Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[A Tripolation]

Yeah, but don't democrats outnumber conservatives now? What with them being the majority in government, which means more people vote democrat than republican, right?

And the assumption is that liberals are more "intelligent" than conservatives, so what's there to worry about?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, 14%[/url'] of the people in a recent Pew poll said that FOX News is "mostly liberal."

 

Edited November 11, 2009 by A Tripolation
Consecutive posts merged.

[padren]

Because there's no education or IQ requirement to be able to vote?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, 14% of the people in a recent Pew poll said that FOX News is "mostly liberal."

 

I prefer to think of it was "twice as many people believe the positions of the planets and stars strongly influence their lives, than actually believe fox news is liberal"

 

(It's an old poll, but when you hit the 14% mark you can find just about anybody who believes just about anything.)

[bascule]

Here's Jon Stewart's follow-up to the whole Hannity footage debacle:

 

http://dauntingideas.com/content/jon-stewart-responds-sean-hannitys-apology-playing-false-video

 

I liked Jon Stewart's suggestion that Fox's motto ought to be "We alter reality. You are sold a preconceived narrative."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In the same episode, they reported on the departure of Lou Dobbs from CNN:

 

 

I wonder if he's going over to Fox (much like Glenn Beck did)

[bascule]

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.

 

It appears FOX's allegations of voter fraud at ACORN were unfounded.

 

A new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service uncovered no fraud by ACORN.

 

FOX: We Distort, You Deride!

[npts2020]

It appears FOX's allegations of voter fraud at ACORN were unfounded.

 

A new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service uncovered no fraud by ACORN.

 

FOX: We Distort, You Deride!

 

C'mon now, since when do we ever let facts get in the way of a good lynchin'?

[Pangloss]

It appears FOX's allegations of voter fraud at ACORN were unfounded.

 

A new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service uncovered no fraud by ACORN.

 

FOX: We Distort, You Deride!

 

The gist of the report is that ACORN registered fictitious voters who, unsurprisingly, didn't show up at the polls. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what the local prosecutor is actually quoted as saying in the original Fox News story you cited. Unfortunately what I've learned over time is that the web site is not nearly as sensationalist as the TV channel. You lose all the dramatic tone and inflection and harried questioning of "Fox News Analysts". Oh well. If we dig around a bit we can probably find something really dramatic from when that story was big news -- maybe a clip from The Daily Show. I think we all agree you're right about FNC sensationalism, though.

 

At any rate, the report is useful but it only regards one small aspect of the story. It's too bad the CRS didn't send undercover videographers without ideological agendas to repeat the previous experiment by right-wingers hoping to catch ACORN in the act (and apparently succeeding).

[npts2020]

I wonder if the same thing was done to lawyers or accountants in this country, how many of them would be giving confidential advice to their clients to get around the law by questionable means as well?

[bascule]

The gist of the report is that ACORN registered fictitious voters

 

Where are you reading that?

[Pangloss]

As far as I know that's not in dispute. The report pertains to the question of whether voters "Mickey Mouse", "Obama '08", or "Bush Sucks" turned up to pull the lever.

[toastywombel]

Ah, revisiting this topic. I think most of us recognize that Fox is not a news organization.

[bascule]

As far as I know that's not in dispute. The report pertains to the question of whether voters "Mickey Mouse", "Obama '08", or "Bush Sucks" turned up to pull the lever.

 

I guess my issue was mainly with your wording, but when you put it in that context it's fine. The registrations weren't fraudulent as Fox alleges.

[Pangloss]

The registrations weren't fraudulent as Fox alleges.

 

Does the fact that the fake voters didn't actually vote mean no crime was committed? That could be. I'm less concerned now about the chance of inaccurate voting, but just as concerned about gerrymandering. I'm not too worried about Mickey Mouse standing in line to vote, but the fact that he's a registered Democrat does not sit well with me, and it shouldn't sit well with you either. Unless of course you're ready to accept Jesus Christ as a registered Republican.

 

I'm no fan of demagoguery, but I'm not convinced that some degree of outrage isn't warranted. Whether it's some tree-hugger looking for revenge or a state election official seeking higher office, nobody should be allowed to screw around with voter registration records. Not ever.

[bascule]

Does the fact that the fake voters didn't actually vote mean no crime was committed?

 

I don't know, but Acorn has been cleared of fraud. If someone committed a crime it was whoever filled out the original ballot, not Acorn.

[Mr Skeptic]

Does the fact that the fake voters didn't actually vote mean no crime was committed?

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure ACORN aren't allowed to say, "No, I don't like your name get lost." Is it in any way shape or form wrong to say that someone claiming to be Micky Mouse registered to vote? I mean, you said so yourself as well, are you doing fraud now too?

[bascule]

Yeah seriously, what do you want Acorn to do? Throw away voter registration forms because they appear to be facetious? Isn't that illegal?

[Pangloss]

Sure, bascule, if somebody shows up with an actual picture ID indicating that their name is Mickey Mouse, then yes they would have to register them, just like the clerk at city hall would have to do. Sure, bascule, they have to register Mickey Mouse. Sure.

 

Get real, please. If the incidents of Mickey Mouse appearing on ACORN rolls is substantially higher than that of city hall's normal records, then serious questions need to continue to be asked. I want to know if that's the case, and I also want to know what the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is amongst ACORN registrations.

 

Today it's ACORN. What if Sarah Palin gets elected in 2012 and Focus on the Family steps up to do the same thing? That is what American politics has become.

[SH3RL0CK]

There is a distinction between illegal behavior and unethical behavior. ACORN's actions were probably legal but unethical. If 100 "voters" tell you they are named Mickey Mouse, it is legal to sign them up. And it is unethical to not at least inquire further regarding the validity of said "voters" simply because you believe these "voters" are going to vote your way in the upcoming election.

 

On a further note, how is it possible to be absolutely certain some of these "voters" did not actually vote in this election? Or won't vote in future elections? In other words, maybe all the fake registrations named Mickey Mouse got caught (and therefore did not/will not actually vote), but we can never be certain that some fake registrations named John Smith did not get caught or did not "vote".

[npts2020]

Two points. Firstly, in most places you don't even have to have an ID to register to vote. It can be done by mail. Secondly, is that it would be surprising if ACORN did not register predominately Democrats, considering the areas and demographic groups targeted for registration

[bascule]

Sure, bascule, if somebody shows up with an actual picture ID indicating that their name is Mickey Mouse, then yes they would have to register them, just like the clerk at city hall would have to do. Sure, bascule, they have to register Mickey Mouse. Sure.

 

At least in my state, you don't ever have to present a photo ID to register to vote. You can download the forms online, print them out yourself, and mail them in.

 

What I'm unclear on is whether or not you think, in 20/20 hindsight, that Acorn did anything wrong here, and if so, what action should they have taken. Should they have destroyed the forms they thought were filled out in jest?

 

I can imagine the Fox News headlines if they did that: "Acorn accused of voter suppression for destroying voter registration forms!"

[Pangloss]

There is a distinction between illegal behavior and unethical behavior. ACORN's actions were probably legal but unethical. If 100 "voters" tell you they are named Mickey Mouse, it is legal to sign them up. And it is unethical to not at least inquire further regarding the validity of said "voters" simply because you believe these "voters" are going to vote your way in the upcoming election.

 

Says who? Wouldn't it be illegal for my local city clerk to register me to vote without proper ID? That requirement is state law. And if that's illegal, why isn't it illegal for ACORN to do the same thing? (Edit: This may be answered, see below.)

 

 

What I'm unclear on is whether or not you think, in 20/20 hindsight, that Acorn did anything wrong here, and if so, what action should they have taken. Should they have destroyed the forms they thought were filled out in jest?

 

They should not have registered anyone who failed to show ID. They should not have registered Mickey Mouse without a damn good ID, and if Mickey Mouse insisted that that was his real name and had an ID then they should have put him in a second pile for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to verify the ID. Is this really rocket science? Seriously?

 

What I think is that circumstantial allegations and the appearance of impropriety is more than sufficient to tell us to stop outsourcing voter registration. It's not as if it's hard to register to vote, and if people are too lazy to do it, fine. We don't need political groups running around plumping the rolls with people whose only real concern is how quickly they can politely shut the front door.

 

Also I'm not at all convinced that there are legions of people out there who want nothing more than to encourage all citizens to participate in the democratic process. I don't buy it. It's a free lunch, and TANSTAAFL.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I just looked at Colorado and Pennsylvania's voter registration pages. Colorado's has a lot of stuff about ID but then it states in fine print that if you have no ID you will be issued a unique number (required to vote) and you'll still be registered. Pennsylvania's page seems to be mute on the issue, just saying if you don't have ID check a box; I assume it's the same deal, and that may ultimately be the case in Florida as well -- if you can't prove your identity you still get registered.

 

Perhaps that applies to in-person registrations as well -- if you can't show ID to the city clerk perhaps you do get registered and given that same kind of unique number.

 

I guess that makes sense because you still have to show ID in order to actually vote. But again this is predicated on the notion that you won't have legions of ideological groups out there signing up Mickey Mouse. So your error rate goes from something trivial to something significant and influential.

 

It's not hard to see the left-wing thinking on this, either. They're tired of red-staters deciding things. Why not seek every way possible to render the opinion of the majority moot? Isn't that necessary in order to save the planet, etc?

Edited December 29, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[SH3RL0CK]

Says who? Wouldn't it be illegal for my local city clerk to register me to vote without proper ID? That requirement is state law. And if that's illegal, why isn't it illegal for ACORN to do the same thing?

 

 

I tend to agree with most of your post. However ACORN is not the city clerk. The city clerk has the responsibility to verify ID, not ACORN. Therefore, ACORN broke no law by bringing in a bunch of dubious registrations; even before the scandal I'm sure they would have agreed that some of these registrations might be invalid. The clerk had the responsibility of inserting the valid registrations and voiding the invalid registrations.

 

The ethical course of action on the part of ACORN would have been to clearly inform "Mickey Mouse" of the illegality of false applications prior to accepting them. Then, if Mickey continued with the application, to inform the city clerk, and possibly the media if it were more than an isolated incident, of the dubious application so the appropriate investigation could commence.

 

That said, the whole point of this effort by ACORN is to influence the elections by (they hope) having more people who favor their political views voting. To assist this, they had voter registration drives, and IIRC, provided "get out the vote" drives on election day. Anecdotally, it is entirely possible for a close election to be decided by these types of efforts and/or by voter fraud when victory is by only a few votes. In many recent elections (Florida Presidential 2000; Minnesota Senate 2008), clearly something is amiss.

 

See for example,

 

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-js031401.htmlaz=view_all&address=203x458325

In the short time since Election 2000, we have seen startling new evidence of the disorder of registration rolls in several states. In Indiana, for example, the Indianapolis Star looked closely at the rolls. They concluded that tens of thousands of people appear on the voter rolls more than once, that more than 300 dead people were registered, and that three convicted killers and two convicted child molesters were on the rolls. In general, experts believe one in five names on the rolls in Indiana do not belong there. A recent study in Georgia found more than 15,000 dead people on active voting rolls statewide. Alaska, according to Federal Election Commission, had 502,968 names on its voter rolls in 1998. The census estimates only 437,000 people of voting age were living in the state that year. Similar studies in other states would no doubt return similar data. ...We should not presume that vote fraud is an inconsequential danger. On January 22, 2001, the Miami Herald reported that at least 2,000 illegal votes had been cast in about a third of Florida's counties -- very roughly 6,000 for the state as a whole. On January 9, 2001, it revealed that 452 felons had voted unlawfully in Broward County alone. In Georgia, analysts found that over 5,400 dead people had voted over the past 20 years. As I mentioned, at least 400 unqualified voters cast a ballot in St. Louis last November...

 

To what extent the specific actions of ACORN entailed actual voter fraud is an open question, but unethical actions on the part of ACORN is not an encouraging sign to a citizen like myself who only votes once each election.

Edited December 29, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[bascule]

Says who? Wouldn't it be illegal for my local city clerk to register me to vote without proper ID? That requirement is state law.

 

If that requirement is state law, then yes. It's not here. We only have to show our ID when we actually show up to vote.

 

And if that's illegal, why isn't it illegal for ACORN to do the same thing?

 

Because Acorn isn't registering voters, they're merely collecting voter registration forms and giving them to the appropriate clerk, who actually handles the voter registration process.

 

They should not have registered anyone who failed to show ID. They should not have registered Mickey Mouse without a damn good ID, and if Mickey Mouse insisted that that was his real name and had an ID then they should have put him in a second pile for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to verify the ID. Is this really rocket science? Seriously?

 

As SH3RL0CK already stated, it's the job of the County Clerk to verify the registrations, not Acorn. Acorn isn't doing the registering, the County Clerk is. Acorn is merely collecting the registrations and giving them to the County Clerk. Sure, if Acorn checked people's IDs that would cut down on paperwork for the County Clerk, but that's all it accomplishes.

 

The USPS also collects registrations and gives them to the County Clerk. Should the USPS be required to check your ID before you're allowed to mail in your voter registration?

 

It's not hard to see the left-wing thinking on this, either. They're tired of red-staters deciding things. Why not seek every way possible to render the opinion of the majority moot?

 

As if voter registration drives are the exclusive domain of liberal advocacy groups? And as if the "red staters" are the majority in this country, and only through underhanded voter registrations can liberal advocacy groups somehow get the upper hand? Please remove your tinfoil hat, sir.

 

People running voter registration drives, at least around here, were not pushing any sort of ideology besides encouraging people to vote. Sure, they were probably liberals as I live in a predominantly liberal area, but it's not as if you wouldn't find conservatives running voter registration drives in predominantly conservative areas.

Edited December 29, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

If that's all it is then perhaps it's okay, but this is not the general impression I've been getting (and I don't watch Fox News). If they're just collecting registration forms, then why do they need taxpayer money? And you say that it's okay that they're liberal because there are "probably" conservative groups doing the same thing, then why do they purport to be non-partisan and only interested in registering voters? Should it be one thing or the other?

 

There may be no fire behind the smoke, but I'm curious why we need to tolerate the smoke at all. Why is it necessary to have this much doubt about the voter registration roles? What is it that we've purchased with this uncertainty? The right for a few homeless people to vote? That doesn't seem nearly as important as having the roster be above reproach.

[iNow]

What is it that we've purchased with this uncertainty? The right for a few homeless people to vote? That doesn't seem nearly as important as having the roster be above reproach.

Maybe not to you, however, I can pretty much guarantee you that said homeless person places a higher value on exercising their constitutionally protected right of suffrage than they do on "making sure the voting roster is beyond reproach."

 

I know you didn't mean it, and you're genuine in your questions, but there was a certain elitist arrogance in your post that disgusted me a bit. I'm confident that when you think about it you'll clarify that you meant no such thing, and that it was just a poor word choice or something. However, when I read your post above you seem to be suggesting that you do not place the right of homeless people to vote as a higher priority than perfectly dialed in precision down to the last letter on the voting rosters. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but most of us see them as citizens equally worthy of voice in our government despite their lack of permanent residence, and understand that sometimes when dealing with registration information about millions of data points that some error is to be expected.

Edited December 29, 2009 by iNow

[Pangloss]

Well I'm sorry you're disgusted, but I meant what I said -- the integrity of the vote is more important than ANY citizen's right to vote. And apparently the Supreme Court agrees with me, saying that it is not unconstitutional to deny a citizen the right to vote if they cannot show an ID. That decision was unanimous.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

 

According to that article, and I believe this is true in my state as well (at least since the 2000 fiasco), homeless people (et al) can cast "provisional ballots" that will be counted if they can jump through various red tape identification hoops (signed affidavits or whatnot) within some sort of time frame. That's fine.

 

I can understand how temporary situations can arise that might mean that you miss a registration deadline because you have no ID, but will have ID by the time the election comes around -- that happened to me back in 1996 when I had just moved to Florida but had to jump through hoops in order to vote in the election that fall. But if I hadn't been able to vote that November -- so what? I knew I'd be able to vote in 1998. It's not as if I were permanently disenfranchised.