RE: FNC lies again?

RE: FNC lies again? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> RE: FNC lies again? (9/19/2009 2:01:32 PM)
Here's a surprisingly good, very lengthy article in the Washington Post about the controversy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801102_pf.html

SpinnerofTales -> RE: FNC lies again (9/19/2009 4:18:10 PM)
quote: You can't see the difference? When an individual commits an atrocious offense it doesn't necessarily affect whatever entire group he may be a part of. ORIGINAL: Sanity You can't see the difference? When an individual commits an atrocious offense it doesn't necessarily affect whatever entire group he may be a part of. Let me make sure that I understand this: If the tea bag protesters march with those who are blatantly racist, it does not say anything against them because guilt by association isn't valid. If Obama has any association with anyone who has uttered a racially inappropriate comment it means he is a racist because guilt by association is valid. Nice world view, I suppose.

Sanity -> RE: FNC lies again (9/19/2009 4:26:00 PM)
With the Tea Partiers, there may be a few on the fringe who are racists, and many of those are very possibly from the far left (out of the LaRouche camp). Not something that I can control, and that hardly tarnishes all conservatives and independents and liberals who oppose high taxes. Obama on the other hand surrounds himself with racists. He even worshiped under one for twenty some years, and it's difficult to believe that he never knew his personal private spiritual mentor spewed hate on a daily basis. Though apparently there are those who do... quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: You can't see the difference? When an individual commits an atrocious offense it doesn't necessarily affect whatever entire group he may be a part of. ORIGINAL: Sanity You can't see the difference? When an individual commits an atrocious offense it doesn't necessarily affect whatever entire group he may be a part of. Let me make sure that I understand this: If the tea bag protesters march with those who are blatantly racist, it does not say anything against them because guilt by association isn't valid. If Obama has any association with anyone who has uttered a racially inappropriate comment it means he is a racist because guilt by association is valid. Nice world view, I suppose.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: FNC lies again? (9/19/2009 4:26:31 PM)
quote: Posts: 5540 Joined: 6/14/2006 From: Nampa, Idaho USA Status: online Here's a surprisingly good, very lengthy article in the Washington Post about the controversy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801102_pf.html ORIGINAL: Sanity Having read this article, I have to side with FNC on this one. It wasn't a news story, it was an advertisement. While news reporting may have sunk to the level of advertisements in recent years, advertisements are certainly not to be held to the same standards of accuracy as news stories. If people are dumb enough not to be able to tell the difference between ads and news, giving them the facts certainly isn't going to help. Leave Fox alone on this one and let them do what all news organizations are in business to do: sell beer and soap.

DomKen -> RE: FNC lies again? (9/19/2009 5:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Having read this article, I have to side with FNC on this one. It wasn't a news story, it was an advertisement. While news reporting may have sunk to the level of advertisements in recent years, advertisements are certainly not to be held to the same standards of accuracy as news stories. If people are dumb enough not to be able to tell the difference between ads and news, giving them the facts certainly isn't going to help. Leave Fox alone on this one and let them do what all news organizations are in business to do: sell beer and soap. Actually this falls into the same category of ad as such things as taste tests against rival brands of soda. The ad has to be factually accurate. This ad is across that line. ABC etc. could conceivably sue for defamation. The difficulty of showing actual damages is probably the only thing stopping them.

Sanity -> RE: FNC lies again? (9/19/2009 5:29:35 PM)
Spinner has a point, even if you must insist that Fox was somehow at fault here it was the marketing department and not the news department that took out the ad. I really don't agree that Fox was at fault at all because when you look into the story it appears that their claim was that they were far more fair and thorough in their coverage of the news stories mentioned, and that isn't a stretch at all in my not-so-humble opinion. Some of the news outlets mentioned routinely fail to cover stories unfavorable to the left. Its to the point that MSNBC fro example is a mere propaganda arm of the White House, and CNN is little better.

MarsBonfire -> RE: FNC lies again? (9/19/2009 6:34:12 PM)
Actually, I think what tarnishes conservatives is that photo of Cheany shaking hands with Hussein, warmly, back when he was still supporting the bloodthirsty dictator. Talk about guilt by association!

thishereboi -> RE: FNC lies again? (9/19/2009 6:48:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire Actually, I think what tarnishes conservatives is that photo of Cheany shaking hands with Hussein, warmly, back when he was still supporting the bloodthirsty dictator. Talk about guilt by association! Well, your known for judging a whole group by the actions of one, so I am betting no one is going to be surprised by this.

CreativeDominant -> RE: FNC lies again (9/21/2009 7:09:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife About time someone takes on Fox for the endless lies. Dan Rather, maybe? Once again a wonderful example of "My side is no better than your side so it's ok" reasoning. Dan Rather, by the way, was disgraced after a rather notable journalistic career for his poor reporting on one story. What would you say should be done with the liars on the conservative side of the street? I'd say, if they are news REPORTERS, as Dan Rather was, then bring forth the same type of proof that brought Rather down. Sitting back and calling them liars or bringing forth opinion pieces by liberal writers is not proof. Proof is something that shows where they lied. And as far as COMMENTATORS vs REPORTERS goes, commentators admit to their biases...at least the good ones do. Reporters are supposed to be impartial...yet look at the way the same type of story is spun when there is a democrat and/or liberal in the White House vs. when there is a conservative. Take a walk down memory lane and examine the coverage the stations have given Obama on something like the economy...Katie Couric IMMEDIATELY comes to mind and then take a look at how she covered the economy two years ago when it was Bush in the White House. Rosen, Limbaugh, Will, Sowell all admit to their bias towards the conservative side. Many, like Rosen and Will, deliberately avoid the lying so as to be more believable.

mnottertail -> RE: FNC lies again (9/21/2009 8:11:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife He had sources he believed were true. There is a difference between lying and making errors in verification.. He was a lying sack of shit and a disgrace to his profession. Dan Rather's legacy is a permanent stain upon CBS News. And where does George W Bush sit in this miasma, then? How and where does that stain come out of? Ron

TheHeretic -> RE: FNC lies again (9/21/2009 10:29:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And where does George W Bush sit in this miasma, then? How and where does that stain come out of? Ron Him? In this? He is just the guy whose commanding officer sure as hell didn't sit around all day typing notes to himself on an IBM Selectric with an unusual ball. (If you want to change the subject again to distract, that should provide some fodder. [:D])

DomKen -> RE: FNC lies again (9/21/2009 11:03:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And where does George W Bush sit in this miasma, then? How and where does that stain come out of? Ron Him? In this? He is just the guy whose commanding officer sure as hell didn't sit around all day typing notes to himself on an IBM Selectric with an unusual ball. (If you want to change the subject again to distract, that should provide some fodder. [:D]) You mean the commanding officer who never conducted the investigation of GWB that his superior's ordered? The same one who never reported GWB UA despite him simply not showing up for any duty at all the last 6 months of his service?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02