toros23
Well-Known Member
Also check out ARS Technica if security is your thing...
Fox News gets owned...........
- Thread starter lwien
- Start date
Also check out ARS Technica if security is your thing...
vaporonly
living in a van down by the river
where is this 90% number coming from?
here is an actual study on it:
"""""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/msnbc-opinion-cable-news_n_2900160.html
"""""""Pew found that Fox News spent 55 percent of the time on opinion and 45 percent of the time on reporting""""
msnbc is the big opinion program network.
yeah that was a dreamy front page picture of the boston bomber, great idea there!
lwien
Well-Known Member
See, this is where things get blurred.
Do you watch Fox? I do, and the ONLY programs that does not interject far right opinions into their "journalisim" is "The Fox Report with Shepard Smith", and to a lesser degree, "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace", so while Pew may state that 45% of their time is spent on reporting, that reporting is so filled with opinion's from their anchors (other than the two shows I mentioned above), that it almost makes that report, meaningless.
Now granted, there are opinions stated on news programs by the likes of CNN as well, but typically, that only happens when they bring in a panel of analysts into the discussion. On Fox, it's the anchors that offer up those opinions.
The way I see it, news anchor journalists should just report the news without injecting any opinions whatsoever.
Is MSNBC one of the worst offenders in this regard? You betcha......but to imply that Fox spends 45% of their time on unbiased reporting is laughable at best (this last statement not aimed at you, Vapor, but rather Pew, but then again, they didn't say, unbiased reporting).
I challenge anyone here to spend some time watching Fox and come back and say that 45% of their programming is "journalism" and not "opinionated analysis".
Last edited:
vaporonly
living in a van down by the river
i do agree there is flexibility on what they call opinion vs reporting...if you look at the study closer they try to break it down.
i don't really watch fox or get my news from tv
I wholeheartedly agree with you, even though you were being sarcastic. That the picture was a great idea. Setting aside that the actual article which that picture is advertising is one of the most well written and intelligent articles of news to come about this year, that picture has single handedly brought that article right into the spotlight. And it shocked a lot of people. It made a lot of people angry. And why?
It's because it's not showing the face of terrorism. It's not showing a doltish brute with outward manifestations of violence or hatred - the stereotypical sand nigger with a turban and a beard and an AK-47. It's showing a young guy, posing for a selfie. Someone you could have gone to school with, someone you could know. Someone you would have looked at and never thought in a million years would have perpetrated the act he did.
It's unsettling. It's shocking. And it's scary. But again; why? Because he's being 'glorified'? Because he's being made 'famous'? No, it's because it shows you on either a conscious or subconscious level that your idea of terrorism is wrong. It it tells you the deep entrenched beliefs you have about the people you are told to fear are invalid. It shows you anyone could be capable of being converted and doing something like that. It give you fear, uncertainty and doubt - and that leads to anger. And that's why there is so much anger about this. Don't get sucked in to it.
With that being said I implore you to read the article if you have not already. It is one of the finest pieces of journalism I have read.
It's because it's not showing the face of terrorism. It's not showing a doltish brute with outward manifestations of violence or hatred - the stereotypical sand nigger with a turban and a beard and an AK-47. It's showing a young guy, posing for a selfie. Someone you could have gone to school with, someone you could know. Someone you would have looked at and never thought in a million years would have perpetrated the act he did.
It's unsettling. It's shocking. And it's scary. But again; why? Because he's being 'glorified'? Because he's being made 'famous'? No, it's because it shows you on either a conscious or subconscious level that your idea of terrorism is wrong. It it tells you the deep entrenched beliefs you have about the people you are told to fear are invalid. It shows you anyone could be capable of being converted and doing something like that. It give you fear, uncertainty and doubt - and that leads to anger. And that's why there is so much anger about this. Don't get sucked in to it.
With that being said I implore you to read the article if you have not already. It is one of the finest pieces of journalism I have read.
lwien
Well-Known Member
^^Yup, and the exact same thing can be said for pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, child abusers, etc etc. We have this picture in our heads that people like these just oooooze evilness from every pore of their body, but the fact is, is that on outward appearances, they could be just about anyone.
People that get angry with that pic come from the same mentality that my original post eluded to for if you think that the guy that wrote that book was attacking Christianity because it was authored by a Muslim, you would also tend to think that the pic on the front of Rolling Stone was glorifying a terrorist. The mindset is the same and it comes from a very myopic view of the world as they see it.
Rolling Stone put a new face on terrorism. Does it make you uncomfortable? Good............it should. I say....................bravo, RS.
People that get angry with that pic come from the same mentality that my original post eluded to for if you think that the guy that wrote that book was attacking Christianity because it was authored by a Muslim, you would also tend to think that the pic on the front of Rolling Stone was glorifying a terrorist. The mindset is the same and it comes from a very myopic view of the world as they see it.
Rolling Stone put a new face on terrorism. Does it make you uncomfortable? Good............it should. I say....................bravo, RS.
Last edited:
vaporonly
living in a van down by the river
i'll check out the article but i still don't think that cover was appropriate. regardless of their intent, they put it out there that if you are deranged and want to be famous, just blow people up.
making excuses or trying to normalize this terrorist doesn't make me uncomfortable, it just makes me question how much info these opinions are being made with.
i'm sorry but this guy wasn't like me. there were many clues including the warnings by the russian gov that these guys were going down that road.
RS did it for shock sales value. If they put a pic of the young victims it wouldn't sell as many magazines. those kids will never get a chance to get on the cover of RS by blowing people up...
making excuses or trying to normalize this terrorist doesn't make me uncomfortable, it just makes me question how much info these opinions are being made with.
i'm sorry but this guy wasn't like me. there were many clues including the warnings by the russian gov that these guys were going down that road.
RS did it for shock sales value. If they put a pic of the young victims it wouldn't sell as many magazines. those kids will never get a chance to get on the cover of RS by blowing people up...
lwien
Well-Known Member
Was it equally as wrong for Time magazine to put Hitler on it's cover and name him "Man of the Year?" Do you think that Time was glorifying Hitler when they did this. Or how 'bout Ted Bundy?
No, but he may look like you, or look like the guy next door. The whole idea is that you can't go by looks alone. The general public, before this happened, had no idea about the warning from the Russian government. That's the point. You just don't know, along with the point of what in the hell turns a guy like this into a terrorist.
Totally agree about their desire to sell more mags and this picture would do that, but it doesn't take away from what was accomplished by doing it. Hell, just spurring conversation about it, like what is happening right here is a good thing in that it opens our eyes up a bit more.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy any of what you said in your comment. Especially the final paragraph, which I won't even dignify with a response.
This was not about fame. This was about hurting people. And even if it wasn't religiously motivated - how do you reconcile the untold amount of infamous criminals that this has also been said about in the past? The Oklahoma bombing? Who was on the covers of the magazine then? Columbine? Charles Manson? Did that make hundreds of fame seeking psychopaths come out of the woodwork and start pulling apart the moral fabric of America?
There were many clues? Than why wasn't something done? How did clues that gave warning to this event go unnoticed? And how does that matter in regards to how he may or may not be similar in any way to you at any point in your life?
Well, if you please, let me know what information you think I am missing. Because on the contrary, I think I have a better grasp of the overall situation than you do. You haven't even read the article in question.
And it worked. And it got more people to read this great article than any other picture would have. And the more people that read that, the better.
This was not about fame. This was about hurting people. And even if it wasn't religiously motivated - how do you reconcile the untold amount of infamous criminals that this has also been said about in the past? The Oklahoma bombing? Who was on the covers of the magazine then? Columbine? Charles Manson? Did that make hundreds of fame seeking psychopaths come out of the woodwork and start pulling apart the moral fabric of America?
There were many clues? Than why wasn't something done? How did clues that gave warning to this event go unnoticed? And how does that matter in regards to how he may or may not be similar in any way to you at any point in your life?
Well, if you please, let me know what information you think I am missing. Because on the contrary, I think I have a better grasp of the overall situation than you do. You haven't even read the article in question.
And it worked. And it got more people to read this great article than any other picture would have. And the more people that read that, the better.
vaporonly
living in a van down by the river
you think you have a better grasp but didn't even know about the warnings about these bombers? i'm not buying the grasp part
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-ignored-boston-bombers-warning-8644560.html
"A senior Russian official has said the Boston Marathon bombings could have been prevented if the Americans had acted on Russian intelligence."
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio.../04/tsarnaev_family_received_100g_in_benefits
"The Tsarnaev family, including the suspected terrorists and their parents, benefited from more than $100,000 in taxpayer-funded assistance — a bonanza ranging from cash and food stamps to Section 8 housing from 2002 to 2012, the Herald has learned. - See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...eceived_100g_in_benefits#sthash.8uf3priP.dpuf"
http://www.argusleader.com/viewart/...ds-Internet-influenced-Boston-bombing-suspect
just imagine we as taxpayers subsidized these two down this path.
"What Dzhokhar Tsarnaev needed to learn to make explosives with a pressure cooker was at his fingertips in jihadist files on the Internet, according to a federal indictment accusing him of carrying out the bombings at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured dozens more.
Investigators have been trying to determine whether Tsarnaev’s older brother, Tamerlan, who was killed while the two were on the run after the bombings, was influenced or trained by Islamic militants during a trip overseas. But the indictment released Thursday against 19-year-old Dzhokhar makes no mention of any overseas influence.
Before the attack, according to the indictment, he downloaded the summer 2010 issue of Inspire, an online English-language magazine published by al-Qaida. The issue detailed how to make bombs from pressure cookers, explosive powder extracted from fireworks and lethal shrapnel.
He also downloaded extremist Muslim literature, including “Defense of the Muslim Lands, the First Obligation After Imam,” which advocates “violence designed to terrorize the perceived enemies of Islam,” the indictment said. The article was written by the late Abdullah Azzam, whose legacy has inspired terrorist attacks in the Middle East.
Another tract downloaded — titled “The Slicing Sword, Against the One Who Forms Allegiances With the Disbelievers and Takes Them as Supporters Instead of Allah, His Messenger and the Believers” — included a foreword by Anwar al-Awlaki, an American propagandist for al-Qaida who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011."
I'll say it again. this guy is nothing like me. not just looks. I firmly believe there is never an excuse to hurt or kill innocent people. his ideology allowed him to blow up people. mine says it's never ok.
yes the manson killings influenced further crime. just like the glamorization of drug use influences drug use.
we should be asking why this wasn't prevented, and why we allowed the city of boston to go under lock down by a police military presence and it still took a private citizen to find him in the boat.
i agree with ron paul that the military lockdown was more frightening then the bombers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-ignored-boston-bombers-warning-8644560.html
"A senior Russian official has said the Boston Marathon bombings could have been prevented if the Americans had acted on Russian intelligence."
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio.../04/tsarnaev_family_received_100g_in_benefits
"The Tsarnaev family, including the suspected terrorists and their parents, benefited from more than $100,000 in taxpayer-funded assistance — a bonanza ranging from cash and food stamps to Section 8 housing from 2002 to 2012, the Herald has learned. - See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...eceived_100g_in_benefits#sthash.8uf3priP.dpuf"
http://www.argusleader.com/viewart/...ds-Internet-influenced-Boston-bombing-suspect
just imagine we as taxpayers subsidized these two down this path.
"What Dzhokhar Tsarnaev needed to learn to make explosives with a pressure cooker was at his fingertips in jihadist files on the Internet, according to a federal indictment accusing him of carrying out the bombings at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured dozens more.
Investigators have been trying to determine whether Tsarnaev’s older brother, Tamerlan, who was killed while the two were on the run after the bombings, was influenced or trained by Islamic militants during a trip overseas. But the indictment released Thursday against 19-year-old Dzhokhar makes no mention of any overseas influence.
Before the attack, according to the indictment, he downloaded the summer 2010 issue of Inspire, an online English-language magazine published by al-Qaida. The issue detailed how to make bombs from pressure cookers, explosive powder extracted from fireworks and lethal shrapnel.
He also downloaded extremist Muslim literature, including “Defense of the Muslim Lands, the First Obligation After Imam,” which advocates “violence designed to terrorize the perceived enemies of Islam,” the indictment said. The article was written by the late Abdullah Azzam, whose legacy has inspired terrorist attacks in the Middle East.
Another tract downloaded — titled “The Slicing Sword, Against the One Who Forms Allegiances With the Disbelievers and Takes Them as Supporters Instead of Allah, His Messenger and the Believers” — included a foreword by Anwar al-Awlaki, an American propagandist for al-Qaida who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011."
I'll say it again. this guy is nothing like me. not just looks. I firmly believe there is never an excuse to hurt or kill innocent people. his ideology allowed him to blow up people. mine says it's never ok.
yes the manson killings influenced further crime. just like the glamorization of drug use influences drug use.
we should be asking why this wasn't prevented, and why we allowed the city of boston to go under lock down by a police military presence and it still took a private citizen to find him in the boat.
i agree with ron paul that the military lockdown was more frightening then the bombers.
Pamela Geller is a notorious Muslim-baiter who has been banned from the UK because of her hate writings. That's actually a mild example of her excesses. Most of her claims are exaggerated or outright lies. She is a nasty, bitter bigot inspired by hatred. If you look to for support of your views, that tells me everything I need to know about you and whether there is any chance of reasonable discussion.
vaporonly
living in a van down by the river
yes continuing this would be futile....
the same people who bash on fox and hold their noses seem oblivious to smell of the 'news' they are getting, including the attacks on geller, who is anti-jihad, which translates into anti-muslim by people who want to stifle free speech. is the irony lost that this thread started by calling out those who think this book on jesus translates into bashing Christianity?
if reducing everything to 'hate' and proclamations that now you know everything you need to know about me counts as thought or deduction then i won't hold my breath on a reasonable discussion.
i certainly don't know enough about you guys to reduce you to strawmen to attack, nor claim to know everything about you i need to by a few posts in a thread.
the same people who bash on fox and hold their noses seem oblivious to smell of the 'news' they are getting, including the attacks on geller, who is anti-jihad, which translates into anti-muslim by people who want to stifle free speech. is the irony lost that this thread started by calling out those who think this book on jesus translates into bashing Christianity?
if reducing everything to 'hate' and proclamations that now you know everything you need to know about me counts as thought or deduction then i won't hold my breath on a reasonable discussion.
i certainly don't know enough about you guys to reduce you to strawmen to attack, nor claim to know everything about you i need to by a few posts in a thread.
I'm sorry you feel attacked - that was not my intention. My intention was to try to outline why I thought your stance was false, and I was open to hearing a well thought out argument in return as to why that was not the case. Instead I got most of my comment ignored, a ridiculous pundits satirical picture, and a wall of copy and pasted text that did not answer my question. If these warnings were so prevalent, than why was nothing done to stop them?
You can hold you head high and pretend that this is all about ignorance and hatred, and that you know the real truth, but really all you are doing is dancing around our points and cherry picking what you do and don't reply to. Your justifications are chock full of logical fallacies and embellishments. And finally, you seem to be entirely missing the deeper points of the conversation at hand. That's not a proper debate. That's why this is futile and we won't waste any more time writing comments your not going to read.
You can hold you head high and pretend that this is all about ignorance and hatred, and that you know the real truth, but really all you are doing is dancing around our points and cherry picking what you do and don't reply to. Your justifications are chock full of logical fallacies and embellishments. And finally, you seem to be entirely missing the deeper points of the conversation at hand. That's not a proper debate. That's why this is futile and we won't waste any more time writing comments your not going to read.
Geller loves to hide behind the "anti-jihad not anti-Muslim" excuse while continuing to spew forth hatred by simply declaring anything Muslim to be part of a jihad. Yes, I don't need to know anything else about you.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Paka, what I find amazing is how some people have such tunnel vision that it doesn't allow them to see beyond their preconceptions, or to even question those preconceptions or for the most part, doesn't even allow them to recognize that they even have these preconceptions in the first place.
It's as if they see the world in black and white without ever knowing that grays even exist.
It's as if they see the world in black and white without ever knowing that grays even exist.
@lwien, I no longer find it amazing. I used to be puzzled by it, then I read The Authoritarians, by Bob Altemeyer. If you haven't read it yet, I recommend it highly. It's free, an easy read, highly entertaining and simultaneously depressing. Basically, we're stuck with people like this, it's part of the human condition. They do see the world in black and white, and refuse to acknowledge that grays exist. The knowledge revealed in that book is why I can so easily dismiss vaporonly.
vaporonly
living in a van down by the river
now i'm the example of the part of the human condition you are all stuck with?
thanks. and i'm accused of tunnel vision?
you guys should read "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate [Juan Williams]"
citiZen, i was making the comment that people living in black and white words often reduce different opinions to hate. that i must be hate filled because i posted a satire photoshop by the "hate filled" geller or must hate the boston bomber because he is racially different then me. i do apologize for being brash about people knowing or not knowing about the bombers. i also apologize for being sarcastic originally about the cover. I should have just stated my opinion about the cover. thank you for presenting yourself in the fashion you did without making me into a monster. You are right i have not read the article. The photo on the cover is what the controversy was about. what if they had used the photo of him giving up in the boat instead? that to me shows the logical end of his actions better then a dreamy self photo.
edit: removed further prodding.
thanks. and i'm accused of tunnel vision?
you guys should read "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate [Juan Williams]"
citiZen, i was making the comment that people living in black and white words often reduce different opinions to hate. that i must be hate filled because i posted a satire photoshop by the "hate filled" geller or must hate the boston bomber because he is racially different then me. i do apologize for being brash about people knowing or not knowing about the bombers. i also apologize for being sarcastic originally about the cover. I should have just stated my opinion about the cover. thank you for presenting yourself in the fashion you did without making me into a monster. You are right i have not read the article. The photo on the cover is what the controversy was about. what if they had used the photo of him giving up in the boat instead? that to me shows the logical end of his actions better then a dreamy self photo.
edit: removed further prodding.
Last edited:
lwien
Well-Known Member
But if it was the boat photo, than it wouldn't represent what the inside story was all about, which was, how can a boy, who looks like this, who many in his school felt that he was just a normal kid, turn out this way.
You said you haven't read the story but if you did, you would totally understand why the picture on the front cover is what it is.
But your so dead set on taking this picture totally out of context and being insulted about it and yet you have not taken the time, even as of now, to read the story.
You remind me of my next door neighbor who is a devout right winged conservative who ONLY watches Fox news. One day, I mentioned to him about a story that was done on 60 Minutes that I thought he may find interesting. Ya now what his response was to me? "I wouldn't watch 60 Minutes or anything on CBS because it's all crap". See, now if the situation was reversed, and he told me, a left wing liberal, that I should watch this program on Fox because I may find it interesting, I would watch it, simply because I don't believe that EVERYTHING on Fox is total crap, while at the same time, I want to expose myself to whatever "crap" is there so that it keeps my viewpoints fluid and within context.
That is the difference between living in the safety of a black and white world or one that is challenging and filled with grays and colors. It's like, "I know what I know and I don't want to expose myself to anything that may challenge what I know simply because I know that it will be wrong."
Now I don't expect that anything I say will have any difference on your outlook, because as Paka said, it is part of the human condition, and some people are just wired to see the world as duo-chromatic, and as such, will not seek out alternative viewpoints simply because they fall outside their dogmatic version of reality.
(Ok, I think I'm off my soapbox. Now if I could just find the ground, things will be copacetic, or at least, I hope so.
)
Last edited:
vaporonly
living in a van down by the river
thank you for writing your opinion on the matter further. maybe sometime in the future i will surprise you by not falling into the category you put me in.
i did see one photoshop cover idea with the half the dreamy face and half the sail boat face that i thought was interesting.
i'm not opposed to changing my OPINION of the front page cover. I don't find my opinions fitting neatly into one side of the left/right thing, and my opinions change.
i guess that's why it feels so strange to be dismissed as being a 'certain way'
i do need to work on my tone, and i do apologize for offending anyone.
i did see one photoshop cover idea with the half the dreamy face and half the sail boat face that i thought was interesting.
i'm not opposed to changing my OPINION of the front page cover. I don't find my opinions fitting neatly into one side of the left/right thing, and my opinions change.
i guess that's why it feels so strange to be dismissed as being a 'certain way'
i do need to work on my tone, and i do apologize for offending anyone.
lwien
Well-Known Member
that herb guy
Well-Known Member
So.. I scanned through this looking out of curiosity. Anyone have a link to that original video? It says it has been removed by user. I would just youtube search 'dumb fox interview' but I'd hate to imagine how much I would have to delve through to find the right one .
.
lwien
Well-Known Member
So.. I scanned through this looking out of curiosity. Anyone have a link to that original video? It says it has been removed by user. I would just youtube search 'dumb fox interview' but I'd hate to imagine how much I would have to delve through to find the right one