Mind Control of MSNBC, FOX and The Net

[IndependntLogic]

Really? Trained by whom?

Yeah I grinned when I saw that. The National School of Fair & Balanced Reporting
Judgment maybe?
Aw what the heck. Everyone I've met here is a Constitutional Lawyer / Scholar / Business-Owning / CPA / Purple Heart Winning CIA Agent. So a degree in FOXNewsiness isn't much of a stretch...

Not a degree in FoxNewsiness, but my college major was journalism and media communications. I have had the training in what constitutes bias and what does not at a time when reporters and news writers were held to extremely strict standards not to show bias in news reporting and I have also spent some years working in that field with editors and producers who strongly enforced that code.

That's amazing! What a coincidence! I have a degree in journalism and media bias! I've also spent forty nine years as the Chief Editor of both Random House and Published the New York Times for a hundred and thirty three years! (ju's messin' with ya...)

Btw, I don't think a degree in journalism means squat in eliminating your personal bias. The fact that you claim MSNBC is biased and FOX is not, pretty much blows credibility in that regard right outta the water.

 

[Vast LWC]

Re Monica Crowley, when a president determines what laws should be enforced he has in fact overstepped his authority as you say. That act is dictatorial, not in keeping with the separation of powers as enumerated in the constitution. It is not lying, which is the spreading of disinformation. It is an opinion which you and I and many others share about Obama. And that opinion is absolutely reasonable and suitable for Fox to air.

If anyone disagrees with that opinion, fine. That's what freedom of speech is all about. But to criticize Fox for airing that opinion is baseless and smacks of censorship. Kudos Foxy, for sticking to your guns.

No, that is not accurate.

If a president decides that he cannot take action execute the will of congress because it would violate his oath to protect the constitution, and violate the constitutional rights of American citizens, that is not the act of a dictator.

It may be, in some people's opinion: dereliction of duty, contempt of congress, hell some might even consider it a crime, but it is not the act of a dictator.

If Obama had sent in a police force to the states in question to make sure the law was not followed, and that the people in question had their sovereign rights protected, THAT would be the act of a dictator.

But Obama was simply choosing not to devote resources to pursue the desire by Congress to deny some American Citizens their constitutional rights.

 

[Vast LWC]

So if 99% of the people agree with an opinion but you don't, it's a lie and unreasonable. Oookaaaay.

A lie is a lie, no matter how much of the public you manage to brainwash into thinking it's the truth.

 

[Synthaholic]

You also reserve the right to criticize a "news" organization that would give airtime to people with wacko opinions.

Yes, yes I do

Well great, knock yourselves out. But who gets to decide what's "wacko" and what's not? And tell me this, do you think a "news" organization should deny airtime to somebody based on their pov? As long as it's not hate speech or otherwise restricted by the laws of the land? Freedom of speech is a bitch when somebody says something you don't like, isn't it?

I think if you are going to allow someone like Orly Tates to promote her wacky conspiracies on your "news" channel, then that reflects on you.

It's not about opinions. We all have opinions. Why is she given precious TV time? That decision is made by the network.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah I grinned when I saw that. The National School of Fair & Balanced Reporting
Judgment maybe?
Aw what the heck. Everyone I've met here is a Constitutional Lawyer / Scholar / Business-Owning / CPA / Purple Heart Winning CIA Agent. So a degree in FOXNewsiness isn't much of a stretch...

Not a degree in FoxNewsiness, but my college major was journalism and media communications. I have had the training in what constitutes bias and what does not at a time when reporters and news writers were held to extremely strict standards not to show bias in news reporting and I have also spent some years working in that field with editors and producers who strongly enforced that code.

That's amazing! What a coincidence! I have a degree in journalism and media bias! I've also spent forty nine years as the Chief Editor of both Random House and Published the New York Times for a hundred and thirty three years! (ju's messin' with ya...)

Btw, I don't think a degree in journalism means squat in eliminating your personal bias. The fact that you claim MSNBC is biased and FOX is not, pretty much blows credibility in that regard right outta the water.

Nope. A degree in ANYTHING doesn't eliminate personal bias for anybody. But when the journalism ethical code was still being enforced and implemented by most of the media, somebody's personal bias was also irrelevent because we were NOT allowed to incorporate it into a straight news story for the newspaper, radio, or television, and I have worked in all three. And if we slipped and inadvertently did so, a stern reprimand from the city editor or producer would be quickly forthcoming and, if blatant enough, could cost us our jobs.

However, the fact that you say I claimed that MSNBC is biased and Fox is not pretty well blows your reputation for reading comprehension right outta the water.

 

[Vast LWC]

Nope. A degree in ANYTHING doesn't eliminate personal bias for anybody. But when the journalism ethical code was still being enforced and implemented by most of the media, somebody's personal bias was also irrelevent because we were NOT allowed to incorporate it into a straight news story for the newspaper, radio, or television, and I have worked in all three. And if we slipped and inadvertently did so, a stern reprimand from the city editor or producer would be quickly forthcoming and, if blatant enough, could cost us our jobs.

However, the fact that you say I claimed that MSNBC is biased and Fox is not pretty well blows your reputation for reading comprehension right outta the water.

Ahh, those were the days.

Remember when channels would post disclaimers before they ran any kind of commentary/opinion piece? Sigh.

 

[Wiseacre]

Yes, yes I do

Well great, knock yourselves out. But who gets to decide what's "wacko" and what's not? And tell me this, do you think a "news" organization should deny airtime to somebody based on their pov? As long as it's not hate speech or otherwise restricted by the laws of the land? Freedom of speech is a bitch when somebody says something you don't like, isn't it?

I think if you are going to allow someone like Orly Tates to promote her wacky conspiracies on your "news" channel, then that reflects on you.

It's not about opinions. We all have opinions. Why is she given precious TV time? That decision is made by the network.

On the contrary, it is all about opinions. Just cuz you think it's wacky doesn't make it so, and even if it was, is it not a good idea to present the wacko's version of the truth for the viewer to see?

Yes, it is the decision of the network to provide different point of view, without denying those who are different. Even the wacky ones oughta have their say, don't you think? I think criticism should leveled at them if they failed to provide alternative viewpoints.

Who is Orly Tates?

 

[Vast LWC]

On the contrary, it is all about opinions. Just cuz you think it's wacky doesn't make it so, and even if it was, is it not a good idea to present the wacko's version of the truth for the viewer to see?

Yes, it is the decision of the network to provide different point of view, without denying those who are different. Even the wacky ones oughta have their say, don't you think? I think criticism should leveled at them if they failed to provide alternative viewpoints.

Who is Orly Tates?

I agree, there should be an outlet for the wackos too, but back in the day, they used to play loud, long messages clearly stating things like:

"The views expressed by (insert wacko's name) are not the views of channel eleven. Please do not think that we are endorsing this guy's views, etc, etc".

Now, they just include them in the conversation.

Thus my original point, where the goal posts in an argument on these media outlets have become "the opinionated, slightly right-wing guy" and "the radical nutjob", (or left-wing for MSNBC) leading the viewer to believe that the rational place to be is somewhere between strongly opinionated and completely insane.

 

[Wiseacre]

Fox News is constantly telling the viewers "we report, you decide". That's close enough for me, frankly I don't care what any network's opinion is on anything as long as I'm not being lied to or the information is misrepresented. Lotta folks around here think Fox News and MSNBC both do that, and it may be true to some extent cuz they're playing to their viewer base just like the pols do. And for the same reason: money. I think most people who tune into one or the other or any other news outlet already know the score. But outright lies? I don't think so, political bias certainly. Sometimes they get selective on which stories they cover and which they don't, I think that's not so good. I don't think Fox in particuilar avoids the negative stuff on the GOP side though, and they bashed Bush or anyone else when it was merited.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also it is important to distinguish between opinion and hard news--that is news that is sourced and verified. In the past, before opinon and hard news became so blurred, only when a reporter had done above and beyond the call of duty in research and investigation did he or she see his/her name as a byline on a news story. Generally the rules were so tight against bias and any personal opinion inserted into the story that nobody's name appeared on the story, the newspaper took full responsibiity for the content, and you honestly could not tell from reading the stories who wrote them. There was no 'author's fingerprint' to be found.

The main editorial on the editorial page also contained no byline and was expressed as the opinion of the newspaper. Other opinion pieces featured on the editorial page--as OPINION, not hard news--did contain bylines and it was understood that the author of the piece was expressing opinion that may or may not be the opinion of the newspaper management and editorial staff. Even THEN, if the piece contained any innuendo or infomation that could damage a person's reputation or call his/her character into question, the writer better damn sure have three or more verifiable sources to back it up. News magazines like 60 Minutes or commentary programs like O'Reilly, Hannity, Maddow, etc. are not necessarily expected to be unbiased or without expressed personal opinion. A straight news report however should be trustworthy to contain ALL of the who, what, where, when, why, and how that goes into any good news story and that should be presented with no discernable bias. It is THAT which I think Fox News does better than any other cable outlet. Of the networks, ABC news does a better job in keeping bias out of its straight news reports than does CBS, NBC, or PBS. In the opinion programming, Fox is definitely biased to the right. All the others to the left.

 

[MarcATL]

That is what you consider over the top??????? You wouldn't think it dictatorship if President Bush had announced that he didn't lie a law passed by Congress and refused to enforce it pending the appeal to a higher court? Really? PLEASE tell me you are not suggesting that a President, ANY President is not over the top when HE pronounces that a law, a law that passed both House and Senate by very large marjorities, is unconstitutional and therefore he won't enforce it?

Well I am definitely over the top then because I couldn't find a thing wrong with Monica's or Megyn Kelly's expressed opinion on that--she and Megyn are both lawyers and members of the bar--and in my opinion the President is constitutionally required to uphold the laws passed by the U.S. Congress. Otherwise it is a dictatorship and not a representative Republic. I wish she had chosen another adjective than "Mubarek"; however it was hardly insulting as the word means 'blessed'.

And the DOMA did NOT ban anybody from marrying anybody. All it did was provide those states that did not wish to recognize same sex marriage from another state the FREEDOM to to not recognize same sex marriage. It did not deny any state the right to pass legislation allowing same sex marriage. Freedom to not have to do something is sometimes just as important as the freedom to do something don't you think?

Then you must have screamed and crowed about Bush being a dictator when he did the same thing on numerous occasions.

And DoMA was not unconstitutional because it banned people from marrying, the federal government doesn't have the right to overrule the states on that in the first place.

No, it was unconstitutional because it specifically defied Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which clearly states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

The president swears an oath to defend the constitution on his very first day in office. Therefore, he cannot take an action that in his judgement specifically goes against that Constitution, and in this case several lower courts had already deemed the law unconstitutional.

Now, he didn't therefore go out and try to enforce the rights of gay married people in the states that didn't recognize it. THAT would be the act of a dictator.

Instead, he simply refused to enforce a law that would have a violation of his oath of office.

And you and I both know that she didn't mean "blessed", any more than a if she called Barney Frank "Gay", she would be referring as to how happy he was.

So, in summary, yes, her comment was WAY over the top. And she should have apologized for it.

POW!!!!!

​