|
|
Post by rush22 on Jul 31, 2004 18:01:08 GMT -5
No, that's a purposeful misinterpretation of what I said. Even one lie can be summed up as 'not reporting the truth'. Really, though, I don't even care about FOXNews or 'media bias' anymore. It's all stupid. FOX wants money just the same, and they do it by appealing to knee-jerk conservatives like you by spicing their side with conservative viewpoints. I consider most of the media to be lying, making things up, or exaggerating most of the time. FOXNews does that a lot. Would you like to say something along those lines about CNN perhaps? Does that mean they "don't report one iota of the truth?"  |
|
|
|
Post by Matter on Aug 2, 2004 14:12:16 GMT -5
No, that's a purposeful misinterpretation of what I said. Even one lie can be summed up as 'not reporting the truth'. Misrepresentation? Hmmm....let's review the quote you made that I'm referring to: Don't know about anybody else in here....but that's exactly what you stated. If you 'don't even report the truth and is actually propaganda'...... doesn't leave much room in there for the truth. Care to clarify the contradiction? How do you know I'm a 'knee-jerk' conservative? I hardly know ye.  If any knee-jerking is to be found in the thread.... please review your 'Fox as propaganda' quotes above. Evidence is in the pudding, bud. Slanted? Yes. Lying most of the time? I totally disagree. You're call me 'knee-jerk' ?! I can state with 100% certainty that neither Fox nor CNN lies or fabricates most of their coverage. I believe my statement is a helluva lot closer to the truth, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Aug 2, 2004 18:41:39 GMT -5
Fine you got me, I should not have said 'they don't even tell the truth'. Instead I'll say FOXNews is a tabloid news station, just like most 24 hour news station with space to fill. Usually they just end up reporting whatever's lying around the newsroom, and in FOX's newsroom, it's all conservative stuff.
Their money show is called "The Cost of Freedom." If that isn't a conservative moniker I don't know what is. Do you really think freedom comes from investing?
Look, I don't even care about bias anymore, I never really did. I should not have insulted your precious news station by saying it was 'doesn't tell the truth'. Instead I'll say it is a piece **** news station where the journalists are greedy hacks who only want to impress their superiors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matter on Aug 3, 2004 5:33:53 GMT -5
Riiiiiiggghhht. I'm guessing these posts fall under the general category of 'random musings' ??! Hmmm. How do you know it's 'my precious news station'? I thought libs generally refrained from stereotyping folks. Maybe not, huh?  Yeah, that's impressive. |
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Aug 3, 2004 18:14:18 GMT -5
Then who said this:
The media is neither conservative or liberal
They want to make money. Media companies make money by selling audiences to their advertisers.
To get more viewers, the media has become sensationalist and tabloid-like. This is perceived as a bias.
I would rather talk about sensationalism, or how that sensationalism can be perceived as biased. I don't care about how conservative FOX seems, or how liberal CNN seems. What I do care about is how they sensationalize stories, and additionally why people can interpret their sensationalism as bias. If you want to be a smart-ass and say 'duh, that means you do care about bias' then I'll have nothing more to say, because you've obviously not been paying attention to anything I've written and you're just looking for a fight. Biased news is not my point, nor is the comparative bias of different news outlets.
People on this board generally like to argue that FOX is beyond reproach, so I made an educated guess. (Interestingly, your comment is a stereotype too. )
I'm not trying to impress you, it's just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matter on Aug 4, 2004 10:17:18 GMT -5
I would rather talk about sensationalism, or how that sensationalism can be perceived as biased. I don't care about how conservative FOX seems, or how liberal CNN seems. Well, you can talk about sensationalism but it's not going away and odds are that it will not change. It's the nature of the beast in our journalism. We can work on the bias a little more effectively, IMHO. Nope, look again. I pointed out a couple of items in your posts and I'm a smart-ass? Hell, I just had to repost your post to show you I wasn't misrepresenting anything as you alleged. You have made several posts commenting on the bias of the media and then state you 'don't really care' about bias. Excuse me, sir, but the facts point otherwise and I'm not a smart-ass for pointing them out. Discussion? Yes. Fight? No. So why are you pointing out that some conservatives' like FNC if there's no bias, for example. That's your prerogative, I suppose. Sarcasm rocks. Me, too. My opinion is generally devoid of names and 'misrepresentation' charge. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Matter on Aug 4, 2004 15:03:02 GMT -5
OK, I have to ask this: If there's no bias in the media..... ....how do you explain the difference in treatment by the media that Senator Lott received as opposed to Senator Byrd's far worse behavior? Discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Aug 14, 2004 0:37:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Aug 14, 2004 5:51:58 GMT -5
Why isn't the media asking questions about the accounts from Kerry's fellow veterans regarding his questionable service in Viet Nam? They didn't seem to have any problem dwelling on Bush's record.
|
|
|
|
Post by norb on Sept 19, 2004 23:27:24 GMT -5
It is my prediction that Dan Rather will resign from CBS news and work full time for the Kerry campaign. No more "beating around the bush" any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Sept 28, 2004 14:12:01 GMT -5
"The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth show the role of the individual in history. It wasn't Republican strategists who finished Kerry off two months before the election; it was the American people. The Swift Boat veterans came along and kicked Kerry in the shins and no matter how much heat they took, they were brave and wouldn't give up. ... CBS was forced to run a fake story so early in the campaign that it was exposed as a fraud -- only because of the Swift Boat vets. These brave men, many of them decorated war heroes, have now not only won the election for Bush, they have ended Dan Rather's career. It's often said that we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but that the war was lost at home by a seditious media demoralizing the American people. Ironically, the leader of that effort was Rather's predecessor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite, president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society. It was Cronkite who went on air and lied about the Tet offensive, claiming it was a defeat for the Americans. He told the American people the war was over and we had lost. Ronald Reagan said CBS News officials should have been tried for treason for those broadcasts. CBS has already lost one war for America. The Swift Boat Vets weren't going to let CBS lose another one." - Ann Coulter
|
|
Mike
German Shepard
Posts: 15
|
Post by Mike on Nov 23, 2004 21:12:05 GMT -5
TIME ran a story in August that refutes every charge the Swifties made. I read it sitting in the doctor's office this afternoon. I hope no one replies that well, it's TIME, so you can't believe it. That kind of argument is called genetic fallacy: a thing is true or false depending upon who says it.
No, a statement is either true or false, period, regardless of who says it.
If Bush had not butted in line in front of 500 other men to get into the Texas Air National Guard to escape service in Vietnam but had served there, the whole thing would have been a non-issue; no Swift Boat Veterans For Truth would have been formed -- there would have been no need. But Bush dodged the draft and Kerry served, so the Republicans had to do something. That something was to mitigate their draft-dodger president's record by destroying Kerry's. It was fascinating to watch: first it was "Kerry didn't earn his Purple Hearts." This progressed to "Kerry didn't earn his Bronze Star" and then "Kerry didn't earn his Silver Star." I don't think anyone fell for it, not even the strongest Bush supporter. It was all done to allow Bush supporters, who hate draft dodgers, to feel okay about their boy by trashing his opponent.
|
|
