View Full Version : FOX gets Foxed.
It's high time someone stood up to the "fair & balanced" hackery propaganda channel, and gave them what they deserve. Nothing.
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will not participate in a Democratic debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel this fall, campaign aides indicated Monday.
The decision by the two Democratic presidential candidates follows an announcement last week by John Edwards, another White House contender, that he would forgo the Fox event.
The Sept. 23 debate, set for Detroit, is co-sponsored by the cable news network and by the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute.
...Obama and Clinton aides said they intended to participate in six debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. The DNC's list did not include the Fox News-CBC Institute debate, a concession to liberal and black activists who say Fox has slighted blacks and is biased in favor of conservatives
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18035439/
Also must tip the hat to Mr. Obama for showing some backbone and dismissing a CBC event due to the lack of integrity of it's co-sponser. Admirable move for a man in his position....
Tchocky
04-10-07, 10:47 AM
Liberals can't argue their positions, so they're running away!
(I wonder how obvious one has to be here sometimes)
Good show Clinton/Obama!
Sailor Steve
04-10-07, 11:26 AM
"Democrats have been under pressure from liberal activists to avoid Fox-hosted debates. Last month, the Nevada Democratic Party canceled a debate that Fox was to co-sponsor in August."
Criticisms of Fox aside, I don't see why their debate would be any worse than any others, or why "liberal activists" would bring pressure on candidates to avoid it.
That said, I despise televised "debates" in general; I would rather see candidates actually debate the issues than answer newspeoples' loaded questions.
That said, I despise televised "debates" in general; I would rather see candidates actually debate the issues than answer newspeoples' loaded questions.
Agreed! :up:
I would actually prefer that the Dems go into FOX's house, and call them out on live TV. Stare the lion in the face, so to speak. Show some back bone and some convicitons.
However, I think this is a good thing too. It sends the right message. There was no real pressure on the campaigns to do this, and I find that to be a positive sign. FOX has been getting away with their PR campaign for the right for waaaaay too long, despite all the charges abound that the media is a liberal one. It's high time someone called them on their BS, and the fact that Edwards led the charge, and they did so in a dignified manner is encouraging. At the very least it makes FOX look like what they are, and not what they portray themselves to be...
I wonder how many people here will decry the republicans refusing to debate on CBS for the same reasons?
I would.
CBS/Fox = apples/oranges. CBS isnt guilty of being the mouthpiece for the democratic party. FOX goes as far as adjusting its storyboard headlines to fit with the rights agenda or cause. it's dispicable.
The republicans refused to take part in Moveon.org's debates last time around. In that case, I agreed with their decision completely. Calling out Moveon was one thing. Calling out a major TV netwrok is quite another...
The Avon Lady
04-10-07, 12:36 PM
CBS isnt guilty of being the mouthpiece for the democratic party.
CBS? As in disgraced Dan Rather CBS? Where anything to smear Bush goes? That CBS?
Or the CBS correspondent who called MacCain disgraceful? That CBS?
Or the CBS whose Andy Rooney on 60 minutes last month said that today's US military is made out of 'losers'? That CBS?
What liberal bias? Can't be!
P'shaw! Apples and oranges.
Ahh, if the shoe fits, as you say!
Look, i'm not saying CBS hasn't had it's moments. Is it FOX news? is it 24 hours a day of propaganda and slanted commentary? No! It's not even close to FOX in that regard.
As for calling Mccain a disgrace, well, here it is.
BRIAN MONTOPOLI: It seems that some reporters, including yourself and CNN's Michael Ware, have really taken umbrage at John McCain's recent comments, essentially saying that there are a lot of neighborhoods where you can walk around relatively safely. Is it fair to say that that really sort of bothered reporters?
ALLEN PIZZEY: Yes. It's disgraceful for a man seeking highest office, I think, to talk utter rubbish. And that is utter rubbish. It's electoral propaganda. It is simply not true. No one in his right mind who has been to Baghdad believes that story. Now, McCain and some other senators were there on Sunday, and they claimed, "Oh, we walked around for a whole hour…and we drove in from the airport. Gosh, aren't we great, we drove in from the airport." Excuse me, Mr. McCain, you drove in in a large convoy of heavily armed vehicles. The last one had a sign on it saying "Keep back 100 yards. Deadly force authorized." Every single car that they approached or passed pulled over and stopped, because that's the way it is. When one of those security details goes by, every ordinary person gets the hell out of the way, in case they get shot. If he did walk around that market, and I didn't see him do it, and he didn't announce he was going to do it, you can bet your life there were an awful lot of soldiers deployed to make sure that nobody came near that place. He's talking rubbish. And he should not get away with it.
I for one dont have a problem with that. None at all. The reporter in question (with whom I am not familiar) was asked his feelings on the situation. It's not like he reported it as a news story. Besides, Mccain, (a guy I actually like alot) was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” and was now famously draped in Kevlar.
McCain said that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk safely through neighborhoods, today.”
McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market today was proof that you could “walk freely” in some areas of Baghdad.
He misrepresented what happened, and how the scene on the ground was. I think thats disgraceful when you are asking me to elect you President of the US.
P.S = Andy Rooney is a crazy old coot. :yep:
Media Matters (a source im sure you will love and embrace;) ) did a study (http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/MMFA_Sunday_Show_Report.pdf) on CBS liberal bias not long ago, based around it's popular Sunday panel shows....
never mind AL beat me to it
Camaero
04-10-07, 03:49 PM
Fox just sounds like "propaganda" because it is the only station to sing a different tune than all the liberal news stations.
None of them do a very good job though. I don't watch it anymore. Nothing but Anna Nicole this and Britney Spear's bald head that. Thats not news!
How about showing Iraq and not just the bad either. I hate stations that seek to make our military men look bad. Why not show the good that has been done as well? Now theres selective news for you. Right now I guess our whole military is made up of baby eating, torturing shxt heads. I guess all muslims are our friends, cause no true muslim would blow themselves up. I guess George Bush is an evil evil man who has started his war on terror just for oil. I guess Sadam was a tough man who had the right to rule his country how he wanted.
Wrong.:doh:
Sorry, I was raised better than that.
Tchocky
04-10-07, 04:20 PM
From the Project for Excellence in Journalism, State Of The Media 2004:
By more than three-to-one, national and local journalists believe it is a bad thing if some news organizations have a "decidedly ideological point of view" in their news coverage. And more than four-in-ten in both groups say journalists too often let their ideological views show in their reporting. This view is held more by self-described conservative journalists than moderates or liberals.
At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance * either liberal or conservative * is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists. The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.
Tchocky
04-10-07, 04:34 PM
Washington post aren't covering themselves in glory either - http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_atrios_archive.html#117595681241609223
and
http://mathaba.net/news/?x=553234
I can't take anyone seriously who believes that the American mass media are biased in a certain direction.
bookworm_020
04-10-07, 06:48 PM
Is there any neutral, unbiased reporting left (or at least not so pro one side)??? It seems the media is taking sides in political debates and it's getting hard to see throught the PR spin thats put on everything.
I saw it here in the state election in Australia, one news group was pro one side, the other newsgroup the rivals.
It's getting said watching this, I'm hoping there will be some enlightenment, but I'm not hopeful.:cry:
From the Project for Excellence in Journalism, State Of The Media 2004:
By more than three-to-one, national and local journalists believe it is a bad thing if some news organizations have a "decidedly ideological point of view" in their news coverage. And more than four-in-ten in both groups say journalists too often let their ideological views show in their reporting. This view is held more by self-described conservative journalists than moderates or liberals.
At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance * either liberal or conservative * is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists. The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.
Journalists seeing Fox as conservative is like Vlad the Impaler seeing Htiler as a weenie. You have to bear the source in mind when reading such things.
Fox just sounds like "propaganda" because it is the only station to sing a different tune than all the liberal news stations.
That is such a gross misinterpretation. I won't deny that there are news sources that show obvious political bias often. However there is a decided difference between leaning one way or another on certain stories and generating genuine disinformation which misleads people. Whereas on some stations like CNN where most of it comes off as just reporting with a bit of a slant sometimes in shows like Lou Dobbs, on FOX News the entire production feels like an editorial.
I have watched enough of FOX News to see through their technique. If you watch closely you'll notice that they'll say something decidedly right wing or biased by asking it as a question. Whenever theres a panel if theres a token liberal its usually an agreeable middle of the road commentator that doesn't argue. And any station that features Ann Coulter regularly and hosts Bill O'Reily is suspect to me.
This is an old but familiar story:
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_on_International_Policy_Attitudes), in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Science_Quarterly), reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions :
67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS
33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)All that coming from this publicated study:http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2003&bmonth=winter&a=02free&format=view
I'd say that suggests rather broad misinformation.
I guess Sadam was a tough man who had the right to rule his country how he wanted. And you'd be right on that point if it were the 80s and Saddam were attacking that dangerous Iranian regime. You forget too easily that Saddam was given most of the weapons used in the Gulf Wars against the US by the US for war against Iran.
Don't forget the handshake.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg
That is such a gross misinterpretation. I won't deny that there are news sources that show obvious political bias often. However there is a decided difference between leaning one way or another on certain stories and generating genuine disinformation which misleads people. Whereas on some stations like CNN where most of it comes off as just reporting with a bit of a slant sometimes in shows like Lou Dobbs, on FOX News the entire production feels like an editorial.
Which is just your opinion. Personally I see networks like CBS far more slanted to the left than Fox is to the right.
As for your poll data. I watch all those networks. Which category does that put me in?
And you'd be right on that point if it were the 80s and Saddam were attacking that dangerous Iranian regime. You forget too easily that Saddam was given most of the weapons used in the Gulf Wars against the US by the US for war against Iran.
Oh really? Which ones? All I've heard them use is a bunch of sSoviet equipment or is the T-72, AK-47 MiG and SCUD considered to be US weapons now?
Don't forget the handshake.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg
You mean a handshake like this one?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/v3/04-05-2007.NI_05pelosi.GS2249SED.1.jpg
The Avon Lady
04-11-07, 12:34 AM
Or a French Kiss, like this one?
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3190/francedevilmg4.jpg
The first, Jacques Chirac, described the second, Saddam Hussein,
as a personal friend, showed him around a French nuclear reactor
and invited him to his home for the weekend. It was about this time
that the prime minister was nicknamed Jacques Iraq.
- "French Industry Stands to Lose", By John Laurenson, International Herald Tribune, March 7, 2003
My! My! Selective memory has its nanoseconds.
Ohhhhh....Wait.....
http://mjhinton.net/slides/duhbya/bush-abdullah-8.jpg
The Avon Lady
04-11-07, 01:37 AM
Yep.
That is such a gross misinterpretation. I won't deny that there are news sources that show obvious political bias often. However there is a decided difference between leaning one way or another on certain stories and generating genuine disinformation which misleads people. Whereas on some stations like CNN where most of it comes off as just reporting with a bit of a slant sometimes in shows like Lou Dobbs, on FOX News the entire production feels like an editorial.
Which is just your opinion. Personally I see networks like CBS far more slanted to the left than Fox is to the right.
As for your poll data. I watch all those networks. Which category does that put me in? Well of course its my opinion. Isn't that the point of this? But maybe you ought to at least give your opinion more than just a coating of self confidence. Maybe express it instead of just identifying its existance in abstract space.
And the statistics aren't about whether people only watch one channel. They infer that people who get most of their information from Fox News are more likely to be misinformed than those who watch other channels. Good for you for watching all of the channels but not everyone is like that. In fact most people are the opposite. I don't see what you said as being much of an argument about the statistics.
And you'd be right on that point if it were the 80s and Saddam were attacking that dangerous Iranian regime. You forget too easily that Saddam was given most of the weapons used in the Gulf Wars against the US by the US for war against Iran.
Oh really? Which ones? All I've heard them use is a bunch of sSoviet equipment or is the T-72, AK-47 MiG and SCUD considered to be US weapons now? Money buys weapons. Political interference buys time and opportunity. And besides we all know that the US supported them. Are you REALLY trying to re-write history? Cuase whenever someone insists that the US had nothing to do with the Contras or that Noriega wasn't an American lap dog it is rather sad and funny. After the Iranian revolution of 79 the pro-American Shah was gone and that wasn't what the US liked. Iraq had a history of border issues with Iran and of course the US gave huge amounts of money to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The AK-47s came from the deal with the Soviet Union in the 70s but that fell through around 79.
Forget the black and white world. Saddam flip flopped as much as the US.
You mean a handshake like this one?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/v3/04-05-2007.NI_05pelosi.GS2249SED.1.jpg Yes, thats EXACTLY the same. Why don't we just say that Syria and its leaders are EXACTLY the same as Saddam and his regime. I mean they're all just a bunch of arabs in the desert. They're all the same thing right? I mean the prior and very paradoxical relationship between the US and Saddam before the war(s) are the same as Syria which the US isn't apparently even supposed to talk to. The irony of Rumsfeld shaking old Saddam's hand is lost on you I suppose.:hmm:
Learn some nuance.
And to the Avon Lady. What in gods name does France have to do with this? Are you just using the google image search to cloud the argument? If we want to talk about where Saddam's Nuclear program came from then that would be a propos. Otherwise you're being a smart ass.
The Avon Lady
04-11-07, 01:53 AM
You mean a handshake like this one?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/v3/04-05-2007.NI_05pelosi.GS2249SED.1.jpg Yes, thats EXACTLY the same. Why don't we just say that Syria and its leaders are EXACTLY the same as Saddam and his regime.
If the shoe fits.
While not the same, they shared a number of similarities.
I mean they're all just a bunch of arabs in the desert.
Remember you said it.
This would be applicable to any country that behaves like Syria, Greenland not excluded.
I mean the prior and very paradoxical relationship
Precisely. Our enemy's enemy is our friend.
between the US and Saddam before the war(s) are the same as Syria which the US isn't apparently even supposed to talk to. The irony of Rumsfeld shaking old Saddam's hand is lost on you I suppose.:hmm:
Not on me, at least. But the irony doesn't make it any more relevant than all the other pics just posted here.
Learn some nuance.
Speaking of irony! :rotfl:
And to the Avon Lady. What in gods name does France have to do with this?
Everybody was in bed with whichever side advanced their causes. But some causes are different than others.
Are you just using the google image search to cloud the argument?
I thought it would be easier for you if it were illustrated. :roll:
If we want to talk about where Saddam's Nuclear program came from then that would be a propos. Otherwise you're being a smart ass.
:D
baggygreen
04-11-07, 02:03 AM
secret mystery prize to the first person to find a photo of bush embracing hillary in a similar fashion!
Bonus prize if you can produce one with tony blair filming in the background...
:huh:
:down:
I thoroughly detest media as a whole these days, with 'good' journalism no longer considered that which produces the facts unbiased, but instead that which puts as many facts in to make the story beneficial for one side.
Thats why i make a habit to get news from as many sources as possible, and where possible about the same topic.:yep:
The Avon Lady
04-11-07, 02:08 AM
secret mystery prize to the first person to find a photo of bush embracing hillary in a similar fashion!
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5450/noyesbarbarabushwithhilti6.jpg
baggygreen
04-11-07, 02:30 AM
crafty AL, i give you that!:up:
Camaero
04-11-07, 02:59 AM
http://www.jibjab.com/what_we_call_the_news
Seems good for this thread eh?
The Avon Lady
04-11-07, 03:12 AM
http://www.jibjab.com/what_we_call_the_news
Seems good for this thread eh?
Right on target!
If the shoe fits.
While not the same, they shared a number of similarities. As does the US with many despotic regimes. Between the secret prisons and the jingoistic foreign policy. However, similarities aren't justification to generalize anyone that the current american regime says is bad stuff.
I mean they're all just a bunch of arabs in the desert. Remember you said it. And it is a sarcastic nod towards the tendency to generalize all arab regimes that aren't kissing up to the US.
I mean the prior and very paradoxical relationship Precisely. Our enemy's enemy is our friend. And I was making light of the fact that whenever someone justifies the Iraq invasion they make the intentions sound so righteous and honourable. The fact is that if Saddam was so darned evil then the US, even the current administration's forbearer, is directly complicit in whatever evil he committed.
And to the Avon Lady. What in gods name does France have to do with this? Everybody was in bed with whichever side advanced their causes. But some causes are different than others. Another irrelavent cryptic remark. You're reaching.
Honestly Avon Lady, micro-analysing my post and taking sentenses out of context isn't much of a way to argue. You ignore the overall point and instead deride me and mock me without actually being a person and just discussing. Contempt is such a boring way to go about a conversation. I could be as needlessly smug as you but I choose not to. You insult your own intelligence.
tedhealy
04-11-07, 11:50 AM
I never understand why these handshake pictures are posted as some sort of gotcha.
USA and GB were allies with one of the biggest mass murderers ever, Mr. Stalin. Plenty of picturs of FDR and Truman shaking hands and making nice with Stalin. What does this prove (leaving aside FDR's rosy view of Stalin)? Somehow the cold war was invalidated because there were pictures of earlier leaders with Stalin when they had a common enemy?
It proves that politicians are liars and that the double standards in world politics are astounding. :cool:
The Avon Lady
04-11-07, 12:26 PM
USA and GB were allies with one of the biggest mass murderers ever, Mr. Stalin. Plenty of picturs of FDR and Truman shaking hands and making nice with Stalin. What does this prove (leaving aside FDR's rosy view of Stalin)? Somehow the cold war was invalidated because there were pictures of earlier leaders with Stalin when they had a common enemy?
Bingo.
It was Churchill who coined the term "iron curtain" in 1946. During WWII, Churchill said of Stalin "A hard-boiled egg of a man - at once a callous, a crafty and an ill-formed man."
It proves that politicians are liars and that the double standards in world politics are astounding.
It proves nothing of a sort in cases where the alternative is likely worse, as above.
You missed my guy. :cool:
Well of course its my opinion. Isn't that the point of this? But maybe you ought to at least give your opinion more than just a coating of self confidence. Maybe express it instead of just identifying its existance in abstract space.
Maybe, but then again i'd miss such interesting repartee about abstract space.
And the statistics aren't about whether people only watch one channel. They infer that people who get most of their information from Fox News are more likely to be misinformed than those who watch other channels.
No it doesn't. The percentages you mention are, for the most part, well below 50%. The questions are loaded too. Take the WMD one for example. There HAVE been chemical weapons found in Iraq, not the mother load I grant you, but the poll does not distinguish between that and the chemical warfare artillery rounds that have indeed been found. Nor does it mention the chemical agents recovered in Jordan from a failed terrorist attack either.
In short your poll is nothing more than bovine feces. Cherry picked statistics designed to push an agenda.
Money buys weapons. Political interference buys time and opportunity. And besides we all know that the US supported them.
No you said "given most of the weapons used in the Gulf Wars against the US by the US for war against Iran", not money or political interference or neato Skillcraft US government pens, and yeah we also know Saddam DID use chemical weapons, and had not accounted for the ones we knew he had. We also knew that he on many occasions threatened to use them and we know he at least possessed the means to restart chemwep programs.
Are you REALLY trying to re-write history? Cuase whenever someone insists that the US had nothing to do with the Contras or that Noriega wasn't an American lap dog it is rather sad and funny.
Not as sad and funny as the fact that none of that has anything to do with Saddam.
After the Iranian revolution of 79 the pro-American Shah was gone and that wasn't what the US liked. Iraq had a history of border issues with Iran and of course the US gave huge amounts of money to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The AK-47s came from the deal with the Soviet Union in the 70s but that fell through around 79.
Yeah right. The man was in control of huge amounts of oil revenue, he hardly needed money from us to fund his war machine against Iran.
Forget the black and white world. Saddam flip flopped as much as the US.
And his flip flopping is what eventually did him in.
Yes, thats EXACTLY the same. Why don't we just say that Syria and its leaders are EXACTLY the same as Saddam and his regime. I mean they're all just a bunch of arabs in the desert. They're all the same thing right? I mean the prior and very paradoxical relationship between the US and Saddam before the war(s) are the same as Syria which the US isn't apparently even supposed to talk to. The irony of Rumsfeld shaking old Saddam's hand is lost on you I suppose.:hmm:
Learn some nuance.
I responded with that Pelosi picture to point out that a stupid handshake picture does not mean some kind of dark evil deal has been made. I'd say that if anyone needs to "learn some nuance" it is you wiseguy.
Otherwise you're being a smart ass.
Pot, kettle, black.
bovine feces. Cherry picked statistics designed to push an agenda.
An accurate description of Fox News. Aaaaand we come full circle. :lol:
It proves that politicians are liars and that the double standards in world politics are astounding. :cool:
No, it proves that the polite thing to do is shake a persons hand when you meet them. Nothing more or less.
NefariousKoel
04-11-07, 02:32 PM
LOL.
I always see hysterical liberals incorrectly stating that most of Iraq's weapons came from the US. :roll:
I've seen the numbers. A handful of unarmed observation helicopters. The rest was mostly Russian and French sold with a smattering of smaller nation's home-built vehicles.
When I see the "US gave them all their weapons" I generally stop reading the poster's comments since they will repeat any line they hear as truth when it is quite fictitious.
LOL.
I always see hysterical liberals incorrectly stating that most of Iraq's weapons came from the US. :roll:
I've seen the numbers. A handful of unarmed observation helicopters. The rest was mostly Russian and French sold with a smattering of smaller nation's home-built vehicles.
When I see the "US gave them all their weapons" I generally stop reading the poster's comments since they will repeat any line they hear as truth when it is quite fictitious.
This post wins the thread (imo).
When I see the "US gave them all their weapons" I generally stop reading the poster's comments since they will repeat any line they hear as truth when it is quite fictitious.
Yeah. I have the same reaction to all those right wingers who like to link Iraq to 9/11.
No, it proves that the polite thing to do is shake a persons hand when you meet them. Nothing more or less
You guys really have to start paying attention to emoticon usage.
This post wins the thread
Oh, its a battle of wits? a competition of sorts?I had no idea. Hmm.
Oh, and how that "wins" a thread about Fox being bias, well, I gues I dont know.
This post wins the thread
Oh, its a battle of wits? a competition of sorts?I had no idea. Hmm.
Pay more attention then. I suggest you go back and reread the entire thread.
Ok. I'll start reading from where I started the frikkin thread shall I. :lol:
waste gate
04-11-07, 03:01 PM
I thought this post was about candidates for the highest office in the US refusing to debate on a particular network. Do we really want people who are in contention for that office as president if they refuse to debate on that network because of its perceived slant. Sounds as if the idea of freedom of the press is lost on these candidates. If they can be so arrogant towards the nature of the press what else will they forsake in the name of opinion.
I haven't even brought up the great large finger the candidates are giving the Congressional Black Caucus (the other sponser). If this isn't a big *******k Y*u to the leaders of the black community I don't know what is.
Barkhorn1x
04-11-07, 03:02 PM
[quote]And you'd be right on that point if it were the 80s and Saddam were attacking that dangerous Iranian regime. You forget too easily that Saddam was given most of the weapons used in the Gulf Wars against the US by the US for war against Iran.
Get your facts straight before you make these grand pronouncements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990
Who armed Iraq - in order:
- the SU/WP
- France
- China
Don't forget the handshake.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg
OK, how about?
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Strategy/img/USA-P-Strategy-91.jpg
Context is important - that is something you seem to miss.
Ok. I'll start reading from where I started the frikkin thread shall I. :lol:
That would probably be a good idea. ;)
I thought this post was about candidates for the highest office in the US refusing to debate on a particular network. Do we really want people who are in contention for that office as president if they refuse to debate on that network because of its perceived slant. Sounds as if the idea of freedom of the press is lost on these candidates. If they can be so arrogant towards the nature of the press what else will they forsake in the name of opinion.
So I can assume you are also reffering to Giuliani, McCain, Brownback, and Huckabee, who were invited, but did not attend the townhall sponsored by Lefty Moveon.org yesterday? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich all showed....:hmm:
I haven't even brought up the great large finger the candidates are giving the Congressional Black Caucus (the other sponser). If this isn't a big *******k Y*u to the leaders of the black community I don't know what is.
Nonsense. They all feel that a leading black institution was turning its back on its constituents by partnering with Fox News. Obama said so himself.
waste gate
04-11-07, 03:30 PM
I thought this post was about candidates for the highest office in the US refusing to debate on a particular network. Do we really want people who are in contention for that office as president if they refuse to debate on that network because of its perceived slant. Sounds as if the idea of freedom of the press is lost on these candidates. If they can be so arrogant towards the nature of the press what else will they forsake in the name of opinion.
So I can assume you are also reffering to Giuliani, McCain, Brownback, and Huckabee, who were invited, but did not attend the townhall sponsored by Lefty Moveon.org yesterday? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich all showed....:hmm:
I haven't even brought up the great large finger the candidates are giving the Congressional Black Caucus (the other sponser). If this isn't a big *******k Y*u to the leaders of the black community I don't know what is.
Nonsense. They all feel that a leading black institution was turning its back on its constituents by partnering with Fox News. Obama said so himself.
Townhalls are little more than beauty pagents. Nationally televised debates on the issues are a different story all together. What are these people afraid of?
By turning their backs, you mean challenging blacks to give up their victim status?
Townhalls are little more than beauty pagents. Nationally televised debates on the issues are a different story all together. What are these people afraid of?
Well, thats not much of an argument. It's really just your opinion that it was a "beauty pagent". It was very well attended, by everyone except Republican candidates. They didnt show. What are these people afraid of?
By turning their backs, you mean challenging blacks to give up their victim status?
....What?
waste gate
04-11-07, 03:38 PM
Townhalls are little more than beauty pagents. Nationally televised debates on the issues are a different story all together. What are these people afraid of?
Well, thats not much of an argument. It's really just your opinion that it was a "beauty pagent". It was very well attended, by everyone except Republican candidates. They didnt show. What are these people afraid of?
By turning their backs, you mean challenging blacks to give up their victim status?
....What?
Beauty pagent. If you don't understand it I'm sure there is a wiki for it.
people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson perpetuate the victimhood which is being black in America. Unfortunately, criminal illegal imiagrants are quickly surpassing them. You, by asking are also perpetuating their victimhood. Let these people standup and become part of the dream.
Oh, and it was 1 issue debate/discussion. Topic: Iraq. Call me crazy, but im pretty sure thats a hot button issue for voters these days.
But, I guess it answers my "what are they afraid of?" question.
Beauty pagent. If you don't understand it I'm sure there is a wiki for it.
Not sure why I gave you the impression that I didnt understand what a beauty pagent is.
people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson perpetuate the victimhood which is being black in America. Unfortunately, criminal illegal imiagrants are quickly surpassing them. You, by asking are also perpetuating their victimhood. Let these people standup and become part of the dream.
Whos stopping them? And what, in gods name does this have to do with the Dems turning down Fox!? They turned it down based on it being FOx as a co sponsor. It's cute to try to spin it so that the Dems are giving Black America the "finger" as you put it, but it's also party line spin and BS. And frankly, i think you know it.
....I'd also add that perhaps you are the only one that belives this move slighted the black population. After all, when some 879 year old radio idiot calls a collegic basketball team "nappy headed ho's", its 3 days worth of news stories. You think the press decided to just keep a lid on the fact that the Dems turn their backs and give the finger to black america? :lol:
waste gate
04-11-07, 03:48 PM
Beauty pagent. If you don't understand it I'm sure there is a wiki for it.
Not sure why I gave you the impression that I didnt understand what a beauty pagent is.
people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson perpetuate the victimhood which is being black in America. Unfortunately, criminal illegal imiagrants are quickly surpassing them. You, by asking are also perpetuating their victimhood. Let these people standup and become part of the dream.
Whos stopping them? And what, in gods name does this have to do with the Dems turning down Fox!? They turned it down based on it being FOx as a co sponsor. It's cute to try to spin it so that the Dems are giving Black America the "finger" as you put it, but it's also party line spin and BS. And frankly, i think you know it.
Have a sip of your KoolAid.
Hehe...I always hit this wall with you.
Nice response. Come back when you have an argument.
have a nice day. :sunny:
waste gate
04-11-07, 03:51 PM
....I'd also add that perhaps you are the only one that belives this move slighted the black population. After all, when some 879 year old radio idiot calls a collegic basketball team "nappy headed ho's", its 3 days worth of news stories. You think the press decided to just keep a lid on the fact that the Dems turn their backs and give the finger to black america? :lol:
Imus is one of yours my friend. Also the press hasn't caught up with me yet. Also they are so PC that they would never suggest that the Dems are anti-black in their behavior when they need them so much to win an election.
"One of yours". One of mine! Ha!
...and I drink the Kool aid, eh? :lol:
waste gate
04-11-07, 03:55 PM
"One of yours". One of mine! Ha!
...and I drink the Kool aid, eh? :lol:
He's a socialist/liberal and you know it. Eating your own is what you folks do.
The Avon Lady
04-11-07, 04:02 PM
...and I drink the Kool aid, eh? :lol:
At the rate things are going here, I'm suprised the 2 of you aren't offering one another a nice Hawaiian Punch.
http://www.verypink.com/Images/jingles2/hawaiian.jpg
waste gate
04-11-07, 04:02 PM
Back on topic. The candidates have every right to not attend any debate they wish. Face time is, however, what makes or breaks their candidacy. Early on, in the primary season, these folks only want the party to nominate them. They will pander to the party faithful and no one else. September of '08 will be the time for moving towards the center.
He's a socialist/liberal and you know it. Eating your own is what you folks do.
It's comments like that that really set you apart, old friend.
Back on topic. The candidates have every right to not attend any debate they wish. Face time is, however, what makes or breaks their candidacy. Early on, in the primary season, these folks only want the party to nominate them. They will pander to the party faithful and no one else. September of '08 will be the time for moving towards the center.
I agree %100.
It just seems like it's bad if Democrats do it, and acceptable for Republicans?
Kind of along the smae lines as the Syria visit. Dems = bad. Repubs = No comment, apparently.
waste gate
04-11-07, 04:09 PM
He's a socialist/liberal and you know it. Eating your own is what you folks do.
It's comments like that that really set you apart, old friend.
The truth is just that. If you consider them 'four letter words' then you should reconsider your position.
The truth is just that. If you consider them 'four letter words' then you should reconsider your position.
Oh, ok, thanks.
:o
:lol:
Sailor Steve
04-11-07, 05:07 PM
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain
Enigma, is that sig new? It's one I can really get behind!:rock:
Yup, put it up last week. I found it very, very appropriate. :rock:
Platapus
04-11-07, 05:52 PM
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain
Enigma, is that sig new? It's one I can really get behind!:rock:
Along the same lines is one of my favourites
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt 26th president of US (1858 - 1919)
NefariousKoel
04-11-07, 11:33 PM
So I can assume you are also reffering to Giuliani, McCain, Brownback, and Huckabee, who were invited, but did not attend the townhall sponsored by Lefty Moveon.org yesterday? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich all showed....:hmm:
That has to be the worst comparison I've seen. Almost ever.
I don't know if you've done your homework but MoveOn.org was created to defend a liberal president guilty of perjury. It's also very much not an accredited media company, but a website paragon of liberal hate and intoleration.
You must be pretty d@mn deluded if you believe MoveOn.org is in any way a font of reporting integrity.
It only further proves to me that we need another Jonestown-like migration and self-purging of liberal moonbats who will believe anything. :doh:
Tchocky
04-12-07, 12:22 AM
I don't know if you've done your homework but MoveOn.org was created to defend a liberal president guilty of perjury. It's also very much not an accredited media company, but a website paragon of liberal hate and intoleration.
You must be pretty d@mn deluded if you believe MoveOn.org is in any way a font of reporting integrity. The same thing can be said of Fox News. I don't want tthis to read like "they did worse, so it's OK", but it should be kept in mind that Fox don't really report, they cheat and imply. As do CBS/NBC/NYT, but not nearly as insidiously or with such persistence.
It only further proves to me that we need another Jonestown-like migration and self-purging of liberal moonbats who will believe anything. :doh: gah, bleh, and ugh.
The Avon Lady
04-12-07, 02:20 AM
Fox gets foxed and Dems get Leno'd (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/11/video-leno-asks-dems-how-will-you-stand-up-to-terrorists-when-youre-afraid-of-fox-news/).
And to think I saw it on NBC! :D
Barkhorn1x
04-12-07, 07:51 AM
The same thing can be said of Fox News. I don't want tthis to read like "they did worse, so it's OK", but it should be kept in mind that Fox don't really report, they cheat and imply. As do CBS/NBC/NYT, but not nearly as insidiously or with such persistence.
I won't go so far as to suggest that you drink poisoned Kool-aid in a Jonestown-like purge but you are indeed delusional if you are honestly trying to compare Fox to MoveOn.org.
Why don't you offer some SPECIFIC examples of this pervasive Fox bias - on the NEWS shows - not O'Reilly and those talking head roundtables??? We'll wait - it shouldn't take you long as the bias is so PERVASIVE, right? And I mean you - not political hack sites like MediaMatters.
That has to be the worst comparison I've seen. Almost ever.
Really? You need to get out more!
I don't know if you've done your homework but MoveOn.org was created to defend a liberal president guilty of perjury. It's also very much not an accredited media company, but a website paragon of liberal hate and intoleration.
Interesting thing with right wingers. Always accusing the left of hate and intoleration all while hating and not tolerating the left...:lol:
You must be pretty d@mn deluded if you believe MoveOn.org is in any way a font of reporting integrity.
I did'nt say that, you did. But it is a movement large enough to gain national attention and to attract every democrat running for President...You just dont like it. So, friggin, what?
It only further proves to me that we need another Jonestown-like migration and self-purging of liberal moonbats who will believe anything. :doh:
Was that more of that loving right wing non hating and tolerance? :lol:
Sip sip sip the kool aid, Brian Jones. The very depth of your hypocricy and double standards is laughable at best. I like smart people that disagree with me. I love discussing issues with people who think i'm wrong. I dont waste my time on hard liners with enough hate in their ruptured little hearts that they cant make a point without making personal attacks. I know this is what Rush and Bill O taught you, but I fear it will not serve you well, as it has not here, where you only end up looking foolish. I'm sure (I hope?) you can do better.
Moving on,....(no pun intended. Maybe.)
Tchocky
04-12-07, 12:16 PM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/images/foley_d_fox.jpg
geetrue
04-12-07, 12:25 PM
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain
Enigma, is that sig new? It's one I can really get behind!:rock:
Speaking of Mark Twain and Fox News ... :cool:
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” Mark Twain
Barkhorn1x
04-12-07, 02:54 PM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/images/foley_d_fox.jpg
...and the context for the story accompanying this caption was what, exactly??? I doubt it was a story on former congressmen and what they're doing with their time these days. :roll:
NefariousKoel
04-12-07, 03:10 PM
Really? You need to get out more!
Doin' fine, thanks!
Interesting thing with right wingers. Always accusing the left of hate and intoleration all while hating and not tolerating the left...:lol:
It's quite reciprocal between the two. Our conversation would'nt be happening if my right-thinking didn't think badly of your left-thinking and likewise. Do I burn crosses in your front yard? No. But I will freely tell you what I think, which I have. No wrongdoing there.
I did'nt say that, you did. But it is a movement large enough to gain national attention and to attract every democrat running for President...You just dont like it. So, friggin, what?
I still can't turn the tv on and see MoveOn.org or any AP-like news stories hitting the newspaper in the morning. It's a partisan political hack website if ever there was one, and there is no comparison to any news network in existance. So.. are you saying that MoveOn.org should host presidential debates in the future? Are you saying that Fox is comparable to MoveOn in their bias? LOL.
Was that more of that loving right wing non hating and tolerance? :lol:
Sip sip sip the kool aid, Brian Jones. The very depth of your hypocricy and double standards is laughable at best. I like smart people that disagree with me. I love discussing issues with people who think i'm wrong. I dont waste my time on hard liners with enough hate in their ruptured little hearts that they cant make a point without making personal attacks. I know this is what Rush and Bill O taught you, but I fear it will not serve you well, as it has not here, where you only end up looking foolish. I'm sure (I hope?) you can do better.
Moving on,....(no pun intended. Maybe.)
You realize Jones was an extremist liberal don't you? Now I'm being a hypocrit for being a crazy liberal? I don't think many people could say that about me with a straight face. :rotfl:
Also.. I don't watch Rush and Bill O to feed my "hate..ruptured little heart". Incorrect once again. Hypocrit indeed. Keep fishing for that angle.
waste gate
04-12-07, 03:46 PM
I think the candidates should boycot debates on NBC and CBS. The Imius situation shows the lack of tolerance these stations have. Can you imagine the uproar if Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reily said what Imus said.
yeah, republican candidates should return the favor and boycot the liberal media hosted debates *roll*
I personally think it is ridiculous for any presidential candidate to turn down free air time on the most watched cable news network no matter how biased they are.
Fox news is not some backwater public access channel. They have more viewers than CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, or any of the others. They are availible in over 85 million households. They are a legitimate and fair news outlet. Their OPINION AND EDITORIAL shows are very right wing biased, but it only stands out because you don't see ANY right wing biased opinion shows on ANY of the other major networks. I can count lots of left wing biased ones though.
Turning down a debate there shows a complete lack of respect for centerists or moderates who may get their news there and it shows it a complete lack of credibility when they are not willing to stand up and face hard questions posed by some of their toughest critics.
Its like they only want to preach to the choir but not the "sinners" heh. Pretty weak if you ask me.
Tchocky
04-13-07, 01:33 AM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/images/foley_d_fox.jpg
...and the context for the story accompanying this caption was what, exactly??? I doubt it was a story on former congressmen and what they're doing with their time these days. :roll:
Ugh, what party was Foley part of? What made him a "former" Congresman?
sonar732
04-13-07, 05:46 AM
Check out the bite here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal
I think the pun intended was that on the screenie of Fox News, he's listed as a democrat. He was actually a Republican who "championed" for kids who were sexually abused on the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Caucus_on_Missing_and_Exploited_Children)
Barkhorn1x
04-13-07, 07:45 AM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/images/foley_d_fox.jpg
...and the context for the story accompanying this caption was what, exactly??? I doubt it was a story on former congressmen and what they're doing with their time these days. :roll:
Ugh, what party was Foley part of? What made him a "former" Congresman?
I failed to notice the "D" - so shoot me. That was - obviosly - a mistake. Or are you stating it was "delibrate distortion"?
Now, back to my main point, which you failed to address BTW; what was the context of the story???? Was it not a follow-up on this pervy character and the reason he resigned from congress? If so then that invalidates your example. If not then what was it exactly. Tell us so we can fairly judge your example.
Ugh, what party was Foley part of? What made him a "former" Congresman?
1. The GoP
2. For trying to do what this guy from the other party was only censured for doing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/S001040.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
I guess the Democratic party only has a problem with public figures having sex with minors when they aren't Democrats.
The Avon Lady
04-13-07, 08:04 AM
Gives an entirely new meaning to the term bi-partisan politics.
bradclark1
04-13-07, 08:25 AM
Ugh, what party was Foley part of? What made him a "former" Congresman?
1. The GoP
2. For trying to do what this guy from the other party was only censured for doing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/S001040.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
I guess the Democratic party only has a problem with public figures having sex with minors when they aren't Democrats.
Umm 24 years ago. Come on!
Umm 24 years ago. Come on!
Granted but why should this make a difference?
bradclark1
04-13-07, 08:53 AM
Granted but why should this make a difference?
The time makes it irrelevant. A lot of people on this forum wasn't even born yet.
The time makes it irrelevant. A lot of people on this forum wasn't even born yet.
That hardly excuses the crime (just ask the Catholic church) or how the Democratic party knew about it for almost a decade but chose to cover it up, and then when it finally became public knowledge, they chose to give him what amounted to a slap on the wrist, before allowing him to continue in his political career.
Foley on the other hand was hounded out of office for just trying to do what Studds actually did, and the hounding was done as much by his own party as by the Democrats.
Far from being irrelevant I see it as a basic difference between the two parties. The GoP will not stand for such behavior from anyone, especially their own members, whereas with the Democrats it depends on whether the offender has a D or an R in front of his name.
You could draw this parallel between Nixon and Clinton too. I firmly believe that had Nixon been a Dem it would have taken an impeachment to get him out of office (unlikely with a Dem controlled Congress) and even then the Democratic party would have done everything they could to prevent it from happening. Conversely, had Clinton been a Repub the GoP would have forced him to resign long before it went as far as it did.
Barkhorn1x
04-13-07, 11:19 AM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/images/foley_d_fox.jpg
...and the context for the story accompanying this caption was what, exactly??? I doubt it was a story on former congressmen and what they're doing with their time these days. :roll:
Ugh, what party was Foley part of? What made him a "former" Congresman?
I failed to notice the "D" - so shoot me. That was - obviosly - a mistake. Or are you stating it was "delibrate distortion"?
Now, back to my main point, which you failed to address BTW; what was the context of the story???? Was it not a follow-up on this pervy character and the reason he resigned from congress? If so then that invalidates your example. If not then what was it exactly. Tell us so we can fairly judge your example.
I get inquisitive when certain people STRONGLY object to Topic X - and you ask them for specifics to back up their assertions - and they come back w/ something that it pretty weak.
So...I Googled the following = "Mark Foley" Fox News caption
...and what I found was that the caption was from a story that aired in OCTOBER 2006!
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
Gee, if Fox News bias is as pervasive as claimed by guys like Tchocky and P_Funk you would think that all they would need to do is flick on the TV, tune to Fox News and - presto - naked Repub, Freeper, neo-con bias there for all to see.
Instead we get this lame - and pretty old - example, links to Moonbat sites like MediaMatters, and a poll of dubious provinence.
Just admit that you know little or nothing about the real content of Fox News cause - gosh - sitting and actually watching it would be "eeeeevil" And what you do know is received wisdom from the likes of Kos, MM and the DU. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
bradclark1
04-13-07, 01:59 PM
The time makes it irrelevant. A lot of people on this forum wasn't even born yet.
That hardly excuses the crime (just ask the Catholic church) or how the Democratic party knew about it for almost a decade but chose to cover it up, and then when it finally became public knowledge, they chose to give him what amounted to a slap on the wrist, before allowing him to continue in his political career.
Foley on the other hand was hounded out of office for just trying to do what Studds actually did, and the hounding was done as much by his own party as by the Democrats.
Far from being irrelevant I see it as a basic difference between the two parties. The GoP will not stand for such behavior from anyone, especially their own members, whereas with the Democrats it depends on whether the offender has a D or an R in front of his name.
You could draw this parallel between Nixon and Clinton too. I firmly believe that had Nixon been a Dem it would have taken an impeachment to get him out of office (unlikely with a Dem controlled Congress) and even then the Democratic party would have done everything they could to prevent it from happening. Conversely, had Clinton been a Repub the GoP would have forced him to resign long before it went as far as it did.
What utter baloney! Your whole post is based on speculations. FTR the GOP was covering Foley up until it went public so you can shove that in the garbage too. While we're at it lets argue about Abe Lincoln too.
Tchocky
04-13-07, 04:44 PM
I get inquisitive when certain people STRONGLY object to Topic X - and you ask them for specifics to back up their assertions - and they come back w/ something that it pretty weak. Meh, I don't really care enough about what interests you, but I'll give it a try.
So...I Googled the following = "Mark Foley" Fox News caption
...and what I found was that the caption was from a story that aired in OCTOBER 2006!
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
yeah, it aired in October 2006. What does that change? Foley had resigned in disgrace on Sept 29 2006. Less than a week later, with important elections on the horizon, Fox labels him a Democrat. Maybe it was an accident, maybe not.
I don't see what your point is here. Maybe I'm thick. Why is October in capitals? What's so relevatory about this?
Gee, if Fox News bias is as pervasive as claimed by guys like Tchocky and P_Funk you would think that all they would need to do is flick on the TV, tune to Fox News and - presto - naked Repub, Freeper, neo-con bias there for all to see. But you asked me to post here. On this. And that's why i'm typing this and not watching TV. What's your point?
Instead we get this lame - and pretty old - example, links to Moonbat sites like MediaMatters, and a poll of dubious provinence. Nice of you to colour a response that I haven't given yet. Maybe 'm not answering because you resort to personal attacks in your posts, and that's not something I want to encourage. *shrug* I don't know, and I don't particularly care.
I don't think PIPA are dubious (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to, right?). You seem to, and it would help if you would explain why. I don't want to trust a source that may be unsound, is PIPA something I should ignore? Or is it because it doesnt help your position? Help me out here.
Just admit that you know little or nothing about the real content of Fox News cause - gosh - sitting and actually watching it would be "eeeeevil" And what you do know is received wisdom from the likes of Kos, MM and the DU. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: If you have decided what I know or don't know, why the questions? This attitude isn't worth responding to, and it's exasperating. I don't know where you're getting it from.
I do watch Fox every so often, it's one of two news channels I pick up. I can't watch it for too long, because it's often over-emotive and short on factual reporting. That's very common in American rolling news channels, so it's not Fox's fault. but their political slant is. Check out Jeff Moody's daily memos on what's to be covered, and how.
Or if you want to go back to personal attacks that's OK.
Tchocky
04-13-07, 04:58 PM
Something releveant from the Washington Post
Hynah (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041201821.html?nav=hcmodule)
Tell me again: Why do Democrats have an obligation to participate in debates on Fox?
NefariousKoel
04-13-07, 05:52 PM
Something releveant from the Washington Post
Hynah (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041201821.html?nav=hcmodule)
Tell me again: Why do Democrats have an obligation to participate in debates on Fox?
An Op-Ed that proves you conservatives are wrong! Muahhaha!! :roll: Nobody said they must go on Fox.
I don't think it matters where the debates happen.
The rules are the same. The thing is... I guess the Dems who refuse to go on Fox will only be preaching to the choir on any other station. Fox has the most viewers right now so it might have been a bad decision for them too.
It does make the candidates look like a bunch of spoiled brats throwing a fit in the store - you know - the kind you thinkg should be gettin' an ass-beating. In the end, I don't think it'll make much difference either way and I don't really care where they go.
bradclark1
04-13-07, 06:33 PM
Fox has the most viewers right now .............
Just out of curiosity where did you get your information?
What utter baloney! Your whole post is based on speculations. FTR the GOP was covering Foley up until it went public so you can shove that in the garbage too. While we're at it lets argue about Abe Lincoln too.
Speculations? There's nothing speculative about it. Studds not only admitted having sex with minors he didn't see anything wrong with what he did either, arrogantly turning his back to the chair when his slap on the wrist censure was read. Foley AFAIK never had actual contact (although apparently he was trying to) so your "FTR" is not only irrelevant, it's a typical example of Democratic party hypocracy.
bradclark1
04-13-07, 08:45 PM
What utter baloney! Your whole post is based on speculations. FTR the GOP was covering Foley up until it went public so you can shove that in the garbage too. While we're at it lets argue about Abe Lincoln too.
Speculations? There's nothing speculative about it. Studds not only admitted having sex with minors he didn't see anything wrong with what he did either, arrogantly turning his back to the chair when his slap on the wrist censure was read. Foley AFAIK never had actual contact (although apparently he was trying to) so your "FTR" is not only irrelevant, it's a typical example of Democratic party hypocracy.
FTR Clinton/Nixon is speculation.
If you read the whole article the 17 year old was legal by law for that state. Studds wasn't a closet queen. Everyone knew he was gay. He was openly gay. The censure was for unethical realationship with a subordinate. No cover-up. Studds constituents re-voted him in 3(?) more times after the censure so they must not have thought gay's having consensual sex was that bad a thing. Doesn't matter what you or I personally think about it. Studds was facing the speaker who was reading the charge. To do that he had to have his back to the house. Normally I look at who's speaking too. Don't you?
How long did the GOP cover for Foley? 2 years(I think). How many pages was Foley trying to get into and wouldn't take no for an answer. I think Foley and leadership could be held up as an example of GOP hypocrisy. A champion of children's rights and your leaders were covering for him.
The Republican party is supposed to be conservative where the democrats aren't. Different standards.:) Sucks, but hey.......
I notice you didn't mention (R) Crane though.
What utter baloney! Your whole post is based on speculations. FTR the GOP was covering Foley up until it went public so you can shove that in the garbage too. While we're at it lets argue about Abe Lincoln too.
Speculations? There's nothing speculative about it. Studds not only admitted having sex with minors he didn't see anything wrong with what he did either, arrogantly turning his back to the chair when his slap on the wrist censure was read. Foley AFAIK never had actual contact (although apparently he was trying to) so your "FTR" is not only irrelevant, it's a typical example of Democratic party hypocracy. FTR Clinton/Nixon is speculation.
If you read the whole article the 17 year old was legal by law for that state. Studds wasn't a closet queen. Everyone knew he was gay. He was openly gay. The censure was for improper relationship with a page. No cover-up. Studds constituents re-voted him in 3(?) more times after the censure so they must not have thought gay's having consensual sex was that bad a thing. Doesn't matter what you or I personally think about it.
How long did the GOP cover for Foley? 2 years(I think). How many pages was Foley trying to get into and wouldn't take no for an answer. I think Foley and leadership could be held up as an example of GOP hypocrisy. A champion of children's rights and your leaders were covering for him.
The Republican party is supposed to be conservative where the democrats aren't. Different standards.:) Sucks, but hey.......
I didn't know that liberal meant condoning middle aged Congressmen having sex with 17 year olds but you'd know better what's in the Democratic mind I guess. :D
First off, Foley was guilty of at most harrassment via emails, Studds actually did the dirty deed.
Secondly he wasn't the only Congressman in trouble during that investigation. Read up on Dan Crane (R-IL) who tearfully admitted his perversion and asked for forgiveness, contrasted with Studds who was quite belligerant about it. A distinction I see as very telling.
BTW Studds didn't come out of the closet publically until the House Ethics committee began it's investigation.
bradclark1
04-13-07, 10:04 PM
I didn't know that liberal meant condoning middle aged Congressmen having sex with 17 year olds but you'd know better what's in the Democratic mind I guess.
As long as it's consensual and legal. In CT it's 16.
First off, Foley was guilty of at most harrassment via emails, Studds actually did the dirty deed.
Again, consensual and no harassment was involved.
Secondly he wasn't the only Congressman in trouble during that investigation. Read up on Dan Crane (R-IL) who tearfully admitted his perversion and asked for forgiveness, contrasted with Studds who was quite belligerant about it. A distinction I see as very telling.
She was legal too so it was an ethics violation with a subordinate. Although both were 17 the relationships were consensual and legal. Nothing either of them could be thrown out for. Thats why they weren't.
I didn't read anything about belligerent. Studds was facing the Speaker who was reading the charges so had to have his back to the other members.
So now we're back to a double standard which was my original point. Democrats acting outraged over a Republican trying to do what they condone among their own members. That apparently extends to those they put in the White House as well.
Like i've said before i'm no great fan of the GoP Brad, but Democratic Party hypocracy is just more distastefu to me.
bradclark1
04-14-07, 12:41 PM
No. It's got to do with whats legal and what's not. No mention was made of Studds making harassing emails trying to pick up on minors. The outrage was from the Republican leadership knowing Foley was harassing minors but ignoring it. Thats a pure political target.
It's a given that the Republican party does not officialy condone homosexuality in any form. Thats another political fact. What happened to Foley is the only thing that could have happened. There is a difference between consensual homosexuality and harassing emails from a homosexual on the hunt for pages who happens to be the chair of Childrens Rights. It's also a given that one party will exploit a chink in another parties armor. Foley could have been Democrat and the same thing would have happened. As far as double standards Crane was not ejected from the Republican for his acts and he lost the next election. Thats what put him out. As far as Studds from that article it was evidently no secret that he was gay amongst his constituants. He was reelected three more times after that. It's not a case of double standards with Foley, it was a case of whats acceptable behavior and whats not.
NefariousKoel
04-15-07, 12:07 AM
Fox has the most viewers right now ............. Just out of curiosity where did you get your information?
Thanks for asking!
**
Apr 10, 2007 (AP) Prime-Time viewership numbers compiled by Nielsen Media Research for April 2-8. Listings include the week's ranking, with viewership for the week and season-to-date rankings in parentheses. An "X" in parentheses denotes a one-time-only presentation.
1. (1) "American Idol" (Tuesday), Fox, 26.67 million viewers.
2. (1) "American Idol" (Wednesday), Fox, 26.1 million viewers.
3. (3) "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," CBS, 21.69 million viewers.
4. (8) "House," Fox, 20.35 million viewers.
**
Straight from ABC and the AP is where that came from:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3027643
I only showed the top 4 "shows". Hell, I should've only posted the top three but I threw number 4 in there for added effect. Keep in mind that many of the numbers are crossover viewers between all the shows & stations.
Disturbing what amuses people these days isn't it? It's also disturbing that these same people watching complete sh!t on tv tend to believe anything they hear if repeated all too often. Dell commercials over the years being a perfect example of repetitive idiot programming, but that's a whole 'nother Oprah.
No, any politician who restricts his or her venues of talking BS is only restricting the numbers of American Idol watchers they get their BS to. It's as simple as that. It will be a mistake for any of them to outright blacklist showing their faces on any major network.
In the end.. I would like to think the next presidential candidates would take everything head-on instead of isolating themselves in their respective corners. They certainly won't earn my respect for being so divisively partisan.
Just my opinion, they can certainly do what they want and if it works out for them in the end - more power to them.
No. It's got to do with whats legal and what's not. No mention was made of Studds making harassing emails trying to pick up on minors. The outrage was from the Republican leadership knowing Foley was harassing minors but ignoring it. Thats a pure political target.
No such thing as emails, chat rooms and forums back in those days but obviously Studds made contact with his victim in some fashion. The likelyhood that sexual harrassment, especially homosexual harrassment, would even be reported has increased the years as well. But ireally f you want to talk about outrage how about Tip O'neil keeping Studds little love affair secret for nearly 10 years?
It's a given that the Republican party does not officialy condone homosexuality in any form. Thats another political fact. What happened to Foley is the only thing that could have happened. There is a difference between consensual homosexuality and harassing emails from a homosexual on the hunt for pages who happens to be the chair of Childrens Rights. It's also a given that one party will exploit a chink in another parties armor. Foley could have been Democrat and the same thing would have happened. As far as double standards Crane was not ejected from the Republican for his acts and he lost the next election. Thats what put him out. As far as Studds from that article it was evidently no secret that he was gay amongst his constituants. He was reelected three more times after that. It's not a case of double standards with Foley, it was a case of whats acceptable behavior and whats not.
The type of sexuality really has nothing to do with it Brad. A person in Foleys, Cranes or Studds, or for that matter Clintons, position is not supposed to be having sex with the young people who are in their charge, regardless of gender. So you're right. It's a case of what's acceptable behavior and what's not.
OddjobXL
04-15-07, 09:31 AM
Fox News, however, are losing ground in the primetime ratings war to MSNBC. They're still the big dogs but the ground is shifting. One poster said he couldn't blame Fox for the vapidity in cable broadcasting because, and this is correct, it's par for the course. However, CNN wasn't this bad before Fox came on and introduced the perfected infotainment format mixing together politics, news and entertainment into one indistiguishable and heavily editorialized mass.
Ultimately it's not Fox's fault though. It's the viewers. If someone hands them a candy bar and insists it's spinach they'll eat the candy bar convinced they're packing in a day's nutrition that's somehow, inexplicably, more tasty than the green leafy vegetable. And if a micky of political ideology is sprinkled into the mix, who's really to blame when they wake up the next day broke, sticky and confused? And confused they are as that study pointed out. Completely mislead about the facts regarding Iraq. Fox isn't a news channel in any conventional sense. It's the Pravda of the Republican establishment.
Democrats aren't worried about that slant effecting their debate, reallly, they're not. That's not the issue. Likely Fox would just stay out of things and it would be a fairly typical event. Fox's big need these days is to seem like a real news channel given the scruitiny it's currently under and how badly the political tides have turned against its editorial agenda. Democrats are dropping out of Fox's debates for two reasons. One, as noted Fox is starting to flounder and it's not really a crucial venue for Democratic politicians. Two, there's a real desire in the grassroots to pressure Democratic leadership not to enable Fox's charade of being normal news outlet. They are demonstrably biased and not particularly concerned with factual reality. I'm fine with ripping the facade off the Potemkin Village that Ailes created.
Ishmael
04-15-07, 12:49 PM
I quite agree with oddjob on this one. Here's a quote from Rupert Murdoch in the Hollywood Reporter:
Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East...but we have been very critical of his execution."
If you are really interested in media, you should check out the media matters website at:
http://mediamatters.org/
They examine al of the mainstream media outlets, both print & video, and seperate fact from fiction & bias from unbias.
I personally, watch a lot of C-Span, Olbermann, Matthews & Carlson on MSNBC, but get most of my news from the web from many international sources. I regard Fox News as a contradiction in terms.
bradclark1
04-15-07, 01:56 PM
Fox has the most viewers right now ............. Just out of curiosity where did you get your information?
Thanks for asking!
**
Apr 10, 2007 (AP)— Prime-Time viewership numbers compiled by Nielsen Media Research for April 2-8. Listings include the week's ranking, with viewership for the week and season-to-date rankings in parentheses. An "X" in parentheses denotes a one-time-only presentation.
1. (1) "American Idol" (Tuesday), Fox, 26.67 million viewers.
2. (1) "American Idol" (Wednesday), Fox, 26.1 million viewers.
3. (3) "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," CBS, 21.69 million viewers.
4. (8) "House," Fox, 20.35 million viewers.
I thought you were talking about Fox News and I thought it odd that Fox News would be the highest rated news show.
I don't watch TV except for news but I do watch House every now and then. Pretty good show.
The Avon Lady
04-16-07, 12:20 AM
If you are really interested in media, you should check out the media matters website at:
http://mediamatters.org/
They examine al of the mainstream media outlets, both print & video, and seperate fact from fiction & bias from unbias.
:rotfl:
Can't stop giggling!!! :rotfl:
:rotfl:
Discover The Networks' profile for "Media Matters" (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150).
Give me Murdoch's candidness anyday - and I'm not complimenting Fox just for saying that.
Ishmael
04-16-07, 12:46 AM
If you are really interested in media, you should check out the media matters website at:
http://mediamatters.org/
They examine al of the mainstream media outlets, both print & video, and seperate fact from fiction & bias from unbias.
:rotfl:
Can't stop giggling!!! :rotfl:
:rotfl:
Discover The Networks' profile for "Media Matters" (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150).
Give me Murdoch's candidness anyday - and I'm not complimenting Fox just for saying that.
And your point about David Brock is?
I have a couple of questions for you?
1. Why have so many people who did hit pieces for the right suddenly seem to be overcome on the road to Damascus like Paul and become liberals & liberal bloggers like Brock or Kuo?
2.If the Bush & PNAC Weltpolitik is so effective and right, why do they always seem to get everything wrong and make things worse?
Regarding the Murdoch quote, how can a fair, balanced & unbiased news organisation provide any support to any political party's agenda and still remain fair, balanced & unbiased?
NefariousKoel
04-16-07, 01:50 AM
Fox News, however, are losing ground in the primetime ratings war to MSNBC. They're still the big dogs but the ground is shifting. One poster said he couldn't blame Fox for the vapidity in cable broadcasting because, and this is correct, it's par for the course. However, CNN wasn't this bad before Fox came on and introduced the perfected infotainment format mixing together politics, news and entertainment into one indistiguishable and heavily editorialized mass.
Ultimately it's not Fox's fault though. It's the viewers. If someone hands them a candy bar and insists it's spinach they'll eat the candy bar convinced they're packing in a day's nutrition that's somehow, inexplicably, more tasty than the green leafy vegetable. And if a micky of political ideology is sprinkled into the mix, who's really to blame when they wake up the next day broke, sticky and confused? And confused they are as that study pointed out. Completely mislead about the facts regarding Iraq. Fox isn't a news channel in any conventional sense. It's the Pravda of the Republican establishment.
Democrats aren't worried about that slant effecting their debate, reallly, they're not. That's not the issue. Likely Fox would just stay out of things and it would be a fairly typical event. Fox's big need these days is to seem like a real news channel given the scruitiny it's currently under and how badly the political tides have turned against its editorial agenda. Democrats are dropping out of Fox's debates for two reasons. One, as noted Fox is starting to flounder and it's not really a crucial venue for Democratic politicians. Two, there's a real desire in the grassroots to pressure Democratic leadership not to enable Fox's charade of being normal news outlet. They are demonstrably biased and not particularly concerned with factual reality. I'm fine with ripping the facade off the Potemkin Village that Ailes created.
Just wanted to emphasize the partisan demonization going on here.
Carry on.
The Avon Lady
04-16-07, 02:03 AM
If you are really interested in media, you should check out the media matters website at:
http://mediamatters.org/
They examine al of the mainstream media outlets, both print & video, and seperate fact from fiction & bias from unbias.
:rotfl:
Can't stop giggling!!! :rotfl:
:rotfl:
Discover The Networks' profile for "Media Matters" (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150).
Give me Murdoch's candidness anyday - and I'm not complimenting Fox just for saying that.
And your point about David Brock is?
He's worse than a nobody (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19564).
I have a couple of questions for you?
1. Why have so many people who did hit pieces for the right suddenly seem to be overcome on the road to Damascus like Paul and become liberals & liberal bloggers like Brock or Kuo?
I'll skip the comparison to Paul because I don't want to point out certain things that are not relevant to this thread.
Funneh! I frequent blogs of former left wingers. Got any statistics to back up your dubious assertion that love is a one-way street?
EDIT: I forgot to add, to paraphrase Henny Youngman: "Take David Brock - PLEASE!"
2.If the Bush & PNAC Weltpolitik is so effective and right,
I didn't say that.
why do they always seem to get everything wrong and make things worse?
Because they get lots of things (not everything) wrong and getting things wrong often makes things worse. Take my cooking years back, for example. :oops: :p
Regarding the Murdoch quote, how can a fair, balanced & unbiased news organisation provide any support to any political party's agenda and still remain fair, balanced & unbiased?
You missed my point. I admired Murdoch for being candid and not hiding behind a non-existant mantle of righteousness. Many other media emperors are naked in comparison.
Regarding the Murdoch quote, how can a fair, balanced & unbiased news organisation provide any support to any political party's agenda and still remain fair, balanced & unbiased?
You mean like Media Matters?
Seriously, a fair, balanced and unbiased news organization is going to to provide support to one party's agenda about half the time.
OddjobXL
04-16-07, 09:06 AM
If you are really interested in media, you should check out the media matters website at:
http://mediamatters.org/
They examine al of the mainstream media outlets, both print & video, and seperate fact from fiction & bias from unbias.
:rotfl:
Can't stop giggling!!! :rotfl:
:rotfl:
Discover The Networks' profile for "Media Matters" (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150).
Give me Murdoch's candidness anyday - and I'm not complimenting Fox just for saying that.
Not surprisingly, Media Matters has an article about Discover The Networks' founder David Horowitz.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511110013
There's a certain irony here. Brock is a conservative turned liberal and Horowitz is a Marxist turned movement conservative. However, what's really high-larious to me is how the conservative movement that embraced Brock's trashy smears of liberals now seeks to decry him for renouncing them, and points to them as proof that he's a character not to be trusted.
Heibges
04-16-07, 12:14 PM
Did anyone watch the Simpson's last night?
They poked fun a Fox News a little bit, but they do quite often. Or Rupert Murdoch.
Heibges
04-16-07, 12:16 PM
Fox has the most viewers right now ............. Just out of curiosity where did you get your information?
Thanks for asking!
**
Apr 10, 2007 (AP) Prime-Time viewership numbers compiled by Nielsen Media Research for April 2-8. Listings include the week's ranking, with viewership for the week and season-to-date rankings in parentheses. An "X" in parentheses denotes a one-time-only presentation.
1. (1) "American Idol" (Tuesday), Fox, 26.67 million viewers.
2. (1) "American Idol" (Wednesday), Fox, 26.1 million viewers.
3. (3) "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," CBS, 21.69 million viewers.
4. (8) "House," Fox, 20.35 million viewers.
I thought you were talking about Fox News and I thought it odd that Fox News would be the highest rated news show.
I don't watch TV except for news but I do watch House every now and then. Pretty good show.
I want to start watching House. I loved Hugh Laurie on Blackadder. "Seven of your best, trousers down!"
It does seem a little scary that a foreigner, which Murdoch is, has so much influence on American Media. No matter the persons viewpoint, this is potentially dangerous.
The Avon Lady
04-16-07, 12:57 PM
If you are really interested in media, you should check out the media matters website at:
http://mediamatters.org/
They examine al of the mainstream media outlets, both print & video, and seperate fact from fiction & bias from unbias.
:rotfl:
Can't stop giggling!!! :rotfl:
:rotfl:
Discover The Networks' profile for "Media Matters" (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150).
Give me Murdoch's candidness anyday - and I'm not complimenting Fox just for saying that.
Not surprisingly, Media Matters has an article about Discover The Networks' founder David Horowitz.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511110013
Did you bother reading what you linked to? Other than a disdain for Horowitz's opinion, is there anything else there that is based on negative facts? Compare with the article I posted to above, showing point by point Brock's shoddy and shallow arguments.
There's a certain irony here. Brock is a conservative turned liberal and Horowitz is a Marxist turned movement conservative.
I don't find anything ironic about people having done 180 degree turns in opinion. Whats important is why.
However, what's really high-larious to me is how the conservative movement that embraced Brock's trashy smears of liberals now seeks to decry him for renouncing them, and points to them as proof that he's a character not to be trusted.
1. Funny that you don't find it funny what the leftists have to say about Horowitz.
2. Where and when was Brock "embraced" by the "conservative movement"?
OddjobXL
04-16-07, 04:30 PM
You're providing me with a very juicy and slow moving target but to really have fun tearing up your response I'd likely need to go on a bit of a tear. Since I'm new here, what's the proper protocol? Should we engage in a new thread or continue taking this one off topic?
The Avon Lady
04-16-07, 10:44 PM
You're providing me with a very juicy and slow moving target but to really have fun tearing up your response I'd likely need to go on a bit of a tear. Since I'm new here, what's the proper protocol? Should we engage in a new thread or continue taking this one off topic?
Huff(ington) and puff wherever you please.
NefariousKoel
04-17-07, 12:26 AM
Fox has the most viewers right now ............. Just out of curiosity where did you get your information?
Thanks for asking!
**
Apr 10, 2007 (AP)— Prime-Time viewership numbers compiled by Nielsen Media Research for April 2-8. Listings include the week's ranking, with viewership for the week and season-to-date rankings in parentheses. An "X" in parentheses denotes a one-time-only presentation.
1. (1) "American Idol" (Tuesday), Fox, 26.67 million viewers.
2. (1) "American Idol" (Wednesday), Fox, 26.1 million viewers.
3. (3) "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," CBS, 21.69 million viewers.
4. (8) "House," Fox, 20.35 million viewers.
I thought you were talking about Fox News and I thought it odd that Fox News would be the highest rated news show.
I don't watch TV except for news but I do watch House every now and then. Pretty good show.
Not sure about where people watch the news on TV, but I think it's safe to say that if the Dems continue their boycott by not putting their talking head political commercial ads on Fox, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot considering the easily amused voters who watch American Idol and happen to catch the commercial smear spots. It could make a difference. *shrug*
I better shaddap, else I'll be tried for sedition by my fellow conservatives for trying to give the other side some sense in their decisions. ;)
OddjobXL
04-17-07, 09:25 AM
Did you bother reading what you linked to? Other than a disdain for Horowitz's opinion, is there anything else there that is based on negative facts? Compare with the article I posted to above, showing point by point Brock's shoddy and shallow arguments.
Reading is fundamental, dear Avon Lady. Let's sort out whose comprehension carries the day here. I suss out more than disdain for for Horowitz's opinion in the Media Matters piece, I detect a disdain for the man himself which makes me suspect Brock wrote it personally. Likewise, the identical situation holds true in the Networks bit on Brock. Both men hate each other and they take it out through their political jabs online. On the Media Matters site, via a link in the article, you can read all about the back and forth between Brock and Horowitz about a particularly creepy conspiracy mongering article Horowitz and a coauthor cobbled together, "The Shadow Government" or something like that, about how how Darth Soros is taking over the world.
Personally, I wouldn't let either guy date my daughters, if I had any. But let's be more specific about your claims. First off I need to understand what you mean by "negative facts". Are you saying facts which aren't flattering about Horowitz aren't fair game? I can't believe that. I've read some other stuff of yours on this forum and I know you're no fool.
We'll move on to the point-by-point refutation of Brock's shoddy and shallow arguments by Horowitz or his cadre that wrote the article. Here's one of Horowitz's claims:
But in addition to "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible," the organization's concept of "misinformation" includes anything that "forwards the conservative agenda." Thus political differences of opinion are often portrayed by Media Matters as lies or worse.
In reality what Horowitz was excerpting from, the "About Us" section of the Media Matters site reads:
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
There you see the tactic used throughout the article, don't you? Media Matters explicitly defines its purpose as going after information that's "not accurate, reliable or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda." It's not saying all conservative claims and points are a pack of lies and distortions only that this does happen and they're going to expose these to scruitiny. Now, they come out and claim frankly that they're not a neutral outlet. Isn't that the sort of honesty you like? On the other hand Horowitz wants you to think they're out to smear all conservative discourse as automatically lies. Isn't that the sort of dishonesty you don't respect?
Hell, you're a conservative. You tell me if you think statements we've seen coming from the Republican side of the aisle over the last six years and from their PACs over the last six years square with reality or honest debate. Bragging that you're better than the "reality based" community, that is those of us who pay attention to science and human history, doesn't strike me as a good basis for truth telling.
You tell me if you even think all conservatives are on the same page with each other. I tend towards liberalism though I am an independant but I find I have much more in common with libertarian and even some Goldwater conservatives than they have with the Bush administration and the neocon and social conservative dominated GOP. Those guys are about ready to start burning effigies in the streets and rightly so.
We could dwell on this aspect of your statement for a while if you like but this is getting long enough already. Let's move on.
There's a certain irony here. Brock is a conservative turned liberal and Horowitz is a Marxist turned movement conservative.
I don't find anything ironic about people having done 180 degree turns in opinion. Whats important is why.
Both of these cats seem to have turned with the tides and are accused of it. Horowitz flipped to Reagan when the Republicans were on top of things. Brock flipped over to court the other team in the 90's after his disasterous Clinton hack-job made elements of the conservative elite wary of him. They've both got similiar stories though - disgust with what they thought they believed in when it turned out to be something other than they thought. And let's face it, Horowitz getting disgusted with far left radicals like the Black Panthers, who never had any real power, is a far cry from Brock's revolt against the mainstream of movement conservatism. Those guys are still around and in the noise machine business and still running the GOP. What's more interesting to me is what attracted them to their original orientations. Brock was the victim of his own ambitions and the charm offensive of a professor. He also was annoyed with the smugness of his liberal campus. That last is a very common theme with conservative intellectuals and it's quite telling.
I had a PR professor once, a proud neoconservative, who told us in all confidence the only reason he became conservative was to buck a trend and have a good intellectual fight. Being a liberal on campus in the 70's was no real challenge. He went on to say that if conservatives had dominated the university he'd have been a liberal in a heartbeat for just the same reason. That's a psychology you see a good deal with the right's intelligensia. It's for the fun of it, to see what they can get away with. And this guy was charming as hell. It was impossible not to like him even when he was handing out "Ted Smith's Ten Commandments of Lying." Heck, you couldn't help but liking him even more for the cheekiness of it. But away from the classroom this guy was in the business of consulting for the chemical industry and trying to get them off the hook for all kinds of real damage that was being caused. He told us the war stories and thought it was hilarious what people would believe if you phrased it the right way.
To be honest, I don't quite know what got Horowitz in with the radicals of the sixties before he became a conservative and I'm not entirely clear on why he changed sides. You can look to the neoconservatives and follow their similiar evolution from communist Trotskyites wound up with a personal vendetta against Stalin's Russia to "Scoop" Jackson's Democratic cold warriors continuing the grudge match to Republican assets obsessed with exaggerating the Soviet threat in order to drum up political fervor to, well, Bush's crack team that helped him make Iraq such a success. I don't know enough about Horowitz to lump him in with that lot but he's not an isolated case.
However, what's really high-larious to me is how the conservative movement that embraced Brock's trashy smears of liberals now seeks to decry him for renouncing them, and points to them as proof that he's a character not to be trusted.
1. Funny that you don't find it funny what the leftists have to say about Horowitz.
2. Where and when was Brock "embraced" by the "conservative movement"?
Well, Horowitz is an ass. He's the guy who claimed blacks should thank whites because we saved them from slavery. They owed us a solid! And he goes on and on. The guy is a fruitloop.
I really don't know if you're old enough to remember Brock's book on Anita Hill but it was picked up and praised all over talk radio and in conservative magazines and it was a completely trumped up pile of horse**** - as they now happily attest because Brock is no longer in their good graces. The Clinton book was a bit different. Some conservatives saw it as over the line and decried it but your Rush Limbaughs and other outspoken mouthpieces worshipped Brock loudly, far more loudly than the isolated editorials of conservatives who genuinely were revolted and those who found this to be a good, if cynical, opportunity for a "Sister Souljah" moment of their own. If you like I can try to dig up more examples about how Brock was a favorite of the movement conservatives but we'll both save time if you accept this at face value.
......
Valid arguments, if they are indeed valid don't need to be buttressed by a rude demeanor...
Ishmael
04-17-07, 10:56 AM
Thank you, Oddjob. You made my points for me with far more insight than my own pathetic stabs at eloquence could. Apparently, real conservatives aren't too happy with this admin. either. Witness the following letter written to the White House by the American Freedom Agenda. They include such conserative luminaries as former Congressman Bob Barr & Republican direct mail guru Richard Vigurie:
Dear Mr. President and Attorney General:
We, the undersigned co-founders of the American Freedom Agenda, urge the Attorney General to submit his resignation and the President to accept.
Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances.
He has brought the rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm.
He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice.
He has embraced legal theories that could be employed by a successor to obliterate the conservative philosophy of individual liberty and limited government celebrated by the Founding Fathers.
In sum, Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country.
The President should accept the resignation, and set a standard to which the wise and honest might repair in nominating a successor, who will keep the law, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion.
Sincerely, Bruce Fein, Chairman Richard Viguerie David Keene Bob Barr John Whitehead
comments?
OddjobXL
04-17-07, 12:00 PM
Valid arguments, if they are indeed valid don't need to be buttressed by a rude demeanor...
In short your poll is nothing more than bovine feces. Cherry picked statistics designed to push an agenda.
I think we all tend to put the aggressive demeanor on in political debates. Largely I think I've conducted myself politely. If you think this is rough trade you should check out political forums. Or not. I've got a thick skin and I tend to find most associated with them, on every side, over-the-top and nasty.
Valid arguments, if they are indeed valid don't need to be buttressed by a rude demeanor...
In short your poll is nothing more than bovine feces. Cherry picked statistics designed to push an agenda.
I think we all tend to put the aggressive demeanor on in political debates. Largely I think I've conducted myself politely. If you think this is rough trade you should check out political forums. Or not. I've got a thick skin and I tend to find most associated with them, on every side, over-the-top and nasty.
You should have searched a little more and you may have found a better example. The poll he cited was what I said it was, but note that I wasn't commenting on him...
Takeda Shingen
04-17-07, 03:15 PM
Valid arguments, if they are indeed valid don't need to be buttressed by a rude demeanor...
In short your poll is nothing more than bovine feces. Cherry picked statistics designed to push an agenda.
I think we all tend to put the aggressive demeanor on in political debates. Largely I think I've conducted myself politely. If you think this is rough trade you should check out political forums. Or not. I've got a thick skin and I tend to find most associated with them, on every side, over-the-top and nasty.
We don't do over-the-top or nasty on SubSim.
Thanks,
The Management
The Avon Lady
04-19-07, 06:46 AM
I do not have time for this:
Did you bother reading what you linked to? Other than a disdain for Horowitz's opinion, is there anything else there that is based on negative facts? Compare with the article I posted to above, showing point by point Brock's shoddy and shallow arguments.
Reading is fundamental, dear Avon Lady. Let's sort out whose comprehension carries the day here. I suss out more than disdain for for Horowitz's opinion in the Media Matters piece, I detect a disdain for the man himself which makes me suspect Brock wrote it personally.
I'll stop quoting you right here. This side discussion began with my ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGH OUT LOUD response to what Ishmael said about Media Matters:
If you are really interested in media, you should check out the media matters website at:
http://mediamatters.org/
They examine al of the mainstream media outlets, both print & video, and seperate fact from fiction & bias from unbias.
I'll just leave here with 2 links. The first relates to the claim that Media Matters is itself unbiased:
Taking Media Matters Down a Peg (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187459.php).
The second link relates to George Soros, whom one might think was a swell guy, from some of your sarcastic comments above:
The Soros Monitor (http://www.sorosmonitor.com/).
Just following verbatim quotes this man himself has stated in the past should make one sick, let alone following his actions and involvement in many ugly matters.
Fire away. I've had enough here.
OddjobXL
04-19-07, 09:23 AM
I'll check those links out and I will agree with you that Media Matters is definitely not unbiased - they don't even make that claim. But I'd like you to concede, if possible, that Horowitz and his Networks site aren't particularly interested in the truth of matters. That one compare and contrast, and there are more I could make, from his article on Media Matters really points it up. He uses about the same amount of words to translate his bias as the source material did in its entirety. Not someone I'd be handing blank checks too, personally.
It's fine you don't have enough time. I actually get that. Often when folks get past name calling or broad accusations and into the facts there end up being alot of facts. And then facts get fuzzy. At the end of it all, whether anyone's opinion has changed or not, both sides end up sorting through piles of quotes and links and whatnot. Usually, though not always, one person or the other gives up not because they've won or lost an argument but because it's just taking too long to go through everything.
To tell the truth, a great deal of what I was going to sort through ended up getting cut from my post because I realized just how long all that would take. I ended up trying to convey the spirit of my position through isolated examples rather than laundry lists. Some of the people I least like debating use this as a deliberate tactic. They hope the sheer tonnage of their cut and pasts and google-fu will just force anyone they're debating with to just wander off and find something more constructive to do with their time.
Edit: First impressions of the "Jawa Report" article on "Media Matters" is that calling Keith Olbermann "Keith Olbernut" implies a good deal of partiality and then attacking his work while linking to another conservative site for commentary rather than the original transcript is also a disingenous tactic. I think this guy is primarily interested in preaching to his choir, much like David Brock is for his, rather than offering us useful information. I could go into a more detailed critique of the actual claims and see where he's got a point and where he doesn't but there is that time factor again. Up to you. Did get an extra chuckle from seeing Byron York described as an investigative journalist, for the seriously corrupt American Spectator and back before he was an editorialist and pundit, and CNS treated as a straight news outlet without qualification.
Edit1a: After going to the "Hot Air" site, aptly named it seems, we find a fellow disputing Olbermann's claims that high-capacity clips were covered by a 1994 weapons ban that Bush and the Republican Congress allowed to lapse by...linking to a blog. The blog? Links to nothing. How do I take that at face value?
Edit2: SorosMonitor seems to be another Horowitz outlet at first blush but I can't track the funding. It does link to "Americans for A Drug Free America" which is clearly somebody's tool for going after Democrats. I find these sources to be highly suspicious. I did try to track down the "60 Minutes" transcript they quote from but had no luck. It's definitely out there though as I've seen multiple references to it from different sources. What I can't find is a non-ideological view of Soros. Liberals seem determined to back him but it's clear he's got some odd moral positions, at least by my reckoning, cedeing as he does his own culpability in some of his shady-seeming market operations by saying if it wasn't him someone else would be doing it. I do think the right is going after him, big time, because he's funding things they don't like and it's pretty cheap going after a Jewish survivor of the Nazi occupation of his homeland like they do. The kid was 14 years old and the only way he could survive was by trying to blend in with the people protecting him.
I end up with the impression of a very complicated person. He rabidly funds anti-communist groups in Europe and is credited with helping end communism there and also he turns around and backs progressive groups in America and organizations devoted to aiding the developing world. Much of what he has to say about Bush seems quite appropriate. On the other hand, playing dirty pool with monetary speculation and bringing serious misery to alot of people because of it just contrasts very sharply. I will say I don't know what to make of him. But I'm fairly certain I know why the conservative deep pockets are funding all these attacks and it's not because he's a canny capitalist.
The Avon Lady
04-19-07, 09:29 AM
I'll check those links out and I will agree with you that Media Matters is definitely not unbiased - they don't even make that claim.
Someone else here did and that was my main point.
But I'd like you to concede, if possible, that Horowitz and his Networks site aren't particularly interested in the truth of matters. That one compare and contrast, and there are more I could make, from his article on Media Matters really points it up. He uses about the same amount of words to translate his bias as the source material did in its entirety. Not someone I'd be handing blank checks too, personally.
Sorry, I disagree with your conclusion on Horowitz and the articles already linked to. Too boring for me to go into a tedious sentence by sentence rebuttal on this, as you understood.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.