The conclusion:
Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events,
while some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than
those who they don’t watch any news at all.
Putting the obvious political bias aside, it seems to me that Fox news is very big on personalities and frothing opinion pieces from the likes of Glenn Beck rather than actual news reporting. Our news reporters don't shout at the audience for a start, the performances of some Fox News people are bizarre from a UK perspective.
He's just an example though, he worked there for many years. There's also Bill O'Reilly who can come across as a headcase.
Some of the Fox news material that has been shown in the UK, admittedly cherry picked for the best bits, is like a mad house. BBC and ITV news just isn't like that.
Look, Fox is fair and balanced, they tell us this "fact" every day. Really, I do feel like I have lost about 30 IQ points every time I watch any kind of political/world news related story.
Not overly fimiliar with BBC and ITV. I did watch some of it while deployed but didn't really kicked in since I was moving through. BBC on demand though now that I'm home is at my finger tips. I'm hooked on White Chapel and title escapes me now but the one dealing with a mental asylum where the guy is psychic
Look, Fox is fair and balanced, they tell us this "fact" every day. Really, I do feel like I have lost about 30 IQ points every time I watch any kind of political/world news related story.
I'm sure that every news organization considers itself fair and balance. The 30 point loss is it from just Fox news or from any news source?
I really think it is from american news, I like reading BBC though. Heck, I wouldn't even know if they are polically slanted there being that I'm not exposed to their politics.
Prince William won some cool points with us when he did the secret squirrel thing to go with his unit to Bastion in Southern Afghanistan. Then some evil news reporter spilled the bean on that
Howard A Treesong wrote:He's just an example though, he worked there for many years. There's also Bill O'Reilly who can come across as a headcase.
Some of the Fox news material that has been shown in the UK, admittedly cherry picked for the best bits, is like a mad house. BBC and ITV news just isn't like that.
Glenn Beck had a show on CNN before he was on Fox...
The conclusion:
Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events,
while some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than
those who they don’t watch any news at all.
One of the questions was most likely to be answered correctly by watching the Daily Show. I'm also looking at the news outlets carrying this story they seem familiar somehow...
Howard A Treesong wrote:He's just an example though, he worked there for many years. There's also Bill O'Reilly who can come across as a headcase.
Some of the Fox news material that has been shown in the UK, admittedly cherry picked for the best bits, is like a mad house. BBC and ITV news just isn't like that.
Glenn Beck had a show on CNN before he was on Fox...
This study confuses causation with correlation. There is no evidence that it's not simply that pre-existing ignorant people preferring Fox News. Note I'm using "ignorant" in the literal sense, and not as a substitution for "stupid".
Ouze wrote:This study confuses causation with correlation. There is no evidence that it's not simply that pre-existing ignorant people preferring Fox News. Note I'm using "ignorant" in the literal sense, and not as a substitution for "stupid".
That's sort of an irrelevant point of contention given that it's Foxes theoretical job to inform them and make them less ignorant. Either way they appear to fail in that regard quite spectacularly.
That's sort of an irrelevant point of contention given that it's Foxes theoretical job to inform them and make them less ignorant. Either way they appear to fail in that regard quite spectacularly.
Along with CBS, CNN, ABC, and whatever mainline news agency there are. Its a rating base. Maintain or gain a higher rating. So they're going to be influence by the people that they need the rating from. They all fail quite spectacularly. I want to point out though...the Fox channel has better eye candy
That's sort of an irrelevant point of contention given that it's Foxes theoretical job to inform them and make them less ignorant. Either way they appear to fail in that regard quite spectacularly.
Along with CBS, CNN, ABC, and whatever mainline news agency there are. Its a rating base. Maintain or gain a higher rating. So they're going to be influence by the people that they need the rating from. They all fail quite spectacularly. I want to point out though...the Fox channel has better eye candy
They all fail impressively at this point, but fox news is a special network for special people. It gets the gold medal in every category.
Like I said. Its the #1 news source. So yes they're going to draw a lot of flak. Doesn't matter who's number one its going to be the same. Example be the republican candidates. Course since I brought up the candidates the thread going to be really skewered now
Jihadin wrote:Like I said. Its the #1 news source. So yes they're going to draw a lot of flak. Doesn't matter who's number one its going to be the same. Example be the republican candidates. Course since I brought up the candidates the thread going to be really skewered now
Being number one has nothing to do with the absolute lack of journalistic integrity in fox news. That's a lazy copout.
Jihadin wrote:Like I said. Its the #1 news source. So yes they're going to draw a lot of flak. Doesn't matter who's number one its going to be the same. Example be the republican candidates. Course since I brought up the candidates the thread going to be really skewered now
Being number one has nothing to do with the absolute lack of journalistic integrity in fox news. That's a lazy copout.
Yes, The Sun and the Daily Mail are the two highest circulating newspapers in the UK and they are both total rags. Being #1 is a reflection of being popularist, it's not really a sign of quality either way. As it happen though, the Sun is number one because it largely fills the papers with tits and gossip.
If its part of a cable package I really really have to think about it due to the price tag of that package. A actual news paper..can't do it. I get enough junk mail as it is.
Edit
Clarify with dealing on AL Jeezra. If they were in the area we would avoid the area. Chances are they're there to film troops getting killed in a area thats been prepped to recieve us
If its part of a cable package I really really have to think about it due to the price tag of that package. A actual news paper..can't do it. I get enough junk mail as it is.
Edit
Clarify with dealing on AL Jeezra. If they were in the area we would avoid the area. Chances are they're there to film troops getting killed in a area thats been prepped to recieve us
And if a fox embedded reporter is there he's there to say how brave you are and talk about the risks of not staying in the country past the pull out date. Al Jazeera is generally better when reporting on local news disconnected from the war in Afghanistan and significantly better in regards to reporting on local governmental issues then fox (who seemingly vet absolutely nothing). It was impressive to see the hoops fox was backflipping through during the Israeli-floatilla incident as compared to what Al Jazeera was reporting "there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Outside of the mideast they're generally a few bars above fox in almost all regards, though truly few news agencies can match fox for yellow bias (RT and Chinese state TV coming to mind) in international affairs reporting (socialism hurr).
A lot of this could simply be due to the fact that the republican party and their platform (which fox is the mouthpiece for) isn't particularly referential to reality at times, thus things reported with an extreme conservative bias are reported incorrectly.
Maybe every news caster works like Fox? To paraphrase the late, great Bill Hicks:
"Watch Fox News for a long time, maybe like, 30 minutes and it's all the same, war, famine, death, AIDS, war, famine, death, disease and AIDS...
Then you look out your window and it's all *sounds of crickets chirruping*...."
ShumaGorath wrote:A lot of this could simply be due to the fact that the republican party and their platform (which fox is the mouthpiece for) isn't particularly referential to reality at times
And if a fox embedded reporter is there he's there to say how brave you are and talk about the risks of not staying in the country past the pull out date
The reporter is embedded with us. He/she pretty damn brave just being with us in body armor thats not up to par with our specs. The talk of risk will be done after the reporter segement usualy with Senater McCain here in the states. What happens in the country after we pull out is not up to me. Thats up to the politicians.
Al Jazeera is generally better when reporting on local news disconnected from the war in Afghanistan and significantly better in regards to reporting on local governmental issues
Of course Al Jazeera is able to report all that. They can get around without worrying about being killed from the locals and insurgents. Curious though why did you pick Al Jazeera? They're literally anti american
then fox (who seemingly vet absolutely nothing).
The reporter will be dead if he/she went into the same area a Al Jazeera crew can.
It was impressive to see the hoops fox was backflipping through during the Israeli-floatilla incident as compared to what Al Jazeera was reporting "there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza".
At least to me it seems Fox does admit it mistake. Unlike those for example say the police forced pepper spray into mouth and faces of the protesters at UC Davies that other news agency are reporting and not retracting it.
Outside of the mideast they're generally a few bars above fox in almost all regards, though truly few news agencies can match fox for yellow bias
Fan base again
Chinese state TV coming to mind) in international affairs reporting (socialism hurr)
I report to whatever doesn't get me thrown in jail, gulag, beating, etc etc.
A lot of this could simply be due to the fact that the republican party and their platform (which fox is the mouthpiece for) isn't particularly referential to reality at times, thus things reported with an extreme conservative bias are reported incorrectly.
Same be could be said for other news agency for democrats and their platform
ShumaGorath wrote:A lot of this could simply be due to the fact that the republican party and their platform (which fox is the mouthpiece for) isn't particularly referential to reality at times
hello Pot I'd like you to meet my friend Kettle.
ShumaGorath wrote: black
Clearly I'm every bit as bad as the people creating and consistently/repeatedly reporting the following myths:
Death Panels
Marxist President
Obama Birth certificate
Is he a muslim?
There is no crisis in Gaza
Ground Zero Mosque is a terrorist front
Can't sell our ports to foreigners
Flat taxes benefit everyone
The gold standard is viable
Global Warming is a liberal scam
The Poverty line is a lie
Obama hates Christmas trees
Obama is ignoring his generals and pulling our troops our early
They're caught repeatedly altering video that they show, they're caught repeatedly altering photos that they show. They lie constantly about everything. They don't vet facts and when they do they ignore the ones that are politically inconvenient.
Think of me whatever you want Austin, this is not a point you can defend by going on the offensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:To Shuma Al Jazeera is a shining example of unbiased journalism, at least in comparison to evil (read conservative) Fox news.
No, they're pretty skewed. They just sit above fox news despite that fact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote:Shuma's posts are best left on ignore, guys.
Another amazing one sentence reply by Kronk. He adds a lot to these discussions doesn't he?
The reporter is embedded with us. He/she pretty damn brave just being with us in body armor thats not up to par with our specs. The talk of risk will be done after the reporter segement usualy with Senater McCain here in the states. What happens in the country after we pull out is not up to me. Thats up to the politicians.
Al Jazeera reporters get killed all the time. They're offices have been repeatedly shelled by American forces and their primary office in Baghdad was hit by a cruise missile. They're also not particularly popular with Al-Queda or the ISI (similar to western journalists) who will target them specifically as often as they will talk with them.
Of course Al Jazeera is able to report all that. They can get around without worrying about being killed from the locals and insurgents. Curious though why did you pick Al Jazeera? They're literally anti american
They were the closest to fox news without being worse.
At least to me it seems Fox does admit it mistake. Unlike those for example say the police forced pepper spray into mouth and faces of the protesters at UC Davies that other news agency are reporting and not retracting it.
When does fox ever do corrections? Midnight? For six frames? They covered the birth certificate thing for a year after all cause for it was gone (thin cause that it was).
Fan base again
That doesn't change what they do to reinforce that fanbase.
Same be could be said for other news agency for democrats and their platform
To a small extent but it's delusional to pretend that MSNBC is even remotely on the level of demagoguery and political bias that fox is.
kronk wrote:Arguing with shuma is a waste of time.
He's right, you're wrong.
(in his own mind)
The sooner you hit that little button, the better your life will be. Do it. Push it. Push it real good.
Do you have a point? Or are you just shortrolling threads like you always do?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I agree with Kronk. If you're not going to ignore Dakka's Angriest Poster, at least stop quoting him so much so that my ignoring of him isn't impeded.
On topic:
"Hurrr Fox News." Am I doing it right?
Make the post 30 times as long and actually make points. You'll be there then.
Death Panels = One point there to draw attention to a possible loophole insurance company can get away with
Marxist President = Obama Health Care bill influence that title. Think though its "Socialist" in connection with that.
Obama Birth certificate = Common freaking sense. Have to have a birth certificate to go into politics GWB Bush showed his DD214 to halt the military service bit news agency were doing on him
Is he a muslim? = His name influence that route of discussion.
There is no crisis in Gaza = Red Cross even agrees
Ground Zero Mosque is a terrorist front = Been known mosque that supported terrorist groups in the state.
Can't sell our ports to foreigners = Sea Ports or goods?
Flat taxes benefit everyone = Fox news already played both sides on that. I watched it
The gold standard is viable = I see that to
Global Warming is a liberal scam = As a whole or some aspect of it
The Poverty line is a lie = Never seen this one. Clarify please
Obama hates Christmas trees = I hate Xmas trees to
Obama is ignoring his generals and pulling our troops our early = You lack experience in that to bring it up. Its true. Hence he had to pull everyone out due to a SOFA agreement not being met
I sometimes watch Fox for a bit of a laugh. Geoff Beck was just so totally outrageous, so completely removed from reality, it moved the whole show firmly in comedy territory. You couldn't even make satire about it because it fulfilled that function all by itself.
I agree that here in the UK the BBC isn't what it once was, following that 'sexed up dossier' travesty (where the government lied, got called out on it, then responded by forcing the registration of the director of the BBC). However, there are degrees of impartiality, and at least the BBC doesn't remind me of the news reports that you see in the Robocop movies.
There is no crisis in Gaza = Red Cross even agrees
Erm... don't know where to start with that one! Other than it's not somewhere I would choose to go on vacation.
A US soldier shot dead an Afghan journalist working for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in July after mistaking him for a suicide bomber, the NATO-led military force in Afghanistan has said.
"After a thorough investigation, it was determined the reporter was killed in a case of mistaken identity," International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said in a statement on Thursday concerning the death of Ahmed Omed Khpulwak.
"Mr Khpulwak was shot by an ISAF member who believed he was an insurgent that posed a threat and was about to detonate a suicide vest improvised explosive device."
It said the US soldier who shot Khpulwak, 25, had "complied with the laws of armed conflict and rules of engagement and acted reasonably under the circumstances".
The soldier is not facing any disciplinary action in connection with the incident, ISAF spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jimmie Cummings, said.
Cummings could not confirm whether the soldier was still on active duty in Afghanistan.
Khpulwak died on July 28, shortly after two suicide bombers struck at the offices of state broadcaster Radio Television Afghanistan in the troubled southern Uruzgan province, an area regarded as the Taliban's heartland.
He had joined the broadcaster in 2008 and was working for the BBC on a freelance basis when he died in the attack that also killed eighteen other people.
Another
Moments later, Abu Dhabi TV staff on the roof came under machine gun fire from a U.S. tank on the Jumhuriyya Bridge, and one of their three unmanned cameras was struck by a shell, staff told CPJ. The three-story building was marked with a large banner labeled "Abu Dhabi TV."
In a statement issued hours after the incident, Centcom in Doha said that, "According to commanders on the ground, Coalition forces came under significant enemy fire from the building where the Al-Jazeera journalists were working and consistent with the right of self-defense, Coalition forces returned fire. Sadly an Al-Jazeera correspondent was killed in this exchange."
Here's two. Now what factors caused them to be fired on.
Death Panels = One point there to draw attention to a possible loophole insurance company can get away with
Marxist President = Obama Health Care bill influence that title. Think though its "Socialist" in connection with that.
Obama Birth certificate = Common freaking sense. Have to have a birth certificate to go into politics GWB Bush showed his DD214 to halt the military service bit news agency were doing on him
Is he a muslim? = His name influence that route of discussion.
There is no crisis in Gaza = Red Cross even agrees
Ground Zero Mosque is a terrorist front = Been known mosque that supported terrorist groups in the state.
Can't sell our ports to foreigners = Sea Ports or goods?
Flat taxes benefit everyone = Fox news already played both sides on that. I watched it
The gold standard is viable = I see that to
Global Warming is a liberal scam = As a whole or some aspect of it
The Poverty line is a lie = Never seen this one. Clarify please
Obama hates Christmas trees = I hate Xmas trees to
Obama is ignoring his generals and pulling our troops our early = You lack experience in that to bring it up. Its true. Hence he had to pull everyone out due to a SOFA agreement not being met
Although this is a well thought out and attempt at debate. I want to see where this goes
Death Panels = One point there to draw attention to a possible loophole insurance company can get away with
But what was reported was the end of life tribunals wherein doctors were given the right to decide to kill your grandparents. Was there possible nuance? Certainly. Was that nuance reported? Likely less then 5% of the time.
Marxist President = Obama Health Care bill influence that title. Think though its "Socialist" in connection with that.
Claiming it's specially socialist implies a direct lack of understanding of what socialism is and isn't. Is the law socialist? Yeah. So is what we had before. So is our highway system. Our country has had socialist programs for a very long time. The claim is a valueless jab at a faux enemy of capitalism and freedom.
Obama Birth certificate = Common freaking sense. Have to have a birth certificate to go into politics GWB Bush showed his DD214 to halt the military service bit news agency were doing on him
Did he show he birth certificate? Oh wait, he's white and a republican. The same standards don't apply.
Is he a muslim? = His name influence that route of discussion.
That makes it a legitimate topic of a major news network to cover for more then a year? With the extreme amount of evidence showing otherwise?
There is no crisis in Gaza = Red Cross even agrees
The WHO disagrees, especially concerning malnutrition in children.
Ground Zero Mosque is a terrorist front = Been known mosque that supported terrorist groups in the state.
That sentence didn't make sense.
Can't sell our ports to foreigners = Sea Ports or goods?
Land ownership.
Flat taxes benefit everyone = Fox news already played both sides on that. I watched it
They're not supposed to play sides.
The gold standard is viable = I see that to
That its on there or that you agree with it?
Global Warming is a liberal scam = As a whole or some aspect of it
Both.
The Poverty line is a lie = Never seen this one. Clarify please
It's been a recent boondoggle coinciding with the effort to get the poverty line reassessed since it's out of date and innacurate.
Obama hates Christmas trees = I hate Xmas trees to
Monster.
Then the generals should of brokered an agreement to stay (are you one of them?). Those talks failed on their own, not due to white house pressure for them to do so. The pullout date was set years ago.
Red Cross official: There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza
20 April 2011 , 18:03
Mathilde Redmatn is the deputy director of the Red Cross in the Gaza Strip. Redmatn has had the opportunity to see with her eyes what most of us only see on television screens.
On previous assignments, Redmatn has lived in Congo and Colombia. Her activities in Gaza are completely different, she says.
"Of course the work is different everywhere, but here the fabric of life is problematic," she says. "There are two peoples, one living under closure and one living under daily rocket fire, which violates international law.
Redmatn has a lot to say about problems related to the closure Israel has placed on Gaza but she also talks about the surprising normalcy in one of the most explosive regions of the world that receives extensive media attention.
"There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza," she explains. "If you go to the supermarket, there are products. There are restaurants and a nice beach. The problem is mainly in maintenance of infrastructure and in access to goods, concrete for example. Israel has the legitimate right to protect the civilan population, this right should be balanced with the rights of 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip. Despite the easing of the closure and the partial lifting of export bans in the wake of the flotilla incident, continued restrictions on the movement of people and difficulties in importing building materials hampered sustainable economic recovery and dashed any hope of leading a normal and dignified life".
The Red Cross is an international organization founded in 1863. It promotes laws that protect the victims of war and provides humanitarian aid to people living in conflict zones. Red Cross representatives have worked in Gaza since 1967. Their goal, says Redmatn, is twofold.
"We are documenting human rights violations according to international law and we speak with relevant parties on how to take care of the issue," Redmatn says. "We are talking about captives , soldiers, the wounded, and in fact anyone defined by the Geneva Convention. Additionally, in the area of humanitarian assistance, we are mainly engaged in the areas of water and sanitation. We are talking about a highly dense population. Most of the infrastructure cannot be improved due to the closure so we try to improve the situation with existing tools. One example of this is a factory we helped establish in order to clean sewage water that spills into the sea."
The Marmara, Hamas and the Arab world
It is important to remember that the Red Cross is not a political organization by definition. It operates through reports and two-sided dialogue, without expressing its own positions, maintaining complete neutrality.
"Our goal is not to negotiate peace, but to ensure the well-being of the civilian population," Redmatn says. "We understand and recognize Israel's right to security but it needs to maintain the balance between that and the right of Palestinians living in Gaza to a living and to proper medical care. Of course this is also the responsibility of Hamas to its citizens and therefore we also have relations with them."
The Red Cross played a role in the Gaza flotilla incident last year.
"We offered our assistance to Israeli authorities in regards to people who were arrested who were from countries without diplomatic relations with Israel," Redmatn says. On the question of whether the flotilla was peaceful, she answers neutrally "this is a matter we discuss with the responsible parties." According to her, the flotilla led to changes in Israeli policy on Gaza but those changes are not yet complete.
"More goods enter, but there is still room for improvement" in regards to exports and the passage of people, she says.
A clear goal, but is it possible in light of the current threat? The subject, Redmatn says, is sensitive.
"Rocket fire from the Gaza Strip is against international law because it is directed at civilians," she says. "We conduct confidential or bilateral dialouge with Hamas on the matter. As time passes, the dialogue also develops."
On recent events in the Arab world, Redmatn says: "The new wind blowing in the Arab world doesn’t change the current activities of the Red Cross in the Gaza Strip. It's still too early to tell what will happen and how needs will change. In any case, we will respond quickly to changes and we will see what the future holds."
"We will continue to ask to monitor Gilad Shalit but we do not have the capability to force anything on Hamas"
Operating in the Gaza Strip requires the Red Cross to work on an ongoing basis with the IDF.
"The relationship with the IDF has developed over the years," Redmatn says. "The army understands our mandate. We are in daily contact with each other to coordinate the entry of goods into Gaza and the entry and exit of people, sometimes our personnel and sometimes patients who are going to Israel to receive medical care. The second matter still needs improvement as the time required to cross the border is still long. We hope to augment the medical equipment in Gaza itself in order to reduce the number of people who need to go outside [of Gaza]."
These days, she says, the organization has the goal of strengthening the relationship with IDF soldiers.
"Not everyone understands what we are doing," she says. "Therefore, we talk about our work to soldiers who serve at the Erez crossing. The intention is to expand this to the entire area around Gaza."
But working with the IDF does not only regard the civilian population living in Gaza; it also touches on captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.
Repeated requests by the Red Cross to monitor Shalit's condition have so far been met with persistent refusal by Hamas.
"When a person's freedom is taken away, he deserves at least contact with his family," Redmatn says. "We will continue to ask but we do not have the capability to force anything on Hamas. Hamas' refusal is based on security reasons. Hamas is afraid of the IDF's advanced technological capabilities and believes that allowing contact will lead to the location of Gilad."
Redmatn called on all sides to abide by international law.
"It is important that organizations and countries respect international law," she said. "Only thus will the situation get better."
Jihadin wrote: Is he a muslim? = His name influence that route of discussion.
Lol. Even if he was a muslim that shouldb't prevent him being a good president. Secondly, it's fething obvious he isn't a muslim. A lot of the opposition from the birthers bringing up his birth certificate and religion seems grounded in plain racism to me. "Yee-haw, he's a darkie and got a name like Bin Laden, he has to be one o' them gawd-damn mus-lims."
I even recall seeing footage of John McCain trying to tell republican supporters at a rally that Obama was a decent american and that these claims were basically nuts - he obviously felt that the frothing conspiracy theorists looked damaging to his campaign for the middle ground.
Da Boss wrote:I'm sorry guys, but from this observers position, Shuma is wiping the floor with you guys.
The reason not to argue with Shuma on this is easy.
He's trying to portray Fox News as the worst info-tainment outlet with strong Republican ass-kissing leanings without admitting that MSNBC, CNN, and other stations are also horrible info-tainment outlets with strong Democratic ass-kissing leanings.
I have no respect for anyone that throws crap at other people without admitting to other's valid points.
So, let him shout to the heavens all he wants. Just the same-old, same-old Shuma.
He's saying that Fox News is the worst. I think there is much evidence that they are the worst. I don't recall him saying the others were a whole lot better.
Then the generals should of brokered an agreement to stay (are you one of them?). Those talks failed on their own, not due to white house pressure for them to do so. The pullout date was set years ago.
Military does not play a role in brokering a SOFA agreement. Obama was pulling out majority of troops leaving only 3000 troops in placed to continue the mission. Since the SOFA agreement was not reached then the 3000 had to deploy back to. You cannot leave a force of three thousand in a country to continue mission. He went against the general advices but he's the POTUS. Commander in Chief.
Did he show he birth certificate? Oh wait, he's white and a republican. The same standards don't apply.
Nope but the news were harping the draft dodging bit on him till he did. Obama certificate deal is the same as Bush. Obama showed his certificate and did the issue die after that?
Did he show he birth certificate? Oh wait, he's white and a republican. The same standards don't apply.
Nope but the news were harping the draft dodging bit on him till he did. Obama certificate deal is the same as Bush. Obama showed his certificate and did the issue die after that?
No. The wingnut birthers decided that it's not a real birth certificate.
One of the key members of the Ground Zero mosque development team, an investor and Egyptian businessman named Hisham Elzanaty, donated money to a terrorist front organization that was shut down by the federal government.
Yes, it’s the Holy Land Foundation, which was sanctioned and shut down by the European Union and United States after it was discovered that the organization was funding Hamas. That would be the same Hamas which recently endorsed the Ground Zero mosque.
One of the key players in Sharif El-Gamal’s Mosque near Ground Zero is Egyptian born businessman, Hisham Elzanaty. Fox 5 News has learned exclusively and confirmed with Mr. Elzanaty’s attorney that Elzanaty made a “significant investment” in the development of the mosque near Ground Zero…
Fox 5 News has also learned that in 1999 Hisham Elzanaty sent money to an organization that would later be deemed by the U.S. government to be a terrorist group.
The organization was the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, also known as HLF. The now defunct group’s 1999 tax records show Elzanaty contributed more than $6,000 to HLF.
Two years later, in 2001, HLF was shut down by the federal government and designated as a global terrorist. After a mistrial in 2007, in 2008 five HLF leaders were convicted of providing material support to Hamas.
Using donations from people like Elzanaty, the Holy Land Foundation funneled $12 million to Hamas so the organization could plan and carry out terror attacks. The aforementioned HLF leaders received life sentences after what was dubbed the, “largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history”.
Muslim bit
Sen. Barack Obama fought back against an allegation that he was educated at a radical Islamic school as a child in Indonesia, determined to avoid being tripped up by unsubstantiated charges like those that undermined John Kerry in 2004.
Interviews by The Associated Press at the elementary school in Jakarta found that it's a public and secular institution that has been open to students of all faiths since before the White House hopeful attended in the late 1960s.
Obama, who was born in Hawaii, moved to Indonesia at age 6 to live with his mother and stepfather, attending schools in the country until age 10, when he returned to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents.
"The allegations are completely baseless," said Akmad Solichin, the vice principal at SDN Menteng 1, who added, "Yes, most of our students are Muslim, but there are Christians as well. Everyone's welcome here ... it's a public school."
A spokesman for Indonesia's Ministry of Religious Affairs said claims that Obama studied at an Islamic school are groundless.
"SDN Menteng 1 is a public primary school that is open to people of all faiths," said the spokesman, Sutopo, who goes by only one name. "Moreover, he studied earlier at Fransiskus Assisi, which is clearly a Catholic school."
'We will not be swift-boated'
surfaced on the Web site of the conservative Insight magazine the day after Obama announced he was jumping into the 2008 presidential race. Conservative Internet blogs and the Fox News Channel picked up the story and spread the charges just as his candidacy was getting off the ground
Obama on Wednesday called the reports "scurrilous," and his communications director e-mailed reporters a lengthy memo attempting to set the record straight.
"I think they recognize that the notion that me going to school in Indonesia for two years at a public school there at the age of 7 and 8 is probably not going to be endangering in some way the people of America," Obama said on NBC's "Today" show.
The push-back was a signal Obama would fight to protect his reputation in the presidential campaign.
Many Democrats argued that Kerry's failure to challenge aggressively his critics in the 2004 presidential race cost him in his effort to unseat President Bush. A group with conservative ties, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, charged that Kerry did not deserve the medals he won in the Vietnam War - despite his combat record of bravery and valor. Kerry announced Wednesday that he will not run again in 2008.
"We will not be swift-boated," said Obama communications director Robert Gibbs. "And we won't take allegations that are patently untrue lying down."
Christian upbringing
Obama's mother, divorced from Obama's father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather.
The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering - Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant. Gibbs said he wasn't sure why the document had Obama listed as a Muslim.
"Senator Obama has never been a Muslim," Gibbs said. "As a six-year-old in Catholic school, he studied the catechism."
The Illinois senator is a member of the United Church of Christ.
Proud techer
Iis Darmawan, 63, Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. "He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,'" the teacher said.
Obama later transferred to SDN Menteng 1 - the elite, secular elementary school at the center of the controversy. The school is public but is very competitive and has exceptionally high standards. It is located in one of the most affluent parts of Jakarta and attracts mostly middle- to upper-class students, among them several of former dictator Suharto's grandchildren.
Indonesia is home to several of the most radical Islamic schools in Southeast Asia, some with alleged terrorist links. But Solichin, who proudly pointed to a photo of a young Barry Obama, as he was known, said his school is not one of them..
Those tied to the school say they are proud to have had a student like Obama, and hope that, if he is elected president, his ties to Indonesia will broaden his world perspective and his views on religion.
Sri Murtiningsih, who retired from Menteng 1 recently after 39 years of teaching, said she has vivid memories of the left-handed boy who followed a standard curriculum of math,
That's what I get for working from memory. My bad.
Da Boss wrote: Egypt, Turkey, (Arguably) Palestine, Indonesia,
Tunisia, Malaysia, Iran(technically), Morocco...I could go on but I'll stop there.
Should have put arguably or technically with Egypt too, or Lebanon, or Syria. Really the only legitimate Muslim democracy in the Middle East is Turkey.
Well, I mean, in my head, the only thing Kronk was asking for was a country where people get to vote, so I was being nice by putting in arguably and technically in there. I mean, they have the vote in Iran, but I thought putting that down would be trolling
Aside from federal laws directly regulating foreign ownership of real estate in the US, investors should be aware that other laws might indirectly restrict ownership rights. One such law of particular importance is the 1988 Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act of 1950. Exon-Florio applies to acquisitions, mergers and takeovers of US businesses by foreign investors, and gives the President the power to disallow any such transaction if two conditions are met. First, there must be credible evidence that the foreign investment might threaten or impair national security. Second, existing laws must fail to provide sufficient authority to protect national security. Foreign investors using a merger or acquisition strategy in order to acquire certain real property should be aware that such a transaction could be blocked if those two conditions apply in the eyes of the US government. Other indirect federal controls on alien ownership of US land include money laundering and divesture laws, both of which are discussed in later sections of this chapter.
One of the key members of the Ground Zero mosque development team, an investor and Egyptian businessman named Hisham Elzanaty, donated money to a terrorist front organization that was shut down by the federal government.
Yes, it’s the Holy Land Foundation, which was sanctioned and shut down by the European Union and United States after it was discovered that the organization was funding Hamas. That would be the same Hamas which recently endorsed the Ground Zero mosque.
One of the key players in Sharif El-Gamal’s Mosque near Ground Zero is Egyptian born businessman, Hisham Elzanaty. Fox 5 News has learned exclusively and confirmed with Mr. Elzanaty’s attorney that Elzanaty made a “significant investment” in the development of the mosque near Ground Zero…
Fox 5 News has also learned that in 1999 Hisham Elzanaty sent money to an organization that would later be deemed by the U.S. government to be a terrorist group.
The organization was the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, also known as HLF. The now defunct group’s 1999 tax records show Elzanaty contributed more than $6,000 to HLF.
Two years later, in 2001, HLF was shut down by the federal government and designated as a global terrorist. After a mistrial in 2007, in 2008 five HLF leaders were convicted of providing material support to Hamas.
Using donations from people like Elzanaty, the Holy Land Foundation funneled $12 million to Hamas so the organization could plan and carry out terror attacks. The aforementioned HLF leaders received life sentences after what was dubbed the, “largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history”.
Now actually prove that the mosque, it's design, or it's use has something to do with any of this at all. One of foxes largest stockholders is a saudi prince, the saudi royal family is the largest terrorist funder by dollar amount in the world.
Even if you don't agree with the poster it's best to form an argument on solid ground. Since (I'm paraphrasing) the idea was where Muslim voters were worried about secret Christians we should focus on democracies where the voters can express their concern.
YMMV.
AustonT wrote:Even if you don't agree with the poster it's best to form an argument on solid ground. Since (I'm paraphrasing) the idea was where Muslim voters were worried about secret Christians we should focus on democracies where the voters can express their concern.
YMMV.
I don't understand the point of that line of conversation from beginning to end .
Da Boss wrote: Egypt, Turkey, (Arguably) Palestine, Indonesia,
Tunisia, Malaysia, Iran(technically), Morocco...I could go on but I'll stop there.
Palestine (Democratic? really?)
Egypt and Tunisia have practically had to scrap their governments recently and start over.
Iran is a dictatorship that openly persecutes christians.
Morocco is a monarchy on it's way to democracy, but don't kid yourself about them being democratic.
So, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia. Three.
My criteria for "is it a democracy" was simply "do the citizens get to vote about stuff?". And you can have a democratic monarchy (I live in one!). I totally recognise that many of these countries aren't very democratic or that the votes don't count for much, but my original comment was a joke- I wasn't meaning to imply that the various islamic nations of the world are bastions of democracy, merely poking fun at the very idea of a "secret muslim" candidate.
But whatever dude! If you want to argue that point work away. I could spend more time looking up Islamic democracies, and you could continued to discount them as not good enough, but I think I was already nice in responding to your initial post!
Da Boss wrote:Well, I mean, in my head, the only thing Kronk was asking for was a country where people get to vote, so I was being nice by putting in arguably and technically in there. I mean, they have the vote in Iran, but I thought putting that down would be trolling
Da Boss wrote:
But whatever dude! If you want to argue that point work away. I could spend more time looking up Islamic democracies, and you could continued to discount them as not good enough, but I think I was already nice in responding to your initial post!
I'm honestly just trying to think of 5 genuinely democratic, primarily muslim countries. I'm not trying to troll you, Da Boss.
You got me stratching my noodle with this post.
Da Boss wrote:I wonder if voters in predominantly muslim democracies get panicky about their leaders being secret christians?
I'm gonna back Shuma here I'm afraid. All he's done is claim that Fox is the worst out of a series of bad news organisations, and he's argued it quite nicely. Rather then trying to prove why Al Jazeera is worse than Fox, maybe try and prove Fox is better than Al Jazeera? Subtle distinction, but crucial, and perfectly arguable.
AustonT wrote:So, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia.
Pakistan, Algeria, Maldives
In several of those countries its actually illegal to be a Christian or convert to Christianity. Pakistan had a minister capped recently for daring to defend Christians from being persecuted. This is not supporting your case.
kronk wrote:
I'm honestly just trying to think of 5 genuinely democratic, primarily muslim countries. I'm not trying to troll you, Da Boss.
Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Albania, the Maldives. I would put Iran in there too, but I know most people on this board wouldn't.
kronk wrote:
I'm honestly just trying to think of 5 genuinely democratic, primarily muslim countries. I'm not trying to troll you, Da Boss.
Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Albania, the Maldives. I would put Iran in there too, but I know most people on this board wouldn't.
AustonT wrote:Even if you don't agree with the poster it's best to form an argument on solid ground. Since (I'm paraphrasing) the idea was where Muslim voters were worried about secret Christians we should focus on democracies where the voters can express their concern.
YMMV.
I don't understand the point of that line of conversation from beginning to end .
Probably not directed at you then is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
AustonT wrote:So, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia.
Pakistan, Algeria, Maldives
In several of those countries its actually illegal to be a Christian or convert to Christianity. Pakistan had a minister capped recently for daring to defend Christians from being persecuted. This is not supporting your case.
Bad Frazzled. It does. Especially in those countries voters would be concerned about secret Christian politicians, don't you think?
Jihadin wrote:
Military does not play a role in brokering a SOFA agreement.
Well, they're not supposed to, but in practice the regional military bureaucracy has as much, if not more, of a role as the State Department and larger Executive.
I would like to see what passes for proof Fox is the worst. Some actual study by a credible source with quantitative measures clearly explained. A quick look on my part finds:
Monster Rain wrote:The question I keep coming back to is why the fact that Fox News has a conservative bias needs to be discussed ad nauseam.
Beause folks find that bias offensive, and those types of folks tend to want to shout down points of view they don't agree with.
Because it has a bias and reports things incorrectly and with misatribution while being half of all cable news ratings in the U.S. during a time of heightening lack of public awareness of policy and global issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:The question I keep coming back to is why the fact that Fox News has a conservative bias needs to be discussed ad nauseam.
Beause folks find that bias offensive, and those types of folks tend to want to shout down points of view they don't agree with.
Yep. The types of folks that don't want major cable news networks to lie constantly because they are paid to do it.
Monster Rain wrote:The question I keep coming back to is why the fact that Fox News has a conservative bias needs to be discussed ad nauseam.
Beause folks find that bias offensive, and those types of folks tend to want to shout down points of view they don't agree with.
Yep. The types of folks that don't want major cable news networks to lie constantly because they are paid to do it.
Care to offer some quanitative analysis to back up your claim that fox intentionally lies or that they indeed get paid to do so? Don't for get to make sure you not only show that, but show they do so more than any other news network.
Back up your assertion or continue your rant, but realize that without backing it up you show yourself as a partisan hack.
Monster Rain wrote:The question I keep coming back to is why the fact that Fox News has a conservative bias needs to be discussed ad nauseam.
Beause folks find that bias offensive, and those types of folks tend to want to shout down points of view they don't agree with.
Yep. The types of folks that don't want major cable news networks to lie constantly because they are paid to do it.
Care to offer some quanitative analysis to back up your claim that fox intentionally lies or that they indeed get paid to do so? Don't for get to make sure you not only show that, but show they do so more than any other news network.
Back up your assertion or continue your rant, but realize that without backing it up you show yourself as a partisan hack.
Yeah, sure. I'll grab some stuff when I'm out of work.
You have to remember something: some of the "lies" that Fox perpetuates are not as simple as they are not speaking the actual truth.
Fox is a network which is built upon an emotional foundation. Their particular brand of "truthiness" is a very difficult one to negate, simply because they do not go into specifics in many things. They wrap themselves in the guise of "patriotism" and appeal to the public to "draw their own conclusions".
They do not report the news. They report a broad overview of events in such a way that it is nothing more than a series of leads towards conclusions. However, this is not uncommon for American media. There's a reason that conspiracy theories are so prevalent here in the United States; and that reason is that people want to supply their own interpretation of events.
"Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by
Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News," said Dan Cassino, a
professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind
Poll. "Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that
leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at
all.
For example, people who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour
cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their
government than those who watch no news at all (after controlling for other news
sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors). Fox News watchers
are also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their
government than those who watch no news.
olympia wrote:From the study (it really is worth a read)
For example, people who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all (after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors). Fox News watchers are also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news.
And thats where the statistics come in. Too many controls to manipulate. we should be able to see all the variables that are "controlled" on how they are controlled. Partisanship is controlled? How? Why?
Interestingly, one could aruge the Egyptian government didn't fall until...today.
Kanluwen wrote:You don't seem to understand what I just said.
While their actions are despicable, "they do it too" is not a defense for the ridiculous nature of Fox News network.
I never used the "they do it to" to defend anyone. I intended to show that the two biggest journalistic breaches of integrity I could find in recent years did not come from Fox. I've also showed a chart that shows independents see Fox as reliable as CNN in an earlier post.
Someone else has claimed Fox is the worst, lies the most, and gets paid to do so. I want proof. I want stats.
The reverse was true when respondents were asked whether the Occupy Wall Street protesters were predominantly Democrats or Republicans. Both MSNBC and Fox News viewers performed below average, but MSNBC viewers ranked lowest on that question. They were 11 percent more likely than people who didn't follow the news to misidentify the protesters as Republicans, while Fox viewers were three percent more likely than non-news followers to make that mistake.
Peter Woolley, the executive director of PublicMind wrote:
The similarity, of course, is the level of misinformation, but the differences are reflective of the kinds of things those two media units choose to cover,
Are US members aware that News Corporation, owners of Fox News, are currently embroiled up to their neck in criminal allegations in the UK over phone hacking, perverting the course of justice and other illegal activities? Maybe if you're watching Fox News, there isn't much emphasis on the seriousness of it here.
That is in part why there's a lack of trust in the integrity of Fox News and related organisations from this side of the Atlantic.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Are US members aware that News Corporation, owners of Fox News, are currently embroiled up to their neck in criminal allegations in the UK over phone hacking, perverting the course of justice and other illegal activities? Maybe if you're watching Fox News, there isn't much emphasis on the seriousness of it here.
That is in part why there's a lack of trust in the integrity of Fox News and related organisations from this side of the Atlantic.
Wait you trusted "news organizations" in the first place?
Howard A Treesong wrote:Are US members aware that News Corporation, owners of Fox News, are currently embroiled up to their neck in criminal allegations in the UK over phone hacking, perverting the course of justice and other illegal activities? Maybe if you're watching Fox News, there isn't much emphasis on the seriousness of it here.
That is in part why there's a lack of trust in the integrity of Fox News and related organisations from this side of the Atlantic.
Wait you trusted "news organizations" in the first place?
Not exactly, but I think people were actually surprised that they were hacking with the voicemails of murdered schoolgirls thereby interfering with criminal investigations. That's when the tide turned here because it wasn't all footballers sex lives being revealed.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Are US members aware that News Corporation, owners of Fox News, are currently embroiled up to their neck in criminal allegations in the UK over phone hacking, perverting the course of justice and other illegal activities? Maybe if you're watching Fox News, there isn't much emphasis on the seriousness of it here.
That is in part why there's a lack of trust in the integrity of Fox News and related organisations from this side of the Atlantic.
Wait you trusted "news organizations" in the first place?
Not exactly, but I think people were actually surprised that they were hacking with the voicemails of murdered schoolgirls thereby interfering with criminal investigations. That's when the tide turned here because it wasn't all footballers sex lives being revealed.
yea, been following that. thats pretty crapacular.
However, doesn't mean their stories are more off than other news entities, just that they are evil...
Da Boss wrote:I'm sorry guys, but from this observers position, Shuma is wiping the floor with you guys.
The reason not to argue with Shuma on this is easy.
He's trying to portray Fox News as the worst info-tainment outlet with strong Republican ass-kissing leanings without admitting that MSNBC, CNN, and other stations are also horrible info-tainment outlets with strong Democratic ass-kissing leanings.
I have no respect for anyone that throws crap at other people without admitting to other's valid points.
So, let him shout to the heavens all he wants. Just the same-old, same-old Shuma.
Yeppers, all the media in the states is like that. although I don't know about calling CNN a democratic supporter... Then again im jus a Canadian, and if they de-criminalized pot I would be that happest (highest) guy in the world. =o]
How about we just say that potentially ALL news agencys can potentially be bias and 'mis-report' stuff from time to time.
I've actually seen Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann both admit reporting errors they,
or their (MSNBC) network, had made. before the show was over once. I've never seen any
such behavior from FOX over clear errors. No one is perfect. i get that. But when you say something
that isn't true, knowing or other, then don't correct it, it's called being dishonest. and It's Fox's M.O.
Yes, i have watched lots of both mentioned networks. Glen Beck used to be the funniest hour on TV!
he was on HLN, not CNN before Fox. it's still a branch of CNN though.
And the fine people defending Fox are being intellectually dishonest to not admit to knowing how they work.
being completely honest, i really feel that ALL news agencies do, spin and manipulate both the news and the viewer.
It's just that Fox has almost made it into an art form.
Heck, I've seen Neil Cavuto, Shep Smith and even O'rielly (who is a comentator not a reporter) correct mistakes too.
I'll ask you, if it is Fox's MO to actually NOT correct mistakes and to purposely lie, prove it. Start spitting put the documented cases. Link to the leaked policy memos.
alarmingrick wrote:
being completely honest, i really feel that ALL news agencies do, spin and manipulate both the news and the viewer.
It's just that Fox has almost made it into an art form.
I'm not sure that Fox really manipulates its viewers so much as plays to their existential preferences, and that, despite their success, they aren't really very good at it. Fox has been successful due to uniqueness, it is the only unabashed conservative news source on television so its gets that entire part of the market, and its tendency to aim at the lowest common denominator in terms of message.
I'd also say that its unlikely that Fox creates uninformed viewers, but instead that uninformed viewers tend to watch Fox.
CptJake wrote:Heck, I've seen Neil Cavuto, Shep Smith and even O'rielly (who is a comentator not a reporter) correct mistakes too.
I'll ask you, if it is Fox's MO to actually NOT correct mistakes and to purposely lie, prove it. Start spitting put the documented cases. Link to the leaked policy memos.
Maybe O'really should revisit his Malmedy comments.
You know as well as i do i don't have leaked memos.
But i do have these fine examples of Fox awesomeness:
and
now, before you start whining that it was put up by a liberal, the pieces both quote and play actual Fox reports.
you still want to tell me they're the bees knees?
Oh come on. You could have found other news source bloopers instead of focusing on Fox. Expand the entertainment. Next thing you know we're going to be posting US Pres. bloopers on video to....
Jihadin wrote:Oh come on. You could have found other news source bloopers instead of focusing on Fox. Expand the entertainment. Next thing you know we're going to be posting US Pres. bloopers on video to....
C'mon Yoda! those clips i linked aren't bloopers.
They're they're misleading at best, outirght lies at worst....
Kilkrazy wrote:Prince William and Harry are born of a line of warrior princes who have fought in some of the best and fiercest wars that history has to offer.
Has he actually been in range of enemy firepower/ taken direct fire?
Every time I see images of him "in the field" he looks like he is LARPing
Every news station has bias. Every person has bias. Bias is not only unavoidable, it is good. Every time you see a news report on murder, that story will inevitably come with the bias that 'murder is bad'. Hoping for news without bias is not only impractical, it's hoping for bad journalism.
Not only that, but it is good to have a diverse range of views, different ways of seeing the world. It is good and informative to hear an argument from another point of view, and people should be able to read a differing point of view, and though they probably won't switch sides entirely, they should draw some information away from it, some knowledge.
Provided, of course, that the other side is arguing in good faith, relying on facts and reason to produce arguments they personally believe. And the issue, simply, is that FOX news constantly lies.
There was a bit of a storm on FOX news about Justice Jelena Kagan presiding over the Affordable Care Act, after she sent an email implying she was happy the bill had passed. To build their case that taking her off the case was not only good government, but the constitutionally mandated course of action, FOX news cited Article 28, Section 144 of the constitution;
The problem is that there is no Article 28 of the constitution, there are only seven articles. And none of them contain that wording. It actually comes from title 28 of the US Code, that is to say a law passed by congress. The point is that FOX clearly felt that a law passed by congress wasn't enough, they wanted it to come from the constitution.
And so they lied, and said it was from the constitution itself. And that's the issue, FOX news doesn't present it's arguments in good faith. It lies in the most blatant of ways.
And it embraces a mindset that it's viewers shouldn't look elsewhere for news, because every else is biased. And that's why its viewers end up less informed than people that don't even watch news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote:Arguing with shuma is a waste of time.
He's right, you're wrong.
(in his own mind)
The sooner you hit that little button, the better your life will be. Do it. Push it. Push it real good.
So that's the standard of debate, huh? Not comment on FOX or any other media, just an attack on a dakka poster.
Why didn't he go over possible property value loss. Think her opening focused on that then went on from there.
High Speed Rail
You know the one in WI wasn't implemented either but 9 bil was cut from 50 billion for this year right? Its like military budget cuts
Here's an example of a non Fox news center. General idea
Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.
Media Research Center
Sebster that was aimed at me since I did a piss poor job debating
As I said before. All news are going to play to their listeners tunes
Da Boss wrote:I'm sorry guys, but from this observers position, Shuma is wiping the floor with you guys.
The reason not to argue with Shuma on this is easy.
He's trying to portray Fox News as the worst info-tainment outlet with strong Republican ass-kissing leanings without admitting that MSNBC, CNN, and other stations are also horrible info-tainment outlets with strong Democratic ass-kissing leanings.
I have no respect for anyone that throws crap at other people without admitting to other's valid points.
So, let him shout to the heavens all he wants. Just the same-old, same-old Shuma.
The difference is the level of lies told by the stations. I have seen CNN and MSNBC present some incredibly terrible stories, superficial and sensationalist crap, and I wouldn't recommend anyone use them as a primary source for their news. But I've never seem them tell outright lies like you'll see coming out of FOX news.
There are good right wing sources of news out there. The Times newspaper, out of London, is a marvellous paper, and while likely a little dry for some it tells the news through the eyes of a conservative filter, while maintaining high journalistic standards.
Why didn't he go over possible property value loss. Think her opening focused on that then went on from there.
High Speed Rail
You know the one in WI wasn't implemented either but 9 bil was cut from 50 billion for this year right? Its like military budget cuts
Here's an example of a non Fox news center. General idea
Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.
Media Research Center
Sebster that was aimed at me since I did a piss poor job debating
As I said before. All news are going to play to their listeners tunes
I wasn't asking/expecting you to defind the video i posted. but you can really watch those
and not see how they manipulated the story, truth or viewer?
Frazzled wrote:In several of those countries its actually illegal to be a Christian or convert to Christianity. Pakistan had a minister capped recently for daring to defend Christians from being persecuted. This is not supporting your case.
That would harm is case if the issue was 'are there majority muslim countries that embrace religious tolerance?' But it isn't. It is 'are there majority muslim countries that are democratic?'
Frazzled wrote:And thats where the statistics come in. Too many controls to manipulate. we should be able to see all the variables that are "controlled" on how they are controlled. Partisanship is controlled? How? Why?
You survey people for their political affiliation, and then you sort them into four groups;
1) FOX news who identify as conservative
2) FOX new viewers identify as conservative
3) FOX news viewers who do not identify as conservative
4) non-FOX news viewers who do not identify as conservative
You then compare group 1 with group 2, and check the difference in information, and compare group 3 with group 4, and check the difference in information.
And that's today's lesson in things that aren't rocket science.
Interestingly, one could aruge the Egyptian government didn't fall until...today.
One you could argue anything, but in this case it'd be silly. The interim military government was distinctly seperate government to the Mubarik regime.
CptJake wrote:I never used the "they do it to" to defend anyone. I intended to show that the two biggest journalistic breaches of integrity I could find in recent years did not come from Fox.
They were scandals because people expect better of the likes of CBS and the NYT. They attempt to maintain a reputation for truth, and when that isn't the case people and the organisation take it very seriously. People get fired over those lies.
On the other hand, FOX is a cable news service that lies as a general matter of policy. When people point out the lies, no-one cares.
Blair got fired and nationally disgraced for what he did at the NYT. On the other hand. Andrew Briebart gets hired again and again by FOX news.
I've also showed a chart that shows independents see Fox as reliable as CNN in an earlier post.
"People think they're good" is not the same thing as actually being good. I mean, I could show you a chart where people said they thought those fruit juice stores at the shopping centre are healthy, but that gak will kill you even if 100% of people thought it was healthy.
Someone else has claimed Fox is the worst, lies the most, and gets paid to do so. I want proof. I want stats.
dogma wrote:I'm not sure that Fox really manipulates its viewers so much as plays to their existential preferences, and that, despite their success, they aren't really very good at it. Fox has been successful due to uniqueness, it is the only unabashed conservative news source on television so its gets that entire part of the market, and its tendency to aim at the lowest common denominator in terms of message.
I'd also say that its unlikely that Fox creates uninformed viewers, but instead that uninformed viewers tend to watch Fox.
But one isn't simply uninformed or informed, they get from the former to the latter by watching and reading informative sources.
It'd be different if we were talking about viewers of one station or another being stupid, but no-one is so stupid to hear that Syrian is still in revolution fail to understand that. So really we're looking at something they just haven't been told at all.
I'd say it's more likely that survey involved focussed on things that FOX news doesn't cover. Like the Egyptian and Syrian revolutions, stuff of international importance. Whereas FOX news focusses on partisan political nonsense, like 'is Obama a secret muslim?'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Glenn Beck worked at Fox for less time than he worked at CNN (as headline news).
Would your allegation then equally apply to CNN?
If Glenn Beck's behaviour at CNN was identical to his behaviour at FOX news.
It wasn't, and Glenn Beck took on an entirely different persona in his move to FOX news, so your point is not only wrong, the opposite is proven by how Beck acted on FOX.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.
Do you really believe that? I mean, from what I saw there was a media frenzy over the Clinton allegations. Coverage was constant, and far greater than the Cain coverage, which makes sense given he was a president and not just a guy looking for a party nomination.
Sebster that was aimed at me since I did a piss poor job debating
Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
And you shouldn't be so hard on yourself, you've done a decent job of selling your point, from what I've seen.
As I said before. All news are going to play to their listeners tunes
Which isn't good, but unforunately inevitable in this day and age. The decision by MSNBC to basically copy FOX news (but for the left wing) was very unfortunate.
But what really matters is whether that agency is lying. FOX news lies, constantly, and the result is poorly informed viewers.
I wasn't asking/expecting you to defind the video i posted. but you can really watch those
and not see how they manipulated the story, truth or viewer?
Both. I own property so I see where she's going. She stayed on topic.
but
another
Felt bad for this Imam
Lack of situational awareness
throwing youtube video's at each other is not going to end.
All news media screws up, stick with their fan source, or go with lack of info. Jihadin wrote:
Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.
Do you really believe that? I mean, from what I saw there was a media frenzy over the Clinton allegations. Coverage was constant, and far greater than the Cain coverage, which makes sense given he was a president and not just a guy looking for a party nomination.
Here's another
In only eight and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have devoted a staggering 99 stories to sexual harassment charges against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. In comparison, eight days into Bill Clinton's scandal's with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, there were a combined eight reports.
I remember quite well the coverage on Clinton since we were going through the Cliton drawdown. News didn't show much of it then of course Monica Lewinsky visual came out..seriously...if JFK nailed Marylin Monroe in the White House then Pres. Clinton could have had Playboy's Playmates of the Year in the office
Seriously. People watch it. Do you think if it wasn't on tv that the people who enjoy it would have a different world view?
I think the station has played a significant part in pulling the right wing of US politics into more of an extreme position.
I believe the Tea Party thing would not have existed or would have fizzled out without the support and favourable media coverage provided by FOX news.
There are incidents of other news organizations engaging in unethical practices. This "stop liking what I don't like" thing is tiresome.
Seriously, that's not an argument.
"There's a worm in your apple."
"So? I saw a banana that had a really manky bruise on it."
"Well don't eat that either. Don't eat any fruit that's infested or bruised, because there's a lot of fruit out there that isn't bruised or unhealthy."
"No seriously, the banana had a really horrible bruise on it, look here's a picture."
"Gyaargh, you actually took a bite out of the worm! There's half a worm wiggling around now. That's disgusting."
"I'm just sick of all you banana eaters telling us what fruit we can and can't eat. This is just like Nazi Germany. I bet you'd ban apples if you could."
sebster wrote:
But one isn't simply uninformed or informed, they get from the former to the latter by watching and reading informative sources.
Sure, but if someone wants to be informed of something its pretty difficult to from preventing them from being so, what with the internet, print media, others new networks, etc. The point being that the survey doesn't so much indicate that Fox is preventing people from being informed, but that people who don't care about being informed are more likely to watch Fox; which is still an indictment of its journalistic caliber.
dogma wrote:I'd also say that its unlikely that Fox creates uninformed viewers, but instead that uninformed viewers tend to watch Fox.
That the ignorant firstly gravitate towards Fox News and then come away little better or or even worse informed is not exactly a great endorsement for a news channel.
Monster Rain wrote:I don't watch Fox, other than the occasional episode of Red Eye. I'm a Jim Norton fan.
I don't care for the bias and infotainment, so I don't watch. See how that works? Getting mad about people that do is a waste of time.
You can't just pretend that the things other people do don't affect society. They vote based on the nonsense FOX tells them. People need to recognise that people forming their political views based on lies is a problem.
And it kind of is an argument when you make exceptions for other organizations that engage in the same behaviors. It's a pretty strong one.
I'm not making an exception for other organisations. What are you talking about?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Sure, but if someone wants to be informed of something its pretty difficult to from preventing them from being so, what with the internet, print media, others new networks, etc. The point being that the survey doesn't so much indicate that Fox is preventing people from being informed, but that people who don't care about being informed are more likely to watch Fox; which is still an indictment of its journalistic caliber.
And that's exactly it. The enthusiasm of the golden age of information lasted about six minutes, before we discovered that given the choice, most people will choose to be informed by bs that reinforces how they like to percieve the world.
Alright, I'm back. Sebster seems to have covered some bases while I was gone, but I might as well respond.
Care to offer some quanitative analysis to back up your claim that fox intentionally lies or that they indeed get paid to do so?
It's virtually impossible from the standpoint of an unpaid civilian without the proper equipment to provide good quantitative analysis of a 24 hour news networks veracity in reporting. Thnkfully other people have done it for me!
The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[41] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[45]
A 2010 Stanford University survey found "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists".[56] A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform similarly found that Fox News viewers scored lower for factual knowledge than other news viewers.[57] A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believed incorrect rumors than those with "low reliance" on Fox News
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, as published in the Winter 03-04 issue of the Political Science Quarterly,[59] reported that poll-based findings[60] indicated that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three purported misperceptions:[59] 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS) In response, Fox News frequent guest Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll."[61] Bill O'Reilly called the study "absolute crap."[62] Roger Ailes referred to the study as "an old push poll."[63] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda."[64] PIPA issued a clarification on October 17, 2003, stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions," and that the results of the poll show correlation, but do not prove causation.
Is that quantitative? It's difficult to measure the factual basis of reporting without setting up an office and vetting every single news story 24 hours a day. Such studies usually don't/can't last long.
As for intention.
Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."[75][76] Photocopied memos from John Moody instructed the network's on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.[77] Such memos were reproduced for the film Outfoxed, which included Moody quotes such as, "The soldiers [seen on Fox in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as 'sharpshooters,' not 'snipers,' which carries a negative connotation." Two days after the 2006 election, The Huffington Post reported they had acquired a copy of a leaked internal memo from Mr. Moody that recommended: "…[L]et's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress." Within hours of the memo's publication, Fox News anchor Martha McCallum, went on-air on the program The Live Desk with reports of Iraqi insurgents cheering the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the results of the 2006 congressional election.[78][79]
Don't for get to make sure you not only show that, but show they do so more than any other news network.
No thanks. Next you'll ask me to prove that the moon is big. It would be virtually impossible to show that fox news lies more then its competitors in a quantitative fashion. That would require accurately disseminating 72 hours of new broadcast per day while fact checking all of it and then comparing and contrasting. It would require an absolute and omniscient third party (god? Aliens?) to vet the veracity of subjective claims and it would require an immense staff of fact checkers for everything else. I have a laptop.
Back up your assertion or continue your rant, but realize that without backing it up you show yourself as a partisan hack.
Excuse me. I can't talk any more. I have to go drink my coolaid and go tape my eyes to Olbermans glorious chin so that my solar batteries which are very green can be recharged for another day of protesting from my tent camp in the suburbs of new hampshire.
sebster wrote:You can't just pretend that the things other people do don't affect society.
I don't. People vote for all kinds of idiotic reasons. The dumbassery of the voting public is one of the most frightening aspects of politics.
sebster wrote:I'm not making an exception for other organisations. What are you talking about?
You lace into Fox for doing the same things that other networks do, but allow for mitigating factors for the other networks. Do you not imagine that Fox might have a side to the story that you're telling?
Monster Rain wrote:I don't. People vote for all kinds of idiotic reasons. The dumbassery of the voting public is one of the most frightening aspects of politics.
Then you must consider it bad that there's a media outlet out there that's making some people more poorly informed.
You lace into Fox for doing the same things that other networks do, but allow for mitigating factors for the other networks. Do you not imagine that Fox might have a side to the story that you're telling?
I haven't allowed mitigating factors for other networks. Any network that lied as regularly as FOX news should be condemned as readily as FOX is, but no network lies as regularly as FOX does.
Monster Rain wrote:I don't. People vote for all kinds of idiotic reasons. The dumbassery of the voting public is one of the most frightening aspects of politics.
Then you must consider it bad that there's a media outlet out there that's making some people more poorly informed.
.
I'm more concerned with the fact that so many people are encouraged by their parents and schools to think critically, regardless of political affiliations.
Monster Rain wrote:I don't. People vote for all kinds of idiotic reasons. The dumbassery of the voting public is one of the most frightening aspects of politics.
Then you must consider it bad that there's a media outlet out there that's making some people more poorly informed.
.
I'm more concerned with the fact that so many people are encouraged by their parents and schools to think critically, regardless of political affiliations.
But for far too many people, here at least, watching Fox is their version of critical thinking!!
Monster Rain wrote:I'm more concerned with the fact that so many people are encouraged by their parents and schools to think critically, regardless of political affiliations.
Sure, and if that didn't exist, the FOX news lying so much wouldn't be a problem. If it didn't exist, then the shoddy rubbish run on the other cable stations wouldn't be a problem either. But I don't think critical thinking is something we can just wish everyone to have, because it's really hard to do and most people are just going to say 'feth that' because it doesn't pay any better than being ignorant and self-satisfied. However, when the media is good, and provides straight, factual stories on things that actually matter, the general level of debate is raised no matter how shoddy and halfassed our critical thinking might be.
FOX news is a big problem, because it's shown not only that it's okay to pick a side and lie for it, but that it rates. MSNBC has decided it's going to do the same, but for the left wing (it won't work as well, because it's MSNBC, but still). I mean, you might have thought the tone of the debate was bad now, wait until you get another ten years of everyone following the FOX news model.
ShumaGorath wrote:Alright, I'm back. Sebster seems to have covered some bases while I was gone, but I might as well respond.
Care to offer some quanitative analysis to back up your claim that fox intentionally lies or that they indeed get paid to do so?
It's virtually impossible from the standpoint of an unpaid civilian without the proper equipment to provide good quantitative analysis of a 24 hour news networks veracity in reporting. Thnkfully other people have done it for me!
The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[41] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[45]
A 2010 Stanford University survey found "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists".[56] A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform similarly found that Fox News viewers scored lower for factual knowledge than other news viewers.[57] A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believed incorrect rumors than those with "low reliance" on Fox News
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, as published in the Winter 03-04 issue of the Political Science Quarterly,[59] reported that poll-based findings[60] indicated that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three purported misperceptions:[59] 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS) In response, Fox News frequent guest Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll."[61] Bill O'Reilly called the study "absolute crap."[62] Roger Ailes referred to the study as "an old push poll."[63] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda."[64] PIPA issued a clarification on October 17, 2003, stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions," and that the results of the poll show correlation, but do not prove causation.
Is that quantitative? It's difficult to measure the factual basis of reporting without setting up an office and vetting every single news story 24 hours a day. Such studies usually don't/can't last long.
As for intention.
Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."[75][76] Photocopied memos from John Moody instructed the network's on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.[77] Such memos were reproduced for the film Outfoxed, which included Moody quotes such as, "The soldiers [seen on Fox in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as 'sharpshooters,' not 'snipers,' which carries a negative connotation." Two days after the 2006 election, The Huffington Post reported they had acquired a copy of a leaked internal memo from Mr. Moody that recommended: "…[L]et's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress." Within hours of the memo's publication, Fox News anchor Martha McCallum, went on-air on the program The Live Desk with reports of Iraqi insurgents cheering the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the results of the 2006 congressional election.[78][79]
Don't for get to make sure you not only show that, but show they do so more than any other news network.
No thanks. Next you'll ask me to prove that the moon is big. It would be virtually impossible to show that fox news lies more then its competitors in a quantitative fashion. That would require accurately disseminating 72 hours of new broadcast per day while fact checking all of it and then comparing and contrasting. It would require an absolute and omniscient third party (god? Aliens?) to vet the veracity of subjective claims and it would require an immense staff of fact checkers for everything else. I have a laptop.
Back up your assertion or continue your rant, but realize that without backing it up you show yourself as a partisan hack.
Excuse me. I can't talk any more. I have to go drink my coolaid and go tape my eyes to Olbermans glorious chin so that my solar batteries which are very green can be recharged for another day of protesting from my tent camp in the suburbs of new hampshire.
So, go ahead and highlight the lies Fox told. I read your quotes and all I see is studies showing Fox viewers are dumb, I got that. Show where the news items reported are lies though. That is what you claimed. You also claimed they do it more than other news networks. Nothing you provided substantiates that claim either.
The Media Can Legally Lie
By Mike Gaddy
Writer for lewrockwell.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.
FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”
UPDATE BY LIANE CASTEN: If we needed any more proof that we now live in an upside down world, the saga of Jane Akre, along with her husband, Steve Wilson, could not be more compelling.
Akre and Wilson won the first legal round. Akre was awarded $425,000 in a jury trial with well-crafted arguments for their wrongful termination as whistleblowers. And in the process, they also won the prestigious “Goldman Environmental” prize for their outstanding efforts. However, FOX turned around and appealed the verdict. This time, FOX won; the original verdict was overturned in the Appellate Court of Florida’s Second District. The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC’s policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law. Thus, said the court, Akre-Wilson never qualified as whistleblowers.
What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, “The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.”
“Fairness and balance?” Monsanto hardly demonstrated “fairness and balance” when it threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important, verifiable information!
The Amici position was “If upheld by this court, the decision would convert personnel actions arising from disagreements over editorial policy into litigation battles in which state courts would interpret and apply federal policies that raise significant and delicate constitutional and statutory issues.” After all, Amici argued, 40 states now have Whistleblower laws, imagine what would happen if employees in those 40 states followed the same course of action?
The position implies that First Amendment rights belong to the employers – in this case the five power media groups. And when convenient, the First Amendment becomes a broad shield to hide behind. Let’s not forget, however; the airwaves belong to the people. Is there no public interest left—while these media giants make their private fortunes using the public airwaves? Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting, even at the expense of the truth? Apparently so.
In addition, the five “friends” referred to FCC policies. The five admit they are “vitally interested in the outcome of this appeal, which will determine the extent to which state whistleblower laws may incorporate federal policies that touch on sensitive questions of editorial judgment.”
Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael Powell’s leadership, has shown repeatedly that greater media consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC interpretation of “editorial judgment” is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial accuracy if the “accuracy” harms a large corporation and its bottom line. This is our “Brave New Media”, the corporate media that protects its friends and now lies, unchallenged if need be.
The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox attorney, William McDaniels—who bills his client at $525 to $550 an hour. The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs incurred by FOX in defending itself at the first trial. The issue may be heard by the original trial judge, Ralph Steinberg—a logical step in the whole process. However, Judge Steinberg must come out of retirement if he is to hear this, so the hearing, set for June 1, may go to a new judge, Judge Maye.
Akre and her husband feel the stress. “There is no justification for the five stations not to support us,” she said. “Attaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The ‘business’ of broadcasting trumps it all. These news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the public trust while they use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is alarmingly absent here.”
Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have come to. How low we have fallen.
CptJake wrote:Heck, I've seen Neil Cavuto, Shep Smith and even O'rielly (who is a comentator not a reporter) correct mistakes too.
I'll ask you, if it is Fox's MO to actually NOT correct mistakes and to purposely lie, prove it. Start spitting put the documented cases. Link to the leaked policy memos.
Agreed. Anecdotes are like donkey-caves. Everybody got one. They are irrelevant.
Joy Bahar on Headline news?
George Stephanopolis on ABC (former Clinton butt boy)
Carl Rove on Fox (former Bush butt boy)
Chelsea Clinton on NBC (former Clinton )
There's a reason CNN used to be called the Clinton News Network.
They all suck. Fox gets ragged on because its the conseravative voice in the wilderness, and the other networks are jealous of their blonds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote:I'm a Fox guy. Shep Smith is a pimp.
Not just a pimp, Pimp Daddy Yo!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I still don't think it matters. People go to Fox, and various other news sources, to have their beliefs reinforced.
As long as the internet exists, Fox is a single drop in an ocean of ignorance. Don't get me started on Lizard People conspiracies.
So, go ahead and highlight the lies Fox told. I read your quotes and all I see is studies showing Fox viewers are dumb, I got that. Show where the news items reported are lies though. That is what you claimed. You also claimed they do it more than other news networks. Nothing you provided substantiates that claim either.
If you want lying that's been gone over numerous times in this thread, including in my previous posts. Sebster handled that well. If you need something contemporary two weeks ago fox reported that occupy oakland burned down a building. They did not. It was a police barricade and it wasn't corrected (just removed). The white house shooter has been repeatedly linked by fox to the occupy movement. He is not linked to it and their own investigation showed that as did the official one. They continue to link him to it.
Do know where the shooter was at compare to a OWS protest at Freedom Plaze Shum?
edit
Your talking about these OWS from Oakland?
OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- A protest that shut down the Port of Oakland to show the broadening reach of the Occupy Wall Street movement ended in violence when police in riot gear arrested dozens of protesters overnight who broke into a vacant building, shattered downtown windows, sprayed graffiti and set blazes along the way.
At least four protesters were hospitalized Thursday with various injuries, including one needing stitches after fighting with an officer, police said. Several officers were also injured but didn't need hospitalization.
"We go from having a peaceful movement to now just chaos," protester Monique Agnew, 40, said early Thursday.
Protesters also threw concrete chunks, metal pipes, lit roman candles and molotov cocktails, police said.
The far-flung movement of protesters challenging the world's economic systems and distribution of wealth has gained momentum in recent weeks, capturing the world's attention by shutting down one of the nation's busiest shipping ports toward the end of a daylong "general strike" that prompted solidarity rallies across the U.S.
Several thousands of people converged on the Port of Oakland, the nation's fifth-busiest harbor, in a nearly five-hour protest Wednesday, swarming the area and blocking exits and streets with illegally parked vehicles and hastily erected, chain-link fences afterward.
Port spokesman Isaac Kos-Read said evening operations had been "effectively shut down."
Port officials hoped to resume maritime operations Thursday "and that Port workers will be allowed to get to their jobs without incident. Continued missed shifts represent economic hardship for maritime workers, truckers, and their families, as well as lost jobs and lost tax revenue for our region."
Big trucks were backed up Thursday morning as footage on KGO-TV showed about a dozen protesters manning a chain link fence blocking a port entrance. Truck drivers argued with protesters, who said they planned to stay until at least 9 a.m.
Port officials could not immediately be reached for comment on the status of operations at the port.
Supporters in New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and elsewhere staged smaller-scale demonstrations. Each group said its protest was a show of support for the Oakland movement, which became a rallying point when an Iraq War veteran was seriously injured in a clash with police last week.
The larger Occupy movement has yet to coalesce into an organized association and until the port shut down had largely been limited scattershot marches, rallies and tent encampments since it began in September.
Organizers in Oakland viewed the strike and port shutdown as a significant victory. Police said that about 7,000 people participated in demonstrations throughout the day that were peaceful except for a few incidents of vandalism at local banks and businesses.
Boots Riley, a protest organizer, touted the day as a success, saying "we put together an ideological principle that the mainstream media wouldn't talk about two months ago."
His comments came before a group of protesters broke into the former Travelers Aid building in order to, as some shouting protesters put it, "reclaim the building for the people."
Riley, whose anti-capitalist views are well documented, considered the port shutdown particularly significant for organizers who targeted it in an effort to stop the "flow of capital."
The port sends goods primarily to Asia, including wine as well as rice, fruits and nuts, and handles imported electronics, apparel and manufacturing equipment, mostly from Asia, as well as cars and parts from Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai.
An accounting of the financial toll from the shutdown was not immediately available.
The potential for the chaos that ultimately erupted was not something Riley wanted to even consider.
"If they do that after all this ..." said Riley pausing cautiously, then adding, "They're smarter than that."
But the peace that abided throughout a sunny warm autumn Wednesday, as protesters hung a large black banner downtown that read: "DEATH TO CAPITALISM," did not last as a cool midnight approached.
Occupy protesters voicing anger over a budget trim that forced the closure of a homeless aid program converged on the empty building where it had been housed just outside of downtown.
They blocked off a street with wood, metal Dumpsters and other large trash bins, sparking bonfires that leapt as high as 15 feet in the air.
City officials later released a statement describing the spasm of unrest.
"Oakland Police responded to a late night call that protesters had broken into and occupied a downtown building and set several simultaneous fires," the statement read. "The protesters began hurling rocks, explosives, bottles, and flaming objects at responding officers."
Several businesses were heavily vandalized. Dozens of protesters wielding shields were surrounded and arrested.
Protesters ran from several rounds of tear gas and bright flashes and deafening pops that some thought were caused by "flash bang" grenades. Fire crews arrived and suppressed the protesters' flames.
Protesters and police faced off in an uneasy standoff until the wee hours of the morning.
In Philadelphia, protesters were arrested earlier Wednesday as they held a sit-in at the headquarters of cable giant Comcast.
In New York, about 100 military veterans marched in uniform and stopped in front of the New York Stock Exchange, standing in loose formation as police officers on scooters separated them from the entrance. On the other side was a lineup of NYPD horses carrying officers with nightsticks.
"We are marching to express support for our brother, (Iraq war veteran) Scott Olsen, who was injured in Oakland," said Jerry Bordeleau, a former Army specialist who served in Iraq through 2009.
The veterans were also angry that returned from war to find few job prospects.
"Wall Street corporations have played a big role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bordeleau, now a college student. He said private contractors have reaped big profits in those countries.
A New York Post editorial on Thursday called on protesters camped out in Manhattan to leave or have police evict them. "What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals," it said.
In Boston, college students and union workers marched on Bank of America offices, the Harvard Club and the Statehouse to protest the nation's burgeoning student debt crisis. They said total outstanding student loans exceed credit card debt, increase by $1 million every six minutes and will reach $1 trillion this year, potentially undermining the economy.
"There are so many students that are trying to get jobs and go on with their lives," said Sarvenaz Asasy, of Boston, who joined the march after recently graduating with a master's degree and $60,000 in loan debt. "They've educated themselves and there are no jobs and we're paying tons of student loans. For what?"
And among the other protests in Oakland, parents and their kids, some in strollers, joined in by forming a "children's brigade."
"There's absolutely something wrong with the system," said Jessica Medina, a single mother who attends school part time and works at an Oakland cafe. "We need to change that."
Do know where the shooter was at compare to a OWS protest at Freedom Plaze Shum?
No, but I'm going to trust the FBI when they say something more then O'Rielly. Hell, foxes own investigators failed to find a link, but they brushed that one under the rug.
And that building sure didn't burn down. But that is the exact building in question. You'll note that stories of it's total destruction have been removed but no note of correction has been left.
Was not going to use this but grenades stood out. Never really heard of Examiner.com and Verum Serum so if this is not a good source let me know
Occupy Wall Street activists are celebrating the second month of protests - with more protests and more outrageous acts.
A post at Verum Serum has broken down the activities of the Occupy protests by type, including arson, assault, threats, drugs, fraud, death, rapes and acts of sedition.
Arson
Occupy Fort Collins – Member arrested, $10 million in damage
Occupy Portland - Member arrested for throwing Molotov Cocktail
Occupy Seattle – Suspicious fire at Bank of America 2.7 miles from camp
Occupy Portland – Three men arrested with homemade grenades
Assault/Threats
Occupy SF – 12 assaults in 24 hours
Occupy LA – 4 assaults including two with knives
Occupy Philly – Man punches woman in the face
Occupy LA – Two assaults including setting someone on fire
Occupy Berkeley – Police respond to three assault calls per night
Occupy Wall Street – Three men threaten the life of a sexual assault victim
Occupy Lawrence – Punch thrown
Occupy Orlando – Knife fight sends man to hospital
Occupy Portland – Multiple assaults within a 24 hr. period
Occupy Toledo – Man assaults police officer after arrest
Occupy San Diego – Woman assaults cameraman
Occupy Victoria – Man dumps urine on city worker
Occupy Vancouver – Two police officers bitten during near riot
Occupy Oakland – Death threats
Occupy Austin – Man in Joker make-up arrested for brandishing knife
Occupy Oakland – Man sets his dog on reporter
Occupy Oakland – Man pulls a knife in camp
Occupy Wall Street – Photographer assaulted
Drugs/Dealing
Occupy Boston – Two drug busts in a week
Occupy Boston – Another drug arrest
Occupy Boston – Heroin dealers busted were living with 6 year old boy directly behind welcome tent
Occupy Portland – First hand account “Drugs. Selling…Heroin. Meth.”
Occupy Portland – Video of open drug use in the camp
Occupy Portland – “I get high“
Fraud
National Lawyer’s Guild member Ari Douglas pretends to be run over by a police scooter
Illness/Death
Occupy Santa Cruz – Ringworm outbreak
Occupy Atlanta – TB outbreak
Occupy Wall Street – Zuccotti lung outbreak
Occupy New Orleans – Man discovered in tent had been dead 2 days
Occupy Portland – Body lice outbreak
Murder
Occupy Oakland – Fatal shooting
Public disturbance
Occupy Dallas – Protesters block bank entrance, 23 arrested
Occupy Vancouver – Mob with bullhorn enters bank
Occupy Wall Street – Protesters block bank entrance, four arrested
Occupier takes a bathroom break in the street
Occupy Vancouver – Occupiers disrupt debate, threaten riot when asked to leave
Occupy Long Beach – Group disrupts city council meeting
Occupy Boston – Three arrested for occupying Burger King
Occupy Oakland – Yelling and nonsense at Burger King
Occupy DC – Group storms AFP event, traps attendees inside
Rape/Sexual Assault
Occupy Philly – Man arrested for alleged rape
Occupy Wall Street – Two sexual assaults unreported to police
Occupy Wall Street – Man arrested for sexual assault, suspect in rape
Occupy Dallas – Sex offender allegedly rapes 14 year old
Occupy Ottawa – Sexual assaults go unreported to police
Occupy Lawrence – Sexual assault reported
Occupy Toronto – Foot sniffer arrested
Occupy Seattle – Man exposes himself to young girls
Occupy Portland – Sexual assault
Occupy Wall Street – Drunk gropes women in Zuccotti Park
Occupy Cleveland – Rape reported after an overnight stay
Occupy Glasgow – Possible gang rape
Occupy Baltimore – Multiple reports of harassment
Occupy Chicago – Man arrested for child porn
Occupy LA – Man charged with exposing himself to a child
Sedition
Occupy DC – Let’s have a coup by taking over the military
Ted Rall wants occupiers to choose the path of violence
Occupy DC – Mike Malloy incites crowd to cheer for President Bush’s execution
Suicide/Overdose
Occupy Burlington – Man kills himself with handgun
Occupy Salt Lake City – Man found dead with syringe in his tent
Occupy Vancouver – Young woman dies of cocaine and heroine overdose
Occupy OKC – Young man with history of drug abuse found dead
Theft
Occupy Portland – Theft is ongoing
Occupy Boston – Store owner suffers 4 break-ins since camp began
Vandalism
Occupy Eureka – Protesters use local bank as a toilet
Occupy Portland – Two banks vandalized, promises of more to come
Occupy Oakland – Bank windows broken, Whole Foods vandalized, broken windows
Occupy Boston – Banks vandalized with anarchist, OWS graffiti
Occupy Portland – Spike in vandalism near camp
Occupy SF: ATMs being smeared with feces
Occupy Santa Fe: Banks vandalized with OWS-themed graffiti
Occupy San Diego – Vendors cart vandalized with bodily fluids
Occupy graffiti found on PA governor’s mansion
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I give a rat's ass about O'Reilly, but the Malmedy thing just seems more like ignorance than lying.
True. until they change the transcipt online to read what they wanted it to. it would have made alot more sense to me to
admit a screw up and go on. instead they tried to change the reality to fit their story. not to mention the insult to all of those
Americans that were actaully murdered. Fox is so pro troop, it's mind boggling they did it.
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I give a rat's ass about O'Reilly, but the Malmedy thing just seems more like ignorance than lying.
It was. And he is a comentator vice news guy. Which is why crap like that doesn't go far towards showing Fox intentionally lies, and does so more than other news networks.
Compare it to the whole deal that got Dan Rather canned and well, you'll have to excuse me for not buying off on the premise that Fox is the most dishonest news service...
By the way, see where last night CNN "Lied" about Clark being a Republican candidate?
Come on folks, regardless of network, crap like that is some dumbass screwing up vice intentionally fibbing. A lot of what the Hate Fox folks come up with falls into this category, including Oreilly's screw up.
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I give a rat's ass about O'Reilly, but the Malmedy thing just seems more like ignorance than lying.
It was. And he is a comentator vice news guy. Which is why crap like that doesn't go far towards showing Fox intentionally lies, and does so more than other news networks.
Compare it to the whole deal that got Dan Rather canned and well, you'll have to excuse me for not buying off on the premise that Fox is the most dishonest news service...
By the way, see where last night CNN "Lied" about Clark being a Republican candidate?
Come on folks, regardless of network, crap like that is some dumbass screwing up vice intentionally fibbing. A lot of what the Hate Fox folks come up with falls into this category, including Oreilly's screw up.
And what is your response to the memo directive by upper echelon fox management guiding political stories towards specific aims before they occur? Does it not count as dishonesty?
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I give a rat's ass about O'Reilly, but the Malmedy thing just seems more like ignorance than lying.
It was. And he is a comentator vice news guy. Which is why crap like that doesn't go far towards showing Fox intentionally lies, and does so more than other news networks.
Compare it to the whole deal that got Dan Rather canned and well, you'll have to excuse me for not buying off on the premise that Fox is the most dishonest news service...
By the way, see where last night CNN "Lied" about Clark being a Republican candidate?
Come on folks, regardless of network, crap like that is some dumbass screwing up vice intentionally fibbing. A lot of what the Hate Fox folks come up with falls into this category, including Oreilly's screw up.
I guess you're missing the point? O'really screwed up. it happens, i get it.
The outrage is that Fox CHANGED the transcript online to make it as if nothing happened.
I'm not focusing on the crime, but the coverup.
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I give a rat's ass about O'Reilly, but the Malmedy thing just seems more like ignorance than lying.
True. until they change the transcipt online to read what they wanted it to. it would have made alot more sense to me to
admit a screw up and go on. instead they tried to change the reality to fit their story. not to mention the insult to all of those
Americans that were actaully murdered. Fox is so pro troop, it's mind boggling they did it.
That's a fair point.
I had no idea about the cover up, but I think it's because I'm not emotionally invested in Fox News.
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I give a rat's ass about O'Reilly, but the Malmedy thing just seems more like ignorance than lying.
True. until they change the transcipt online to read what they wanted it to. it would have made alot more sense to me to
admit a screw up and go on. instead they tried to change the reality to fit their story. not to mention the insult to all of those
Americans that were actaully murdered. Fox is so pro troop, it's mind boggling they did it.
That's a fair point.
I had no idea about the cover up, but I think it's because I'm not emotionally invested in Fox News.
Only emotionally invested in the act of telling people that what their invested in is foolish, eh?
Back from suprise mandatory formation at the post theater. 2 hrs of my life wondering what some active component soldiers think of next. Never ever go to a protest in uniform to pick up chicks
16th St. Oakland CA near Broadway. I just went down that entire road on a satellite feed and did not see a burned out building....not neighberhood I recommend to live at but..no burn out.
and no Fox report telling of it
edit
O'Reilly did a piss poor job on researching Malmeady. In front of two former generals. Saying it was my beloved 82nd...left many a running shoe tread there on Bastogne St. he's not a military history expert.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So um...interesting read here.
Occupy Wall Street protesters stay at $700-a-night hotel
By CANDICE M. GIOVE
Last Updated: 12:25 PM, November 20, 2011
Posted: 12:06 AM, November 20, 2011
Hell no, we won’t go — unless we get goose down pillows.
A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.
The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.
J.C. Rice
NO PARK-ING: Instead of Zuccotti Park squalor a swanky room at the W Hotel Downtown was more comfy for Brad Spitzer (pictured) and other well-heeled protesters.
J.C. Rice
A room at the W Hotel Downtown
Gabriella Bass
Peter Dutro
“Tents are not for me,” he confessed, when confronted in the sleek black lobby of the Washington Street hotel where sources described him as a “repeat” guest.
Spitzer, 24, an associate at financial-services giant Deloitte, which netted $29 billion in revenue last year, admitted he joined the protest at Zuccotti Park several times.
“I’m staying here for work,” said Spitzer, dressed down in a company T-shirt and holding a backpack and his suitcase. “I do finance, but I support it still.”
During his stay, hotel sources said, he and other ragtag revolutionaries he brought into the hotel lived like 1 percenters. He would order up a roll-out bed to accommodate guests, they said.
“He’s here all the time,” a hotel source said. “We all see him at the protest.”
Spitzer denied sheltering Occupiers. He claimed he only invited in a blogger buddy living at the park to wash off his camp grime.
Meanwhile, Dutro, 35, one of only a handful of OWS leaders in charge of the movement’s $500,000 in donations, checked in on Wednesday, the night after police emptied Zuccotti Park.
While hundreds of his rebel brethren scrambled to find shelter in church basements, Dutro chose the five-star, 58-story hotel, with its lush rooms and 350-count Egyptian cotton sheets. He lives only a short taxi ride away in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.
“I knew everything was going to be a clusterf--k in the morning,” he told The Post, alluding to Occupy’s own disruption plans. “How would I get over the bridge when they were shutting it down?”
The tattoo artist-turned-Occupy money man took the elevator up to the fifth-floor welcome desk, where a disc jockey spins tunes and guests enjoy a vista of the growing freedom tower.
He said he spent $500 of his own money to get the room because he wanted a good night’s rest ahead of the cause’s two-month ceremony the next day and raucous post-raid protests.
“I knew . . . there was a high probability of getting arrested,” he said. “I wanted a nice room. That’s OK. Not everybody there is dirt poor.”
He paid for the palace with his American Express card.
“It is an expensive hotel. Whatever,” he said.
The rooms have 37-inch flat-screen TVs, window seats overlooking the city and iPod-dock alarm clocks. Visitors can order 12-year-old Glenlivet scotch for $375 a bottle, or an $18 pastrami sandwich, from room service. There’s even a menu for four-legged guests, including a $16 dog dish of Niman Ranch ground beef.
He claims he chose the W for its convenience, not its luxury.
“I’m not in the business of throwing money away,” he said. “It’s the only room I could find.”
And he claims he took care of comrades in less-comfortable digs.
“I took food to all those churches,” he said. “I got them cigarettes.”
Occupiers told The Post that they witnessed other General Assembly and group leaders stay in both the W Downtown and the Marriott Hotel — and said that key players were not present when cops stormed Zuccotti.
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I give a rat's ass about O'Reilly, but the Malmedy thing just seems more like ignorance than lying.
True. until they change the transcipt online to read what they wanted it to. it would have made alot more sense to me to
admit a screw up and go on. instead they tried to change the reality to fit their story. not to mention the insult to all of those
Americans that were actaully murdered. Fox is so pro troop, it's mind boggling they did it.
That's a fair point.
I had no idea about the cover up, but I think it's because I'm not emotionally invested in Fox News.
Because leaving a factually wrong transcript up on the net, once the mistake was caught makes so much more sense...
Of course they changed it. IT WAS WRONG. They fixed it. Duh. I bet other networks changes errors when caught.
PBS...wow...last time I saw PBS was when Loren Green was narrator for nature shows...I also....found this...
Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome is an upcoming spin-off series from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series.[23] Syfy approached show runner Ronald D. Moore to produce another spin-off set in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica universe, and will begin as a two-hour pilot that will focus on William "Husker" Adama (to be portrayed by Luke Pasqualino) during the First Cylon War (as was glimpsed in Razor and the corresponding webisodes).
Syfy has greenlit the two-hour pilot of Blood & Chrome, which saw production begin in February 2011. No release date has been announced yet for the pilot.[23]
When I first stumbled onto Fox news on the interwebz I thought it was a parody show making fun of Americans.
<mfw I found out that it was real and supposed to be a "proper" news show. (the bill oreily or whatever his name is needs to die slowly from ass cancer)
I have no idea why anyone would tolerate such blatant propaganda. >
Australia’s Most Wanted: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Bill O’Reilly…
Australia has strictly-enforced laws against inciting violence. Julian Assange — that infamous WikiLeaks subversive who’s trying to bring the Free World to its knees — is an Australian citizen.
Certain American politicians and shouting heads have talked about kidnapping/executing/assassinating Julian Assange. The offending blowhards include Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Bill O’Reilly, among others.
Mike Huckabee has said Assange should be executed. Bill O’Reilly has urged the execution of the person who leaked the files, but so far not Assange himself. Sarah Palin said Assange should be “pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.”
Dialing down the hate rhetoric just a notch, Peter King (R—Teabag) said the Secretary of State should officially designate WikiLeaks a “foreign terrorist organization.” Mitch McConnell (R—More Chins than the Hong Kong phone book) said the same thing, adding that if Assange hasn’t violated any U.S. laws, we need to change the law.
Assange’s lawyer — Robert Stary, based in Melbourne — said:
“Our main concern is really the possible extradition to the US. We've been troubled by the sort of rhetoric that has come out of various commentators and principally Republican politicians — Sarah Palin and the like — saying Mr. Assange should be executed, assassinated. Certainly if Sarah Palin or any of those other politicians come to Australia, for whatever purpose, then we can initiate a private prosecution, and that's what we intend to do.”
Sarah, Bill, Mike — Australia is supposed to be really nice this time of year. Wanna get away?
Whats that got to do with a poor quality news show? My reason for disliking Bill is based on his "interview" technique of talking over people its like watching a 3 year old having an argument who just covers his ears and goes na na I cant hear you.
Oh now I get it because Julian Assange is an aussie we must all be terrorist.
O'Reilly does have a blunt approach in getting answers. Does it pretty harsh. I also nailed him one someone brought up the Malmedy screw up he...scroll a bit up...scroll more you can see I counter with other news source besides Fox. I just counter. As for aussies being terrorist...never proclaim that or are you assuming I think that? You do know Australia has like over a thousand troops deployed in support of OEF and OIF?
Yes I am well aware Ive got a few mates among them.
And no I dont support having troops in these countries its not because I am a left wing hippy its because I dont agree with wasting lives for no good reason america,uk and aus should just stay outta the these countries or wipe them off the map no half measures.
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I give a rat's ass about O'Reilly, but the Malmedy thing just seems more like ignorance than lying.
True. until they change the transcipt online to read what they wanted it to. it would have made alot more sense to me to
admit a screw up and go on. instead they tried to change the reality to fit their story. not to mention the insult to all of those
Americans that were actaully murdered. Fox is so pro troop, it's mind boggling they did it.
That's a fair point.
I had no idea about the cover up, but I think it's because I'm not emotionally invested in Fox News.
Because leaving a factually wrong transcript up on the net, once the mistake was caught makes so much more sense...
Of course they changed it. IT WAS WRONG. They fixed it. Duh. I bet other networks changes errors when caught.
Jake, dude, did you watch the piece?
They changed the transcript from him saying Malmedy, to US troops in Normandy committing atrocities.
The didn't do a damn thing but cover the flub with a LIE. Well that, and drag the names of those Vets that were murdered over
there and those who fought with honor through gak. period. Doesn't set right with me one little bit. How bout you, Cpt.?
Not knocking you Jubear. I was pointing out that not all news source are accurate..with Assange he just took it way beyond whats acceptable and put lives at danger with official documents that are secret and above. O'Reilly is harsh and the screw ups in his interviews. Assange was harsh on releasing documents and put people lives at danger. See the point I was getting at? That all news source plays to their fans?
Rick, I really no desire to type this out but google CHENOGNE
CptJake wrote:
Because leaving a factually wrong transcript up on the net, once the mistake was caught makes so much more sense...
Of course they changed it. IT WAS WRONG. They fixed it. Duh. I bet other networks changes errors when caught.
No, the transcript as posted war right, because it reflected what O'Riley said. Any correction made to it should have come in the form of an addendum noting that the statements, as made, were inaccurate.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The original transcript provided on this page, as was noted, reflected the president's remarks as prepared for delivery and released by the White House. This transcript has been updated to reflect the remarks as delivered and released by the White House.
Fox doesn't, to my knowledge, make notifications regarding changes they're made, not do they often edit transcripts to reflect the actual remarks made.
O'Reilly was refering to this "CHENOGNE" he just totally screwed it up. I'm not typing it out on here. Google it please. Thats why he should have researched it a bit more. Thats why the Generals were relunctent to talk about it because we are the good guys
Monster Rain wrote:I still don't think it matters. People go to Fox, and various other news sources, to have their beliefs reinforced.
And from that station they don't just hear an honest, but biased opinion, they hear lies. That is a problem.
As long as the internet exists, Fox is a single drop in an ocean of ignorance. Don't get me started on Lizard People conspiracies.
Sure, and the balkanisation of news media into little places you can go to hear the version of events that you like to hear is a serious problem, but FOX news isn't just a small part of that, it's a really major part, because it isn't just another guy with a blog. It's a major company with and a viewership in the millions and access to major politicians. When they lie, not only do more people see it, but more of those people are likely to believe it.
So yeah, it's bad that there's all these blogs and forums out there with minimal journalistic standards, repeating their own version of the truth, with little debate between the different sides. And it's really, really, bad when major media corporations do the same.
CptJake wrote:It was. And he is a comentator vice news guy. Which is why crap like that doesn't go far towards showing Fox intentionally lies, and does so more than other news networks.
You want more lies from FOX news? Okay.
On September 18 2009 FOX news took out ads in major newspapers showing a picture of Tea Party rallies at the whitehouse, asking why other stations didn't cover the story. The picture shown was taken by CNN, and used in their coverage of the events. FOX's claim that other networks didn't cover the rally was a lie.
In covering a Michelle Bachmann organised protest against healthcare reform, FOX claimed 20,000 people were in attendance, when police officials had stated the number was about 4,000 people. They used footage from Beck's 9/12 rally to give the impression their figure was reasonable. FOX news lied about the size of the rally.
In reporting on the clean up of the protests against Scott Walker's anti-union bill, FOX news claimed the cost would be $7.5 million, when they had been stated by those responsible for cleaning it up at $350,000, and that most of the damage was from people carelessly fixing posters to the marble walls with sticky tape - ie careless actions, but not violent or anti-social. FOX news told a direct lie about how the protest went down.
How many more examples do you want? I could do this all day.
Back to O'Reilly and the Malmedy screw up. What screwed up the Generals was O'Reilly implicated the 82nd Airborne while in fact it was another unit. Trust me, I was as suprised as anybody else but not the fact he brought it up but the fact he got the units wrong. The 82nd Airborne has a title that was gven by Patton during the war. He coined the 82nd as "America's Guard of Honor". Now is the O'reilly and the Malmedy bolo over with?
alarmingrick wrote:Jake, dude, did you watch the piece? They changed the transcript from him saying Malmedy, to US troops in Normandy committing atrocities. The didn't do a damn thing but cover the flub with a LIE. Well that, and drag the names of those Vets that were murdered over there and those who fought with honor through gak. period. Doesn't set right with me one little bit. How bout you, Cpt.?
FOX news indifference to the exact names and places involved is all the more telling, when you consider how much of a fuss they made over Obama saying his great uncle had participated in the liberation of Auschwitz, when it was actually Buchenwald. FOX news went on for some time, and in bizarre detail that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, while Buchenwald was merely a normal concentration camp (albeit one of the most deadly camps anyway).
That detail mattered to FOX that time. Obama posted a correction, by the way, and didn't just try to edit what he said the first time.
Wrong Sebster. His great uncle in the 89th Inf help liberated the Ohrdruf labor camp. The first camp to be liberated. A subcamp of Buchenwald. Buchenwald itself was liberated by 6th Armored
edit
It really doesn't matter what unit liberated what camps though. Just wish we won faster
edit 2
Obama went to Buchenwald since Ohrdruf camp no longer exist
CptJake wrote:It was. And he is a comentator vice news guy. Which is why crap like that doesn't go far towards showing Fox intentionally lies, and does so more than other news networks.
You want more lies from FOX news? Okay.
On September 18 2009 FOX news took out ads in major newspapers showing a picture of Tea Party rallies at the whitehouse, asking why other stations didn't cover the story. The picture shown was taken by CNN, and used in their coverage of the events. FOX's claim that other networks didn't cover the rally was a lie.
In covering a Michelle Bachmann organised protest against healthcare reform, FOX claimed 20,000 people were in attendance, when police officials had stated the number was about 4,000 people. They used footage from Beck's 9/12 rally to give the impression their figure was reasonable. FOX news lied about the size of the rally.
In reporting on the clean up of the protests against Scott Walker's anti-union bill, FOX news claimed the cost would be $7.5 million, when they had been stated by those responsible for cleaning it up at $350,000, and that most of the damage was from people carelessly fixing posters to the marble walls with sticky tape - ie careless actions, but not violent or anti-social. FOX news told a direct lie about how the protest went down.
How many more examples do you want? I could do this all day.
I suspect he's ignoring you so he can concentrate on me. Eerily he seems to be ignoring my postings and reasserting his principal point of "prove it" repeatedly as well. With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me and in a more general sense towards the occupy protestors (of which I am not) I'm beginning to remember why I stopped posting in this cesspit for a while.
I'm going with...its the news..its the rating. I choose to watch Fox news
1. Eye Candy.
2. They make me laugh.
3. Gives me an idea on whats going on in the world outside my shell. I just don't live and die by whats being said.
ShumaGorath wrote:I suspect he's ignoring you so he can concentrate on me. Eerily he seems to be ignoring my postings and reasserting his principal point of "prove it" repeatedly as well. With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me and in a more general sense towards the occupy protestors (of which I am not) I'm beginning to remember why I stopped posting in this cesspit for a while.
Actually, I've been pretty busy, T-day and all.
PLEASE PLEASE quote where I have threatend violence towards you or the OWS folks.
Hmmmm think its pretty clear I get violent in a professional manner and within reason towards OWS. As for individuals on the forums..I make sure I say "Its all good". Don't think I ever saw Jake threaten anyone.
ShumaGorath wrote:I suspect he's ignoring you so he can concentrate on me. Eerily he seems to be ignoring my postings and reasserting his principal point of "prove it" repeatedly as well. With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me and in a more general sense towards the occupy protestors (of which I am not) I'm beginning to remember why I stopped posting in this cesspit for a while.
Actually, I've been pretty busy, T-day and all.
PLEASE PLEASE quote where I have threatend violence towards you or the OWS folks.
I expect a quote or an apolgy.
Jake
For claity:
ShumaGorath wrote: people in that black friday thread threatening violence
Ah, so advocating the maiming/killing/manslaughter/murder of people just because they're a protest movement who you don't agree with is not the same as advocating the maiming/killing/manslaughter/murder of people just because they're a protest movement who you don't agree with.
However, I can specifically name Frazzled, Avatar720, sarpedons-right-hand, warpcrafter, and probably a few others if I wanted to stomach reading more of that disgusting thread. Advocating the murder of those you disagree with puts you on the same level as Saddam Hussein and other dictators.
Alrighty then. Since most of the advocating been towards OWS is center around students. I will say being a student does not exempt them from the laws. Keyword is laws. The "student or students" are adults. Over the age of 18 and as an adult then its your responsibility to follow the laws. As an adult you should know right from wrong. As an adult you are responsible for your actions. As an adult you are aware of what could happen if one goes against the authority.
Give me one good solid reason why OWS students are hands off and exempt free from breaking laws? They were protesting is not good reason if they are breaking laws/ordinance
same level as Saddam Hussein and other dictators.
You have no idea to even make that claim for that level.
Jihadin wrote:You have no idea to even make that claim for that level.
Yes, I do.
I never said anyone should be exempt from the laws. I only said that those who advocate violence towards the protesters should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
In fact, I believe that threatening violence against someone is usually against the law.
News or from first hand experience? You actually deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan? Lived under a Nazi/Facist regime? A police state? Old School Communisn?
I've no shame nor compassion for anyone willingly breaking the laws and defying a law official. They're an adult that made a grown up decision. If OWS gets out of hand then they reap the hurt upon themselves. Since its on DakkaDakka post some remarks that we made advocating the use of force on a protest within the law.
edit
Shuma mention specific names and specific replys concerning him/her I would like to see them myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me and in a more general sense towards the occupy protestors (of which I am not) I'm beginning to remember why I stopped posting in this cesspit for a while.
With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me
With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me
I advocated violence against Shuma? Think I'm good with Shuma.
So you have no compassion towards those who threaten/advocate violence at the protesters then?
Think I covered that point quite well. If the protest is wintin the law then no issue. If its a protest with a mob mentality then bring the hurt. You didn't read about my bit on a lawful order and a unlawful order did you?
same level as Saddam Hussein and other dictators.
You have no idea to even make that claim for that level.
ShumaGorath wrote:I suspect he's ignoring you so he can concentrate on me. Eerily he seems to be ignoring my postings and reasserting his principal point of "prove it" repeatedly as well. With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me and in a more general sense towards the occupy protestors (of which I am not) I'm beginning to remember why I stopped posting in this cesspit for a while.
Actually, I've been pretty busy, T-day and all.
PLEASE PLEASE quote where I have threatend violence towards you or the OWS folks.
I expect a quote or an apolgy.
Jake
So, no time to reply to my question?
I guess i wouldn't want to defend your position either Cpt...
ShumaGorath wrote:I suspect he's ignoring you so he can concentrate on me. Eerily he seems to be ignoring my postings and reasserting his principal point of "prove it" repeatedly as well. With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me and in a more general sense towards the occupy protestors (of which I am not) I'm beginning to remember why I stopped posting in this cesspit for a while.
Actually, I've been pretty busy, T-day and all.
PLEASE PLEASE quote where I have threatend violence towards you or the OWS folks.
I expect a quote or an apolgy.
Jake
Are you people? Is your username people? Did you threaten me in there? If not it's probably safe to assume that the reason I said "people" and not "el capitan" is because I wasn't talking about you.
I apologize though. It must have been very confusing, what with you being the sun that my planet revolves around and such <3.
Shum...two key words in your sentence gave the perception of singling him out
Four words gives the perception that you were targeted
I suspect he's ignoring you so he can concentrate on me. Eerily he seems to be ignoring my postings and reasserting his principal point of "prove it" repeatedly as well. With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me and in a more general sense towards the occupy protestors (of which I am not) I'm beginning to remember why I stopped posting in this cesspit for a while.
@Kilkrazy
A dozen kids sitting on a path is a protest with mob mentality?
Blocking a public path is against an ordinance/law. They refuse the orders to move from law enforcement (who were told by the chancellor for them to be removed last I heard). Pepper spray is a non violent non lethal tool. Not a weapon
Back to News media lying to to its audience...which I posted the Fox News defended in another court in FLA with corperations affiliate with NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN.
Does the name Richard Jewell ring a bell. The guy that I know of that took media news to court and won. Basically mulitiple paydays. I remember how other news media literally cruxified him since I was detailed to the Olympics as added security from Ft. Bragg
Jihadin wrote:Shum...two key words in your sentence gave the perception of singling him out
Four words gives the perception that you were targeted
I suspect he's ignoring you so he can concentrate on me. Eerily he seems to be ignoring my postings and reasserting his principal point of "prove it" repeatedly as well. With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me and in a more general sense towards the occupy protestors (of which I am not) I'm beginning to remember why I stopped posting in this cesspit for a while.
But...that doesn't mean that Shuma was accusing Jake of threatening him...it two separate elements.
For example if I said " Between almost getting hit by the car AND the crowds at the store...I regret going shopping."...the crowds aren't the car...and the car isn't the crowds.
It would be two different elements that both caused frustration....but were not related.
Jihadin wrote:Fitzz...you offering to teach effective writting for free? Thanks for the correction but did I get my point across?
edit
Not asking in a sarcastic way
My effective writing classes start at reasonable prices... .
Now...if your point was that Shuma pointed out that Jake's comment(s) had reminded him ( Shuma) why he'd refrained from posting for a while, the yes you conveyed your point.
...If it was meant to be used as an example that Shuma had made any accusations that Jake( Himself) had advocated violence ..then..no...
... I believe I may have a bit too much tryptophan in my system ATM...thoughts are a bit muddled.
Jihadin wrote:Wrong Sebster. His great uncle in the 89th Inf help liberated the Ohrdruf labor camp. The first camp to be liberated. A subcamp of Buchenwald. Buchenwald itself was liberated by 6th Armored
edit It really doesn't matter what unit liberated what camps though. Just wish we won faster
edit 2 Obama went to Buchenwald since Ohrdruf camp no longer exist
Whether it was Auschwitz, Buchenwald, or a sub-camp of Buchenwald doesn't matter. The point of the story was to talk about how his great uncle struggled to deal with post-traumatic stress, and the lack of support back home, and how we've gotten much better at dealing with that stuff since.
The pedantic streak that makes people say 'ah no, it was actually some other camp' is annoying, but kind of understandable when it's applied equally. But it clearly isn't applied equally, given FOX's very slipshod interest in accuracy, and especially given how they dealt with O'Reilly own WWII screw up.
It's almost as if, like, they change whatever is important from day to day, in order to complain about the Democrats. And that makes for a really, really gakky news station.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:I suspect he's ignoring you so he can concentrate on me. Eerily he seems to be ignoring my postings and reasserting his principal point of "prove it" repeatedly as well. With this and people in that black friday thread threatening violence towards me and in a more general sense towards the occupy protestors (of which I am not) I'm beginning to remember why I stopped posting in this cesspit for a while.
I really don't understand people who come in here with the specific intention of ignoring everything that anyone says that doesn't help their argument. It's choosing to be ignorant. Bizarre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:Quote me where I have done that.
Go ahead.
You asked for examples of FOX's lies. In addition to the ones already posted, I gave you more. Yet you don't comment on them. It's almost as if you're pretending they don't exist.
Anyway. I say all news organizations lie. Even Fox defended itself in FLA court for lying. At the appeals court fox was supported by cooperations thats affiliated with ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. So Fox lies and does screw ups. I showed similiar examples of other news organization. To keep targeting specifically Fox for how they "show" news and expemt the others is pretty damn silly
Anyway. I say all news organizations lie. Even Fox defended itself in FLA court for lying. At the appeals court fox was supported by cooperations thats affiliated with ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. So Fox lies and does screw ups. I showed similiar examples of other news organization. To keep targeting specifically Fox for how they "show" news and expemt the others is pretty damn silly
Other news agencies may lie at times, but rarely does one see the sort of slanted yellow journalism Fox engages in with the same amount of frequency or zeal anywhere else.
Anyway. I say all news organizations lie. Even Fox defended itself in FLA court for lying. At the appeals court fox was supported by cooperations thats affiliated with ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. So Fox lies and does screw ups. I showed similiar examples of other news organization. To keep targeting specifically Fox for how they "show" news and expemt the others is pretty damn silly
But that isn't true. Read the numerous examples of outright lies told by FOX in this thread, and try to find another station with anywhere near as many lies. Tell me of another station that issues a directive from senior management dictating how news staff are to handle the political issues of the day. Tell me of another station that has directly aligned itself with a news service in the way that
FOX news is targetted because they really do operate on a fundamentally different level to other news stations.
Recently, an internal memo from CBS confirmed this practice. CBS analyst John Dickerson accidentally sent out to mass distribution an email in which he discussed his desire to find someone other than Bachmann to interview. He also said, before the debate, that his media employer planned that Bachmann was “not going to get many questions.” This proves that the allotment of time and questions in debates is neither equal nor random, that the media organs which run the debates 'script' them by deciding which candidates get which questions and how many opportunities to speak.
The point isn't that all distortion/interpretation of events is bad, but that there is a reasonable degree, type, and amount of distortion/interpretation beyond which Fox News has gone.
Well then...
I guess I debunke Malmedy s
I threw out there that Fox had support from other cooperation affiliated with other news media in its legal case so they can "lie"
Threw out email that Bachmann was sidelined
Damn...what else did I do?
report card on myself for debating critiqe.
CNN effect on deployment to Somalia was huge. Good intention but forced Clinton hand into ordering a Humanitarian mission there. CNN was constantly showing starvin kids from there. Weall know how that went....side note...Orlando Bloom first movie was BlackHawk Down as PFC Blackburn
Jihadin wrote:Well then...
I guess I debunke Malmedy s
I threw out there that Fox had support from other cooperation affiliated with other news media in its legal case so they can "lie"
Threw out email that Bachmann was sidelined
Damn...what else did I do?
report card on myself for debating critiqe.
CNN effect on deployment to Somalia was huge. Good intention but forced Clinton hand into ordering a Humanitarian mission there. CNN was constantly showing starvin kids from there. Weall know how that went....side note...Orlando Bloom first movie was BlackHawk Down as PFC Blackburn
Mention I hate Greta wih a passion?
Again, its a matter of how things are done versus what is done. All news media will present stories that omit certain facts, that's fine for the most part, but Fox adds "facts" which is not only not good, but honestly just lazy. If you're going to be lying and manipulative, at least have the decency to be good at it.
Jihadin wrote:Recently, an internal memo from CBS confirmed this practice. CBS analyst John Dickerson accidentally sent out to mass distribution an email in which he discussed his desire to find someone other than Bachmann to interview. He also said, before the debate, that his media employer planned that Bachmann was “not going to get many questions.” This proves that the allotment of time and questions in debates is neither equal nor random, that the media organs which run the debates 'script' them by deciding which candidates get which questions and how many opportunities to speak.
Do you really believe a plan to assign a certain number of questions to one politician is the same thing as the memos FOX has sent out. They've sent directives to their staff telling them to use 'government option' instead of 'public option' when talking about healthcare reform, because they know the former is a less popular term, and will build opposition to healthcare. In 2006 they sent out a directive telling staff to look for any story from Iraqi insurgents acting pleased over the Democrats winning congress.
I mean, how is any of that comparable to a memo saying that a candidate should be asked so many questions?
Recently, an internal memo from CBS confirmed this practice. CBS analyst John Dickerson accidentally sent out to mass distribution an email in which he discussed his desire to find someone other than Bachmann to interview. He also said, before the debate, that his media employer planned that Bachmann was “not going to get many questions.” This proves that the allotment of time and questions in debates is neither equal nor random, that the media organs which run the debates 'script' them by deciding which candidates get which questions and how many opportunities to speak.
You're refuting the fact that Fox covers every story that comes up with a pre determined conservative bias and chooses what stories to cover in order to further a conservative agenda with the fact that CNN is airing less questions to bachman in a debate because she is effectively out of the race? If you're implication was that these debates are designed to bring in viewers then you're right on the money. They're pretty plainly a circus designed to bring on ratings and Bachman no longer brings them. If you're implying that CNN is somehow worse for the fact that it doesn't belt out questions evenly among the conservative candidates that it's covering then fox is for designing a story about insurgents being happy about troop withdrawals before they found it and then airing it to death while repeatedly insisting that the white house is soft on defense and losing us the war then you're not reviewing this situation very honestly.
Jihadin wrote:CNN effect on deployment to Somalia was huge. Good intention but forced Clinton hand into ordering a Humanitarian mission there. CNN was constantly showing starvin kids from there. Weall know how that went....side note...Orlando Bloom first movie was BlackHawk Down as PFC Blackburn
CNN reported there was a humanitarian crisis... which is exactly what a media organisation should do when there's a humanitarian crisis. The balls up of the subsequent peacekeeping operation doesn't change the fact that there was a humanitarian disaster, and CNN reported it as such.
You know what the primary difference is to me? Say you've got a cousin, and he really loves his new car, and he tells you all about it, he's honest and talks in good faith, but he's clearly got an opinion. Well this kind of approach is like the BBC and most pretty good media - they've got opinions and while it doesn't mean you shouldn't listen, but they are going to give their side and so you should listen to other people as well, before you decide if you want to buy that car as well.
Then there's a car salesman. This guy is not just giving you his opinion, he's trying to sell you on it. He's honest, so he won't make stuff up about the car, but he's certainly thinking about the best way to put his point to get you to really like that car. They can still be useful, and likely a necessary part of decision making, but it is important to hear what people selling other cars are trying to tell you as well. This is area of most pundits, op ed writers, and probably about half of all political blogs - they've got a side and they're trying to sell it, but they won't tell lies.
Then there's dodgy car salesman. These guys want you to buy that car, and they don't care what they have to tell you to do it, they will happily lie. Anything factual these guys say you will have to verify, and any opinion you hear is useless because it comes from such a disingenuous source. The other half of political blogs fit into this category, most campaigning politicians fit in here, and so does one major news media outlet - FOX news.
dogma wrote:The point isn't that all distortion/interpretation of events is bad, but that there is a reasonable degree, type, and amount of distortion/interpretation beyond which Fox News has gone.
dogma wrote:The point isn't that all distortion/interpretation of events is bad, but that there is a reasonable degree, type, and amount of distortion/interpretation beyond which Fox News has gone.
1. Sorry I didn't address your specific posts yesterday. With the wife deployed, I was a tad bit busy preparing the feast for Son2, Daughter and myself as well as visiting some good neighbors. The tiny bit I was on the net was between checking temp on the smoker and working on side dishes.
2. You all are right. Fox is the most dishonest network in the hsitory of networks. They never make errors, they only purposefully lie. I now see that.
3. Jihadin pretty much nailed my interpretation of the post I read afterwhich I asked for quotes. See point 1. I was a little rushed yesterday. Obviously Shuma did not target me, and I am sorry I misread his rant.
Hooah.
Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. My family and I did. We even got a chance to talk to my wife for a few minutes which my kids especially appreciated.
.
I just couldn't resist.