Jump to content

Jon Stewart IS THE MAN!

Imoutgoodbye

By Imoutgoodbye
in OOC Lounge

Recommended Posts

inscribed Newbie

inscribed

Posted
Posted

My judgment of Fox News is a result of its dishonesty, not its conservatism. This is a network that, when covering the protests in Madison last year, was showing footage of far more raucous and violent protests in other places in the background, with nothing on screen or in the dialogue to suggest that the footage was not Madison. It has earned my disrespect because of its behavior, not its beliefs.

Pali, every single major network does that, and often to a much greater degree. For example: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nbc-trayvon-20120408,0,414033.story. The other networks dishonesty just happens to be in favor of your political views. Do you hate them all as much as you hate Fox?

Your studies are largely irrelevant, as I mentioned before. Looking at a particular subsection of viewers does not correlate in any way to the honesty of a news network. I can go find a group of NBC viewers that have gross misunderstandings as well, and use that to draw opposing conclusions. A polling study can be performed to lead to whatever results you want, and the people performing those studies didn't get funding by being unbiased.

Fox news echos the gop agenda. They do no report news, they report the GOP vision of the news. They are a political propoganda engine. I would liken them to the news media in George Orwells 1984, always for the party, and only for the truth if it just happens to coincide with the parties agenda.

And CBS, NBC, et all just echo the Dem agenda. Everything you mention here could apply to any major news network. The major difference here is that Fox still manages to show positive coverage of liberal views, while the other networks largely give no coverage of conservative views. For instance: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

Also, it always cracks me up when someone says "you need to broaden your horizons". Who's to say you don't need to broaden yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pali Newbie

Pali

Posted
Posted
Pali' date=' every single major network does that, and often to a much greater degree. For example: [url']http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nbc-trayvon-20120408,0,414033.story. The other networks dishonesty just happens to be in favor of your political views. Do you hate them all as much as you hate Fox?

NBC fired the guy for it. Fox does it intentionally as a network. This is not equivalent behavior. And I must again ask, if you don't watch it, how do you think you have an informed opinion regarding its content?

Your studies are largely irrelevant, as I mentioned before. Looking at a particular subsection of viewers does not correlate in any way to the honesty of a news network. I can go find a group of NBC viewers that have gross misunderstandings as well, and use that to draw opposing conclusions. A polling study can be performed to lead to whatever results you want, and the people performing those studies didn't get funding by being unbiased.

Yes, of course, all of the studies I gave you are of the same tiny percentage of viewers and are being run by people with a liberal bias. :rolleyes: Honesty, here: how many of them did you actually open up and read thoroughly? Edit: I ask this because if you had read them, you'd know that these studies aren't focused on Fox - they do indeed find high misinformation rates across the board. Fox's are simply the highest.

And CBS, NBC, et all just echo the Dem agenda. Everything you mention here could apply to any major news network. The major difference here is that Fox still manages to show positive coverage of liberal views, while the other networks largely give no coverage of conservative views. For instance: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

Have you read that article? In no place does it say that the other networks don't cover conservative views. The study results are that the three broadcast networks other than Fox gave Obama about 2/3 positive coverage and McCain 1/3 positive, whereas Fox gave both of them about 2/3 negative coverage - therefore Fox counts as the most balanced. Personally, I'd just argue that McCain was too much of a moderate for Fox - I disagree with Kyz's statement that Fox is GOP propaganda. I think Fox is essentially the voice of Tea Party-era conservatism.

Oh wait, your study must be run by conservative groups and be heavily biased in what they consider "positive" coverage, so I can dismiss it out of hand. :rolleyes: And of course, coverage of Obama vs McCain can easily be extrapolated to coverage of liberal vs conservative - though consistent misinformation in viewers doesn't at all suggest consistent misinformation being presented. Nope, not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
inscribed Newbie

inscribed

Posted
Posted

Pali I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying about polling studies. They are not irrelevant because of a liberal bias, they are irrelevant because they are polling studies which are largely useless for obtaining data of any importance, and even then, the results have little to do with measuring the honesty or bias of any particular news network. I think this thread is going to descend into discussions of the unreliability of polling studies, correlation vs causation, and the limits of drawing implications from statistics, which I'm not really interested in explaining when it would be handled much better by Google.

With regards to the study I linked:

On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.

Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall.

ABC, NBC, and CBS were largely uncritical of Obama, while Fox was critical of both candidates. These statistics were drawn after analyzing every soundbite across the four network's evening news shows. You are free to argue the method by which the CMPA graded each soundbite, but their method and results are sound and the study repeatable by any other organization.

As to your first point... it is equivalent behavior. A guy at Fox leaked memos detailing something that every major news network does, got caught, and got canned for it. A guy at NBC purposefully alters voice recordings in order to incite racial tension, got caught, and got canned for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pali Newbie

Pali

Posted
Posted
Pali I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying about polling studies. They are not irrelevant because of a liberal bias' date=' they are irrelevant because they are polling studies which are largely useless for obtaining data of any importance, and even then, the results have little to do with measuring the honesty or bias of any particular news network.[/quote']

Were it simply one or two polls, I'd agree. But let me put it this way: the entire purpose of a news organization, beyond making money, is to inform people of events. If you can come up with a better method of determining how well such an organization informs its viewers than by polling those viewers, I'd be happy to hear it. Barring that, we are left with what we are left with: numerous polls, by numerous organizations, of numerous sample groups in numerous locations on numerous topics, that find that while viewers of all the networks possess quite a bit of misinformation on a variety of topics, Fox stands out as doing the worst job of passing accurate information on to its viewers. Even Democrats who watch Fox tend to do worse than those who don't.

Does this directly translate into "Fox lies to people more than the other networks"? No. They could just be doing a crappier job of presenting the truth, which I view as ethically, though not practically, better. Were these polls all I knew of Fox News, I'd probably be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that account. I try to never assume malice when stupidity suffices as explanation.

ABC, NBC, and CBS were largely uncritical of Obama, while Fox was critical of both candidates. These statistics were drawn after analyzing every soundbite across the four network's evening news shows. You are free to argue the method by which the CMPA graded each soundbite, but their method and results are sound and the study repeatable by any other organization.

Believe it or not, but I actually have no trouble believing that the results of that study were perfectly accurate. However, as I said, I do not view Fox as a voicebox for the GOP - I view it as a voicebox for the newer, Tea Party-brand of conservatism (edit: a brand McCain was not a part of). The study you cite has absolutely nothing to say regarding the honesty/accuracy of what was said regarding Obama or McCain, nor does it say how/why they were being criticized. Not only that, but this is one study regarding how they treated a single pair of candidates - I am certain you can agree that this is far too little information to extrapolate grander conclusions regarding network biases regarding liberals or conservatives as a whole from (edit: despite the fact that I would actually agree that the other networks do indeed tend to show a liberal bias).

As to your first point... it is equivalent behavior. A guy at Fox leaked memos detailing something that every major news network does, got caught, and got canned for it. A guy at NBC purposefully alters voice recordings in order to incite racial tension, got caught, and got canned for it.

Actually, Bill Sammon (who wrote the memos) remains a Vice President of Fox News Channel and managing editor in Washington. I have no idea what happened to the person who leaked the memos. Now, you are free to claim that every major news network has similar internal memos telling their anchors how to phrase things or to implicate falsehoods on scientific issues... but unless you provide any evidence to support that claim, you are simply blowing smoke.

Don't get me wrong: Sammon's behavior and the behavior of the guy at NBC, yes, THOSE are equivalent. It is the behavior of the networks, however, that I see no equivalency in. As I said, Sammon remains a VP and managing editor - NBC ran an internal investigation and fired the person. NBC punished the guy for violating journalistic standards - Fox did no such thing.

I have pretty negative views of all the major networks, btw - but Fox stands out from the crowd.

EDIT: To somewhat return us to the original topic... there was a great bit by Stewart about two years ago where he said the following:

Bernie Goldberg, I don't need to satisfy your version of what fair satire is or should be. I'm not fair. I'm not balanced...You're criticizing me for not living up to your tagline. Oh Lord. And you dismiss any criticism as further evidence of how the rest of the media persecute you. You like to pretend, Bernie Goldberg and Fox News, that the relentless conservative activism of Fox News is the equivalent, oh the equivalent, of the disorganized liberal influence you find on NBC, ABC and CBS. But Fox News, you may be able to detect a liberal pathogen in their blood stream, however faint. But Fox News is such a crazy overreaction to that perceived threat. You're like an auto-immune disorder. I'm not saying the virus doesn't exist in some small quantity. But you're producing way too many antibodies. Fox News -- you're the lupus of news.

This is very similar to my view (the piece was in response to something Bernie Goldberg said directed at Stewart on The O'Reilly Factor, hence the singling out of him by Stewart). The bold part was for you inscribed. ;) Lastly, anyone who wants to watch the clip this quote is from (it's one of the best :)), you can find it here... it's about 11 minutes, and provides context for the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Filth Newbie

Filth

Posted
Posted
I've recently begun working towards a summer project of organizing county-wide efforts within the state of Michigan to make certain few Republicans return to office.

Where in Michigan? I'm all the way up in the UP. I'll be going at least door to door to anyone I can to tell them what a mistake it will be to vote for a republican. PM me with details of your project if you like and maybe I can help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Akoz Apprentice

Akoz

Posted
Posted

Huh? Not sure if Im to be offended haha ;)

You should have seen me when I started playing here, it was so bad.. Bryntsyst? was so patiant helping me make my first description. lol

This place has helped me alot as far as english goes. Spelling mostly and bigger new words. Such a vast language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Imoutgoodbye Newbie

Imoutgoodbye

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If you speak three languages and english is not your first, it tells me you may not be entirely familiar with U.S. politics.

If you are familiar with U.S. politics, I would point out that your frame of reference may be slightly tinted towards the individualism that most republicans freely tout (especially since corporations became people). However, it's widely accepted what Republicans think about women and their rights, which may or may not be in alignment with certain radical aspects of other cultures.

However, most of us that vote blue (democratic), take notice and offense at people like Rush Limbaugh, Teabaggers, etc...who want women to not be able to have the cheap access to birth control (which stops unwanted births, etc...) and would rather have more poor, uneducated people (read as capital for the machine) that people can't afford to keep in alignment with religion in government (which, in America, is predominately Catholic and Christianity Protestantism straight down) which I view as another method of controlling people (my views not to be confused with democratic views).

I know many, many intelligent women and they are at least a match, if not more, than most men I know.

EDIT: This is in no way meant to be offensive to any republicans who have different views on birth control, but the party platform, especially in my state of Michigan, tends to pander towards the ideas of morality and ethics that are self-defeating to the point I have had little issue gathering support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...