US Politics #1

[Nymeria Sand]

Unless the Obama administration has a plan to turn this and other instances of it caving under FOX fucking News' pressure around to help themselves, then they look bad. It's not as if the average FOX news viewer is going to vote for Obama in 2012 or likely even for any Democrat this November. So why the kowtowing?

I'm all for the First Amendment, free speech, and all that, but if anybody decided to ban Fox News, I'd be all for it. That channel has done more damage to civil political discourse in this country than anything else could have done. I wouldn't be too upset if they banned MSNBC, either. It's just as bad on the other end of the spectrum.

I prefer international news. You get a whole new perspective on things without the filter of the US media, who don't exactly tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no matter what channels you watch.

I kind of regret having my cable reinstalled because access to this shit only makes me want to pull out my hair.

+5

My life was a lot less stressful without it, too.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nymeria,

I don't watch Fox and I listen to NPR but how do you keep the. genie in the bottle if Government gets the power to ban news sources people listen to but others don't like?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nymeria,

I don't watch Fox and I listen to NPR but how do you keep the genie in the bottle if Government gets the power to ban news sources people listen to but others don't like?

Indeed. Next thing you know, she'll trash the rest of the First Amendment and start banning mosques. :P

[Guardian of the North]

Edited to add: Looking over some of the news coverage of this Sherrod thing, I'm beginning to think it was liberals - and not conservatives - who screwed this up. A bunch of right-wing fools dug up a video, and instead of looking carefully into the issue, both the Dep't of Ag and the NAACP responded with ill-considered, knee-jerk reactions. Now that the emerging facts paint a different picture, Sherrod is a martyr and the Obama administration is going to have to address this issue and try to patch over the ugliness it spawned. Argh.

+1 FOX certainly isn't the first organization to put "spin" (deceive/misreperesent) on something which is no excuse for doing so but it still seems to go on all the time unfortunately. But I agree the kneejerk reactions to such situations are about as idiotic as any initial lie in the first place. So much for innocent until proven guilty....

Latest I heard was Sherrod sounded disinclined to accept her job back with the reasoning of why would you want to work for someone that cans you before they actually investigate the situtation you were involved in.

[awesome possum]

It really just boggles my mind how anyone other than hardcore right-wingers and neocons continuously take anything FOX says or does with a grain of salt. It's not as if the network sued for the right to be able to lie on television or anything. Oh wait, THEY DID!

On February 14 (2003), a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

This is from seven years ago. SEVEN YEARS!! And I can't say FOX was let off the hook because they were never on it in the first place! Yet when the Obama administration finally tries to paint these hustlers and snake-oil salesmen as what they are, they're suddenly the victims?

How are we not reminded of this lawsuit every time FOX says or does anything? I'd be angry if I weren't so damned flabbergasted.

[Hereward]

Nymeria,

I don't watch Fox and I listen to NPR but how do you keep the. genie in the bottle if Government gets the power to ban news sources people listen to but others don't like?

Britain requires all news output to meet standards of objectivity and factual accuracy. It doesn't seem to have interfered with their ability to investigate and criticise, and Britain hasn't, yet, descended into dictatorship. Well, not much, anyway.

[Smashing Young Man]

I'm all for the First Amendment, free speech, and all that, but if anybody decided to ban Fox News, I'd be all for it. That channel has done more damage to civil political discourse in this country than anything else could have done. I wouldn't be too upset if they banned MSNBC, either. It's just as bad on the other end of the spectrum.

I prefer international news. You get a whole new perspective on things without the filter of the US media, who don't exactly tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no matter what channels you watch.

+5

My life was a lot less stressful without it, too.

Ah yes . . . the other boogeyman for the left: FNC. Folks like you are why the 2nd Amendment is so important.

Of course, I see all of you are ignoring the recent story about how journalists covered Obama's ass by burying the story of his associations during the '08 election. Ah yes . . . the horribly biased FNC. You people are ridiculous.

[Swordfish]

Fair enough. And it is true, shit be way complicated. But I still think we need to go through this analysis process (and you prolly do too given earlier statements). It may not be perfect, but it gives us something to go on, even if it is only a general trend.

Plus, how else can we improve our model. I mean we necessarily would have to admit that the model failed, and figure out what its failings were, then revisit the model. Which is kinda what I see happening here.

I don't want ANY administration to be in a position where they spend more time defending what we know is a flawed model, because they made some decisions off of that model. I think this is why we we stuck in Iraq for so long. People invested their ego in the idea of Democracy there. And when it didn't work the media kept saying nya nya you fucked up. And no one (for a long while ) would stand up and say yup, we did, now can we try something else to get us out of this fucked up mess?

That depends on what the measures are that are being proposed, and what the consequences are of doing 'something else', and what the confidence level that doing something else will have the desired effect.

And as you mentioned, it may well be impossible to even model it to any degree of accuracy.

If the something else is doing the same thing only bigger, then why should we have any confidence that the outcome will be better this time?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

Didn't NBC wire a car to explode in a "Dateline" exposee on a car they alleged had manufacturing flaws? Didn't a journalist with the New York Times make up quotes and et caught doing it? I'm not defendin Fox and I don't use them as a news source but please don't imply that Fox is the only news organization that has had credibility problems.

[Swordfish]

Ser Poss.,

Didn't NBC wire a car to explode in a "Dateline" exposee on a car they alleged had manufacturing flaws? Didn't a journalist with the New York Times make up quotes and et caught doing it? I'm not defendin Fox and I don't use them as a news source but please don't imply that Fox is the only news organization that has had credibility problems.

*cough* rathergate *cough*

[Jaime L]

Ser Poss.,

Didn't NBC wire a car to explode in a "Dateline" exposee on a car they alleged had manufacturing flaws? Didn't a journalist with the New York Times make up quotes and et caught doing it? I'm not defendin Fox and I don't use them as a news source but please don't imply that Fox is the only news organization that has had credibility problems.

As always, it's a question of degree. I've ranted on it before but engaging in false equivalency has poisoned political debate in this country, I'd like to think this board is beyond something that simplistic.

Unless you're arguing that Fox News applies the same journalistic standards as The New York Times?

[awesome possum]

Ser Poss.,

Didn't NBC wire a car to explode in a "Dateline" exposee on a car they alleged had manufacturing flaws? Didn't a journalist with the New York Times make up quotes and et caught doing it? I'm not defendin Fox and I don't use them as a news source but please don't imply that Fox is the only news organization that has had credibility problems.

I didn't say FOX is the only news organization that has had credibility problems. I said they're the only news organization that has SUED in A COURT OF LAW to be able to outright lie and distort.

I just love it though, because it's typical. And you are defending FOX by bringing up those, Scot. I point out that FOX sued for the right to lie in their broadcasts, you and the usual suspects jump out with "well remember that one time this other news source did this?" Because a NY Times journalist making up quotes or Dateline rigging one episode of their show or Dan Rather jumping on one false story totally equals an entire news network's dedication to constant misinformation and partisan smears.

[The Progressive]

Didn't NBC wire a car to explode in a "Dateline" exposee on a car they alleged had manufacturing flaws? Didn't a journalist with the New York Times make up quotes and et caught doing it? I'm not defendin Fox and I don't use them as a news source but please don't imply that Fox is the only news organization that has had credibility problems.

Scot,

Those involved in the incidents you described above were properly castigated and reprimanded.

You can't say that about faux-news, which fabricate lies on a daily basis.

[davos]

Didn't NBC wire a car to explode in a "Dateline" exposee on a car they alleged had manufacturing flaws? Didn't a journalist with the New York Times make up quotes and et caught doing it? I'm not defendin Fox and I don't use them as a news source but please don't imply that Fox is the only news organization that has had credibility problems.

Of course there has been numerous instances of shoddy and even falsified journalism in the past. Its not a Fox invention. I'm equally sure that Fox is not the only news organization that is guilty of stretching the truth or even outright lieing in the present day. What is of a concern is both the extent that misinformation, distortion and deception are a part of Fox's everyday reporting and how much of the population actually believes much of what Fox says without question. 20 or 30 years ago if a major new agency was caught falsifying a story it would have been a major scandal. Fox does it on an almost daily basis and gets away with it.

Yes, MSNBC is rather bias in towards the liberal/progressive side of politics. When I do watch Oberman or Maddow its more for the entertainment value than for information. I will say that by and large from what I've seen most of the hard bias comes through frequent editorializing and selection of stories to report rather than through frequent distortions and lies. I won't say they haven't gotten their hands dirty but certainly not close to the extent that Fox does with regularity.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev, Ser Poss.,

Fair points Fox does have these problems a lot. To be clear I'm not defending Fox. There is a reason I don't watch or listen to them.

[The Progressive]

I just realized that Andrew Breitbart is also the producer of that "proud to be a teabagger" video, lol.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Britain requires all news output to meet standards of objectivity and factual accuracy. It doesn't seem to have interfered with their ability to investigate and criticise, and Britain hasn't, yet, descended into dictatorship. Well, not much, anyway.

Does that apply to the Fleet Street tabloids?

[Maltaran]

Does that apply to the Fleet Street tabloids?

It does, but they'll generally bury any apologies that the regulator forces them to make in a single paragraph on the bottom half of page 23.

[Nymeria Sand]

Ah yes . . . the other boogeyman for the left: FNC. Folks like you are why the 2nd Amendment is so important.

I beg your pardon? I really hope that wasn't a threat, because it sure sounded like one.

I don't like censorship at all. But getting people so riled up and brainwashed that they actively fight against what this country stands for is treason. Seriously. When are you going to accept the fact that we are all in this together, and instead of dividing us, the media should be helping to bring us together so we can move forward.

We have serious problems, and if you and Fox News aren't willing to sit down and try to solve them constructively, then get the hell out of the way so that objective, reasonable people who actually give a damn can.

Of course, I see all of you are ignoring the recent story about how journalists covered Obama's ass by burying the story of his associations during the '08 election. Ah yes . . . the horribly biased FNC. You people are ridiculous.

Oh, yes, the big bad liberal media. I really don't think you want to go there. Really. I mean, we could talk about John McCain's associations with G. Gordon Liddy if you like. But why stop there?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I beg your pardon? I really hope that wasn't a threat, because it sure sounded like one.

I don't like censorship at all. But getting people so riled up and brainwashed that they actively fight against what this country stands for is treason. Seriously.

So who decides exactly "what this country stands for"? Just a guess here, but I imagine not everyone has the same view on that. For example, some people think part of what this country stands for is freedom of speech, even unpopular political speech.

We have serious problems, and if you and Fox News aren't willing to sit down and try to solve them constructively, then get the hell out of the way so that objective, reasonable people who actually give a damn can.

Or else....what, exactly?