So I just did a lot of clicking around digging into an article posted in the Libertarian thread.
Fox has a big problem on their hands with O'Reilly. In the clicking around, I have become satisfied that O'Reilly is just as full of shit as Brian Williams and for that matter Hillary Clinton, in overstating lying about their close calls with flying bullets. There is only one difference between O'Reilly and the others. He is fronting an opinion show, not a hard news program or being a government official. Nonetheless, it's still a problem. That does not give him a pass at any level however.
I'm not going to stop watching Fox in light of this, but I'm going to be even more mindful of claims and allegations made by their commentators than I already am. Awhile ago I said that the Fourth Estate is dead based upon the Bernie Madoff bust. The reason I stated for that remark was because USNWR owner and editor Mort Zuckerman had a chance to expose Madoff as a journalist, but instead invested with Madoff and got burned. Worse, he invested other people's funds that he had a fiduciary responsibility to.
Anyway, journalism is dead and has been replaced with propaganda, across the board, and not just at Fox like so many try to claim. We all need to get our news somewhere. Its just getting harder to discern between fact and opinion / bias as the MSM tries to blur the lines between the two.
But since were talking about Fox News, I bet I can blame Fox News for the failure of Obama to pass anything in his first two years. Why ? Because Obama spent his entire first two years trying to put Fox out of business. It so consumed him and people like you that you left your eyes off the prize. Fox was the only thing in the way of getting Obama's plans through so he had to spend his full energy trying to destroy them as fast as possible. And failed.
Revisionist history. Obama failed - despite a Democratic Congress - because he attempted to be inclusive of the Republican point of view.
Unfortunately for our nation, this was the Republican point of view...
It's about holding the feet of Rupert Murdoch's news corp. to the fire for engaging in jingoistic, xenophobic fearmongering and trying to pass it off as fair and balanced news/analysis.
You and Beaker are trying to let them off the hook by basically trying to show that, while they may have been exaggerating about these areas, they do exist. That won't wash, and here's why:
The context in which Fox and other right wing voices (like John Bolton's Gatestone website that you cited) are issuing alarmist rhetoric is the notion that Islam as a religion or culture is engaged in a holy war with the West, and we had better wake up or else. The idea is that part of their strategy for defeating the West is to take over their communities via sharia law, correct? The bogus reporting on these "no-go" zones flows from this theory of Islamic takeover of the West, sort of like warnings about fifth columnists.
So claiming that economically depressed areas populated with people having little regard for law enforcement, little regard for outsiders, to the point where protectionism rackets (mobsters) spring up to offer people relative safety, exist in France, and therefor Steve Emerson was justified in warning us about them and owes noone an apology, is bunk. This lame-o apologism ignores the fact that such economically depressed areas have existed here and there probably for decades, if not centuries, and have probably been occupied by a variety of different cultures and religions. New York City, London, Chicago, LA, and other cities over the last century or so can probably all lay claim to having seen such conditions at some point in their history. They were probably occupied, at various times, by a wide variety of cultures/religions persuasions: freed blacks, Irish Catholics, etc. etc. Confusing a socioeconomic/sociopolitical phenomenon for evidence of orchestrated political takeover by Islam is just bad journalism.
Geez Louise, are you off your meds ?
I did not drag in John Bolton anywhere. Please show me where I did. Yer out of your tree hugging tree. My article cited does not let anyone off the hook. At the same time, it does not roll over and play dead. Go back and re read it.
So you want to hold Murdoch's feet to the fire, good. How about some others, m'kay ? Or are there no others in need of scrutiny ? Fox is the only organization out there with a known bias ?
How much do you watch Fox anyway ? You and several others have taken up posting clips from the show "Outnumbered" as if its hard news. Y'all are totally clueless if you mistake that for hard news or if you do it explains way too much. The Fox show, Outnumbered, is their version of The View. So, I can now safely say that you think that The View is a real news show, absent bias and opinion. Again, I bet you don't watch Fox at all. You would die or vote for a republican first, is what my money is on. Your rage has you so confused as to what you think I am posting.
But since were talking about Fox News, I bet I can blame Fox News for the failure of Obama to pass anything in his first two years. Why ? Because Obama spent his entire first two years trying to put Fox out of business. It so consumed him and people like you that you left your eyes off the prize. Fox was the only thing in the way of getting Obama's plans through so he had to spend his full energy trying to destroy them as fast as possible. And failed.
But what is Fox News ? In your mind as well as Obama's mind and many others, they are not a legitimate news outlet. They have no standing with NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN. Right ? Skipping the rest, let's look at NBC and even skip Brian Williams. Prior to the Comcast reshuffle, we had GE (parent of NBC) CEO Immelt as Obama's Jobs Czar, a total conflict of interest. We have NBC caught in the act of doctoring 911 tapes in the Trevon Martin Case. Then there is their News Anchor, Al Sharpton and their resident misogynist, Ed Schultz. Al the Rev Sharpton, proven liar, income tax dead beat, Obama spokesman (he's seen Obama in the WH more times than half of his Cabinet) out there not only reporting the news, but making the news (Ferguson and NYC, most recently). Tell me that NBC is objective and has no bias.
Fox serves a purpose for many. Its the only place that one can get a chance to hear anything good about republicans, conservatives and libertarians. The other 4 news entities won't give any of them the time of day, let alone say something nice. Without Fox, we would have a totally one sided perspective of the news. How much do you agree with your primary news source ? 100% you say. No ?, not fair ? Poor baby, sniff ... really now. I thought it would be fair to say cuz you act like all Fox viewers believe Fox 100% of the time.
So you want to keep Murdoch's feet to the fire ? Well, if not for Murdoch, who would be keeping Obama's feet to the fire ?
Obviously you failed to read or explore anything I linked on the topic.
The 120 page report that the Gatestone Institute's innuendo and hearsay-laden post is supposedly supported by is the work of Christian Bongain, alias Xavier Raufer, former far right wing activist turned professional terrorist alarmist researcher (French counterpart to Steve Emerson, basically).
por vous, a description of the anti-terrorism media industry he helped spawn:
It's about holding the feet of Rupert Murdoch's news corp. to the fire for engaging in jingoistic, xenophobic fearmongering and trying to pass it off as fair and balanced news/analysis.
... is just bad journalism.
Yep. And you won't convince folk who believe otherwise, despite your fair and balanced post.
Murdoch can't post naked women to attract viewers, like he does with Page 3 of the Sun, so he hires telegenic "news" readers to attract folks drawn simply to appearance. Nothing wrong with that per se.
Then, he tells the working class that unions are bad.
That their properly elected (for a change) President isn't really their President, so they don't have to listen to him.
That regulation on business to protect our environment is a mistake.
That providing healthcare to our nation, like the rest of the industrialized world does, must be stopped.
That science and education and reason isn't how we do things here.
That the poor are parasites and deserve our contempt.
and many other things that we've rehashed for the past couple of decades...
But, doggedly, there's a group of Americans who are hell bent on destroying themselves by lock-stepping with everything that the Orwell-named "news" organization tells them - to the point of ruining their own nation and calling it success.
I shake my head and wait for this era to pass, hoping we can recover a bit. But I think no one here believes that it will happen in our lifetime.
It's about holding the feet of Rupert Murdoch's news corp. to the fire for engaging in jingoistic, xenophobic fearmongering and trying to pass it off as fair and balanced news/analysis.
You and Beaker are trying to let them off the hook by basically trying to show that, while they may have been exaggerating about these areas, they do exist. That won't wash, and here's why:
The context in which Fox and other right wing voices (like John Bolton's Gatestone website that you cited) are issuing alarmist rhetoric is the notion that Islam as a religion or culture is engaged in a holy war with the West, and we had better wake up or else. The idea is that part of their strategy for defeating the West is to take over their communities via sharia law, correct? The bogus reporting on these "no-go" zones flows from this theory of Islamic takeover of the West, sort of like warnings about fifth columnists.
So claiming that economically depressed areas populated with people having little regard for law enforcement, little regard for outsiders, to the point where protectionism rackets (mobsters) spring up to offer people relative safety, exist in France, and therefor Steve Emerson was justified in warning us about them and owes noone an apology, is bunk. This lame-o apologism ignores the fact that such economically depressed areas have existed here and there probably for decades, if not centuries, and have probably been occupied by a variety of different cultures and religions. New York City, London, Chicago, LA, and other cities over the last century or so can probably all lay claim to having seen such conditions at some point in their history. They were probably occupied, at various times, by a wide variety of cultures/religions persuasions: freed blacks, Irish Catholics, etc. etc. Confusing a socioeconomic/sociopolitical phenomenon for evidence of orchestrated political takeover by Islam is just bad journalism.
But somehow she had the word in her brain and it had some sort of association with the topic. She didn't just make up the word whole cloth. "These kids and their brollyspotnick music!" ..."oh, it didn't even know that it was a word" might be a reasonable response to that.
Having "jigaboo" in your vocabulary and using it to refer to that sort of music isn't just a coincidence.
Remember this has happened before, recently: "Obama is uppity, but not as a black" This sort of "I didn't know it was racist!" stuff is literally unbelievable.
exactly right (and meower was being snarky). That said, this is some local fox affiliate morning news program, not the national network. That is, it's not exactly a fox problem, more of a "we need a talking head the last one left to do the hog report in Akron" problem.
It's about holding the feet of Rupert Murdoch's news corp. to the fire for engaging in jingoistic, xenophobic fearmongering and trying to pass it off as fair and balanced news/analysis.
You and Beaker are trying to let them off the hook by basically trying to show that, while they may have been exaggerating about these areas, they do exist. That won't wash, and here's why:
The context in which Fox and other right wing voices (like John Bolton's Gatestone website that you cited) are issuing alarmist rhetoric is the notion that Islam as a religion or culture is engaged in a holy war with the West, and we had better wake up or else. The idea is that part of their strategy for defeating the West is to take over their communities via sharia law, correct? The bogus reporting on these "no-go" zones flows from this theory of Islamic takeover of the West, sort of like warnings about fifth columnists.
So claiming that economically depressed areas populated with people having little regard for law enforcement, little regard for outsiders, to the point where protectionism rackets (mobsters) spring up to offer people relative safety, exist in France, and therefor Steve Emerson was justified in warning us about them and owes noone an apology, is bunk. This lame-o apologism ignores the fact that such economically depressed areas have existed here and there probably for decades, if not centuries, and have probably been occupied by a variety of different cultures and religions. New York City, London, Chicago, LA, and other cities over the last century or so can probably all lay claim to having seen such conditions at some point in their history. They were probably occupied, at various times, by a wide variety of cultures/religions persuasions: freed blacks, Irish Catholics, etc. etc. Confusing a socioeconomic/sociopolitical phenomenon for evidence of orchestrated political takeover by Islam is just bad journalism.
Their is a better and more appropriate term to use here ... de facto.
They or it exists in spite of legal explanations.
What is this argument about ? That there are no places at all that may fit the usage of no go or that it is to the degree that they exist ?
Yes "de facto" evidence would carry much more weight. I'm not quite sure what the argument here is about (or that I need to know); it's just that the term "anecdotal evidence" is one that has long bugged me. I know you were not directly using it either - it was in the quoted article.
"Anecdotal evidence" is essentially a contradiction of terms; I tend to trust it from very few people, of any political persuasion - especially when preceded by the words "plenty of". It's cherry-picking, like: "I know a guy who...", "There are those who believe..."
Their is a better and more appropriate term to use here ... de facto.
They or it exists in spite of legal explanations.
What is this argument about ? That there are no places at all that may fit the usage of no go or that it is to the degree that they exist ?
