View Full Version : A study of the US electorate, and FOX as the propaganda department of the Republicans
Skybird
12-21-10, 07:19 AM
Study (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf)
Comment (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/the-propaganda-channel.html)
A goal of the study was to determine whether Americans perceived that the information in this new environment was reliable, or whether they perceived a high level of misinformation.
In addition, another goal was to assess the quality of the information in the election environment by asking a wide range of questions on issues that were prominent in the campaign and determining whether, and to what degree, voters were misinformed on these issues.
To this end, WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted an in-depth survey of public opinion. The poll was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010 with a sample-size of 848 respondents. The margin of error for the full sample was 3.4%. The margin of error for the poll’s 616 self-reported voters is plus or minus 3.9%. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection.
There's a fascinating, and rather devastating, new University of Maryland study out there, detailing how misinformed voters were in the last election. Some issues of fact were pretty straightforward: the 2009 stimulus, for examle, was about one-third tax cuts; Obama was born in the US; the recovery had been underway for a while, if anemically; the auto bailout and TARP began under Bush. And yet large numbers of voters believed the opposite and acted on that false knowledge.
The primary fault is with the appalling failure of the Democrats and Obama to comunicate the truth about what they'd done. But what's interesting in the study is how it shows that Fox News, more than any other source, distorted the truth and created a false reality, for all its viewers, Democrats and Republicans.
(...)
Let's be clear about this. One alleged news network fed its audience a diet of lies, while contributing financially to the party that benefited from those lies.
Those who work for Fox News are not working for a journalistic enterprise. They are working for the communications department of a political party. And that's a fact.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 07:27 AM
You won't get any argument from me on the matter. I've been saying it for years; FOX is about opinion, not facts. Both FOX and MSNBC have transformed American politics into a spectator sport, where each side sits and hears distortions and outright lies that support their team, and impugn the other team. It is both a silly and sad diversion; a frivolous sort of neo-reality television where Survivor meets the National Hockey League.
the_tyrant
12-21-10, 07:43 AM
Personally, of all the stuff from fox, the Simpsons influenced me the most
Any "study" that uses this language:
Let's be clear about this. One alleged news network fed its audience a diet of lies, while contributing financially to the party that benefited from those lies. Those who work for Fox News are not working for a journalistic enterprise. They are working for the communications department of a political party. And that's a fact.
...is itself biased propaganda.
I question both it and the motives of the person who decided that this needed a post here on Subsim.
NeonSamurai
12-21-10, 08:38 AM
Frankly 99% of the news industry is all subjective garbage. They don't tell you just what happened, they tell you what you should think about it too.
I do not need anyone to do the thinking for me thank you very much.
I have to say though, congrats to the puppet masters; a job well done splitting the population neatly in half and polarizing them so much, when its really just two sides of the exact same coin, just with different rhetoric.
Any "study" that uses this language:
...is itself biased propaganda.
I question both it and the motives of the person who decided that this needed a post here on Subsim.
Think you got the study, and the comments (opinion piece) on the study mixed up.
Personally I question anyone who aligns with either side of this political spectrum.
Frankly 99% of the news industry is all subjective garbage. They don't tell you just what happened, they tell you what you should think about it too.
I do not need anyone to do the thinking for me thank you very much.
I have to say though, congrats to the puppet masters; a job well done splitting the population neatly in half and polarizing them so much, when its really just two sides of the exact same coin, just with different rhetoric.
This ^
When a news outlet is obviously "right" it is "propaganda."
ALL the other news outlets (TV) are LEFT. All of them. How come they are not "propaganda arms of the Democratic party?"
The bottom line is that ALL news outlets are biased. Every single one. Filtering what you read/see by the known bias of the outlet is critical. This, IMHO, is the one area where newspapers still control the high ground. newspapers endorse candidates, and as such, they wear their bias on their sleeve for all to see. The NYT can be a good paper, AND a liberal paper, but you know that everything you read is as biased as their editorial policy.
Better studies have shown that Fox news (the NEWS shows, no the opinion shows) is indeed slightly right, but it is not farther right than ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, or CNN are left. All in fact are farther left of center than Fox is right of center.
I notice the study compares "true" answers in an odd way. Sorry, but the effect of the stimulus is in fact quite dubious. The notion that it saved millions of jobs as the true answer—where deviation makes you propaganda—is absurd. The true asnwer would require measurement—observation—not CBO guestimates which are based on what is fed them as the requirement. They are told to "do the math" assuming X, Y, and Z are true. They do not innovate on those estimates. That puts the entire "study" on shaky ground, IMO.
mookiemookie
12-21-10, 10:27 AM
Frankly 99% of the news industry is all subjective garbage. They don't tell you just what happened, they tell you what you should think about it too.
I do not need anyone to do the thinking for me thank you very much.
Too true. The 24 hour news cycle is one of the the worst thing to happen to our society. Real news can only take up so much time. They fill the rest of the hours in the day with screaming and talking points that are poison to objective fact, reality and critical thinking.
News as entertainment sucks.
And a great example of Fox News' "objectivity"
Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Sean Hannity's August 18 Fox News program. Luntz scolded Hannity for referring to the "public option" and encouraged Hannity to use "government option" instead.
...
Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."
Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.
How is that not being a propaganda arm for the Republican party again?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003
I'm not sure if the same type of emails exist over at MSNBC, but I wager they do. Whatever it takes to keep the proles fighting amongst themselves instead of turning their rage against those that deserve it.
Growler
12-21-10, 10:34 AM
Frankly 99% of the news industry is all subjective garbage. They don't tell you just what happened, they tell you what you should think about it too.
I do not need anyone to do the thinking for me thank you very much.
I have to say though, congrats to the puppet masters; a job well done splitting the population neatly in half and polarizing them so much, when its really just two sides of the exact same coin, just with different rhetoric.
THIS is the purest refined and distilled truth.
Both sides are being led by party sycophants at the heads of herds of sheeple blindly shouting asinine nonsense at each other until they've heard all that they want to say; having already shut down their own think boxes, they are incapable of maintaining any kind of conversation that might conflict with their opinions requiring a response any more complicated than, "You're a tool of the right/left/centrist fascist/communist/socialist FOX/MSNBC/CNN/NPR agenda/e."
Politics is turning into MadLibs for the media.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 10:43 AM
And a great example of Fox News' "objectivity"
How is that not being a propaganda arm for the Republican party again?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003
And I think that this is a good demonstration of why FOX is under such scrutiny; essentially the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Team R is much better organized than Team D, who tend to have, in the best cases, a decentralized approach, and in the worst, anarchic squabbling. Team R, by contrast, is very centralized, with everyone essentially adhering to the 'marching orders' that descend through the structure. The issue of such edicts regarding talking points through the power structure to subordinates is a blatent sign of party cooperation; one that goes much further than analysis and studies. The latter is speculation, the former fact.
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 10:43 AM
Any "study" that uses this language:
...is itself biased propaganda.
I question both it and the motives of the person who decided that this needed a post here on Subsim.
You are exactly right. I used to work in telemarketing:shifty: many moons ago. Some of the "serveys" are worded to get a desired output.
I just remembered a political servey I took in Jr high. This will come as a surprise, but the wording lead you to answer democrat. So naturally, you are a democrat:haha:.
Do you like to help people, or do you stomp kittens?
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 10:47 AM
Both sides are being led by party sycophants at the heads of herds of sheeple blindly shouting asinine nonsense at each other
This.:sign_yeah:
mookiemookie
12-21-10, 10:49 AM
And I think that this is a good demonstration of why FOX is under such scrutiny; essentially the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Team R is much better organized than Team D, who tend to have, in the best cases, a decentralized approach, and in the worst, anarchic squabbling. Team R, by contrast, is very centralized, with everyone essentially adhering to the 'marching orders' that descend through the structure. The issue of such edicts regarding talking points through the power structure to subordinates is a blatent sign of party cooperation; one that goes much further than analysis and studies. The latter is speculation, the former fact.
I think you're right. Team R's PR department is indeed formidable. They have very talented marketers. They get a message and drill it into the public consciousness. Witness the "socialist" meme that's burrowed its way into modern politics. Anything bad is "socialist," regardless of whether it really is or isn't. It matters not because if you repeat it enough times, it becomes true.
Team D does have a lot of problems selling their ideas. In one recent thread, I said that if Obama's handlers had an ounce of marketing ability, they'd sell the tax cut extension as the Obama tax cuts. But what does Team D do? They sell it as a capitulation and defeat. That's why they're seen as spineless and weak.
the_tyrant
12-21-10, 10:53 AM
Bias is completely normal, I can probably find bias in the subsim reviews
We have freedom of speech, the reporters and the press has freedom of speech too. They have the freedom to be biased
Growler
12-21-10, 10:54 AM
Bias is completely normal, I can probably find bias in the subsim reviews
We have freedom of speech, the reporters and the press has freedom of speech too. They have the freedom to be biased
Then don't call them news, call them opinion.
Facts are not subjective; interpretation of facts is. Present facts as News, and interpretation as Opinion.
Sailor Steve
12-21-10, 11:00 AM
I have to say though, congrats to the puppet masters; a job well done splitting the population neatly in half and polarizing them so much, when its really just two sides of the exact same coin, just with different rhetoric.
I agree, but this is nothing new. At the time Jefferson made his famous "Newpapers vs Governments" comment, there were no news outlets as we know them today. Every single paper was published by someone with an opinion, and while they did try to tell people what major events were occuring, the were mostly opinion, and used blatant attacks that would land them in court today.
the_tyrant
12-21-10, 11:02 AM
Then don't call them news, call them opinion.
Facts are not subjective; interpretation of facts is. Present facts as News, and interpretation as Opinion.
Its still possible to be biased with only facts, for example only reporting certain facts, or putting emphasis on certain facts while ignoring others
Also, i think(not sure) the TV stations have the freedom of calling programs whatever they want. They can even call 24 news.:doh:
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 11:03 AM
I think one thing we can all agree on is the debate shows, on both sides.
Both sides will have, say 2 people on their side and one token opponent that everyone shouts down.
I'm not anti fox, but it makes me laugh when they are debating, say foreign policy. The panel; they have some reporter, a country music singer, and token democrat.:haha:
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 11:04 AM
I think you're right. Team R's PR department is indeed formidable. They have very talented marketers. They get a message and drill it into the public consciousness. Witness the "socialist" meme that's burrowed its way into modern politics. Anything bad is "socialist," regardless of whether it really is or isn't. It matters not because if you repeat it enough times, it becomes true.
Team D does have a lot of problems selling their ideas. In one recent thread, I said that if Obama's handlers had an ounce of marketing ability, they'd sell the tax cut extension as the Obama tax cuts. But what does Team D do? They sell it as a capitulation and defeat. That's why they're seen as spineless and weak.
Oh yes. It goes fairly deep too. In the last 20 years or so, Team R has developed a system of what I like to call 'RightSpeak'. Take the word 'informed', for example. How often do you hear a caller on talk radio tell the host 'Thanks for taking my call. Love your show, I listen every day. Just like to stay informed', or a conversation where someone says, 'I talked to the new guy today. Talked about some politics, he seems well-informed.'? In RightSpeak, the word informed refers to someone who is ideologically acceptable. By implication, anyone who does not adhere to doctrine is either ill-informed or willfully ignorant. The methodology is indeed very precise.
Obama's team is a disgrace. He won the election handily; it wasn't even a race by the end. The media was in the tank for the guy and he had his party at his back, running congress. Only the Democrats could possibly go on to run the Obama brand into the ground in such a short time. This guy was political dynamite; a bonafide superstar and as close to a sure thing two-termer as you can get, and they just dropped the ball. He's now fighting for his political life.
Skybird
12-21-10, 11:07 AM
Any "study" that uses this language:
...is itself biased propaganda.
I question both it and the motives of the person who decided that this needed a post here on Subsim.
As Neon already said, you mixed up study and comment. Your quote is from a comment not included in the study, but refering to the study.
However, I failed to identify the sourc es correctly in the two quotes I gave. My apology for that. I now correct it. Having said that, I nevertheless would always recommend to check the original texts before concluding on them on basis of summaries from unidentified sources. Then you would have noted it. ;)
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 11:12 AM
Oh yes. It goes fairly deep too. In the last 20 years or so, Team R has developed a system of what I like to call 'RightSpeak'. Take the word 'informed', for example. How often do you hear a caller on talk radio tell the host 'Thanks for taking my call. Love your show, I listen every day. Just like to stay informed', or a conversation where someone says, 'I talked to the new guy today. Talked about some politics, he seems well-informed.'? In RightSpeak, the word informed refers to someone who is ideologically acceptable. By implication, anyone who does not adhere to doctrine is either ill-informed or willfully ignorant. The methodology is indeed very precise.
Obama's team is a disgrace. He won the election handily; it wasn't even a race by the end. The media was in the tank for the guy and he had his party at his back, running congress. Only the Democrats could possibly go on to run the Obama brand into the ground in such a short time.
Speaking of that, I can take everything you said (except for the radio stuff) and substitute rightspeak and insert leftspeak.
I think the whole media is a discrace for not checking out or challenging obama before the election. But I think our current group of political choices isn't the best. (on both sides).
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 11:15 AM
Speaking of that, I can take everything you said (except for the radio stuff) and substitute rightspeak and insert leftspeak.
Okay, I'm going to call you out; cite me an example. I am confident that it does not exist, mostly because Team D is not that organzied. They wish they were, and they wish they had this sort of thing, but they are like the Bengals; they have some talent, but just can't seem to get it together.
Skybird
12-21-10, 11:16 AM
Oh yes. It goes fairly deep too. In the last 20 years or so, Team R has developed a system of what I like to call 'RightSpeak'. Take the word 'informed', for example. How often do you hear a caller on talk radio tell the host 'Thanks for taking my call. Love your show, I listen every day. Just like to stay informed', or a conversation where someone says, 'I talked to the new guy today. Talked about some politics, he seems well-informed.'? In RightSpeak, the word informed refers to someone who is ideologically acceptable. By implication, anyone who does not adhere to doctrine is either ill-informed or willfully ignorant. The methodology is indeed very precise.
Obama's team is a disgrace. He won the election handily; it wasn't even a race by the end. The media was in the tank for the guy and he had his party at his back, running congress. Only the Democrats could possibly go on to run the Obama brand into the ground in such a short time. This guy was political dynamite; a bonafide superstar and as close to a sure thing two-termer as you can get, and they just dropped the ball. He's now fighting for his political life.
Language is control.
Psychologically, language defines and limits how people think, people cannot think beyond the limits of the language they use. If you make them adopting a certain XYZ-speak, you make them control themselves voluntarily on the basis of the regulations you want to see in use. The censor is inside people's head then. That is the perfect tyranny. There are no victims of tyranny anymore then - only participants, willing complices, perpetrators.
mookiemookie
12-21-10, 11:49 AM
Obama's team is a disgrace. He won the election handily; it wasn't even a race by the end. The media was in the tank for the guy and he had his party at his back, running congress. Only the Democrats could possibly go on to run the Obama brand into the ground in such a short time. This guy was political dynamite; a bonafide superstar and as close to a sure thing two-termer as you can get, and they just dropped the ball. He's now fighting for his political life.
Exactly right. The guy's whole presidency has been missed opportunities. His economic team of advisors was made up of hacks like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers - the very people that helped get us in this mess to begin with.
During a time when public anger at Wall Street was at its zenith....the one thing that people of both political stripes could agree on was that those bankers were a-holes....the perfect time to introduce Wall Street reform - and he goes after healthcare.
He could have painted opponents as in the pockets of banks by forcing a confirmation battle over Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chair. But he didn't. How great of a story would that have been? "We're trying to reign in banks and make grandma's money safe, but my opponents are opposing that and want to protect bank profits." That would have been political gold. But of course, none of that happened.
Unbelievable. Wasted opportunities.
TLAM Strike
12-21-10, 12:05 PM
Team R, by contrast, is very centralized, with everyone essentially adhering to the 'marching orders' that descend through the structure. The issue of such edicts regarding talking points through the power structure to subordinates is a blatent sign of party cooperation; one that goes much further than analysis and studies.
Trickle Down Fascism? :O:
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 12:21 PM
Okay, I'm going to call you out; cite me an example. I am confident that it does not exist, mostly because Team D is not that organzied. They wish they were, and they wish they had this sort of thing, but they are like the Bengals; they have some talent, but just can't seem to get it together.
I don't have time to find a good one (I'm at work now):D, but basically what I'm thinking of is when the other news outlets all use the same talkingpoints for subject X. So when the days news cycle starts, they all parrot the same thing. It's really funny to hear montages of it played together.
Okay, I'm going to call you out; cite me an example. I am confident that it does not exist, mostly because Team D is not that organzied. They wish they were, and they wish they had this sort of thing, but they are like the Bengals; they have some talent, but just can't seem to get it together.
Apparently you didn't look as it wasn't that difficult:
http://liberalspeak.com/
As Neon already said, you mixed up study and comment. Your quote is from a comment not included in the study, but refering to the study.
However, I failed to identify the sourc es correctly in the two quotes I gave. My apology for that. I now correct it. Having said that, I nevertheless would always recommend to check the original texts before concluding on them on basis of summaries from unidentified sources. Then you would have noted it. ;)
Then that was my mistake.
Exactly right. The guy's whole presidency has been missed opportunities. His economic team of advisors was made up of hacks like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers - the very people that helped get us in this mess to begin with.
During a time when public anger at Wall Street was at its zenith....the one thing that people of both political stripes could agree on was that those bankers were a-holes....the perfect time to introduce Wall Street reform - and he goes after healthcare.
He could have painted opponents as in the pockets of banks by forcing a confirmation battle over Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chair. But he didn't. How great of a story would that have been? "We're trying to reign in banks and make grandma's money safe, but my opponents are opposing that and want to protect bank profits." That would have been political gold. But of course, none of that happened.
Unbelievable. Wasted opportunities.
The perils of electing a President with absolutely no leadership experience and very little legislative experience.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 12:26 PM
Apparently you didn't look as it wasn't that difficult:
http://liberalspeak.com/
I might have thought it more credible if much of that was spelled correctly and lacked links to 'Liberal Whiners'. This is called counter-spin, albeit a poorly-executed example.
I might have thought it more credible if much of that was spelled correctly and lacked links to 'Liberal Whiners'. This is called counter-spin, albeit a poorly-executed example.
Oh I see that's less credible than your unsupported claims, or am i not "informed" enough?
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 12:32 PM
Oh I see that's less credible than your unsupported claims, or am i not "informed" enough?
I leave both the viewing of evidence and the determination of ideological relevance to you, being as you are far more involved in the political edifice than I. I simply content myself to highlight the tactics utilized by the media arm of the political machine; in this case, that of the right.
I leave both the viewing of evidence and the determination of ideological relevance to you, being as you are far more involved in the political edifice than I. I simply content myself to highlight the tactics utilized by the media arm of the political machine; in this case, that of the right.
I do not deny your statement that the right does it Tak, only your assertion that the left doesn't.
"Assault weapons" that aren't. "Cop killer bullets" that don't. If you can't find evidence then imo you just ain't looking...
Sailor Steve
12-21-10, 12:38 PM
'RightSpeak'
I remember some years ago having a debate with a then-current member over 'PC'. I mentioned that the Conservatives have their own version of PC, and the reply I recieved then was that no, PC is a specifically defined set of agendas, mostly liberal, and couldn't be changed to include anything else. At the time I had no response for that, but I knew that what I'd said was true - the Right also have their own brand of "say it this way or you're not being proper".
Thanks for putting in context.
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 12:39 PM
Atleast at FOX/MSNBC you know what you are getting. It's the other ones you gotta watch out for.
People are biased. Nothing is going to change that.
I say the glass is full; you say it's empty.
Well It's because of my plan, the glass is half full.
Well it's because of your plan, the glass is half empty.
so starts the endless wheel spinning.
The good thing is about the US system, we can debate this w/o being put in jail or dissapearing in the night.
onelifecrisis
12-21-10, 12:39 PM
I thought everyone knew that FOX News was a joke? I mean, all the "news" in the US is a joke, but I thought FOX News held a special place as being the most laughable of them all, at least on teh interweb.
A quick Google yields...
http://redriverpak.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/633785045117215125-foxnews.jpg
http://marccooper.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/FOXNEWS.JPG
I've been seeing this stuff, and related comments, all over the net for years. It's common knowledge, no? :hmmm:
I say the glass is full; you say it's empty.
Well It's because of my plan, the glass is half full.
Well it's because of your plan, the glass is half empty.
My question would be "Who has been drinking out of my glass?" :DL
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 12:42 PM
I'll just add, this thread is really cutting in to my productivity today:oops::doh:.
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 12:45 PM
My question would be "Who has been drinking out of my glass?" :DL
:haha:
Goldielocks?
Maybe Jim.
okay, it was Jim.
Sailor Steve
12-21-10, 12:50 PM
I thought everyone knew that FOX News was a joke? I mean, all the "news" in the US is a joke, but I thought FOX News held a special place as being the most laughable of them all, at least on teh interweb.
I've been seeing this stuff, and related comments, all over the net for years. It's common knowledge, no? :hmmm:
The news part of Fox is no worse, no better and no different than any other news source. The talk part, on the other hand, is heavily biased toward the Right. And yes, everybody knows it.
But opposing ads like the ones you posted are put up by people on the other side, and they are hardly fair or honest. They are made by people who hate Fox, partly for being wrong, but partly for being right. Those people are just as biased as what they hate, but they won't admit it, which makes them just as bad, and just as untrustworthy.
As McBee said, the other news outlets have talk shows that are also heavily biased, usually toward the left. The difference is that they don't tell you so, which means that they are much more misleading, and that Fox really is "Fair and Balanced", at least when compared to the outlets the left adores.
So the other news outlets are just as biased, but the problem is that "everybody" doesn't know it, or at least doesn't admit it.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 12:55 PM
I do not deny your statement that the right does it Tak, only your assertion that the left doesn't.
"Assault weapons" that aren't. "Cop killer bullets" that don't. If you can't find evidence then imo you just ain't looking...
Well, we weren't talking about the left at the time. But if you wish, Team D does, generally, does not engage in this type of tactic, but not because they are trying to be high-minded and pure. No, they want to do the same thing, but cannot because they are not organized enough to be good at it. Team D uses a different method; character assasination.
The political parties started changing the way that they interacted with each other and the public during the late 80's, and that's when things really started getting nasty. The Republicans and the Democrats started approaching this brave new world in very different ways. Whereas the Republicans put their thinkers to work in attacking the system itself, changing the media and language from the ground-up, the Democrats went with a more crude method; they put their bruisers up front. This does not require an organized effort, as all you need is one loudmouth and a TV crew. Anyone who opposed the leftist ideology was a racist, a homophobe, a bigot, a sexist, and any other nasty sorts of labels that seemed convenient. While initially effective, this tactic suffers from the problem of diminishing returns; you can label a person or people as racist and get the results that you want, but once you start to do it to everyone, people simply stop paying attention, as they begin to see it for the game it actually is. Look at the latest example of this tactic being used against the 'Tea Party'. The labels didn't stick, as the tactic is no longer effective.
A lot of this is why, generally, Republicans can appear calm and refined next to the Democrats, who seem shrill and angry by comparison. Team D has spent the last 20 years pointing and yelling, so it is no wonder why the image has stuck. In this regard, Team R has taken the wiser approach, and is a large reason why they have, for the most part, dominated American politics since the 1980's.
onelifecrisis
12-21-10, 12:56 PM
the other news outlets are just as biased, but the problem is that "everybody" doesn't know it, or at least doesn't admit it.
Why do you suppose that is?
Sailor Steve
12-21-10, 01:19 PM
Why do you suppose that is?
I don't know for sure. For me it's like the left whining that the right compares Obama to Hitler (which I do not support, by the way) when there were certain people putting a Reich uniform and mustache on pictures of Bush as far back as 2003.
The Right grandstands and calls the Left names, while the Left tries to be more subtle about it. Personally, I think the attitude of "I'm right and you're stupid" is a part of human nature. Both sides of any issue (politics, religion, my favorite airplane) tend to think that way, and tend to accuse the other side of doing it while avoiding any mention of themselves doing the same ("pot and kettle").
Me, I've been wrong so many times that I just naturally assume that whatever bias I may have is probably wrong as well.
onelifecrisis
12-21-10, 01:21 PM
I don't know for sure. For me it's like the left whining that the right compares Obama to Hitler (which I do not support, by the way) when there were certain people putting a Reich uniform and mustache on pictures of Bush as far back as 2003.
The Right grandstands and calls the Left names, while the Left tries to be more subtle about it. Personally, I think the attitude of "I'm right and you're stupid" is a part of human nature. Both sides of any issue (politics, religion, my favorite airplane) tend to think that way, and tend to accuse the other side of doing it while avoiding any mention of themselves doing the same ("pot and kettle").
Me, I've been wrong so many times that I just naturally assume that whatever bias I may have is probably wrong as well.
Do you think maybe there are just more US lefties than US righties on the web? Certainly seems that way to me. Well, maybe not in this forum ;) but in general...
Sailor Steve
12-21-10, 01:30 PM
Do you think maybe there are just more US lefties than US righties on the web? Certainly seems that way to me. Well, maybe not in this forum ;) but in general...
Again, I have no idea. I can point out what I observe, but when it comes to what I think the reasons are, as usual I'm convinced I don't know the answers.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 01:37 PM
Again, I have no idea. I can point out what I observe, but when it comes to what I think the reasons are, as usual I'm convinced I don't know the answers.
Yeah. And I should add that what I said is entirely my view as of the moment. I am convinced that it is undeniably true, but have said similar things in the past. Ten years ago, I was a far-right idealogue. I purchased and read both of Rush Limbaugh's books, watched his TV show, listened to him every day, read every biography of Ronald Reagan that I could get my hands on and would have been all about Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck had they been nationally syndicated back then. I listened to and read Jerry Falwell, and I thought him the greatest thing ever. I watched CBN and the 700 Club (yes, that's right; bet you'll never look at me the same way again) and held everything said there as gospel, no pun intended. I practically thought Newt Gingrich to be God incarnate. Later, I voted for George W. Bush, twice. I asserted that a number of things were undeniably true, but views change. Ten years from now, I may look back upon what I typed about the two parties with equal disdain.
NOTE: Edited about 7,000 times because I have, evidently, fogotten how to spell and assemble sentences in English.
mookiemookie
12-21-10, 01:48 PM
Do you think maybe there are just more US lefties than US righties on the web? Certainly seems that way to me. Well, maybe not in this forum ;) but in general...
I think that lefties tend to be younger and more technologically savvy. Those are the sorts of people whom you tend to find on the internet, so naturally it's going to seem like there's more of them.
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 02:01 PM
I think that lefties tend to be younger and more technologically savvy. Those are the sorts of people whom you tend to find on the internet, so naturally it's going to seem like there's more of them.
I would agree with that.
Well, we weren't talking about the left at the time. But if you wish, Team D does, generally, does not engage in this type of tactic, but not because they are trying to be high-minded and pure. No, they want to do the same thing, but cannot because they are not organized enough to be good at it. Team D uses a different method; character assasination.
The political parties started changing the way that they interacted with each other and the public during the late 80's, and that's when things really started getting nasty. The Republicans and the Democrats started approaching this brave new world in very different ways. Whereas the Republicans put their thinkers to work in attacking the system itself, changing the media and language from the ground-up, the Democrats went with a more crude method; they put their bruisers up front. This does not require an organized effort, as all you need is one loudmouth and a TV crew. Anyone who opposed the leftist ideology was a racist, a homophobe, a bigot, a sexist, and any other nasty sorts of labels that seemed convenient. While initially effective, this tactic suffers from the problem of diminishing returns; you can label a person or people as racist and get the results that you want, but once you start to do it to everyone, people simply stop paying attention, as they begin to see it for the game it actually is. Look at the latest example of this tactic being used against the 'Tea Party'. The labels didn't stick, as the tactic is no longer effective.
A lot of this is why, generally, Republicans can appear calm and refined next to the Democrats, who seem shrill and angry by comparison. Team D has spent the last 20 years pointing and yelling, so it is no wonder why the image has stuck. In this regard, Team R has taken the wiser approach, and is a large reason why they have, for the most part, dominated American politics since the 1980's.
Well that's sure an interesting take on it. I don't necessarily agree but thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
The notion that the right is more organized WRT media is laughable.
That's the kind of commentary you might hear from Mara Liason (sp?) on NPR. The left clearly controls the dialog in the mass media.
The only media that is pretty right is talk radio. It exists because there is a vacuum of right-leaning political thought on other broadcast media. It's the same vacuum Fox fills. It's important to remember that while Fox has high cable news ratings, the viewership is far smaller than the 3 broadcast news outlets—all of which are firmly left.
That study should do look at things like mentions of party membership. When closeted Senator Craig was toe-tapping his way to anonymous pleasure, the news stories mentioned his party affiliation in every paragraph. When a Democrat is found with a freezer full of money... not so much. A good rule of thumb is that if there is a political scandal and no party is named in the first paragraph it's a Democrat for sure.
Bottom line is that all media is biased and always has been. Believing one to be more true than another is absurd. Anyone making fun of Fox and not CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS/NPR, et al is just as thoughtless as someone who only watches Fox and claims it is gospel truth. I think many one both sides like being the choir that is preached to.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 04:34 PM
I don't find the refusal of the notion that the Right is in possession of the most organized and disciplined media arm, and that corruption is the property of the opposing party laughable. Rather, I find those notions predictable. As a laughable idiot, I deem it my perogative to do so.
mookiemookie
12-21-10, 04:34 PM
The notion that the right is more organized WRT media is laughable.
No it's not, and that's a pretty arrogant statement. The right has become masters of using the very things you mention, like Fox News and talk radio to not only systematically inject their message into the national dialogue, but to set that terms of the dialogue completely. For example, the Tea Party's genesis came from media - notably Rick Santelli on CNBC and Fox News.
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fox-20090408-opposition2.jpg
Laughable to think the right are absolute masters at using the media to their advantage? Please.
One reason I think Democrats (take Air America, for example) seem so shrill is that until talk radio and the one conservative V outlet, Fox, they had a 100% lock on mass media. When you are used to the media POV virtually always being in line with your own, when there is ANY alternate voice it seems like some disaster.
I think AA failed partially because it was so shrill, and partially because there was no vacuum to fill in the market. The left already had an echo-chamber to the tune of virtually all popular culture (what's the only exception, South Park?), plus news media with by far the most eyeballs watching (broadcast).
When someone not on the left hears anything that is see as being "what I think" they are likely to tune in for no other reason than novelty.
BTW, the only broadcast media I hear regularly is NPR. I listen every single morning. I virtually never watch TV news unless there is something big happening NOW (major terror attacks, wars starting, etc).
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 04:37 PM
Air America
Air America has been off the air since 21 January. Had the left a vice grip on the media, it would not have been so.
No it's not, and that's a pretty arrogant statement. The right has become masters of using the very things you mention, like Fox News and talk radio to not only systematically inject their message into the national dialogue, but to set that terms of the dialogue completely. For example, the Tea Party's genesis came from media - notably Rick Santelli on CNBC and Fox News.
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fox-20090408-opposition2.jpg
Laughable to think the right are absolute masters at using the media to their advantage? Please.
Meanwhile, the left has entirely controlled the media with FAR more viewers for decades (ABC/CBS/NBC/PBS). Fox pwns cable news, but that's it. It's noise compared to broadcast which is entirely left and has been for many decades.
So the utter domination by the left in news and popular culture is an accident not worth looking into, and the right having a few million talk radio and Fox viewers (much overlap there, too) is a "plan" by some star chamber. Right.
Air America has been off the air since 21 January. Had the left a vice grip on the media, it would not have been so.
It was only on as long as it was by major subsidy.
Radio was new media for the left. They still control radio NEWS, though. Stations that play conservative talk radio still have ABC radio news, etc. It's funny.
What broadcast news outlet is conservative? You cannot argue that the left has not controlled the news for decades. You just can't. It's self-evident. I've known this since the 70s.
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 04:46 PM
It was only on as long as it was by major subsidy.
Radio was new media for the left. They still control radio NEWS, though. Stations that play conservative talk radio still have ABC radio news, etc. It's funny.
What broadcast news outlet is conservative? You cannot argue that the left has not controlled the news for decades. You just can't. It's self-evident. I've known this since the 70s.
And what broadcast news outlet is liberal? More specifically, what broadcast news outlet is actively promoting leftist events and rallies? What broadcast outlet commits one third of it's broadcast day to indoctrinated political spin? What broadcast outlet has half of it's anchor staff serving in the role of political commentator? Yes, it is very easy to say that the left has not controled broadcast media. The distinction is obvious.
Ducimus
12-21-10, 05:09 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
I won't pretend its completely unbiased, but at least it's not a US news source. I tend to think that news sources that are not part of the US system, will probably be less partisan then US news sources. At least as far as our own politics are concerned.
Also i don't see the debate about Fox news. They are about as fair and balanced as playing Russian roulette with a semi automatic handgun. It doesn't take one very long to figure that out either.
Obligatory picture:
http://redriverpak.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/633785045117215125-foxnews.jpg
Rockstar
12-21-10, 05:11 PM
I've always said and still think news organizations targets an audience and will do what it takes to keep them. Its business and they are here to make money off you. They have done a good job of dividing and conquering a people into far extremes. Everyone from these news oulets and politicians can take advantage of it.
I remember some shouting we will repeal healthcare when we get into office! I heard these same people now in office now say "not only will we repeal it but we'll make it better! :yeah: Oh yea people just swallow hook line and sinker everything they're told now days.
And what broadcast news outlet is liberal? More specifically, what broadcast news outlet is actively promoting leftist events and rallies? What broadcast outlet commits one third of it's broadcast day to indoctrinated political spin? What broadcast outlet has half of it's anchor staff serving in the role of political commentator? Yes, it is very easy to say that the left has not controled broadcast media. The distinction is obvious.
Having NEWS pretend to be unbiased but in fact be biased is far more insidious than explicitly opinion echo chambers. No one listens to Rush Limbaugh and thinks it's news, not opinion unless they already are very "right."
Many watch the TV news and think it's unbiased, even when it clearly is not.
Pick a TV network. Say ABC. What % of their total programming would fit a "liberal" world view? Soap operas? Sitcoms? We know the news is left on ABC, but so is all the "pop" stuff.
Myself, I can tell news from not news on Fox, and MSNBC, etc. If the show is a nightly news show, that's "news." If it is some talking head like O'Reiley, Maddow, etc, then it's OPINION.
There are very few NEWS shows on any of the cable outlets right now. The only "news" on CNN "Headline News"—a show that used to be a 20 minute loop that was like an endless "evening news"—is now the crawler. the rest is all opinion the few times I tuned in to try and see current news on something like a big storm, etc.
Promoting rallies? How about promoting a candidate? Remember "gavitas" during the W vs Gore election? Where was the news media covering stories on Obama before he was elected? Simple stuff like what was his voting record in the State House like, or where the heck were his legal records (from his work as a lawyer), etc, ad nauseum.
Or anti-war rally coverage. It was constantly on the news, even if just a handful of people (Cindy Sheehan, for example). I saw coverage of rallies, but no back story on the usual sponsor—ANSWER—for example. If Aryan Nation sponsored an anti-Obama rally you'd damn well hear about it on the news... apologists for the murder of over 100 million people (answer is communist)—not relevant I guess.
Bottom line is that they are ALL biased. All. Watch any cable n"news" outlet for a few minutes and you'll see they are rarely "news" and usually commentary (opinion). The only difference is what side off of center they are on.
By all means, though, keep thinking Fox is some special case. Doesn't matter to me, it's not like I watch any of them regularly.
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 05:16 PM
I've always said and still think news organizations targets an audience and will do what it takes to keep them. Its business and they are here to make money off you. They have done a good job of dividing and conquering a people into far extremes. Everyone from these news oulets and politicians can take advantage of it.
I remember some shouting we will repeal healthcare when we get into office! I heard these same people now in office now say "not only will we repeal it but we'll make it better! :yeah: Oh yea people just swallow hook line and sinker everything they're told now days.
Lets go in another direction. In these regards, what about NPR?:yawn:
What kind of ratings do they get? My mom listens to them, but I find them the definition of boring.
Ducimus, I'm not arging they are not biased, they are. How is Fox worse than MSNBC (or whatever it calls itself these days)? Chris Matthews getting a tingle up his leg for Obama is unbiased?
If any of them were honest they'd own up to their bias instead of pretending there is some sort of journalistic ethics code they are held to to be unbiased (which is rubbish). I know a few reporters, BTW, at the NYT, NPR, and Bloomberg. None of them would disagree with me (since we've had this discussion).
Lets go in another direction. In these regards, what about NPR?:yawn:
What kind of ratings do they get? My mom listens to them, but I find them the definition of boring.
One study I read put NPR left of center, but VERY close to center. All the other broadcast media except Fox was WELL left of NPR, and Fox was only a little farther right than NPR was left (note that they only looked at NEWS programs, they entirely ignored all the opinion stuff).
BTW, our university station plays NPR, but they ALSO play other "news" shows, all of which are way far left. Crazy left, I suppose as far kooky left as some goon like Michael Savage is crazy right (Democracy Now!, etc). This is tre at many outlets that play NPR some of the day. They also play stuff so far left they complain that ABC/NBC/etc are the "corporate media" and are all far right (LOL). Course they likely agree with Stalin that Trotsky was too far right. ;)
Takeda Shingen
12-21-10, 05:26 PM
Having NEWS pretend to be unbiased but in fact be biased is far more insidious than explicitly opinion echo chambers. No one listens to Rush Limbaugh and thinks it's news, not opinion unless they already are very "right."
Many watch the TV news and think it's unbiased, even when it clearly is not.
Pick a TV network. Say ABC. What % of their total programming would fit a "liberal" world view? Soap operas? Sitcoms? We know the news is left on ABC, but so is all the "pop" stuff.
Myself, I can tell news from not news on Fox, and MSNBC, etc. If the show is a nightly news show, that's "news." If it is some talking head like O'Reiley, Maddow, etc, then it's OPINION.
There are very few NEWS shows on any of the cable outlets right now. The only "news" on CNN "Headline News"—a show that used to be a 20 minute loop that was like an endless "evening news"—is now the crawler. the rest is all opinion the few times I tuned in to try and see current news on something like a big storm, etc.
Promoting rallies? How about promoting a candidate? Remember "gavitas" during the W vs Gore election? Where was the news media covering stories on Obama before he was elected? Simple stuff like what was his voting record in the State House like, or where the heck were his legal records (from his work as a lawyer), etc, ad nauseum.
Or anti-war rally coverage. It was constantly on the news, even if just a handful of people (Cindy Sheehan, for example). I saw coverage of rallies, but no back story on the usual sponsor—ANSWER—for example. If Aryan Nation sponsored an anti-Obama rally you'd damn well hear about it on the news... apologists for the murder of over 100 million people (answer is communist)—not relevant I guess.
Bottom line is that they are ALL biased. All. Watch any cable n"news" outlet for a few minutes and you'll see they are rarely "news" and usually commentary (opinion). The only difference is what side off of center they are on.
By all means, though, keep thinking Fox is some special case. Doesn't matter to me, it's not like I watch any of them regularly.
And so the answer becomes 'yeah well look at what they're doing.' This is also a predictable response. Still, I thank you for your efforts. This was interesting, if not particularly enlightening.
Ducimus
12-21-10, 05:26 PM
Ducimus, I'm not arging they are not biased, they are. How is Fox worse than MSNBC (or whatever it calls itself these days)?
I wasn't arguing for MSNBC. Hell, i don't even read or watch them. The only difference i can tell you, is that very few people will post links to MSNBC articles where fox news article links are farily common.
Like i hinted at earlier, I try to find news sources that are out of country. (NOT Al jazere though, screw that). The easiest one is the BBC. The only downside to this approach is you have to wade through foreign opinion on the US in general. If i was to read a US news source at all, id read CNN, but with a gain of salt. Fox news and MSNBC are right out though. I never go to either.
And so the answer becomes 'yeah well look at what they're doing.' This is also a predictable response. Still, I thank you for your efforts. This was interesting, if not particularly enlightening.
Five pages of little besides comparison and suddenly it's Tater who pulled out the "look at what they're doing" card?
Growler
12-21-10, 07:39 PM
Meanwhile, the left has entirely controlled the media with FAR more viewers for decades (ABC/CBS/NBC/PBS). Fox pwns cable news, but that's it. It's noise compared to broadcast which is entirely left and has been for many decades.
So the utter domination by the left in news and popular culture is an accident not worth looking into, and the right having a few million talk radio and Fox viewers (much overlap there, too) is a "plan" by some star chamber. Right.
If this were even REMOTELY true, there'd be NO right leaning media on the air at all. The domination - if it existed for decades and were part of some sort of malevolent plan - would clearly have prevented right leaning media from gaining a foothold in cable, broadcast, satellite - wherever. Rush Limbaugh would have been DoA rather than the huge draw he turned into, if the right were having its voice suppressed by the leftist media.
You're talking about total control of the media, but you can't have it both ways. Either the left controls the media totally and keeps the right out, or it doesn't. Clearly, there's conservative media in existence.
nikimcbee
12-21-10, 07:43 PM
I wasn't arguing for MSNBC. Hell, i don't even read or watch them. The only difference i can tell you, is that very few people will post links to MSNBC articles where fox news article links are farily common.
Like i hinted at earlier, I try to find news sources that are out of country. (NOT Al jazere though, screw that). The easiest one is the BBC. The only downside to this approach is you have to wade through foreign opinion on the US in general. If i was to read a US news source at all, id read CNN, but with a gain of salt. Fox news and MSNBC are right out though. I never go to either.
If you want to hear the venom flow, listen to Voice of Russia. It is an interesting listen though, the Russian version of NPR. I haven't listened since obama took over, so I don't know their opinion of him. (They HATED W :haha:)
I like the BBC. I like the third person persective our country, it can be a good reality check at times. It's even better if you can understand it in the native language.
Platapus
12-21-10, 07:53 PM
I think it is important to differentiate between news and commentary.
Fox news is no better or worse than MSNBC or CNN. They report the news.
The commentary on Fox News is biased and it should be. It is difficult to give a commentary without taking a side. The same can be said about MSNBC. Their news is ok, their commentary is biased.
As long as people recognize the bias, there is no problem. But I do think it is important to differentiate between news and commentary.
mookiemookie
12-21-10, 07:59 PM
I think it is important to differentiate between news and commentary.
Fox news is no better or worse than MSNBC or CNN. They report the news.
The commentary on Fox News is biased and it should be. It is difficult to give a commentary without taking a side. The same can be said about MSNBC. Their news is ok, their commentary is biased.
As long as people recognize the bias, there is no problem. But I do think it is important to differentiate between news and commentary.
The problem is the news is biased. Telling anchors to use terms that Republican strategists have come up with is biased reporting. The Bill Sammon emails prove this.
Armistead
12-21-10, 08:14 PM
I scan through news all night. It is sad that all cable news seem to be an extension of a party. I like Bill to a point, but Glen has become the Jerry Springer of cable news...love when he works up those fake tears.
MSNBC complains about Fox, but they're even a worse extension of the liberals, they basically campaigned openly for Obama.
Just as we can't trust these two crooked parties, we can no longer trust the news outlets that support them. Sure, both speak some truth, but will tell a 1000 truths to get you to believe one big lie.
I think this is why so many Americans love the comedy news shows now.
Platapus
12-21-10, 08:15 PM
Humans are incapable of communicating anything without any bias.
The point I was trying to make is that all the news services do a good (but somewhat biased because of human involvement) job of reporting the news. But the media commentaries are where the extreme biases come out (as they should).
I just don't like when people confuse or group news reporting with news commentary as they are not the same thing.
CaptainHaplo
12-22-10, 02:16 AM
Wow did this ever get way off track....
Instead of a debate about which channel is biased more, or what group is better organized or in "control" of the media in general, lets look at the survey and the folks that conducted it....
First - the claim that Health Care reform will save money. The data they use is outdated, because the CBO later revised their predictions - so what they say is "truth" is in actuality - a falsehood.
Second - the claim of the economy is getting better. They claim that "truth" states it is. This is based off the notion that there was not negative growth - aka - a continuation of the recession. Thus they state that voters were "misinformed" about the economy. However, growth is not the only measure of economic health, and if you think it is, ask all the unemployed who are looking for work..... When job numbers are consistently adjusted back downwards and are insufficient to keep up with "growth" numbers, its fair to say that the business climate MAY be improving, but its entirely UNTRUE to say the economy is recovering when joblessness is increasing.
Third, lets look at the stimulus claims. Based on the "perceptions" of economists and the numbers from the CBO, they state that the stimulus "saved millions" of jobs. How did they come up with these numbers? Well, lets look at news sources that are not FOX - guys like NBC, ABC, CBS or the Wall Street Journal for example....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31063979/Tony_Fratto_The_White_House_Jobs_Saved_Deception (http://www.cnbc.com/id/31063979/Tony_Fratto_The_White_House_Jobs_Saved_Deception)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853&tqkw=&tqshow (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853&tqkw=&tqshow)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-5390970-503983.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-5390970-503983.html)
Well looks like how they did it was this: they spent half a million per "job saved", invented fake data in fake congressional districts, and basically just threw out some term that has no ability to be defined in meaningful ways, and thus cannot be validated.
Now, after the very first 3 "truths" they list in their actual survey are invalidated, how much faith are you willing to put into the outcome?
Ok, you want to find out how "impartial" a group is? Its easy really - and it applies to groups of "either" bias. Its called "follow the money". So who is it that supports or runs WorldPoliticalOpinion?
Well we have folks like Dr. Duffy, head of the Commonwealth Club of California - a "nonpartisan" group that sponsors events such as "Sacrifice Zones and Environmental Justice", "Arts, Activism and Creativity", the "Art of Living Black" and initiatives supporting "social entrepuneurship"....
Or how about the Rockefeller Foundation? A group pushing "smart globalization" with part of their focus on "environmental issues" - check out what their initiatives are and tell me where on the spectrum, left or right - they are... Find em here:
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/what-we-do (http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/what-we-do)
Or what about the Compton Foundation - a group whose "mission expanded to include support for welfare, social justice, and the arts....."
Social justice, welfare? Oh yea - they dead center don'tcha know....
Tides Foundation? "Our mission is to partner with philanthropists, foundations, activists, and organizations across the country and across the globe to promote economic justice, robust democratic processes, and the opportunity to live in a healthy and sustainable environment where human rights are preserved and protected."
Hmm... economic "justice" - oh and lets not forget their own words on their new CEO: "Tides Taps Social Entrepreneur and Progressive Thought Leader as New CEO."
http://www.tides.org/news-resources/news-room/single-news-item/article/tides-taps-social-entrepreneur-and-progressive-thought-leader-as-new-ceo/index.html (http://www.tides.org/news-resources/news-room/single-news-item/article/tides-taps-social-entrepreneur-and-progressive-thought-leader-as-new-ceo/index.html)
I could go on but I do seem to think there is a bit of a pattern here....
Ultimately, you have a flawed study, funded by those with a "liberal" bias, that results in a conclusion that reflects the opinions (Fox is evil and lying to the stupid people) of those footing the bill, along with a "comment" filled with hyperbole and vitriol. And people are suprised? The reality is that any survey is suspect - look at the money trail before you take things too seriously. You want news? Get it from more than one source, get it from sources with diametrically opposed viewpoints, then put forth a little effort to research the data yourself and make your own determinations about the "good or bad".
Torvald Von Mansee
12-22-10, 05:28 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2010/12/haley-barbour-fox-sg-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg
Fair and Balanced, indeed.
mookiemookie
12-22-10, 07:46 PM
Tides Foundation? "Our mission is to partner with philanthropists, foundations, activists, and organizations across the country and across the globe to promote economic justice, robust democratic processes, and the opportunity to live in a healthy and sustainable environment where human rights are preserved and protected."
Hmm... economic "justice" - oh and lets not forget their own words on their new CEO: "Tides Taps Social Entrepreneur and Progressive Thought Leader as New CEO."
http://www.tides.org/news-resources/news-room/single-news-item/article/tides-taps-social-entrepreneur-and-progressive-thought-leader-as-new-ceo/index.html (http://www.tides.org/news-resources/news-room/single-news-item/article/tides-taps-social-entrepreneur-and-progressive-thought-leader-as-new-ceo/index.html)
You can always tell a Glenn Beck viewer because they mention the Tides Foundation. A foundation that no one has ever heard of or gives two craps about, except for in the mad rantings of Glenn Beck.
You can always tell a Glenn Beck viewer because they mention the Tides Foundation. A foundation that no one has ever heard of or gives two craps about, except for in the mad rantings of Glenn Beck.
Is this some kind of Democrat version of "Those aren't the droids you're looking for"? :DL
Does this Tides Foundation exist or doesn't it?
mookiemookie
12-22-10, 09:32 PM
Is this some kind of Democrat version of "Those aren't the droids you're looking for"? :DL
Does this Tides Foundation exist or doesn't it?
I guess they do. What I'm saying is that I've never heard of them before Glenn Beck went on some mad crusade against them. It's really bizarre that he's latched on to this group like they're the Illuminati or something. As far as I can tell, they're pretty insignificant. Someone has a go at SEIU or George Soros....yeah, you can kind of understand that. They're big and powerful, everyone knows who they are. But Tides Foundation? I couldn't even tell you what they do.
I guess they do. What I'm saying is that I've never heard of them before Glenn Beck went on some mad crusade against them. It's really bizarre that he's latched on to this group like they're the Illuminati or something. As far as I can tell, they're pretty insignificant. Someone has a go at SEIU or George Soros....yeah, you can kind of understand that. They're big and powerful, everyone knows who they are. But Tides Foundation? I couldn't even tell you what they do.
Me either, Luckly I don't have much time to listen to any of those rabble rousing political pundits these days so I hadn't even heard of them before you guys mentioned their name.
Here is their sponsor page from their website:
http://www.momentumconference.org/sponsors/index.html
I'd say it gives a clearer picture of who they really are than anything else.
:salute:
CaptainHaplo
12-23-10, 12:06 AM
Exactly my point August and Mookie. I had never heard of them until I looked on the sponsors section of the WorldPoliticalOpinion.
Mookie - ok take them out of the equation - does it change the fact that the survey "truths" are at worst false, and at best "mistakes and judgements"? Does it change the facts that WorldPoliticalOpinion is sponsored by more than just Tides, but a plethora of other left leaning (at the least) organizations?
I know your capable of a better argument than just yelling "GLEN BECK' and ignoring the fact that even folks like the alphabet news organizations point out that "saved" jobs is a political crock....
Sailor Steve
12-23-10, 12:30 AM
Fair and Balanced, indeed.
And you are? Your one contribution to the discussion is no contribution at all, but yet more mud. I keep hoping that someday you'll actually say something, but it never happens.
Skybird
12-23-10, 06:51 AM
Voices/persons can very well be different in two qualities:
- in their intention to lie and distort things and to hide unwanted facts,
- in their intention to try to reflect on things as objectively and balanced and fair, as they can.
It borders cynism to deny at least these two qualities making a difference in for example news reports (or science reports as well).
It is the mean intention of doing as much rethorical harm as possible that singles out FOX as being the worst of them all. This is the worst abuse of rethorics imaginable: if rethorical tricks are being used to overcome argument and/or fact. The Ancient Greek held the "art" of rethorics in high esteem. I totally disagree. The more rethorics somebody needs to transport his arguments, the more suspicious he is (that'S why I can agree that Obama is a gifted speaker, but still I was not tricked by that and still did not follow his talking).
Let facts speak for themselves.
It is the mean intention of doing as much rethorical harm as possible that singles out FOX as being the worst of them all.
If you believe that Skybird then you really aren't all that familiar with American domestic media. As has been pointed out your source here is as biased as they come.
Skybird
12-23-10, 08:51 AM
I do not say that other media sources are totally innocent. I say that FOX surpasses them in extreme rightwinged bias and distortion of journalistic strandards. I remember clearly we have had repeatedly threads over the past years that even showed FOX to forge picture material massively.
There must be a reason why even outside the US FOX has earned the questionable honour to be proverbially menmtioned as the prime example of bad journalism. Compared to it, even the Bild-Zeitung is a lecture for the wise and intellectual. And for the vitriol FOX is spreading against the poltiical enemy (I say enemy, not opponent), they would earn legal charges in many European countries time and again, for defamation, forging, and character assassination.
I do not say that other media sources are totally innocent. I say that FOX surpasses them in extreme rightwinged bias and distortion of journalistic strandards. I remember clearly we have had repeatedly threads over the past years that even showed FOX to forge picture material massively.
There must be a reason why even outside the US FOX has earned the questionable honour to be proverbially menmtioned as the prime example of bad journalism. Compared to it, even the Bild-Zeitung is a lecture for the wise and intellectual. And for the vitriol FOX is spreading against the poltiical enemy (I say enemy, not opponent), they would earn legal charges in many European countries time and again, for defamation, forging, and character assassination.
I'll give you a reason Sky. It's because the left wants to demonize the political opposition as much as possible and you Europeans lap it up like it was the nectar of the Gods.
But go ahead and believe what you want. If you believe links like you posted in the OP then nothing we could say would ever change your mind anyways.
Skybird
12-23-10, 12:21 PM
I'll give you a reason Sky. It's because the left wants to demonize the political opposition as much as possible
While the Republicans and the Tea Party around Palin of course never did something like that themselves.
and you Europeans lap it up like it was the nectar of the Gods.
Funny that I thought something like this, too: about you rightwinged Americans taking the lies and propaganda that suits you well like it was "the nectar of the Gods". when I watch at the big liars and controversies and scandals since let'S say the 60s, or even McCarthy, with Watergate, the Tonking incident, Irangate, Iraqgate 2003, then I must conclude that the more severe lies and scandals with bigger impolications and damage done to your nation and it's citizens, always has been caused by the rightwingers and the Republicans. Compared to that Bill's little Willy stunt and tax fraud, is harmless, and borders insignificance.
A reasonable relation of moral priorities is not the shining strength of the right. Which is once again proved by the way it is openly called for Assange's assassination, the condemnation of Wikileaks - and completely ignoring the massive frauds, conspiracies and/or treachery of the American government in a mutltitude of aspects that Cablegate is revealing.
What said Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now?
"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "f##k" on their airplanes because it's obscene!"
That's what such priorities in morals are indeed: obscene.
While the Republicans and the Tea Party around Palin of course never did something like that themselves.
I never said that but you always seem to only see one side of that coin and I believe it's deliberate.
CaptainHaplo
12-23-10, 04:33 PM
Herein lies the problem skybird...
The source you pointed to conducted a flawed survey - as demonstrated by the CBO changing their numbers on health care, the "liberal" news organizations showing how there was falsehood in the numbers of reported "saved jobs" as well as their admission that there was no way to determine the validity of any numbers claimed saved.
Further research shows the source to be funded by groups with a specific, political leaning to the left. Thus the outcome of their survey is biased in favor of their and their supporters views. The ranting comment is nothing more than a leftist spouting hatred and demonstratably false accusations regarding such things as the health care bill "reducing the deficit", etc. The survey set out, using incorrect foundational data, to demonstrate why the democrats lost a recent election.
Does this mean that Fox doesn't have a bias? No. But it also speaks volumes when the group must distort facts (as reported by ABC/CBS/NBC) to try and throw dirt on a political view they don't like.
This isn't about the bias of FOX. No one here has said that they are not biased. The problem is that the survey claims they lied about data when in fact review from FOX competitors and data from the CBO shows that the survey group in fact is the one lying.
So who is committing character assassination? Who, in this particular case, is right and who is wrong? Fox, for reporting correct data (albiet with spin)? Or the group who willfully sets out a "survey" based on "fact" that they know is fals, with the express purpose of claiming that FOX, talk radio, et al. are all a big group of liars?
I am not going to bash europeans, but I do think you fail to understand what the left in the US is all about. It can be summed up this way:
"We are the party of inclusion, we accept everyone - as long as you agree with us. If you don't then we will publicly assassinate your character, call you vile and rude things, and do all we can do drag you through the mud to keep you from ever having a discourse or being heard."
Don't think so? Then explain the hatred the mainstream media has for the Tea Party.
The few times that the Republicans have tried that it has had very little success. Mainly because the mainstream conservative would rather debate ideas and ideals than call someone names.
Skybird
12-23-10, 05:32 PM
What you write appears to be the classical case of a psychological projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection), Haplo.
Tribesman
12-23-10, 06:00 PM
"We are the party of inclusion, we accept everyone - as long as you agree with us. If you don't then we will publicly assassinate your character, call you vile and rude things, and do all we can do drag you through the mud to keep you from ever having a discourse or being heard."
That sounds exactly like the Bush campaign plan when he was running against McCain for the Republican nomination.
Don't think so?
It very easily demonstrated that it isn't so. You have to look no further than the Republican nominations.
Then explain the hatred the mainstream media has for the Tea Party.
The Tea Party(parties) is a varied and diverse grouping, very large segments of those groups and generally the loudest of those groups are clearly certifiable, it is the insanity of those lunatics
which leads to their widespread ridicule which you defensively define as hatred.
Pity would be a more apt word as we should surely pity the afflicted.
CaptainHaplo
12-23-10, 06:18 PM
Ahh Skybird...
So instead of disputing the facts that are laid out - you have to fall back on attacking the messenger. Perhaps I now have a mental disability because the facts (easily verifiable) do not fit your preferred view of reality?
Instead of trying to hide behind psychobable - why not discuss the facts as they are Skybird?
I laid out the same challenge to Mookie after he yelled "glen beck!", but it seems he either hasn't been around or cannot address the facts sufficiently to carry his arguement.
Can you?
Has logic and truth fallen so low in your esteem that its easier to suggest mental problems than it is to discourse and discern and refine your views using fact?
Apparently it has.
So what will it be? Will you accept the challenge and debate on fact, or will you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and go "LALALALALALALALALA" at the top of your lungs to avoid facing verifiable reality?
mookiemookie
12-23-10, 07:19 PM
I laid out the same challenge to Mookie after he yelled "glen beck!", but it seems he either hasn't been around or cannot address the facts sufficiently to carry his arguement.
Theres no more argument to make that I didn't already make in my other posts in this thread. Fox has been shown to be a mouthpiece for Republican strategists. The Sammon emails are damning evidence of such. Bringing up Glen Beck was just an aside.
Argue until you're blue in the face, but facts is facts....or "verifiable reality" as you say. When there's a whole Wikipedia page that's devoted to Fox News Channel controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies), the safe bet is that there's something to the accusations.
Webster
12-23-10, 09:11 PM
Herein lies the problem skybird...
.....
please dont show facts or proof of your point of view, it gets in the way of some peoples political ideals and agendas lol.
liberals never let facts or the truth get in the way of their beliefs :O:
Webster
12-23-10, 09:13 PM
Argue until you're blue in the face, but facts is facts....or "verifiable reality" as you say. When there's a whole Wikipedia page that's devoted to Fox News Channel controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies), the safe bet is that there's something to the accusations.
by your reasoning then since there are whole websites devoted to Obama being a Muslum and NOT being a US citizen then as you stated it must also be true that the safe bet is that there's something to those accusations.
CaptainHaplo
12-24-10, 12:11 AM
In other words mookie - you want to say that despite the facts that this survey is flawed, bias and misrepresents the truth, its ok because its target is FOX.
So you really don't care about facts, as long as you get to bash those who have a view you don't like. I haven't argued that Fox isn't biased, but you seem to think thats the point of the discussion - and its not. There hasn't been a defense of Fox, but hey, ABC even states how the Obama administration lied about "jobs saved", yet that doesn't even register in your mind. Who cares, just as long as you can bash anything on the "right".
Ignorance is bliss, and your choosing to be happy. Have fun with that....
This discussion is rather funny. MSNBC & CNN have been tools of the left for many years, but heaven forbid that the Conservatives get a large network TV news agency that supports their side. I can only guess that most posters forget when CNN stood for the Clinton News Network...
If you want a fair and mostly unbiased news source, listen to the BBC, that's what I do.
mookiemookie
12-24-10, 08:00 AM
by your reasoning then since there are whole websites devoted to Obama being a Muslum and NOT being a US citizen then as you stated it must also be true that the safe bet is that there's something to those accusations.
Sure, if you think some conspiracy theory farted out by a Freeper is the intellectual equivalent of a properly sourced encyclopedia article.
In other words mookie - you want to say that despite the facts that this survey is flawed, bias and misrepresents the truth, its ok because its target is FOX.
So you really don't care about facts, as long as you get to bash those who have a view you don't like. I haven't argued that Fox isn't biased, but you seem to think thats the point of the discussion - and its not. There hasn't been a defense of Fox, but hey, ABC even states how the Obama administration lied about "jobs saved", yet that doesn't even register in your mind. Who cares, just as long as you can bash anything on the "right".
Ignorance is bliss, and your choosing to be happy. Have fun with that....
I don't need this survey to prove that Fox News is biased, so it's irrelevant compared to the mountains of other evidence. So I really have no idea what point you're trying to argue, and I don't think you do either. I'm excusing myself from this whole thread, as I've made my point. Rail against someone else over....whatever it is that you've got stuck in your craw. I don't really have the time or inclination to figure out why you're so angry, so please find another punching bag to vent your outrage over.
Tribesman
12-24-10, 08:11 AM
Sure, if you think some conspiracy theory farted out by a Freeper is the intellectual equivalent of a properly sourced encyclopedia article.
Come on, some of those loony sites do have proper sources, they provide links and everything.
OK it must be said that the links will lead you to other loony sites which repeat claims taken from other loony sites which were long ago shown to be unquestionably false.
I don't really have the time or inclination to figure out why you're so angry, so please find another punching bag to vent your outrage over.
It doesn't take much thought to figure out.
Just an opinion from outsider:
Fox news is pathetic crap washing machine and what is this soap opera called GB show?
CaptainHaplo
12-24-10, 12:45 PM
Mookie,
If I have made you feel like a punching bag, I regret it. That was never my intent. I will leave it at that.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.