Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fox news = false news
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 16 of 313 (616225)
05-20-2011 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
05-19-2011 10:04 PM


Soros controls the world?
By the way, have you checked to see how many of the liberal news outlets George Soros is financing?
Please enlighten us.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2011 10:04 PM Coyote has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 17 of 313 (616226)
05-20-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
05-19-2011 5:29 PM


Taz writes:
Why in the world are people still supporting this network when it's been so obvious for years that they don't care for facts?
The answer is really quite disturbing. Any facts that conflicts with the audience of FOX News are irrelevant. All that matters is the
preservation of they're conservative world view. Rush Limbagh himself said in a Interview the he himself is a entertainer and has maintained his vitriolic anti liberal controversy for the sake of ratings.
Hell even Newt himself slipped up and called the GOP out as right wing social engineering facist. well ok he did not say facist.
Edited by 1.61803, : added word "has"
Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 05-19-2011 5:29 PM Taz has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 18 of 313 (616229)
05-20-2011 1:02 PM


While I agree that Fox news out and out lies sometimes, so does the general media. I was raised liberal, and that was due to all the liberal/democratic news I was watching, and learning in school in NYC. As I got older, and starting learning facts about the right and what hey are supposed to stand for, I became independent seeing the truth is in the middle. I even blame the liberal news for getting 3 wheelers unnecessarily banned back in the 80's.
Facts are facts, but I think there is no document written by human hands that isn't biased in some sort of fashion. They are 50million ways of reporting the same story without lying, yet still putting your biased twist to it.
I'm agreeing with you Taz, Fox should be held accountable, and so should every other news agency. How do you do that without interfering with freedom of speech?

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 1:07 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 05-20-2011 1:19 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 1:30 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2011 2:09 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 19 of 313 (616230)
05-20-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 1:02 PM


I even blame the liberal news for getting 3 wheelers unnecessarily banned back in the 80's.
Reasoning behind this argument please.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 1:02 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 2:17 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 20 of 313 (616231)
05-20-2011 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 1:02 PM


riverrat writes:
I'm agreeing with you Taz, Fox should be held accountable, and so should every other news agency. How do you do that without interfering with freedom of speech?
Simple. The law should clearly state that if you are a registered news organization then you can't lie. If you intentionally misinform the public, then you face a ridiculous large amount of fine. This won't be perfect, but it will deter people like Rush Limbaugh from lying right through his teeth so frequently.
That said, I'm so pissed off right now at evolution. I began to get symptoms of the flu a few days ago and now I can barely move around without every part of my body aching. My head hurts all the time. I'm constantly coughing. And my wife is about to leave me... for the day. I think I'll try to mow the lawn in the afternoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 1:02 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 05-20-2011 1:46 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 37 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-20-2011 4:09 PM Taz has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 21 of 313 (616232)
05-20-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 1:02 PM


riVeRraT writes:
While I agree that Fox news out and out lies sometimes, so does the general media. I was raised liberal, and that was due to all the liberal/democratic news I was watching, and learning in school in NYC. As I got older, and starting learning facts about the right and what hey are supposed to stand for, I became independent seeing the truth is in the middle. I even blame the liberal news for getting 3 wheelers unnecessarily banned back in the 80's.
Facts are facts, but I think there is no document written by human hands that isn't biased in some sort of fashion. They are 50million ways of reporting the same story without lying, yet still putting your biased twist to it.
I'm agreeing with you Taz, Fox should be held accountable, and so should every other news agency. How do you do that without interfering with freedom of speech?
The FCC manages to legally restrict the freedom of speech for broadcasters all the time. You can;t use swear words or show nudity on broadcast television, for example, even though those are held by the Supreme Court to be valid forms of free expression and protected by the First Amendment.
Surely if you can prevent nudity from being shown on broadcast TV, you can force news organizations to tell the truth.
Except of course that Faux News did get sued over their lies. They claimed they are "entertainment" and so have the right to lie as a form of protected speech...and the courts agreed.
My concern is why people (Coyote, for example) continue to support Fox even directly in the face of solid, incontrovertible evidence of blatant lies. Fox knows that what they report isn't true when they say things like "Obama's trip to India will cost $200 million per day!," and they choose to say it anyway. I can see defending the opinion guys for having shitty opinions - you're allowed to have a shitty opinion and express it however you want. But when they report a fact on which to base that opinion ("Obama's gonna institute Sharia law!" "Death Panels!" "$200 million a day!" Putting a "D" next to virtually every Republican who has a sex scandal ever...), they should be held accountable for that fact. The amount spent on Obama's trip is the same whether you're liberal or conservative or something else. You can be of the opinion that the cost is too much or appropriate or whatever, but opinions don;t change the actual amount. Why defend the lies, the known falsehoods, reporting facts that are well known to be completely untrue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 1:02 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 05-20-2011 1:55 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 2:36 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 22 of 313 (616235)
05-20-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Taz
05-20-2011 1:19 PM


Lying Laws?
The law should clearly state that if you are a registered news organization then you can't lie.
A lie by the letter of the law? Government-sanctioned 'Truth'? That's heading down a dangerous path.
Accountability is important, but there are better ways of achieving it.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 05-20-2011 1:19 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 23 of 313 (616237)
05-20-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rahvin
05-20-2011 1:30 PM


Rahvin writes:
My concern is why people (Coyote, for example) continue to support Fox even directly in the face of solid, incontrovertible evidence of blatant lies. Fox knows that what they report isn't true when they say things like "Obama's trip to India will cost $200 million per day!," and they choose to say it anyway. I can see defending the opinion guys for having shitty opinions - you're allowed to have a shitty opinion and express it however you want. But when they report a fact on which to base that opinion ("Obama's gonna institute Sharia law!" "Death Panels!" "$200 million a day!" Putting a "D" next to virtually every Republican who has a sex scandal ever...), they should be held accountable for that fact. The amount spent on Obama's trip is the same whether you're liberal or conservative or something else. You can be of the opinion that the cost is too much or appropriate or whatever, but opinions don;t change the actual amount. Why defend the lies, the known falsehoods, reporting facts that are well known to be completely untrue?
At some point, we need to make clear to people that we're not talking about opinions here but actual facts. Fox continues to spout lies like the $200 million a day thing or playing the wrong footage for the republican candidate they don't like. It's absolutely mind boggling why people can't understand the difference between opinion and fact.
Not just that, the nuclear summit logo thing was completely unacceptable. It wasn't some commentator that brought up their fantasy similarity. They said that on their news portion. They were presenting it as fact. And as John Stewart pointed out, you could find similarities between any symbol and any other symbol if you tried hard enough. Fox supporting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 1:30 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 313 (616240)
05-20-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 1:02 PM


Facts are facts, but I think there is no document written by human hands that isn't biased in some sort of fashion. They are 50million ways of reporting the same story without lying, yet still putting your biased twist to it.
And then there are a further few million ways of reporting a story and lying. Or, indeed, just plain ol' inventing the story in the first place. Bias may perhaps be unavoidable, but there is a line between that and outright falsehood, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that journalists should stop short of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 1:02 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 25 of 313 (616242)
05-20-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Theodoric
05-20-2011 1:07 PM


Theodoric writes:
I even blame the liberal news for getting 3 wheelers unnecessarily banned back in the 80's.
Reasoning behind this argument please.
Not only the liberal media, but another example of our government telling me what I can, and cannot do.
Before I go into it, I have to tell you that 3 wheelers are a passion of mine, and have been riding them since the 80's. I belong to 3wheeler forums on the net and this topic is discussed frequently. To this day we still ride them and race them. I have read and studied the actual CSPC reports on ATV accidents for all those years.
What we have found it to boil down too was that most liberals are against ATV in general and looked to stop them where ever they can. Still goes on to this day. I live upstate NY next to a 12,000 acre forest and there isn't a legal place to ride here within 180 miles. That is thanks to liberals, and I happen to personally know the people responsible for getting atv's banned in the forest behind my house.
The reports in the CSPC documents showed that while a lot of people were getting hurt on ATC's (atc is a three wheeler, all terrain cycle, atc is an atv) the reason were not always because of the design, which the liberals based their claims off of. The majority of the accidents were due to mis-use on the act by either riding drunk, on the road, or without a helmet. The remainder of "flip-over" accidents where mostly flipping over backwards, which all ATV's do, and not flipping over the front.
The real problem with 3 wheelers was 2 fold.
1. When atc's came out, most people were used to riding motorcycles, but the atc's can't be ridden in the same manor. People would put their foot down when about to tip, and run their own leg over.
2. The dealerships falsely advertised atc's as being easy to ride. They would also sell machines to people who were not qualified to ride, like putting a 10 year old on a 250R that can go 80mph. So you had a whole bunch of people who normally wouldn't go off-roading (probably because their skills wouldn't let them) get attracted to this new and easy way to enjoy off-roading. It's the same thing that bayliners did to the boating world. Made it easy and affordable to put yourself at risk. Then sugar coated it with false marketing.
Those two reasons alone would cause a sharp increase in the amount of injuries in a CSPC report. You had all the experienced riders riding them incorrectly, and then a whole slew of new people riding them with no experience.
I think the correct thing that should have been done was to make the dealerships accountable to sell the right machine to the right person. Not mis-lead people into thinking they are safe, but warn people of how dangerous any kind of off-roading activity can be. There should have also been mandated safety courses, or training courses.
Basically it's not the machines fault. All atv's and off-roading is dangerous. Statistically people get hurt doing just about anything, including crossing the street where do we draw the line? Should it matter if you are doing because you have to, or because you want to? What percentage do we say, ok it's illegal now? It's America, and if you want to sell/buy/ride something, you should be allowed to. If it's governments job to protect us, then they can be the ones to warn us of the impending doom if you choose to ride a three wheeler, not take the freedom away from us. The people who took that away from us I consider un-American. There are still many, many things to do that are legal, and extremely dangerous, why pick on 3 wheelers?
Here is the original report that sparked all of this back when. Notice the inconsistency in the numbers quoted when it comes to injuries, not to mention saying that 3 wheelers are unstable. Last I checked motorcycles are pretty unstable as well. First they say that if you one for 7 years you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting seriously injured or death. Then they go on to say that 2.5 million of them were sold, and only 22,000 people were injured on them in one year. Even if we times 22k x7 years, we don't get 1 in 3. So while the report has a lot of truths in it, it also has a lot of lies. The comparisons they make are not apples to apples, for instance comparing airplane flyers to people who ride off-road. why didn't they compare it to cheer-leading, the most dangerous sport in the world? Instead they picked the safest form of travel. That's biased reporting.
The outcome was that the manufactures under pressure of the government voluntarily stop making them (in fear of getting banned) a ban did not actually take place. The report was so devastating to the sport of 3 wheeling, that people to this day still come up to me when I am riding one and say things like "those things are dangerous" or "aren't those illegal?" People that weren't even born when they were being manufactured ask me that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 1:07 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 05-20-2011 2:32 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 2:44 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 2:53 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 26 of 313 (616245)
05-20-2011 2:27 PM


Oh, and Taz, politifact.com is a pretty good unbiased web-site for finding out who is lying or not.

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 27 of 313 (616246)
05-20-2011 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 2:17 PM


Sorry man, I'm an American car only person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 2:17 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 313 (616247)
05-20-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rahvin
05-20-2011 1:30 PM


Rahvin writes:
riVeRraT writes:
While I agree that Fox news out and out lies sometimes, so does the general media. I was raised liberal, and that was due to all the liberal/democratic news I was watching, and learning in school in NYC. As I got older, and starting learning facts about the right and what hey are supposed to stand for, I became independent seeing the truth is in the middle. I even blame the liberal news for getting 3 wheelers unnecessarily banned back in the 80's.
Facts are facts, but I think there is no document written by human hands that isn't biased in some sort of fashion. They are 50million ways of reporting the same story without lying, yet still putting your biased twist to it.
I'm agreeing with you Taz, Fox should be held accountable, and so should every other news agency. How do you do that without interfering with freedom of speech?
The FCC manages to legally restrict the freedom of speech for broadcasters all the time. You can;t use swear words or show nudity on broadcast television, for example, even though those are held by the Supreme Court to be valid forms of free expression and protected by the First Amendment.
Surely if you can prevent nudity from being shown on broadcast TV, you can force news organizations to tell the truth.
Except of course that Faux News did get sued over their lies. They claimed they are "entertainment" and so have the right to lie as a form of protected speech...and the courts agreed.
My concern is why people (Coyote, for example) continue to support Fox even directly in the face of solid, incontrovertible evidence of blatant lies. Fox knows that what they report isn't true when they say things like "Obama's trip to India will cost $200 million per day!," and they choose to say it anyway. I can see defending the opinion guys for having shitty opinions - you're allowed to have a shitty opinion and express it however you want. But when they report a fact on which to base that opinion ("Obama's gonna institute Sharia law!" "Death Panels!" "$200 million a day!" Putting a "D" next to virtually every Republican who has a sex scandal ever...), they should be held accountable for that fact. The amount spent on Obama's trip is the same whether you're liberal or conservative or something else. You can be of the opinion that the cost is too much or appropriate or whatever, but opinions don;t change the actual amount. Why defend the lies, the known falsehoods, reporting facts that are well known to be completely untrue?
Because fuck liberals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 1:30 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 29 of 313 (616248)
05-20-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 2:17 PM


Its a lot like guns, riVerRrat...
The people who want to ban "Assault Rifles" don't know the first thing about guns or what makes one more dangerous to another.
You could put a pimped out .22 with a front grip, folding stock, and a banana mag next to an AA-12, and they'll think the 22 is worse because it looks like an "Assault Rife"!! ZOMG!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 2:17 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2011 2:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2011 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2011 8:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 30 of 313 (616250)
05-20-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
05-20-2011 2:44 PM


Wehey!!
How Americano-centric could this thread be...?
The idea that Fox news might not be wholly truthful is compared to "misconceptions" about assault rifles being dangerous.....?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 3:03 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024