Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Ken_Salter

Fox News - the lying liars unmasked.

Recommended Posts

Guest enave

good research. When someone ignores your point like this though it's always good to reiterate it. I'll do it for you because I think it was a good point:Liberals (Democrats) decry the state of education in this country, yet educators by and large are Liberals. So, if there is something wrong with our education system, who should bear the responsibility?If you'd like to do some more research, look up how much money on average is spent per child per year. This will get you started countering the next argument you're going to get. Namely "if republicans would just give us more money, everything would be fine"For those of you playing along at home, the point we are eventually leading to is that the root problem with education in America is liberalism.

Share this post


Link to post

>For those of you playing along at home, the point we are>eventually leading to is that the root problem with education>in America is liberalism. yep, and this constant cry from liberals about "give us more money and we will fix the problem". Having to pass two kids through private schools because public schools are in such poor state in my district (while spending almost twice as much per student as the private schools !) I do know something about schools in this country. And would like to know who is responsible for this utter waste of taxpayers money going into education ? Fox News ? Or perhspas Teacher Unions which make sure any meaningful initiative to reorganize education is snuffed.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Paul_W

>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. Did you notice one of the profound side effects of the surprise attack on New York City? For a few months divisions appeared to be suspended, and the politicians and the people seemed to work and pull together. And the "satirists" quit what they normally do for a while. I'm reminded of that spoof in Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian struggles to get two competing political factions to realize they must unite against the common enemy: They immediately think he must be referring to a third political faction; "No," he reminds them in exasperation, it's "the Romans!!"In my view the Bush administration and the Republicans in general are concerned about the real enemy. That enemy is foreign, and is determined to wreak havoc and cause destruction. And I believe that now, and over the last generation at least--and possibly more--the enemies the Democrats see are just about exclusively in this country. It could be the Republicans themselves; it could be "Big Business"; it could be conservatives and "non-progressives"; it could be "the rich"...even though many national Democratic figures are themselves super-wealthy, so it's a bit difficult to relate to their apparent anguish over the have-nots.Anyway, it's been said many, many times in the national media, so there's no particular secret here: the Republicans are generally viewed by the electorate as stronger on foreign policy and defense issues. I would think in this day and age that should be a major deciding factor for everyone who casts a vote.How can you break the apparent political deadlock? It's up to each individual to keep an overall sense of perspective, and to see where the real threats lie. Personally I don't think the threats emanate from the Fox or CBS News organizations, and studies about them don't bother me; my own daily source of frustration is the news of wanton destruction and the murder of US troops that comes out of Iraq. And it's also the constant warnings of threats of this, that and the other kind issued by madmen on cassette tapes from some cave somewhere.We have to keep the real enemy in mind. If that enemy somehow manages to pull off another major attack, then national attention will again be re-focused on them and the effort to take them out. But it shouldn't take another catastrophe for the nation to become focused on the real enemy. And if the administration continues to succeed in preventing further attacks and in taking out this enemy, then at the least they deserve due credit. I believe they've already done excellent work in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Elrond

Its been interesting to see this thread degenerate from its core and real issue with partisan people providing partisan thoughts and ideas, while seeming to mostly ignore what the thread was really about. Maybe that result is somewhat my fault for using an unfortunate title from a source I didn't fully understand. Indeed, I choose the ironic title to be provocative in the sense that I always want to provide an interesting title to draw a reader - but I should have understood its source better. It sure did draw the conservative zealots out there, that for sure.But lets get back to what the real and extremely important issue here is, instead of partisan idealism from either side. That is:--The percentage of audience members who have wrong information when it comes to one or more important facts concerning the war we are still fighting:Fox News Viewers: 80%CBS News Viewers: 71%ABC News Viewers: 61%NBC News Viewers: 55%CNN News Viewers: 55%Print Media Readers: 47%PBS/NPR Viewers: 23%--The importance of those numbers is clear. If you get your news from a source that has mislead the majority of its viewers to believe in false "facts", start getting your news from somewhere else. It really is that simple. It doesn't matter if the source is mainly Republican (Fox), Democrat (CBS), Green Party, Little Green Men Party, whatever. If the news source is getting or presenting it wrong, the news source is getting or presenting it wrong.Now that you *know* where you can get, at the least, more accurate information (if not fully non partisan, which indeed may be impossible), why would anyone continue to *choose* otherwise? Unless you are a zealot of one kind or another by choice, there is no valid reason I can see.Thats the real issue here: and it presents some hope. People, now armed with information, have a choice what to do with that information. Either stay deluded by their own choosing, or pick a source that is more accurate.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Arrington

I think that even the word "misleading" can be misleading these days. With all of the political retohric factored in, who's it's hard to desern the truth. To me, though I am a Republican, I can only imagine this resulting from spew on both sides of the isle. And, in turn, the media will follow.

Share this post


Link to post

SO by refocusing on the real issue, I will again state.The Source of this study is tainted and its Board and supporters are predominantly democratic and succinctly Partisan.As well as the questions asked being blatantly misleading by presuming to the subjects events and statements that are not true, and implying they are true.How can any study that misleads its subjects by itself implying FALSE generated SPIN be considered an accurate data source.From:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...531&page=#10533"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


CryptoSonar on Twitch & YouTube. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Elrond

"It depends upon what the definition of "is", is."Sorry... Couldn't resist, as what your wrote brought it to mind. I think "is" is clear, and "misleading" is not misleading. :-)Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Elrond

I'll repeat Joe: I choose not to debate you on this matter in particular.Why is that? Because a known zealot of any kind providing "facts" or opinions is exactly what this thread is all about avoiding. As you know, Joe, you've most certainly and repeatedly proven yourself to be a zealot with your words and your own hard line conservative politics site that you advertise here.The mere fact that you are calling what is widely recognized as one of the most respected non partisan organizations when it comes to polling and opinion in America a partisan gadfly simply reinforces that completely. *Specially* when the conclusion of said research is to avoid both democratic and republican based news sources that provide bad information! How ironic your argument! The sun is still orange no matter if you call it purple, my friend.If you have questions regarding PIPA's methodology, I'd suggest you write them. I'm not anywhere near an expert in polling or its methodology as I'm sure neither are you, so I won't presume to know much about its formulation. What I take at face value is their long standing reputation as a non partisan research group - again, widely recognized on both sides of the isle (the non zealotry isles, that is).Again, there's no point in debating a zealot when it comes to the object of their zealotry. But, if you wish, you can read my reply the *first* time you posted the same above:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...mode=full#10535With respect,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Elrond,Well, you may choose to be done, but I am not. When you post in a public forum, you don't get to choose who can respond and who can not, or whether you choose to attack me, instead of responding to the points I made.Elrond, how can ANYONE take you seriously when you can't debate on the merits of your own post. You started this, and I chose to respond, as is anyone's right.I pointed out FLAWS in their entire methodology and you ask me to take it up with them."THEM" are not the ones that posted it to this forum. YOU DID.Then you continue to do nothing but state you will not debate me, while ignoring the facts I present. Fine... Your choice.But make no mistake, I will respond when I feel like it.Now.....*********************You flaunt NPR/PBS as a good choice of news.I challenge that as it is nothing but an arm of the democratic party, IMHO.And here is my Factual example.Recently, NPR, that bastion of socialist democratic SPIN, did a book interview with Bill O'Reilly, a FOX NEWS program host.This Interviewer, Terry Gross, with her program "Fresh Air", did nothing but attack, malign, and was openly hostile toward Bill O'Reilly. That is hardly partisan to me, and many others.But don't take my word for it, Listen to what the OFFICIAL NPR OMBUDSMAN said about it here:http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/And I QUOTE.... ( Make sure you read it twice so it sinks in...)"The "Empty Chair" Interview********************...Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing: It happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill O'Reilly's book from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him for his reaction, O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the studio. She read the quote anyway.That was wrong. O'Reilly was not there to respond. It's known in broadcasting as the "empty chair" interview, and it is considered an unethical technique and should not be used on NPR.I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias."Jeffrey Dvorkin NPR Ombudsman ******************Yeppers, you read that right, an official response from NPR, states unequivocally that this interview "...SERVED TO CONFRIM THE BELIEF, HELD BY SOME, IN NPR'S LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS."Folks, people don't like to debate me, because I debate when I see a wrong...I debate when I see someone pushing a False agenda like this post, IMHO.I have provided research and facts to back up every claim I have made. The author of this post has provided nothing but avoidance techniques instead of disputing my claims.I do my research, and I do it before I post. I know exactly where a post will take me about 90% or so of the time, and I let people dig their own holes, sometimes all the way up in the hopes that they will do their own research instead of spewing this kind of study as being legitimate.NPR is biased, they stated it on their own OFFICIAL website.This study is biased by the questions I posed above.. SO what about the phrasing of those questions. can anyone honestly state that they are not biased?You may not like the results, but as happens most of the time I enter these things, I am usually right, and that is what ticks people off, and that is why they don't debate me. Or ATTCK me by calling me names... Very Adult like Elrond.. Now, I am off to the batting cages with my kids as they are playing Winter baseball, but thanks for the chuckles folks.And Elrond, I hold nothing against you. You and I have agreed on many things regarding flightsimming, and computers, and I respect your right to have your views, and I also wish you well.If you choose to respond, fine. If not, no big deal, as I am satisfied with my responses up to this point.Regards,Joe 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


CryptoSonar on Twitch & YouTube. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest B1900 Mech

The Fifteenth Century Florentine statesman and writer Niccolo di Bernardo Machiavelli, in his classic book on the theories and practice of state craft, THE PRINCE, noted: "Men in general make judgements more by appearances than by reality, for sight alone belongs to everyone, but understanding to a few." Every politician and statesman before and since has well understood and accepted the need and advantage of applying craftiness and deception in order to successfully practice their art and trade.Henry Kissinger, the Twentieth Century's equivalent of Machiavelli has put it more simply: "Perceptions become reality."

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Arrington

Elrond wrote:"Sorry... Couldn't resist, as what your wrote brought it to mind. I think "is" is clear, and "misleading" is not misleading." That's been the motto of the left for as long as I can remember. If a conservative says it, it must be misleading. The trouble is, who gets to decide what is or isn't? What you "think" is, sometimes, very convenient.I know what the original post was concerning, but this looks like a partisan discussion to me. You know what they say...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Elrond

When did I say *you* couldn't respond? See, thats exactly what I mean, Joe. Debating a zealot is pointless. I *clearly* said that I choose not to debate you - I never claimed some weird right to stop others from debating you, or you from debating others. How could you possibly get that wrong?Maybe it was because naming you a zealot seemed to have really ticked you off, despite your protestation otherwise at the end of your post. In the beginning of your post, you clearly took it as an "attack" (your word). Good heavens, do you even know what a zealot is?Definition]: "One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan."And thats your perception of an attack on you or your character? You've been in the hard line politics business too long my friend, because you're seeing attacks where there are none these days. Thats the second time you've accused me of "attacking" you. All I can really say is: I'm sorry you feel that way.You're reply above is a perfect example of why debating "a fanatical partisan" is pointless. Facts get skewed into personality conflicts and emotional tug of war. In the hope that I prove to you I have no hard feeling toward you as a person, I'll respond to the "substance" of your reply above this time.I have no idea why you continue to argue about the partisan nature of news organizations such as Fox, CBS, NPR, PBS, ABC, CNN, NBC in your reply. In the post you just responded to, I clearly state that indeed any source of news is probably going to be partisan to one extent or another - specially on an individual level from the presenter depending upon his/her own politics. It was first your contention that PIPA was partisan, now you're back to calling the news organizations partisan - when clearly thats exactly what PIPA's research states. As for NPR: that the Ombudsman from their own organization actually confronts the topic of a seemingly biased interview, done on his own station of NPR, and says it was unfortunate speaks volumes to me as well. I don't like overly biased news as I've stated repeatedly, so them coming out and condemning it on their own site when it happens just reinforces that I'm getting some of my news from the right place. As for Bill O'Reilly? I'll most certainly leave that topic alone.Back to refocusing on the real issue again. What is absolutely of paramount interest, and the whole point here, is: WHERE CAN ONE GET ACCURATE NEWS? Accuracy is what this thread is ALL about. Partisan or no, PBS/NPR at least keeps ther audience well informed of the actual facts in the world - much better, by far, than any other news source. The research makes this patently clear. Whats more, as you[/i clearly point out, they also go as far as to apologize when they bend a bias one way too far! I most certainly can respect that.I hope you don't feel attacked again. But if you do, just let me say that I am indeed not doing so. Again, my best to you.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post

Elrond,You Said:"I have no idea why you are arguing about the partisan nature of news organizations such as Fox, CBS, NPR, PBS, ABC, CNN, NBC in your reply. In the post you just responded to, I clearly state that indeed any source of news is probably going to be partisan to one extent or another - specially on an individual level from the presenter depending upon his/her own politics."Now, why did I go where I went. Because you made a statement early when you said:"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."Therefore, I desired to show just how silly some of your statements are. You said on ething then defended something totally different. These are your words, you called NPR UNBIASED. I just proved they are biased, and even NPR admits it is so.The whole study is based upon republican and Democratic views. If it were not, it would not have been included in the demographics. And I know quite a bit about polling, and how it works. That is why I place polls in any high regard as often as others do. Heck according to the LA Times, Davis won't get recalled... ;-)You mentioned the non-bias of NPR, not I. Go see where BIAS appears first in this thread. You wrote it, you brought it up, and thereby made it fair game to DISPROVE your statement, which I chose to do.Further down, you stated:"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!)."You see, Elrond, you don't enjoy debating me, I think because I usually get you on some of these things. All you have to do is look at the chronological posts made here. I addressed the issue, and you went off on the tangent of Bias. Not I.Be wary of the words you use, especially when I am around, because I will call you on it.SO when you ask, "I have no idea why you are arguing about the partisan nature of news organizations such as Fox, CBS, NPR, PBS, ABC, CNN, NBC in your reply."BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP ELROND....I will conclude with what I also said above:"I like the wires the best, though. It is usually put out before the majors spin it. And all the majors, including Fox spin. I just prefer their spin over the others most of the time. Not all the time, but most."That is where I get most of my news from Elrond. I watch Fox for entertainment and also to see the dem hypocrisy get paraded across the screen since ole Judy Woodruff would never do that at CNN... :-)Regards,JoeOne more little BIAS just for fun... When you look up NPR's show Fresh Air, then go to October 8th, you see the link for the O'Reilly interview, and as part of that link you see a TOUT for the NY Times Review of Al Franken's Book.YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING......Now, if that isn't PARTISAN BIAS, someone needs to write a new definition. Here is the link:http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml;jsess...Date=10/08/2003NO Where else have I seen another Fresh Air Book review linking to a competitive book review from the New York Times. How blatant can this NPR get. Funny Stuff, Funny Stuff....Folks this just demonstrates how the hypocrisy of the left just doesn't get it. And it keeps me laughing all the way as people get their news from the likes of Fox just to figure out what the left is really about, and their hypocrisy. That is why I like watching FOX News. It certainly is not for news, but for the entertainment.It's not my Fathers democratic party or the one I grew up with, that much is for sure... 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


CryptoSonar on Twitch & YouTube. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Elrond

This is it from me to you Joe: don't quote me out of order and pretend its not, and worse, don't misquote me.In my first reply to you in this thread I indeed mistakenly wrote that PBS/NPR is "unbiased"... That was not my intention and you were right to task me on it. What I was really talking about, as the post clearly shows, was ACCURACY. It was a mistake to call PBS/NPR "unbiased" instead of "accurate", what I clearly intended.Exactly why, as you well know, another further post down in the thread from six days ago, I :"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)."Beyond that, in the post you initially replied to earlier tonight, I [link:forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=10531&mode=full#10626]once again clearly stated]:"Now that you *know* where you can get, at the least, more accurate information (if not fully non partisan, which indeed may be impossible)".But you respond to my post above like I don't believe news organizations, including NPR, can be and are biased? Sigh.On top of it, you misquote me above... What I said was: "I have no idea why you continue to argue". Not argue in the first place Joe, continue[/i to argue.What seems clear is: your mind seems to skip what doesn't fit your argument. I truly believe its that zealotry I've been talking about.This going back and forth off topic with you is just ridiculous, and is clearly why I shouldn't have broken what I said I wouldn't do: debate a zealot. I'll try to follow that advice to myself from here on out.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post

Elrond,You are very sad to imply this:"On top of it, you misquote me above... What I said was: "I have no idea why you continue to argue". Not argue in the first place Joe, continue to argue."I DID NOT MISQUOTE YOU... That sir is a LIE.You went back and put in the word CONTINUE. I cut and pasted exactly what you posted, and then you changed it. I always use cut and paste, rather than typing all of it again. Don't make up accusations and have some integrity for what you post.You know darn well you went back and added the word CONTINUE by editing your words. It may have been while I was writing my post, but you did not have CONTINUE in the original post.Nice try, but at least my integrity is in tact.You sir, owe me an anpology...Very sad Elrond that you have to resort to a lie to attempt to discredit me.But it won't work. You know it, I know it, and others here now know it.Now let's see how much integrity you have. Ball is in your court.Regards,Joe


CryptoSonar on Twitch & YouTube. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...