People v. (Fox) News Corp.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Thomas Tlusty, Feb 8, 2015.

  1. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    “They can burn up buildings, but they didn’t burn down the dream, and the dreamers are still here,” Sharpton said, according to a Newsday report. “It will take more than a fire to in any way quell the desire we have to give new leadership and new direction to this country.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...yed-key-sharpton-records-jillian-kay-melchior
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There is none. Your attempt to present an equivalence between Gingrich and Sharpton in their political roles is idiotic, unambiguously.
    I never made such a claim.

    Compare what I posted - quote it - with your representation of my "claim", and notice the key and central and obvious differences. It's in post #56.

    Almost every post I make in an exchange with you now requires a correction of something simply false you have asserted about me or one of my posts. You have adopted that technique, asserting falsehood, as a standard in your posting. Why?

    Sensationalism favors Republicans, on average. They're less reality based. And that is well understood by the sophisticated marketing folks designing modern political campaigns.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    So you never said this:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/people-v-fox-news-corp.144744/page-3#post-3274531
    I did, and you very clearly wrote "marginally connected". So are you now going to argue marginally connected doesn't mean marginally connected? You are making shit up again Ice. The guy's name is on the title of the show Ice, and he hosts the show. He is he sole host of the show, that isn't marginally connected Ice.

    I don't think Gingrich is currently hosting a show on cable TV.

    Well if you stopped writing stupid stuff you wouldn't have to go back and revise your posts.

    Republicans are certainly suckers for sensationalism. But that doesn't mean CNN has a political bias or less reality based. Both sides play the media. And in recent years Republicans have played the media very well.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, you didn't do the comparison. I posted an entire English sentence, with a subject and a verb and stuff. So did you. They differ.

    Try again - it isn't that hard, really: quote what I posted there in #56, quote what you said in #60 I "claimed", line them up, notice the words in my post that do not appear in your misrepresentation, and the words in your misrepresentation that do not appear in my post. Notice how much these words affect the meaning, and how very stupid and trollish your replacement meaning appears when set alongside the actual post. Realize you have a problem with this misrepresentation habit, it's making you look like a fool and wasting everyone's time, and resolve to mend your ways in the future.

    Then do so. Because it's all downhill from here, if you start defending instead of breaking this habit. Have you read what Photizo writes now, when he actually puts his own words on the screen?

    Among the media the Republicans have played very well we find CNN, which now has a strong rightwing and authoritarian political bias - including its turn to sensationalism, but even more harmfully in its adoption of the fantasy of "both sides" that Republican media players have successfully promoted - to replace reality as a basis of political analysis and reportage.
     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You clearly lied Ice because I cannot believe you are that delusional. If you would stop writing stupid stuff you wouldn't have to subsequently deny it. It's just that simple.

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/people-v-fox-news-corp.144744/page-3#post-3274531
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You're going to a lot of trouble here - why not post the comparison? You've already linked and quoted from 56, so you can comfortably post that short sentence in the first line

    and then comes the hard part, posting your version of my "claim" from #60 in the second line - a quote, mind, of the whole sentence just as it appears in 60

    and then you can compare them.
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I have watched various news programs. Fox allows the Democratic POV to be spoken, more often than the Democratic controlled stations, allow the Republican POV to be spoken. This is why there are considered fair and balanced and is also why their market share is highest among those who seek information. I am independent I want to hear both sides, at the same time, in one place, instead of having to jump between two bigots stations.

    As an example, if you look at Benghazi and the killing of the Ambassador and 3 others, the liberals stations favored the inference that a book induced the attack. If we assume this was all done honestly to their best of their ability to process information in a honest way, their conclusion, showed they were all incompetent morons from top to bottom, since they all got it wrong, even with the best access to information. Not a single reporter in all those stations got it right.

    This may be due to free market forces. FOX is at the top and therefore makes the most profit. This allows FOX to buy the best team. The liberal stations get the leftovers, who are far less competent. They showed this with Benghazi, when not a single station or even member of any liberal station was able to hit the ball; no hitter. With FOX looked like the Yankees in the days of Babe Ruth.

    FOX was out of the loop, due to slanting Republican. Even with less access to the president and all his people, they got it right, yet were portrayed as being way off base, by the same morons who did not have a clue in 20/20 hindsight. One has to be careful about the clueless accusing others of bias. They are competing for market share.

    Mitt Romney got it right in less than 24 hours, but was accused by the clueless of being biased and political. The clueless don't understand good judgement and honesty. This is why they are at the bottom of the league.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Let me give another data point. The Ferguson killing was analyzed, quickly by the Attorney General and the Liberal Media to the best of their ability, all with honest intent. After the government report was issued, several months later, it turns out the liberal media conclusions were wrong, again.

    Instead of having the sense to learn from their mistakes, they blame others of not making it come out they way they inferred. FOX was biased even though they got it right. Again, from top to bottom, not a single reporter on any of the liberal teams got a hit. In todays headlines, the opposite became true as demonstrators (lumped together like the police were lumped) killed police. Since Ferguson, demonstrators are more likely to kill police than the other way due to the double down. It is sort of the ball player striking out and blaming the pitcher for a spit ball to cover their lack of ability. The crowd now hates the pitcher.

    The free market explanation makes sense. FOX has the largest market share and therefore the largest profit, allowing it to buy the best talent. What is left over, after they pick from the litter, is split among the liberal stations. This rest of the litter, got Ferguson wrong, and by doubling down blame to cover incompetence, they drove the dynamics in the opposite direction.

    I wonder if FOX newspeople predicted this outcome, since it had already happened in NY, due to second string clowns pointing the blame as cover for incompetence. Maybe those news stations need to be demoted, for their own sake, to minor leagues news status, so they are not over their heads. They can do easy stuff until they build their skills for major league news. There is less embarrassment and need to lie.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Oh, and what makes you think I am going to a lot of trouble? I did cite your entire post and specifically the words you denied writing. The sentences which followed your claim Sharpton was loosely affiliated with the program he solely hosts and which bears his name are not in any way exculpatory. Your claim that Sharpton was loosely affiliated was the premise upon which your subsequent sentences were based.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No it doesn’t. I watch Fox News too. Fox News misrepresents the Democratic point of view in its carefully scripted programming. Russian state controlled media and Fox News have a lot in common. They use the same tactics.

    The only ones who think Fox News is in anyway "fair and balanced" are people like you, the consumers of Fox News. Even Fox News insiders don’t believe Fox News is “fair and balanced” because they know it isn't. Keith Olberman had a segment of his program every evening where he pointed out the lies in O’Riely told every evening. Olberman never lacked material for that segment and it was always entertaining and amazing at how far O'Riley would go.

    News flash Wellwisher, the truth isn’t controlled by Democrats. Just because the truth isn’t consistent with Republican memes, it doesn’t mean the truth is controlled by Democrats. It just means it is the truth. Unfortunately, the truth has become a very big problem for Republicans and that is why they push the meme, you can't believe anyone else because they are liberal. Fox News doesn't want you hearing the truth from anyone else as you might begin to as questions and think for yourself - God forbid. That would be the worst thing for Fox News.

    I wish Republicans and Fox News could be as proud of their veracity as they are of their ratings. When O’Riley and Fox News were recently confronted on their lies, they didn’t try to deny their obvious lies, they went right to their ratings as if their ratings as if they justified their lies and deceptions.
    Thanks for demonstrating my point. Those “liberal stations” correctly reported that initial reports indicated the disturbance in Benghazi was related to a film, not a book. You have demonstrated how well misinformed informed Fox News viewers are. There have been academic studies after study which has consistently show Fox News viewers to be more misinformed than people who watch no news at all.

    Here is the genius of Fox News and Russian state controlled media, they scapegoat those news outlets who honestly report the news. It’s a convenient way to explain away their many errors of fact and misrepresentations. As long as Fox News can keep their viewers angered and feeling oppressed, they can keep their audiences distracted and misinformed with the "you can't believe "dem" people because they are nasty "liberals". And who is a liberal? A liberal is anyone who says something inconsistent with Fox News propaganda. Hitler, Putin, and Fox News need a bad guy to explain away their deceptions and keep their followers from the realization that they are being played.
    LOL, except as demonstrated by your post, they got it wrong – one of “dem” minor details again. And Romney didn’t get it “right” either. Romney was biased and political too. More than that both he flip flopped by the hour just as his predecessor, McCain, did. Because, thanks to Fox News the truth known to most Americans isn't consistent with the fiction Fox News is telling Republicans. And that is why we don’t have a President McCain or President Romney. Romney and McCain flip flopped so much they lost all credibility in the minds of most Americans. Only the ditto head faction, the Fox News faction, which is most of the Republican Party, remained loyal to Romney and McCain. But that was not enough to get them elected Fox News ratings or not.

    Remember in the waning days of 2008 election all the mainstream polling indicated Obama was going to win. Then your Fox News and Romney told us we couldn’t believe those “liberal” polls because they were biased. So Fox News invented their conservative polling which was designed and created to always show Romney winning no matter what happened. Well, guess who was right. It wasn’t Fox News and it wasn’t Romney and his fellow Republicans. We don’t have a President Romney in the White House today. Those mainstream “liberal” polls were right. That's why Obama is POTUS. The polls created by Fox News were the biased and wrong polls. The election wasn’t even close. And that is part of the problem for Fox, Republicans and the nation. You can deceive people for only so long before reality takes a big bite out of your ass. Well reality took a big bite out of Republican ass in 2008. Fortunately for Fox News, ditto heads have a very short memory.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I never denied writing them.
    I made no such claim.

    You continue to post handtyped and elaborated falsehood, rather than the simple side by side copy pasted comparison of my original with yours. Do you have any idea why you are doing that?

    Do you have any plans for an apology?

    Fox never delivers any news from a leftwing viewpoint, nor does it present competent analysis and opinion from that viewpoint. If you do not know that, you are not getting any information from that viewpoint, and you do not know what it is.

    No, they weren't. That is, their reports weren't conclusions, and they weren't wrong. Where did you get the idea that the non-Fox media (a better term, since very little of it is "liberal") had come to conclusions about the events at Ferguson, and that they were wrong?
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    All media is full of crap for they all sensationalize, spin and lie in many of their stories. Don't just blame one when they all deserve a time out for a very long time.
     
    Photizo likes this.
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I think you are drawing a false equivalence. Fox News is a standout for its very deceitful programming.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    That is complete bullshit and you know it. You have flat out lied on numerous occasions about a number of things. When I quoted you, I copied and pasted your words from your post and provided the link to your post. I didn’t hand type your words – one of “dem” minor details again.
    Of course I have no plans for an apology. Because I have nothing to apologize for, you are the one who has repeatedly lied about this and numerous other issues. So it is you my friend who should be planning an apology. You very clearly have written some stupid shit and are now claiming you didn’t. But your words are clear and anyone can clearly see you have lied.

    This is the paragraph again in which you say Sharpton is marginally connected to media talk show entertainment. The entire paragraph was copied pasted (since that is important to you) for the umpteenth time.

    “Gingrich is centrally connected to corporate influence on Federal political power. Sharpton is marginally connected to media talk show entertainment. How does that translate into comparison as equivalent?”

    Are you going to deny you wrote this again?
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I have never denied I wrote that. Not once.
    As I stated, you handtyped your words. Once again you are refusing to copy paste your original bullshit paraphrase, which I decided to hammer on because it was such a clear, simple example of what you are up to. As I pointed out, many posts back and twice since, all you have to do to counter my serious accusation is set my original post next to your original version of it, and show them to be, or at least mean, the same - a dozen posts later, you still haven't done that. You have copy pasted my original four or five times, complete with new wordings for the old bullshit and fresh insults from your bottomless tank hand typed - and never copied your initial version once. They're within a very short scroll of each other, in #56 and #60.

    Ok, but from now on don't bother.

    You are getting that line from Fox and the US rightwing authoritarian propaganda operation. It's purpose is to prevent them being held accountable for their spin and lies, especially of the recent past (the Iraq War, say). It is false, in two different ways: for one, some media does not spin and lie very often; Al Jazeera, for example, does very little spinning and lying. For another, Fox and its fellow travelers in the hate radio circuit do so much more spinning and lying than anyone else that they are in a different category from CNN or MSNBC or the rest. All media may do some, but it's not their main output; Fox does almost nothing else - spin and lies are its major effort and nearly total output.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Oh, then what were those denials? You clearly made the statements which were quoted and have subsequently denied and confirmed and then denied over and over again. Contrary to your assertion, Sharpton isn’t loosely affiliated with the media as he hosts the cable show which bears his name.

    If you think I have incorrectly paraphrased something you wrote, why do you need me to repost it? Can’t you just repost it to back up your assertion?
    Frankly, I think you owe me and others an apology for your repeated lies.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I have never once denied anything I posted.

    You have confused your claims about my posts, which I do deny, with the actual posts, which I do not deny. They are quite different.

    As predicted: you will not compare my post in 56 with your version in 60 side by side. And you have good reason for not doing so.

    That little added bit about "loosely affiliated with the media" is proof that you are aware of what's wrong with your versions of my posts - it's a bit of adjustment to your posting that moves it closer to my post, less obviously mendaciously altered. At this rate, you will have an accurate paraphrase of my posts in about three more pages of this thread.

    But what a waste of time. Why not just deal in good faith with people's actual posting in the first place?

    Here is what you did in the first place, instead:
    Just to make things thread relevant, that is a Fox News rhetorical technique.
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Oh, yes you have, most recently with, “Sharpton is marginally connected to media talk show entertainment.” Which was followed by, “I never made such a claim.” In post #62. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/people-v-fox-news-corp.144744/page-4#post-3283346
    Oh but I have and your posts do not say what you claim they say, unless of course like some others around here, you have a separate dictionary not used by everyone else. If you think I have misrepresented your posts, why don’t you do the “side by side” comparison and explain. You are the one making the accusation. It’s your job to substantiate your allegations.
    I guess this gets to your special dictionary where “loosely affiliated” doesn’t mean loosely affiliated.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You have confused your paraphrases and claims with my posting, once again. It is your paraphrase and consequent claim in post 60 that I denied, not my posting in 56. That was perfectly clear, explicit, in the original. I referred directly to the paraphrase in your post 60, not my post 56, when I denied making such a claim.

    I never made the claim you said I made. I denied your version of my post, not my post. Your versions of my posts are wrong. Your assertions of claims made by me are wrong.

    And it's becoming clear that you know that - look here:
    You most certainly have not. I did pick the example for its clarity.

    Like this:
    The words "loosely affiliated" are not mine. Neither is the meaning of the term. Your entire remodeling of my description of Sharpton's status

    - from my observation that he's a niche and marginal figure in the US talk show entertainment media, somehow you obtain my having made the claim that he's not closely involved with his own cable show -

    is not only dependent on misrepresentation used primarily to launch insults, but also on deflecting consideration of the original comparison: Newt Gingrich, although waning, has been a hugely influential power broker in US national politics since the early 1990s, the single politician most responsible for the structure and rise of the current Republican Party. His race baiting has been central to the political fortunes of half the US Congress. Al Sharpton's race baiting draws a niche audience for some targeted advertising on a cable TV program.

    There has been no race baiting from the Left or the Liberals or anyone akin, equivalent to the race baiting from the Republican Party since Nixon. There are not "two sides", legitimately comparable to each other either in persons or in institutions, in this matter of race baiting for political power.

    And Fox News has thrown in completely with race baiting for political power.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2015
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I have confused? Those were your words quoted verbatim. Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.
    Oh, then perhaps you just don’t understand the meaning of the words you use or perhaps you are being disingenuous or perhaps both. Sharpton isn’t loosely connected to TV. As repeatedly pointed out to you he has a TV program which bears his name. So while you may not know the meaning of “loosely connected” most people do.
    No, you used the words “marginally connected”. So you have another interpretation for the words “marginally connected” that doesn’t translate to “loosely associated”? You are doing the same things our so called conservative ideologues do by inventing your own word meanings.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marginally?&o=100074&s=t
    Oh yes you are, you are very dependent on misrepresentation, just as our so called “conservative” brothers are. But here is the rub, you don’t need to be. And you discredit your cause when use the same techniques our so called “conservative” brethren use. Gingrich and Sharpton fill similar niches in their parties. Sharpton is a race baiter. It’s his claim to fame. Gingrich is a Republican Party ambulance chaser, just as Sharpton is a racial ambulance chaser.
    Seriously…Fox News has a political agenda and uses techniques lifted right out of Putin’s media handbook. Fox News is certainly duplicitous, but that doesn’t change the fact your assertions were wrong.
     

Share This Page