Leftist Censorship?

[layoutshooter]

As you all know I am not a fan of our so-called "news" outlets, any of them. This story, however, reeks of leftist censorship ideas. Given the chance the leftists in this country would only have one "official" source for news. (propaganda) So much for the First Amendment. It is amazing but there are STILL people who believe that our Constitution is NOT under attack. This person is a prime example of the scuz that are teaching these days. She would make a great dean at the new government college known as Obama U.


[h=1]Professor bans citing Fox News, claiming it makes her cringe[/h]

Back in the day, teachers often scoffed at using encyclopedias as serious academic references. These days, it’s Wikipedia, definitely, and — at one public university in West Virginia — Fox News.


A syllabus for a political science course at West Liberty Universityinstructs students that they must filter out two potential research sources, reports WTOV, a nearby NBC affiliate.


According to Fox News, ironically enough, the syllabus says (with grammatical errors preserved for posterity):


DO NOT use


1) The Onion — this is not news this is literally a parody


2) Fox News — The tagline “Fox News” makes me cringe. Please do not subject me to this biased news station. I would almost rather you print off an article from the Onion


No other media or research sources — such as, say, just for example, MSNBC — appear to be prohibited outright.


Stephanie Wolfe, the visiting assistant professor, behind the ban, has a one-year contract with the university in West Virginia’s Northern Panhandle. She is replacing another instructor who is on leave.


Upset students and some parents complained to local press outlets about what they perceived as forced political bias.


Robin Capehart, president of West Liberty University, appeared to side squarely with Professor Wolfe’s critics.


“One of our values at West Liberty is to encourage students to go out and inquire and gather information and look at as many different sources as possible on any side, before you reach your opinion,” Capehart told WTOV.


“Any attempt to limit the breadth of a student’s ability to investigate is obviously something at which we have a concern,” he added.
It’s not clear what action, if any, Capehart or other unive
rsity officials have taken since the Fox News-hating prof was called out by local press journalists. According to CBS DC, Wolfe is still the instructor for the political science course but she is no longer outlawing Fox News as a source.


There is no word about the proscription on The Onion.


According to West Liberty University, Wolfe most recently taught courses in holocaust and genocide studies at Keene State College in New Hampshire. She earned her undergraduate degree at the University of Oklahoma and her Ph.D from the University of Kent’s Brussels School of International Studies in Belgium.








Professor bans citing Fox News, claiming it makes her cringe - Yahoo! News

 

[muttly]

Ms Wolfe probably believes that reputable news outfits like MSNBC are the final distillation of truth too. Must make her also "cringe" to see the ratings dominance by Fox News. Too bad, so sad.
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, February 7, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

 

[cheri1122]

As the OP is such a proponent of the first person perspective on events, I wonder why this comment from a class member didn't merit consideration:

• Posted by Unbiased at 5:33 p.m. Feb. 13, 2013
• Report Abuse

As one of Dr. Wolfe's students I am really angered by this whole 'tempest in a teapot'. In fact, the people commenting negatively toward Dr. Wolfe (below) show why she is absolutely correct in this matter. Their views have been skewed by bad reporting. We were told, in-class, that she did not want us using biased sources, and mentioned some extreme left, and extreme right, as well as special interest "news" organizations as examples.

She further explained that, if we could make a good argument for using one of these sources (as several people in class have) that she would permit it. She just wanted us to explore a variety of sources, rather than simply accepting a single perspective.

She has NOT (as TV9 claims), "lifted any limitation on research sources", because there was no real limitation to begin with.

The "upset students and parents", are one set of parents who happen to be the extremely conservative and politically influential parents of one student who is failing. So rather than talk to her or anyone else at the University, they are trying to discredit her.

All of this is hardly surprising, WWVA is a Fox radio affiliate, and Bloomquist only has a show because of he spreads offensive lies and half-truths (Look at his comments about coal miners from last April).

What is sad is that WTOV is being so ignorant as to accept for face value what Bloomquist said. This is what happens with yellow journalists on a slow news day, I suppose



Of course I read the link, and the illustration shows clearly why Fox News is so unreliable as a source: A bit of [unidentified] paper, listing rules 1 and 2, torn underneath. Who knows where it originated? And if it is torn from the actual class syllabus, what is on the part not shown?
I'm not so naive as to think bias doesn't exist among teachers and professors, but it's generally presented with a bit more subtlety, I'm sure.
As to the comment about leftists wanting to limit official news to one source, that's just ludicrously ignorant, period. I know a few of those 'leftists', and judging by the articles they share on facebook, their sources [like my own] are all over the place.
I recall trying to get a specific answer from the OP recently about which news sources are trustworthy, and getting only some fancy dancing evasions in reply, but I think the answer is clear now.

 

[RLENT]

As the OP is such a proponent of the first person perspective on events, I wonder why this comment from a class member didn't merit consideration .... I recall trying to get a specific answer from the OP recently about which news sources are trustworthy, and getting only some fancy dancing evasions in reply, but I think the answer is clear now.

You know you have to admire the irony involved when someone who says this:

"As you all know I am not a fan of our so-called "news" outlets, any of them."

... then proceeds to quote a news outlet and treat what was reported therein as some sort of divine truth ... evidently because it comports with the worldview that they espouse ...

The cognitive dissonance must be deafening ...

 

[Turtle]

Ms Wolfe probably believes that reputable news outfits like MSNBC are the final distillation of truth too. Must make her also "cringe" to see the ratings dominance by Fox News. Too bad, so sad.
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, February 7, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

Don't confuse what is popular with what is the truth.

Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed
by a majority of the people. - Giordano Bruno

You, and many others I suspect, will be thrilled to know that in the 4th Annual TV News Trust Poll, Fox News once again is the most trusted news source. Yay!

But wait! There's more! Fox News is also the least trusted news source. Sorry, Muttly.

The polling perfectly illustrates the divisive and partisan nature of politics across the nation at the moment. In addition, the only news network considered more trusted than not trusted was PBS. PBS?!? Yes, PBS. Which, although equally misguided, is a clear sign of the public's negative opinion of the mainstream press.

The polling shows, "Democrats trust everything except Fox, and Republicans don't trust anything other than Fox," which is also a clear sign that none of the news networks are to be trusted, since the trust/distrust lines for each network breaks rigidly down party lines. Meaning, the networks are literally preaching to the choir. They know their audience and they want those ratings, and that's the news they're giving people (A.K.A. Kool-Aid drinking sheeple).

Republicans will look at the polling results of the Democratic respondents and think, "Idiots." Yet they will completely ignore the fact that they themselves are nothing more than the flip-side of the same Idiot Coin, and for the same exact reasons. If you're smart, you'll take your Koo-Aid with a grain of salt or two.

"And that's the way it is."

 

[LDB]

The left may not want to limit to one official source but they certainly want to limit to one official slant. That's why they want the fairness doctrine. They can't face the truth of public preference so they want to force a one sided sourcing.

 

[scottm4211]

Awesome timing Turtle lol

 

[cheri1122]

You know you have to admire the irony involved when someone who says this:

"As you all know I am not a fan of our so-called "news" outlets, any of them."

... then proceeds to quote a news outlet and treat what was reported therein as some sort of divine truth ... evidently because it comports with the worldview that they espouse ...

The cognitive dissonance must be deafening ...

As Turtle's post illustrates, there's no cognitive dissonance among Fox fans, because everything they read/hear is exactly what they already thought is true.

 

[muttly]

Don't confuse what is popular with what is the truth.

Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed
by a majority of the people. - Giordano Bruno

You, and many others I suspect, will be thrilled to know that in the 4th Annual TV News Trust Poll, Fox News once again is the most trusted news source. Yay!

But wait! There's more! Fox News is also the least trusted news source. Sorry, Muttly.

The polling perfectly illustrates the divisive and partisan nature of politics across the nation at the moment. In addition, the only news network considered more trusted than not trusted was PBS. PBS?!? Yes, PBS. Which, although equally misguided, is a clear sign of the public's negative opinion of the mainstream press.

The polling shows, "Democrats trust everything except Fox, and Republicans don't trust anything other than Fox," which is also a clear sign that none of the news networks are to be trusted, since the trust/distrust lines for each network breaks rigidly down party lines. Meaning, the networks are literally preaching to the choir. They know their audience and they want those ratings, and that's the news they're giving people (A.K.A. Kool-Aid drinking sheeple).

Republicans will look at the polling results of the Democratic respondents and think, "Idiots." Yet they will completely ignore the fact that they themselves are nothing more than the flip-side of the same Idiot Coin, and for the same exact reasons. If you're smart, you'll take your Koo-Aid with a grain of salt or two.

"And that's the way it is."

I was merely giving an opinion that Ms Wolfe would probably cringe because Fox News is relevant and much to her chagrin is not dead. Not much more. Not drinking the koolaid. I do think Fox News does however present both points of views more than most. That's why they have flourished. Most of the other networks provide mostly their point of view with occasional presenting the other side.
Dunn And Dumber: Reports Of Fox?s Death Are Greatly Exaggerated | Mediaite
The "And that's the way it is" quote is from, I believe Walter Cronkite, supposedly the most trusted man in news of his time. Except he apparently had certain biases also that permeated his newscasts.

 

[muttly]

Regarding Cronkite from previous post:
Biography: Walter Cronkite was Liberally Biased - Yahoo! News

 

[Turtle]

I do think Fox News does however present both points of views more than most.

That's the Kool-Aid talking.

That's why they have flourished.

They've flourished because they preach to the choir, as the polling unambiguously shows. Fox presents other points of view specifically to "set 'em up and knock 'em down," which is precisely what the choir loves.

"And that's the way it is" quote is from, I believe Walter Cronkite, supposedly the most trusted man in news of his time. Except he apparently had certain biases also that permeated his newscasts.

Exactly. People believed him, people trusted him. He had very high ratings, too. Turns out that trust was misplaced.

Grain of salt, my friend, grain of salt.

 

[aquitted]

I like to get my news from "Sesame Street"

 

[muttly]

That's the Kool-Aid talking.

They've flourished because they preach to the choir, as the polling unambiguously shows. Fox presents other points of view specifically to "set 'em up and knock 'em down," which is precisely what the choir loves.

Exactly. People believed him, people trusted him. He had very high ratings, too. Turns out that trust was misplaced.

Grain of salt, my friend, grain of salt.

It's not koolaid drinking if it happens to be true, regarding presenting both sides more than most.
Just stating a fact. Fox News does definitely give the "conservative" perspective, but also gives plenty of air time for the "liberal" perspective. I've watch the other major news networks. I've seen them either omit stories or give only their slant on it, over and over again. The major ones ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC, even PBS pretty much are all peas in a pod. They bury stories or don't report on it at all. When they do, often it is scant and a lot of the time it has a bias. Fox News presents other points of views on the "News Programs" ONLY to give the other point of view. On the "opinion" programs such as Oreilly, Hannity, yes they probably do some of that, but at least they give them some air time,as little as that may be, when they aren't interrupting them. I'll give you that.

 

[Pilgrim]

That's the Kool-Aid talking.

That sounds like the Kool-Aid responding

They've flourished because they preach to the choir, as the polling unambiguously shows. Fox presents other points of view specifically to "set 'em up and knock 'em down," which is precisely what the choir loves.

Preaching to the choir? There is no "choir". Fox, MSNBC, CNN and all the others preach to the PUBLIC who are free to change channels at any time. If a subject mentioned is the truth, it can not be knocked down. If Fox accurately refutes a false claim of some organization like ABC the true report will stand on its own merit. If their refutation proves to be bogus, the public can and will hold them accountable. Forget "Fair & Balanced". If somebody has some FACTUAL evidence that Fox News is less accurate in their NEWS reporting than the other cable news networks or the MSM then let's see it. Remember - don't confuse their OPINION and EDITORIAL shows with their NEWS segments. So far all we see on this forum and a lot of others is stuff like "Fox sucks" and "Fox News Lies"...the usual LIberal labeling and demonization spelled out in Alinsky's Rules. The Fox ratings speak for themselves, and they're way ahead of their competition. None of these news organizations bat 1.000, but if somebody has hard evidence that the Fox News reporting is less accurate than their competitors - let's see it. Otherwise all we see is conservatives gravitating toward opinion shows like Cavuto and liberals tuning in to see things like Rachel Maddow. The "choirs" can attend and sing at the church of their choosing, and apparently there are more conservative singers tuning in right now.

 

[RLENT]

That sounds like the Kool-Aid responding

Hey ... what are you doing in here, goofing off ...

You've got a homework assignment, remember ?

You are supposedly be working out an explanation of how going to war in Iraq (based on lies) was "defending the Constitution" ...

Sheesh ... kids ...

Now ... snap to it !

Preaching to the choir? There is no "choir".

Riiiight ... just like "there is no foreign meddling" ...

You know ... your continual pretending that I don't actually exist has a value and may be quite instructive ... in that it may shed light into how you try to deal with things you find somewhat unpleasant or uncomfortable (from a political perspective) in the greater world at large:

"... I'll just pretend it's not there ..."

 

[LDB]

On a 1-10 scale if 1 is totally leftist and 10 is completely right you've got CNN, MSNBC and their ilk all in the 1-2 range of the scale and Fox in the 6-7 range. Both of them stay toward their ends of the scale. The difference is how extreme they are and how tolerant of others. Fox somewhat so. The rest not at all. No koolaid, just fact.

 

[Turtle]

That sounds like the Kool-Aid responding

But it's not the Kool-Aid talking, and if you're even remotely as intelligent as I think you are and you've paid attention to what I've posted over the years, then you already know that. If my post above wasn't something you can understand, then I'll explain it to you like this: I don't trust any of them to give me the the unimpassioned truth that their journalistic oaths require them to do. I distrust the left-leaning and the right-leaning media equally. That was the reason for, and the most basic meaning of, my message above regarding the polling data. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that. Seriously. Did you not get that? 'Drink the Kool-Aid with a grain or two of salt?' You didn't understand what that meant? Really?

Preaching to the choir?

Yes. The trust/distrust delineation along party lines makes that clearly evident.

There is no "choir".

It's a metaphor. If you require it, I'll explain that term to you, too.

Fox, MSNBC, CNN and all the others preach to the PUBLIC who are free to change channels at any time.

And yet they don't, as long as they are fed what they want to hear. Just like a real choir, actually.

If a subject mentioned is the truth, it can not be knocked down. If Fox accurately refutes a false claim of some organization like ABC the true report will stand on its own merit. If their refutation proves to be bogus, the public can and will hold them accountable.

The public, yes, but the public already doesn't trust them. The faithful dismisses the lie as no big deal.

Forget "Fair & Balanced". If somebody has some FACTUAL evidence that Fox News is less accurate in their NEWS reporting than the other cable news networks or the MSM then let's see it.

Just one example. In an attempt to make President Obama look really bad (preaching to the choir), Fox & Friends put up a graphic comparing the "real unemployment rate" in 2009 versus today. One tiny problem: The graphic, which showed the rate nearly doubling since Obama took office, was actually comparing today's "real unemployment rate" with 2009's "official unemployment rate." That's a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, which is also known as a lie. And Fox has been busted several times doing that very thing.

Remember - don't confuse their OPINION and EDITORIAL shows with their NEWS segments.

I never do. But few people can tell the difference. Fox News and all the other major cable networks intermix news and opinion so seamlessly, even in the middle of news segments during news shows when the reporter offers up his opinion on the story, that's it's hard for most passive watchers, especially those in the choir, to know or even care about the difference. Fox News regularly manipulates its information with half-truths and straight-up lies, particularly when they try to be all "fair and balanced" and present the other side of an issue. Mostly these are philosophical partisan differences raked over the tautological coals with each side walking away from the piece feeling just as “right” as they entered it. Set 'em up, knock 'em down. The choir sings.

So far all we see on this forum and a lot of others is stuff like "Fox sucks" and "Fox News Lies"...the usual LIberal labeling and demonization spelled out in Alinsky's Rules.

I agree, it's a load of crap. But so are the posts that insist Fox News is fair and balanced and objectively present both side of the issues in an unbiased manner.

The Fox ratings speak for themselves, and they're way ahead of their competition.

Yes it does. But don't confuse what's popular with what is the truth.

None of these news organizations bat 1.000,

Few of them could even make a Rookie A Ball team. Most wouldn't even get a tryout, much less get drafted.

but if somebody has hard evidence that the Fox News reporting is less accurate than their competitors - let's see it.

Give me a number of how many examples I would need to post in order to convince you that Fox News intentionally distorts the facts. One should be enough to do it, certainly two, but I'm open to any realistic number you can come up with. Rupert Murdoch is an ardent believer in the manipulative yellow journalism adage, a Ben Franklin quote, actually, of believing only half of what you see and none of what you read, and Fox News gets its marching orders from Murdoch.

Remember a few years ago when Obama didn't go to Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, and Fox News (both the news segments and the commentators) for several days beat on the fact that by not going to Arlington Obama broke with tradition. Obama went to the Lincoln National Cemetery instead, but they didn't even report that. They just went with the broken tradition of not going to Arlington. The problem is, no tradition exists for the president to go to Arlington every Memorial Day. Fox lied.

This is one of the more egregious and blatant examples of intentionally edited video to misrepresent the facts, to give the chior what they want. It doesn't look like much at first, but once you get past the 4 minute mark, if you watch it that far, there is no way you can believe that Fox News is fair and balanced. They're not even truthful. It's a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. It's a lie.

Otherwise all we see is conservatives gravitating toward opinion shows like Cavuto and liberals tuning in to see things like Rachel Maddow. The "choirs" can attend and sing at the church of their choosing, and apparently there are more conservative singers tuning in right now.

Again, popular doesn't mean much, other than at what level people can be duped on a regular basis. In fact, using the basis of the popularity of something to make it true or more valid or important is actually one of the classic logical fallacies: The argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"). It is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true or important in and of itself because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so (or if many believe, there is some validity to it)." When it comes to the truth, ratings don't matter, and Fox News knows that.

Don't you find it insulting that media organizations, both left and right, are so arrogant that they think they can so easily manipulate you? I certainly do. It's almost, but not quite, as insulting as someone insinuating that I drink the liberal Kool-Aid when they know that not to be the case. Then again, those kinds of tactics are taught routinely on Fox News, aren't they.

 

[skyraider]

I like to get my news from "Sesame Street"

lmao and running for more oxygen.............................lol

 

[skyraider]

Reptilian Mind Control - CNN - 20 Second Manipulation Techniques - YouTube how they do it.

 

[muttly]

Turtle, your opinion of the Ron Paul cpac video is a mis characterization. The video that played was the wrong video and a mistake. It is fine to point out the mistake, however they said it was a mix up when they did the editing and apologized. To say they lied and weren't truthful is not an accurate characterization of what happened. They would have to knowingly play the incorrect video in order for them to be guilty of what you are alleging. It was sloppy editing in this instance. Not condoning it ,but all news agencies make mistakes sometimes. Every one.

Fox News? Bill Hemmer Apologizes for CPAC Straw Poll Ron Paul Video Mixup - TVNewser