Ed One more Sanford thread: Rush L. - Obama made him do it...

[corplinx]

uh, you need to re-read that thread. Not only was the "context" you are referring to provided by MM, you linked to it. Which is irrelevant, because your "context" was not contemporary to the item they were covering. Even more telling is that you failed to convince anyone of your point.

There is a fundamental problem with declaring yourself the winner of of a debate before you even hear a response to your point. You shut down any possibility that you might be wrong. That's called faith.



eta: But this old argument doesn't matter. It's a red herring. The question is whether or not Fox News' accidents are indeed accidents. Skeptic asserted that the errors go in both directions, but there is no evidence of that. Further, these accidents do not follow the randomness one would expect from simple, unintentional human error. It only seems to happen "R" to "D" and only when the person in question is doing something against the Republican grain, be it scandal or policy.

So, corp, you assert that this is a typo, a simple case of human error (again) on Fox News' part. Can you support that claim? By what mechanism would the human error be limited to a certain set of conditions like this?

No. Simply, no. They created a fact check that spun the story as they saw fit. They omitted context from the fact check could be found in previous coverage of the story on their own site. When it came time to assemble the facts into a consistent narrative, they omitted.

This is about as simple as it gets.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You didn't debunk it. You just dismissed it because you won't concede that MMfA omits context that runs counter to the point they are trying to make.

Show ... us ... the ... ev-i-dence.

Just show us that Fox has identified scandalous Democrats as Republicans, or that other channels habitually confuse the two parties under such circumstances.

Now, I have invited you to be wrong. Quote someone out of context. Cherry-pick. Count the hits. Feel free to use any methodology, no matter how deceptive, to avoid the facts. But even granted these indulgences, you've got nothing.

I mean, dammit, couldn't you just lie?

 

[corplinx]

Show ... us ... the ... ev-i-dence.

Just show us that Fox has identified scandalous Democrats as Republicans, or that other channels habitually confuse the two parties under such circumstances.

Now, I have invited you to be wrong. Quote someone out of context. Cherry-pick. Count the hits. Feel free to use any methodology, no matter how deceptive, to avoid the facts. But even granted these indulgences, you've got nothing.

I mean, dammit, couldn't you just lie?

You'll have to pardon me, I keep you on ignore most of the time and click to read your posts occasionally.

The _channel_ does not seem to get the parties confused as it gets said on air repeatedly. The ticker guy/caption guy occasionally does. It is part of the vast right wing conspiracy to fool the deaf until the ticker gets updated a few minutes later.

I have no claim to back up in this regard. Its the typo truthers who do.

 

[BenBurch]

I eagerly await Fox "News" referring to "Disgraced Republican Presidential candidate John Edwards."

 

[Dr Adequate]

You'll have to pardon me, I keep you on ignore most of the time and click to read your posts occasionally.

I will not pardon you for keeping me on ignore, that's idiotic. Are you allergic to reason or something?

The _channel_ does not seem to get the parties confused as it gets said on air repeatedly. The ticker guy/caption guy occasionally does. It is part of the vast right wing conspiracy to fool the deaf until the ticker gets updated a few minutes later.

I have no claim to back up in this regard. Its the typo truthers who do.

Yes, you do have a claim to back up, because you equate the people who have drawn your attention to this anomaly with Truthers. So prove it. Or shut up. Your choice.

 

[corplinx]

I will not pardon you for keeping me on ignore, that's idiotic. Are you allergic to reason or something?

Yes, you do have a claim to back up, because you equate the people who have drawn your attention to this anomaly with Truthers. So prove it. Or shut up. Your choice.

Take it to the CT forum. The problem with the "pattern" is that there isn't one. If the pattern is "disgraced republicans" then Specter and McCain don't fit the bill. If the pattern is "controversial republicans" then there are many of those who weren't typo'd.

The commies and hippies aren't alone in their paranoia. The right wingers see conspiracies behind the typos as well.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-n...ious-corrupt-illinois-governor-was-republican

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthe...n-five-conservatives-court-ruled-firefighters

And those were just found with a quick google search.

Is there any evidence at all that your confirmation bias isn't just taking errors and making something out of them to the point of collating vastly different circumstances? (e.g. McCain-Sanford)

Digging in to Fox News' own record. They also misspelled "Education" as "Eductation" once. I think that says much about the caption writers.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Take it to the CT forum.

I could start a thread titled "Are Fox News Being Framed?"

The problem with the "pattern" is that there isn't one. If the pattern is "disgraced republicans" then Specter and McCain don't fit the bill. If the pattern is "controversial republicans" then there are many of those who weren't typo'd.

The commies and hippies aren't alone in their paranoia. The right wingers see conspiracies behind the typos as well.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-n...ious-corrupt-illinois-governor-was-republican

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthe...n-five-conservatives-court-ruled-firefighters

And those were just found with a quick google search.

The links you give me may well be examples of shrieking raving paranoia (the first one especially) but neither of them demonstrate anything remotely comparable. Especially not the first one, didn't you read it? The halfwit who wrote it is screaming about how the evil evil media accurately mentioned that a corrupt Republican was a Republican, and then fantasized about how they'd try not to mention the fact that a corrupt Democrat was a Democrat. Nowhere does he point out anyone being inaccurately labeled.

The second link has no relevance to my question, nor could it, since it concerns a decision of the Supreme Court.

Is there any evidence at all that your confirmation bias isn't just taking errors and making something out of them to the point of collating vastly different circumstances? (e.g. McCain-Sanford)

My confirmation bias? Do explain.

I have said that Fox News might well be innocent of the accusation leveled against them by people who, you will note, are not me. Then I have begged for evidence to show that this is the case.

Confirmation bias consists of avoiding evidence that contradicts one's own views. I have asked for evidence contradicting someone else's views.

Digging in to Fox News' own record. They also misspelled "Education" as "Eductation" once. I think that says much about the caption writers.

The fact that they are idiots does not compel me to believe that they are not also biased towards the right. On the contrary, I have noticed that the two things often go together.

 

[corplinx]

inaccurately[/i] labeled.

Indeed, that is an error.

The second link has no relevance to my question, nor could it, since it concerns a decision of the Supreme Court.

I lumped it into the "label bias" category. It seemed to me that in the case of that story, human error was far likelier.

 

[Dorian Gray]

You win the million for your psychic powers, grats. You typo truthers are a trip.

A gym I went normally had Fox blaring on a few TVs. Their ticker has been a source of amusement for me since I spot errors often.

If they mispell normal words as a pattern, how is it so far fetched that they mislabel D/R ?

I mean really, they are part of the 24 hour news cycle feeding frenzies. They talk about these people for hours on end with talking heads shooting it out. The party affiliations of the people in question are always reinforced hundreds of times. Who are they trying to fool? The people who only read the ticker with the sound off?

Typo Truthers!

Yeah, you Rush kissing Fox apologist, it's far more likely that the people over there are incredibly ignorant than malicious. Sure, that's it. And in other news, Road Runner wants to be eaten by Wile E. Coyote.

Do you cry yourself to sleep every night because Rush isn't on Fox? "Why can't I have both? Why, Lord? Put my conservative peanut butter in my Republican chocolate, please! It's just not fair! Why? (sob)"