Where's the stage? Spurious Generalities > Politiw00kchat

Fox News: At it again

(1/26) > >>

V00D00BR3W:
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

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."

--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---

*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.

runawayjimbo:
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:

V00D00BR3W:

--- Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 19, 2012, 11:46:10 PM ---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?

--- End quote ---

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.

runawayjimbo:
"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).

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page