Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

In summary: He was still criticized. I thought this post was about just following a party line, not being critical of your own side. Is that what you're trying to say?
  • #316


hillzagold said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #317


hillzagold said:
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.
 
  • #318


hillzagold said:
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?

hillzagold said:
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?
 
  • #319


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.
 
  • #320
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.
 
  • #321


ParticleGrl said:
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" [Broken] 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)

ParticleGrl said:
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/" [Broken] 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)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #322


hillzagold said:
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/" [Broken]...)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #323


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.
 
  • #325


Do I need one? Have they even slightly lied yet?:rofl:
 
  • #326


hillzagold said:
Do I need one? Have they even slightly lied yet?:rofl:

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/" [Broken].

hillzagold said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #327


mege said:
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.
 
  • #328


mege said:
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/" [Broken]...)

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #329


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #330


Ryumast3r said:
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?

hillzagold said:
I'm a Catholic, you morons.

OK, I'm done replying to hillzagold. Name calling = bad.
 
  • #331


How convenient that you're not replying to me anymore. I've only torn through your arguments until you stop replying anyways.
 
  • #332


hillzagold said:
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. :uhh:
 
  • #333


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. :uhh:
 
  • #334


hillzagold said:
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. :uhh:
Yes, I'm aware. That doesn't change the reality of the facts I pointed out. Just saying irrelevant things isn't very productive.
 
  • #335


You're talking about the Left's method's of attaining equity, aren't you?
 
  • #336


hillzagold said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #337


mege 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?).

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.
 
  • #338


Ryumast3r said:
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.
 
  • #339


Al68 said:
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.
 
  • #340


mege said:
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.
 
  • #341


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 [Broken]

Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. What is Fox News: Fair & Balanced?</h2><p>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.</p><h2>2. Is Fox News truly fair and balanced?</h2><p>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.</p><h2>3. What claims of corruption has Fox News been investigating?</h2><p>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.</p><h2>4. How does Fox News handle fact-checking and accuracy?</h2><p>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.</p><h2>5. Is Fox News a reliable source of information?</h2><p>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.</p>

1. What is Fox News: Fair & Balanced?

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.

2. Is Fox News truly fair and balanced?

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.

3. What claims of corruption has Fox News been investigating?

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.

4. How does Fox News handle fact-checking and accuracy?

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.

5. Is Fox News a reliable source of information?

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.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
61
Views
8K
  • Biology and Medical
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
37
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
8
Replies
253
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
877
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
969
Back
Top