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

[Hepth]

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

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

 

[Count Iblis]

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

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

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

Ehh cmon!

 

[Choronzon]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

...

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

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

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

 

[Choronzon]

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

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

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

 

[Count Iblis]

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

Ehh cmon!

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

 

[mheslep]

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pythagorean]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

You only got one out of three of those correct.

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

And something I didn't actually know until looking into the specifics: legally, statutory rape is not necessarily separated from violent rape like we tend to view it:

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

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

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rape

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

 

[mheslep]

rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling.

Or drugging the victim

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

 

[Choronzon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

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

 

[mugaliens]

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

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

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

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

 

[dlgoff]

...Fox delved much further into the history of the Middle East leading up to the current divisions of the countries, the backgrounds of the current leaders and how they got there, what the various Imams are saying and calling for via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81" , and the goals of the various factions vying for power throughout the region.

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

 

[klimatos]

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

 

[Nicodemus]

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

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

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

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

 

[Proton Soup]

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

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

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

 

[Nicodemus]

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

 

[humanino]

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

 

[Nicodemus]

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

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

BTW - did I use the word "friends"?