Gotta love Faux News

[frenchie]

Just 3 things :
- being a good journalist DOES require good training but it is also a skill (not everyone can be a good journalist no matter how hard they try).
- call yourself fair and balanced all day long and eventually people will start believing you, whether you're a news broadcast, O'reilly (who does call himself fair and balanced btw), Colbert, or Barney. And inviting "liberals" (for O'reilly) or "conservatives" (for Colbert) to make fun of them does not really qualify as open-mindness
- it is interesting to hear everyone's point of view on a topic, as long as it stays civilized

[snip]Rupert Murdoch has way outspent George Soros and anybody else on his multi media propaganda campaign, and has absolutely no way or desire of hiding this fact. "Some say...." is a journalistic farce. Some say there are little green men on Mars. Yeah, so?

+1
When a news agency has a single owner, not matter what people say, he is the boss, so you'd better "report" what he tells you to "report" !

[m0002a]

Just 3 things :
- being a good journalist DOES require good training but it is also a skill (not everyone can be a good journalist no matter how hard they try).

Who said anything about being a "good" journalist? There are many professions that require both education and natural ability to be good at.

- call yourself fair and balanced all day long and eventually people will start believing you, whether you're a news broadcast, O'reilly (who does call himself fair and balanced btw), Colbert, or Barney. And inviting "liberals" (for O'reilly) or "conservatives" (for Colbert) to make fun of them does not really qualify as open-mindness

Again, you are confusing terms. Whether you think an individual is open-minded has nothing to do with being "fair and balanced". A closed-minded host may invite those with opposing views on his show for debate, and both host and guest are not likely to change each other's minds, but at least the on-air opinions are balanced. Of course, what you consider to be "open-minded" really means someone who agrees with your point of view (same for conservatives).

- it is interesting to hear everyone's point of view on a topic, as long as it stays civilized

Yes, but why then are so many opposed to hearing conservative points of view when virtually all the other networks are liberal? The attacks against Fox are not substantive discussions of the issues, but an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

When a news agency has a single owner, not matter what people say, he is the boss, so you'd better "report" what he tells you to "report" !

News Corp is a publicly traded company listed on US and Australian stock markets (NASDAQ: NWS, NWSA; ASX: NWS, NWSLV). Maybe if you and George got enough money together you could buy News Corporation (I believe that the Murdoch family controls less than 40% of the company shares)?

Besides, many news organizations such as the NY Times, Washington Post, etc have been privately held or closely held for much of their existence. Did that bother you also? Most of the major TV news organizations besides Fox are well know to have a liberal bias, regardless of who owns them. There is more unanimity among subjectivists than their name would suggest.

[NeilBlanchard]

Why did Megyn Kelly say that nobody of Fox News has ever called anybody a Nazi? Is she right, or have they called people Nazis over and over and over?

She is a news reporter.

[m0002a]

Why did Megyn Kelly say that nobody of Fox News has ever called anybody a Nazi? Is she right, or have they called people Nazis over and over and over?

She is a news reporter.

Are you talking about news reporters on Fox calling people Nazi's, or people (hosts and guests) who appear on opinion/talk shows on the Fox News channel? I am sure that many hosts/guests have called people Nazi's all the time. I am also sure that reporters on Fox have reported about others who called people Nazi's (not necessarily while appearing on Fox).

Democratic Congressman Cohen gave a speech on the floor of the House and called people Nazi's who opposed Obama's health care reform. I am sure that was reported on Fox News.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/2 ... 11774.html

As I tried to explain, just because a show appears on Fox News Channel, does not make it a news show, nor does it make the hosts part of the news organization. Same applies to people like Joy Behar, etc, who has a show on CNN Headline News.

[NeilBlanchard]

Megyn Kelly said flat out that *nobody* on Fox News (the company) called people Nazis, ever.

[aristide1]

Using their tactics, that's another story.

[m0002a]

Megyn Kelly said flat out that *nobody* on Fox News (the company) called people Nazis, ever.

I assume that she meant that no one part of Fox News organization called anyone a Nazi. I don't believe that she was referring to hosts and/or guests that appear on the Fox News Network talk/opinion shows (who are not part of Fox News organization). After all, there was coverage on Fox of the Congressman Cohen remarks where he called people Nazi's because they opposed Obama's health care program. BTW, there is no such company as "Fox News."

You seem (deliberately) incapable of distinguishing the fact that all the cable new networks (CNN, CNN HLN, MSNBC, etc) started out as news channels (some of them 24x7 news), but they have all evolved into networks where a substantial amount (or most) of programming is now talk/opinion. No one would claim that Joy Behar is a CNN news person, just because she has a show on CNN Headline News channel.

It is ironic that those who appear to be most critical of Fox News Channel are also guilty of the most distortions of the truth, whether News Corporation (parent of Fox News Channel) is owned by a single person, or what one of their reporters actually meant when discussing the "Nazi" thing.

One thing bothers me however. In addtion to Democratic Congressman Cohen, Jerry Seinfeld called someone a soup Nazi (who is actually a real person) and no one seems upset over that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soup_Nazi

[frenchie]

I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with my point !

Who said anything about being a "good" journalist? There are many professions that require both education and natural ability to be good at.

I just assumed that any news network (CNN, Fox...) would want quality (good if you prefer) journalists to cover their topics, that's all.

Again, you are confusing terms. Whether you think an individual is open-minded has nothing to do with being "fair and balanced". A closed-minded host may invite those with opposing views on his show for debate, and both host and guest are not likely to change each other's minds, but at least the on-air opinions are balanced. Of course, what you consider to be "open-minded" really means someone who agrees with your point of view (same for conservatives).

That's again not what I think, you're putting words in my mouth ! An open minded person will discuss issues with another person in a polite manner, out of curiosity, geniune interest.

Yes, but why then are so many opposed to hearing conservative points of view when virtually all the other networks are liberal? The attacks against Fox are not substantive discussions of the issues, but an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Fact : I don't understand how people can have conservative points of view. That's out of the way. Do I want their means of expression to be censored, of course not ! I just want networks (liberals or conservative) who call themselves "news" channels, to do news. If you don't do news, that makes you a liar !
I don't think people realize the power of the media within a certain population that cannot balance truth from fiction, that takes everything they hear for granted. That's not a statement aimed at the american people specifically, but at all the people who do not have access to an education that allows them to make up their minds and make their own decisions. A lot of people who see a finger pointed at someone, will point their fingers at that person even before asking why the first finger was pointed.

News Corp is a publicly traded company listed on US and Australian stock markets (NASDAQ: NWS, NWSA; ASX: NWS, NWSLV). Maybe if you and George got enough money together you could buy News Corporation (I believe that the Murdoch family controls less than 40% of the company shares)?

Ever owned 40% of a multi million dollar corporation ? Neither have I, but I know it does give you a LOT of power.

Besides, many news organizations such as the NY Times, Washington Post, etc have been privately held or closely held for much of their existence. Did that bother you also? Most of the major TV news organizations besides Fox are well know to have a liberal bias, regardless of who owns them. There is more unanimity among subjectivists than their name would suggest.

Yes it does bother me. That's why I never stick to one source when I want some real information.

[aristide1]

When exactly does the "2 wrongs don't make a right" thing get through to you?

Fair & balanced answer: never.

[m0002a]

Fact : I don't understand how people can have conservative points of view. That's out of the way. Do I want their means of expression to be censored, of course not ! I just want networks (liberals or conservative) who call themselves "news" channels, to do news. If you don't do news, that makes you a liar !

So CNN, CNN HLN, etc are also liars? I think that is taking it too far and serves no purpose. One should just understand the historical background of these Cable News Channels, and realize that, although they started out as news channels with only professional journalists, they have all evolved into something different, and not even morons think that the talk/opinion shows are hard news, or that any kind of journalistic fairness is going be observed during those shows.

Believe it or not, ESPN stands for Entertainment and Sports Programming Network, because when they first started in the late 1970's they did not believe it would be possible to have enough sports programming to show 24x7. Of course, they now have sports only on about 5 different channels in the US alone (and others outside the US). So it does happen that cable channels evolve in their content, but don't change their names. Get over it !!!

I don't think people realize the power of the media within a certain population that cannot balance truth from fiction, that takes everything they hear for granted. That's not a statement aimed at the american people specifically, but at all the people who do not have access to an education that allows them to make up their minds and make their own decisions. A lot of people who see a finger pointed at someone, will point their fingers at that person even before asking why the first finger was pointed.

It is quite quaint to believe that people are conservative because they are brainwashed by Fox. I think people are a lot more sophisticated than you believe, and there are thousands of news outlets on the Internet and TV were people can get information. This is a far cry from a few decades ago where the media and information was controlled by a 3 commercial networks and some closely held newspapers (like the NY Times).

Ever owned 40% of a multi million dollar corporation ? Neither have I, but I know it does give you a LOT of power.

I responded to the claim (propaganda you probably received from some of the biased news sources you listen to) that News Corp (parent of Fox News Channel) was owned by one man. Even though 40% is a lot of shares, you and George S could buy the other 60% if you wanted to and dethrone him as Chairman and CEO. I think your fear is that those who are conservative are brainwashed by Fox. I think if you look at US elections before Fox News Channel existed, you will see there were a lot of conservatives back when only liberals controlled the media. Anyway, I don't believe people are as easily brainwashed as you may believe.

[m0002a]

When exactly does the "2 wrongs don't make a right" thing get through to you?

Fair & balanced answer: never.

1. I think people are smart enough to know when a particular segment is news, or when it is opinion. However, it is probably better if people realize that all information is subject to bias, even if it is "news" delivered by hard-core professional journalists, and regardless of the name of the TV channel.

2. I don't recall you being upset about CNN, or CNN Headline News (and the fact thay they are at least 80% talk/opinion instead of news these days), or that Olbermann did not have guests with opposing views on his show, so for that reason, I sense some lack of fairness and balance in your posts on this subject.

[aristide1]

I don't recall you being upset about CNN, or CNN Headline News, or that Olbermann did not have guests with opposing views on his show, so for that reason, I sense some lack of fairness and balance in your posts on this subject

When they verbally claim they are F&B I will get as "upset".

Actually it's quite amusing, and of all the people and places that have no regard for Faux it is ruthlessly and totally slain by the Comedy Channel, of all places.

Will you ever stop wasting electricity?

Never.

[m0002a]

When they verbally claim they are F&B I will get as "upset".

It is the hard news journalistic shows on Fox that claim to be fair and balanced, not the opinion shows (although some like Oreilly who regulary have people with opposing views may feel that their opinion shows are balanced also). But don't you think that CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC think they are fair and balanced in their news also? If you asked them, I am sure they would say they are fair and balanced, so I don't buy your huff and puff indignation about what Fox News says about the fairness of their news broadcasts.

Actually it's quite amusing, and of all the people and places that have no regard for Faux it is ruthlessly and totally slain by the Comedy Channel, of all places.

I am glad you enjoy it. But that is completely irrelevant to a rational discussion on the subject.

Will you ever stop wasting electricity? Never.

I rarely watch TV news or opinion shows (not even Fox), unless something major happens like 9/11. And I don't do folding@home, so I am quite careful with the amount of electricity I use.

[ces]

aristide1

I think you are missing the point. This isn't about logic. It isn't about truth.

Some large portion of the US population has been hoodwinked into voting against the economic and political interests of themselves, their families and their children.

There is actually some research that a portion of this is genetic. Apparently some portion of the population is genetically predisposed toward conservative ideology and another portion towards progressive ideology.

This wasn't part of the research, but it seems to me that the conservative group is predisposed toward aggression as well. You just don't see that right wing "hatey, killy, reloady, crosshairsy" messaging come out of progressive radio that you see coming from right wing radio.... not from the hosts and not from the callers. In my opinion, mendaciousness and self deception are also a part and parcel of the conservative mentality. How do you argue with someone who lies and then believes their own lies.

For example I heard a plumber complaining that he was going to layoff employees if he didn't get a tax cut. No he won't. He will hire as many plumbers as it takes to do the business he gets. If he doesn't, no one cares because the plumber down the block will hire them and do the business. He is lying to himself and believing it.

I had an identical dialog with my brother in law. When I explained the irrationality of what he was saying, his response was then just for spite he would fire one of his employees to make it true. He won't or he if he does, he will just have to hire an replacement. He is a surgeon. He is not stupid... but neither is he susceptible to logic that leads where he doesn't want to go.

It is said that people get the government they deserve. Sad to say, you and I are getting the government that they deserve. Not much we can do about it.

Why don't you just leave m0002a to talk to himself. Trying to argue with him is sort of like that old saw about "trying to teach a pig how to fly."

If you really want to do something, contribute some money to the most extreme, loony right wing crackpot likely to run for President in 2012. That used to be Palin, but somehow she has become mainstream... but there must be someone out there goofier than her. Support that man or woman.

Just my two cents. Keep up the good fight.

Always remember
• “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Josef Paul Goebbels
• “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” Josef Paul Goebbels
• "Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character” Josef Paul Goebbels
• Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" Albert Einstein

[aristide1]

+1

[m0002a]

I don't see any intellectual discusssion in either of the last two posts, just a bunch of name calling.

[ces]

"I don't see any intellectual discusssion (sic) in either of the last two posts, just a bunch of name calling."

I don't think that is exactly true. I think it would be more accurately characterized as "mockery".

[m0002a]

I don't think that is exactly true. I think it would be more accurately characterized as "mockery".

Mockery? Perhaps. But you promised much more with your taking Conservatives to task for being anti-rational and anti-intellectual. Let's review some of your comments (or quotes of others):

"Some large portion of the US population has been hoodwinked into voting against the economic and political interests of themselves, there families and their children."

"some portion of the population is genetically predisposed toward conservative ideology and another portion towards progressive ideology"

"mendaciousness and self deception are also a part and parcel of the conservative mentality"

"He [your brother-in-law] is not stupid... but neither is he susceptible to logic"

"Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character” [as you quoted] Josef Paul Goebbels

Given the above, I would have thought you would have enlightened us with rational arguments, instead of name-calling and hyperbole (such as "trying to teach a pig how to fly"). Or what you call mockery.

BTW, you seem to be claiming some sort of intellectual superiority in noting with "sic" that I misspelled a word. Misspelled works are common on a forum like this, and I notice that you didn't make any mention of the numerous misspellings of others in this thread who happen to agree with you on political matters. I think the reason for that is quite clear, and that it is the same kind of inconsistent application of standards against Fox News compared to all the other similar cable networks that is the major discussion of this thread. Inconsistency and partisanship are part and parcel of the your argument, as opposed to rational discussion of the issues. BTW, I notice you originally typed "payoff" instead of "layoff," but edited your response to fix the problem. I knew what you meant and would not have been petty enough to mention it in one of my posts.

In summary, we are not actually discussing any liberal/progressive vs conservative issues, we are only discussing whether particular cable channels are predominately liberal/progressive or conservative, or whether they are fair and balanced (but necessarily objective). The fixation on that subject, as opposed to actual discussion of issues, seems very anti-intellectual and anti-rational to me. The obsession with Fox News Channel seems like some kind of genetically inherited problem to me (just kidding).

[ces]

I think it is time to close this thread down.

[aristide1]

I second that, it's not like it will be reported on Faux.