Dems cancel Nevada Pres Debate on Fox

[Andreus]

tolerance means respecting each others cultural differences, not volunteering to be ambushed

 

[chance1]

Thank you Nishin
You have captured what I have been unable to get across to him.
Don't expect any answers to your questions. He never says anything but
what he first posts. Over and over, and over, and over, and over, to
infinity. He's been watching fox so much that he believes what they
say. A classic example of brainwashing.

dude - wake up

I watch all of cable news - I sample it all

the 80% doesn't watch fox - and claims it sucks

doesn't watch o'reilly and claims he's a bush lackey

never has a good word to say about any repub who doesn't agree with them - like hagel - all of a sudden, you dig him

I on the other hand - do offer both sides of the coin

get a grip my man

open your mind and think that maybe your one note views are not the result of evaluating all that is out there

 

[Andreus]

everyone here has said that they have watched fox and fond it to be biased

lets keep this honest

 

[letme]

As to Beck and that other nut, Grace, it is "disgraceful" that ANY network would permit such lunatics on the public airwaves. These aren't mainstreamers, they are extremists reactionaries who should STFU and sit down, lest they be bolted to the floor of a mental ward. There are no liberals -- not one -- given half the air time as the lnuts on the far right.

1. Beck's show is not on CNN, it is on Headline News.

2. It is a SHOW.Beck is an Entertainer. as is Daily, and Cobert.

3. Grace,Beck, et all Are Not on the Public Airwaves. It is a Private owned Cable Company,that is not free to the Public.

4. Thank God Al Frankien has no more air time on Cable. Was he not Beck's Alter-ego ?

 

[White Eagle]

dude - wake up

I watch all of cable news - I sample it all

the 80% doesn't watch fox - and claims it sucks

doesn't watch o'reilly and claims he's a bush lackey

never has a good word to say about any repub who doesn't agree with them - like hagel - all of a sudden, you dig him

I on the other hand - do offer both sides of the coin

get a grip my man

open your mind and think that maybe your one note views are not the result of evaluating all that is out there

Who in the hell is hagel?? quote where I said I dig him. That's another thing, I don't think you know how to make a link for a quote. I can't recall ever seeing one.
I have told you before I don't have cable therefore I can't watch fox news. I see enough quotes and clips of fox to know that it is all lies. Any network (and I do use that term loosely) that airs coulter is enough for me. I don't care to watch any part of it. You should wake up!

 

[letme]

A CNN OWNED station not CNN. As Fox news on a Fox owned Station Not on Fox.

Daily & Colbert are not Entirely Satirical. They state proudly their perfused hate for Bush & Co. as many like to call the GOP. All the above are pure entertainers. None are journalist.

This will get people's panties bunched up also.............Limbaugh is an Entertainer also.... hmmm so is Bill Moyer(or how ever his name is spelled)

And Becks show is set in Philly I do believe. Not New York. Least his radio station is in PA.

 

[letme]

G.A. Read you OWN Post
Headline News is part of the CNN family of news networks and Web sites.

HN is PART of CNN Family Not THE Cable News Network.....itself. The full name of the free standing Show is Headline News Prime.

MSNBC is not NBC. HN is not CNN. Does this make it more clear to you ?

My ere on being Private owned,I meant not a Public Airwave as in Broadcast channels.

 

[chance1]

Who in the hell is hagel?? quote where I said I dig him. That's another thing, I don't think you know how to make a link for a quote. I can't recall ever seeing one.
I have told you before I don't have cable therefore I can't watch fox news. I see enough quotes and clips of fox to know that it is all lies. Any network (and I do use that term loosely) that airs coulter is enough for me. I don't care to watch any part of it. You should wake up!

fuckbait - I'm not quoting u on Hagel

using your note to make a point about the extreme liberal/Fox News sucks crowd

that I watch ALL of them - and make my judgement - that I can see the other side

that the 80% (I like that) don't watch Fox or O'Reilly but still skewer them

No one is denying that Coulter is bad news

I see Al Sharpton on TV all the time - don't see anyone (extreme libs) seeing anything wrong with that

how come?

 

[letme]

Chance,,,have you wondered were Jeese Jackson is ? The cameras and microphones are on and he HAS NOT jumped in yet!!! Something is wrong w/ this picture !!!

hmmm Jackson is from Chicago. And what JR. Senator is from the same town ? Has Rainbow/Push Coalition filed there quarterly tax statement yet to prove they are still a tax exempt group ?

 

[chance1]

Chance,,,have you wondered were Jeese Jackson is ? The cameras and microphones are on and he HAS NOT jumped in yet!!! Something is wrong w/ this picture !!!

hmmm Jackson is from Chicago. And what JR. Senator is from the same town ? Has Rainbow/Push Coalition filed there quarterly tax statement yet to prove they are still a tax exempt group ?

If I didn't know better ................

meanwhile Sharp Al is dissing Obama - bigtime

I think he's pissed cause he wanted to run again

sees Obama as "not paying his dues"

and Obama is maybe too white - not enough heat on black issues

Jesse and Al get no grief from the PC liberal media for their many past indiscretions and anti Jewish/White comments

 

[Andreus]

If I didn't know better ................

meanwhile Sharp Al is dissing Obama - bigtime

I think he's pissed cause he wanted to run again

sees Obama as "not paying his dues"

and Obama is maybe too white - not enough heat on black issues

Jesse and Al get no grief from the PC liberal media for their many past indiscretions and anti Jewish/White comments

care to give us a link to these comments

 

[letme]

You need to learn a bit about how corporations and network organize. To say that HN isn't part of CNN is like saying Sixty Minutes isn't part of CBS.




HN is PART of CNN Family Not THE Cable News Network.....itself. The full name of the free standing Show is Headline News Prime.

G.A. Get GLASSES I DID SAY HN IS PART OF CNN.

 

[letme]

G.A. let me help you in saying "pugs" are judgmentally. And ya know I AM a "pug" but any man doing/saying this is a DUMB FUCK !

Republican presidential contender John McCainon Friday used the term "tar baby," considered by some a racial epithet, and later said he regretted it.
Answering questions at a town hall meeting, the Arizona senator was discussing federal involvement in custody cases when he said, "For me to stand here and ... say I'm going to declare divorces invalid because of someone who feels they weren't treated fairly in court, we are getting into a tar baby of enormous proportions and I don't know how you get out of that."
After the event, McCain told reporters: "I don't think I should have used that word and I was wrong to do so."
The senator said he hoped it wouldn't be viewed as a racial remark. He argued that he was trying to say that it wouldn't make sense for him to have a role in something left to the courts.




FOXNews.com - John McCain Uses Term 'Tar Baby,' Later Calls it Mistake - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

 

[Kulindahr]

Easy......

Bush does suck

and we do need to get out of Iraq

Simple really.

I know, truth hurts.

Are you a politician-in-training?
That was a great move to ignore the question asked and answer one you'd rather deal with!

That's just the sort of thing we see regularly at presidential "debates", so I don't really care if there ever is a Democrat vs. Democrat event. They all just memorize answers to questions they'd like to hear, and use those to deal with whatever really comes up.
I'd like to see a real debate -- one run just like in speech tournaments, with fast exchanges, judges who know what debate is, points both positive and negative, and an objective winner.
"Answers" as above would get a bucket-load of negative points, for not addressing what they supposedly responded to.
But politicians don't want real debates; they want to recite from their list of talking points. Which means they aren't giving us a choice between candidates, but between carefully prepared acting positions.

 

[radical matt]

Hm, I am curious, what makes a news source "entertainment" and what makes one "reputable"? It's not the amount of bias, as all news sources are inherently biased since they are based on a combination of Human reporters, Human editors, Human producers, and Human leaders...HUMANS ARE INHERENTLY BIASED. (Felt I needed to make that extra clear.)

As a scientist (in training) and a junior philosopher, I understand that to seek truth, one has to deal with biased people and sometimes even biased data. You have to look at the data, stripped down as much as possible of bias, and you have to set aside your own (which isn't as hard as you think if your priority is really to seek the truth.) It's simply a matter of finding the bits of truth among all the biases, not introducing your own bias to muck things up further, and then logging the result and THEN allowing yourself to look at it as a Human being (rather than a fact gathering robot) and decide on your own as a judgement call the worth of the truth you have found.


News organizations do not do this in general. Local news tends to do this as far as reporting the weather, national news can't even report the weather without bias (lest we forget, Katrina was Bush's fault according to CNN, right?) That people on here are saying Fox is biased and thus an entertainment network rather than a news network is in error. As I said, ALL news is biased. News stations don't report facts very often. Generally speaking, they find several sets of "facts", and what the air on television or radio is the set of "facts" that most closely identify with their views. This is like how in the past, some scientists have run an experiment many dozens of times until one outcome was the result they wanted, and they published that as the "fact", as if it was the only outcome, discarding the rest.

Fox is more entertaining than some other networks, but they are still reporting daily events. They will, of course, be reporting them with a bias (as I said, all news is biased), and those in the public that like hearing things from that bias will tune on. Those that don't may tune in or not. And of course, those that have an opposing view will only tune in for the sake of cataloguing all the bias so they can go to their friends and tell them how biased it is. Likewise, this is essentially inverse for CNN and MSNBC. Same level of bias, just opposite tilt, so you have the opposite people complaining. This doesn't make any of the stations more or less reputable, it simply means that you either have to wade through their bias, you agree with their bias and WANT to hear it, or you go somewhere else to find a neutral news source (heh, good luck with that...)

For what it's worth, Fox is a legitament news network. They have a bias, but they are a news network. What seems more telling to me is that the debate was set up, KNOWING Fox was involved, and THEN the Democrats backed out. This implies that something changed on their part. Given if it's a live debate, it doesn't matter anyway, as the candidate's words are what are heard, not news commentary, but...I dunno, sometimes simple things like these two are missed by people. -shrug-

 

[Andreus]

legitament?

well they are licensed thats for sure

but so is every elvis impersonator in vegas to marry people

i assure you, that neither makes them elvis, nor a minister

it just makes them good at filing papers and aquiring licenses

 

[Nishin]

For what it's worth, Fox is a legitament news network. They have a bias, but they are a news network. What seems more telling to me is that the debate was set up, KNOWING Fox was involved, and THEN the Democrats backed out. This implies that something changed on their part. Given if it's a live debate, it doesn't matter anyway, as the candidate's words are what are heard, not news commentary, but...I dunno, sometimes simple things like these two are missed by people. -shrug-

The Media Can Legally Lie

CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie”
Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection"
Author: Al Krebs

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. 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. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. 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. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

... I guess legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder...

 

[Kulindahr]

THIS is fairly well-argued and balanced:

Hm, I am curious, what makes a news source "entertainment" and what makes one "reputable"? It's not the amount of bias, as all news sources are inherently biased since they are based on a combination of Human reporters, Human editors, Human producers, and Human leaders...HUMANS ARE INHERENTLY BIASED. (Felt I needed to make that extra clear.)

As a scientist (in training) and a junior philosopher, I understand that to seek truth, one has to deal with biased people and sometimes even biased data. You have to look at the data, stripped down as much as possible of bias, and you have to set aside your own (which isn't as hard as you think if your priority is really to seek the truth.) It's simply a matter of finding the bits of truth among all the biases, not introducing your own bias to muck things up further, and then logging the result and THEN allowing yourself to look at it as a Human being (rather than a fact gathering robot) and decide on your own as a judgement call the worth of the truth you have found.


News organizations do not do this in general. Local news tends to do this as far as reporting the weather, national news can't even report the weather without bias (lest we forget, Katrina was Bush's fault according to CNN, right?) That people on here are saying Fox is biased and thus an entertainment network rather than a news network is in error. As I said, ALL news is biased. News stations don't report facts very often. Generally speaking, they find several sets of "facts", and what the air on television or radio is the set of "facts" that most closely identify with their views. This is like how in the past, some scientists have run an experiment many dozens of times until one outcome was the result they wanted, and they published that as the "fact", as if it was the only outcome, discarding the rest.

Fox is more entertaining than some other networks, but they are still reporting daily events. They will, of course, be reporting them with a bias (as I said, all news is biased), and those in the public that like hearing things from that bias will tune on. Those that don't may tune in or not. And of course, those that have an opposing view will only tune in for the sake of cataloguing all the bias so they can go to their friends and tell them how biased it is. Likewise, this is essentially inverse for CNN and MSNBC. Same level of bias, just opposite tilt, so you have the opposite people complaining. This doesn't make any of the stations more or less reputable, it simply means that you either have to wade through their bias, you agree with their bias and WANT to hear it, or you go somewhere else to find a neutral news source (heh, good luck with that...)

For what it's worth, Fox is a legitament news network. They have a bias, but they are a news network. What seems more telling to me is that the debate was set up, KNOWING Fox was involved, and THEN the Democrats backed out. This implies that something changed on their part. Given if it's a live debate, it doesn't matter anyway, as the candidate's words are what are heard, not news commentary, but...I dunno, sometimes simple things like these two are missed by people. -shrug-

THIS is what happens when you get lawyers involved:

The Media Can Legally Lie

CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie”
Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection"
Author: Al Krebs

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. 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. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. 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. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

 

[Andreus]

And since the fox network got lawyers involved to legally secure their right to lie to the american public, what would you assume about their validity as a news source?

 

[Kulindahr]

And since the fox network got lawyers involved to legally secure their right to lie to the american public, what would you assume about their validity as a news source?

Thank you for the excellent illustration of negative spin.
I'll leave it for those feeling scholarly to identify the logical fallacy involved... I'm watching hot bois show up at the bar.


But I'll counter with this, which is just as valid:

Since Al Gore got lawyers involved in settling the Florida election, what would you assume about his integrity as a politician?