Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't even know who gretchen carlson is. but yeah, i remember reading from another news source about fox making up news. that's just crazy-why would they be surprised if some don't watch or take them seriously? but i also remember (was it cbs?) a made up investigation into truck gas tanks back years ago. each news source should have an office that keeps them straight, and calls out anyone who crosses a line-hell, espn has one!

There are multiple independent news watching organizations that do this. That is what this thread is about. Stations that do it on a daily basis, versus those that screw up occasionally. Guess which category Faux fits into?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

There are multiple independent news watching organizations that do this. That is what this thread is about. Stations that do it on a daily basis, versus those that screw up occasionally. Guess which category Faux fits into?

oh, i thought the thread was about a donation made.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, i thought the thread was about a donation made.

The thread is about news organizations and the extent of their involvement in politics.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

There are multiple independent news watching organizations that do this. That is what this thread is about. Stations that do it on a daily basis, versus those that screw up occasionally. Guess which category Faux fits into?

Are any of these "independent news watching organizations" going to point out ABC News' obvious bias in this story? This article goes beyond anything that Fox News would do.

I still can't get over it. We all know that many politicians are not honest about their true beliefs. They're not got going to tell you their true beliefs if they think it will cost them votes. Obama claims he's a Christian. He may in fact be a Christian. But some Americans are skeptical. About 20% of Americans suspect that Obama may be a Muslim. I'm sure that plenty of politicians (both Republican and Democrats) are atheists but claim to be Christians just to get votes.

There is no way to truly know what any of these politicians really believe. Does Bill Clinton have a deep belief in God? Who knows. But just because he says he does, it doesn't mean that people have to believe it.

Anyway, I don't know how ABC News can say that people are "wrong" and "incorrect" for not believing Obama is a Christian. That is totally unprofessional and shows an obvious bias on the part of ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/franklin-gr...ry?id=11446462

[Riot]

Are any of these "independent news watching organizations" going to point out ABC News' obvious bias in this story?

Yes, they do all the time. Some are far better than others, but plenty of "left wing" bias and falsehoods are pointed out, too.

Anyway, I don't know how ABC News can say that people are "wrong" and "incorrect" for not believing Obama is a Christian.

Probably because Obama himself has publically said he is a Christian.

There's also years of back-info and evidence about him attending Christian services.

That is totally unprofessional and shows an obvious bias on the part of ABC News.

Nonsense. It's reporting the truth. The problem today seems that many readily confuse truth with ... something else.

If someone has other provable information - not fear-mongering - that the President of the United States is lying, bring it on. So far that's been a pretty big fail on the part of many.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, they do all the time. Some are far better than others, but plenty of "left wing" bias and falsehoods are pointed out, too.



Probably because Obama himself has publically said he is a Christian.

There's also years of back-info and evidence about him attending Christian services.



Nonsense. It's reporting the truth. The problem today seems that many readily confuse truth with ... something else.

If someone has other provable information - not fear-mongering - that the President of the United States is lying, bring it on. So far that's been a pretty big fail on the part of many.

I'm going to give you a hypothetical. I'm sure you won't answer it because you never answer questions that hurt your argument.

I'll make the hypothetical about a Republican. Let's say a poll was done tomorrow and 10% of people say they think that Rudy Giuliani is probably an atheist. If an article was written about this, do you think that the journalist should write that 10% of people "incorrectly" and "wrongly" believe that Giuliani is an atheist? I don't. I think they should report the results of the poll and that should be it. They should say that Giuliani is a professed Catholic but 10% of the respondents think he's an atheist.

They shouldn't make an assesment of whether the people are right or wrong because the truth of the matter is we don't what Rudy Giuliani truly believes. Politicians will often pretend to be religious even if they aren't.

[Riot]

I'm going to give you a hypothetical. I'm sure you won't answer it because you never answer questions that hurt your argument.

That's simply not true, but hey, truth, falsehood, there's no "real" line, is there?

I'll make the hypothetical about a Republican. Let's say a poll was done tomorrow and 10% of people say they think that Rudy Giuliani is probably an atheist. If an article was written about this, do you think that the journalist should write that 10% of people "incorrectly" and "wrongly" believe that Giuliani is an atheist?.

No, what the media should do is the usual: check the facts. Ask Giuliani if he is atheist. If he says no, then look to see if there is any evidence he is atheist (that he is lying).

If there is not, then you bet, "10% incorrectly-wrongly believe" is exactly how the story should be written. Giuliani isn't an atheist. He's a Catholic. People that think otherwise are incorrect, and wrong.

They should report the results of the poll and that should be it. They should say that Giuliani is a professed Catholic but 10% of the respondents think he's an atheist.

Why should the media give people that express a view contrary to proven reality equal creedance with the proven reality? That's silly. Opinion and fact are not the same. Opinion contrary to or ignoring presented fact is worth even less.

And that is one of the things that is harming our country right now - the delusion that anything expressed or written (especially on the internet), no matter how crazy, is taken as true without question. We used to have distance and time and responsibility to protect us from rampant rumour - now, nothing.

The truth of the matter is we don't what Rudy Giuliani truly believes. Politicians will often pretend to be religious even if they aren't

So what?

The WTC was brought down by Bush & Cheney.
Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.
Contrails in the sky are secretly poison put out by the government to rain down upon us.
Communists are present throughout our government, and the President is secretly a communist working for Russia.
Those are not valid "opinions" that deserve "equal time". They are the musings of the deranged who ignore reality.

[clyde]

...quiet!! ...your right to dumb speech should be taken away from you...

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by clyde

...quiet!! ...your right to dumb speech should be taken away from you...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's simply not true, but hey, truth, falsehood, there's no "real" line, is there?



No, what the media should do is the usual: check the facts. Ask Giuliani if he is atheist. If he says no, then look to see if there is any evidence he is atheist (that he is lying).

If there is not, then you bet, "10% incorrectly-wrongly believe" is exactly how the story should be written. Giuliani isn't an atheist. He's a Catholic. People that think otherwise are incorrect, and wrong.



Why should the media give people that express a view contrary to proven reality equal creedance with the proven reality? That's silly. Opinion and fact are not the same. Opinion contrary to or ignoring presented fact is worth even less.


So what?

The reason that I said that you don't answer questions that hurt your argument is because that has been my experience with you on several occasions. The one that sticks out off the top of my head was when we were debating about the popularity of Bin-Laden throughout the Muslim world. You claimed that he wasn't popular with Muslims. You tried to make some type of analogy with Timothy McVeigh, which is absurd because Mc Veigh has no support amongst Christians. Anyway, I put up links to polls showing that Bin-Laden was extremely popular throughout the Muslim world. You said that the polls didn't show enough Muslim countries and that Pakistan, Indonesia, and all the other countries named in the poll didn't prove that much.

I finally asked you to estimate what Bin-Laden's popularity was throughout the Muslim world. I asked you to give your best guess estimate. The polls were showing anywhere from a 20-60% approval rating in most Muslim countries. You wanted to pretend that Bin-Laden was in no way representative of Muslims just like McVeigh is in no way representative of Christians. You seemed to act like the polls were not truly representative yet you refused to say what you thought the real numbers. The reason you wouldn't say what you thought the true numbers were was because it would have discredited your original argument. Even if you would have admitted to Bin Laden just having a 10% approval rating amongst Muslims, even that would have contradicted your argument. So you refused to answer the question.

Come to think of it, this reminds me of what you were just accusing others of which is stating an opinion that is contrary to facts. All the evidence and all the polls showed that Bin-Laden was extremely popular throughout the Muslim but you want to deny it just because you want to be "politically-correct".

With regards to the Giuliani hypothetical, I was giving an example of a guy who we know is not really religious based on his behavior. I'm not saying that he's not a Catholic but I would say it's pretty obvious that he's not really religious. We know that many politicians pretend to be religious even though they are not religious. You can't take them on their word on it.

I agree with you that if everything about a guy's behavior pointed to him being the religious person that he claims to be, then it would be silly for people to question it. And in that case, I doubt people would question it. I don't think anyone questioned whether John Ashcroft was religious.

I agree with you that the media should not give equal credence to people that express a contrary view to proven reality. But the true religious beliefs of Rudy Giuliani or Barrack Obama are not even close to "proven reality". There is absolutely zero proof of what their true beliefs are.

[Riot]

The polls were showing anywhere from a 20-60% approval rating in most Muslim countries. You wanted to pretend that Bin-Laden was in no way representative of Muslims just like McVeigh is in no way representative of Christians. You seemed to act like the polls were not truly representative yet you refused to say what you thought the real numbers.

Yup. Because you were quoting polls from immediately after WTC. 10 years ago.

And no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of Muslims at all. "Pretend"? LOL - that's your prejudice and bigotry against all Muslims. No, not mine.

Good luck with that.

Let me make this crystal clear: no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of all Muslims. No way in hell.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm sure you won't answer it because you never answer questions that hurt your argument.
.

OOOOOOOOOO



fine work, sir