Is it ok to dismiss someone for watching FOX?

[SenorBeef]

@Shodan

It’s a little unsettling to see it coming from people past the age of two or three or so, chronologically, but there it is. And another age-related phenomenon associated with it is tantrums. When you challenge this kind of denial - I do it a lot - those who use it as the basis for their political thought pitch a tantrum, very often. We saw it in this thread from Senor Beef, and we see it in almost every thread about Fox News.

You are ridiculous. I didn’t throw a tantrum. I was moved to say something about the irony of you decrying blind partisanship when you are the most blindly partisan poster on the boards. You are a walking contradiction and I couldn’t ignore that.

Even so, I raised various points that you simply ignored.

You assume I’m in some sort of lockstep with the liberals on this board, but I don’t think so. I’m an ardent skeptic and someone who puts a lot of thought into all the position he takes - and I simply cannot abide the ridiculous idea that Fox News is equally credible or biased as other major news sources. And this can be seen by anyone, even if they happen to agree with Fox New’s agenda - you simply have to place your bullshit detector in a higher priority than your knee jerk partisanship.

Edit: Incidentally, I’m not even trying to defend the position that most of the media is unbiased. I don’t think there’s a lockstep liberal bias - I think there’s a general statist bias and clear biases on certain issues. For example, on the issue of guns, the media is wholly and ridiculous biased. They suppress any story in which legal gun ownership resulted in a positive outcome, and go way over the top in demonizing guns including constantly lying about their legality and functionality.

More generally, I think the media is nearly a tool of the state. The media will not attack the government on any substantive grounds. Oh, sure, they’ll uncover sex scandals or stupid bullshit here and there to give the impression that they’re doing their job, but how often does the media really hold the government’s feet to the fire about anything? Almost never. Most media sources are imperfect and obviously biased, I wasn’t arguing otherwise. But if you go to Fox News think they’re The Truth because they’re different, or even that they’re only biased to the same degree as, say, CNN, I think you’re ridiculous. They are clearly a propoganda arm of the republican party.

[Stoneburg]

The FNC claim that Obama was a nazi, socialist, muslim terrorist.

Does the MSM claim that Obama is mother Teresa, the messiah, saviour of the world and superhero? I mean do they literally claim that, because FNC makes those previous claims literally.

[cosmosdan]

@Mr_Smashy

I honestly think you are grasping at straws. So would any neutral observer, I think.

You posted a link with a transcript of Wallace, interviewing Dodd and Schumer (hostile witnesses?), about Obama’s relationship with that bombastic whackjob Rev Wright. He wouldn’t let the senators duck the question about whether people should be concerned about the kind of church Obama attended for 20 yrs, the guy who married him, baptized his kids, etc. Clearly Obama knew this guy and had some sort of relationship with him. Seeing as we knew so little about Obama before he got elected, as he had very little experience (comparitively speaking, for a presidential candidate), I’m really trying to see why that line of questioning would be unexpected.

Surely you don’t equate that with intentionally pushing forged documents and lying about their authenticity, do you?

No I wouldn’t. Rather made a rare but big mistake and eventually admitted it. Fox has no such history. It’s not that rare and they don’t admit it. It depends on what details you want to focus on. You are asking for some news person because of Rather’s reputation but as I said, how relevant is that reputation to who and what actually sways the average voter? Consider also repetition and consistentcy. Did Rather start with a goal of misrepresenting the facts? I suppose we can’t really know that but the fact is we see a long pattern with FNC of doing exactly that for a political agenda. You tell me which is more agregious. Making the occasional bad call because of personal bias and preference or a consistent pattern and policy of distorting facts for a political agenda.
I used the link because it was Wallace and Snow . two names you mentioned, but we know that others reported and commented on theses two stories morning noon and night just as I said. When these stories came out I did some research to find out more information. It was pretty clear that any reasonable person interested in basic honesty would dismiss these stories as incredibly biased and a misrepresentation of the facts. If an average guy like me with a computer and a few minutes can find the pertinent facts with a rather cursory search wouldn’t you expect a NEWS Channel with FAIR and BALANCED as thier credo be able to? Same pattern with the ACORN story the current Black Panther story. The commentators like Beck and Hannity and Steve Douchebag with friends in the morning , may lay it on more heavily than the supposed news shows but that’s intended to work in tandem and the repeated pattern reveals that.
I remember one day when Fox and friends hammered thier dishomest hackery so much that Chris Wallace had had enough and when they had in on as a guest he told them so.
Do you think this pattern is repeated as these individuals give their honest opinion of current events or is it more likely to be a pattern directed by the powers that be? as in “Here’s the story we’re going after and here’s how we’ll slant it”

Here’s the Wallace clip. It still makes me smile.

[emacknight]

Here is a Youtube clip of both Hannity lying, and pushing an agenda.

This is what bothers people on the left (and should bother people on the right). It isn’t one incident 10 years ago. It wasn’t a right-leaning report on Obama’s speech. This happens every night for an hour on Hannity. It happens for an hour on Beck before him. Those two are followed by Gretta (who I don’t know very well), and O’Reilly (who is conservative but seems moderate compared to Hannity/Beck).

A person that watched Hannity that night would come away with the impression that Obama called insurancy company executives are bad people.

A person that watched Keith Olbermann, on the other hand, would know what Obama actually said, and that Hannity is a douche.

ETA: here is MSNBC reporting on Jon Stewart, who caught Beck and FNC faking footage of a rally.

How many more do you need?

ETA2: Why is a comedy show required to spend 5-10min nightly to show lies and deception by FNC?

[emacknight]

ETA3: here is Hannity and Newt showing us how the US is moving towards socialism.

This is what viewers of FNC are subjected to on a nightly basis.

The worst the MSM has come up with was presenting falsified documents in 2000.

ETA 4: here is a better shot of Stewart catching the lies, distortion, and agenda. This isn’t “balanced.” Balanced would be covering a real rally, and reporting on in accurately. This is pushing an agenda.

[Mr_Smashy]

@Stoneburg

The FNC claim that Obama was a nazi, socialist, muslim terrorist.

Does the MSM claim that Obama is mother Teresa, the messiah, saviour of the world and superhero? I mean do they literally claim that, because FNC makes those previous claims literally.

Please provide a link to video where the journalistic side of Fox claimed that Obama is a Nazi, et al

[Mr_Smashy]

@emacknight

How many more do you need?

I need one link showing the JOURNALIST side of Fox News lying about Obama, or anyone on the left, in an incident that rises to the level of the examples I gave about the MSM.

Still waiting. Hannity doesn’t count; hell, he doesn’t even claim to be objective I’m sure. Beck doesn’t count. They aren’t journalists or newsmen; at least, I don’t take them for that. Same w/Bill Maher, Rachel, etc… they are assclowns (especially Maher).

Again, my point, which most here have missed evidently, is that all sources skew the news.

So, send the link if you have it. Or you can keep repeating the same stuff over and over again, a la Lobo.

[Shodan]

@cosmosdan

Rather made a rare but big mistake and eventually admitted it.

Instances of bias by Dan Rather are not particularly rare.

And Rather has never admitted that this was a mistake -

On November 7, 2006, Rather defended the report in a radio interview, and rejected the CBS investigation’s findings…

Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, that the underlying story is true.

Rather stated that General Buck Staudt was in charge of the Texas National Guard, and had exerted pressure on Bush’s behalf. Staudt had been discharged a year and a half before the date on the forged memos. Rather has never apologized for nor admitted this “mistake”.

Rather stated that the documents had been taken from Killian’s personal files. They were not, they were forged. Rather has never apologized for nor admitted this “mistake”.

* Rather stated Marcel Matley "analyzed the documents for CBS News. He believes they are real," and broadcast additional excerpts from Matley's September 6 interview showing Matley's agreement that the signatures appeared to be from the same source. Rather did not report that Matley had referred to them as "poor material", that he had only opined about the signatures, or that he had specifically not authenticated the documents.
* Rather presented footage of the Strong interview, introducing it by stating Robert Strong "is standing by his judgment that the documents are real," despite Strong's lack of standing to authenticate them and his brief exposure to the documents.[75]
* Rather concluded by stating, "If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none."[75][76]

In an appearance on CNN that day, Rather asserted "I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn’t have gone to air if they would not have been.

Cite. Rather has never admitted nor apologized for these “mistakes”.

Regards,
Shodan

[emacknight]

@Mr_Smashy

I need one link showing the JOURNALIST side of Fox News lying about Obama, or anyone on the left, in an incident that rises to the level of the examples I gave about the MSM.

Still waiting. Hannity doesn’t count; hell, he doesn’t even claim to be objective I’m sure. Beck doesn’t count. They aren’t journalists or newsmen; at least, I don’t take them for that. Same w/Bill Maher, Rachel, etc… they are assclowns (especially Maher).

Again, my point, which most here have missed evidently, is that all sources skew the news.

So, send the link if you have it. Or you can keep repeating the same stuff over and over again, a la Lobo.

And we’re back to the beginning.

The journalist part of the Fox News organization is fine. It is okay to have some bias, to focus on and deliver right-leaning news. In an ethical and objective manner. Having the Fox News organization makes for a better main stream media, of which they are a part of. That’s right, the journalism side of Fox News is MSM.

I would have an immense level of respect for someone that that said they get all their news from the journalistic side of Fox News.

This thread is about FNC, and the line they blur between journalism and propaganda.

This thread is NOT about criticism over conservative news. It got side tracked because of the term “bias” which was a lazy short hand for saying FNC delivers propaganda. Has shown in the clips I posted.

[Mr_Smashy]

@emacknight

The journalist part of the Fox News organization is fine. It is okay to have some bias, to focus on and deliver right-leaning news. In an ethical and objective manner. Having the Fox News organization makes for a better main stream media, of which they are a part of. That’s right, the journalism side of Fox News is MSM.

I think you are in the minority, among the liberals here, with this viewpoint. But glad to see there’s intelligent life on your side of the aisle.

PS I’m not sure if I understand the difference between the way you use the terms ‘Fox news organization’ and FNC, but OK.

[cosmosdan]

@Shodan

Instances of bias by Dan Rather are not particularly rare.

As I’ve already stated , I expect bias. Intentional and repeated distortion is another matter.

Cite. Rather has never admitted nor apologized for these “mistakes”.

Regards,
Shodan

Admittedly, not a clearly as he should have ["]but](Dan Rather stated, “if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”[13)

Dan Rather stated, “if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”

Once again, bias and the occasional mistake is one thing. A clear and consistent pattern of willful misrepresentations of the facts is quite another. IMO it’s about recognizing the human trait of bias and personal preference and balancing it with some commitment to presenting information in a truthful manner with some regard to let’s call it, “being fair and balanced” Fox fails miserably.
Tell you what though,

you or any other defender of Fox can point out what their news shows are vs their opinion shows and I’ll make it a point to watch them and reconsider my general assessment of Fox.

[villa]

@Mr_Smashy

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.

OK - frankly I’m getting sick and tired of the general “if a white person did this to a black person” line and in particular this instance of it.

It’s not the same thing, you know. Until you can show me a history of white people being beaten and murdered for trying to vote, I’m not going to look at it in the same light. This isn’t ancient history you know - its in many people’s life times. A single isolated incident doesn’t carry anywhere near the same import.

You want to know the major difference? Here the police were called and the situation was dealt with. if the colors were reversed, and it was Klansmen trying to prevent black people from voting, when the police were called they aided in the voter intimidation, up to and including participation in the murder of blacks seeking to exercise their franchise and whites seeking to aid them.

So drop this odious comparison. It makes you look either racist or ignorant of history.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mr_Smashy

I honestly think you are grasping at straws. So would any neutral observer, I think.

You posted a link with a transcript of Wallace, interviewing Dodd and Schumer (hostile witnesses?), about Obama’s relationship with that bombastic whackjob Rev Wright. He wouldn’t let the senators duck the question about whether people should be concerned about the kind of church Obama attended for 20 yrs, the guy who married him, baptized his kids, etc. Clearly Obama knew this guy and had some sort of relationship with him. Seeing as we knew so little about Obama before he got elected, as he had very little experience (comparitively speaking, for a presidential candidate), I’m really trying to see why that line of questioning would be unexpected.

Surely you don’t equate that with intentionally pushing forged documents and lying about their authenticity, do you?

It’s a retarded , irrelevant question. Wright said nothing that bad, and he didn’t say any of the stuff that righties got so excited about in the presence of Barack Obama. The whole Reverend Wright thing was pure, racist demonization by proxy.

It’s also a lie that we didn’t know anything about Obama prior to his running for President. His entire life and childhood was investigated and parsed down to the ground. The meme that there was anything mysterious or unknown about him was just more subtly racist bullshit – a away to exoticize him and make him “other.”

Jeremah Wright wasn’t newsworthy. He wasn’t a story and never should have been reported on.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@villa

OK - frankly I’m getting sick and tired of the general “if a white person did this to a black person” line and in particular this instance of it.

White people intimidate voters like this…

Black people intimidate voters like this…

[cosmosdan]

@Mr_Smashy

I need one link showing the JOURNALIST side of Fox News lying about Obama, or anyone on the left, in an incident that rises to the level of the examples I gave about the MSM.

Still waiting. Hannity doesn’t count; hell, he doesn’t even claim to be objective I’m sure. Beck doesn’t count. They aren’t journalists or newsmen; at least, I don’t take them for that. Same w/Bill Maher, Rachel, etc… they are assclowns (especially Maher).

Again, my point, which most here have missed evidently, is that all sources skew the news.

So, send the link if you have it. Or you can keep repeating the same stuff over and over again, a la Lobo.

It’s okay by me if you believe you’ve made some very relevent point. Please answer my questions and address mine.

You set certain requirements in order to make a point and there’s nothing wrong with an equal and valid comparison , but let’s compare that to the larger picture.
IMHO that one incident with Rather pales in comparison to Fox being so consistent in distorting the facts.

Also, as far as the importance of impacting a presidential election is concerned do you think a serious news anchor has a lot more weight with the average voter than the bombardment of distortion we see from Fox?
They know what they are doing. They’re loking for an emotional reaction rather than an informed one.

While we’re here, please tell me who you think are the straight news anchors on FNC and who are the opinion mongers. If you were going to recommend straight news shows which would they be? What left leaning shows do you think are valid comparisons?

[Meatros]

@emacknight

This is starting to resemble the UHC debate, during a criticism of an incident in Florida, someone presented a conservative opinion piece that outlined various flaws in European health care systems. But it was just one flaw from each country, lumped together to make UHC sound bad.

There was a car commercial once that said, “better mileage than car y, better handling than car x, and a better maintenance record than car z.” So not better than any of those cars.

Here we a criticism of FNC, with a few recent examples.

These criticisms aren’t addressed. Instead, it is countered: we have one example from News Week in 1996. Something from CBS in 2000. A memory-hole at CNN also from 2000. And then a handful of random comments about MSNBC.

But all of that gets lumped as, “The MSM sucks too.”

What that tells me is that no one station, or no one news agency, is comparable to FNC. It has to be MSM, what ever that means.

Excellent point.

[Stoneburg]

@Mr_Smashy

Please provide a link to video where the journalistic side of Fox claimed that Obama is a Nazi, et al

Why? So that you can ignore it and keep parroting your message? As you have done every time in this thread where you’ve been proven wrong.

It’s completely unnecessary. You’ve already helped prove to me in this very thread what I asked about in the OP. Intentionally or not, your participation in this thread has been the strongest argument for me that it is indeed reasonable to dismiss people who think FOX is “fair and balanced”.

On a positive note I it swings both ways. If I see a conservative who says “FOX isn’t a serious news outlet” I will read his arguments more carefully, assuming this is likely to be an intelligent conservative with the capacity for critical thinking. Which makes that persons arguments very interesting to me.

[Marley23]

@Shodan

When you challenge this kind of denial - I do it a lot - those who use it as the basis for their political thought pitch a tantrum, very often. We saw it in this thread from Senor Beef, and we see it in almost every thread about Fox News.

The irritating thing is, I find it a bit funny nowadays. Because of the contrast between the kind of back-patting y’all do about how smart and open-minded and blah blah you are, in between the meltdowns.

@SenorBeef

You are ridiculous. I didn’t throw a tantrum. I was moved to say something about the irony of you decrying blind partisanship when you are the most blindly partisan poster on the boards. You are a walking contradiction and I couldn’t ignore that.

Both of you need to drop the personal part of this dispute and stick to the arguments themselves. If you want to go after each other, take it to Pit.

[gonzomax]

Fox has completely convinced me that Rush is correct and there is no global warming. There is Michigan warming though. We have been setting all kinds of heat records with the hottest April and May in history. We are getting temps in the 90s on a steady basis. But on the other hand it snowed in Texas last winter which Fox said proved we are not getting warmer. How can this summer heat balance that undeniable proof.

[emacknight]

@Mr_Smashy

PS I’m not sure if I understand the difference between the way you use the terms ‘Fox news organization’ and FNC, but OK.

I know you don’t, that’s why this thread is on page 8.

The OP is refering to a very specific segment of the population that gets their *news *from FNC (Fox News Channel), commonly refered to as Fox News. It is owned by News Corp, founded by Rupert Murdoch.

The problem is that under the umbrella of News Corp there is both journalism, and entertainment programming.

As a general rule, their journalism leans right, and that is okay. Bias, when understood, is needed in news to make sure an entire story is covered properly. I respect their journalists, with the same level as a respect the journalists working for NBC Universal, ABC/Disney, CBS, CBC, BBC, etc.

From journalism, we move towards op-eds and commentators. These individuals provide their opinion on matters of news. With enough credentials, their opinions carry some weight. A journlist with 30 years of business reporting will have a biased opinion, but also one that is often relevent to matters of business (Jim Cramer vs Kudlo). We expect that what they provide is opinion, we acknoldge their bias, but we also trust that what they tell us is truth.

From commentators, we move towards entertainment. This is a group of individuals like Jon Stewart and Rush, that are delivering a message to a specific audience. It is no longer opinion, bias is obvious, and there is no longer an expectation of truth. They are entertainers, the goal is to provide entertainment, not factual information.

Now we get to the 24 hour cable channel FNC. It was supposed to compete with CNN, as a cable news network, that would lean right (to balance what people thought was a left leaning CNN). Part of leaning right means having commentators that also lean right.

The problem is that FNC is in the business of delivering an audiance to advertisers. To be good at that they need more viewers. They realized that the behavior established by Rush and Stewart provided significantly more viewers than the behavior of CNN (or MSNBC).

And it worked, FNC started small and now has more viewers than both CNN and MSNBC.

But it needs to be acknowledged how they did it: by blurring the line between boring stuffy news reporting, and fast paced in your face entertainment.

As a result, the channel is now characterized by the clips I posted of Hannity. Each night, while CBC, ABC, NBC are showing their nightly news programs, FNC has Beck, Gretta, Hannity, and O’Reilly. None of those are journalists reporting news. They are entertainers.

So at what point does FNC stop being a news channel with some commentators, to being an entertainment network (like NBC) with a little bit of news during the day?