|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
Oh, and what was it you wanted me to address?
dmbfan |
Again for the third time ( you've now struck out twice, nice going Joe ) why don't you try to address the "Some people think..." tactic used to introduce neo con talking points. It's so profoundly unjournalistic it's just laughable. Since when does a new agency get to say "Some people think" and then say what ever they want people to think, without having to reference at all? Absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Please refer to the the "Say it ain't so, Ted Turner" posting.
I am not going to say that FOX is staffed by a bunch of saints, because it is certain it is not. But, as I said, I feel that FOX........AND OREILLY, offer a more balanced view, calling the far left wingnuts on their B.S...........more so Oreilly then FOX, rather. |
..and you want to talk about reading comprehension?
dmbfan  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Still waiting for the rebuttal to "Some people think...", that's four times I've had to ask now. Keep it up bubba... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bush, Iran and the press
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
| Quote: |
| With most of the American press firmly against the war in Iraq and many media types portraying President Bush as a bumbling fool, the danger we all face from Iran is being shrouded in a fog of partisan bitterness. |
He is not denying that....seems pretty balanced to me.
| Quote: |
| In a very underreported story, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran is resuming its uranium enrichment program, which is necessary to develop nuclear weaponry. The Iranians say they don't want a nuke, they want more electricity. And if you believe that, I have a Victoria's Secret franchise in Teheran I'd like to sell you. The mullahs control plenty of electricity. |
True.
| Quote: |
| Iran is clearly thumbing its nose at the world and is doing so because it believes the USA has been weakened by the war in Iraq, and Europe is too cowardly to do anything other than complain. The fanatical Iranian mullahs are, as one diplomat put it, rolling the dice and daring the world to stop them. |
I agree.
| Quote: |
Of course, if Iran does develop nukes, the odds of Al Qaeda gaining access to them are high. (but wait, if we just negotiate with them, they will leave us alone.....  What better way to attack the "American devil" than by using a nuclear device? And the mullahs could always claim they had nothing to do with the attack. Remember, it was a rogue Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who sold nuclear stuff to Libya and, perhaps, to North Korea. The Pakistani government claimed to know nothing about it. |
| Quote: |
| Now it is hard to imagine that the left-leaning, anti-Bush press, both here and abroad, would encourage President Bush to take aggressive action against Iran. In fact, my guess is any saber rattling by Washington would be greeted with partisan skepticism and scorn in the media. |
| Quote: |
| The question then becomes: Has the White House been intimidated by the chaos in Iraq? With faulty CIA intelligence both before and after 9/11, has Mr. Bush lost the credibility, and perhaps the confidence, to take bold action against Iran? |
Another fair, and resonable question.
| Quote: |
| This is a crucial question as the mullahs challenge the world. Even though Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin say they are fed up with Iran, talk is cheap, and these guys are a discount warehouse. In the end, it will probably be left to the USA and Great Britain to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, although Israel is a wild card. |
Well, I'm not so sure about that one.
| Quote: |
| This is the real deal, and every American should understand the danger. The chief Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth and denies the Holocaust ever took place. Obviously, Israel is not going to allow nukes in Iran |
.
I hope not.
| Quote: |
| So while some in the anti-Bush media continue to pile on the president at every opportunity, those of us who understand the war on terror are growing increasingly uneasy. The mullahs and terrorists believe the Bush administration is seriously weakened and are watching with great glee. No way in the months directly after 9/11 would these guys have pulled this stuff. But now they are emboldened by the struggle in Iraq and the apathy at the United Nations. |
| Quote: |
| The mullahs are arrogant, dangerous and heading for trouble. I hear Iran's new motto might be a steal from Vegas: "What happens here, stays here. And blank you if you don't like it." |
| Quote: |
| With nukes now in play, that's a recipe for disaster |
So, from what one poster has said.........if you take a liking to Oreilly, and feel that he is offering a fair and balanced view (and realistic)...then you are a "red neck" neo con?
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems like that is all you have going for you....waiting for my reply.
Here it is AGAIN.........
| Quote: |
| I am not going to say that FOX is staffed by a bunch of saints, because it is certain it is not. But, as I said, I feel that FOX........AND OREILLY, offer a more balanced view, calling the far left wingnuts on their B.S...........more so Oreilly then FOX, rather. |
...read between the lines.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Again for the third time ( you've now struck out twice, nice going Joe ) why don't you try to address the "Some people think..." tactic used to introduce neo con talking points. It's so profoundly unjournalistic it's just laughable. Since when does a new agency get to say "Some people think" and then say what ever they want people to think, without having to reference at all? Absurd. |
Just to make sure you read the last post, I will again, give you my reply, in which you are foaming at the mouth for.
I don't feel, or have said, that FOX news is staffed by saints. I think that every news reporting agenecy (and reporters) has SOME form of agenda........some more then others, actually. Again, I feel that FOX offers a more balanced report. I feel that O'reilly's agenda is to point out the b.s. that you are being feed by the other news agencies. Does FOX take a more conservative approach? Could be. But, what makes it seem ultra conservative or right wing, is the fact that they are NOT reporting the same crap as the others.
Satisfied?
Oh, the "some people" issue............well, show me an example and how it was used, and I will be able to answer that more fully. I do agree, that it does seem dodgy.........but not any more then what the left wing nuts report.
Oh, in regards to......
| Quote: |
| Keep it up bubba... |
..I have no problems keeping it up. But, thanks for your concern.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Do you want to know a secret?
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Just one day after outing yet another secret intelligence program designed to catch terrorists, the New York Times editorialized: "When government agencies are involved in continuing investigations that might infringe on Americans' privacy, it is important that some outside entity is keeping track of what is going on."
And that "outside entity," of course, is the New York Times.
But the paper's belief that any investigation that might infringe on privacy is fair game for exposure is dangerous. By that measure, there are no government probes the Times would not consider publishing because all investigations might lead to privacy violations. Investigations, by their very nature, are trying to find out something that is not public. Therefore the Times' rationalization is not only harmful to an America fighting a terror war, it is also incredibly dopey.
By all accounts the Bush administration obeyed the rules in tracking the transfer of money to suspected terrorists overseas. Even the New York Times admits that. So why blow the covert program when the president specifically asked the Times not to? The answer to that question is the key to unlocking the war currently going on within the USA.
The New York Times and other committed liberal entities believe the Bush administration is damaging the country and is using the war on terror to do it. Therefore, the Times uses its power and constitutional protections to actively work against the administration's anti-terror strategies. Just look at the record. The committed left believes the Bush administration encourages torture, illegally intrudes on the private phone conversations, routinely violates the Geneva Convention and commits a host of other mortal sins.
So the battle lines have been drawn. Just about anything the Bush administration does to combat terror will be opposed and sometimes actively undermined by the Times and other liberal media. Also, the ACLU has allied itself with this left-wing media jihad to challenge the Bush administration's anti-terror measures in court.
Does all that make you feel safer?
This strategy has deeply angered some right-leaning Americans who believe national security should trump ideological struggles. Former Under-Secretary of Defense Jeb Babbin said on my TV program that the publisher and editor of the New York Times should be charged with crimes. The debate is obviously intense.
There is no question that some media and politicians are playing politics with the security of the American people. There's no reason on earth that folks need to know how the CIA is legally tracking the money flow to suspected terrorists. And nobody is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay, either. The International Red Cross has an office located a few yards from the prisoners' cells. Most of the hysteria generated by the "civil rights" crowd is nonsense, designed to marginalize an administration it can't stand.
Well, I think that's garbage and I resent it. Almost five years after 9/11, the United States has escaped another murderous attack on its soil. That's a good thing even if you're on the left, right? But what this really comes down to is simple: Who do you trust to keep you safe � The New York Times or the Bush administration? You make the call |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a very good article on Fox news ...
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
| Quote: |
| Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time." |
| Quote: |
| Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns. |
| Quote: |
| "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96). When Kirtzman refused to tell Fox his party ID, "all employment discussion ended," according to the Voice. |
| Quote: |
| The most obvious sign of Fox's slant is its heavily right-leaning punditry. |
| Quote: |
| Fox has had trouble at times hiding the partisanship of its main news personalities. In 1996, while already a Fox anchor, Tony Snow endorsed Bob Dole for president in the Republican National Committee magazine Rising Tide (New York, 11/17/97). A former speech-writer for the elder Bush, Snow often guest-hosts the Rush Limbaugh show and wrote an unabashedly conservative weekly newspaper column until Fox management recently pressured him to drop it to avoid the appearance of bias (Washington Post, 5/29/01). |
| Quote: |
| But an attentive viewer will notice that there are entire blocks of the network's programming schedule that are set aside for conservative stories. |
| Quote: |
| Gallagher then introduced a series of stories about one conservative cause after another: |
| Quote: |
| Fox's news specials are equally slanted: |
| Quote: |
| Former CBS producer Don Dahler resigned from Fox after executive John Moody ordered him to change a story to play down statistics showing a lack of social progress among blacks. |
| Quote: |
"I've worked at a lot of news organizations and never found that kind of manipulation."
|
| Quote: |
| "I'll never forget the morning that one producer came up to me, and, rubbing her hands like Uriah Heep, said, 'Let's have something on Whitewater today.' That sort of thing doesn't happen at a professional news organization." |
| Quote: |
| The key to the Grapevine is its story selection, and there is nothing subtle about it. Almost every item carries an unmistakable partisan message: Democrats, environmentalists and Hollywood liberals are the perennial villains (or the butts of the joke) |
| Quote: |
| But Ailes and his colleagues have trouble backing up these claims with actual facts. He's fond of calling Bob Novak the only conservative on CNN--"that's the only guy they hired that was to the right!" (Charlie Rose, 5/22/01) --but he ignores Tucker Carlson, Kate O'Beirne and Mary Matalin (who recently left for the White House), not to mention past conservative stars such as Lynne Cheney, Mona Charen, John Sununu and, of course, Pat Buchanan, perhaps the most right-wing figure in national politics and an 18-year veteran of Crossfire (minus the occasional hiatus to run for president). |
| Quote: |
| According to Bill O'Reilly, Fox "gives voice to people who can't get on other networks. When was the last time you saw pro-life people [on other networks] unless they shot somebody?" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/10/01). O'Reilly's question is easily answered; in the last three years, the National Right to Life Committee's spokespeople have appeared on CNN 21 times (compared with 16 appearances for their main counterpart, the National Abortion Rights Action League). |
| Quote: |
The difference between the two networks is that while such conservative-friendly fare airs on CNN some of the time, Fox has oriented its whole network around it. Contrary to what Ailes and other right-wing media critics say, the agenda of CNN and its fellow mainstream outlets is not liberal or conservative, but staunchly centrist. The perspectives they value most are those of the bipartisan establishment middle, the same views that make up the mainstream corporate consensus that media publishers and executives are themselves a part of. It's politicians who stake out centrist, pro-business positions within their parties who win the adulation of the Washington press corps, like John McCain and Joe Lieberman during the 2000 campaign. Both parties are constantly urged by the media to "move to the center."
|
| Quote: |
| In other words, Snow admits he was trying to put the Democratic guest on the defensive about Clinton--while goading the Republican into playing offense against Clinton. (The episode is a perfect example of Fox's notion of balance: attacking Democrats and liberals on substance while challenging Repub-licans and conservatives only on tactics.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure whether I trust the New York Times or the Bush administration to keep us safe. The Times hasn't fielded a decent military in years (liberals make for terrible soldiers) and Bush has been fighting in Iraq too long now. He's probably battle fatigued. Thank God Rambo is coming back (http://www.hollywood.com/news/Stallone_to_Make_New_Rambo_Movie/3466608).
This is from a recent Economist, which supported the Iraq war and Bush in his first run for president (they memorably termed Bush's second run "The Incompetent Versus the Incoherent"). This editorial also supports Murdoch's bid to buy the Wall Street Journal. This is what they have to say about Fox News:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9116969&CFID=8208665&CFTOKEN=50588064
"the pro-Republican Fox News, whose motto (�We report. You decide.�) is about as convincing as an anchorman's suntan". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Another thing, and this is far from the entire case against O'reilly, but is in it's self easily enough, is that when you lose your cool in an interview so badly that you end up literally shouting at an interviewee, and sometimes even pulling the mic cord because you disagree with what is being said, you are absolutely NOT a serious professional journalist. End of story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gmat
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| O'Reilly is not a conservative.... he is a taxi driver with his own show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Another thing, and this is far from the entire case against O'reilly, but is in it's self easily enough, is that when you lose your cool in an interview so badly that you end up literally shouting at an interviewee, and sometimes even pulling the mic cord because you disagree with what is being said, you are absolutely NOT a serious professional journalist. End of story. |
Which episode(s) did this happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He does the shouting thing often, I dont recall all the times, but he definitely got into a shouting match with Geraldo. The cutting the mic thing he did to a young man, who was criticising the war. I dont keep detailed tabs on these things ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| He does the shouting thing often, I dont recall all the times, but he definitely got into a shouting match with Geraldo. The cutting the mic thing he did to a young man, who was criticising the war. I dont keep detailed tabs on these things ... |
Oh...I see.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So you can see why he is not to be considered a professional journalist then, good we`re finally getting somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
