Is Fox News evil or stupid?

[beer good]

The point really is that CNN along with other news organizations are competitive to the point of not caring about accuracy, all they care about is getting anything out onto the air, to the public....and pox on accuracy.

I do agree that this fascination with knowing what's happening right this second is problematic, as useful as it may be; unfortunately, part of it is that barring magical powers or a time machine, it's simply physically impossible to have both minute-by-minute reporting and 100% accuracy. It cannot be done, for obvious reasons. There's always going to be a certain amount of rumour, exaggeration, etc sneaking in there. This applies to any news source that uses it; the difference is whether they then choose to correct incorrect information and follow the news bulletins up with in-depth reports, or not. And also, of course, whether the viewers are able to understand that if something happened half a world away 2 minutes ago, especially if it's part of an unfolding story whose roots go back decades, it's possible that the full story may not yet be available. It's why news reporters say things like "More on this as it unfolds", "According to unconfirmed sources", etc. In a world where all information is increasingly available to all of us, we need to apply some critical thinking too.

Do you really think they make up news

Dude, I already posted a link showing that FOX News have argued in US court that they have every right to lie to their viewers, and do so routinely, to the point where they sack employees who refuse to report untrue stories. Why are we still talking about this?

 

[Peder]

Hi Beer Good,
I see that you do understand how CNN might have preserved their virtue and been completely accurate at the same time. I was beginning to wonder.

...It's why news reporters say things like "More on this as it unfolds", "According to unconfirmed sources", etc.

As this thread has gone on, I have wondered why CNN did not simply say: "Unconfirmed sources report that President Mubarak has resigned," or even: "Al Jazeera has reported that President Mubarak has resigned," instead of just running the AP feed. I know, I know. It's a cutthroat world out there, and better die than mention the competition. But, then, I'm not sure your next comment follows.

In a world where all information is increasingly available to all of us, we need to apply some critical thinking too.

The purpose of reliable news sources (as let's say The NYT once claimed to be) is to not have to double guess the supposed information one is receiving. It's not clear that reliability must perish in this net-driven world. I think that is a shaky assertion.
Finally,

Dude, I already posted a link showing that FOX News have argued in US court that they have every right to lie to their viewers, and do so routinely, to the point where they sack employees who refuse to report untrue stories. Why are we still talking about this?

Why not? When is discussion ever shut off? But more to the point, media most certainly have the right to do strange things. And not only Fox. As when The New York Times some time ago (and before having dominance of the Net as an excuse) argued successfully in Court that they could publish the name of the individual who was the source of some information that they had obtained under a direct pledge of anonymity to that individual, and moreover be immune from law suit by the individual. Talk about arrogance and violation of individual privacy rights, not to mention creating the possible threat of reprisal to the individual!.

And, just as lagniappe, the media of course have the right to censor any information they have and keep it from their readers -- it's called "selection" of what to print -- while they themselves strenuously fight against censorship of themselves.

CNN and Fox may be different, but they are still both media and I don't see the point in getting holy about it. Different people prefer different outlets -- a fact already seen for many years in the variety of print media available on the newsstands.

We can all argue as profitably about the weather as well. Does anyone think they are going to win?

 

[beer good]

The purpose of reliable news sources (as let's say The NYT once claimed to be) is to not have to double guess the supposed information one is receiving. It's not clear that reliability must perish in this net-driven world. I think that is a shaky assertion.

I never said in a "net-driven" world; I said in a world where we get news immediately, regardless of whether it's then transmitted by TV, radio, Internet, or supersonic homing pigeons. To me, it's obvious that if the news say something happened less than 10 minutes ago, nobody has had time to double-check its veracity, let alone give a full analysis to what it means. News bulletins are fine; but they must be followed up with analysis.

Why not? When is discussion ever shut off?

Not shut off, but once one party continues to make allegations which have been proven untrue or deny facts that have been proven true, I reserve the right to dismiss them as crackpots.

As when The New York Times some time ago (and before having dominance of the Net as an excuse) argued successfully in Court that they could publish the name of the individual who was the source of some information that they had obtained under a direct pledge of anonymity to that individual, and moreover be immune from law suit by the individual. Talk about arrogance and violation of individual privacy rights, not to mention creating the possible threat of reprisal to the individual!.

Obviously. When did I say otherwise?

And, just as lagniappe, the media of course have the right to censor any information they have and keep it from their readers -- it's called "selection" of what to print -- while they themselves strenuously fight against censorship of themselves.

True. But when that selection is deliberately done to distort reality, they give up all pretense of objectivity.

CNN and Fox may be different, but they are still both media and I don't see the point in getting holy about it. Different people prefer different outlets -- a fact already seen for many years in the variety of print media available on the newsstands.

Of course. Some people prefer to read National Enquirer to The Times. That doesn't mean they're equally reliable as news sources.

 

[Peder]

Beer Good, "Not equally reliable" as news sources I'll give you. But some of the discussion here seems to be about whose errors are more justifiable and forgiveable.

 

[beer good]

Beer Good, "Not equally reliable" as news sources I'll give you. But some of the discussion here seems to be about whose errors are more justifiable and forgiveable.

I can't take responsibility for what others say. :flowers: All I said is that there's a difference between accidentally transmitting false information because you're in a hurry - stupid as it may be - and doing it deliberately and consistently.

 

[Peder]

I can't take responsibility for what others say. :flowers: All I said is that there's a difference between accidentally transmitting false information because you're in a hurry - stupid as it may be - and doing it deliberately and consistently.

Well, what can I say, Beer Good. "Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice." Fox and CNN have their constituencies and their market shares that they fight over, just as the Republican and Democrat parties do also, and never shall the twain of any of them meet.

For myself, I have heard the same kinds of news repeated over and over again through the years, to the point where it now all sounds the same except for the changes of faces and names. Finally, I can get along without any of it. And, frankly, I don't care who the President of Egypt is.

 

[beer good]

And, frankly, I don't care who the President of Egypt is.

Well, we might only be looking at a historical turning point akin to the fall of the Berlin Wall here, and the fallout from that could have implications for everyone - especially any country at war in the Middle East. But I guess for those who don't care, there's always FOX.

 

[Peder]

Beer Good, I'll tell ya a little story.

Two men were sitting in a bar having a beer, when one man asked the other "How many years have you been married?' The other one answered "Fifty two years of happy marriage, next month."

So the first man, reasonably enough, asked "Wow! What is the secret of your happy marriage?" and the second man said "It's easy. Right at the beginning, my wife and I decided to divide up all the decision making. We agreed that she would make all the small decisions and I would make all the big decisions, and it has worked out welll ever since."

The first man reacted with "That's amazing! Especially that she agreed to let you make all the big decisions."

"Yup" said the second man. "Works like a charm. When I come home from work, I give her my entire paycheck and she decides how much to give me back for an allowance. Then she decides how much to spend on food and groceries. She decides what we eat, when we'll take a vacation, where we'll go on vacation, how much to spend on clothes and jewelry for herself, where we will live, when we will buy a new car and what kind, and so on."

The first man sputtered, "But, what, what does that leave you for big decisions to make."

"Easy" replied the second man. "After I give her my paycheck, I go iinto the living room, settle into my easy chair and watch the news. I decide how the Federal budget should be divided, how much to give to the homeless and how much to defense, what should be included in the new health insurance bill, what our foreign policy should be toward the Middle East, and who should be the President of Egypt. Like I said, she makes the small decisions; I make the big ones."

:flowers:

As for my own viewing preferences, Beer Good, you assume.

 

[pontalba]

"Easy" replied the second man. "After I give her my paycheck, I go iinto the living room, settle into my easy chair and watch the news. I decide how the Federal budget should be divided, how much to give to the homeless and how much to defense, what should be included in the new health insurance bill, what our foreign policy should be toward the Middle East, and who should be the President of Egypt. Like I said, she makes the small decisions; I make the big ones."

:flowers:

As for my own viewing preferences, Beer Good, you assume.

And don't forget, Dear, I let you have the Far East as well.

 

[beer good]

"Ignorance is blissful every goddamn time." - Tom Waits

 

[Peder]

I really admire the liberal confidence in its own attitudes.

 

[chiangmaifalcon]

First of all, I am too old to be called Dude. Secondly,this discussion is still going on because you still cannot grasp the meaning or purpose of the news. It is not your fault. Anyone who calls people Dude, or believes there are only 2 white men in Asia who read books, cannot really be held responsible for not grasping these concepts. The fact is Fox news is right wing and CNN and all the rest are left. I know you like CNN and I don't care. Why are you so upset that others like Fox news? If you are a conservative person you like Fox news. if you are a liberal you watch the others. Fox news is a much more efficient news source than CNN. They make up less of the news than CNN does, at least this is my opinion from the days when i was able to watch Fox news. Here is another newsflash. Most people outside Egypt also do not care who the president of Egypt is. The only reason I do is for how this will affect the US. Do you think all of Egypt really cared about what happened to Americans on 9/11. I do not care about terrorists in Guantanamo, or prisoners in Abu Ghraib, or much of the tripe that CNN and BBC tell me I am supposed to get upset about. If someone wishes to hurt my family, I will have no problem locking them up, shooting them or pouring water on their heads. I like Fox news and this is my right as it is your right to like CNN. Many people will never like Fox news and others will never like CNN so really what is the point of arguing about it. If everyone would live their own life, watch whatever news show or whatever they want, and leave everyone else the hell alone, the world will be a much better place.

 

[Hugh]

First of all, I am too old to be called Dude. Secondly,this discussion is still going on because you still cannot grasp the meaning or purpose of the news. It is not your fault. Anyone who calls people Dude, or believes there are only 2 white men in Asia who read books, cannot really be held responsible for not grasping these concepts. The fact is Fox news is right wing and CNN and all the rest are left. I know you like CNN and I don't care. Why are you so upset that others like Fox news? If you are a conservative person you like Fox news. if you are a liberal you watch the others. Fox news is a much more efficient news source than CNN. They make up less of the news than CNN does, at least this is my opinion from the days when i was able to watch Fox news. Here is another newsflash. Most people outside Egypt also do not care who the president of Egypt is. The only reason I do is for how this will affect the US. Do you think all of Egypt really cared about what happened to Americans on 9/11. I do not care about terrorists in Guantanamo, or prisoners in Abu Ghraib, or much of the tripe that CNN and BBC tell me I am supposed to get upset about. If someone wishes to hurt my family, I will have no problem locking them up, shooting them or pouring water on their heads. I like Fox news and this is my right as it is your right to like CNN. Many people will never like Fox news and others will never like CNN so really what is the point of arguing about it. If everyone would live their own life, watch whatever news show or whatever they want, and leave everyone else the hell alone, the world will be a much better place.

Dude, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[jimthompson]

I have not read this forum in a while and I see it is just as bizarre as ever. What is this, wayne's World? What is it with the dudes? You cannot sound intelligent starting a sentence with the word, Dude. I know I am supposed to be many different personalities, but I will break my own rule and admit I am in Vientiane. For those of you obsessed with geography, you should know where that is. I would send you a map but this would start a whole paranoid reaction amongst the dudes that it was a plot by Fox News Channel. Beerhugh, what about this hole? Who is in the hole,Dude? Who is digging? I know a schizophrenic guy that talks just like the dudes, except for some reason I can understand him.

 

[pontalba]

I have not read this forum in a while and I see it is just as bizarre as ever. What is this, wayne's World? What is it with the dudes? You cannot sound intelligent starting a sentence with the word, Dude. I know I am supposed to be many different personalities, but I will break my own rule and admit I am in Vientiane. For those of you obsessed with geography, you should know where that is. I would send you a map but this would start a whole paranoid reaction amongst the dudes that it was a plot by Fox News Channel. Beerhugh, what about this hole? Who is in the hole,Dude? Who is digging? I know a schizophrenic guy that talks just like the dudes, except for some reason I can understand him.

I nominate the above post for post of the week!

 

[Peder]

Jim, Thanks for bringing back a sense of humor that seems to have run dry around here.
:flowers:

 

[Polly Parrot]

I have not read this forum in a while and I see it is just as bizarre as ever. What is this, wayne's World? What is it with the dudes? You cannot sound intelligent starting a sentence with the word, Dude. I know I am supposed to be many different personalities, but I will break my own rule and admit I am in Vientiane. For those of you obsessed with geography, you should know where that is. I would send you a map but this would start a whole paranoid reaction amongst the dudes that it was a plot by Fox News Channel. Beerhugh, what about this hole? Who is in the hole,Dude? Who is digging? I know a schizophrenic guy that talks just like the dudes, except for some reason I can understand him.

You just gave me a headache.

 

[Libra]

I need a drink.

 

[Peder]

I need a drink.

Here's mud in yer eye! :whistling:

/an old old drinking phrase, in case it is new to you. Pun intended. /

 

[Libra]

Here's mud in yer eye! :whistling:

/an old old drinking phrase, in case it is new to you. Pun intended. /

I prefer a mojito right about now.:lol: