| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2008 03:36:24 PM · #526 |
Originally posted by Flash:
EditObama is a smooth talking lawyer who believes that some people have too much. Has long associations with questionable persons and has personally argued that the Supreme Court is too restrictive in its interpretation. The choice is yours to make. Just please be accountable for your choice. If Obama's election turns out to be good, then please feel free to take credit for your vote. But when your taxes go up and businesses close due to increased costs and consumer prices rise due to increased operating costs, then please be a stand up person and take credit for that as well. |
My goodness your really have drunk the koolaide. The message of Fox has consumed the very phrasing you use. The glib inuendo, the accusations delivered with a wink, the total absence of objective fact, the faux folksy phrasing. Well done.
As for the dire risk of the sky falling should that "smooth talking lawyer" get elected, look at your feet, the sky has already fallen. Two undeclared wars without hope of resolution, a market in freefall, a national debt skyrocketing, a weakening dollar, a massive mortgage failure, buisness closings and creeping inflation, a government using toture and wiretapping shrugging off the need for judicial oversight.
McCain used to disagree with many of these horrible choices by the Bush administration, but his desire to get elected has forced him to hire the very people who smeared him in South Carolina four years ago, to take on the mantle of the social conservative ideologue he never was before. We are by any metric a vastly weaker country than we were eight years ago, and you warn me that changing form these tactics is dangerous? Sure it is, you stay in the house on fire, I'll jump out the window. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:37:01 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Apparently there is no restriction on a media house that would stop it from distorting or morphing a 'news' to suit other motives. Or else FOX wont be in business. |
For those with short memories, FOX was the channel that was kept from being born by the major networks and it was only after years of litigation that they even got on the air. Then other countries successfully banned them (for a time) and in markets like Canada and the UK, they are increasing viewership as more and more people see for themselves that FOX is the only news organization that consistently offers more than one side to a story and goes out of their way to present the opposing view. Even Hannity has a Colmbs. But the vitriol against FOX is large and trying to convince many here of these facts is like spittin' in the wind. It really matters not in the grand scheme of things - viewers have gravitated towards FOX because of what FOX presents. That speaks for itself. People have a choice to turn on a multitude a channels. More are turning to FOX for their news than any other channel. Must be something in the water. An Obama presidency will likely increase FOX's viewership even more. A trinity of Obama, Reid and Pelosi with a filibuster proof Senate will likely send the viewership through the roof. |
I just did a quick google search on 'Why is FOX News so popular". Here are the answers I got (and these are NOT from the FOx-bashing websites as towards the end I will share the source too) :
"My feeling is that Fox news is popular because it knows its target audience and it does a good job of catering to its target audience. The real innovation behind Fox news is that they've turned the conventional wisdom of neutral and balanced news on its head. Instead of neutral and balanced news, they skew and color their news stories to appeal to a right wing point of view."
"...Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers."
"...They know how to appeal to the general public. They stir controversy for the sake of controversy and they have hosts who air strong and divisive opinions. "
"...I watch Fox news because they're entertaining. They have fun and wacky characters who make the news fun. You can't get any more wacky than Bill OReilley."
"I ONLY watch Fox News. I feel that they have a great staff that is good with entertaining their audience."
Ok now... how many times did you read 'fair' or 'true' or 'impartial'?? And counter them now with the terms 'fun', 'entertaining', 'wacky', 'controversy'??
A news channel doesnt need to be fair to be popular. Most people want entertainment, and Fox knows the recipe.
That doesnt meant they are fair with reporting the true facts!!
I wonder how you will justify all this (and these are not my words either..it comes from the common folks like you and me.. here is the source). Or perhaps you will just IGNORE this post and continue with the others that you CAN answer with facts?
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 15:40:23.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:39:31 PM · #528 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have long defended the decisions of this president and continue to (remember that some 40% still approve of Bush). |
Just under 30% approval for the last quarter, according to Gallup. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:45:04 PM · #529 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...as more and more people see for themselves that FOX is the only news organization that consistently offers more than one side to a story and goes out of their way to present the opposing view. Even Hannity has a Colmbs. |
Please, please. This is completely flaccid. Anyway, does anyone seriously think this Colmes character is anything but Hannity's hand puppet? Who do you think hired him for his show? Good grief.
Originally posted by Flash:
...viewers have gravitated towards FOX because of what FOX presents. That speaks for itself. |
Yes, it speaks volumes about what kind of tripe people are willing to ingest. Seen Outfoxed? The more you watch Fox, the dumber you get. Or the dumber you are. I forget which. But they're cold, hard statistics. The more you watch Fox News, the dumber you get. That's a sentence based on researched data. You know, those little nuggets of irresistible facts that not even God himself can escape when push comes to shove. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:46:37 PM · #530 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Apparently there is no restriction on a media house that would stop it from distorting or morphing a 'news' to suit other motives. Or else FOX wont be in business. |
For those with short memories, FOX was the channel that was kept from being born by the major networks and it was only after years of litigation that they even got on the air. Then other countries successfully banned them (for a time) and in markets like Canada and the UK, they are increasing viewership as more and more people see for themselves that FOX is the only news organization that consistently offers more than one side to a story and goes out of their way to present the opposing view. Even Hannity has a Colmbs. But the vitriol against FOX is large and trying to convince many here of these facts is like spittin' in the wind. It really matters not in the grand scheme of things - viewers have gravitated towards FOX because of what FOX presents. That speaks for itself. People have a choice to turn on a multitude a channels. More are turning to FOX for their news than any other channel. Must be something in the water. An Obama presidency will likely increase FOX's viewership even more. A trinity of Obama, Reid and Pelosi with a filibuster proof Senate will likely send the viewership through the roof. |
I just did a quick google search on 'Why is FOX News so popular". Here are the answers I got (and these are NOT from the FOx-bashing websites as towards the end I will share the source too) :
"My feeling is that Fox news is popular because it knows its target audience and it does a good job of catering to its target audience. The real innovation behind Fox news is that they've turned the conventional wisdom of neutral and balanced news on its head. Instead of neutral and balanced news, they skew and color their news stories to appeal to a right wing point of view."
"...Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers."
"...They know how to appeal to the general public. They stir controversy for the sake of controversy and they have hosts who air strong and divisive opinions. "
"...I watch Fox news because they're entertaining. They have fun and wacky characters who make the news fun. You can't get any more wacky than Bill OReilley."
"I ONLY watch Fox News. I feel that they have a great staff that is good with entertaining their audience."
Ok now... how many times did you read 'fair' or 'true' or 'impartial'?? And counter them now with the terms 'fun', 'entertaining', 'wacky', 'controversy'??
A news channel doesnt need to be fair to be popular. Most people want entertainment, and Fox knows the recipe.
That doesnt meant they are fair with reporting the true facts!!
I wonder how you will justify all this (and these are not my words either..it comes from the common folks like you and me.. here is the source). Or perhaps you will just IGNORE this post and continue with the others that you CAN answer with facts? |
Any justifications?? It tells me all that Fox is doing is making things controversial and distorting facts and piecing them together to make it 'spicy'. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:47:31 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...and in markets like Canada and the UK, they are increasing viewership as more and more people see for themselves that FOX is the only news organization that consistently offers more than one side to a story and goes out of their way to present the opposing view. |
Oh dear, is this ever a misinformed view. Canadians and Britons have a long history of loving their faux news programs. Especially here in Canada, programs like "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", "The Rick Mercer Report", "The Royal Canadian Air Farce", and other programs like them have long been watched and loved and enjoyed almost as much (if not more than) mainstream news. With The Daily Show and The Colbert Report becoming U.S. created popularity shows here as well, Fox News is now becoming popular because it's viewed as just another of these types of programs. We sit and laugh at it. You can no more place any actual meaning to its popularity in Canada then you can on The Daily Show, past comic relief. I watch Fox News a lot because of this, and to claim that "FOX is the only news organization that consistently offers more than one side to a story and goes out of their way to present the opposing view." is utterly laughable. Utterly.
It is a farce, and designed to do one thing, stir up the masses. Much like CNN programs like Nancy Grace, it's a complete disgrace to respectablity. However, it'd be irresponsible to just disregard it as well, as it's always good to keep an eye on what the masses get force fed. I just find it horribly sad that people are actually ignorant enough to accept anything Fox News puts out on a daily basis as anything other than sensationalism. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:49:37 PM · #532 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Yes, it speaks volumes about what kind of tripe people are willing to ingest. Seen Outfoxed? The more you watch Fox, the dumber you get. Or the dumber you are. I forget which. But they're cold, hard statistics. The more you watch Fox News, the dumber you get. That's a sentence based on researched data. You know, those little nuggets of irresistible facts that not even God himself can escape when push comes to shove. |
Well reality has a well documented liberal bias. When your views are so far out on the outer reaches of the right wing that Fox news actually looks fair and balanced, it might give pause for thought.
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 15:50:36. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:53:22 PM · #533 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Lets start by slash that 13.2% that you didn't list (payroll?) and also slash a lot of that war on terror line item (i.e. most if not all of the Iraq spending). How much have we saved then? |
I can't tell if you are joking or not Yank. The other 13.2% is everything else we pay for in governemnt; education, agriculture, environment, etc.
You can see a good pie chart for 2007 here:
2007 US Budget breakdown |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:54:54 PM · #534 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
I also have consistently stated that I believe in individual choice and individual responsibility as opposed to the liberal mantra of victimization. |
Yet you are ready to blame Obama and his supporters for all the ills his presidency will create before he is even elected. Oy. |
I just want his supporters to be stand up persons and say what they mean and mean what they say. If you are for a greater move towards socialism then be up front about about it. At least Obama writes in his book that he intentionally sought ought those with Marxist ideology as he was drawn to its core principles and activist agendas. I have at least 3 large cities where I live that have for decades been run by liberal democratic administrations. Each is crime ridden and in decay. I have worked for a large union represented corporation for over 3 decades and seen it also run into the ground. I am the product of a publuic education and as has been pointed out earlier I didn't even recognize the misapplication of insure in place of ensure (although as an English major I did know better). I have seen the results of liberal democratic pressure on lending institutions that in part resulted in the mortage failure and lastly I have witnessed natural destruction on parts of this country where liberal democrats were in charge with abysmal results for their citizens (right adjacent to conservative represented areas that were prepared and implemented effective response). I do not need to test the policies of an Obama presidency. I have lived them most of my adult life and have not found any redeeming grace in their applications. My city is run by liberals, my union is run by liberals, my state is run by liberals and all stink. All are a failure. But vote for more of this if you want what I have.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:55:09 PM · #535 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
...and in markets like Canada and the UK, [Fox] are increasing viewership ... |
Oh dear, is this ever a misinformed view. |
Very misinformed. I would be inclined to agree that Fox's popularity in Canada has everything to do with its cartoonishness and very little to do with its newsworthiness. As an example, Rogers, Canada's largest cable provider, recently dumped (yes, got rid of) CNN Headline News and replaced it with BBC World News because its customers wanted a cable news channel with actual news on it. See, the latter is more popular with people requiring objective global news reporting, the former is more jokey. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:56:12 PM · #536 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Apparently there is no restriction on a media house that would stop it from distorting or morphing a 'news' to suit other motives. Or else FOX wont be in business. |
For those with short memories, FOX was the channel that was kept from being born by the major networks and it was only after years of litigation that they even got on the air. Then other countries successfully banned them (for a time) and in markets like Canada and the UK, they are increasing viewership as more and more people see for themselves that FOX is the only news organization that consistently offers more than one side to a story and goes out of their way to present the opposing view. Even Hannity has a Colmbs. But the vitriol against FOX is large and trying to convince many here of these facts is like spittin' in the wind. It really matters not in the grand scheme of things - viewers have gravitated towards FOX because of what FOX presents. That speaks for itself. People have a choice to turn on a multitude a channels. More are turning to FOX for their news than any other channel. Must be something in the water. An Obama presidency will likely increase FOX's viewership even more. A trinity of Obama, Reid and Pelosi with a filibuster proof Senate will likely send the viewership through the roof. |
I just did a quick google search on 'Why is FOX News so popular". Here are the answers I got (and these are NOT from the FOx-bashing websites as towards the end I will share the source too) :
"My feeling is that Fox news is popular because it knows its target audience and it does a good job of catering to its target audience. The real innovation behind Fox news is that they've turned the conventional wisdom of neutral and balanced news on its head. Instead of neutral and balanced news, they skew and color their news stories to appeal to a right wing point of view."
"...Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers."
"...They know how to appeal to the general public. They stir controversy for the sake of controversy and they have hosts who air strong and divisive opinions. "
"...I watch Fox news because they're entertaining. They have fun and wacky characters who make the news fun. You can't get any more wacky than Bill OReilley."
"I ONLY watch Fox News. I feel that they have a great staff that is good with entertaining their audience."
Ok now... how many times did you read 'fair' or 'true' or 'impartial'?? And counter them now with the terms 'fun', 'entertaining', 'wacky', 'controversy'??
A news channel doesnt need to be fair to be popular. Most people want entertainment, and Fox knows the recipe.
That doesnt meant they are fair with reporting the true facts!!
I wonder how you will justify all this (and these are not my words either..it comes from the common folks like you and me.. here is the source). Or perhaps you will just IGNORE this post and continue with the others that you CAN answer with facts? |
Any justifications?? It tells me all that Fox is doing is making things controversial and distorting facts and piecing them together to make it 'spicy'. |
Still waiting to hear in support of Fox....:-).. where art thou?
By the way, I trust the NPR more than any other media source on all the major issues that affect my life. They seem fair.. as I have read them bashing Obama as well as McCain as the facts say (read this analysis if you dont trust me). The fact is though, that McCain screwed up more than Obama and so is bashed more. Some may call it unfair. I call it fair reporting.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 03:59:14 PM · #537 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
As for the dire risk of the sky falling should that "smooth talking lawyer" get elected, look at your feet, the sky has already fallen. Two undeclared wars without hope of resolution, a market in freefall, a national debt skyrocketing, a weakening dollar, a massive mortgage failure, buisness closings and creeping inflation, a government using toture and wiretapping shrugging off the need for judicial oversight.
McCain used to disagree with many of these horrible choices by the Bush administration, but his desire to get elected has forced him to hire the very people who smeared him in South Carolina four years ago, to take on the mantle of the social conservative ideologue he never was before. We are by any metric a vastly weaker country than we were eight years ago, and you warn me that changing form these tactics is dangerous? Sure it is, you stay in the house on fire, I'll jump out the window. |
What he said. ^ |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:02:46 PM · #538 |
Originally posted by Flash:
At least Obama writes in his book that he intentionally sought ought those with Marxist ideology as he was drawn to its core principles and activist agendas. |
He did not say that. Where did he say that? He did not seek these people out because he was drawn to Marxism's core principles. If you deduced that from that Fox article -- because you almost certainly did not read it yourself in the context of his book -- then you are as duped as every other fox adherent, as incapable of distilling facts in context for yourself as they, and you are only unlucky enough to get dumber the more you rely on Fox as your source for actual news.
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 16:03:35. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:07:19 PM · #539 |
Originally posted by Flash:
At least Obama writes in his book that he intentionally sought ought those with Marxist ideology as he was drawn to its core principles and activist agendas. |
I know that this is the latest talking point you have been issued, so I don't know why I bother but he is talking about finding the lefties at Occidental college. Ever been to Eagle Rock and seen Occidental? Finding Marxists there would be like finding a Talmudic scholar at Liberty university. Of course his interest in looking into the second most popular economic theory in the world should bar him from office.
"If you are not a communist at the age of twenty, you do not have a heart
If you are still a communist at the age of forty, you do not have a head" Satya
You Sir evidence to have neither.
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 16:14:43. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:15:13 PM · #540 |
| The dollar is actually strengthening Brennan. Just pointing it out... |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:22:07 PM · #541 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
I also have consistently stated that I believe in individual choice and individual responsibility as opposed to the liberal mantra of victimization. |
Yet you are ready to blame Obama and his supporters for all the ills his presidency will create before he is even elected. Oy. |
I just want his supporters to be stand up persons and say what they mean and mean what they say. If you are for a greater move towards socialism then be up front about about it. At least Obama writes in his book that he intentionally sought ought those with Marxist ideology as he was drawn to its core principles and activist agendas. I have at least 3 large cities where I live that have for decades been run by liberal democratic administrations. Each is crime ridden and in decay. I have worked for a large union represented corporation for over 3 decades and seen it also run into the ground. I am the product of a publuic education and as has been pointed out earlier I didn't even recognize the misapplication of insure in place of ensure (although as an English major I did know better). I have seen the results of liberal democratic pressure on lending institutions that in part resulted in the mortage failure and lastly I have witnessed natural destruction on parts of this country where liberal democrats were in charge with abysmal results for their citizens (right adjacent to conservative represented areas that were prepared and implemented effective response). I do not need to test the policies of an Obama presidency. I have lived them most of my adult life and have not found any redeeming grace in their applications. My city is run by liberals, my union is run by liberals, my state is run by liberals and all stink. All are a failure. But vote for more of this if you want what I have. |
Wow, talk about blame. So, it's the liberals' fault for all of this? Wow. I live in a very liberal town and the economy is great -- it must be thanks to them. I live in a very liberal state and I've had an excellent education (if I do say so myself) -- must be the liberals fault. I've seen liberals do wonderful things to protect small businesses and the environment. Your personal stories are no more valid than mine -- try looking at the greater issues going on in Michigan, and especially Detroit and other automotive-based economic areas before laying the blame on those damn liberals. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:23:33 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The dollar is actually strengthening Brennan. Just pointing it out... |
True, as is the price of oil dropping, but only over the last few weeks, not on average over the last eight years.
Heck, if we want to make wild assumptions based on unrelated data, hasn't the price of oil falling and the dollar rising coincided almost exactly with Obama's rise in the polls? He IS the savior!!! ( small joke )
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:25:20 PM · #543 |
It's amazing to me that even with the financial crisis we've had for some time now candidates like Obama can raise nearly a billion dollars in such a short period of time not to mention all that Hillary and McCain have raised. Just goes to show people can be quite generous when there is a clear purpose and incentive involved unlike with taxes where the government yanks your money for god knows what before you even know what hits you. Perhaps if the government functioned with more transparency, more honesty and provided some incentive, the government would collect more money just from the taxes it has now. After all it's a lot easier to justify cheating on your taxes when it feels like it's just being tossed into the black hole that is the guberment.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:28:50 PM · #544 |
| Which media outlets do you think are left leaning? Which are close to neutral? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:29:02 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Lets start by slash that 13.2% that you didn't list (payroll?) and also slash a lot of that war on terror line item (i.e. most if not all of the Iraq spending). How much have we saved then? |
I can't tell if you are joking or not Yank. The other 13.2% is everything else we pay for in governemnt; education, agriculture, environment, etc.
You can see a good pie chart for 2007 here:
2007 US Budget breakdown |
I'm going to have to pull a Ron Paul and say lets nix the Department of Education, Argriculture but lets keep whatever we're spending on the environment. HOw much have I saved now?
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:36:27 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Which media outlets do you think are left leaning? Which are close to neutral? |
In my opinion, NPR is the most neutral one I have read/heard. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:36:58 PM · #547 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm going to have to pull a Ron Paul and say lets nix the Department of Education, Argriculture but lets keep whatever we're spending on the environment. HOw much have I saved now? |
400 billion. But the teachers have now occupied the Lincoln bedroom in the White House and refuse to leave while the farmers have your Ron Paul caught in the staff bathroom and are threatening to "corn husk" him...
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 16:37:26. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:43:33 PM · #548 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Which media outlets do you think are left leaning? Which are close to neutral? |
I'd say the Huffington Post leans a bit to the left. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:44:38 PM · #549 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm going to have to pull a Ron Paul and say lets nix the Department of Education, Argriculture but lets keep whatever we're spending on the environment. HOw much have I saved now? |
400 billion. But the teachers have now occupied the Lincoln bedroom in the White House and refuse to leave while the farmers have your Ron Paul caught in the staff bathroom and are threatening to "corn husk" him... |
Well as my civic duty I'd be willing to install some locks on the White House doors. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:48:42 PM · #550 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm going to have to pull a Ron Paul and say lets nix the Department of Education, Argriculture but lets keep whatever we're spending on the environment. HOw much have I saved now? |
2.72%, including 60% of all student financial aid and much of the safety oversight for our food supply. Congrats. |
|
