Liberals Attack Fox News

[moribundman]

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by nortones2:
Why is political opinion in the USA portrayed in such a simplistic way? Who determines what is liberal and what is conservative? Division into sheep and goats is a pretty primitive way of looking at life, when the goats portray the sheep and al,their works as evil, and vice versa. Surely 50% of the USA aren't evil?

To label someone, is an attempt to demenishes them.

---

To see everything in black and white instead of seeing shades of grey is easier for many people. It gives them security and makes it much simpler to come to conclusions. You villify the one who differs in opinion, and you do it indiscriminately to dehumanize them. Many people, not all, of all parties and convictions are guilty of this, and it really undermines efforts of communication to a point where people of one persuasion won't even listen to those of another persuasion.

Anybody who starts out saying anything like "Those liberals, those conservatives, those French

isn't worth listening to in my book, because he's unwilling or uncapable of constructive discussion and only out to throw dirt like a 3 year old in his sandbox.

 

[buster]

pitbull,nortones, mark c and moribundman are 100% correct. Good points fellas.

 

[Bror Jace]

I watch Fox News Channel. I think it's the best, most fair broadcast network going.

With CNN, CBS, NBC & ABC you get strict left-of-center views and slants on the news. They also avoid stories which embarass their liberal friends as much as possible. They only rarely go after Dem pols and their opinions are 99% on the left.

Is Fox truly straight down the middle? Probably not. They seem to pander a bit to people like me, people who are sick of the way Ted, Tom, Dan and Peter can't be even remotely fair to Republicans or conservative (
Brit Hume's "Grapevine" 2-minute segment usually has a strong anti-PC, anti-liberal media bent to it.

All networks have exceptions to their overall ideology: ABC has George Will and NBC has Tim Russert (who is as straight-down-the-middle as they get).

But Fox now absolutely DEMOLISHES everyone else in cable news ratings. Other people are sick of the liberal establishment and are tuning in to Fox.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Bill O'Reilly is "middle of the road."

---

Yeah ...he's an independent. He independently picks his conservatives to support

I liked it when he went on about tax cuts and how he was in the (effective) 75% bracket.

Naturally he failed to mention that he probably doesn't get a paycheck from FOX ..but probably has a contract with "Bill O'Reilly Productions" who is contracted by Fox for his services.

Income vs. accumulation of wealth. Big difference.

 

[needtoknow]

Well Motorguy222 please supply the link you got your quote from. Here we go again, if it doesn't say what I want to believe or support it must be left wing, and of course we all know that everything left of Rush Limbaugh is evil. I listened to NPR's interview with the producer, sorry, forgot his name, and he said his movie actually "quantify's" the intentional right wing slant. Haven't seen the movie but do plan to buy it and see for myself. He also stated he doesn't mind that Fox News is right wing it's just that they lie by saying they're "fair & balanced". So why don't some of you who think CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN etc are all left wing conspirators give me some evidence (examples) that we can discuss.

 

[Bror Jace]

In all fairness, Fred Barnes is a very conservative commentator and the Weekly Standard. I watch him frequently and like him a lot. You can argue with his interpretation of those numbers ... but the numbers themselves are very telling. The old mainstream media in this country was overwhelmingly liberal and they slanted the news consistently for decades.

Now, that out of the way ...

"pitbull, nortones, mark c and moribundman are 100% correct. Good points fellas."

No they are not, The points made were merely silly and simplistic ... just in a different way.

The whole "anti-label," "shades of gray" arguments are a bunch of nonsense and psycho-babble used to justify just about any position on any issue. They are phrases which attempt to excuse the user from rational thought and/or making a stand on a given issue. They are counter-productive to any discussion.

People who don't like labels (fair ones, not disguised insults) usually can't face up to the truth. People don't like to be called "liberal" or "socialists" despite the fact they support cradle-to-grave big government programs, politically correct language, quota set-asides and dislike the strength of our military. It's not the label, but what they believe in that's the problem. And they know what they believe in is not popular so do they change their beliefs? Nope, they just attempt to disguise them ("I'm not liberal, I'm progressive!”) and complain when they are (correctly) labeled.

I'm conservative. I don't mind that label at all. I wear it proudly because I have spent a lot of my life thinking and looking at what works and what doesn't. Socialism/collectivism doesn't work, people are best treated as individuals, not groups; politically correct speech is, by definition a manipulative lie. People are at their best when they are strongly encouraged to succeed, and punished when they fail. History shows this. This nation was founded by over-achievers which did not shrink from heavy work and faced difficult times with a hardened jaw ... in other words, conservatives. The modern, liberal welfare states are producing a population of spoiled, out-of-shape, whiners increasingly unable to cope with even the most minor setbacks in life.

Labels are part of our language and they exist because they fill a very important need. Trying to remove them is a way of rendering our language less effective at describing things ... and makes real rational thought and discussion that much more difficult. Of course, that's what liberals want. When rational thought rules the day, liberal ideas are shown to be the failures history has proved them to be. Best for them to just muddy up the marketplace-of-ideas with a bunch of P.C. touchy-feely-speak and confuse people while taking away their money and individual rights.

And yes, Fox news panders to people like me because I am sick and tired of the old mainstream media trying to subtly spoon-feed me a bunch of liberal nonsense which isn't true. Now that we have a choice, we are leaving the old media in droves and the people who are losing power are doing desperate things to stem the tide.

But it won't work. Despite the fact that people tend to like to be pandered to, deep inside they know what is right and wrong and they are voting with their viewership.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Pablo]

The bias in the news isn't necessarily always on purpose. Sometimes it sure is sneaky subtle...a lot of the time it's "newsroom group think view = entire USA view"

As far a political labels go, I think general grouping isn't such a bad thing as far as general trends go. Bror J. summed it nicely.

I do find it ironic some of the very people who are against the group label thing will whizz out "neo-con" if they really hate a Bush person....they use it like a such a dirty word, conservatives run and hide from the "neo" part....but these are the same people who tell us they are against hate in all forms, well except it's OK to HATE Bush.....

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
The whole "anti-label," "shades of gray" arguments are a bunch of nonsense and psycho-babble used to justify just about any position on any issue. They are phrases which attempt to excuse the user from rational thought and/or making a stand on a given issue. They are counter-productive to any discussion.

People who don't like labels (fair ones, not disguised insults) usually can't face up to the truth.

---

Wow, I was about to post 'bout the exact same reply

If I label Winston Churchill as the greatest war time leader, how does that diminish him?

I label Joseph Stalin as histories worst mass murderer. No shades of gray there, cubby.

If I label the 9/11 terrorists as (wacko extremist) followers of Islam, is that 'politically incorrect' or verifiably correct and appropriate?

If I label JFKerry as the most liberal senator, based on his most liberal voting record back in the days when he actually represented his constituents and voted, you got a problem with that?

The anti-label crowd needs to grow some big ones, but I think we all agree that silly labels achieve nothing (e.g. Bush = Hitler, Halliburton = evil).

Keith.

 

[rainman49]

quote:

---

---

The modern, liberal welfare states are producing a population of spoiled, out-of-shape, whiners increasingly unable to cope with even the most minor setbacks in life.

Amen Bror J.

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
snip....

Of course the term "liberal" has become pejorative too. Why? Because the views true liberals hold and they way they think are so wrong:
Snip....
--- Bror Jace

---

--

As a conservative, I think it would be fair and balanced to defend true liberals. They are good folk pushing many fine agendas that they think would work for the common good. I disagree with them, but respect them.

The big problem is that the word liberal has been hijacked by a collation of special interests that will go along with anything as long as their interest is taken care of, whatever it is. I support equality for women, but am disgusted with women that complain about sexual harassment, but support the likes of Clinton. No sleaze is too much for these people. Look at the way they are rallying around a trial lawyer as vice president. No lie too big to use against Bush whose decency they find so offensive.

Note, plenty of bad apples in the conservative barrel too.

 

[nortones2]

Bror: re " This nation was founded by over-achievers which did not shrink from heavy work and faced difficult times with a hardened jaw ... in other words, conservatives." Actually thought they were, or became, revolutionaries. Along with their allies and emulators, the French, of blessed memory. And sent back the 100,000 or so loyalist conservatives (AKA Tories) to GB labels have their drawbacks, n'est pas?

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
snip....

Of course the term "liberal" has become pejorative too. Why? Because the views true liberals hold and they way they think are so wrong:
Snip....
--- Bror Jace

---

--

As a conservative, I think it would be fair and balanced to defend true liberals. They are good folk pushing many fine agendas that they think would work for the common good. I disagree with them, but respect them.

The big problem is that the word liberal has been hijacked by a collation of special interests that will go along with anything as long as their interest is taken care of, whatever it is. I support equality for women, but am disgusted with women that complain about sexual harassment, but support the likes of Clinton. No sleaze is too much for these people. Look at the way they are rallying around a trial lawyer as vice president. No lie too big to use against Bush whose decency they find so offensive.

Note, plenty of bad apples in the conservative barrel too.

---

Lab: Just curiosity, please don't bust a seam on me, this is meant as a friendly thinking challenge, but just where would you pigeon-hole the huge group of lawyers who are conservatives and who happen to try cases in court??? There are a considerable number of deep-right conservatives who are "trial lawyers" and politicians? What label for them?

Here we go again. . .

 

[MikeR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
"Wow, I was about to post 'bout the exact same reply."

Why am I not surprised?

Yes Pablo, some of the issues surrounding bias in the news are "group think" as well as "bad news bias." These are real but they are blown way out of proportion and serve only as cover for a consistent liberal ideological bias that makes the nightly news into a force of indoctrination.

As I said before, some labels are insults ... like "Neo-Con." I’m still a little fuzzy on the exact definition but know that Wolfowitz, Pearl & Scooter Libby are all supposed to fit into the definition. This seems to be something made up by Chris Matthews (or he simply uses it the most) and it is meant as a pejorative/attack term.

Of course the term "liberal" has become pejorative too. Why? Because the views true liberals hold and they way they think are so wrong:

1) High taxes are good because they pay for lots of government programs which makes life better for everyone.
2) If people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, they'll just spend it foolishly.
3) Rich people are all crooked & greedy ... not hard working.
4) Poor people are all unlucky, misunderstood victims of greedy rich people ... not stupid & lazy.
5) Any way to confiscate wealth from rich people and give to poor folks is infinitely justifiable. This is another reason to love high taxes.
6) PC speak is good because it is terribly wrong to offend any people at any time, even by accident ... unless they are white and/or Catholic.
7) Guns are bad because they hurt people ... practically all by themselves.
8) If we banned more weapons, people would all be nicer to each other.
9) It will be a wonderful day when we can take guns away from everyone ... eventually even the police and military.
10) Power tools, chainsaws and even sharp scissors are also dangerous and need to be strongly regulated.
11) America is an evil place full of rednecks and greedy rich people.
12) I feel awful that America won the cold war.
13) The Soviet Union would be a paradise today if they weren't forced to spend so much on defense protecting themselves from the evil Americans.
14) America was asking to be attacked on September 11 because we are too strong and proud for our own good.
15) Terrorists wouldn't bother us if we could just sit down and talk with them.
16) Every time a minority encounters difficulty in life, it is due to racism from white men.
17) Factories hurt Gaia the Earth Goddess and should be shut down as often as possible.
18) Cars should all be tiny and get at least 100mpg ... or be solar powered.
19) Almost no one should own a truck unless they can prove a need for one.
20) Communism would work fine if swell people like me were in charge of it.

--- Bror Jace

---

BJ, as a political scientist, you make one heck of an oil enthusiast.

By attributing ridiculous characteristics as those above to a convenient strawman, people have been able to make "Liberal" into a pejorative term. Have you given as much thought to your own political beliefs as you have to your ill-informed caricature of a "Liberal?"

I won't respond to any of the loaded statements above, but I will let you in on my own, very personal reasons why I consider myself a "liberal.":

- Problems are usually more complicated than they seem. Being able to think our way through complex problems is humanity's greatest asset.
- Morality exists independently from religion.
- Everyone's equal and has a right to be treated that way.
- People don't necessarily get into positions of power by having others' best interests at heart.
- I don't like to pay taxes, but I know they pay for schools, roads, national defense, police... In exchange, I demand that those who are in charge are accountable to the way in which they spend my tax dollars.


MR

 

[moribundman]

Bror Jace wrote:

quote:

---

The whole "anti-label," "shades of gray" arguments are a bunch of nonsense and psycho-babble used to justify just about any position on any issue. They are phrases which attempt to excuse the user from rational thought and/or making a stand on a given issue. They are counter-productive to any discussion.

---

Uh-huh, with a statement like that you've just sucessfully labeled yourself as an ignoramus of the first order, brother.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

- Problems are usually more complicated than they seem. Being able to think our way through complex problems is humanity's greatest asset.
- Morality exists independently from religion.
- Everyone's equal and has a right to be treated that way.
- People don't necessarily get into positions of power by having others' best interests at heart.
- I don't like to pay taxes, but I know they pay for schools, roads, national defense, police... In exchange, I demand that those who are in charge are accountable to the way in which they spend my tax dollars.

---

MikeR I agree 100% Bror , your post is kind of ridiculous, no offense. Problem with conservative ideology in general is that it's too black and white. Problems are more complex then what they seem at times.

My definition of Liberal is : open minded, progressive and tolorant.

Taxes are a fact of life. We need them, period.

Norway and Canada, two countries voted at #1 and #2 for quality of Life, have high taxes and don't seem to be doing all that bad.

[ July 15, 2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[blano]

You wouldnt say that if you lived in Canada.

 

[Pablo]

I've never said we don't need taxes. Of course there is a balance. We need the funds for essential services, national defense, libraries, etc collected from ALL in an equitable way.

I don't even mind funding some arts....but quickly the rub comes up......you've heard the mantra: to me a jar containing a cross filled with urine is NOT art. I refuse to pay for needles for drug addicts in the big city on the other side of the nation.....just as some people don't want to pay for jets and warships....THAT is why we elect our leaders!

 

[Pablo]

Buster - being a conservative does not mean one has a closed mind. Just as being a liberal does not make one tolerant.

Conservatives can protect the environment and expand their minds and love plus be tolerant all humans. I try my best.

Liberals are often quite closed minded. Try wearing a tie into a "liberal" community....in my very humble life liberals tend to only be open if you agree with them....

 

[MarkC]

The problem begins when you try to pin a lable on someone, and the label doesn't entirely fit.
I, myself have some liberal views, some conservative, some 'just leave me the **** alone".
You don't have to swallow the entire party line from any side. That doesn't mean you can't decide what to stand up for, it means you can think for yourself. Neither side has all the answers...or even most of them.
I don't hate Bush. I hate some of his policies.
Same with Kerry. Who I vote for won't make me fit into either label.


Unfortunately, often the labelling of people descends into attacking the person instead of keeping our attention on the debate at hand.

 

[Bror Jace]

"Wow, I was about to post 'bout the exact same reply."

Why am I not surprised?

Yes Pablo, some of the issues surrounding bias in the news are "group think" as well as "bad news bias." These are real but they are blown way out of proportion and serve only as cover for a consistent liberal ideological bias that makes the nightly news into a force of indoctrination.

As I said before, some labels are insults ... like "Neo-Con." I’m still a little fuzzy on the exact definition but know that Wolfowitz, Pearl & Scooter Libby are all supposed to fit into the definition. This seems to be something made up by Chris Matthews (or he simply uses it the most) and it is meant as a pejorative/attack term.

Of course the term "liberal" has become pejorative too. Why? Because the views true liberals hold and they way they think are so wrong:

1) High taxes are good because they pay for lots of government programs which makes life better for everyone.
2) If people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, they'll just spend it foolishly.
3) Rich people are all crooked & greedy ... not hard working.
4) Poor people are all unlucky, misunderstood victims of greedy rich people ... not stupid & lazy.
5) Any way to confiscate wealth from rich people and give to poor folks is infinitely justifiable. This is another reason to love high taxes.
6) PC speak is good because it is terribly wrong to offend any people at any time, even by accident ... unless they are white and/or Catholic.
7) Guns are bad because they hurt people ... practically all by themselves.
8) If we banned more weapons, people would all be nicer to each other.
9) It will be a wonderful day when we can take guns away from everyone ... eventually even the police and military.
10) Power tools, chainsaws and even sharp scissors are also dangerous and need to be strongly regulated.
11) America is an evil place full of rednecks and greedy rich people.
12) I feel awful that America won the cold war.
13) The Soviet Union would be a paradise today if they weren't forced to spend so much on defense protecting themselves from the evil Americans.
14) America was asking to be attacked on September 11 because we are too strong and proud for our own good.
15) Terrorists wouldn't bother us if we could just sit down and talk with them.
16) Every time a minority encounters difficulty in life, it is due to racism from white men.
17) Factories hurt Gaia the Earth Goddess and should be shut down as often as possible.
18) Cars should all be tiny and get at least 100mpg ... or be solar powered.
19) Almost no one should own a truck unless they can prove a need for one.
20) Communism would work fine if swell people like me were in charge of it.

--- Bror Jace