posted on September 29, 2005 06:51:11 AM new
Watching Fox this morning and they are covering the wild fires up in LA. This is a fire that's in a well populated area, has already claimed a couple homes and will probably take more and has put many lives in danger.
What is the Fox take on it? This fire is about 10 miles (actually it's more) from Malibu and apparently the real concern of fire fighters is the PR nightmare that would result from stars seeing their house burn.
What the hell? I'm telling you... if I ever met one of these Fox commentators the first question I would ask is if they actually believe half the things that come out of their mouth.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 29, 2005 07:22:01 AM new
Do you ever watch fox other than to find reasons to criticize?
If you disliked (see peepa I can use that word to) the news so much why watch? Or do you just like to criticize?
The same can be said of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CBC, BBC,...etc just pick one. They all are going more for morbid curiosities, celebrity pandering and away from actual news.
posted on September 29, 2005 07:57:10 AM new
I dont get that either. I usually watch news/newscasters that I like and trust on some level. Just to watch them act stupid...well,odd form of entertainment I'd say...lol!
posted on September 29, 2005 10:20:55 AM new
So are you telling me that you always agree with everything your news source says? I don't watch to criticize but if someone says something as completely assinine as the statement above, is there some reason you think I should not criticize?
I don't watch to criticize. I don't watch Dayside because the concept of ditsy conservative commentators is more than even I can take. If I only watched to criticize I would watch it religiously because lord knows they provide a plethora of material.
I watch Hannity and Colmes at times because well... I find it funny as hell. Sean Hannity is SOOOOO conservative and SOOOOO self righteous that I consider him to be more an actor than a commentator. I just don't think it's possible that someone is as ignorant of some topics as his questions would lead you to believe that he is. As for Colmes... he's like the geeky little brother that all the big brothers friends greet when they enter and then completely ignore for the rest of the visit. It's not a news show, it's inadvertant political satire.
O'Reilly gets on my nerves at times when he gets into full self righeous mode but the other 75% of the time I find him at the very least informative.
I don't only watch things that mimic my views because you learn nothing from that. I know how my side sees things and I know how they justify it but how do you make an informed opinion without hearing both sides of the story?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 29, 2005 11:46:08 AM new
For me that would be news soources. But I gather that you enjoy watching more for entertainment value than anything else.
As I said before, people want to hear about Celebs, for the most part they could care less about what that fire is doing to anyone else.
posted on September 29, 2005 11:47:13 AM new " I just don't think it's possible that someone is as ignorant of some topics as his questions would lead you to believe that he is."
Fox News Reporter Asks The Questions
Others Are Too Smart To Ask
posted on September 29, 2005 03:23:18 PM newSo are you telling me that you always agree with everything your news source says?
First of all, news is supposed to be informative facts of what has happened, or what is developing. Not something you agree with or disagree with. Youre obviously confusing commentary shows/editorials about the news, with the actual reporting of the news. And actually, I could imagine a firefighter thinking if malibu went it up, it would be a PR nightmare for them. The residents would probably blame the firefigters didnt do enough, didnt do something right, that they saw them dancing with the flames while their house was burning down, or some such, and everybody would listen because its suzy starlette or max money producer talking into the cameras.
posted on September 29, 2005 04:20:33 PM new
::First of all, news is supposed to be informative facts of what has happened, or what is developing. Not something you agree with or disagree with.::
Yes but I think we all know that that is not neccesarily the truth are we wouldn't have terms such "liberal left wing media" or "fair and balanced"... I mean "Conservative media"
And do you really think that while fighting a fire in one area that is an immediate danger to homes that they are thinking about what happens if it travels 10+ miles west? I'm thinking that they are a bit more focused on what is right in front of them.
Besides, Malidu gets a good flame up every couple years and nobody blames the fire department. People in that area know that it is a danger... that's why they do things like install roof sprinklers. (Which should be code requirement - it's a brilliant idea)
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 29, 2005 06:31:40 PM new
oh! I know! When he is not in suit and tie, he's a hunk! I mean the hurricane(s) was bad, and he stood out there during Rita, and lost at least 4 baseball hats that flew off his head.
Yep he is better out, so is a guy named Rick, don't know the last name, they always send him out to the worst places!
posted on September 29, 2005 10:41:37 PM new
I have a hunch that Fox's take on the news these days is calculated to take the attention off the DeLay problem. . . .
posted on September 29, 2005 11:01:40 PM new
Actually, they are in overdrive trying to depict DeLay as a poor, misunderstood mensch who a) is being framed by a Bad Man and b)if he did do something wrong, did so because his ickle widdle brain couldn't understand the "complicated law" he'd violated...
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
posted on September 30, 2005 06:33:25 AM new
Bunni - they are not acknowledging that he did something wrong at all. Their spin is that he is the victim of a vindictive partisan prosecutor who, hellbent on indicting DeLay, took this case in front of grand jury after grand jury until he finally suckered one into giving the results that he wanted.
Here's the explaination I don't understand. The statute of limitations was going to expire while this grand jury was still in deliberation. According to DeLay, the prosecutor came to him and said that they had a "run away jury" that was sure to indict but that if DeLay would waive the statute of limitation that he would go in and fight for them to no bill him. Does this make ANY sense? I'm not sure who looks more stupid in that explaination. The prosecutor who supposedly agreed to fight against an indictment if only given more time to get one or DeLay who could have put an end to everything but instead believed that a prosecutor would fight against indictment.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 30, 2005 06:43:10 AM new
Fox Reporter to LAFD Capt. "We've been talking about celebrity homes such as Will Smith that may be in the path of the fire. Does that change the way you fight the fire?"
Fire Capt.: "Of Course Not"
Why are they so bound and determined to sell this fire as something that will only affect celebrities? Haven't they leaned from Katrina and Rita that people actually do care about the everyday people and that their homes are the ones between this fire and the celebrities?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
It's interesting to see how FOX, MSNBC and CNN and other media manipulate images and information to shape public opinion. FOX is less subtle and therefore, almost funny at times. With a laugh track they could win the Emmy Award for Best Comedy Series.
The popularity of Fox explains why the average American is so easily led to support with enthusiasm policies that are detrimental to their best interests.
posted on September 30, 2005 09:33:09 AM new
Near - LOL! I'm surprised Dbl didn't hop into that one with an endorse ment of Bill Hemmer. Gotta admit I never paid any attention til she mentioned him a couple weeks ago but he is a tad bit edible.
Helen - I have a research challenge for you.. about a year or so ago there was a poll of people that believed that Iraqis were among the 9-11 hijackers. It was broken down according to the networks that respondents watch most frequently. I can't find it but if you can I think Ron would find it interesting.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 30, 2005 09:53:26 AM new
"Also, there is more information available about the study upon which Carroll bases his comments."
"A commenter to Xrlq's post (as cross-posted at this blog) points out that the organization that performed the "study" is the Program on International Policy Attitudes. Their sponsors include Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Tides Foundation (an organization with ties to John Kerry's wife), Ford Foundation, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Compton Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, Benton Foundation, Ben and Jerry's Foundation, Americans Talk Issues Foundation, and Circle Foundation."
"Investigate these, and you'll see that they are largely leftist organizations."
"If he can't see the obvious flaws in the "study," shouldn't the editor of a major metropolitan newspaper at least take into account who did the study?"
posted on September 30, 2005 10:21:59 AM new
Edited to say--sorry Linda I see you are replying to the challenge to find they survey results asked of Helen
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
[ edited by bunnicula on Sep 30, 2005 10:24 AM ]
First, the article admits that viewers who primarily get their news from Fox News hold misinformation as true:
"This is because the "study" focuses on misconceptions that are more likely to be held by people on the right. Naturally, such misconceptions are more often held by people who watch Fox News -- because people on the right are more likely to watch Fox News"
Second, in trying to show that people who watch "liberal" media for news also hold misconceptions, the writer chooses some strange points to support his POV:
1. "I could just as easily point to several "misconceptions" that I expect are more widely held by people on the left. For example: Dick Cheney explicitly said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11."
Um...Cheney did say that, actually...http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/ -- "Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."
"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."
"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."
2. "George W. Bush said in a State of the Union speech that Iraq posed an "imminent threat."
While Bush didn't use the phrase "imminent threat" one has only to read the transcript of the State of the Union address to find Iraq being espoused as a danger to us & the world over & over. BTW, this link is to the White House page, which I think you will agree is not a "leftist" organization...? I'll not paste the entire long speech here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-23.html
3. George W. Bush made a reference to uranium coming from Niger in his State of the Union speech
Well, I've never heard the bit about Niger, but he certainly did say "Africa": "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. "
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
Fenix, I don't have a link to the poll that you mentioned but this study from the University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes reveals the impact that various sources have on misperceptions about the war.
Study Finds Direct Link Between Misinformation and Public Misconception
Misperceptions Vary Widely Depending on News Source
October 2, 2003
A new study based on a series of seven nationwide polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war with Iraq.
The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions."
The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news. The percentage of respondents who had at least one or more of the three misperceptions listed above is shown below.
Variations in misperceptions according to news source cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of each audience.
Another key perception -- one that US intelligence agencies regard as unfounded -- is that Iraq was directly involved in September 11. Before the war approximately one in five believed this and 13% even said they believed that they had seen conclusive evidence of it. Polled June through September, the percentage saying that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 continued to be in the 20-25% range, while another 33-36% said they believed that Iraq gave al-Qaeda substantial support. [Note: An August Washington Post poll found that 69% thought it was at least "somewhat likely" that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 -- a different question than the PIPA/KN question that asked respondents to come to a conclusion.]
In the run-up to the war misperceptions were also highly related to support for going to war. In February, among those who believed that Iraq was directly involved in September 11, 58% said they would agree with the President's decision to go to war without UN approval. Among those who believed that Iraq had given al Qaeda substantial support, but was not involved in September 11, approval dropped to 37%. Among those who believed that a few al Qaeda individuals had contact with Iraqi officials 32% were supportive, while among those who believed that there was no connection at all just 25% felt that way. Polled during the war, among those who incorrectly believed that world public opinion favored going to the war, 81% agreed with the President's decision to do so, while among those who knew that the world public opinion was opposed only 28% agreed.
While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.
The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans' political positions. Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions. However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions.
For the entire study of seven polls the total sample was 9,611 respondents, and for the in-depth analysis for the polls conducted June through September the sample was 3,334 respondents. The polls were fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access.
posted on September 30, 2005 11:15:58 AM newNear - LOL! I'm surprised Dbl didn't hop into that one with an endorse ment of Bill Hemmer. Gotta admit I never paid any attention til she mentioned him a couple weeks ago but he is a tad bit edible..
lol fenix ,,, I was going to mention something about how he (Hemmer) and Anderson Cooper suddenly seemed very appealing to me when they first covered hurricane isabel (all wet and wild-up)...but I'm so hurricaned'-out lately, I didnt even want to talk about it
posted on September 30, 2005 03:44:40 PM new
No one can control whether or not other people have 'misconceptions' about anything said. That doesn't mean they were lied to, it doesn't mean they were given incorrect news reports or that the facts were mistated...etc.
It means it was how THEY took what was said, not because the news was in error.
The dems are no different....all of us righties here have seen that happen over and over again. Something is said...a statement made....then it's corrected, but the dems still think it's a lie. It's because of the way they TOOK what was said. They walked away from a statement made when they didn't fully understand it properly....they have formed an opinion in error... a 'misconception'
about what they heard.
Just like this latest uproar over what Bill Bennett said about abortions and blacks. The left somehow has formed misconceptions about what he ACTUALLY DID say. And they're all hot and bother about that now.
When it fact they're upset about something he didn't say/ or because they were only told part of the statement he made, not the whole statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 30, 2005 03:50 PM ]
posted on September 30, 2005 04:14:27 PM newI do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
Linda - just because he added that it would be morally represensible does not negate the statement that he made... exspecially when he reiterated the statement afterwards.
What is it about this statement that you believe is being misconstrued?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
