Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[russ_watters]

You didn't even look at those photos, did you.

Yes, I've seen them. What's your point?

You say they don't attack while refusing to see my proof of their attacks. My big listed that covered a single week of what they did. This conversation ended then.

No, I didn't say they didn't "attack", I said you misunderstood my usage of the word "attack" and launched into an irrelevant discussion from there. Again: I know Fox is biased. You don't need to prove it to me.

 

[WhoWee]

History means nothing to the right, or they would have denounced Beck's MLK rally that went against what MLK believed in. Remember that?

No? Please support this assertion with specific information.

 

[mege]

History means nothing to the right, or they would have denounced Beck's MLK rally that went against what MLK believed in. Remember that?

What? The 8-28 rally was very non-political.

Since we're establishing straw men arguements: let me dig up the photos post-828 rally and post-Obama inauguration and we can see who left the better mark. Would Dr. King have been happier about a crowd trashing the mall or happier about a crowd leaving it spotless?

Oh, and Mege, you said the left was more defensive. Well the right is working pretty hard to defend Palin right about now.

I never said the left was more defensive, I said that MSNBC used words like 'defend' and 'protect' to describe the Democrats (as opposed to the aggressive, infighting republicans). Being a 'defender' is generally non-pejorative when compared to an agitator/agressor.

And defend Palin about what? Who's spending time defending Sarah Palin?

 

[ParticleGrl]

What? The 8-28 rally was very non-political.

I'm not sure that's true- much of the rally focused on America losing its honor and turning away from its values and from god, etc. The unspoken implication is that America lost its way when the country elected Obama...

Since we're establishing straw men arguements: let me dig up the photos post-828 rally and post-Obama inauguration and we can see who left the better mark.

Since you set it up, I'll knock it down. Of course 2 million+ people make more of a mess than 100,000.

 

[hillzagold]

Yes, I've seen them. What's your point?

And...what effect did you think the photoshops of Palin had?

No, I didn't say they didn't "attack", I said you misunderstood my usage of the word "attack" and launched into an irrelevant discussion from there. Again: I know Fox is biased. You don't need to prove it to me.

At what point does bias become so overt that it's attack? Maybe with false claims and misquotes?

No? Please support this assertion with specific information.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008250035
This sets up Beck's position with direct and clear quotes, then compares them with people who actually took part in the marches. So if you're already familiar with Beck, you could skip to the middle.

Would Dr. King have been happier about a crowd trashing the mall or happier about a crowd leaving it spotless?

The title of the 1963 demonstration, "The Great March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom," reflected his belief that the right to sit at a lunch counter would be hollow if African Americans could not afford the meal. The need for jobs and shared economic prosperity remains as urgent and compelling as it was 47 years ago. My father's vision would include putting millions of unemployed Americans to work, rebuilding our tattered infrastructure and reforms to reduce pollution and better care for the environment.

I guess you're right. Makes you wonder why MLK had his own marches though. I wish history could explain it.

And defend Palin about what? Who's spending time defending Sarah Palin?

Her Paul Revere incident, and supporting her in general.

 

[mege]

I'm not sure that's true- much of the rally focused on America losing its honor and turning away from its values and from god, etc. The unspoken implication is that America lost its way when the country elected Obama...

Maybe "crossed political lines" is a better term? Even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/28/post_497_n_698048.html" of the rally. It was asked specifically that folks do not bring political signs of any nature, and nearly everyone folks obliged. Do you view religion as a primarilly political activity?* (I'm trying to be direct, not accusitory)

Since you set it up, I'll knock it down. Of course 2 million+ people make more of a mess than 100,000.

2 million people are more incapable of picking up after themselves than 100,000 people? The density in the first mile of the mall area, I'd think, is still very similar. Even if the person-density for the inauguration is 2-3x what it was for Beck's rally in the mall area - how does that account for the stark difference? Or we can compare to the http://www.theblaze.com/stories/one-nation-crowd-didnt-exactly-leave-the-mall-or-world-war-ii-memorial-spotless/" that was held at the Washington monument the same day as Beck's rally? (Yes I know the link is from Beck's The Blaze, please find pictures to the contrary if there are so?)

To bring it back to the original subject: both of these instances (the perspective of Beck's rally and the aftermath) are good examples of an anti-conservative bias by many news agencies. While I grew up going to church, I am far from religious in any sense of the word now - but I dispise the anti-religious slant that I see in the media. The portrayal of this rally as a 'crazy-fest' by some news outlets just extends on that anti-religious sentiment.

*I've pondered this before, but is the anti-right bias in the media fueled by a fear/dislike/distrust/hate/whatever of religion and it's turned into an all out distrust/dislike/etc of anything associated with the religious (and thus the target becomes the neo-con movement, still associated with the Republican party)?

 

[mege]

Her Paul Revere incident, and supporting her in general.

Oh, the the Paul Revere incident that: in their attempt to smear anything Sarah Palin http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/" ...)

 

[hillzagold]

Notice that of the three experts the Boston Herald cites, two of them seem reluctant to give her any credit? They make it sound like she guessed and was barely right on a small technicality. Reading the question she was asked, and hearing her nonsensical rambling, and then reading her adamant defense of herself, that's exactly what we all know happened. Neither Obama nor Bush would ever defend the wrong date they wrote down.

And this anti-religious slant you're seeing is centered around evangelical Christians. Maybe the world is just tired of their scams.

 

[WhoWee]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008250035
This sets up Beck's position with direct and clear quotes, then compares them with people who actually took part in the marches. So if you're already familiar with Beck, you could skip to the middle.

Do you have a non-biased source?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1010/Soros_gives_1_million_to_Media_Matters.html

 

[hillzagold]

Do I need one? Have they even slightly lied yet?

 

[mege]

Do I need one? Have they even slightly lied yet?

Rush Limbaugh - 'Phony soldiers' comes to mind for starters. This situation, not directly MMFA related, was even worse because the congressional democrats sent Rush a letter attempting to silence him. 1st ammendment only counts when it's your POV I guess, I wonder where many of the http://thefire.org/spotlight/scotm/" .

And this anti-religious slant you're seeing is centered around evangelical Christians. Maybe the world is just tired of their scams.

You speak for the world? Christians are people too, lest we forget that. This is a broad divisive statement that is fundamentally what feeds this type of bias. A belief system is not good or bad for society in a binary matter like you're trying to claim. Unfortunately, this type of claim ('the world is just tired of their scams') is attempting to put down an entire group of people with a large stroke and it creates the (percieved) unique split of beliefs between the political parties.

 

[WhoWee]

You speak for the world? Christians are people too, lest we forget that. This is a broad divisive statement that is fundamentally what feeds this type of bias. A belief system is not good or bad for society in a binary matter like you're trying to claim. Unfortunately, this type of claim ('the world is just tired of their scams') is attempting to put down an entire group of people with a large stroke and it creates the (percieved) unique split of beliefs between the political parties.

No - it's ok - really! If the political Left wants to clearly identify themselves as "anti-religion" (except for the occasional defense of Muslim moments) - let them.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Oh, the the Paul Revere incident that: in their attempt to smear anything Sarah Palin http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/" ...)

If you are seriously considering a giant gaff like the Revere Ride thing from Palin (that she never corrected, and DEFENDED) basically the same level as a wrong date on a signature?

Hell, I put the wrong date in all the time, however, if I'm so confused/tired/whatever as to not remember basic history things, I say so instead of trying to make some stupid thing up and then later go on to defend myself and what I said.

 

[hillzagold]

You speak for the world? Christians are people too, lest we forget that. This is a broad divisive statement that is fundamentally what feeds this type of bias. A belief system is not good or bad for society in a binary matter like you're trying to claim. Unfortunately, this type of claim ('the world is just tired of their scams') is attempting to put down an entire group of people with a large stroke and it creates the (percieved) unique split of beliefs between the political parties.

No - it's ok - really! If the political Left wants to clearly identify themselves as "anti-religion" (except for the occasional defense of Muslim moments) - let them.

I'm a Catholic. And I will put down this group when their leadership pulls scams all the time. I've seen my share of Evangelical Christians do their healing con on TV, and then ask for "donations" from giant crowds of old white people. If the Left was so "anti-religion" they wouldn't be trying to help the poor, which is some 75% of Jesus' message in the bible. Not that I think many conservatives care what the bible says unless they're opening it to pull out the one or two lines that backs up their agenda.

Rush Limbaugh - 'Phony soldiers' comes to mind for starters. This situation, not directly MMFA related, was even worse because the congressional democrats sent Rush a letter attempting to silence him. 1st ammendment only counts when it's your POV I guess, I wonder where many of the journalists are getting it from.

Please tell me more, because that doesn't quite sound the the story I heard.




http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/18/90669/state-of-the-health-care-debate.html
This the the most despicable thing I've ever read about Limbaugh and Beck, and I bet it doesn't even scratch the surface.

 

[mege]

If you are seriously considering a giant gaff like the Revere Ride thing from Palin (that she never corrected, and DEFENDED) basically the same level as a wrong date on a signature?

Hell, I put the wrong date in all the time, however, if I'm so confused/tired/whatever as to not remember basic history things, I say so instead of trying to make some stupid thing up and then later go on to defend myself and what I said.

This is the double-standard though. You're willing to turn a blind eye towards President Obama for his 'innocent mistake' but then still attack Sarah Palin for her mistake that I'd wager 50% of Americans would still have gotten wrong (even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?). Maybe a bunch of 8th or 11th graders straight out of american history would know the answer, but adults with little interest in revolutionary war history would probably stumble on an answer (I'd remind you that most reading this forum are probably much more knowledgeable than the general populace). If you're going to try and put weight to their mistakes - how are you basing that on? A Trivial Persuit question vs knowing the date?

I'm a Catholic, you morons.

OK, I'm done replying to hillzagold. Name calling = bad.

 

[hillzagold]

How convenient that you're not replying to me anymore. I've only torn through your arguments until you stop replying anyways.

 

[Al68]

If the Left was so "anti-religion" they wouldn't be trying to help the poor, which is some 75% of Jesus' message in the bible.

That's utter nonsense. For one thing, you don't have to be religious in order to help the poor.

But more to the point, Jesus never advocated the use of force to take the property of others to help the poor. He, in fact, advocated the opposite, ie voluntary charity to help the poor.

But being a Catholic, you must know this already.

 

[hillzagold]

Being a Catholic, I know there was no such thing as voting 2000 years ago. But if you didn't know, the days of Caesar are over.

 

[Al68]

Being a Catholic, I know there was no such thing as voting 2000 years ago. But if you didn't know, the days of Caesar are over.

Yes, I'm aware. That doesn't change the reality of the facts I pointed out. Just saying irrelevant things isn't very productive.

 

[hillzagold]

You're talking about the Left's method's of attaining equity, aren't you?

 

[Al68]

You're talking about the Left's method's of attaining equity, aren't you?

I was referring to the left's method to "help the poor", which contrary to your implication, was never advocated or suggested by Jesus, and is prohibited multiple times in the bible including in the eighth commandment.

Jesus advocated voluntary charity, you know, the kind right-wingers like me advocate and engage in instead of theft.

 

[Ryumast3r]

This is the double-standard though. You're willing to turn a blind eye towards President Obama for his 'innocent mistake' but then still attack Sarah Palin for her mistake that I'd wager 50% of Americans would still have gotten wrong (even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?).

It's not a double standard. There's mistakes, and then there's "Oh hi, I totally know nothing about the subject, but I'm going to ramble on about it as if I do know and then later defend myself after it's proven I'm wrong."

Anyone can mistakenly give a wrong number in the heat of the moment. There are several key differences:

The current date is always changing, history isn't.
If someone called Obama out on his little date mistake, I'm sure he would've owned up to it (or said something along the lines of "is it really that big of a deal?" which it isn't)
Then there's also that it's when people like her, who are "famous" make mistakes like this, little kids learn from that and only adds to the misinformation out there, whether or not she intended it.

"(even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?)."

Dates aren't a big issue though, especially on a signature for a guest card, we're not even talking about a date that's important, like when you sign a big agreement for a business or something... we're talking about a "hi, I was here, just thought I'd let you know" signature that amounts to nothing more than a little bit of courtesy.

Maybe a bunch of 8th or 11th graders straight out of american history would know the answer, but adults with little interest in revolutionary war history would probably stumble on an answer (I'd remind you that most reading this forum are probably much more knowledgeable than the general populace).

I know a lot of stupid people who aren't history buffs, or even interested in history, who still know that sarah palin's version was pretty much wrong. "The British are coming" is a pretty well-known phrase.

If you're going to try and put weight to their mistakes - how are you basing that on? A Trivial Persuit question vs knowing the date?

She referred to the constitution as well in her answer, something that is on her mind a lot (at least, from her campaigns, you'd think it would be). That would be more important than a date imo, especially a date that, again, was on a guest-list paper... not an important document.

 

[mege]

It's not a double standard. There's mistakes, and then there's "Oh hi, I totally know nothing about the subject, but I'm going to ramble on about it as if I do know and then later defend myself after it's proven I'm wrong."

Anyone can mistakenly give a wrong number in the heat of the moment. There are several key differences:

The current date is always changing, history isn't.
If someone called Obama out on his little date mistake, I'm sure he would've owned up to it (or said something along the lines of "is it really that big of a deal?" which it isn't)
Then there's also that it's when people like her, who are "famous" make mistakes like this, little kids learn from that and only adds to the misinformation out there, whether or not she intended it.

"(even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?)."

Dates aren't a big issue though, especially on a signature for a guest card, we're not even talking about a date that's important, like when you sign a big agreement for a business or something... we're talking about a "hi, I was here, just thought I'd let you know" signature that amounts to nothing more than a little bit of courtesy.



I know a lot of stupid people who aren't history buffs, or even interested in history, who still know that sarah palin's version was pretty much wrong. "The British are coming" is a pretty well-known phrase.



She referred to the constitution as well in her answer, something that is on her mind a lot (at least, from her campaigns, you'd think it would be). That would be more important than a date imo, especially a date that, again, was on a guest-list paper... not an important document.

How do kids learn the wrong history from this incident (since that is your main indictment in dealing with the severity of Palin being wrong)? Since the media coverage has mostly been portrayed as it actually being a mistake - wouldn't kids be more apt to learn the media's version of history? If she made some formalized video about this and got it wrong and it was already being played to children then sure, critique away. But how is headlines 'PALIN IS DUMB - PAUL REVERE DIDN'T WARN BRITISH' going to give schoolchildren the wrong view of history? If anything it's going to cause conversation that will reinforce potentially positive aspects of evaluating history. Palin's gaffe can only be a good thing for education as it will allow a conversation about history being more than just a single quote or soundbite (weither she is wrong or right, I doubt her actual words are being used to teach kids).

What I would be more worried about is how quickly the media was willing to jump on her without totally getting the facts right. That is how misinformation spreads - the media being too willing to lampoon an individual without totally vetting their own information. Journalists are people too, and make mistakes - but also in their humanity many have a knack for jealousy and prejudice which muddys the water by causing them to take certain 'facts' or lies for granted to prove their point.

 

[hillzagold]

I was referring to the left's method to "help the poor", which contrary to your implication, was never advocated or suggested by Jesus, and is prohibited multiple times in the bible including in the eighth commandment.

Jesus advocated voluntary charity, you know, the kind right-wingers like me advocate and engage in instead of theft.

That's because the Lefts method didn't exist at the time. Did you know the US Constitution has no provision for an Air Force? Times change, and the world changes. Do you believe Jesus would have wanted people to remain in poverty, because the upper and middle class right felt robber? I doubt it.

Also, Palin is as right as Global Warming is wrong. You'll notice you can count all the historians backing up Palin with your fingers, and even they only say she's technically right on a small number of her points.




Mege, this fixation of Obama writing the wrong date has simply become weird by now. You can tell me it isn't, but you'd need a new argument that isn't as weird.

 

[Ryumast3r]

How do kids learn the wrong history from this incident (since that is your main indictment in dealing with the severity of Palin being wrong)? Since the media coverage has mostly been portrayed as it actually being a mistake - wouldn't kids be more apt to learn the media's version of history? If she made some formalized video about this and got it wrong and it was already being played to children then sure, critique away. But how is headlines 'PALIN IS DUMB - PAUL REVERE DIDN'T WARN BRITISH' going to give schoolchildren the wrong view of history? If anything it's going to cause conversation that will reinforce potentially positive aspects of evaluating history. Palin's gaffe can only be a good thing for education as it will allow a conversation about history being more than just a single quote or soundbite (weither she is wrong or right, I doubt her actual words are being used to teach kids).

What I would be more worried about is how quickly the media was willing to jump on her without totally getting the facts right. That is how misinformation spreads - the media being too willing to lampoon an individual without totally vetting their own information. Journalists are people too, and make mistakes - but also in their humanity many have a knack for jealousy and prejudice which muddys the water by causing them to take certain 'facts' or lies for granted to prove their point.

My main point here is that her gaff is not on the same level as Obama's mistaken date gaff. I have seen nothing here to say anything to the contrary.

 

[Evo]

Actually, Palin wasn't close at all.

The colonists at the time of Revere's ride were British subjects, with American independence still in the future. But Revere's own writing and other historical accounts leave little doubt that secrecy was vital to his mission.

The Paul Revere House's website says that on April 18, 1775, Dr. Joseph Warren, a patriot leader in the Boston area, instructed Revere to ride to Lexington, Mass., to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them.

In an undated letter posted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, Revere later wrote of the need to keep his activities secret and his suspicion that a member of his tight circle of planners had become a British informant. According to the letter, believed to have been written around 1798, Revere did provide some details of the plan to the soldiers that night, but after he had notified other colonists and under questioning by the Redcoats.

Intercepted and surrounded by British soldiers on his way from Lexington to Concord, Revere revealed "there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the country all the way up," he wrote.

Revere was probably bluffing the soldiers about the size of any advancing militia, since he had no way of knowing, according to Joel J. Miller, author of "The Revolutionary Paul Revere." And while he made bells, Revere would never have rung any on that famous night because the Redcoats were under orders to round up people just like him.

"He was riding off as quickly and as quietly as possible," Miller said. "Paul Revere did not want the Redcoats to know of his mission at all."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110605/ap_on_el_ge/us_palin

Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic.