FoxNews-Telling lies?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Pelly-Welly, Dec 10, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    People on a quest for the whole story is always a good movement.
  2. Crix-Madine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 7, 2000
    star 4
    CNN, as a largely bias and anti-American station, have betrayed the trust of the American people.

    ROTFLMFAO

    No other string of words has amused me more.

    CNN an anti-American station? Betrayed the trust of the American people? Where are you digging this up, are you working for the falafel man himself or what?

    Study communications and the industry, then you might dig up a clue Sherlock.
  3. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    A poignant article, I would think.


    But they won?t see it, because they refuse to look. The problem with the left is that our whole model of changing opinions?that contrary facts will alter people?s views?is inherently flawed. Mundane, oafish Americans, in a national competition to see how many $3.99 ?support our troops? ribbon magnets they can fit onto the backs of their Suburbans, simply aren?t interested in reality. These people won?t be convinced of any upsetting facts that they can avoid thinking about, or can stave off with the crude set of official denials and made-up stories the White House provides for them and the press dutifully parrots. Let?s face it; there is a sizable chunk of the population who deny the validity of evolution?evolution. Who are we kidding, thinking we can make them see the errors in Social Security privatization?

    People don?t think much; they?re far more interested in feeling. God and country feel good; corruption and war crimes don?t. So when we see pictures of our soldiers engaged in less-than-admirable conduct, ?values voters? cry out?against the reporters who brought it to our attention, who had the audacity to burst our imperial bubble. How dare these liberal media elites violate our right to not know?



  4. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    . Mundane, oafish Americans, in a national competition to see how many $3.99 ?support our troops? ribbon magnets they can fit onto the backs of their Suburbans, simply aren?t interested in reality.

    Typical leftist elitist crap. Can't they come up with a new playbook? This one's gettin' old...
  5. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I don't believe these people have any agenda. If you look at their list of loathesome people they bash anyone and everyone.


    BTW, did you read the whole article? Typical of a connie, comment on one thing and then discard the rest. I can just see it now, a Republican supporter with their fingers in their ears, "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
  6. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Typical of a connie, comment on one thing and then discard the rest.

    See my last post. ;)
  7. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Of course. Although I find it funny you want 'truth' in your media but disregard it when you see something you don't like.
  8. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Actually, your link won't load.
  9. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I don't know what started this latest exchange between you two, but come on FID, is that article really fair either?

    The problem with the left is that our whole model of changing opinions?that contrary facts will alter people?s views?is inherently flawed.

    Contrary facts? So, just because a fact is contrary, doesn't mean it is any more accurate than another.

    If I run down the street yelling "THE SKY IS PURPLE! THE SKY IS PURPLE!"

    That's definately contrary, but does that make me an intellectual liberal, or a raving lunatic?

    Maybe people are best served by ignoring my dillusional rantings in that case..

    Mundane, oafish Americans, in a national competition to see how many $3.99 ?support our troops? ribbon magnets they can fit onto the backs of their Suburbans, simply aren?t interested in reality.

    As you say, sticking your fingers in you ears and going "LA LA" may be bad, but I don't consider it any worse than incorrectly sterotyping those who don't agree with you.

  10. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    I missed what this was supposed to illustrate..

    If the accepted truth is that Iraq deserves freedom, and news outlets were supporting that during the Iraq war, would it be slanted or factual?

    Based your above illustration, I see what your answer would be.


    So certain are you? All liberals agree that Iraqis deserve freedom. But at all costs, including their death and ours? And whether we delivered freedom or chaos followed by more tyranny is the question in many minds.
  11. Vaderbait Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2001
    star 6
    If the accepted truth is that Iraq deserves freedom, and news outlets were supporting that during the Iraq war, would it be slanted or factual?


    To sort of butt in: I think that we need a balance. The problem is is that "if it bleeds it leads" is dooming the military mission if nothing else. There ARE positive stories in Iraq, but the obsession with anti-war stories is disturbing.

    For instance: a few nights ago my local news was running their news cap at the end of an hour. THey talked for about 30-50 seconds about a hostage taken, then, in their next "segment", said a single sentence about us capturing Zarqawi's assassin and propogandist, then went back to another minute segment on the same hostage.

    What are they trying to say? That there's no story to be told about what we're getting? I heard a 30 second report on the captures on the radio in quick news updates than they covered.

    The liberals may be right about Iraq being VIetnam in one regard:

    We can win the war militarily, but lose it in the public eye. The liberals have missed no chance not only to differ with the war, but to cast it as some ultra-evil plot by Bush to take over the world that will always fail no matter what, which most moderates (even those who disagree with the war) disagree with. Most normal thinking people don't view Bush as some demon hellbent on domination. That is dangerous, because they seem to WANT the war to fail, just so they can get their guys in office. But, that's politics I guess...just sad...
  12. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Jabba-wocky said...As for other comments in this thread, it seems nonsensical. You are concluding that the American left-wing is influencing the media not to report the abuse of Iraqis by other countries because not doing so makes America look bad?

    Dunno if you noticed, but the rest of the world sits to the left of the US. So it is fair to say their news reporting is to the left of American news.

    But on to the issue at hand. In the second place, I have to say that it has never been a goal, spoken or unspoken, of the American political left, to "make America look bad." If they were really serious about being anti-American, they wouldn't, well, be American.

    Sure they would. They hate us but love our money and power. So they stay American while trying to redefine what that means.

    Whereas, it is an acknowledged position of the american left to oppose the war in Iraq. One way to bolster their position is to show its problems. All we have to do is acknowledge that any abuse scandal reflects poorly on the occupation, since it wouldn't have happened if there'd been no invasion to begin with. Therefore, the left would actually benefit from showing the other abuse scandals and hyping them up. Since there not, then obviously this isn't some big liberal conspiracy.

    By showing the other scandels America would not be singled out as the bad guy in need of a leadership change. So, CNN sticks to the "American" scandel.

    While all but ignoring the UN Oil-for-Food scandel.

    In the third, and final place, you should remember that when the American abuse scandal came out, the media recieved a lot of criticism from the right, saying they were unfairly tarnishing the military's reputation, and that they were "isolated incidents," etc.

    All the while ignoring American heads rolling down the street. Remember, that was happening at the same time. Real "Fair and Balanced."

    After the first few days, they said that the media should stop making such a big deal out of it. It seems strange that now people are fussing about their compliance.

    Just compliant about other countries crap and just reporting ours.

    Now if you'll indulge me, read today's O'Rielly.

    He sums it up better than I.
  13. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Blast.

    I tried to respond, but my thing timed out by the time I finished my post, so I lost the whole thing. I'll try again when I build up the energy. Sorry about that.

    Basic topics to be covered:

    1. Iraq Scandals v Insurgent Action
    2. Media Coverage & Bias
    3. My Reaction to the O'Reilly Commentary
  14. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    Fox pushes a conservative agenda far beyond what conservatives cite as liberal " bias " in network television. Are Republicans still that pissed off that CBS grilled Nixon? And by the way this IS a liberal country, and secular too, for that matter. All these arguments in all these threads are based on false pretenses that were swinging right and arent a secular nation. Not true at all. We enjoy so much that we take it for granted and have the luxury ( and privlege ) of being able to label OURSELVES without any reprecussions. We may be 80% Christian, but we arent governed by the bible, as some Islamic countries are by the Koran. As much as I want to just let the Middle East rot without getting anymore GI's killed, they ARE a very archaic and unenlightened society. This is in response to the ridiculous notion posted above that the rest of the world is to the left of US. Thats not true. And another thing - you dont think even under the label of Republican, that the Bush Administration ISNT big goverment? Thats another ridiculous notion. Just because he cuts taxes as well as social programs doesnt mean his cabal isnt perpetuating a big goverment. Patriot Act? John Ashcroft? Be careful what you wish for conservatives, because you just might get it.
  15. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    As promised, here is my renewed attempt at response. The website shouldn?t time out my log in, this time. Thanks for veering with me J-Rod. And we?re off.

    All the while ignoring American heads rolling down the street.

    I must admit to never understanding what people wanted in this regard. It was already understood that these were bad people, and that they were thought poorly of by the rest of the world. I mean, how would this even work? We have already ?declared war? on them, and spent billions of dollars over the last few years promising to hunt and kill these people. The man responsible for the most prominent of the beheadings has since been deputized by the man responsible for the single most devastating terrorists attack in history. It is not really possible to generate more outrage against this group. Even if it were, there would be nothing more to do about it. So what would be the point of sensationalizing this, other than just giving a platform for people to spew bitterness, aggression, and hate against them? While people need to work through their emotions, and the feelings people hold against the jihadists are certainly justified in many cases, simply hosting hate speech is never very productive.

    On the other hand, how does this make an interesting news story? Abu Ghraib was shocking and scandalous because it was the opposite of what people expected the US military to do. That made it surprising and interesting. By contrast, consider the story of the beheadings. They are jihadists who promised to wage war on us, and went about doing exactly that. They are extremists who tried to express their views in an extreme way. There is nothing surprising about that. It?s what people would assume to be the case. That would be like reporting that it was wet in the ocean.

    On a broader note, I don?t even understand how this relates to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. I find the argument that surrounding ?democratic? nations put their own citizens through even harsher abuse in prisons. I don?t doubt that it?s true, but I fail to see its relevance. Regardless of what other people do or have done, what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong. Period. The fact that others have done worse doesn?t make our own crimes any better?it just makes theirs worse. People?s lives were damaged by that abuse, and they have a reason to be angry. The world has reason to be outraged. We should take the criticism, and be responsible for our own actions. Also, remember that this failing was especially grave, considering the claims the Americans made when we entered Iraq.

    Whining about how people hold our wrongs against us is pointless and unproductive. It?s not as if we don?t deserve the criticism. You take it, move on, and try to improve in the future. It?s expected that people might try to hold on to the negative impression of you for awhile, but that?s how humans are?we operate based on past experiences. It would be much better to work on genuinely improving their opinion of us than fussing at them to stop criticizing us about our very real faults and mistakes at Abu Ghraib.

    By showing the other scandals America would not be singled out as the bad guy in need of a leadership change.

    If I understand the proposition of ?liberal media bias? correctly, it?s not that there is a formal conspiracy, but simply that many social liberals go into journalism and related fields, so that the news get a leftward slant. If that?s the case, I would remind you that liberal ideology is opposed to the war first, and its supporters second. By your logic, they only get to make an attack on the invasion?s supporters, and then only implicitly. Yet, by showing more scandals, they would expose more problems, thus attacking the war directly. Why would they choose the more indirect, ineffective assault on a secondary target?

    I would suggest to you that there are tremendous problems with news coverage. For decades on end, people have criticized it. Famous authors (Bradbury, I think, though may be getting confused with Sturgeon or someone)
  16. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    Lets not forget that Turner is a racist capatilist about two steps out of the segregationist ideology. Ted Turner Field indeed. How about Henry Aaron Field? All of a sudden this guy represents the left? He marries Jane Fonda, so he must be a commie, right? Except that Fonda is so far removed from her " Hanoi " Jane days it isnt even funny.

    His news station is called liberal by Fox, and thats it, and we are supposed to take it as truth? This is just one of O'Reilly attempts, in accords to defending Murdochs' station, to show that he is an independent -fair and balanced, which he isnt.

    There will be no more stereotyping. If you can't post in a respectful manner, don't.
  17. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Just compliant about other countries crap and just reporting ours.

    Now if you'll indulge me, read today's O'Rielly.

    He sums it up better than I.


    He'd have a point if America's post 9/11 mania wasn't temporary. Our obsession with self pride, vengeance and alien demonization, a natural reaction to the tragedy, has lined the pockets of all those willing to profit from it, including the sitting president as well as Mr. OReilly. But this brief period in American history will be followed by a long, long period of sober foreign policy and passing the global tests set before us. It was a short lived and bloody experiment which proved a failure for the broader goals of the Project of a New American Century. America's influence on the world wanes with each day, and because South America, Asia, and the European Union form lasting ventures in the shaping of the global landscape, 2008 will be a year of playing catch up.
  18. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    I hope your right Hopkins.
  19. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Jabba-wocky said...How does this make them un-American?

    People on both sides are always trying to redefine what it means to be American. If the meaning of American weren?t redefined at some point, we?d be stuck very quickly with an anachronistic, unworkable, society. The founders of the country both expected and accommodated for dissenting opinions. I don?t think its wise to label dissenters to any particular issue as ?anti-American? just because they disagree about some number of issues, and are trying to convince other?s that their position is correct.


    Yes, the media and some Dems are anti-American.

    Yesterday, just 3 days before the Iraqi elections, Kennedy makes a public call for immediately removing 12,000 of our troops and a puplic plan for total troop removal.

    Now, why would he make a statement like this 3 days from an election that those troops will be protecting?

    Why would he make a threatened populus that is scared to vote even more insecure by calling for a troop removal? Can he want a poor voter turn out? Couldn't these remarks wait just 4 days?

    Why hasn't the news called him on this irresponsible timing?

    'Cause they all want Iraq to fail. 'Cause they are...anti-American.

    And why did Trent Lott get so much coverage and loose his majority leadership for telling a dying man on his 100th birthday that he would have been a great president?

    Then former Klansman Robert Byrd a few months before uses the "N" word not once but twice on one of those live Sunday morning news shows. No one says anything and his spokeswoman says "He was very tired."

    Crap! Crap and bias.
  20. cal_silverstar Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2002
    star 4
    Then former Klansman Robert Byrd a few months before uses the "N" word not once but twice on one of those live Sunday morning news shows. No one says anything and his spokeswoman says "He was very tired."

    He's a Democrat, therefore he gets a pass. Only conservatives can be racists.;)

    In a semi-related note; 550AM KFYI, has been the # 1 radio station in the Pheonix area now for the last two ratings cycles. They carry Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh

    If one of your AM stations carries Michael Savage, it would trump those guys.
  21. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    1100 AM carries Savage. Good show, but he's a little too...angry...for my tastes.
  22. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Yes, the media and some Dems are anti-American.

    If you want to make that assertion, go ahead. I merely pointed out that the evidence you originally offered to support it was both faulty and dangerous. Even if they were all moles for North Korea, the ousted Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden himself, it wouldn't be appropriate to say that they were anti-American for "trying to redefine [what being American] means." That's the point I wanted to make.

    However, I will now address the media/Ted Kennedy concerns.

    Now, why would he make a statement like this 3 days from an election that those troops will be protecting?

    He'd been invited to give a speech, as I understand it. Politicians often use these type of opportunities to make soap-box speeches and attract attention. President Bush has done it before, as has many others on both sides of the aisle. Now, given that one doesn't get these kinds of invitations every day, it wasn't really his choice. He decided that that was the thing that he wanted to push, and it so happened that the speech landed on that day. I don't see why its a big deal.

    Yes, the timing is unfortunate, but he didn't schedule the event, as I understand. And futher, I think its better to make a speech like that as part of a prior speaking engagement than to call a whole press conference specifically to attack something.

    But even if we assume all this is somehow inaccurate or faulty, then we've still only concluded that Kennedy wants US efforts in Iraq to fail. That doesn't equal being anti-American. That equals wanting a policy initiative to fail. And it stems from disagreeing with the policy in the first place. It's done all the time, and is expected. Further, we should note that if he truly wanted to see the Iraq invasion fail, there are plenty of illegal things he could do to actually increase the likely hood of failure, instead of just giving speeches that express his disapproval with the policy (which, really, is all he's ever done).

    So any way you cut it, I'm not seeing how you're coming up with "Ted Kennedy is anti-American." Basically the guy's whole family has dedicated themselves to public service, sporting a roster that even includes a President. People with enough prestige and money to run successfully and repeatedly for political office usually have enough prestige and money to be doing something that would be netting them a higher income. That he's given that up to serve his country as a public official doesn't say "anti-American" to me. It speaks, instead, of someone who disagrees strongly with the current direction of the country and cares enough to fight to see it, in his eyes "corrected." That's a kind of love, at least. Perhaps misguided, but far from the hate you suggest by saying "anti-American."

    And why did Trent Lott get so much coverage and loose his majority leadership for telling a dying man on his 100th birthday that he would have been a great president?

    In the first place, Lott lost his majority leadership primarily because of all the coverage. So to list them as separate incidents doesn't really make sense.

    But let me review this Trent Lott issue. My formulation on this is very simple. Throughout time, various organizations or people try come to be associated with certain ideologies or policies. They often encourage this tendency themselves. For instance, James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" organization is about well, focusing on the family. You don't join it to focus on trans-siberian wildlife migration, you join it to focus on "family." Or again, the Green Party. You don't join it to be pro-industrialization. It obviously has a stronger focus on environmental issues.

    Now, as I said before, individuals can also became forever linked to certain ideologies. Martin Luther King Jr is only percieved as representing non-violence, despite the fact that he supported a wide variety of issues. Dr. Kevorkian is forever known for his assisted suicide programs. One would not say, "I want Dr Kevorkian to be my primary care physician" if all th
  23. cal_silverstar Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2002
    star 4
    1100 AM carries Savage. Good show, but he's a little too...angry...for my tastes

    It's that anger that appeals to me. Guess that makes me a Sith.
  24. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    But even if we assume all this is somehow inaccurate or faulty, then we've still only concluded that Kennedy wants US efforts in Iraq to fail. That doesn't equal being anti-American.

    Not agreeing with being there doesn't make you anti-American. True.

    But we are there. That debate is over. You guys seem to forget that.

    We are there, our troops are in harms way. They are fighting for the freedom of 50,000,000 people. Some are dying, more are being crippled and disfigured.

    But we are fighting for freedom, as that was the choice that was made. To wish for failure or to even interfere with success does, indeed, make you anti-American.

    Now, I think that what Byrd did as just as wrong. I feel both are/were old time racists whose repentance from their old ways was/is somewhat dubious. And I don't think the way the media handled Byrd was right. But regardless of that, Lott very much deserved what he got. I can assure you of that.

    I agree with you about Lott being forced to step down. But it shows the bias I was talking about. Hell, most people don't even know Byrd was a member of the KKK, much less that he still uses the "N" word. Media bias.

    I think your issue is that you can't spot bias. You think if it agrees with you it must be unbias.

    For instance, could a Republican president say,"That depends on what your definision of 'is' is." at an impeachment trial and not be held accountable by you or the press?
  25. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    To wish for failure or to even interfere with success does, indeed, make you anti-American.

    I could just as easily say that to blindly persist in failure trying not to acknowledge you made a mistake is just as "anti-American."
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.