Typical of this administration, 288k new jobs in June

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.

That study was totally flawed. Here is why:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-news-viewers/

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not just in your little town:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dead-yard.html

(This particular story has really p*ssed me off this week.)

I've been following that story too. That is disgraceful.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That study was totally flawed. Here is why:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-news-viewers/

I'm supposed to take a fox defense by fox seriously?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I'm supposed to take a fox defense by fox seriously?

None of the other news outlets are going to defend Fox. Fox is beating them all in the ratings. The other news outlets were thrilled with the story. Why would the other news outlets try to show that the study was flawed?

Anyway, after reading some of the questions that were asked in the study, I don't know how anyone could think that study was reliable.

And yes, when a company or person is accused of something, I'm going to want to hear their defense. After listening to their defense, I may or may not think they won the argument, but I will at least listen to their argument. You can't find someone guilty of something without listening to their defense.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you about unemployment and the lack of jobs.

I totally disagree with you about Fox. They may have a conservative bias but their news is generally accurate. I'm sure they've botched a few stories but so has every other network. I'll say one thing. The left-wing has done a great job of smearing Fox. Fox is still very popular but there are also a ton of people out there like yourself who have the false assumption that Fox is totally unreliable. That is complete nonsense. That is just left-wing propaganda that many people believe. The truth of the matter is that there needs to be a conservative station like Fox that reports important and legitimate stories that the liberal media doesn't want to report.

A high ranking member of the IRS taking the 5th at a congressional hearing is a big deal. Yet the mainstream media has not devoted much time to the story. You hear a lot more about that story on Fox than the other channels. Yet if that IRS official was a Republican under Bush, that had targeted liberal groups, and she took the 5th before Congress, you know darn well that it would be the #1 story on every news channel every night.

I'll tell you one thing that Fox does. They keep the mainstream media a little more honest. When they pick up a story that the mainstream media would normally ignore, it sometimes forces the mainstream media to at least give a little coverage to the story.

There are also plenty of times when Fox is the only station that will report a big story. Do you remember this case? This should have been a huge story. It was to anyone who knew the story, but not to the mainstream media, who didn't want to report it because it didn't fit their narrative. Obama himself called it a "phony scandal". I do give him some credit. He convinced many liberals that it was basically a "phony-story" when it was actually a huge story. I would like someone to explain to me how this is a phony story. If this would have happened under Bush with all the roles reversed, people would have demanded that the Attorney General resign.

There was a liberal witness to this whole thing, in addition to the videos of the incident. Bartle Bull was a long time civil rights activist and aide to Robert Kennedy. He called this one of the worst cases of voter intimidation he had ever seen. The lawyers at the Justice Department agreed. They were prosecuting the case. But Obama appointees who were not lawyers ordered the lawyers to drop the case.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position1

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I'm supposed to take a fox defense by fox seriously?

This piece is a classic look at typical FOX misinformation to try to make its point. From the piece:

"Question #4: "Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that climate change is occurring, not occurring, or views are evenly divided?" (emphasis in the original). Of course, the answer WorldPublicOpinion.org wants was that most scientists believe that climate change is occurring. Again, the question is poorly worded. In particular, it fails to specify what time period is relevant. Have temperatures risen since the end of The Little Ice Age in 1850? Surely, no one disagrees with that. Have temperatures changed much since 1998? Few scientists would claim so. Judging from the WorldPublicOpinion.org's report, the authors are clearly pushing the man-made global warming viewpoint. But on that score, there is little unanimity. For example, a 2010 survey of American weather forecasters found only 17 percent to believe in man-made global warming. And, as for scientists in general, 9,029 Ph.D.s signed a petition this year disputing man-made global warming claims."

Note how in the second half of this, the Op-ed switches the terminology from "climate change" (what the original question was about) to "man-made global warming." It's verbal sleight-of-hand and is quite common when someone wants to mislead without appearing to do so. The two terms are not synonymous. So, FOX can say, "Look! There are scientists who dispute man-made global warming!" when the survey question was "Do most scientists believe climate change is occurring, not occurring, or evenly divided?" The original question makes no claim as to cause of climate change, but FOX is happy to impose one in order to misinform.

For that matter, "climate change" and "global warming" (regardless of man-made or not) are not the same thing, either.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I've been following that story too. That is disgraceful.

A cop who resorts to shooting a dog, rather than just leaving the yard, is not one I want patrolling my streets. Talk about escalating a situation unnecessarily.

The National Canine Resource Council put up a good series of videos to assist police in understanding dog encounters:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...%20Release.pdf

I wish they'd be required viewing for all police departments.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

None of the other news outlets are going to defend Fox. Fox is beating them all in the ratings. The other news outlets were thrilled with the story. Why would the other news outlets try to show that the study was flawed?

Anyway, after reading some of the questions that were asked in the study, I don't know how anyone could think that study was reliable.

And yes, when a company or person is accused of something, I'm going to want to hear their defense. After listening to their defense, I may or may not think they won the argument, but I will at least listen to their argument. You can't find someone guilty of something without listening to their defense.

there are groups who 'judge' all the media outlets. what do they have to say?

foxes ratings have been significantly down for some time, with seniors being their core-you know, just like the republican party.

and they should have to remove their 'fair and balanced' tag,because everyone knows they're just a shill for the republiecans.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

A cop who resorts to shooting a dog, rather than just leaving the yard, is not one I want patrolling my streets. Talk about escalating a situation unnecessarily.

The National Canine Resource Council put up a good series of videos to assist police in understanding dog encounters:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...%20Release.pdf

I wish they'd be required viewing for all police departments.

i'm sure everyone has heard by now about the chp cop beating on the woman on the freeway. he's on administrative leave.

[jms62]

This just is just so childish


http://www.businessinsider.com/conse...k-smoke-2014-7

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

This just is just so childish


http://www.businessinsider.com/conse...k-smoke-2014-7

Yes it is.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

,,I get all my Fox news from Jon Stewart..nite after nite he plays back what the talking heads catch phrase is and repeated show after show...and they are reading from Ailes script for the day..like 'I don't understand what Obama is thinking here'..even the revered O'rielly was caught on camera...whatever faux says i know the oppisite is true

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This piece is a classic look at typical FOX misinformation to try to make its point. From the piece:

"Question #4: "Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that climate change is occurring, not occurring, or views are evenly divided?" (emphasis in the original). Of course, the answer WorldPublicOpinion.org wants was that most scientists believe that climate change is occurring. Again, the question is poorly worded. In particular, it fails to specify what time period is relevant. Have temperatures risen since the end of The Little Ice Age in 1850? Surely, no one disagrees with that. Have temperatures changed much since 1998? Few scientists would claim so. Judging from the WorldPublicOpinion.org's report, the authors are clearly pushing the man-made global warming viewpoint. But on that score, there is little unanimity. For example, a 2010 survey of American weather forecasters found only 17 percent to believe in man-made global warming. And, as for scientists in general, 9,029 Ph.D.s signed a petition this year disputing man-made global warming claims."

Note how in the second half of this, the Op-ed switches the terminology from "climate change" (what the original question was about) to "man-made global warming." It's verbal sleight-of-hand and is quite common when someone wants to mislead without appearing to do so. The two terms are not synonymous. So, FOX can say, "Look! There are scientists who dispute man-made global warming!" when the survey question was "Do most scientists believe climate change is occurring, not occurring, or evenly divided?" The original question makes no claim as to cause of climate change, but FOX is happy to impose one in order to misinform.

For that matter, "climate change" and "global warming" (regardless of man-made or not) are not the same thing, either.

As the author says, nobody disputes that temperatures have risen from hundreds of years ago. There is no controversy about that. If someone asked me a question about whether I believe in global warming, I would assume they were asking me about the controversy, not simply about whether there has been any rise in temperature over the last few hundreds of years. And I assume that is what most people would think if you asked them that question.

If they really wanted to know if people were informed, they should simply ask people simple questions that can't be misinterpreted. Ask them who the vice-president is. Ask them who the Prime Minister of Israel is. I know those questions are simple, but I'd much rather have a non-subjective question that can't be misinterpreted.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

I have said Fox has a conservative bias. There are so many of you that have such a huge double-standard. You think that since there is a conservative bias that that somehow makes them liars, shills, not a legit news source, etc.

I could say the exact same thing for most of the mainstream media (which has a huge liberal bias). Look at the Associated Press and many of the other news organizations. They won't use the words "illegal immigrants". It's a good thing their biases don't affect their objectivity. LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/bu...anted=all&_r=0

In addition, you need to separate Fox News from its opinion shows. The news is almost identical to any other news. The bias is very subtle. If I got a transcript from a few different news channels on a random night, I highly doubt that any of you would be able to tell which transcript was from which channel. If I got the transcripts from 10 straight nights and you went over them very carefully, it is quite possible that you would be able to find the slight subtleties to guess which one was from Fox. It's very subtle. It's not major. Sean Hannity isn't subtle. His show is an opinion show. The news is a different story.

Let's check the news stories on the fox News website right now. Compare it to other sites like CNN. You won't see a major difference.

http://www.foxnews.com/

[geeker2]

^^^^^^^^

thinks Rachel Maddow is hot

[GPK]

Originally Posted by geeker2

^^^^^^^^

thinks Rachel Maddow is hot

Reminds me of Pat from old SNL skits

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As the author says, nobody disputes that temperatures have risen from hundreds of years ago. There is no controversy about that. If someone asked me a question about whether I believe in global warming, I would assume they were asking me about the controversy, not simply about whether there has been any rise in temperature over the last few hundreds of years. And I assume that is what most people would think if you asked them that question.

The question was whether they thought most scientists believe climate change is occurring, is not occurring or is evenly divided. It had nothing to do with what the question taker's opinion on climate change is. And you didn't address the point I made, either, which is that the terminology changed halfway through the op ed paragraph on this section.

If they really wanted to know if people were informed, they should simply ask people simple questions that can't be misinterpreted. Ask them who the vice-president is. Ask them who the Prime Minister of Israel is. I know those questions are simple, but I'd much rather have a non-subjective question that can't be misinterpreted.

The Fairleigh Dickenson quiz (this is the one we're talking about, right?) did ask questions like that- it asked which nation spent the most money bailing out the financially troubled nations of Europe, for example (a question that has only one right answer). Fox News viewers were more likely to (incorrectly) say the US, than someone who didn't watch the news at all. A regular viewer of the evening news was more likely to know the correct answer than someone who didn't watch news. People who tuned in regularly to NPR were the most likely to know the correct answer.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The question was whether they thought most scientists believe climate change is occurring, is not occurring or is evenly divided. It had nothing to do with what the question taker's opinion on climate change is. And you didn't address the point I made, either, which is that the terminology changed halfway through the op ed paragraph on this section.



The Fairleigh Dickenson quiz (this is the one we're talking about, right?) did ask questions like that- it asked which nation spent the most money bailing out the financially troubled nations of Europe, for example (a question that has only one right answer). Fox News viewers were more likely to (incorrectly) say the US, than someone who didn't watch the news at all. A regular viewer of the evening news was more likely to know the correct answer than someone who didn't watch news. People who tuned in regularly to NPR were the most likely to know the correct answer.

The terminology change in the op-ed was what the author's point was. His point was that what most people probably assumed they were being asked about was about the global warming controversy.

This article explains what a complete joke the Farleigh "study" was. It explains exactly how the "study" was done. By the way, the study did not identify which people got their news from only Fox News.

http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/20...coherent-mess/

Newsbusters has an article talking about some of the other supposed studies.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...-people-stupid

[joeydb]

Unfortunately, it is not at all typical of this administration:

Unemployment by month since 1948. 2/2009 and onward is Obama's.

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...06820001315034

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Unfortunately, it is not at all typical of this administration:

Unemployment by month since 1948. 2/2009 and onward is Obama's.

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...06820001315034

Seriously Joey 2009-2010? Please tell us how the downside momentum of a near economic collapse can be stopped on a dime and turned around. A Noble Prize in Economics awaits you if you do.