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 News tactics (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Fox News tactics
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Let's just start with ruling out:
DailyKos, The Huffington Post, The Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Think Progress or any piece written as a editorial/opinion piece.

Now lets continue with you identifying specifically what sources you'll recognize as legitimate. Otherwise you're saying "I reserve the right to dismiss any data you offer as inherently biased if I don't like the information I'll just dismiss the source ."

[ July 19, 2011, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5659 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts, interesting that you didn't list a single site that presents Republican or Conservative points of view. Are the only places that are biased ones that you consider to be Liberal?
Posts: 5607 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg

"Wow, I have to remember that excuse - when you deep down feel something is wrong, then you don't actually have to debate it"

That isnt my point. My point is that people agree with the items in the original post. They deep down believe that not only is each line item utterly correct, but also that any counter example used to defend Fox on any particular line item is pointless due to Fox's overwhelming transgressions in aggregate.

A careful reading of what I wrote would lead to an understanding that in terms of media sources, every last one of them- in my opinion- has transgressed every single line item on your list. I'm not stating that Fox isn't biased or hasn't committed the transgressions as accused. What I am saying is they all do it repeatedly & frequently.

To which the people who believe Fox is fully culpable, while other outlets are guilty of only occasional transgressions easily excused, parry every single attempt to point out that their favored news sources have done the same. It is a very tired debate because it boils down to the following. You post a list of nebulous and subjective line items as a bill of indictment against Fox News specifically. You then emphasis that Fox is guilty of all as charged and its viewers are mean, dumb, & uninformed.

Fox viewers get a little pissy about it because you have called them mean, dumb, and stupid. They then point out two issues. Firstly your list is utterly and self servingly subjective & second what you accuse Fox of doing isn't exclusive to Fox but also happens across the entire media spectrum.

Then your rebuttal is-- you know that any occurrences of similar behavior by other outlets is an utter aberration of the norm? But if you didn't watch Fox News you'd be better informed and would know this already! QED you guys think Fox News is better only because you are too stupid to not watch Fox ego causing the inability to comprehend just how bad Fox is.

What kind of legitimate argument is that?

It is essentially exactly what VL posted about the counter whine argument. Except that from the very start your argument is one long whine. We get the point from post #1. Fox News is everything a news/media outlet should never be. Its viewrs are dupes, pawns, stupid, uniformed, conspiratorial conservatives, and devoted to a zombified consumption of Republican talking points.

How the hell do you argue with that?

My point is-- they all do it. Other than individual bias coloring our perceptions they really are all equally bad. And VL is right- they all have their moments and if you are thinking your side doesn't do it, then you really are being willfully ignorant. Deep down you actually believe Fox is guilty as charged while at the same time your media sources are not possibly nor even remotely guilty of any infraction other than in cases most extreme and aberant. And when someone tries to point it out, your response is straight out of a Grimm Fairy Tale. What you believe can't possibly be wrong nor even challenged. Those who are stupid should accept your opinion is not only correct thinking but also factual thinking.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
JWatts, interesting that you didn't list a single site that presents Republican or Conservative points of view. Are the only places that are biased ones that you consider to be Liberal?

I left the choice up to any Lefties to make. If you find a Conservative site that is not editorial/opinion piece that makes a case for why FoxNews is horrible, then feel free to use it.

quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
Let's just start with ruling out:
DailyKos, The Huffington Post, The Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Think Progress or any piece written as a editorial/opinion piece.

Now lets continue with you identifying specifically what sources you'll recognize as legitimate. Otherwise you're saying "I reserve the right to dismiss any data you offer as inherently biased if I don't like the information I'll just dismiss the source ."
Can't find anything either can you?
Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I already made one, FOX. If you aren't impressed with that, I don't see the point. It would help me if you would offer a balanced view here. This is the second thread recently where you've gone on full defensive without providing constructive information, even when asked. (I asked repeatedly in the Medicaid thread for you to offer a possible solution, but you stuck to throwing barbs.) I'm not interested in tearing down other sites (easily done, but not the point of this thread), but you and Red have attacked what you think are Liberal strongholds as if that defends FOX. Red goes so far as to say that FOX is NO DIFFERENT from any other network, when it clearly is. You have tried to blunt criticism of FOX with nitpicking that claims against FOX are biased (without proof, I might add), and by offering up your own surveys as if because you provide them they therefore aren't biased.

If FOX and their ilk are no better or worse than anywhere else, offer up your own list of Conservative sites that are as bad as the left-leaning ones you label as bad.

Posts: 5607 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:

quote:Let's just start with ruling out:
DailyKos, The Huffington Post, The Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Think Progress or any piece written as a editorial/opinion piece.

Now lets continue with you identifying specifically what sources you'll recognize as legitimate. Otherwise you're saying "I reserve the right to dismiss any data you offer as inherently biased if I don't like the information I'll just dismiss the source ."

Can't find anything either can you?

I haven't looked since you haven't told us what sources you'll accept. I will not until you do so and I doubt you are going to.

My question is more why you feel obliged to defend Fox in the first place.

Posts: 5659 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Deep down you actually believe Fox is guilty as charged while at the same time your media sources are not possibly nor even remotely guilty of any infraction other than in cases most extreme and aberant.
How do you know what he thinks deep down?
Posts: 5659 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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:
Other than individual bias coloring our perceptions they really are all equally bad.
You can keep repeating this, but it won't magically get any more true.
Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al

Pick anyone you wish. Literally.

I know of no news source that hasn't violated the original posted list.

Literally it applies to every one of them at some point in time and place.

The way you are acting however, isn't allowing you to understand our point.... IE

Your argument is fundamentally flawed in that you have set it up to prevent any comparative that might demonstrate the ills you accuse Fox of also inhabit the rest of the media.

We cant argue it because you have set up preconditions that prevent even the most reasonable counter argument.

I hate to say it but the NYT is utterly unreadable - and in terms of the actual editorial page, I cant even get through it anymore. Someone posts a NYT link- I dont read it anymore. I dont read the Washington Post willingly anymore because its so damned biased. In both cases I was a subscriber to each of them for years. You keep asserting Fox is clearly different from other networks... Having been a paying consumer for decades of "liberal" media I have some frame of reference to call upon when I note there is bias and editorialistic slants. I'm not some Fox zombie.


OK so CBS fabricates stories to throw an election to the democrats- it fails and their lead editorial anchor gets canned.

CNN utterly fabricates a sensationalist story for it CNN presents show later admitting it was an utter hoax after a lot of people got crucified in public as a result of the false report.

Fox New's E.D. Hill makes a comment about the phoniness of the fist pump between Obama and his wife.


I'm sorry but in terms of domestic news media sensationalistic crash and burns- Fox's pales in comparison.

CNN goes after the Military and Republican leadership on an utterly fabricated basis- presenting it as news. CBS decideds to run with a completely fabricated news story- and even admits that they knew it was false when they aired it- attempting to convince the voter that Bush was a draft dodger, and never actually served up to the responsibilities of duty.

I mean, come on CBS is arguably the most important broadcast news source at the time, while CNN was definately the most important cable news source at the time. Both fabricated bogus stories, went to air knowing the stories were fabricated, and utlimately justified their actions by claiming it was in the interest of furthering progressive thought & debate even if the factual basis was utterly wrong. They literally were attempting to change a presidential election and military policy based upon a total lie...

Who busted them?

Fox.

I am sure that at some time in the future some producer and editorialist at Fox will come up with an equally bogus story in an effort to further conservative thought and debate in an effort to sway a national policy away from a liberal point of rule. When that happens- and it will- i fully expect one of their liberal competitors to pounce on it and reveal it as a calamity of journalism. At that point they will finally rise to the level of CBS & CNN.

Until then, those that lay out the claim that Fox is the antithesis of journalism compared to the rest of the media, will have to contend with the Newspeak logic that identifies Fox as the antithesis of journalisim despite the fact it has not fabricated stories intended to shape national political policies by utterly lying to the people.

The irony is of course delicious. E.D. Hill gets scandalized for pointing out how awkward and staged the Obama fist bump was. CNN lost a producer, and CBS and anchor and producer for going so far as to charge the military command with falsehoods and defame a Presidential candidate in an attempt to throw the national election.

Yes Fox is different compared to its competitors because so far it hasn't resorted to fabricating stories.

Al you just aren't getting our point because your assumptions preclude our point of view. Its almost like trying to argue a religion as being factual with an atheist. Your very belief precludes the possibility that Fox could be innocent of any of the original posts indictments and further precludes the possibility that other media outlets are guilty of violating the same items except under the most exceptional of circumstances. You then validate this by drawing upon polling data paid from by Fox competitors as being an aggregate proof that Fox is convicted as charged and those who watch it are stupid.

Its quite alright to be that way.

But ask yourself this, did you question CBS as a legitimate news source once they were busted?

You excused it as an "aberration", I bet.

Did Fox nailing CBS for this "aberration" let you consider Fox might be a legitimate news source? Or that Fox viewers knew the facts before the rest of the video media?

Did that even lead you to wonder even for a second that maybe the mainstream media has a political agenda? That Fox might not be as vapid and unprofessional as you believe and charge?

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
You have tried to blunt criticism of FOX with nitpicking that claims against FOX are biased (without proof, I might add), and by offering up your own surveys as if because you provide them they therefore aren't biased.

[DOH] You completely missed the point of my earlier post. In essence, you posted a link to a poll that made the implied claim that FoxNews viewers were less well informed than the average viewer. I said such a poll was meaningless without controlling the type of question, since it's trivial to tailor a question to make most broad groups look bad.

You said prove it. I pointed to a "Pew Research Poll" showing 60+% of CNN/MSNBC viewers thought the 2004 election was stolen.

[Roll Eyes] You 'rebutted' by claiming the poll was biased. The Poll was biased if you are using it in attempt to draw a broad generalization. I was specifically using it to say you can't make such claims.

quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
If FOX and their ilk are no better or worse than anywhere else, offer up your own list of Conservative sites that are as bad as the left-leaning ones you label as bad.

[DOH] Again, you didn't get the gist of my post. I didn't say those sites were bad. I said they were partisan sources, just like the original article which was the basis for this thread. As such them claiming that FoxNews is a uniquely Panic Mongering, Character Assassination, Scapegoating, Bullying, Confusing, Populistic, Christian sight is a biased attempt at slander.

Just making these claims without any credible source to support your accusations is weak.


quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
I haven't looked since you haven't told us what sources you'll accept. I will not until you do so and I doubt you are going to.

I have explicitly created a list and already posted it. I will accept any source except for an editorial/opinion piece or an article posted by:
DailyKos, The Huffington Post, The Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Think Progress

It's time to put up or shut up.


quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
My question is more why you feel obliged to defend Fox in the first place.

I'm not obliged to, I want to. There are many more readers than posters. Many will believe such slander is justified if nobody bothers calling it what it is.

In the same vein, why do you feel obliged to continue to attack FoxNews?

[ July 19, 2011, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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:
OK so CBS fabricates stories to throw an election to the democrats- it fails and their lead editorial anchor gets canned.
As far as I can tell, this is not an accurate description of Rathergate, Red. Why do you see it that way?

quote:
But ask yourself this, did you question CBS as a legitimate news source once they were busted?
I would actually be surprised if anyone being critical of FOX in this thread considers much network television to be a legitimate news source. The difference, of course, is that FOX is outright political propaganda, whereas the other networks are just sensationalist tripe.
Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL

Its the inverse of what he is charging me with. My argument is nullified because of what I feel. The irony is that his argument is also based upon a deep belief. How can it be proven? Because so far any factual challenge or descriptive comparative presented has been denied simply because it does not comply with the original argument.

Its spaghetti monster time. Essentially he is arguing a religion, and denies any criticism of that religion because he assumes I must believe the inverse of his religion.

The fact that I dont believe the inverse of his argument might indicate who has the more realistic argument.

Tom really wish you had read my linked reference concerning biased viewpoints and being predisposed to not recognizing one's own bias nor being able to perceive bias in those you agree with. Having been trained ans an anthropologist, including how to avoid ethnocentric bias, I'm kinda a trained exception to the rule because I am trained to self censor for bias and be very much more aware of it compared to most people. For all I know you too may have taken 500 +600 level college work dealing with individual, cultural, and ethnic bias. In that case you too might be judged to have some level of discernment beyond the average person.

But the fact you are contradiction the linked reference- is pretty telling as to whether you have this skill or not. Then again it was a series of government funded studies to determine why we are getting polarized. So I'm sure it was liberally biased and you might as well not read it and continue assuming that it confirmed what you already think.

The irony is it doesn't confirm what you think- making your sentence amazingly ignorant in light of the facts confirmed by scientific study.

A bunch of scientists hold a confernce compare note on bias issues including political bias, and find that most people cannot perceive bias when they are predisposed to agree with the point of view of the source. People who watch Fox believe the rest of the media is biased- but Fox isn't. People who watch MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC believe Fox is biased - but MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, & ABC are not biased.

The reality- they are all biased.

And the reality is that we are blind as individuals to perceiving that bias when we agree with the bias slant.

Thats the current state of research science concerning this issue.

You may continue to deny the statement that individual bias prevents perception of bias as much as you want. That you are proven by research to be wrong is an issue you''l have to contend with personally.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have explicitly created a list and already posted it. I will accept any source except for an editorial/opinion piece or an article posted by:
DailyKos, The Huffington Post, The Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Think Progress

It's time to put up or shut up.

No you said you would not accept those but you left it open ended as to what else you would not accept. You have defined your terms, but I bet you won't keep to them.

Give me an hour or two...

Personally my beef with Fox is that they've monopolized one side of the debate and push out any Conservative who doesn't toe their line. That's why Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are on MSNBC.

By the way, do you see liberals railing against you attacking Huffingtonpost?

Posts: 5659 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOl

Tom
you kill me.

You sound like a programed believer.

But be surprised because I still view network news as legitimate news sourcing, although I tend to only catch weekend editions of it instead of every night like I did a decade ago.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol Pat is just not that interesting as a talking head, and Joe is just obnoxiously loud. I'd avoid them in real life too. MSNBC has em because they are nationally identifiable conservatives, that they aren't very good at their jobs in terms of capturing advertising is another issue altogether.

As far as Fox monopolizing conservative view points in video media, I think you are correct. However given market share, its very difficult to see another startup conservative video media outlet getting any traction. In the case of fox its traction was only made possible by outright cable franchise control, thus forcing the inclusion of Fox. It was a money loser for years, even though it was a ratings success overnight. Given the media conglomerates that could afford to repeat the same strategy either already have an equivalent to Fox that is liberal or benefit from having Fox as a the only conservative bias outlet represented in their media packages. Time Warner isn't going to risk market exposure to Comcast by suddenly providing someone elses version of Fox News unless that perspon/company can literally pay for its inclusion.

As far as liberals railing up... the issue is a bit false because he has identified possible sources that even the most biased liberal would be forced to admit to as being inherently biased. No one could argue the Huffington Post isn't biased because even old Ariana staed its intentionally biased. The reason you likely aren't seeing liberal get offended by the exclusion is because the excluded items are self identified as liberal, to the point of intentional activism and reactionisim. In further irony however is the fact that many people actually consider the listed media outlets as being unbiased and reliable news sources.

Kinda makes you wonder how many people pay attention to mission statements and mastheads.

If you think that the Huffingtonpost is unbiased there really is no hope for you.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
A bunch of scientists hold a confernce compare note on bias issues including political bias, and find that most people cannot perceive bias when they are predisposed to agree with the point of view of the source. People who watch Fox believe the rest of the media is biased- but Fox isn't. People who watch MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC believe Fox is biased - but MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, & ABC are not biased.

The reality- they are all biased.

And the reality is that we are blind as individuals to perceiving that bias when we agree with the bias slant.

Is there anyone here claiming that the other sources aren't biased?

The general contention isn't that Fox is the only biased source- it's that Fox, while claiming to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias. While any of the other sources may have bias, with the exception, perhaps of MSNBC, which has publicly expressed a goal of trying to counter Fox's bias, their objective is mostly profit driven and the biases are incidental. Fox's objective, on the other hand, is propaganda which it has found a way to make profitable.

Posts: 8061 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Red:] "We cant argue it because you have set up preconditions that prevent even the most reasonable counter argument."

If you go back to one of my first posts on this thread, you'll see that I did cite specific issues that FOX has engaged in that no other network has done. Neither you, JWatts or any other FOX defender bothered to reply to that post, as if by rushing past it, it doesn't count. Instead you're throwing out your counter-measures like a submarine avoiding torpedoes.

[Red:] "I hate to say it but the NYT is utterly unreadable..."

which it manifestly is not, as it has perhaps the best news gathering apparatus of any newspaper and perhaps any news organization in this country. That you summarily dismiss it, as you've done with your charge that illegal immigrants are literally bankrupting the health care system in this country, and that all networks and news outlets are equally guilty as FOX, only makes you seem hardly an objective or even fair arguer.

[Red:] "CBS decideds to run with a completely fabricated news story- and even admits that they knew it was false when they aired it- attempting to convince the voter that Bush was a draft dodger, and never actually served up to the responsibilities of duty. "

How many years ago did this happen? How did they clean up afterward? Has anything like that happened since? Has anyone on FOX been fired for a comparable screwup? If you are saying all networks are alike, they certainly should have by now, right? You're like a defender of the Hatfields who can never forgive the McCoys, only the families long ago forgave each other, intermarried and don't now remember what the fuss was about.

[Red:] "Did Fox nailing CBS for this "aberration" let you consider Fox might be a legitimate news source?"

They did nail them, over and over and over again, with great and sombre glee each time. Of course they have the resources to be a legitimate and even excellent news organization. When will you condemn them for the things they have done that go against that aspiration? Like their news department being instructed to use the word "Socialist" when talking about Obama's proposed legislative agenda, as reported by CBS, of course:
quote:
Fox News vice president and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon said in 2009 that despite making on-air claims that President Obama advocates socialism, he privately found the notion "rather far-fetched," according to newly-released audio.

Posts: 5607 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Py

The point being made by supporter of Fox is that

1. Because of personal Bias, those who do not watch Fox are not recognizing the same acts being claimed as being specific to Fox are actually specific to every single one of the media outlets.

CNN claims to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias.

MSNBC claims to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias.

CBS claims to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias.

CNBC claims to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias.

BBC claims to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias.

NBC claims to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias.

etc

all of them are profit driven- the biases aren't incidental as was pointed out by other people earlier in the thread. It is a conscious marketing decision. The only difference between any of them is perceptual.

If you are conservative you'll likely watch Fox and have difficulty noting bias. You cannot dispute that because it is factual that there is both an individual bias of the viewer as well as a bias of the company as it televises its programing.

What is utterly infuriating is that when you try to point out that the same is true of any other media outlet, immediately the claim is denied and Fox is identified as being an exception to how media functions. namely Fox claims to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias.

So yes the counter thus far has been that Fox is guilty of the items in the original post, while other outlets have minor infractions of the items or so infrequent an infraction that they are resultantly very different from Fox and truly unbiased.

Any bias of other media outlets is simply coincidental aberration.

I'll be real honest with you. Once a news source demonstrates repeatedly a bias that agrees with the editorial mission of the organization thqt finds its way into non-editorial reporting, I stop reading it. Someone posts a link to the NYT or the AJC, I dont even bother reading it- even if I respect the person bringing it to my attention. Why? because the editorial dishonesty of both those papers has been demonstrated repeatedly, over years, and is extremely apparent to the point that even when caught fabricating news, the rest of the media barely criticizes them. I watch CNN now only during major breaking world news. I hate the new HLN format as well as the change in the evening lineups on both channels. I'm really not interested in Hollywood gossip and sensationalist crime cases offered on HLN, nor am I all that interested in Piers Morgan's interviewees. Anderson Cooper is painfully biased in terms of his editorial point of view. He really is a living silver spoon stuck in a very limited New York point of view. Msnbc grates on me all through the day. I usually only manage watching a segment of a shwo. I almost never manage to get through evn 30 minutes of programing. I will however use CNN & MSNBC websites. China News Network gets some play, but its almost always such a display of censored media reporting that it reminds you that the existence of more than the government point of view is important.

I could go on.

Im not going to. Instead I will just state that I think I am beyond what is normal in terms of news consumption by Americans. I dont have a single point source. I dont have a single preferred bias choice. I don't even have a favorite source. I do have sources I avoid. What I have is a broad < for an American at least> spectrum of news sources that I consume. Personally, I know I have a conservative bias. I also recognize that often times, especially during the prime time block, there is indeed a strong conservative bias on the channel. But I also recognize the bias on other channels. I'll admit MSNBC is more likely to boil my blood than Fox, but that doesn't mean I cant see when Fox has an agenda compared to the agenda's on other networks. Case in point Fox coverage and slant on the English newspaper scandle. Fox is offering limited hourly coverage. CNN & MSNBC are sometimes leading with the story, while the BBC is literally broadcasting every witness statement and committee questioning live as it happens. MSNBC is practiaclly gloating at the fate of their arch enemy in England extrapolating a ferverent hope that Fox News will be shut down as an indirect result.

But that is MSNBC's agenda.

But fill in the blank

______________claims to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias.

It applies to every single one of them.

That would be my point, and that is what is being denied.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
Tom really wish you had read my linked reference concerning biased viewpoints and being predisposed to not recognizing one's own bias nor being able to perceive bias in those you agree with.
Dude, I was the first person on this board to recommend Manjoo's True Enough to everyone. There's nothing on that topic I need to learn from you. [Smile]

quote:
A bunch of scientists hold a confernce compare note on bias issues including political bias, and find that most people cannot perceive bias when they are predisposed to agree with the point of view of the source. People who watch Fox believe the rest of the media is biased- but Fox isn't. People who watch MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC believe Fox is biased - but MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, & ABC are not biased.
You've taken the wrong conclusions away from those studies. Yes, all news agencies are biased to one degree or another. But that does not mean that they are all equally biased, manifest those biases identically, or even biased in identical ways or on identical topics. This is, I submit, a fairly fundamental understanding which you appear to be dismissing out of hand.

You are, in other words, arguing that pecan pie is not ghastly, sickeningly sweet on the grounds that other pies are also sweet.

[ July 19, 2011, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Redskull

Honestly while I love Pat Buchanan in print he's so unpleasant to listen to and look at he probably undermines his own POV.

Fox's situation works out pretty well for them, since they have almost no competition for their chosen demographic. A Conservative is going to have a hard time getting off of Newscorp's ranch without going to a news source which he's uncomfortable with. It's good for liberals as it gives them a big buffoonish target. It's bad for conservatives though as it gives them a pretty narrow range of opinions and ideas.

I know Huffingtonpost is biased, but one can say Huffingtonpost is biased so I don't want an argument from there without liberals feeling the need to rush in and defend it. If one criticizes Fox (and the opening post was over the top and is probably attributing to malice what is probably stupidity)mainstream conservatives seem to feel obliged to defend it.

Posts: 5659 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Is there anyone here claiming that the other sources aren't biased?"

Weather is biased, too, or hasn't anyone noticed how hot it's been this month? I repeat my assertion that orientation is not the same as bias. Maddow is not biased because she is a Liberal. Hannity is not biased because he is a Conservative. I don't believe that Maddow is significantly biased at all, though I recognize that a Con listening to her will feel like she isn't giving their side of the topic a fair shake. Suck it up.

Hannity is biased because he is dishonest and dismisses arguments that go against his position. Would anyone here claim that Maddow is dishonest?

Posts: 5607 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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 would say that both Hannity and Maddow are biased, but that Hannity is a dishonest demagogue whereas Maddow (to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, speaking as someone who doesn't watch punditry) is not.

[ July 19, 2011, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Personally my beef with Fox is that they've monopolized one side of the debate and push out any Conservative who doesn't toe their line. That's why Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are on MSNBC.

How can you simultaneously claim that FoxNews has monopolized one side of the debate, but that the conservatives Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are on MSNBC? Those are mutually exclusive states.

FoxNews has very much attempted to become the conservative news of choice, but they haven't attempted to shut down other conservative voices.

quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
By the way, do you see liberals railing against you attacking Huffingtonpost?

[Roll Eyes] I have never started a thread whose sole purpose is attacking Huffingtonpost. If I started a thread entitled "Huffingtonpost tactics" and the first post was a hit piece lifted from a Rightwing web site, do you think the Liberals on this web would remain quiet about my attempts at slander>
Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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:
______________claims to be unbiased, is actively and intentionally using misinformation, marketing, and sensationalism to advance its bias.

It applies to every single one of them.

And I disagree on that. Most will use it to rake in more profits, and will even stomp on their nominal biases to go for something that pull more money in, often by lending huge amounts of credibility to extreme positions just for the sake of creating an argument that will draw people in. Their agenda is eyeballs for advertisers, and while they'll show bias (MSNBC aside which, again, does have an explicit and intentional bias)

Fox, on the other hand, as was pointed out above, makes selling its bias its primary goal, even if it is, at times unprofitable. It's primary focus is explicit propaganda, up to serving as a campaign mouthpiece and soliciting donations for Republican candidates. That's a significant distinction that goes well beyond simply having an inherent bias.

Posts: 8061 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al
the "You" in this case refers to to the plural, not the individual. As to your specifics- what you claim to be something only Fox has done, is simply incorrect. That you can even think it to be unique to Fox indicates a gross unawareness as an individual that you could think this to be true only of Fox and no other. I'm not rushing past what you posted. I'm not ignoring it either.

I could stand here and argue the specif merit of your case and you would be able to provide enough supporting evidence that what you say is true. You dont recognize that I already agree with you.. Fox does what you say it does. What you are not understanding is that I'm arguing they ALL do it. Since they ALL do it, it makes the claim Fox news is uniquely doing it false.

And Yes the NYT literally is unreadable at this point. The number and frequency of outright falsification events has kept the ombudsman continually apologetic. As far as news gathering capacity, being able to claim the best gathering performance for a newspaper is really pathetic at this point. Hell USA Today or the AP has a better news gathering system than the NYT has at this point. A failure to recognize this fact kinda reveals your own bias.

Face it the NYT doesnt have the network it once had, nor the market penetration to support it, nor the staff to incorporate it into the NYT reporting on a daily basis. There arnt the same numbers and capacities of reporters beholden to the NYT. They dont have the flexibility to aggressively follow multiple stories at once as they once could. And the fact is the decline in self generated reportage and editorial content has lead to criticisms against the owners of the NYT and also concerns as to the ultimate viability of the NYT due to the fact that it is increasingly built up from AP sourced content and guest independent contractors.

Kinda like the issue that illegals are literally bankrupting the healthcare system, you have apparently missed the justified and valid criticisms regarding the news performance and scope of the NYT. It is indeed a fair argument I have pointed out, whether you are willing to entertain it as such is possibly the result of a belief that the NYT is as estimable as you hold it to be.

Thats the point in regard to CBS.. what did they really do in response? Aside from pushing Dan out the door and letting his private producer go.. nothing. Nothing changed. Same editorialists, journalists, & producers. No change in the newsroom. And as I pointed out, noone on Fox has ever been guilty of the same thing- E.D. Hill being the closest in terms of how the rest of the media treated the incident. So compare CBS actively comits a false story to lead the news, implying that the Republican Presidential Nominee was a drunk, drug user, who did not report for duty service, did not complete duty obligation, lied about it, and had patrons And friends of the Bush family cover for him for decades. This was announced by the network anchor, when he knew it to be fabricated.

Compare that to E.D. Hill. She makes an editrioal comment at the end of an afternoon news block that the Obama's fist punch seemed a bit contrived and staged.

So in the aftermath.. CBS did not change news room policies nor vetting policies. Dan is back on HDNET doing investigative stories. And CBS has continued being very anti Republican and pro Democrat. E.D. Hill? jobless after being utterly destroyed by the rest of the media claiming that to question the authenticity or the fist bump as a rascist attack. Fox news punched its anchors through racial sensitivity training by a third party and formally limited anchors during the daytime to editorial comments only on the specific reportage or only during formaly identified editorial segments.

Yeah it happened a long time ago.... the point is did CBS do anything to change the potential of it happening again? They haven't have they? Meaning the next time the election is looking dicey for the Democrat, should we expect any circuit breakers in the CBS newsroom going off to prevent a false news story from being knowingly presented that has the potential to change an election if not caught?

I don't know about you- but there isn't a time limit on when attempts to throw an election expire in my personal view.

And as far as Obama being a socialist.. well he nationalized, housing, medicine, automobile production, investment banking - literally fitting the definition of socialism. The government chooses policy goals, permitting only limited private ownership of the means of production while at the same time directly owning controlling interests in the means of production.

That would be socialism. It might have been a little far fetched in 2009. But by 2010 it fit the bill. When you by fiat divest the bond and note holders from legal ownership of a company to then compel the transfer to a socialist group under government sponsorship without actually paying the ownership costs that by law should have been followed- you are indeed a socialist. He may choose to call himself what ever he wishes. But when people state he is a socialist, whether on Fox news or in day to day conversation- I won't argue he isn't because his cumulative actions in regard to economics has fit the traditional definition created by political scientists to identify a person as socialist in political terms as well as his actions fitting the economic definition of being a socialist.

Sorry but crying because Fox chose < correctly> to start identifying Obama as socialist in terms of his economic actions in 2009 isn't going to win any sympathy because he is indeed a socialist. That CBS is quoting a member of the newsroom as having found it far fetched at the time isn't actually newsworthy. What should be newsworthy is that as early as 2009 Fox made the editorial decision to identify Obama as a socialist. While everyone else was stepping all over themselves to provide an alternative explanation or excuse for Obama's socialist actions in both the political and economic theaters, Fox took the traditional definitions of what it is that makes a political and economic socialist- and applied it to Obama.

In this case, that you bring it up as an example of bias writ large in the Fox News editorial policy, is having a contrary effect. Namely, Fox seems to have been the earliest identifier of Obama's tendencies. Having nationalized healthcare, housing, automobile production, and expanded government payrolls and budgets by 4 trillion plus dollars while implementing an economic system patterned directly upon European Socialist Government models of the 1970's & 1980"s - its almost impossible for anyone to argue with a straight face that Obama is not a socialist.

If I had an animal that had feathers like a duck. A bill like a duck. Wings like a duck, etc.. all fitting the definition of duck. Then you got together a group of reporters. And in this group 9 of the 10 reporters personally likes the duck. They personally support the goals of the duck. They agree with the method and agenda of the duck. And finally they knew that if they told people he was anything other than a Dog, the people would resultantly get angry over the fact that the reporters have confirmed he is indeed a duck. Since they don't want the Duck to fail- they continue calling him a Dog.

However, one of the 10 reporters thinks it is stupid to call the Duck a Dog because he doesn't look like a Dog, act like a Dog, Smell like a Dog, or even have any attributes of a dog. The guy is indeed a Duck. So He calls the guy a Duck while everyone else keeps calling him a Dog. A few years pass and despite the other 9 reporter's best efforts, economists and political pundits have begun saying the Dog isnt a dog at all, but really is a duck.

Thats where we are with Obama.

If you think that is even remotely a lapse of journalistic integrity or some sort of unfair and biassed agenda, you are completely wrong.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" It's primary focus is explicit propaganda, up to serving as a campaign mouthpiece and soliciting donations for Republican candidates. That's a significant distinction that goes well beyond simply having an inherent bias."

Sorry but I'm in 100%total disagreement with you on this. If that was true, I wouldn't ever see Democratic politicians and candidates on the channel. I would never see Democrat pundits selling their books, campaigns, and websites. And in the entire time I have watched Fox I have never seen any solicitation for any political campaign or advocacy group period.

How you can hold these factually incorrect and false views is untenable.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it possible there have been campaign donation Solicitations? No Idea. But I'm now going to look for it.
Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=3362

and media matters clasifies this as campaign solicitation...


http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130035

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
To run with your analogy, Red: imagine for a moment that the reporter who's convinced that the duck is a dog is running around saying, "Look! You can tell he's a dog because he's eating dog food!" And then, when the other reporters point out that he's eating corn, he refuses to issue a correction and then argues that only stupid or malicious dog-lovers would not be able to recognize dog food when they see it.
Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well yes Tom that would be great.. if it applied.

Unfortunately for you, in this case the 9 other reporters have been saying the duck is a Dog eating dog food, and one reporter has pointed out he's not only not a duck but hasn't eaten Dog food ever. To wit the other 9 stomp their foot and scream the reporter isn't a real reporter and is obviously is shill of the Cat lobby trying to defame their profession by calling the great Dog a duck.

Again.. if you want to argue Obama isn't a socialist at this point you can. But unless you want to overturn 100 years of how socialists are identified by definition, you really dont have a leg to stand on.

Fox got one right that is politically uncomfortable for the people who desire hime to not be identified as socialist. Its also embarrassing to the mainstream reporters who went out of their way to specifically state Obama wasn't a socialist. Yet at this point he is what he is and the reporters who insisted Obama wasn't a socialist are simply wrong and incapable of admitting it because to do so raises the question of integrity.

IE once you realized Obama was a socialist, why did you continue saying he wasn't even though you know he is?

So as I pointed out using Obama being labeled as a Socialist by Fox in 2009 is actually a kudos moment in terms of factual honesty and investigative and editorial choice. The other networks had the same information- and actually they had more access to OBama at the time seeing as Fox was under a non-too secret White House boycott. So I guess being sidelined allowed Fox the time to judge the President by his actions up to that point, as well as his then plans for healthcare and compared that with the definition for a socialist. He obviously met the conditions. They used it.

And two years later, as you watch financial news shows on Sundays or watch the Sunday interview programs, people are indeed calling him Socialist, including people who are liberals.

So yeah nice try Tom.

Epic Fail.. but nice anyway.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015464-503544.html

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1139

Huckabee behind allowed to plug sites that take users to his PAC and ask them for donations.

Actively supporting the Tea Party, including promoting events and hosting promotional material for them.

That goes beyond bias and into outright advocacy on the part of those it promotes.

Posts: 8061 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts

I don't see you making any distinctions between Greg and anybody else on this thread critical of Fox.

Posts: 5659 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except....

Democrats got to plug their websites too during the campaign season.

And the Tea Party isn't a campaign candidacy group as such nor even an actual organized political party- ergo no restrictions other than news worthiness.

As to Dick Morris appealing.. he is indeed a guet, and he often shills his latest book, personal website, or even other people's blogs and websites regardless of whether they are politcial condidates or not. In this case, I'd say it crossess the line in that you did have an interviewed guest advocating for donations to a third party that tended to support another party for elected office.

Oh wait.. that isn't illegal....

And the Irony is it repeatedly gains contribution increases for Democratic groups when they Use Fox as a whipping boy, taking advantage of the lack of education the supporters of these DNC groups have because they think a law has been broken and ethics violations have occurred that deserve jail time.

If this is the best we can come up with to support your argument- i'm afraid your argument has failed.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
Unfortunately for you, in this case the 9 other reporters have been saying the duck is a Dog eating dog food...
And this is one of the reasons why network news is a horrible, horrible thing.

Because I think an even better analogy is this:

Network 1:
The president sat down to eat today.

Network 2:
The president, like the dog he is, sat down to eat some dog food. Because he's a dog.

Network 1:
Some sources report that when the president sat down to eat, he ate dog food. Here are two food experts to discuss.

Network 2:
The raging controversy over the president's food choices continues! We've invited a full panel of celebrities to debate this with our pundits, who have seen food and know what it looks like.

Network 1:
What is dog food? If the president were to eat dog food, how would people feel about it?

Network 2:
Join us later when we cry about the horrible things dogs have done. They poop, too. Does the president poop? Only time will tell -- but you can rest assured that he will do his best to keep us from finding out.

Network 1:
Poop! Is there a cover-up, or is Network 2 just blowing smoke?

Newspaper/blogger:
Actually, the president was eating corn.

Network 2:
Moving on to poop, which is a much bigger story than corn: what could we expect from the president, a proven dog, if he were to begin pooping where we could see?

---------

quote:
if you want to argue Obama isn't a socialist at this point you can
Oh, that's a load of bull. Is that really what you're hung up on? Dude, you're a fascist. I mean, seriously. A self-avowed, openly admiring fascist. And you're obsessing over whether Obama is socialist enough to be accurately demonized as a socialist?
Posts: 19689 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nope just pointing out that he is indeed a socialist. And if you are going to use as an example biased editorialist and propaganda claims against Fox because they called him a socialist, its kinda a non-starter because--- he IS a socialist.

Thats like saying fox is biased because it got the facts right, while other outlets are not biased because they didnt get their facts right.

And as far as your re-attempt...

while the rest of the networks are debating poop & corn, one network states for the record that the guy is indeed a duck & not a dog and explains why it is true.

The issue on this thread is a conviction on indefensible. If it were true Fox was the one doing these things and almost exclusively doing these things... then the initial post would have some merit. This isn't the case and I'm laughing at the irony that in an attempt to vindicate the non-change in CBS's newsroom, reprtages about Fox News making an editorial call to use "socialist" is presented as bonafide proof Fox is biased and guilty as charged.

The fact Fox is actually correct is apparently escaping people's attention, as is the fact that CBS deciding to use this as a news story gives credence to the continuing accusations that nothing changed in the CBS news room in terms of process checking and bias control in the Dan Rather aftermath. But then liberals tend to think socialisim is fine and wouldn't notice its inclusion as offensive if it were on a liberal media outlet.

Words are very interesting.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Same editorialists, journalists, & producers. No change in the newsroom."

Since this was an anomoly, what else should have been changed? If you think it wasn't a special case, cite another.

"And as I pointed out, noone on Fox has ever been guilty of the same thing"

Ye Gods! That is a truly bizarre declaration!! You're right that nobody has been fired for doing such things on FOX, but that hardly means they haven't been doing them. For instance,

. How about the aforementioned directive from the VP for News that commentators should include the word "Socialist" when describing Obama's social program initiatives?

. How about the airing of and commenting favorably on the manipulation of the Sherrod footage without any attempt to validate it ahead of time?

. How about their never letting viewers know when their "guests" on panels have conflicts of interest with the material they are talking about?

. How about their on-air selective reporting about the birther issue that somehow never really discounted it, except for O'Reilly?

. How come they never followed up on the bogus ACORN visits by James O'Keefe that emphasized that he manipulated the footage to make it appear that Planned Parenthood had a policy that encouraged illegal acts?

. How about the repeated interviews with Sarah Palin where she makes factually mistaken assertions one after another that never are challenged? Ditto for their pandering interviews with Gingrich, but never challenging him on any of his controversial actions or stands?

. How about the constant referrals to "Obamacare" instead of its name, "The Affordable Healthcare Act" and never providing "equal time" to explain its potentially positive elements?

. How about their constant attacks on scientists over global warming while promoting wacko pseudo-scientists that oppose it?

. Why did FOX News report that Judge Roger Vinson "threw out the nation's health care law" when he ruled against it while other news outlets merely reported that he had ruled it unconstitutional but still allowed the Administration to implement and enforce it?

. How about their about-face on Rauf for the NYC multicultural center? Why did they attack Rauf for potentially taking Saudi funds (which never actually happened) while not disclosing the 7% ownership stake in FOX held by a Saudi prince?

. How about Beck's constant distortions of Obama and Democrats, and for instance implying that Obama liking Sotomayor's "empathy" as being somehow akin to Naziism?

Since you are so sure that FOX is no worse than any other network, how about you find as many and as egregious distortions as those I've listed above where CNN did the same thing. All of these things happened in the past 2 years, whereas the Rathergate scandal happened 6 years ago and nobody but a committed anti-liberal would even remember it.

Posts: 5607 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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 
quote:
Nope just pointing out that he is indeed a socialist. And if you are going to use as an example biased editorialist and propaganda claims against Fox because they called him a socialist, its kinda a non-starter because--- he IS a socialist.
Although technically it can be said that Obama is a socialist, considering the extent, limitations and circumstances of his "nationalizing" housing, medicine, banking and the auto industry, I would say that he is no more socialist than most of his predecessors.

So while you can talk about Obama the Socialist, you should also talk about Nixon the Socialist, Ford the Socialist, Bush (either one) the Socialist, and doubtlessly Reagan the Socialist. Which kinda makes the term meaningless, don't you think? [Smile]

Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Oh, that's a load of bull. Is that really what you're hung up on? Dude, you're a fascist. I mean, seriously. A self-avowed, openly admiring fascist. And you're obsessing over whether Obama is socialist enough to be accurately demonized as a socialist?

Redskullvw, are you actually a self-avowed fascist? Or is this just another attempt by TomDavidson at a smear tactic?
Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am curious about that too.

BTW the USA has been socialist to varying degrees since FDR whom Obama was compared to going into office. The problem is that when the word is used by Fox they want you thinking Lenin not FDR and so they may be making an accurate description but it's not accurate on delivery.

JWatts I need to give you a rather lengthy explanation for my take on Fox so it will probably be this evening. Right now I am taking my students mushroom hunting.

Posts: 5659 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
BTW the USA has been socialist to varying degrees since FDR whom Obama was compared to going into office. The problem is that when the word is used by Fox they want you thinking Lenin not FDR and so they may be making an accurate description but it's not accurate on delivery.

Obama has pushed a 'Socialist' agenda far more than any president since Johnson. He leans the furthest in that direction of any President in 40 years, so it's not a stretch to label him a Socialist. Sure he's not as socialist as a Socialist Leader from Europe, but from an American perspective he leans heavily in that direction.

quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
JWatts I need to give you a rather lengthy explanation for my take on Fox so it will probably be this evening. Right now I am taking my students mushroom hunting.

That's no problem. Happy hunting.

[ July 19, 2011, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

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