Not necessarily - read the last paragraph of post 279
Rathergate, which is a stupid word, was a mistake. They retracted it in two weeks and then apologized. Rather made a bad journalistic call, and stubbornly stuck to his guns.
In your opinion this is the same thing as repeating things that are not true over and over again without retraction and on many, many subjects?
FOX News has no analogue in American Journalism. It is literally the largest and most disreputable group there is. This is a fact, and it has been shown to you.
Now mind you, other groups make mistakes, like the Bush Document flap above, but no other major news organization is so utterly biased. You don’t see it because you don’t want to see it.
Yes and no. I’ve seen a large number of examples where (e.g.) John Kerry said things when he was running for president, reported on (again e.g.) CNN, when I distinctly remembered him saying something different before he was a candidate. Googling, I found a video clip of him saying that on, yes, CNN. They had both clips. They could have easily looked in their own files and called him on it. But instead, they let it slip down the memory hole. I’ve seen this numerous times from numerous Democrats and numerous media outlets. But the no is I’ve never bothered to save links to examples, and it would take me a horrendously long time to find even a few good examples (preferably of a more current nature than any I can actually recall). I couldn’t find any in a reasonable time to post here in a timely manner for an ongoing debate. Besides, I’m just here in this thread to watch pig-headed people on both sides (not naming names) try to argue with the reasonable ones (again on both sides and not naming names) bash each other without violating board rules. It amuses me.
OK, explain the difference between a neutral position and a liberal position, while bearing in mind that a conservative position is fundamentally biased and has no business sticking its nose in.
Not sure what this has to do with the lies Fox News spouts in its role as Republican propaganda outlet either.
I see. I don’t dismiss that and I understand that it might be too time consuming for you to provide links concerning Kerrys campaign in this thread. If it happens on a somewhat regular basis, maybe it happened in the more recent election. Maybe some conservative blogs have gathered some good examples as media matters has. If you catch it again concerning a more recent issue then by all means please bring an example to my{our} attention.
As I said, I realize that media outlets do indeed have slants and bias. For me it comes down to degrees. I find Fox to be extremely slanted and downright dishonest far more than any other major media source I can think of but I’d be glad to look at examples that might change my mind. There’s a pretty serious difference between the occasional slip or omission, and something that’s nearly a daily occurrence, wouldn’t you say?
I’m glad your civil tone has returned! Welcome back.
I use RatherG- … um… L’Affaire Rather … as a teachable moment for those who feel that politics never enters the reporting decisions of the left-leaning MSM. And this was a big one - as I mentioned before, this was an October Surprise that could easily have thrown the election.
As you can see, Rather’s producer, Mapes, continued to push the story, even in the face of pretty strong evidence that it was fabricated. With Rather’s support, his producer continued working with Burkett, widely regarded as an “anti-Bush zealot”.
Further, Mapes tried to coordinate this attack with the Kerry campaign, who wisely (eventually) declined involvement. Even when the internal CBS team started to figure it out.
In light of all this, Rather went on 60 minutes to pimp the docs, saying
How blind would someone have to be not to see that Rather, a proud member of the legacy media/Tiffany network, didn’t have an agenda here? In my mind, this is probably the worst of all the incidents we’ve discussed - it almost threw a close presidential election, which would have all kinds of implications (especially a different Supreme Court Chief Justice).
You can throw all the bricks at Fox that you like, of course, and certainly it’s in your rights to have whatever opinions you like. But I’d have to see something pretty bad to rise to this level, in terms of potential impact on the country,
Fair enough. I wasn’t implying that it was artificially left-leaning. The poster I had originally commented on had just made the claim that it wasn’t left-leaning when it was easily demonstrated that it is. There are plenty of artificial ones on both sides. Righties will get kicked out of DU as fast and easily as Lefties get tossed from Fox. I agree this isn’t one of them.
I don’t care about being outnumbered. I wasn’t complaining. Just refuting the “not left-leaning” statement.
I’m a lousy debater. I ain’t quick enough on the Google-fu to find cites, and I don’t collect 'em to refer to if some good debate comes up. All I can do in these political threads is throw out an occasional “AMEN BROTHER” for my side or “Razz” for the other side from the Peanut Gallery. But I try to be civil about it. 
I don’t know, I can think of a number of thread topics that will bring out the crazy, right here at SDMB. 
Really? By what standard? Does volume count? I saw load after load of dishonest crap in this last election thrown at Obama by Fox. Was that designed to affect the elction outcome? Isn’t that fairly equal impact on the country?
As most of the accusations had been launched in 2000, it was not very likely that this would had made the difference that you are mentioning here.
If you ignore The Iraq war (most of the support for us going there came from FOX), Climategate, ACORN pimps, Homophobia from Hannity, Democrats are Nazis from Beck, Boostering the teapartiers and attempt to kill health care reform (how many would die if there was no reform? Don’t ask) Yeah, besides that and many other items I see no potential impact from FOX misleading the American Public. :rolleyes:
Sadly, FNC actually started out that way. Their website news is still mostly that way, at least for the stories that I tend to read, because they still have the good journalists they started out with. Just that the TV based end of it found they got better ratings going for the over-the-top bit. 
You and Fox are leaving out some pretty crucial details and may have one completely wrong. Was it a mostly white neighborhood? If it wasn’t then your comment about the KKK in a black neighborhood is misplaced. One of the men standing there in a beret was a registered poll watcher from that very neighborhood.
It was the Bush DOJ who decided no criminal charges should be brought. The Obama DOJ followed through on the civil charge and got an injunction against the individual who carried the baton and made a racial comment.
Yes, Lawyers in the DOJ and individuals in the Civil rights Commission differed in opinion on the case. Maybe it wasn’t as clear as Bull, a GOP poll watcher for McCain, made it out to be.
Oh, agreed. I never defended FNC (although I am willing to defend their web-based news). I will keep an eye out for any newer examples of the “MSM” memory-hole examples, and when I find a few, and if I have time to actually engage in one of these train-wreck debates, I will start a thread.
Well as long as there’s an explanation then … What exactly?
That story was taken fromBill Burkett who was known for retracting similar allegations which were assessed by various news agencies (including CBS) and dismissed. It wasn’t just a poorly vetted story, it was done right before the election.
By what standard? Impact on the country. You’ll have to send me the links about Fox trying to throw the election wrt Obama lies (about his record?).
Remember I’m not talking about some retard like Keith Olbermann or Bill Maher (or Glenn Beck or Michael Savage, for that matter). They are entertainers, and most people get that.
Rather was on 60 minutes, he was both the primary anchor of CBS Evening News and the managing editor. So if you’re suggesting there’s an equality here, I’d want to see some links from the equivalent; a Chris Wallace, Tony Snow, etc.
I’d appreciate that. IMO there’s a significant difference between slant and outright dishonesty. I’m not sure you would call not challanging a statement you should know is false a lie but it’s certainly really bad journaism and irresponsible.
My biggest bitch about most media is that they seem to spend so much time of the totally irrelevant rather than use there time and access to actually inform the public as they ought.
FNC is a little worse in that they consistently hammer away at falsehoods
http://mediamattersaction.org/swiftboating/factsheet
I know you are demanding only just reporters from FOX, not commentators, but since FOX news does not make much of a differentiation I do not see why we should.
But the main reason why that cite was brought is to point out once again that other MSM outlets also were happy to help on the misleading efforts against Obama.
I’m not sure if you noticed, but the thread title is, “Is it ok to dismiss someone for watching FOX?”
Why are you talking about the Washington Times and a story they reported on?
"emacknight
5. 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? "
Two this are wrong with that post: 1) Rush is not on FNC, nor his he a journalist. 2) If news bias is on a scale of -10 being liberal and +10 being conservative, Hannity is a 20. He’s not presenting a conservative rebuttal to liberal MSM, he is pushing a conservative agenda. Do you understand the difference? He doesn’t just cross the line from bias to propaganda, he jumps clear over it.
YES!
This is the discussion we are supposed to be having.
I have a lot of respect for the Fox News website. I know it leans right, and when I need that view point that’s where I go. That is perfectly acceptable journalistic slant. They look for stories that lean conservative, and report factually on them. Just as I know the Huffington Post leans left. If I read something on Hufpo that sounds too good to be true, I go to foxnews.com and see what they have to say.
So from there, consider “news” from the White House, the NRA, the RNC, or the DNC. They are pushing an agenda, they present information designed to lead your opinion.
Do we all understand the difference?
The complaint filed in this thread is that FNC (as represented by Beck, Hannity, Gretta, and O’Reilly) are pushing an agenda.
Hence, a person that gets all their news from FNC is subject to that agenda. If they aren’t able to see that, they aren’t able to think clearly enough to present a sound opinion worth listening to. At best, they can parrot the talking points Hannity presented the night before.
I believe it is okay to dismiss someone that parrots talking points.