- #281
Char. Limit
Gold Member
- 1,222
- 22
So, Vanadium, do you consider the question "Was Obama born in the US" a trick question?
Ryumast3r said: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.
Vanadium 50 said: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.
Alfi said: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 said: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."
Perspicacity said: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?
Perspicacity said: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 said:So, Vanadium, do you consider the question "Was Obama born in the US" a trick question?
Ryumast3r said: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.
Ryumast3r said: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
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.
Perspicacity said: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.
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.Char. Limit said: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 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.Ryumast3r said: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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx" like the U.S.Ryumast3r said:You are really pushing it there since really hardly any of it reaches any level close to Marxism. Socialism =/= Communism.
WhoWee said: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 said:Cable news ratings. Why can't we conclude that a lot of people watch basic TV for their news?
WhoWee said: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?
Ryumast3r said: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
Ryumast3r said: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
Vanadium 50 said:Which is why it's a trick question. The correct answer is "Jimmy Carter".
Ryumast3r said: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.
Ryumast3r said:At this point I think you're pulling at straws. Explain the birth certificate issue now. How are they that misinformed?
russ_watters said: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.
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."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.
hillzagold said: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."
flyingpig said:Is this a joke? Do you honestly believe anything those idiot reporters report?
mege said: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 said: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?
Ryumast3r said: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).
Perspicacity said: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 said: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.
Ryumast3r said: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.
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.hillzagold said: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.
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: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 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.Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.
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.The first link was relevant because Fox chose a synonym with negative connotations.
Wow, really? So you really do think MSNBC isn't very biased?! That's why I asked before!P.P.S. I think it's past time someone provided an example of MSNBC being overtly biased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Assertions_of_liberal_biasOn 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]
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.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]
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.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]
History means nothing to the right, or they would have denounced Beck's MLK rally that went against what MLK believed in. Remember that?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).