Fox admits right-wing bias

[segovius]

The majority of us have known it all along but just for the record (and because it's funny) this what the Fox London bureau chief (http://slate.com/id/2119864/) Scott Norvell had to say a few days ago:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

Umm....that's it...

[CosmoNut]

Well, let's just say that for Fox News, "Fair and Balanced" means a conservative lean to counter every other news outlet's liberal lean.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
The majority of us have known it all along but just for the record (and because it's funny) this what the Fox London bureau chief (http://slate.com/id/2119864/) Scott Norvell had to say a few days ago:



Umm....that's it... You are telling us all what that's new?

You don't get it do you? He said exactly the truth. Fox does not hide where they stand. It's easy to gauge things when you know how people stand. It's not like the majority of the media that claims to be totally independent, non-partisan observers only, when in reality they are all card carrying members of the Moore "Book of the month" club.

It's about honesty and leveling with your audience - not about some slogan like "Fair and Balanced". Only week minded boobs buy into slogans.

Oh wait! I'm sorry... you bought into it, didn't you?

[rageous]

I disagree. When I do tune into TV news, I usually go with Fox News (My alternative being the International News Channel, and CNN just bores me). I have seen many occasions where Fox News on-air personalities have vehemently opposed the idea that the network is right-biased.

It's quite likely that the higher-ups are singing a different tune, though I've heard little outside of this example to suggest that to be the case, but the point is that MOST people who watch Fox don't get beyond the on-air personalities. So for those people, what is said on TV is the way it is, according to the network.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by rageous
I disagree. When I do tune into TV news, I usually go with Fox News (My alternative being the International News Channel, and CNN just bores me). I have seen many occasions where Fox News on-air personalities have vehemently opposed the idea that the network is right-biased.

It's quite likely that the higher-ups are singing a different tune, though I've heard little outside of this example to suggest that to be the case, but the point is that MOST people who watch Fox don't get beyond the on-air personalities. So for those people, what is said on TV is the way it is, according to the network. Well, perhaps you are right. But I will contend that they are being accused of being unfair and unbalanced. I have been watching fox for years, when i get a chance, and they have both sides of any given issue if they can arrange it. I think they put a lot of effort into doing just that, and when someone accuses them of being unfair and unbalanced in that regard, I can see why they may get vehement. It is possible to be both biased and fair/balanced.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, perhaps you are right. But I will contend that they are being accused of being unfair and unbalanced. I have been watching fox for years, when i get a chance, and they have both sides of any given issue if they can arrange it. I think they put a lot of effort into doing just that, and when someone accuses them of being unfair and unbalanced in that regard, I can see why they may get vehement. It is possible to be both biased and fair/balanced. On Fox's primary news show, this is the balance you get (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187):

Fifty-seven percent of Special Report ’s one-on-one guests during the period studied were ideological conservatives, 12 percent were centrists and 11 percent were progressives.

But the other networks are also neither fair nor balanced, just not in the way conservatives would like to have us believe:

Of partisan sources, 75 percent were Republican and only 24 percent Democrats. The differences among the networks were negligible; CBS had the most Republicans (76 percent) while ABC had the fewest (73 percent).

So ABC is the most liberal news network, with a totally unfair 73% representation of Republicans and a wildly leftist 27% representation of Democrats.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, perhaps you are right. But I will contend that they are being accused of being unfair and unbalanced. I have been watching fox for years, when i get a chance, and they have both sides of any given issue if they can arrange it. And that makes it balanced? Dude, they yell, belittle and ridicule the "opposition" as much as they can. They preface close to every sentence with the desired daily twist. And that's been documented by former anchors and news producers.Originally posted by NaplesX
It is possible to be both biased and fair/balanced. :lol:Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh wait! I'm sorry... you bought into it, didn't you? :D

Man, it's a fun day in here today. I don't know which one takes the price. "It's possible to be both biased and fair/balanced" or the blue cats with swastikas.

[segovius]

It is possible to be both biased and fair/balanced. [/B]

Excellent - I knew there was a point to this, I found my new sig :D

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
On Fox's primary news show, this is the balance you get (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187):



But the other networks are also neither fair nor balanced, just not in the way conservatives would like to have us believe:



So ABC is the most liberal news network, with a totally unfair 73% representation of Republicans and a wildly leftist 27% representation of Democrats. http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1997/watch19970401.asp#8

"Of respondents with an unfavorable view of network TV news, 50 percent couldn't give a reason for their dissatisfaction, leaving "news is biased" as the most cited reason at 14 percent. Another seven percent listed "give opinions not facts," and three percent gave "too liberal" as their response. Those three reasons totaled 24 percent while conservative bias didn't make the list. "

It matters what the public thinks, not you. Whine all you want about there being no media bias, it is perceived by the audience.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It is possible to be both biased and fair/balanced.

This goes into my signature now. :lol:

[Fellowship]

Fox news is not news it is a drumbeat and a tempo crafted by the powers that be at the expense of human dignity and common sense.

Disagree? I suggest you watch the following quicktime video start to finish and then come back and report what you decide to believe about Fox.

OUTFOXED (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7798.htm)

Fellows

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Fox news is not news it is a drumbeat and a tempo crafted by the powers that be at the expense of human dignity and common sense.

Disagree? I suggest you watch the following quicktime video start to finish and then come back and report what you decide to believe about Fox.

OUTFOXED (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7798.htm)

Fellows Seen it, and most of the excerpts as they happened. It is a hit piece and taken way out of context.

Of course, that fits right in here, so I don't expect anyone to be upset about it.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
This goes into my signature now. :lol: Hey, I'm famous. Cool.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Seen it, and most of the excerpts as they happened. It is a hit piece and taken way out of context.

Of course, that fits right in here, so I don't expect anyone to upset about it.

Ohh so you remember the part where you are told that in order to be a good American you need to shut up?

And you agree with that?

Fellows

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Ohh so you remember the part where you are told that in order to be a good American you need to shut up?

And you agree with that?

Fellows Once again taken out of context. Sorry. Try again.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
This goes into my signature now. :lol:

dont forget you can do it in Patriotic Bold for full effect! :D

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It matters what the public thinks, not you.
Well, good thing then that he simply posted the study with percentages for partisan guests.

Funny, too, considering what you posted didn't show much of anything and certainly wasn't anywhere near becoming a remotely relevant response.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again taken out of context. Sorry. Try again. So what was the real context then?

I was gonna ask you how video clips can be taken "out of context", but I think we've had enough fun for a day. ;)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1997/watch19970401.asp#8

"Of respondents with an unfavorable view of network TV news, 50 percent couldn't give a reason for their dissatisfaction, leaving "news is biased" as the most cited reason at 14 percent. Another seven percent listed "give opinions not facts," and three percent gave "too liberal" as their response. Those three reasons totaled 24 percent while conservative bias didn't make the list. "

It matters what the public thinks, not you. Whine all you want about there being no media bias, it is perceived by the audience. 1. According to your study media bias is cited by a small minority of the public (14% of some unspecified number of people who have an unfavorable view of TV news). And only 3% said liberal bias was their problem.

2. You say it doesn't matter what I think, but note I didn't post what I think, I posted a study of Fox's bias.

3. I never said there was no media bias - the study I cited said the opposite, that there is a conservative bias in the media. The least biased network was ABC, with a 73-27 Republican bias in its guests.

For what it's worth, I watch Fox sometimes. I watch it probably about as much as any other TV news. I don't see all that much difference between CNN and Fox or any other cable news network. Fox is slightly more conservative, but they all are.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Hey, I'm famous. Cool.
Just like Steve Bartman.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gilsch
So what was the real context then?

I was gonna ask you how video clips can be taken "out of context", but I think we've had enough fun for a day. ;) Ask Michael Moore. He has made a art-form of it.

You didn't ask because it would make you appear REAL SMART!

:no:

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1997/watch19970401.asp#8

"Of respondents with an unfavorable view of network TV news, 50 percent couldn't give a reason for their dissatisfaction, leaving "news is biased" as the most cited reason at 14 percent. Another seven percent listed "give opinions not facts," and three percent gave "too liberal" as their response. Those three reasons totaled 24 percent while conservative bias didn't make the list. "

It matters what the public thinks, not you. Whine all you want about there being no media bias, it is perceived by the audience. And it never occurs to you that respondents are subject to an ongoing onslought of conservative media bias that tells them to dislike 'The Liberal Media'?!?!?!

This argument is such old news around here: not only has the content swung completely to the right in the past decade+, with almost EVERY major TV media channel aping Fox in trite Anti-liberal cliche mongering
But also,

By its very nature, structurally, Media in this country is inherently economically conservative, and only socially (as in 'morals') liberal -its all about selling and cutting up the fabric of our ability to maintain focus with the non-stop message that consumption, commodities and buying are the 'bottom-line' of life . . . in other words, the message of TV is that all stories, no matter what are subordinant to the Pure-Capitalist imparative!!


*

That little note about cutting our ability to focus is in itself not trivial!!: what it means is that our ability to BE a consistent individual is constantly undergoing an onslought of fragmentation and attempts at the rewriting of our essential self-hood!!
That's why we Americans are becoming increasingly and terribly boorish and stupidly money centered - our essential selves have been at the mercy of this fragmentation since TV became dominant in the late 60s . . . we're just starting to taste the fruits of years of this: apathy, religious-faith-not-inGod or contemplation but in some weird blend of God/Money, and a complete divorce from reasonable considerations of values besides the 'bottom-line' . . . :(

[NaplesX]

A couple of things:

MEMO-GATE

KORAN FLUSHING STORY

SEAL CLUBBING STORY

In all cases they wanted the story so much, political bias overrode journalistic integrity.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
This goes into my signature now. :lol:

Keep it there. I'll put it on mine too. Any more people care to join us in this wonderful revelation of "conservative" logic? :lol:

[NaplesX]

You guys are so juvenile, it's like a parody you would see on SNL.

Of course, the quote outside of this thread is a bit silly. But once again, instead of being able to post ideas, a full blown breakdown of every word must be defined, context be damned.

Please, put it in your sig line. It will remind me who I have to spell things out to, the figurative AI short bus riders. A handy way to keep you all straight.

I of course meant it is possible to be politically biased and still maintain journalistic balance and fairness.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Ask Michael Moore. He has made a art-form of it.
You didn't ask because it would make you appear REAL SMART! Ask Moore? In other words, you had no clue how to answer. Typical.
Thanks.

I doubt you even saw Moore's movie. You probably just heard a take about it from the people who brought us "The Clinton Body Count" or the wacky Freepers.

And about the smart part....I'm guessing that's in the context of compared to you? We agree there. Thanks. :smokey:

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You guys are so juvenile, it's like a parody you would see on SNL.
I'm feelin' you dawg.

[/Randy]

[pfflam]

Originally posted by BRussell
1. According to your study media bias is cited by a small minority of the public (14% of some unspecified number of people who have an unfavorable view of TV news). And only 3% said liberal bias was their problem.

2. You say it doesn't matter what I think, but note I didn't post what I think, I posted a study of Fox's bias.

3. I never said there was no media bias - the study I cited said the opposite, that there is a conservative bias in the media. The least biased network was ABC, with a 73-27 Republican bias in its guests.

For what it's worth, I watch Fox sometimes. I watch it probably about as much as any other TV news. I don't see all that much difference between CNN and Fox or any other cable news network. Fox is slightly more conservative, but they all are. Good points . . .

But about Fox . .

I watch it maybe two minutes every month when I visit my Mother-in-law:
and it never fails me:
I have timed it, it never takes more than two minutes to see and hear with my own very descriminating eyes and ears some form of subtle anti-liberal manipulation by the station . . . never!!!
only two minutes max, and BAM, there it is something deliberately calculated to manipulate perception of the boogie-men 'Liberals'....

They use every means at their disposal: for example, especially effective and subtle, -because those who have not themselves been visual content creators and worked seriously in editing would simply not notice- they use juxtaposition of stories and even images and phrases . . . .
For instance, a recent subtle form that I have noticed several times, is that every story that mentioned a Democrat would have the Anchor end the story with a direct reference to the Democrat by name while transitioning to the next story, which of course was about the release of a child-sex killer from jail too early!!!!!
This is a subtle and very real form of manipulation of the viewers perceptions: it is the basis for the Montage theory of editing and filmmaking --and it is just one in Fox's very deep closet of manipulation tactics!!

The association of juxtaposed stories: we are still thinking about the Democrat, even unconsciously, while the early release from prison of a child-sex killer enters the mind . . . .Hm . .. association

and they will, invariably, pull out one of those tactics almost every two minutes!!

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
A couple of things:

MEMO-GATE

KORAN FLUSHING STORY

SEAL CLUBBING STORY

In all cases they wanted the story so much, political bias overrode journalistic integrity. Memo gate . . . I am convinced that it was a plant . . . unfortunately the lame ass news were too desperate and took the bait . . . thereby effectively ending any and all consideration of the fact that our president went AWOL like a spoiled brat rich kid drunk

Koran Flushing: it appears to have been the truth . . . unfortunately, what our troops are doing through their approved (read memos by Gonzales etc) torture techniques are truly offencive . . . . when real things get leaked real reactions happen: perhaps the US shouldn't be torturing people like a third rate despotism?!

Seal clubbing? is that when the Special Forces go out and Party in the London Night-life?

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I of course meant it is possible to be politically biased and still maintain journalistic balance and fairness.

Truthfully, that isn't any more logical than your so-called "out of context" quote. It still doesn't make any sense.

"Fair" and "balanced" both mean "unbiased". They are diametrically opposed.

[rageous]

Originally posted by pfflam
Good points . . .

But about Fox . .

The association of juxtaposed stories: we are still thinking about the Democrat, even unconsciously, while the early release from prison of a child-sex killer enters the mind . . . .Hm . .. association

and they will, invariably, pull out one of those tactics almost every two minutes!!

As someone who watches that channel more often than not (when the TV is on), I would have to say this is a bit of a stretch. The reason being that many of their anchors are so blantantly conservative and so in your face about it (Hannity (worst of all), David Asman, John Gibson, Brian Wilson, Hume... I don't think I'd add O'Reilly to this list. He seems to be beligerent in a lot of directions, not strictly right) that I don't think they'd even need to resort to subliminal tactics. I mean you only do the sneaky shit when you're trying to be sneaky.

[rageous]

Originally posted by tonton
"Fair" and "balanced" both mean "unbiased". They are diametrically opposed.

While by definition they are in opposition, I think one can be biased in a direction (which everyone is if they stand for something) and still be willing to present a subject matter with equal weight given to many points of view.

I engage my friends and family in debate all the time. I get a real kick out of it. And more often than not I argue against what they're saying even if I don't beleive in what I'm arguing the point of view of. It's funner to challange people you agree with than simply agree and move onto the next topic.

This is not to say that I think Fox does this. Even if I were to concede they present both Democratic and Republican points of view equally (which I am not) they still omit a vast amount of the middle of the road or alternative party points of view.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by rageous
As someone who watches that channel more often than not (when the TV is on), I would have to say this is a bit of a stretch. The reason being that many of their anchors are so blantantly conservative and so in your face about it (Hannity (worst of all), David Asman, John Gibson, Brian Wilson, Hume... I don't think I'd add O'Reilly to this list. He seems to be beligerent in a lot of directions, not strictly right) that I don't think they'd even need to resort to subliminal tactics. I mean you only do the sneaky shit when you're trying to be sneaky. Nevertheless it is there and it is deliberate . . . it is merely a matter of the producers editing the stories before hand making sure that any story about a Democrat, good or bad, is sandwiched in such a way as to leave a bad taste in your mouth . . .
It isn't difficult to do, it is like an added extra after-thought . . . but it is just one tactic in a barrel-full.

BTW, the more that you watch a station and acclimate yourself to their environment the less you will notice the myriad ways that you are being manipulated: camera angles on interviewers is another good one; placement in the frame relative to other interviewees; color of backdrops, etc etc . . . many of these types of things are not deliberate . . but with the legions of focus-group-honed-psych-graduate production staff assistants that work for these companies you know that they are thinking about every iota of design while they put on their show and get their message across.

[rageous]

Originally posted by pfflam
BTW, the more that you watch a station and acclimate yourself to their environment the less you will notice the myriad ways that you are being manipulated: camera angles on interviewers is another good one; placement in the frame relative to other interviewees; color of backdrops, etc etc . . . many of these types of things are not deliberate . . but with the legions of focus-group-honed-psych-graduate production staff assistants that work for these companies you know that they are thinking about every iota of design while they put on their show and get their message across.

Actually as someone schooled in advertising as well as film (to a lesser extent), I'm well aware of all that stuff no matter how much I watch it. But the thing is even when the TV IS on I rarely watch it. It's like a flickering radio off to my right. So any subliminal visuals usually escape me anyway.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by rageous
Actually as someone schooled in advertising as well as film (to a lesser extent), I'm well aware of all that stuff no matter how much I watch it. But the thing is even when the TV IS on I rarely watch it. It's like a flickering radio off to my right. So any subliminal visuals usually escape me anyway. ouch . . . . that's like learning another language in your sleep!!! only you're not asleep . . .

. . . or are you?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
Truthfully, that isn't any more logical than your so-called "out of context" quote. It still doesn't make any sense.

"Fair" and "balanced" both mean "unbiased". They are diametrically opposed. So if it isn't possible then there has to be a media bias, since the majority of the media personnel is liberal.

Care to rethink?

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So if it isn't possible then there has to be a media bias, since the majority of the media personnel is liberal.

Care to rethink?

I guess that would depend on what you mean by 'think' - probably not.....

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
I guess that would depend on what you mean by 'think' - probably not..... Your name is tonton?

Oh I forgot... the whole collective thing....

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Your name is tonton?

Oh I forgot... the whole collective thing....

No I'm not Tonton, I'm merely acting as a kind of ad hoc interpreter or commentator.

It seems some people have a problem understanding your posts so I thought I'd add a helpful commentary and occasional prod in the right direction if you start to wander.

No need to thank me - I do it for love.....:D

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
No I'm not Tonton, I'm merely acting as a kind of ad hoc interpreter or commentator.

It seems some people have a problem understanding your posts so I thought I'd add a helpful commentary and occasional prod in the right direction if you start to wander.

No need to thank me - I do it for love.....:D That is funny because you did not translate anything, you just answered it as if I touched some nerve.

You must embrace the collective... love the collective...

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You must embrace the collective... love the collective...

No thanks, I'll pass.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
No thanks, I'll pass. It's too late for that kind of talk, don't you think?

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It's too late for that kind of talk, don't you think?

No, I probably won't succumb to any right-wing sheep mentality now I suppose - been 40 years.....reckon I'm safe.

How about you ? Been for a check-up lately ? You really should....

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
No, I probably won't succumb to any right-wing sheep mentality now I suppose - been 40 years.....reckon I'm safe. Right, because the left wing sheep mentality is much more appealing, obviously.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Right, because the left wing sheep mentality is much more appealing, obviously.

I kind of tend to judge by what is provable and true rather than something that fits into a left/right political modality which is essentially just a form of control. oppression even.

I mean if Fox were left biased, I'd bash it. I bash Blair often enough - he's a 'socialist'.

Not much to bash that is left-wing these days though. Shame in some ways.

That's your great weakness - and on a larger scale the current US administration's - because you areso reductionist you think that those opposite to you fall only into one camp and must be unified.

That is a serious Achilles heel and one day someone will find it and make it hurt.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So if it isn't possible then there has to be a media bias, since the majority of the media personnel is liberal.

Care to rethink? Completely fallacious, a small minority of reporters are socially liberal . . . meanwhile the reporters and everything presentted on any form of media is subject to editorial staff, and they are subject to those above them, like owners and board memebers etc . .

and what is this more than absurd talk about embracing a collective? . . . it isn't a collective that you're a part of Naples, its a cluster of self-deluded parts pretending to be 'rugged individuals' and espousing anti-Big-Government and Anti-'Liberal' cliches in complete lockstep . . . the reason why you and your minions are not a 'collective' is because you are in denial of the reality of the unoriginality of you own thinking . . . you actually think those cliches flowing from your fingers are your own real thoughts . . . . an aggragate of like minded parts in complete disconnection from one-another . . . but not a whole capable of intentional action or critical thought . . .

as for us and a 'collective'? . . .. I think that the 'enemy' (meaning us 'Liberals') seems to have very divergent ideological points of departure . . . doesn't seem to me that we are part of some group, except whenever you open your mouth; when that happens it just seems that we are all alike because even different minds can see the same wrong for what it is.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
Completely fallacious, a small minority of reporters are socially liberal . . . meanwhile the reporters and everything presentted on any form of media is subject to editorial staff, and they are subject to those above them, like owners and board memebers etc . .

and what is this more than absurd talk about embracing a collective? . . . it isn't a collective that you're a part of Naples, its a cluster of self-deluded parts pretending to be 'rugged individuals' and espousing anti-Big-Government and Anti-'Liberal' cliches in complete lockstep . . . the reason why you and your minions are not a 'collective' is because you are in denial of the reality of the unoriginality of you own thinking . . . you actually think those cliches flowing from your fingers are your own real thoughts . . . . an aggragate of like minded parts in complete disconnection from one-another . . . but not a whole capable of intentional action or critical thought . . .

as for us and a 'collective'? . . .. I think that the 'enemy' (meaning us 'Liberals') seems to have very divergent ideological points of departure . . . doesn't seem to me that we are part of some group, except whenever you open your mouth; when that happens it just seems that we are all alike because even different minds can see the same wrong for what it is. You see this is exactly why I called you guys the AO short-bus riders.

When I say "collective" I am referring to the left-wing, liberals here. You know who you are, The guys that deny their true colors and try to present yourselves as "progressive" and "enlightened" and "nuanced". The reference is to the Borg in the Star Trek series and the general approach of the Borg. I see a lot of similarities.

Especially when I post a question or comment to a particular Borg, only to be swarmed by 5 different people answering for the original Borg. It is quite amusing. It happens every time.

[pfflam]

You don't even read my posts do you?


and if you are going to use a term with politically critical pretentions then you should at least be historically informed: ' Collective' is a term that is pertinent to critiques of the Left because it was a term used by Stalinist Comunism.
Stalin Collectivized farming and thereby murdered millions through the resulting famine, and the planned and systematic famine of specific uppity regions, as well as the 'Liquidation' of the Kulacs, the traditional overseers of farms in pre-Communism.
'Collective' was a term used by The Old Left, in a 'positive' attitude but in complete ignorance of the intrinsic dangers of Communistic Collectivist ideology.

In other words, IMO, the old foms of Lefty thought are intrinsically dangerous . . . and in this regard you and I agree . . . the problem is is that you think that all forms of Non-Conservatism are equivalent to that form of Old-Left thought . . . . but that's simply because you are at the tail end of the slew of shiite that spews from the likes of Limbaugh et al . . .

So anyway, there is more to that term than simply Star Trek, but then again, that't the level of historical awareness that I'm up against with you isn't it?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
You don't even read my posts do you?


and if you are going to use a term with politically critical pretentions then you should at least be historically informed: ' Collective' is a term that is pertinent to critiques of the Left because it was a term used by Stalinist Comunism.
Stalin Collectivized farming and thereby murdered millions through the resulting famine, and the planned and systematic famine of specific uppity regions, as well as the 'Liquidation' of the Kulacs, the traditional overseers of farms in pre-Communism.
'Collective' was a term used by The Old Left, in a 'positive' attitude but in complete ignorance of the intrinsic dangers of Communistic Collectivist ideology.

In other words, IMO, the old foms of Lefty thought are intrinsically dangerous . . . and in this regard you and I agree . . . the problem is is that you think that all forms of Non-Conservatism are equivalent to that form of Old-Left thought . . . . but that's simply because you are at the tail end of the slew of shiite that spews from the likes of Limbaugh et al . . .

So anyway, there is more to that term than simply Star Trek, but then again, that't the level of historical awareness that I'm up against with you isn't it? No, you are just reading way too much into it.

[rageous]

Naples, no more borg, collective, short bus rider, whatever. Enough. Subtle attacks are still attacks and are going to get deleted.

Ditto everyone else. The mods/admins don't want to have to babysit every single thread all day and cherrypick bad posts for deletion. Frankly, we don't have the resources to, which is why too many threads get locked for being too far gone before someone can step in.

If you guys want less moderation, then exercise some self policing.

[CosmoNut]

Okay, let's look at this objectively:

Fox News Channel, whether you agree it's "Fair and Balanced" or not, offers something valuable to its viewers. It's the number one cable news network! Whether those here and throughout the world like it or not, a number of people appreciate whatever bias Fox News puts across.

Incidentally, many people also believe that the rest of the mainstream news media has a liberal lean to it. Oftentimes the mainstream media is believed to push a pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-God, anti-conflict, sensationalist agenda. Whether those here and throughout the world like it or not, a number of people feel that the mainstream media is dragging society down.

If you disagree with the assertions I've made here, fine. But remember that Fox News has every right to be whatever kind of news agency it wants, even if *you* don't consider it fair and balanced. Understand, however, that there are many moderate or conservative members of society who are just as concerned about the mainstream media's liberal lean as you are about Fox News' conservative lean.

[AquaMac]

When you on the extream Right of course differing oppinions will seen left.

The real issue is journalistic integrity. Most news meada have it, fox dosen't.

[segovius]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
Okay, let's look at this objectively:

Fox News Channel, whether you agree it's "Fair and Balanced" or not, offers something valuable to its viewers. It's the number one cable news network! Whether those here and throughout the world like it or not, a number of people appreciate whatever bias Fox News puts across.

Incidentally, many people also believe that the rest of the mainstream news media has a liberal lean to it. Oftentimes the mainstream media is believed to push a pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-God, anti-conflict, sensationalist agenda. Whether those here and throughout the world like it or not, a number of people feel that the mainstream media is dragging society down.

If you disagree with the assertions I've made here, fine. But remember that Fox News has every right to be whatever kind of news agency it wants, even if *you* don't consider it fair and balanced. Understand, however, that there are many moderate or conservative members of society who are just as concerned about the mainstream media's liberal lean as you are about Fox News' conservative lean.

But that's the point - new should be about what is true - ie the facts. Similarly, in 'real life', an adherence to facts used to be the sign of a rational person.

Fox is part of a process that has changed these goalposts and now the truth of something is irrelevant - all that matters is how one perceives it (spins it in other words).

Hence, 'Fox serves a purpose' and people want it therefore Fox is legitimate. Whether it broadcasts lies or propaganda or spin is irrelevant.

The benchmark is now the degree which it conforms to public expectations - expectations that Fox itself formed and continues to do.

[Harald]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No, you are just reading way too much into it.

Hold on hold on.

One poster is attempting to examine pertinent culural issues raised by the prevalence of bias in popular mass media, using language in its historical context to make a point.

The other is using Star Trek, and reckons people "read too much into [language]."

Figures. Abu Ghraib wasn't "hazing" Naples. You just don't read enough into anything as far as I can tell.

[pfflam]

BTW: I went to my Mother in Law's house and got to watch TV on Cable: there was a great two part Star Trek -The Next Generation on . . . I watched the whole thing . .

Guess what it was about?!

Its central issue was the horror and injustice and inneffectiveness and just plain all around beneath even the Cardasians-ness of Torture!!!!

HAHA . . . I was relishing each seond when Picard was showing how barbaric, inneffective and beyond the basic principles of civilization torture as a method was!!!!

I kept wondering if Naples was still getting his political insights from TV dramas . . . or if TNG had long since been written off as Librul hoohah?!?

[BRussell]

There... are... four... lights!

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Harald
Hold on hold on.

One poster is attempting to examine pertinent culural issues raised by the prevalence of bias in popular mass media, using language in its historical context to make a point.

The other is using Star Trek, and reckons people "read too much into [language]."

Figures. Abu Ghraib wasn't "hazing" Naples. You just don't read enough into anything as far as I can tell. First, I was not using the star trek series as a comparison to real life. I was comparing "the borg" (a character/s on the show) and it's behavior to the behavior of the collective libs/progressives/whatever-you-call-yourselves-today reactions to people like myself. Particularly the flurry of posters after any statement, and how it becomes difficult to keep them all straight, since they answer for one another. Please feel feel to twist that any way you see fit.

Second, I did not put forth that people read to much into language. I was stating that my comments on the 'the collective" was what they were reading too much into. If you don't understand read my first paragraph again.

The premise of this post is either dishonest or just plain lazy. I can't decide which.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You see this is exactly why I called you guys the AO short-bus riders.
:lol:
When I say "collective" I am referring to the left-wing, liberals here. You know who you are, The guys that deny their true colors and try to present yourselves as "progressive" and "enlightened" and "nuanced". The reference is to the Borg in the Star Trek series and the general approach of the Borg. I see a lot of similarities.
Well, using the word 'collective' is also in complete ignorance to the reality of contemporary american politics. Republicans are known for and pride themselves on their cohesive political messages and organization while deriding Democrats for lack of orgainzation which, in turn, is seen by the Dems themselves as diversity and inclusiveness.

In other words, you have the borg analogy completely backwards unless you want to claim that the republicans are disorganized and not able to keep on-message to an extraordinary degree (not that we would expect anything less ridiculous out of you).
I was stating that my comments on the 'the collective" was what they were reading too much into.
I have to agree with naples here. Why would anyone assume there was any depth or historical knowledge backing up his posts?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
And why we point out how amazingly ironic your posts are.

Well, using the word 'collective' is also in complete ignorance to the reality of contemporary american politics. Republicans are known for and pride themselves on their cohesive political messages and organization while deriding Democrats for lack of orgainzation which, in turn, is seen by the Dems themselves as diversity and inclusiveness.

In other words, you have the borg analogy completely backwards. I have repeatedly defined what I meant. The fact that you can't accept what I specifically say, and then throw out accusations of ignorance is a textbook example in both irony and ignorance.

So, perhaps you are right that my use of the word "collective" was just too much for you and others to handle or separate from the other contemporary use of the word.

I will try to not to be so confusing in the future. OK?

:rolleyes: :lol:

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So, perhaps you are right that my use of the word "collective" was just too much for you and others to handle or separate from the other contemporary use of the word.
So you are saying that when you troll with completely stupid posts we are fools to respond. In the past I would have agreed with you there, but it's clear that you haven't yet realized what role you been put in here in PO.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
So you are saying that when you troll with completely stupid posts we are fools to respond. In the past I would have agreed with you there, but it's clear that you haven't yet realized what role you been put in here in PO. And all of your posts have been pristine examples of adulthood?

We all have our moments. I was making light of the flurry of attacks by posters answering for others, instead of calling people "stupid" or "uneducated", much like a person we all know, who shall remain nameless.

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by AquaMac
When you on the extream Right of course differing oppinions will seen left.
Please. You're making yourself look like a fool by asserting that anything more conservative than your viewpoints are "extream Right." (sic) If that's not what you meant, then your statement still insinuates that anyone who watches Fox News and believes other media is left is on the "extream Right."

I personally believe that CNN, ABC, and NBC have the most journalistic integrity and that FOX News, CBS, and MSNBC don't. Well, I should also point out that the fast, flashy graphics and over-caffeinated anchors on FOX and MSNBC really just annoy me.

My point -- pushing aside all of what I just wrote -- is that whether *you* believe Fox News has journalistic integrity, enough people do and have pushed it into the #1 slot. What needs to be fixed first: Fox News or their viewers?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
Please. You're making yourself look like a fool by asserting that anything more conservative than your viewpoints are "extream Right." (sic) If that's not what you meant, then your statement still insinuates that anyone who watches Fox News and believes other media is left is on the "extream Right."

I personally believe that CNN, ABC, and NBC have the most journalistic integrity and that FOX News, CBS, and MSNBC don't. Well, I should also point out that the fast, flashy graphics and over-caffeinated anchors on FOX and MSNBC really just annoy me.

My point -- pushing aside all of what I just wrote -- is that whether *you* believe Fox News has journalistic integrity, enough people do and have pushed it into the #1 slot. What needs to be fixed first: Fox News or their viewers? I would like to commend you on your honesty. It is refreshing to see.

We don't have to agree all the time but we should all try to be honest.

Good show.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
There... are... four... lights!

That's one of the best TNG episodes ever.

We should also note this little gem:

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."