Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[npts2020]

Jackson33; Even if you are unable to draw the same conclusions as the thousands of climate scientists who have worked on this topic over the past 30+ years, doesn't mean that there is not solid scientific basis for what groups like the IPCC and others say. I have yet to see a climate model from any denialists that even comes close to predicting past, present or future behavior of the climate. You may claim that there is widespread disagreement among climatologists (how was this determined?) about the causes and likely effects of climate change but I want to see the work of those who disagree go through the same review process as current widely accepted theories have.

[Pangloss]

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.

 

Which is stupid, but no worse than other talking heads "arguing" that an unusually warm summer, or a spate of brush fires, etc, are caused by global warming.

[iNow]

Which is stupid, but no worse than other talking heads "arguing" that an unusually warm summer, or a spate of brush fires, etc, are caused by global warming.

Actually, no. That would be a false comparison, especially since the second half of your sentence is almost precisely what the science actually suggests will happen as the temperatures continue to rise. It is not based on speculative tripe from ill-informed "talking heads," but on empirical research and an understanding of the climate system which has progressed since the late 1800s and includes multiple research domains.

 

On top of that, you have managed to introduce a bit of a strawman with your argument. Well played! You've really just exemplified the problem with this topic where somebody uses political ridiculousness to cast doubt on the veracity of the science.

 

Nobody with a reasonable background in this science says that the "cause" of these events is warming alone. What the science DOES say is that the frequency and intensity of these events is rising due to the aforementioned warming, not that the warming is the sole cause.

 

Regardless, I'm sure the likes of you and Jackson will have some other completely irrelevant response to these simple facts... After all, this IS a politics thread, and politics as of late has had almost zero regard for science and reality. Please do carry on and forgive the interruption.

[swansont]

Dylan Ratigan explains how Glenn Beck is wrong, using words small enough even Beck might understand.

 

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/dylan-ratigan-schools-glenn-beck/

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

On Bill Nye, is he another potential Democratic Candidate. His credentials seem more appropriate for that, than science....

 

 

 

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

 

Perhaps you could explain how a degree in mechanical engineering, with work experience at Boeing and consulting for General Motors, and several technology/science-related patents would qualify one for politics better than science?

[bascule]

Which is stupid, but no worse than other talking heads "arguing" that an unusually warm summer, or a spate of brush fires, etc, are caused by global warming.

 

While it's silly when talking heads misreport science, that's a common problem with media and science reporting in general.

 

However, rather than just misreporting science, Fox News is actually contradicting the science. Snow on the East Coast? Clearly none of these scientists who think the Earth is getting hotter have any clue what they're talking about. Winter is cold!

[jackson33]

You've really just exemplified the problem with this topic where somebody uses political ridiculousness to cast doubt on the veracity of the science. [/Quote]

 

iNow, speaking for myself; Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's been my long held belief, that media/politics has been behind all of this nonsense, and that science for cause jumped into the pool for cause, money/grants/jobs/notoriety/prestige. As we have gone over, confirmed by a few here, including you, that Global Cooling for forerunner for Warming and now Change, was media driven.

 

Regardless, I'm sure the likes of you and Jackson will have some other completely irrelevant response to these simple facts... After all, this IS a politics thread, and politics as of late has had almost zero regard for science and reality. Please do carry on and forgive the interruption.[/Quote]

 

Actually, the skeptics of mans involvement in WEATHER PATTERNS, are on pretty safe grounds/foundation. It's those, that are insisting certain thing WILL happen, giving dates and prediction, then giving an alternative to prevent that are making fools out of themselves.

Here is another noted politician/scientist, kind of prediction, that has now fallen hard;

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.

 

Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.[/Quote]

 

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html#ixzz0fWbJkzYx

 

His diplomatic reply, noting the political link;

 

“Idiots on the right like Rush [Limbaugh] like to point to any cold-weather anomalies as proof that global warming doesn't’t exist,” Kennedy says.[/Quote]

 

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-Rush-Limbaugh-does-it-so-why-cant-I-83957782.html#ixzz0fWcXQ8NB

 

Much of the NE has experienced the heaviest snow fall on record, some going back into the 19th Century, snow is falling in places for the first time in years and even here, the totals are exceeding record amounts, in all States and in many places around the world. It's no fluke, but then it's no trend, either. Most important to what you should be concerned with, there is no conceivable explanation, how CO2, could have played a roll in this abnormal pattern.

 

 

 

Perhaps you could explain how a degree in mechanical engineering, with work experience at Boeing and consulting for General Motors, and several technology/science-related patents would qualify one for politics better than science?[/Quote]

 

swansont; I DON"T, the point!!!

 

However, rather than just misreporting science, Fox News is actually contradicting the science. Snow on the East Coast? Clearly none of these scientists who think the Earth is getting hotter have any clue what they're talking about. Winter is cold![/Quote]

 

bascule; Fox News, still reports both sides and many of the opinion shows, still have AGW advocates on their shows, giving the alternative opinion. You might listen in from time to time, yourself.

 

Yes, winter is cold, but at least over the past 100 years not with this much moisture, again in the Northern Hemisphere. Summers are also hot and I'll bet this year (2010) there will be a heat wave someplace on the planet and all we will hear is, we have to stop driving big cars, before it's too late....all over again.

 

I see you picked up another couple Anti-Fox votes, while Fox continues to grow their ratings...amazing.

[Pangloss]

However, rather than just misreporting science, Fox News is actually contradicting the science. Snow on the East Coast? Clearly none of these scientists who think the Earth is getting hotter have any clue what they're talking about. Winter is cold!

 

Oh I agree completely -- the fact that there's a high amount of snowfall in the east this year certainly doesn't contradict global warming, and it even supports it.

 

But the politically correct press cites global warming every sunny afternoon and every time a cigarette starts a brush fire. Daily perception is not a relevant factor in determining global warming. So CNN doesn't get a free pass here.

 

If you want to opine that CNN is acceptable and Fox News is unacceptable because CNN's position is harmless and Fox's is damaging to the agenda of fighting global warming, well that's certainly your opinion and you're entitled to it. I would just say that that kind of opinion is not actually harmless; it can easily cause more damage in the long run due to the randomness of public will.

 

Steering public opinion is a risky business. Ideologues travel those paths at their peril.

[bascule]

If you want to opine that CNN is acceptable and Fox News is unacceptable because CNN's position is harmless and Fox's is damaging to the agenda of fighting global warming, well that's certainly your opinion and you're entitled to it.

 

It's more that Fox News is trumpeting the opinion of anti-science. I'd feel just the same way if a bizarre looking creature was discovered and biologists were uncertain how to classify it or what its ancestors are, and Fox News trotted it out as proof evolution is a lie, while at the same time CNN trots out any discovery of a new species as proof of evolution.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Regardless, I'm sure the likes of you and Jackson will have some other completely irrelevant response to these simple facts... After all, this IS a politics thread, and politics as of late has had almost zero regard for science and reality. Please do carry on and forgive the interruption.

 

Personal attacks are not welcome here. All you are doing is pissing people off, not convincing them of your position. If you can't be civil, don't post.

[iNow]

Personal attacks are not welcome here. All you are doing is pissing people off, not convincing them of your position. If you can't be civil, don't post.

Try not to confuse statements of fact with personal attacks. You may not like the content or tone of a post, but personal indignation from you or others does not suddenly negate the validity or accuracy of the comments contained within said post.

 

FWIW - Post #181 bore out my prediction to a tee.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Try not to confuse statements of fact with personal attacks. You may not like the content or tone of a post, but personal indignation from you or others does not suddenly negate the validity or accuracy of the comments contained within said post.

Indeed it doesn't. But the tone still needs improvement. SFN should not be a hostile environment to anyone, even if they post something incorrect. In the science sections, we always attempt to correct and explain mistakes with tact, so that members will be encouraged to continue learning science. The politics section should be no different.

 

When you make a post personal -- even if you are right -- you only make the person you are attacking defensive, and make them far less likely to accept your point. When someone has been attacked, they return fire instead of listening.

 

This is not up for discussion.

[Moontanman]

pangloss, jackson, i find myself in the unenviable position of having to come in on the side of the opposition here, while I have no respect for Fox News i have just as little respect for people who do the opposite. BS supporting the party line is just as bad as BS detracting the party line.

 

If the news cannot deal in the truth i loose interest in it quite quickly. you are both correct that CNN using less than scientific reporting is just as bad as Fox doing it. It makes nether one correct and makes news organizations in general look bad to me.

 

I don't want to be told what I want to hear, i want to hear all is well in the world, no terrorists, no disasters, no economic problems, full employment, no hunger, no poverty, no disease. But hearing these things does not make them true. i need to hear the truth, unvarnished by politics or the desire for ratings.

 

I am honestly not sure where to get the truth these days so i search, high and low, it's not easy. But to be lied to by people who claim to be telling the truth just pisses me off no matter what side they are on, ultimately there are no sides, sides is an illusion and it will destroy us all if we keep clinging to the concept of being loyal to a side.

[iNow]

Let's be clear, here. The thread is not an attempt to suggest that CNN and MSNBC are news while Fox is not. Comments about CNN and MSNBC are little more than red herrings, and are wholly irrelevant. The question pertains to Fox News, and Fox News alone.

 

Also Moonman - The closest you'll get these days is News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS. I don't watch CNN or MSNBC or any of the other infotainment 24 hour networks either... Stick to Google News which aggregates from numerous sources and News Hour if you want to watch it each evening on the tellie.

[swansont]

swansont; I DON"T, the point!!!

 

What point would that be, then? Is today "opposites" day? i.e. when you say Bill Nye is better qualified for politics than science, you meant the opposite, as you seem to confirm above?

 

Does this apply to everything else you write? Is there a translation guide you can link to?

[bascule]

you are both correct that CNN using less than scientific reporting is just as bad as Fox doing it

 

Uhh, as far as I can tell Fox News thinks climate science is a fairy tale.

[Pangloss]

pangloss, jackson, i find myself in the unenviable position of having to come in on the side of the opposition here, while I have no respect for Fox News i have just as little respect for people who do the opposite. BS supporting the party line is just as bad as BS detracting the party line.

 

I agree with this, and have no idea why you feel you're in disagreement with me.

 

 

If the news cannot deal in the truth i loose interest in it quite quickly. you are both correct that CNN using less than scientific reporting is just as bad as Fox doing it. It makes nether one correct and makes news organizations in general look bad to me.

 

I don't want to be told what I want to hear, i want to hear all is well in the world, no terrorists, no disasters, no economic problems, full employment, no hunger, no poverty, no disease. But hearing these things does not make them true. i need to hear the truth, unvarnished by politics or the desire for ratings.

 

I am honestly not sure where to get the truth these days so i search, high and low, it's not easy. But to be lied to by people who claim to be telling the truth just pisses me off no matter what side they are on, ultimately there are no sides, sides is an illusion and it will destroy us all if we keep clinging to the concept of being loyal to a side.

 

Well said.

 

This is why I personally have a problem with Fox News, and it's disturbing how this point keeps disappearing under attacks that seem based more on an assumption that left-bias is necessary for the public good, and Fox is bad for not having the correct bias.

 

Fox is bad because it chose a bias, instead of having one appear from time to time due to individual reporter error and reporter bias (which sometimes creeps a bit higher to producers and programmers). That's Fox's one and only error. It's a doozy, yes, but it's not about science or politics or the need to convince people to do this or that. It's about what constitutes news and why news is so important to a democracy. Fox undermines the very heart of the fourth estate and what it means. It does the very thing that the right constantly bemoans the left for, and it does it deliberately. It is the very essence of a "two wrongs make a right" argument.

 

All of that having been said, just as other organizations can have bias and still report the news, Fox News is also still capable of being a news organization, exposing wrongdoing, and reporting important stories. The answer to the thread's question cannot be other than "yes", because bias does not make "no" mandatory. If it did we wouldn't have any other news organizations either.

 

(And THAT's why CNN et al are relevant to this discussion.)

[jackson33]

iNow; bascule, introduced an MsNBC clip describing Fox News commentaries (NOT news) on the AGW issue. I believe, it's quite clear Maddow is to CNN, is as Beck/Hannity are to Fox. If someone said CNN or any affiliated network cable channel (now including the weather channel) are not News, I totally missed it, nor am I saying, they are not.

 

If the news cannot deal in the truth i loose interest in it quite quickly. [/Quote]

 

Moon; This is a little confusing, but if you have preconception of what the truth is and listen to anything, your going to be judging that source, not hearing the news.

 

I couldn't tell you whether Shepard Smith, is a Republican/Democrat/Independent, on Fox weekdays 5 and 7PM ET, but presents it in an interesting manner, at least in my opinion. I got hooked on his programs back in the day he was blasting members of the Bush Administration over it's handling of Katrina, while standing on a bridge in the middle of the whole thing, 4 1/2 years ago. He was/is just as unhappy about the way the Obama Administration is handling the Haiti earthquake, as is Rivera, a registered republican and an admirer of Obama.

 

I also have listened to Lehrer's New Hour, seems like forever (on occasion) and feel his writers try to stick to an unbiased presentation. I think the trick is to listen to News Programs, when making judgement, not the opinion oriented programs (are on all networks) when judging their news. I can't say much pro/con on CNN, since I did not care much for Ted Turner and just have avoiding them.

[bascule]

I believe, it's quite clear Maddow is to CNN, is as Beck/Hannity are to Fox.

 

I assume you meant the relationship between Maddow and MSNBC, in which case I'll say that Glenn Beck is more aptly compared to someone like Alex Jones on the left, except Glenn Beck's audience is about an order of magnitude larger than Alex Jones. I can't think of a Fox News personality offhand who's an apt comparison to Rachel Maddow.

 

Also, lumping Hannity and Beck together? Have you ever actually watched Fox News? Hannity is just a douchebag. Glenn Beck is an outright nutjob.

[swansont]

Hannity is just a douchebag. Glenn Beck is an outright nutjob.

 

I think we'd all be better served if we went with specific complaints (lack of objectivity, a propensity to manufacture so-called facts, etc.) than with invectives which run the risk of instigating emotional, rather than rational, responses.

[bascule]

I think we'd all be better served if we went with specific complaints (lack of objectivity, a propensity to manufacture so-called facts, etc.) than with invectives which run the risk of instigating emotional, rather than rational, responses.

 

Sorry,

 

Hannity sees the world through the lens of someone who is predisposed against, shall we say, positions which require higher reasoning. These include: opposition to a scientific view of the world (as opposed to a religious one), immediate opposition to change, particularly in socially progressive areas like equal rights for gays, asserting America's military dominance over the rest of the world in the name of eliminating terrorism, and well, I can go on. Do I really need to?

 

Tthe man is very much an anti-liberal contrarian, to the point Fox recruited Alan Colmes to be his punching bag until he couldn't take it anymore. Hannity certainly has an elitism about which people are "real" Americans (something patently obvious if you've ever watched "Hannity's America", as opposed to say, real America). He does perpetuate the myth, also perpetuated by O'Reilly, that there are "real Americans" and then there are all these evil sinning liberal douchebags who want to destroy the country, not to put too fine a point on it.

 

So, that's what makes him a douchebag. But in HannityReality, it's not like the evil liberals are, shall we stay, making an organized effort to destroy America. Every liberal does their own part to destroy a small piece of the country. The total effect of all these people unconsciously working in concert is what's causing the problem.

 

Now flip over to Glenn Beck's reality, and yes, there's a PLAN. A (paranoid conspiracist) sinister plan to destroy this country, being perpetrated by the liberals in Washington. People must rise up against it while we still have a little bit of America left to defend! Join the Tea Party! Become part of the 9.12 project! We can fix this! We can show the liberals they are not in control, by giving power to the Republicans, Fox News, and most importantly... Glenn Beck.

 

Ugh.

[jackson33]

bascule, if you would give me a few examples, why you feel Beck is a nutcase, I'll break my policy and start a thread. Beck is a constitutionalist, believes in its preservation, along with some primary conservative principles/viewpoints. From where I set, Beck is exactly the same as Obama, or who ever you feel is setting policy in his administration, but with the opposite understandings. He also has a rather large staff, that researches all his issues/topics and backs them up daily. In media, this is called 'investigative reporting'. I do feel, too much of what he talks about goes over the head of his audience (too deep), and don't always think a topic is of importance, but he is no nutcase. Since you might just take me up on this, please make them viable issues of the day, not some gaff or comment, out of context, years ago...

[bascule]

bascule, if you would give me a few examples, why you feel Beck is a nutcase, I'll break my policy and start a thread.

 

You mean like when Glenn Beck suggested a green movement conspiracy (being carried out under full knowledge of Obama) to push universal healthcare as a form of population control? That the Smart Grid is an evil conspiracy by the proponents of wind and solar power, and soon the evil government will make sure your thermostat is always set at 72 degrees?. That Democrats are in the midst of a power grab where they'll fire the kings of industry as they feed off the union trough, decide what syrup IHOP should use, co-opting free speech and silencing critics like Beck? And then of course there was the time he called Obama a racist.

 

You watch Glenn Beck? Really? And you don't notice this stuff? Every single time I tune into the man it's a nonstop rant about how the evil government is part of a giant conspiracy to destroy the country, coupled with endless slippery slope arguments like "the government wants to control what goes into our food, next they'll be telling us which religions we can believe in!" etc. Oh poor country *crocodile tears* I weep for you, why are the liberals destroying you, have they no shame?

[jackson33]

bascule; That's what I thought, your relaying thoughts of others, that oppose the message from with in issues (not watching the program or if you prefer "out of context"). I might add, any conspiracy charges are results of connections, that with out Beck, might add FNC for allowing the program, that are being continuously exposed, would have gone unnoticed.

 

A prime example of this was and is the Czar system, for advising the President and those that were chose, originally not intended to be confirmed by Congress, many still not or have been transferred to other post. While I understand, Czars have been used in the past, they were so, to increase the information on an issue pertinent to a period of time or adding to available information of one department or another, that should be charged with the responsibility. For the President to use the system, for his/her own agenda, is not Constitutional, which is apparent.

 

Here is an original list of the Czars, released (August 2009) by Beck and I doubt you have even seen this list or have been advised of any questionable credentials or the fact none were required FBI security clearances. If you bother to read through the individual histories of these people, please note their connection to what are questionable organization and their past work and REAL conspiratorial comments, made by many of them. And yes, Van Jones is no longer one, but still has access to the President and the White House....I am listing one, since this is a science forum and the connection to Nazi...

 

 

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/

 

24. Science Czar - John Holdren

 

 

• Is an outspoken advocate of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and believes the United States should sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

• In a 2008 New York Times op-ed, Holdren called climate change skeptics “dangerous” members of a “denier fringe.”

• In 1971, co-authored a paper in Global Ecology suggesting "some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century."

• Some conservative media outlets have called attention to a book Holdren co-authored in 1977 titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. The book reportedly includes this statement: "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution." Holdren's office says he "does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility." [/Quote]

 

Yesterdays program was based around AGW and comments by Phil Jones, over the week end, all but saying, yes his work over years, may all be a hoax. Between the lines, he said "I'm just a scientist and doing my job", to me indicating promoting the will of others with an agenda, he now say's, he has none. Personally, I feel this past two weeks of Scientist abandoning AGW, are efforts to maintain their personal creditability. The problem is, what the consequences could have been, if it were not for people like Beck, that have been questioning these findings for as many years.

 

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

 

Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

 

"To say when you're the record keeper for the globe's temperature that you're not a good record keeper, well, that's going to come back to haunt you for a long, long time," Pat Michaels.of the Cato Institute, a public-policy think tank, told Fox News.[/Quote]

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529

[bascule]

bascule; That's what I thought, your relaying thoughts of others, that oppose the message from with in issues (not watching the program or if you prefer "out of context"). I might add, any conspiracy charges are results of connections, that with out Beck, might add FNC for allowing the program, that are being continuously exposed, would have gone unnoticed.

 

Premise 1) I'm "relaying thoughts of others" (which I'm not, just trying to link you to some relevant video clips, but for the sake of argument let's say I am) about Beck being a conspiracist nutjob

Premise 2) ???

Conclusion) Beck is not a conspiracist nutjob

 

Please fix your non-sequitur.

 

The alternative and far more sinister interpretation is that Beck isn't actually crazy (in the Alex Jones sense), but rather everything he says is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Tea Party social movement and other similar thinking people to follow the FNC/Republican agenda. I won't go as far as to say that... I just prefer to think Beck is crazy.

[swansont]

A prime example of this was and is the Czar system, for advising the President and those that were chose, originally not intended to be confirmed by Congress, many still not or have been transferred to other post. While I understand, Czars have been used in the past, they were so, to increase the information on an issue pertinent to a period of time or adding to available information of one department or another, that should be charged with the responsibility. For the President to use the system, for his/her own agenda, is not Constitutional, which is apparent.

 

It's not apparent to me.

 

For many of them, the "Department that might have handled similar issues" is the same department for whom the individual works. What part of assigning work to government employees, and putting them in charge of a specific issue, is unconstitutional? (That sounds like good managerial strategy) Or soliciting advice from someone not paid by the administration?

 

I'll pick one at random:

 

20. Intelligence Czar * - Dennis Blair

 

Title: Director of National Intelligence

 

[T]he Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), which President Bush signed into law on December 17. In February 2005, the President announced that John D. Negroponte, ambassador to Iraq, was his nominee to be the first Director of National Intelligence

 

http://www.dni.gov/history.htm

 

So (a) the position exists because of legislation signed into law and (b) the law existed before Obama. Beck doth protest too much, methinks.

 

Several of the individuals were confirmed by the senate, and one is awaiting confirmation. They serve at the pleasure of the president. These are unconstitutional positions? How?