Leftist Censorship?

[Pilgrim]

No sense in re-hashing all the points and counter-points since my last post - and I think it was conceded from the outset that Fox News Channel has a conservative slant to most of its programming. However, I do want to get back to the main point I was perhaps unsuccessfully trying to make:

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.

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.

OK - there's two examples of Fox distortions. Maybe I've missed something in some of the epic posts in this thread, but I still haven't seen anything to refute my original contention that their sins are neither more severe, nor more frequent than those of their competitors in the MSM such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or their cable competitors like CNN or MSNBC - all of whom display a distinct liberal bias compared to Fox's conservatism. There are all kinds of examples of distortions and flat-out lies by the MSM, and here are a few that everyone should remember:

1. CBS and Dan Rather's use of phony documents that blatently made false claims regarding Geo. W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard. To make matters worse, Rather and CBS stood behind these lies even after being exposed as a fraud, and tried to cover up the whole deal. In the end, four people from CBS got fired and Rather was allowed to "retire". IMHO he should have been prosecuted and sued in civil court.

Rathergate - MediaMythBusters

2. NBC and the exploding GM trucks - that's an old favorite, and how many remember that ABC did the same kind of story about Fords? But wait - there's more:
"It Didn't Start With Dateline NBC" (National Review 6/21/93)

3. Remember the ABC hit piece on Food Lion: "Food Lion story (1992). Fraudulent techniques and probable fabrication. Two ABC producers lied on their resumes to get jobs at Food Lion. They each wore a wig hiding a tiny lipstick-sized camera, and each carried a concealed microphone. It’s possible they shot footage of mishandled food by doing the mishandling themselves. Food Lion sued ABC and a jury awarded it $5.5 million."

​Fabrications/Lying - MediaMythBusters

Bottom line is that Fox News is no more slanted to the Right than the MSM & CNN, MSNBC, etc are slanted to the Left. I'll also bet that if someone wanted (which I don't) to take the hours if not days to do the research, they would find that these networks lie and distort to a greater degree and more often than Fox. Just my opinion of course, with a little something here and there to back it up.

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

 

[RLENT]

Just my opinion of course, with a little something here and there to back it up.

Well ... what I'm wondering is if you can elucidate a remotely tenable argument that in any way explains how the Iraq War was "defending the Constitution" ...

Mind you now ... I'm not really asking for any actual facts or evidence to support justifying the war ... but just a mere argument to support what is at this point just a rather baseless assertion vis-a-vis that it "defended the Constitution" ...

How does that work exactly ?

Ball is in your court ... you can either man up ... or just continue to cower in the darkness and gloom of the digital aether ...

Your choice ...

 

[Turtle]

...but I still haven't seen anything to refute my original contention that their sins are neither more severe, nor more frequent than those of their competitors in the MSM such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or their cable competitors like CNN or MSNBC...

I never disagreed with that contention. In fact, that was the primary purpose of my post about the polling results... that none of them can be trusted, because they all cater in a blatantly biased manner to their blatantly biased audience.

Republicans only trust Fox news as their news source, and distrust everything that's not Fox News. That should tell you that Fox News caters to the Republicans. Democrats trust anything except Fox News, and don't trust Fox News for anything. That should tell you that the other networks blatantly cater to liberals. The only way that can happen so evenly down political party lines is if people are hearing what they want to hear politically from their favored news source, regardless of what the actual truth might be. The truth is far less important than being satisfied in what they hear. By the same token, the networks are more concerned with feeding their audience's wants and desires in the quest for ratings than they are with the truth, as has been demonstrated time and time again by all of the aforementioned networks.

The contention that Fox News is somehow less bad than the other networks, and are more "fair and balanced" than the others is just a load of crap. They aren't any better, nor are they any worse, they are just as bad as the others. Once you intentionally lie and distort the truth for a political agenda more than about once or twice, it's no longer a degree of who is worse, because none of them can be trusted. And they are all guilty and not to be trusted, much less defended.

People on both sides will look the other way from lies and distortions, some will look for excuses to justify them or render them benign, some will utterly believe them and even defend them, rather than seek the truth. Because the truth doesn't matter. They like being manipulated and told what to believe and how to think. It's certainly easier.

Like I said in my initial posting in this thread, "If you're smart, you'll take your Koo-Aid with a grain of salt or two." That statement applies who whatever set of capital-lettered news organization you wish to apply.

 

[Turtle]

I'll get back on the above when I have more time. And your source for the last paragraph is?

The same place the original story came from, a blog posting (The Daily Caller, which picked up the story from a rather short blub on another Blog, Fox Nation), with additional information from Inside Higher Ed. The original story is basically a he-said/she-said third party reporting of mostly what other news organizations had reported.

One of the salient lines of the original story is, "Upset students and some parents complained to local press outlets about what they perceived as forced political bias." Not that they complained about forced political bias, but about what they perceived as such. Perceived is a euphemism for "believed". It's also a line, out of what purports to be a news organization, mind you, that wouldn't even pass the litmus test for inclusion on a Wikipedia page. It's vague and inexact. How many upset students? How many parents? Who are they? It's sloppy reporting at best. That's because it's not reporting, it's a Blog post from someone slanting a story to fit an agenda., based upon an extremely biased radio show that doesn't even pretend to be unbiased. Recognize it when you see it.

In college and university academia, research, journalism and literature professors will often restrict or ban research from sources which have proven to be unreliable, regardless of a particular bias. Such restrictions are common in political science courses.

Interestingly enough, the OP and referencing article didn't even bother to find out the context of the reported restrictions. They just regurgitated whatever worked to rile the faithful up, which shouldn't be all that surprising since the OP and the referenced article are both from conservative sources, one of which is Fox News. The context of the assignment was to keep a "politics journal" in which the students would record their reactions to various articles they had selected. They were to use articles that were fully sourced, verified and reliable. They were not to use sources from the extreme left or extreme right, unless they could make a convincing argument for doing so. The professor listed some possible news sources, such as but not limited to, The Economist, BBC, CNN and The Huffington Post. The instructor also specified in writing that two sources should not be used because they have proven to be unreliable as fully sourced. One was The Onion and the other was Fox News. But MSNBC was also mentioned in the class. The teacher wanted the students to steer clear of one particular bias to the exclusion of another, and to concentrate on unbiased sources if possible. It wasn't a bias in and of itself the teacher was concerned with, but rather an extreme bias on either side.

The listed possible sources were not the only permitted sources, they were simply examples of the types of sources which, while certainly biased, are not an extreme bias. The Onion and Fox News were listed, and MSNBC was mentioned aloud, as sources to avoid because Fox News and MSNBC both have an extreme bias and have proven to be unreliable. The Onion was mentioned because the teacher has seen too many people use it as a source for factual news.

The same day the assignment was given the teacher removed the restrictions from all but The Onion, provided anyone citing anything from an extreme biased source could make the argument for it.

In addition to the above, we now have comments first hand from someone who is actually in the class to provide even more contextual information. That person being "unbiased". Since there is no information to contradict the statements of "unbiased", there is no reason to believe they aren't truthful, especially since they correlate with followup reports. To dismiss the comments of "unbiased" because, in someone's opinion that "unbiased" is in fact, biased, and to attempt to discredit the statement by discrediting the person making the statement, are both rather weak straw man and ad hominem arguments that simply fall apart from the start. It doesn't matter if "unbiased" is biased or unbiased, if what they state is the truth.

So, you have a choice to believe what has been shown to be the truth, or to believe what has shown to be a false premise, or at the very least what has been shown to be an unsubstantiated premise based on a perception of what might be the case (i.e., an assumption). It all depends on whether you prefer the lie because the lie conforms more easily to what your political agenda and beliefs are. It's up to you.

 

[muttly]

The same place the original story came from, a blog posting (The Daily Caller, which picked up the story from a rather short blub on another Blog, Fox Nation), with additional information from Inside Higher Ed. The original story is basically a he-said/she-said third party reporting of mostly what other news organizations had reported.

One of the salient lines of the original story is, "Upset students and some parents complained to local press outlets about what they perceived as forced political bias." Not that they complained about forced political bias, but about what they perceived as such. Perceived is a euphemism for "believed". It's also a line, out of what purports to be a news organization, mind you, that wouldn't even pass the litmus test for inclusion on a Wikipedia page. It's vague and inexact. How many upset students? How many parents? Who are they? It's sloppy reporting at best. That's because it's not reporting, it's a Blog post from someone slanting a story to fit an agenda., based upon an extremely biased radio show that doesn't even pretend to be unbiased. Recognize it when you see it.

In college and university academia, research, journalism and literature professors will often restrict or ban research from sources which have proven to be unreliable, regardless of a particular bias. Such restrictions are common in political science courses.

Interestingly enough, the OP and referencing article didn't even bother to find out the context of the reported restrictions. They just regurgitated whatever worked to rile the faithful up, which shouldn't be all that surprising since the OP and the referenced article are both from conservative sources, one of which is Fox News. The context of the assignment was to keep a "politics journal" in which the students would record their reactions to various articles they had selected. They were to use articles that were fully sourced, verified and reliable. They were not to use sources from the extreme left or extreme right, unless they could make a convincing argument for doing so. The professor listed some possible news sources, such as but not limited to, The Economist, BBC, CNN and The Huffington Post. The instructor also specified in writing that two sources should not be used because they have proven to be unreliable as fully sourced. One was The Onion and the other was Fox News. But MSNBC was also mentioned in the class. The teacher wanted the students to steer clear of one particular bias to the exclusion of another, and to concentrate on unbiased sources if possible. It wasn't a bias in and of itself the teacher was concerned with, but rather an extreme bias on either side.

The listed possible sources were not the only permitted sources, they were simply examples of the types of sources which, while certainly biased, are not an extreme bias. The Onion and Fox News were listed, and MSNBC was mentioned aloud, as sources to avoid because Fox News and MSNBC both have an extreme bias and have proven to be unreliable. The Onion was mentioned because the teacher has seen too many people use it as a source for factual news.

The same day the assignment was given the teacher removed the restrictions from all but The Onion, provided anyone citing anything from an extreme biased source could make the argument for it.

In addition to the above, we now have comments first hand from someone who is actually in the class to provide even more contextual information. That person being "unbiased". Since there is no information to contradict the statements of "unbiased", there is no reason to believe they aren't truthful, especially since they correlate with followup reports. To dismiss the comments of "unbiased" because, in someone's opinion that "unbiased" is in fact, biased, and to attempt to discredit the statement by discrediting the person making the statement, are both rather weak straw man and ad hominem arguments that simply fall apart from the start. It doesn't matter if "unbiased" is biased or unbiased, if what they state is the truth.

So, you have a choice to believe what has been shown to be the truth, or to believe what has shown to be a false premise, or at the very least what has been shown to be an unsubstantiated premise based on a perception of what might be the case (i.e., an assumption). It all depends on whether you prefer the lie because the lie conforms more easily to what your political agenda and beliefs are. It's up to you.

You can give a long dissertation of it all you want about the perceived sloppy reporting,yet you yourself in your previous post have said the accounts of what happened are a fact.And your source is a post in a comment section. Again, you said it is a fact. Wow.

 

[davekc]

While my preference is Fox News over the other cable news outlet (except maybe bbc) they all have a slanted bias one way or the other. I think MSNBC and others are more obvious with the left slant and Fox has its moments as well if looking objectively, but they look so much better when they do it.

 

[Turtle]

You can give a long dissertation of it all you want about the perceived sloppy reporting,yet you yourself in your previous post have said the accounts of what happened are a fact.And your source is a post in a comment section. Again, you said it is a fact. Wow.

Yes, I said fact. You can wow all you want, but as I stated quite plainly for anyone with even the most basic level of reading comprehension to understand, the comments section was not my sole source, it was just one of them. The fact was independently confirmed from 3 different sources. It only takes two independent sources to confirm a fact. What you did, on the other hand, is look at two conflicting stories, chose which one to believe as a fact, dismissed the one you don't believe, both without having confirmed either.

Another stone-cold fact is that whenever a story gets reported through the filter of a political agenda, the whole truth and the proper context are never reported with it. At least one of the Five Ws is always omitted or distorted. Always.

 

[Humble2drive]

. . . as I stated quite plainly for anyone with even the most basic level of reading comprehension to understand, the comments section was not my sole source, it was just one of them.

Turtle,
I recommend teaching as your next career. You have the ability to utilize logic and examples to clearly explain a position and the patience to re-explain it in different terms to the learning challenged.
Obviously, you will not get through to all of the special students but I commend you for trying.

 

[Pilgrim]

The contention that Fox News is somehow less bad than the other networks, and are more "fair and balanced" than the others is just a load of crap. They aren't any better, nor are they any worse, they are just as bad as the others. Once you intentionally lie and distort the truth for a political agenda more than about once or twice, it's no longer a degree of who is worse, because none of them can be trusted. And they are all guilty and not to be trusted, much less defended.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the trust issue. IMHO yes - once caught misrepresenting the facts a news organization's credibility diminishes. But no - their level of credibility is not black or white, but shades of gray. For the sake of argument let's ignore the left/right slant; if someone has an example of Fox News misrepresenting outright lies as fact in an instance anywhere near as egregious as the CBS / Rathergate scandal, let's see it. Same as NBC & ABC with the phony exploding trucks and cars and ABC getting caught lying about Food Lion - and losing a civil suit in court. To make it worse, quite a few of the MSM fairy tales not only show political bias but are also defamatory towards businesses that employ hundreds if not thousands of people. Food Lion's business was severely impacted by the false ABC report. In other words there are lies, and there are dam*ed lies. Evidence indicates that the three mainstream TV networks seem to be far more guilty of the latter.

Like I said in my initial posting in this thread, "If you're smart, you'll take your Kool-Aid with a grain of salt or two." That statement applies who whatever set of capital-lettered news organization you wish to apply.

Agreed - and unfortunately, the general public is forced to make do with varying degrees of salty Kool-Aid until somebody comes up with a truly objective source of information that comes from a credible source.

 

[Moot]

The only truthful and unbiased news reports can be found on the sports page:

Sports Page Lyrics by Dave Frishberg

Now my favorite TV anchor man says watch the Middle East. The price of oil is going out of sight. Only yesterday he said it would never be increased and that's the opposite of what he said last night. Now it's getting so tough to understand this stuff. I don't really want to bother any more. If I want to understand the news that I read today, I've gotta forget the news I read the day before.

But then I turn to the sports page and I see where the Lakers didn't make it. Now there's no way I know they can fake it. They can't say they win if they lose. 'Cause there it is on the sports page. There's no way I know to deny it, they win, they lose or they tie it. They can't cover it up in the news.

Now generals and congressmen and other shifty guys, they all got little tricks they want to pull. And the scratchy stuff I feel that's being pulled around my eyes I'm beginning to identify as wool. There's an expose about the CIA on the TV and the radio and the press. After all the different versions of what I'm supposed to know I wind up understanding less.

Then I turn to the sports page and I see where Reggie Jackson made an error Now how could they report that any fairer? The sun must of got in his eyes. But there it was on the sports page -- just the simple facts that I am finding and not another axe that somebody's grinding. You can't change the score by telling lies.

Now back a couple seasons when the Mets were riding high the astronauts were landing on the moon. Now I watched it on the TV and I looked up at the sky then I started laughing like a loon. It could all be a fake like a movie they could make. We'd all believe they're out in space. And the Russians could be making phony movies too, and we'd never know who really won the race.

Then I turn to the sports page, and the Mets had blown it in the 13th inning. The papers can't making losing look like wining. I think the Phillies took it 5 to 4. But there it was on the sports page. The only page that takes a firm position. Kinda like an honest politician The kind you hardly find any more. In fact, let's face it, the sports page is the only place to go when a fella wants to know the score.

 

[Turtle]

... if someone has an example of Fox News misrepresenting outright lies as fact in an instance anywhere near as egregious as the CBS / Rathergate scandal, let's see it.

Oh, I dunno. One great big lie or a hundred little ones, what's the difference? Fox News rarely has any whoopers (although the burning streets of Russia that never happened comes close), but rather (pun intended) they tend to constantly slip through little lies and twists of the truth, more subtly, more incipiently where it's barely noticeable. Does that make them better, or worse? They certainly add up to pretty egregious when you think about it.

For example, a Federal Reserve report from June 2012 came out showing that the median net worth of Americans had dropped 38% in the three year period between 2007 and 2010. Fox News reported it as is taking place "during the last three years," directly implying that it was Obama's fault (despite two of the three years of that period being under Bush, and was a direct result of Bush's policies). It's a subtle twisting of the truth, a distortion of the facts. Some will no doubt call is a simple mistake, a misspoken phrase that can happen to anybody. No big deal.

Another is the infamous Steve Doocy "unlike some people" paraphrasing of an Obama quote. Not very egregious on it's own, to be sure, but it's a distortion of the truth nonetheless.

Another one reported and repeatedly talked about for several days on Fox News was Obama's $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company using tax dollars. The loan certainly took place under Obama's watch, but the loan was approved under Bush by the board of directors of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, five Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were Bush appointees. Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that loan, nor were tax dollars used. Again, not exactly a whopper, but it's not even a distortion - it's a straight-up lie. But, hey, it's just a little one, told to make people who already hate Obama hate him even more. No harm no foul?

It's the kind of thing that happens dozens if not hundreds of times a day with every telling. Can you trust someone who does that? Someone who is that arrogant and amoral about the truth?

In my book it's not a matter of degrees of egregiousness, but a matter of who can you trust. And I don't trust any of them. A lie is a lie is a lie, and when you get past more than about one or two of them, nothing said can be trusted.


I do find it interesting that all of the major broadcast and cable news outlets (well, the ones who are biased, anyway) follow the same steps of successful propaganda. If you've studied and know the principles of propaganda, you will see that Fox News, more than most, is the most closely aligned with those principles in how they report the news, but they all do it to one degree or another.

Con men have known for centuries that "the bigger the lie the more it is believed," but Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the architect and master of modern propaganda, also knew that subtle little lies, used to lead people without them even knowing it, yields the most ardent and loyal believers, because the people believe their beliefs are their own.

Some of the primary principles of Propaganda are:

"Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false. Once you have credibility and trust, it doesn't matter if the output is true or not - it will be believed."

"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred if the targets are not already understood."

"Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level. People must be truly fearful of not believing."

"To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium." {Ratings, baby! Ratings!}

Do any of these principles remind you of any particular news organization? Sure, one in particular stands out, but the reality is they all follow the same principles. That's why I say recognize it when you see it, recognize when they're trying to manipulate you, recognize when you're being duped.

Incidentally, just for the same of completeness, in addition to Dr. Joseph Goebbels being the architect and master of modern propaganda, he was one of Hitler's closest friends and confidants and the architect of Hitler's rise to power, and was Hitler's Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in Nazi Germany. Interesting, isn't it, that our beloved Fox News is so closely related to the tactics and principles of Hitler and Nazi Germany?

 

[cheri1122]

the difference between one great big lie or a hundred little ones is pretty big: one can be excused as a one off, an anomaly, an exception, while a hundred [or two or three hundred] little ones slip by without notice.
Speaking of slipping by without notice, the OP seems to have lost all interest in the subject that aroused his outrage.

 

[Pilgrim]

Oh, I dunno. One great big lie or a hundred little ones, what's the difference? Fox News rarely has any whoopers (although the burning streets of Russia that never happened comes close), but rather (pun intended) they tend to constantly slip through little lies and twists of the truth, more subtly, more incipiently where it's barely noticeable. Does that make them better, or worse? They certainly add up to pretty egregious when you think about it.

Sorry, but that's just subjective analysis. To imply that the MSM and cable alphabet networks have a few big lies and a few little ones is just not factual. The MSM have plenty of little white ones to go along with the big black ones. Here again, all these networks have a slant and most of them are toward the left.

If you've studied and know the principles of propaganda, you will see that Fox News, more than most, is the most closely aligned with those principles in how they report the news...

Once again - a matter of opinion. Still no hard facts to substantiate the notion that Fox is more propagandist than ABC or the others, but your interpretation is duly noted.

Con men have known for centuries that "the bigger the lie the more it is believed," but Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the architect and master of modern propaganda, also knew that subtle little lies, used to lead people without them even knowing it, yields the most ardent and loyal believers, because the people believe their beliefs are their own.

Some of the primary principles of Propaganda are:

"Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false. Once you have credibility and trust, it doesn't matter if the output is true or not - it will be believed."

"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred if the targets are not already understood."

"Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level. People must be truly fearful of not believing."

"To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium." {Ratings, baby! Ratings!}

Do any of these principles remind you of any particular news organization? Sure, one in particular stands out, but the reality is they all follow the same principles. That's why I say recognize it when you see it, recognize when they're trying to manipulate you, recognize when you're being duped.

Incidentally, just for the same of completeness, in addition to Dr. Joseph Goebbels being the architect and master of modern propaganda, he was one of Hitler's closest friends and confidants and the architect of Hitler's rise to power, and was Hitler's Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in Nazi Germany. Interesting, isn't it, that our beloved Fox News is so closely related to the tactics and principles of Hitler and Nazi Germany?

When you've run out of substance for an argument the safe refuge seems to always be compare the object of your scorn to the Nazis. Nice try with the reverse logic to imply that the better ratings are directly proportional to the Nazi propaganda techniques being used - but it's once again opinion, not fact. Besides, if that were the case the MSM networks must be far better Nazis than Fox since they still command the largest number of viewers. How ironic it is that the quotes in the above box apply so directly to the principles of the Obama campaign - and that it can be said the MSM has followed in lock step aiding the liberal Obama agenda. Every little bit helped during the home stretch of the campaign season, like Candy Crowley's inappropriate confirmation of Obama's false claims regarding Benghazi during the Oct 16th debate on CNN.

Still waiting for concrete evidence that Fox misrepresents the facts more egregiously and more often than their cable and MSM competitors...

 

[Turtle]

Sorry, but that's just subjective analysis.

Nothing gets by you, does it? <snort>

To imply that the MSM and cable alphabet networks have a few big lies and a few little ones is just not factual.

The reason that it's not factual is because I didn't imply that at all. I'll concede that you may have inferred as much, but I implied, and implicitly stated outright that they all lie, that a lie is a lie is a lie, and the level of egregiousness is irrelevant.

The MSM have plenty of little white ones to go along with the big black ones. Here again, all these networks have a slant and most of them are toward the left.

Which doesn't refute or contradict anything I said.

When you've run out of substance for an argument the safe refuge seems to always be compare the object of your scorn to the Nazis.

Please don't tell me that your reading comprehension is that poor. The paragraph explaining who Goebbels' background was, as I clearly noted, added for the sake of completeness. I added that paragraph almost as an afterthought, in case there are those who don't know who Goebbels was. I also think such a connection is funny since so many conservatives can see Hitler in "all things left" but cannot see it at all, under any circumstances, in anything that's "right." I also noted, quite clearly, that "they ["they" being all of the major broadcast and cable news networks] all follow the same Principles of Propaganda." And, I compared them to the Principles of Propaganda, not to the Nazis. You really need to pay more attention to what you are reading.

Nice try with the reverse logic to imply that the better ratings are directly proportional to the Nazi propaganda techniques being used - but it's once again opinion, not fact.

Huh? There is no reverse logic here. One of the primary Rules of Propaganda is that an "attention-getting communications medium" should be used. What that implies is, an attention-getting communications medium, i.e., a medium with high ratings, should be used to spread the propaganda. The ratings of Fox News or any other news outlet isn't a result of the propaganda techniques, but the other way around - the propaganda techniques are being used in those outlets because they have high ratings. In other words, it's far more effective to disseminate propaganda through a medium that garners widespread attention than it is to spread it though, say, Joe's Blog that no one reads.

How ironic it is that the quotes in the above box apply so directly to the principles of the Obama campaign - and that it can be said the MSM has followed in lock step aiding the liberal Obama agenda.

I don't think it's ironic at all. The Rules of Propaganda work. That's why the Obama campaign, and his presidency, employ them.

Still waiting for concrete evidence that Fox misrepresents the facts more egregiously and more often than their cable and MSM competitors...

I don't know why you would still be waiting, since I answered that as completely as I could. I stated, pretty plainly I thought, that a lot of little lies add up to rather egregious, and they are comparable to one large, egregious lie. That one (big lie) isn't any better or any worse than another (lots of little lies). That they are both equal in my opinion. I also stated that I don't trust any of them, because they all lie to one degree or another. I also asked you if you can trust someone who lies, and you haven't answered. Since it's been shown, and has not been refuted or denied, that all of the major broadcast and cable news networks lie, I eagerly await your answer.

 

[RLENT]

And some thought the Mutt was really suckin' the juice ... I suspect that at least one other party is guzzling it as well ... via multiple injections with the Turkey Baster ...

I also asked you if you can trust someone who lies, and you haven't answered. Since it's been shown, and has not been refuted or denied, that all of the major broadcast and cable news networks lie, I eagerly await your answer.

Temper your eagerness ... the energy required to keep it up may be difficult to maintain long-term ... and I suspect you're in for no small wait ...

 

[Turtle]

I had wondered if I would have to wait as long for an answer to this question as I've had to wait for that other question from another thread, but I didn't want to drag something from another thread into this one to muddle things up, so I deleted that particular paragraph of wonderment.

Just to clarify, so there is no misunderstanding on anyone's part, all of the major broadcast and cable networks lie. They all twist and distort the truth in an attempt to manipulate the masses. The only reasons my comments in this thread are focused on Fox News is because that's what the discussion has been about, and because there are those who will defend and have actually defended Fox News as being "fair and balanced" in their lying. The notion that Fox News lies less, or somehow their lies aren't as egregious as everyone else's lies is just absurd.

What it boils down to is whether or not you prefer the lies to the truth. If you do, then keep defending your chosen source of lies. But know that it makes you look like an easily manipulated fool when you do, and that just because there are a lot of other fools who have been manipulated into thinking the same way doesn't mean you are any less of a fool.

I'm kinda thinking I like "Easily Manipulated Fool" better than "Kool-Aid Drinker".
It's more accurately descriptive and less metaphorical.

Jury's out on the pejorative scale, but I think they're about equal.

 

[RLENT]

I had wondered if I would have to wait as long for an answer to this question as I've had to wait for that other question from another thread, but I didn't want to drag something from another thread into this one to muddle things up, so I deleted that particular paragraph of wonderment.

Careful ...

Even an oblique reference to that taboo subject is highly verboten ... and is likely to earn you the status of "non-person" in some quarters ...

What it boils down to is whether or not you prefer the lies to the truth. If you do, then keep defending your chosen source of lies. But know that it makes you look like an easily manipulated fool when you do, and that just because there are a lot of other fools who have been manipulated into thinking the same way doesn't mean you are any less of a fool.

Indeed ...

Imagine how depressing it must be, to feel so unrepresented, in terms of one's own personal philosophy, that one conceives that one is left with only one TV news outlet which in some way represents that philosophy (at least to some extent or another) ... that you have to defend it at all costs ... even in the face of direct evidence of it's immoral conduct ...

Man, I'll tell ya: that's in-ves-ted ...

I'm kinda thinking I like "Easily Manipulated Fool" better than "Kool-Aid Drinker".
It's more accurately descriptive and less metaphorical.

Jury's out on the pejorative scale, but I think they're about equal.

Well personally, I like a good metaphor ... but accurate and direct works for me too ...

 

[jaminjim]

My problem is that you people have identified the problem, but not the solution. I don't think the MSM will have a come to Jesus moment in my life time so I'm left to come up with the truth on my own.

Just as an example lets use the financial melt down. The left blamed the right and vise versa. Turtle said somewhere in this thread that two sources could make it a fact. Heck I can come up with twenty sources for either side. But where is a person to go and research it on his own and get the answer. Maybe I gave to big of a problem to research, lets try a smaller one. The Hagel confirmation. Should be be tossed or confirmed?

 

[jaminjim]

On a side note, in another thread there are posts mocking a politician for telling the truth, amazing.

 

[RLENT]

My problem is that you people have identified the problem, but not the solution. I don't think the MSM will have a come to Jesus moment in my life time so I'm left to come up with the truth on my own.

Hasn't it been always thus ?

More to your point however:

Like with just about anything ... that which is rewarded one gets more of, and that which is penalized one gets less of ...

Continued patronage of the butcher who's selling rotten meat is not likely to get one a beautiful, fresh cut of prime rib any time soon ...

Just as an example lets use the financial melt down. The left blamed the right and vise versa. Turtle said somewhere in this thread that two sources could make it a fact. Heck I can come up with twenty sources for either side. But where is a person to go and research it on his own and get the answer.

Being a well-informed citizen is not easy ...

It does take a good bit of work ... and a willingness to keep an open mind and inspect one's own preconceived and "fixed" ideas occasionally ...

Fortunately, the internet does make it possible for the average person to perhaps be more informed than ever ...

The difficulty remains, as it has in times past, in sorting the wheat from the chaff ...

Maybe I gave to big of a problem to research, lets try a smaller one. The Hagel confirmation. Should (h)e be tossed or confirmed?

Confirmed - for a whole variety of reasons, not least among them is that he is from the so-called "realist" school of foreign policy - which ain't my first choice (still a little too hawkish) but it would certainly be an improvement over the various handmaidens of Empire, whose own hubris leads them to imagine all manner of delusion, in terms of "our place in the world" ... and what we can do to maintain it ...

He would likely be a pragmatic voice of reason in terms of costs (of all types) and outcomes in the event of a potential armed conflict - and likely to push for diplomatic solutions where they might realistically be obtained ... rather than being inclined to resort to the actual use of force as the first option ...

He's probably just the right sort of fellow to take a scalpel to the budget at the 5-sided wind box ... which, while it won't remedy the problem of excessive spending on the entitlement side, does certainly need to be addressed.

He has (IMO) an accurate assessment of the situation regarding the State of Israel's inclination to meddle in our internal politics, and manipulate our Foreign Policy to their advantage ... and our disadvantage ... unlike the pols on the far right, who are utterly deluded on the matter ... to the point of being good candidates for institutionalization in a mental ward ...

Finally, he's served (honorably, so far as I know) as a leader of men in war time - and understands full well the horrors of war and it's ultimate costs:

"I'm not a pacifist. I believe in using force, but only after a very careful decision-making process," Hagel later told Vietnam magazine. "The night Tom and I were medevaced out of that village in April 1968, I told myself: If I ever get out of this and I'm ever in a position to influence policy, I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war."