Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/26/2012 5:30:33 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds

The question that I wonder is: how much of a News Organization is Fox News at all? Also, if the viewers of Fox News regard it as a new organization, it show that they can't (or don't want) judge quality, accurate reporting and news investigation. This means they just think everything is biased, so they then dismiss hard news from other sources.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 9/26/2012 5:31:32 PM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/26/2012 7:09:46 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		I find the complaint that an uneven Democrat to Republican percentage can cause biased reporting compelling. I can understand how unconscious bias toward a certain narrative could skew a stations coverage. However, the solution isn't to stock a station with Republicans and have them purposely skew coverage to promote a certain narrative. That's not even a news station, that's a propaganda machine. Which is why fox news is illegal in Canada.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/26/2012 9:09:01 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Which is why fox news is illegal in Canada.


It is?

WOW

A Licensee shall not broadcast ... d) false or misleading news. The Canadian Law.

"At first glance, it seems such an obvious, common-sense requirement that I was a little surprised that the Canadians had felt a need to put it in writing." (link below)

But the question remains ... why don't we have a similar requirement here in the U.S.? Traditionally, both broadcast radio and television and cable television stations have been subject to regulation, including content regulation, by the FCC. Although that regulation originated from the fact that airwaves were extremely limited, and not accessible to everyone, the regulation continued even after the birth and expansion of cable television, because courts recognized that television and radio are "uniquely pervasive" in people's lives, in a way print media are not. Indecent speech is already prohibited on broadcast television and, at least in theory, on cable (although courts' opinions on the best remedies for enforcing that goal seem to vary). Before its repeal in 1987, both broadcast and cable stations were both subject to the "Fairness Doctrine," which required the stations to present a balance of both sides to any controversial issue.

So given that we've long recognized that a broadcaster or cablecaster has power beyond an individual citizen or even print media, and therefore does not warrant quite the same "free speech" or "free press" rights without restriction (as the Canadian parliament just concluded) ... why can't we have a restriction on broadcasting (or cablecasting) false or misleading news?

One reason is probably the same reason the Fairness Doctrine no longer exists. It's laughable now, with the explosion of narrow-interest fringe websites and narrow-audience, right-wing and left-wing cable shows on Fox News and MSNBC, but in the deregulation atmosphere of the 1980s, the FCC's rationale for getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine was twofold: first, that the Fairness Doctrine inhibited the broadcasters' right to free speech, and second, that the free market was a better regulator of news content on television than the government. Specifically, the FCC said that individual media outlets would compete with each other for viewers, and that competition would necessarily involve establishing the accuracy, credibility, reliability and thoroughness of each story ... and that over time, the public would weed out new providers that proved to be inaccurate, unreliable, one-sided, or incredible.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 9/26/2012 9:17:11 PM >

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/26/2012 9:46:30 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

One reason is probably the same reason the Fairness Doctrine no longer exists. It's laughable now, with the explosion of narrow-interest fringe websites and narrow-audience, right-wing and left-wing cable shows on Fox News and MSNBC, but in the deregulation atmosphere of the 1980s, the FCC's rationale for getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine was twofold: first, that the Fairness Doctrine inhibited the broadcasters' right to free speech, and second, that the free market was a better regulator of news content on television than the government. Specifically, the FCC said that individual media outlets would compete with each other for viewers, and that competition would necessarily involve establishing the accuracy, credibility, reliability and thoroughness of each story ... and that over time, the public would weed out new providers that proved to be inaccurate, unreliable, one-sided, or incredible.


And all of which the FCC was right about. We have a much great availability of media choice such that impediments on broadcasters are neither necessary nor desirable.

We have right wing news and left wing (ahem) news. (Fox. MSNBC). People are free to choose, weigh and compare.

And ultimately - thats just what we really need. Government deciding what is true.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 9/26/2012 9:47:23 PM >

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/26/2012 11:25:18 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		Conservatives have always had media outlets in this country, The Chicago Tribune for instance. The problem with FNC is the lies being told that their audience believes. We've already had violent attacks caused by the lies told on FNC and I worry what will happen after this election when the far right finds themselves marginalized again.

Of course we have no recourse. FNC is not broadcast so the FCC has no jurisdiction. I think the only option is the next time violence occurs because of lies told on FNC the harmed parties should sue News Corp directly for maintaining an attractive nuisance etc.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/27/2012 2:21:47 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		Those familiar with Rupert Murdoch, the driving force behind News Corporation (which owns Fox-TV and the WSJ), won't be surprised by the study's findings. Murdoch has a long history of using his media outlets to promote his business interests and political agenda. Nor, if the phone hacking scandal in the UK is anything to go by, does the little matter of observing the law come between Mr Murdoch and his business interests.

When media outlets are suborned to reflect and promote the interests of their owners, when the news is slanted and shaped to promote private interests, we should really wonder just how "free" our media are.

Freedom of the media is the lifeblood of a democracy. When this freedom is abused to promote private interests, then democracy itself is imperiled. The potential implications of climate change go even further - the future of the planet could be at stake in this debate. Can we afford to risk the future of the planet being subject to private commercial interests?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/27/2012 2:41:46 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/27/2012 11:32:00 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Tweakable...... There is going to be a big trial of many of Murdochs work force in the UK in 12 months time.

I doubt there will be any tears in the UK if they are jailed for what took place.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/27/2012 5:06:10 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

"...The researchers found that Fox News and the Journal were consistently dismissive of the established scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that human activities are the main driver....."


What does consensus mean? There was a consensus among scientists some time ago the Earth is flat. We have to take into account both Fox people and the academics are part of the system run by money (potentially presstitutes/pushers of certain agenda). One can not just trust either of them easily. Every time somebody says "scientifically proven" red flag should pop up. They take the trivial fact that the climate is changing (nobody questions it), and the trivial fact human activity has an effect on climate (nobody doubts it either), then they add a word "MAIN", provide poor proof and they call everybody who doubts and questions it "Climate change denier", public enemy. I would put eugenics projects on hold for a while until we are able to better understand planetary processes. This is not to say the nature protection needs to be abandoned. We need to do it constantly and without hysteria.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/27/2012 8:58:21 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound comparing the Union of Concerned Scientists with Fox News? This reminds me of a William Buckleyism:

the man who pushes an old lady into the path of an oncoming truck, and the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of an oncoming truck , are not to be denounced evenhandedly as men who push old ladies around.

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/28/2012 12:33:21 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Tweakable...... There is going to be a big trial of many of Murdochs work force in the UK in 12 months time.

I doubt there will be any tears in the UK if they are jailed for what took place.

If they need a character witness for the Murdochs, I'll be delighted to volunteer. However, I am unable to guarantee that my evidence will lead to any reduction of their sentences.

_____________________________



(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/28/2012 4:47:51 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
There was a consensus among scientists some time ago the Earth is flat.


Cite your source?

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/28/2012 5:37:20 AM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds

The question that I wonder is: how much of a News Organization is Fox News at all? Also, if the viewers of Fox News regard it as a new organization, it show that they can't (or don't want) judge quality, accurate reporting and news investigation. This means they just think everything is biased, so they then dismiss hard news from other sources.


Considering it is Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. I am shocked that they got it right 7% of the time.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/28/2012 5:59:49 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Specifically, the FCC said that individual media outlets would compete with each other for viewers, and that competition would necessarily involve establishing the accuracy, credibility, reliability and thoroughness of each story ... and that over time, the public would weed out new providers that proved to be inaccurate, unreliable, one-sided, or incredible.


This was a bad assumption, it turns out that a lot of people would much rather be told what they want to hear than listen to reality.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/28/2012 1:46:18 PM   
graceadieu


Posts: 1518
Joined: 3/20/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

What does consensus mean? There was a consensus among scientists some time ago the Earth is flat.


Not for at least 2000 years, man. Erosthenes (not sure if I spelled that right), an ancient Greek scientist, proved the Earth was a sphere and about how big it was using trig. He was right, and his ideas got passed around and everybody that was educated (at least in Europe and the Arab world) knew about it. Only the uneducated masses didn't believe it. Much like evolution today.

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/28/2012 7:54:26 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Much like evolution today.


And the American Voter.

(in reply to graceadieu)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/28/2012 8:07:56 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
The FCC rule changes and the elimination of the fairness doctrine were probably spearheaded by big media groups looking for more freedom in the marketplace and by political interests who know that with freedom to bullshit it would be easier to manipulate public opinion.



(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/29/2012 5:57:24 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
What does consensus mean? There was a consensus among scientists some time ago the Earth is flat.

Not for at least 2000 years, man.


Was it even true 2000 years ago? Can anybody cite an actual source (not just urban legend) that there was ever a consensus among actual scientists that the Earth was flat?

Go ahead and try Fellow, I dare you.

(in reply to graceadieu)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/29/2012 6:49:16 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
What does consensus mean? There was a consensus among scientists some time ago the Earth is flat.

Not for at least 2000 years, man.


Was it even true 2000 years ago? Can anybody cite an actual source (not just urban legend) that there was ever a consensus among actual scientists that the Earth was flat?

Go ahead and try Fellow, I dare you.

There wasn't. The Egyptians were doing rougher calculations of the Earth's circumference even before 200 BCE which is when Eratosthenes made his calculation. IIRC both the Egyptians and Chinese had deduced the world was round based, in part, on the shadow cast on the moon during an eclipse.

The Earth is flat fable is mostly part of the legend of Columbus which is pretty much completely untrue. If The monarchs of Spain did not believe the Earthwas round why invest a sizable fortune in sending Columbus west to reach China?

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/29/2012 6:58:10 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline 		According to footnote 6, 100 years ago, evolutionists liked to beat creationists over the head with flat earth theory.

I'm tired; someone please make a point about propaganda then and now and tie this in to the OP :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1] The idea seems to have been widespread during the first half of the 20th century, so that the Members of the Historical Association in 1945 stated that:
"The idea that educated men at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat, and that this belief was one of the obstacles to be overcome by Columbus before he could get his project sanctioned, remains one of the hardiest errors in teaching." [2]

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was nearly nonexistent. However, the exterior of the famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch is a Renaissance example in which a disc-shaped earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[6] Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat", and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.[7]

...Irving's biography of Columbus

In 1828, Washington Irving's highly romanticised biography, A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus,[15] was published and mistaken by many for a scholarly work.[16] In Book III, Chapter II of this biography, Irving gave a largely fictional account of the meetings of a commission established by the Spanish sovereigns to examine Columbus's proposals. One of his more fanciful embellishments was a highly unlikely tale that the more ignorant and bigoted members on the commission had raised scriptural objections to Columbus's assertions that the Earth was spherical.[17]

The issue in the 1490s was not the shape of the Earth, but its size, and the position of the east coast of Asia, as Irving in fact points out.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

_____________________________

Curious about the "Sluts Vote" avatars? See http://www.collarchat.com/m_4133036/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4133036

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong - 9/29/2012 8:21:09 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

According to footnote 6, 100 years ago, evolutionists liked to beat creationists over the head with flat earth theory.

The facts are a lot more complicated than this article by professional liars makes it out to be.

First there is a faction of biblical literalists who believe in a flat earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society

The argument is that the Bible does literally say the Earth is flat, describing it as having 4 corners amongst other things. So since AIG and their fellow travelers claim to read the Bible as literal truth to reject all of modern science but strain to maintain some credibility by rejecting the flat earthers it is very helpful to point out their hypocrisy when trying to educate people who have fallen for their crap.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109