opponents as against health care "reform" benign and simply reporting the news?

This kind of obvious bias (going on for decades) is what has been called "liberal bias". It's "unstated assumption" propaganda.

Isn't it the news anchors that are expected to be unbiased, not the pundits?

You have a problem with a political "entertainer" being biased while admitting it, but not with biased news anchors pretending not to be? Sounds backwards to me.

[Ivan Seeking]

The first in a list of Beck lies and distortions. [I don't even need to watch Beck for these to come to light through simple quotes]
.
I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told "NBC Nightly News."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html

We have a former President who says if you’re opposed to the President’s health care, you’re racist.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8622972

So there you go. Twist the words, change the words, make up a lie, generalize the statement to the point of absurdity, change the intent or meaning of a statement, and you have a typical Beckism - brainwashing step number one.

To say that racism plays a signifant role in the intense animosity towards Obama, is not to say that all opposition, or all opposition to health care reform, is rooted in racism. Carter does think it played a role the inappropriate outburst of one Congressman from a State with a long history of intense racism.

Beck lied.

[dlgoff]

I just saw this thread and wanted to say; Since President Obama was elected and FOX went nuts, I never watch any of their programs.

[WhoWee]

The first in a list of Beck lies and distortions. [I don't even need to watch Beck for these to come to light through simple quotes]
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8622972

So there you go. Twist the words, change the words, make up a lie, generalize the statement to the point of absurdity, change the intent or meaning of a statement, and you have a typical Beckism - brainwashing step number one.

To say that racism plays a signifant role in the intense animosity towards Obama, is not to say that all opposition, or all opposition to health care reform, is rooted in racism. Carter does think it played a role the inappropriate outburst of one Congressman from a State with a long history of intense racism.

Beck lied.

Ivan, are you sure YOU are not twisting Carter's words? Was Carter talking about the comments of a single man - or the entire movement against Obama policies?

[nuby]

The first in a list of Beck lies and distortions. [I don't even need to watch Beck for these to come to light through simple quotes]
.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html


http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8622972

So there you go. Twist the words, change the words, make up a lie, generalize the statement to the point of absurdity, change the intent or meaning of a statement, and you have a typical Beckism - brainwashing step number one.

To say that racism plays a signifant role in the intense animosity towards Obama, is not to say that all opposition, or all opposition to health care reform, is rooted in racism. Carter does think it played a role the inappropriate outburst of one Congressman from a State with a long history of intense racism.

Beck lied.


This is funny because this is exactly how illogical people think... This must really appeal to all the Glenn Beck fanatics..

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ivan, are you sure YOU are not twisting Carter's words? Was Carter talking about the comments of a single man - or the entire movement against Obama policies?

This was the impression that I got and as far as I am aware that outburst occurred during a speech about healthcare reform and was in response to a comment made about said plan, unless of course he just decided to shout out because he's a bigot redneck who's rallying the klan. I have to wonder who is doing the twisting here.

[BoomBoom]

Would you call continuously referring to Obama's health care plan as "reform" and labeling opponents as against health care "reform" benign and simply reporting the news?

This kind of obvious bias (going on for decades) is what has been called "liberal bias". It's "unstated assumption" propaganda.

What word would you use for healthcare "reform"? I suppose you'd prefer healthcare "socialism" eh? :rolleyes:

Wow, that rampant "liberal media bias" is just out of hand! [sarcasm]

[Proton Soup]

What word would you use for healthcare "reform"? I suppose you'd prefer healthcare "socialism" eh? :rolleyes:

Wow, that rampant "liberal media bias" is just out of hand! [sarcasm]

you could call it a "plan". or a "bill".

and from the sounds of it, it may also end up being a "mandate".

[Wax]

Here's another one.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0909/Fox_producer_rallied_tea_party_protesters.html

Fox producer rallied tea party protesters

On Friday, Fox News boasted in a print ad that other network missed the tea party protest on 9/12, despite the fact that CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS were all there covering it. (CNN shot back in an ad of their own).

But it turns out that while Fox was covering the protest, a Fox producer, at one point, rallied the crowd to cheer while Griff Jenkins was on camera. Media Matters caught this clip a few days back, but now Fox confirms that it was, indeed, a staffer.

Fox's Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton told Huffington Post that "the employee is a young, relatively inexperienced associate producer who realizes she made a mistake and has been disciplined."

While the other networks have covered tea party events around the country, Fox has focused far more on the story both this past week and around April 15. Back then, Fox's competitors and journalism-watchers questioned whether the network had blurred the line between journalism and advocacy when covering the tea party protests.

The behind-the-scenes clip, and how it looked on the air are below. I've also put in a request to Fox for comment, and will update if I hear back.

[Al68]

What word would you use for healthcare "reform"? I suppose you'd prefer healthcare "socialism" eh? :rolleyes:

Wow, that rampant "liberal media bias" is just out of hand! [sarcasm]I would use the word reform for reform, not for Obama's proposal, since that would be preposterous.

Using the word reform to describe more government economic control instead of less is obvious bias. And claiming that people who are against Obama's plan are against "reform" is just hatespeech.

Which network describes people who want to completely deregulate health insurance as "in favor of reform" and those that oppose such deregulation as "against reform"?

[BoomBoom]

Using the word reform to describe more government economic control instead of less is obvious bias. And claiming that people who are against Obama's plan are against "reform" is just hatespeech.

Really? "Hatespeech"? ....ummm, just wow!



Which network describes people who want to completely deregulate health insurance as "in favor of reform" and those that oppose such deregulation as "against reform"?

None that I know of. Deregulation would just exacerbate our current mess and make it more costly and wasteful...why would anyone call that "reform"?

[Al68]

Deregulation would just exacerbate our current mess and make it more costly and wasteful...why would anyone call that "reform"?Because they disagree with your opinion about deregulation, as many do. Many of us want free market reform in the insurance industry.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the most regulated industry in America is the one with the most complaints? Government regulation makes things more costly and wasteful.

But my point in this thread isn't that I'm right, it's that the news networks are clearly taking the side of those that consider "reform" to be more regulation over those that consider "reform" to be deregulation. And they refer to those that favor free market reform as against reform.

No one identifies themselves as "anti-reform". Calling them anti-reform is either hateful or ignorant.

Why would you not call it bias for a news network to take your side over mine? Would you call it bias if they instead took my side over yours, and called your side "anti-reform"?

[BoomBoom]

No one identifies themselves as "anti-reform". Calling them anti-reform is either hateful or ignorant.

Then I guess you feel the same way about the term "pro-life"? I mean, really, who would be "anti-life"? ...must just be more "hatespeech".

...just a silly argument IMO.

[Al68]

Then I guess you feel the same way about the term "pro-life"? I mean, really, who would be "anti-life"? Yes, I do. Calling someone "anti-life" or "anti-baby" would be either hateful or ignorant. And if a news network did it, it would be obvious bias. Good analogy!

And, I'd bet that since the bias would not be in your favor, you would recognize it.

And it would be a silly argument, and another classic example of faulty logic.

Calling people "anti-reform" is the type of propaganda known as "unstated assumption". The argument that more regulation is "reform" is assumed to avoid actually having to make a case that it's true.

[SpaceTiger]

Using the word reform to describe more government economic control instead of less is obvious bias. [/B]

Just because it isn't the kind of reform that you want doesn't meant that it's not "reform." Health care reform is a generic term for changes to the health care system; it could apply equally well to deregulation, but at the moment it usually refers to Obama's plan because that's the plan that's getting debated in Congress right now. Your statement is an example of why media bias thrives -- people want to hear words that reflect how they feel, not words that just reflect the facts.


And claiming that people who are against Obama's plan are against "reform" is just hatespeech.

I agree that broadly labeling opponents of Obama's plan as "anti-reform" would be inaccurate (though certainly not hatespeech). Did you have some particular examples of this in mind? Most of what I found on a Google search were blogs and op-eds... I couldn't even find any examples of this on the NYTimes site.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just because it isn't the kind of reform that you want doesn't meant that it's not "reform." Health care reform is a generic term for changes to the health care system; it could apply equally well to deregulation, but at the moment it usually refers to Obama's plan because that's the plan that's getting debated in Congress right now. Your statement is an example of why media bias thrives -- people want to hear words that reflect how they feel, not words that just reflect the facts.
I believe that's his whole point. As framed by most people in the current debate if you are against the plan proposed by the Democrats then you are against health care reform.

I agree that broadly labeling opponents of Obama's plan as "anti-reform" would be inaccurate (though certainly not hatespeech). Did you have some particular examples of this in mind? Most of what I found on a Google search were blogs and op-eds... I couldn't even find any examples of this on the NYTimes site.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22against+health+care+reform%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g3g-m7
Try "against health care reform". I would also agree that 'hatespeech' is a rather strong term though it certainly vilifies the democrats opponents.

[SpaceTiger]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22against+health+care+reform%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g3g-m7

Yes, those are the blogs and op-eds I was referring to. Criticizing an editorial for being unbalanced is like criticizing a scientific paper for being unemotional. The issue of media bias isn't about what people are saying in debates and editorials, it's about how the news is being presented.

[WhoWee]

Forget about Fox coverage for a minute. We know they are taking a hard look.

Can anyone find a critical report on Health Care from the other big media? Something that weighs the arguments being presented, perhaps that comments on Obama's 15 (or 17?) million adjustment to the number of uninsured or on the comments he made to Univision regarding insurance coverage for "illegal aliens" on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, or the Washington Post?

If you believe Fox is far right, then who is balanced and who is far left - based upon their reporting?

[Al68]

I agree that broadly labeling opponents of Obama's plan as "anti-reform" would be inaccurate (though certainly not hatespeech).This was my point. Maybe "hatespeech" is a strong word, but it does stir up hatred, turning even family members against each other. Did you have some particular examples of this in mind? Most of what I found on a Google search were blogs and op-eds... I couldn't even find any examples of this on the NYTimes site.I'm not talking about op-eds and blogs. They are no more expected to be unbiased than the examples given about Fox programs with Beck, Hannity, etc. There's nothing wrong with expressing a point of view, but those examples aren't hiding or denying their bias. It's not like Hannity is secretly a conservative while pretending to be an unbiased objective journalist.

I was referring to the straight news, and not just the exact word "anti-reform". We hear on the network TV news about "opponents of health care reform" constantly.

Like you said, reform means different things to different people, and if the news networks were constantly referring to Obama and his supporters as "opponents of health care reform" because they're against free market reforms, then it would be my side that "failed" to see the claimed bias.

[BoomBoom]

Can anyone find a critical report on Health Care from the other big media?

If you believe Fox is far right, then who is balanced and who is far left - based upon their reporting?

I don't think a non-biased news source should be neither crital or supportive. They should just report the facts. Generally, the news presents the debate ocurring in reference to the healthcare plan...this includes statements for and against the plan. AFAIK, they all include both. It somewhat reduces the "newsworthiness" of the debate though when it turns into ridiculous positions such as "death panels" and the like, but still they are reporting on the debate that is happening both with the ledgislators and the public.

My main problem with all the American media is their "tabloidish" nature and their obsession with whatever the "story of the day" is...and they are all guilty of that.

We all know that FNC is a proponent of the right and attacks the left, while MSNBC is left and attacks the right. The rest I believe are fairly central. PBS and BBC, IMO, and the most unbiased sources that report actual news of importance instead of the crap the rest of them shovel on a daily basis.

[seycyrus]

...They should just report the facts....

Depends on the type of story. If it is "fire kills 10 people", simply the facts will suffice. But if the story is something with more meat to it, say "NASA revamps space program despite internal criticism." I would like to see representatives of both sides, giving their viewpoints.

I claim that Fox does a better job of making sure that they have both sides present than CNN or MSNBC.

Could be just my opinion, but it is an opinion based on direct observation. Whereas, in my experience, FNC detractors proudly proclaim that they have never watched more than a minute or two (unless it's a piece ridiculing fnc posted on the web)

[drankin]

I don't think a non-biased news source should be neither crital or supportive. They should just report the facts. Generally, the news presents the debate ocurring in reference to the healthcare plan...this includes statements for and against the plan. AFAIK, they all include both. It somewhat reduces the "newsworthiness" of the debate though when it turns into ridiculous positions such as "death panels" and the like, but still they are reporting on the debate that is happening both with the ledgislators and the public.

My main problem with all the American media is their "tabloidish" nature and their obsession with whatever the "story of the day" is...and they are all guilty of that.

We all know that FNC is a proponent of the right and attacks the left, while MSNBC is left and attacks the right. The rest I believe are fairly central. PBS and BBC, IMO, and the most unbiased sources that report actual news of importance instead of the crap the rest of them shovel on a daily basis.

And that's all fine. But people listen to what they want to listen to. And their media of preference may call it news. It's impossible to cover all sides to an issue. The bias of a particular media outlet might pick two of this sides and cover it as if it were ALL the sides. That's when everyone else gets pigeon-holed to a particular side that they aren't part of. There are those that do not want any reform, but there are more people who want reform, just not Obama's reform. I'd narrow it down to at least three sides to this issue.

Tabloids call their crap news too. All news outlets have a perspective (bias) whether intentional or not.

[Hepth]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.
Now if, at the same time as "Obama's Plan" or before, the republicans had been trying to ACTUALLY and PUBLICLY push through a plan of their own reforming healthcare to be much more free-market and MUCH less regulated, then YES, both would be reform and there would be a problem calling one anti-reform.

But thats not what happened. Sure, everyone's always complained about the system, and a few people may have tried to do something about it in both directions, but always on a small scale compared to today. Small changes shouldn't be considered reform. But now, there is a HUGE push from one side for changing a system already in place. While the right may counter with, "well we wish it was much less regulated" that opinion and desire doesn't carry the same weight.

But it doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure republicans/conservatives/fox watchers/ etc have, by now, associated themselves with the "anti-reform" title and view it, for the most part, as a good thing (and use it as such). Which is fine. In public if you ask a general population republican voter if he is anti-refrom he'll most likely say yes (this is a presumption though I think its pretty accurate). Because they view no-change as better than change in the wrong direction.

I'm sure they'd much rather have more deregulation as reform, but as it sits in the current state, less change is better. (in their opinion, not mine).

Semantics...

[Hepth]

As for foxnews.com, their current headliner is about "Despot Housewives" an inside look at "tyrannical leaders'" spouses while their husbands are at the UN summit.

CNN is about the summit.
BBC is about the summit.
MSNBC is about china and the summit.
nytimes is about the summit.

are ones i just looked at.

I don't mind foxnews's content their much when its on-topic, but more often than not is MORE about something that I barely consider newsworthy and more for ratings. But they're all, to an extent, culprits of that.

[TheStatutoryApe]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.
Now if, at the same time as "Obama's Plan" or before, the republicans had been trying to ACTUALLY and PUBLICLY push through a plan of their own reforming healthcare to be much more free-market and MUCH less regulated, then YES, both would be reform and there would be a problem calling one anti-reform.

But thats not what happened. Sure, everyone's always complained about the system, and a few people may have tried to do something about it in both directions, but always on a small scale compared to today. Small changes shouldn't be considered reform. But now, there is a HUGE push from one side for changing a system already in place. While the right may counter with, "well we wish it was much less regulated" that opinion and desire doesn't carry the same weight.
So because Obama came in and said he wanted this done ASAP and Obama happens to be a Dem then it is a Dem issue and the Reps working on healthcare plans along side their counterparts are probably best described as 'anti-reform' because Obama is not one of their's?


But it doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure republicans/conservatives/fox watchers/ etc have, by now, associated themselves with the "anti-reform" title and view it, for the most part, as a good thing (and use it as such). Which is fine. In public if you ask a general population republican voter if he is anti-refrom he'll most likely say yes (this is a presumption though I think its pretty accurate). Because they view no-change as better than change in the wrong direction.
I have not heard any conservatives take an 'anti-reform' stance personally. I have heard about plans being worked on by reps in congress and a desire for healthcare reform but without a public option. I have not heard anyone say they think things out to stay just the way they are.

[Proton Soup]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.
...
Semantics...

yes, semantics. because the debate really isn't about reform of the industry. the primary debate is over whether to provide universal health insurance coverage.

[Al68]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.Yes, but the two sides are not pro-reform and anti-reform. Anti Obama Plan is not anti-reform.
Now if, at the same time as "Obama's Plan" or before, the republicans had been trying to ACTUALLY and PUBLICLY push through a plan of their own reforming healthcare to be much more free-market and MUCH less regulated, then YES, both would be reform and there would be a problem calling one anti-reform.

But thats not what happened. Uh, where have you been? You don't think Republicans have pushed to deregulate for decades? I never thought I'd hear anyone actually make that claim.

But the media doesn't report such efforts as "reform", they are reported as "in an effort to please insurance companies...", etc.

Reform objectively means "to improve or change to a better state". Calling more regulation "reform" is taking the position that more regulation is "better" than less regulation. The media has consistently taken this obviously biased position on health care for years.

Why do so many people try to deny the obvious? Is media bias really that hard to detect when it's in your favor?

If the media consistently labeled Democrats' objections to deregulation as "anti-reform", would such bias be undetectable, too?

[burningbend]

lol every current cable news station is controlled by conservative corporate owners. there is no fairness doctrine. clear channel controls over 11% of the radio market and viacom controls over 35% of the tv market.

what liberal media?

[TheStatutoryApe]

lol every current cable news station is controlled by conservative corporate owners. there is no fairness doctrine. clear channel controls over 11% of the radio market and viacom controls over 35% of the tv market.

what liberal media?

Clear Channel has liberal oriented stations. Liberals don't often listen to any news radio other than NPR though so just about any news radio you listen to is going to be conservative. If you switch over to the popular FM morning shows though you will find that they are predominantly liberal, and they predominantly discuss entertainment news.


These corporate owners are interested in making money. If that means liberal oriented programming then they do it.

Notice also that 11% is awefully small of a market share compared to most other media industry leaders.

[WhoWee]

They REAL DEBATE is about what to do about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When Obama talks about a health care crisis threatening the economy - this is what he's referring to - not who has health insurance.

He needs to raise money to pay for all of his spending.

He HAS to raise taxes across the board (not just on the "rich") and needs passionate public support.

If he can channel ALL of the insurance premiums through the Government and pay for individual health insurance (at a 20% discount - greatly reduced agent commissions - similar to Medicare Advantage) at a "super group" rate, force everyone to participate and tax the "Cadillac" plans - he will raise a lot of cash for the Government.

It's a big game and Fox is the only ones even close to focusing on the real story.

[seycyrus]

...
I don't mind foxnews's content their much when its on-topic, but more often than not is MORE about something that I barely consider newsworthy and more for ratings. But they're all, to an extent, culprits of that.

I could throw down a similar analysis regarding other websites having fluff while fox had the "nity-gritty". One has to consider the dynamic evolution of the site. Fox might have had their serious content up for over an hour and then switched it over, while the others were just beginning to cover the story.

This brings back a recent phone conversation between myself and an a liberal friend. We were shouting at each other about the content of fox v. cnn websites ("No dummy, above THAT picture to the right...) reading the headlines out loud to each other...

After a few moments, it became clear we weren't looking at the same front pages. Are the sites different in different regions? Or did we just have our sites setup in different ways?

[seycyrus]

Right now on my FOX site in big pictures: Despot housewives, McChrystal story, Obama to UN story, NYPD terror story.

On CNN: big picture = Drowning Mom. Small byline about wildfire. even smaller bylines about other stuff.

EDIT:

Breaking news on Fox; Sec general Ban Ki-moon speaks. Nothing about it on CNN.

[Al68]

lol every current cable news station is controlled by conservative corporate owners. there is no fairness doctrine. clear channel controls over 11% of the radio market and viacom controls over 35% of the tv market.

what liberal media?Ok, so the news media, controlled by rich greedy corporations for decades, has convinced huge numbers of Americans that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the other 95% of the country.

Gee, who would gain by Americans getting that impression by watching network news?

[BoomBoom]

Ok, so the news media, controlled by rich greedy corporations for decades, has convinced huge numbers of Americans that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the other 95% of the country.

I think the stance on the issues by the Republicans has convinced the people of that, not the media. The media just reports what the Republican stance is.

[seycyrus]

I think the stance on the issues by the Republicans has convinced the people of that, not the media. The media just reports what the Republican stance is.

Such as?

[BoomBoom]

Such as?

Well, generally, pretty much across the board on all sorts of issues, Republicans always seem to be pro big business and anti social programs for the less privileged...(at least ever since I have been paying attention to politics from the Carter/Reagan era on).

If you want a specific example, perhaps the fact that the Republicans always seem to oppose any sort of minimum wage increase.

[Proton Soup]

Well, generally, pretty much across the board on all sorts of issues, Republicans always seem to be pro big business and anti social programs for the less privileged...(at least ever since I have been paying attention to politics from the Carter/Reagan era on).

If you want a specific example, perhaps the fact that the Republicans always seem to oppose any sort of minimum wage increase.

seems more a small business than big business issue to me.

[Cyrus]

Right now on my FOX site in big pictures: Despot housewives, McChrystal story, Obama to UN story, NYPD terror story.

On CNN: big picture = Drowning Mom. Small byline about wildfire. even smaller bylines about other stuff.

EDIT:

Breaking news on Fox; Sec general Ban Ki-moon speaks. Nothing about it on CNN.

If only proving things were this cartoonishly simple.

[BoomBoom]

seems more a small business than big business issue to me.

OK, they are generally against any sort of envorinmental protection regulations, against consumer protection regulations on the banking and insurance industries, against progressive tax.... the list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that the general public has the perception that Republicans and "pro-rich", because their stance on policy is generally "pro-rich".

(But I feel like I am pointing out the obvious here and can't seem to find a way to tie this back into the topic of Fox News.) :uhh:

[SpaceTiger]

Ok, so the news media, controlled by rich greedy corporations for decades, has convinced huge numbers of Americans that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the other 95% of the country.

I haven't had this impression for over 10 years. Republicans have been courting lower-class whites for some time now... do you really think Sarah Palin was meant to appeal to the upper classes?

You're making a lot of broad-brush statements about the impressions that other people have and I'm not convinced that they're accurate. If you're going to make claims like this, you should probably have some kind of evidence to back it up.

[skippy1729]

While FOX News has a decided mainstream conservative slant, they usually have a balance of left/right commentary when they bring in outside contributors. When Hillary Clinton was being crucified daily on MSNBC, she got, what I consider, a fair interview with O'Rielly.

Most of the criticism of FOX News is Olbermanic: If it is true, it is trivial and it usually isn't true.

Most of the coverage of the Health Care Bills on the other networks seem to play along with Obama's word games. i.e. abortion is not specifically mentioned (but it will be provided as a routine legal medical procedure); illegal aliens are not specifically covered (but there is no provision to enforce exclusion); yes you can keep your plan (but government mandates will possibly force your plan out of existence); the plan will be funded by eliminating Medicare waste and fraud (but no clue as to how this will be done).

Skippy

[Count Iblis]

The World according to FOX NEWS:

http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0632/tmw-big.jpg

[Pinu7]

It is ridiculous that people attack fox news while turning a blind eye to the rest of the media, which is fervently left wing.

[Al68]

I think the stance on the issues by the Republicans has convinced the people of that, not the media. The media just reports what the Republican stance is.They report a slanted version of what the Republican stance is, not how Republicans would describe their own stance.Republicans always seem to be pro big business and anti social programs for the less privileged..Perfect example. This is the way Republicans are presented in the media, and you believe it.the general public has the perception that Republicans and "pro-rich", because their stance on policy is generally "pro-rich". Because their positions are labeled as "pro-rich". The simple and obvious fact is that the Republican position on the issues you mention are libertarian positions. Libertarian economic policies are presented as "pro-rich" by the media, despite the fact that libertarians (and Republicans on the issues you mention) believe strongly that their positions are pro working class and poor.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

[seycyrus]

The World according to FOX NEWS:

http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0632/tmw-big.jpg

AWESOME example of how the media misrepresents the republicans.

Wait, that *was* what you were trying to demonstrate, right? Right?

[SpaceTiger]

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

When a conservative tells me that Democrats are all socialists and lovers of big government, does it prove that the media is biased conservative?

[TheStatutoryApe]

When a conservative tells me that Democrats are all socialists and lovers of big government, does it prove that the media is biased conservative?

If that conservative were specifically discussing the manner in which democrats are portrayed in the media and the influence that has on the general public then yeah you would probably call that a bit of evidence in favour of that conclusion.

[SpaceTiger]

If that conservative were specifically discussing the manner in which democrats are portrayed in the media and the influence that has on the general public then yeah you would probably call that a bit of evidence in favour of that conclusion.

So let me get this straight...

When a person on one side of an issue has a distorted view of people on the other side, this isn't a perfectly normal human thing. Rather, it's evidence that they're being swayed by the media (so long as they're discussing media portrayal of the opposing side)?

Furthermore, if you agree with someone's overall world view, you agree with everything they say, however illogical. And even when you don't actually agree, you pretend like you're agreeing, assuming that "probable evidence in favor of" a conclusion is the same as "proof" of it? Am I understanding you correctly there as well?

If you're going to make claims on a scientific forum, back them up with evidence. Provide me with polls of public opinion or give me news reports that have the specific biases you're referring to, don't just wave your hands and waste my time.

[BoomBoom]

They report a slanted version of what the Republican stance is, not how Republicans would describe their own stance.

No, they are either for a bill or against it, that determines their stance on that issue....and the media generally reports what they say in their own words of what their position is.

If it makes you feel better to believe that the majority of the country is somehow brainwashed by the 'liberal' media, then go right ahead and believe that. But if you really believe this is true, then you must also believe that the folks who watch Fox must be as well, right? Or are they somehow immune to media brainwashing?

[Al68]

No, they are either for a bill or against it, that determines their stance on that issue....and the media generally reports what they say in their own words of what their position is.Well, you know the media does more than that.

For one, they characterize the bill in question the same way Democrats do, for example "reform of the health care system" or "measure to help poor people", etc. Then the opponents of the bill are seen as against "reform.." and "helping poor people", etc.

Second, they consistently misrepresent the Republican position, for example "in a victory for the insurance companies", etc., or "in a victory for low-income workers" when Democrats get their way.

You yourself have equated being against increasing the minimum wage as "pro-rich". It's no surprise that you don't notice bias when the media does the same thing.

[Al68]

When a conservative tells me that Democrats are all socialists and lovers of big government, does it prove that the media is biased conservative?No, but it does show that the particular person you're listening to is. But if you know he/she is conservative, it's not hidden bias. No one is being mislead into believing Rush or Hannity are objective journalists just reporting unbiased facts. Their point of view is obvious and not denied.

Nobody listens to Rush to hear both sides of an issue. Many people do think they are hearing both sides on CBS news, or an unbiased reporting of facts by the anchor.

[BoomBoom]

You yourself have equated being against increasing the minimum wage as "pro-rich". It's no surprise that you don't notice bias when the media does the same thing.

Not precisely, I suggested that was one example of many that together give the public the perception that Republicans are "pro-rich". A monotone robot with no emotion or opinion could give the same news (of the Republican stance on all the issues) and I'm quite sure people would reach the same conclusions.

I think you give far too much credit for the amount of influence this perceived media bias creates. Or perhaps you will always perceive a bias unless it is biased in your direction (as Fox News is).

But if you know he/she is conservative, it's not hidden bias.

Which brings us back to the original point: Why does Fox News "hide" their bias under the slogan of "Fair and Balanced"?

[WhoWee]

Freedom of speech is a 2 way street. If you don't want to listen, change the channel.

By the way, can anyone name a left wing liberal radio talk show or TV show (was Bill Maher canceled?) with above average ratings - I'd like to evaluate their programming based on the criteria mentioned in this discussion.

[BoomBoom]

Freedom of speech is a 2 way street. If you don't want to listen, change the channel.

By the way, can anyone name a left wing liberal radio talk show or TV show (was Bill Maher canceled?) with above average ratings - I'd like to evaluate their programming based on the criteria mentioned in this discussion.

Actually, Fox News is a guilty pleasure of mine. I prefer to hear opinions I disagree with rather than listen to someone I do agree with.

Bill Maher is still on, he has a show on HBO called "Real Time with Bill Maher".
(Shame on ABC for cancelling "Politically Incorrect"!)

[Al68]

Not precisely, I suggested that was one example of many that together give the public the perception that Republicans are "pro-rich".I agree it's only one example of many. The specific reasons for being on either side of that issue, and many others, belong in another thread. The important thing for this thread is that being against the Democrats' agenda on this and other economic issues does not equal "pro-rich".

But it seems like you agree that the media gives the impression that Republicans are "pro-rich", but you think it's their own fault for being "pro-rich"? But that logic only works if you assume that it's objectively true that Republicans are "pro-rich", instead of a perception people get from the media.

How about this: If you were pro-working people and poor, and you adamantly opposed raising the minimum wage and every other Democratic economic position, what would you then think of the way Republicans are presented in the media?
Why does Fox News "hide" their bias under the slogan of "Fair and Balanced"?I think that slogan refers to the straight news, not the political programs I was referring to, and used as examples in this thread and others. They're not calling Sean Hannity "Fair and Balanced", obviously, or anyone else that is expressing their own point of view.

[BoomBoom]

But it seems like you agree that the media gives the impression that Republicans are "pro-rich", but you think it's their own fault for being "pro-rich"?

I'm not quite sure how many different ways I can say this, so I'll just copy and paste your sentence and change around a couple words:

But it seems like you agree that the Republicans' position on the issues gives the impression that Republicans are "pro-rich", but you think it's their own fault for having an agenda that is "pro-rich"?

-Yes :smile:


How about this: If you were pro-working people and poor, and you adamantly opposed raising the minimum wage and every other Democratic economic position, what would you then think of the way Republicans are presented in the media?

I not sure how being opposed to minimum wage increase would in any way be "pro-working people and poor"? (Oh and BTW I'm quite sure that most poor people do work)

[Al68]

I not sure how being opposed to minimum wage increase would in any way be "pro-working people and poor"?So you really are unaware that there are two sides to the issue? You don't even realize that those who are "pro-working people and poor" might actually have different opinions on the issue?

Were you really completely unaware that people even existed that are "pro-working class and poor" that were against minimum wage increases?

Even I didn't think media bias was so insidious that people could be oblivious to the fact that people who disagreed even existed.

Maybe I have greatly underestimated media bias. Can they really hide opposing viewpoints that well?

[TheStatutoryApe]

So let me get this straight...

When a person on one side of an issue has a distorted view of people on the other side, this isn't a perfectly normal human thing. Rather, it's evidence that they're being swayed by the media (so long as they're discussing media portrayal of the opposing side)?

Furthermore, if you agree with someone's overall world view, you agree with everything they say, however illogical. And even when you don't actually agree, you pretend like you're agreeing, assuming that "probable evidence in favor of" a conclusion is the same as "proof" of it? Am I understanding you correctly there as well?

If you're going to make claims on a scientific forum, back them up with evidence. Provide me with polls of public opinion or give me news reports that have the specific biases you're referring to, don't just wave your hands and waste my time.
Wow... Good job cramming a bunch of garbage in my mouth.
Here's my point...
Person 'A' says: the media gives political stance 'X' an appearance of being pro-'x' which is a common misconception perpetuated by political stance 'Y'. The media then is biased in the direction of 'Y'.
Person 'B' says: the media is not biased in the direction of 'Y' and does not give 'X' the appearance of being pro-'x'. The media simply reports facts and any person can see according to the facts presented by the media that 'X' is pro-'x' so it is not biased in any direction for the media to say that 'X' is pro-'x'.
Now if we assume that person 'A' is correct in saying that there is not a definite correlation between 'X' and 'x' then person 'B' is essentially admitting to the apparent bias without perceiving it as bias. In the case of such an argument it would not be wrong of person 'A' to say that 'B' just evidenced the bias.

Note also that I have not made any claims except regarding the logic behind a certain statement. I have not said that the media generally possesses a certain bias so I have no idea why you are challenging me to produce evidence of it.

No, they are either for a bill or against it, that determines their stance on that issue...
Wrong. Congressmen often find themselves in a bind over deciding how to vote on a bill because of what all the bill entails. They want to say "Help Children" but there is something in the bill that maybe gives the military the ability to start recruiting in jr high and middle schools and another line that gives some subsidy for large sums of money to some industry or other and so on and so on. The politician also knows that if he decides that these compromises are not worth it and votes against the bill or blasts it committee that his opponents from then on will label him as having been "against helping children". Or perhaps if he votes the other way his opponents on the other side of the isle will be labeling him as voting to allow the military to recruit twelve year olds. So whether or not a politician supports and votes for a certain bill is not a black and white representation of their stance on the issue. Its a lot more complicated than that. But of course many politicians like you to think that it is so cut and dry because it makes pushing their agenda and blasting their opponents so much easier. Read Obama's The Audacity of Hope, he talks about this and the general difficulties that he found in doing his job as a politician.

[kyleb]

So you really are unaware that there are two sides to the issue? You don't even realize that those who are "pro-working people and poor" might actually have different opinions on the issue?
Surely you aren't suggesting it is in the interests for the working poor to continue struggling by on with same minimum wage while inflation continues to increase? But if not that, then what?

[Jasongreat]

I not sure how being opposed to minimum wage increase would in any way be "pro-working people and poor"? (Oh and BTW I'm quite sure that most poor people do work)

How about if a small buisness has 180 dollars a day for payroll, 3 workers at 6.00 /hr for 10 hrs. Then overnight the minimum wage increases to 7.00/hr, the company still only has the same monies available for payroll and can no longer afford the third person. To further complicate the issue, the buisiness needed all three workers to assemble enough product to meet payroll, so they decide to raise the price to retain the third worker(from here on we'll assume that the customers still choose to buy the more expensive product, or else the owner and the workers are done already). Since the increase was created by regulation instead of the free market, it is nothing more than inflating the value of the workers labor and in turn inflates the price of the product(government doesnt need to print money to inflate the currency). To compensate, every company as well as every individual that uses thier products has to raise prices, and since the workers buy products from these companies(and individuals), they in essence have no more money than they started with(although they do get a bigger paycheck). By letting the market decide none of the workers jobs were ever in danger, and products stay cheaper(no inflation), so even with the smaller wage the workers can buy more with their money. One other way that not increasing the minimum wage helps the working class and poor is it does not artificially hold people to a job they should leave. If a persons wage can not support them its not the fault of the employer, its either time to learn some new skills so you can find a new job, to re-think your expenditures, or even the crazy notion of starting a buisness(where they might employ even more working class people and poor).

P.S. The further I ventured into my reply the more I realized it doesnt go at all with the original topic. I was going to erase it, but I type so slow I couldnt bring myself to do it(I hate to waste time). If it turns out to offend a moderator or the OP, please accept my apologies and either delete it or maybe if you think it worthy I would appreciate if you could move it to a new thread with the question I tried to answer as the topic, thanks.

[kyleb]

Jasongreat, as I know the forum rules are strict against discussions drifting. I created a new thread by responding to your post . I hope you any anyone else who might be interested in continuing the discussion will follow the link there.

[Al68]

Surely you aren't suggesting it is in the interests for the working poor to continue struggling by on with same minimum wage while inflation continues to increase? But if not that, then what?I'll look at the more appropriate thread.

[Count Iblis]

No trace to be seen of FOX NEWS here (http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&topic=w&ncl=d-zAxdBGnJfL-kMQWXcNqrn5TvSDM) :confused:

[Choronzon]

No trace to be seen of FOX NEWS here (http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&topic=w&ncl=d-zAxdBGnJfL-kMQWXcNqrn5TvSDM) :confused:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556381,00.html?test=latestnews

It's right on their webpage. Didn't even have to search or scroll down.

[Hepth]

theres just something about the way they report the news. For example the Polanski stuff going on right now :
http://www.cnn.com/

Cnn has "Tumultuous Polanski always in spotlight" and a picture of him.

http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

FoxNews has "THE POLANSKI AFFAIR : ANATOMY OF A SEX SCANDAL"

It just always takes an approach that seems less like "news" and more like "tabloid". Its their approach that I find unappealing in most high-profile news breaks.


Under world:
CNN :
Iran fires long-range missile in latest test -"Iran test fired a long-range Shahab-3 missile on Monday, state-run Press TV reports. This follows tests on Sunday of a missile-launching system and several types of short- and medium-range missiles, Press TV says"

FOX :
Iran Defying the West -"Iran carries out its longest-range missile test, with weapons that could strike Israel "

Under Tech:
CNN:
Can tech personalities break into politics? -"Hollywood stars, basketball players and wrestlers have made it into politics, so why not a tech personality? "

FOX:
The Rise of Sex Robots and Pleasure Machines - "Robots may take over the world, but the invasion will be pleasurable, say scientists"


Everything FOX seems to report on comes along with an opinion or specific way of viewing the news, or some way of making the story more sensational.



( I didn't SEARCH for these, they were just what was the leading story on the respective pages.)

[Choronzon]

theres just something about the way they report the news. For example the Polanski stuff going on right now :
http://www.cnn.com/

Cnn has "Tumultuous Polanski always in spotlight" and a picture of him.

http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

FoxNews has "THE POLANSKI AFFAIR : ANATOMY OF A SEX SCANDAL"

It just always takes an approach that seems less like "news" and more like "tabloid". Its their approach that I find unappealing in most high-profile news breaks.

Except that the guy was arrested because he drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old girl. I honestly can't take any of his defenders at all seriously, and he should be extradited and sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. As far as I'm concerned, the Fox News headline is closer to the truth, and I'm not all interested in CNN's story about how "unhappy" Polanski was and that the child was "sullen" and "could have been up to 25."

So one person comes here and accuses fox of not reporting what's going on in the Honduras seemingly with doing no more fact checking than a single google news search, and another ridicules them for using the word "sex" in the headline of a story about a rapist.

I'll stick with Fox News, thank you. At least I heard about the Acorn scandal as it broke, not days later in response to congressional action.

[seycyrus]

theres just something about the way they report the news. For

Funny how you ommitted "US News"

i.e.

Fox US News: Report, Accomplices in NYC Terror Plot

CNN US News: Attorney 101, God left me here for a reason.

The content of the websites is dynamic. It is easy enough to pick and choose the headlines you want to highlight to prove your point.

[Count Iblis]

I stand corrected on Honduras, but Polanski was awaiting sentencing for consensual sex with a 13 year old, not for rape. This is called "statutory rape" in the US. Now, in France the age of consent was 12 at the time, so it isn't (or wasn't) even a crime in France.

We could just as well start to arrest people who violated Iranian sharia law and extradite them to Iran. It is one thing to have extremist laws, it is another thing to expect decent countries to extradite people who violated such laws. This is what the outrage in Europe is about.

Although the age of consent has gone up in European countries since the 1970s, you do not get long prison sentences for merely having sex with a minor.

[Hepth]

Ah, you misunderstand me. I didn't omit US News, I was looking for articles to compare on similar headlines to show the way they approach the news differs greatly.

So I looked at the MAIN headline, saw ones about the same topic, and repeated them.

Choronzon:
You missed the point too, I'm not even delving into the topic itself, and I can't believe you took from what I posted that I somehow am defending Polanski... I hope you're intentionally ignoring my observation due to Fox's defense, because I feel that its fairly blatant how Fox tries to make the way they report their news more flashy than most other news outlets. (This is my general opinion, and I TRY to give everyone a fair chance.)

Whether they report more of the truth than others I'm not bringing into discussion, but rather their approach at obtaining readers. They really take a drastic approach to everything, and I'm sure its because flash sells to the general population. But myself, I would prefer plain text with the facts of whatever situation occurred in the title and intro.

As for the acorn "scandal", I won't defend them other than I'm sure you could do this to ANY large corporation/government/etc and you'll get a couple of people who will be captured with the intent of violating the law. But you cannot draw the conclusion that the whole organization is somehow culprit... That's a drastic bias, but seems to be what Fox has been trying to push.

Then theres the whole point that these films were made illegally, and cannot be used in court. This is what they call entrapment, and you're not allowed to film conversations in Maryland without consent of the parties. Its a CRIME.

The filmmakers try to rationalize taking someones rights away in an effort to convince them to do something illegal is OK, because you're doing something illegal to get someone to do something MORE illegal...

the whole thing is dumb imo.

[Choronzon]

Ah, you misunderstand me. I didn't omit US News, I was looking for articles to compare on similar headlines to show the way they approach the news differs greatly.

So I looked at the MAIN headline, saw ones about the same topic, and repeated them.

Choronzon:
You missed the point too, I'm not even delving into the topic itself, and I can't believe you took from what I posted that I somehow am defending Polanski... I hope you're intentionally ignoring my observation due to Fox's defense, because I feel that its fairly blatant how Fox tries to make the way they report their news more flashy than most other news outlets. (This is my general opinion, and I TRY to give everyone a fair chance.)

Whether they report more of the truth than others I'm not bringing into discussion, but rather their approach at obtaining readers. They really take a drastic approach to everything, and I'm sure its because flash sells to the general population. But myself, I would prefer plain text with the facts of whatever situation occurred in the title and intro.

As for the acorn "scandal", I won't defend them other than I'm sure you could do this to ANY large corporation/government/etc and you'll get a couple of people who will be captured with the intent of violating the law. But you cannot draw the conclusion that the whole organization is somehow culprit... That's a drastic bias, but seems to be what Fox has been trying to push.

Then theres the whole point that these films were made illegally, and cannot be used in court. This is what they call entrapment, and you're not allowed to film conversations in Maryland without consent of the parties. Its a CRIME.

The filmmakers try to rationalize taking someones rights away in an effort to convince them to do something illegal is OK, because you're doing something illegal to get someone to do something MORE illegal...

the whole thing is dumb imo.

As for Fox News being "flashy", I'll concede your point as soon as they turn on a hologram generator.

One of the Acorn tapes was possibly illegal, all the rest were perfectly legit. The organization has a responsibility to the taxpayers, and they have abused it time and time again.

But to get back to the topic, it's entirely your choice if you want to read plain text, but that is nothing more than a preference. I personally prefer Fox's attractive female anchors, it's confrontational style, and the fact that Fox news anchors don't all wet themselves at the very idea of being within five feet of President Obama.

[Hepth]

As for Fox News being "flashy", I'll concede your point as soon as they turn on a hologram generator.

Hahaha, touché! I was quite embarrassed about that...

[mheslep]

...Polanski was awaiting sentencing for consensual sex with a 13 year old, not for rape...You are asserting it can be consensual?

[Count Iblis]

You are asserting it can be consensual?

Of course! Children older than about ten can have sexual feelings. We have laws banning sex with children to protect children. But this is a very difficult issue. I think in the US you had a case where a teacher had consensual sex with a 12 year of boy. The teacher got pregnant and was sentenced to ten years in jail. After the teacher left jail they got married.

The whole idea that you can make a law that defines what is consensual or not is, i.m.o. ridiculous. Compare with Sharia law that doesn't regard sex outside marriage to be consensual.

[lisab]

I stand corrected on Honduras, but Polanski was awaiting sentencing for consensual sex with a 13 year old, not for rape. This is called "statutory rape" in the US. Now, in France the age of consent was 12 at the time, so it isn't (or wasn't) even a crime in France.

We could just as well start to arrest people who violated Iranian sharia law and extradite them to Iran. It is one thing to have extremist laws, it is another thing to expect decent countries to extradite people who violated such laws. This is what the outrage in Europe is about.

Although the age of consent has gone up in European countries since the 1970s, you do not get long prison sentences for merely having sex with a minor.

It doesn't matter what was the law was there, he was here. No matter what country you go to, you had better follow their laws or face the consequences.

Consensual? He drugged her. He admitted to drugging her for the purpose of having sex with her. That is NOT consensual...even if the victim were a grown woman, it would be rape.

[mheslep]

Of course! Children older than about ten can have sexual feelings. We have laws banning sex with children to protect children. But this is a very difficult issue.No its not.
I think in the US you had a case where a teacher had consensual sex with a 12 year of boy.You say it was consensual. I say, and the courts said, that she raped the boy.
The teacher got pregnant and was sentenced to ten years in jail. After the teacher left jail they got married.How cute. And Charles Manson had a half dozen 'wives' who would do anything for him.

The whole idea that you can make a law that defines what is consensual or not is, i.m.o. ridiculous. Compare with Sharia law that doesn't regard sex outside marriage to be consensual.We're not talking about a some ambiguous broad definition, or Sharia law. We're talking about the case of children only, and they do not have the ability to consent.

[seycyrus]

Ah, you misunderstand me. I didn't omit US News, I was looking for articles to compare on similar headlines to show the way they approach the news differs greatly.

So I looked at the MAIN headline, saw ones about the same topic, and repeated them.


And I maintain that I think you cherry picked your headlines.

EDIT: Actually, I think you straight out lied. The tech topics are *not* the same simply with a different *spin*.

You went to the pages that supported your view, threw those down, and ignored the others.

[Count Iblis]

We're talking about the case of children only, and they do not have the ability to consent

They can have the ability to consent, it is simply that in different lawmakers have different laws in order to protect children. The law assumes that children below a certain age cannot consent, regardless of whether that is true or not from a scientific point of view.

The problem here is that rare cases in which the child obviously did consent cannot be treated different from a case in which a child was raped. Add to that the fact that in the US you have minimum mandatory sentences and get a "Sharia Law"-type problem.

[lisab]

They can have the ability to consent, it is simply that in different lawmakers have different laws in order to protect children. The law assumes that children below a certain age cannot consent, regardless of whether that is true or not from a scientific point of view.

The problem here is that rare cases in which the child obviously did consent cannot be treated different from a case in which a child was raped. Add to that the fact that in the US you have minimum mandatory sentences and get a "Sharia Law"-type problem.

Complete nonsense. Consent is determined by law; if the law says a person under a certain age can not consent, then they can't. No gray area, period.

You say there are cases where the child "obviously did consent"...that's complete make-believe. Children under the age of consent, can't consent.

Before you go thinking Polanski is a dang saint, read the victim's side of the story (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski1.html) (warning - it's graphic).

[Count Iblis]

It doesn't matter what was the law was there, he was here. No matter what country you go to, you had better follow their laws or face the consequences.

Consensual? He drugged her. He admitted to drugging her for the purpose of having sex with her. That is NOT consensual...even if the victim were a grown woman, it would be rape.

That admission was part of a "plea bargain" which is a competely alien concept in most European countries. We would consider that a form of coercion. Also, the judge in this case had some contacts with the DA which was inappropriate, also according to US standards.

Now if you escape from a country in which you would face unfair punishment according to the legal norms of your country, then you won't be extradited. The law in the country you fled from does not matter. We give people asylum who escape from countries like China, Iran etc. But in rare cases, you can imagine facing unjust prosecution in the US.

[lisab]

That admission was part of a "plea bargain" which is a competely alien concept in most European countries. We would consider that a form of coercion. Also, the judge in this case had some contacts with the DA which was inappropriate, also according to US standards.

Now if you escape from a country in which you would face unfair punishment according to the legal norms of your country, then you won't be extradited. The law in the country you fled from does not matter. We give people asylum who escape from countries like China, Iran etc. But in rare cases, you can imagine facing unjust prosecution in the US.

Well, as long you don't drug and sodomize children here in the States, you won't face the type of legal problems Polanski faces.

[Count Iblis]

Complete nonsense. Consent is determined by law; if the law says a person under a certain age can not consent, then they can't. No gray area, period.

You say there are cases where the child "obviously did consent"...that's complete make-believe. Children under the age of consent, can't consent.

Before you go thinking Polanski is a dang saint, read the victim's side of the story (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski1.html) (warning - it's graphic).


That's legal fundamentalism. E.g. the Taliban Law says that before marriage you can't consent to having sex. Now, I'm not saying that grown ups should have sex with children, just that fundamentalism is a bad thing and we don't need it in the West.

About Polanski, he could have faced charges in France, but the US insisted that he be extradited to the US.

[Jasongreat]

Complete nonsense. [QUOTE]Consent is determined by law; if the law says a person under a certain age can not consent, then they can't. No gray area, period.

There is a gray area as far as being old enough to consent is concerned, if a person is under 16 they are considered unable to consent as an adult but if they do something bad enough they are all of a sudden considered adults and are punished as such. So it seems to me they are not old enough to make "adult" decisions, but if they do make an "adult" decision they become an adult in the eyes of the law. If they are too young to decide for themselves they are too young to decide for themselves IMO. No more trying 10 yr olds as adults, no matter what they do.

You say there are cases where the child "obviously did consent"...that's complete make-believe. Children under the age of consent, can't consent.

I agree completely.

[Choronzon]

That's legal fundamentalism. E.g. the Taliban Law says that before marriage you can't consent to having sex. Now, I'm not saying that grown ups should have sex with children, just that fundamentalism is a bad thing and we don't need it in the West.

About Polanski, he could have faced charges in France, but the US insisted that he be extradited to the US.

Your defense of Polanski hasn't addressed the issue that instead of sweet-talking the 13 year old girl into sleeping with him, he drugged her. That means rape here in the U.S., not statutory rape.

Honestly, I'm baffled and sickened by all the people defending this criminal, and France should be ashamed for providing asylum for a rapist for no better reason than he makes movies people like.

[Count Iblis]

But how come Polanski faced sentencing on statutory rape charges in the US if in fact he raped that girl? :confused:

[Choronzon]

But how come Polanski faced sentencing on statutory rape charges in the US if in fact he raped that girl? :confused:

From wiki:

Polanski was initially charged[38] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[39]


I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it is possible, but his plea should be invalidated and he should be tried for the original charges.

[lisab]

But how come Polanski faced sentencing on statutory rape charges in the US if in fact he raped that girl? :confused:

I'm no expert on the law, but I don't think he's facing that charge anymore. That charge was a result of plea bargaining, which means a perpetrator agrees to plead guilty to a lesser crime. It allows the perpetrator to serve a less severe sentence, and it saves the state a costly trial.

But when he skipped the country, he reneged on the plea agreement and it's no longer offered.

Count, did you read the victim's account of the ordeal? It may give you a different view of the guy...regardless of how good his movies are.

[mheslep]

That admission was part of a "plea bargain" which is a competely alien concept in most European countries. We would consider that a form of coercion.Who is we? By alien, you must mean a Europe on some distant planet. The Europe on this planet, outside of Scandinavia, has had plea bargains for some decades now at least. Galileo's 1633 (http://www.truthinjustice.org/bargaining.htm)agreement to shutter himself in his house also comes to mind. All of the English common law countries (US, England, Canada) have had such for much longer.


Guilty Plea: Plea Bargaining - A Comparative Perspective (http://law.jrank.org/pages/1285/Guilty-Plea-Plea-Bargaining-comparative-perspective.html)
European Cartel Cases: Focus on Plea Bargaining and Private Damage Actions (http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.htdetail/object_id/0c283fb6-94bd-4f5d-bbda-74a7e4213195.cfm)
Plea Bargaining in the EC Competition Law System (http://www.encore.nl/pleabargaining.htm)

[WhoWee]

Of course! Children older than about ten can have sexual feelings. We have laws banning sex with children to protect children. But this is a very difficult issue. I think in the US you had a case where a teacher had consensual sex with a 12 year of boy. The teacher got pregnant and was sentenced to ten years in jail. After the teacher left jail they got married.

The whole idea that you can make a law that defines what is consensual or not is, i.m.o. ridiculous. Compare with Sharia law that doesn't regard sex outside marriage to be consensual.

Consensual, meaning we both agree to the act - right?

Given this definition, castration of someone attempting "consensual sex" with my 10 year old would also qualify - and given the alternative choices I would offer.:mad:

[Hepth]

And I maintain that I think you cherry picked your headlines.

EDIT: Actually, I think you straight out lied. The tech topics are *not* the same simply with a different *spin*.

You went to the pages that supported your view, threw those down, and ignored the others.

No no, I didn't. I went to ones that had corresponding stories. After that I put up the tech one (who would have corresponding stories in tech anyway?) (I edited it after adding the first one).

If you want me to admit that the US one was a normal story, ok. It was. And CNN didn't have the same headline. I wasn't cherrypicking, I was providing evidence of why I have an opinion about something. I'm sorry I said "everything" that was an exaggeration. I mean "most of what I happen across".

I guess its a different way of looking at I. I say, the main page, World, US, and Tech are my most read/seen topics. 3 of those 4 had attributes that immediately turn me away from Fox. That is my point. Before even getting to the content, I had an urge to walk away from the site. I felt that their approach of making news more sensational only serves for me to distrust their motives. And before you get upset, I feel the SAME WAY about CNN/MSNBC/Etc when they do it as well. I'm not denying that. I just NOTICE that the frequency I run into that turn-off at fox is high, and I don't think its an inherent bias because of political views.
Actually, I'll freely admit that it may NOT be to an unusual number of stories that are ridiculous (i.e. "Man Who Stole, Ate Hot Dog Gets 18 Months in Jail ","Pa. Man Arrested for Allegedly Wrapping Cat in Duct Tape", taken from their current US section. ) Because CNN has some crazies too ("Four-legged Colbert wins dog photo contest", "10 secret menu items at fast food restaurants"). Things that I read and ask "Why is this called news, and who could possibly care about this."

But maybe its rather the imagery and wording they like to use sometimes. I.E. :

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/nato2_20090928_195639.jpg
(Main Page right now)

It seems every time its a new main picture it has some huge bold print overlayed on some image. Itjust feels so unnecessary and unprofessional, doesn't it?

I'm trying not to bash them, really. I just hope you can see my point of view. I'm sure (I really hope) that there are other readers out there that are turned off from sensational news like I am. Or maybe I'm alone.

[Choronzon]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/nato2_20090928_195639.jpg
(Main Page right now)

It seems every time its a new main picture it has some huge bold print overlayed on some image. Itjust feels so unnecessary and unprofessional, doesn't it?

I'm trying not to bash them, really. I just hope you can see my point of view. I'm sure (I really hope) that there are other readers out there that are turned off from sensational news like I am. Or maybe I'm alone.

I admit I'm not a fan of the image you've linked. My own barely educated guess is that some people don't like Fox's obvious red-white-and-blue color scheme, sort of like they're wrapping themselves in the American Flag. CNN and MSNBC have just as predominant graphic schemes, but they seem to be in less in-your-face colors.

I don't think you're alone, though I just disagree with some of your opinions. I think CNN is NPR with holograms, and MSNBC is a socialist orgy. Keith Olbermann actually makes me cringe every time I see him. For Awhile, he and O'Reilly seemed to have this war going on between them, where O'Reilly named him a "pinhead" every couple of weeks, and he would call O'Reilly "the worst person in the world" every day for six months or so.

When I want to find out what is happening, I read, since I read faster than news anchors talk. I'll read a variety of news sources. If I want to watch a discussion on current events or politics, it's straight to Fox News for me, partly because they pull less punches, but mostly because they often have a lovely lady strategically placed to grace my television with a great pair of legs.

[seycyrus]

No no, I didn't. I went to ones that had corresponding stories.

From your post....


( I didn't SEARCH for these, they were just what was the leading story on the respective pages.)

I think its ridiculous that your personal bias is leading you to twist your own words in such a manner.

[Hepth]

i mean't I didnt go through them looking for stories, they were the HEADLINE of the RESPECTIVE page (respective=the attributed title). I didn't think I was misleading...

[seycyrus]

i mean't I didnt go through them looking for stories, they were the HEADLINE of the RESPECTIVE page (respective=the attributed title). I didn't think I was misleading...

Yes of course they were the headlines of the pages, I did not dispute that.

First you said you just went through the sections and pasted the headlines. But it was obvious that you ignored the section that didn't support your argument, Then you claimed you went through the pages and looked for similar content. Then when I pointed out that this was obviously not true either, you claimed something else. The point of the mater is, you cherry picked them.

The fact that you felt you needed to do this to support your *worldview* (scary!) is telling,

The fact that, at this moment in the news cycle, fox's website has more graphic content than CNN does not prove a trend. I would be interested in looking at your dataset that comprises either *all* or a well defined subset of sections(that does not change) over a lengthy period of time, however.

I for one find the *lack* of content (irregardless of the nature and quality of the graphics) over the acorn events alarming. The sound of the silence was deafening, or in this case the lack of graphic was blinding.

Whatever your feelings on the pimp/hooker expose, the fact that the Senate cut off funding(!!!) was certainly a newsworthy event and deserved timely coverage.

[seycyrus]

Nice spread on CNN Politics (also on the home page): "First lady says 'gloves are off' in bid for Olympics"

HUGE byline, HUGE photo. Picture of Michelle with arms upraised etc.

Fox politics: U.S. Eyes Energy, Financial Sanctions on Iran

EDIT: Well dayum! CNN is now running the Michelle Obama story on its US section! I wonder if every section is going to be graced?

[Count Iblis]

Count, did you read the victim's account of the ordeal? It may give you a different view of the guy...regardless of how good his movies are.

Yes, and I feel that he should have been prosecuted on those charges. But he wasn't and then legally it is difficult to make the case here in Europe that he should be considered to be a convicted rapist.

The first problem is that we don't do plea bargains here (despite what mheslep wrote). We consider confessions based on an offer of a reduction of prison sentence not reliable. What then remains is what he was going to be sentenced for, and that was statutory rape. The European view on that is described here:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/

[seycyrus]

...then remains is what he was going to be sentenced for, and that was statutory rape. The European view on that is described here:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/


So, your confusion about the arrest is merely due to your inability to see the topic outside of a strictly legalistic point of view?

Ehh cmon!!!

[Choronzon]

Yes, and I feel that he should have been prosecuted on those charges. But he wasn't and then legally it is difficult to make the case here in Europe that he should be considered to be a convicted rapist.

The first problem is that we don't do plea bargains here (despite what mheslep wrote). We consider confessions based on an offer of a reduction of prison sentence not reliable. What then remains is what he was going to be sentenced for, and that was statutory rape. The European view on that is described here:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/

So let me get this straight—in Britain, if a man tells me he raped someone, and I then call him a rapist, he can then sue me for slander or libel because he was never convicted of rape?

I personally don't care what he was convicted of—he admitted to drugging and raping a thirteen, and all of Great Britain can sink into the sea before I accept their position on the matter is anything but idiocy.

[seycyrus]

...

I personally don't care what he was convicted of—he admitted to drugging and raping a thirteen, and all of Great Britain can sink into the sea before I accept their position on the matter is anything but idiocy.

Yeah, this is utter malarky. So...if the european countries *shouldn't* accept his confession because it was part of a plea bargain then pretend the confession and the plea never happened.

Iblis should be insisting that the MoFo be arrested for drugging and raping a 13 yr old!!!

[Choronzon]

Yeah, this is utter malarky. So...if the european countries *shouldn't* accept his confession because it was part of a plea bargain then pretend the confession and the plea never happened.

Iblis should be insisting that the MoFo be arrested for drugging and raping a 13 yr old!!!

Not to mention that he admits his actions outside of his guilty plea. I don't know if those statements can be used against him, but they should. If it is at all legally possible, he should be tried for the original charges, and let the jury hear all of the times that he has admitted to his acts out of his own mouth.

[Count Iblis]

So, your confusion about the arrest is merely due to your inability to see the topic outside of a strictly legalistic point of view?

Ehh cmon!!!

I can do that, but the case is now in the Swiss court and the extradition will be juged according the usual legal rules.

[mheslep]

I see Hollywood is getting up a petition to "Free Polansky"; of course Woody "I cheated on the mother of my children with her daughter" Allen was one of the first to sign. The entire thing disgusts me. Maybe a boycott of the Academy Awards will be manageable this year.
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=13432#more-13432

[WhoWee]

Fox has a few stories filed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556301,00.html

Fox has also reported with a political reference, but I don't think it's inaccurate.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html?test=faces

"Whoopi Goldberg used her spot on ABC's "The View" to try to clear up the record regarding the crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978.

"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.

"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left."

I'm not sure what a "'rape' rape" is and how it's different than a rape? As for leaving the country to avoid sentencing, it's total nonsense as he didn't need to agree to a plea bargain. He had the resources to fight the charges and appeal upon conviction. He had contempt for our legal system and now he should be judged on his actions.

[Pythagorean]

Fox has a few stories filed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556301,00.html

Fox has also reported with a political reference, but I don't think it's inaccurate.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html?test=faces

"Whoopi Goldberg used her spot on ABC's "The View" to try to clear up the record regarding the crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978.

"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.

"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left."

I'm not sure what a "'rape' rape" is and how it's different than a rape? As for leaving the country to avoid sentencing, it's total nonsense as he didn't need to agree to a plea bargain. He had the resources to fight the charges and appeal upon conviction. He had contempt for our legal system and now he should be judged on his actions.

rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling. Statutory rape is taking advantage of someone who may be willing, but doesn't know any better (like a youth). They call it date rape when the victim changes their mind halfway through consensual sex, but the perp doesn't stop.

[WhoWee]

rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling. Statutory rape is taking advantage of someone who may be willing, but doesn't know any better (like a youth). They call it date rape when the victim changes their mind halfway through consensual sex, but the perp doesn't stop.

He was 44 and she was 13. He used drugs and booze to take advantage of her. It was rape.

The second crime was against the court and (I suppose?) the bondsman. I'm not sure what the amount of the bond was, but 31 years is surely a large amount of time to compound interest. If nothing else, they should hold him in jail until he repays the bondsman accordingly.

[russ_watters]

rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling. Statutory rape is taking advantage of someone who may be willing, but doesn't know any better (like a youth). They call it date rape when the victim changes their mind halfway through consensual sex, but the perp doesn't stop.
You only got one out of three of those correct.

-"Rape" is forced sexual intercourse - it does not require physical force.
-"Statutory rape" is a subset of rape, and is roughly as you described.
-"Date rape" is rape during a date. What you described is only one of many possible scenarios of date rape.

And something I didn't actually know until looking into the specifics: legally, statutory rape is not necessarily separated from violent rape like we tend to view it: Most states choose to label the crime of rape as sexual assault. Sexual assault is divided into degrees: first-, second-, third-, and fourth-degree sexual assault. West Virginia provides an illustration of how rape laws are typically written. In West Virginia, a person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person and either inflicts serious bodily injury upon anyone or employs a deadly weapon in the commission of the act (W. Va. Code § 61-8B-3 [1996]). Additionally, a person age 14 years or older who engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is 11 years old or less is guilty of first-degree sexual assault. A person convicted of the crime of first-degree sexual assault in West Virginia faces imprisonment for at least 15 years and not more than 35 years and may be fined from $1,000 to $10,000.

In West Virginia, a person commits sexual assault in the second degree by engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person without that person's consent, and the lack of consent results from forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion is (1) physical force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances; (2) threat or intimidation, either express or implied, placing the victim or another person in fear of death, bodily injury, or Kidnapping; or (3) fear by a person under 16 years of age caused by intimidation by another person who is at least four years older than the victim. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rape

Notice that they define two different classes of statutory rape and one is considered in the same category as physically violent rape.

[mheslep]

rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling. Or drugging the victim

[WhoWee]

Another line in the sand? Obama White House versus Glenn Beck - let the truth be known.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts935

[Choronzon]

Another line in the sand? Obama White House versus Glenn Beck - let the truth be known.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts935

Doesn't anyone else realize what Beck and Big Government.com are doing?

They're attacking President Obama's staff and supporters at random but with very little focus. They're watching these people being thrown in front of the bus because they know President Obama's too much of a milquetoast to really defend any of his people.

Eventually, however, President Obama is going to give into the left side of his party and stand up for one of these targets. When that happens, Beck and Breitbart are going to go on an offensive much more focused than one we've seen.

Six months or a year from now millions of dollars will be spent on ads showing President Obama giving his full support to some meaningless Czar who will then be outed as a child molester or something.

All I know is that whoever is running this nation after 2012 should consider appointing Breitbart as Secretary of Defense. The man knows how to destroy his enemies.

Look how pathetically our President fights! Seriously, a blog on whitehouse.gov? President Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Teddy Roosevelt.

[russ_watters]

Another line in the sand? Obama White House versus Glenn Beck - let the truth be known.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts935 That's a dangerous game Obama is playing. When he went on the morning talk shows and snubbed Fox, it sends a message that the viewers of Fox don't matter to him. I think he's setting himself up to look more extremist by doing that.

And going after Fox on his website, Obama is treating Fox like Fox is just another politician to sling mud at, but Fox isn't and they thrive on rolling around in the mud. He's playing exactly the game that hurts him and helps them the most!

[mugaliens]

By Tue morning of this week, the pipes in my apartment had frozen solid, including the hot water pipe which heats the central air. Thus, I spent the week at my parents house watching the Egyptian/Middle East protests.

They watch news more than 12 hours a day. Don't ask me why, as I don't know.

Fox is one of their staples, but they're as apt to watch CNN, NBC Nightly News, and MSNBC. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams is one of their favorites.

The one thing I noticed is that while the rest only presented a cursory explaination of the underpinnings behind both sides of the Egyptian protests/riots, Fox delved much further into the history of the Middle East leading up to the current divisions of the countries, the backgrounds of the current leaders and how they got there, what the various Imams are saying and calling for via fatwās (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81), and the goals of the various factions vying for power throughout the region.

[dlgoff]

...Fox delved much further into the history of the Middle East leading up to the current divisions of the countries, the backgrounds of the current leaders and how they got there, what the various Imams are saying and calling for via fatwās (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81), and the goals of the various factions vying for power throughout the region.Every time I wanted to see what was happening there on Fox, Obama was always there in a negative image. Who would imagine. :grumpy:

[WhoWee]

Every time I wanted to see what was happening there on Fox, Obama was always there in a negative image. Who would imagine. :grumpy:

You must have watched this clip?
http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt-protests/2011/02/04/i-feel-ashamed-american-chris-matthews-rips-obamas-handling-egypt-crisis#

"The Hardball host berated, "And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling." He added, "I believe in relationships...You treat your friends a certain way. You're loyal to them.""

[klimatos]

And going after Fox on his website, Obama is treating Fox like Fox is just another politician to sling mud at, but Fox isn't and they thrive on rolling around in the mud. He's playing exactly the game that hurts him and helps them the most!

When you choose to wrestle with pigs, you end up covered with mud and excrement--and the pig LOVES it!

[WhoWee]

The Bill O'Reilly Super Bowl interview with President Obama is airing right now - and it sounds pretty fair - no mud is apparent (or pigs).

[Nicodemus]

I've noticed that CNN seems to like to tell "stories" like Heroes, MSNBC is often first to report, but they're not very good in the field, and Fox does a decent job on stories like Egypt, but they emphasize fear.

I watched today, what the take of each network was to the news of meetings with the VP.

MSNBC broke the news, and seemed hopeful.
CNN has recorded programming (Sanjay Gupta I think)
Fox had the best coverage, but they were talking over it about how this meant the Muslim Brotherhood was taking over.

From what I can tell, they each sell a specific product to a specific audience, except for CNN which is more like a series of 'Olympic Hero' stories interrupted by news.

[Proton Soup]

You must have watched this clip?
http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt-protests/2011/02/04/i-feel-ashamed-american-chris-matthews-rips-obamas-handling-egypt-crisis#

"The Hardball host berated, "And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling." He added, "I believe in relationships...You treat your friends a certain way. You're loyal to them.""

omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze

[Nicodemus]

omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze

Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p

[WhoWee]

Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p

It's not often that I agree with Chris Matthews, but he made some very strong arguments. I read it this way - President Obama is playing a dangerous game of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab peoples at the expense of US allied interests. To describe President Obama as transitional (Merriam-Webster transition: passage from one state, stage, subject, or place to another to another, evolution from one form, stage, or style to another) is not a compliment.

The last thing a country (Egypt) in turmoil needs is to identify their greatest ally is undependable - Fox is keeping it's finger on the pulse.

[humanino]

Turkey is playing the same "game" of telling Mubarak the truth for instance. Being a friend does not mean we always have to comfort each other. Sometimes we have to tell each other the truth, whether it hurts or not. That is also part of loyalty.

[Nicodemus]

It's not often that I agree with Chris Matthews, but he made some very strong arguments. I read it this way - President Obama is playing a dangerous game of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab peoples at the expense of US allied interests. To describe President Obama as transitional (Merriam-Webster transition: passage from one state, stage, subject, or place to another to another, evolution from one form, stage, or style to another) is not a compliment.

The last thing a country (Egypt) in turmoil needs is to identify their greatest ally is undependable - Fox is keeping it's finger on the pulse.

Did you reply to the right post? I don't see how what you're saying is a response to my jibe. Oh, and "Nations don't have friends, only interests." As for winning hearts and minds, I thought that was a strategy that began during the Iraq war, so Obama would be continuing it. If you look at actual transitions, Bush W. was transitional: two wars, a change in tone, emphasis on christianity, 9.11... and so on. I think presidents for the next decade or so are just going to be riding that wave, and hopefully they'll try to turn it back in places.

[WhoWee]

Did you reply to the right post? I don't see how what you're saying is a response to my jibe. Oh, and "Nations don't have friends, only interests." As for winning hearts and minds, I thought that was a strategy that began during the Iraq war, so Obama would be continuing it. If you look at actual transitions, Bush W. was transitional: two wars, a change in tone, emphasis on christianity, 9.11... and so on. I think presidents for the next decade or so are just going to be riding that wave, and hopefully they'll try to turn it back in places.

This thread is about Fox news and their coverage. I think running the Chris Matthews piece and since following it with another sound bite comparing the Tea Party influence to the Muslim Brotherhood activities was a good balance. I also thought the Super Bowl O'Reilly interview with President Obama was "fair and balanced".

If you'd like to discuss the two different styles of leadership Bush vs Obama - start another thread - it will be interesting.

BTW - did I use the word "friends"?

[Nicodemus]

This thread is about Fox news and their coverage. I think running the Chris Matthews piece and since following it with another sound bite comparing the Tea Party influence to the Muslim Brotherhood activities was a good balance. I also thought the Super Bowl O'Reilly interview with President Obama was "fair and balanced".

If you'd like to discuss the two different styles of leadership Bush vs Obama - start another thread - it will be interesting.

BTW - did I use the word "friends"?

You want to take examples of instances of coverage against the vast preponderance of evidence, and conclude that because Fox News sometimes allows a balanced report, it is: "Fair and Balanced"? Don't make me laugh; using the same I could find TONS (if you let me include old Dobbs episodes) from CNN that makes it look horribly right-leaning (and we know it's anything but).

How does one story in the context of the larger narrative being presented, or even a dozen stories, when we're talking about 24/7 news tell us anything?

Now, I know what the original thread is about, but you replied to my joke about Bush and Putin and then just went off on your tangent. For the record, I don't want to discuss leadership styles, I was making a comment about Mubarak's nature, W's idiotic comment about Putin, and Putin himself.

BTW - When did I ever mention "transformational"?

[drankin]

This thread is still going? "Fair and Balanced" is marketing. Most understand that Fox is biased. But, we also understand that all media is biased. Is it criminal? Just as criminal as saying Pepsi tastes better than Coke.

[Nicodemus]

This thread is still going? "Fair and Balanced" is marketing. Most understand that Fox is biased. But, we also understand that all media is biased. Is it criminal? Just as criminal as saying Pepsi tastes better than Coke.

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

[WhoWee]

You want to take examples of instances of coverage against the vast preponderance of evidence, and conclude that because Fox News sometimes allows a balanced report, it is: "Fair and Balanced"? Don't make me laugh; using the same I could find TONS (if you let me include old Dobbs episodes) from CNN that makes it look horribly right-leaning (and we know it's anything but).

How does one story in the context of the larger narrative being presented, or even a dozen stories, when we're talking about 24/7 news tell us anything?

Now, I know what the original thread is about, but you replied to my joke about Bush and Putin and then just went off on your tangent. For the record, I don't want to discuss leadership styles, I was making a comment about Mubarak's nature, W's idiotic comment about Putin, and Putin himself.

BTW - When did I ever mention "transformational"?


Please demonstrate your findings of "the vast preponderance of evidence" - that is a very definitive statement - that clearly needs supported.

As for "transformational" - I posted that Chris Matthews called President Obama "transitional" - no idea whatsoever as to what you are referring to - care to elaborate?

[drankin]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

I have to. It's all just different flavors of junk media to me. One has to learn how to read between the lines regardless of media outlet.

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

You have choices for both soft drinks and news outlets.

[Nicodemus]

I have to. It's all just different flavors of junk media to me. One has to learn how to read between the lines regardless of media outlet.

You won't hear me arguing with that: I don't drink soda, but it makes a dandy cleaner when you let it react with baking soda. I think some fat coke-head marketed it as, "OxyClean", and left out the soda.

WhoWee, I responded to the original post, which has nothing to do with Chris Mathews, or presidential leadership, transformational or not. You then responded in a way that makes little sense if you were actually responding to me; I just said that the big three cable networks are trash to open, then made a joke about our former idiot president and soon-to-be-former dictator of Egypt. I don't know what you're talking about, except that you seemed to want to debate where I was just responding to the first post.

[Nicodemus]

You have choices for both soft drinks and news outlets.

I need to know: do you keep missing the point I'm making on purpose, or do you just do this as online for fun? If I wanted to play, 'top the other guy's metaphor', I'd trot on down to BC and talk to a Jesuit.

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, I responded to the original post, which has nothing to do with Chris Mathews, or presidential leadership, transformational or not. You then responded in a way that makes little sense if you were actually responding to me; I just said that the big three cable networks are trash to open, then made a joke about our former idiot president and soon-to-be-former dictator of Egypt. I don't know what you're talking about, except that you seemed to want to debate where I was just responding to the first post.

I must have misunderstood? In post 236 you responded to Proton's comment about Chris Matthews in response to my post:

"Originally Posted by Proton Soup
omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze "

Your response was:
"Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p "

Sorry.

[Nicodemus]

I must have misunderstood? In post 236 you responded to Proton's comment about Chris Matthews in response to my post:

"Originally Posted by Proton Soup
omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze "

Your response was:
"Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p "

Sorry.

Yeah, but I was just making a joke about Mubarak exuding strength, the rest I could care less about. Really, Fox News is clearly biased, so is MSNBC, and CNN seems to leave bias up to each anchor. I wouldn't recommend ANY of them as a means to get news, only coverage of breaking events where assets ont he ground matter more than anything else.

This is also the link to nations having interests and not friends: it doesn't matter if Mubarak is truly a great man, it only matters how he serves American interests. No need to be sorry, this seems like a genuine misunderstanding, and really it seemed like it from the beginning.

[mugaliens]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

What? "Tastes great; less filling" isn't a suitable standard for TV hoopla?

[WhoWee]

Fox reported this AM that 20-some Republicans have written a letter to the White House for clarification on a $400+ Billion source of revenue in the President's new budget - that appears to be a new GAS TAX??????????????????

[drankin]

Fox reported this AM that 20-some Republicans have written a letter to the White House for clarification on a $400+ Billion source of revenue in the President's new budget - that appears to be a new GAS TAX??????????????????

Is their an article online?

[WhoWee]

Fair and Balanced - seems to be working?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/05/20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources

"Poll: Fox, O'Reilly Most Trusted News Sources"
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.

In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.

"This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," he adds.

But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public's trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that "Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them."

[Ryumast3r]

Fair and Balanced - seems to be working?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/05/20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources

"Poll: Fox, O'Reilly Most Trusted News Sources"
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.

In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.

"This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," he adds.

But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public's trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that "Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them."

Which makes it even more hilarious when Fox news says anything about "Mainstream media ____" since... in america.... they are obviously a good chunk of the mainstream media.

[Vanadium 50]

In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most

This will be reported as "almost three-quarters of Americans don't trust Fox." :wink:

[Char. Limit]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

[Ryumast3r]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

I'd say trust a news source as far as the news goes, not the commentary. When they say "something happened in Libya" I'd say it's reasonable to believe "Something happened in Libya" - it's when they start saying "This is why, this is what it will cause, this is what will happen, etc" that you need to throw anything they say out the window.

Of course, even what stories they choose to run is a bias as well, so it's best to look at several sources (not just news corporations, but people, trusted friends, whatever) and get as good of an idea of what's going on around you as possible.

Of course, me saying this is my biased opinion.

[CAC1001]

Fox News serves as a good conservative counter to the rest of the media IMO. I think they did a very excellent job with the Republican debate that took place in South Carolina, as they asked the candidates some tough questions. They didn't toss them softballs at all. For example, they asked Rick Santorum about his comment that women belong in the kitchen (or something like that).

[xxChrisxx]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

The problem with 'news' is that, news it really just a list of facts, but people are (in general) too stupid to for their own conclusions from facts alone.

So rolling news channels sell analysis and comment.

I'd rather like a news channel that simply gave a list of interesting things that happened during the day. Shame there'd only be about 3 viewers, as people prefer being told what to think, shouting and drama, and gaudy idents and studios.

I also hate how 24 hour channels, stir it, and whip up doom and gloom where none exists.

[amwest]

The problem with 'news' is that, news it really just a list of facts, but people are (in general) too stupid to for their own conclusions from facts alone.

So rolling news channels sell analysis and comment.

I'd rather like a news channel that simply gave a list of interesting things that happened during the day. Shame there'd only be about 3 viewers, as people prefer being told what to think, shouting and drama, and gaudy idents and studios.

I also hate how 24 hour channels, stir it, and whip up doom and gloom where none exists.

to your first point, it's sad but before public education most people we taught by the classical education system (grammer, logic, rhetoric) now we use the prussian system, which is argued to be more for indocternation than logical thinking.
2nd statement of yours, you have one its CSPAN! you get to judge for yourself what the politicians mean! (although they've started doing more cominatry)
3rd statement, but how else would we have known that the world was going to end on may 21???

[Al68]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.Of course every news source is biased, as every person is biased. But biased is not the same as untrustworthy.

The other major news networks have proven themselves untrustworthy not just because they were biased, but because their bias resulted in fraudulent misrepresentations of politicians and political issues, presented as honest (and unbiased) journalism. Their deception is what made them untrustworthy.

[hootsh]

I think the safest news stations are the ones that are suspected the most of being biased, like Iranian news stations for example, people are accusing Iran of defending Syria; the station (when covering Syrian revolution) always offer BOTH sides of the story, instead of other stations where they offer only the protesters side, in a situation like this it is clear that the protesters are right of course, but I'm talking about things in general.
When it comes to covering protests in Iran, you could just switch to another news station...etc.

I say the more a station is notorious for being biased towards a subject, the better that station will be, because they'll strive to prove otherwise, also the viewers will be aware that not everything said is 100% neutral.

[hillzagold]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

But there are degrees of bias. Fox News is about 50 degrees too biased for a decent person's taste.

If I follow the LA Times, NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Wired magazine, or Fisherman's Quarterly, I can expect some exaggeration. With Fox, I can expect them to start slinging insults left and right.

[russ_watters]

You consider MSNBC and Wired to be less biased than Fox? Really?

MSNBC in particular seems to have made a concerted effort to be the anti-Fox. They regularly attack Fox directly.

[hillzagold]

Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.

[russ_watters]

I don't see your point, but maybe it is because you didn't see mine: I'm saying that MSNBC seems to make a concerted effort to be the anti-Fox and one manifestation of that is that they directly attack Fox (a lot).

In any case, you didn't answer the question, but I guess that's a "yes". Ok...

[hillzagold]

My point is simple, what are their other manifestations? If they cover a chemical plant explosion or a massive California wildfire or a Chicago parade for the arts, how else will they express bias?

[russ_watters]

My point is simple, what are their other manifestations? If they cover a chemical plant explosion or a massive California wildfire or a Chicago parade for the arts, how else will they express bias? It is very difficult for a media outlet to show bias when reporting on non-political issues (though it does crop up in unexpected stories sometimes)! I don't see what that has to do with anything.

[WhoWee]

Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.

Care to support with a link?

[hillzagold]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201105280006
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310027
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310006
http://mediamatters.org/research/201105270026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation

That last one has to be my favorite. This is hardly a conclusive list, in fact those Media Matters links are all from this month.


OK, is it your turn to show MSNBC's bias, and how it's just as harsh as Fox's bias?

[Al68]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201105280006
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310027
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310006
http://mediamatters.org/research/201105270026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation

That last one has to be my favorite. This is hardly a conclusive list, in fact those Media Matters links are all from this month.LOL, are you kidding with this? Using Media Matters as a source to substantiate a claim of Fox News bias? And Fox news is biased because they use the term "illegals" to refer to illegal aliens, instead of the left wing media preference for the fraudulent term "undocumented"?

I only checked your first link. If you wanted anyone to bother with the rest, you should have been a little less absurd with the first one.

On second thought, that first link was so preposterously funny I might have to check the others when I get the chance. Was your post intended as sarcasm or satire?

[russ_watters]

Awesome. I didn't realize the bias was so out in the open on that issue. I've been annoyed by the use of the loaded term "undocumented", but had no idea it was borne of a conscious effort to bias the reporting to be softer on people who are here illegally. I had no idea there was an actual "style book" for AP reporting which includes codification of the bias.

In any case, that doesn't appear to me to have anything to do with the request. While I'm still not sure what you meant by this: Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources. ....the mediamatters link is just about bias, not about media outlets attacking each other.

[WhoWee]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201105280006
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310027
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310006
http://mediamatters.org/research/201105270026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation

That last one has to be my favorite. This is hardly a conclusive list, in fact those Media Matters links are all from this month.


OK, is it your turn to show MSNBC's bias, and how it's just as harsh as Fox's bias?

From you first link:

"Special Report's Bret Baier Uses Loaded Term "Illegals"
May 28, 2011 4:03 pm ET — 96 Comments
Fox News' Bret Baier, using the word "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants in the United States, said that a U.S. Supreme Court decision would have the effect of "penalizing businesses for hiring illegals." However, prominent media outlets and journalists' associations have denounced the use of the term "illegals," noting that it "skew[s] the public debate on immigration issues.""

(my bold)
Why don't we analyze the criticism? Media Matters takes offense to the word "illegals" to describe people who have illegally entered the US? How is the use of this word biased?

[hillzagold]

LOL, are you kidding with this? Using Media Matters as a source to substantiate a claim of Fox News bias? And Fox news is biased because they use the term "illegals" to refer to illegal aliens, instead of the left wing media preference for the fraudulent term "undocumented"?

I only checked your first link. If you wanted anyone to bother with the rest, you should have been a little less absurd with the first one.

On second thought, that first link was so preposterously funny I might have to check the others when I get the chance. Was your post intended as sarcasm or satire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
You're embarrassing yourself. Defend this, if you can.


....the mediamatters link is just about bias, not about media outlets attacking each other.
I said Fox goes beyond attacking other media outlets. I don't think anyone will say Fox doesn't attack other media outlets, so I found Fox attacks on different subjects.


Why don't we analyze the criticism? Media Matters takes offense to the word "illegals" to describe people who have illegally entered the US? How is the use of this word biased?It's biased because it's not neutral. Take a poll with two different questions, each using a different word, and see if you get significantly different results. Consider calling someone a solder or a killer, a teenager or a student, a man who is experienced or old.




Are any of you going beyond my first link, or posting MSNBC attacks? I thought a forum like this knew how to hold a debate with any semblance of dialectic.

[russ_watters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
You're embarrassing yourself. Defend this, if you can. Why? What does that have to do with your comment about Fox attacking media outlets? Please explain the relevance of that link.
I said Fox goes beyond attacking other media outlets. I don't think anyone will say Fox doesn't attack other media outlets, so I found Fox attacks on different subjects. Is English your native language? I'm not sure you understand what the word "attack" means. This is really weird. Did you forget what you were claiming/arguing about? Did you misspeak and are now trying to cover it with misdirection? Please explain the relevance of that link.Are any of you going beyond my first link, or posting MSNBC attacks? I thought a forum like this knew how to hold a debate with any semblance of dialectic. No, I haven't gone beyond the first link. Based on how irrelevant the first link was, I didn't see any reason to go on to the second. Do the other links have any more relevance to your comment about Fox attacking other media outlets? I want an explanation as to what your point is: I won't fall for misdirection games.

[Al68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
You're embarrassing yourself. Defend this, if you can.LOL. Yeah, I'm embarrassing myself. :uhh:

And seriously, why on earth would you think I should defend Fox News? I never claimed they were unbiased, or were perfect in any way.

But from what I hear, the latest polls show they are the most trusted source around. Of course, given the Marxist propaganda that passes for their competition, that isn't really saying much.

[WhoWee]

It's biased because it's not neutral. Take a poll with two different questions, each using a different word, and see if you get significantly different results. Consider calling someone a solder or a killer, a teenager or a student, a man who is experienced or old.


Let's see - all soldiers have not engaged in battle or killed people and all killers are not soldiers, all teenagers are not students and likewise all students are not teenagers, all experienced people are not old and all old people are not experienced. However, all people who entered the US border illegally ARE illegal...no this is different...isn't it?

[Ryumast3r]

From you first link:

"Special Report's Bret Baier Uses Loaded Term "Illegals"
May 28, 2011 4:03 pm ET — 96 Comments
Fox News' Bret Baier, using the word "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants in the United States, said that a U.S. Supreme Court decision would have the effect of "penalizing businesses for hiring illegals." However, prominent media outlets and journalists' associations have denounced the use of the term "illegals," noting that it "skew[s] the public debate on immigration issues.""

(my bold)
Why don't we analyze the criticism? Media Matters takes offense to the word "illegals" to describe people who have illegally entered the US? How is the use of this word biased?

Illegally, while technically true, is... really a loaded word. Entering this country is not really that illegal, in fact, it's about as illegal as a traffic ticket, in fact, a lot of people would consider it a lot less illegal than a traffic ticket. You couldn't even fine people for coming over illegally until recently because of arizona/couple other states. The only "punishment" for entering our country illegally was deportation, which doesn't really waste their money, it wastes ours.

LOL. Yeah, I'm embarrassing myself. :uhh:

And seriously, why on earth would you think I should defend Fox News? I never claimed they were unbiased, or were perfect in any way.

But from what I hear, the latest polls show they are the most trusted source around. Of course, given the Marxist propaganda that passes for their competition, that isn't really saying much.

Defend "Marxist propaganda." You are really pushing it there since really hardly any of it reaches any level close to Marxism. Socialism =/= Communism.

That post was pretty sensational, and a fine piece of propaganda. What MSNBC, CNN, etc do is rhetoric, I would agree. Seeing as rhetoric is any argument defending any point of view, they do spew out a lot of it, as does Fox.

In my personal opinion, MSNBC is a pretty solid bias left, however Fox news is super-biased right.

A nice poll was done in late 2010 showing just how misinformed people who watch Fox are:

"In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs (the worst it did was have little effect, though many say it had a positive effect)
72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit (at the time, CBO estimates were saying it wouldn't)
72 percent believe the economy is getting worse (poorly worded question, though the GDP was picking up at the time, job losses were still occurring)
60 percent believe climate change is not occurring (Scientists say it's occurring, even if it's not man made. That is fact)
49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout (Hello dubyah)
38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP (50-50 split)
63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear) (and btw, he was)"

Those are pretty big issues to be misinformed on, especially Climate Change, and income taxes. IMO, Fox has some explaining to do.

My point with this is that you cannot claim that MSNBC, CNN, etc are spreading "Marxist Propaganda" and at the same time claim that Fox News is about as close to perfect as it can get. IMO, if MSNBC is spreading "Marxist Propaganda" then Fox News is spreading "Nazi Propaganda."

[Vanadium 50]

That seems to me to indicate that Fox News watchers handle trick questions poorly. Yes, the 1st auto bailout was under President Bush. But President Obama's was five times larger and involved nationalizing GM. We know now that the health reform law will increase the deficit, and that the CBO numbers came from having ten years of taxes and six years of benefits. "They didn't get the wrong answer they were supposed to get" is a unique argument. My income tax rates have gone up - although the federal piece has gone down. Climate change has become indelibly linked with man-made climate change. And finally, the argument that the stimulus legislation caused less job loss than there would have been without it may well be true, but it is certainly unprovable - and asking people to hold one side of an unprovable proposition lest they be labeled "stupid" seems profoundly unfair to me.

[Char. Limit]

So, Vanadium, do you consider the question "Was Obama born in the US" a trick question?

[Alfi]

Illegally, while technically true, is... really a loaded word. Entering this country is not really that illegal, in fact, it's about as illegal as a traffic ticket, in fact, a lot of people would consider it a lot less illegal than a traffic ticket.

Ummmm ... a traffic ticket is an accusation that you have broken a traffic law.
You can defend yourself from the issued ticket if you wish.

I disagree that 'Illegally' is a loaded word when applied to anyone that is in my country without proper procedure and documentation.

[Ryumast3r]

That seems to me to indicate that Fox News watchers handle trick questions poorly. Yes, the 1st auto bailout was under President Bush. But President Obama's was five times larger and involved nationalizing GM. We know now that the health reform law will increase the deficit, and that the CBO numbers came from having ten years of taxes and six years of benefits. "They didn't get the wrong answer they were supposed to get" is a unique argument. My income tax rates have gone up - although the federal piece has gone down. Climate change has become indelibly linked with man-made climate change. And finally, the argument that the stimulus legislation caused less job loss than there would have been without it may well be true, but it is certainly unprovable - and asking people to hold one side of an unprovable proposition lest they be labeled "stupid" seems profoundly unfair to me.

Those aren't really trick questions. Who started bailing out auto companies? It was before Obama went into office, that is not a trick question, it's not "who bailed out the auto companies" it was "who started it" - who did the first one

Like I said, the healthcare one was poorly worded and a bad question in general, as was the economy one, yes, but not really a trick.

Climate Change said specifically: "Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that climate change is occurring, not occurring, or views are evenly divided?

It is purely fact that scientists believe it's occurring. It's only become linked with man-made BECAUSE of Fox News and probably even MSNBC. That's not a trick question, that's totally fair and shows how misinformed people are when they believe that climate change = man made.

Also, they said that the stimulus LOST jobs, which is bad, since even the lowest estimates I've seen are that it directly saved/created a million jobs.

Also, the other questions that aren't mentioned:

"63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts" -- It totally did. Fact.

And my personal favorite: "63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)"

^That is misinformed. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Edit: In fact, here is his long-form (in .PDF) in case anybody here has any doubts: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

[Ryumast3r]

Ummmm ... a traffic ticket is an accusation that you have broken a traffic law.
You can defend yourself from the issued ticket if you wish.

I disagree that 'Illegally' is a loaded word when applied to anyone that is in my country without proper procedure and documentation.

It is an accusation that you've broken a law, but my point is, there's a punishment for a traffic ticket. There really isn't even a punishment for coming here "illegally." As I said, until state's recently passed legislation, you couldn't even really detain them. You could only send them back, at the taxpayer's expense.

[Perspicacity]

Illegally, while technically true, is... really a loaded word. Entering this country is not really that illegal, in fact, it's about as illegal as a traffic ticket, in fact, a lot of people would consider it a lot less illegal than a traffic ticket. You couldn't even fine people for coming over illegally until recently because of arizona/couple other states. The only "punishment" for entering our country illegally was deportation, which doesn't really waste their money, it wastes ours.



Defend "Marxist propaganda." You are really pushing it there since really hardly any of it reaches any level close to Marxism. Socialism =/= Communism.

That post was pretty sensational, and a fine piece of propaganda. What MSNBC, CNN, etc do is rhetoric, I would agree. Seeing as rhetoric is any argument defending any point of view, they do spew out a lot of it, as does Fox.

In my personal opinion, MSNBC is a pretty solid bias left, however Fox news is super-biased right.

A nice poll was done in late 2010 showing just how misinformed people who watch Fox are:

"In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs (the worst it did was have little effect, though many say it had a positive effect)
72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit (at the time, CBO estimates were saying it wouldn't)
72 percent believe the economy is getting worse (poorly worded question, though the GDP was picking up at the time, job losses were still occurring)
60 percent believe climate change is not occurring (Scientists say it's occurring, even if it's not man made. That is fact)
49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout (Hello dubyah)
38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP (50-50 split)
63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear) (and btw, he was)"

Those are pretty big issues to be misinformed on, especially Climate Change, and income taxes. IMO, Fox has some explaining to do.

My point with this is that you cannot claim that MSNBC, CNN, etc are spreading "Marxist Propaganda" and at the same time claim that Fox News is about as close to perfect as it can get. IMO, if MSNBC is spreading "Marxist Propaganda" then Fox News is spreading "Nazi Propaganda."

Are you kidding me? I won't bother pointing out what kind of garbage those questions are, as Vanadium did that quite nicely, and would like to reiterate how absurd it is to claim someone answered a question incorrectly because economists disagreed with them, when facts have obviously shown otherwise.

Also, the Nazis were socialists. Being racist doesn't turn a socialist into a conservative, as the left-wingers in America like to claim. The Nazis were entirely a left-wing movement that paced German socialism above international worker solidarity. So how about we let MSNBC have both the Marxist and Nazi propaganda label?

[Char. Limit]

Are you kidding me? I won't bother pointing out what kind of garbage those questions are, as Vanadium did that quite nicely, and would like to reiterate how absurd it is to claim someone answered a question incorrectly because economists disagreed with them, when facts have obviously shown otherwise.

Again, is "Is Obama born in the US?" a garbage question? Sounds like a reasonable question to me.

Also, the Nazis were socialists. Being racist doesn't turn a socialist into a conservative, as the left-wingers in America like to claim. The Nazis were entirely a left-wing movement that paced German socialism above international worker solidarity. So how about we let MSNBC have both the Marxist and Nazi propaganda label?

Nope. Wrong. As quoted from Wikipedia (which, unlike YOU, cites its sources), "Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics."

Care to try again?

[Ryumast3r]

Are you kidding me? I won't bother pointing out what kind of garbage those questions are, as Vanadium did that quite nicely, and would like to reiterate how absurd it is to claim someone answered a question incorrectly because economists disagreed with them, when facts have obviously shown otherwise.

Not just economists disagreed, scientists and his long-form birth certificate would disagree as well. Those questions were not just about economics. If you had cared to read all of them you would've realized that.

Also, the Nazis were socialists. Being racist doesn't turn a socialist into a conservative, as the left-wingers in America like to claim. The Nazis were entirely a left-wing movement that paced German socialism above international worker solidarity. So how about we let MSNBC have both the Marxist and Nazi propaganda label?

From wikipedia:

"...It was a unique variety of fascism that incorporated biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]"

One core thing about Nazi-Fascism that reminds me of Fox is the fact that it relies heavily on Nationalism and Patriotism (no illegals, we are the best in the world because we're american, etc etc).

Also: Left and Right do not just mean economics, they can mean social issues or morality as well.

Edit: haha, Char and I had the same idea. :P

[WhoWee]

So, Vanadium, do you consider the question "Was Obama born in the US" a trick question?

Actually, the trick question is where did he grow up? If you said Chicago - you MIGHT be listening to the left wing news and if you said Indonesia - (yes) you probably listen to FOX - IMO.

[WhoWee]

Illegally, while technically true, is... really a loaded word. Entering this country is not really that illegal, in fact, it's about as illegal as a traffic ticket, in fact, a lot of people would consider it a lot less illegal than a traffic ticket.


my bold

IMO - that is a beautiful rationalization - really.:rolleyes:

[drankin]

So, just because there are laws against entering our country illegally doesn't mean one is entering illegally? Or is there a degree of illegality that is required in order to be considered illegal? Amazing the amount of text in this thread that explains something illegal, not illegal, yet not legal, but shouldn't be called illegal...

[Perspicacity]

Not just economists disagreed, scientists and his long-form birth certificate would disagree as well. Those questions were not just about economics. If you had cared to read all of them you would've realized that.



From wikipedia:

"...It was a unique variety of fascism that incorporated biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]"

One core thing about Nazi-Fascism that reminds me of Fox is the fact that it relies heavily on Nationalism and Patriotism (no illegals, we are the best in the world because we're american, etc etc).

Also: Left and Right do not just mean economics, they can mean social issues or morality as well.

Edit: haha, Char and I had the same idea. :P

Hitler as quoted in the very same wiki article:

I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.

That is EXACTLY socialism. Making a statement about respecting property rights does not change the fact that they did not respect property rights. Notice how the wiki article bears no "Relation to Socialism" section, despite the fact that they called themselves National Socialists and espoused an obvious socialistic view point, as again can be read in the artile you linked. The Nazis were nothing more than socialists who also espoused racism and nationalism—any trait they shared with fascism can just as easily be explained by their link to socialism.

Basically, hating non-aryans does not make them right-wing. THe russians were just as racist. Being authoritarian does not make them right-wing. Fidel Castro was not right-wing. Hating homosexuals does not make you right-wing, unless you want to lay Che Guevara at the feet of the right.

The Nazi's had nothing to do with anything that can currently be labeled as right-wing in American politics today, whether you choose to define that as classical liberalism or constitutional traditionalism. They most certainly did not espouse limited government or economic freedom in any way, and their moral views were shared by both left-wing and right-wing governments of the time.

As for the birther question, again you fail to mention that the question as listed wasn't "Was Obama born in the U.S.A.?" It was "Was Obama born in the U.S.A.(Or is it unclear)?" That is a significant difference, especially since FOX news never took the position that Obama was foreign-born. I've heard Fox News pundits repeatedly say that he was in fact born in Hawaii.

[Ryumast3r]

The Nazi's had nothing to do with anything that can currently be labeled as right-wing in American politics today, whether you choose to define that as classical liberalism or constitutional traditionalism. They most certainly did not espouse limited government or economic freedom in any way, and their moral views were shared by both left-wing and right-wing governments of the time.

Once again, there are two axes, there's economic left-right, and there's social left-right.

Economic left: Collectivism (either state-imposed, or individually volunteered)
Economic right: Individualism (read: Neo-liberalism/Libertarianism

Social left: Anarchism
Social right: Authoritarianism

Hitler is what is seen as about as authoritarian as it gets, read: right-wing socially. His economic policies were about middle of the road when you look at Communism vs Neo-Liberalism on the economic scale, but yes, this is called Socialism.

As for the birther question, again you fail to mention that the question as listed wasn't "Was Obama born in the U.S.A.?" It was "Was Obama born in the U.S.A.(Or is it unclear)?" That is a significant difference, especially since FOX news never took the position that Obama was foreign-born. I've heard Fox News pundits repeatedly say that he was in fact born in Hawaii.

Not really all that much of a significant difference, and if you read my first post I included the "(or is it unclear)" part of it, I just left it out for sake of simplicity in my other posts.

Also, it's STILL not a trick question since, if even Fox was saying that he was born in Hawaii then it IS 100% CLEAR that he was an american citizen. This isn't rocket science, and the fact that people who primarily watched Fox scored what... 93% wrong? That speaks for itself in my opinion.

[Al68]

Wrong. As quoted from Wikipedia (which, unlike YOU, cites its sources), "Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, [b]Nazism was a far right form of politics.[/bThat's just a simple matter of the term "right" being used differently. The words "far right" and ""right-wing extremist" are often used today to refer to economic libertarianism.

Yes, Nazism was considered far right, but we don't typically use the word "right" to mean that today, unless it's used in a "bait and switch" tactic.

[Al68]

Once again, there are two axes, there's economic left-right, and there's social left-right.

Economic left: Collectivism (either state-imposed, or individually volunteered)
Economic right: Individualism (read: Neo-liberalism/Libertarianism

Social left: Anarchism
Social right: AuthoritarianismThat first part is pretty universally true, but that second part is only partially true the way "right" and "left" are used today. For example, with gun control issues, authoritarianism is considered left wing, and libertarianism is considered right wing.

It would seen that the biggest connection between social authoritarianism and today's use of the term "right-wing" is with the abortion issue, but that seems more like an exception to the general rule, rather than the rule itself.

Of course maybe that just because I personally find it so odd that so many people who tend to be mostly libertarian are often authoritarian on that issue while many who tend to be more authoritarian are often libertarian on that issue.You are really pushing it there since really hardly any of it reaches any level close to Marxism. Socialism =/= Communism.Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx) is generally considered the father of both socialism and communism. But more importantly is the shared basic ideology I was using the word "Marxist" to refer to. The same basic ideology that drives the socialist side of a mixed economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy) like the U.S.

[WhoWee]

Let's cut the crap about Extreme Left Communist compared with Extreme Right Nazi nonsense - the results are in (yet again): (my bold and left-leaning Huffington is the source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/cable-news-ratings-top-30_n_869861.html#s285866&title=1_The_OReilly

Most months, the cable news ratings show little fluctuation. Fox News is always dominant, and the rest of the pack shuffles around a bit. In May, though, there were dramatic jumps in many shows' ratings. (Fox News, however, was still dominant, taking the top 12 shows of the month. Some things never, ever change.)

Should we conclude the US clearly leans Right - or should we conclude the Left, the Right, and possibly the Center depend on FOX for their news?

[Office_Shredder]

Should we conclude the US clearly leans Right - or should we conclude the Left, the Right, and possibly the Center depend on FOX for their news?

Cable news ratings. Why can't we conclude that a lot of people watch basic TV for their news?

[WhoWee]

Cable news ratings. Why can't we conclude that a lot of people watch basic TV for their news?

What fun would that be?

[Ryumast3r]

Let's cut the crap about Extreme Left Communist compared with Extreme Right Nazi nonsense - the results are in (yet again): (my bold and left-leaning Huffington is the source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/cable-news-ratings-top-30_n_869861.html#s285866&title=1_The_OReilly

Most months, the cable news ratings show little fluctuation. Fox News is always dominant, and the rest of the pack shuffles around a bit. In May, though, there were dramatic jumps in many shows' ratings. (Fox News, however, was still dominant, taking the top 12 shows of the month. Some things never, ever change.)

Should we conclude the US clearly leans Right - or should we conclude the Left, the Right, and possibly the Center depend on FOX for their news?

Ratings =/= truthfulness, nor do they show a lack of bias.

By this study we can only conclude that more people watch Fox than other stations, be it for news, or for entertainment purposes.

[Vanadium 50]

Those aren't really trick questions. Who started bailing out auto companies? It was before Obama went into office, that is not a trick question, it's not "who bailed out the auto companies" it was "who started it" - who did the first one

Which is why it's a trick question. The correct answer is "Jimmy Carter".

[mege]

Once again, there are two axes, there's economic left-right, and there's social left-right.

Economic left: Collectivism (either state-imposed, or individually volunteered)
Economic right: Individualism (read: Neo-liberalism/Libertarianism

Social left: Anarchism
Social right: Authoritarianism



Telling a company (or school) they have to fit a particular income distribution or race-distribution is anarchism? What am I missing there?

Point being that comparing political values cross-culturally is impossible. The politics in the US are far beyond being hardline right/left as the political parties have only tendencies towards those sides. Just because Republicans lean to the right, does not mean that they're the same political identity as every other right-leaning party in history. The same goes with the Democratic party, their left leaning policies are far from their roots in the Confederacy now.

In the end, the political divide in the US is really based on whom you trust (which generally aligns with the economic split described above). The American right generally distrusts the government to manage their affairs (libertarians), while the American left generally trusts the government to manage their affairs (and distrusts individuals - collectivists). There are some exceptions to the rule which are governed by (IMO) non-rational forces in each party. The left has it's pet in the Feminist movement which introduced libertarian principles (but is perverted by trying to force those ideals) and the right has it's pet in the conservative religious which introduces some orthodoxy (which again is perverted by trying to force those ideals). If you take away the morality issues that are created by the Feminist-Church divide, then the parties are much 'clearer' in their collectivist and libertarian ways. Pre-Reagan Republicans and Democrats (President GHW Bush was the first neo-con imo) were much simpler along this divide. The policies of the 60s displayed that libertarian vs collectivist mentality very specifically: Republicans were pushing the civil rights act while the Democrats were expanding new deal policies and created medicare (and a top end 90% income tax...). Sure, there are outliers like Sen. McCarthy; many forget that his actions had bi-partisian support - he just happened to be a Republican and so the current mindset is to blame the party for the witch hunt he championed. The Vietnam War was a Democratic-party led effort: it took the Republican President Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Point being: political parties have many points of flux. Intrinsically: Republicans aren't warmongers and Democrats aren't freedom-mongers. Take away the outliers and the core remains: collectivists vs libertarians (or, back to my first statement - who do you trust?).

While I don't think any collectivists would actually do so, I highly suggest reading Ann Coulter's book in which she talks about this type of divide and how there is hypocracy in the American left trying to claim 'civil rights' and clarity of purpose:Godless: The Church of Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism). I don't see eye to eye with Coulter on her religiousity (I self-identify with American conservatives: my views are libertarian based, but I could care less about the 'morality issues'), but she does speak plainly about some flaws in the common public view of politics.

[Ryumast3r]

Which is why it's a trick question. The correct answer is "Jimmy Carter".

At this point I think you're pulling at straws. Explain the birth certificate issue now. How are they that misinformed?

[mege]

Also, it's STILL not a trick question since, if even Fox was saying that he was born in Hawaii then it IS 100% CLEAR that he was an american citizen. This isn't rocket science, and the fact that people who primarily watched Fox scored what... 93% wrong? That speaks for itself in my opinion.


At this point I think you're pulling at straws. Explain the birth certificate issue now. How are they that misinformed?


What's the causality? You said yourself that Fox News was saying the President was born in Hawaii, so if they are saying that then why would the viewership think something else? What lie did Fox News tell to make people believe that? This is a poor example anyhow because IMO the birth certificate issue was mishandled by the President from the start. Fox News does tend to be a little more critical of government in general, perhaps the viewship is drawn to that criticality that CNN and MSNBC does not offer?*

While I don't fall into the conspiracy theory camp in regards to President Obama's birth place (however, why haven't we seen his school records and papers?), I do caution against treating evidence as fact. Evidence is just that - evidence. It requires opinion, interpretation, and cynicism to evaluate. Treating evidence as fact is not a good idea, esspecially in journalism. Just ask Dan Rather what happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy) when you treat evidence as fact.

*Further on the comparision - watch Rachel Maddow one night, then watch Glenn Beck. Keep track of the sources cited for each show. Glenn Beck's TV show will generally tripple Maddow in external source cited (I did this with a left-leaning friend of mine for a few days to prove a point). I do realize that the presence of a cite does not indicate absolute truth (http://xkcd.com/906/), but you can still validate what is being said and go on to do more thinking for yourself instead of just nodding to whatever the pundit is saying. If we are going to have opinionated news sources, I'd rather them be critical of what they see and hear instead of just pandering to the current populism (which in the last decade has been a leftist slant).

[Vanadium 50]

I never said anything about a birth certificate. I will point out that "the other half isn't" is not, in my mind, a good defense to "half of the questions are trick questions".

And why is Jimmy Carter a worse answer than George Bush?

[hillzagold]

Why? What does that have to do with your comment about Fox attacking media outlets? Please explain the relevance of that link. Is English your native language? I'm not sure you understand what the word "attack" means. This is really weird. Did you forget what you were claiming/arguing about? Did you misspeak and are now trying to cover it with misdirection? Please explain the relevance of that link.

English may be your native language, but you're still terrible at it. You claim that MSNBC attacks Fox, I claim that Fox attacks leftist media, as well as other things. These things range from Obama to immigrants to supreme court justices, to a hundred other things. This makes them more biased than MSNBC, who you claim only attacks Fox.

Actually, my photograph manipulation link was about a New York Times reporter, which is a media outlet. Even if I meant what you thought, I'd have one source to prove myself correct.

No, I haven't gone beyond the first link. Based on how irrelevant the first link was, I didn't see any reason to go on to the second. Do the other links have any more relevance to your comment about Fox attacking other media outlets? I want an explanation as to what your point is: I won't fall for misdirection games. The first link was relevant because Fox chose a synonym with negative connotations. Do you know what connotations are? They are the meaning words have beyond what a dictionary says they have. "Illegal" has connotations. Jaywalkers, litterers, people who don't scoop up after their pets, all people doing illegal things, but never referred to with the blanket term of "illegals."

But even if my first link was irrelevant, that you ignore every other one shows that you have all the debating skill of a 2nd grader. Especially ignoring the one that I said was my favorite. Take comfort that you "won't fall for misdirection games," if you really think you sound better.

P.S. Links to uncut video segments with accurate context provided? Is that what passes for a misdirection game now?
P.P.S. I think it's past time someone provided an example of MSNBC being overtly biased.

[mege]

English may be your native language, but you're still terrible at it. You claim that MSNBC attacks Fox, I claim that Fox attacks leftist media, as well as other things. These things range from Obama to immigrants to supreme court justices, to a hundred other things. This makes them more biased than MSNBC, who you claim only attacks Fox.

Actually, my photograph manipulation link was about a New York Times reporter, which is a media outlet. Even if I meant what you thought, I'd have one source to prove myself correct.

The first link was relevant because Fox chose a synonym with negative connotations. Do you know what connotations are? They are the meaning words have beyond what a dictionary says they have. "Illegal" has connotations. Jaywalkers, litterers, people who don't scoop up after their pets, all people doing illegal things, but never referred to with the blanket term of "illegals."



"Lean forward" as a company slogan is unbiased? Matthews and Maddow are unbiased?

Read the headlines on MSNBC's website sometime (mainly in the politics (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ns/politics/)). Some of the video links don't work directly because of the player-app they use, sorry - but if you look at this in the next little bit, they should still be there. Republicans 'target' and 'attack' things, while Democrats 'defend' and 'protect' things (See 6/2/11 videos on Health Care mandate). Republicans are 'skeptical (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43250982/ns/politics-capitol_hill/)', increase the use 'rhetoric (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/43261458#43261458)' and are 'defiant' ("GOP Remains Defiant on Budget" - 6/2/11 video) while Democrats "Vow to continue their fight" (counter video to the GOP Defiant - 6/2/11). Republicans are in-fighting (6/2/11 video "GOP infighting gets worse") and Democrats are meeting (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43257386/ns/politics-capitol_hill/). Which of those adjectives are perjorative and which are not? These are articles, right now, that are side by side on the MSNBC Politics site.

Would you rather be with someone that is defending, protecting, making vows and meeting with people or would you rather be with someone whom is defiant, attacking, infighting and is skeptical? Unless you're just being contrarian, I feel the answer is clear.

I had a much harder time doing the same thing on Fox News' website - while they cover political issues (yes, through a non-leftist lens) they don't make the partisian nature the focus. Searching the 'Politics' page even on FoxNews.com came up with a reference each to Republicans and Democrats. On MSNBC's politics page - it was GOP this and Dems that. Here are the FoxNews.com headlines that referenced parties: "Democrats Push for Warren to Lead Consumer Agency" and "Republicans Ready for Battle Against White House Over Commerce Secretary". Clearly these headlines are indicating offensive and defensive political positions, but in a non negative way. That said, I do understand that Fox News does tend to lean towards the right a little bit, it's just unfortunate that there is a common conception that they are doing it recklessly so, when it's not the case (see MSNBC's slant above).

[flyingpig]

Is this a joke? Do you honestly believe anything those idiot reporters report?

[WhoWee]

Is this a joke? Do you honestly believe anything those idiot reporters report?

Per the last post, are you referring to MSNBC or FOX reporters - or both?

[Ryumast3r]

Both.


I make it a point to watch MSNBC, Fox, CNN, BBC, read some Reuters, some huffington post, NYtimes, LAtimes, whatever local newspapers I can get a hold of, and then go on to forums and read what other people are thinking of the subjects purely because they all have a bias.

To say Fox news is unbiased, or not corrupt is false. They are biased, just like every other news organization. How do you get rid of the bias? Either watch none and read none, or read/watch as many as you can.

[Ryumast3r]

What's the causality? You said yourself that Fox News was saying the President was born in Hawaii, so if they are saying that then why would the viewership think something else? What lie did Fox News tell to make people believe that? This is a poor example anyhow because IMO the birth certificate issue was mishandled by the President from the start. Fox News does tend to be a little more critical of government in general, perhaps the viewship is drawn to that criticality that CNN and MSNBC does not offer?*

Fox news itself might have, but that doesn't mean Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, or other famous GOP Bigwigs weren't questioning it (Trump, etc).

While I don't fall into the conspiracy theory camp in regards to President Obama's birth place (however, why haven't we seen his school records and papers?), I do caution against treating evidence as fact. Evidence is just that - evidence. It requires opinion, interpretation, and cynicism to evaluate. Treating evidence as fact is not a good idea, esspecially in journalism. Just ask Dan Rather what happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy) when you treat evidence as fact.

I was not treating evidence as fact, I was treating fact as fact. He *was* born in Hawaii. Fact.

*Further on the comparision - watch Rachel Maddow one night, then watch Glenn Beck. Keep track of the sources cited for each show. Glenn Beck's TV show will generally tripple Maddow in external source cited (I did this with a left-leaning friend of mine for a few days to prove a point). I do realize that the presence of a cite does not indicate absolute truth (http://xkcd.com/906/), but you can still validate what is being said and go on to do more thinking for yourself instead of just nodding to whatever the pundit is saying. If we are going to have opinionated news sources, I'd rather them be critical of what they see and hear instead of just pandering to the current populism (which in the last decade has been a leftist slant).

I don't watch Maddow, but ok. Glenn Beck may have sources, but that man, every time I personally watched him, was spouting something with insane links that weren't really links, making jokes into factual opinions, and basically spreading things that weren't true. He'll start off with something true, make a bad assumption, and come up with a bad assumption. Of course, this isn't always true, but that's the pattern I've seen in a grand majority of shows of his that I've seen.

I never said anything about a birth certificate. I will point out that "the other half isn't" is not, in my mind, a good defense to "half of the questions are trick questions".

And why is Jimmy Carter a worse answer than George Bush?

Ok, so any time I'm asked a question on something that is clearly about recent events, I'm going to go as far back in history as I can just to foul up the answering and prove that their question is a trick question.

Also, it's less than half, and I'm not talking about the poorly worded questions, I threw those out on the basis that they were poorly worded.

[Perspicacity]

Fox news itself might have, but that doesn't mean Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, or other famous GOP Bigwigs weren't questioning it (Trump, etc).


None of those pundits ever claimed Obama was born in Kenya. They of course covered the birther story, but they have each said that Obama was born in Hawaii. Search for "Fox News Pundit Birther" and you'll get a whole bunch of stories about how Fox News wasn't sufficiently mean to Donald Trump, and nothing more.

[mege]

None of those pundits ever claimed Obama was born in Kenya. They of course covered the birther story, but they have each said that Obama was born in Hawaii. Search for "Fox News Pundit Birther" and you'll get a whole bunch of stories about how Fox News wasn't sufficiently mean to Donald Trump, and nothing more.

This. Hannity and Beck both very specifically thought the birther issue was actually a lot of BS and said so, a lot. They're critical of President Obama hasn't released college records and papers, but the birther issue was too much.

[WhoWee]

This. Hannity and Beck both very specifically thought the birther issue was actually a lot of BS and said so, a lot. They're critical of President Obama hasn't released college records and papers, but the birther issue was too much.

Neither Hannity nor Beck were focused on the birth certificate. However, they've consistently questioned why the President wasn't fully vetted by the mainstream media - especially with regards to people close to the President.

[mege]

Both.


I make it a point to watch MSNBC, Fox, CNN, BBC, read some Reuters, some huffington post, NYtimes, LAtimes, whatever local newspapers I can get a hold of, and then go on to forums and read what other people are thinking of the subjects purely because they all have a bias.

To say Fox news is unbiased, or not corrupt is false. They are biased, just like every other news organization. How do you get rid of the bias? Either watch none and read none, or read/watch as many as you can.

I don't think there is a total lack of bias, but I feel that the bias of the news that Fox News reports is far less skewed than other news sources (see my MSNBC politics comparison above). I feel the extremist views are overblown (and people use the pundits as 'proof' when there is more to Fox News than just Hannity and Beck).

Personally, I try to catch the BBC International newscasts as much as possible for current events. I do watch Fox News once in a while for Beck and Fox Business a bit for John Stossel. While they both do an overview of topics in current events, Beck's show is more of a multimedia magazine and needs to be treated as such. I'd also remind you that Beck is very critical of the Neo-con movement, and really 'got his stripes' critiquing President Bush (this esspecially when Savage and Rush skirted the issue of critiquing President Bush, esspecially the stimulus-type policies in his 2nd term).

[russ_watters]

English may be your native language, but you're still terrible at it.
You claim that MSNBC attacks Fox, I claim that Fox attacks leftist media, as well as other things. Ok.....so you're saying English is not your native language? I didn't ask that to be mean, I asked because you're just not making any sense. That could explain a lot about this misunderstanding. These things range from Obama to immigrants to supreme court justices, to a hundred other things. This makes them more biased than MSNBC, who you claim only attacks Fox. What "other things"? Are you saying Fox is "attacking" immigrants with biased use of the word "illegal"? That would explain a whole lot about what you're trying to say. So when you said this: Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources. ...what you meant was that Fox doesn't just attack media outlets, they attack issues (and the people behind them)? If that's all you've been trying to say, then you completely missed my point in post #265. My point was that MSNBC tried to be the anti-Fox and used direct attacks against Fox to foster that image. Calling biased reporting "attacks" is very odd word usage and doesn't have anything to do with any of that.

And even if you apply it to people (Fox attacks Obama, MSNBC attacks Palin), it still has nothing at all to do with my post #265. The first link was relevant because Fox chose a synonym with negative connotations. Ok, understood: you missed my point and misused/misunderstood the use of the word "attack". If you want to go back and correct it, fine, but you've confirmed for me that none of your other links were relevant and there is no need for me to read further. You don't need to prove Fox is biased: no one is arguing that they aren't! That has nothing to do with what I was discussing.

P.P.S. I think it's past time someone provided an example of MSNBC being overtly biased. Wow, really? So you really do think MSNBC isn't very biased?! That's why I asked before!

Since we like photoshop so much: On November 13, 2009, in the days leading up to the release of 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue", MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan used photoshopped pictures of Palin on the channel's Morning Meeting program. Ratigan apologized a few days later stating, "I want to apologize to Governor Palin and all of our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Sarah Palin’s upcoming book Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment."[64] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Assertions_of_liberal_bias

That's from the MSNBC Wiki page, the section on MSNBC's liberal bias.

Now, there may also be an internal struggle with MSNBC regarding their bias, for example they had Olberman and Matthews anchoring their election coverage (also in the wiki): During the 2008 Presidential election, MSNBC's coverage was anchored by Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and David Gregory. The three were widely viewed as the face of the channel's political coverage.[29] During the first three months of the presidential campaign, MSNBC's ratings grew by 158 percent.[30] However, during the election coverage, anchors Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews were criticized for expressing left-leaning viewpoints on the channel, and both of them were later removed from the position of anchor.[31] Audience viewership during the 2008 Presidential election more than doubled from the 2004 Presidential election, and the channel topped CNN in ratings for the first time during the last three months of the campaign in the key 25-54 age demographic.[32][33] Their removal of Olberman and Matthews from that role implies to me they recognized they crossed a line with that level of bias. It would be akin to Fox having Glenn Beck anchoring the Fox election coverage. Instead, there is a separation maintained between the news reporting and the news talk shows. MSNBC crossed that line, then backtracked away from it.

[hillzagold]

On November 13, 2009, in the days leading up to the release of 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue", MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan used photoshopped pictures of Palin on the channel's Morning Meeting program. Ratigan apologized a few days later stating, "I want to apologize to Governor Palin and all of our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Sarah Palin’s upcoming book Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment."[64]
You didn't even look at those photos, did you


You say they don't attack while refusing to see my proof of their attacks. My big listed that covered a single week of what they did. This conversation ended then.

I'd also remind you that Beck is very critical of the Neo-con movement, and really 'got his stripes' critiquing President Bush (this esspecially when Savage and Rush skirted the issue of critiquing President Bush, esspecially the stimulus-type policies in his 2nd term).History means nothing to the right, or they would have denounced Beck's MLK rally that went against what MLK believed in. Remember that?

Oh, and Mege, you said the left was more defensive. Well the right is working pretty hard to defend Palin right about now.

[russ_watters]

You didn't even look at those photos, did you. Yes, I've seen them. What's your point? You say they don't attack while refusing to see my proof of their attacks. My big listed that covered a single week of what they did. This conversation ended then. No, I didn't say they didn't "attack", I said you misunderstood my usage of the word "attack" and launched into an irrelevant discussion from there. Again: I know Fox is biased. You don't need to prove it to me.

[WhoWee]

History means nothing to the right, or they would have denounced Beck's MLK rally that went against what MLK believed in. Remember that?

No? Please support this assertion with specific information.

[mege]

History means nothing to the right, or they would have denounced Beck's MLK rally that went against what MLK believed in. Remember that?


What? The 8-28 rally was very non-political.

Since we're establishing straw men arguements: let me dig up the photos post-828 rally and post-Obama inauguration and we can see who left the better mark. Would Dr. King have been happier about a crowd trashing the mall or happier about a crowd leaving it spotless?


Oh, and Mege, you said the left was more defensive. Well the right is working pretty hard to defend Palin right about now.

I never said the left was more defensive, I said that MSNBC used words like 'defend' and 'protect' to describe the Democrats (as opposed to the agressive, infighting republicans). Being a 'defender' is generally non-pejorative when compared to an agitator/agressor.

And defend Palin about what? Who's spending time defending Sarah Palin?

[ParticleGrl]

What? The 8-28 rally was very non-political.

I'm not sure thats true- much of the rally focused on America losing its honor and turning away from its values and from god, etc. The unspoken implication is that America lost its way when the country elected Obama...

Since we're establishing straw men arguements: let me dig up the photos post-828 rally and post-Obama inauguration and we can see who left the better mark.

Since you set it up, I'll knock it down. Of course 2 million+ people make more of a mess than 100,000.

[hillzagold]

Yes, I've seen them. What's your point?
And...what effect did you think the photoshops of Palin had?

No, I didn't say they didn't "attack", I said you misunderstood my usage of the word "attack" and launched into an irrelevant discussion from there. Again: I know Fox is biased. You don't need to prove it to me.
At what point does bias become so overt that it's attack? Maybe with false claims and misquotes?

No? Please support this assertion with specific information.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008250035
This sets up Beck's position with direct and clear quotes, then compares them with people who actually took part in the marches. So if you're already familiar with Beck, you could skip to the middle.

Would Dr. King have been happier about a crowd trashing the mall or happier about a crowd leaving it spotless?

The title of the 1963 demonstration, "The Great March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom," reflected his belief that the right to sit at a lunch counter would be hollow if African Americans could not afford the meal. The need for jobs and shared economic prosperity remains as urgent and compelling as it was 47 years ago. My father's vision would include putting millions of unemployed Americans to work, rebuilding our tattered infrastructure and reforms to reduce pollution and better care for the environment.
I guess you're right. Makes you wonder why MLK had his own marches though. I wish history could explain it.

And defend Palin about what? Who's spending time defending Sarah Palin?
Her Paul Revere incident, and supporting her in general.

[mege]

I'm not sure thats true- much of the rally focused on America losing its honor and turning away from its values and from god, etc. The unspoken implication is that America lost its way when the country elected Obama...


Maybe "crossed political lines" is a better term? Even Huffpo noted the non-political nature (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/28/post_497_n_698048.html) of the rally. It was asked specifically that folks do not bring political signs of any nature, and nearly everyone folks obliged. Do you view religion as a primarilly political activity?* (I'm trying to be direct, not accusitory)


Since you set it up, I'll knock it down. Of course 2 million+ people make more of a mess than 100,000.

2 million people are more incapable of picking up after themselves than 100,000 people? The density in the first mile of the mall area, I'd think, is still very similar. Even if the person-density for the inauguration is 2-3x what it was for Beck's rally in the mall area - how does that account for the stark difference? Or we can compare to the smaller leftist 'one nation' rally (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/one-nation-crowd-didnt-exactly-leave-the-mall-or-world-war-ii-memorial-spotless/) that was held at the Washington monument the same day as Beck's rally? (Yes I know the link is from Beck's The Blaze, please find pictures to the contrary if there are so?)

To bring it back to the original subject: both of these instances (the perspective of Beck's rally and the aftermath) are good examples of an anti-conservative bias by many news agencies. While I grew up going to church, I am far from religious in any sense of the word now - but I dispise the anti-religious slant that I see in the media. The portrayal of this rally as a 'crazy-fest' by some news outlets just extends on that anti-religious sentiment.

*I've pondered this before, but is the anti-right bias in the media fueled by a fear/dislike/distrust/hate/whatever of religion and it's turned into an all out distrust/dislike/etc of anything associated with the religious (and thus the target becomes the neo-con movement, still associated with the Republican party)?

[mege]

Her Paul Revere incident, and supporting her in general.

Oh, the the Paul Revere incident that: in their attempt to smear anything Sarah Palin the media got wrong (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_pal ins_historical_account/)? (and of course, the comback arguement is that she just got lucky, but then again it could still be 2008 (http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/obama-signs-westminster-abbey-guestbook-dates-it-2008)...)

[hillzagold]

Notice that of the three experts the Boston Herald cites, two of them seem reluctant to give her any credit? They make it sound like she guessed and was barely right on a small technicality. Reading the question she was asked, and hearing her nonsensical rambling, and then reading her adamant defense of herself, that's exactly what we all know happened. Neither Obama nor Bush would ever defend the wrong date they wrote down.

And this anti-religious slant you're seeing is centered around evangelical Christians. Maybe the world is just tired of their scams.

[WhoWee]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008250035
This sets up Beck's position with direct and clear quotes, then compares them with people who actually took part in the marches. So if you're already familiar with Beck, you could skip to the middle.


Do you have a non-biased source?:rofl:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1010/Soros_gives_1_million_to_Media_Matters.html

[hillzagold]

Do I need one? Have they even slightly lied yet?:rofl:

[mege]

Do I need one? Have they even slightly lied yet?:rofl:

Rush Limbaugh - 'Phony soldiers' comes to mind for starters. This situation, not directly MMFA related, was even worse because the congressional democrats sent Rush a letter attempting to silence him. 1st ammendment only counts when it's your POV I guess, I wonder where many of the journalists are getting it from (http://thefire.org/spotlight/scotm/).


And this anti-religious slant you're seeing is centered around evangelical Christians. Maybe the world is just tired of their scams.

You speak for the world? Christians are people too, lest we forget that. This is a broad divisive statement that is fundamentally what feeds this type of bias. A belief system is not good or bad for society in a binary matter like you're trying to claim. Unfortunately, this type of claim ('the world is just tired of their scams') is attempting to put down an entire group of people with a large stroke and it creates the (percieved) unique split of beliefs between the political parties.

[WhoWee]

You speak for the world? Christians are people too, lest we forget that. This is a broad divisive statement that is fundamentally what feeds this type of bias. A belief system is not good or bad for society in a binary matter like you're trying to claim. Unfortunately, this type of claim ('the world is just tired of their scams') is attempting to put down an entire group of people with a large stroke and it creates the (percieved) unique split of beliefs between the political parties.

No - it's ok - really! If the political Left wants to clearly identify themselves as "anti-religion" (except for the occasional defense of Muslim moments) - let them.

[Ryumast3r]

Oh, the the Paul Revere incident that: in their attempt to smear anything Sarah Palin the media got wrong (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_pal ins_historical_account/)? (and of course, the comback arguement is that she just got lucky, but then again it could still be 2008 (http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/obama-signs-westminster-abbey-guestbook-dates-it-2008)...)

If you are seriously considering a giant gaff like the Revere Ride thing from Palin (that she never corrected, and DEFENDED) basically the same level as a wrong date on a signature?

Hell, I put the wrong date in all the time, however, if I'm so confused/tired/whatever as to not remember basic history things, I say so instead of trying to make some stupid thing up and then later go on to defend myself and what I said.

[hillzagold]

You speak for the world? Christians are people too, lest we forget that. This is a broad divisive statement that is fundamentally what feeds this type of bias. A belief system is not good or bad for society in a binary matter like you're trying to claim. Unfortunately, this type of claim ('the world is just tired of their scams') is attempting to put down an entire group of people with a large stroke and it creates the (percieved) unique split of beliefs between the political parties.

No - it's ok - really! If the political Left wants to clearly identify themselves as "anti-religion" (except for the occasional defense of Muslim moments) - let them.


I'm a Catholic. And I will put down this group when their leadership pulls scams all the time. I've seen my share of Evangelical Christians do their healing con on TV, and then ask for "donations" from giant crowds of old white people. If the Left was so "anti-religion" they wouldn't be trying to help the poor, which is some 75% of Jesus' message in the bible. Not that I think many conservatives care what the bible says unless they're opening it to pull out the one or two lines that backs up their agenda.



Rush Limbaugh - 'Phony soldiers' comes to mind for starters. This situation, not directly MMFA related, was even worse because the congressional democrats sent Rush a letter attempting to silence him. 1st ammendment only counts when it's your POV I guess, I wonder where many of the journalists are getting it from.Please tell me more, because that doesn't quite sound the the story I heard.




http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/18/90669/state-of-the-health-care-debate.html
This the the most despicable thing I've ever read about Limbaugh and Beck, and I bet it doesn't even scratch the surface.

[mege]

If you are seriously considering a giant gaff like the Revere Ride thing from Palin (that she never corrected, and DEFENDED) basically the same level as a wrong date on a signature?

Hell, I put the wrong date in all the time, however, if I'm so confused/tired/whatever as to not remember basic history things, I say so instead of trying to make some stupid thing up and then later go on to defend myself and what I said.

This is the double-standard though. You're willing to turn a blind eye towards President Obama for his 'innocent mistake' but then still attack Sarah Palin for her mistake that I'd wager 50% of Americans would still have gotten wrong (even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?). Maybe a bunch of 8th or 11th graders straight out of american history would know the answer, but adults with little interest in revolutionary war history would probably stumble on an answer (I'd remind you that most reading this forum are probably much more knowledgable than the general populace). If you're going to try and put weight to their mistakes - how are you basing that on? A Trivial Persuit question vs knowing the date?

I'm a Catholic, you morons.

OK, I'm done replying to hillzagold. Name calling = bad.

[hillzagold]

How convenient that you're not replying to me anymore. I've only torn through your arguments until you stop replying anyways.

[Al68]

If the Left was so "anti-religion" they wouldn't be trying to help the poor, which is some 75% of Jesus' message in the bible.That's utter nonsense. For one thing, you don't have to be religious in order to help the poor.

But more to the point, Jesus never advocated the use of force to take the property of others to help the poor. He, in fact, advocated the opposite, ie voluntary charity to help the poor.

But being a Catholic, you must know this already. :uhh:

[hillzagold]

Being a Catholic, I know there was no such thing as voting 2000 years ago. But if you didn't know, the days of Caesar are over. :uhh:

[Al68]

Being a Catholic, I know there was no such thing as voting 2000 years ago. But if you didn't know, the days of Caesar are over. :uhh:Yes, I'm aware. That doesn't change the reality of the facts I pointed out. Just saying irrelevant things isn't very productive.

[hillzagold]

You're talking about the Left's method's of attaining equity, aren't you?

[Al68]

You're talking about the Left's method's of attaining equity, aren't you?I was referring to the left's method to "help the poor", which contrary to your implication, was never advocated or suggested by Jesus, and is prohibited multiple times in the bible including in the eighth commandment.

Jesus advocated voluntary charity, you know, the kind right-wingers like me advocate and engage in instead of theft.

[Ryumast3r]

This is the double-standard though. You're willing to turn a blind eye towards President Obama for his 'innocent mistake' but then still attack Sarah Palin for her mistake that I'd wager 50% of Americans would still have gotten wrong (even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?).

It's not a double standard. There's mistakes, and then there's "Oh hi, I totally know nothing about the subject, but I'm going to ramble on about it as if I do know and then later defend myself after it's proven I'm wrong."

Anyone can mistakenly give a wrong number in the heat of the moment. There are several key differences:

The current date is always changing, history isn't.
If someone called Obama out on his little date mistake, I'm sure he would've owned up to it (or said something along the lines of "is it really that big of a deal?" which it isn't)
Then there's also that it's when people like her, who are "famous" make mistakes like this, little kids learn from that and only adds to the misinformation out there, whether or not she intended it.

"(even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?)."

Dates aren't a big issue though, especially on a signature for a guest card, we're not even talking about a date that's important, like when you sign a big agreement for a business or something... we're talking about a "hi, I was here, just thought I'd let you know" signature that amounts to nothing more than a little bit of courtesy.

Maybe a bunch of 8th or 11th graders straight out of american history would know the answer, but adults with little interest in revolutionary war history would probably stumble on an answer (I'd remind you that most reading this forum are probably much more knowledgable than the general populace).

I know a lot of stupid people who aren't history buffs, or even interested in history, who still know that sarah palin's version was pretty much wrong. "The British are coming" is a pretty well-known phrase.

If you're going to try and put weight to their mistakes - how are you basing that on? A Trivial Persuit question vs knowing the date?

She referred to the constitution as well in her answer, something that is on her mind a lot (at least, from her campaigns, you'd think it would be). That would be more important than a date imo, especially a date that, again, was on a guest-list paper.... not an important document.

[mege]

It's not a double standard. There's mistakes, and then there's "Oh hi, I totally know nothing about the subject, but I'm going to ramble on about it as if I do know and then later defend myself after it's proven I'm wrong."

Anyone can mistakenly give a wrong number in the heat of the moment. There are several key differences:

The current date is always changing, history isn't.
If someone called Obama out on his little date mistake, I'm sure he would've owned up to it (or said something along the lines of "is it really that big of a deal?" which it isn't)
Then there's also that it's when people like her, who are "famous" make mistakes like this, little kids learn from that and only adds to the misinformation out there, whether or not she intended it.

"(even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?)."

Dates aren't a big issue though, especially on a signature for a guest card, we're not even talking about a date that's important, like when you sign a big agreement for a business or something... we're talking about a "hi, I was here, just thought I'd let you know" signature that amounts to nothing more than a little bit of courtesy.



I know a lot of stupid people who aren't history buffs, or even interested in history, who still know that sarah palin's version was pretty much wrong. "The British are coming" is a pretty well-known phrase.



She referred to the constitution as well in her answer, something that is on her mind a lot (at least, from her campaigns, you'd think it would be). That would be more important than a date imo, especially a date that, again, was on a guest-list paper.... not an important document.

How do kids learn the wrong history from this incident (since that is your main indictment in dealing with the severity of Palin being wrong)? Since the media coverage has mostly been portrayed as it actually being a mistake - wouldn't kids be more apt to learn the media's version of history? If she made some formalized video about this and got it wrong and it was already being played to children then sure, critique away. But how is headlines 'PALIN IS DUMB - PAUL REVERE DIDN'T WARN BRITISH' going to give schoolchildren the wrong view of history? If anything it's going to cause conversation that will reinforce potentially positive aspects of evaluating history. Palin's gaffe can only be a good thing for education as it will allow a conversation about history being more than just a single quote or soundbite (weither she is wrong or right, I doubt her actual words are being used to teach kids).

What I would be more worried about is how quickly the media was willing to jump on her without totally getting the facts right. That is how misinformation spreads - the media being too willing to lampoon an individual without totally vetting their own information. Journalists are people too, and make mistakes - but also in their humanity many have a knack for jealousy and prejudice which muddys the water by causing them to take certain 'facts' or lies for granted to prove their point.

[hillzagold]

I was referring to the left's method to "help the poor", which contrary to your implication, was never advocated or suggested by Jesus, and is prohibited multiple times in the bible including in the eighth commandment.

Jesus advocated voluntary charity, you know, the kind right-wingers like me advocate and engage in instead of theft.

That's because the Lefts method didn't exist at the time. Did you know the US Constitution has no provision for an Air Force? Times change, and the world changes. Do you believe Jesus would have wanted people to remain in poverty, because the upper and middle class right felt robber? I doubt it.

Also, Palin is as right as Global Warming is wrong. You'll notice you can count all the historians backing up Palin with your fingers, and even they only say she's technically right on a small number of her points.




Mege, this fixation of Obama writing the wrong date has simply become weird by now. You can tell me it isn't, but you'd need a new argument that isn't as weird.

[Ryumast3r]

How do kids learn the wrong history from this incident (since that is your main indictment in dealing with the severity of Palin being wrong)? Since the media coverage has mostly been portrayed as it actually being a mistake - wouldn't kids be more apt to learn the media's version of history? If she made some formalized video about this and got it wrong and it was already being played to children then sure, critique away. But how is headlines 'PALIN IS DUMB - PAUL REVERE DIDN'T WARN BRITISH' going to give schoolchildren the wrong view of history? If anything it's going to cause conversation that will reinforce potentially positive aspects of evaluating history. Palin's gaffe can only be a good thing for education as it will allow a conversation about history being more than just a single quote or soundbite (weither she is wrong or right, I doubt her actual words are being used to teach kids).

What I would be more worried about is how quickly the media was willing to jump on her without totally getting the facts right. That is how misinformation spreads - the media being too willing to lampoon an individual without totally vetting their own information. Journalists are people too, and make mistakes - but also in their humanity many have a knack for jealousy and prejudice which muddys the water by causing them to take certain 'facts' or lies for granted to prove their point.

My main point here is that her gaff is not on the same level as Obama's mistaken date gaff. I have seen nothing here to say anything to the contrary.

[Evo]

Actually, Palin wasn't close at all.

The colonists at the time of Revere's ride were British subjects, with American independence still in the future. But Revere's own writing and other historical accounts leave little doubt that secrecy was vital to his mission.

The Paul Revere House's website says that on April 18, 1775, Dr. Joseph Warren, a patriot leader in the Boston area, instructed Revere to ride to Lexington, Mass., to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them.

In an undated letter posted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, Revere later wrote of the need to keep his activities secret and his suspicion that a member of his tight circle of planners had become a British informant. According to the letter, believed to have been written around 1798, Revere did provide some details of the plan to the soldiers that night, but after he had notified other colonists and under questioning by the Redcoats.

Intercepted and surrounded by British soldiers on his way from Lexington to Concord, Revere revealed "there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the country all the way up," he wrote.

Revere was probably bluffing the soldiers about the size of any advancing militia, since he had no way of knowing, according to Joel J. Miller, author of "The Revolutionary Paul Revere." And while he made bells, Revere would never have rung any on that famous night because the Redcoats were under orders to round up people just like him.

"He was riding off as quickly and as quietly as possible," Miller said. "Paul Revere did not want the Redcoats to know of his mission at all."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110605/ap_on_el_ge/us_palin

Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic.