[Verbose]

Shinrei, on 09 September 2009 - 02:23 PM, said:

It's a travesty that it is only party A and party B. We should have C, D, E and so on. These days, it could not be clearer that both party A and party B are self-serving clunges.

The problem with that idea is that a political party is there to be elected. It means that for the most part, politicians can't actually state their opinions because their actual opinion will alienate some voters and the misquoting and paraphrasing of their opinion by others will alienate other voters. A very small number will respect them for stating their opinion but if you don't agree with it, you aren't going to vote for them just because they're honest about something you disagree with.

It doesn't hurt that we tend to divide things into dichotomies because they're simple to understand. In my country, the two dominant political parties are essentially the same from a functional perspective and have been since the late seventies. They don't even really claim to be different, mostly they just complain about the other side and whoever has the more charismatic politician is ahead of the game. So parties A and B are clearly self-serving, but so are C, D, E and the rest. If they're not self-serving, they simply won't win. People generally don't agree with every aspect of the Party Line when they vote - ideally the vote for the most desirable of their choices. If individual politicians were honest about their aims, they wouldn't receive support from the party because they're alienating voters and aren't leaving themselves room to negotiate later when it's time to trade preferences and support.

Democracy is not a political system that is ever going to please the majority of people. It's mostly about being the least objectionable.

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 27 September 2009 - 08:33 AM, said:

I'll keep going through more of their stuff later, but they CLEARLY have an agenda against Fox, and are in business to pick them apart. What I'm looking for here are true LIES Reading through all the headlines here, all I'm seeing are attacks for what they consider to be hypocrisy from different Fox Commentators - not reporters, but people whose job it is to offer opinion.

You're using a very strict definition of a lie here. I would imagine it's something along the lines of a deliberate and direct statement that is known to be contrary to the facts. The problem is that the best way to lie is to just spin the truth hard enough. If I get woefully drunk on Wednesday and call my employer on Thursday to say that I can't come in today because I feel absolutely terrible, I've already thrown up a couple of times and I feel very queasy, then I haven't said anything untrue. It's still functionally a lie because I am knowingly presenting some of the facts in such a way as to deliberately present an image that is false. If you're clever and a little creative, you can manipulate truths to say nearly anything at all.

I'll use an example from an Australian "news show", Today Tonight, from sometime in '07. For context, Today Tonight is one of those shows which never claims to be the news but they do everything they can to mimic the news - sitting behind a desk, a formal and serious anchor, reporters and stories. One of their reporters (I believe his name is Nicholas Boot) did a story on a nursing home where he interviewed a resident who felt like she was being kept like a prisoner. The elderly woman was chained to a chair during the interview, although at no point were the chains addressed. Some time after the event, it was revealed (by a rival "news show", if memory serves) that Mr. Boot had brought the chains himself. I believe the explanation was that he did so to symbolise the feelings of the woman being interviewed. Now, strictly speaking, there were no lies in the story. Nobody claimed that the nursing home chained the old woman to her chair. The old woman's assertions that she felt like a prisoner were undoubtedly true. Mr. Boot was fired and a public apology was issued only after they were directly attacked by a similar programme and newspapers starting running the story.

By the strict definition, they didn't lie. At all. Of course, the impression they created was incredibly alien to the truth and subsequent investigations showed that the nursing home wasn't doing anything illegal. Had it not been in the competing show's interest to uncover this, nothing would have been said. Both of the shows are known, quietly, to harass people with accusations for a length of time but only show the segment where the victim has had enough and is simply trying to escape the cameras because it makes the victim look guilty. They don't claim to be the news, however, and they're careful to avoid lying in the strictest sense of the word. They are still despicable and not remotely truthful.

I am given to understand that this is more the accusation being levelled against Fox News. Not that they deliberately and knowingly say untrue things but that they are very careful to construct all stories so as to present the information in a very biased light. I wouldn't know since I can't stomach the audience manipulation in Australian news, which is much less sensational than American news.

[Morgoth]

I just came across this link

http://www.huffingto...r=1#slide_image

Which has a list of 10 direct lies from foxnew.

Or so its claimed, you can check it out and see whether you agree with their interpretation of what is a lie. For the most part I certainly do.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 25 October 2009 - 09:13 PM

[masan's saddle]

Morgoth, on 25 October 2009 - 09:13 PM, said:

I just came across this link

http://www.huffingto...r=1#slide_image

Which has a list of 10 direct lies from foxnew.

Or so its claimed, you can check it out and see whether you agree with their interpretation of what is a lie. For the most part I certainly do.

Nice link Morgoth.

The phrase " Economical with the truth" springs to mind.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

This is why I think so many young people in the States actually watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report for news content. Their bias is well known, but there's no fun to be had by joking about stuff that didn't happen, so the only fabrications or exaggerations to be had are for obvious humorous purpose. AND there's probably no more than 5 minutes of gags to be had over a single item. Unlike watching a 24 hour news network and having 3 minutes of reporting and 10-15 of interpretation.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Morgoth, on 25 October 2009 - 09:13 PM, said:

I just came across this link

http://www.huffingto...r=1#slide_image

Which has a list of 10 direct lies from foxnew.

Or so its claimed, you can check it out and see whether you agree with their interpretation of what is a lie. For the most part I certainly do.

1. Biden was claimed to have made the statement "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" in march of 09. In actuality, he was quoting McCain in a campaign speech back in 08. Presented as part of a collage of administration officials saying the economy is looking up during the timeframe actually indicated. If it was done on purpose, I'd say it had little to no effect on the overall presentation. May have been a mistake? IDK

2. FOX clipped Obama's quote to, "why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?" When in fact what he said was, "Now, the question is, if you're going to fix it, why not do a universal health care system like the European countries? I actually want a universal health care system; that is our goal." Doesn't sound much different to me. He says here that he wants a universal health care system; not whether or not it'd be based on Europe's, but universal care none the less. Right? But the article (the one attacking FOX) goes on to say, " As Media Matters for America has documented, numerous media figures and outlets have falsely claimed Obama has proposed "nationalized" health care -- something Obama has not proposed either as a candidate or as president." Now who's lying? Looks like media matters for America did - they frickin' contradicted themselves in the same story!

3. They say Megyn Kelly accused Sotomayor of reverse racism. What she said was, "that sounds to a lot of people like reverse racism, that latina judges are obviously better than white male judges". At the time there WERE a lot of people who took that view. I took the quote by Sotomayor the same way. As did my Puerto Rican wife and mother-in-law. I'll guarantee you, THEY don't let anyone do their thinking for them. Kelly did not accuse her of racism, though. Listen to what she said. She goes on to say more and offer more quotes from Sotomayor, but no where does she offer any more opinion than that her statements would be "problematic". It is, in fact, the ABC commentator/journalist, whatever, who interprets/ad libs Sotomayor's words. Note that Kelly's discussion was with a democratic congressman, while the ABC correspondent's was with Diane Sawyer.

4. Quoted from the source linked in your link, "The instance came on this afternoon's edition of Fox News' Happening Now, in a segment on the stimulus package that was preceded by the following introduction by host Jon Scott: "We thought we'd take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew." Note, please, the introduction of this segment with the active verb "we thought," as if what followed came out of some organic newsgathering process, founded by a genuine curiosity for how the stimulus package "grew and grew." As opposed to: "A press release from the Senate Republican Communications Center today highlights the escalating top line cost of the stimulus package," which would have been a less disingenuous way to introduce the segment." Anyone for splitting hairs? Cause I'm tired of doing it. C'mon, man. It was a friggin' PRESS RELEASE! They probably checked to validate the quotes from the various sources provided & ran it. All the quotes were spot on. The ONLY mistake was not catching the date of the last quote. If you made desks, and another desk manufacturer offered you some free desks to sell as your own, would you? This one's ridiculous, to say the least.

Sorry, I'm tired of researching these for now. Guess I'll pick it up later.

[Morgoth]

I'm just running through quick, but universal healthcare and public health care is not the same thing, though it's possible to have both

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

FOX clipped Obama's quote to, "why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?" When in fact what he said was, "Now, the question is, if you're going to fix it, why not do a universal health care system like the European countries? I actually want a universal health care system; that is our goal."

Universal = universal. In his words. I've heard at least 2-3 other clips of him saying he wants universal/single payer, etc. Saying those are the goal. Then he sees how many people flip about it & he tries to waffle here & there. I'm just saying. In all honesty, I think he's TRYING to do everything he said he would. Except the transparency part. And the bipartisan part...

[cerveza_fiesta]

Quote

You're using a very strict definition of a lie here. I would imagineit's something along the lines of a deliberate and direct statementthat is known to be contrary to the facts. The problem is that the bestway to lie is to just spin the truth hard enough. If I get woefullydrunk on Wednesday and call my employer on Thursday to say that I can'tcome in today because I feel absolutely terrible, I've already thrownup a couple of times and I feel very queasy, then I haven't saidanything untrue. It's still functionally a lie because I am knowinglypresenting some of the facts in such a way as to deliberately presentan image that is false. If you're clever and a little creative, you canmanipulate truths to say nearly anything at all.

I'll use an example from an Australian "news show", Today Tonight, fromsometime in '07. For context, Today Tonight is one of those shows whichnever claims to be the news but they do everything they can to mimicthe news - sitting behind a desk, a formal and serious anchor,reporters and stories. One of their reporters (I believe his name isNicholas Boot) did a story on a nursing home where he interviewed aresident who felt like she was being kept like a prisoner. The elderlywoman was chained to a chair during the interview, although at no pointwere the chains addressed. Some time after the event, it was revealed(by a rival "news show", if memory serves) that Mr. Boot had broughtthe chains himself. I believe the explanation was that he did so tosymbolise the feelings of the woman being interviewed. Now, strictlyspeaking, there were no lies in the story. Nobody claimed that thenursing home chained the old woman to her chair. The old woman'sassertions that she felt like a prisoner were undoubtedly true. Mr.Boot was fired and a public apology was issued only after they were directly attacked by a similar programme and newspapers starting running the story.

By the strict definition, they didn't lie. At all. Of course, theimpression they created was incredibly alien to the truth andsubsequent investigations showed that the nursing home wasn't doinganything illegal. Had it not been in the competing show's interest touncover this, nothing would have been said. Both of the shows areknown, quietly, to harass people with accusations for a length of timebut only show the segment where the victim has had enough and is simplytrying to escape the cameras because it makes the victim look guilty.They don't claim to be the news, however, and they're careful to avoidlying in the strictest sense of the word. They are still despicable andnot remotely truthful.

I am given to understand that this is more the accusation beinglevelled against Fox News. Not that they deliberately and knowingly sayuntrue things but that they are very careful to construct all storiesso as to present the information in a very biased light. I wouldn'tknow since I can't stomach the audience manipulation in Australiannews, which is much less sensational than American news.

To get away from hair splitting...I couldn't agree more with the above. I was going to say something similar, but this does a better job.

Outright lying....Fox probably does very very little. Outright lies are too easy to rip the piss out of.

If you spin so strongly that the interpretation of a statement is completely apart from its original meaning, you still have the truth to fall back on when it comes to a discussion like the last few pages with GGG, Morgoth et. al.

That's why its so difficult to find an outright lie and GGG is absolutely correct. Fox isn't specifically lying. In fact, I'd guess that their only true 100% "lies" are actually mistakes. Neither is MSNBC or CNN...they are just wording statements in way that leads viewers to agree with their point of view.

It reminds me of a few weeks back when the daily show pointed out a perfect example - The opinion poll on Fox, CNN, MSNBC....all of em.

Basically, the opinion poll is a quick text-in, call-in or select-a-box online yes/no poll for a given issue. For example, Fox asks "do you think that abortions should be legal"....they go to a commercial break and come back, then show the poll results on-air. Lo and behold 95% of respondents take the typical conservative stance and say "no". Nothing untruthful was reported. I'm sure they are reporting exactly the proportion of yes/no answers that they received.

The above style of poll reporting however says nothing about the randomness of the sample base. Because the poll question is being asked on-air or online from the Fox news source, only people consuming FOx's media are going to know that they can respond. I think its fair to say that most people watching FOX do so because they agree with the points of view expressed in the newscasts. All that you prove with a poll like this is that 95% of your viewers agree with the anchorman/woman.

The result is that a fox news anchor can state an opinion on the issue like "I think abortions should be illegal" then say "95% of respondents say that no, abortions should not be legal". It lends validity to his statement because it is suddenly proven that a large portion of his viewers agree with what he said.

The problem is the distinction between "respondents" and "people". The way the poll results are used to support the host's argument, it is as though a random polling of average americans produced the result that americans think abortions should be illegal. By using the word "respondent" and implying "average american" they are misrepresenting the sample base and skewing the statistic strongly in their favour. The psychological effect is that a viewer hears something on the news, is told that a shitload of people agree, and is persuaded by the strength of the masses.

Its the same with editing presidential / couric / whoever's quotes to remove context from the statement until it implies something different. They anchor isn't saying anything specifically false, he just reporting the small portion of the quote that best favours his point of view.

They are reporting half truth as full ones and I find it reprehensible.

BTW, I used Fox above cause I don't like them personally, but I realise CNN, and MSNBC, etc... all do the exact same thing.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 27 October 2009 - 02:06 PM

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

The bias to each has been well established. I just have a hard time understanding what exactly makes people "hate" FOX so much. As in that clip of Obama discussed above, what they did in cropping his statement took away nothing from it, added nothing to it. He said he wanted universal health care, that's what they presented, that he wanted universal health care. I prefer FOX, but don't hate MSNBC or CNN. I watch them all, to be honest. I just have a hard time watching Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews and Ed. Their actual news people on MSNBC I can watch. I can watch all the peeps on CNN w/o anger. I disagree with some things they say, but I do so with FOX also. It's the hate towards the right leaning network that confuses me. Why?

This post has been edited by Grand Goombah Graeld: 27 October 2009 - 06:19 PM

[Morgoth]

surfing through westeros.org, I found this post by a member named Shryke in the US politics thread. Hardly an objective poster, but it shows parts of what we've been complaining about before:

Shryke, on Oct 25 2009, 17.20, said:

Here's a smattering of Fox News's best:

They've fought (and won) a case setting the precedent that "the intentional falsification of the news" is legal.

Here's 10 of their "Greatest Hits"

Here they are intentionally distorting the pictures of other journalists who said bad things about them. Giving them yellow teeth, bigger noses, and various other things to make them look more hideous.

Here's one of their favorite tactics: Intentionally Mislabelling "Republicans" as "Democrats" when these Republicans are doing something horrible 1 2 3

And here's just a smattering of stupidity in a big collage. (I think "National Healthcare: Breeding Ground for Terror?" is my favorite)

Turns out one of the links is the same one I posted earlier

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Morgoth, on 27 October 2009 - 06:28 PM, said:

surfing through westeros.org, I found this post by a member named Shryke in the US politics thread. Hardly an objective poster, but it shows parts of what we've been complaining about before:

Shryke, on Oct 25 2009, 17.20, said:

Here's a smattering of Fox News's best:

They've fought (and won) a case setting the precedent that "the intentional falsification of the news" is legal.

Here's 10 of their "Greatest Hits"

Here they are intentionally distorting the pictures of other journalists who said bad things about them. Giving them yellow teeth, bigger noses, and various other things to make them look more hideous.

Here's one of their favorite tactics: Intentionally Mislabelling "Republicans" as "Democrats" when these Republicans are doing something horrible 1 2 3

And here's just a smattering of stupidity in a big collage. (I think "National Healthcare: Breeding Ground for Terror?" is my favorite)

Turns out one of the links is the same one I posted earlier

The precedent one was an affiliate in florida, not FNC. We've went over some of the "10 greatest hits". The distorted pics, to me, seems a bit false. I really don't see them doing that & would have to have it shown in real time, not just as 2 pics - either pic coulda easily been photo-chopped. I think we went over the possibility that they may occasionally make mistakes. Mislabeling those guys couldn't have been that could it? No, you're probably right. We should expect absolute perfection from them, but no one else. It's not like any anchors or commentators on other channels go interviewing Jesse Jackson & call him Al Sharpton while looking at him, right? As for that collage, a bigger case of stuff being taken out of context I've never seen. And you people accuse FOX of distorting what people say & do? There's what, like 50-100 screen shots pulled to look as damning as possible with absolutely NO context. If they're all so bad, wouldn't it be better to provide the context rather than letting people's imaginations do that? C'mon, man. Did you even look at all that crap? Please.

[cerveza_fiesta]

GGG, I agree with you on the "top ten" lists and also have a hard time giving credibility to their claims.

The folks who make the anti-FOX sites are trying to find specific irrefutable examples of lying and dis-(or was it mis)-inormation to lend credibility to their argument that FOX is a bunch of lying shitbags.

I think that certainly what most FOX-haters are railing against is the overall tone and heavy heavy use of spin, along with the complete hypocricy of their slogan. FOX purports to be "fair and balanced". If they changed their slogan to "fair if you're a conservatively minded fellow" then nobody would have an issue. Its clear from the outset that you're watching a show that is going to report the conservative point of view.

By saying they are "fair and balanced" they completely mislead the viewer. Fair and Balanced to me means that a given report will be free of spin and that opinions on both liberal and conservative sides of an issue will be give equal (read balanced) weight in an environment where both sides are allowed to speak freely (read fair). The viewer is led to believe that they are seeing is a report upon which they can make an informed opinion for themselves. "We report you decide" is just as problematic, because it implies that the reporting on FOX gives the viewer enough information to form that independent opinon.

Watching an 1/2 hour of FOX, during its more political and business oriented segments, its clear that the reporters and pundits are not feeding information , they are feeding a prefab opinion to the viewer. This is fundamentally different from what their slogans suggest and is my major problem with FOX. They are not presenting information, they are pushing a point of view. It's become a platform for conservative propaganda more than an information feed. Its not specifically reporting lies, but it is a long way from reporting truths and facts.

That brings me back to my point in the OP. I notice it very clearly with FOX, since I would classify myself as liberal. I don't notice it as much on the liberal networks, I guess because I'm liberal and I happen to agree with liberal propaganda. So according to GGG the liberal networks are just as bad from a conservative person's point of view. Would anybody else agree with that statment?

[Jusentantaka]

cerveza_fiesta, on 28 October 2009 - 03:08 PM, said:

That brings me back to my point in the OP. I notice it very clearly with FOX, since I would classify myself as liberal. I don't notice it as much on the liberal networks, I guess because I'm liberal and I happen to agree with liberal propaganda. So according to GGG the liberal networks are just as bad from a conservative person's point of view. Would anybody else agree with that statment?

It really depends how conservative you are. If you don't see the obvious hypocrisy and other less savory stuff fox plays up as what it is, of course anyone who calls them on it is going to be evil liberal hippy comuno-socio-facist-terrorists.

I used to (read - when Clinton was still in his first term) think of myself as conservative. I mean, Bush the 1st was far from the worst president ever, and I grew up in a midwestern hell of a town surrounded by white farmers who actually worked their land (mostly), so, when in Rome... Back then, it seemed that there was a bias from liberal media towards conservative policies. But the NYTimes is a legitimate publication, they dont regularly make stuff up to fill a headline, so its just a case of how a story is presented. Made me think "Eh, ok. You didnt flabulate all over me or spit into the air while you were talking, and I see how what you say might be good, but the other way is better"

And then that great deciding moment in modern american politics happened. No, not september 11th. No, not probable election fraud. A blowjob, with an ugly woman. And then it seemed the republicans lost touch with their paternal old-man politics and became focused entirely on sabotaging democrats, denying homosexuals rights and raging about abortion. And now, terrorism.

And so everything went all upsideways and stopped making sense. Now talking heads are one year saying that criticizing the president is treason, and the next that it is every american's duty to do so. And FOX laps it up with their vapid cow-eyed newsanchors parroting their speeches and it just makes no sense. At the same time, traditionally (and still) moderate publications are being lumped in with the leftist-of-the-left of pubs by modern 'conservatives' and called the 'liberal media', and so, what is true about some is now true about everyone just because they said so.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 28 October 2009 - 05:56 PM

[Obdigore]

The biggest problem I have with Fox news, and I said this in a different thread back before the move, is that some republicans say they are being slandered by the 'left leaning Fox News.' Just how far to the right do you need to be to consider Fox News a leftist organisation?

In other news, I pretty much only watch the Daily Show and Colbert report, because although they are somewhat leftist, they will take the time to lambast both parties when they can. It seems to be that Colbert is actually a republican who is taking the right wing to task for catering to the far-right instead of the middle, which is something like 60-70% of the population.

I wont go deeply into my view of the two-party system and the current politics in the US at this time, however it seems that the easiest way of getting elected is to fillibust and roadblock everything the other party attempts to do, then use 'your' news sources to show how they aren't doing anything.

Obdigore for Emperor of the US, watch things change.

[King Lear]

I don't like Fox.
But that's because I'm liberal/Greeny/socialist/whatever. And because in my youth I watched some sort of interview with some Arab guy where the reporter seemed to confuse hard hitting questions with being damn rude and interrupting.

Has anyone else Al-Jazeera? I don't watch it enough to make any sort of real critical commentary on it, but it's what I watch when I want international news.
For NZ national news I stick to blogs and watch the TV news/read the Herald for mild entertainment or irritation.

[blackzoid]

http://www.mediaite....age-daily-show/




"Call it Bachmann Tea-Party Overdrive: Last night Jon Stewart and the Daily Show staff revealed something remarkable: That in his coverage of Michele Bachmann’s so-called “Superbowl of Freedom” last weekend in D.C., Sean Hannity used footage of Glenn Beck’s 9/12 event to make the Bachmann rally look bigger. By a factor of thousands.

“If I didn’t know any better I’d think they just put two days together and acted like they didn’t,” said host Jon Stewart, before going on to present video evidence that that was precisely what they did — including Hannity exclaiming over how many people cared enough about freedom to come down to be heard on a Thursday. Er, Saturday. When is the Superbowl again?

It’s really blatant and remarkable and thank God they were watching, because this sort of misrepresentation is simply not an accident. And, to the point made by the White House about Fox not being a news organization — well, a news organization does not sub footage of a bigger, better attended rally in for footage of a smaller, less attended rally in order to make the latter rally look bigger. That falls under the category of “producer whipping up the crowd for the camera” and for which that producer was “disciplined” for the “mistake” and about which an internal Fox standards email was subsequently sent. As our colleague Zeke Turner put it back then: “When somebody comes to you, as a journalist, for information and allows you to control their field of vision, it’s expected that you’ll turn your lens on the truth. Not an augmented or altered version of the truth.”

This is an augmented and altered version of the truth. One wonders if the rebuke from Fox to the other networks for not adequately covering this huge and momentous occasion would have been next. Watch this footage."


A pretty damning piece of evidence.

[Shinrei]

Sean Hannity


However, as it has been said, Hannity is not a newscaster for fox. He is a conservative talk show host. While that does not excuse what was done on his show, (hell, nothing excuse anything done on that windbag's show) that wasn't the actual fox news team that did the video swapping.

[HoosierDaddy]

And yet, you can say the same thing for ANY thing on that show that is from one of their employees. The moment they themselves report something they didn't see or research, they are basically "commenting" on the news and are thus "commentators." But, there is a difference between outright fraudulent statements, and twisting something factual. That was fraudulent commentary.

[Shinrei]

I agree it was fraudulent, but am just saying there's a difference between it coming from a gaseous windbag commentator that no one should be watching anyways, and an actual news team.

[Morgoth]

sooo.. how many hours do fox have of actual news and how many hours do they have of shows like hanity's and talking-groups? If you were to guess the percentage