Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 04-07-2014, 04:41 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Please quote me pretending that Fox does not lie.
I'll retract that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
At this point you are playing semantic games about what is or is not an anecdote.
No. You are using a word without regard to its actual meaning in order to try to score a point by dismissing facts as "anecdotes."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Let me ask you again: what evidence can you offer that your opinion is not falling prey to confirmation bias?
That no one defending Fox News has provided anything resembling facts that demonstrate that other news agencies lie on a routine basis or that the viewers of other networks are nearly as misinformed. If my points were merely confirmation bias, it would be easy to demonstrate that other networks behave in a fashion similar to Fox.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I'm getting it quite fine. You're attempting to say that independent studies are worthless if they do not agree with established opinion. I believe otherwise.
Actually, you have not provided a single "independent study" that is both "independent" and actually says what you claim it says. We're still waiting for the evidence, for example, that more negative reports about Romney than Obama was the result of bias and not the simple reporting of actual events without regard to political leanings in the period surveyed. After his "47%" remarks came out, Romney seemed to lose the track during the campaign. It was actually Romney's behavior that turned me from lukewarm support to active opposition, since I have not been impressed by Obama. The period of your linked study occurred in exactly that period of the campaign. With nothing but a percentage of negative reports, we have no way to judge whether the media (including Fox) was slanting the news toward Obama or whether Romney was simply making a hash of his campaign. Presuming the first without that evidence is meaningless.
  #503  
Old 04-08-2014, 01:24 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I'm getting it quite fine.
You obviously are not, as your next sentence proves. Okay, you know what, let's a try a different tack.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_..._informed.html

This independent study shows in no uncertain terms that FOX is more biased and more dishonest than any competitor by a long shot.
  #504  
Old 04-08-2014, 10:59 AM
standingwave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,084
Is Fox News bad? I don't know but this clip doesn't seem to help their case: http://youtu.be/Y-SoL3d1aL4

Fox News takes a story about a muslim parent's objection to a public school distributing flyers for an Easter Egg hunt at a local church and warps it into an attack on Easter itself instead of a simple separation of church and state issue.

The interview begins with the host badgering the guest.
“Why are you so hostile?" (when he doesn't seem the least bit hostile.)
"Why are you so angry?"
"Why don’t you stop whining about it?"
"Why don't you tell us why you’re complaining?"
"What’s the big deal?"
"I asked you. Tell us!”
And whenever the guest tries to answer he gets interrupted before he is allowed to finish a sentence with the host screaming at him:
“So what? So what?"
"You’re that outraged over a stupid Easter Egg hunt?"
"You’ve gotta be kidding me!”
I don't have much time for cable news so I don't know if this is a representative clip or not. I get most of my news from the Internet (BBC or NPR) and my local paper. I hate commercials and really hate watching people shriek at each other, though I understand the entertainment value, kind of like ultimate fighting with words.
  #505  
Old 04-08-2014, 11:11 AM
jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,157
The irony of that, of course, is that Fox would be the first in line to bash at any attempt to inform students about a local mosque's programs.
  #506  
Old 04-08-2014, 01:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,991
Fox News is by far the worst in this study. As far as climate change stories, MSNBC reports misleading information 8% of the time, CNN reports misleading information 30% of the time, and Fox News reports misleading information a whopping 72% of the time.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-08-2014 at 01:40 PM.
  #507  
Old 04-09-2014, 11:52 AM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by standingwave View Post
Is Fox News bad? I don't know but this clip doesn't seem to help their case: http://youtu.be/Y-SoL3d1aL4

Fox News takes a story about a muslim parent's objection to a public school distributing flyers for an Easter Egg hunt at a local church and warps it into an attack on Easter itself instead of a simple separation of church and state issue.

The interview begins with the host badgering the guest.
“Why are you so hostile?" (when he doesn't seem the least bit hostile.)
"Why are you so angry?"
"Why don’t you stop whining about it?"
"Why don't you tell us why you’re complaining?"
"What’s the big deal?"
"I asked you. Tell us!”
And whenever the guest tries to answer he gets interrupted before he is allowed to finish a sentence with the host screaming at him:
“So what? So what?"
"You’re that outraged over a stupid Easter Egg hunt?"
"You’ve gotta be kidding me!”
I don't have much time for cable news so I don't know if this is a representative clip or not. I get most of my news from the Internet (BBC or NPR) and my local paper. I hate commercials and really hate watching people shriek at each other, though I understand the entertainment value, kind of like ultimate fighting with words.
I actually tried watching that clip. I couldn't get through it all. I made a decision long ago to not watch the Fox Right-Wing Propaganda Machine. Watching even just those 2 or 3 minutes of Hannity certainly doesn't change my mind on that count. (In fairness I don't really watch the news much anymore at all - local, national, or cable [I get the vast majority of my news from - GASP! - the newspaper]. The current "journalistic atmosphere" has a great deal to do with that. I don't disagree one bit that MSNBC is *maybe* as biased to the left as the FRWPM is to the right, but as has been stated [and shown] several times within this thread, MSNBC doesn't seem to be NEARLY as underhanded with its techniques in trying to cater to its audience as the FRWPM is)
  #508  
Old 04-09-2014, 06:36 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by standingwave View Post
Is Fox News bad? I don't know but this clip doesn't seem to help their case: http://youtu.be/Y-SoL3d1aL4
My first thought was that I would not actually hold Fox News responsible for Hannity's editorial bullshit.

However, the little bug on the lower left corner constantly proclaiming it to be a Fox News broadcast makes that position difficult to defend. Hannity is clearly badgering his victim guest, interrupting him without letting him actually make a case. Broadcasting that on an opinion show on Fox Network would be fine, but broadcasting it as part of Fox News makes it worse than the sort of shenanigans that appear on 60 Minutes, (which is, itself, a somewhat independent organization and not part of the daily CBS News broadcast department).
  #509  
Old 04-10-2014, 12:55 AM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Not sure how accurate these sites are but if even 50% +/- you can see that these people are in Show Business. For the type of money they make they could probably just as easily take the opposite point of view of Fox on a different network.

Sean Hannity net worth.

Bill O'Reilly net worth.

In case you were wondering Rachel Maddow net worth.

Its just Show Business folks.
  #510  
Old 04-10-2014, 04:20 AM
rustyrunner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 90
Agree!

Sad to think a tiny oil rich Arab monarchy (Qatar) can now, (Aljazeera) rival and offer a more balanced world view regarding international news broadcasting than I see from Fox or any other US networks.
  #511  
Old 04-12-2014, 08:06 PM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyrunner View Post
Sad to think a tiny oil rich Arab monarchy (Qatar) can now, (Aljazeera) rival and offer a more balanced world view regarding international news broadcasting than I see from Fox or any other US networks.
This may not be as sad as you think. I get my news know from sources all over the world. I've read that Aljazeera America hired many Americans who were "let go" by traditional news organizations here in the U.S. Check out Aljazeera America On-Air staff and Correspondents. Note:Ray Suarez. Also, this listing does not include "Off-Air" staff.

Last edited by Little_Pig; 04-12-2014 at 08:09 PM.
  #512  
Old 04-12-2014, 09:25 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little_Pig View Post
Not sure how accurate these sites are but if even 50% +/- you can see that these people are in Show Business. For the type of money they make they could probably just as easily take the opposite point of view of Fox on a different network.

Sean Hannity net worth.
Looks like Sean wrote that bio himself.
  #513  
Old 04-13-2014, 04:13 AM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Looks like Sean wrote that bio himself.
Sorry, I only checked one source. Given he embraces the Fox mantra of demonizing the current President 24/7, and given Fox's ratings, I find that the dollar amounts stated to be "credible".

Last edited by Little_Pig; 04-13-2014 at 04:18 AM.
  #514  
Old 04-18-2014, 10:51 AM
rustyrunner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little_Pig View Post
This may not be as sad as you think. I get my news know from sources all over the world. I've read that Aljazeera America hired many Americans who were "let go" by traditional news organizations here in the U.S. Check out Aljazeera America On-Air staff and Correspondents. Note:Ray Suarez. Also, this listing does not include "Off-Air" staff.
Checked. Thanks for that.
I have no way of validating US news channel authenticity given my limited access, but they appear slanted and self serving.
Aljazeera has not a hope of making it to mainstream US which is a pity.
Fox and the mantra of news as entertainment ensure that.
  #515  
Old 04-21-2014, 06:03 PM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by standingwave View Post
Is Fox News bad? I don't know but this clip doesn't seem to help their case: http://youtu.be/Y-SoL3d1aL4

Fox News takes a story about a muslim parent's objection to a public school distributing flyers for an Easter Egg hunt at a local church and warps it into an attack on Easter itself instead of a simple separation of church and state issue.

The interview begins with the host badgering the guest.[INDENT] “Why are you so hostile?" (when he doesn't seem the least bit hostile.)
Hannity: what's your complaint here Majed?

Moughini: Mr. Hannity, I just love how mainstream media puts a twist on a story. First of all you probably got the wrong fish in your audience if you're trying to sit here and get a Muslim to come up in front of you and tell you how radical we are, you just picked the wrong Muslim.


Hannity started the summary of the topic by saying the parent was outraged that his child was given a religious flyer in public school. I didn't think it was Hannity's attempt to portray his guest as a religious radical, but just a word he uses to portray guests who believe in separation of church and state as overreacting. Moughini would have done better to have just said, "I'm not outraged but I don't believe that public schools should have religious material distributed to students..."

That said, from then on Hannity becomes an awful, rude, and insulting host. But like someone said, Hannity is just an entertainer. He's playing to his audience who are probably saying, "yep, he sure told off that Christian-hater."

Wow. I'm watching more of the video and it turned into Muslim bashing. The Beckel guy interrupts, I thought because he was going to steer it back to the issue of promoting of Easter in public schools but instead to claim that the majority of the Muslim community either supports terrorism or stays quiet about it due to cowardice.

They never got around to talking about the actual Easter Egg hunt. How is an Easter egg hunt not religious? O'Reilly gets mad when they take "Christ" out of Christmas and say "happy holidays," but Hannity is implying that easter egg hunts have nothing to do with religion or the Easter holiday.
  #516  
Old 05-01-2014, 08:31 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
I love when good economic numbers come out, because it gives a great chance to test the hypothesis that Foxnews is not biased. GDP grew at 2.8%. That's good. Expectations were much lower.

Headlines from around the web:

CNN.com: "Economy perked up over summer"
NBCnews.com: "Economy grows faster than expected during summer"
CBSnews.com: "GDP surprise: Economy grew 2.8 percent in third quarter"
ABCnews.com (from AP): "Stocks Near Records After US Economy Accelerates"


or as Foxnews.com sees it: "Economy stumbling?"

It appears that we can reject the null hypothesis.

The job numbers were unexpectedly poor today, so Foxnews.com finally has room to report this as their top "Latest news" story. When the numbers are good (which they have been in recent months), this news is either spun as somehow poor or else it is nowhere to be found on their site.
  #517  
Old 05-02-2014, 08:04 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,758
This is not a joke.

Chris Hayes just played a clip of FNC's live coverage of Obama's recent press conference.

They broke away from it, and the spokesmodel announcer explained that since the next questioner was from Germany, they didn't expect the subject to be Benghazi. But, they said, they will resume coverage of the press conference if and when any more questions about Benghazi are asked.
  #518  
Old 05-03-2014, 03:48 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,474
Citation needed. That can't be real.
  #519  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:52 AM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Citation needed. That can't be real.
This isn't from the Chris Hayes show I mentioned, but it's the same thing: It includes a video clip.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...rence-benghazi

ETA: according to the link, nobody asked about Benghazi, and so they never did return to the press conference.

Last edited by TonySinclair; 05-03-2014 at 05:55 AM.
  #520  
Old 05-03-2014, 06:49 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,474
That... Wow. I knew fox was bad, but that just leaves me speechless.
  #521  
Old 05-03-2014, 06:16 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
That... Wow. I knew fox was bad, but that just leaves me speechless.
Yep. I think the case against Fox News Channel has been made pretty well here. Just one more comment. I was reading some old news articles recently and was reminded that back around 1974 Rupert Murdoch started a tabloid paper called "The National Star", later known as just "The Star", which became very profitable and was eventually sold off in the early 90s as part of a News Corp consolidation. "The Star" said a lot about Murdoch's values: it was a supermarket checkout type rag intended to compete with the National Enquirer -- you know, stories like "baby born with three heads", or "mom abducted by aliens". Murdoch and the editorial staff were unapologetic about the paper: it was crap, they knew it was crap, and it was supposed to be crap, because it was crap that made a lot of money.

In the same era and continuing until recently there was Murdoch's News of the World in Britain, the paper that was recently forced to fold in the wake of the disgusting email hacking scandal. To me, this is all typical Murdoch. The gigantic empire of News Corp now runs some nominally respectable institutions like the Wall Street Journal, but the unmistakable touch is still there in the opinion pages. I have read articles in the WSJ opinion pages on climate change, for instance, that were just simply a pack of lies. Note here that this is not the same as saying that I disagreed with the authors' point of view, or that the articles were slanted or incomplete. The articles were an unmitigated pack of lies, period. Sort of like the baby born with three heads after Mom came back from the alien encounter.

All of this reflects the famous quip of journalist Mike Royko that "no self-respecting fish would want to be wrapped in a Murdoch paper". If one understands that the same stigma extends to his broadcast holdings, Fox News in particular, then one begins to understand the nature of Fox News, and much of what's been said here shouldn't be surprising.
  #522  
Old 05-03-2014, 09:11 PM
Lamar Mundane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,932
CNN, MSNBC, and CSPN are all covering the White House Correspondents Dinner live, while Fox is running a one hour special on the Benghazi "scandal."
  #523  
Old 05-04-2014, 03:31 AM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
All of this reflects the famous quip of journalist Mike Royko that "no self-respecting fish would want to be wrapped in a Murdoch paper".
Wow wolfpup. I thought I was the only person left who remembered that quote. I remember reading that in one of Royko's early columns for the Chicago Tribune, if not the first column after he left the Sun-Times.

Last edited by Little_Pig; 05-04-2014 at 03:33 AM.
  #524  
Old 05-04-2014, 03:33 AM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
That... Wow. I knew fox was bad, but that just leaves me speechless.
Yeah Budget Player Cadet, me too. And for a lot of people that is their only source for "news".
  #525  
Old 05-05-2014, 04:24 PM
yanceylebeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Denver City Denver
Posts: 1,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
This isn't from the Chris Hayes show I mentioned, but it's the same thing: It includes a video clip.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...rence-benghazi

ETA: according to the link, nobody asked about Benghazi, and so they never did return to the press conference.
And they just did it again this morning...
  #526  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:26 PM
Lamar Mundane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,932
Fox News did a story on the South Korean ferry sinking, showing people morning the dead. The problem is, they actually showed footage of Tibetans mourning the death of the Sherpas on Mt. Everest.

"Hey Bob, get us some footage of the Sooth Koreans mourning."

Bob: "Grumble, grumble. Here's some vaguely Asian looking people with tears in their eyes. One Gook is as good as another."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...-south-koreans
  #527  
Old 05-05-2014, 08:23 PM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane View Post
Fox News did a story on the South Korean ferry sinking, showing people morning the dead. The problem is, they actually showed footage of Tibetans mourning the death of the Sherpas on Mt. Everest.

"Hey Bob, get us some footage of the Sooth Koreans mourning."

Bob: "Grumble, grumble. Here's some vaguely Asian looking people with tears in their eyes. One Gook is as good as another."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...-south-koreans
I doubt their viewers will ever know.
  #528  
Old 05-06-2014, 10:29 AM
yanceylebeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Denver City Denver
Posts: 1,840
Now Fox's Dana Perino wants America's meteorologists to ask President Obama about Benghazi.

These people are bound and determined to create a scandal where none exists. Unbelievable.
  #529  
Old 05-06-2014, 10:48 AM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanceylebeef View Post
Now Fox's Dana Perino wants America's meteorologists to ask President Obama about Benghazi.

These people are bound and determined to create a scandal where none exists. Unbelievable.
Actually, coming from that pack of liars, hypocrites, whiners, and half-wits, it's VERY believable (unfortunately). Such a shame that so many dipsh1ts find that "news" station to be their one source of "news."
  #530  
Old 05-08-2014, 01:21 AM
A nice guy with an opinion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 219
When I think about how bad Faux news is, I have to compare it with something else.

So here ya geaux... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=ggHWRpsMEmk#!
  #531  
Old 05-08-2014, 01:54 AM
zoid's Avatar
zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 10,235
What exactly does misreading a teleprompter have to do with outright lies?
Are you actually equating the two?
  #532  
Old 05-08-2014, 02:35 AM
A nice guy with an opinion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
What exactly does misreading a teleprompter have to do with outright lies?
Are you actually equating the two?

Al is an American treasure. I am sorry. Back to faux news.
  #533  
Old 05-09-2014, 09:32 AM
yanceylebeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Denver City Denver
Posts: 1,840
Wow, Geraldo Rivera goes out in Manhattan to do a "man on the street" series of interviews about an EPA employee who was caught looking at porn, and managed to interview two Fox Business anchors.

Without identifying them. They tried to pass them off as regular Joes, just sitting there and having an opinion.

Priceless.
  #534  
Old 05-09-2014, 09:37 AM
Frank Merton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 268
As I understand it FOX beats all the others in its rating, and no wonder. It's entertaining and doesn't treat you like an idiot. I don't believe anything I see on TV anyway, and they are as credible as any of them, just a good deal more honest about their slant. They all deny a slant and they all have one.

If I want news, I read Christian Science Monitor, not that I'm a Christian of any sort, because I'm not, but because they don't feel they have to educate you and just tell you the story.
  #535  
Old 05-09-2014, 09:44 AM
yanceylebeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Denver City Denver
Posts: 1,840
Looks like someone at Fox news reads the Dope.
  #536  
Old 05-09-2014, 09:47 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Merton View Post
As I understand it FOX beats all the others in its rating, and no wonder. It's entertaining and doesn't treat you like an idiot.
Read the post right above yours(and most of the rest in this thread). All they do is treat you like an idiot.
  #537  
Old 05-09-2014, 09:57 AM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Merton View Post
As I understand it FOX beats all the others in its rating, and no wonder. It's entertaining and doesn't treat you like an idiot.
Have you WATCHED "Fox & Friends" in the morning? Fox assumes their viewers are idiots more than any network on TV. (well, maybe not TLC and MTV)
  #538  
Old 05-09-2014, 10:08 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Merton View Post
As I understand it FOX beats all the others in its rating, and no wonder. It's entertaining and doesn't treat you like an idiot. I don't believe anything I see on TV anyway, and they are as credible as any of them, just a good deal more honest about their slant. They all deny a slant and they all have one.

If I want news, I read Christian Science Monitor, not that I'm a Christian of any sort, because I'm not, but because they don't feel they have to educate you and just tell you the story.
Indeed, the Christian Science Monitor does treat their readers intelligently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Upd...hivering-video

Their interview of Climate researcher Gavin Schmidt did not include any dumb "counterpoint" from deniers.

Meanwhile at FOX:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05...-report/199186
Quote:
Fox News attempted to spin a new climate change report as a mere distraction from "multiple scandals swirling around the administration," ignoring that the report was legally mandated by Congress under a law signed by former President George H.W. Bush.

On May 6, the Obama administration released the third National Climate Assessment (NCA), a report compiled by over two hundred climate scientists over a four-year period. The report concluded that unabated climate change would pose many dangers to the U.S. including increasing drought and wildfires in the Southwest, and coastal flooding from rising sea levels and increased precipitation in the Northeast.

The May 6 edition of America's Newsroom opened with co-host Bill Hemmer's supposition that the Obama administration's "dire new report on global warming" may be intended "to distract Americans" from the "multiple scandals swirling around the administration." Co-host Martha MacCallum went on to elevate Sen. Jim Inhofe's claim that the climate change report is "part of the game the president is playing" to distract Americans from "his unchecked regulatory agenda":
Anything but the science and the problem of human emissions causing global warming, FOX does treat their viewers as idiots indeed.
  #539  
Old 05-09-2014, 12:40 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,165
I read the Christian Science Monitor too. I don't really understand why you would equate it in any way with Fox News.
  #540  
Old 05-09-2014, 01:31 PM
K364's Avatar
K364 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 2,752
stephen-colbert-ridicules-fox-newss-latest-hilariously-uninformed-benghazi-conspiracy/

“Fox News’s The Five‘s Eric Bolling,” Colbert continued, “has an iron-clad explanation for why they did whatever it is we’re accusing them of having done after the Benghazi attack.”

He then cuts to Bolling, who is saying “that there’s one more piece to this. Don’t forget that [Benghazi] was prior — prior — to Osama bin Laden being taken down, and the thought was, the discussion was, ‘Is President Obama, going into the reelection, soft on terror or not?’”

Bolling then interrupts himself, as an off-screen producers informs him of something: “What, it was after?”

“Yes, much after,” Dana Perino can be heard saying.

“My bad,” Bolling said, “I take it back.”

“But a great point, if it were true,” Perino added.

“Yes,” Colbert replied, “that’s undeniable. A great point, and a fantastic new motto: ‘Fox News: Fair and Balanced. A Great Point If It Were True.”
  #541  
Old 05-10-2014, 12:45 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Merton View Post
As I understand it FOX beats all the others in its rating, and no wonder. It's entertaining and doesn't treat you like an idiot. I don't believe anything I see on TV anyway, and they are as credible as any of them, just a good deal more honest about their slant. They all deny a slant and they all have one.

If I want news, I read Christian Science Monitor, not that I'm a Christian of any sort, because I'm not, but because they don't feel they have to educate you and just tell you the story.
Spend some time reading the thread, will you? FOX absolutely is both more slanted, less honest about their slant, more dishonest, has less well-informed viewers, and treat their viewers like morons.
  #542  
Old 05-10-2014, 10:23 PM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Next time you here someone talking about Benghazi, ask them were it is. When they pause, say, "Isn't in in Kenya?"

Yeah, Kenya, that sounds right.
  #543  
Old 05-10-2014, 11:55 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
I read the Christian Science Monitor too. I don't really understand why you would equate it in any way with Fox News.
"Equate" does not mean the same as "contrast".
  #544  
Old 05-26-2014, 10:33 PM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
Sorry for the really late thread bump

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
the gunwalking scandal started in 06.
What scandal was there in 2006? I only know that the gun walking program "Operation Wide Receiver" started in 2006.

Quote:
fast and furious was a portion of a program that has been going on for 3 years at that point.
No, the "investigative portion" of Operation Wide Receiver ended in 2007. link


Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
She said that it was a continuation of a Bush strategy of selling guns to criminals in the hopes of tracing them to druglords. I agree she could have been more clear that it was not the exact same program, but that is only a very minor detail to anyone who doesn't think that the motive behind it is to confiscate everyone's guns.
What she said was

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Maddow
“Fast and Furious” refers to A law enforcement strategy that started during the George w. bush administration...

...now whatever you think of that style of law enforcement program and that George W. Bush administration starting it and the Obama administration continuing it…”
Operation Fast and Furious started in 2009 under the Obama Administration. And supposedly, while they were similar programs, unlike Wide Receiver, Mexican officials were left in the dark about Fast and Furious. So this doesn't seem to be simply a case of a law enforcement program starting under the Bush administration and just continuing on all the way through Obama's tenure. Maddow is either being intentionally misleading for partisan reasons or unintentionally sloppy with the facts.

That said, I feel that I need to be clear and say that I don't think that FOX and MSNBC are the same. Although I see the obvious bias in MSNBC's reporting and commentary I still occasionally watch it and enjoy the editorial segments. I can't watch FOX News at all unless it's too laugh at something like the War on Christmas.
  #545  
Old 05-26-2014, 11:06 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald II View Post
Operation Fast and Furious started in 2009 under the Obama Administration. And supposedly, while they were similar programs, unlike Wide Receiver, Mexican officials were left in the dark about Fast and Furious. So this doesn't seem to be simply a case of a law enforcement program starting under the Bush administration and just continuing on all the way through Obama's tenure. Maddow is either being intentionally misleading for partisan reasons or unintentionally sloppy with the facts.
Or she isn't dumbing it down enough for you. She didn't say it was the same program; why would they change the name if it was the same program? She said it was the same strategy, and the same style of program, meaning gunwalking. I can see how a casual listener could get the wrong impression, but I honestly can't see how you could quote what you quoted, and then come to that conclusion.
  #546  
Old 05-27-2014, 12:05 AM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Or she isn't dumbing it down enough for you. She didn't say it was the same program; why would they change the name if it was the same program?
My problem with her is that she did dumb it down. To the point that she never mentioned the name of the other program which was Operation Wide Receiver nor did she mention that they were two separate programs at all.

Quote:
She said it was the same strategy, and the same style of program, meaning gunwalking. I can see how a casual listener could get the wrong impression, but I honestly can't see how you could quote what you quoted, and then come to that conclusion.
No, it wasn't the same strategy. Wide Receiver was done in cooperation with Mexican law enforcement officials. Fast & Furious was not.
  #547  
Old 05-27-2014, 12:11 AM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Maddow
Now if you don’t know anything about the Fast & Furious thing you are forgiven. But if you have heard of it from your uncle or because you happen to be visiting from Fox, hello, I hope you will forgive me while I explain that Fast & Furious refers to a law enforcement strategy that started during the George W. Bush administration. It was a program to let some sketchy gun sales go through in the hopes that following those guns after they were sold could lead the ATF to Mexican drug kingpins that they could arrest. Now whatever you think of that style of law enforcement program and that the George W. Bush administration starting it and the Obama administration continuing it, to this militia blogger guy, to the break-their-window- break-them-now guy, this got reimagined as a conspiracy to eliminate the 2nd amendment.
From her segment on the Fast & Furious scandal.
  #548  
Old 05-27-2014, 12:53 AM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,758
The basic strategy was gunwalking, both with Bush and Obama. Informing the Mexican authorities was a tactical detail, and evidently a failed one. I'm surprised Bush even considered it, since their corruption and penetration by drug cartels was notorious.

And I can add emphasis to quotes, too:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Maddow
Now if you don’t know anything about the Fast & Furious thing you are forgiven. But if you have heard of it from your uncle or because you happen to be visiting from Fox, hello, I hope you will forgive me while I explain that Fast & Furious refers to a law enforcement strategy that started during the George W. Bush administration. It was a program to let some sketchy gun sales go through in the hopes that following those guns after they were sold could lead the ATF to Mexican drug kingpins that they could arrest. Now whatever you think of that style of law enforcement program and that the George W. Bush administration starting it and the Obama administration continuing it, to this militia blogger guy, to the break-their-window- break-them-now guy, this got reimagined as a conspiracy to eliminate the 2nd amendment.
  #549  
Old 05-27-2014, 01:23 AM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
Quote:
The basic strategy was gunwalking, both with Bush and Obama. Informing the Mexican authorities was a tactical detail
Actually the strategies involved in both Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious were very different.

wiki link

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
I'm surprised Bush even considered it, since their corruption and penetration by drug cartels was notorious.
Which is most likely the reason why Operation Fast & Furious kept Mexican officials in the dark, and not as some plan to turn public opinion in favor of more gun control laws.

Quote:
And I can add emphasis to quotes, too:
Good. But with or without emphasis in the quotes you can see that Maddow never mentions that there were two separate operations. Never mentions the name of the first program. Never mentions it ended in 2007 under the George W. Bush administration. Never mentions that Fast & Furious started under the Obama administration. Never mentions the differences between the two programs.

I have no problem with her debunking a flawed conspiracy theory played up by FOX News. I do have a problem when she lets her political bias get in the way of objectivity when it comes to reporting of the facts.

Last edited by Gerald II; 05-27-2014 at 01:25 AM.
  #550  
Old 05-27-2014, 01:31 AM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Press Briefing by Jay Carney
The issue here has been the operation known as Fast and Furious, and that operation is being thoroughly investigated by the Inspector General, who has access to all these documents, including the ones that you’re asking about. And when it comes to the operation itself, everything has been provided to congressional investigators. And that is really the issue, isn’t it? It is, how did this operation come about? And it originated in a field office during the previous administration. It was ended under this administration, by this Attorney General.

Q The operation began in fall 2009. The operation Fast and Furious began --

MR. CARNEY: The tactic began in the previous administration.

Q Okay, but the operation -- you keep saying --

MR. CARNEY: Okay. The tactic began in the previous administration, and it was ended under this one when this Attorney General discovered it and believed it was a flawed tactic. He then referred it to the Inspector General.

I don't expect the White House Press Secretary to be objective in that case but I do expect it from someone like Rachel Maddow who has been known to criticize the policies of the President at times.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017