Sign in to follow this  
Guest Ken_Salter

Fox News - the lying liars unmasked.

Recommended Posts

Hi All,I ran across a more than bewildering/anger inducing article at the Washingtonpost.com site today concerning the widespread false beliefs Americans have concerning the politics and realities of the day - and how Americans are lead to those widely held false beliefs. The article highlights a just finished study conducted by the non-partisan Program on International Policy Attitudes: PIPA for short.In a nutshell: Fox "News", and to an extent, CBS "News" is anything but... Avoid them like the plague for actual news, because they don't provide it. Fox News in particular is a marketing machine and nothing more, dressed up as a legitimate news organization. Get your news from PBS instead: they are the most accurate news source in the United States.Stuff like this makes me literally sick to my stomach - from any side of the isle. We need a law for prominent warning labels on some news organizations just like we have for food that advertises what its not! Instead of the useless semi-transparent "News" advertising graphic always visible in the bottom right of the screen, we should demand organizations like this post a prominent warning label to their duped viewers stating exactly what they lie about!This must be the most anti-American thing I've come across in years.The Article: Fact-Free Newshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Oct14.htmlAnd the study results:Report of Findingshttp://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Med...2_03_Report.pdfPress Releasehttp://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Med...02_03_Press.pdfQuestionnairehttp://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Med...estionnaire.pdfThe organizationhttp://www.pipa.orgYours in frustrated anger,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

This study is nothing but bunk, through and through....There questions are nothing but hypothetical garbage designed to thrwo the subject off and not really understand what they ar asking. One Look at their website as well as their board and supporters labels this study as nothing but a partison study designed to do nothing but evoke false IMPRESSIONS of what really happened.Look at this question as an example.*****************Q13. Imagine that after the initial UN inspections in Iraq, the US and other countries inthe UN Security Council disagree about whether Iraq is adequately cooperating with theUN inspectors. President Bush moves that the UN approve an invasion of Iraq tooverthrow Saddam Hussein, but most of the other members of the UN Security Councilwant to continue to use threats and diplomatic pressure to get Iraq to comply, and themotion does not pass. President Bush then decides that the US will undertake an invasionof Iraq, even if the US has to do so on its own.Just based on this information, what do you think your attitude would be about thisdecision?2/03 1/03I would agree with this decision..........37% 33I would not agree with this decision.... 36 36I would not agree, but I wouldstill support the President .................... 25 27(No answer) ........................................... 2 5******************************Now, first off using the word IMAGINE as the start of the question is pretty biased, as well as the statement "motion does not pass" There was never a motion legally introduced, nor put to a vote. but based on this question, IMHO, it is designed to elicit a false assumption on the subject thinking that the motion was ontroduced.*******************Example #2Q15. As you may know, the Bush administration has said that Iraq played an importantrole in the September 11th attacks. Would you say that you:1/03Have seen conclusive evidence ....13%Haven

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Joe,Oh good heavens. I can't even respond to that as its clear you're ignoring what the focus of the study was and its methodology. I don't know why, but you've made that clear.As for PIPA being partisan, thats simply ridiculous. PIPA is one of the most trusted organizations for non partisan research on American and Governmental attitudes in the world. Saying different doesn't make it different. Good heavens, prominent members of the US Naval War College and the Brookings Institute are on its board!Stick to Fox instead of an unbiased National Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting System as you wish Joe. I can only conclude you enjoy being mislead, as crazy as that sounds.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but anything connected to Ben & Jerry is suspect.Also in the Findings link, they state Fox news as Mostly RepublicanPBS as Less republican and more eductaedCBS as more democraticI ask This:WHy would they not state that PBS is also More Democratic instead of deminishing that fact by stating PBS is less republican...If that doesn't make you wonder, the rest won't make you wonder either.I got the jist and their feeble attempt, when analized simply does not stand up to logical conclusions based upon their MISPERCEPTIONS in the data.And the more they keep trying to push FOX down, the stronger Fox Gets. Works for me. :-) Regards,Joe

Share this post


Link to post

What is enlightening is to see you call this research partisan when its facts lead one to stay away from Fox AND CBS for news - both the worst examples of news organizations that misinform. As you point out, both have mainly Republican and Democratic viewships, respectively. Thats about as un-partisan as it comes. Whats more, the facts in the study point out that the other network television news organizations such as NBC, ABC and CNN fare hardly better. Only some print news sources and PBS/NPR provide non-partisan news and don't mislead the American people (ie: they tell the truth without skewing information one way or another - something I hope one would value as top priority in a news source!).But wow... I just visited your own custom politics site you have created as linked to in your banner. Now I understand where you are coming from and what your politics are. I also understand now why you have the views you do of this non-partisan research.Now that I know your "angle", I won't debate this report with you: it'd be a fruitless exercise. For those others concerned about the accuracy of the news they seek and are reading this, however, here's a link to PBS viewer demographics:http://www.pbcionline.org/charts.htmThose are profiles of the majority of the educated Republican AND Democratic middle class that make up the PBS/NPR public. Exactly why, I'm sure, the research clearly shows PBS and NPR don't mislead their viewers/listeners.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post

Elrond, perhaps you should stick to hardware.No, you're right, I suppose you have every right to bring up a political issue here, but I'm here to say that I disagree with you, and that the title of your thread is strikingly similar to that recently published book by that sarcastic, name-calling, way-left "comedian" that uses the Fox News slogan in its title. And so you agree with that gentleman do you? Up to this point I'd taken you to be a serious voice of reason in the forums.Yes, I'm also very tired of hearing criticism of Fox News from "establishment news types"--the sort of people who regularly bring us interesting interviews with and reports about the likes of Ms. Spears and various other cardboard-cutout "celebrities."And I'm tired of news organizations that take the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson seriously, and regularly give them air time, with interview segments, quotes, reports on their latest demonstrations, etc.No, I don't have the time to post umpteen threads and enter into endless discussions in an effort to refute what you've posted above. And it would be pointless anyway. Then again, I don't need to watch graphic films about car crashes and visit the morgue in person to believe that driving dangerously is a really bad idea.Fox News, based on recent numbers that I saw, but that I cannot specifically quote, has a far higher audience than MSNBC, and I believe is significantly higher (around double if I recall) the average CNN audience. And they've been growing. Apparently there are lots of folks simply fed-up with the lock-step, unvaried, "here's-how-you-should-look-at-society" approach of the other news organizations.But there are those now intent on attacking, demeaning and undermining--sometimes with a transparent book, sometimes with a study. And this attack stuff can even show up while on a quick visit to the general forum of a flight sim Web site....

Share this post


Link to post

Where I am coming from should not matter when discussing this biased ALLEGED study.I didn't personalize this, but you feel the need to do so. That is quite sad, that you can't defend the study on its merits without retorting to my site, my angles, and where I am coming from.Come on over to my Political Forums and I will debate you there. I have read up quite a bit on thie ALLEGED STUDY, and have some pretty good ammo.But to Respect Avsim's policies, I won't bring any of it up here, as they don't really want political posts on this forum, and clearly those studies are political in nature.BTW - As a United States Citizen, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks about my countries policies. You know why, because it's our country and not theirs. And they better well get used to that, because we will not fall into theri alleged version of a world order. That is why our country was formed in the first place. To get ridof, and away from the European viewpoint. Some poeple just don't simply understand that FACT.********************Apologies to the mods. I'm done, and I will only respond to this further in my own forums as this is not the place. Just remember, I did not start this thread, Elrond did.Regards,Joe

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Paul,Well, since you're calling my post potentially biased, I'll lay out where I personally stand politically for you (even though this really has nothing to do with a research study that isn't mine):I don't know if I'd agree with whomever wrote that book as I haven't read it. What I have read were media reports quoting the title which I thought was ironic no matter what it was aimed at - exactly why I used it here (I'll grant that it sounds like a mistake to have done so - *if* you're right about the contents of the book). I read that the book alluded to or had Fox News on the cover, or it was somehow related to the title. If the book is indeed critical of Fox News, then I'd have to say I'd probably agree with it because I've seen the "reporting" on Fox News and its absolutely terrible (its on Sunday mornings just before Fox NFL Sunday, which I love).I have also seen the "reporting" on CNN and MSNBC, both of which are terrible as well - if not as blatantly slanted as Fox News is. If the book I borrowed the title of this thread from is *too* partisan in the other direction (such as CBS News evidently is - I've never seen it), I'd probably *disagree* with it. I don't like my news (or reading) skewed too far one way *or* the other.I believe in limited gun rights, or put it in the other direction, I believe in gun control on weapons that realistically have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in a womans right to choose in some circumstances, or put in the other direction, I believe a woman shouldn't have the right to abort if it would be a healthy baby born in a healthy environment. I believe in the right to stem cell research, or put in the other direction, I want limits on stem cell research to only come from actual medical miscarriages and the like. etc, etc, etc. I vote both republican and democrat, not on party lines. I vote for the most sane individual with the most sane politics running on a ticket, regardless of political party. If I absolutely *had* to name my political affiliation, I'd probably call myself a conservative democrat - or, a centrist republican. They both fit my personal ideals.In short: I demand an unbiased truth from my news sources, regardless of my personal politics (or, as much as I am aware of and can find).I most certainly agree with you about the general TV news these days: it seem to be mostly sensational numbers grabbing hog wash. I do, however, watch the news hour with Jim Lehre (or however thats spelled) on PBS, as well as read a lot of online general news from www.nytimes.com and www.washingtonpost.com as my schedule permits. I subscribe to Time magazine and get a lot of my financial news from The Wall Street Journal as well.If you are right and Fox news has a bigger audience than MSNBC and CNN, that just proves that the research above was dead on: Fox News is the source of much of the misinformation that the American people hold about recent events (believing in things and events that don't exist and didn't take place!).That the American people are largely deluded is not in question, its fact: how that came about now seems to be answered with this important research. Its surprising that you didn't address that in your reply: the fact that the majority of American citizens *are* deluded when it comes to some of the most important facts concerning one of the most important events of our history - and how they got that way.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post

As I stated above, I'll politely decline debating you - here or at your own forum - now that I know where you're coming from.The best to you (and I mean that),Elrond

Share this post


Link to post

And as always,The best to you as well.Take Care,Joe

Share this post


Link to post

People prefer different news organizations for variety of reasons. So what's new ?In fact I am yet to find any news organization that I am completely satisfied with. This has to do with the basic premise that the news as a product is inherently *boring* to people unless some spin is put on top of it. Therefore everyone puts their own spin to spice things up. PBS does it and Fox does it. I actually like to watch all of them (time permitting) and after that I have a pretty good idea what's really going on. But I do have personal dislike for Dan Rather - he bends news to fit his commentary and not vice versa.Honestly, I reserve my frustration or anger for some real stuff.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post

>>BTW - As a United States Citizen, I could care less what the>rest of the world thinks about my countries policies. I admit I agree with this. It is just about as important to me what an average Frenchman thinks of the USA as what my neighbor thinks of my recent car purchase.And those poor Frenchmen can't even fly VFR at night .. I have pity on them *:-*Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Michael,I watch Fox, because I like th entertainment value I get compared toothers. But I also flip as well.I also get news from numerous sources before forming my own opinion.I like the wires the best, though. It is usually put out before the majors spin it. And all th emajors, including Fox spin. I just prefer their spin over the others most of the time. Not all the time, but most.Regards,Joe

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Michael,I understand where you're coming from. Indeed, even at the news sites I mention above, I too detect *some* biased reporting (in both directions of the isle, depending upon the presenter/writer). But in all cases, I feel as if I'm getting as close to the truth as its possible to get in a medium that is *selling* me the news. That includes PBS to some extent (I don't listen to NPR much so couldn't say).As for anger and frustration: this, by far, tops the bill for me. Its American public support for or against a set of topics that allows or prompts those in power to execute action on those topics. War, by far, the most important of those actions. Regardless of political affiliation or belief in said topics, it absolutely *astounds* me that 60% of the public are so mislead by a variety of news sources that they believe in events that haven't happened and don't exist in reality! Events that *could* largly determine how much money is coming out of their pockets and how many sons they'll continue to put in bullets way. Whats more important than either of those? How can one make honest decisions with dishonest information in any aspect of ones life?Much worse, these beliefs allow a government they elect to form policy based on a bedrock of misbelief! And it doesn't matter *what* those policies are: conservative or liberal (or insane).That isn't Democracy: thats brainwashing.The above is the exact definition of Propaganda with a capitol "P". Thats the U.S.S.R. at its pinnacle, and ###### Germany in its prime. All in the name of "Entertainment" with your news source (with, one knows, political agenda at its core). If one wants entertainment, watch a sitcom or movie. Why in the world mix it with world news that deludes, misinforms and lies to the watching public?It frustrates and angers me to no end. It directs the future of my country.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post

>The above is the exact definition of Propaganda with a capitol>"P". Thats the U.S.S.R. at its pinnacle, and ###### Germany in>its prime. Elrond,I may allow you a lot of latitude with your statements but then you write a sentence like the one above and it completely ruins your credibility in my eyes. I have spent 24 years of my life behind the Iron Curtain and anyone who starts drawing such comparisons has no clue what he/she is talking about. Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry you feel that way Michael. I must assume you read too much it to what I wrote. Since you didn't say exactly, I'll guess a bit here. It sounds like you think I said that the United States today *is* exactly like the U.S.S.R. or ###### Germany was. That of course, wasn't my message.What I wrote is: Propaganda (definition: "Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda") *is* exactly what the mentioned news sites are providing. Exactly like the USSR and ###### Germany did through their respective popular media, if in a much greater amount and to a *much* greater detriment and outcome.What is clear is this... Fact: 60+% of American's *actually* believe that WMD have been found in Iraq or WMD were actually used in the war against our troops, that Iraq directed or was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, or that global and diverse worldwide opinion supported/supports our action to go to war. As I have no doubt you know, NONE of these are true (the last one didn't make much of a difference in support for the war, affirming both yours and Joe's opionion in that regard). Take those false beliefs away, and the above research show that support for the war drains dramatically as well. Lets not forget, this is real war, with our sons and daughters dying in Iraq every day. I'm not advocating the war or arguing against it: simply stating fact.So, how did this happen to the US public? The research talked about here clearly points to biased reporting by the popular news media, such as Fox News. Its the definition of Propaganda (see above). I hope you see the absolute difference between what I think you think I said, and what I really said. If not, please feel free to let me know so I can either apologize or explain something else I said.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, those that view the government and its actions as close to a devout religion will never back away from the fundamentalist viewpoint to see the facts. Their minds are in "lock step" with their belief that the government is right and we should not even question its actions. It is a sorry state of affairs in this country but the population, in general, is far into its own life styles and not all that interested or informed in what the government does, except if it affects them directly. They seem to prefer to believe that all is going well as long as they do not have to put themselves out or think below the surface of what's fed to them by the media.This, to me, IMHO, is the primary force leading to the downfall of any governmental entity, regardless of political leanings.'nuv said, let's fly while we're able!Larry S.

Share this post


Link to post

>Well, since you're calling my post potentially biasedI think the title of this thread is really unfortunate, and it displays what appears to be an obvious bias, and in a nasty way. Fox News is a mainstream and commercially successful news organization, and apparently growing, and all much to the consternation of established competitors. But in the space of a few words you've relegated them to the status of liars, who haven't simply lied in the past but maintain their lying nature on an ongoing basis, and who've apparently been hapless and unprofessional enough to have been found out either by you or the study you quote. Silly them, eh?Your summary dispatching of the Fox News organization seems to me to be mean spirited--just exactly like the title of the book I referred to; but then again, I expect that sort of nastiness from its author (he's the same fellow who published a book with a vicious and demeaning title referring to Limbaugh). I didn't expect it from you, or in this place. However, you've gone on to explain that your concerns apply to other news organizations too, so now I think you were just trying to be provocative with that title more than anything else.I've now taken the time to read the article you pointed to in the Washington Post, and, probably like Joe above, I find it to be not much more than an excuse for the Washington Post to throw mud at Fox News. Some group has apparently found a higher percentage of negative characteristics among people who watch Fox News, and so--look out--the Washington Post now has some nasty "solid" facts about Fox that it can write about, while pointing out that its real agenda is quite obviously to get Bush re-elected.The "study" is apparently used all the time by groups with axes to grind about this or that other thing. I don't pay much attention to the "studies" myself; I'm more interested in who's funding them and what point they're designed to make. I mean, if the tobacco industry is funding a study that concludes that the negative health effects of smoking are minimal, what more do I need to know?I read widely on the subject of current events, and I view reasonably widely, and I think, and think I have a reasonably good handle on what's going on round and about--and no "study" or flaming thread is going to raise any concern here that the Fox News organization is populated by folks intent on telling untruths. What I do believe is that there are lots of folks out to damage them.On the subject of who believes what about Iraq, at the highest levels of government there has been debate and some confusion about what the intelligence really portrayed about the situation in Iraq prior to the war. That there was debate or confusion is hardly surprising, and that the public should reflect that even more so is also hardly surprising. Now if America went to war as the result of a direct vote of a misinformed electorate, then their state of confusion would certainly be an issue. But of course that's not the way it works: They elect leaders who they believe will handle affairs the best, and then it's up to those leaders to be informed about threats and protect the country to the best of their ability. And I believe that's exactly what the Bush team is doing, and that's it's wrong to expect them to be right about everything and not make mistakes. Personally I have far more confidence in Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice than I would in Clinton's team, or any hypothetical Gore foreign policy crew. We are faced with madmen who are trying to do us in: The president believed that one of them was the leader of Iraq.I'm sorry, this is a bit long, but you've mentioned PBS a couple of times as an example of fine and unbiased news. Most of the time when I put on PBS I see a stuffed bunny, or Elmo or one his friends going on about the alphabet--in other words, there's a lot of children's programming, but the only daily news show I'm aware of is the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. But there's also a weekly news magazine that showed up about a year ago, "Now, with Bill Moyers"--and that particular program makes no pretence whatever of presenting a neutral or balanced view of any topic. Personally I'm appalled that they've given Moyers an hour each week to advance his obviously left-of-center views, with his uncontested "chats" with left-leaning academics, authors, environmentalists and the like ("Why hasn't the Bush administration taken any action?" "Well Bill, they just don't get it!"). I'm so darned annoyed by the steep tilt of this current affairs program that I've been meaning to write to PBS in protest; I just haven't got around to it yet.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry guys, it's just a great white hope to find any single news organization that is going to be truely objective. Each news organization is going to provide the story slanted towards the beliefs and convictions of those who draw salary there. Unfortuantely for the sake of objectivity, most employees of the media come from a liberal arts background in education, they think they can make a difference in the world after they graduate, so you do tend to get mostly liberal minded people in the profession. The conservative people usually went into more substantial studies such as engineering or business, so they are nowhere near broadcast. What this means is that most media do tend to side towards the left. Fox news was started as a counter to that, and they make no secret of that. So it sides towards the right and everybody knows they do. The reason they call themselves "Fair and Balanced" is not because they think they are in the middle, but rather as opposition to the rest of the liberal media conservatives see as Unfair and Unbalanced. The only way you are ever going to see the full spectrum of an issue is if you watched the story from the perspective of both CNN and FNC. Somewhere in the middle of those two stories usually lies the truth. By the way, the Washington Post is generally accepted as one of the most liberal news outlets we have, please keep that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post

>I admit I agree with this. It is just about as important to me>what an average Frenchman thinks of the USA as what my>neighbor thinks of my recent car purchase.This would be acceptable, if the US would not allways think the rest of the world had to care what the US think. But I can affirm you, that as long you have got that goevernment, nobody around here where I live, could care less about contemporary US ideas (maybe some governments will for tactical reasons, but surely not the ordinary people).Wolfgang from Innsbruck/Austria,one of Europe's "Old" countries (hello Mr. Rumsfeldt)

Share this post


Link to post

I think the ignorance of the American public has been well documented well outside this study by a number of non-partisan sources. This should come as no suprise to anyone - folks in general hear what they want to hear and discount facts, arguments etc. that are not in line with their beliefs. I tend to view this as a profound failure of our public education system much more than the fault of the media. Healthy skepticism and understanding of the foundations of the scientific method for "proving" and "disproving" are sadly lacking in our society today. Just look at our president who asked Iraq to prove a negative - that they didn't have WMD. You can't prove a negative.

Share this post


Link to post

Quote, "This should come as no suprise to anyone - folks in general hear what they want to hear and discount facts, arguments etc. that are not in line with their beliefs." How true :-lol I'm goin flyin!:-)

Share this post


Link to post

ALL the teachers???MOST academics????Are you so threatened by people who use their intellect????What game??? MSFS of course!!What Set?? Set 'em up Joe!!!What match??Haven't had a match since Hector was a pup.Your graphic says it all...no news, no learning, no debate, and no discussion.A real gem is what you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this