Cynical Nation

Barry,
So what? Big deal. It is nothing compared to the reporting by Pravda. Sorry, I meant Fox News.

I saw this too.

A scant week after the AP put out its "clarification" (retraction) admitting a "topping" is NOT a "breach" on a Friday, for minimum exposure.

Like I said, one of the problems here is that most folks in the media are former communications and journalism majors - two degrees which can be had with a minimum of math and science (thus a modicum of formal reasoning skills) and like education majors (who consistently come from the least competitive College applicants - the group that's scored the lowest on such standardized exams as the SATs, etc) - with the only difference, that journalism and communications majors actually tend to THINK they're very bright.

Few are more impressed with themselves than they.

Unfortunately THIS is the result, because THIS is what passes for "clever" among the "logic-challenged" set.

At any rate, the information THEY give shows that dissertions dropped sharply AFTER 2003 - the advent of the ivasion of Iraq!

Maybe they really don't know how to interpret data.

After all, these are the same folks who once took the, "1,000 homeless people die every day in America," on face value - a figure, by the way, that would've meant the eradication of more than twice the existing homeless population at the time, in under ten years!

"Big deal. It is nothing compared to the reporting by Pravda. Sorry, I meant Fox News" (BW)

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's "a LIE by DISTORTION," Blue.

And you rarely see it done this blatantly in ANY media. Dissertions actually have gone down since the start of the Iraq war and they IGNORE the data and try to present it as "Look how many soldiers have disserted during this war we oppose!"

It's not just blatant, Blue, it's just plain dumb.

Fox's "opinion" shows are clearly that, and most of them are better balanced, for instance, Hannity & Combs, then most of the MSM's Sunday morning news/opinion shows.

Fox's "opinion" shows are clearly that, and most of them are better balanced, for instance, Hannity & Combs

Fox News consistently distorts the truth big-time. It is a propaganda station, not much different than the Pravda of the old Soviet Union. JMK, you know a lot about communism. You should had made the call about Fox News :)

You're mixing opinion shows with news shows.

Fox News runs shows like O'Reilly's (a moderate "Tradionalist," as I'm loathe to call him a real Conservative) and of course "Hannity & Combs," which are OPINION shows.

They DON'T masquerade as "news shows" except to the most deluded among us.

MSNBC runs OPINION shows like Oberman's and Scarborough's.

There is actually very little "editorializing" in any of the cable news "NEWS CASTS." They tend to keep that restricted to their opinion shows.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the NY Times, CBS, ABC & NBC, where opinion creeps into "news stories" all the time.

Still, that's not the issue here, as you haven't given an example of FoxNews broadcasting a specific distortion.

The issue is that THIS story, the ONE Barry posted above was not only gross editorializing on the part of USA Today, but it was a blatant "LIE by DISTORTION."

A very REAL violation of ethics.

BY BLUE WIND:

"Fox News consistently distorts the truth big-time. It is a propaganda station, not much different than the Pravda of the old Soviet Union."

I am so tired of this silly BS thrown around by the anti-Fox crowd. Shows like "On The Record" or "Hannity & Colmes" offer a look at news stories with an opinion. The viewer knows that this is mainly debate and opinion.

Now, "Fox News Live" is a straight reporting of the news. If you honestly compare it to other newscasts on rival cable networks, it is similar.

My advice to you, Blue Wind, is to read "Bias" and "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg. Then, you'll still be in denial, but you'll be more informed while you're in denial.

by JMK:

"You're mixing opinion shows with news shows."

EXACTLY! You stole my thunder JMK.

JMK! Give Carmine his thunder back. ;-)

Sorry about that Carmine.

You nailed it though.

The point is that EVERY cable "news" station also runs opinion shows, from Scarborough and Oberman at MSNBC to Nacy Grace and Paula Zahn at CNN.

Conveniently THOSE shows are never "mistaken for newscasts" by the muddled thinkers on the Left...no just FoxNews' opinion shows.

FoxNews DOES tend to "overcover" high profile crimes and car chases, BUT so DOES every other CABLE NEWS channel...and they all go for ratings via heavy graphics, flashy presentations and yes, a plethora of what Drudge refers to as "bobbing blonde, leg crossers."

But again, THIS discussion ISN'T about CABLE NEWS, or FoxNews, it's about a very real example of a violation of journalistic ethics by USA Today via a blatant "LIE by DISTORTION."

I know Blue would like to avoid that ugly reality, but...well, there it is.

It's the proverbial elephant in the living room.

Carmine said:

"Now, "Fox News Live" is a straight reporting of the news. "

And that's exactly how the old soviet regime perceived the reporting of Pravda. Fox News is a pure propaganda station that distorts and misrepresents the truth consistently. And I am not talking about the "opinion" shows only. The whole TV station is a big lie :)

You can't make charges like that without clear-cut examples Blue.

Give at least one example of a news report delivered by FoxNews that (1) was as blatantly misleading as the example Barry gave above and (2) one which no other outlet reported the very same way.

I believe the NY Times is pure unadulterated propaganda, that deliberately distorts the news.

That's merely a charge. In fact, it's a slightly overblown one, since sometimes they actually do report a news story fairly accurately.

Walter Duranty who wrote glowing reports about the "Worker's paradise" that was Stalin's USSR in the 1930s, while millions of Russians were being exterminated. THAT is an example of a serious breach in journalism ethics that at least sets a precedent for that sort of thing at that outlet.

Jayson Blair's relatively recent fictionalized "reporting" is proof that that sort of "fictionalized reporting of the news" still goes on at the NY Times.

Note that I didn't merely throw out some names. I gave a very specific example in Duranty's fictionalized accounts from the then USSR.

Do the same for FoxNews coverage of any event and we'll take them each on a case by case basis.

Otherwise, all you've done is make an unsubstantiated charge that undermines your opinion about FoxNews.

And that's exactly how the old soviet regime perceived the reporting of Pravda. Fox News is a pure propaganda station that distorts and misrepresents the truth consistently. And I am not talking about the "opinion" shows only. The whole TV station is a big lie :)

Umm, Blew Wind...Can you provide some specific examples of FoxNews lying, distorting and propogandizing? I'm not talking about opinions with which you disagree. I want examples of deliberate lies, distortions and misrepresentations or any instance of reporting manipulated for propoganda purposes.

One example will satisfy me, but if you want to make the case that "The whole TV station is a big lie" I think you will need more than one example.

BTW, FoxNews is a cable network and syndicating news service, not a TV station. I guess that makes you a liar.

I didn't read the story so I don't know if it is in there, but I wonder how the Iraq war compares with other wars for desertions. Were the rate of desertions, as opposed to absolute numbers, to be higher than in other wars and the information was in that story, then the story may not be a distortion at all since it would then indicate a high rate of desertion. I'm not sure that the decline in desertions is itself the story, though. It all depends on the analysis. Is 8,000 an unusually high number overall?

That's a good question. Naively, I'd assume desertions would be more common during wartime than peacetime, but who knows.

"Can you provide some specific examples of FoxNews lying, distorting and propogandizing?

Of course and I can. There are many many of them. But I dont feel like it. If you can not see it by yourself, it's your problem. Not mine :)

And, yes, I know what you will say about this comment :) Cheers

The distortion is the focus on "8,000 desertions during Iraq war," when the FACT there own graphics make clear is that desertions PRE-war were over TWICE as high as they were DURING the war!

That is, desertions have fallen from over 4,000/year in 2001 to under 2000/year today. The precipitous drop began in 2002 and has gone DOWN steadilly since.

That is a "lie by distortion."

I GAVE you TWO very specific examples of "fictionalized reporting" at the NY Times, Blue, in both Duranty and Blair.

The fact that you can't come up with a single specific example about FoxNews is telling.

No, it's not OK to say, "Well, I don't watch it, so I don't have any specific examples off hand, but they're abundant, as it's amounts to a refusal to even attempt to make your case, and that's an effective surrender on the issue.

JMK,
Read what I wrote above . I made clear that I can give many specific examples, but I simply dont feel like it :) Like, I am not in a mood to do so. Am I clear now? Cheers.

You're not asking us to "take your word for it" (that you can give "many examples") are you?

Like I said, I didn't do that with the NY Times.

I gave two very concrete examples. The Duranty example is a permanent stain on that newspaper's credibility.

I can also "give many more."

The point us that you made a charge that you cannot or "will not" back up with any examples supported by facts.

That sort of undermines your charge, wouldn't you say?

No it does not. I just dont feel like giving examples :)

"Blue" is a good name for you. You're a "true blue" believer. It's not politics to you, it's a religion.

"Of course and I can. There are many many of them. But I dont feel like it. If you can not see it by yourself, it's your problem. Not mine :)

And, yes, I know what you will say about this comment :) Cheers"

All I have to say about this comment is that I think it speaks for itself.

Barry,
:) I have to admit that I am not moderate like you are. I am an ultra-liberal democrat. Cheers.

This may well be the first time I've ever been called a "moderate."

Anonymous, that was a brilliant call :)

Anonymous, that was a brilliant call :)

Oh, Blue wind. How you do love the rhetoric!

I have the feeling that your column leans towards the Democrat side just by your comments... At least 3/4 of your reports seem to be in favor of that party. I disagree with most of your comments looking through the eye of one who is neutral...
For one thing I find that the media on T.V. and Newspapers all favor the Democrats and DEFINITELY show favor towards the Democrats.. Come on now lets be fair !!