This is what MEDIAMATTERS does.

[fossten]

so you haven't attended any anti-war rallies...

Moving the goalposts and ad hominem logic. You're actually placing burden of proof on anecdotal evidence - completely the opposite of logical.

I'll remember this quote the next time you try to claim something without actual, first hand experience. That should invalidate almost anything you post.

 

[foxpaws]

Moving the goalposts and ad hominem logic. I'll remember this quote the next time you try to claim something without actual, first hand experience. That should invalidate almost anything you post.

All I asked was has he attended a rally - so I could see if he was discussing this from first hand experience or not. Things you see on TV can be actually quite different than what they are like when you are attending them, as you have pointed out many times Foss, heck, you did in just a couple of post above this one. I wasn't placing judgment, I was just trying to find out from what viewpoint Cal was going to discuss this.

 

[fossten]

All I asked was has he attended a rally - so I could see if he was discussing this from first hand experience or not. Things you see on TV can be actually quite different than what they are like when you are attending them, as you have pointed out many times Foss, heck, you did in just a couple of post above this one. I wasn't placing judgment, I was just trying to find out from what viewpoint Cal was going to discuss this.

No, you sought to emphasize that Cal wasn't there, implying that he couldn't have been able to make a proper judgment without such an experience. He actually never answered your question but you assumed his answer meant that he had never attended a rally - and you thought it significant enough to mention again.

If Fox really were the ratings grabbing, political machine, they WOULD have cameras at those anti-war rallies. It would shock and horrify middle-America to see what takes place at those large events, it would be an extremely powerful image that would effectively associate the Democrat party with the radicals that have taken over the party.

Would it cal - what was the last anti-war rally you attended?

You actually challenged his claim that cameras would be there at anti-war rallies - as though he wouldn't know such a thing unless he'd been to one.

so you haven't attended any anti-war rallies...

Despite the fact that Cal actually provided evidence of his claim, you ignored the evidence, failed to actually respond to it, and instead returned to your original demand for anecdotal proof. If you had been arguing in good faith, you would have at least addressed the videos he mentioned.

You mentioned it twice, while demanding that he answer you - indicating that it is an important point. And in this very post, where I've bolded, you've reinforced the implication and (unintentionally?) acknowledged that I'm right about this.

Your "Wha-? Me?" response is self-contradictory and disingenuous.

 

[shagdrum]

What - that having a monetary interest in the game might alter the way you report the game... duh... it doesn't get any more simple that that Cal.

That is not what you are arguing. Your argument implies that " having a monetary interest in the game" does "alter the way you report the game". Those are two very different things.

If your argument were based on what you state in this post, then it is ultimately irrelevant to this thread. The only way it could be construed as relevant is if the argument assumed what I just pointed out. Then it serves as an effective (though illogical) means of discrediting something.

Also, something very relevant to this; Fox does not have an financial interest in the events being successful, only in occurring. That is very important in looking at the incentive structure involved. And if you are going to look at that, you have to closely examine it; not simply causally acknowledge it when it is convenient for your argument.

 

[foxpaws]

No, you sought to emphasize that Cal wasn't there, implying that he couldn't have been able to make a proper judgment without such an experience. He actually never answered your question but you assumed his answer meant that he had never attended a rally - and you thought it significant enough to mention again.

So, I am better off assuming that he wasn't there, than actually getting a yes/no answer - no Foss, perhaps I have many times before assumed things on this site, but I am slowly learning - do not assume.

You actually challenged his claim that cameras would be there at anti-war rallies - as though he wouldn't know such a thing unless he'd been to one.
Despite the fact that Cal actually provided evidence of his claim, you ignored the evidence, failed to actually respond to it, and instead returned to your original demand for anecdotal proof. If you had been arguing in good faith, you would have at least addressed the videos he mentioned.

Foss - this boiled down to whether Fox News would be more inclined to show an anti-war rally, or a tea party rally, due to their monetary investment in the tea party movement. Cal then does what Cal does best - not really answer my question but inject his own 'brand' of judgment on anti-war rallies... "It would shock and horrify middle-America to see what takes place at those large events,". I was trying to find out if he got that impression by viewing those rallies on TV, which does have a habit of sensationalizing things, or if he had actually attended one, and then the conversation would head in a different direction.

It is an important point - once again, it can show biased in reporting the news. The difference between selling sensational coverage of anti-war rallies, and actually being there and seeing the difference between what is portrayed on TV and the actual event is quite amazing.

So, it looks like I can't compare notes with Cal, although, perhaps I can, I really haven't gotten an answer from him on whether or not he sits on his couch and creates his judgment, or if he attends the event and his judgment is based on that.

You mentioned it twice, while demanding that he answer you - indicating that it is an important point. And in this very post, where I've bolded, you've reinforced the implication and (unintentionally?) acknowledged that I'm right about this.

Your "Wha-? Me?" response is self-contradictory and disingenuous.

Since everyone else dances around the real problem with Fox News - I have noticed that you have danced the best foss - never confronting the idea that since Fox News has an investment in the tea parties, it might not be the best place to view unbaised reporting on the same.

 

[shagdrum]

Come on shag - if your friend headed a news organization, one you worked at for years, and the money from the current organization that you head is funded by money that is also from the friends of that same news organization head, I can't question that it might be biased - especially after posting articles that show how the 'watchdog' collects and presents data are very questionable as well.

Again that is not what you are doing. You are implying a direct logical link where there is none. Your entire argument is built on a fallacy. Stop backtracking.

You gotta be kidding - I give up - there is absolutely nowhere I can go. I give you Media Matters on the same exact reasoning,

No, you used different reasoning; fallacious reasoning aimed at rationalizing a conclusion rooted in political prejudice.

Now - Fox News has a stake in the political game - they have monetarily backed a political party, with commercials they have produced and run.

What political party is that?

Again, you need to closely and critically examine the incentive structure involved here.

Does honesty even occur to you as an option, or are your principles defined by nothing more then expediency?

 

[shagdrum]

Since everyone else dances around the real problem with Fox News - I have noticed that you have danced the best foss - never confronting the idea that since Fox News has an investment in the tea parties, it might not be the best place to view unbaised reporting on the same.

The only one dancing around this issue is you to avoid confronting the huge flaws and logical inconsistencies in your own argument.

Can't go beyond your leftist talking points, eh?

 

[fossten]

So, I am better off assuming that he wasn't there, than actually getting a yes/no answer - no Foss, perhaps I have many times before assumed things on this site, but I am slowly learning - do not assume.

I don't really care - but don't misrepresent your own words. If you are trying to emphasize something, don't pretend you aren't.

Foss - this boiled down to whether Fox News would be more inclined to show an anti-war rally, or a tea party rally, due to their monetary investment in the tea party movement. Cal then does what Cal does best - not really answer my question but inject his own 'brand' of judgment on anti-war rallies... "It would shock and horrify middle-America to see what takes place at those large events,". I was trying to find out if he got that impression by viewing those rallies on TV, which does have a habit of sensationalizing things, or if he had actually attended one, and then the conversation would head in a different direction.

It is an important point - once again, it can show biased in reporting the news. The difference between selling sensational coverage of anti-war rallies, and actually being there and seeing the difference between what is portrayed on TV and the actual event is quite amazing.

So, it looks like I can't compare notes with Cal, although, perhaps I can, I really haven't gotten an answer from him on whether or not he sits on his couch and creates his judgment, or if he attends the event and his judgment is based on that.

Cal can address this - I'm not interested in your whining.

Since everyone else dances around the real problem with Fox News - I have noticed that you have danced the best foss - never confronting the idea that since Fox News has an investment in the tea parties, it might not be the best place to view unbaised reporting on the same.

I haven't staked out a position in this thread on Fox News - you're trying your best to use Alinsky tactics and red herrings to distort the issue, however, and so you deserve nothing less than to have your tactics and logic disassembled.

I merely questioned FIND as to why he used the term 'Faux News.'

 

[foxpaws]

Again that is not what you are doing. You are implying a direct logical link where there is none. Your entire argument is built on a fallacy. Stop backtracking.

I am not shag - there is a direct, logical link that you don't ask friends what their opinion is of their friends. It also has the wonderful advantage of also being common sense. Get it shag - I don't ask you your opinion of your best friend and take everything you tell me as being the truth. Human nature - remember how you have argued over and over again that you just can't get around that. If there is a question on whether or not CMPA would be truthful about Fox News because of friendships - you toss it out - they do it all the time in court shag, they constantly put into question the validity of testimony by friends of the defendant - because it is often biased.

What political party is that?

Again, you need to closely and critically examine the incentive structure involved here.

Does honesty even occur to you as an option, or are your principles defined by nothing more then expediency?

The Tea Party, which although, is not technically a political party, sure acts like one - they back candidates, they give money, it might be more like a PAC actually... good point...

I am very critically examining what fox has to gain here shag - are you? If you invest in something, you are not the best resource on unbiased reports on that product. Same as if you are friends with the people you are investigating, you probably aren't the best source of unbiased results.

 

[foxpaws]

I haven't staked out a position in this thread on Fox News - you're trying your best to use Alinsky tactics and red herrings to distort the issue, however, and so you deserve nothing less than to have your tactics and logic disassembled.

I merely questioned FIND as to why he used the term 'Faux News.'

I know you have been avoiding the issue foss, sort of a rhetorical question - you seem to do this when you aren't in agreement with the other two heads of the three headed beast... which, although I won't totally applaud you for your silence, I will congratulate you on what seems to be your unwillingness to be a blind follower this time.

 

[shagdrum]

I am not shag - there is a direct, logical link that you don't ask friends what their opinion is of their friends.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:
That's how you are rephrasing your argument now? That is even more absurd then before. There is nothing logical there. It is desperation, nothing more.

The Tea Party, which although, is not technically a political party, sure acts like one - they back candidates, they give money, it might be more like a PAC actually... good point...

So, you presented them as something they are not and are now kinda backtracking from but still trying to justify your misrepresentation of them. Got it.

I am very critically examining what fox has to gain here shag

Hostility toward an organization is not the same thing as critical examination of the organization.

Also, my focus is on the logic of your claims, which you have not critically examined.

 

[foxpaws]

So shag, let me get this right - you are fine allowing friends to investigate friends and think that they will do it honestly, even when you have been given evidence to the contrary.

And you actually blindly believe investors when they talk about how wonderful the product is that they invested in, and you wouldn't think that they would be biased at all.

Really - that is what you are saying?

 

[fossten]

I know you have been avoiding the issue foss, sort of a rhetorical question - you seem to do this when you aren't in agreement with the other two heads of the three headed beast... which, although I won't totally applaud you for your silence, I will congratulate you on what seems to be your unwillingness to be a blind follower this time.

Desperate words, fox. I don't agree with you on this - but I haven't taken the time to research this like Cal has, so I'm not going to act like you or FIND and pretend to know something I don't.

It's interesting that you take such an interest in whether or not I take a position on a thread - must be another symptom of your ongoing obsession with me. It's also interesting that your obsession centers around my lack of response - instead of centering around engaging Shag and/or Cal in a workmanlike, good faith manner.

But then again, that's never been your strong suit, has it?

Who's dancing around the issue, again?

 

[foxpaws]

Hostility toward an organization is not the same thing as critical examination of the organization.

Also, my focus is on the logic of your claims, which you have not critically examined.

It isn't a matter of hostility shag - I am just showing that they are biased. NBC is biased, CBS is - CNN is - they all are, including Fox.

And, because the right seems to have this odd notion that somehow Fox News, even with its management and ownership having very close right wing ties, is above all the others and somehow isn't biased, I am showing you that beyond the obvious ownership/management issues, they also have this little thing that they are invested now in the political system. The very system they report on. Investment in something is a huge red flag when it comes to reporting on something.

Once again - you would be all over CBS if they produced and ran, for free, commercials for People for the American Way. You should be - I would be. And I would very much question any reporting that CBS did regarding People for the American Way.

Just as you should be just as appalled that Fox News produced and ran, for free, commercials for Tea Party rallies. And you should question any reporting that Fox News does on the Tea Party. (they have the word 'party' in their name - and they go by that - maybe that skews them back to political party... still working on this one).

 

[foxpaws]

Who's dancing around the issue, again?

What issue foss - that fox news is biased, is no better than any other news source when it comes to that... they are, they have a monetary stake in the game - no one has an answer to that - and I am getting tired of the run-around.

 

[shagdrum]

And, because the right seems to have this odd notion that somehow Fox News, even with its management and ownership having very close right wing ties, is above all the others and somehow isn't biased, I am showing you that beyond the obvious ownership/management issues, they also have this little thing that they are invested now in the political system. The very system they report on. Investment in something is a huge red flag when it comes to reporting on something.

Ignore it all you like, but your entire argument hinges on fallacious ad hominem reasoning.

 

[fossten]

What issue foss - that fox news is biased, is no better than any other news source when it comes to that... they are, they have a monetary stake in the game - no one has an answer to that - and I am getting tired of the run-around.

No - you went further than that - you tried to draw a comparison between MM and Fox. In other words - you are smearing Fox News as a fake, lying organization.

As far as your 'bias' argument - have you ever watched Shepard Smith? He balances out any 'right' leaning there might be with the other news broadcasters.

 

[foxpaws]

No - you went further than that - you tried to draw a comparison between MM and Fox. In other words - you are smearing Fox News as a fake, lying organization.

As far as your 'bias' argument - have you ever watched Shepard Smith? He balances out any 'right' leaning there might be with the other news broadcasters.

You have to question their motives - that they could be biased. Just as you question an organization funded by Sorros - you need to look behind the curtain at Fox.

I stated that I think they report some things very well - and they do - but, I also think that they are biased when it come to reporting things like the tea party. They have a monetary investment in the tea party, and for that reason you have to question their ability to report tea party news items in a non-biased fashion.

They aren't fake - and I don't know if they lie. But, I do know that if you have ownership in something, although you might not lie about it, you might try to put it in the best light, or omit bad things about it. Bias in both cases.

And I rarely watch Smith - sometimes on rebroadcasts if one of my friends mentions a story that he did.

And so, if MSNBC puts Beck on for instance - then we get to negate everything bad that Olbermann does? Silly Foss...

 

[foxpaws]

Ignore it all you like, but your entire argument hinges on fallacious ad hominem reasoning.

Nope - it hinges on common sense, and a real knowledge of the good old boy network shag -

Real life - you might want to get out of the basement and try it sometime.

Oh, and by the way...

The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

Here I am trying to go to the the credibility of Fox, Fox (and all of you) claim 'unbiased', but you depend on the fact that they just claim that (and the CPMA, which starts a circle of 'unbiased' because the two are linked). If I can show cause where they benefit by being biased, trial judges would allow that.

 

[fossten]

I stated that I think they report some things very well - and they do - but, I also think that they are biased when it come to reporting things like the tea party. They have a monetary investment in the tea party, and for that reason you have to question their ability to report tea party news items in a non-biased fashion.

You can question their motives, but I haven't seen you give any real examples of bias. If they're presenting the Tea Party in a favorable light, give me an example that proves a) that they're doing this and b) that they shouldn't be. If something's favorable, then you're biased if you DON'T show it as is. You're presenting the premise that the Tea Party is inherently bad and shouldn't be sugar coated. Fine: Show evidence that this is the case. We all know you hate the Tea Party - now's your chance to flesh out your accusation both of Fox and the Tea Party.

 

[shagdrum]

Nope - it hinges on common sense, and a real knowledge of the good old boy network shag -

Fallacious argument are not common sense.

The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

Here I am trying to go to the the credibility of Fox, Fox (and all of you) claim 'unbiased', but you depend on the fact that they just claim that (and the CPMA, which starts a circle of 'unbiased' because the two are linked). If I can show cause where they benefit by being biased, trial judges would allow that.

It all depends on the logic of the argument as to weather it would be an exception to the rule. However, your argument is not an exception. Your argument is that due of the connections of the head of the group and how the group is funded there is no way the group can be objective. That is a blatantly flawed argument; a textbook example of an ad hominem circumstantial argument that should be rejected by any thinking person.

If you could show that the group has a pattern and a history of distortion (like Michael Moore or Media Matters) then it would be reasonable to view the group as having no credibility. that would be, "legitimate and relevant to the issue", but that is not what you are showing. You are citing past associations and incidental connections that have absolutely no bearing on credibility.

That is not common sense, it is cheap rationalization. You are determined to make a square peg fit in a round hole on this one, I see.

 

[foxpaws]

You can question their motives, but I haven't seen you give any real examples of bias. If they're presenting the Tea Party in a favorable light, give me an example that proves a) that they're doing this and b) that they shouldn't be. If something's favorable, then you're biased if you DON'T show it as is. You're presenting the premise that the Tea Party is inherently bad and shouldn't be sugar coated. Fine: Show evidence that this is the case. We all know you hate the Tea Party - now's your chance to flesh out your accusation both of Fox and the Tea Party.

Here you go...

One

“Can’t get to a tea party?” Fox’s Bill Hemmer asked viewers the other day. “Fox Nation hosts a virtual tea party — you can check it out on the site, a location of a tea party in your area.”

Nobody’s covering the tea parties quite like Fox — and that’s prompting critics and cable news competitors to say that the network is blurring the line between journalism and advocacy.

“Fox appears to be promoting these events at the same time it is presenting them in a way that looks like reporting,” said Stephen Burgard, director of Northeastern University’s School of Journalism.

Burgard called the practice “pseudo-journalism,” adding: “We have seen this before from Fox News Channel, but its role as galvanizer of opposition to President Obama's policies and leadership posture appears to be emerging.”​

Two (Direct from Fox News)

Just as 18th century decrees by the British drew outrage from American colonists, several acts of modern U.S. government intervention have stirred similar upheaval by taxpayers across the land.

FOX News will have all the details leading right up to April 15 tax day -- from links to tea parties in you area to live reports from the scenes, analyses from the FOX Forum and FOXNews.com's own series on the tea party phenomenon.​

three

Despite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," in recent weeks, Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with "tea party" protests across the country, which the channel has often described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. Specifically, Fox News has in dozens of instances provided attendance and organizing information for future protests, such as protest dates, locations and website URLs. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests. Fox News hosts have repeatedly encouraged viewers to join them at several April 15 protests that they are attending and covering; during the April 6 edition of Glenn Beck, on-screen text characterized these events as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." Tea-party organizers have used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests. Fox News has also aired numerous interviews with protest organizers. Moreover, Fox News contributors are listed as "Tea Party Sponsor" on TaxDayTeaParty.com​

Lots more - as you would say foss - google it...

I don't hate the tea party movement or fox news - they just need to be honest about it. Fox New promotes tea party events - tea party members watch fox news - symbiotic relationship - with fox news getting what it wants - viewers. What do viewers mean in the land of TV - money.

 

[foxpaws]

Fallacious argument are not common sense.

It all depends on the logic of the argument as to weather it would be an exception to the rule. However, your argument is not an exception. Your argument is that due of the connections of the head of the group and how the group is funded there is no way the group can be objective. That is a blatantly flawed argument; a textbook example of an ad hominem circumstantial argument that should be rejected by any thinking person.

If you could show that the group has a pattern and a history of distortion (like Michael Moore or Media Matters) then it would be reasonable to view the group as having no credibility. that would be, "legitimate and relevant to the issue", but that is not what you are showing. You are citing past associations and incidental connections that have absolutely no bearing on credibility.

That is not common sense, it is cheap rationalization. You are determined to make a square peg fit in a round hole on this one, I see.

Nope shag - there is an old, and rather sage saying among journalists - media ownership matters. And so does media management.

You continually point to liberal media - I give you liberal media - it is everywhere - but when right wing media stares you in the face you put on the blinders.

My argument that the fact that fox news profits by placing and promoting tea party events on their nightly news is sound, it puts into question the credibility of their ability to look beyond the dollar and report fairly. They have a stake in the political game, which could change the way they report on political news.

Rather than 'fair and balanced' you now have to look at 'red ink/black ink'. Does the story on fox news promote their bottom line.

It is a credibility issue and would be allowed by probably everyone but you shag, because you don't have an answer to it other than screaming out your little latin debate points.

Fox News spent money and promoted the tea party events. They have a vested interest in continuing to support their investment. Their ability to look at that type of story without bias can now be viewed as being compromised.

This creates motive shag...

 

[fossten]

Here you go...

One

“Can’t get to a tea party?” Fox’s Bill Hemmer asked viewers the other day. “Fox Nation hosts a virtual tea party — you can check it out on the site, a location of a tea party in your area.”

Nobody’s covering the tea parties quite like Fox — and that’s prompting critics and cable news competitors to say that the network is blurring the line between journalism and advocacy.

“Fox appears to be promoting these events at the same time it is presenting them in a way that looks like reporting,” said Stephen Burgard, director of Northeastern University’s School of Journalism.

Burgard called the practice “pseudo-journalism,” adding: “We have seen this before from Fox News Channel, but its role as galvanizer of opposition to President Obama's policies and leadership posture appears to be emerging.”​

Two (Direct from Fox News)

Just as 18th century decrees by the British drew outrage from American colonists, several acts of modern U.S. government intervention have stirred similar upheaval by taxpayers across the land.

FOX News will have all the details leading right up to April 15 tax day -- from links to tea parties in you area to live reports from the scenes, analyses from the FOX Forum and FOXNews.com's own series on the tea party phenomenon.​

three

Despite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," in recent weeks, Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with "tea party" protests across the country, which the channel has often described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. Specifically, Fox News has in dozens of instances provided attendance and organizing information for future protests, such as protest dates, locations and website URLs. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests. Fox News hosts have repeatedly encouraged viewers to join them at several April 15 protests that they are attending and covering; during the April 6 edition of Glenn Beck, on-screen text characterized these events as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." Tea-party organizers have used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests. Fox News has also aired numerous interviews with protest organizers. Moreover, Fox News contributors are listed as "Tea Party Sponsor" on TaxDayTeaParty.com​

Lots more - as you would say foss - google it...

I don't hate the tea party movement or fox news - they just need to be honest about it. Fox New promotes tea party events - tea party members watch fox news - symbiotic relationship - with fox news getting what it wants - viewers. What do viewers mean in the land of TV - money.

Politico - editorial...Indybay - editorial...all I see are opinions.

 

[fossten]

Rather than 'fair and balanced' you now have to look at 'red ink/black ink'. Does the story on fox news promote their bottom line.

That's how you're trying to frame the argument - making it all about money - rather than substance and content. Sorry, you fail.

And frankly, your ridicule of those with opposing arguments is getting tiresome. Is it possible for you to debate a subject without getting personal?

"Nope" is not a substantive argument. Get over yourself.