Syntho-sis Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Am I missing something? Was there some mention of MSNBC organizing anti-Bush protests in that article? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/business/media/19fox.html You're referring to this, yes? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOne of Fox’s main prime-time commentators, Glenn Beck, had been vocal in supporting the event and had a two-hour special on the air Saturday during the event. But Fox News executives generally argue that Mr. Beck is what they label “programming” and not news, because his show is an opinion program. As contradicting evidence that there was some 'mass cover-up' by Fox execs. Just in case someone thought that.
bascule Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/business/media/19fox.html You're referring to this, yes? To reiterate for the hundredth time, I'm referring to this: http://www.the912project.com/ And this, at the bottom of 912project.com: Brought to you by FOXNews.com In case you weren't aware, the 9.12 Project was behind this protest in Washington: lUPMjC9mq5Y 1
Syntho-sis Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/08/20/msnbc-lie-to-perpetuate-racial-tensions/ Are you still under the false assumption that MSNBC has never lied?
bascule Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/08/20/msnbc-lie-to-perpetuate-racial-tensions/ Are you still under the false assumption that MSNBC has never lied? Are you still so dense to fail to understand that my issue with Fox News is that they're organizing and promoting anti-government protests? I don't like Fox News is a news organization because they sponsor and promote events like this: lUPMjC9mq5Y If you'd like to continue your Fox News apologism perhaps you can actually focus on what I'm arguing.
Syntho-sis Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Are you still so dense to fail to understand that my issue with Fox News is that they're organizing and promoting anti-government protests? I don't like Fox News is a news organization because they sponsor and promote events like this: lUPMjC9mq5Y If you'd like to continue your Fox News apologism perhaps you can actually focus on what I'm arguing. Nah I don't like Fox all that much, I just like messing with people.. Anyways, where were we? So you are saying: The Fox news organization is promoting the protest of our government in Washington D.C.? On what grounds might I ask?
ydoaPs Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 On what grounds might I ask? Looks like there's some grass and some streets....I'm gonna guess it's the grounds near the mall.
Syntho-sis Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Looks like there's some grass and some streets....I'm gonna guess it's the grounds near the mall. The mall? Don't you think that's a little too upscale for all those dumb white rednecks?
Pangloss Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 I haven't had a chance to read this thread, and I'm afraid I'm only here for a moment (real life kicking my behind at the moment, but I miss you guys!), but I just wanted to dash off a quick reply. I do think Fox News is a valid news organization in the current context of what constitutes a valid news organization. Validity may be found particularly with regard to its Web reporting, which has uncovered stories lately that should not have been missed by more reputable organizations (ACORN). While it's unfortunate that these stories fall amidst clear indications of ideological bias, that bias is no worse than the bias carried by other organizations. The only real problem I have with Fox News is its 24/7 cable channel, which subjects viewers to distorted mashups of news and opinion and is even more extreme than the other outlets when it comes to sensationalism. But it's interesting that both the sensationalism and the bias are much less clear when it comes to the "printed" word in its Web reporting. I've wondered for some time now why that might be, but I think it's reflected in CNN and MSNBC as well. Might be an interesting subject for a separate discussion. That having been said, I don't necessarily have a problem with the poll results, since they may reflect an ideal rather than a reality. Nobody likes a biased news outlet, and two wrongs should not make a right. But I guess it depends on how you look at the original question -- there's what is, and there's what should be. Fox News is a valid organization in the current context, which is why it's treated like a peer by the other outlets (suggesting the poll answer should be "yes"). But none of them should behave as they all-too-frequently do (suggesting "no"). I chose not to answer. (I'll be back with you guys soon, I promise!)
Mr Skeptic Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 But it's interesting that both the sensationalism and the bias are much less clear when it comes to the "printed" word in its Web reporting. I've wondered for some time now why that might be, but I think it's reflected in CNN and MSNBC as well. Might be an interesting subject for a separate discussion. As I said, I verify any important news on the web. What they put on the web is also very easily quoted and discussed, with references available at the click of a button. Us webbies can shred any false arguments and expose lies and bias quite easily and for all the world to see. Also, we are a different demographic. Also, as a written medium, appeals to emotion are harder to pull off, as are confusion and poor arguments (since we can go back to double check).
bascule Posted November 4, 2009 Author Posted November 4, 2009 Can anyone actually demonstrate that stories about ACORN were going underreported by other outlets? Since that seems to be the only issue I've heard coming up as to Fox News' excellent ability to fill in the gap where the liberal bias of all other news outlets renders them blind to the story... Are you saying other outlets didn't cover ACORN? Didn't investigate enough? Didn't write stories about ACORN prostitution scandals? Stole those stories from FOX? Seriously, what's the deal? Educate me here. Your generalizations about FOX REVEALS ACORN'S SECRETS aren't telling the whole story. Where do you think Fox is actually picking up the slack in the whole news reporting business?
Syntho-sis Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Can anyone actually demonstrate that stories about ACORN were going underreported by other outlets? Since that seems to be the only issue I've heard coming up as to Fox News' excellent ability to fill in the gap where the liberal bias of all other news outlets renders them blind to the story... Are you saying other outlets didn't cover ACORN? Didn't investigate enough? Didn't write stories about ACORN prostitution scandals? Stole those stories from FOX? Seriously, what's the deal? Educate me here. Your generalizations about FOX REVEALS ACORN'S SECRETS aren't telling the whole story. Where do you think Fox is actually picking up the slack in the whole news reporting business? Well from what I heard (Yes I heard it on Fox) Fox had been onto ACORN months before any of the other organizations had been. They knew ACORN was dirty. I don't know if there's any truth to that though. And I don't feel like digging through Fox's archives to verify it.
Phi for All Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 I don't know if there's any truth to that though. And I don't feel like digging through Fox's archives to verify it.Ah, the key to FOX News ratings.
Syntho-sis Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Ah, the key to FOX News ratings. No, I left it open for anyone who was interested. I don't have time to go looking into stupid things like that right now. Some people have more important things to do. Why don't you look into it, if you're genuinely interested?
Mr Skeptic Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Well here's a clue: how soon after August 4 did the story appear on Fox?
Phi for All Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 No, I left it open for anyone who was interested. I don't have time to go looking into stupid things like that right now. Some people have more important things to do. Why don't you look into it, if you're genuinely interested? It was more a commentary on FOX News viewers. FOX has the highest ratings, and I don't think a lot of their viewers watch anything else, and they definitely don't bother to go back and check through the archives. So each new distortion is just fresh gospel to the exclusive FOX viewer. I know several people like this. It's a "mistake" when a FOX reporter contradicts himself or misrepresents a story, but it's a "lie" if anyone else does it.
bascule Posted November 4, 2009 Author Posted November 4, 2009 Fox had been onto ACORN months before any of the other organizations had been. They knew ACORN was dirty. Did they actually have any evidence at the time that ACORN was dirty, or did they just irrationally presume?
Syntho-sis Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Did they actually have any evidence at the time that ACORN was dirty, or did they just irrationally presume? http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?&q=acorn&sort=docdatetime Who knows. You're welcome to investigate Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt was more a commentary on FOX News viewers. FOX has the highest ratings, and I don't think a lot of their viewers watch anything else, and they definitely don't bother to go back and check through the archives. So each new distortion is just fresh gospel to the exclusive FOX viewer. I know several people like this. It's a "mistake" when a FOX reporter contradicts himself or misrepresents a story, but it's a "lie" if anyone else does it. Agreed.
bascule Posted November 4, 2009 Author Posted November 4, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?&q=acorn&sort=docdatetime Who knows. You're welcome to investigate I'm not a fan of shifting the burden of proof, sorry
Syntho-sis Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 I'm not a fan of shifting the burden of proof, sorry You don't have to be a fan of it, to do it.
iNow Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 You don't have to be a fan of it, to do it. Could you please begin adding some seriousness to your posts in this thread? What you find humorous most of the rest of us find rather annoying. You made a claim. Your claim was challenged. The burden of proof is yours to support it, not others to do it for you. Now, stop playing games.
Syntho-sis Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Could you please begin adding some seriousness to your posts in this thread? What you find humorous most of the rest of us find rather annoying. You made a claim. The burden of proof is yours. Now, stop playing games. I simply mentioned something. If someone was interested in learning more I made the opportunity available to pursue the issue further. I wasn't necessarily arguing for Fox's sake. No more, no less.
iNow Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 You made a claim. Your claim was challenged. The burden of proof is yours to support it, not others to do it for you. Your position in the discussion is wholly irrelevant.
bascule Posted November 4, 2009 Author Posted November 4, 2009 I simply mentioned something. If someone was interested in learning more I made the opportunity available to pursue the issue further. Making claims and not supporting them... I can see why you're a fan of Fox! </facetious>
Sisyphus Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Technically it was more of a suggestion than a claim. "I don't know if this is true, but..." Which is actually the sort of thing that FOX talking heads say all the time, followed by some slanderous insinuation. So they're not technically lying, but still deliberately trying to get their viewers to believe something false. Another favorite is "some people say that..." And thus FOX News fails to live up to basic Wikipedia standards. BTW, not trying to gang up on you syntho-sis. I think it's fine to say "I heard this on Fox News," as long as that isn't implied to mean it's trustworthy information.
toastywombel Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) You know some people are saying Fox is not a reliable news source. In my opinion Fox seems to intentionally mislead their viewers. You know, another nation that misleads their viewers is North Korea. Its also interesting to note that the North Korean Government intentionally starves their people. Hmmmmm (Starting to cry) These correlations really scare me, could it be possible that Fox has a North Korean agenda? I don't know, but what Fox is doing could possibly lead some folks to think that way. It is obvious that Fox's power is causing dramatic change in our country, but what kind of change? Is it possible we are headed to a state controlled by Fox? Where Fox determines who gets to eat? What one gets to think? WILL THEY DETERMINE WHO WILL LEAVE AND WHO WILL DIE!????? I just don't know anymore, I just don't! Keeping all that in mind, it leads to one question that we must ask ourselves. Will our country ever be the same again with a news organization with an agenda like Fox's gaining so much power and control over our media? It may be impossible to answer that question right now, but we have to ask the question non the less. I really hope we can come together, and not become blinded by all the mis-information. These are tough times and we need to trust our instincts. That was my argument against Fox using the Beckism Method. Edited November 4, 2009 by toastywombel 2
Recommended Posts