These indiividual are entertainers, Templar67, and I'm not saying that to insult them. They are not reputable sources for news, anymore than Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert would be. Fox is not reputable for other reasons; its strong bias has led it to offer commentary in the form of news, as well as color the news with integrated commentary, on far too many occasions. They've been the subject of a film documentary, at least one book (possibly two), and several major studies showing exactly how they set about doing it.TEMPLAR67 wrote:I have never been to that site before, i just happened upon it in a google search, i dont know anything about them. I watch Fox News, mostly O'Rilley and Hannity & Colmes. Oh, and Glenn Beck
US Political thread
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
Siberys
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:16 pm
- Location: I live in that one place with the thing
- Contact:
@Templar, if there's a piece of information being presented to you that you can search for as well on google, rather than tell us that you don't know anything about this, why not read about it? It's at least a chance for you to gain a second possible reputable opinion.
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
When it comes to reality, all of the people you mentioned live on another planet. And yes, I AM saying that to insult them.TEMPLAR67 wrote:I have never been to that site before, i just happened upon it in a google search, i dont know anything about them. I watch Fox News, mostly O'Rilley and Hannity & Colmes. Oh, and Glenn Beck
If you want to live in their world, you're free to do that. But if you respect truth, logic, and integrity, you should get your news somewhere else. Personally, I prefer the foreign press and academics-turned-investigative-journalists such as Josh Marshall, Paul Krugman, and Juan Cole. Also, there are plenty of "tech news" sites such as The Register and The Inquirer which occasionally mention "real" news. CNN.com is okay for entertainment if you like stories about cats playing the piano and things like that.
Well, if wanting unbiased news (if such a thing exists), the I place the "tech sites" Inquire and Register as rather biased as well, as I've seen them interpretate tech news in a .... lets say - creative manner
I have however not read any of their "real" (non-tech) news, so whether it carries over or not I do not know, but I do not trust them as unbiased.
I have however not read any of their "real" (non-tech) news, so whether it carries over or not I do not know, but I do not trust them as unbiased.
Insert signature here.
Xandax, I never claimed that The Register and The Inqurier are "unbiased". I merely meant that they are more likely to be truthful in their reporting than media outlets which make up "facts" out of thin air.
As for "biased" versus "unbiased" reporting, one of the biggest problems with the American mainstream media is the artificial importance they place on being "balanced". If a liberal says something, they feel compelled to present the "other side" even if it's a blatant lie just because "balance" is important. In the end, if two competing claims are reported with no guidance from the press about which claim is actually true, then people end up believing a lot of crap because no one ever told them it was crap. Our newspapers love to quote lies from anonymous sources without any accountability, and that makes them a perfect organ of deceitful propaganda. They deserve our full contempt.
I don't mind a little bit of "bias" if a valid point of view can help a reader determine what is true and what is false. The Register and The Inquirer both report what people say, but they always tell you whether you should take what those people said with a grain of salt. You NEVER see that in the American mainstream media. "Conservative pundits are claiming that the Democrats risk losing public support if they do exactly what 78% of the American public wants them to do because, you know, they're Democrats, and Democrats supposedly are always unpopular even if they're not. That's what conservative pundits say. But as any sane, reasonable person can see, their claim is completely illogical and is merely wishful thinking in the face of what is to them an unpleasant reality." I'd rather read something like THAT.
A point of view can shape a story and provide a reference that helps people understand "what it all means". If a story doesn't have a point of view, then it can't make a point. I think that most people who actually read the news are intelligent enough to realize that not everything they read is true. And if an author's point of view is clearly on display, the reader is better able to judge for himself whether what he is reading is true. I don't mind reading alternative points of view. I can make up my own mind whether I think a source is credible. It's even better if the article itself provides enough information to make a good call. If an "unbiased" story leaves out essential information or provides false claims for the sake of "balance", then it isn't good journalism.
The truth of the matter is that the American mainstream media does in fact make assumptions that they incorporate into every one of their stories. That's because they want to maintain the same narrative they've been printing for the last decade. Democrats can't make up their minds. Scandals involving Democrats are always big news, but Republicans can do no wrong even when they get caught redhanded, because Democrats are immoral and Republicans are virtuous. Democrats are "unpopular" even when their approval ratings are 30-40% higher than the approval ratings of their Republican counterparts. The American people "love" George W. Bush even though he has the lowest approval rating of any President in 30 years. ANY variation from this beloved narrative compels mainstream journalists to reach out to any source that will tell them what they want to hear and confirm their twisted view of reality. And then they report it as if it were substantiated. That's exactly what is proved by the example I linked to above.
The people at The Register and The Inquirer are certainly opinionated, and it's so obvious, you can treat their articles as "opinion pieces" if you want to. But they're still a great source for news. They even published a copy of Connie Meskimen's letter to an Arkansas newspaper in which she claimed that temperatures reached record highs in March because Daylight Savings Time gave us an extra hour of sunlight every day. Most of the "risk" involved in believing what The Register and The Inquirer publish concerns future predictions, which are always a matter of speculation, anyway. No one can make a "true claim" about things that haven't come to pass. Any time you read a prediction someone makes, you ought to know there's a chance it might be wrong. If you don't, then it's obviously not safe for you to read the news.
Just think about the claims the American mainstream media were making back in May 2003 such as, "Bush has won the war, and everyone who said he couldn't do it have been proven wrong." These are the same people who are now saying, "We can't leave because there's more work to do in Iraq." It's as if they can't remember what they said before. If what they said before doesn't matter, then why should we listen to what they're saying NOW? I still remember the stupid arguments people were making back then, such as, "The fact that we haven't been able to find any WMDs is proof that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was so good at hiding them." Do you remember that crap? Time will prove that the arguments they are making now are JUST AS STUPID. I think I prefer the "biased" version of events.
As for "biased" versus "unbiased" reporting, one of the biggest problems with the American mainstream media is the artificial importance they place on being "balanced". If a liberal says something, they feel compelled to present the "other side" even if it's a blatant lie just because "balance" is important. In the end, if two competing claims are reported with no guidance from the press about which claim is actually true, then people end up believing a lot of crap because no one ever told them it was crap. Our newspapers love to quote lies from anonymous sources without any accountability, and that makes them a perfect organ of deceitful propaganda. They deserve our full contempt.
I don't mind a little bit of "bias" if a valid point of view can help a reader determine what is true and what is false. The Register and The Inquirer both report what people say, but they always tell you whether you should take what those people said with a grain of salt. You NEVER see that in the American mainstream media. "Conservative pundits are claiming that the Democrats risk losing public support if they do exactly what 78% of the American public wants them to do because, you know, they're Democrats, and Democrats supposedly are always unpopular even if they're not. That's what conservative pundits say. But as any sane, reasonable person can see, their claim is completely illogical and is merely wishful thinking in the face of what is to them an unpleasant reality." I'd rather read something like THAT.
A point of view can shape a story and provide a reference that helps people understand "what it all means". If a story doesn't have a point of view, then it can't make a point. I think that most people who actually read the news are intelligent enough to realize that not everything they read is true. And if an author's point of view is clearly on display, the reader is better able to judge for himself whether what he is reading is true. I don't mind reading alternative points of view. I can make up my own mind whether I think a source is credible. It's even better if the article itself provides enough information to make a good call. If an "unbiased" story leaves out essential information or provides false claims for the sake of "balance", then it isn't good journalism.
The truth of the matter is that the American mainstream media does in fact make assumptions that they incorporate into every one of their stories. That's because they want to maintain the same narrative they've been printing for the last decade. Democrats can't make up their minds. Scandals involving Democrats are always big news, but Republicans can do no wrong even when they get caught redhanded, because Democrats are immoral and Republicans are virtuous. Democrats are "unpopular" even when their approval ratings are 30-40% higher than the approval ratings of their Republican counterparts. The American people "love" George W. Bush even though he has the lowest approval rating of any President in 30 years. ANY variation from this beloved narrative compels mainstream journalists to reach out to any source that will tell them what they want to hear and confirm their twisted view of reality. And then they report it as if it were substantiated. That's exactly what is proved by the example I linked to above.
The people at The Register and The Inquirer are certainly opinionated, and it's so obvious, you can treat their articles as "opinion pieces" if you want to. But they're still a great source for news. They even published a copy of Connie Meskimen's letter to an Arkansas newspaper in which she claimed that temperatures reached record highs in March because Daylight Savings Time gave us an extra hour of sunlight every day.
Most of the "risk" involved in believing what The Register and The Inquirer publish concerns future predictions, which are always a matter of speculation, anyway. No one can make a "true claim" about things that haven't come to pass. Any time you read a prediction someone makes, you ought to know there's a chance it might be wrong. If you don't, then it's obviously not safe for you to read the news. Just think about the claims the American mainstream media were making back in May 2003 such as, "Bush has won the war, and everyone who said he couldn't do it have been proven wrong." These are the same people who are now saying, "We can't leave because there's more work to do in Iraq." It's as if they can't remember what they said before. If what they said before doesn't matter, then why should we listen to what they're saying NOW? I still remember the stupid arguments people were making back then, such as, "The fact that we haven't been able to find any WMDs is proof that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was so good at hiding them." Do you remember that crap? Time will prove that the arguments they are making now are JUST AS STUPID. I think I prefer the "biased" version of events.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
There's a second problem that VonDondu has touched upon: not the compulsion to appear balanced, where balance lies somewhere between the truth and lies, but the inherent bias of what are called "Beltway Insiders." These are the Washington pundits and press corps that have been coopted by the administration, in a way never accomplished by previous administrations. It was done simply enough. Those who could be bought by flattery, expensive "power" lunches and/or invitations to special events, were treated in this fashion. Those who could be frightened into repeating the Bush line, by being told their press credentials to White House news opts would be withdrawn, were treated in that fashion. The first had never been done systematically before, and the second had never been done at all. White House press opts were frequently tense affairs, with journalists taking chances to make the White House look bad and make themselves look good. No longer. Questions are only tolerated when they are properly cleared beforehand, and treading on sensitive ground has led to the dismissal of several members of the press who merely saw more compliant colleagues given their places.
When you also factor in the vanishing variety of viewpoint in the USian press media, thanks to the removal of anti-monopolistic laws by the Reagan-appointed Federal Communications Commission in the 1980s, a picture emerges of a rightwing press that treats everything from the White House as news even if it isn't, and accepts every statement as the truth when it certainly isn't. During the Valerie Plame hearings it emerged that Carl Rove, the brains behind the "dirty" Republican campaigns since 2000, had sent memos to appropriate department heads about leaking US/Iraq misinformation on Meet the Press, which was described as a "White House mouthpiece." And MtP is considered the premiere show of its kind in the US. This is the level to which Washington-based journalism has fallen in the nation.
One of the best critics of the Beltway Insider crowd is Salon's Glenn Greenwald. I invite you to read this, and especially this. They will give a sense of the frustration that people seeking information of value and importance feel at the Beltway Insider crowd, and all the websites, stations, and especially print publications that run their stuff.
When you also factor in the vanishing variety of viewpoint in the USian press media, thanks to the removal of anti-monopolistic laws by the Reagan-appointed Federal Communications Commission in the 1980s, a picture emerges of a rightwing press that treats everything from the White House as news even if it isn't, and accepts every statement as the truth when it certainly isn't. During the Valerie Plame hearings it emerged that Carl Rove, the brains behind the "dirty" Republican campaigns since 2000, had sent memos to appropriate department heads about leaking US/Iraq misinformation on Meet the Press, which was described as a "White House mouthpiece." And MtP is considered the premiere show of its kind in the US. This is the level to which Washington-based journalism has fallen in the nation.
One of the best critics of the Beltway Insider crowd is Salon's Glenn Greenwald. I invite you to read this, and especially this. They will give a sense of the frustration that people seeking information of value and importance feel at the Beltway Insider crowd, and all the websites, stations, and especially print publications that run their stuff.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Nice work, Fable. I'm familiar with that myself, but I didn't want to push it on people like TEMPLAR67 because I don't want him to think I'm a liberal.fable wrote:There's a second problem that VonDondu has touched upon: not the compulsion to appear balanced, where balance lies somewhere between the truth and lies, but the inherent bias of what are called "Beltway Insiders." ...
One of the best critics of the Beltway Insider crowd is Salon's Glenn Greenwald...
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Like you, I'll take the truth from whatever flavored source I can find. As long as it remains the truth.VonDondu wrote:Nice work, Fable. I'm familiar with that myself, but I didn't want to push it on people like TEMPLAR67 because I don't want him to think I'm a liberal.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Good reading @Von and fable. It puts the finger right on the rotten state of the press here in the US.
Personally, I believe mouthpiece media has alot to do with the fact that Dubyah hasn't faced impeachment proceedings. I daresay his White House has been caught in more than enough wrongdoing to justify it. I'm amazed that there hasn't been a public outcry for his impeachment, quite frankly. Considering the fact that both he and his underlings have lied to both Congress and the American public (WMDs, the DoJ scandal, etc) and used their office to help keep their political party in power (ala Rove and his secret network using official governmental computers and time), I feel we should petition our congressional representatives to do it. I, for one, am doing just that.
Personally, I believe mouthpiece media has alot to do with the fact that Dubyah hasn't faced impeachment proceedings. I daresay his White House has been caught in more than enough wrongdoing to justify it. I'm amazed that there hasn't been a public outcry for his impeachment, quite frankly. Considering the fact that both he and his underlings have lied to both Congress and the American public (WMDs, the DoJ scandal, etc) and used their office to help keep their political party in power (ala Rove and his secret network using official governmental computers and time), I feel we should petition our congressional representatives to do it. I, for one, am doing just that.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
-
Ode to a Grasshopper
- Posts: 6664
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
As an offside, what do people think the chances of a change in US law so Arnie can become Pres are? Do we have any "Arnie for President" supporters besides me here?
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]
The soul must be free, whatever the cost.
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]
The soul must be free, whatever the cost.
Not very good. It would require a new constitutional amendment, which would take years to ratify, and such an amendment probably wouldn't get off the ground in this highly charged, sharply divided political climate. Besides, Arnold can't become President unless we open the door for everyone else in his position. As soon as the amendment was offered up for ratification, a bunch of "undesirable" non-native-born U.S. citizens would announce THEIR candidacies, and that would make a lot of people stop and say, "Hey, wait a minute."Mr Spanky wrote:As an offside, what do people think the chances of a change in US law so Arnie can become Pres are?
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
Can you elaborate on this? Do you have anyone specific in mind?VonDondu wrote:Besides, Arnold can't become President unless we open the door for everyone else in his position. As soon as the amendment was offered up for ratification, a bunch of "undesirable" non-native-born U.S. citizens would announce THEIR candidacies, and that would make a lot of people stop and say, "Hey, wait a minute."
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I can't speak for VonDondu, but I suspect she means that we may see US citizens born elsewhere who for one reason or another raise the hackles of a significant number of voters. Bear in mind, there are quite a few USians today who feel that Schwarzeneger has proven a conservative in moderate's clothing, and don't like this. (He gutted a landmark environmental bill, AB32, vetoed equal marriage rights for homosexual couples, opposed universal health care, and opposed an important anti-big oil proposition, for instance.)Vicsun wrote:Can you elaborate on this? Do you have anyone specific in mind?
Interestingly enough, the US almost had a foreign-born citizen as its fourth president. Albert Gallatin was born in Switzerland, became the longest serving Secretary of the Treasury, a brilliant diplomat, and one of the leaders of his party. He strongly opposed the Federalists' desire for expansion to the military and a war against France under Jefferson. Unfortunately, as Henry Adams notes in his history of the Jefferson and Madison presidencies, Galatin had the misfortune of living in Pennsylvania, where the in-fighting was so severe that all its members to the federal legislature (who were as a group responsible for choosing the next president and vice president) could only agree on preventing any one of their own from taking the top office.
If Gallatin had been approved, I suspect the Congress would have first quickly required its state legislatures to overturn the law against foreign born citizens in the office. That would have been a relatively simple matter at the time, when politics was only a matter of a few wealthy, land-owning, well-educated white men with many connections, controlling everything.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
I'm afraid I still don't understand - are you saying that if foreign born citizens are viable candidates, some foreign born candidates will be unpopular, which is a problem?fable wrote:I can't speak for VonDondu, but I suspect she means that we may see US citizens born elsewhere who for one reason or another raise the hackles of a significant number of voters.
I'm not trying to debate anything here, I'm just confused by what you're saying.Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
I don't have anyone specific in mind. What I mean is that if naturalized citizens (as opposed to native-born citizens) are allowed to run for President, then there will undoubtedly be other naturalized citizens besides Arnold who will run for President, and a large number of native-born citizens will say, "I don't want someone like that to run for President." This country has a tendency to be very xenophobic, and besides, only native-born U.S. citizens have TRUE natural rights. (I'm being sarcastic, of course.)Vicsun wrote:Can you elaborate on this? Do you have anyone specific in mind?
One of my underlying assumptions is that there will never be a constitutional amendment made solely and specifically for Arnold. It would have to include everyone in his position. (Not that there are very many Austrian-born bodybuilding champions who became big movie stars, then married into the Kennedy family, and then became governor of one of the largest states in the U.S. Not even in America.)
On the other hand, if conservatives successfully suspend or overturn the U.S. Constitution, then I suppose they can choose any candidate they want to.