The Glade 4.0

I disagree.

We aren't seeing eye to eye on what balanced means. Based on my observations and data collected by me by watching examples of reporting from many different news sources, Fox sucks *** when it comes to actually providing anything other than VERY biased conservative reporting. Further, much of that reporting ignores any context or nuance in the position of the people they lambast which is at a minimum dishonest.

What I really find the most distressing about Fox is the number of people who find it quality information. It's really just sad sad commentary on the state of our nation's population.

No, you are still applying your bias to my comment.

40% negative articles (equal to the percentage for his opponent) is the basis for Monte's statement that Fox has been at war with Obama from the start... 40% negative would be how much positive?

Yeah, and that percentage of positive reports is 10 points higher than Obama's current favorable rating by the general public. Does this mean that the general public is now at war with Obama?

Yep. And I've heard certain libs on this board say in the past that if they were presented with fact, they would change their stance. Seems that's not the case.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I long suspected that "conservatives" and "liberals" were, in fact, exactly the same. This presidency has given you all a chance to prove it now that your situations are reversed.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

You and Vind (and apparently now Nitefox) are misunderstanding my position.

There is a very old and very true saying. "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"

What I'm saying when I say that we disagree on what that data can show. You're taking one set of raw numbers, without any kind of real context, and trying to use that as information. It's not, it's data. I believe that using only that data set is incomplete and can't be used solely to come to any real conclusion. I'm then adding in my own personal observations of news stories that I've watched on Fox, and I believe that any reasonable person would agree that the tone, style of presentation, very selective information and fervor in which Fox presents news stories on Obama clearly shows that they are actively hostile towards him and his presidency. That is what I mean by Fox being about as balanced as Jesse Jackson.

I'm not misunderstanding your position at all. Its just completely misplaced considering the context of my statement and the target of the statement.

Ok. I guess I can't see how you can reconcile that, but whatever. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Aizle, I completely understand your position. I asserted that when faced with the poll numbers, people use unsubstantiated opinion in an effort to ignore the numbers. You counter with your opinion.

You further this by adding the caveat that your opinion is somehow more valid than others' because "any reasonable person" would agree with you. Sorry, that doesn't fly. Your opinion is just as valid as mine, or anyone else's, and just as impotent when it's the only thing presented to validate a position.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

To be clear, I don't ignore the poll numbers. I just recognize them for what they are. Data, not information, which is how you guys are trying to use them.

But you're using your gut. They're using more objective criteria. You're just trying to discredit the research because you don't like the result. Why don't you counter them with figures for whence you derived your position in the first place? If it's based on gut only, then there's no way to come to an agreement because it's based on subjective criteria of the individual - in this case you.

For instance, my gut tells me that Fox News leans right, but not nearly as far right as you proclaim. I would say CNN leans left about as far as Fox leans right and MSNBC leans far left. That doesn't mean it's right, though. I also have anecdotal evidence from my liberal friend to back my position as well, but anecdotal evidence means squat too.

Sorry Aizle, I misspoke, it wasn't a poll; it was a study. That said, your stance on data v. information is flawed. The data from the study might look something like this:

25, 22, 40, 40, 73, 10, 14, 43, 36, 14, 29, 57, 2,412, 48, 2008

The above data, put in a relational context, is information - that is what we are discussing.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

This isn't The Land of Oz. Just because you really want to believe something, doesn't mean it's true. And even if it is true, your belief of it is not a substantiating power.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

On some message boards this is called the Wall of Ignorance or the Broken Record Argument (in addition to argument ad nauseum) and is actually a warnable or bannable offense.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You believe it is appropriate for government to attack news outlets they disagree with then?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I believe that it's perfectly appropriate for the administration to treat fox news like fox news has behaved. They are not a legitimate news outlet, they are a propaganda wing of the GOP and conservatives, and they should be fought. They produce more misinformation than any other network, their commentators are the most hateful group of bigots I have ever seen on television, and they have no interest what so ever in the truth. Hell, fox defended it's right to lie to the public in a court case in Florida. They are not a legitimate news source. Neither is Newsmax, neither is World Net Daily, and neither is the Washing Times. These outlets have a purpose - spread conservative misinformaiton, and call it news.

I know that many of you get your news from fox. I know that you think it's great. It is, however, the most biased news source this country has seen since the days when the robber barons owned the news. It's not journalsim, and it never has been. It does a great job, however, of telling it's viewer base exactly what they want to hear.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

You feel it is appropriate for government to make war with news outlets they differ from ideologically then?

And please, quit ascribing positions and life tendancies to me as if you some how know me.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Except that it's none of those things. All you're doing is claiming that we know it's biased because it's biased. The study cited directly shows evidence to the contrary. Simply repeating yourself isn't going to get anyone to buy that it's particularly bised.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Of course not. That isn't even remotely what I argued. I argued that Fox News is not a legitimate news source and should be fought as such. It's not a news outlet, it's a propaganda outlet. The administration has every right to fight their misinformation, or freeze them out if they cannot behave like a real news outlet.

It's not about the ideology, it's about the misinformation, hate, and lies that Fox spreads every single day.



Where did I name you and do such a thing?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

It's all of those things. I don't really understand how you can't see it, but that doesn't change the reality of what Fox News is.

The study cited does *not* exonerate fox of it's bias, it's propaganda, it's hate and bigotry, or of it's misinformation. All it does is shows that for a brief moment of time they had X amount of "negative" stories on both Obama and McCain. Again, McCain was not popular at that time for two reasons - the base hated him, and he was losing the election. That it was only equal to the negative stories on Obama is actually kind of surprising. I would have assumed that in their desperation, they would have lashed out more at the guy who was failing them.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

ROFL, whoever did that, I'm not even mad, it's kind of a funny prank.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

You're not actually refuting their data or the conclusion drawn with it. You're just deciding it's wrong then rationalizing a reason to make it so.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

This.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I would presume that the data in the aforementioned study was restricted solely to "hard" news, and the position of Fox News bias generally includes the full spectrum of programming on the network, including their many "editorial" personalities.

Because it isn't reality. Sorry, but they don't spread hatred, bigotry, and no more misinformation than any other news outlet.

All you're doing is saying "it's like this because I say so."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."