RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (Full Version)

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



Message

luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 10:12:25 AM)

Oh there was an little internal questioning of Blair. It resulted in him being promoted and put on covering the Iraq war. Despite numerous complaints, the executive staff at the Times, liked his work, lies and all, because he was political. and a left winger. Nothing was done to remove him, untill outsiders started complaining.

But anyone who wants can read the story, and decide who is right.



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 10:21:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Oh there was an little internal questioning of Blair. It resulted in him being promoted and put on covering the Iraq war. Despite numerous complaints, the executive staff at the Times, liked his work, lies and all, because he was political. and a left winger. Nothing was done to remove him, untill outsiders started complaining.

But anyone who wants can read the story, and decide who is right.


Can anyone who wants explain what a bad reporter, fired six years ago for poor journalism in service to his own career has to do with a discussion of current journalism practices? I doubt it. It's just another example of "What my side does is irrelevant if I can find someone on your side, no matter how long ago, who did something bad and shout about it as if it had any relevance" Is it ok if I bring up William Randolph Hearst and his streak of yellow, right wing journalism as support for the current arguement too, Dawg?



rulemylife -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 10:27:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Oh there was an little internal questioning of Blair. It resulted in him being promoted and put on covering the Iraq war. Despite numerous complaints, the executive staff at the Times, liked his work, lies and all, because he was political. and a left winger. Nothing was done to remove him, untill outsiders started complaining.

But anyone who wants can read the story, and decide who is right.


I am very familiar with the story and you are trying to twist it to fit your argument.

Yes there were complaints by the people the stories were written about.  That's how the Times staffers first got a hint that something was wrong.  They investigated and exposed him.

Again, not a comparable situation to Fox being exposed by other networks.



luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 10:35:12 AM)

RML, folks can read the article for themsleves and decide....

Spinner, 6 years ago was not really that long, and Blair was writing political aricles about major events, But I do understand you don't care. And see no bias in an instituion that promoted a political reporter after numerous examples of out right lying....





SpinnerofTales -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 10:51:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

RML, folks can read the article for themsleves and decide....

Spinner, 6 years ago was not really that long, and Blair was writing political aricles about major events, But I do understand you don't care. And see no bias in an instituion that promoted a political reporter after numerous examples of out right lying....





That's right....the reporter was fired. That case is closed. When Fox fires those who are responsible for their gross distortions and poor journalism, I will consider that case closed and not bring it out every time someone discusses journalism

It also seems your view of time is relative. When it comes to your points, i.e. how awful the NYT is, six years isn't a long time. When it comes to points about the way our previous president fucked up, a year makes it ancient history. Once again, your rules change with your convenience.




luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 11:05:10 AM)

Again with the making up stuff, Give a single example of what you are accusing me of Spinner.

Or be shown for what you are






luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 11:08:40 AM)

"That's right....the reporter was fired. That case is closed. When Fox fires those who are responsible for their gross distortions and poor journalism, I will consider that case closed and not bring it out every time someone discusses journalism "

And why are you pretending that Blair was fired? He resigned.


Just a little twist (lie) on your part to try to bolster your position.

And seriously what is this case with Fox you are harping on? Specifically?



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 11:16:05 AM)

quote:


And why are you pretending that Blair was fired? He resigned.


Just a little twist (lie) on your part to try to bolster your position.

And seriously what is this case with Fox you are harping on? Specifically?
ORIGINAL: luckydawg


Of course, Dawg. The Times begged him to stay because they love having journalists who make up things. That's the liberal way. We've read your posts and know the truth. It is rather clear to everyone else that this was a case of "He has decided to leave due to artistic differences and we wish him luck in all future endeavors."

As for the Fox journalistic problems, how about two cases in two weeks where they used film footage that turned out to be other than from the story they were reporting and just happened to make the story they were telling look more in line with their political slant? No journalistic problems there. And they did retract and apologize, in both cases after other news organizations called them on their errors. That is obviously far less important to you than a case of one bad reporter who has been out of the business for more than half a decade.






luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 11:24:26 AM)

Well, your lie, was "Rather clearly" someone trying to save face.


And I take it you are not going to give the specific accusation against fox, so we can examine it.

And you are not going to back up your personal acusation against me.


playing games? another baseless accusation, because you got caught.



Your holding true to form today...



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 11:26:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Well, your lie, was "Rather clearly" someone trying to save face.


And I take it you are not going to give the specific accusation against fox, so we can examine it.

And you are not going to back up your personal acusation against me.


playing games? another baseless accusation, because you got caught.



Your holding true to form today...


Letting someone finish a posting and take a moment to edit is politeness, Dawg. But hey, why change your form.

As for your "Why do you blame everything on Bush....Bush isn't president posts", I would rather retract any comment I made about them than go through your posts to find the examples. Your posts are unpleasant enough to read once.



luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 12:34:23 PM)

So you lie about me, and are a coward. No surprise there. why are you afraid to give me the fox articles in question so I can examine them? Your funny.


Thanks for showing us your character today.

How long do you hod your finger on the post so you can take it back? I was not aware that givign a timely reply was a problem, but I guess it is to you.


And it is you who says 6 years ago matters for Bush, but not for others, not I. and you do indeed switch for your convience. Kind of sad. with such a solid base of support I am sure the Dems will sweep to victory in the next election. Snicker



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 12:53:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

So you lie about me, and are a coward. No surprise there. why are you afraid to give me the fox articles in question so I can examine them? Your funny.


Thanks for showing us your character today.

How long do you hod your finger on the post so you can take it back? I was not aware that givign a timely reply was a problem, but I guess it is to you.


And it is you who says 6 years ago matters for Bush, but not for others, not I. and you do indeed switch for your convience. Kind of sad. with such a solid base of support I am sure the Dems will sweep to victory in the next election. Snicker



First of all, I did give an article that I felt had a great bias on the part of Fox and not only linked it but quoted it. As for the video "Mistakes", in case you haven't heard about them, you can educate yourself at this link:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-crowd-footage-goes-rogue-again/

So you can continue your personal attacks all you like. You can lie as loudly as you choose to. But you still have not answered the question of why bad journalism from six years ago impacts on discussion of bad journalism today.

The rest of your personal attacks will be ignored. They are, like most of your postings, noise.




luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 12:56:58 PM)

LMAO!!!!


I pointed out that you were lying about Fox's coverage of the "Doc Fix".



Pointing out you lying is not a personal attack spinner.



You claiming I said things I never have, is....



luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 1:01:42 PM)

Ok I looked at your link, it was a simple mistake. They showed a clip of a different Huge crowd. you are comparing that to fake quotes? There isn't even any bias in it.


So it your position that things from 6 years ago are not relevant anymore?

Mine is that they absolutly are. 100 years ago less so,but somewhat. Heck, things from a thousand years ago still matter in our world.

Your answer will be bookmarked and thrownback in your face.



Brain -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 1:45:30 PM)

As far as I'm concerned they are all liars. I do not trust anybody anymore, not even my mother.

FOX News Ratings Spike Not True | Crooks and Liars

Eric Boehlert: Fact: The breathless claim that Fox News' ratings recently spiked thanks to the White House's public critique is bogus hype -- hype that Fox News and the Beltway press have relentlessly pushed. It's just not true...read on

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/fox-news-ratings-spike-not-true



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 1:51:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Ok I looked at your link, it was a simple mistake. They showed a clip of a different Huge crowd. you are comparing that to fake quotes? There isn't even any bias in it.


So it your position that things from 6 years ago are not relevant anymore?

Mine is that they absolutly are. 100 years ago less so,but somewhat. Heck, things from a thousand years ago still matter in our world.

Your answer will be bookmarked and thrownback in your face.


My position is that there is no evidence at all that the Times reporter was doing anything to advance anything but his own career. He was found out and left the times in disgrace. What I see in Fox is two examples in two weeks of poor journalism with nothing more than a vague promise of "strong disciplinary" action. When and if I hear about any definitive action being taken to a) prevent this from happening again and 2) to discipline the people responsible, I will, as I said before, consider the matter closed.

You may bookmark that and, if I do not stand by it, throw it wherever you like. In the meantime, you may stick in in........a very safe place until that day.




luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 2:19:21 PM)

So one mistake a week is un acceptable, yet the times makes several a day.

your hypocrisy is duly noted.

Your previous example was simply a lie by you..



Cute how you changed from bias to poor journalism. THe slow minded might not notice


And since it seems you can't grasp it I will restate it.

THe times promoted Blair after he was making fake stories.

Andthey never fired him.

And did I post this too fast for you? I know you get upset so easyily.

Promoted, put on International affairs. Not disciplined and fired.

your hypocrisy is duly noted.


And to restate my position. All media is biased, it can not be otherwise. Fox leans right, NYTimes, CNN, CBS NBC, MSNBC lean left to diferent degrees. Hence Fox provides a balance to the others.



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 2:51:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

So one mistake a week is un acceptable, yet the times makes several a day.

your hypocrisy is duly noted.

Your previous example was simply a lie by you..



Cute how you changed from bias to poor journalism. THe slow minded might not notice


And since it seems you can't grasp it I will restate it.

THe times promoted Blair after he was making fake stories.

Andthey never fired him.

And did I post this too fast for you? I know you get upset so easyily.

Promoted, put on International affairs. Not disciplined and fired.

your hypocrisy is duly noted.


And to restate my position. All media is biased, it can not be otherwise. Fox leans right, NYTimes, CNN, CBS NBC, MSNBC lean left to diferent degrees. Hence Fox provides a balance to the others.


I understand you entirely. The problem is, as usual, you're not making any sense. You refuse to accept that, while both are poor journalism, there is a huge difference between inaccurate reporting done by an individual to advance his career and inaccurate reporting done in order to advance a political agenda. There is a big difference between inaccuracies that are found and reported by the news organization on their own and inaccuracies that are only acknowledged after other news organizations have reported on it. There is a big difference between an error in a name or a date that is corrected and presenting video footage that just "happens" to support the political aims of the news organization. Now if MSNBC had presented a video of DC the day before the latest tea bag protest taken the day before the protest so that it looked like no one was there, I will only assume that you would be far less forgiving in your interpretation.

I happen to think that the case of a reporter who did a bad job six years ago and left the organization in disgrace is over and done. You seem to think it is a license for Fox to do whatever it likes whenever it likes because it balances out "other bias". Once again, you take the position that it's ok if your side is wrong, as long as you can point out that the other side isn't perfect. Neither your obvious rage or your personal attacks are going to change that.




luckydawg -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 3:06:21 PM)

what intent is involved in showing a different huge crowd? It reflected reality.


Seriously? There isn't any.


and the executive editors kept blair and promoted him because they liked the way his stories leaned, for years untill people (including fox) began to raise a stink about it.

But that is ok with you, got it.

Your MSNBC example makes no sense at all. That would indeed be lying. But there was a huge crowd at the book signig, no bias, just a mistake.


It is no differentr than having the wrong caption or date.


And all you showed wiith your "doc fix" article is that you can't search a website, as they had several stories, and democratic sources in them.

And where are you pretending to see me saying "fox can do anything they like"? That is just you making shit up again, because reality does not back up your position. It seems to be the only way you can debate, to make up what our oponenet thinks. Its rather pathetic


Bias does not mean wrong, though wrong info can be part of bias.



Now as far as using wrong footage, virtually everytime CNN CBS, NBC MSNBC ABC ect showed footage of ANWR when that was topical, they used pictures of the mountains, which while technically in ANWR was hundreds of miles away from the area that was under consideration for drilling,and a diffefrent type of ecosystem.



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/22/2009 3:41:19 PM)

Yes, Dawg, I did not do a full research on the Doc Fix. I was mistaken in that.
If you hadn't started foaming at the mouth, hurling insults and generally doing what you usually do, I would have said that before, rather than when your style loses it's amusement value.

I do not, however, change my assertion that an article solely about the "con" on an issue without allowing a single quote from the "pro" side is pretty blatant biased reporting. It doesn't matter if they've published articles in which they showed both the pro and con to it. This particular article was a good example of political bias.

I do still think it is fortunate that the two mistakes they made both made the crowds for the tea party people and Palin look bigger than they were. They didn't make mistakes and show smaller crowds. They didn't show an unrelated clip. They showed clips that made their particular take on things look better. It's awful convenient. One could almost say serendipitous.

As for Blaire, I don't worry about him because he's gone and has been for half a decade. If he were still employed by the Times, I would be absolutely and enthusiastically in favor of his dismissal and my opinion of the paper would be lowered until he was. I do wonder if you can say the same about Fox, not that Fox has ever done anything that is journalisticly questionable, right?



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875