Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lurch

No double standard - you simply cannot compare O'Reilly et al to serious research. It would be double standard to ignore Dershowitz and adore Chomsky, but the people you reference are entertainers, not informers.

So Chomsky gets the right-of-way because he doesn't work for a major news network, and doesn't entertain people with his thoughts/ideas?

Because his education is that much higher then any of those that I mentioned?

[Hakan]

Or for that matter, anything from O'Rielly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, etc...and have the posters here actually read it as a credible source of information, instead of them dismissing it simply because of the reputation of the author?

Maybe you missed the giant section of this thread when FDW and I explained how Chomsky is an academic giant who, although may have bias, backs up his writings with top notch research.

The people you list above are merely toe jam in the body of intellectual discourse. They don't research, they don't source, they just sit themselves between a very restrictive worldview and pick up bits of garbage and off-hand knowledge passing around to publish in some crappy book.

I mean really Hannity vs. Chomsky? Are you friggin joking?

edit: At least I'm beginning to understand why you avoid making points if the one above is evidence of their quality.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

One of the posters disagreed with me(I believe it was Hakan) saying most people don't like them because of their amatuer style of reporting, and not because of their right-wing bias.

Then Lanny comes along and proves my point.

Actually, you made no point, as usual. You wanted the summation of FauxNews and I gave it to you in spades. Any organization that censors its reports in favor of their advertizing revenue ceases to be a news organization. FauxNews admits they tell their people what to report, when to report it, and how to report it. As Roger Ailes has said, "They will tell you what is news".

And we were in the process of talking about how Chomsky is obviously left-leaning, yet Bingo and others should still look upon his writing as being credible, despite the left-wing bias, but I'm not allowed to post anything from Fox News because they're right wing? Or for that matter, anything from O'Rielly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, etc...and have the posters here actually read it as a credible source of information, instead of them dismissing it simply because of the reputation of the author?

Double standard......

How about you produce something of value from O'Rielly, Hannity, or Limbaugh that is not couched in hate and bias? I don't lump Savage in there because I actually don't mind reading the little twink. He leans right, but he practices some common sense and isn't just hanging on to the Republican teet drinking what ever comes out.

Chomsky is an academic and will openly debate anyone, and crush them in short order. O'Rielly, Hannity, and Limbaugh have to manufacture garbage as they go along, shout over their opponent, tell them to SHUT UP, or just cut their mics off. Real debating champions that come ready for a fight.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Maybe you missed the giant section of this thread when FDW and I explained how Chomsky is an academic giant who, although may have bias, backs up his writings with top notch research.

The people you list above are merely toe jam in the body of intellectual discourse. They don't research, they don't source, they just sit themselves between a very restrictive worldview and pick up bits of garbage and off-hand knowledge passing around to publish in some crappy book.

I mean really Hannity vs. Chomsky? Are you friggin joking?

I guess everyone on the left researches their stuff, and everyone on the right justs passes around "off-hand knowledge" in "some crappy book."

Just because "most" people in the world aren't as educated and as well-sourced as Chomsky, certainly doesn't mean they don't try and research their writings.

But hey, if we're only going to read the works of those that have well-sourced information, the world should be pretty black and white, eh?

[Lurch]

So Chomsky gets the right-of-way because he doesn't work for a major news network, and doesn't entertain people with his thoughts/ideas?

Because his education is that much higher then any of those that I mentioned?

You miss the point. I doubt many lefties use Al Franken as a source of credible research into forming their opinions. He is entertaining, passes on glib one-liners about current events, and can occasionally be quite informative. O'Reilly is similar. However, neither of the two, IMO, do much more than pass along info to people who already have an opinion and want to feel like they are smart and those who disagree are dumb. Much as it seems to bother you, syndicated talk show hosts are for entertainments purposes, not for getting to the truth of a matter.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

But hey, if we're only going to read the works of those that have well-sourced information, the world should be pretty black and white, eh?

Well... you should probably lend books that have well-sourced information more weight than books that are pure opinion pieces. And yes... Chomsky gets more credit than Hannity or O'Reilly because he is a towering intellectual and academic. Produce somone of similar repute from the Right and then match up the arguments of each. Comparing Chomsky to Fox's news people is comparing apples and oranges.

[Azure]

Actually, you made no point, as usual. You wanted the summation of FauxNews and I gave it to you in spades. Any organization that censors its reports in favor of their advertizing revenue ceases to be a news organization. FauxNews admits they tell their people what to report, when to report it, and how to report it. As Roger Ailes has said, "They will tell you what is news".

And that makes them better or worse then every other network?

News is news, yet for some reason people will believe the news that comes from CNN, but disregard that which comes from Fox.

How about you produce something of value from O'Rielly, Hannity, or Limbaugh that is not couched in hate and bias? I don't lump Savage in there because I actually don't mind reading the little twink. He leans right, but he practices some common sense and isn't just hanging on to the Republican teet drinking what ever comes out.

I agree with you 100% on Savage. And no, I don't listen to either Hannity or Limbaugh, as I find them too rheotic in their words.

Chomsky is an academic and will openly debate anyone, and crush them in short order. O'Rielly, Hannity, and Limbaugh have to manufacture garbage as they go along, shout over their opponent, tell them to SHUT UP, or just cut their mics off. Real debating champions that come ready for a fight.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or Hannity, so I wouldn't know how they debate, but I do know that O'Rielly has sat down with MANY, many people that openly disagreed with him.

I agree that Chomsky is an academic, and yes, I do read some of his works, but that doesn't necessarily mean I will agree with him 100% because of his 'reputation.'

[Bingo]

Some things I've seen ... can't possibly reply to all individually.

1. I didn't compare Chomsky to Coulter in fact I actually said I wasn't doing so.
2. I also wouldn't compare Chomsky to a TV personality with an opinion news show. I'd agree with that.
3. Chomsky is an intellect and he can write. I'd also agree with that.

However ... the following from Hakan

Chomsky is an academic giant who, although may have bias, backs up his writings with top notch research

it takes about 15 minutes to find numerous essays that put in question these very points about the man.

- selective sourcing
- sources that have turned out to be wrong and recanted though Chomsky never did
- and a history of giving left leaning govnerments the benefit of all doubt despite atrocities while pinning every ill of the world on western democracies.

The man has a serious bias and a very consistent one that has completely owned his work for 40 years.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lurch

You miss the point. I doubt many lefties use Al Franken as a source of credible research into forming their opinions. He is entertaining, passes on glib one-liners about current events, and can occasionally be quite informative. O'Reilly is similar. However, neither of the two, IMO, do much more than pass along info to people who already have an opinion and want to feel like they are smart and those who disagree are dumb. Much as it seems to bother you, syndicated talk show hosts are for entertainments purposes, not for getting to the truth of a matter.

I don't see the comparison between Franken and O'Rielly.

Franken to me is hard left-wing, while O'Rielly has often been critical of the Bush adminstration, especially with the situation in Iraq.

It doesn't bother me, but I doubt that more people listen to Chomsky, then do to the syndicated talk-show hosts.

[Hakan]

I guess everyone on the left researches their stuff, and everyone on the right justs passes around "off-hand knowledge" in "some crappy book."

Did I say that?

Just because "most" people in the world aren't as educated and as well-sourced as Chomsky, certainly doesn't mean they don't try and research their writings.

So?

But hey, if we're only going to read the works of those that have well-sourced information, the world should be pretty black and white, eh?

What the hell does this mean?

Ok you know what, just step back. An age old adage comes to mind when I read threads with your participation:

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then open it and remove all doubt.

[Azure]

Did I say that?

You said that the people that I mentioned wrote crappy books with off-hand knowledge of something they don't understand.

They do all come from the right....

Yet Chomsky is well-informed, well-sourced, and 100% credible because he is an academic that comes from the left?

Ok you know what, just step back. An age old adage comes to mind when I read threads with your participation:

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then open it and remove all doubt.

Why should I step back when I've seen the double-standard we're talking about many times on this board?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

News is news, yet for some reason people will believe the news that comes from CNN, but disregard that which comes from Fox.

News is news? Did you believe that at the height of the cold war and Pravda was the source of information for Soviet citizens?

[Lurch]

Why should I step back when I've seen the double-standard we're talking about many times on this board?

Again, it is not a double standard. There are many brilliant, credible and serious writers on the right that you could use to back your points. Instead, you reference talk show hosts and Fox News. Chomsky is the Dershowitz of the left, Franken is the O'Reilly et al of the left.

Just my opinion, but three good, non-academic, sources for a full spectrum view of an issue are the Economist, Weekly Standard and The Nation. One is centrist, one very right wing and one very left. Personally, very little on television is worth bothering with as it is concerned with headlines, visuals and entertainment.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

News is news? Did you believe that at the height of the cold war and Pravda was the source of information for Soviet citizens?

The world has changed Lanny. I was just born when the Cold War ended, so I wouldn't know anything about the manipulation or whatever you want to call it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is; both Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS and others can all report the news. In this day on age, most of the news they report will be true, and I'm sure the major news networks have learned to not jump the gun.

I'm talking about the websites, and not the talk-show hosts, or the opinionists on either side. Yes, Fox News does lean right, but not in their news, rather their hosts...O'Rielly(more in the center-right) Hannity, Gibson, Hume and others.

You don't have to agree with them, but there should be no problem in watching Fox or CNN for the latest news reports. I believe the media is all the same, "if it bleeds, it leads" and it has nothing to do with a conspiracy.

It is easy for a talk-show/TV show host to manipulate their viewers. The only two people I watch/listen, Savage and O'Rielly, to me can be as critical of the Bush adminstration, as they can be supportive.

Savage to me is a straight shooter, and miles ahead of all the others. You are right in your assertion that most right-wing hosts will tow the party line, as most do, especially Hannity.

[Azure]

Again, it is not a double standard. There are many brilliant, credible and serious writers on the right that you could use to back your points. Instead, you reference talk show hosts and Fox News. Chomsky is the Dershowitz of the left, Franken is the O'Reilly et al of the left.

I don't necessarily agree with your comparison between Franken and O'Rielly, but I certainly see where you're coming from.

Just my opinion, but three good, non-academic, sources for a full spectrum view of an issue are the Economist, Weekly Standard and The Nation. One is centrist, one very right wing and one very left. Personally, very little on television is worth bothering with as it is concerned with headlines, visuals and entertainment.

Problem is, only one side can be right.

To me, a centrist paper would be the best read. I can't understand how people will listen to Franken, and then to justify their neutral approach, they turn around and listen to Hannity.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

News is news, yet for some reason people will believe the news that comes from CNN, but disregard that which comes from Fox.

News is news? So you'd say the Calgary Sun and the Wall Street Journal are pretty much equivalent?

Saying news is news is preposterous and you know it. Most of it is biased in one way or another, some is more entertainment than information, and audience, research, propanganda, etc varies by the news source.

One has to critically evaluate the news. If you can't tell the difference between Fox and some other news sources then you haven't been doing that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

News is news? So you'd say the Calgary Sun and the Wall Street Journal are pretty much equivalent?

Saying news is news is preposterous and you know it. Most of it is biased in one way or another, some is more entertainment than information, and audience, research, propanganda, etc varies by the news source.

One has to critically evaluate the news. If you can't tell the difference between Fox and some other news sources then you haven't been doing that.

I would say the news the Calgary Sun gets from the AP, would be the exact same news the WSJ gets from the AP.

I'm not talking about opinion pieces, or anything of that sort. Rather the major news of today.

Whether it is biased or not, its still news.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

You said that the people that I mentioned wrote crappy books with off-hand knowledge of something they don't understand.

They do all come from the right....

Yet Chomsky is well-informed, well-sourced, and 100% credible because he is an academic that comes from the left?

No, not BECAUSE he comes from the left, because he researches his material and sources it. And some or most of the people on the right that have been attacked for being inferior sources are not inferior because they are on the right but because they don't research their own material and source it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not talking about opinion pieces, or anything of that sort.

Actually that's exactly what we were talking about until you changed the focus. Fox news? Hello?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

No, not BECAUSE he comes from the left, because he researches his material and sources it. And some or most of the people on the right that have been attacked for being inferior sources are not inferior because they are on the right but because they don't research their own material and source it.

Fair enough.

But then we come back to my original arguement; that some people will discredict right-wing leaning people, simply BECAUSE of their right-wing bias.

Read through this thread, it has happened.