 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Lies about Fox
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:21 PM Mark Tapscott: Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be 'skeptical' By: Mark Tapscott 12/15/10 6:03 PM Editorial Page Editor You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right? Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better. Why? Politico's headline captures the controversy perfectly: "Fox editor urged climate skepticism." A journalist being skeptical? Who would ever have thought such a thing could be. I don't know, maybe anybody who has heard this (attributed long ago to a crusty desk editor at the illustrious City News Bureau in Chicago): "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out." In other words, we journalists are paid to BE SKEPTICAL. For the record, here's what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted: "Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies." Now I am from out of town and all, but Sammon's injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges – report what A claims and what B says about what A claims, but keep your personal views about both A and B out of it. Note that Sammon includes both those who say the planet has warmed – i.e. global warming advocates – and those who claim the opposite, that the planet has cooled – global warming critics. How much more even-handed – dare I say it, fair and balanced? – can the guy be? There is also the factual nature of Sammon's statement that critics question data. Critics DO question the data for a warming planet. He doesn't demand that his reporters agree with the critics about the data or tell viewers that the critics are right and the global warming advocates are wrong. Yet, Salon's headline claims the Fox news executive was "again caught demanding conservative spin." And the lead that follows makes another false statement, claiming Sammon directed his "anchors and reporters to adopt right-wing spin when discussing the news." Are these people so arrogant as to think the rest of us are too stupid to see that Salon totally and completely misrepresented Sammon's comment? The back story here, of course, is that Media Matters is doing exactly what billionaire radical liberal financier George Soros paid it $1 million to do, which is to trash Fox News at every opportunity no matter what the facts might be in any given situation. Watching this campaign unfold, it becomes clear that Fox News drives today's extremist liberals into the same sort of eye-bulging, irrational, spittle-flying, blind rage that we saw back in the 1950s from the far right whack-jobs in the John Birch Society who claimed Ike was either a fool or a card-carrying commie. Now, just so everybody reading this knows: Sammon is a former White House reporter for The Examiner. I count him as a friend, a respected colleague and a solid journalist. And Fox News puts me in front of a camera as a talking head once in a while. So how long you think it will be before Sammon's critics claim my comments here aren't credible as a result? The reality is that the left-leaning MSNBC folks sit me down in front of their cameras to bloviate far more frequently than Fox does. Go figure. So here's something to ponder when the paid Fox detractors at Media Matters tell you Sammon and I are both former Washington Timesmen and are thus Republican mouthpieces: I was inducted into the First Amendment Center's Freedom of Information Hall of Fame a few years ago. I mention this not to boast, but because I don't recall seeing anybody from Media Matters among the inductees. Read more at the Washington Examiner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:24 PM "Lies" and "Fox" in the same thread title??? How could that be... Hahahaha.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:26 PM But good to hear from ya', bruce... Hows yer school comin'... Hope you got the water outta the basement... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: bobad Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:30 PM Here's another take: In leaked e-mail, Fox News boss told staff to cast doubt on climate change By David Edwards Wednesday, December 15th, 2010 -- 10:58 am For the second time in less than a week, the Fox News Washington managing editor has been caught trying to "slant" the news. In an e-mail obtained by liberal watchdog group Media Matters, Bill Sammon told his staff to downplay the importance of climate science that showed the world was getting warmer. "Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data... we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question," Sammon wrote. Sammon issued the instructions less than 15 minutes after Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler noted that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record." "2000 to 2009 [is] expected to turn out to be the warmest decade on record," Goler reported during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change summit. "2009 itself was about the fifth warmest year. There was extreme drought in Africa, extreme heat in India and northern China." "But it's the decade trend that has scientists concerned because 2000 to 2009 [is] warmer than the 1990s, warmer than the 1980s," he said. Only last week, Media Matters published another e-mail where Sammon asked his news department to refer to the health care reform public option as the "government run option." Sammon sent the request after Republican pollster Frank Luntz said that polls showed the "government option" was opposed by the public. According to the report at Media Matters, in August of 2009 after Fox News' Sean Hannity used the term "public option," Luntz encouraged him to say "government option" instead. "If you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," Luntz said. "If you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it." In October, sources told Media Matters that since joining Fox News, Sammon's pressure to "distort" and "slant news" had made some in the newsroom uncomfortable. "Since Bill Sammon assumed the role of Washington managing editor and vice president of news at the beginning of the Obama Administration, pressure from Fox management to produce stories that lean toward a conservative agenda, and distort news in some cases, has found its way into coverage," the sources said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: kendall Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:48 PM Fox noise is nothing but a mouthpiece for the republican party. Opinion journalism, nothing more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:56 PM "Opinion journalism" = Editorial Comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: EBarnacle Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:01 PM Actually, it is beginning to look more and more as though the Republican party is the action wing of Fox "News." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: EBarnacle Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:14 PM By the bye, BB, is it a lie because you don't agree? Here's another article from today's news on a related issue: News Corpse / By Mark Howard 183 COMMENTS Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. December 15, 2010 | Advertisement Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What's more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation. So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day. In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That's a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so: •91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs •72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit •72 percent believe the economy is getting worse •60 percent believe climate change is not occurring •49 percent believe income taxes have gone up •63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts •56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout •38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP •63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear) The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News. By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it. The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox's competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds. This is not an isolated review of Fox's performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain its corporate owners do not get away with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Jeri Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:17 PM First off, it's more thorough if you search yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+lies My opinion is that, while certain shows on other networks are obviously not "fair and balanced", the whole Fox news network is a propaganda machine for the right wing. I frequently fall on the liberal side of things, but occasionally, I'm on the conservative side. Above all, I hate liars more than most political opinions. I'm not fond of people who continually shove their politics down other people's throats (for example, like with this thread), and I almost always think it's hopeless to try to talk with that sort of people. If a person can't see something that's exquisitly, impeccably clear to almost everyone who can reason and is honest, it's because they won't see it. If something is true or not to you based on your politics and prejudices, people should not trust you. I also believe that trying to communicate with such a person is a waste of time. In writing this, I've spent 15 minutes I will never get back, and I can find many ways to wast time that won't leave me feeling frustrated and foolish for trying to communicate with a fence post. Fox News-Lies, Lies, Lies (Part 1 of 2) [video] Fox News-Lies, Lies, Lies (Part 2 of 2) [video] Huffington post: The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions ...[includes video] Study: Watching Fox News makes you ignorant December 15th, 2010 by John Grooms in Boomer with Attitude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: michaelr Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:34 PM "Send a message to the Admiralty that we are about to engage the enemy." "But sir - is that, strictly speaking, accurate?" "That, Menzel, is what we in the Navy call a Lie. Send it right away." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:49 PM "....we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. .... ...Sammon's injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges –..." No...put that way, it is NOT "exactly what editors are supposed to tell their charges". If he tells them that **critics** have called it into question, without noting that a very small % of critics make that assertion, he is implicitly stacking the deck. It is quite possible to ask staff to be "fair and balanced" without making the admonition simply be a ruse to avoid the **fact** that many more climate scientists and their data show obvious warming. Climate science should not even BE a political debate...but admitting that warming is happening would clearly be an....**ahem** "negative financial impetus" for companies that depend on fossil fuels and have carbon emission problems. It costs money, and reduces profits, so they are in denial! But... when ads and support require spouting conservative bias, what IS an editor to do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:56 PM Thanks to Ebarnacle and Jeri for relevant points. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Amos Date: 15 Dec 10 - 11:39 PM His overemphasis on IMMEDIATE countering, and his making no distinction between science and other forms of opinion or just plain overheated bullshit, is where the fault lies, Bruce, and Ithink a moment's thought would have made that quite clear. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:39 AM Now what do you do, when their slanted biases turn out to be accurate?????????????! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: EBarnacle Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:41 AM We listen and learn but they are usually unmitigated fecal matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:55 AM Most news media make at least some attempt to report the news objectively and to leave opinions to clearly-identified editorials. Not so with Fox. There's a political "spin" to almost everything said on that network. I find it offensive that so many places push FoxNews on me - restaurants, common areas in motels, and Internet gateways like Comcast.net. I want the news, not propaganda. And that's no lie. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 08:18 AM FOX isn't a news station.... It is a propaganda mill... So trying to glean out any truth in it's reporting is, ahhhhhh, an exercise in futility... I mean, like why would anyone want to subject themselves to overt lies unless they were already part of the the Repub/Tea Party... Let's get real here... There was only one "news" station that actively participated in organizing the Tea Party: FOX... End of story... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 16 Dec 10 - 09:11 AM "Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies" It functions perfectly well for those telling the lies til the shit hits the fan - think French Revolution. Except today those in control have far more potent weapons to control/kill the troublemakers. But not too many at once, or the veil falls ... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 10:19 AM Exactly, f-troupe... The income disparity in the US will catch up with the liars and crooks... Then, as in any time things go drastically wrong in the ruling of a country it will be "Can't we all get along" time... Problem is that the greedy never get to talk themselves out these messes... Once the masses turn on the pigs, it's too late for talk... Boss Hog is pushing the envelope right now with his Tea Party minions... When they figure out they have been duped it ain't going to go well for Boss Hog and his boys and girls (Ms. Sarah, Ann Colter, Michelle Baucghman etc...) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Greg F. Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:16 AM The fundamental lie about Fox News[sic] is that it is a news program. Q.E.D. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:20 AM Almost accidently,(channel flipping) I saw Rachel Maddow last night on David Letterman's show. As part of the 'interview', Letterman kinda hand-fed her lines about Fox and it's more (in)famous hosts...along with Rush Limbaugh. I'm not sure she was expecting Letterman's pointed digs at Fox, but she managed a few serious responses to his loaded questions. When he asked why folks listen to such obvious doctored news, she pointed out that Fox is well-funded and run as a mill to support, raise money for, and promote conservative causes......and she clarified it all in one sentence when she said:(slightly paraphrased)"At MSNBC, we don't receive daily memos listing the day's 'talking points', along with suggested phrases and language....but at Fox, they DO!" Yes, MSNBC IS [mostly]'liberal' oriented, but the difference in attitude about getting facts right and not inventing 'news' is WAY different from Fox..(as in the faked & hyped ACORN and New Black Panther Party smears.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:23 AM Oh heck! We have technology now! Instant access to such things... watch & listen to it yourselves |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:31 AM Well, that's actually only about half the interview...others are commenting on it....do a search. Maybe the whole thing will show up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:41 AM Interesting article in today's Washington Post about a memo that has surfaced that was sent out to FOX's announcers that instructs them to follow up any story related to global warming with a disclaimer stating that there is no proven science behind man being responsible for it??? From what I have read and heard, 99% of scientists beli9eve that global warming is a result of man burning way too much stuff... The 1% are also the creationists, the flat earthers, etc... I mean, let's get real here... FOX has a corporate agenda... The are owned by Boss Hog himself... What I don't understand is why Obama and the Dems aren't trying to take FOX down for FCC violations... (There are no regulations, Boberdz, that require nes programas to tell the truth...) There isn't??? How's that happen??? (One Repub appointed FCC member at a time... Think Michale Powell here...) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,999 Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:44 AM Anyone who doesn`t know that FOX is a propaganda media outlet should have his or her voting rights suspended, imo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:59 AM Old Maine saying: "I can stand a thief, but goddamn a liar." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:27 PM A real pity that none here bothered to read the initial post. But then, THAT would require a desire to be fair, and few here have any such thoughts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:40 PM Seems to me THAT is either a lie or a really careless mistake, bb...**I** read all of the first post before I began commenting. And I also went to the link. Now, if you don't think I responded to suit you, that's a different issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:44 PM Out of curiosity, Bruce... do you accept or believe Rachael that Fox issues memos to it's various hosts, listing talking points and suggesting specific language to use? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:45 PM Fair, bruce??? Very strange word for anyone who actually believes the stuff they hear on FOX??? Yeah. like what does fair have to do with anything??? We have the most dumbed down population of any industrialized nation and we're worried about being more fair??? How much more mis-information do we really need to stuff in the FOX minions heads??? I'm with the "other bruce" on this one except I'd allow everyone who wanted to vote to vote but in order for their votes to count they'd have to pass a 10 question civics test in order for their vote to be counted... I mean, I see 'um right here in Page County... It's grandpa who hasn't been outta the house in a couple years being pushed in a wheelchair by his grand-daughter who is trying to grandpa to understand what grandpa is supposed to do in the voting booth... I mean, she has the sample ballot and all that for grandpa... "All ya gotta do is _____________________" she's telling him... Meanwhile, grandpa couldn't even tell you who is president or what day of the week it is... Yes, I'm sure this happens on both sides but the point is is that if grandpa doesn't know squat about what's going on in the world why should he be voting??? Do you think Thomas Jeffe3rson would approve of such behaviors??? Hell no, he wouldn't... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,999 Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:47 PM I too read the opening post, Bruce. It`s a person`s opinion. I do think you being slagged for posting it is wrong, but trying to imply that FOX is at all objective is one helluva stretch. Bullshit is bullshit whether it comes from the Tea Party, Liberals, Republicans or FOX News. I think you are too darned smart NOT to know that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 12:59 PM I have NEVER said that Fox is always objective- BUT the comments here about THIS ignore the initial post- IF you believe Rachel, then YOU are listening to a biased viewpoint. To accept THAT as the truth, and reject EVERYTHING that Fox says is to be more blinded and bigotted than to listen to Fox AND try to determine the truth. I fail to see that most posting here have any desire to know the truth: You seem satiusfied to parrot the Liberal party line, and depend on saying the same unproven comments over and over agian =, expecting that others will fall in line like good little Dem robots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:01 PM BB, I don't care what George Soros says or George Bush or george the third, FAUX noise is right wing and fair and balanced is a joke! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Greg F. Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:03 PM A real pity that none here bothered to read the initial post. But then, THAT would require a desire to be fair, and few here have any such thoughts. Oh, please. Only appropriate response is Bite Me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,999 Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:04 PM We have FOX in Canada. I have listened to them a few times and that was it. The stations I listened to in Hinton and Edson (in Alberta) were not very good, even as music stations. Their news was OK until there was a spin to put on it, and guess what--it favoured the Conservatives. Sorry, buddy, but in brief, f&&k FOX. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:13 PM Tapscott said in part, in the course of bolstering his own credibility: I was inducted into the First Amendment Center's Freedom of Information Hall of Fame a few years ago. I mention this not to boast, but because I don't recall seeing anybody from Media Matters among the inductees. I confess that I'm not informed as to the character of the "First Amendment Freedom of Information Hall of Fame", cited by Tapscott. Is it in fact what its high-sounding name suggests? Or is it perhaps a right-wing apologist organization? Anyone can arrogate to themselves or to an organization they found an appealing name that suggests high motives and love and patriotism and all those good things. Does anybody have information that would shine a more clarifying light on the sponsoring organization and thus the interpretation that ought to be put on Tapscott's induction into that Hall of Fame? Such as where its funding comes from? Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:16 PM Greg F. Consider yourself bitten, chewed on, and spit out. 999, Dou you also agree that the rest of the media slants towards a more leftist viewpoint? And are you aware that only 20% of the US electorate considers themselves "liberal", while 40% consider themselevs "conservative"? So WHICH side is the one presenting the minority viewpoint??? To use Rachel as a judge of Fox is like asking Adolph Hitler if the Jews deserved to be killed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:19 PM "Anyone can arrogate to themselves or to an organization they found an appealing name that suggests high motives and love and patriotism and all those good things" ABSOLUTELY TRUE! So why is it ALWAYS acceptable when funded by left-wing sources, and NEVER when funded by right-wing ones??? Heads I win and tails you lose is the standard that most here seem to believe in. So DON'T tell me that FOX is not fair, when you are arguably MORE biased, yet claim the mantle of rightous fairness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:26 PM "IF you believe Rachel, then YOU are listening to a biased viewpoint." Rachael and her staff scrupulously monitor the claims they make and facts they present. I have heard her many times make corrections..(usually minor).. on later programs. There is a HUGE difference between 'baised' in the sense of tending to favor and express one viewpoint over another' and **BIASED** in the sense of ignoring facts and information which does not agree with one's pre-set position(s). I admire Rachael BECAUSE she listens, analyzes and comes to the most rational conclusion she can based on all the data she can get. Fox and it's minions BEGIN with an agenda and make the news fit...whether they have to spin & distort it or not. THAT is dishonest. You didn't bother to answer my direct question. DO you agree that Fox issues those memos? MSNBC makes clear they do nothing of that sort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:29 PM "To use Rachel as a judge of Fox is like asking Adolph Hitler if the Jews deserved to be killed." I am aghast at that comparison! That is beyond any reasonable...... I am at a loss for words. ...shame.................................................. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:30 PM Dunno the Answer but I DID find this: "Journalists have used the act for more than three decades to generate thousands of news stories, including some of the most important exposés of our time. Using FOIA, journalists have held government accountable, exposed crime, and helped shape American public policy in major ways." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:33 PM Disregard my post above- I copied the wrong part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 01:36 PM "There is a HUGE difference between 'baised' in the sense of tending to favor and express one viewpoint over another' and **BIASED** in the sense of ignoring facts and information which does not agree with one's pre-set position(s). " Yes, there is. And **I** have heard FOX on several occasions make corrections..(usually minor).. on later programs.- YET YOU HAVE STILL CLAIMED THEY LIED BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINAL REPORT. " I admire Rachael BECAUSE she listens, analyzes and comes to the most rational conclusion she can based on all the data she can get. Fox and it's minions BEGIN with an agenda and make the news fit...whether they have to spin & distort it or not. " I consider that thie statement is opinion- WHICH I DISAGREE WITH. **I** try to determine the TRUTH from listening to BOTH sides, unlike many here that presume one side is correct, and the other wrong WITHOUT any attempt to determine reality, because of what they WANT to believe as true. "DO you agree that Fox issues those memos?" What memos? The ONE that my post quotes from? "For the record, here's what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted: "Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies." Now I am from out of town and all, but Sammon's injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges – report what A claims and what B says about what A claims, but keep your personal views about both A and B out of it. Note that Sammon includes both those who say the planet has warmed – i.e. global warming advocates – and those who claim the opposite, that the planet has cooled – global warming critics. How much more even-handed – dare I say it, fair and balanced? – can the guy be? There is also the factual nature of Sammon's statement that critics question data. Critics DO question the data for a warming planet. He doesn't demand that his reporters agree with the critics about the data or tell viewers that the critics are right and the global warming advocates are wrong." I have no idea what internal memos EITHER network has- but I know how to look at facts, instead of deciding truth based on my own bias. "MSNBC makes clear they do nothing of that sort" I agree that MSNBC has stated that, NOT that it is true. I have no idea what internal memos EITHER network has- but I know how to look at facts, instead of deciding truth ONLY based on my own bias. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:06 PM **I** recognize that Fox presents a conservative viewpoint. Yet I also recognize that many other media sources present a minority, libberal viewpoint- WHICH MOST HERE refuse to admit. So who exactly is being unfair??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:21 PM YOU are being characteristically (and I believe intentionally) OBTUSE as usual. The issue isn't viewpoint left vs. right. It is RIGHT VIEWPOINT vs. ACTUAL NEWS (which may or may not be presented by people who are left or right of whatever center you pick). You are comparing apples and oragnes, and I actually thought you were smarter than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:27 PM YOU are now claiming that the liberal biased media ONLY presents the truth, and the entire truth?? I tyhink you have a major ptoblem with comprehension of reality. Thge claims HERE are thet Fox must be lieing BECAUSE of comments by those who disagree with them. WHEN facts are presented, I listen- when liberal opinion is presented AS fact, I treat it like many here treat ALL comments by FOX. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:50 PM The severest "critics" of the easily verifiable scientific evidence for global warming are those who have a vested interest (i.e., profit by) continuing to polute the planet, have no interest beyond the next quarterly financial report, and don't give a second's thought to the welfare of future generations. And, of course, their dim-witted dupes. I agree wholeheartedly with Jeri at 15 Dec 10 - 08:17 p.m. I refuse to waste my time and energy arguing with someone who does not want to believe the truth when it is patently obvious. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Dec 10 - 02:58 PM "YOU are now claiming that the liberal biased media ONLY presents the truth, and the entire truth??" Again, classic Bruce. You just love to start each post by putting words in people's mouths. "So YOU are saying blah blah blah...." You are not worth responding too. It's always the same old river of shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,999 Date: 16 Dec 10 - 03:15 PM Bruce, In truth I no longer listen to much news. I have no TV and the radio isn`t on much. I`m working on a CD--as you know--and it`s time consuming. To point out: I actually don`t find the media to be all that liberal. There are some that are liberal--as there are stations like FOX that seem to slant a bit to the right, of in FOX`s case, lots to the right. I am not on a bandwagon with regard to FOX. I have listened to them and I find their bias to be too far to the right for me. I`m sure that papers or stations I like would be too far left for you. That`s cool with me. I think that the absolutely worst thing that has happened to your country in ages is eight years of Bush and Cheney. If I recall, you did your best to defend them. I admire that. However, defending FOX ain`t too bright, and I know you are a smart man. Now, leave this shit alone and get me the damned sonnet for the liner notes--could use them for Jan 15, 2011. Love and kisses, BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 03:42 PM The BIGGEST of the right's BIGASS LIES is "liberal media"... There are four publicly broadcast television news/so-called new stations: ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox... When was Dennis Kucinich asked to be on any one of them??? Until Bernie Saunders mini-filibuster last week when was he last on any of them??? Just where is this "liberal bias", anyway??? Well, I'll tell ya'll where it is... It isn't!!! This is all part of the right's drumbeat to only have right and further right conversations on the news... That is reality... It is a trick... Believe me... I am a leftist and I certainly know a leftist when I hear one and they are blackballed from the *BIG 4*... Yet there isn't anyone too far to the right that can't get all the microphone time they want... I mean, the further right, the better as far as the BIG 4 are concerned... And please spare us the worn out, "Yeah, but MSNBC"... So what... MSNBC doesn't have a FCC license to use the publicly owned airwaves, does it... Fox does and it frequently airs righties in addition to it's cable propaganda program... That is reality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 04:18 PM Bobert, Right of YOU does NOT make a network less left of center. Three of the four you mention are Left of Center. 20% of the population is "liberal". One of the four is right of center. 40% of the population is "conservative". Yet YOU draw the conclusion that there is no "liberal bias" in the media. Please explain your logic- it defies conprehension. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 10 - 04:25 PM "Benefactors and staff According to the New York Times, Media Matters initially received "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals" with ties to the Democratic party (including Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, Marcy Carsey, Susie Tompkins Buell, Leo Hindrey, Gail Furman, and James Hormel). Byron York said Media Matters received an unspecified amount of funding from MoveOn.org, and the New Democrat Network. In 2004 Media Matters received the endorsement of the Democracy Alliance. Though the Alliance does not make direct donations to organizations, its endorsement resulted in direct donations to MMfA from Alliance members. In October 2010 Alliance founding member George Soros announced his first donation to Media Matters, saying "Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by various Fox News commentators, I have not to date been a funder of Media Matters." Soros said concern over "recent evidence suggesting that the incendiary rhetoric of Fox News hosts may incite violence" moved him to donate $1 million to Media Matters, which thanked Soros for announcing his donation "quickly and transparently." Political.com reported that Media Matters' policy was to not "offer a comprehensive list of its donors, and hasn't given any indication that it's going to do so going forward." Former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton John Podesta provided office space for Media Matters early in its formation at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank that he had created in 2002. Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals. Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and for other progressive groups. In 2004 article on Media Matters the National Review referred to MMfA staffers who had recently worked on the presidential campaigns of John Edwards and Wesley Clark, for Congressman Barney Frank, and for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee." {all groups highlighted are Democrat activist groups who have no interest in getting truthful news to the American people because they do not disseminate news as FOX does...these groups are trying to destroy people they see as being in their way, hense the enemy...that being FOX New} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 04:35 PM Gosh, bruce... I guess is you are an upstanding citizen of John Birch City then, yeah, anything that isn't complete facist bullshit must seem mighty liberal... The problem I have with yer logic is that there is no logic... I am a leftist andf I haven't heard a leftist since maybe the early 70s on any of the publicly aired news shows... Bet yo can't same the same fir yer side... Wewll, of course you can't because you are so accustomed to having as much rightwinged bullshit blown all over you that you get yer sufficiency on a daily basis... Try standing on a leftist shoes fir a day... No, make that 40 years... We are completely blackballed from the conversation... Thus, one stupid war after another... One bad piece of crap legislation after another... One more reg screamed down... One more reg ignored... One more family living in poverty... One more year orf the mrich stealing from the working class... One more year of paying 17% of GNP for shitty health care... I mean, we have had 40 years of stupid, greedy people running the show and in that 40 years the left has been "left out" of all the decision making... That's right, bruce... 40 years of being blackballed!!! That is our reality... But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy (because the right wants you to feel that way when you parrot their BIGASS LIES) then parrot away... We on the left know the truth and you do to... You just aren't allowed to admit what is painfully obvious and that is that yer side has the game completely rigged... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 10 - 04:42 PM I heard Bill O'Riley admit that Fox leans to the right. There is no question that Chris Mathews leans to the left. I'll bet that the number of people here who are liberal is way higher than the national figure. I also believe that the vast majority here have an average IQ way above the national average. That's why I hang out here; I'm hoping some of it will rub off on me. Now, that said, BB, don't get the idea that I think you are below average in IQ. I respect your intellect; I just don't agree with your politics. Or your need to stir the pot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 04:49 PM I don't have any problem with Bill O or Keith O... That's cable... I have problems with FOX having a FCC license to broadcast over airwaves that are owned by all the American people... I also have a problem with ABC, NBC and CBS never having any liberals on nor stories that balance the noise machine of the right... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Dorothy Parshall Date: 16 Dec 10 - 04:56 PM I never listened to news channels or read major newspapers when I lived in the USA (1999-2009) and yet I surprised myself by always having a grasp of what was happening in the world. Still do not ..., and still do.... What really gets to me is the insistence on the part of the far right member of the family that everything is the fault of "the LIBERAL PRESS!!!" I only found the press to be far right. Guess that says a lot about where I'm at. Don't we all know that history, as well as the news, is slanted toward the right wing elite and always has been? Anyone who wants to really know history will read Howard Zinn. Only by careful study and unpleasant experience do the "people" come to realize just how much they have been "had". And, even then, they try to maintain the status quo out of fear that things could get worse, which they often do. The critical mass that finally created the French Revolution suffered greatly but ultimately brought about moderate positive change. Also the "American Revolution". Or was that a creation of the well off trying to protect their interests in the new world. Perhaps the USA needs a real revolution, hopefully of a non-violent nature. It is so hard for me to understand how the huge % of working and non-working poor, who have the numbers to elect politicians who might be helpful, still elect the greedy Republican types. They must listen to FOX. When I was a kid, the last word on TRUTH in journalism came from IF Stone's Weekly. In the absence of that dynamic publication, I feel a strong need to look at what is going on in the world and the people who are causing it, and make my own studied conclusions. A dear Quaker friend once shocked me by telling the youngster pedeling The Philadelphia Inquirer, "I wouldn't dirty my hands on that rag!" I would not dirty my ears on Fox news. Life is too short to waste time on garbage. As for liars, Kendall, They are to me the worst thieves of all. To steal the TRUTH is just as much a CRIMINAL act as stealing a car or... In fact, imo, it is far worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 05:04 PM "I guess is you are an upstanding citizen of John Birch City then," Uncalled for! You want me to call you a racist bigot??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 05:10 PM Absolutely, Dorothy... The right not only controls the government, the media but has a team of folks revising history as we go... And then scariest part about this is that the uneducated will "believe" lies even when they are confronted with facts... That does not bode well for the future when the truth no longer matters... Case in point... The uneducated Tea Partiers "believe" that it was the Obama administration was responsible for the bank bailouts... Even when told or shown proof that TARP was under Bush they continue to "believe" the lie because it fits nicely into their little revised ballgame... Go figure??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: michaelr Date: 16 Dec 10 - 05:21 PM pdq - your point is?? Are you trying to say that the Democratic Party is in any way "left" or "liberal"? What a joke. In the USA, the "center" has shifted so far to the right that even left-leaning Democratic politicians are way right of center compared to Europe (excepting rare true progressives like Kucinich). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Art Thieme Date: 16 Dec 10 - 05:53 PM The only lie I've ever heard Democrats perpetuate is the one that travelled all over the folk scene for the last 50 years--and even before that. Fox went out on a chilly night, He prayed for the moon to give him light, He had many a mile to go that night Before he'd reach the town-o. THE LIE was that it was a "chilly night"----I remember it clearly. It was nice out---and nothing even close to being chilly. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 16 Dec 10 - 06:28 PM "In the USA, the "center" has shifted so far to the right that even left-leaning Democratic politicians are way right of center compared to Europe " Same comment from Australia. The anti-Commo/Pinko/Unions etc rantings of the 50s & 60s wiped out all US rational thinking. Except for a few, comrades, and we've got your names, we're just letting you walk around to act like flypaper for any new corrupt thinkers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 16 Dec 10 - 06:30 PM "how the huge % of working and non-working poor, who have the numbers to elect politicians who might be helpful, still elect the greedy Republican type" Since voting is not compulsory a massive number just don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 16 Dec 10 - 06:41 PM Google -> No results found for "First Amendment Freedom of Information Hall of Fame". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 16 Dec 10 - 06:46 PM Bruce, Thanks for starting this thread. It gives us a chance to hone our arguments against the rightwing spin machine. I have heard Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Chris Mathews, Ed Shultze, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert all admit to mistakes on the rare occasions when they have made them, and to issue formal and PROPER apologies. All of these individuals have phenomenal fact-checking machines, and they say, "I am sorry for the error and I will do everything I can to make sure it doesn't happen again," or something to that affect. As opposed to bogus rightwing "apologies" which go, "I am sorry if I offended anyone...(yada, yada)," which is not a sincere, genuine, and heartfelt apology. Indeed, when was the last time you heard ANY of the rightwing mouthpieces admit an error of any kind and sincerely apologize for it? Simple. They don't make mistakes, so they don't need to apologize or take back anything. Anyway, this website gathers together people with an interest in folk music. Folk songs very seldom deal with the agonies of ruling over the masses or the trials and tribulations of corporations dealing with perceived unfair taxation or regulation. What is it exactly that appeals to you about "our kind of music?" Just wundering. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 07:01 PM Try "First Amendment Center's Freedom of Information Hall of Fame " http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=FOIA_Hall_of_Fame |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 10 - 07:03 PM "What is it exactly that appeals to you about "our kind of music?" " Sorry, I was not aware I had to agree with the "conventional Mudcat wisdom" on political matters to be interested in music. If this is the case, I will have to leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,999 Date: 16 Dec 10 - 07:07 PM He may be the biggest pain in the ass on Mudcat--however, he is my friend. Now, the sonnet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 10 - 07:26 PM He has been MY friend for 25 years or more... (at least I think we both still think so)... I KNOW Bruce to be a decent, generous guy with a lot of expertise in several areas. We do disagree on politics ...as you may have noticed... but in person, we almost never talk about those things. (yes.. it's best that way) When I chastise anyone here, it is a name in print I am disagreeing with. There may be others here whom I mostly agree with, but who I would not get along with RT.... It is an awkward thing to 'know' that someone you see at times RT has views that make you upset....but this is an open forum where we are comparing ideas, and I will not...(and obviously, Bruce will not)...change anything just because someone we know RT says so. I will try, whenever possible, to point out errors...both of fact and of reasoning... in hopes that MY viewpoint will clarify some issues. After all, others are reading these threads, and all sides can/should be heard. It disturbs me that online, Bruce feels that he is 'ganged up on' and that the 'liberals' here don't give HIS opinions proper reading and/or respect. All I can say is that I am trying to judge ONLY the posts, and not the person.... as tricky as that can be. *shrug* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: bobad Date: 16 Dec 10 - 07:30 PM Extended exposure to Fox News makes voters stupid, university study finds By Stephen C. Webster Thursday, December 16th, 2010 -- 4:53 pm The troublesome record of spin by conservative television station Fox News has long been a cause for concern to many Americans, who frequently allege that the nation's most viewed "news" network has the effect of dumbing down voters. Turns out, they were right. A University of Maryland study (PDF) published earlier this month found that people in the survey who had the most exposure to Fox News were more likely to believe falsehoods and rumors about national and world affairs when compared to those who paid attention to other news outlets. In a summary carried by Alternet, the following falsehoods were most relayed by Fox News viewers: 91 percent believed the stimulus legislation lost jobs; 72 percent believed the health reform law will increase the deficit; 72 percent believed the economy is getting worse; 60 percent believed climate change is not occurring; 49 percent believed income taxes have gone up; 63 percent believed the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts; 56 percent believed Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout; 38 percent believed that most Republicans opposed TARP; 63 percent believed Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear). http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/study-confirms-spin-fox-news-voters-stupid/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Dorothy Parshall Date: 16 Dec 10 - 07:31 PM " Folk songs very seldom deal with the agonies of ruling over the masses or the trials and tribulations of corporations dealing with perceived unfair taxation or regulation." But they do deal with things such as: The banks were made of marble with a guard at every door.... The other side of the coin is still the coin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Jeri Date: 16 Dec 10 - 08:00 PM I think people like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman are accused of being biased because they point out the lies of people like Beck and Hannity. While I believe they aren't overly fond of conservatives, I think they REALLY don't like liars. With those who lie and defend liars on one side and those who try to expose them on the other, it's not difficult to see why Fox and fans wind up feeling set upon. Lots of lies to expose, and they way they seem to retaliate is by telling more lies. I think if the right wing wanted respect, they'd steer clear of Fox, but I guess it's all they've got... unless they stick to the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 10 - 08:03 PM "... people in the survey who had the most exposure to Fox News were more likely to believe falsehoods and rumors about national and world affairs ..." But it is hard to say what is cause and what is effect....as in, "Does country music make folks voices sound like that, or do folks with those kind of voices tend to sing country music?" *I* tend to suspect that those with certain mind-sets about certain topics tend to go to places like Fox where someone is agreeing with their Lordy...it 'may' be basic DNA! ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 08:37 PM The point about what people "believe" is one that I have tried to make over and over here going way back... Eric Hoffer wrote a book about "True Believers" and it completely describes most of the folks who watch FOX... They are not interested in the truth... They just want to be on the winning side... Too bad for most of them because they are digging their own graves "believing" Fox/BossHog propaganda and by the time they figure it out, it will be too late to save whatever it was that they thought government was supposed to protect US from... Silly --- no, make that very stupid --- people... B~ p.s. I agree with what Bill said... I like Bruce, too... It's just that this Bruce is not the same one that I know away from Mudcat... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Amos Date: 16 Dec 10 - 09:07 PM It is a self-reinforcing spiral of "negative attention"--the tendency to substitute association for differentiation and substitute identification of different things for merely associating them in some way. This slide into the abyss of over-identifying things darkens the doorways of perception and gives primacy to the jungle-patterns of reflex reaction and emotional prejudice in place of discrimination. Once you're in that loop you seek out the kind of sound bites, gossip and exaggerations that are easy to deal with because they are closer to unconsciousness. So you tune in to Fox, once you have outgrown Sesame Street. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Dec 10 - 09:17 PM Lies about FoxNews: Fox is -
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: michaelr Date: 16 Dec 10 - 09:29 PM That anyone would think of the Wall Street Journal as liberal illustrates my previous point perfectly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 10 - 10:42 PM What, Amos??? You think FOX is like some zombie stuff??? Like you join and yer now a zombie??? 'Er like hip-hop... Infectious mindless rhythms that just go round 'n round???... I mean, ya' don't have to go too much further than Huxley's "epsilons"... Makes me wonder if in dumbin' down the population if the DNA will just say, "Fuck it, ain't worth the fight..."??? 'Er you remove FOX and put facts and real educational stuff in front of people they will come back as intelligent people??? Maybe ain't too late to get be a couple million$$$$ to ponder it... Heck, NASCAR is gonna get $40 mill and the oil companies gonna get $6 billion so what's a couple mill??? And, hey, they got the right guy right here in this mountain holler ready and willing to ponder so send the $2 mill and I'll crank up the ponerator... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Dec 10 - 11:57 PM Truth is not democratic (small d). When 40% of the population believes the Earth is flat, it is still round. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: EBarnacle Date: 17 Dec 10 - 12:20 AM What is Truth? So why is it ALWAYS acceptable when funded by left-wing sources, and NEVER when funded by right-wing ones??? At least with the left, there is some effort to respect the truth. The Murdoch organization owns [among other things] The New York Post and Fox. Various of its owners, including Dorothy Schiff and Alexander Hamilton, considered it a rag. At least they were honest about it. At present, they have pretensions of respectability...with emphasis on the word pretensions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 Dec 10 - 12:25 AM EXACTLY! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 10 - 09:43 AM Yeah, and the scariest part, like I have pointed out from time to time, is that uneducated people will "believe" a lie even when confronted with real facts... Prime example was the number of people who still believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 even after it had been factually debunked... I mean, I heard the poll in NPR a year after even the Bush administration had publicly stated that Saddam ***did not*** have any involvement with 9/11 but because of the hard sell during the mad-dash-to-invade-Iraq days there were about 30% of the people polled who, in spite of the facts, still ***believed*** the lie??? This is what scares me... I mean, the right wing is so thoroughly brainwashing these people that these people are no longer part of an ***informed electorate*** that Jefferson said the country would need if democracy was to survive... That is very scary and reminiscent of Gewrmany in the 30's... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 17 Dec 10 - 09:53 AM "That is very scary and reminiscent of Gewrmany in the 30's..." Just don't mention the Nuclear weapons... as distinct from the Weapons of Mass Hysteria, which it seems Fox is but one... Assange mentioned that when a country has Senior Political Figures publicly calling for assassinations of those it disagrees with, and thus departs from the Rule Of Law, we seem to be repeating History, and it starts to get very serious... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: GUEST,999 Date: 17 Dec 10 - 03:15 PM `. . . right wing is so thoroughly brainwashing these people that these people are no longer part of an ***informed electorate*** . . .` No need to brainwash. A light rinse would do! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: mousethief Date: 17 Dec 10 - 06:23 PM Why should the left tell lies about Fox when the truth is so damning? Unless the thread title means lies told by Fox about itself -- such as "fair and balanced." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: frogprince Date: 17 Dec 10 - 07:14 PM "That anyone would think of the Wall Street Journal as liberal illustrates my previous point perfectly." As God is my witness, about three days ago a Fox "news" fan told me that he dislikes The Reader's Digest because of it's liberal bias. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 10 - 07:22 PM Garbage in = garbage out... And the beat goes on... B~ |
|
Subject: BS: Lies about MSNBC... From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 10 - 07:31 PM Why not??? See how well it fits into the existing thread, Bobert? There's already one copycat of the Fox thread. No need for more... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lies about Fox From: Amos Date: 18 Dec 10 - 11:10 AM Study: Some Viewers Were Misinformed by TV News By BRIAN STELTER News organizations can educate voters about public policy and economic conditions, but they can also misinform voters. As if to prove the point, a study released Friday found that Òsubstantial levels of misinformationÓ seeped out to the electorate of the United States at the time of the midterm elections this year. The study was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a project that is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. According to the study, which can be reviewed online, in most cases, the more a person watched and read the news, the less likely they were to have been misled about the facts. But Òthere were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue,Ó the studyÕs authors wrote. In particular, they found that regular viewers of the Fox News Channel, which tilts to the right in prime time, were significantly more likely to believe untruths about the Democratic health care overhaul, climate change and other subjects. The study found other cases where greater exposure to media meant greater misinformation on a subject. Regular viewers of MSNBC, which tilts to the left in prime time, were 34 percentage points more likely than non-viewers to believe Òthat it was proven that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates.Ó Consumers of public broadcasting were 25 points more likely to believe the same. But the study found many more instances that involved Fox News. ÒAlmost dailyÓ viewers of Fox News, the authors said, were 31 points more likely to mistakenly believe that Òmost economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit;Ó were 30 points more likely to believe that Òmost scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring;Ó and were 14 points more likely to believe that Òthe stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts.Ó They were also 13 points more likely to mistakenly believe Òthe auto bailout only occurred under Obama;Ó 12 points more likely to believe that Òwhen TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it;Ó and 31 points more likely to believe that Òit is not clear that Obama was born in the United States.Ó The studyÕs authors continued, ÒThese effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it Ñ though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.Ó Asked for comment on the study, Fox News seemingly dismissed the findings. In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: ÒThe latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ÔStudents Who Study The LeastÕ and being the ÔBest Party SchoolÕ Ð given these fine academic distinctions, weÕll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ÔresearchedÕ with.Ó (NYT) |
