There is such a thing as objective truth too you know. Trying to pass off all truth as a subjective quality of reality in my opinion is a poor excuse for poor critical thought and underhanded tactics.
Fox News and the poisoning of American political debate
- Thread starter Mowich
- Start date
There is such a thing as objective truth too you know. Trying to pass off all truth as a subjective quality of reality in my opinion is a poor excuse for poor critical thought and underhanded tactics.
The worst liberal rag sheets in Europe regularly feature nude pin up girls within their pages. I have no problem with smut provided everyone involved is honest about what it is. If you want to get technical, liberals are the biggest defenders of smut, promiscuity, prostitution and homosexuality. Who can forget that liberal judge in BC years back - who upheld a pedophile's contention that his collection of kiddie porn was actually 'art'?
The surprising thing about FOX is it's popularity with liberals. They may disagree with the absence of the liberal agenda on the network, but they obviously feel they have nothing to learn from the leftist MSM outlets and they are correct in that. These are the liberals that are intelligent enough to handle the questions posed by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush without foaming at the mouth or having their heads explode.
The surprising thing about FOX is it's popularity with liberals. They may disagree with the absence of the liberal agenda on the network, but they obviously feel they have nothing to learn from the leftist MSM outlets and they are correct in that. These are the liberals that are intelligent enough to handle the questions posed by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush without foaming at the mouth or having their heads explode.
If you start watching something going into it with bias from your own ideology + what you heard from critics posting short clips out of context on you tube....of course you are gonna hate it..... and that can be said for any side...
I've always said that you observe more on the other side of the street and you tend to miss a lot on the side you're on.....
True objectivism is rare and almost non-existant on line and in the world to-day certain things that we are told as facts tend to change with the next news-cast.
I'm not saying that every single show on fox is accurate... but if I listen to the :'liberal' stations too long my mind could turn to mush and I'll start believing everything they say.....so....I watch both for balance and make my mind afterwards.
That doesn't change the fact that there is an objective truth. And what balance is there in watching two opposing views, both slanted by subjectivity? That doesn't mean you get closer to the actual truth...It means you're only balancing out the subjectivity, which isn't for my money, a desirable condition.
Justifying news broadcasts and opinion peddlers in this way, ensures that we are becoming poor in the quality of information available.
All broadcasts are opiniated these days and blogs and forums even more so, which is why I take forums with a grain of salt and for entertainment only...
Somewhat like the deep discussions at Tim Horton every afternoon...
In all cases ..... a bullshyte filter is needed.
I still say that truth is in the mind of the beholder!
O please. Next you'll be showing me blurry pictures that prove the existance of bigfoot.
I really enjoy Fox News. It often illustrates just how out of touch other news media have become and I admire their op-eds and editorials. Some of the stuff is "out there' but for the most part, I think Fox has its value. Presuming that their audience has some intelligence, it's allows people to see two sides - the CNN/MSNBC and Fox. It makes it fun to watch!
JMO
JMO
David Suzuki once asked his audience where most people get their scientific knowledge. I said from the National Inquirer. He said I was correct (as in the Inquirer was a icon for mental junk food). The mind itself in non discriminating. It just stores data that it releases when a subject is triggered. You may think that the Inquirer is junk but the mind stores that as data without the judgment. Years later, someone will bring up the subject and the mind accesses the data as if it were the truth. It doesn't remember where it came from, just that it is stored in its data bank. Reading the Inquirere and watching junk news is no different. Discernment should take place before the data is ingested and stored.
:lol:
Smart network...
After Climategate, that is the conclusion of the intelligent viewer.......
WAIT a minute!
Never mind....lol
Ummm, there was no falsified data. This could be a conclusion of a viewer who never actually looked for themselves, or bothered to read the reviews, or any of the context beyond the sound bytes.
:lol:
What is your opinion of MSNBC?
What's your factual basis for saying that?
Yup .....If I hit my thumb with a hammer I can fool myself into believing it doesn't hurt.... but it will still be broken if I hit it hard enough...... that's reality:smile:
At least we agree on one thing;-)
The problem is media convergence. A few large corporations control 95% of what we see and hear, and they are saying pretty much the same thing.
I recommend not watching more than one TV news program, and get the rest of your news from the internet from as many different countries and sources as possible.
I recommend not watching more than one TV news program, and get the rest of your news from the internet from as many different countries and sources as possible.
I don't view enough of their content to have much of an opinion. I know they have some commentators who are pretty extreme, much like Fox News.
No evidence has been given to support the assertion that they were falsifying data. I've read the commissions that investigated the CRU scientists, I've read the papers in question myself, and there is no evidence that scientists were fudging the data to get the answers they wanted. In fact, their results are consistent with other prominent research groups, while using different data sets, and different methodology. That, in scientific fields, is called robust. The result is not dependent on a single group, a single data set, or a single method of analysis.
If you want to discuss this further, I suggest one of the many threads on the topic.
Both sides accuse different media organizations of bias. While there is bias in the media and it isn't hard to detect, I always thought people exaggerated things way too much. Of course, I really didn't know in the case of the American media because I never watched it. Recently though my roommate got all these American news channels so I started watching them.
The first time I ever turned on Fox news I was floored at how biased it was. I wasn't watching one of the opinion shows like Bill O'Reilly or that escaped mental patient Glenn Beck, I was watching an ostensibly straight news broadcast. It was in the late morning with some illiterate eye candy stumbling over the teleprompter. It was a few months ago and I can't remember what she was reporting on, but I think she was like "is the Democratic party in league with Al Qaeda?" I swear it was something like that.
MSNBC has an obvious bias too, but Fox News seems to pretend it has more straight news, whereas MSNBC is all opinion all the time.
CNN is more incompetent than anything. They need to just dump all their anchors and make it 24 hours of Anderson Cooper reporting shirtless from tropical locales.
Umm.. Canadian news is easy I think. The CBC leans left but I wouldn't say too much to dismiss it. If bias is detectable but not as flagrant as say Fox News or MSNBC, you'll be fine watching it. I have a hard time watching CBC because so much Canadian news I don't care about. During the first or second day of protests in Egypt the biggest story on CBC News World was Wayne Gretzky's birthday. Come on guys, I know it's Canada, but get with it.
I've only read the National Post a few times and like Fox News I was floored at the bias. But the bias is more like MSNBC in that everything appears to be opinion. I get most of my Canadian news from the Globe and Mail online. It's not biased in the same way the National Post is. More biased in what it chooses to report than what it says about it. And obviously when you report on certain things, you'll run into the dilemma of either reporting from "both sides" or reporting reality, which as everyone knows has a liberal bias.
The first time I ever turned on Fox news I was floored at how biased it was. I wasn't watching one of the opinion shows like Bill O'Reilly or that escaped mental patient Glenn Beck, I was watching an ostensibly straight news broadcast. It was in the late morning with some illiterate eye candy stumbling over the teleprompter. It was a few months ago and I can't remember what she was reporting on, but I think she was like "is the Democratic party in league with Al Qaeda?" I swear it was something like that.
MSNBC has an obvious bias too, but Fox News seems to pretend it has more straight news, whereas MSNBC is all opinion all the time.
CNN is more incompetent than anything. They need to just dump all their anchors and make it 24 hours of Anderson Cooper reporting shirtless from tropical locales.
Umm.. Canadian news is easy I think. The CBC leans left but I wouldn't say too much to dismiss it. If bias is detectable but not as flagrant as say Fox News or MSNBC, you'll be fine watching it. I have a hard time watching CBC because so much Canadian news I don't care about. During the first or second day of protests in Egypt the biggest story on CBC News World was Wayne Gretzky's birthday. Come on guys, I know it's Canada, but get with it.
I've only read the National Post a few times and like Fox News I was floored at the bias. But the bias is more like MSNBC in that everything appears to be opinion. I get most of my Canadian news from the Globe and Mail online. It's not biased in the same way the National Post is. More biased in what it chooses to report than what it says about it. And obviously when you report on certain things, you'll run into the dilemma of either reporting from "both sides" or reporting reality, which as everyone knows has a liberal bias.
hmmmm...I disagree with much........but what floored me was the reference to "that escaped mental patient Glenn Beck"! ROTFLMAO!
I love the National Post.....yes it leans right, but is not afraid to present an opposing opinion, and it has a lot of opinion. I had a subscription for years.......Unfortunately the damn thing became the Semi-National Post, and now is not available east of Quebec.
So I took the Globe and Mail......for as long as I could stand it....it is a subsidiary of the Toronto Star, which might as well be known as Liberal News for the Brain Dead.
The CBC has been a little better, new masters you know, but the Ministry of Truth can still let the lefty propaganda dog run wild on occasion.....I will never forgive them for the vicious campaign they led against the Reform Party........veiled as news.
I don't watch Fox, CNN, or any other US news source.......
I await Sun TV with bated breath.
The CBC isn't afraid of presenting differing opinions, I laughed quite a bit when the Friday guest host on 'The Current' was David Frum.