Political ethics

[divagreen]

I know that it is a long watch, but well worth it.

 

 

I thought that this video brought up an interesting point...where is the accountability of the spreading of misinformation for the rightwing media? Where does the debunking of misinformation happen when the information center is self-contained?

 

I would like to hear you all's thoughts on this, since many of us are in a field where peer review is required.

[ydoaPs]

where is the accountability of the spreading of misinformation for the rightwing media?

The blagahedron.

[Pangloss]

I thought that this video brought up an interesting point...where is the accountability of the spreading of misinformation for the rightwing media? Where does the debunking of misinformation happen when the information center is self-contained?

 

I would like to hear you all's thoughts on this, since many of us are in a field where peer review is required.

 

I don't understand. How is that any different from those parts of the media that are left-wing?

[CaptainPanic]

I don't understand. How is that any different from those parts of the media that are left-wing?

I don't understand. Have you seen the video?

 

The lies that are spread - especially the examples given - are so retarded that I struggle to find a left wing lie that comes close to it. But then I must admit that I do not have access to as many American tv channels as someone living there.

Can you give one example of a left wing lie that is equally outrageous as the examples in the video?

 

I believe that the point in the video is made by several examples. If you attempt to make a comparison, it makes sense to reply with at least one other example of a ridiculous left wing lie.

Edited November 10, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[CharonY]

Bias is one thing, blatant falsehood another. The question is what equivalent examples exist in the left-wing media? I usually stick to PBS nowadays and have not noticed blatant falsehoods reported there as fact yet (though I do not watch TV much). If these falsehoods are just lousy journalism, one would expect some kind equivalency.

[Moontanman]

It's been my experience that both sides will misdirect and mislead... and sadly, blatantly lie. In my adult life I feel that the right is much worse than the left in fear mongering.... in my adult life, i still remember the old H-bomb in the back round commercial. Someone in these forums mentioned it the other day and some really bad memories came back I would rather not have remembered but today and for quite some time the right has crafted this Unsubstantiated fear idea to the level of an art from. I'm thinking of collecting fear mongering e-mails and doing what i don't yet know, but these things change subtly from election cycle to election cycle, some times changing names some times even parties, it's almost like they have some odd kind of life of their own as little details change from cycle to cycle. Some times one document will be inserted into another or parts of one into another, I think it's a weird phenomenon, apes lie to each other, so do we, we just do it for the "right" reasons...

 

BTW isn't Political Ethics an Oxymoron?

Edited November 10, 2010 by Moontanman

[Pangloss]

I can't believe this sort of thing still comes up. The left doesn't lie as much as the right does? Really? That's where you want to go?

 

Come on, y'all are just frustrated. Do you really want the conservative members to start posting videos from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? Seriously?

[padren]

Bias is one thing, blatant falsehood another. The question is what equivalent examples exist in the left-wing media? I usually stick to PBS nowadays and have not noticed blatant falsehoods reported there as fact yet (though I do not watch TV much). If these falsehoods are just lousy journalism, one would expect some kind equivalency.

Well, the left does spread lies like "Palin was investigated and found to have committed ethical violations as Governor of Alaska" - I saw her set the record straight on Fox News, even though every liberal news source was happy to quote the lie issued by the investigation itself stating she did in fact commit ethical violations under the law.

 

And don't even get me started on those librawl lies about the planet getting warmer, garbage patches in the oceans, or me being a monkey's uncle.

 

They even keep the mice with human brains a secret!

 

 

Snarkisms aside - the only way to actually believe that the left is as bad as the right in this regard is to actually believe half the BS manufactured for consumption in Real America by the right. "The left is just as bad! My Republican heroes told me so and they read it on the internet!"

[Pangloss]

Ok, so I watched your 15 minute video of liberal extremist Rachel Maddow. And I think she is what she hates. She's doing exactly what she accuses her enemies of doing. Some specific reactions:

 

- On the $200mil/day thing, I think the right-wing media did grab on to this and blew it, and they deserve to be attacked over that. Though I think it's interesting that Bill O'Reilly blew that claim out of the water the very next day after it appeared, and it stopped immediately thereafter in general Fox News reporting as well.

 

- She claims that the right says that the Census will be used to round up Americans and put them in internment camps, but then she plays a clip that doesn't support that claim (in fact the commentator says the opposite).

 

- She claims that Sharron Angle stated that Sharia Law exists in the United States, and then plays a clip that shows Sharron Angle saying that Sharia Law doesn't exist in the United States! What the hell? She's clearly trying to imply that Sharron Angle is trying to scare people, but one thing is for sure: That's EXACTLY what Rachel Maddow is doing.

 

- Accusations that Rachel Maddow is a vampire have not been widely reported on the right-wing media.

 

- An old Internet clip from Christine O'Donnell saying something stupid is not the same thing as that claim being propagated by the right-wing media.

 

- Liberals believe stupid stuff they hear on the Internet too.

 

- There's a "left-wing media universe" too.

 

- The "self-contained" accusation about the right-wing media is no different from what the left-wing media does.

 

- The claim that there is no debunking of the conservative media world is ridiculous. Stupid claims are debunked. What Rachel Maddow doesn't like is that people watch Fox News more than they watch her show.

 

---------

 

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with her point that partisan media is a problem in this country right now.

 

What I have a problem with is her claim that this is exclusively and unarguably a right-wing problem. Her own words prove that to be a lie. And it's a particularly heinous one at that, feeding misinformation and deception to people who don't know any better. Gee, where have we seen THAT practice before?

[Moontanman]

I can't believe this sort of thing still comes up. The left doesn't lie as much as the right does? Really? That's where you want to go?

 

Come on, y'all are just frustrated. Do you really want the conservative members to start posting videos from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? Seriously?

 

 

Sure, if we can critique them for accuracy, that should be lots of fun...

[Pangloss]

Sure, if we can critique them for accuracy, that should be lots of fun...

 

You could start by critiquing Rachel Maddow for accuracy. As you can see from my post above, there are significant issues with her statements. But if that's what you folks want, if you want Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity videos populating SFN Politics threads, we can make that happen. I don't understand it, but I guess if that's what the community wants we can take a look at it.

 

But what you can expect me to post are a lot more videos from ilk like Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and so on. I love exposing false heroes to their mindless followers.

 

I just think that would be a sad place for SFN Politics to go. I thought we were better than this sort of thing. But maybe that's just the centrist in me talking; sometimes I get hung up on common ground and moderacy, and I know that's not something that everyone agrees on. If y'all would rather have a battle over which extreme ideology is correct/better, if that's really what you want, I'll support it.

[Moontanman]

 

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with her point that partisan media is a problem in this country right now.

 

What I have a problem with is her claim that this is exclusively and unarguably a right-wing problem. Her own words prove that to be a lie. And it's a particularly heinous one at that, feeding misinformation and deception to people who don't know any better. Gee, where have we seen THAT practice before?

 

Ok, as much as I like to poke a conservative with a stick every once in a while i have to agree with this. It's wrong , it's intolerable, partisan media that is! As far as who is doing it best (or worst) I think it depends on your political persuasion, if you are left then it's the right and if you are right it's the left and the further in either direction you go the better "informed" they seem to be about what the other side is doing and how to stop them but no real concept of what they are doing is really affecting the country. I've honestly come to the point where I don't care anymore, it's just wrong, this crap is taking the country places that are fantasy lands, people need to demand this crap stop. The idea that the ends always justifies the means is going to mess us up big time IMHO

[padren]

- On the $200mil/day thing, I think the right-wing media did grab on to this and blew it, and they deserve to be attacked over that. Though I think it's interesting that Bill O'Reilly blew that claim out of the water the very next day after it appeared, and it stopped immediately thereafter in general Fox News reporting as well.

I found results of this breaking on Nov 2nd, and I found Bill calling it BS from the 5th, but I am glad to see he did apparently assign a few seconds to it. It would be nice if he took on the rest of the Fox News Machine for promoting that BS, which you have to admit made a very aggressive effort to get their viewers to swallow it.

 

- She claims that Sharron Angle stated that Sharia Law exists in the United States, and then plays a clip that shows Sharron Angle saying that Sharia Law doesn't exist in the United States! What the hell? She's clearly trying to imply that Sharron Angle is trying to scare people, but one thing is for sure: That's EXACTLY what Rachel Maddow is doing.

Here's the quotethat set it all off:

 

We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing. But it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it. My thoughts are these. First of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States. It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States.

She said yes - these places are under Constitutional law and not Sharia Law, but clearly states that she doesn't understand how that happened (past tense!) in the United States.

Is there another way to interpret that, other than "an event" happened (past tense) despite the fact that legally, those cities are under US law and not Sharia law? This "happened" when, and what is the "this" if not the "allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation?"

 

 

- Accusations that Rachel Maddow is a vampire have not been widely reported on the right-wing media.

 

- An old Internet clip from Christine O'Donnell saying something stupid is not the same thing as that claim being propagated by the right-wing media.

You realize those were included as a demonstration of why believing and repeating unsourced stories is reaaaally dumb. If you took at is a claim that these stories are repeated and accepted as fact, you missed the point.

- Liberals believe stupid stuff they hear on the Internet too.

 

- There's a "left-wing media universe" too.

Can you demonstrate some examples of equal scale?

- The "self-contained" accusation about the right-wing media is no different from what the left-wing media does.

Everyone has body odor, not everyone has such bad hygiene that their body odor can induce physical illness in others thirty feet away in an enclosed space. The degree of difference between right-wing and left-wing media is so vast the consequences of their respective actions have wholly different impacts, and they cannot be considered "equal" even though there is overlap in some degree since "both do a bit of everything."

 

Everyone lies - but that isn't exactly build a defense case for the Abramoff's of the world.

- The claim that there is no debunking of the conservative media world is ridiculous. Stupid claims are debunked. What Rachel Maddow doesn't like is that people watch Fox News more than they watch her show.

I agree entirely with your point here. The claim should be "there is so little debunking of the conservative media that it's effect is negligible."

 

 

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with her point that partisan media is a problem in this country right now.

 

What I have a problem with is her claim that this is exclusively and unarguably a right-wing problem. Her own words prove that to be a lie. And it's a particularly heinous one at that, feeding misinformation and deception to people who don't know any better. Gee, where have we seen THAT practice before?

I have a problem with any claim that says anything as generalized as "misinform" could be assigned exclusively to any group - but semantics aside it is a huge problem on the right, and is causing far more damage to conservatives than liberal media does to liberals. Can you at least see that?

 

You have the $200m/day story breaking and being pushed by Fox News, followed by Rep. Michelle Bachmann repeating the ridiculous claims.

[Pangloss]

I found results of this breaking on Nov 2nd, and I found Bill calling it BS from the 5th, but I am glad to see he did apparently assign a few seconds to it. It would be nice if he took on the rest of the Fox News Machine for promoting that BS, which you have to admit made a very aggressive effort to get their viewers to swallow it.

 

I don't trust Media Matters for America any more than I trust the Media Research Center, but I think your point is correct.

 

 

She said yes - these places are under Constitutional law and not Sharia Law, but clearly states that she doesn't understand how that happened (past tense!) in the United States.

 

Is there another way to interpret that, other than "an event" happened (past tense) despite the fact that legally, those cities are under US law and not Sharia law? This "happened" when, and what is the "this" if not the "allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation?"

 

If you folks wonder why conservative Americans are concerned by the various "sharia law" discussions taking place around the country, you really have to look a little deeper than Rachel Maddow.

 

Oklahoma passed a ban on the use of Sharia Law on election day. Redundant, you might say? An unnecessary reaction to partisanship? How could sharia law possibly be used in American jurisprudence? Conservatives are just over-reacting to the ground-zero mosque controversy?

 

And yet yesterday a judge put a stay order on the execution of that new law, saying that it might violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. No, really.

 

In other words, her court is actually going to consider the possibility that a man can physically abuse his wife as punishment for non-obedience because that's what his faith tells him to do. This judge is actually going to look at that argument, and so seriously does she (yeah it's a woman judge!) consider the merits of the argument that she actually put a stay order on the implementation of the law.

 

Some background on the law:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/oklahoma-sharia-ban-may-conflict-with-u-s-constitution/

 

On the judge's order:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/judge_issues_temporary_injunction_against_okla_sha.php?ref=fpblg

 

MY POINT HERE IS NOT THAT THE US IS ABOUT TO IMPLEMENT SHARIA LAW.

 

(Just wanted to be clear on that!)

 

My point rather is that this sort of consideration -- the fact that it's actually taking place in spite of what Rachel Maddow wants you to think -- is what concerns conservatives.

 

 

You realize those were included as a demonstration of why believing and repeating unsourced stories is reaaaally dumb. If you took at is a claim that these stories are repeated and accepted as fact, you missed the point.

 

No, I don't think I did. Those clips were edited into the same montage with far less egregious stories that were actually reported on by Fox News.

 

 

Can you demonstrate some examples of equal scale?

 

You don't think liberals have political brain candy just like conservatives do? You don't think liberals feed at the Hollywood, Air America, MSNBC trough and then run around screaming at each other about rendition and religion and Bush Lied Kids Died and the evils of a military and so on and so on and so on? Come on.

 

If the volume is lower I would suggest that it is ONLY because there are half as many self-proclaimed liberals as there are self-proclaimed conservatives. But I don't think it's lower.

 

 

Everyone lies - but that isn't exactly build a defense case for the Abramoff's of the world.

 

(Edit: In reviewing this I'm not sure I understood your point here correctly, so I took this part of my reply out.)

 

 

The claim should be "there is so little debunking of the conservative media that it's effect is negligible."

 

Perhaps there's something to that, in the sense that the conservative media is perceived as being louder at the moment. I think it ignores decades of liberal control over Hollywood and mainstream news, but I don't disagree that the right has ratcheted it up a notch.

 

That's the problem with partisanship -- it produces more partisanship. So instead of condemning conservatives for feeding at this trough, we should be condemning anybody who feeds at this trough -- including people watching and responding to Rachel Maddow.

[padren]

I don't trust Media Matters for America any more than I trust the Media Research Center, but I think your point is correct.

I only used that link because it had actual footage of the show, ironically the google search for bill o reilly obama india trip returns almost entirely Glenn Beck links including #1.

I don't tend to trust internet sources in general but I don't think they faked the date of Bill's show, which I do note you acknowledged.

 

If you folks wonder why conservative Americans are concerned by the various "sharia law" discussions taking place around the country, you really have to look a little deeper than Rachel Maddow.

 

Oklahoma passed a ban on the use of Sharia Law on election day. Redundant, you might say? An unnecessary reaction to partisanship? How could sharia law possibly be used in American jurisprudence? Conservatives are just over-reacting to the ground-zero mosque controversy?

 

And yet yesterday a judge put a stay order on the execution of that new law, saying that it might violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. No, really.

 

In other words, her court is actually going to consider the possibility that a man can physically abuse his wife as punishment for non-obedience because that's what his faith tells him to do. This judge is actually going to look at that argument, and so seriously does she (yeah it's a woman judge!) consider the merits of the argument that she actually put a stay order on the implementation of the law.

 

Some background on the law:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/oklahoma-sharia-ban-may-conflict-with-u-s-constitution/

 

On the judge's order:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/judge_issues_temporary_injunction_against_okla_sha.php?ref=fpblg

 

MY POINT HERE IS NOT THAT THE US IS ABOUT TO IMPLEMENT SHARIA LAW.

 

(Just wanted to be clear on that!)

 

My point rather is that this sort of consideration -- the fact that it's actually taking place in spite of what Rachel Maddow wants you to think -- is what concerns conservatives.

I'd like to know if the interpretation of the ban is 100% redundant, or extends beyond ensuring that US law always takes precedence over Sharia law.

 

Any judge that suggests that any man can beat his wife for any reason (because they are Islamic, Catholic or on anti-depression meds) should be disbarred, IMO. Any violation of an individual's protected constitutional rights is a violation, and no law can create an exception. When people thought they had a God given right to own slaves, we didn't tolerate it despite the cost of the subsequent civil war. No traditions - cultural or religious - have been considered worthy of creating exceptions to desegregation or any other civil rights matter. (Of course there's the gay marriage/DADT debate, but the arguments tend to go deeper)

 

This however is not an issue of Sharia law taking hold - it's a bad judge making a stupid decision, and a questionably overreaching ban targeted against one religion which either is 100% redundant or goes beyond already instituted protections illegally. Just to be clear - not all aspects of Sharia law are illegal under the US Constitution. People are free to practice Sharia law to the extent they are allowed to follow Catholic traditions with regards to birth control or attending mass. When any religious practice of any religion conflicts with a local or federal law, that law can (rightly) be challenged and the law struck down unless that law protects the civil rights of citizens, at which point civil rights trump the right to freedom to practice religion.

 

The argument for allowing women to wear burkas covering their faces when getting a driver's license (ie, a form of photo identification) is one such famous challenge, which if I recall correctly was denied on account of the fact that it is considered necessary for safety for everyone that some privileges carry high responsibilities and thus require photo identification.

 

However, just because such a challenge comes up and gets denied doesn't mean special laws need to be created targeting followers of Islam.

 

 

And to be clear: Since we are talking about Sharron Angle's comments:

 

* she said "We're talking about a militant terrorist situation"

* she said "And I don't know how that happened in the United States."

* she said "something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States."

 

Read the exact statement - she isn't taking about judges making rare screw-ups. She is taking about Sharia law taking hold in municipality or government situations and she can't understand how that happened. Past tense.

 

While the background information does add more light to where this whole issue started, it doesn't excuse the complete fabrication (sorry, not fabrication - she did read about it on the internet or something, would "willfully opportunistic miss-characterization" be a better term?) within the scope of her actual comments. Rachael Maddow (whom, admittedly watching this video has probably more than doubled the amount of time I've spent watching her show) was commenting on the baseless nature of her claims. While I don't know much about Maddow, I can say her comments about Angle are consistent and pretty on point to what Angle said.

 

No, I don't think I did. Those clips were edited into the same montage with far less egregious stories that were actually reported on by Fox News.

If that reads differently to you I can understand that. Personally, I still can't understand how you could read it that way (they were the most hyperbolic examples possible) but I can respect your opinion.

 

You don't think liberals have political brain candy just like conservatives do? You don't think liberals feed at the Hollywood, Air America, MSNBC trough and then run around screaming at each other about rendition and religion and Bush Lied Kids Died and the evils of a military and so on and so on and so on? Come on.

 

If the volume is lower I would suggest that it is ONLY because there are half as many self-proclaimed liberals as there are self-proclaimed conservatives. But I don't think it's lower.

I don't know anyone that cares about celebrity wanna-be pundits, even Michael Moore is considered to be more of an accidental comedian than a commentator - despite his best efforts to be taken seriously. I haven't heard anyone quoting Air America, I don't even know who they are. I've never actually heard the phrase "Bush Lied Kids Died" before - though I have heard fringers going on about 9-11 and alien NWO conspiracies, but that is distant fringe.

 

If I find an article on a news aggrigator that happens to link to MSNBC, or CNN, or FOX, or pretty much any other source I pretty much immediately search for that topic from secondary news sources. Unless the article is about some show being canceled or a local city story, I'll look around. I don't know a single liberal personally that doesn't do this, albeit some have mild enough interest to skip it if it's not viewed as important - but they don't tend to take it as-is then either. The funny thing too is even people that I know who believe in 9-11 conspiracies and chem-trails don't trust MSNBC or any media outlet. They are just as paranoid about their news and still think Alex Jones is a moron.

 

I'm sure there are liberals out there that do get all their news from MSNBC that I encounter - but I don't know because they don't push those stories on me or send me "OMG" email alerts.

 

 

I honestly don't know where these frantic liberals are.

(Edit: In reviewing this I'm not sure I understood your point here correctly, so I took this part of my reply out.)

What I am saying is when you say "the left does it too" it comes across as the "everyone does it" defense of equating wrongs, which doesn't excuse those who commit grievous transgressions by taking the "everyone does it" logic to the point of gross abuse. We cannot "clean up" both the right and left to a point where "lies are not spoken" and as such we will always deal with that as a factor.

However, the fact it will always exist cannot excuse through equating the excesses of a specific group abusing that fact.

 

Perhaps there's something to that, in the sense that the conservative media is perceived as being louder at the moment. I think it ignores decades of liberal control over Hollywood and mainstream news, but I don't disagree that the right has ratcheted it up a notch.

I think the main concern on the left from people like me at least, is that every liberal I know does look at multiple news sources, and doesn't consider anything as beyond reproach - but when so many conservatives do lean on Fox News as "their primary news source" us on the left have no way of interjecting into the conservative dialogue and say "check your facts" because they are so well isolated.

 

These people vote based on misinformation. Their votes are often justified by more well informed conservatives (phrases like "It's not that Obama has raised taxes, it's that he intends to establish a higher cost government") seem to excuse the fact that even though those voters were misinformed, they were "still voting because of their own deep-down real concerns" so it's somehow okay.

 

I don't care about the very valid reasons people are susceptible to believing ridiculous lies - I want people to vote based on actual information, and I think the Bachmanns and Becks of the country go to great effort to prevent exactly that.

 

While I agree any liberal doing that should also be held accountable, I do not think the impact of misinformation had equatable intensities on the right and left. I think the right was an order of magnitude worse in that regard, and that it did a great disservice to our democracy.

 

That's the problem with partisanship -- it produces more partisanship. So instead of condemning conservatives for feeding at this trough, we should be condemning anybody who feeds at this trough -- including people watching and responding to Rachel Maddow.

I give points to Limbaugh when he brings up a fair point, even if he is a professional windbag. I agree entirely though that anyone BSing should be condemned, but I would like to see some sign that conservatives are making an effort to reduce and get this problem in check considering how far reaching it has gotten. So far all I see is it growing and working for conservative politicians, so it's even more disconcerting.

[Moontanman]

Perhaps there's something to that, in the sense that the conservative media is perceived as being louder at the moment. I think it ignores decades of liberal control over Hollywood and mainstream news, but I don't disagree that the right has ratcheted it up a notch.

 

That's the problem with partisanship -- it produces more partisanship. So instead of condemning conservatives for feeding at this trough, we should be condemning anybody who feeds at this trough -- including people watching and responding to Rachel Maddow.

 

Are you saying that liberals some how manipulated the entire Hollywood film industry into sending out actual lies and disinformation?

 

While i honestly think it's wrong from either side i don't think the liberals ever had or even dreamed of as much control over the message that modern conservative media currently have. I'll admit it might be difficult to look out from inside but i really take great care to not accept information unchallenged, even liberals have a fringe element and if I have to go with reptilian aliens and the NWO to be liberal then i decline membership. The same thing applies to conservatives, can you be conservative with out being a birther or believing in ID? Can we be anything at all if we let everyone else tell us what to think?

[Pangloss]

Read the exact statement - she isn't taking about judges making rare screw-ups. She is taking about Sharia law taking hold in municipality or government situations and she can't understand how that happened. Past tense.

 

 

She also said, in the bit Maddow quoted, that that kind of sharia law doesn't hold true anywhere in the US.

 

I don't disagree that some politicians on both the right and the left have made great political hay out of (as you said earlier) fear, uncertainty and doubt. What I object to is the characterization of the right as "worse", followed by the immediate piling-on by other members. I felt obliged to respond to that.

 

 

I haven't heard anyone quoting Air America

 

In this forum quotations have been posted recently from Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, various left-wing blogs, and many of the same from the right, including Free Republic, etc.

 

 

I've never actually heard the phrase "Bush Lied Kids Died" before - though I have heard fringers going on about 9-11 and alien NWO conspiracies, but that is distant fringe.

 

It's a reference to WMDs, and the "lie" allegation has been put forth and defended by members of this community.

 

 

I honestly don't know where these frantic liberals are.

 

They're right here. Though I absolutely agree that the kind of reactions and discussions we have here at SFN are far from the kind of outraged idiocy we often see coming from the right wing these days. My only contention is that the left is no better. Just smaller, because it's a smaller group of people. THIS is a very intelligent community (just not always fully aware, including myself), but there are stupid people in every ideological grouping.

 

 

I think the main concern on the left from people like me at least, is that every liberal I know does look at multiple news sources, and doesn't consider anything as beyond reproach - but when so many conservatives do lean on Fox News as "their primary news source" us on the left have no way of interjecting into the conservative dialogue and say "check your facts" because they are so well isolated.

 

These people vote based on misinformation.

 

You don't know that. Just because someone votes for a Republican candidate does not mean that they are voting based on "misinformation". Maybe they vote Republican regardless (hardly better, but the percentage that does this for Democrats is almost the same). Maybe they have a serious problem with the opponent in a specific race.

 

Bascule said that he voted for a Republican in a local race over a Democrat because he didn't like that Democrat. Was he voting based on misinformation?

 

I'm sure it happens that people see something stupid and erroneous on Fox News or MSNBC and then vote for a Republican or Democrat based on that information. But I don't think that's the big picture from the election -- I think that is a larger sense of disatisfaction and rage based on the economy and a sense of Obama pushing a secular-progressive agenda that they don't support.

 

They didn't need prompting from Fox News to start the Tea Party movement. They didn't need prompting from Fox News to hate Obamacare. They didn't need prompting from Fox News to discover the immigration problem.

 

And you know what? If and when they do need Fox News, that says something awful about the rest of the media. How many times has Fox News been the ONLY source for information that the secular-progressive news doesn't WANT the right to hear about? Liberals seem to have this notion that conservatives need to be controled, manipulated, coerced into doing the right thing. What the heck kind of country DOES that?

 

 

Are you saying that liberals some how manipulated the entire Hollywood film industry into sending out actual lies and disinformation?

 

I'm saying that in my opionion Hollywood is dominated BY liberals -- the people who work in the industry heavily skew to the left -- and that they generally/frequently make their professional decisions (producing work that we view) based on that ideological lean.

 

And since there is a commonly accepted trait of movies "based on real events" that they can extrapolate all sorts of untrue facts (accepted as "movie logic"), yes, they do end up propagating actual lies. And the left eats them up and churns movie-theater-"facts" into hatred for the right.

 

 

While i honestly think it's wrong from either side i don't think the liberals ever had or even dreamed of as much control over the message that modern conservative media currently have.

 

And I'm sure there are many conservatives who watch Fox News and think that conservatives have never even dreamed of having as much control over the message, for so long, as the left has had.

 

-----------------

 

I want to expand a bit on this idea that voting Republican is based on "misinformation". It's not just padren -- I think it's what a lot of you believe.

 

What would happen if the President signed a bill authorizing a tax increase intended to bring down the deficit? One result of such an action would be a lower approval rating by the bulk of the American electorate. What I'm hearing here is that many of you believe that that reaction would be based on "misinformation". You're saying that the people don't understand that the deficit needs to be lowered, and that spending cannot be cut or is good spending, so the only way to fix the problem is increasing revenue.

 

I think that's wrong. The people DO understand that the deficit needs to be lowered. They DO understand that the deficit COULD be reduced by increasing revnue, but they refuse to accept that spending cannot be lowered.

 

They're also holding the president to his promise not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000/year. IMO that's a perfectly fair and normal thing to do. And if you go through the month-to-month process that has lead to President Obama's steadily-falling approval rating, you will see that it matches with decision after decision that is disagreed-with by the majority of American voters. So they're going to have that reaction regardless of what Fox News does or doesn't say. It's not "misinformation".

[swansont]

 

If you folks wonder why conservative Americans are concerned by the various "sharia law" discussions taking place around the country, you really have to look a little deeper than Rachel Maddow.

 

Oklahoma passed a ban on the use of Sharia Law on election day. Redundant, you might say? An unnecessary reaction to partisanship? How could sharia law possibly be used in American jurisprudence? Conservatives are just over-reacting to the ground-zero mosque controversy?

 

And yet yesterday a judge put a stay order on the execution of that new law, saying that it might violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. No, really.

 

In other words, her court is actually going to consider the possibility that a man can physically abuse his wife as punishment for non-obedience because that's what his faith tells him to do. This judge is actually going to look at that argument, and so seriously does she (yeah it's a woman judge!) consider the merits of the argument that she actually put a stay order on the implementation of the law.

 

Some background on the law:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/oklahoma-sharia-ban-may-conflict-with-u-s-constitution/

 

On the judge's order:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/judge_issues_temporary_injunction_against_okla_sha.php?ref=fpblg

 

 

That's not supported by your links — the domestic abuse case is family court in NJ and the stay is from a federal judge. I don't see any evidence presented connecting between the two. So when you conclude that the judge who issued the stay is going to actually "consider the possibility that a man can physically abuse his wife" THAT is the exact sort of the Maddow was railing against. It's a fabrication. It's not true.

 

As padren has said, the NJ judge was flat-out wrong. Judges get reversed all the time, even when there is nothing to do with sharia law.

 

- She claims that Sharron Angle stated that Sharia Law exists in the United States, and then plays a clip that shows Sharron Angle saying that Sharia Law doesn't exist in the United States! What the hell? She's clearly trying to imply that Sharron Angle is trying to scare people, but one thing is for sure: That's EXACTLY what Rachel Maddow is doing.

 

 

You're only looking at part of the quote, and losing the context. Angle was saying that sharia law was being used despite the fact that it isn't the law of the land.

 

 

 

As for the census claims, that's an example of the old standard "I'm not saying X" in order to say X. There is no point to repeatedly bring up internment camps otherwise.

 

I'm not saying she's a slut. All I'm saying is that she has had a lot of boyfriends.

[Pangloss]

That's fine, if I've read too much out of context with Angle then maybe she does believe that. It's a small part of my point above.

 

I don't understand what you're saying about the New Jersey judge. Did I link the wrong story?

[lemur]

If husbands are allowed to physically discipline their wives as a question of cultural/religious rights, shouldn't this be extended to same-sex unions? Likewise, shouldn't wives be allowed to physically discipline their husbands when they are acting in opposition to their mutually agreed cultural/religious basis for their marriage? Isn't preventing disciplinary violence within marriages/families similar to forbidding police to use violence to apprehend rogue suspects? If no disciplinary violence in any form is allowed within families, how are family members supposed to regulate unreasonable spouses and children?

Edited November 11, 2010 by lemur

[padren]

If husbands are allowed to physically discipline their wives as a question of cultural/religious rights, shouldn't this be extended to same-sex unions? Likewise, shouldn't wives be allowed to physically discipline their husbands when they are acting in opposition to their mutually agreed cultural/religious basis for their marriage? Isn't preventing disciplinary violence within marriages/families similar to forbidding police to use violence to apprehend rogue suspects? If no disciplinary violence in any form is allowed within families, how are family members supposed to regulate unreasonable spouses and children?

 

Uh, if you are arguing the merits and legal sanctioning of domestic violence, I think we are going to need a thread split. There is a lot to disagree with in each sentence of that paragraph, but I don't want to derail it if I mistook your meaning. If you are speaking in favor of domestic violence and want to discuss it - lets get a thread-split first.

[lemur]

Uh, if you are arguing the merits and legal sanctioning of domestic violence, I think we are going to need a thread split. There is a lot to disagree with in each sentence of that paragraph, but I don't want to derail it if I mistook your meaning. If you are speaking in favor of domestic violence and want to discuss it - lets get a thread-split first.

This is such a controlling-spouse thing to say! (j/k). I don't care if you split the thread. I just felt like taking a controversial position on something that came up. Maybe this judge has a point about allowing people to discipline their spouses. People do it anyway until their spouses/children get the nerve up to report them and criminalize them. At least if such violence was institutionally recognized and legitimated, you could defend everyone's right to use violence against anyone else instead of reserving the right for the father/husband. Ultimately, isn't there an expectation for family members to control their children/spouses anyway? When your hands are tied from using violence, how are you supposed to live up to public expectations of social control?

[divagreen]

I don't trust Media Matters for America any more than I trust the Media Research Center, but I think your point is correct.

 

As this forum is a science forum, it should be pretty clear to all (well, most at least), that faith...or trust is no replacement for due diligence.

 

 

If you folks wonder why conservative Americans are concerned by the various "sharia law" discussions taking place around the country, you really have to look a little deeper than Rachel Maddow.

 

Let's not confuse "digging deeper" with employing a straw man though.

 

But let's address this straw man argument anywho:

 

 

Oklahoma passed a ban on the use of Sharia Law on election day. Redundant, you might say? An unnecessary reaction to partisanship? How could sharia law possibly be used in American jurisprudence? Conservatives are just over-reacting to the ground-zero mosque controversy?

 

I'm reminded of cholesterol, when the dangers of cholesterol reared its ugly head decades ago, it became almost a catch-phrase on most packaged foods in supermarkets, "100% cholesterol free!!!"

 

The thing is...those foods never had any cholesterol in them in the first place.

 

They should pass a law against Canon law and Halakha law while they're at it!

 

(Don't worry, there's no need ...just like with Sharia)

 

Please think about this...a little deeper, it should be clear why.

 

And yet yesterday a judge put a stay order on the execution of that new law, saying that it might violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. No, really.

 

(hint: it is a violation of the first amendment)

 

In other words, her court is actually going to consider the possibility that a man can physically abuse his wife as punishment for non-obedience because that's what his faith tells him to do. This judge is actually going to look at that argument, and so seriously does she (yeah it's a woman judge!) consider the merits of the argument that she actually put a stay order on the implementation of the law.

 

Wow! that's some pretty deep digging...pretty high piling too, "in other words".

 

Let's dig a little deeper, and see what this is really about. It is actually an utter waste of time and resources brought about by fear-mongering, bigotry and disinformation. The basis of this entire fiasco was about a ruling in New Jersey that was purportedly made by a judge based on Sharia. No such ruling ever took place, as it is far easier to prove that it did, then it didn't, I'll leave it up to you to cite case-law (not, like ...worldnetdaily, y'know?) proving that this New Jersey Sharia example actually happened.

 

 

My point rather is that this sort of consideration -- the fact that it's actually taking place in spite of what Rachel Maddow wants you to think -- is what concerns conservatives.

 

Based on, what again? Aside from fear-mongering of course.

 

 

You don't think liberals have political brain candy just like conservatives do? You don't think liberals feed at the Hollywood, Air America, MSNBC trough and then run around screaming at each other about rendition and religion and Bush Lied Kids Died and the evils of a military and so on and so on and so on? Come on.

 

Ahhh, the tu quoque fallacy, okay, have at it. Let's see a list of unsubstantiated disinformation being trotted out by the (so-called) liberal press?

 

If the volume is lower I would suggest that it is ONLY because there are half as many self-proclaimed liberals as there are self-proclaimed conservatives. But I don't think it's lower.

 

I would suggest that your suggestion, is merely a suggestion borne of confirmation bias.

 

Maddow addressed a specific disinformation though, no need to attempt refutation via non-sequitur (plus, 'round these parts, you'll likely get called on it.)

 

 

Perhaps there's something to that, in the sense that the conservative media is perceived as being louder at the moment. I think it ignores decades of liberal control over Hollywood and mainstream news, but I don't disagree that the right has ratcheted it up a notch.

 

Ahhh, the liberal media myth...

 

suggested viewing

 

 

 

That's the problem with partisanship -- it produces more partisanship. So instead of condemning conservatives for feeding at this trough, we should be condemning anybody who feeds at this trough -- including people watching and responding to Rachel Maddow.

 

Nice ad hominem

 

Buuuuut....

 

If you actually dig a little deeper, you will see that Maddow in no way misrepresented Angle.

 

Have a listen:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/SharronAngle0929.mp3

 

At around the 43 minute mark, the following exchange:

 

QUESTIONER: I keep hearing about Muslims wanting to take over the United States. And I want to know your thoughts about that. They are building mosques all over the place. They want to build one near [ground zero]. And they seem to be getting their way. On a TV program just last night I saw that they are taking over a city in Michigan. And the residents, they want them out. They want them out. I wanted your thoughts.

 

ANGLE: We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing. But it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it. My thoughts are these. First of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States.

 

It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States.

 

Some more cited and sourced confirmation (of the disinformation and the hoax(es) it was based on).

 

http://foolocracy.com/2010/10/sharron-angle-sharia-law-in-dearborn-michigan-and-some-town-in-texas-that-doesnt-exist/

[padren]

In this forum quotations have been posted recently from Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, various left-wing blogs, and many of the same from the right, including Free Republic, etc.

...

It's a reference to WMDs, and the "lie" allegation has been put forth and defended by members of this community.

...

They're right here. Though I absolutely agree that the kind of reactions and discussions we have here at SFN are far from the kind of outraged idiocy we often see coming from the right wing these days. My only contention is that the left is no better. Just smaller, because it's a smaller group of people. THIS is a very intelligent community (just not always fully aware, including myself), but there are stupid people in every ideological grouping.

Simply posting quotations from a left-wing or right-wing source doesn't constitute a media-managed tunnel-vision perspective. Articles or quotes may conveniently tie in multiple news sources and provide an opinion, which the poster wants to discuss or considers well spoken. What I am curious about is where the ones on the left who "feed at the Hollywood, Air America, MSNBC trough and then run around screaming at each other about rendition and religion and Bush Lied Kids Died and the evils of a military and so on."

 

If people here posted articles to Air America and the like, crying bloody murder about events that did not happen I'd agree with you - but I don't think left or right leaners tend to do that here. Like you said, most people here tend to be pretty intelligent and (in correlation to an interest in science) practiced in critical thinking, and attempt to find flaws in their own views before presenting them.

 

Most of the time, when people cite another poster's source as "total BS" a vigorous discussion results in base information agreed on, with differing views on what simplified statements can be made about that claim.

 

Most disagreements are about the effects of policy, tied to left/right ideological views on what "known effects" of such policies are, and generalized synthesis of meta-data - by which I mean "my summary of all data on the TPM leads me to believe they generally are....." type extrapolations often conflict, including views of right/left media.

 

 

What I am curious about though is how many voters believe Obama raised their taxes, piled on huge deficits, and threw bailout money at corporate America without any concern for recovering it, and how many voters believe equally patently false claims about Republicans.

 

You don't know that. Just because someone votes for a Republican candidate does not mean that they are voting based on "misinformation". Maybe they vote Republican regardless (hardly better, but the percentage that does this for Democrats is almost the same). Maybe they have a serious problem with the opponent in a specific race.

I also have dealt with many conservatives who will literally disregard any fact you mention no matter how many sources (AP, BBC, CNN) you cite for a single point because they were told the opposite was true by a "trusted" news source like Fox.

 

Consider this from '08:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/palin-makes-tro.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7662820.stm

 

If those are too left-wing you can verify the actual report here:

 

http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report' date=' I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.[/quote']

 

I am not saying such a violation is a big deal. I'm not saying such probes are often politically motivated, and often say more about the probers than the probees. I consider the Starr Report up in that category. However, Palin has repeatedly stated the report cleared her of any legal misconduct and "any hint of unethical activity." To this day, you can find both her quotes and the contradictory quotes in the report. Again - a statement such as "Five members of the council spoke up to say they do not agree with the report’s findings." is fine by me - call it making political hay out of nothing, and let people make up their minds.

 

But to insist that reporters who call her out on the report's actual verbiage are lying partisan attack-dog liberal media hounds is disingenuous to the extreme. She literally went toe to toe with facts, and insists she's the one telling the truth - now at home on Fox of course.

 

What can be more blatant than that?

 

Did any players on Fox point out this bold faced lie? I couldn't find any, and it sickens me that she gets to lie, and it reinforces in her supporters since she must be telling the truth, that the left-wing media lied when the exact opposite is true. How can a politician (vice-presidential candidate even!) make an on-air statement contradicting written facts in a public report and not get called on it? Where does the left do this?

 

That's the bubble in a nutshell, and I don't see any equivalent on the left.

Bascule said that he voted for a Republican in a local race over a Democrat because he didn't like that Democrat. Was he voting based on misinformation?

Your response seems to imply that I said something to the effect that all people who voted for Republicans did so due to misinformation. If that is what you concluded, that is not the case and I am curious how you came to that conclusion. If not - how is the question about Bascule's voting for a Republican relevant, and what about what I said fit that line of thinking?

I'm sure it happens that people see something stupid and erroneous on Fox News or MSNBC and then vote for a Republican or Democrat based on that information. But I don't think that's the big picture from the election -- I think that is a larger sense of disatisfaction and rage based on the economy and a sense of Obama pushing a secular-progressive agenda that they don't support.

 

They didn't need prompting from Fox News to start the Tea Party movement. They didn't need prompting from Fox News to hate Obamacare. They didn't need prompting from Fox News to discover the immigration problem.

 

And you know what? If and when they do need Fox News, that says something awful about the rest of the media. How many times has Fox News been the ONLY source for information that the secular-progressive news doesn't WANT the right to hear about? Liberals seem to have this notion that conservatives need to be controled, manipulated, coerced into doing the right thing. What the heck kind of country DOES that?

 

I am not saying it's the single strongest factor. But ask yourself how, without collusion-by-convenience between Fox News reporting Palin's victory against "any ethical violations" in that report and the fact that the report says the exact opposite on page 8 can any group called a "news organization" miss such a major transgression? She bold-faced lied to reporters who then smiled, congratulated her and watched her wander off. No accountability, no need for accuracy, just a convenient narrative unhindered by facts from the Most Trusted Name In News.

 

Btw, I don't think "conservatives need to be controled, manipulated, coerced into doing the right thing" but I do think "conservatives often feel the need to be control, manipulate, coerce voters into doing the their thing" and it extends to such relationships between VP candidates and certain news outlets. Some on the left play that sort of game a bit too, but not with such a degree of news agency collusion. Clinton had to back pedal pretty fast on the "Did not have sex with that women" statement, since he was called on the lie. And that Palin business happens in THIS kind of country, hence the disdain.

 

I'm saying that in my opionion Hollywood is dominated BY liberals -- the people who work in the industry heavily skew to the left -- and that they generally/frequently make their professional decisions (producing work that we view) based on that ideological lean.

 

And since there is a commonly accepted trait of movies "based on real events" that they can extrapolate all sorts of untrue facts (accepted as "movie logic"), yes, they do end up propagating actual lies. And the left eats them up and churns movie-theater-"facts" into hatred for the right.

I'm curious what these facts are. I already hate Hollywood for propagating the lie that Matthew Mcconaughey is more charming than me, but that's another story. What are some "hatred of the right" spun facts that Hollywood has purported?

 

 

I want to expand a bit on this idea that voting Republican is based on "misinformation". It's not just padren -- I think it's what a lot of you believe.

 

What would happen if the President signed a bill authorizing a tax increase intended to bring down the deficit? One result of such an action would be a lower approval rating by the bulk of the American electorate. What I'm hearing here is that many of you believe that that reaction would be based on "misinformation". You're saying that the people don't understand that the deficit needs to be lowered, and that spending cannot be cut or is good spending, so the only way to fix the problem is increasing revenue.

 

I think that's wrong. The people DO understand that the deficit needs to be lowered. They DO understand that the deficit COULD be reduced by increasing revnue, but they refuse to accept that spending cannot be lowered.

No no no no no no no. Not at all. I fully support the conservative voter that chooses to vote out Democrats because they want to raise revenue instead of cut the budget. I may disagree with them but at least they are working with facts. It's not that the people don't understand that the deficit needs to be lowered, its that they think it has already wildly expanded under Obama, that taxes have gone up, and the bailouts were money thrown away. Luckily the bailout repayments have gained some traction, but facts have an incredibly steep uphill battle to get onto Fox News when they are inconvenient, and the few that manage to break through (such as the $200M/day India blow-back) they are then immediately touted as proof that Fox is Fair and Balanced.

 

It's damned if you do - damned if you don't. It reminds me of the old quote on how to beat claims of institutionalized corruption "If they point out tons of people are going to court on corruption charges - point out that means the system works! And if they complain no one is being caught point that out and declare that the system works!"

[Pangloss]

I'm reminded of cholesterol, when the dangers of cholesterol reared its ugly head decades ago, it became almost a catch-phrase on most packaged foods in supermarkets, "100% cholesterol free!!!"

 

The thing is...those foods never had any cholesterol in them in the first place.

 

They should pass a law against Canon law and Halakha law while they're at it!

 

(Don't worry, there's no need ...just like with Sharia)

 

Please think about this...a little deeper, it should be clear why.

 

 

I can understand why that's frustrating, and I often feel that way myself when I hear what seem like stupid arguments. So I don't blame you for reacting that way.

 

But I think you're unfairly dismissing a broad (and valid) concern based on what you perceive as invalid merits of a specific case. And this is what often happens in these "conservatives are stupid" arguments -- one set of liberals will create (or at least be perceived as creating) a problem, then another set of liberals will try to explain why conservatives shouldn't get their panties in a wad, and THAT will be the focus, rather than simply straightening out the misinformation. People don't enjoy being told that they're idiots, and they certainly don't respond by repenting and joining their attacker's ideology.

 

Regardless of why Oklahomans passed an anti-sharia law resolution, the fact that a judge put a stay on it gives them pause. It is logical for them to wonder what that judge is thinking. This will happen no matter what Fox News has to say about it.

 

(I was asked for examples on the more general subject, by the way, so calling it a straw man unfair.)

 

(hint: it is a violation of the first amendment)

 

There's an irony: Telling me that it's not a major concern, and oh, by the way, you think their exercise of sharia practices should be permitted. I understand that you're not advocating men beating their wives, but there are many aspects to sharia law and the purpose of my bringing up this subject was to point out that Rachel Maddow and her ilk are attempting to downplay their concerns while disrespecting and ridiculing them at the exact same time.

 

 

Simply posting quotations from a left-wing or right-wing source doesn't constitute a media-managed tunnel-vision perspective.

 

Shouldn't you be telling that to those members of SFN insisting that Fox News Channel is biased to the right?

 

 

You don't know that. Just because someone votes for a Republican candidate does not mean that they are voting based on "misinformation". Maybe they vote Republican regardless (hardly better, but the percentage that does this for Democrats is almost the same). Maybe they have a serious problem with the opponent in a specific race.

I also have dealt with many conservatives who will literally disregard any fact you mention no matter how many sources (AP, BBC, CNN) you cite for a single point because they were told the opposite was true by a "trusted" news source like Fox.

 

I can understand that if you've never met a liberal who does that, then you might feel that it's only conservatives who do it.

 

divagreen refers to that as "confirmation bias".

 

 

I fully support the conservative voter that chooses to vote out Democrats because they want to raise revenue instead of cut the budget. I may disagree with them but at least they are working with facts. It's not that the people don't understand that the deficit needs to be lowered, its that they think it has already wildly expanded under Obama, that taxes have gone up, and the bailouts were money thrown away. Luckily the bailout repayments have gained some traction, but facts have an incredibly steep uphill battle to get onto Fox News when they are inconvenient, and the few that manage to break through (such as the $200M/day India blow-back) they are then immediately touted as proof that Fox is Fair and Balanced.

 

It's damned if you do - damned if you don't. It reminds me of the old quote on how to beat claims of institutionalized corruption "If they point out tons of people are going to court on corruption charges - point out that means the system works! And if they complain no one is being caught point that out and declare that the system works!"

 

That's fine, padren, but I don't think this is the view of others here. What I'm reading here is frustration over the behavior of stupid conservatives and a lack of interest in understanding what their concerns are.

 

 

----------

 

 

Ahhh, the liberal media myth...

 

Setting aside for a moment the sheer gall of quoting Noam Chomsky as an unbiased source for political analysis, this issue has gotten quite a bit of attention, and while there are many valid opinions on the subject one of them is not "myth".

 

The Wikipedia has a good collection of summarizations and resources on the subject here:

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

 

There is no easy, casual dismissal here, especially from the far left. What's most likely is a cancelation of equal biases depending on the source. Which supports my point.

 

 

---------

 

 

Public Service Announcement: Jon Stewart will be on Rachel Maddow Thursday night. He's far too polite to actually put her in her place, but I think it may be interesting. He's certainly interesting when he goes on Bill O'Reilly.