Reviewers Recommend
- review by Captain Jack
Director: Pat Myne
Starring: Mick Blue, Manuel Ferrara, Ava Addams, Christie Stevens, Dava Foxx, T. Stone, London River.
All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > Ted Koppel: Fox news is bad for American
Page 1 of 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Last
AuthorPost
 
Impresario of the Inane


"I'll never drink semen from a fucking cup. Sorry." - Brett Rossi
32109 Posts
8/03
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 1:02PM
 
All-Star Member

13064 Posts
6/00
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 1:11PM
To be fair, what he really said is that organizations that cover new in a slanted fashion, both on the right & left, are bad bad for America.
Edited by - Bill on 9/23/2012 5:23:26 PM
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 7:15PM
Yes, but -- in the case of Fox "News" -- it is not just "slanted" coverage.
Fox "News" deliberately misrepresents what it reports, for partisan political purposes.
If something (i.e. actual news) can be perceived as supportive of liberal positions and/or the Democratic Party, I've often seen Fox just not report it at all.
(Remember, I live with a family member who watches Fox "News" all day long -- so I am very aware of what they're saying, and not saying.)
The usual suspects will now rush to say that Fox "News" and MSNBC are both doing the same thing, to the same extent, blah, blah, blah...
And, they will be absolutely wrong, in their rush to get that "false equivalency" into this discussion.
While there is no doubt that both Fox "News" and MSNBC have partisan editorial points-of-view (but, again, not to the same "false equivalency" extent), the quality and accuracy of their actual news coverage couldn't be more different.
For one thing, I have never known MSNBC -- part of the vast NBC News organization -- to deliberately lie, or present propaganda as news. Fox "News" does this on a regular basis, and with disturbing frequency (i.e. their editorial and news operations don't have the same degree of separation as MSNBC does -- no doubt, again, due to the NBC News standards on the news side of the divide).
In study after study, Fox "News" viewers are always shown to be less informed -- and misinformed -- as compared to people who don't get their news exclusively from Fox "News."
If I remember correctly, something in the range of a 30-to-40 percent reality deficit.
Can you imagine the equivalent of Morning Joe running on Fox? Of course not.
Also, MSNBC employs and regularly features genuine conservative contributors (e.g. Michael Steele, former RNC Chairman; Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist and advisor to the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain; and others).
Really, Fox is a joke; a fraud as a "news" network.
If they weren't throwing red-meat partisan propaganda to their viewers -- viewers who watch Fox exclusively -- they'd never get away with it (i.e. survive).

Senior Member

2759 Posts
11/09
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 7:38PM
^
I thought their goal was to make money. They are getting a share of the market that guarantees them this.
I also see their nonsense on a regular basis Blah, Blah, Blah.
Your copout on MSNBC is Blah, Blah, Blah. And an extra Blah for good measure.
Fox makes arguments that are decades old and are proven fallacies. Many of these arguments go back a lot farther. The American Electorate regardless of Education is more clueless then ever. THATS THE PROBLEM. And that is Fox News Bread & Butter. Blah.
Google John Stewart explains how Fox News does it. He does a pretty funny, and accurate description of how Fox News brainwashes it's viewers. How they mix reality with bullshit so it's not technically lying. Blah.
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 8:10PM
Maybe it is due to Fox News viewers being less informed.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
Rob Fleming
Deactivated User

Why strive to be king of your own domain when you can be a pawn in the Celestial Kingdom?
522 Posts
8/12
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 9:13PM
Fox is a big heaping pile of crap. Seriously, what the fuck is "The Five?" Has anyone seen this stupid show. It's obviously not news. But, it's also obviously not entertainment. It's one MILF, three random people and douche bag de jour Eric Bolling sitting around, staring at each other, making inane comments. Why would anyone watch this garbage on a regular basis?

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 9:20PM
Then you don't watch as much MSNBC as much as I do.
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 11:01PM
^ Which MSNBC show did you watch and what are the lies? Be very specific. I have found lots of propaganda on MSNBC but not outright lies that don't get corrected.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 11:23PM
Well, there's the common liberal refrain that it was the GOP leadership that held up a debt deal. That is still parroted about by the likes of Mathews, Maddow, avowed socialist O'Donnell, Schultz, Bashir, and the commentating class despite it being a total falsehood, exposed best by Bob Woodward's book The Price of Politics.
But for a really specific moment, I remember watching a very deliberate misreading of the connection between fracking and earthquakes. I was not surprised to see it fully refuted the next day at .
It seems environmental issues are a favorite of hers and she never tells the whole truth about any of them, accusing companies of entirely unproven "negligence" in pipeline maintenance, stating specific fires are caused by a multitude of chemicals and practices with no actual evidence whatsoever.
The two networks suffer tremendously not from "lying" but immense "misleading" editorializing. They each ignore stories unfavorable to their designs, emphasize or ignore facts at their leisure.
Sorry, Goldstein et al, but I'm never backing down on this. Perhaps we're seeing it from two different viewpoints, with different sets of information (recall that I believe the NYT is as biased as the Washington Examiner). From where I sit, there is no difference between Fox News and MSNBC, none.
State Street
Deactivated User

168 Posts
8/12
Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 11:45PM
I like how Fox recants all their televised screw ups by sending out a tweet at 12:59 A.M. They need to be stripped of their FCC license for shit like that.
Edited by - State Street on 9/23/2012 11:46:51 PM
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Sep 24 2012 : 12:14AM
I never said that MSNBC does not use propaganda but it does not outright lie. In the case of the debt deal, the Republicans would not increase taxes and Boener cut off the deal because he was undercut by Cantor. Sure, Obama was a bad negotiator. In the fracking case, Maddows is basically correct but she did not mention that fracking can cause earthquakes only when there are faultlines (as claimed by that website). I have to fact check on whether she left that out. Fox news deliberately lies and then have quick retractions. If these are the only two instances of borderline inaccuracies, I would say that MSNBC is pretty accurate.
Rob Fleming
Deactivated User

Why strive to be king of your own domain when you can be a pawn in the Celestial Kingdom?
522 Posts
8/12
Posted - Sep 24 2012 : 12:15AM
Fox is currently under investigation - due to their criminal activity in the UK - with multiple calls for them to lose their FCC licensing in the U.S. My personal opinion is that they should be suspended for a two year period - no televising any "news" during that time - time enough for them to get their shit together.

Edited by - Rob Fleming on 10/18/2012 12:22:30 PM
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Sep 24 2012 : 12:28AM
And realclearscience is part of the realclearpolitics group, which is right leaning. See Wikipedia.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 24 2012 : 7:19PM
Fox News

CNN

Scientific American

USA Today

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A dozen earthquakes in northeastern Ohio were almost certainly induced by injection of gas-drilling wastewater into the earth, Ohio oil and gas regulators said Friday as they announced a series of tough new regulations for drillers
Forbes

A report today showing that shale fracking (or frakking) causes earthquakes: the British Geological Survey says that the two earthquakes in Lancashire were indeed caused by Cuadrilla Resources’ exploratory shale gas wells.
"CONTROVERSIAL gas drilling DID cause Fylde coast earthquakes.
And now energy chiefs have sent a stark warning to shale gas company Cuadrilla Resources – stop the tremors or we will shut you down.
It comes as the company this week held urgent talks with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to consider a report into the risk of earthquakes associated with fracking – the process used to extract shale gas from deep beneath the Fylde coast.
The meetings followed the British Geological Survey’s (BGS) conclusion two recent earth tremors felt nearby were most likely to have been caused by fracking."

Live Science

Reuters

(Reuters) - An Ohio state agency said on Friday there is evidence that the high-pressure injection of fluid underground related to fracking caused a series of Ohio earthquakes culminating in a New Year's Eve tremor in any area not known for seismic activity.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which overseas the oil and gas industry, said in a report that the state should pass a new law prohibiting drilling at what is called the Precambrian basement rock level (a depth that begins at 9,184 ft) and would require companies to "review existing geologic data" before drilling.

CBC News

NPR

The Christian Science Monitor

The 4.0 Ohio earthquake this weekend was a reminder that activities related to hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking,' can cause seismic faults to shift if not carried out carefully.
PlanetSave.com

Los Angeles Times (Opinion)
[link inactive:404 - Page not found]Is that a fracking earthquake?
RT.com
[link inactive:404 - Page not found]Confirmed: Fracking caused Ohio earthquakes
Stuart Bramhall (Blog)

Huffington Post
[link inactive:404 - Page not found]Ohio Earthquakes: Officials Say Tremors Were 'Almost Certainly' Caused By Wastewater Injection
OilPrice.com

Discovery News (Discovery Channel)

Injecting liquid wastes from fracking, oil extraction and other processes causes a surprising number of small earthquakes.
Of course not
And, it's MSNBC -- with Rachael Maddow leading the way -- just making this shit up
Why, it's not even worth discussing (not to mention it conflicts with your pre-determined ideological partisan agenda). But, hey, you do get to practice your spin techniques.
Fracking, what's fracking? No earthquakes here.
Iraq_MohammedSaeedal-Sahaf.jpg

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 24 2012 : 7:37PM
Some of those reports are one-sided and others are rather fair, but you would be hard-pressed to find anything remotely unbiased on either Fox News or MSNBC. That is the problem.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Sep 24 2012 : 8:49PM
Yes, current, TV, MSNBC, and Fox are biased, but Fox tends to mislead while the other two channels are just biased.

Senior Member

Enjoy!
28284 Posts
3/06
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 2:09AM
I find it funny that anyone thinks one propaganda machine is any better than the next.
So anyway. Seems like what Tit is saying is that he believes the First Amendment is garbage because it makes it impossible for the government to "come together" and be one big happy party (Am I the only one who hears boots on pavement when he says that?)
Ideals? Ideals are for people who believe in something. And Tit would never do that.
Edited by - randomprecision on 9/25/2012 2:30:39 AM
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 6:25AM
I find it sad that there are those who can't tell them apart.
The rush to "they all do it" false equivalency seems to be an epidemic.
At least it gives people an excuse not to question and think.
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 8:27AM
Not equivalent. MSNBC spills out the left viewpoint. Occasionally, they make some factual error. One may consider this propaganda or one may consider this a biased viewpoint.
But Fox gets overboard. They try to make up false news and create fictional lies out of nothing. Fox is propaganda based on outright lies. Fox viewers believe that Obama was not born in the US, Obama apologized for America, Iraq has WMD, Iraq was behind 911, etc.
Having a neutral viewpoint is ideal. Having a biased viewpoint based on facts is okay. Having a biased viewpoint based on lies and untruth is not.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 8:31AM
^ Excellent, RonK
This is the point!

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 8:46AM
Eh, it takes some extrapolation but he did everything short of saying "apologize" or "sorry" and it's perfectly fine to use it against him, especially because it clearly failed.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 8:59AM
Yes, telling lies is always OK, as long as the ends justify your means.
How does this fit in with the "situational ethics" claptrap your team always bitches about?
Your party has sold its soul -- and for what?
"He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation." -- Machiavelli

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 9:12AM
As much as it infuriates you to point this out, the other side, the other network, is just as guilty, not a centimeter of separation.
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 9:14AM
If this is the gold standard of Obama's apology, then GW Bush is practically begging to apologize. See this post.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 10:10AM
You don't "infuriate" me.
You "point out" delusional, self-serving spin, attempting to masquerade false equivalency as an "opinion."
How can one be infuriated by someone they don't respect?
You don't think I take you, or the nonsense you spin, seriously, do you?
They all do it. Not a centimeter of separation.
Shining_BJ.jpg
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Luminary

6885 Posts
3/00
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 10:59PM
Is the thread title a lie? Is the label on the link a lie?
Ted Koppel: "I think that ideological coverage of the news, be it of the right or be it of the left, has created a political reality in this country that is bad for America"
It is quite funny that only one poster to this thread has shown the slightest grasp of what Ted Koppel was actually saying. In fact many were arguably lending more credence to his point by being a part of what he was actually criticizing. The funny thing is that the complete lack of critical analysis of what Ted Koppel said comes from the Fox News haters. C'mon Fox News haters! If you are going to talk about how uninformed Fox News viewers are, please take the time to give some critical thought to the video just shown.

Dianic

Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com
12401 Posts
7/05
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 11:10PM
^ I watched the original broadcast on Rock Center (I haven't watched the two minute clip in the link, maybe it only focuses on Fox). I felt the real point of the story was that the age of the courteous and professional evening newscasters, the Cronkite legacy and so on, is over.
As a child of divorce who grew up in the 70s, that's a loss for subsequent generations.
the unknown pervert
Deactivated User

I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch.
17482 Posts
5/06
Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 11:55PM
The problem here though is that people from both ideologies tend to define "facts" and "lies" by how much they want to hear what is being said. Anything that paints a certain ideology as good is considered a fact. Anything the paints a certain ideology as bad is a lie.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 8:08AM
This is the problem.
There are facts out there, and they're not that hard to find.
However, you can't even argue with people like TUP, who say these kinds of things, as it just proves (to them) that you just define your "facts" and "lies" differently.
For example, recent polls show that roughly 38 percent of conservative Republicans believe President Obama is a Muslim.
LIE: He's a Muslim
FACT: The President is not a Muslim
People can "believe" that President Obama is a Muslim all they want.
But, it doesn't change the fact that he's not.
Opinions are not facts.
The more your world view is based on lies, the more difficult, it seems, to grasp this simple concept.
 
All-Star Member

SAMCRO
17126 Posts
8/00
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 11:53AM
^
I thought he was a communist/ marxist/ socialist and I don't think anyone said fascist yet so why not throw him in that one too.
Edited by - bono-ONE on 9/26/2012 1:24:40 PM
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 12:26PM
^ Facist didn't test well.
Everyone seems to agree he's not a Nazi, though.
But, you did leave out the "fact" that he was born in a manger (or thinks he was born in a manger), depending on which version you prefer.
The Socialist Messiah -- look it up, it's a fact
the unknown pervert
Deactivated User

I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch.
17482 Posts
5/06
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 2:05PM
Hmm, shows how long it's been since I've clicked the Icon Legend menu. I could have sworn there was a pot/kettle icon in it somewhere.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 3:17PM
You love throwing it, but can't take it.
Of course, you don't ever address the rest of what I say.
No, not TUP.
King of the one-line snark attacks.
No one's ever accused Goldstein of brevity.
In fact, the length of my posts seems to annoy you to no end -- and that's a good thing
Thoughtful posts with explanations (often defending a position) vs. one-line snark attacks.
Yeah, that's a real "pot/kettle" moment.
Rubberhole
Deactivated User

315 Posts
2/10
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 4:02PM
When I need a good laugh, I tune in to CNN or HLN...

Member

People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity.
701 Posts
5/11
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 5:16PM
Whether you like MSNBC or CNN or Fox News the ratings at MSNBC are awful and CNN once dominated the market is now a distant second to Fox News. I used to watch all the cable news networks but stopped watching MSNBC as their anchors are so obnoxious I just can't stand them. How more obnoxious can anyone get than Rachel Maddow? Keith Olbermann was another winner from MSNBC.

Senior Member

5645 Posts
6/08
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 6:54PM
^ Rachel Maddow is far more tolerable and reasonable than Keith Olberman.
My tv watching these days consists of almost exclusively of streaming CSPAN and PBS.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 6:57PM
I can see that. I cannot stand avowed socialist Lawrence O'Donnell or Al Sharpton and I don't watch any more segments on the scourge of voter ID (but not alcohol purchase ID, airport access ID, Sudafed purchase ID, etc.) But I can watch election coverage on Ed or Maddow and some of the entertainment segments. I like The Sideshow on Hardball for example. And I still prefer Morning Joe over the other morning shows.
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 7:22PM
Former GOP congressperson Scarborough Romney.
the unknown pervert
Deactivated User

I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch.
17482 Posts
5/06
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 10:35PM
It doesn't matter what I say or argue. You consider Obama to have an S on his cape and nothing anyone says is going to change that. The next time you point out that Gitmo is still open for business, the Patriot Act has been ratched up even more, the lack of transparency in his administration (despite his promise to have the most transparent administration in American history) and that loan to the solar company(Help me here Cody, Solario? Solaria? something like that) that went belly up immediately afterwards are all failures of his administration and Congress either approved or had nothing to do with any of those things will be the first. I have pointed out far more failures of the Bush administration than you have of Obama's yet I am the one who is stubborn and won't listen to criticism?
the unknown pervert
Deactivated User

I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch.
17482 Posts
5/06
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 10:39PM
That is a pretty low bar to hurdle. I could list at least 50 deactivated members from here who were far more tolerable and reasonable than Olberman.
State Street
Deactivated User

168 Posts
8/12
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 10:43PM
It cracks me up how Republicans simultaneously blame Obama (1) for not closing down Gitmo and (2) for considering trying terrorists in federal courts. WTF? Oh yeah, I forgot, water torture makes way more sense than imprisonment.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 10:52PM
[link inactive:Server error]Solyndra

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 26 2012 : 10:55PM
It's either a broken promise, if you're a liberal, or stupid, if you're not. Win-win.
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28335 Posts
3/02
Posted - Sep 27 2012 : 1:08AM
I'm not sure that you can characterize it as blame.
I'm fine with Republicans razzing him. He should have realized ahead of time that he wasn't going to get any support from Republicans for closing Guantanamo or holding terrorist trials in major population centers.
He either failed to calculate the political cost ahead of time or simply lied to woo a segment of Democratic voters. Neither option redounds to his credit.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 14 2012 : 1:56AM
My thoughts on the issue:
First, the Facts:
I never paid much attention to news when growing up nor to politics. Growing up in New York, when you’re a kid, your world is pretty much all about NYC and little else. We watched local news every so often, to find out about shootings, the latest mob indictments, blizzards, etc My parents were not very political. My mother was a churchgoer and my father spent most of his time in bars. My father was very anti-Reagan, I remember that about him, and my mother was nominally Democratic as well. I would gather we were like most middle class Black families of that time.
As I got older, I developed a fascination with WWII, Vietnam and the Kennedy Assassination so I got a little into older history. Then there was the Monica Lewinsky thing, which saw tons of people suddenly interested in politics.
But I really didn’t start to get interested in politics until Election Night 2000. Again, I grew up in Black New York, and I’ve seen my share of 3-Card Monte games in the back of the bus, street hustlers, con men, etc. etc. There was no doubt in my mind that the Bush campaign was running one of the biggest cons in the history of this country. And that’s when I really, intensely started getting into politics and history.
I was born in '69. I grew up in the era of three nightly newscasts. (Hell, there were only six channels PERIOD.) Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings were the anchors and that was it. End of story. I have since come to learn that just about every president -- EVERY PRESIDENT -- has complained about “The Media” being biased against him and his party. Nixon's first vice-president Spiro Agnew notably called the press
From 1949 thru 1987 we had something called the Fairness Doctrine meaning stations with FCC licenses who aired programming with “controversial issues”needed to present opposing views as well. This law was repealed in 1987. Almost immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh got a syndicated show which became a huge hit. Many copycats followed creating a boom in radio listenership. There was little in the way of comparable liberal radio talk, and stations weren’t required to have them.

Then came Fox News in 1996. It was and still is run by chairman Roger Ailes, a former speech writer for Nixon. Fox News was a division of News Corporation, headed by Murdoch inherited his father's Australian newspaper business and expanded it to the United Kingdom. He bought the papers News of the World and The Sun, and promptly used them to ally himself with the Britain's Conservatives (aka The Tory Party). These papers were deliberately confrontational with the Liberals (aka The Labour Party)
Murdoch imported that sort of political jousting to the United States, first with the NY Post and then with Fox News. Fox News got microscopic ratings at first. It was news, with an almost equal amount of lifestyle and entertainment news. But around the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, their ratings picked up. Not long after that, they began to soar in the ratings and haven’t looked back since. With each passing year, they became more arch in their leanings, hiring more and more former Republican politicians and authors, both for TV shows and as "analysts" and "leading experts".
At this point, Fox News was a game-changer. They raised the ire of many in the traditional media for merging journalism with punditocracy with no seeming fine line between the two. There were reams of magazine articles and books published about how they were, essentially, a marketing arm of the RNC. It is the first cable channel that I know of to actually have two straight-to-dvd movies created about it. The most aggravating thing about them to critics was their slogan “Fair and Balanced” when it was felt that they were no such thing. Allusions and comparisons to Joseph Goebbels are frequent.
Fox’ has three common defenses and you saw two of them used by O'Reilly in the interview with Koppel: 1) Their pundits and their journalists ARE clearly defined and separated. 2) We're giving people what they want. Ratings don’t lie. and 3), We’re not overly conservative; it’s just that everybody else is so liberal leaning. Therefore we appear to be more conservative. But we’re not.

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 14 2012 : 1:56AM
DELETE...
please-stand-by.jpg
Edited by - zarinafan on 10/14/2012 11:58:06 AM

Senior Member

12345
12200 Posts
9/02
Posted - Oct 14 2012 : 2:30AM
Cody McBarge said:
voting is a right. Some of the things that are not rights are alcohol purchase, airport access, and sudafed purchase.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 14 2012 : 11:54AM
Hmmmm....somehow some other posts I made got lost in the ether....I may be doing a do over....
Edited by - zarinafan on 10/14/2012 11:54:44 AM
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28335 Posts
3/02
Posted - Oct 14 2012 : 1:27PM
Actually, it is a franchise, one that, over the course of our history, has been denied to black people, poor people, women, Catholics, felons, pretty much everybody but rich, white guys.
Granted, courts now generally uphold the presumption that all citizens of age must be allowed to vote (except felons) and, along with the Congress, have weighed in from time to time to stop states from denying citizens the franchise based upon things like poll taxes, sex, skin color, etc., but as rights go, the vote is squishier than most. Just ask the folks in the District of Columbia.
Jaloshke
Deactivated User

The only thing Im addicted to right now is winning.
98 Posts
8/12
Posted - Oct 14 2012 : 2:48PM
Fox News has gone completely downhill ever since Glenn Beck left. Beck was Fox's most popular, consistent and reliable source of news.
Edited by - Jaloshke on 10/14/2012 2:48:55 PM
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 17 2012 : 1:22AM
OK, let me try this again....I divided this post up to keep from appearing too long-winded, but I felt this subject deserves more than just tossed-off summations.

****

Part II: My Humble Opinion.

Fox Is Now Part of The Establishment. And That’s OK.

No one believes Fox News is “Fair and Balanced”, and that includes the people who work there as well as its viewers. There has been evidence of Fox News producers being given talking points by the Bush Administration. This year, the show Fox & Friends aired an explicitly anti-Obama, 1-minute film produced by one of the show’s producers. They then had to back track on that almost immediately.

Admittedly, Fox does have boundaries. Lies, dog whistles and such are OK, but there are lines they won’t cross. John Gibson and ED Hill found themselves canned for inappropriate comments on the air. Glenn Beck’s entire output was found to be inappropriate.

Also, much of the intense rage that people like me felt towards Fox in the past has somewhat faded: one of the biggest reasons being the utter collapse of the Bush Presidency (which was inextricably linked to Fox) the take back of the House in 2006, followed by the Obama landslide in 2008, and the laughable career of Sarah Palin, perhaps the first Made For Fox (Made-By-Fox? Discuss.) political star ever.

As scary as Fox was during the first half of the 2000s, liberals forgot something; the network newscasts still get almost three to four times the ratings of Fox. Despite all of Fox’ suffocating self-hype, they still inhabit only a slice of the overall media universe. A couple of contractually-obligated attempts to give Bill O’Reilly prime time specials on the Fox broadcast network have been met with utter failure.

Meanwhile, liberals are now on something of an even keel with Fox: Along with MSNBC, there’s the online (and moderated) universe that younger libs feel far more comfortable with*: moderated** sites DailyKos and the Huffington Post especially along with an assortment of web sites (Media Matters, Newshounds) who’s entire raison d’etre is exposing Fox lies, half-truths and other assorted inaccuracies. In other words, Fox has started a cottage industry of opposition.

To repeat: Fox was a game-changer. But Democratic voters and politicians now know the game that Fox plays and have adjusted accordingly. John Kerry was caught flat-footed. Obama learned from his mistakes. Democrats like myself, now know how Fox will react to any given situation before we even hear it out of the mouths of O’Reilly, Hannity or Susteren. We know now that the talking points of the Republican National Committee will quickly be adopted by Fox News. (Or vice versa.)

In fact, Fox now serves as a highly useful barometer for finding out which way conservative winds are blowing, what issues have gained importance, and who the rising stars in the party are. It’s now accepted that the Fox Stamp of Approval is partially required at least to run for the Republican nomination. So knowing who’s beloved by the Fox Establishment is very much of import to us all. For two presidential cycles now, the Republicans have run someone wanted by the GOP Establishment paired up with a running mate who’s squarely in the Fox Establishment. We can rest assured that this trend will either continue in 2016, or we might get an All Fox-Ticket.

FOX NEWS IS POPULAR. AND THAT’S OK TOO.

Hugh Hefner once had this to say to people who claimed that Playboy magazine was exploiting sex for profit. “We exploit sex the same way Sports Illustrated exploits sports.”

Koppel and O’Reilly both had it right:

Fox News caters to Conservative Viewers. It is a Conservative Viewers channel. Koppel is correct.

Fox News has a large viewership that likes the product. O’Reilly is correct.

At its most basic, that’s the beginning and end of any argument regarding Fox.

BET caters to Black people. Lifetime caters to women. There is a cable or satellite channel devoted to every major sport and most of the minor ones as well. We’ve got a channel devoted to Kung Fu. There’s a channel devoted to mysteries. We’re a big, diverse country of 310 million people. FACT.

Fox discovered it’s niche. They found a need and they’re filling it, which is the essence of capitalism.

There is no doubt about it: Conservative TV and Radio is very popular in this country. Fox’ overall ratings eclipse those of its two main competitors combined. Rush Limbaugh took a severe hit in ratings and advertisers following the Sandra Fluke controversy, but he’s still popular, as are Sean Hannity and others.
Why is this?

As conservatism has become more steadfast and more hardened, it has become something almost akin to religion. The new turns that conservatism has taken have preached that their way of life is steadily under assault. Democrats want to take away guns, abolish all religion and dismantle the military. It’s all nonsense of course, but it sells to their adherents. Look at the jump in gun ownership when Clinton came into office and the even more pronounced jump when Obama was elected. Look at the fervor of the Tea Party movement. I believe that hard-right Republican voters far outnumber hard-left Democrats. Evidence? Republicans come out in force for mid-term elections and Dems don’t, part of the reason for problems in keeping the House.

Conservatives band together to watch Fox and listen to Rush because they feel "they’re the only ones telling the truth.!"

So, is it really that surprising that a hardcore percentage of the population of this country have for years distrusted the mainstream media and what they say? No. It is not.

Is it surprising that that percentage of the population would flock in droves to a channel that purports to be the only ones “Telling The Truth”?? No it is not.

Look at the rising numbers of militias in this country. These are not guys who are just casually having fun on the weekends. These are guys who seriously believe that one day they will be the last line of defense against an invasion from the Russians, or the Iranians, or the Liechensteinians or whatever. This is dedication. Fox viewers are dedicated viewers. Rush listeners are dedicated listeners. These people are dedicated to the cause of conservatism to near exclusion of all else.

Liberals aren't like that. Now here’s the thing: I do personally believe that more of the country is liberal or liberal-leaning than it is conservative. I believe that social liberalism especially is overwhelmingly the default position of this country, certainly more so than social conservatism. But the trick is converting that into political action, which is difficult. I call this mass of people are either Default Liberals or Apathetic Liberals. There is no broad-based liberal amalgamation that is as tight as the conservatives are. Certainly there are cliques of socio-political action (NOW, the NAACP, ACT UP, Abortion rights groups, La Raza) but a massive force like the NRA, the SCLC or the Tea Party is lacking. Liberals have rallied behind recent presidential candidates (Clinton, Dean, Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Obama) but that’s the only time they assemble.

*Who’s to say that’s not enough though? See my comments on past presidential elections below. :

This audience is not the type that’s going to sit and listen to radio shows on politics for hours and hours on end.* They’re watching Modern Family and Family Guy. They go out to see movies like The Master and The Paperboy. They go out to Dave Matthews and Lady Gaga concerts. This audience of Default Liberals is not living in the White House/Senate/MSNBC/Fox/Rush/NYTimes/Wall St Journal/CATO/Brookings bubble. They’ve got myriad interests.

Another word about Fox listeners: look at the age.

Here’s a list of the top cable channels for 2011 from industry site Deadline
Fox_Regular.JPG

Now here’s a list of top cable channels in the 18-49 Demographic.
Fox_1849.JPG

(the 18-49 Demographic is separated because they are considered most important to advertisers. But they are also useful in the context of Fox viewership.)

You see that? In the first list Fox News is number #6. On the second list they're not even Top 20.
Quite a dramatic drop-off no?

Lots of people in their 60s, 70s, and 80s tune in.

We’re talking about people from a generation who went through their formative years in an age when the lynching of Black men was still happening and interracial marriage was still illegal.

Fox news is popular, but digging deeper into the numbers gives us some perspective.

*In retrospect, we now see that it was folly to think that something like Air America could ever work. First of all, there's already a quasi-liberal radio station with national reach: NPR. It is not overtly liberal, but with its mix of news and events, world music, and all-around cosmopolitan attitude, it certainly does not have a large conservative audience.

**Note: It is impossible to not notice, that, if you go onto sites like Yahoo! News, Deadline Hollywood, good old Usenet, and the web sites for several general newspapers, you will find that their comments sections are non-moderated free-for-alls, and that anti-Obama, anti-Liberal invective flows nonstop, outnumbering liberal comments by multiple percentages. Conservatives like to complain about Huffington Post in particular, saying that “all conservative comments are censored from the site”. That is hogwash. What it is is most likely that comments that are deleted come from the same sloped-forehead trolls who use racial insults freely in other smartbuydisc.rus. Is this where some of the charges of bias originate from?

That, because ideas and philosophies that are offensive to large swaths of the population are not reported on, that means this or that network is biased?

Edited by - Drew Black on 2/20/2019 10:06:47 PM

Page 1 of 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone