Is it ok to dismiss someone for watching FOX?

[cosmosdan]

@Stoneburg

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.

and please Og, send us more.

THat’s also one of the reasons I tend not to get my news from TV. There need for rating now today, has turned them into the National Enquirer. Save money by dropping the expense of investigative journalism and just sensationalize certain stories and controversies. Come back Walter. We need you.

[cosmosdan]

@emacknight

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?

The one they jetted by some time ago.

excellent post and analysis. thanks.

[Shodan]

@villa

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 the fact that the authorities did not stop this kind of thing forty years ago means that they should not try to stop it today?

Interesting logic, if you want to call it that.

Regards,
Shodan

[cosmosdan]

@Shodan

So the fact that the authorities did not stop this kind of thing forty years ago means that they should not try to stop it today?

Interesting logic, if you want to call it that.

Regards,
Shodan

Nobody said that. Interesting you interperted it that way. You must have missed the "It was dealt with " part in the part you quoted. go figure.

[Shodan]

That was what we were talking about - it was dropped, not prosecuted. villa seemed to take issue with Klansmen not being prosecuted back in the day. Perhaps he feels it would have been appropriate to simply drop the charges against the Klan back then. Would that have been an acceptable method of “dealing with it”?

Regards,
Shodan

[villa]

@Shodan

So the fact that the authorities did not stop this kind of thing forty years ago means that they should not try to stop it today?

Interesting logic, if you want to call it that.

Regards,
Shodan

Did you not read what I said, or are you lying about it?

I’ll repost the relevant part now, to see if it helps it sink in…

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.

The situation was dealt with. This is a good thing. It was a single isolated experience which was corrected by the authorities. As opposed to a decades long history of the authorities cooperating in preventing people of color from exercising the franchise, which can be seen even in 2000.

So tell me how you can possibly get from what I posted that I don’t think it should be stopped now? Try to give me a possible explanation of your logical leap that involves a scintilla of honesty.

[gonzomax]

@emacknight

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?

Jon Stewart has been creaming Obama for a long time. If he is a drop dead lefty, he has lost the message.

[GIGObuster]

@emacknight

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?

I have to recognize that I was falling into the trap of discussing the News side of FOX when for the OP it is not really the point.

So, I take it that the opposition here agrees that **All **of FOX can not be defended and it is OK then to dismiss anyone that still thinks that they are fair and balanced or objective?

[cosmosdan]

@Shodan

That was what we were talking about - it was dropped, not prosecuted. villa seemed to take issue with Klansmen not being prosecuted back in the day. Perhaps he feels it would have been appropriate to simply drop the charges against the Klan back then. Would that have been an acceptable method of “dealing with it”?

Regards,
Shodan

You are incorrect. The individual who made racist comments and carried a baton recieved and injunction from the civil case filed that prevents him from carrying any sort of weapon near a polling place through 2012. It was dealt with by legal action being taken over a relatively minor infraction. That’s more than we saw in the recent and not so recent past.

[cosmosdan]

@GIGObuster

I have to recognize that I was falling into the trap of discussing the News side of FOX when for the OP it is not really the point.

So, I take it that the opposition here agrees that **All **of FOX can not be defended and it is OK then to dismiss anyone that still thinks that they are fair and balanced or objective?

I wouldn’t dismiss someone for watching Fox news. If they said “I get all my news from Fox” I’d begin to wonder but still need more info. If they demonstrated they were aware of the bias, didn’t really consider Hannity or Beck to be news, but still preferred a conservative slant then okay. Not great but far from dismissable.

[GIGObuster]

@cosmosdan

I wouldn’t dismiss someone for watching Fox news. If they said “I get all my news from Fox” I’d begin to wonder but still need more info. If they demonstrated they were aware of the bias, didn’t really consider Hannity or Beck to be news, but still preferred a conservative slant then okay. Not great but far from dismissable.

Now lets not go out of track, I agree with what you are saying, the thing many are missing is that I’m already adding the relevant conditional: IF they **also **continue to say that FOX is “fair and balanced” or that they do not lie, then I feel safe on dismissing them.

[sqweels]

When it comes to this issue, I like to turn it around.

Conservatives abhor liberalism and portray it as something truly horrible. And apparently, liberalism is defined as the contents of the New York Times and CNN, etc. The horror. The horror.

But if conservatism is defined as the contents of FOX News and the Rush Limbaugh show, etc, then yes, that truly is horrible.

[cosmosdan]

@GIGObuster

Now lets not go out of track, I agree with what you are saying, the thing many are missing is that I’m already adding the relevant conditional: IF they **also **continue to say that FOX is “fair and balanced” or that they do not lie, then I feel safe on dismissing them.

I get that , but what they consider fair and balanced on Fox depends on what shows they watch right?

They could tell you they consider Fox fair and balanced and just be referring to the hard news shows they like.

[GIGObuster]

@cosmosdan

I get that , but what they consider fair and balanced on Fox depends on what shows they watch right?

They could tell you they consider Fox fair and balanced and just be referring to the hard news shows they like.

Well, yes, but the OP did not differentiate that.

In any case, I confirmed that the “climategate” lie and omission of FOX was not restricted to the opinion side of the network, the so called “real news” are also misleading and omitting information to their viewers:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007080053

After extensive reporting on “Climategate,” Special Report ignores Penn State scientist’s exoneration
July 08, 2010 6:29 pm ET — 2 Comments

After reporting extensively on the “Climategate” controversy, Fox News’ Special Report has not mentioned that a Penn State scientist named as part of the “Climategate” “scandal” has been exonerated by an investigation into the matter. Further, Special Report offered a misleading report on a Dutch study that found that a U.N. panel’s report on climate change contained “no significant errors” in its conclusions.
Special Report ignores report exonerating Penn State climate scientist

Special Report details investigation into PSU climate scientist’s involvement in “Climategate.” In December 2009, Fox News host Bret Baier reported that the Penn State University administration would be investigating the involvement of one of its researchers – Michael Mann – in the “scandal” generated by emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Climate change skeptics distorted these emails to falsely claim that they undermined the scientific consensus that man-made global warming is occurring. Specifically, skeptics twisted CRU director Phil Jones’ statement that he had used a “trick” invented by Mann to “hide the decline” in temperature data based on tree rings to claim that Jones and Mann had been “doctoring” or “fudging” data. From the December 1, 2009, edition of Special Report (accessed via the Nexis database):

BAIER: Director of a prestigious British climate research center is stepping down pending an investigation of his conduct. E-mails allegedly from Phil Jones indicate he and colleagues tried to downplay data contradicting the theory of manmade global warming.

Meantime, the administration at Penn State University here in the U.S. reportedly will investigate the alleged involvement of one of its researchers in the scandal.

Special Report doesn’t mention that investigation has cleared Mann. Penn State assembled a committee of scientists and department heads to investigate whether Mann had engaged in “research misconduct.” In February, Penn State released the initial results of its inquiry. Among its conclusions was that there was “no credible evidence” that Mann had “ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data” and “no credible evidence” that Mann had “engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data.”

The results of a final investigation were obtained by The Washington Post on July 1. The committee stated that “there is no substance to the allegation against” Mann:

The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.

More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scolarly activities.

The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.

A search of Nexis revealed no mention by Special Report of either the initial or final investigative reports by Penn State.

If we go the opinion side of FOX…

Well, I do not want to throw up my breakfast.

[Czarcasm]

@cosmosdan

I get that , but what they consider fair and balanced on Fox depends on what shows they watch right?

They could tell you they consider Fox fair and balanced and just be referring to the hard news shows they like.

And again I ask-who watches Fox just for the hard news? I think you’ll find that the vast majority of people that watch that channel do so for the right-wing commentary.

[Shodan]

@cosmosdan

You are incorrect.

Actually, the criminal charges were dropped, which is what we are talking about.

The individual who made racist comments and carried a baton recieved and injunction from the civil case filed that prevents him from carrying any sort of weapon near a polling place through 2012.

Carrying a weapon near a polling place is already illegal under existing law. IOW, the party in question suffered no consequence from his crime.

Let’s see if we can be quite clear about this. Two large men dressed in paramilitary uniforms station themselves near a polling place. They single out members of a race other than their own for intimidation. One is armed, and points his weapon at voters. Some are frightened into not exercising their franchise. The authorities decline to do much beyond seeking an injunction - in civil court - telling one of them, in essence, just don’t do it again.

This is OK with you. If they are black. And a news outlet that takes issue with it is necessarily being deceptive.

Regards,
Shodan

[cosmosdan]

@Czarcasm

And again I ask-who watches Fox just for the hard news? I think you’ll find that the vast majority of people that watch that channel do so for the right-wing commentary.

You’re probably right. I do have consevative friends who have no use for Hannity or Beck but might tune in ORielly and are still able to recognize when his own bias goes to far. They may indeed be the rare Fox viewer.

[Marley23]

@villa

Did you not read what I said, or are you lying about it?

I realize you offered an alternative, but please don’t suggest other posters are lying.

I’m just about out of patience with the borderline insults in this thread, not to mention the partisanship. This thread won’t last much longer if people keep tiptoeing up to and over the boundaries here.

[cosmosdan]

@Shodan

Actually, the criminal charges were dropped, which is what we are talking about.

And AGAIN you are wrong. No criminal charges were filed. Do a little reading before you spit this stuff out.

Carrying a weapon near a polling place is already illegal under existing law. IOW, the party in question suffered no consequence from his crime.

IOW you are wrong. He did suffer consequences even if you don’t think they were severe enough.

Let’s see if we can be quite clear about this. Two large men dressed in paramilitary uniforms station themselves near a polling place. They single out members of a race other than their own for intimidation. One is armed, and points his weapon at voters. Some are frightened into not exercising their franchise. The authorities decline to do much beyond seeking an injunction - in civil court - telling one of them, in essence, just don’t do it again.

This is OK with you. If they are black. And a news outlet that takes issue with it is necessarily being deceptive.

Regards,
Shodan

You are spouting falsehoods already debunked concerning this story. If you’d like to continue you’re welcome to come into the thread specifically about this, but I suggest you do some reading other than the right wing blogs. Your information is incorrect and the deception I speak of is clearly reflected in that very fact. If an average guy like me can spend a few minutes researching a story to uncover pertinent facts I expect at least as much from so called news.

[Czarcasm]

@cosmosdan

You’re probably right. I do have consevative friends who have no use for Hannity or Beck but might tune in ORielly and are still able to recognize when his own bias goes to far. They may indeed be the rare Fox viewer.

Rare indeed. What I’m saying is that when you talk of what is on Fox News, you cannot separate the hard news and the commentary-the vast majority of viewers certainly don’t, and there is hard evidence that the 10% that is news is designed to support the 90% that is commentary.