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

[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 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 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 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ns/politics/" . 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 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 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 youYou 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 aggressive, 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 that's 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 that's 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 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 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 http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/" ...)

 

[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?
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?

 

[mege]

Do I need one? Have they even slightly lied yet?

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 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 http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/" ...)

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 knowledgeable 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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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 knowledgeable 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.