I bumped into a brief tirade of ignorance form a total moron who is called "Bill O-Reilly". I looked him up and found that he is on "Fox-News" who many people on SPCR have pointed out is essentially "a political TV channel" that distorts everything it mentions, now I know how much of an idiot he is, I came to the following conclusion quite rapidly. I his views are as distorted as I have seen, and the guy is on twice a day 5 days a week, the entire channel must be "God-Awful" (the G word inserted because they seem to be rather Christian with a Xenophobic edge), and Bill seems to be very rude and aggressive to anyone he disagrees with, and refuses to let the other party express their view at all as he constantly interupts, and has a particular knack of distorting and twisting peoples meanings - what an arsehole.

I seem to remember that someone on SPCR say they watch it for a bit of fun, and someone else watches it and then reverses the news "as reported" to get a real-world view. I have watched "Al-Jazeera - English", and I have to say that I was expecting a badly distorted view. I was surprised to discover that it's no-where near as bad as I was expecting, and when I compared it to "BBC News" or "Sky News", although they all have their slants and different takes, none of them are extreme, and none distort the news badly enough not to be considered an accurate news-channel, now all I need to find is someone with "Fox News" so I can sit down and watch that for a comparison.

It would be interesting to find out if Fox news in the UK is simply broadcast directly from America, or if a UK version is produced here, and ditto for "Al-Jazeera - English" in America.


Andy

As with all things in life consider the source:

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

It may frighten you to know that O'Reilly is the most sensible of that bunch.

Shortly some of Faux's advocates will stop by and explain how 2 wrongs make a right. When you see it you'll know what I mean.

Oh shit....... Thats not good news.

Currently the people who make these choices are evaluating whether News Corp is allowed to become the majority shareholder of BSkyB (British Sky), the main 2 arguments against are the basic and general assertion that few gigantic companies erode competition further and faster than otherwise, and the one that is more specific is specifically about news, i.e. who controls the news, and is there enough variation in the news to show a ballanced view overall. Example: If there were just 3 news "producers" one was left-wing, one central and one right-wing it would be fine, but then what happens if the left (or right, it doesnt make any difference) takes over the neutral news "producer" as is the main concern here with News Corp and Sky.

I am totally against it, from both points of view, however as Fox News is a tiny player in the UK market, most people dont experience their warped views (if indeed they have warped views in the UK), news has to be balanced as a whole - let the viewer chose the slant they want to watch.



I'm not frightened, I am stupefied.



Let them say what they want, so long as they dont try to defend "Bill", I am game.


Andy

[rant]
Bill is just using his right to free speech on a channel that is called fox news but doesn't do news anymore. Appart from that, fox news is not trying to control anyone (only those who challenge their integrity cuz remember, they're fair and balanced), they are open to all opinions (even more open to opinions that match theirs, and if you don't agree they'll ask someone to shoot you, or God will do it, He's on their side), they don't do journalism (which is fine because remember, they're not a news channel, it's just their name), and their hosts are quite smart (couldn't help it)....
[/rant]

I'm back to comedy central, it's just like fox news, but for people who understand the difference between humor and reality.

AJE is very biased on some topics, more so than the BBC I think. But it's a bias you can correct for because it's mostly editoriailizing and blowing things out of proportion. It's different than lying by omission, as the BBC sometimes does. AJE has the broadest coverage of any English global news channel so, if you can handle the bias and the focus on the Arab world, they're definitely recommended.


I gather AJE is not generally (if at all) available in the US (except through the web of course). They are critical of the US's foreign policy so broadcasting them would be "unpatriotic" I guess.

If you think O'Reilly is bad, just youtube "Glenn Beck". Then, to ruin your day further, wikipedia him and be horrified by how successful he is. Cap it all off by googling Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

I fear that America is in for some tough years ahead, because the conservative right - who at this point should be more appropriately called the reactionary right - is tripping to rip the country apart. The opposition that Barrack Obama has been facing, both in quality and quantity, is unprecedented. The backlash from the left against whatever Republican will be the next president will be proportionate. I don't think any society can survive this kind of divide in the long run.

Well if it worked for PT Barnum...

I disagree, only in the sense that it isn't any worse, just taken a different form. When Clinton was in office, 24-news channels were just coming into their own, but the editorial shows, had little prominence and the web certainly wasn't as prolific as it is now. I would say, adjusting for "inflation", what Clinton went through with the Lewinsky/impeachment was way worse, especially since it was such a focused opposition that was extended over a longer period of time.

And then there was Nixon...

But I think it would be a mistake to confuse the opposition that Obama faces with that of the some of the liberal leaders (Reid, Pelosi, et al). The vitriol directed at those leaders seems to be more intense, given that they don't have to suffer from the curse of having to "play to the middle" as a sitting president usually does.

Hey - I just have to wait 23 minutes to see the logical outcome of Rupert Murdoch et al taking over all the networks.

That's like saying adjusted for inflation there was more computer crime in 1897.



Both Clinton and Nixon had it coming. Both commited stupid acts and probably broke laws (one lied in court and the other was involved in obstructing justice).

Obama is regularly accused of being a Muslim, a foreign national and a communist through no fault of his own.



That is true.
But the intensity of the attacks against the president is unprecedented. It's a step up from the left-winged ridicule of Bush. And you just gotta wonder what the next step up will be.

An essential part of a democracy is to accept when candidates other than your favorite are winning and you have to accept them governing. The US is entering a system where the losing side of an election will do anything to prevent the winning side from governing and this then will be the end of a working democracy.

Just a side note.

Swap the word "US" with "Italy", and you suddenly get what mr. Silvio Berlusconi says everyday to his detractors.

To be perfectly frank, even if I am an italian not-left-winged person, I can't agree with our President altogether.

You may argue that maybe mr. Berlusconi is often accused of more tangible things, than being muslim/foreign/communist, but at least from a theoretical point of view (I thinks also by some more practical perspective) you may not be right thoroughly, Tim.

I don't know much about Italian politics. From what I gather, Berlusconi has been repeatedly charged with/accused of actual criminal behavior. It is essential for any democracy to defend itself against crooks in the government.

Obama is definitely an American citizen. Any presidential candidate is vetted carefully by the Secret Service, the NSA and who knows whom else.

Obama says he is a Christian. Aside from the matter that it is difficult to prove your religion, it is of no consequence to his job, as he is constitutionally required to carry out his office secularly.

Obama is most likely not a Communist. Besides the fact that it is difficult to prove he is or he is not, the term Communist is very judgemental in the USA. It doesn't simply mean left-winged or lover-of-Marx, it basically means: Anti-American. This is a leftover from 50 years of Cold War and the accompanying propaganda.

Nobody is trying to make a criminal case against Obama. These accusations are character attacks. They are meant to cripple his presidency in the short term, by rallying support against any governmental action he takes because it must surely be the deed of a Muslim America Hater. In the long term, it's meant to deny him a second term and to burn the Democratic party.

It is part of the strategy of neo-conservatists to outright alienate the third of the American people who would identify themselves as liberal.

The elemental reason and duty of politics is to settle the different, conflicting interests which come into play in a certain society.
If mr. Obama (but even mr. Berlusconi, with different aspects) shouldn't be able to compose a synthesis of "his third" of people's needs, with the other ones belonging to his "opponents", more probably that not we may complain about some politics barbarization, but not (IMO) about the overall guilt of (some) conservative people, as mr. Obama would have at any extent failed one of his primary missions.

About such a mr. O'Reilly, maybe I might report some savvy words by Thomas Jefferson: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.". So add "lobby groups" to "functionaries", watch a different TV channel, and you'll play (somewhat) safer.

Said that, broadly speaking Fox & Murdoch just sucks.

I have seen this in the UK recently, yes I will admit as a generally conservative supporter that I dont agree with all of their policies or descision, but they are still in power any no-one else can do a great deal about it without gigantic protests (think Egypt). My point here is that its all very well for the opposition political parties to have a go at the bunch in power, that is to be expected, it has been happenning for hundreds of years, what pisses me off are the "Trade Unions" being backed by certain political parties, there should be a "seperation of state and unions", as well as the long overdue "seperation of state and religion".

Anyway, back on topic.



I will take that as your "broad" opinion, but please add a little zest to your point.


Andy

Bill-O rules, how can you not love him? Whenever I need cheering up, I watch some funny clips of him ranting or questioning stuff. Recent favourite, how do the tides work?? Can't explain it!!! MEAN THEY NEVER MISS

Funny you should mention that, this was exactly the video clip that prompted me to create this post. There I was having a look at the FSM website for a laugh and I bumped into the video linked below.

http://www.venganza.org/2011/01/tides-are-proof-of-god/


Andy

http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/beh ... 2184.story

It speaks for itself.

Faux news at their best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYXWfLsQ6g

A classic Comedy Central rebuttal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAyCNxl8I54

Ah, emphasis on butt.

I personally believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a US citizen, but presidential candidate citizenship (or anything else) is not vetted by the Secret Service or the NSA. Each state is responsible to make sure that those who are on the ballot for president in that state is constitutionally qualified, and the Congress can also entertain objections regarding constitutional qualifications when the Electoral College convenes to vote. Presumably, the US Supreme Court could rule on this as well.

Whether Obama is a socialist or a communist has little to do with whether he is anti-American. It has to do with his beliefs about structure of the economy (government controlled vs free markets, etc). I don't think people are as naive as they were in the 1950's. Very few people in world (anymore) are completely for complete government control, or completely free markets with zero regulation, so this is always a matter of emphasis and application to specific circumstances and policies.


Again, it seems very naive to suggest that liberals are going to abandon Obama on the basis of claims about his religious or ethnic background. Liberals may have some doubts these days about his liberalism, but surely they already know about his background.

From ages six to ten, Obama lived and attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia (the largest Islam nation in the world), and was "exposed" to Islam by his step-father, a practicing Muslim. It seems just as foolish to deny this, as it does to make too much of it.

Personally, I think Obama is an atheist (or at least agnostic), but not sure why that is of paramount concern. Granted, there are some on the left or right who vote for candidates based on their religion, whether it be Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc, but most people vote based on policy matters (especially those that effect their own pocket-book).

Well considering anybody that even remotely does what Christ or Mother Teresa would do is quickly branded a socialist it may be best to take a more detached approach.

Of course if you hear God telling you to start a war then you're obviously a good Christian man. Or so the natives reason.

I meant any candidate is vetted before they can take office. Seems reasonable, as the president has the highest security clearance. At least that's what they said in "The West Wing"...


Not for you and not for me, but this is the Fox News thread and if you'd ask Glen Beck, he'd probably have a different opinion.


The character attacks are meant to dissuade independent/undecided voters from Obama.

No, there is no constitutional requirement for a person to be "vetted" before they can take office. The President elect is briefed on security matter before taking office, so it is possible that go through some sort of security clearance for that, although I would not bet money on it. In any event, if a President elect was to go through a security check in order to be briefed prior to taking office, then it would be by the FBI, not the Secret Service or the NSA.


One might believe that communism or socialism is not good for the USA, but that is a policy issue. This is not merely a knee jerk reaction, at least no more of a knee jerk than seems to be prevalent in this thread anytime someone mentions the words "Fox News" or "Glenn Beck."


The fact is that Obama lived in Indonesia from ages 6-10 living with his devoutly Muslim step-father. I think most people already know that. You may be right that some independent/undecided voters don't know that (one can speculate as to why that is case), but given that Obama has already been president for more than 2 years, it doesn't seem like a big issue anymore. At least not compared to the problems of the economy and the many unemployed in the USA, which is an issue that may take precedence even among many liberals when the next election comes around (if unemployment is still a problem in our economy 18 months from now).

Do you really live in the United States? At least on the East coast and in the South, "communist" is a curse in non-academic circles. I would hazard that most of my friends would not take it as such, but then, most of my friends are law students (and their spouses) these days. Virtually everyone else I speak to uses it as a curse.

Again, I'm wondering where in the USA you live and whether you ever talk to normal people. The majority of the electorate could not tell you Obama's mother was white, let alone where he lived for several years. They might know that Tiger Woods is half Vietnamese, but that is a stretch.

Edit: PS There are plenty of surveys demonstrating the second point, and the mis-information is growing over his presidency, not reducing. (In fact a recent study showed a clear majority of conservatives believe he is a Muslim.)

Edit 2: PPS this is not meant as an attack on your nationality, etc. I just find it shocking that you think such things are common knowledge.

Fox news is biased.

So is PBS, MSNBC, CNN, HNN, ABC, and NBC. Heck, even BBC does have some bias that I have noticed. The biggest mistake the "traditional media" makes is they ignore any story that doesn't support their viewpoint (make the president or a leading democrat look bad). Despite the problems with Fox news, at least they do give some balance to an extremely slanted tradional media outlet playing field. So bias by omission is probably the biggest sin.

As far as a new era of divisiveness, you would have to have a pretty short memory to forget the amount of opposition GW Bush faced during his 8-year term. Get back to me when there are thousands of pictures, websites, and messages about how stupid the president is, comparing him to a monkey, to Hitler, to whatever. Let's not forget the dramatic production "the Assasination of George W Bush" or the movie about his Asssassination, or the movie that game out from Oliver Stone that painted him in an unfavorable light DURING HIS PRESIDENCY.

The worst part is, if you oppose Obama, you are automatically labeled as a racist reguardless of the validity of your arguments. To me, that is a cheap tactic; void of reason or rationality.

The difference is, no one thought Bush the younger was a monkey. He just looks funny. And says some really silly stuff. Every time I think of the "We have a saying back in Texas, fool me once..." quote I grin. You would have to be incredibly defensive to not find that funny.

And if you think PBS is biased, you clearly don't watch it (which, I know, could be contorted into a counter-argument). NPR is also amazing. My favorite NPR commentator is conservative David Brooks. He makes some interesting, logical arguments, and does not need to stoop to name calling or down-right rudeness to make good points.

In fact, I have never seen an act of rudeness to any guest, for any reason (except for one case where Gene Simmons picked a fight with Terry Gross). I cannot speak for any other channel, but I see Fox news on in airports and restaurants, and rarely sit fifteen minutes without seeing a guest being put down or mocked, or interrupted beyond any ability to comment. They also seem to select weak guests, but perhaps it is because reasonable guests don't appear after one worthless attempt.

On NPR, when John Boehner was on a few weeks ago, the interviewer told him that the White House and the budget office had stated a certain figure for the financial impact of a certain bill, while Boehner was using a very different figure. The interviewer asked for an explanation for the difference, Boehner gave one, and that was it. It was not a debate, he was not interrupted, and no one was accused of anything. Whether you buy the explanation he gave (which, franky, was mostly hand waving), he got to say his piece. Where is that on Fox?
Edit: By hand waving, I mean there was little substance. There may be substance, but Boehner was cleary not used to speaking in specifics during interviews. Few politicians are

I guess my point is, where do all of the logical conservatives get their news? Because it is not Fox. I could not stand watching five minutes of Fox any more that I could stand watching five minutes of CNN. They are both just a lot of garbage.
Edit 2: I actually know many well informed and quite logical conservatives who either listen to NPR or forgo all major news media (using the internet, instead).

Thanks for the thoughtful reply- I like the way you argued points instead of just calling me stupid or something.

To be honest, I really don't watch FN much. I've probably seen 2 hours in the last month, when I'm in the gym. I get much of my information from "Fox News Radio" local affiliate which is right of center but not too extreme if you look at the hosts they have. I also view a lot of traditional sources, and use my filter. I think a degree of skepticism is appropriate for just about any source of information.

Perhaps I wasn't fair to PBS. I have watched a couple documentaries on PBS about socialism in Europen Countries- which I found kind of interesting.

I think NPR was actually who I was thinking of in reguards to bias, but they are not the same as PBS I understand.

Still, despite what you've said, I'm not really convinced that it's worse now than it was 5 years ago. And yes, I did get a chuckle about Bush and his fool me once thing. I'd like to say that one side is perpetrating this national fued, but that would be dishonest. The difference would be if one side were to say "hey, lets not be so devicive and mean spirited", and you look at how they have been acting in the previous 2 years, it makes you go . I am always happy to see when someone gets called out and is made to answer the tough questions. It's cool that Boehner did that- when is someone going to ask Nancy Pelosi some tough questions?

I came in here thinking I was going to defend Fox News, but really that's like defending GW. You agree with some of their principles, but their actions not as much. I really can't (won't?) defend Bill O'Reily because he's crazy, I don't watch Glenn Beck because he's too theatrical for me (and I'm at work when he's on). What's the point? Every news source is biased to some degree, and FN hardly seems to run news much anymore.

Oh you're far too modest with your definition. Communist is used today by republican extremists the same way men referred to certain women as witches back in the notorious days of Salem, MA.

On Faux it is used to dismiss any opponent, with any argument, that can't be addressed with facts. It's a catch all.

The interesting thing about is neither China nor Russia ever managed to achieve a true communist government. Socialist at best, with a handful of old men running the show. Hey that's no different than the US, is it?


There are more fun things to do in life than to absorb propaganda on Faux.
Sticking forks in my eyes comes to mind.


CNN is a parody of a news station to beginning with.
Picture Alfred E Neumann, "What? Me a journalist?"

I echo your pleasure in finding civil discourse. I feel like that is really what is lacking these days. The voices we hear don't seem to recognize that nobody (okay, 0.001% body) is out to run the country/world/universe into the ground. And the other side is not a bunch of mindless sheep. I don't see how compromise is possible if no one actually respects one another.

I try to picture myself negotiating with a child, a dog, or a wolf. None sound likely to end in compromise. And it probably would not help if they knew what I thought of them

I don't mean that one side or the other is the "problem", but more that we are letting a few loonies run the show. Let's all take a deep breath

Edit: Oh, and my favorite part of NPR and PBS is actually the non-political fascinating stories/documentaries/interviews.

It is a curse because communism has historically been associated with countries that have poor economic growth, and totalitarian governments (in every case where it has been tried). These are the facts, and not a knee jerk irrational reaction to the word "communism." It is like when you call someone a rapist, it is bad because they rape people, not just because the word rapist has a bad connotation apart from the behavior of the rapist.


I am not sure what surveys you are talking about. Obama was a practicing Muslim during the time he lived in Indonesia (age 6-10), although at that age, he was probably not a Muslim at his own free will. He now claims to be a Christian, but I doubt that (not that I think he is now a Muslim, but more likely an atheist or agnostic). His wife is definitely a practicing Christian.

I not sure you are an authority on these matters, since Tiger Woods is 50% Thai-Chinese, 25% African, 12.5% Caucasian (white as you call it), and 12.5% Native American Indian.

It has been well-documented in this forum (in other off-topic threads) that Fox News and the other cable "News" networks are mostly opinion talk shows now and not much news. This applies to Fox News, CNN (Cable News Network), CNN Headline News (ironically the worst in terms of lack of news or even news headlines anymore), MSNBC, etc.

OK, so they all changed their format and only have a little bit of news, mostly now just opinion talk shows, but none of them have changed their name. Maybe it is time for everyone to just get over it, and realize that their is not much news anymore on any of these networks, and the opinion talk shows are scheduled to drive ratings, not to provide objective news reporting.

Oh, no way! There was far more socialism in the U.S. -- not to mention northern Europe -- than there ever was in the Soviet Union or China. In fact there was pretty much no socialism at all in those two countries. There was 'nationalization' of industry, but without democracy it was meaningless in terms of socialism. All it was in Rusiia was essentially a single monopolistic corporation, the actual embodiment of the fulfillment of completely unregulated capitalism.

One of the great problems is how poorly those words "communism" and "socialism" are understood. Socialism is essentially a synonym for democracy. If you have a true democracy you will inevitably have a great deal of socialism (although here in the U.S., while we do have some, it could more accurately be called a "corporatocracy", where the government seems to exist to a large extent for the benefit of corporate interests.)

In the first half of the 20th century, states and political parties incorporated "Socialism" into their names to appear idealistic. Thus you had the National Socialist Party (Nazis) of Germany, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In both cases the word was meaningless, (although the Soviets intended to kind of stagger towards it at the starting gate before becoming completely lost.)