FOX News Beats the War Drum Once Again

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Those are statements ... in themselves I don't know if I would call them facts.

I'm not 11, I get that there are influence groups, money, power pushing agendas all over the world. I've never claimed anything in to the contrary. But a source that says that the Iraq war was about oil because of x and y and z isn't necessarily a fact, and that's my point.

I've read comprehensive articles that list the WMDs that were taken out of the country into Syria, about receipts from other nations for materials needed to produce WMDs and then it never flows into the main media. Why? A conspiracy of left leaning journalists that don't want to support Bush? Possibly ... or maybe that information wasn't all that solid to begin with.

I lean to the latter, and I think a lot of your facts when drilled down to specifics might be the same.

Sometimes governments in tough situations make tough decisions that end up not being correct in the end.

Happens.

But spare me the Fox lover crap ... waste of all of our time. I don't feel the need to insult you.

You're also missing the most obvious of answers on the WMDs, one that has been lost in the RW noise machine. The obvious answer, and one promoted in that damn international LW media (that is such a falacy BTW) is that Iraq complied with the UN orders and did indeed destroy their stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, as documented and attested to by the UN inspection teams. This was lost in our media because it was too busy banging the war drums and complying with the whims of the politicos, corporate fat cats, and the public.

As to the Fox comments, I think you've been caught defending them and you got associated as being a Fox lover. Just saying. People get labelled for taking certain positions. I get labelled all the time. I don't let it bother me, as its a discussion. I know who I am and I can articulate my position if someone actually cares to debate "issues". Don't let it get you down, you Bill O'Reilly lovin' Fox News watcher!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I haven't mentioned you watching fox once in this thread.

If you're willing to dismiss everything you read or hear as 'i would call those statements instead of facts' and 'governments in tough situations make tough decisions' then I really can't say anything else except that you should invest in some good earplugs. Sand in the ear is a real pain.

You made the Cavuto reference ... I think he works at Fox. That's my researh abilities in full bloom.

If you equate what I've said as dismissing everything then I reallyl can't help you. Dismissing everything, and suggesting that your ideologically charged mission statement should be taken with a grain of salt or two different kettle of fish.

I listen and read everything, take something from everything, and try to round out a true picture ... how can that be a bad thing. We've learned over and over again in the past five years that no single piece of information should ever be lapped up unquestioned.

Man up until a few days ago I would have thought NASA would be a pretty reliable source for information on global science, but I guess that fell appart.

Funny to see you suggest I dismiss everything yet you boil down all I say in almost every post to a lecture and a drive by shooting. What ever rows your boat.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You made the Cavuto reference ... I think he works at Fox. That's my researh abilities in full bloom.

If you equate what I've said as dismissing everything then I reallyl can't help you. Dismissing everything, and suggesting that your ideologically charged mission statement should be taken with a grain of salt or two different kettle of fish.

I listen and read everything, take something from everything, and try to round out a true picture ... how can that be a bad thing. We've learned over and over again in the past five years that no single piece of information should ever be lapped up unquestioned.

Man up until a few days ago I would have thought NASA would be a pretty reliable source for information on global science, but I guess that fell appart.

Funny to see you suggest I dismiss everything yet you boil down all I say in almost every post to a lecture and a drive by shooting. What ever rows your boat.

You're acting like I read this in Time Magazine Canada. And to that I laugh, all the way through my ideologically charged mission.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

See this is my point ...

says who?
proven by what?
with what back up sources?
Who holds these guys accountable?

The way the world works now ... I can be a decent young film maker that cherry picks what he wants and fires something up on youtube in ten minutes and find myself quoted as fact by guys like you for the rest of time.

dig around a bit and you find out just how cherry picked these things are.

Gore's movie cherry picked like crazy on global warming, but then so too did the GM Swindle movie from BBC going the other way.

Bottom line neither can be trusted.

Man CBS News was caught with their pants down, so to have the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, you name it ... they've all been hammered.

Now are they all mistakes but Fox is lying or is there a bigger issue at play here in all media outlets that should cause us all concern in all directions and not just in the direction that our individual ideology disagrees with?

Yeah, it is pretty popular these days to pick on Fox for being an uncredible news source, but when it comes down to it, you should never take anything you hear/read at face value. You should think for yourself on ANY issue, and based on how much info there is out there, and how fast new information is being made available, I think the average person feels innundated/overwhelmed and would rather just trust whoever makes them feel the best, or who they relate to the most.

Personally, I can't watch Fox news because I feel like they are trying to make me afraid of things that I don't need to be afraid of. That, and they yell like crazy. CNN is no better. BBC is okay. CBC can be okay at times... but really - there is no one news source that I can trust completely.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You're also missing the most obvious of answers on the WMDs, one that has been lost in the RW noise machine. The obvious answer, and one promoted in that damn international LW media (that is such a falacy BTW) is that Iraq complied with the UN orders and did indeed destroy their stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, as documented and attested to by the UN inspection teams. This was lost in our media because it was too busy banging the war drums and complying with the whims of the politicos, corporate fat cats, and the public.

This is so frustrating ...

I wasn't making a WMD case, I was pointing out that I've read a bunch of stuff suggesting that they were found and moved out BUT THAT I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT.

I didn't need to be filled out on the rest of what I was missing.

My whole damn point in this entire thread is that all media is tainted, all sources are questionable, and that bias is over played because everyone ignores what they like to hear or believe and tune in when someone challenges one of their "facts"

I wasn't defending FOX
I wasn't defending Bush
I'm not trying to make a case for the Iraq war.

Too tired off all that crap to do that again.

And the defending Fox thing ... you know me well enough to know that I push back on any majority that has gone too far. Any one. They are almost always way over the top and need to be questioned. Nothing is ever as black and white as some think it to be.

So statements like Fox is trying to get the US into Iran, or Fox purposesly lies just drive me nuts, because they're so over cooked that reality is just left to wither on the vine.

By trying to push the scale from 99.9% against Fox to say 87% I get hammered as a Fox lover. Sad

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're acting like I read this in Time Magazine Canada. And to that I laugh, all the way through my ideologically charged mission.

Last paragrah from my post ...

Funny to see you suggest I dismiss everything yet you boil down all I say in almost every post to a lecture and a drive by shooting. What ever rows your boat.

Now look at how you replied above.

Sinking in?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Personally, I can't watch Fox news because I feel like they are trying to make me afraid of things that I don't need to be afraid of. That, and they yell like crazy. CNN is no better. BBC is okay. CBC can be okay at times... but really - there is no one news source that I can trust completely.

Even if we don't agree on everything, hats off to you for someone in this thread finally getting what I'm saying.

Appreciate it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Last paragrah from my post ...

Funny to see you suggest I dismiss everything yet you boil down all I say in almost every post to a lecture and a drive by shooting. What ever rows your boat.

Now look at how you replied above.

Sinking in?

If you had taken issue with anything I said, rather than limply passing it off as being 'statement', I'd probably be willing to supply more to an argument.

As it stands, I don't really feel like wasting time.

Speaking of drive-by's, how 'bout this little gem from the third post in the thread...Great way to kick off a debate, don't ya think?

Originally Posted by Bingo

Thanks God!

We've never had a Fox News post on this site to argue about. Finally the topic appears and can be discussed once and for all!

67% of Americans were pro the Iraq war before it happened, that's a lot of right wing loonies!

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Even if we don't agree on everything, hats off to you for someone in this thread finally getting what I'm saying.

Appreciate it.

This would probably more accurately reflect what you're trying to say . . . . . two parties viewing the same facts arrive at different conclusions as to bias:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072300512.html

With the study:

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jpiliavi/965/hwang.pdf

It's not whether you can necessarily trust the source. It's whether or not you can trust yourself to interpret it without bias.

EDIT: I fixed the earlier link to Pew Research, released a few days ago. Here it is again:

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=348

Cowperson

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you had taken issue with anything I said, rather than limply passing it off as being 'statement', I'd probably be willing to supply more to an argument.

As it stands, I don't really feel like wasting time.

Speaking of drive-by's, how 'bout this little gem from the third post in the thread...Great way to kick off a debate, don't ya think?

Was meant as sarcasm, but yeah a smiley face would have helped.

But I don't think you see that I'm trying to take in what your'e saying ... I don't get the same feeling from you from what I say. Maybe it's style more than content.

You come across as a guy at a lecturn not willing to even think it possible that anything he believes could be wrong. By making glib comments and then insulting the guy that disagrees with you it adds to the stink.

If you're happy with that there's nothing I can do.

But don't you think it possible that some of your charged opinions on these matters may come from people with equally charged opinions and perhaps not facts as you call them?

That's all I'm saying.

[transplant99]

Hate to break it to you Bingo, but viewers/listeners of PBS are much more informed and accurate in their knowledge of current events than any other media outlet

Just....wow....needed the giggle though.

I think its pretty obvious reading this thread that most people have a slant/bias to their thinking. As Cow has presented with more than one source, it comes down to filtration on your own. Essenetially any major media sources are selling us the same story albeit with a slant that represents who they believe to be their constituents.Individually its then up to each person to filter through the edges of everything and come to the central point/facts of what has been said.

The left AND the right both claim that the media is under some sort of government control....how can that be?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Just....wow....needed the giggle though.

Well, PBS News is much more informative and accurate than any other American news I've ever seen. I'm sure you've watched it -- the stories are longer and more in depth, the analysis consists of zero shouting and usually presents at least two different sides to every story, they don't talk about drunken slut starlets. It's just a better news show. The personalities don't gripe about "the right wing" or "the left wing".

I don't know if that means the viewers are more informed or accurate, but they are hearing more information, and it is more accurate. It only stands to reason...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Just....wow....needed the giggle though.

I think its pretty obvious reading this thread that most people have a slant/bias to their thinking. As Cow has presented with more than one source, it comes down to filtration on your own. Essenetially any major media sources are selling us the same story albeit with a slant that represents who they believe to be their constituents.Individually its then up to each person to filter through the edges of everything and come to the central point/facts of what has been said.

The left AND the right both claim that the media is under some sort of government control....how can that be?

Just... wow... you need to learn to read. Pew and PIPA's studies were not about bias perception, but the accuracy of the media source and how well informed of the actual facts the views/listeners/readers were. Bottom line is that PBS and Fox News were on opposite ends of the spectrum, with Fox News viewers 400% more likely to be not have the correct information on a current event. The study was very straight forward, and focused on asking questions where "spin" had been removed from the equation by using data that had been proven to be accepted as fact around the world (example question: Were WMDs found in Iraq?). The potential for bias was removed from the equation, except in the result which showed Fox News viewers quoted incorrect information on 80% of the questions asked, and PBS viewers only 20%. Is this moving along too quickly for you?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

Has anyone seen a documentary about Fox News channel called "Out Foxed." The way Fox News operates its broadcasts makes you shake your head. For instance, Bill O'Reilly always removes anything from his script which could been seen as critical of the G.W. Bush administration. It makes me wonder why Fox News uses the slogan "fair and balanced." The only two anchors on Fox News who have any credibility in my mind are Alan Colmes and Chris Wallace. The rest of them are drones who are in lockstep with Bush and Cheney.

You've got to be kidding me. O'Reilly has been absolutely hammering Bush for months now.

Jesus. How can you make comments like that about a man and his show when you never watch/listen??

Unbelievable.

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You've got to be kidding me. O'Reilly has been absolutely hammering Bush for months now.

Jesus. How can you make comments like that about a man and his show when you never watch/listen??

Unbelievable.

Sorry, but I have watched O'Reilly's show enough to know what goes on.
The majority of O'Reilly's anger is directed at Democrats and rarely do you hear criticism's of Republicans. While O'Reilly may be off the Iraq War bandwagon, he stands behind alot of the disasterous policies of Bush.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

Sorry, but I have watched O'Reilly's show enough to know what goes on.
The majority of O'Reilly's anger is directed at Democrats and rarely do you hear criticism's of Republicans. While O'Reilly may be off the Iraq War bandwagon, he stands behind alot of the disasterous policies of Bush.

He is certainly off of the immigration bandwagon. And a lot of others things too.

I have a feeling you really don't watch O'Rielly. I wouldn't exactly say he is OFF the Iraq bandwagon...just criticizing the way it is being handled.

[vicphoenix13]

You're right! I am not a regular O'Reilly Factor viewer but that's because I hate what O'Reilly stands for. The only time I bothered to watch his show was earlier this year when Shaw Cable was previewing new channels. As soon as the free preview ended, I demanded that Fox News be removed from my subscription. Alot of the Fox News stuff I have seen recently has been courtesy of youtube and The Daily Show.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

Sorry, but I have watched O'Reilly's show enough to know what goes on.
The majority of O'Reilly's anger is directed at Democrats and rarely do you hear criticism's of Republicans. While O'Reilly may be off the Iraq War bandwagon, he stands behind alot of the disasterous policies of Bush.

Really? Which disasterous policies does he stand behind?

The guy admits he leans right so obviously his venom is going to the left more than the right. It's not a NEWS show...it's a COMMENTARY show. HUGE difference.

I heard him say yesterday that he REALLY likes Barack Obama, but he wants to see him get a plan for Iraq. Couple that with his months and months of vigorously condemning the Bush administration on Iraq and other issues...immigration for one...and I think your statement about him removing anything Republican negative from his shows is pure hogwash.

[transplant99]

Just... wow... you need to learn to read.

And at that...I need to read no longer.

Still the same bombastic crap.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

You're right! I am not a regular O'Reilly Factor viewer but that's because I hate what O'Reilly stands for. The only time I bothered to watch his show was earlier this year when Shaw Cable was previewing new channels. As soon as the free preview ended, I demanded that Fox News be removed from my subscription. Alot of the Fox News stuff I have seen recently has been courtesy of youtube and The Daily Show.

So which is it..."I've watched O'Reilly's show enough to know" or "I am not a regular viewer" and I summarily dismiss the network and everyone on it to the extent that I must have it removed from my cable programming?

One's a lie.

The other is very intriguing. Since it's free you could just block it, simply ignore it...but you have to call and have it removed? Why?

Thanks for admitting that you don't know what you're talking about in regard to O'Reilly and his removal of all negative republican information from his shows.