Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Green Git wrote:Against my better judgment, I read Dogma's post.

Then I remembered why I plonked him. It's funny how freedom of speech is only OK when a Leftist is using it to criticize a conservative. When someone else does it to criticize a liberal it's ignorant hate speech.

Bye Dogma.

did you even read what he wrote? I'm not saying he was right, but you're sounding like a lunatic. Anytime Frazz is the reasonable and fair minded guy in a conversation, you might want to consider checking yourself.

Polonius wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Against my better judgment, I read Dogma's post.

Then I remembered why I plonked him. It's funny how freedom of speech is only OK when a Leftist is using it to criticize a conservative. When someone else does it to criticize a liberal it's ignorant hate speech.

Bye Dogma.

did you even read what he wrote? I'm not saying he was right, but you're sounding like a lunatic. Anytime Frazz is the reasonable and fair minded guy in a conversation, you might want to consider checking yourself.

Hey! I have this nagging feeling that that was a dig.

Oi, Frazz! Back to the attic!

Kanluwen wrote:Oi, Frazz! Back to the attic!

Sorry, what? I was a little preoccupied.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Against my better judgment, I read Dogma's post.

Then I remembered why I plonked him. It's funny how freedom of speech is only OK when a Leftist is using it to criticize a conservative. When someone else does it to criticize a liberal it's ignorant hate speech.

Bye Dogma.

did you even read what he wrote? I'm not saying he was right, but you're sounding like a lunatic. Anytime Frazz is the reasonable and fair minded guy in a conversation, you might want to consider checking yourself.

Hey! I have this nagging feeling that that was a dig.

Not just a dig, but a two-fer.

Count it!

I like how Obama is legitimizing Fox News by responding to them at all.

Bravo!

Thats it. The lot of you hooligans, off my lawn!

Man, Frazz reminds me of my neighbor.

Mostly because my neighbor is insane. And Republican.


But still, the entertainment value is ridiculously high so it's all good!

Kanluwen wrote:Man, Frazz reminds me of my neighbor.

Mostly because my neighbor is insane. And Republican.


But still, the entertainment value is ridiculously high so it's all good!

Excellent!

ShumaGorath wrote:Unfortunately the American populace isn't that smart, as fox news once again growing ratings suggest. They have almost single handedly stalled new health care legislation and thrown both parties into dissaray. To pass popular legislation while being bi partisan you have to please fox,

Are you ficking kidding?

Fox is nowhere near that important.

The idea that anybody needs to kiss ass to Fox is completely ludicrous.
____

Polonius wrote: What is a little wrong, is to have the very specific and notable bias that Fox has and still claim the benefits of journalistic objectivity. Yes, other networks, indeed all creations of man have some biases, but Fox's is among the sharpest.

I think that as long as everybody is told "you are watching the right wing Pravda when you watch Fox," I think it's ok. I know the "fair and balanced" jokes are tired, but I think it makes sense to make sure people understand that it's biased.

Fox's bias is the sharpest in contrast because they aren't part the overwhelming Liberal groupthink circlejerk that comprises the rest of mass media.

Pravda means "Truth", you know, just as Bolshevik means "Majority". And seriously, does anybody NOT get that Fox is Right-of-Center, vs Far-Left?
___

Da Boss wrote:I think when any media outlet puts up stuff that is factually incorrect, they should have to correct it and correct it in the same segment the untruth was in, with the same amount of time dedicated to it.

Yeah, like Dan Rather of CBS news!
____

Kilkrazy wrote:News services shouldn't be allowed to deliberately lie, not even in opinion pieces.

Unless they're leading the Liberal circlejerk like CBS?

The Green Git wrote:Against my better judgment, I read Dogma's post.

Then I remembered why I plonked him. It's funny how freedom of speech is only OK when a Leftist is using it to criticize a conservative. When someone else does it to criticize a liberal it's ignorant hate speech.

Bye Dogma.

Try reading the rest of the thread now.

Fox is nowhere near that important.

The idea that anybody needs to kiss ass to Fox is completely ludicrous.

A 40+% market dominance of media channels is actually pretty damn important. They misinform the public in brutal fashion, that public then starts taking guns to healthcare town halls to show pro gun support. It would be brilliant if it weren't despicable.

Pravda means "Truth", you know, just as Bolshevik means "Majority". And seriously, does anybody NOT get that Fox is Right-of-Center, vs Far-Left?

You have that backwards. Fox is far right, the rest of the media is left (slightly) of center (By a 2006 census). The only news program that really competes is the daily show, a fething comedy skit show on comedy central.

Unless they're leading the Liberal circlejerk like CBS?

Thats fine, as long as they aren't lying to the public. Which is the core of the issue, not the presence of bias, but the amount and methods of it.

Frazzled wrote:
The "9/11 thing" was a big ed deal for a government official. that and ten other things.

His name was on a petition. Its not like he authored a book on how it was all a Neocon conspiracy. The man wasn't even a particularly significant official.

To put this in perspective there are elected officials in the Republican Party claiming that the government is conspiring to end the lives of the elderly.

Just to be clear, I know Van Jones. One of the people I went to school with is his assistant. I don't like Van Jones, he's a prick. I prefer that he isn't an adviser to the administration, but the reasons behind his being run out are just ridiculous.

Frazzled wrote:
So, because you disagree with the importance of ACORN you're insulting Green Git? Come on Dogma, you can argue better than that.

No, I'm pointing at his need to use classification of political spectrum as a means of associating people. He did it when he opened his post with 'you libs', and he's done it before in many previous posts. Its a running theme for any and all arguments he presents.

The Green Git wrote: It's funny how freedom of speech is only OK when a Leftist is using it to criticize a conservative. When someone else does it to criticize a liberal it's ignorant hate speech.

Just to clarify, just in case its necessary, I never stated that GG wasn't entitled to an opinion, or allowed to express that opinion. I'm not even certain where he got that from.

How the hell does Fox have 40+% of the market?

It's ONE station out of dozens.

I call shenanigans!

Easy.

Fox appeals to dumb people. Or crazy people. Or rednecks. Or crazy redneck dumbasses.

I know that down here in NC, Fox is huge. You can't hit up any bars or restaurants that don't have Fox going, and woe betide you if you ask to see something other than Fox for the news.

Polonius wrote:did you even read what he wrote? I'm not saying he was right, but you're sounding like a lunatic. Anytime Frazz is the reasonable and fair minded guy in a conversation, you might want to consider checking yourself.

Of course I read what he wrote... I said I read his post, and regretted it. Dogma is not interested in dialog... he is just rabid for conservatives and seems to have a hard on for me in particular. I have that effect on people.

In any event, you seem reasonable Polonius and genuinely interested in dialog. Let us recap Dogma's post. He tried to play down Van Jones as not news worthy:

Dogturd wrote:"I mean, the 9/11 truth thing was stupid, but the rest was just evidence which marked Jones as a liberal."

Now let's see what Van Jones says about himself: (Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones) 'In October 2005 Jones said he was "a rowdy nationalist"[15] before the King verdict was announced, but that by August of that year (1992) he was a communist.'

Van Jones was a self avowed Communist that rose to serve as personal adviser to the President of the United States. He was hand picked by Valerie Jarrett, Obama's handler and Chicago crony. If that's not at least news worthy, I don't know what is. The only debate is whether the bigger story is that no one outed him earlier or that the Secret Service allowed him to get as close to the President as they did.

More pearls of Dogma wisdom (speaking of ACORN):

Dogturd wrote:"It was a significant story? Oh wait, that's right, you're incapable of thinking of anything in a sense which is more complicated than us/them. Yeah, given that, I can see how you would believe that."

Again, the organization that has had employees convicted of voter fraud, that was receiving taxpayer funding in the millions, and was caught red handed on tape on multiple occasions advising undercover journalists on the best way to defraud the IRS and the taxpayers... that's not newsworthy? And because I think it is I'm insulted as incapable of rational thought?

So I'm yanking Dogma's and a few other willingly obtuse libs chains. They asked for it. For every Fox News there are three liberal outlets. MSNBC has it's collective head so far up Obama's ass it isn't funny. "But Fox is the worst" some say... I'm just balancing the equation.

The Green Git wrote:
Van Jones was a self avowed Communist that rose to serve as personal adviser to the President of the United States. He was hand picked by Valerie Jarrett, Obama's handler and Chicago crony. If that's not at least news worthy, I don't know what is.

So there was a liberal in a Democratic White House? Again, I'm not really seeing the issue. Dude called himself a Communist when he was 26. He's 41.

The Green Git wrote:
The only debate is whether the bigger story is that no one outed him earlier or that the Secret Service allowed him to get as close to the President as they did.

So you're saying that someone who describes themselves with the adjective 'communist' is an automatic threat to the President? Is your name Joe McCarthy?

The Green Git wrote:
Again, the organization that has had employees convicted of voter fraud, that was receiving taxpayer funding in the millions, and was caught red handed on tape on multiple occasions advising undercover journalists on the best way to defraud the IRS and the taxpayers... that's not newsworthy?

I didn't say it wasn't newsworthy, I said it wasn't significant. As in it wasn't earth shattering news due primarily to the fact that ACORN's problems were already well documented.

You praised Glen Beck for covering it. Most of Glen Beck's coverage with respect to the incident related to how often he was mentioning it versus how little attention it garnered from other outlets. The conflict there should be obvious.

The Green Git wrote:
And because I think it is I'm insulted as incapable of rational thought?

No, I said you're only capable of thinking in terms of us/them. Which is rational, if overly simplistic.

The Green Git wrote:
So I'm yanking Dogma's and a few other willingly obtuse libs chains. They asked for it. For every Fox News there are three liberal outlets. MSNBC has it's collective head so far up Obama's ass it isn't funny. "But Fox is the worst" some say... I'm just balancing the equation.

No one said Fox was the worst, I certainly didn't. You're projecting in order to demonize so that you can place yourself on the receiving end of persecution with comments like:

It's funny how freedom of speech is only OK when a Leftist is using it to criticize a conservative. When someone else does it to criticize a liberal it's ignorant hate speech.

...and...

he is just rabid for conservatives and seems to have a hard on for me in particular

You talked about being interested in dialogue, but it seems highly unlikely that you know what that word means given that you leap to the 'hate speech' defense the moment someone engages you in any conversation.

You better listen to this goddam penguin... or else... He. Does. Not. Feth. Around. Srs.



Is FOX news really that influential? The closest I have seen of such influence, culminated in a march (of a decent size... but not interplanetary conference size mind you... wait, I think I missed that joke) that the chief "opinion speaker" did not even show up to.

Anyway though, I see a distinct pattern here, where most of what is on cable news goes in one ear and out the other, that is why I choose to use my fancy-dancy intranet filter for viewing purposes. In the future, the way will be the internetz, and the internetz will be the only way... why? Because I say so, and Wrex will get his way... .

Are people seriously concerned that some people enjoy watching FOX newz? I have a hard time taking most cable news seriously 2/3 of the time, and I cannot imagine that the ratings of these shows (or... you could say that they are viewers, that sounds much more... umm... real?) actually translate into a vastly influential booth for punditry. It is just a booth for punditry (or not so pundrity in some cases on all sides) and entertainment. Almost all cable news actually reminds me of watching sportsline or something... I don't watch sports entertainment shows, but I know how they are usually composed, SPECIAL EFFECT, shiny shiny, talking time... .

I can't say for sure that what the administration has decided to do was necessarily illogical, so much as it was a pretty silly gamble. Like that time at the fair, when you knew that the other rides were closing, but you simply couldn't stop yourself from spending like an hour trying to get that goddam inflatable pink elephant... you just had too, the need was too great... but to no avail... you will haunt my dreams forever, inflatable pink elephant.

JohnHwangDD wrote:How the hell does Fox have 40+% of the market?

It's 40% of the cable news ratings. Which is a bit like being the biggest polka band in the outer suburbs of Austin. The big ratings winners of cable news have often tried to cross over to commentary shows on network telly, and they've all failed and failed badly. What's big on cable news is woeful by other standards.

But that isn't to say FOX doesn't have a significant effect on the political discourse. By being so far to the right, FOX drags the whole discourse further right. A significant amount of time was spent during the healthcare debate on death panels for the elderly and that was time that could have been spent on the actual issues.

Oh, OK.

So if I get you right, in GW-speck, it's like being the biggest-selling Necromunda gang -- *great* for Necromunda, barely on the radar compared to WFB or WotR, and a drop in the bucket compared to 40k.

So it's bad that Fox went on about "death panels", because it's not like healthcare wouldn't be rationed even under a single-payer system? Because there's no precedent for that at HMOs, or even Medicare? Or because the other side wants to sweep that dirty business under the rug and pretend that ridiculously expensive terminal care is actually a free good to be doled out as a "right"?

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

And I agree with Polonius that scientific objective truth is sometimes mathematically provable and can't really be contested by someone in full command of their reasoning faculties.

Wait, so you've never dealt with lawyers before?



"The truth is a three edged sword. Your truth, my truth, and what lies in between." Some guy on some show sometime.

You claim lawyers are in full command of their reasoning faculties? I thought they were at the service of their clients.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Unfortunately the American populace isn't that smart, as fox news once again growing ratings suggest. They have almost single handedly stalled new health care legislation and thrown both parties into dissaray. To pass popular legislation while being bi partisan you have to please fox,

Are you ficking kidding?

Fox is nowhere near that important.

The idea that anybody needs to kiss ass to Fox is completely ludicrous.
____

Polonius wrote: What is a little wrong, is to have the very specific and notable bias that Fox has and still claim the benefits of journalistic objectivity. Yes, other networks, indeed all creations of man have some biases, but Fox's is among the sharpest.

I think that as long as everybody is told "you are watching the right wing Pravda when you watch Fox," I think it's ok. I know the "fair and balanced" jokes are tired, but I think it makes sense to make sure people understand that it's biased.

Fox's bias is the sharpest in contrast because they aren't part the overwhelming Liberal groupthink circlejerk that comprises the rest of mass media.

Pravda means "Truth", you know, just as Bolshevik means "Majority". And seriously, does anybody NOT get that Fox is Right-of-Center, vs Far-Left?
___

Da Boss wrote:I think when any media outlet puts up stuff that is factually incorrect, they should have to correct it and correct it in the same segment the untruth was in, with the same amount of time dedicated to it.

Yeah, like Dan Rather of CBS news!
____

Kilkrazy wrote:News services shouldn't be allowed to deliberately lie, not even in opinion pieces.

Unless they're leading the Liberal circlejerk like CBS?

Don't put words in my mouth.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

This Daily show is really worth the watch, and I apologize in advance to any foreign pig-dogs who simply cannot fathom the awesomeness that IS... Hulu.

In short though, because I am feeling generous, CNN has a lot to say, and many goats to have intercourse with... but we will talk more about this later.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, OK.

So if I get you right, in GW-speck, it's like being the biggest-selling Necromunda gang -- *great* for Necromunda, barely on the radar compared to WFB or WotR, and a drop in the bucket compared to 40k.

Basically. There's also also flow on effects, particularly in the blog community where FOX stories tend to be repeated lots of times.

So it's bad that Fox went on about "death panels", because it's not like healthcare wouldn't be rationed even under a single-payer system? Because there's no precedent for that at HMOs, or even Medicare? Or because the other side wants to sweep that dirty business under the rug and pretend that ridiculously expensive terminal care is actually a free good to be doled out as a "right"?

Except it's a false line of argument. Healthcare is always rationed, no-one ever receives every possible bit of healthcare they could ever get. Ideally we'd have teams of doctors working 24-7 on every pregnancy for the full nine months of the term. Right now in the US healthcare is rationed primarily on how much money you've got. In systems with more government involvement other issues such as urgency and importance of care.

There will always be rationing, what changes is what factors a system will use to determine priorities. Exactly what factors are most important is a really important conversation to have because lots of people can come up with lots of different, but equally legitimate arguments for what should be prioritised. However, instead you had people talking about how there would be death panels deciding if someone was worthy of healthcare. This ultimately gave the Democrats an out, because they could spend time pointing out how stupid the death panels line was, and not substantiating their own position on what the healthcare priorities should be.

The end result is that it looks like healthcare will get up, but it won’t be anything like the best reform possible. I can’t help but think that this is in part due to having a few months of sound and fury that looked and sounded like debate, but without ever really addressing the issues substantially.

Ok, heading back to the original topic, whenever the subject of news networks, specifically Fox News, comes up here it quickly seems to degenerate into an us against them/Right vs Left argument. Going on about the bias of other networks compared to Fox’s is a straw man. It’s got nothing to do with the reasons most choose to ridicule Fox’s output.

Personally I’m not a conservative but I would be more than happy to listen to a conservative news source (in conjunction with other news sources) but I have a few requirements from any news source that wishes to be seen as credible in my eye.

That its stories be based on verifiable and credible evidence.

That it not indulge in sensationalism or frothing at the mouth moral outrage.

That it not resort to nationalism and flag waving.

That its reactions to events are well researched and thoughtful.

That it uses logic and reasoning to make its points not calls to emotion (so there goes Glen Beck!)

That when challenging alternative viewpoints is does so with superior arguments not just by shouting louder than the other guy (and there follows O’Reiley!)

On all these points Fox news fails, completely and utterly. That is why Fox news is generally considered a joke not its political stance. Foxes defenders do themselves no favours by simply writing off the criticism as a lefty conspiracy.

Closer to my Home here in Blighty we don’t have as many TV news networks as the U.S. so if I use the example of printed media it’s going to be more appropriate:

We have a Newspaper called The Times, It’s well known to be a conservative leaning paper. However it’s output is non sensationalist, well researched and what claims it does make are generally backed up with evidence. Therefore I consider it a reliable source of News. On the other hand there is another paper called the Daily Mail, also known to be a conservative leaning paper. However unlike The Times this is a comic. It’s peddles sensationalism, frothing moral outrage, and pointless title-tattle dressed up as serious news. These are the reasons it’s regarded as a useless rag, not because of its political leanings.

LuciusAR wrote:Ok, heading back to the original topic, whenever the subject of news networks, specifically Fox News, comes up here it quickly seems to degenerate into an us against them/Right vs Left argument. Going on about the bias of other networks compared to Fox’s is a straw man. It’s got nothing to do with the reasons most choose to ridicule Fox’s output.

Personally I’m not a conservative but I would be more than happy to listen to a conservative news source (in conjunction with other news sources) but I have a few requirements from any news source that wishes to be seen as credible in my eye.

That its stories be based on verifiable and credible evidence.

That it not indulge in sensationalism or frothing at the mouth moral outrage.

That it not resort to nationalism and flag waving.

That its reactions to events are well researched and thoughtful.

That it uses logic and reasoning to make its points not calls to emotion (so there goes Glen Beck!)

That when challenging alternative viewpoints is does so with superior arguments not just by shouting louder than the other guy (and there follows O’Reiley!)

On all these points Fox news fails, completely and utterly. That is why Fox news is generally considered a joke not its political stance. Foxes defenders do themselves no favours by simply writing off the criticism as a lefty conspiracy.

Closer to my Home here in Blighty we don’t have as many TV news networks as the U.S. so if I use the example of printed media it’s going to be more appropriate:

We have a Newspaper called The Times, It’s well known to be a conservative leaning paper. However it’s output is non sensationalist, well researched and what claims it does make are generally backed up with evidence. Therefore I consider it a reliable source of News. On the other hand there is another paper called the Daily Mail, also known to be a conservative leaning paper. However unlike The Times this is a comic. It’s peddles sensationalism, frothing moral outrage, and pointless title-tattle dressed up as serious news. These are the reasons it’s regarded as a useless rag, not because of its political leanings.

Yeah, when I say that FOX really is worse than the rest I think the right wing folk here just assume I'm saying that because I'm some kind leftie. But when I was in the UK I read the Times more than anything else, certainly a lot more than the left leaning Guardian. The Times is a conservative paper, but it keeps to high standards. FOX keeps to no standards, it's only priority is to keep hardline conservative viewers tuning in by feeding them exactly what they want to hear.

CNN and MSNBC are also junk, by the way, but it's a different kind of junk. Their junk is the junk of desperately trying to find 24 hours of news every day, without wanting to spend money on proper content like investigative journalism. Lately MSNBC has started taking steps towards the FOX model, albeith targeting the left wing instead. This is unlikely to work, because the left wing is a lot more diverse in its issues, and it's MSNBC.

Than quite frankly, I still don't see the significance of Fox.

Nor does it make any rational sense for "the most powerful man in the world" to punch down against Fox if their stature is so low:

"Ohh, a crazy person!"

"I never noticed, but now that you point him out, I guess I'll pay attention to him..."

"crap".

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:How the hell does Fox have 40+% of the market?

It's 40% of the cable news ratings. Which is a bit like being the biggest polka band in the outer suburbs of Austin. The big ratings winners of cable news have often tried to cross over to commentary shows on network telly, and they've all failed and failed badly. What's big on cable news is woeful by other standards.

But that isn't to say FOX doesn't have a significant effect on the political discourse. By being so far to the right, FOX drags the whole discourse further right. A significant amount of time was spent during the healthcare debate on death panels for the elderly and that was time that could have been spent on the actual issues.

Speaking of Austin. Homeless Leslie made it through the night. Rejoice hippy tree huggers! (seriously)
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/13/1013leslie.html
(later reported as awake and talking)

Cochran ... typically can be seen downtown clad in thongs, tiaras, boas and high heels.

...

Through the years, he has been arrested by Austin police on various counts of ... ... public camping and harassment.

Frazzled wrote:All your donuts are belong to us!

Tim Hortons...Proof of the existence of God.

Absolutely!