Why is Fox News so chaotic and unorganized?

[2CentsWorth]

One Question ... could you tell which was which?

Exactly the irony of the whole thing. While the Daily Show is a comedic review of the news, it is a review of real news, and more honest in that it reviews the absurdity of the constant spin not only by politicians but by...that's right, the mainstream media. No wonder conservatives don't like the show, huh?

 

[Skyhunter]

Propaganda is a very tricky thing, sometimes it backfires.

Remember when FOX sued Al Frankin because he used the term "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his book?

Not only did they lose the lawsuit, the free publicity helped sell his book. Now Bill O'Reilly won't even say his name.

 

[SOS2008]

FOX News has also been sued for the use of "Fair and Balanced" as a tag line on the basis of false advertisement.

Though FAUX News' bias is so blatantly obvious, the so-called mainstream media is often conservative leaning as well. For example, in reporting about the invasion/occupation in Iraq, CNN refers to it as the continuing "war on terror." How can incorrect beliefs be corrected in such an environment as what we are living in now?

 

[outsider]

FOX News has also been sued for the use of "Fair and Balanced" as a tag line on the basis of false advertisement.

Though FAUX News' bias is so blatantly obvious, the so-called mainstream media is often conservative leaning as well. For example, in reporting about the invasion/occupation in Iraq, CNN refers to it as the continuing "war on terror." How can incorrect beliefs be corrected in such an environment as what we are living in now?

This is the irony of "News Media"... is it News first? or Entertainment first?

With ratings being the number 1 goal in all media, the News can be just as entertaining as some of the other garbage that's on the tube. They find more attractive personalities, with easy going, humorous personalities to sell you the message that has been prepackaged and edited to suit the station and made palatable for the public (or not, considering the effect they are looking for).

They use a more exciting format than they did before... that's for sure. So the FAUX NEWS would be a step in the right direction I think... the less believable, the more lies, the more apparent the liars... Hopefully people can see where this train is heading in time to get off (wait that sounds like propoganda... strike that last comment... :tongue2: )

 

[SOS2008]

This is the irony of "News Media"... is it News first? or Entertainment first?

With ratings being the number 1 goal in all media, the News can be just as entertaining as some of the other garbage that's on the tube. They find more attractive personalities, with easy going, humorous personalities to sell you the message that has been prepackaged and edited to suit the station and made palatable for the public (or not, considering the effect they are looking for).

They use a more exciting format than they did before... that's for sure. So the FAUX NEWS would be a step in the right direction I think... the less believable, the more lies, the more apparent the liars... Hopefully people can see where this train is heading in time to get off (wait that sounds like propoganda... strike that last comment... :tongue2: )

How many people watch professional wrestling, for example and will swear to you it's real? These are the same people who watch FOX and support Bush.

 

[Archon]

This is the irony of "News Media"... is it News first? or Entertainment first?

With ratings being the number 1 goal in all media, the News can be just as entertaining as some of the other garbage that's on the tube. They find more attractive personalities, with easy going, humorous personalities to sell you the message that has been prepackaged and edited to suit the station and made palatable for the public (or not, considering the effect they are looking for).

They use a more exciting format than they did before... that's for sure. So the FAUX NEWS would be a step in the right direction I think... the less believable, the more lies, the more apparent the liars... Hopefully people can see where this train is heading in time to get off (wait that sounds like propoganda... strike that last comment... :tongue2: )

What?? I though Fox News was supposed to be comedy! Well, that shows what I know.

Seriously, it's sad that there should even be any question about whether the news is supposed to be entertainment or objective, unbiased information. If I want entertainment, then I can change the channel and watch a movie. I shouldn't have to hunt through source after source before I can find out what's really going on.

On a tangent vaguely related to my first comment: I sometimes read and watch people like O'Reilly and Coulter, just for the fun of it. Yes indeed, with the right attitude, even neocons are funny. But then I think, "these are real people whose opinions are shared by many Americans. Good Lord!" and I wonder what the world is coming to.

 

[The Smoking Man]

On a tangent vaguely related to my first comment: I sometimes read and watch people like O'Reilly and Coulter, just for the fun of it. Yes indeed, with the right attitude, even neocons are funny. But then I think, "these are real people whose opinions are shared by many Americans. Good Lord!" and I wonder what the world is coming to.

What is scarier is that their opinions become the opinions of the porch monkeys who are too stupid to think for themselves but who value the Second Amendment support the Ultra right gives them.

They would rather have a gun above all else.

Watching Bush give them the right to use those guns in a war is basicaly a wet dream for them. (Sometimes I wonder just what it is we are supposed to 'pry from their cold dead hands'.)

 

[Archon]

What is scarier is that their opinions become the opinions of the porch monkeys who are too stupid to think for themselves but who value the Second Amendment support the Ultra right gives them.

They would rather have a gun above all else.

Watching Bush give them the right to use those guns in a war is basicaly a wet dream for them. (Sometimes I wonder just what it is we are supposed to 'pry from their cold dead hands'.)

I don't understand people who say that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own guns for whatever reason they want them. First, the Second Amendment is really rendered obsolete by the first 13 words it contains ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." We have an army for external "threats." Internal threats: it's exactly those people who want guns that shouldn't fear a takeover by neoconservatives. Liberals, maybe. But not conservatives.). Then, I have to ask anyone who thinks like this: "When's the last time you were part of a militia protecting the security of a free State?"

It might be justifiable if they argued that guns are necessary for the reason given in the Second Amendment, but they don't. They think it's their right to own a gun for whatever purpose they could want one. This isn't reasonable. We don't sell powerful explosives to people, even though they can be used for nonviolent things. So why sell guns to people?

 

[SOS2008]

I don't understand people who say that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own guns for whatever reason they want them. First, the Second Amendment is really rendered obsolete by the first 13 words it contains ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." We have an army for external "threats." Internal threats: it's exactly those people who want guns that shouldn't fear a takeover by neoconservatives. Liberals, maybe. But not conservatives.). Then, I have to ask anyone who thinks like this: "When's the last time you were part of a militia protecting the security of a free State?"

It might be justifiable if they argued that guns are necessary for the reason given in the Second Amendment, but they don't. They think it's their right to own a gun for whatever purpose they could want one. This isn't reasonable. We don't sell powerful explosives to people, even though they can be used for nonviolent things. So why sell guns to people?

The original intent of the right to bear arms is to be able to revolt against tyranny. I don't know about you, but I feel we are living very close to this kind of situation. Second, though the Minutemen helping to protect our borders are not armed, it is an example of a recent need to protect the security of our country where the federal government has failed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The original intent of the right to bear arms is to be able to revolt against tyranny. I don't know about you, but I feel we are living very close to this kind of situation.

This is the only reason why I would support the right to bear arms. Unfortunately it would be damn near impossible for us to defend ourselves from our government anymore.
---edit---
And to protect us from each other on occasion too, I forgot to add.
----------

Second, though the Minutemen helping to protect our borders are not armed, it is an example of a recent need to protect the security of our country where the federal government has failed.

Some do carry guns. But you're right in that they aren't meant to be an armed force.

 

[outsider]

What?? I though Fox News was supposed to be comedy! Well, that shows what I know.

Seriously, it's sad that there should even be any question about whether the news is supposed to be entertainment or objective, unbiased information. If I want entertainment, then I can change the channel and watch a movie. I shouldn't have to hunt through source after source before I can find out what's really going on.

On a tangent vaguely related to my first comment: I sometimes read and watch people like O'Reilly and Coulter, just for the fun of it. Yes indeed, with the right attitude, even neocons are funny. But then I think, "these are real people whose opinions are shared by many Americans. Good Lord!" and I wonder what the world is coming to.

Haha.. good point... and in the same way those people watch Bill Maher and think the exact same thing!

What is scarier is that their opinions become the opinions of the porch monkeys who are too stupid to think for themselves but who value the Second Amendment support the Ultra right gives them.

They would rather have a gun above all else.

The gun is "insurance" so they can bulldoze anyone who gets in their way. I a robber comes up to you and asks for your wallet, the odds are less than 50/50... however if they brandish anything remotely close to a gun, the odds get increased dramatically.

So, I don't know what the terrorists want with taking away the FREEDOM (of America) that they don't directly benefit from. Terrorists are free in their country (i'm pretty sure) to do what they please. I do, however, see the benefit of Bush & Company controlling a strategic geographic location on the map.

No one should believe that this is a short sighted plan to quell the the terrorising countries. The plan in play is a longterm vision. America has the power, resources and political clout to create a model for the world to follow which would propogate peace... why choose war? Lead by example! Way to go Canada!

 

[Grogs]

This is the only reason why I would support the right to bear arms. Unfortunately it would be damn near impossible for us to defend ourselves from our government anymore.
---edit---

I agree with you here. When I was in the Army, we were playing a war game and I was the gunner on a M113 (personnel carrier.) I had a .50 cal machine gun and when we ran into an M-1 tank, I emptied the whole belt on the tank. The result was no damage to the tank and my APC was destroyed. If the army shows up at your house with tanks, you're going to lose, no question about it.

---edit---
And to protect us from each other on occasion too, I forgot to add.

This is the *nice* aspect about guns. If someone breaks into my house, I don't have to worry about how big he is and whether or not I can take him in unarmed combat. Pretty much everyone goes down if you shoot them in the chest with a gun. Of course you would think that, given the number of private gun owners we (the U.S.) have, fewer people would break into your house. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Moonbear]

What?? I though Fox News was supposed to be comedy! Well, that shows what I know.

Seriously, it's sad that there should even be any question about whether the news is supposed to be entertainment or objective, unbiased information. If I want entertainment, then I can change the channel and watch a movie. I shouldn't have to hunt through source after source before I can find out what's really going on.

Yes, this is really the unfortunate part. Do they even teach journalism students about gathering facts and letting their readers/viewers draw the conclusions anymore? It's definitely not just Fox, but all of the news channels anymore. It gets hard to sift out what part of the stories are the facts and what's the opinion.

On a tangent vaguely related to my first comment: I sometimes read and watch people like O'Reilly and Coulter, just for the fun of it. Yes indeed, with the right attitude, even neocons are funny. But then I think, "these are real people whose opinions are shared by many Americans. Good Lord!" and I wonder what the world is coming to.

One thing I wonder about is to what extent is the media influencing people's opinions, and to what extent are people's opinions influencing their choice of media? I just don't know if it would matter if folks like O'Reilly and Coulter were suddenly out of the picture; the people who listen to them and take them seriously already believe this stuff and seem to seek out those sources because they agree with them rather than because they're really interested in the facts. And you do see this on both ends of the political spectrum. There are people who are extremely liberal and rather than listen to any mainstream media, go off reading liberal blogs that agree with their opinions and weight those as being more truthful, even if there's no verification of the content.

 

[Archon]

The original intent of the right to bear arms is to be able to revolt against tyranny. I don't know about you, but I feel we are living very close to this kind of situation. Second, though the Minutemen helping to protect our borders are not armed, it is an example of a recent need to protect the security of our country where the federal government has failed.

These things are true, but:
1) In general, those people who most avidly seek to own guns are the more extreme conservatives. These people probably don't have to fear a Bush/neocon-led tyranny, since they (again, in general) agree with his policies.
2) A lot of people who argue for their right to bear arms don't participate in any sort of militia-type activity. They want guns for fun or for personal protection. Anyway, if some sort of tyranny was imposed, how many people would actually try to fight the U.S. army? A militia protecting the people against tyranny was feasible two hundred years ago because there wasn't as great a gap in weapondry between "real" soldiers and militia members. Today, this just isn't true. If it somehow came to this, the U.S. army could crush any popular revolt (assuming large numbers of soldiers didn't join the rebellion).
3) Like I said, if they at least argued that they need guns to protect themselves from the potential tyranny of Bush (for instance), then it would seem a great deal more reasonable. But they don't.

 

[selfAdjoint]

These things are true, but:
1) In general, those people who most avidly seek to own guns are the more extreme conservatives. These people probably don't have to fear a Bush/neocon-led tyranny, since they (again, in general) agree with his policies.

This is a false stereotype of gun owners. Many gun owners are against the Democrats because the Democrats as a party are fiercely anti-gun. That doesn't make gun owners right wing extremists, or even necessariy pro-Bush.

2) A lot of people who argue for their right to bear arms don't participate in any sort of militia-type activity. They want guns for fun or for personal protection. Anyway, if some sort of tyranny was imposed, how many people would actually try to fight the U.S. army? A militia protecting the people against tyranny was feasible two hundred years ago because there wasn't as great a gap in weapondry between "real" soldiers and militia members. Today, this just isn't true. If it somehow came to this, the U.S. army could crush any popular revolt (assuming large numbers of soldiers didn't join the rebellion).

All of that is irrelevant to the relationship between guns and rebellion. Back right after the fall of Baghdad, anti-gun propagandists were deriding the gun/rebellion link because the population of Iraq has a large percentage of gun owners. Yet, it was said, they didn't revolt. I haven't heard this argument made recently, for some reason BTW, the current uprising in Iraq shows how weak the "Armies have much better arms than private citizens" argument is.

3) Like I said, if they at least argued that they need guns to protect themselves from the potential tyranny of Bush (for instance), then it would seem a great deal more reasonable. But they don't.

So you can't accept gun owners unless they think like left wing partisans?

 

[Archon]

This is a false stereotype of gun owners. Many gun owners are against the Democrats because the Democrats as a party are fiercely anti-gun. That doesn't make gun owners right wing extremists, or even necessariy pro-Bush.

More than this, the point was that Democrats aren't in general (notice these two words) pro-gun, even though they seem to have more need of the protection that guns would provide from tyranny. Note that the government is conservative. You can replace "more extreme conservatives" with "conservatives in general" at your leisure.

Also, can you provide some sources to back up your belief that those people who most avidly seek to own guns aren't in general the more extreme conservatives? Becuase I still think the words "avidly" and "in general" make this statement true.

All of that is irrelevant to the relationship between guns and rebellion. Back right after the fall of Baghdad, anti-gun propagandists were deriding the gun/rebellion link because the population of Iraq has a large percentage of gun owners. Yet, it was said, they didn't revolt. I haven't heard this argument made recently, for some reason BTW, the current uprising in Iraq shows how weak the "Armies have much better arms than private citizens" argument is.

The so-called uprising in Iraq is not composed of people toting small arms or even "conventional" weapons of any type. The great majority of "insurgents" use terrorism precisely because a direct confrontation of the obviously superior American forces is simultaneously suicidal and ineffectual.

You seem to be comparing me to "anti-gun propagandists deriding the gun/rebellion link," even though my position is that guns ownership is reasonable if it's for exactly this purpose. I'm just saying that if a rebellion becomes necessary, it won't be a good idea for you to jump in front of a column of heavily-armed American soldiers and start shooting your handgun at them.

So you can't accept gun owners unless they think like left wing partisans?

This is true if you think that the framers of the Constitution were "left wing partisans." Because it is not I, but the Constitution, that mentions the right to bear arms specifically in the context of the need for a militia. Reread the Second Amendment.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is true if you think that the framers of the Constitution were "left wing partisans." Because it is not I, but the Constitution, that mentions the right to bear arms specifically in the context of the need for a militia. Reread the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As you can see it mentions a militia being necessary to the security of a free state as a reason but it does not specifically state that the right to bear arms is for this purpose only.

And this is getting rather off topic.

 

[The Smoking Man]

As you can see it mentions a militia being necessary to the security of a free state as a reason but it does not specifically state that the right to bear arms is for this purpose only.

And this is getting rather off topic.

Has nobody in America yet figured out that 'Militia' seems to have had a different meaning in the time of the founding fathers?

Have they also figured out that the Militia was the 'national guard' of the day? THEY WERE PAID TROOPS!

This is from Thomas Jefferson's http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=JefVirg&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed Published: 1781-1782:

"Military force"
The number and condition of the militia and regular troops, and their pay?
Military​

[Note: I cut the tables which state the strength of the 'Militia' based on the census]

Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia. Those of every county are formed into companies, and these again into one or more battalions, according to the numbers in the county. They are commanded by colonels, and other subordinate officers, as in the regular service. In every county is a county-lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county, but ranks only as a colonel in the field. We have no general officers always existing. These are appointed occasionally, when an invasion or insurrection happens, and their commission determines with the occasion. The governor is head of the military, as well as civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service. But this injunction was always indifferently complied with, and the arms they had have been so frequently called for to arm the regulars, that in the lower parts of the country they are entirely disarmed. In the middle country a fourth or fifth part of them may have such firelocks as they had provided to destroy the noxious animals which infest their farms; and on the western side of the Blue ridge they are generally armed with rifles. The pay of our militia, as well as of our regulars, is that of the Continental regulars. The condition of our regulars, of whom we have none but Continentals, and part of a battalion of state troops, is so constantly on the change, that a state of it at this day would not be its state a month hence. It is much the same with the condition of the other Continental troops, which is well enough known.

"Marine force"
The marine?​

Marine

Before the present invasion of this state by the British under the command of General Phillips, we had three vessels of 16 guns, one of 14, five small gallies, and two or three armed boats. They were generally so badly manned as seldom to be in condition for service. Since the perfect possession of our rivers assumed by the enemy, believe we are left with a single armed boat only.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The term militia now a days is almost a dirty word. You might as well call some one a member of the KKK or a neo nazi. Here in the US anyway.

 

[edward]

Hmm It looks like a good portion of our militia is now in Iraq. And for arms they aren't using the six shooters that they kept under their beds at home.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The term militia now a days is almost a dirty word. You might as well call some one a member of the KKK or a neo nazi. Here in the US anyway.

Yes but do you realize it was a form of draft?

These people were EXPECTED to fight and could be 'http://www.ushistory.org/brandywine/special/art01.htm '.:

Who Were the Minutemen?​

Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.

Although today Minutemen are thought of as connected to the Revolutionary War in America, their existence was conceived in Massachusetts during the mid-seventeenth century. As early as 1645, men were selected from the militia ranks to be dressed with matchlocks or pikes and accoutrements within half an hour of being warned. In 1689 another type of Minuteman company came into existence. Called Snowshoemen, each was to "provide himself with a good pair of snowshoes, one pair of moggisons, and one hatchet" and to be ready to march on a moment's warning. Minutemen also played a role in the French and Indian War in the 1750's. A journal entry from Samuel Thompson, a Massachusetts militia officer, states, "...but when our men were gone, they sent eleven more at one minute's warning, with 3 days provision..." By the time of the Revolution, Minutemen had been a well-trained force for six generations in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Every town had maintained its 'training band'. The adversity that this region faced-Native-American uprisings, war with France, and potential for local insurrections, social unrest, and rioting-provided ample reason to adhere to a sound militia organization.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes but do you realize it was a form of draft?

These people were EXPECTED to fight and could be 'http://www.ushistory.org/brandywine/special/art01.htm '.:

That's more or less the way it worked back then just about anywhere isn't it? Young men were expected to take part in the military in one fashion or another. They still have mandatory military service in a number of countries.

So are you just trying to get at the idea that these people were considered military so a non-military militia, representative of the community itself or just a particular group of citizens, is not what was intended by the framers of teh constitution?

We really ought to split this to another thread.

 

[The Smoking Man]

That's more or less the way it worked back then just about anywhere isn't it? Young men were expected to take part in the military in one fashion or another. They still have mandatory military service in a number of countries.

So are you just trying to get at the idea that these people were considered military so a non-military militia, representative of the community itself or just a particular group of citizens, is not what was intended by the framers of teh constitution?

That is exactly what I am saying and that the militia itself was under the direct control of state government as described by Jefferson's description of the Command structure. Note also that the commanders are also appointed and 'commissioned'.

Those of every county are formed into companies, and these again into one or more battalions, according to the numbers in the county. They are commanded by colonels, and other subordinate officers, as in the regular service. In every county is a county-lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county, but ranks only as a colonel in the field. We have no general officers always existing. These are appointed occasionally, when an invasion or insurrection happens, and their commission determines with the occasion. The governor is head of the military, as well as civil power.

Those are Jefferson's own words. Obviously the gun lobby of today interprets the word using today's meaning and applies it so.

If we had a pice of legislation from the 17th century stating that 'all people have the right to be happy and gay', that would be like saying they meant them to be 'happy and homosexual' because of the change in word meaning.