This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Fair and Balanced


"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States." -Keith Olbermann

98 comments:

Wolf's Head said...

I think that Obermann's comments prove that he is the bigot, as is common with lefties.

The fact that such an outlandish bigot such as Obermann is even on the air is repulsive.

I'm sure that LPOV will piss and moan but Fox news thru objective analysis has been shown to be the most balanced news network in America, hence their spectacular ratings.

Sarkazein said...

The mainstream media is so far to the left, any move to the center looks far right to a liberal. When liberals say FOX is far right, it is because FOX is far right of the mainstream media... the center.

Liberal POV said...

Wolf, HD , and Sark

The main Stream Media is neither left or right it their for a profit. We have seen journalism chose pop culture over hard news with the coverage of OJ, Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole.
This failure over shadowed the lead up to the war in Iraq, the Jack Abermoff scandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

Fox is an extension of the Republican Party and foxx market fears and sensationalism.
Fox doesn't even try to meet journalism code of eithics.
Please don't come back at me with they do it too, I already get that but Fox seem to be leading the charge of fluff and misinformation.

For the record I don't watch Obermann or that channel. NPR is stillthe best journalism because the stories are more in depth and few are sensationalized.

Sarkazein said...

Don't show POV anymore proof, it sends his head deeper in to the hole.
Profit is what has allowed the POV to travel, live well, raise a family, and he hates even the mention of the word.

Reader said...

What an angry soul.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Can we not have profit with justice and ethics?

Do you approve of current journalism? You like the fuff and pop culture coverage over thing that really affect our lives?

Liberal POV said...

Reader

"What an angry soul."

What's this about?

I'm not the one living in fear or angry. I'm not using words like socialism, waterboarding, Bizarro President.

Do you like the deal you get from your insurance company?

oatz said...

The fact Liberal POV chooses "public" supported Liberal media NPR as objective is laffable. I listen to NPR in deference to my girlfriend. Other than Click and Clack the Car talk guys every story leans left along with their shows. Even humor shows like Wait Wait don't tell me get their material bashing Bush never any Obama jokes, like Obama just won the Heisman for watching a college football game would never be told on that show. Liberals are generous with other peoples money, but when it comes to using their own money to support commercial left radio ie Air America bankruptcy ensues.

oatz said...

BTW NPR was all over the Michael Jackson story and the "Pants on the Ground" story from American Idol.

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote- "...our lives?"


Here lies the problem. If you haven't noticed, we see things differently. It is not "our lives" as you write, it is MY life. Liberalism wants to make us a WE, I prefer the I.

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote-"Can we not have profit with justice and ethics?"

Replace one word, and ignore the grammar.

Can we not have government with justice and ethics?

Liberal POV said...

Sark

" Liberalism wants to make us a WE, I prefer the I."

That I 've noticed.

You have little time for the common good, justice or human rights.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

"Can we not have government with justice and ethics?"

Do I need to list all the real scandals under the Bush Admin or any Republican Admin. ?

Enron, Jack Aberamoff, Watergate, Iran Contra, Mark Foley,Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Bob Nay

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/06/sex_scandal_flow_chart.php

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070901212817AArnMRO

Without real journalism it will al continue.

Honest Debate said...

Okay Lib, just forget about NPR for the moment. Looking at the evidence of coverage of the speeches and the commentary by Olbermann, can you at least admit that Fox is more balanced than MSNBC and CNN?

Liberal POV said...

HD

No, of the three CNN does the best but that's a very low bar.

HD It's the silliness, hype, fear mongering and sensationalizm often of fluff pop culture that has nothing to do with our lives. This is not journalism.

Check out Demcracy Now, I'll give you it's left wing but supported with facts, eye wittnesses and fearless journalism. Try scaring Amy Goodman.
http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/pgs/portraits/Amy_Goodman.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Goodman

Check out the story done last year on workers at the chicken plants in North and South Carolina by the Charlotte Observer or the journaist that exposed the Small Smiles Dential Clinics.

Fox and to a lesser degree main stream media represents those connected and with wealth both liberal and right wing.

guy faulkes said...

I seriously doubt POV will ever admit Fox is fair and balanced. His masters have given him Kool Aid that preaches the opposite so facts and proof mean nothing. He is afraid of being excommunicated from the church of the man child Messiah.

I do not understand why Shultz and Obermann have not either been sued or had their butts kicked. Mark Twain was challenged to a duel for much less. He left town in the middle of the night.

Public radio should not be funded with tax dollars. If it cannot make it in the free market, it has no reason to exist.

Honest Debate said...

I don't see how you can say that Lib so I'll narrow the question. Should CNN have air both speeches in their entirety as Fox did?

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote-"Without real journalism it will al continue."

With real journalism Utopia will finally be reached.

liberal POV said...

HD, Guy, SarK

How can you people have any answers when you can't see the problems?

Can you find where Fox follows any sort of Journalism code of ethics?
I'm not here to defend anything CNN does as they to go for rating over substance. Guy, that's the difference NPR can report the truth without having to worry about the rating or funding.
Who should pay journalist? The coal industry? Haliaburtian? Exxon? Wall Street? Banking? The Republican party? Hollywood? Porn industry? Should the sponsor have editorial rights?

Mike D. said...

It may interest you guys to know that the Communist Venezuelan government is a major donor of NPR.

Mike D. said...

Liberal POV,

Interesting that you were posting this:

"NPR can report the truth without having to worry about the rating or funding."

... just as I was posting this

Liberal POV said...

Mike D

What are we saying? Money buys influence?
More non partican government funding is needed?

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote-"More non partican government funding is needed?"

Meaning- my money. There you go with that we again.

Mike D. said...

Liberal POV,

No.

What I am saying is that the notion that NPR "can report the truth without having to worry about the rating or funding" is absolutely ridiculous. Public radio has to "worry" about it so much that they hold an annual on-air beg-fest for money, money, money.

I am also saying that, for some reason, the Communist Venezuelan government sees sufficient benefit to donate a large sum of money to American public radio. Either they like what NPR already says, or they feel their contribution will influence programming in favor of the Chavez government. Either way, it's really sketchy, as are those Americans who cozy up to Mr. Chavez.

jaustin said...

Having just finished "Atlas Shrugged", there are so many things I'd like to say about some of the liberal comments. Being new to this blog, I'll just say, "Who is John Galt?"

Liberal POV said...

Mike D

Your suggestion for getting the American public informed with accurate non propaganda news delivered by professional and ethicial journalism is?
Can we agree the main strean media is failing at the job?

Mike D. said...

Liberal POV,

My "suggestion for getting the American public informed" is very simple. Let 'The People' decide with their remote controls and their dollars, just like they decided in the voting booths of Massachusetts.

I know it would be nice if we could do away with 'the will of The People', but sadly, that's not how America works.

It is neither your right, nor is it your responsibility to force information upon 'The People', and it is especially not your right to filter the message 'The People' are forced to receive according to your political philosophy.

Unless, of course, you are Mr. Hugo Chavez. Then, apparently, it's perfectly fine... at least that's what I am told by every Hollywood liberal who cozies up to him.

jaustin said...

Here's the problem with informing the American public; once they hear whatever it is they hear from whatever source they choose to subscribe to, that's all they care to know. Very few are interested in actually becoming informed and besides, putting the remote down takes too much effort. That's why i am skeptical when someone quotes any one news outlet. Tell me you saw it or heard it in three or four different places and finish up with' " but how I see it is..." and I'll listen.

Mike D. said...

Jaustin,

I think you underestimate your fellow countrymen.

You and Liberal POV may not agree on much, but you seem to agree that "The People" are stupid.

I disagree.

jaustin said...

Mike,
I don't think I called them stupid. I would characterize them as ignorant and too lazy to do anything about it. It's one thing to to believe in a certain philosophy through your own study and understanding of it and then it's something totally different to be told something and just say, "Yeah, what he said."

That's what I love about the internet, you can pull information from all points of view at the same time and make up your own mind.

On second thought, I do think Lemmings are stupid.

jaustin said...

One of the historical points I've read somewhere (sorry Forgot where)was that only 10% of the population of North American participated in our own Revolution for Independence and maybe 20% - 30% of the rest even cared about the outcome. That left 60% to 70% of the population just wandering around waiting to see who won and then they'd make their peace with it. As a personal survey of the people I know, those numbers hold about true today. I wish it were not so, but that's what it looks like to me. If Jefferson were as popular as the guy from American Idol then I'd think we have a better chance of getting somewhere.

Liberal POV said...

Mike


"My "suggestion for getting the American public informed" is very simple. Let 'The People' decide with their remote controls and their dollars"

I said nothing of what the content should be except that It should be factual, honest, ethical journalism.


I strongly agree that filtering should not take place this includes filtering for rating and higher ad sales or grant funding.

I'll ask again how do we get there?

What's your suggestion for getting the American public informed with accurate non propaganda news delivered by professional and ethicial journalism ?
Can we agree the main stream media is failing at the job?
The American people will form opinions with the information they recieve accurate or not even if it's about the lates pop culture affair.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

I really wished you would have answered my question about showing the entirety of both speeches, but I did not expect you to as you would have to admit the truth.

You asked: "Can you find where Fox follows any sort of Journalism code of ethics?", and you commented: "I strongly agree that filtering should not take place...".

In this instance (I narrowed the focus for you) Fox exercised your beloved "code of ethics" by airing both speeches in their entirety. "Filtering" did not take place as it did on MSNBC and CNN.

Honest Debate said...

Jaustin,

New schmew, who cares? Make yourself at home. Your comments are welcome...and interesting.

I do have to agree with Mike D., people are not stupid they are just disinformed and many are not involved or interested enough to dig deeper. This is why it's crucial that the debate be honest.

Mike D. said...

HD,

"that the debate be honest" - Honest Debate

Isn't it some sort of blogging foul to invert your moniker and use it in a sentence during a post? :)

Honest Debate said...

Mike D.,

Might be, guilty as charged.

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote-" I said nothing of what the content should be except that It should be factual, honest, ethical journalism"

Did you find Dan Rather was offering such? Did you find other liberals like Prokaw and Jennings were the pillars of journalism? Do you find the NYT and the Washington Post meet your requirements?

Sarkazein said...

H.D- " ... stupid they are just disinformed and many are not involved or interested enough to dig deeper."


To be not involved or disinterested and not willing to dig deeper, with what is going on today... is stupid.

guy faulkes said...

Jaustin, I read with interest your comments on the Revolutionary War. Conventional wisdom is that about 18% supported the patriots and a like number supported the Crown. The rest were either did not care or just wanted to be left alone. However, my research indicates this is not the case. In South Carolina, for instance, the majority of people were involved in this conflict for as much as 30 years before the signing of the Deceleration of Independence. A group of armed men would show up at a farm and ask the owner if he supported the Crown. If he answered incorrectly, they took everything he had and burned his home. There were very few on the fence.

I would suggest you go to Kings Mountain, take a tour of the site, and visit the museum. you will learn a lot. You might also ask the Wolf on this site. I consider him an expert on the issue.

Honest Debate said...

The most trusted name in news.

Honest Debate said...

Sark, you wrote: "To be not involved or disinterested and not willing to dig deeper, with what is going on today... is stupid."

From our perspective your may be correct but people have many interests, causes and passions. Not all include politics. How about "blissfully ignorant".

guy faulkes said...

HD, you make a good point, but so does Sark. One side of the coin contains rights and privileges. The other side contains duties and responsibilities. One cannot have one side of the coin without paying attention o the other. Unfortunately you are correct in that to many people try to exist on the outer edge of the coin. They never have to deal with anything when the coin gets flipped as it hardly ever lands on the edge. Ignorant bliss many times equals stupidity.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"The most trusted name in news."

You keep missing the point Sensationalism, hype, Fear and hate mongering don't equal journalism.

Builders could earn more profit it they didn't have to build to building codes.

Doctors could earn more and some do by not practicing their hippocratic oath.

Fox has chosen to disreguard the journalism code of eithic for increased profits. This has been billionaire Rupert Murdoch's standard operating procedure.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

"Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection."

Honest Debate said...

"Builders could earn more profit it they didn't have to build to building codes.

Doctors could earn more and some do by not practicing their hippocratic oath." -LiberalPOV

That's nuts.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Regarding Fox, you have no standing. You trot out the same ol' crap about jounalistic ethics as if NPR isn't the worst offender of all. I've given examples. I listen to NPR. I watch MSNBC and CNN. The example of this thread is conclusive and you still can't manage to say CNN should have aired the whole Brown speech. You have never, ever given one single solitary example of anything Fox, Heritage or Rush have said that you disagree with much less a credible argument as to why they're wrong. If you did we could debate it honestly. Instead you spew hate and condescension toward those who do have a leg to stand on and can make reasonable jugements with backing evidence.

It is ridiculously moronic.

Liberal POV said...

HD

This guy state my point very well.
No, I don't think Brown's election was national wews enough to carry his entire speach on a national news station.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/09/09-25-06tdc/09-25-06dops-column-01.asp

Liberal POV said...

HD

Here's another example.

http://www.rso.cornell.edu/progressive/articles.php?id=100

Liberal POV said...

HD

This seems to be the best list.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200911170001

Timeline of a [madrassa] smear
After teasing story by saying "Obama makes a little girl cry," Fox News' Kelly acknowledged it was not true
Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters
Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all
REPORT: "Fair and balanced" Fox News aggressively promotes "tea party" protests
EXCLUSIVE: Fox News seeks to confirm wildly inaccurate reporting that it's already aired on Jennings controversy; former student seeks Fox News correction
Would a real news organization help GOP PACs raise money?
Fox's news programs echo its "opinion" shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points

Mike D. said...

Liberal POV,

That's awesome. While attempting to criticize mainstream media as politically biased and not real news, you prove your point by citing a news "article" in The Cornell Progressive, self-described as "Cornell's Liberal News and Opinion".

Your unbiased news source states facts such as:

"The common buzzword among the fearful is, of course, "socialism.""

and

"Fears of an Obama-led socialist revolution stem directly from right-wing media figures who spout utter nonsense for personal and political ends."

and

"who had no purpose with his words other than to air his opinions".


This, to you, is objective journalism?

Liberal POV said...

Mike

"This, to you, is objective journalism?"

No, Mike this is critizism of Fox's lack of journalism standards and ethics.

Liberal POV said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Honest Debate said...

Speaking of ridiculously moronic: "No, I don't think Brown's election was national wews enough to carry his entire speach on a national news station." -Lib

Well then why did they air Coakley's speech in it's entirety? Balance? BTW Browns election killed health care, I guess that's not news.

I guess I asked for it but why do you link such crap? Your first article was a hoot though. I did not see any accusations of anything that was untrue. First separate the opinion shows from the news. You can't just say "Fox's news programs echo its "opinion" shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points" and think you've made an argument. Even in the opinion shows your sources are leaving out the fact that opposing views are represented.

"Obama is a fathead" says the righty, "Bush is a fathead" says the lefty. Headline: Fox calls Obama a fathead.

You say: "'Fair and balanced' Fox News aggressively promotes 'tea party' protests."

I guess by "aggressively promotes" you mean covering one of the biggest stories of the year when other networks ignored it, much like the ACORN scandal. Or maybe you mean that Fox is the only network that doesn't call them "teabaggers".

Liberal POV said...

Mike

I don't believe you ever addressed the following questions.

What's your suggestion for getting the American public informed with accurate non propaganda news delivered by professional and ethicial journalism ?
Can we agree the main stream media is failing at the job?
The American people will form opinions with the information they recieve accurate or not even if it's about the lates pop culture affair.

Liberal POV said...

HD

Do I need to post any more examples of Fox's lack of journalism ethics and professionialism?

The others CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC are only slightly better and following FOX's lead to garbage news. Sensationalism, fear and fluff.

The internet has pages and pages.

Honest Debate said...

Yadda yadda yadda. You're hopeless.

Honest Debate said...

ACORN

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Yadda yadda yadda"

This is a mature response?

ACORN?? You post this when you have no answers.


This discussion is on how we liberal and conservative get information we both agree is true, factual and without bias, not sensationalized for shock value to increase ratings or designed to create anger.

You apply the journalism code of ethics to Fox or CNN and see how well they do.

guy faulkes said...

HD, you are never going to be able to convince POV by using logic or facts. POV does not like Fox news because it is fair and balanced. It reports both sides. POV only wants one side to be reported. By using balanced reporting, Fox is showing things that run contrary to POV's religion. This religion consists of the liberal socialist viewpoint. Anything else is heresy to POV.

guy faulkes said...

You have never, ever given one single solitary example of anything Fox, Heritage or Rush have said that you disagree with much less a credible argument as to why they're wrong. - POV

Your information retention disorder is manifesting itself again. We have disagreed with these sources over every thing from Hillary versus Obama to provisions of the Patriot Act, to some of their comments on Bush.

Focus POV, focus. (No, I am not going back through the posts to find them for you. If you are sufficiently interested, do it yourself.)

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Yadda yadda yadda is the only response. I addressed your links right after I deleted your redundant post. Do you read?

Read the ACORN link again, you missed the point. The other networks did not report the HUGE story of the ACORN scandal but are immediately all over O'Keefe's arrest. Fox was all over both. Again, the other networks have a "filter".

You wrote: "This discussion is on how we liberal and conservative get information we both agree is true, factual and without bias, not sensationalized for shock value to increase ratings or designed to create anger."

What a bunch of gibberish BS! Truth is not dependent on whether we agree. You may be having the discussion you describe but the post is simply showing that between Fox, CNN and MSNBC that Fox was the only one that aired both speeches entirely. If Fox was so biased they would not have aired Coakley's entire speech. That would have been big news.

Liberal POV said...

HD

You apply the journalism code of ethics to Fox or CNN and see how well they do.

The American public is not well informed on current events compared to people of Europe or Canada.

Sarkazein said...

Here lies POV's problem: Many times I and others have told POV that some of the shows on FOX are not news shows but political commentaries. Hannity, Huckabee, and O'Reilly are not FOX's news shows.
POV cannot grasp this. Believe me, he has tried. He is comparing the FOX political commentary shows with network and PBS news shows. He will not catch on to the difference. Even if he did, it would only last for a few comments, then he would start again from zero.
He also cannot grasp the fact that the cable news outlets are showing their news shows all day and can cover a bunch more stories. Serious stories, sad stories, happy stories, and goofy stories. He was raised on 20 minute max once in the evening national news, spoon fed and prioritized by liberals.
Explaining the difference to POV is like trying to explain a computer to someone who has never seen one or even heard of one, and they only speak Mandarin Chinese.
You could tell him that some of the news anchors are Hume and Wallace for example. But you would have to remind him again in a couple of comments later when he calls Hannity a journalist.

Sarkazein said...

POVwrote-"The American public is not well informed on current events compared to people of Europe or Canada."

There you go with that WE again. Try it again and just say: " I, POV, am not as well-informed as people from Europe or Canada."

guy faulkes said...

"The American public is not well informed on current events compared to people of Europe or Canada." - POV

For once you might be correct, POV. The reason for this is the biased reporting by the left wing media such as NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NPR, and CNN.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"The reason for this is the biased reporting"

This I agree with but the bias is not left or right except in the case of FOX which is an extension of the Republican Party.

The bias in main stream media is corporate and power based.

The evening news has 20 to 40 minutes to fill each evening. Nothing gets in there by chance other than tragic news and that also has to compete for position. Decisions about rating, ad revenue, or is it factual information that will create hate mail and reduce viewers? The bias is business based not political.

In the lead up to going to war in Iraq there were over one hundred people interviewed that were pro war ( all of which history has proven to be wrong ) and four opposed to taking the country to war laying out the reality of what we have wittnessed the last eight years whom history has proved right.
Was that discussion leading to the war in Iraq without bias? Did themain stream media fail?
Were you property informed? Did you believe Iraq had something to do with 911?

guy faulkes said...

"Was that discussion leading to the war in Iraq without bias?" No.

"Did themain stream media fail?" Yes. As usual, I had to research the issue myself.

"Were you property informed?" Certainly. I researched for myself. Fox news was a big help that gave me many leads.

"Did you believe Iraq had something to do with 911?" Yes, Don't you, or are you badly informed?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

""Did you believe Iraq had something to do with 911?" Yes, Don't you, or are you badly informed?"

Most Fox views will agree with you. They would be wrong.

Honest Debate said...

Most Fox views will agree with you. They would be wrong." -LiberalPOV

"What are you talking about? Back that up. Can you?

Liberal POV said...

HD

"In the lead up to going to war in Iraq there were over one hundred people interviewed that were pro war ( all of which history has proven to be wrong ) and four opposed to taking the country to war laying out the reality of what we have wittnessed the last eight years whom history has proved right.
Was that discussion leading to the war in Iraq without bias? Did the main stream media fail?
Were you property informed? Did you believe Iraq had something to do with 911?

Guy still believe Iraq had something to do with 911 showing Fox News views are misinformed often more than thoses that don't watch news at all.

Honest Debate said...

"Did you believe Iraq had something to do with 911?" -LiberalPOV

No, because it was not claimed or proved by anyone. Bush and Cheney repeatedly said there was no connection. Guy Faulkes didn't say it, I don't know where you got that.

Quit dodging, you said this lie came from Fox. That's not true. Prove me wrong. What does Fox have to do with it?

Liberal POV said...

HD

Guy

"Did you believe Iraq had something to do with 911?" "Yes, Don't you, or are you badly informed?"

January 28, 2010 10:53 AM

Honest Debate said...

I answered Lib. NO!

What does Fox have to do with anything? Focus. Fox. What?

Liberal POV said...

HD

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/last-refuge-of-pantload-by-digby-jonah.html

"Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was “working closely with al Queda,” similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression."

Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn’t even come close to this total.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg24apr24,0,2716995.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

"In her debut as a contributor to Fox News, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin admitted Tuesday that leading up to her 2008 vice presidential debate she thought Iraq may have been behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."

http://crooksandliars.com/2007/07/19/simpsons-creator-matt-groening-on-the-daily-show#comment-42703

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/08/fox-poll-
120/

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/03/con04139.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/10/8/study_finds_fox_news_viewers_most

guy faulkes said...

Iraq provided support and training for the terrorist group responsible for 9-11. Many sources other than Fox news indicated that fact. Our own intelligence agencies and those of other countries for instance.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Iraq provided support and training for the terrorist group responsible for 9-11." Guy, January 28, 2010 5:20 PM

Here's more proof of Fox viewers being misinformed.

Do you think he will believe you?

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

I hate to sound like O'Reilly but you are a pinhead...with all due respect.

Guy is absolutely right. Ever heard of Salman Pak? Iraq supported all kinds of terrorist groups and did have WMD.

Now back to your dodge, when did Fox say Iraq was responsible for 9/11?

guy faulkes said...

POV, focus. Did I not just tell you I used other sources than Fox? I do not have a master telling me what to think as you do.

You have not given any proof that Fox is not fair and balanced. You try to change the subject to things we have already discussed many times. You really need some new material.

Honest Debate said...

This is funny. Lefty blog "Salon" made a correction that illustrates FDS (Fox Derangement Syndrome) pretty well:

The Jan. 25 article "Is the President Panicking" originally stated that Fox News led the charge against Bill Clinton in the '94 midterm elections. Fox News did not come into being until 1996. The story has been corrected. [Correction made 1/27/10]

At least they corrected it.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has since established that both the CIA and the DIA concluded that there was no evidence to support these claims. A DIA analyst told the Committee, "The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa'ida." Knight Ridder reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel noted in November 2005 that "After the war, U.S. officials determined that a facility in Salman Pak was used to train Iraqi anti-terrorist commandos."[Seattle Times, 1 November 2005, p. A5]. And PBS Frontline - who originally carried many of the allegations of Iraqi defectors - similarly noted that "U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques."[

" Seymour Hersh notes that "Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war [that the camp was used for terrorist training]."

"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. "

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"You have not given any proof that Fox is not fair and balanced"

See Post January 27, 2010 12:34 PM

also see post on Journalism Code of ethics.

January 27, 2010 10:06 AM

guy faulkes said...

Those are opinions, not proofs. Charts reflecting how much coverage was given to opposing parties is proof.

What is your opinion of Olbermann's viscous attacks on Brown. Was that ethical in a journalistic sense?

Honest Debate said...

Pulease Lib! Where are you going anyway? Did Iraq support terrorist or not? Yes, they did. There was a fuselage at Salman Pak. Seymour Hearsh!?! Are you kidding?

You keep trying to change the subject. When did Fox say Iraq was responsible for 9/11?

You really are a waste of time.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

I don't watch Olbermann for the same reason I don't watch Fox.

Honest Debate said...

"I don't watch Olbermann for the same reason I don't watch Fox." -LiberalPOV

So you don't know what you're talking about. We already knew that. That's how google can bite you. You should watch Olbermann though, you'd love him.

I can explain your silly little study. With the exception of Fox the media said over and over that Bush (more specifically Cheney) linked Iraq to 9/11. They did not. The confusion (I'm being generous) arose because Iraq supported terrorist. It was a safe harbor. So when that fact was pointed out the media said Bush/Cheney made the link. Saying Iraq supported terrorist (true) is very different than saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (not true). The MSM in their zeal to discredit Bush can not see a difference, hence the legend was born. Fox viewers understood this. They also know Hussein used WMD on his people, they know that 500 tons of yellow cake uranium were removed from Iraq by our military. When your silly little studiers asked them about WMD they gave the correct answer. When they said Iraq supported terrorist, the silly little studiers wrote down that they think Iraq caused 9/11.

Add to all of that, Iraq was a sworn enemy. We will never know, as it's impossible to know, to what extent if any Al Qaeda was helped by Iraq.

It's just common sense.

Sarkazein said...

Six months later, Abu Nidal was sentenced to death in absentia by Fatah for the attempted assassination of Mahmoud Abbas. It's unlikely that Abu Nidal intended to kill Abbas, and just as unlikely that Fatah wanted to kill Abu Nidal—he was invited to Beirut to discuss the death sentence and attended, refusing to humble himself and was allowed to leave—but the effect of the sentence was to signal that Abu Nidal was persona non grata, and to drive him further into the arms of the Iraqi government. He became "Mr. Palestine" in Iraq. The Iraqis gave him Fatah's assets in Iraq, including a training camp, a farm, a newspaper, a radio station, passports, scholarships for studying overseas, and $15 million worth of Chinese weapons. He also became the recipient of Iraq's regular aid to the PLO: 50,000 Iraqi dinars a month, around $150,000 at the time, and a lump sum of $3–5 million.[30]

Sarkazein said...

POV-

Note in the above Abu Nidal history, the word PASSPORTS. Note he was killed or silenced after 9/11. Do you have to get a fax from Osama to suspect this.

Sarkazein said...

POV- Hence the accurate title "War on Terrorism"!

Liberal POV said...

Sark

"POV- Hence the accurate title "War on Terrorism"!
"

You can't have a war on terrorism any more then Al Qaeda can have a war on drones or in World War II we could have a war on U-Boats, all are tactics strategies and weapons of war. In this case our war is with Al Qaeda.
One of the most important strategies to win against Al Qaeda is to isolate them as extremist and give no fuel to futher recruitment. When the world trade center was attacked all of Al Qaeda was likely less than 2000, maybe far less.
The Bush Admin played into their stradegy giving them requirement and strength.

Sarkazein said...

Turn the page POV, it's a new world. Abu Nidal was a terrorist living in Iraq as a guest of Sadaam. Sadaam contributed to Nidal's terrorist training. Some of the money he got he used for passports and foreign scholarships. All things most of the 9/11 terrorists had. I don't know if you read the Nidal story, but Sadaam supporting him was part of the world wide terrorism problem.
Hence the name WAR ON TERRORISM! Your stuff about U-boats and drones is irrational at best.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Our current war should be limited to a war on Al Qaeda. If we do as you and the Bush Admin. suggest abortion extremist ( Eric Rudoolph http://www.armyofgod.com/EricRudolphHomepage.html ) and other right wing groups would be at GITMO undergoing similar treatment.
Yes, Abu Nidal was a terrorist but not Al Qaeda and I believe Sadaam had him killed.
This not to say we don't screen for all other extremist and enforce laws on other acts of terrorism.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

So all the other terrorist organizations get to skate? They're no threat? If we eliminate Al Qaeda then all is well?

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote-"Yes, Abu Nidal was a terrorist but not Al Qaeda and I believe Sadaam had him killed.
This not to say we don't screen for all other extremist and enforce laws on other acts of terrorism."


Eventually, you will catch on (not really)- hence the name WAR ON TERROR. If Obama wants to change it to A SPECIFIC LAW ENFORSEMENT ACTION ON ONLY CARD CARRYING POV APPROVED ALQAEDA MEMBERS , then he can... but he is foolish.

Sadaam probably had him killed to silence him. Fact is he was a sponsored guest of Iraq.
There is a bogus email going around for years that says Ollie North talked about Osama at his hearing in 1987. It also said Al Gore was the Senator questioning him. It was NOT Osama that North mentioned, (reason for his $16K security fence) it was Abu Nidal.
I still get that email every now and then.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

How many movements around the world do you suppose use terrorism as a tactic including some American groups including anti abortion groups?

Sarkazein said...

POV- If we are not counting Obama's freind Bill Ayers who has supposedly retired from being a terrorist as he was tried in a US court and was released on a technicality even though he now admits guilt, I have no idea how many terrorist groups there are.

AlQeada terrorists, mostly not US citizens protected by their citizenship, are discernibly different from the terrorists protected by their US citizenship.
Are you getting ready to write that if we just treat the abortion clinic bombers or the Obama's friends like Bill Ayers with the "Golden Rule" all will be fine?

Liberal POV said...

Sark

"AlQeada terrorists, mostly not US citizens protected by their citizenship, are discernibly different from the terrorists protected by their US citizenship.
Are you getting ready to write that if we just treat the abortion clinic bombers or the Obama's friends like Bill Ayers with the "Golden Rule" all will be fine?

I'm suggestion we focus this war on Al Qaeda. I'm suggesting we do nothing that gives Al Qaeda a politican or prapaganda weapon.

This should be a war on Al Qaeda, Not, Cuba, Not Palistinians, Not Venezuela,not anti Abortsionist and never should have been Iraq.
The Right wing Republicans need to stop assisting Al Qaeda by spreading fear. Stop with the anti Muslim stuff focus on who the enemy is and don't play into their stradegy.

Honest Debate said...

Lib, so answer the question I asked at 8:30 this morning:

"So all the other terrorist organizations get to skate? They're no threat? If we eliminate Al Qaeda then all is well?"

Liberal POV said...

HD

""So all the other terrorist organizations get to skate? They're no threat? If we eliminate Al Qaeda then all is well?"

Few will require US military action. Normal good police work will be all that's required. Maybe like with the pirate limited military use.

Honest Debate said...

..er...are you going to answer my questions?