News Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[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.)

 

[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

[/URL]

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

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 business 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 doesn't need to print money to inflate the currency). To compensate, every company as well as every individual that uses their 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 doesn't go at all with the original topic. I was going to erase it, but I type so slow I couldn't 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 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2365264#post2365264. 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]

http://news.google.com/news/story?p...en&topic=w&ncl=d-zAxdBGnJfL-kMQWXcNqrn5TvSDM"

 

[Choronzon]

http://news.google.com/news/story?p...en&topic=w&ncl=d-zAxdBGnJfL-kMQWXcNqrn5TvSDM"

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 there's 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 there's 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 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 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.