Fox News Buys Al-Jazeera - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 02-01-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Under intense pressure from the Bush administration to sell its controversial Al-Jazeera network, the nation of Qatar stunned the television industry today by agreeing to sell the broadcast company to Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel.

Television insiders were taken aback that the network whose motto is "We Report. You Decide," would acquire a broadcast entity whose slogan is "Death to the Infidels."

But according to Murdoch, chairman and CEO of Fox parent News Corp., the merger was a natural because, in his words, "We took a look at their format and realized that it was almost identical to ours."

Murdoch added, "If we really roll up our sleeves and make this merger work, we may wind up with the fairest and most balanced network mankind has ever known.”

The media mogul said that changes to Al-Jazeera's programming would be "minimal" at first: "We'll be going through their news copy and every time they call President Bush 'Satan,' we'll take out the words 'President Bush' and replace them with the words 'Ted Kennedy.'"

But viewers can expect much bigger changes to come, as the channel plans to drop Al-Jazeera's most popular program, "This Week in Jihad," in favor of a new show, "Hannity and Hussein."

In the words of a Fox-Jazeera press release, "Hannity and Hussein" will be "a lively political discussion featuring Fox personality Sean Hannity, from the right, and deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, from his prison cell."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894936/site/newsweek

Lebell · 02-01-2005, 04:17 PM

It's been said enough, add comment.

No comment = closed thread!

LAST WARNING!

[domokun] *rawr* [/domokun]

Coppertop · 02-01-2005, 04:18 PM

Is this for real?

Willravel · 02-01-2005, 04:20 PM

Somehow this seems like a big practical joke. April fools coming early this year?

CShine, this is in the Satire section of MSNBC news. It is fake. Did you really think Hannity and Hussain was in production?

Mods, this one might fit nicely into humor or nonsense.

JumpinJesus · 02-01-2005, 04:23 PM

It's a satire article. If you follow the link, it declares it as such. Still, it's a pretty funny article.

"Hannity and Hussein"? Heh.

bparker805 · 02-01-2005, 04:23 PM

I saw this listed as "satire" on Fark...

bendsley · 02-01-2005, 04:38 PM

its a joke. it was on MSNBC's satire blog page.

Fox News buys Al-Jazeera. Stay tuned for "Hannity and Heussein"

flstf · 02-01-2005, 04:43 PM

It is hard to believe that a liberal news organization like FOX would buy such a biased anti-American outfit like Al-Jazeera. Just goes to show how far left the major news organizations have become.

Willravel · 02-01-2005, 04:48 PM

------------->IT IS A JOKE. THIS IS NOT REAL.<--------------
Please take the article above for what it is; a joke. The Al Jazeera Network would probably rather die than join Fox News. That comedy is that the polar opposites would combine. Jeez.

flstf · 02-01-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

------------->IT IS A JOKE. THIS IS NOT REAL.<--------------
Please take the article above for what it is; a joke. The Al Jazeera Network would probably rather die than join Fox News. That comedy is that the polar opposites would combine. Jeez.

Can't you see the irony in my..Oh nevermind, LOL.

Willravel · 02-01-2005, 05:56 PM

Double sarcasm is the best!

Are the mods going to move this?

KMA-628 · 02-01-2005, 06:45 PM

Now I know where Ultra-Fark is.

/been wondering

irateplatypus · 02-01-2005, 07:29 PM

i find this situation to be funny on many levels.

roachboy · 02-02-2005, 07:57 AM

one of the funniest moments in the film "control room"--which is about al jazeera--comes when the news producer (one of the film's central characters and who seems like an interesting guy to have a drink or six with) says:
"if fox news offered me a job, i would take it"
and then tries
for a short time
to keep a straight face.

so now you have this article.
which shows that the author saw the film.

02-02-2005, 08:01 AM

That scared the shit out of me when i saw it yesterday... I think my head might have exploded if it had been real.

connyosis · 02-02-2005, 08:17 AM

Oh thank the Lord this isn't for real...
It had me fooled until somewhere around replacing Bush with Ted Kennedy.

drakers · 02-02-2005, 11:42 AM

Funny...wrong...but funny!

stevo · 02-03-2005, 10:28 AM

thats great. but they should by aljazeera and just shut it down.

roachboy · 02-03-2005, 10:35 AM

sure--god forbid that any news outlet not totally in the service of the americans should exist out there. the american propaganda shell should be everywhere and should be absolute. great idea.

stevo · 02-03-2005, 10:43 AM

As long as its main purpose is anti-american propaganda, then yes, shut it down.

Coppertop · 02-03-2005, 11:18 AM

You're name wouldn't happen to be Jeb, would it?

roachboy · 02-03-2005, 11:37 AM

the problem for the american right is that al jazeera simply operates outside its control.
that does not make it "anti-american"
but you can believe what you like, really" statements made by asshats like rumsfeld about al jazeera on the assumption that you have neither watched it nor seen its webversion--or you could actually read/watch and figure it out for yourself.

which may be an anti-american suggestion--bushworld is not big on independence of thinking.

stevo · 02-03-2005, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the problem for the american right is that al jazeera simply operates outside its control.
that does not make it "anti-american"
but you can believe what you like, really" statements made by asshats like rumsfeld about al jazeera on the assumption that you have neither watched it nor seen its webversion--or you could actually read/watch and figure it out for yourself.

which may be an anti-american suggestion--bushworld is not big on independence of thinking.

great point

so you're saying you watch aljazzy and believe it to paint an honest picture of america. If so, you're more twisted than I initially suspected.

My name's not Jeb, but he's my neighbor.

connyosis · 02-03-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

great point

so you're saying you watch aljazzy and believe it to paint an honest picture of america. If so, you're more twisted than I initially suspected.

My name's not Jeb, but he's my neighbor.

So you're saying you watch Fox News and believe it to paint an honest picture of anything at all? If so, you're more gullible than I thought was possible...

stevo · 02-03-2005, 12:52 PM

If you don't think FNC paints an honest picture of anything at all there is really no point in discussing anything with you.

smooth · 02-03-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

If you don't think FNC paints an honest picture of anything at all there is really no point in discussing anything with you.

look at that, finally one of your posts I can respond to civilly...

you're right! there really isn't any point in you discussing anything with me.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-03-2005, 03:11 PM

I've never got how FNC is so bad nor wrong? I realize the bias is pretty obvious. Any takers care to enlighten me?

Coppertop · 02-03-2005, 03:50 PM

http://www.outfoxed.org/

stevo · 02-03-2005, 06:06 PM

well mojo,

First of all corperations are bad and rupert has a real big one, that makes him real bad. Second, fox news displays the flag, and is always in red, white, & blue. Third, they say a lot of things liberals don't want to hear. So when you add it up, FNC is nothing more than a corperate conservative mouthpiece that will do and say anything to keep bush in power, because with rupert's help they're gonna put an end to term limits and we'll all have to go to church on sunday and denounce evolution.

connyosis · 02-03-2005, 09:50 PM

You're trolling right? Please tell me you're trolling...

But yeah, I guess you're right. Fox IS fair and balanced news, and anyone that says something that could be considered being "anti-american" should be taken off the air and preferably locked up. What is this freedom of speech thing anyway?

connyosis · 02-03-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I've never got how FNC is so bad nor wrong? I realize the bias is pretty obvious. Any takers care to enlighten me?

In my opinion it's the fact that they do not report the news in a objective way, they always mix in their own opinions in the news.
Now, I don't mind this in say a debate show or anything, for example I do dislike Bill O'Reilly, but still I think he has the right to say whatever he please on his own show. News reporting should be just that though, reporting news. No personal spin on everything.
(And yes, of course I realize that other networks most likely put their own spin to news they report. No one however does it as painfully obvious as Fox)

stevo · 02-04-2005, 07:10 AM

Well, at least with fox you know what your getting. Their 'bias' stands out so blatantly because the of way the mainstream press has been disguising their bias all these years. To the naive, they make it look like they report in an unbiased fasion, but once you look from the outside, and see a bigger picture, CNN and MSNBC are just as biased, if not more so, than FNC.

Us on the right have learned to live with the liberal bias in the media, and fox news came about to fill a niche that was open. But those on the left can't seem to get over the fact that fox acts differently than the other new outlets, and inserts both sides of the arguement even if it is right more than left.

So stop crying about it and change the channel back to your CNN comfort zone if what fox says gets you so mad.

connyosis · 02-04-2005, 08:45 AM

CNN and MSNBC more biased than Fox... Ok, whatever you say...

roachboy · 02-04-2005, 12:34 PM

conservatives talk about personal responsibility while never accepting any of it--so here, when the problems with fox news are obvious to anyone who looks, you get a series of bland relativizing moves the point of which is to diffuse responsibility. fox is not like other networks.
aparently that gets too close to something wrong that conservatives might have to acknowledge.
so "well, cnn and msnbc are blah blah blah..."

it would be funny if it were not so...o what's the word...spineless.

and this from the same political position that advocates a kind of high school machiavelli as forgein policy guide, that advocates bombing the shit out of everyplace understood as 'anti-american" blah blah blah. the kind of militarism that can only happen if you know other people will die while you talk; the kind of personal responsibility that always, only, applies to other people.

irateplatypus · 02-04-2005, 01:36 PM

to say that fox news is much more conservative than other tv networks is true. to say that fox news is on the conservative side of america's center is also probably true.

however, that in itself says nothing to the accuracy of their reporting. imagine a scale from 1 to 100 that gauges the bias inherent in any news source. 1 is ultra-conservative slant, 100 extreme-liberal propaanda, 50 is the perfect reporting of all issues with complete objectivity.

if you group the majority of tv news sources at 75 and foxnews at 35 you satisfy most people's claims. fox is radically conservative for a tv network, it certainly has a right-wing bias... but its score is nearer the center than other networks.

so you see, to atomically make the claim that foxnews has a conservative bias can be at once correct and irrelevant.

roachboy · 02-04-2005, 02:00 PM

objectivity is an illusion.
people look for it so they can go to sleep while processing "information"
you think that because there is a camera involved that what is shown is necessarily accurate, it seems.
that is really pretty naieve.

the only problem with knowing this is that you cant really trust any single source of information--you have to gather, coalate, sift, interpret--all actively.

fox is problematic at the level of information, how it is staged, how it is interpreted. fox is even more obviously problematic in its editorial slant, but at least there you know what you are in for and have a remote presumably.
in a perverse way, its obviousness is something to be admired, since it apporaches a honesty within more general stream of falsehoods (fair and balanced, say)

fox is obviously dimissable source if you are looking for information not already packaged in terms of conservative presuppositions.
and would you not think that there should be something to information beyond the reinforcement of arbitrary political predispositions? something--maybe--that makes you think a little rather than something that functions to reionforce a sense of mastery of the world based on assumptions that you know--evne if you do not agree--can be understood as removed from the reality that other folk know about?

irateplatypus · 02-04-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

objectivity is an illusion.

is that so? i'm not sure how you can give an argument like that without cutting off any branch you choose to stand on. you can say that people are incapable of being perfectly objective... true. but it's equally true to say that no one is perfect. even so, i can point to some people who are more perfect than others. similarly, some journalists are more objective than others.

Quote:

people look for it so they can go to sleep while processing "information" you think that because there is a camera involved that what is shown is necessarily accurate, it seems. that is really pretty naieve.

if it weren't such a silly thing to say i'd be insulted.

Quote:

the only problem with knowing this is that you cant really trust any single source of information--you have to gather, coalate, sift, interpret--all actively.

who would argue? who is saying that any source of news is the best source in every instance? if you knew anything about me you'd understand that i consider tv coverage to be the medium least adept to covering news... severely handicapping the stock i put into ANY tv network's news.

Quote:

fox is obviously dimissable source if you are looking for information not already packaged in terms of conservative presuppositions.

the presuppositions are granted. however, if perfect objectivity is unattainable (or an illusion if you prefer) then you must assume that all news coverage is built on presuppositions. why criticize fox so much if all news is the same? i think the answer is that it most offends your sensibilities, not that you can demonstrate it is more beholden to a particular bias than other networks.

Quote:

and would you not think that there should be something to information beyond the reinforcement of arbitrary political predispositions?

of course, who could you be speaking to? your whole post seemed to be geared on the faulty (and imagined) premise that anyone encourages foxnews as the sole source of news gathering.

roachboy · 02-04-2005, 02:29 PM

perhaps so, irate. i succumb to the illusions generated by a message board once again. my apologies if my inferences about your position ran counter to how you operate in 3-d life.

i guess the problem is that you take your news gathering habits to be universal, just as i took my assumptions about yours to fit into a pattern that i--for better or worse--know about from quantitative data--there is a really quite depressing study from cornell about american attitudes toward muslims that contains a range of quite damning data about patterns of news gathering and conservative politics--i dont have time at the moment to search the link up, but you could probably get it via the title (which is i think accurate) and the cornell affiliation.

as for the point that started your post--well sure....well no----you assume that the premises of the argument i made would operate in the same register as claims to objectivity. they dont. you were tricked by the form of the statement. or because all there was was the statement, you reached reasonable conclusions that turn out to be false.
this one would be easy to explain over a beer in real life--i could attempt a version here if you like, but only after i take a certain impatient husky for a walk. but in th meantime, think how this question would be resolved from a roughly marxist viewpoint, and you'll work out the premises for yourself.

02-01-2005, 04:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	It's been said enough, add comment. No comment = closed thread! LAST WARNING! [domokun] rawr [/domokun] __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! Last edited by Lebell; 02-03-2005 at 12:19 PM..

02-01-2005, 04:23 PM	#5 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	It's a satire article. If you follow the link, it declares it as such. Still, it's a pretty funny article. "Hannity and Hussein"? Heh. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

02-01-2005, 04:38 PM	#7 (permalink)
bendsley Professional Loafer Location: texas	its a joke. it was on MSNBC's satire blog page. Fox News buys Al-Jazeera. Stay tuned for "Hannity and Heussein" __________________ "You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter let him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."

02-01-2005, 07:29 PM	#13 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i find this situation to be funny on many levels. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 02-01-2005 at 07:35 PM..

02-02-2005, 07:57 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	one of the funniest moments in the film "control room"--which is about al jazeera--comes when the news producer (one of the film's central characters and who seems like an interesting guy to have a drink or six with) says: "if fox news offered me a job, i would take it" and then tries for a short time to keep a straight face. so now you have this article. which shows that the author saw the film. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-01-2005, 04:18 PM	#3 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	Is this for real?

02-01-2005, 04:20 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Somehow this seems like a big practical joke. April fools coming early this year? CShine, this is in the Satire section of MSNBC news. It is fake. Did you really think Hannity and Hussain was in production? Mods, this one might fit nicely into humor or nonsense.

02-01-2005, 04:23 PM	#6 (permalink)
bparker805 is KING! Location: On the path to Valhalla.	I saw this listed as "satire" on Fark...

02-01-2005, 04:43 PM	#8 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	It is hard to believe that a liberal news organization like FOX would buy such a biased anti-American outfit like Al-Jazeera. Just goes to show how far left the major news organizations have become.

02-01-2005, 04:48 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	------------->IT IS A JOKE. THIS IS NOT REAL.<-------------- Please take the article above for what it is; a joke. The Al Jazeera Network would probably rather die than join Fox News. That comedy is that the polar opposites would combine. Jeez.

02-01-2005, 05:56 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Double sarcasm is the best! Are the mods going to move this?

02-01-2005, 06:45 PM	#12 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	Now I know where Ultra-Fark is. /been wondering

02-02-2005, 08:01 AM	#15 (permalink)
thinktank Guest	That scared the shit out of me when i saw it yesterday... I think my head might have exploded if it had been real.

02-02-2005, 08:17 AM	#16 (permalink)
connyosis Psycho Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned	Oh thank the Lord this isn't for real... It had me fooled until somewhere around replacing Bush with Ted Kennedy. __________________ If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

02-02-2005, 11:42 AM	#17 (permalink)
drakers Psycho Location: IOWA	Funny...wrong...but funny! __________________ Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!

02-03-2005, 10:28 AM	#18 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	thats great. but they should by aljazeera and just shut it down.

02-03-2005, 10:35 AM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sure--god forbid that any news outlet not totally in the service of the americans should exist out there. the american propaganda shell should be everywhere and should be absolute. great idea. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-03-2005, 10:43 AM	#20 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	As long as its main purpose is anti-american propaganda, then yes, shut it down.

02-03-2005, 11:18 AM	#21 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	You're name wouldn't happen to be Jeb, would it?

02-03-2005, 11:37 AM	#22 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the problem for the american right is that al jazeera simply operates outside its control. that does not make it "anti-american" but you can believe what you like, really" statements made by asshats like rumsfeld about al jazeera on the assumption that you have neither watched it nor seen its webversion--or you could actually read/watch and figure it out for yourself. which may be an anti-american suggestion--bushworld is not big on independence of thinking. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-03-2005, 12:52 PM	#25 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	If you don't think FNC paints an honest picture of anything at all there is really no point in discussing anything with you.

02-03-2005, 03:11 PM	#27 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I've never got how FNC is so bad nor wrong? I realize the bias is pretty obvious. Any takers care to enlighten me? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-03-2005, 03:50 PM	#28 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	http://www.outfoxed.org/

02-03-2005, 06:06 PM	#29 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	well mojo, First of all corperations are bad and rupert has a real big one, that makes him real bad. Second, fox news displays the flag, and is always in red, white, & blue. Third, they say a lot of things liberals don't want to hear. So when you add it up, FNC is nothing more than a corperate conservative mouthpiece that will do and say anything to keep bush in power, because with rupert's help they're gonna put an end to term limits and we'll all have to go to church on sunday and denounce evolution.

02-03-2005, 09:50 PM	#30 (permalink)
connyosis Psycho Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned	You're trolling right? Please tell me you're trolling... But yeah, I guess you're right. Fox IS fair and balanced news, and anyone that says something that could be considered being "anti-american" should be taken off the air and preferably locked up. What is this freedom of speech thing anyway? __________________ If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Last edited by connyosis; 02-03-2005 at 09:56 PM..

02-04-2005, 07:10 AM	#32 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Well, at least with fox you know what your getting. Their 'bias' stands out so blatantly because the of way the mainstream press has been disguising their bias all these years. To the naive, they make it look like they report in an unbiased fasion, but once you look from the outside, and see a bigger picture, CNN and MSNBC are just as biased, if not more so, than FNC. Us on the right have learned to live with the liberal bias in the media, and fox news came about to fill a niche that was open. But those on the left can't seem to get over the fact that fox acts differently than the other new outlets, and inserts *both* sides of the arguement even if it is right more than left. So stop crying about it and change the channel back to your CNN comfort zone if what fox says gets you so mad.

02-04-2005, 08:45 AM	#33 (permalink)
connyosis Psycho Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned	CNN and MSNBC more biased than Fox... Ok, whatever you say... __________________ If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

02-04-2005, 12:34 PM	#34 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	conservatives talk about personal responsibility while never accepting any of it--so here, when the problems with fox news are obvious to anyone who looks, you get a series of bland relativizing moves the point of which is to diffuse responsibility. fox is not like other networks. aparently that gets too close to something wrong that conservatives might have to acknowledge. so "well, cnn and msnbc are blah blah blah..." it would be funny if it were not so...o what's the word...spineless. and this from the same political position that advocates a kind of high school machiavelli as forgein policy guide, that advocates bombing the shit out of everyplace understood as 'anti-american" blah blah blah. the kind of militarism that can only happen if you know other people will die while you talk; the kind of personal responsibility that always, only, applies to other people. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-04-2005, 01:36 PM	#35 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	to say that fox news is much more conservative than other tv networks is true. to say that fox news is on the conservative side of america's center is also probably true. however, that in itself says nothing to the accuracy of their reporting. imagine a scale from 1 to 100 that gauges the bias inherent in any news source. 1 is ultra-conservative slant, 100 extreme-liberal propaanda, 50 is the perfect reporting of all issues with complete objectivity. if you group the majority of tv news sources at 75 and foxnews at 35 you satisfy most people's claims. fox is radically conservative for a tv network, it certainly has a right-wing bias... but its score is nearer the center than other networks. so you see, to atomically make the claim that foxnews has a conservative bias can be at once correct and irrelevant. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

02-04-2005, 02:00 PM	#36 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	objectivity is an illusion. people look for it so they can go to sleep while processing "information" you think that because there is a camera involved that what is shown is necessarily accurate, it seems. that is really pretty naieve. the only problem with knowing this is that you cant really trust any single source of information--you have to gather, coalate, sift, interpret--all actively. fox is problematic at the level of information, how it is staged, how it is interpreted. fox is even more obviously problematic in its editorial slant, but at least there you know what you are in for and have a remote presumably. in a perverse way, its obviousness is something to be admired, since it apporaches a honesty within more general stream of falsehoods (fair and balanced, say) fox is obviously dimissable source if you are looking for information not already packaged in terms of conservative presuppositions. and would you not think that there should be something to information beyond the reinforcement of arbitrary political predispositions? something--maybe--that makes you think a little rather than something that functions to reionforce a sense of mastery of the world based on assumptions that you know--evne if you do not agree--can be understood as removed from the reality that other folk know about? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-04-2005, 02:29 PM	#38 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	perhaps so, irate. i succumb to the illusions generated by a message board once again. my apologies if my inferences about your position ran counter to how you operate in 3-d life. i guess the problem is that you take your news gathering habits to be universal, just as i took my assumptions about yours to fit into a pattern that i--for better or worse--know about from quantitative data--there is a really quite depressing study from cornell about american attitudes toward muslims that contains a range of quite damning data about patterns of news gathering and conservative politics--i dont have time at the moment to search the link up, but you could probably get it via the title (which is i think accurate) and the cornell affiliation. as for the point that started your post--well sure....well no----you assume that the premises of the argument i made would operate in the same register as claims to objectivity. they dont. you were tricked by the form of the statement. or because all there was was the statement, you reached reasonable conclusions that turn out to be false. this one would be easy to explain over a beer in real life--i could attempt a version here if you like, but only after i take a certain impatient husky for a walk. but in th meantime, think how this question would be resolved from a roughly marxist viewpoint, and you'll work out the premises for yourself. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite