bascule Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 My skepticism of MSNBC is irrelevant to the issue at hand. You're arguing that Fox is a news organization (according to your vote in the poll), but that MSNBC is not. At the same time you're making statements like: Perhaps all this skepticism of Fox is simply due to the disagreement of ideologies. That's what I see it as. This is mass ad hominem. Simple lesson in human nature. And... Then why attack Fox specifically? There are many other organizations who put just as much spin on the news as they do' date=' nobody's talking about those though. It's always Fox. Would anyone like to explain the excessive bias?[/quote'] To repeat myself for about the 100th time, Fox is effectively a political action committee. They organize anti-government protests. Then they "cover" the protests they themselves organized on their "news programs". Do you think organizing anti-government protests should be a function of a news organization? What exactly is it that MSNBC does which Fox isn't doing which makes MSNBC not a news organization in your head?
Phi for All Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 To repeat myself for about the 100th time, Fox is effectively a political action committee. They organize anti-government protests. Then they "cover" the protests they themselves organized on their "news programs".This reminds me of the intellectual dishonesty prevalent in Intelligent Design promotion. They themselves make the claim that science is wrong in certain aspects, then make it sound like it's a big controversy, so it's wrong not to "teach the controversy" in public schools. It's a bit like me purposely running a red light and causing an accident to prove how unsafe the intersection is. What FOX does is not news, it's carefully rigged deceit. 1
Syntho-sis Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 It's a bit like me purposely running a red light and causing an accident to prove how unsafe the intersection is. What FOX does is not news, it's carefully rigged deceit. Which goes above and beyond the statement that Fox News is just a 'perspective'. That's a downright attack. Seriously though, what good is it to argue over this? If you don't like it, and do not consider it a news organization, you don't have to watch it. There's plenty of other people who will happily watch it, without complaint. That's the great thing about America, we don't have state-run media outlets shoving propaganda down our throats. Yes there is spin, but it's up to us as citizens to make the decisions on where to get our info and how to interpret it. Some people may not have the same exact preferences as you. I just don't see the purpose in this, at all. I'm 'glad' fox news is around, because as long as EVERYONE has an equal voice then our constitution still means something. I'm just as glad that MSNBC is around, but I obviously don't get all my info from either news organizations. I try to keep it varied, I listen to alot of NPR and watch alot of CNN, but it's up to me (up to everyone) to decide what is relevant to the larger issues. Cheers,
iNow Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Seriously though, what good is it to argue over this? If you don't like it, and do not consider it a news organization, you don't have to watch it. There's plenty of other people who will happily watch it, without complaint. The second part you've typed there directly answers the first.
Dudde Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 If you don't like it, and do not consider it a news organization, you don't have to watch it. There's plenty of other people who will happily watch it, without complaint. While this is true, it's also not true. By ignoring Fox, we allow them to get these huge rallies together and protest something on false accusations and crazy allegations - many people of whom watching the network for news have no desire to counter with actual research. When these rallies and protests start to become about things that we may actually have interest in, it becomes unwise to ignore Fox
Syntho-sis Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 While this is true, it's also not true. By ignoring Fox, we allow them to get these huge rallies together and protest something on false accusations and crazy allegations - many people of whom watching the network for news have no desire to counter with actual research. When these rallies and protests start to become about things that we may actually have interest in, it becomes unwise to ignore Fox Well I know censorship has already been tried, in other countries. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe second part you've typed there directly answers the first. What did you mean? I said 'do not watch it.' I don't suggest people argue over things for which they have no control..
Phi for All Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Which goes above and beyond the statement that Fox News is just a 'perspective'. That's a downright attack.A statement I never made. And how is it an attack when it's true? Are you denying the evidence put forth that FOX News organized anti-Dem rallies and then covered them as "news" on a "grass-roots movement"? Would you approve if they strapped a bomb on someone they suspected to be a terrorist and then dropped him off in a public square so their "reporters" could show everyone how dangerous this guy is? Seriously though, what good is it to argue over this? If you don't like it, and do not consider it a news organization, you don't have to watch it.What does liking it have to do with it? I watch and read lots of opinions I don't agree with, if only to keep my perspective honest. But how does listening to half-truths, outright lies and deceptive "news stories" help keep me informed? There's plenty of other people who will happily watch it, without complaint.And this is a danger, as I mentioned before. People who watch FOX News exclusively are being misinformed and lied to by what they are told is an objective "news organization". When so many get so much bad intel, how can they make informed decisions about anything? That's the great thing about America, we don't have state-run media outlets shoving propaganda down our throats.Remove the "state-run" part and you've got FOX News, imo. Yes there is spin, but it's up to us as citizens to make the decisions on where to get our info and how to interpret it.I agree totally. Some people may not have the same exact preferences as you.No argument. I just don't see the purpose in this, at all. I'm 'glad' fox news is around, because as long as EVERYONE has an equal voice then our constitution still means something.An equal *accurate* voice would be nice. The news shouldn't lie, and when it does it's not a voice, it's propaganda. I'm just as glad that MSNBC is around, but I obviously don't get all my info from either news organizations. I try to keep it varied, I listen to alot of NPR and watch alot of CNN, but it's up to me (up to everyone) to decide what is relevant to the larger issues.Excellent. Then I'm not as worried about you as I am those who *only* watch FOX News. Just as I worry about those who only vote the way MoveOn.org or Rush Limbaugh tell them.
Syntho-sis Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 A statement I never made. And how is it an attack when it's true? Are you denying the evidence put forth that FOX News organized anti-Dem rallies and then covered them as "news" on a "grass-roots movement"? Would you approve if they strapped a bomb on someone they suspected to be a terrorist and then dropped him off in a public square so their "reporters" could show everyone how dangerous this guy is? No I'm not denying it, but I still do not think they should be 'censored' or some other nonsense. And an attack can still be an attack even if it's 'true' (which is subjective- IMO.) What does liking it have to do with it? I watch and read lots of opinions I don't agree with, if only to keep my perspective honest. But how does listening to half-truths, outright lies and deceptive "news stories" help keep me informed? IMO, I doubt there would be as much controversy if Fox news tended toward a more liberal slant (Even if they were being purposely deceptive.) It's a double standard. And this is a danger, as I mentioned before. People who watch FOX News exclusively are being misinformed and lied to by what they are told is an objective "news organization". When so many get so much bad intel, how can they make informed decisions about anything? Yes and they're morons if they believe everything they see on television and get their info from one source. I agree, but still, goes back to my central point which is 'They have the right to believe whatever they want.' And Fox news has the right to discuss w/e it wants. What exactly is it you propose as a solution for this problem btw? Remove the "state-run" part and you've got FOX News, imo. That's subjective and therefore irrelevant. An equal *accurate* voice would be nice. The news shouldn't lie, and when it does it's not a voice, it's propaganda. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. What you consider propaganda, your neighbor down the street declares it truth. Excellent. Then I'm not as worried about you as I am those who *only* watch FOX News. Just as I worry about those who only vote the way MoveOn.org or Rush Limbaugh tell them. Just as I worry about those individuals who listen only to Kieth Olbermann.
padren Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Syntho-sis: How is calling Fox News out for what they are, paramount to censorship? No one is saying they have to be pulled off the Networks. Also, no one needs to make the allegation they create news in order to report on it - that's a proven fact with the 9-12/tea-bagger deals.
iNow Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 He probably heard it on Fox. "They're trying to censor us and take us off the air! You have to fight back!!"
bascule Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 Also, no one needs to make the allegation they create news in order to report on it - that's a proven fact with the 9-12/tea-bagger deals. It's not like they even try to hide it. At the bottom of: http://912project.com/ You will find: Brought to you by FOXNews.com Syntho-sis, I'd ask if your opinion of MSNBC would change if you went to MoveOn.org and at the bottom you saw "Brought to you by MSNBC", but it seems you hate MSNBC enough to begin with, enough to claim they're not a news organization. Yet apparently you think FOX is a news organization, when it's actively promoting conservative advocacy, protests, and political events. There's a word for that: hypocrisy.
Phi for All Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 No I'm not denying it, but I still do not think they should be 'censored' or some other nonsense.I think you mean censured, which is a harsh rebuke rather than editing, banning or blocking what they say. And an attack can still be an attack even if it's 'true' (which is subjective- IMO.)Well, then I am guilty of attacking FOX News for their twisted, lying ways. Are you suggesting we stop attacking lies and deceit where we find them just because our accusations are true? IMO, I doubt there would be as much controversy if Fox news tended toward a more liberal slant (Even if they were being purposely deceptive.) It's a double standard.I joined MoveOn.org when they first started, but stopped reading and responding to all they had to say to me because they were unwilling to acknowledge the good things that Bush was doing. It would still bother me if there was an alleged "news organization" that only pandered to the left. Like I do with FOX, I would watch occasionally to see what they were up to, but their lack of objectivity would quickly put them in the "take with a grain of salt" category. Yes and they're morons if they believe everything they see on television and get their info from one source. I agree, but still, goes back to my central point which is 'They have the right to believe whatever they want.' And Fox news has the right to discuss w/e it wants. What exactly is it you propose as a solution for this problem btw?That should be a whole new thread. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. What you consider propaganda, your neighbor down the street declares it truth.How can doctored videos and outright lies be beheld as accurate in any way? When FOX's Bill Hemmer claims that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings knew of a "statutory" rape case involving an underage student but didn't report it, when in fact the student was past the age of consent, why is my neighbor down the street justified in declaring that the student was underage? Because he heard it on FOX News, so it must be true?
padren Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Honestly I'd like to see a "Godwin Index" of all the news agencies, throughout the various Administrations. Just a good ol running tally of each agency and their use of Hitler/Holocaust references, and the party affiliation they are characterizing. Maybe some good secondary references for Stalin and Orwellian references too. That would take some compilation work for sure, but I think it would be pretty telling. I'd be willing to bet $100 that Fox News has already Godwinned Obama more times since the election than the rest of the MSM has Godwinned Bush during his full eight years combined.
Mr Skeptic Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 IMO, I doubt there would be as much controversy if Fox news tended toward a more liberal slant (Even if they were being purposely deceptive.) It's a double standard. I hate loud, dumb liars that agree with me more than I do ones that disagree with me -- the former can damage my reputation by association, whereas the latter do the same to my opposition. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. What you consider propaganda, your neighbor down the street declares it truth. No, they may teach you in school that you can invent your own facts, spelling, opinion, or whatever, but the world doesn't care what you think. When you jump off a cliff believing you can fly, the same will happen as when you believe you will fall -- though in the latter case you might be sensible enough to have a parachute. No, what's in the eye of the beholder is how he judges things -- subjective or unclear things depend on who is judging it. I believe the statement you made is one of the major reasons Fox are dangerous.
bascule Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth trying to educate Fox News apologists. It seems like no matter how many times I repeat the fact that Fox News is deliberately and unabashedly organizing and promoting anti-government protests, and that's the reason they're not a news organization, the response is always "You just hate Fox News because they're conservative!"
Syntho-sis Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 He probably heard it on Fox. "They're trying to censor us and take us off the air! You have to fight back!!" That's insulting to my intelligence. By the sum of statements thus far, it seems that's what is being proposed, censorship. What would the other solutions be? Would you be entirely heartbroken if they did starting censoring the networks? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Syntho-sis, I'd ask if your opinion of MSNBC would change if you went to MoveOn.org and at the bottom you saw "Brought to you by MSNBC", but it seems you hate MSNBC enough to begin with, enough to claim they're not a news organization. Yet apparently you think FOX is a news organization, when it's actively promoting conservative advocacy, protests, and political events. There's a word for that: hypocrisy. I just don't think it's fair to set a double standard. In conjunction with each other, I do consider them news organizations. In comparison to what "news" actually is...They each only fulfill that role partially. That's a false dichotomy by the way, which is: Fox is either a news organization or a propaganda machine. Something can exists in two states at the same time. Examples: Fox news and MSNBC. Both have traits of a news provider and both exhibit traits of a movement forwarding it's agenda.
Sisyphus Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 That's insulting to my intelligence. By the sum of statements thus far, it seems that's what is being proposed, censorship. What would the other solutions be? I haven't been part of this argument, but it seems to me the debate is about what to call it, not what to do about it. The "solution" would just be calling it like it is. I don't think anyone here is talking about censorship.
Syntho-sis Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 I hate loud, dumb liars that agree with me more than I do ones that disagree with me -- the former can damage my reputation by association, whereas the latter do the same to my opposition. What is that supposed to mean? So now you resort to personal attack just because I don't agree with you wholeheartedly on every point? Keep your libelous opinions to yourself. No, they may teach you in school that you can invent your own facts, spelling, opinion, or whatever, but the world doesn't care what you think. When you jump off a cliff believing you can fly, the same will happen as when you believe you will fall -- though in the latter case you might be sensible enough to have a parachute. No, what's in the eye of the beholder is how he judges things -- subjective or unclear things depend on who is judging it. I believe the statement you made is one of the major reasons Fox are dangerous. I know this, please stop belittling me and understand what I wrote. Quit assuming I'm some right-wing nutcase who watches only fox news, and hasn't the slightest understanding in regards to anything. Arguing down to someone does not make you correct.
CaptainPanic Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 FOX does not make news. It's an opinion. However, I don't think there is any problem. If the lefties cry out that the information that FOX spreads is false, then why don't they oppose that with their own biased channel? The important part is that it is possible for anyone to set up a channel, and to reach the population. In the Netherlands, we have TV that is biased all the time. But luckily we get the whole spectrum, from socialist leftist propaganda to right wing war mongers nonsense. An organization with enough members gets some time on the public channels. An organization with enough money can get time on a commercial channel, or even start its own channel. Just accept it that there is not a single person on this planet who is truly objective about everything... And you still need a person to make the news. The news is never objective...
Phi for All Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 What is that supposed to mean? So now you resort to personal attack just because I don't agree with you wholeheartedly on every point? Keep your libelous opinions to yourself.I'm fairly certain that Mr Skeptic was replying directly to your assertion that a liberal version of FOX News would create less controversy. I read his post as a simple disagreement along with an explanation; he hates liars on his side of the argument more than liars on the other side. I agree with him, too. A liar on my side taints the whole perspective and weakens my stance too. A liar on the other side of the argument can be revealed and denounced, and ultimately that's what we're doing here, pointing the finger and highlighting the deceptions. No personal attack, no libelous opinion, no problem.
iNow Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Since we have threads on Fox news and also on The Daily Show, I found it only appropriate to share this clip from last night's Daily Show discussing the issue (and once again calling attention to the hypocrisy of Fox): Enjoy. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/253737/thu-october-29-2009-wanda-sykes
Syntho-sis Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 I'm fairly certain that Mr Skeptic was replying directly to your assertion that a liberal version of FOX News would create less controversy. I read his post as a simple disagreement along with an explanation; he hates liars on his side of the argument more than liars on the other side. I agree with him, too. A liar on my side taints the whole perspective and weakens my stance too. A liar on the other side of the argument can be revealed and denounced, and ultimately that's what we're doing here, pointing the finger and highlighting the deceptions. No personal attack, no libelous opinion, no problem. My apologies then. I entirely misread what he said, I thought he was making a reference to earlier posts where he'd mentioned that he agreed with me on certain aspects of this debate. No problemo..
bascule Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Fox news and MSNBC. Both have traits of a news provider and both exhibit traits of a movement forwarding it's agenda. One of them gets tens of thousands of people to attend their anti-government protest in Washington, DC. I can just keep repeating myself until you acknowledge it. That's a false dichotomy by the way, which is: Fox is either a news organization or a propaganda machine. That's a strawman, by the way. In the course of this discussion I've called Fox is a policy advocacy organization and a political action committee. As an aside, I think that dichotomy may be valid. I don't think you can simultaneously be a news organization and a propaganda machine. Was Cold War era Pravda a news organization? In that regard, it's not a false dichotomy. I will passionately argue the point that you cannot be a news organization while creating news by staging events like anti-government protests. At that point you are not covering the news, you are creating the news. You can't do both at the same time. Edited October 30, 2009 by bascule
Syntho-sis Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 In that regard, it's not a false dichotomy. I will passionately argue the point that you cannot be a news organization while creating news by staging events like anti-government protests. At that point you are not covering the news, you are creating the news. You can't do both at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Allegations_of_political_bias Then we can agree that neither organizations actually cover the news, correct? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOne of them gets tens of thousands of people to attend their anti-government protest in Washington, DC. I can just keep repeating myself until you acknowledge it. I did acknowledge it. So repeating yourself is irrelevant, and beside the point.
bascule Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Allegations_of_political_bias Then we can agree that neither organizations actually cover the news, correct? Am I missing something? Was there some mention of MSNBC organizing anti-Bush protests in that article?
Recommended Posts