Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
You guys do realize there is more to Fox than you might think? Sure it's biased, but there is plenty of quality programming. Plus have of the commentary isn't even original.
People become so jaded into thinking Fox is this satanic media outlet, but plenty of other news coperations offer the same level of bias (if not more). Be thankful for Fox News, they make all your favorite news sites look innocent.
Without agreeing to your claim, assuming it were true, I won't support Fox because it's a mouthpiece for evil regardless of any 'good programming'.
Machines of evil often have 'quality products' as cash cows to generate funds for the evil machine areas.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, has excellent news reporting - which funds the evil editorial section, so I don't buy it.
So are you the knower of all evil? Is it evil because you disagree with the programming? Evil because it's biased?? Using hyperbolic terms and expecting people to nod their head is the Obama way, but most rational thinkers will question.
I am not arguing that Fox is morally corrupt and evil, but you seem so obsessed with it that makes me feel you are one of those jaded types. I read all media, evil or not. I like to be informed - enforcing my own political opinions isn't informative, it's simply zealous.
Forgive me for not writing a thousand words to back up the word 'evil' each time I use it. I've occassionaly had some prefer that use some shorthand.
Evil, because it promotes harmful policies for dishonest and selfish reasons. What else is evil in media? We could have a lengthy discussion, but would you read books I suggest?
The fact that you are cautious in your attack - not disagreeing with my cconclusion, using the word 'seem', tells me you and I would probably be able to agree quite a bit.
In short, I think your tentative conclusions are wrong. The word evil is used carefully, despite the lack of a long explanatory post. Zealous? Yes, in the good sense, not reckless.
You say you read 'all media'. You may note I distinguished between 'reading' and 'financially assisting'. It sounds good to say you read 'all media', but I'd differ. It's one thing to give a product a fair chance - but there are only so many hours in the day, and you cannot - cannot - read 'all media'. I've done calculations that consuming just the set of media I think is good could take 100+ hours a day. You have to choose.
There are media products so consistently worthless, even harmful, it makes sense to all but exclude them, once you reach that conclusion.
When you come to view media not as the individuals you see and read, mostly (there are exceptions such as Paul Krugman who is his own content creator), but as a machine with an agenda funded by some wealthy group, I think you get a better picture of the situation. Agenda doesn't always or even usually mean political agenda, but in some cases, that is a big part of the product. You come to understand what giving Rupert Murdoch a dollar for *any* of his products means in terms of his funding propaganda.
Take for example The Washington Times. It was created by Rev. Moon, and while the most obvious criticism is to point out his absurd characteristics, the more relevant issue is that the paper was created specifically to further the right-wing ideology - sold by the lie about how the Washington Post is a 'left wing' paper - and how much it pushes dishonest propaganda. (The bias accusation is powerful propaganda - what if I said all of Anandtech is right-wing or left-wing, and needs 'balance' of equal size from the 'missing side'?)
Evil has nice clothes. It's why the word seems harsh when used accurately - you mean that nice looking thing, you mean to say it's evil? Why, come on now, that's zealotry.