Ignorance, War, Lies, and Fox News

I dunno if you’ve heard much of the BBC/Government row in the states. Brief history: BBC suggested govt lied over Iraq (commonly suspected at the time). Govt was up in arms, made all sorts of moves to denounce the BBC but none to demonstrate that it hadn’t lied. BBC fought. Govt is now widely accepted to have lied.

The key to media is that it should inform. When the govt spread its lies about the rediculous 45-minute claim, it was its own state media that pointed out the truth.

Please take a moment to be impressed at this example of a democratic free press, despite that nice Mr Blair’s best efforts.
Anyways. Pro-govt lies all begin with the govt. It is they who put them out there. Thing is, they spoon-feed them to the press. So it gets in the media. And it’s a lot of effort to go investigating into the real truth when you’ve been handed a story on a plate.

Also, most of the UK newspapers are a) biased in some direction and b) owned by someone with lots of money and influence. So a certain amount of bargaining/blackmail does go on in the press. After all, Blair can’t afford to be on the wrong side of Rupert Murdoch when he has the power to do a lot of political damage with his papers.
I have worked at a newspaper, and guess what? They’re just trying to sell newspapers. If the nation’s in a fury over Iraq’s weapons, assume they exist and print stories about them. If the nation’s furious about govt lies, then that’s what the stories will be about.
When I’m prime minister, we’ll have a totally transparent govt and it’ll all be cool.

Newsweek is a “flunky, leftist” news source? Really. That’s kind of surprising since they broke the Monica Lewinsky story.

This statement is unfounded.**

More truth here. However, the news media did of course report in detail the many doubts, here and abroad about whether WMD in Iraq existed and posed a threat to the U.S., and foreign opposition was given a big play.
There would have been more about domestic opposition except for the fact that the Democrats laid down and gave Bush what he wanted. It was naturally a bit difficult for reporters to fathom that a dictator would be so lunatic as to court his destruction, by giving the impression that he had terrible weapons that subsequent events are increasingly showing he didn’t have.
I don’t see how this translates to disproving the concept of mainstream media liberal bias.

Oh, and elucidator? Sometimes it helps to study the enemy in order to have a convincing means of attacking it.

Have fun re-debating the Bush won/Gore won saga. Don’t bother asking who in either major party has made a strong push for revoking the Electoral College system, which created this mess in the first place.

Well the “liberal” media has pretty definitely laid down for Bush for the most part. they went right along with all the flag waving and sloganeering before the invasion. During the 2000 campaign the media spent most of its time bashing Gore and inventing phony stories about his “lies” while ignoring the lies and criminal history of Bush.

Like Al Franken says in his book, unlike Al Gore, Bush’s lies weren’t even true.

No, you missed some of the play there, DtC. Brutus rejected the information because it came from a leftist site merely quoting Newsweek.

No, you missed some of the play there, DtC. Brutus rejected the information because it came from a leftist site merely quoting Newsweek.

Or it might be that someone who was ignorant of the issues would be more likely to watch FOX because they found it’s presentation style more entertaining. I have to echo Scylla and John Mace here. It’s a little hypocritical to blame FOX news for spreading misconceptions based on nothing but circumstantial evidence and inuendo and then provided nothing but circumstantial evidence and inuendo to prove it.

That said, FOX news does have a strong pro-America slant. While I do not believe their conservative reporting is any more or less accurate than the other major news networks, I suspect that most liberals dislike the network because it reminds them of the football jocks who used to beat them up in high school.

No, they have an anti-American, pro-Bush slant.

Whether Fox perpetuates the misconceptions or not (and demagogues like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity certainly do their best to spew propaganda) the network does virtually nothing to dissuade its audience from their ignorant torpor. A news channel is supposed to inform, FNC seeks only to campaign for the GOP.

Someone wrote “Al Gore” on the ballot, I’ll grant you that. Normally, when counting write-ins, canvassers prefer not to override a clear choice elswhere made properly, that’s why they get thrown out. Not that Democrats commit voter fraud, especially in the three heavily Democratic counties that Gore chose to count, oh no!

Actually, we have heard quite a bit about this uproar, and the Beeb comes out looking sleazier than you’ve suggested.
Even the N.Y. Times (in a 9/25 article which they would love to sell you for $2.95) stated that the BBC reporter in question “admitted overstepping strict accuracy” and that the Blair administration was not shown to have lied.

I would demand very high standards of any news organization, if I were paying hundreds of dollars in “license fees” every year to support them.

I don’t understand this complaint. Evidence is material (physical clues, like a wallet with ID in it), circumstantial or testimonial. All we have in this case is testimonial, or the word of various posters about the circumstances they see, or think they see on Faux News.

Testimony is often referred to as “inuendo” by those who don’t like the testimony.

Could you provide a cite to specific examples? They also don’t do anything to disuade their audience of the notion that space aliens are responsible for 9/11. Is FOX reporting innaccurate information or do you feel that they are guilty of “selective reporting”?

What I would like to see would be specific articles or examples where FOX News misleaded it’s audience or encouraged the impressions the OP mentioned.

Is it the content or the Red, White & Blue graphic laden, strapping all-American football hero, Wildest Police Videos style of reporting that people object to?

Unsubstantiated testimony is.

Exactly.

Wouldn’t it have to follow that “most conservatives” like the network because it helps them feel like dumb jock bullies from high school? Careful with that brush, guys.

Yeah, but even the dumb jocks still got the hot cheerleaders. And that’s what it’s all really about, evolutionarily speaking of course.:slight_smile:

The hot cheerleaders all get fat and bitchy. You can have 'em.

Dammit! It just goes to further prove, a lie once perpetuated needs a thousand debunkings.

To review: The overvotes referred to in the article we (thanks thrice Desmo!) cited, are the kind where the person punched the hole next to the candidate’s name, and then punched the hole next to the write-in section, with the same candidate’s name. Now, the vote-counting machines are programmed to discard these overvotes because they have two holes punched. But, according to Florida’s election laws, these ballots show clear intent, and are perfectly legitimate to include in a recount.

Actually, I think Fox News reminds me more of the smaller jocks who followed the big jock around, always standing behind him when a confrontation was brewing, yelling such constructive things as “Yeah!” and “You tell him!” And when you ask “why?”, they ridicule you even more for asking such a silly question, when everyone knows the simple answer is “because we can.”

These jock-cheerleaders have gotten a bit older, and a bit better at advancing their arguments. But not by much.

And while we’re on the topic, y’know who PBS was? PBS was that kid who saw what was about to happen, and made the mistake of asking what the point to the violence was. And I call that a mistake because it’s just about the best way to get your ass kicked. Jocks hate it when you ask them to think.

I’d keep going with this analogy, but I’d hate to rock the boat and piss the jocks off.

Well like most FOX programming, I imagine it’s popular because it appeals to the least common denomenator.
And while we’re on the topic (that admittedly, I started:D)

CNN - That annoying smart kid who thinks he knows everything
BBC - The foreign exchange student
PBS - That weird, effeminate, brooding kid in black that no one really gets but everyone knows is smarter than they are and who is always hanging out with the exchange students
MSNBC - The kinda smart rich guy who hangs out with the jocks and who you know is going to Harvard because of his dad
A&E - The weird art teacher
Discovery Channel - The AV club kid
Sci Fi Network - His friend
Cartoon Network - The class buffoon
Lifetime - The female gym teacher
CBS - The crazy old professor no one listens to
ABC and NBC - The smart jocks who feels the same way FOX does but know enough to keep their mouth shut.

Actually, that should be Comedy Central. They are the smart one of the pair. The ‘Ren’ to CN’s ‘Stimpy’. The ‘Buthead’ to CN’s ‘Beavis’. Anyhow, their newsworthiness is in their ability to mutter amusing side comments under their breath.