Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[Art]

Those exist within the free market, not imposed from outside.

Actually they are imposed under regulation by the FDA.

They do. O'Reilly repeatedly mentions he does news analysis or commentary, not straight reporting.

So when he repeatedly says "this is the no spin zone" what does he mean by that? I was under the impression he was saying his program was 'fair and impartial'

 

[ron damon]

Yes I can see why a station which actually presents both points of view might be considered left wing to some posters here as it is a wholly new concept to them

Not to start a new polemic here, but the reporting they did during the latest Palestinian intifada against Israeli civilians could very well make the textbook example of bias (if not of outright anti-semitism).

 

[Art]

Not to start a new polemic here, but the reporting they did during the latest Palestinian intifada against Israeli civilians could very well make the textbook example of bias (if not of outright anti-semitism).

Please provide a link to back up this ridiculous statement.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I never said I had an issue with anyone making a joke this is what I actually said

and this is a personal jab

Sorry I thought you cared about there being "useful dialog" on this matter more so than the manner in which people detracted from it.

And as for the "personal jab" I admit I was being sarcastic but as I have already pointed out I was using your reaction to illustrate a point.
I'll ask again if you'd like to pursue some "useful dialog" on that point.

 

[ron damon]

Please provide a link to back up this ridiculous statement.

ok: should I download my memories via USB or FireWire?

And that brings us full circle.

 

[Art]

ok: should I download my memories via USB or FireWire?

And that brings us full circle.

Better yet the BBC has an excellent online website with search facilities so it should be no problem for you to provide links to articles you believe to be anti-semitic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm

 

[BobG]

Since I don't believe it is possible for there to be completely unbiased news, the best I think we can hope for is balance of biases, and for that reason, Fox's existence is a good thing.

I pretty much agree with Moonbear and Russ's comments (plus a couple others, I think) about a mix of different points of view being available.

As to rating the news, there is an entirely different range of news and news commentary totally unrelated to bias or factualness. Can Laura Ingram, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or some of the other AM radio voices really even be included in the category of news analysis? Rush, Laura, and *Hannity belong in the mindless drivel category, not the same category as Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, or Lou Dobbs. And none of the second group belong in the same category as Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, or Tom Brokaw, while Ann Coulter, Jon Daly, and Geraldo Rivera belong in the News Comedy category (Rivera lands there unintentionally, which is worse yet ... or is it worse that poor Laura can't even qualify as comedy, even though I think that might be her intention).

The USA Today used to analyze the performances of sports broadcasters, for crying out loud. Surely there's nothing wrong with news reporters and analysts being rated.

*I haven't watched enough Hannity and Colmes to really have a set opinion of their TV show, but Hannity seems to straighten up his act a little for TV. The guy's an idiot on his radio show.

 

[Art]

I'll ask again if you'd like to pursue some "useful dialog" on that point.

TSA I genuinely get irritated by the fact that every thread practically without exception ends up getting hijacked down the democrat - GOP side road. There are already plenty of threads devoted specifically to that subject.

And yes as I have said I do think the subject of media bias and control is something worth discussing. This should not be a party political issue especially as twice congress with a republican majority has voted to regulate the press only for Reagan and then Bush to veto the bill

In the UK for example in relation to politics newspapers publically state their support for one party or the other prior to a general election and their overall reporting is overseen by another independent body, the Press Complaints Commission'

 

[SOS2008]

In fact the top guy there Greg Dyke was forced to resign after it was found a controversial report relating to Iraq which they broadcast did not meet the standards set out by the independant monitoring board with regard to having two substantive sources to back it up.

I would like to learn more about the independent monitoring board, and requirements such as having two substantive sources.

The media in a democracy is supposed to play a watch dog role. How can this be the case if the news is driven by ratings in the same manner as entertainment, or conversely pressured by the White House? And why should cable be exempt from regulations when it is just like network in every way except for having a greater number of channels?

In the meantime, thank goodness bloggers are giving mainstream news a bit of competition, and that there are organizations out there such as Media Matters:

Media Matters for America has identified and corrected hundreds of O'Reilly's falsehoods, made both on his radio show and on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor -- the vast majority of which he has yet to retract. Rather than correct his own falsehoods, O'Reilly lashes out at those who expose them or simply denies that he erred.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280004

(And if all else fails, thank goodness for products such as Foxblockers - http://mambo.foxblocker.com/ )

 

[ron damon]

Better yet the BBC has an excellent online website with search facilities so it should be no problem for you to provide links to articles you believe to be anti-semitic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm

BBC WORLD TV is what I was talking about. But if you so insist: I remember seeing extremely sympathetic reports of militant's burials, with crying women and children, highlightings of the suffering of the whole band of terrorists waiving their rifles and RPGs, in 10 minute-long footage of the funeral procession with an Arab or Leftist commentator giving a thousand reasons for why suicide bombers are not that reprehensible.

After such platitudes they'd very coldly inform that a bus full of Jewish children was blown up, give the number of dead, and then quickly move on to sports and weather, or more poor grieving Palestinians.

It's like the then Israel Justice minister commented in an interview: "for some people, what is done to us never is that wrong".

But those are my impressions; I could be wrong

 

[Art]

BBC WORLD TV is what I was talking about. But if you so insist: I remember seeing extremely sympathetic reports of militant's burials, with crying women and children, highlightings of the suffering of the whole band of terrorists waiving their rifles and RPGs, in 10 minute-long footage of the funeral procession with an Arab or Leftist commentator giving a thousand reasons for why suicide bombers are not that reprehensible.

After such platitudes they'd very coldly inform that a bus full of Jewish children was blown up, give the number of dead, and then quickly move on to sports and weather, or more poor grieving Palestinians.

It's like the then Israel Justice minister commented in an interview: "for some people, what is done to us never is that wrong".

But those are my impressions; I could be wrong

From which I take it you couldn't find a single link throughout their extensive archives to justify your statement. That's ok.

 

[Manchot]

I'm surprised that no one defending Fox has addressed my point about the newscasters-who-cried-WMDs on Fox.

Having said that, I do not believe that Fox should be taken off of the air (because it would in fact be a violation of the First Amendment). Nonetheless, I do not think that they should be able to use the slogan "Fair and Balanced." It is akin to false advertising, as they are not fair and balanced by any standard.

 

[SOS2008]

Better yet the BBC has an excellent online website with search facilities so it should be no problem for you to provide links to articles you believe to be anti-semitic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm

Speaking of which, I often post transcripts from MSNBC, CNN, or PBS. The last time I tried to obtain such information from the FOX News site, I could not even see an internal search engine. I haven't gone back since, but it smacks of having something to hide.

 

[Townsend]

Nonetheless, I do not think that they should be able to use the slogan "Fair and Balanced." It is akin to false advertising, as they are not fair and balanced by any standard.

If I start a company Y and I want my company slogan to be X then I have every right to do so regardless of whether or not it reflects company Y's image accurately.

Why is it that everyone is complaining about Fox using a slogan like "Fair and Balanced," and yet never once complained about the BS liberal false advertising?

Tell me, was Fahrenheit 911 a documentary or a liberal nut job trying to sell it like he was giving an unbiased look at the US government...

I just don't get it...you want to ban Fox from using a slogan but you will let someone call muck racking a documentary and praise them for it.

I get the feeling you people are either the pot or the kettle...

 

[Burnsys]

http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/

 

[Manchot]

If I start a company Y and I want my company slogan to be X then I have every right to do so regardless of whether or not it reflects company Y's image accurately.

Under the law, you cannot have whatever slogan you feel like. If Coca-Cola wanted their product's slogan to be "Coca-Cola: Healthy drink for you and me," they would not be allowed to.

Why is it that everyone is complaining about Fox using a slogan like "Fair and Balanced," and yet never once complained about the BS liberal false advertising?

I'm not saying that they are liberal (though they are in your mind, which is all that matters), but the difference there is that NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, et al. do not have slogans which attempt to encapsulate their product in three words.

Tell me, was Fahrenheit 911 a documentary or a liberal nut job trying to sell it like he was giving an unbiased look at the US government...

I just don't get it...you want to ban Fox from using a slogan but you will let someone call muck racking a documentary and praise them for it.

I get the feeling you people are either the pot or the kettle...

We're not talking about Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 911. We're talking about Fox News.

 

[ron damon]

http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/

thanks buddy

 

[ron damon]

We're not talking about Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 911. We're talking about Fox News.

Scrutinizing for bias only the sources you dislike is the very definition of bias.

 

[Townsend]

Under the law, you cannot have whatever slogan you feel like. If Coca-Cola wanted their product's slogan to be "Coca-Cola: Healthy drink for you and me," they would not be allowed to.

Really? What law says that?

I'm not saying that they are liberal (though they are in your mind, which is all that matters), but the difference there is that NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, et al. do not have slogans which attempt to encapsulate their product in three words.

I don't watch TV so I wouldn't know about those other stations. I don't know what stations are liberal and which ones are not...all I know is that apparently Fox news is right leaning and that some people watch it for that reason...

To keep this from getting personal let's try to stick to what we do know from now on. For instance please don't assume what I think since you are wrong about it...

We're not talking about Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 911. We're talking about Fox News.

Oh...I see, so now its "Let's not look at anything bad the liberal media does cause we like that stuff. So if you bring it up we are going to say we're only talking about fox news so as to avoid taking a nonpartisan look at the media..."

That's just great...really good argument style you have going for you...

 

[Townsend]

Scrutinizing for bias only the sources you dislike is the very definition of bias.

I really am having a hard time believing he even said that...

 

[SOS2008]

We're not talking about Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 911. We're talking about Fox News.

Yes, there is a difference between a documentary/movie at the theatres (or on video for rent) and news that is promoted as news (a factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed).

 

[ron damon]

Yes, there is a difference between a documentary/movie at the theatres (or on video for rent) and news that is promoted as news (a factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed).

So Fahrenheit 911 doesn't pretend to be a "factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed"? Glad to see you admit that.

 

[Townsend]

Yes, there is a difference between a documentary/movie at the theatres (or on video for rent) and news that is promoted as news (a factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed).

So you're ok with everything as long as it say's it's a documentary instead of news? So if Fox news changed their slogan to "Fair and Balanced: Up to date documentaries everyday."

And then tried to paint Hilary Clinton as a blood thirsty animal intent on turning America in then next communist country, it would be ok?

What a load...

Seriously now...if there is a difference that happens to make one pile of BS ok and the another pile of BS not ok, I'd like to hear it. Prove it SOS.

...I want to see how slippery things can get in here...maybe we can get SOS2008 entered into a wet t-shirt contest or something...

 

[SOS2008]

So Fahrenheit 911 doesn't pretend to be a "factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed"? Glad to see you admit that.

I choose not to pay to see propaganda, and that goes for The Passion of the Christ too. But when I tune into watch what is promoted as the news, I expect to obtain factual information.

So you're ok with everything as long as it say's it's a documentary instead of news?

As stated above, it also is a matter of choosing to go out of your home and paying to see something in an entertainment venue, versus information that is blasted into every American's home under the auspices of being truthful.

So if Fox news changed their slogan to "Fair and Balanced: Up to date documentaries everyday."

And then tried to paint Hilary Clinton as a blood thirsty animal intent on turning America in then next communist country, it would be ok?:

If it isn't fair and balanced it is still false advertising, and obviously so if reports are not the truth.

 

[Townsend]

As stated above, it also is a matter of choosing to go out of your home and paying to see something in an entertainment venue, versus information that is blasted into every American's home under the auspices of being truthful.

Fox news is not blasted into every American's home...I only get SD public broadcast stations...however if I did choose to pay for television or pay for a DVD rental or HBO or whatever else, and I didn't like what I saw I would change the channel or turn it off...simple as that. And from what I saw of things, F911 was 'blasted' into every American's home under the auspices of being truthful...how many hours of air time were spent on advertising for F911? More than enough I would say...

 

[ron damon]

Hilary Clinton as a blood thirsty animal

that I'd pay to see

 

[SOS2008]

Fox news is not blasted into every American's home...I only get SD public broadcast stations...however if I did choose to pay for television or pay for a DVD rental or HBO or whatever else, and I didn't like what I saw I would change the channel or turn it off...simple as that. And from what I saw of things, F911 was 'blasted' into every American's home under the auspices of being truthful...how many hours of air time were spent on advertising for F911? More than enough I would say...

The differences between entertainment in the movie theatres or video stores versus news broadcasts via public airwaves is similar to the the do-not-call provisions of the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule in the interest of consumers and having some power over the inflow to their homes (and versus passive advertisement) with "public" being a key word. Telling people to change the channel or turn the TV set off does not suffice.

As for F911, I don't recall a barrage of advertisement any more than other films such as The Passion of Christ, which remains very different from broadcast of the entire film.

 

[Townsend]

The differences between entertainment in the movie theatres or video stores versus news broadcasts via public airwaves

F911 was not suppose to be entertainment but was suppose to be an educational documentary about the US government. You know, like those National Geographic shows about lions and stuff...

And are you now contending that F911 has never been publicly broadcast?

is similar to the the do-not-call provisions of the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule in the interest of consumers and having some power over the inflow to their homes (and versus passive advertisement) with "public" being a key word. Telling people to change the channel or turn the TV set off does not suffice.

So now you're telling Americans what they do and do not want in their homes? Americans DON'T want telemarketers to call their homes and so they have options. American DO want Fox news but you want to take away their options?

I don't see how you can take yourself seriously but one thing is clear...you're all wet!

As for F911, I don't recall a barrage of advertisement any more than other films such as The Passion of Christ, which remains very different from broadcast of the entire film.

Other films are movies that are there for entertainment or educational purposes not to lie to the general public!

 

[Manchot]

Really? What law says that?

The FTC Act and the Lanham Act. In fact, the former states that if you don't have a good faith belief in a fact that you are advertising, you are committing false advertising (i.e., fraud), regardless of that fact's truthfulness. Therefore, if Rupert Murdoch does not truly believe that his network is "Fair and Balanced," he is committing fraud under the law. Obviously, this is impossible to prove in court, but ask yourself this: do you think that Rupert Murdoch believes his network to be fair and balanced?

Oh...I see, so now its "Let's not look at anything bad the liberal media does cause we like that stuff. So if you bring it up we are going to say we're only talking about fox news so as to avoid taking a nonpartisan look at the media..."

That's just great...really good argument style you have going for you...

Scrutinizing for bias only the sources you dislike is the very definition of bias.

First of all, I'm not liberal, as you assumed in your initial post. (I'm moderate.) In fact, I agree with you: Fahrenheit 9/11 shouldn't have been billed in the way that it was. I'm just tired of people diverting blame by pretending that two wrongs make a right. The essence of your argument was that we should be complaining about the MSM and Fahrenheit 9/11 instead of Fox News, as if they somehow cancel each other out. The main difference is that F9/11 was a movie released over a year ago with little actual advertising, and the rest of the MSM does not overtly bill themselves as "fair and balanced."

 

[SOS2008]

So now you're telling Americans what they do and do not want in their homes? Americans DON'T want telemarketers to call their homes and so they have options. American DO want Fox news but you want to take away their options?

I never said to take away FOX News. I'm saying that since it is broadcast into American homes it is not passive so should meet certain promotional and content standards. People want control of what comes into their homes, and why there are regulations on violence, sex, etc. in TV programming. It has to do with public protections, such as false advertising being illegal.

 

[Smurf]

exactly?

...yes, exactly. At the least present your ideas in a complete, coherent form.

 

[Smurf]

What exactly is the argument for News Broadcasting falling under the first amendment anyways?

 

[Townsend]

I never said to take away FOX News. I'm saying that since it is broadcast into American homes it is not passive so should meet certain promotional and content standards. People want control of what comes into their homes, and why there are regulations on violence, sex, etc. in TV programming. It has to do with public protections, such as false advertising being illegal.

So you just want to regulate what they are saying? So you would need the American news regulation organization then? How would such an organization be funded? I expect government funding would be nice...I see problems with that, major problems.

 

[loseyourname]

What exactly is the argument for News Broadcasting falling under the first amendment anyways?

Freedom of the press. All they had at the time the Bill of Rights was written were newspapers, but it has been consistently determined that the spirit of the amendment guarantees freedom from government intervention for all news media.

 

[Smurf]

Freedom of the press. All they had at the time the Bill of Rights was written were newspapers, but it has been consistently determined that the spirit of the amendment guarantees freedom from government intervention for all news media.

Oh that thing. Well I guess you could interpret that as being able to say whatever they want, whenever they want... I mean, you don't let individuals have do that but I can see that's not the same as letting a giant corporation which proclaims everything they say as being true and "fair and balanced". We have to protect the companies too you know!

Well, corporations are legally people too

What? What do you mean corporations are legally considered people? That doesn't matter! You have to be an incorporated person to have true freedom of speech. If you're not incorporated you only get the limited civil rights version.

What is a GOP anyways? I don't even know what it stands for.