Dems cancel Nevada Pres Debate on Fox

[radical matt]

hey guys

you seem to be of the impression that this is a rocket science

I know rocket science...annoying equations, but managable if you're careful. This isn't rocket science.

as is by burying us in a subterfuge of overblown, myopic and reaching thought processes it will change the fact that fox is the most disreputable channel on the television and that there have been posts and posts here citing their past lies and their legal maneuvers to continue the trend they have set for themselves

Can you actually reference some for us to look at, or are we to take you at your word? I'd rather the references please. Find some that say that Fox s "the most disreptable channel on the television"...might also be a good idea to get a dictionary and lay out what disreputable is so that we won't have any room for confusion there.

no low brow high school debate antics will distract or delay from that basic reality

A person that sees logic as "low brow" engaging in a debate that demands it? How...odd...

don't you guys have a limbaugh book to read or something?

you're running out of talking points

A) I don't own and haven't ever read any Limbaugh book.
B) I don't use talking points. For better or for worse, what I say is all a product of my own mind, derranged or whatever. I may be wrong on everything, but at least I'm wrong on my own, which I see as better as following what other people say and still being wrong.

i am a muslim apologist

there is no shame in that

Good for you, no there isn't.

kulindahr and chance are the republican aplogists here as well as seapuppy and now aparently you''

First, are they? In this thread, they're being apologists for Fox (sorta), not the Republicans. You may equate Fox with Republicans, but they aren't the same any more than Democrats = NPR. They share a lot of the same views, but they aren't the same organization.

Second: I am? Again, howso? What have I said in this thread that is justifying the views and actions of the Republican party? Until this post, I don't think I've even mentioned the Republican party...

there is no dishonor in the truth

No, there isn't...just most people have difficulty seeing the truth...

only someone ashamed of the repuiblicans they are defending would attempt to call that label an insult.

Uh...or someone on the OTHER side that dislikes (or hates) Repblicans. If I called you a Democrat apologist and refused to acknowledge or debate anything else you said, would you think I was complimenting you? And even if you did, by refusing to debate you, I'd be commiting the fallacy of attack on the person (ad hominim) as I've said, and so I would be in error to do so, regardless of if you felt it was a compliment or insult.

try it sometimes

Try what? I don't think I want whatever you're on, I need all my wits as it is...that's the same reason I don't drink and never do drugs. But have fun with...whatever "it" is. Try not to OD on "it", okay?


(Ico, give me a sec, I just wanted to respond to these first, I'm not ignoring what you said. Oh, and I don't think I'll rebuttle Andreus anymore...it's easy, but pointless. He's posted more since I wrote this, but it's useless bothering with it and almost insulting.) Oh, and Andreus, I can read ICO's posts just fine myself. Try actually making up something coherent on your own, not quoting other people's good posts as if they were your own.

 

[radical matt]

You standing up for unrelated things have nothing to do with what occurs in court---for anyone to bring a case or be sued they must have legal standing. Fox has legal standing and what they seek and utilize must be relative. The ACLU acts as a law firm, representing someone with legal standing, or submits amicus curiae briefs. The ACLU is not a corporation either. The comparison doesn't stand.

Hm...I consider it an organization that has some concern with things that don't directly concern it. Again, generalities, but it was the first thing to come to mind.

For Fox to win the case they had to prove that they had a legal right to lie. Again, the same quote: "Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so." There were two aspects to this case, even if you continue pressing that there was only one: the wrongful termination AND the whistleblower qualification. It is inconsequential if they initiated the suit or not, their legal assertion was that they have a right to lie---they had to legally prove it, and they got it in appeal. It is the basis of legal standing; those involved in the suit must be affected. Fox LIED, fired the two 'whistleblowers' and challenged their position as 'whistleblowers' because Fox has a right to lie. The jury disagreed; the appeals court agreed. There is no obfuscation or circular talk going on here---Fox went to court using their right to lie to the public as a defense to undermine the lawsuit brought against them.

Huh, that wasn't how I read the case at all. From that report, I got the impression that it wasn't a case of "whistleblowing". See, whistleblowing is when someone's doing something wrong and, WHILE they're doing it, you bring it to the public's eye...NOT to a court of law (that comes later.) From the article, it said nothing of them trying to get "Fox's lieing" to the public. Rather, the lawsuit was wrongful termination. In fact, had Fox not fired them and gone ahead and presented a falsified story using some other "investigative team", the case would not have ever been brought to court since the case was of WRONGFUL TERMINATION, NOT "Fox lieing".

So yes, they ARE two different things. In the APPEAL, Fox's lawers made the case that refusing to lie and getting fired for it is grounds for termination if the employer chooses to do so. I, personally, believe this is a very bad policy, but that is what the case came down to. And as court cases often "pick up" more far reaching consequences than they start with, this one "picked up" the whistleblower thing. The whistleblower was not (or should not rightly have been) part of the original suit since they were not calling attention to a potential wrong being commited by a corporation, they were simply suing for monitary compensation for what they felt was wrongful termination.

You're a smart guy, ICO, can you at least kinda see how I'm seeing it the way that I am?

Here goes my variant on the loaded question, one that remains unproven to be fallacious: In light of all that is revealed by this lawsuit, that Fox is willing to lie to the public, even at risk of public safety, that they would terminate employees who refuse to act unethically, unless you assume lying that risks public safety is ethical, that they would go to court in defense of their right to deceive, that they secured the right to lie in appeals and then counter-sued their former (ethical) employees, what does that say about Fox's validity as a news organization? Have at it... or answer it.

First, it is loaded ("...even at risk of public safety..."? I'm not entirely certain the BHG entails a risk to public safety, though you might be right there, I simply prefer avoiding meat...) Second, they didn't go to court to defend their right to decieve; once again, they went to court to appeal a ruling that they had wrongfully fired someone. Thirdly, I'm not entirely certain that they "secured" the right to lie. If that goes to court in the future, it's not unlikely that this ruling will be countered by a pannel which isn't so narrow in their inturpretation of the FCC rules. Fourth...they counter-sued the woman and her husband? Was that in the article and I just missed it, or did you find that somewhere else? And Fifth; again, validity is a term that can be vague (though not like "legitimate", the term floated by others earlier in this thread.) Are you defining it in the sense of valid/invalid logical arguments, valid lines of reasoning, valid/reasonable grounds for action, legitimacy/legality (keep in mind, they WON a legal case, which means that what they're doing is legal by the definition of the term...legal doesn't equate to just or right, remember...), or (as I suspect) accuracy and trustworthiness? For the sake of brevity, I'm going to assume the last of those. So, if you don't mind, I'll cut it down some to get rid of those questionable things and see what's left...

"In light of all that is revealed by this lawsuit, that Fox is willing to lie to the public, that they would terminate employees who refuse to act unethically, what does that say about Fox's (accuracy and trustworthiness) as a news organization?"

It says that they are a questionable group which should be regarded with caution and all of their reports carefully ballanced and weighed by the individual viewing them, also cross-referenced with other news outlets to ensure accuracy and truthfulness in reporting and the facts of the reports, if posible. It also indicates that someone in the company (not necessarily EVERYONE) has questionable ethics and potentially questionable morals as well.


See ICO? I can answer a question with a straight answer, it just has to be a straight question. And I've given up on getting one in this thread, so I modified yours into one. I know...I don't mean to be insulting (I hate it when people alter stuff of mine and "quote" it as mine, that's why I just put it in "s insted of with the quote tags.) I just took your question, removed all the parts that I find questionable, and the remainder (that which I don't have any reason or grounds to dispute) is what I answered. I hope you can take some sullis in the fact that the answer was likely more to your satisfaction than otherwise may have been. And see, I can be impartial too and answer a question like that (despite some people's views, I don't have any particular loyalty to Fox. Stupid Ana Nichole coverage...bah! I say!)

...BUT, I have a caviat to my answer. I, personally, feel that that question above, and my answer, apply to FAR more media outlets than Fox. From my own estimations and analysis of the reporting and the reporters/"hosts", I consider most major media outlets to be of the same calibur as Fox in this regard (or worse. Bad CBS! They deserve a wag of Steven Colbert's finger. Did they ever even apoligize for it, or was all they managed to do the firing of Tom Brokah(sp?)?) Which means, I also hold them to the same condemnation. Fox isn't alone in that regard by any means. Not that this makes them good, I'm just saying I distrust most media these days.


Anyway, hope I was able to give you a satisfying (even if a touch bitter-sweet) answer, ICO. Unlike SOME people, you I can deal with since you actually back most of your stuff with reason (as opposed to quotes/references which may not matter or worse, innane "anti-reason" posts that refuse to acknowledge anything their poster disagrees with.) Thanks for your effort and good post.

 

[Kulindahr]

A person that sees logic as "low brow" engaging in a debate that demands it? How...odd...

Especially considereing that I introduced the comment about high school debate in an admonition to live up to those standards.....

First, are they? In this thread, they're being apologists for Fox (sorta), not the Republicans. You may equate Fox with Republicans, but they aren't the same any more than Democrats = NPR. They share a lot of the same views, but they aren't the same organization.

Second: I am? Again, howso? What have I said in this thread that is justifying the views and actions of the Republican party? Until this post, I don't think I've even mentioned the Republican party...

I think our antagonist's world is either Republican or Democrat, and nothing else.
I haven't even been defending Fox -- just trying to clarify things and keep some facts straight. As others have pointed out, we have no evidence that FOX believes it has a right to lie, only that its lawyers used that argument, nor is it true that Fox sued for anything -- they defended their right to run their business, under long-standing legal principles.

I skimmed, and don't see where you mentioned the Republicans. I think part of the problem is that to Andreus this is all one large Enemy under one label, and he can't see beyond that, while the rest of us are talking about a particular entity, i.e. Fox News.

It's been well documented that Fox has aired lies, as have other networks, one of which actually fabricated material -- why there was no prosecution for forgery is a mystery to me, but then why no motion to impeach Bush has been introduced long ago baffles me as well (all right, intellectually I can explain it, but ... ). But here there was nothing illegal, nor anything that numerous news organizations haven't done or relied on before. It's just that this time the employees who thought journalism was about the truth were the ones in the vulnerable spot, and instead of slinking quietly away they stood their ground. If more would do that, instead of playing along, maybe, just maybe, journalistic ethics could come to trump business and political agendas.
But a beginning step for those of us who aren't journalists is to do what those journalists did: keep the facts straight -- and that's what I've been fighting for. There are lots of things I don't approve of, yet fight "for" when the people who hold to them are wronged, and it doesn't make me an apologist for them; no more am I an apologist for Fox.

And if people can't see clearly enough, read clearly enough, or think clearly enough to make that distinction, that's just sad.

 

[Nishin]

...and I said that ligitimacy is a matter of FCC regulation, not individual presumption. Some people believe Bush is an iligitimate president (from 2000), but the Constitution is what gives a president legitimate claim to the office, and IT is what he got his from. Likewise, a news agency is "legitimate" so long as the FCC allows it to exist under the banner of a news agency. In this case, that means that Fox is legitimate. It doesn't matter what I think of the matter, it's the FCC, not I, who grant legitimacy to broadcasts over the airwaves. So either you don't understand, or you're asking an uninformed question.

The fact that the FCC defines what is legally acceptable has nothing to do with my question... I was asking your personal opinion... that the latter doesn't matter in terms of law doesn't change the fact that you must have a personal opinion, that's what I was questioning, but you clearly refuse to answer my question... or maybe you actually don't have an opinion, and that's your right, and that's how people allow others to do the thinking in their place and accept anything, however immoral it may be, and with the consequences we see everyday...

Hm...NOW I'm going to have to differ with you...again. Defending a right does NOT mean one intends to use it.

I think I answered that before... it's not about their intent to use the right to lie... they ALREADY use it.

Fighting for a right, any right, is never an admission that one intends to use it. Further, this isn't an "admission" of anything. Fox didn't, according to your OWN quoted article, admit to anything. They didn't deny anything, but they didn't admit it in any wise. Get it? Got it? (probably not...)

According to my quotes, they admitted bias while their slogan pretends otherwise, that's an admitted lie.

Alright, fine, I would THINK this one obvious though. The CBS (wasn't it?) forged documents WITHIN WEEKS of the 2004 election to try and sway the results in Kerry's favor. Not ONLY were the trumped up (READ: [BLIES[/B]), but they were ALSO a MAJOR attempt to sway the results of the highest election in the land. Is that one well enough documented, or do you need me to do a net search and get you a link?

I do not know of this, and if it is true, in no way is it an argument to accept FOX' lies... because someone does something wrong doesn't justify or allow you to do the same. At best, it would just make CBS as disrespectable. You will notice, however, that CBS fired the four incriminated staffers (http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_activities/litigation/cbs-fec-complaint-update.html), while FOX fires their journalists who refuse to lie...

Hm, a question; how many documented lies do you know of? How many days are there in a year? Oh, and how many cases do you have of journalists getting fired for refusing to lie? For the last question, I've seen one case you've posted, do you have more so that you can establish a pattern of operation (as opposed to it being an isolated incident)?

I believe I have produced enough links to support my claims within this thread, while I have not seen ONE single link from the FOX appologists to defend their position or contradict my claims (about FOX' lies)...

The edit comes after the fact. Most reports are edited to fit time alotments, themes, ect. To say one is going to "edit" something doesn't mean anything nearly as malicious as you intend. In writing a scientific paper, generally if you have your base paper that contains ALL your information, then it must be edited down into a form that people can actually get something useful from. You don't simply publish your raw report. To suggest that this EVER happens is somewhat rediculous on your part...

I do not "intend" anything... this is not mere redactional editing and you know it:

[...]But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts.

... but once again you don't HAVE to (honestly) answer my questions if you don't want to ... and I'll draw my own conclusions from that attitude.

My conlusions being, since I'm growing tired of this debate, that, as evidenced by the FOX appologists arguments in this thread, and by the Bush appologists' in general, lying is a perfectly acceptable mean of obtaining what one wants, in addition to dodging direct question and refusing personal intellectual involvement in a simple debate.

LIE is the "value" that has been running the US in the past few years and when even the media practice it in all immunity and get away with it, going as far as securing their right to do so, that speaks volumes of the overall degree of morality and ethics of that given population...

Congratulations! That's no better than angry radical mullahs creating false prophet-bashing pictures and spreading lies to incentivize the crowds. Don't you dare claim superiority on these people.

Ps:

For some reason the poster failed to provide the update; if you follow that link you can read it.

Actually that was on purpose, that second part focused more on the influence of the "five friends", which I deemed less relevant to my point...
However I forgot to add my usual "[...]" which indicates there is some more... my appologies.

 

[radical matt]

Eh, kinda old and don't wanna dredge this one up again, but I just wanted to say to ICO;

You're probably right, though in general I try to hope (at least) that people are working towards the least malicious ends. And as Kul said, it's not a new thing either (that is to say, this "right" was secured, if it was secured at all, quite some time before this case.) As for the whistleblower thing...I still think that's a little bit of a tacked on thing by a possibly well meaning (or simply sympathetic) jury. The plantif man and woman were filing for wrongful termination, they were not going out and "blowing the whistle" on a wrong (and again, had they not been fired, they probably would never have filed the suit, indicating that it was money, not a percieved wrong, which motivated them, though I'll freely admit that this is just a conclusion on my part, but bears noting.)

So yeah, I can see where you get your view from, but at the same time, it's also interesting to note that the jury did NOT award the same protection to the husband...rather odd, wouldn't you think?

As for securing a right...I dunno, I'd say to secure a right you actually do something different than this. But when I think about it, usually to secure a right, people go to the Supreme Court, so I suppose it could be said that rights are secured via courts...the only problem being that court rulings are not ever sure bets (even legislature can be overturned.) So far, the only truly secured rights are those of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (no matter how some people would like to strike some of those down), the leading ones being life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. It's the freedom of speach/press from which some people derive that they have a right to lie. Technically speaking, they are correct. If you have the right to say whatever you want, that also includes the right to speak lies. Until the legislature or courts do something to narrow that down, it's there. The tough thing is, that you must be REALLY careful when you try to legislate freedom to speak. After all, if you start limiting what people can think, even under the most pure of intentions, you are limiting what they can think (after all, if you can't communicate thoughts, what purpose is there in having them?), and you open the door to future corrupt governments using those laws to implement their own policies on thought control.

So yeah, it's a bad policy from a moral perspective, but to try and limit it (broadly) may turn out to be equally dangerous. Besides, isn't the prevaling thought these days that legislatures should NOT legislate morality?



Nishin:

I answered your question, and very adequately. You're asking me for a legal term (legitimacy) not a personal opinion (morality.) If you asked me if I thought what they did was MORAL, I would say that it was not. You asked me if it was legitimate, and I pointed out that I am not the person/organization that, in this nation, determines legitimacy. You ask for a legal ruling, but say that I should give my opinion on it.

You may gloat in your percieved victory, but the truth of the matter is that I sidestep your logical traps and give you a rebuttle required and representative of my station. That you can't get over asking that question indicates that you believe you have this great trap and you're insisting that I step into it, even going so far as to goad me into it by saying that you'll draw your own conclusions (which, funny thing, are the exact SAME conclusions you'd draw if I was to step in it anyway.) That I'm smarter than that and know better you don't want, but it's a sad truth.

You don't know of the forged documents? The ones Dan Rather got fired over? Gee, what cave were you living in late October/early November of 2004?! And interesting thing, CBS fired people, but they didn't ever release an apology or recend the report before the election (they actually didn't fire Rather until after the outcome of the election.) Rather interesting, wouldn't you say?

Hm, their slogan? Fair and ballanced? Fair means that all sides are given an equal shake. Ballanced means giving all sides an equal weight. Having a bias means that you, personally, believe or agree with one side. Having a bias does not mean one cannot be fair and ballanced. Can you understand that, or would do I need to explain it again more simplistically? Bias implies that you may attempt to tilt things (might still be fair, but wouldn't be ballanced), however, it does not necessitate it. After all, all scientists are biased (what I said before about Humans being inherently biased), however, many scientists are fair and can be ballanced. As much as you may hate Fox or their slogan, simply saying that they have a bias doesn't mean that they aren't fair and ballanced at the same time (nor does it mean that they are fair and ballanced either, mind you.)


But read my last post to ICO. There really isn't much to say after that. Lieing in general is unethical, and it's only moral in th case that it does some good, which is still kinda iffy.


Oh, Fox apologist? Bush apologist? Give me a break. If that's the limit of your ability to insult me, I can't think of a good enough insult to insult your insultuatory skills with. It's just that bad. After all, I'm neither of those things. ^_^ That you think I am betrays your own bias and says little of me other than that I am someone you are opposed to...which could mean almost anything (it's like trying to define a geometric shape, line, or plan using only a single point. There are an infinate number of possibilities, and you can't say for sure that it's the one you want with any credibility.)

Oh, and dare clame superiority over what people? I can always claim superiority over mass murderers who don't care who dies, their own people or others, as long as it increases their own personal power. And I give hope to people, I don't take their hope and use it for my own dark and evil selfish ends. I can and will always "dare" claim superiority over those people...and over those that can't see a difference between me and them, since such people as that can very well be worse than us both. Take THAT as you wish.

Anyway, death to the thread! ^_^

 

[Nishin]

To each his own conclusions indeed