That's BS, and an increasing common defense from conservatives lately. "Sure, WE'RE all a bunch of morons...but so is everyone else!" It's not a binary thing, news isn't either slanted or not. Whatever extent other sources slant their news, Fox is MUCH worse.
That's BS, and an increasing common defense from conservatives lately. "Sure, WE'RE all a bunch of morons...but so is everyone else!" It's not a binary thing, news isn't either slanted or not. Whatever extent other sources slant their news, Fox is MUCH worse.
The MSM "news" in the US is filtered before it even becomes the official "news". The major news channels are all the same basically - same stories practically the same slant. You have to look overseas or on the internet to find news sources that contradict the "approved for consumption by the general public" news the MSM serves up.
Let's all journey on a search for the Holy Grail: a Fox News story without bias. A report on something completely against their political self-interest, but truthfully (made it past 'Whoop-sie" the slantwriter corp) reported.
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
I would like to see the OP's response to the statement above :
"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."
</end quote></div>
*shrug* I've NEVER EVER said that 1. Fox is MY personal favorite for news, or 2. they never fvck up, or 3. that they arent culpable for their fck ups.
Of course they screwed up. My original post, and maybe I didnt word it correctly, was in respose to the overwhelming Fox is lies and evil mantra so common throughout this board. Thats all. I *do* consider them a legitimate news source, and admittedly slanted. But my point being, no more or less slanted than other networks.</end quote></div>
That's BS, and an increasing common defense from conservatives lately. "Sure, WE'RE all a bunch of morons...but so is everyone else!" It's not a binary thing, news isn't either slanted or not. Whatever extent other sources slant their news, Fox is MUCH worse.</end quote></div>
At least you acknowledge Im right in that EVERY source is spun. I love your last line of "Whatever extent other sources slant their news, Fox is MUCH worse" hehe...IMHO ANY news story that I dont agree with is MUCH worse
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
I would like to see the OP's response to the statement above :
"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."
</end quote></div>
*shrug* I've NEVER EVER said that 1. Fox is MY personal favorite for news, or 2. they never fvck up, or 3. that they arent culpable for their fck ups.
Of course they screwed up. My original post, and maybe I didnt word it correctly, was in respose to the overwhelming Fox is lies and evil mantra so common throughout this board. Thats all. I *do* consider them a legitimate news source, and admittedly slanted. But my point being, no more or less slanted than other networks.</end quote></div>
That's BS, and an increasing common defense from conservatives lately. "Sure, WE'RE all a bunch of morons...but so is everyone else!" It's not a binary thing, news isn't either slanted or not. Whatever extent other sources slant their news, Fox is MUCH worse.</end quote></div>
At least you acknowledge Im right in that EVERY source is spun. I love your last line of "Whatever extent other sources slant their news, Fox is MUCH worse" hehe...IMHO ANY news story that I dont agree with is MUCH worse
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I never actually directly answered you. My response is the same as the courts ruling. Symantecs? Sure. Lies of omission? You betcha. A tiny slice of a big story? Ooohhh yeah.
Of course, I once again admit that. But what news source doesnt? Sure there are lots of similar white lies published by the almighty CNN. And MSNBC. And on and on and on. Search for "CNN lies" with Google sometime. News reporting is tricky business. An extreme example would be a small shopkeeper in Iraq who can now run his previously shut-down-by-Sadaam storefront. He sells alot of stuff therefore makes money. Sure, the building next to him is rubble. Sure 10 rockets fly over his building a day. Sure people get shot outside his door. But if a news story focuses on this small step forward and leaves out the rest, is it wrong? Or incorrect? Absolutely not. The same story could be run but focused on how hard it is to run a business in the middle of a war zone, and if America werent there maybe he could do better.
Same story, different spin. None of them wrong. THAT is my friggin point. It's not that Im using the scapegoat "well THEY DO IT TOO!". The problem is...they all DO do it. But it doesnt make each story wrong. Which brings me full circle to my point: just because you dont like or agree with Fox's spin, doesnt make it wrong. Unfortunately most of us here cant look at the opposing view and say, "Well, thats one way to look at it. I really dont agree with that spin, but such is life". Instead we discredit and belittle each other for agreeing with something we dont.
Friggin daycare in here.
It's symantics - missed the 'I' by a few keys.
You're a homunculus without the brain, lad.
If any person deserves the 'wankerhood thread of the year' you are the complete winner of such an award.
Rogo
I get my news from NPR, The Nation, and the New Republic.
If you think they're liberal sources PLEASE FEEL FREE to post some pirmary sources to back up your claims.
Rogo
If you think they're liberal sources PLEASE FEEL FREE to post some pirmary sources to back up your claims.
Rogo
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
ummmmm she did NOT say the document was real.
And look at what CBS said themselves "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
As for the secretary that you all speak of...
You guys are out doing yourself when it comes to looking like fools on this.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
How can you make a statement like the one I bolded?
Can you provide ANY proof that such a statement is truthful?
Here is proof that you are wrong.
1. Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 elections.
2. Reagan boosted about being a conservative, Bush called himself a ?compassionate conservative? Clinton NEVER used the term liberal.
3. Republicans are upset that their candidates for President aren?t ?conservative? enough, Democrats run away from the label ?liberal.?
4. Clinton and congress governed to the ?left? during his first two years in office. The result: congress had its LOWEST approval rating in history (to that time) and suffered one of largest congressional losses in history. Following that Clinton took a huge turn to the center/right and became the popular President we know him as.
5. Since Democrats took office last year congressional approval has now hit the lowest level EVER! (Has nothing to do with the middle being to the left, but I wanted to point that out)
6. Notice that the left now likes to call themselves ?progressives? instead of ?liberals? if being a ?liberal? was successful why would they make the change?
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
WhoTF are you? Youre like Dave on steroids...
But I do shiver in my shoes when you throw intelligent words like that around. Lad? ROFL...go away troll
Your whole concept of "proof" is flawed. You base your logic on the premise that Reagan or Bush were elected based on the one and only fact that they called themselves "conservatives" (history and their track records clearly debunk those self claims BTW) instead of the ability of the right to con the self proclaimed righteous into voting more. You ignore the simple fact that it is easier to get the fringes to the polls than the middle. It just so happens that the right has been better at convincing their fringe (the "religious" right) to run to the polls with every boogie man they could dredge up. Why do you think that turnout ratios are usually less than 55%?
If you notice, the majority of the population last election realized that we were heading way to right and steered us way left again in the biggest political upset in history (winning both houses, especially the senate when they needed 6 seats and only 7 were available).
You also seem to think that because no Dem candidate claims outwardly to be a liberal, that the rest of the country leans right. How do you come up with this crap?
There isn't a single candidate on the left that would claim to be liberal based on one simple fact....the Republican marketing machine has put such a negative connotation on the word that they are afraid to. I bet you can find a few calling themselves "progressive" however. Being liberal or progressive isn't just about the label attached to it like being conservative. It is the mindset that has helped just about every major social step forward we have taken to occur.
You fall for every talking point and marketing strategy ever put out by the right and then attempt to act like you are winning some non-existent point. Now I know why I don't have to listen to 9 hours of Rush, Hannity and Boortz on a daily basis......you just regurgitate them into nicely condensed Cliff's notes. Good job there.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
Yes it was, but it was not Dan Rather's fault, as some of you idiots love to scream at the top of your lungs about, it was the people who were supposed to fact check.
However, what does this have to do with the thread at all? This is about fox news. Keep distracting away.
There's a huge difference between a network who won't back down on a story and an Administration that continues to harp on false intelligence that is used to justify going to war.
Are they the same principle? Most assuredly. The outcome and ramifications is why the latter is completely unacceptable.
Also, the Administration knew the Niger story to be false before they ever mentioned it publicly.
The CBS story was purporting to have details of W's service that turned out to be unverifiable, but the main gist of the story is that W and his buddy did not fulfill their service in the same way as others had to in the Texas ANG. I think it's readily apparent that this is true. I doubt too many other ANG members were allowed to skip their obligations to work on someone's political campaign, that part of the story is a fact.
The yellow cake story wasn't about the details being wrong or unverifiable, the entire incident never occurred.
The public airwaves belong to the people but corporate power over the political process and the notion that money is speech has meant that those airwaves have been sold to those with the money to buy them. This means that the news you hear is what corporate America wants you to hear. Americans generally are brainwashed by media and have no idea they are. American culture and tradition is nothing more or less than brainwashing. You are what you are bathed in.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Because it illustrates the hypocrisy of most of the people on this thread.
They are attacking Fox for repeating a new story created by another source.
But then they bend over backwards to defend CBS for reporting a new story given to them by an avid anti-Bush guy.
For all your CBS defenders: CBS has washed their hands of the story completely, meanwhile Dan Rather still stands behind it. What does that say about his bias?
And phokus, the fact that you refuse to answer such a simple question tells us all we need to know.
No.
Look it's simple, the OP made this thread as a challenge to find FNC's factual errors and when presented with many examples you, him, and others can't defend FNC, so you do the next best thing
but...but...Clinton.
except in this case it's but...but....Rather.
So you are diverting the topic and then attempting in your lame ass way to take people to task.
Sad but still highly laughable.
Most journalists claim that they learned lessons from the profound failures in their profession leading up to the invasion of Iraq. It is exceedingly difficult to discern what lessons they think they learned, given that their behavior has really not changed at all.
The lesson would seem to be that there's no professional price to be paid for being an uncritical stenographer, but if you start making trouble it's going to be fatal to your "face-time" on camera.
We do not teach or cultivate critical thinking in this country anymore. We prize absolutism over nuance, dogma over reason, folk sense over hard science.
Our population as a group does not have the intellectual tools to deal with a complex world, and to respond to crises in a rational way. I lay these conditions at the feet of our educational system and particularly the mass media, which profits greatest from a docile and distractable audience.
"Citizens are not customers".
That's one of the points from "The Elements of Journalism."
Citizens should not be treated as something to be marketed to ... the corporatization of the media had changed the function of the news from serving the public interest by providing the people with the info they needed to be sovereign to turning them into consumers.
The problem is that tying a journalist's income to his organization's fincancial performace, in effect, changes the journalist's allegiance. The company is saying that a good portion of your loyalty must be to the corporate parent and to share holders - ahead of your readers, listeners, or viewers.
The lesson would seem to be that there's no professional price to be paid for being an uncritical stenographer, but if you start making trouble it's going to be fatal to your "face-time" on camera.
We do not teach or cultivate critical thinking in this country anymore. We prize absolutism over nuance, dogma over reason, folk sense over hard science.
Our population as a group does not have the intellectual tools to deal with a complex world, and to respond to crises in a rational way. I lay these conditions at the feet of our educational system and particularly the mass media, which profits greatest from a docile and distractable audience.
"Citizens are not customers".
That's one of the points from "The Elements of Journalism."
Citizens should not be treated as something to be marketed to ... the corporatization of the media had changed the function of the news from serving the public interest by providing the people with the info they needed to be sovereign to turning them into consumers.
The problem is that tying a journalist's income to his organization's fincancial performace, in effect, changes the journalist's allegiance. The company is saying that a good portion of your loyalty must be to the corporate parent and to share holders - ahead of your readers, listeners, or viewers.
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
So, if I read this correctly, conservative voters are blind sheep and liberal ones are enlightened? Not the first time I've heard that. Pretty funny, actually.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
"Yes it was" <--- are you retarded? I answered your idiotic querstion. And this has nothing to do with the thread. Check the thread title: "My challenge: find a factually incorrect news piece from Fox!".
The only thing you're doing is trying to change the subject.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The middles IS a bit left. So many people trying to convince us that the "middle" is farther right than it really is. Being against the Iraq war isn't left or right, it's f-ing logical.
You move the middle right and you can accuse anyone you want of being a Liberal (which somehow became a negative thing in the last 6 years).</end quote></div>
How can you make a statement like the one I bolded?
Can you provide ANY proof that such a statement is truthful?
Here is proof that you are wrong.
1. Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 elections.
2. Reagan boosted about being a conservative, Bush called himself a ?compassionate conservative? Clinton NEVER used the term liberal.
3. Republicans are upset that their candidates for President aren?t ?conservative? enough, Democrats run away from the label ?liberal.?
4. Clinton and congress governed to the ?left? during his first two years in office. The result: congress had its LOWEST approval rating in history (to that time) and suffered one of largest congressional losses in history. Following that Clinton took a huge turn to the center/right and became the popular President we know him as.
5. Since Democrats took office last year congressional approval has now hit the lowest level EVER! (Has nothing to do with the middle being to the left, but I wanted to point that out)
6. Notice that the left now likes to call themselves ?progressives? instead of ?liberals? if being a ?liberal? was successful why would they make the change?</end quote></div>
Your whole concept of "proof" is flawed. You base your logic on the premise that Reagan or Bush were elected based on the one and only fact that they called themselves "conservatives" (history and their track records clearly debunk those self claims BTW) instead of the ability of the right to con the self proclaimed righteous into voting more. You ignore the simple fact that it is easier to get the fringes to the polls than the middle. It just so happens that the right has been better at convincing their fringe (the "religious" right) to run to the polls with every boogie man they could dredge up. Why do you think that turnout ratios are usually less than 55%?
If you notice, the majority of the population last election realized that we were heading way to right and steered us way left again in the biggest political upset in history (winning both houses, especially the senate when they needed 6 seats and only 7 were available).
You also seem to think that because no Dem candidate claims outwardly to be a liberal, that the rest of the country leans right. How do you come up with this crap?
There isn't a single candidate on the left that would claim to be liberal based on one simple fact....the Republican marketing machine has put such a negative connotation on the word that they are afraid to. I bet you can find a few calling themselves "progressive" however. Being liberal or progressive isn't just about the label attached to it like being conservative. It is the mindset that has helped just about every major social step forward we have taken to occur.
You fall for every talking point and marketing strategy ever put out by the right and then attempt to act like you are winning some non-existent point. Now I know why I don't have to listen to 9 hours of Rush, Hannity and Boortz on a daily basis......you just regurgitate them into nicely condensed Cliff's notes. Good job there.</end quote></div>
So, if I read this correctly, conservative voters are blind sheep and liberal ones are enlightened? Not the first time I've heard that. Pretty funny, actually.</end quote></div>
Nope...you don't read correctly. The "blind sheep" exist at the fringes of both ends of the spectrum. The right has done an exponentially better job at motivating their half though.
The "enlightened ones" are usually apethetic to the whole process because they can see that politics is high-priced and high-stakes pro wrestling. Both sides have a script that they follow and the outcome is almost always known before the match begins.
As I originally stated however, it has been progressive thinking that has enabled most social reforms in this country. Conservatism has its place in our system also. I just believe that it should be relagated towards fiscal policy and not social because it seems to be oppressive and big brother-ish.
Nice try at attempting to read between the lines to paint yourself as the victim though. :roll:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The middles IS a bit left. So many people trying to convince us that the "middle" is farther right than it really is. Being against the Iraq war isn't left or right, it's f-ing logical.
You move the middle right and you can accuse anyone you want of being a Liberal (which somehow became a negative thing in the last 6 years).</end quote></div>
How can you make a statement like the one I bolded?
Can you provide ANY proof that such a statement is truthful?
Here is proof that you are wrong.
1. Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 elections.
2. Reagan boosted about being a conservative, Bush called himself a ?compassionate conservative? Clinton NEVER used the term liberal.
3. Republicans are upset that their candidates for President aren?t ?conservative? enough, Democrats run away from the label ?liberal.?
4. Clinton and congress governed to the ?left? during his first two years in office. The result: congress had its LOWEST approval rating in history (to that time) and suffered one of largest congressional losses in history. Following that Clinton took a huge turn to the center/right and became the popular President we know him as.
5. Since Democrats took office last year congressional approval has now hit the lowest level EVER! (Has nothing to do with the middle being to the left, but I wanted to point that out)
6. Notice that the left now likes to call themselves ?progressives? instead of ?liberals? if being a ?liberal? was successful why would they make the change?</end quote></div>
Your whole concept of "proof" is flawed. You base your logic on the premise that Reagan or Bush were elected based on the one and only fact that they called themselves "conservatives" (history and their track records clearly debunk those self claims BTW) instead of the ability of the right to con the self proclaimed righteous into voting more. You ignore the simple fact that it is easier to get the fringes to the polls than the middle. It just so happens that the right has been better at convincing their fringe (the "religious" right) to run to the polls with every boogie man they could dredge up. Why do you think that turnout ratios are usually less than 55%?
If you notice, the majority of the population last election realized that we were heading way to right and steered us way left again in the biggest political upset in history (winning both houses, especially the senate when they needed 6 seats and only 7 were available).
You also seem to think that because no Dem candidate claims outwardly to be a liberal, that the rest of the country leans right. How do you come up with this crap?
There isn't a single candidate on the left that would claim to be liberal based on one simple fact....the Republican marketing machine has put such a negative connotation on the word that they are afraid to. I bet you can find a few calling themselves "progressive" however. Being liberal or progressive isn't just about the label attached to it like being conservative. It is the mindset that has helped just about every major social step forward we have taken to occur.
You fall for every talking point and marketing strategy ever put out by the right and then attempt to act like you are winning some non-existent point. Now I know why I don't have to listen to 9 hours of Rush, Hannity and Boortz on a daily basis......you just regurgitate them into nicely condensed Cliff's notes. Good job there.</end quote></div>
So, if I read this correctly, conservative voters are blind sheep and liberal ones are enlightened? Not the first time I've heard that. Pretty funny, actually.</end quote></div>
Nope...you don't read correctly. The "blind sheep" exist at the fringes of both ends of the spectrum. The right has done an exponentially better job at motivating their half though.
The "enlightened ones" are usually apethetic to the whole process because they can see that politics is high-priced and high-stakes pro wrestling. Both sides have a script that they follow and the outcome is almost always known before the match begins.
As I originally stated however, it has been progressive thinking that has enabled most social reforms in this country. Conservatism has its place in our system also. I just believe that it should be relagated towards fiscal policy and not social because it seems to be oppressive and big brother-ish.
Nice try at attempting to read between the lines to paint yourself as the victim though. :roll:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter