This is topic Fox most trusted name in news in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/13895.html

Posted by Lloyd (Member # 6118) on :
 
From politico, a recent poll
quote:
found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

Thought this was pretty funny given all the comments on this site about Faux news etc. Personally, I like that the news shows try to always have an opposing viewpoint. Yes the moderators seem to lean slightly right, ok some of them a lot right, but they always give the opposing view a fair shake.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Yes the moderators seem to lean slightly right, ok some of them a lot right, but they always give the opposing view a fair shake.
Question: how many people who actually hold the opposing view think they give the opposing view a fair shake? I'm betting about 30%.
 
Posted by Lloyd (Member # 6118) on :
 
I think I should amend my post to say they usually give the opposing view a fair shake. And you are probably right -- the 30% that agree with that are probably the 30% of democrats that trust them.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
One problem with such a poll is that there is an unclear split between Fox News and Fox Commentators.

Fox News is pretty much the same as any other network. The stories are similar and reported in similar fashion, for the most part. There is not much of a difference there.

Fox Commentators, on the other hand, are strongly biased to the Right, and are untrustworthy. I mean, does anyone rely on O'Reilly, Beck or Hannity to give the full, unadulterated truth? If so, do I have a deal on a bridge for you! [Smile]

So if it is only Fox News that they are measuring, it's no big deal. But if it includes their commentators--man, I worry about this country. [Eek!]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Good point, WS. I think a lot of the condemnation of Fox News that I've seen is really directed at the pundits.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Agreed, scifibum. ALL tv news sucks with the slightly elevated exception of PBS, but that's only slightly. But clowns like Beck and O'Reilly and Hannity are embarrassing insults to the Fourth Estate.

When Jon Stewart serves as America's de facto most trusted and hard-hitting tv journalist, surreality overwhelems.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
That people trust FOX is not necessarily a sign of FOX's trustworthiness; it is just as easily a sign of the level of gullibility of the folks who watch FOX.

I would bank on that answer. People who get their information from FOX pretty much have to be...unskeptical regarding what their TV tells them.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Also bear in mind Fox is the only major conservative outlet whereas liberals are split amongst several.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
For the record, I think that CNN & MSNBC qualify more as centrist than liberal. This, BTW, is a form of compliment to FOX. At least one knows where FOX is coming from. It's editorial slant is massively laissez-faire deregulated market, pro-aggressive foreign policy, and Xtian bloc friendly.
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
Trusted=/trustworthy
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
FOX gave equal time to the speeches of Brown and Coakley. MSNBC and CNN did not, heavily favoring Coakley. MSNBC then lost what impartial stand it may have had by allowing Keith Oberman to rant (Brown is racist, homophobic, sexist, opportunistic and approves of violence to women) the night before the election. Another anchor on MSNBC stressed that cheating would be his route to victory to defeat Brown.
All done to save a seat in the Senate and the agenda that would be lost with it.

Real human beings saw through all of this to their credit. They are not as stupid as either side, fearmongerers both, assumes them to be.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Real human beings". Guys like Hitler love this kind of supremacist thinking.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
MSNBC then lost what impartial stand it may have had by allowing Keith Oberman to rant (Brown is racist, homophobic, sexist, opportunistic and approves of violence to women) the night before the election.
Is your assertion, then, that stations which allow their pundits to rant cannot be considered impartial?
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
I continue to find it a source of great amusement to see all of the liberal/progressive folks that continue to excoriate FOX for being nothing more than a propaganda arm on one hand, while stating that other networks like CNN and MSNBC etc. are more "moderate."

[LOL]

Folks - NONE OF THE TV NETWORKS ARE TRUSTWORTHY. IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE AND HEAR ON ANY TV NEWS, YOU ARE A FOOL.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Being more or less moderate itself does not mean being more trustworthy. You, for example, are one of the most immoderate posters I know on Ornery, but I find you to also be one of the most trustworthy and honorable in your posted interactions. I feel that if you were to more thoroughly question your epistemological tendencies, you would qualify perhaps as the Honest Abe of Ornery.

"Is your assertion, then, that stations which allow their pundits to rant cannot be considered impartial?"

TomD is our resident snare-and-lure hunter. Not so much the lure but definitely the snare.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bringer:
FOX gave equal time to the speeches of Brown and Coakley.

Fox brought Brown on their shows and allowed him to campaign and actively solicit contributions from its viewers on its dime. It's commentators also made a point of directing viewers on how to make contributions to his campaign.

quote:
MSNBC then lost what impartial stand it may have had by allowing Keith Oberman to rant (Brown is racist, homophobic, sexist, opportunistic and approves of violence to women) the night before the election. Another anchor on MSNBC stressed that cheating would be his route to victory to defeat Brown.
Olbermann has never pretended to be impartial (and did issue a very clear Mea Culpa when John Stewart thrashed him over those remarks).

The difference isn't in impartiality of commentators (by the very nature of that would contradict their role) but the fact that MSNBC's lineup includes a mis of conservative and liberal commentators, while Fox's all push roughly the same message.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
My epistemological tendencies are one of deep, cynical distrust and default skepticism of mainstream popular culture, mass media and especially politics. So many things I used to accept as truths, I've since learned are nothing more than cleverly promulgated lies, misinformation and propaganda.

On this, I agree, I am certainly most immoderate.

As for being the Honest Abe? Heh...I would never in a million years see myself as such.

Many of you probably think I'm mistaken or deluded - but my mental picture of myself and my "role" here on this forum, is that of the little boy who tries to get the crowd's attention as I point out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothing.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I meant your internal epistemological hygiene not your external political biases. I wish you would not place so much trust in your skepticism. Such trust is not very... skeptical.

[ January 27, 2010, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
POLL FINDINGS:

49 percent of Americans WHO WATCH TV NEWS, drink the red kool aid of Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent of Americans WHO WATCH TV NEWS said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of elephants saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of donkeys said they did.

All in all, anyone that TRUSTS FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC or any other corporate-government propaganda dissemination organ is 100% guaranteed to be misinformed, deluded, and indoctrinated into thinking and believing whatever the executives of these organizations want you to.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I wish you would not place so much trust in your skepticism. Such trust is not very... skeptical.

[LOL]

As always Ken, your penchant ability to come up with clever phrases is your most endearing asset.

[ January 27, 2010, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Look folks..."TRUSTED NEWS SOURCE?!?!?!"

The Emperor wears no clothes!
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"As always Ken, your penchant ability to come up with clever phrases is your most endearing asset."

It is clever but I commit the arrogance of thinking it also contains a profound insight.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
"Is your assertion, then, that stations which allow their pundits to rant cannot be considered impartial?"

Show me where this:

"allowing Keith Oberman to rant (Brown is racist, homophobic, sexist, opportunistic and approves of violence to women)"

..was ever done by FOX. Was it ever done by Rush?

Jon Stewart said he didn't know of any worse.

And Olbermann did apologize, but then that was after the election wasn't it. Did he really want his side to win that way?

[ January 27, 2010, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: bringer ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
TomD asked a distinction of kind not degree.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"As always Ken, your penchant ability to come up with clever phrases is your most endearing asset."

It is clever but I commit the arrogance of thinking it also contains a profound insight.

Sometimes, they do. [Wink]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Cookie? Cookie? Ken want cookie?
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
Daruma,


The Media montage on your link seems a little dated, for instance it listed a popular show on FOX as "Who wants to marry a millionaire?".

It also predates Disney loaning Tinkerbell as a mascot to the IPCC, which helps make up my mind about both Disney and the IPCC.

Stay away from my children. Breakfast cereal endorsing and marketing to parents through their children is one thing. What Disney and the IPCC and others equally pernicious are doing through children is evil.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
Ken

I believe my last post helps clarify why 'degree' has to be considered with 'kind'. Being two heads of the same Hydra.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Show me where this:

"allowing Keith Oberman to rant (Brown is racist, homophobic, sexist, opportunistic and approves of violence to women)"

..was ever done by FOX. Was it ever done by Rush?

Many of those things were said by Rush about Clinton, more often and with more vitriol than Oberman. But Rush still holds the crown in moral depravity for a pundit, earned when he called the 13 year old daughter of a political rival "the white house dog" while showing an unflattering picture of her. How anyone with children isn't enraged by that alone is beyond me.

Adam
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Adam, I've seen you post about that incident numerous times over the years here. It's your be all, end all, uber-defining moment for which the two-minutes of hate regularly indulged in here for Rush can always be justified.

Dude...if I recall correctly (and I could be wrong) he actually did apologize to the Clinton's for that. Even if he didn't...

...there are just as many examples of left wingers over the years saying similar things about "right wingers." But for some reason, this episode really stands out with you, eh?

Wasn't there a similar sort of thing about Sarah Palin's children? Her downs syndrome baby? I don't know...I no longer watch political punditry on TV or listen to the radio...but I find it funny - it's almost like a Pavlovian response with you.

Mention Rush, and Adam is sure to post about that one time over 15 freaking years ago, that he called Chelsea the white house dog.

If I did remember correctly, and he did apologize...does that count for anything in your book? Or is there no redemption possible for right wing propaganda blowhards?

I really don't care, but it's rather amusing to note how the mere mention of Rush always invariably has you chiming in with this. [LOL]

[ January 27, 2010, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
On the eve of Clinton's election? A tirade like Olbermann's?
I think not.
Let's ask Jon Stewart.
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
POLL FINDINGS:

49 percent of Americans WHO WATCH TV NEWS, drink the red kool aid of Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent of Americans WHO WATCH TV NEWS said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of elephants saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of donkeys said they did.

All in all, anyone that TRUSTS FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC or any other corporate-government propaganda dissemination organ is 100% guaranteed to be misinformed, deluded, and indoctrinated into thinking and believing whatever the executives of these organizations want you to.

Exactly. Because the best way to stay informed and get the unbiased truth is to get all your news from bloggers who hold exactly the same opinion as you [Smile]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
...there are just as many examples of left wingers over the years saying similar things about "right wingers." But for some reason, this episode really stands out with you, eh?

Wasn't there a similar sort of thing about Sarah Palin's children? Her downs syndrome baby? I don't know...I no longer watch political punditry on TV or listen to the radio...but I find it funny - it's almost like a Pavlovian response with you.

Not that I'm doubting that you've transcended the partisan divide and reached the clarity of unbiased enlightenment, but... is your response to this really to point out that the "other guys" have (probably) done something similar?

Adam
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bringer:
Show me where this:

"allowing Keith Oberman to rant (Brown is racist, homophobic, sexist, opportunistic and approves of violence to women)"

..was ever done by FOX. Was it ever done by Rush?

Glenn Beck. Sean Hannity. Pretty much as a matter of course.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I believe my last post helps clarify why 'degree' has to be considered with 'kind'. Being two heads of the same Hydra."

With clarification like that, who needs befuddling?
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
Pyre,

No. You didn't see Olbermann. And you didn't see him apologize only to add more. And you didn't see Jon Stewart skewer Olbermann. Apparently that means that you want it to be so, even if it isn't.
Your just throwing names out.
And it ain't so.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
You think many Brown supporters were watching Olberman? Not that that justifies defamation.

The 24 hr news cycle has been a disaster pushing news sources to report faster than they can correctly gather information. A measure of trustworthiness amongst the 24 hr news channels is like a measure of sobriety at your local Hooters.

I've seen too many occasions when the "reporting" was a reaffirmation of the coventional presumptions of the general public.

Turn off the TV, turn on the net and turn on the critical function in your head.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"Real human beings". Guys like Hitler love this kind of supremacist thinking.

[DOH] [Exploding] [Crying]

I'm far too affectionate of you to give you what you deserve for that remark, Kenmeer, so tell you what. Imagine that I said that, and then tell yourself what you would have told me.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bringer:
Pyre,

No. You didn't see Olbermann. And you didn't see him apologize only to add more. And you didn't see Jon Stewart skewer Olbermann. Apparently that means that you want it to be so, even if it isn't.
Your just throwing names out.
And it ain't so.

No, I did see those. And while pointedly rude and tenuous, it doesn't even begin to hold a candle to the constant, actively manipulative lies that Back and Hannity feed their audiences. Especially in as much as Olbermann admitted that Stewart was, without qualification, right that he'd gone too far and should dial back the rhetoric.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
" Imagine that I said that, and then tell yourself what you would have told me. "

I'd have said amen.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
And you didn't see Jon Stewart skewer Olbermann.
*blink* This assertion surprises me, because Pyrtolin strikes me as a Jon Stewart fan who's very likely to have seen most of the newsworthy moments on his show, either on the original broadcast or replayed on the Internet a day or so later.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Cronkite is still warm in his grave, and now this. Anything that shows itself on TV these days is entertainment, where the news gets its material from things that happen and the commentators are like critics reviewing reality shows. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the only two who embrace their role wholeheartedly and honestly.

Viking_longship is right. The critical function kicks in when you actually have to do the work of reading to learn about it. I almost never watch anything on TV other than sports or House, but I read online news about 2-3 hours a day.

I feel an irresistible urge to say that we're not any better here on Ornery. Kenmeer is the only one here who embraces his role.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"And you didn't see Jon Stewart skewer Olbermann."

As bringer told us, he sees what he sees. I've started bathing with my clothes on.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I almost never watch anything on TV other than sports or House, but I read online news about 2-3 hours a day."

Remove the sports and add the occasional episode of 2&1/2 Men or Big Bang Theory, and I match you except on all the news reading. I used to but have greatly reduced the text news diet.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by bringer:
Pyre,

No. You didn't see Olbermann. And you didn't see him apologize only to add more. And you didn't see Jon Stewart skewer Olbermann. Apparently that means that you want it to be so, even if it isn't.
Your just throwing names out.
And it ain't so.

No, I did see those. And while pointedly rude and tenuous, it doesn't even begin to hold a candle to the constant, actively manipulative lies that Back and Hannity feed their audiences. Especially in as much as Olbermann admitted that Stewart was, without qualification, right that he'd gone too far and should dial back the rhetoric.
I didn't say that you didn't watch Olbermann and Stewart.
I said that you didnt see Olbermann and Stewart. I would add that you didn't hear them either.

This is a phenomena known by Simon and Garfunkel in that some accept that part that they want to accept and disregard the rest.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/keith-admits-his-rhetoric-has-been-over-to

This has all parts of the exchange pretty well, including Olbermann's real apology after his nose was rubbed in it. Is there something more that I'm missing here?

I have yet to see Beck or Hannity even acknowledge that they're in the wrong, never mind make any indication that they'll try to be more responsible in the future.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Exactly. Because the best way to stay informed and get the unbiased truth is to get all your news from bloggers who hold exactly the same opinion as you

Hardly.

The best way to stay informed would be to read a wide variety of sources from multiple viewpoints, and take into account your sources known biases and come to your own conclusions. Television is a medium that lends itself to serious manipulation of your emotions, and offers the greatest flexibility for the 'news orgs' to omit, distort, edit and deceive. They ALL do it. Turn off the TV and read for your news. You will be far better informed.

Anyone that thinks they are "informed" because they spend hours watching TV "NEWS" -- right-wing FOX, or left-wing network -- is fooling themselves.

Not that I'm doubting that you've transcended the partisan divide and reached the clarity of unbiased enlightenment, but... is your response to this really to point out that the "other guys" have (probably) done something similar?

[LOL] "Probably," Adam? This is PRECISELY why I pointed this out. The most amusing aspect of observing "right" vs. "left" debate in this country is the willfully ignorant or plain old myopia BOTH sides engage in.

Kinda like George W. Bush supporters telling the liberals that the Democrats spend too much when they're in power...

Or Obama voters talking about how electing him is gonna bring CHANGE to Washington...
 
Posted by Michelle (Member # 3237) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
"Probably," Adam? This is PRECISELY why I pointed this out.
See, you are missing the irony of that parenthetical. I said "probably" because you were throwing up a " the other side does it too" defense (which is lame), without even bothering to check if it was actually true:

quote:
Wasn't there a similar sort of thing about Sarah Palin's children? Her downs syndrome baby? I don't know...
In other words, don't get your pesky facts in the way of my dogma. Not exactly selling the idea that switching to libertarianism has removed any blinders.

You know, I respect the fact that you were able to re-assess your world-view and change your political position, and that you can acknowledge that you were wrong in the past on certain issues. But honestly, ever since you were "born again", you have become the most rigidly dogmatic poster on this board. Its like you've found the "right answer" and don't want to be bothered to think anymore, much less re-examine any premises. Combined with you're cheerfully open contempt for those who aren't "saved" yet, it makes dialogue with you seem both pointless and annoying.

And, to save you the trouble, yes, I know that I only see it this way because I have been brainwashed by the media into a mindless follower of communist ideology. Point conceded, lets move on.

Adam
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
the other side does it too" defense (which is lame), without even bothering to check if it was actually true:

What is their to check? That left wing pundits have said personally slanderous things about right wing political figures and their families in the 15 years since Limbaugh made the one point you use as the single defining moment of the man's entire career as a right wing ideological blowhard?

I'm not making a "your side does it too!" defense. Just pointing out that your outrage over a personal attack from one side of the aisle while being blissfully unaware from what's coming from your own side is rather myopic.


But honestly, ever since you were "born again", you have become the most rigidly dogmatic poster on this board. Its like you've found the "right answer" and don't want to be bothered to think anymore, much less re-examine any premises. .

I re-examine my premises constantly and continually.

The dogmatic premises I see permeating this forum is that whenever I try and point out fallacies, hypocrisies and faults with the "left," all the lefty's almost always revert to some variation of "Daruma acts like he's no longer a right winger, but we all know that's not true."
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
the other side does it too" defense (which is lame), without even bothering to check if it was actually true:

What is their to check? That left wing pundits have said personally slanderous things about right wing political figures and their families in the 15 years since Limbaugh made the one point you use as the single defining moment of the man's entire career as a right wing ideological blowhard?

Actually, I called it the low point of his career. If you know of another, please share it. Its also, in my experience, the lowest moment in modern punditry. Again, I'm open to alternatives.


quote:

I'm not making a "your side does it too!" defense. Just pointing out that your outrage over a personal attack from one side of the aisle while being blissfully unaware from what's coming from your own side is rather myopic.


This is exactly what I was just referring to; cheerfully open contempt. I've happily shared my opinion that Garafalo is potentially as vile and obnoxious pundit as Limbaugh, and often point out people like George Will as being credits to the trade, despite holding very different views from myself. The fact that I don't qualify each and every critique of Limbaugh is that I've never acted like a partisan here, and feel no need to emphatically declare that I'm not one. The only people who've ever leveled that accusation at me are G2 and you; but you both level that accusation at every non-conservative, so I don't tend to pay it much attention.

quote:

But honestly, ever since you were "born again", you have become the most rigidly dogmatic poster on this board. Its like you've found the "right answer" and don't want to be bothered to think anymore, much less re-examine any premises. .

I re-examine my premises constantly and continually.

The dogmatic premises I see permeating this forum is that whenever I try and point out fallacies, hypocrisies and faults with the "left," all the lefty's almost always revert to some variation of "Daruma acts like he's no longer a right winger, but we all know that's not true."

Well, I certainly don't doubt that you are no longer a republican style conservative, but your views seem pretty consistent with the libertarian far-right. But its not your views that I'm talking about, its how you act on this forum. For starters, you seem to think that anyone who doesn't share your views, and to the same degree, is not just wrong but blindingly stupid for not "getting it". Many people here are wrong ( [Smile] ), but I don't know of any regular poster who isn't intellegent. Indeed, this is without question the smartest forum I've ever visited. WarrsawPact was probably the smartest teenager I've ever encountered, and I don't recall ever agreeing with a word he wrote. Its not really that hard to respect people's intellect while disagreeing.

Adam
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
Olbermann said this:

"You were right. I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry"

...about having said this:

"In Scott Brown, we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

..on the eve of the election of a U.S. Senator.
Don't overlook this part, even Jon labeled this the worst part, and you watch Olbermann saying it with a gulp and a blink....:

"OLBERMANN: Specifically, this past Sunday, when a man at a Brown rally shouted they should, quote, "shove a curling iron up Martha Coakley`s butt," Brown responded by answering, "We can do this." Or, if that remark was unconnected to the shout, he never refuted, condemned, nor disassociated himself from the call to violence and even sexual assault."

So I maintain that this display needed to be seen. Watching the faces, seeing the facial tics, and recognizing frame by frame what was being attempted (sabotaging Brown's lead) by any words necessary.

[ January 28, 2010, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: bringer ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
For starters, you seem to think that anyone who doesn't share your views, and to the same degree, is not just wrong but blindingly stupid for not "getting it".

What can I say...I've been here a long time...and I remember.

I remember how the "right" and the "left" have basically traded arguments and premises interchangeably.

Many things Bush & the GOP did were endless thread topics full of pointed criticism and snarky slander...

...and now some of the same things that were so vehemently opposed than - well, let's just say the script has flipped in many ways now that Obama is in and the DNC runs the show in Congress.

I have lost patience with observing the partisan dialectical divide dictate the direction of debate...which in turn probably makes me lean heavily into the direction of contemptuous misanthropy.

I think I have grasped the larger picture here (not the forum, I mean the root corruptions of our current society on decline - and of course, my point of view regarding the "big picture" is also the very hammer people use to try and bash me with the "crazy" label), and I do get angry at the various arguments put forth that justify, promote or escalate the situation...and I can admit that I have let that anger at the 'system' manifest in personal vehemence to various members here when debating.

I get your criticism...point taken. [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/judd_gregg_to_msnbc_youve_got.html


More of the same. Judd Gregg sounds off at MSNBC while on MSNBC.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I didn't say that you didn't watch Olbermann and Stewart. I said that you didnt see Olbermann and Stewart. I would add that you didn't hear them either."

Yeah, how true. How soon we forget that they're really David Icke lizard people allied with Queen Elizabeth.

You are exceptionally full of ****, bringer, and that takes some doing around here.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
It seems a little cowardly to bully the new guy with that kind of language, Kenmeer, since if bringer responds in kind to your provocations, the pack you've traveled with in recent months will be at his throat.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Well hell, I think you're full of **** too, Pete, but I doubt anyone here will follow my lead in echoing that sentiment, at least so frankly.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I love you too, pumpkin.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Now go to bed. You're getting cranky, old man.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
So there's a 'pack'. Thanks for the heads up. And I do dangle my throat out there.

Kenmeer, without any attempt to offend you, I would observe that you reach a certain threshold, and then you exhibit symptoms of some kind of literary 'tourrettes'. Then you go for the throat.

But that's me trying to see you. I am sorry. I will desist. It's a habit.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Not much pack action compared to how things used to be. But some of the old pack animals are still around, and old habits die hard, so if you get two or more people making personal attacks at you on the same thread, take a break before two become a dozen. And don't reply in kind.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Or -- and this is just a suggestion, mind -- try not being full of ****. Some people manage it.

When your argument relies on your claim that you can see into Keith Olbermann's soul better than anyone else on the thread, you've really hit a sort of rhetorical bottom.

[ January 29, 2010, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Bringer, be a poetaster to your heart's content, but whatever else you do, don't stand between Pete and Kenmeer.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
So maybe Daruma is dogmatic. He's defending a particularly unpopular dogma on both the left and right. The prevailing mentality in America these days is "Give me liberty, unless there is a risk of death, poverty or other people having the liberty to do things I personally find objectionable."

I'd be angry too, heck I am angry.

Some dogmas no one seems to question.

"We have to make the world safe for democracy." Why? We have a responsibility to keep America safe for democracy, but other people in other countries should be responsible for their country.

"Isolationsim led to the rise of Hittler."
No, punishing Germany for going to war to support an ally in WW I, thus wrecking the economy of Germany and humiliating the German people led to to the rise of Hittler. Isolationism kept us out of the war long enough for Hittler to make the fatal mistake of invading the Soviet Union.

"Everybody deserves a fair shake"
No everybody deserves equal protection under the law. Everyone deserves equal access to the benefits of the system they pay into. Life isn't fair. I was born dyslexic and asthmatic, not fair but that's life.

"We have to protect out allies"
Okay but let them protect themselves first. Europe collectively is the second largest military spender. Why are we maintaining bases there?


"Capitalism and Socialism are poles"
Capitalism as we know it is socialism by other means and heavily supported by the state.

Freedom means you have the freedom to fail, to become an addict, to be a racist, a sexist, hate the United States, worship satan, to fall in love with bad irresponsible people, to jerk off to porn all day, to not give your children every advantage (but no NOT physically or sexually abuse them) and generally be disagreeable.

Freedom also means we get to come on this board and get on eachother's nerves.

Thank God we're free.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"you exhibit symptoms of some kind of literary 'tourrettes'. Then you go for the throat."

I often think of myself as having a form of 'social Tourette's'. But this 'throat' jive is just jive. There are no throats here, no lives, fortunes, or sacred honors (except for those who divulge confidences, which is another matter.)

It's not about your or anyone's great big floppy *ego*.

Al, if you wish to aggrandize the (probably) intractable anti-relationship I enjoy w/Pete, go for it, but it serves no good purpose that I can see.

For some time now, it has been Pete seeking personal 1-st name basis responses from me although I told him awhile back I wish he wouldn't. I don't mind him addressing ideas I express, quoted verbatim or not, and I sometimes address ideas he posts, quoted verbatim or not, but the insistence on a conflict between two online personae is Pete's, not mine.

I gather that some people like to watch?

[ January 29, 2010, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
I don't find it appealing, but bringer may not realize what Pete is trying to sucker him into.


 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Bringer, be a poetaster to your heart's content, but whatever else you do, don't stand between Pete and Kenmeer.

Al, you got it wrong, I stepped in between Kenmeer and bringer, when 'meer started going after him. And stepping between (rather than cheering from the sidelines) can actually calm things down when it gets hot -- and you haven't even been here long enough to know what hot is.

As for "first name basis," I have no idea what Kenmeer means. I don't think he knows what he means either. Kenmeer's even moodier than I am, and the same stylistic patterns that delight him in one mood, enrage him in another mood. If it was something as simple as calling him "Mr. Livermaile," that would keep him from going off on me, I'd do that (rather than sustaining this ridiculous sustained low-grade hostility against someone who I'm rather fond of, just to keep the peace). But I suspect that Kenmeer/Mr. L is making one of his eliptical metaphors of the exact sort that Mr. L praises or attacks bringer for making, depending on Mr. L's mood at the time.

Or maybe I'm wrong and there really is something I can do or stop doing that would straighten this out. I'll keep an open mind.

[ January 29, 2010, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
I don't find it appealing, but bringer may not realize what Pete is trying to sucker him into.


OK, I'll bite. What am I trying to sucker bringer into? How is bringer harmed by my telling him to not call Kenmeer a **** when Kenmeer calls him a ****?

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Davidson:
[bla bla bla] ... full of **** ... [bla bla bla]

Like I said, bringer, it's not an impressive pack compared to days gone by.

[ January 29, 2010, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
Tom,

you said:

"When your argument relies on your claim that you can see into Keith Olbermann's soul better than anyone else on the thread, you've really hit a sort of rhetorical bottom."

I did not claim to see better. I gave validity to what Jon Stewart saw. Because I saw it independently as well. Then I witnessed to you what we both saw. And I affirmed what Paul Simon saw.

How do we often prove the offenses around us, if not by seeing and witnessing? That you don't want my particular witness is understandable, but there are others and you can't silence us all.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
That you don't want my particular witness is understandable, but there are others and you can't silence us all.
Yes, you're just one of an oppressed legion of Jon Stewart viewers lining up to tell people who watch his show that you saw it, too, and interpreted it differently. Fight the power, man. *laugh*

[ January 29, 2010, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I don't find it appealing, but bringer may not realize what Pete is trying to sucker him into."

Ah, I see. While I must caveat with this paraphrase: "what (I believe) Pete is trying to sucker him into", I think I now understand what you meant.

[ January 29, 2010, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
BTW, since we're seeing into souls and things that don't submit to empirical confirmation, I'll submit my new theory: bringer is Al Wessex's alter ego.

Hey, why I should I be the only one accused of HPD? (Hydratic Personality Disorder)
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Or maybe I'm wrong and there really is something I can do or stop doing that would straighten this out. I'll keep an open mind."

I asked you some time ago to not address me personally. Not only do I weary of this crap, but many others have repeatedly expressed their annoyed ennui at the tenor of exchange that happens when we address each other personally. They're not at all interested in how we see each other as persons or personae. Me too.

But you love to address my remarks both with my name and with whatever history (real or imagined) you associate with the posting persona called Kenmeer, particularly as he has interacted with the posting persona known as Pete at Home.

It would be a great favor to us all if you would address my ideas, words, syntax, whatever as they stand themselves without draping them in your beliefs and feelings about this Kenmeer persona.

My guess is that most Orneryans would be grateful.

[ January 29, 2010, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Without taking a side, here, let me just note that people can agree with each other without it constituting pack behavior, and could even take a side in a name calling contest without it being a strictly partisan decision. [Smile]

KL, to be fair, you do seem invested in the antagonism as well. Don't know how it'll simmer down without one or the other just dropping it.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Viking...thanks. That was a great post. lost amidst the drama.

IMO, there's no worse topic on Ornery...than talking about Ornery.

[Exploding]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"KL, to be fair, you do seem invested in the antagonism as well."

Well, duh. Whatever *is* your point? That sometimes I'm surly? Tell me something I don't know. Or, if you must belabor the obvious, delegate the job to her.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Yikes, get on an airplane and the weather is totally different when you land...

"OK, I'll bite. What am I trying to sucker bringer into? How is bringer harmed by my telling him to not call Kenmeer a **** when Kenmeer calls him a ****?"

Given that bringer is a first class cyber identity standing on his own posts, I think you're trying to egg Kenmeer on to joust with you. He says he won't bite in very direct and strong terms, which means he did, so you win. But in fairness, even acknowledging the bait you dangled is playing, and posting is playing is posting, so you both can feel that you held your ground and met your objective.

"BTW, since we're seeing into souls and things that don't submit to empirical confirmation, I'll submit my new theory: bringer is Al Wessex's alter ego."

Since I can't refute a negative (when exactly did I stop being bringer?), I'll just assert the affirmative that I am not Alfred, Lord Wessex, King of England. Don't assume he is me just because his syntax has improved lately and mine has degraded. OTOH, I also don't believe he is bringer. Is anybody anybody?

We get like this -- picking lint off each others' posts -- because we enjoy the act of talking but we're not saying much ourselves (my latest theory). I say this because g2 passes for evangelical and Daruma as politically ecumenical, but both are near beer to those heady brews, at best. People here seem to be mourning for days past instead of building an archive of thought that later sneerers will longingly look back on with mawkish sentimentality like what some now apply.

My humble opinion is that most of you are smarter than you look and smarter than me. Or I wouldn't be here, and if you prove me wrong I'll rekindle my lantern and continue my journey to find a place where that might be true.

[ January 29, 2010, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Without taking a side, here, let me just note that people can agree with each other without it constituting pack behavior,

Sure. And when a group of wolves surround someone and take bites out of you from different sides, you could say that they are all manifesting agreement in how good you taste. [Razz]

If a bunch of people disagree with you about a substantive matter, you might feel picked on or overwhelmed, but that's not what I'm calling pack behavior. If they are all piping in to make hostile personal remarks about someone, that does come off as pack behavior.

[ January 29, 2010, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I asked you some time ago to not address me personally.

Do you mean directly, as I am now? Or do you mean talking about you as a poster, like you you were just doing to bringer on this thread?

If you mean the latter, and if you're willing to reciprocate (to me and to bringer) then we may have a deal.

quote:
But you love to address my remarks both with my name
That's kind of necessary to distinguish a response to something you've said from something someone else said. Avoidance of names is silly, awkward and fastidious. If you're serious about ending this rubbish, then don't toss in impractical poison pills.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Um. So far, Pete, I've seen you using bringer to attack Kenmeer. Is that what you're talking about?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
" 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."
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Tom, we are trying to have a conversation here. Please get off my leg.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"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 ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Trusted Journalism
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Here's a lengthy historical discussion of the birth and development of Fox News by conservative critic Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett article
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
And yet still more trustworthy than ABC News.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
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?


 
Posted by Seneca (Member # 6790) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
I am not sure what you mean. Your statement spears to be a non sequitur. Can you explain the point you wish to make?
 
Posted by Seneca (Member # 6790) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Are we saying that someone like Glenn Beck lacks credibility because he has donated to conservative causes and yet still talks about them?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Seneca (Member # 6790) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Lol. "Firestorm".
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seneca (Member # 6790) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
To be clear, you were calling the Stephanopolous thing a "firestorm", which is silly.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seneca (Member # 6790) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ScottF (Member # 6897) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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!"
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
It works for me just fine - I clicked the link to open the PDF. I'm certain I have no subscription. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
Worked for me too. Likewise no subscription. I just opened it in the browser. Did you try to download it Seriati?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
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!"
It kind of runs along with how liberals have spent decades saying, "Look, he apologized for this narrowly specific thing! That means a free pass on anything and everything!" [LOL]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Hm. I can't actually think of a single example of that. Which sprang to your mind?

[ May 19, 2015, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Any response to the case laid out in the article I linked to that showed a strong correlation between Fox News viewing and factual error?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Greg, I think you'll find that defenders of Fox News could not possibly care less about facts.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Any response to the case laid out in the article I linked to that showed a strong correlation between Fox News viewing and factual error?

I apologize, it turns out you can get into the opinion piece anonymously without a subscription. And I said opinion piece on purpose, there's no actual fact or argument made until more than half way through, instead it's largely a restatement of history through its own bias.

When it gets to the portion that you seem to think lays out a case, it actually doesn't, it cites to other studies (many of which have been individually questioned, and virtually all of which that he provides examples from are subject to bias inherent in the questions). And virtually all of which are warped by politics. Does it mean anything for instance that Fox viewers and MSNBC viewers gave opposite answers on whether the President was legally a citizen? The question has more than one interpretation (it's intended to be a question specifically about his official legal status - which has a correct answer, but it could also be read as calling for an opinion on his compliance with legal requirements - which is disputable in good faith (if not in good sense)). Hence you'd get a swing just from political division, that would be magnified by the coverage of your network on the topic. A lot of the studies ask questions that only clearly have correct answers if you share the politics of the study's authors.

This is literally a liberal feel good propaganda piece written to appear to be a study so that it can be pointed to as "proof".
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Does it mean anything for instance that Fox viewers and MSNBC viewers gave opposite answers on whether the President was legally a citizen?
Boy, I'd love to see a survey that asks the same people if Ted Cruz is legally a citizen. I bet the Fox viewers would do much, much better with that one. [Smile]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
it cites to other studies (many of which have been individually questioned, and virtually all of which that he provides examples from are subject to bias inherent in the questions). And virtually all of which are warped by politics.
Seriati, it is both lazy and lame to counter arguments by claiming that they have already been refuted, without actually bringing forward the evidence that refutes them. If yours was the standard we used around here, debate would end. Whenever someone would claim something, an opponent would merely have to say "That's been proven wrong".

So take another shot at refuting even one of the multiple examples of studies showing the malign influence of Fox News from the report (below). These are not trivial questions - even the Republican candidates for President in 2016 are finally acknowledging that if they knew after 9/11 that Saddam was not working closely with al-Qaeda and that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then there would have been no basis for a war which resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and trillions of dollars of additional US government expenditures.

So why is it not relevant that Fox News views were significantly more likely to believe in false answers to the following questions?

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?


 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Greg, don't you think those questions are so biased that any answers to them will be useless?

For the first question let's say for example that no news outlet says anything other than any other, but that Fox News happens to be more pro-patriotism than the others. If more people who feel 'patriotism' watch Fox News (a case can be made for this), or at the very least who are more pro-military, then they would be less likely to call into question actions the military has conducted or to accuse the government of betraying the people. One doesn't need any actual biased information coming from Fox to suggest that its views will be less likely to accuse the government of things.

Regarding the WMD question there has been a lot of disinformation out on this topic. The question doesn't specify whether it's the nukes some people were theorizing Saddam was making (just like Iran, hmmm...), the gas weapons, or whatever else. We know with a good deal of certainly there was no nuclear program, but then the goalposts can move and it can be claimed it was the gas all along. But then - which gas? The gas weapons the U.S. itself gave Saddam? Does that count. The whole question is muddy as hell.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
For the first example, maybe if the question was asked in a vacuum of reporting on Iraq. But Fox News has covered Iraq. If they chose coverage that downplayed or omitted the facts on Saddam Hussein's connections (or lack thereof) to Al Qaeda, then it's not wrong to blame Fox News for its viewers' ignorance on that topic. I'm sure you could make a case for why that wasn't as important as airing speculation about Obama's birthplace, but...
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Fenring,

It was not the military that was responsible for determining if there were a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, it's the intelligence community. Are you saying that there's a selection effect where Fox News viewers have a naturally higher degree of confidence in the government's intelligence community than other viewers?

Regarding the the military or intelligence community when a Democrat is President - this runs counter to your hypothesis.

Regarding WMD, there's revisionist history saying that the Iraq WMD was mere musing about some minor chemical weapons capability with similar lethality to conventional munitions, but I seem to remember that the arguments were made in terms of an imminent threat for major use against the civilian population of the US (mushroom cloud). Remember the 5-color "threat" level signs we had posted around?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
It was not the military that was responsible for determining if there were a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, it's the intelligence community. Are you saying that there's a selection effect where Fox News viewers have a naturally higher degree of confidence in the government's intelligence community than other viewers?

I honestly doubt many people try to parse precisely which part of government was the one responsible in the final determination for an operation to be a go. If you ask many people I'm sure a lot of them approach these things as a gestalt, where 'the government' performed a military maneuver or conducted a war, and 'the government' is to blame if it's bad or to be congratulated if it's good. I wouldn't expect the majority of people to make compartmentalized statements such as "the military performed very well in the Iraq war, while the executive was too cavalier, and the intelligence communities failed to provide enough information to allow the Congress to deliberate sensibly." This is just not going to be the thought process of the average person. And this isn't even getting into sub-specification, such as "the military performed efficiently on the battlefield however oversight was lacking in detention facilities with the treatment of prisoners."

When you ask someone who thinks in general gestalt terms whether or not there really was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda the question they are going to really answer is "did our government have the military do a bad thing" and someone who is pro military and has faith in government will be very hesitant to accept that.

quote:

Regarding WMD, there's revisionist history saying that the Iraq WMD was mere musing about some minor chemical weapons capability with similar lethality to conventional munitions, but I seem to remember that the arguments were made in terms of an imminent threat for major use against the civilian population of the US (mushroom cloud). Remember the 5-color "threat" level signs we had posted around?

The revisionist history was already being written every week that the Bush administration was trying to push the Iraq war. At first they pushed the Al Qaeda narrative, where Saddam had direct ties to terrorism and to Bin Laden. Claims were made that they had satellite photos of Al Qaeda camps in Iraq borders (we never saw them). Then they made claims that Saddam was sponsoring Al Qaeda. Then they became less specific and were saying that Iraq was part of the war on terror and not directly related to Al Qaeda but rather to other unspecified terrorist groups, and thus still needed to be invaded. Then they invented the WMD angle, which began with the suggestion that Saddam had a nuclear program. Then they began saying that it was gas all along and the nukes were just a 'maybe' that was still a possibility. Then instead of saying that Saddam was producing illegal gas weapons they pointed to his use of gas weapons in the past - weapons which they didn't mention came from the U.S. to be used against Iran. And then it finally came to the point where they just made the statement "we know they have WMD's and we know they are a threat." This is more or less where the narrative ended.

So now when you ask someone "did Saddam have WMD's?" what part of this slippery narrative are they supposed to reference? I'm sure many people who want to have faith in government and the military will still claim now that Saddam had WMD's, without being able to specify what that means. Does it mean nukes? A nuclear program but no nukes? Gas the U.S. gave them? Gas they made illegally? Gas they bought? Honestly I don't even know the answer to this precisely, to tell the truth. They probably did have some illegal gas weapons (like every country does), but that fact doesn't really address whether or not the war had a legitimate reason to be waged.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
The war was ethically legitimate. by. international prfecedent and accepted intlaw doctrine. Howsever, it was stupid strategy.


Some republicans make the same argument for the assassination of Bin Laden.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Fenring,

Thanks for a nuanced response, but still, I believe that you are engaged in countering my hypothesis that people watching Fox News are more mis-informed than those who get their news from other sources. Your defense appears to be that it's not that Fox produces an inaccurate product, but rather that there is self-selection in terms of who chooses to watch Fox News - and that's a valid line of inquiry. But it also seems like the characteristic that you are hypothesizing that draws viewers to Fox News is an excessive trust of the government. That does not seem consistent with anyone's experience of Fox News. You would to need to modify that assumption to an excessive trust of government when Republicans are in charge, and a vastly different view when Democrats are in charge. And if you accept that modification, you have a plausible hypothesis - Fox News viewers could demonstrate this higher level of ignorance on key questions not because of the effects of Fox propaganda, but because Fox provides a comfortable home for those already with a high propensity to believe in Republican-based propaganda. I am not sure if this hypothesis is true, but it is consistent with the data.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Greg,

I think your specification is a good one. However I will offer a slight variation on the premise that people who watch Fox News are more trusting of government, but only when Republicans are in power. What I would suggest is that those people have a fundamental faith in the apparatus of the U.S. government, but believe that when certain untrustworthy people are at the helm they can wreak havoc with the good system that people should otherwise believe in. It's faith in the system with a lack of faith in the operator. When Democrats add populist measures to the U.S. way of life a typical Republican will frame it as the Dems wrecking the good system that was there before and corrupting it. Contrast this with more Tea Party type of people (or just basic libertarians) who fundamentally do not have faith in the system regardless of who's at the helm, because they believe that bureaucracy fundamentally tends towards corruptions and inefficiency. To such a person any party that tries to increase government power (either towards populist or towards oligarchical ends) is making the country worse.

So I think the final version I would choose to go with for now would be: I believe Fox News viewers tend to be people who fundamentally believe in the apparatus of government even though they believe certain operators of it are unfit (i.e. Democrats). But even with Democrats in power either in the Executive or the Congress I would guess that Fox viewers are still more likely than other viewers of news to believe in unelected agencies such as the intelligence agencies, the military and the police, and to think of them as "those brave men who defend our great nation."

[ May 24, 2015, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Okay, we have convergence on one plausible hypothesis, what we need is data. Unfortunately, I can't find a poll of Fox News viewers vs. other viewers that specifically focuses on trust in government. There is only one major topic that I can find polling on where the government (including the Defense Department) takes a particular view and Fox News viewers are asked whether they agree or disagree. The hypothesis we have discussed, Fenring, would suggest that Fox News viewers would be more likely to support the position of the government (explicitly including the military) on a major issue than the rest of the American public. But it turns out in that one case on which there is substantial polling, climate change, the results directly contradict the hypothesis. Fox News viewers are least likely to believe the position of the government.

One case does not conclusively disprove the hypothesis, but it certainly is one strong indicator that argues against the hypothesis.

I wish there was analytically rigorous polling on issues such as gays in the military from 3-4 years ago (again, the hypothesis would indicate that Fox News viewers should have been the most supportive, since it was a policy position advocated by the leaders of the US military), or a contrary example would be to poll regarding concern about the US military's Jade Helm 15 exercises (the hypothesis would suggest that Fox News viewers would be least likely to be suspicious, since according to the hypothesis Fox News viewers have a greater than average level of trust in the government). I'd bet that if there were polling in these areas, it would decisively refute the hypothesis that Fox News viewers trust the government or the military more than most Americans, but since we don't have polling it will be for all of us to make our own judgements.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I am making a much weaker suggestion than you think, Greg. All I'm saying is that Fox viewers being misinformed about topical issues such as the ones you mentioned does not prove that Fox is providing disinformation. I'm not actually saying that Fox is not doing that, but merely that I think you were drawing too strong a conclusion from some data.

Regarding your examination of my suggestion, though, I'm not sure why you chose climate change as a good barometer, notwithstanding the fact that there is polling data available on that subject. When you say "the government" takes a particular view on climate change, do you mean the senate? The House voted to not recognize it last year. As for the senate, in January they passed a resolution declaring climate change not a hoax, but rejected the resolution about it being caused by humans, and again in May the senate (narrowly) voted to reject accepting a resolution that it's caused by humans. Or are you talking about the President? I seriously doubt Fox viewers will be excited to believe what he says.

Regarding gays in the military I'm not actually sure if most Fox viewers still maintain the old bigotry against it, but even if they did I think this is a bit of an extreme expectation on your part. I don't think I suggested that a Fox viewer would blindly endorse any single thing involving the military, I just said they would be more likely to support anything to do with the military. A topical issue that is specifically troublesome to a conservative person, such as gays in the military, won't just be wiped away because they tend to be pro-military in general. It's like saying that because Democrats tend to be against war that if polled they will therefore be expected to denounce the U.S. involvement in WWII. There are trends, and then there are specifics.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Fenring, I think we are close here. It is possible that there is a selection effect with Fox News viewers - I wouldn't bet that's the sole clause but it is plausible. There may also be correlations associated with a population that is primarily older. As with many things, we need more data to draw firm conclusions.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
it cites to other studies (many of which have been individually questioned, and virtually all of which that he provides examples from are subject to bias inherent in the questions). And virtually all of which are warped by politics.
Seriati, it is both lazy and lame to counter arguments by claiming that they have already been refuted, without actually bringing forward the evidence that refutes them.
I think you know me well enough to know I willing to engage in a good faith debate. I'm not however, willing to grant propaganda equivalence to arguments to do so. If there are specific things you want me to respond to feel free to cite them, but I don't really want to spend more time with that piece than I have to.
quote:
If yours was the standard we used around here, debate would end. Whenever someone would claim something, an opponent would merely have to say "That's been proven wrong".
There are several posters that do debate in that manner and are rarely called out for it.
quote:
So take another shot at refuting even one of the multiple examples of studies showing the malign influence of Fox News from the report (below).
How about the birther questions. Presented as evidence that one set of viewers is misinformed, yet hopeless linked to political ideology. You might construct an objective test in the same field by asking questions like the following:

Is a child borne in the US to non-citizen parents automatically a US citizen?

Is a child borne outside the US to US-citizen parents automatically a US citizen?

Is a child borne outside the US to a non-citizen mother with a citizen father automatically a US citizen?

Is a child borne outside the US to a US-citizen mother with a non-citizen father automatically a US citizen?

And then see which viewers got the most correct. Of course it gets complicated because even these aren't properly constructed questions, consider how some who understands the difference between automatically entitled, and automatically granted might get the "wrong" answer. Consider how if you were trying to test for the President's situation, you'd also have to understand how the Hawaiin law of the time varies from the current law.

Instead, we got a question specifically about the president, with a political answer for which is "correct", used to determine which viewers were misinformed.

I could do the same with the following question to prove that liberals are all misinformed:

Did President Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
quote:
These are not trivial questions...
No they are deliberately misleading questions.
quote:
So why is it not relevant that Fox News views were significantly more likely to believe in false answers to the following questions?
Because the questions were designed to show political correctness not actual factual knowledge. Which is why I said they are designed to put a scientific coating on liberal feel good positions.
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?
It's my impression that many terrorists have multiple connections and allegiances and that its a false narrative to try and claim there is a correct answer to the question as phrased. I understand the intent of course, and Iraq was not seriously aligned with any greater portion of Al Quada's network, notwithstanding multiple contacts and various areas of interconnection and support over time.

Saddam personally probably wasn't working closely with anyone but his own advisors in any case, which makes the question again meaningless. Why ask about Saddam though instead of Iraq or his government? Again to parse away the explanations that could be reasonably believed based on the actual involved history. Makes no difference to liberals, because they were going to answer it no regardless (as a matter of political belief though, not nuanced knowledge), it's only there as a trap.
quote:
Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
This would depend on the timing of the answer. There's no question that we didn't find what we thought we would. But we certainly found de minimis amounts of probably defunct weapons. So in effect, the answer they picked as correct, is actually incorrect in specifics even if correct as a theme. So which answer shows someone is misinformed again?

There were a couple cited studies by the way that seemed designed to get at interesting questions. I was struck by the one that asked questions about the situation in Egypt and Syria for instance. No obvious politic position to influence the answers, just pure response to the level and type of coverage. But throwing in a couple gems to a propaganda piece is a long standing tradition to try and create credibility by association.

[ May 26, 2015, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Seriati ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
How about the birther questions. Presented as evidence that one set of viewers is misinformed, yet hopeless linked to political ideology. You might construct an objective test in the same field by asking questions like the following:
Um, objective test of what, is the question. I'm confused by your apparent belief that it doesn't matter that some people get the wrong answer about Obama's citizenship because it's just linked to politics. That's kind of the point: politics influences the coverage, and misinforms people.

The question of how much people know about the dry facts of civics or history may yield different results, but we don't rely on our news stations to educate us, but to inform us on current events with relevant context and analysis.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
The question Scifibum is to distinguish between people who are misinformed and those who have a difference of opinion.

It only takes one fact change to make the question of Obama's citizenship flip - ie where he was borne. If you tested how well Fox viewers understood citizenship law and found they consistently got the standards wrong, you'd have a point about Fox misinforming them. On the other hand if you're only willing to review whether they got the right political answer, it's just feel good liberal nonsense.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
It only takes one fact change to make the question of Obama's citizenship flip - ie where he was borne.
Could you elaborate on this, since I currently understand that even if Obama was born outside of U.S. territories, he would still be qualified as a citizen who could become President. At least, according to current Republicans. [Confused]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
No. There would in fact be a legitimate constitutional challenge to his presidency in that scenario, since the definition of a "natural-born citizen" at the time of his birth would not have included him. He'd still be a citizen, but he would not be "natural-born." It would probably go to the Supreme Court, and this court is politicized enough that it's an open question how they'd rule.

That said, it is not an open question or a matter of opinion whether Obama was born in Hawaii -- or, rather, to assert that it is means that you're also asserting that there has been a determined conspiracy to hide Obama's actual birthplace from people since the moment of his birth, which is something that I strongly suspect certain news agencies are more willing than others -- without any proof -- to present as a credible possibility.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
The question Scifibum is to distinguish between people who are misinformed and those who have a difference of opinion.

It only takes one fact change to make the question of Obama's citizenship flip - ie where he was borne. If you tested how well Fox viewers understood citizenship law and found they consistently got the standards wrong, you'd have a point about Fox misinforming them. On the other hand if you're only willing to review whether they got the right political answer, it's just feel good liberal nonsense.

It's not a matter of opinion whether Hawaii certified that Obama was born there. There's no "right political answer" in this case, there's just the documented facts vs. unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. That there's a politically aligned difference between correctly informed people and incorrectly informed people on this question is the problem.

We're not talking about political bias in civics curricula.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
It only takes one fact change to make the question of Obama's citizenship flip - ie where he was borne.
Could you elaborate on this, since I currently understand that even if Obama was born outside of U.S. territories, he would still be qualified as a citizen who could become President.
This has to do with the history of Hawaiin law on the point. It's my understanding that if he was borne today in Kenya to the same mother in the same circumstance he would be a natural borne US citizen, but at the time, due to the age of his mother and her own residency history he would not have been. What's interesting to me is the amount of people who know the "right" answer and don't know that history of law. That's just proof of what I'm saying, this isn't a test of who's better informed.
quote:
At least, according to current Republicans. [Confused]
Apples and oranges, for most of these questions. Take a look at the laws that actually apply.

Now that said, I'm not a believer that the differences in these laws should exist. But's it definitely part of the current character of the left to not care at all about what the law actually says if it's in the way of their goal.
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No. There would in fact be a legitimate constitutional challenge to his presidency in that scenario, since the definition of a "natural-born citizen" at the time of his birth would not have included him. He'd still be a citizen, but he would not be "natural-born."

I presume you are correct, but I honestly couldn't guarantee that result if it was determined that there were fraudulent representations about his birth location.
quote:
It would probably go to the Supreme Court, and this court is politicized enough that it's an open question how they'd rule.
I agree the judges on the left are very politicized.
quote:
That said, it is not an open question or a matter of opinion whether Obama was born in Hawaii...
It's also not for the majority of us a knowable fact. I do agree with you, that absent proof to the contrary we have to accept the validity of the official records.
quote:
-- or, rather, to assert that it is means that you're also asserting that there has been a determined conspiracy to hide Obama's actual birthplace from people since the moment of his birth, which is something that I strongly suspect certain news agencies are more willing than others -- without any proof -- to present as a credible possibility.
A number of you made this point in arguments at the time, as if it was unbelievable that a mother would lie to guarantee her child US citizenship. You seemed to believe she'd have to know he'd want to be President someday. But that's really not the case, no more than its the case for Chinese birth tourists or Mexican mothers. US citizenship is and was incredibly valuable, and it's not improbable at all that a young mother and her family would collude in a story that avoided a sticky issue. Not saying it happened, just that if he was borne outside the US there would have been a strong incentive to pretend otherwise.
quote:
It's not a matter of opinion whether Hawaii certified that Obama was born there.
I agree. And that's the problem I have with the question. If you read it soft, that is the fact that is generating the correct response. But it wasn't written to be clear on that point, it was written to skim that concept.
quote:
There's no "right political answer" in this case, there's just the documented facts vs. unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Lol. There were perfectly easy ways to draft questions to determine if people knew what Hawaii said, and what the law would therefore require. They didn't ask them in that way (or if they did they didn't highlight the responses), with at least one possible reason being that it wouldn't show the favored result - ie Fox viewers being less knowledgeable.
quote:
That there's a politically aligned difference between correctly informed people and incorrectly informed people on this question is the problem.
The problem is that the question allows ignoramuses on the left to get the correct answer simply by being consistent with their political ideology. Might as well ask if the Democratic party are the good guys, and judge the answer as correct or not.
quote:
We're not talking about political bias in civics curricula.
If they had asked the civics curricula you'd have a point, and that is exactly why I do have a point.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Lol. There were perfectly easy ways to draft questions to determine if people knew what Hawaii said, and what the law would therefore require. They didn't ask them in that way (or if they did they didn't highlight the responses), with at least one possible reason being that it wouldn't show the favored result - ie Fox viewers being less knowledgeable.
Do you agree that the result shows that Fox viewers seem to subscribe to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Obama's birth place?

You seem to want to narrow the question to knowledge of the law. I think the more interesting question is: do people believe false things because their preferred news source makes them seem more plausible than they are?

It's a different kind of ignorance - ignorance of how stupid your belief is.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
A number of you made this point in arguments at the time, as if it was unbelievable that a mother would lie to guarantee her child US citizenship.
But here's the thing: Obama's citizenship has never been in question. Even if he were born outside the country, he would still -- even by federal law at the time -- be a citizen. What he would not be is "natural-born." What motive would a mother have to ensure "natural-born" status for her child, above and beyond the citizenship to which he was already entitled?

[ May 27, 2015, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
A number of you made this point in arguments at the time, as if it was unbelievable that a mother would lie to guarantee her child US citizenship.
But here's the thing: Obama's citizenship has never been in question. Even if he were born outside the country, he would still -- even by federal law at the time -- be a citizen.
No. Now you're mixing issues. To my understanding a child born to a 17 year woman with a non-citizen father on foreign soil would not have been a US citizen, natural borne or otherwise in 1961. Feel free to grab the statute or explanation that you feel proves otherwise.
quote:
What he would not be is "natural-born." What motive would a mother have to ensure "natural-born" status for her child, above and beyond the citizenship to which he was already entitled?
Since you've mixed the issues the question is moot. I don't think anyone would care about the natural born status of a baby. It was the citizenship itself though that was at risk.

If you get confused on that, it would explain why you seem to think a conspiracy doesn't make sense.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
No, you misunderstand me. Obama, from the moment of his birth, would have met the qualifications for naturalization, even if he was born in Kenya. His mother could have immediately asked to have him naturalized upon her return to America -- or he could have requested it, himself, at any time in his adult life. The one thing he would not have been, in that scenario, is a natural-born citizen. So the only thing that some kind of ridiculous early-life conspiracy would have gained him would be natural-born status, since he was assured of citizenship at any rate from the moment he might have desired it.

And, hell, if someone like Ron is right and his mom wasn't technically married at the time he was born, then he's natural-born again under the somewhat bizarrely more forgiving rules for children born out of wedlock.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
It's more complicated than even that Tom. But again, the point isn't to prove it one way or another, only to point out that people can be very knowledgeable and reach different conclusions based on their assumptions with respect to the facts. This could have been resolved as follows:

Assuming that President Obama was born in Hawaii...rest of the question.

If, it was in fact a test of knowledge, and not just a political gotcha. I still maintain its a poor question when people on one side (the Democrats) who have NO actual knowledge of the rules will be inclined by political leanings to choose the "correct" answer. If you want a politically correct example in this area look at any discourse on the racial discrimination inherent in the SAT for example.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I still maintain its a poor question when people on one side (the Democrats) who have NO actual knowledge of the rules will be inclined by political leanings to choose the "correct" answer.
Are you not of the opinion that Republicans with no actual knowledge of the rules will be inclined by political leanings to choose a given answer? Because if the problem is simply that actual events do not frequently align to the Republican narrative, that does not make me more sympathetic to their sources.

[ May 27, 2015, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
A number of you made this point in arguments at the time, as if it was unbelievable that a mother would lie to guarantee her child US citizenship.
But here's the thing: Obama's citizenship has never been in question. Even if he were born outside the country, he would still -- even by federal law at the time -- be a citizen. What he would not be is "natural-born." What motive would a mother have to ensure "natural-born" status for her child, above and beyond the citizenship to which he was already entitled?
That was, like, more than 2 years ago. What difference does it make?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Well, personally, I think it makes no difference at all. But Republicans who've been misled by Fox News appear to feel very strongly about it, even now.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Well, personally, I think it makes no difference at all. But Republicans who've been misled by Fox News appear to feel very strongly about it, even now.

I'm neither republican nor a viewer of fox news. But, I think it matters a great deal. When we have a law, we should follow the law or change the law. We shouldn't just ignore it when we find it inconvenient. The law says clearly:

quote:
Article III, Section 1 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
I am not a conspiracy theorist. However, the proof he has offered to date has certainly been digitally altered: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

When you continue to characterize these legitimate questions as off the wall and crazy, you are playing a team sport, and I think you're smarter than that, Tom.

There are legitimate reasons to suspect that President Obama is not a natural born citizen. If he is not, then he should not have served as president. To date, he has not provided any convincing evidence that he was born here.

---

Some have suggested that the birth certificate linked to above is legitimate, but has been subjected to optical character recognition and replacement. Well, ok. That sounds very plausible. But can I see the one that hasn't been altered, please? Why am I still waiting after 7 years?

[ June 05, 2015, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
There are legitimate reasons to suspect that President Obama is not a natural born citizen.
Name one. I mean, a legitimate one, obviously. Not a wackadoodle one.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
I just did; the birth certificate that President Obama released is certainly digitally altered.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
JoshuaD, you have provided an excellent litmus test. I am curious, has anyone else on this site agree about Obama not being eligible to be President?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
An interesting litmus test for whether a topic has merit is how it's addressed. Very often a very foolish point that has no basis in reality will simply be brushed aside as inconsequential or will be addressed in brief and treated as "dealt with". Notwithstanding the fact that the side offering the foolish point may pursue it and twist it through sensationalizing it, if it really has no merit the matter won't attract that much ire or interest from the other side. When you hear the other side, on the other hand, begin to use terms such as "conspiracy theory", "fringe belief" or "ridiculous" (all terms that actively try to silence the notion of debating the topic) one's ears should perk up a bit more.

This doesn't mean that every theory labelled as ridiculous must therefore have merit, but rather the extent to which a group discourages taking a topic seriously should make one ask why they care so much.

In the case of Obama, were I in Obama's place (assuming I was totally legit) I would have swiftly addressed the birth concerns by legitimizing them and saying I agreed fully that it was something the people should care about. And then I would have immediately volunteered all necessary documents to quell suspicion and avoid doubt. But it seems to me like the Democrats rather tried to treat the matter as silly right from the start, as if one shouldn't bother too much about antiquated details such as whether the President fulfills the letter of the law of eligibility. Not the best strategy, in my opinion.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I am curious, has anyone else on this site agree about Obama not being eligible to be President?

You misunderstand me. If I had to bet, I'd bet that President Obama is a natural born citizen.

Before the birth certificate was released, my confidence level was about 97%. After the birth certificate was released, my confidence level dropped to about 70%.

I don't know why President Obama took this approach. I think perhaps it was about power or about belittling his opponents. Or perhaps because he is not a natural born citizen.

In all three cases, it's really ugly.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
In all three cases, it's really ugly.
I believe that the real ugliness is the propaganda technique of consistently promoting false accusations and then never taking accountability for the falsehoods. Or phrasing them in Fox News language "Some people say..." or other aspects of a whispering campaign designed not to persuade via a coherent argument substantiated by proof, but rather by repetition of innuendo that gives the appearance of smoke and thus fire.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
In all three cases, it's really ugly.
I believe that the real ugliness is the propaganda technique of consistently promoting false accusations and then never taking accountability for the falsehoods. Or phrasing them in Fox News language "Some people say..." or other aspects of a whispering campaign designed not to persuade via a coherent argument substantiated by proof, but rather by repetition of innuendo that gives the appearance of smoke and thus fire.
I would agree with this, except that I would ask you to whom you think Fox News, or any news outlet for that matter, should be held accountable? You tune in to the channel, the channel has the show you expected. Mission accomplished, product delivered. It's like being upset that what you learned on CSI isn't really true, although it's true that the reputation for "delivering truth" is something people impute to the news and this is taken advantage of. 100 years ago the term "newspaper man" was a maligned one, and it was generally assumed that a newspaper was owned by someone with an opinion and that it was going to be a propaganda rag. What's changed is the people's faith in it, not the medium itself or how it works. I guess I would attribute this weird faith to 20th century war propaganda and patriotism, and maybe to television seeming so different from print that people didn't carry over their basic assumptions about print over to the screen. Either way I don't think it's that fruitful to point a finger at one 'news' station and be frustrated that it serves an agenda other than Socratic wisdom.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Yes, but as you point out, people do have faith in TV news today. This whole thread is about how Fox is trusted by the largest group of people. So Fox has an obligation to be truthful, for those viewers. And to correct their errors when they occur.

So pointing out that the media was not reliable 100 years ago and people shouldn't expect much out of it is beside the point. People trust it now. So the media is obliged to respect that respect and report the truth as best as they can.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Yes, but as you point out, people do have faith in TV news today. This whole thread is about how Fox is trusted by the largest group of people. So Fox has an obligation to be truthful, for those viewers. And to correct their errors when they occur.

So pointing out that the media was not reliable 100 years ago and people shouldn't expect much out of it is beside the point. People trust it now. So the media is obliged to respect that respect and report the truth as best as they can.

No, you are exactly wrong. Imputing faith in the truth-telling of a TV show doesn't oblige the TV show to do anything, not even morally. That's like in Stephen King's Misery where the fan thinks she is owed something for being invested in the story. The only thing one might accuse a news network of is stating in its advertisement "we only tell the truth" or something like that, where a case could be made that such a statement constitutes false advertising. Other than that you can either tune in or not at your discretion and believe what you want.

If the news stated a ridiculously false fact such as "giant eagle carries away White House in its talons" then there would be trouble, but to merely suggest certain facts, either by organizing information in certain ways, omitting certain things, or offering suggestions that lead the audience (i.e. the more subtle propaganda techniques) is up to the viewer to parse or resist.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
By that logic, drug dealers are not morally culpable.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
By that logic, drug dealers are not morally culpable.

I like your analogy, as there is something common to both types of business, the legal aspect aside. However I should specify that I meant news networks are not morally obliged to tell the truth purely because people trust them. If we want to get into pure ethics then we could make the case that any person, whether at a news agency or otherwise, has a moral imperative to do what will help his fellow man see truth and become better. In this broad sense it would be sensible to hold news people to this philosophical standard, as people, but not as "news people". I don't think adding in the job description changes the standards of one's intentions towards others. But in reality a great percentage of human activity ends up being zero or negative sum, where someone gains at the expense of others somehow, and to specifically blame the news for this when most other areas of life involve the same thing is really to be displeased at the fact that information distribution makes people powerful. It is the technology, and not the people who use it, that is the important element here. Any given group can be honest, manipulative, or dishonest; the question is what powers are permitted to that group? I think the answer would be to look at how power distribution is assigned, rather than how it's used when assigned arbitrarily.

[ June 06, 2015, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Fenring,

An interesting line of thought - ultimately, any claims to morality or ethics are arguable unless everyone in the discussion has agreed to an unambiguous and specific code of morality, or if there is someone who all accept as the legitimate decision authority on morality.

That being said, the coin of the realm in public debate (including on-line discussion forums) is made up of words and meanings. Those who promote falsehood are degrading the value of public discussion itself. If we posit a world in which everyone is adhering to a Fox News standard of truth (the ends justify the means), public discussion becomes meaningless.

In a sense, this is brilliant tactics. If one faction can so poison the well of public discourse, then they develop an immunity to criticism of specifics. If the answer to every policy question gets first determined by which faction is promoting it, then loyalty trumps specifics. And if you posit a morality where truth-telling is optional, you can further inoculate your ideology from criticism by asserting that every faction promotes falsehood equally. And the final defense, in response to a comprehensive analysis that shows a pattern of false assertions, might be to just ignore the analysis or to change the subject with another inflammatory falsehood.

As I remember the Card's document chartering this website, a morality that welcomes falsehood is not the foundational ethos on which the Ornery American Forum was developed. This isn't binding on people who don't wish to follow the rules, but at least the rest of us can see their character based on their choices.

[ June 06, 2015, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Greg,

I think you misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that telling truth is optional if one wants to be ethical; I was saying that in life being ethical tends to be entirely optional. I would never advocate for anything other than raising up one's fellow man, but at the same time I wouldn't pretend to hold one particular agency of power (the news) to some standard not applied equally to everyone else. I was addressing what I think is a misunderstanding regarding news companies being some kind of philosophical agency rather than just a business.

I think each person, answerable only to his own conscience and sense of right, has a kind of broad obligation to serve others as well as himself. It's not a job description that gives him this obligation, it's simply being human. Beyond stating "he is a person" there is no further statement that needs to be made to insinuate a duty to others. To suggest "he should be honest because he is a newsperson" is, I think, to actually undermine that person's more general responsibility and to ascribe characteristics to private companies which are dangerous if taken on faith.

Until we have an "office of the clerics of truth", or some other sci-fi organization that prizes truth above power or prestige, I would always advise someone to think for himself rather than to accept at face value statements issued by private interests. And even then I'd keep a careful eye on what the clerics say [Smile]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
I do agree with you and should have stated that part more clearly; the ethical lapse of those who create the falsehoods of Fox News are morally culpable because they are people, not because they are newspeople. Being in the media gives them a megaphone that amplifies the impact of what they do, and that compounds the severity of action, but it is not what makes it wrong inofitself
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Yes. And I would add that not only do they have a megaphone, but it is one offered to them freely. They did not seize the podium, it was merely available and they took it. But when we begin to realize that lines of communication are the most powerful thing we might begin to reassess how haphazardly we dispense control over them, and how little we notice how that power is used.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
I am reminded about a pair of articles I read last year. The first was a son stating that he had lost his father to Fox News. The second was a response fro his father. The fathers comments to his son were telling. He stated that Fox news had not created who he was but that he and those like him had created Fox News.

Fox has created a "news" outlet that feeds people what the want to hear. Ideally we would live in a world where truth was more important than having our personal fears and ideas validated. Unfortunately many if not most Americans are more interested in protecting a vague idea how things used to be from any change that might challenge that idea. This is of course reinforced by those who benefit from these ideas.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I still maintain its a poor question when people on one side (the Democrats) who have NO actual knowledge of the rules will be inclined by political leanings to choose the "correct" answer.
Are you not of the opinion that Republicans with no actual knowledge of the rules will be inclined by political leanings to choose a given answer? Because if the problem is simply that actual events do not frequently align to the Republican narrative, that does not make me more sympathetic to their sources.
No. I said the questions were designed so that the disputably "correct" answer aligned with the bias of the left. If the goal is to determine politically correct thoughts, these questions are winners.

If the goal is to determine whether viewers of a news source are better or worse informed, they are hopelessly confounded.
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
I don't know why President Obama took this approach. I think perhaps it was about power or about belittling his opponents. Or perhaps because he is not a natural born citizen.

In all three cases, it's really ugly.

This is pretty much the only reason I even investigated the question. There's just no good reason not to have produced the proof. It's a little inconceivable to me that in running for the office of the President the burden of proof is not in fact on the candidate.
quote:
Originally posted by GregDavidson:
I believe that the real ugliness is the propaganda technique of consistently promoting false accusations and then never taking accountability for the falsehoods.

There is a lot of this that was in fact factual and suspicious. Why are you painting with such a broad brush? I don't want to accuse you of doing what you are criticizing, but you're clearly not parsing the question raising facts from the speculations here.
Which of course, is your way of conducting...
quote:
a whispering campaign designed not to persuade via a coherent argument substantiated by proof, but rather by repetition of innuendo that gives the appearance of smoke and thus fire.
I'm also absolutely fascinated by the direction this thread has gone, where people seem to believe that Fox has a duty to provide "facts" acceptable to those on the left, even where the facts and the conclusions drawn from them, are legitimately debatable, at the same time we have a thread that essentially claiming that politicians, again specifically those on the left, shouldn't be held accountable for lieing to us. Just curious how you parse that a media outlet should be more accountable for being honest with you than the actual people that you're electing to make the laws that govern your life.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
even where the facts and the conclusions drawn from them, are legitimately debatable
I think the issue comes in when you try to parse what "legitimately debatable" means. I do not, for example, believe that it is "legitimately debatable" whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not.

quote:
Just curious how you parse that a media outlet should be more accountable for being honest with you than the actual people that you're electing to make the laws that govern your life.
Well, first off, no one is suggesting that Fox pundits be arrested. Secondly, no one is suggesting that politicians not be held accountable for lying. And thirdly, politicians are not commonly accepted as sources of truth, whereas one might argue that this is the popular conception of the news media.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
even where the facts and the conclusions drawn from them, are legitimately debatable
I think the issue comes in when you try to parse what "legitimately debatable" means. I do not, for example, believe that it is "legitimately debatable" whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not.
And why is that? Do you have some evidence that no one else does?

It's not legitimately debatable, based on Hawaii's assertions, that he is eligible to be President, it's more than legitimately debatable about whether the provable facts justified those assertions.
quote:
quote:
Just curious how you parse that a media outlet should be more accountable for being honest with you than the actual people that you're electing to make the laws that govern your life.
Well, first off, no one is suggesting that Fox pundits be arrested.
Why is that a first off? I'm not aware that anyone is suggesting the politicians be arrested either (unless their lies also comprise criminal conduct).
quote:
Secondly, no one is suggesting that politicians not be held accountable for lying.
You should read the thread again. People repeatedly did so.
quote:
And thirdly, politicians are not commonly accepted as sources of truth, whereas one might argue that this is the popular conception of the news media.
If you ask if the media always tells the truth, its your view that the answer will be yes? I think you're making an unsustainable claim there. There's not a single person on this thread who hasn't expressed that they think they "other sides'" media is dishonest in how they present things.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
it's more than legitimately debatable about whether the provable facts justified those assertions
Yeah, see, I think you wouldn't be able to say that with a straight face had you not drunk the Kool-Aid.

quote:
People repeatedly did so.
No, they didn't. There are multiple forms of accountability. What they said is that it would politically impossible in the current climate for Democrats to prosecute the previous administration for war crimes. One might hope, for example, that even the worst idiot wouldn't vote in the future for anyone who worked for the Bush Administration, or hire them to provide legal advice.

It's also important to note the distinction between "should" and "can." I have no doubt that many people acknowledging -- quite sensibly -- that Democrats can't possibly pursue war crimes prosecutions wishes that it could happen, because they believe it should.

quote:
If you ask if the media always tells the truth, its your view that the answer will be yes?
But the presumption is that they should. Politicians are not considered secondary sources of information; no one calls a politician to ask what the weather is today, or what caused that fire at the bar down the block. They are primary sources -- they create news, and are cited by secondary sources. The primary function of a secondary source is to relay accurate information about what primary sources are doing; the primary source actually does stuff.

[ June 10, 2015, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
it's more than legitimately debatable about whether the provable facts justified those assertions
Yeah, see, I think you wouldn't be able to say that with a straight face had you not drunk the Kool-Aid.
Says the man who's idea of an evidenciary standard is that his assertions require no proof (nor will any ever be offered).
quote:
quote:
People repeatedly did so.
No, they didn't. There are multiple forms of accountability. What they said is that it would politically impossible in the current climate for Democrats to prosecute the previous administration for war crimes.
What does that have to do with their assertions about it not mattering whether Hillary Clinton lied, or President Obama lied? They weren't able to articulate a basis for voting for a person where its okay for the person to deliberately deceive you as to what they stand for, other than to trust them despite their proven propensity to lie.

This is why elections are about character assassination of the other guy.

The War Crimes part is barely relevant to the debate that I was referencing.
quote:
quote:
If you ask if the media always tells the truth, its your view that the answer will be yes?
But the presumption is that they should.
If there is not a presumption that politicians should tell the truth why DO we lambast them and run them out of office (party dependent of course) when they are caught not doing so? You've articulated a false distinction.

In fact, while people recognize politicians are liars, they almost invariably mean the other guys' politicians are the liars and they have great faith in their own sides. Even going so far as to right off lies as errors or unimportant, or my favorite, right wing witch hunts or conspiracies.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Seriati:
quote:
No. I said the questions were designed so that the disputably "correct" answer aligned with the bias of the left. If the goal is to determine politically correct thoughts, these questions are winners.

If the goal is to determine whether viewers of a news source are better or worse informed, they are hopelessly confounded.

I'm confused about why you seem to think that the political significance of the question/controversy makes it less important that Fox News - which extensively covered the birther controversy - protected or reinforced the incorrect belief that Obama did not have a Hawaiian birth certificate. Can you explain that again? Just because there's a political divide on a question doesn't justify bolstering false beliefs. We don't need an equal time principle for every stupid conspiracy theory.

quote:
I'm also absolutely fascinated by the direction this thread has gone, where people seem to believe that Fox has a duty to provide "facts" acceptable to those on the left, even where the facts and the conclusions drawn from them, are legitimately debatable...
Yeah, it only seemed legitimate because Fox News, which is supposed to be mainstream and claims to be "balanced", decided to pretend that it was. (Along with a bunch of right wing pundits.) It just wasn't legitimate.

quote:
This is pretty much the only reason I even investigated the question. There's just no good reason not to have produced the proof. It's a little inconceivable to me that in running for the office of the President the burden of proof is not in fact on the candidate.
The biggest reason the proof wasn't produced right away is because the Obama campaign expected that if they let people make idiots of themselves over this issue, it would be to their advantage.

It's also because, you know, this "burden of proof" you are talking about didn't exist in any legal sense. Is there any limit to the "proof" a candidate must provide to disprove an allegation just because someone has manufactured one? Please describe the standard process of proving ones eligibility for the office of President that everyone but Obama followed.

...?

It's not like he disregarded a court order, or in any way flouted a legal demand to provide this proof.

If you think that CNN or MSNBC is just as likely to do the similar thing, and promote/protect factually incorrect beliefs because of political bias, that's one thing. But you seem to be defending Fox News's legitimizing of the birther nonsense, and that's...odd. It definitely seems more partisan than the partisanship you are attempting to decry.

----

Joshua, the "digitally altered" thing has been adequately addressed. It's easy to find. It's a normal part of common scanning/archiving processes.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
What does that have to do with their assertions about it not mattering whether Hillary Clinton lied, or President Obama lied?
It's not that it doesn't matter. It's that it's impossible to make that the single standard by which a candidate is chosen. It is functionally impossible to find a national-level candidate who can't be shown to have lied about something.

quote:
If there is not a presumption that politicians should tell the truth why DO we lambast them and run them out of office (party dependent of course) when they are caught not doing so?
We don't. In fact, I am deeply doubtful that, if Nixon were caught as red-handed today, he would have resigned. He would have cast the whole thing as trumped-up charges from his political opposition, because politics are so cynical and partisan today that potentially enough people would believe him. The only time we run people out of office for lying is when they engage in some kind of financial crime or are lying about a sex scandal, and occasionally not even in those cases.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:


Joshua, the "digitally altered" thing has been adequately addressed. It's easy to find. It's a normal part of common scanning/archiving processes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

John Woodman is a life long Republican who has spent countless hours investigating the various conspiracy theories. He has written a book. He has even done videos in excruciating detail if you have a spare couple of hours you will never get back. Part I

He does summarize on his blog:
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/09/genuine-world-class-computer-expert-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf/

Or skip all that and go straight to Snopes.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Seriously, FOX?
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1