So people keep repeating this talking point that the underpants bomber was 'given the rights the constitution gives American citizens'.
1 - The Constitution does not GIVE anyone rights. Rights are intrinsic to human beings, the Constitution protects them by forbidding the government from infringing on these rights.
2 - The Constitution protects the rights of all 'persons' whether they are US citizens, green card holders, visitors, illegal aliens or whatever.
3 - This is the same policy Bush followed.
How is this level of lie and ignorance being spread without anyone calling them on it?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:So people keep repeating this talking point that the underpants bomber was 'given the rights the constitution gives American citizens'.
1 - The Constitution does not GIVE anyone rights. Rights are intrinsic to human beings, the Constitution protects them by forbidding the government from infringing on these rights.
2 - The Constitution protects the rights of all 'persons' whether they are US citizens, green card holders, visitors, illegal aliens or whatever.
3 - This is the same policy Bush followed.
How is this level of lie and ignorance being spread without anyone calling them on it?
1 - That matters a lot in constitutional law debate, but in terms of the public debate on the issue it's a technical point at best.
2 - Except when people don't want them to. The constitution is a powerful document, but nothing can overcome public indifference. People have been abducted and tortured and who's out on the street protesting for justice?
3 - When the new guy follows the exact same policy of the old, the new guy pretends its a different policy, the old guy and his party pretends its a different policy, and the media just repeats the statements of both parties without ever bothering to check if its valid.
That last one is a big problem. But the reality is that journalism is increasingly less profitable, and the industry is responding by getter less journalists to write more. Quality suffers, and there's little time for investigation - just reprint the statements of the two parties and move on to the next story.
Meanwhile, press relations grows more and more every year - all those media trained folk are moving from writing for newspapers to writing copy for politicians and business. Journalists are caught out all the time copy and pasting text straight from press releases. Never mind that the dialogue between the two major parties can be full of so many dubious assumptions as to be almost meaningless.
It's because they're journalists not reporters. Journalists are there to provide opinion on facts; not to cover the news accurately, but to make big heaping sums of money for their bosses to spank over.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:So people keep repeating this talking point that the underpants bomber was 'given the rights the constitution gives American citizens'.
1 - The Constitution does not GIVE anyone rights. Rights are intrinsic to human beings, the Constitution protects them by forbidding the government from infringing on these rights.
2 - The Constitution protects the rights of all 'persons' whether they are US citizens, green card holders, visitors, illegal aliens or whatever.
3 - This is the same policy Bush followed.
How is this level of lie and ignorance being spread without anyone calling them on it?
Yeah, Pffft! Go tell that to Leonard Peltier and see what he says.
Reporters fail to fact check for a few reasons, though the most popular seems to be that certain facts often get in the way of a desired narrative. Also, laziness, ignorance, a lack of skill, or a lack of intelligence.
Orkeosaurus wrote:All I know of him is that he's called "the underpants bomber", and really, that is sufficient to relieve any fear I might have of him.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:So people keep repeating this talking point that the underpants bomber was 'given the rights the constitution gives American citizens'.
1 - The Constitution does not GIVE anyone rights. Rights are intrinsic to human beings, the Constitution protects them by forbidding the government from infringing on these rights.
2 - The Constitution protects the rights of all 'persons' whether they are US citizens, green card holders, visitors, illegal aliens or whatever.
3 - This is the same policy Bush followed.
How is this level of lie and ignorance being spread without anyone calling them on it?
Yeah, Pffft! Go tell that to Leonard Peltier and see what he says.
The "underpants" bomber was an African fellow named Umar Farrouk. He was trained by Al-Qaeda (supposedly in Yemen) and given an explosive (supposedly made in Yemen) very similar to the one used by the shoe bomber. The bomb was situated in the man's underpants (hence the name) and detonated via the injection of a chemical. The would-be bomber managed to light the bomb, but it failed to detonate on the flight from Amsterdam to the U.S.
I dont think that stupidity or incompetence is a factor at all.
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
Is the mantra for a good reporter, they want to make money just like everyone else, so they write what will sell. Simple really, why would you EXPECT them to fact check?
But yeah, Journoscum do it all the time. Bizarrely, they seem largely beyond reproach, hiding like cowards behind 'freedom of the press'.
Freedom of the Press is about being able to report on any subject, not make stuff up. Cretins.
Take the video of British Troops in Iraq. Reporter saw the whole thing, but released an edited version, which showed the Troops beating the crap out of a couple of Iraqi civilians. Understandably, there was outrage over this. Then the rest of the video was released by a different source. Showing the Iraqi's rioting outside the compound, and previously, Mortar fire aimed in that direction. Suddenly, the Troops go from vicious beasts picking on civvies, to Troops doing their bloody job, sallying forth into a hostile crowd, nabbing the ring leaders and giving them a good shooing.
AFAIK, the only Journo to get into trouble for this was Piers Moron, who authorised the printing of faked torture pics by UK Troops. He lost his job. Pathetic huh?
In the defense of the reporters. Fact Checkers were the first to get laid off in the Media industry and its just sooooo much work for them to do it themselves!
J.Black wrote:It's because they're journalists not reporters. Journalists are there to provide opinion on facts; not to cover the news accurately, but to make big heaping sums of money for their bosses to spank over.
Please tell me that's not actually the definition of the word.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Take the video of British Troops in Iraq. Reporter saw the whole thing, but released an edited version, which showed the Troops beating the crap out of a couple of Iraqi civilians. Understandably, there was outrage over this. Then the rest of the video was released by a different source. Showing the Iraqi's rioting outside the compound, and previously, Mortar fire aimed in that direction. Suddenly, the Troops go from vicious beasts picking on civvies, to Troops doing their bloody job, sallying forth into a hostile crowd, nabbing the ring leaders and giving them a good shooing.
What?
They were still beating hell out of a helpless guy on the ground. I saw the video and assumed he was a bad guy and still don't think what they did was acceptable. Up until now it never even entered my mind that someone could justify kicking someone when they were down.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Take the video of British Troops in Iraq. Reporter saw the whole thing, but released an edited version, which showed the Troops beating the crap out of a couple of Iraqi civilians. Understandably, there was outrage over this. Then the rest of the video was released by a different source. Showing the Iraqi's rioting outside the compound, and previously, Mortar fire aimed in that direction. Suddenly, the Troops go from vicious beasts picking on civvies, to Troops doing their bloody job, sallying forth into a hostile crowd, nabbing the ring leaders and giving them a good shooing.
What?
They were still beating hell out of a helpless guy on the ground. I saw the video and assumed he was a bad guy and still don't think what they did was acceptable. Up until now it never even entered my mind that someone could justify kicking someone when they were down.
Some guy walks up and shoots your mom. Can you justify kicking him when he's down now? If you can't you're lying, to us or to yourself.
As with governments, people get pretty much the kind of news reporting they deserve.
It isn't hard for an educated person to look critically at a story, do some research and begin to form a conclusion as to whether the story seems to be true or what the flaws are.
Most people are not critical enough about their media consumption.
Also, good news reporting costs money and we want everything free on the Internet these days.
Frazzled, are you talking TV personalities or newspaper reporters (assuming a decent-sized paper)? I might agree with you on the former...not on the latter.
Killkrazy mostly nails it.
Newspaper have slashed budgets like you wouldn't believe. Years ago they'd send their own reporters to cover stories...now it's far more likely they'll run with a wire service article. And the impact of blogs and other "news" outlets has been staggering, IMO. Do you really spend the time confirming a story with two sources when some yahoo on a blog can run with it (and unlike you, suffer no real impact on his "brand" if he's completely wrong) and steal all your web traffic? Pretty hard call when your news org is surviving on a shoestring budget.
I find the case of financial media fascinating. IMO, the advent of multiple financial news channels covering financial markets 24/7 has to have contributed to the strong upsurge in market volatility we've seen in recent years. The problem is that there's really only so much financial "news" in a given day. So what you get is incredible amounts of overanalysis and either irresponsible optimism (during bull markets) or excessive despair (during bear markets).
And half the articles you see are biased from the get-go. I mean, what if you saw a headline saying "Stocks to suffer long, painful road to recovery," and in the article it quoted portfolio manager Pete Bigshot of PIMCO as saying that bonds were likely to outperform over the next few years?
He's a financial guru...he must know what he's talking about, right? But you may or may not know that PIMCO is primarily a bond house and that Mr. Bigshot has a personal financial incentive to promote buying bonds and bond funds.
I see articles like this ALL the time, and if you aren't familiar with names, companies and players, you don't even realize when a given news article is little more than a PR piece. And the news outlet giving some investment company the pulpit just looks the other way because in return they get more "news" to fill time and might get some readers/watchers/views...especially if the content is dire/controversial.
If I could do my M.A. over again, I might have done something with this topic as a thesis.
They had a few black eyes and a bust lip or two between them. Disgusting behaviour.
And when the poor woman who was having her driving licence checked at the time, who was covered in blood and cradled him as he died, spoke out against his killers, she should have been cautioned for her aggressive use of English as well.
I dont think any soldier should beat a prisoner, its unprofessional, but i understand how things can get heated. To sit in your chair and make such black and white condemnations of people is just ridiculous to me.
Your brother getting shot in the face next to you might make you behave a tad "hot headed".
Im not excusing unprofessionalism, but feth me, lets not be so quick to judge.
And for the record, Piers Morgan was a monumental witch, and yes the photos were faked.
Frazzled wrote:
Some guy walks up and shoots your mom. Can you justify kicking him when he's down now? If you can't you're lying, to us or to yourself.
There's a difference between not being able to understand why something happens, and not being able to justify the fact that something happened. You're showing the former right now, and Sebster showed the latter earlier.
Frazzled wrote:I disagree. Understanding and justification are two facets of the same gemstone.
In the sense that you have to understand something to truly justify it, you are correct.
However, justification does not arise organically from understanding. When you discuss understanding with respect to an action you're only dealing in an evaluation of motive, with no necessary comment on the worth of that motive. Justification includes an implicit valuation. In short, when you understand something you are describing the way things are. When you justify something you are describing the way things should be.
I understand why soldiers would lose their cool when taking prisoners, however I wouldn't be able to justify it. What I can do is justify the measured application of force in situations where hostile captives are being taken, but that isn't quite the same as an emotionally motivated rough-up.
Frazzled wrote:I disagree. Understanding and justification are two facets of the same gemstone.
In the sense that you have to understand something to truly justify it, you are correct.
However, justification does not arise organically from understanding. When you discuss understanding with respect to an action you're only dealing in an evaluation of motive, with no necessary comment on the worth of that motive. Justification includes an implicit valuation. In short, when you understand something you are describing the way things are. When you justify something you are describing the way things should be.
I understand why soldiers would lose their cool when taking prisoners, however I wouldn't be able to justify it. What I can do is justify the measured application of force in situations where hostile captives are being taken, but that isn't quite the same as an emotionally motivated rough-up.
Same difference I don't get the point. I understand something and I can justify them doing it.
The point is that understanding and justification are different things. To use your example from earlier: I could understand why someone would beat the person who killed their mother, however I wouldn't be able to justify the action. The beating accomplishes nothing in a world where the state is meant to hold the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Therefore, simply saying that you can't justify beating the assailant is not necessarily lying. However, it would most likely be a lie to claim that you were unable to understand why such an action would be taken, given that its commonly assumed that people love their mothers.
Meh, my point simply was, i dont like high horses.
Should soldiers give people a bit of a kicking who have shot at or mortared or bombed them once they are safely captured?
No.. its unnecessary and unproffesional.
Do the great majority of the general public really give that much of a gak? No.
Would i be more than happy, nay, entirely expecting a good kicking if i shot at a Taliban patrol and they took me alive? Damn Straight. They tend to lop peoples heads off, so i think our soldiers show suprising restraint frankly.
Frazzled wrote:
Should be? I have eyes. That is how the world is. There's no justice, just us.
I agree, the world is violent. However, the actual nature of something doesn't have any necessary bearing on what we believe it should be like, though it does affect the feasibility of realizing any given change. You can't get an ought, from an is.
However, you now seem to believe that we can't justify anything, which seem odd because justice is a human concept. If we exist, it does as well; at least as a governor of relations between individuals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Meh, my point simply was, i dont like high horses.
Should soldiers give people a bit of a kicking who have shot at or mortared or bombed them once they are safely captured?
No.. its unnecessary and unproffesional.
I agree. Something which is unnecessary, and unprofessional is also unjust to the extent that justice demands professionalism and necessity.
I don't thing that claiming an action to be unjust is necessarily self-inflationary. I make unjust choices fairly frequently, generally because doing so is more advantageous to me, that doesn't mean the choices cease to be unjust. It simply means that some combination of emotion and ignorance compelled me to make the choice, and that I should be reprimanded or punished for making it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Perhaps you'd prefer they open fire on the crowd?
In what world are the only options available 'kick a captive man lying on the ground' and 'open fire on civilians'? Are we just playing incoherent hypotheticals and no-one told me?
Ooh, I've got one! If you had to have sex with one of them, would you rather it be with Courtney Love or Hagrid from the Harry Potter series?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Some guy walks up and shoots your mom. Can you justify kicking him when he's down now? If you can't you're lying, to us or to yourself.
Umm, what? Which soldier's Mum got shot? Why are we judging the conduct of professional soldiers by the standards of vengeance of people who's Mum just got shot?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I dont think any soldier should beat a prisoner, its unprofessional, but i understand how things can get heated. To sit in your chair and make such black and white condemnations of people is just ridiculous to me.
Where I come from there's a few really basic rules. Don't cross a picket line, always buy your round and don't kick a man when he's on the ground.
Your brother getting shot in the face next to you might make you behave a tad "hot headed".
I can understand a soldier acting in the heat of the moment. I understand that a soldier with an excellent record who does something wrong in a single second shouldn't necessarily be drummed out of the service.
But that does not mean what was done was alright.
And for the record, Piers Morgan was a monumental witch, and yes the photos were faked.
To clarify, Piers Morgan was a jackhole before that, and it was a low act even for him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Would i be more than happy, nay, entirely expecting a good kicking if i shot at a Taliban patrol and they took me alive? Damn Straight. They tend to lop peoples heads off, so i think our soldiers show suprising restraint frankly.
Thing is, they're the bad guys. To the extent that we don't want to be bad guys, is the extent to which we hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:There's a difference between not being able to understand why something happens, and not being able to justify the fact that something happened. You're showing the former right now, and Sebster showed the latter earlier.
I understand why it might happen, but of course I don't think it's ever justified. I didn't realise until now that someone might try to justify the act afterwards.
Forget that higher standard nonsense. Scratch the surface and 99.9% of humanity are animal predators who don't have the natural inhibitions God put into real predators to keep the race alive. For a large portion of humanity you don't have to scratch the surface.
Second guessing, armchair quarterbacking, all that is nonsense by people safe and secure trying to feel superior to people who are actually in the situation. Until you are in a persons' shoes STFU.
I agree Frazzled, although not on the God part* because I don't really follow religion, but thats a completely different thread that will devolve into a flame war (one I won't be participating in because I think they're a waste of time and idiotic) later.
But, I digress, an opinion forged after the event will difer significantly from one forged during the event. Fight or flight comes into play, some will want to bash heads, others will want to hide in the courner crying hoping that they seem too pathetic to kill. But, you won't really know what was the right one until after it is finished. Moral obligations are useless when it happens because they just get in the way of the fight or flight mechanism. Which is supposed to react almost instantly.
*I am not against the idea of religion itself, simply that its a set of realisations one has to come across through life. You pretty much have a choice of taking the preset ones that have been in existance for many years or coming to your own throughout life. Faith is a good thing in this world as it gives us hope when it is needed the most, but I'm not after false hope.
J.Black wrote:It's because they're journalists not reporters. Journalists are there to provide opinion on facts; not to cover the news accurately, but to make big heaping sums of money for their bosses to spank over.
Ok, former journalism student here (one year at Northwestern). Lets set this all straight (or as straight as I can).
Journalist and reporter can be used interchangeably (though the defenition can change somewhat over geography and time). A journalist is not supposed to provide opinion, at least not when they are conducting their main job. Most newspapers instead include an editorial section for this purpose.
You guys have already touched on the majour problem that "a society gets the journalism it deserves." It is not competitive to do the job properly anymore. Anybody who disagrees with this need look no further than Fox "News." Even the most die-hard republican should be able to tell that it horribly violates every rule of proper journalism and intellectual discourse. Yet it is the most popular news channel in America.
Since journalists are people, and people have opinions, it has always been an internal struggle to stay credible. However, there are and have been people who understand the necessity of journalism and are able to rise above their personal feelings in order to report the honest and dirty truth. However, there aren't a great many of these. Its like doctors: We need far more of them than we have people who are really capable of doing the job right.
On top of the general fact that journalists are imperfect (like all people), we have the fact that they are, as has been mentioned, being overworked. Journlaism is a high-stress job, and asking somebody who is doing one good fact-checked story a day to throw on another one will necesarily produce much worse results. Further, less journalists means less productive inter-publication warfare. If any of you have seen Shattered Glass you'll know what I mean: While news organisations cannot be attacked by law (which is unpleasent, but on the whole necessary for more general reasons of government control), they are always beholden to both their readers and other publications that want nothing more than to discredit them. With less journalists their is a reduced ability to watch other publications.
Honestly, journalism is a noble proffession. It is simply being conducted by people who only would have done an acceptable job under normal circumstances, and who now are doing far more work than they can handle. Then you factor in the large media networks and the low income of internet publishing...its amazing anything gets written at all.
However, YOU can help fix the problem. Find specific journalists and publications that do good work and read them, pay for them, write them letters, tell others about them, quote them...do whatever you can to support them. Yes, it is work, but its alot less work than trying to do all of the things that good journalists do for us.
If J. Black had said "columnist/talking head" instead of "journalist," his post would have been more accurate. As is, yes, journalist and reporter are interchangeable terms.
I've always thought that reporters are like lawyers...everyone bashes them until they need one (as in "people need to know about this").
Y'know, it's always seemed a little backwards to me that so many Republicans hate the media when in fact a free and critical media dovetails neatly into the old Republican notion of keeping the government out of people's business. Then again, it seems like the old-school conservatives have mostly faded into the background in the party. Which is too bad.
gorgon wrote:If J. Black had said "columnist/talking head" instead of "journalist," his post would have been more accurate. As is, yes, journalist and reporter are interchangeable terms.
I've always thought that reporters are like lawyers...everyone bashes them until they need one (as in "people need to know about this").
Y'know, it's always seemed a little backwards to me that so many Republicans hate the media when in fact a free and critical media dovetails neatly into the old Republican notion of keeping the government out of people's business. Then again, it seems like the old-school conservatives have mostly faded into the background in the party. Which is too bad.
Republicans don't hate the media. Republicans hate the biased media.
Its human nature. Fanatics on both sides hate the other side because its not for them. Obama doesn't have a lot of love for Fox. Nixon would, wel he didn't like the Big three for their perceived bias.
gorgon wrote:
Y'know, it's always seemed a little backwards to me that so many Republicans hate the media when in fact a free and critical media dovetails neatly into the old Republican notion of keeping the government out of people's business. Then again, it seems like the old-school conservatives have mostly faded into the background in the party. Which is too bad.
It ocurred to me recently that the whole republican "anti- big government" notion is donkey-bollocks. The stereotypical republican (and we should acknowledge that this is a stereotype) is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-union. ALL of these positions invovle heavy government involvement. They simply want different government involvement. This is not in itself a bad thing, but it is yet another unnesssecary layer of difficulty in figuring out what the hell is going on these days. It is very difficult to figure out what one is supposed to be arguing about when people hold such internally inconsistent opinions.
Frazzled wrote:Republicans don't hate the media. Republicans hate the biased media.
Its human nature. Fanatics on both sides hate the other side because its not for them. Obama doesn't have a lot of love for Fox. Nixon would, wel he didn't like the Big three for their perceived bias.
Come now, fox goes far beyond biased media. It is a massive spin factory, plain and simple. I mean, have you ever Watched The o'reilly factor? I'll acknowledge that my views are left-leaning (roughly libertarian socialst), but Fox offends every single journalistic bone in my body, which is most of them.
For example, during the first term of Bush's presidency Glen Beck did a count down to the next election. He would often say "Only XXX days until America re-elects George Bush as president." Unless you are implying that Fox can see into the future that violates any standard of ethical reporting.
Frazzled wrote:Oh good for a minute there I thought we were going to avoid stereotypes and fallacies about differing parties. Good to see thats been cleared up.
Frazzled wrote:Forget that higher standard nonsense. Scratch the surface and 99.9% of humanity are animal predators who don't have the natural inhibitions God put into real predators to keep the race alive. For a large portion of humanity you don't have to scratch the surface.
Second guessing, armchair quarterbacking, all that is nonsense by people safe and secure trying to feel superior to people who are actually in the situation. Until you are in a persons' shoes STFU.
You failed in that attempt a long time ago. Really, I think that if you're going to tell people to shut up, you really shouldn't post anything at all; especially if you're here to moderate the proceedings.
Frazzled, you seem to be implying that in order to talk about something you need to be directly involved in it, yet it is the people who are involved ina situation who are least able to objectively deal with it. That is one reason WHY a free press is so important: to hold people accountable in a way that even "good" people cannot do themselves.
This is a complicated issue though, and a paragrpah could not possibly cover all of the exceptions and subtleties of it. As a general rule, people must be encouraged to discuss anything, so long as they know apporximately what their level of knowledge is, are willing to change their opinion and make an honest attempt to understand and process what is said.
The only one here discussing self-superiority, and higher ideals is you. No one else has said anything about such things. You're drawing that assumption because you associate any discussion of morality to be non-inclusive of those speaking. That's an extremely poor assumption.
Its also worth noting that the first person we know to have discussed these (justice, the good, etc.) ideas was a soldier.
Anung Un Rama wrote:That is surprisingly childish behaviour from Frazzled. Did Ghengis Connie find out his password?
No her compositions are erudite and award winning ( ). I'm the one who plays with fingerpaints. Plus i don't feel like getting into a shouting match, on an internet board, on a Friday afternoon. Not when I am wearing my Chavez crimson red shirt. Workers of the world unite!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nintendoeats wrote:Frazzled, you seem to be implying that in order to talk about something you need to be directly involved in it, yet it is the people who are involved ina situation who are least able to objectively deal with it. That is one reason WHY a free press is so important: to hold people accountable in a way that even "good" people cannot do themselves.
This is a complicated issue though, and a paragrpah could not possibly cover all of the exceptions and subtleties of it. As a general rule, people must be encouraged to discuss anything, so long as they know apporximately what their level of knowledge is, are willing to change their opinion and make an honest attempt to understand and process what is said.
I'm sorry, I was not blah blahing in your direction.
I'm saying that unless I have been in their shoes, my credibility to judge is lessened.
Now back OT, I don't believe media holds people accountable, nor is it free, nor is it particularly educated. Free press referred to the ability to print speech that you chose to do, but thats an aside as well.
nintendoeats wrote:Come now, fox goes far beyond biased media. It is a massive spin factory, plain and simple. I mean, have you ever Watched The o'reilly factor? I'll acknowledge that my views are left-leaning (roughly libertarian socialst), but Fox offends every single journalistic bone in my body, which is most of them.
For example, during the first term of Bush's presidency Glen Beck did a count down to the next election. He would often say "Only XXX days until America re-elects George Bush as president." Unless you are implying that Fox can see into the future that violates any standard of ethical reporting.
Deary me I hate Fox.
If you can't grasp that O'Reilly and Beck are op-ed pieces and not actual news reporting I don't think you stayed in journalism school quite long enough.
The problem is that they CLAIM to be, and people watch them as such. And Fox's straight up news reporting is hardly any better. "Fair and Balanced" is just offensive and the journalism community as a whole takes it too heart.
(I'm kipping off to work now, so don't expect a response for a while)
I don't recall Beck or O'Reilly ever claiming to be news reporters as opposed to just giving their opinions on the news. Then again I rarely see them so please feel free to prove me wrong. Their entire tone and presentation screams opinion not news reporting. Anyone who would confuse them for news reporters would have to be an idiot. They're entertainment not journalism.
Meh. I haven't read this entire thread so forgive me if this has been said... but the days of reporters going out into the field and digging up "dirt" on important issues is all but forgotten. Reporters read what they're given and the few that go outside are usually doing 1 of 3 things: weather ("It's raining, see! I'm wet!"), puff piece ("Look at the cute kittens and forget about the real issues."), or interviewing some slack-jawed yokel that witnessed a violent crime of some kind ("Show us on the doll where he shot her.").
I'd yell out the window "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." but, at best, no one would understand and, at worst, I might get shot.
That's my 2 bits. I'm probably wrong but you read it anyway.
dreadlord wrote:Meh. I haven't read this entire thread so forgive me if this has been said... but the days of reporters going out into the field and digging up "dirt" on important issues is all but forgotten. Reporters read what they're given and the few that go outside are usually doing 1 of 3 things: weather ("It's raining, see! I'm wet!"), puff piece ("Look at the cute kittens and forget about the real issues."), or interviewing some slack-jawed yokel that witnessed a violent crime of some kind ("Show us on the doll where he shot her.").
I'd yell out the window "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." but, at best, no one would understand and, at worst, I might get shot.
That's my 2 bits. I'm probably wrong but you read it anyway.
b) I get it
a) yes there are people, I've met a few of them. But they are primarily old guard. There aren't nearly enough. Most news organisations are shutting down their
Oh, by the way, from The O'reilly Factor's "about us page."
Pushing beyond just the headlines, The O'Reilly Factor also features issues from local markets that do not find the national spotlight on other newscasts. According to O'Reilly, "Just because a story originates from somewhere the networks typically avoid, doesn't mean it contains less challenging issues or compelling ideas."
However that doesn't matter. the channel is called FOX News. If it was called FOX that would be fine,s icne it doesn't imply any specific programming, but so long as it claims to be news such absurdly opinionated shows have no place.
However that doesn't matter. the channel is called FOX News. If it was called FOX that would be fine,s icne it doesn't imply any specific programming, but so long as it claims to be news such absurdly opinionated shows have no place.
I am glad as a journalist student whatever you are keeping your objectivity. That doesn't reinforce any stereotypes, at all...
Look Frazzled. I know quite alot about manipulation and fallacious arguments. Fox, and those two programs in praticular, contain copious amounts of both. I find things to agree with in both liberal and conservative camps, but Fox isjust indefensible. It is not their opinions that I have trouble with (usually). Rather the disingenuous way that they defend them.
Oreilly is an opinion show. they say it like five times an episode.
No disdain for MSMBC, NPR, or NBC?
Enlightening.
EDIT: I should note for purposes of transparency, although OReilly is a bit soft hearted and needs to toughen up a little bit, I like his show. Glenn Beck and Hannity(sp?) make baby Jebus cry.
However that doesn't matter. the channel is called FOX News. If it was called FOX that would be fine,s icne it doesn't imply any specific programming, but so long as it claims to be news such absurdly opinionated shows have no place.
So the purely opinion based shows on CNN or MSNBC get a free pass?
Frazzled wrote:"For a while I forgot Obama was black."
Chris Matthews, always nuetral commentor.
Yeah, that was a dumb thing to say. But it wasn't intellectually dishonest, it was just stupid. And because it was intellectually honest, it was easy to see both what he was saying...and specificly why it was annoying.
@Nintendoeats: You are confusing actual news reporting with opinion shows. Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly are NOT news reporting shows, and therefore not subject to the same standards of journalistic integrity that all of us journalists should be. If you want to make such blanket statements about Fox you should take into consideration Larry King, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews etc. They are not journalists, they are pundits. Their job is to drive up interest in the channel itself, not to report the news.
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Can we agree that opinion news shows (Beck, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Hannity, Maddow, Nancy Grace etc.) are a scourge on the face of humanity?
No. If you don't like the, don't watch them. I don't watch most of those guys.
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Can we agree that opinion news shows (Beck, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Hannity, Maddow, Nancy Grace etc.) are a scourge on the face of humanity?
yes.
@Frazzled: Are you saying that you don't know what the term means, or that Fox news guys ARE intellectually honest?
I have an example FROM THEIR NEWS DEPARTMENT, from the first page of a straight up youtube search (I looked at one other video before seeing this one).
This is complete "Lets get people scared about terrorism" nonsense. Fox is meerly presenting their opinion that people are afraid of terrorism as fact, and have simply found another excuse to reinforce it. In the first 5 seconds he says "america lives with the threat of terrorism every day." That is straight up hyperboly: The odds of an american dying in a terrorist attack are absurdly low. Everybody knows that you are less likely to die in a terrorist attack than litteraly ANYTHING ELSE that could even be calculated. Fox knows this, but it conflicts with their agenda. Instead of heeding it, they built an entire 5 minute story out of their own bias.
Its pure fear-mongering, and is horribly irresponsible journalism. It is directly harmful to the public discussion. And keep in mind, that was the second video I looked at (The first was an interview with ron paul about economic stuff, much of which was simply outside of my range of knowledge. It could have been horrendous, but I couldn't say for sure so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). There is tons of this stuff.
I'm saying now you're putting yourself up as the arbiter of whats intellectually honest.
I'm saying you're full of it. Chris Matthews is no more intellectually honest than Beck or Hannity or Janine garafalalalafalo or any of them. If not, then he's a true believer, and to be feared.
Frazzled wrote:I'm saying now you're putting yourself up as the arbiter of whats intellectually honest.
Intellectually honest has a very specific meaning, and I'm applying it. Essentially all you are doing is hearing me say "he shows an unnacceptable bias" and responding by saying "You have an unnacceptable bias." In essence, rather than attacking specific arguments, you are attacking the debate in itself. There are rare times when this is acceptable (For example, if we are both staring in at the sun and I say in all seriousness"The sun does not exist, there is darkness all around" you really can't have a debate) But more often it is a simple dodging mechanism. So lets keep the phenominological arguments off the thread and get back to the actual debate.
As for true believers, they have their defenite uses as long as they stay honest and are not in charge. there should be somebody holding every opinion for the purpouse of debating it. That way every viewpoint gets covered with a fine-tooth comb. Of course, generally you are going to wind up explaining why they are wrong, patting them on the head, and wishing them better luck next time, but occasionaly they turn up something good.
Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity won't because they are willing to make things up, ignore clear contradictions and silence valid arguments from their oponents rather than respond to them. that is not productive.
You see, around the same time as this article, I got a call from my Dad whilst at work. He wanted to know about my upcoming court date. Something I had absolutely no knowledge about, and I told him as much. Happens my Uncle had a note popped through his Door, asking about how he felt about my upcoming trial, from a reporter working for the Daily Record, quite possibly the raggiest of rags in Scotland. After a little digging, and much reassuring my Parents I was not in fact in any trouble whatsoever, it turns out to be the case I linked to above. My name is a single letter away from being that of the murderer, and the victim's Christian name is the shortened form of my Dad's middle name (Alexander). So really rather pissed off at the stress caused, I get hold of the reporter resonsible (he was all too keen to speak to me when he heard my name, no doubt expecting a scoop interview with the Murderer) and demand to know exactly where he got my details from, and my Uncle's home address. Lots of flim flam, quoting the Data Protection act. Eventually he says he found me on the Electoral Role. Except, that is impossible, as not only am I not registered to vote, I have been living in South East England for nearly 20 years (18 years at the time) and had in fact never been registered to vote in Scotland, as I was 11 years old when we moved South.
Despite quoting the Data Protection act myself, I never did find out how and where my details were obtained.
Frazzled wrote:I'm saying now you're putting yourself up as the arbiter of whats intellectually honest.
Intellectually honest has a very specific meaning, and I'm applying it. Essentially all you are doing is hearing me say "he shows an unnacceptable bias" and responding by saying "You have an unnacceptable bias." In essence, rather than attacking specific arguments, you are attacking the debate in itself. There are rare times when this is acceptable (For example, if we are both staring in at the sun and I say in all seriousness"The sun does not exist, there is darkness all around" you really can't have a debate) But more often it is a simple dodging mechanism. So lets keep the phenominological arguments off the thread and get back to the actual debate.
What was the debate again?
The problem is you're reinforcing my point with your statements. If you had said, "yes Matthews is as pathetic as the rest fo them, but I like him", THAT would be both honest and refreshing. You explained it away and immediately drop into the stereotype of the journalist (student) who can't see his own bias.
I'm a boor and a bore. I don't give a rat's about anyone or anything besides family. I don't have the time. I'm a Texan first and just want the whole world to leave me alone, but occasionally like to tell other people what to do or they are full of it. I'm a blowhard and think i know everything. But I freely admit that and freely admit my biases.
The concept that what passes as modern journalism is neutral, or doing anything but crusading for its own whims and profits is an absulute myth that conveniently forgets its own history.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Journo's are absolute scum in my eyes.
We really are better off with them than without. Like I said, there are just a great load of terrible ones. Its the same with every profession, but journalists are always in the public eye their failures are well publicised and heavily judged. It sounds like that guy was doing something unethical (unless he was woprking with valid off-the-record data he couldn't talk about for other ethical reasons), and I fully defend your rite to smack the crap out of him.
Yeh journalists are fairly cold people. I have a friend who went through uni to become a journalist, only to quit on the first day of her new job after she was asked to call a widow and barage her with questions over how she felt on the stabbing of her husband, a day after said event.
Frazzled wrote:I'm saying now you're putting yourself up as the arbiter of whats intellectually honest.
Intellectually honest has a very specific meaning, and I'm applying it. Essentially all you are doing is hearing me say "he shows an unnacceptable bias" and responding by saying "You have an unnacceptable bias." In essence, rather than attacking specific arguments, you are attacking the debate in itself. There are rare times when this is acceptable (For example, if we are both staring in at the sun and I say in all seriousness"The sun does not exist, there is darkness all around" you really can't have a debate) But more often it is a simple dodging mechanism. So lets keep the phenominological arguments off the thread and get back to the actual debate.
What was the debate again?
The problem is you're reinforcing my point with your statements. If you had said, "yes Matthews is as pathetic as the rest fo them, but I like him", THAT would be both honest and refreshing. You explained it away and immediately drop into the stereotype of the journalist (student) who can't see his own bias.
I'm a boor and a bore. I don't give a rat's about anyone or anything besides family. I don't have the time. I'm a Texan first and just want the whole world to leave me alone, but occasionally like to tell other people what to do or they are full of it. I'm a blowhard and think i know everything. But I freely admit that and freely admit my biases.
The concept that what passes as modern journalism is neutral, or doing anything but crusading for its own whims and profits is an absulute myth that conveniently forgets its own history.
Ok. So your are a self-righteous ass. You are honest about that. So then when I say "Your being a self-righteous ass" I have every rite to do so.
What passes for modern journalism is gak, as I pretty clearly stated at the begining of the thread. We have to fix it. Thats what I'm saying. Fox came up because they are incredibly popular and extra super-bad.
As for my own personal biases, my only identifiable bias is towards a serach for the truth (which is why I got into journalism in the first place). I am completely honest about that. I tell the truth when it works against me, I hate witholding any information. My one goal in life is to get as much real solid truth out there as possible. Sometimes I will be wrong, and I will gladly accept that (as I have done many times in the past) so long as I am confronted with reason and evidence. Because I am human I will sometimes debate past the point of reason, but sooner or later I will turn around and see it.
That is the DEFENITION of intellectual honesty. It is the one code by which I live my life (except for a hatred of suffering in all living things). It surpasses my family, my economic well-being and my friendships (all of these have been harmed somewhere along the line). My bias is a constant war against bias. So god damn you. god damn you immensly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:Yeh journalists are fairly cold people. I have a friend who went through uni to become a journalist, only to quit on the first day of her new job after she was asked to call a widow and barage her with questions over how she felt on the stabbing of her husband, a day after said event.
Oh tabloids. Half-way between the NYT and the national inquirer. They are almost real papers!
Primarily a British phenominon. Do you remember which paper it was?
Oh get off your high horse. You got called on your BS so it's a little late to get self righteous. No one is arguing that any of the pundits are news reporters, that they don't have bias, or that they don't twist things. In fact everyone but you seems to be capable of realizing that and treating it as fact. Whether they are on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, or whatever they are biased and NOT news reporters. This is not new and interesting insight, this is just a fact. Pundits are not news reporters, they are hired to comment on the news with their own opinions. You're the only person here who seems to have mistaken Beck or O'Reilly for news anchors.
As far as FOX's bias, well guess what, duh. Yes, we all know FOX is biased and leans so far to the right that only O'Reilly's ego is strong enough to support it. However your incessant screeching about it, and the fact that you started your argument by basing it on pundits and to the total exclusion of any mention of the bias of any other network's pundits or their reporting's bias makes you look intellectually dishonest.
I started this whole thing by saying that journalists tend to be crap, no matter where they come from. Fox is simply the worst offendor And if you ask any journalist they will tell you that, for reasons like the example posted above. I also laid out pretty clearly what we need to do about it. Bitching about journalism as a whole isn't going to help any.
However, YOU can help fix the problem. Find specific journalists and publications that do good work and read them, pay for them, write them letters, tell others about them, quote them...do whatever you can to support them. Yes, it is work, but its alot less work than trying to do all of the things that good journalists do for us.
Its hard to drop a single piece of information to prove what I'm saying, because the problem with Fox is their concistency. EVERY story gets twisted into unpleasent positions. I can't post every single video they have ever made. There is a whole movie about it called Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, which lays it out better than I can. but here is an example of the systematic way that fox ignores their responisbility to look at both sides of an issue (it is a tad melodramatic, since its part of a documentary and all, but try to ignore the music).
The only way to really describe why fox is bad is to watch a bunch of it. There is rarely a second,third, fourth etc... viewpoint to be had from it.
And I don't think you could make that argument about any other news organisation. At least not one worth mentioning
You just can't help yourself can you? You can't stop hating FOX long enough to objectively look at the situation and make a rational response. We criticize you for harping on FOX and ignoring any other network so what do you do, you harp on FOX more.
And you're an advocate for multi-viewpoint unbiased journalism? Lord help your industry.
The short answer is that Fox is ultimately driven by an old man with a political agenda. Rupert absolutely, positively has a political agenda, and he's great at marshalling his entire organization to further that agenda. Someday I'll share some News Corp stories.
Now, you could also place CNN squarely in that same category. Ted is still in charge there, right?
But is there a difference between say, ABC and Fox? Yes. ABC/Disney worships only the almighty dollar, not the gods of conservatism or liberalism.
Re: Giada, she's stunning until you get a profile view and realize her nose is kinda f'ed up. It really isn't a good nose.
gorgon wrote:Re: Giada, she's stunning until you get a profile view and realize her nose is kinda f'ed up. It really isn't a good nose.
...BLASPHEMER!
So what if her nose in profile isn't perfect. If you're getting hung up on that I really really pity you. She is a gorgeous woman who can ing cook beautiful Italian food like a bat out of hell. Her nose? Please.
gorgon wrote:The short answer is that Fox is ultimately driven by an old man with a political agenda. Rupert absolutely, positively has a political agenda, and he's great at marshalling his entire organization to further that agenda. Someday I'll share some News Corp stories.
Now, you could also place CNN squarely in that same category. Ted is still in charge there, right?
But is there a difference between say, ABC and Fox? Yes. ABC/Disney worships only the almighty dollar, not the gods of conservatism or liberalism.
Re: Giada, she's stunning until you get a profile view and realize her nose is kinda f'ed up. It really isn't a good nose.
Thats BS. They are all driven by deniro, either at the corp level or parent level (looks at GE contracts...)
Tyyr wrote:You just can't help yourself can you? You can't stop hating FOX long enough to objectively look at the situation and make a rational response. We criticize you for harping on FOX and ignoring any other network so what do you do, you harp on FOX more.
And you're an advocate for multi-viewpoint unbiased journalism? Lord help your industry.
What do you want me to do? Should I go through every single story by FOX, CNN, ABC and MSNBC in the last year and compile a comprehensive statistical analysis of...something?...perhaps how well informed the viewers of each channell are on important issues? I give you below.
I can't convince you that other networks don't show signs of bias, because they do. I can only try to impress upon you how dreadfully bad Fox is. It simply isn't journalism anymore.
Tyyr wrote:You just can't help yourself can you? You can't stop hating FOX long enough to objectively look at the situation and make a rational response. We criticize you for harping on FOX and ignoring any other network so what do you do, you harp on FOX more.
And you're an advocate for multi-viewpoint unbiased journalism? Lord help your industry.
What do you want me to do? Should I go through every single story by FOX, CNN, ABC and MSNBC in the last year and compile a comprehensive statistical analysis of...something?...perhaps how well informed the viewers of each channell are on important issues? I give you below.
I can't convince you that other networks don't show signs of bias, because they do. I can only try to impress upon you how dreadfully bad Fox is. It simply isn't journalism anymore.
Yes. If you're going to make the claim that one and only one network is out there, then you need to put up or shut up with research. I thought thats what journalists were supposed to do?
gorgon wrote:
But is there a difference between say, ABC and Fox? Yes. ABC/Disney worships only the almighty dollar, not the gods of conservatism or liberalism.
While this is ture (and bad as long as people don't demand better journalism for their money) we still have the biases of their workers to contend with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
nintendoeats wrote:
Tyyr wrote:You just can't help yourself can you? You can't stop hating FOX long enough to objectively look at the situation and make a rational response. We criticize you for harping on FOX and ignoring any other network so what do you do, you harp on FOX more.
And you're an advocate for multi-viewpoint unbiased journalism? Lord help your industry.
What do you want me to do? Should I go through every single story by FOX, CNN, ABC and MSNBC in the last year and compile a comprehensive statistical analysis of...something?...perhaps how well informed the viewers of each channell are on important issues? I give you below.
I can't convince you that other networks don't show signs of bias, because they do. I can only try to impress upon you how dreadfully bad Fox is. It simply isn't journalism anymore.
Yes. If you're going to make the claim that one and only one network is out there, then you need to put up or shut up with research. I thought thats what journalists were supposed to do?
If only we demanded such high standards of all REAL journalists.
nintendoeats wrote:What do you want me to do? Should I go through every single story by FOX, CNN, ABC and MSNBC in the last year and compile a comprehensive statistical analysis of...something?
Yes, because that would actually be responsible journalism. Maybe not every single story but at least acknowledging that other networks and their pundits are biased and harping on them some as well. Right now all you've got is one big hate-on for FOX which works just fine if you wanna be a pundit. If you want to bitch about bias in the media how about focusing on the media instead of one little corner of it that you really don't agree with? You wanna talk about intellectual dishonesty? Start with yourself.
I can't convince you that other networks don't show signs of bias, because they do.
And yet everyone acknowledges the bias of FOX but you're still harping on them. So again, intellectual dishonesty. You say you can't convince us about the others because they show bias, well so does FOX.
I can only try to impress upon you how dreadfully bad Fox is. It simply isn't journalism anymore.
And neither is what you're doing. You're every bit as bad as O'Reilly or Beck right now.
nintendoeats wrote:@Tyyr: You ignored the part where I actually DID include a statistical analysis on news stations.
You quoted a poll that surveyed the viewers of the news networks. You did nothing that speaks to your claim that the networks are biased. What you quoted shows that none of them do a particularly good job of informing people on one issue. Collect similar stats about a variety of issues and you'll have done something approaching journalism. Back that up with clips where the various news agencies mislead their viewers and that's journalism.
One poll about one issue and touting that as proof of a wide ranging issue does not equate to journalism, it's punditry.
What exactly are you saying I am biased against? I hate fox...and I'm saying WHY I hate fox...and You're telling me I hate fox because I hate fox...
fox?
No, I'm saying that you claim intellectual honesty and loathing of a wide ranging problem yet the only people you seem loathe are FOX when other networks are just as guilty. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty and a personal agenda. You can have your own agendas, but don't parade them around as intellectual honesty.
Tyyr wrote:
No, I'm saying that you claim intellectual honesty and loathing of a wide ranging problem yet the only people you seem loathe are FOX when other networks are just as guilty. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty and a personal agenda. You can have your own agendas, but don't parade them around as intellectual honesty.
AGH. How many times do I have to say it. Modern Journalism is in a bad way.
Fox is just EPIC bad.
I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.
We are still dealing with imperfect people here after all.
I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.
I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.
Why am I not surprised.
Is there anything that I could have said that would NOT have illicited that response?
Frax, I think it's because you don't regularly consume any of those news media, or compare them directly to Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Fox is objectively worse at accurately reporting the news and at portraying multiple sides of an issue than other channels / news media. I'm dismayed at how bad CNN and MSNBC are, but actual studies show that Fox viewers are less informed and more ignorant about issues. Watch any of the above three and compare it to NPR or BBC, and you'll see a notable quality disparity. But Fox simply takes the cake.
The President's recent appearance at the GOP function was a classic example. Several channels ran it live and entire. Fox cut away almost as soon as the President began to give real answers to Republican criticisms. His germane and substantive responses did not fit Fox's narrative. You could try to argue that we can't prove WHY Fox did it, but the simple fact that they chose not to air the President's address meant that they were deliberately obstructing their viewers' awareness of the dialogue.
He cited a study and a documentary. It's not like there is no genuine evidence out there. You not looking it it =/=he has no basis for his opinion.
Frazzled wrote:Fox is no different, they just better at it.
Nope. Rupert is an unabashed supporter of conservative causes, and he uses his organization to further those causes. Of course News Corp exists to make money. But Rupert sees his org as more than a way to line his family's pockets. Tons have been written about Rupert's political activism...I don't know how this can even be debated.
But to be fair, it could be said that Turner's done the same kind of thing at CNN, just on the other side of the political spectrum. So the point I'm making here is that both sides do it.
And I stand by my statement that I don't see the same level of activism among the owners and presidents of the three other major networks.
P.S. For the love of God, don't bring up 60 Minutes and claim that shows CBS is in the bag for the Dems. The 60 Minutes gang aren't liberals, they're muckraking hacks. Someday I'll share a story about them too. When you see the raw footage of what they get in an interview and then what airs after they get done splicing and cutting and zooming, it's appalling to even claim it's journalism.
Tyyr wrote:So what if her nose in profile isn't perfect. If you're getting hung up on that I really really pity you. She is a gorgeous woman who can ing cook beautiful Italian food like a bat out of hell. Her nose? Please.
When it's a bad nose, it's a bad nose. I call it how I see it. I could care less about the cooking. I'm married already. It's not like I'm ever gonna eat her cooking. I'm watching to *ogle*. And when I try to ogle, I see the bad nose.
Ragnar your statement would have motre support if I weren't listening to NPR over the internet while reading the post
I listen to BBC and NPR in the morning. I listen to CNN on the radio when driving and occasionally a CNN live event before Congress etc. I don't read the NYT often because it makes my butt itch and MSNBC is just gak.
Note the lack of Fox. I listen to Fox News Sunday and O Reilly about twice a week (unless Beck is on). I look at the Fox news site, the CNN site, the local rag in both towns, and Wall Street Journal.
Again, you're making statements without support. Why is Fox objectively worse? Define worse at what in the first place. Proof people demonstrable defined proof is needed here. You are making the claim, not I.
it wasn't a study it was a poll. A documentary is the support? What is every other part of the documentary? Who paid to make the documentary? Come on I'm not going to make your case for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nintendoeats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.
Why am I not surprised.
Is there anything that I could have said that would NOT have illicited that response?
If you had posted something besides government entities, NY Times and Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera???
Frazzled wrote:Ragnar your statement would have motre support if I weren't listening to NPR over the internet while reading the post
I listen to BBC and NPR in the morning. I listen to CNN on the radio when driving and occasionally a CNN live event before Congress etc. I don't read the NYT often because it makes my butt itch and MSNBC is just gak.
Note the lack of Fox. I listen to Fox News Sunday and O Reilly about twice a week (unless Beck is on). I look at the Fox news site, the CNN site, the local rag in both towns, and Wall Street Journal.
Again, you're making statements without support. Why is Fox objectively worse? Define worse at what in the first place. Proof people demonstrable defined proof is needed here. You are making the claim, not I.
it wasn't a study it was a poll. A documentary is the support? What is every other part of the documentary? Who paid to make the documentary? Come on I'm not going to make your case for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nintendoeats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.
Why am I not surprised.
Is there anything that I could have said that would NOT have illicited that response?
If you had posted something besides government entities, NY Times and Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera???
I'm done with you Fraz. What the hell do you think a poll is? Its a method data collection...FOR STUDY.
Oh hell, I'm not playing "Name that Logical Fallacy" with your whole post. Nuts to you.
(P.S. Al Jazeera is as much a government entity as the others, because it is also funded by the Qatari government. However, unlike the CBC NPR and CBC, it shies away from dealing with local issues. This is defenitely my majour problem with it, because boy does Qatar have some local problems. Oh jeez, I'm trying to engage you again. DONE NOW.)
One concrete example I gave was the difference between how Fox and other networks covered the President's talk at the GoP retreat in Baltimore. Do you perceive a difference there?
That being said, if you can't see the quality difference in what you're consuming, I can't tell why. Maybe it's just that you don't watch the standard Fox reporting.
One concrete example I gave was the difference between how Fox and other networks covered the President's talk at the GoP retreat in Baltimore. Do you perceive a difference there?
That being said, if you can't see the quality difference in what you're consuming, I can't tell why. Maybe it's just that you don't watch the standard Fox reporting.
Yea I can. Fox is biased hard right. that doesn't make it "worse" that makes it hard right. Much of their stories are sensationalist and geared to a conservative audience. Switch liberal for conservative and voila:
Just like MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, and NPR.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nintendoeats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I'm done with you Fraz. What the hell do you think a poll is? Its a method data collection...FOR STUDY.
Oh hell, I'm not playing "Name that Logical Fallacy" with your whole post. Nuts to you.
mmm...wow. Here's helpful advice. Take statistics classes. Learn how to manipulate polls. Its really fun.
Again with the phenominological arguments...oh damn it. I'm doing it again. I'm done witht his thread.
Sop what you're saying is you have no conception of polliong methods, sampling techniques to prove and point, purposes of polling, or the interesting concept of "push polling." Polling is an art form and can be quite fascinating.
I saw a news article regarding competition between the Weather Channel (weather.com) and Accuweather. The similarity between that and News networks are quite striking.
Both the news networks and weather channel are selling the viewers something more than actual news. That's why reporters from the weather channel stands in the middle of a hurricane to shoot a story that is no more informative than just the actual data presented in a nice safe building hundreds of miles away.
No, if you actually read what he linked, it’s a study, based on a series of seven polls, and conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. It studied multiple different things, mostly showing that people who were more ignorant of the actual facts in regards to Iraq, and of their (lack of) relationship to Al Qaeda, were more likely to support the war. The parts that show regular Fox viewers to have a higher rate of misconceptions and mistaken ideas about world events, Iraq, and Al Qaeda, are just part of a larger whole.
Certainly I know what a push-poll is, and how statistics can be manipulated. But those are pretty significant accusations to level, considering that you didn’t take the time to even read the front-page summary of the study. That rather undercuts the likelihood that you actually looked at their methodology, and instead makes clear that you’re attacking the study without reading it, based on what little you know about its conclusions. Bad approach.
Frazzled wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Fraz, good job.
One concrete example I gave was the difference between how Fox and other networks covered the President's talk at the GoP retreat in Baltimore. Do you perceive a difference there?
That being said, if you can't see the quality difference in what you're consuming, I can't tell why. Maybe it's just that you don't watch the standard Fox reporting.
Yea I can. Fox is biased hard right. that doesn't make it "worse" that makes it hard right. Much of their stories are sensationalist and geared to a conservative audience. Switch liberal for conservative and voila:
Just like MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, and NPR.
No, I’m not just talking about a political viewpoint/bias. I’m talking about the WAY they report.
They way they fail to present opposing views, or do so via guys like Allan Colmes, who aren't allowed to ask hard questions, are relegated to a secondary role, and eventually removed entirely.
Or gloss over/whitewash findings like there having been no WMDs found in Iraq, so that to this day you can still poll regular Fox viewers and find a significant percentage who think WMDs actually WERE found.
Or make up the term “terrorist fist jab” and then deny responsibility for likening the President and First Lady to terrorists, by claiming that they were just reporting how it “had been characterized in the media” while failing to mention that they were the people who came up with that characterization.
Or (as they’ve repeatedly done) put a “D” next to the name/title of a Republican politician involved in a scandal while they were reporting on it.
Or edit shots of larger crowds from a totally different event into footage from Tea Party coverage to make it look bigger and better-attended than it actually was.
Or clipping a Biden interview from 2008 in which he was quoting John McCain, and presenting it as being Biden giving his own opinion at an interview he had just done, in March 2009.
Or clipping an Obama response in April 09 about why we can’t have a healthcare system just like European countries, to make it look like Obama was saying he wanted a system like the European countries. That’s literally editing to make the person look like they’re saying the opposite of what they’re actually saying.
Or quoting a Republican Communications Center press release, complete with typo, and presenting it as being Fox News analysis. That’s directly misrepresenting one party’s political talking points as being the news network’s “unbiased” reporting.
Or Chris Wallace and WSJ’s Jim Towey, last August, misrepresenting the Veterans’ Health Administration’s booklet on end of life planning, totally distorting what it contains and falsely claiming that the VHA under the Bush administration had suspended its use. This was both dishonest reporting and directly supporting that “death panel” BS. Funnily enough, an article Towey wrote on it dishonestly and inaccurately likened part of the booklet to a push poll.
Not even getting into their political bias, the poor quality and repeatedly demonstrable dishonesty and misrepresentations embodied in their reporting are well documented.
Frazzled wrote:A documentary is the support? What is every other part of the documentary? Who paid to make the documentary? Come on I'm not going to make your case for you.
If you were to watch the documentary, perhaps you’d have an informed opinion on it. You could see whether they were catching Fox in actual lies, distortions, and bad reporting, or if it was just a partisan attack on Fox for some other motive, as you’re trying to imply. Come on, you should know better.
You're right I am completely wrong. Im will rely on this one cited study, not question its methodology, motives or anything of the sort. Fox is evil, corrupt conniving, full of ingrained rabid mad dog pundits, and only watched by inbred mogoloids. I too realize that we should all have a thrill run up our leg when president Obama speaks, and the Tea Party should be called "teabaggers" at all times.
I have learned my lesson and promise to listen daily to the New York Times, Daily Kos, and Huffington.com for all necesary daily goodfacts. I will not question these goodfacts, because that would be wrong.
Thanks a lot. Glad I went to the trouble to cite examples. I appreciate your open-mindedness, and your use of evidence to demonstrate an opposing view.
Mannahnin wrote:Thanks a lot. Glad I went to the trouble to cite examples. I appreciate your open-mindedness, and your use of evidence to demonstrate an opposing view.
1. I am doing this on coffee breaks. I'm not going to check out studies et al.
2. I dfind the concept that one nertwork, conveinetly the only major conservative network, is somehow worse than everyone else in bias or quality to be prima facae lacking merit.
1. I’ve got less time for this that you do, on the whole, as our post counts amply demonstrate. If you’re not going to read a couple of paragraphs describing what the study was, how can you honestly claim to know what it is? Hell, you came right out and SAID it was a poll, not a study. That’s a false statement, even if you made it out of ignorance rather than malice.
2. Bad logic. I cited a pile of examples of Fox misrepresenting data, or reporting in such a way as to distort the truth. While my being a Liberal may give you reason to question my motives in impugning Fox’s accuracy and reliability, that has no bearing on whether or not the examples I gave are accurate or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: I will still buy you a beer when we meet someday, no matter what.
Mannahnin wrote:1. I’ve got less time for this that you do, on the whole, as our post counts amply demonstrate. If you’re not going to read a couple of paragraphs describing what the study was, how can you honestly claim to know what it is? Hell, you came right out and SAID it was a poll, not a study. That’s a false statement, even if you made it out of ignorance rather than malice.
2. Bad logic. I cited a pile of examples of Fox misrepresenting data, or reporting in such a way as to distort the truth. While my being a Liberal may give you reason to question my motives in impugning Fox’s accuracy and reliability, that has no bearing on whether or not the examples I gave are accurate or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: I will still buy you a beer when we meet someday, no matter what.
Where did you get the items you noted Ragnar? Although I don't have a study in front of me, I've seen many of these events on other networks. Indeed look at the Tea party movement, how many positive stories have there been from the MSM on them since their inception in 2009? Look at the coverage currently. Its all about a few of the nuts and Sarah Palin and how she's an idiot.
Where was MSM talking about the Edwards affair? What about CBS attempting to sandbag Bush on the eve of the 2004 with false stories? Where is nuetral coverage of the earlier Tea Party protests? There are lots of studies about bias and incompetence in the media. I'm just shocked you focus on one pissant cable network. Where's similar attention to MSNBC?
And no, no beer, now if you offer rum then we're on baby.
Rum or Tequila? Maybe we're better off with Rum; we might fight less.
I got my examples online, with a quick Google for Fox inaccuracies. I've seen some of them reported on The Daily Show, as they're happy to do Gotchas against news shows, not really being one themselves. And yes, they've burned MSNBC badly on occasion as well. Like their utter credulity leading up to the bank collapses. Jim Kramer got spanked hard, for one.
I would happily concede that other networks have problems too. Specific examples are good. I have not seen any other network routinely make the kind of distortions and false statements I get from Fox. That's not to say I like the all the others. I find MSNBC and CNN's reporting pretty terrible and shallow, and watch BBC America more often. But I don't see much stuff like the examples I cited above.
Mannahnin wrote:Rum or Tequila? Maybe we're better off with Rum; we might fight less.
I got my examples online, with a quick Google for Fox inaccuracies. I've seen some of them reported on The Daily Show, as they're happy to do Gotchas against news shows, not really being one themselves. And yes, they've burned MSNBC badly on occasion as well. Like their utter credulity leading up to the bank collapses. Jim Kramer got spanked hard, for one.
I would happily concede that other networks have problems too. Specific examples are good. I have not seen any other network routinely make the kind of distortions and false statements I get from Fox. That's not to say I like the all the others. I find MSNBC and CNN's reporting pretty terrible and shallow, and watch BBC America more often. But I don't see much stuff like the examples I cited above.
Rum baby.
I did some google searches and it got way long. whew.
Yeah, it's a pretty good opinion poll. The bit about the widening of disparity along party lines specifically during the Bush administration is especially interesting.
I'm sure you found a lot of stuff on Google. Any good specific examples to compare to the kind of cites I gave? Direct distortions, or places where they made a person seem to be saying the opposite of what they actually said?
Mannahnin wrote:Rum it is. How about a Cuba Libre?
Yeah, it's a pretty good opinion poll. The bit about the widening of disparity along party lines specifically during the Bush administration is especially interesting.
I'm sure you found a lot of stuff on Google. Any good specific examples to compare to the kind of cites I gave? Direct distortions, or places where they made a person seem to be saying the opposite of what they actually said?
1. Mmm drink good.
2. I'll have to try to get back to this. the Real World (TM) beckons for attention.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying you're full of it. Chris Matthews is no more intellectually honest than Beck or Hannity or Janine garafalalalafalo or any of them. If not, then he's a true believer, and to be feared.
Intellectual honesty is not a freedom from bias, its intellectual honesty; ie. speaking in concert with the rules of inference. Fox doesn't do this, Matthews, MSNBC, and the other liberal outlets do. That doesn't mean they aren't unbiased, it simply means they are intellectually honest.
dogma wrote:Intellectual honesty is not a freedom from bias, its intellectual honesty; ie. speaking in concert with the rules of inference. Fox doesn't do this, Matthews, MSNBC, and the other liberal outlets do. That doesn't mean they aren't unbiased, it simply means they are intellectually honest.
You can't make blanket statements like that. They all offend the idea of intellectual honesty at some point or another, it happens. I have seen it on every station, and it bugs me every time, but that is reality. It bugs me more though when it is someone like Rick Sanchez, who claims to be a journalist says stupid things, and let me tell you it happens quite often. I expect brash, blanket statements from Beck, Hannity, Maddow, Olbermann and O'Reilly, but I expect a higher level of integrity from those actually reporting the news.
JEB_Stuart wrote:You can't make blanket statements like that. They all offend the idea of intellectual honesty at some point or another, it happens. I have seen it on every station, and it bugs me every time, but that is reality. It bugs me more though when it is someone like Rick Sanchez, who claims to be a journalist says stupid things, and let me tell you it happens quite often. I expect brash, blanket statements from Beck, Hannity, Maddow, Olbermann and O'Reilly, but I expect a higher level of integrity from those actually reporting the news.
You're right, of course. I suppose I should say that I observe a more deliberate desire to violate intellectual conventions on Fox. Though I think that its mostly a result of their target audience's predilections. If nothing else, they know their demography quite well.
dogma wrote:You're right, of course. I suppose I should say that I observe a more deliberate desire to violate intellectual conventions on Fox. Though I think that its mostly a result of their target audience's predilections. If nothing else, they know their demography quite well.
Nobody accused them of being a poorly run business. Also, while I am no fan of Fox News, I do find their business channel to be quite good. And another note to whoever dissed on Murdoch: the Wall Street Journal is one of the best papers in the business, and he owns it. Sure it has a slight bias, like any newspaper, but it is easily one of the most reliable and valuable newspapers out there. News Corp is a business first, not a political organization, remember that.
about anyone or anything besides family. I don't have the time. I'm a Texan first and just want the whole world to leave me alone, but occasionally like to tell other people what to do or they are full of it. I'm a blowhard and think i know everything. But I freely admit that and freely admit my biases.
