week4paug.net

Where's the stage? Spurious Generalities => Politiw00kchat => Topic started by: VDB on April 19, 2012, 11:24:51 PM

Title: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on April 19, 2012, 11:24:51 PM
OK, I threatened to start this thread and now I can resist no longer. Partly this is for my own self-indulgence so don't mind me...

The relentless agenda-driven "journalism" being practiced at Fox News is just so flagrant and transparent at times that it would be laughable if not for the fact that, I'm sure, a large chunk of their audience is either not savvy or intellectually honest enough to look past the quick, digestible talking points and recognize the game that FN is up to.

Here's a current front-page story (I'll keep score as we go):

Republicans say new study belies Obama claim US has 2 percent of world oil (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/19/republicans-say-new-study-belies-obama-claim-us-has-2-percent-world-oil/#ixzz1sXujpJas)

Headline: Obama is a liar, doesn't believe in domestic drilling (the usual beefs)

Quote
Republican senators are accusing President Obama of pushing a "less-than-honest" claim about the scarcity of domestic oil, after a U.S. Geological Survey study showed the United States might actually hold a quarter of the world's untapped, undiscovered supply.

The president often uses a much different statistic in speeches.

He said Tuesday, as he has before, that "the problem is we use more than 20 percent of the world's oil and we only have 2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves."

GOP: Obama is a liar

Quote
But a U.S. Geological Survey released Wednesday paints a seemingly different picture. The analysis showed the world outside of the U.S. holds 565 billion barrels of undiscovered conventional oil -- it was the first such study in 12 years. The study did not address U.S. resources, but a prior analysis by the Energy Information Administration pegged the country's supply at 198 billion barrels. That works out to 26 percent of the world supply.

OK, wait. The study was just released? So is Obama actually being accused of "ignoring" data that no one knew about yet? Oh, and note how we're drawing conclusions from two different studies by two different sources.

Quote
The president and the USGS, though, are referring to different kinds of oil reserves.

What the president talks about is "proven oil reserves" -- or oil deposits that have been discovered and are considered viable.

In the other, much bigger, category are the "undiscovered, technically recoverable" reserves -- or all the other stuff geologists estimate is out in the world regardless of how accessible or economically viable it might be. That's what the USGS looked at.

Well holy shit! This is a rare FN slip up... the story actually argues against its own premise! D'oh! See, this is something smart people might have caught on to right from the top -- Obama says "proven" reserves and this supposedly damning study talks about "undiscovered" oil.

Final paragraph:

Quote
According to the Interior Department, foreign oil dependence has dropped every year under the Obama administration.

*facepalm*

The sole reason that stories like this get posted to FN is to push the narrative that Obama is doing everything possible to kill domestic oil production and further enslave us to the Middle East. And yet here's a statement, buried at the bottom of the story but without any attempt by FN to verify it and report it as fact as opposed to simply an administration (read: untrustworthy) contention, that puts that whole premise on its heels. When was the last time you heard FN acknowledge that domestic oil production has gone up, not down, under Obama?

It's really quite something. The story according to FN is never "criticisms of Obama blatantly political, unfounded" but simply "GOP criticizes Obama" with nary an attempt at verifying the legitimacy of those critiques. Contrary views, if presented at all, are stuffed way down in the story, after many people have stopped reading. And at any rate, they are usually just the administration offering its counterpoint, which the FN audience is going to be inclined to discard anyway.

Crazy.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 19, 2012, 11:46:10 PM
I love your obsession with FN, VDB.

I fully understand your frustration with a "news" organization making no qualms about their obvious bias and exploitation, but I guess what I don't understand is why you think it makes a difference? The only people watching FN are the partisan ideologues who have already made their minds up and are just trying to reinforce their predetermined opinions (like dude at your gym). I mean, I've seen some pretty blatant misrepresentation and manipulation of facts on MSNBC too, but I don't expect them to turn South Carolina blue anytime soon.

I know we've touched on this before and to many FN seems "worse" and more unabashed in their partisanship. I guess I understand that perspective, but I just don't believe that they're changing a lot of minds because I doubt too many people are going to FN for objective and unbiased reporting.

Still, it will be fun to watch this thread develop.
 :beers:
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on April 20, 2012, 12:09:50 AM
I fully understand your frustration with a "news" organization making no qualms about their obvious bias and exploitation, but I guess what I don't understand is why you think it makes a difference?

I don't know; it might not, for the reasons you suggest. But that still doesn't mean I think they ought not to get called out on it. For the record, I acknowledge (and anyone who's not blind should too) that MSNBC caters hardcore to the liberal viewer with no bones made about it. And there are times (e.g. liberal opinion personalities anchoring their election desk) when I think it's wholly inappropriate.

But with slogans like "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide", FN is deliberately trying to portray themselves as (and instill in their audience a sense of) being fair-minded, fully informed and objective. This way, the audience doesn't have to question what's being fed to them or consider that it might be simply the reflection of a particular viewpoint. It's quite clever, but really quite insidious. So, I don't know if FN is actively changing minds, but they may well be preventing minds from coming around.

Now, a conservative might argue that the rest of the "liberal mainstream media" operates in the same manner, and thank god FN is out there simply as an antidote. Well, I like to think I'm both independent and astute enough to pick up on media bias wherever and from whomever, and I think FN is by far the worst offender. I mean, not even close.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 20, 2012, 12:14:28 AM
"Lean Forward", implying any position other than progressive is backwards?

On a personal level, Lawrence O'Donnell is far more enraging to me than anybody on FN (with the exception Greta Van Cunteren, Palin, & Dick Morris).
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Superfreakie on April 20, 2012, 12:19:17 AM
Meanwhile, CNN, in an attempt to appease both poles and not seem partisan, refuses to question either side's rhetoric.  :tte: 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Bobafett on April 20, 2012, 01:46:41 AM
it actually would be not, nor.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on April 20, 2012, 09:30:49 AM
"Lean Forward", implying any position other than progressive is backwards?

I'd not thought of it that way, I always interpreted it as "Which way do we lean? We lean forward = making progress = progressive = we're liberal, get it?" That and their "One Nation, In Progress" slogan along with the general content of the network seem to be pretty straightforward defenses of liberalism. I think that contrasts pretty starkly with what's happening at FN, where there's no honest embrace of their conservatism but instead an effort to portray themselves as being wholly pure, fair and unbiased. So remember, I'm not accusing FN of being the only media outlet to show an ideological bent, just saying the way they do it is really disingenuous and insidious.

Meanwhile, CNN, in an attempt to appease both poles and not seem partisan, refuses to question either side's rhetoric.  :tte: 

Absolutely right.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 20, 2012, 09:45:35 AM
"Lean Forward", implying any position other than progressive is backwards?

I'd not thought of it that way, I always interpreted it as "Which way do we lean? We lean forward = making progress = progressive = we're liberal, get it?" That and their "One Nation, In Progress" slogan along with the general content of the network seem to be pretty straightforward defenses of liberalism. I think that contrasts pretty starkly with what's happening at FN, where there's no honest embrace of their conservatism but instead an effort to portray themselves as being wholly pure, fair and unbiased. So remember, I'm not accusing FN of being the only media outlet to show an ideological bent, just saying the way they do it is really disingenuous and insidious.

I hear you, but that's how you interpreted it. I'm not saying you're wrong and, to be clear, I am in no way defending FN (hear that, sunrise! :wink:). I'm just trying to point out that to someone looking at it from a different perspective, it can be just as insidious. And honestly, I think the whole "fair and balanced" nonsense should be taken as more of a wink-and-a-nudge than an attempt to honestly portray themselves as the defenders of all things conservative.

I kinda look at cable news as the WWF right before they changed to the WWE: everyone recognizes it's all bullshit, so let's just embrace it as entertainment rather than trying to pretend it's something it's not.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: sophist on April 20, 2012, 09:54:53 AM
::obligatory Bill Hicks quote::

http://youtu.be/mCUOEoPucJ8
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on April 20, 2012, 10:01:08 AM
I kinda look at cable news as the WWF right before they changed to the WWE: everyone recognizes it's all bullshit, so let's just embrace it as entertainment rather than trying to pretend it's something it's not.

i think you are really far off here.  i think the majority of fox news viewers take it all very literally and seriously.
i know plenty of them, and i have never heard one of them say they know its bullshit and just want to be entertained.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: sophist on April 20, 2012, 10:06:08 AM
I kinda look at cable news as the WWF right before they changed to the WWE: everyone recognizes it's all bullshit, so let's just embrace it as entertainment rather than trying to pretend it's something it's not.

i think you are really far off here.  i think the majority of fox news viewers take it all very literally and seriously.
i know plenty of them, and i have never heard one of them say they know its bullshit and just want to be entertained.
Yep, that's spot on. 

Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on April 20, 2012, 10:08:02 AM
Bill Hicks wants me to kill myself.  :cry:
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: DoW on April 20, 2012, 10:09:09 AM
I kinda look at cable news as the WWF right before they changed to the WWE: everyone recognizes it's all bullshit, so let's just embrace it as entertainment rather than trying to pretend it's something it's not.

i think you are really far off here.  i think the majority of fox news viewers take it all very literally and seriously.
i know plenty of them, and i have never heard one of them say they know its bullshit and just want to be entertained.
Do you find any news objective anymore?
It’s bad when you can’t even read about sports anymore without feeling a hidden agenda.
Most of you know my political views, and I don’t ever recall watching Fox News.
I would agree that people do take it literally, just like people take the liberal blogs and whatnot literally too.
I do look forward to some future entertainment in this thread though.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 20, 2012, 10:12:51 AM
I kinda look at cable news as the WWF right before they changed to the WWE: everyone recognizes it's all bullshit, so let's just embrace it as entertainment rather than trying to pretend it's something it's not.

i think you are really far off here.  i think the majority of fox news viewers take it all very literally and seriously.
i know plenty of them, and i have never heard one of them say they know its bullshit and just want to be entertained.

Sorry, I should have said most sane people recognize it's bullshit, and I would not put most people who watch FN on the reg in that category. Most people have a difficult time recognizing/admitting their own need to seek out information that confirms their biases.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on April 20, 2012, 10:15:58 AM
I kinda look at cable news as the WWF right before they changed to the WWE: everyone recognizes it's all bullshit, so let's just embrace it as entertainment rather than trying to pretend it's something it's not.

i think you are really far off here.  i think the majority of fox news viewers take it all very literally and seriously.
i know plenty of them, and i have never heard one of them say they know its bullshit and just want to be entertained.

Sorry, I should have said most sane people recognize it's bullshit, and I would not put most people who watch FN on the reg in that category. Most people have a difficult time recognizing/admitting their own need to seek out information that confirms their biases.

You just called my brother-in-law insane.

I've done that before.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 20, 2012, 10:29:53 AM
::obligatory Bill Hicks quote::

 :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

We've done research.

Bill Hicks wants me to kill myself.  :cry:

I wondered why you were always posting shit from Adage.com. Now I get it.

You just called my brother-in-law insane.

I've done that before.

"Sane" was probably a poor choice of words; "reasonable" is more like it.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 20, 2012, 10:33:51 AM
Meanwhile, CNN, in an attempt to appease both poles and not seem partisan, refuses to question either side's rhetoric.  :tte:

In keeping with the news as morbid/voyeuristic entertainment, CNN is currently streaming the bond hearing for George Zimmerman. Now, I get that this is a highly charged case with heated opinions on both sides, but live coverage of a bond hearing seems pretty excessive to me.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on April 20, 2012, 10:58:30 AM
The only people watching FN are the partisan ideologues who have already made their minds up

Perhaps, but there are plenty of people that never pay any attention (like my wife), who all of sudden hear something and thinks its a huge controversy...

The fact that the average idiots accepts "obama's failure" without being able to point to a single tangible thing is proof of the "Foxification" of the average news-viewer... 

Terry
 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on April 20, 2012, 10:59:52 AM
but live coverage of a bond hearing seems pretty excessive to me.

Does it sell advertising space???  If yes, then CNN has achieved its goal...  Just like Fox...

Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on April 20, 2012, 11:12:28 AM
but live coverage of a bond hearing seems pretty excessive to me.

Does it sell advertising space???  If yes, then CNN has achieved its goal...  Just like Fox...

Terry

It's all about the eyeballs.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 20, 2012, 11:22:39 AM
The only people watching FN are the partisan ideologues who have already made their minds up

Perhaps, but there are plenty of people that never pay any attention (like my wife), who all of sudden hear something and thinks its a huge controversy...

The fact that the average idiots accepts "obama's failure" without being able to point to a single tangible thing is proof of the "Foxification" of the average news-viewer... 

Terry
 

Fortunately (or maybe not), these "controversies" don't last very long because they are just manufactured noise to distract from the real issues. In the end, do you think your wife would vote for Obama if she hadn't heard about these issues? If the answer is no, than I'd argue FN isn't the far-reaching influence peddler you seem to be suggesting it is. It's annoying for sure and I get the frustration of the blatant disregard for journalistic integrity, but to say it's dumbening the country by polluting people's minds is, I think, a tad alarmist.

I agree with your point about people just regurgitating the nonsense they hear without thinking for themselves, but I don't think it is representative of the average voter (what does "average voter" even mean?). A lot of people take Rachel Maddow's words as gospel too.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on April 20, 2012, 11:53:19 AM
(what does "average voter" even mean?)

"Really fucking stupid person"
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on April 20, 2012, 12:00:08 PM
The only people watching FN are the partisan ideologues who have already made their minds up

Perhaps, but there are plenty of people that never pay any attention (like my wife), who all of sudden hear something and thinks its a huge controversy...

The fact that the average idiots accepts "obama's failure" without being able to point to a single tangible thing is proof of the "Foxification" of the average news-viewer... 

Terry
 

Fortunately (or maybe not), these "controversies" don't last very long because they are just manufactured noise to distract from the real issues. In the end, do you think your wife would vote for Obama if she hadn't heard about these issues? If the answer is no, than I'd argue FN isn't the far-reaching influence peddler you seem to be suggesting it is. It's annoying for sure and I get the frustration of the blatant disregard for journalistic integrity, but to say it's dumbening the country by polluting people's minds is, I think, a tad alarmist.

I agree with your point about people just regurgitating the nonsense they hear without thinking for themselves, but I don't think it is representative of the average voter (what does "average voter" even mean?). A lot of people take Rachel Maddow's words as gospel too.

Your first paragraph is a bit convuluted...  I don't understand your query...

But my wife will vote for OB b/c "he's a democrat", if for nothing else...  At the same time, she can easily be swayed to vote against her own interests...  I think you give too much credit to average Americans, the fact that what was once considered right wing lunacy is now Tea Party Idealogy is proof in my eyes... 

Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on April 20, 2012, 12:11:12 PM
Isn't Fox News the highest rated news channel at this point?

They may be preaching to the choir and that choir may be solely made up of crazies, but it's a big fucking choir. 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on April 20, 2012, 12:18:21 PM
the other thing is that if you say things loud enough, and often enough, they become true. So if FN says an hours worth for crazy shit, chances are some of it will stick. People will start talking about it, it will be overheard, become a soundbite, and then become true.
ex - Hussein caused 9-11 (most people don't believe it now, but they did when the war started0, death panels
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 20, 2012, 01:02:32 PM
The only people watching FN are the partisan ideologues who have already made their minds up

Perhaps, but there are plenty of people that never pay any attention (like my wife), who all of sudden hear something and thinks its a huge controversy...

The fact that the average idiots accepts "obama's failure" without being able to point to a single tangible thing is proof of the "Foxification" of the average news-viewer... 

Terry
 

Fortunately (or maybe not), these "controversies" don't last very long because they are just manufactured noise to distract from the real issues. In the end, do you think your wife would vote for Obama if she hadn't heard about these issues? If the answer is no, than I'd argue FN isn't the far-reaching influence peddler you seem to be suggesting it is. It's annoying for sure and I get the frustration of the blatant disregard for journalistic integrity, but to say it's dumbening the country by polluting people's minds is, I think, a tad alarmist.

I agree with your point about people just regurgitating the nonsense they hear without thinking for themselves, but I don't think it is representative of the average voter (what does "average voter" even mean?). A lot of people take Rachel Maddow's words as gospel too.

Your first paragraph is a bit convuluted...  I don't understand your query...

But my wife will vote for OB b/c "he's a democrat", if for nothing else...  At the same time, she can easily be swayed to vote against her own interests...  I think you give too much credit to average Americans, the fact that what was once considered right wing lunacy is now Tea Party Idealogy is proof in my eyes... 

Terry

Oh, I see. I thought when you said your wife gets worked up over the controversy you meant she was a steady FN watcher/anti-Obama voter (is that UncleEb's wife?). But if she'll vote for him strictly for party loyalty, than I'd say FN isn't very effective. Sure she may get worked up over it, but if she's pulling the lever for D every time anyway, what are they accomplishing (besides causing you/your wife some relatively minor headaches)?

As for average Americans, I've come to the realization that there are a lot of stupid people and they will do what they want and it's not worth my time worrying about their decisions. I've also come to realize it is none of my business to tell people what is in their best interest because every person's situation is different and I could never comprehend the myriad of factors that go into the choices they make. And, with all due respect to twatts, I find it rather arrogant that people so willingly dismiss others' opinions by saying something like "These people are so stupid to believe these things that I deem crazy." This was my whole point in noting the similarities of the competing "news" organizations; everybody is crazy and they tend to align with the crazy people that don't sound so crazy to them. Is that so crazy? So I may not agree or understand how anyone could vote for Rick Santourm, I don't by any means fault them on principle because they would vote for a lunatic. I'll mock them, but I don't fault them for what I perceive to be a misguided belief. As such, I just can't find it in me to assign FN the blame for causing these people to believe what they do. This is likely a product of my faith in free markets, but I think, on the whole, when you get a large enough sample of people they will ultimately get it "right" (whatever that means).

Isn't Fox News the highest rated news channel at this point?

Yes, but that is likely because the FN viewer sees a left-leaning bias in traditional media outlets and as such seeks out "news" that is more in line with their own leanings (i.e., confirmation bias). Also, the opposition outlet always has higher ratings depending on who is in power. MSNBC's ratings were way higher during W (maybe not higher than FN because of the former point, but much higher than they are now).

They may be preaching to the choir and that choir may be solely made up of crazies, but it's a big fucking choir.

 I LOL'd

the other thing is that if you say things loud enough, and often enough, they become true. So if FN says an hours worth for crazy shit, chances are some of it will stick. People will start talking about it, it will be overheard, become a soundbite, and then become true.
ex - Hussein caused 9-11 (most people don't believe it now, but they did when the war started0, death panels

You mean like "If we don't save these banks the entire financial system will collapse!!" :wink:

Also, if you remember, the calls for invading Iraq were been voiced equally as loudly from places like the NYT (http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/200/41165.html)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: DoW on April 20, 2012, 01:55:59 PM
how do you define confirmation bias?
because I personally see a lot of left-leaning bias in the traditional media.  however, I find FN just as repulsive.
I really don't need someone on TV or someone to write to confirm I am right about something that really is not about right or wrong.  in most cases, there is not one right or wrong answer (I know not everyone will agree with me on this in here).  look at the healthcare discussion on here.  it is easy to point out the faults on each side of the argument but it is not as easy to point out a solution.

eta:  oh yeah and get back to work so that you can watch the flyers and penguins tonight.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 20, 2012, 02:20:44 PM
how do you define confirmation bias?

Don't ask me, ask Wikipedia: Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias")

because I personally see a lot of left-leaning bias in the traditional media.  however, I find FN just as repulsive.

Seconded

I really don't need someone on TV or someone to write to confirm I am right about something that really is not about right or wrong.  in most cases, there is not one right or wrong answer (I know not everyone will agree with me on this in here).

WHAT'S THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?!?! I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, YOU DICK!!

eta:  oh yeah and get back to work so that you can watch the flyers and penguins tonight.

 :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

No shit. Not sure why I'm so distracted today. I think it's because a project that's been literally killing me for the past 6 weeks is wrapping up soon. I haven't had a day off since the weekend before St. Patty's Day. But I'm almost done and then I have an interview for another job on Tuesday. I gotta get the fuck outta here.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on April 30, 2012, 02:44:46 PM
Headline and sub-head currently on the front page at FN.com:

Quote
Wind Farms Are Warming The Earth, Research Finds (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/wind-farms-are-warming-earth-researchers-say/)

Researchers discover wind farms heat the ground underneath them at night and may contribute to global warming

Clearly, the message here is "Oh, the delicious irony. Stupid environmentalists!" But it's only ironic if you believe in global warming in the first place -- which I'd wager a certain chunk of the FN audience doesn't, so they don't get to revel in this irony.

Also, the article itself, which was republished from Discovery News, doesn't explicitly say that the researchers claim wind farms can "contribute" to global warming, broadly speaking. This is simply a convenient interpretation by a FN.com editor. The closest the article comes is in saying:

Quote
Dabiri said Zhou's findings may mean taking a second look at the trade-offs with renewable energy.

That's fairly non-committal. And not to mention the other important implication there: trade-off. So let's say wind farms do raise soil surface temperatures (not the same as raising overall atmospheric temperatures) -- the next question to ask is, how does this effect compare against the effects of traditional energy sources like burning coal? If swapping coal out for wind actually heats the earth less, then it does not "contribute" to global warming, it reduces it.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on May 10, 2012, 09:17:25 AM
Gotta give credit where it's due. FN's Shep Smith is not about to toe the evangelical company line on this one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/shep-smith-obama-21st-century-gay-marriage_n_1503849.html).

Quote
Fox News' Shep Smith seemed to strongly endorse President Obama's newly announced support of same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

Amidst much hype and bated breath, Obama told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he has completed his so-called "evolution" on the issue and now believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed.

On his Fox News show, Smith played the tape of Obama speaking, and then said, "the president of the United States, now in the 21st century."

A couple of minutes later, Smith was speaking to his colleague Bret Baier. He asked Baier if the GOP would campaign against same-sex marriage "while sitting very firmly, without much question, on the wrong side of history on it."

Smith closed out the segment by noting that the issue of gay marriage is still up to individual states. He said that Obama's endorsement "makes no legal change for now, which may sound familiar to a couple of generations ago, but that's where we are."
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on May 25, 2012, 09:42:39 AM
Fairly benign story about public NYC elementary school instituting Arabic classes in order to vie for prestigious International Baccalaureate status conveniently appropriated as front-page FN.com headline that panders to readership's xenophobic hysteria over encroaching Islamicization of America. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/24/new-york-public-school-makes-learning-arabic-mandatory/?test=latestnews)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on May 31, 2012, 02:26:48 PM
Sometimes, FN keeps up the veneer of objectivism. Sometimes they don't even try.

Front-page headline:
Take a BIG Gulp NYC, Nanny Mayor on Prowl (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/nyc-plans-to-ban-sales-sugary-drinks-over-16-ounces/#ixzz1wTLSH5Di)

Quote
The sin-tax sheriff is back on the job.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing another ban on unhealthy foods. This time, he wants to outlaw super-sized sodas and other sugary drinks.

The first-in-the-nation ban would limit sweet drinks to 16 ounces at venues across the city ranging from restaurants to street carts to movie theaters -- that means those extra-large cup holders at Loews are about to get awfully lonely.

The ban, though, doesn't seem to take into account the obvious work-around. Want more than 16 ounces? Just buy two bottles. There's no Big Apple ban on doing that -- yet.

Bloomberg's proposal hasn't quite joined the city's growing roster of other behavior-curbing laws like its bans on trans-fats and smoking. The Board of Health still needs to sign off on it, but according to MyFoxNY.com that's likely to happen since the members are Bloomberg appointees.

Bloomberg said Wednesday he "thinks it's what the public wants the mayor to do."

But residents and businesses are divided on that count.

A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, Stefan Friedman, criticized the proposal as "zealous." He said officials should seek solutions that are actually going to curb obesity.

The association said in a statement that the ban will not address obesity because "soda is not driving the obesity rates."

One resident voiced support for the plan, telling MyFoxNY.com "sodas are really unhealthy and I don't see any reason you need to drink 20 ounces of soda."

But another noted soda addicts could just come back for refills: "A lot of people drink soda and regardless ... they will be buying more, and that's even worse."

Conservative activists are meanwhile having a field day with the decision.

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, wrote on his blog Thursday that "there are a whole lot of things New Yorkers would rather King Michael be doing other than telling New Yorkers what they can or cannot drink."

He argued: "It is time to move the Statue of Liberty."

The ban, which could take effect as soon as March, would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks or alcoholic beverages. Nor would it include drinks sold in grocery or convenience stores. Food establishments that don't downsize would face fines of $200.

Under the three-term mayor, the city has campaigned aggressively against obesity, including outlawing trans-fats in restaurant food and forcing chain restaurants to post calorie counts on menus.

The Bloomberg administration has tried other ways to make soda consumption less appealing.

The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, an idea federal regulars rejected.

This was not, despite what you may think, published as an opinion piece. This is a straight-news story by FN. They are basically turning into a tabloid.

And let me say: I don't actually agree with the proposal. Nor, it appears, does anyone at FN involved with this story. But there's a way to report the facts without editorializing all over the damn place.

Reading this, I was wondering "so you won't be able to buy a 2-liter bottle anymore?" And then way down in the 15th paragraph they point out that the rule wouldn't apply to grocery/convenience stores. Meaning, what Bloomberg actually is trying to do is cut back on soda consumed as a single serving at a foodservice establishment. Again, I'm not in favor of this, but that's the kind of nuance that FN deliberately ignores when they make blanket pronouncements like Bloomberg "wants to outlaw super-sized sodas."

Also conspicuously missing from the story was any attempt to verify with researchers or public health officials what impacts heavy soda consumption has on health, whether that has been at all quantified in terms of health-care costs, and whether the city makes any claims about public or private savings that could be achieved via this rule.

And I'm sure this FN writer and his readers' heads would have exploded if the story explored the topic of how many poor people on Medicaid are mooching off of FREE TAXPAYER-FUNDED healthcare to treat diabetes and other health complications that may be caused or compounded by excessive soda consumption.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on May 31, 2012, 03:45:49 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An_Kd-55-kg


Oh, I thought you were going to talk about Fox And Fiends...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205300001

Terry
 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: emay on May 31, 2012, 11:41:38 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An_Kd-55-kg


Oh, I thought you were going to talk about Fox And Fiends...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205300001

Terry

 :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
havent listened to weird al in a while, thank you!
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on June 01, 2012, 01:00:54 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An_Kd-55-kg


Oh, I thought you were going to talk about Fox And Fiends...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205300001

Terry

Interesting that Media Matters doesn't dispute any of the stats in the piece, only that it's ethically questionable.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on June 18, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
Current front-page story (above the fold) on FN.com:

Quote
Conservative bloggers taking precautions over ‘SWAT-ing’ attacks

LAS VEGAS –  Conservative bloggers are on heightened alert following a string of so-called "SWAT-ing" incidents and are taking precautionary measures to ensure they don't fall victim to the potentially dangerous prank as the political blogosphere prepares for a heated election season.

"SWAT-ing" refers to a hoax in which an anonymous prankster falsely reports a violent crime at an unsuspecting person's home, prompting a police team to respond to the location believing a dangerous situation is at hand.

The illegal practice has in recent months targeted well-known conservative writers and commentators, including Erick Erickson, founder of the blog RedState.com -- who claims he was eating dinner with his family in May when a SWAT team surrounded his home following such a false 911 call.

The growing trend, which some say could one day prove deadly, had conservatives on edge at the annual RightOnline conference of right-wing bloggers and activists in Las Vegas this weekend.

"What they're clearly trying to do is dampen down free speech, but it goes beyond that -- it's putting people's physical safety in jeopardy," said Ali Akbar, who heads a group called the National Bloggers Club made up of conservative online writers.

Akbar told FoxNews.com that he believes he is a target after he claims his mother's home address in Texas was posted on various Internet sites to "incite someone crazy on the fringe left to do something absolutely awful to one of us for what we're talking about."

Akbar and others are urging troops of conservative bloggers to protect themselves by contacting their local law enforcement before they post about a "controversial" topic.

"Notify law enforcement," he said. "It's uncomfortable to talk to your local police about this, but it's absolutely important because getting SWAT-ted is not a joking matter. They come to your house with their guns drawn. They'll kick in your door."

Such was the case for conservative Patrick Frey of Patterico's Pontifications, who reportedly had a SWAT team --with guns drawn -- descend on his California home in July 2011 and handcuff him.   

Those orchestrating the hoax make the calls appear as though they are originating from the victim's home by using sophisticated methods, like "voiceover IP" on a computer that makes it untraceable.   

There is now a growing call to track down those responsible for the calls.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who headlined the two-day RightOnline conference, declared that "those responsible for this SWAT-ing must be held accountable by the law."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., as well as 85 other members of Congress, is calling on the Justice Department to a launch a federal probe into the matter.

"The emerging pattern is both disturbing and dangerous," Chambliss wrote in a June 5 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. "Any potentially criminal action that incites fear, seeks to silence a dissenting opinion, and collaterally wastes the resources of law enforcement should be given close scrutiny at all levels."

The advances of the Internet -- like the birth of social media -- have enabled everyday "citizen journalists" to spread their messages like never before, but they have also created a potentially dangerous world for a political blogger, Akbar warned.

"We're writing in digital ink," he said, "So there's enough room these days for everybody to talk about everything."

via (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/17/conservative-bloggers-taking-precautions-over-swat-ing-attacks/?test=latestnews#ixzz1y9Ym8JBH)

So let me get this out of the way up front: it's completely fucked up and in no way acceptable to have a SWAT team called on some poor unsuspecting sap.

That said, I find FN's breathless panic over this "trend" to be quite amusing and typically self-serving. If SWAT-ing is really the epidemic this article and the RightOnline conference make it out to be, you'd think they could cite more than the two incidents mentioned in the article -- and one of them was nearly a year ago.

Also, LOL at this author's clunky and incorrect explanation of what "VOIP" means.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 27, 2012, 11:16:22 AM
FN.com has been hammering Obama over his "you didn't build that" comment (which he claims was meant to apply to things like roads and infrastructure, not private businesses themselves; not that you'll see FN give much deference to claims that remark has been taken out of context).

Here's the current top front page story:

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/--I1hiHMoxrM/UBKuLfIlthI/AAAAAAAAC6s/jkKc97iInkI/s673/Screen%2520shot%25202012-07-27%2520at%252011.00.51%2520AM.png)

Yesterday featured a similarly snarky top story and front-page graphic poking at the "build that" "gaffe."

I love the giant headline within the graphic: "Obama built that." It's presented as a quote but there's no attempt right there to attribute it to anyone or make clear that FN is merely reporting on some third party's criticism. This kind of presentation effectively allows FN to blatantly editorialize while the quote marks let them claim they were simply passing along a comment. They have such high journalistic integrity, you know.

And having read the story, I can only assume the front-page quote was (incorrectly, as it happens) taken from a Romney e-mail referenced in the story, which was titled "The Obama Economy: Barack Obama Built This."

It must be nice when you can fire off garden-variety campaign missives and have a major "news" outlet parrot your jabs on the front page of its website, with nary any attribution or elaboration to identify whose opinion is being echoed here.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: phil on July 27, 2012, 11:27:55 AM
It goes both ways. Watching MSNBC's coverage of Mitt Romney's bumbling attempt at international relations last night was akin watching fourth-graders in suits explain why their teacher is a butt-head. It's all drivel, the only difference is which side they're pandering to.

Edit: This is what I'm talking about

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/704203/thumbs/s-LAWRENCE-ODONNELL-large.jpg)

Is this what passes for serious reporting in this country? Do people just not have time to do things right anymore because of the 24-hour news cycle?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 27, 2012, 02:05:14 PM
The difference is that Lawrence O'Donnell's show is quite clearly an opinion show. It's not straight journalism. Just like Olbermann before him, or John Stewart or Sean Hannity.

Anyone who's honest will acknowledge that MSNBC's programming panders to the left-leaning viewer just as Fox News panders to conservatives. But looking at how they are pulling that off, it's different. MSNBC does it through what is clearly personality/opinion-driven content, while Fox News shows clear bias in the stories they cover and they way they cover them -- the bias at Fox News is much more deeply entrenched and is very anti-journalistic. In my opinion.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: phil on July 27, 2012, 02:08:04 PM
The difference is that Lawrence O'Donnell's show is quite clearly an opinion show. It's not straight journalism. Just like Olbermann before him, or John Stewart or Sean Hannity.

Anyone who's honest will acknowledge that MSNBC's programming panders to the left-leaning viewer just as Fox News panders to conservatives. But looking at how they are pulling that off, it's different. MSNBC does it through what is clearly personality/opinion-driven content, while Fox News shows clear bias in the stories they cover and they way they cover them -- the bias at Fox News is much more deeply entrenched and is very anti-journalistic. In my opinion.

Fox has the added advantage of a target audience with an average IQ of about 90, so they can get away with a lot more. I think all of those cable news networks are nothing but garbage.

NPR or gtfo.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 27, 2012, 02:14:15 PM
The difference is that Lawrence O'Donnell's show is quite clearly an opinion show. It's not straight journalism. Just like Olbermann before him, or John Stewart or Sean Hannity.

Anyone who's honest will acknowledge that MSNBC's programming panders to the left-leaning viewer just as Fox News panders to conservatives. But looking at how they are pulling that off, it's different. MSNBC does it through what is clearly personality/opinion-driven content, while Fox News shows clear bias in the stories they cover and they way they cover them -- the bias at Fox News is much more deeply entrenched and is very anti-journalistic. In my opinion.

Fox has the added advantage of a target audience with an average IQ of about 90, so they can get away with a lot more. I think all of those cable news networks are nothing but garbage.

NPR or gtfo.

I love me some Car Talk.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on July 27, 2012, 02:39:15 PM

I love me some Car Talk.

The TED show is really good stuff...   http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/

Sad news, the Car Talk guys are retiring soon...  Though I'm sure they'll keep playing the old shows forever and ever...

Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 27, 2012, 03:02:55 PM
When does the TED show air?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on July 27, 2012, 03:08:50 PM
When does the TED show air?

9pm for us @ WUNC...  I heard the "Idea" show the other day and I heard the "Classroom" one mehtinks day before yesterday...  Its good stuff, my new favorite show... 

Terry

Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 13, 2012, 03:01:07 PM
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-eTzrVAuWInA/UClLZKNcwYI/AAAAAAAAC7Y/V1lmPhMil1Q/s677/Screen%2520shot%25202012-08-13%2520at%25202.42.47%2520PM.png) (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/13/complaints-prompt-water-park-to-end-discounts-for-church-groups/)

Peep the middle one.

Quick summary of the "incident": Secular (meaning, not religiously affiliated but not necessarily atheist, either) charity asks if they can have the same discount as church groups get. Water park says no, and then decides to pull the discounts for all groups. Nobody "forced" the water park to do anything. And the complaint itself did not come from an "atheist" group like this headline and subhead allege. An atheist group later followed up with its own complaint, but by this point the water park had already ended its discounts.

Fox News so delights in fighting the culture wars and vilifying atheists (or, mostly, non-Christians by way of depicting Christians as being subject to endless persecution) that it leaves them prone to publishing sloppy, misleading shit like that front-page headline. And not infrequently.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 14, 2012, 09:51:50 AM
L O FUCKING L

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-riZeuKRSPvg/UCpXF0fQ-XI/AAAAAAAAC7s/5_jykUSM47s/s676/Screen%2520shot%25202012-08-14%2520at%25209.47.50%2520AM.png)

Fox News: blowing the lid off hypocrisy in politics, wherever it may appear!

Get back to me when they decide to run a front-page headline trumpeting "Once upon a time, GOP praised individual mandate!" Ain't ever gonna happen. That'd be a little too fair and balanced...
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 14, 2012, 02:31:03 PM
Where you at, VDB?!? They even mention that the tax cuts in both plans favor the wealthy (although it's at the end of the lengthy, 500 word article, which I know is a pet peeve of yours). What the shit is going on here?!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-budget-plan-doesnt-actually-slash-budget/

Quote
Fact Check: Ryan budget plan doesn't actually slash the budget

Here are a few little-known facts about Paul Ryan's supposedly slash-and-burn budget plan.

- Government spending increases almost every year over the next decade. 
- Tax and other revenue rises year after year.   
- The 10-year deficit is still $3 trillion. 

The fact that Ryan's spending plans grow the federal budget over the long term is one that could easily be lost in the political melee underway in the wake of his selection as Mitt Romney's running mate. 

To be sure, Ryan is proposing major changes to Medicare and taxation that Democrats see as problematic. 

But claims that Ryan is slashing spending don't quite square with the numbers. Those claims are convenient Washington shorthand for what Ryan's plan actually proposes -- which is to slow the rate of budget growth, but still allow the budget to grow. 

Under the latest Ryan plan, the budget would grow from $3.6 trillion this year to $4.9 trillion in 2022. The only years in which spending would dip are 2013 and 2014. 

Under President Obama's 2013 budget, spending also increases over the 10-year period, but by a much bigger amount. The budget grows from $3.8 trillion in 2012 to $5.8 trillion in 2022. And instead of the $3.1 trillion long-term deficit under Ryan's plan, Obama's plan comes with a $6.7 trillion deficit. 

That's the money that would be added to the national debt over that period. 

There is one measure by which Ryan is shrinking the budget. Over the next 10 years, it proposes to shrink government spending "as a share of the economy" from roughly 23 percent to about 20 percent. 

The Obama campaign, though, calls the Ryan plan a "sham." 

In a website launched immediately after he was picked as Romney's running mate, the campaign said the "extreme budget plan" would make "deep spending cuts now to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy." 

Ryan's proposal calls for cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent. 

While claims that Ryan is slashing the budget are questionable, there are studies to back up claims that the Republicans' tax plans benefit the wealthy more than others. 

A June study from the Joint Economic Committee -- which is chaired by a Democrat -- claims middle-class married couples could pay at least an extra $1,300 under Ryan's plan, while those earning more than $1 million a year could see a nearly $290,000 cut. 

According to an Aug. 1 study released by the Tax Policy Center, Romney's tax plan would also include cuts that "predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers." 

It projected taxpayers making more than $1 million would see tax cuts averaging $175,000. Those making between $75,000 and $100,000 would see an average tax cut of $1,800. And those making under $30,000 would see an average increase of $130, according to the report.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 14, 2012, 04:23:40 PM
Another rare lucid moment for FN? Although I think what they're trying to do here is point out that Democrats have it all wrong -- Ryan's plan won't really slash government spending (esp. entitlements) like they're screaming it will. Except, in pointing that out, doesn't this article also kind of undermine the GOP narrative of Ryan as a budget hawk hero?

I did think the bit about spending as a percent of GDP puts the numbers in a much better context than just throwing out raw figures.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on August 14, 2012, 10:31:51 PM
in all due respect, jimbo, you don't really believe anything from the fox news website without confirming it elsewhere, do you?

eta - never mind, read it again and see the sarcasm.
need to go get some sleep.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 15, 2012, 08:05:03 AM
I did think the bit about spending as a percent of GDP puts the numbers in a much better context than just throwing out raw figures.

You know that's not a FN original, right? It's a common budgetary metric since it allows for easier comparison of historical/projected years or between countries since it normalizes for inflation, FX, etc.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 15, 2012, 08:41:40 AM
I did think the bit about spending as a percent of GDP puts the numbers in a much better context than just throwing out raw figures.

You know that's not a FN original, right? It's a common budgetary metric since it allows for easier comparison of historical/projected years or between countries since it normalizes for inflation, FX, etc.

I know -- that's why I think it's more helpful.

And wouldn't it be better to spend more time talking in those terms rather than arguing over who may be technically correct or incorrect about the budget rising or falling in strict dollar terms under a given plan? Instead it's just tucked in there as an aside, surrounded mostly by a more politicized scorecarding of whose bluster passes more muster. (Dig the rhyme?)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on August 30, 2012, 09:15:30 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

Quote
1. Dazzling
 
At least a quarter of Americans still don’t know who Paul Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him view him favorably.
 
So, Ryan’s primary job tonight was to introduce himself and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well. The personal parts of the speech were very personally delivered, especially the touching parts where Ryan talked about his father and mother and their roles in his life. And at the end of the speech, when Ryan cheered the crowd to its feet, he showed an energy and enthusiasm that’s what voters want in leaders and what Republicans have been desperately lacking in this campaign.
 
To anyone watching Ryan’s speech who hasn’t been paying much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn’t what candidates have done or what they promise to do —it’s personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket.
 
2. Deceiving
 
On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was  Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
 
The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.
 
Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.
 
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.
 
Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.
 
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.
 
Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many.
 
3. Distracting
 
And then there’s what Ryan didn’t talk about.
 
Ryan didn’t mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters.
 
Ryan didn’t mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street.
 
Ryan didn’t mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president.
 
Ryan didn’t mention how his budget would eviscerate programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increase —the deficit.
 
These aspects of Ryan’s resume and ideology are sticky to say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance.
 
At the end of his speech, Ryan quoted his dad, who used to say to him, “"Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution."
 
Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.
 
Sally Kohn is a writer and Fox News contributor.  You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter@sallykohn.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz252DsSBp4

Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 09:30:17 AM
Damn it, T, now I don't know to respond here or to RJ over here (http://week4paug.net/index.php?topic=19199.msg669194#msg669194).

To be fair, saying Fox News calls BS on an article by Sally Kohn is like saying "MSNBC calls Obama an N-bomb" for an an article by Pat Buchanan (although I appluad you guys for pointing out Fox's fair & balanced-ness).
 
But, to her list of grievances:
 
1. S&P downgrade - the rating was not downgraded because the GOP threatened not to raise the debt ceiling, it was raised because (a) $15T in debt seemed like an unsustainable amount of debt that could never be repaid (glad we nipped that in the bud) and (b) Congressional dooshbaggery on both side of the aisle, not soley becuase of the GOP. Ryan is distorting the truth by saying that Obama was responsible for the downgrade, just not for the reason Kohn gives.
2. The GM plant closing in Ryan's hometown - this is absolutely a lie and Ryan has been called on it the past so I don't understand why they continue trotting that out. 1-for-2.
3. The "you didn't build that" line: I think both sides have been pretty disingenous on this one. Did GOP take remark out of context? Maybe. Did Obama mean building roads and bridges when he said "that"? I'm skeptical. This one's a push.
4. The $716B Medicare "cuts" - I think I've beat this horse enough, but no, it will not only affect reimbursement rates or save seniors on out-of-pocket but it is true the Ryan embraced the same cuts (he just used the money to actually shore up the "trust" rather than to pay for a massive Medicaid expansion).
 
Overall, only I see only 1 outright fabrication on her list. Now, I'm sure there were others, but Kohn decides to only go for the big scary ones so that everyone knows how different the GOP vision of the country is from the Dems. I can't wait to see PolitiFact factcheck Kohn's piece. I give it a "Mostly false."
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on August 30, 2012, 10:27:31 AM
Damn it, T, now I don't know to respond here or to RJ over here (http://week4paug.net/index.php?topic=19199.msg669194#msg669194).

To be fair, saying Fox News calls BS on an article by Sally Kohn is like saying "MSNBC calls Obama an N-bomb" for an an article by Pat Buchanan (although I appluad you guys for pointing out Fox's fair & balanced-ness).
 
But, to her list of grievances:
 
1. S&P downgrade - the rating was not downgraded because the GOP threatened not to raise the debt ceiling, it was raised because (a) $15T in debt seemed like an unsustainable amount of debt that could never be repaid (glad we nipped that in the bud) and (b) Congressional dooshbaggery on both side of the aisle, not soley becuase of the GOP. Ryan is distorting the truth by saying that Obama was responsible for the downgrade, just not for the reason Kohn gives.
2. The GM plant closing in Ryan's hometown - this is absolutely a lie and Ryan has been called on it the past so I don't understand why they continue trotting that out. 1-for-2.
3. The "you didn't build that" line: I think both sides have been pretty disingenous on this one. Did GOP take remark out of context? Maybe. Did Obama mean building roads and bridges when he said "that"? I'm skeptical. This one's a push.
4. The $716B Medicare "cuts" - I think I've beat this horse enough, but no, it will not only affect reimbursement rates or save seniors on out-of-pocket but it is true the Ryan embraced the same cuts (he just used the money to actually shore up the "trust" rather than to pay for a massive Medicaid expansion).
 
Overall, only I see only 1 outright fabrication on her list. Now, I'm sure there were others, but Kohn decides to only go for the big scary ones so that everyone knows how different the GOP vision of the country is from the Dems. I can't wait to see PolitiFact factcheck Kohn's piece. I give it a "Mostly false."

1.  Why is Ryan blaming OB something that should more appropriately be blamed on Congress???
2.  Further point, Ryan asked for Federal Money to help save this plant, but did not get it.  Congress later passed Stimulus which helped similar plants stay open.
3.  "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."  Seems pretty clear to me OB meant infrastructure and that the GOP is taking it out of context.  So our perspectives on this are 180...  We can disagree...
4.  We can work the in-an-outs of what may or may not happen, but both seem to want pretty much the save "cuts", right??? 

Although, my broader point is that even Fox is posting editorials critical of Ryan...

Terry
 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 11:57:43 AM
1.  Why is Ryan blaming OB something that should more appropriately be blamed on Congress???

On further inspection, I'm really not so sure he even blamed Obama for the downgrade. Here's the only line I can find re the downgrade from the text (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/paul-ryan-speech-text_n_1829354.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012):

Quote
Obamacare, as much as anything else, explains why a presidency that began with such anticipation now comes to such a disappointing close.

It began with a financial crisis; it ends with a job crisis.

It began with a housing crisis they alone didn’t cause; it ends with a housing crisis they didn’t correct.

It began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America.

It all started off with stirring speeches, Greek columns, the thrill of something new. Now all that’s left is a presidency adrift, surviving on slogans that already seem tired, grasping at a moment that has already passed, like a ship trying to sail on yesterday’s wind.

Is that blaming Obama, or is he simply saying that it happened while he was president? Semantics? Sure, since I agree the implication is that it's Obama's fault, but all campaigns engage in verbal gymnastics to make the other guy look like a dick so let's not hold one campaign to a higher standard than the other.

2.  Further point, Ryan asked for Federal Money to help save this plant, but did not get it.  Congress later passed Stimulus which helped similar plants stay open.

On this point, I was wrong before, he didn't blame Obama for the plant shutdown (although he had in prior speeches). They tweeked the language and said something that was factually correct:

Quote
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

Admittedly this is the same semantics as above, but what he said was not a lie.

To your point, I honestly see no hypocrisy whatsoever in asking for money that has already been appropriated, even if you opposed the original policy in question. Congressmen have a responsibility to their constituents, and refusing to ask for money that is already being doled out on principle is shirking their sworn duty to the people they represent (and as noted in the past, if W had proposed the stimulus Ryan most likely would not have voted against it). However, he was asked a couple weeks ago about this issue and he said, "I never asked for stimulus money." Now that is a straight up lie and one he was (rightly) called out for. As to the ulimate result of the factories that were saved, as I've said in the past, the long -term costs far outweigh the short-term benefits IMO.

3.  "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."  Seems pretty clear to me OB meant infrastructure and that the GOP is taking it out of context.  So our perspectives on this are 180...  We can disagree...

NO, WE CAN'T DISAGREE, T. YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME!!!!!

The point of making this "You didn't build that" an issue is not whether Obama was talking about infrastructure or not. The point is that he believes that gov't is responsible for private sector success. Not completely responsible, maybe not even primarily responsible. But the comment illustrates pretty clearly to me that he believes gov't is far more responsible than I (and most Americans, BTW) would concede. The GOP kinda diminshes this point by making it a soundbite, but I do think it's one of the few important distinctions between the candidates rhetoric (in reality, both sides want to increase the scope of gov't in our lives, just in different ways).

4.  We can work the in-an-outs of what may or may not happen, but both seem to want pretty much the save "cuts", right???

Absolutely, the Ryan budget keeps the Obama Medicare "cuts". Romney's plan (which I'm not sure he's released) apparently restores the $716B, which is why it is often said the Romney is running to Obama's left on Medicare.

Although, my broader point is that even Fox is posting editorials critical of Ryan...

My broader point is not a defense of Paul Ryan it is simply that everybody is lying.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 30, 2012, 12:40:39 PM
The point of making this "You didn't build that" an issue is not whether Obama was talking about infrastructure or not. The point is that he believes that gov't is responsible for private sector success. Not completely responsible, maybe not even primarily responsible. But the comment illustrates pretty clearly to me that he believes gov't is far more responsible than I (and most Americans, BTW) would concede. The GOP kinda diminshes this point by making it a soundbite, but I do think it's one of the few important distinctions between the candidates rhetoric (in reality, both sides want to increase the scope of gov't in our lives, just in different ways).

I'm not sure what's so radical or "socialist" about someone pointing out that governments, by and large, are responsible for infrastructure development and maintenance, and that private industry sure as hell does rely on that infrastructure so they can do what private industry does. I must have missed the part where Obama said "And therefore, government should get at least [insert some huge scary number] percent of the credit for our economy and for private-industry success." I don't think he's trying to quantify it at all. He's just saying -- hey, guess what, you can't go running around saying the government plays absolutely no role whatsoever in the success or support of our economy -- which is pretty much what they GOP says, since it fits neatly with their desire to shrink government until they can drown it in a bathtub.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on August 30, 2012, 01:23:56 PM

The point of making this "You didn't build that" an issue is not whether Obama was talking about infrastructure or not. The point is that he believes that gov't is responsible for private sector success. Not completely responsible, maybe not even primarily responsible. But the comment illustrates pretty clearly to me that he believes gov't is far more responsible than I (and most Americans, BTW) would concede. The GOP kinda diminshes this point by making it a soundbite, but I do think it's one of the few important distinctions between the candidates rhetoric (in reality, both sides want to increase the scope of gov't in our lives, just in different ways).


So if the majority of Americnas jumped off the Golden Gate???  What you and the Majority believe and are willing to concede doesn't make it true or false... 

Quote
If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

I don't see where he is inferring that "Gov't" is (even partially) responsible for "success" (sic)...  He says "somebody else made that happen".  That someone could be any number of private citizens OR gov't workers who make up our Society.  If you want to suggest "Society" "made that happen", I would agree...  But to suggest that Gov't bought all those hot-dogs for Snoopy's in Raleigh, that's ridiculous...  (Although, it is the Gov't that mandates what can't and can go into those hot-dogs, maintains a system to track hot-dogs that may or may not cause illness, and helps fund the roads and rails that got the hot-dogs to his store...  but that's another story...)

BTW, I got into on WRAL with the Snoppy's guy...  He stated that the Police and Fire Dept didn't help him build his business...  I responded that the Police's function is to preserve civil society, with which peaceful busniess transaction could take place...  Otherwise, someone would have robbed his store first day...

Back to work...

Terry
 

Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on August 30, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
well  - I watched the speech live, which is always different from reading the text the next day

Ryan made it pretty clear that Obama (or his admin, which is essentially the same thing) was responsible for the factory closing in WI and also that Obama was responsible for the bond rating to go down. By saying something happened under his watch is blaming him, imo.

I think Ryan's nose grew a little last night.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 09:48:21 PM
I'm not sure what's so radical or "socialist" about someone pointing out that governments, by and large, are responsible for infrastructure development and maintenance, and that private industry sure as hell does rely on that infrastructure so they can do what private industry does. I must have missed the part where Obama said "And therefore, government should get at least [insert some huge scary number] percent of the credit for our economy and for private-industry success." I don't think he's trying to quantify it at all. He's just saying -- hey, guess what, you can't go running around saying the government plays absolutely no role whatsoever in the success or support of our economy -- which is pretty much what they GOP says, since it fits neatly with their desire to shrink government until they can drown it in a bathtub.

But that's exactly my point. No one is saying "Man, if only these roads & bridges weren't here I'd be a lot better off." Even the most strident paleo-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist is not "running around saying the gov't plays absolutely no role whatsoever in the success or support of the economy." And that's why when Obama says "you didn't build that" I absolutely don't believe that he was talking about roads and bridges because everyone understands that commerce is dependent on infrastructure.  This is such a ridiculous strawman I don't even understand why it has to be acknowledged.
 
I wasn't suggesting Obama was trying to quantify how much of an indivdual's success is due to the prudent actions of a benevolent gov't. But I do believe the comments (and the whole passage from speech, not just the cherry-picked "build that" line) demonstrate that Obama's vision of the "American system" values merit much less than I do. I understand that not every successful person pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and overcame adversity to get to where they are. I am aware that not every person who has fallen on hard times did so because they'd rather sit at home at smoke bongs and play video games. And yes, I realize that without roads and bridges, businesses would not be able to prosper (I can't believe I actually had to type that). But that doesn't change the fact that I believe that, in general, people's success is determined by the individual far more than it is because we have such wonderful schools educating the burger flippers of tomorrow. Is it fair that these determining factors are often inherent traits that cannot be taught or bought or practiced? No, but then again, I'm not good looking enough to bang Kate Upton but you don't hear me bitching about it.

I mean, the only other possible explanation for the comments would be that it was a not-so-thinnly veiled pitch for more taxes on the rich, a horse that he's been beating since the '08 campaign. But that still leads me to the same conclusion: that Obama believes that benefits of a centrally planned, state controlled economy is more virtuous than one based on merit. And obviously (to borrow one of the president's favorite lines), that is a vision that I fundamentally disagree with.

Oh yeah, and shrinking the size of gov't to about a fifth of the economy is totally the equivalent of "drowning it in a bathtub". :roll:


So if the majority of Americnas jumped off the Golden Gate???  What you and the Majority believe and are willing to concede doesn't make it true or false... 

I wasn't suggesting that my opinion was true because the majority of Americans shared my belief; I was simply stating my own opinion and pointing out that it is aligned with the majority in this country (for my own benefit really since that really doesn't happen too often). But you already knew that.

Quote
If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

I don't see where he is inferring that "Gov't" is (even partially) responsible for "success" (sic)...  He says "somebody else made that happen".  That someone could be any number of private citizens OR gov't workers who make up our Society.  If you want to suggest "Society" "made that happen", I would agree...  But to suggest that Gov't bought all those hot-dogs for Snoopy's in Raleigh, that's ridiculous...  (Although, it is the Gov't that mandates what can't and can go into those hot-dogs, maintains a system to track hot-dogs that may or may not cause illness, and helps fund the roads and rails that got the hot-dogs to his store...  but that's another story...)

So the great teacher he is talking about, was that at a charter school, or did the fictional successful person have access to them because of a voucher program (or even funding the student rather than the school)? And where can I "invest" in roads and bridges, because shit, people use them so that sounds like a good investment. And seriously, who the fuck else made that business happen?

BTW, I got into on WRAL with the Snoppy's guy...  He stated that the Police and Fire Dept didn't help him build his business...  I responded that the Police's function is to preserve civil society, with which peaceful busniess transaction could take place...  Otherwise, someone would have robbed his store first day...

I don't know who Snoppy is but he sounds like that idiot at VDB's gym who gets so caught up in the rhetoric he completely misses the point of the underlying message. I'm glad that doesn't happen in politics too often.

well  - I watched the speech live, which is always different from reading the text the next day

Ryan made it pretty clear that Obama (or his admin, which is essentially the same thing) was responsible for the factory closing in WI and also that Obama was responsible for the bond rating to go down. By saying something happened under his watch is blaming him, imo.

I think Ryan's nose grew a little last night.

I watched as well and I agree the lines were catered to an audience hungry for some red meat. It was the selective and unanimous outrage that erupted in the media that annoyed me. I expect it from Jonathan Chait and Joan Walsh and Michael Tomasky. But when the AP declares "FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech (http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html)", it's a bit too much for me, especially when none of the items mentioned are factually inaccurate. They may make Ryan look like a dooshbag hypocrite (not hard because, well, he is), but they are not the inaccuracies the AP claims them to be. I fully recognize that my reading of "you didn't build that" is open for debate because people have different perspectives shaping their interpretations. But I don't believe what he said was a lie.

But I look forward to the media calling out Obama's rhetorical hyperboles next week.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on August 30, 2012, 10:00:02 PM

I don't know who Snoppy

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/rnc_taps_snoopys_owner_after_spread_of_i_did_create_this_sign

This guy...  runs one of the Snoopy's franchises around here...  really crappy food... 

Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on August 31, 2012, 02:14:53 AM
THIS WAS ON FOX NEWS WEB SITE:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

Quote
Paul Ryan’s speech in 3 words

.............


2. Deceiving

On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was  Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.

Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.

Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.

Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.

Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.

Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many.

Thanks for posting that for the 3rd time
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Superfreakie on August 31, 2012, 03:00:12 AM
Thanks for posting that for the 3rd time

as yes, I just got home and was watching Colbert on DVR............... I dvr all my TV watching so learn everything about 4 hours later than the rest of the population. My news, tv shows, my sports.....  :frustrated: I should just move to the left coast.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on September 17, 2012, 10:36:04 PM
Wondering how Fox News is covering the recently leaked Romney video in which he says 47% of the country is dependent on the government and incapable of personal responsibility as evidenced by their support for Obama (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/controversial-private-fund-raiser-video-shows-candid-romney/?hpt=hp_c1)?

Well, they're trying not to. First, the story isn't currently mentioned anywhere on FN.com's front page, even though virtually every other major news outlet has this as among their top stories. (And rightly so. This is a presidential candidate writing off and disparaging half the US population. Pretty incendiary and newsworthy if you ask me.) On FN, you have to go to the Politics tab to find their take on the story (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/obama-campaign-seizes-on-romney-victims-video/). And even then, I love how FN frames it. "Obama campaign criticizes Romney comments." This is a trademark FN touch. It's never simply "Romney says XYZ," because then you'd have to deal with the issue on its face and what it means. By reporting the story (however grudgingly) in the context of how the Obama campaign is responding to it, FN conveniently gets to cast the controversy as just more campaign bickering, and we know you can't put stock in anything coming from the Obama camp anyway. Among the FN audience, Obama and his people have zero credibility, so reporting on their reaction to something astonishingly stupid that Romney did as opposed to reporting on what Romney said gives FN that conveneint out of not having to completely call out their guy but still paying lip service to their obligation as a supposed news agency to report important news.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: gah on September 18, 2012, 09:43:08 AM
Wondering how Fox News is covering the recently leaked Romney video in which he says 47% of the country is dependent on the government and incapable of personal responsibility as evidenced by their support for Obama (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/controversial-private-fund-raiser-video-shows-candid-romney/?hpt=hp_c1)?

Well, they're trying not to. First, the story isn't currently mentioned anywhere on FN.com's front page, even though virtually every other major news outlet has this as among their top stories. (And rightly so. This is a presidential candidate writing off and disparaging half the US population. Pretty incendiary and newsworthy if you ask me.) On FN, you have to go to the Politics tab to find their take on the story (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/obama-campaign-seizes-on-romney-victims-video/). And even then, I love how FN frames it. "Obama campaign criticizes Romney comments." This is a trademark FN touch. It's never simply "Romney says XYZ," because then you'd have to deal with the issue on its face and what it means. By reporting the story (however grudgingly) in the context of how the Obama campaign is responding to it, FN conveniently gets to cast the controversy as just more campaign bickering, and we know you can't put stock in anything coming from the Obama camp anyway. Among the FN audience, Obama and his people have zero credibility, so reporting on their reaction to something astonishingly stupid that Romney did as opposed to reporting on what Romney said gives FN that conveneint out of not having to completely call out their guy but still paying lip service to their obligation as a supposed news agency to report important news.

Solid analysis.

Also, Romney's goose is cooked with this one. Game over.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 18, 2012, 10:40:52 AM
See, this is where you confuse me, VDB. You quite correctly point out in the other thread that there is no such thing as truth in journalism anymore (which reminds me, I need to get back to you on some examples of flagrant Democratic BS, of which there are many) but then you fixate on this story which, IMO, is no more newsworthy than Obama being secretly recorded at a private fundraiser saying "bitter clingers" (although since you are one of those "bitter clingers" you probably took more offense to that one than I did as well :wink: ). I mean, what does this tell us about Romney that we didn't already know? What insight do we gain on who he would govern or what specific policies he would push for? The only thing I can tell from this statement is that Romney is willing to say anything to anybody if he thinks it will help him win, a long-documented phenomenon in politics and one in which Romney has dabbled considerably more than most.

Meanwhile, Romney attacks the "entitlement society" in the video, but he hammers Obama on the campaign trail on a daily basis for "raiding" $700B in Medicare and has promised to defend the program. He decries Obama's fiscal irresponsibility while promising to expand the defense budget AND lower taxes. In other words, every single word that comes out of this man's mouth should not be scrutinized and checked for consistency because his message varies with his audiences. Does that mean he cannot be trusted and is therefore unfit for the Presidency? That's for you to decide. But as I go to painstaking lengths to point out, Romney is not the only candidate for office with a knack for telling people what they want to hear.

I guess I agree with your overall point that Fox treats "news" differently than any other outlet but that is hardly a BREAKING development. And again, I'm not convinced it doesn't run both ways: I don't recall, but I bet if you looked back at the mainstream coverage of Bitter-Clinger-gate, there was a much different tone to the "reporting" than the current level of outrage. I also question the timing of this latest revelation; if the fundraiser was in May, why is this just becoming so important now, in the middle of a difficult week for the administration on the foreign policy front?

To me, this is nothing more than another example of how the campaigns and media outlets do a great disservice to the voters. This is not news, it is simply noise to further perpetuate the (IMO) ridiculous notion that the two parties really are very different from one another. Yet we have a Republican promising to defend Medicare and Social Security from the meddling Democrats. And we have a Democrat who has argued he has the power to intervene in Libya because it was merely "hostilities", who LOVES drone attacks in a country that is supposedly an ally, and who's Justice Dept is now appealing a judge's ruling that the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA is unconstitutional because they already had that power anyway. You figure that one out.

Also, Romney's goose is cooked with this one. Game over.

Don't be silly. One of literally hundreds of Romney gaffes will not determine the election. Uncle Ben's Adventures in Money Printing (aka, Dow15k or bust!!) will have far more influence over the outcome than something stupid that came out of a dumb guy's mouth.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on September 18, 2012, 11:54:33 AM
this story which, IMO, is no more newsworthy than Obama being secretly recorded at a private fundraiser saying "bitter clingers"

I disagree; I think the two of them were making different points. Now, first of all, Obama should have known better than to say something like that because it's just obvious red meat for his opponents and their supporters. But, in the context of his remarks, Obama was saying that after being failed economically by successive administrations of both parties, he can understand why some people figure economic help isn't coming from any direction and thus they get exasperated and they fixate, as political matters, on things like guns or religion or xenophobia or what have you. Is he wrong? I don't think you can say he is entirely.

Romney, I think, was making a much more sweeping comment about basically any single person who would vote for Barack Obama (roughly half the country), that they can never be convinced that "they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," and they have a freeloader's sense of entitlement. They, unlike a small group of independents, aren't "thoughtful."

I do understand, as Romney has tried to explain since, that he was trying to outline an electoral strategy to a donor, and thus what sounds like writing off half the country was maybe a fairly realistic assessment of where the polls are and where he should focus his energy. But Romney didn't just say "You know, Obama has his voters and he is going to get his percentage. But here's my path to victory." No, he kept piling on the derision and you can see what a low opinion Romney apparently has of people, as individuals, who would cast a vote for his opponent. It's not only divisive, but I think to a fairly large extent it's a complete straw man. Sure, it's easy to feel like you're on the side of righteousness when you've invented an opponent and a voter like what Romney describes.

And to your point, I don't think this reveals a whole lot about Romney to people smart enough to guess how he probably feels about The Other Side, but he's never been so blatant and personally demeaning in his comments before. So I think it's newsworthy during a campaign.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on September 18, 2012, 01:21:46 PM
Dude's campaign is in complete disarray at this point and personally I think his comments betray a "circle the wagons and make our last stand" type of mentality.

It's pretty awesome to watch him go down in flames like this from where I sit. 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: gah on September 18, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
Dude's campaign is in complete disarray at this point and personally I think his comments betray a "circle the wagons and make our last stand" type of mentality.

It's pretty awesome to watch him go down in flames like this from where I sit.

Agreed. It IS entertaining.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: kellerb on September 18, 2012, 09:35:01 PM
Dude's campaign is in complete disarray at this point and personally I think his comments betray a "circle the wagons and make our last stand" type of mentality.

It's pretty awesome to watch him go down in flames like this from where I sit.

Agreed. It IS entertaining.

It sure is.  But, sitting in Indiana, I'm still worrying that its not enough.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on September 18, 2012, 11:07:29 PM
Dude's campaign is in complete disarray at this point and personally I think his comments betray a "circle the wagons and make our last stand" type of mentality.

It's pretty awesome to watch him go down in flames like this from where I sit.

Agreed. It IS entertaining.


It sure is.  But, sitting in Indiana, I'm still worrying that its not enough.


There are a lot of people in this country that are too stupid to be insulted.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: McGrupp on September 18, 2012, 11:27:35 PM
Dude's campaign is in complete disarray at this point and personally I think his comments betray a "circle the wagons and make our last stand" type of mentality.

It's pretty awesome to watch him go down in flames like this from where I sit.

Agreed. It IS entertaining.


It sure is.  But, sitting in Indiana, I'm still worrying that its not enough.


There are a lot of people in this country that are too stupid to be insulted.

According to Mitt Romney, that number is roughly 53% of the population.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: ytowndan on September 19, 2012, 12:29:01 AM
Dude's campaign is in complete disarray at this point and personally I think his comments betray a "circle the wagons and make our last stand" type of mentality.

It's pretty awesome to watch him go down in flames like this from where I sit.

Agreed. It IS entertaining.


It sure is.  But, sitting in Indiana, I'm still worrying that its not enough.


There are a lot of people in this country that are too stupid to be insulted.

According to Mitt Romney, that number is roughly 53% of the population.

 :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: gah on September 19, 2012, 08:04:21 AM
Dude's campaign is in complete disarray at this point and personally I think his comments betray a "circle the wagons and make our last stand" type of mentality.

It's pretty awesome to watch him go down in flames like this from where I sit.

Agreed. It IS entertaining.


It sure is.  But, sitting in Indiana, I'm still worrying that its not enough.


There are a lot of people in this country that are too stupid to be insulted.

According to Mitt Romney, that number is roughly 53% of the population.

 :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Well done sir!  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on September 20, 2012, 02:54:41 PM
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-S4pScJ1Zuq0/UFtlgwGqjDI/AAAAAAAAC8Q/Mt6j1JgByro/s313/Screen%2520shot%25202012-09-20%2520at%25202.49.45%2520PM.png)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-4HIaoV4e1Wc/UFtlgsOYmiI/AAAAAAAAC8M/HwWWlXYfSIc/s340/Screen%2520shot%25202012-09-20%2520at%25202.48.20%2520PM.png)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on September 27, 2012, 03:14:14 PM
BIAS ALERT! BIAS ALERT!


Quote
Study: Networks seized on Romney's hidden-camera remark, downplayed Obama's
 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/study-networks-seized-on-romney-hidden-camera-remark-downplayed-obama/#ixzz27hNn9GoB)

The big three broadcast networks devoted dozens of stories last week to Mitt Romney's supposed "47 percent" gaffe but gave just a fraction of that air time to covering an audio tape of controversial remarks by President Obama, according to the Media Research Center.

The MRC examined how much total air time each story got last week and found coverage of the Romney remarks overpowered coverage of the Obama remarks by a 13-1 ratio.

The center found that ABC, CBS and NBC - on their evening and morning shows -- spent 88 minutes and 42 total stories on Romney. They spent six and a half minutes and eight stories on Obama.

The Obama quote purportedly was from a 1998 conference at Loyola University. In an audio recording posted online, the young Obama could be heard telling the audience he believes there has been "a propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy."

"I think that what we're going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all," Obama said. "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."

The Romney campaign tried to draw attention to that clip after Democrats had hammered him over hidden-camera footage of remarks he made to donors in May about people who don't pay taxes.

He said: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. ... "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

Romney said that, as a presidential candidate, he didn't have to "worry about those people."

The Media Research Center estimated that if the coverage of each was compared starting with when the Obama recording emerged last Tuesday night, the coverage of Romney still outpaces that of Obama by a 10-1 ratio.

"The double-standard within just one week of the news cycle is staggering," the center wrote in its analysis.


Give me a fucking break. This is a front page story on FN.com right now with the big red headline "BIAS ALERT".

Basically they're saying that they media are being unfair to poor Mitt for talking about what he said more than something Obama said. Even though one of those remarks was made in the midst of a current presidential campaign, and the other one was made 14 years ago. Nevermind the actual differences between the substances of the two remarks.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: gah on September 28, 2012, 11:53:38 AM
I <3 Fox news.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Undermind on September 28, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/carjack-suspect-shoots-high-speed-chase-fox-broadcasts-live-article-1.1170617
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on September 28, 2012, 11:55:05 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/carjack-suspect-shoots-high-speed-chase-fox-broadcasts-live-article-1.1170617

LOL!  Love the Foxy People...  Even this is an opening to attack OB.  First comment I see:

Quote
News alert! U.S. Ambasador killed because of incompentent leadership.  Administration officials hide facts and lie to American sheeple!

$1 says the noodies of the Royals in UK come from Fox...  Fighting back on the wire-tapping thing...

Terry

Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on September 29, 2012, 12:03:41 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/carjack-suspect-shoots-high-speed-chase-fox-broadcasts-live-article-1.1170617

Shep Smith strikes me as one of the few people at FN with any shred of integrity.

Probably explains why he's been banished to the afternoon car-chase hour.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on September 29, 2012, 12:10:36 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/carjack-suspect-shoots-high-speed-chase-fox-broadcasts-live-article-1.1170617

LOL!  Love the Foxy People...  Even this is an opening to attack OB.  First comment I see:

Quote
News alert! U.S. Ambasador killed because of incompentent leadership.  Administration officials hide facts and lie to American sheeple!

$1 says the noodies of the Royals in UK come from Fox...  Fighting back on the wire-tapping thing...

Terry

The right desperately wants to play this up as Obama's "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within U.S." moment. They also want to erase the perceived edge he enjoys over Romney on foreign policy matters. You'd almost admire Fox News for their insistence on holding the government's feet to the fire (see: Fast & Furious coverage) if it wasn't so obvious that they're doing it for political, not principled, reasons.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on September 29, 2012, 12:35:05 AM
You'd almost admire Fox News for their insistence on holding the government's feet to the fire...

The Main Function of The Media in a Democracy/Republic is to inform the Public of the Actions of the Government.  They must do so vigorously and from all viewpoints and political leanings.  It is The People's only defense against Corruption:  if we know how bad it is from reading it in the paper - we can elect someone else... 

That being said, I don't mind Fox really.  I know their MO and take their stuff with a grain of salt...  The same can be said for all media outlets...

Honestly, Fox has a good thing going - there should be a right-leaning media outlet doing its job to inform the public to issues from its viewpoint.  I just wish they were less Tabloid-ish and actually tried to be "legitimate".  The idea that they are somehow outside of the Mainstream just lends to the notion that they lack credibility and are again, tabloid-ish. 

That being said, I tend to read a lot of different news outlets on things I'm interested in.  BBC and Aljazeera are two goods ones for an outlook from outside the US, though each has its slant (AJ is quite foreign to me as Westerner, but it is intriguing).  We tend to be narcasistic (sic) in our news regardless of outlet.  Its nice to see an outsider's view, even if I don't necessarily agree with it...

Terry


Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 01, 2012, 10:18:57 AM
BIAS ALERT! BIAS ALERT!


Liberal media response???

From www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/business/media/challenging-the-claims-of-media-bias-the-media-equation.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/business/media/challenging-the-claims-of-media-bias-the-media-equation.html)

Quote
Tired Cries of Bias Don’t Help Romney

    by DAVID CARR
    Sept. 30, 2012

In the last few days, conservatives have become agitated about Mitt Romney’s drop-off in the polls. So did they think the stumble was because of the ill-fated “47 percent” slip of the lip, or the hasty effort to gain a political edge after the death of an American ambassador in Libya, or more problematically, a campaign that can’t seem to stop pratfalling no matter what the news?

No, in their view, the mysterious drop can only be explained by the fact that the mainstream media have their collective liberal thumb on the scale, in terms of coverage and, more oddly, polling.

On Sunday, Mr. Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, got right to the point.

“It goes without saying that there is definitely media bias,” Mr. Ryan told “Fox News Sunday.” “I think most people in the mainstream media are left of center and, therefore, they want a very left-of-center president versus a conservative president like Mitt Romney.”

And ostensibly tendentious coverage was cited last Wednesday in a letter addressed to the “Biased News Media” and sponsored by the Media Research Center, which defines its mission as “holding the liberal media accountable for shamelessly advancing a left-wing agenda.” The letter said in part: “This election year, so much of the broadcast networks, their cable counterparts and the major establishment print media are out of control with a deliberate and unmistakable leftist agenda.”

It was signed by conservative royalty, including Brent Bozell, Gary Bauer, Ed Meese, Tony Perkins, Rush Limbaugh and Richard Viguerie. It included a list of chronic offenses and concluded, “It is time the American people turn you who are offending off, once and for all. You have betrayed their trust.”

The mainstream media are frequently indicted suspects when the rink tilts against conservative causes. But it seems worth pulling apart that notion, especially in a landscape where ownership of the megaphone is increasingly up for grabs.

Back when Spiro Agnew went after the “nattering nabobs of negativism,” most people got their news from three networks and a handful of national newspapers. Network news still pulls in more than 20 million viewers nightly, and newspapers still matter in spite of their business struggles, but their influence is waning as thousands of new sources of information bloom.

As the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press pointed out last week, digital news has surpassed radio and newspapers and is quickly catching up to television. Social networks are soaring as a source of news, and since 2010, the report said, “there has been a sharp decline in the proportion of Americans who got news yesterday only from a traditional news platform — from 40 percent then to 33 percent currently.”

Even if legacy media still maintained some kind of death grip on American consciousness, it would be hard to claim that the biggest players in those industries are peddling liberal theology.

Think about it. What is the No. 1 newspaper in America by circulation? Why, that would be The Wall Street Journal, a bastion of conservative values on its editorial pages and hardly a suspect when it comes to lefty news coverage. (Though it’s worth pointing out that the paper has published some very tough coverage of Mr. Romney.)

What about radio? Three of the top five radio broadcasters — Mr. Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the recently departed Michael Savage — have outdrawn NPR’s morning and evening programs by a wide margin. In cable television, Fox News continues to pummel the competition.

Many Republicans see bias lurking in every live shot, but the growing hegemony of conservative voices makes manufacturing a partisan conspiracy a practical impossibility.

Let’s be fair. It’s not as if everyone who believes there is a liberal bias needs to be fitted for a tinfoil helmet. But the trope is losing traction, partly because there are many robust champions of the right, which gives conservatives the means to project their message far beyond the choir.

It’s hard to picture conservatives as disenfranchised in the fight for attention from the news media, not after a campaign season in which the audition for the Republican nomination seemed to include some combination of hosting and making guest appearances on Fox News. Another thing about the media blame game? It doesn’t work. Newt Gingrich ran hard against the news media and that didn’t turn out so great.

Mr. Romney seems to have realized that. After weeks of complaints from his surrogates that his campaign missteps were being invented and/or amplified by the news media, he is no longer regularly shooting the messenger.

“I think we have a system of free press,” he told CBS before an appearance in Toledo, Ohio. “People are able to provide their own perspective based upon their own beliefs. I think there are some people who are more in my camp, there’s a lot of people who are more in his camp, and I don’t worry about that.”

A senior adviser, meanwhile, said the Romney campaign now has a “no-whining rule” about news coverage. (Mr. Ryan apparently missed the memo.) And William Kristol of The Weekly Standard told Politico that, “it shouldn’t be the consensus of conservatives in general to blame the media.”

But the pushback goes beyond coverage. Now even the polls themselves are being impugned, with suggestions that they are skewed by left-leaning math. Various conservative bloggers and pundits have complained that a slew of polls showing gains by President Obama were guilty of “oversampling Democrats” and “confirmation bias.”

If that rings a little familiar, recall that when the election seemed to be slipping away from John Kerry in 2004, MoveOn.org took out a full-page ad in The New York Times accusing the Gallup organization of overrepresenting Republicans and asking, “Why does America’s top pollster keep getting it wrong?”

Of course, given that I am pointing out these disconnects in The New York Times, it will be seen as confirming what conservatives already know: that I went to the dark chambers where we cook up the conspiracy, met with my betters to receive my marching orders and then set about playing my small role as a cog in the manufacture of liberal consent. (Memo to headquarters: the Plan is in very high effect).

Maybe though — and I’m just putting this out there — the polls and the coverage suggest that Mr. Romney has had a bad couple of weeks and he needs to turn it around if he wants to win the election. On Sunday, a well-informed observer pointed out as much on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I’m not going to sit here and complain about coverage of the campaign. As a candidate, if you do that, you’re losing.” That bit of trenchant analysis comes from deep inside the Republican tent: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 01, 2012, 10:53:13 AM
On NPR this morning, there was a story about a bunch of suspicious and potentially fraudulent voter-registration forms being turned in in Florida by a firm hired by the GOP (http://www.usatoday.com/story/ondeadline/2012/09/28/florida-voter-registration-fraud-republican/1601809/).

Immediately, this is quite reminiscent of the whole ACORN episode when people were caught turning in registration forms for "Mickey Mouse" and other imaginary characters. Remember that scandal? Fox News and conservatives were all over it. Mention ACORN to a conservative today, and it will conjure up terrifying thoughts of liberal fraudsters and election thieves run amok. The episode helped fuel the atmosphere of suspicion and alarm that spawned GOP-lead initiatives to "secure" our democracy, e.g. through the wave of voter ID laws we've seen recently.

Any mention of this story on Fox News this morning? Not a one. Couldn't even find it on their "Politics" main page. What's up, FN, not so horrified by voter registration fraud any more? But don't worry, one of the top items on FN.com's front page right now is an opinion piece on "mainstream media is now a threat to our democracy (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstream-media-threatening-our-country-future/)." Got it.


edit: spelling...
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on October 01, 2012, 01:06:07 PM
I'm gonna puke up my lunch.

Remember when Dan Rather ran the story about GWB and questions of his military career on CBS news? If you don't, their fact checking was found to be, well, a little lacking. Several reporters got fired and Rather was banned from the top spot for life.
I suppose that wasn't a strong enough of response from that pinko outfit, CBS.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 01, 2012, 01:24:58 PM
Heh, maybe if they weren't running such as weak ass candidate the news wouldn't consistently be dominated by Romney's fuck up du jour?

I'm seriously loving this.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 01, 2012, 03:25:59 PM
Fox's laughable case for Romney (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/opinion/raines-fox-romney/index.html?iref=obnetwork)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on October 01, 2012, 04:22:41 PM
Quote
This vast conspiracy is downgrading Romney three to nine points by using screens that overstate the votes of blacks, Latinos, Asians, women and the young.

right - because GOP governors are doing whatever they can to prevent people with these demographics from voting
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 05, 2012, 02:24:14 PM
News anchor suggests it's ridiculous to say a sitting president could actually be considered "lazy," Fox News cries "bias alert!" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/05/andrea-mitchell-suggests-romney-surrogate-take-it-back-after-calling-obama-lazy/)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 02:29:59 PM
News anchor suggests it's ridiculous to say a sitting president could actually be considered "lazy," Fox News cries "bias alert!" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/05/andrea-mitchell-suggests-romney-surrogate-take-it-back-after-calling-obama-lazy/)

Pfft, tell that to Calvin Coolidge. Dude took like 3 naps a day (but he was a helluva free marketer).
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 05, 2012, 02:37:35 PM
News anchor suggests it's ridiculous to say a sitting president could actually be considered "lazy," Fox News cries "bias alert!" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/05/andrea-mitchell-suggests-romney-surrogate-take-it-back-after-calling-obama-lazy/)

Pfft, tell that to Calvin Coolidge. Dude took like 3 naps a day (but he was a helluva free marketer).

I am now totally jealous of Calvin Coolidge.

But you raise a good point -- wouldn't the hands-off, laissez-faire, conservative theory of government be more conducive to "laziness" than that meddlesome, overbearing, liberal style? Jeez, Sununu, stay on message.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 02:41:15 PM
News anchor suggests it's ridiculous to say a sitting president could actually be considered "lazy," Fox News cries "bias alert!" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/05/andrea-mitchell-suggests-romney-surrogate-take-it-back-after-calling-obama-lazy/)

Pfft, tell that to Calvin Coolidge. Dude took like 3 naps a day (but he was a helluva free marketer).

I am now totally jealous of Calvin Coolidge.

But you raise a good point -- wouldn't the hands-off, laissez-faire, conservative theory of government be more conducive to "laziness" than that meddlesome, overbearing, liberal style? Jeez, Sununu, stay on message.

Seriously. All that intervention has got to be exhausting.

And where does Sununu get off calling anybody lazy. When's the last time that guy took the stairs?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on October 05, 2012, 02:53:03 PM
News anchor suggests it's ridiculous to say a sitting president could actually be considered "lazy," Fox News cries "bias alert!" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/05/andrea-mitchell-suggests-romney-surrogate-take-it-back-after-calling-obama-lazy/)

Pfft, tell that to Calvin Coolidge. Dude took like 3 naps a day (but he was a helluva free marketer).

I am now totally jealous of Calvin Coolidge.

But you raise a good point -- wouldn't the hands-off, laissez-faire, conservative theory of government be more conducive to "laziness" than that meddlesome, overbearing, liberal style? Jeez, Sununu, stay on message.

Seriously. All that intervention has got to be exhausting.

And where does Sununu get off calling anybody lazy. When's the last time that guy took the stairs?

Sununu is and Ottoman Christian Jew Latino...  Not to be trusted...  Not at all...   :-P

Crikey, are we even sure he's American???

Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 03:18:52 PM
Wait did jimbo just point out that the free market policies of the 20s were not such a good idea?

(http://mlkshk.com/r/DBLT)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 05, 2012, 03:46:24 PM
OK Hicks, I simply must know where that gif is originally from.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 03:48:27 PM
OK Hicks, I simply must know where that gif is originally from.

IT'S FROM TEH INTERNETZ.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 05, 2012, 03:52:56 PM
OK Hicks, I simply must know where that gif is originally from.

IT'S FROM TEH INTERNETZ.

Don't be fatuous, Jason.


I mean, is that guy like some kind of psychic guru who made his own self-help videos in the early 80s? I must see more.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 04:00:01 PM
Wait did jimbo just point out that the free market policies of the 20s were not such a good idea?

(http://mlkshk.com/r/DBLT)

Quite the contrary: I'd take Coolidge over that meddling FDR any day of the week.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 04:07:51 PM
Wait did jimbo just point out that the free market policies of the 20s were not such a good idea?

(http://mlkshk.com/r/DBLT)

Quite the contrary: I'd take Coolidge over that meddling FDR any day of the week.

Sometimes (all the time) I wonder if you are for real.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 04:47:37 PM
Wait did jimbo just point out that the free market policies of the 20s were not such a good idea?

(http://mlkshk.com/r/DBLT)

Quite the contrary: I'd take Coolidge over that meddling FDR any day of the week.

Sometimes (all the time) I wonder if you are for real.

I'm completely serious. And don't call me Surely.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 08, 2012, 09:01:10 AM
This morning's "Bias Alert" on FN.com is about a critical comment about Romney made by... David Letterman.

That's right, Fox is now mining late-night comedy shows for evidence of pervasive left-wing bias in the media.


Update: Now the front-page "Bias Alert" is about Paul Krugman... who is a columnist. Someone should explain to Fox News the difference between news and entertainment/opinion content. You'd think a network composed almost entirely of right-leaning pundits and talking heads would understand this...
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on October 08, 2012, 03:02:19 PM
you are assuming that the purpose of FN is to inform people of the truth.

we all know that is not what they're trying to do - it's not even just their version of the truth.
what they want you to believe and the truth are not the same thing
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 10, 2012, 04:41:06 PM
Oh man, this just keeps getting better. :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Now FN is dipping into the archives for a "Bias Alert Flashback (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/10/bias-alert-flashback-remember-photos-palin-legs/)" -- essentially demanding that Reuters and the AP issue an apology for allegedly sexist photos of Sarah Palin that were published in 2008.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on October 10, 2012, 04:47:20 PM

LOL. every criticism of her (she's not qualified, etc) was anwereed by  - that is sooo sexist.

of cours,  Rush was saying back then "we've got the BAAAAABE"
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 10, 2012, 11:43:12 PM
LOL. every criticism of her (she's not qualified, etc) was anwereed by  - that is sooo sexist.

Agreed. It's not like anyone on the left ever called Mitt a race baiter for using the term "ObamaCare" at the NAACP (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/12/michael-tomasky-on-mitt-romney-the-race-baiter-at-the-naacp.html). Or that Romney was engaging the niggarization of Obama by saying he was angry (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-toure-to-panel-romney-engaging-in-the-niggerization-of-obama/) (two times!! Once, maybe, but saying "angry" twice in the same speech?! We know what that's all about). Or that people who say Obama likes golf are obviously trying to connect him to that other depraved black golfer or that "Chicago" is a racial dog whistle (http://www.examiner.com/article/msnbc-saying-golf-and-chicago-is-racist) (BTW, where do you live MBW?)

Still, this race would have been a lot more enjoyable had Palin thrown her hat in (especially for you guys if she had won). And c'mon, she was pretty hot.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 11, 2012, 12:05:36 AM
meh, Christine O'Donnell is hotter.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 12:14:26 AM
meh, Christine O'Donnell is hotter.

http://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g (http://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 12:16:16 AM
meh, Christine O'Donnell is hotter.

And she had that crazy "I'm a witch" vibe.

Although I would never have pegged you for a chubby chaser, Hicks.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 11, 2012, 12:35:06 AM
(http://bigsisterdiaries.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/hungry-fat-girl.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 11:11:04 AM
(http://bigsisterdiaries.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/hungry-fat-girl.jpg)

That's funny - I always say skinny girls are bitches because they're always hungry... I know how cranky I get when I haven't eaten in two days!
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 12, 2012, 09:40:55 AM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hTFEesb6JHU/UHgc3HuOUuI/AAAAAAAAC90/vHi50qlmkyo/s672/Screen%2520shot%25202012-10-12%2520at%25209.35.36%2520AM.png)

"Fair and balanced" Fox News isn't trying to push the "Biden's a crazy old coot" narrative or anything...


(And what's that word supposed to mean, anyway?) (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snickerdoodle)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 19, 2012, 03:06:15 PM
On NPR this morning, there was a story about a bunch of suspicious and potentially fraudulent voter-registration forms being turned in in Florida by a firm hired by the GOP (http://www.usatoday.com/story/ondeadline/2012/09/28/florida-voter-registration-fraud-republican/1601809/).

Immediately, this is quite reminiscent of the whole ACORN episode when people were caught turning in registration forms for "Mickey Mouse" and other imaginary characters. Remember that scandal? Fox News and conservatives were all over it. Mention ACORN to a conservative today, and it will conjure up terrifying thoughts of liberal fraudsters and election thieves run amok. The episode helped fuel the atmosphere of suspicion and alarm that spawned GOP-lead initiatives to "secure" our democracy, e.g. through the wave of voter ID laws we've seen recently.

Any mention of this story on Fox News this morning? Not a one. Couldn't even find it on their "Politics" main page. What's up, FN, not so horrified by voter registration fraud any more? But don't worry, one of the top items on FN.com's front page right now is an opinion piece on "mainstream media is now a threat to our democracy (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstream-media-threatening-our-country-future/)." Got it.


edit: spelling...

Another one from the "Stories You Won't Find Covered By Fox News" file:

GOP registration worker charged with voter fraud (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/19/14556980-gop-registration-worker-charged-with-voter-fraud?lite)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Undermind on October 29, 2012, 10:29:11 PM
wow! talk about hypocracy!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/29/cnn-political-reporter-not-happy-about-favorable-romney-coverage/
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 30, 2012, 08:53:31 AM
wow! talk about hypocracy!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/29/cnn-political-reporter-not-happy-about-favorable-romney-coverage/

Didn't you hear? Only Fox News is allowed to complain about media bias.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on November 01, 2012, 11:18:08 AM
This morning's "Bias Alert" on FN.com is about a critical comment about Romney made by... David Letterman.

That's right, Fox is now mining late-night comedy shows for evidence of pervasive left-wing bias in the media.

And they didn't stop there. FN's front page is crying "bias" in pointing out that Romney gets made fun of more often by all late-night hosts than does Obama.  (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/11/01/study-shows-late-night-comedians-dig-more-at-romney-than-all-democrats-combined/)

Fox News is obviously more interested in feeding their hysterical narrative of "liberal bias everywhere" (I think they are laying the groundwork for a full-on "blame the media" conspiracy theory in the event Romney loses) than they are in acknowledging some rather important realities.

First, it may just be possible that there's more to make fun of about Romney than there is about Obama. This false assumption that equal time and fairness and balance also apply to who's more easy to joke about is patently absurd. Look at Obama. Dude can be kind of boring. He doesn't really give comedians too much to work with. Other than your garden-variety black jokes (obviously off limits), what is there to say? Romney, on the other hand, provides more than enough material. You can't blame entertainers for playing the hand they're dealt.

And I know plenty of conservatives; I've heard them try to crack jokes about Democrats. They tend not to be very funny at all. Usually just some mean-spirited barb or hyperbole without humor. "Watch out, Comrade Obama is going to come getcha!" BWAHAHAHA! Maybe the zanier branch of the Republican party just opens itself up to more being made fun of because, well, it's zanier.

And secondly, these TV hosts are just entertainers. Maybe they do happen to be personally more liberal than conservative. So what; it's not the news. This is like complaining that Dennis Miller is part of some vast right-wing bias machine. He's allowed to say or think whatever he wants, and if there's a market for his brand of entertainment, more power to him. Maybe if these liberal talk-show hosts keep pushing the envelope, audiences will revolt and the networks will bring in some more conservative or neutral voices. Whatever happened to Fox New's unflinching faith in the free market to sort everything out? Why they gotta cry about it?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 07:42:20 PM
Looks like Pew has had enough of all your unfounded speculation, VDB. Bring on the data!!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/02/msnbc_fox_news_which_cable_channel_is_more_partisan_pew_report_suggests.html

Quote
MSNBC Hates Romney Even More Than Fox News Hates Obama

The Pew Research Center is out with a new report (http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/winning_media_campaign_2012) today looking at media coverage of the presidential campaign since this summer's conventions. It's got plenty of worthwhile tidbits and newsy nuggets, but the one that jumped out at us right away was this snapshot of just how segmented and partisan (and negative) cable news has been this election cycle:

Quote
The study ... reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most. On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive-a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative. These made them unusual among channels or outlets that identified themselves as news organizations.

And for you visual learners:

(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/02/msnbc_fox_news_which_cable_channel_is_more_partisan_pew_report_suggests/1351869705165.png)

To be clear, the negative-positive-mixed trichotomy treats all negative coverage the same. It doesn't tell us whose negative coverage is the most negative in tone, nor does it make any kind of judgment on whether that coverage—be it of Obama or Romney—was journalistically sound. What it does suggest, however, is that MSNBC actually devotes a relatively larger chunk of its political coverage going after Romney than Fox does criticizing the president.

And what about CNN, the most moderate—and least loved—of the cable news trinity?

Quote
CNN stood between MSNBC and Fox in its treatment of the two candidates but Obama fared markedly better than Romney and better than in the media generally. On CNN, 18% of the stories about Obama were positive compared to 21% negative, a mixed narrative. In Romney's case, negative stories (36%) outnumbered positive (11%) by more than 3-to-1.

However, as with the press studied overall, if one removes horse-race stories from the equation, the tone of coverage of Obama and Romney becomes more comparable. In those stories not framed around the horse race, 13% were positive for Obama compared to 24% negative while 13% were positive for Romney compared to 30% negative.

For comparison, here's how the coverage broke down across the larger cross section of the major media outlets surveyed: For Obama, 19 percent of stories were clearly favorable, compared to 30 percent unfavorable and 51 percent mixed. For Romney, 15 percent of the coverage was favorable, compared to 38 percent unfavorable and 47 percent mixed.

But, as Pew explains, much of that imbalance is the result of the type of horse-race coverage that has come to dominate much of the political news cycle:

Quote
Throughout the eight-week period studied, a good deal of the difference in treatment of the two contenders is related to who was perceived to be ahead in the race. When horse-race stories-those focused on strategy, tactics and the polls-are taken out of the analysis, and one looks at those framed around the candidates' policy ideas, biographies and records, the distinctions in the tone of media coverage between the two nominees vanish.

With those stories removed from the equation, Obama's positive-negative split was 15 percent to 32 percent, while Romney's was 14 percent to 32 percent.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 08:24:21 AM
So it's the media's "fault" Romney lost!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/five-ways-mainstream-media-tipped-scales-in-favor-obama/
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on November 07, 2012, 08:41:50 AM
So it's the media's "fault" Romney lost!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/five-ways-mainstream-media-tipped-scales-in-favor-obama/

To be fair, it is under the Opinion page...

Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on November 07, 2012, 09:11:42 AM
So it's the media's "fault" Romney lost!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/five-ways-mainstream-media-tipped-scales-in-favor-obama/

To be fair, it is under the Opinion page...

Terry

Sure, but it occupies the same slot on the front page as Fox's "Bias Alerts" have for the past month or so -- taking one of the top four spots on their home page.

I've figured for a while that FN was setting its audience up for this kind of post-election "blame the media" narrative. And it's a little insulting to voters, don't you think? "How media tipped scales in Obama's favor" -- this says that everything should've been even and it was the media that made the difference. So I guess it had nothing to do with people making their own autonomous decisions...


And Jimbo, I can't help but feel that the most important thing about those data you showed isn't the big, in-your-face chart or the here's-a-conclusion-before-we-dive-too-deep-into-it overview, but the caveat that was largely burried at the bottom:

Quote
But, as Pew explains, much of that imbalance is the result of the type of horse-race coverage that has come to dominate much of the political news cycle:

Quote
Throughout the eight-week period studied, a good deal of the difference in treatment of the two contenders is related to who was perceived to be ahead in the race. When horse-race stories-those focused on strategy, tactics and the polls-are taken out of the analysis, and one looks at those framed around the candidates' policy ideas, biographies and records, the distinctions in the tone of media coverage between the two nominees vanish.

With those stories removed from the equation, Obama's positive-negative split was 15 percent to 32 percent, while Romney's was 14 percent to 32 percent.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 10:02:30 PM
And Jimbo, I can't help but feel that the most important thing about those data you showed isn't the big, in-your-face chart or the here's-a-conclusion-before-we-dive-too-deep-into-it overview, but the caveat that was largely burried at the bottom:

Quote
But, as Pew explains, much of that imbalance is the result of the type of horse-race coverage that has come to dominate much of the political news cycle:

Quote
Throughout the eight-week period studied, a good deal of the difference in treatment of the two contenders is related to who was perceived to be ahead in the race. When horse-race stories-those focused on strategy, tactics and the polls-are taken out of the analysis, and one looks at those framed around the candidates' policy ideas, biographies and records, the distinctions in the tone of media coverage between the two nominees vanish.

With those stories removed from the equation, Obama's positive-negative split was 15 percent to 32 percent, while Romney's was 14 percent to 32 percent.

Not my chart, Pew's chart.

And while I agree the caveat is notable, I'm not sure I agree that it matters that  the tone of the coverage is basically the same as long as you take out the "campaign" part of the "campaign coverage". I mean, that's kind of a big deal. That's like saying "Well if you take out Trey's tone and his technique and the band's uncanny onstage communication, 3.0 is totally the same as 1.0."
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on November 09, 2012, 12:07:18 AM
most of it seems pretty bogus.
Romney had some major gaffs in Europe.
in 08,Obama's "guns and religion" was on the new like crazy, same with his pastor.
All politicians "stretch the truth" but Romney and Ryan made it an art
debate1 Romney "my health care plan covers pre existing conditions" - which is campaign "took back" several hours later. Even Ari Fleischer said it was a real head scratcher. Ryan's marathon time - reported as embarrassingly false (sub 3 hrs vs just over 4 hrs) by that well known pinko publication Runner's World.
and then, there's the Jeep fiasco (btw, Bain bought Delco when this was all going on and did, in fact, transfer jobs to China)
I could go on.

of course, the real reason Romney lost was Chris Christie and hurricane Sandy.

wait, wasn't Sandy an act of God?
What does that say about bias of the Supreme Being?
Jesus is a lefty
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: gah on November 14, 2012, 05:43:32 PM
most of it seems pretty bogus.
Romney had some major gaffs in Europe.
in 08,Obama's "guns and religion" was on the new like crazy, same with his pastor.
All politicians "stretch the truth" but Romney and Ryan made it an art
debate1 Romney "my health care plan covers pre existing conditions" - which is campaign "took back" several hours later. Even Ari Fleischer said it was a real head scratcher. Ryan's marathon time - reported as embarrassingly false (sub 3 hrs vs just over 4 hrs) by that well known pinko publication Runner's World.
and then, there's the Jeep fiasco (btw, Bain bought Delco when this was all going on and did, in fact, transfer jobs to China)
I could go on.

of course, the real reason Romney lost was Chris Christie and hurricane Sandy.

wait, wasn't Sandy an act of God?
What does that say about bias of the Supreme Being?
Jesus is a lefty

If Jesus is a lefty, he's alright by me.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on February 11, 2013, 02:01:56 PM
check out this anti feminism opinion piece by some anti-feminism author entitled "To be happy, we must admit women and men aren't 'equal'

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/05/to-be-happy-must-admit-women-and-men-arent-equal/#ixzz2KcQgoSD8
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on February 11, 2013, 03:03:31 PM
^ I lost count of the fallacies and gross over-generalizations after about paragraph number three. Clearly just a quick little hack piece to help pimp her new book.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on March 26, 2013, 11:18:10 AM
foxnews.com is asking its visitors today whether the Supremes should overturn Prop 8. I'm sure you'll find the results of this poll to be rather shocking!
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on March 26, 2013, 10:00:48 PM
I wonder what they will all say when DOMA comes up for review.
Do the Fox viewers think the Supreme Court should overturn it because it's a state's issue?
anyone willing to take a wager?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on March 28, 2013, 12:17:33 AM
I wonder what they will all say when DOMA comes up for review.
Do the Fox viewers think the Supreme Court should overturn it because it's a state's issue?
anyone willing to take a wager?

From what I've read that's likely to be Kennedy's position for joining the 4 liberals in overturning it. But to your question, no, I'm sure they will conveniently forget their appreciation for federalism. Of course, Fox viewers I don't really fault; how Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito can get away with it is beyond belief.

Re Prop 8 it sounds like they will just refuse to rule on it based on standing. Effectively a punt but gay marriage will still be legal in CA. It may not be a national win, but there is little doubt that marriage equality is simply a matter of time. Especially given the recent number of politicians who are coming out in favor of it since they are always late to the party.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on March 28, 2013, 10:23:18 AM
I was talking with a (gay) lawyer friend of mine about the standing issue. On the surface it sounds strange they'd agree to hear a landmark case like this only to refuse to rule on it and let the prior ruling stand. Unless SCOTUS is just so bent on delivering a firm message to the lower courts about how standing works, which I'm sure would be far too wonkish and oblique for either side to find much satisfaction in the outcome.

But if the conservatives on the court really believe states (and their voters) should be allowed to ban gay marriage if they want, wouldn't they want to find a way around the standing issue so they can (in their hope) rule on the case? Or are they afraid they wouldn't be able to find a majority of conservative viewpoints on this and it'd be safer to let the 9th Circuit's ruling stand than risk having the entire SCOTUS winding up overturning gay marriage bans nationwide?

As for DOMA, my friend seemed to think it's dead in the water. Even if you can get past the standing question on this one (DoJ refuses to defend it, but the House of Reps, who obviously helped pass the law, seems to have a legit stake in defending their own laws), this case seems so fundamentally unfair that you'd think anyone should have a hard time defending it.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on March 28, 2013, 09:46:19 PM
I was talking with a (gay) lawyer friend of mine about the standing issue. On the surface it sounds strange they'd agree to hear a landmark case like this only to refuse to rule on it and let the prior ruling stand. Unless SCOTUS is just so bent on delivering a firm message to the lower courts about how standing works, which I'm sure would be far too wonkish and oblique for either side to find much satisfaction in the outcome.

Kennedy was asking the same question during arguments, openly saying they probably should not have agreed to hear the case. But the Rights + Kennedy never had to consent in the first place as (I think) you only need 4 votes to grant cert. So while I agree it seems strange that they'd hear it just to kick it back, I understand the logic (inasmuch as the law adheres to logic). And remember, the Justices aren't egotistical trial lawyers looking to adjudicate their way into history through landmark decisions. They are much more comfortable following current precedent than setting new ones.

But if the conservatives on the court really believe states (and their voters) should be allowed to ban gay marriage if they want, wouldn't they want to find a way around the standing issue so they can (in their hope) rule on the case? Or are they afraid they wouldn't be able to find a majority of conservative viewpoints on this and it'd be safer to let the 9th Circuit's ruling stand than risk having the entire SCOTUS winding up overturning gay marriage bans nationwide?

I think Scalia and Thomas (possibly joined by Alito) almost certainly will make this case in their dissenting opinion. But as far as I know, Kennedy has been pretty gay friendly, most notably writing the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas overturning Texas' sodomy law, so he was never likely to join in a sweeping rebuke to gay rights. I think the 4 liberals would much rather extend the Equal Protection clause and make gay marriage a protected national right (look for a Ginsburg concurrence). But without Kennedy, the right never had a real chance to overturn the lower court's decision.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Buffalo Budd on July 15, 2013, 02:48:59 PM
This is incredible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIOiVHnM9Jc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIOiVHnM9Jc)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on July 15, 2013, 02:59:53 PM
This is incredible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIOiVHnM9Jc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIOiVHnM9Jc)

http://week4paug.net/index.php?topic=6924.msg704856#msg704856

and not fox news, just saying.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Buffalo Budd on July 15, 2013, 03:13:37 PM
Ahhh, I haven't been in that thread in awhile.  My bad.
I'm pretty sure they were a fox news affiliate but i could be wrong.  Got it from this:
Quote
Bay Area Fox affiliate KTVU purportedly learned the names of the flight
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on July 15, 2013, 03:17:09 PM
Ahhh, I haven't been in that thread in awhile.  My bad.
I'm pretty sure they were a fox news affiliate but i could be wrong.  Got it from this:
Quote
Bay Area Fox affiliate KTVU purportedly learned the names of the flight

'Fox News Channel' and your local fox affiliate are two entirely different things, just saying.

 :-)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Buffalo Budd on July 18, 2013, 08:55:38 AM
I see, consider me schooled then.
I guess it shows that I rarely, if ever, watch the news.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: PIE-GUY on July 29, 2013, 11:50:00 AM
idiots being idiots... http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 29, 2013, 02:01:39 PM
idiots being idiots... http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do)


Wow....

Of course there's no point in dissecting this too much, but I'll point out the use of that time-honored Fox News tactic wherein they trot out "critics say..." and let those criticisms stand in for FN's underlying bias. Although in this case the host herself really didn't hold back much in that department.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: PIE-GUY on July 29, 2013, 02:03:51 PM
idiots being idiots... http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do)


Wow....

Of course there's no point in dissecting this too much, but I'll point out the use of that time-honored Fox News tactic wherein they trot out "critics say..." and let those criticisms stand in for FN's underlying bias. Although in this case the host herself really didn't hold back much in that department.

My favorite part of that is when he says, "It's on page 2 of the book." PAGE 2!!
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 29, 2013, 02:08:05 PM
He did a good job at swatting away all her bullshit comments, most of which it seems like she just made up on the fly hoping she was right or he wasn't paying attention. You can tell he's getting pretty sick of having to repeat the same explanation over and over for why he had the audacity to write his book.

But what else do you expect from a Fox News program that combines religion and debate?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: emay on July 29, 2013, 02:37:43 PM
wow, lady could not let go of the fact that he was a muslim...and then proceeded to look like a complete moron by not reading the book.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Guyute on July 29, 2013, 10:57:15 PM
How much do I want to read this book now.   He is obviously intelligent and has a true interest in the history.   As soon as he was able to point out that he doesn't bring his faith in as a bias on the topic her whole line of questioning was shot to hell.

Sometimes lady you need to realize when you are out of your league and go with it rather than looking like a fool.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on July 30, 2013, 08:44:00 AM
Fox news is awful but that Aslan guy is a real dink in his own way.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/29/before-you-sympathize-with-reza-aslan-remember-what-he-said-about-the-new-atheists/
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 30, 2013, 09:06:57 AM
Fox news is awful but that Aslan guy is a real dink in his own way.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/29/before-you-sympathize-with-reza-aslan-remember-what-he-said-about-the-new-atheists/

Quote
But Aslan, as far as I can tell, still gets it completely wrong on the subject of atheism.

As could be said of pretty much any person of faith, by definition. Little surprise that a (presumably practicing and devout) Muslim wouldn't have nice things to say about atheist thinking.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on July 30, 2013, 09:44:36 AM
Not a surprise, no.

More of a reminder that this guy who claims to be such a scholar is also good at getting shit completely wrong.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on July 30, 2013, 10:18:07 AM
Little surprise that a (presumably practicing and devout) Muslim wouldn't have nice things to say about atheist thinking.

heh. not sure if this was tongue in cheek, but you just made the same argument as the fox news broad.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 30, 2013, 11:57:12 AM
Little surprise that a (presumably practicing and devout) Muslim wouldn't have nice things to say about atheist thinking.

heh. not sure if this was tongue in cheek, but you just made the same argument as the fox news broad.

No -- my point is that a person of faith is obviously going to disagree with the fundamental tenet of atheism, and thus will have no trouble criticizing those who hold that view.

The FN host's point was that a religious scholar who's a Muslim has no business writing a scholarly, history-based work about Jesus of Nazareth in the first place. But actually, seeing as how the Koran describes Jesus as a prophet, virgin born, bestowed with the ability to perform miracles, and so therefore is obviously a special figure within Islam as he is within Christianity, I'd say it's perfectly appropriate for a Muslim to write about him. Just because there's another group of people who ascribe to the same fellow additional powers or privileges isn't anything a Muslim has to explain or apologize for.

Now if, within his book, Aslan were to write, "I must concluded that Jesus was, in fact, not the son of god," then we could all say "No duh," since Muslims don't believe that anyway. FN lady wasn't even sticking around to see if his book got to that basic crux.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: kellerb on July 30, 2013, 01:32:46 PM
Dude's named after a magic lion, who is a jesus stand-in to begin with. 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on July 30, 2013, 01:49:00 PM
Dude's named after a magic lion, who is a jesus stand-in to begin with.

Therefore = Expert
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XhU7ha3UzBg/TWdxyv_7k2I/AAAAAAAAAd8/Zqx11Pzbz3U/s320/duh-duh.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on July 30, 2013, 05:47:08 PM
to Fox news-
If you're going to interview an author, as a wise man once said...




READ THE FUCKNG BOOK
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Guyute on July 30, 2013, 10:29:37 PM
Dude's named after a magic lion, who is a jesus stand-in to begin with.

Just awesome
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 31, 2013, 10:02:32 AM
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-_uU7cayAUmg/UfkWW8YDM9I/AAAAAAAADD8/tf-TkKiw49c/s640/IMG_1330.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on July 31, 2013, 10:40:00 AM
getting shit completely wrong.

Why is having an opinion about someone else's opinion "wrong"?

Did you read Hemant's page???  Its garbage:

Quote
The parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling: the conviction that they are in sole possession of truth (scientific or otherwise), the troubling lack of tolerance for the views of their critics (Dawkins has compared creationists to Holocaust deniers), the insistence on a literalist reading of scripture (more literalist, in fact, than one finds among most religious fundamentalists), the simplistic reductionism of the religious phenomenon, and, perhaps most bizarrely, their overwhelming sense of siege: the belief that they have been oppressed and marginalized by Western societies and are just not going to take it anymore. - ASLAN

Hement's reaction is to quote himself:
Quote
We’re not in “sole possession of truth” but we do think science is the best method to discover it. Does Aslan think truth is found in a holy book?
Are we lacking tolerance? Of course not. You don’t see us blowing up churches or beating up Muslims. We’re vocal about our opposition to irrational thinking. That is all.
Dawkins compares Creationists to Holocaust deniers because both groups deny an obvious reality. That has nothing to do with tolerance.
Are we insistent “on a literalist reading of scripture”? If so, it’s because the churches stress it. Nearly half of our country believes that men and women were created in our present form less than 10,000 years ago. That’s appalling and idiotic.
We’re thankful that many Christians don’t take their scripture literally. Yet even they will insist that there’s literal truth in the stories of Jesus’ life.
Do we feel “oppressed and marginalized”? Damn right, we do. We’re the most distrusted, least electable group of people in the country.

Doesn't he demonstrate the exact action on at least point one and two that informs Aslan's opinion??? 

Terry

Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 31, 2013, 11:12:23 AM
Hema/ent, in the second excerpt you posted, is quoting Aslan, from your first excerpt.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on July 31, 2013, 11:32:24 AM
Hema/ent, in the second excerpt you posted, is quoting Aslan, from your first excerpt.

I went back and re-read and read further, the blahg is really poorly written...  But Helmat is quoting himself, not Aslan, in the second excerpt...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/07/17/reza-aslan-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-article/

At least that's how I interpret the writing...

Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on August 01, 2013, 07:26:27 AM
He quotes himself because he is calling back to where he previously took on the guy.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 08, 2013, 07:34:15 PM
Foxnews.com is presently devoting one of its top four slots to speculation about a progamming change on its own network. The story itself, (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/08/08/megyn-kelly-reportedly-taking-over-pm-slot-in-fox-news-primetime-lineup/) which is hilarious by the way, cites the Drudge Report in tantalizing its readers with non-news of its own complete fabrication. Then it quotes one of its own spokesman, who refuses to divulge any details. "Breaking news! We, Fox, might have something to tell you! But we refuse to tell you! When will we learn whatever it is that we already know but won't tell you so that we can tell you? Stay tuned and find out, maybe! We don't know! Hey, look at this hot blonde anchor of ours!"
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 15, 2013, 09:33:41 PM
Fox News takes the opportunity to fact-check the Piers Morgan show. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/15/cnn-piers-morgan-stats-linking-violent-crime-to-gun/?test=latestnews)

Curious, considering news outlets (and especially their opinion-driven content) across the country must make scores of mistakes every day. Why isolate this one, FN?

Probably to make a point about CNN (suspected member of the liberal media) playing loose with facts in order to push an argument, in this case, about guns.

Do you think Fox News bothers to fact-check its own opinion-show personalities? If so, do you think they'd ever publish a front-page story about Sean Hannity making up some bullshit on the air?

Hmm.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on September 10, 2013, 02:22:44 PM
Fox News host: Atheists "don't have to live here" (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/09/fox-news-host-atheists-dont-have-to-live-here/?hpt=hp_t3)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 01, 2013, 02:09:27 PM
L O FUCKING L

Fox News has rebranded the "shutdown" as the "slimdown" -- and they are not going to take any chances that you don't get the message:

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-yGZhyNt3H1Q/UksNrbgQpXI/AAAAAAAADF0/qztcoKRp-Mw/s676/Screen%2520shot%25202013-10-01%2520at%25201.38.18%2520PM.png)

Hmmm... is this Dick Morris at work?

Let's see:
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 01, 2013, 02:26:25 PM
Meanwhile, here's FN.com's current front-page story (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/01/greatest-generation-veterans-to-face-barricades-at-memorial-in-their-honor/) in which they talk about a group of World War II vets who busted past some barricades to visit the otherwise-closed WWII Memorial in D.C.

The memorial that was closed because of the shutdown.

The shutdown that the GOP caused.

The GOP that includes a congressman who was on hand to help celebrate when these distinguished vets triumphed over one symptom of the shutdown that his party caused.

The party that FN goes out of its way to cheerlead, apologize and rationalize for, at every turn possible.


(http://chaoticsignal.com/image/original/oh_the_ironing.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 01, 2013, 05:33:30 PM
The shutdown that the GOP caused.

Faulty premise is faulty
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on October 01, 2013, 05:51:17 PM
The shutdown that the GOP caused.

Faulty premise is faulty

no, not really.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 01, 2013, 05:55:00 PM
The shutdown that the GOP caused.

Faulty premise is faulty

no, not really.

Really
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 01, 2013, 06:01:43 PM
The shutdown that the GOP caused.

Faulty premise is faulty

no, not really.

Really

lol, so explain how the GOP didn't force this stalemate over a law that already went through the proper channels and was even deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 01, 2013, 06:26:09 PM
The shutdown that the GOP caused.

Faulty premise is faulty

no, not really.

Really

lol, so explain how the GOP didn't force this stalemate over a law that already went through the proper channels and was even deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

By that logic, the debt ceiling cannot be raised. You know, because it's the law of the land and all.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 01, 2013, 06:50:47 PM
The shutdown that the GOP caused.

Faulty premise is faulty

no, not really.

Really

lol, so explain how the GOP didn't force this stalemate over a law that already went through the proper channels and was even deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

By that logic, the debt ceiling cannot be raised. You know, because it's the law of the land and all.

Huh?  Are you off your meds?

Of course laws can be change or amended, but using a government shutdown as the method to do so is reckless and probably won't produce the desired outcome anyway. 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: gah on October 01, 2013, 06:57:24 PM
The shutdown that the GOP caused.

Faulty premise is faulty

no, not really.

Really

lol, so explain how the GOP didn't force this stalemate over a law that already went through the proper channels and was even deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

By that logic, the debt ceiling cannot be raised. You know, because it's the law of the land and all.

Huh?  Are you off your meds?

Of course laws can be change or amended, but using a government shutdown as the method to do so is reckless and probably won't produce the desired outcome anyway.

I <3 jimbo.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on October 01, 2013, 07:23:32 PM
You want to change a law?

Get the votes and change it.

Don't have the votes?

Stop wasting my fucking time and money and move the fuck on.

To suggest that this isn't entirely a GOP construct is either an insult to the intelligence of those to whom you are speaking or a demonstration of your own lack of perception.


I have friends who took short paychecks all Summer thanks to sequestration furloughs and now they are back at home wondering how they'll pay the bills if this doesn't end today.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 01, 2013, 07:31:14 PM
The shutdown that the GOP caused.

Faulty premise is faulty

Please explain. Because I'm tempted to assume that you're suggesting the less faulty premise would be to say it's Obama and the Democrats' fault because they wouldn't agree to cave on their own signature law after some wing nuts decided holding the government hostage is an appropriate legislative negotiating tactic. And I know you know better than that.  :wink:
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on October 01, 2013, 08:09:38 PM
Quote
I campaigned in 2012 all over this country for months: 'Repeal and replace Obamacare.' That was not the mandate of the voters. If they wanted to repeal Obamacare, the 2012 election would have been probably significantly different. — Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona

to paraphrase another McCain quote - the president can veto any bill to overturn Obamacare. There aren't enough votes to override a veto. Let's move on
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 01, 2013, 09:57:12 PM
Huh?  Are you off your meds?

Of course laws can be change or amended, but using a government shutdown as the method to do so is reckless and probably won't produce the desired outcome anyway.

The House has passed 3 continuing resolutions, each time with compromises on the ACA (first defund, second delay the entire law 1 yr, third delay just individual mandate 1 yr and remove subsidies for Congress and their staffers). What has Obama or the Senate done to help avert the shutdown?

To suggest that this isn't entirely a GOP construct is either an insult to the intelligence of those to whom you are speaking or a demonstration of your own lack of perception.

Again, what have the Dems done to put a stop to this? You know, besides immediately voting down the bills the House has passed without debate?  Because my perception is lacking, apparently.

Please explain. Because I'm tempted to assume that you're suggesting the less faulty premise would be to say it's Obama and the Democrats' fault because they wouldn't agree to cave on their own signature law after some wing nuts decided holding the government hostage is an appropriate legislative negotiating tactic. And I know you know better than that.  :wink:

Why is it a black or white proposition? For the life of me I can't understand how anyone thinks this is an either or.

And as for the "holding gov't hostage" rhetoric, please don't forget that (a) Congress has not passed a budget since Obama's election (to which I'm sure I'll be met with "that's because the GOP opposes him on principle" which completely ignores the FY10 & 11 budgets when Dems controlled both chambers) and (b) this date was circled on the calendar on Jan 1st when they passed the fiscal cliff compromise. I just don't see how it can be considered hostage taking when NOBODY in DC has done their job in 9 months (and really in 4+ yrs).

Finally, as for the negotiating tactics, if you are buying a house that the seller wildly overprices, what do you do? You lowball the shit out of him and hope you can meet in the middle. So when the president and Senate majority leader comes out of the box saying unequivocally "we will not negotiate on this," what else do you expect the minority to do?

Quote
I campaigned in 2012 all over this country for months: 'Repeal and replace Obamacare.' That was not the mandate of the voters. If they wanted to repeal Obamacare, the 2012 election would have been probably significantly different. — Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona

to paraphrase another McCain quote - the president can veto any bill to overturn Obamacare. There aren't enough votes to override a veto. Let's move on

When John McCain and Peter King are portrayed as the voices of sanity, my bullshit meter goes crazy.


To make any of the above clear, I am not endorsing the GOPs strategy which I completely agree is bush league. I think Ted Cruz is a self-serving, delusional egomaniac who, if he becomes the GOP standard bearer, will continue the party's well documented demise. But every time I hear how this is solely the fault of a relatively small group of elected officials in one half of one branch of gov't I can't help but wonder what the fuck everyone is looking at. This is a failure of gov't, not a single political party (and certainly not a faction of that party).

You want to lay more of the blame with the GOP than Dems, I have no problem with that. But don't tell me that this lays solely at the feet of one party. Because that don't make no sense to me.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 01, 2013, 10:19:16 PM
Ok but fuck all that, why should the Dems have to compromise on legislation that has already been signed into law?

It's over man, this was signed and done nearly four years ago. 

And even if they did for some reason have to compromise on a battle they already won, what exactly does delaying the enactment accomplish?

Wouldn't that just be more of the same kicking the can down the road and not actually dealing with the reality of trying to fix our healthcare system?

Are you saying that you are in favor of further delaying an attempt to fix the healthcare system that has already been put off for far too long?

Obama is finally taking a stand for something, wasn't his wishy washy tendency to constantly change positions and negotiate weakly part of your frustration with him?  (It sure as hell was for my part)

Or was that mere posturing to hide your true feelings of hatred toward all things Obama?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 01, 2013, 10:35:55 PM
Ok but fuck all that, why should the Dems have to compromise on legislation that has already been signed into law?

It's over man, this was signed and done nearly four years ago. 

They're not, they are would be compromising on how to fund the gov't (for a couple more weeks until the next CR comes due in December). Congress is constitutionally appointed with the duty to appropriate funds, not the president. If they don't want to cut $1T in ACA funding, the Dems should put another plan on the table to cut that much (and I mean cut, not a $1T reduction in the growth of future spending). If the GOP rejects that, I will wholeheartedly join you in saying fuck those guys.

And even if they did for some reason have to compromise on a battle they already won, what exactly does delaying the enactment accomplish?

There have been plenty of reports of implementation problems. The WH itself has delayed the employer mandate for 1 year (hard to believe they would push a potentially job depressing regulation until after 2014 mid-terms, right?). The delay is to work out the kinks in an extraordinarily complex undertaking (which, BTW, was one of the major objections of the right).

Wouldn't that just be more of the same kicking the can down the road and not actually dealing with the reality of trying to fix our healthcare system?

Are you saying that you are in favor of further delaying an attempt to fix the healthcare system that has already been put off for far too long?

I don't believe you think the ACA is a way to fix the healthcare system. It is a continuation of our current busted ass system with the aim of covering more people. Now, we can argue the merits of that end, but to say it is anything other than the status quo is misleading at best.

Obama is finally taking a stand for something, wasn't his wishy washy tendency to constantly change positions and negotiate weakly part of your frustration with him?  (It sure as hell was for my part)

No, that's bvaz. My issue with him is solely related to policy failures.

Or was that mere posturing to hide your true feelings of hatred toward all things Obama?

Hicks, I've been through this before and I cannot believe I have to repeat myself but here goes: I don't give a fuck about posturing and I have absolutely zero feelings, hatred or otherwise, toward Obama. Do I think he's a shitty president? Of course. But that is derived completely from my reading of his policy failures and his inability to show leadership when it's most needed (and no, "taking a stand" by saying "give me what I want or I'm going home" is not leadership).

YMMV
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 01, 2013, 10:36:10 PM
The House has passed 3 continuing resolutions, each time with compromises on the ACA (first defund, second delay the entire law 1 yr, third delay just individual mandate 1 yr and remove subsidies for Congress and their staffers). What has Obama or the Senate done to help avert the shutdown?

Again, what have the Dems done to put a stop to this? You know, besides immediately voting down the bills the House has passed without debate?  Because my perception is lacking, apparently.

Why should Obama and his party be under any obligation to undo or compromise their own major legislative accomplishment (don't read that as a value judgment if you don't want) of recent years when they don't have to? It's not like we're talking about finding middle ground for the benefit of passing the ACA -- it's already been passed!

You could say, because otherwise the GOP will refuse to fund the government, and then the Dems would be complicit in that shutdown. Which, again, dignifies this as a negotiating tactic. So, is there a litmus test to determine what kind of principled stand is so precious as to justify grinding many of the everyday, unrelated functionings of national government to a halt and adversely affecting public-sector workers? You're talking about a situation where a party has only one house of Congress and can't overcome a White House veto -- is there a limit to when this kind of scorched-earth circumvention of the normal habits of lawmaking is appropriate? It's hard to take the GOP's word that this is such an exceptional situation as to require exceptional measures when they seem to so regularly wear noncooperation as a badge of honor (fueled by their simultaneous despising of Obama and government in general).

So when the president and Senate majority leader comes out of the box saying unequivocally "we will not negotiate on this," what else do you expect the minority to do?

I don't know, admit that the "leverage" they think they still have at this point is actually a last-gasp act of desperation that will wreak lots of collateral damage while making themselves look like tantrum-throwing juveniles plainly uninterested in governing and move on?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on October 01, 2013, 11:05:44 PM
Don't forget the tax cuts for the rich that they want.

Even if they hadn't already come out and said that what they are really trying to do is defuse the ACA, you could see their play from space.

Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 01, 2013, 11:10:06 PM
You're right I don't think the ACA is the answer to our problems.

But I do think it is at the bare minimum an acknowledgement on the part of the government that the system is broken and that big changes are necessary.


Best case scenario is that it is a stepping stone to a real solution.

To that end, the sooner it is in place the closer we will be to single payer or whatever it is that will keep our aging population from breaking the back of our economy and country. 

Yes it will be messy, but if not now, when?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 01, 2013, 11:17:28 PM
Why should Obama and his party be under any obligation to undo or compromise their own major legislative accomplishment (don't read that as a value judgment if you don't want) of recent years when they don't have to? It's not like we're talking about finding middle ground for the benefit of passing the ACA -- it's already been passed!

The idea that the GOP should stop opposing the ACA because it's passed is literally foreign to me. Should they stop trying to rollback the Patriot Act or end the prohibition on marijuana? (not that anyone is doing that)
 
You could say, because otherwise the GOP will refuse to fund the government, and then the Dems would be complicit in that shutdown. Which, again, dignifies this as a negotiating tactic.

How should the GOP extract spending concessions from the Dems (who view a change in CPI adjustment as an assault on the bedrock of our country)?

I don't know, admit that the "leverage" they think they still have at this point is actually a last-gasp act of desperation that will wreak lots of collateral damage while making themselves look like tantrum-throwing juveniles plainly uninterested in governing and move on?

As I said, I am not endorsing what is obviously a losing strategy. But now that they've stepped all over an issue that for once had popular support, how do we get out of it? Unless both sides are coming to the table in good faith, I can't ascribe greater blame to one any more than the other.

...that will wreak lots of collateral damage...

Don't worry, the Fed is always open. :wink:
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on October 01, 2013, 11:20:21 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

 :-o
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 01, 2013, 11:27:11 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

 :-o

Did I just. . .

Did they. . .

What the fuck is going on here?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: ytowndan on October 01, 2013, 11:28:25 PM
CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER!!!
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: barnesy305 on October 01, 2013, 11:28:58 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

 :-o

Did I just. . .

Did they. . .

What the fuck is going on here?

Nice photoshop, Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 01, 2013, 11:33:02 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

 :-o

(http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/92439_5_.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 01, 2013, 11:46:14 PM
Why should Obama and his party be under any obligation to undo or compromise their own major legislative accomplishment (don't read that as a value judgment if you don't want) of recent years when they don't have to? It's not like we're talking about finding middle ground for the benefit of passing the ACA -- it's already been passed!

The idea that the GOP should stop opposing the ACA because it's passed is literally foreign to me. Should they stop trying to rollback the Patriot Act or end the prohibition on marijuana? (not that anyone is doing that)

They'll always oppose the ACA; no one's expecting that to change. We're talking about the way that opposition is manifested and what they believe to be realistic options for getting their way. Would you support shutting down ("non-essential") government functions over a minority's opposition to marijuana prohibition? Well, some people might... but would that be reasonable? Or would navigating the usual legislative process, using the votes at your disposal and bringing public opinion to bear if you can, be the more appropriate route?

As I said, I am not endorsing what is obviously a losing strategy.

But aren't you? Or at least declining to call out the ridiculousness of it?

Unless both sides are coming to the table in good faith, I can't ascribe greater blame to one any more than the other.

Isn't it OK to ascribe greater blame to the only side that seems to believe there's a table in the first place and will undertake disproportionately drastic measures just to prove it?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 01, 2013, 11:50:00 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

 :-o

(http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/92439_5_.jpg)

FN.com's resident liberal columnist.

Gotta keep it fair and balanced.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 02, 2013, 12:06:47 AM
Why should Obama and his party be under any obligation to undo or compromise their own major legislative accomplishment (don't read that as a value judgment if you don't want) of recent years when they don't have to? It's not like we're talking about finding middle ground for the benefit of passing the ACA -- it's already been passed!

The idea that the GOP should stop opposing the ACA because it's passed is literally foreign to me. Should they stop trying to rollback the Patriot Act or end the prohibition on marijuana? (not that anyone is doing that)

They'll always oppose the ACA; no one's expecting that to change. We're talking about the way that opposition is manifested and what they believe to be realistic options for getting their way. Would you support shutting down ("non-essential") government functions over a minority's opposition to marijuana prohibition? Well, some people might... but would that be reasonable? Or would navigating the usual legislative process, using the votes at your disposal and bringing public opinion to bear if you can, be the more appropriate route?

Yes, that would be more appropriate. But doesn't the fact that one side (apparently) CAN shut down the gov't kinda prove we don't have any money left? Spending needs to be cut, and when you live on CRs, you will be "threatening" a gov't shutdown by definition. Pass a budget, and then they can bitch about GOP intransigence.

As I said, I am not endorsing what is obviously a losing strategy.

But aren't you? Or at least declining to call out the ridiculousness of it?

It's ridiculous.

Unless both sides are coming to the table in good faith, I can't ascribe greater blame to one any more than the other.

Isn't it OK to ascribe greater blame to the only side that seems to believe there's a table in the first place and will undertake disproportionately drastic measures just to prove it?

Wait, who's at the table?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on October 02, 2013, 07:04:28 AM
The thing is here the GOP hates ACA mainly because it's Obama's. The ACA is far from perfect and needs to be fixed, but consider recent history

-the individual mandate was initially proposed by Dole and supported by Newt in the 90s. Romney won't admit it now but he thought it was a pretty damn good idea 10 years ago

-the ethics consults, which were soon to be labelled death panels, is an idea floated by a Republican

-health insurance exchanges were initially proposed by GWB

-The GOP said that we're gonna make health care reform Obama's Waterloo before the process of writing the bill got even started. All they knew about it at the time was that the plan was to provide universal coverage and it would have been passed by a democratic congress and WH. It's kinda like getting the results of a pregnancy test, and then saying the baby's ugly the next day.

they just want to bring Obama down.

the Dems can be assholes too, but no to this degree. Not even close
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 02, 2013, 09:29:30 AM
Come on, sls. Everyone knows all babies are ugly.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 03, 2013, 09:40:24 AM
So about that deal with the WWII memorial the other day, when vets pushed aside barriers to visit the off-limits site: The GOP and its allies at FN are accusing the Obama administration of "arbitrarily" closing off this and other memorials for political gain (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/03/house-republicans-weigh-probe-monument-closures-amid-slimdown/), in order to make people "feel the pain" of the shutdown.

Yesterday, I was actually looking at Glenn Beck's website (don't ask), where was published an article about an interview he had done with Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert. They were talking about the WWII memorial incident, and Louie straight up said it must be some kind of Obama conspiracy to close the monument -- just to be dicks, or to stick it to old vets, or something.

This is the irrational mind at work. The Republican party decided to go down this course, and now they are complaining about its impact. It is a shame that WWII vets can't visit the memorial (actually, they're all succeeding in doing so anyway), yes. Just as it's a shame that missing hikers aren't being rescued, or vacations to national parks are being scuttled, or businesses that depend on federal regulators are being tied up, or D.C. might not get its trash collected... There was a story on NPR this morning about how national parks and monuments are being shut down all over, and they are keeping people out. The Park Service operates under a mandate that includes things that require funding in order to carry out... it's not like they're doing this just for kicks. This is what happens when you refuse to fund the government. To suddenly throw your hands up and cry "conspiracy" or "Obama hates vets" is grossly disingenuous at best.

Now, I have no doubt that Obama and the Dems will milk this shutdown situation for some extra political gain. They are politicians too, after all. They'll do this because they perceive that the GOP has more to lose from the shutdown than the Dems do. They will let the pain linger until the GOP finally blinks and backs down. And then, they hope, the GOP will look like the idiots in all of this. It's a shitty thing all the way around. But that's bigger picture stuff. For the GOP to complain about specific park closures or act like the Obama administration is acting with malicious temerity in rolling out the effects of the shutdown is foolish.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2013, 09:58:10 AM
I think the complaint was more that the administration directed park security to put barricades around an open-air, privately funded 24-hr park that happen to be on public land.

So yes, the faux-outrage is predictably nonsensical, but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on October 03, 2013, 10:10:18 AM

but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?

That's what "non-essential" means...

Funny how few seem to care that Federal Funding of Meals On Wheels (which feeds more Veterans than were inconvenienced by barricades) now has been cut...  Oh, maybe not funny at all...

Terry


Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 03, 2013, 10:10:40 AM
To hear the National Park Service (which administers the memorial) explain it, they are keeping people out of parks everywhere because to just leave them open and unstaffed would invite vandalism, theft, etc.

Of course, you could argue that the same people who are in charge of enforcing a park closure (there is security around, apparently) could be used to protect parks from the kind of harm that they are afraid would occur during a free-for-all. (This would be easier done at a small memorial versus, say, Yellowstone.) But there is also within the NPS mandate things that talk about having to "accommodate" visitors -- to include providing facilities, etc. I don't know the bathroom situation at the WWII memorial. Maybe if they aren't able to staff a place with janitors they can't be open? Or maybe the NPS doesn't technically have the leeway to selectively enforce a closure.

I agree that it's all dumb and unfortunate. I'm not ready to cry "conspiracy" so much as "effects of a shutdown" -- even if said shutdown is carried out with an entirely typical lack of nuance or careful thought.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 03, 2013, 10:12:00 AM

but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?

That's what "non-essential" means...

Funny how few seem to care that Federal Funding of Meals On Wheels (which feeds more Veterans than were inconvenienced by barricades) now has been cut...  Oh, maybe not funny at all...

Terry

Not to mention, applications for benefits through the VA, which had been catching up from a big backlog, are once again being delayed to the detriment of veterans.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2013, 10:17:57 AM

but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?

That's what "non-essential" means...

Funny how few seem to care that Federal Funding of Meals On Wheels (which feeds more Veterans than were inconvenienced by barricades) now has been cut...  Oh, maybe not funny at all...

Terry

I don't believe that few care about that.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on October 03, 2013, 10:27:31 AM

but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?

That's what "non-essential" means...

Funny how few seem to care that Federal Funding of Meals On Wheels (which feeds more Veterans than were inconvenienced by barricades) now has been cut...  Oh, maybe not funny at all...

Terry

I don't believe that few care about that.

I'll reiterate, "few at Fox"...  I'd venture to guess that those that are now not being fed care quite a bit  :-P

Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 03, 2013, 10:28:36 AM
No doubt people do care (especially those impacted), but it's not the kind of disproportionately important, make-a-show-of-it stuff that our American public, politicians and media typically go for. Hence the hubbub over the WWII memorial, which has been a front-page story on FN.com for at least two days this week.

That's no disrespect to the WWII vets who travelled to Washington to visit their memorial -- I'm glad they were able to get in, and I'd be just as pissed if I were there with one of my grandfathers and someone behind a metal fence tried to turn us away.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on October 03, 2013, 10:38:52 AM
No doubt people do care (especially those impacted), but it's not the kind of disproportionately important, make-a-show-of-it stuff that our American public, politicians and media typically go for. Hence the hubbub over the WWII memorial, which has been a front-page story on FN.com for at least two days this week.

That's no disrespect to the WWII vets who travelled to Washington to visit their memorial -- I'm glad they were able to get in, and I'd be just as pissed if I were there with one of my grandfathers and someone behind a metal fence tried to turn us away.

No doubt, who wouldn't be pissed???  But that's what happens when you let the Gov't shutdown... 

Terry
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 18, 2013, 11:04:40 AM
Add being insufferable debbie downers to the list of why Fox News sucks.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/17/dr-manny-america-obsession-with-zombies-is-hurting-our-society/
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on October 22, 2013, 08:07:06 AM
Add being insufferable debbie downers to the list of why Fox News sucks.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/17/dr-manny-america-obsession-with-zombies-is-hurting-our-society/

Homeboy needs to wake up and discover the concept of escapism as entertainment.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: sophist on October 22, 2013, 08:35:13 AM
The irony of a fox news reporter addressing another show as a threat to America is too much for me.   :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on October 22, 2013, 09:17:12 AM
of course, if it was Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, or any other liberal pol saying that stuff is bad for the kids of America, it would be "the nanny state impinging upon our freedoms"
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 22, 2013, 01:44:36 PM
I think that Dr. Manny Alvarez has a bright future writing op-eds for high-school newspapers railing against the perpetual lack of Mountain Dew in the vending machine by the boys' locker room.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Hicks on October 22, 2013, 06:06:18 PM
I think that Dr. Manny Alvarez has a bright future writing op-eds for high-school newspapers railing against the perpetual lack of Mountain Dew in the vending machine by the boys' locker room.

(http://comediva.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DratchSheldonSNL.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 25, 2013, 04:05:48 PM
Look at what "professional news organization" FoxNews.com has up on its homepage right now:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-nb2Wt_8hf4Y/UmrK9m7eVYI/AAAAAAAADGs/tqL6J4sLf_Q/s675/Screen%2520shot%25202013-10-25%2520at%25203.46.38%2520PM.png)


I've seen some amateur shit on that website, but I think this graphic takes the cake. Holy moses.

They are just going wild over this website snafu. To Fox and the GOP, a malfunctioning website seems to be proof positive of their assertion that Obamacare is going to destroy America. Except... websites can be fixed. What then? You'll have to go back to arguing against the substance of the ACA, except, oh, the voters and even the Supremes have said to shut up and move on. So basically, they're just trying to score cheap points while they can and blame a president for how an IT project was implemented.

Meanwhile, for those of us who aren't still in elementary school, there's been a pretty interesting discussion (NPR has spent some time on this) about the very structure of how massive government tech projects like this are bid on, sliced up, handed off and supervised, and how the whole mess of that process is really what we should be talking about here. It's little surprise to see a big, ambitious system like this stumbled out of the gates, and yes, it argues for reform of that process itself. It doesn't really say squat about the underlying public policy that birthed the site.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on October 25, 2013, 04:36:25 PM
To Fox and the GOP, a malfunctioning website seems to be proof positive of their assertion that Obamacare is going to destroy America.


Personally, I think its funny that Fox now seems to care whether or not the website works.  If they want ACA to fail, the easiest place to start is to make it hard for people to sign up - that was the ENTIRE logical basis for some state to NOT set up their own exchanges.  I'd think they would be cheering for the failure, but now it seems they want it up and running...

I guess they can't help themselves - they'll gig the Obama even when it would seem in their interests to not do so... 

Terry


Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 28, 2013, 12:26:12 PM
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-UnvbvGTq1aQ/Um6NB-hbVOI/AAAAAAAADHE/kGlazsadZNo/s672/Screen%2520shot%25202013-10-28%2520at%252012.06.25%2520PM.png)


Fox News will not rest until they solve the mystery of why someone in the government updated a graphic on a website. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/28/plot-thickens-mystery-obamacare-covergirl-goes-awol/) This is front-page material, naturally.

Oh, how hard they are working to gin up this big "outrageous" "controversy"... "Is the mystery girl real? Is she alive? Is she being held in a secret Obama gulag somewhere? WHY WON'T THEY ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS??"

And then you get to the bottom of the story where they quote an administration official who simply says, hey, we're respecting her privacy and not giving out her name. And a third party who pointed out that maybe they're just taking advantage of valuable real estate to convey something more informative than a face. Oh. Shit. Nothing to see here I guess. Dammit.

Grasping at straws much? Or are they just doing this now for their own sheer amusement?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 29, 2013, 02:40:31 PM
Grasping at straws much?

Yes, yes you are.

I also have a comment about your previous post and twatts' patently false reply, but I got shit to do so maybe later.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on October 29, 2013, 09:10:11 PM
twatts

Its not "twatts" anymore...  Now its Kentucky Marmalade...  You can call me KY Jelly for short...

Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 29, 2013, 10:28:48 PM
Grasping at straws much?

Yes, yes you are.

I also have a comment about your previous post and twatts' patently false reply, but I got shit to do so maybe later.

Come now, Jimbo. Don't tease us. Go on, defend ya boys at FN.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 29, 2013, 10:42:07 PM
Meanwhile, for those of us who aren't still in elementary school, there's been a pretty interesting discussion (NPR has spent some time on this) about the very structure of how massive government tech projects like this are bid on, sliced up, handed off and supervised, and how the whole mess of that process is really what we should be talking about here. It's little surprise to see a big, ambitious system like this stumbled out of the gates, and yes, it argues for reform of that process itself. It doesn't really say squat about the underlying public policy that birthed the site.


Ezra Klein said "the website" has become a symbol of much bigger problems with the law's implementation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/25/obamacares-problems-go-much-deeper-than-the-web-site/), much to the chagrin of Joan Walsh who insisted liberals shouldn't report on the law's failings (http://www.salon.com/2013/10/21/liberal_pundit_fail_rush_to_attack_obamacare_site_only_aids_unhinged_right/).

What I can't understand was why the administration wouldn't even consider postponing the mandate for a year. Insurers had been warning of risks since at least the summer. Full testing began just days before the launch. I understand the concern that the GOP just wants to continue trying/failing to dismantle the law, but the president had to be the adult and admit that it just wasn't ready yet. And I think people would have given him credit for doing that. But, not surprisingly, he didn't. The part where they bullshit about not knowing stats like how many people enrolled is fun too.

I've said this to you many times, VDB, but just because Fox placates to the lowest common denominator doesn't mean you have to buy into their bullshit. As a friend, please stop trolling the Fox News website. You will feel SO much better.

It's not your fault. No, NO, VDB...it's not your fault.

Personally, I think its funny that Fox now seems to care whether or not the website works.  If they want ACA to fail, the easiest place to start is to make it hard for people to sign up - that was the ENTIRE logical basis for some state to NOT set up their own exchanges.  I'd think they would be cheering for the failure, but now it seems they want it up and running...

That wasn't really why states didn't set up their own exchanges. The more compelling reason was because Medicaid is already overwhelming state (balanced) budgets. So when the ACA was passed and massively expanded their most costly item, some states said "fuck off" (incl. 2 Dem govs) despite the (temporary) federal funding. And Congress, knowing full well that some states would say "fuck off, included the language in the ACA that said if states didn't open their own exchanges, than federal funds would be revoked. But this was the one piece of the law that the Court did throw out because of its coercive nature, making it easier for states to opt out.

Do I think the GOP wants the ACA to fail? Duh. But it's not true that governors had only political reasons for their opposition to the Medicaid expansion. They legitimately thought it sucked balls too.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: twatts on October 29, 2013, 10:49:36 PM

That wasn't really why states didn't set up their own exchanges. The more compelling reason was because Medicaid is already overwhelming state (balanced) budgets. So when the ACA was passed and massively expanded their most costly item, some states said "fuck off" (incl. 2 Dem govs) despite the (temporary) federal funding. And Congress, knowing full well that some states would say "fuck off, included the language in the ACA that said if states didn't open their own exchanges, than federal funds would be revoked. But this was the one piece of the law that the Court did throw out because of its coercive nature, making it easier for states to opt out.

Do I think the GOP wants the ACA to fail? Duh. But it's not true that governors had only political reasons for their opposition to the Medicaid expansion. They legitimately thought it sucked balls too.

I was being obtuse:  "Shouldn't Fox be cheering the failure of the website"???

Thought you would catch that...

Terry
 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 29, 2013, 11:01:12 PM
Not sure I follow you, jimbo. I'm buying into FN's bullshit? I tend to do the very opposite. I actually get real pleasure in seeing and reporting on the incredible lengths to which they'll go to make a mockery of their own "fair and balanced" mantra. I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN MY AFFINITY FOR THE FOX NEWS WEBSITE TO YOU OR ANYONE.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 29, 2013, 11:12:29 PM

That wasn't really why states didn't set up their own exchanges. The more compelling reason was because Medicaid is already overwhelming state (balanced) budgets. So when the ACA was passed and massively expanded their most costly item, some states said "fuck off" (incl. 2 Dem govs) despite the (temporary) federal funding. And Congress, knowing full well that some states would say "fuck off, included the language in the ACA that said if states didn't open their own exchanges, than federal funds would be revoked. But this was the one piece of the law that the Court did throw out because of its coercive nature, making it easier for states to opt out.

Do I think the GOP wants the ACA to fail? Duh. But it's not true that governors had only political reasons for their opposition to the Medicaid expansion. They legitimately thought it sucked balls too.

I was being obtuse:  "Shouldn't Fox be cheering the failure of the website"???

Thought you would catch that...

I always assume you're being obtuse, KYJ :wink:

Not sure I follow you, jimbo. I'm buying into FN's bullshit? I tend to do the very opposite. I actually get real pleasure in seeing and reporting on the incredible lengths to which they'll go to make a mockery of their own "fair and balanced" mantra. I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN MY AFFINITY FOR THE FOX NEWS WEBSITE TO YOU OR ANYONE.

 :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

I worry about you, bro. But then, I don't live with the rubes FN is placating to, so...
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on November 05, 2013, 02:54:03 PM
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/195ft1ovlxw0zpng/original.png)

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/195fsh8wwob7dpng/ku-xlarge.png)

still live on their site....
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on November 05, 2013, 03:37:05 PM
Rule #1 of car-chase journalism: Never wait on the copy desk.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on January 21, 2014, 12:26:39 PM
Hilarious Fox News headline of the day:

As Obama hammers ‘income inequality,’ gap grows under his presidency (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/21/as-obama-hammers-income-inequality-gap-grows-under-his-presidency/?intcmp=latestnews)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Buffalo Budd on March 18, 2014, 02:49:39 PM
http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/fox-news-anchors-left-redfaced-as-penis-accidentally-flashed-on-screen-30103917.html (http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/fox-news-anchors-left-redfaced-as-penis-accidentally-flashed-on-screen-30103917.html)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on March 31, 2014, 09:13:27 AM
FN is barely even attempting to mask their contempt any more.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on March 31, 2014, 11:37:56 AM
FN is barely even attempting to mask their contempt any more.

Did they ever?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: DoW on March 31, 2014, 12:21:57 PM
FN is barely even attempting to mask their contempt any more.

Did they ever?
so why do you read/watch it?
honestly, if it wasn't for checking in on what I find to be a  humorous thread, I'd have no idea what Fox news is saying.

focussing on the neagtive is so 3.0
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mehead on March 31, 2014, 12:27:21 PM
FN is barely even attempting to mask their contempt any more.

Of course, specifically to this post, it's true.

Just sayin'
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on March 31, 2014, 01:30:25 PM
so why do you read/watch it?
honestly, if it wasn't for checking in on what I find to be a  humorous thread, I'd have no idea what Fox news is saying.

focussing on the neagtive is so 3.0

A couple reasons.
1. It's important not to insulate yourself in your own viewpoints or those of strictly like-minded people.
1a. You might see or learn something that helps you grow.
1b. Know thy enemy.
2. As a onetime journalism student and former part-time journalist, I enjoy media criticism, and FN sure provides plenty of fodder for that.
3. Its ludicrousness makes me laugh.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: ytowndan on March 31, 2014, 07:05:35 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/3zmMKat.png)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on March 31, 2014, 08:57:12 PM
FN producer standing over the shoulder of the graphics guy: "No, no, no. Make the one on the left, like, a lot shorter. People will think the numbers are too reasonably close otherwise. Shorter... shorter... shorter, dammit! Perfect."


eta: This is a pretty fascinating look (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/01/a-history-of-dishonest-fox-charts/190225) at FN's history of not knowing (or, choosing to ignore) how charts work.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on March 31, 2014, 09:16:33 PM
FN producer standing over the shoulder of the graphics guy: "No, no, no. Make the one on the left, like, a lot shorter. People will think the numbers are too reasonably close otherwise. Shorter... shorter... shorter, dammit! Perfect."

Kinda like he did with this picture:  "No, use this picture of some lazy black folk who couldn't even enroll on time for their government healthcare"

(http://week4paug.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19639.0;attach=28266;image)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on May 02, 2014, 09:17:46 AM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-I01bhm2Q98w/U2OYEwwM7HI/AAAAAAAADL0/V7SWXRRXzY8/s321/Screen%2520Shot%25202014-05-02%2520at%25209.04.19%2520AM.png)

Looking at this front-page headline, a casual Fox News reader might get the impression that this is some punk kid just trying to flippantly dismiss the importance of the Benghazi episode -- which would fit neatly with Fox News' long-running narrative that they and only they are taking the matter seriously and everyone else is part of some liberal conspiracy to cover up the most egregious presidential scandal since Sally Hemmings.

And then you read the article.

Quote
Baier then asked Vietor whether he personally changed the word “attack” to “demonstrations” in the talking points for Rice.

“Maybe, I don’t really remember,” Vietor said.

When pressed by Baier, Vietor said, “Dude, this was like two years ago. We're still talking about the most mundane process.”

Oh. Wait. So they guy is actually saying he can't recall a certain detail because a lot of time has passed. Well shit.

This is a favorite past time of FN.com headline writers: twist, distort, take out of context, and in general make it sound as bad as possible for [Obama/Democrats/college professors/Hollywood types] so that even those just scanning headlines get the "appropriate" message.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on May 02, 2014, 12:15:26 PM
And furthermore, as a journalism professor friend of mine pointed out, "It's a juvenile tack to make fun of someone's word choice to redirect attention away from the point. It's childish."

Indeed.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: nab on May 03, 2014, 12:17:56 AM
And furthermore, as a journalism professor friend of mine pointed out, "It's a juvenile tack to make fun of someone's word choice to redirect attention away from the point. It's childish."

Indeed.


Wait, what?  Stick to the subject of the argument without a safety net? 

Bullocks
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on June 19, 2014, 03:52:18 PM
This item (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/10/walmart-in-this-tiny-town-beats-seattles-minimum-wage/?intcmp=obinsite) was originally posted by watchdog.org, a project of the conservative-leaning Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, and reposted at FN.com:

Quote
Walmart in this tiny town beats Seattle’s minimum wage

A tiny town in the midst of North Dakota’s oil boom raised local wages without forcing the issue through city ordinances or state laws — looking at you, Seattle.

In fact, the evidence of the salary spike comes from the much-demonized Walmart, a corporation under fire from leftists who believe the company doesn’t pay enough.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpslMHgCAAEGo0O.jpg)

So you see! All it takes is a highly anomalous situation in which a boom in natural-resource extraction takes place in a notably underpopulated area, and the free market will take care of wages just fine!

Also, lol at the implication that interest in raising wages is just some "leftist" pet issue. Nevermind that, in one recent poll (http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/), 73% of Americans said they favor raising the federal minimum wage.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on June 20, 2014, 09:14:26 AM
Also, lol at the implication that interest in raising wages is just some "leftist" pet issue.

That wasn't the implication. It was that the left generally has disdain for Walmart. Do you really think that is debatable?

Nevermind that, in one recent poll (http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/), 73% of Americans said they favor raising the federal minimum wage.

Surely you're not suggesting we use public opinion polls to determine economic policy and other such matters on which the public may not be qualified to opine? 62% of the country supported invading Iraq in 2002 (http://www.cfr.org/iraq/most-americans-support-war-iraq-shows-new-pewcfr-poll---commentary-lee-feinstein/p5051) (even more amazing is that a plurality believe we should actually go back (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/46_favor_u_s_airstrikes_in_iraq_to_fight_al_qaeda)). Japanese internment was wildly popular after Pearl Harbor. Shit, I think I remember seeing a majority supported Gramm-Leach-Bliley (i.e. repeal of Glass-Steagall) when it passed (having trouble verifying that now though).

I'm not saying there's not arguments for raising the minimum wage (although as you would imagine, I would take issue with those arguments), I'm saying the public supporting should not be one of them.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on June 20, 2014, 09:47:09 AM
Yes, everyone knows lefties hate Walmart and its wage practices. But that line in the article would be like saying "Ike Turner, a man who has come under fire from abused women who believe he shouldn't abuse women." Meaning, you don't have to be a "leftist" to wish Walmart workers made more money, as can be illustrated by various polls on who supports raising the minimum wage.

Framing it as a "leftist" issue diminishes and marginalizes the viewpoint and conveniently invites non-leftists readers to take up the opposite side of the argument.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on June 20, 2014, 09:53:02 AM
I agree it's intended to be a pejorative term. Kinda like how the media uses "tea party" to connote crazy person.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on July 03, 2014, 11:33:22 AM
Fox News rips off video game logo, with a nice ironic twist (http://www.avclub.com/article/fox-news-rips-bioshock-infinite-logo-irony-ensues-206519).

(http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5162/12/original/640.jpg)

(http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5162/13/original/640.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2014, 01:53:17 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/2h9mZ9p.png)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 11, 2014, 08:22:33 PM
Shameless.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: emay on August 12, 2014, 10:49:49 AM
wow

this might be (IS ) too far

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxpTe-GKPlI
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on August 12, 2014, 10:53:37 AM
might be?


I would say that it's an insult to anyone who's ever suffered from depression
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: antelope19 on August 12, 2014, 10:54:11 AM
Might be? What a prick! Unbelievable....
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: emay on August 12, 2014, 10:59:57 AM
fixed my post.


but for real, this dude should get fired.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Buffalo Budd on August 12, 2014, 12:38:40 PM
Total douchewad.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on August 12, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
Dude is too much of a coward himself to come out of the closet.

http://gawker.com/how-fox-news-shoved-shepard-smith-back-into-the-closet-1569504867
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 12, 2014, 12:50:26 PM
Jeez, Shep.  :shakehead:

Obviously uncalled for. I guess he has since apologized but how do you even let yourself say that in the first place?

I'd love to hear Shep Smith and news anchors in general save that kind of accusation for, I dunno, maybe cops who shoot and kill unarmed people or maim toddlers. If that's not cowardice it's at least sure as shit not bravery.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 12, 2014, 05:20:06 PM
So, I kind of get what Shep was going for. I don't condone it or agree with it in the least (like sls said, it's an affront to anyone who's suffered from serious depression), but I get that there is the view that suicide is "the coward's way out." I don't think it was a personal insult at Williams, I think he was just alluding to that misguided notion. Still, terrible phrasing and he was right to apologize for it.

However, that comment pales in comparison to what the Grand Imperial Dooshbag said. It's so ridiculous that even the ultra-conservative Washington Times is like, "Whoa, dude." Granted, Rush gets paid to make comments like these, but good god what a dick.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/rush-limbaugh-robin-williams-killed-himself-due-le/

Quote
Rush Limbaugh: Robin Williams killed himself due to ‘leftist world view’

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh argued Tuesday that Robin Williams committed suicide because of his “leftist world view.”

“What is the left’s world view in general?” Mr. Limbaugh asked listeners. “If you had to attach, not a philosophy, but an attitude to a leftist world view. It’s one of pessimism, and darkness, sadness. They’re never happy, are they?”

Mr. Williams’ body was found in the seated position after he hanged himself using a belt at his California home Monday. Marin County police said the actor died from “asphyxia due to hanging.”

Mr. Limbaugh pointed to a Fox News report that said Mr. Williams had struggled with financial issues and embarrassment from having to take TV roles after a sterling movie career.

“[Liberals] are animated in large part by the false promises of America, because the promises of America are not for everyone,” he said. “He had it all, but he had nothing. Made everybody else laugh, but was miserable inside. It fits a certain picture or a certain image that the left has. [I’m] talking about low expectations and general unhappiness.”

Fox News reported Mr. Williams suffered from “survivor’s guilt” after the deaths of Christopher Reeve, Andy Kaufman and John Belushi.

“Robin Williams felt guilty that he was still alive while his three friends had died young, and much earlier than he had,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “He could never get over the guilt that they died and he didn’t. Well, that is a constant measurement that is made by political leftists in judging the country.”

Slate reported Tuesday that Mr. Williams’ political ideology “was always liberal, in the general sense that Hollywood is liberal.”

Over the years the Oscar-winning actor donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, including Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Al Franken.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: emay on August 12, 2014, 05:26:36 PM
what a steaming pile of shit that article is and the author for that matter
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on August 12, 2014, 06:21:30 PM
Also, lol at the implication that interest in raising wages is just some "leftist" pet issue.

That wasn't the implication. It was that the left generally has disdain for Walmart. Do you really think that is debatable?

Nevermind that, in one recent poll (http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/), 73% of Americans said they favor raising the federal minimum wage.

Surely you're not suggesting we use public opinion polls to determine economic policy and other such matters on which the public may not be qualified to opine?

yeah, crazy talk.  we should just stick to the opinion polls from campaign donors, CEO's and stock holders.  this isn't a democracy or anything.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: birdman on August 12, 2014, 06:35:53 PM
Also, lol at the implication that interest in raising wages is just some "leftist" pet issue.

That wasn't the implication. It was that the left generally has disdain for Walmart. Do you really think that is debatable?

Nevermind that, in one recent poll (http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/), 73% of Americans said they favor raising the federal minimum wage.

Surely you're not suggesting we use public opinion polls to determine economic policy and other such matters on which the public may not be qualified to opine?

yeah, crazy talk.  we should just stick to the opinion polls from campaign donors, CEO's and stock holders.  this isn't a democracy or anything.
We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.
That said, I agree with what you are saying.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on August 12, 2014, 07:03:33 PM
Also, lol at the implication that interest in raising wages is just some "leftist" pet issue.

That wasn't the implication. It was that the left generally has disdain for Walmart. Do you really think that is debatable?

Nevermind that, in one recent poll (http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/), 73% of Americans said they favor raising the federal minimum wage.

Surely you're not suggesting we use public opinion polls to determine economic policy and other such matters on which the public may not be qualified to opine?

yeah, crazy talk.  we should just stick to the opinion polls from campaign donors, CEO's and stock holders.  this isn't a democracy or anything.
We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.
That said, I agree with what you are saying.

STFU Neely.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: antelope19 on August 12, 2014, 08:26:51 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/8cz8J.gif)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Buffalo Budd on August 12, 2014, 08:48:35 PM
Limbaugh, pffft!!  Does anyone really listen to this guy?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on August 12, 2014, 08:57:25 PM
Limbaugh, pffft!!  Does anyone really listen to this guy?

only about 13 million people.   :?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Buffalo Budd on August 12, 2014, 09:11:53 PM
Limbaugh, pffft!!  Does anyone really listen to this guy?

only about 13 million people.   :?

Pffft!!, What do they know?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 12, 2014, 11:40:49 PM
If leftist world views caused suicide, wouldn't there be a lot more suicides?

Am I actually trying to argue rationally with something Rush Limbaugh said?
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 13, 2014, 12:18:17 PM
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All (http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 13, 2014, 12:52:28 PM
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All (http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5)

2 yrs old, dude. 2 yrs old.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on August 13, 2014, 12:53:41 PM
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All (http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5)

2 yrs old, dude. 2 yrs old.

It's not new news but it's not like they've changed.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: DoW on August 13, 2014, 01:08:04 PM
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All (http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5)

2 yrs old, dude. 2 yrs old.
msnbc just reported it today.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on August 13, 2014, 03:22:57 PM
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All (http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5)

2 yrs old, dude. 2 yrs old.
msnbc just reported it today.
they have a crackerjack research dept
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: pcr3 on August 13, 2014, 07:11:20 PM
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All (http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5)

2 yrs old, dude. 2 yrs old.
msnbc just reported it today.
And Fox News never will, further reinforcing the findings of the study. Ad infinitem.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 14, 2014, 02:13:08 PM
Hole. Lee. Shit.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvAt46gCEAAZm4l.png)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on August 14, 2014, 02:19:11 PM
Just when you think they've run out of sharks, Fox News jumps another one.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 15, 2014, 09:24:45 AM
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/external_clips/attachments/27187/original/tend-to-trust.jpg)

Fox News: less trusted than advertising.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on October 19, 2014, 10:16:51 AM
i know he's not on fox anymore, but this guy has officially gone of the deep end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4oOvQSMebw
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on October 19, 2014, 12:30:07 PM
Wait'll you get a load of his hot take on the Redskins name controversy:

http://youtu.be/GQNNt2E4Nlk (http://youtu.be/GQNNt2E4Nlk)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on November 04, 2014, 10:24:55 PM
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/04/vox-charges-fox-news-with-violation-of-exit-pol/201454
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Undermind on January 08, 2015, 04:38:34 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/13/928455/-CONFIRMED-New-Study-Proves-That-Fox-News-Makes-You-Stupid?detail=facebook
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: DoW on January 08, 2015, 05:17:57 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/13/928455/-CONFIRMED-New-Study-Proves-That-Fox-News-Makes-You-Stupid?detail=facebook
ha.  that was written in 2010 and written by "KingOneEye"
surely, the stats have worsened over the past 4 years.  :wink:
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: Undermind on January 08, 2015, 06:29:55 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/13/928455/-CONFIRMED-New-Study-Proves-That-Fox-News-Makes-You-Stupid?detail=facebook
ha.  that was written in 2010 and written by "KingOneEye"
surely, the stats have worsened over the past 4 years.  :wink:
hahaha!  Nice catch, and I am sure you are correct.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on January 12, 2015, 10:04:19 AM
Fox News commentator calls Birmingham, UK "totally Muslim," claims non-Muslims don't even go there, #foxnewfacts ensues.

on.mash.to/1yb6cpA (http://on.mash.to/1yb6cpA)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on January 12, 2015, 10:56:15 AM
Fox News commentator calls Birmingham, UK "totally Muslim," claims non-Muslims don't even go there, #foxnewfacts ensues.

on.mash.to/1yb6cpA (http://on.mash.to/1yb6cpA)

painful.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on February 08, 2018, 11:20:28 AM
Hilarious, super-ominous photoshop on the front of fn dot com right now:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4742/40153134391_3a1537ae5d_o.png)

I'd like to suggest that this is a bit misleading a thing for a major "journalism" outlet to be up to, but their retort might be that it's of so obvious poor quality that no one would think it's a candid capture, even though the emotional intent is quite clear.

Fox News will keep talking about Hillary Clinton long after she's cold in the ground. It's so convenient for them.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on February 08, 2018, 12:01:53 PM
WSJ, owned by the same guy, has reported on and corrected the recent "errors" on FN

fact checking - they should try it.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on February 08, 2018, 06:45:48 PM
I also love how (and this is not just a Fox thing), when a news outlet runs a story that they think is Bad News for the subject of it, they always pick the same kind of photo: that head-down, saggy-eyed, mushy-chinned pose that they must have vast archives of. Of course the photo was taken who-knows-when. So it's basically just a headshot to identify the principal, but one that imagines their shamed reaction to the coverage they're getting.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: mbw on February 08, 2018, 07:04:46 PM
I also love how (and this is not just a Fox thing), when a news outlet runs a story that they think is Bad News for the subject of it, they always pick the same kind of photo: that head-down, saggy-eyed, mushy-chinned pose that they must have vast archives of. Of course the photo was taken who-knows-when. So it's basically just a headshot to identify the principal, but one that imagines their shamed reaction to the coverage they're getting.

It probably makes more sense than running:

Quote
Trump Rawdogs Pornstar While Wife Home With Newborn
      (https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170712202623-02-donald-trump-0712-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: VDB on February 08, 2018, 08:02:22 PM
Haha, his hand looks impossibly tiny in that photo. My goodness.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: ytowndan on February 08, 2018, 10:36:19 PM
Haha, his hand looks impossibly tiny in that photo. My goodness.

Holy crap, it does!   :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: rowjimmy on February 09, 2018, 01:37:41 PM
Forced perspective is actually enlarging the hand relative to his pumpkin head.
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: slslbs on February 13, 2018, 11:20:29 AM
apparently there was an editorial on Fox titled the new Olympic motto - darker, grayer, different.
Fortunately, they took it down. 
Title: Re: Fox News: At it again
Post by: PIE-GUY on February 13, 2018, 11:36:27 AM
apparently there was an editorial on Fox titled the new Olympic motto - darker, grayer, different.
Fortunately, they took it down.

You meant "Gayer" not "Grayer" but yeah. It was pretty despicable.

https://deadspin.com/fox-news-vp-bemoans-diverse-olympic-team-darker-gaye-1822842926 (https://deadspin.com/fox-news-vp-bemoans-diverse-olympic-team-darker-gaye-1822842926)