|
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 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| It's not an issue of fear, it's an issue of legitimacy. Fox News is not news. It is propaganda. By agreeing to a debate run by them, you are saying they are a legitimate organ of news reporting. |
Look, let's try an analogy here.
Suppose you're a politician campaigning in a small town, where the only newspaper is a propaganda rag which filters all news through the bias of its owners, but which nevertheless is read by many, many people in that town.
Now, you give your press conference, and at the end, the only question asked is a hostile one, from a reporter for the propaganda rag. Now, maybe you don't like the idea of giving the rag undeserved legitimacy, and that's understandable. But how is it gonna look if you ignore the reporter's question, in front of hundreds of people who do consider the rag to be a legit paper?
William F. Buckley's Firing Line made even less of a pretence to being "fair and balanced" than FOX does. It was quite openly slanted to the right. But that didn't stop Noam Chomsky, the dean of left-wing activism, from going on the show in order to reach a wider audience.
http://tinyurl.com/2wxb43 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
animalbirdfish
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
I'm kind of with Steve on this one. And Dennis Kucinich, the most left-leaning of the Democratic contenders, has expressed his own willingness to appear on FOX.
| Quote: |
Dennis Kucinich, now denied one of his few shots at a national audience, was the only Democratic candidate who spoke out against the cancellation.
"If you want to be the President of the United States, you can't be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically," Kucinich said. "No one is further removed from Fox's political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership."
"I'm prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won't shouldn't be President of the United States."
|
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=174222 |
Dennis Kucinich would appear on public access TV...if he could. I imagine he sits by his phone all night, just hoping that some station will call him up and ask him to come in. And at this rate, it may just be Dennis all alone on that FOX stage, debating himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Look, let's try an analogy here.
Suppose you're a politician campaigning in a small town, where the only newspaper is a propaganda rag which filters all news through the bias of its owners, but which nevertheless is read by many, many people in that town. |
It's not the only source of news. Anyone watching it regularly is not reachable. Analogy doesn't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand:
I agree but fat chance of getting the lardhead leftists on this board to see your point. It's too subtle for their sloping foreheads.
animalbirdfish:
| Quote: |
| Dennis Kucinich would appear on public access TV...if he could. I imagine he sits by his phone all night, just hoping that some station will call him up and ask him to come in. And at this rate, it may just be Dennis all alone on that FOX stage, debating himself. |
Then again, he can always get his fellow ambulance chaser Al Sharpton to appear. Personally, I'd like to see Dennis wiggle his mule ears while he talks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
On the other hand:
I agree but fat chance of getting the lardhead leftists on this board to see your point. It's too subtle for their sloping foreheads. |
As a lardhead leftist, I spent quite some time furrowing my sloped brow, trying in vain to comprehend OTOH's analogy. The best I could manage was to agree with EFLtrainer: the analogy only works if Fox News is the only source of political information available, which it obviously isn't.
I'd also have to say that Buckley vs. Chomsky on Firing Line is quite a different situation -- Buckley's no Bill O'Reilly, after all. Buckley is/was a known and unapologetic conservative, after all. Compare this with Fox and its 'neutrality'. The debate is well worth watching though - it's available here.
(oh god, now I'm imagining a Chomsky - O'Reilly debate and I can't stop laughing)
Anyway, you all know that in the 2004 election, Fox News viewers voted for Bush over Kerry at a rate of almost 13:1, compared to about 1:1 nationwide? And that was with Kerry debating on the channel. I don't think the Democrats feel like they're going to be missing out on many swing voters by boycotting the Fox, I guess.
(I should add that I don't really care what the Democrats do in this situation - I don't think it really matters much either way, particularly since Fox isn't likely to tone down its bias on this basis alone) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Liberals are at the core nothing but cowards (which even many genuine radical leftists admit). However they regard FoxNews and its veracity they should at least have the nutsacks to make an appearance, especially if they're really tring to "reach out" to other voters as they so often claim.
gang ah jee obfuscated:
No, it's not a consistent analogy, but his point is well taken nonetheless. When FoxNews claims to be fair and balanced it doesn't mean that their broadcast team fits that description. Of course, most are partisan (Alan Colmes being a notable exception and I would hardly characterize Brit Hume, formerly of ABCNews, or Chris Wallace, formerly of CBSNews, as lightweights or rabid rightwingers).
The message implies that BOTH sides are usually aired when controversy abounds--not that the station is neutral. Leftists conveniently sidestep this point.
The Left (but especially liberals) has never been able to admit that the vast majority of reporters and news anchors for decades on CNN and the alphabet channels have had a decidedly leftist bias. Why no indignation about that?
Same old double standard at work in the mainstream media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| Liberals are at the core nothing but cowards |
That's the way to improve your validity.
Who's standing up to the most powerful president in history, one who can put us away forever just because he wants to? Liberals and independents.
Yup. Gutless.
Here, watch: Dumbya, you scum-sucking, lying, cheating, thieving piece of dog crap: you should be impeached and removed from office. Then, tried for treason in court. Then hung. That is the penalty.
See? Gutless, I know. Since this WILL get picked up in the sweep, guess it's just a matter of time now... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| No, it's not a consistent analogy, but his point is well taken nonetheless. |
His point was that when faced with a hostile question from the only outlet in town, it is better to answer than to not answer. In reality there are numerous outlets, and we also know that the Fox audience is hostile. Thus, while OTOH's point is a good one within the bounds of the analogy, I don't think the case stands as strongly in the real world. If the analogy represented the actual situation more closely, it would be about whether to attend the press conference when there are numerous papers in town, when you know that that the tabloid has a history of blatant bias against your party, and when you know that 90% of people who read the rag are going to vote against you anyway. So, is it worth your time to go to the press conference? Me, I don't think it matters much either way. I suspect the Democrats see it as a way to 'punish' Fox for holding such blatant bias - after all, 'fair and balanced' sounds pretty silly when one side won't even come to play.
I feel sorry for that guy. I heard that when Fox was looking for a co-host for Hannity and LTBD (Liberal To Be Determined) one of the stipulations was that he be less charismatic and forceful than Sean Hannity. I've only watched a little of the show, but this seems very much to be how it worked out.
An analysis of Special Report with Brit Hume found the ratio of conservative to liberal guests to be at 50:6.. Does that make him 'rabid'? I don't know.
| Quote: |
| The message implies that BOTH sides are usually aired when controversy abounds--not that the station is neutral. Leftists conveniently sidestep this point. |
Heh - 'usually'. Funny. And you're an educated guy - you should know that treating an issue accurately isn't simply a matter of presenting both sides of the story. And you also know that how the information is presented is extremely important.
That you don't mention 'accuracy' above is perhaps telling. FoxNews is the bastard child of postmodernism and right-wing politics, and is based on the principle that, since all information has some bias, it's perfectly OK to consciously hold and promote one's own biases without regard for what is actually true. Truthiness!
And as for the rest of the media having bias? True, no doubt. But then, you're so far right you probably think that reality has a liberal bias (as Colbert would put it.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me begin with the idiotic reply which can be summarily dismissed and move on to an intelligent reply.
EFLTrainer:
| Quote: |
| Here, watch: Dumbya, you scum-sucking, lying, cheating, thieving piece of dog crap: you should be impeached and removed from office. Then, tried for treason in court. Then hung. That is the penalty. |
I see that your case of rabies is in an advanced state. Your strain of it--Bushism--is rather lethal, however. Please consult a veterinarian soon. Didn't know the American judicial system hangs those deemed traitors. 
gang ah jee:
Of course you're correct that the Democratic candidates have many other venues to choose from. But here's my bone of contention. This debate is sponsored by the Black Caucaus, which is decidedly liberal and represents a minority block the Dems court. So it's a snub to them. Further, for the very reason that FoxNews is known to be right-leaning, it warrants their involvement. The Democratic candidates have many "friendly" venues open to them; why not participate in one that is different. Don't they have the strength of their convictions to guide them in those supposedly shark-infested waters?
As for Colmes, it's been a long-standing pernicious rumor that he was duped into this role as a fall guy. I'm sure he'd take umbrage with that characterization and, anyway, if Hannity is as much of a dimwit as liberals claim, then he should be easy to upstage. It's easier to disparage Colmes than to address Hannity head-on. This said, I'm sure Colmes doesn't need anyone's sympathy, especially when he's laughing all the way to the bank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| Of course you're correct that the Democratic candidates have many other venues to choose from. But here's my bone of contention. This debate is sponsored by the Black Caucaus, which is decidedly liberal and represents a minority block the Dems court. So it's a snub to them. Further, for the very reason that FoxNews is known to be right-leaning, it warrants their involvement. The Democratic candidates have many "friendly" venues open to them; why not participate in one that is different. Don't they have the strength of their convictions to guide them in those supposedly shark-infested waters? |
Fair points. I do think that this is intended more as a *beep* you to Fox for pretending to objectivity more than a run-and-hide situation. I could be wrong though.
And regarding Fox's bias - Fox is right-wing, there's no argument about that. But are the others left? I would say very much not; rather, they're centrist, (which looks left to the right). I don't think that accusing a network like CNN of exclusively pursuing left-wing interests would stick at all, particularly when you compare to the more left-wing media of other Western countries.
Anyway, I was reading a FAIR article the other day actually that suggested that the best thing for Fox to do would be to just drop its 'balanced' charade and come out as a conservative media outlet - while at the same time making an effort to increase the quality of its journalism. The article observed that Britain manages with media outlets of excellent quality that do not try to obfuscate their ideological underpinnings - the Times and the Guardian, for example. There's nothing wrong with taking an unapologetically conservative perspective on things, after all.
| Quote: |
| As for Colmes, it's been a long-standing pernicious rumor that he was duped into this role as a fall guy. I'm sure he'd take umbrage with that characterization and, anyway, if Hannity is as much of a dimwit as liberals claim, then he should be easy to upstage. It's easier to disparage Colmes than to address Hannity head-on. This said, I'm sure Colmes doesn't need anyone's sympathy, especially when he's laughing all the way to the bank. |
It's an interesting story, actually. Apparently Hannity was drafted, then they went scouting for a liberal counterpoint. Hannity actually handpicked Colmes himself. Colmes is a meek and mild moderate liberal, and really, putting him up against an aggressive pundit like Hannity is no competition. He's like a little lapdog. You're right about laughing to the bank though. All sympathy gone. Also, I've never heard anyone call Hannity 'dimwit'. I'd go with immoral asshole myself, but there you go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All media is pro-government. Some of democratic leaning, others republicans. But even those who are politically neutral are shrills for government.
But in this situation, I think it not smart of the Dems to pull out of this debate. Yes, I dislike fox news as much as the next non-Republican but people who have Fox as their primary news source might do well to hear the other side defended in a rational, normal way. Obama, specifically, would do very well in the snake pit. He explains policy very persuasively. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| But in this situation, I think it not smart of the Dems to pull out of this debate. Yes, I dislike fox news as much as the next non-Republican but people who have Fox as their primary news source might do well to hear the other side defended in a rational, normal way. Obama, specifically, would do very well in the snake pit. He explains policy very persuasively. |
You might be right on this, but what I can't help but wonder: what are the odds that Fox viewers would vote for a Democrat candidate if they wouldn't even change channels? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, in a nation that is about 50/50 split along party lines, even a few thousand conversions (which is more than possible) could change the course of history. Many, many republicans are extremely dissatisfied with their party. Bush has been a spend spend spend big government embarrassment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Well, in a nation that is about 50/50 split along party lines, even a few thousand conversions (which is more than possible) could change the course of history. Many, many republicans are extremely dissatisfied with their party. Bush has been a spend spend spend big government embarrassment. |
I was just looking up those stats that show the recent migration away from the republican party and instead found this interesting New Republic article:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070409&s=judis041107
| Quote: |
Fox officials take umbrage, of course, at any attempt to describe their reported as "conservative" or "pro-Republican," but occasionally, one of them has let the cat out of the bag. In the European edition of The Wall Street Journal two years ago, Fox's London bureau chief, Scott Norvell, wrote, "Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and [Fox talk-show host] Bill O'Reilly." Adolph Ochs would have fired a bureau chief for making a similar statement, and so would the presidents of most other major news networks. The FCC might have also looked askance, but, in 1987, Ronald Reagan's FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine. What remains is not a rule, but an informal understanding of how news organizations should operate.
Fox claims it should enjoy the prerogatives of that informal understanding--which would include being able to sponsor political debates by either party--but it violates it at every turn. It is not a news organization in the traditional sense any more than the Heritage Foundation is a traditional think tank. And that's the heart of the issue between Fox and the Democratic Party. Like Heritage, Fox News is an informal arm of the conservative Republican movement. And Democrats don't want Fox to be able to bolster its false claims of impartiality by pointing to its sponsorship of Democratic as well as Republican candidate debates. |
And wow, BJWD, you're really in an extra anti-government mood today, aren't ya. Just finish a good book on it? |
|
| 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
