Author Topic: Fox News: At it again  (Read 13743 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8071
  • Karma: 279
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #31 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

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.
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline twatts

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 2848
  • Karma: 216
  • Gender: Male
  • PHISH
    • http://db.etree.org/twatts
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2012, 03:45:49 PM »




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

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205300001

Terry
 
Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

Offline emay

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 9935
  • Karma: 318
  • Gender: Male
  • The Walrus was Page
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2012, 11:41:38 PM »




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!

Offline runawayjimbo

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4715
  • Karma: 186
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2012, 01:00:54 PM »




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.

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8071
  • Karma: 279
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #35 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

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.
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8071
  • Karma: 279
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #36 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:



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.
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline phil

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4752
  • Karma: 144
  • Gender: Male
  • Shrimpdogg Krillionaire
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #37 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



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?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 11:29:50 AM by phil »
sure we tend to ramble, but that was a 3 page off topic tangent on crack and doses for breakfast?

Hey, I don't know anything. Please help.

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8071
  • Karma: 279
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #38 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.
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline phil

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4752
  • Karma: 144
  • Gender: Male
  • Shrimpdogg Krillionaire
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #39 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.
sure we tend to ramble, but that was a 3 page off topic tangent on crack and doses for breakfast?

Hey, I don't know anything. Please help.

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8071
  • Karma: 279
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #40 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.
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline twatts

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 2848
  • Karma: 216
  • Gender: Male
  • PHISH
    • http://db.etree.org/twatts
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #41 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
Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8071
  • Karma: 279
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2012, 03:02:55 PM »
When does the TED show air?
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline twatts

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 2848
  • Karma: 216
  • Gender: Male
  • PHISH
    • http://db.etree.org/twatts
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #43 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

Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8071
  • Karma: 279
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fox News: At it again
« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2012, 03:01:07 PM »


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.
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum