Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 May '17 12:39
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Yes. And I think you too are well aware of the short comings of the media you watch.

    [b]they tune in to Fox because they are promised, by fox, that there is the only place to get the truth.

    Nonsense and you know it. I have never met a Fox follower that actually believed half the stuff on it.

    Still think it's a terrible analogy? It's a rhetor ...[text shortened]... e? Do you trust it? Do you feel betrayed by it, or are you blindly lapping up what it feeds you?
    "Nonsense and you know it. I have never met a Fox follower that actually believed half the stuff on it."
    have you met a lot of fox viewers? how many fox viewers do you think you must have met until we start caring about this kind of opinion?
    do you think there is ever a debate where "i have met people that support my opinion " is a valid argument?

    also, claiming your debating opponent knows he is wrong is also lazy debating. you are implying that your position is so strong and obvious that nobody could possibly have a different position so if they claim opposition they must be lying.

    In the future, make a little effort and assume i am not lying, especially if all the proof to my lying is that you haven't met enough Fox viewers
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9781
    19 May '17 12:39
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    To some extent I agree and to some extent I disagree. I think all news sources should be honest about their bias, and should show their bias when it exists rather than trying to pretend to be neutral when they aren't. The whole 'we have to show both sides of the story' is one of the biggest mistakes the media ever makes.
    But I disagree that strong bias i ...[text shortened]... hould be. I think we should find better ways to fund the media so as to reduce some of the bias.
    I strongly disagree with this. News sources should follow journalistic integrity, which includes impartiality. I see with nothing wrong with presenting both sides of a story, as long as reason is used to balance out the facts.

    For example, if I was a reporter covering flat-earth believers, I'd do my best to present what they believe and why. I'd also show why this is rejected by scientists. The end result would be a piece fairly covering the beliefs of flat-earth theory, concluding with why it's not accepted scientifically. This can all be done without bias, so can any news story.
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 May '17 12:42
    Originally posted by vivify
    I strongly disagree with this. News sources should follow journalistic integrity, which includes impartiality. I see with nothing wrong with presenting both sides of a story, as long as reason is used to balance out the facts.

    For example, if I was a reporter covering flat-earth believers, I'd do my best to present what they believe and why. I'd also s ...[text shortened]... why it's not accepted scientifically. This can all be done without bias, so can any news story.
    with the caveat that you don't invite a flat earther on the show and allow him to have a screaming match with a scientist.


    wanted this point to be clear.
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9781
    19 May '17 12:441 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    with the caveat that you don't invite a flat earther on the show and allow him to have a screaming match with a scientist.


    wanted this point to be clear.
    I agree. Death to CNN.
  5. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82681
    19 May '17 12:44
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Matt Taibbi's "obituary" of Ailes in Rolling Stone is unsparing:
    .......... Fox was sold as the cure for atheists, feminists, terrorists and minorities crawling over your white picket fence.............But invective, like drugs or tobacco or any other addictive property, is a product of diminishing returns.

    Whew!
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525

    I read Tiabbi's article and the one I linked today before coming to the forum and I must say it's really hard to think well of Ailes.
    The Fox fear news factory is an awesome achievement in terms of how one man with a single minded mission decided to capture a market for himself, feed it what it wanted to hear and become very powerful and influential in the process all the while taking in a tonne of money. The article gives a very unflattering look at the propaganda machine Ailes built at Fox, and how much of his strategy formed when he carefully stage managed Nixon to victory, by not getting letting his campaign get bogged down with facts but appealing to emotions and dog whistling and carefully filtering access to Nixon so that the crowds he shone in front of were hand picked acolytes.

    Who can really say what motivated Ailes. Why was he driven to employ whatever means necessary to discredit the opposition. Were the ends worth it or will his enduring legacy be the unintended consequences of a political arena so riven with dissent and cynicism that any hope of bipartisanship with Congress working for the common good is a pipe dream never to return.
    While Ailes cannot surely carry all the blame for this divergence away from common sense and common good, the techniques he deployed in broadcast news to transform objective news gathering and dissemination by qualified journalists into a Wall of sound of targetted opinion driven spin that consciously shutters out objectivity and plays to the worst fears of the frightened believers held hostage to a 24/7 water drop torture of fear and loathing insistently and incessantly goading them to fear their neighbour and their fellow man is a money making formula that many may not want to bury with him.
  6. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 May '17 13:14
    Originally posted by kmax87
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525

    I read Tiabbi's article and the one I linked today before coming to the forum and I must say it's really hard to think well of Ailes.
    The Fox fear news factory is an awesome achievement in terms of how one man with a single minded mission decided to capture ...[text shortened]... eighbour and their fellow man is a money making formula that many may not want to bury with him.
    "Who can really say what motivated Ailes"
    I can. Everybody can.
    He wanted to win. He wanted his camp (whatever camp he was on) to win. Why is it a mystery?

    "Why was he driven to employ whatever means necessary to discredit the opposition"
    He had no scruples and gambled on there being no consequences.

    "Were the ends worth it"
    At least in "journalism", he won. He had what, 4 presidents elected? He suffered no consequences. He was only brought down because he couldn't keep it in his pants and didn't have the talent to read the public's perception on sexual harassment as well as how to manipulate his audience. In his view, it was worth it.
  7. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82681
    19 May '17 13:31
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Who can really say what motivated Ailes"
    I can. Everybody can.
    He wanted to win. He wanted his camp (whatever camp he was on) to win. Why is it a mystery?
    When you put it like that.....

    I suppose men like Ailes don't over-think things too much. They just get the job done and winning is everything.....

    You would hope there was more than that, but probably that's why he did win. KISS
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 May '17 13:382 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Nonsense and you know it. I have never met a Fox follower that actually believed half the stuff on it."
    have you met a lot of fox viewers? how many fox viewers do you think you must have met until we start caring about this kind of opinion?
    do you think there is ever a debate where "i have met people that support my opinion " is a valid argument?
    I take if from your response that you have no counter argument.

    also, claiming your debating opponent knows he is wrong is also lazy debating.
    No, its not lazy. Its true. Claiming you know exactly why I said something is lazy. (and false)

    you are implying that your position is so strong and obvious that nobody could possibly have a different position so if they claim opposition they must be lying.
    No, I am not implying any such thing. I am stating clearly that you are lying.

    In the future, make a little effort and assume i am not lying,
    Why should I when it is blatantly obvious that you are lying?

    especially if all the proof to my lying is that you haven't met enough Fox viewers
    The fact that you are claiming that that is 'all the proof' demonstrates that you are lying. You wouldn't need to make such a stupid statement if you weren't just caught lying.

    [edit]
    In case you are not getting it yet, this post is entirely rhetorical and I don't expect an answer from you. I have already put you in the same basket as whodey.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 May '17 13:45
    Originally posted by vivify
    I strongly disagree with this. News sources should follow journalistic integrity, which includes impartiality. I see with nothing wrong with presenting both sides of a story, as long as reason is used to balance out the facts.
    Except that it never ever does. What happens is that news organisations show 'both sides' of what they, in their biased opinion believe to be 'both sides' and present them as equals when they are not, and in many cases go so far as to manufacture the 'opposing' side purely so as to give the impression of balance.
    The very fact that you say they should 'balance out the facts' is what leads to the view that there is such a thing as a relative fact. Facts are facts, they don't need to be 'balanced out'. There are no 'alternative facts'.

    For example, if I was a reporter covering flat-earth believers, I'd do my best to present what they believe and why.
    That is not at all the sort of story I am talking about. If you were merely covering a science article about the shape of the earth, would you bring on some flat earthers to have their say? There is a difference between reporting on a particular view, and presenting that view as possible fact at every opportunity.

    The end result would be a piece fairly covering the beliefs of flat-earth theory, concluding with why it's not accepted scientifically.
    So not balanced at all. Not only have you taken sides, but you have essentially stated clearly that you believe one side is flat out wrong.
  10. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9781
    19 May '17 13:543 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Except that it never ever does. What happens is that news organisations show 'both sides' of what they, in their biased opinion believe to be 'both sides' and present them as equals when they are not, and in many cases go so far as to manufacture the 'opposing' side purely so as to give the impression of balance.
    The very fact that you say they should 'b ...[text shortened]... aken sides, but you have essentially stated clearly that you believe one side is flat out wrong.
    That is irrelevant to what news should be. News is supposed to be unbiased, period. If I said politicians shouldn't be corrupt, the fact that most (if not all) probably are doesn't change the truth of what I said. Likewise with news outlets not being biased.

    Much of the blame is on the viewers, who aren't mature enough to watch news unless it's presented as a reality show full of drama. News outlets that try to keep their journalistic integrity often fall by the wayside. That still doesn't excuse news sources of abdicating the journalistic integrity they are supposed to keep.

    So not balanced at all. Not only have you taken sides, but you have essentially stated clearly that you believe one side is flat out wrong.
    Merely pointing out that something is factually wrong doesn't make one biased.
  11. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65589
    19 May '17 14:06
    Originally posted by vivify
    That is irrelevant to what news should be. News is supposed to be unbiased, period. If I said politicians shouldn't be corrupt, the fact that most (if not all) probably are doesn't change the truth of what I said. Likewise with news outlets not being biased.

    Much of the blame is on the viewers, who aren't mature enough to watch news unless it's presente ...[text shortened]... t out wrong.

    Merely pointing out that something is factually wrong doesn't make one biased.[/b]
    There's a difference between bias and corruption

    🙄
  12. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9781
    19 May '17 14:10
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    There's a difference between bias and corruption

    🙄
    That wasn't the point. The point was that just because something isn't how it should be (like news sources being unbiased) that doesn't mean that people shouldn't keep striving to make it so (like politicians not being corrupt).
  13. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65589
    19 May '17 14:19
    Originally posted by vivify
    That wasn't the point. The point was that just because something isn't how it should be (like news sources being unbiased) that doesn't mean that people shouldn't keep striving to make it so (like politicians not being corrupt).
    People may as well give up striving to make the news unbiased because it will never be unbiased, because people don't want it to be unbiased.

    Corruption is fraudulent and illegal. So the point is the two don't compare.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10118
    19 May '17 14:30
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    What's the likelihood of Sleepyguy *not* 'dancing on the grave' of a dead person hated by right-wing Americans like himself?
    In the dirty world of politics, graves are not there to lay you to rest, they are dance floors.

    All they need are one of those disco balls to go above the grave.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 May '17 14:49
    Originally posted by vivify
    That is irrelevant to what news should be. News is supposed to be unbiased, period.
    Well that depends on many things. When you say 'what it should be' do you mean what you want, what government wants, what the viewers want? And when you say 'unbiased' do you mean reporting what they believe to be the truth? Or reporting what they believe their viewers believe to be the truth?

    Much of the blame is on the viewers, who aren't mature enough to watch news unless it's presented as a reality show full of drama.
    I have to point out that even dedicated watchers of old style news were mostly not mature enough to see all the bias that goes into it.

    News outlets that try to keep their journalistic integrity often fall by the wayside. That still doesn't excuse news sources of abdicating the journalistic integrity they are supposed to keep.
    Agreed, but neither does it excuse the immaturity of the viewers.

    Merely pointing out that something is factually wrong doesn't make one biased.
    So 'bias' in your meaning is deliberately lying in favour of a position? Given that you already know the flat earthers are factually wrong, why is it necessary to bring them on at all? What if you just paid someone to do a caricature of a flat earther (CNN style) so you can make fun of him? Would that be less or more biased?
    Your whole example simply doesn't make sense given that it isn't the sort of situation where bias is an issue given that you already know the correct answer.
    Much better would have been an example where you they were arguing for socialism and they brought on some capitalists then at the end concluded that capitalism cannot work.
Back to Top