1/2 hour news hour on fox news

[cdutilb]

[ QUOTE ]
Janeane Garofalo (who I'm a big fan of) tried her best on shows like "Hardball" but was ultimately outgunned when pitted up against the organized propaganda machine pushing for the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

She is awful. Larry Elder made her look stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
Larry Elder relates some interesting anecdotes from his attendence at the Democrat National Convention.

It begins with an interview with Air America's Janeane Garofalo who apparently assumed that Elder, being a black guy, must be a fellow traveler. It would seem that she as quite surprised and shocked when she found that wasn't true:

For four days, the Democratic Party put on its quadrennial scare-old-people-and-minorities party. Democrats, of course, rely on the 90-plus percent monolithic black vote. Thus, a black "non-liberal" poses a direct threat to the party's national prospects. When Garofalo agreed to a sit-down, she clearly knew nothing about me. When I defended the administration on the War on Terror, a frustrated Garofalo started to get up and leave, muttering, "This show sucks." After I called her a coward, however, she sat back down and finished the segment.

After our interview, Garofalo began broadcasting her radio show on "Air America." Several of my callers -- I was still on the air at the time -- said that Garofalo called me a "house Negro" and a "fascist."

Yes, the torch bearers of the party of diversity and tolerance call someone who disagrees a "house negro" and a "facist".

But that's not the end of the story. Garofalo then invites Elder on her Air America show. Elder promptly accepts. Apparently that wasn't expected and the invitation was retracted.

Garofalo's people suddenly decided they could not fit me into their schedule! Here's my speculation: Garofalo assumed that I feared appearing on her show. She extended an invitation in hopes that I would refuse. She then would go on the air, call me a coward and accuse me of fear in the face of hostility. Well, I called her bluff, and somebody backed down.

So, on my show I discussed the invitation/retraction and accused her of fear. Then, another one of Garofalo's people came by, re-extended the invitation, and I again promptly accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You're the one that's politicizing science when you write:

Fox News is very heavily right wing when it comes to scientific stuff.

Scientific stuff isn't political. Allow me to show you how you might fix the statement you made to put it in the realm of politics:

Fox News is very heavily right wing when it comes to government policy regarding scientific stuff.

There's a huge difference between the two statements DUCY?????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????


Not saying I agree with the amended statement but it's statement about politics which is what we're discussing I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either Fox news denies an obvious and very clearly documented consensus or they don't.

1) Do you agree or disagree that the overwhelming majority of scientists endorse the IPCC?

It's a yes or no question. And there is TONS of empirical evidence supporting the existence of a consensus.

Fox News denies a consensus. If you answer yes to #1 then surely you can agree that Fox is spinning the science. Or do I need to post a few dozen clips to convince you?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a strong correlation but no proof of causation.... yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you totally miss the point. Deciding whether or not something is supported by science is irrelevant to someone's political position. Let's take something fairly simple like Newton's laws. It's not a left wing or a right wing issue in whether or not Newton's laws explain a phenomona. Similarly it's not a left or right wing issue regarding the effect that green gass emissions had on the severity of Katrina. The political issue is what should government policy be regarding climate change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adios, either there is a correlation or there isn't. A simple statistical test will give you an answer. Michaels says there isn't a correlation. Looking at the graph what do you think? Do I really need to break out the math?

Also Michaels is on the oil payroll and he this conflict of interest isn't exposed. Don't you think that's important?

The IPCC is attacked by the best of the skeptics but NOBODY from the IPCC has been on the show to defend the IPCC from attack. Don't you think that's suspect?

Michaels has fraudulently edited Hansen's climate models making him "predict" scenarios that his models simply did not predict. Michaels flaunts this as proof that that NASA's Hansen was wrong. Don't you think Hansen deserves to defend himself?

When is the deprivation of self defense from libel and slander "fair and balanced"?
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Alan Colmes sits there with his thumb up his butt. He quotes the pentagon report but that's about it. He's basically a doormat.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I submit that this is a subjective statement which is fine. I've stated elsewhere that I think Hannity's interviewing technique is terrible with people he doesn't agree with. That's my opinion not an irrefutable fact. Anyway when people state as an objective fact that FoxNews is right wing biased then there ought to be some objective reasons given. We've discussed the FAIR study a few times on the forum. That was the only thing that I've seen that tries to make an objective case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the quality of the experts. If you rank the climate skeptics in order you will see that almost all of the top 10 have been on fox. If you rake the top 10,000 of the consensus supporting scientists in order you will see that NONE of them have been on Fox.

You wanted empirical evidence well you got it.
[ QUOTE ]

I love you guys and your conspiracy theories. I remember borodog's post on the other forum about climate change [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] and some of the arguments against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you using borodog as a source? And if so what exactly are you sourcing him on? Please clarify this statement.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though this is a subjective judgement on your part.

I have hard time understanding why you guys object to my approach which is identify the centrist position on government policy for issues and make a case that FoxNews is right wing based on that. In the link I provided to Centrists.org, IMO (a subjective judgement) their recommended policy on climate change is representative of a centrist position. A lot of what you and some others have pointed out is crappy journalism. So friggen what???

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I have given you multiple empirical tests. The anti-consensus Ph.D.'s consist of the VAST minority and they compose pretty much all of the Ph.D. time on Fox. I've never seen a NAS or IPCC member on Fox.

If you still don't believe then I challenge you to create a test on Fox News that tests the quality and quantity of the experts on both sides of the debate. We don't even have to balance out the relevant proportion which they exist within the scientific community. We can use very simple tests to look at the balance.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, after thinking about it a while if I was a propaganda machine that would be the perfect way to deceive the public. It's actually quite ingenious. Shield your phony Ph.D's from attack then put a well prepared and funded think tank lobbyist vs. an incompetent blogger for the "Debate". It looks like they are evenly matched when in reality they aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is standard, not just for Fox but for almost all television coverage of the lead-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. When opposition voices were heard at all they were marginalized and characterized as "far-left" or "anti-war." Janeane Garofalo (who I'm a big fan of) tried her best on shows like "Hardball" but was ultimately outgunned when pitted up against the organized propaganda machine pushing for the war.

Even now we still hear from the same pundits who were so drastically wrong just four years ago, and continue to marginalize those who were right all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just like to clarify that I don't mind that they continue to air the best of the neocons. But if they do then in order to qualify for "fair and balanced" then they need to host the best of the anti-neocons. If you have the best of the right then you should have the best of the left. It's that simple. And in the current state of Fox (and probably many others) the quality of the experts is very disproportionate based upon ideology.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Janeane Garofalo (who I'm a big fan of) tried her best on shows like "Hardball" but was ultimately outgunned when pitted up against the organized propaganda machine pushing for the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

She is awful. Larry Elder made her look stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
Larry Elder relates some interesting anecdotes from his attendence at the Democrat National Convention.

It begins with an interview with Air America's Janeane Garofalo who apparently assumed that Elder, being a black guy, must be a fellow traveler. It would seem that she as quite surprised and shocked when she found that wasn't true:

For four days, the Democratic Party put on its quadrennial scare-old-people-and-minorities party. Democrats, of course, rely on the 90-plus percent monolithic black vote. Thus, a black "non-liberal" poses a direct threat to the party's national prospects. When Garofalo agreed to a sit-down, she clearly knew nothing about me. When I defended the administration on the War on Terror, a frustrated Garofalo started to get up and leave, muttering, "This show sucks." After I called her a coward, however, she sat back down and finished the segment.

After our interview, Garofalo began broadcasting her radio show on "Air America." Several of my callers -- I was still on the air at the time -- said that Garofalo called me a "house Negro" and a "fascist."

Yes, the torch bearers of the party of diversity and tolerance call someone who disagrees a "house negro" and a "facist".

But that's not the end of the story. Garofalo then invites Elder on her Air America show. Elder promptly accepts. Apparently that wasn't expected and the invitation was retracted.

Garofalo's people suddenly decided they could not fit me into their schedule! Here's my speculation: Garofalo assumed that I feared appearing on her show. She extended an invitation in hopes that I would refuse. She then would go on the air, call me a coward and accuse me of fear in the face of hostility. Well, I called her bluff, and somebody backed down.

So, on my show I discussed the invitation/retraction and accused her of fear. Then, another one of Garofalo's people came by, re-extended the invitation, and I again promptly accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Garofalo is a mental midget... all she can do is regurge what she can remember she read on move on dot org

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're the one that's politicizing science when you write:

Fox News is very heavily right wing when it comes to scientific stuff.

Scientific stuff isn't political. Allow me to show you how you might fix the statement you made to put it in the realm of politics:

Fox News is very heavily right wing when it comes to government policy regarding scientific stuff.

There's a huge difference between the two statements DUCY?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????


Not saying I agree with the amended statement but it's statement about politics which is what we're discussing I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either Fox news denies an obvious and very clearly documented consensus or they don't.

1) Do you agree or disagree that the overwhelming majority of scientists endorse the IPCC?

It's a yes or no question. And there is TONS of empirical evidence supporting the existence of a consensus.

Fox News denies a consensus. If you answer yes to #1 then surely you can agree that Fox is spinning the science. Or do I need to post a few dozen clips to convince you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see why there's a difference between science and government policy on science. Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a strong correlation but no proof of causation.... yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you totally miss the point. Deciding whether or not something is supported by science is irrelevant to someone's political position. Let's take something fairly simple like Newton's laws. It's not a left wing or a right wing issue in whether or not Newton's laws explain a phenomona. Similarly it's not a left or right wing issue regarding the effect that green gass emissions had on the severity of Katrina. The political issue is what should government policy be regarding climate change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adios, either there is a correlation or there isn't. A simple statistical test will give you an answer. Michaels says there isn't a correlation. Looking at the graph what do you think? Do I really need to break out the math?

Also Michaels is on the oil payroll and he this conflict of interest isn't exposed. Don't you think that's important?

The IPCC is attacked by the best of the skeptics but NOBODY from the IPCC has been on the show to defend the IPCC from attack. Don't you think that's suspect?

Michaels has fraudulently edited Hansen's climate models making him "predict" scenarios that his models simply did not predict. Michaels flaunts this as proof that that NASA's Hansen was wrong. Don't you think Hansen deserves to defend himself?

When is the deprivation of self defense from libel and slander "fair and balanced"?

[/ QUOTE ]


I actually thought you'd get the point. I think you probably did but chose to ignore it. The determination of whether or not something is scientifically valid isn't a political consideration. Apparently you believe it is or you just want to ignore what I wrote.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Alan Colmes sits there with his thumb up his butt. He quotes the pentagon report but that's about it. He's basically a doormat.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I submit that this is a subjective statement which is fine. I've stated elsewhere that I think Hannity's interviewing technique is terrible with people he doesn't agree with. That's my opinion not an irrefutable fact. Anyway when people state as an objective fact that FoxNews is right wing biased then there ought to be some objective reasons given. We've discussed the FAIR study a few times on the forum. That was the only thing that I've seen that tries to make an objective case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the quality of the experts. If you rank the climate skeptics in order you will see that almost all of the top 10 have been on fox. If you rake the top 10,000 of the consensus supporting scientists in order you will see that NONE of them have been on Fox.

You wanted empirical evidence well you got it.i

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your idea of empirical evidence that Alan Colmes has his thumb up his butt and is a doormat? How ridiculous.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I love you guys and your conspiracy theories. I remember borodog's post on the other forum about climate change [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] and some of the arguments against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you using borodog as a source? And if so what exactly are you sourcing him on? Please clarify this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, people basically tried to discredit him in that thread for proposing some sort of conspiracy theory and here you are proposing one yourself.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though this is a subjective judgement on your part.

I have hard time understanding why you guys object to my approach which is identify the centrist position on government policy for issues and make a case that FoxNews is right wing based on that. In the link I provided to Centrists.org, IMO (a subjective judgement) their recommended policy on climate change is representative of a centrist position. A lot of what you and some others have pointed out is crappy journalism. So friggen what???

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I have given you multiple empirical tests. The anti-consensus Ph.D.'s consist of the VAST minority and they compose pretty much all of the Ph.D. time on Fox. I've never seen a NAS or IPCC member on Fox.

If you still don't believe then I challenge you to create a test on Fox News that tests the quality and quantity of the experts on both sides of the debate. We don't even have to balance out the relevant proportion which they exist within the scientific community. We can use very simple tests to look at the balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

So typical. First of all I'm not the one making the claim that FoxNews is right wing biased. I don't even have problem with your having that opinion. But when you start stating that it's a fact that FoxNews is right wing biased I think you ought to be able to back it up. You haven't backed up in the least. Scientific findings aren't political. Second of all apparently you believe that climate science is a political issue. It's not, government policy regarding climate science theories, hypothesis, findings, etc. is political though. I've at least proposed a methodology for determining any political bias by FoxNews which you've ignored. All you've done is try and change the subject basically. Again I fully understand that what you believe government needs to do (government policy more or less) about the climate is correct and that makes it the centrist position .... to you. Of course if you were really interested in discussing if FoxNews right wing bias regarding government policy on climate change you'd be discussing what various proposals from people on the right want government to do, vhat various people on the left want governement to do, perhaps opine on where the middle falls, then try and argue that FoxNews is right of the middle. Earth to wacki, determining the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate is not government policy. It's not political either. It's science.

The findings, theories, conclusions hypothesis of science != government policy regarding the findings, theories, conclusions hypothesis of science.

I also realize that one rarely gets the last word with you either so unless you actually want to discuss the views on the left regarding government policy on climate change; the right wing viewpoints regarding government policy on climate change; and take a stab at what the centrist government policy position is on climate change I'm finished. I realize you'd actually have to examine and consider different viewpoints than your own on what government needs to do. I also realize that you really don't want to consider other viewpoints than your own about what government should do but I think you're capable of doing so.

[adios]

Here's an example of government policy regarding the theories, hypothesis, conclusions etc. of climate science.

A bill introduced recently in the Senate:
Low Carbon Economy Acto of 2007

This is probably a good example of centrist policy. Senator Bingaman (from the state where I live) is a moderate and IMO a very non controversial type. He's a Democrat. Arlen Spector is a moderate as well and is a Republican. Some conservatives refer to him as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Anyway I consider these two guys moderates but could be convinced otherwise.

What did FoxNews opine about this particular piece of legislation? I would guess not very much perhaps something on the Britt Hume show. Don't know.

Before you go off on some irrelevant tangent, the point is that this Senate bill represents proposed government policy based on the theories, hypothesis, conclusions etc. of climate science.

Here's what I think would be considered a right wing sponsored site said about it:


Global Warming's Trillion Dollar Giveaway


Here's what I think would be considered a left wing sponsored site said about it:

Compromise Measure Aims to Limit Global Warming

[Case Closed]

Iron,

Can you fix the thread. adios ruined it with the question marks.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, after thinking about it a while if I was a propaganda machine that would be the perfect way to deceive the public. It's actually quite ingenious. Shield your phony Ph.D's from attack then put a well prepared and funded think tank lobbyist vs. an incompetent blogger for the "Debate". It looks like they are evenly matched when in reality they aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is standard, not just for Fox but for almost all television coverage of the lead-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. When opposition voices were heard at all they were marginalized and characterized as "far-left" or "anti-war." Janeane Garofalo (who I'm a big fan of) tried her best on shows like "Hardball" but was ultimately outgunned when pitted up against the organized propaganda machine pushing for the war.

Even now we still hear from the same pundits who were so drastically wrong just four years ago, and continue to marginalize those who were right all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just like to clarify that I don't mind that they continue to air the best of the neocons. But if they do then in order to qualify for "fair and balanced" then they need to host the best of the anti-neocons. If you have the best of the right then you should have the best of the left. It's that simple. And in the current state of Fox (and probably many others) the quality of the experts is very disproportionate based upon ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your head was in the sand regarding Fox in 2004, I told you they were full of [censored], but it took the denial of science to open your eyes. Then, as now, the only people who believe their crap are rednecks and right wing dupes.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Your head was in the sand regarding Fox in 2004, I told you they were full of [censored], but it took the denial of science to open your eyes. Then, as now, the only people who believe their crap are rednecks and right wing dupes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring your racial slur, this is absolutely true of Fox News. Of course the only people who believe the crap put out by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are left wing dupes. This is what makes Fox fair and balanced. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[anatta]

I come from the South, a lot of my family is in the deep South and they admit they are rednecks and proud of it in a Jeff Foxworthy "you know you are a redneck when..." And I got a big dip in right now. So I am allowed to use the term Redneck. Its racist if you do it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]