Faux news misrepresents... well, LIES about Howard Dean
 

Faux did a really bad hack job on Dean when they tried to spin this:

http://www.busybusybusy.com/images/foxsmearsdear01h.jpg

Ooh wow Dean is pro-terrorism.

But wait.. Get more of the story.

Fox is just a horribly biased propaganda organization. They and their employees have absolutely zero credibility with me, and should with anyone else.

That's pretty bad. Of course, it's certainly not surprising. I'd only be surprised if they didn't misrepresent Dean and the other Dems.

jesus....way to completely spin a quote for own political bias,

Fox News is awful. It's not even bad journalism, it's just plain bullshit.

They are the number one televised news agency in America. Be afraid.

Sounds like you Liberals are the ones trying to spin this. Where in that article did Fox say Dean was "Pro-Terrorism"? They made a point to say he condemns terrorism. Dean said what he said, they are just reporting the facts. This won't be the last time he says something stupid.

They way they cut it off saying only: "there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war."
That by itself denotes support for what hamas is doing, and that is something Dean is just not saying.

It leaves the distinct impression that Howard Dean would grant Hamas fighters the status of legitimate soldiers.

Here in reality, Dean was clearly expressing the opposite of support for Hamas - in fact he endorsed, or at least declined to oppose, the Israeli policy of assassinating Hamas leaders. He called Hamas leaders "soldiers" in the sense of "combatants", and hence subject to being killed, as opposed to being merely political leaders. Yet Carl Cameron played it as if Dean, although he thankfully "did condemn terrorism", was practically endorsing Hamas. It's slick.

You know, sometimes accusations are laid within the context of the story, not neccecarily spoken out directly. People call it being subtle, it can be very effective. This story is a good example of said phenomenon.

And the reason I posted this story at all is because I am seeing all over the net today right wingers proclaiming this as Dean supporting terrorists as actual soldiers. Many opposed to Dean are running with the blinders saying this is proof that Dean is "pro-terrorist".

Being a "right-winger" myself, I would find it hard to believe that people would think Dean is pro-terrorism. I also would never believe an American presidential candidate, Rep or Dem, would support Hamas. That's just common sense.

What I didn't like about Dean's comment is the fact that he would use the word "soldiers" instead of "terrorists". That's a slap in the face to real soldiers.

that's slamming the image of poor dean.

somebody should make a big splash out of this and slam fox news.

->has declared war - check
->are brainwashed to kill fellow humans through propaganda - check
->often hurts civillians - check

Did I miss the part where Hamas or any other group waging war on a supposed enemy are any differend from any other soliders around the war. Is it the turbans? Or do you need to buy weapons from the US (HI IRAQ!) to recieve such a flattering status as "legal solider"?

I'm really happy that the BBC is the most watched news service in this country - yes they have there faults but on the whole they tend to be the most even handed news organisation

Well, they are from the Middle East. Everyone knows that Hamas and Saddam Hussein blew up the WTC.

:|

Hamas are terrorists cause they target CIVILIANS ONLY. When was the last time Hamas targeted a military target? So Dean is absoulty, 100% WRONG on this. Sorry Superbelt.

true.dat I also heard Osema bin ludan was in the cockpit, he paratrooped out b4 the crash and paddled back to afghanistan to join with huis best bud saddam and their club hamas on the bloated corpse of a dead child.

Damn those darn arabs!

Eh....the last suicide bomber a few days ago killed 9 soliders, hamas took responsibility.


Tell the aproximately 20000 dead afghani civillians that they weren't really a target, that should make it ok.

When did you stop beating your wife?

2Wolves

Nobody sees a bias when they agree with it. Fox news is as biased as everything else one way or another. Journalistic credibility is like military intelligence. They are oxy morons. Until we have robot reporters flying around making observations there will never be objective reporting. The reason the left hates Fox news so much is because their ratings are so high. Otherwise who cares if they spin the news. This scares them because people usually want to watch the bias that they agree with. If Fox leans right, and their ratings are high, they fear that more people will be leaning right. If you want the "real" news (chuckle), you have to take in a story from as many sources as you can possibly get your hands on and even then, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. At its very basis language developed to communicate emotions and needs which will always find their way into people's reporting, either with what they report, or what they don't report. Its no shocker. Its human. And its not just Fox news. Which is why the left claim right wing media is a problem, and the right claim left wing media is a problem. Choose your truth.

Wow. Some real good debate going on here. I remember why I don't hang around Tilted Politics much. Oh well, its always good comedy. Stick up for fox news and you are labeled a "wife beater." Yikes.

Real mature, aren't they!!

Wow.

Very well stated. The difference between some right-wing media sources (such as a few major talk radio programs) is that they admit to being biased, whereas CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/NYTimes/FOXNews etc claim to be the impossible -- objective. The fact that every thread on this forum is a he-did-this-but-he-did-this-first back-and-forth battle is further evidence that both "sides" have their own self-interest at heart, not the public as a whole.

Are nobody willing to show me the real difference between the misdeeds of a solider fighting for Hamas or fighting for USA/Israel/whatever? I dare you to show me how blowing yourself up killing people are any different from sitting in a plane 10000 feet above the ground dropping bombs on them.

I remember too...and you're absolutely correct. Talk about hypocritical bigots full of hatred and intolerance. The irony is mind boggling.

It's the same old shit from the same old usual suspects.

Is this a joke? If so, it is in very bad taste.

I will tell them that after you tell them that we took out the taliban, a military target.

That's not a very convincing answer.

It seems like it takes a lot more cojones to blow yourself up for your cause, than to drop a bomb from 10,000 feet. Either way, it seems that someone needs to put both Israel and Palestine in a time-out. Because currently, both have certain elements who are acting like children.
Maybe suicide bombers aren't the best way to keep the car on the roadmap to peace. Neither is firing missles into crowded marketplaces in an attempt to assassinate one or two of the hundreds of people who might be killed or hurt.
They should both have to sit at the kid's table at the UN, with the U.S., and North Korea.

<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldiers">sol·dier ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sljr)
n.
1. One who serves in an army.
2. An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.</a>

"There will be no flinching in this war on terror, and there will be no retreat." - George W. Bush

Why is Bush the only one allowed to use the rhetoric of war? Seems like callling them soldiers would give you you a chance to kill them on the field of battle rather than being forced to try them in a court of law. I thought many conservatives might like an idea like that.

Damn, no need to jump down 2wolves throat. He's making the same classic rhetorical point that every law professor in the world makes when they go to teach their first year lecture on leading questions. Did he really need to explain it? Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Fox News is insane.

"Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus going on before."

<h3>
bish said
</h3>

Thanks for taking our side, bish. But look, no need to call the conservatives stupid, you need to be more tolerant.

:)

Yeah, Because that sure helped the population of afghanistan, and you got to catch Osama Bin Laden too, oh wait, NO YOU DIDIN'T!

You killled a regime, won the wor, now the country is in shambles and thrown into anarchy. You are good at winning wars, but you never win the peace. Winning ther peace is what matters.

Wow, great way of countering my point, thus leaving me defenseless as a victim of your dashing rethoric. No, it was not a sick joke, and unless you can show me what makes a recruited suicide bomber for Hamas blowing himself up among enemy combatants (as we can se in the last suicide bombing in Israel, where 9 Israeli soliders where killed), any less of a solider than an american marine, dont answer.

Getting hot in here?

who cares what fox news does or says...they are to the right and thats what people like to see ...they might not tell the whole truth and twist some facts but who doesnt these days? :o

I don't really see how that justifies it. People murder people all the time, should we just give up trying to stop it?

For me, I like to think that soldiers kill soldiers, terrorists/suicide bombers/enemy combatants kill anybody they can...on purpose. I know that soldiers make mistakes and innocent people are killed all the time. But innocent people aren't the target or the objective like it is for terrorists. That's how I make the distinction.

Well its a really cute trick in law class, but I don't see what it has to do with Fox news or Dean or terrorism or media bias or anything other than to antagonize people. Doesn't seem to be the most effective form of persuasion. Very effective at being silly though.

I don't agree with that rationale. Part of it seems to stem from the belief that our soldiers only accidentally kill civilians. If you believe what we were told by people with a vested interest (embedded reporters present by invite and reporting under supervision) then you might come to such a conclusion. We may have 'targeted' military sites but our claim that Saddam was responsible for any civilian casualites doesn't hold much water.

I'm not sure what the military sites look like at your location but around here they are all over. If someone were to drop bombs sporadically throughout LA they would definately hit all sorts of shit--and most of it would be civilians. If someone were to drop bombs on San Diego and try to take out our trainind depot and/or 32nd street (naval base) they would also be dropping bombs all over the harbor, some large malls, downtown San Diego, downtown Point Loma, Pacific Coast Highway, I5, some other major freeway connection points, and etc.

In Oregon the Armory was across the street from a strip mall and in the same parking lot as a Taco Bell and Burger King. The adjacent parking lot held a Big 5 and a Trader Joe's type deli. I'm surprised, with the amount of people here that are active military or past-military, that such claims went unchallenged. Anyone who has ever seen or lived in a military town knows exactly what I'm talking about--military "targets" are not left out in a large clump in the middle of the desert unless the government doesn't want anyone getting there.

My understanding of terrorists are that they are non-state sanctioned actors. They are still soldiers, however. They are trained and usually wear uniforms. BTW, for all you gun owners, aren't you part of a militia? I keep hearing that the rationale for your ownership is to maintiain the security of a free state. How then can you claim to not be a valid target when our government declares war on a particular faction of the global population?

Okay. I'm not convinced that the United States decided that the best way to win the war was to bomb as many innocent people as possible. Like I said, innocent people are not the target. The objective is never to slaughter innocent people, how would that be effective in winning a war? Kill the people without weapons? Its not the best strategy. But it is often a strategy taken by terrorists. Of course we killed innocent people in Iraq, but we didn't aim our guns at innocent people simply to terrorize them. We aimed at military targets that were obviously in civilian areas, but we didn't just aim directly at civilian areas. A terrorist will walk into a shopping mall and blow himself up. Thats about as cowardly as you can get. The Kamikaze pilots of WWII I can have some respect for, they were aiming at a military installation, not a shopping mall or coffee shop. Its all semantics, you can call anybody a soldier if you want to, but for me I draw the line at when they purposefully open fire on unarmed people knowing full well that there are no military targets in sight.

*cough*Hiroshima*cough*

AFAIK, we judge people according to where their bullets land, not by what they intended to hit.

In terms of terrorists attacking us (as I'm not aware of the last person to walk into a shopping mall and blow it up) they have evidently identified people working in economic centers to be waging economic warfare against their nations.

Your refusal to attribute rational reasoning to their motives and actions will perpetuate your inability to understand the root causes to their behavior.

If we are limiting our discussion to Isreal/Palestinian affairs we should examine each incident to decide whether people really are just walking along and blowing things up for no apparent reason. I suspect that they believe that targeting civilians will gain international attention and condemnation for the actions as well as spotlight the inappropriate responses.

What they can't control is the response so many have that legitimizes Isreali soldiers shooting into crowds, bulldozing innocent civilians' homes, and brutal policies towards Palestinian civilians in response to terrorist atrocities and somehow rationalizes the state-sponsored atrocities into a different moral plane as you seem to be doing here.

In regards to your second position--that inflicting civilian casualties is not a sound military objective--I only need point to historical battles to rebut such an assertion.

I've made the points I want to in this thread. I do agree with you that who is labeled a terrorist versus a legitimate soldier is a semantic debate--I'm pretty sure that was the original point both eple and I were making.

They sure do lie about Dean... they claim he's a liberal all the time!

CNN = liberal
Fox = conservative
BBC = Moderate

Everyone knows this...so watch the news you want to watch and stop bitching about it.

If someone else doesn't agree with every word you say, it is called a personality...get one.

People say and do stupid things; some are just more public about it.

Now move along...nothing to see here.

Actually, one of the problems with the media is the problem with your post - over simplification and "word of god"-like tone. Things aren't that simple, and that isn't the only interpretation.

Point taken. What was the better solution?

Not entirely sure - but that's a different debate altogether. I'm pretty sure the U.S. wasn't in as desperate position as many Palestinians are, however.

Not rationalizing it, or anything. Obviously.

Uh, CNN is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

Funny, I thought the one about the BBC was off. See what I mean when I say it's all relative? To a hardline fascist, they're all liberal. It depends on what you define as the "center."

Its not all relative... we can all agree Fox is conservative, I think
;-)

Naturally! :D

You got that right. All the networks have been trying to play catch up with Fox for a while now and are doing it by becoming a shrill "personality based" conservative network.
Name me a prominent liberal on CNN to counterbalance Lou Dobb and Zahn?

It is relative. You'll never see the bias you agree with. So watch the ones that don't piss you off.

If it were the case that we can not see the biases that we agree with than how do people overcome biases ever?

BINGO! People usually don't ever get over thier biases. It might be a sad fact to face, but its true. Once people establish their beliefs, they rarely change them. All you can do is worry about your own biases. And the only way to overcome these is to take news in from every source possible, and remember that the truth lies somewhere inbetween them all in most cases. Or you can get mad and cry foul every time you see a bias, but from what I've seen, this will end up being your full time job. They are everywhere. Conciously or subconciously a bias will always end up in the story by any reporter. I highly doubt that fox news' ratings are going to go down because of this thread. I highly doubt they will change their bias. And I highly doubt that the fact that they have a bias in their reporting is news to anybody at TFP. What might be news to some is that all of journalism has a bias, because every journalist has a set of beliefs, and deep down inside he/she thinks they are right.

I dunno, I mean I don't think its that no one can see their own biases. I think its that some people are biased and don't see it and other do see it and they strive to overcome them.

Yeah, nothing wrong with bias as such.

I don't hate Fox News' bias, I do hate "no-spin zone" or that hypocritical moronic motto/meme "we report, you decide" - and the stupid six note jingle designed to work the motto into your subconscious. Bias doesn't forgive sleaziness.

included the quote below for context...

The most current example of our use of non-military targets as cannon fodder:

"...US commanders have at times adopted Machiavellian tactics. North of Tikrit in Bayji, they set up a new police headquarters next to a US civil-military center. "Now if [guerrillas] shoot RPGs [rocket-propelled-grenades] at us at night, Iraqis are in the line of fire, so they have a great incentive to go out and find these guys," said one Army officer."

--http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0924/p01s02-woiq.html

So we are aiming at killing innocent people? It doesn't add up to the same thing. We are not shooting RPG's at guerillas, they are shooting them at us. Should we just let them hit us instead, would that make us the good guys? :D