Originally posted by PaulKTFAnyone who thinks that either individual side is biased whille the other side is fair and balanced is being deluded by their ideology and/or the propaganda coming from their own side of the asile.
Both MSNBC and Fox regularly lie, spin, and distort the facts to fit their specific agendas.
I'll just give 2 off the top of my head. Obama's India trip cost $200 million/day and Shirley Sherrod is a racist who denies federal farm aid to white people.
The other 999,998 I'll save for when Hannity says something that's actually true.
Originally posted by MossI'll just give 2 off the top of my head. Obama's India trip cost $200 million/day and Shirley Sherrod is a racist who denies federal farm aid to white people.
Can you actually tie these to a Fox News broadcast/broadcaster and not somebody commenting on a blog on their web site?
Originally posted by MossI'll just give 2 off the top of my head. Obama's India trip cost $200 million/day and Shirley Sherrod is a racist who denies federal farm aid to white people.
Can you actually tie these to a Fox News broadcast/broadcaster and not somebody commenting on a blog on their web site?
(So it's not a million, then?)
Partison-based cable news network bashing and facts don't (often) mix.
Originally posted by MossI'll just give 2 off the top of my head. Obama's India trip cost $200 million/day and Shirley Sherrod is a racist who denies federal farm aid to white people.
Can you actually tie these to a Fox News broadcast/broadcaster and not somebody commenting on a blog on their web site?
Originally posted by MossI'll just give 2 off the top of my head. Obama's India trip cost $200 million/day and Shirley Sherrod is a racist who denies federal farm aid to white people.
Can you actually tie these to a Fox News broadcast/broadcaster and not somebody commenting on a blog on their web site?
From this clip, it seems that almost all of Fox News is reporting the $200 million a day (or MORE) figure.
OK, from that clip I see that Huckabee, Hannity and Beck all broached the number. Of course, if you play the "journalists vs. commentators" game, they're all commentators, and it sure sounded like a lot of those were hedged with "rumoured" or "is it?"
(Now, I have no idea who that Fox Business guy is, so I can't explain away THAT clip...except to say I DID say Fox News and not Fox Business ;-) )
So...good try? :)
EDIT: Looking back, I DID say "broadcaster" up there as opposed to making any journalist/commentator distinctions, and you certainly did give me some examples...via The Daily Show, sure, but still...I feel fine NOT making the leap to "all of Fox News" based on that clip.
Since I'm being extra weasally, let me add that I ALSO have a hunch that if The Daily Show can't bring the goods, Moss can't either. (Similarly, I doubt the Shirley Sherrod claim has any "proof" behind it either.)
Originally posted by CRZOK, from that clip I see that Huckabee, Hannity and Beck all broached the number. Of course, if you play the "journalists vs. commentators" game, they're all commentators, and it sure sounded like a lot of those were hedged with "rumoured" or "is it?"
(Now, I have no idea who that Fox Business guy is, so I can't explain away THAT clip...except to say I DID say Fox News and not Fox Business ;-) )
So...good try? :)
EDIT: Looking back, I DID say "broadcaster" up there as opposed to making any journalist/commentator distinctions, and you certainly did give me some examples...via The Daily Show, sure, but still...I feel fine NOT making the leap to "all of Fox News" based on that clip.
Since I'm being extra weasally, let me add that I ALSO have a hunch that if The Daily Show can't bring the goods, Moss can't either. (Similarly, I doubt the Shirley Sherrod claim has any "proof" behind it either.)
(edited by CRZ on 11.11.10 1711)
I have no idea who most of those people were, other than Beck, as I don't watch any news cable channel (not counting The Weather channel), so I do apologize on the broadcaster/commentator front since it it appears to be all commentators.
I guess this is the crux of the tread, but being a straight broadcaster/news reader or opinion/commentator, shouldn't both be held to the same standards for getting their facts straight? If bloggers can be sued for libel for printing false things, don't commentators have to worry about slander for the same reasons?
Plenty of examples of "news" reports on Fox News about the story are included in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW5MKiETSrU My favorite is the guy who says that they didn't take the quotes out of context; it's just that they used the racist part.
Don't bother with your facts, I'm sure CRZ will just come in and say "those aren't examples of Fox personalities with 3 vowels in their name that was said on a Tuesday where the date was a prime number- so they don't count."
Originally posted by MossDon't bother with your facts, I'm sure CRZ will just come in and say "those aren't examples of Fox personalities with 3 vowels in their name that was said on a Tuesday where the date was a prime number- so they don't count."
Golly! You're really winning me over to... whatever your side of this argument is!
Personally, I think Fox commentators with three vowels in their names are nifty on Tuesdays - assuming it is the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th, 13th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 29th or 31st of the month.
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift
Originally posted by PaulKTFAnyone who thinks that either individual side is biased whille the other side is fair and balanced is being deluded by their ideology and/or the propaganda coming from their own side of the asile.
Both MSNBC and Fox regularly lie, spin, and distort the facts to fit their specific agendas.
Agreed and 100% correct.
Ted Koppel has your back, via this recent Washington Post opinion piece he wrote on Sunday.
Title: Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news
Originally posted by Leroy Olbermann's response to Koppel (huffingtonpost.com). I think Olbermann pretty much knocks this out of the park.
Out of what park? The problem with Keith is that he likes to have it both ways. He thinks there's a need for his brand of journalism (opinion based) BUT only if you agree with him.
So basically the Koppels of the world who try to stay objective are wrong. The Fox News commentators who give their opinions are wrong.
All that is correct is how Keith thinks and "reports" and anyone else who sees the world differently is part of the problem. The simple arrogance of this clown is astounding and if I were a member of the Left, I would be horrified that he seems to be the media voice of that movement.
The ironic thing is that Keith is basically the EXACT mirror of the man he despises more than anyone at Fox. He is the same egotistical jackass as O'Reilly, but simply on the other side of the discussion. What's sad though is that based on Keith's commentary, he thinks he is actually reporting news rather that simply giving us his world view as it relates to any story.
Originally posted by VonMaetroThe simple arrogance of this clown is astounding and if I were a member of the Left, I would be horrified that he seems to be the media voice of that movement.
He's not the media voice of the left. That's Amy Goodman.
Originally posted by Von MaestroOut of what park? The problem with Keith is that he likes to have it both ways. He thinks there's a need for his brand of journalism (opinion based) BUT only if you agree with him.
That's not at all what he said. He's saying there's no such thing as "opinion based journalism".
His point is that all journalism lacks objectivity. Whether you need to beat your audience over the head with your conclusions or whether you can allow them to draw their own is another matter entirely. And yes, I would agree that MSNBC does a bit too much of the latter, but I also don't believe that an entire news network that openly and singularly funds Republican causes while claiming to be fair and balanced is the same thing
Originally posted by LeroyAnd yes, I would agree that MSNBC does a bit too much of the latter, but I also don't believe that an entire news network that openly and singularly funds Republican causes while claiming to be fair and balanced is the same thing
Here lies the problem with the criticism of Fox and the inconsistency of those who will defend MSNBC while blasting Fox. When Olberman was suspended, Maddow went on a sanctimonious rant about how MSNBC would never raise money for a political candidate because MSNBC is a "real news organization". That rant was followed with a youtube clip someone put together showing numerous examples of this happening on various MSNBC shows (including Maddow's) during the last election cycle.
This is the inconsistency with the Fox hate, and the reason it impossible to take anyone at MSNBC seriously. Do O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity claim objectivity? No, they have clear opinions and they share them. Maddow & Olberman also host opinion shows, but in Olberman's view he is not a pundit, but rather a hard news journalist. This is how on election night election night Fox went with Baier & Kelly, while MSNBC went with Olberman & Maddow, yet the common theme continues that Fox is evil yet MSNBC simply leans left... I mean "Leans Forward"
Originally posted by Von MaestroWhen Olberman was suspended, Maddow went on a sanctimonious rant about how MSNBC would never raise money for a political candidate because MSNBC is a "real news organization". That rant was followed with a youtube clip someone put together showing numerous examples of this happening on various MSNBC shows (including Maddow's) during the last election cycle.
I assume you are referring to this video (washingtonexaminer.com), which is essentially guests on various MSNBC shows plugging their websites and soliciting donations. That's hardly a direct contribution, nor is it a network directly soliciting for a cause.
Originally posted by Von MaestroNo, they have clear opinions and they share them. Maddow & Olberman also host opinion shows, but in Olberman's view he is not a pundit, but rather a hard news journalist. This is how on election night election night Fox went with Baier & Kelly, while MSNBC went with Olberman & Maddow, yet the common theme continues that Fox is evil yet MSNBC simply leans left... I mean "Leans Forward"
If Fox had donated equally to both the Democrats and Republicans, I wouldn't have an issue. (Actually, I would, but that's not the point of this particular debate.) The moment a "news network" financially supports a specific political position, they are no longer "objective" in any sense of the word. They are financially invested in one specific outcome, and to pretend that their "objectivity" is not influenced by that direct contribution is just nonsense.
Clearly, we're not going to agree on the motives of individual pundits. You claim Olbermann believes he's a "hard news journalist". Well, if he does believe that (I'm not entirely sure that's true), he's wrong. What I'm most certain he believes is that his "objectivity" is not influenced by the political disposition (or lack thereof) of his network. Whether he has preconceived notions about certain "truths" as he presents them.... well, I have my judgments and you have yours, and we're not likely to agree.
Pretty good way to kick off the second season ... I guess I'll cry "Spoiler!" beforehand, but two comments: 1) For storyline purposes, how can John really trust Cameron now?