If you read the environmentalist post, you would see that other media did fall for a false fairness doctrine, that is giving the same weight to the say so of the deniers to the say so of the scientists, the MSN however did not go right away like FOX and called the scientists frauds or in the end to be part of a whitewash.
AFAIK CBS does not **continue **to defend Rather.
As mentioned, I agree, but not at the level reached at Fox, Drudge, WaTimes. They also besides lying, never correct the lies.
The most faous case of the WaTimes was the affirmation that Palme was not a covert agent because, according to the WaTimes and other right wing media, Plame and her husband told people at a party that they were CIA agents. Even when Fitzgerald came saying that there was no evidence for that, right wingers here still insisted the WaTimes and others were correct… 3 years after no one came forward saying they were the party goers.
So the Republican party’s position being expressed “poisons the public discourse.” I see, so only the Democrats position is acceptable for public discussion. :dubious:
When those “positions” are lies, and when they are being put out as if they were from a news organization and not just the claims of the Republican Party then yes, that’s poisoning public discourse.
Lying about scientific fraud, lying about your government’s use of torture, lying about ACORN, wailing about Obama being a secret Nazi Muslim Socialist, these are examples of poisoning the public discourse because they are false. What does the Democratic position have to do with it?
But I do think such blatant lying is unacceptable in a news organization, yes.
I don’t think I’m smart enough to know what’s right or wrong, cosmically. But I think I know why they both act that way, as per my post.
From where I sit, it’s like this: if the left were to use the MSM to advance their agenda, in some cases through lies of both commission (Rathergate) and omission (LewinskyGate), would it be OK if the right-leaning press never brought up either issue? Would they then be practicing unilateral disarmament, and therefore rewarding the cheating by the left?
I think you are misunderstanding, based on the examples mentioned, a media outlet that continues to press them is indeed poisoning the discourse.
Now, I think that in the example of “Climategate” it is just a coincidence of history that it fits mostly with the ideas the Republicans have now.
If this had taken place during the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, I think Republicans would had arrested the yahoos publishing that trash that caused delays on doing something for the environment. Or Teddy would had confronted the yahoos directly, I wonder what the yahoos would prefer.
Today’s Republicans are attempting to arrest the scientists.
Or maybe the poll a month or so ago on this board that asked about posters’ political leanings. I can’t find it, but my recollection was that those who self-identified as liberal outnumbered all other choices by at least 2-1. No, that’s not left leaning.:rolleyes:
Does it bother you that much that this a message board that allows any political discourse(as long as it is kept halfway civil), and that it naturally swings to the left of wherever your imaginary center lies?
I think one can dismiss such a person watching Fox if that person takes it as gospel. If someone watches it along with other news, and realizes it’s shortcomings or entertainment value, no, not really.
So does Fox News lean right? Absolutely. By any rubric you use, whether it be the studies mentioned above or a common sense smell test, they absolutely lean right.
But does the majority of the MSM lean left? Absolutely. By any rubric you use, whether it be the studies mentioned above or a common sense smell test, they absolutely lean left.
This seems to be the crux of the argument that so many leaning left here seem so eager to dismiss, as Shodan and Bricker have so successfully shown.
Is Fox News more blatant in their political leanings? Definitely. They are certainly the worst of the lot - and by a large margin, and are often quite unethical IMO. It seems to me that the MSM - though leaning liberal - does oftentimes attempt to provide a balanced or unbiased account; Fox routinely seems devoid of any attempt. Does either one’s shortcomings excuse the other? No. But one should always take what they hear with a grain of salt, and recognize those shortcomings.
I agree. Lies are bad and Fox sucks. Why is it, then, when Democrats lie, and the MSM can, from their own files demonstrate that it is a lie, but never call the Democrat on it, that doesn’t poison public discourse? Oh, that’s right. Lefties never lie.
Nope, doesn’t bother me at all. I rather enjoy watching these train-wrecks. It’s alot more amusing than the plain old “Jane, you ignorant slut” contentless flame-fests on the board I used to hang out at.
I do not dismiss someone for watching Fox. If that’s all they watch and I hear them repeating everything Fox reports and comments on as it were absolutely true that’s another story. I don’t dismiss them but I accpet we won’t really have much to discuss
I think most reasonable people now need to get their news from several different sources to sift the slant from the facts and the details. I have no problem with opinion even if when it’s slanted or extremem, if it’s clear it’s opinion. When Beck says he thinks Obama is a racist that’s okay by me. He’s got a right to that opinion and a right to express it publically if he chooses. What bothers me about Fox is how often they distort or omit the facts in order to make an opinion seem more reasonable than it actually is. It’s a matter of degrees.
I expect slant from media sources. I expect some mistakes.which is why I like to piece things together from several sources. If a story interests me after I hear it I assume I’ve heard a biased version no matter who I’m watching and will check out other sources to try and discern the details.
Then it’s matter of degrees. When I’ve watched someone several times and researched a few of thier stories I get some idea of how bias and honest they are. If the story is essentially factually correct but their slant is bias that’s one thing. If they purposely omit and distort the facts and use a lot of inflamitory language I find them to be to dishonest and not a relaible source.
My more conserative friends and I recognize that we have some confirmation bias. We’ve discussed it. We’re more prone to believe the positive about the party and philosophy we favor and be skeptical of the negative. Knowing that we try to take it into consideration and listen to opposing views.
When my conservative friend asked me if I actually watched Becks shows much rather than just form opinions based on clips I volunteered to watch Beck for a week. My conclusion was that Beck cares very little for honesty or fairness and I’m not interested in that kind of opinion.
I find Rachel Maddow to be liberal but with some integrity when it comes to the facts and doing some real research on a given issue.
We have quite a bit of evidence and examples from media matters and others to show the intentional distortion on Fox.
If any of the more conservative posters would like to show me similar examples of how the liberal media distorted the facts and omitted important details in a story they pursued I’ll be happy to look at it.
I think , left right or in the middle, we need as much of the truth as we can get to make a decent value judgement.
I didn’t bring it up before, but in the case of RatherGate, that was an October surprise (well, OK, September), and could have easily swung the election to Kerry. Talk about poisoning the discourse.
I never said there weren’t more Lefties than Righties on this site. The SDMB is not *artificially *Left-leaning, like some other sites are artificially Right-leaning. Righties don’t get kicked off or even censured of the SDMB- there’s just fewer of ‘em here. I suspect it’s because they don’t get the echo chamber they like, so they go elsewhere (except for the few who stick around to complain about being outnumbered by the mean ol’ Liberals). We do have a few civil Conservatives, and I’m grateful for them. **Bricker **can be one of the few civil right-wing debaters… Shodan, not so much.
More than that. The original Black Panther Party were people of considerable courage and a willingness to put themselves on the line for things they believed. And while I am just about invariably wary of militancy, I could see their point. But they permitted themselves to become radicalized out of all possible relevance, there is little practical political value in frightening an enemy who outnumbers you beyond all hope. Worse, when they embraced all criminal prisoners as political prisoners, they opened themselves to corruption by violent opportunists. My admiration is unstinting, but my criticism is harsh. They blew it, and badly. But they were crazy, ugly times. Shut up, memory.
Were they persecuted relentlessly, far beyond their actual threat? No doubt. Did they become too radicalized to promote meaningful progress? True. Is one the result of the other? Above my pay grade. But there is no faster way to make a revolutionary out of a radical than to persecute him for being radical.
These shitass wannabes are not worth the salt it would take to fry them.
Just like the O’Keefe thread I linked to, conservatives are making the same mistake here that Bricker did there: confusing criticism of FNC with criticism of conservative news media.
There is a difference between a media outlet leaning right and a media outlet pushing an agenda. Imagine if the NRA or ACLU had a cable news network.
If one side lies, it is not okay for the other side to lie. If you know the other side lies, that is even more reason to not do it.
Criticism of FNC is NOT criticism of conservative media.
FNC is not conservative news media. It is entertainment aimed at conservatives.
If MSM leans liberal, wouldn’t the correct position for FNC to then be center? If all other news agencies have a liberal bias, shouldn’t the solution (or counter) be to have a center biased news agency? Why is the correct solution to over-correct?
What we are seeing in this thread is the reaction when someone’s sacred cow gets gorged.
Maybe so, but somehow I’m not convinced that most on this board would feel the same way about KKK ‘soldiers’, in ‘uniform’, camped out in front of an Alabama or Mississippi polling station in a mostly black neighborhood.
It took the right-leaning Washington Times to break this story. As the article goes on
Again, just one incident among many, and I don’t want to give it more than its due. But to my mind, those who have tried to justify the behavior of the NBP party have pretty much cashed in all credibility.
