FOX: The Socialist News Network

[Tsukasa Buddha]

A search of transcripts available on Lexis-Nexis -- a limited sample, unfortunately -- for Fox's programming from Tuesday shows that in the span of just six hours, the network managed to squeeze in five segments devoted to a discussion of impending socialism; the words "socialism," "socialist" and "social democracy" were used a total of 37 times. "Your World with Neil Cavuto," "The O'Reilly Factor" and "On the Record with Greta" all managed to stay socialism free, but "Special Report" and "Hannity" each had two segments about it, and "Glenn Beck" had one. No transcript for "FOX Report" was available, but I happened to see the show repeat one of the segments from "Special Report," for a total of six time slots on the subject between 4 p.m. ET and 11 p.m.
Admittedly, the channel wasn't nearly as socialism-heavy before Tuesday. A search of transcripts available for the weekday programming from last week, as well as this Monday, revealed only one additional segment, from "Hannity." There were 58 additional uses of the words "socialism," "socialist" and "social democracy," however. (It's also worth noting that none of these counts include the network's in-house advertising, which, from anecdotal observation Tuesday, seemed to be pushing Beck and Hannity's discussion of the issue pretty hard.)
We did the same search of CNN and MSNBC, over the same time period, and came up with only two occurrences of those key words -- both in the same night, from the mouth of Lou Dobbs, natch.
Linky. (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/feature/2009/02/18/fox_socialism/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room/feature)

I liked how when Beck got an actual socialist on the show, he was a complete jerk:

BECK: Would you like an M&M?
LLEWELLYN: No, thank you.
BECK: I'll share them.
LLEWELLYN: I'm already too large.
BECK: No, no, no. Look at me. I'll share them and you know why? Because I choose to share them. Not because somebody tells me to share them.
Ohh, a stunning point!

BECK: So, we might — we might have also been spending a lot less, and we would have been less socialist during the Clinton administration than we are today under Obama.
LLEWELLYN: I wouldn't describe the Clinton administration as...
BECK: Less socialist — as less socialist as what we are now?
LLEWELLYN: ... as socialist at all.
BECK: Come on, we're socialist like — look, Frank .
LLEWELLYN: America is blessed with having the two most capitalist political parties in the world. The idea...
BECK: You got to be kidding me?
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: They're both socialist. Listen — here's the thing, here's the thing — really, I will share them. They are mine. I purchased them and I'll share them willingly.
LLEWELLYN: I'm sure. That's — OK, I'll have one though.
BECK: All right. Here's the thing — the only debate that I think we need to have in America is this road to socialism — will you agree we're on the road to socialism?
LLEWELLYN: Actually, I would hope that that were the case, but if you talk about what's being proposed generally — no, they're not socialist programs.
BECK: Really?
LLEWELLYN: They're programs that are stimulative. They're Keynesian economic programs but they're not socialist, they don't change power relationships.

BECK: OK. Here's the thing, Frank, all I want, and this is the reason I brought Frank on today, is all I want is if we're going to be a socialist nation, we should have this debate. We shouldn't be hiding behind the Democrats or the Republicans or anything else. If we want to be a socialist nation, has anybody asked you — "Newsweek" magazine prints on the big title, "We're All Socialists Now."
Well, nobody has asked me. I don't want to be a socialist. If America decides to be socialist, then Americans should decide to be socialists, but that's not what we're doing. We're not having a conversation. I haven't seen actual socialists on television talking about how great socialism is.
LLEWELLYN: No, and most of the people who are writing about socialism don't know anything about it either. You know, the discussion that emerged in the campaign was — you know, very surreal. It didn't — it wasn't based on facts. It was more like name-calling.
I mean, if you want to be honest, and you want to take who of the four people running for national office was actually the most socialistic, it was Sarah Palin — because she administered a state that says that the oil revenues are collectively owned...
BECK: Right.
LLEWELLYN: ... and she used her position as governor to force the oil companies to pay the state more money, which they then redistributed to the people. Now, I have a feeling that that's what Chavez does in Venezuela, that people like you criticize him for. So, you know, that would, at least, be a more serious discussion .
BECK: Right.
LLEWELLYN: ... than the type of discussion that's appeared in magazines and whatever.
BECK: OK, Frank...
LLEWELLYN: If people want to learn about socialism, they should go to our Web site...
BECK: OK.
LLEWELLYN: ... which is www.dsausa.org (http://www.dsausa.org/).
BECK: There you. And more and more — more and more students, more and more college students, more and more people that are young are signing right up to be a Marxist and a socialist. Everybody should be aware of what that means.
Thank you very much, Frank. I appreciate it.
LLEWELLYN: Not all Marxists are socialists. Most socialists are not Marxists.
BECK: I know. That's fantastic. And I'll have the red tie.



Linky. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496446,00.html)

(The whole ending was particularly dickish)

So they will yell at us about how we are going down the road to socialism, and when a socialist is on the show they will tell him he doesn't know what socialism is? And they don't see the problem with that?

The whole thing is just so surreal.

[Tumblehome]

They could take a lesson from evolution. When a culture becomes too rigid in its thinking and doesn't adapt when the situation calls for it...well, you know the result.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I have a hard time believing anyone with two working brain cells cannot see how transparent, full of crap and moronic Beck is.

But his sort of idiocy is par for what constitutes "Conservative" political discourse today. John Gibson's been playing the Soviet national anthem whenever he talks about Obama on his radio show.

[Childlike Empress]

I have a hard time believing anyone with two working brain cells cannot see how transparent, full of crap and moronic Beck is.


I would extent this to all of FAUX news. Why even pay attention to this crap?

John Gibson's been playing the Soviet national anthem whenever he talks about Obama on his radio show.


Ouch. Soviet national anthem? I assume you mean The Internationale? Send him here (http://www.hymn.ru/internationale/index-en.html), so he can play the Farsi or Arabic version next time, to increase the drama. ;)

[Cicero]

I would extent this to all of FAUX news. Why even pay attention to this crap?




Ouch. Soviet national anthem? I assume you mean The Internationale? Send him here (http://www.hymn.ru/internationale/index-en.html), so he can play the Farsi or Arabic version next time, to increase the drama. ;)

Beck is a pundit, not a journalist or news anchor. Do you also dismiss as crap what MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Raychill Maddow, Chris Matthews spew on their shows? Or is their crap more to your acquired taste?

[Childlike Empress]

Personally i'm very egalitarian in this regard - i don't watch TV at all. I know only one of those people, Olbermann, and his show is labeled as satire, isn't it? If FOX would put on that label to their station, maybe it could be amusing, but really, the poor spin doctors at news corp will fear for their job if they see quite intelligent people falling for FOX NEWS - Murdoch has other, more sophisticated outlets targeted at you. Think of the jobs, please.

[Cicero]

Personally i'm very egalitarian in this regard - i don't watch TV at all. I know only one of those people, Olbermann, and his show is labeled as satire, isn't it? If FOX would put on that label to their station, maybe it could be amusing, but really, the poor spin doctors at news corp will fear for their job if they see quite intelligent people falling for FOX NEWS - Murdoch has other, more sophisticated outlets targeted at you. Think of the jobs, please.

You don't watch TV "at all," but you refer to FOX as "FAUX news." Always refreshing to hear from a JREFer who admits being ignorant about the subject they chose to comment on. Odd that the only MSNBC person you know is Olbermann, the guy who calls FOX News "FAUX news" as if he would be shocked with a cattle prod otherwise.

Olbermann's show is labeled as satire? MSNCB assigned him to do straight news election coverage. While KO is indeed a baffoon, neither MSNBC or KO acknowledges this fact.

[Childlike Empress]

Well, i read alot ABOUT the corporate media in general and Murdoch in particular, doesn't mean i have to pollute my beautiful mind with this crap (paraphrasing B.Bush), and FAUX News is a term i've learned on this very forum. Anyway, have fun. ;)

[mortimer]

Well, i read alot ABOUT the corporate media in general and Murdoch in particular, doesn't mean i have to pollute my beautiful mind with this crap (paraphrasing B.Bush), and FAUX News is a term i've learned on this very forum. Anyway, have fun. ;)
And are the sources you read regarding Fox News any less biased than Fox News itself? How would you know?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Beck is a pundit, not a journalist or news anchor. Do you also dismiss as crap what MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Raychill Maddow, Chris Matthews spew on their shows? Or is their crap more to your acquired taste?

You really need to get some help man. (though you get some credit for not calling her "Madcow")

That said, Rachel Maddow, whatever you feel about her politics, is level headed in her news and opinion presentation. Beck seems unhinged. Olbermann is a raving loon but you can tell he's got a sense of humor. He and O'Reilly make perfect foils since the latter has a sense of humor too. Hardball is basically a Sunday morning show aired weekly.

[UserGoogol]

Ouch. Soviet national anthem? I assume you mean The Internationale? Send him here (http://www.hymn.ru/internationale/index-en.html), so he can play the Farsi or Arabic version next time, to increase the drama. ;)

The Soviet Union switched to a different anthem during the Stalinist years which was more nationalist to be in line with the whole "Socialism in one country" idea. (A third song was introduced by Boris Yeltsin and later the Stalinist version was reinstated by Putin with the lyrics changed to be more capitalism-friendly.) I imagine they were using that version, and apparently there is a parody song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvxiG56M-eU) which rewrites the lyrics of the Soviet National Anthem to be about Obama attributed to Glenn Beck.

Personally i'm very egalitarian in this regard - i don't watch TV at all. I know only one of those people, Olbermann, and his show is labeled as satire, isn't it? If FOX would put on that label to their station, maybe it could be amusing, but really, the poor spin doctors at news corp will fear for their job if they see quite intelligent people falling for FOX NEWS - Murdoch has other, more sophisticated outlets targeted at you. Think of the jobs, please.

The Keith Olbermann show isn't a satire, he's just willing to make bad jokes from time to time.

[Alex Libman]

Political hacks are always more appealing when they're not in power. Limbaugh was OK during the Clinton years. During the height of the Bush regime, I've listened to Air America and contemplated suicide-bombing Fox News WHQ. And now... Fox News sounds like the most reasonable branch of the mainstream media, but I'm not falling for that again. Just because you hate Communist A doesn't mean his false-paradigm opposition, Communist B, is worthy of your support - the lesser of two evils is still evil!

LRN (http://freetalklive.com/LRN.php) FTW!

[Cicero]

You really need to get some help man. (though you get some credit for not calling her "Madcow")

That said, Rachel Maddow, whatever you feel about her politics, is level headed in her news and opinion presentation. Beck seems unhinged. Olbermann is a raving loon but you can tell he's got a sense of humor. He and O'Reilly make perfect foils since the latter has a sense of humor too. Hardball is basically a Sunday morning show aired weekly.

Level headed? So is Herman Munster. Raychill is KO with testosterone. When she can't use facts to support her liberal rants, no problem, she just makes up stuff.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4278592#post4278592

[gumboot]

I read a report on US election coverage by the major US networks, and Fox News came up as the most balanced. Just saying.

[Cicero]

I read a report on US election coverage by the major US networks, and Fox News came up as the most balanced. Just saying.

Pennsylvania Gov. Rendell (D) made this statement on FOX News during the election. Of course those who refer to FOX as "faux news" will never concede this fact.

[UserGoogol]

I read a report on US election coverage by the major US networks, and Fox News came up as the most balanced. Just saying.

I don't know what study you're talking about and am not going to make any judgment one way or the other as to its validity, (and I don't really watch much TV news) but it should be noted that any method of objectively quantifying something as vague as "balance" can be flawed very easily. The meaningful measure is whether the network overall sends a message that is in favor of one organization or against one organization, and this is hard to measure, so most focus on some discrete atom of bias (which think tanks they reference, categorizing individual statements as pro- or anti- a candidate) and this can miss the big picture of how these individual atoms of bias are framed together.

[gumboot]

I don't know what study you're talking about and am not going to make any judgment one way or the other as to its validity

I have no idea either. I can't even remember who did the study, and I have no idea of their leanings.


but it should be noted that any method of objectively quantifying something as vague as "balance" can be flawed very easily. The meaningful measure is whether the network overall sends a message that is in favor of one organization or against one organization, and this is hard to measure, so most focus on some discrete atom of bias (which think tanks they reference, categorizing individual statements as pro- or anti- a candidate) and this can miss the big picture of how these individual atoms of bias are framed together.

From memory they took long periods of coverage from multiple programs on each channel and then counted instances of good coverage versus bad coverage for each of the candidates.

Fox News came out as the channel that was most even-handed in treatment of each candidate, but most interesting of all, Fox News were also unique because the majority of their coverage for both candidates was negative.

This leads me to the conclusion I drew from Fox from the rare times I ever saw their broadcasts - Fox are simply interested in leaping on sensationalist news that sells, and then commercialising it for all its worth. This seems to be confirmed by Seth McFarlane who created Family Guy who says "Rubert Murdoch is a businessman first and a Republican second" - as long as it makes money he doesn't actually care.

[Childlike Empress]

“For better or for worse, our company (The News Corporation Ltd.) is a reflection of my thinking, my character, my values.”


Other quotes where he openly admits that his network first of all is about presenting his opinion to the people and influencing society are legion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I started a related thread, Political Framing Decoded (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4476439#post4476439)

[Cicero]

Other quotes where he openly admits that his network first of all is about presenting his opinion to the people and influencing society are legion.

Do you object to Pinch Sulzberger doing the same thing with the New york Times? Only in Pinch's case, he is a rabid liberal.

[Childlike Empress]

Do you object to Pinch Sulzberger doing the same thing with the New york Times? Only in Pinch's case, he is a rabid liberal.


You don't wanna go there, believe me. Just have fun defending your favorite propaganda outlet.

[technoextreme]

I would extent this to all of FAUX news. Why even pay attention to this crap?

There used to be some redeeming qualities to Fox News. Ironically, they all went to other networks.

[Childlike Empress]

Boobs?

[technoextreme]

Boobs?
Surprisingly, Eric Burns. I thought he was an excellent moderator on Fox News Watch.

[mortimer]

Other quotes where he openly admits that his network first of all is about presenting his opinion to the people and influencing society are legion.
I don't think that quote means what you think it does.

[Cicero]

You don't wanna go there, believe me. Just have fun defending your favorite propaganda outlet.

FOX News does not need defending. Check the ratings for confirmation.

Are you too emotionally invested in The New York Times to comment about Pinch's philosophy about all the news that's fibbed to print?

[Cicero]

There used to be some redeeming qualities to Fox News. Ironically, they all went to other networks.

Whom might these folks be? You couldn't possibly be thinking of Keith Olbermann or Paula Zahn.

BTW: Eric Burns was a horrible host of FOX News Watch.

[Cleon]

FOX News does not need defending.

And yet, any time someone criticizes The Most Holy of News Networks, you pop in with the tired "wah wah MSNBC wah wah Olbermannn wah wah NY Times" routine.

So apparently you might not think Fox News needs defending, but you certainly do your best to deflect.

[Cicero]

And yet, any time someone criticizes The Most Holy of News Networks, you pop in with the tired "wah wah MSNBC wah wah Olbermannn wah wah NY Times" routine.

So apparently you might not think Fox News needs defending, but you certainly do your best to deflect.

I couldn't possibly respond to every JREFer lib that posts the same prosaic protestations about FOX. My repertoire is not as limited as you suggest. I also mention NPR, PBS, Raychill Maddow, Bill Moyers, Diane Rehm, Terry Gross, Walter Cronkite, Pinch, Soros, etc...

But don't you find the JREF libs de rigeur "wah wah wah" routine about Fox News conservative tilt equally tiresome?

[Cleon]

I couldn't possibly respond to every JREFer lib that posts the same prosaic protestations about FOX. My repertoire is not as limited as you suggest. I also mention NPR, PBS, Raychill Maddow, Bill Moyers, Diane Rehm, Terry Gross, Walter Cronkite, Pinch, Soros, etc...

But don't you find the JREF libs de rigeur "wah wah wah" routine about Fox News conservative tilt equally tiresome?

And wash, rinse, repeat. :rolleyes:

[The Painter]

Are you too emotionally invested in The New York Times to comment about Pinch's philosophy about all the news that's fibbed to print?

I don't know about emotional investment, but financially, you can buy one share of NY Times stock for less than the price of the Sunday NY Times. Oh how the mighty have fallen

[Cicero]

And wash, rinse, repeat. :rolleyes:

What, no conditioner?

[UnrepentantSinner]

FOX News does not need defending. Check the ratings for confirmation.

The best selling book of all time is the Bible...
Just because 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne...
Tradgedy of the Commons...
Eat ****. 100 billion flies can't be wrong...

Pick your poison Socrates...

[Cicero]

The best selling book of all time is the Bible...
Just because 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne...
Tradgedy of the Commons...
Eat ****. 100 billion flies can't be wrong...

Pick your poison Socrates...

Or as you said, Raychill Maddow is "level-headed."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...92#post4278592

I wonder why MSNBC doesn't let her go on the air in her natural state?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sebfwBVEVKE

[Tin Foil Timothy]

FOX News does not need defending. Check the ratings for confirmation.


As people have already said ... "Appeal to Popularity"

Fox news is awful. I wouldn't trust Fox news as far as I could throw it. Which is the amount of energy required to switch the remote. And yes I do check it out from time to time to confirm how utterly nauseous the channel is.

I certainly couldn't lower my intelligence to rely on it as a credible news source.

Is it the only biased propagandic news source? of course not, but its up there with the overt moronic sources.

You're right about fox news and not needing defending. I can't think of any reason why anyone wouldn't want to defend Fox News. It's blatant nonsense!!

Come on people! Murdoch speaks volumes!!!

[UserGoogol]

I wonder why MSNBC doesn't let her go on the air in her natural state?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sebfwBVEVKE

Her unfiltered boyish androgyny is so majestic and wonderful that it would turn all women gay and all men... also gay.

[Cicero]

Her unfiltered boyish androgyny is so majestic and wonderful that it would turn all women gay and all men... also gay.

Maybe it is because the sans makeup Raychill draws attention to MSNBC's inabiltiy to report straight news.

[Cicero]

As people have already said ... "Appeal to Popularity"

Fox news is awful. I wouldn't trust Fox news as far as I could throw it. Which is the amount of energy required to switch the remote. And yes I do check it out from time to time to confirm how utterly nauseous the channel is.

I certainly couldn't lower my intelligence to rely on it as a credible news source.

Is it the only biased propagandic news source? of course not, but its up there with the overt moronic sources.

You're right about fox news and not needing defending. I can't think of any reason why anyone wouldn't want to defend Fox News. It's blatant nonsense!!

Come on people! Murdoch speaks volumes!!!

Not surprising that the Fox News cable network doesn't appeal to your peculiar Weltanschauung. I imagine if it did, it would be an outlet of Al-Jazeera TV.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
But don't you find the JREF libs de rigeur "wah wah wah" routine about Fox News conservative tilt equally tiresome?It's not the Conservative tilt that's the problem with Fox. It's the fact the station is a Republican Party echo chamber, regardless of the factual integrity of the echo.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

I wonder why MSNBC doesn't let her go on the air in her natural state?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sebfwBVEVKENatural state as in wearing casual clothes?

She's doing a stupid piece on a hard cider and grenadine cocktail. Big deal.

[GStan]

It's not the Conservative tilt that's the problem with Fox. It's the fact the station is a Republican Party echo chamber, regardless of the factual integrity of the echo.

I'm not asking this with sarcasm, but is there some independent study that shows that Fox has less "factual integrity" than other networks?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe it is because the sans makeup Raychill draws attention to MSNBC's inabiltiy to report straight news.Homophobia leaking out there, Cic?

[Cicero]

Homophobia leaking out there, Cic?

Isn't homophobia fear of oneself?

[Cicero]

Natural state as in wearing casual clothes?

She's doing a stupid piece on a hard cider and grenadine cocktail. Big deal.

No, as in eschewing the Buddy Holly eye wear for her MSNBC show. Does it make her look too much like KO? Do you think the level of material on her show rises above what she does in the video?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not asking this with sarcasm, but is there some independent study that shows that Fox has less "factual integrity" than other networks?Here's a link to the documentary, "Outfoxed". It's 78 minutes long so you may not be interested enough to watch it. But if you are really interested in an answer to your question, you will find it enlightening.

Wiki summary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed)

Rotten Tomatoes reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/outfoxed/)

Internet Movie Database reviews (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418038/)

NYTs review (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/movies/20OUTF.html?ex=1247976000&en=9f285ca5c831ad9f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)One of Fox's great successes, apart from an impressive ability to attract viewers and infuriate liberals, has been the promotion of the idea that what it does cancels out the unacknowledged propaganda coming from the other side. Mr. Greenwald's film challenges this notion and methodically works to disarm the ready-made accusation that it is outfoxing Fox by stooping to its methods.

These methods are analyzed by an array of media critics and activists, and also exposed by former employees of Fox News Channel and its parent, the News Corporation, some of them speaking anonymously, with their voices disguised. The story they tell is of the systematic and deliberate dismantling of journalistic norms, and of an outfit that has become not merely a voice of conservatism but a cheerleader for the Republican Party. Sean Hannity, co-host of a popular public-affairs yelling match, uses part of each broadcast to count off the days until "the re-election of George Bush," and daily memos from headquarters set an agenda of slanted priorities.

There probably are some studies on the mainstream news broadcasters. If I point out Media Matters and FactCheck.org I'm sure a few people will scream those are not neutral sources. AIM (Accuracy In Media) is a right wing partisan site that popped up to counter Media Matters. The difference is MM backs up what they say with sources one can verify. AIM makes unfounded claims with no apologies.

There was at least one study which found Fox News watchers were more likely to believe Bush propaganda that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 911. Bush and Cheney had an active campaign of hinting at this non-fact while denying there was any evidence when asked directly. It was an effective strategy to mislead and Fox participated whether they were actually in on the game or not.

It's not hard to show Fox is worse than the usual breed of inaccurate news for specific partisan attacks.

[Cicero]

Here's a link to the documentary, "Outfoxed". It's 78 minutes long so you may not be interested enough to watch it. But if you are really interested in an answer to your question, you will find it enlightening.

There probably are some studies on the mainstream news broadcasters. If I point out Media Matters and FactCheck.org I'm sure a few people will scream those are not neutral sources. AIM (Accuracy In Media) is a right wing partisan site that popped up to counter Media Matters. The difference is MM backs up what they say with sources one can verify. AIM makes unfounded claims with no apologies.

There was at least one study which found Fox News watchers were more likely to believe Bush propaganda that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 911. Bush and Cheney had an active campaign of hinting at this non-fact while denying there was any evidence when asked directly. It was an effective strategy to mislead and Fox participated whether they were actually in on the game or not.

It's not hard to show Fox is worse than the usual breed of inaccurate news for specific partisan attacks.

There is nothing out of character in this absurd diatribe that does not reflect the ideology of the liberal political action group MoveOn[...] the original distributors of this DVD.

Even Howard Kurtz, a vociferous critic of FOX, commented that Greenwald's propaganda flick, posing as a documentary, made allegations against FOX that relied on "orders, or attitudes, of an unnamed "'they.'" Kurtz chastises Greenwald for not even providing the illusion of fairness or balance himself. "Not only did he avoid contacting FOX, and indulge in some misleading editing, but the film also features a parade of the network's liberal detractors," noted Kurtz.

Had Greenwald actually been interested in making a documentary, he might have bothered to check his facts, and in doing so, would have discovered that some of the "sources" for this "documentary" never worked for FOX News Channel. Those employees he did eventually bamboozle into appearing in his amateur Leni Riefenstahl propaganda flick represent fewer than ten out of 2,000 FOX employees spanning an eight year period.

I wonder what sort of reply Greenwald would get from ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The LA Times, asking for them to submit 100 percent of their editorial directions and internal memos? But then again, why would Greenwald be interested in exposing liberal media when their ideology mirrors his own.

Compared to the viewing audience of network TV news, FOX Channel barely registers at all. While it does trounce the other cable channels in ratings, it is a head scratch why Greenwald targeted a relatively tiny market share channel while ignoring the shameless propagandizing and biased news reporting that is de rigueur for network TV. Of course if you understand that Greenwald is a left wing ideologue, posing as a documentarian, in the mold of Michael Moore, it really isn't mysterious at all.

[GStan]

Here's a link to the documentary, "Outfoxed". It's 78 minutes long so you may not be interested enough to watch it. But if you are really interested in an answer to your question, you will find it enlightening.

<snip>

It's not hard to show Fox is worse than the usual breed of inaccurate news for specific partisan attacks.

I was thinking more along the lines of a peer-reviewed academic study, not a propaganda piece with a predisposed agenda like a documentary titled "Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism". I was thinking you might find something like this from MIT's Quarterly Journal of Economics. A Measure of Media Bias. ("http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=2&sid=2a26b9c1-2c28-462f-9580-53bd92512bb7%40SRCSM1) (Don't know if you can access this without a university connection, sorry.) Anyway, here is the abstract:


We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.

[Skeptic Ginger]

GStan, if you had an agenda, a search for past threads on the topic would have been more productive than your feigned question. That study is 5 years old. And it's been discussed before. The claim of liberal media bias has been discussed on this forum before too. And the evidence is clear there is no liberal media bias. Not that OutFoxed hasn't also been discussed. But that's what you get when you waste people's time with fake questions you already had an answer to.

Fox...We opine, you decide... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=36194&highlight=media+bias+research)
Documentry targets FoxNews Bias (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25972&highlight=media+bias+research)




Your link is broke. In the meantime, here's a critique of that study, which also was discussed before.
The problems with the Groseclose/Milyo study of media bias (http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html)

Their link is also a dead end. But here is a link to the paper. It took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google.
A Measure of Media Bias (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm)

Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003)

Of course, we need an authors respond to the criticisms.
Groseclose and Milyo respond (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001301.html)

[Skeptic Ginger]

As long as we're on Faux News, Hannity said yet another outrageous thing recently. Will the boy ever cease to amaze?

Get this rationale. The recession started when Obama first threw his hat in the ring over 2 years ago as a candidate for President, so that is what caused the lack of confidence in the market and the subsequent recession. I kid you not. That's what he said.

I'm trying to find a transcript.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Heh, they had Rove on and he said "If Obama said the economy would recover by the end of 2009, it would."

Hey, Obama's speaking ability really is magical :D !

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Not surprising that the Fox News cable network doesn't appeal to your peculiar Weltanschauung.

Of course it doesn't. I would be embarrassed to claim any allegiance to such propagandic nonsense.


I imagine if it did, it would be an outlet of Al-Jazeera TV.

I'm no fan of Al-Jazeera. But good of you to show your "Good v. Evil" fantasy for us. :) - Are you a fan of Leo Strauss by any chance?

[Cicero]

Of course it doesn't. I would be embarrassed to claim any allegiance to such propagandic nonsense.




I'm no fan of Al-Jazeera. But good of you to show your "Good v. Evil" fantasy for us. :) - Are you a fan of Leo Strauss by any chance?

Perhaps you could provide the propaganda sources you do pledge allegiance to?

[quarky]

I pledge allegiance to Cicero's right to post his opinions here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As long as we're on Faux News, Hannity said yet another outrageous thing recently. Will the boy ever cease to amaze?

Get this rationale. The recession started when Obama first threw his hat in the ring over 2 years ago as a candidate for President, so that is what caused the lack of confidence in the market and the subsequent recession. I kid you not. That's what he said.

I'm trying to find a transcript.Found it. Keith Olbermann played it back on tonight's Countdown.

It's in the "Bushed" section, "rewriting historygate", 03/04/09, in case the link has a time limit on it.

It's at ~1min30 in the segment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29518430), after the 20 sec obligatory commercial. Olbermann only has the beginning of Hannity's comments. He went on to make a ridiculous case for why Obama caused the stock market crash because the market lost confidence when Obama began his bid for President. Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Perhaps you could provide the propaganda sources you do pledge allegiance to?

VOA and Radio Marti.

[GStan]

GStan, if you had an agenda, a search for past threads on the topic would have been more productive than your feigned question.
I don't have an agenda, at least not the one you presume without evidence. I'll tell you what it is, since your presumption seems to be the result of me hitting some kind of nerve. (And I'll hide it in case you'd like to guess before reading it)
My agenda, or rather default position is, that all media, not only liberal or only conservative, reflects some measure of bias from their journalists or editors. These are people who are immersed in the subject matter for a living. They are going to form opinions about which side is correct on many issues. They are professional journalists, and may be able to substantially mask their opinions quite often, but cannot completely hide the fact that they are also voters, also Americans, and their opinions are going to be at least subtly evident in their reporting on occasion. So my agenda is not trying to point out or defend claims of bias in the media, but rather to ask people to defend claims that a particular media is "more biased" or "more erroneous" than others, and perhaps to defend claims that their is no media bias at all. There's more that I am willing to share, but don't want to venture off into tl;dr territory just yet.
That study is 5 years old. And it's been discussed before. The claim of liberal media bias has been discussed on this forum before too. And the evidence is clear there is no liberal media bias. Not that OutFoxed hasn't also been discussed. But that's what you get when you waste people's time with fake questions you already had an answer to.
Apologies. The study was a regretable cheap shot on my part. I was in a hurry when I made the post. I just found it amusing that in my haste, when I typed "media bias fox news" into the Google Scholar search function, the first article it returned that I had access to was showing Fox favorably, not negatively as you had claimed. I didn't read past the abstract.

Fox...We opine, you decide... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=36194&highlight=media+bias+research)
Documentry targets FoxNews Bias (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25972&highlight=media+bias+research)

Your link is broke.
I was worried about that. Sorry. I have access to the internet at work through a university portal and as a result frequently have access to many journal pages that are not available to individual users. (Which is why I said as much in my original post.) The link is not broken, I got there through that link; its just not accessible through all internet connections. Again apologies.

In the meantime, here's a critique of that study, which also was discussed before.
The problems with the Groseclose/Milyo study of media bias (http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html)

Their link is also a dead end. But here is a link to the paper. It took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google.
A Measure of Media Bias (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm)

Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003)

Of course, we need an authors respond to the criticisms.
Groseclose and Milyo respond (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001301.html)

Thanks for the links. I will read them, as I am interested in the material, but I didn't really make any claims about the article other than it was an example of a peer-reviewed academic study. You were the one that made the claim that:
It's not the Conservative tilt that's the problem with Fox. It's the fact the station is a Republican Party echo chamber, regardless of the factual integrity of the echo.
and further followed it up with:
It's not hard to show Fox is worse than the usual breed of inaccurate news for specific partisan attacks.

The only evidence you offered for such a claim is a commercial documentary and the reviews thereof. That's simply not good enough for me. If it is good enough for you, that's your business, but it seems to me to be a rather unskeptical approach to finding the truth of this issue.

I am willing to revise my assessment, but you haven't provided sufficient evidence yet.

[Cicero]

Found it. Keith Olbermann played it back on tonight's Countdown.

It's in the "Bushed" section, "rewriting historygate", 03/04/09, in case the link has a time limit on it.

It's at ~1min30 in the segment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29518430), after the 20 sec obligatory commercial. Olbermann only has the beginning of Hannity's comments. He went on to make a ridiculous case for why Obama caused the stock market crash because the market lost confidence when Obama began his bid for President. Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

Keith Olbermann is a bigger blow hard than Hannity. You actually belive MSNB's programing line-up of liberal moonbats has more credability than FOX News line-up of conservative blow hards? No wonder you consider "Outfoxed" to be a documentary. One could just as easily cobble together an expose on the absurdity of MSNBC posing as a anything other than a parade of liberal bug wits. The only problem is MSNBC's name doesn't lend itself to the same inchoate play on words tha FOX does.

[Pardalis]

Linky. (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/feature/2009/02/18/fox_socialism/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room/feature)

I liked how when Beck got an actual socialist on the show, he was a complete jerk:

Ohh, a stunning point!



Linky. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496446,00.html)

(The whole ending was particularly dickish)

So they will yell at us about how we are going down the road to socialism, and when a socialist is on the show they will tell him he doesn't know what socialism is? And they don't see the problem with that?

The whole thing is just so surreal.

I just watched the show on YT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSqy3BmMBGs

Did he say that all countries that have social wellfare are socialist countries? How come he still has a job after showing such ignorance?

It's clear he invited the guy only to fuel paranoia, as he clearly didn't listen to a word his guest said and didn't engage in any meaningful debate with him (funny enough, he is asking for a debate at the end).

What a sorry piece of television.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't have an agenda, at least not the one you presume without evidence. I'll tell you what it is, since your presumption seems to be the result of me hitting some kind of nerve. (And I'll hide it in case you'd like to guess before reading it)

My agenda, or rather default position is, that all media, not only liberal or only conservative, reflects some measure of bias from their journalists or editors. These are people who are immersed in the subject matter for a living. They are going to form opinions about which side is correct on many issues. They are professional journalists, and may be able to substantially mask their opinions quite often, but cannot completely hide the fact that they are also voters, also Americans, and their opinions are going to be at least subtly evident in their reporting on occasion. So my agenda is not trying to point out or defend claims of bias in the media, but rather to ask people to defend claims that a particular media is "more biased" or "more erroneous" than others, and perhaps to defend claims that their is no media bias at all. There's more that I am willing to share, but don't want to venture off into tl;dr territory just yet....My complaint was with the fake question, not with your opinion.

I'll tell you my default position. I'm not an idiot. I am most certainly media literate and promote media literacy (http://www.ced.appstate.edu/departments/ci/programs/edmedia/medialit/article4.html) along with promoting science.

Broadcast news and the rest of mainstream news media are not a source of information as much as they are produced as a commodity. Their business model has devolved into producing the cheapest possible product. In doing so they've gutted the investigative news budgets of the past. In addition, we have lost most diversity because there are now only 6 major owners of broadcast media (http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml), including radio, and the 6 also own many print news sources. Thank the FSM for Internet, or we'd all be in the dark.

Source watch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch) is an excellent web site for revealing the huge industry of Video News Releases (VNRs) (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=VNR) which are essentially commercials disguised as news. The Bush government increased the budget for these as well as hiring a number of different PR firms thus expanding the government propaganda machine during his term. It's unlikely that genie will ever go back into the bottle. While it is illegal not to disclose the source of VNRs, broadcasters often ignore the rule and some have even gone so far as to put a fake interaction between the real host and the canned host on the VNR. The free production cost for the broadcasters is irresistible.

So you are preaching to the choir here, and of course, the TV news especially, is mostly tripe. Bill Moyers documentary, "Buying the War" (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html), did an excellent job of revealing how the whole batch of TV news broadcasters caved to perceived political pressure after 911 and did not do their job actually asking questions about the lies the public was fed promoting the Iraq war. And the public ignored the facts as well, because a lot of us were pointing out the Ambassador Wilson report, the Downing St Memo, the Italian version of the CIA which alerted Bush he was relying on forged documents, and so on.

I saw it before 911 when the Republicans called a news conference almost every day during the 2000 Florida recount and the news media just put the conferences on screen as is, no questions, no counter points, no fact checking. The Democrats did a poor job of 'producing the news' during that time.


But now a little balance is back on the news. The well done studies, not the one you cited, really did show a conservative news bias, which has been especially true over the last 8 years. Fox News likes to repeat the 'liberal news media' charge on their stations daily. It's one of their marketing slogans. The content is still about as in depth as milquetoast. CNN puts on hours and hours and hours of the latest missing/murdered white girl. They have so much time with these 24 hour stations, they could be presenting all sorts of interesting news. But that costs money to produce. They are not interested. And since there is little competition with only 6 major owners, there are no market forces driving a quality product.

The best broadcast news is "Democracy Now!" (http://www.democracynow.org/). They are on public stations both TV and radio. They actually still produce an investigative news program. They have a left leaning bias, but that doesn't stop them from putting on factual programs.

Which brings me back to the thread and why Fox is different. It's not the political bias that is the problem. It's the factual accuracy that differs. And if you are unaware of that and need proof, then you haven't been following the situation or you believe many of those NeoCon lies.

Even comparing the media watchdogs reveals the right wing propensity to outright lie about all kinds of facts. Just compare Media Matters and FactCheck.org to Accuracy in Media (http://www.aim.org/), the right wing answer to MM. Read what is documented on Wiki about AIM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media)AIM has also been vigorously defensive of former Senator Joseph McCarthy, referring to his critics as "liars" and "communists," and defending his legacy, claiming that he never once fingered an innocent person in his accusations during the red scare he helped to fan. [5]



Fox cannot back up their 'facts' with evidence much of the time. While there are certainly errors and gray areas on left leaning opinion programs like Olbermann, there is nothing like the daily outright fabrications one hears on Fox. There's crappy news because of market forces, and then there is Murdoch who has publicly stated he has no qualms about using his news pulpit to broadcast his conservatism. The result is no truth threshold needed. I would welcome a truthful right wing news source. They would have news perhaps not covered on Democracy Now!. But accuracy matters, regardless of political leaning. And Fox ain't it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Keith Olbermann is a bigger blow hard than Hannity. You actually belive MSNB's programing line-up of liberal moonbats has more credability than FOX News line-up of conservative blow hards? No wonder you consider "Outfoxed" to be a documentary. One could just as easily cobble together an expose on the absurdity of MSNBC posing as a anything other than a parade of liberal bug wits. The only problem is MSNBC's name doesn't lend itself to the same inchoate play on words tha FOX does.Document an Olbermann lie and let's look at it. I just documented one of Hannity's.

[GStan]

<snip>



I can't for the life of me figure out why you are making this so difficult. You made the claim that Fox was worse than the rest for factual integrity. I asked you for an independent verification. I rejected Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism as evidence rising to the level of independent verification. I provided you with an example of the kind of study I was interested in, and although I made no claims about the contents of the study itself, you threw a tantrum over an imaginary agenda which you projected onto me. So I asked again, and in response, you've given me another half-a-dozen paragraphs that do not support your claim. In case you missed this point amongst all your rambling:

I haven't even said that you are wrong about Fox News being more factually inaccurate. Stop foaming at the mouth over it.

If I have, and simply haven't realized it, I apologize, in which case your responses might be justified. If I have, please point out where I have and I will apologize accordingly. I have no emotional investment in whether Fox News or any other media outlet is more accurate or less accurate than the others, I just want the evidence that points me to the right answer. Don't give me Media Matters. I am a registered member there and visit their site on a regular basis. I know what they are saying. They have an agenda. They are not hiding it. This is from the "Who we are" section of their website:

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation.

I also visit Media Research Center (www.mrc.org), another conservative counterpart to MM. They are really only interested in finding liberal media bias. The existence of both organizations, and anything they report, provides evidence of the only claim I actually have made: that all outlets have at least some political bias in their reporting. Nothing either side produces can be taken at face value to the extent that they prove that any outlet is "worse" than the others, as you have claimed, because they each admit that they are only looking at one side.


The well done studies, not the one you cited, really did show a conservative news bias, which has been especially true over the last 8 years.
<snip>

If there are well-done studies, please just link to them. I am interested in reading them. (Although I didn't ask for studies on bias, I'm looking for studies on factual accuracy; you know, related to that which you claimed). I am not arguing with you; I am looking for objective reasons to accept or reject your claim that Fox News is less factually accurate than other media organizations. So far, you have not provided any reason to accept it.

The answer can be "I don't have any studies." Fine. If that is the case just say so. It can be "I resent the fact that Fox gets great ratings despite the fact that alot of what they report challenges my political beliefs." Whatever the answer is, I don't really care. Heck, there are reasons to find Fox News objectionable beyond factual integrity. How about the fact that they actually made the conscious decision to be a biased media outlet? IMHO, I think most major left-leaning media have drifted slowly left over time, the unfortunate and undeliberate consequence of the fact that "liberal" news sells better to a wide audience. Among the major media, there was somewhat of a void of conservative viewpoints in the market. Along comes Rupert Murdoch, and you can argue that he is a genius from a capitalistic standpoint that he recognized the void and filled it, but you can also argue that it is detestable from a pure journalistic standpoint that an organization would consciously seek such a biased foundation upon which to build a network. But now I'm just rambling. And somewhat off topic.

[smarta$$]
Perhaps I brought this on myself. I actually look at people's post counts. I probably shouldn't pay attention to them, but I do, and I have a bad habit of thinking that the higher the post count, the more skeptical the poster should be. I think I just figured that with more than 10,000 posts, you would have better evidence to support what seems now to be an idealogically driven belief. ;):p (sorry, a guy's gotta have some fun with this)
[/smarta$$]

[Cicero]

Document an Olbermann lie and let's look at it. I just documented one of Hannity's.

Here is KO agreeing with his favorite political scientist, Janeane Garofalo, about how Michael Steele, being a Republican, is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome. According to Garofalo, and KO, all blacks must think exactly the same, i.e. follow the liberal ideology, or they are self-loathing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfzJZLzJx10&feature=related

Here is MSNBC's Raychill Maddow making up history:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4278592#post4278592

[GStan]

Document an Olbermann lie and let's look at it. I just documented one of Hannity's.

I can't access the video. What is the lie by Hannity that you documented?

[Upchurch]

Here is KO agreeing with his favorite political scientist, Janeane Garofalo, about how Michael Steele, being a Republican, is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome. According to Garofalo, and KO, all blacks must think exactly the same, i.e. follow the liberal ideology, or they are self-loathing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfzJZLzJx10&feature=related
Do you have the actual clip rather than a few out-of-context sound bytes sandwiched between the Fox commentary you just parroted?

[Cicero]

Do you have the actual clip rather than a few out-of-context sound bytes sandwiched between the Fox commentary you just parroted?

Out of context? Ah yes, the predictable Upchurch wail. Here is the whole nauseating mess. It only makes the viewer want to reach for the air-sick bag that much quicker. Maybe you need to see the entire week of "Countdown" that came before this show so you can get the full context? Even the liberal women on "Red Eye" thought Garofalo was Godawfulo.

Were Garofalo's words taken out of context? No. Was KO's response to her drivel taken out of context? No. Did she say Steele suffers from Stockholm Syndrome? Yes. Did KO says that he is self-loathing? Yes. Are her bizarre tattoos indicative of a person who is striving for distinction without because nature failed to proved distinction from within? Of course.

See video at 4:37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl35Dn12DX8

[Pardalis]

From an outsider this thread looks like nothing other than a pissing contest. Who's more of a kook than the other...

Who cares what Garofalo says, she's a truther, and who cares what Beck says, he's a McCarthy wannabe.

Too many kooks have an audience in the media, that's the problem, no matter what side they're on. The only reason why people listen to them is because there is a camera filming them.

[Cicero]

From an outsider this thread looks like nothing other than a pissing contest. Who's more of a kook than the other...

Who cares what Garofalo says, she's a truther, and who cares what Beck says, he's a McCarthy wannabe.

Too many kooks have an audience in the media, that's the problem, no matter what side they're on. The only reason why people listen to them is because there is a camera filming them.

Well, KO, the MSNBC liberal front man, and hero to the dailykos set, obviously cares what Garofalo has to say. The fact that Garofalo is a 911 moonbat only makes what she has to say that much more credible for KO.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

People really do respect Fux News. Amazing!! I've never met anyone outside of this forum who take Fox news Seriously. Pretty much everyone I know treats it like some big joke. I always thought those who liked fox news sorta kept it quiet to protect their rep.

[Allen773]

The fact that Roger Ailes is the President of FNC should give one pause.

[Cicero]

People really do respect Fux News. Amazing!! I've never met anyone outside of this forum who take Fox news Seriously. Pretty much everyone I know treats it like some big joke. I always thought those who liked fox news sorta kept it quiet to protect their rep.


What better endorsement for FOX than your boast that you, and the circles you travel in, consider the network a joke. What would really be astounding is if the people you say you hang with admit to knowing you.

[Cicero]

The fact that Roger Ailes is the President of FNC should give one pause.

Right. The fact that The New York Times is published by Pinch Sulzberger should also. Not to mention any media outlet supported by George Soros.

[pgwenthold]

People really do respect Fux News. Amazing!! I've never met anyone outside of this forum who take Fox news Seriously. Pretty much everyone I know treats it like some big joke. I always thought those who liked fox news sorta kept it quiet to protect their rep.

Recall the story about how Dick Cheney would insist that Fox News be playing on the TV when he went into a room where he was staying (like a hotel room).

[Cicero]

Recall the story about how Dick Cheney would insist that Fox News be playing on the TV when he went into a room where he was staying (like a hotel room).

Amazing! How could he not demand the Playboy Channel?

[Cicero]

The same people who routinely complain about FOX News are blithely indifferent to the liberal cable channels MSNBC/CNN/CNBC/, whose egregious programing continually finish first in their race to the bottom.

[Pardalis]

Amazing! How could he not demand the Playboy Channel?

Doesn't he have a heart condition?

[Cicero]

Doesn't he have a heart condition?

I believe the standard lib witticism to that straight line is, "Yeah, and the condition is he doesn't have one."

[Skeptic Ginger]

The same people who routinely complain about FOX News are blithely indifferent to the liberal cable channels MSNBC/CNN/CNBC/, whose egregious programing continually finish first in their race to the bottom.The issue is not political slant, Cicero, it is factual credibility.

[EvilSmurf]

Well, KO, the MSNBC liberal front man, and hero to the dailykos set, obviously cares what Garofalo has to say. The fact that Garofalo is a 911 moonbat only makes what she has to say that much more credible for KO.

Evidence that KO has any sort of leanings towards 9/11 conspiracy theories please. Rather than "he bought this guest on about something unrelated. They're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Ergo, so is KO" I want actual statements out of KO's mouth.

[Cicero]

The issue is not political slant, Cicero, it is factual credibility.

And I have provided examples in this thread of MSNBC's Raychill Maddow and KO not having any credibility. When do you plan to address this instead of continuing the charade that your skepticism isn't one of convenience?

[Cicero]

Evidence that KO has any sort of leanings towards 9/11 conspiracy theories please. Rather than "he bought this guest on about something unrelated. They're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Ergo, so is KO" I want actual statements out of KO's mouth.

Garofolo is not a guest, she is a regular. Here is KO offering up a conspiracy about the 2006 British arrest of two dozen suspects in a purported plot to blow 10 U.S.-bound international flights.

"And could it just be coincidence that the President finds out about this plot, then his Vice President and the Republican chairman start slamming Democrats for being soft on terror, then the public is informed about the plot? Could it really be just coincidence?"

http://newsbusters.org/node/6909

While Garfolo is a 911 MIHOP, KO is a LIHOP:

"The political party in office at the time of the attacks, at the local, state and national levels, the party which uniformly ignored the warnings and the presidential administration already through twenty percent of its first term and no longer wet behind the ears, have not only thus far escaped any blame for the malfeasance and criminal neglect that allowed the attacks to occur....."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26645619

[Cicero]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a384/themarbleintheoatmeal/smilies/watchdrama8jm.gif

[Pardalis]

She also signed the Truth movement statement.

Either she signed it without reading it and without knowing what the "9/11 truth" organization was about, or she did sign it knowingly. Either way she's stupid.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[jj]

Garofolo is a wingnut.

Now, can we moveon, please? :p

Garofolo needs to marry Limbaugh. Come on, folks, just consider the implications...

[Cicero]

She also signed the Truth movement statement.

Either she signed it without reading it and without knowing what the "9/11 truth" organization was about, or she did sign it knowingly. Either way she's stupid.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

"Actress Janeane Garofalo Blurts '9/11 Was an Inside Job' on Conan O'Brien While Discussing Controversial Politics"

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/170707_garofalo_911.html

Sign it? She probably drafted it.

[elbe]

While Garfolo is a 911 MIHOP, KO is a LIHOP:

"The political party in office at the time of the attacks, at the local, state and national levels, the party which uniformly ignored the warnings and the presidential administration already through twenty percent of its first term and no longer wet behind the ears, have not only thus far escaped any blame for the malfeasance and criminal neglect that allowed the attacks to occur....."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26645619
My reading of that suggests the Olbermann believes the government let it happen through negligence, not for some nefarious purpose. Perhaps he does believe in LIHOP, I don't know, but I certainly don't get that impression from that quote.

[Cicero]

My reading of that suggests the Olbermann believes the government let it happen through negligence, not for some nefarious purpose. Perhaps he does believe in LIHOP, I don't know, but I certainly don't get that impression from that quote.

Was the first attack on the Twin Towers the result of Clinton's "criminal neglect that allowed it to occur?" I missed KO's LIHOP rant on that one.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And I have provided examples in this thread of MSNBC's Raychill Maddow and KO not having any credibility. When do you plan to address this instead of continuing the charade that your skepticism isn't one of convenience?Maybe when you actually post something besides opinion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

She also signed the Truth movement statement.

Either she signed it without reading it and without knowing what the "9/11 truth" organization was about, or she did sign it knowingly. Either way she's stupid.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633If you are referring to Garofolo, which mainstream news program is she on?

And the request to investigate 911, was that because people wanted to know about Bush's being asleep at the wheel before the attack?

I don't know Garofolo's current beliefs about 911. And there are unreliable left wingers. Rhodes and Malloy are two of them as is Robert Kennedy Jr. I don't consider any of these three mainstream news pundits or reporters.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Was the first attack on the Twin Towers the result of Clinton's "criminal neglect that allowed it to occur?" I missed KO's LIHOP rant on that one.No, according to Richard Clarke who was Clinton's chief of counter terrorism, he couldn't get Rice or Bush to act on the alQ threat. After they took office, the ball was dropped.

[elbe]

Was the first attack on the Twin Towers the result of Clinton's "criminal neglect that allowed it to occur?" I missed KO's LIHOP rant on that one.
I'm sorry, I don't actually recall reciting an opinion on anything other than the quote as presented. It reads, to me, as Olbermann claiming the Bush administration failed to stop the attacks through negligence, not "on purpose". Believe what you will, but that quote just does not support a LIHOP stand.

[Cicero]

Maybe when you actually post something besides opinion.

I guess when the facts do not support your ideology they become opinion.


Raychill Maddow's fallacy about waterboarding is a perfect example of her ignorance.

"People found guilty of waterboarding were sentenced to death and hanged."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28269977

Not that the K.O. offspring is ever interested in facts when they get in the way of her daily diatribe against the Bush Administration, but would it be too much to ask her to characterize the type of waterboarding and acts of torture that Asano was charged with?

Defendant: Asano, Yukio

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

Verdict: 15 years CHL

Only three (3) prisoners were waterboarded, and none of them were subjected to the above treatment.

[Cicero]

No, according to Richard Clarke who was Clinton's chief of counter terrorism, he couldn't get Rice or Bush to act on the alQ threat. After they took office, the ball was dropped.

So 911 was "criminal negligence," but the 1993 WTC bombing was unavoidable? I guess Clarke missed this tidbit when he was Clinton's Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group.

"In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects."

[Cicero]

I'm sorry, I don't actually recall reciting an opinion on anything other than the quote as presented. It reads, to me, as Olbermann claiming the Bush administration failed to stop the attacks through negligence, not "on purpose". Believe what you will, but that quote just does not support a LIHOP stand.

KO says 911 was "allowed" to occur by the Bush administration through "negligence" which, as Skeptigirl's post that proceeds yours claims, Bush 43 knew what was going to happen before it did and took no action. That sure sounds like LIHOP. I never heard KO say is was just an accident. It was an act of "criminality."


And since Clinton had info about the 1993 WTC bombing before it occurred, he must also be "criminally negligent" since he ignored the warnings.

What's good for the goose....

[elbe]

KO says 911 was "allowed" to occur by the Bush administration through "negligence" which, as Skeptigirl's post that proceeds yours claims, Bush 43 knew what was going to happen before it did and took no action. That sure sounds like LIHOP. I never heard KO say is was just an accident. It was an act of "criminality."
I disagree with your interpretation of the quote. Where did Olbermann say the administration knew specifically what would happen to allow for the LIHOP scenario in that quote? I should think, and the quote appears to agree, that it is possible to be negligent without specifically allowing it to happen. You have beef with Olbermann, ok, I don't really care one way or another, but I see no reason to read more into that one quote than what is actually contained within.

And since Clinton had info about the 1993 WTC bombing before it occurred, he must also be "criminally negligent" since he ignored the warnings.

What's good for the goose....
Unrelated. The quote does not address the '93 bombing and thus makes no claims about it. Olbermann may, and probably does, have a view on it, but it is not addressed in your quote.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So 911 was "criminal negligence," but the 1993 WTC bombing was unavoidable? I guess Clarke missed this tidbit when he was Clinton's Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group.

"In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects."
Was there a daily brief titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"? Did Clinton ignore evidence planes were going to be used as weapons, even claiming no one imagined it, when it actually had been written in previous security reports? Did Clinton's chief of staff refuse to meet with the counter terrorism chief after numerous requests by the c.t. chief for a meeting? Did 3,000 people die? Did the towers collapse?

You always try to equate unequal things, Cicero. The issue was not that a terrorist attack occurred. The issue was Bush was an incompetent leader who dropped the ball at a bad time.

And is there a link for your quote so we can look at the context and source? Because according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem), "In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office, denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks."

[GStan]

Maybe when you actually post something besides opinion.

:rolleyes:

[Cicero]

Was there a daily brief titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"? Did Clinton ignore evidence planes were going to be used as weapons, even claiming no one imagined it, when it actually had been written in previous security reports? Did Clinton's chief of staff refuse to meet with the counter terrorism chief after numerous requests by the c.t. chief for a meeting? Did 3,000 people die? Did the towers collapse?

You always try to equate unequal things, Cicero. The issue was not that a terrorist attack occurred. The issue was Bush was an incompetent leader who dropped the ball at a bad time.

And is there a link for your quote so we can look at the context and source? Because according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem), "In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office, denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks."

Your silence regarding the evidanece of Maddow's lack of credibility must be your way of acknowledgment?

Link? Why it is the redoubtable New York Times

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6DF1138F93BA15753C1A9659582 60

The FBI during the Clinton administration was rather weak in the credibility department. Does Ruby Ridge and Waco ring any bells?

Not mention that the U.S.S. Cole was attacked on Clinton's watch.

[Cicero]

Maybe when you actually post something besides opinion.

Have you had time to watch the Maddow clip? You need not suffer through the entire 12 1/2 minutes of vitriol as her fabrications are evident 55 seconds into the rant.