Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

The deregulation of the banks by the republicans caused no physical harm either but look what it caused.

---

You see your limitations when you count on one viewpoint. Do you know that there is a Pentagon report that didn't make it into the mainstream coverage that suggests there could've been a Soros style attack on the US economy in 2008 ? Of course you don't .

Sorry, Steve, the title was indeed wrong. Huff edited their title also.

Quote:

---

What is a " Fox-style "news" show" anyway?

---

The upcoming SUN TV News channel wanted change in a regulation that prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What is a " Fox-style "news" show" anyway? One that more often than not welcomes more than one point of view?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Here's what they do, in order to offer more than "one point of view". They'll take a premise, like eating broccoli is good for you, and mention there's "another point of view" that broccoli kills you. Then, in the name of fairness and balance, they'll ALL sit around a table with their brows furrowed, discussing broccoli, giving EQUAL weight to the ABSURD notion that broccoli kills...

That's NOT a different point of view. That's elevating a nonsensical argument. The viewers are told that they heard both sides. They DID, actually - the sane and the insane.

The problem with that is that SOME people will actually think the insane argument has merit because FOX gives it equal time. That's propaganda wrapped up in the notion of fairness - and YOU buy it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

.. a Soros style attack on the US economy in 2008

---

LOL!


http://www.mdshooters.com/images/smilies/tinfoil.gif

Ex, you're mistaking MSNBC for Fox.

You're saying EVERY liberal, moderate, libertarian or whatever guest or contributor that comes on takes a dive on purpose for Fox news.

All of Fox's libs the tank for the GOP, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

LOL!


http://www.mdshooters.com/images/smilies/tinfoil.gif

---

Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses by Kevin D. Freeman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Knowing that I don't use Wiki as a primary source.

Assuming I see something blatantly false or misleading ;according to their alleged model ,I could edit the content .

I don't even mind anonymous editorial . That model served the US founders well ,as does the flow of information and opinion in the ether .The revolution in Egypt was largely mobilized by an anon.posting on Facebook.

But that is not the FOX model . It is very easy to find both the backround and editorial position that each Fox contributor has .


This whole posting is hilarious .Back in the infancy of broadcast media ,the public placed tremendous trust in the absurdity that the word of anchor of the major broadcasts networks was unimpeachable truth. When Walter Cronkite told America that the Vietnam war was lost ,suddenly the public opinion shifted. Only later in his life did we learn that even Uncle Walt filtered content through a lefty prism.
The heir to his anchor desk tried to use blatantly false information on GW Bush in an attempt to influence the 2004 Presidential elections.

I understand that this is the reality of the press and I am quite content with that as long as there is no exclusion from the market place because of slant.Dan Rather's deceit was easily exposed by the blogsphere. There is room on broadcast television for right slant like Fox ;left slant like MSNBC ,and all positions in between . If al Jazeera can make a go of it in the American market then they should go for it . I make no distinction. Let the market decide.

---

Hi Tom,

The Fox model is the same as the Wikipedia model minus the anonymity.

Wikipedia, Fox , Facebook isn't anything except a plethora of opinions. You are right it is a flow of information and that is all it is. The question I am asking is how can a collections of opinions( anonymous or otherwise) say anything let alone get to some type of information of a factual nature.

It is just a hope the flow of collective information will somehow be filtered by the collective wisdom of the consumer? If not, then how does this work in reality? I am yet to find anyone who can explain how this process works other than the influence of some mystical, all wise invisible hand.

When I see this process working in reality I see is the principle of bivalence in operation(I can definitely see it in this forum). There is a lack of middle ground. Any middle ground is edited out of ignored. There is a tendency on the part of the consumer to see every statement in as either true or false. In this forum are we moving toward any type of factual information that we can regard as being 'true'? This type of plethora doesn't seem to allow for it.

Again my question is, "How does the process of negation (continual editing of information flow ) arrive us at 'the truth'?

Anyway, Tom I have to go now because I need to front the government media goons
Apparently my political comments in the media are not in line with the Australian Government position.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Tom,

The Fox model is the same as the Wikipedia model minus the anonymity.

Wikipedia, Fox , Facebook isn't anything except a plethora of opinions. You are right it is a flow of information and that is all it is. The question I am asking is how can a collections of opinions( anonymous or otherwise) say anything let alone get to some type of information of a factual nature.

It is just a hope the flow of collective information will somehow be filtered by the collective wisdom of the consumer? If not, then how does this work in reality? I am yet to find anyone who can explain how this process works other than the influence of some mystical, all wise invisible hand.

---

Wikipedia is somewhat vetted by the collective information of the consumer. Fox is vetted by the "opposing" point of view that they invite to comment. I'm not sure if the comparison is entirely fair to Wikipedia ;)

I am satisfied that any charge you level against the Fox group can equally be applied across the board. Show me a single arbiter of truth and I'll show you an absolute authoritarian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southamerica

Wikipedia is somewhat vetted by the collective information of the consumer. Fox is vetted by the "opposing" point of view that they invite to comment. I'm not sure if the comparison is entirely fair to Wikipedia ;)

---

Hi Southamerica,

Some people might say the comparison is not fair to Fox. Nonetheless there is an important similarity operating here.

Each person who contributes to Wikipedia is there for their own gain.
This 'gain' might be a desire to accuracy. The entry they want to edit might be an afront to their beliefs. It could be they just want to feel as though they have something worthwhile to contribute. There could be any number of reasons, but they all could be summed up as promoting individual gain.

According to the invisible media hand ( derived from the invisible economic hand) this type of indulgence results in something in something greater than the promotion of individual gain. The individual is led by an invisible hand to promote an end, being no part of his original intention. In the case of the media this process should lead to truth and accuracy.

In the cause of Fox I think they would want to promote the invisible media hand idea. And this seems to be the case in reality. Fox actively promotes their editorial position. As you point out they invite individuals or individuals who represent groups in society to put forward the opposing view or to be critical of their editorial position. Fox seems to believe they can say whatever they like and their guest can do the same.

Here we have something akin to the invisible hand at work. Fox has some vested interest in promoting their political position and they would no doubt say they are not under any obligation to prove the truth and accuracy of their claims. By the same token would seem as though the opposition is not under any obligation as well.

For some reason, this 'free-for-all' is not seen as a problem. Any individual, corporate or group gain is diminished in favour of some type magical or mythical consumer wisdom eventually getting to the truth.

Naturally, I have problems with this idea.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I am satisfied that any charge you level against the Fox group can equally be applied across the board. Show me a single arbiter of truth and I'll show you an absolute authoritarian.

---

Hi Tom,

I agree, there is no single arbiter of truth. I am critical of the whole 'invisible media hand' idea, not just Fox, but any media that believes in such a philosophy. In other words, I am critical of how you think we can arrive at some semblance of truth.

See my post below.

Tut

All I know is that suppression of information ,regardless of how bogus you think it is ,will not lead to the truth... it will only lead to the tyrants version of the truth.

Today the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that one of the most obnoxious hateful groups in the country had the abolute right to spew "hate speech" against the homosexual community at the funeral of the bravest of the brave Americans ;our fallen soldiers . As much as I despise this group ,I have to concure with the majority opinion of the court.
In the court of public opinion this group gets the contempt and discredit it richly deserves . It is not up to the government to say that they have no right to demonstrate and express their version of the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

all I know is that suppression of information ,regardless of how bogus you think it is ,will not lead to the truth ...it will only lead to the tyrants version of the truth.

---

Hi Tom,

I don't recall anywhere I said the truth ought to be suppressed. Perhaps you could find my posting promoting this idea. However, I think you will be wasting your time going back over my posts.This has never been my position at all. Yes, suppression of any information leads to a tyrants version of the truth.

I think the misunderstanding is over the role of government involvement in the media. What I have suggested is that government can have a role as a neutral umpire when it comes to the media. Other interest groups and the media itself can have a neutral role as well.

For example,when I talk about our national television network as a fully funded government operation I am only limiting my comments to the government as providing the funds. There is a very good reason for this. The government only provides funds, it has no input into how and what information should be disseminated. Believe it or not.

Tut

Quote:

---

The government only provides funds, it has no input into how and what information should be disseminated. Believe it or not.

---

If I use the US version of state controlled media as an example I'd have to say no I don't believe it.
Our version of it fired one of their contributing pundits for daring to speak outside of the state approved doctrine .

But the good news is that all you have to do is type in 'Juan Williams fired' into your search engine to read the story and analysis from hundreds different persons and perspectives... Then you decide (as the slogan at FOX says ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If I use the US version of state controlled media as an example I'd have to say no I don't believe it.
Our version of it fired one of their contributing pundits for daring to speak outside of the state approved doctrine .

But the good news is that all you have to do is type in 'Juan Williams fired' into your search engine to read the story and analysis from hundreds different persons and perspectives ..... Then you decide (as the slogan at FOX says ).

---

I agree with tut, Tom, our state owned media is fearless and authoritative, but we know that in the US money rules. We even have a program called Media Watch which challenges the print and television media. We recently had the spectacle of a media mogul resigning from a Board on a matter of integrity. Where would you find that in the US? What I find strange is you say you are free but there are many places freer in the world than you, why should we listen to your propaganda?

You don't have to . That's what choice is all about.

Looks like Fox "News" is at it again:



Lots of palm trees in Wisconsin?

Pathetic, but then again they know their demographic.

Now who's being deceptive ? O'Reilley clearly said before the clip on you tube that the video B-roll loop showed 'violence ' from all over the country... not just in Madison.
The full sement is available on the net... you should take off your blinders first before viewing .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

O'Reilley clearly said before the clip on you tube that the video B-roll loop showed 'violence ' from all over the country ...not just in Madison.

---

So why didn't they show the Madison "violence" video during the discussion on the incidents in Madison?

I think it's amusing to watch you guys cheer this decision... on the internet. See, you want the freedom to say whatever YOU choose to say, to present things from YOUR point of view, to post bias from other supposed news sites, but Fox News should not have the same rights.

Hypocrites.

No one is blocking web sites, where did you get that idea? We simply have standards on what passes as a news channel. Why are you so mad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No one is blocking web sites, where did you get that idea?

---

Who mentioned blocking web sites? Not me. You don't find it ironic that you're using an informational forum you think should be free to cheer the loss of freedom to another informational? I do.

Quote:

---

We simply have standards on what passes as a news channel. Why are you so mad?

---

Amused=mad?Is Canadian English that different? So Huffpo passes as a legitimate news source. Bwa ha ha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So Huffpo passes as a legitimate news source. Bwa ha ha!

---

Did you want links from elsewhere? Would that change your view?

Says the arbiter of approved sources? LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Says the arbiter of approved sources? LOL.

---

Kind of a weird thing to say considering you just recently posted this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

See, you want the freedom to say whatever YOU choose to say, to present things from YOUR point of view, to post bias from other supposed news sites

---

Apparently the source matters to you quite a bit.

Apparently you can't see the forest for the trees.