Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[ron damon]

fixed ...

4/5. very clever.

 

[loseyourname]

Nothing untrue? Well, there is that whole business about being "fair and balanced."

Like I said, I don't actually watch much television news, so it's entirely possible that I have no clue what I'm talking about, but the impression I get is that they selectively report things; they don't intentionally make factually inaccurate reports. No doubt the pundits they have on flat out lie from time to time, but that isn't news, it's commentary.

 

[loseyourname]

Ha ha. Okay, I just turned on Fox News to see what all the fuss is about, and the first thing that comes on is an advertisement for a show they have that is hosted by Oliver North. I have to admit that isn't making them look all that good.

 

[Moonbear]

Russ you appear to be suffering from the same siege mentality that is now gripping the Bush administration. Every criticism is a direct attack on 'USA Freedoms' in general and the beloved patriotic GOP in particular.

Well, since the thread is titled "Should Fox News be Banned," that sure sounds like someone is proposing to restrict freedoms to me.

I just discovered with the arrival of my cable TV service that there's an actually Fox News channel, so when folks are talking about Fox news, are you talking about the news on the Fox network channel, or the Fox News (cable) channel? The Fox News channel seems to be reporting pretty much identical stories to what's on CNN, at least in the limited time I've been flipping back and forth watching the two. There's always a bias (or slant) in reporting, even when it's just facts (for example, the facts will usually be presented for the side the reporter is favoring first). Afterall, the news is put out by reporters who are people and have their likes and dislikes and follow whatever stories they prefer to follow; it isn't some computer generated, random selection process. One channel will spin that Bush's visits to hurricane stricken areas are a good thing and another will spin it as a bad thing, but the fact is he was there, you're free to draw a different conclusion from the reporter if you so choose. So, if you don't like a particular type of journalism or a particular news outlet, you have the choice to change the channel or turn off the TV, or not buy the paper, or not go to a particular internet site.

 

[SOS2008]

Currently the majority of broadcast news is about hurricanes so there probably isn't much difference between agencies. Some time ago I posted stats on the number of reports on the missing girl in Aruba. CNN had around 70, MSNBC a little more than 100, and FOX had 400+. This is an example of rating how newsworthy the media is. I'm all for consumer reports that inform the public of what they are buying (or in this case, buying into).

 

[Art]

Well, since the thread is titled "Should Fox News be Banned," that sure sounds like someone is proposing to restrict freedoms to me.

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

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Great thread.
Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

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.

 

[ron damon]

The basic premise that propaganda programs need oversight or labelling in some form or another is worthy of some serious discussion

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.

 

[Informal Logic]

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.

So what would be wrong with ratings that show what percent of news programming consists of news, commentary, or entertainment, and better yet, what would be wrong with the segments being labeled accordingly? Books, movies, etc. are reviewed, critiqued, rated etc., so why not the news?

 

[ron damon]

So what would be wrong with ratings that show what percent of news programming consists of news, commentary, or entertainment, and better yet, what would be wrong with the segments being labeled accordingly? Books, movies, etc. are reviewed, critiqued, rated etc., so why not the news?

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).

 

[Manchot]

However you may feel about Fox, as far as I know, they don't report anything that is untrue.

What about all of those times when they reported that WMDs have possibly been found in Iraq, only to retract the statement later on? Though the retractions may have been mentioned once, this does not change the fact that the big words on the front of the screen said "WMDS FOUND IN IRAQ?" for long periods of time. I believe that they are responsible for many peoples' deluded belief that there were WMDs in Iraq, or that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda.

 

[Pengwuino]

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

 

[Smurf]

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.

 

[Informal Logic]

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.

 

[Art]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[faust9]

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.

 

[ron damon]

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.

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" ? 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.

 

[faust9]

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]

 

[ron damon]

an independent body

there is no such thing as "independent"

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Art]

there is no such thing as "independent"

What a strange comment 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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Informal Logic]

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.

So the NYT should change its name to the "DNC Daily"

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.

 

[Smurf]

There is. I call it the Free Market.

So.. explain to me exactly how this free market of information works exactly.

 

[Art]

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.

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'?

 

[djeipa]

News is to be free speech of information. Good job Fox ! Go on ! Let the audience freely think of the news you bring them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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'?

Of course not, Just move it to Comedy central where it belongs.

Would you like a link too?

 

[Art]

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. :rofl:

 

[ron damon]

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?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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. :rofl:

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?

 

[Art]

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.
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.

 

[Art]

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.

 

[ron damon]

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" 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.

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.

 

[ron damon]

So.. explain to me exactly how this free market of information works exactly.

exactly?