Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 25, 2010 15:55:10 GMT -4
First of all, I don't think FOX, as a whole, is "fair and balanced." They obviously favor the conservative POV as far as their 'talking heads' go. Do they have the right to boast that they are "fair and balanced" with the caveat of " you decide?" Sure. It's a frickin' slogan people. Quoted for truth. Of course I never pretended to be anything but. It's really a property rights issue, not a religious freedom issue. Do those who own the current building have the right to do what they want with it, or don't they? I basically agree with Gillian when she says that to object to the existence of a mosque near ground zero is basically the same as saying that 9/11 terrorists were equivelent to the muslims building or using the mosque. I am reminded of how often some of the media seems to equate splinter groups of Mormonism such as the FLDS with the LDS Church.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 25, 2010 16:23:01 GMT -4
We have LunarOrbit trashing FOX on more than one occasion only to find out he can't even get that channel! What does he base his opinion on? Jon Stewart!! I'm not basing my opinion solely on what Jon Stewart says about FOX. I'm basing my opinion on what the FOX anchors and commentators say in the many clips that Jon Stewart shows. There's a difference. And Jon Stewart goes after CNN too. FOX either tries to paint Republicans like George W. Bush or Sarah Palin in a good light, or they use fear tactics to tarnish Democrats like Obama. These are the people who compared Obama to Hitler because he visited a group of school children and encouraged them to "succeed and persist in their studies." How DARE he encourage children to do well in school! And they're hypocritical... they'll disparage Obama for something that they praised Bush for. Glenn Beck is the worst. He acts exactly like a conspiracy theorist sometimes... drawing little flow charts on his chalkboard connecting the dots between Obama and communism. "Obama is a socialist people! He'll send our elderly before death panels! <sob!> I remember when America was great. <fake tear> Don't let him destroy OUR country!!!" You don't see theatrics like that on CNN... although Rick Sanchez comes pretty close sometimes. Say what you want about CNN, but I see them giving a much more balanced commentary on issues. I do not see the same level of outright hostility towards Republicans that FOX has against Democrats. So no, I don't watch FOX 24 hours per day, but I'm not completely in the dark about them either. I get my news from a variety of sources... CTV, CBC, CNN, BBC and a number of smaller outlets. The Canadian news networks are more about reporting the news and less about commentary or "infotainment", and I think that's the way it should be. The media shouldn't be trying to sway our opinions, just giving us accurate information so we can make up our own minds. Well, since you brought it up, I think people are being irrational and shouldn't be blaming all Muslims for the actions of a very small group of terrorists who just happened to be Muslim. All of the 19 terrorists were men. Does that mean men should be prohibited from building anything within two blocks of Ground Zero? If they want to prevent Al Qaeda from building a recruitment and training center near Ground Zero, then by all means, stop them. I just think people should aim their anger at the right people.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 25, 2010 16:36:31 GMT -4
I'm not basing my opinion solely on what Jon Stewart says about FOX. I'm basing my opinion on what the FOX anchors and commentators say in the many clips that Jon Stewart shows. There's a difference. So I suppose Jon Stewart shows these clips in context? And he balances his view of Fox with clips where he thinks they did a good job? Are you saying Fox News anchors compared Obama to Hitler for this, or that some of the commentators on Fox News compared Obama to Hitler, or what precisely? To be fair, Obama is a socialist. Not in the European style, but a socialist nonetheless. And Glenn Beck seems largely sincere to me. It is possible to disagree with him or feel that he is sometimes over-the-top without also claiming he is insincere. Then, honestly, you aren't listening to CNN very closely. MSNBC is even worse, of course. I agree. Though I am reminded of the Catholic convent that was built near a concentration camp, with the nuns intending to pray for the souls of the Jews who had been killed there. When Jewish communities objected to this, the Pope decided to move the convent.
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Aug 25, 2010 17:57:04 GMT -4
Oh, dear. First, I never said there was a difference in academic acumen, just knowledge about the issues. And frankly, even if I had, studies bear me out about it, at least in my field. In the hard sciences, there's balance, or at least something approaching it. In the liberal arts, the higher your educational level, the more likely you are to be liberal. It's simply true. I can't help it if you don't like it. More opinions stated as fact, eh? It's not that "I don't like it," people can say whatever they wish and usually do, it's just that I don't buy it. You're grasping at straws if you think that's an apt comparison...unless of course FOX is claiming their slogan cures cancer, which I must've missed. I have no doubt we get our news differently and don't care about The Daily Show or what you think it does or doesn't show. I don't really subscribe to having talking heads (or anyone) tell me how I should think which was why I called LunarOrbit to task for doing it with regard to his FOX-bashing. I'd expect the same if I trashed MSNBC without even watching it. I'm beginning to think you see words that aren't there. Of course you wouldn't if you put it that way, but that's not what I was getting at. Basically you don't take the feelings of those who lost loved ones that day into consideration. If you did you'd see why building a mosque there would reopen old wounds, wounds that don't have to be reopened. That is why, despite your disagreement with it, my tavern analogy was apt. It isn't about the exact coordinates of my hypothetical tavern, nor about the customers of my tavern all being drunk drivers any more than it would be about those of the Islamic faith being terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. It's about the symbolism, a symbolism you obviously pretend doesn't exist and/or one you feel paints everyone with a broad brush. You're so into your partisan ideology that you fail to see why, whether you agree with it or not, that people could be offended without having to be bigoted. That's your loss as far as I'm concerned. The people opposed to the mosque include some Muslims too, did you know that? It reopens old wounds for them as well as, like you say, they lost loved ones too. They just aren't afraid to admit why it opens old wounds for them. Are they bigoted too?
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Aug 25, 2010 18:08:38 GMT -4
We have LunarOrbit trashing FOX on more than one occasion only to find out he can't even get that channel! What does he base his opinion on? Jon Stewart!! I'm not basing my opinion solely on what Jon Stewart says about FOX. I'm basing my opinion on what the FOX anchors and commentators say in the many clips that Jon Stewart shows. There's a difference. And Jon Stewart goes after CNN too. FOX either tries to paint Republicans like George W. Bush or Sarah Palin in a good light, or they use fear tactics to tarnish Democrats like Obama. These are the people who compared Obama to Hitler because he visited a group of school children and encouraged them to "succeed and persist in their studies." How DARE he encourage children to do well in school! And they're hypocritical... they'll disparage Obama for something that they praised Bush for. Glenn Beck is the worst. He acts exactly like a conspiracy theorist sometimes... drawing little flow charts on his chalkboard connecting the dots between Obama and communism. "Obama is a socialist people! He'll send our elderly before death panels! <sob!> I remember when America was great. <fake tear> Don't let him destroy OUR country!!!" You don't see theatrics like that on CNN... although Rick Sanchez comes pretty close sometimes. Say what you want about CNN, but I see them giving a much more balanced commentary on issues. I do not see the same level of outright hostility towards Republicans that FOX has against Democrats. So no, I don't watch FOX 24 hours per day, but I'm not completely in the dark about them either. I get my news from a variety of sources... CTV, CBC, CNN, BBC and a number of smaller outlets. The Canadian news networks are more about reporting the news and less about commentary or "infotainment", and I think that's the way it should be. The media shouldn't be trying to sway our opinions, just giving us accurate information so we can make up our own minds. Well, since you brought it up, I think people are being irrational and shouldn't be blaming all Muslims for the actions of a very small group of terrorists who just happened to be Muslim. All of the 19 terrorists were men. Does that mean men should be prohibited from building anything within two blocks of Ground Zero? If they want to prevent Al Qaeda from building a recruitment and training center near Ground Zero, then by all means, stop them. I just think people should aim their anger at the right people. I think I made it clear why I brought you up LunarOrbit. You can like or dislike whatever talking head or cable outlet you please - it's just if you trash one without seeing it I question your objectivity. Regarding your POV on the mosque dissenters, you seem to be using that same wide brush gillianren uses. It seems to miss a lot of canvas I've noticed. Must be a liberal thing.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 25, 2010 18:47:29 GMT -4
I think you get to be the third person I ignore. Congratulations.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 25, 2010 19:45:35 GMT -4
if you trash one without seeing it I question your objectivity. That's the second time you have said that I haven't seen it, which is entirely untrue, and I would appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting me. I have been watching clips from FOX News programming going all the way back to when Bill Clinton was in office. So I think I'm allowed to have an opinion now, thank you very much. But why don't you go ahead and tell me exactly how much I need to watch before I'm allowed to have an opinion. Do I need to actually tune my TV to the FOX News channel and watch the entirety of their daily programming (including commercials)? Come on, quantify it for me. It's not like Jon Stewart is simply saying "FOX is bad!" and I'm taking his word for it. He is showing unedited clips from various FOX shows and then making valid points for why they are wrong or misleading. Just because he wraps a criticism in a joke doesn't make his criticism any less valid. Do you watch The Daily Show? I don't see any justification for blocking construction of the mosque. The "it's insensitive" argument isn't good enough, otherwise you better go shut down all of the strip clubs in the area. In fact I would say that blocking the mosque would be in Al Qaeda's best interest because they could claim it as an example of how America isn't really as free as you claim. There's one flaw in your argument: Jason agrees with us, and he isn't a liberal.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 25, 2010 20:56:18 GMT -4
How much FOX do I need to watch in order to believe a $1 million donation to the Republican Party hurts their credibility? None.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 25, 2010 22:02:43 GMT -4
How much FOX do I need to watch in order to believe a $1 million donation to the Republican Party hurts their credibility? None. You are right none at all. But my question is their credibility with who? It doesn't change my view of credibility for either Fox or the WSJ. Fox couldn't be much lower and WSJ couldn't be much better. Besides corporate political donations are both legal and ethical business practices.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 25, 2010 23:52:19 GMT -4
How much FOX do I need to watch in order to believe a $1 million donation to the Republican Party hurts their credibility? None. However this in itself hurts your argument since FOX didn't donate $1 million dollars, it's Parent Company did, and FOX had no say in that at all. You are targeting FOX exclusively because of the donation despite it not being the one involved, and ignoring all the other media outlets that are also owned by the same parent company. Or do you also think that the Wall Street Journal has had it's reputation damaged by News Corp's donation?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 26, 2010 0:41:21 GMT -4
I think the Wall Street Journal has, in the past, done plenty to damage its own reputation, but I'd have to go dig out my specific examples. Wouldn't want it just thrown away as a mere opinion, after all, just because I don't cite sources right away.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 26, 2010 1:26:36 GMT -4
How much FOX do I need to watch in order to believe a $1 million donation to the Republican Party hurts their credibility? None. However this in itself hurts your argument since FOX didn't donate $1 million dollars, it's Parent Company did, and FOX had no say in that at all. It's not whether or not FOX News had any say in the donation that concerns me. What concerns me is how much say News Corp. has in FOX's reporting. Maybe News Corp. is manipulating the news that it's subsidiaries like FOX News and The Wall Street Journal are reporting so that it favours Republicans. For example, let's say a FOX reporter uncovers a scandal involving a Republican with a good chance of winning the upcoming election. Someone higher up at News Corp. finds out about the story the reporter is working on and orders him to drop it or he'll be fired. So now the voters don't get to hear about this scandal. I don't think this is so far-fetched. Or what if News Corp. forces The Wall Street Journal to withhold some good news about the economy until after the election so that the Democrats can't benefit from it. I think corporate donations are fine in most cases, but the media is different. Call me old fashioned, but I believe the media is supposed to remain neutral in order to maintain the trust of their audience. I think even the appearance of bias should be avoided from the very top of the corporation all the way down to the reporters. I haven't talked about TWSJ before now because I don't read it. I do think they will have to bend over backwards to prove to their readers that News Corps. bias hasn't affected their journalistic integrity. News Corp. could have made it easier for them by simply not donating so much money to one party.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 26, 2010 9:50:17 GMT -4
Unless one proposes that the government should do something about the problem, credibility is ultimately a matter between the company and its customers.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 26, 2010 11:19:44 GMT -4
It's not whether or not FOX News had any say in the donation that concerns me. What concerns me is how much say News Corp. has in FOX's reporting. Maybe News Corp. is manipulating the news that it's subsidiaries like FOX News and The Wall Street Journal are reporting so that it favours Republicans. That's a pretty big mabye. Do you have any reason to believe they are actually doing this, other than your dislike of Fox? If you believe News Corp is doing it, is there any reason to suppose that the other big companies that own media outlets aren't doing the same? GE (NBC/MSNBC), Time/Warner (CNN), Disney (Capital Cities/ABC), Viacom (CBS), what let's any of them off the hook?
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Aug 26, 2010 11:29:31 GMT -4
I think you get to be the third person I ignore. Congratulations. I'm crushed.
|
|