Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something

[Avorysuds]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

Facts have no party bias. However, parties have their own facts. The biased in the party tend to believe them without rational critique.

Actually..that's correct.

Facts do have a liberal bias. It's not about party. It's about taking into account all sides of a story with some level of objectivity.

Cronkite pointed that out rather nicely.

And he was..and still is the gold standard in journalism.

Best part is where you just claimed "fact has a liberal bias" based off someone’s opinion... I mean, what else can be said to make you look more stupid?

 

[bripat9643]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

Idiocy has a liberal bias.

So you think the government should create a Ministry of Truth and arrest broadcasters who deviate from the official government position?

The sad fact is that only half the country would object. The other half would cheer it on. they're the same class of people who cheered for Adolph Hitler.

 

[rdean]

"From such an unimpeachable source, too!"

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something « Hot Air
...

A stupid idea from a very stupid and immoral man. Anybody who defends Bill Clinton needs to have their head examined.

Which moral standard are you going by to make such a claim?

If you are holding a standard of Bill Clinton vs. Conservative politicians..he holds up rather well with all but Eisenhower.

Eisenhower, the last Republican President who left office with a balanced budget. Promoted a 90% tax rate for the richest Americans. And it worked. No one can say it didn't. Not even the right wing fruit loons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

What would happen to your universe if this hypothetical agency certified Fox as truthful, fair, and balanced? Would that mean that you would be the half of the country that had a problem with it?

Well first it would take something in the measure of a 180 degree turn around for that to happen.

No one believes that. Even people working there.

Isn't that the point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A stupid idea from a very stupid and immoral man. Anybody who defends Bill Clinton needs to have their head examined.

Which moral standard are you going by to make such a claim?

If you are holding a standard of Bill Clinton vs. Conservative politicians..he holds up rather well with all but Eisenhower.

Eisenhower, the last Republican President who left office with a balanced budget. Promoted a 90% tax rate for the richest Americans. And it worked. No one can say it didn't. Not even the right wing fruit loons.

Eisenhower was the last president to have a balanced budget, period.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

This from a guy who tried to parse the meaning of "is."

the point of a ministry of truth is to have a bunch of Winston Smith types making sure the truth did not get out.

And was not about the blow job. Hillary didn't care. The issue was giving someone a payoff in order to have them lie before a jury in a civil rights case.

 

[California Girl]

It's really embarrassing to see Americans so stupid that they will defend an inveterate liar just because of the party that liar belongs to.

The vast majority of politicians are inveterate liars.... as are a few posters on this board.

 

[Ragnar]

It's really embarrassing to see Americans so stupid that they will defend an inveterate liar just because of the party that liar belongs to.

The vast majority of politicians are inveterate liars.... as are a few posters on this board.

True.

What is sad to me is that this goofy thought police idea is yet again an unwanted, unneeded and unasked for government program in search of a problem. Is there any aspect of our lives that liberals don't want to see hindered by a government program? Here are some words of wisdom the left should understand... "Let it be".

 

[code1211]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

What would happen to your universe if this hypothetical agency certified Fox as truthful, fair, and balanced? Would that mean that you would be the half of the country that had a problem with it?

Well first it would take something in the measure of a 180 degree turn around for that to happen.

No one believes that. Even people working there.

I have trouble watching any of the talking heads who are spreading the truth whether that head is Beck, Mahr or Overman.

Do you have a link or example of the news reporters of FOX News reoprting news that isn't true?

 

[code1211]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

Facts have no party bias. However, parties have their own facts. The biased in the party tend to believe them without rational critique.

Actually..that's correct.

Facts do have a liberal bias. It's not about party. It's about taking into account all sides of a story with some level of objectivity.

Cronkite pointed that out rather nicely.

And he was..and still is the gold standard in journalism.

He was, but in the full light of time, is no longer.

It is widely accepted that he ended the Viet Nam war by making an editorial comment during a news report. The Gold in the Standard tarnishes with this, does it not? News reporting and editorial comment are separate and very different components of journalism.

Subsequnt to his retirement, his views were shown to be very Liberal and of course this would filter his choices of what to report and what words and expressions to use when reporting. We know that he editorialized in his reporting from the Viet Nam comments. When else did a story get a different background than might have been justified by fact due to his bias?

All of that said, no human can be unbiased. That's the way we are built. Loyalty and suspiscion is a part of our DNA and they rise from our experience. It's the reason we don't run toward a roaring lion and why we don't believe everthing a salesman says and do respect our friends' opinions.

If you shun FOX news, as you apparently do, then you miss one entire side of many stories or at least the nuance that a different point of view might provide.

Hearing the same story reported on All Things Considered, The CBS Evening news and the Shephard Smith News Show are sometimes exactly the same and sometimes vastly different. Katrina was an example of both.

It's interesting. Not evil. Just interesting.

 

[code1211]

A stupid idea from a very stupid and immoral man. Anybody who defends Bill Clinton needs to have their head examined.

Which moral standard are you going by to make such a claim?

If you are holding a standard of Bill Clinton vs. Conservative politicians..he holds up rather well with all but Eisenhower.

Eisenhower, the last Republican President who left office with a balanced budget. Promoted a 90% tax rate for the richest Americans. And it worked. No one can say it didn't. Not even the right wing fruit loons.

You're right. We should always have Conservative presidents who balance the budget. Hows that Hope and Changey thing working for you?

 

[Sallow]

Facts have no party bias. However, parties have their own facts. The biased in the party tend to believe them without rational critique.

Actually..that's correct.

Facts do have a liberal bias. It's not about party. It's about taking into account all sides of a story with some level of objectivity.

Cronkite pointed that out rather nicely.

And he was..and still is the gold standard in journalism.

He was, but in the full light of time, is no longer.

It is widely accepted that he ended the Viet Nam war by making an editorial comment during a news report. The Gold in the Standard tarnishes with this, does it not? News reporting and editorial comment are separate and very different components of journalism.

Subsequnt to his retirement, his views were shown to be very Liberal and of course this would filter his choices of what to report and what words and expressions to use when reporting. We know that he editorialized in his reporting from the Viet Nam comments. When else did a story get a different background than might have been justified by fact due to his bias?

All of that said, no human can be unbiased. That's the way we are built. Loyalty and suspiscion is a part of our DNA and they rise from our experience. It's the reason we don't run toward a roaring lion and why we don't believe everthing a salesman says and do respect our friends' opinions.

If you shun FOX news, as you apparently do, then you miss one entire side of many stories or at least the nuance that a different point of view might provide.

Hearing the same story reported on All Things Considered, The CBS Evening news and the Shephard Smith News Show are sometimes exactly the same and sometimes vastly different. Katrina was an example of both.

It's interesting. Not evil. Just interesting.

Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace are exceptions at FOX. So was Major Garrett until he left. And yeah..it's very hard to watch FOX without wanting to throw a shoe at the tv.

And while it's difficult to be unbiased..it's also difficult for humans to do a great many things that humans do quite well. And these skills are acquired through experience and training. It no longer seems to be a requirement to be a trained journalist for many of these outlets.

And as to Cronkite, it was one broadcast that he editorialized..and it was breaking with character. And it didn't end the Vietnam war..but it broke Johnson...who chose not to run for re-election and died shortly after entering private life.

 

[Old Rocks]

Government should have no part of such a scheme. This is what we have journalists for. What government should have a part in is preventing six or seven corperations from controlling the news. We had laws preventing that at one time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which moral standard are you going by to make such a claim?

If you are holding a standard of Bill Clinton vs. Conservative politicians..he holds up rather well with all but Eisenhower.

Eisenhower, the last Republican President who left office with a balanced budget. Promoted a 90% tax rate for the richest Americans. And it worked. No one can say it didn't. Not even the right wing fruit loons.

You're right. We should always have Conservative presidents who balance the budget. Hows that Hope and Changey thing working for you?

I see. So Bill Clinton is now a Conservative President? Or are you stating that Bush 1, Bush 2, and Ronnie had balanced budgets?

Just what the hell are you stating here, Code?

How's the Hopey Changey thing working? Well, it is quite satisfying to have a President who was 'concerned' about Bin Laden. And the Health Care Bill will make it much easier for me to afford medical insurance for a much younger wife as I retire. Then there is the New GI Bill that you Conservatives would not support for our military. Two major disasters in less than a month, both being handled competantly and with cooperation at all levels of government. I would say that it is working out quite well.

 

[bripat9643]

Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace are exceptions at FOX. So was Major Garrett until he left. And yeah..it's very hard to watch FOX without wanting to throw a shoe at the tv.

And while it's difficult to be unbiased..it's also difficult for humans to do a great many things that humans do quite well. And these skills are acquired through experience and training. It no longer seems to be a requirement to be a trained journalist for many of these outlets.

"Trained journalist" must be a liberal euphemism meaning "thoroughly brainwashed Marxist propagandist." The idea that the "trained journalist" in the "mainstream" news outlets are not biased doesn't pass the laugh test.

And as to Cronkite, it was one broadcast that he editorialized..and it was breaking with character. And it didn't end the Vietnam war..but it broke Johnson...who chose not to run for re-election and died shortly after entering private life.

Bias doesn't require a journalist to editorialize. They demonstrate their bias daily simply by choosing to broadcast some news and not to broadcast other news. I love those "man in the street interviews" where "journalist" manage to find 9 people out of 10 who oppose some issue even though the polls show that 80% of the public supports it, or visa versa. There are 1000 ways to exhibit bias without editorializing.

 

[bripat9643]

In spite of everything, I'd love to have another 8 years with an explosively expanding economy, no foreign wars and reduced deficits.

If you can refer me to a place to get some good head examination, I will be pleased to get some good head examination.

Then you must want a Republican House and a Republican Senate.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, Brie, if they aren't Limpbaugh, they aren't journalists. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

In spite of everything, I'd love to have another 8 years with an explosively expanding economy, no foreign wars and reduced deficits.

If you can refer me to a place to get some good head examination, I will be pleased to get some good head examination.

Then you must want a Republican House and a Republican Senate.

Lordy, lordy, just look at the 'expanding economy' that we inherited from the GOP from 2001 to 2009. Yep, a Republican Executive, House, and Senate, and we will see the Second Great Republican Depression. They damn near managed it a couple of years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

Eisenhower, the last Republican President who left office with a balanced budget. Promoted a 90% tax rate for the richest Americans. And it worked. No one can say it didn't. Not even the right wing fruit loons.

If it worked so great, then why did the very next president lower tax rates?

 

[Sallow]

Eisenhower, the last Republican President who left office with a balanced budget. Promoted a 90% tax rate for the richest Americans. And it worked. No one can say it didn't. Not even the right wing fruit loons.

If it worked so great, then why did the very next president lower tax rates?

Politics.