Fairness Doctrine Video

[MichaelC]

You take a congress, where who knows, maybe 40% will say they're opposed to abortion completely.  75% probably favor restricting abortion.  Where maybe 40% support a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage.  Where maybe, depending on how it's worded, 80% are opposed to any taxes.  You might even find that 10% are ready to declare "hunting season" on Hispanics.

Even though, at least 70% of them are lying, don't give two craps about taxes or abortion or gays or aliens or anything else.  And you're going to use that as a baseline.

Then you turn to Fox News, which has done literally nothing the last 6+ years other than glance by the tough questions on this gov't, in favor of basic scare tactics and pro-gov't news, especially when it comes to the GOP.  They avoided every issue on this gov't that could have made them go either way according to that study.  Their news has been "pro-gov't" the last 6 years.

There is no way Fox could have been anything other than "centrist" in that study.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

For the love of god.  Pro government news could be leftist if there is a leftist government in power, or conservative if there is a conservative government in power, or leftist on some issues, or centrist or... it can be anything.

So are you saying that Fox is "Neo Con" news, since it's "pro-gov't"?

Before you start the insults, you might see if you can get it first.  That the study didn't mention it, makes the study worthless.

[Conan71]

Michael have you ever actually watched Fox News?

[cannon_fodder]

(personal attack removed)

I presented Stanford, the University of Chicago, and UCLA's study and explained it in great detail. I repeatedly went over their methodology and encouraged you to read it.

In response, you said "I do not agree with it, I think fox is 'pro gov't.'  The study is worthless."  You have not read the study.  You do not understand the methodology.  You present no contrasting study.  And your argument does not even attack the merits. Instead, you do not like Fox News and stand by that as your proof.

quote:So are you saying that Fox is "Neo Con" news, since it's "pro-gov't"?

NO. I am screaming from the god damn roof tops that it does not matter.  The argument you are bating is ridiculous.  You are arguing that fox is conservative because you feel they like the current administration and therefor are biased.  That is not a study, that is not scientific... that is an opinion.  A naked opinion does not help settle a dispute.

Not to mention the fact I never used the word "Neo Con" nor in that post did I even hint at what way a given network might slant.

The study did not mention it because in their methodology it doesn't have a single thing to do with the study.  In a scientific study, by definition, IT CAN NOT.  You seek to classify bias as an opinion - which, as we outlined above, is not helpful.

So you sit and ignore logic, reason, work product, and insight and keep telling me I'm wrong because you're opinion says so.  I'll stick with my sources until I'm shown something better.  In a logical argument you can either present a better argument, succumb, or acknowledge a point and stand to disagree.  IN a rambling tirade you can do whatever you want... have at it.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

NO. I am screaming from the god damn roof tops that it does not matter.  The argument you are bating is ridiculous.

You can't have it both ways, and it's not baiting.  You're the one that said "pro-gov't" can be "conservative."

You don't get it.  The study does not take "pro-gov't" into account.  And "pro-gov't" does not mean "pro-neocon" or "pro-leftist".  All it means is they avoid controversy in regards to the government, in favor of things which are positive.  Pumping a 29% president, not popular, but pro-gov't.  Their reasons for that, are TBA.  And until they're announced, "pro-gov't" can be no where but "centrist".

Fox News does not tackle the "issues" your study sites.  Your study is worthless.  On more than one plane.

[MichaelC]

And seriously, we should all thank the Mods in advance for continuing to let CF sh!t all over the place.  And we should all expect it to continue.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Michael have you ever actually watched Fox News?

Watch it? Hey, I'm soaking in it!

[cannon_fodder]

Pro government can be conservative, it can be liberal, it can be centrist.  Therefore, it is worthless as a gauge.  It means nothing in this context.

Your complaint is that Fox News is too positive?  Because they are positive they will always be centrist.

per this study, that is incorrect. Wrong. False.

The study means that Fox News uses various sources when compiling its news while other channels rely heavily on liberal sources.  Where, in that finding, does anyone care about what the channels views are.

You are either being really rude by pretending not to get this, or there is no hope in continuing this conversation.  If anyone else has any light, I'd appreciate it.  I think I am unable to communicate effectively with Michael.   If you are being serious, sorry I yelled at you earlier.  Its amazingly frustrating to repeat oneself and rephrase with Elvis examples and still not be understood.

[MichaelC]

Back to study real quick, I still contend that it means nothing specifically because it's based on "average congressperson."  A relative gauge, that takes nothing else into account like economics or even a "pro-gov't" view.  You're acting like these media groups live in a vacuum and can do whatever they want to and it will pay.  That you say it's irrelevant, doesn't make it irrelevant.  You can continue to argue, you can continue to sh!t all over the board, you'll get nowhere.

If all media is as a rule anti-gov't (unveiling the inner secrets, asking the tough questions), and you have a neo-con gov't, does that make all media liberal?  If you're a neo-con, yes.  If you're one of those 29% loons, yes.

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Pro government can be conservative, it can be liberal, it can be centrist.  Therefore, it is worthless as a gauge.  It means nothing in this context.

Your complaint is that Fox News is too positive?  Because they are positive they will always be centrist.

No.  A "propagandist" news network would be positive too.  You've made the assertion that it could be "propagandist", technically.  I agree with that, doesn't mean Fox is "propagandist."  A focus on normally average gov't functions isn't left or right or anything, ignoring everything else may not be "centrist", but it certainly could appear that way.

[mr.jaynes]

That previous remark was not meant as a disrespect. Fox News is what is played for news at the salon, and thus, it's Fox News or no news at all.

[guido911]

CF:  I think this is what Michael C means by unbiased, non-progandist news coverage by a major media network:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

CF:  I think this is what Michael C means by unbiased, non-progandist news coverage by a major media network:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

Not a matter of bias on Olbermann's part, just a matter of stating facts. It's a sure bet you won't hear that on Faux News.

[Conan71]

No bias?  You're kidding right?  That's J.O.'s interpretation of the facts.  He's not privy to any more information than you and I are, and  there is personal spin and hyperbole all over that commentary.

Olbermann is paid to be a liberal crank, same as Hannity is paid to be a sockpuppet for the RNC.  He was hired to be MSNBC's anti-O'Reilly.  

I will deliniate a marked difference between O'Reilly and Hannity.  O'Reilly genuinely disagrees on the war and is a frequent critic of the White House.  He's a true conservative and calls the admin and legislators out who don't fit his ideal conservative mold.  When he speaks out against someone from the GOP, he's sincere.

Hannity on the other hand only issues token admonishment toward the admin and legislature.  When he speaks out against someone from the GOP, it's tepid and weak.  All Colmes is there for is to help set Hannity up.

That's the problem with entertainers posing as journalists.  Some of the more simple-minded aren't savvy enough to separate opinion from fact and mistake talk shows for news.  You don't strike me as a simpleton, so surely you jest.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

No bias?  You're kidding right?  That's J.O.'s interpretation of the facts.  He's not privy to any more information than you and I are, and  there is personal spin and hyperbole all over that commentary.

Olbermann is paid to be a liberal crank, same as Hannity is paid to be a sockpuppet for the RNC.  He was hired to be MSNBC's anti-O'Reilly.  

I will deliniate a marked difference between O'Reilly and Hannity.  O'Reilly genuinely disagrees on the war and is a frequent critic of the White House.  He's a true conservative and calls the admin and legislators out who don't fit his ideal conservative mold.  When he speaks out against someone from the GOP, he's sincere.

Hannity on the other hand only issues token admonishment toward the admin and legislature.  When he speaks out against someone from the GOP, it's tepid and weak.  All Colmes is there for is to help set Hannity up.

That's the problem with entertainers posing as journalists.  Some of the more simple-minded aren't savvy enough to separate opinion from fact and mistake talk shows for news.  You don't strike me as a simpleton, so surely you jest.

I did find his Katrina coverage compelling, up there with that of Faux's Shepard Smith and Geraldo Rivera. With that in mind, I do think Olbermann should have stayed in familiar and more easily definable environs, specifically, sports.

Hannity and Colmes, I think would benefit much better if Colmes were replaced by a more aggressive liberal-because Colmes is too much of a Casper Milquetoast to counter Hannity. Someone such as Mike Malloy (a liberal version Rush Limbaugh), or Marc Maron-or Randi Rhodes (all Air America alumni). Hannity simply needs someone besides the occasional guest to the show to bring him up short and call him out when he needs it (which is often).

Bill O'Reilly, I agree, an independent voice on a very partisan network. There are the occasions when even I am forced to agree with him. And uh, his books are very well done also.

[Conan71]

Hannity & Olbermann?  [}:)]

The thing which annoys me most about Hannity besides the obvious "favored son sockpuppet" status he enjoys with the GNC, is that he cuts people off constantly.  No one can get a word in edgewise when they are at odds w/ him.

I complained loudly when KRMG put his show on after Rush.  Who wants another three hours of Rush regurgitated into a Long Island nasally twang?

He's the image many centrists and liberals have of conservatives.  It's not a good image.