You could have used it in your speech class, but I think nothing can force a Fox junkie to see the light. They're like creationists. You can't reason them out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
- Status
You could have used it in your speech class, but I think nothing can force a Fox junkie to see the light. They're like creationists. You can't reason them out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Oh yes, my ignorance is profound.
Actually, I'm not interested in arbitrating the United issue here except to note there are differences of opinion as to how far the ruling went.
Yer lucky. My ignorance is rather pedestrian.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yet you must express your responses to me in verse.
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
Care to tell us what WAS affected by the Citizens United case, then? I've always thought it was all about removing the limits on donations to candidates too.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Here's a bit of news you won't see reported on Fox:
Source.
The right-wing network Fox News is under scrutiny over newly disclosed directives to its on-air reporters. The group Media Matters has released a leaked memo showing a top Fox News editor ordered journalists to always state that climate change data has been called into question when discussing the topic. The directive originated during the U.N. Climate Change Conference talks last year in Copenhagen when a Fox News correspondent reported the U.N.’s data that the last decade was the warmest on record. Minutes later, Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon sent out a memo questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering correspondents to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question." The revelation follows disclosure of another memo ordering Fox News reporters to avoid use of the term "public option" in favor of "government option" when discussing healthcare. The directive echoed advice from a Republican pollster on ways to sway public opinion against healthcare reform. The news comes on the heels of a poll from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland showing that Fox News viewers are more misinformed on key issues than audiences of other news sources. Over 60 percent of Fox News viewers believe President Obama either was not or may not have been born in the United States.
Source.
dust1n
Zindīq
Fair enough.
I prefer to think of myself as uninformed.
dust1n
Zindīq
Donation limits aren't the problem here. Here's some criticisms right off the wiki.
Academics and attorneys
The constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe wrote that the decision "marks a major upheaval in First Amendment law and signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have been made by the Roberts Court to an incremental and minimalist approach to constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine concern with adherence to precedent" and pointed out that "Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other peoples money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose."[56]
Former supreme court Justice Sandra Day OConnor criticized the decision only obliquely, but warned that In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon.[57]
Four other academics writing in the aforementioned New York Times article were critical.[32] Heather K. Gerken, Professor of Law at Yale Law School wrote that "The court has done real damage to the cause of reform, but that damage mostly came earlier, with decisions that made less of a splash." Richard L. Hasen, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, found that the ruling "is activist, it increases the dangers of corruption in our political system and it ignores the strong tradition of American political equality". Michael Waldman, director of the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law, opined that the decision "matches or exceeds Bush v. Gore in ideological or partisan overreaching by the court" and Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21 considered it "a disaster for the American people".[32]
Subsequent research by John Coates, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, has shown that corporations with weaker, less shareholder-friendly corporate governance have been more likely to engage in corporate political activity, and spend more when they do.[58] Professors Lucian Bebchuk at Harvard Law School and Richard Squire Columbia Law School argue that the interests of directors and executives may significantly diverge from those of shareholders with respect to political speech decisions, that these decisions may carry special expressive significance from shareholders, and that as a result of the Citizens United decision, new laws providing shareholders with a greater role in determining how corporate money is spent on political activity would be beneficial to shareholders.[59]
[edit] Journalists
The New York Times stated in an editorial, "The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election."[60] Jonathan Alter called it the "most serious threat to American democracy in a generation."[61]
The Christian Science Monitor wrote that the Court had declared outright that corporate expenditures cannot corrupt elected officials, that influence over lawmakers is not corruption, and that appearance of influence will not undermine public faith in our democracy.[62]
Some journalists and politicians reacted strongly to the decision with online media journal Veterans Today calling for the "immediate arrest" of the justices voting in the majority for treason.[63] Keith Olbermann of MSNBC said that with this decision "within ten years every politician in this country will be a prostitute" and compared it to the case Dred Scott v. Sandford, an 1857 case that held that African-Americans could not be citizens.[64]
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Which, ironically, makes you less ignorant than most.
Nay, I embrace my ignorance. If I may brag, I am ignoranter than most. Experience has taught me that facts are unworthy
of much faith in them. So I don't want to know much, even if I am aware of many opinions proffered as facts.
Last edited:
Requia
Active Member
Donation limits were the only thing I was speaking about. And frequently the only thing the press speaks about. Unless they talk about how PACs (which were also not effected by the decision) are spending more money than usual.
Addressing your points, the largest corporations and unions could already run ads for or against an opponent by founding a PAC. The McCain-Feingold ammendment didn't stop electioneering, just made it so that the most powerful organizations didn't have to deal with competition from smaller special interest groups.
Nor is congress prevented from passing a law against advertising for or against a candidate. The specifics of the Citizen United case did not involve running advertisements, rather they were attempting to purchase distribution services on Comcast-on-demand, which differs from advertising significantly.
Finally, you have to consider the damage the reverse ruling would have done. If it is constitutionally acceptable to censor Citizens United simply because they had de minimis corporate funds, then it is also acceptable to censor say, Michael Moore, or Fox News.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If I could wake up and see the light, it gives me hope that anyone can. However it's a very difficult and delicate process to do.
I've read other stories of such memos that apparently come from the higher ups in Fox News, and they tell the journalist what to say, how to say it, and what kind of points to get across. I think it is a shame, a disgrace, and something everyone should shun that even a high school journalist must live up to higher journalistic standards than what comes from Fox News.
It's just entertainment guys. Does anyone else believe PMSNBC is unbiased? I watch FOX and FRIENDS because of all the hot women. :yes:
I firmly don't believe any news service is unbiased.
CNN comes close, they at least make an attempt.
I've been listening to NPR lately, it has been mostly enjoyable. I was upset with them last week however when they focused on Elizabeth Edwards. She was such a fine lady and I admire her very much. Not one mention of what a dirt bag her husband was. They talked about her for hours. It was almost comical how they tip toed around not mentioning John.
Honestly, to stay on topic, what does it matter how informed FOX viewers are? Many Obama supporters could not tell you what issues where McCains and which where Obama's. That did not stop them from voting.
Politics is a stupid game. If FOX and Friends are stupid, so much the better.
If FOX is making you rabid, your in for a bumpy ride for the next two years.
The ol Reverend suggests taking a deep breath and just enjoy the ride.
A good stiff drink might help as well.
I firmly don't believe any news service is unbiased.
CNN comes close, they at least make an attempt.
I've been listening to NPR lately, it has been mostly enjoyable. I was upset with them last week however when they focused on Elizabeth Edwards. She was such a fine lady and I admire her very much. Not one mention of what a dirt bag her husband was. They talked about her for hours. It was almost comical how they tip toed around not mentioning John.
Honestly, to stay on topic, what does it matter how informed FOX viewers are? Many Obama supporters could not tell you what issues where McCains and which where Obama's. That did not stop them from voting.
Politics is a stupid game. If FOX and Friends are stupid, so much the better.
If FOX is making you rabid, your in for a bumpy ride for the next two years.
The ol Reverend suggests taking a deep breath and just enjoy the ride.
A good stiff drink might help as well.
By most reasonable standards that would recognize Fox as biased, yes, I sure do.
If you disagree, kindly tell me what would be comparable to actually paying Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to anchor their own shows. Do comparably biased commentators even exist in PMSNBC?
Actually the study shows that MSNBC viewers are better informed than anyone else -- especially compared to you Fox viewers.
I firmly don't believe any news service is unbiased.[/quotes]
That's not the point. The point is that some networks are doing a remarkably better job at accurately informing their viewers than are other networks. So, even if "all news services are biased" is true, some news services are much better at conveying the truth than are others.
MSNBC viewers have been shown to be better informed than CNN viewers.
Honestly, to stay on topic, what does it matter how informed FOX viewers are? Many Obama supporters could not tell you what issues where McCains and which where Obama's. That did not stop them from voting.
Politics is a stupid game. If FOX and Friends are stupid, so much the better.
If FOX is making you rabid, your in for a bumpy ride for the next two years.
The ol Reverend suggests taking a deep breath and just enjoy the ride.
A good stiff drink might help as well.
The ol Reverend is advocating willful ignorance, which in a democracy is immoral.
Luis, I see bias on every show. I'm not a blind follower of any news source. It's all propaganda. I enjoy watching FOX but I am not about to drink any kool-aid out there.
The world is going to hell in a hand basket. I honestly don't believe there are any solutions any more. I just want Winter to be over so my dog and I can take the boat out and I can get drunk and sit by the fire in the evening.
I'm ready to retire and turn off the TV for good.
- Status