# Do any intelligent conservatives still take Fox News seriously? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 28, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649 "2009-04-28T18:25:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/101 "2009-04-29T01:17:28Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I read the whole thing, I watched the clip twice. I’m not getting it. Maybe it’s my fault and I’ll just go away. Just explain why they selected that particular quote from Obama to show. Why did they put that particular quote after the reporter said “Obama doesn’t want to do things halfway”? What was it they were trying to communicate about Obama’s views by putting that clip in there in that location in the spot? Like you, I wasn’t fooled into thinking Obama was doing anything other than reading a question he himself did not mean to be asking. But I did think “Hey, people might think that’s just his speech he’s reading from!” And I also wondered “Why did they play that clip after that comment from the reporter? What were they trying to say?” I don’t know what they were trying to say. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/102 "2009-04-29T01:17:42Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I thought from context you were suggesting an alternate clip. I’ll concede that “next to the clip” is an awkward turn of phrase, but c’mon. I suggested a specific clip, quoting language directly from the transcript and that **Kimstu** had already noted was in the same video. The fact that you still haven’t figured out that I’m talking about the very next line on the transcript is just completely baffling. > [@Scylla](#): > > Yeah, I know. I’m so fucking stupid. I have trouble missing what is so obvious to you: Here’s what I wrote: > [@](#): > > Obama’s plan calls for universal coverage, but private provision of care Here’s what you read that to mean: > [@](#): > > If…the state is paying for it, they are effectively running it, since they are determining what they will pay those providers. Now, I get accidentally making assumptions that aren’t present. Happens to everyone. But given that you read the description of Obama’s plan in the OP’s link, and therefore read the part about the relevance of the distinction from single-payer care, can you see why it might be frustrating that you make those particular assumptions and claim to base them on what I wrote? One of us is being an asshole. Obviously we disagree about who that is. I’m happy to call it a night on this one and attempt to engage in good faith on the next topic. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/103 "2009-04-29T01:23:27Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Just explain why they selected that particular quote from Obama to show. I dunno. I can’t impute motivations to the guy that did it, and I don’t know who he so I can’t ask him. It is also not a particularly important question since the clip doesn’t carry any especially negative or unfavorable connotations. I see no reason why they shouldn’t run that clip, or why an alternate one would be better. > [@](#): > > Why did they put that particular quote after the reporter said “Obama doesn’t want to do things halfway”? What was it they were trying to communicate about Obama’s views by putting that clip in there in that location in the spot? > > Like you, I wasn’t fooled into thinking Obama was doing anything other than reading a question he himself did not mean to be asking. But I did think “Hey, people might think that’s just his speech he’s reading from!” And I also wondered “Why did they play that clip after that comment from the reporter? What were they trying to say?” I don’t know what they were trying to say. Do you? I don’t know. Why did I put my right shoe on first? Was it an attack against leftism. It seems so innocuous that the real value here is not in the clip but in the batshit reaction to it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/104 "2009-04-29T01:26:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’ll concede that “next to the clip” is an awkward turn of phrase, but c’mon. I suggested a specific clip, quoting language directly from the transcript and that **Kimstu** had already noted was in the same video. The fact that you still haven’t figured out that I’m talking about the very next line on the transcript is just completely baffling. > > Here’s what I wrote: > > Here’s what you read that to mean: I’m not reading it again. I don’t care. It doesn’t matter. My bad. Sorry. > [@](#): > > Now, I get accidentally making assumptions that aren’t present. Happens to everyone. But given that you read the description of Obama’s plan in the OP’s link, and therefore read the part about the relevance of the distinction from single-payer care, can you see why it might be frustrating that you make those particular assumptions and claim to base them on what I wrote? > > One of us is being an asshole. Obviously we disagree about who that is. I’m happy to call it a night on this one and attempt to engage in good faith on the next topic. Fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/105 "2009-04-29T01:30:14Z")
Fox news has this on their front page: > **[Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News...](https://www.foxnews.com/)** > > Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from FOXNews.com. Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports. Cnn does not. A few months ago, though CNN had a link to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit pictures and Fox did not. This is why a wise and intelligent consumer of the news samples multiple sources. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/106 "2009-04-29T02:26:58Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > This is why a wise and intelligent consumer of the news samples multiple sources. Two is, I suppose, technically “multiple.” However, you are implying that Fox is a source of news. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/107 "2009-04-29T02:48:35Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I dunno. I can’t impute motivations to the guy that did it, and I don’t know who he so I can’t ask him. Saying you can’t “impute motivations” to “the guy” who put a media clip together is tantamount to saying you have no means by which you can interpret media broadcasts at all. To interpret media–to extract any meaning from it at all–requires, in each case and in every detail, “imputing motivations” to those responsible for putting it together. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/108 "2009-04-29T03:10:59Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Saying you can’t “impute motivations” to “the guy” who put a media clip together is tantamount to saying you have no means by which you can interpret media broadcasts at all. That does not follow, nor is it true. I can interpret media broadcasts based on the information they contain. If the broadcast does not contain information concerning the motivations of the person who put it together than I cannot make interpretations about those motivations. For example: If I see a news story that a plane crashed in the Hudson, and I verify that story through other independent sources than I may reasonably interpret this to mean that a plane has crashed in the Hudson. However, from the information provided I cannot tell you why the first author chose to run that story rather than one about Obama’s puppy. > [@](#): > > To interpret media–to extract any meaning from it at all–requires, in each case and in every detail, “imputing motivations” to those responsible for putting it together. As I’ve just demonstrated, this is not a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/109 "2009-04-29T03:12:37Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Two is, I suppose, technically “multiple.” However, you are implying that Fox is a source of news. Two is multiple. Fox is a source of news. Both of those are true. You are doing very well, tonight. Congratulations. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/110 "2009-04-29T04:01:40Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > That does not follow, nor is it true. > > I can interpret media broadcasts based on the information they contain. That is to impute the motive “this author wants to report facts.” Trivial, but nonetheless true. Interpretation _is_ the imputation of motives. > [@](#): > > For example: > > If I see a news story that a plane crashed in the Hudson, and I verify that story through other independent sources Why “verify?” Because you think the person who put together the news story is purporting to report facts. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to “verify.” Your act of verification, then, shows that you imputed motives to the original reporter. Perhaps you “verify” in order to _find out_ whether the original reporter was trying to report facts? Then your verification is part of the process of imputing motives to the original reporter, so the point goes through again. These are trivial examples, and for that reason it almost seems silly to describe these examples out loud as involving the “imputing of motivations.” But my point is that, in fact, motivation imputation is involved in every act of interpretation we engage in. When you write “you’re” followed by “smart,” interpreting what you’ve done requires me to form an idea why you would put “smart” in front of “you’re” like that. The natural answer is it’s because you think I’m smart and want me to know you think so. And in this case there _is_ a natural answer. But I can’t see a natural, easy answer to the question “Why did he put that Obama quote after the statement that Obama doesn’t want to go halfway?” In order to interpret the work, I _must_ ask this question. (Not to ask it is simply not to interpret it. And perhaps that’s appropriate: perhaps there is no interpretation to be done here. Perhaps it was a random conglomeration of events without purpose.) And there are general principles of interpretation available that seem to fit the situation. For example, usually, when a reporter says “X wants Y,” then shows a clip in which X says something relevant to Y, the reporter intends to show by the clip how it is that X wants Y. (In text, when we see an illustration, we can’t understand its place in the text without forming an idea what the writer was trying to do by putting it there. The newsclip case is quite similar.) You may think the placement of the clip after the reporter’s own statement was a random conglomeration of events. But this is implausible. These guys are professionals, they know what they’re doing, and they are not generally known to juxtapose media without purpose. Juxtaposing media with intent to communicate is _what they do_, practically by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/111 "2009-04-29T04:08:39Z")
Verification does not entail imputing motivation. For example, if I conduct an experiment and it produces certain results, I would need to repeat the experiment to verify it and confirm my results. In the case of the verification I am not imputing any motivations to the first experiment. The act of verification does not entail trust or the lack of it. So, no. You’re still wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/112 "2009-04-29T04:20:19Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I don’t know. Why did I put my right shoe on first? Was it an attack against leftism. It seems so innocuous that the real value here is not in the clip but in the batshit reaction to it. Uh-huh, sure. Your serene disdain for “innocuous” glitches in Fox’s reporting would be a little more convincing if you weren’t on record as going equally “batshit” over what you perceive as media misdirection on the **other** side of the political spectrum. [Scylla fuming about Al Franken “misquoting” Brit Hume](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7455006&postcount=105) [Scylla whining about “the media” quoting William Bennett “out of context”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6640231&postcount=138) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/113 "2009-04-29T04:50:08Z")
Warning! Your argument is veering close to deconstruction and semiotics. Unless you have a certificate/training in advanced intellectual pretension DO NOT proceed. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/114 "2009-04-29T05:10:15Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Interpretation is the imputation of motives. [QUOTE=Scylla] I conduct an experiment and it produces certain results, I would need to repeat the experiment to verify it and confirm my results. In the case of the verification I am not imputing any motivations to the first experiment. . . . So, no. You’re still wrong. [/QUOTE] And so ends our latest segment: great debates in 20th century literary theory. Thank you to all participants involved. Next up, Great Debates in 21st Century Politics! > [@ReligionGuy](#): > > Abortion is murder! > [@Charybdis](#): > > Nuh uh! Why, has anyone even been charged with murder for it? No, so clearly you’re wrong. Did you enjoy that one? I hope you learned a lot. And now, Great Debates in 1st Century Science! > [@Scientist](#): > > The Earth is not flat. > [@Hecate](#): > > Sure it is. As you can see, I can rest here on my chariot without rolling anywhere. So, clearly you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/115 "2009-04-29T05:47:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Warning! Your argument is veering close to deconstruction and semiotics. Unless you have a certificate/training in advanced intellectual pretension DO NOT proceed. :rolleyes: Nothing I said was particularly difficult or profound. I take myself to be belaboring the obvious. If you think there’s something wrong with what I said, find the error of fact or reasoning. At least **Scylla** tried to do that! 10 points for Scylla. ---
**Author:** ![GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f1d935/32.png) [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/116 "2009-04-29T09:26:34Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > If they cut the clip down to make it fit time, the natural place to do that is at the end, not the beginning. Nope, the natural place would be around his **answer** to the question, not just his repetition of the **question.** ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/117 "2009-04-29T09:42:40Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I was neither confused nor misled in the way the op describes while watching the clip. I did not think Obama was endorsing European style healthcare. Indeed you did not. Hence the qualifier in the title, ‘_intelligent_ conservatives’. Compare and contrast your perception with that of **Sho (Obvious Troll is Obvious) dan**. (the lesson for you, being that while you may think the OP was making a fuss about nothing, Shobot’s response clearly shows the OP’s misgivings have merit) ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/118 "2009-04-29T09:51:27Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > It’s European because a bunch of countries in Europe have it. It’s also Canadian, and English. :smack::smack::smack: It’s posts like these that make me think your British democracy is such a terrible idea. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/119 "2009-04-29T11:45:40Z")
Any “intelligent conservatives” who still take Fox News seriously should look at their new website, _Fox Nation_. > **[Fox Nation: Start Your Free Trial | Shows, Documentaries, & Specials](https://nation.foxnews.com/)** > > Fox Nation is an entertainment streaming service brought to you by FOX News. Stream exclusive shows, documentaries, and news stories that celebrate America. It’s so incredibly, ridiculously right wing partisan stupid it blows the mind. It’s “Shodan stupid”. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649/120 "2009-04-29T15:48:05Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Any “intelligent conservatives” who still take Fox News seriously should look at their new website, _Fox Nation_. > > [http://www.thefoxnation.com/](http://www.thefoxnation.com/) > > It’s so incredibly, ridiculously right wing partisan stupid it blows the mind. It’s “Shodan stupid”. Believe it or not – and I had a hard time myself – they actually make **Shodan** look great by comparison. To wit, from [How Do You Grade President Obama’s 1st 100 Days?](http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/04/29/how-do-you-grade-president-obama-s-1st-100-days): [I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he was the anti-christ or the false prophet…if he is neither then he is just paving the way for the anti-christ to step in…](http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/04/29/how-do-you-grade-president-obama-s-1st-100-days) Now, that’s some serious scary stoopid right there. :eek: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-intelligent-conservatives-still-take-fox-news-seriously/494649.md?page=7)