News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Burnsys
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    News
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a controversial article from Fox News suggesting that the U.S. might need to "bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age" if it aligns with terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Participants express disgust at the article's tone and implications, highlighting the moral complexities of democracy when it can lead to the election of hostile governments. Concerns are raised about the U.S. justifying military action based on perceived threats from democratically elected leaders, and the hypocrisy of American foreign policy is critiqued, particularly regarding past interventions in countries like Argentina. The conversation touches on the broader implications of U.S. actions and the perception of America as a "terrorist nation" by some. Participants debate the legitimacy of U.S. military interventions and the consequences of labeling foreign governments as terrorist states. The discussion reflects deep divisions over the ethics of democracy, interventionism, and the responsibility of powerful nations in global conflicts.
  • #151
Anttech said:
Fox is only an example, because it is ridiculously partisan, however to me the media in America is going to be Americas undoing. The Media should scrutinise the government not partner with them, and broadcast propaganda 24/7, and patriotic Red White and Blue bull****e because that is gets the ratings in?

Yah, free speech is overrated :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Ron_Damon said:
what scares me is the notion of having some agency determining what's true
... Duh. I was thinking more along the lines of leaving that to the Judicial branch.
 
Last edited:
  • #153
Ron_Damon said:
Then start a http://lyinginponds.com/ that does such things, and wait for people to voluntarily check it out; what scares me is the notion of having some agency determining what's true (and the colossal arrogance of those who simply dismiss others as vehicles of propaganda, a word that if it is to have any meaning whatsoever, should be used in extreme scarcity).
I understand what you are saying, and why likewise I am concerned about current attempts to control content on PBS. However, there should be some accountability as to what is classified as news and worthy of people's trust. If Fox News was called "Conservative Views" I would have less issue with it. As has been pointed out before, The Daily Show promotes itself as a comedy program for example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #154
Ron_Damon said:
one human's propaganda is another human's creed; the idea of having an entitity with authority deciding what's true really exemplifies everything that's rotten about the Left.
You are creating a strawman argument. I am not suggesting that there should be an oversight body to determine what is true, I consider an independent body to monitor the impartiality and methodology employed has merit. Not to censor but to advise consumers how a particular program ranks against their benchmarks. These rankings could be reviewed periodically.

If you were watching a program claiming to give fair and impartial consumer advise which made recommendations on the best make and model of various commodities I am sure you would be interested to know and would expect to be informed if the manufacturers of those products were financing the program. And so as we expect adverts to be identified as adverts it makes sense that propaganda should be similarly identified.
 
  • #155
Burnsys said:
Russ do you remember when we was talking about the Memo in fox news?
Ok, for all those reading into my post something I didn't say, let me be perfectly clear: I believe that Fox News is heavily right-biased and I don't watch Fox News. I also don't read it on the net. I get my national news from USA Today (it is my homepage) and I get my local news from NBC10.

That changes nothing about how this issue works. Fox is right-biased, the other services are left-biased. Fox is probably more right-biased than the other services are left-biased, but that's not something that can really be measured. But since Fox is outnumbered by the left-biased news outlets, overall, that still makes the news media left biased. Fox just provides much needed contrast (or "balance", if you prefer) and for that, I am glad it exists.

Caveat: The landscape may, however, be changing again, with Brokaw and Rather out. Rather, especially, was heavily and openly left-biased and unapologetic about it. Being in the position they were in, they set the tone for their networks and had a heavy influence on why the news media's left-bias. I don't know where their replacements stand or how they might affect their companies.

In Ivan's "Republican lies" thread, he justified the apparent liberal bias by saying [paraphrase] that the media only appears biased because Republicans provide so much "fodder". Well, of course Republicans provide "fodder"! That's the bias manifesting! If someone thinks, because of their bias, that most of what the Republicans do/say/believe in is wrong, then most of what they do/say/believe in will provide "fodder" and it would be perfectly "fair" co call them on it. And Fox News is the other side of the coin: Fox News thinks most of what the Democrats do/say/believe in is wrong, so most of what the Democrats do/say/believe in provides "fodder" for Fox News and so it is perfectly "fair" to call them on it.

Since I don't believe it is possible for there to be completely unbiased news, the best I think we can hope for is balance of biases, and for that reason, Fox's existence is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #156
Art said:
You are creating a strawman argument. I am not suggesting that there should be an oversight body to determine what is true, I consider an independent body to monitor the impartiality and methodology employed has merit. Not to censor but to advise consumers how a particular program ranks against their benchmarks. These rankings could be reviewed periodically.

If you were watching a program claiming to give fair and impartial consumer advise which made recommendations on the best make and model of various commodities I am sure you would be interested to know and would expect to be informed if the manufacturers of those products were financing the program. And so as we expect adverts to be identified as adverts it makes sense that propaganda should be similarly identified.

We used to have this at one point in time---the FCC. It was the fairness doctrine: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

The doctrine covered the public airwaves and Fox is a cable channel so not really subject to it if it existed today anyway; however, the fact still remains that a policy was in place to BALANCE broadcasts but not censor them.
 
  • #157
Informal Logic said:
there should be some accountability as to what is classified as news and worthy of people's trust.

There is. I call it the Free Market.

Informal Logic said:
If Fox News was called "Conservative Views" I would have less issue with it.

So the NYT should change its name to the "DNC Daily" :smile: ? I think you should posit more faith on individuals making free choices. They'll have to discover on their own what is what, and the more points of view they have available, the better.

Because if you put yourself in the position of weighing truth, sooner rather than later someone else will in turn claim that same privilege over your reckonings. Its better to let things flow.
 
Last edited:
  • #158
russ_watters said:
In Ivan's "Republican lies" thread, he justified the apparent liberal bias by saying [paraphrase] that the media only appears biased because Republicans provide so much "fodder". Well, of course Republicans provide "fodder"! That's the bias manifesting! If someone thinks, because of their bias, that most of what the Republicans do/say/believe in is wrong, then most of what they do/say/believe in will provide "fodder". And Fox News is the other side of the coin: Fox News thinks most of what the Democrats do/say/believe in is wrong, so most of what the Democrats do/say/believe in provides "fodder" for Fox News.

Since I don't believe it is possible for there to be completely unbiased news, the best I think we can hope for is balance of biases, and for that reason, Fox's existence is a good thing.

Or perhaps the republicans DO generate a fair amount of fodder and when they do their whipping-boy of choice is the media. I don't recall Wild Bill blaming the media for Lewinsky(He might have but I don't recall him doing so). DeLay OTOH ran right to a microphone and said "It's the evil democrats and the poo-poo heads in the media!"[paraphrase]
 
  • #159
Art said:
an independent body

there is no such thing as "independent"
 
  • #160
I also can't believe people are still entertaining the idea that there should be some federal agency regulating the news, even after it was pointed out that this violates the first amendment (both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press clauses). Haven't you guys ever seen a supermarket tabloid? With the exception of libel (which rarely applies to politics), there must be freedom of the press.
 
  • #161
Ron_Damon said:
there is no such thing as "independent"
What a strange comment :confused: Not everybody is as polarized as you seem to believe. The BBC in Britain is a good example of a broadcaster who provides a world reknowned fair and impartial news service whose standards are continually monitored by an independent oversight board.
 
  • #162
faust9 said:
Or perhaps the republicans DO generate a fair amount of fodder and when they do their whipping-boy of choice is the media. I don't recall Wild Bill blaming the media for Lewinsky(He might have but I don't recall him doing so). DeLay OTOH ran right to a microphone and said "It's the evil democrats and the poo-poo heads in the media!"[paraphrase]
AFAIK, Fox News didn't exist during the Lewinsky scandal (anyone know when it started?). So Bill couldn't have blamed them.

And again, with the other side of the coin: the most successful political talk radio personality is Rush Limbaugh. The Democrats in government do complain about him on a regular basis.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the statement that Republicans generate "fodder" for the media. They do. But the reason they do is the left-bias.
 
  • #163
Art said:
Yes it does. Which is why nobody has responded to say it would be a good thing.

My post was simply expressing my impatience with this comment

Why, yet again, try to turn a thread with potential for useful dialogue into the usual democrat vs GOP pissing contest?

IMO The basic premise that propaganda programs need oversight or labelling in some form or another is worthy of some serious discussion rather than throw-away one liners preceded by lots of little rollies.

Or then again perhaps it is just me who is out of step. :biggrin:
So only the liberals are allowed to be pissing? Funny that you started pointing fingers and getting impatient after a more conservative person made a joke and not when a more liberal person did.
Thank you Art for giving me all the confidence in the world that a fair and impartial oversight of "propaganda programs" is possible. :wink:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The point of this part which I have highlighted, so far as I am concerned, is that the people themselves will be allowed to determine the validity of information rather than have it processed, supressed, and/or codified for them by the government so as to avoid the government controling information.
I don't agree with government control of information even if it is so much as a stamp of aproval for newsworthiness. If the people can't figure it out on their own that's their own fault and they need to fix it for themselves rather than have the government do it for them.
Freedom requires responsibility on both parts, the press and the information consumer.
 
  • #164
Ron_Damon said:
There is. I call it the Free Market.
Do you consider the Consumer Report to be anti free market? How about labels on food products? You are missing the points being made.
Ron_Damon said:
So the NYT should change its name to the "DNC Daily" :smile:
Actually news papers are a good example. There are different sections named according to content, for example editorials are clearly opinion. So why can't broadcast agencies separate news from commentary or entertainment as they do the weather and sports? And when news stories are retracted, it would be great if they were fined.
 
  • #165
Ron_Damon said:
There is. I call it the Free Market.
So.. explain to me exactly how this free market of information works exactly.
 
  • #166
TheStatutoryApe said:
So only the liberals are allowed to be pissing? Funny that you started pointing fingers and getting impatient after a more conservative person made a joke and not when a more liberal person did.
Thank you Art for giving me all the confidence in the world that a fair and impartial oversight of "propaganda programs" is possible. :wink:
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to reference the post containing the 'joke' by the liberal in this thread preceding the post I referenced as I don't seem to be able to find it. Is this another example of your maxim 'Never let facts stand in the way of a good theory'? :rolleyes:
 
  • #167
News is to be free speech of information. Good job Fox ! Go on ! Let the audience freely think of the news you bring them.
 
  • #168
Art said:
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to reference the post containing the 'joke' by the liberal in this thread preceding the post I referenced as I don't seem to be able to find it. Is this another example of your maxim 'Never let facts stand in the way of a good theory'? :rolleyes:
chup said:
Of course not, Just move it to Comedy central where it belongs.
Would you like a link too?
 
  • #169
TheStatutoryApe said:
Would you like a link too?
That comment related to Fox News and did not mention democrats or the GOP. Seems like you're struggling a little there to justify your rather peurile comments or perhaps it is because you relate the 'fair and impartial' FOX news to the GOP for some reason and so an attack on them is an attack on the GOP. :smile:
 
  • #170
Art said:
The BBC in Britain is a good example of a broadcaster who provides a world reknowned fair and impartial news service

oh come on! Fox news is biased right if and only if the BBC is heavily tilted to the left. Can't you see?
 
  • #171
Art said:
That comment related to Fox News and did not mention democrats or the GOP. Seems like you're struggling a little there to justify your rather peurile comments or perhaps it is because you relate the 'fair and impartial' FOX news to the GOP for some reason and so an attack on them is an attack on the GOP. :smile:
The point is that the comment friendly to your position flew right under your radar. You don't care that someone made a joke that you perhaps think is funny and that it may have detracted from conversation. You only care when it's someone you don't agree with. This, to me, illustrates quite well just what could very well be the problem with having some oversight trying to determine what is and isn't newsworthy.

So would you like to actually discuss this or continue making personal jabs?
 
  • #172
Ron_Damon said:
oh come on! Fox news is biased right if and only if the BBC is heavily tilted to the left. Can't you see?
Yes I can see why a station which actually presents both points of view might be considered left wing to some posters here as it is a wholly new concept to them but actually that is what is meant by fair and impartial reporting. :biggrin:
In fact the top guy there Greg Dyke was forced to resign after it was found a controversial report relating to Iraq which they broadcast did not meet the standards set out by the independant monitoring board with regard to having two substantive sources to back it up.
 
  • #173
TheStatutoryApe said:
The point is that the comment friendly to your position flew right under your radar. You don't care that someone made a joke that you perhaps think is funny and that it may have detracted from conversation. You only care when it's someone you don't agree with. This, to me, illustrates quite well just what could very well be the problem with having some oversight trying to determine what is and isn't newsworthy.

So would you like to actually discuss this or continue making personal jabs?
I never said I had an issue with anyone making a joke this is what I actually said
Why, yet again, try to turn a thread with potential for useful dialogue into the usual democrat vs GOP pissing contest?
and this is a personal jab
So only the liberals are allowed to be pissing? Funny that you started pointing fingers and getting impatient after a more conservative person made a joke and not when a more liberal person did.
Thank you Art for giving me all the confidence in the world that a fair and impartial oversight of "propaganda programs" is possible.
 
  • #174
Informal Logic said:
Do you consider the Consumer Report to be anti free market? How about labels on food products?

Those exist within the free market, not imposed from outside. Like I said, if you think it such a good idea, go ahead and start up an "objective news service" :smile: Of course, the market can only function on reliable information (as humanly possible), backed by the law in case of fraud, but only on things that can be counted, measured, weighted or otherwise clearly established. Obvioulsy, "political truth" is not part of that.

Informal Logic said:
So why can't broadcast agencies separate news from commentary

They do. O'Reilly repeatedly mentions he does news analysis or commentary, not straight reporting.
 
  • #175
Smurf said:
So.. explain to me exactly how this free market of information works exactly.

exactly?
 
  • #176
Ron_Damon said:
Those exist within the free market, not imposed from outside.
Actually they are imposed under regulation by the FDA.



Ron_Damon said:
They do. O'Reilly repeatedly mentions he does news analysis or commentary, not straight reporting.
So when he repeatedly says "this is the no spin zone" what does he mean by that? I was under the impression he was saying his program was 'fair and impartial' :confused:
 
  • #177
Art said:
Yes I can see why a station which actually presents both points of view might be considered left wing to some posters here as it is a wholly new concept to them

Not to start a new polemic here, but the reporting they did during the latest Palestinian intifada against Israeli civilians could very well make the textbook example of bias (if not of outright anti-semitism).
 
  • #178
Ron_Damon said:
Not to start a new polemic here, but the reporting they did during the latest Palestinian intifada against Israeli civilians could very well make the textbook example of bias (if not of outright anti-semitism).
Please provide a link to back up this ridiculous statement.
 
  • #179
Art said:
I never said I had an issue with anyone making a joke this is what I actually said

and this is a personal jab
Sorry I thought you cared about there being "useful dialog" on this matter more so than the manner in which people detracted from it.

And as for the "personal jab" I admit I was being sarcastic but as I have already pointed out I was using your reaction to illustrate a point.
I'll ask again if you'd like to pursue some "useful dialog" on that point.
 
  • #180
Art said:
Please provide a link to back up this ridiculous statement.

ok: should I download my memories via USB or FireWire?

And that brings us full circle.
 
  • #181
Ron_Damon said:
ok: should I download my memories via USB or FireWire?

And that brings us full circle.
Better yet the BBC has an excellent online website with search facilities so it should be no problem for you to provide links to articles you believe to be anti-semitic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm
 
  • #182
russ_watters said:
Since I don't believe it is possible for there to be completely unbiased news, the best I think we can hope for is balance of biases, and for that reason, Fox's existence is a good thing.
I pretty much agree with Moonbear and Russ's comments (plus a couple others, I think) about a mix of different points of view being available.

As to rating the news, there is an entirely different range of news and news commentary totally unrelated to bias or factualness. Can Laura Ingram, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or some of the other AM radio voices really even be included in the category of news analysis? Rush, Laura, and *Hannity belong in the mindless drivel category, not the same category as Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, or Lou Dobbs. And none of the second group belong in the same category as Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, or Tom Brokaw, while Ann Coulter, Jon Daly, and Geraldo Rivera belong in the News Comedy category (Rivera lands there unintentionally, which is worse yet ... or is it worse that poor Laura can't even qualify as comedy, even though I think that might be her intention).

The USA Today used to analyze the performances of sports broadcasters, for crying out loud. Surely there's nothing wrong with news reporters and analysts being rated.

*I haven't watched enough Hannity and Colmes to really have a set opinion of their TV show, but Hannity seems to straighten up his act a little for TV. The guy's an idiot on his radio show.
 
  • #183
TheStatutoryApe said:
I'll ask again if you'd like to pursue some "useful dialog" on that point.
TSA I genuinely get irritated by the fact that every thread practically without exception ends up getting hijacked down the democrat - GOP side road. :mad: There are already plenty of threads devoted specifically to that subject.

And yes as I have said I do think the subject of media bias and control is something worth discussing. This should not be a party political issue especially as twice congress with a republican majority has voted to regulate the press only for Reagan and then Bush to veto the bill

In the UK for example in relation to politics newspapers publically state their support for one party or the other prior to a general election and their overall reporting is overseen by another independent body, the Press Complaints Commission'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #184
Art said:
In fact the top guy there Greg Dyke was forced to resign after it was found a controversial report relating to Iraq which they broadcast did not meet the standards set out by the independant monitoring board with regard to having two substantive sources to back it up.
I would like to learn more about the independent monitoring board, and requirements such as having two substantive sources.

The media in a democracy is supposed to play a watch dog role. How can this be the case if the news is driven by ratings in the same manner as entertainment, or conversely pressured by the White House? And why should cable be exempt from regulations when it is just like network in every way except for having a greater number of channels?

In the meantime, thank goodness bloggers are giving mainstream news a bit of competition, and that there are organizations out there such as Media Matters:
Media Matters for America has identified and corrected hundreds of O'Reilly's falsehoods, made both on his radio show and on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor -- the vast majority of which he has yet to retract. Rather than correct his own falsehoods, O'Reilly lashes out at those who expose them or simply denies that he erred.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280004

(And if all else fails, thank goodness for products such as Foxblockers - http://mambo.foxblocker.com/ :-p)
 
  • #185
Art said:
Better yet the BBC has an excellent online website with search facilities so it should be no problem for you to provide links to articles you believe to be anti-semitic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm

BBC WORLD TV is what I was talking about. But if you so insist: I remember seeing extremely sympathetic reports of militant's burials, with crying women and children, highlightings of the suffering of the whole band of terrorists waiving their rifles and RPGs, in 10 minute-long footage of the funeral procession with an Arab or Leftist commentator giving a thousand reasons for why suicide bombers are not that reprehensible.

After such platitudes they'd very coldly inform that a bus full of Jewish children was blown up, give the number of dead, and then quickly move on to sports and weather, or more poor grieving Palestinians.

It's like the then Israel Justice minister commented in an interview: "for some people, what is done to us never is that wrong".

But those are my impressions; I could be wrong :wink:
 
  • #186
Ron_Damon said:
BBC WORLD TV is what I was talking about. But if you so insist: I remember seeing extremely sympathetic reports of militant's burials, with crying women and children, highlightings of the suffering of the whole band of terrorists waiving their rifles and RPGs, in 10 minute-long footage of the funeral procession with an Arab or Leftist commentator giving a thousand reasons for why suicide bombers are not that reprehensible.

After such platitudes they'd very coldly inform that a bus full of Jewish children was blown up, give the number of dead, and then quickly move on to sports and weather, or more poor grieving Palestinians.

It's like the then Israel Justice minister commented in an interview: "for some people, what is done to us never is that wrong".

But those are my impressions; I could be wrong :wink:
From which I take it you couldn't find a single link throughout their extensive archives to justify your statement. That's ok. :biggrin:
 
  • #187
I'm surprised that no one defending Fox has addressed my point about the newscasters-who-cried-WMDs on Fox. :rolleyes:

Having said that, I do not believe that Fox should be taken off of the air (because it would in fact be a violation of the First Amendment). Nonetheless, I do not think that they should be able to use the slogan "Fair and Balanced." It is akin to false advertising, as they are not fair and balanced by any standard.
 
  • #188
Art said:
Better yet the BBC has an excellent online website with search facilities so it should be no problem for you to provide links to articles you believe to be anti-semitic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm
Speaking of which, I often post transcripts from MSNBC, CNN, or PBS. The last time I tried to obtain such information from the FOX News site, I could not even see an internal search engine. I haven't gone back since, but it smacks of having something to hide.
 
  • #189
Manchot said:
Nonetheless, I do not think that they should be able to use the slogan "Fair and Balanced." It is akin to false advertising, as they are not fair and balanced by any standard.

If I start a company Y and I want my company slogan to be X then I have every right to do so regardless of whether or not it reflects company Y's image accurately.

Why is it that everyone is complaining about Fox using a slogan like "Fair and Balanced," and yet never once complained about the BS liberal false advertising?

Tell me, was Fahrenheit 911 a documentary or a liberal nut job trying to sell it like he was giving an unbiased look at the US government...

I just don't get it...you want to ban Fox from using a slogan but you will let someone call muck racking a documentary and praise them for it.

I get the feeling you people are either the pot or the kettle... :rolleyes:
 
  • #191
Townsend said:
If I start a company Y and I want my company slogan to be X then I have every right to do so regardless of whether or not it reflects company Y's image accurately.
Under the law, you cannot have whatever slogan you feel like. If Coca-Cola wanted their product's slogan to be "Coca-Cola: Healthy drink for you and me," they would not be allowed to.

Why is it that everyone is complaining about Fox using a slogan like "Fair and Balanced," and yet never once complained about the BS liberal false advertising?
I'm not saying that they are liberal (though they are in your mind, which is all that matters), but the difference there is that NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, et al. do not have slogans which attempt to encapsulate their product in three words.

Tell me, was Fahrenheit 911 a documentary or a liberal nut job trying to sell it like he was giving an unbiased look at the US government...

I just don't get it...you want to ban Fox from using a slogan but you will let someone call muck racking a documentary and praise them for it.

I get the feeling you people are either the pot or the kettle... :rolleyes:
We're not talking about Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 911. We're talking about Fox News.
 
  • #193
Manchot said:
We're not talking about Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 911. We're talking about Fox News.

Scrutinizing for bias only the sources you dislike is the very definition of bias.
 
  • #194
Manchot said:
Under the law, you cannot have whatever slogan you feel like. If Coca-Cola wanted their product's slogan to be "Coca-Cola: Healthy drink for you and me," they would not be allowed to.

Really? What law says that?

I'm not saying that they are liberal (though they are in your mind, which is all that matters), but the difference there is that NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, et al. do not have slogans which attempt to encapsulate their product in three words.

I don't watch TV so I wouldn't know about those other stations. I don't know what stations are liberal and which ones are not...all I know is that apparently Fox news is right leaning and that some people watch it for that reason...

To keep this from getting personal let's try to stick to what we do know from now on. For instance please don't assume what I think since you are wrong about it...

We're not talking about Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 911. We're talking about Fox News.

Oh...I see, so now its "Let's not look at anything bad the liberal media does cause we like that stuff. So if you bring it up we are going to say we're only talking about fox news so as to avoid taking a nonpartisan look at the media..."

That's just great...really good argument style you have going for you... :rolleyes:
 
  • #195
Ron_Damon said:
Scrutinizing for bias only the sources you dislike is the very definition of bias.

I really am having a hard time believing he even said that...
 
  • #196
Manchot said:
We're not talking about Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 911. We're talking about Fox News.
Yes, there is a difference between a documentary/movie at the theatres (or on video for rent) and news that is promoted as news (a factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed).
 
  • #197
SOS2008 said:
Yes, there is a difference between a documentary/movie at the theatres (or on video for rent) and news that is promoted as news (a factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed).

So Fahrenheit 911 doesn't pretend to be a "factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed"? Glad to see you admit that.
 
  • #198
SOS2008 said:
Yes, there is a difference between a documentary/movie at the theatres (or on video for rent) and news that is promoted as news (a factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed).

So you're ok with everything as long as it say's it's a documentary instead of news? So if Fox news changed their slogan to "Fair and Balanced: Up to date documentaries everyday."

And then tried to paint Hilary Clinton as a blood thirsty animal intent on turning America in then next communist country, it would be ok?

What a load...

Seriously now...if there is a difference that happens to make one pile of BS ok and the another pile of BS not ok, I'd like to hear it. Prove it SOS.

...I want to see how slippery things can get in here...maybe we can get SOS2008 entered into a wet t-shirt contest or something... :-p
 
  • #199
Ron_Damon said:
So Fahrenheit 911 doesn't pretend to be a "factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed"? Glad to see you admit that.
I choose not to pay to see propaganda, and that goes for The Passion of the Christ too. But when I tune into watch what is promoted as the news, I expect to obtain factual information.
Townsend said:
So you're ok with everything as long as it say's it's a documentary instead of news?
As stated above, it also is a matter of choosing to go out of your home and paying to see something in an entertainment venue, versus information that is blasted into every American's home under the auspices of being truthful.
Townsend said:
So if Fox news changed their slogan to "Fair and Balanced: Up to date documentaries everyday."

And then tried to paint Hilary Clinton as a blood thirsty animal intent on turning America in then next communist country, it would be ok?:
If it isn't fair and balanced it is still false advertising, and obviously so if reports are not the truth.
 
  • #200
SOS2008 said:
As stated above, it also is a matter of choosing to go out of your home and paying to see something in an entertainment venue, versus information that is blasted into every American's home under the auspices of being truthful.

Fox news is not blasted into every American's home...I only get SD public broadcast stations...however if I did choose to pay for television or pay for a DVD rental or HBO or whatever else, and I didn't like what I saw I would change the channel or turn it off...simple as that. And from what I saw of things, F911 was 'blasted' into every American's home under the auspices of being truthful...how many hours of air time were spent on advertising for F911? More than enough I would say...
 

Similar threads

News Osama Bin Laden killed by US in Pakistan
8
Replies
384
Views
41K
News Save Journalism: A Call to Action for American Democracy
2
Replies
87
Views
11K
News What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?
4
Replies
193
Views
22K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
Replies
8
Views
5K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
Replies
49
Views
7K
News Media Bias - Is the media becoming more conservative?
2
Replies
59
Views
13K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K
News CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists
Replies
42
Views
6K
News Legitimate targets of resistance?
2
Replies
91
Views
9K
News Weapons of Mass Destruction found already.
Replies
36
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top