Bush's Divine Mission

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
WMD wrote:

Nah, and it’s not like Rupert Murdoch isn’t a close warm personal friend of the Bush family. Fox would never ever in a million years present misinformation or spin. Nah.//quote]

Then it should be no problem at all to show me an empirical example. Go for it.

I wanna be an American Idiot…just like Toby Keith.

Did someone quote Toby Keith? Nope.[/quote]

We just went through this in another thread. One prime example is:

from
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407280006

[quote]
ABC Radio and FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity admitted, in a July 27 interview with The Al Franken Show co-host Al Franken, that he had accused former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean of “saying that the president knew about 9-11 ahead of time” and said that he “misspoke” when he made the accusation. Confronted with audio from the May 11 edition of FOX News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes, during which Hannity repeated the accusation against Dean, Hannity said, “You’re right. You’re right. … I’ll concede your point.”

As Media Matters for America previously noted, Salon.com senior writer Eric Boehlert reported on January 13 what Dean actually said as a guest on the December 1, 2003, edition of The Diane Rehm Show (a daily talk show on NPR member station WAMU in Washington, DC, with a weekly nationwide audience of 1.4 million): “When Rehm asked Dean in a Dec. 1 interview why he thought Bush wasn’t more forthcoming with the commission investigating the terrorist attacks, Dean replied, ‘The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved – is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.’”

Challenged by Franken as to whether he had accused Dean of “saying that the president knew about 9-11 ahead of time,” Hannity claimed on The Al Franken Show that “99 percent of the time,” he qualifies the assertion by saying Dean “advanced the theory.” Although Hannity has often said Dean “advanced the theory,” MMFA discovered numerous other examples of Hannity on FOX News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes more directly distorting Dean’s statement:[/quote]

As you can see, misinformation on these news shows can then be spread as truth as there were republicans on this site who believed the spin over what was actually said. Small twists in information don’t make them any less significant. FOX just won’t be shining a light on it under the pretense that “it is just a news show”, as if people aren’t using this as real news.

42

[quote]Professor X wrote:

As you can see, misinformation on these news shows can then be spread as truth as there were republicans on this site who believed the spin over what was actually said. Small twists in information don’t make them any less significant. FOX just won’t be shining a light on it under the pretense that “it is just a news show”, as if people aren’t using this as real news.
[/quote]

You still don’t get it - what an editorialist says in an exchange on a news opinion show is not - repeat, not - evidence that a news network is deliberately spreading misinformation in an objective, journalistic format.

Show me where FOX has lied in straight news-reporting. What an editorialist says is not the same as what a journalist reports, else your precious MediaMatters would have a case file on the NY Times editorial page the size of the Library of Congress.

Time to play with the grown ups, Dr. Professor X.

43

What you don’t get is that the people watching the show aren’t always able to tell the difference… and that political figures then use this information and it becomes presented as fact.

Given that management doesn’t take steps to correct such activitites… and they obviously know about it… they are letting misinformation spread through their network. Perhaps a very slight difference, but the result is the same, even if you would like to claim plausible deniability.

Time to act like a grown up and see that lies are spread in tricky ways, not as “THIS IS HONEST NEWS: LIES LIES LIES”.

44

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

As you can see, misinformation on these news shows can then be spread as truth as there were republicans on this site who believed the spin over what was actually said. Small twists in information don’t make them any less significant. FOX just won’t be shining a light on it under the pretense that “it is just a news show”, as if people aren’t using this as real news.

You still don’t get it - what an editorialist says in an exchange on a news opinion show is not - repeat, not - evidence that a news network is deliberately spreading misinformation in an objective, journalistic format.

Show me where FOX has lied in straight news-reporting. What an editorialist says is not the same as what a journalist reports, else your precious MediaMatters would have a case file on the NY Times editorial page the size of the Library of Congress.

Time to play with the grown ups, Dr. Professor X.[/quote]

Oh, we are playing as I already addressed your “point” in my previous post. It being the words of an “editorialist” doesn’t change the impact on those who believe they are hearing the truth. While FOX may be able to claim that they don’t directly promote disinformation in “news”, allowing disinformation in the form of “editorialism” doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an effect. I’ll wait for your attempt to claim that this has no effect on what the general public believes.

45

[quote]TQB wrote:
To get back on track. Here is the original press release:

The source is a direct quote from Nabil Shaath, who by Middle East standards is a reasonable man;-).

The question is whether Shaath has reported Mr. Bush’s statement correctly. Given Mr. Bush’s tendency to foot-in-mouth disease and the fact that he probably was nervous, it may well be a correct quote, if not very well-considered.

OTOH, When Abu Mazen, who was also present, was asked to confirm, he did so paraphrasing in a softer way. That was however after the story had broken in the US, and he would probably not see much point in antagonising the present administration.

Isn’t kremlinology fun?[/quote]

Foot in mouth diease! Thats priceless! I love it!

46

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Oh, we are playing as I already addressed your “point” in my previous post. It being the words of an “editorialist” doesn’t change the impact from those who believe they are hearing the truth. While FOX may be able to claim that they don’t directly promote disinformtaion, allowing disinformation in the form of editorialism doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an effect. I’ll wait for your attempt to claim that this has no effect on what the general public believes.[/quote]

Two things.

  1. You have proffered no evidence of lying in a journalistic format.

  2. By your standard, are you willing to say the NY Times is by far the biggest engine of deliberate misinformation in the American media?

47

[quote]vroom wrote:

What you don’t get is that the people watching the show aren’t always able to tell the difference… and that political figures then use this information and it becomes presented as fact.[/quote]

Using your standard, then, the NY Times is far and away the biggest spreader of misinformation in American media. You gonna rail on the Times as well?

So tricky even that they are there when they aren’t.

I personally don’t watch FOX all that much, but let’s face it - one editorialist misconstrues a statement of a political figure, and now we have systemic misinformation being propogated to the public throught the straight news department of FOX?

For a man who rubs his chin alot, I am surprised you can make this leap. Let’s assume you are right about Hannity’s misstatement - where is the empirical evidence that the journalism of FOX, on the whole, is spreading misinformation intentionally?

Bold claims have to be backed up with more than coffee-house rhetoric. Not innuendo, not rumor, certainly not taking the word of the underwhelming Professor X - where is the proof?

48

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Oh, we are playing as I already addressed your “point” in my previous post. It being the words of an “editorialist” doesn’t change the impact from those who believe they are hearing the truth. While FOX may be able to claim that they don’t directly promote disinformtaion, allowing disinformation in the form of editorialism doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an effect. I’ll wait for your attempt to claim that this has no effect on what the general public believes.

Two things.

  1. You have proffered no evidence of lying in a journalistic format.

  2. By your standard, are you willing to say the NY Times is by far the biggest engine of deliberate misinformation in the American media?

[/quote]

No, I would put FOX news on equal terms. I see more biased and slanted info coming from any random 30 min of watching FOX news than I can in the same time of reading through random articles of the NY Times. The difference is, I don’t pretend as if FOX is better or as if they aren’t biased or don’t present misinformation as truth.

49

If you as a person can’t tell the difference between editorials and straight journalism that is your problem. Editorials usually start with a disclaimer, either written or verbally stating that the opinions about to be reflected or the ones just reflected are not the beliefs of the station. But, as liberals I would expect you to need more hand holding and MORE of an explanation to the differences of the two. In the perfect liberal(socialist) society the government would tell us all we needed to know.

50

Let’s see what departing MY Times ombudsman Dan Okrent had to say about some of the columnists on the editorial page:

"Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. Maureen Dowd was still writing that Alberto R. Gonzales "called the Geneva Conventions ‘quaint’ " nearly two months after a correction in the news pages noted that Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments. Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.

No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd’s way, and some of Krugman’s enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn’t mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn’t hold his columnists to higher standards.

I didn’t give Krugman, Dowd or Safire the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist. "

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/weekinreview/22okrent.html&OP=704ef0abQ2FP,)mPvhzQ5E4hhiYPYbbKPbKPYYP,))fQ25o4)Q26Q25),PYYhf4)oi9rilQ5B

So, where are the funny photo-shopped pictures likening the NY Times to the Aryan movement?

Where is the outrage of editorialists that know full well that there audience can’t distinguish between opinion and journalism?

Where is MediaMatters’ righteous indignation?

If that is our standard of ‘systematic misinformation’, why aren’t your panties in a twist over Big Brother over at the NY Times?

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:
As you can see, misinformation on these news shows can then be spread as truth as there were republicans on this site who believed the spin over what was actually said. Small twists in information don’t make them any less significant. FOX just won’t be shining a light on it under the pretense that “it is just a news show”, as if people aren’t using this as real news.
[/quote]

Hannity is not a news show. It is entertainment. Debate. Right v. Left. I don’t think anyone in their right mind is going to call Hannity a journalist. He’s an entertainer. Just like Rush.

But to think that Hannity misquoting, or misconstruing someone is proof of right wing bias - is to be just plain stupid, or left-wing lackies.

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No, I would put FOX news on equal terms. I see more biased and slanted info coming from any random 30 min of watching FOX news than I can in the same time of reading through random articles of the NY Times. [/quote]

No, no - we aren’t talking about bias - there is bias in what news to report and when.

We can talk about bias, but you and others are claiming that the network deliberately lies - that is, intentionally presents news stories falsely in order to achieve an agenda.

Keep your eye on the ball. Show me evidence of lies.

53

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
As you can see, misinformation on these news shows can then be spread as truth as there were republicans on this site who believed the spin over what was actually said. Small twists in information don’t make them any less significant. FOX just won’t be shining a light on it under the pretense that “it is just a news show”, as if people aren’t using this as real news.

Hannity is not a news show. It is entertainment. Debate. Right v. Left. I don’t think anyone in their right mind is going to call Hannity a journalist. He’s an entertainer. Just like Rush.

But to think that Hannity misquoting, or misconstruing someone is proof of right wing bias - is to be just plain stupid, or left-wing lackies.
[/quote]

That would only be the case if this information weren’t then spread as truth. The thread that was originally posted in proves that it is taken as truth and them spread and built on. This is politics. You can pretend as if these shows have no impact on public opinion or belief all you want to. It doesn’t make it so.

54

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

If that is our standard of ‘systematic misinformation’, why aren’t your panties in a twist over Big Brother over at the NY Times?[/quote]

Who was this post directed towards? Who here is trying to pretend as Fox news isn’t biased? If anyone has their head in the sand, it would be those championing one news source while degrading another. I understand all to have their own bias thus I get my news from several sources…as should be the case with anyone with half a brain.

55

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

No, I would put FOX news on equal terms. I see more biased and slanted info coming from any random 30 min of watching FOX news than I can in the same time of reading through random articles of the NY Times.

No, no - we aren’t talking about bias - there is bias in what news to report and when.

We can talk about bias, but you and others are claiming that the network deliberately lies - that is, intentionally presents news stories falsely in order to achieve an agenda.

Keep your eye on the ball. Show me evidence of lies.[/quote]

So you think the NY Times deliberately lies? They set out with an agenda to lie and that is what forces the information? Or is it that their bias has in the past led to false news stories or misinformation? There is a huge difference between the two. Show me where the NYTimes set out to lie as a goal as they printed a story.

56

Of course Fox is biased, but so is the NY Times.

CBS attacked Bush with documents it knew was false.

NBC blew up a pick up truck with an explosive device and claimed it was due to side impact.

It goes on and on.

57

[quote]Professor X wrote:

So you think the NY Times deliberately lies? They set out with an agenda to lie and that is what forces the information? Or is it that their bias has in the past led to false news stories or misinformation? There is a huge difference between the two. Show me where the NYTimes set out to lie as a goal as they printed a story.
[/quote]

Hey, genius, that was exactly my point to you. You offered up that a FOX editorialist who miscommunicated a statement as evidence of institutional lying at FOX. I said that the NY Times has example after example of its editorialists misconstruing information, so by your standard, the NY Times must be as bad or worse than FOX.

And my point was that I don’t think that the NY Times editorial page is any more proof of instituional lying than is FOX’s editorial television show.

Yes, that is what I am asking you. Show me where FOX set out to lie as a goal when they reported a story. You say missteps by the NY Times editorial page is not evidence that the NY Times set out to lie - and I am saying the same damn thing about FOX.

You have now officially refuted your own argument, Pro X - that missteps by an editorialist in an opinion context is not proof of systematic institutionalized lying by a media corporation. That is the opposite of what you posited with the MediaMatters bit, which I took to task.

Egad, does anyone else feel like they are taking crazy pills?

58

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hey, genius, that was exactly my point to you. You offered up that a FOX editorialist who miscommunicated a statement as evidence of institutional lying at FOX. I said that the NY Times has example after example of its editorialists misconstruing information, so by your standard, the NY Times must be as bad or worse than FOX.[/quote]

Uh, didn’t I already write above that they are BOTH on the same level? What are you arguing? Who here has said that only one is biased and gives misinformation? My entire point is that they are BOTH biased and give misinformation.

[quote]
Yes, that is what I am asking you. Show me where FOX set out to lie as a goal when they reported a story. You say missteps by the NY Times editorial page is not evidence that the NY Times set out to lie - and I am saying the same damn thing about FOX.[/quote]

That isn’t what I said at all. I asked you to show me. I gave NO opinion on whether their editorial page is evidence of a lie. I asked for an example, genius.

[quote]
You have now officially refuted your own argument, Pro X - that missteps by an editorialist in an opinion context is not proof of systematic institutionalized lying by a media corporation. That is the opposite of what you posited with the MediaMatters bit, which I took to task.

Egad, does anyone else feel like they are taking crazy pills? [/quote]

No, you’re just crazy for putting words in my mouth.

Isn’t relaying a quote falsely a form of a lie? You don’t think Hannity did this intentionally?

59

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Show me credible evidence that FOX presents misinformation or manufactured, deceitful stories.

The fact that FOX has conservative editorialists is not an answer, so don’t bother floating that balloon.

I rarely watch FOX, but these accusations are comical.[/quote]

mmmm Kool-Aid…

Fox News Channel (on 10/11) is the ONLY ‘MSM’ television outlet that has accused John Rushing of being a traitor for going to work for Al-Jazeera.

Accusing an American of a crime that is punishable by death is beyond extreme and shows a bias that is much different than mainstream America.

or

On Fox News’ DaySide (9/27), co-host Mike Jerrick asked Gold Star Mothers for Peace founding member Celeste Zappala whether recent anti-war protests were “just giving the terrorists in Iraq and the insurgents in Iraq more hope that possibly we’re losing will in the United States to continue to battle,” a question interrupted by applause from the studio audience. When Zappala responded that the soldiers were not being “well supported” by the administration, giving the example of the slow supply of body armor to soldiers, Jerrick quickly responded that “the Pentagon is really trying to resolve that issue.” (carrying water for Bush…)

That is not news…if you think it is then CBS’s Memogate fiasco is justifiable. It either works both ways or it does not.

The list could go on and on but you have been proved wrong but intellectual dishonesty prevails and it will not matter to you.

60

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
LOL you can’t take anything on Al Jazeera seriously. Those were the guys who were reporting that “infidels were being slaughtered and soundly defeated” during our army’s last visit to Baghdad.[/quote]

Who takes them seriously?