Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hazaanko on October 23, 2007, 11:45:42 am
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/media_dishonesty_matters.html
Opening statement:
"We are being fed false and misleading information, in matters big and small. It has come from trusted sources such as established newspapers, experienced journalists, Pulitzer Prize winners and Nobel Peace Prize winners. It has been going on for a long time, sometimes by carelessness and sometimes by deliberate lying. I have compiled a list of 101 such incidents."
P.S. Yes yes yes while we all know that not everything on the news is true... the real point of the post is about the content of what was misleading/incorrect/untrue. Example:
"9. Associated Press (AP) (2005). Fell for hoax and phony photo. The AP ran a story, with a photo, about a soldier held hostage in Iraq. The photo turned out to be that of an action figure doll; there was no such soldier."
-
Just goes to show you just how much lies are spread around even by those you percive as neutral or thrustworthy.
-
I guess that depends on how much you trust the truthfulness of that article. :p
-
*bah-dum* *tish*
-
For one reason or the other I'm not really surprised. Maybe it has something to do with the old Soviet Union pieces of news that I heard time by time when I was younger. Maybe we have been saturated by the objective press and the stuff coming from other places of the world seem a little of all the time.
Besides, I can hardly believe that the guy who wrote that page is really objective. It is sometimes hard to believe some comments on his page also. I suppose the Western media makes a lot less mistakes/deliberate errors than Russian/Chinese media.
But really, are any of us surprised?
Mika
-
Nay, I am not surprised. I find that the media could be used as the most efficient propaganda machine in existence.
-
I guess that depends on how much you trust the truthfulness of that article. :p
I'm assuming you didn't read it. Go ahead and check out the truthfulness of it yourself.
-
Actually I hadn't read it when I wrote that. I was making a joke.
-
Besides, I can hardly believe that the guy who wrote that page is really objective. It is sometimes hard to believe some comments on his page also. I suppose the Western media makes a lot less mistakes/deliberate errors than Russian/Chinese media.
Except for Fox that's true.
-
Except for Fox that's true.
Cite examples, please?
Else, do yourself a favor and get off the "OMGWTFLOL3RSK8S F0X N3WZ WATCH3R!!!!1!!!one!!" cliché bandwagon. Going under the assumption that Fox is the only news organization with dramatized, slanted and biased news is wrong and quite frankly, ignorant. They all suck, which is quite evident by the article Hazaanko posted.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html
Plus its a well established fact by now (or least it should be for those of us who were paying attention) that fox is politically connected to the republican party.
EDIT: for some other stuff http://www.cablenewslies.com/fox.htm
The other cable stations are not great, and they are in decline as they attempt to be more and more like fox, the sole exception to this is PBS, which gets much of its international news from the BBC
-
Plus its a well established fact by now (or least it should be for those of us who were paying attention) that fox is politically connected to the republican party.
Yep, a connection definitely exists between FOX News and the Republican party. Namely, a connection between the former's mouth, and the latter's cock.
-
To this day, they criticize his administration's handling of the Katrina crisis, which was actually one of the most successful rescue and recovery efforts in history
This was the point at which I double checked if the name of the website was American Drinker.
Now while the other frauds on that website may be valid the correct response is not to perpetrate a fraud of ones own.
-
:lol:
-
I don't care if Fox has 24/7 Bush's Dirty Socks & Boxers Worship (no, ok, that would make me bomb something), all I'm trying to point out is that singling out Fox in a blanket statement about publishing faulty stories and misinformation because it's the one that (most likely) consistently grates against your particular socio-political views is still wrong.
The other cable stations are not great, and they are in decline...
And thank you for agreeing that they all suck, even if to a degree. I take it as an 'all singing, all dancing, kegs of Guinness for everyone' agreement.
As far as the BBC and subsequently PBS is concerned, you probably know as well as I that they're all about questioning authority regardless of the circumstances, like the stereotypical angry 15-year-old kid against his father. Therefore, Repubs are wrong because they're conservative, and Dems are wrong because they're not liberal enough. Moderates are wrong because they don't know how to take sides. Activists are wrong because they disturb the peace and use brainless slogans. The quiet majority is wrong because because they're too gutless and quiet. At present, the BBC leans about as far left as Fox does to the right. Once the Jimmy Carter clones take over, they'll be on the verge of fascism. They get off on playing devil's advocate.
Am I the only one that usually laughs his ass off at the reporting when watching any channel regardless of the story? I don't even need sitcoms anymore! The mindless faces trying so hard at pouring emotion into teleprompter-fed drivel is the best comedy since Abbott and Costello.
-
At present, the BBC leans about as far left as Fox does to the right.
Actually I disagree with that. The BBC can and do cock it up from time to time but you only need watch their coverage of the Hutton Report to see that they're as close to unbiased as exists.
How many news companies do you know who would report on a government report criticizing said news channel over a made up news story as if it were just another story without editorialising so as to make it seem like they were right.
Especially when everyone in the country considered that report to be a government sanctioned whitewash and would have been right on the BBC's side if they had said so.
-
What does "left leaning" mean here?
The news pieces coming from the left leaning country sounded more like Fox on steroids than BBC. While I find the BBC somewhat neutral, I find it has a slight conservative tint in it. But I would risk and say that the Americans have not even heard the left wing propaganda (i.e. the good stuff). What I find strange also is the amount of totally fabricated stories in US media.
Mika
-
What does "left leaning" mean here?
The news pieces coming from the left leaning country sounded more like Fox on steroids than BBC. While I find the BBC somewhat neutral, I find it has a slight conservative tint in it. But I would risk and say that the Americans have not even heard the left wing propaganda (i.e. the good stuff). What I find strange also is the amount of totally fabricated stories in US media.
Mika
Thats kind-of funny... cuz when I was living in the Netherlands/Belgium... ALL the news from the TV (CNN), and -especially- the newspapers were spun so incredibly anti-US... it was just plain misinformation. Things like people getting arrested because they were just talking bad about Bush etc. In fact, there's probably people on this forum who actually believe that stuff that gets written up. I'm sorry, but if you believe such things.... there is absolutely no hope for you whatsoever.
Here's the deal with Fox. They TELL you that they're conservative on each individual talkshow. Are there more conservative talkshows than liberal ones? Absolutely! Because more conservatives watch their network. But they don't try to hide their bias and say that they're totally neutral like the other media. If any of you moonbats would actually watch their shows you would see that. Here's a shocker for those of you who have never seen it: THEY HAVE LIBERAL TALK SHOW HOSTS AND GUESTS ON THERE TOO. The MSM has their nightly news which we are supposed to take in as a completely unbiased source when the stuff they spew out is nothing but the Liberal / Socialist agenda.
The only reason Fox is a target is because they were the first ones to have a truly conservative TV talkshow, and the Libs just can't stand it when conservatives actually get their real viewpoints out.
So some of them have -ties- to Republicans? Who the hell cares? At least half their staff aren't previous aides/employees of Democrat administrations like every other TV news organization out there.
If you want to form an opinion about it, go to the source, not some lambasting self-acclaimed "neutral" writeup that excludes all context.
-
Why so defensive about Fox? Referring to some choices of wording you put there, I don't know if I should respond in the US way or in the way of my homeland, so I choose the latter.
Maybe I should have worded it a little better, but what I meant was that Soviet Union's media was like listening Fox on steroids, in the respect that while Fox admits it is biased, Soviet Union's media claimed to be unbiased, but most of the people here considered it double-plus-biased. But, I would still maintain that Americans are not familiar with the left wing stuff, or even how the left wing bias sounds like. Or it depends on what is meant by "left wing". I'm referring to the old school communists myself.
Regarding Belgium or Holland, I cannot really comment since I have only briefly visited Holland and did not read the Dutch newspapers. Could you give a time frame for the visit so I can place it in the timeline? Also, if those incidents are recent, Wikipedia seems to claim in this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) that there are several law suits resulting from some of the actions in those protests. So for me it seems that either the US court is flawed since they have allowed an ungrounded lawsuit or those things did happen, not necessarily exactly the way the paper wrote it.
And back to Fox, there are two things that bother me in the way you described the channel: first, while it claims that it has a bias, do people remember it when using the information represented in the channel? Second, they told me in school that by definition news is objective, or it is not news. Articles, panel discussions, talkshows and opinions etc. are free to have a bias, news cannot have it. But I don't know if this is universal.
Regarding the separated from context argument, it is a failure of the news agency if they print news so that critical context is missing and causes misunderstandings. I'm not sure if understood the end of your message correctly, the Fox news presents experts that represent their opinion of what happened and this is the final conservative truth of the issue? One additional question, when watching the Fox sit-coms, how do you know that the cited experts have gone or been at the source? If they did, with whom did they do it?
Mika
-
To this day, they criticize his administration's handling of the Katrina crisis, which was actually one of the most successful rescue and recovery efforts in history
This was the point at which I double checked if the name of the website was American Drinker.
Now while the other frauds on that website may be valid the correct response is not to perpetrate a fraud of ones own.
Check out some the author's other writeups. That man has a serious woody for the US. :rolleyes:
-
I'm trying to point out is that singling out Fox in a blanket statement about publishing faulty stories and misinformation because it's the one that (most likely) consistently grates against your particular socio-political views is still wrong
I was pointing out that Fox has been publishing faulty stories because there is evidence for it, not because it "grates against my beliefs". I've seen some of what Fox calls "reporting", and I honestly must say it is so biased and/or blatently false that it even makes CCTV look good.
big ball of unverified statements
Sources?
-
I'm trying to point out is that singling out Fox in a blanket statement about publishing faulty stories and misinformation because it's the one that (most likely) consistently grates against your particular socio-political views is still wrong
I was pointing out that Fox has been publishing faulty stories because there is evidence for it, not because it "grates against my beliefs". I've seen some of what Fox calls "reporting", and I honestly must say it is so biased and/or blatently false that it even makes CCTV look good.
big ball of unverified statements
Sources?
And guess what Kosh? Other news sources get things just as wrong too. Why do you think this topic exists??? It happens in reporting. The funny thing is, its people like Dan Rather that try to get away with it and don't apologize when they're caught.
Check out some the author's other writeups. That man has a serious woody for the US. :rolleyes:
I've got a serious woody for the US too. I love my country and would die for it and its people. Looks like you're trying to discredit him by attacking him personally.
Why so defensive about Fox? Referring to some choices of wording you put there, I don't know if I should respond in the US way or in the way of my homeland, so I choose the latter.
Maybe I should have worded it a little better, but what I meant was that Soviet Union's media was like listening Fox on steroids, in the respect that while Fox admits it is biased, Soviet Union's media claimed to be unbiased, but most of the people here considered it double-plus-biased. But, I would still maintain that Americans are not familiar with the left wing stuff, or even how the left wing bias sounds like. Or it depends on what is meant by "left wing". I'm referring to the old school communists myself.
Regarding Belgium or Holland, I cannot really comment since I have only briefly visited Holland and did not read the Dutch newspapers. Could you give a time frame for the visit so I can place it in the timeline? Also, if those incidents are recent, Wikipedia seems to claim in this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) that there are several law suits resulting from some of the actions in those protests. So for me it seems that either the US court is flawed since they have allowed an ungrounded lawsuit or those things did happen, not necessarily exactly the way the paper wrote it.
And back to Fox, there are two things that bother me in the way you described the channel: first, while it claims that it has a bias, do people remember it when using the information represented in the channel? Second, they told me in school that by definition news is objective, or it is not news. Articles, panel discussions, talkshows and opinions etc. are free to have a bias, news cannot have it. But I don't know if this is universal.
Regarding the separated from context argument, it is a failure of the news agency if they print news so that critical context is missing and causes misunderstandings. I'm not sure if understood the end of your message correctly, the Fox news presents experts that represent their opinion of what happened and this is the final conservative truth of the issue? One additional question, when watching the Fox sit-coms, how do you know that the cited experts have gone or been at the source? If they did, with whom did they do it?
Mika
#1: My post about Fox wasn't really in response to yours. And believe me, I know what and how the old school communists worked. They aren't "left-wing." They're on another level entirely. The "left-wing" media bias here in the states is of a different nature than the Soviet propaganda machine.
#2: People make lawsuits out of things like Mcdonalds getting their kids fat.... or a burglar slipping on a wet floor in your house and breaking a leg. There are lawsuits for all kinds of things. Doesn't mean that they actually happened, or are justified. Even when they win out. In fact, I remember quite a few cases in which the burglar won the case in my second example. Seriously. Its a simple tactic anti-war activists over here use. They go to some public forum and then explode into an annoying rage trying to get themselves 'escorted' out so they can claim police brutality and claim that their free speech has been violated. Then they go make a lawsuit about it. And then crazy people believe them.
#3: Again, if you would actually watch Fox, you would know that they tell you what they believe. I'm talking about the talk-show hosts, which take up the majority of prime-time. The actual news they report is pretty much exactly what you get on every other news channel. People think they're biased because they go to places like MediaMatters and watch 10 second soundbites of some conservative that happens to be talking on Fox. Its all about the context.
On the same note, just because a reporter/news organization is wonderfully objective does not in the least bit make them unbiased. With the MSM today, its not so much about -how- they report a story... its about -what- they report. Take your own life, for example. Somebody does a news story about your life in its entirety, but the only things in the actual story are about all your mistakes, embarrassing moments, times you've lied, and other disparaging things that generally make you look bad. They're all true! Of course they're true, because they happened. But that is NOT who you are. I'm sure if you used only the positive qualities of somebody like...... oooooh lets say Hitler (I love bringing Nazis into a debate)... he would seem like a really great guy!
#4: I totally didn't understand what you were trying to ask in your last paragraph. I think what you were trying to get at was what I said in my last paragraph.
Media examples: Any show on the MSM will invite somebody like.... lets say Hillary Clinton on the show and will ask here all these fluff questions like "Oh, how is the campaign going? Do you think you'll be able to win the election? How is Bill helping with your campaign? What kind of opposition have you received from Republicans?" etc etc. Put somebody like say.... Mitt Romney, and he will never ever ever get asked those questions. Its always questions about "why did you change your mind on abortion? how is your religion going to interfere with your candidacy/presidency?" I could go on and on about this and give a thousand real examples.... but I'm too lazy and I just ran out of time.
P.S. Fox programs do it too. But before Fox came along there was no alternative. All you heard was Liberal talking points, and in some cases the moonbat far left crazy talking points. In all reality I don't watch FNC all that much. I don't really even like O'Reilly. I'm more of a Glenn Beck dude. I watch the other networks a whole lot more, including PBS, when it doesn't want to make me vomit.
-
And guess what Kosh? Other news sources get things just as wrong too. Why do you think this topic exists??? It happens in reporting. The funny thing is, its people like Dan Rather that try to get away with it and don't apologize when they're caught.
Just as wrong? Ha. I find that quite hard to believe. There was a documentary made about fox called "outfoxed", maybe you should watch it sometime.
P.S. Fox programs do it too. But before Fox came along there was no alternative. All you heard was Liberal talking points, and in some cases the moonbat far left crazy talking points. In all reality I don't watch FNC all that much. I don't really even like O'Reilly. I'm more of a Glenn Beck dude. I watch the other networks a whole lot more, including PBS, when it doesn't want to make me vomit.
Actually once upon a time before Fox, news actually was, you know, balanced. Can't have that now can we. :rolleyes:
EDIT: forgot about this
Maybe I should have worded it a little better, but what I meant was that Soviet Union's media was like listening Fox on steroids, in the respect that while Fox admits it is biased,
Actually fox never admitted it was biased, but at least a few of us could figure it out before the memo was leaked (not on purpose). Their slogan for a very long time was "fair and balanced", but I think they changed it to "we report, you decide", really just the same thing.
-
I've got a serious woody for the US too. I love my country and would die for it and its people. Looks like you're trying to discredit him by attacking him personally.
Oh, lovely. Patriotism. :rolleyes:
Anyway, did you have a look at some of the other things that bloke has written up? Very pro-American at the expense of everything else. I was merely pointing out that the individual who wrote it seems to be heavily biased, as if the reference to Katrina as "one of the most successful rescue and recovery efforts in history" didn't make it obvious enough.
-
I've got a serious woody for the US too. I love my country and would die for it and its people. Looks like you're trying to discredit him by attacking him personally.
Oh, lovely. Patriotism. :rolleyes:
Anyway, did you have a look at some of the other things that bloke has written up? Very pro-American at the expense of everything else. I was merely pointing out that the individual who wrote it seems to be heavily biased, as if the reference to Katrina as "one of the most successful rescue and recovery efforts in history" didn't make it obvious enough.
Maybe your anti-US or anti-Bush bias makes you just as susceptible regarding your opinion of the Katrina rescue and recovery efforts. Just a possibility.
-
Yeah but more likely the guy is of the Bush can do no wrong camp.
Do you honestly agree with his assessment of the Katrina rescue?
-
Yeah but more likely the guy is of the Bush can do no wrong camp.
Do you honestly agree with his assessment of the Katrina rescue?
Going off topic here, but I've got my own view of Katrina. I think it was largely a huge success pretty much everywhere except for New Orleans. You have to remember, other places got hit a lot worse and had a lot more damage than New Orleans. Their huge successes never get told. New O. was just so incredibly poorly equipped and prepared that it was a disaster in the first place. Not much you could do in the order of rescue and recovery there. Could it have been better? Of course it could have. Again, its about context. We could do a whole helluva lot of talking about this considering its a huge issue. State vs Federal accountability... size & impact of the storm... prevention measures vs result measures... local issues like the welfare state... but the issue is bigger than just New O. Katrina hit a -coastline- not a single city.
-
Well if you really feel that it was adequate I'm not going to argue. However I did come across this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05blame.html?ex=1283572800&en=5d14ec03d94387d0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) back when it happened and I thought it worth posting.
and on Saturday they [FEMA] cut the parish's emergency communications line, leading the sheriff to restore it and post armed guards to protect it from FEMA
:lol:
-
Maybe your anti-US or anti-Bush bias makes you just as susceptible regarding your opinion of the Katrina rescue and recovery efforts. Just a possibility.
I'm anti-US or anti-Bush because I disagree with you? Seriously, where are you getting that?
-
Clearly you guys aren't watching the right news to become overly obsessed with. (http://www.etonline.com/)
-
Maybe your anti-US or anti-Bush bias makes you just as susceptible regarding your opinion of the Katrina rescue and recovery efforts. Just a possibility.
I'm anti-US or anti-Bush because I disagree with you? Seriously, where are you getting that?
Apologies - I seem to have gone too* far in my assumptions. But I'm curious.... was I wrong?
-
Apologies - I seem to have gone to far in my assumptions. But I'm curious.... was I wrong?
No, I just hate patriotism. It was a round world last time I checked.