[Winstonm]

Quote

Today on Fox News’s Your World With Neil Cavuto, National Review Online columnist Jerry Bowyer attacked Michael Moore’s movie SiCKO and its positive portrayal of the health care in countries such as Britain and France. He argued that national health care systems are breeding grounds for terrorists because they are “bureaucratic.”

Transcript:

A state run health care enterprise is bureaucratic, and I think the terrorists have shown over and over again, whether it’s dealing with INS or whether it’s dealing with airport security, they’re very good at gaming the system with bureaucracies. They’re very good at getting around bureaucracies.

And if one of your guys is a jihadist, if one of your doctors is spending all the time online reading Osama bin Laden fatwas, someone’s going to notice that. But the National Health Serfvice is more like the post office, you know there’s a lot of anonymity, it’s easy to hide in the bureaucracy.

So, does this mean we should abolish the post office, as well....hmmm...how about the IRS....they are bureaucratic, aren't they....Gee, judge, how could I send in my taxes when there might have been a jihadist stealing my tax payment...

[kenrexford]

A few years ago, I used to watch the news a lot. I rarely do any more.

There are three groups of people in the United States. There are the Democrats, who say the most absurdly ridiculous things I've ever heard. There are the Republicans, who say the most absurdly ridiculous things I've ever heard. Then, there are the rest of us, who are cowering at home watching movies. I'm simplifying ridiculously, I know.

It has always been that way, to a degree. However, it seems more so of late. I'm thinking more and more about my completely irrelevant voting block of one and looking around at the idiots on the street, and I just hope Bacon Double Chesseburgers are still available for another week at McDonalds, because it tasted pretty good earlier.

[Winstonm]

This, from Onion.com seems appropriate:

Quote

PRINCETON, NJ–According to the latest Gallup Poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday of this week, nearly three out of four Americans can no longer believe this *****.

In addition to the 73 percent of poll respondents who described this ***** as "beyond belief," 9 percent said they could "hardly" believe this *****, with another 5 percent "just barely" believing it. An additional 13 percent said they "couldn't give a flying ***** about the whole ***** thing."

The poll also found that the National *****-Credulity Index (NSCI) has hit an all-time low, with only 2 percent of Americans describing themselves as "fully confident of [their] capacity to believe this *****."

"The American people have had to deal with this kind of ***** for years," Gallup Organization president Lee Sanderson said, "but now, for the first time, it appears that the vast majority of them just can't fucking believe it anymore."

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jul 6 2007, 10:36 PM, said:

This, from Onion.com seems appropriate:

Quote

PRINCETON, NJ–According to the latest Gallup Poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday of this week, nearly three out of four Americans can no longer believe this *****.

In addition to the 73 percent of poll respondents who described this ***** as "beyond belief," 9 percent said they could "hardly" believe this *****, with another 5 percent "just barely" believing it. An additional 13 percent said they "couldn't give a flying ***** about the whole ***** thing."

The poll also found that the National *****-Credulity Index (NSCI) has hit an all-time low, with only 2 percent of Americans describing themselves as "fully confident of [their] capacity to believe this *****."

"The American people have had to deal with this kind of ***** for years," Gallup Organization president Lee Sanderson said, "but now, for the first time, it appears that the vast majority of them just can't fucking believe it anymore."

your science stats are too low way too.....I would double them at least.

I asked this sort of question in my mba class. I got zero ...zero answers who objected that the sun went around the earth. They either did not know or choose to be silent.

I get close to this response over the decades..not years but decades!

add on where is kansas?
where is UK?
when was usa civil war? wwI..wwII, who fought in the usa civil war...revolution war, etc etc.....
etc etc etc


Lets back up....scooter libby..hahhahaha
just try and name who is vp? no one knows any of this stuff.

[helene_t]

To which Orwelian branch of power does Fox News belong? The Ministry of Truth? Doesn't seems likely, the MoT specialices in stories that might have been true if just the history books were different. This story is too absurd to believe no matter what delusionist history books one has been exposed to.

In any case it must be a branch of government. No such private organization could survive in a market in which only 2% of citizens believe in its *****.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jul 7 2007, 03:15 AM, said:

To which Orwelian branch of power does Fox News belong? The Ministry of Truth? Doesn't seems likely, the MoT specialices in stories that might have been true if just the history books were different.

In any case it must be a branch of government. No such private organization could survive in a market in which only 2% of citizens believe in its *****.

helene, the quoted tv show was not THE fox news and it wasn't hosted by the fox news anchor, it was an editorial program that falls under the 'fox news' umbrella and was hosted by a man known for his political leanings... there is only one 'fox news' (at least there's only one that's equivalent to the cbs/abc/nbc newscasts), and that's shep smith's nightly broadcast

i asked several times for examples of smith's reporting bias during his newscast and nobody posted one... it would be hard for you to verify this on your own, i think smith's show comes on about midnight in your time zone... i occasionally watch the news, and occasionally watch each network.. i've never seen smith do anything but report the news, i've not seen him editorialize it... of course i could have missed something

[helene_t]

OK, sorry, so Jerry Bowyer was just expressing his personal opinion or maybe that of National Review Online, not that of Fox?

[Al_U_Card]

The NWO (nobody will object) has gotten so used to saying whatever the hell they please that it has gone beyond the absurd and is soon to reach criminal heights...

[Winstonm]

Quote

helene, the quoted tv show was not THE fox news and it wasn't hosted by the fox news anchor

Totally correct. The source of the quote was Jerry Bowyer of National Review Online, who as far as I know is not associated with Fox news.

[han]

Yeah, it is purely coincidental that Fox News is involved with this *****.

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Jul 7 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

Yeah, it is purely coincidental that Fox News is involved with this *****.

For anyone who cares, you can get a video link of the Fox News cast at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMu6wCqdeyQ...tsmemo%2Ecom%2F

There is some background information available about Jerry Bowyer at

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2003/02/outing-b...-calpundit.html

In a shocking development, he's yet another cog in Scaife financed noise machine...

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Jul 7 2007, 10:21 AM, said:

Yeah, it is purely coincidental that Fox News is involved with this *****.

han, when discussing things like this it's better (if possible) to view things objectively... do you think it would be wrong of me to say "the fact that CNN is involved in this ***** is coincidental" if the comments were liberal in nature? don't pretend that the other networks don't have ideologies also... anyone who has viewed network tv can easily find viewpoints on either side

helene said:

OK, sorry, so Jerry Bowyer was just expressing his personal opinion or maybe that of National Review Online, not that of Fox?

yes, although it's true that the host of the program has let his conservative leanings leak through, on occasion... my only point was that there's a difference, or should be, between larry king's show and the CNN evening news... or between 'meet the press' and the NBC evening news... when a station's anchors editorialize, during the broadcast, i believe they can and should be criticized for it... their job is to report a story, not tell us what we should think about a story.. and from what i've seen, fox's nightly news reports with less editorializing than other networks... but as i've said, i rarely watch any of the major networks

hrothgar said:

For anyone who cares, you can get a video link of the Fox News cast at
http://www.youtube.c...tsmemo%2Ecom%2F

again, this wasn't the fox news program that i'm talking about... that's like blaming the CBS evening news for something said by 60 minutes

[Winstonm]

The absurdity of the statement should stand on its own lack of merit, regardless of which network aired the show.

For anyone interested, "Outfoxed" is a claimed documentary with a rather harsh look at Fox News - I do not claim it to be unbiased. An internet search should provide a free source to this piece.

[han]

luke warm, on Jul 7 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

Hannie, on Jul 7 2007, 10:21 AM, said:

Yeah, it is purely coincidental that Fox News is involved with this *****.

han, when discussing things like this it's better (if possible) to view things objectively... do you think it would be wrong of me to say "the fact that CNN is involved in this ***** is coincidental" if the comments were liberal in nature? don't pretend that the other networks don't have ideologies also... anyone who has viewed network tv can easily find viewpoints on either side

I thought my comment was funny. I also think that news networks should be as objective as possible but I understand that often cannot be expected. But if a network is idealistic and their methods of broadcasting news are as repulsive as those of Fox News then I have no problem making easy jokes on their expense.

All of this is my opinion. I don't care if you think that I can't see things objectively. I don't think that you can view anything objectively, and the fact that you try to use proper form in your posts has nothing to do with that. In my opinion.

I don't think it would be wrong of you to state your opinion on almost anything. If you manage to be funny at the same time, even better, although it is always tough to appreciate humor if the punchline goes against ones believes.

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Jul 8 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 7 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

Hannie, on Jul 7 2007, 10:21 AM, said:

Yeah, it is purely coincidental that Fox News is involved with this *****.

han, when discussing things like this it's better (if possible) to view things objectively... do you think it would be wrong of me to say "the fact that CNN is involved in this ***** is coincidental" if the comments were liberal in nature? don't pretend that the other networks don't have ideologies also... anyone who has viewed network tv can easily find viewpoints on either side

I thought my comment was funny. I also think that news networks should be as objective as possible but I understand that often cannot be expected. But if a network is idealistic and their methods of broadcasting news are as repulsive as those of Fox News then I have no problem making easy jokes on their expense.

i don't think it's too much to ask for the nightly newscasts, from any and all major networks, to be objective... i think the lack of objectivity is the reason so few are getting their news from these broadcasts, relative to the past... katie couric is a good example of an obvious bias leading to dismal results (imo)... by the way, just so i can understand the criteria you use to base your opinion, can you give me an example of "... methods of broadcasting news ... as repulsive as those of Fox News... " from the fox nightly news? i ask because i think you might be confusing other programs with that particular one, much like i could possibly confuse 60 minutes with katie couric... or maybe it's possible that both you and i confuse a network's overall bias with that contained, or not contained, in its nightly newscast... of course if you were just being funny again, never mind

Quote

All of this is my opinion. I don't care if you think that I can't see things objectively. I don't think that you can view anything objectively, and the fact that you try to use proper form in your posts has nothing to do with that. In my opinion.

i agree it's difficult or impossible to view things objectively.. i don't agree that it's difficult to discuss things objectively and i don't know why you hold the view that it is

Quote

I don't think it would be wrong of you to state your opinion on almost anything. If you manage to be funny at the same time, even better, although it is always tough to appreciate humor if the punchline goes against ones believes.

it's tough to appreciate humor, or sometimes to even recognize it, given the medium...

winston said:

The absurdity of the statement should stand on its own lack of merit, regardless of which network aired the show.

true, i was just objecting to the impression that this was news and was reported as such on *any* nightly news program

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 9 2007, 12:24 AM, said:

by the way, just so i can understand the criteria you use to base your opinion, can you give me an example of "... methods of broadcasting news ... as repulsive as those of Fox News... " from the fox nightly news?

Tass and Pravada would be a good start

[mikeh]

Part of the problem with Fox is that they broadcast so many 'editorial' type programmes, in which the bias is always outrageously right wing. There is no pretence at being 'fair and balanced'. Even if one concedes that the actual 'news' reporting is relatively unbiased, it is immersed in or surrounded by a whole lot of right-wing (and often factually challenged) spin that the 'objective' message is coloured by the surrounding bias.

Let's say I watch a news item about the congressman who was booted for gay-erotic text messages with his page... factually presented.. and then one of the editorial hosts goes on the air and describes this congressman as a Democrat....when he was a Republican.

Actually, if I understand the story correctly, the 'error' in calling him a Democrat was made in an actual news program, but the point stands.

BTW, anyone who thinks CNN is guilty of a liberal bias has to be so far to the right of the political spectrum that any area close to the centre looks extremely left wing!

When the US invaded Iraq, we in Canada could get coverage from a number of sources, including sources unavailable to most Americans.

We got the usual propoganda from Fox and from CNN and the regular networks, but we also got Canadian News and, most importantly, BBC news.

Canadian news was handicapped by a couple of factors: limited budget, in terms of war reporting, and neutrality in that Canada, for once, resisted US pressure/bribery and stayed out.

But BBC has money and the UK was part of the Alliance of the Willing.

The quality of BBC news was remarkable, compared to the sycophantic grovelling of the US media [..... the hold that 'patriotism' has on the American psyche is sickening to watch... altho I am sure that to the brainwashed Americans it seems not only normal but self-evidently correct..... but that brainwashing is an entirely different matter..... as is the comparison between conditioning children to recite the pledge of allegiance every school day and asking God to help one's high school/college team win sporting events on the one hand and having children recite the Koran in Isalmist fundamentalist schools in the other].

I liken the experience of watching BBC and then CNN or Fox to reading the Economist and then reading Time or Newsweek. Outwardly similar in aim... worlds apart in integrity and depth of analysis.

And, btw, I am, by Canadian and (I suspect) European standards, right wing fiscally and left wing socially... I believe in the market (with some safeguards) and I believe in personal freedoms, so I am not some socialist apologist.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 8 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 9 2007, 12:24 AM, said:

by the way, just so i can understand the criteria you use to base your opinion, can you give me an example of "... methods of broadcasting news ... as repulsive as those of Fox News... " from the fox nightly news?

Tass and Pravada would be a good start

i've still not seen an example of any type of bias by the fox evening news anchor(s)... i understand disliking a network because it's owner has a political agenda, ie. ted turner, but unless that agenda carries over to the network's flagship news broadcast it doesn't count

mikeh said:

Part of the problem with Fox is that they broadcast so many 'editorial' type programmes, in which the bias is always outrageously right wing. There is no pretence at being 'fair and balanced'. Even if one concedes that the actual 'news' reporting is relatively unbiased, it is immersed in or surrounded by a whole lot of right-wing (and often factually challenged) spin that the 'objective' message is coloured by the surrounding bias.

i agree with you that many of the programs on fox are conservatively biased... do you agree that cbs, nbc, abc, and/or cnn are "...immersed in or surrounded by a whole lot of.." left-wing (and often factually challenged) spin? i also agree that the "actual 'news'" of fox's anchor show is relatively unbiased... can the same be said of, for example, katie couric?

Quote

And, btw, I am, by Canadian and (I suspect) European standards, right wing fiscally and left wing socially... I believe in the market (with some safeguards) and I believe in personal freedoms, so I am not some socialist apologist.

i'm mostly the same as you, though probably a tad more conservative fiscally and a tad less liberal socially... i doubt the degree to which we'd differ on most things would cause either of us to stone the other

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jul 9 2007, 07:23 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 8 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 9 2007, 12:24 AM, said:

by the way, just so i can understand the criteria you use to base your opinion, can you give me an example of "... methods of broadcasting news ... as repulsive as those of Fox News... " from the fox nightly news?

Tass and Pravada would be a good start

i've still not seen an example of any type of bias by the fox evening news anchor(s)... i understand disliking a network because it's owner has a political agenda, ie. ted turner, but unless that agenda carries over to the network's flagship news broadcast it doesn't count

mikeh said:

Part of the problem with Fox is that they broadcast so many 'editorial' type programmes, in which the bias is always outrageously right wing. There is no pretence at being 'fair and balanced'. Even if one concedes that the actual 'news' reporting is relatively unbiased, it is immersed in or surrounded by a whole lot of right-wing (and often factually challenged) spin that the 'objective' message is coloured by the surrounding bias.

i agree with you that many of the programs on fox are conservatively biased... do you agree that cbs, nbc, abc, and/or cnn are "...immersed in or surrounded by a whole lot of.." left-wing (and often factually challenged) spin? i also agree that the "actual 'news'" of fox's anchor show is relatively unbiased... can the same be said of, for example, katie couric?

Quote

And, btw, I am, by Canadian and (I suspect) European standards, right wing fiscally and left wing socially... I believe in the market (with some safeguards) and I believe in personal freedoms, so I am not some socialist apologist.

i'm mostly the same as you, though probably a tad more conservative fiscally and a tad less liberal socially... i doubt the degree to which we'd differ on most things would cause either of us to stone the other

I would frankly be astounded if we agreed on many social and political matters, based on your posts here...maybe, to some extent, fiscal matters, but not social.

For example, while I no longer watch a lot of US news, I have watched a lot of CNN, a fair bit of 60 minutes and the copycat versions other networks broadcast. While I agree that 60 minutes sometimes goes overboard with what seems to be distorted facts (based on other reading I have done), I find the idea that the non-Fox media is leftwing to be risible. Maybe left wing by US standards, but almost all of the stuff I see masquerading as news/editorial is right-of-centre by the standards of the industrialized democracies... NPR broadcasting is one notable exception, where they actually do conduct real interviews on occasion, rather than uncritical pandering to whoever is being 'interviewed'... and, btw, 60 Minutes, for all its faults does actually ask tough questions sometimes....

The only truly left of centre 'news' seems to come from the Comedy Network

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 10 2007, 03:23 AM, said:

i've still not seen an example of any type of bias by the fox evening news anchor(s)... i understand disliking a network because it's owner has a political agenda, ie. ted turner, but unless that agenda carries over to the network's flagship news broadcast it doesn't count

1. My understanding is that Fox News runs the little moving New bars at the base of the screen during the evening anchor's shows.

2. Not all of Fox New's bias is strictly conservative. Fox example, many people claim that Murdoch has a very noticeable bias in favor of China. The man is spending an awful lot of money and effort trying to penetrate the Chinese market and has shaped FOX's news coverage accordingly.

3. I don't think that there is any comparison between Fox and more mainstream New sources like CNN or the NYT. For example, people are constantly claiming that the NYT has a liberal bias, however, I think that a very strong argument can be made that the Times has been slanting its reporting in favor of military intervention in Iraq. I don't think that most of the folks who are complaining about the "liberal" media would recognize a genuinely liberal / progressive article as opposed to the centrist pieces that the Times and the Washington Post publish.

For what its worth, the following Blog is interesting reading
http://www.salon.com...nion/greenwald/

I recommend the article entitled "The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times"