[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
"Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman[/quote]
Enough said…
*Op-Ed columnist
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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.[/quote]
I am 100% with you on this one Zap!
There is more RW spin on MSM as a whole today because they do not want to lose access.
This would flip 180 degrees if the Democrats (shudder to think) regained control of the exec, senate, and house.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The list could go on and on but you have been proved wrong but intellectual dishonesty prevails and it will not matter to you.
[/quote]
You listed entertainment shows - not news. How hard is it for you guys to understand the difference between entertainment, and real news. Dayside is Fox’s equilivent of the Oprah Winfrey show.
Intellectually dishonest? look in the mirror before accusiing others.
Proof? You want proof? You can’t handle the proof!
Okay. The proof is in all the losers who come into the forums proclaiming what evils were done by so and so, parroting the “faux news” news, as if it was actually true.
Why? Perhaps because politicians will soon after say it was said that “faux news” occured in some quarters… which the news then carries. You don’t see this happening?
It’s pretty common. We have to dig down a lot in these parts to get at the truth after the talking points are deconstructed.
Hmm, did it know this, or was it not fully verified… there is a difference. Where did you get YOUR news?
[quote]vroom wrote:
CBS attacked Bush with documents it knew was false.
Hmm, did it know this, or was it not fully verified… there is a difference. Where did you get YOUR news?[/quote]
Your giving CBS a pass when they got caught red handed?
Where is your proof of people "parroting faux news’? Just because you say it does not make it true. And before you use the Hannity incident - remember that it is an op/ed show, not the News.
Call them both ways, oh great thinker.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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]
This is a blatant lie. I asked earlier in the thread for empirical proof that FOX deliberately lies in its presentation of news and you responded with the MediaMatters’ critique of Hannity. That was your evidence. You gave me an opinion all right - go research your own response.
But then you say…
So, the statement above - “I gave NO opinion on whether their editorial page is evidence of a lie” - implies you don’t think an editorial is evidence of larger, systematic lying, but then you turn around - in the same reply - and state that Hannity’s intentional “relaying of a quote falsely” is evidence of lying?
Hell, Pro X - which is it?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
"Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman
Enough said…
*Op-Ed columnist[/quote]
Uh, yeah - that is exactly my point - what an editorialist does in context of an entertainment show or op-ed piece is not evidence that the news organization lies in its reporting of news.
I am going to need you to go read and catch up. I asked for empirical proof of lying in news reporting by FOX. Professor X gave me an example of Shawn Hannity misquoting Howard Dean - ie, an editorialist just blathering away on an entertainment show, not reporting the news.
You agree with me, smart guy.
[quote]vroom wrote:
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?
Proof? You want proof? You can’t handle the proof!
Okay. The proof is in all the losers who come into the forums proclaiming what evils were done by so and so, parroting the “faux news” news, as if it was actually true.
Why? Perhaps because politicians will soon after say it was said that “faux news” occured in some quarters… which the news then carries. You don’t see this happening?
It’s pretty common. We have to dig down a lot in these parts to get at the truth after the talking points are deconstructed.[/quote]
Thanks for trying to deflect the question with gassy abstractions and cryptic generalizations - but if FOX is lying, and I mean lying, surely someone can show me?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
mmmm Kool-Aid…[/quote]
Lazy ad hominem won’t get you anywhere, especially since I don’t even rely on FOX for my news.
They accused him? In what context? Did a straight news reporter refer to him as a ‘traitor’?
Bias, yes - that is why I want to know under what context was it mentioned. Were they raising the question that he could be a ‘traitor’? Or did they report that he is a ‘traitor’?
[quote]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.[/quote]
Absolute red herring. Asking a question, no matter how biased, is not evidence of presenting false information, which was claimed. Not having watched DaySide, I want to know - did the host actually claim something that wasn’t true? Doesn’t matter who he carries water for - that is a different question.
As for the comparison to CBS, you are off the mark badly. CBS presented information that was demonstrably false. That isn’t a host showing his political coloring - that is deliberate (or negligent) misrepresentation of information… The two instances are not even close.
Clearly, you are at the bitter end of your argument - no ammo and a presumption of victory with nothing to show for it. You’ve accomplished nothing here. Thanks for playing.
Where have I been prove[n] wrong? No one has demonstrated anything remotely close to evidence of institutional lying. Bias? Oh sure, but that is a different argument.
If you guys are going to make such a claim, be prepared to show proof.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
This is a blatant lie. [/quote]
What are you smoking? You wrote:
[quote]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]
I DID NOT SAY THIS. That is not a lie. I want you to find where I said this, goofball. Quit playing games. You can’t even follow the discussion.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:
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?
Proof? You want proof? You can’t handle the proof!
Okay. The proof is in all the losers who come into the forums proclaiming what evils were done by so and so, parroting the “faux news” news, as if it was actually true.
Why? Perhaps because politicians will soon after say it was said that “faux news” occured in some quarters… which the news then carries. You don’t see this happening?
It’s pretty common. We have to dig down a lot in these parts to get at the truth after the talking points are deconstructed.
Thanks for trying to deflect the question with gassy abstractions and cryptic generalizations - but if FOX is lying, and I mean lying, surely someone can show me?
[/quote]
Misquoting is lying. This is being spread as real news. This has been said to you many times. You can pretend as if no one is taking it as news all you want to, and it won’t make it so.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
This is a blatant lie.
What are you smoking? You wrote:
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.
I DID NOT SAY THIS. That is not a lie. I want you to find where I said this, goofball. Quit playing games. You can’t even follow the discussion.
[/quote]
Thunder said:
Doctor Professor X said:
[quote]We just went through this in another thread. One prime example is:
from
http://mediamatters.org/...s/200407280006 (Hannity’s misquoting of Dean)[/quote]
You answered my query for proof with an editorialist’s comments.
Now, back to square one. The NY Times has at least as mant editorialists on its editorial page misquoting, taking things out of context, etc. as does a random sample of FOX.
So, a direct question - is the NY Times guilty of willful, deliberate, and intentional lying institutionally, the same as you claim with FOX?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
what an editorialist does in context of an entertainment show or op-ed piece is not evidence that the news organization lies in its reporting of news.[/quote]
Krugman was your example not mine.
Everyone knows that Op-Ed columns are opinion but most Americans have no idea what shows on Faux are hosted by “analysts” or are hosted by “journalists”. I have never seen a disclaimer on Faux that notifies the viewer that an “analyst” or a “journalist” is talking. A guest is obvious but a Faux news host is not.
You are the intellectually dishonest one.
Faux news viewer ship is plummeting as fast as Bush’s approval numbers. I do not think that one has to do with the other as Faux news ratings have been in a tailspin over the last 12 months.
Do you even know who Roger Ailes is?
I know I do not have to ask you who Rupert Murdock is…do I?
They are one and the same on Faux.
You are in the minority regarding your opinion.
Get over it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You answered my query for proof with an editorialist’s comments.
Now, back to square one. The NY Times has at least as mant editorialists on its editorial page misquoting, taking things out of context, etc. as does a random sample of FOX.
So, a direct question - is the NY Times guilty of willful, deliberate, and intentional lying institutionally, the same as you claim with FOX?[/quote]
Can you name 3 Fox News Channel “jounalists” that do not act like “analysts” or “editorialists”?
[quote]Your giving CBS a pass when they got caught red handed?
Where is your proof of people "parroting faux news’? Just because you say it does not make it true. And before you use the Hannity incident - remember that it is an op/ed show, not the News.[/quote]
I’m not the person arguing that FOX is telling lies. I’m explaining how op/ed material gets converted into beliefs and presented as fact.
There is a big difference, please try to follow along.
Senator R watches the op/ed piece, then mentions that he’s heard it said that “op ed news here” was stated.
The next thing you know we hear it presented here as fact, because any news station, including CNN, may run what Senator R has said.
Now, if you imagine this does not happen that is fine. I’m not going to hunt through tons of media to find an instance which you will promptly ignore anyway.
The real test, is can you admit that this type of thing happens?
As for CBS, do you have “proof” they knowingly lied? The last I heard they had apologized profusely for running a story based on evidence that wasn’t appropriately verified.
The only place I’ve heard stronger claims was from, you guessed it, “op ed news here”. So, it’s possible your own post is a case in point for either my contention or the contention that lies from op/ed get repeated as truths.
[quote]vroom wrote:
As for CBS, do you have “proof” they knowingly lied? The last I heard they had apologized profusely for running a story based on evidence that wasn’t appropriately verified. [/quote]
They knowingly aired a story that was of questionable origin during the height of a presidential race, and you believe them when they say the goofed up?
And in the same breath constue some unintelligible scenario that proves that Fox News is guilty of something?
WTF? You are indeed the poster boy for thinking under a tree. I just your mother would taught to wear a hockey helmet when the nuts started falling off.
you are one wierd sumbitch.
My case states exactly what is going on - sans the falling nut induced nonsense. Hannity is Op/Ed. So is just about every show on Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC,and CNN.
It’s called entertainment. They do it on Crossfire (is it even on the air anymore?), on Hardball, On Hannity, on O’Riley, and pretty much every single cable news network show. To blame Fox News because someone has misconstrued the intent of the programming (Op/Ed - entertainment) is just pure stupidity.
Now - you catch them knowingly trying to pass off forged documents as the real deal just to impune candidate that they have had in their crosshairs for 10 years - and then you’ll have an argument. Until then all you have is idiotic pointless blather.
[quote]vroom wrote:
CBS attacked Bush with documents it knew was false.
Hmm, did it know this, or was it not fully verified… there is a difference. Where did you get YOUR news?[/quote]
CBS’s own fact checkers had determined they were not legitimate and they ran them anyways.
They had even determined that the documents were generated in Microsoft Word by the font and the spacing used. The date on the documents preceded personal computers, Microsoft etc.
This does not mean they were “not fully verified”. This means they were an outright fabrication.
Dan Rather ended up being forced into early retirement over this fiasco.
Do you really not know this?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Now, back to square one. The NY Times has at least as mant editorialists on its editorial page misquoting, taking things out of context, etc. as does a random sample of FOX.
So, a direct question - is the NY Times guilty of willful, deliberate, and intentional lying institutionally, the same as you claim with FOX?
[/quote]
I have asked for an example of this at least 4 times in this thread. One day, you may actually provide these many thousands of references. Beyond that, if they clearly take something out of context and twist its original meaning, then yes, they are just as bad as Fox news. What don’t you get?
Rainjack, Zap,
The “facts” as you claim them to be were reported on blogs, but I haven’t seen that anywhere on mainstream news.
I do recall that after the story ran that information started to surface calling into question the authenticity, and then CBS ran a retraction stating that they did not conduct a thorough enough verification and that they should not have run the story without.
Do you have access to “news” that goes further than this? I think perhaps you are committing the very act we are discussing…