Leftist Censorship?

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Just to be clear about "fair and balanced" in their lying - I never said that.

Once again - we have a difference of opinion here, and perhaps a difference of perspective. I don't think there have been any instances of Fox perpetrating hoaxes on their viewers and the world in general that are anywhere near as egregious as Rathergate (CBS), the phony exploding pickup trucks (NBC) and the Food Lion fraud (ABC), and I've offered sources to support that position. ABC had to pay a $5.5 Mil settlement as a result of their intentionally fabricated slander. Referring to the Clemens quote - there are lies and there are da***d lies. My opinion is there are degrees of credibility to be seen in the media, and none of them are snow-white pure.

I emphasized the first sentence in the above block because it's a false premise. What follows it - to use a previously employed phrase - is a load of crap. If it's meant to imply that anyone who prefers to watch one network over another is an "easily manipulated fool" is nonsense. Liberals may find MSNBC to be more credible while conservatives obviously prefer Fox News. But the MSNBC audience is not comprised totally of fools and neither is that of Fox. The difference is that Liberals have established a campaign to promote a stereotype of conservatives as haters, rednecks, racists, backward hicks, etc while portraying themselves as enlightened, tolerant and compassionate. Those that buy into that notion could be considered "easily manipulated fools" and really don't offer substance for any sort of discussion.

That would only apply to someone who looks at things in black & white and chooses to believe everything they hear from their preferred source of info.


I believe my answer has already been provided, but I'll go over it again. My opinion (and that of S.L. Clemens) is that there are degrees in the maliciousness of lies, and our legal system supports this notion. With that in mind, it's my opinion that some news sources are more credible than others; my opinion is that Fox News is more likely to offer factual content than CBS, and the same for The Wall Street Journal compared to The National Enquirer. It doesn't make sense to label them all as totally incredible because they sometimes lie or make mistakes. The world of news and information is not, and never has been black & white. In business, I don't trust liars; when I'm reading the newspaper or listening to a network it's my responsibility to digest information with a generous helping of skepticism. However, comparing business to the news - especially political news - is apples and oranges.

Now back to the topic at hand. Well said Pilgrim. I really don't think there is a major difference in opinion with Turtle regarding the News Networks and their biases. Fox News leans right. The others lean left. I would also agree that at times Fox News has been sloppy sometimes when editing their news story. They have even admitted as much when they have made mistakes. The fact is ALL of the news agencies have been sloppy at one time or another. My biggest criticism of the other liberal news networks is that they don't present the counter or other side of the story from the political spectrum often enough. They omit it or don't present it accurately. Fox News definitely presents the republican side or and the conservative side, but they also provide the other side's voice as well more than the others. The only other major disagreement with Turtle is his interpretation that when Fox News makes a mistake with a story that is intentional and calls is a lie. I don't think it is intentional,which is the essence of a lie, so it is merely a mistake.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
My biggest criticism of the other liberal news networks is that they don't present the counter or other side of the story from the political spectrum often enough. They omit it or don't present it accurately.
Often the MSM bias is displayed by the things they DON'T report. Events or statements that would be derogatory towards liberals and/or Democrats are simply not mentioned and a lot of the viewing public is kept in the dark. I posted this link in a different thread, but it's also appropriate in the context of this discussion.

Big Three Network Double Standard on Labeling Scandalous Politicians | NewsBusters
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
And you're really only pointing this out to Muttly.....Right? Not reprimanding him.....not admonishing him over this......he didn't get an infraction........etc. Right?

Hopefully not.........

If so.....Clear double standards on who gets something pointed out to them that may / may not be right.

Remember the Boy Scouts thread......where we were discussing Gays being accepted into the BS due to Public Pressure created by a self-serving group of people that had no interest in the BS other than them not accepting gays??? One of your Co-Drivers....Co-Conspirators......known Board Troll personally attacked another member in the exact same instance you describe above......



That board Troll went from a discussion about gays in the Boy Scouts to Abortion issues and falsely accused another member of having Beliefs in an Ideology that he has refused to Share with anyone here on this board ever in their whole time here. But yet..............that Hypocrisy......Blatant Personal Attack......was never addressed over there in that discussion.

Just something I thought needed to be pointed out............

Back to Ya'lls Discussion.........:rolleyes:

Not so fast: the issue you inappropriately raised here was answered when it was originally raised. If the answer was not to your liking, well, that's life in the big city,
To call me a troll because you didn't care for the answer is not acceptable, here or anywhere. I overlooked the misguided "STFU" in the original exchange, but you have stepped over the line. WAY over the line.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The only other major disagreement with Turtle is his interpretation that when Fox News makes a mistake with a story that is intentional and calls is a lie. I don't think it is intentional,which is the essence of a lie, so it is merely a mistake.
My disagreement is that not all of the mistakes they claim are mistakes are actually mistakes, that some of them are intentional. The "mischievous speculation" is just the tip of that iceberg. There is no question that Fox News makes some truly honest mistakes, but again, how many of their random, honest mistakes are mistakes slanted in favor of the left? None. All of their mistakes are slanted in favor of the right, rather than being randomly slanted in either direction as would be the case with truly honest mistakes. It's certainly possible, but not very probable that each and every mistakes puts the left in a bad light. Human nature and human error being what it is makes it a virtual statistical impossibility.

I don't think there is any question that the left-leaning MSM networks lie all the time, and do so intentionally. CNN leans so far left you practically have to lie on the floor to watch them. By the same token, so does Fox, because they are the flip-side of that same coin token.

So, we're left with two possible scenarios with Fox News. One, they are so inept and so incompetent as to make mistake after mistake, all favoring the right, that they constantly have to apologize for, or two, they are not incompetent and inept at all and most of their "mistakes" aren't mistakes. It's my opinion that in either case they are neither reliable nor credible, and cannot be trusted.

Fox News does present opposing viewpoints more often than the left MSM media, no question. They're not even as far-right conservative as people think they are (they're actually quite centrist and even liberal on many issues, and they're particularly weak at criticizing the gay agenda and abortion issues. They found Sarah Palin to be too conservative, which is why they didn't renew her contract). But there's a meaning to everything Fox News does, and it's not just to be "Fair and Balanced," rest assured. The notion of "fair and balanced" is pure marketing, pure propaganda. Watch Fox News for any random hour and see how often you read or hear that phrase. If you repeat something enough times, people will believe it. Recognize it when you see it. It's a safe bet that if you're told something, anything, over and over and over again, it's something that should be doubted. Because, for some reason they really, really want you to believe it, and more than likely you believing it is more in their interest than your own.

As Roger Ailes, the President of Fox News, so aptly noted about the left MSM networks, "if those networks actually did fair and balanced, we'd be out of business."

Ironically, by Faux News (there's a reason they're known by that name) using "fair and balanced" as a propaganda slogan when they're not really and truly fair and balanced, it actually allows liberal propaganda, lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience of hard core believers who reject the conservative propaganda, lies, deceit, and half-truths.

Still, to be fair if not balanced, all is not lost for Fox, as among all the major broadcast and cable news networks, they have the one, single, unique straightforward news show that is truly fair and balanced with a centrist, non-biased slant, that news show being Special Report with Brit Hume. It stands alone above the crap on all of the networks.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Just something I thought needed to be pointed out............
What you've just done is take something from another thread with a different topic, and dragged into this thread specifically to use it attack a forum member.

Probably shouldn't have done that.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Regarding some of the examples of Fox's editing mistakes like the Ron Paul video or the Russian riot video. Not seeing how those two examples benefit the "right". For one, Ron Paul is a republican, and with the riot video it is rather obvious that there is Greek writing in the background and it would be eventually seen. It isn't plausible that someone would just try to put that on the air for some sinister reason and be confident that it wouldn't be detected. There are constant media watch groups that do nothing more than do analysis and scope every Fox News story and footage for inconsistencies. One thing regarding the amount of mistakes that are made. They are a 24 /7 news network. The amount of stories and news casts they do daily and the averall amount they do in a year dwarfs the ones that merely have a half hour newscast each night. Not excusing it, just explaining that there are vastly more opportunities for errors to occur with the former. As far as the Bill Sammon comment. The "mischievous speculation" comment really was benign given the context to what he was saying in it's entirely. Pretty much a tempest in a teapot. Turns out his comment couldn't have been more accurate regarding Obama's socialist tendencies.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
OK, let me see if I can explain the Ron Paul video that you seem fixated with. They had video from two separate events and mixed them up, but it wasn't simply a case of using the wrong video footage from a year ago by accident. Each video has a visual video track and an audio track. Two separate tracks for each video.

Let's call the Audio from the first event A1 and the Video from the first event V1.
Let's call the Audio from the second event A2 and the Video from the second event V2.

If they had simply mixed up and used the wrong video footage from the previous year, that would be one thing, and could be dismissed as a mistake, albeit a very unlikely mistake. But that's not what happened.

They managed to run the the V2 video and the A1 audio together, at the same time, in sync with each other as if it was a single video footage event. In order to do that, they would have had to separate out the audio and video streams from both events and have all four tracks (both video tracks and both audio tracks) loaded into the editor at the same time. There is zero reason for that to happen by mistake. There's not even a valid reason to have both events loaded into the editor at the same time, unless you were going to edit them together.

Someone had to affirmatively take the steps necessary to load both events into the editor at the same time and then intentionally extract both the audio and video tracks from each event. Then, they would have had to not just use the wrong audio with the wrong video, but would have had to edit the audio so that it was in sync with the video, which is something that could not, under any circumstances, happen by accident. It could have only been done deliberately.

As for how the Ron Paul and the Greek riot video benefit the right, the Ron Paul video steers people away from Rom Paul and to Fox News' chosen candidate, since a viable Ron Paul would have taken away from ol' Mittens. The Greek riot video puts Russia in a bad light, reinforcing the Evil Empire description of Reagan and fuels the desires of the neocons who want more military spending and a more forceful military.

Sammons' statement may seem benign within that context, but his "mischievous speculation" set the tone for months of slanted coverage and thought-molding seed planting. You dismiss it as being a problem because (a) you agree with it and (b) think it was somehow prophetic, despite Sammons himself saying that he knew the notion was far-fetched.

Yes, there are media watch groups that do nothing more than do analysis and scope every Fox News story and footage for inconsistencies, but the percentage of Fox News viewers who pay any attention to those groups is miniscule, and the percentage who allow those groups to rattle their belief in Fox News is even smaller. Most will acknowledge these groups while not putting much credence in their findings, and then simply dismiss Fox' shenanigans as simple, honest mistakes or benign statements.

A reliable, credible news agency or reporter has no discernible opinion of the news they are reporting. Fox, CNN and all the others not only have opinions, but they are happy to share them, even to the point of forcing them on us. Again, I go back to my original post in this thread, where Democrats only trust the news media which leans left, and the Republicans only trust the news media which leans to the right, and neither one trusts the other. Why do you suppose that is? It certainly can't be because any of these news media are credible, much less reliable, for unimpassioned, unbiased news. When trusted news sources are trusted so clearly along political party lines, that should scream to you that none of them, including the one you like and trust, can be trusted to give you the truth.

People, in the end, prefer the truth to a lie. They always do, even if the truth is uncomfortable. That's partly why PBS, PBS for cryin' out loud, was the only news source to receive a higher "trusted source" percentage than they did an "untrusted source" percentage. But when you can't find the truth, people will often accept whatever makes them feel good, whatever strokes their own prejudices, wants and desires. And that's why Democrats prefer the MSM and the Republicans prefer Fox, and will turn a blind eye, or even defend, the lies and mistakes and absurdities of their favored source. Just like people view and defend their religion. Same thing. And for the same reasons. They don't want to consider that they believe in something that they might not or shouldn't be believing in, they need to believe they are right in their beliefs, so detractions are not tolerated. It's why they want as many people to believe the same things they do, and will point out just how many people believe the same way - the larger the numbers, the bigger the crowd - it vindicates their beliefs.
 

Monty

Expert Expediter
I can't believe I just spent an hour reading this nonsense. But only because I have moderator status, not that I was interested in the subject.

The references to various posters, named or not, seem to flame it up ..... if you agree with a poster, and place kudo's, that's ok? But if you disagree and say so, that's not?

I suggest some of you, (sort it out yourself), get a life. If you have enough time to post on and on to the point of filling up pages and pages of material. May I suggest you take that same passion to your Congressmen, and women, to affect some change.

Fox News. MSNBC, et al, will provide whatever their viewers wish to see, it all comes back to $$$$'s ..... advertisers know there will be folks watching.

Just my OPINION, no fact implied.

No need to Wiki it, google it, search prior post's etc .... opinion can change ... and mine just may do that! ;)
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I can't believe I just spent an hour reading this nonsense. But only because I have moderator status, not that I was interested in the subject.

The references to various posters, named or not, seem to flame it up ..... if you agree with a poster, and place kudo's, that's ok? But if you disagree and say so, that's not?

I suggest some of you, (sort it out yourself), get a life. If you have enough time to post on and on to the point of filling up pages and pages of material. May I suggest you take that same passion to your Congressmen, and women, to affect some change.

Fox News. MSNBC, et al, will provide whatever their viewers wish to see, it all comes back to $$$$'s ..... advertisers know there will be folks watching.

Just my OPINION, no fact implied.

No need to Wiki it, google it, search prior post's etc .... opinion can change ... and mine just may do that! ;)
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful contributions to this topic.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Let me explain further about the Bill Sammon far fetched comment with regards to Obama possibly being a socialist. The context when he made the statement is very important. It was after the comment to "Joe the plumber" about spreading the wealth around.Obama's comments raised red flags as to what type of ideology the potential next president could have and what he would do with that thought process once elected. Still at that time, most of the media and the news organizations would rarely if ever use the term socialism in describing a candidate. If someone were to examine at least the prior twenty years of the presidency the term socialism was hardly used. Starting with Bill Clinton and his attempt to have national health care in his first term among other things he attempted. The term socialism, even with the likes of Rush Limbaugh was rarely if ever used. A local radio guy used to call him a Marxist pragmatist and it considered extreme and it caught flack. Most would call him just a pro big government Democrat. It was pretty much taboo to say socialist. Then with the following eight years with Bush, I think the word socialist was I doubt ever used He was mostly called fascist or war criminal. Then comes Obama and he has a meager record in the state and U.S. senate. Nothing to really hold him to except his very liberal voting record. He has some books of himself that could give some insight to his socialist beliefs and the comment about spreading the wealth to the Toledo man. So at that time of the Sammon comment there was still a hesitancy or a reluctance to use the word because it was inconceivable to him that this country would consider electing someone that was a devout socialist.We can see now that Sammon ,while talking about Obama possibly being one at the time , was still in his mind giving him the benefit of the doubt. What we see now is no doubt that he is one.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Well, at that time especially, and even to a large degree currently, whether Obama is a socialist is opinion, not news fact. Those who think it's a fact don't really fully understand socialism and how it works (the planet has never had a truly socialist state thus far). But Fox News, then and now, reports it as fact, because that's what their choir wants to hear. They have removed all differentiations from liberalism and socialism, the two terms are now synonymous. If you have even one drop of socialist blood in an idea, then you're a fully fledged socialist.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Nope, it got boring. It just became more of a finger pointing session. SO, when I get bored, I ignore.

Excuse me: it didn't become a "finger pointing session", it began as one. With your finger pointing at 'liberal teacher scuz' who don't consider Fox News to be reliably unbiased.
But when other fingers point in a different direction, then it gets 'boring'. Got it. When people think you're right, that's interesting, but when they say you're wrong, that's boring.
:rolleyes:
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Excuse me: it didn't become a "finger pointing session", it began as one. With your finger pointing at 'liberal teacher scuz' who don't consider Fox News to be reliably unbiased.
But when other fingers point in a different direction, then it gets 'boring'. Got it. When people think you're right, that's interesting, but when they say you're wrong, that's boring.
:rolleyes:


No Cheri, wrong as per normal. I got bored with the PERSONAL crap going on between SOME members. THAT is when I got bored. I was also running several loads while this garbage was going on and lost track of it. Part of the business.

It's not MY fault she is a liberal scuz teacher! :D It's likely not HER fault, too much sun, her mommy was not in prison or some other stuff that did not make her a professional victim is the cause. :p
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
When people think you're right, that's interesting, but when they say you're wrong, that's boring.
:rolleyes:

I think by and large that's true, at least for me. When someone thinks Layout is right, I find that very interesting. And when they think he's wrong, it really is pretty boring.

:D
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
No Cheri, wrong as per normal. I got bored with the PERSONAL crap going on between SOME members. THAT is when I got bored. I was also running several loads while this garbage was going on and lost track of it. Part of the business.

The 'personal crap' didn't get going until waaaay into the thread.
I'd accept the work reason, but for the fact that I posted a rebuttal pretty quickly, that merited a response, IMO.


It's not MY fault she is a liberal scuz teacher! :D It's likely not HER fault, too much sun, her mommy was not in prison or some other stuff that did not make her a professional victim is the cause. :p

Like I said before [to someone else, but it applies]: if you still believe that the professor is a 'liberal scuz' [sp], it's because that's what you want to believe, not because the facts support it.
Just admit it, and I'll promise to either feed the ducks [or not, whichever you say is better] next time I'm in Pure Michigan.
:p
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Right now it's 15:40 hrs on 22Feb and this boring thread has been at or near the top of the page since 16Feb, with 119 posts and 1065 views.:confused:
 
Top