I thought FOX *was* satire...Follow

I feel like I'm drowning.

several points.

Never, not once mentioned Print newspapers.

I'm horrified at Fox being shown in NZ because IMO, it is absolutely inferior journalism. I've already said why.



Is there? Paid mercenanaries, or paid foot-soldiers. can't see the difference. Still gets people killed, who should be allowed to live.

al Qeada wern't in Iraq before 2oo3. Paid US mercs. wern't in Iraq either.


Your whole post is a bit patronising to be honest.

You might want to have a bit of a think as to why you are in the minority as to your opinions on Fox. As a flashy tv show I can see why people with a lack of curiosity might find it appealing but I'll say it again as Journalism, IT SUX. Big Time.


I must admit that I thought you were a bit smarter than that....

well, you live and learn!

If they didn't believe the propaganda then how come the people of Poland didn't consider themselves oppressed by the Soviet Union?

Edited, Feb 24th 2007 8:21am by Jophiel

Do you just sniff glue to make these things up, or does it take some sort of illicit drug cocktail?

Well, no. It was originally about whether Fox news should air a commedy show, with lots of jokes about comparing a comedy network to Fox news (among others).

I agree that it *should* be about quality of journalism though, so good enough.



But yet you can't seem to give a single clear example of some structural difference between Fox news and other news networks which makes it that way. See. That's where I doubt your objectivity. Your statement is like a Christian Fundamentalist saying: "I know that homosexuality is wrong!!!". He can't say why. He cant provide any rational argument. But he knows it's true.

Actually. There's a difference. The Christian knows that he's just parroting ideas from some external source (the bible, his priest, whatever). You (and most liberals) aren't aware that you're just parroting ideas as well. You actually believe that you've arrived at your position on every issue based on some logical assessment and analysis. Yet, when asked how you arrived at your conclusions, you seem utterly unable to explain the process. And, even more bizaarely, even when this is pointed out instead of realizing this, or attempting to try to go through the steps of analysis, you get defensive and start just repeating yourself over and over...

Madness! ;)




Ok. But how do you know that the "concise and factual" reporting is unbiased? Concise means that it's "direct and to the point", right? So no long drawn out stories. Just conclusions. And "factual" means you want them to tell you what happened. Which is great if we're talking about a car crash. But most issues (politics especially) doesn't work that way. Most people don't know how to interpret events themselves. How those stories are presented will completely change how people view the events and the people involved in them.

You're not asking for news that presents different viewpoints. You want your news to draw conclusions and just give them to you. But that means that you're just going to adopt whatever viewpoint those reporting the news have. Thus, the process is rife with bias. Overwhelmingly Liberal bias at that.

You wont notice because you think it's "normal". In fact, you've been so conditioned to view that sort of news process as normal that you demand it when presented with any alternative, yet still can't seem to define *why* that method is better then the one used by Fox news.



Er? Which Fox news do you watch? First off, all network news shows use banners and moving images and soundbites. The difference is that Fox news only uses those for the "news break" bits during commercials. The actual shows are totally different. Are you *sure* you've watched Fox news? I'm not talking about the nightly news on the normal Fox channel (where they have their normal TV shows). I'm talking (and everyone else was as well), about the actual Fox News Network.


They're the least "flashy" of the dedicated news networks IMO, and a hell of a lot less then any of the broadcast network news shows (which are all flash and virtually zero substance). Have you watched CNN lately?



No. I don't think they're "the Boss". I do believe that most of the opinions out there about it are incorrect though. I believe that their format is a better way to present politically charged news. I have explained at length and multiple times *why* I think this is true. You have not yet come close to a counterargument.

You seem to have re-interpreted the word "journalism" to mean "some guy telling me what to think". Again. If I want to hear about a car crash, that form of journalism is fine. If I want indepth coverage on a charged political issue, I want to see the kind of journalism that goes on at Fox News, because even if I don't agree with everyone there (and it's pretty much guaranteed that I wont), I'll be exposed to all sides. Your prefered style of news broadcast only exposes you to one view of "the news". How can that be "better"? Unless your criteria is that the people are better off not knowing enough about politics to make their own decisions. Which seems a bit misplaced in a democratic system of government.



Yes. It does. Because I run into people like you who provide ample evidence to support my own views. I see folks who simply refuse to see the hypocrisy in their own beliefs. I see people who say they are for liberty and freedom and diversity, yet seem to attack anything or anyone that dares to actually present them with a choice or an alternative point of view. And even after this is pointed out to them, they seem to have this blind spot within their own brains that prevents them from recognizing it. No matter how obvious it is...


So yeah. Folks like you are the poster children that folks like me use. Because it's so easy to see the flaws in your arguments that it's painful. Almost as painful as the realization that no matter how clearly I point them out to you, you'll never "get it".





No. It's irrelevant (and wrong anyway). What matters is that the forces employed by the US government in Iraq are following the terms and methodologies as set forth in the 3rd Geneva Convention. Regardless of what they are officially called, every single one of those people (even the "mercenaries") working for the US government meets the criteria under that convention to qualify for POW status. Thus they are fighting in a legal manner as proscribed by international treaty.

The terrorists, somewhat by definition, are not. Thus, anyone working for them is in violation as well. You do understand that those conventions exist for a reason, right? No. You don't. You didn't "get it" the last 5 times I explained it to you. Why think you'd get it now...?

Sigh.

I'll make it clear right now, there is probably not a single second hand source that is given that has all sides of the perspective. Fox and the like.

The second hand source usually puts their own opinion and twisted perspective on it when they speak or write about it.

This can be seen in many forms, from a story about a magic lamp to what Clinton or Bush "actually" said.

Why do you think there are many versions of The Aristocrat(the joke was designed specifically around different views), why is it that one joke about George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, and a Priest finding a magic lamp told as the same joke but as the Mexican, Asian, and White guy finding a magic lamp? Because the joke being told second hand gets skewed in a different light when its retold.

Sometimes there are multiple main sources, but their views are different because they each saw something different. When this happens one must go to each source, gather the data, analyze the data, then form a conclusion based on what is known but also keep in mind what is unknown and not to form any assumptions on it.

If two people get into a fight and they were alone. Someone walks up and sees the two laying on the ground. Who threw the first punch? They both can deny throwing it and then you have to ask well who said what, and usually you can figure out who was the provoker was based on what the two said. Even then sometimes you won't get the full story because the two are unwilling to admit to anything. So its a lost situation if it comes down to nothing being known and this is when you shut up about it because assumptions don't count for anything.

Basically, Fox News doesn't have all sides, A Journalist doesn't have all sides, CNN doesn't have all sides, a News station from Europe doesn't have all sides, Liberals don't have all sides known/told, Conservatives don't have all sides known/told, Republicans and Democrats, ect ect do not have all sides. Unless its straight from the horses mouth you can pretty much know that what your being told doesn't encompass all sides, but a side or sides that have a twist of opinion or skewing of perspective.

The Media feeds upon making something more worse than it really is or making it out to be something more than it is. Hollywood does the same thing. I for one won't trust one source until I've looked at many sources.

When I have all the sources known then its time to analyze and form a perspective on whats known keeping in mind of the unknown so nothing is assumed in my perspective.

Assuming is one of the major flaws in people's perspectives. They assume the unknown and when one assumes one makes an *** out of oneself and another.

The News on TV pretty much sucks I hate watching it, but at least I know what to do when I do indeed watch it. I go get the same news from another source to see if its true. Edit: This last part is the main point of my view. WALL OF TEXT AMIRITE?! So don't respond to anything else but this.


<Insert comment from Gabji>



"Thats not a hair question"

Edited, Feb 27th 2007 4:19am by Sogoro

I completely agree with you and I'll admit to not knowing the underlying issues going on in Iran, Afghanistan, pretty much the whole Middle East.

Basically all I know about it is that people hate Bush for going in, Sadam was bad, Taliban is bad, people are blowing each other up, it appears civil war is still going on, the government over there isn't stable, America is trying to implement stability, and basically...there hasn't been peace in Biblical Times and there definately won't be peace in the 21st century.

I would say that many American's or rather people outside of the Middle East know just about this much or think what I just stated is 100% fact. In fact I don't even know what I know is 100% fact because I've yet to find a source that has been straight forward.

News on television is crap. I actually hate Fox. I despise the channel and would rather watch the Canadian channel's news about Seals somewhere in Canada being mistreated than watch something about the Middle East on Fox. What I do to be 100% fact is the chances of peace in that region is very very very very very very to the millionth power slim.

However I do like reading news on print. Its more informative it seems. That could just be my own thought about it though. I too am not wise enough to discern the News. And even my cross referencing sources for the Truth isn't enough to make a good basis for any perspective that might come from analyzing.

Either way were going to be misinformed or uninformed on the many issues that are really going down right now.

To say one source is 100% fact is just dumb when one knows it is definitely not immersed first hand in the issue. This is where assumptions come in. People are assuming the source they are getting their news from has "all sides" when it really doesn't.

This is the exact reason why I dislike politics and politicians all together. The trust and faith in them is minimal because of the media's degree of twisting whether it be a train wreck or a simple skewer of the fruit it still amounts to; nothing of 100%, non 360 idea, and above all no outside 3d insight.

When it comes to science its pretty straight forward. You have the data and you have the results and other things that go along with science. Theres the scientific process thats used specifically for finding out whats a law and whats a theory, whats fact and whats not, whats true whats fake, the list goes on.

Politics...you always have some person spouting off their perspective. Its quite irritating to always hear babel about their view's right way and about the opposing view's multiple wrong ways. Whats beyond my understanding is why they don't work together and get all the right views into a single encompassed perspective to have the best end results. Wait...I can prolly answer this...They prolly see the other's views as all wrong and nothing good can come from it.

That sounds like most politicians today.

Yeah, it was more of a general or impersonal "you", than a "gbaji you".

He's a lost cause.

Lol. As opposed to everyone else's version of "unbiased"? Do you not even see the silliness of your argument? You're saying that a news channel that puts multple people of different political persuasions on a panel and let's them all talk on an issue isn't good enough, but a news network that simply puts one "expert" on that tells you what to believe is perfectly ok...

Um. You are aware that Fox news analysts are private individuals with diverse backrounds, right? They are not stooges created from within and handed scripts. They are editors of their own journals in many cases. Many of them have their own shows on other networks. Many of them are print journalists.

I really don't think you've ever bothered to learn anything about their format. What's staggering to me is that you are unwilling to learn even when someone is trying to educate you on the issue.

Have you ever bothered to learn who they put on their panels? This is the "all sides" you seem to deride. Heck. Can you name a single Fox news contributer/analyst? Would you like me to list off a few?


How about Geraldine Ferraro? You do recall the first female VP nominee, right? Is she a right winger?

How about Bob Beckle? Never heard of him? He worked on Robert Kennedy's campaign, worked in the Carter administration, and then worked on the Mondale campaign. I suppose he's a hard core right winger too?

Or Neal Gabler? He only hosted shows on PBS for years, and regularly contributes editorials to the New York Times and LA Times. He's about as hard core liberal as you can possible get.


I think that your own cynical assumptions are leading your judgement here. You assume that since it's Fox and Fox expresses conservative views that their claims that they also express liberal views must be wrong. Well, you're wrong. Trust me. The Liberals on Fox are true Liberals. And anyone who actually watched the show regularly for a week or so would know this.



Um. To counterbalance the lack of true debate and point/counterpoint in the rest of the news world. The fact that this has resulted in an overwhelming Liberal bias is only part of the issue. The fact that you view Fox news as "bad", not because of it's format but because they dare to actually show conservative viewpoints only highlights the degree to which your own views have been skewed over time.

If you actually watched the network, you'd realize that they express exactly the same number of liberal viewpoints as they do conservative. You just only notice the conservative ones because those views are pretty much completely absent from all other news broadcasts. Thus, the conservatives "stick out", while the liberals on the shows don't register with you because a news show expressing liberal views has become "normal" to you.



How typical that you assume I'm wrong simply because my arguments express a conservative viewpoint. If you weren't the one brainwashed, you'd realize how ridiculous you're being.

I notice you *still* have not managed to express an arguement as to why the format of Fox News is flawed or somehow inferior to that of other news channels. Funny that...



I express doubts all the time. Like my doubt that you'll ever break out of the total mindjob that's been done to you and realize how incredibly skewed the world around you is.

See. That's me expressing doubt... ;)



Just as with the Liberals on Fox news, you have a very selective memory (more signs of the brainwashing btw). I criticized strongly the Bush administrations early policies in Iraq. They should have used more force so they could secure the nation faster and perhaps prevent many weapons from falling into the hands of future insurgents. I criticized Bush's No Child Left Behind program (and expressed doubts about it as well). I have stated on many occasions that I thought it was more about throwing a political bone to the left side of the fence then actually taking a firm position on education. I have attacked those who criticized it for the wrong reasons though (but that's a totally different issue).

I could probably sit here and list things I disagree with the Bush administration about all day long. But it probably wont matter. Cause what you *realy* meant was that I don't actively bash Bush for these things. And you'd be right. Because I feel that the Bush bashing is far out of proportion to any poor decisions he's made.



Everyone has an opinion. Including me. I have on many occasions said that I'm not up to speed on <some issue>. The difference is that if I don't know particulars about something, I actually do a bit of research before responding.

What's funny is that when I make this statement, I get bashed for it as well. Do you recall just a month or so ago, where I made a prediction that some news story would disappear quickly from the radar because it was focused on something that a Dem said. I admitted that I hadn't been reading the news on the issue, so couldn't comment on that (which of course had no effect on my prediction anyway). Joph bashed the heck out of me for that.

Apparently, you're not allowed to even make a guess about something and also admit that you haven't done research on it...



I say it about many things. I agree with liberals that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I stated that in a couple threads just last week (which you were part of IIRC). What I said I didn't agree with was the specific political agenda that liberals seem to want to endorse or approve to achieve that goal.


Let me also point out that this is often the key difference between Liberal and Conservative position. It's not that Liberals are for freedom and equality and a better life for everyone, and Conservatives are against all those things. If you think that, you have an extremely naive view of politics. The difference is *how* Liberals and Conservatives believe we should go about doing these things. Thus, it's not uncommmon at all for me to agree with a Liberal in princible (we should make the environment better), but disagree entirely on how to go about this.

Of course, if you've decided that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with your methodology is therefore wrong, then you're never going to "get" that many of us want the same things you do, we just think there are better ways to obtain them.



I don't need to live in Europe to understand the underlying political ideologies involved. I don't need to know much more then look at a factsheet for a nation to see the degree to which socialist programs have taken hold (which is what I'm usually talking about when I talk about Europe). It's not like I'm making stuff up about how the skiing is in a particular place or something. Some economic indicators are very very obvious. I need know nothing in particular about anything else to be able to speak intelligently about that.


I don't need to know anything about some family to be able to say that if they spend more then they make, they'll eventually run out of money. Nor do I need to know them personally to say that if they give their kids anything they want, they'll end up with a bunch of spoiled kids who'll expect the world to be handed to them. In the same way, I don't need to know that much more about a nation like France except their tax and unemployment rates to state with some certainty that their problems with riots in council housing areas will continue to get worse as a direct result of their system (we had a discussion about this some time ago as well IIRC).


It's just not rocket science. Human behavior is pretty simple really. People in large groups act predictably depending on the situation they are in. Economics and politics are generally equally clear. While there are different theories and explanations for various factors, the driving issues remain the same. It's not like Europe runs under a different set rules. It's not some magical land where human nature, supply/demand, and needs/wants have suddenly magically changed...

Of course you do. You know the saying "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics"?

There are so many indicators that you can't see on a stat sheet. There are so many different ways to compile, organise and analyse data. Making judgements purely based on "factsheets" is bound to lead to wrong, or incomplete, or partial analysis. It's a fact. There are no "models" which reflect reality 100%. None. They don't exist in Philosophy, they don't exist in Maths, and they certainly don't exist in economics.

There simply too many variables that you can't quantify, or that are simply not quantified in those "fact sheet".

That's why you're claims about Europe are so wrong. You just don't know. You have no direct experience, and all the factsheets in the world will not make up for it. Some day, you have to accept other people have access to data (real life), which you just don't have, which means their analysis is closer to reality than yours.



Unless they change jobs. Unless they are in a booming industry. Unless they have other forms of future income (death of a wealthy relative). Etc, etc...

So, in fact, you do need to know more to make an informed judgment.




Once again, thats wrong. You just dont know. personal circumstances and psychology play a bigger part than the net ratio of "Material things given".



Haha. What a load of crap. Sorry, but you do. Tax rates and unemployment are not the only reasons why people riot. The places were the riots first took place were not the most deprived suburbs in France. There are so many other factors to take into this process. Factors which, unless you happen to live there, or to have been there, you just won't know. How do you quantify the relationship between the police and the local youth? How do you quantify the % of kids that, when they feel aggrieved, are more likely to throw a brick at a policemen rather than go home and smoke a joint instead?

You can't. Hence, any analysis you make on those riots (to continue this exemple), based purely on tax rate and unemployment, will be wrong. plain and simple.




Ha. If it was that simple, we would've figured out how to run society perfectly a looooong time ago.

Economics is a partial model of reality. Politics is even further from an exact science than economics, which itself is far from an exact science.

That's your main problem. You see the world as a simple mathematic equation, when human psychology is very far removed from that. Black/white. Good.bad. It's always the same. People are not computer programs, and societies can't be accurately translated into "factsheet".

Direct experience > Factsheet.

It's like the difference between the coach of a football team (direct experience), to being a fan at home, not watching the game, and reading the statsheet. Who will have a better understanding of what really went on the field?

Edited, Mar 1st 2007 11:43am by RedPhoenixxx

Haha, where's the argument here. FOX news is already pure comedy gold. They're a treasure trove of material for Stewart and Colbert.

Also, I'm sure most of you have a pretty good idea how most FOX news types stand on the TDS and Colbert. So, all this means is that they're sinking down to their "level", so to speak. And what does that tell you? It's simply a ratings game. FOX isn't concerned with reporting the news, they just want more people buying into their bull and they want increased ratings... bottom line, it's a business.

Edited, Mar 1st 2007 10:44pm by mmodraw

No. You have higher rates of poverty then in the US. You just conceal that by creating government programs to provide services to the poor so it doesn't look that bad.

Define "poor" as someone unable to provide for themselves and their children without government assistance, and suddenly things look a whole hell of a lot different, don't they?

Do you really think you're making people "not be poor" by providing them with free housing, food, and medical care? They are just as poor as they were before. They just aren't as uncomfortable. You haven't fixed anything. You've just whitewashed over the crap of human existance to make it look like everything is hunky-dory. It's a "big lie".



I don't know. How about we start with the fact that you seem to actually believe that by providing poor people with freebies, you make them not be poor anymore...

That's what I mean by playing with statistics. You see a statistical number of poor people. You "fix" the problem by providing those people with what you consider to be necessities for life. You then declare the poverty eliminated, adjust your statistical data accordingly and pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

Getting it yet? You're focusing on changing the numbers that indicate whether things are "good" or "bad", but not really fixing the underlying problems. And that's why your approach is ultimately doomed to failure.



Sure. And that's what those who endorse this sort of system always say. It's for the "greater good". Never mind that in the process of providing those services, you increase the number of people who need them. Never mind that you actually make it harder for people to improve their lives on their own as well.

Never mind that you reduce people's freedoms in the process.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2007 4:52pm by gbaji

When you're facing a loaded gun, what's the difference?