Fox News 27% Unbiased

MrBadExample

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Fair and balanced, at least 27 percent of the time!

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reports on a new study of TV news. You decide.

"In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says. By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views. These findings -- the figures were similar for coverage of other stories -- 'seem to challenge' Fox's slogan of 'we report, you decide,' says the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

"In a 617-page report, the group also found that 'Fox is more deeply sourced than its rivals,' while CNN is 'the least transparent about its sources of the three cable channels, but more likely to present multiple points of view.' The project defines opinion as views that are not attributed to others."

Perhaps not a real shocker, but it turns out that Bill O'Reilly, host of the "no-spin zone," is a bona fide leader in dialing in the spin: "As for the most popular prime-time shows, nearly every story -- 97 percent -- contained opinion on Fox's 'O'Reilly Factor'; 24 percent on MSNBC's 'Hardball with Chris Matthews'; and 0.9 percent on CNN's 'Larry King Live.'"

Indeed, the PEJ report would seem to confirm suspicions that Fox News, above all others, is quite sympathetic in general to the Bush White House's faith-based policies. As Kurtz also notes from the study: "Last March, Fox reporter Todd Connor said that 'Iraq has a new interim constitution and is well on its way to democracy.'

"'Let's pray it works out,' said anchor David Asman."

And if TV viewers end up being too busy at any given moment to get their fix of "news" from the cable nets, they need not worry: 70 percent of the time they'll have missed nothing at all.

"Despite its 24 hours of available air time, cable isn't exactly bursting with new news. Seven in 10 reports involve recycling of the same subject matter, with only 10 percent adding meaningful updates. 'The time required to continuously be on the air seems to take a heavy toll on the nature of the journalism presented,' the report says."

-- Mark Follman

Salon link

Washington Post link
 
It's really pretty idiotic to measure O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, On The Record (Greta van Sustren) as "news". They're all presented as talking heads/opinion shows on current events. Frequently on these shows they've had reporters out of their "professional" reporting roles and offering opinions on what it is they're reporting on.

Fox and Friends, Neil Cavuto and John Gibson are all allowed to editorialize their respective shows at one point or another, usually at the end of the show for Cavuto and Gibson, Fox and Friends is 3 hours of banter between the hosts.

The only straight news on the network is their morning block from 9AM-Noon, Brit Hume and Shepard Smith's respective one hour shows. Even then Brit Hume is allowed editorial time at the end of his broadcast.

Yeah, this is far more leeway than on air personnel are given at any network, cable, broadcast or even some internet news sites. However it works for ratings and with an overwhelming majority cable news viewers are tuning into Fox.

The difference between Fox and every other TV news operation is that they allow their personnel to show their bias and leanings. However they do so in an editorial fashion seperate from reporting of the facts, like I said, at the end of their time on the air.

Does this make them impartial? No. However no news organization is impartial. You wouldn't be human if you didn't have bias of some kind. If any of the network anchors displayed the same kind of editorial statements or were allowed to viewers could decide for themselves if they trusted the opinion of their newscasters. The guise of news people being completely objective is a farce

That's the big 3's problem. That's CNN and MSNBC's problem. They claim absolute pure as the wind driven snow purity of message. It's not. However without any kind of filter knowing what bias does in fact exist viewers make up their own mind, Fox doesn't leave people wondering.

Last but not least O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes and On the Record have more divergent guests than I ever see on CNN or MSNBC. I honestly think they have more people on representing a wider point of view on their talk shows than any of the other networks. Then again, that's my bias showing and I admit it.
 
Who needs taxpayer-paid propaganda when you have Fox news?:

GOP under fire for producing news ‘reports’

By Andrea Mitchell
Updated: 7:34 p.m. ET March 14, 2005

Available on the Internet to TV stations across the country: Upbeat reports on Iraq.

“A ladder made the collection and transportation of drinking water awkward and difficult,” narrates one reporter. “That changed with the liberation of Iraq.”

Also available — positive interviews:

“I vote. I vote a half hour ago. I'm happy as hell,” celebrates an Iraqi on camera after elections in his country.

And this:

“Iraqis are buying political and religious books once banned under the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein,” voices another reporter.

And there's this report shot in Michigan's Arab-American community.

As citizens chant, “Thank you. Thank you, U.S.A.!” a narrator says, “They seem to revel in the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime as much as they did in Baghdad.”

On issues from Medicare to farm prices, hundreds of local stations are running stories extolling Bush administration policies, reaching tens of millions of people.

But all these reports were written and distributed by the administration and its public relations firms — not by journalists.

Last month, the Government Accountability Office warned that prepackaging news “for purposes of publicity or propaganda” has been banned since 1951, unless the reports are clearly labeled.

Often the videos are shown as is. But sometimes the reporters even re-record the government's scripts to make them sound more local.

“The administration and the White House ought to stop propaganda,” says Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. “That's what this is, propaganda. And it is appalling.”

But just last Friday the Justice Department ruled that video news releases are legal.

“The informational news releases that you're referring to are something that have been in use for many years. It goes back to the early ’90s,” says White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

In fact, the Clinton White House started the practice, but the Bush administration has spent a quarter of a billion dollars on public relations, mostly for videos — double what Bill Clinton spent. No matter who does it, television news leaders say it's not ethical.

“All material that comes from an outside source if it is used must be clearly labeled as to the origin of that material,” says Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio Television News Directors Association.

NBC News discourages using video provided by non-news organizations. If used, under limited circumstances, it must be approved by an executive and disclosed to viewers.

Still, for millions of viewers, the government has found the best way to spin the news is to produce the stories itself.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7183882
 
Also, when the Fox News CEO has dinner & drinks with Donald Rumsfeld, their "fair and balanced" claim goes right out the window.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']That's the big 3's problem. That's CNN and MSNBC's problem. They claim absolute pure as the wind driven snow purity of message. It's not. [/quote]

And Fox News doesn't claim they are impartial? "Fair and Balanced"? "We Report, You Decide"? "No Spin Zone"?
 
Yeah, I saw that report on MSNBC last night or maybe the nightly news.

This practice wasn't originated under Bush. Clinton's budget for this type of practice was $125 million, Bush raised it to $250 million. Either amount though is more than the operating budget of most network news operations as a stand alone entity.

What this really doesn't address though is many of these stories are orignated for the USIA which is home to Voice of America, it's various foreign language services and a variety of television services meant for overseas consumption in English or local languages. This is really the American equivilent of the BBC.

It's just been unusual for affiliates to pick up USIA and other government typed packages. However with the consolodation of syndicated news services and networks providing fewer sources of news to their affiliates coupled with many stations offering 5-8 hours a day of "local" news programming stuff like this is going to be run. You can't keep running the same 1/2 hour news wheel for 3 hours in the moring, from 4-7PM and then again at 11PM or 10PM.

This programming isn't new. The fact that local stations are airing it is, but again, it's symtomatic of what's been going on in news in general.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']That's the big 3's problem. That's CNN and MSNBC's problem. They claim absolute pure as the wind driven snow purity of message. It's not. [/quote]

And Fox News doesn't claim they are impartial? "Fair and Balanced"? "We Report, You Decide"? "No Spin Zone"?[/quote]

What's fair and balanced? Having divergent opinions on. All of their talking head shows have that.

We report, you decide. Well, what do you want? How is that claiming impartiality? They leave it up to the viewer to decide for themselves on the basis of their reporting.

No Spin Zone is just a name, if one person in America doesn't know that Bill O'Reilly is coming from a certain point of view they're dumb, blind and deaf. I mean really.

Last but not least if I wanted to critique names of talking head shows I'd have a field day with Hardball. I see more softballs pitched by Chris Matthews than I do in 9 innings of beer league, keg on first, industrial leagues.

We're going to get into a school bus argument on this, not the short bus kind, but the wheels on the bus go round and round kind. We know where each other stand without resorting to much more than re-stating the opinions we all know each other to already have.

EDIT: Again, I did post this about Ailes and Rumsfeld. Ailes isn't a managing editor, he has no say over content. He's more or less head of the business operations of FOX News. He served in the Reagan administration, Rumsfeld has served in 3 Republican administrations. All of these people know one another or are friends.

Hell, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy all the way back to Roosevelt have all had dinner with the heads of news organizations and White House reporters. They do it at least once publicly for the White House Correspondants dinner and God knows how many times informally during travels on Air Force One; which the White House press corps and news heads travel on for foreign and domestic trips.

People in power having and sharing drinks and dinner with people in news is as old as this Republic itself. I don't know why you think this is some conspiratorial bias.
 
just curious does Sean Hannity's voice drive anyone else crazy? Cause i find him to be the most annoying person i've ever listened to.
 
So because the owner of a company has 'dinner and drinks' with a political figure, the work of the entire company is negated?

And Fox News does have a lot of 'opinion' shows. OReilly Factor is not the same type of program as World News Tonight. People don't watch ORF for the news, they watch it for OReilly and his opinion--which is clearly stated, doesnt' he have a section called 'My Thoughts'?, and trying to compare the two as apples to apples is willful ignorance.
I don't listen to Rush for news, I listen to Rush for Rush's take on the news.

I do agree that 24x7 news channels, by their very nature, tend to repeat or rehash lots of news lots of times. This is true for FNC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

I don't except newscasters to not have opinions. I expect them to not use the news to foist their opinion on the viewers. Discussing each story with a 'Hey, here's what I think about that', isn't the problem. Going into an abortion 'news' story, for example, like "So Dr, how many babies have you murdered this week?" or "So priest, how many women have you convinced to give up their freedom of choice this week" is a problem.

And about variety of guests, almost every time I hear FNC talking to a representative from the Republican side, they have someone from the Democratic side as well, and have some back and forth dialog between the three of them. I don't know who some of the Dems are, but I also don't know who some of the Reps are either.

The rest of the concerns seem to be that, horrors, FNC is reporting *good news*. I know good news is bad news for Democrats, but people are getting sick of constant doom and gloom and negativity, and appreciate a little good news sometimes.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']So because the owner of a company has 'dinner and drinks' with a political figure, the work of the entire company is negated?[/quote]

As I've stated before, you wouldn't have any problems with the heads of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN meeting with the democratic party? You wouldn't mind if Ted Kennedy bought drinks for everyone all night?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's really pretty idiotic to measure O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, On The Record (Greta van Sustren) as "news". They're all presented as talking heads/opinion shows on current events. Frequently on these shows they've had reporters out of their "professional" reporting roles and offering opinions on what it is they're reporting on.

Fox and Friends, Neil Cavuto and John Gibson are all allowed to editorialize their respective shows at one point or another, usually at the end of the show for Cavuto and Gibson, Fox and Friends is 3 hours of banter between the hosts.

The only straight news on the network is their morning block from 9AM-Noon, Brit Hume and Shepard Smith's respective one hour shows. Even then Brit Hume is allowed editorial time at the end of his broadcast.

Yeah, this is far more leeway than on air personnel are given at any network, cable, broadcast or even some internet news sites. However it works for ratings and with an overwhelming majority cable news viewers are tuning into Fox.

The difference between Fox and every other TV news operation is that they allow their personnel to show their bias and leanings. However they do so in an editorial fashion seperate from reporting of the facts, like I said, at the end of their time on the air.

Does this make them impartial? No. However no news organization is impartial. You wouldn't be human if you didn't have bias of some kind. If any of the network anchors displayed the same kind of editorial statements or were allowed to viewers could decide for themselves if they trusted the opinion of their newscasters. The guise of news people being completely objective is a farce

That's the big 3's problem. That's CNN and MSNBC's problem. They claim absolute pure as the wind driven snow purity of message. It's not. However without any kind of filter knowing what bias does in fact exist viewers make up their own mind, Fox doesn't leave people wondering.

Last but not least O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes and On the Record have more divergent guests than I ever see on CNN or MSNBC. I honestly think they have more people on representing a wider point of view on their talk shows than any of the other networks. Then again, that's my bias showing and I admit it.[/quote]

And the ironic part is that 2 months ago PAD posted a thread about how most of the major newspapers are liberally biased. Further, those newspaper columnists were op-ed columnists. Now that PAD is presented with the converse argument, he finds excuses and says that editorial-type newspersons are allowed to be politically biased.

Oh and steal a quote from a fellow CAGer slightly before the election, "Spin, Spin, Spin you magnificent bastard, spin!"
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='dtcarson']So because the owner of a company has 'dinner and drinks' with a political figure, the work of the entire company is negated?[/quote]

As I've stated before, you wouldn't have any problems with the heads of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN meeting with the democratic party? You wouldn't mind if Ted Kennedy bought drinks for everyone all night?[/quote]

Just don't let Teddy drive you home.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='dtcarson']So because the owner of a company has 'dinner and drinks' with a political figure, the work of the entire company is negated?[/quote]

As I've stated before, you wouldn't have any problems with the heads of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN meeting with the democratic party? You wouldn't mind if Ted Kennedy bought drinks for everyone all night?[/quote]

Just don't let Teddy drive you home.[/quote]

At least over a bridge.

Oh and RedvsBlue. Here's the difference.

None of the talking head show hosts are Fox's managing editor. The publishers or editors of major city newspapers are frequently if not exlusively the people that make up their respective paper's editorial boards.

Therefore you have the people putting out the paper and editing the articles presented as news also writing the contents of their editorial pages. That's a conflict. It doesn't happen like that with electronic news outlets.

Also, are you really dumb enough to call Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes and Greta van Sustern news people?
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']just curious does Sean Hannity's voice drive anyone else crazy? Cause i find him to be the most annoying person i've ever listened to.[/quote]

I'd say it's the voice combined with the constant ranting, he's kind of like a small dog, really loud but with oh so little capacity for thought.
 
Hannity: Conservative lite. Little intellectual thought, too dependent on talking points.

Michael Savage: fucking flamethrower. Don't agree with him all the time but damn, there's no one out there on either side that holds back less than him. Never saw his CNBC/MSNBC, which one was it BTW?, show but he never should have tried TV. Some people are better talkers than debaters, he's the perfect example.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Hannity: Conservative lite. Little intellectual thought, too dependent on talking points.

Michael Savage: shaq-fuing flamethrower. Don't agree with him all the time but damn, there's no one out there on either side that holds back less than him. Never saw his CNBC/MSNBC, which one was it BTW?, show but he never should have tried TV. Some people are better talkers than debaters, he's the perfect example.[/quote]

Why am I not surprised you like Savage?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='dtcarson']So because the owner of a company has 'dinner and drinks' with a political figure, the work of the entire company is negated?[/quote]

As I've stated before, you wouldn't have any problems with the heads of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN meeting with the democratic party? You wouldn't mind if Ted Kennedy bought drinks for everyone all night?[/quote]

Just don't let Teddy drive you home.[/quote]

At least over a bridge.

Oh and RedvsBlue. Here's the difference.

None of the talking head show hosts are Fox's managing editor. The publishers or editors of major city newspapers are frequently if not exlusively the people that make up their respective paper's editorial boards.

Therefore you have the people putting out the paper and editing the articles presented as news also writing the contents of their editorial pages. That's a conflict. It doesn't happen like that with electronic news outlets.

Also, are you really dumb enough to call Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes and Greta van Sustern news people?[/quote]

Well considering that their programs are on Fox NEWS Channel, it is kind of implied. As far as my personal opinion about them is concerned, they, like you, are a bunch of angry people that like to be mad at other people because your unhappy with yourself. Don't worry that's an unbiased statement because I feel the same way about Al Franken and Michael Moore.
 
You really, really don't know me LOL.

I'm not an angry person. Quite frankly the politcal discussions I have here humor me. The overwhelming majority of posters here don't understand their viewpoints are why their party can't win and why they lose national election after national election. Hell, it took Ross Perot to get Clinton elected twice.

So go ahead thinking that all conservatives are sexually repressed, religous zealots that wish everyone was as frustrated and pent up as they were. It's that kind of ignorance we count on to keep winning.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You really, really don't know me LOL.

I'm not an angry person. Quite frankly the politcal discussions I have here humor me. The overwhelming majority of posters here don't understand their viewpoints are why their party can't win and why they lose national election after national election. Hell, it took Ross Perot to get Clinton elected twice.

So go ahead thinking that all conservatives are sexually repressed, religous zealots that wish everyone was as frustrated and pent up as they were. It's that kind of ignorance we count on to keep winning.[/quote]

haha you lecture others on not being smart enough and then constantly quote right wing myths and talking points as facts. Hell I am glad I am not as "smart" as you...

The fact is the exit polls show that Perot got as many Clinton voters and neither Bush or Dole would have overcome their shortcomings in a 2 person race. Not to mention that 1996 wasn't even close.

PAD can't be angry because as they say 'Ignorance is Bliss". He must be the happiest poster here.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
So go ahead thinking that all conservatives are sexually repressed, religous zealots that wish everyone was as frustrated and pent up as they were. It's that kind of ignorance we count on to keep winning.[/quote]

Nice, I couldn't agree more.

I love that TV news is dominated by liberals and the one station that tries to have a more balanced approach, while leaning heavily to the right, is constantly under fire....
 
[quote name='clockworkvictim'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
So go ahead thinking that all conservatives are sexually repressed, religous zealots that wish everyone was as frustrated and pent up as they were. It's that kind of ignorance we count on to keep winning.[/quote]

Nice, I couldn't agree more.

I love that TV news is dominated by liberals and the one station that tries to have a more balanced approach, while leaning heavily to the right, is constantly under fire....[/quote]

clockwork, PAD's own post showed CNN, supposedly the flagship liberal station, only put opinion into 2% of their news, compared to 73% in fox's news. Though, honestly, how can you be balanced but lean heavily to one side?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So go ahead thinking that all conservatives are sexually repressed, religous zealots that wish everyone was as frustrated and pent up as they were. It's that kind of ignorance we count on to keep winning.[/quote]

What do conservatives stand for these days? Small government and fiscal responsibility?? :rofl:
 
Camoor, I truly wish I knew what Republicans stood for anymore because they certainly aren't about small government and fiscal responsiblity. Their attitude is to be Democrat lite. Take the issues away from the left; prescription drugs, don't fight it, make it a cheaper plan than Ted Kennedy wanted.

The Republican party is shiftless and aimless. They have no clear cut moral agenda, no fiscal agenda and certainly no high ground on wanting to shrink the size and role of government in business ventures and individuals lives.

You asking what conservatives stand for is in mock tones is just as legitimate as me asking in serious tones.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Camoor, I truly wish I knew what Republicans stood for anymore because they certainly aren't about small government and fiscal responsiblity. Their attitude is to be Democrat lite. Take the issues away from the left; prescription drugs, don't fight it, make it a cheaper plan than Ted Kennedy wanted.

The Republican party is shiftless and aimless. They have no clear cut moral agenda, no fiscal agenda and certainly no high ground on wanting to shrink the size and role of government in business ventures and individuals lives.

You asking what conservatives stand for is in mock tones is just as legitimate as me asking in serious tones.[/quote]

I agree, the Republican party couldn't even keep most of their "contract with America" and dissatisfaction with congress recently hit a 5 year low.

It's really time to go back to the good ol' fashioned classic liberalism that this country was founded on. No more jesus in the courtrooms, no more nation building, no more corporate welfare. Protect the shores, keep the peace, enforce fair trade and stay the hell out of my personal life.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You really, really don't know me LOL.

I'm not an angry person. Quite frankly the politcal discussions I have here humor me. The overwhelming majority of posters here don't understand their viewpoints are why their party can't win and why they lose national election after national election. Hell, it took Ross Perot to get Clinton elected twice.

So go ahead thinking that all conservatives are sexually repressed, religous zealots that wish everyone was as frustrated and pent up as they were. It's that kind of ignorance we count on to keep winning.[/quote]

And there are people that would argue that the only reason Bush got elected was because of Nader.

Also, I never said anything about conservatives are sexually repressed, religious zealots that wish everyone was as frustrated and pent up as they were, you did.

You missed the entire point of my post, it had nothing to do with republican or democrat but rather the fact that the people that rant about politics the most are the ones that are angry about the other side and what they are up to.

You get your jollies from searching for political articles and posting them on here and watching the debate? You need some serious real world attention if that's truly the case.
 
Here's a perfect example. There was a Fox News Story last night about illigal immigrant children crossing the border to take advantage of US schools. They spent five minutes on this spot. The best part when they show busloads of children crossing the border every day and saying that these children were illegal immigrants. They talked about how these children couldn't speak english, were stealing taxpayers dollars, and were holding back american children.

The problem is, the whole story was effectively bogus, and they admit it in the last ten seconds of the clip. Those children in the bus clip were not illegal immmigrants. The majority were US Citizens who lived in Mexico for some reason but crossed over to go to a school they were perfectly and legally entitled to attend. They didn't present a shred of factual evidence in their report to support their claims. No numbers. No proof. Just commentary.

So lets see, they run a news article discussing the dangers illigal immigration causes to public schools... and then they show no evidence of the danger. Now I'm not niave enough to think there aren't illegal immigrants taking advantage of the system. But seeing that there was no evidence the entire "news report" essentially boiled down to hate speech against Mexican Americans.

That's fair and balanced for you!
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Here's a perfect example. There was a Fox News Story last night about illigal immigrant children crossing the border to take advantage of US schools. They spent five minutes on this spot. The best part when they show busloads of children crossing the border every day and saying that these children were illegal immigrants. They talked about how these children couldn't speak english, were stealing taxpayers dollars, and were holding back american children.

The problem is, the whole story was effectively bogus, and they admit it in the last ten seconds of the clip. Those children in the bus clip were not illegal immmigrants. The majority were US Citizens who lived in Mexico for some reason but crossed over to go to a school they were perfectly and legally entitled to attend. They didn't present a shred of factual evidence in their report to support their claims. No numbers. No proof. Just commentary.

So lets see, they run a news article discussing the dangers illigal immigration causes to public schools... and then they show no evidence of the danger. Now I'm not niave enough to think there aren't illegal immigrants taking advantage of the system. But seeing that there was no evidence the entire "news report" essentially boiled down to hate speech against Mexican Americans.

That's fair and balanced for you![/quote]

Things like this just back up what I've always thought. Not to say that conservatives or liberals are by definition racist, just conservatism lends itself more towards racism, nationalism and anti-immigrant due to its inward looking, moralistic, do it my way tendencies. Liberalism often lends itself towards anti-semitism, but that's do to the support for palestinians and the anti-israel sentiments among many, as well as a feeling that the government is evil and out to get you.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Here's a perfect example. There was a Fox News Story last night about illigal immigrant children crossing the border to take advantage of US schools. They spent five minutes on this spot. The best part when they show busloads of children crossing the border every day and saying that these children were illegal immigrants. They talked about how these children couldn't speak english, were stealing taxpayers dollars, and were holding back american children.

The problem is, the whole story was effectively bogus, and they admit it in the last ten seconds of the clip. Those children in the bus clip were not illegal immmigrants. The majority were US Citizens who lived in Mexico for some reason but crossed over to go to a school they were perfectly and legally entitled to attend. They didn't present a shred of factual evidence in their report to support their claims. No numbers. No proof. Just commentary.

So lets see, they run a news article discussing the dangers illigal immigration causes to public schools... and then they show no evidence of the danger. Now I'm not niave enough to think there aren't illegal immigrants taking advantage of the system. But seeing that there was no evidence the entire "news report" essentially boiled down to hate speech against Mexican Americans.

That's fair and balanced for you![/quote]

Things like this just back up what I've always thought. Not to say that conservatives or liberals are by definition racist, just conservatism lends itself more towards racism, nationalism and anti-immigrant due to its inward looking, moralistic, do it my way tendencies. Liberalism often lends itself towards anti-semitism, but that's do to the support for palestinians and the anti-israel sentiments among many, as well as a feeling that the government is evil and out to get you.[/quote]

Wait a minute, I thought liberals believed in a benevolent government and that they were here to help all of us.....? Liberals believe Republicans are evil and out to get you.

I love how conservatives are inherently racist, but liberalism just "lends" itself to anti-semitism, through no fault of their own, becuase they believe in the palestinian freedom fighters. It's not their fault those dirty Jews are occupying rightful palestinian territory. You should start an Anti-Fox news network, Alonzo. You've already got the Tom Daschle doublespeak down pat...
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Here's a perfect example. There was a Fox News Story last night about illigal immigrant children crossing the border to take advantage of US schools. They spent five minutes on this spot. The best part when they show busloads of children crossing the border every day and saying that these children were illegal immigrants. They talked about how these children couldn't speak english, were stealing taxpayers dollars, and were holding back american children.

The problem is, the whole story was effectively bogus, and they admit it in the last ten seconds of the clip. Those children in the bus clip were not illegal immmigrants. The majority were US Citizens who lived in Mexico for some reason but crossed over to go to a school they were perfectly and legally entitled to attend. They didn't present a shred of factual evidence in their report to support their claims. No numbers. No proof. Just commentary.

So lets see, they run a news article discussing the dangers illigal immigration causes to public schools... and then they show no evidence of the danger. Now I'm not niave enough to think there aren't illegal immigrants taking advantage of the system. But seeing that there was no evidence the entire "news report" essentially boiled down to hate speech against Mexican Americans.

That's fair and balanced for you![/quote]

Things like this just back up what I've always thought. Not to say that conservatives or liberals are by definition racist, just conservatism lends itself more towards racism, nationalism and anti-immigrant due to its inward looking, moralistic, do it my way tendencies. Liberalism often lends itself towards anti-semitism, but that's do to the support for palestinians and the anti-israel sentiments among many, as well as a feeling that the government is evil and out to get you.[/quote]

Wait a minute, I thought liberals believed in a benevolent government and that they were here to help all of us.....? Liberals believe Republicans are evil and out to get you.

I love how conservatives are inherently racist, but liberalism just "lends" itself to anti-semitism, through no fault of their own, becuase they believe in the palestinian freedom fighters. It's not their fault those dirty Jews are occupying rightful palestinian territory. You should start an Anti-Fox news network, Alonzo. You've already got the Tom Daschle doublespeak down pat...[/quote]

I love people who don't read :

Not to say that conservatives or liberals are by definition racist, just conservatism lends itself more towards racism
Click to expand...

Liberalism often lends itself towards anti-semitism
Click to expand...

Anyone can see I used "lends itself" for both, not just liberals like you pointed out, but for both. I said neither was by definition racist, making your assertion that I said conservatives where inherently racist incorrect. Yes, liberalism lends itself towards less racism, due to the international, multicultural nature of many liberals, compared to the more inward looking, nationalistic conservatives. That is why there's a difference. Racism can be a problem when anti-immigrant sentiment, and anti-multicultural sentiment, gets out of control. Just as anti-semitism can be a problem when anti-israeli tendencies get out of control. Again though, I said that neither holds these beliefs by definition, and obviously not every conservative is anti immigration etc. and not every liberal is anti-israel.
 
There's no hope trying to defend your previous statement of ignorance. Really, It would have been better to let it die and hope we'd forget about it. Please read it again and ask yourself why the moral foundations of conservatives "tend" or "lend" (nice passive language, btw) themselves "toward" racism but liberal racism is just from circumstance.

Here it is again:

conservatism lends itself more towards racism, nationalism and anti-immigrant due to its inward looking, moralistic, do it my way tendencies. Liberalism often lends itself towards anti-semitism, but that's do to the support for palestinians

So, conservatives are racist because of their morals, and liberals only seem to hate jews DUE to the fact they like palistinians. One is a given, one is just by default.

I can't believe your parents are wasting so much of their hard earned money on your miseducation.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']There's no hope trying to defend your previous statement of ignorance. Really, It would have been better to let it die and hope we'd forget about it. Please read it again and ask yourself why the moral foundations of conservatives "tend" or "lend" (nice passive language, btw) themselves "toward" racism but liberal racism is just from circumstance.

Here it is again:

conservatism lends itself more towards racism, nationalism and anti-immigrant due to its inward looking, moralistic, do it my way tendencies. Liberalism often lends itself towards anti-semitism, but that's do to the support for palestinians

So, conservatives are racist because of their morals, and liberals only seem to hate jews DUE to the fact they like palistinians. One is a given, one is just by default.

I can't believe your parents are wasting so much of their hard earned money on your miseducation.[/quote]

You're reading my post looking to attack, nowhere did I say one is a given or one is just, in fact I said they were not a given. You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I also read it again, and again I see that I used the same wording to refer to liberals and conservatives.

I'm not the type to back down from my previous statements, especially when what I said is what I meant. You don't think anti-immigrantion and nationalistic sentiments can be a factor that can lead to racism? Remove the conservative and liberal label, nationalistic, anti-immigration feelings lend themselves more towards racism than international, multicultural sentiments. People often complain liberals think you should accept everyone and every culture, and argument put forth by people such as yourself. I didn't go that far.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You're reading my post looking to attack, nowhere did I say one is a given or one is just, in fact I said they were not a given. You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I also read it again, and again I see that I used the same wording to refer to liberals and conservatives. [/quote]

I'm not looking to attack you, alonzo, I just can't let every snippit of idiocy float by unchallenged. It pleases you to play an intellectual but then some retarted broad-reaching aside drips from your keyboard which you hastily try mopping up with your ego. Unfortunately, the floor is still slippery. You used the same words, yet your equation is clearly unbalanced.


[quote name='alonzo']I'm not the type to back down from my previous statements, especially when what I said is what I meant. You don't think anti-immigrantion and nationalistic sentiments can be a factor that can lead to racism? Remove the conservative and liberal label, nationalistic, anti-immigration feelings lend themselves more towards racism than international, multicultural sentiments... [/quote]

Believe me, I KNOW you meant what you said. That's why I'm laughing as I'm typing. Now we have to remove the labels for your statement to be true? I guess I was right after all and youer statement was essentially devoid of meaning, illconcieved, and a flippant portrayal of both conservativces and liberals.

People often complain liberals think you should accept everyone and every culture, and argument put forth by people such as yourself. I didn't go that far.
Click to expand...

So, you're not going to be tolerant of MY argument? Not very multi-cultural of you is it? You can wear the hypocrite badge again, alonzo, it looks good on you !
 
[quote name='alonzo']I'm not the type to back down from my previous statements, especially when what I said is what I meant. You don't think anti-immigrantion and nationalistic sentiments can be a factor that can lead to racism? Remove the conservative and liberal label, nationalistic, anti-immigration feelings lend themselves more towards racism than international, multicultural sentiments... [/quote]

Believe me, I KNOW you meant what you said. That's why I'm laughing as I'm typing. Now we have to remove the labels for your statement to be true? I guess I was right after all and youer statement was essentially devoid of meaning, illconcieved, and a flippant portrayal of both conservativces and liberals.
Click to expand...

Laughing while typing? I know that feeling. I removed the labels for you becuase my argument was, and has been, that nationalism and anti immigration is the reason why conservatism can lend itself toward racism, that has been my argument throughout. Nowhere did I say that by the simply fact of being conservative, with or without the above tendencies, can result in racism. The main problem, I argued, was due to those tendencies. I also argued that, in liberals, anti-semitism is often due to the hostility towards Israel. That is not to say liberals or conservatives are not racist or bigotted for other reason that have nothing to do with politics, my argument was that those ideas can lend themselves toward racism.

People often complain liberals think you should accept everyone and every culture, and argument put forth by people such as yourself. I didn't go that far.
Click to expand...

So, you're not going to be tolerant of MY argument? Not very multi-cultural of you is it? You can wear the hypocrite badge again, alonzo, it looks good on you !
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say, or would any rational person believe, that you have to be tolerant of every argument. I said the argument that liberals believe you should accept everyone and every culture was put forth by people such as yourself, among others.

How an argument constitutes a culture is beyond me.
 
Apparently, a great many things are beyond you.



I removed the labels for you becuase my argument was, and has been, that nationalism and anti immigration is the reason why conservatism can lend itself toward racism, that has been my argument throughout. Nowhere did I say that by the simply fact of being conservative, with or without the above tendencies, can result in racism. The main problem, I argued, was due to those tendencies. I also argued that, in liberals, anti-semitism is often due to the hostility towards Israel. That is not to say liberals or conservatives are not racist or bigotted for other reason that have nothing to do with politics, my argument was that those ideas can lend themselves toward racism.
Click to expand...


I don't think you really have any idea what you're saying. You make connections, then deny them, then make them again, then clarify, then reiterate, then back down, then adamantly defend. You equated racism with nationalism and nationalism with conservatism. Using the transitive property of equality, one could maybe infer that you were perhaps suggesting that these qualities may be leaning towards a somewhat general statement of tendencies of some republicans, but not necessarily all of them but perhaps enough of them to undecidedly make some sort of guess as to their "leanings", or nature!! Blahdee Bladdee blah. You make much words but say not much.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Apparently, a great many things are beyond you.



I removed the labels for you becuase my argument was, and has been, that nationalism and anti immigration is the reason why conservatism can lend itself toward racism, that has been my argument throughout. Nowhere did I say that by the simply fact of being conservative, with or without the above tendencies, can result in racism. The main problem, I argued, was due to those tendencies. I also argued that, in liberals, anti-semitism is often due to the hostility towards Israel. That is not to say liberals or conservatives are not racist or bigotted for other reason that have nothing to do with politics, my argument was that those ideas can lend themselves toward racism.
Click to expand...


I don't think you really have any idea what you're saying. You make connections, then deny them, then make them again, then clarify, then reiterate, then back down, then adamantly defend. You equated racism with nationalism and nationalism with conservatism. Using the transitive property of equality, one could maybe infer that you were perhaps suggesting that these qualities may be leaning towards a somewhat general statement of tendencies of some republicans, but not necessarily all of them but perhaps enough of them to undecidedly make some sort of guess as to their "leanings", or nature!! Blahdee Bladdee blah. You make much words but say not much.[/quote]

Maybe you have a problem because I wasn't arguing that A always equals B. I said the nationalism and anti immigration tendencies, which are more prominent among conservatives, can lend themselves toward racism. It's all shades of grey, where a cause is more likely to lead to a particular result, but by no means will always lead to that result, or that that is the only way to reach that result. I never backed down from any argument I made here. I backed down from some arguments you attributed to me, but then again I never made those arguments anyway.

Though you're right, a lot of words but not much to say. If you simply look at my original statement you'll see my entire argument summed up in a few sentences.

You want to understand how I think, think of a tree. You may argue in terms of roads where A always leads to B, I think in terms of a tree with countless branches. Something may head towards a certain direction, but it's hard to tell where it will end up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top