|
(OT) The fox hunt
The New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/ma...123200&en=66c9 8aeae115de49&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) this weekend previewed the new movie " Outfoxed (http://www.outfoxed.org/) " -- a documentary analyzing Fox News, sponsored by American Progress and MoveOn.org. The movie will premier in New York City Tuesday night, and, according to the LA Times, MoveOn will promote the film at house parties across the country on July 18 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0704-01.htm) . Featuring "interviews with former Fox employees and leaked policy memos written by Fox executives," the film is "an obsessively researched expose" by Hollywood director Robert Greenwald, who shows how the network "distorts its coverage to serve the conservative political agenda of its owner, the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch." In one scene, Fox News's chief White House reporter Carl Cameron is shown hamming it up with President Bush (http://www.newsignature.com/cap) , telling the president that his wife was campaigning for the Bush-Cheney ticket. As LA Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote, Fox has become "the most blatantly biased (http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/insig...4_3025056,00.h tml) major American news organization since the era of yellow journalism." The movie highlights a trend whereby the broader right-wing media is parroting the conservative line on everything from the war to the economy to coverage of the presidential campaign -- leaving facts and objectivity by the wayside. |
(OT) The fox hunt
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:15:54 -0400, "Jim" wrote:
The New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/ma...123200&en=66c9 8aeae115de49&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) this weekend previewed the new movie " Outfoxed (http://www.outfoxed.org/) " -- a documentary analyzing Fox News, sponsored by American Progress and MoveOn.org. The movie will premier in New York City Tuesday night, and, according to the LA Times, MoveOn will promote the film at house parties across the country on July 18 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0704-01.htm) . Featuring "interviews with former Fox employees and leaked policy memos written by Fox executives," the film is "an obsessively researched expose" by Hollywood director Robert Greenwald, who shows how the network "distorts its coverage to serve the conservative political agenda of its owner, the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch." In one scene, Fox News's chief White House reporter Carl Cameron is shown hamming it up with President Bush (http://www.newsignature.com/cap) , telling the president that his wife was campaigning for the Bush-Cheney ticket. As LA Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote, Fox has become "the most blatantly biased (http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/insig...4_3025056,00.h tml) major American news organization since the era of yellow journalism." The movie highlights a trend whereby the broader right-wing media is parroting the conservative line on everything from the war to the economy to coverage of the presidential campaign -- leaving facts and objectivity by the wayside. This is so predictable. The one news agency which flies in the face of typical liberal bias, and offers a different (admittedly conservative) slant. It's no wonder those who don't want the people to hear the other side, would be upset about it, and move to smear it. Fox serves a great purpose. It gives the other perspective. True thinking people can therefore take both sides of the story and decide for themselves which makes the most sense. Partisans like Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and the Hollywood liberal elite, do not want people to see things from any perspective which differs from theirs. America was founded on the principles of choices. Why should this not apply to our news outlets? Dave |
(OT) The fox hunt
Dave Hall wrote:
This is so predictable. The one news agency which flies in the face of typical liberal bias, and offers a different (admittedly conservative) slant. It's no wonder those who don't want the people to hear the other side, would be upset about it, and move to smear it. Fox serves a great purpose. It gives the other perspective. Fox is crap. There's no relationship between news and Fax. It's simply the electronic version of the fundie Washington Times, Rev. Moon's house organ for the GOP. |
(OT) The fox hunt
America was founded on the principles of choices. Why should this not
apply to our news outlets? Dave In a perfect world, news would be news. Anymore, we accept non-stop spin and editorializing as news. News is supposed to be where people get facts about the world beyond their immediate daily experience. Saying that we should have a "choice" about which version of the truth to subscribe to takes news out of the information category and puts it squarely into religion. Yes, you should have a religious choice. News should be objective. |
(OT) The fox hunt
America was founded on the principles of choices. Why should this not
apply to our news outlets? In other words, you deliberately choose a news source that is biased towards your own views, so as to not be faced with disagreeable facts. This is called "spin." Your news source is spin. You then claim that everything & everybody that disagrees with you is spin. Does this sound smart to anybody but Dave? Gould 0738 wrote: In a perfect world, news would be news. Anymore, we accept non-stop spin and editorializing as news. It's the Age of MacLuhan, Part 2... *everything* is advartising. Advertising is fine when you're choosing between Coke or Pepsi, but in choosing political leaders it is a bit more destructive. The issue here is that Dave (and his fascist whacko pals) are trying to foist their advertising on us and insist that it's true. But it doesn't work in real life, and while they admit it's all fantasy, they insist that everyone must dance to the tune. The question is how long democracy can survive under this assault. Maybe not even until November... DSK |
(OT) The fox hunt
Pardon me for jumping into the middle here, but I have to respond to this.
Gould 0738 wrote: News should be objective. That's impossible. News is *always* biased, and the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is the biggest single factor in the political dumbing-down of Americans that has occurred over the last few decades. It's a recent invention, too, created in the 20th century by well-meaning people who didn't understand that it couldn't ever work. It would be a good idea if it could work, but it can't. Why not? Because news is collected and reported by people, and people have biases. No matter how hard you try for complete objectivity, it can never be achieved, because everything you see, hear and read is filtered through your own worldview. "But if they just report plain facts, with no interpretation, that's objective by definition!" you may respond. But that's not true either, at least not in a world as large and complex as the one we inhabit, for the simple reason that it's not possible to report *all* of the facts. The journalist must filter the raw facts and decide what is worth reporting and what isn't. This filtering introduces obvious bias. Even less obvious but perhaps more pernicious is the problem of fact-checking. While journalists should check all of the facts they report, there are many, many levels of checking, ranging from simple verification of the source to full-on investigation. In an ideal world, every fact reported would be fully investigated and verified through multiple channels, but that's simply not possible, so journalists have to make judgements about what level of checking is required. Naturally, "facts" that appear to violently contradict the reporter's own worldview will get checked more thoroughly than those that seem patently obvious, meaning that errors that the reporter agrees with are more likely to be published than errors the reporter does not agree with. Finally, even if individual reporters and editors were able to be purely objective and avoid biasing their reports in any way, a few individuals with an agenda can intentionally introduce their own biases. What makes all of this really nasty is when the consumers of this biased news are convinced that they are getting straight, objective news, so they don't bother to look for and take into account the biases. Personally, I think we as consumers of the news were much better off 100 years ago when the newspapers wore their biases on their sleeves, so to speak. Then, at least, people knew what they were getting, and they could use multiple, opposing sources to get a more accurate view of the world. Shawn. |
(OT) The fox hunt
Gould 0738 wrote:
News should be objective. That's impossible. News is *always* biased, and the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is the biggest single factor in the political dumbing-down of Americans that has occurred over the last few decades. Congrats on a very insightful post. Many of our major news sources make *no* attempt to be objective. As you observe, that's not a problem until some of these highly biased sources declare that they are bastions of objectivity and that all *other* sources, with a different agenda, are hopelessly biased. The most hilarious thing I hear, several times a week, are multi-million dollar radio personalities with the largest listening audiences in the country moaning and wailing about being victimized by the "mainstream media." |
(OT) The fox hunt
Gould 0738 wrote:
Many of our major news sources make *no* attempt to be objective. Probably. It's hard to get inside their heads to know for sure. I suspect they do try to be objective, but not very hard, and not all the time. The most hilarious thing I hear, several times a week, are multi-million dollar radio personalities with the largest listening audiences in the country moaning and wailing about being victimized by the "mainstream media." One nice thing about those radio shows is at least they're up front with their biases, mostly. Their audiences mostly haven't caught onto the idea that it's a good idea to listen to conflicting points of view and think critically about the content, but I think that's mostly the fault of the supposedly objective media, which has trained the last three generations to simply accept whatever is broadcast as truth. I welcome the rise of these blatantly biased sources in the hope that people will eventually catch onto the idea that all news should be taken with a grain of salt. BTW, with regard to my auto carb, I've gotten several other confirmations of your (and Fred's) point of view from a Bayliner owner's forum. Not one dissenting opinion, in fact. Darn it. Shawn. |
(OT) The fox hunt
BTW, with regard to my auto carb, I've gotten several other confirmations of
your (and Fred's) point of view from a Bayliner owner's forum. Not one dissenting opinion, in fact. Darn it. Shawn. Darwinism. Sometimes those who practice dissent don't remain with us long enough to form an opinion. |
(OT) The fox hunt
|
(OT) The fox hunt
Dave Hall wrote:
The difference is that liberals deny that the mainstream news has any bias. Conservatives, rather than deny it, acknowledge it, and offer their counter perspective to provide balance. Dave How wonderful it must be for you, Dave,to go through life as Simple-Minded Simon. |
(OT) The fox hunt
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:26:44 -0400, DSK wrote:
America was founded on the principles of choices. Why should this not apply to our news outlets? In other words, you deliberately choose a news source that is biased towards your own views, so as to not be faced with disagreeable facts. That's what you do, so why shouldn't I? This is called "spin." Your news source is spin. You then claim that everything & everybody that disagrees with you is spin. Mine spins to the right, while yours spins to the left. Hopefully the truth will fallout in the middle. That's exactly what everyone else does when they watch the other news outlets which are spun and biased the other way. Does this sound smart to anybody but Dave? It does when you aren't living in that large river in Africa. Gould 0738 wrote: In a perfect world, news would be news. Anymore, we accept non-stop spin and editorializing as news. It's the Age of MacLuhan, Part 2... *everything* is advartising. Advertising is fine when you're choosing between Coke or Pepsi, but in choosing political leaders it is a bit more destructive. The issue here is that Dave (and his fascist whacko pals) are trying to foist their advertising on us and insist that it's true. As opposed to the socialist wacko liberal network pals trying to foist their advertising on us and insisting that it's true? But it doesn't work in real life, and while they admit it's all fantasy, they insist that everyone must dance to the tune. The question is how long democracy can survive under this assault. Maybe not even until November... Oh get down off your high horse Doug. You make it sound as if Fox news is biased horribly to the right, while the rest of the news agencies are perfectly objective. If you truly believe that then you are a bigger nut case than you accuse me of being. If not, then why do you believe that Fox has any less right to present a counter bias to that of the other networks? Dave |
(OT) The fox hunt
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:36:22 -0600, Shawn Willden
wrote: Pardon me for jumping into the middle here, but I have to respond to this. Gould 0738 wrote: News should be objective. That's impossible. News is *always* biased, and the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is the biggest single factor in the political dumbing-down of Americans that has occurred over the last few decades. It's a recent invention, too, created in the 20th century by well-meaning people who didn't understand that it couldn't ever work. It would be a good idea if it could work, but it can't. All it takes are indiscriminate adjectives inserted into the account to establish a point of view, and at that point objectivity is gone. Why not? Because news is collected and reported by people, and people have biases. No matter how hard you try for complete objectivity, it can never be achieved, because everything you see, hear and read is filtered through your own worldview. Exactly! "But if they just report plain facts, with no interpretation, that's objective by definition!" you may respond. But that's not true either, at least not in a world as large and complex as the one we inhabit, for the simple reason that it's not possible to report *all* of the facts. The journalist must filter the raw facts and decide what is worth reporting and what isn't. This filtering introduces obvious bias. Even less obvious but perhaps more pernicious is the problem of fact-checking. While journalists should check all of the facts they report, there are many, many levels of checking, ranging from simple verification of the source to full-on investigation. In an ideal world, every fact reported would be fully investigated and verified through multiple channels, but that's simply not possible, so journalists have to make judgements about what level of checking is required. Naturally, "facts" that appear to violently contradict the reporter's own worldview will get checked more thoroughly than those that seem patently obvious, meaning that errors that the reporter agrees with are more likely to be published than errors the reporter does not agree with. Then there are guy like Jayson Blair. But that's another story..... Finally, even if individual reporters and editors were able to be purely objective and avoid biasing their reports in any way, a few individuals with an agenda can intentionally introduce their own biases. What makes all of this really nasty is when the consumers of this biased news are convinced that they are getting straight, objective news, so they don't bother to look for and take into account the biases. There are people who actually believe the articles in the National Enquirer. Some people's B.S. filters don't work very well. This usually has a lot to do with their education. Personally, I think we as consumers of the news were much better off 100 years ago when the newspapers wore their biases on their sleeves, so to speak. Then, at least, people knew what they were getting, and they could use multiple, opposing sources to get a more accurate view of the world. I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own arena. Dave |
(OT) The fox hunt
Dave Hall wrote:
I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own arena. Dave Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your autobiography because you wrote well. As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for this gem of a paragraph. Let's see...a quick scan... ....a group of people who's... interesting. ....who's idealogue... interesting. ....who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting. ....a group...their agendas... interesting. ....a group...suddenly have... interesting. ....other side...in their own... interesting. You're some writer, Dave. |
(OT) The fox hunt
You have to question anything that is supported by MoveOn. Their
liberal propaganda machine really distorts the truth. Dave Hall wrote in message . .. On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:15:54 -0400, "Jim" wrote: The New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/ma...123200&en=66c9 8aeae115de49&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) this weekend previewed the new movie " Outfoxed (http://www.outfoxed.org/) " -- a documentary analyzing Fox News, sponsored by American Progress and MoveOn.org. The movie will premier in New York City Tuesday night, and, according to the LA Times, MoveOn will promote the film at house parties across the country on July 18 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0704-01.htm) . Featuring "interviews with former Fox employees and leaked policy memos written by Fox executives," the film is "an obsessively researched expose" by Hollywood director Robert Greenwald, who shows how the network "distorts its coverage to serve the conservative political agenda of its owner, the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch." In one scene, Fox News's chief White House reporter Carl Cameron is shown hamming it up with President Bush (http://www.newsignature.com/cap) , telling the president that his wife was campaigning for the Bush-Cheney ticket. As LA Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote, Fox has become "the most blatantly biased (http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/insig...4_3025056,00.h tml) major American news organization since the era of yellow journalism." The movie highlights a trend whereby the broader right-wing media is parroting the conservative line on everything from the war to the economy to coverage of the presidential campaign -- leaving facts and objectivity by the wayside. This is so predictable. The one news agency which flies in the face of typical liberal bias, and offers a different (admittedly conservative) slant. It's no wonder those who don't want the people to hear the other side, would be upset about it, and move to smear it. Fox serves a great purpose. It gives the other perspective. True thinking people can therefore take both sides of the story and decide for themselves which makes the most sense. Partisans like Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and the Hollywood liberal elite, do not want people to see things from any perspective which differs from theirs. America was founded on the principles of choices. Why should this not apply to our news outlets? Dave |
(OT) The fox hunt
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own arena. Dave Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your autobiography because you wrote well. As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for this gem of a paragraph. Let's see...a quick scan... ...a group of people who's... interesting. ...who's idealogue... interesting. ...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting. ...a group...their agendas... interesting. ...a group...suddenly have... interesting. ...other side...in their own... interesting. You're some writer, Dave. Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my full attention to grammatical detail. Dave |
(OT) The fox hunt
Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own arena. Dave Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your autobiography because you wrote well. As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for this gem of a paragraph. Let's see...a quick scan... ...a group of people who's... interesting. ...who's idealogue... interesting. ...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting. ...a group...their agendas... interesting. ...a group...suddenly have... interesting. ...other side...in their own... interesting. You're some writer, Dave. Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my full attention to grammatical detail. Dave Really? Gosh, I thought for sure the word you wanted was ideology or ideologue. A careful writer would know the difference between idealogue and ideologue. And choosing the word idealogue was not your only error. Your subjects and verbs are in disagreement, among other problems. A group of people whose whose idealogy whose idealogy has been infiltrating a group...its agenda a group ....suddenly has... other side...in its own... Had you been in one of the bonehead English classes I taught, you would have received a D- if I were being charitable, but, more likely, an F. |
(OT) The fox hunt
The difference is that liberals deny that the mainstream news has any
bias. Conservatives, rather than deny it, acknowledge it, and offer their counter perspective to provide balance. Dave You should try to avoid repeating "talking points", they demean your argument. Many of your right wing news outlets *are* the mainstream media. Check the ratings. Did you know that there are entire communities in the US where every local radio station, as well as the local newspaper, are owned by Clear Channel? Excusing the blatant spin and emotionally charged propaganda with "we're the little underdogs and we need to rely on these techniques to get our message noticed in the face of the onslaught from the mainstream media", is preposterous. |
(OT) The fox hunt
JohnH wrote:
Chuck, have you seen this story on any news other than Fox? The paste is from Al Jazeera: Iraqi police make large-scale arrests The suspects, all Iraqis, were being held for questioning at a Baghdad police department, he said, noting that most were criminals who had been arrested during the old government and pardoned by Saddam Hussein on the eve of the US invasion. "Most of the people we caught yesterday were professional crooks," he alleged. One killed Police colonel Daud Sulaiman, in charge of the hotspot patch, said one person was killed during the sweep. "Several criminals, including women, were arrested and one of them was killed while trying to resist police," he said. "This is the largest operation for the interior ministry since the fall of Saddam Hussein" Colonel Adnan Abd al-Rahman, Interior Ministry spokesman To me, this was pretty good news. It showed the Iraqi police doing something besides running scared. I looked for the story on the other major networks and could find nothing. I found nothing in the Washington Post. We have enough problems in this country with our police framing and rounding up suspects to make it appear as if they are doing something...so you're ready to accept the claims of the unelected Iraqi government that the folks they rounded up were indeed criminals? Maybe some of them were merely political opponents. Yeah, the Iraqi police are doing something...that sounds a lot like what the Iraqi police under Saddam did. Why are you so willing to accept the PR of the Iraqi regime? If you didin't find the news report in the Post, perhaps the editors there weren't able to vet it properly. Not everyone has a mind damaged by a career in the military; some of us retain our scepticism no matter what. |
For Herring
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote: did you get the notification regarding the firmware upgrades for your D70? I just downloaded and installed the upgrades via a memory card. |
(OT) The fox hunt
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:43:51 -0400, JohnH wrote:
******************************************** To me, this was pretty good news. It showed the Iraqi police doing something besides running scared. I looked for the story on the other major networks and could find nothing. I found nothing in the Washington Post. No matter one's political leanings, it would seem that withholding news should be somewhat upsetting. The story was carried, but not widely. I read it on the BBC website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3890473.stm http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-arrests_x.htm http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1087373703017 |
(OT) The fox hunt
|
(OT) The fox hunt
Chuck, have you seen this story on any news other than Fox? The paste is from
Al Jazeera: Well, there you go. Fox and Al Jazeera. That's two, right off the bat. Al Jazeera isn't exactly pro Bush, is it? :-) No matter one's political leanings, it would seem that withholding news should be somewhat upsetting. John H Surely you don't believe that every major news source must report everything that goes on, anywhere in the world, every day? Even your beloved Fox doesn't do that. There's a big wide world out there that goes well beyond the latest pro-Bush rally and sunshine reports from "Our Historic Triumph in Iraq". |
(OT) The fox hunt
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:13:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: The difference is that liberals deny that the mainstream news has any bias. Conservatives, rather than deny it, acknowledge it, and offer their counter perspective to provide balance. Dave How wonderful it must be for you, Dave,to go through life as Simple-Minded Simon. I take it then that you disagree? Surely someone who tries to pass himself off as a thinking intellectual could come up with a better rebuttal than an ad-hominem attack? Dave |
(OT) The fox hunt
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:22:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own arena. Dave Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your autobiography because you wrote well. As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for this gem of a paragraph. Let's see...a quick scan... ...a group of people who's... interesting. ...who's idealogue... interesting. ...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting. ...a group...their agendas... interesting. ...a group...suddenly have... interesting. ...other side...in their own... interesting. You're some writer, Dave. Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my full attention to grammatical detail. Dave Really? Gosh, I thought for sure the word you wanted was ideology or ideologue. A careful writer would know the difference between idealogue and ideologue. And choosing the word idealogue was not your only error. Your subjects and verbs are in disagreement, among other problems. A group of people whose whose idealogy whose idealogy has been infiltrating a group...its agenda a group ....suddenly has... other side...in its own... Had you been in one of the bonehead English classes I taught, you would have received a D- if I were being charitable, but, more likely, an F. I doubt that you ever taught English. You reasoning is haphazard and weak. There is no issue with my verbiage, even if I occasionally make small spelling errors. You logic is flawed, your debate skills non-existant. I'd have given you an F.... Dave |
(OT) The fox hunt
|
(OT) The fox hunt
Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:22:13 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own arena. Dave Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your autobiography because you wrote well. As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for this gem of a paragraph. Let's see...a quick scan... ...a group of people who's... interesting. ...who's idealogue... interesting. ...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting. ...a group...their agendas... interesting. ...a group...suddenly have... interesting. ...other side...in their own... interesting. You're some writer, Dave. Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my full attention to grammatical detail. Dave Really? Gosh, I thought for sure the word you wanted was ideology or ideologue. A careful writer would know the difference between idealogue and ideologue. And choosing the word idealogue was not your only error. Your subjects and verbs are in disagreement, among other problems. A group of people whose whose idealogy whose idealogy has been infiltrating a group...its agenda a group ....suddenly has... other side...in its own... Had you been in one of the bonehead English classes I taught, you would have received a D- if I were being charitable, but, more likely, an F. I doubt that you ever taught English. You reasoning is haphazard and weak. There is no issue with my verbiage, even if I occasionally make small spelling errors. You logic is flawed, your debate skills non-existant. I'd have given you an F.... Dave "You reasoning," eh? Thank you. |
(OT) The fox hunt
On 14 Jul 2004 19:55:02 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
Chuck, have you seen this story on any news other than Fox? The paste is from Al Jazeera: Well, there you go. Fox and Al Jazeera. That's two, right off the bat. Al Jazeera isn't exactly pro Bush, is it? :-) No matter one's political leanings, it would seem that withholding news should be somewhat upsetting. John H Surely you don't believe that every major news source must report everything that goes on, anywhere in the world, every day? Even your beloved Fox doesn't do that. There's a big wide world out there that goes well beyond the latest pro-Bush rally and sunshine reports from "Our Historic Triumph in Iraq". But this example underscores the rationale behind the selective sorting of the news and which stories to run. Those services which lean to the left consistently run stories of soldier deaths, tactical issues, insurgent uprisings, and any other item which gives the impression that the occupation of Iraq is not going very well. There are many positive stories as well, but other than Fox, you'd have to go to an international news service to see them. Sort of the same bias which showcases John Kerry's "brave" military service, but fails to cover the story of the men (both fellow soldiers and commanders) who served with Kerry, and who feel that he's stabbed his fellow servicemen in the back, and who's actions immediately after the war define him as someone who should not be in charge of the military. http://swiftboatsbrotherhood.com/ http://www.vetsagainstkerry.org/ Now you might be quick to dismiss this as exaggerated propaganda and smear, but there is enough of these similar accounts that it surely deserves a closer look, but not one of the news media outlets are taking the baton. Yet these same news outlets are STILL beating the dead horse over Bush's military records. If this is not enough to convince you that if not outright bias, that a clear double standard exists, I don't know what will. Dave |
(OT) The fox hunt
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:15:39 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: As a Democrat, for example, I frequently am annoyed by the toughness with which Kerry is treated by the general media, and the relatively free ride Bush gets, no matter what he says or does. As an example, Bush should have been excoriated by the editorial writers and commentators for his gay bashing (over the definition of marriage bull****) via Congress while the country is facing so many serious problems. But, for the most part, he hasn't been. The tight-wing outlets, on the other hand, have been jumping up and down in their praise for Bush (and in news reports, not just commentary) on this issue. That's funny, I see totally the opposite. The CNN reporter yesterday just could say it enough times that the republicans have failed to make the votes to pass the change. And, as another for instance, why is the liberal press still trying to make hay out of Bush's irrelevant military records, while Kerry's post Vienam antics, including an admission that he took part in the "burning of villages", is pretty much a non-issue? Why are the growing numbers of anti-Kerry Vietnam vets, each with a compelling story to tell, not being given an audience? The gay marriage exclusion is an important precedent in the preservation of the sanctity of marriage. Marriage has its roots in religion, and that transcends secular interpretation. This cannot be handled at a state level. You can't have one state legalizing gay marriage, and a neighboring state not recognizing them. What if a "legally" joined gay couple wants to move into a state which does not recognize their marriage? This needs to be handled at a federal level. I, and most other conservatives have no problem with gay people entering into civil unions for the purpose of gaining the legal benefits (and liabilities) that other married people currently enjoy. But don't call it a "marriage". Dave |
(OT) The fox hunt
Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:15:39 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: As a Democrat, for example, I frequently am annoyed by the toughness with which Kerry is treated by the general media, and the relatively free ride Bush gets, no matter what he says or does. As an example, Bush should have been excoriated by the editorial writers and commentators for his gay bashing (over the definition of marriage bull****) via Congress while the country is facing so many serious problems. But, for the most part, he hasn't been. The tight-wing outlets, on the other hand, have been jumping up and down in their praise for Bush (and in news reports, not just commentary) on this issue. That's funny, I see totally the opposite. The CNN reporter yesterday just could say it enough times that the republicans have failed to make the votes to pass the change. First, it was news. Second, most people who watch cable news shows watch them for only a few minutes at a time; thus, all the repetition. And, as another for instance, why is the liberal press still trying to make hay out of Bush's irrelevant military records, while Kerry's post Vienam antics, including an admission that he took part in the "burning of villages", is pretty much a non-issue? Because Bush has tried to make hay out of his position that he is a wartime leader. Yet he had no relevant "wartime" experience in his backbroung. And, had Bush been a field grande officer in any war, he would have been relieved...for screw=ups, naivete and dishonesty. Why are the growing numbers of anti-Kerry Vietnam vets, each with a compelling story to tell, not being given an audience? Ah, yes...the GOP-front groups. They've been outed. I, and most other conservatives have no problem with gay people entering into civil unions for the purpose of gaining the legal benefits (and liabilities) that other married people currently enjoy. But don't call it a "marriage". Dave Marriage is civil in this country...gays are entitled to the civil ceremony. |
(OT) The fox hunt
Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:13:28 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: The difference is that liberals deny that the mainstream news has any bias. Conservatives, rather than deny it, acknowledge it, and offer their counter perspective to provide balance. Dave How wonderful it must be for you, Dave,to go through life as Simple-Minded Simon. I take it then that you disagree? Surely someone who tries to pass himself off as a thinking intellectual could come up with a better rebuttal than an ad-hominem attack? Dave If you'd think about it, it IS quite a good rebuttal to someone with their head stuck in the sand. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com