While I've yet to find a news station void of any bias and 100% truthful and accurate, FOX news is an egregious example. Have you ever seen their poll questions?
They always seem to go a little like this:
Are you against this?
- Yes, I am not against this
- No, I am against this
This is an exciting list to pursue. I promise to not respond to any until I look into them, but a few are corrected pretty easily:
The court case where Fox defended themselves as not having to report 'the truth' is blown out of proportion. In that case, a journalist wanted to run an improperly vetted story and Fox said no to avoid liability. The journalist pursued the story and Fox yanked it. When the journalist's contract was up for renewal, Fox declined the extention. The journalist sued for wrongful termination, claiming that Fox was not interested in the truth of the story and fired them without cause. Fox's defense was that they didn't fire the journalist, their contract ended, and that as a combined news-entertainment organization, they did not have an obligation to make the truth their sole motivator in running stories. I read also they declined to grant that the story was true (it was not) and that their defense was based on finding legal precedent rather than arguing the merit of the actual story they chose not to run. Fox later did run the story with opinion and information from both sides. Of the issue. I don't remember the exact issue, but I remember their being an environmental connection and that the journalist has been in trouble for fabricating evidence and witnesses in other jobs.
Fox did not support the birther movement. In fact, outside of support for Hillary Clinton, there never has been a birther 'movement'. Maybe thousands of people in this country care about Obama's birth certificate. When someone big opened their mouth it was news. But I have heard some variation of Beck/Hannity/Fox News/Tea Partiers suport the birther claims, and that's never been true that I've seen. Most of us think it's a worthless hill to die on and it's kept alive by media in order to sap strength from meaningful arguments. And, of course, for Trump to make himself look like he gets things done. Now, links where staff at FN advocated the birther position onscreen instead of reported it are welcome.
Death panels as a news item? Is that Fox calling out death panels and not just reporting on the term. ALso, death panels are real. Obama made several references during the healthcare reform conversation to making a pain pill and hospice a bigger part of the equation. The bill at the time, HR 3200 (?), featured an advisory council on meanstesting of MCR and MCD dollars to cut costs. That's a death panel. Since then, three types of pre-screenings have been re-recommended with later dates. I remember ealry detection being the solution for beating most cancer. Many of us don't see much reason to advocate waiting for a prostate, colon or breast exam just because some people at CMS and HHS need to prepare for budget cuts. To be fair, I wish Palin hadn't used the specific phrase, but she was referring to comments by government advisors who did use that phrase. Meanstesting and budget cuts would be less targetable by credibility asassins, but no less accurate.
I have heard DOZENS of OWS interviews, and they are frustratingly ignorant. You can't seriosly assert that no one at Fox interviewed these people. Have we not heard about another 911 effing 9/11s? Maybe you could volunteer to edit the profanity and inanity out of some of these comments so they can use something. I recall nonFox media telling us at length about pending violence, latent racism, and other claims that remain unsubstantiated despite multiple six-figure rewards.
If you're referring to Hannity using stock footage of a protest, I have heard many people say it's a lie about protests. Maybe you got one. Every news agency uses stock footage. It could be an attempt to give weight to a specific rally. I guess I wouldn't defend it. It rather pales in comparison to cropping a black anarchist's skin out of video and running the story as dangerous white tea partiers and their automatic weapons.
I find the 'class war' and 'communism' remarks hyperbolic. Your opinion that class warfare is not a legitimate objection to this administration is puzzling to me. But in any event, I haven't heard someone from FN make any sort of objective claim.
Some shows are opinion shows. The standard doesn't seem the same. THe Daily Show is alternatingly the best source of news while funny, or simply an entertainment show that remarks on current events. Actual, provable intentional lies that are not just expression of opinion or following a story, they are intentional dishonesty during teh shaping of news that is not based in expressed opinion, but willfully misrepresenting facts.
Finally, I believe that villification of or disagreement with a conservative journalist does not constitute an intentional lie. That is what I asked for. Telling me there's a whole documentary about Fox lies doesn't mean anything to me. Michael Moore wins Academy Awards for documentaries so full of lies he doesn't even bother to dispute it. If I can find this documentary online, I'll check it out and look for actual purposeful lies so I can stop dismissing the claim.
If your expectation is for me to examine jsut the facts and 'take off the blinders', you have to be willing to do the same, yes?
Pretty much anything that's said on Fox and Friends for starters. They don't even listen to the things coming out of their own mouth.
Daily Show bit, which is useful since they help compress their idiocy to under 4 min.
On multiple occasions, Fox news has shown the wrong footage...
to make Palin look more popular.
to make conservative rallies look bigger.
My favorite part of the Palin footage, once you know it's from the 2008 presidential campaign it's obvious, and it's obvious that they cropped the footage to avoid showing any blatant evidence that it was during the campaign, like not showing the front of the podium where she's standing.
There are several other notable errors that can be found as well with the footage they choose to show. Note, all of these errors, if uncaught, would serve to further the point they are trying to make on their show. They don't seem to make errors in the other direction nearly as often.
If you compare footage of Fox news pundits, back in 2003 they decry people who speak out against the president. Saying that we have to stand together as a country during a time of war and everyone must support the office of the president. Since 2008 though, that tune has disappeared as they now disparage the man with little to no respect for the office.
If you listen to the language used by republican politicians, you'll notice certain key-phrases that crop up very regularly, this has been going on since the 1970's when Nixon and Roger Ailes began working on efforts to control the message in the media. You'll also see these same phrases be repeated continuously by anchors, pundits and analysts on Fox news.
Fox News is part of News Corp, the second largest media conglomerate in the world.
MSNBC is a liberal version of Fox IMO, they just aren't as skilled at what they do.
The NYT, or Dan Rather when he was at CBS, I don't think as an organization is biased in the political spectrum in their work. Instead they are biased to the sensational, they'll run any story that will make huge headlines and in the interest of scooping everyone else, will sometimes willfully not fact-check their story in an effort to get it out faster. It's not driven by a political agenda though, but rather a business agenda.
Finally, I believe that villification of or disagreement with a conservative journalist does not constitute an intentional lie. That is what I asked for. Telling me there's a whole documentary about Fox lies doesn't mean anything to me. Michael Moore wins Academy Awards for documentaries so full of lies he doesn't even bother to dispute it. If I can find this documentary online, I'll check it out and look for actual purposeful lies so I can stop dismissing the claim.
If your expectation is for me to examine jsut the facts and 'take off the blinders', you have to be willing to do the same, yes?
It's a bit frightening how deeply you appear to have drunk of the Kool-Aid. I don't think anyone will argue with you that Michael Moore is biased, that's a far cry from saying everything he makes is filled with lies.
But the documentary is called Outfoxed, you can watch it here:Outfoxed on Google Video
To get this back on track, I want to ask you about something else you wrote. You wrote that you "parent as closely to what the Bible says in principle as I can" - what does that mean exactly?
The Bible says to stone disobedient children...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A legal case where Fox's defense was: "It's not illegal to lie on the news."
Funny Side-tangent.
In Canada it's illegal to lie on the news.
Fox as a company won't come into canada due to our regulations against dishonesty in a news program.
Sure we can watch Fox News on American networks, but the basic consensus is that anything Fox says should be regarded as a lie unless you can find a valid source saying the same thing.
And since in Canada freedom of the press doesn't allow for dishonesty, misleading coverage, or outright falsehoods, well, if I consider a topic important and want information on it, I look for nonamerican sources first.
Here's a link to an article about it.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news
and another
http://www.skepticmoney.com/fox-news-banned-from-canada-law-forbids-lying-o n-broadcast-news/
Pretty funny.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to delete this post, but I'll hide it. Dead horses, and all that.
This sounds ridiculous, right? Even though Cthulhuism is a US tax-exempt recognized religion, there's not a single person on this board that would take such a statement seriously.
And if the Necronomicon said that I should take my disobedient or disrespectful children outside and throw rocks at them until they died, would anyone think that was OK?
And if I defended the Necronomicon in one breath (with my every breath), but in the next said, "Well, sure, it says that, but I won't actually kill them--" followed with, "The Necronomicon is my rulebook for life; it's the true and undying (living) word of Cthulhu (God)--" what does that say about me.
Is there really any difference?
I'm worried anytime I hear that someone does something because it's apparently in accord with Biblical teachings, because it indicates (usually) that no reasoned approach was taken or is likely to even be considered...
Edit: Nevermind.
|
|
I was going to delete this post, but I'll hide it. Dead horses, and all that.** spoiler omitted **
This post made me laugh.
Good analogical parody.
If they aren't critically examining their belief system on their own, funny criticisms of that fact aren't going to change anything.
My ex's mother honestly believes the world is only like 6000 years old, and that evolution is "just a theory". While that makes me laugh almost every time I hear it, nothing constructive is going to ever come from me trying to get the woman to think about it in an objective and rational manner.
In short: If someone uses religion as their only source of morality and does so blindly, ignoring any contradictary information contained therein, you're wasting your time if youre trying to get them to think about it or if you're spending time thinking about their belief system.
I advise just ignoring that topic, as it never leads anywhere productive.
The whole tangent reminds me of the scene in firefly where River fixes the bible, and removes the self-contradictions and logical inconsistencies. If you're the type of person who cares that not everything in the book makes sense or should be followed, odds are you already don't use it as your rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds ridiculous, right? Even though Cthulhuism is a US tax-exempt recognized religion, there's not a single person on this board that would take such a statement seriously.
Should I worry that i was more concerned about the added ability of additional tentacles to smack the poor baby invertebrates bottom?
Fox did not support the birther movement.
This might work on someone that wasn't watching fox news. I was. Thats not going to fly. Fox supported it by bringing birthers on, carried it by presenting it by and large as a perfectly reasonable alternative, and catapulted it to new by repeatedly "asking" the question long, long LONG after the issue was solved.
The court case where Fox defended themselves as not having to report 'the truth' is blown out of proportion
No, it isn't. Fox "opinion" which apparently runs 20 hours a day generates a story out of thin air that coincidentally makes progressives look bad and then fox "news" reports on the controversy that they just made. Its a deliberate self feeding cycle that exists solely to sell a narrative that is completely at odds with reality.
The bill at the time, HR 3200 (?), featured an advisory council on meanstesting of MCR and MCD dollars to cut costs
They had that lady on the daily show reading that section of the death panels. What she read was "we're going to pay for the shrink/minister to show up and help you take some really sucky news" If you can find something in the bill that supports the idea of a death panel feel I'm listening.
You can't seriously assert that no one at Fox interviewed these people.
Fox acts as though they haven't listened. They act befuddled about what the dirty hippies want, and pretend its too vague to mean anything
Exactly how does what happen with dan rather amount to a provable intentional lie? Someone hoodwinked him with some pretty convincing documentation. On his station it was a huge scandle and he resigned over it. At fox news is Tuesday.
The bit about the Necronomicon is stupid. Seems clear several folks are here to fight and not to discuss, so I'll answer a couple of things and go.
No one hoodwinked Rather, and his info isn't convincing. If you were Rather, you woudn't go with unvetted documents suppolied by someone you know hates the subject of your story. At least I'd hope.
The birther issue has been kept alive by everyone in journalism, and has been mentioned more by Obama than anyone else I've heard. And again - it was floated by Clinton's crowd first. I know a crap-ton of conservatives, and I listen to a few Fox personalities, each of whom treats the birther issue with disdain. I went to hear Beck and Palin speak at a thing a couple of years ago, and outside were some protesters. I asked what their problem was and they were awfully low on specifics. One of them finally coughed up "he supports the birther movement". I asked how, and she said "All the time." I asked if she listened to Beck all the time and she said "Never." The week before, I heard Beck go on at length about how dumb the birther thing is.
Now, I'm not a robot. I'm not a rote Beck loyalist and I don't watch Fox News any more than any other television. But when I see the phrase 'Faux News', I see it accompanied with complete refusal to produce specific, intentional lies, and failure to reconcile the deception of several other news outlets for decades.
It isn't that Fox isn't listening to the 'dirty hippes' as you call them (and Fox does not), it's that the message is garbeld and the number of people who know crap-all about economincs and history is much alrger than the people who might be able to add an argument together. You know this is accurate. Go to FB and count the amount of psychotic vitriol vs the number of actual arguments. Well beyond deniability.
Fianlly, as to how frightening it is about how deeply I've drunk the Kool-Aid, I remind you that you don't really know me personally. Please keep your assessments of how frightening I am on any level to yourself. I will not assail you in the same manner. If you disagree with my explanation of the FN gaffes listed, discuss them.
The 'talking point' phenomenon resonates through both aprties and most media. Get yourself a list of the times the phrase 'fits and starts' was used by the Obama Administration and the MSM.
My belief has alsways been that every network uses stock footage for events. WHen I'm not being bugged about getting off the computer, I'll gfo look at the links. If a story is run talking about Palin and using footage from a prior event, that hardly qualifies as an intentional lie. If they are referring to the days' event and specifically mention the footage as that days' event, maybe even get audio from the wrong event or something, that would be.
At least, that's my standard. If MS-NBC used only stock footage, it's not a hill I'd choose to die on. Cropping video to lie about the story or re-arranging the lines in an interview to set up a straw man IS a lie.
Hi there.
I am strictly neutral on the Fox News topic, as it's not broadcasted here (but its reputation for creative news reporting DID precede it).
But I did watch most Michael Moore movies, and am interested in what things in them Ancient Sensei qualifies of "lies". Examples, please?
For those who are interested, MM provodes his own fact checking to debunk his debunkers -here- . It would be an interesting experiment to take one piece of info, check it on this site and then try to double check elsewhere.
IMHO, Moore is only putting forward uncomfortable facts that most fit his story but aren't less true for that, which isn't lying but arguing. You can disagree with him, but not calling him a liar.
PS: maybe we should take this discussion to the "faux news" thread.
Its kinda like the Super size me guy not ever showing his daily diet and exercise logs.
Lying by ommision of facts is still in fact lying.
-My mom had 'happy hands'growing up seriously as she was abused by her mother. Also my mother is 6'1" 220 pounds. As my dad is only 5'11" guess how big I am?
-Anyway at 17 my father said to my mom 'stop hitting the kids, they are too damn big, and aren't women like you. They won't take it." After choking my mother on the floor, she never hit me or anybody else in the family again. Beating your kids creates really angry people just dying to take out sick levels of physical agression on others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its kinda like the Super size me guy not ever showing his daily diet and exercise logs.
Lying by ommision of facts is still in fact lying.
Same thing : omission of which facts ? Examples please.
And really, saying that Moore is lying only because he didn't list all the facts there could be in the universe on a given topic is quite excessive. How could he cram them all in a two hour movie, tops? Of course, he did choose (cherry picked, if you like) his facts to demonstrate his point; that doesn't mean by itself that said point isn't valid.
To logically demonstrate that he's lying, you need to do more than pointing out that he didn't list all the facts : you have to point out statements he made that are untrue.
According to your definition (omitting facts is lying), EVERYBODY would be lying ALL THE TIME. Simply because stating all the facts is too time consuming to be practical in a movie format. If you seek exhaustiveness, look for books, thesis or other written formats.
If I remember correctly, the Super Size guy diet was "whatever the guy at the McDo counter tries to push on me". A day by day list would make for a boring movie, don't you think?