Breaking down the roots of the word, it means “murder of the people”, which does seem descriptive of the situation.
But i disagree with Brutus’ two major points.
The fact that Communists support Kerry does not mean that Kerry supports the idealoligies of the Communists.
The fact that most major murdering tyrants in the 21st century were Communists does not mean that all Communists are murdering tyrants.
It’s just more flailing from the right.
SimonX, I will always condemn communism and communists. I will never cease to be amazed at some people; mention ‘Nazi’, and people are rightfully repulsed. But then you mention ‘Communist’, and ah golly gee, they’re just idealists!
I’ll be the first to admit that there is kitsch and hilarity present in both, but when it comes to tolerating either philosophy? Nope. And no, I am not talking about instituting laws against either. It shouldn’t be neccesary.
Mass-murder by gov’ts on their own people. Everything you wanted to know about ‘democide’.
Let’s turn our attention back the OP then, shall we, my comrades? Yes, FNC made some boo-boos. The astute reader will note that both stories were quickly retracted once the mistake became evident. In neither case did we have a protracted struggle to defend the stories, as was the case with CBS.
Furthermore, in the case of the commie-err, Glorious Socialist Revolution of the Workers, Peasants, and Intelligista story, yes, they linked to a spoof site, but the point that the bit in the story was referring to is correct: Commies got the love for Kerry. FNC just linked to a bad site is all. If they linked to CPUSA, would the substance of the story been notably different? It’s not like they suggested the Kerry supported communists, only that commies supported Kerry. (And just a little bit of a story, mind you. The whole story wasn’t about communists, only a few lines were.)
As for Comrade Campaign Carl, Peoria or some other modest town better have a local news job available, because I bet FNC management will be freeing the chains (and contracts) that bind him, after the election. Quietly, though.
And it bears mentioning again: Both stories were quickly and openly retracted. They even mentioned the Carl issue on Fox and Friends (not that the original quotes were getting that much attention). Honorable behavior, IMO, in the face of a stupid mistake and a honest mistake.
Jeesus H. Keerist! This is so 1950’s. And here I thought that most of us had grown beyond such bullshit by now.
Just wanted to make sure Brutus got another look at what it’s like to make a reasonable argument from the right side of the aisle.
Lib, the parenthetical comment in the article you quote was, presumably, not there in the original article, given the passage at the end:
Daniel
Sorry, I missed this:
Yes, they want Bush gone, and they consider Kerry to be less of an enemy than Bush. But I’m not seeing an indication that they like Kerry, and I’m willing to make wager that, should Kerry win, their website will be chock full of criticisms of the man by July 2005. (giving him some time to do some stuff to get criticized for)
Daniel
One point being overlooked here is that the supposedly “fair and balanced” Fox 'News", has as its chief political correspondent a fellow who, for kicks, writes caricatures such as this. There’s been a fair share of Michael Moore-bashing by the conservatives on this board (and some of the non-conservatives, too), but has Moore done anything on Bush that has strayed this far from the facts? And Moore is quite openly a propagandanist, rather than a supposedly nonpartisan reporter.
As Josh Marshall says:
Another is that reporters’ stories don’t just go directly from the reporter hitting the ‘send’ button, to the front page of the network’s or newspaper’s website. Even Fox News doesn’t work like a group blog. An editor presumably had to vet Cameron’s story. I think it’s appropriate to inquire of Fox just who puts stuff on their website, who has to approve it first, why they did so, and whether they’ve been fired yet.
Brutus: * […] Communists backing Kerry, but Nazis not backing Bush.*
Don’t kid yourself that there aren’t a lot of neo-Nazis favoring Bush, even if they are holding their noses to do it (just as CPUSA holds its nose to favor Kerry). Consider the following gleanings from a Stormfront White Nationalist Community message board (I know I can’t post a link to hate sites, but you can easily find it by googling “Our President Stormfront White Pride”):
So c’mon Brutus, let’s see you admitting that it reflects badly on Bush to have racists and neo-Nazis like this supporting him, just as you feel it reflects badly on Kerry to be supported (and not even formally endorsed, as LHD points out) by Communists. Fair is fair.
Okay, no problem. I’m not sure what more he could have done, then, other than repeatedly questioning as he did. He was pretty much damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. Report it as bogus anyway, despite repeated denials, and we would all be here in a thread about the shocking news that Fox reports what it wants to despites what its interviewees say. The OP just wanted to pit Fox in GD. I don’t know what could prevent that other than board moderation.
Heh. Maybe. “Komoselutes Rob” = “Took some rubles.” Also “bookstore louse,” and a buch of other things that make less sense.
Holy Schmoley, Lib; I’m surprised you said that. I would expect a news reporter to dig a little deeper than asking the Communists for Kerry rep if it’s a joke organization. Taking five minutes to “investigate” their Web site, for instance? (Apparently, CfK has "tak[en] over the CBS Broadcast Center, and filed lawsuit against Michael Moore “on behalf of people’s property truth.” Busy little beavers. I like their People’s cube, too.)
I mean, suppose the local drain commissioner is skimming public funds, and a reporter gets wind of it. Does the reporter just call up the commissioner, ask if he’s taking money, and then drop it when the commissioner says “no”? I would hope not.
In this case, the reporter obviously suspected that CfK was a joke – otherwise, he wouldn’t have asked in the first place. And the outcome here exemplifies what’s wrong with the media today. Laziness and stupidity.
This is shocking?
News organizations have much more to report than they have space to report it. They all select what they actually publish and, CBSTV excepted, don’t publish until they’ve checked things out to some extent. I really doubt that there would have been any great hullabaloo about what FOX didn’t air. Sounds like a “bogey man under the bed” argument to me.
Hey, I’m a democratic socialist. I see little to no value in the theories of Marx and I hate Communists the way Baptists hate Catholics. But – unlike Nazis – sometimes the Communists get it right. If you read the CPUSA’s “Top 10 Reasons to Defeat Bush,” every single point made is right on the money. Same with Webb’s essay endorsing Kerry.
I remember in one of the Narnia books, a little girl makes a decision, and then asks Aslan what would have happened if she had decided differently. Aslan very mildly rebukes her, telling her that nobody may ever know what would have happened had they made other choices, and that it is our lot to live with the choices made.
I dislike a lot of the Narnia books and their attitude toward secularists, but that lesson has always stayed with me. I’m not especially interested in pitting Fox News, but I’m also not the least bit willing to make predictions about what would have happened if someone else had decided something differently. Especially when the point of such predictions are to insult the alternate universe version of a person.
Daniel
These are members of the American Communist party you’re talking about, who aren’t responsible for killing anyone. You do like hyperbole, don’t you? Well, it’s your credibility, you can do what you want with it, including sacrifice it on the alter of your ideology. :rolleyes:
I think what you say makes sense, and of course, my asserting that it might happen does not mean that I endorse it happening. As you say, we have to live with our choices, and the choice made by the OP was “I want to pit Fox, now what can I find?”. That is made obvious by the fact that this is such a nothing event, and yet, here we are.
Liberal: *The OP just wanted to pit Fox in GD. *
Well, I notice that when Razorsharp decided to pit “the liberal media” in GD in his “Swiftboat vets startin’ to look pretty good” thread, you didn’t scold him for it. In fact, you helped him out.
I don’t think you’re very evenhanded in your condemnation of people who complain about misdeeds in the media.
[Marisa Tomei voice]
Yeah, and you’re the standard for evenhandedness.
[/Marisa Tomei voice]
I think I’m very even handed about the media, for example here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5324799&postcount=57
Also, I have hosted both an “Ask the Fox News Reporter” and an “Ask the CNN Reporter” satire pit threads.
Liberal: Yeah, and you’re the standard for evenhandedness.
Tu quoques don’t count.
I think I’m very even handed about the media
Well, I don’t. Overall, it seems to me that you jump on people who criticize conservative media more frequently and harder than people who criticize mainstream or liberal media (as per my comparison of your reactions in this thread and in Razorsharp’s).
One of us (or possibly both of us) is evidently looking at the situation in a biased way, and naturally each of us thinks it’s the other.
For what it’s worth, though, I agree with you that this OP is not really a debate. In fact, I’d take it as a rule of thumb that any OP that begins with “Well, well,” most likely belongs in the Pit.
My retraction will come as soon as someone explains what I need to retract.
First claim was that I needed to retract my statement that I hadn’t seen any retraction from Fox. That modified version of the article, with the disclaimer in parenthesis about Communists for Kerry, is dated Sunday, and I read a different version of the article on Saturday, so I fail to see for an apology on my part. Yes, FNC did eventually tell the truth (though they didn’t provide a good explanation for how the error got past their editing process), but it doesn’t invalidate anything in my OP.
Second you say that I should offer up a retraction because someone from the Communist Party has endorsed Kerry. I never said jack about the Communist Party in my OP, so what’s there for me to retract on that subject?
As for the claim that I just wanted to pit FNC in GD, I had a subject to debate, namely, why is it that FNC is held to such a lower standard of journalistic practice than other news organizations? These are far from the first instances where total fiction has been reported as fact by the channel, and in all cases that I’ve heard of, the fiction in question is always something that conservatives, or at least some conservatives, would badly want to be true. (Remember O’Reilly’s flap with the “Paris Business Review”?) Now, anyone would think that a legitimate news organization, after making such mistakes, would begin a major revision of their news-gathering and editing process in order to put a stop to such mistakes. Instead, FNC hands out reprimands that appear to be nothing more than mild verbal scolding. No one gets fired, and no changes are ever made to ensure that the same thing doesn’t happen again.
Probably for the same reason that * National Inquirer* isn’t held to high standards. We are greatly surprised when the * NY Times* reveals that they printed fabricated stories by one of their writers and we should be. When the Inquirer prints nonsense we shrug.
I suppose I do tend to try to balance the scales a bit, so that could account for your perception. On a board so bulging with leftists, there is seldom any need to accentuate problems with the conservative media — it would be tanatamount to “me too” posting, which in the Pit is, I believe, prohibited. By contrast, before I left the Pizza Parlor in utter disgust, I was quoting a great deal from Gay Today, and attacking World Net Daily.