Pangloss

Objective sources are required for such determinations, not ones which have a predetermined agenda.

Correct. Which is not the same thing as calling him a liar. Stop putting words in my mouth and acknowledge what you know full well: I'm saying that the police at the time of an arrest has no DNA evidence and should not take suspects at their word. They should interrogate any suspect who waives his Miranda rights. These two statements do not logically follow. You have not accounted for the obvious possibility that he simply decided to avoid further stress from interrogation. You have not accounted for the possibility that he waived his Miranda rights. You are the one leaping to conclusions, not I.

I have to correct something I posted last night: Sherrod had not yet been forced to resign when Fox News first went on the air with the video. Apparently that happened the next day. I've amended my earlier post. Applying objective standards to ideological preferences is generally ill-advised. Liberal examples of "changing reality to fit the rules" arguably include the standard progressive positions on abortion, gun control, and immigration. But that sort of reasoning does seem quite common in the science community, and I believe it drives science community political positioning in much the same way that soccer moms, church-goers, and other human communities influence their members by appealing to their common sensibilities and motivations. Lol! Well, you do seem to be at least affirming my long-held suspicion that Fox News Channel is far more popular with liberals than conservatives, who surely prefer MSNBC. It's all about the drama. ;-) Oooooo, nooooo, you'll want to re-think that assumption. I grew up in Georgia, and most of my family (and my wife's family) is ultra-conservative. I have a close cousin who used to be a secretary for a higher-up in Focus on the Family -- the very heart of the fundamentalist movement -- and talking to her (or any of her sisters or her parents) is like a schoolhouse lesson on doggedly-determined fundamentalist thinking. (I cringe every time I log in to my Facebook wall, because I know it's going to be filled with anti-Obama nonsense, but I know better than to argue -- family is far more important than politics!) Thanks Skye, I never can keep that straight. Fair enough, but how is reputation determined? What is "good reporting", and how is it different from the points I made above? And I'm not sure I agree with that last bit -- is there any evidence of this lack of respect amongst moderates and conservatives?

That's very cheesy of you to go putting words in my mouth. You know full well that I'm talking about the hypothetical of early police investigation. I never said he was lying, I said the police have no way to know whether he is or not -- that's why (as you AGREED) they have to investigate. So don't cop out now with this sort of cheesiness. Not a legal definition, but rather a jury finding. Two very different things. And again, totally beside the point. I find it really hard to see how watching a Hollywood movie can inform us of ANYTHING useful on the subject of police interrogation. IMO socio-political policy should NEVER be informed by entertainment, even at the most superficial, background level. My two bits anway.

Do we have any numbers that indicate that creationist influence is actually widespread, and not an isolated problem in certain communities? I realize the recent Texas schoolbook story that we discussed here affected an entire state, but that almost proves my point, because it wasn't a blatant creationism move, it was more of a toned-down, across-the-board, general promotion of a slightly-more-conservative approach. The wider the scope, the lighter the push -- why? Surely this suggests that creationism is not as widespread or accepted as some would have us believe. Popularity was not the concept I put forth in point #2. The idea behind point #2 is that FNC acquires appropriate and relevant interview subjects. I have (edit: NOT) suggested that FNC is more legitimate or the "news of record" just because it's popular. That's a great question, thanks for bringing it up. I don't know the answer, but it may be relevant to note that The Guardian (do I have that right?) and other conservative outlets in the UK are taken seriously overseas. Just because the crazies tune in doesn't mean that the network "fails to inform". Is CNN responsible for its crazies? You said "proportion", implying that the network with the highest number of tuned-in crazies is to be lopped off the list of legitimate outlets. So if CNN becomes the most popular outlet, you'll tune in to Fox News? Interesting point. Perhaps it's been that way all along, but the science and liberal-progressive communities were so in sync that the science community didn't notice they were being lead around by the nose on subjects (politics) they tend not to pay much attention to. I see the science community rear up against the liberal-progressive community every now and then, mainly in objection to things like aging hippies who suddenly remember their old tree-spiking days, but the community never quite seems to draw a connection to the larger picture (if there is one). Condemning Fox News is easy. Getting the entire science community to take a peek under its own motivational covers, not so much.

It's hard to see how.

The reason I brought up CNN (in post #3) was to point out that if CNN is as bad as Fox News Channel then this actually supports my case that FNC is legitimate, because (according to my assertion) legitimacy and "news of record" status is determined by the following of industry practices, the acquisition of appropriate and timely interview guests, and the ability to "put" stories into the news cycle. FNC accomplishes this at least as well as CNN. Whether that's dragging the establishment down to the level of FNC or raising FNC to some lofty heights is a separate (though interesting) question; the subject of this thread is whether FNC is legitimate and whether it is becoming the "news of record" for Americans.

The implication of the article (in fact the direct statement) is that he requested a lawyer and was denied one. But in fact no evidence to that effect is presented. So there is no reason to think that anything incorrect or untoward has taken place here. The fact that he later turned out to be innocent does not inform us that the police made a mistake. So it's not a false dilemma, it is the central and critical question. Thank you for answering it, but it wasn't about you, it's about the ideology behind articles like the one you linked -- their authors hide behind hindsight and intellectual assumptions that don't match the boots-on-the-ground reality of criminal investigation.

Isn't it interesting how Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, dives into the Sherrod story? So closely related to economics, that issue, right? At any rate, he has his timeline wrong -- Sherrod was fired before she was brought up on Fox News Channel. I saw her first appearance on Bill O'Reilly myself, and he actually said in that piece that she'd been fired, and it's my understanding that that happened on a previous day (maybe the day before), and she had only appeared on FNC earlier THIS day, after being fired. (Or at least that's what BOR said last night.) (Edit: This turned out not to be the case -- FNC went live with the story before she was asked to resign.) And Fox News Channel didn't fire Shirley Sherrod. The Obama administration did. So the ire should be aimed at them -- they should have read/listened to the entire story before jumping to conclusions. That having been said, it supports my assertion that FNC has become both "legitimate" and the "news of record", because their reporting, or in this case fear of their pending reporting, produced a result. It isn't a pretty result, but at the time of reporting Nixon might have been innocent too -- it wasn't the place of Bernstein and Woodward to decide -- they simply reported the story. And what's Fox News Channel's motto? "We report. You decide." Interesting. Liberals are simply discovering, suddenly and to their vast dismay, that the power of the press goes both ways. They can no longer step back, calling the newspapers of record legitimate and simply shrugging off accusations of bias, because that won't protect their vaunted ideological institutions anymore. They have to fight, and they're finding that the fight isn't as easy as they thought it was (or very much fun). Oh btw, the vaunted institution of ABC News with Diane Sawyer ran a piece last night on Bill Clinton's bucket list, sandwiched in between Boneva ads. Maybe the question shouldn't be who's legitimate, but rather who's relevant.

THANK YOU! I've been telling a certain member of this forum that for months only to have the formal definition thrown in my face time and time again. Nice to have someone finally recognize this.

That's fine for a general indictment of the system, but as with many press assertions it doesn't really accomplish anything. We still need to know whether it's okay to investigate a crime while waiting for DNA evidence. We can't put it off or ignore it, because it's already happening every day -- you either support it or you do not. Which is it? Hypothetically, if you are the police and you have read someone their rights and they decline an attorney, would you question them or would you ignore that opportunity?

That comic was a riot.

Well put and interesting.

We've not had any examples posted here of FNC "lying like a rug" (or any other household decorative). If some surface perhaps they could be offered into evidence. In the meantime that possibility does not advance this exploration. Nobody wants to bring up Shirley Sherrod? The plot's still thickening on that one, but she did resign today.

Again, not what I said. I'm trying to establish a subtle but important point here, and those of you bringing up bias are causing a distraction, presumably because you don't like the point I'm making. I object to this. I'm not claiming FNC bias doesn't exist, I'm claiming it doesn't affect the determination of whether they are either "legitimate" or the "news of record". This is supported by the reasons I indicated: They follow the standards and conventions, they draw the appropriate interview subjects to address the stories of the day, and they "put" stories in the news cycle that would otherwise have been ignored. This is what "news of record" organizations do, regardless of bias. I've made an assertion and I've supported it with evidence. Does anyone have the ability to challenge my assertion? There's no time element -- I don't take lack of response as indication of truth. But I do expect responses to take aim at the assertion, not repeat irrelevant (though certainly popular) memes.

At any rate, just as the President knew would happen when he blasted Republicans yesterday, today the Senate swore in Robert Byrd's temporary replacement and immediately passed the unemployment extension, with funding to come from additional deficit expenditure. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/us/politics/21jobs.html One thing I'm not clear on is how long people on the dole have been collecting. The above article says it extends benefits past 26 weeks, but FNC has been hammering this "99 weeks being extended to 126 weeks" thing for a while. Just to add a third number, ABC News last night interviewed an unemployed lawyer who's been collecting for "about a year". This goes to the larger subject of how much compensation is appropriate. 26 weeks doesn't seem like a lot, but 126 weeks seems like too much, at least to me. I don't know that I could put a specific number on it, and I'm a pretty flexible guy anyway, but it seems like something that ought to be established one way or another. Even Larry Summers (now Obama's chief economic advisor) has linked unemployment compensation to a failure in unemployment figures to drop (source).

The president is blaming Republicans being blamed for the non-extension of unemployment compensation, but I think he's playing politics. - Republicans aren't saying "no", they're saying "pay for it", as in fund it without adding to the debt. - There's still unspent stimulus money. If unemployment compensation is stimulus as the administration claims, then why hasn't it proposed using that money to pay for the extension? What do you think?

Pardon me, I didn't realize there was a fourth page of replies (I usually quote the original post unless I'm replying in the very next box). How were the police supposed to know that the man's DNA wouldn't match? He claims he didn't waive his right to counsel, but we have no way to know that this is the case. We're supposed to assume it because his DNA didn't match, but that's a non-sequitur -- the two facts are not related in any way. Are police supposed to stop interrogating any potential suspect until after the DNA evidence comes in? That's CSI thinking, not real-world thinking. Surely we all know about the importance of immediate investigation, and DNA evidence can take months.

I'm not claiming FNC bias is moot because it doesn't exist, I'm claiming it's moot because it doesn't affect the determination of whether they are either "legitimate" or the "news of record". This is supported by the reasoning indicated in bold points 1-3 above. I welcome any challenge on this. Let 'er rip.

I don't know, does it? CNN reported the reincarnation of Jesus a few years ago, if memory serves. (Oddly enough, we seem to still be here.)

Recently a thread here asked whether Fox News Channel was a "legitimate" news outlet. I was surprised to see so many intelligent people here failing recognize the boots-on-the-ground reality of the American news landscape, and I don't mean the popularity of that network in the red states, I mean the simple reality of the mechanics of news reporting. So let me pose the subject a different way, stating my opinion in three key points: 1) Fox News Channel has become the "news of record" for the United States of America, supplanting the New York Times and Washington Post. 2) This is a good thing, because it introduces a kind of ideological competition that was desperately lacking from the business. 3) This competition is to everyone's advantage whether you are liberal, conservative, or anything else. The second and third points follow my opinion on the first point in a rather obvious manner, so let me just focus on defending that first assertion, for which I offer the following as evidence. Point #1: Fox News Channel (FNC) follows the standards and conventions of news reporting. Biased or not, the format is the same, and when I say "format" I mean not just the layout of their programming, but right down to the details of a news story and how it is read on the air -- it's exactly the same. The only difference -- the part that is pointed at as indicative of bias -- is in the selection of questions asked, talking points raised, and repetition of storylines. But if that's evidence of bias then it has to be applied to ALL news outlets, because there is not one single news outlet that doesn't select its questions, investigate what it wants to investigate, and repeat the stories it feels are worth repeating. So there is no fundamental difference, at the "format" level, between FNC and any other outlet. (Clearly, whether one sees it as sinister or just clever, this is by design.) Point #2: FNC "gets the gets". By that I mean that they are able to interview pretty much whomever they like. They have established sufficient credibility (primarily through the careful implementation of Point #1 and their overwhelming popularity with Americans) to earn them positions in the White House Briefing Room (and the right to ask questions there) and every other government media outlet. They also get the big interviews -- the President and Cabinet, Senators, House Members, state government officials, newsmakers, CEOs -- anybody they want. You do see some holdouts here and there -- people who refuse to go on FNC -- but you see that with other outlets as well (it just doesn't usually make the news, which says something about how the other outlets see FNC), and generally those exceptions are based on stories in progress. And just to rub salt in the wound, FNC often "gets" interviews with newsmakers that won't appear on mainstream outlets for ideological reasons, so I think the holdout thing is a wash. No *advantage* to FNC, but no disadvantage either. Point #3: FNC puts stories in the news cycle through its coverage, which is what "news of record" organizations do. This has been happening more and more frequently over the last couple of years, and I'm not sure exactly why, but it's quite interesting. Story after story has become part of the news cycle only after being ignored by the "newspapers of record" but picked up and run by FNC. Recent examples include the ACORN scandal and several subjects listed in the discussion below. Discussion: The current immigration story is a good exemplar. Recently I was in Aspen at the same time as the annual Aspen Ideas Summit, and their tiny little airport was so packed with $50 million bizjets that my little commuter plane had trouble getting to the strip's single passenger gate. (Not really on subject, but while I was sitting there I brought up the FAA's tail# registry and looked up each of the airplanes that was chaperoned past the gate by the ground crew. Disney, LucasArts and Dreamworks all had their $50 million Bombardier Global Explorers there, and I saw at least six other BGEs who's registries were sufficiently hidden in dummy corps that I couldn't identify them. Apparently Al Gore isn't the only one contributing to global warming while he fights global warming!) Anyway, "vacationing" Attorney General Eric Holder was interviewed on stage by "vacationing" CBS News' Meet the Press anchor Bob Schieffer, and this was broadcast on local television. Fox News Channel picked up the interview and ran an interesting portion of the show, which featured Schieffer asking a question that was premised on an incorrect statement that the new Arizona immigration law allows the police to stop and request citizenship papers from anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally (the law doesn't allow this, which is why the Justice Department is officially challenging the law on other grounds, even while they tell the public a different story). Because of Fox News' coverage, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post and CNN actually questioned Schieffer on his program on Sunday, asking him why he got the law wrong in his question to Holder. Schieffer dismissed the error, saying he wasn't aware of the distinction and explaining that he was on vacation. This may well be the case, but it seems to point out the fact that many in mainstream journalism don't pay attention to Fox News, to their detriment. At any rate, the fact that Kurtz asked him the question supports the notion that FNC is becoming the "news of record". Interestingly, Kurtz's own organization, the Washington Post, also came under fire on Sunday from its own ombudsman for under-reporting the Black Panthers story. This is regarding the story we discussed here recently about the Justice Department deciding to draw back in the voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther party. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071604081.html I think that quote speaks volumes about one of the two institutions currently considered the "news of record". And the fact that it came to light because of FNC supports the notion that FNC is becoming the "news of record". In another recent example, when the Obama administration tapped Van Jones, an environmental activist who had at one time accused the Bush administration of causing 9/11, to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, nobody in the mainstream news reported 9/11 angle except for Fox News Channel. FNC's reporting caused the story to "go wide", causing the White House to respond to the story, putting it in the public eye, eventually prompting an apology and ultimately Van Jones' resignation. Agree or disagree with it, that is what "news of record" organizations do. If they didn't Tricky Dick would have had a smooth sail through his second term. And yet some question whether it is a "legitimate" news organization. Why? The accusation of bias seems insufficient to cover the question of authority. And at the very least, this seems to permanently shelve the question of legitimacy. It's hard to see how it could be the "news of record" without being "legitimate". What do you all think?

That story indicates no evidence that the man's claim is factual. It simply reports what he said, throwing a label on it that declares it to be the reason why people give "false confessions".

-- Some Roman, just before the birth of Julius Caesar, 101 B.C. Just kidding, but I do think your faith in a written word is at least a bit misplaced: IMO the Constitution is not the reason why we continue to have a country after so long. The Constitution is the motivation for the people who do the real work that form the actual reason why we continue to have a country after so long. If there's one thing we should have learned from the past 40-odd years of gradually increasing political discord, it's that there is no such thing as a written word that cannot be subverted, undermined, diverted or simply walked-around by a sufficiently intelligent and motivated lawyer and/or lawmaker. I don't believe we're in imminent danger of fall either, but I don't think that it's any sort of written or objective process that keeps it going, either. Ultimately it's the will of the people and the willingness of good people to do what's right that does it. My two bits, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

I'm sure there are a number of good operationalizations for the War on Terror, but getting all parties to agree on its applicability is the sticking point. But that never stopped us from discussing it! (grin) If anyone runs across a good one, please feel free to pass it along.