Fox Makes Up Breaking News In Order to Cut Away From Obama

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Fox Makes Up Breaking News In Order to Cut Away From Obama

http://gopclownshow.com/fox-breaking-news-obama/

 

 

*sigh*

 

No wonder Americans don't know what's happening in their country

 

 

 

 

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
And the people watching Fox

And the people watching Fox think it is the only unbiased source of news in the world.  Well, besides Rush Limbaugh.

The 'conservative' talking heads really were/are covering the health care bill like it is the end of the world too.  We're screwed.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


TomJ
atheist
TomJ's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Fox sucks

Fox isn't the mainstream, but because so many of the American news outlets are biased one way or the other, the only way to really get objective news is to get it from a foreign news agency like the BBC.

Remember how you figured out there is no Santa? Well, their god is just like Santa. They just haven’t figured out he’s not real yet.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
You fit into me like a fish hook into an open eye.

A fish hook. An open eye.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

No wonder Americans don't know what's happening in their country

I don't? I'm sure Hammy's fucking clueless...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Glad they are not doing

Glad they are not doing something like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAzzhsR8YLg&feature=related

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, in all fairness to

Well, in all fairness to faux news, it was an Airbus A320.

 

If you value your life, you will never set foot on one of those. I honestly don't know why they are even allowed in the sky over north America they are so damned dangerous.

 

The autopilot on those beasts is capable of overriding the pilot even after it has been disengaged. Well, sort of disengaged. They only stay shut off for a few seconds and then they snap back on, only to attempt to override the pilot once again. In some cases over Europe, they have been known to force a crash or midair collision when the pilot had not yet fixed the problem that the autopilot had caused in the first place.

 

I get this information from a couple of friends of mine who are professional pilots. Pilots hate the things and consider them to be an automatic hazard to air travel.

 

So if faux news wants to cover an apparently normal landing of one as a possible serious issue, do please bear in mind that the plane did have the potential to make a sudden nose dive right when it was two body lengths above the ground if for no better reason that it was swerving to avoid a chipmunk that ran out on the runway.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
i dont really understand the

i dont really understand the hate for fox news

 

MSNBC and CNN are just as bad

 

the problem is liberals dont like fox because of its percieved conservative bias, and most of the opinion guys are, but no more than the opinion people on msnbc are liberal

fox regularly has on more guests from the other side than msnbc

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:fox

atomicdogg34 wrote:
fox regularly has on more guests from the other side than msnbc

Yeah: because (American) right-wingers/wingnuts are just as fond of 'putting people on the spot' and assassinating their character as any other politically significant group in the world. O'reilly did this to no end...

Maher's politically incorrect has quite a few folks from the other side of the aisle as well.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:i dont

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont really understand the hate for fox news

MSNBC and CNN are just as bad

the problem is liberals dont like fox because of its percieved conservative bias, and most of the opinion guys are, but no more than the opinion people on msnbc are liberal

fox regularly has on more guests from the other side than msnbc

 

It isnt the liberal/conservative bias that generates so much hatred for faux

Its the lies, libel, mis-information, and out-right slander thats spewed onto the air, under the guise of news... that generates the hatred.

What Would Kharn Do?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:i dont

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont really understand the hate for fox news

 

MSNBC and CNN are just as bad

 

the problem is liberals dont like fox because of its percieved conservative bias, and most of the opinion guys are, but no more than the opinion people on msnbc are liberal

fox regularly has on more guests from the other side than msnbc

I don't watch TV news.  The problem is the same regardless of network and/or bias.  Most topics of interest require months or years of study to understand completely.  Squashing them into one minute or less is misleading no matter which angle you approach from.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Hammy

Kapkao wrote:

A fish hook. An open eye.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

No wonder Americans don't know what's happening in their country

I don't? I'm sure Hammy's fucking clueless...

I love Hammy.  He is clueless.....

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
And I'm a Flower Ranger!

cj wrote:

I love Hammy.  He is clueless.....


(I just wish RRS'ers would stop generalizing on the basis of nationality. A futile wish, given the nature of the internet and international politics... but a valid one nonetheless)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont really understand the hate for fox news

MSNBC and CNN are just as bad

the problem is liberals dont like fox because of its percieved conservative bias, and most of the opinion guys are, but no more than the opinion people on msnbc are liberal

fox regularly has on more guests from the other side than msnbc

 

It isnt the liberal/conservative bias that generates so much hatred for faux

Its the lies, libel, mis-information, and out-right slander thats spewed onto the air, under the guise of news... that generates the hatred.

 

and msnbc doesnt do the same shit?

some of the shit they have on there is an absolute joke

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:and msnbc

atomicdogg34 wrote:

and msnbc doesnt do the same shit?

some of the shit they have on there is an absolute joke

eh, i get pissed when they report on some new vaginal perfume too...

 

But when was the last time MSNBC/CNN reported on a sex scandal of a democrat/lib congressman and purposely mislabeling him as a republican/con so they can go on a tyrade of how the Cons. are a bunch of immoral whores who hurt family cohesion?

What Would Kharn Do?


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

and msnbc doesnt do the same shit?

some of the shit they have on there is an absolute joke

eh, i get pissed when they report on some new vaginal perfume too...

 

But when was the last time MSNBC/CNN reported on a sex scandal of a democrat/lib congressman and purposely mislabeling him as a republican/con so they can go on a tyrade of how the Cons. are a bunch of immoral whores who hurt family cohesion?

 

i dunno, when was the last time fox showed a guy at a rally carrying a gun and said how it was all racist white people despite the fact that the guy with the gun was black (which msnbc conveniently edited the footage to leave out)

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:i dunno,

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dunno, when was the last time fox showed a guy at a rally carrying a gun and said how it was all racist white people despite the fact that the guy with the gun was black (which msnbc conveniently edited the footage to leave out)

i dunno, when was the last time msnbc was allowed to edit faux's footage?

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Awelton85
Superfan
Awelton85's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Almost all American news

Almost all American news media is biased one way or the other. Fox and MSNBC are laughable at any given moment. What really bothers me is the fact that Americans really believe that the president has any power. Obama is just as much as a dumbass as Bush. We have been led by complete dumbasses for the entire history of this nation. The government does whatever it wants to do no matter what we say. The electoral vote doesn't even have to follow the popular vote. We have no voice, especially as godless americans. The politicians have no interest in the good of the common person, they just do what they have to do to get reelected. It is a deeply flawed system no matter what you believe or what channel you get your news from. Everyone hears what they want to hear.

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell

Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Eh?  I have no idea

 Eh?  I have no idea what's going on.  I don't watch FOX.  Totally clueless.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Eh?  I

Hambydammit wrote:

 Eh?  I have no idea what's going on.  I don't watch FOX.  Totally clueless.

What? Not even Matthew Shepard?! MADNESS, I TELL YOU, MADNESS!

(I myself stopped caring about basic cable news after the Lewinsky thing went down)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, in all fairness to faux news, it was an Airbus A320.

 

If you value your life, you will never set foot on one of those. I honestly don't know why they are even allowed in the sky over north America they are so damned dangerous.

 

The autopilot on those beasts is capable of overriding the pilot even after it has been disengaged. Well, sort of disengaged. They only stay shut off for a few seconds and then they snap back on, only to attempt to override the pilot once again. In some cases over Europe, they have been known to force a crash or midair collision when the pilot had not yet fixed the problem that the autopilot had caused in the first place.

 

I get this information from a couple of friends of mine who are professional pilots. Pilots hate the things and consider them to be an automatic hazard to air travel.

 

So if faux news wants to cover an apparently normal landing of one as a possible serious issue, do please bear in mind that the plane did have the potential to make a sudden nose dive right when it was two body lengths above the ground if for no better reason that it was swerving to avoid a chipmunk that ran out on the runway.

 

Answer this one question honestly. All other circumstances being the same, if the plane was a 747 instead, do you think they would not have cut away? If the plane were the reason, they would have mentioned that! Finally, they said fuck all about the autopilot system. Even if you're right about that, it's entirely irrelevant.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Shame, too. I'd have gladly

Shame, too. I'd have gladly watched airplanes land (or someone picking their nose, for that matter) over listening to the moronic bullshit that came out of Dubya's mouth day after day.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:Answer this

JonathanBC wrote:
Answer this one question honestly.

 

I will do the best that I can.

 

JonathanBC wrote:
All other circumstances being the same, if the plane was a 747 instead, do you think they would not have cut away?

 

Well, you know how people call the history channel “the Hitler channel”? Well in the vein, Fox ought to be called the “airplanes landing badly channel”. Whenever they are not being a mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch, they can always find an airplane that has issues.

 

Your turn to answer a question honestly: If it had been a disaster, would people be claiming that Fox cut away just to prevent Obama from speaking? The fact that the disaster failed not withstanding, is there an appearance that Fox News knew that they were going to show a normal landing?

 

Really, if that was the motivation, then why not cut away to a camera watching grass grow? It would have met the same goal. On the other hand, an airplane that might have a bad landing could turn into a lot of dead people.

 

JonathanBC wrote:
If the plane were the reason, they would have mentioned that! Finally, they said fuck all about the autopilot system. Even if you're right about that, it's entirely irrelevant.

 

Well, despite the apparently large amount of experience that fox news has with airplanes landing badly, the guys who were on air at the time failed to comment on something that they probably did not know about.

 

The lack of commentary on the matter is about as relevant to the story as is my third nut.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:i dont

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont really understand the hate for fox news

 

MSNBC and CNN are just as bad

 

the problem is liberals dont like fox because of its percieved conservative bias, and most of the opinion guys are, but no more than the opinion people on msnbc are liberal

fox regularly has on more guests from the other side than msnbc

 

For the record, I hated CNN years before Faux existed, for pretty well the exact same reasons I hate Faux. Faux has simply proven itself even worse than CNN in the few years it's been around, so I dislike it more.

I've never seen MSNBC, so I have no opinion on them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


OneShotKillShot
OneShotKillShot's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2010-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Is the news station biased

Is the news station biased or are we? If Katie Couric and Brit Hume were to read the same news report that had been stripped of all political and religious bias do you think people would still have opposing feelings to the story read by the anchor of the station they do not like? I feel that I find biased opinions in some main stream media where my wife does not and she sometimes feels she finds biased opinions where I do not.

Regardless of network I would like to see all news outlets do more investigation and stop googling their stories. The American "fast food",  "gotta have it now" ," instant isnt fast enough" culture is to blame. I do think that networks know the political make up of their audience and try to cater to them without be blatent but I dont think that it really has much effect on anything. 

One nation under Allah....start practicing it now the day is upon us.


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
OneShotKillShot wrote:Is the

OneShotKillShot wrote:

Is the news station biased or are we? If Katie Couric and Brit Hume were to read the same news report that had been stripped of all political and religious bias do you think people would still have opposing feelings to the story read by the anchor of the station they do not like? I feel that I find biased opinions in some main stream media where my wife does not and she sometimes feels she finds biased opinions where I do not.

 

Interesting thought.  I can say that sometimes when I am bored I will put on Hannity, O'Reilly, Glen Beck etc just for a laugh... and I look for bias.  I definitely think that we construe certain aspects of what people we already do not like as wrong and biased.  However, I began to dislike them due to their bias and blatant exploitation of the ignorance of the bible toting southerner.

 

So, yes, I think we may perceive additional bias that may or may not be picked up by others, but if Katie Couric read from Beck's prompter I'd want to choke her out as well. 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
OneShotKillShot wrote:Is the

OneShotKillShot wrote:

Is the news station biased or are we? If Katie Couric and Brit Hume were to read the same news report that had been stripped of all political and religious bias do you think people would still have opposing feelings to the story read by the anchor of the station they do not like? I feel that I find biased opinions in some main stream media where my wife does not and she sometimes feels she finds biased opinions where I do not.

Regardless of network I would like to see all news outlets do more investigation and stop googling their stories. The American "fast food",  "gotta have it now" ," instant isnt fast enough" culture is to blame. I do think that networks know the political make up of their audience and try to cater to them without be blatent but I dont think that it really has much effect on anything. 

What?! You mean people actually want to be tube-fed news media???

MADNESS, I tell you! MADNESS!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Your turn to answer a question honestly: If it had been a disaster, would people be claiming that Fox cut away just to prevent Obama from speaking? The fact that the disaster failed not withstanding, is there an appearance that Fox News knew that they were going to show a normal landing?

 

Since we're speaking hypothetically, let me throw this out there. I think you'll agree that this wasn't a Fox News exclusive most likely. Of course "plane lands safely" didn't make the headlines, but if there had been a disaster, I'm confident CNN, MSNBC, and whoever else, would have cut away and shown the footage with a delay of 90 seconds or however long. Let me know if you disagree. Obviously neither of us were in a control room of another network. I think you understand what I'm saying though.

To answer your question directly as asked, if there had been a disaster, no, I personally doubt that I'd even know that they cut away early. Even if I knew, I can't be positive it would register as being fishy. But they were kind of exposed when the plane touched down safely. That's the issue. I concede your hypothetical point is valid, but irrelevant. Again, I don't know what happened at CNN but I'd say the correct stance is to record the landing and be prepared to cut away if it becomes newsworthy. Meaning fireball or whatever.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Nice straw man dude. 

Nice straw man dude.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Nice straw man dude.

 

 

Regardless of the type of plane, this was purposeful.  Planes "almost crash" every day.  The last plane I was on was descending so quickly that we had to put on our oxygen masks, and our pilot came over the loudspeaker and said something about a potential loss of control and to remain calm but brace for a crash.  I'm sure my plane was not the only one in that situation on that given day.  I'm sure people on this site have had a similar experience.  It's hardly newsworthy in your local Gazette, let alone a national news outlet.

No one cuts away from the President for 'maybe news'.  There was intent. 


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
How exactly did I fail to

How exactly did I fail to address your point? I answered your rhetorical, leading question and admitted that if the plane went boom I probably wouldn't criticize Fox News. What else would you like me to address?


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:i dont

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont really understand the hate for fox news

 

MSNBC and CNN are just as bad

 

the problem is liberals dont like fox because of its percieved conservative bias, and most of the opinion guys are, but no more than the opinion people on msnbc are liberal

fox regularly has on more guests from the other side than msnbc

No. They're not on the same level at all. Stop pretending.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/acorn-sting-tape-edited-r_n_528556.html

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote: atomicdogg34

nutxaq wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont really understand the hate for fox news

 

MSNBC and CNN are just as bad

 

the problem is liberals dont like fox because of its percieved conservative bias, and most of the opinion guys are, but no more than the opinion people on msnbc are liberal

fox regularly has on more guests from the other side than msnbc

No. They're not on the same level at all. Stop pretending.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/acorn-sting-tape-edited-r_n_528556.html

I'm with you, I don't think MSNBC is as biased as Fox News and I don't think CNN is biased or entertaining either. But I'd like to point out something really funny. You linked to HuffPo to claim a lack of media bias. Even though I agree with your point, that's like linking to a McDonald's report that people are skinny. But I do encourage everybody to watch the Maddow segment on ACORN; it was interesting. I thought about making a thread for it but I already let my left wing flag fly enough.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:nutxaq

JonathanBC wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont really understand the hate for fox news

 

MSNBC and CNN are just as bad

 

the problem is liberals dont like fox because of its percieved conservative bias, and most of the opinion guys are, but no more than the opinion people on msnbc are liberal

fox regularly has on more guests from the other side than msnbc

No. They're not on the same level at all. Stop pretending.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/acorn-sting-tape-edited-r_n_528556.html

I'm with you, I don't think MSNBC is as biased as Fox News and I don't think CNN is biased or entertaining either. But I'd like to point out something really funny. You linked to HuffPo to claim a lack of media bias. Even though I agree with your point, that's like linking to a McDonald's report that people are skinny. But I do encourage everybody to watch the Maddow segment on ACORN; it was interesting. I thought about making a thread for it but I already let my left wing flag fly enough.

MSNBC is "biased" in the sense that they simply offer an honest and logical counterpoint to Fox. HuffPo is mostly on that same page but they're definitely more sensational. Nevertheless it was the Maddow video that was what I was interested in sharing. That I found it on HuffPo is a distant second.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:MSNBC is

nutxaq wrote:

MSNBC is "biased" in the sense that they simply offer an honest and logical counterpoint to Fox.

 

"Honest and logical" just means you accept MSNBC's bias and not Fox's...  From my perspective no one is as bad as Fox, but you still make it sound like MSNBC is godly.  Even in that ACORN report Maddow was over the top with sarcasm to call the report objective.  More objective than Fox?  Yeah.  Unbiased?  No.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:No. They're not

nutxaq wrote:
No. They're not on the same level at all. Stop pretending.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/acorn-sting-tape-edited-r_n_528556.html

 

Hold on! Did you just link to Rachael Madcow ans an example of responsible journalism?

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:nutxaq

v4ultingbassist wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

MSNBC is "biased" in the sense that they simply offer an honest and logical counterpoint to Fox.

 

"Honest and logical" just means you accept MSNBC's bias and not Fox's...  From my perspective no one is as bad as Fox, but you still make it sound like MSNBC is godly.  Even in that ACORN report Maddow was over the top with sarcasm to call the report objective.  More objective than Fox?  Yeah.  Unbiased?  No.

How does use of sarcasm negate objectivity? If you do something stupid and get called out for it in a biting and humorous way you still did something stupid.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

nutxaq wrote:
No. They're not on the same level at all. Stop pretending.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/acorn-sting-tape-edited-r_n_528556.html

 

Hold on! Did you just link to Rachael Madcow ans an example of responsible journalism?

 

 

 

I did. Do you have an example of her displaying careless fact checking and a lack of integrity? If not you shouldn't throw facepalms around so carelessly.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:How does use of

nutxaq wrote:

How does use of sarcasm negate objectivity? If you do something stupid and get called out for it in a biting and humorous way you still did something stupid.

 

Obvious contempt for anyone is not objective news reporting.  Adding humor makes it an attack on top of a report.  The objective way to report it would just be this is what fox did, this is what happened, this is why it is unethical.  No need to add sarcasm to get the point across.  In this situation, the point didn't need anything added to it; it did a fine job on its own of showing what fox did and how it was wrong.  Maddow's sarcasm turned the issue into a liberal vs. conservative issue, instead of a report on unethical journalism.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:nutxaq

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Obvious contempt for anyone is not objective news reporting.  Adding humor makes it an attack on top of a report.  The objective way to report it would just be this is what fox did, this is what happened, this is why it is unethical.  No need to add sarcasm to get the point across.  In this situation, the point didn't need anything added to it; it did a fine job on its own of showing what fox did and how it was wrong.  Maddow's sarcasm turned the issue into a liberal vs. conservative issue, instead of a report on unethical journalism.

That's all a matter of perception. You may see it as snarky, unprofessional, childish, etc., but it does nothing to change the fact that O'Keefe was incredibly deceptive in his editing, Fox gleefully aided him in presenting his distortions as fact, and Jerry Brown's investigation disproved their claims. Frankly, Maddow's delivery was pitch perfect. That sort of derision is exactly what's needed t shame people for such dishonesty.

 

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote: I did. Do you

nutxaq wrote:

I did. Do you have an example of her displaying careless fact checking and a lack of integrity? If not you shouldn't throw facepalms around so carelessly.

 

Right in your own link dude.  Look at how Maddow screams with joy when a hand reaches out to open the door as they leave the building then the view switches to a screen cap of an arm reaching for a door while she voices over about the single frame showing a cuff from a dress shirt. Apparently, that somehow proves that he was not wearing the fur cape at that exact moment.

 

Now go back about 30 seconds so that you can see him entering the building. Notice that the fake fur is a cape thrown on over a casual suit with the jacket cut short enough that his dress shirt cuffs are clearly visible even when his arms are at his sides.

 

Apparently, everyone is expected to be blind to the facts here:

 

He is showing cuff when his arms are relaxed.

 

The fake fur does not hide this fact.

 

Yet in Maddow's world, this proves something that even a quick replay of the video disproves.

 

Further, the hand that reaches out for the door is not wearing the shirt that he walked in wearing. It is not his arm in the screen cap that is opening the door. Nor is it the arm of the guy that he was talking to a second earlier. That guy was wearing a short sleeved shirt. Clearly, there was a third guy present.

 

Well, then we have another problem. Maddow specifically notes that the tape that is showing this is unedited raw tape. Now I have no idea how a single frame screen cap can be called unedited. However, I do know that the tape that is supposedly unedited shows the arm of a third man who is standing with the other two in a narrow door way, yet this third man is never visible until he opens the door and even then it is only his hand and fore arm.

 

The only reasonable conclusion is that Maddow had an edited tape and that either she was in on the fix or she had been coached by the editor to say the exact words that she was supposed to say when the fake evidence was presented.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Right in your own link dude.  Look at how Maddow screams with joy when a hand reaches out to open the door as they leave the building then the view switches to a screen cap of an arm reaching for a door while she voices over about the single frame showing a cuff from a dress shirt. Apparently, that somehow proves that he was not wearing the fur cape at that exact moment.

 

Now go back about 30 seconds so that you can see him entering the building. Notice that the fake fur is a cape thrown on over a casual suit with the jacket cut short enough that his dress shirt cuffs are clearly visible even when his arms are at his sides.

 

Apparently, everyone is expected to be blind to the facts here:

 

He is showing cuff when his arms are relaxed.

 

The fake fur does not hide this fact.

 

Yet in Maddow's world, this proves something that even a quick replay of the video disproves.

 

Further, the hand that reaches out for the door is not wearing the shirt that he walked in wearing. It is not his arm in the screen cap that is opening the door. Nor is it the arm of the guy that he was talking to a second earlier. That guy was wearing a short sleeved shirt. Clearly, there was a third guy present.

 

 

Well, then we have another problem. Maddow specifically notes that the tape that is showing this is unedited raw tape. Now I have no idea how a single frame screen cap can be called unedited. However, I do know that the tape that is supposedly unedited shows the arm of a third man who is standing with the other two in a narrow door way, yet this third man is never visible until he opens the door and even then it is only his hand and fore arm.

 

The only reasonable conclusion is that Maddow had an edited tape and that either she was in on the fix or she had been coached by the editor to say the exact words that she was supposed to say when the fake evidence was presented.

 

 

So the point of this is that this clearly was not done in one take. He obviously is not wearing the same shirt which calls into question just how outrageously he was dressed inside the office. He went on Fox and friends claiming to be dressed exactly as he was in his little sting operation, yet there's some inconsistency as to the outfit worn in the intro and the outfit worn during his actual encounter with the ACORN employee. Judging by some of the plants in the scene of them walking down the street they're somewhere sunny like say....San Diego....so why the change of outfit? How many takes does a sting operation take? And where is the video of O'Keefe walking in dressed as a caricature of a pimp? All we see is him walking down the street. We never watch him physically walk in dressed like that. Perhaps that's trickery on Maddow's part, but given all the other fishy shit involved, I doubt it.

Secondly, it's clear from the perspective of the video that this is a hidden camera mounted on the first individual to open the door and exit. By O'keefe's and all other accounts it was only Giles and himself that went into these offices. It looks pretty clear to me that it is the right hand of the individual carrying the camera that opens the door. In that shot we only see two other people, Giles and the ACORN employee. So who is your mystery third (Technically fourth.)?

Edit: I told you not to waste those facepalms.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.