Friday, May 22, 2009
This Is Great
I am surprised that Faux News didn't end up censoring this.
When Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota I thought he was the biggest joke in the world. I now have a new found respect for him for calling Hannity on his bullshit. There's probably no one on this planet that I would rather cock punch than Sean Insannity. I would watch the Oreilly factor every day of the week and twice on Sunday if Fox would agree to pull this weasel off the air. And didn't he agree to be water boarded?? When is that happening? I'll tune in for that episode.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Fox News is incapable of censoring anything. As a news publisher, what it decides to say or not to say is a function of its First Amendment rights of freedom of the press.
As for being "faux", it is more real and accurate, as a centrist news source, especially compared to left-wing CNN and MSNBC.
Faux is very capable of censoring things. They could have chose not to air Venturas points. I am suprised that the did.
Faux News is anything but centerist; thats why people like you watch them. Faux News, on the contrary is one of the most biased networks broadcasting today and certainly the most biased of the major news networks, MSNBC coming in right after them. CNN is the centerist network and in fact, a scientific study from UCLA found the most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. on PBS" CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
Why the hell would Fox News Censor that? That's called great television.
Any time you can get two people that disagree to really chew into each other, it makes for good viewing.
And I've always liked Jesse Ventura, whether as a governor, actor, or pro wrestler. Mainly because he was better than Arnold Schwarzeneggar at both (even if he snuffed it in Predator).
"Faux is very capable of censoring things. They could have chose not to air Venturas points."
But that would not be censorship. That would be them expressing "freedom of the press".
"[Fox] is anything but centerist; thats why people like you watch them."
I like it because it is centrist.
"[Fox], on the contrary is one of the most biased networks broadcasting today"
It is one of the least biased, especially compared to PBS, NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.
"CNN is the centerist network and in fact"
They are definitely left of center. I measure from the real center, not my own view.
"a scientific study from UCLA found the most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. on PBS" "
With Gwen Ifel, a major Obama cheerleader, as one of their "objective" anchors? No way.
"CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third."
Good Morning America? Yes, it is easy to be centrist when your show is cooking and celebrity crap. By this standard, test patterns should be celebrated as the least biased of all.
dmarks,
you are a regular Fox News watcher?
A [2007 study] by the Pew Research Study shows that viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, while Fox News viewers rank nearly dead last:
Despite significant technology shifts, however, Pew found that “today’s citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago.”
The results about Fox News echo findings of previous surveys. In 2003, University of Maryland researchers studied the public’s belief in three false claims — that Iraq possessed WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that there was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
The researchers stated, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” Fox News viewers were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.”
Sorry, dmarks. FOX is about as centrist as is Karl Rove.
Fox is also rankly dishonest with airing clips of President Obama:
"Obama's "empathy" criteria for Supreme Court justice -- isn't the best example of a Fox cropping. While it's certainly true that Major Garrett's statement, "That aggravates those who feel that justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent," seems to neatly ignore the fact that Obama's next statement was "I will seek someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our Constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process, and the appropriate limits of the judicial role," the fact is, just about every news organization honed homed in on the "empathy" part of the statement. It became the sound bite from that press exchange.
In a more lengthy report, however, Media Matters has other candidates that are fitting examples of these games with videotape, well worth reviewing. Key examples include Sean Hannity's intentional omission of Obama's admonishment of Europeans' "casual...insidious" anti-Americanism to make it look like Obama was apologizing for the United States, and Wendell Goler's splice-happy report that made it look like Obama was in favor of "European-style health care," when he was actually specifically opposing it. Also close to my heart is Fox's misleading insertion of an out-of-context Joe Biden clip into a report, for which the network eventually had to apologize. At the time, I opined:
It's very sad, and weird, because Fox News would have made their point just fine if they hadn't included the misleading part of this clip. All they've really done is demonstrate that they do not have enough faith in their own editorial premises to avoid bolstering them with falsehoods. But more to the point, whoever is responsible for putting this video together needs to accept a new prevailing reality, that stupid little lies like this will be debunked and exposed very quickly, so they may as well just cut out this nonsense entirely."
If FOX is your cable news of choice, you're not getting informed, you're getting propaganda.
I forgot to link to that last report:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/fox-news-assailed-for-vid_n_196719.html
...And you are probably a moron according to the research. WMDs ha ha ha, good one.
Toad: Well, we can start with this.
"In 2003, University of Maryland researchers studied the public’s belief in three false claims"
Two of these claims are not false, so I wonder who was lying, UMD or the personal summarizing the study? The UMD study itself was based mostly on false premises, and they were bashing people for believing what was true. Let's go into this:
"Iraq possessed WMD"
Quite true. According to Pentagon reports, more than 500 were found after the invasion. FactCheck.org (a left wing site) claims that there were only 50. 50 or 500 WMD is far more than "none".
"that Iraq was involved in 9/11"
I wonder who claimed this? Where is the smoking gun? This is the only misperception of the three.
"and that there was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."
Depends on how you define "international". Does many nations across the world count? If so, then there was international support. Or, does "international" mean every single nation in the world? If so, then there was no international support for this, or anything ever.
But according to the dictionary, international means "Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations: an international commission; international affairs." Have you ever seen an "international airport" in a border state? These often tiny airports meet the definition of "international" by flying between the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico. So, the retaliation against Saddam being supported by (for example) "Poland and Japan" meets this definition easily. Not to mention the dozens of nations that in fact supported the effort.
How about debunking more?
"Obama's "empathy" criteria for Supreme Court justice"
Nothing of the context (or Media Matters' attempt to obfuscate matters) hides the fact that Obama is including this irrelevant criterion for looking for a Supreme Court justice. There was nothing dishonest at all about airing Obama's quote. He said it, after all. It is not dishonest at all, when someone makes several statements, to criticize one of the statements. I was aware of his entire speech on this, the good statements and the bad.
The summary point: "If FOX is your cable news of choice, you're not getting informed, you're getting propaganda."
The working definition of propaganda you are using is "information you don't like, and would rather not have said".
There are other reasons I prefer FOX to the others. Less controversial reasons. I stopped watching CNN so much when they introduced such fluff as "Style with Elsa Klensch", which made them a lot more GMA-like. And MSNBC fills its hours with hour-long celebrity profiles.
They report, we decide. Your thesis is now proven wrong. Let's get a real conservative on the MSMBC show. They might catch a few viewers.
I always knew that Ventura was a blame america firster.
Heil Hannity!
Post a Comment