Why is Foxnews considerd a news Station? [Archive]

NC MacGuy

Sep 26, 2009, 11:23 PM

If you ever watch the news part of their programming, it is fair and balanced.;) They are just telling you want you don't want to hear.

Some of the questions they raise should be thought about unless you are one of the sheep.

Brit Hume, Juan Williams and Chris Wallace (registered Dem.) are all well respected in their field. Again, if they're not saying what you want to hear and it's coming from somewhere you've been brainwashed to believe is evil, lying and untrustworthy, baaahhh, baaaahhh follow the man to the slaughterhouse.

Start thinking for yourself and not just parroting "faux news."

Beck and Hannity are different story and I can't handle them. They are purely for entertainment as is Limbaugh. O'Reilly I rather enjoy and he used to rip the previous admin. too but I'm sure you didn't here it. He has stuck up for the liberals in more than a few instances. He can get loud and shout over people sometimes but he does make some good points.

I particularly liked his Barney Frank interview. If you watched that and still think Barney Frank is worthy of his job, well follow blindly sheep. No right or wrong, just D or R. What's the use in debate or even elections, just count how many registered D/R's and that's your rep. Chris Dodd's another that needs to go.

Desertrat

Sep 26, 2009, 11:26 PM

Fox is just like CNN; Beck/O'Reilly = Larry King or that weird broad. They don't do news; they do opinion. Same for all the others. There is straight news of the who/where/when/what/how style, and then there is the editorializing which attempts to say why or tell us (ala Cokie Roberts), "But what does it mean?"

The Sunday Morning talking heads aren't news. They're editorializing or letting the people who are being interviewed put their own BS spin on events.

I generally skip the editorializing. It's mostly boring or so agenda driven that it's total blarney.

Trouble is, way too many of the straight-news reporters and reporterettes don't know much about the world in which we live. They don't know how things are grown or made or how cars work or have any manual-skill knowledge. Without a teleprompter they're dead meat.

Thee's a reason I coined the word "mediahcrities".

(Please understand that I regard Florence King as a very gentle soul.)

'Rat

ucfgrad93

Sep 27, 2009, 01:37 AM

Fox's ratings were tanking...

Source?

NC MacGuy

Sep 27, 2009, 02:57 AM

Source?

There is no source for that claim. "Tanking" is beyond an exaggeration. They increased viewers by 43% from '07-'08. Beck jumped from CNN to Fox on Jan. 19, 2009. Watching too much Olbermann?? Watching is okay, believing is another story. Baaahhh.

Cable News rankings 2007:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/93247-Fox_News_Channel_Leads_in_2007_Cable_News_Ratings.php

Fox News Channel once again ended the year as cable’s top news network, followed by CNN, with few radical ratings dips or surges for either network. But among the channels with smaller audience totals -- MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News -- 2007 was a year of growth.

For the year in primetime, Fox News was the No. 6-ranked cable channel behind USA Network, TNT, ESPN, TBS and Lifetime Television. That’s two notches higher than its ranking last year. CNN, its closest news competitor, was No. 26, down one.

Cable News rankings 2008:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/161084-Fox_News_Tops_Banner_Year_for_Cable_News.php

In primetime, Fox News was up 41% in total viewers, averaging just over 2 million viewers. In news’ target demographic of 25- to 54-year-olds, the network averaged 502,000 viewers, a gain of 43%.

Fox News will finish the year as the most-watched cable news network—for the seventh consecutive year. The network is the No. 3 ranked basic-cable network in primetime, behind USA and ESPN. CNN is ranked 10th and MSNBC is ranked 22nd.

Cable News rankings 2009 through August '09:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/277946-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Channel_Still_On_Top.php

Sep 2, 2009
In August, FOXNews was again in the top three for primetime in all of
cable, which is seven of eight months this year.
FOXNews was also in the top five in total day.
=============================
Net / Daytime / Primetime
-------------------------------
FOXNews / 5th / 3rd
CNN / 20th / 22nd
MSNBC / 28th / 25th
=============================
FOXNews had the top 11 programs in cable news for Total Viewers in
August and 9 of the top 10 in the A25-54 demo ("The O'Reilly Factor,"
"Hannity," and "Glenn Beck" leading the way in both, respectively).
MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" came in #12 in Total Viewers
(#9 in demo) and "Rachel Maddow" came in #16 (#11 demo).
CNN's "Larry King Live" ranked #13 in Total Viewers and #13 in the
demo.
FOXNews' strong showing in the demo helped make August their best
month in primetime demo for 2009.

.Andy

Sep 27, 2009, 03:41 AM

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/434/foxnews152b.jpg (http://img523.imageshack.us/i/foxnews152b.jpg/)
It's obligatory.

callmemike20

Sep 27, 2009, 04:04 AM

There is no source for that claim. "Tanking" is beyond an exaggeration. They increased viewers by 43% from '07-'08. Beck jumped from CNN to Fox on Jan. 19, 2009. Watching too much Olbermann?? Watching is okay, believing is another story. Baaahhh.

Cable News rankings 2007:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/93247-Fox_News_Channel_Leads_in_2007_Cable_News_Ratings.php

Cable News rankings 2008:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/161084-Fox_News_Tops_Banner_Year_for_Cable_News.php

Cable News rankings 2009 through August '09:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/277946-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Channel_Still_On_Top.php

Lol. I was looking up these stats but then I scrolled down and saw that you posted them already. Thanks for saving me time. But anyway, Fox News was never tanking. I didn't understand where that guy got it from either.

sushi

Sep 27, 2009, 04:16 AM

It amazes me how the liberals on this board seem to hate Fox and bash it every time they can.

Hey, we live in a free society. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. :)

.Andy

Sep 27, 2009, 04:21 AM

It amazes me how the liberals on this board seem to hate Fox and bash it every time they can.
You don't have to be a liberal to dislike the low quality, culture wars, race to the bottom infotainment that passes as fox news. Nor are you obliged to support the channel because you self-identify with the right.

Eraserhead

Sep 27, 2009, 06:13 AM

Thomas Veil

Sep 27, 2009, 07:43 AM

If an enemy of the United States wanted to conquer us by subversion rather than violence, they couldn't do a much better job than Fox "News" is doing now.

Fox lies and distorts and calls it "news"; uninformed Americans take that political propaganda as gospel; and pretty soon we're no longer having conversations about real issues, we're having screaming matches about insanity like death panels, birth certificates and "socialism".

Much-maligned as both Congress and the voters are, it's a wonder either of them can still function at all with Fox continually brainwashing the public.

That's why Fox enjoying good ratings should scare the hell out of any rational American. If the Soviet-era Pravda were the leading news source in the United States, the right wing kooks would be livid. They would be up in arms. But the right wing version of Pravda, they've got no problem with that.

sushi

Sep 27, 2009, 09:56 AM

If an enemy of the United States wanted to conquer us by subversion rather than violence, they couldn't do a much better job than Fox "News" is doing now. <snip>
Snort. :D

No one requires you or anybody else to watch Fox news, or any other channel for that matter. Let's see, propaganda through choice. Now I've heard everything.

Every news channel has its own slant. We all have a choice in what we watch. Pick a channel that you like an ignore the rest. Simple. :)

Eraserhead

Sep 27, 2009, 10:10 AM

Snort. :D

Thomas' damn right. That Fox News defines the debate on things like healthcare to completely crazy positions is hurting the US hugely. Look at the crazy town hall meetings for a start.

Every news channel has its own slant. We all have a choice in what we watch. Pick a channel that you like an ignore the rest. Simple. :)

And then if you pick Fox News, then you're being lied to constantly about the world so you won't understand how it really works.

No one requires you or anybody else to watch Fox news, or any other channel for that matter. Let's see, propaganda through choice. Now I've heard everything.

Noone forced people to watch Hitler's speeches or almost any other dictator, they still had an effect.

rdowns

Sep 27, 2009, 10:15 AM

Thomas' damn right. That Fox News defines the debate on things like healthcare to completely crazy positions is hurting the US hugely. Look at the crazy town hall meetings for a start.

CNN and MSNBC could frame an intelligent debate but they don't. They give ever increasing airtime to the crazies.

It's about ratings, not the news.

NC MacGuy

Sep 27, 2009, 10:29 AM

Is any "news" organization unbiased these days? They're shows. They need ratings. I balance my all day at work NPR and my CNN with a little Fox. It's interesting to hear another point of view.

Since the promise of transparency vanished among others, I like someone rooting around digging up dirt that the others turn a blind eye to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-4qEz1vea0
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

Why do the others not ask any questions and follow blindly? If they reported anything substantial instead of what's metered out and handed to them, Fox wouldn't be where it is and all scary. I think that Acorn, Van Jones, Humana hushing, Rev. Wright among others are stories I'd love to hear from others but Fox news. They are stories and newsworthy but others won't mention them. Frankly I find any "news" organization not wanting to dig and question everything not a news organization. Just get rid of them and I'll watch Gibbs' blurb everyday and read the statements, since it's all they parrot.

If the govt. had it's way, I'd be getting my news from the Letterman show.:rolleyes: Oh, isn't that how our current president got elected? He certainly was one of the least qualified but the mainstream media loved him.

Transparency my ass:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/yet_more_obama_secrecy_wont_release_info_on_visits.php

Eraserhead

Sep 27, 2009, 10:34 AM

Is any "news" organization unbiased these days?

Of course not, the only certainty is that no source is ever unbiased.

Just some sources, are better than others.

NC MacGuy

Sep 27, 2009, 11:06 AM

Of course not, the only certainty is that no source is ever unbiased.

Just some sources, are better than others.

And there's the rub. If more sources don't start balancing their output, Fox will continue to capitalize.

Any sane person should know enough to take a sampling from multiple sources from both sides of the spectrum before forming an opinion - I hope.:rolleyes:

You also must realize that our last presidential election was a media job. The left motivated the idiots walking around now with "My Presidents Black" shirts who don't know who our Secretary of State is let alone their states capital. Bush didn't help matters either but IMO Clinton & Romney were the two best main party candidates.

Fox is a tool to motivate the narrow minded right wingers to try and regain control from the left. Hannity & Beck whip people up and stay successful by mixing in enough truth to be plausible to the feeble. The lefts tools worked last election and we'll see what happens next year.

Thomas Veil

Sep 27, 2009, 11:31 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: CNN was best in its early days, when it was little more than a "rip and read" organization. It was pretty much simply rewriting AP stories and reading them on air, but we got real news. Now too much of it is frivolous junk. "Headline News" in the evenings is a joke.

MSNBC is a curious entity. Their TV network has obviously has taken a liberal tack, but unlike Fox, it's an economic, not a political, decision. They know they can make money being the anti-Fox. Their website, OTOH, is more news oriented (though they don't hesitate to promote their own shows).

And yeah, whether people are forced to watch Fox or they just choose to, it has a seriously detrimental effect. How many times do we need to see those polls showing that Fox viewers are far more ignorant and misinformed than CNN & MSNBC viewers? Rupert must be so proud.

NC MacGuy

Sep 27, 2009, 12:31 PM

Speaking of news, I get a healthy portion of commentary here too:
http://fatchance.org/travus/

Eraserhead

Sep 27, 2009, 12:33 PM

Any sane person should know enough to take a sampling from multiple sources from both sides of the spectrum before forming an opinion - I hope.:rolleyes:

So something right wing like the Economist*, something centrist like the BBC, and something left wing like the Guardian? Sounds good.

You also must realize that our last presidential election was a media job.

What, just like the previous one?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: CNN was best in its early days, when it was little more than a "rip and read" organization. It was pretty much simply rewriting AP stories and reading them on air, but we got real news. Now too much of it is frivolous junk. "Headline News" in the evenings is a joke.

True, often the same can be said for the BBC.

And yeah, whether people are forced to watch Fox or they just choose to, it has a seriously detrimental effect. How many times do we need to see those polls showing that Fox viewers are far more ignorant and misinformed than CNN & MSNBC viewers? Rupert must be so proud.

+1

Wrt to Fox, where's their coverage of climate change? What's that like? Because that seems like a damn big issue, probably the most important one we face right now.

For example, take the speech by the Chinese President (CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/22/un.china.climate/index.html), BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8268077.stm), Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14505451)), I can't see anything on Foxes website about that...

EDIT: * = I should point out that on social issue the Economist is pretty damn liberal.

Peterkro

Sep 27, 2009, 01:54 PM

True, often the same can be said for the BBC.

While the BBC uses stories direct from the wire services like all other news organisations, with as far as I can figure around 12,000 journalists (without counting freelances) I,m thinking that they do it a lot less than the other sources.

AP_piano295

Sep 27, 2009, 02:21 PM

So something right wing like the Economist*, something centrist like the BBC, and something left wing like the Guardian? Sounds good.
[/I]

The difference is that those are all European (British?) publications.

In my experience European discourse usually occurs between two or more basically reasonable parties. As a result while a liberal media source and a conservative source (in Europe) might put a slightly differenct spin on the same story, both arguements will probably be based in fact and reason and each sides concerns will be basically legitimate.

In this case Fox News has utterly abandoned the field of news production and instead they have entered whole heartedly into the entertainment buisness, and in the case of certain announcers the buisness of influencing real politics.

Fox is simply not a legitimate source any more (if they ever were one) while they dont ALWAYS lie about EVERYTHING they have thouroughly discredited themselves through their constant sensationalism, their consious effort to dismantle our national discourse, and the outright and blatant lies that they gleefully propigate.

Eraserhead

Sep 27, 2009, 02:31 PM

The difference is that those are all European (British?) publications.

Yeah, all British, so its not perfect.

In my experience European discourse usually occurs between two or more basically reasonable parties. As a result while a liberal media source and a conservative source (in Europe) might put a slightly differenct spin on the same story, both arguements will probably be based in fact and reason and each sides concerns will be basically legitimate.

Well we do have things like the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html), but noone takes them seriously, or would intentionally use them as a serious source. They are better than Fox though.

In this case Fox News has utterly abandoned the field of news production and instead they have entered whole heartedly into the entertainment buisness, and in the case of certain announcers the buisness of influencing real politics.

Fox is simply not a legitimate source any more (if they ever were one) while they dont ALWAYS lie about EVERYTHING they have thouroughly discredited themselves through their constant sensationalism, their consious effort to dismantle our national discourse, and the outright and blatant lies that they gleefully propigate.

Exactly.

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 02:53 PM

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/434/foxnews152b.jpg (http://img523.imageshack.us/i/foxnews152b.jpg/)
It's obligatory.

They're 100% loaded questions are the things that bug me the most, just like their captions.

bobber205

Sep 27, 2009, 03:05 PM

They're 100% loaded questions are the things that bug me the most, just like their captions.

All their female anchors all are super blonde. xD

Thomas Veil

Sep 27, 2009, 05:09 PM

I actually found a better representation of Fox's ratings.

This is prime time for the week of Sept. 14-20:

Fox "News": 2,606,000
Cartoon Network: 1,552,000
Syfy: 1,302,000

As you can see, Fox does indeed win handily over its two closest competitors.

Eraserhead

Sep 27, 2009, 05:16 PM

They beat their biggest rival online too.

196425 196426

(source (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/foxnews.com))

electroshock

Sep 27, 2009, 05:18 PM

Since Glen beck has been going more and more Crazy as the day goes by why is foxnews really Considered a news Channel I see the Schedule there is really only a period of time to the day till I think 3EST? that's actually news than they have Radioshow/talkshow host the rest of the day. At least with Cnn/msnbc they actaully report news most of the whole enitre day as well of ther over biased to Im really surprised that they are able to keep the "news title in there name.

Hmm, well, different TV channels caters to different audiences. Fox News reaches a sizeable segment of the population that prefers news with a particular viewpoint. Those that do not prefer Fox News are not obligated nor required to watch them, so I think it works out nicely for all.

Can't say I'm that fond of Fox, but they do have some fairly entertaining media options ranging from sports to cartoons and prime time TV shows to political entertainers. Something for everybody, essentially.

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 06:32 PM

All their female anchors all are super blonde. xD

Oh yea, thats something else ive noticed, I think they try to capture channel flippers with their shockingly good looking female anchors.

bobber205

Sep 27, 2009, 06:48 PM

Any station is says ad nauseam "Fair and Balanced" can't really be that way. What are they trying to prove? It's like when Mccain kept claiming he was a "maverick". Those are both titles that only others can bestow upon you.

Pocket lint

Sep 27, 2009, 06:49 PM

Oh yea, thats something else ive noticed, I think they try to capture channel flippers with their shockingly good looking female anchors.

I think he meant a bit more than the colour of their hair and their looks, to be honest. :p

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 06:51 PM

I think he meant a bit more than the colour of their hair and their looks, to be honest. :p
We all know if they were brighter than a 15W lightbulb they wouldn't be on that network if they expected their new careers to go anywhere, or to be respected in the field at all.

Pocket lint

Sep 27, 2009, 06:57 PM

We all know if they were brighter than a 15W lightbulb they wouldn't be on that network if they expected their new careers to go anywhere, or to be respected in the field at all.

True.

I wonder how the interview for such a job goes, assuming you're a woman.

I mean, it's obvious how such a thing would go for a man: Old, raving lunatics who has already made their mark as fringe extremists or who shows promise in that direction, will obviously be a frontrunner for the job. But with women? Do they have a questionnaire or a psychological profile they're looking for?

Or perhaps they're headhunted for a job there?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 27, 2009, 07:39 PM

Wrt to Fox, where's their coverage of climate change? What's that like? Because that seems like a damn big issue, probably the most important one we face right now.

EDIT: * = I should point out that on social issue the Economist is pretty damn liberal.

Climate "change" (previously known as global warming) is a moving target, it could be global warming, global cooling or global freezing next year for all we know. In fact I suspect we are going to see another drop in global temps this year.

I want 2 things:

a) a formula describing x amount of carbon release by humans = y amount of global warming (it is a greenhouse gas after all)

b) if our globe starts cooling are we going to ramp up carbon release since it is indeed a greenhouse gas that we can contribute to on a productive scale. Perhaps give tax incentives to companies who can release the most carbon.

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 08:02 PM

Climate "change" (previously known as global warming) is a moving target, it could be global warming, global cooling or global freezing next year for all we know. In fact I suspect we are going to see another drop in global temps this year.

I

That is entirely the media's fault for latching onto a catchphrase buzzword and making it seem like it is the correct term. Anyone that actually knows anything about the subject is aware the correct term has always been Global climate shift/change.

Thats part of the problem and why you get morons like that senator that noted the above average snowfall in his area as absolute proof that climate change was a sham.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 27, 2009, 08:08 PM

That is entirely the media's fault for latching onto a catchphrase buzzword and making it seem like it is the correct term. Anyone that actually knows anything about the subject is aware the correct term has always been Global climate shift/change.

Thats part of the problem and why you get morons like that senator that noted the above average snowfall in his area as absolute proof that climate change was a sham.

damn media....

Global warming is too serious for the world any longer to ignore its danger or split into opposing factions on it.

TONY BLAIR, speech, Sept. 27, 2005

People tend to focus on the here and now. The problem is that, once global warming is something that most people can feel in the course of their daily lives, it will be too late to prevent much larger, potentially catastrophic changes.

ELIZABETH KOLBERT, The New Yorker, Apr. 25, 2005

Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.

GEORGE W. BUSH, presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000

Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.

AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005

Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.

MARTIN KEELEY, BBC News, Dec. 6, 2004

I don't mean to imply that we are in imminent danger of being wiped off the face of the earth - at least, not on account of global warming. But climate change does confront us with profound new realities. We face these new realities as a nation, as members of the world community, as consumers, as producers, and as investors. And unless we do a better job of adjusting to these new realities, we will pay a heavy price. We may not suffer the fate of the dinosaurs. But there will be a toll on our environment and on our economy, and the toll will rise higher with each new generation.

EILEEN CLAUSSEN, speech, July 17, 2002

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.

JAMES M. INHOFE, speech in U.S. Senate, July 28, 2003

As best as can be determined, the world is now warmer than it has been at any point in the last two millennia, and, if current trends continue, by the end of the century it will likely be hotter than at any point in the last two million years.

ELIZABETH KOLBERT, The New Yorker, Apr. 25, 2005

Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.

WILLIAM GRAY, interview, Sept. 12, 2005

Yes, there is still much about global warming we have to learn and research should continue. But the longer we delay, the more CO2 will build up in the atmosphere. It stays there a long time. If we wait too long before acting, we will pass a point of no return and lock ourselves into centuries of global warming. We could pass one of those dangerous tipping points that could make life very difficult. It's a risk we shouldn't take.

JIM DIPESO, speech, May 1, 2003

Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare vision -- is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.

DAVID BELLAMY, Daily Mail, July 9, 2004

The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences.

AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005

The good news is we know what to do. The good news is, we have everything we need now to respond to the challenge of global warming. We have all the technologies we need, more are being developed, and as they become available and become more affordable when produced in scale, they will make it easier to respond. But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait.

There are about 50 others but I think we get the point. It became convenient to name it climate change after data was revealed that the world temps had dropped for the year.

sushi

Sep 27, 2009, 08:13 PM

It's about ratings, not the news.
Exactly. All the networks do it.

And then if you pick Fox News, then you're being lied to constantly about the world so you won't understand how it really works.
So the news is okay as long as it agrees with your view point?

Anyhow, having lived around the world in many countries, I have a fairly decent view of the world. I get my news from many sources to balance things out a bit.

Transparency my ass:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/yet_more_obama_secrecy_wont_release_info_on_visits.php
Funny isn't it. Where is the big uproar by the liberals?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: CNN was best in its early days, when it was little more than a "rip and read" organization.
Completely agree with you. CNN was awesome back then. Just the facts as they came in.

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 08:16 PM

damn media....

You missed the entire point of my post. People hear the buzzwords and thats what the public expects now, and they take them literally without actually doing any of their own research. Does it really surprise you that officials don't get the terminology right? :rolleyes:

Zombie Acorn

Sep 27, 2009, 08:17 PM

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 08:19 PM

Fox news during the daytime (unless they have changed recently as I haven't watched for a few months) tends to have all of the main stories and also gets more politicians to speak on the show. After 4 (glen beck) the show becomes a shitfest.

Yes, they do have a good amount of newscasts but the unbeleiveably loaded questions and captions show fox for exactly what they are.

If you want an example check out the montage picture in the beginning of the thread. Ridiculous statements phrased as questions to seem like they are somehow impartial. What kind of question is "Universal Healthcare breeding ground for terrorism?".

Zombie Acorn

Sep 27, 2009, 08:20 PM

You missed the entire point of my post. People hear the buzzwords and thats what the public expects now, and they take them literally without actually doing any of their own research. Does it really surprise you that officials don't get the terminology right? :rolleyes:

We gave Al Gore a nobel prize, he used the same terminology as the media does until it wasn't convenient to the agenda. I think what the public wants is a water tight formula showing how much of our contributions actually bring on "climate change" (or whatever you want to call it). Either that or get it written into the bible.

Fox does have ridiculous questions some time, but they arent the only news channel. Change to another one if you don't like it.

Iscariot

Sep 27, 2009, 08:31 PM

Beck is not a news man, neither is Olberman. So going by those standards MSNBC is not a news station either.
Fox is just like CNN; Beck/O'Reilly = Larry King or that weird broad.
CNN and MSNBC could frame an intelligent debate but they don't. They give ever increasing airtime to the crazies.

So the defense from the more right-leaning members here is nothing more than a tu quoque fallacy?
sheep. baaahhh, baaaahhh Baaahhh.

Wow, the level of intelligence and decorum in your arguments is staggering.

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 08:32 PM

Pocket lint

Sep 27, 2009, 08:42 PM

We gave Al Gore a nobel prize, he used the same terminology as the media does until it wasn't convenient to the agenda. I think what the public wants is a water tight formula showing how much of our contributions actually bring on "climate change" (or whatever you want to call it). Either that or get it written into the bible.
Why would people want a water proof formula before acknowledging there is a problem?

Do people request a one-liner formula for the problems in Israel/Palæstina, or a smack right on the number on how many jews were killed during WW2? Or a single line of text to describe how Hitler, Mussolini or Mao did it, for that matter.
Asking to get a water proof formula for very complex things seems to me to be nothing more than a rewrit of "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you".

Fox does have ridiculous questions some time, but they arent the only news channel. Change to another one if you don't like it.

Just because other's do the same sort of thing, doesn't mean it's okay, nor does it mean that there aren't degrees as to the extent the media get things wrong. The intent is important as well. There will always be flaws and errors when reporting, but that doesn't mean the media in question should then ignore fact checking all together. Or go to court to be able to lie and cheat as they see fit.

Fox news has basically abandoned every rule of thumb in journalism from where I'm standing.

It's like someone saying "Well, it's unavoidable to break the law once in a while, even if one tries to avoid breaking the laws. Because of this, I have set out to break each and every law there is out there. I mean, everyone breaks the law once in a while, right?".

sushi

Sep 27, 2009, 08:53 PM

Why would people want a water proof formula before acknowledging there is a problem?
Maybe because not that long ago, we were being warned of global cooling. A new ice age was coming.

If you are interested, look back in the 70's for articles.

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 08:57 PM

Maybe because not that long ago, we were being warned of global cooling. A new ice age was coming.

If you are interested, look back in the 70's for articles.

Doesn't it all come back to our impact on the planet?? Why can no one look past the damn terminology to get to the point? Its like weve been trained as a society to care more about the buzzwords than the significance of them.

Pocket lint

Sep 27, 2009, 08:59 PM

Maybe because not that long ago, we were being warned of global cooling. A new ice age was coming.

If you are interested, look back in the 70's for articles.

Hmm, that does in no way answer my question. The thing is, it can go both ways. We don't know where/when the "switch" is for, say, the gulf stream. It has slowed down in recent years, just as an example.

I find it paradoxical, ironic even, that on one hand, some people berate the improper use of terms, or even the outlook (timespan), yet the very same people demand the exact same sort of black/white guess. They want a oneliner, just like the oneliner they got in the 70's, in the 80's, in the 90's and in the 00's. Do they not see the irony here?

Just a heads-up, no matter what people read in the papers, the web or whatnot, science does not work with absolutes. I was amazed when the climate panel agreed to go out with "we're 90 percent sure", and then upscaled it to "95 percent" a week or so later.

sushi

Sep 27, 2009, 09:02 PM

Doesn't it all come back to our impact on the planet?? Why can no one look past the damn terminology to get to the point? Its like weve been trained as a society to care more about the buzzwords than the significance of them.
Maybe because some of us have lived through so many "buzzword" eras, that we are skeptical. Age can taint a person and their views. ;)

I would venture to say that the majority are interested in taking care of planet Earth. Just like a majority want good quality healthcare at reasonable prices.

The 64 dollar question, is how do we get there. There are varying views on that topic. That much is certain.

freeny

Sep 27, 2009, 09:02 PM

Unfortunately there is a massive chunk of the US population that takes everything FOX says as gospel.

Iscariot

Sep 27, 2009, 09:03 PM

Maybe because not that long ago, we were being warned of global cooling. A new ice age was coming.

If you are interested, look back in the 70's for articles.

There's no intellectually honest comparison of the two issues.
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 09:17 PM

The 64 dollar question, is how do we get there. There are varying views on that topic. That much is certain.

I think we can all agree that lowering our impact on the earth, as in embracing bio-engineering, is a great first step.

bobber205

Sep 27, 2009, 09:48 PM

What's the worst outcome if global warming isn't real and we reduce our carbon emissions for nothing? There's no downside.

Rt&Dzine

Sep 27, 2009, 09:53 PM

Can't say I'm that fond of Fox, but they do have some fairly entertaining media options ranging from sports to cartoons and prime time TV shows to political entertainers. Something for everybody, essentially.

FYI: Fox News and the Fox network have the same ownership, but Fox News is somewhat autonomous from the Fox network.

NT1440

Sep 27, 2009, 10:08 PM

What's the worst outcome if global warming isn't real and we reduce our carbon emissions for nothing? There's no downside.

B-b-b-but we'd have to change :eek:

Pocket lint

Sep 27, 2009, 10:10 PM

B-b-b-but we'd have to change :eek:

Socialist!

Edit:
Eh, just to be sure, noone thinks I meant that:

;)

Eraserhead

Sep 27, 2009, 10:55 PM

Climate "change" (previously known as global warming) is a moving target, it could be global warming, global cooling or global freezing next year for all we know.

I don't care what name you give it, it is happening.

EDIT: more embarrassing is the country taking the lead on the issue (source (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14506350)):

China, while resisting such targets, may have done more to curb emissions growth than any other country in recent years.

Exactly. All the networks do it.

There are degrees...

So the news is okay as long as it agrees with your view point?

I don't really call calling a republican a democrat and vice versa when it suits you a "view point". Neither is claiming the NHS is a breeding ground for terrorists.

hulugu

Sep 28, 2009, 12:11 AM

You don't have to be a liberal to dislike the low quality, culture wars, race to the bottom infotainment that passes as fox news. Nor are you obliged to support the channel because you self-identify with the right.

I agree.

It amazes me how the liberals on this board seem to hate Fox and bash it every time they can.

Hey, we live in a free society. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. :)

I'm a little tired of the daily PRSI story about the Fuzzy Onion, but the channel deserves it's criticism. I find Fox's abject seizure of the term "journalism" to be offensive to my profession, but I also agree that one of the best things to do about Fox is for people to stop watching the channel and it's bloviating hosts.

Is any "news" organization unbiased these days? They're shows. They need ratings. I balance my all day at work NPR and my CNN with a little Fox. It's interesting to hear another point of view....

I agree. I think it's good to have a balanced diet of news, but I think Fox News might be the cotton candy of news and I'm just not sure where that goes in the food pyramid. Fox News is junk-food for the brain, but the also-rans at MSNBC or The Twitter Network (CNN) aren't much better.

There's no intellectually honest comparison of the two issues.

Thank you. I think there's a dramatic misunderstanding about where the idea of "global cooling" came from and how important is was in relation to "global warming."

Also, while climate scientists and others have used "global warming" as a shorthand, it's not as descriptive as some would like. The term really should be Anthropogenic Climate Change, but that doesn't roll of the tongue and in many cases various figures have used global warming as a descriptive term.

It's roughly equivalent to DNA being used as a replacement for deoxyribonucleic acid. Or, flat screen as a term for liquid crystal display.

(Maybe someone can come up with a better example.)

Could climate scientists be wrong? Sure, but scientists could also be wrong about many of the things we take for granted based on current models. We still don't entirely understand how gravity works, but that doesn't stop us from using elevators because we can't come up with an exact model of how it works.

Counterfit

Sep 28, 2009, 12:44 AM

I think what the public wants is a water tight formula showing how much of our contributions actually bring on "climate change"

Such a thing doesn't exist. There are FAR too many variables involved in the climate, and many that we don't yet understand.

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 12:49 AM

Climate "change" (previously known as global warming) is a moving target, it could be global warming, global cooling or global freezing next year for all we know. In fact I suspect we are going to see another drop in global temps this year.

Maybe because not that long ago, we were being warned of global cooling. A new ice age was coming.

If you are interested, look back in the 70's for articles.

Fox News science education in action right here.

hulugu

Sep 28, 2009, 01:09 AM

Fox News science education in action right here.

It's the rough equivalent of people arguing that astronomers shouldn't be trusted because they once thought space was filled with ether.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 01:25 AM

Why would people want a water proof formula before acknowledging there is a problem?

Do people request a one-liner formula for the problems in Israel/Palæstina, or a smack right on the number on how many jews were killed during WW2? Or a single line of text to describe how Hitler, Mussolini or Mao did it, for that matter.
Asking to get a water proof formula for very complex things seems to me to be nothing more than a rewrit of "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you".

Data cannot be formulated for people's actions. We can only make educated guesses. When climate is involved if we have an impact on the entity we should be able to come up with quantifiable evidence to show how much it is. X pollution produced Y global warming. This isn't a "God isn't real, prove he is" deal, this is asking for hard evidence to substantiate a claim.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 01:27 AM

Fox News science education in action right here.

That's not helpful. If humans are contributing to global warming to a point that our earth is heating up, we should be able to formulate how much pollution is "acceptable". How can you set a target if you aren't even sure how much human contributions are adding the problem? You can't.

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 01:29 AM

It's the rough equivalent of people arguing that astronomers shouldn't be trusted because they once thought space was filled with ether.
Only if scientists never thought that space was filled with ether!

The global cooling claim as has been pointed out already is bunk. It's FUD that is spread for no other reason but to cast doubt on science. There never was a mainstream scientific consensus that we were heading into an ice age. You can tell how weak the argument is as individuals that spout it don't reference it, instead they vaguely implore you to "look in the 70's".

And the claim that global warming morphed into climate change when convenient shows complete ignorance of the science. The overall global trend of the earth's temperatures is warming. Therefore global[i] warming. This has never changed. But as this happens, weather systems and ocean currents change resulting in both [i]local rises and falls in temperature. They all contribute to climate change.

The further argument that year to year the earth's climate might get warmer
or cooler is again a completely ignorant claim. There wouldn't be a single scientist that would disagree that short-term changes in the climate might be up or down. It is the overall long-term trend and the rate of change that is worrying. A short term change year over year means naught. In the short-term scientists have long known about events such as El Nino and La Nina which can cause wildly fluctuating average global temperatures.

I know these links will fall on deaf ears by people motivated by politics, but I'll post them anyway.

A good basic introduction to climate change by Oxford University
http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html

Nasa's Climate change basics;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/global_warming_update3.php

The IPCC Facts
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html

And wikipedia has a reasonable summary of the IPCC reports (but no substitution for reading the reports themselves).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

sushi

Sep 28, 2009, 01:36 AM

Fox News science education in action right here.
You might want to take a look in a mirror. :D

You make many assumptions about others.

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 01:37 AM

That's not helpful. If humans are contributing to global warming to a point that our earth is heating up, we should be able to formulate how much pollution is "acceptable". How can you set a target if you aren't even sure how much human contributions are adding the problem? You can't.
You obviously haven't read the 4th IPCC report. Here's the executive summary (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf). Well worth a read and answers the questions you are asking based on the scientific evidence.

I'll even cut a graph out for you.
http://i33.tinypic.com/34yxr45.png
Orange is with yr 200 levels maintained. Red is 1250ppm. Less than yr 2000 is the best course of action.

You might want to take a look in a mirror. :D

You make many assumptions about others.
I eagerly await your posting of scientific articles from the 70s on global cooling and a new ice-age.

callmemike20

Sep 28, 2009, 01:52 AM

I don't get this whole "save the planet thing". It's here for us to utilize. The earth is a resource, and when it depletes, we go somewhere else. Mars, and now also the Moon, have water that we can find a way to utilize and bring life to those planets. If you really think that we are going to be on earth forever, think again. Even while lowering our emissions, the earth will eventually be unable to support humans, whether is not enough resources or overpopulation. What America needs to do is start building on the moon and then mars before any other country. Now that will put us ahead, not this protecting the planet stuff.

Oh..and so what if the climate changes? So the sea levels rise, populations have to relocate, its not like it has never happened before. Oh, and maybe a few animals become extinct. Eventually, no one will care, and the fittest will survive. I mean, seriously, look at the dinosaurs. They are gone, but we aren't crying about it.

While I say this semi-jokingly, I still think we should make space our top priority.

hulugu

Sep 28, 2009, 02:06 AM

Only if scientists never thought that space was filled with ether!

The global cooling claim as has been pointed out already is bunk. It's FUD that is spread for no other reason but to cast doubt on science. There never was a mainstream scientific consensus that we were heading into an ice age. You can tell how weak the argument is as individuals that spout it don't reference it, instead they vaguely implore you to "look in the 70's"....

Oh, I agree, I was just pointing out that not only was the global cooling claim bunk, but even if it were true, it's still an illogical proposition that completely misrepresents how science is supposed to work.

Also, here's a link (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm).

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

I don't get this whole "save the planet thing". It's here for us to utilize. The earth is a resource, and when it depletes, we go somewhere else. Mars, and now also the Moon, have water that we can find a way to utilize and bring life to those planets. If you really think that we are going to be on earth forever, think again. Even while lowering our emissions, the earth will eventually be unable to support humans, whether is not enough resources or overpopulation. What America needs to do is start building on the moon and then mars before any other country. Now that will put us ahead, not this protecting the planet stuff.

Well, there's a number of very difficult problems to be solved, including:

1) Lifting enough equipment and people to make this possible. Current technology is extremely expensive, fragile and prone to failure.
2) Radiation. Outside of the Van Allen belts, the radiation from the Sun may make Moon and Martian colonies nearly impossible. Both can be solved by burying the colonies deep underground, but then you need the technology to recycle/reuse everything in the most efficient manner possible.
3) Terraforming. It's been theorized—I'm a big fan of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy—but we don't really know how to do it.

No, a serious ecological effort would allow for parallel solutions to 2 and 3 and also give us the time necessary to seriously explore space. Right now, we don't have the lift-capability, we don't know how to build a colony really, and we don't know how to solve all the problems of terraforming.

Oh..and so what if the climate changes? So the sea levels rise, populations have to relocate, its not like it has never happened before. Oh, and maybe a few animals become extinct. Eventually, no one will care, and the fittest will survive. I mean, seriously, look at the dinosaurs. They are gone, but we aren't crying about it.

While I say this semi-jokingly, I still think we should make space our top priority.

Well, I'd admit that protecting the polar bear might be nostalgic, but as a Pentagon report (http://www.gbn.com/consulting/article_details.php?id=53) clearly outlined, any significant change in the current climate could have disastrous effects throughout the world. If sea-levels rise, millions of people will migrant inland, creating new pressures. If the rain stops falling in Colorado, Las Vegas and the Imperial Valley (not to mention Phoenix and Los Angeles) will have to be abandoned for lack of water. In other countries, a significant failure in the water-supply would mean bushfire wars and massive starvation.

It matters. And it matters now.

sushi

Sep 28, 2009, 02:29 AM

I eagerly await your posting of scientific articles from the 70s on global cooling and a new ice-age.
You missed my whole point. FYI, I am not a Fox News watcher. Yet, you put me in that group.

Anyhow, I lived through the predictions of an ice age in the 70's. I remember vividly the articles and news sources informing us of global cooling. I remember the cover on Time. Luckily, older friends and parents of the WWI/WWII era were skeptical and told me not to worry. And they were right.

One area of issue with the Global Warming/Climate Change is the data. IMHO, most of the data is suspect. Please show me a consistent measurement over the past 1000 years that we could use to see if in fact what we are experiencing is cyclical or if the temperature is really raising. A 50, 100 or 200 year measurement may or may not be accurate.

On a side note, I am all for limiting how we affect our environment. There's nothing wrong with making the Earth the best that it can be.

Right now, we don't have the lift-capability, we don't know how to build a colony really, and we don't know how to solve all the problems of terraforming.
We could be pursuing this area more than we are.

Plus we'll gain experience as we do it. The first colony will be far from perfect, but we'll learn from experience. Space and military technology have a way of filtering back into mainstream products.

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 02:39 AM

Anyhow, I lived through the predictions of an ice age in the 70's. I remember vividly the articles and news sources informing us of global cooling. I remember the cover on Time. Luckily, older friends and parents of the WWI/WWII era were skeptical and told me not to worry. And they were right.
And you were right to be skeptical because it wasn't coming from science. Seeing as you "vividly' remember these news articles and sources perhaps you could name them?

One area of issue with the Global Warming/Climate Change is the data. IMHO, most of the data is suspect.
How so in your humble opinion?

Please show me a consistent measurement over the past 1000 years that we could use to see if in fact what we are experiencing is cyclical or if the temperature is really raising. A 50, 100 or 200 year measurement may or may not be an accurate portrayal of the climate change.
So what you're really saying is that you've not really read about climate climate change (including the links I posted above) or understand how scientists come up with their conclusions. Here's the links I posted above. They are written in layman's terms and each addresses your questions here.

I know these links will fall on deaf ears by people motivated by politics, but I'll post them anyway.

A good basic introduction to climate change by Oxford University
http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html

Nasa's Climate change basics;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/global_warming_update3.php

The IPCC Facts
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html

And wikipedia has a reasonable summary of the IPCC reports (but no substitution for reading the reports themselves).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

sushi

Sep 28, 2009, 03:02 AM

And you were right to be skeptical because it wasn't coming from science. Seeing as you "vividly' remember these news articles and sources perhaps you could name them?
Major newspapers, magazines such as Time, National Geographic, Popular Science, and others. The evening news (ABC and NBC).

I'm sorry, but I don't have copies laying around as it was 30 plus years ago.

Here's an example:

196516

How so in your humble opinion?
Just based on my engineering and scientific background.

Statistical data can be made to show just about anything you want. The question(s) being asked is(are) important to determine how the gathered data is analyzed.

So what you're really saying is that you've not really read about climate climate change (including the links I posted above) or understand how scientists come up with their conclusions. Here's the links I posted above. They are written in layman's terms and each addresses your questions here.
I briefly scanned those links before I wrote my response above. Still not convinced.

BTW, I quite enjoyed your veiled insult as to my intellectual capability. Nicely done.

Anyhow, not all scientists are in agreement about this issue. Until they are, I will take a skeptical approach.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 03:06 AM

You obviously haven't read the 4th IPCC report. Here's the executive summary (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf). Well worth a read and answers the questions you are asking based on the scientific evidence.

I'll even cut a graph out for you.
http://i33.tinypic.com/34yxr45.png
Orange is with yr 200 levels maintained. Red is 1250ppm. Less than yr 2000 is the best course of action.

It doesn't really answer the questions I had, if they are using trends/models to predict the future I want to know what happens if their predictions fail. I also don't understand why they only use the last 10,000 years, why not look at climate changes on a bigger scale?

Also their use of "likely" "very likely" and "more probable than not" is very annoying.

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 03:16 AM

Major newspapers, magazines such as Time, National Geographic, Popular Science, and others. The evening news (ABC and NBC). I'm sorry, but I don't have copies laying around as it was 30 plus years ago.
You do remember vividly though.

Here's an example:

196516
Is this the accompanying article you are referencing? Perhaps you could show me where it references the scientific literature claiming an imminent ice age?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947122-1,00.html

Just based on my engineering and scientific background.

Statistical data can be made to show just about anything you want.
So based on your engineering and scientific background you're claiming that the statistics that support climate change are all bunk and can't be trusted? That's not a very scientific thing to claim. In fact it's an extraordinary claim of systematic scientific fraud across multiple scientific disciplines.

I briefly scanned those links before I wrote my response above. Still not convinced.
This doesn't surprise me one bit.

BTW, I quite enjoyed your veiled insult as to my intellectual capability. Nicely done.
Your post was either a strawman, you were being disingenuous, or you haven't done any reading if you are claiming that scientists are basing climate change on nothing more than simple thermometer temperature measurements. It's a lot more complex and includes measurements like ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary layers etc etc. All of which are built up to provide an overall picture of the climate that arcs back a lot further than you are claiming. But you knew this right?

Anyhow, not all scientists are in agreement about this issue.
For someone who claims to have a scientific background you sure do rely heavily on unscientific arguments. In fact that's all you rely on.

hulugu

Sep 28, 2009, 03:22 AM

...
Anyhow, I lived through the predictions of an ice age in the 70's. I remember vividly the articles and news sources informing us of global cooling. I remember the cover on Time. Luckily, older friends and parents of the WWI/WWII era were skeptical and told me not to worry. And they were right....

Did you read my link from the USA Today? You'll notice the Time article was ginned up. The 'scientific consensus' did not believe in global cooling according to a survey of the scientific literature of the time. The media got it wrong so you shouldn't be using this as an example of how science reversed course. In fact, even in 1970 there was some consideration of "global warming."

We could be pursuing this area more than we are.

Plus we'll gain experience as we do it. The first colony will be far from perfect, but we'll learn from experience. Space and military technology have a way of filtering back into mainstream products.

Sure, but I don't see a sudden boon in enough heavy-lifters to build a lunar colony large enough to off-load even a small city's worth of people. If we have a working lunar colony within the next 30 years, color me surprised. If we do something similar on Mars by 2050, I'll be amazed.
I'd love to see it, but I don't think it's a realistic policy as a solution to global climate change.
It also has all the morality of a plague of locusts.

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 03:26 AM

It doesn't really answer the questions I had, if they are using trends/models to predict the future I want to know what happens if their predictions fail.
If the predictions fail then the graphs don't follow those trends. But that's the beauty of science. As more data becomes available the predictions will get better and better and better. And we've already got a solid data set to compare and test the validity of the models with - the past.

I also don't understand why they only use the last 10,000 years, why not look at climate changes on a bigger scale?
What will going back further than 10 000 years illustrate that isn't shown?

hulugu

Sep 28, 2009, 03:31 AM

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 03:41 AM

Until you can prove that SUVs driven by T. Rex caused the dinosaurs extinction, I'm not giving up my Escalade.
This is pretty much it. Politically and ideologically motivated not based on the science.

To keep track of the arguments so far:

Claims of global cooling and an imminent ice age supported by science were abound in the 70s in the news and pop magazines which therefore discredits modern science. Demonstrably false.
No statistics can be trusted which therefore discredits modern science. This would of course necessitate systematic fraud across multiple fields.
Claims that the data doesn't hark back long enough. Why this is the case or what a longer data set will show is yet to be disclosed. Again in an attempt to discredit the science.
Claims there are some scientists that don't agree with global warming therefore it's a controversial field with two equally valid sides.
Claims that explanations of global warming from NASA and Oxford university aren't convincing in the face of an engineering and science background.

I probably missed some but I can add to it later. not a single argument based in science. All disingenuous.

sushi

Sep 28, 2009, 03:49 AM

Andy, you keep missing my points and it's getting boring. So I will make it simple for you.

I am skeptical about Global Warming and the data that supports it. Period.

Your links, while interesting, have proven nothing.

So for now I will wait on the sidelines until I see concrete proof one way or another. Have fun debating amongst yourselves.

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 03:56 AM

I am skeptical about Global Warming and the data that supports it. Period.
And unfortunately you've been unable to make an argument with any merit why you are skeptical of the data. If you're really skeptical from your scientific background as you claim (and not ideologically motivated) you'd do well to use it to make scientific arguments.

Your links, while interesting, have proven nothing.
My links are an introduction to climate change science. Which the perfect place to start for an individual who is attempting to claim that climate change data is only based on 50, 100, 200 years of temperature measurements.

So for now I will wait on the sidelines until I see concrete proof one way or another.
Again not really the actions of someone that claims to have a scientific background.

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 04:32 AM

@ the Sceptics

Look for those that are against global warming I presume you've read a scientific journal before? They source absolutely everything, and if there was serious evidence that global warming wasn't happening we'd have heard about it by now, as it'd make the scientist who came up with the brilliant studies career.

I mean making the claims that the moon landing was faked, George Bush personally planned 9/11 and Diana was assassinated by the Queen of England all at the same time allows me to go against far less serious research than there is behind global warming.

Yet if I claimed even one of those of that I'd be told to take off my tinfoil hat by the same people expressing doubt here.

I don't get this whole "save the planet thing". It's here for us to utilize.

We've already "utilized" it almost completely. The fish in the sea are dying and we've chopped down a hell of a lot of the trees.

Oh..and so what if the climate changes? So the sea levels rise, populations have to relocate, its not like it has never happened before. Oh, and maybe a few animals become extinct. Eventually, no one will care, and the fittest will survive. I mean, seriously, look at the dinosaurs. They are gone, but we aren't crying about it.

I'm glad you'll be happy to allow billions to die.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 06:23 AM

Data cannot be formulated for people's actions. We can only make educated guesses. When climate is involved if we have an impact on the entity we should be able to come up with quantifiable evidence to show how much it is. X pollution produced Y global warming. This isn't a "God isn't real, prove he is" deal, this is asking for hard evidence to substantiate a claim.

Hmm, I never invoked the God-argument. I gave examples of other complex matters, not some unprovable invisible friend. Nice strawman, though.

You're not asking for "hard evidence". You're asking for hard evidence summed down to an easily understandable oneliner single formula, without which there is no global change excacerbated by man.
You were asking for a simple formula to a complex problem. That simply doesn't exist. And since you invoked the notion of "God", perhaps it something like that you're looking for? An easy to understand black and white "explanation" to everything. No matter if it's right or wrong.

You might as well be saking for a formula as to why people get allergies, why people get depressions, or why people murder.
There has to be a formula that goes X amount of hurt leads to allergies, X amount of hurt leads to depression, X amount of hurt leads to murder. If not, surely, neither of those things are happening.

To keep track of the arguments so far:
[...]

Well put.

Shivetya

Sep 28, 2009, 07:03 AM

Since Glen beck has been going more and more Crazy as the day goes by why is foxnews really Considered a news Channel I see the Schedule there is really only a period of time to the day till I think 3EST? that's actually news than they have Radioshow/talkshow host the rest of the day. At least with Cnn/msnbc they actaully report news most of the whole enitre day as well of ther over biased to Im really surprised that they are able to keep the "news title in there name.

For the same reason CNN is, for the same reason MSNBC is. MSNBC should have been called out for being a wing of the Obama campaign, never have I seen any channel which represents the news media go so hog wild for a candidate like that, 'cept maybe CNN in the 90s but CNN took steps to never let it happen again. They almost lost their credibility back then.... MSNBC never had it to begin with.

Uh, Beck is not a newsman nor does it pretend to be one. He is a talk show host. (an irritating one at times).

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 07:14 AM

For the same reason CNN is, for the same reason MSNBC is. MSNBC should have been called out for being a wing of the Obama campaign, never have I seen any channel which represents the news media go so hog wild for a candidate like that,

Well except for Fox News and the republican party, who on that channel can do know wrong, because if they do do wrong its a democrat that did it :rolleyes:.

callmemike20

Sep 28, 2009, 07:45 AM

We've already "utilized" it almost completely. The fish in the sea are dying and we've chopped down a hell of a lot of the trees.

I'm glad you'll be happy to allow billions to die.

First off, who really care about the fish? Why should we put priority on fish over humans? Wait, didn't some area in california have their water turned off to save the fish? Pathetic.

And I never said I would be happy to allow billions to die. People would relocate, either inland or to space. It's not like (if this would even happen) sea levels would rise and wipe out the world in a day. It would take time, thus allowing governments and people to relocate their populations. Just look at some American cities, 25 years ago many of them were a lot smaller than they are now and they have adapted to the growing population. And being "happy to allow it" and "allowing it" are two separate ideas. If you are going link a bunch of sources that cite the human race will be destroyed in a century, don't bother. To me, it's all absurd.

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 07:56 AM

First off, who really care about the fish? Why should we put priority on fish over humans?

Because then there won't be any fish left to eat later :rolleyes:.

And destroying an entire eco-system covering 70% of the earth surface might have some unintended consequences that come and bite us in the arse further on down the road.

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 08:02 AM

And I never said I would be happy to allow billions to die. People would relocate, either inland

Possible, but what about drought, which is already seriously affecting Africa.

or to space.

Right, when even the richest country in the world can't afford to get a man on the Moon these days, let alone Mars.

It's not like (if this would even happen) sea levels would rise and wipe out the world in a day.

You realise that a large number of the worlds major cities are on the coast, from New York and London to Shanghai and Bangkok. In fact 40% of the worlds population lives within 100km of the coast (source (sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/papers/Coastal_Zone_Pop_Method.pdf)).

Just look at some American cities, 25 years ago many of them were a lot smaller than they are now and they have adapted to the growing population.

Seems like they haven't done a great job with endless suburbs, traffic problems and crap public transportation.

If you are going link a bunch of sources that cite the human race will be destroyed in a century, don't bother. To me, it's all absurd.

I don't think humans will become extinct, billions can die without that happening.

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 08:08 AM

First off, who really care about the fish?
Everyone who lives in an ecosystem.

Why should we put priority on fish over humans?
You're asking the wrong question. The real question is why should we put human tastes over the priority of fish. There are other sources of sustenance that don't require us to wipe out entire species. Who knows the importance of a species will be down the track.

anjinha

Sep 28, 2009, 08:13 AM

Reading thread made me realize how discussions about global warming always seem to bring out the selfishness in so many people...

Iscariot

Sep 28, 2009, 09:29 AM

First off, who really care about the fish? Why should we put priority on fish over humans?

These kinds of statements are a testament to the absurdly low level of scientific literacy present in the general population.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 10:55 AM

Since Glen beck has been going more and more Crazy as the day goes by why is foxnews really Considered a news Channel I see the Schedule there is really only a period of time to the day till I think 3EST? that's actually news than they have Radioshow/talkshow host the rest of the day. At least with Cnn/msnbc they actaully report news most of the whole enitre day as well of ther over biased to Im really surprised that they are able to keep the "news title in there name.
It's a news station because, well, they report the news. They do it very objectively too, despite what you've been led to believe by the left wing zombies that you obey. Fox also has a lot of commentary and talk shows - just like every other news station - and yes, the talking heads on Fox do lean to the right. The talking heads on other news stations tend to lean to the left. So what? Why do you get your panties in a bunch over this?

Liberals like yourself want a society in which everyone looks different but thinks the same. This is called "diversity" and anyone who wants to be an individual is harshly denounced.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 11:20 AM

It's a news station because, well, they report the news. They do it very objectively too, despite what you've been led to believe by the left wing zombies that you obey. Fox also has a lot of commentary and talk shows - just like every other news station - and yes, the talking heads on Fox do lean to the right. The talking heads on other news stations tend to lean to the left. So what? Why do you get your panties in a bunch over this?

Wow, I'm almost dumbfounded.

I think you should take a journalism class if you think that they're "objective" or even try to be objective.

Oh, and a course on source critique wouldn't go amiss either.

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 11:21 AM

It's a news station because, well, they report the news. They do it very objectively too,

So that's what its called when you call a Republican a Democrat then, just to suit your cause?

Good to know :rolleyes:.

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 11:22 AM

I briefly scanned those links before I wrote my response above. Still not convinced.

BTW, I quite enjoyed your veiled insult as to my intellectual capability. Nicely done.

Anyhow, not all scientists are in agreement about this issue. Until they are, I will take a skeptical approach.

Ice core samples allow us to look at the atmospheres of tens of thousands of years ago.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 11:41 AM

I think you should take a journalism class if you think that they're "objective" or even try to be objective.
They are just as objective (or not) as any other news station. If you have a point to prove, then prove it. Find the same news story reported by Fox and by another station, and compare / contrast them. Plenty of stories available at foxnews.com cnn.com and msnbc.com.

But I suppose the puppeteers pulling your strings have trained it into you since birth that Fox News = bad so really, you can't help but to parrot it out any time the subject comes up.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 11:49 AM

They are just as objective (or not) as any other news station.
No. They. are. not.

A journalism class would educate you so much you wouldn't spew such nonsense. Even the premise is all wrong: That all news outlets (whatever you're comparing) is somehow "equal".

If you have a point to prove, then prove it. Find the same news story reported by Fox and by another station, and compare them. Plenty of stories available at foxnews.com cnn.com and msnbc.com.
Yes there are. Just like there are news on abc.com.au, dr.dk/nyheder, bbc.com, bbc.co.uk, and english.pravda.ru.
I know how to compare the journalistic craft and how to fact check and do source critique.
It's obvious, though, that you have no idea whatsoever of which you speak.

But I suppose the puppeteers pulling your strings have trained it into you since birth that Fox News = bad so really, you can't help but to parrot it out any time the subject comes up.

Riiight ... It's all a conspiracy, and you, the epitomy of an enlightened Fox viewer, have the truth. Everyone else is brainwashed. Think about it.

Tin foilers :rolleyes:

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 12:08 PM

Riiight ... It's all a conspiracy, and you, the epitomy of an enlightened Fox viewer, have the truth. Everyone else is brainwashed. Think about it.
LMAO, believe it or not, I don't even watch fox news. I don't watch TV. At all. Sure, I've seen it a few times, along with CNN and all the rest, and I'm familiar with the shows. But the last time I watched Fox News was probably in July some time?

I just find it amusing that folks like yourself get all hot and bothered about it. Your argument above, I would claim the same about you. Fox news is wildly popular, are you so enlightened that you know better than the brainwashed masses?

Don't like what you see? So change the channel! There is news media these days that covers the entire spectrum, from disgustingly far-left to disgustingly far-right. All the network news channels, including Fox, are somewhere in the middle. Really, what are you hoping to achieve with your Anti-Fox ranting and raving? Are you harboring some latent disdain for freedom of speech and freedom of the press? :confused:

yg17

Sep 28, 2009, 12:13 PM

So that's what its called when you call a Republican a Democrat then, just to suit your cause?

Good to know :rolleyes:.

QFT.

if it happens once, I understand. Typos happen, mistakes are made, whatever. But every damn time a republican does something stupid and Faux covers it, they put the D next to their name. They're not typos or mistakes by the editing department, they're intentional, deliberate attempts to make Democrats look bad.

Peterkro

Sep 28, 2009, 12:14 PM

LMAO, believe it or not, I don't even watch fox news. I don't watch TV. At all. Sure, I've seen it a few times, along with CNN and all the rest, and I'm familiar with the shows. But the last time I watched Fox News was probably in July some time?

I just find it amusing that folks like yourself get all hot and bothered about it. Your argument above, I would claim the same about you. Fox news is wildly popular, are you so enlightened that you know better than the brainwashed masses?

Don't like what you see? So change the channel! There is news media these days that covers the entire spectrum, from disgustingly far-left to disgustingly far-right. All the network news channels, including Fox, are somewhere in the middle. Really, what are you hoping to achieve with your Anti-Fox ranting and raving? Are you harboring some latent disdain for freedom of speech and freedom of the press? :confused:

Can you name these disgustingly far left channels so I can take a look,the only ones I can find are mildly liberal or stark staring drooling right wing. I might start watching T.V.

(by mildly liberal I mean the likes of Democracy Now).

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 12:44 PM

LMAO, believe it or not, I don't even watch fox news. I don't watch TV. At all. Sure, I've seen it a few times, along with CNN and all the rest, and I'm familiar with the shows. But the last time I watched Fox News was probably in July some time?

I just find it amusing that folks like yourself get all hot and bothered about it. Your argument above, I would claim the same about you. Fox news is wildly popular, are you so enlightened that you know better than the brainwashed masses?

We are talking about the same country where 70% of Republicans aren't sure that Obama is a citizen, and the same country where over 50% of its citizens don't believe in evolution.

They sound pretty brainwashed to me.

Don't like what you see? So change the channel! There is news media these days that covers the entire spectrum, from disgustingly far-left to disgustingly far-right.... Really, what are you hoping to achieve with your Anti-Fox ranting and raving? Are you harboring some latent disdain for freedom of speech and freedom of the press? :confused:

If they rebranded themselves as a comedy channel I'd have no problem. If 50% of Americans didn't believe in evolution then I'd have no problem as it'd show people weren't brainwashed by this stuff.

The real aim of the thread is not to try and ban them from the airwaves, but to stop people using them as a serious source, which they aren't.

And to actually point out that although people like CNN aren't great, they are better than Fox News.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 01:01 PM

LMAO, believe it or not, I don't even watch fox news. I don't watch TV. At all. Sure, I've seen it a few times, along with CNN and all the rest, and I'm familiar with the shows. But the last time I watched Fox News was probably in July some time?
You point being that you know little about what you speak?

I don't care that you don't watch tv. The notion that all outlets are equal, as you pretended is the same as saying all newspapers are the same. It's utterly ignorant.

I just find it amusing that folks like yourself get all hot and bothered about it. Your argument above, I would claim the same about you.

Of course you would. I mean, you're of the opinion that Fox news is indeed "fair and balanced".

Fox news is wildly popular, are you so enlightened that you know better than the brainwashed masses?
Yes.

And may I add that an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. Not that I doubted for a second anything like that would hold you back.

Don't like what you see? So change the channel!
Actually, I live in Denmark, so that's not a problem. Brainwashing the idjits of the worlds largest - and only - superpower is worrying, even if I am across the pond.

There is news media these days that covers the entire spectrum, from disgustingly far-left to disgustingly far-right.
What's your point? You know so little of journalism that you argue that they're all equally objective (or not), but equal, none the less.

All the network news channels, including Fox, are somewhere in the middle.
They are only in the "middle" if you're a rabid right-winger.

Really, what are you hoping to achieve with your Anti-Fox ranting and raving?
That some people who are raving right wingers and think that Fox is the epitomy of objective journalism might open their eyes instead of staying in that bubble of ignorance they are so accustomed to.

Are you harboring some latent disdain for freedom of speech and freedom of the press? :confused:

No. I'm a journalist here, and as such I support free speech and freedom of the press - propably more than you do. However, I don't think that one should be allowed to lie, not by law, and certainly not ethically and be protected by a press card. Leave the lies to the idjits who doesn't know any better.

Edit:
The job of the press is to enlighten the citizens. In that way, the press performs a very important part in a democracy because knowledge empowers the people.
If people are spoonfed lies, where are we then? Of course, things like that obviously play no part in the flag-waving "freedom of speech" slogan - Of course, the press should be allowed to lie and not even TRY to get things right and enlighten the people.
Of course they should lie. All so we can pretend to be pro freedom, right?

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 01:21 PM

the worlds largest - and only - superpower

China's getting pretty damn close to being a superpower too these days...

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 01:38 PM

If the predictions fail then the graphs don't follow those trends. But that's the beauty of science. As more data becomes available the predictions will get better and better and better. And we've already got a solid data set to compare and test the validity of the models with - the past.

What will going back further than 10 000 years illustrate that isn't shown?

The models predict history well, big deal, the future is all that I am worried about anyways.

10,000 years is a relatively short time, if we go back further we may find that the heating and cooling cycles are normal. Whats to say that the earth won't just readjust to our growing CO2 use?

Since our use of CO2 creates greenhouse gases if we start going into a cooling period are you going to be an advocate of pollution to warm up our planet?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 01:40 PM

QFT.

if it happens once, I understand. Typos happen, mistakes are made, whatever. But every damn time a republican does something stupid and Faux covers it, they put the D next to their name. They're not typos or mistakes by the editing department, they're intentional, deliberate attempts to make Democrats look bad.

Very rarely has this happened. They accidently put a R next to baucus's name, what was the agenda there? His bill sucks hard.

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 01:43 PM

10,000 years is a relatively short time, if we go back further we may find that the heating and cooling cycles are normal. Whats to say that the earth won't just readjust to our growing CO2 use?

Because that's not what's been happening for the past 40 years.

For some basics look at things like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Very rarely has this happened.

Everytime a republican is involved in a scandal he becomes a democrat. Its certainly happened several times.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 01:51 PM

cjmillsnun

Sep 28, 2009, 02:05 PM

Because that's not what's been happening for the past 40 years.

For some basics look at things like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Everytime a republican is involved in a scandal he becomes a democrat. Its certainly happened several times.

Why is the last 40 years relevant?

In the last 40 years, pollution has fallen dramatically. One only has to look back to Victorian times to see that. Why do you think the industrial heartland in the Midlands is known as the black country? The rain used to be black with all the pollutants (mainly soot) because of the scale of the pollution.

London had terrible fog the worst incident was in 1952. Most of the time this was smog. After 1952 and the clean air acts introduced this all but disappeared. Similar acts were introduced in the US and most other industrialised countries at the same time.

In effect pollution was falling (this includes CO2), yet the temperature has risen?..

This dovetails into one (or both) of 2 things...

Either

a) we found out way too late to stop it.

b) we may only be contributing to something that is happening anyway.

The truth is b).

If you look back at the geological record, you will find that there has been global warming followed by ice age, followed by global warming, followed by ice age, followed by global warming.

I'm not saying that humans don't have an impact. That would be naive, of course we do, and no doubt we have accelerated this process. But the last 40 years is not enough in context to study the earth and its climate, which has a record going back millions of years that can be studied, and parallels with what is going on now can be drawn from the past.

obeygiant

Sep 28, 2009, 02:09 PM

I love this thread because its a hybrid-- "i hate fax noos"/climate change thread.

... and speaking of hybrids..

Did anyone catch The Simpsons last night where comic book guy named his adopted malaysian kid "Prius"? Lolled :D

rdowns

Sep 28, 2009, 02:12 PM

Very rarely has this happened. They accidently put a R next to baucus's name, what was the agenda there? His bill sucks hard.

Here's 4 after 30 seconds of searching.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/upbeat-piece-fox-news-converts-uber

In fairness…

http://people-press.org/report/543/

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 02:15 PM

Since our use of CO2 creates greenhouse gases if we start going into a cooling period are you going to be an advocate of pollution to warm up our planet?

Its these statements of yours that show you don't really have any actual understanding of the issue, and once again cling to buzzwords to prove your point. It only shows your ignorance. Read up before you actually try to make your points.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 02:19 PM

You point being that you know little about what you speak?

I don't care that you don't watch tv. The notion that all outlets are equal, as you pretended is the same as saying all newspapers are the same. It's utterly ignorant.
Try reading my post again. I never said they're all equal or that they're all the same. The major network news outlets do not deviate far from the center. They can't if they want to keep their ratings high. And it IS all about the ratings.

And may I add that an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.
You must not understand how network news works. Have you seen Max Headroom? The network news outlets do exactly that; appeal to popularity. When MJ died, Fox News covered it briefly and then moved on. But their ratings started to plummet, so they went back to 24/7 coverage of MJ. This is how ALL network news outlets work. If you don't understand this, you should excuse yourself from this discussion.

No. I'm a journalist here, and as such I support free speech and freedom of the press - propably more than you do. However, I don't think that one should be allowed to lie, not by law, and certainly not ethically and be protected by a press card.
At least we can agree on this point. So folks like Michael Moore should be forbidden by law then, since they propagate blatant lies? I agree.

The job of the press is to enlighten the citizens. In that way, the press performs a very important part in a democracy because knowledge empowers the people.
If people are spoonfed lies, where are we then? Of course, things like that obviously play no part in the flag-waving "freedom of speech" slogan - Of course, the press should be allowed to lie and not even TRY to get things right and enlighten the people.
Of course they should lie. All so we can pretend to be pro freedom, right?
I won't claim to understand this mangled run-on sentence, but if you believe network news - ANY network news - gives you the straight and full truth then you are the one whose been brainwashed. What really happens and what is reported on the news are usually two VERY different things...

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 02:20 PM

Here's 4 after 30 seconds of searching.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/upbeat-piece-fox-news-converts-uber
In fairness…
http://people-press.org/report/543/
A couple of typos? Really? Now who is the tin-hat conspiracy theorist. :rolleyes:

Iscariot

Sep 28, 2009, 02:20 PM

Whats to say that the earth won't just readjust to our growing CO2 use?

The fact that there's zero evidence for that to happen?
If you really believe that we effect our climate on such a massive level

One would only need to look at the amount of plastic in the ocean to know how long our fingers have grown.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 02:22 PM

We are talking about the same country where 70% of Republicans aren't sure that Obama is a citizen, and the same country where over 50% of its citizens don't believe in evolution.
Site your sources, if you didn't make them up.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 02:23 PM

The fact that there's zero evidence for that to happen?
Really? You haven't taken a history class in your life I'm guessing.

obeygiant

Sep 28, 2009, 02:27 PM

Site your sources, if you didn't make them up.

280% of Americans can't say "obama"
902% of British think beer is actually rented.
22% of cows drink soy milk

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 02:32 PM

Its these statements of yours that show you don't really have any actual understanding of the issue, and once again cling to buzzwords to prove your point. It only shows your ignorance. Read up before you actually try to make your points.

Per .Andy's executive summary (if you read it) they are proving a positive correlation between raising surface temperatures and increased CO2/Methane/Nitrous release by humans/agriculture etc.

My question is 100% relevant if you believe we have such a large impact on the climate.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 02:32 PM

280% of Americans can't say "obama"
902% of British think beer is actually rented.
22% of cows drink soy milk
LMAO I love it! :D

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 02:35 PM

China's getting pretty damn close to being a superpower too these days...
Are you kidding? China *OWNS* us. We just haven't realized that fact yet. The US became a super power in part because of the Industrial Revolution. Because we made things. With factories and industry. And the rest of the world bought them. Now we've all but shipped our entire manufacturing capability to China (and many $Billions of USD annually along with it). So now nearly all US manufacturers are dependent on China to produce their goods, and on top of that, we are bankrolling their economy with the Billions we're sending over there every year. Not to mention the millions of manufacturing jobs lost here at home. Why do you think unemployment is almost at 10% now? It's almost all manufacturing jobs lost to China.

On top of that, where do you think the Trillions of dollars Obama is spending is coming from? You guessed it. China. They're the ones buying up all the securities on US debt.

China is the new super power, and they quite literally own us. :(

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 02:44 PM

Why is the last 40 years relevant?

In the last 40 years, pollution has fallen dramatically. One only has to look back to Victorian times to see that. Why do you think the industrial heartland in the Midlands is known as the black country? The rain used to be black with all the pollutants (mainly soot) because of the scale of the pollution.

London had terrible fog the worst incident was in 1952. Most of the time this was smog. After 1952 and the clean air acts introduced this all but disappeared. Similar acts were introduced in the US and most other industrialised countries at the same time.

That only applies to the UK, its not a worldwide view.

Site your sources, if you didn't make them up.

On Obama its not 70%, its actually only 58%:

First, the birthers are anything but a fringe group. They have found a sizeable audience for their fantasy. A poll last week showed that more than half of Republicans either believe Obama was not born in the US (28%) or are not sure (30%). Mainstream anchors on CNN and Fox routinely give them credibility. So far, 11 Republican congressmen have signed a "birther bill" that would demand a birth certificate from all future presidents. They may have no more credibility than the 9/11 truthers or those who denied the moon landings, but they certainly have more reach.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/02/obama-birthers-us-presidency
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html

EDIT: I should add it appears to be a DailyKos poll, so I'm happy to retract this point if they are unreliable...

On the Evolution issue:

196586

Sourced from:
http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13062613
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html

280% of Americans can't say "obama"
902% of British think beer is actually rented.
22% of cows drink soy milk

How's the crow?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 02:50 PM

Are you kidding? China *OWNS* us. We just haven't realized that fact yet. The US became a super power in part because of the Industrial Revolution. Because we made things. With factories and industry. And the rest of the world bought them. Now we've all but shipped our entire manufacturing capability to China (and many $Billions of USD annually along with it). So now nearly all US manufacturers are dependent on China to produce their goods, and on top of that, we are bankrolling their economy with the Billions we're sending over there every year. Not to mention the millions of manufacturing jobs lost here at home. Why do you think unemployment is almost at 10% now? It's almost all manufacturing jobs lost to China.

On top of that, where do you think the Trillions of dollars Obama is spending is coming from? You guessed it. China. They're the ones buying up all the securities on US debt.

China is the new super power, and they quite literally own us. :(

You can't stay in a manufacturing position forever, especially when trade makes your inputs cheaper. Quite frankly even if we hadn't outsourced much of our manufacturing there is no way it would have stayed profitable on a global scale. The rest of the world isn't going to buy parts from the US when China can sell them cheaper.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 03:29 PM

Try reading my post again. I never said they're all equal or that they're all the same.
You didn't?
What do you call this:

They are just as objective (or not) as any other news station.

So much for your argument that you didn't say they were equal ...

The major network news outlets do not deviate far from the center. They can't if they want to keep their ratings high. And it IS all about the ratings.
That's not true at all. You just have to have ill informed viewers/users to have hjigh ratings. Further, one can grow a market, just like one can grow a market for good quality journalism.

You must not understand how network news works. Have you seen Max Headroom?
Are you freaking kidding me? A reference to a film is your best argument? Really?

The network news outlets do exactly that; appeal to popularity. When MJ died, Fox News covered it briefly and then moved on. But their ratings started to plummet, so they went back to 24/7 coverage of MJ. This is how ALL network news outlets work. If you don't understand this, you should excuse yourself from this discussion.

Obviously you don't understand how journalism works. It's not about how much of the hours available is used to cover a given subject, but HOW that subject is covered. I find it laughable that you're the one trying to argue than anyone else should excuse themselves from this discussion. So far, your knowledge about journalism comes from the portrayal of "Max Headroom".

Let me remind you once again of this:
They are just as objective (or not) as any other news station.

Anyway, back to the post:
At least we can agree on this point. So folks like Michael Moore should be forbidden by law then, since they propagate blatant lies? I agree.
If you think we agree, you don't understand the basics. The press should be held accountable. Both ethically and by law.

However (and this is not a defence for Michael Moore - I would say the same about some equally big idjit from the left), documentaries are not news, nor does it purport to be a news item. Further, historically speaking, documentarists have been given a bit more leeway when it comes to "creative" presentation. News are an entirely different beast.

I won't claim to understand this mangled run-on sentence,
Actually, I'm not a native english speaker. Secondly, it's not a run-on sentence, it's an entire paragraph. Including periods and commas. Thirdly, of course you couldn't understand that the press has an important role in a democracy. The moment it becomes a propaganda tool, the democracy suffers. I know those are hard concepts to grasp, and some never will, but please don't give up.

but if you believe network news - ANY network news - gives you the straight and full truth then you are the one whose been brainwashed.
Nice strawman. I never said anything of the sort. I already mentioned I'm a journalist myself, so I know how the press works and what pitfalls there are. Further, I do know how be critical towards sources.

What really happens and what is reported on the news are usually two VERY different things...

Noo! You don't say!? :rolleyes:

Of course it is, and some are worse than others, and some are better than others, very unlike your claim to fame:
They are just as objective (or not) as any other news station.

.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 03:55 PM

You didn't?
What do you call this:

So much for your argument that you didn't say they were equal ...

LOL I can tell by your tone that you're feeling particularly vulnerable and desperate. I stand by my comments, but of course you'll twist them to suit your argument. Saying they all deviate in their objectiveness somehow equals saying "they're all equal"? :rolleyes:

For someone who purports to be in this industry, you sure don't have much of a grasp on how it works.

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 04:04 PM

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 04:16 PM

I took it the same way as he did, how bout you clarify rather than laughing at our misfortune of not being able to piece together what you so carelessly threw together?

Here it is one more time, for those who aren't paying attention:
They are just as objective (or not) as any other news station.
That means their news doesn't have a "right wing" twist to it, any more than CNN's news has a "left wing" twist to it. Nobody is saying "they're all equal" or any other such nonsense. What I'm asserting is that they don't deviate from the center in their news reporting* any further than any other news channel does. I.e. they are not exceptional in their deviation when compared to other news outlets.

Explain to me how you've interpreted that to mean "they're all the same" when I'm explicating saying that differences exist?

*news reporting. not the talking heads.

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 04:21 PM

*news reporting. not the talking heads.

Care to explain other news station's equivalents to foxes loaded questions and captions?

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 04:27 PM

LOL I can tell by your tone that you're feeling particularly vulnerable and desperate. I stand by my comments, but of course you'll twist them to suit your argument. Saying they all deviate in their objectiveness somehow equals saying "they're all equal"? :rolleyes:

Hmm, usually a moving of the proverbial goalposts are an indicator of desperation. Very seldomly does desperation surface by showing how the opponent is moving the goal posts and denying what is written in black on white.

Let me once again show you how you argued that Fox was no worse (or better) than anything else out there:
They are just as objective (or not) as any other news station.

No matter how many times you deny saying such things, and thus move the goal posts, it doesn't change the fact that you argued such nonsense.

Further, how is that you claim to "stand by [your] comments", all the while denying you ever claimed this:
They are just as objective (or not) as any other news station.

For someone who purports to be in this industry, you sure don't have much of a grasp on how it works.

I find it funny, that for someone who purports to know how journalism works, and claim that I merely "purport" to be a journalist, you have no arguments whatsoever, but make an unsupported claim on the back of an ad hominem.

It really is funny to think, that you somehow hold the opinion, that you know anything about journalism, yet are dumbfounded when I talk about the role of journalism and how it relates to democracy. Someone who argues that all outlets are the same (for better or worse), yet have no idea what journalism really is, and why journalism is important, somehow think that they can claim someone else is merely "purporting" to be a journalist. I purport to be a journalist in the same way you purport to be a human being.

.Andy

Sep 28, 2009, 04:33 PM

The models predict history well, big deal, the future is all that I am worried about anyways.
The absolute best place to check the veracity of models and their predictive ability is with data for which we know the outcomes.

10,000 years is a relatively short time, if we go back further we may find that the heating and cooling cycles are normal.
In other words you cannot explain why a longer time frame would produce more relevant data. You just arbitrarily chose a timepoint greater than that presented to cast doubt without a logical reason. Just speculation that >10 000 years might show something that the last 10 000 years didn't?

Whats to say that the earth won't just readjust to our growing CO2 use?
As Iscariot said. You are just speculating.

Since our use of CO2 creates greenhouse gases if we start going into a cooling period are you going to be an advocate of pollution to warm up our planet?
I have no idea what you're talking about here. We are quite clearly on a warming phase. A warming phase that is unprecedented in rate. This is what is being addressed.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 04:34 PM

Here it is one more time, for those who aren't paying attention:

That means their news doesn't have a "right wing" twist to it, any more than CNN's news has a "left wing" twist to it. Nobody is saying "they're all equal" or any other such nonsense. What I'm asserting is that they don't deviate from the center in their news reporting* any further than any other news channel does. I.e. they are not exceptional in their deviation when compared to other news outlets.
You obviously don't understand how source critique or journalism in general works, do you? Not to mention an utter lack of understanding the word "objective(ly)".l

Explain to me how you've interpreted that to mean "they're all the same" when I'm explicating saying that differences exist?
Sigh.
Are you not aware of what you're saying, since you think that WE are the ones not getting it?

The reason I continue to hold you on to that ridiculous statement of yours, is that you're saying (with that claim) that they are equally biased, equally politically controlled, equally ignorant, and catering to the same (type of) idiots. That means they're equally as bad (or good, as it were) to do JOURNALISM, which is demonstrably and emphatically false.

*news reporting. not the talking heads.

:rolleyes:

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 04:38 PM

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/434/foxnews152b.jpg (http://img523.imageshack.us/i/foxnews152b.jpg/)
It's obligatory.

Just reposting for anyone that says Fox's news reporting is ok. What kind of organization that cared at all about journalistic integrity would place such headers on their stories?

My favorite: "Universal Healthcare: Breeding ground for terrorists?" As if the question mark makes it a legitimate question.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 04:38 PM

Just reposting for anyone that says Fox's news reporting is ok. What kind of organization that cared at all about journalistic integrity would place such headers on their stories?

My favorite: "Universal Healthcare: Breeding ground for terrorists?" As if the question mark makes it a legitimate question.

Heh! Indeed ;)

Edit:
I just thought that perhaps people who claim that aren't right-wing, and that Fox News are objective, that perhaps they don't understand the word "loaded" - as in "loaded word", "loaded term", and "loaded questions"?
Also, they might have difficulties differentiating between "critical interview", and "patting each other's back".

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 05:19 PM

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/434/foxnews152b.jpg (http://img523.imageshack.us/i/foxnews152b.jpg/)
It's obligatory.
My favorite: "Universal Healthcare: Breeding ground for terrorists?" As if the question mark makes it a legitimate question.
Clearly you've never seen any of these shows. Yes the catch phrases are outrageous and silly. And they know it! They even laugh about them on the shows, typically with a variety of folks with opposing viewpoints. It's funny to me that people like you actually take them seriously!

But it's much more fun to make a collage of it all and hold it up as some sort of evidence, isn't it?

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 05:22 PM

Clearly you've never seen any of these shows. Yes the catch phrases are outrageous and silly. And they know it! They even laugh about them on the shows, typically with a variety of folks with opposing viewpoints. It's funny to me that people actually take them seriously!

But it's much more fun to make a collage of it all and hold it up as some sort of evidence, isn't it?

What stuff like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-JEx-Kfvc?

That means their news doesn't have a "right wing" twist to it,

Funny, I still can't see any coverage on Fox of the G20 protests at Pittsburg (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=g20+protests).

EDIT: Actually they have covered it (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26592916/anarchy-in-america.htm#q=g20+protests) (but it was buried and only found by sorting by date), in a fair and balanced manner too.

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 05:23 PM

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 05:26 PM

Clearly you've never seen any of these shows. Yes the catch phrases are outrageous and silly. And they know it! They even laugh about them on the shows, typically with a variety of folks with opposing viewpoints. It's funny to me that people like you actually take them seriously!
Are you seriously trying to argue that there is a big rift between what they use for "catch phrases" as you put it so eloquently (lol), and what the shows are about? I hate to break this to you, but noone here are so stupid to fall for such an argument. Not even the people who likes what Fox does. Of course it matches the "catch phrases".

But it's much more fun to make a collage of it all and hold it up as some sort of evidence, isn't it?

Based on your premise that what we see and hear are not at all what we see and hear?

Have you ever seen interviews with "opposing views" where the opponent were actually treated in the same manner as the pro-republican party?

I can't believe you're this blind. You cannot believe a word of what you say yourself.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 05:36 PM

What stuff like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-JEx-Kfvc?

What are you attempting to prove with this video? It's a discussion on the UK's national health care system - not of Obama's proposed universal health care. And the discussion is occurring on a talk show. This is not news reporting. That's right, "Your world with Neal Cavuto" is a talk show. Neal Cavuto is the host. Do you understand what "talking-heads" are? They can be biased and they present personal opinions. They are not delivering the news.

And that youtube description makes me LOL! They introduced the guy as an editor for National Review - a conservative magazine. As if it was some sort of hidden secret.

So again, what is it exactly you're attempting to demonstrate by posting this video? Oh, I know, you mistook a talk show for news reporting. It's OK, common mistake made by those who are blind with Fox hate.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 05:41 PM

What are you attempting to prove with this video? It's a discussion on the UK's national health care system - not of Obama's proposed universal health care. And the discussion is occurring on talk show. This is not news reporting. That's right, "Your world with Neal Cavuto" is a talk show. Neal Cavuto is the host. Do you understand what "talking-heads" are?

So again, what is it exactly you're attempting to demonstrate by posting this video?

Actually, journalism - especially in the US - have for years moved from merely reporting the news to a commentary style. Of course this also happen elsewhere, but the US is a frontrunner in this area (whether it's a good thing or not). However, what this means is that today in the US media the difference is a very pale shade of gray. In particular with Fox News. They basically have very little reporting (even if they do make stand-ups), and pretty much everything is commentary.

So, in Fox's case, one could argue that they're all talking heads, all are commentators, and very few are reporters or journalists and newsmen.

Btw. You should take a look at a "talkshow" called "Hardtalk" from the BBC. That's right. It's a talkshow and it's good journalism. Not always excellent, but good journalism. Being in a talkshow set-up does not mean it's not journalism, nor does it mean that journalistic ethics should take a backseat.

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 05:42 PM

What are you attempting to prove with this video? It's a discussion on the UK's national health care system - not of Obama's proposed universal health care.

Yet he still makes the completely absurd claim that the NHS (and all public healthcare systems) are breeding grounds for terrorists.

So again, what is it exactly you're attempting to demonstrate by posting this video? Oh, I know, you mistook a talk show for news reporting. It's OK, common mistake made by the Fox haters.

So because its not straight news its OK to have comments saying the NHS is a breeding ground for terrorists.

What would you say if the BBC had a current affairs program saying Bush was responsible for 9/11?

Well its not "news" so its all OK :rolleyes:.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 05:47 PM

Funny, I still can't see any coverage on Fox of the G20 protests at Pittsburg (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=g20+protests).

EDIT: Actually they have covered it (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26592916/anarchy-in-america.htm#q=g20+protests) (but it was buried and only found by sorting by date), in a fair and balanced manner too.

Oh? What's that? They DID cover it? Well how about that. And they even gave the protesters some air time? Really? All fair and balanced too?

What happened? I thought Fox was biased and loaded and evil? :confused:

I've watched FOX news and they ask questions frequently in the same manner of their captions. Utterly loaded tripe.
But hold on a second, I thought you were all for listening to all the different view points (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8561976&postcount=204)? I guess that must be a selective kind of thing, eh? Listen to various view points, but only when you agree with them?

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 05:50 PM

But hold on a second, I thought you were all for listening to all the different view points (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8561976&postcount=204)? I guess that must be a selective kind of thing, eh? Listen to various view points, but only when you agree with them?

Theres a difference between a different view and politically-motivated-loaded-question-echo-chambers. And like I said in that thread, you can listen, but not have to agree. But hey, who cares about specifics when you can just demonize someone right?

Amiright?

I have a big problem with news sources doing the public a disservice by creating/spreading misinformation.

NC MacGuy

Sep 28, 2009, 05:50 PM

EDIT: Actually they have covered it (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26592916/anarchy-in-america.htm#q=g20+protests) (but it was buried and only found by sorting by date), in a fair and balanced manner too.

In all fairness, Hannity is anything but and has admitted his biases.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 05:51 PM

What happened? I thought Fox was biased and loaded and evil? :confused:

I'm sorry, but this one had me almost falling down the chair. Yes, they have a lot money. Of course they do.

Seriously, I thought I was being sarcastic when I suggested "someone" didn't know the word "loaded" in expressions like "a loaded question".
Apparently I was spot on.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 05:52 PM

Yet he still makes the completely absurd claim that the NHS (and all public healthcare systems) are breeding grounds for terrorists.
See, that's where your wrong. The guest speaker spoke about NHS. Not "all public healthcare systems". And if you actually watched the video, he was talking about the potential of the situation in the UK. He did not present it as something that had actually occured, the healthcare system breeding terrorists.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 05:53 PM

I'm sorry, but this one had me almost falling down the chair. Yes, they have a lot money. Of course they do.

Seriously, I thought I was being sarcastic when I suggested "someone" didn't know the word "loaded" in expressions like "a loaded question".
Apparently I was spot on.
Um... what? A lot of money? Who said anything about money? You sure didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, LOL. Go take a nap... you clearly need it.

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 05:57 PM

Um... what? A lot of money? Who said anything about money? You sure didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, LOL. Go take a nap... you clearly need it.

And the insults keep a flyin......

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 05:58 PM

See, that's where your wrong. The guest speaker spoke about NHS. Not "all public healthcare systems". And if you actually watched the video, he was talking about the potential of the situation in the UK. He did not present it as something that had actually occured, the healthcare system breeding terrorists.

I actually watched a report on Fox news about how many terrorists were doctors, and because they were from countries with UHC, that somehow meant that UHC leads to terrorism. I'm not joking. I wish I could find the report, ill do my best but i dont even remember when it was on.

Any help anyone?

Edit: Disregard, thanks for returning to the other thread wotan

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 06:02 PM

I actually watched a report on Fox news about how many terrorists were doctors, and because they were from countries with UHC, that somehow meant that UHC leads to terrorism. I'm not joking. I wish I could find the report, ill do my best but i dont even remember when it was on.

Any help anyone?

Edit: As a side note, Wotan, are you going to return to the other thread to address my question finally as you said you would? You've posted several times in here but seem to have left the other one. I just hope you get around to it eventually.

It was posted here not too long ago, it had to do with shortages in doctors so the UK was importing them at high rates from countries more apt for terrorism or something of the sort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMu6wCqdeyQ&feature=player_embedded

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 06:04 PM

It was posted here not too long ago, it had to do with shortages in doctors so the UK was importing them at high rates from countries more apt for terrorism or something of the sort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMu6wCqdeyQ&feature=player_embedded

It wasn't Neil Cavuto. I'm certain of that.

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 06:09 PM

It wasn't Neil Cavuto. I'm certain of that.

Its http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-JEx-Kfvc

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 06:13 PM

Its http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-JEx-Kfvc

Hmmm, it may have actually been neil then. For some reason when I picture the report I was seeing much more of Fox's standard red graphics. I guess I was mistaken on who was reporting it.

As for the content, its still rubbish.

I like how they argue against "bureaucracy" in favor of doctors joining a doctors alliance instead , which is really just another bureaucracy.

And Zombie, my apologies, these are indeed the same video, yours just didn't have the beginning I remembered.

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 06:19 PM

shortages in doctors so the UK was importing them at high rates from countries more apt for terrorism or something of the sort.
Are you disputing this claim? Just curious.

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 06:22 PM

In all fairness, Hannity is anything but and has admitted his biases.

Thanks for that :).

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 06:23 PM

Actually, journalism - especially in the US - have for years moved from merely reporting the news to a commentary style. Of course this also happen elsewhere, but the US is a frontrunner in this area (whether it's a good thing or not). However, what this means is that today in the US media the difference is a very pale shade of gray. In particular with Fox News. They basically have very little reporting (even if they do make stand-ups), and pretty much everything is commentary.

So, in Fox's case, one could argue that they're all talking heads, all are commentators, and very few are reporters or journalists and newsmen.

Btw. You should take a look at a "talkshow" called "Hardtalk" from the BBC. That's right. It's a talkshow and it's good journalism. Not always excellent, but good journalism. Being in a talkshow set-up does not mean it's not journalism, nor does it mean that journalistic ethics should take a backseat.

All good points, and you're right about Fox having a lot of talking heads, possibly a lot more than other stations.

But even so, it's important to compare apples with apples. Watching the O'Reilly Factor and coming to the conclusion that Fox News is horribly biased is just plain invalid. That's like watching Howard Stern and complaining that whatever station he appears on is slanted and biased.

Compare news with news. Not news with talking heads. Doing anything else is just plain false and misleading.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 06:24 PM

Are you disputing this claim? Just curious.

Doctor shortages are inevitable in our current situation with baby boomers so we will absolutely have shortages no matter what, I tend to think someone who has achieved what is necessary to become a doctor (even foreign) is much less likely to engage in terrorism than most other professions regardless of where they hail from.

I haven't done any research on this subject, thats just what I believe (may be wrong).

skunk

Sep 28, 2009, 06:27 PM

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 06:29 PM

Doctor shortages are inevitable in our current situation with baby boomers so we will absolutely have shortages no matter what, I tend to think someone who has achieved what is necessary to become a doctor (even foreign) is much less likely to engage in terrorism than most other professions regardless of where they hail from.

I haven't done any research on this subject, thats just what I believe (may be wrong).
Fair enough - I have no data on the subject either. The video clip posted simply points out this fact; that the UK has a shortage, and that radical islamic countries have a surplus. I still don't understand what's so unacceptable about the video clip.

No body is saying that all islamic doctors are terrorists. The video simply raises a concern, something to keep an eye on, something to think about.

I do hope what you say is true, that a doctor would be much less likely to engage in terrorism. Makes sense to me, but since neither of us have any statistics on this...

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 06:30 PM

Fair enough - I have no data on the subject either. The video clip posted simply points out this fact; that the UK has a shortage, and that radical islamic countries have a surplus.

No body is saying that all islamic doctors are terrorists. The video simply raises a concern, something to keep an eye on, something to think about.

I do hope what you say is true, that a doctor would be much less likely to engage in terrorism. Makes sense to me, but since neither of us have any statistics on this...

Fox News doesn't have statistics on it either, yet they bring it up.....

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 06:33 PM

Fox News doesn't have statistics on it either, yet they bring it up.....
Of course they brought it up. An influx of immigrants from a radical islamic country is a valid concern. Something to keep an eye on. It's not an accusation. Certain nations are known for producing a disproportionate number of terrorists. Since when is it unacceptable to discuss such things?

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 06:40 PM

Of course they brought it up. An influx of immigrants from a radical islamic country is a valid concern. Something to keep an eye on. It's not an accusation. Certain nations are known for producing a disproportionate number of terrorists. Since when is it unacceptable to discuss such things?

India, where a lot of the UK doctors come from, isn't a "radical islamic country"...

NT1440

Sep 28, 2009, 06:41 PM

Of course they brought it up. An influx of immigrants from a radical islamic country is a valid concern. Something to keep an eye on. It's not an accusation. Certain nations are known for producing a disproportionate number of terrorists. Since when is it unacceptable to discuss such things?

Its unwarranted fear mongering. I thought you didn't have info on this, theres been an uptick in immigrants from these countries? :confused:

Wotan31

Sep 28, 2009, 06:50 PM

India, where a lot of the UK doctors come from, isn't a "radical islamic country"...
LMAO are you serious? Nobody is calling India a radical islamic country. Did you even watch the video?
Its unwarranted fear mongering. I thought you didn't have info on this, theres been an uptick in immigrants from these countries? :confused:
I don't have info on this. And neither do you. The guest speaker on the show made that assertion. Did you watch the video?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 28, 2009, 06:52 PM

The kids who come here to go to college from predominantly islamic countries really aren't much different than anyone else in my experience. In fact after 9/11 it was pretty embarrassing how ****** these kids were treated even though they did nothing wrong and were just trying to get a quality education.

I remember one of my physics courses had a 80% drop rate because the teacher was of arab decent a couple years after 9/11. He was probably one of my best math related teachers, even though there were only ~4 kids left in the classroom.

Eraserhead

Sep 28, 2009, 07:07 PM

LMAO are you serious? Nobody is calling India a radical islamic country. Did you even watch the video?

Yes, it makes the claim that 50% of doctors in the UK are foreign born. India is one of the places we import large numbers of doctors from, due to the fact that they speak good English and they have a large population.

However after looking at this article on the Lancet (free registration required - they are also one of the most respected medical journals)

The NHS employs nearly 1·4 million people, with 16% of staff coming from a minority ethnic background. The Healthcare Commission report highlighted that there was a lack of minority ethnic groups in senior positions within the NHS. “NHS trusts must do more to ensure that people from minority ethnic groups are represented more equally in senior management positions.” 30% of nurses and doctors in the NHS are black and minority ethnic people

So only 30% of nurses and doctors are from ethnic minority and black backgrounds.

As some of those will be British born, that means a good proportion (say at least 1/2) of Fox News' 50% are actually European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealanders.

Cave Man

Sep 28, 2009, 07:13 PM

The problem is, real journalism requires ethics and money. Tabloid TV is where assertions can be made without substantive evidentiary support. Combine this lack of ethics and the desire to increase profits over public service and you get Faux News.

Unfortunately, all the other news channels and papers have capitulated to these pressures as well. See the Chicago Tribune and LA Times (to name only a couple) news bureaus. Right now, only NPR and PBS have real journalism on TV or radio. But most Americans have short attention spans and thus NPR and PBS usually aren't their sources of information.

callmemike20

Sep 28, 2009, 08:54 PM

All good points, and you're right about Fox having a lot of talking heads, possibly a lot more than other stations.

But even so, it's important to compare apples with apples. Watching the O'Reilly Factor and coming to the conclusion that Fox News is horribly biased is just plain invalid. That's like watching Howard Stern and complaining that whatever station he appears on is slanted and biased.

Compare news with news. Not news with talking heads. Doing anything else is just plain false and misleading.

Oh Howard Stern. The King of All Media. As much of a conservative I am, I find Howard Stern to be one of the smartest guys out there.

hulugu

Sep 29, 2009, 12:35 AM

First off, who really care about the fish? Why should we put priority on fish over humans? Wait, didn't some area in california have their water turned off to save the fish? Pathetic.....

Are you serious?

From FAO.org:

Just over 100 million tonnes of fish are eaten world-wide each year, providing two and a half billion people with at least 20 percent of their average per capita animal protein intake.

This contribution is even more important in developing countries, especially small island states and in coastal regions, where frequently over 50% of people's animal protein comes from fish. In some of the most food-insecure places -- many parts of Asia and Africa, for instance -- fish protein is absolutely essential, accounting for a large share of an already-low level of animal protein consumption.

...

Remember, around 97 percent of fishers are in developing countries. Fishing is especially important there.

And, that's just the take home without regard to the massive ecosystem we depend on.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 29, 2009, 12:39 AM

Are you serious?

From FAO.org:

And, that's just the take home without regard to the massive ecosystem we depend on.

From the news reports I saw it was a small fish that the environmentalists were trying to save, minnows IIRC. A bait fish basically, they are plentiful around the US.

hulugu

Sep 29, 2009, 12:48 AM

From the news reports I saw it was a small fish that the environmentalists were trying to save, minnows IIRC. A bait fish basically, they are plentiful around the US.

I understood the reference to California, but I thought it was apt to point to the main argument "who really care[s] about the fish..."

Also, while the minnow may be a bait fish, the primary argument has been that the minnow is but one indicator species on the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

callmemike20

Sep 29, 2009, 01:38 AM

I understood the reference to California, but I thought it was apt to point to the main argument "who really care[s] about the fish..."

Also, while the minnow may be a bait fish, the primary argument has been that the minnow is but one indicator species on the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

I understand that fish are semi-important, but over time, as the supply depletes, alternatives will be found. Like I said before, it's not like all these fish will die in a day.

AP_piano295

Sep 29, 2009, 01:51 AM

I understand that fish are semi-important, but over time, as the supply depletes, alternatives will be found. Like I said before, it's not like all these fish will die in a day.

Do you understand the concept of a food web?

Pocket lint

Sep 29, 2009, 03:31 AM

Um... what? A lot of money? Who said anything about money? You sure didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, LOL. Go take a nap... you clearly need it.

Sheesh!
It was a joke, because you used the word "loaded" in the wrong context, not knowing what it meant. In that context you used it, it would mean they had a lot of money.

I can't believe one has to keep explaining the basics to you. :rolleyes:

All good points, and you're right about Fox having a lot of talking heads, possibly a lot more than other stations.

But even so, it's important to compare apples with apples. Watching the O'Reilly Factor and coming to the conclusion that Fox News is horribly biased is just plain invalid. That's like watching Howard Stern and complaining that whatever station he appears on is slanted and biased.
To a point I will agree. Surprisingly enough.
However, there's a difference between a Howard Stern and a talkshow that purports to be a journalistic talkshow.

Compare news with news. Not news with talking heads. Doing anything else is just plain false and misleading.
Actually, comparing Howard Stern to a political talkshow is false and misleading, considering how journalism works.

Eraserhead

Sep 29, 2009, 03:49 AM

From the news reports I saw it was a small fish that the environmentalists were trying to save, minnows IIRC. A bait fish basically, they are plentiful around the US.

There are a huge number of different fish species who have been caught unsustainably, from cod (http://www.fishsec.org/article.asp?CategoryID=1&ContextID=57) to bluefin tuna (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823113349.htm).

Peterkro

Sep 29, 2009, 07:01 AM

WTF is a "uptick". Somebody (quite likely a Irish person ) said "two nations divided by a common language" how true.

.Andy

Sep 29, 2009, 07:55 AM

WTF is a "uptick". Somebody (quite likely a Irish person ) said "two nations divided by a common language" how true.
It's an uptickal illusion?

Wotan31

Sep 29, 2009, 09:27 AM

WTF is a "uptick". Somebody (quite likely a Irish person ) said "two nations divided by a common language" how true.
It's an uptickal illusion?
Here's I'll help you out. It's a (US only?) economists term. Apparently you don't have google in your native country:

uptick
"upward trend," 1970, an economist's term, from up- + tick (v.).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uptick

Peterkro

Sep 29, 2009, 09:50 AM

Here's I'll help you out. It's a (US only?) economists term. Apparently you don't have google in your native country:

uptick
"upward trend," 1970, an economist's term, from up- + tick (v.).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uptick

It is as you say a word bolted together in the seventies although I doubt any self respecting economist would use it.It's brought to you by market traders,the same people who coined "dead cat bounce". The ugliness of the term was enough to guess it's origins without recourse to Google (or has Google lost it's capital now).

Wotan31

Sep 29, 2009, 10:35 AM

The ugliness of the term was enough to guess it's origins without recourse to Google
Hey, YOU asked. ;)

I wonder if mister linty pockets has heard of this term before? He IS a professional big shot journalist after all, so I expect he would. :rolleyes: But then again, he couldn't grasp the concept of "ratings"...

Pocket lint

Sep 29, 2009, 12:19 PM

Hey, YOU asked. ;)

I wonder if mister linty pockets has heard of this term before? He IS a professional big shot journalist after all, so I expect he would. :rolleyes: But then again, he couldn't grasp the concept of "ratings"...

Why tf do you drag my name into this?

No, I haven't heard the term before, but the reason for this might be relatively simple: I'm not a native english speaker (as I have mentioned before).

I don't claim to be a "bigshot" anything. I'm a journalist who cares about ethics. Biiig difference.

Just because I claim to know more than the average Fox News-pundit, doesn't mean I know every term in the english language. Or that I should know everything. But I see I touched you deeply, since you drag me into this.

With regards to your claim that I do not understand the concept of "ratings": I don't know wherefrom you'd get such nonsense. It rings rather hollow, though, considering you don't even know what the term "loaded" means - not even after it was explained to you. Perhaps you think that a "loaded" question means a shoot-from-the-hip question (aka revolver journalism)? I think you should double check before uttering more of such absolute drivel.

Here's something to keep you warm in that bubble of yours:

http://image.rhbabyandchild.com/is/image/rhbcis/rhbc_prod141043?$PD$

Thomas Veil

Sep 29, 2009, 04:56 PM

Wow. I just can't let some of this slide.

It's a news station because, well, they report the news.No...when you run leading lower-thirds, repeatedly add a (D) behind the names of misbehaving (R)s, and are caught on-camera rallying a protest crowd, you are not reporting the news, you are shaping and spinning it.

They do it very objectively too, despite what you've been led to believe by the left wing zombies that you obey.There's an obvious contradiction in that sentence between seeing Fox as objective and calling someone else a zombie.

...and yes, the talking heads on Fox do lean to the right. The talking heads on other news stations tend to lean to the left. You used the plural, stations. Where else besides MSNBC do you find those left-leaning talking heads?

Liberals like yourself want a society in which everyone looks different but thinks the same. This is called "diversity" and anyone who wants to be an individual is harshly denounced.I'm a liberal, and thanks for that characterization of me, but you can keep it.

They are just as objective (or not) as any other news station. If you have a point to prove, then prove it. Find the same news story reported by Fox and by another station, and compare / contrast them. Plenty of stories available at foxnews.com cnn.com and msnbc.com.Yeah? How many times has MSNBC portrayed a Democrat as a Republican?

But I suppose the puppeteers pulling your strings have trained it into you since birth that Fox News = bad so really, you can't help but to parrot it out any time the subject comes up.Oh, the irony.

Eraserhead

Sep 29, 2009, 06:13 PM

You used the plural, stations. Where else besides MSNBC do you find those left-leaning talking heads?

CNN and ABC too didn't you get the memo?

Thomas Veil

Sep 29, 2009, 06:18 PM

CNN and ABC too didn't you get the memo?No. The People's Committee doesn't have me on their list. ;)

Eraserhead

Sep 29, 2009, 06:30 PM

No. The People's Committee doesn't have me on their list. ;)

Hu's on that?

Pocket lint

Sep 29, 2009, 06:41 PM

Hu's on that?

The "People" - as in Soviet Union, China, and North Korea. They're that left - an organ for extreme leftists ... :cool:

Thomas Veil

Sep 29, 2009, 06:56 PM

Hu's on that?No, Hu's on first.

NC MacGuy

Sep 29, 2009, 08:23 PM

Bernie Goldberg had some decent opinion tonight on O'Reilly and is very much on this topic.

Thomas Veil

Sep 29, 2009, 08:53 PM

Bernie Goldberg had some decent opinion tonight on O'Reilly and is very much on this topic.Was it anything different than what we'd expect from Goldberg, i.e., the usual stuff about left-wing "bias"?

NC MacGuy

Sep 29, 2009, 09:02 PM

Was it anything different than what we'd expect from Goldberg, i.e., the usual stuff about left-wing "bias"?

You must not have watched it.;)

Actually quite the opposite.

Your bias my friend is truly showing:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909290050

Thomas Veil

Sep 29, 2009, 09:25 PM

You must not have watched it.;)

Actually quite the opposite.

Your bias my friend is truly showing:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909290050I'm not even sure where either O'Reilly or Goldberg were going with that, and I'm not sure after a while they were either.

And it's not any bias on my part; Goldberg has had a bad rep for quite a while now.

NC MacGuy

Sep 29, 2009, 09:32 PM

I'm not even sure where either O'Reilly or Goldberg were going with that, and I'm not sure after a while they were either.

And it's not any bias on my part; Goldberg has had a bad rep for quite a while now.

"Bad rep" I asume is not speaking what you'd like to hear?

Rt&Dzine

Sep 29, 2009, 09:32 PM

I wonder if mister linty pockets has heard of this term before? He IS a professional big shot journalist after all, so I expect he would. :rolleyes: But then again, he couldn't grasp the concept of "ratings"...

Are these snide remarks really necessary?

Thomas Veil

Sep 29, 2009, 09:51 PM

"Bad rep" I asume is not speaking what you'd like to hear?*Sigh.* I said Goldberg usually goes around talking about left wing "bias". Perfectly true. I also said he has a bad rep. Also perfectly true.

Your Fox-y attempts at trolling are not going to work. I do not intend to get into arguments with you over things we already know. You are simply not worth the time.

NC MacGuy

Sep 29, 2009, 10:09 PM

*Sigh.* I said Goldberg usually goes around talking about left wing "bias". Perfectly true. I also said he has a bad rep. Also perfectly true.

Your Fox-y attempts at trolling are not going to work. I do not intend to get into arguments with you over things we already know. You are simply not worth the time.

Truly didn't mean to troll if it appears so.

I'm not a proponent of Fox or any other "news" organization. There are no unbiased ones today which was my premise.

Perhaps you should have said "It's not worth my time to argue with you" instead of valuing my worth as being none? That hurt my feelings which I imagine isn't all that important as long as you're correct.

.Andy

Sep 29, 2009, 10:14 PM

There are no unbiased ones today which was my premise.
Which does not by any means make them all equal.

NC MacGuy

Sep 29, 2009, 10:22 PM

Which does not by any means make them all equal.

Absolutely correct.

Thomas Veil

Sep 29, 2009, 10:37 PM

Truly didn't mean to troll if it appears so.

I'm not a proponent of Fox or any other "news" organization. There are no unbiased ones today which was my premise.

Perhaps you should have said "It's not worth my time to argue with you" instead of valuing my worth as being none? That hurt my feelings which I imagine isn't all that important as long as you're correct.In the words of a famous movie, what we got here is a failure to communicate.

I'm sorry if I offended you (though I notice you had to get in a little dig at me in that last sentence).

I didn't mean you are worthless; I meant exactly what you suggested, that it was not worth my time to argue with you, since we were arguing from such totally divergent premises. I think most people would've read it the way I intended it; the fact that you didn't read it that way doesn't make either one of us right or wrong, but it is kind of emblematic of the way our posts have been talking past each other instead of to each other.

Either I'm not communicating clearly or you're not listening; or you're not clear and I'm not listening; or both. I think the smart thing to do would be to just forget the whole thing.

NC MacGuy

Sep 29, 2009, 10:43 PM

In the words of a famous movie, what we got here is a failure to communicate.

I'm sorry if I offended you (though I notice you had to get in a little dig at me in that last sentence).

I didn't mean you are worthless; I meant exactly what you suggested, that it was not worth my time to argue with you, since we were arguing from such totally divergent premises. I think most people would've read it the way I intended it; the fact that you didn't read it that way doesn't make either one of us right or wrong, but it is kind of emblematic of the way our posts have been talking past each other instead of to each other.

Either I'm not communicating clearly or you're not listening; or you're not clear and I'm not listening; or both. I think the smart thing to do would be to just forget the whole thing.

No offense taken. Really.

And I agree with the quoted post 100%.:eek:

BTW, where are you located in OH? I'm from there myself. Cleveland west side.

Thomas Veil

Sep 30, 2009, 07:00 PM

No offense taken. Really.

And I agree with the quoted post 100%.:eek:

BTW, where are you located in OH? I'm from there myself. Cleveland west side.You're ****tin' me. I grew up on the west side of Cleveland. Still live in outer 'burbs.

Counterfit

Sep 30, 2009, 09:43 PM

Liberals like yourself want a society in which everyone looks different but thinks the same. This is called "diversity" and anyone who wants to be an individual is harshly denounced.

I'm a liberal, and thanks for that characterization of me, but you can keep it.
.
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'Liberal'? If by 'Liberal' they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of 'Liberal'. But if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.

NT1440

Sep 30, 2009, 09:56 PM

.

Amen.

Thomas Veil

Sep 30, 2009, 10:15 PM

Counterfit, I've heard that quote from JFK a number of times, even heard the audio, and you know what? That's one of the things wrong with us today: we don't defend and promote liberalism nearly often enough.

Think about how many hours of the day Rush Limbaugh goes on extolling the supposed merits of conservatism. What have we been doing for thirty years? Well, we let Reagan turn liberalism into a dirty word, we let guys like Beck and Limbaugh stomp all over it, and we too often (as I once heard it put) shrink from the word like Dracula avoiding the cross.

If, in the last election, we'd run more true liberals, explained liberals' positions better instead of letting Limbaugh define us, who knows? The Dems might've gotten an even bigger majority...maybe one big enough to pass the public option without all this ************ we're going through now.

But first the guys in Washington have to be willing to promote true liberalism. They have to be making speeches like the one you quoted from Kennedy. I see some positive signs, but not nearly enough.

Desertrat

Sep 30, 2009, 11:52 PM

But, Thomas Veil, it's liberalism which has us in this present economic kerfuffle, unless you want to try and tell me that the Community Reinvestment Act was a conservative program.

Looking back over the last 50 or so years of history of the "news bidness", Fox comes off pretty well, all things considered. They certainly don't lie any more than the major TV networks have, or do any more coverups than the WashPost or the NYT. That's pretty well laid out in the facts as reported by Jeffrey Lord in this article:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/15/media-malpractice-tom-brokaws

"In other words, across five decades of American journalistic history, the instinct of many Old Media institutions -- specifically including NBC and the New York Times -- has been to deliberately withhold the truth. To quite deliberately use their journalism skills and tools to misrepresent those whose politics they do not favor."

Overall, quite a good recitation of fact.

'Rat

hulugu

Oct 1, 2009, 03:04 AM

But, Thomas Veil, it's liberalism which has us in this present economic kerfuffle, unless you want to try and tell me that the Community Reinvestment Act was a conservative program.

The CRA was but one small corner of the economic kerfuffle. You can't hang our current economic problems on the CRA without mentioning the incredibly complex business of Credit Default Swaps, nor the way that major investment houses were borrowing money day-to-day in order to fund operation while being over-leveraged to the point of absurdity.
I'd call this a bipartisan screw-up, made by Wall-Street and furthered by just everyone, but blaming the CRA for our current economic is like saying Hadrian's Wall destroyed the Roman Empire.

Looking back over the last 50 or so years of history of the "news bidness", Fox comes off pretty well, all things considered. They certainly don't lie any more than the major TV networks have, or do any more coverups than the WashPost or the NYT. That's pretty well laid out in the facts as reported by Jeffrey Lord in this article:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/15/media-malpractice-tom-brokaws

"In other words, across five decades of American journalistic history, the instinct of many Old Media institutions -- specifically including NBC and the New York Times -- has been to deliberately withhold the truth. To quite deliberately use their journalism skills and tools to misrepresent those whose politics they do not favor."

Overall, quite a good recitation of fact.

'Rat

This smells like a tuquoque fallacy, but let's talk about it.

First, the article makes some important points about the historical failures of the media, including it's failure to cover stories about Kennedy and the near-libelous story on Goldwater. But, this is an apples to oranges comparison because simply Fox News didn't exist and moreover, there wasn't a 'conservative' equivalent that did. You might as well talk about Hearst and the "yellow-journalism" that helped drive the US into the Spanish-American War.
Second, the article mentions that the other news agencies didn't cover Mark Levin since his book was on the NY Times Bestseller list. The question I would ask is, is Levin's book sales news? Do all the other NY Times Bestseller authors also get national news' stories, or just the really newsworthy authors like Stephanie Meyer whose books sold millions of copies and generated two movies?

Third, the article notes the ACORN story. It's a good story that needs to be covered by professional journalists, but two activist kids who have hidden cameras—and may have broken Maryland law in the process—does not make journalists. That the rest of the media hadn't covered this story is a failure, but Fox didn't discover this, they only gave a platform for this story because it fit their politically profile.

Ask yourself this, how many environmental expose does Fox host show after show? Is Fox News going to cover the collapse of Detroit like Newsweek is? Is Fox News going to cover the sale of human embryos at UC Irvine? No. They haven't because these stories don't fit within the political framework of Fox News.

Fox News is yellow journalism that Hearst would be proud of. We need something better and if WaPo or Time or the Gray Lady can't do it, we need to find someone else, but we should never settle for the politically-driven incompetence of Fox News just as we shouldn't settle for The Twitter Channel.

Counterfit

Oct 1, 2009, 06:05 PM

Amen.

Counterfit, I've heard that quote from JFK a number of times, even heard the audio, and you know what? That's one of the things wrong with us today: we don't defend and promote liberalism nearly often enough.

But first the guys in Washington have to be willing to promote true liberalism. They have to be making speeches like the one you quoted from Kennedy. I see some positive signs, but not nearly enough.

I'd put that quote in my sig if it would fit. :( assorted cookies

Thomas Veil

Oct 1, 2009, 10:10 PM

I'm sure you realize that the Community Reinvestment Act was, as hulugu says, a very small part of why the economy crashed and burned. Liberalism hasn't been demanding deregulation everywhere for the past 30 years, breaking down the safety barriers set up following the Great Depression. Corporations and Reaganites have been primarily responsible for that.

As far as the Lord article:

Some of it, such as the Goldwater "Thunder on the Right" issue, I can't speak to because everything I can find on the internet about it is basically a regurgitation of what Lord says.

Some of it is muddy territory, such as the Giancana mistress/Kennedy story. Lord forgets to mention that Giancana was purportedly working for the CIA at the time on efforts to undermine Castro. Whether or not the Kennedys could compartmentalize that effort from their investigation of the Mafia, the revelation of JFK and Giancana's mistress would've blown the CIA's project. TV news operations were not then (and probably are not now) in the habit of undermining government espionage efforts.

Some of the other stories are prime examples of journalism vs. sensationalism. Mr. Lord tells the story of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter without even seeing the huge fallacies in his argument.

The Old Media ignores the story, with CBS's Bob Schieffer saying: "I believe that's a story that we will be avoiding, because it appears to me that there's absolutely nothing to it...This seems to be just sort of a staple of modern campaigns, that you got through at least one love child which turns out not to be a love child. And I think we can all do better than this one." By July of 2008, Edwards is out of the presidential race, but viewed as a serious candidate to be Attorney General of the United States in an Obama administration. The Enquirer updates the news, with a vivid story of confronting Edwards in a Los Angeles hotel as he paid a midnight visit to Ms. Hunter and her baby. Fox News pursues the story. The Drudge Report and the blogosphere is filled with the story. Glenn Beck suggests on his then-CNN show that Edwards sue the Enquirer if the story is false. Edwards denies all as "lies." By August of 2008, Edwards confesses, after six Fox News reports and multiple Internet stories, but denies he is the father of the child.

Lord doesn't acknowledge the fact that all professional news media have priorities. Heterosexual marital affairs usually rank somewhere in the lower half, especially when they are unsubstantiated. I'm sure CBS and the rest of the "Old Media" figured they had better things to do with their reporters than try to find three credible witnesses to confirm gossip from The National Enquirer.

Lord also seems proud of the way that Fox, the Drudge Report and other tabloid journalists broke the story open; i.e., not through investigative reporting (that I can tell from Lord's account), but by repeating the rumor over and over and over until the other media feel forced to pick it up and it becomes such a cause celebre that Edwards is forced to admit it's true. It's a classic Fox tactic -- dictating what is news instead of merely investigating and/or reporting. Should the story have been reported? Probably, but again Fox was the only one willing to spend time on it, and even then not investigating it, just repeating unconfirmed claims. To make Fox look worse, when something similar happens to a Republican like Mark Sanford, they mysteriously end up with a (D) behind their name in the Fox lower-third.

Even worse with the Van Jones story, which we've already been over in these electronic pages. That was then, this is now. And the Mark Levin thing: morning TV hosts are under no obligation to interview political book authors, especially those from the hate radio field, and particularly knowing that frequently the sales of right-wing political books have been ginned up by bulk purchases from right-wing sympathizers.

Again, Mr. Lord writes apparently without fully understanding exactly what he's saying:

The Internet, talk radio and Fox have collectively if independently wound up as the battering ram that has smashed through the castle gates of Big Liberal Media.

He appears to be suggesting that the internet, talk radio and Fox have more credibility than professional journalists working for TV networks. Anyone can claim anything on the internet, talk radio or Fox, but only the professional news operations have journalistic standards. They may occasionally not live up to them, and they rightfully deserve any criticism they get for not doing to, but that's still better than having little or no standards.