Fox News airs psychic to talk to Terri

Man .......................

I'm out of here.

0 Replies

Well, OK.

So there are 100 factual, dispassionate articles.

There are also 100 non-factual, passionate "articles" filled with contradictions and inconsistencies.

50 left-leaning, 50 right-leaning of each.

The site publishes 50 of the left-leaning factual, disapassionate articles, and corrects 50 of the non-factual, passionate right-leaning articles. (Surely you won't deny that idiocy is spewed by both sides?)

Still doesn't say anything about whether the site can or can't be trusted.

I mean, sure, be suspicious. I was suspicious of nimh's source (if it's the one I'm thinking of). But I actually read the articles and info, over a long stretch of time, and gradually my suspicion wore off. The guy had a partisan slant, but was also being factual and dispassionate.

So -- what's WRONG with the Media Matters article msolga linked to?

Not saying there isn't anything wrong with it -- saying that's what you have to address, whether there is anything wrong with THAT article.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

I never claimed the site was deceptive; that was your choice of words. I certainly do not have to produce examples of falsehoods, canards, and rhetorical nonsense to validate my position that the site is fanatically far-left wing. It's mission statement clearly admits that.

You said a bit more than that it was "fanatically far-left wing", Whooda. You wrote that it, too, "qualifies" as "outrageous political crap online", that it is "neither" a rational nor an informative reference point and that it "is more than partisan. It is the rabid wolf attacking the mad-cow afflicted bovine" and implied that it is as insane a site as those MsOlga was talking about.

I would say a collection of assertions like that does warrant an example - any, really - of where the site in question dealt in falsehoods, canards, or rhetorical nonsense. Otherwise it is just rhetorics, itself. As the example of the conservative blogger I referenced shows, a partisan persuasion by itself, whether or not specified in a mission statement, does not necessarily preclude a site from being informative or rational or reduce it to outrageous crap.

We already agreed it was partisan left-wing. On the other counts, you have something left to illustrate, methinks.

WhoodaThunk wrote:

<<< Quite frankly, I don't appreciate your ad hominem slurs against me. Perhaps you could refrain from this in future posts? Thanks. >>>

I said that if you make assertions like the above-mentioned about a site without coming up with any illustrations or examples, you are yourself engaging in "rhetorical nonsense".

How's that an "ad hominem slur"? ("slurs", plural, even)

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

..The site not only selects 50 right-leaning dispassionate and accurate articles to publish, but also claims to correct the "conservative misinformation."...

But there IS a disproportionate conservative bias in the mass media coverage of US news! So what's the problem with dispassionately presenting the other side of important issues? I think, in the current circumstances, that's a very healthy & useful function in a democratic society.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I mean, sure, be suspicious. I was suspicious of nimh's source (if it's the one I'm thinking of).

Not sure what you're talking about. The irony is that, last time I mentioned MediaMatters, it was in a post where I went on looking for a corroborative source on what I was looking for (Judge Greer's evaluation of nurse Carla Iyer's affadavit) because I did not want to rely on a partisan site like MM. I found it: the original court order, which is what I linked in. Nothing much suspicious about that I think!

nimh wrote:

The only other one mixed in for several pages is MediaMatters, which does quote it, but which I didn't want to rely on because it's a clearly partisan site itself, for the other side. I had to browse through to, I dunno, result #50 or something to find a link to the actual court document

The last time I actually did quote or link in MediaMatters was <looks it up> last August, when it came up with detailed and cite-referenced info on individual Swift Vets for Truth testimonies and what they omitted or were demonstrably erroneous on.

Another irony here is that if you compare Roverroad's initial post of this thread, which said that Fox News had the psychic onair "to talk with Terri", with MediaMatters' page about it, you'll see that MM actually does not confirm the story about Fox. Instead, it brings it back to something much less outrageous (the psychic was asked about Terri on an aside in a talkshow he was on, and only said something general about how she would be aware of things, not quoting anything she was supposed to have said). So if anything the example shows MM not going along in some insinuative, partisan claim.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Not saying there isn't anything wrong with it -- saying that's what you have to address, whether there is anything wrong with THAT article.

No, I don't have to address whether there's anything wrong with the factual content of the article. Why should I defend something I never said? Please scroll up and review my actual posts.

My original statement was:
"As for 'outrageous political crap online,' Fox News certainly qualifies on a regular basis, but the cited source, Media Matters for America, also qualifies in that it arbitrarily determines what is and is not 'conservative misinformation' and seems to have an unhealthy fixation with the Fox & Friends program."

That's what I said and nothing more. Rather, the onus should be on MediaMatters to determine how Fox News actually engaged in conservative misinformation by airing a segment (frivolous and distasteful as it may have been) about a psychic who claimed to have communicated with a dying woman.

We all choose our political blinders, Sozobe, and I'm merely pointing out that "outrageous political crap" is just as deep on both sides of the aisle.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

We all choose our political blinders, Sozobe, and I'm merely pointing out that "outrageous political crap" is just as deep on both sides of the aisle.

On both sides of the aisle, yes. On MediaMatters, I haven't seen it yet. Having a partisan mission does not automatically make one's reports outrageous crap. Fox News is not accused of outrageous crap because it's avowedly conservative per se, but because of myriad specific instances where it has broadcasted falsehoods. I guess thats all we're asking: show us where MM has posted "outrageous political crap" in its articles, if that's what you say it does.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

But there IS a disproportionate conservative bias in the mass media coverage of US news! So what's the problem with dispassionately presenting the other side of important issues? I think, in the current circumstances, that's a very healthy & useful function in a democratic society.

Could you produce documentation of this "disproportionate conservative bias in the mass media coverage of U.S. news" to separate it from garden-variety opinion?

Are you aware that prior to the Limbaugh era, it was widely held that the dissemination of news and opinion in the American mass media was the unchallenged province of the Left? Are you aware of the Left's hue and cry against the influence of Limbaugh and their organized efforts to "do something about it?" Are you aware of Al Franken's so-called talk show which went belly-up, but is now back on the air due to some deep-pocketed Democrats?

There are many who would find your statement to be ... statistically questionable.

0 Replies

nimh, this is what I was referring to:

nimh wrote:

During the US election campaigns, one of the sites I visited daily to keep track of polls and the like was a conservative blog. The blogger was passionately partisan, but also passionately scrupulous about his data.

Sorry I wasn't clear.

I forget what it was called -- the Daily Kos? -- but there was one you linked to a lot that I was suspicious at first because of the conservative aspect. But I became a convert because of the content.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Fox News is not accused of outrageous crap because it's avowedly conservative per se, but because of myriad specific instances where it has broadcasted falsehoods.

Before I myself am accused of posting assertions without illustration, let me recount this recent example.

JW, in the thread about assassinated Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, posted that "they're reporting [here] that the elected officials are seriously thinking of kicking out thousands (Immams) and sealing the borders", and later: "a woman named Heather Nauer (sp?) - a reporter for Fox News, who's been in Amsterdam for several days now - she updates at least once a day, and I caught her report of this very morning [..] The words "kicking out tens of thousands" and "closing the borders" was mentioned more than once."

Note, that was November 16. In reality, the borders were never closed, and the very first (single) imam was ordered to be deported last month.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

The site publishes 50 of the left-leaning factual, disapassionate articles, and corrects 50 of the non-factual, passionate right-leaning articles. (Surely you won't deny that idiocy is spewed by both sides?)

Whoodathunk wrote:

We all choose our political blinders, Sozobe, and I'm merely pointing out that "outrageous political crap" is just as deep on both sides of the aisle.

We seem to be saying the same thing here.

Just, is MediaMatters "outrageous political crap"?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

nimh, this is what I was referring to:

nimh wrote:
During the US election campaigns, one of the sites I visited daily to keep track of polls and the like was a conservative blog. The blogger was passionately partisan, but also passionately scrupulous about his data.

I forget what it was called -- the Daily Kos? -- but there was one you linked to a lot that I was suspicious at first because of the conservative aspect. But I became a convert because of the content.

OK, gotcha. That was Daly Thoughts of conservative blogger Dales. In election times he has an Electoral College Breakdown tracking blog. (The Daily Kos is a liberal site of the militant kind).

0 Replies

Daily/ Daly, same diff. ;-)

That's the one, yeah.

Point was just the same as yours -- I looked at the site with some suspicion, but was swayed by content.

Actually on writing that, not quite true. I look at liberal sites with suspicion, too. I'm just plain suspicious. :-)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I guess thats all we're asking: show us where MM has posted "outrageous political crap" in its articles, if that's what you say it does.

I'll say it one more time ... MM's stated mission of not only choosing examples of what it considers "conservative misinformation" but also, and most especially, having the audacity to claim the objective authority to correct that "misinformation" is in-and-of-itself the highest form of 100-proof Outrageous Political Crap.

I understand we disagree. Just don't expect me to document that which I have not claimed.

0 Replies

You don't have to be non-partisan to fact-check. I sincerely disagree that partisan fact-checking is the highest form of outrageous political crap. I would say that making stuff up and concealing bias and conflicts of interest would be a much higher form.

0 Replies

So just absolutely anything that states a political affiliation/ leaning is automatically "outrageous political crap?"

OK.

Doesn't seem to have any bearing on this discussion, but whatever.

In terms of this discussion, I think we've cleared up what did and didn't happen, no?

0 Replies

0 Replies

As I've already told you, WhoodaThunk, I do not live in the US, however, my country receives saturation media coverage from the US, including news reporting. I wouldn't expect you to be in a position to comment on developments in the Australian media, so it might not surprise you that I have but a sketchy knowledge of say, Al Franken, or the "Limbaugh era" ... Is that important to my opinion of US news that I see regularly on my television screen or online material I read? I have seen enough news reports & interviews from FOX news, for example, to get a pretty good overall picture of what's presented. I've also read some pretty interesting threads with extracts/links to websites, including those here at A2K. Many of our reports of the Iraq war, for example, were from via US sources. And yes, I do believe, there is often a particular position being promoted, in support of the US government policies & actions. Some of the FOX interviews I've seen have frankly shocked me. If you want actual examples you'll have to wait till I see the next one, I'm afraid. The names of the individuals involved haven't stuck in my brain.

Regarding the little seen of Media Matters online tonight: It is really not so different from what we regularly receive in our daily newspapers. What would be considered respectable, professional reporting. I've reread the link I posted & I really can't find anything outrageous there at all.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

I'll say it one more time ... MM's stated mission of not only choosing examples of what it considers "conservative misinformation" but also, and most especially, having the audacity to claim the objective authority to correct that "misinformation" is in-and-of-itself the highest form of 100-proof Outrageous Political Crap.

I understand we disagree. Just don't expect me to document that which I have not claimed.

Yes Whooda, we'll have to disagree. Way I see it, "claiming the objective authority to correct misinformation" is nothing particularly outrageous or audacious in itself - so does Snopes, and we all use Snopes when we want to doublecheck some urban legend or political canard or other.

The obvious difference is that MediaMatters, being a partisan site, is selective in what misinformation it chooses to correct. That's a pity. But as long as it's factual in how it corrects it, the way Snopes is, I don't see how that in itself makes the info it provides "Outrageous Political Crap". As long as it's still correct, right? And I haven't seen any example of where it isn't yet.

All it means is that to doublecheck liberal misinformation, you need a conservative counterpart of MediaMatters. (Recommendations welcome.)

0 Replies

P Diddie, in aneffort to get me feeing better, sent me the URL to Terri Shiavos own blogTerri SHiavos own blog.

0 Replies

Fox News airs psychic to talk to Terri

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know