Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Fox most trusted name in news (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Fox most trusted name in news
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you mean the latter, and if you're willing to reciprocate (to me and to bringer) then we may have a deal.
Why is bringer part of this deal? Which one's the sidekick?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If you mean the latter, and if you're willing to reciprocate (to me and to bringer) then we may have a deal.
Why is bringer part of this deal?
That's not your business. Suffice to say that it's to make the other terms practicable. Given the discussion of the past week, further explanation response would be redundant, and would probably set the olive branch on fire.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We could start saying, "Will the gentleman yield?"
Or enact some Parlimentary/Ornery Procedure.

Why so sensitive? I'm not made out of sugar. And if some heat comes my way I don't think I melt.

Hey, silent viewers, are we too rough here?

I hope to say nothing that would keep the yet unspoken from feeling well received should they choose someday to speak. Don't be shy.

Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, you haven't really seen Ornery rough.

I did not add that provision in order to protect you. It's about preventing one of the parties to the agreement from using you as a proxy for attacking the other.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um. So far, Pete, I've seen you using bringer to attack Kenmeer. Is that what you're talking about?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" a)That's kind of necessary to distinguish a response to something you've said from something someone else said.

b) This assumes it's necessary to distinguish who said what. In disincarnate text whose purpose is to discuss ideas, the only reason I know for doing this is to 'keep score' of who wins and who loses. Addressing persons personally is necessary only for personal conversation, which is not necessary to the discussion of ideas and in fact strikes me as being mostly counterproductive."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"This assumes it's necessary to distinguish who said what. ."

Correct. Otherwise I get people yelling at me that I've misattributed them, when in fact I was attributing to someone else. (Although I don't help much when I say Michelle when I mean scouser ... whatever with that [FootInMouth] )

quote:
In disincarnate text whose purpose is to discuss ideas, the only reason I know for doing this is to 'keep score' of who wins and who loses.
KM, you don't talk like that yourself, not to me, and not to others. I'm not your science experiment, for you to impose strange new rules of communication on me.

quote:
Addressing persons personally is necessary only for personal conversation, which is not necessary to the discussion of ideas and in fact strikes me as being mostly counterproductive
Regardless, it's not causa belli.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, we are trying to have a conversation here. Please get off my leg.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why so sensitive? I'm not made out of sugar. And if some heat comes my way I don't think I melt."

Bringer, for God sake shut up. We're trying to have a conversation about you here, so don't interfere.

You could, of course, reveal that you are not me. It would be a meaningless gesture, but at least it would get you into the conversation.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
About ten years ago, my wife and I were having a conversation about made cow disease, and my then two year old firstborn wanted to enter the conversation. "Mad Cow. Moo! Grr!"

If I could converse on Ornery with multiple sigs, I might make one like Al, one like Letterrip, one like bringer. (If I was in a really cranky mood, my Al sig might sounds more like TomD.) But then I always was an Eric Berne fan.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"KM, you don't talk like that yourself, not to me, and not to others. I'm not your science experiment, for you to impose strange new rules of communication on me."

Actually, I have but inevitably you persist on saying false things about me, and when it comes to that, I'm with Elton John: "You can call me a fat, balding, talentless old queen who can't sing – but you can't tell lies about me." No matter, though, and having been through this cycle with you numerous times, I have totally lost any hope of having anything remotely like honorable communications with you, so I'll ignore you as a person but will probably respond at times to the ideas you express.

[ January 29, 2010, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, I have but inevitably you persist on saying false things about me
Humbug. You've jumped into my conversations with munga that had nothing to do with you.

quote:
I'll ignore you as a person but will probably respond at times to the ideas you express.
Noting but setting aside the irreconcilable contradiction of "ignoring" someone as a person while using an entirely different set of response rules as applied only to that person ...

For the next 28 days, if you actually honor that pledge, as applied to bringer and to myself, then I will deal likewise with you. Then I'll decide whether I want to continue the arrangement.

[ January 30, 2010, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kenmeer,

I was talking to you. When I said, "Why so sensitive?"

Only I didn't address you directly, to accomodate your directive to Pete, who you didn't address by name so possibly you were directing me as well.

This led to Pete's response to me, because my post had slipped in after his, and I appreciate him taking the time to clarify despite his main focus of directing to you about addressing you without doing it...directly.

All this illustrating the hassle of complying with your request to not address you directly.

Al also chipped in, slyly translating what Pete clarified to me in a parody of misdirection. A hat tip to him.

Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't mind persons addressing me personally -- so long as they keep the personal separate from the discursive.

I may respond to personally directed comments or not.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I don't mind persons addressing me personally -- so long as they keep the personal separate from the discursive.

I may respond to personally directed comments or not.

That clarification was useful, and I appreciate it. So far I'm tentatively pleased with the results.

-------
@bringer, Al's translation is almost exactly wrong in each particular, but reasonably derived fom the facts, so he does deserve the hat tip for effort. I'd be happy to clarify privately if you would bother to reply to your private email. [kick] (I mailed you over a week ago and provided you with a home and office email contact for me.)

Also, I see you live in Reno and I'm heading up there next month for court. I'm based in Vegas and have had entertained Ornerians while they passed thru town.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trusted Journalism
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
This is a phenomena known by Simon and Garfunkel in that some accept that part that they want to accept and disregard the rest.
I believe the quote (from "The Boxer") is "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-da-da."

So I assume this means that you consider Pyrtolin a Real Man. [Smile]

Oh. I thought, Pyrtolin was a woman.
Heh. I toe the line enough that I'll never really be eligible for the Real(TM) status in either category, though I've managed to settle on a roughly seasonal variation on the matter.

If the Blue Fairy (a la Pinocchio) ever gave me a visit, I'd probably frustrate her magic to no end.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a lengthy historical discussion of the birth and development of Fox News by conservative critic Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett article

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And yet still more trustworthy than ABC News.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, your point is inconsistent with the data from this article. Do you have a different source?

What I found surprising in the data was that while Fox News viewing was most strongly correlated with believing falsehoods, those who primarily viewed the mainstream media channels were still halfway between the error rate of Fox News and the error rate of those who viewed PBS.

For reference, here are the two questions they used as referred to on page 11 of the article:

quote:
Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization?

Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?


Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What I found surprising in the data was that while Fox News viewing was most strongly correlated with believing falsehoods, those who primarily viewed the mainstream media channels were still halfway between the error rate of Fox News and the error rate of those who viewed PBS.
Saying that in the face of the recent Stephanopoulos-Clinton debacle is priceless.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not sure what you mean. Your statement spears to be a non sequitur. Can you explain the point you wish to make?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess if one doesn't look at any media on any medium they might have missed this firestorm...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/video-montage-stephanopoulos-defends-hillary-while-donating-75k-to-foundation/
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/14/media/george-stephanopoulos-apology/


This guy, on behalf of his network and news corporation, doggedly attacked anyone who tried discussing the Clinton Cash scandal, until recently it was revealed he gave $75k in cash to the same foundation...

So much for the credibility of ABC...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are we saying that someone like Glenn Beck lacks credibility because he has donated to conservative causes and yet still talks about them?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you saying a political commentator last on TV nearly 5 years ago is equivalent to the current chief Washington correspondent that grills the author of a book about funding the clinton's while hiding the fact he currently gives them 10's of thousands also is equivalent?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure how he was "hiding" anything. They were public donations. Nor, having seen the softball interview in question, do I think that any "grilling" happened. [Smile] (Nor do I particularly think that five years is such an incredibly long time ago. But if you'd rather limit this to current anchors/correspondents, we can discuss whether you think James Rosen, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, etc. are uninvolved in politics and/or not prone to making donations to political causes while remaining willing to discuss issues related to those causes on-air.)

But, of course, none of this is actually germane to the question of which network manages to do a better job of propagandizing its viewers.

[ May 18, 2015, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It wasn't an interview. It was Stephanopolous arguing and contradicting the author and telling him that what he was saying was false when not only it wasn't, but it was done under the guise of impartial journalism when in fact George had destroyed any hope of that with his donation that he failed to disclose to the audience and the network beforehand as an obvious conflict of interest. Why else did he apologize?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are different ways of propagandizing, though. A network can tell outright lies, which in a way is foolish but can still be effective. Alternatively one can assert true-ish statements that have a bias, or that create an implicit insinuation where none is overtly stated. Then of course there is the issue of simply omitting pertinent information, which isn't "lying" but is still propaganda.

Even if it was 100% certain that Fox tells more direct untruths than its counterparts this only means that they indulge in that particular brand of propaganda more than the others do, but doesn't address the various other hard to measure ways of misleading or messing with people.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol. "Firestorm".
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
it was done under the guise of impartial journalism when in fact George had destroyed any hope of that with his donation that he failed to disclose to the audience...
To be clear, you are saying that every time a pundit or anchor discusses a topic on the air that is tangentially related to an issue-based donation he or she has made, this is a conflict of interest that must be announced during the discussion?

Are you confident in saying that failure to do this destroys any hope of impartial journalism on the part of the network airing the bit?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Here's a lengthy historical discussion of the birth and development of Fox News by conservative critic Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett article

Your source is behind a subscriber site. Other things written by Bruce Bartlett have not filled me with overwhelming positive feeling about his own veracity or impartiality (like for instance his piece asserting that Obama has governed as "moderate conservative"), or his innumerable attacks on the Republican party in general.

Even the questions you cite above are misleading and not a great source for determining if a population of newsconsumers is generally more likely to believe falsehoods.

If there's a case, please feel free to make it rather than reference a study that can't be openly reviewed, I just suspect its more pandering to liberal feel good science.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why did Stephanopolous apologize? Maybe it had something to do with him attempting to portray himself as an impartial investigative journalist on the Clinton Cash scandal.

And yes, the Clinton Cash scandal is a huge firestorm. The amounts of the donations were much higher in the end than anyone had thought, especially the ones connected to the uranium deal.

[ May 18, 2015, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be clear, you were calling the Stephanopolous thing a "firestorm", which is silly.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why did Stephanopolous apologize?
You know, I'm getting a little tired of whiny conservatives full of false outrage demanding apologies for things and then using those apologies, however weakly delivered or finely parsed, as proof of larger wrongdoing for which no apology was delivered.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not sure who demanded it...

Even if someone did, why would an impartial investigative journalist cave in to pressure and give a false apology if it wasn't warranted?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
To be clear, you were calling the Stephanopolous thing a "firestorm", which is silly.

I think you misunderstood. The Stephanopolous thing is just another example of corrupt media promoting liberal candidates and ideology under the guise of journalism. You're right, calling it a firestorm when this happen daily and has for decades is indeed silly.

The actual firestrom is Clinton accepting payoffs - for example, from Russia for the uranium.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As opposed to Fox News, which is an example of corrupt media promoting conservative candidates and ideology under the guise of journalism. [Smile]

I guess we're all sick of slanted journalism. Now if we could only agree on what the real facts are... [Frown]

Going back to Fox for a second, Quinnipac did a recent poll that found that Fox News was the most trusted news source, and one of the least trusted. [Smile]

20% said that they trusted Fox News "a great deal," while CNN got only 18%, NBC, ABC, and CBS got only 14%, and MSNBC got only 11%.

And in a head-to-head comparison, Fox lead the way as most trusted with 29%, followed by CNN with 22%, NBC and CBS with 11%, ABC with 7%, and MSNBC with only 7%. (15% went with Don't Know/Not Applicable.)

OTOH, Fox News was at the bottom when you combined "a great deal" and "somewhat" trusted. ABC and CBS lead with 64% total, CNN with 61%, NBC at 60%, and Fox at 55%. Only MSNBC was lower, at 52%.

What I think is this shows that news viewers show a healthy skepticism of what is reported. Most viewers only somewhat trust the news, be it from Fox, ABC, or CNN. And they seem to recognize partisan bias, by leaving MSNBC and Fox at the bottom of trustworthiness pile.

Now if we can only figure out how to find trustworthy sources.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Left, right, whatever. No single source can be completely trustworthy or unbiased as long as human beings are involved.

The best you can do is listen/watch/read from multiple sources and then determine how to process it based on your own bias. [Smile]

Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
why would an impartial investigative journalist cave in to pressure and give a false apology if it wasn't warranted
Because apologies are free, and it's only in recent years that conservatives have started saying, "Look, he apologized for this narrowly specific thing! That means our every wild-eyed, worst-case conspiracy theory must be validated!"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Seriati, I would not have posted a link if I knew others couldn't see it. I don't know why it just worked when I clicked on it.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1