Actually it's not that complicated:

If fox were truly making making mistakes, I would expect roughly half of the mistakes would be on the side benefitting democrats and roughly half would be on the side of the republicans. I do not watch fox news channel. Has anyone caught sight of a site that cites instances where fnc made a mistake that made democrats look better? Or have you had that experience yourself?

Two reasons... combined

1) It is in your face all the time, because of the streams that you have chosen to watch. Your Dwellars, your FB Friends, and whatever other sources you have, are a biased group chosen by you. They impart to you biases that you are not even aware of. (Again, not just you, but everyone is subject to this very big problem.)

2) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html

There are equally brazen groups on the right attempting to "wage war" through selective editing and sound-biting, but none that I know of who focus so thoroughly on one source, as MMfA does to Fox.

The hour is up. The last hour of FN had these numbers of different graphics.

1 statistics
4 biographical detail on commentator
1 quote
2 poll results

None had any obvious mistakes.

Many of my FB friends, and family, are quite conservative, actually.

Now, I think that this extrapolates to either 1) the 'other' side (which is only to say those who might be laughing at similar posts about CNN) from me would never mention such mistakes (which we know isn't true) or those mistakes don't exist in numbers big enough for it to be so noticed.

There are plenty of people who would jump on the 'point and laugh at CNN' wagon if such mistakes were so prolific for them. (I keep saying CNN but I have no idea what the 'liberal' 24 hour news is.

There are plenty of folks here on the Cellar, Dwellars, who would LOVE it.

My face isn't thatt selective, I can't decide what's being thrown in it all the time.

War on Fox my big fat ass. :headshake

Hello UT--

We've had discussions in this area before. I have LOTS of complaints about Fox's behavior, I'd like to pick on this one just now.

I contend that your very normal, regular speech used in the quote I've made above is way most folks view them; Fox *News*, a reporting of facts, "Here's the news". You used it that way in your sentence (to my ears) and in my experience, most other people see it the same way, that they're a news reporting outfit. Journalists, recording and relaying what is happening.

In the next breath you put a qualification on your remarks excluding some kinds of things that, once again, normal, regular people will experience; what you expect to experience, notably bias and one-sided stories broadcast with the intent to foment shit.

Maybe there will be mistakes, maybe not.

My point here is that they have stolen the meaning of the word "News", in the best Orwellian style, and made it into the opposite of what it really means. They are the cuckoo of television, laying this alien egg in the nest and having others expend the energy to deal with it.

They call themselves News, but there's much more attention and energy put into bias and opinionmaking than straight news. That's not a mistake. That's deliberate, and it is misleading.

Edited to add:

This is no semantic nit picking on my part. They actively, vigorously portray themselves as NEWS. Witness their taglines, so frequently repeated they're idioms in our language now:

Fair and Balanced

and

We Report, You Decide.

The first one is an outright lie. The second one is more subtle, but just as pernicious, they may well report, but the decisions will be based from a limited pool of information.

It's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevilllllllllllllllllll, is what it is. :devilsmilie:

I would expect it to be 75-25 on the R side.

It's a biased organization, and the nature of mistakes is such that bias will be shown in its mistakes.

Take the bad graph showing unemployment trends. If one is biased to expect unemployment didn't decline in the last report, one is less likely to notice the mistake that the graph failed to show the decline.

I remember when this happened, it was very embarrassing. NPR certainly does make mistakes. And they have a weekly segment for retracting errors too. I don't watch a lot of Fox News. But I have *never* seen a retraction from them, certainly nothing amounting to a weekly section for corrections. Does this exist? And if it does, why is it not more prominent?

Biggie, I swear to you on my life and my love of it, that after a year of being a relentless news hound following all channels 12 hours a day and soaking it in...

what you describe is ALL THE CHANNELS

every single source of any type of information at all has a BIAS because all PEOPLE have a BIAS

the nature of bias is that they may not even be aware of it, just as you and all of us are unaware of our biases; or more likely, they will think of their bias as being naturally correct, and therefore think they cannot be biased.

but to make a larger point of it
who will we get news from?
the biggest story of 2008
John Edwards
was having an affair while his wife was dying of cancer
with a woman he put on his campaign payroll
who was a bimbo of the tallest order
and eventually this led to a baby
whom Edwards could not have supported if President
or nominated D Candidate for President
without a paper trail documenting a scandal
so bad it could have taken down his party in short order

...and this was exclusively reported by the National Enquirer.

Trust the National Enquirer? Of course not!

i have... frequently

Your first step in determining the Poisonn distribution

BigV - Define "Fox *News*"
To which part are you referring? The Hannity, O'Reilly, Wallace type shows to which MSNBC has Maddow, O'Donnell and Shultz or are you referring to the hour long "general" or "world" news shows?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/127946468...sy-in-hc-case/

The newscaster introduces the reporter as national correspondent Steve Centanni. He goes on to tell about Justice Kagan's previous connections with the health care legislation.

At about 0:40 the correspondent says:

"...she would legally be required to recuse herself from the case. But according to the Constitution, a Justice must recuse even if he or she quote, 'expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy'. That's from Article 28 of the Constitution. In spite of this controversy though, Kagan has given no indication yet that she will recuse herself in this case, in fact, Justices rarely do so.

The title to the graphic during this segment reads:

'expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy'

U.S. Constitution, Article 28, Section 144.

There are some real problems with this story. First of all, as numerous other sources have pointed out, there is no Article 28 or Section 144 of the US Constitution whatsoever--that was made up out of thin air to lend some semblance of credibility to their opinion-making--"wait, it isn't just me saying she should recuse him/herself, it's in the Constitution!!".

This isn't just a mistake. This is a lie. It is a deliberate attempt to deceive. This isn't news, it isn't Fair. They attempt to distract by invoking "Balance" by telling about Justice Thomas' recusal "situation" due to his wife's employment and potential conflict of interest. Interestingly, everything I can find actually supports the validity of the statements about the Thomas side of the story, but no invocation of the Constitution or calls for his recusal.

My questions to you, UT, are: Where is the retraction for this error? Why is it still being published on Fox's own website? What do you think of this kind of story? Do you consider it news? Do you think Fox is trying to present it as news?

If you're going to masturbate at least have the sense to do it in private.

I grudgingly am going to dull the pain a tiny bit of Fox News here.
They were probably referring to this:

This refers to US District Courts, not the Supreme Court; and is in the Title 28 of the US Code.

P.S. Please tell Classic this is from Wikipedia, so he can critique it.

What a fucking dodge.

I refuse to take your bate.

Yep. I saw that too, so the language came from somewhere in our law. That doesn't dull any of the pain though, it excuses none of the embellishment. "US Constitution" "Section 144", because, what? Now the detail adds realism? Where did these inventions come from? I'd like to know that. Congressman Jeff Sessions was cited as the source for the call for an examination of Justice Kagan's involvement, did he suggest the Constitution had a role here? Who did? I also notice that there's no attribution to the "calls from the other side of the political spectrum" for Justice Thomas' involvement, just ... anonymous calls.

Furthermore, I've seen no opinions indicating that this section of our laws do indeed represent what Fox says they represent, that Justice Kagan should recuse herself in this situation.

They may well have been referring to this:

United States Code, Title 28, Section 455

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.shtml


A question for the room. Who here thinks that the following sections apply to Justice Thomas' recusal obligations?

Brilliant.

The Murdoch machine laid a similar egg in Britain's print media. They couldn't do it quite the same way with television news as the tv news is waaaay more heavily regulated than print media.

Unfortunately the end result isnt just that everyone else expends energy dealing with the cuckoo.

What actually happens is a race to the bottom. At least, that's certainly what happened in the British tabloids. Murdoch's papers changed the way tabloids worked. Eventually they all ended up scraping the barrell.

Too much political. Not enough pictures. No where near enough funny.

This whole thread is on report.

Better?


Attachment 35930

Some of us were having fun....



FINE. Have your "funny political pitchurs", fine.

That one is funny, he's certainly having fun. :)

You intentionally ignoring my questions V?

Can we move this thread to politics?
KTHXBAI :bolt:

Nope, I gave an example immediately following your post as you can see.
Post #433:
Post #434:
Their news is bad enough. Their editorializing is far more creative. I have issues with their news and with their opinions. But this is an example of a straight news story with some important facts wrong.

via via

I was so depressed seeing Newt with such a high number that it took me a while to notice that slight error in the pictures. :smack: :lol:

Oh and those percentages only add up to 88.4 - but there are plausible and genuine explanations for that (informal votes, write in candidates not listed here, etc.). Or it's another cockup.

Oh, that's no error.

Well the fact that Romney is the ... how can I put this ... least far right ... of that mob, made me wonder if the far right of Fox is against even him, trying to make republican primary voters associate him with Obama.

But that makes me wonder about the overall dumbness of this. If they really want Obama out, they need a candidate who will appeal to the broad electorate, i.e. someone centre-right (by US standards). Romney is the closest to this they have. Why would they reduce their chances of winning the big game in favour of getting their favourite but less electable candidate forward?

Dunno, now I'm second guessing people who may well be ideological idiots. Shrug.

arguing with drunks, teaching pigs to sing, tilting at windmills, it's a long, hallowed tradition...

Wait. What if Obama gets the republican nomination as well?

Ha!

I don't think the republicans want to win. They're staging something for 2016.

Because come on, really? There has never been such a clown car full of candidates. It's hilarious!

I mean, they can't be that stupid. Can they?

Romney is the dark horse candidate. He's always been the black sheep of that group.

What is he, a horse or a sheep?

'Romney is the duck-billed platypus among the contenders.'

;)

He's the Eugene McCarthy of our generation

I think they know the economy is going to be in the shitter for at least another 4 years, and they want Obama to continue to take the blame. If a Republican gets in now, then people will get a sense of, "See, he couldn't fix it either," and 2016 is muddled. So maybe they figure Obama gets to keep this one, since incumbents generally have an advantage anyway, and they get a decisive win in 2016.

But I don't think this is a large partywide strategy. I just think all the smart candidates know not to bother until 2016.

Well put!

Well put, but not funny... I need some funny today. I'm feeling pretty shitty.
C'mon peeps gimme something.

Oh, and for what its worth ... Here is their correction less than an hour afterward.

http://newscorpwatch.org/mmtv/201112140016

Here you go...

Just got this in my email. Not a picture but politically funny all the same...



Twas the night before Christmas and in the White House,
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes a payroll tax cut soon would be there.
There were holiday treats, made of veggies and grain,
No sugar allowed in the anti-obesity campaign.
The president was sleeping – all snug in his bed,
As low unemployment numbers danced in his head.
He dreamed of the year, with its wheeling and dealing,
And the fight over raising the nation’s debt ceiling.
A “grand bargain” emerged in secret talks with the Speaker,
But the president settled for a deal far weaker.
An agreement was reached, despite one glaring hitch,
It resembled a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich.”
The president reveled in ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”
But questions about Solyndra proved tough to quell.
And then there were charges Obama thought spurious,
Related to the operation known as “Fast and Furious.”
With an eye toward the election, he would step up his game
Against GOP challengers — and he called them by name:
“Now Romney! Now Perry! Now Herman and Bachmann!
On, Gingrich! On, Paul! Santorum and Huntsman!
Your ideas are flawed, your policies I question,
All of your tax cuts would lead to recession.
I’m sure I can beat you in states blue and red,
Thanks to the raid that shot Bin Laden dead.”
Suddenly, on the South Lawn, there arose such a clatter,
Obama looked up to see what was the matter.
Republicans had arrived through the Southwest gate,
For yet another presidential debate.
They stood in a line, saluting our troops,
While Perry listed agencies: one, two, uh, oops.
Gingrich bashed the press, his disdain clearly showed;
Romney kept smiling, hoping Newt would implode.
Then what, to wondering eyes, came out of the sky?
But a tiny sleigh with a pizza delivery guy.
The driver was dynamic, a broad smile on his face,
Selling his books and singing “Amazing Grace.”
It was one-time candidate Herman Cain,
But his time in the spotlight created great pain.
And I heard him exclaim, perhaps for the last time:
“Merry Christmas to all! Don’t forget 9-9-9!”

lol

This is the best explanation for the current smorgasbord of fail.

I laughed loud enough at this that I woke up the cat...

It's okay, 'sokay...he's cool now.

Attachment 36273

Ha! I miss waking up cats with guffawing.

.

I'm burying this here, because I don't want a full-on political row.
But having watched TV coverage of the Iowa caucuses, Republican candidates make me sick to my stomach.

Michele whatsit?
I watched her exit speech and I don't ever expect to hear God mentioned so much again unless I'm eavesdropping on a pretty good whorehouse.
If it'd been a Say God drinking game not even Marion Ravenwood would have walked away from the table.

Okay, socialism as a swearword, I find it odd, but it's a political POV.
But the God thing? Which equals the anti-gay thing? The Christian thing that equals the every man for himself thing?

I honestly find it scary and delusional and at odds with what America purports to stand for.
In a country that separates church and state?

Not up to me to criticise another country's politicians.
Ours are no great shakes.
But I couldn't get by without saying yours are terrifying.

ETA - I could criticise any politicians around the world.
In fact I engage in discussions about European politicians/ Heads of State often on other forums.
But the person who wins the US election calls themself The Leader of the Free World.
So I feel I have a real reason to despair that across the board, the Opposition* are God-botherers and homophobes.

ETA * the party with the most amount of seats in Parliament is called The Opposition.
Just adding because this might not translate in a two party system.

I agree.

The current pool is quite scary. What's even scarier is how many people think they're the end-all be-all antidote to everything that's wrong with this country. See, if'n we hadn't separated God from Politics in the first place...

I'm frightened of and disgusted by them.

...and yet folk vote for these people in their hundreds of thousands.

This seems an appropriate place to put this...

*snicker*

;)

Charlie Brooker looked so thin there!

Yeah. He did a bit.

I was deliberately playing at uber-shallow ;)

Here's a bit more of Stanhope:

Re Doug Stanhope... he just doesn't get it.

As long as the next generation of royalty can come up with women
as neat, or good-looking, or sexy posteriors as Dianne, Kate,
and Kate's sister (respectively), I say keep on keeping on GB. ;)

Meh, no Brooker in that clip.
No good.