I report, you decide: FOX on Santorum

[hgc]

So, most new sources I've read on the Santorum story today have not only quoted the Senator's response to the broohaha, but also some more of the original quote which seems (to me) give the lie to that response.

To summarize, Santorum says his remark

All news sources quote this part of the original interview (AP, April 7)"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."and Santorum's response after the controversy broke:"What I was saying was that if you say there is an absolute right to privacy for consenting adults within the home to do whatever they want," Santorum continued, "[then] this has far-reaching ramifications, which has a very serious impact on the American family, and that is what I was talking about."In essense he's saying that if the Supreme Court doesn't allow states to regulate this sexual behavior, then states won't be able to regulate other sexual behavior.

But I also see this reported from his original interview:from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/santorum.gays/index.html)

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." Which sounds like he cares about a lot more than that the Supreme Court may open the door to legalizing incest, et al.

Why would Foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84827,00.html) leave that bit out?

[Sundog]

Fox has absolutely no shame. The very night boy wonder Geraldo was being booted out of Iraq for actually revealing battle plans, O'Reilly was discussing whether it might be possible to pursue treason charges against Peter Arnett, who merely voiced an unpopular opinion.

Absolutely indefensible.

[renata]

Hey! Get thee to my thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18070

I had it first! :)

[hgc]

Originally posted by renata
Hey! Get thee to my thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18070

I had it first! :)
Indeed you did! My thread is meant to be more about how Foxnews seems to slant the news by omission than about Santorum in particular.

[Baker]

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?


Santorum, the No. 3 GOP leader in the Senate, was referring to an majority opinion written in 1986 by Justice Byron White which upheld a state law outlawing sodomy and asserted that consenting adults had no constitutional right to private homosexual acts.

The controversy erupted Monday after the Associated Press released the text of an interview in which the two-term senator compared homosexuality to adultery, polygamy and incest.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84827,00.html

I don’t see what they where leaving out?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Baker

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?


Nonsense. The liberal analogue of Fox News does not exist, period.

Here's an example, from today. There was some story about France and the graphic was "FRENCH WHINE". WTF? What sort of reporting is that?

Fox draws no line between opinion and reporting. Nothing remotely similar happens on any other network.

[hgc]

Baker:
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?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84827,00.html

I don’t see what they where leaving out?
Of the 3 quotes in my original post, the 3rd one is left out by Foxnews.com. I think it's relevant, because it is specifically not defended in Santorum's response, and gives the lie to his assertion of what he meant.

This attack on Fox is about how I think they slanted this story to their liking by making an omission of a very important detail, which other news sources included. Your reponse is a pitiful whine about liberal bias and the left.

Do you suffer from comprehension deficit or are you practicing Fox-style spin?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by hgc
So, most new sources I've read on the Santorum story today have not only quoted the Senator's response to the broohaha, but also some more of the original quote which seems (to me) give the lie to that response.

Why would Foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84827,00.html) leave that bit out? Hi jgc,

It seems a fair question I think. However when I list instances of what I think are proof of bias on the part of the networks I usually get an argument about how such instances are anecdotal.

Is this example merely anecdotal or do you think that it proves that Fox is biased? In a way that the the network news chanels aren't?

Thanks

[hgc]

RandFan:
Hi jgc,

It seems a fair question I think. However when I list instances of what I think are proof of bias on the part of the networks I usually get an argument about how such instances are anecdotal.

Is this example merely anecdotal or do you think that it proves that Fox is biased? In a way that the the network news chanels aren't?

Thanks
It's just an anecdote, obviously. I also think that it's their policy, and it's practiced pervasively. I don't have evidence for that. It's my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hi jgc,


Is this example merely anecdotal or do you think that it proves that Fox is biased? In a way that the the network news chanels aren't?

Thanks

Hi RandFan!

Fox demonstrably has a preferred point of view on virtually any story they cover. They don't even try to hide it. See my "French Whine" comment above. What other network is so open about its biases while denying vociferously that it has any?

[Baker]

Originally posted by hgc

Of the 3 quotes in my original post, the 3rd one is left out by Foxnews.com. I think it's relevant, because it is specifically not defended in Santorum's response, and gives the lie to his assertion of what he meant.

It shows the same story as The CNN link where you expecting them to copy the same story word by word.


This attack on Fox is about how I think they slanted this story to their liking by making an omission of a very important detail, which other news sources included. Your reponse is a pitiful whine about liberal bias and the left.

Missing one quote doesn’t mean they are attempting to slant the story.
Despite the fact that it happens a lot on most of the other networks.



Do you suffer from comprehension deficit or are you practicing Fox-style spin?

Adding an ad hominem replied isn’t going to improve your argument.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Nonsense. The liberal analogue of Fox News does not exist, period. Really?

www.ratherbiased.com (Have you ever read [url)Rather Biased[/URL]

Here's an example, from today. There was some story about France and the graphic was "FRENCH WHINE". WTF? What sort of reporting is that? Do you honestly believe that the big 3 have never done anything as stupid?

Fox draws no line between opinion and reporting. Nothing remotely similar happens on any other network. Are you so sure?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan


Do you honestly believe that the big 3 have never done anything as stupid?

Are you so sure?

I don't believe that they do so on a daily basis, no.

Yes, I am sure.

REAL journalists have something called journalistic integrity. REAL news editors consider it a point of professional pride not to blatantly insert their biases into their reporting. I can't help how the right thinks news works; that's the way it REALLY works at places other than Fox.

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.

[hgc]

Baker:

Missing one quote doesn’t mean they are attempting to slant the story.
Despite the fact that it happens a lot on most of the other networks.
Let's see: Politician says regrettable things. The sh*t hits the fan. Politician makes explaination, attempting to soften impact of his mistake. Most news organizations go to original set of quotes, and indeed find that politician was actually dishonest in his response as to what he really meant.

That's not just any little quote Fox chose to leave out. That's the crux of the story here.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog


I don't believe that they do so on a daily basis, no.

Yes, I am sure.

REAL journalists have something called journalistic integrity. REAL news editors consider it a point of professional pride not to blatantly insert their biases into their reporting. I can't help how the right thinks news works; that's the way it REALLY works at places other than Fox.

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. Well I disagree very much. I find the level of bias on the part of the big 3 to be quite disapointing. I find examples of the kind of stuff you mention all of the time. Check out rather biased. It certainly documents a lot of instances of bias. I've got a lot more if you have an open mind.

Of course if you "know" the truth then no amount of evidence will change your mind.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well I disagree very much. I find the level of bias on the part of the big 3 to be quite disapointing.

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.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
REAL journalists have something called journalistic integrity. REAL news editors consider it a point of professional pride not to blatantly insert their biases into their reporting. I can't help how the right thinks news works; that's the way it REALLY works at places other than Fox. Do you have any objective evidence that Fox is biased?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog


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." 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"?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Do you have any objective evidence that Fox is biased?

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.

[Baker]

Originally posted by hgc

Let's see: Politician says regrettable things. The sh*t hits the fan. Politician makes explaination, attempting to soften impact of his mistake. Most news organizations go to original set of quotes, and indeed find that politician was actually dishonest in his response as to what he really meant.

That's not just any little quote Fox chose to leave out. That's the crux of the story here.

They left out a quote from an older interview.
They where doing an article on a resent remark he made.
It just seems ludicrous based on the slant most other major networks do.
Since you are comparing it to CNN lets just see how much they can slant a news story.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020705-793139.htm

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by Sundog


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]

Originally posted by Sundog


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]

Originally posted by Sundog


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]

Originally posted by Sundog
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by 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...

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]

Originally posted by RandFan
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]

Originally posted by hgc

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]

Originally posted by 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...

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]

Originally posted by Sundog
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 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465001769/qid=1051201176/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/103-3992966-1925443)

And I others are also going to read Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060520841/qid=1051201176/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-3992966-1925443)

And maybe Colton's book Slander (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400046610/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/103-3992966-1925443?v=glance&s=books&st=*) 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]

Originally posted by RandFan


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]

Originally posted by RandFan

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 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465001769/qid=1051201176/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/103-3992966-1925443)

And I others are also going to read Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060520841/qid=1051201176/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-3992966-1925443)

And maybe Colton's book Slander (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400046610/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/103-3992966-1925443?v=glance&s=books&st=*) 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]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


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]

Originally posted by renata
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]

Originally posted by Baker
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]

Originally posted by Kodiak


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.

[Baker]

Originally posted by jj


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.


You have to be kidding no left tilted news you are not only lacking the facts but logic as well.
You also ignored my example I posted more links on the matter in Sundog’s thread "The media is biased? Prove it in real time!" Thread.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18193

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by renata


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

He has that right...and at the very least, you know exactly where the man stands on this issue.

[renata]

Originally posted by Kodiak


He has that right...and at the very least, you know exactly where the man stands on this issue.

When you say " he has that right" do you mean to say you think he is correct, or that he has a right to think that?

Assuming the latter, while being a bigot is a right, I do not want people like that in the government, espcially in the leadership position. It is is a shame that the White House and the Republican leadership is mum on this, and I hope voters of his state will remember this at the next election.

And as a side note, isn't the Republican party one of personal responsibilty and keeping government out of people's lives? How can this be reconciled with his position?

[Baker]

Originally posted by renata


When you say " he has that right" do you mean to say you think he is correct, or that he has a right to think that?

Assuming the latter, while being a bigot is a right, I do not want people like that in the government, espcially in the leadership position. It is is a shame that the White House and the Republican leadership is mum on this, and I hope voters of his state will remember this at the next election.

And as a side note, isn't the Republican party one of personal responsibilty and keeping government out of people's lives? How can this be reconciled with his position?

Shouldn’t this topic have its own thread?
I'm not complaining but it would make a good thread to go over the issue this thread seemed to be mainly to attack Fox news

[hgc]

Originally posted by Baker

Shouldn’t this topic have its own thread?
I'm not complaining but it would make a good thread to go over the issue this thread seemed to be mainly to attack Fox news
You are correct. I started this thread to point out what I think is an instance of biased reporting from Fox News. Many of the underlying issues discussed here deserve their own threads.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by renata


When you say " he has that right" do you mean to say you think he is correct, or that he has a right to think that?

Assuming the latter, while being a bigot is a right, I do not want people like that in the government, espcially in the leadership position. It is is a shame that the White House and the Republican leadership is mum on this, and I hope voters of his state will remember this at the next election.

And as a side note, isn't the Republican party one of personal responsibilty and keeping government out of people's lives? How can this be reconciled with his position?

The latter. I personally have no problem with open homosexuality or sexual promiscuity. To each their own...

You have every right to disagree with Santorum and oppose his reelection or the furtherance of his political career.

IMO, the GOP is anti-federal and pro-state/local control, not "keeping government out of people's lives" (unless you assume that to mean the federal government).

[corplinx]

The problem is, there was more than one report from FNC on this issue. The one I saw was the televised one where Mort Kondracke accused Santorum of trying to have his cake and eat it too on this issue. The normally right leaning Mort had no love for Santorum.

I think Hannity and Colmes have also had one or more segments on this issue.

[jj]

Originally posted by Baker

You have to be kidding no left tilted news you are not only lacking the facts but logic as well.


You don't LIKE my logic, that's tough. You make accusations, but you provide nothing to respond to. You provide no evidence of illlogic, you simply claim it.

The facts are evident every day. That doesn't mean that 1 incident in 24 hours shows anything, but rather a concerted, obvious pattern does.

How much attention did Mr. Bills' wandering get? How much attention did "W"'s drunk driving get? How much attention did we put on the RNC's preventing people from voting.

It's clear, Baker, and you just haven't a thing to offer beyond a professional accusation.

[renata]

Originally posted by hgc

You are correct. I started this thread to point out what I think is an instance of biased reporting from Fox News. Many of the underlying issues discussed here deserve their own threads.

Luckily, such a thread already exists! :)
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18070

I will copy the recent exchange there, and hope the discussion continues there.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
The facts are evident every day. That doesn't mean that 1 incident in 24 hours shows anything, but rather a concerted, obvious pattern does. Could you demonstrate this "concerted, obvious pattern." It seems you are guilty of doing what you accuse Baker of. Claiming that there is such a pattern does not make it so.

How much attention did Mr. Bills' wandering get? How much attention did "W"'s drunk driving get? How much attention did we put on the RNC's preventing people from voting. We got way too much of "W"'s drinking. So much they made skits about it on Mad TV and SNL.

How much coverage did we get of Bush vomiting, Dole falling, Bauer falling, Ford falling? I have seen each example so many times that I can describe each incident in detail. How much TV coverage did Janet Reno's fall get? I don't really know because I never saw the tape, I tried, I searched the news when it happened. Though one person (Mark) has said that he saw it. I wonder if anyone could describe the event compared to her little fall with the the ability to describe all of the other misshaps. I gues it was a little too embarasing for most outlets.

[hgc]

Randfan:

How much coverage did we get of Bush vomiting, Dole falling, Bauer falling, Ford falling? I have seen each example so many times that I can describe each incident in detail. How much TV coverage did Janet Reno's fall get? I don't really know because I never saw the tape, I tried, I searched the news when it happened. Though one person (Mark) has said that he saw it. I wonder if anyone could describe the event compared to her little fall with the the ability to describe all of the other misshaps. I gues it was a little too embarasing for most outlets.
Oh yes. The pervasive media conspiracy to show only Republicans falling down, and not Democrats falling down.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


How much attention did we put on the RNC's preventing people from voting.

It's clear, Baker, and you just haven't a thing to offer beyond a professional accusation.

As is clear about you politically.

Care to back your assertion with any facts? Perhaps you feel Marian Berry is not a racist, or do you have other citable incidents in mind? Until then, as some would say: poppycock -- I prefer "horsesh*t".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by hgc
Oh yes. The pervasive media conspiracy to show only Republicans falling down, and not Democrats falling down. I have said over and over that I don't believe in any such conspiracies.

The purpose of my post was to show that there were counter examples to JJ's.

I do believe that there is a bias. However I have admited that such observations are anecdotal. Is JJ willing to acknowledge that his example is anecdotal?

I note that you didn't jump in to point out the pervasive media conspiracy to show "Mr. Bills' wandering" and give no attention to "W"'s drunk driving.

[hgc]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have said over and over that I don't believe in any such conspiracies.

The purpose of my post was to show that there were counter examples to JJ's.

I do believe that there is a bias. However I have admited that such observations are anecdotal. Is JJ willing to acknowledge that his example is anecdotal?

I note that you didn't jump in to point out the pervasive media conspiracy to show "Mr. Bills' wandering" and give no attention to "W"'s drunk driving.
I can appreciate that you can counter jj's anecdotes with your own. I'm not here to defend jj. It's just that I don't even consider this a countering anecdote. That you didn't notice anything about Janet Reno falling down but did notice the physical bloopers of various Republican presidents and presidential candidates in the news implies that you think the news organizations (absent a conspiracy) are biased toward showing Republican physical bloopers and not Democratic physical bloopers. That is what you imply, no? I think it's ludicrous. I don't expect you to show me the evidence, because it would be very hard for you to gather, so we'll both have to resort to common sense.

As for W's drunk driving, I don't think it got too much coverage. It was revealed days before the election. It directly contradicted his previous claim never to have been arrested. Then on election day it disappeared from the news forever.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Mr. Bill's wandering." Does that refer to Clinton's sex scandals. I don't think anyone would deny they got a lot of coverage, from 1992 on.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hgc

Oh yes. The pervasive media conspiracy to show only Republicans falling down, and not Democrats falling down.
Does anyone remember all the jokes about Jimmy Carter and the killer rabbit?

[Baker]

Originally posted by jj


You don't LIKE my logic, that's tough. You make accusations, but you provide nothing to respond to. You provide no evidence of illlogic, you simply claim it.

It's clear, Baker, and you just haven't a thing to offer beyond a professional accusation.

I did give you evidence you just replied to one sentence out my reply.
These three links from the link to sundog’s thread.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020705-793139.htm
http://www.ratherbiased.com/
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030410.asp#2

[RandFan]

Originally posted by hgc
I can appreciate that you can counter jj's anecdotes with your own. I'm not here to defend jj. It's just that I don't even consider this a countering anecdote. That you didn't notice anything about Janet Reno falling down but did notice the physical bloopers of various Republican presidents and presidential candidates in the news implies that you think the news organizations (absent a conspiracy) are biased toward showing Republican physical bloopers and not Democratic physical bloopers. That is what you imply, no? I think it's ludicrous. I don't expect you to show me the evidence, because it would be very hard for you to gather, so we'll both have to resort to common sense.

As for W's drunk driving, I don't think it got too much coverage. It was revealed days before the election. It directly contradicted his previous claim never to have been arrested. Then on election day it disappeared from the news forever. Amazing, what I think is ludicrous and what you "think" is based on common sence. ???

You got me. If it is all up to you then you win. But both examples are evidence of an individual point of view. The difference is one fits your world view and the other doesn't.

Is that common sense?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Mr. Bill's wandering." Does that refer to Clinton's sex scandals. I don't think anyone would deny they got a lot of coverage, from 1992 on. JJ's example. And a sex scandal coupled with the posibilty that a sitting president lied under oath is a vastly better story.

JJ's example proves nothing. I at least have the honesty to admit that my example while interesting is anecdotal and proves no more then JJ's.

[hgc]

RandFan:

Amazing, what I think is ludicrous and what you "think" is based on common sence. ???

You got me. If it is all up to you then you win. But both examples are evidence of an individual point of view. The difference is one fits your world view and the other doesn't.

Is that common sence?

Please be clear. Do you think that, due to media bias, the physical bloopers of Republicans is more reported and of Democrats? Don't slip out of it.

That is what you implied, and what I call ludicrous and against common sense -- in my opinion.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by hgc
Please be clear. Do you think that, due to media bias, the physical bloopers of Republicans is more reported and of Democrats? Don't slip out of it. That is what you implied, I'm not trying to slip out of a god damn thing. I have said that it is anecdotal data. It could be interpeted as being bias. But it is proof of NOTHING. Is there something about that you don't understand? That being said, My world view tends to believe that it is.

..and what I call ludicrous and against common sense -- in my opinion. Yes, the logical inconsitency is noted. Thank you. Unless of course you didn't mean to imply that the reporting of Clinton's sex scandal as opposed to Bush's drinking is evidence of bias.

Come on now, don't slip out of it. Are you implying that the reporting of Bush vs. Clinton is evidence of Bias?

Why didn't you give your little quip to JJ?

You have not answered my questions, absent your answer I will duly note your bias.

[Baker]

Here is something interesting to add to the discussion.

. In December, Sen. Patty Murray, then the leader of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, compared Osama bin Laden favorably to the United States, saying he allegedly built hospitals and day care centers in the Third World, and "We have not done that." The national media, print and television, almost completely ignored it. In 2001, Sen. Robert Byrd, the former Democratic majority leader, said "There are white *******, I’ve seen a lot of white ******* in my time" on Fox News Sunday, and nobody held a will-he-survive vigil over that.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2003/press20030424.asp

[hgc]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not trying to slip out of a god damn thing. I have said that it is anecdotal data. It could be interpeted as being bias. But it is proof of NOTHING. Is there something about that you don't understand? That being said, My world view tends to believe that it is.
I already know it's proof of nothing. I was trying to establish if you actually even believe it be anecdotal evidence of media bias against Republicans falling down. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "[your] world view tends to believe that it is." I think you're saying that you believe it. I say you're off your nut. That's not a logical argument, just my assertion that your belief if kooky.
Yes, the logical inconsitency is noted. Thank you. Unless of course you didn't mean to imply that the reporting of Clinton's sex scandal as opposed to Bush's drinking is evidence of bias.

Come on now, don't slip out of it. Are you implying that the reporting of Bush vs. Clinton is evidence of Bias?
I don't understand the inconsistency you're talking about. You thought W's drinking got too much coverage (I think). I countered that it got a few days of coverage, and that it was appropriate. Clinton's sex scandals got a lot more coverage over the course of 8 years. And why not? There was a lot more news there.
Why didn't you give your little quip to JJ?

You have not answered my questions, absent your answer I will duly note your bias.
Have I answered your questions? I have honestly tried. As for my position, I'm not afraid to articulate it. I don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, with the exception of Fox, which consistently comes down in favor of the Republicans.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
Care to back your assertion with any facts?

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

Stop it! You're killin' me!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by hgc
Have I answered your questions? I have honestly tried. As for my position, I'm not afraid to articulate it. I don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, with the exception of Fox, which consistently comes down in favor of the Republicans. And I think you are off of your nut and a kook and a jerk and you can kiss my a$$. I hope that is clear.

[hgc]

RandFan:

And I think you are off of your nut and a kook and a jerk and you can kiss my a$$. I hope that is clear.
Does that mean you don't want to talk about Fox News bias any more?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by hgc
I don't understand the inconsistency you're talking about. Well of course you don't. And no you didn't answer my questions honestly or not.

Do you believe that it is bias?

JJ does, how is anecdotal example any different than mine, aside from your opinion which coupled with a hand full of spit is roughly worth a handful of spit.

You thought W's drinking got too much coverage (I think). I countered that it got a few days of coverage, and that it was appropriate. Clinton's sex scandals got a lot more coverage over the course of 8 years. And why not? There was a lot more news there. Still not proof of bias is it? Nor does it prove a lack of bias does it?

Have I answered your questions? No.

I have honestly tried. You wouldn't know it from reading your response.

As for my position, I'm not afraid to articulate it. I don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, with the exception of Fox, which consistently comes down in favor of the Republicans. Do you have any objective proof or are we talking about that vaunted opinion of yours?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by hgc
Does that mean you don't want to talk about Fox News bias any more? No it means there is little reason to talk to you about it since you obviously are inconsistent with your critisism.

[hgc]

RandFan:
No it means there is little reason to talk to you about it since you obviously are inconsistent with your critisism.
Inconsitent? Show me.

Do you have any objective proof or are we talking about that vaunted opinion of yours?
Oh come on. Who on this board doesn't come here to express their opinions? These are very subjective arguments. People with prior disagreement can almost never provide "proof" to the others' satisfaction. Good example: your "world view" informs you that the media is biased against Republicans falling down (and puking). I would never think of asking you to prove that.

[Baker]

Originally posted by hgc

Have I answered your questions? I have honestly tried. As for my position, I'm not afraid to articulate it. I don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, with the exception of Fox, which consistently comes down in favor of the Republicans.

Oh, so you don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties.
However, you ignore my examples showing that they are.
It seems you are the one being biased here!

[hgc]

Originally posted by Baker

Oh, so you don't think the major American media are systematically biased for or against the positions and politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties.
However, you ignore my examples showing that they are.
It seems you are the one being biased here!

hgc: emphasis mine
You had very nice examples. Not the same as proving systematic bias. Like I said above, these things are very hard to prove. That's why I'm honest enough to state it as my opinion, just as the opposing view is your opinion. You got a problem with that?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by hgc
Inconsitent? Show me. Simple, that you think that JJ's example proves something that mine does not without any logic or rational.

Oh come on. Who on this board doesn't come here to express their opinions? Yes, but calling people kooks for expressing opinions is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

These are very subjective arguments. People with prior disagreement can almost never provide "proof" to the others' satisfaction. Good example: your "world view" informs you that the media is biased against Republicans falling down (and puking). I would never think of asking you to prove that. And there would be no reason to ask me to prove it since I said from the very start that it was anecdotal.

Look, I don't have a problem when my logic is questioned. I do have a problem when someone says out of the blue that an opinion that is expresed as opinion is ludicrous and then supports an equally undefensible opinion based upon...opinion.

[Baker]

Originally posted by hgc

You had very nice examples. Not the same as proving systematic bias. Like I said above, these things are very hard to prove. That's why I'm honest enough to state it as my opinion, just as the opposing view is your opinion. You got a problem with that?

You seemed quite sure of it in earlier posts but all take it as just opinions.
The link I posted a few messages back was on the same subject Santorum did make some good points.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2003/press20030424.asp

[daredelvis]

Originally posted by Kodiak



IMO, the GOP is anti-federal and pro-state/local control, not "keeping government out of people's lives" (unless you assume that to mean the federal government).

A good example of this is the GOP’s position on counting ballots in Florida.

:D :D

Daredelvis

[corplinx]

Originally posted by hgc

Does that mean you don't want to talk about Fox News bias any more?

I will. They are obviously part of the liberal conspiracy. They broke the Bush DUI story. The hounded Trent Lott like no other news org. Obviously they are matriarchal totalitarian leftists.

[Baker]

It wasn’t Fox who got it wrong it was the other Networks.
So Fox is slanted to the right for not spreading the same false story as the other networks.


Unfortunately, several media outlets have misrepresented Santorum's quote to imply that the senator explicitly compared homosexuality to polygamy, incest and adultery. The problem can be found in several reports such as the lead of an Associated Press article: "Gay-rights groups, fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, yesterday urged Republican leaders to consider removing the Pennsylvania lawmaker from the GOP Senate leadership." Maureen Dowd made the same allegation in her New York Times op-ed column, stating, "Rick Santorum, the obnoxious Pennsylvania senator who is No. 3 in the G.O.P., equated homosexuality with incest, bigamy and polygamy." A Washington Post piece also stated that, "The leading Democratic presidential contenders and congressional leaders condemned [Santorum] for comparing gay sex to incest, bigamy and polygamy in an interview published Monday by the Associated Press."
http://www.spinsanity.org/