Jump to content

Home

FOX News


Det. Bart Lasiter
 Share

Recommended Posts

Such equivocation is sickening.

Pointing out both sides is not equivocation. I was demonstrating that bias can run more than one way.

 

Let me first point out that the NYT is not, by any sane standard, a left-wing outlet.

To most it is. To you it isn't because it's to the right of you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't see any reason for all of the hostility toward my post. I'm not defending Fox news...

 

Nope. And you know what? That's a characteristic feature of your posts: You don't engage the subject at all. You simply shout (loudly) that THEYDOITASWELL!!! Sorry, but that does not constitute an argument (especially when it is demonstrably a lie). So take a cookie and stop whining, [Deleted].

 

Oh, and by the way, I left a question for you a couple of posts upthread. A question that you declined to answer. So, just to give you a second chance to demonstrate to one and all why you're an intellectually and morally bankrupt [Deleted], I'll reiterate:

 

So, to summarise: What is your position on the credibility and general trustworthyness of Fux News, in light of this report?

 

chirping_cricket.gif

 

all I'm saying is that all news organizations,

 

First error. Fux News is not a news organisation. It's a propaganda sender.

 

no matter how biased you think they are or what biases you think they have or [...] whether you think they are mainstream or not, expecting any news organization to be pure as the wind driven snow is both unrealistic and naive.

 

strawman.jpg

 

(this is for you ShadowTemplar)

 

axe_grinding.jpg

 

These are businesses.

 

BBC isn't.

 

Oh, and by the way, you've just reiterated the best argument available for an independent, publicly financed public service sender, like the BBC.

 

As a marketting strategy for their business, Fox News markets themselves as "fair and balanced." Does that mean that they are absolutely 'fair and balanced?' No.

 

In which case their marketing scheme is a scam. Nothing more, nothing less. Fux News brand themselves 'fair and balanced' - which is roughly analogous to an ice cream brand advertising itself as 'healthy and nutritious.' It appears that marketing schemes which would be blatantly illegal for ice cream factories are A OK when applied to crapservative propaganda spewers...

 

But they don't seem to have any problems selling their goods to the general public.

 

Neither does Ann Coulter.

 

And Dagobahn Eagle, you say you want to be informed by someone who is 'remotely objective?' Well, if you don't think Fox News is, then *gasp* don't watch them! It's called the free market...and, strangely enough, it works.

 

It evidently does not. Not, at least, in the United Eigenstates of America. If it did, Fux News would not still be in business.

 

And if you think they're out there lying to the public, then tell RoxStar, tell those neighbors about it. Word-of-mouth is one of the one of the most effective marketting tools out there, and it can work either for or against any business.

 

We do. Oh, we do.

 

Unfortunately, some of them are as intellectually and morally bankrupt as you are, [Deleted], in which case one might as well save oneself the bother. [Deleted]

 

Pointing out both sides is not equivocation.

 

Comparing Fux News and any real news agency is sickening equivocation. Fux News is roughly comparable to the Soviet Itar Tas. Under Brezhnev or Khrushchev.

 

I was demonstrating that bias can run more than one way.

 

You were demonstrating that bias comes in different strengths, [Deleted]. I could easily list a number of news providers that have a left-wing bias - but the names wouldn't mean a great deal to you, because they're all European. NYT, however, is not one of them. Maybe it once was, I don't know, but it most certainly isn't today.

 

Let me first point out that the NYT is not, by any sane standard, a left-wing outlet.

To most it is.

 

To most Americans, perhaps... But then again, I suppose Radio Free Europe was a right-wing outlet to most Soviet citizens.

 

To you it isn't because it's to the right of you

 

I posted my frame of reference. The BBC and Der Spiegel. Of course, you probably don't know either of those, Mister Troll, but that's your loss.

 

I myself am to the political left of the editors of those outlets, so it's hardly a matter of me using my own political opinions as a reference point. On the other hand, both of those outlets come as close to independent reporting as you get it on this planet, which is why they're the standard reference.

 

Pics courtesy of WinAce (RIP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First error. Fux News is not a news organisation. It's a propaganda sender.

That's an opinion not a fact, many would agree with you, many won't.

 

Besides whats your beef with the US anyway, maybe it's because you're jealous of people who don't have large amounts of their paycheck seized by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an opinion not a fact, many would agree with you, many won't.

 

*Yawn*

 

The reality-based community does. And that's enough for me. I don't really care much for the good opinion of people who choose to live in fantasy land.

 

Besides whats your beef with the US anyway,

 

Lemme see...

 

- Kyoto

- Iraq

- Guantanamo

- White phosphorous over Fallujah

- War on Terror

- The IMF [1]

- Iran

- The Ottawa Protocol [2]

- Death penalty

- Secret torture camps

- Supports fascist organisations in Europe [3]

- Iran [4]

- Palestine [5]

- Chile

- Reproductive health

- The Geneva Convention

- The anti-torture convention

 

Do you want a longer list? I could easily add entries all night.

 

[1] More specifically the ruinous policies it forced on several Latin American countries for decades - you wonder why the Venezuelans don't like the Eigenstates? I don't.

 

[2] The Eigenstates have yet to sign the Ottawa Protocol.

 

[3] Creationists, (militant) anti-abortion activists, and the Roman Catholic Church - to name a few.

 

[4] More specifically the war that you're going to launch against Iran, as well as the execrable handling of the entire Iranian crisis.

 

[5] See [4]. Esp. the part about 'execrable handling.'

 

maybe it's because you're jealous of people who don't have large amounts of their paycheck seized by the government.

 

For your information, I support the Danish tax system. Actively.

 

I always hear the claim that if science say it not true then then it can't true ever.

 

This another example of the public ingorance of science and of objective reality.

Science is not always right even when it apparenly seem to be.

 

*Yawn*

 

That's trivial. Science doesn't claim to be.

 

A really good link explaining why your criticism is meaningless. Bookmark it.

 

From the link:

 

Philosophy is an interesting subject (the best debates always took place in philosophy class). However, philosophers can exhibit a tendency to haughtily dismiss practicality in favour of absolutes. A common philosophical rebuttal of science (particular evolutionary science, which faces powerful religious opponents) is that it lacks certainty. It is not proven. There is no guarantee of its truth or falsehood. And guess what: surprise! It's all true.

 

So why is science great, if it's not certain or proven or guaranteed true? The short answer is that these criticisms are meaningless, because nothing outside the existence of your own thoughts is certain, proven, or guaranteed true. If you wish to use absolute proof, certainty, or guarantees of truth as your litmus test for validity, then you have just subscribed to solipsism: the belief that nothing can be reliably known besides the existence of your own thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. And you know what? That's a characteristic feature of your posts: You don't engage the subject at all. You simply shout (loudly) that THEYDOITASWELL!!! Sorry, but that does not constitute an argument (especially when it is demonstrably a lie). So take a cookie and stop whining, [Deleted].

Not only does this have nothing to do with anything, but it also happens to be patently false. And in case you haven't notice, I routinely ignore questions from you as a matter of course because, in my experience, you're more interested in personal attacks, inane and/or sarcastic comments, and stupid little graphics than you are in having an honest, straight-forward debate.

 

Frankly, I don't think we disagree on the credibility of Fox News (which, by the way, I have not defended). I just think it's more than a little disengenuous to throw Fox News under the bus because they have more of a conservative slant when there are lots of other popular news services out there that are just as bad or worse.

 

After all, I didn't see the same kind of vitriol toward Dan Rather when he blatently lied about a forged memo on CBS News and then tried to defend that lie. All I'm asking for is some consistency (and maybe a little maturity). If you can't accept that, don't expect me to respond to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only does this have nothing to do with anything, but it also happens to be patently false.

 

You know what? You're actually right about that. I did a search of your previous posts, and the pattern of pointing fingers is actually much less comprehensive than I thought.

 

My apologies for making that claim.

 

And in case you haven't notice, I routinely ignore questions from you as a matter of course because, in my experience, you're more interested in personal attacks, inane and/or sarcastic comments, and stupid little graphics than you are in having an honest, straight-forward debate.

 

In case you failed to notice the pattern, I use sarcastic quibs whenever people keep dodging, weaving and outright ignoring airtight points.

 

I've never once seen any of you neo-cons acknowledge the report on Fux News that's been cited multiple times around this forum.

 

Not a single one of you neo-cons here left the slightest acknowledgement that you three spent 2/3 of the Guantanamo tread ranting about what the Geneva Convention said and did not say without ever actually having read the thing. That was pointed out to you by yours truely. And I was reasonably polite about it, too.

 

And I saw nothing in the way of response to the refutation of (IIRC) Good Sir Knight's vile slander against Amnesty International. Not even an acknowledgement that a reply had in fact been posted.

 

And I litterally do not have the patience to recount all the occations on which you've outright ignored a post from Skinwalker that contained rock-solid references. But for a couple of examples, you could look to the 'Bush's Econ Policy' thread from a while back.

 

And both you and the other couple of neo-cons have posted with varying frequency in one or more of the science-vs.-evolution-denial threads. Only to run away once Skin or I showed up and started referencing the Talk.Origins Archives. Again, no acknowledgements that you'd even seen the responses - much less bothered to read them.

 

And the interesting thing here is that the next time such a thread floats to the top of the list, our resident neo-cons trot out the selfsame tired bovine manure that we refuted the last time around. There's no sign whatsoever that anything they've read inbetween has made a lasting impression.

 

So I propose that your insistence upon 'honest, straight-forward debate' brings the adage about pots and kettles forcibly to mind...

 

Now, back to the topic at hand:

 

Frankly, I don't think we disagree on the credibility of Fox News (which, by the way, I have not defended).

 

I never claimed you did.

 

I just think it's more than a little disengenuous to throw Fox News under the bus because they have more of a conservative slant when there are lots of other popular news services out there that are just as bad or worse.

 

Again, you fail to grasp the point. Nobody here is 'throwing Fux News under the bus' because it's biassed. We're slamming Fux News because it routinely lies to its viewers to an extend unmatched this side of the Chinese Politburo.

 

After all, I didn't see the same kind of vitriol toward Dan Rather when he blatently lied about a forged memo on CBS News and then tried to defend that lie.

 

Three points: One: Lying, while common in all American media I know of, is much less pervasive on CBS than on Fux. Two: Fux is a regime outlet, CBS is not. It is natural to pay more attention to an outlet that regurgiates regime propaganda lock stock and two smoking barrells, and has intimate connections to the American fascist movement than to an outlet that does not have such powerful connections. Three: Fux is bigger than CBS. By some margin.

 

All I'm asking for is some consistency (and maybe a little maturity).

 

Again, the adage about pots and kettles comes to mind... Consistency and maturity, as in condemning Clinton for getting his dick sucked by an intern, while defending Bush's patently illegal wiretaps - or, for that matter, the firebombing of Fallujah... Consistency and maturity indeed. With a touch of perspective and a genuine sense of proportion too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get how Fox can openly admit that they are biased, and then run with the "fair and balanced" tagline.

 

I do agree with fox that a lot of news will inherit an inherent bias simply from how the journalist in question reports it, or even what they choose to report.

 

However with most SERIOUS RESPECTED news outlets the objective of the journalists is to be as accurate as possible.

 

Then you have a lower level of tabloid press who present OPINION and editorial comment. These people attempt to fit the news to the viewpoints of their readers in order to gain popularity.

 

Both may contain bias, but the first is at least attempting to maintain it's journalistic integrity.

 

Fox news is the TV equivalent to the tabloid press, such as the Sun and the Daily Mirror in the UK. Its possibly the first mainstream TV occurance of a tabloid channel, but it is tabloid nontheless.

 

I don't know anything about the NYT, but I understand that it is well respected, and has a reasonably strict editorial policy to ensure its facts are at least correct. The same with outlets like the BBC. They will of course occasionally make mistakes, but at least they try to be unbiased.

 

Tabloids like The Sun are well known to be biased and not factually correct, but their writers, editors and readers don't care.

In the UK the Sun has actually taken credit for a number of election victories... and it is entirely posible that they have the power to have swung those elections. But they are hardly of the same calibur and integrity as the well respected press.

 

The Sun is of course owned by the same guy as Fox news and half the world's media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case their marketing scheme is a scam. Nothing more, nothing less. Fux News brand themselves 'fair and balanced' - which is roughly analogous to an ice cream brand advertising itself as 'healthy and nutritious.' It appears that marketing schemes which would be blatantly illegal for ice cream factories are A OK when applied to crapservative propaganda spewers...
Strange, that. It's as if the de-facto owners of FOX "News" (the Republican Party) are protecting them from attack.

 

Not only does this have nothing to do with anything, but it also happens to be patently false. And in case you haven't notice, I routinely ignore questions from you as a matter of course because, in my experience, you're more interested in personal attacks, inane and/or sarcastic comments, and stupid little graphics than you are in having an honest, straight-forward debate.
ShadowTemplar, actually he has a bit of a point here. You are on a pretty high horse, and it'd be nice if you stepped down from it. You're right in 99,999% of the things you post, but your way of presenting them is questionable to me (and apparently also to a certain archeologist, should we judge by the number of "[Deleted]" tags in your posts;)).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Personally, I find it strange how FOX News must claim they are "Fair and Balanced." No other news channels must do so in order to show they are impartial.

 

Thats because more than half the others aren't and they know it. FOX News leans to the right, whats the big deal. The democrats and liberals have their fair share of receiving news the way they want to hear. Why can't the republicans and conservatives have theirs?

 

That said, I don't really believe that putting "spin" on the news is acceptable. But lets face it, a moral and impartial news service is out of the question. I believe that it is beyond ethicality to be partial on every issue. Corrupt administration and journalists trying to claw their way to the top through attracting a stable audience will eventually swing the station left or right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOX News is doing a bit more than "partially favouring them during election time". They 100% favour them the whole time.

 

And they're not only refraining from from slanderous accusations - they're refraining from real, fact-based accusations too.

 

Or can you look up the FOX News coverage of the Downing Street Memos? Or how Bush&Co. authorized the Guantanamo torture? Or how there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (to the contrary, they posted WMDs had been found in Iraq).

 

Read the rest of the thread, and keep an eye out for the "scholarly report" link posted by ShadowTemplar (I think it was him, anyway). FOX News is the Republican Party's trusty little pet channel. Or, in other words, a propaganda sender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you would apply the same journalistic standards to the Daily Mirror when they stated shortly after the 04 election:

 

"How can 59,732,000 people be so dumb?"

 

 

....or maybe not, since you can agree with them.

 

I love the Democrat's defense of, "Well we lost because everyone is ignorant."

 

That's a sure way to keep Republicans in power and I love it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you would apply the same journalistic standards to the Daily Mirror when they stated shortly after the 04 election:

 

"How can 59,732,000 people be so dumb?"

Perhaps. But we're discussing FOX News.

 

I love the Democrat's defense of, "Well we lost because everyone is ignorant."
Well, it's true. If more people knew all about the Downing Street Memo,the PATRIOT ACT, the Gitmo torture and torture in general, etc., they'd very likely not support Bush.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox News is the Bush Administration's freak on a leash.

 

Are we sure its not the other way around. In the UK newscorp pretty much tells the politicians what to do, not the other way around.

 

This is from the Rumsfeld thread, bt the 2nd half pretty well demonstrates the fair and balanced nature of Fox News's editorialising reporting.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RrXaFluPY4A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well America is known to be a country led by the media and since Bush got some relatives over at FOX it helps the gouverment greatly when they can sharpen up the news however they may like it.

 

FOX doesnt cencur Bushes little miss-steps, they just tend to never mind it and focus on bright shiny positive stuff like how swell things are workin out in Iraq and how stupid liberal politicals are.

 

By the way Bill O' is such a pathetic excuse for a debater that i'd like nothing more than to kick his ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well America is known to be a country led by the media and since Bush got some relatives over at FOX it helps the gouverment greatly when they can sharpen up the news however they may like it.

 

FOX doesnt cencur Bushes little miss-steps, they just tend to never mind it and focus on bright shiny positive stuff like how swell things are workin out in Iraq and how stupid liberal politicals are.

 

By the way Bill O' is such a pathetic excuse for a debater that i'd like nothing more than to kick his ass.

 

Welcome to the forums sugarpiece89 :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way Bill O' is such a pathetic excuse for a debater that i'd like nothing more than to kick his ass.

 

Being a righty I was a big fan of Billy boy until his phone escapades.

 

That said, I'm certain he would own you in a debate. I do love it how he leaves liberals in a sputtering impotent rage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...