Joshua Nightshade

Well look, Jacqueline agreed with my adjective. I guess she hates women too!

And pithy posts are so last year. The cool thing now is to toss off to another forum and pat yourself on the back.

jacqueline trudeau

And they doctored the video feed? Cindy, I know you don't think this is a big deal, it's just opinion, but your rationalization and equation attempts (they all do it) have gone completely off the rails.

__________________
Trudeau Classic Sailing Yachts

Cindy Claveau

You missed my point. I have no evidence in front of me that Fox really did such a thing, or that Media Matters didn't do the altering themselves. In fact, every link I can find in Google points back to Media Matters. I see nothing where anyone produced the original Fox broadcast as a 'control'. I don't know the context of the broadcast - I do remember Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade (the talking heads in that program) are both smartasses sometimes and like to 'kid around' and I know "Fox & Friends" isn't an actual network newscast - yes, IF they doctored the photos that would be disreputable. But I'm waiting to find the original broadcast so I can make my own comparison instead of taking Media Matters' word for it. Like they don't have an agenda?

In the end, it doesn't matter that much to me. I still won't watch Fox and I still don't trust extremists on either side to tell me the truth.

__________________
Sometimes, "I hit it with my axe" is the best solution.

Cindy Claveau

When Richie agrees with you, I know who's off the rails. It's not me.

Surreal

I don't think you could devalue my concept of Fox News. I think they're the TV version of the National Enquirer. I guess that's why I can't get worked up over them. They appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Cindy Claveau

Why hasn't Media Matters filed a petition getting the Enquirer to take back what they said about Angelina Jolie??

Joshua Nightshade

BECAUSE ANGELINA JOLIE ISN'T A PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

jacqueline trudeau

Not to mention stooping to ad hom attacks now. does Richie have to do with this?

Cindy Claveau

You mean you have him on ignore?

Surreal

Well why not. She's cuter than either of the current candidates.

jacqueline trudeau

Obviously you miss the point of mediamatter's raison d'etre. They supply the PROOF for blinkered deniers. "They wouldn't do that!" "He wouldn't say that". Umm... cue video on 1. See how that works?

Surreal

Cindy highlighted my issue with a lot of this kind of thing. It's all very well for accusations to fly, but I want to see the evidence myself. I want to evaluate it myself.

It's like believing in space aliens... they need to come to my house and hold still for photos, blood tests, and the neighbors to come over.

jacqueline trudeau

Clue - there's the video clip at Envoy's link.

You are

Surreal

With an agenda.

Show me an organization that monitors the news for accuracy across the political spectrum - without a conservative or liberal agenda, and I'll be more likely to be interested in their opinion.

Surreal

Just how fucking sad is it that I have to read 5+ news sources, including two international ones to have any hope of a balanced view.

jacqueline trudeau

And that effected what they presented.... how?

Did you not believe what they showed from Fox as truth? Or are you like Cindy - it's excusable because they all do it?

Surreal

I don't have any way to evaluate it's accuracy.

And frankly, I already have such a low opinion of Fox that it wouldn't matter if it was true to me, because I already think they're dreck...

Isn't that the point of this, to try and destroy Fox's credibility? How can you destroy what they don't have. I'm not their target audience on this one.

Doesn't mean I'm going to automatically believe anything they say without verifying it for myself however.

jacqueline trudeau

Please tell me what opinion was put forth in that article/link???? You can't because there's none there.

Don't tell me you can no longer tell opinion from a dispassionate presentation of an event? FoxNews truly has won, if that's the case.

Persephone Milk

I have to agree with this. There is a stark contrast between a Fox newscast and the kind of pablum that fills the rest of the air time. Knowing that Fox does lean right, it often surprises me how balanced their hard reporting is. I think the 7:00 hour is pretty solid reporting, and I like Shepard Smith a lot. And I have never seen anything on Fox that would suggest they are racist, though I am probably not as sensitive as others to that issue.

That said, I do agree with Joshua that Fox News tends to blur the distinction between hard news and opinion. Their entire presentation is so fast paced, mesmerizing and all-up-in-your-grill that it annoys the living daylights out of me and I can't bear watch for long. I think too much of their air time is filled with talk and opinion shows. And some of their attempts at being Fair and Balanced (which I have always taken as slightly tongue-in-cheek) are pretty laughable. You can't put Alan Combs next to Sean Hannity and pretend you have a fair match.

In any event, I think the key to really understanding what is going on in the world is to get your news from a variety of sources. Take the time to understand their bias and how it effects their reporting. But if you get your news only from sources with the same bias that you have, you aren't really challenging yourself to think harder about things.

I used to force myself to listen to Randy Rhoads on the hour-long drive home from work. She would make me so angry! But, she made me think too. If only George Bush had had a few contrary voices among his closest advisers. I hope the next president, whomever he or she is, isn't afraid to surround themselves with people and views that differ.

__________________
.

Surreal

SLU... the only place I'm not considered to be a raging liberal. Go figure.

Show me the original film clips from a site that doesn't have an agenda. I wouldn't hang a dog on evidence I couldn't verify.

Not sure what you think Fox has won. What you keep missing is not that I like, support, or agree with Fox News - I hold them in contempt, however, I don't automatically assume that anything nasty someone asserts about them is true simply because I despise them.

You called Cindy blinkered, but MM is obviously a trusted site for you, largely I think because it mirrors your personal bias. I have no trusted sites. I include MM in the sources I evaluate for information, but I don't automatically believe something is true because they said it is, or they show "evidence."

Surreal

Cindy Claveau

I read CNN with a jaundiced eye because I don't believe they're as unbiased as they present themselves, either, and actually have become more of a global perspective. But they're a solid source most of the time. MSNBC as well, though still somewhat biased.

I read the Jerusalem Post knowing that they tend to present the Israeli persepective on things.

I read the UK Guardian knowing full well that they're as far left as Fox is to the right. I also scan the London Times.

Toronto Star, UK Telegraph, Dallas Morning News, and Washington Post all give me varied takes on the news from different perspectives. All have their editorial bias. I won't usually read the Washington Times unless they have an op-ed piece I'm interested in.

But at the end of the day I am usually able to average things out and either deduce that (a) They're not telling us the whole story, probably because they don't know yet; or (b) We're fucked, or (c) Both.

And that's all I need to know.

Edit: Note the absence of Fox News.

Joshua Nightshade

Richie Waves

I'm a raging Communist.

__________________
My lastfm

Oooh, Betty! the cat did a shit in the hat

Persephone Milk

Ok, maybe I should change my opinion on gun control. This kind of senseless violence must be stopped.