Fox News racist or just hates Obama?

[varwoche]

Yes, this is typical thinking from the Welfare Generation..."Educate me. Pay my house payments, furnish me with public transportation, get me a job with healthcare benefits!"

This is stunningly goofy. I agree, it's frustrating when correspondents ask to be spoon fed common knowledge. But I've got news for you: What a given pundit may or may not have said several months ago is not common knowledge.

And meanwhile, you're positively indignant that people aren't sharing your and Cicero's hissy fit over an incident that you and he won't even bother to document -- an incident I'm unaware of. (I know, my posts make it seem as if I'm omniscient. Alas.)

(While chasing down Cicero's claim I googled Olbermann McCain warmonger and drew a blank, though I did learn that a pundit named Ed Schultz called McCain a warmonger. And that's my wild goose quota for the day.)

But in Gene reality, what does this matter anyway? Making stuff up is part and parcel of vigorous journalism. Right?

 

[Cicero]

On a station calling itself a news channel? Yes. Yes it is. I would be extremely interested in any news channel that has a more disgusting example of totally offensive content.

Did your cable provider drop MSNBC and CNN? Their on-air chatter boxes make FOX look like C-SPAN.

Why are libs hung up on the name FOX "NEWS?" 95% of the programing is pundit/commentary/entertainment. Shepherd Smith is the news anchor. What exactly is the "offensive content" aired during his news reports?

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, this is typical thinking from the Welfare Generation..."Educate me. Pay my house payments, furnish me with public transportation, get me a job with healthcare benefits!"

I'm running no credibility deficit, and you can't create a fact by merely stating it as a fact. The information is out there, and I have intention of spoon feeding it to anyone. The fact of you being unnformed does not place a responsibility on me to inform you.

No, what you are running into is typical skeptical thinking. When someone makes a claim as you have, it is that person's responsibility to back up their own claim should someone else choose question it.

What you have effectively done is to commit the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Instead of backing your claim by providing your own information to support it, you are putting that burden onto those people who are questioning your claim.

Worse, you are asking us to prove a negative. I've checked one Countdown episode and it did not support your claims. "Go check more," you say. "It's out there to find!" I could check 100 episodes and not find what you claim, and yet you can still claim that there is at least one episode out there that backs your claim. (See the The Dragon In My Garage for another example of this kind of fallacy.)

For these reasons, you will find that a large number of people on this board will ask you to prove your own claims, usually in the form of the question "Evidence?"

 

[Cicero]

This is stunningly goofy. I agree, it's frustrating when correspondents ask to be spoon fed common knowledge. But I've got news for you: What a given pundit may or may not have said several months ago is not common knowledge.

And meanwhile, you're positively indignant that people aren't sharing your and Cicero's hissy fit over an incident that you and he won't even bother to document -- an incident I'm unaware of. (I know, my posts make it seem as if I'm omniscient. Alas.)

(While chasing down Cicero's claim I googled Olbermann McCain warmonger and drew a blank, though I did learn that a pundit named Ed Schultz called McCain a warmonger. And that's my wild goose quota for the day.)

But in Gene reality, what does this matter anyway? Making stuff up is part and parcel of vigorous journalism. Right?

Welcome to the Upchurch & Varwoche Detective Agency. We can find our posteriors with a hand mirror at high noon, but that's about it. Your Clouseau magnifying glass needs a good cleaning.

OLBERMANN: Now the blood part of blood money. In Iraq Mr. McCain called his trip a fact finding mission. He said it wasn‘t a part of his campaign. Now he is talking about a similar length 100-year commitment to Afghanistan. He told the same interviewer from a London paper he is not convinced Iran is no longer a threat. Is he not painting himself into a corner? He is beginning to look like a war monger who makes Bush look cautious?

But what does it matter to you guys anyway? You will go merrily on your way still criticising FOX News and defending MSNBC. KO makes asinine comments on a daily baisis. Even if you missed this one, how did you miss all the others if you actually watch "Countdown?"

March 17, 2008 (Same date I cited in my post #144)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23691647/

 

[GreyICE]

Did your cable provider drop MSNBC and CNN? Their on-air chatter boxes make FOX look like C-SPAN.

On Planet X maybe.

Why are libs hung up on the name FOX "NEWS?" 95% of the programing is pundit/commentary/entertainment. Shepherd Smith is the news anchor. What exactly is the "offensive content" aired during his news reports?

I dunno. How about when they decided to go to go to court and win a case when they said they could falsify the news, because one of their advertisers got annoyed? So who knows if he's lying? Certainly Fox will tell him not to air anything they don't like, or lie about it.

And the "Baby Mama" bit occured during an interview, not commentary.

I'd call their existence offensive.

 

[Cicero]

On Planet X maybe.

I dunno. How about when they decided to go to go to court and win a case when they said they could falsify the news, because one of their advertisers got annoyed? So who knows if he's lying? Certainly Fox will tell him not to air anything they don't like, or lie about it. I'd call their existence offensive.

Planet X? Is that what the libs are calling the broadcast location of low-rated cable stations like CNN and MSNBC?

Do you have any actual info on this lawsuit other than your own skewed characterization?

Judging by the ratings, it is CNN and MSNBC that viewers find offensive.

 

[Snide]

OLBERMANN: Now the blood part of blood money. In Iraq Mr. McCain called his trip a fact finding mission. He said it wasn‘t a part of his campaign. Now he is talking about a similar length 100-year commitment to Afghanistan. He told the same interviewer from a London paper he is not convinced Iran is no longer a threat. Is he not painting himself into a corner? He is beginning to look like a war monger who makes Bush look cautious?

So he didn't call him a war monger, but rather stated that he is beginning to look like one.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Cicero]

So he didn't call him a war monger, but rather stated that he is beginning to look like one.

Thanks for clarifying.

Another liberal distinction without a difference. If a son or daughter's mother were described by a third party as "beginning to look like" a slut, they would have a different reaction then if this person just referred to their mother as a slut?

Why can't libs learn to accept defeat gracefully?

 

[Pookster]

Another liberal distinction without a difference. If a son or daughter's mother were described by a third party as "beginning to look like" a slut, they would have a different reaction then if this person just referred to their mother as a slut?

Why can't libs learn to accept defeat gracefully?

So, "beginning to look like a slut" and "being a slut" are now the same thing?

Seriously?

 

[LawnOven]

Yeah you damn Libs! You spoil sports are always messing up the great Con march towards victory and progress with all your pc bellyaching.

Haha, this place is beginning to look more and more like the Huffington Post or LGF comment section everyday.

Now all it needs is a few anti-semitic NWO conspiracy theorists... too bad there are none around here.

 

[joobz]

Why are libs hung up on the name FOX "NEWS?" 95% of the programing is pundit/commentary/entertainment. Shepherd Smith is the news anchor. What exactly is the "offensive content" aired during his news reports?

My complaint is because FOX purposely blurs between commentary and news. I've seen multiple news reports where the anchorman would interject personal commentary during a news cast. When you do intentionally blur that line, you are no longer protected by the "it's just the pundits" argument.

And I notice the continued referencing of Olberman, as though his behavior excuses the behavior of the fox news casts.

E.D. Hill: News anchor -turn pundit (Terrorist fist Jab)
Election Newscast: Baby mama

If MSNBC's news casts stated that McCain was a war monger, you'd have a point. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

 

[joobz]

Yes, this is typical thinking from the Welfare Generation..."Educate me. Pay my house payments, furnish me with public transportation, get me a job with healthcare benefits!"

I'm running no credibility deficit, and you can't create a fact by merely stating it as a fact. The information is out there, and I have intention of spoon feeding it to anyone. The fact of you being unnformed does not place a responsibility on me to inform you.

Well, on a skeptical forum, especially one with the word education in the title, you should be expected to provide sources. If you make a claim, the onerous is on YOU to provide evidentiary support for that claim. It's not usually done as a gotchya (Although some try to use it as such). It's done to help educate. If you are unwilling to participate in that mode, then perhaps you are in the wrong place. I've learned much here and I hope I have passed on information as well. I think you do have something to share and would like to continue discussions. But don't resort to knee-jerk stereotyping as a means of avoiding honest questions.

Anyway, this all seems to be getting off point. Please help me understand your position. Where am I right or wrong:

So, if I understand your point:

"Terrorist fist-jab" and "baby mama" are acceptable biases by pundits and anchormen on a conservative news agency since there's liberal pundit on MSNBC.

and

A potical attack ad which personalizes the ramifications of a McCain war policy is disgusting because ....

 

[Cicero]

My complaint is because FOX purposely blurs between commentary and news. I've seen multiple news reports where the anchorman would interject personal commentary during a news cast. When you do intentionally blur that line, you are no longer protected by the "it's just the pundits" argument.

And I notice the continued referencing of Olberman, as though his behavior excuses the behavior of the fox news casts.

E.D. Hill: News anchor -turn pundit (Terrorist fist Jab)
Election Newscast: Baby mama

If MSNBC's news casts stated that McCain was a war monger, you'd have a point. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

1) The only anchorman on FOX News is Shepherd. Please provide the personel commentary made by SS that changed the facts he was reporting?

2) E.D. Hill was not a news reporter or anchor when she made her "terrorist" remark and right after that remark, her show was cancelled.

3) Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Ted Koppel and Tom Brokaw were famous for mixing commentary, even if it was a lumpy concoction, along with their "news" broadcasts. Did you object? Did you notice?

4) I have yet to see a JREFer lib condemn anything KO says. So why is he exempted while FOX News is singled out for criticism by the JREFEr libs?

5) What news cast said Michelle Obama was a "terrorist?' KO had the temerity to say after Tim Russert died, that Tim not only endorsed KO's show, but agreed with KO's inanities. That means that KO's McCain comment was supposedly approved by NBC's chief news honcho.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102622&page=7

 

[Cicero]

So, "beginning to look like a slut" and "being a slut" are now the same thing?

Seriously?

How would you react if a stranger called your mother using either characterization? You would laugh off the first and only get angry at the latter?

How about Olbermann skipping the "beginning to look like" all together when calling Bush, Cheney and Rove "warmongers? KO does this regularly. If you think this is OK why are you splitting hairs about KO's "warmonger" reference to McCain?

 

[varwoche]

Welcome to the Upchurch & Varwoche Detective Agency. We can find our posteriors with a hand mirror at high noon, but that's about it. Your Clouseau magnifying glass needs a good cleaning.

Thanks! Thanks too to the posters who straightened out your somewhat misleading characterization.

As you unintentionally illustrate, we as skeptics should adhere as best we can to journalistic practices. (Real journalism that is, not the kind practiced in Gene's whimsical universe.) This includes pointing to original sources, quoting in context, and not foisting opinion and mischaracterization as if fact. Speaking of which...

You didn't respond to my invitation to spin off a new thread where we can conduct a structured thought experiment comparing Fox to other networks. Interested?

 

[Cicero]

Thanks! Thanks too to the posters who straightened out your somewhat misleading characterization.

As you unintentionally illustrate, we as skeptics should adhere as best we can to journalistic practices. (Real journalism that is, not the kind practiced in Gene's whimsical universe.) This includes pointing to original sources, quoting in context, and not foisting opinion and mischaracterization as if fact. Speaking of which...

You didn't respond to my invitation to spin off a new thread where we can conduct a structured thought experiment comparing Fox to other networks. Interested?

KO goes on in the same show to call McCain:

OLBERMANN: Can‘t the Democrats just run a—put him in there as an older, crazier Barry Goldwater

Let's review. KO called McCain "crazy" and someone who gives off all the appearances of a "warmonger." But you and the JREFer MSNBC apologists allow for the widest interpretations when a liberal makes a disparaging remark and the narrowest latitude when a conservative is accused of the same thing.

I already have a FOX News thread on the politics forum:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104318

But if you are a glutton for punishment, we can do a comparison thread.

 

[joobz]

1) The only anchorman on FOX News is Shepherd. Please provide the personel commentary made by SS that changed the facts he was reporting?

I think
Martha MacCallum, Trace Gallgher, Neal Cavuto, to name a few would disagree with your claim.

I gave you to horrible errors that fox did within a span of a week. Errors the demonstrate a clear and ready bias of Fox. So far, your best argument is, "But but but but, other news groups are biased too...."

Point to me where the actual news program said made a similar comment regarding McCain.

2) E.D. Hill was not a news reporter or anchor when she made her "terrorist" remark and right after that remark, her show was cancelled.

And Like I said, Fox blurs the distinction. They hire people with anchorman reputations to give credibility to the commentary.

3) Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Ted Koppel and Tom Brokaw were famous for mixing commentary, even if it was a lumpy concoction, along with their "news" broadcasts. Did you object? Did you notice?

actually, I would object when they did this. Although, in truth, I did not watch much of thier newscasts.

4) I have yet to see a JREFer lib condemn anything KO says. So why is he exempted while FOX News is singled out for criticism by the JREFEr libs?

I'm not complaining about what Hannity, O'Reilley have said either. What's your point?

5) What news cast said Michelle Obama was a "terrorist?' KO had the temerity to say after Tim Russert died, that Tim not only endorsed KO's show, but agreed with KO's inanities. That means that KO's McCain comment was supposedly approved by NBC's chief news honcho.

You ask a bizarre question and then follow it up with a bizarre hearsay statement. this is your weakest point and request you reconsider what you are trying to imply.

 

[varwoche]

you and the JREFer MSNBC apologists allow for the widest interpretations when a liberal makes a disparaging remark and the narrowest latitude when a conservative is accused of the same thing.

This is a heaping helping of presupposition.

I'm not engaging you on substance because you're foisting a blatant fallacy. If and when I comment on Olbermann I'll be sure to let you know.

I'll get back to you later about the experiment.

 

[T.A.M.]

When's the last time you pointed that out to Dr A?

Gene L is doing just fine. This scrum has been fun to read.

I hadn't noticed him doing so, but maybe he is more subtle about it. Anyway, I have not made a point of doing it to either side...if their are "sides", but in this case it struck me.

TAM

 

[Pookster]

How would you react if a stranger called your mother using either characterization? You would laugh off the first and only get angry at the latter?

How about Olbermann skipping the "beginning to look like" all together when calling Bush, Cheney and Rove "warmongers? KO does this regularly. If you think this is OK why are you splitting hairs about KO's "warmonger" reference to McCain?

You're not answering the question, which is ...

"Beginning to look like a slut" and "being a slut" are now the same thing?

Well?