|
Post by archer17 on Aug 26, 2010 12:42:09 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. Spare me the bullcrap LunarOrbit. I'm not the one that said you didn't even get the channel. No one said you weren't allowed to have an opinion. My opinion is that since you have went out of your way on more than one occasion to bash FOX when you don't even get it your opinions are based on someone else's opinions. Telling me you watch FOX clips from another show, one that is not exactly on FOX's Christmas list, is pathetic if you think that's good enough to avoid me calling you on it. My point was you and some others have a liberal bias. Your FOX bash without having direct access to FOX, as telling as that is, isn't the only example. What's that about opposing Cap & Trade again? Just watch it directly instead of having clips spoon-fed you by Jon Stewart or whoever. I think most of the 'talking heads' on FOX suck, but I'm getting that impression first-hand. Try it once. How would you know? You depend on Jon Stewart and his pre-selected clips with which to base your opinion. Sometimes ...and without a bib. You're actually equating what happened on 9/11 in New York with "strip clubs!?!?" It boils down to whether one feels building it is insensitive or not. I think it is. If I didn't then I wouldn't care. The reason I brought up the mosque was to show how some in the media reported it, not to solve the issue where everyone agrees. As far as AQ goes, it doesn't matter what we do or don't do. You should know that. Should we ask them what they'd like us to build in place of the buildings they knocked down? That was tongue-in-cheek. There are some from the left-side of the aisle that are against the proposed mosque as well. In your defense, maybe Jon Stewart didn't get around to that yet.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 26, 2010 12:46:33 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? I can't know what FOX is not reporting. That's the point. Media outlets should avoid an appearance of bias, so that I don't have to worry about whether or not they are telling me the full story. All of them have a certain level of bias, like you said. But in most (if not all) of those cases they try to balance their donations between both parties (it's in their best interest because they don't know who will be in power four years from now). The largest donation, from GE, was just 10% of the News Corp. donation, and they matched it between both parties. Time Warner's donation to the Democrats was just 2.5% of the News Corp. donation. News Corp., on the other hand, has decided to abandon even the appearance of neutrality and flaunts their bias with a huge donation to one party.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 26, 2010 13:26:04 GMT -4
All of them have a certain level of bias, like you said. But in most (if not all) of those cases they try to balance their donations between both parties (it's in their best interest because they don't know who will be in power four years from now). The largest donation, from GE, was just 10% of the News Corp. donation, and they matched it between both parties. Time Warner's donation to the Democrats was just 2.5% of the News Corp. donation. News Corp., on the other hand, has decided to abandon even the appearance of neutrality and flaunts their bias with a huge donation to one party. Let's break this down. You say that you are concerned that News Corp may be influencing the news produced by Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and their other media outlets. Your evidence that they might be doing so is that they made a large (in the context of the NPR story on what other media companies have contributed) contribtion to a Republican Governor's Association. Your reason to suppose that other media owners are not influencing their news output is that they tend to contribute smaller amounts more equally between political parties. So in your view, whether a media outlet should be trusted depends on two factors: 1) The size of contributions their parent corporation makes to political parties. 2) Whether they donate equally to the major political parties. My question is, is this really a viable model to determine media outlet trustworthiness? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the content they produce, and determine if it is generally more or less trustworthy than the content produced by some other outlet? I mean, granted that making large contributions to a political party has the appearance of evil, shouldn't you be testing for the actual presence of evil rather than just appearances?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 26, 2010 13:47:43 GMT -4
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. Spare me the bullcrap LunarOrbit. I'm not the one that said you didn't even get the channel. I said I don't get the channel, that doesn't mean I've never seen FOX News. I don't get NASA TV either, that doesn't mean I've never seen a Shuttle launch. My opinions about FOX are based completely on what they have said on the air. Whether I see it on FOX or through a secondary source is irrelevant, it doesn't change what they are saying. Jon Stewart doesn't dub over their voices with impersonators. You're trying to downplay the crap FOX says by trying to convince me Jon Stewart is somehow altering the footage, or that I'm only getting part of the story. Sorry, but it's not working. Unless Jon Stewart is cutting the clips right before the FOX commentators disavow everything they had just said, I don't see how I'm being mislead. I'm equating something people find offensive with something else that people find offensive. Do you think people would complain if I opened a strip club on hallowed ground, like in a former church or next to a cemetery? I think they would. So why aren't they equally offended by the strip clubs near ground zero? Is it because there are no Muslims involved? And I think it isn't, but I'm a liberal so obviously I'm wrong. I think the only reason people think it's insensitive is because they are equating all Muslims with the terrorists, and it's not fair to them. My point is that it could be used as a recruiting tool, or propaganda to incite anti-Americanism. I believe one of the goals of 9/11 that AQ wanted to achieve was for the US to restrict freedoms in the name of security. Another goal would be to create a division between Muslims and other Americans. And you're helping them achieve those goals. I am sure there are. I don't think I ever said opposition to the mosque is only coming from conservatives. I have only said that I believe the opposition is based on irrationality. Liberals are just as capable of letting their emotions cloud their judgment as conservatives are.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 26, 2010 14:07:55 GMT -4
My opinions about FOX are based completely on what they have said on the air. Whether I see it on FOX or through a secondary source is irrelevant, it doesn't change what they are saying. Jon Stewart doesn't dub over their voices with impersonators. Are you saying that whether you see something through a secondary source has no relevence in whether you are correctly interpreting a film clip? I wonder how many hoax believers use that defense? I am offended by strip clubs near ground zero. However, I believe that the property rights of the owners trump any offense I may feel. I'm not sure that was really one of Al Qaeda's goals. Creating a division between Muslims and non-Muslims (not "Muslims and Americans" - there are many, many Muslim Americans) seems more likely. But I believe AQ's stated goals were the destruction and overthrow of the US government. It just happens that the attacks on the government buildings didn't succeed as spectacularly as the attack on the towers.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 26, 2010 14:08:03 GMT -4
You say that you are concerned that News Corp may be influencing the news produced by Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and their other media outlets. It's not just that. A $25,000 donation like the one Time Warner gave the Democrats isn't going to have much effect. A single television commercial campaign probably costs more than that (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if TW's donation was in the form of commercial air time). But a $1 million donation goes a long way. It could alter the course of an election. So my concern is not just that News Corp. could be manipulating the news that FOX reports, but that they could be manipulating the outcome of elections. Does it not seem unethical to you that the media is manipulating the very news that they are reporting? Don't you agree that the media should be reporting the news, not making it? I believe media outlets should not be donating money to political parties. I also believe political parties should not be giving money to media outlets. A donation like this automatically puts the media outlet in a hole that they will have to climb out of before I can trust them. Even if they are reporting the truth, I will be forced to question them. They could make things easier for themselves by simply abstaining from donating to political parties.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 26, 2010 14:17:06 GMT -4
It's not just that. A $25,000 donation like the one Time Warner gave the Democrats isn't going to have much effect. A single television commercial campaign probably costs more than that (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if TW's donation was in the form of commercial air time). Far more than that, in fact. Maybe. It really doesn't go as far as it used to. Most governor's elections cost quite a bit more than $1 million. But, again, the two aren't really directly linked, are they? No, it would not be ethical to manipulate the news if that is in fact what is being done. Yes, I agree that the media should be striving to report the news in an unbiased fashion rather than creating sensation. On the other hand, I don't know that a media outlet should be banned outright from supporting political causes. If one political party is friendly to a free press while another is pro-censorship, I expect a media company should be able to support one over the other. Political parties giving money to media companies is more problematic. But we're not talking about Public Broadcasting here, are we? I agree that it's proably best avoided, and it would make me scrutinize a media source more closely, but I guess I don't see it as quite as serious an indication of credibility as you do.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 26, 2010 14:20:23 GMT -4
Are you saying that whether you see something through a secondary source has no relevence in whether you are correctly interpreting a film clip? I wonder how many hoax believers use that defense? I'm not trying to determine how high Glenn Beck jumps. Like I said, unless Jon Stewart is dubbing in the voices of impersonators, or cutting the clips right before the FOX commentators say "nothing I just said is really how I feel" then I don't see how I'm misinterpreting what they say. I'll point out that I said "Muslims and other Americans", meaning that I do consider the Muslims to be Americans. But saying "Muslims and non-Muslims" probably would have been more clear.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 26, 2010 14:36:34 GMT -4
And let's look at Fox's current reporting, shall we? (It doesn't stand for anything as CNN does, so it shouldn't go in all caps even if Fox thinks it does.) They're talking in hushed tones about how the cultural center is taking money from a shadowy organization which might have ties with Iran, though of course they don't show any evidence.
Oh, but the evidence does show that this shadowy organization is owned by one of their largest stockholders. Who happens to be a Saudi prince. For some reason, that doesn't make it on the air on Fox.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 26, 2010 14:48:23 GMT -4
It doesn't stand for anything as CNN does, so it shouldn't go in all caps even if Fox thinks it does. I'm not sure why I capitalize it... probably just because it's all caps in their logo. I'll stop now.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 26, 2010 15:11:34 GMT -4
And let's look at Fox's current reporting, shall we? (It doesn't stand for anything as CNN does, so it shouldn't go in all caps even if Fox thinks it does.) They're talking in hushed tones about how the cultural center is taking money from a shadowy organization which might have ties with Iran, though of course they don't show any evidence. Oh, but the evidence does show that this shadowy organization is owned by one of their largest stockholders. Who happens to be a Saudi prince. For some reason, that doesn't make it on the air on Fox. But if Fox's reporting is affected by who owns the corporation, and one of the major owners is indeed a Saudi Prince (who I would presume is a Muslim), then shouldn't we expect them to be reporting favorably on the prospect of an Islamic cultural center?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 26, 2010 17:22:02 GMT -4
I'm not sure why I capitalize it... probably just because it's all caps in their logo. I'll stop now. I appreciate it. It's a minor thing, but it makes me twitchy.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Aug 26, 2010 22:51:43 GMT -4
I think that it's because liberals are more used to listening to more than one perspective. Indeed, it's a complaint a lot of Democrats have about their own party; we're so busy listening to the other person's perspective that we don't really push our own. It's not that we can't; it's that we don't. The restraint across the entire party is remarkable, but you would think, though, that with all the smarts liberals have, that they would be promoting their message in whatever venue they could. Even if most prefer to keep it to themselves, surely a few here and there would enjoy a $50 million a year reward like Limbaugh gets. Surely somebody on radio or on cable TV could have a field day showing, say, how much better liberal policies have worked in Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Newark--and I haven't even got to California. OK, fine. Liberals cannot make it in radio. The New York Times readership is tanking. CNN and MSNBC's ratings are in the dumpster. The whole Newsweek organization sold for a dollar. Where do all the Democrats in the country get their information from that keeps them better informed on the issues? 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. This is true. The more educated you are in the liberal arts, the more likely you are to run down to Venezuela and praise Hugo Chavez for all the good work he has done for his country. You are also more likely to praise North Korea's health care system as the "envy of the developing world." The intelligence on the left cannot be overstated. It has been said -- and I don't see anything on Urban Legends or Snopes refuting it (I almost said "refudiating it"!) -- that if Nancy Pelosi had a thought in your presence, you would crumple to the ground from the brain wave pulse. (Let me know when I have snarked this up enough. My internal snarkometer has been on the blink ever since Joe Biden kicked off "Recovery Summer."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Aug 26, 2010 23:13:07 GMT -4
This thread's latest sidebar is kinda silly. So, who is smarter? Democrats or Republicans? Cut me a break! You think is it is silly? Of course it's silly. We have been around here long enough, I believe, such that we can yank each other's chains a bit in good-natured fun without starting WW III. Elitism will always be a part of who liberals are, and non-liberals will always have a good time poking fun at it. There is a reason that those on the left seem obsessed with having a superior intelligence: they feel that we don't elect public servants, we elect rulers. Talk with any one of them long enough and the beans will inevitably spill out that they think the people of this country are too dumb to make decisions about their own lives. They don't like the idea of a free market where there appears to be no order, organization, or concern for the things they feel are truly important. They would prefer if a planning committee made up of the brightest minds and kindest hearts would make those decisions in a more controlled and scientifically-organized matter. It goes back to Plato's desire for philosopher-kings, I suppose. He didn't care for the idea of democracy where the knuckle-dragging, tractor-pulling, NASCAR-watching, uneducated masses get to have a say-so in public affairs.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 26, 2010 23:23:34 GMT -4
Wow. Note to self--strawmen run rampant. You might consider the fact that Republican incumbents have about the same reelection rate as Democratic ones, so any statement that we elect rulers must be thus tempered.
And the simple fact is, your idea of what's important is not the same as mine. You value the free market more than I do. Am I smarter than you or vice versa? I don't want to say. All I'm saying is that we have different standards. If more people agree with me and elect people who make those decisions, isn't that the free market at work?
Oh, and you might want to look into the actual writing of the Founding Fathers, because they actually were pretty big into the idea of a ruling class. Most of them thought the people of this country were too dumb to make decisions about their own lives; it's one of two reasons the Electoral College exists and why it took a Constitutional amendment to have Senators chosen by direct election, not by the state representatives. It is also worth noting that it tends, historically, to be conservatives of one stripe or another who are trying to limit the vote to just people who think as they do.
I'll also note that I haven't discussed intelligence. This is because intelligence and education aren't the same thing. I have stuck to educational level, education about the issues, and so forth. It is the snarky conservatives who keep saying intelligence. Perhaps it's because they want to go back to those reading tests established by conservatives so Those People (for any given definition thereof) wouldn't be allowed to vote. Indeed, my prime example of where education should apply in the electoral process is that anyone running for office should be able to pass a basic civics exam. I don't make the same requirement of voters; that has never ended well and never will end well. A better-educated populace tends to make more responsible decisions, though doubtless counterexamples can be found. However, that is not, to me, a reason to take away the voice of those who have not had the opportunity to the fine (state-provided) college education I did.
|
|