|
This right here is good enough reason to discredit anything Fox News says.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Scorched Spitz posted:This right here is good enough reason to discredit anything Fox News says. There exists Edit: I shouldn't throw around numbers I can't corroborate. HackensackBackpack fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Never.More posted:I hate watching MSNBC, I would wager my liberal brethren detest watching Fox News. Both are needed to remind each of us there are different points of view on any given subject. Say what you will about Matthews and Scarborough being insufferable, but I would challenge you to show me evidence that they knowingly and habitually lie to the American public.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Yeah ... the responses to this already pretty much prove my point. To answer the various responses one by one. 1. Americans Love to Talk About Politics: I challenge that. Walk up to any co-worker and start a discussions on politics. See what happens. Especially if they happen to disagree with your point. The response I hear 9 out of 10 times is that "I dont like to talk about politics". There is even a common saying around it "never talk about politics or religion". 2. Mainstream Media: I hate to point this out, but at this point Fox is mainstream media. A right wing mainstream media certainly, but mainstream. If you look up mainstream as it refers to media it is usually defined as "mass media". Fox is a 24/7 news coverage channel with a massive following. Just like MSNBC and CNN. 3. Viewpoints: Why are not all viewpoints equivalent? Think about it for a moment. We live in a Republic where each citizen gets a vote. Our entire political system is based upon acceptance of the fact that each citizen may vote their view and therefore their view matters to some extent. If enough of them agree they have enough votes to get someone elected. With that background compare it to how our Congress is set up right now. The right controls the House and the left controls the Senate (in both they are fairly close to each other). In other words, enough American citizens think the right's points of view are valid enough to vote them into office in significant numbers. Saying their views are invalid and dismissing them is exactly what I was talking about. They have very different points of view than those on the left. Ask yourself, why? I did this with some liberal friends of mine for some of my views, it rarely changes your baseline view but it does force you to stop and consider your own base assumptions. 4. Media Bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States 5.They're contrarian snake oil salesmen who have learned to stretch out the Two Minutes Hate into a 24-hour-a-day media empire of verbal sludge: See above on needing to hear other viewpoints you don't agree with. People on the right think the exact same thing of the left's media. Both viewpoints need to be aired to make people think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Please name all left-biased media organizations/outlets that can be defined as "Mass Media".
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Why are not all viewpoints equivalent? Because some are not based in reality. For example, the conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya is not equivalent to the fact that he was really born in Hawaii. And no matter how many of your right-wing brethren believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, in reality, it's actually 4.6 billion years old. What you're advocating is a right-wing form of post-modernism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:As much as I despise Joe Scarborough, attempting to draw an equivalence between what Fox does and what MSNBC does is folly. Fox News is a bullhorn for GOP talking points, down to the very adjectives that the second floor deems appropriate for particular groups or individuals. They knowingly and habitually obfuscate the truth, misrepresent the GOP's opposition, and generally do Very Bad Things in the name of their corporate overlords. Ugh, double post for me ... this is the last one then its off to do other things.  To answer your question, that is the entire point I am trying to get across. Or to take Frobes word over mine ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/ Now we get to the tricky part. If the majority of your reporting is based upon opinion, the validity of that opinion is going to be determined based upon whom is listening. In other words the left will say "yes this a fact" and the right will say "that is a complete lie" (given the MSNBC example). That is why it is important to have all sides of the story covered. News outlets by default present their content as "news" or "here is what is going on". Only hearing one side of the story is not ideal when a significant portion of your fellow citizens think very differently. Never.More fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Yeah ... the responses to this already pretty much prove my point. To answer the various responses one by one. 1. Anecdote/=Fact, and American media culture is saturated with political talk. If people don't like talking about politics, why does the media consistently focus to political issues? 2. So is all mainstream media leftwing, or not? If Fox is right wing, then left wing media bias is apparently not a thing then, right? 3. When one side is claiming that the President is Muslim socialist Manchurian candidate out to destroy the US from within, you can safely ignore their viewpoint. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. I don't really care how many people agree with them either. The degree to which people buy in to xenophobia and bigotry is not surprising, and it certainly doesn't make it a valid viewpoint. Actually, see the whole Megyn Kelly comment with regards to interracial marriage. Even is 90% of the American public agreed with something, it doesn't make it true or moral as an opinion. 4. Maybe you should read the wiki pages you post. There's more proof for conservative media bias than there is for liberal media bias. Especially if by liberal you mean socially progressive, since that viewpoint is basically non-existent on American media (the wiki article says as much  ). 5. Projection of one's own failures onto the enemy is a classic strategy, one that I'm pretty sure was actually articulated as such by Karl Rove. Never.More posted:Ugh, double post for me ... this is the last one then its off to do other things. We've actually covered this before. Two things; first, you assume that everybody left wing watches MSNBC, and the MSNBC is representative of leftwing opinions. Incorrect. Second, MSNBC actually represents its programming as opinion/commentary. Fox pretends that it is factual accounts of events, but the focus they put on issues points to a obvious editorial bias in their coverage. These two things are not the same, and the study you quoted doens't actually look for editorial slant in news coverage, so it really doesn't address the core issue. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Never.More posted:1. Americans Love to Talk About Politics: I challenge that. Walk up to any co-worker and start a discussions on politics. See what happens. Especially if they happen to disagree with your point. The response I hear 9 out of 10 times is that "I dont like to talk about politics". There is even a common saying around it "never talk about politics or religion". Boy, I love it when people try to prove a point with their own life stories. If only we knew that Americans spend enormous amounts of time, say, watching heavily politicized news channels. Perhaps some figures on viewership would be good. Maybe we should call Bill O'Reilly about this, maybe he has a way of knowing how many people watch his show. Perhaps, if a lot of people watch it, we could say that Americans love politics? I don't know, man, but I was talking to Dave the other day at the water cooler and he really didn't want to talk about carbon credits, so I guess Americans hate politics! Never.More posted:2. Mainstream Media: I hate to point this out, but at this point Fox is mainstream media. A right wing mainstream media certainly, but mainstream. If you look up mainstream as it refers to media it is usually defined as "mass media". Fox is a 24/7 news coverage channel with a massive following. Just like MSNBC and CNN. I have no idea what you're trying to prove here. "Loads of people watch it" is not a defense of their practices. Never.More posted:3. Viewpoints: Why are not all viewpoints equivalent? Think about it for a moment. We live in a Republic where each citizen gets a vote. Our entire political system is based upon acceptance of the fact that each citizen may vote their view and therefore their view matters to some extent. If enough of them agree they have enough votes to get someone elected. With that background compare it to how our Congress is set up right now. The right controls the House and the left controls the Senate (in both they are fairly close to each other). In other words, enough American citizens think the right's points of view are valid enough to vote them into office in significant numbers. Saying their views are invalid and dismissing them is exactly what I was talking about. They have very different points of view than those on the left. Ask yourself, why? I did this with some liberal friends of mine for some of my views, it rarely changes your baseline view but it does force you to stop and consider your own base assumptions. Yes, I'd love to hear more on, for example, why Roe v. Wade is the Greatest Issue Of Our Time and why the Gays need to be Stopped from Destroying the Sanctity of Marriage. Maybe I should talk to Erick Erickson about gender roles and biology. I'm sure these viewpoints aren't mired in bigotry and deserve an equal measure of time. Maybe one day I'll find that the reason many Americans don't believe in evolution or climate change isn't because they're continually misinformed by the GOP and Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Ugh, double post for me ... this is the last one then its off to do other things. And The O'Reiley Factor and Hannity are entertainment shows. If you're going to bring up Forbes with a Pew Research Center as your silver bullet that MSNBC is  opinionated , you might want to read the articles you're citing a little bit closer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Really, the best you can say about American media being left-leaning outside of Fox/AM radio is that if you also included movies and TV shows then you'd probably just barely get a result that tilted towards the modern American interpretation of socially liberal. I agree that watching MSNBC is unbearable, though. All 24-hour news channels are horrible. I actually consume more Fox/AM radio than I do the other channels because they're so bad that they loop back around to being entertaining, like a monster movie with bad special effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Ugh, double post for me ... this is the last one then its off to do other things. Fox News knowingly and habitually obfuscates the truth, misrepresents the GOP's opposition, and generally does Very Bad Things in the name of their corporate overlords. Giving an editorial isn't the same as lying. Good Citizen posted:I agree that watching MSNBC is unbearable, though. That's why I watch Morning Joe. The uncontrollable urge to punch Joe Scarborough in the face is the only thing that keeps me from hitting the snooze button. Dr Cheeto fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Never.More posted:
I want you to think about this. My viewpoint is that you are a typing crow. Is my viewpoint equal to yours? If I start acting on my viewpoint, is it sane? If I were to start a proceeding to have your house foreclosed on, as crows can't make legally binding contracts with a bank, would a judge hold my opinion of your species as having equal weight to yours? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. People are, however, not entitled to their own facts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:Fox News knowingly and habitually obfuscates the truth, misrepresents the GOP's opposition, and generally does Very Bad Things in the name of their corporate overlords. I really wish you guys would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  loving Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:I really wish you guys would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. the Fairness Doctrine, as it was in the 80s, wouldn't affect cable broadcasters. It'd only affect network television and AM/FM radio, which are broadcast over public airwaves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
I think Bruce Bartlett once said this, but there's a new fairness doctrine: false equivalence (as you can see by Never.More's posts). "For every Democratic opinion the news shows, they show a Republican opinion and present it as equal, even if the Republican is lying his rear end off" or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Ugh, double post for me ... this is the last one then its off to do other things. Although they don't give you any details on the metrics of that study, you can guess how they scored things by the last couple of paragraphs. They considered video packages of people on-site and live video coverage as news and they considered people talking about that stuff in interview format opinion. That's all well and good, as long as you realize if you ran the same 2 video packages of lying, outdated news 24hrs a day you would rate as the least opinionated news network in that study.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Never.More posted:3. Viewpoints: Why are not all viewpoints equivalent? Divergent viewpoints can't be equally valid when one viewpoint is that 2+2=4 and the other is 2+2=toast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Old repost: My biggest issue with categorizing media as "right" or "left" is kinda a gross oversimplification. All corporate news sources, be they MSNBC, CNN, or FOX are pretty crappy if you want to learn about the world. And the biggest offender by far is Fox News. For example: Point 1: In 2009, the Republican anti-health care bill rally was reported on by Fox News. There, Michelle Bachmann claimed that anywhere between 20-45,000 people assembled for the rally, though other sources reported much less than that. On the news report Fox showed footage of the rally, with huge excited crowds spread all across the turf. Unfortunately there was a major inconsistency that did not go unnoticed. Clip 1 from the Hannity program: Notice the sparse crowd, the reddish yellow leaves, and totally clear sky.  Clip 2 from the Hannity program, mere seconds later: Notice the green leaves, the overcast sky, and the crowd with thousands and thousands of people.  What was quickly discovered was that Fox News' Sean Hannity had taken 2-month-old footage from September 12, 2008, and tried to pass it off as footage from the Tea Party rally from November 5, 2009.  Unfortunately even though they were caught, and even though Hannity issued an apology (sorta) for the deception, the exact same tactic was used again not two weeks later to make Palin's book tour look much bigger than it really was: Fox simply recycled footage of Palin from the 2008 elections and tried to pass it off as current. Hell, just earlier this year (March 2011) it seems that Fox News' Bill O'Reilly did a report on the (quite peaceful) Wisconsin labor union protests. However, while they were talking about Wisconsin some earlier footage from California protests popped up where protestors were getting loud, violent, and pushy. It's believed that Fox once again pulled the old switcheroo not to make conservatives look good this time, but to make liberals look bad. The great irony here is that at the same time O'Reilly was talking to Fox correspondent Mike Tobin about how protestors were unfairly accusing Fox News of lying. Even one mix-up like that couldn't have been accidental, replacing current footage with archived stuff. Yet Fox did it at least three times that I know of, and this proves that Fox will habitually lie to its viewers to make conservative rallies and gatherings look much more energetic than they really are, or to make liberal rallies look bad. Point 2: Here's a brief history on some of the most notable errors on the Fox News chyron. It lists the given politicians (all Republican) and the rough date at which these screenshots were taken. Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee (October 2006): Regarded as the "most liberal Republican" in the US Senate by the National Journal, Chafee was losing by 11 points in the midterm election polls.  Republican Congressman Mark Foley (October 2006): Caught in a sex scandal that involved him sending dirty text messages to male teenagers.  Republican Senator Arlen Specter (July 2007): Grilling Bush-appointed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on ethics violations. In 2009, Specter would defect and run as a Democrat.  Republican Senator John McCain (February 2008): A month before the primary election, John McCain was regarded as too liberal or too centrist to be a proper Republican candidate.  Republican Senator Ted Stevens (October 2008): Found guilty of federal ethics violations.  Republican Governor of North Carolina Mark Sanford (June 2009): Disappeared over a weekend and sent the national news organizations into a panic, until it was revealed that he was dallying in an extramarital affair.  Notice what's wrong? Every time a Republican politician threatens to make the party look weak through dissent, centrism, or scandal, Fox News mislabels them as a Democrat, with a little D next to their names. I can see this happening a couple of times since D and R are spaced closely together on the keyboard, but this happened well over six times. Strangely enough, when Democrats are disgraced you don't see them mislabeled as Republicans on Fox. You can't help but suspect that this is intentional. Point 3: On June 28 of 2008, journalist Jacques Steinberg wrote a report titled "Fox News Finds Its Rivals Closing In," which discussed how MSNBC and CNN are catching up to Fox News in ratings and are beginning to become competitive. Four days later on the show "Fox and Friends," co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade accused Steinberg and NYT editor Steven Reddicliffe as "attack dogs" for this article. The photos they put up of the two when going over this quickly were... less than flattering.   As you can see, Steinberg has been given a protruding skull, yellowed teeth, and a big bulbous extra-Jewy nose, while Reddicliffe just got yellowed teeth and an elongated forehead apparently to make him look like he's balding. I can understand wanting to hit back at your critics, but the article that Steinberg wrote was hardly an attack: it was a simple look at the TV ratings. That, and this was downright vindictive in how it made Fox's critics uglified and grotesque. In conclusion, Fox News habitually lies to make itself look good, or to make the Republican party look good, or to make their opponents and critics look bad. Don't get me wrong, gaffes and errors do occur in reporting, even on The Daily Show. Sometimes you can just chalk it up to honest mistakes. Yet while other news organizations do carry some political bias, none of them come close to the almost cartoonishly evil levels that Fox News sinks down to when it comes to journalistic fraud. And Fox News does it repeatedly, even after they've been caught multiple times! It's a terrible source that distorts information so severely that their viewers seem to have the worst political literacy compared to viewers of other news organizations. Recent studies have shown again that watching Fox News makes you more misinformed about the real world than watching any other news source... or even watching no news at all! Looking at these combined problems (which are only a small fraction of the poo poo that Fox News pulls), it's absurd to try to draw some equally-bad comparison between Fox and other corporate news sources. Yes CNN and MSNBC have their problems, but nothing so vindictive and institutionally deceptive as Fox News. Frankly, if you want good and accurate reporting, go to NPR or the BBC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:
And then died in a plane crash  The D on  is like a kiss of death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
That's so hilariously childish. Republican fucks up? Uh...oops! Our bad, had the d on there. Sure, it happened fifty times, is that a problem?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Are there any articles written about Fox News' (D) Republican phenomenon?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:That's so hilariously childish. Republican fucks up? Uh...oops! Our bad, had the d on there. Sure, it happened fifty times, is that a problem? I like to imagine it's just a shortcut that their production guys use. "Oh, we're running a negative story. Must be about a Democrat, slap that label up there." And 99% of the time, it works, and it's a huge time saver!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Hurrr I listen to both sides! As everyone else has mentioned, MSNBC is under no circumstances left wing. Never.More, here is some left wing media: http://www.democracynow.org/ Even Democracy Now's left tendencies are not necessarily manifested as "bias." Certainly they don't engage in any of the deliberate lies and tactics of Fox News that have been exhaustively documented in this thread. They tend to have guests representing leftist causes; these guests are nowhere in evidence on MSNBC, as MSNBC is more interested in ratings and providing cover for the administration. Never.More, you've now been provided with conclusive proof that there is no equivalency between what you imagine to be the left and right poles of the mass media, and furthermore that there is no left pole. Apprise yourself of true left wing media; start at the link above. If you fail to educate yourself, if you speak again without thinking, that will come to no surprise to anyone, as studies have shown that conservatives are on average stupider than other people. You like to talk a lot as if you have things figured out, another falsehood conservatives love to cling to. Again, educate yourself; don't come back here with more numbered points that you think are worth paying attention to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:As everyone else has mentioned, MSNBC is under no circumstances left wing. Democracy Now is bad for other reasons, like fear mongering and the way Amy Goodman speaks over and shouts down any guest who disagrees with her. Can't stand that show. I remember one incident in particular where they were debating something education-related, this guest kept starting to make interesting points, then Amy would speak over him and redirect the conversation elsewhere and misrepresent his viewpoint. It was really disgusting to me, it felt like the left wing version of Bill O'Reilly talking over people. ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Old repost: This was a really terrific effort post and thanks for putting it in here. In unrelated matters, I've been watching a lot of footage from Man of Steel recently (and it looks awesome). Does anyone besides me think that FOX, Rush or someone is going to make big deal about how the crest "is not an 'S'. On my planet, it means 'hope'" and try to make it into an Obama thing like they did with Bane and Bain Capital in TDKR? I'd love to be wrong, but I bet the "hope" bullshit gets brought up along the lines of Hollywood shilling for Obama and ruining the American ideals of Superman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Those realizations will require humility and admitting to a certain amount of ignorance, and I don't think that seems likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:In unrelated matters, I've been watching a lot of footage from Man of Steel recently (and it looks awesome). Does anyone besides me think that FOX, Rush or someone is going to make big deal about how the crest "is not an 'S'. On my planet, it means 'hope'" and try to make it into an Obama thing like they did with Bane and Bain Capital in TDKR? Still, Fox has hours to fill every week, and if there's a lull in the news who knows what kind of stupid crap they'll dredge up and run with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the 'R to D' thing is still ongoing, although I can't remember the last instance of this
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Those realizations will require humility and admitting to a certain amount of ignorance, and I don't think that seems likely. We can hope that someone on these boards will be able to look at facts and realize that maybe what they've learned through Fox News isn't all there is. Fox feeds their viewers a steady stream of Us vs. Them and playing to people's already great fears. Things are changing in the world which makes some folks scared. People tend to get more conservative when they're scared, and a conservative news source preying on those fears is disgusting. Once they've got you not trusting any other sources, you start believing their stories about Saddam being linked to 9/11, ACORN participating in prostitution, Obama staging school shootings to take away your guns, and that your only hope is to vote Republican, invest all your money in gold, and support taking rights away from The Other. It's the only way you'll be safe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
The entire point of the post was to indicate that all sides of the news spectrum are necessary and various disputing viewpoints need to be aired. I am happy to listen to dissenting viewpoints and consider them. The question I ask, are you? I am not claiming Fox news is perfect or unbiased, far from it. However, can you accept the same thing for the other news outlets? Several of Fox's mistakes were aired. So lets share some more. MSNBC: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/29/msnbc-caught-selectively-editing-another-clip-this-time-of-sandy-hook-victims-father/ CNN: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/howard-kurtz-apologizes-on-cnn-for-errors-90928.html If you look at my original post, all I stated was that different people holding differing viewpoints and all those viewpoints need to be aired. I find the immediate response in this thread interesting in that aspect. Before you respond, ask yourself why it is so important to demonize a dissenting viewpoint? That is the entire point I was trying to convey. I have traveled quite a bit. In that something struck me, people are people. They may have a different set of cultural rules governing how they express themselves, but by and large they are pretty much the same when you really dig deep. About 80% of them are good people who try to do their best (and sometimes fail horrible if the situation is hosed up enough around them), about 10% are complete and utter assholes that should be ignored at all costs, and about 10% just dont fit within human norms. So take that into consideration and ask yourself why so many of your fellow citizens (who presumable share a fairly similar base culture to yourself) dont agree with you (numbers based on the fact our Congress is split relatively evenly). You probably are not any smarter than them (taken as a group). You probably dont have horrible different life experiences than them (taken as a group). So what gives? As I said before, I am a conservative and happy to debate any of the various topics on that subject. However, in the interest of keeping this somewhat related to the purpose of the thread .... ask yourself why the left views the right's media as horrible untrue and the right views the left's media as horrible untrue. Simple claiming one is correct and the other is wrong is doing yourself a dis-service. The idea is to broaden your mindset and consider that there is possible some validity in a dissenting viewpoint. Thats why its important to have dissenting viewpoints aired.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Never.more, do you think that the type of workplace discussion of politics that involves shouted talking points, no agreement, and then the parties being angry at each other afterwards is better than no discussion of politics? If you approach your coworkers, as you said, and try to initiate a discussion on political issues and they say they don't want to talk about it (and make it clear that they disagree with your viewpoint), do you press the issue? If so, what kind of conversation or discussion follows? Is it one that you were better off having or were you better off not having it? The question goes for family get togethers and other social situations as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Yeah, you haven't addressed any rebuttals, or questions directly posed to you, and have only offered "the truth has to be in the middle". Either you're trolling or have a simplistic black/white duality worldview.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
I have a question Never.More. I am a gay man. The right wing in the US continually demonize people like me, and conspire to deny people like me civil rights. Similarly, they demonize the poor, advance explicitly racist viewpoints,and attack women's reproductive rights. Should gay people, or any of the other groups marginalized by the US right wing, simply try to keep an open mind about people who tell them they deserve to be less than equal? That they deserve to starve and suffer? Do you believe it is being closed-minded not to lend credence to the argument that I'm evil and going to hell? Or that I should be discriminated against because I'm deviant? And all this based on not a single shred of actual data to back up their claims? Should the civil rights movement have been more open minded to the people who were against integration? Edit: I ask this because it's obvious actual rebuttals of your points don't matter, so I'm wondering if maybe you can see how this isn't an abstract philosophical exercise for many people in the US, but matters of life and death. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Never.More posted:So take that into consideration and ask yourself why so many of your fellow citizens (who presumable share a fairly similar base culture to yourself) dont agree with you (numbers based on the fact our Congress is split relatively evenly). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/us/politics/redistricting-helped-republicans-hold-onto-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 quote:In the nation as a whole, Democratic candidates for Congress won 1.1 million more votes than Republicans, according to a tally of the popular vote kept by David Wasserman, the House editor of The Cook Political Report. But Republicans maintained their control of the House... If all votes were equal, Dems would control both houses. Also, biased polling and talking-point machines are inflating the "conservativeness" of Americans. A decrepit voting system, created when horse and sail were the fasted modes of communication and by a desperate attempt to get slave owners on-board with the new nation, is also helping make them more relevant than they should be. And even News Corp knows this. Sure, they know they can make some cash with right-wing media. They also bank roll a ton of TV and movies that guys like Hannity and O'Reilly would blame for the demise of American morals. News Corp's international holdings include  http://www.page3.com/ in the UK, because Murdoch realized putting tits in his newspaper was good for sales.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Never.More posted:I have traveled quite a bit. You are traveling inside a bubble. If you watch Fox, you are in a bubble. If you watch MSNBC and CNN you are in a bubble. Did you look at the link I gave you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
FMguru posted:
I remember when Superman Returns came out. Fox News threw a fit (at least on the radio) because a character asked if Superman still stood for "peace, justice and all that other stuff" and the movie took away the "America Way" part of the tag line. They threw a fit because this supposedly showed how Hollywood hates America. They never stopped to say that the movie sells better overseas without that line and the capitalistic way says that this is the right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:In unrelated matters, I've been watching a lot of footage from Man of Steel recently (and it looks awesome). Does anyone besides me think that FOX, Rush or someone is going to make big deal about how the crest "is not an 'S'. On my planet, it means 'hope'" and try to make it into an Obama thing like they did with Bane and Bain Capital in TDKR? If I recall correctly Colbert had a segment that covered it triggered by either the right doing the thing you mentioned or because or Superman renouncing his American citizenship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Never.More posted:At the risk of starting a flame war ... I think these news outlets are actually healthy. Only because it proves that we're not living in the socialist jack-booted hellscape they'd like to say we are. You'll note that taking a huge poo poo is also healthy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Never.More posted:
Why do you say that? Do you feel my viewpoint that you're a talking raven needs to be aired?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:51
|
|