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

[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/wa...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/wa...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."

 

[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 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.

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 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.

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.

 

[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, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[/b

That'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: Authoritarianism

That 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx" 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/...-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/...-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: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.