[Winstonm]

Did you happen to know this past Saturday another terrorist attack rocked the world?

"Operatives of the Basque separatist organization ETA packed 800kg of explosives in a car bomb that ripped apart the parking lot of Barajas Madrid Airport, killing two and injuring twenty people."

I wonder why this attack caused no media reaction in the U.S.? Maybe because it didn't fit the profile of "Islamic Extremists"?

Of course, when London claimed baby formula could be made into a bomb and when an idiot in the U.S. tried to smoke his shoe on an airplane, it was world-shattering news reported by all the major networks. And of course, who can forget the horrid threat of the six "praying Imans" thrown off the plane for scaring passengers by exercising their freedom of religion?

But when a real bomb goes off at a real airport, delivered by real terrorists we hear not a peep - not from the Media and certainly not from Bush. To quote Arsenio Hall: It's one of those things that makes you go....hmmmmm.

Perhaps we could get the SPCTA to invade Spain for us - we could thwart the terrorists and stop the bull run all at the same time. Or is it Bush's
"global war on terror" that is just a bunch of bull?

[pbleighton]

You can't expect Bush to read the papers. How would he know?

Peter

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Jan 4 2007, 10:35 PM, said:

You can't expect Bush to read the papers.  How would he know?

Peter

I don't think it made the papers here - and Pravda -er, Fox, - surely didn't report it.

Besides, I don't think there is a lot of oil reserve in Spain.

[luke warm]

Quote

I don't think it made the papers here - and Pravda -er, Fox, - surely didn't report it.

who did report it here? also, i'll repeat a challenge i've made before: show me an example of biased reporting by the anchor of fox news, sheppard smith, in his role as anchor...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 6 2007, 02:54 AM, said:

Quote

I don't think it made the papers here - and Pravda -er, Fox, - surely didn't report it.

who did report it here? also, i'll repeat a challenge i've made before: show me an example of biased reporting by the anchor of fox news, sheppard smith, in his role as anchor...

Any particular reason why you are restricting this challenge to "Sheppard Smith, in his role as anchor"? There have been a number of well publised discussion about systemic bias at FOX news.

Many of these discussions focus on "Internal memos". Quoting from the Wikipedia

Photocopied memos from Fox News executive John Moody instructed the network's on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area. Such memos were reproduced for the anti-FOX News film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, which included Moody quotes such as, "[T]he soldiers [seen on FOX in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as 'sharpshooters,' not 'snipers,' which carries a negative connotation."

The best known example is probably the memo that the "Huffington Post" published the day after the elections. The discussion surrounding this memo is pretty well documented. There is a decent summary available at

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/11/15/live_d...x_news_memo.php

Unfortunately, the anchor involved in this little incident was Martha MacCallum, not Shepard Smith so it doesn't meet the terms of your challenge.

In a similar fashion, a lot the allegations of bias have to do with the use for banners and graphics rather than specific statements by the individual anchors. For example, check out the following banner that was displayed yesterday when Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker



Do graphics that run during Shepard Smith's broadcast conform to the rules of this "challenge"? (Yes I know that this is Hannity and Colmes, not Shepard)

The Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup of alleged bias at Fox. You can read the complete artical here: http://en.wikipedia....l_controversies

I'm glad to see that the Wikipedia covered the following poll from back in 2003 (I was trying to find this while drafting this reply)

"A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes,[9] in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions [10] :

* 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS

* 33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)

* 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)"

The Wikipedia article is careful to note that correlation doesn't not necessarily imply causation. We can't necessarily conclude that watching Fox News makes you less well informed. Its entirely possible that stupid people prefer Fox News.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Its also possible that stupid people prefer Fox News.

Nah, that can't be it - I don't like Fox News.

P.S. Thanks for the rebuttal - I actually thought it common knowledge that Fox News defended and regurgitated "official" doctirne; however, that banner you found shows not only are they slanted to the right but only a step above Jerry Springer and The National Inquirer as sensationalists.

And I apologize for comparing Fox News to Pravda - I meant to say Tass.

[luke warm]

richard said:

Any particular reason why you are restricting this challenge to "Sheppard Smith, in his role as anchor"? There have been a number of well publised discussion about systemic bias at FOX news.

because the other shows are usually political in nature, not news casts... i'm comparing smith's show to the evening news on cbs, nbc, abc, cnn, msnbc, etc... only one anchor for each, one time a day... that seems fair to me...

i would not take russert's show on sunday and use it as an example of unbiased news journalism, because it isn't... in the same way, i wouldn't take hannity and combs' show and use it either... that's why i use only the shows i do, because those shows are the ones *purporting* to be unbiased... let one view each objectively and arrive at his own conclusions...

Quote

Its entirely possible that stupid people prefer Fox News.

of course stupidity is relative... if you mean that people stupider than you prefer fox news, well hell richard that goes without saying - eh? you've argued on many occasions, and rather convincingly i might add, that those who disagree with you are lacking in intelligence or are otherwise unable to reason properly - perhaps as a result of inbreeding or some other genetic cause...

winston said:

.S. Thanks for the rebuttal - I actually thought it common knowledge that Fox News defended and regugitated "official" doctirne; however, that banner you found shows not only are they slanted to the right but only a step above Jerry Springer and The National Inquirer as sensationalists.

no it doesn't, winston... that banner has absolutely noting to do with fox news (even had it appeared during smith's evening news broadcast, which it didn't)... we are shown that banner without any context at all... also, my post concerns the evening news with sheppard smith... it's my contention that he is the *least* biased of the anchors, but if you've heard or know differently please post it.. you're the one who compared them to pravda and tass, the burden is on you

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 6 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

Quote

Its entirely possible that stupid people prefer Fox News.

of course stupidity is relative... if you mean that people stupider than you prefer fox news, well hell richard that goes without saying - eh?

Sorry: I should have used the more politically correct expression "Factually Challenged"

Feel better now?

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jan 6 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

Sorry: I should have used the more politically correct expression "Factually Challenged"

Feel better now?

no, it's too late... my feelings are hurt and my lawyers will be in touch... i will insist that you undergo sensitivity training, the extent to be determined by how much you can afford after my lawsuit

[pclayton]

Look; lets just admit that Fox News and the NY Times represent the right and left in news reporting. Two years ago I'd add the LA Times, but they have moderated a little.

Both add / omit facts to support their own agenda. They also (the NYT especially) prioritize coverage to the same aim.

[Winstonm]

Quote

no it doesn't, winston... that banner has absolutely noting to do with fox news (even had it appeared during smith's evening news broadcast, which it didn't)... we are shown that banner without any context at all... also, my post concerns the evening news with sheppard smith... it's my contention that he is the *least* biased of the anchors, but if you've heard or know differently please post it.. you're the one who compared them to pravda and tass, the burden is on you

Jimmy, you are correct, and it is probably my entire fault for starting this debate on the wrong foot by saying Fox "News", rather than Fox Network. It is the shows such as O'Reilly factor, et al, of which I speak - I should have said that The O'Reilly Factor and shows of that ilk remind me of Tass.

[Winstonm]

pclayton, on Jan 6 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

Look; lets just admit that Fox News and the NY Times represent the right and left in news reporting. Two years ago I'd add the LA Times, but they have moderated a little.

Both add / omit facts to support their own agenda. They also (the NYT especially) prioritize coverage to the same aim.

Correct and sensible comments IMHO. The only addition, which I pointed out to Jimmy, is that the Fox Network does more than slant, IMO.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Jan 6 2007, 08:17 PM, said:

Look; lets just admit that Fox News and the NY Times represent the right and left in news reporting. Two years ago I'd add the LA Times, but they have moderated a little.

Both add / omit facts to support their own agenda. They also (the NYT especially) prioritize coverage to the same aim.

As Stephen Colbert famously said: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"...

From my own perspective, Fox News is definitely slant to the Right, as is the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal. I think that the WSJ news department is actually quite good. The New York Times is certainly further to the "left" than either of these news outlets, however, I think that they are still quite centrist in nature. In order to find a real "leftist" news organization you'd probably have to look to magazines like The American Prospect.

Potentially, the most interesting way to chararacterize individuals news organizations would be to watch how the different partisan fringe groups view different organizations. For example, I spend quite a lot time on sites like the Daily Kos that definitely have a left wing slant. While the NYT is certainly held in higher regard than Fox News, there are an awful lot of attacks launched against the Times for its support of the Iraq War. The Times gave an awful lot of space to Judith Miller who was little more than a cheerleader for the administration. The Editorial Board came out in favor of the invasion. Here's a famous editorial from September 18th, 2002.

"What really counts in this conflict...is the destruction of Iraq's unconventional weapons and the dismantling of its program to develop nuclear arms.... What makes Iraq the subject of intense concern, as Mr. Bush noted, is Mr. Hussein's defiance of the Security Council's longstanding instructions to dismantle Baghdad's nuclear weapons program and to eliminate all its biological and chemical weapons and the materials used to make them."

Heres another for November 9th that same year:

"The unwavering goal is to disarm Iraq, enforcing a string of previous Security Council resolutions that Baghdad has contemptuously ignored. The cost of letting that happen has been diminished authority for the United Nations and a growing danger that Iraq's unconventional weapons will be used in war or passed on to terrorists. Mr. Bush has galvanized the Security Council to declare that its orders must now be obeyed and those dangers eliminated."

There were a LOT of folks on the left who were strongly opposed to the Iraq war. The NYT was hardly speaking for us.

[Winstonm]

I notice in the quotes what appear to be reasonable and justifiable reasons to disarm Suddam Hussein - chemical weapons, biological threats, nuclear arms - all proven to be total fabrications.

I think many from reading my posts would place me in the liberal category, but that is not always the case - I place myself in the realist category, hopefully understanding that total and complete support for either liberal or conservative ideology leads to abuse.

I initially supported the invasion, believing - as did many liberals as the quotes show - that the immediacy of the threats were real, that al-Qaeda was in bed with Iraq and that we had to defend this threat of biological weapons, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons in terrorists' hands - what a crock.

I was taken in by a master fabricator - as were most. You have to go back in your mind to that time, 9-11 and shortly thereafter to remember clearly the emotions felt. How many remember the anthrax letters mailed to Leahy? We had the towers collapse, anthax in the mail, and a president saying "I know who is behind this and we'd better stop him before something worse happens."

Well, we now know it was all lies - Iraq had no chemical weapons stockpile, no biological threat, no nuclear capabilities, and the anthrax sent was military grade and thus had to come from inside the U.S.

It is not the right or left slant that bothers me the most - it is the total lack of any of the 4th estate stepping up and saying, "Mr. President, here is what you told us and here is what we discovered to be the truth. Explain this discrepancy to our satisfaction or we will do our best to have you ridden out of town on a rail!"

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 6 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

Quote

no it doesn't, winston... that banner has absolutely noting to do with fox news (even had it appeared during smith's evening news broadcast, which it didn't)... we are shown that banner without any context at all... also, my post concerns the evening news with sheppard smith... it's my contention that he is the *least* biased of the anchors, but if you've heard or know differently please post it.. you're the one who compared them to pravda and tass, the burden is on you

Jimmy, you are correct, and it is probably my entire fault for starting this debate on the wrong foot by saying Fox "News", rather than Fox Network. It is the shows such as O'Reilly factor, et al, of which I speak - I should have said that The O'Reilly Factor and shows of that ilk remind me of Tass.

you're right, o'reilly is not balanced... but i'd like for you to examine whether or not the same thoughts (ie. fox network/tass) applies to cnn... if you don't feel the same concerning cnn, why don't you? is that network any less liberal than fox is conservative? would an objective examination determine that to be true?

people talk about murdoch (and probably rightly so), but what about turner?

[Winstonm]

Quote

you're right, o'reilly is not balanced... but i'd like for you to examine whether or not the same thoughts (ie. fox network/tass) applies to cnn... if you don't feel the same concerning cnn, why don't you? is that network any less liberal than fox is conservative? would an objective examination determine that to be true?

people talk about murdoch (and probably rightly so), but what about turner?

Good point, Jimmy, and yes, I used to think CNN had a liberal bias - that was back when I watched news on T.V. At this point, although I've seen a bit of O'Reilly (enough to turn me off of it) and older CNN, I frankly used alternative news sources - and even then I try to figure out the slant so I can determine for myself how accurate the reports.

However, even then I think there is substantial difference between "slant" and promoting an ideology - Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly really come to mind here, as they both promote conservative ideas as the only genuine ideas and castigate anyone and any idea not in keeping with that mantra. Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I don't remember ever seeing anything like this in the more liberal media. Of course, a lot to do with ownership, Robert Murdoch being the king of sleeze that he is.....

I only wonder what happened to intelligent discourse, listening openly to opposing views and even ackowledging those aspects that are right. Now, all we get is a bunch of sreaming and screeching promoting a single viewpoint - maybe only because that is the only way to keep the audience tuned in? Is our society really so shallow?

[pclayton]

Well you have Al Frankel to balance things out, right ? I think Maher is left, but tries real hard to come off as balanced, and I actually enjoy his show.

O'Reilly isn't as right wing as you think, Winston. Better to use Hannity (an idiot) or Limbaugh (a doofus) who are mouthpieces for GW. O'Reilly really tried to be balanced when one of the big 3 anchor jobs (ABC, right?) was up after Rather (I think) left.

[Winstonm]

pclayton, on Jan 6 2007, 03:29 PM, said:

Well you have Al Frankel to balance things out, right ? I think Maher is left, but tries real hard to come off as balanced, and I actually enjoy his show.

O'Reilly isn't as right wing as you think, Winston. Better to use Hannity (an idiot) or Limbaugh (a doofus) who are mouthpieces for GW. O'Reilly really tried to be balanced when one of the big 3 anchor jobs (ABC, right?) was up after Rather (I think) left.

I confess to being somewhat ignorant on these points having only seen bits and pieces here and there - I am no fan of Al Franken, either. Acutally, the only person I have seen on T.V. that to me shows any common sense and an ability to see both sides of an issue - or at least speak intelligently that way - is George Stephanapolous. But even there the viewing is limited so I may have not seen enough to even judge that. Of course, the viewing grew limited after hearing the same old crap time and again from people like Limbaugh and Pat whatshisname.

Maher is another good example - I had not remembered him - I never watched his show much, either, as I didn't care for his arrogance.

Basically, I am of the mindset that no one agenda can possibly be 100% right about all problems, and that is what you seem to get with today's slants - all or nothing - you are either with us or with the terrorists kind of thinking.

Fact is, IMO, the conservatives are right about some things and the liberals are right about some things but neither is right much more than 10% of the time. Pure capitalism is just as evil and maybe more so than pure communism - it is when extremes are reached either way that the horrors arise.

[pbleighton]

"Fact is, IMO, the conservatives are right about some things and the liberals are right about some things but neither is right much more than 10% of the time. Pure capitalism is just as evil and maybe more so than pure communism - it is when extremes are reached either way that the horrors arise. "

Winston, you wouldn't be swallowing some right-wing BS, would you

I know a lot of liberals (including the guy who looks at me in the mirror every morning), but no communists. You apparent equation of the two, if that is what you meant, is literally nonsense.

Peter

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Jan 6 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

"Fact is, IMO, the conservatives are right about some things and the liberals are right about some things but neither is right much more than 10% of the time. Pure capitalism is just as evil and maybe more so than pure communism - it is when extremes are reached either way that the horrors arise. "

Winston, you wouldn't be swallowing some right-wing BS, would you 

I know a lot of liberals (including the guy who looks at me in the mirror every morning), but no communists.  You apparent equation of the two, if that is what you meant, is literally nonsense.

Peter

No, Peter, not at all. I was trying to comment on extremism, pehaps poorly.

Perhaps I should have explained. As far as conservatism goes, I believe it is accurate that private enterprise is more effecient and cost effective than governments - yet, at the same time pure lassez faire capitalism is nothing less than "law of the jungle", and must be avoided at all costs - unless your goal is to polarize the populace of the world into rich and dirt poor. In certain social causes it is imperative that the government, instead of private enterprise, run the show, and it is necessary to have governmental restrictions on some enterprises to protect against the natural greed inherent in human nature.

What I am saying is - there IS no simple answer.

Communism, in its purest sense, may be an ideal way to govern - I'm not sure - but it does not matter if it is Communism, Capitalism, or Socialism, when taken to extremes they become one in the same - abusive power thrones. So I am saying there is little difference between unbridled communism and unbridled capitalism in the extent of the evil produced.

To me, liberalism tends to socialist ideals, and I see a lot of social good in those ideals - but not to the extreme; likewise, conservatism to me tends toward capitalism, and there is no doubt capitalism increases productivity and is an efficient means, but it leaves out the "people" factor.

So of the two ideals, I tend toward the liberal but accept there is some good in the conservative and the best we can hope for is a compromised middle ground that does not lean too far either way.