• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News vs. Other News Outlets

Pelosi is the most progressive, but yea i'd say the rest are moderates, especially Obama. I love all these people who call Obama a "socialist", after he just gave insurance companies many more customers, escalated the war in Afghanistan, and reinstated Clinton-era tax policies. He's just another wimpy moderate Democrat, much like Clinton. All these far-left, socialist/marxist allegations are total hyperbole.

If you need proof, just ask a real socialist or marxist what they think of Obama.

You think he GAVE insurance MORE customers?! That idea is laughable!! What he did was take telephone pole-sized dildo and screw them up the ***!!! People can now just pay a yearly fine (not to exceed $1500 per family, IIRC) that amounts to lest than the cost of health insurance. When they injure themselves they go to the emergency room, they are still covered for free. If they develop a chronic or expensive condition, they need only apply and by law will HAVE to be covered. Clearly your understanding of the bill is lacking. Insurance companies are gambling when they cover you. They are betting that they will spend less on covering your health care than you will pay them for the insurance.

Reinstating Clinton tax policies says nothing about Obama being a moderate. Obama just let the Bush tax breaks expire. He wants to institute a cap and trade tax which the corporations will not pay. The private sector will have these costs handed on to them.

I won't go so far as to say that he is socialist or a Marxist, but he's certainly far left (I was going to insult to him here, but I'll refrain).
 
Last edited:
You think he GAVE insurance MORE customers?! That idea is laughable!! What he did was take telephone pole-sized dildo and screw them up the ***!!! People can now just pay a yearly fine (not to exceed $1500 per family, IIRC) that amounts to lest than the cost of health insurance. When they injure themselves they go to the emergency room, they are still covered for free. If they develop a chronic or expensive condition, they need only apply and by law will HAVE to be covered. Clearly your understanding of the bill is lacking. Insurance companies are gambling when they cover you. They are betting that they will spend less on covering your health care than you will pay them for the insurance.

Reinstating Clinton tax policies says nothing about Obama being a moderate. Obama just let the Bush tax breaks expire. He wants to institute a cap and trade tax which the corporations will not pay. The private sector will have these costs handed on to them.

I won't go so far as to say that he is socialist or a Marxist, but he's certainly far left (I was going to insult to him here, but I'll refrain).

Uhh, yea? The bill requires American citizens to have health insurance, bought from a privately-owned health insurance provider. Now, he did a lot of good things with the bill that are just humane. You don't think it's a good thing that people will no longer have to worry about being denied for a pre-existing condition and not have to pay emergency room fees? My mother developed breast cancer when she was uninsured and had to go through so many hoops and spend so much money just to get covered. I am not sympathetic to the insurance companies at all, we should just do as the rest of the industrialized west and have socialized medicine. This is a watered down fix, and getting private interests out of health care is the only thing that will fix our system.

I hope you aren't one of these people who thinks we had the greatest health care system in the world before this like so many Obama detractors (FYI, we're 37, right after Costa Rica).
 
Last edited:
Uhh, yea? The bill requires American citizens to have health insurance, bought from a privately-owned health insurance provider.
Wrong, it requires you to have it or pay a fine. Often times the fine is less.
You don't think it's a good thing that people will no longer have to worry about being denied for a pre-existing condition and not have to pay emergency room fees?
No. We wouldn't be able to afford health insurance if this was the case. Health insurance is a buisiness. It is a buisiness that won't be able to stay afloat if it has to pay for every sick person who suddenly decides that they want health insurance now that they are sick.
My mother developed breast cancer when she was uninsured and had to go through so many hoops and spend so much money just to get covered.
Why wasn't she covered in the first place? My guess is that either she couldn't afford it or she didn't think she needed it. If it was the latter then that was her own fault. If it was the former, then there are ways to fix this that were left out of the bill out of sheer stupidity. For example, fix the defensive medecine problems so that doctors don't load up the insurance companies with unnecessary costs to avoid a meaningless lawsuit. Open up competition between state lines. In my state we have two health insurance providers; care to guess what that does to the costs? I'm willing to bet if they were competing with even 5 other companies, then our costs would be significantly lower.
I am not sympathetic to the insurance companies at all, we should just do as the rest of the industrialized west and have socialized medicine.
Your sympathy is irrelevant. How many government (federal) run programs can you name that have been successful? Here's a run down of many that are not. FDIC which insures money you have in the bank has a chance of going belly-up. USPS is having money troubles also. Social Security: What happens when the baby boomers all retire? Who's going to pay that premium? Medicaire: Same issue as social security. Cash for Clunkers: Cost twice the amount that was predicted. And to think that you WANT to trust this ****-for-brains government of ours with another program...
This is a watered down fix, and getting private interests out of health care is the only thing that will fix our system.
It's not a fix, it's another break. Yes let's get the government involved... GREAT idea. As stated previously, how many successful government programs do you know of? Tell me, why don't they include themselves in this lovely plan of theirs?
I hope you aren't one of these people who thinks we had the greatest health care system in the world before this like so many Obama detractors (FYI, we're 37, right after Costa Rica).
No, I'm not. The system is broken. Here are my ideas (some of which were mentioned above)
1) Cut the tax on cigarettes and make them pay for their own insurance rather than passing on the cost to non smokers (same with other hazardous activities). Hopefully their expenditures equal out to what they are now.
2) Open up competition between state lines.
3) Stop this defensive medecine bull ****.
 
Great post Right. Though I somewhat disagree with 1) and would replace it with tort reform.
Then I would add Health Savings Accounts for 4)
 
Great post Right. Though I somewhat disagree with 1) and would replace it with tort reform.
Then I would add Health Savings Accounts for 4)

I have no problem with people who want to smoke. They shouldn't be taxed through the roof. My problem, however, is when non-smokers have to pay more to cover the smokers who are statistically more prone sickness.

Your additions were good ones.
 
I have no problem with people who want to smoke. They shouldn't be taxed through the roof. My problem, however, is when non-smokers have to pay more to cover the smokers who are statistically more prone sickness.

Your additions were good ones.

My reasoning is that pesky slippery slopey thingy. Should we have to pay for the overweight, those who don't exercise, those who drink? How about those who engage in dangerous sports (bull riding) or how about those who get HIV because of unprotected sex. I know all these things may sound ridiculous now, but nothing would surprise me any more.
 
My reasoning is that pesky slippery slopey thingy. Should we have to pay for the overweight, those who don't exercise, those who drink? How about those who engage in dangerous sports (bull riding) or how about those who get HIV because of unprotected sex. I know all these things may sound ridiculous now, but nothing would surprise me any more.

As long as it can be proved, then actually I don't really have problem with that. Just because Jeff, overthere, wants to get chased by bulls, doesn't mean that I should have to pay for him when he gets gored. You mess with the bull, you get the horns right? Certain things SHOULD raise your own premium and not others. It's kind of like forcing me to pay extra for car insurance because my neighbor has gotten in 6 car accidents.
 
I think the majority of the FOX-hate comes from the fact that for the last 40-50 years, the majority of news outlets have become more and more leftist in their lean. Suddenly, along comes Fox News and starts telling the news from a different viewpoint. For the most part it's the same news, but sometimes it's news that may have never gotten airtime had they not existed. From what I've seen in my few years of adulthood is that everyone that label themselves as a liberal thinks there are no other opinions worth hearing than their own. Fox is definately offering another opinion. In a nation that has had it's schools and news dominated by liberals for so long, a right leaning news agency is an afront to their literary and intellectual dominance (self-proclaimed, of course), only liberals are inteligent after all.......

Being a liberal all my life and turning on to Fox News/Bill O'Reilly, about ten years ago, I suddenly realized that what you observe as a different viewpoint on the news is shallow. I find Mr. O'Reilly and company (Hannity, Beck, Shephard) as totally hypocrytical, conservative (extreme right wingers) as well as racists in denial. They actually think that no one is hip to them. They think the majority of the minority are stupid.

I watch Bill O'Reilly even though I dislike him to the max, because every now and then someone will come along and kick his ass. His style is to ask his guest a question and then not let him/her answer by talking over them. Like George Clooney said when Bill O. invited him to debate on his show, "why should I, he owns the mic". Bill O. is afraid to step out of Fox News for fear someone might plug his jug. Pick up friend, and get with the program and see the truth. I know it might be hard for you, so try reading the bible before you watch Fox News.
 
Being a liberal all my life and turning on to Fox News/Bill O'Reilly, about ten years ago, I suddenly realized that what you observe as a different viewpoint on the news is shallow. I find Mr. O'Reilly and company (Hannity, Beck, Shephard) as totally hypocrytical, conservative (extreme right wingers) as well as racists in denial.

I read this far before deciding you were foolish.
 
A good reason to watch Fox is to see news that is IGNORED by other Media. They pretty much ignored the tea party movement in the beginning, unlike their extensive coverage of Code Pink whose protests usually consisted of 4 or 5 crazy women.
No coverage of ACORN corruption but extensive coverage to discredit the young people who uncovered it.
No coverage of the SEIU attack on a black conservative caught on film, but extensive coverage of unsunstantiated racial slurs, and spitting at congressmen.
No coverage of Van Jones until he was gone and then barely mentioned.
No coverage of Obama instructing NASA to reach out to Muslims as their foremost mission.
Now it looks like no coverage of the New Black Panthers and the promise to show up at Glenn Becks rally in August "ready to rumble." The same Panther at the polls and the same one calling for the killing of "crackers" and their babies. He hates all white people and Glenn's skin color is about as white as it comes. Yet, no coverage about these threats. But extensive coverage making fun of Glenn's "University."
Fox is right leaning, but if you don't watch it, you risk missing some news altogether. The news the left doesn't want you to see.
 
I read this far before deciding you were foolish.
I got as far as they are supposed to be racist, then realized we are not dealing with the sharpest tool in the shed. Ah the internet...................:roll:
 
What political leanings a news outlet has isn't what matters so much as their journalistic integrity- how often they get facts wrong, how much effort they make to avoid distortion of facts, and what they do when they realize they got one wrong. There are media outlets both on the right and the left that have very strong reputations for factual accuracy- the wall street journal, the ny times, the economist, the christian science monitor, the la times, the washington post, the journal of foreign affairs, etc. News outlets that have extensive and rigorous fact checking policies, they only get caught making a factual error very rarely, and when they do, they publish a retraction right on the front page and usually fire the person responsible even if it was just an innocent mistake. If you read a factual statement in any of those, the odds are about 99.99% that it is accurate. These are the sort of outlets that make only a couple factual errors a year. Some of them have very strong political leanings, but those opinions are supported with real facts.

Then there is another tier, that makes an effort to be accurate, has a fact checking policy, prints retractions, but for whatever reason hasn't managed to achieve that same level of journalistic excellence. CNN is in this category for example. They don't ever set out to distort things, when they end up distorting information or presenting something that is factually incorrect, they do retract it, but the pressure of filling 24 hours with news and the reliance on pundits makes that tough. MSNBC is probably at the very low end of this category, maybe tending towards the bottom tier. Generally speaking, most TV news is in this category, most second tier papers, lots of magazines. These outlets may make a factual error every month or so, but usually it doesn't seem to be intentional. Factual statements you pick up from a source like that which sounds a bit fishy you could verify for yourself.

Then there is the bottom tier- news outlets that do not issue retractions, have fact checking policies designed to give their news personalities a lot of "flexibility" with the truth, they clearly have an agenda and pushing that agenda or getting ratings is clearly a higher priority to them than a reputation for factual accuracy. Outlets in this tier typically get caught with a factual innaccuracy every day and the innaccuracy always serves the same agenda, they aren't random mistakes. Some outlets in this tier have a factual innaccuracy in virtually every story. This tier is where Fox News, Huffington Post, and WND live without a doubt. Every one of those organizations is caught presenting blatantly false information every single day and they never retract it. Information you hear in a source like this you should simply disregard out of hand. It is simply unreliable, it is consistently distorted, and central facts are completely omitted when inconvenient.

So, long story short, I would not say that the right wing media is more biased. That's not the problem. Nor would I even say the right wing media tends towards being less factually accurate. The problem is that the consumers of news on the right seem far more inclined to get their news from the least reliable options on their side of the fence. The best strategy for getting news is to read the top tier publications only, but read them from both sides, but if you really can't stomach news that has a different editorial lean, and you find the top tier ones boring, at the very least, stay away from the bottom tier... They did a study once comparing the comprehension of basic facts about the Iraq war for example where they found that Fox viewers were four times as likely to have false beliefs about factual matters in the war than NPR listeners, but that isn't the crazy part. The crazy part is that they were actually more likely to get the questions wrong than somebody who said they do not follow the news at all. Watching Fox actually made them less informed than just sitting around staring at the wall. That's why the bottom tier is so bad. It actively misinforms you.
 
What political leanings a news outlet has isn't what matters so much as their journalistic integrity- how often they get facts wrong, how much effort they make to avoid distortion of facts, and what they do when they realize they got one wrong. There are media outlets both on the right and the left that have very strong reputations for factual accuracy- the wall street journal, the ny times, the economist, the christian science monitor, the la times, the washington post, the journal of foreign affairs, etc. News outlets that have extensive and rigorous fact checking policies, they only get caught making a factual error very rarely, and when they do, they publish a retraction right on the front page and usually fire the person responsible even if it was just an innocent mistake. If you read a factual statement in any of those, the odds are about 99.99% that it is accurate. These are the sort of outlets that make only a couple factual errors a year. Some of them have very strong political leanings, but those opinions are supported with real facts.

Then there is another tier, that makes an effort to be accurate, has a fact checking policy, prints retractions, but for whatever reason hasn't managed to achieve that same level of journalistic excellence. CNN is in this category for example. They don't ever set out to distort things, when they end up distorting information or presenting something that is factually incorrect, they do retract it, but the pressure of filling 24 hours with news and the reliance on pundits makes that tough. MSNBC is probably at the very low end of this category, maybe tending towards the bottom tier. Generally speaking, most TV news is in this category, most second tier papers, lots of magazines. These outlets may make a factual error every month or so, but usually it doesn't seem to be intentional. Factual statements you pick up from a source like that which sounds a bit fishy you could verify for yourself.

Then there is the bottom tier- news outlets that do not issue retractions, have fact checking policies designed to give their news personalities a lot of "flexibility" with the truth, they clearly have an agenda and pushing that agenda or getting ratings is clearly a higher priority to them than a reputation for factual accuracy. Outlets in this tier typically get caught with a factual innaccuracy every day and the innaccuracy always serves the same agenda, they aren't random mistakes. Some outlets in this tier have a factual innaccuracy in virtually every story. This tier is where Fox News, Huffington Post, and WND live without a doubt. Every one of those organizations is caught presenting blatantly false information every single day and they never retract it. Information you hear in a source like this you should simply disregard out of hand. It is simply unreliable, it is consistently distorted, and central facts are completely omitted when inconvenient.

So, long story short, I would not say that the right wing media is more biased. That's not the problem. Nor would I even say the right wing media tends towards being less factually accurate. The problem is that the consumers of news on the right seem far more inclined to get their news from the least reliable options on their side of the fence. The best strategy for getting news is to read the top tier publications only, but read them from both sides, but if you really can't stomach news that has a different editorial lean, and you find the top tier ones boring, at the very least, stay away from the bottom tier... They did a study once comparing the comprehension of basic facts about the Iraq war for example where they found that Fox viewers were four times as likely to have false beliefs about factual matters in the war than NPR listeners, but that isn't the crazy part. The crazy part is that they were actually more likely to get the questions wrong than somebody who said they do not follow the news at all. Watching Fox actually made them less informed than just sitting around staring at the wall. That's why the bottom tier is so bad. It actively misinforms you.
You might wish to do some research into the ten years CNN spent not reporting on the news they were aware of in Iraq, because to do so would mean they could not keep their Baghdad burea open and on their letterhead. It is one the most gratitous examples of a failure of journalist ethics and standards to ever come down the pike. Say what you will about them all, only one of them ever managed to fail on such a massive scale; CNN.
 
You might wish to do some research into the ten years CNN spent not reporting on the news they were aware of in Iraq, because to do so would mean they could not keep their Baghdad burea open and on their letterhead. It is one the most gratitous examples of a failure of journalist ethics and standards to ever come down the pike. Say what you will about them all, only one of them ever managed to fail on such a massive scale; CNN.

Can you provide a source explaining your case?
 
Can you provide a source explaining your case?
I'm out the door right now, I've got quite a lot of material on the matter bookmarked as well as a couple of books that were written about the matter around here somewhere. But you can start here:
CNN's Iraqi Cover-Up

I should state ahead of time that Jordan's excuses and reasoning fall apart under scrutiny, an organization with journalistic integrity would have closed up their Baghdad bureau, pulled their reporters who were not doing any real reporting for over a decade anyway, out of harms way and then told the world the truth about what was really happening in Iraq. Instead CNN ended up playing catch up to other news organizations after the war, who reported on the atrocities that CNN knew about first hand, before CNN did after the fall of Saddam. In fact, CNN was caught flat footed by Jordan's op/ed admission and had to do some furious attempts at damage control and spin doctoring to try and explain their failure here. They did so very poorly and the fact of the matter is that CNN did fail to do their primary job and stated mission, report the truth, for a list of flimsy excuses and reasoning that falls apart when a simple thing like common sense is applied. When the regime is telling the news source what they can and can't report and indeed when the head of the so called news organization is telling his reporters that their reports are not helpful in getting along with the dictator, it is time for someone to examine their ethics. Or lack thereof in this case.;)
 
Last edited:
I'm out the door right now, I've got quite a lot of material on the matter bookmarked as well as a couple of books that were written about the matter around here somewhere. But you can start here:
CNN's Iraqi Cover-Up

I should state ahead of time that Jordan's excuses and reasoning fall apart under scrutiny, an organization with journalistic integrity would have closed up their Baghdad bureau, pulled their reporters who were not doing any real reporting for over a decade anyway, out of harms way and then told the world the truth about what was really happening in Iraq. Instead CNN ended up playing catch up to other news organizations after the war, who reported on the atrocities that CNN knew about first hand, before CNN did after the fall of Saddam. In fact, CNN was caught flat footed by Jordan's op/ed admission and had to do some furious attempts at damage control and spin doctoring to try and explain their failure here. They did so very poorly and the fact of the matter is that CNN did fail to do their primary job and stated mission, report the truth, for a list of flimsy excuses and reasoning that falls apart when a simple thing like common sense is applied. When the regime is telling the news source what they can and can't report and indeed when the head of the so called news organization is telling his reporters that their reports are not helpful in getting along with the dictator, it is time for someone to examine their ethics. Or lack thereof in this case.;)

Interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

But, I think the problem is a whole lot more complex than CNN not reporting the news because they wanted to keep the Baghdad office on their letterhead... What your source says is that there were certain stories they didn't report because they were afraid that the Iraqi members of their staff would be killed or tortured if they did. For example, one of their cameramen was in fact tortured by Saddam and they did not report it because they believed that Saddam would kill the cameraman if they did... That's a damn tough call to have to make and leaving the country would not have protected their Iraqi employees, while it would have denied the world the news they were able to gather and report by being there.

You can make a decent case for the stance that a news organization should never put itself in a situation where they need to supress a story to save lives, but you can also make a decent case for the stance that journalists putting their lives at risk just to get at least some of the news about what is going on in a place like that first hand is remarkably noble even if they can't report everything they learn safely.

But, regardless of your stance on that issue, you can't possibly compare that to a news organization sitting in their cozy offices just reporting false information to serve their own political agenda... One organization is struggling to figure out what the right thing to do is in a very complex decision between people's lives and a news story, the other is intentionally and consciously choosing to mislead the public for profit.
 
Interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

But, I think the problem is a whole lot more complex than CNN not reporting the news because they wanted to keep the Baghdad office on their letterhead... What your source says is that there were certain stories they didn't report because they were afraid that the Iraqi members of their staff would be killed or tortured if they did. For example, one of their cameramen was in fact tortured by Saddam and they did not report it because they believed that Saddam would kill the cameraman if they did... That's a damn tough call to have to make and leaving the country would not have protected their Iraqi employees, while it would have denied the world the news they were able to gather and report by being there.
You're welcome. I linked it because it gives both sides of the equation. CNN did not come to admit this situation out of any deep sense of integrity, once Saddam was gone and the "coast was clear" for them to come clean, they kept silent. It was Jordan's public crisis of conscience, expressed via the NYT op/ed and published without any "heads up" that forced CNN to admit this. Lies by omission are still lies, and CNN was quite happy to omit here. Also, the stories of atrocities the public came to know of, were broke largely by other news agencies, who arrived twelve years after CNN. Kudos in particular to the BBC. CNN literally played catch up to other agencies not already embedded in Iraq, about stories they certainly knew of unless they wish to cite incompetence. Jordan gives excuses for a few situations, yet they were there for over twelve years. Twelve years. Twelve years they spent reporting fluff, not the truth they knew about. Certainly they could have opted to pull out in year two or perhaps four, or maybe six, or maybe eight, or maybe ten and then maybe twelve. They could have on the principals of journalistic integrity removed themselves and then owing to their stated concern about the lives of their former Iraqi correspondents, stayed quite. At the least, following the ouster of Saddam, they could have then stepped forward and proclaimed what they knew to the world and stated their excuses for why they held back. Instead they just kept silent, until Jordan's public "sorta" mea culpa forced them into the light of day. If you read the source I gave you, then you know that the head of the bureau was complicit in admonishing his reporters for reporting news Saddam did not care for as "not helpful" and other obvious ethical issues.

You can make a decent case for the stance that a news organization should never put itself in a situation where they need to suppress a story to save lives, but you can also make a decent case for the stance that journalists putting their lives at risk just to get at least some of the news about what is going on in a place like that first hand is remarkably noble even if they can't report everything they learn safely.
Nobody I've yet met can make a decent case for spending over twelve years lying, obfuscating and painting the rosy picture CNN did about daily life in Iraq that they did. Once again, CNN did not break the stories about rape rooms, mass murder and atrocities once Saddam was gone. Other news agencies did, despite the fact they were using "pool" reporters and had literally just arrived in the country. CNN then, after these now infamous and verified stories came to light, and only then followed suit and reported what was being reported by everyone else. Recall my previous "out" for them; journalistic incompetence. But then we would not know of such if not for Jordan!

But, regardless of your stance on that issue, you can't possibly compare that to a news organization sitting in their cozy offices just reporting false information to serve their own political agenda... One organization is struggling to figure out what the right thing to do is in a very complex decision between people's lives and a news story, the other is intentionally and consciously choosing to mislead the public for profit.
You will have to quantify whom you speak of and document the "false reporting" you speak of for me to take that comment seriously.
 
Now it looks like no coverage of the New Black Panthers and the promise to show up at Glenn Becks rally in August "ready to rumble." The same Panther at the polls and the same one calling for the killing of "crackers" and their babies. He hates all white people and Glenn's skin color is about as white as it comes. Yet, no coverage about these threats. But extensive coverage making fun of Glenn's "University."

I'd pay to see those fireworks
 
You will have to quantify whom you speak of and document the "false reporting" you speak of for me to take that comment seriously.

Well, the three examples I gave of news outlets that were in the worst tier for accuracy were Huffington Post, WND and Fox. I'm betting you don't need proof of that for Huffington Post.

And, I bet you don't question WND being on that list either, but here is just one example that pops to mind. Honestly, every time somebody posts an article from WND it turns out to be wrong... Not just a spin I don't like, but just flat out made up.... An example that pops to mind is that somebody recently posted a WND story claiming that the Texas board of education was voting on a proposal to replace all the history books with ones that removed a bunch of white historical figures, replace the term "American" with "global citizen", etc. Well, first off, the Texas board of education is right wing. Secondly, they were not voting on anything pertaining to text books at all. They were not up for review again for 5 years. Thirdly, no such proposal had ever been made according to the board of education and fourth what they actually did vote to do was to de-emphasize slavery and increase the emphasis on "patriotic values"... It's just insane. They were completely wrong on every fact.... Anyways, if you want more on WND, we can certainly find more like that... They rarely publish a story that is NOT loaded with falsehoods.

For Fox it's a bit more complex. Their actual news hour is not so bad. It tends to distort things and omit things, but not much worse than say MSNBC does. Their online version tends to get in more trouble. For example, they published the same exact story WND did about the Texan history books. Their fact checking policy allows just WND to be a sufficient source to verify a story, so that ends up happening fairly often. They tend to publish speculation frequently as well. For example, all the "so-and-so says such-and-such a Democrat is a blah" type things. That isn't really factually innaccurate, but it is misleading to just blurt out speculation on a news site all the time... But, where they really get in trouble is factual statements made by their pundits. Pundits purporting to be reporting factual information take up most of their air time and some of them are simply off their rockers. Glen Beck, for example, is completely out of control. Every time I've seen his show I've caught at least a couple distortions or falsehoods. For example, just a few nights ago he had a graph of unemployment rate with two bars. One was red, the other was blue. He pointed to the blue one and said that it was "Obama's record" and the red one he said was "Bush's record". Obama's showed a hockey stick in unemployment, Bush's was relatively flat. Well, guess what, there were years listed on the bottom of the graph and the red line was actually 1996 to 2004... So only half Bush and half Clinton. The blue line was 2004 to present, so mostly Bush years... He does stuff like that CONSTANTLY... Here are just a random collection of links I had handy on his distortions and lies:

Thar he blows,the lies of Glenn Beck the Great White Dope
Scarborough: Beck segment on health care reform "connection" "as confusing to me as it was to his guests" | Media Matters for America
Fox News Boycott » lies
Will Fox News hold Beck to its Dan Rather standard? | Media Matters for America
Note to Beck: Doors repaired with stimulus funds were hangar doors and did not cost $1.4 million | Media Matters for America
News Corpse » The Anatomy Of A Glenn Beck Lie:
More Glenn Beck Lies Exposed
Beck aired false claim that a union only needs 30 percent support from employees to be "established" | Media Matters for America
Glenn Beck's Crazy Lies About Van Jones | Environment | AlterNet
Beck falsely claimed average UAW worker makes $154 per hour | Media Matters for America
Beck claims 9-12 protests "largest march on Washington ever" based on "overseas" reporting | Media Matters for America
Beck calls Senate-confirmed Orszag a "czar" | Media Matters for America

I could literally find you 100 more... Fox & Friends is maybe even worse for factual accuracy... They're the ones, for example, who said Obama attended a terrorist training camp and never retracted it...

Or, another way to look at it is to compare how many misconceptions their viewers have about key topics. One study, for example, found that 67% of Fox viewers in 2003 believed that clear evidence of Iraq's involvement with Al Qaeda had been found (incorrect), while only 16% of NPR listeners did. 33% of Fox viewers believed that we had found WMDs in Iraq (incorrect now, but even more incorrect in 2003), where only 11% of NPR listeners did. 35% of Fox viewers believed that the majority of the population of the world supported us going to war against Iraq (wildly incorrect), where only 5% of NPR listeners did. Overall out of those 3 questions, 80% of Fox viewers got at least one wrong, where only 23% of NPR listeners did. The reasons why are clear cut. Fox News published and reported speculative stories like "Cheney suspects Iraq is linked to Al Qaeda" type stuff frequently on all three of those topics, but they rarely reported the actual information about world public opininon, the failure to find WMDs, the weapons inspector's findings, the fact that Al Qaeda and Saddam had been long standing and bloody enemies, etc. They publish speculation that aligns with their message extensively and facts that conflict with their position rarely if at all. So, it's not surprising to see that their views believe the speculation rather than the facts.

Another outlet that belongs on the bottom tier list is the Washington Times... They are actually owned by the moonie church who has made actual statements that they use the Washington Times to promote their view of the world... I don't know how much you know about the moonies, but they make scientologists look sensible by comparison... They're really more of a cult than a church... Anyways though, we'll leave that one for another day...
 
Last edited:
Well, the three examples I gave of news outlets that were in the worst tier for accuracy were Huffington Post, WND and Fox. I'm betting you don't need proof of that for Huffington Post.

And, I bet you don't question WND being on that list either, but here is just one example that pops to mind. Honestly, every time somebody posts an article from WND it turns out to be wrong... Not just a spin I don't like, but just flat out made up.... An example that pops to mind is that somebody recently posted a WND story claiming that the Texas board of education was voting on a proposal to replace all the history books with ones that removed a bunch of white historical figures, replace the term "American" with "global citizen", etc. Well, first off, the Texas board of education is right wing. Secondly, they were not voting on anything pertaining to text books at all. They were not up for review again for 5 years. Thirdly, no such proposal had ever been made according to the board of education and fourth what they actually did vote to do was to de-emphasize slavery and increase the emphasis on "patriotic values"... It's just insane. They were completely wrong on every fact.... Anyways, if you want more on WND, we can certainly find more like that... They rarely publish a story that is NOT loaded with falsehoods.

For Fox it's a bit more complex. Their actual news hour is not so bad. It tends to distort things and omit things, but not much worse than say MSNBC does. Their online version tends to get in more trouble. For example, they published the same exact story WND did about the Texan history books. Their fact checking policy allows just WND to be a sufficient source to verify a story, so that ends up happening fairly often. They tend to publish speculation frequently as well. For example, all the "so-and-so says such-and-such a Democrat is a blah" type things. That isn't really factually innaccurate, but it is misleading to just blurt out speculation on a news site all the time... But, where they really get in trouble is factual statements made by their pundits. Pundits purporting to be reporting factual information take up most of their air time and some of them are simply off their rockers. Glen Beck, for example, is completely out of control. Every time I've seen his show I've caught at least a couple distortions or falsehoods. For example, just a few nights ago he had a graph of unemployment rate with two bars. One was red, the other was blue. He pointed to the blue one and said that it was "Obama's record" and the red one he said was "Bush's record". Obama's showed a hockey stick in unemployment, Bush's was relatively flat. Well, guess what, there were years listed on the bottom of the graph and the red line was actually 1996 to 2004... So only half Bush and half Clinton. The blue line was 2004 to present, so mostly Bush years... He does stuff like that CONSTANTLY... Here are just a random collection of links I had handy on his distortions and lies:

Thar he blows,the lies of Glenn Beck the Great White Dope
Scarborough: Beck segment on health care reform "connection" "as confusing to me as it was to his guests" | Media Matters for America
Fox News Boycott » lies
Will Fox News hold Beck to its Dan Rather standard? | Media Matters for America
Note to Beck: Doors repaired with stimulus funds were hangar doors and did not cost $1.4 million | Media Matters for America
News Corpse » The Anatomy Of A Glenn Beck Lie:
More Glenn Beck Lies Exposed
Beck aired false claim that a union only needs 30 percent support from employees to be "established" | Media Matters for America
Glenn Beck's Crazy Lies About Van Jones | Environment | AlterNet
Beck falsely claimed average UAW worker makes $154 per hour | Media Matters for America
Beck claims 9-12 protests "largest march on Washington ever" based on "overseas" reporting | Media Matters for America
Beck calls Senate-confirmed Orszag a "czar" | Media Matters for America

I could literally find you 100 more... Fox & Friends is maybe even worse for factual accuracy... They're the ones, for example, who said Obama attended a terrorist training camp and never retracted it...

Or, another way to look at it is to compare how many misconceptions their viewers have about key topics. One study, for example, found that 67% of Fox viewers in 2003 believed that clear evidence of Iraq's involvement with Al Qaeda had been found (incorrect), while only 16% of NPR listeners did. 33% of Fox viewers believed that we had found WMDs in Iraq (incorrect now, but even more incorrect in 2003), where only 11% of NPR listeners did. 35% of Fox viewers believed that the majority of the population of the world supported us going to war against Iraq (wildly incorrect), where only 5% of NPR listeners did. Overall out of those 3 questions, 80% of Fox viewers got at least one wrong, where only 23% of NPR listeners did. The reasons why are clear cut. Fox News published and reported speculative stories like "Cheney suspects Iraq is linked to Al Qaeda" type stuff frequently on all three of those topics, but they rarely reported the actual information about world public opinion, the failure to find WMDs, the weapons inspector's findings, the fact that Al Qaeda and Saddam had been long standing and bloody enemies, etc. They publish speculation that aligns with their message extensively and facts that conflict with their position rarely if at all. So, it's not surprising to see that their views believe the speculation rather than the facts.

Another outlet that belongs on the bottom tier list is the Washington Times... They are actually owned by the moonie church who has made actual statements that they use the Washington Times to promote their view of the world... I don't know how much you know about the moonies, but they make scientologists look sensible by comparison... They're really more of a cult than a church... Anyways though, we'll leave that one for another day...

The Huffington Post and World Net Daily aren't really news outlets, they offer syndicated columnists, blogs and news stories with moderated comments and are not comparable to the 24/7 cable news agencies, which are the subject of this thread. And I agree, posting reports stories and columns from either Huffpo or WND is a futile waste of time for obvious reasons. Unless one points to the opinion being discussed as similar to their own. Citing me 100 more examples of an on air opinion commentary host like Beck, or Maddow or Matthews is just citing me 100 more examples that you are not aware of some rather elementary realities. The reason the standard "the opinions of the host of this program do not reflect those of the network etc,..." disclaimer is attached to those types of programs is to clarify the difference between hard line news reporting and opinion commentary; for those who can't grasp the obvious. Citing a well known and much debated study about the viewers of Fox News does not really buttress your arguments at all. Nor does it address the job Fox News does reporting the exact same news the other cable news channels do. Of course Fox News did report about the failure to locate WMD's, the weapons inspectors findings, worldwide public opinion polling and had they published reports about the so called "long standing and bloody" feud between Saddam and Al Qaeda they would quite rightly have been laughed at. Alas for you, they did not and once again you'll have to demonstrate where they have published speculation that aligns with their so called "message" and where they failed to report facts that conflict with their position, to be taken seriously.

Let me clue you in on another nagging little fact, citing Media Matters as a source for what you don't like about Beck or Fox News is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You might wish to take a look around this forum and elsewhere to see about the history of the George Soros funded professional partisan hack job known as Media Matters; whom never met a news story or clip they could not edit, snip, misconstrue the contents of or just outright mislead about.

I'm sad to say that thus far, you are just regurgitating utterly common place internet conspiracy theories and fairly ignorant positions about fairly well known realities, such as the difference between hard news reporting and opinion commentary entertainers like Beck. Just sayin, you seem hell bent on proving my initial comments in this thread were prescient!
We get all types here. We have some who think that only Fox is biased, some who think only the others are biased and some like you (and me) who think they are all biased. As they are all reporting pretty much the same news though, I don't get too worked up about various host offering opinion commentary. We also have a sadly large amount of posters who think that the comments and opinions of various pundits are those of the news origination they work for. If you ever wondered why anybody would actually need an op/ed disclaimer, these folks illustrate the need for such redundancy.:doh
 
Last edited:
The Huffington Post and World Net Daily aren't really news outlets, they offer syndicated columnists, blogs and news stories with moderated comments and are not comparable to the 24/7 cable news agencies, which are the subject of this thread.

True, except that line is getting blurred. Fox, for example, accepts WND as a source for fact checking and they're repeating stories from there with no additional validation. Here is a good article on it- Some fear GOP is being carried to the extreme - Los Angeles Times

Citing me 100 more examples of an on air opinion commentary host like Beck, or Maddow or Matthews is just citing me 100 more examples that you are not aware of some rather elementary realities. The reason the standard "the opinions of the host of this program do not reflect those of the network etc,..." disclaimer is attached to those types of programs is to clarify the difference between hard line news reporting and opinion commentary; for those who can't grasp the obvious.

They use that banner to relieve themselves of the burden of fact checking, but that does not really improve their standing as a credible source of information, it lowers it. If somebody flips to a news network, their is an expectation that the factual information presented is correct. Even if somebody is sophisticated enough to distinguish between opinion and factual information, they still expect that the factual information is correct. A news outlet has a responsibility to make sure that is true, or at least mostly true. Fox just isn't doing that at all. MSNBC does it maybe a bit more than Fox, but not as much as they should. If a network is putting somebody on the air who literally lies every single time they do a show, that makes them bottom tier for credibility in my opinion. If they occassionally put people on the air who under the clear banner of an opinion piece who distort facts somewhat, I'd say that is middle tier. If they just plain don't ever publish any factual information under any banner that is false, then they're top tier. Places like the WSJ and the NY Times, for example, do not knowingly publish op ed pieces that contain factual innaccuracies.

Citing a well known and much debated study about the viewers of Fox News does not really buttress your arguments at all.

I disagree. Certainly people who are prone to believe those particular falsehoods are more likely to watch Fox, but Fox is doing nothing to disabuse them of those misconceptions and in fact is reinforcing them. Republicans who say that they do not follow the news at all have fewer misconceptions than Republicans who watch Fox. That isn't proof of causation, but it's pretty damn conspicuous.

Nor does it address the job Fox News does reporting the exact same news the other cable news channels do. Of course Fox News did report about the failure to locate WMD's, the weapons inspectors findings, worldwide public opinion polling

Not really. They reported it in articles titled things like "Intelligence sources report link between Al Qaeda and Saddam", and then somewhere at the bottom they say something like "some European governments deny the link" or whatever... The other news agencies were reporting the other way around- the international intelligence community rejects the Bush administration's claim that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. And Fox was slow and reluctant to report the major news events that showed that association to be false. For example, the chief of staff of the state department came out and said that the primary goal of the torture of detainees as of 2002 was to manufacture false evidence of the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. In short, the Bush administration intentionally fabricated evidence of a linik between Al Qaeda and Saddam and they used torture to do it. That is a HUGE deal, but was never even mentioned by Fox. So, it's not surprising that somebody who watches Fox is dramatically more likely to still believe that there was a link.

had they published reports about the so called "long standing and bloody" feud between Saddam and Al Qaeda they would quite rightly have been laughed at.

What do you mean? Al Qaeda had launched a long series of terrorist attacks on Saddam and he has brutally cracked down on them and tortured many of them. The notion that they were somehow linked was completely and obviously false, but that is not how Fox presented it at all.

Let me clue you in on another nagging little fact, citing Media Matters as a source for what you don't like about Beck or Fox News is a case of the pot calling

Fair point, but the media matters links I posted are just clips of Beck and links to articles in the mainstream media about it. They are biased, but they aren't pretending to be a news agency, they're just amalgamating sources so it's convenient.
 
Last edited:
Like, I think of it like this. If you flip to a random segment on a news show, or a random story in a publication, and you hear a factual statement made, if it's one of those top tier publications, you can pretty much rely on it being accurate. If it is one of those mid tier organizations it's probably true, but you'd be wise to verify it somewhere else to be safe. If it's one of those bottom tier organizations, you're better off just disregarding it because it is very likely untrue. Whether the ones in the bottom tier get there by publishing primarily pundits who are not constrained by fact checking policies, by moderating blog posts, or whatever, isn't really so important as how reliable the end product turns out to be.
 
True, except that line is getting blurred. Fox, for example, accepts WND as a source for fact checking and they're repeating stories from there with no additional validation. Here is a good article on it- Some fear GOP is being carried to the extreme - Los Angeles Times
Offering an op/ed piece from the LA Times does not prove your claim that Fox News uses WND for "fact checking" and if you have an example that proves your assertion then by all means present it. Otherwise, you quite rightly won't be taken seriously.:roll:

They use that banner to relieve themselves of the burden of fact checking, but that does not really improve their standing as a credible source of information, it lowers it. If somebody flips to a news network, their is an expectation that the factual information presented is correct. Even if somebody is sophisticated enough to distinguish between opinion and factual information, they still expect that the factual information is correct. A news outlet has a responsibility to make sure that is true, or at least mostly true. Fox just isn't doing that at all. MSNBC does it maybe a bit more than Fox, but not as much as they should. If a network is putting somebody on the air who literally lies every single time they do a show, that makes them bottom tier for credibility in my opinion. If they occassionally put people on the air who under the clear banner of an opinion piece who distort facts somewhat, I'd say that is middle tier. If they just plain don't ever publish any factual information under any banner that is false, then they're top tier. Places like the WSJ and the NY Times, for example, do not knowingly publish op ed pieces that contain factual innaccuracies.
As you have no evidence to offer that supports your assertion, you will excuse me for giving your position little credence. The fact that you are regurgitating a fairly common internet script and demonstrating a stark ignorance about the basic differences between op/ed punditry and news reporting does not help either.

I disagree. Certainly people who are prone to believe those particular falsehoods are more likely to watch Fox, but Fox is doing nothing to disabuse them of those misconceptions and in fact is reinforcing them. Republicans who say that they do not follow the news at all have fewer misconceptions than Republicans who watch Fox. That isn't proof of causation, but it's pretty damn conspicuous.
Of course you disagree, but then you also don't grasp the fundamental differences between op/ed commentary and news reporting, think it is a "banner" by which Fox News can avoid fact checking, which makes no sense at all. The op/ed pundits on Fox, like elsewhere, get nailed to the wall when they don't fact check. And they all do fact check. As you have no evidence of this so called lack of fact checking, what you do or do not think about Fox News viewers being ill informed really has no bearing upon the matter, and in a rather ironic way. Nor does the study you cite support your assertions in this thread.

Not really. They reported it in articles titled things like "Intelligence sources report link between Al Qaeda and Saddam", and then somewhere at the bottom they say something like "some European governments deny the link" or whatever... The other news agencies were reporting the other way around- the international intelligence community rejects the Bush administration's claim that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. And Fox was slow and reluctant to report the major news events that showed that association to be false. For example, the deputy director of state came out and said that the primary goal of the torture of detainees as of 2002 was to manufacture false evidence of the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. That is a HUGE deal, but was never even mentioned by Fox.
Sorry, but you will need to post evidence that supports your assertions, again, in order to be taken seriously. As I am quite familiar with this topic and everything you are reading from that internet script you have in front of you, you'll have to do better than that. If you want to be taken seriously. There is also now the repeated problem with your stances, that all you seem to have bookmarked are op/ed pieces. The fact that you are simultaneously claiming op/ed punditry is used by Fox to avoid "fact checking" and then offering nothing but op/ed punditry as your so called fact checking is a rather ironic ploy you seem not to discern.:doh

What do you mean? Al Qaeda had launched a long series of terrorist attacks on Saddam and he has brutally cracked down on them and tortured many of them. The notion that they were somehow linked was completely and obviously false, but that is not how Fox presented it at all.
Specifically, what do you mean? Can you supply some examples of reporting on all these Al Qaeda attacks that were as you say, launched against Saddam Hussien's regime and some evidence regarding Saddam's torture of Al Qaeda operatives?

Fair point, but the media matters links I posted are just clips of Beck and links to articles in the mainstream media about it. They are biased, but they aren't pretending to be a news agency, they're just amalgamating sources so it's convenient.
You are still confusing Beck, an op/ed entertainer, with a hard line news reporter,which he is not. Citing Media Matters as a source for your conspiracy theory puts you in no better a light than citing Huffington Post would. Period.

Like, I think of it like this. If you flip to a random segment on a news show, or a random story in a publication, and you hear a factual statement made, if it's one of those top tier publications, you can pretty much rely on it being accurate. If it is one of those mid tier organizations it's probably true, but you'd be wise to verify it somewhere else to be safe. If it's one of those bottom tier organizations, you're better off just disregarding it because it is very likely untrue. Whether the ones in the bottom tier get there by publishing primarily pundits who are not constrained by fact checking policies, by moderating blog posts, or whatever, isn't really so important as how reliable the end product turns out to be.
Ok. End of the day, only one top tier news agency engaged in over a decade of obfuscation and outright journalistic failure: CNN. For over a decade you could not flip to CNN and tune into a single show on CNN where they were reporting the truth about the atrocities that were occurring in Iraq under their nose. Likewise following the liberation of Iraq you had to flip to other news channels to learn the truth about the atrocities that had been occurring in Iraq, and once those were being reported by other news agencies, CNN followed suit and then, and only then, began reporting about what they had known about all along. In fact, you can say that if not for Jordan's inconvenient NYT op/ed admissions, CNN would have been glad to remain silent about the whole matter, so strong was their sense of integrity.:devil:
 
Last edited:
I want Walter Cronkite back.

That is all.
 
Offering an op/ed piece from the LA Times does not prove your claim that Fox News uses WND for "fact checking" and if you have an example that proves your assertion then by all means present it. Otherwise, you quite rightly won't be taken seriously.:roll:

That isn't an op/ed piece, it's a regular article, and it gives a couple of examples of stories that were forged at WND then appeared on Fox which turned out to be fabricated. I also gave you the example of the Texas testbook hoax that Fox picked up from WND word for word. Looks like Fox took the article down, but here is the Texas school board responding to it- Texas Education Agency - Social studies curriculum standards

The op/ed pundits on Fox, like elsewhere, get nailed to the wall when they don't fact check. And they all do fact check. As you have no evidence of this so called lack of fact checking, what you do or do not think about Fox News viewers being ill informed really has no bearing upon the matter, and in a rather ironic way. Nor does the study you cite support your assertions in this thread.

You stance seems muddled.. On one hand you're arguing that we shouldn't look at op/ed pieces and evaluate the credibility of the network on the basis of their factual accuracy because they're just op/ed pieces. On the other hand, you're arguing that they do fact check their pundits and nail them to the wall if they present falsehoods... You can't have it both ways.

But, as far as nailing their pundits to the wall who present falsehoods, that certainly isn't the case... Beck, who is caught pretty much every day, has an hour long primetime show every night on Fox... They've been escalating his profile on Fox as he has gotten caught so many times that people don't really even bother catching him anymore...

There is also now the repeated problem with your stances, that all you seem to have bookmarked are op/ed pieces. The fact that you are simultaneously claiming op/ed punditry is used by Fox to avoid "fact checking" and then offering nothing but op/ed punditry as your so called fact checking is a rather ironic ploy you seem not to discern.:doh

Er, what? I haven't posted any op/ed pieces. What is making you conclude that the CNN article and the LA Times article are op/ed pieces? Neither of them are.
 
Back
Top Bottom