Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on March 27, 2005, 01:19:40 pm
-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002220590_foxblocker26.html?syndication=rss
Of course, I suppose you could always just never go to the channel...
-
"Apparently the making of terroristic threats against those who don't share your views is a high art form among a certain core audience," said Kimery, 45.
:lol: perfect!
-
I love it. Can I get a filter for my eyes that blocks out the Daily Mail too? :D
-
I've never understood why Fox news is so bad...can someone give me an example of a really bad story, and then a more factual write up of the same story or somethng?
(For the record, I've never actually watched Fox)
-
From what I've read about it, it's the US's version of the Daily Mail, only taken more seriously. I suppose though, it's hard to make the mail seriously because it's shown right alongside (and often contradicting the opinions of) every other Newspaper ;)
-
Shortly after the State of the Union address for Bush's 2nd term, I happened to tune into Fox News. They were doing a commentary on it. Specifically, they were talking about how some people (I believe they may have thrown around 'liberals' to reference this group, but I'm not 100% sure) thought that the hug between the soldier's mother and the Iraqi woman was staged. They also had what seemed like a token black guy, who argued that the hug wasn't staged, but maybe they'd been seated for something to happen, and/or that there wasn't enough information to say.
No one acted like they could figure out what he was saying at first; but then, in an understanding and tolerant manner, the lead guy in the discussion acted like he finally got it, and said "So what you're saying is..." and outlined the argument.
I thought it was complete BS.
First of all, why the hell were they devoting 10 minutes to discussing it? Whether or not the hug was staged doesn't matter. If it was, it was just taking the publicity stunt of having them there in the first place a bit further. I'm sure that with the resources of the Presidency, even I could find one Iraqi woman and one soldier's mother to endorse me on national TV.
Second of all, the entire segment just seemed to be geared towards suggesting that everyone who supported President Bush was right, and that there's a place for everybody. It seemed the message you were trying to get was, "Bush didn't stage the hug, and that makes him a good person."
Finally, the segment just seemed layered against any dissent; planned rather than presented.
That's just the most recent Fox program I've seen. I've seen a 'discussion' where the host cut off the Democratic rep's argument to deliver the "Fair and balanced" slogan. (and oddly enough, the rep seemed pretty inept at representing) I've also seen a show that resembled the Daily Show, except anti-Dem, that delivered the fair and balanced slogan when it ended.
My impression is that Fox news really is just propaganda first, news second, targeted at the general populace. Just turn on Fox sometime; it's pretty evident.
-
Why buy a device to block a channel when you could just as easily wipe the channel from your tv's memory? Or better yet. Not flip to it? But I see what he's getting at. Ooh btw, if anyone is interested, the guy who made that Nationstates net game we played a while back, I've been reading his book, Jennifer Government. Bloody kickass book. The article seemed to remind me of it in a way.
-
This is stupid. I don't like FOX either, but wasting money on them seems to me like a victory for them. How about you just, oh I don't know, not watch it.
And its not completely true that I don't like FOX. I think they're great for a chuckle, and take they're job much more seriously than, for example, CNN.
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
Why buy a device to block a channel when you could just as easily wipe the channel from your tv's memory? Or better yet. Not flip to it? But I see what he's getting at. Ooh btw, if anyone is interested, the guy who made that Nationstates net game we played a while back, I've been reading his book, Jennifer Government. Bloody kickass book. The article seemed to remind me of it in a way.
That book's actually good? I read the opening chapter and some of the reviews on Amazon and it looked pretty subpar to me.
-
Fox is owned by Mr Government ties.
So its basically a propaganda channel.
Whenever I go over to my friends place though (who has fox) we usually watch the fox news, sit back and laugh at all the assumptions and pro-american BS thats everywhere. lol.
Ahh.
-
oh lol http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf
-
That guy is really creepy/ugly.
-
that seems to be quite common for super-libs.
(http://www.leftlion.co.uk/images/content/articles/moorecam.jpg)
seriously. that the face of a pedophile if i've ever seen one.
-
Nah, fat people are harmless. Name me one single fat villan.
-
Goldfinger.
-
Look man, there's no need to make fun of the poor guy's condition. He was just born big boned, that's all.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Nah, fat people are harmless. Name me one single fat villan.
Fatman from MGS2? He was pretty villianous.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Nah, fat people are harmless. Name me one single fat villan.
Anubis :p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Nah, fat people are harmless. Name me one single fat villan.
Dr.Evil.
-
Originally posted by Carl
that seems to be quite common for super-libs.
(http://www.leftlion.co.uk/images/content/articles/moorecam.jpg)
seriously. that the face of a pedophile if i've ever seen one.
This fat **** is as much as a ****ing media puppet as anyone on the right.
-
I just realized...is that some sort of weapon he's got in his left hand? :wtf:
-
Yes.
(Bowling for Columbine, no doubt)
-
Look at his hat.
-
More on topic however, why do you need a dongle to block out Fox News, do they not make T.V's with power off buttons in the US or something, or have some people just forgotten that that box that sits in the corner hasn't actually always been there blaring ****e for all and sundry to absorb?
-
Well, idiocy is quite hypnotic.... so maybe they need the help.
I guess watching Fox is a bit like driving by a car crash and staring out the windows - you know it's dangerous, it's stupid and it's pointless, but you do it anyways.
Oh, and RE: Fox news - it's pretty biased from what I see.
This is a list of the main allegations from wikipedia;
[q]
Allegations of bias
FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". However, numerous critics claim such slogans belie a network that is slanted to the right and tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Although most critics do not claim that all FOX News reporting is slanted, most claim that the bias at FOX News is systemic.
See also: Media bias, Propaganda model
Critics of FOX News point to the following as evidence of bias:
* Rupert Murdoch's ownership of conservative newspapers such as the New York Post and The Times.
* Roger Ailes's, the CEO of Fox News, past activities including: Republican campaign work, involvement in the Willie Horton ad and his production of the Rush Limbaugh television show.
* Use of the term "homicide bomber" instead of "su
icide bomber" after White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer made the request. The only other major news organization to do so was fellow News Corporation subsidiary the New York Post.
* A ruling in a whistleblower lawsuit that WTVT had ordered fired reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson to distort the facts in a story about Bovine Growth Hormone. WTVT successfully appealed on First Amendment grounds. However, the case was against a local affiliate station, not FOX News. Appeal Decision (http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf) (PDF)
* John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was one of four consultants assigned by the Voter News Service to FOX News on night of the 2000 Presidential election; thus he was part of the team that recommended FOX News be the last to retract its call of Florida for Gore and the first to call Florida for Bush, which FOX News did at 2:16 a.m[1] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/politics/main249357.shtml). However, all major networks called Florida for Bush by 2:20 a.m. Additionally, Ellis admitted to informing Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone how projections were going on election night[2] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/politics/main249357.shtml).
* A report released in August 2001 by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News," ([3] (http://www.fair.org/reports/fox.html)) which:
o Claims that, despite his claims to the contrary, The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly is conservative; and
o Compared guests on FOX's Special Report with Brit Hume with those on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports:
white male Republican conservative
Hume (FOX) 93% 91% 89% 71%
Blitzer (CNN) 93% 86% 57% 32%
* The Program on International Policy Attitudes reported, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than the viewers of other news networks to hold these three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions:[4] (http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2003&bmonth=winter&a=02free&format=view) (PDF),
o 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS)
o 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR and PBS)
o 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for both NPR and PBS)
* Photocopied memos (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8147&fcategory_desc=Fox%20News,%2024hr%20Republican%20Network) from FOX News executive John Moody instructing the network's on-air anchors and reporters on using positive language when discussing anti-abortion viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts; as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.
* In an opinion piece on the Hutton Inquiry decision, John Gibson said the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military" [5] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109821,00.html). In reviewing viewer complaints, Ofcom (the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator) ruled that FOX News had breached the program code in three areas: "respect for truth", "opportunity to take part", and "personal view programmes opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence". Fox News admitted that Gilligan had not actually said the words that John Gibson appeared to attribute to him; OfCom rejected the claim that it was intended to be a paraphrase. (see Ofcom complaint, response and ruling (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101)).
* A documentary film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, makes allegations of bias in FOX News and interviews a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. For example, Frank O'Donnell, former Fox News Producer, says: "We were stunned, because up until that point, we were allowed to do legitimate news. Suddenly, we were ordered from the top to carry [...] Republican, right-wing propaganda," after being told what to say about Ronald Reagan. The network's official response to the film is located here[6] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125436,00.html), while a network review of several employees featured in the film is available here [7] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125437,00.html) and discusses Alexander Kippen, Frank O'Donnell, Jon Du Pre, and Clara Frenk and their employment (or in some cases non-employment) with the network.
* In October 2004, Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of FOX News, wrote a news article containing three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "Women should like me! I do manicures," "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great?" and "I'm metrosexual [Bush's] a cowboy." FOX News retracted the story and apologized (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134166,00.html), citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice".
* A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of FOX News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found FOX less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. On the other hand, it found FOX more transparent about its sources[8] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33008-2005Mar14?language=printer). Full report (http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5)
FOX News responds. CEO Roger Ailes publicly responded in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ([9] (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005157)), stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes also claimed critics ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party such as FOX breaking the story that George W. Bush was arrested for drunk driving.
[/q]
Oh, and there are a load of ****e British tabloids as bad as the Daily Mail.... Daily Express in particular is a load of scapegoating ****e pandering to the lowest Middle-England denominator.
-
One point, why are people in such a tizzy over the use of homicide bomber? It's much more accurate than suicide bomber.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
One point, why are people in such a tizzy over the use of homicide bomber? It's much more accurate than suicide bomber.
1. It's a nicked term.
2. Suicide bomber is still waaay more accurate because A) usually the guy blows himself up and B) it's an old term which most of us can recognize.
3. "Suicide bomber kills 3" vs. "homicide bomber kills 3" - which one is more accurate?
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
One point, why are people in such a tizzy over the use of homicide bomber? It's much more accurate than suicide bomber.
Because it's not, really. The only difference - because bomber implies planting/detonating a bomb, which in turn implies murder - is that 'homicide bomber' seeks to remove the idea of the bombers' 'sacrifice'.
EDIt; i.e. the human or ideological element
Now, you might think it's not a bad idea to do so - who wants to give these people credibility, after all? - the problem is that it's also a sly way of completely dismissing the motivation that drives these people and organizations. And that motivation often leads to the direct or indirect criticism of American or or American allies' foreign policy (depending on the context of the bombing).
Why else seek to change a universally accepted term? - Indeed, the cynic could say it smells faintly of newspeak.
-
Meh, personally I prefer calling them idiots, but whatever is your cup-of-tea...
-
Originally posted by Corsair
That book's actually good? I read the opening chapter and some of the reviews on Amazon and it looked pretty subpar to me.
Ok, it isn't like the best book in the world, but a whole lot of fun. A good "airplane ride" book if you know what I mean.
-
NPR is far superior to Fox News.
-
The Daily Show is the only reputable source for news these days
-
Too true.
-
This (http://www.theonion.com) is the only source for news.