I report, you decide: FOX on Santorum

[Sundog]

Actually their moto is "fair and banced" "we report you decide".

Do you have a reference where they have said "we are biased, folks. Deal with it"?

Have another cup of coffee, dude, that was sarcasm. That might as WELL be their motto, though, it would at least be true.

 

[Baker]

Yes. To take the example immediately at hand, see my earlier report of the "French Whine" story. If you can come up with anything REMOTELY similar on the left, I'll concede the point.

French Whine? Do you have a link to this story I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean?

 

[hammegk]

I could tolerate Fox if it could draw a line between its obvious agenda and its reporting. But it doesn't, therefore it's not even a reasonable facsimile of journalism; it's propaganda, by definition.

Would you care for some cheese with your whine?

Sorry that everyone doesn't buy into the multicultural everything-is-morally-the-same pc'lib crap that CNN, MSNBC, BBC, ABC-CBS-NBC continue to to parrot as has been going on for many years now.

Perhaps Reuters is more to your liking (or maybe Pravda?)?

 

[Baker]

My contention would be that any bias on the part of the "big three" is arguable at best. Only FOX just comes right out and says it:" We are biased, folks. Deal with it."

To say that Fox simply does on the right what others do on the left is completely absurd. Who is this leftist network that can't report a story without gouging the right? It doesn't exist, it's in your imagination.

I noticed that you completely ignored the Link RanFan proved to show some examples of the other Net works slant on the news.
http://www.ratherbiased.com/

 

[RandFan]

Yes. To take the example immediately at hand, see my earlier report of the "French Whine" story. If you can come up with anything REMOTELY similar on the left, I'll concede the point.

That sounds like a fair request to me.

I turned on Fox News but haven't seen the grapic yet. Can you give me any more information? Who did the story?

REAL journalists have something called journalistic integrity.

Question, would such "jounalistic integrity" prevent an editor or producer from rigging pickup trucks with dynamite?

 

[Lurker]

Check out www.fair.org which actually did a study comparing Fox's Special Report to CNN's Wolf Blitzer show. Even ignoring the subjective categorizing of guests you can see that Fox had on Republicans far more than Democrats. CNN was much more even.

Bias? Possibly. But it does not appear that Democrats are getting an even chance of putting their views out there on Special Report.



Lurker

 

[Kodiak]

hgc originally posted:

All news sources quote this part of the original interview (AP, April 7)

quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum was quoted. "You have the right to anything."


FYI, the word "gay" (in brackets) was adding by the AP reporter and was not what was said by the congressman. Try reading it without the word "gay", and then consider the context, which was the position by some that consent is all that is necessary for the right to privacy.

Santorum's comment is reasonable once you have the context and an unaltered quote...

 

[Kodiak]

Question, would such "jounalistic integrity" prevent an editor or producer from rigging pickup trucks with dynamite?

Good (but flawed) memory...

(see Doubt's post below...)

 

[Doubt]

That sounds like a fair request to me.

I turned on Fox News but haven't seen the grapic yet. Can you give me any more information? Who did the story?

Question, would such "jounalistic integrity" prevent an editor or producer from rigging pickup trucks with dynamite?

[nitpic]

It was not dynamite. They used model rocket engines.

[/nipic]

 

[pgwenthold]

hgc originally posted:

All news sources quote this part of the original interview (AP, April 7)

quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum was quoted. "You have the right to anything."


FYI, the word "gay" (in brackets) was adding by the AP reporter and was not what was said by the congressman. Try reading it without the word "gay", and then consider the context, which was the position by some that consent is all that is necessary for the right to privacy.

Santorum's comment is reasonable once you have the context and an unaltered quote...

You _don't_ have the right to "anything" as Santorum says. You have a right to consentual activity.

Tell me what is necessarily wrong with bigamous sex? Or polygamous sex? Does that mean that swingers can be considered to acting illegally?

Adultery? Not something the state is bothering with.

Incest has obvious biological implications, which is a good basis for its regulation. Thus, allowing homosexual sex is _not_ the same as allowing incestual relations.

Moreover, this is not about outlawing or allowing "homosexuality," but is about allowing homosexual sex. Thus, it would not be a ruling that would allow polygamous marriage, but would say that they state can't prohibit group sex.

 

[Sundog]

That sounds like a fair request to me.

I turned on Fox News but haven't seen the grapic yet. Can you give me any more information? Who did the story?

Question, would such "jounalistic integrity" prevent an editor or producer from rigging pickup trucks with dynamite?

Come now. I am not asserting that all news editors are perfect, only that there IS such a thing as integrity and many journalist actually try to do their job well.

Citing an example of actual dishonesty, having nothing to do with any political agenda, from what, ten years ago?, doesn't seem to me to be a good answer to something I saw hours ago on Fox. I think this is a good topic for a new thread where we'll settle the matter once and for all...

 

[Upchurch]

from CNN.com

In the April 7 interview, Santorum describes homosexual acts as a threat to society and the family. "I have no problem with homosexuality," Santorum said, according to the AP. "I have a problem with homosexual acts."

I'm curious. How can one be able to be fine with homosexuality and hate homosexual acts, but not be able to support our troops while not supporting the war?

 

[renata]

hgc originally posted:

All news sources quote this part of the original interview (AP, April 7)

quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum was quoted. "You have the right to anything."


FYI, the word "gay" (in brackets) was adding by the AP reporter and was not what was said by the congressman. Try reading it without the word "gay", and then consider the context, which was the position by some that consent is all that is necessary for the right to privacy.

Santorum's comment is reasonable once you have the context and an unaltered quote...

Here is a link to his remarks

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.excerpts.ap/index.html

Here are the excerpts. If anything, they appear more damaging to me. He blames Catholic church scandals on liberals. He also says it is OK to be gay, as long as people don't act on it. He also appears to say anything outside a monogomous child producing relationship undermines society. He also thinks right to privacy is wrong. Emphasis mine throughout

AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year olds, or 5-year olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe --

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with president, or senator or congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

 

[RandFan]

Come now. I am not asserting that all news editors are perfect, only that there IS such a thing as integrity and many journalist actually try to do their job well.

I agree, but then I believe that the Fox news editors and producers actually try and do their job as well.

Citing an example of actual dishonesty, having nothing to do with any political agenda, from what, ten years ago?, doesn't seem to me to be a good answer to something I saw hours ago on Fox. I think this is a good topic for a new thread where we'll settle the matter once and for all...

Well we could talk about Operation Tailwind. It wasn't a network and to be fair CNN eventually apologized but it was more recent. In any event I will take the time to get together some great examples. I have allot from memory but I have to dig up the references and sources.

Hey Sundog,

Actually there is an ongoing debate amongst a number of us on this issue. I have promised to read What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News by Eric Alterman

And I others are also going to read Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

And maybe Colton's book Slander I know there is a lot of poision in the well against colton but I think her arguments should be discredited (if they can be discredited) on a case by case basis.

I need some time to do the reading but please feel free to start a thread if you want and post any relevant material.

I didn't get to see the graphic you referenced yesterday (I turned on and watched Fox for most of the evening) so I don't have any context. Assuming that it was a news story and not commentary then I would have to say that it is anecdotal. In order to prevail in an argument that Fox news is biased in a way the networks aren't then I think you would have to show a demonstrable paten of such behavior on the part of Fox. Of course you can't prove a negative when it comes to the networks so it will be incumbent on me to show that the networks are biased.

A couple of notes.

1. I believe fox is biased. Though I don't believe they are any more slanted to the right than the networks are slanted to the left.

2. I believe that the networks are biased. However, I don't believe that there is any conspiracy, agenda or pressure by editors, producers or owners to slant stories.

 

[Sundog]

1. I believe fox is biased. Though I don't believe they are any more slanted to the right than the networks are slanted to the left.

2. I believe that the networks are biased. However, I don't believe that there is any conspiracy, agenda or pressure by editors, producers or owners to slant stories.

Always a pleasure discussing things with you. I hope you play my "bias" game, it might be fun.

I promise to look at the website you referenced earlier.

My honest opinion is that if other media is biased, it is more hidden. Fox is just offensively blatant with their biases. I NEVER see the liberal equivalent of Fox anywhere (if I did, I'd be glued to it, heh heh).

 

[Lurker]

Hey Sundog,

Actually there is an ongoing debate amongst a number of us on this issue. I have promised to read What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News by Eric Alterman

And I others are also going to read Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

And maybe Colton's book Slander I know there is a lot of poision in the well against colton but I think her arguments should be discredited (if they can be discredited) on a case by case basis.

I have read critiques of all Slander and Bias and the evidence suggests their "research" was pretty sloppy. I am reading Slander right now and have made it through Chapter II and it is hard digesting it. Her footnotes are anecdotal but she uses one instance to then say all liberals are like that instance. After reading about 20 illogics like that it starts to become a chore to keep slogging through the book.

Good luck!

Lurker

 

[Kodiak]

You _don't_ have the right to "anything" as Santorum says. You have a right to consentual activity.

Tell me what is necessarily wrong with bigamous sex? Or polygamous sex? Does that mean that swingers can be considered to acting illegally?

Adultery? Not something the state is bothering with.

Incest has obvious biological implications, which is a good basis for its regulation. Thus, allowing homosexual sex is _not_ the same as allowing incestual relations.

Moreover, this is not about outlawing or allowing "homosexuality," but is about allowing homosexual sex. Thus, it would not be a ruling that would allow polygamous marriage, but would say that they state can't prohibit group sex.

I was striving for accuracy, and am not defending Santorum's views and opinions. I said his remarks were reasonable, not right, true, or correct.

His attempt to show how simple consent should not be the only thing necessary for a right to privacy focused on his views on how these acts affect the "fabric of society" (to use his words), not just simple legality/illegality.


On a separate note, is a sexual relationship between 1st cousins considered incest? Does the answer depend on where one lives (inside/outside the USA)?

 

[Kodiak]

He also thinks right to privacy is wrong.

More accurately, he thinks right to privacy should be decided by the individual States, on a case by case basis.

Santorum said: "So I would make the argument that with president, or senator or congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."

 

[jj]

What is with all of the attacks on Fox News its one of the few news networks that isn’t liberal bias.
Is the left so used to there dominate news coverage that just having one news show that doesn’t tilt to the left such a big threat?

Fox News is deliberately, misleadingly slanted to the right. There remains very few, if any whatsoever, left tilted news coverage in the USA, and any that remains is relegated to quackhood.

Please stick to the facts in the future.

 

[renata]

More accurately, he thinks right to privacy should be decided by the individual States, on a case by case basis.

Santorum said: "So I would make the argument that with president, or senator or congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."

You are indeed correct. However, he personally has a problem with it as he does with any acts outside of a monogomous heterosexual relationship.