Thread: CNN & MSNBC are a joke

But you failed to ask me WHY I don't watch Fox News on TV.

It isn't because I'm closed to other points of view. I watch plenty of Fox online. Although I admit I don't do it for my education of current events, since I don't consider Fox to have a good enough track record for me to trust anything they say.

Here's a hint. It's related to the reason I don't own a TV.

TV's are a one-way system of communication. As such, they are far more suited to propaganda, on either side, than they are to education.

I do not want to lend the ratings that keep channels like Fox News in business, and I certainly don't want to pay money for it.

Online, I watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and pretty much anything else. I do so to educate myself not of the news, but of the current methods of propaganda. And I do it online so that I will not be helping support what I see to be an inherently faulty method of education.

Particularly in the case of Fox News. Other channels may be slanted in speech, or occasionally lie by omission, but they tend not to outright lie the way Fox News has, over and over again.

All the same, it doesn't matter. I don't like any of the news stations, though if I had to pick I'd probably go with the BBC just on the sheer breadth of the news they report.

If I want news, I read an article or analysis. I don't watch TV.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

Particularly in the case of Fox News. Other channels may be slanted in speech, or occasionally lie by omission, but they tend not to outright lie the way Fox News has, over and over again.

I'm interested in what you say. Could you be more specific as to how you determine when they are lying and when they are not, what lies (FNN vs. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.) are you referring to and how you tally your results that result in the determination of who lies more. I would be interested to know...Thanks

I think commiecat's post is a good start.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Scooter Libby found not guilty (he was guilty):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/4...71e21a2c0e.jpg

Sheldon Whitehouse is a winning republican (he's democrat):
http://www3.allaroundphilly.com/blog...%20a%20Rep.jpg

John McCain is a democrat (he's not):
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bord0080/uni.../mccaind-j.jpg

Mark Foley is a democrat (he's not):
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/foley.jpg

Mark Sanford is a democrat (he's not):
http://hotfile.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/sanford.jpg

Lamar Alexander is a democrat (he's not):
http://www3.allaroundphilly.com/blog...ar%20-%20D.jpg

Pat Toomey is a democrat (he's not)
http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/im...6475456877.jpg

Shall I continue?

In recent memory there was the whole "death panel" smear, basically equating end of life choice to genocide. Anything to try and bury Obama, really.

I have heard plenty of brutally worded criticism on any news channel, but never leaning so heavily on half-truths or all-out lies.

There's something from a couple years ago about McCain Fox got in big trouble for, which my poor memory is struggling to recall and I'm in a rush, but I will have a think and have a look and see if I can find it. It was epic. I remember that much.

=MistressNomad;571423]But you failed to ask me WHY I don't watch Fox News on TV.

I tried twice to explain that my remarks werent aimed at you, but at the statement that was made and the problems I have with that line of thinking which that statement implies, of course all of which is and was and always will be nothing but my opinion. I am glad though to see that you narrowed your statement to "on TV" Thats what we are here for, to keep each other honest, which only happens when two or more views are allowed to be heard and examined.

It isn't because I'm closed to other points of view. I watch plenty of Fox online. Although I admit I don't do it for my education of current events, since I don't consider Fox to have a good enough track record for me to trust anything they say.

This statement is a contradiction, in itself. How can one be open to another point of view, if said person already believes that they cant trust "ANYTHING" the opposition view says. Sometimes one needs to search through a dung hill to find a diamond. Thats why I watch ogerman, from time to time, yet I have yet to find that diamond.

Here's a hint. It's related to the reason I don't own a TV.

I would suspect that not having a TV is a very large contributing factor as to why you dont watch Fox on TV.

TV's are a one-way system of communication. As such, they are far more suited to propaganda, on either side, than they are to education.

The same could be said of our current education system, atleast until graduate school, save for a few fields, such as philosophy. Even with philosophy, though, I would bet that if ones view of nietche, went completely against what the instructors opinion was, decent grades could be hard to come by. Just because certain people have titles, doesnt mean that their opinion is 100 percent correct and unquestionable and should be open to rebuttle.

I do not want to lend the ratings that keep channels like Fox News in business, and I certainly don't want to pay money for it.

Online, I watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and pretty much anything else. I do so to educate myself not of the news, but of the current methods of propaganda. And I do it online so that I will not be helping support what I see to be an inherently faulty method of education.

If you dont want to support Fox, you might want to quit looking online as well, granted its not the nelson ratings, but page viewership counts towards their advertising also, from which they get their sustanance, however I see from a later comment that it is only TV and not Fox you are boycotting.
I do agree about news channels being great at showing the latest techniques of propaganda, but instead of stopping at the propaganda, we should try to see through it, imo, and gain knowledge of something that before we hadnt known. Every opinion in the world is biased, if we only open ourselves to one bias, we already 'believe', we will never know, as Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story. Finding the bias is the first thing I try to do when starting to read, or listen to anything. Once the bias is established the rest of the works, are easier to dissect and get something from them.

Particularly in the case of Fox News. Other channels may be slanted in speech, or occasionally lie by omission, but they tend not to outright lie the way Fox News has, over and over again.

All the same, it doesn't matter. I don't like any of the news stations, though if I had to pick I'd probably go with the BBC just on the sheer breadth of the news they report.

If I want news, I read an article or analysis. I don't watch TV
.

Do you atleast put CBS news on the same list, remember dan rather, that chose to repeat rather than report(pardon the pun). They all distort the truth, to some extent to suit their opinion, its just that imo, Fox is always wrong, according to liberals, because Fox is contridicting so much they already 'know'. So they focus on the disortions, in order to not have to question what they've been taught. Which takes us back to the gdeat education system which is in place.

P.S. I just caught myself lying to you, check out the typo in the last sentence, I put a d where a r was supposed to be, hope you havent lost all hope for all of my opinions because of it.


P.S.S. I broke your quote up, not so that I could pick it apart piece by piece, but so that I didnt get too far off track or as long winded, as I find myself getting sometimes, alright most of the time and it didnt seem to help much this time either. I am only human, after all. Admitting to have a problem is the first step, right?

I don't think it's a contradiction to say I am open to other points of view, but don't consider Fox News a viable place to get them. Especially since I stated that I don't depend on any TV news to give me other points of view.

I'd rather use other, more detailed and mutual methods of communication to expose myself to new ideas.

I agree with you about the education system. It's a seriously flawed way of "teaching" in which the student often has no say or involvement in their learning. I think it is no surprise that classes rely so much on TV these days for news and educational programming. TV and our current education model go quite well together, at the expense of the student/viewer.

I don't watch Fox on any of their endorsed online channels. I mine independent channels for news segments and episodes.

I find that bias much easier to deal with in more complete pieces. TV news almost never gives a comprehensive report of what they're reporting. It's 30-second sound bytes, and perhaps it may give me something to look into, but it almost never gives me a complete or even sufficient synopsis of the issue.

I don't think Fox is always wrong so much as I think that Fox places journalistic ethics lower than any other news station. So even when they're right in my eyes, they stand on such shaky ethical grounds that I am unwilling to support them under any circumstances. They are a scourge upon journalistic integrity. And to me, someone who was involved with journalism for a couple years and took it quite seriously, the lack of regard they have for journalism is offensive.

Everyone is biased. I get that, and accept it. But I think Fox News has put their agenda so far above journalism that I just can't take them seriously as a journalistic entity.

One thing I've not seen brought up on this thread is the fact that many "basic" cable packages in the U.S. offer ONLY FoxNews. CNN, MSNBC, etc. cost extra. That, by definition, skews the sample in FoxNews' favor.

This growing trend is further indication that, as is the case in almost every other medium, right-wing information conduits cannot "win" on a level playing field. Just as Phlush Phlegmball has a three minute delay to make sure he always wins, so, too, Fox is attempting to make sure its ratings go "up" by making itself ubitquitous on basic cable packages.

As such, those ratings numbers really don't mean much.

P.S. One of the original links was to Don Surber. As a West Virginian, I can tell you that if Don Surber said it was raining, I'd have no qualms about going outside without my raincoat. He may actually be more ignorant than a stopped clock, which has the benefit of being correct twice a day.

Originally Posted by BobKincaid

One thing I've not seen brought up on this thread is the fact that many "basic" cable packages in the U.S. offer ONLY FoxNews. CNN, MSNBC, etc. cost extra. That, by definition, skews the sample in FoxNews' favor.

.

This just simply is not true. When I had basic cable Fox and CNN were standard fare no matter where I was. I will say that both times I tried to go with satelite all news channels mentioned in the original post came with the basic set up except Fox news. How's that for skewing results?

Originally Posted by BobKincaid

as is the case in almost every other medium, right-wing information conduits cannot "win" on a level playing field. Just as Phlush Phlegmball has a three minute delay to make sure he always wins

Your bias is showing

Originally Posted by JMS

This just simply is not true. When I had basic cable Fox and CNN were standard fare no matter where I was. I will say that both times I tried to go with satelite all news channels mentioned in the original post came with the basic set up except Fox news. How's that for skewing results?

Sorry. Logic failure on your part. Saying "That's just not true" is called "gainsaying," and not "refutation."

More than a few basic cable systems restrict their viewers to having FoxNews as their only cable "news" channel. I happen to have service from one of them.

As to the person who said my bias is showing, I don't try to hide it. I'm profoundly biased in favor of facts.

"FoxNews" is a brand name, like "Lucky Charms" cereal is a brand name. There's no more "news" in FoxNews than there is "luck" in Lucky Charms. The only people who seem not to realize that are FoxNews viewers. Even FoxNews, itself, readily admits that it is largely skewed toward opinion programming, as opposed to journalism.

Originally Posted by BobKincaid

Sorry. Logic failure on your part. Saying "That's just not true" is called "gainsaying," and not "refutation."

More than a few basic cable systems restrict their viewers to having FoxNews as their only cable "news" channel. I happen to have service from one of them.

You said it. You prove it.

As for your bias, it is clear by the wording and insults you hurled in the quoted text in that post. Insults do not refute but they do highlight where those who are hurling the insults are coming from