Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[bascule]

Pangloss,

 

I can't speak for Acorn, but as I live in a university town, the main people the voter registration groups were targeting around here were first time voters who were too young to vote in previous elections.

 

There are many demographics these groups can serve, not just homeless people.

[Pangloss]

Okay, but most young first-time voters have ID.

[bascule]

Okay, but most young first-time voters have ID.

 

Yes, which they present with they vote, after our county clerk has cross-referenced their driver's license numbers with their names to determine if they should be eligible.

 

We're a "motor voter" state... merely getting a driver's license gets you into the voter database, however the majority of students are from out-of-town and need their precincts updated in order to be eligible to vote.

[iNow]

I meant what I said -- the integrity of the vote is more important than ANY citizen's right to vote.

 

We may ultimately have to agree to disagree here. In my estimation, the integrity of the vote is not, nor has it ever been, in question. I see this outrage theater being promulgated around Acorn to be in reality a marginal issue, almost entirely limited to a handful of registrations taking place on the fringe, and accounting for (what has to be) less than 0.5 to 1.0% of all votes cast/registrations processed.

 

In short, I think you calling into question the overall integrity of the vote to be inappropriate, but I also understand your position so won't belabor the point.

 

With that said, I'm also inclined to believe (perhaps I'm just hoping, but whatever) that you and I are pretty closely aligned on the rest. We both agree that accuracy is important, and that we should take steps to maximize accuracy of the voting rosters and the authenticity of the names it contains. Further, having interacted with you enough times, I'm inclined to believe that you recognize the importance of suffrage for all, and that it is not your intent to disenfranchise homeless people (even though it might be suggested by your words above).

 

So, if I'm not completely out in left field with this one, my sense is that we mostly agree on the important stuff; I'm just not willing to let such a minor and marginal issue like this Acorn one lead me to question the larger integrity of the vote itself as you seem to be doing to support your argument.

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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

 

Actually, just FYI... That decision was not unanimous, contrary to your claim. According to your own wiki link, it was a decision with a 6-3 split.

 

 

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=unanimously

unanimous

: of one mind; without dissent

Edited December 30, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

I don't know how it works in other states, but here you have to present ID when you show up to vote, not when you register.

[iNow]

Bascule is correct. This issue with Acorn totally misses the point. Here's a list of requirements for voter ID and registration:

 

http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElections/ElectionsCampaigns/StateRequirementsforVoterID/tabid/16602/Default.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_registration#United_States

 

You can even do it now:

http://www.declareyourself.com/

[Pangloss]

I apologize for misreading the Court's vote, but as the article states, they were unanimous in their approval of the use of voter ID:

 

The Court dealt with the claim that voter ID laws demand the strictest of scrutiny by courts, because these laws could potentially disenfranchise voters. All nine Justices disagreed with that argument. Even the dissenters in the case rejected the premise of strict scrutiny for voter ID laws. Justice Stephen Breyer, a dissenter, wrote approvingly of voter ID laws in Georgia and Florida.[1]

 

As you say I think we largely agree, but just as you don't think the false registrations are a serious problem, I don't see disenfranchisement due to the use of IDs as a serious problem. The way I read the situation, anybody who's serious about exercising their franchise will absolutely be counted. Er, unless... <quick glance at Wikipedia> (whew, Katherine Harris is still retired)... yes, everyone's vote will be counted! (nervous laugh)

 

 

In my estimation, the integrity of the vote is not, nor has it ever been, in question. I see this outrage theater being promulgated around Acorn to be in reality a marginal issue, almost entirely limited to a handful of registrations taking place on the fringe, and accounting for (what has to be) less than 0.5 to 1.0% of all votes cast/registrations processed.

 

I hope you're right.

 

I know you're unhappy about this whole ACORN discussion, but I just want to point out that this has been productive, at least for me, clarifying important points about process and suggesting I need to change my perspective based on Sherlock and bascule's points about separation of responsibility. That's what good discussions are for, right?

 

It wasn't THAT bad, was it?

[bascule]

The Daily Show just ripped Fox News a new one:

 

 

Their initial concerns centered around Brit Hume's suggestions to Tiger Woods that his current religion, Buddhism, does not offer him the kind of forgiveness offered by Christianity, and that Woods should consider converting. In a follow-up segment, Hume was asked if that sort of thing should be considered proselytizing, and his answer was a resounding NO! The segment went on to show many clips of multiple Fox News personalities disparaging Islam. *facepalm*

 

After that came another montage of clips, showing O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck talking about how Obama is destroying this country and, as Hannity put it, "literally tearing at this country's foundation" (apparently Hannity doesn't understand what the word "literally" means) and how they all long for the Good Ol' Days when this country had Values and similar conservative cliches.

 

The Daily Show did a decade by decade retrospective of America, showing how the farther back in time you went, the worse things got. The segment ends with another montage of Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck talking about when things were great... when they were children, and concludes that childrens' lives are simpler with fewer concerns and therefore better in retrospect.

 

The core message of the segment seemed to be that Fox News was evoking childhood nostalgia to drum up hatred for the current administration, ostensibly because they disagree with this administration's politics.

[bascule]

And in other news, Sarah Palin will be joining them as a contributor:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/11/2010-01-11_sarah_palin_joins_fox_news_as_a_contributor_in_multiyear_deal.html

 

[Phi for All]

And in other news, Sarah Palin will be joining them as a contributor

... just as soon as she finds out just what "contributor" means. Let's go easy on those 4-syllable words there, bascule.

[jackson33]

Fox News Most Trusted;

 

A new Public Policy Polling survey looks at perceptions of network television news and finds Fox News as the only network that more people say they trust than distrust.

 

Here are the trust/don't trust spreads: Fox 49% to 37%, CNN 39% to 41%, NBC 35% to 44%, CBS 32% to 46%, and ABC 31% to 46%.

 

Analysis: "These numbers suggest quite a shift in what Americans want from their news. A generation ago Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality. It says a lot about where journalism is headed." [/Quote]

 

Read more: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/26/fox_news_most_trusted.html#ixzz0e7waaOau

 

 

There is really no more to the article, just comments....

 

I found this interesting; Only one of 50, voting members on this forum (Not counting me, 1 in 100) even feel Fox, IS a news network (percentage wise), yet half those surveyed (PPP) feel Fox is the most trusted (NEWS NETWORK). What am I missing here??? Better yet, could this prove a Forum bias, not that there is anything wrong with that...

[Mr Skeptic]

I think the answer to your question is: some people are dumb.

[bascule]

Better yet, could this prove a Forum bias, not that there is anything wrong with that...

 

I think this forum is biased with an overwhelming number of scientific thinkers, and I would venture to guess many of those who trust Fox News are not.

[Pangloss]

Are the politically correct viewers that your side of the aisle leads by the nose from CNN to Oprah Winfrey and back again really whom you want to identify as your peers? I'm thinking this is not exactly a contest of moral high grounds.

 

Jackson33 makes a valid point in the context of this thread, which is that ultimately what determines what constitutes "a news organization" is the perception of people. In that arena, has already Fox News won, danced its victory jig, and queued up for the next battle. Welcome to social politics in the 21st century.

[jryan]

No, I think Bascule is saying that Keith Olbermann is America's greatest scientist.

[jackson33]

I think this forum is biased with an overwhelming number of scientific thinkers, and I would venture to guess many of those who trust Fox News are not. [/Quote]

 

bascule; As worded, I won't disagree, make it 'objective thinkers', I might argue, but 20 to one, should concern you. Move on and/or Newsmax, neither can claim that figure. In fairness, most your regulars never read or participate in politics...I didn't listen to my mom either, "never discuss religion or politics".....

 

Those voting in the poll, were registered voters, I assume with some interest in how news is presented. 71% of those getting their news from Fox, are Democrat (34%) or independent (37%), while 22% are republican. What many people are not considering is in the real world, most folks are in some manner Conservative, belonging to all parties, Independents or even those that don't vote.

 

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1395/partisanship-fox-news-and--other-cable-news-audiences

 

I think the answer to your question is: some people are dumb.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic; Actually, IMO any person who takes time out, to register, post and argue on a public forum, must be opinionated and I honestly would never discourage any person from voicing their own passions. "dumb", no but some may be ignorant.

[Mr Skeptic]

Those voting in the poll, were registered voters, I assume with some interest in how news is presented. 71% of those getting their news from Fox, are Democrat (34%) or independent (37%), while 22% are republican. What many people are not considering is in the real world, most folks are in some manner Conservative, belonging to all parties, Independents or even those that don't vote.

 

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1395/partisanship-fox-news-and--other-cable-news-audiences

 

Yeah, where did you get those numbers? Your link says that despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the general public, among Fox News watchers the Republicans outnumber them.

 

And this despite your data also showing that the Democrats vastly outnumbering the other demographics on watching news in general (43.5% of the news viewers on average for the outlets in question).

 

Skeptic; Actually, IMO any person who takes time out, to register, post and argue on a public forum, must be opinionated and I honestly would never discourage any person from voicing their own passions. "dumb", no but some may be ignorant.

 

Well what I meant is that people have to be pretty dumb to trust Fox News. There is absolutely no reason to trust them, evidence that they have extreme bias and lie to promote their agenda. So most likely the main reason people trust them is because Fox says what they want to hear... which is what the article says at the end. So I'd say that also makes them intentionally ignorant.

[bascule]

This was pretty awesome:

 

RYvk1OtI0H0

 

Rachel Maddow recently interviewed Bill Nye about Fox News's claim that unusually strong winter in the US to indicate that global warming is a big lie (and you wonder why climate scientists prefer it be referred to as "climate change")

 

This after GISTEMP ranks 2009 as tied for the second warmest year on record.

[jackson33]

My oh my, when in the world is this going to end. Actually either issue, MAN CAUSES WEATHER CHANGES, which was actually changed from warming, when obviously it was not and the elite crowd around Al Gore, the mouthpiece for still AGW and that FOX News is some sort of editorial machine for the Republican Party. Fox, did report on the igloo, built by the James Inhoff family, which was quite humorous. On Bill Nye, is he another potential Democratic Candidate. His credentials seem more appropriate for that, than science....By the way which network ranks absolutely last, Cable or Major, oh yeah, MsNBC.

 

 

Nye started in Washington, D.C. as a fourth-generation Washingtonian on his father's side. After attending Lafayette Elementary and Alice Deal Junior High in the city, he was accepted to the private Sidwell Friends School on a partial scholarship, graduating in 1973.[2][3] He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University's Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, where one of his professors was Carl Sagan,[4] and graduated with a bachelor's degree in 1977.[5]

 

Nye began his professional entertainment career as an actor on a local sketch comedy television show in Seattle, Almost Live!; Nye corrected the host of Almost Live! after the host pronounced "gigawatt" as "jigowatt", a mispronunciation made common by the film Back to the Future.[7][8] The character name came from the host's comment, "Who do you think you are? Bill Nye the Science Guy?" and Nye was thereafter known as such on the program. His other main recurring role on Almost Live! was as Speedwalker, a speedwalking Seattle superhero. [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

[bascule]

My oh my, when in the world is this going to end. Actually either issue, MAN CAUSES WEATHER CHANGES, which was actually changed from warming, when obviously it was not

 

It is warming, except the warming is occurring at a global, not regional level. Even though the global mean surface temperature is trending towards increasingly high temperatures, yes, some regions like the US East Coast will periodically get cooler.

 

Inferring that the US East Coast is experiencing a blizzard therefore "global warming" is wrong is f*cking retarded. Nice to see Bill Nye calling them out on it.

 

On Bill Nye, is he another potential Democratic Candidate. His credentials seem more appropriate for that, than science....By the way which network ranks absolutely last, Cable or Major, oh yeah, MsNBC.

 

Do you have any issues with the science Bill Nye is discussing, or are you just trying to poison the well?

Edited February 12, 2010 by bascule

[npts2020]

Not to mention that anyone who understands the science behind climate change knows that more weather extremes are, in fact, predicted.

[jackson33]

It is warming, except the warming is occurring at a global, not regional level. Even though the global mean surface temperature is trending towards increasingly high temperatures, yes, some regions like the US East Coast will periodically get cooler.[/Quote]

 

bascule; Nobody, that I know of disagrees the Global Temperatures have been increasing (trending) for about 400 years and I for one believe they will over a longer term, whether it resumes next year or 20 years from now. What's not agreed to is that mankind is responsible or that CO2 is the primary or sole cause. We further feel, that changing our lifestyle and paying the cost to achieve for some mythical future event, makes absolutely no sense. If they and I mean Hansen/Gore, try to promote 2010, as a continuance of the last ten years, they will lose whatever creditability/support they have. However they came up with 2009's average, pretty well did the job!!! IMO. For the record, depletion of natural resources, dependency on unfriendly countries or just cleaning up after ourselves, are other issues.

 

Inferring that the US East Coast is experiencing a blizzard therefore "global warming" is wrong is f*cking retarded. Nice to see Bill Nye calling them out on it. [/Quote]

 

Think about what your saying: Weather patterns this winter, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, including over the Oceans, have produced abnormal moisture and cold. If historical recorded records indicate one thing, why can't the same be true for an opposite??? Us dumb skeptics, are using cycles and past performance, not predictions for things that may or may not happen.

 

Do you have any issues with the science Bill Nye is discussing, or are you just trying to poison the well? [/Quote]

 

No, not really and I don't have "issues" with Al Gore, Hansen or any other advocate of "doom and Gloom" on this planet. After another discussion over Senator Franken, the antithesis of Rush Limbaugh, I thought you might be heading that direction....

 

Not to mention that anyone who understands the science behind climate change knows that more weather extremes are, in fact, predicted. [/Quote]

 

npts; What science?, the closest thing to a Climatologist/Environmentalist on this forum is 'Peak Oil Man' (that I know of) and is showing signs of disgust, with over blowing the predictions. On another forum, we have a young Climatologist, that simply shuts down any thread, he cannot answer. We're all reading the same literature and drawing our own conclusions and as for those that should know, are pretty well split on the subject. I'll respect your faith on the issue, but not the solutions as preached by your disciples/leaders...

[bascule]

bascule; Nobody, that I know of disagrees the Global Temperatures have been increasing (trending) for about 400 years and I for one believe they will over a longer term, whether it resumes next year or 20 years from now.

 

If you watch the Fox News clips from the video, they are arguing the earth isn't warming because it's snowing on the East Coast.

[jackson33]

bascule; I was replying to your comment;

 

It is warming, except the warming is occurring at a global, not regional level. Even though the global mean surface temperature is trending towards increasingly high temperatures, yes, some regions like the US East Coast will periodically get cooler. [/Quote]

 

Which I believe in untrue, giving you my reasons, but...

 

 

Okay, I just replayed the clip, to be sure I didn't miss something. Beck and Hannity, both are as newspaper media editorial writers, to TV/Radio broadcasting (that is not newscasters) have neither EVER felt man has caused global warming, whatever the current trend might be...

 

I'll assume Maddow, is not a newscaster either, but comes off to me like the idiot you seem to believe Beck/Hannity are. Would it now be appropriate for me to say MsNBC, or NBC is NOT a News Network. For starters, Vancouver average Jan. high temperatures is 41F, according to my source (not 38F in article am offering) and there is plenty of snow, where the Olympics are being held. Then she led the questioning, which Nye seemed to be complying with, not necessarily agreeing with.

 

The discrepancy may in part be explained by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (or PDO) an apparent North Pacific temperature cycle. Since about 1900 the PDO has resulted in 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures followed by 20 or 30 years of warmer temperatures for Vancouver and other western North American cities.

 

But the warmer weather for the Vancouver 2010 games may not put a damper on the 2,000-plus Olympic athletes' quests for gold—snowfall has been plentiful at some Olympic ski venues, and the warmth may actually improve performance, experts say.[/Quote]

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100212-vancouver-2010-warmest-winter-olympics/

[Moontanman]

If their ass was news Fox couldn't find it the dark with both hands and flashlight:doh: