This country is fucked: Survey says Fox now most trusted name in news.

[Rhythmdvl]

Holy shit Beck’s one of the final five!

[Robot_Arm]

@Mr_Smashy

The question you seem to want me to answer, however, is outside the scope of the OP.

You’re kidding, right? This title of this thread is

This country is fucked: Survey says Fox now most trusted name in news

and you’ve been harping on questions about Dan Rather and something that happened at CBS five years ago. But somehow

Is Fox News to be Trusted?

is outside the scope?

Got to be a joke. It’s the only thing that even remotely makes sense.

[GIGObuster]

@Mr_Smashy

Hey, good for you! You were able to answer the question at hand.

A long time ago, you are really slow.

@Mr_Smashy

The question you seem to want me to answer, however, is outside the scope of the OP. You could start another thread I suppose, Is Fox News to be Trusted? or something like that. I’m sure the lefty Amen Corner that is this board could be nudged into responding.

As an “independent” I would think you would appreciate if Fox news is accurate anyhow.

@Mr_Smashy

Please feel free to continue the insults.

When you are demonstrating to be slow and also that you show to others the epic huge brush that you use to dismiss even science reporters, the insults are more than deserved.

@Mr_Smashy

Honestly it doesn’t bother me. All I will end up doing is ignoring you - like I do with Lobo (who has nothing of interest to add to conversations, all he does is say people who disagree with his skewed views have a whore mouth).

It does not bother me too, what counts is that even now you continue to show to others how incapable you are of checking how mendacious Fox news is with the CRU hack item alone.

[Mr_Smashy]

@Robot_Arm

You’re kidding, right? This title of this thread isand you’ve been harping on questions about Dan Rather and something that happened at CBS five years ago. But somehowis outside the scope?

Got to be a joke. It’s the only thing that even remotely makes sense.

My question the entire time (go back and read **post #2 **in this thread), and one that so few have been willing to answer, is whether the rise of Fox’s trustworthiness is not so much because they went up in everyone’s eyes, but the others went down. But because that involves skewering some sacred cows (“Fox is evil! Everything is their fault!”) people look for other reasons to explain the OP’s poll.

Unfortunately, the knucklehead brigade here seems to want me to be the defender of Fox’s accuracy, so they can knock down that strawman. I won’t play that role, so I get insulted. Fine, it’s the pit, and children like GIGO will be children, knock yourself out.

Get it now?

The accuracy or lack thereof of Fox vis a vis the other networks probably is worth discussing, in another thread somewhere, but I personally am not very interested in discussing it. It doesn’t interest me, and too much is subject to opinion anyway that would generate 'jacks all over the place (Global Warming is real and Fox said it wasn’t! They said Iraq was a success but Reid said it was a failure, and my guy is right!).

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mr_Smashy

Hey, good for you! You were able to answer the question at hand.

The question you seem to want me to answer, however, is outside the scope of the OP. You could start another thread I suppose, Is Fox News to be Trusted? or something like that. I’m sure the lefty Amen Corner that is this board could be nudged into responding.

Please feel free to continue the insults. Honestly it doesn’t bother me. All I will end up doing is ignoring you - like I do with Lobo (who has nothing of interest to add to conversations, all he does is say people who disagree with his skewed views have a whore mouth).

You keep asking if the misdeeds of the “liberal media” is responsible for Fox’ support. We are asking why that should be the case if Fox is as guilty or more guilty of misrepresentation and partisanship.

[Mr_Smashy]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You keep asking if the misdeeds of the “liberal media” is responsible for Fox’ support. We are asking why that should be the case if Fox is as guilty or more guilty of misrepresentation and partisanship.

Ahh, now that’s a good question. Let’s explore that for a second. What are the logical options?

1. There’s Kobal’s theory (you’ll need to have followed this thread, I won’t explain it here)
2. The public views the sins of CNN and CBS as far more severe than they view the sins of Fox
3. The lefties split the vote
4. The country simply is twice as con than lib, so they went with a conservative network

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

You don’t think #3 is the most likely option?

[GIGObuster]

@Mr_Smashy

My question the entire time (go back and read **post #2 **in this thread), and one that so few have been willing to answer, is whether the rise of Fox’s trustworthiness is not so much because they went up in everyone’s eyes, but the others went down. But because that involves skewering some sacred cows (“Fox is evil! Everything is their fault!”) people look for other reasons to explain the OP’s poll.

Meh, like it was mentioned before, you don’t pay attention to what others actually did post.

@Mr_Smashy

Unfortunately, the knucklehead brigade here seems to want me to be the defender of Fox’s accuracy, so they can knock down that strawman. I won’t play that role, so I get insulted. Fine, it’s the pit, and children like GIGO will be children, knock yourself out.

Get it now?

After you childishly stomped your feet and saying that you will not even check the evidence against fox from a science reporter? Yep, that is mature I guess.

Also mature is to avoid reading that most of us are assuming that indeed there are examples of misbehavior from other networks and that in part is the reason for the current state of affairs, but just like with evolution, popularity does not mean that we should be happy for that state of affairs.

You already made your sorry weak point and many (even the OP with his “sigh”) who are in this tread already take the reasons you are pointing out into consideration. What it is clear is that then you just want to ignore that this is not healthy at all for a democracy, and that people that had the pleasure of noticing **how **Fox news are avoiding fact checkers in the way to mislead the American population have the right to complaint about that in this thread.

@Mr_Smashy

The accuracy or lack thereof of Fox vis a vis the other networks probably is worth discussing, in another thread somewhere, but I personally am not very interested in discussing it.

Then shut up, you already made your point and many (with reasonable caveats) already take that into account.

If you want to continue then you are indeed just being a coward for not dealing with the current misleading efforts of Fox “news”.

@Mr_Smashy

It doesn’t interest me, and too much is subject to opinion anyway that would generate 'jacks all over the place (Global Warming is real and Fox said it wasn’t! They said Iraq was a success but Reid said it was a failure, and my guy is right!).

Sorry, but Fox was not twisting opinions but facts:

What fox said was that the emails showed evidence of malfeasance, right wing sources (and Fox) later complained that Fox news was the only one making reports on this, what I think it took place is that outfits like CBS did bother to check the facts before deciding if the hacking really changed anything regarding the science.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth’s cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world’s voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).

Incompetence can be a good excuse early in the game, but because there has been no retraction whatsoever from Fox I would make the educated point that one should avoid Fox news until they clean up their act.

[Gyrate]

Let us assume that McDonalds sells more food than any other restaurant. Should we therefore conclude that:

1. McDonald’s sells high quality food, perhaps the best quality.
2. McDonald’s is crap, but all the other restaurants are even worse.
3. People who do not eat at McDonalds divide themselves amongst the other restaurants more thinly, skewing the results.
4. A majority of people like to eat quick, convenient food that they know they’ll like, regardless of whether it’s bad for them or not.

If the answer is #4, #1 and/or #2 do not automatically follow, much as some might like it to.

[GIGObuster]

Missed the edit, that last quote came from the scientific journal Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Just do drive the point in, Fox news has mislead people on this subject even before the CRU hack.

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/11/05/foxnewscom_on_global_warming_misleading_misdirection_or_outright_lie.php

But again comes another untruth. Sandwiched between quotes from Latif about computer modeling is, “co-author of a paper predicting the planet will cool for perhaps a decade before starting to warm again."

That is not what Latif’s paper “predicted." His paper states “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

It is much easier to cast doubt than to explain a very complex topic to the public, and Fox is did its job well. As was shown above, scientists expect variation in temperatures. It is the overall trend of averages that are important. And, as seen in the RealClimate data, they are all going up. But if Fox can just create a touch of uncertainty, and give its audience just a hint of excuse to keep their heads in the sand, they have done what they’ve set out to do.

[Starving_Artist]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You keep asking if the misdeeds of the “liberal media” is responsible for Fox’ support. We are asking why that should be the case if Fox is as guilty or more guilty of misrepresentation and partisanship.

Tit for tat. An eye for an eye. Fighting fire with fire.

Remember, Fox has to try to offset the influence of ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (though CNN has gotten gotten better), Time, Newsweek, the NY Times, the LA Times, USA Today, Hollywood (movies, television, entertainment magazines), etc., etc., almost ad infinitum.

Now admittedly, the bias coming from these liberal sources is more subtle, but it’s pervasive and insideous and it has been at work for decades. I would imagine that if a totally objective person could be found to exist, and that person were to analyze all the information coming from all these sources, the bias and misrepresentation coming from Fox, though it may be more intense and blatant, would still pale in comparison to the bias and misrepresentation coming from the aggregate of these other sources.

This isn’t to say that I approve of such tactics by Fox. For one thing I don’t think they’re necessary – there are plenty of things to legitimately rail about when it comes to the left as it is. But I do think it explains why Fox’s viewers and listeners are accepting of its misrepresentations to the degree that they are. It can be self-defeating to fight fair when you’re vastly outnumbered, and I believe that the segment of Fox’s viewership that is cognizant of its misdeeds, but which remains supportive of it anyway, very likely holds that view.

[Jack_Batty]

So, Starv, according to you pretty much every thing has a liberal bias *except *Fox news, who only exists to argue the truth against the whole rest of the world. Is that about the size of it?

[Starving_Artist]

When it comes to the nation’s more influential news and entertainment media, yes.

[Jack_Batty]

The defense rests.

[Cort]

@Starving Artist

When it comes to the nation’s more influential news and entertainment media, yes.

You’re wrong.

[Robot_Arm]

@Starving_Artist

Remember, Fox has to try to offset the influence of ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (though CNN has gotten gotten better), Time, Newsweek, the NY Times, the LA Times, USA Today, Hollywood (movies, television, entertainment magazines), etc., etc., almost ad infinitum.

Oh, I recognize this. This is the part where conservatives try to claim that they are the silent, stalwart majority, and the plucky underdogs. This is one of my favorites.

[Mr_Smashy]

GIGO, thanks for proving my point about the threadjack.

[Shodan]

@Mr_Smashy

Rather’s well known as a Texas Democrat - he’s spoken at the Texas Democratic Committee meetings, his daughter is high up in Dem circles, and he’s helped raise money for them. And consider the timing: this incident was very close to election time, an October Surprise.

That was the idea.

CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush’s service in the Texas National Guard.

Tony Coehlo says the DNC had the memos before CBS. Operation Fortunate Son pretty much telegraphed the fact that the DNC was fully informed before the first 60 Minutes II broadcast.

If you’re asking me if I have a Post-It note from Dan’s office with scribbling on it that says, "Continue to push falsified memos as if they are genuine, even after everyone else in the world knows they aren’t, in an effort to get Kerry elected, um no I don’t have that.

Not CBS, ABC.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

What, National Review Online and something called Wizbang? Boy, talk about cites! I’m certainly convinced!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Jack_Batty

So, Starv, according to you pretty much every thing has a liberal bias *except *Fox news, who only exists to argue the truth against the whole rest of the world. Is that about the size of it?

Well, he did also say that the bias of every other outlet is more subtle, which I think is a tacit admission that they aren’t as biased.