Funny how you can't be honest--ever! No, pommy isn't lying about Kerry. Kerry slandered the men who in Vietnam and that is why most of them despise him. There is nothing "inconclusive" about Kerry's false claim about being in Cambodia under "President" Nixon. He wasn't in Cambodia--his commander and the other men in his unit confirmed that fact--and Nixon was not yet President.
Bill O'Reilly
- Thread starter m_huber
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bill o'reilly
Funny how you can't be honest--ever! No, pommy isn't lying about Kerry. Kerry slandered the men who in Vietnam and that is why most of them despise him. There is nothing "inconclusive" about Kerry's false claim about being in Cambodia under "President" Nixon. He wasn't in Cambodia--his commander and the other men in his unit confirmed that fact--and Nixon was not yet President.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Okay, here is a list of Fox News shows:
- FOX & Friends
- Studio B
- Your World
- Big Story
- Special Report
- Fox Report
- FOX News Watch
- O'Reilly Factor
- Hannity & Colmes
- On the Record
- Fox Fan
- Red Eye
- America's Newsroom
- America's Pulse
- Happening Now
- Live Desk
- Cost of Freedom
- The Beltway Boys
- Weekend Live
- Geraldo At Large
- The Journal Editorial Report
What about Bill O'Reilly? Does he proclaim objectivity?
Are you sure?
Evidence?
Some people payed more attention than others two and a half years ago. story story
Mm-hmm.
What pundits are you referring to?
Exactly how have they strained to engineer an American defeat in the Middle East?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I'm not posting links for my health. Try reading them.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Sorry.
I don't watch every show on the Fox News channel, nor do I watch most shows on Fox, nor do I watch one-quarter of the shows on Fox. I know that Fox has never engaged in the blatant, unethical, partisan cheerleading that characterizes the major networks. I pointed out that CBS violated professional ethics by commissioning a partisan hit piece to help the Democratic candidate. The perpetrators were the producer and the news anchor. You responded with irrelevancies about the conservative half of a debate team and a self-styled "commentator."
Yes, you may recall that I complained about his irritating habit of feigning "independence." Again, you have no point; O'Reilly is not a news anchor.
Reading your own links would be a good idea. The Boston Globe article, cited by Snopes, raises questions that you are reluctant to deal with.
Oh, I guess that would include everyone in the news divisions of the three major networks. Maybe Katie Couric is neutral, huh?
How does acting stupid help your cause? The extreme leftists I mentioned work for an American defeat by making bogus documentaries, writing screeds that contain repetitive rants about "imperialism," giving speeches in the lands of our enemies denouncing the U.S., etc. But, you already knew that.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Sorry again, Lonewolf.
pomeroo, you're letting your own partisanship cloud your rational thought. You are making conclusions that don't follow from what precedes them. You are jumping to conclusions based on your biases.
If you don't even watch one-quarter of the shows on Fox News, how can you possibly know that Fox News has never engaged in "partisan cheerleading"?
So, you're saying that everyone in the news divisions of the three major networks are pundits and you know that I like all of them?
And how does that engineer defeat for the the US in the Middle East?
pomeroo, you're letting your own partisanship cloud your rational thought. You are making conclusions that don't follow from what precedes them. You are jumping to conclusions based on your biases.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Wow, no matter how bad I think things are in the corporate media propaganda machine, I continue to find out something else bad I hadn't previously known.
Last edited:
This is a joke, right? You take a piece from "The Nation" that contains the most outrageously inaccurate spin imaginable and pretend that I'm forgetting something.
Two consortia of newsgathering organizations conducted independent recounts and concluded that Bush--not Gore--would have won Florida. In fact, Bush won Florida closely but decisively (by 25-30 thousand votes). The three major networks kept insisting that polls in the heavily-Republican Panhandle region had closed when they actually had another hour to go. A Republican study estimated that media's "error" cost Bush a net of 15-20 thousand votes. A Democratic study conducted by Bob Beckel estimated Bush's net loss at only 7-10 thousand. Democratic vote fraud in Palm Beach County cost Bush another 10-15 thousand votes. It's truly comical to hear brazen thieves whine that they didn't steal quite enough votes to put their man over the top.
One thing that Michael Moore and the joker writing for The Nation never get around to explaining is how declaring a winner changes any votes, all of them having been cast. What if every network declared Ralph Nader the winner of Florida. Would that have given him the state's electoral vote. Surely there must be a point to this mad allegation, but what can it be? Were the analysts at NBC (Tom Brokaw on Election Night 2000: "We have 267 electoral votes; we need four more.") influenced by John Ellis or did they independently conclude that Bush had won Florida?
What silly stuff!
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Rep. Mark Foley D-FL...
See, not only have you never read a real book, you don't even read worthless ones. This is the same fable Michael Moore peddled in Fahrenheit 911 (yes, I know it was a crock-umentary--there was a companion book).
Obviously an apology for the bizarre and totally false charge you levelled against me is completely beyond your limited capacity for civility. A minimal gesture would be to explain what the hell you were talking about? You dream that I reported you for something? Why would I bother?
I'm missing your point. Fox covered the Foley scandal extensively. Are you saying that they claimed he was a Democrat? You are wrong, of course. I can't guarantee that some nonentity writing the trailers didn't goof (one election night a major network labeled Chris Dodd, R-CT), but you're really reaching if you're trying to sell the line that Fox claimed that Foley was a Democrat.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
My sincere apologies to pomy. It was RandFan doing the post stalking. It would seem I have a few of the political attack dogs mixed up.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Last edited:
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Smith asked Laura Ingraham who she was voting for on the Republican side. Ingraham asked Smith if he really thought she would reveal that anymore than him. That's when he made the infamous quote "But we're conservative and on the Republican side"
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/12/05...e_conservative_and_on_the_republican_side.php
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
When did he make the "Nixon comment? You are aware that it was many years later, right? A simple mistake.
Does it not bother you at all that the Swifties quote mined Kerry's book and ignored the preceding ten pages of Kerry patrolling the Cambodian border?
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Where was the outrage by all these bastions of journalistic integrity when Walter Cronkite shockingly admitted to being a liberal?
By Evan Coyne Maloney
"Cronkite Admits: Media Liberal
27 August 2003
Stop the presses! Decades after retirement, Walter Cronkite can still break a major story. Saying he believes “most of us reporters are liberal,” Cronkite is admitting what many on the left have denied fervently for years: that there is a bias in the news media, and that it tips to the left noticeably.
Cronkite offers the flimsy excuse that “[t]he perceived liberalism of television reporters [...] is a product of the limited time given for any particular item.” Essentially, his argument is that bias stems from short segments: there isn’t enough time to be balanced. But if reporters can’t be fair in two minutes, why should we assume they’ll be fair with twice as much time? If a two-minute piece leans to the left, won’t a four-minute piece just lean twice as far? Or—at the very least—just as far for twice as long?
The man many consider the elder statesman of television news demonstrated evidence of the pathology of zero-sum pessimism that plagues the left, writing:
We are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism — that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased.
By saying that reporters are “inclined to side with the powerless,” Cronkite admits reporters have a worldview that makes them susceptible to the rhetoric of populist politicians. After all, if a reporter regards himself highly for siding with the powerless, then he’ll probably think similarly about politicians who say that they, too, are on the side of the powerless. Won’t the reporter then have a harder time maintaining objectivity when covering such politicians—or their opponents? (If so, this bias would tend to favor Democratic politicians, because they employ populist language more frequently.)
In Cronkite’s mind, our society is defined primarily in terms of a struggle between the classes: the powerful vs. the powerless, the haves vs. the have-nots. And, by choosing sides against the powerful, Cronkite is saying that they need to be fought, and implying that they are responsible for the plight of the powerless. In his world, if someone makes a dollar, someone else loses a dollar; the few exploit their way to riches while the many are exploited into varying degrees of poverty; people gain power only by seizing it from others.
But what if power is achieved not by wresting control, but by creating something? What if people generate wealth by growing the pie instead of stealing slices from somebody else? Cronkite’s view doesn’t consider that. Nor does it consider the possibility that the powerless had a hand in their fate.
Not all of the powerless got that way due to someone else’s malfeasance: many drug addicts or alcoholics living on the street have nobody to blame but themselves. Are such people truly powerless? Or are they just failing to exercise power over their own lives? Even if their sorry circumstances weren’t entirely self-inflicted, they can’t automatically claim victimhood at some sinister hands; bad luck may not be their fault, but it isn’t anyone else’s, either.
All of this is beside the point, anyway: isn’t the purpose of the news media to report the facts, not to side with anybody?
Cronkite closes with a clever trick:
Incidentally, I looked up the definition of “liberal” in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for “liberal” as “progressive,” “broad-minded,” “unprejudiced,” “beneficent.” The antonyms it offered: “reactionary” and “intolerant.”
Instead of offering the contemporary political definition (a person with liberal ideas or opinions), Cronkite selects words from a more general one. By doing so, he ignores the fact that definitions depend on context. I am a firm believer in democratic systems and liberal societies, for example, but I don’t often vote Democratic and I am not a liberal. Cronkite’s careful word choices allow him to characterize liberals positively while disparaging non-liberals at the same time, proving that he’s not above using intellectual chicanery to advance his viewpoint. That alone tells me that he probably wasn’t an entirely honest newsman.
For years, this man, once dubbed “the most trusted man in America,” signed off by saying “that’s the way it was,” as though reality itself was defined by the words he spoke. So, perhaps Cronkite was attempting to put the issue of media bias to rest by issuing a final decree of truth.
Sorry, Walt: now that there are infinitely more outlets than when you and two others called the shots, that’s not the way it is...anymore."
By Evan Coyne Maloney
"Cronkite Admits: Media Liberal
27 August 2003
Stop the presses! Decades after retirement, Walter Cronkite can still break a major story. Saying he believes “most of us reporters are liberal,” Cronkite is admitting what many on the left have denied fervently for years: that there is a bias in the news media, and that it tips to the left noticeably.
Cronkite offers the flimsy excuse that “[t]he perceived liberalism of television reporters [...] is a product of the limited time given for any particular item.” Essentially, his argument is that bias stems from short segments: there isn’t enough time to be balanced. But if reporters can’t be fair in two minutes, why should we assume they’ll be fair with twice as much time? If a two-minute piece leans to the left, won’t a four-minute piece just lean twice as far? Or—at the very least—just as far for twice as long?
The man many consider the elder statesman of television news demonstrated evidence of the pathology of zero-sum pessimism that plagues the left, writing:
We are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism — that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased.
By saying that reporters are “inclined to side with the powerless,” Cronkite admits reporters have a worldview that makes them susceptible to the rhetoric of populist politicians. After all, if a reporter regards himself highly for siding with the powerless, then he’ll probably think similarly about politicians who say that they, too, are on the side of the powerless. Won’t the reporter then have a harder time maintaining objectivity when covering such politicians—or their opponents? (If so, this bias would tend to favor Democratic politicians, because they employ populist language more frequently.)
In Cronkite’s mind, our society is defined primarily in terms of a struggle between the classes: the powerful vs. the powerless, the haves vs. the have-nots. And, by choosing sides against the powerful, Cronkite is saying that they need to be fought, and implying that they are responsible for the plight of the powerless. In his world, if someone makes a dollar, someone else loses a dollar; the few exploit their way to riches while the many are exploited into varying degrees of poverty; people gain power only by seizing it from others.
But what if power is achieved not by wresting control, but by creating something? What if people generate wealth by growing the pie instead of stealing slices from somebody else? Cronkite’s view doesn’t consider that. Nor does it consider the possibility that the powerless had a hand in their fate.
Not all of the powerless got that way due to someone else’s malfeasance: many drug addicts or alcoholics living on the street have nobody to blame but themselves. Are such people truly powerless? Or are they just failing to exercise power over their own lives? Even if their sorry circumstances weren’t entirely self-inflicted, they can’t automatically claim victimhood at some sinister hands; bad luck may not be their fault, but it isn’t anyone else’s, either.
All of this is beside the point, anyway: isn’t the purpose of the news media to report the facts, not to side with anybody?
Cronkite closes with a clever trick:
Incidentally, I looked up the definition of “liberal” in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for “liberal” as “progressive,” “broad-minded,” “unprejudiced,” “beneficent.” The antonyms it offered: “reactionary” and “intolerant.”
Instead of offering the contemporary political definition (a person with liberal ideas or opinions), Cronkite selects words from a more general one. By doing so, he ignores the fact that definitions depend on context. I am a firm believer in democratic systems and liberal societies, for example, but I don’t often vote Democratic and I am not a liberal. Cronkite’s careful word choices allow him to characterize liberals positively while disparaging non-liberals at the same time, proving that he’s not above using intellectual chicanery to advance his viewpoint. That alone tells me that he probably wasn’t an entirely honest newsman.
For years, this man, once dubbed “the most trusted man in America,” signed off by saying “that’s the way it was,” as though reality itself was defined by the words he spoke. So, perhaps Cronkite was attempting to put the issue of media bias to rest by issuing a final decree of truth.
Sorry, Walt: now that there are infinitely more outlets than when you and two others called the shots, that’s not the way it is...anymore."
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Assuming you're having the same photo evidence that Upchurch provided for Foley, what scandal was Dodd facing at the same time? Oh, and electio you note? You mean when scrawl transcibers might make a simple mistake with 468 (or 469) federal breaking stories, plus another 33 or 34 gubinatorial elections going on, as opposed to a single breaking story of a Congressman it would have taken 30 seconds to identify which party he belonged to? Color me unimpressed with the "logic" of your ostensible counterargument to the clear effort on Fox's part to smear Democrats.
I hate to engage in logical fallacies, but I'm going to ad hom and poison the well on the SBVFT book since the puppet master was Jerome Corsey (sic?) who I've heard on C2CAM talking a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense and explicitly has advocated the abiogenetic oil claim. If this man can be so whacky that he can claim a pet buried in his back yard for a few years is evidence that dinosaurs* didn't turn into oil, I cannot take him seriously on any of his other claims.
* He's so far off base on so many points on the oil issue - dinosaurs didn't become oil - that I have a hard time taking his telling me what time it is seriously.