Fox News - the lying liars unmasked.

[michal 44]

>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.

[Guest Elrond]

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

[Guest nutmeat]

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.

[Guest Paul_W]

>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.

[KevinAu 441]

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.

[Wolfko 0]

>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)

[Guest cw1011]

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.

[Sonar5 3]

And what political party do all the teachers unions in this country and most of the Academics support......?????????????game....Set....match......:-)http://aboutpolitics.net/images/bannerav.gif

[Guest B1900 Mech]

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!:-)

[Guest tgabriel]

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.

[Guest tgabriel]

The author's name is Al Franken.

[Sonar5 3]

And that is the best you can do, huh? :-)But isn't it these ALLEGED intellects that are responsible for doing the teaching in the first place?And yet, you ask if I am threatened by people who use their intellect. I am no threatened by anyone, least of all those who blame the eduacation system, yet fail to acknowledge what the composition of that system is.But judging by your defensive posture above, who else is to blame but those who do the teaching, those that represent the teachers unions in which the individual members have no say where their money goes.And just because someone teaches, does not mean they are intellectual or even a good teacher...Oh yeah, I forgot, we have to now include those who are tenured. Yeah, there is a good sytem.Now....You go have a nice day, and thanks for the chuckle.... :-)Regards,Joe

[Guest Arrington]

Absolutely nothing in this country is non-partisan at this point, and we all spend more time bickering than we do progressing. If it isn't a draw, it's a filibuster. What I want to know is when we will return to being U.S. citizens? We sit and divide up the news networks into nice little "realities" dependent entirely upon what our belief system dictates. If not, we sit square in the middle and pretend to have total clarity. Trouble is, the moderates spend so much time meditating about how silly the right and the left look, that they are completely worthless. I'm not flaming, I respect the center, but what can you do to stop this is what I want to know? This is most assuredly not what our founding fathers had in mind. When we have elections, we are so equally divided that the judicial branch has to make the call. The judicial branch is so equally divided that the outcome of the election depends on which court gets the final say. If there happens to be one more conservative on the bench, a five-year-old could figure out the outcome. This is most assuredly not what our founding fathers had in mind. I'll clear the air right now, I'm a Republican, not deep right, but definitely right of center. Having said that, there's a Democrat or two who just lost interest in anything I have to say. Well, that is a shame, because while I may not agree on the issues, I will say this; Democrats are American citizens, and that makes them my friends. I just can't understand why the vast majority of individuals in this country can't see that. We are absolutely WRONG in our approach to what we are doing these days. We are wrong on the hill, at the White house, in the state capitols, in the courtrooms, and definitely on T.V. Yer' darn right there are WMD's in Iraq! ...reporters! (Not to mention the mobile chemical/ bio labs that were discovered, and the ties to Al Qieda, who most assuredly DO have a request in for some WMD

[Guest tgabriel]

Several posts back someone declined debating you because "he knows where you are coming from." I know too and your response to my post reinforces it. You attack teachers and Academics. My question to you was not about a few teachers or Academics you suspect to be less than they are. My question was about the notion you have that "all the teacher's unions and most of the Acacemics support" one specific political party. Surely you cannot have that knowledge. I really do not think you can say with any confidence at all exactly what party "all of the teachers unions and most of the Academics" support. Making such claims shows you for what you are.Don't like it?Tough...

[Sonar5 3]

You are correct, I was wrong.I said:"And what political party do all the teachers unions in this country and most of the Academics support......?????????????"I should have stated MOST in the first part as well, and for that I apologize for my Grammatical error in a post which cannot be edited after one hour.Thank you for pointing out my error.You can find listings of contributiosn at http://fec.govThere are also quite a few articles describing information culled from the FEC.Want some fun, type in Harvard. :-)However, you may find interesting this link:http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.a...t2000=Y&Order=NWhich if you do a search at opensecrets.org, and type in American federation of teachers, you will find 41 instances of contributions, of which ALL, 100% go to dems. Interesting, eh?Other links I have found support the finding of about 98% of contributions support dems.So in closing, I should have said MOST, and not ALL, and for that I am in error.As for what these facts show, is that these unions are nothing more than partisan hacks who support ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY dem candidates.Other interesting links:http://childrenfirsttn.org/newteachr.shtmlhttp://www.childrenfirstamerica.org/DailyN...Aug/080201.htmlFind the republicans in this list from the FEChttp://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/C00028860/Have a day,Joe :-)PS - One thing I do have is the Integrity to say I was incorrect when I am incorrect. Now if only these pathetic unions were upfront and call themselves partisan dem hacks instead of non-partisan which they say many many times. The facts at FEC don't lie. The majority, in some cases up to 98% go to dems.http://aboutpolitics.net/images/bannerav.gif.About Politics.net - FORUMShttp://pub207.ezboard.com/bpoliticsgivemel...tyorgivemedeath.Contribute to the Richard Harvey Scholarship Fund.http://www.avsim.com/pages/scholarship.shtml