Fox News should be banned!

[esmith]

Let's just leave it that you do not like FNC and I do. Each to their own.

 

[Underhill]

What constitutes campaigning is subjective.
People tend to notice it when it annoys, so it's generally the other side who is guilty of it.
Lefties decry Fox, but don't notice it in their own sources.
I also hear righties decry the other media, thinking that only Fox is "fair & balanced".
Thus, there will always be disagreement over this.

When Bush was prez, the media hounded him at least as much as Obama suffers.
People on the left & right are always trying to convince me that only their side is the moral, intelligent, & objective one.
What do they offer?
They point at faults of the other, blow them out of proportion, & ignore or excuse sins on their own side.
It's not a convincing argument.

So now you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying almost none of that. Just that Fox is more blatant in their support of republicans. Something most of the world seems to understand and agree with.

When Bush was president they hounded him, yes. There were torture scandals, faulty intelligence reports that led to war, terror attacks, mishandling of a major disaster by a vastly under-qualified political appointee. When Bush was hounded it was largely because there was a lot of questionable stuff going on.

Obama has Benghazi and a health system that could have been implemented better. Let's put it into perspective. Congress spent more, by a wide margin, investigating Benghazi than they did 9-11. That is what happens when the sounding board for the party (Fox News) spends 18 hours a day for many months manufacturing a scandal.

I've complained under both presidents that the president is the catch-all for blame for everything under the son, 90% of which he has no control over. That is a separate issue.

 

[metis]

Wishful thinking. According to that link, FOX has been on top for over 13 years. Most likely as the youngsters grow up, they develop brains and move to the Right.

But Fox is the only right-wing network, so those who drift in that direction pretty much have them as the only choice. But when people finally do some serious homework, they leave and go more towards the left.

 

[Revoltingest]

So now you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying almost none of that.

No, no....I spoke generally, without including you.
Curse my ineptitude at clarity!
Were I dissing you, I'd use the 2nd person pronoun, & perhaps call you a "poopyhead".

 

[metis]

Instead of quoting my language, you use "the same"...
Do you really claim that recognizing common traits of Fox & PBS necessarily leads to saying "a grape is the same as a bowling ball"?

One might think you're trying to construct an argument to win,
rather than understand my perspective.
Next time, try dealing with my post instead of invented straw men.

No, it is not I who is twisting things to create a strawman. Here's what you wrote in post #109: "If NPR can campaign for Dems, why can't Fox do so for Pubs?"

Now, you are the one who has drawn this false equivalency, so in order to justify your own statement, please post evidence that NPR has actively campaigned for Dems. If you can't do it, then all you are doing is creating two strawmen, one for posting the the false equivalency to begin with, and the other for accusing me of creating a strawman, which I clearly haven't.

Hey, but what should I expect from someone who creates his own "dictionary" and "encyclopedia", such as his self-serving definitions for "socialism" and "libertarianism". And even when supplied with links and quotes to show you were wrong, you still couldn't bring yourself to admit that you're wrong.
.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it is not I who is twisting things to create a strawman. Here's what you wrote in post #109: "If NPR can campaign for Dems, why can't Fox do so for Pubs?"

I'd rather that our news sources not pick a side (because of the echo chamber effect).
But bias will inevitably creep in, even with the most dedicated seekers of neutrality & objectivity.
So I don't expect perfection.
But neither do I want government stepping to correct what it sees as bias.
(Note that gov involvement is implicit with the OP's call to ban Fox.)

I prefer consumer feedback, so I've actually called my local station to give'm my opinion.
(They never seem too interested, but one gots to do what one gots to do, eh.)
So tis best to consume a variety of sources with different agendas.
Those who watch only Fox or MSNBC will have a less full picture of things than one who watches both....or better yet, more.
Do you ever read/listen to any conservative sources?

....please post evidence that NPR has actively campaigned for Dems.

I already gave an example of NPR's campaigning for B Clinton.
Tis not "false equivalency" to point out that 2 things share something in common (eg, both NPR & Fox favoring one side over another).
I see thru this oft used trick of deflection & exculpation, bub!

...what should I expect from someone who creates his own "dictionary" and "encyclopedia", such as his self-serving definitions for "socialism" and "libertarianism".

No, no....you have it backwards.
I use dictionary.reference.com & sometimes Mirriam-webster.com to accurately define words as commonly & currently used.
You'd know this if you actually read the vast number of links I provide with the definitions quoted & used.

I object to is extremists on both the left & the right, who use different non-dictionary
definitions to either demonize, excuse, or exalt their personal perspective on "socialism".
I reject ad hoc arguments.....both leftish complex historical ones that USSR & N Korea
aren't socialist, & simplistic rightish ones that Canuckistan & Americastan are socialist.

Dictionaries help us avoid speaking cross purpose, & committing etymological fallacies.
So I'll continue with Dictionary.com to define words.

And even when supplied with links and quotes to show you were wrong, you still couldn't bring yourself to admit that you're wrong.

You must recognize that supplying a link might seem to be an argument in & of itself, but this is found wanting.
To counter someone else's argument, you must consider their perspective & argument, & then provide your
own cogent argument. The links best serve only a supporting function.

I expect more from such an intelligent & erudite poster than......"I win because <link>!"
Put that triple digit IQ to work, bruderherz!

 

[Underhill]

I already gave an example of NPR's campaigning for B Clinton.
Tis not "false equivalency" to point out that 2 things share something in common (eg, both NPR & Fox favoring one side over another).
I see thru this oft used trick of deflection & exculpation, bub!

You must have missed the post where I pointed out that you have your facts confused (senior moment perhaps?). There was no Lewinsky scandal before B. Clinton was elected for the second time. I even linked to a timeline by CNN. Clinton was elected in November, the story didn't break until late in the following year.

 

[Underhill]

No, no....I spoke generally, without including you.
Curse my ineptitude at clarity!
Were I dissing you, I'd use the 2nd person pronoun, & perhaps call you a "poopyhead".

Happens to the best of us. Personally I prefer the term "yeast-lipped ballvalley" although I'm not sure how the mods would feel about it. Fortunately I rarely feel the need to resort to name calling.

 

[Revoltingest]

You must have missed the post where I pointed out that you have your facts confused (senior moment perhaps?). There was no Lewinsky scandal before B. Clinton was elected for the second time. I even linked to a timeline by CNN. Clinton was elected in November, the story didn't break until the following spring/summer.

You are correct.
I had my "bimbo eruptions" mixed up.
(Forgive me, for there were so many, & it was a couple decades ago.)
Paula Jones was the subject of the scandal.
This is actually a worse scandal IMO because unlike the Lewinsky tryst, this more about Bill's sexual aggression.

 

[Underhill]

You are correct.
I had my "bimbo eruptions" mixed up.
(Forgive me, for there were so many, & it was a couple decades ago.)
Paula Jones was the subject of the scandal.
This is actually a worse scandal IMO because unlike the Lewinsky tryst, this more about Bill's sexual aggression.

You mean the case that was dropped?

 

[Revoltingest]

You mean the case that was dropped?

"Dropped" doesn't quite convey the complete sense of what happened.
From Wikipedia......

On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal.Robert S. Bennett, Clinton's attorney, still maintained that Jones's claim was baseless and that Clinton only settled so he could end the lawsuit and move on with his life.[9] In March 1999, Judge Wright ruled that Jones would only get $200,000 from the settlement and that the rest of the money would pay for her legal expenses.[13]

Some might claim that Clinton was an innocent victim who merely paid the plaintiff off in
order to avoid the greater expense of a trial. But the following suggests otherwise....

In April 1999, Judge Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay $1,202 to the court and an additional $90,000 to Jones's lawyers for expenses incurred,[16][17][18] far less than the $496,000 that the lawyers originally requested.[18]

Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before Clinton left the office of president, he entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law in Arkansas for a period of five years.[19]His fine was paid from a fund raised for his legal expenses.

Thank goodness we have Matt Drudge to report the news which other media would ignore!

 

[esmith]

But Fox is the only right-wing network, so those who drift in that direction pretty much have them as the only choice. But when people finally do some serious homework, they leave and go more towards the left.

Only those that can't think for themselves

 

[dust1n]

They promote violence, bigotry, and greed! I think they should be banned for humanity's good.

Treat them like Islamic extremists and extremists of all kinds.

An enemy of nice polite tolerant society!

But if we ban Fox News, how am I suppose to be able to tell which one of my uncles is out of their mind?

 

[Underhill]

"Dropped" doesn't quite convey the complete sense of what happened.
From Wikipedia......
Some might claim that Clinton was an innocent victim who merely paid the plaintiff off in
order to avoid the greater expense of a trial. But the following suggests otherwise....

Thank goodness we have Matt Drudge to report the news which other media would ignore!

mm hmm.

Anyway, I highly doubt NPR didn't cover that story till after the election. The lawsuit was made public 2 years before he was elected in for the second time. They may not have brought it up every 5 minutes like Fox did, but I find it hard to believe NPR never talked about in their news report.

 

[Revoltingest]

mm hmm.

Anyway, I highly doubt NPR didn't cover that story till after the election.

I remember being struck by their only covering it after Clinton's re-election.

The lawsuit was made public 2 years before he was elected in for the second time. They may not have brought it up every 5 minutes like Fox did, but I find it hard to believe NPR never talked about in their news report.

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether there was disparate coverage.
NPR is & was my only broadcast news source.
(For print, I've much more variety.)

 

[Akivah]

OK, so it's obvious that MSNBC favors Democrats and FOX favors Republicans. So what? The crux is that each is a separate business and makes profit by supplying news that their customers want to know. If one of their customer bases withers to nothing, then that agency will either change their approach or go out of business.

No need for government intrusion.

 

[Agathion]

Pfft Fox is one of the few news channels not subverted by the neo-communists who have taken over America. Not many free channels left anymore, most have been corrupted and now serve as the left's personal propaganda machine. No matter soon a republican president will take charge and the damage wrought by the left shall be repaired. The communist attempt to transform America into the soviet union has failed. Thank god for that.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, so it's obvious that MSNBC favors Democrats and FOX favors Republicans. So what? The crux is that each is a separate business and makes profit by supplying news that their customers want to know.

False equivalence!
You can't say that 2 different things have anything in common!

Oh.....wait....I forgot that I agree with your post.
Someone please slap me.
Metis, will you?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Fox News is fun entertainment.

Media coverage and journalistic integrity in our society is fundamentally flawed due to the profit motive and I can't see any evidence that it's anything more than a tool to keep the status quo in check.

The answer is to not take it too seriously and just sit back and enjoy the characters.

The only thing that really bothers me is people who seem to buy into this material on face value. It's a short cut to thinking and endorses incuriosity.

 

[metis]

I'd rather that our news sources not pick a side (because of the echo chamber effect).
But bias will inevitably creep in, even with the most dedicated seekers of neutrality & objectivity.
So I don't expect perfection.
But neither do I want government stepping to correct what it sees as bias.
(Note that gov involvement is implicit with the OP's call to ban Fox.)

I prefer consumer feedback, so I've actually called my local station to give'm my opinion.
(They never seem too interested, but one gots to do what one gots to do, eh.)
So tis best to consume a variety of sources with different agendas.
Those who watch only Fox or MSNBC will have a less full picture of things than one who watches both....or better yet, more.
Do you ever read/listen to any conservative sources?

I already gave an example of NPR's campaigning for B Clinton.
Tis not "false equivalency" to point out that 2 things share something in common (eg, both NPR & Fox favoring one side over another).
I see thru this oft used trick of deflection & exculpation, bub!

No, no....you have it backwards.
I use dictionary.reference.com & sometimes Mirriam-webster.com to accurately define words as commonly & currently used.
You'd know this if you actually read the vast number of links I provide with the definitions quoted & used.

I object to is extremists on both the left & the right, who use different non-dictionary
definitions to either demonize, excuse, or exalt their personal perspective on "socialism".
I reject ad hoc arguments.....both leftish complex historical ones that USSR & N Korea
aren't socialist, & simplistic rightish ones that Canuckistan & Americastan are socialist.

Dictionaries help us avoid speaking cross purpose, & committing etymological fallacies.
So I'll continue with Dictionary.com to define words.

You must recognize that supplying a link might seem to be an argument in & of itself, but this is found wanting.
To counter someone else's argument, you must consider their perspective & argument, & then provide your
own cogent argument. The links best serve only a supporting function.

I expect more from such an intelligent & erudite poster than......"I win because <link>!"
Put that triple digit IQ to work, bruderherz!

Why don't you actually provide some evidence for what you posted? All I see above is an attempt to cover your arse, minus one shred of evidence for that which you claimed to be true. If you can't provide such evidence, and you know that you can't, and I know you can't, then maybe take an honesty pill and admit it instead of trying to shift the onus onto someone else.

To put it briefly, post your evidence. And you claimed they did it with B. Clinton, so maybe even try and post that evidence. IOW, either "put up or shut up", but my money is on that you'll do neither and just blabber on and on.