|
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 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| If you believe that the Senate and the House simply respond to the media's commands, then I suggest we have far less common ground here -- and I already suspected very liitle common ground -- than I at first believed. |
I think the Senate and House worry about being reelected, and as such are at least passingly wary of what the general population thinks and feels. So, the order of events goes something like this:
1) A horrible event happened, creating a sense of unity within the country and a potential for some sort of action.
2) The Administration in power decides the proper course is to launch a war.
3) The media keeps questions and criticism to a minimum, which helps to maintain said atmosphere of unity and allows the Administration to direct it.
4) Because of the prevailing sentiment among the populace, the Senate and House members don't speak out for fear of political reprocussions.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox, it is not just that the W. Bush administration, the Obama administration, the British and French governments, NATO, and I see the Afghanistan war as a just war. The Senate and the House overwhelmingly authorized the war -- again, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 in favor. And they indeed speak for the American people. Off-set terms, staggered elections, direct access to their constituencies. |
They do speak for the American people, because they answer to the American people. So the question simply becomes, "Why was there support in the American population." Obviously, I feel discounting the media's partial responsibility for that support is highly questionable. The fact that there was support isn't the media's doing, but the fact that the support was as strong as it was certainly is at least partly because of how the media handled it.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Do you seriously contend that Fox News's spin explains all of this support for the Afghanistan war? |
What? Of course not. Fox News behaved exactly how I'd expect: supporting a Conservative president's proposed course of action. My talk about the media's involvement here is to point out that the supposed "Liberal Media" was also complicit, and complicit in a way that Fox News would never be for the Obama Administration. Remember, what I'm trying to show is that Fox News really isn't the same as other news agencies, and it isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re: why the American public overwhelmingly supported the Afghanistan war.
You can spin 9/11 anyway you wish. And I am certain people were indeed spinning it anyway they wished from 12 September forward -- conspiracy theories, etc. And the conspiracy theories notwithstanding, no matter how you spin it, it calls for a military response. An identifiable foreign govt supported and then gave sanctuary to a terrorist organization that hit us.
When Congress votes that strongly in favor of war -- rare in American history -- I daresay it is a no-brainer. It was not the media's doing, Fox; it was the Taliban's and Osama bin Laden's doing. And the fact that so many of you coming from the left treat national security this way, well that goes to show exactly why those of us who lean to the right or who stand firmly on the right do not want you anywhere near the National Security Council or the Pentagon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| And the conspiracy theories notwithstanding, no matter how you spin it, it calls for a military response. |
Given I don't feel the military response in question has made our nation more secure or more prosperous, I have a hard time agreeing with that. But, I admit my position is based on a counterfactual suspicion of how things would be if we hadn't engaged in said war, so I understand why you wouldn't find it persuasive.
| Gopher wrote: |
| And the fact that so many of you coming from the left treat national security this way, well that goes to show exactly why those of us who lean to the right or who stand firmly on the right do not want you anywhere near the National Security Council or the Pentagon. |
And conversely, the fact that those who lean to the right or who stand firmly on the right rushed into two hasty wars which cost us greatly and gave little in return -- not even justice and stability in the countries in question -- is part of why so many Americans lost confidence in the right in the last series of elections.
I for one take national security quite seriously, but from a practical standpoint rather than an ideological one. If a response doesn't actually make us more secure and more prosperous, it's the wrong response. These wars hurt us greatly as a nation. They cost more American lives than the terrorist attack that prompted them, damaged us economically, and gave little of value in return.
Last edited by Fox on Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about this:
You are president on 11 September 2001. You do not know any history from 12 September 2001 forward (I doubt it is possible to really assume this persective, but try).
How do you respond to Afghanistan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
How about this:
You are president on 11 September 2001. You do not know any history from 12 September 2001 forward (I doubt it is possible to really assume this persective, but try).
How do you respond to Afghanistan? |
To be entirely honest, I'm not sure. My first priority would have been domestic rather than foreign; information about this attack was availible before it occured and was not acted upon, so ensuring that such oversights would not occur again would be my first priority. Something far more directly relevent to national security than attacking Afghanistan.
Afghanistan providing aid to the terrorist group in question is an issue, but I don't believe it was sufficient to warrant outright invasion, particularly at the cost we paid for it (a cost that would have been obvious had it been truly considered, rather than doctored in hopes of sounding cheaper and easier than it would really be). What my specific course of action would have been, though, it's difficult to say, especially since we're talking about a counterfactual situation in which I lack knowledge that I in reality have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| According to my Wikipedia summary on Afghanistan, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 in favor. |
God bless Barbara Lee!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| And conversely, the fact that those who lean to the right or who stand firmly on the right rushed into two hasty wars which cost us greatly and gave little in return -- not even justice and stability in the countries in question -- is part of why so many Americans lost confidence in the right in the last series of elections. |
This fails to explain how a political conservative from the Reagan era and a W. Bush administration appointee continues to serve as secretary of defense -- or how the Clinton administration, too, relied on a Republican to hold that cabinet position.
When anyone from the left emerges who even a Democratic president and Congress can trust, appoint and confirm re: national security, please let me know.
Your side has a pretty dismal record on national security, Fox. We can discuss Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and advisors such as McGeorge Bundy if you like. Costly wars that gave us little indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| When anyone from the left emerges who even a Democratic president and Congress can trust, appoint and confirm re: national security, please let me know. |
So now you're trying to say Leftists are inherently untrustworthy regarding national security, so much so that even other Leftists don't trust them? I'd certainly admit as an incidental fact that those who involve themselves sufficiently in military affairs to be experienced enough for such posts are far more often Conservatives than Liberals, if that's what you're looking for.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Your side has a pretty dismal record on national security, Fox. We can discuss Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and advisors such as McGeorge Bundy if you like. Costly wars that gave us little indeed. |
It's not "my side", and I'm not shy at all about criticizing Liberal politicians. I'm thoroughly bi-partisan in my willingness to condemn politicians who engage us in costly, non-beneficial military endeavors. It's not a matter of Left-vs-Right for me on this issue.
This has very little to do with the media, though, and even less to do with why I consider Fox News objectionable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| And conversely, the fact that those who lean to the right or who stand firmly on the right rushed into two hasty wars which cost us greatly and gave little in return -- not even justice and stability in the countries in question -- is part of why so many Americans lost confidence in the right in the last series of elections. |
This fails to explain how a political conservative from the Reagan era and a W. Bush administration appointee continues to serve as secretary of defense -- or how the Clinton administration, too, relied on a Republican to hold that cabinet position.
When anyone from the left emerges who even a Democratic president and Congress can trust, appoint and confirm re: national security, please let me know.
Your side has a pretty dismal record on national security, Fox. We can discuss Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and advisors such as McGeorge Bundy if you like. Costly wars that gave us little indeed. |
Your saying you trust the people who have been in charge of our national security recently? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I'm thoroughly bi-partisan... |
But we are not talking about how you talk about politicians; we are talking about how you talk about the media. And if you see Fox News as a source which distorts and lies, but you see the New York Times as a source of unvarnished truth, then you are not the thoroughly bi-partisan observer you tell yourself you are, Fox.
You at the very least lean very much toward the left, no? You favor the left over "conservatives," correct? If so, of course you see Fox News as you do. But be honest with yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I'm thoroughly bi-partisan... |
But we are not talking about how you talk about politicians; we are talking about how you talk about the media. And if you see Fox News as a source which distorts and lies, but you see the New York Times as a source of unvarnished truth, then you are not the thoroughly bi-partisan observer you tell yourself you are, Fox. |
When have I ever said I see the New York Times -- or any news organization -- as a source of "unvarnished truth"? Of course there are going to be some distortions in any news source, and of course the vast majority of news sources suffer from at least some bias.
The difference in the scope, the frequency, and the systematic nature of Fox News' lies and distortions. Consider two children. One child occasionally steals candies from his sister. The other child empties his mother's purse of money every week. Yes, these children are both technically thieves. The first child is indulging in petty and sporatic deeds that, while bad, are no where near comparable to the actions of the second child. I think the vast majority of people would feel differently about the two children's actions, and further feel they should be delt with differently.
So it is with other large media sources compared to Fox News. Other large news sources aren't regularly indulging in deception on the scale of the examples I and another person have presented in this thread via links. Sure, they do it at times, and it's certainly not a good thing, and I don't support it. But there's a difference between what they do, and the systematic lies Fox engages in. You're a nuanced, intelligent man, and I know you can see the difference.
This is not something that can simply be swept away as mere partisan concerns. Fox News visibly indulges in this in far worse ways than other networks could be accused of, and that's what motivated the White House to stop taking their nonsense, not "thin skin", or a "hatred of free speech", or any other reason Conservatives care to come up with to try to defend Fox News. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You keep asserting that; all I see in your words is someone whose politics clash with Fox News's politics -- even to the degree where it explains how and why you chose your name here? are you that obsessed with it? are you a part of Dave's ESL Cafe heroic internet resistance movt? -- just as the Obama administration's does.
I have no sympathy for this, Fox. We listened to Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and several others engage in what you call systematic and willful distorting and lying for eight years.
Comes now Glenn Beck and one or two others at Fox News and your man and you cry "unfair?" Tough.
Americans who remain highly-committed to this or that political outlook, on both sides of the aisle, truly need to stop talking hyperbolically, and they need to stop basing their talking points on obviously convenient and questionable selectivity re: the facts. But we cannot have this conversation profitably because you only see it when it comes from the other side.
Nonsense, Fox. It is a spin-doctor's paradise on cable news networks, not only in the United States, but also in Qatar now. Wake up, man. You are letting one side play you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| You keep asserting that; all I see in your words is someone whose politics clash with Fox News's politics -- even to the degree where it explains how and why you chose your name here? are you that obsessed with it? |
Hum. I can understand why you'd think that way, but it's actually not so. My name here is Fox because foxes are my favorite animal. It's just that given my political leanings, I felt like my Fox News avatar was a nice bit of irony.
| Gopher wrote: |
| I have no sympathy for this, Fox. |
I know you don't, because you're viewing it in terms of teams instead of in terms of real behavior, which is evinced by this "us vs them" mentality you've got going on.
| Gopher wrote: |
| We listened to Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and several others engage in what you call systematic and willful distorting and lying for eight years. |
I agree with you completely on Michael Moore; he's as bad as Fox News, and I condemn him for it. He does systematically lie and distort, and I don't consider it acceptable. Given he only puts out a movie every so often instead of deceptive news 24 hours a day, though, it comes up less. Keith Olbermann I don't watch, so forgive me for not commenting on him; it would be in ignorance. Jon Stewart is a comedian, you're really stretching in trying to compare him to Fox News.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Comes now Glenn Beck and one or two others at Fox News and your man and you cry "unfair?" Tough. |
I specifically discluded Glenn Beck from my complaint. As I said, more than once, opinion shows are just opinion shows. It's how Fox News comports itself with regards to its actual news broadcasts that warrants my complaint. The fact that you brought up Glenn Beck again makes me feel like you're not even really interacting with what I'm saying, but rather have dug your trench in defense of Fox News and will just defend it to the death, no matter what.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Wake up, man. You are letting one side play you. |
Given I have the same problem with Leftist Michael Moore as I do with Right-leaning Fox News -- and more importantly, given that I developed both opinions independent of "what the sides say about each other" -- I doubt that very much. One can AGREE with someone without having been persuaded by them or "played" by them.
Fox News is trash that attempts to divide our nation using lies and deception for political purposes. So is Michael Moore if that makes you feel better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Fox News is trash that attempts to divide our nation using lies and deception for political purposes. So is Michael Moore if that makes you feel better. |
Add CNN, MSNBC, and most other cable news networks, then add the New York Times and several other print media sources, exclude NPR and PBS, and no more than a small handful of other good information sources, and we can agree, Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Fox News is trash that attempts to divide our nation using lies and deception for political purposes. So is Michael Moore if that makes you feel better. |
Add CNN, MSNBC, and most other cable news networks, then add the New York Times and several other print media sources, exclude NPR and PBS, and no more than a small handful of other good information sources, and we can agree, Fox. |
I don't agree those organizations lie and distort anywhere near as often -- or anywhere near as systematically -- as Fox News or Michael Moore does. They have their biases, and it colors their reporting, but their actual news reporting is no where near as bad.
Again, it's the difference between the child who occasionally steals candy from his sister, and the child who empties his mother's purse every week. They're doing the same thing in some vague sense, but one is far worse -- and far less tolerable -- than the other. |
|
| 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
