Canada AM's Unfortunate Interview with Ben Stein

[Danger]

First thing when I wake up is to put on 'Canada AM'. Imagine my dismay when they held an interview with Ben Stein this morning... and treated him as if he were a mentally functional human. That's something that I would have expected from Fox, but not a reputable news organization. Shame on my homeland.

 

[K.J.Healey]

He's not that incompetent. I have no idea of what his views are but he has some political background, which is a lot more than most celebs can say.

EDIT:
Ah, I just read some of his viewpoints. Never mind above statement.

 

[moose]

Benjamin Jeremy Stein (born November 25, 1944) is an American attorney, political figure, and entertainment personality who in his early career served as speechwriter for U.S. presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_SteinWhen I've heard him talk, he's always sounded mentally functional...

 

[Evo]

When I've heard him talk, he's always sounded mentally functional...

Except perhaps his views on Intelligent Design and creationism?

 

[K.J.Healey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein


When I've heard him talk, he's always sounded mentally functional...

Also from wikipedia:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

 

[russ_watters]

...they held an interview with Ben Stein this morning... and treated him as if he were a mentally functional human. That's something that I would have expected from Fox, but not a reputable news organization.

And 2+2=...?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And 2+2=...?

This reminds me of an old joke. A man is involved in a fender bender. He turns to his wife and says "darned women drivers". His wife says "I think the driver is a man.". He says "Well he drives like a woman."

Even so, and notwithstanding how poor TV news is, Fox really is a cut below.

 

[moose]

Except perhaps his views on Intelligent Design and creationism?

I suppose I've never heard him talk about ID and creationism...

I retract my statements fully.

 

[OAQfirst]

Well...

Bill O'Reilly and Ben Stein on Creationism:

 

[Danger]

And 2+2=...?

Is there a point to that question?

 

[Evo]

Well...

Bill O'Reilly and Ben Stein on Creationism:

 

[moose]

Well...

Bill O'Reilly and Ben Stein on Creationism:

It was going *OK* until about 2 minutes in (that's when he started talking about how "terrible" it is that scientists were fired/denied funding/whatever when they started bringing up intelligent design).

EDIT: Wow it's getting worse and worse. GAHHHHH it's STILL getting worse. It ends in 30 seconds... Let's see if it gets worse. Ehhh more of the same.

Ben Stein started by talking about how he believes that there are holes in darwinism and that creationism may answer some questions... Then he got worse by misleading information saying scientists are being punished for questioning darwinism. Then he got even worse by actually saying factually incorrect information...

EDIT2: I should add that I usually agree with Bill O'Reilly, but definitely not here...

 

[OAQfirst]

Someone, toss that man a dry beach ball!

Eh, I like Ben. Even if he is misinformed, who wouldn't enjoy dinner and a hayride with the man? As for Bill O'Reilly, he's definitely one of the few men I'd enjoy getting into a bar room brawl with.

*pokes Bill's eye out with intelligently designed fist*

 

[WarPhalange]

A good time with Bill Stein? Have you heard the man talk? Maybe if he kept his mouth shut and paid for dinner it would be alright.

 

[Danger]

A good time with Bill Stein?

It's quite possible, since I believe that Bilstein is a casino in Vegas. Ben Stein, on the other hand, is a waste of skin.

 

[OAQfirst]

A good time with Bill Stein? Have you heard the man talk? Maybe if he kept his mouth shut and paid for dinner it would be alright.

I was jesting. I have heard him talk, yes. He also doesn't believe in GW or deforestation.

Regardless of differing views and ideas, I'm still capable of respecting another's opinion and getting along with him. He's a nice guy and quite fun to be around, I think. I wouldn't turn down any such offer.

Unless he spent the night going on about that nonsense. In which case I'd be looking for an exit.

 

[WarPhalange]

I'm still capable of respecting another's opinion

I never understood this point of view. Why should I respect someone else's opinion? Just because they have one? Need I remind you that some 40% of the USA believe God created all of Earth just the way we are in 6 days time? That's an opinion, and one I cannot bring myself to respect.

 

[RyanSchw]

Also from wikipedia:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

Here is part of that video on youtube.

 

[Astronuc]

And 2+2=...?

The correct answer is "What do you want it to be?

 

[Astronuc]

Well...

Bill O'Reilly and Ben Stein on Creationism:

I'm all for the first amendment (freedom of speech = freedom to express one's opinions verbally), but O'Reilly goes beyond that when he asserts what Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens would say in response to Stein's comments. Attributing future words to other people is simply wrong.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

It seems to me that I have heard this argument before presented more thoughtfully. It was not science, but absolute certainty that was the villian. Non-scientists often treat science as if it was capable of providing absolute certainty. Perhaps a few scientists do as well. But it is wrong to blame science itself for such nonsense. Religion is treated the same way by many. But in that case you can blame religion itself which encourages that treatment.

I'm surprised at the trouble people are having putting two and two together. Even with a clue.

 

[seycyrus]

It's amazing that people feel the need to create "pretend title" threads to thrown down their venom.

Who's up for the FOX/CNN challenge?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I never understood this point of view. Why should I respect someone else's opinion? Just because they have one? Need I remind you that some 40% of the USA believe God created all of Earth just the way we are in 6 days time? That's an opinion, and one I cannot bring myself to respect.

Giving a person respect goes a long way in helping get along with them and having them respect you and your opinion. Who knows... you might even be able to sway each other from wrong ideas.
I have yet to see many people give respect to or be sway by someone who down right insults and blows off their beliefs and opinions. On the other hand it usually makes these people mad and more firmly entrenches them in their belief. They also have a tendency to want to get revenge on the person who does such a thing to them.
Just something to think about the next time you feel like degrading the beliefs of 40+% of the people who are your countrymen(possibly even neighbors) and take part in making decisions that effect your life and future. ;-)

 

[Evo]

To me "respecting" someone's "rights" to voice an opinion, even if it is downright wrong, crazy or harmful, just means that I agree that by law they are allowed to say "downright wrong, crazy or harmful" things, but by no means do I "respect" the content of what they are saying.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there a point to that question?

I just like to point out the double standard by which people judge Fox, that's all. If Fox does it, it's because Fox is not a reputable news organization. If someone else does it, it's a surprise because they are a reputable news organization. But that's illogical - if doing it would make Fox disreputable, then doing it also makes this other station disreputable. 2+2=4.

Fox gets a bad rap primarily because their bias is opposite the rest of the media's bias, not necessarily because it is more of a bias.

 

[OAQfirst]

To me "respecting" someone's "rights" to voice an opinion, even if it is downright wrong, crazy or harmful, just means that I agree that by law they are allowed to say "downright wrong, crazy or harmful" things, but by no means do I "respect" the content of what they are saying.

I agree with this, and unfortunately I think I failed to express that in my last post.

 

[BobG]

I was jesting. I have heard him talk, yes. He also doesn't believe in GW or deforestation.

Regardless of differing views and ideas, I'm still capable of respecting another's opinion and getting along with him. He's a nice guy and quite fun to be around, I think. I wouldn't turn down any such offer.

Unless he spent the night going on about that nonsense. In which case I'd be looking for an exit.

To me "respecting" someone's "rights" to voice an opinion, even if it is downright wrong, crazy or harmful, just means that I agree that by law they are allowed to say "downright wrong, crazy or harmful" things, but by no means do I "respect" the content of what they are saying.

I would probably rephrase to say I respect a person's right to be wrong. But, normally, I apply that to people I actually know and they have a lot of redeeming qualities completely unrelated to that particular opinion. I probably wouldn't apply that to Ben Stein whom I've only seen on TV, but I can understand the sentiment.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Fox gets a bad rap primarily because their bias is opposite the rest of the media's bias, not necessarily because it is more of a bias.

Are there any media outlets which we should consider to be the least biased?

When I watch Fox I feel like anytime they want to express their biased opinion on an issue they bring out this sarcastic-"ha I can't believe those liberals would do this" tone, like they're better than everyone who doesn't agree with them. And I guess that is ONE method of getting people to believe what you want; make them feel that if they don't agree they're something negative.

When I watch the more leftist news networks it seems that they just ignore the fact that there's another opinion all together and just present their own as if it were fact. (Which I will agree it usually is, but not always.)
So the left chooses its voice wisely so that you don't hear anything else, while the right shows both sides, but condescends the wrong one.

Anyone else see this?

 

[G01]

I just like to point out the double standard by which people judge Fox, that's all. If Fox does it, it's because Fox is not a reputable news organization. If someone else does it, it's a surprise because they are a reputable news organization. But that's illogical - if doing it would make Fox disreputable, then doing it also makes this other station disreputable. 2+2=4.

Fox gets a bad rap primarily because their bias is opposite the rest of the media's bias, not necessarily because it is more of a bias.

I think we lost the last remnant of an unbiased media with the loss of Russert.

 

[WarPhalange]

Fox gets a bad rap primarily because their bias is opposite the rest of the media's bias, not necessarily because it is more of a bias.

Err... no, they get a bad rap because they make stuff up. Terrorist fist jab? Remember that one? That wasn't too long ago. Bill O'Reilly blatantly makes up statistics when it suits him and never corrects himself or apologizes. And then there's this gem:



An exploding van? A story about kids who hack computers for fun and they show an exploding van?

Oh, do you remember this gem too?


Democrat elected = all hell will break loose.


I mean, all news organizations are biased, sure, but come on. At least the others try to hide their bias a bit.

 

[Chi Meson]

Occasionally, I watch a Fox News Network program, and I am surprised when "balanced" reporting actually occurs (there is a difference between the cable channel "news" and the news programs on Fox TV). Many times I have watched the bully tactics of O'Reilly and Hannity, specifically, where they shout over the people with opposing viewpoints. Only a week ago I watched as Hannity edited an Obama quote to make it sound appropriate to suit his point. But his guest happened to know the full quote and managed to squeez it through Hannity's rantings "what do you mean edited? I'm looking at the transcript right here..."

Here's a tactic I have seen over and over on Fox News. Some guy with an opinion is brought on. In the initial banter, the anchor "pumps up" the cedulity of the guest with words like "Now I don't know much about this, but you're a leading expert in the field..." or "It's one thing when a pundit like me states an opinion, but you have actually been there and you know what you're talking about." Look for it, and you will see it all the time.

Again, this is the Fox News Network, much farther to the right than others are to the left. Fox TV news stations are much closer to center.

For the best quality, and most balanced news, I stick with the NPR news programs Morning Edition and All Things Considered. A majority of the "Opinion Pieces" from their "News analysts" (Ted Koppel, Daniel Schorr) are a bit to the left, but nothing even close to the Fox News pundits.
Read a few:http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1057

 

[binzing]

Wait, is O'Reilly a creationist scum as well?