- #36
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,125
- 10,300
Nor did Beck have anything to do with the march in Washington last weekend. That's discussed here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=336730
This is just too easy. CNN continuously refers to health care "reform", and portrays the two sides as those in favor of health care "reform" and those against it.Wax said:What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked?
I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?russ_watters said:Kyleb, you are really arguing a usless line of thought here. You don't have to argue your way into a point about Fox's bias: I agree that Fox is biased. So now what?
kyleb said:I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?
Besides even this, to sue for false advertising one must be a consumer of the product who was misled by the advertising and can demonstrate and quantify damages incurred as a direct result of the false advertising.drankin said:It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point? "Fox Network has dishonest marketing!". So friggin what. Most marketing slogans are. To take it seriously and cry fowl is laughable. It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.
I wasn't making a point there, I was asking a question about a point another poster made.drankin said:It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point?
Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.drankin said:It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.
Did anyone suggest legal action here?TheStatutoryApe said:Besides even this, to sue for false advertising one must be a consumer of the product who was misled by the advertising and can demonstrate and quantify damages incurred as a direct result of the false advertising.
kyleb said:Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.
kyleb said:Did anyone suggest legal action here?
Who are you accusing of saying Fox is guilty of false advertising? Who is doing the hand waving here?TheStatutoryApe said:What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?
TheStatutoryApe said:What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?
kyleb said:Who are you accusing of saying Fox is guilty of false advertising? Who is doing the hand waving here?
Right, I see nothing honest about it, but nothing illegal either. I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.TheStatutoryApe said:You were only saying you thought it was dishonest, not that it was false advertising?
kyleb said:I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.
"Water is dry" is a fact-based statement.kyleb said:I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?
Even if someone holds a contest and finds that I make the worst steaks in town, nothing has changed. Subjective is subjective.Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.
People are searching for a point in your posts, kyleb. If you're not suggesting a remedy for this, then you're just arguing to be argumentative:Did anyone suggest legal action here?
The two sentences seem to contradict each other. Are you saying in the first that it is not, in fact, illegal and in the second that you believe it should be illegal??kyleb said:Right, I see nothing honest about it, but nothing illegal either. I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.
So then you think that ethics are the basis of our laws, but you don't think they should be?It seems you have mistaken me for an authoritarian. I don't believe anything should be illegal other than that which demonstrability infringes on the rights of others, and that is hardly the case here.
russ_watters said:Lol, jack, I'm a moderate to medium conservative Republican. I'm not sure that post you replied to gave any clues to that, but neither do I think it implied I wasn't!
WhoWee said:That's pretty funny.:uhh:
In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn [Broken]
Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.
byronm said:A little research..
A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.But hey, if i was a farmer and i heard they were conserving water for fish i'd be pissed to.. But look at it this way.. if you kill those fish and all the fish that eat those fish just to have short term water supplies that won't meet the water demands of 10 years from now then not only will the farmers continue to suffer but the fisherman, the sport fishing and commercial fishing sectors and wildlife in general that depends on any fish protein that is up the food chain from those little minnows.
Easy to blame environmentalists.. however.. maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using that much water anyway that we have to risk entire species of fish to survive in conditions that obviously aren't sustainable for the farmers and the environment. If we're sucking natural resources dry and willing to kill off the native species of animals in that area to milk our farms for more then something is wrong (and it aint them darned environmentalists hehe)
WhoWee said:So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?
WhoWee said:That's pretty funny.:uhh:
In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn [Broken]
Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.
So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?
Wax said:What do you expect from Fox News, especially Hannity...
WhoWee said:Not so fast. We still don't have a link that supports any of this.
"A little research..
A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein."
Wax said:I saw the exact show you were talking about and the economist said the same thing. The fish provides jobs up north but Hannity keeps cutting him off before he could finish saying anything.
WhoWee said:So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?
byronm said:I think the information regarding the minnow is confusing at best.. there is a WSJ article that focuses on it but most of the other stuff i find is what the farmers are saying and not necessarily the environmental policy itself.
Its easy to blame fish but looking more into the political side there is also the fact the state can't afford an aquifer upgrade big enough to sustain the growth and doesn't seem to be getting any concessions from the farmers in the area to conserve.. so in other words.. its your typical political fiasco with fish put in the middle as if its as simple as choosing between minnows, salmon and sturgeon or people.
won't ever solve anything with that kind of debate.
WhoWee said:Hopefully Hannity's coverage will focus the debate on solving the problem - as he did present both sides and reached out to the President to investigate.
WhoWee said:Hopefully Hannity's coverage will focus the debate on solving the problem - as he did present both sides and reached out to the President to investigate.
Hurting the economy even more isn't going to make anything better and the less the farmers can produce the more it will hurt others in and outside of the area that are dependent on their success. The valley is a significant agricultural center for the state.byronm said:C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
City's like LA aren't planned. They just happen and the the city 'planners' just try to figure out how to deal with it.bryonm said:D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
http://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/www/Faculty/Joe/treadmill/swanson02a.pdf [Broken]bryonm said:E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.
Wax said:Fox News clearly picks a side when it comes to debates. How do you consider this fair and balance?
Cyrus said:...HAAHAHah. Thanks for the laugh (Seriously). The best thing Hannity can possibly do is shut his mouth and listen.
seycyrus said:The typical response = "Watch if for myself? I already KNOW what's on there..."
Fox News: Fair & Balanced is a cable news channel that was launched in 1996. It is owned by Fox Corporation and is known for its conservative political views and coverage of current events and news stories.
This is a highly debated question and ultimately subjective. While Fox News claims to be fair and balanced in its reporting, many critics argue that it has a conservative bias and often promotes right-wing ideologies. It is important for viewers to critically evaluate the news they consume and seek out multiple sources for a well-rounded understanding of current events.
Fox News has been known to investigate various claims of corruption, particularly within the political realm. Some examples include the Benghazi attack and the Clinton email scandal. However, it is important to note that Fox News has also faced criticism for its own alleged corruption, such as sexual harassment claims against former CEO Roger Ailes.
Fox News has a team of fact-checkers and editors who are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their reporting. However, the network has faced criticism for spreading misinformation and false claims. It is always important for viewers to fact-check information from any news source.
Again, this is a subjective question and depends on one's personal beliefs and perspectives. Fox News has a large viewership and is considered a reliable source by many of its viewers. However, it is important to critically evaluate the information presented and seek out multiple sources for a well-rounded understanding of current events.