Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

You are merely assuming that the Fox news show shaped their views and voting behavior. It is at least equally likely (indeed, more likely in my view) that a good deal of self selection took place among those who chose to watch Fox news shows.

There was certainly nothing unusual or remarkable in the results of the last Presidential election. John Kerry's self-absorbtion and vanity were so great that he himself had evidently come to believe the myths he had so assiduously created. His truly goofy salute and "John Kerry reporting for duty" bit at the convention was the final straw for those who has witnessed his manipulative behavior while on active duty, and who likely knew the truth about the manner of his discharge from the Navy. Kerry defeated himself. A theory based on the supposed magical powers of Fox news to influence the supposedly dull conservative crowd is not only laughable - it is unnecessary.

The chief (perhaps only) virtues of the Fox approach is that it reveals and contrasts the otherwise somewhat insidious bias of the other broadcast media. In addition its bias is rather overt and candid - less pretense of something it doesn't deliver). Its popularity clearly attests to these factors, among other things.

sheesh
Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire: "An audience that decides for itself, based on 'fair and balanced' coverage, ought not to reach monolithic conclusions. Yet, in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers." http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

Well, what differentiates the "left" and the "right", george. I don't refer to ideas but rather to the acceptance or preference for one set of notions/values or the other set? Is it simply chance?

Quote:

The chief (perhaps only) virtues of the Fox approach is that it reveals and contrasts the otherwise somewhat insidious bias of the other broadcast media. In addition its bias is rather overt and candid - less pretense of something it doesn't deliver). Its popularity clearly attests to these factors, among other things.

A textbook example of how to politely minimize and ignore others' good points. Bravo.

Fox is right wing, the rest of the networks are centrist. There isn't a single network out there that is left-wing. I'd be more than happy to give you proof, but you already know that this is true.

Cycloptichorn

For those who need reminding of Fox's agenda - using their "fair and balanced" credibility to smear Democrats and help Republicans - here's the bill of particulars:

* Fox News' founder and guiding genius, Roger Ailes, was the chief media strategist for President George H.W. Bush. When you have a Republican political consultant running a news network, don't be surprised if that network becomes a propaganda tool for the Republican Party.

* After the 2006 elections, Fox Senior Vice President John Moody sent a memo to news staff instructing them: "Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents...thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress."

* Robert Greenwald's film Outfoxed exposed 33 similar memos from Moody before the 2004 elections. On Bush: "His political courage and tactical cunning are worth noting in our reporting through the day." On Iraq: "Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there?"

* Fox's Iraq coverage was so biased that a university study showed 80 percent of Fox viewers believed one of these three falsehoods: Saddam was behind 9/11; WMD's were found in Iraq, or most of the world supported Mr. Bush's Iraq war. Fox is entitled to its own opinions, but not its own facts.

The other major networks display attitudes which are more balanced - cnn and MSNBC have far more Republican guests and analysts than Dem ones, Headline news gives Glenn Beck a whole hour every night. Fox has no corollary at all.

Here's some facts about Fox, courtesy of Mr. Begala -

Quote:

For those who need reminding of Fox's agenda --using their "fair and balanced"; credibility to smear Democrats and help Republicans --here's the bill of particulars:

* Fox News' founder and guiding genius, Roger Ailes, was the chief media strategist for President George H.W. Bush. When you have a Republican political consultant running a news network, don't be surprised if that network becomes a propaganda tool for the Republican Party.

* After the 2006 elections, Fox Senior Vice President John Moody sent a memo to news staff instructing them: "Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents...thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress;"

* Robert Greenwald's film Outfoxed exposed 33 similar memos from Moody before the 2004 elections. On Bush: "His political courage and tactical cunning are worth noting in our reporting through the day" On Iraq: "Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there?";

* Fox';s Iraq coverage was so biased that a university study showed 80 percent of Fox viewers believed one of these three falsehoods: Saddam was behind 9/11; WMD's were found in Iraq, or most of the world supported Mr. Bush's Iraq war. Fox is entitled to its own opinions, but not its own facts.

The fact that Fox viewers score so poorly when asked to describe modern events should tell you everything you need to know.

Cycloptichorn

Shrug. I just don't believe that every poll is a lie, like you do.

When I see more than one poll showing Fox views scoring the lowest on accuracy, that tells me something. But I understand that noone's logic will ever touch your belief.

Cycloptichorn

Shrug. I just don't believe that every poll is a lie, like you do.

When I see more than one poll showing Fox views scoring the lowest on accuracy, that tells me something. But I understand that noone's logic will ever touch your belief.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Shrug. I just don't believe that every poll is a lie, like you do.

When I see more than one poll showing Fox views scoring the lowest on accuracy, that tells me something. But I understand that noone's logic will ever touch your belief.

Cycloptichorn

Have you noticed that Mr Begalia, far from an impartial observer, is a professional Democrat partisan.

You allege that those with whom you agree are "centrist" and accurate: while those with whom you disagree are extremist; wrong in their understanding; biased in their reporting;and generally uninformed.

Do you detect just a scintilla of partisanship in these views? Do you expect thinking people to take these comments seriously?

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Quote:

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

It is a term used to describe the Logical Fallacy you committed, not a reference to actual poison.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Quote:

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

It is a term used to describe the Logical Fallacy you committed, not a reference to actual poison.

Cycloptichorn

You wrote:"It is a term used to describe the Logical Fallacy you [i.e., georgeob1] committed, not a reference to actual poison."

I finally believe you! You truly don't see it! Amazing!

Poisoning the well is what you do frequently. And, indeed you did poison the well here again in your previous and this post of yours. I am amazed that you do not recognize this. Obviously you do not recognize you've done this, because otherwise you would be terribly embarrassed for committing such a gross error, and accusing others of doing exactly what you have done and do.