Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 05-27-2014, 02:19 AM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald II View Post
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.
Jesus Christ, you're calling her a liar because she didn't give the entire history of both programs in her one-sentence, throw-away comment that gunwalking was not invented by Obama.

The story wasn't about the history of the ATF, or even of Fast and Furious. The story was about Congress citing the Attorney General of the US for contempt, which grew out of some nutbar conspiracy theory that F&F was a ploy to repeal the Second Amendment.

Nobody (but you), not even the most fanatical gun nuts, cares whether the Mexican authorities were informed. All they care about was that the US government was deliberately allowing guns to be sold (indirectly) to criminals, allegedly to cause so much gun crime that the public would demand stronger gun control. That's the "conspiracy." And it's a load of crap because Bush used the same IMO misguided strategy of deliberately allowing criminals to obtain guns, not because of whether or not the Mexican authorities were involved.

There were a lot of problems with both programs. A lot of dropped balls, a lot of ineptness. But the story wasn't about that. It was about the nutball theory that caused the Attorney General to be cited for contempt for "covering up" a non-existent conspiracy.

What she said was accurate. I'm sorry she didn't mention Bush's program by name, and compare and contrast every facet of it with F&F, but those details aren't important to the story. The conspiracy theory was about the strategy of gunwalking, not informing Mexican authorities, and all you need to know about how bogus the conspiracy theory is, is that Bush used gunwalking, too.

And anyone can see that it's all part of the same package. In June of 2012, when the show aired, phony Congressional witch hunts were demanding more and more documentation on F&F because they were trying to defeat Obama. Now they're doing the same thing with Benghazi, because they're trying to defeat Hillary.

I made the mistake of taking you seriously, because like most people, I never took the F&F "scandal" seriously, so I hadn't seen much rhetoric like yours. But in googling around, I see that F&F in general, and the episode of Maddow that you quoted in particular, is a huge issue among right wingnuts, e.g.
http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2012...d-furious.html

These nutbar websites sound exactly like your posts. I won't be wasting any more time on them.

Last edited by TonySinclair; 05-27-2014 at 02:22 AM.
  #552  
Old 05-27-2014, 03:33 AM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Jesus Christ, you're calling her a liar because she didn't give the entire history of both programs in her one-sentence, throw-away comment that gunwalking was not invented by Obama.
I said she was either being intentionally misleading or sloppy with the facts. And nice strawman by the way. She wasn't talking about the tactic of gunwalking, but of a specific ATF operation.

Quote:
The story wasn't about the history of the ATF, or even of Fast and Furious. The story was about Congress citing the Attorney General of the US for contempt, which grew out of some nutbar conspiracy theory that F&F was a ploy to repeal the Second Amendment.
Me personally, I was unaware of the FOX News coverage of F&F. I came across the gun-walking story at a movie site forum and the news link posted was from CBS. I would like to have her opinion on the issue of Fast & Furious not about some crazy guy that FOX News gave a mega phone to.But yeah, I agree with you that the purpose of that segment was to debunk that guys claims and the Republican accusations that it was part of some conspiracy to restrict gun rights.

Quote:
What she said was accurate. I'm sorry she didn't mention Bush's program by name, and compare and contrast every facet of it with F&F, but those details aren't important to the story.
You wouldn't need to compare and contrast every facet of the two programs to say they were two different programs. And those details are important to the story. Sorry but she wasn't accurate with the facts. But I won't argue this with you because I already posted a portion of the transcript that speaks for itself.


Quote:
And anyone can see that it's all part of the same package. In June of 2012, when the show aired, phony Congressional witch hunts were demanding more and more documentation on F&F because they were trying to defeat Obama. Now they're doing the same thing with Benghazi, because they're trying to defeat Hillary.
I agree that the Republicans are grasping at anything to hurt Obama, the Democratic Party and Hilary. And yet they had no problem with the levels of deceit used to get the public and congress to support the Iraq War Resolution.


Quote:
I made the mistake of taking you seriously, because like most people, I never took the F&F "scandal" seriously, so I hadn't seen much rhetoric like yours.
I made the mistake of thinking you were someone to have a good discussion with. Instead you jump to the conclusion that I believe in the conspiracy theory that FOX News advanced.

Quote:
But in googling around, I see that F&F in general, and the episode of Maddow that you quoted in particular, is a huge issue among right wingnuts, e.g.
http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2012...d-furious.html

These nutbar websites sound exactly like your posts. I won't be wasting any more time on them.
Thanks for lumping me in with "right wing nuts" and "nutbar websites", even though I agreed with you on the levels of corruption in Mexico and said that was probably the reason why the ATF was not working with Mexican law enforcement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
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.
It seems like you view things through a political filter, simplifying and reducing people and their opinions to either Left or Right. It reminds me of when I tell people about dissatisfaction with Obama for things such as the NSA spying revelation. "You didn't have a problem when you're heroes Bush and Cheney were doing it!" Actually I did have a problem with it back then. I didn't vote for George W. Bush, I didn't and don't support the loss of our rights, and I voted against members of congress who supported the Iraq War Resolution.
  #553  
Old 05-27-2014, 10:50 AM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald II View Post
Thanks for lumping me in with "right wing nuts" and "nutbar websites", even though I agreed with you on the levels of corruption in Mexico and said that was probably the reason why the ATF was not working with Mexican law enforcement.
I didn't call you a right wing nut; I said your posts contain the same rhetoric on this particular issue, and they do. If you're a flaming liberal on other issues, great, see you at the parade.

You only need to google quotes from that show to see that it's a minor cause celebre among the political fanatics, with very clear lines drawn. You keep claiming that the transcript you quoted shows that you're right, but stick it in google, and you'll see that right wing sites say exactly what you did about it, while left wing sites call it a brilliant debunking of Fox. You'll also see that Maddow went on Bill Maher's show that week, and got into the same kind of argument with some right wing guest. The RW websites say she got schooled; the LW websites say she schooled them.

You think it's obvious that she misled the viewers, intentionally or not. I think it's obvious that she made a convincing case that the F&F issue was just another partisan witch hunt, and so the right is doing what they always do to muddy the waters, going after some very minor side issue and acting like it's the most important thing in the story.

So you lumped yourself with the right wing on this one. I'm not saying you're a teabagger; I'm not saying you're a bad person; I'm not saying you're dumb. I'm saying you are clinging to a position that depends on an interpretation that right wingers insist on, and that liberals don't see. Like it or not, that makes you a right winger on this issue.
  #554  
Old 05-27-2014, 03:08 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
. . . some nutbar conspiracy theory that F&F was a ploy to repeal the Second Amendment.

. . . the US government was deliberately allowing guns to be sold (indirectly) to criminals, allegedly to cause so much gun crime that the public would demand stronger gun control. That's the "conspiracy." And it's a load of crap . . .
I hadn't heard that one! I thought the actual operation was bad enough; it doesn't need to be amplified.

(Like "Arms for Hostages." We don't need to imagine GHWB flying to Paris to meet secretly with Iranian representatives. What actually happened was plenty bad enough!)

Conspiracy fantasies are so damn weird!
  #555  
Old 05-28-2014, 03:11 AM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
First off, thanks for responding. I thought you were going to dismiss me with the break-their-windows guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
You keep claiming that the transcript you quoted shows that you're right, but stick it in google, and you'll see that right wing sites say exactly what you did about it, while left wing sites call it a brilliant debunking of Fox. You'll also see that Maddow went on Bill Maher's show that week, and got into the same kind of argument with some right wing guest. The RW websites say she got schooled; the LW websites say she schooled them.
So because a one group agrees with my criticism that automatically invalidates the criticism? What kind of logic is that?

And I did see Maddow on Bill Maher's show that week. From what I remember she made some good points as well as Nick Gillespie. I felt no need to cheer lead one "side" or the other.

Quote:
So you lumped yourself with the right wing on this one. I'm not saying you're a teabagger; I'm not saying you're a bad person; I'm not saying you're dumb. I'm saying you are clinging to a position that depends on an interpretation that right wingers insist on, and that liberals don't see. Like it or not, that makes you a right winger on this issue.
A very political black and white world you live in. The only way I would be considered a right winger on the Fast & Furious issue is if I came to the same conclusion they did: that Operation Fast & Furious was an elaborate plot by the Obama Administration to escalate gun violence on the border to sway publican opinion in favor of stricter gun control laws. I do NOT believe that.

Have you heard of that expression "there's three sides to every story? Your side, the other side, and the truth"?
  #556  
Old 06-03-2014, 03:27 PM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
I knew there had to be a term for it.

Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy

Description of Guilt By Association
  #557  
Old 06-04-2014, 11:24 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald II View Post
So because a one group agrees with my criticism that automatically invalidates the criticism? What kind of logic is that?
So because a group of global warming deniers agrees with your views that automatically invalidates my criticism?

If you're talking about the score of the last Super Bowl, then it shouldn't. If you're talking about global warming, then it probably does mean that your view is not in line with the scientific consensus. In which case, just look at the scientific consensus.

The fact is that your interpretation of this is only shared by biased, far right wing groups exclusively. This is a good reason to be suspect of them. They tend to be outraged over things which aren't very outrageous or make mountains out of the great plains. Which is what you are doing with regard to Maddow's comments.

But we don't just say "well, you agree with them so you must be wrong." Instead we can see that you're wrong because Maddow's words in the context of what she was reporting was accurate.

Your view - shared by a side which has a habit of seeing what they want to see and delving into minutia where it is simply not prudent to do so ("she didn't explain every last detail in her two-minute news segment, how misleading!") - is based on the same "logic" that that group has.

And that "logic" was satisfactorily addressed well before it was revealed whose side agreed with you. Pointing it out was just icing on the cake.

On the positive side, I can repeat something I said before in this very thread when this same issue came up and was dealt with: The fact that this is the best that anti-Maddow people got is more evidence that she is very trustworthy.
  #558  
Old 06-05-2014, 04:58 PM
common good is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 418
Maddow is smart and honest. Nobody on Fox is either, much less both. She will be picked-apart by Fox and they will look like fools trying. The right fears her. Good.
  #559  
Old 06-05-2014, 05:51 PM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,583
I'll say this: there appears to be legitimate questions to at least be asked about the Berghdal thing, but when a Fox anchor wonders on air why the guy's dad hasn't shaved his beard (a beard grown long because he wouldn't shave while his son was hostage) because it makes him look like a member of the Taliban, it really makes me questions their interest in asking legitimate questions.
  #560  
Old 06-07-2014, 11:42 PM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
I'll say this: there appears to be legitimate questions to at least be asked about the Berghdal thing, but when a Fox anchor wonders on air why the guy's dad hasn't shaved his beard (a beard grown long because he wouldn't shave while his son was hostage) because it makes him look like a member of the Taliban, it really makes me questions their interest in asking legitimate questions.
nm

Last edited by Little_Pig; 06-07-2014 at 11:43 PM.
  #561  
Old 06-07-2014, 11:48 PM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
I'll say this: there appears to be legitimate questions to at least be asked about the Berghdal thing, but when a Fox anchor wonders on air why the guy's dad hasn't shaved his beard (a beard grown long because he wouldn't shave while his son was hostage) because it makes him look like a member of the Taliban, it really makes me questions their interest in asking legitimate questions.
Agreed. People with beards are scary.
  #562  
Old 06-08-2014, 04:54 PM
Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post

The fact is that your interpretation of this is only shared by biased, far right wing groups exclusively. This is a good reason to be suspect of them.
ABC News

Washington Post


Quote:
But we don't just say "well, you agree with them so you must be wrong." Instead we can see that you're wrong because Maddow's words in the context of what she was reporting was accurate.
Even in the context of what she was reporting it was inaccurate.

Quote:
Your view - shared by a side which has a habit of seeing what they want to see and delving into minutia where it is simply not prudent to do so ("she didn't explain every last detail in her two-minute news segment, how misleading!") - is based on the same "logic" that that group has.
First it wasn't a 2 mintue segment, it was 15 minutes. Second, nice strawman. I never said she needed to explain the intricacies or minutia of the programs. Fast and Furious is the name of an operation that started under the Obama administration. It is not a reference to a law enforcement strategy. It wasn't a singular operation that was started and ran continuously through two administrations. Operation Wide Receiver ended while Bush was still in office. Fast and Furious started during the Obama administration.
  #563  
Old 06-08-2014, 05:32 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald II View Post
ABC News

Washington Post



Even in the context of what she was reporting it was inaccurate.


First it wasn't a 2 mintue segment, it was 15 minutes. Second, nice strawman. I never said she needed to explain the intricacies or minutia of the programs. Fast and Furious is the name of an operation that started under the Obama administration. It is not a reference to a law enforcement strategy. It wasn't a singular operation that was started and ran continuously through two administrations. Operation Wide Receiver ended while Bush was still in office. Fast and Furious started during the Obama administration.
Nobody was indicted for the mishandling of guns under the Bush administration. All indictments came under the Obama administration. For actions that began in 2006, under Bush.
  #564  
Old 06-18-2014, 05:13 PM
common good is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 418
Is cancer really all that bad ? I know this isn't the OP's question. My answer to both is: Yes, and worse than bad. But, I'm biased; I hate lies and the lying liars who tell them. Thanks, Al Franken.
  #565  
Old 07-03-2014, 01:37 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,395
Bumping an old thread, but this is just too good while at the same time not justifying a whole new thread :

Fox News apes Bioshock Infinite, without an atom of (intentional) irony.
  #566  
Old 07-03-2014, 03:02 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,106
Media Matters shows how CNN, MSNBC, and Fox covered today's jobs numbers: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07...cnn-are/199973.

To be fair, I don't know if those snapshots are entirely fair comparisons. What's at the top of a news site can change fast, so it may be the case* that Fox had the jobs numbers at the top of the site shortly before or after these screen captures were taken.

Anyway, Fox business analyst Charles Payne suggested that the jobs numbers might be "too good" (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07...oo-good/199972). Saying the numbers are misleading, or they're not good enough is old hat. Yep, these numbers are too good.


*probably not.
  #567  
Old 07-03-2014, 03:57 PM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
Media Matters shows how CNN, MSNBC, and Fox covered today's jobs numbers: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07...cnn-are/199973.

To be fair, I don't know if those snapshots are entirely fair comparisons. What's at the top of a news site can change fast, so it may be the case* that Fox had the jobs numbers at the top of the site shortly before or after these screen captures were taken.

Anyway, Fox business analyst Charles Payne suggested that the jobs numbers might be "too good" (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07...oo-good/199972). Saying the numbers are misleading, or they're not good enough is old hat. Yep, these numbers are too good.


*probably not.
I've been monitoring this (see upthread where I've mentioned this phenomenon when the monthly jobs numbers come out). At no point today was this a headline on Foxnews.

Seriously, this is the biggest piece of news of the day on every single other site, and yet Foxnews doesn't bother reporting it as anything higher than a subheading on the bottom of a page. How can anyone justify the fact that Foxnews (not its opinion, but its "news") doesn't bother to report the jobs numbers, but only when they are positive?

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 07-03-2014 at 03:57 PM.
  #568  
Old 07-03-2014, 04:15 PM
Knorf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Living the Dream
Posts: 8,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Seriously, this is the biggest piece of news of the day on every single other site, and yet Foxnews doesn't bother reporting it as anything higher than a subheading on the bottom of a page. How can anyone justify the fact that Foxnews (not its opinion, but its "news") doesn't bother to report the jobs numbers, but only when they are positive?
It's clear as crystal to anyone with a brain that Fox "News" prefers to avoid highlighting any story that would cast Obama or his administration in anything but a negative light.
  #569  
Old 07-10-2014, 11:50 AM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knorf View Post
It's clear as crystal to anyone with a brain that Fox "News" prefers to avoid highlighting any story that would cast Obama or his administration in anything but a negative light.
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/f...-percent-time/

Fact-Checking Site Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18 Percent of the Time

The problem is that MSNBC gets only a 31% and CNN 60%. I'd guess PBS is closer to 100% than either of those. Probably Al Jazeera is better too.

Source:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
  #570  
Old 07-10-2014, 09:46 PM
Lt. Skooma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3

Fox News, CNN, MSNBC are all the problem


It isn't Fox News, but all American news networks. Yes, Fox has an obvious slant to the right and then, almost in an act of facetiousness, claim to be fair and balanced. Any news network that would hire Rachel Maddow, also is obviously slanted as well.
They are all owned by only four corporations at this point. This presents a big problem. The term "third estate"came from the French Revolution which was a pamphlet stating that the common people should have a voice especially when it came to balancing out the power the ruling elites. It is the job of the media and the press to report facts and the truth in service to the citizens of this country to keep them informed. It is not there to play politics or interject personal opinion and ideologies in the guise of journalism. All media outlets serve the will of and follow the agenda of their owners. It is used to shape the zeitgeist and manipulate public discourse by spinning the language, distorting or perverting the facts, focusing news attention on things that are meant to distract or invoke a particular emotional response in the public etc.
The news media outlet, whether conservative or liberal, is delivering news in a way similar to how store fronts sell things out front to hide the mob operation in the back room. The reality of it is that money and consolidation of power are the ones that are shaping the content broadcasted to manipulate, distract, and control the public.
The press doesn't do what they existed to accomplish in the first place anymore, to give a voice to the common citizenry. Now it simply exists as a sycophant which is channeling propaganda (right or left)
  #571  
Old 07-10-2014, 09:54 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,874
Serious question: If Fox News vanished, who would serve as the counterbalance to the leftward tilt in media?


Should America have an unbalanced, left-leaning media rather than a somewhat balanced one?
  #572  
Old 07-10-2014, 10:06 PM
jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,156
From my perspective, there is no leftward slant in American media. If anything, they all hold a corporatist viewpoint, which is NEVER really leftward. Yes, MSNBC has Rachel Maddow. They also have Morning Joke.

Of course, those of you who are somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun will see most of the American media as left-leaning, but I'm not responsible for your delusions.
  #573  
Old 07-10-2014, 10:31 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Serious question: If Fox News vanished, who would serve as the counterbalance to the leftward tilt in media?
Uh, no, that was not a serious question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Should America have an unbalanced, left-leaning media rather than a somewhat balanced one?
When has that happened? You really need to recalibrate your view of the media because most of the left does not see any mainstream media source as left leaning as FOX is to the right.

From the book: Witness to a century- By George Seldes: In the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” chapter:

J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was not being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war were getting. Stern replied:

“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything? Including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”

Amazingly, that was in 1936, and it looks like things have not changed much:

In a recent Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. The New York Times knew that Enron's economic models were bananas and Enron was likely not a good investment or a failure to come.

The Times economic reporter had this commentary, on why they did not report much of that conclusion before Enron was history:

Because “Other things came up!”

Charlie Rose, by not making any follow up questions to that whitewash of an answer just completed the picture, media that depends on corporation revenue will have many inconvenient points of view not covered much if at all.

Like global warming, worker's rights, women's rights, access to health care; in essence the left does not have a ready made mainstream source that harps day in and out about issues that they consider important.
  #574  
Old 07-11-2014, 09:52 AM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
From my perspective, there is no leftward slant in American media. If anything, they all hold a corporatist viewpoint, which is NEVER really leftward. Yes, MSNBC has Rachel Maddow. They also have Morning Joke.

Of course, those of you who are somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun will see most of the American media as left-leaning, but I'm not responsible for your delusions.
Rachel Maddow is opinion. Bill O'Reilly is opinion. I have no problem with that. I would argue that Glenn Beck or the Fox and Friends guys are considerably further to the right than Maddow (or anyone who has ever been an MSNBC show head) is to the left, but whatever. (I can't defend having Al Sharpton have his own MSNBC show, and I won't even try!)

What reeks is when you leave opinion and enter news. Can you comment on the fact that Foxnews simply does not report the jobs numbers when they are good during the Obama administration. It is generally nowhere to be found on their site. If they report anything at all, it is to somehow suggest that the good numbers are fake. When the job numbers are bad, they are all over it and it is on their headlines. So, their viewers, understandably believe that the unemployment rate has increased under Obama.

They are skewing the news in ways that you just don't see on any other "legitimate" venue. By legitimate, I mean that I'm sure that you can find some equally egregious examples from the sidelines of news, but CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, and even more rightward examples like the Wall Street Journal report the jobs numbers every month because it is generally the biggest news of the day.
  #575  
Old 07-11-2014, 10:12 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Serious question: If Fox News vanished, who would serve as the counterbalance to the leftward tilt in media?
Care to explain what you believe this leftward tilt is and how it manifests?
  #576  
Old 07-11-2014, 10:55 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Serious question: If Fox News vanished, who would serve as the counterbalance to the leftward tilt in media?


Should America have an unbalanced, left-leaning media rather than a somewhat balanced one?
The problem isn't that Fox slants conservative, it's that its conservative viewpoint takes precedence over its journalism. It is certainly possible to have a conservative slanted news source and still be respectable. See for example the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, or the Weekly Standard. If Fox news was like one of these, journalism from a conservative view point rather than conservative propaganda in a journalistic wrapper, then I don't think I would have such a problem with it. I wouldn't like it, and would chose a different source to get my news, but at least I would respect it.
  #577  
Old 07-11-2014, 12:07 PM
oft wears hats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: AUS
Posts: 1,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The problem isn't that Fox slants conservative, it's that its conservative viewpoint takes precedence over its journalism. It is certainly possible to have a conservative slanted news source and still be respectable. See for example the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, or the Weekly Standard. If Fox news was like one of these, journalism from a conservative view point rather than conservative propaganda in a journalistic wrapper, then I don't think I would have such a problem with it. I wouldn't like it, and would chose a different source to get my news, but at least I would respect it.
Exactly. Much of Fox News seems to be "news as product" or perhaps "conservative reassurance as product." My Google Finance news feed often has multiple articles, two saying some version of "Stocks edge lower due to disappointing numbers," plus Fox Business saying "Stock drop due to Obamanomics?" They take opinion pieces and present them as fact.

I think America should have a balanced media, but the conservative side deserves far better representation than Fox News is providing.
  #578  
Old 07-11-2014, 02:07 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The problem isn't that Fox slants conservative, it's that its conservative viewpoint takes precedence over its journalism. It is certainly possible to have a conservative slanted news source and still be respectable. See for example the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, or the Weekly Standard. If Fox news was like one of these, journalism from a conservative view point rather than conservative propaganda in a journalistic wrapper, then I don't think I would have such a problem with it. I wouldn't like it, and would chose a different source to get my news, but at least I would respect it.
As I said on another forum: "If Fox News is 'the conservative side', then one question - why the fuck can't you do better?"
  #579  
Old 07-11-2014, 07:21 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The problem isn't that Fox slants conservative, it's that its conservative viewpoint takes precedence over its journalism. It is certainly possible to have a conservative slanted news source and still be respectable. See for example the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, or the Weekly Standard.
I agree with the first sentence. But it seems to me that respectable conservative media are rare -- the WSJ and National Review seem to have greatly declined in quality in recent years. WSJ publishes outright climate change denialism in its opinion pages, often written by complete scientific illiterates, and National Review has shrill and sophomoric idiots like Mark Steyn now writing for them.
  #580  
Old 07-11-2014, 07:46 PM
Knorf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Living the Dream
Posts: 8,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
WSJ publishes outright climate change denialism in its opinion pages, often written by complete scientific illiterates, and National Review has shrill and sophomoric idiots like Mark Steyn now writing for them.
It's the Fox News Effect.

Thoughtful, non-shrill conservative journalism and editorials just ain't sexy anymore.
  #581  
Old 07-14-2014, 07:42 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,106
So, Bowe Bergdahl returned to active duty today after spending the past six weeks in rehab. He will apparently be assigned to some desk job while the investigation into his disappearance and capture is conducted. His security clearance has been revoked, so his job will be in the protocol office, assisting soldiers with procedures and etiquette. He has yet to speak to his parents, although he has sent them letters. Bergdahl can leave his base escorted by a "care team", and he has been seen shopping and eating at a local mall. The investigation is ongoing, and Bergdahl has retained legal counsel.

Per DOD policy, if the investigation concludes that Bergdahl was a POW (i.e., not a deserter), he will be entitled to back pay for his five years in captivity, including a combat pay premium. This works out to about $350,000 for Bergdahl. Per IRS rules, this pay may be tax free.

And, the Fox headline screams... "Bergdahl could get $350G tax-free, if cleared by Army".

I love this headline. "Army and IRS to follow established policy and laws in Bergdahl case!" Well, yeah, I imagine they would. And I love how the article starts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could have a tax-free $350,000 dropped into his bank account if the current investigation into his disappearance from his base in Afghanistan was not desertion, and if he is deemed to have been a prisoner of war for the five years he was held by Islamic militants, Fox News has learned.
First of all, I think we're missing some words there. Otherwise, it's saying that Bergdahl gets the money if the "investigation...was not desertion." Anyway, I also just love how this is something "Fox News has learned", as though it required some kind of dogged investigation to pry that information out of the Army. Fox News has just learned that these tax laws and DOD policies exist! And they apply to Bergdahl!!

Later, Fox informs us:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Bergdahl still has not spoken to his parents, although he has sent two letters to them at their home in Idaho. Robert and Jani Bergdahl have yet to visit him in Texas, and there are reports of a rift in the family.
"Reports of a rift in the family". This is a beautiful bit of insinuation. "Reports" by who? And between which members of the family? Mom and Dad? Dad and Bowe? Dad and Crazy Uncle Fred from Florida, the one no one liked to begin with? Hell, there are lots of "rifts" in my family, for certain values of "family".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
“He appears unconcerned about the Army’s investigation,” said one official. “The investigation has to get moving, as he’s out of the Army soon. He lawyered up so we had to scale back the de-briefing.”
Oooh, the investigation has to get moving! Is that the way it works, if you can just slow-walk the investigation until your service is up, you get away with everything? I have no military background, but I would think that's probably not the way it works. But, Anonymous Military Guy says they have to get the investigation going, so by God they need to jump right to the verdict before he slips away from their grasp! Oh, and he "lawyered up," the scoundrel. Again, I'm not an expert, but I presume that people subject to military justice have a right of counsel and a right to remain silent, kind of like everyone else does. That might be in the Constitution, but I'm not sure.

So, yeah. A few fairly uncontroversial facts, some innuendo, and presto! Fox Noise!
  #582  
Old 07-14-2014, 07:47 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,072
I gather Fox News wants Bergdahl convicted and the five Taliban released in trade for him to mastermind and execute a dozen terrorist attacks all before November because freedom.
  #583  
Old 07-14-2014, 10:39 PM
Strassia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
So, Bowe Bergdahl returned to active duty today after spending the past six weeks in rehab. He will apparently be assigned to some desk job while the investigation into his disappearance and capture is conducted. His security clearance has been revoked, so his job will be in the protocol office, assisting soldiers with procedures and etiquette. He has yet to speak to his parents, although he has sent them letters. Bergdahl can leave his base escorted by a "care team", and he has been seen shopping and eating at a local mall. The investigation is ongoing, and Bergdahl has retained legal counsel.

Per DOD policy, if the investigation concludes that Bergdahl was a POW (i.e., not a deserter), he will be entitled to back pay for his five years in captivity, including a combat pay premium. This works out to about $350,000 for Bergdahl. Per IRS rules, this pay may be tax free.

And, the Fox headline screams... "Bergdahl could get $350G tax-free, if cleared by Army".

I love this headline. "Army and IRS to follow established policy and laws in Bergdahl case!" Well, yeah, I imagine they would. And I love how the article starts:



First of all, I think we're missing some words there. Otherwise, it's saying that Bergdahl gets the money if the "investigation...was not desertion." Anyway, I also just love how this is something "Fox News has learned", as though it required some kind of dogged investigation to pry that information out of the Army. Fox News has just learned that these tax laws and DOD policies exist! And they apply to Bergdahl!!

Later, Fox informs us:

"Reports of a rift in the family". This is a beautiful bit of insinuation. "Reports" by who? And between which members of the family? Mom and Dad? Dad and Bowe? Dad and Crazy Uncle Fred from Florida, the one no one liked to begin with? Hell, there are lots of "rifts" in my family, for certain values of "family".

Oooh, the investigation has to get moving! Is that the way it works, if you can just slow-walk the investigation until your service is up, you get away with everything? I have no military background, but I would think that's probably not the way it works. But, Anonymous Military Guy says they have to get the investigation going, so by God they need to jump right to the verdict before he slips away from their grasp! Oh, and he "lawyered up," the scoundrel. Again, I'm not an expert, but I presume that people subject to military justice have a right of counsel and a right to remain silent, kind of like everyone else does. That might be in the Constitution, but I'm not sure.

So, yeah. A few fairly uncontroversial facts, some innuendo, and presto! Fox Noise!
The U.S. Constitution doesn't really apply. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does. In some ways military personnel lose rights (e.g. freedom of speech and association), but in others they are stronger. Article 31 protections are, IME, currently stronger than fifth amendment protections
  #584  
Old 07-15-2014, 03:37 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
the WSJ and National Review seem to have greatly declined in quality in recent years.
Rupert Murdoch bought out the WSJ in 2007. So, yeah. Same shit, different sauce.
  #585  
Old 07-25-2014, 01:46 PM
standingwave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,084
Another "fair and balanced" Hannity interview devolves into screaming at the guest:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/can-you-h...stinian-guest/
  #586  
Old 07-25-2014, 02:56 PM
drewtwo99 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 8,757
I'm actually fine with yelling at someone if they refuse to answer your questions. If the guy doesn't believe Hamas is a terrorist organization, or if his views are nuanced, he should have just said so.

Last edited by drewtwo99; 07-25-2014 at 02:57 PM.
  #587  
Old 07-25-2014, 03:48 PM
standingwave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewtwo99 View Post
I'm actually fine with yelling at someone if they refuse to answer your questions. If the guy doesn't believe Hamas is a terrorist organization, or if his views are nuanced, he should have just said so.
I'm actually not fine with such tactics. I'm more interested in an honest exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Hannity gave the pro-Israel guest free rein and then played "have you stopped beating your wife?" game with the pro-Palestine guest. Fair and balanced my ass.
  #588  
Old 07-25-2014, 04:04 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Rupert Murdoch bought out the WSJ in 2007. So, yeah. Same shit, different sauce.
Murdoch is currently trying to buy Time Warner. TW owns, among other things, CNN and HBO. How this could possibly be allowed is mind boggling. The media consolidation that's been happening in general, and under Murdoch in particular, is truly frightening. CNN could become a version of another Fox News, and Bill Maher (who hosts Real Time on HBO) wasn't really joking when he said you could kiss his ass goodbye if that happens.
  #589  
Old 07-25-2014, 04:06 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Nah, they would divest CNN. At least, according to CNN they would, FWIW.
  #590  
Old 10-28-2014, 08:25 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,683
This was on my facebook feed, and that's kind of difficult to link to using my phone.

But do all of you remember how when gas prices were going up how Fox News was screaming every day about how this was an indictment of Obama?

Well, there's a screenshot you can find of a more recent broadcast, where the network has decided that cheap gas hurts the economy.
  #591  
Old 10-28-2014, 09:14 PM
standingwave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Well, there's a screenshot you can find of a more recent broadcast, where the network has decided that cheap gas hurts the economy.
Second link has you screenshot, I believe.

Fox on gas prices last year: "More pain at the pump"
Fox on gas prices today: “Cheap gas hurts economy”
  #592  
Old 10-28-2014, 10:07 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,683
Yep. That's it. Once again, it's not the bias that makes Fox News am that bad. It's the bullshit.
  #593  
Old 10-29-2014, 08:10 AM
JackieLikesVariety's Avatar
JackieLikesVariety is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,594
I recently had a 94 year old nursing home resident say to me "Obamacare is taking over everything!" in real fear. it is CRIMINAL those bastards are scaring old people with lies and distortions. he has no idea what Obamacare even is, he just knows it's coming to get him and it's scary bad.

  #594  
Old 10-29-2014, 10:04 AM
Rune is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 4,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by standingwave View Post
Second link has you screenshot, I believe.

Fox on gas prices last year: "More pain at the pump"
Fox on gas prices today: “Cheap gas hurts economy”
What’s so bad about that? It appears that it is two pundits coming with their two different views on some situation. The first is accompanied with the word "postulates," the second with a question mark – so it doesn’t really come off as heavily endorsed by the station itself. It's not even very controversial. There are plenty of people who subscribe to one or the other points of view, or both I assume. Expensive gas prices could have been damaging US interests two years, while cheap gas prices can be been damaging US interests today. Things change.

Is it because you are of the opinion that Fox should only employ commentators which toe a particular line, so as to have the station seem to present a single view to the world?
  #595  
Old 10-29-2014, 10:29 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune View Post
What’s so bad about that? It appears that it is two pundits coming with their two different views on some situation. The first is accompanied with the word "postulates," the second with a question mark – so it doesn’t really come off as heavily endorsed by the station itself. It's not even very controversial. There are plenty of people who subscribe to one or the other points of view, or both I assume. Expensive gas prices could have been damaging US interests two years, while cheap gas prices can be been damaging US interests today. Things change.

Is it because you are of the opinion that Fox should only employ commentators which toe a particular line, so as to have the station seem to present a single view to the world?
It's that Fox seems to consistently choose the interpration and presentation that portrays one side in as poor a light as possible.
  #596  
Old 10-29-2014, 12:54 PM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune View Post
What’s so bad about that? It appears that it is two pundits coming with their two different views on some situation. The first is accompanied with the word "postulates," the second with a question mark – so it doesn’t really come off as heavily endorsed by the station itself. It's not even very controversial. There are plenty of people who subscribe to one or the other points of view, or both I assume. Expensive gas prices could have been damaging US interests two years, while cheap gas prices can be been damaging US interests today. Things change.

Is it because you are of the opinion that Fox should only employ commentators which toe a particular line, so as to have the station seem to present a single view to the world?
They hide behind the question mark ruse quite a bit. Foxnews just happens to be asking the question, and then just happens to book a guest who answers that question the way that they want them to.

Are liberals fueling the war on terror?

Have Democrats forgotten 9/11?

Is the civil war in Iraq a good thing? (asked in 2006 when Bush was president, so the answer was yes. Now, obviously the answer would be no)

(also, then just asking: Is the civil war in Iraq just made up by the media?)

Is Obama disrespecting the oval office?

For all their hypermasculine chest thumping they seem really wimpy when it comes to taking a stand.
  #597  
Old 10-29-2014, 03:45 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,683
But they're just asking questions...
  #598  
Old 10-29-2014, 04:44 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,683
I just caught this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune View Post
Is it because you are of the opinion that Fox should only employ commentators which toe a particular line, so as to have the station seem to present a single view to the world?
That's funny because that's exactly what Fox News does. You'll notice that the subtext of everything they report - even contradictory things such as gas prices going in opposite directions - is "Obama Bad."
  #599  
Old 10-30-2014, 05:40 AM
john b. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 196
Fair and balanced, not, but I sometimes enjoy Fox News, find them a refreshing change of pace. Of course they tilt to the Right,--but on the radio, PBS tilts very much to the Left, as does, less egregiously, PBS, on television--so what's the problem?

Fox for the most part influences people who are already converts, preach to the choir, so to speak, as does NPR. To my way of thinking it comes down to which "sermon" one wants to listen to.

Because where I live is very liberal, and I tend to be left of center on most issues, I like a breath of fresh air (and I don't mean Terry Gross) to shake my brain up a little, and Fox provides that for me now and again.

Last edited by john b.; 10-30-2014 at 05:41 AM.
  #600  
Old 10-30-2014, 06:40 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Because the issue isn't just that the news has a bias. It's that it has a constant slant that bends the facts around it. It's also that, by the only objective metrics on news performance (the informedness of viewers), Fox News loses to virtually everything except talk radio. Spend some time reading the thread. Fox really is that bad.
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 12:19 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