Proposal: a moratorium on starting threads sourced with News Corp political articles?

[Pangloss]

It's funny you mention Rick Sanchez. He came to CNN from News Corp, where he was working at the Fox affiliate in South Florida. That station is a poster child for pseudo-journalism and Rick Sanchez was a big part of its ratings success. It's no mistake that CNN hired him following their success. He is the personification of what's wrong with modern journalism and why CNN is no better than Fox News.

 

From YouTube: CNN's Rick Sanchez Bullying a Scientist and asking what 9 meters "in English" is (jump in about a minute):

 

1-0ysIUDNFg

 

The yang of that yin indeed. I think that's the scientific term, isn't it?

 

And you don't think he gets involved in politics? You don't think he injects opinion into the news? Really?

 

"Rick Sanchez Pounds Fox News Over CNN's Tea Party Coverage"

 

lESv9TkfoCE

 

I understand that you're trying to create a distinction between bias and non-journalistic practices, but you haven't made the case on an objective level. So asking people to leverage that opinion by rendering a judgment is just not something that seems reasonable on an objective level.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's funny you mention Rick Sanchez. He came to CNN from News Corp, where he was working at the Fox affiliate in South Florida. That station is a poster child for pseudo-journalism and Rick Sanchez was a big part of its ratings success. It's no mistake that CNN hired him following their success. He is the personification of what's wrong with modern journalism and why CNN is no better than Fox News.

 

From YouTube: CNN's Rick Sanchez Bullying a Scientist and asking what 9 meters "in English" is (jump in about a minute):

 

 

 

The yang of that yin indeed. I think that's the scientific term, isn't it?

 

Since when is ignorance the same thing as bias?

 

And you don't think he gets involved in politics? You don't think he injects opinion into the news? Really?

 

"Rick Sanchez Pounds Fox News Over CNN's Tea Party Coverage"

 

 

 

I understand that you're trying to create a distinction between bias and non-journalistic practices, but you haven't made the case on an objective level. So asking people to leverage that opinion by rendering a judgment is just not something that seems reasonable on an objective level.

 

And since when is calling a lie a lie wrong or inappropriate for a reporter?

[bascule]

It's funny you mention Rick Sanchez. He came to CNN from News Corp, where he was working at the Fox affiliate in South Florida.

 

If you actually looked at the context in which I mentioned him, it was as a hypothetical CNN analogue to Glenn Beck and the 9.12 project (which I suppose is a bit ironic in itself as Glenn Beck used to be on CNN)

 

You're linking his reaction to the Fox tea party coverage as evidence of a political angle? I'm curious what your reaction is to the News Corp material he presented, sans his editorial... I'm not a fan of Rick Sanchez. I think he's a bit of a douchebag. But seriously, of all of the segments he's ever done on his show, you're taking issue with that?

 

In that segment, he did a great job of highlighting the problem. News Corp doesn't report on the news. News Corp makes the news. The tail is wagging the dog.

[Pangloss]

Since when is ignorance the same thing as bias?

 

I didn't say that it was. I said that he epitomizes what's wrong with modern journalism.

 

 

And since when is calling a lie a lie wrong or inappropriate for a reporter?

 

When it's self-serving, that's when. That's Journalism 101, Skep -- you cannot "set the record straight" when you have an iron in the fire.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. What he did there is no different from Fox News ripping CNN in the first place.

 

 

If you actually looked at the context in which I mentioned him, it was as a hypothetical CNN analogue to Glenn Beck and the 9.12 project (which I suppose is a bit ironic in itself as Glenn Beck used to be on CNN)

 

But that's just it -- Rick Sanchez is a Glenn Beck wannabee posed as a reporter. Does my analogy match up in every detail? No, it's not marketed that way and it's not entirely a direct comparison. But it is marketed as a news desk, not an opinion show, which makes it worse, not better.

 

 

You're linking his reaction to the Fox tea party coverage as evidence of a political angle? I'm curious what your reaction is to the News Corp material he presented, sans his editorial... I'm not a fan of Rick Sanchez. I think he's a bit of a douchebag. But seriously, of all of the segments he's ever done on his show, you're taking issue with that?

 

The content of the Fox News segment he's reacting to is irrelevant. I'm heartened by the fact that you aren't a fan, etc, but you still seem to think there's something superior about his behavior. You're darned right I take exception with that piece -- wouldn't you take exception with it too, if the subject of his wrath were the New York Times or MSNBC?

 

Why does sensationalism seem justified to you just because it's coming from an ideological perspective that you agree with? How can sensationalism ever be justified?

 

You're darned right the tail is wagging the dog.

[iNow]

I'm simply asking people to put a little bit more into an opening post than pasting a News Corp link, extracting a few quotes from that, and giving opinions specifically in response to those quotes.

 

If anything, I'm asking people to self-moderate here, or gently remind those who do create threads with Fox as the sole information source that Fox is not the most objective of news sources and probably not a good source to start a thread with.

 

OMG... How DARE you. I can't believe you're here trying to mandate that only your preferred news sources be allowed to be used.

[bascule]

Rick Sanchez is a Glenn Beck wannabee posed as a reporter.

 

Glenn Beck, in his Fox News incarnation, is unprecedented. The only thing Glenn Beck can be compared to is the fictional Howard "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Beale from the film Network. Howard Beale was a deluded and crazy messianic figure and I'm not really sure that's apt with Glenn Beck, as I think what Beck is doing is more of an act than a true mental disease. I did read (and cringe) at his previous CNN columns... the man is cogent, so unless some tumor is causing his behavior, rather than his transition to a network that gives him carte blanche, I don't think Glenn Beck can be considered a "true" Howard Beale. But still, Howard Beale remains the closest thing I can draw a comparison to.

 

Glenn Beck has inspired followers and started a political movement. According to the Gallup Poll I posted in my tea party thread, the #1 thing the tea party agrees on is Glenn Beck, which isn't surprising as Fox has devoted a considerable amount of airtime to the tea parties and actively promoted them via the 9.12 project.

 

Glenn Beck embodies a similar messianic quality as Howard Beale, spreading a similar doom-and-gloom message about the present world situation, and getting people to express that they're mad as hell and they're not going to take this any more, even though they're not really sure why they're mad and aren't really sure what the this that they're not going to take any more really is.

 

The content of the Fox News segment he's reacting to is irrelevant. I'm heartened by the fact that you aren't a fan, etc, but you still seem to think there's something superior about his behavior. You're darned right I take exception with that piece -- wouldn't you take exception with it too, if the subject of his wrath were the New York Times or MSNBC?

 

I guess I'm completely failing to point out what differentiates News Corp from real news organizations here... the content of that video is extremely relevant to this thread.

 

Fox is not merely reporting the news. They are interfering. They are an active participant in the political process. They are funneling money into anti-(Democratic) government protests. They are a propaganda organization and in effect a political action committee, not a news organization.

[ParanoiA]

Glenn Beck' date=' in his Fox News incarnation, is unprecedented. The only thing Glenn Beck can be compared to is the fictional Howard "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Beale from the film Network. Howard Beale was a deluded and crazy messianic figure and I'm not really sure that's apt with Glenn Beck, as I think what Beck is doing is more of an act than a true mental disease. I did read (and cringe) at his previous CNN columns... the man is cogent, so unless some tumor is causing his behavior, rather than his transition to a network that gives him carte blanche, I don't think Glenn Beck can be considered a "true" Howard Beale. But still, Howard Beale remains the closest thing I can draw a comparison to.

 

Glenn Beck has inspired followers and started a political movement. According to the Gallup Poll I posted in my tea party thread, the #1 thing the tea party agrees on is Glenn Beck, which isn't surprising as Fox has devoted a considerable amount of airtime to the tea parties and actively promoted them via the 9.12 project.

 

Glenn Beck embodies a similar messianic quality as Howard Beale, spreading a similar doom-and-gloom message about the present world situation, and getting people to express that they're mad as hell and they're not going to take this any more, even though they're not really sure why they're mad and aren't really sure what the this that they're not going to take any more really is.[/quote']

 

I still don't get why people are so taken by him. His argumentation is just poorly executed. He isn't convincing in the least. He isn't a libertarian, despite what he claims. His method is just pure pretention and dissonant objection and feigned patriotism apparently oblivious to his pathological hypocrisy. And people lap it up.

 

I listened to him slam libertarian candidate Debra Medina, running for Texas Governor, because she, very casually, would not ridicule the 9/11 Truthers and concern herself if any on her staff believes such a thing - she would not endorse policing other's thoughts, and dismissing their concerns.

 

Meanwhile, he promotes Rick Perry - a mainstream politician, same ole same ole, old school part-of-the-problem republican. Glenn Beck is a political hack.

 

Sorry, I didn't actually add anything worthwhile, I just can't stand the man.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Why does sensationalism seem justified to you just because it's coming from an ideological perspective that you agree with? How can sensationalism ever[/i'] be justified?

 

Easy. Sensationalism is justified when the source is right, and not justified when the source is wrong. After all of these years, you're still having a hard time with this.

 

Actually, I think all of this boils down to the same arguments about bias - is it better to advertise the bias and admit it, or is it better to pretend to be as objective as possible while ultimately still being biased.

 

In this case, bascule and others seem to prefer the traditional, tired model of "objective" reporting when there's really no such thing. The newer, progressive model of reporting we're seeing is admiting the bias, giving the viewer or reader a more honest experience.

[padren]

Easy. Sensationalism is justified when the source is right, and not justified when the source is wrong. After all of these years, you're still having a hard time with this.

 

Actually, I think all of this boils down to the same arguments about bias - is it better to advertise the bias and admit it, or is it better to pretend to be as objective as possible while ultimately still being biased.

 

I think the main problem is if someone sensationalizes a story because their bias entices them to target that story... it's not very objective and not quality reporting, but it's still at least a crappy form of reporting.

 

When someone gets people together for the express purpose of "asking a question" then go on to report "the question everybody is asking..." as if it's a national movement is a process of manufacturing. Of course there is always an observer effect when news is covered at any time - publicity changes public opinion, and public opinion effects politicians. However, when a news organization shifts it's primary focus from covering stories to maximizing the "observer effect" as a business model and then reports on the effects as if they were just making objective observations they have become a very different animal.

 

Editorialists have done this to some degree for a long time, which is why editorials are viewed as separate from news in general. Fox News has intentionally built an entirely refined machine to maximize and exploit this effect. It really has become something else.

[jackson33]

In my opinion, News Corp is willfully misrepresenting Obama administration policy in a coordinated manner.[/Quote]

 

bascule; You picking comments out of a days of broadcasting, apparently not hearing Obama Proponents with their efforts to substantiate current policy. In many cases these people are having a very hard time answering the simplest of questions. Is it remotely possible in your mind, that in his 500 speeches, comments or public appearances (many campaign speeches) he's setting himself up for criticism?

 

Rather than address later post, which particular view of Beck, seems to upset you the most. It should be the maybe 10 or more revelations of internal workings of this administration, that he has brought to light. If he doesn't have some inside 'leaker' he is the most perceptive, ex-drunk (self professed) I've ever heard speak. One thing on his Puerto Rico comments, when the Stimulus Bill was being argued (early 2009) I NOTICED that Puerto Rico received a great deal more than even California, asking the question then, "is PR Statehood, really worth all that money". Apparently it was...

 

I have quoted News Corp on several occasions, but I've decided to stop. News Corp is a problem for which the only solution, in my mind, is to tune out. [/Quote]

 

Well, that's your choice and when another poster uses NC, you will argue it's validity which is part of the political process. Keep in mind however most all AP News releases are from contributors, not always mentioned. By the way, I rarely use Newsmax which I should, but use their source for an article when applicable to an issue, same with Beck, Limbaugh and many controversial figures.

 

Your primary argument/dislike IMO is actually Roger Ailes (FNC), not Murdock or Newscorp in general. If permitted he would devote 24/7/365 to Conservatism or there principles/philosophy he strongly believes in, but is aware their are other markets and doing pretty well with the so called Moderates and In dependants.

[bascule]

Your primary argument/dislike IMO is actually Roger Ailes (FNC), not Murdock or Newscorp in general.

 

While Fox ("NC") is the main culprit, my main complaints are against Rupert Murdoch in general. This is his machine that he's put in motion and he's responsible for its effects.

 

The WSJ used to be a credible news source. Certainly not lately. Narrative has usurped objectivity.

 

Rupert Murdoch has the power to destroy everything he touches.

[Pangloss]

That's incorrect. The WSJ was outspoken against Climate Change before being bought by Murdoch. For example, this 2005 article at RealClimate.org criticizes the WSJ's editorial stance on GCC. News Corp finished buying Dow Jones in December of 2007.

[bascule]

That's incorrect. The WSJ was outspoken against Climate Change before being bought by Murdoch. For example, this 2005 article at RealClimate.org criticizes the WSJ's editorial stance on GCC. News Corp finished buying Dow Jones in December of 2007.

 

Really Pangloss... that's all you have to say? "WRONG!" All right. Have any other thoughts on WSJ, News Corp, or Fox you'd like to share with us?

[toastywombel]

I would like to propose an informal moratorium on starting threads with News Corp articles. That's not to say that you shouldn't reference a News Corp article in the original post of a thread, but rather that you shouldn't let a News Corp article provide the exclusive content upon which a thread is started.

 

Examples of News Corp sources would include: Fox "News" (cable channel, web site), Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Weekly Standard

 

Is this an ad hominem against News Corp? Just because a News Corp-owned organization authors an article doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I certainly can't defend that position.

 

However, I have noticed many threads which have generated unneeded, vitriolic discussion due to how News Corp sources have framed the article. To reiterate, this doesn't necessarily make the articles themselves wrong, however they have been authored to fit a preconceived narrative. Ample evidence of said preconceived narrative can be found in this thread.

 

The problem with starting a thread using a News Corp source is that this narrative translates to and ends up dominating the discussion, until such time that the particular arguments made in the course of the thread manage to eventually unravel the News Corp narrative and everyone realizes it's much ado about nothing.

 

An example of such a case where News Corp presenting an event within the context of their narrative can be found in this thread: Obama: No Nukes- Even In Self Defense. The title was pinched by the OP from a Fox headline, a headline they have since revised after I suppose Fox themselves deemed it too wrong to keep in in circulation. Much of the thread focused on the discussion of nuclear retaliation against bioweapons, something Obama, in fact, kept open, despite ample discussion on the Fox cable channel to the contrary.

 

This is just one of many examples and I would love to bring up more examples throughout the course of this thread illustrating why letting the News Corp narrative dominate the discussion is counterproductive.

 

So, if people were to jump on this proposal, what should they do?

 

If you wish to include a News Corp source in the original post of a thread, include other sources as well. Post common themes between multiple news sources. Provide your own opinion about he matter rather than providing News Corp's opinion verbatim. Avoid quoting News Corp sources in the title of your thread.

 

If someone starts a thread citing only a News Corp source, provide additional sources, commentary, your own opinion, and gently remind the poster that News Corp is not a traditional news organization and is attempting to foster a particular narrative in which they present news which is not objective and in many cases can lead to counterproductive discussion. In extreme cases it may be necessary to start a new thread which presents a particular world event or point of interest outside the News Corp narrative. I hope this does not violate the forum rules as I certainly wouldn't want to advocate that.

 

The goal of eschewing News Corp when starting threads is to facilitate original independent thought and opinion when starting threads and avoiding having News Corp invective dominating a thread right off the bat. By doing so and providing a less biased, more ecumenical perspective derived from multiple news sources we can have a more happy and productive forum on world issues.

 

What do you think?

 

I think anybody should be able to post any article they would like to. While I don't agree with News Corp or anything they do as a media company, users should have the right to post any link they want for any reason they want as long as it falls under the guidelines.

 

It is then up to the other users to comment on that thread, giving different perspectives to the reader. There is no need to require or ask that News Corp articles only be posted under certain the certain conditions you cited.

[The Bear's Key]

...or your regular posting of videos from The Daily Show that ridicule conservatives.

May I cut in?

 

I'd like to see what video bascule ever posted of the Daily Show that ridicules conservatives, instead of his videos pointing out blatant examples of hypocrisy or manufactured controversies by the Right (pointed out in good humor by the Daily Show, no less).

 

Pointing out what someone did isn't ridicule, even if the subject looks worse for the revelation.

 

 

I do wish you'd stop posting polls that make people's votes visible because I don't think the software makes it clear enough to the voter that their vote will be visible, and I think that opens people up to potential ridicule.

Ok go ahead vote, I won't ridicule

 

Seriously though, you're bringing up a phantom scenario that never happened. When did anyone ever ridicule someone for how they voted? The polls are opinions.

 

 

And you don't think he gets involved in politics? You don't think he injects opinion into the news? Really?

 

"Rick Sanchez Pounds Fox News Over CNN's Tea Party Coverage"

 

lESv9TkfoCE

bascule has repeatedly made a point that just seems lost on certain people. Once again....it's not the bias, it's the manufactured footage: covering a "spontaneous" event that was, in reality, organized by Fox News themselves, and yet claiming it's a spontaneous event.

 

So your comparisons are incompatible. Fox News behavior is nowhere in the same league as that of the other biased news.

 

Do the Tea Party crowd even realize its purpose bears absolutely no similarity to that of the original Boston Tea Party? Do they realize the original Tea Party (in 1773) was a fight to increase representation in government, plus a fight against the *Tea Act* (the British law wanting to expand a corporate business's monopoly on the tea trade).

 

 

I think anybody should be able to post any article they would like to. While I don't agree with News Corp or anything they do as a media company, users should have the right to post any link they want for any reason they want as long as it falls under the guidelines.

 

It is then up to the other users to comment on that thread, giving different perspectives to the reader. There is no need to require or ask that News Corp articles only be posted under certain the certain conditions you cited.

Agreed.

 

Now we're on the lookout, so before a thread in the future would get dragged into another manufactured controversy, someone here is more likely to nip it in the bud -- dissecting the linked article, pinpointing its obviously invented "facts".

 

Much preferable that way.

[Pangloss]

May I cut in?

 

Absolutely!

 

 

I'd like to see what video bascule ever posted of the Daily Show that ridicules conservatives, instead of his videos pointing out blatant examples of hypocrisy or manufactured controversies by the Right (pointed out in good humor by the Daily Show, no less).

 

Pointing out what someone did isn't ridicule, even if the subject looks worse for the revelation.

 

Sure it is. When Jon Stewart makes people laugh at that "hypocrisy" or "manufactured controversy", then it's an example of ridicule. It's certainly not a logical, well-reasoned argument.

 

 

bascule has repeatedly made a point that just seems lost on certain people. Once again....it's not the bias, it's the manufactured footage: covering a "spontaneous" event that was, in reality, organized by Fox News themselves, and yet claiming it's a spontaneous event.

 

I don't think it's lost, I think it's in dispute. Not that Fox has done that, but that others have not done that (or similar things), and are elevated above Fox in some way.

[The Bear's Key]

Absolutely!

Thanks. Let' dance...

 

Sure it is. When Jon Stewart makes people laugh at that "hypocrisy" or "manufactured controversy", then it's an example of ridicule.

You're viewing it from the wrong angle. He ridicules the notion -- that of the false premises currently making their way around -- he doesn't ridicule the ideology as much.

 

It's certainly not a logical, well-reasoned argument.

But it's certainly a logical, well-reasoned sketch of comedy.

 

I don't think it's lost, I think it's in dispute. Not that Fox has done that, but that others have not done that (or similar things), and are elevated above Fox in some way.

However we can't accept that for a simple reason: we've provided the evidence of Fox News doing the stuff we claim, so it's only proper you do the same for your claims.

 

Remember, we're not talking bias or misreporting here and there -- rather, it's a consistent effort of blatant lies spread across various commentators, it's mislabeling bad party lawmakers as the opposition, it's constantly bashing vs a single ideology, it's crafting the news by setting up events and then deceptively making it look spontaneous, it's death panels, government taking over healthcare and supposedly placing itself between you and the doc, it's creating a movement whose #1 point of agreement is Glenn Beck's ramblings, etc.

 

Why can't you show us just a few examples that show that level of consistency and devious purpose?

[D H]

The Obama / nuclear weapons post was really case-in-point for me. It was started exclusively with a Fox article. The article referenced contains some blatant factual inaccuracies:

"The United States pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against (those countries)," Gates said -- even in the case of a biological or chemical attack.

What factual inaccuracies? The quoted phase is exact, and the non-quoted phrase is a fair summary of Gates statements regarding using conventional means to redress non-nuclear WMD attacks on the US. Whether this represents a major change in policy is a matter of opinion. Fox News was far from alone in deeming this to represent a sea change. Fox News was far from alone in mingling reporting and editorializing. From several articles that I read, other news sources tended to editorialize that this was but a minor change, still others thought this was not near enough of a change.

 

Which is wrong... Gates stated the US "reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy" in the event of biological weapons threats.

Now I am going to turn the table. You, not Fox, are the one who is obfuscating here. You are talking about hypothetical changes to the policy, not what the policy is now.

 

Unfortunately' date=' because the Fox article was the only source cited in the OP, this lead to the following response by D H:

In Fox's defense, this is quite a sea-change in policy. From the article,

"The United States pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against (those countries)," Gates said -- even in the case of a biological or chemical attack.

That is a huge change in policy. The US military policy has been along the lines of an eye for an eye -- to attack in-kind. Use guns, and the US will strike back with guns. Use tanks, the US will strike back with tanks. Use weapons of mass destruction, and the US will strike back with weapons of mass destruction. Chemical and biological weapons are WMD, so per the rules of engagement, use of those kind of weapons justifies (demands!) a counterattack with WMD. We don't have chemical or biological weapons in our arsenal, but we do have nukes.

The only thing wrong with my statement is that I should qualified "That is a huge change in policy" with "in my opinion".

 

I verified the text I quoted from multiple sources. Gates did say what Fox claimed he said -- including the paraphrased 'even in the case of a biological or chemical attack.' Hypothetical changes to the policy in the future are just that: hypothetical. They are not what the policy is now.

 

BTW, believe it or not I do not get my news from Fox. The first time I saw that article was after reading toastywombel's opening post.

 

 

I have quoted News Corp on several occasions, but I've decided to stop. News Corp is a problem for which the only solution, in my mind, is to tune out.

Good for you. That is your free choice. What is sad is your insistence on enforcing your views on everyone else.

 

===================================

 

I think anybody should be able to post any article they would like to. While I don't agree with News Corp or anything they do as a media company, users should have the right to post any link they want for any reason they want as long as it falls under the guidelines.

 

It is then up to the other users to comment on that thread, giving different perspectives to the reader. There is no need to require or ask that News Corp articles only be posted under certain the certain conditions you cited.

 

Thanks for that voice of reason. Between this thread, the thread on killing rich people (which I find to be absolutely repugnant), and other recent threads here, I was on the verge of abandoning my position at this site.

[jryan]

Thanks for that voice of reason. Between this thread, the thread on killing rich people (which I find to be absolutely repugnant), and other recent threads here, I was on the verge of abandoning my position at this site.

 

I don't have a position to abandon, but I hear you! I then realized that refusing to answer such lunacy is no help either. Some kid looking for help on their homework could swing by hear and read that crap and would be in desperate need of the counter argument.

[bascule]

The United States pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against (those countries)," Gates said -- even in the case of a biological or chemical attack.

What factual inaccuracies? The quoted phase is exact, and the non-quoted phrase is a fair summary of Gates statements regarding using conventional means to redress non-nuclear WMD attacks on the US.

 

Let's look at the real quote:

 

http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2010/April/20100408105509eaifas0.7353022.html

 

As part of this new approach, the United States pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapons state that is party to the NPT and in compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners. There should be no doubt, however, that we will hold fully accountable any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor that supports or enables terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction.

 

In my opinion, I strongly disagree with your assessment. The paraphrased portion of the quote is not representative.

[jackson33]

The political/diplomatic argument, was and remains, the US had never disclosed ANY policy, nor IMO should they have this time. The reason, is well display here, in that different people will assume different meanings. Nuclear weapons, have always been used as a deterrent, by any means diminishing that purpose has or could never have served a purpose.

 

Think someone mentioned, the US Policy is to fight "tic for tack", which is also not true. If some Nation starts blowing up people in our shopping malls, where not going to send our troops anyplace to blow up their shopping centers or are we about to use humans to do the job. Historically, the US has used any means to achieve the end of a conflict it has, to beat the enemy into submission.

[D H]

Let's look at the real quote:

 

http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2010/April/20100408105509eaifas0.7353022.html

Well there you go again, bascule. Bzzzt, wrong!

 

Last time I checked Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton are not the same person. Let's see what Robert Gates said:

http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1355

To these ends, the NPR [Nuclear Policy Review] includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture. New declaratory policies remove some of the calculated ambiguity in previous U.S. declaratory policy. If a non-nuclear-weapon state is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and its obligations, the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it. If any state eligible for this assurance were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners, it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response.

 

Still, given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of biological weapons.

The second paragraph is IMHO a useless appendage. The Executive branch always has the right to make adjustments to policies that are strictly the domain of the Executive branch. All Gates was saying in that paragraph was that, like past Democratic and Republican administrations, this current administration reserves the right to renege on its promises.

 

The first paragraph summarizes the new policy. Straight from the horse's mouth, "the NPR includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture." Again continuing with the horse's mouth, "If a non-nuclear-weapon state is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and its obligations, the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it. If any state eligible for this assurance were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners, it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response."

 

The only quibble then is the meaning of the verbose "If any state eligible for this assurance were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners, it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response" versus the summarized version "-- even in the case of a biological or chemical attack."

[Mr Skeptic]

Or to put it another way, "There is no non-nuclear state that we cannot easily crush without the use of nuclear weapons."

[Pangloss]

You're viewing it from the wrong angle. He ridicules the notion -- that of the false premises currently making their way around -- he doesn't ridicule the ideology as much.

 

I disagree. I think the ideology drives the show -- it motivates the audience, and he's built it up and replies upon its outlook for laughter and applause. Ideology is very much the source of the humor.

 

It's like Bill Maher said on his show on Friday regarding the "drill baby drill" jokes flying around following the spill. If that spill happened during the Bush administration, liberal pundits would simply have aimed their humor at the always-easy target of the current government. But it happened now, and are liberal pundits aiming their barbs at the easy target, which has the exact same policy on offshore drilling? Nope, they're dragging out "drill baby drill" to make a joke about Republicans. Of course that's ideological.

 

Mind you, conservative pundits do the exact same thing with their own set of "issues" and punchy catch-phrases, and kudos to Maher for recognizing this, even as he leverages it to the hilt. (IMO one of the nice things about comedians, unlike angry podium-pounders, is that they tend to be more self-observant. Comedy has a funny way of driving off hypocrisy. After all, if you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?)

 

 

However we can't accept that for a simple reason: we've provided the evidence of Fox News doing the stuff we claim' date=' so it's only proper you do the same for your claims.

 

Remember, we're not talking bias or misreporting here and there -- rather, it's a consistent effort of blatant lies spread across various commentators, it's mislabeling bad party lawmakers as the opposition, it's constantly bashing vs a single ideology, it's crafting the news by setting up events and then deceptively making it look spontaneous, it's death panels, government taking over healthcare and supposedly placing itself between you and the doc, it's creating a movement whose #1 point of agreement is Glenn Beck's ramblings, etc.

 

Why can't you show us just a few examples that show that level of consistency and devious purpose?[/quote']

 

This is just incorrect. First, you say "we" but as far as I can tell the community does not universally share your view (62.79% in bascule's poll, if the results are accurate). Second, "a few examples" do not prove an underlying motive, they only demonstrate something that happened. Third, we have seen numerous examples of bad behavior from CNN or MSNBC here in the past, some even posted by bascule and other FNC opponents, but you and other FNC opponents always simply draw the conclusion that those examples were minor and dismissable, and the FNC examples are conclusive and exemplary.

 

So it's an interesting opinion, but I think the case is equally strong that that opinion is ideologically motivated. In short, you nitpick FNC because you don't like its message, and you let CNN and MSNBC have all kinds of latitude because you share its editorial stance. I wonder sometimes if this isn't a universal truth, and if in fact FNC's audience contains more liberals than conservatives. People LIKE getting riled up against people whom they disagree with. (Which of course is why this subforum is so popular, right?)

[bascule]

Well there you go again, bascule. Bzzzt, wrong!

 

Whoops, mea culpa...

 

Let's see what Robert Gates said:

 

[...]

 

The second paragraph is IMHO a useless appendage. The Executive branch always has the right to make adjustments to policies that are strictly the domain of the Executive branch. All Gates was saying in that paragraph was that, like past Democratic and Republican administrations, this current administration reserves the right to renege on its promises.

 

So I take it you still think it's justified for Fox to paraphrase this:

 

Still, given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of biological weapons.

 

as this:

 

even in the case of a biological or chemical attack.

 

Riiiiiiiiiiggggggght. I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

[The Bear's Key]

I disagree. I think the ideology drives the show -- it motivates the audience, and he's built it up and replies upon its outlook for laughter and applause. Ideology is very much the source of the humor.

No kidding. The conversation was about ridiculing, not how *bipartisan* a comedy show was or not.

 

This is just incorrect. First, you say "we" but as far as I can tell the Third, we have seen numerous examples of bad behavior from CNN or MSNBC here in the past, some even posted by bascule and other FNC opponents, but you and other FNC opponents always simply draw the conclusion that those examples were minor and dismissable, and the FNC examples are conclusive and exemplary.

I knew you couldn't provide real examples.

 

Show us where the other networks are forming/heading "grassroots" movements (yet pretending otherwise). Something of that caliber.

 

If you keep insisting they're all equal, I can only assume you'd say they're equal to the 2003 Information Minister or to a sensationalist tabloid.

 

So it's an interesting opinion, but I think the case is equally strong that that opinion is ideologically motivated. In short, you nitpick FNC because you don't like its message, and you let CNN and MSNBC have all kinds of latitude because you share its editorial stance.

So very wrong...

 

However a news agency is more for reporting news, and less for commentary/attacks.

 

Even with MSNBC's dedication of time to political commentary I'm bothered as well. Yes it's awesome when they do expose outright lies and twisted propaganda using fact-checking and verifiable methods, but they don't need to counter-attack the sources of propaganda themselves -- as it's really not a news organization's first duty.

 

Granted, I became thrilled when Keith Olbermann helped break the grip of fear that major networks had for reporting on Bush Admin's negatives and crimes, yet mostly for the reason that such fear by news is dangerous.

 

I'd rather they be such a media antidote to Fox Tabloids (and other propagandas) on a whatever other channel they so desired -- except a news channel obviously.

And I was one of the first to introduce MSNBC's bias to the conversation.

 

Let's not place so much reliance into opinion, shall we? As it might feel oh so true, but it can lead astray.

 

It's fine to state opinions, but to use them as the structural foundation of counter-arguments isn't much practical.