BS: Fair and Balanced

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 10:52 PM

Carol, I did read what your said, but that doesn't answer the question. You say you go to "source material." That's pretty vague.

I'm asking you--what source material is that? And where do you find it?

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but I worked for some years in the broadcast industry, mostly "on the air." I have some acquaintance with broadcasting news departments, including having been the news director at a network affiliated station.

So I get prettty skeptical when someone refers to "sources," especially when they seem reluctant to specify them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:47 PM

But that's not what this thread is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:47 PM

Actually, Spaw, I became incredibly disillusioned with Bill Clinton, because early on, he actually was silent, and even complicit in the spread of that lie. And he did it to help Hillary get elected to Congress. But there were other witnesses to that event who challenged this version, and he has eventually come around to being more honest about it. I used to see him in a very different light, but now I see him and Hillary both as political opportunists who will tell any kind of lie to gain power. People say that the difference between Clinton and Bush is that when Bush lied, people died. Well, when Clinton helped to promote this lie, a lot of people died.

But it is a fact that Barak was the one who ended it (to spend more time campaigning to stay in office), and Arafat is on record as wanting to keep the process going.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:59 PM

Well ya' know.......I am still a Bill Clinton fan but he has not always been a beacon of truth in every case, often just bending things a bit, but still an untruth is an untruth. Yet you are willing to take his word on this.   He may be correct and truthful, but can you verify it?

Too often the truth is so subjective and is simply the perceived truth of each individual which is the truth we each know. The actual truth may be and often is something different that matches nothing you or I believe it to be.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM

See my 20 Oct 07 - 08:10 PM post, Don. I've already answered that question.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:26 PM

Fair enough. But I'm still curious to know where you get news and information that you consider to be reliabls. If I need enlightenment, then please enlighten me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

What news or information sources do you use--that you consider reliable?

I already answered this one. Please read the thread.

and HOW do "We now know that that" Arafat did not "walk away"...etc?

Bill Clinton says so in his book, My Life, and before that, some of the other high level negotiators in that process have said so.

Which peace negotiations did—NPR? PBS? Which? Or both?—say Arafat walked away from, the Madrid Conference of 1991, the 1993 Oslo Accords, or the 2000 Camp David Summit?

Camp David (2000) and Taba.

You asked for an example. I provided one. It's a big one, because all of the people on the public broadcasting networks did it when the subject was being discussed. And it's one that was ongoing for a very long time (years, and may even still be going on). If you can't refute this one, why are you asking for others?

Yes, I have stopped watching and listening to the news on the public broadcasting networks, for the most part. From time to time I will check in to see if anything has changed. Every time I do that I find that they have not. I don't keep a log of the lies when I hear them so that I can come here and list them for you. I used to value the public broadcasting networks' news programing quite a lot. I don't value it at all now. The reason is because they lie.

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't watch them, nor that you should agree with me. You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. You have voiced your opinion on the subject. I am voicing mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:43 PM

Which peace negotiations did—NPR? PBS? Which? Or both?—say Arafat walked away from, the Madrid Conference of 1991, the 1993 Oslo Accords, or the 2000 Camp David Summit?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:18 PM

Carol, you cite one instance that you consider to be a lie (which I will check out for myself) and then you issue a blanket condemnation and simply write them off, saying that they do it all the time.

"All Indians walk in single file. At least, the one I saw did."

I echo Bill's question:   What news or information sources do you use--that you consider reliable?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 10:04 AM

'they'? 'their'? Are we back to Fox news...or is this now an indictment of ALL the media?

I am confused...if you don't watch them any more, what are you using for comparision & information?

   I am perfectly aware that news has to be double-checked and often 'taken with a grain of salt', but "they ALL lie....Chronically"???

and HOW do "We now know that that" Arafat did not "walk away"...etc?

As I said, it is hard work to sort out the facts from the propaganda and half-truths and just plain carelessness. I cannot see how anyone can be so sure that 'X' is true...or not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:51 AM

For a long time they were saying that it was Arafat who 'walked away from' (their language) the Middle East peace process. We now know that that is far from the truth. And they all did it. Everyone in the public tv news arena, and everyone in all of the major media did it. They're probably still doing it, but since I don't watch them any more, I couldn't say for sure. That's a pretty striking example. But it's a chronic problem with them as well as with all of the major media. They all lie. Chronically.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 12:08 AM

Carol, I'm not trying to be confrontational. This is an honest question. Can you tell me what lies specifically? Which programs and which newspersons or commentators?

I would really like to know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:44 PM

Her stance on health care benefits the insurance industry, and not the consumers. Considering that her candidacy is being supported by the insurance industry, this is hardly surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:15 PM

from this page>




"In Mrs. Clinton's complex relationship with Wal-Mart, there are echoes of the familiar themes that have defined much of her career: the trailblazing woman unafraid of challenging the men around her; the idealist pushing for complicated, at times expensive, reforms; and the political pragmatist, willing to accept policies she did not agree with to achieve her ends.

"Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No," said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign.

"But," Mr. Mauro added, "was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes."

(why I find it so hard to make decisions based on short bursts of data)

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:07 PM

hmmm... Hillary on the board of Wal Mart? Let me look....


Ok...I see. She was in Arkansas, where Wal-Mart started..
but...
February 3, 2006
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gathered checks from Hollywood friends, John Kerry's wife and even a former Republican congressman, but records filed Friday show she returned cash from an even older ally -- Wal-Mart...

Clinton returned $5,000 to the political action committee of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a company with long ties to the Clintons dating back to their days in Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is headquartered.

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis said the money was returned "because of serious differences with current company practices."

The senator served on the Wal-Mart board from 1986 to 1992, and was close with the Walton family that created the nation's largest retailer.

But the senator signaled a new stance on the company's business practices in a speech last week, when she told the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the company should provide better worker benefits."


------------------------------------------------------------------
The more one investigates, the more confusing it gets. With the internet to read, there are 27 positions and opinions on every issue. What IS a sincere voter to do in order to make an informed decision?

For some reason, lots of people are liking her...and yes, almost as many dislike her strongly. I have seen her roundly put down because she is *gasp* "ambitious"!! I don't believe I have seen any of the male candidates accused of that. Curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:03 PM

Well, I'm neither conservative nor liberal, and I can see from the perspective of someone who hasn't got a vested interest in either alignment. I don't like it when people lie to me. I don't care who they are. PBS lies, just like all the rest of them lie. Their lies may not be from the same slant as those of FOX news, nor as numerous, but lies are lies. And they're completely unnecessary unless someone's got a hidden agenda, which I would suggest all of the major media do have, including the public broadcasting networks.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:46 PM

Programs like the aforementioned, plus "Frontline," "NOW, with David Brancaccio," "POV," and others regularly cover stories that the corporations and the conservative minions would rather the Americam public not know about. They are the only major news services in the country that do.

Conservatives complain that NPR and PBS are "the worst of the liberally biased media." Hard-charging liberals complain that NPR and PBS aren't liberal enough to suit them, and theorize that they must be part of the corporated-influenced media.

Nobody's happy with them. So they must be doing something right.

But as I said, I don't take any of it as gospel. I listen and view with my brain engaged and often check other sources. And I keep my brain in gear while I'm checking those other sources, as well.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 08:10 PM

BillD, that's who is funding her campaign, and she's getting more money from them than anyone else. And already, her agenda is very much in line with theirs, as we can see from her health care plan.

pdq, good point.

mg, I worry about that also, and I figure that's also part of why Murdoch likes her.

I don't rely on any news sources for facts, SRS. If I'm going to state something as a fact, I prefer to go to source material if possible. If that's not possible, I will remain open to the possibility that what I'm reading or hearing is not true. Frequently, if I am subsequently able to get access to source material, I find out that what I had heard or read in the news was not true, or was presented in a way that was misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:50 PM

But I catch them telling lies all the time, even on Washington Week in Review. I used to love the public broadcasting news, but now they just piss me off.

So where do you consider the news to be most accurate, and how do you know which news is "correct" and which is bogus? You haven't disclosed that here.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: mg
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:47 PM

I would worry far less about Hillary being influenced by the corporoscopy or whatever it was than being bought by other countries with interests not totally convergent with those of the US. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:41 PM

"...she's the one most likely to be easily manipulated by the corporatocracy,..."

Manpulated by the corporatcracy? Hell, she is part of the corporatocracy, having served on the board of directors of many large companies including banks and even Wal-Mart.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:24 PM

"...she's the one most likely to be easily manipulated by the corporatocracy,..."

But why would this be so? Nothing in her speeches or record that I have read leads me to believe she is in bed with those folks. Could "most likely" still be 'not very likely'?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:37 PM

I think it's possible to ask questions for which there is a 100 percent probability of accuracy, pdq. If I can find the study, I'll post it here.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Murdoch is backing Hillary. Of the Democrats, she's the one most likely to be easily manipulated by the corporatocracy, and I imagine Murdoch, as well as a lot of the other neocons, realize that a Democratic president is probably inevitable this election.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:14 PM

" People were asked questions to learn how much of what they had been told by their preferred news source was misinformation."

It is absolutely impossible for people to know what percent of their news is bogus. Knowing that would require a reference source that was certified 100% accurate by people who are both omniscient and 100% honest. {insert laughter here}

Fox owner Rupert Murdoch has been publicly endorsing Hillary for at least the last two years. Fox employees have routinely stated that stories (true or not) that might embarrass Ms. Clinton are spiked.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:56 PM

My own opinion is that the public broadcasting people are also a part of the propaganda machine, and are not at all independent from the pressures that the rest of the major news media are subjected to. I think they are marketed to people who want more details and the appearance of having more in-depth coverage, and that's what they provide. But I catch them telling lies all the time, even on Washington Week in Review. I used to love the public broadcasting news, but now they just piss me off.

I saw a study quoted not too long ago (wish I could remember where). People were asked questions to learn how much of what they had been told by their preferred news source was misinformation. It showed that while people who watched FOX news had about 75 percent misinformation, the people who get their news from the public broadcasting people have about 25 percent misinformation. This may not seem like much, but it's a lot to me, especially if that 25 percent is really critical information, which in my opinion, it often is.

However, having said that, 25 percent is definitely better than 75 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:11 PM

Programs like "Washington Week in Review" and "Bill Moyers' Journal" notwithstanding?

I didn't say they were "liberal," what I said was that they are about the only "fair and balanced" news services this country has right now. At the very least, they try. I also get much of my news from foreign sources, and no matter what the source (including NPR and PBS), I listen with my brain in gear.

But I'm not going to argue the point.

I wouldn't credit a blatantly liberal news service any more than I would credit a blatantly conservative service. News is supposed to be as unbiased as human journalists can keep it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:00 PM

EVERY news person has a viewpoint. If they don't express it directly, it comes out in simply the items they choose to cover and the amount of time they give them....and often in the guests they invite and the words they use to explain the story.


That being said, I can tell the difference between Daniel Schorr and Bill O'Reilley.
   Fox is merely a propaganda machine, with a vested interest in conscious distortion and ignoring certain areas. NPR, BBC, and others at least TRY to get the facts right, a a minimum, even if they have their views about interpreting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:39 PM

I don't share your opinion about NPR and PBS, Don (and the bias I see in those networks, I wouldn't at all describe as 'liberal'), but when we have networks like FOX to use as our point of comparison, I can understand how a lot of people would see them as fair and balanced.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:32 PM

As far as I am concerned, NPR and PBS are about the only truly "fair and balanced" news sources this country has. I am fully aware that our more conservative brethren with snort at that statement. Nevertheless, on any objective scale of correspondence between what goes on in the real world, and the reporting of what is going on, these two services come the closest. They at least try to be honest journalists, which is more than can be said for most of the "info-tainment" programs that pass for news these days.

And as far as Fox "News" Service is concerned, they are a blatant and obvious propaganda organ for the Right Wing. It's mind-boggling that some folks here can't seem to see the obvious.

Thanks for posting that, Carol. Out of their own mouths. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:17 PM

memo to self......think twice before accusing BBC of "bias" again.

Subject: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:03 PM

I'm sure that after watching this video, everyone here will join me in describing FOX news as the most fair and balanced of all the news organizations, and the one with the highest of journalistic standards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3kI8LNTqNo