doublegunshop.com - home Forums So God Made a Liberal!

Your going to have to do better then that. Fox and Friends REALLY! As I stated earlier I watch O'Reilly. Show us where he's been lying about the sitaution in the world today.

Jim, Fox doesn't pretend to be anything other than an arm of the Republican Party. There's nothing wrong and much to commend for it but if its principal commentator Rush Limbaugh is declared spokesman for the Republican Party and its founder a party principal why do you claim Fox is a reliable source of news today? It's risible, a joke, entertaining but with the news dimensions of a Judge Judy show. Opinion isn't news.

From Wikipedia: "Content analysis studies.The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."

Ideology is antithetical to responsible journalism. They all use it. There's no such thing as neutrality---humans write the stories--- although some organizations strive for fairness and balance more than others. Your claim that Fox doesn't distort in its news coverage is silly. In opinions, anything catchy goes. I usually watch CNN. I don't like others trying to do my thinking.

If you've ever speculated as I have about the effects of Fox's enormous reach, a report issued yesterday by the British marketing research firm Ipso MORI had the US second in ignorance/gullibility of 14 countries around the world, just after Italy and ahead of Poland. Garbage in, garbage out. Canada was in the middle. Sweden was best informed.

Quote:
"Jim, Fox doesn't pretend to be anything other than an arm of the Republican Party."

King:
This may surpass all the other absolute pieces of horseshit you've presented here over the years in total. That's roughly equivalent to claiming the "mainstrean news media" is fair and balanced which anyone with any intelligence knows is B.S. Even the idiot occupying the White house wouldn't have the unmitigated gall to make that claim.
With reporters such as Juan Williams,Kersten Power, Geraldo Rivera and others. they're an arm of the Republican Party?? That's a pretty sick joke if this is what you intended.
Obama routinely singles out FOX news as a thorn in his side not because he can refute what they report but because FOX makes things very uncomfortable for him.
FOX News presents the ONLY prime time TV news program that's balanced and the overwhelming percentage of viewers they have supports this. Either you've NEVER watched it or are just parroting what you've been told by your Libtard friends.
Why don't you write to O'Reilly and make that claim as I'm sure he'll do a far better job of demolishing it then I can.
Even I, after watching some of the bizarre wacky stuff you've posted here over the years, am in disbelief you'd make this kind of outlandish claim.
Jim

You've got that right, Comrade King. Obama was elected, TWICE...

Here's some info from Pew:

So Republicans are more knowledgeable than Democrats, contrary to what many would like to believe.


According to whom? None other than the Pew Research Center, a left-of-center organization. Moreover, Pew�s latest survey only reaffirms previous surveys demonstrating the same result.

In fact, the results weren�t even close.

In a scientific survey of 1,168 adults conducted during September and October of last year, respondents were asked not only multiple-choice questions, but also queries using maps, photographs and symbols. Among other subjects, participants identified international leaders, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, nations on a world map, the current unemployment and poverty rates and war casualty totals.

In a 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and Democrats outperforming Republicans on just 1 of the 12. In the latest survey, however, Republicans outperformed Democrats on every single one of 19 questions.

Amusingly, the Pew report attempted to soften the stark partisan knowledge disparity:
�Republicans generally outperformed Democrats on the current quiz. On 13 of the 19 questions, Republicans score significantly higher than Democrats and there are no questions on which Democrats did better than Republicans. In past knowledge quizzes, partisan differences have been more muted, though Republicans often have scored somewhat higher than Democrats.�
�Generally outperformed?� �Somewhat higher?� That�s a curiously charitable way to describe the surveys, which went from previous blowouts to a complete shutout in the latest edition.

Those Pew results are confirmed by some surprising other sources. According to a New York Times headline dated April 14, 2010, �Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated.� Shattering widespread myths, that survey revealed that Tea Party supporters were more likely to possess a college degree than their counterparts (23% to 15%), and also more likely to have completed post-graduate studies (14% to 10%). Tea Partiers were also more likely to have completed �some college� by a 33% to 28% margin, and substantially less likely to have not completed high school than non-supporters (3% versus 12%), or to possess only a high school degree (26% versus 35%).

Those results will probably come as a rude awakening to supporters of Barack Obama, but it won�t to anyone paying attention. As just the latest example, consider the cheap laugh line that Obama keeps repeating on his current reelection tour thinly disguised as an energy policy apologia. As gasoline prices continue to rise due in part to his agenda, Obama likens anyone critical of his failed energy decisions to a modern-day �Flat Earth Society� in speech after speech.

The problem for Obama is that his attempted slur betrays historical illiteracy, as summarized nicely by conservative blogger Clayton Cramer:
�Now, if you attended high school, or college, you would know (or should know) that there was no educated European who thought the Earth was flat. None. The dispute that made it hard for Columbus to get funding was that he insisted the Earth was 18,000 miles in circumference, so the Indies were a plausible voyage west from Spain. The experts who told the various governments of Europe that Columbus wasn�t going to be successful thought the Earth was closer to 25,000 miles around � and sailing west to the Indies was going to be a failure. Had there not been the Americas in the way, Columbus and crew would have died of thirst.�
On his current tour, Obama also inaccurately maligned former President Rutherford B. Hayes as disdainful of the telephone. As Mona Charen also noted this week, Obama also �told us that America invented the automobile and that John F. Kennedy had met with Nikita Kruschev when we were on the brink of nuclear war,� when in fact the automobile was invented in Germany and Kennedy actually met Kruschev one year prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This is the same President who referred to �57 states,� misstated the Citizens United decision in an address to the nation, pronounced Navy �corpsman� as �corpse-man� and blatantly misrepresented that Japanese automobiles now average 45 miles per gallon to our 27.5 standard.

Meanwhile, gas prices continue to break records while the Trash-Talker-in-Chief trots out fraudulent �flat earth� and �Rutherford B. Hayes� rhetoric.

None of this disparages anyone of any educational pedigree. It does, however, once again debunk the notion among preening liberals that they collectively maintain a knowledge or educational superiority.

Here's some interesting info on Pew that many have forgotten. Nonpartisan? I don't think so.

The news media's treatment of foundation involvement in public policy may have changed forever on March 17. That was the day the New York Post published "Buying 'Reform': Media Missed Millionaires' Scam," an account by one of its columnists, Ryan Sager, of the massive spending by several mainstream foundations to secure passage of the 2002 overhaul of campaign-finance laws and to keep the issue alive.

Mr. Sager told his readers he had discovered "an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a 'mass movement.'" Foundations like Ford, Open Society, Carnegie, Joyce, and MacArthur, he noted, had spent some $123-million from 1994 to 2004 to secure passage of the campaign law.

More than $40-million of that money, Mr. Sager said, had come from the Pew Charitable Trusts, where the program officer in charge had been Sean Treglia. Mr. Sager quoted from a videotape of a lecture Mr. Treglia had given at the University of Southern California in which he explained just how Pew had built support for passage of the campaign law.

Mr. Treglia said the foundation had made grants to "create an impression that a mass movement was afoot -- that everywhere they [members of Congress] looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform."

To maintain the illusion of a spontaneous upwelling of support for changes in campaign financing, Mr. Treglia said he "always encouraged the grantees never to mention Pew."

Mr. Sager's expos� ricocheted immediately throughout the burgeoning network of conservative Weblogs, or "blogs." It climbed quickly through right-leaning newspapers, with articles and editorials in The New York Sun, The Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal, and into the prominent conservative journals National Review and The Weekly Standard. By late March, an audience of millions could catch snippets of the Treglia tape on Fox News. The story even achieved conservative "gatehood" status, often referred to as "Pewgate."

As Rebecca Rimel, president of the Pew Charitable Trusts, told journalists and others, none of Pew's spending was even close to the line of illegal lobbying. Mr. Treglia apologized for giving the impression that Pew or its grantees had engaged in manipulation.

But the substance of this story is less interesting than the fact that it became a story at all. For this episode marks the coming of age of an entirely new communications network, which will bring its own special angle to reporting on philanthropy and public policy.

Traditional journalists tend to take at face value the research on public policies generated by major foundations and nonprofit organizations. Mr. Treglia tried at the University of Southern California meeting to explain to an audience of journalists how this can prepare the ground for political change, but they still saw nothing newsworthy in what he said. Most reporters pass on study results unskeptically, seldom inquiring into possible deeper political agendas.

That is because modern journalism and modern philanthropy are ideological twins. Both are heirs of American progressivism, which championed the displacement of parochial, partisan wrangling in public life by the nonpartisanship, objectivity, and professionalism of public-policy experts.

Ms. Rimel captured this perfectly in her response to "Pewgate" in a letter she wrote to The Wall Street Journal: "In an era of personal attacks and polarization, the Trusts strive to provide objective information and to seek common-ground solutions to many of our country's most vexing problems." Its approach has worked. As Martin Morse Wooster observed in a column in the Journal, "on NPR and in David Broder columns," Pew and its grantees "are treated as benign truth-tellers, so high-minded as to be beyond politics."

But Pewgate signaled a big change. It revealed a new and extensive conservative communications network outside of and harboring deep suspicions about the old, cozy fraternity of press and philanthropy. Conservatives have long regarded the mainstream news media as hopelessly skewed to the left. But their new network is now noticing much the same thing about mainstream foundations.

It seems that no matter what the issue -- the environment, health care, urban renewal, or electoral reform -- the philanthropic prescription is invariably to get the government to do more taxing and spending so it can pay for more trained experts who will assume responsibility for more of our affairs. Foundations may insist such recommendations spring from pure rationality and objectivity. But the new network has another name for them: liberalism.

If this seems harsh, conservative grant makers can only say, "Welcome to our world."

For mainstream journalism's uncritical acceptance of philanthropic research abruptly ceases whenever conservatives finance a study. Suddenly, reporters are acutely sensitive to and eager to unearth devious, sinister ideological agendas. To show how far this goes, a recent Washington Post article alertly included a list of a nonprofit group's conservative backers -- in the obituary for the group's director. That, of course, only reinforces the perception that the mainstream news media has a clear ideological agenda of its own. The new conservative network will simply help establish a more level playing field for journalistic treatment of foundations.

Any foundation interested in public-policy activism can now expect its implicit political inclinations to be vetted far more thoroughly and publicly than before. It will be much more difficult for donors to operate beneath the radar, justifying their low profile by saying that they are simply objective servants of the public interest. After all, the new networks were born of a reaction against precisely that claim by mainstream news media, and so are inclined to suspect hypocrisy whenever it is made. All foundations -- not just those on the right -- that want to shape public policy will now be treated as political actors.

Pew discovered what that means, when its response to the allegations by Mr. Treglia came out this way on Fox News: Pew said "it did nothing wrong and is proud of the $40-million it spent to get other people's money out of politics." Unfair? Of course. That's politics; be sure to wear a helmet.

As for the conservative network, I hope it will pay more attention to philanthropy, studying and reporting on its trends, fancies, procedures, and technologies. I have high hopes in particular for conservative bloggers.

Several of them -- Ryan Sager at Miscellaneous Objections, Winfield Myers at Democracy Project, and Mark Tapscott at Tapscott's Copy Desk -- did solid reporting on Pewgate, in spite of their relative unfamiliarity with the field. None of them, for instance, charged Pew with breaking the law -- though that did not stop Pew from acting as if this were the only charge to which it needed to respond.

Bloggers are scrappy, radically individualistic insurgents. They like nothing better than to take on tottering institutional empires, where arrogant, insulated leaders have escaped accountability for their lethargy and corruption by virtue of the fear they have instilled within the respectable, established commentariat. So it is just a matter of time before serious blogging comes to philanthropy. But we need bloggers who are veterans of the field, and who know how to interpret the opaque, impenetrable jargon and stylized, empty ceremonies of that world. By mercilessly critiquing the foundation world's "official" literature and rituals, actual transparency might be encouraged.

Bloggers should also do shoe-leather reporting and investigating. Hollow, exaggerated claims for a foundation program's success could quickly be deflated by behind-the-scenes reports on what is really happening on the ground.

Blogs will also be available for back-channel contributions from foundation staff members who wish to report squandered resources, dishonest publicity, or overbearing leadership. As the conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt notes in his insightful book Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World, real leadership changes came to The New York Times when its staff members' disgust over the Jayson Blair scandal erupted onto the Internet.

Some will quail before this new media world, complaining that now is hardly the moment for heightened criticism of foundations, with Congress poking around. But it is precisely this paranoia about negative reporting -- this priggish reluctance to air differences and difficulties before outsiders -- that prompts Congress and the public to suspect foundations have something to hide. Awareness that they are being scrutinized tends to keep large organizations nimble, alert, and alive. Why should philanthropy be any different?

Foundations that want to become active in public policy should not be discouraged from doing so. But it is important for board and staff members alike to take a long, searching, honest look at the political assumptions the foundation inevitably carries into the public fray. Those assumptions will quickly be brought to light, by others who do not share them. It will no longer be credible to profess innocence of political intent in the name of objectivity. Foundations may find the new world of press and public policy to be messier, louder, and less genteel. But we will all find it to be more honest, more balanced, and ultimately, more informative.

I believe there has been specific documentation about mainstream media pc fraud for political agenda. The j.blair and d.lemon journalistic frauds come to mind.

Is your comment to be taken as obviously not absolute, a punks game, or? Could it be that you're sharing opinion and may not be able to confirm those conclusion. Though agreeable for your motivations, can wiki help in this case?

Media can't be fair and balanced, Jim. I repeated it in my post. Your notion Fox always gets it right is nonsense. No one always gets it right.

Fox is balanced to you because it feeds your prejudices, just as more responsible organizations feed mine. I watch Fox for entertainment, like football.

Ease up. Love and respect your country. You'll be happier not thinking of half your citizens as treasonous communist fools. I have more respect for the US more than that.

Bill, I really do think this is a bit sad. This entire world isn't a half empty kind of place. You may be brainwashed in to thinking so.

On a brighter note, there is a position called the President of the United States of America. Can you come up with any documented quote during the current fellow's stint in which he has referred to joe average Republican citizen in a favorable or positive light. I absolutely promise to stand corrected if you're able to honor my request, but please be fair and accept criticism if your source is reasonably questionable.

Had a blast over by the Livingston area, but had to high tail it out of town just before the big storm hit. It was very iffy going over the Little Belts heading back up to the GF's area. I had hoped for another try at a swan, but my little diversion here has been frozen to a halt. Stay warm.

You're agreeing with me, Craig. Whether it's the Pokiok Post-Record or the Washington Post, journalists and their owners use media for selfish and personal reasons just as any other organization. It's human nature. It doesn't take empiric evidence to confirm.