[GeneV]

Perhaps the attacks could not have been repelled. At least it might have been nice to have tried. Then we would know for sure. Let's not gloss over the administration's neglect of security aspects in this event.

I honestly don't think we know enough about the mission of that "mission" to know what should or shouldn't have been the security there. It is seeming like it was more connected to the CIA than diplomacy, but that may be inaccurate as well. US Libya Mission was CIA operation

---

Last edited by GeneV; 11-05-2012 at 07:48 AM.

[Winder]

In terms of actual news reporting, it's not acceptable to 'accept' a bias in one channel or another and just say 'well the viewers will go to the channel that reflects their views'. There should be a body that holds news outlets to account over innaccuracies and bias, and penalties for peddling distortion.

Look at the ratings. Society (which is the body that holds them accountable) chooses what they want to watch. They choose programming that does re-enforces their pre-existing beliefs. I would be opposed to a government body filtering (even for bias) my news. I am opposed to censorship. What happens when Bush IV gets elected and he appoints Rupert Murdoch V to the head of this government body? There are no unbiased secular angles sent to earth run these bodies. What if the BBC appoints Jimmy Savile Jr. as its head of programming? The BBC has a lot of work to do explaining how Savile managed to become the biggest pedophile (300+ children) the modern world has seen while being the face of the network. Why did the BBC shelve (filter) the story?

I want as much transparency in the media as possible. Fox and MSNBC are both pretty transparent. You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to see that they are openly biased. They don't hide it. Fox and MSNBC are a reflection of society. They are a symptom of the problem. They are not the problem itself. The question is "Why does the majority of TV cable viewers in society choose to watch the two most openly biased news agencies"?

[les3547]

Fox and MSNBC are both pretty transparent. You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to see that they are openly biased. They don't hide it. Fox and MSNBC are a reflection of society. They are a symptom of the problem. They are not the problem itself. The question is "Why does the majority of TV cable viewers in society choose to watch the two most openly biased news agencies"?

I don't think "bias" applies to political opinion programs (if a program represents itself a "news" program, then bias is a concern). Both Fox and MSNBC include programming that is clearly meant to be the opinion sort.

If a particular philosophy, say conservative or liberal, has advocates, then there is nothing unusual or wrong about programming that features people interpreting things according to one or other of the philosophies. It could be quite useful to have two quality channels devoted to the ideals of conservatism and liberalism so that people can better understand each point of view.

However, while one-sidedness is fine, what isn't okay is dishonesty. If a show builds its case on lies, distortions, fear-mongering, fact omission, etc., then it fails even as opinion programming. In this respect, Fox and MSNBC are not equals and should not be lumped into the same category. Fox opinion is incessantly dishonest, lacking facts, and fallaciously reasoned, while MSNBC opinion is generally fact-based and logicially reasoned.

As I've mentioned before, I don't think anyone should come to their own opinion by listening to others' opinions. Although I listen to a great variety of opinions, I know that my priority has to be to study the same facts that others are using to form opinions.

[jeffkrol]

I want as much transparency in the media as possible. Fox and MSNBC are both pretty transparent. You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to see that they are openly biased. They don't hide it. Fox and MSNBC are a reflection of society. They are a symptom of the problem. They are not the problem itself. The question is "Why does the majority of TV cable viewers in society choose to watch the two most openly biased news agencies"?

Why do they support this list as well...........

Top 10 TV Ratings | Top 10 TV Shows | Nielsen

Fox and MSNBC are both pretty transparent.

Seems plain as day tht this is not "exacty" as they are perceived in the "real world".........

[Winder]

I don't think "bias" applies to political opinion programs (if a program represents itself a "news" program, then bias is a concern). Both Fox and MSNBC include programming that is clearly meant to be the opinion sort.

Censorship (filtering) is wrong even if it allows for bias that we disagree with or we believe is factually incorrect..... just ask Galileo. Society and government often assume things to be true because they want them to be true, need them to be true, and ignore facts to the contrary.

However, while one-sidedness is fine, what isn't okay is dishonesty. If a show builds its case on lies, distortions, fear-mongering, fact omission, etc., then it fails even as opinion programming. In this respect, Fox and MSNBC are not equals and should not be lumped into the same category. Fox opinion is incessantly dishonest, lacking facts, and fallaciously reasoned, while MSNBC opinion is generally fact-based and logicially reasoned.

I would bet any sum of money that if I asked a conservative they would say "MSNBC opinion is incessantly dishonest, lacking facts, and fallaciously reasoned, while FOX opinion is generally fact-based and logicially reasoned."..... That is to be expected. You are to the left and you will find more facts, logic, & reason on MSNBC, which is normal. I have two liberal friends who actually get mad just watching FOX. Same thing happens when conservatives watch MSNBC. People don't like to watch programs that challenge or contradict their own pre-established beliefs. People immediately assume that views that challenge their own are false. Politics is the new religion that people follow with blind faith.

I don't watch either and I don't care what they have to say. I couldn't even name the hosts of the shows.... They're pretty irrelevant. I know Alan Greenspan's wife has (or had) a show on MSNBC, but only because I have read some biographical work on him. Do you think his wife (Andrea Mitchell) has a bias when reporting on the economic recession? Maybe... Maybe not. I don't know. Don't care if she does. One of my few liberal friends was a big fan of Diane Sawyer and was arguing with a conservative about her (Sawyer) over drinks after she had done a Romney interview. The liberal liked her and the conservative thought she had a strong "liberal" media bias. When I mentioned that Diane was a second generation republican, a speech writer for and long time friend of President Nixon who privately defended him after Watergate and coordinated the Frost interviews in 1977, that information changed the opinions of both people at the table. That information changed the perception of bias.

Nobody is forced to watch either FOX or MSNBC. If people are tuning in it is because they find value in, or they connect with the opinions and comments that they are hearing. The people watching FOX believe they are hearing the "truth" just as the people who watch MSNBC, but not because FOX/MSNBC says it is true. They believe it is true because it fits with what they want or need to believe.

[les3547]

Censorship (filtering) is wrong even if it allows for bias that we disagree with or we believe is factually incorrect..... just ask Galileo. Society and government often assume things to be true because they want them to be true, need them to be true, and ignore facts to the contrary.

What does censorship have to do with this discussion? Opinion columns, radio shows, and TV programs abound, they have no obligation to equally present all sides of an issue. Since there is such variety and volume to choose from, the reader/listerer/watcher is not deprived of anything if a source focuses mainly on one aspect of things (though I do think a good opinion program honestly addresses the concerns of dissenting opinions).

I don't watch either and I don't care what they have to say. I couldn't even name the hosts of the shows.... They're pretty irrelevant. I know Alan Greenspan's wife has (or had) a show on MSNBC, but only because I have read some biographical work on him. Do you think his wife (Andrea Mitchell) has a bias when reporting on the economic recession? Maybe... Maybe not. I don't know. Don't care if she does. One of my few liberal friends was a big fan of Diane Sawyer and was arguing with a conservative about her (Sawyer) over drinks after she had done a Romney interview. The liberal liked her and the conservative thought she had a strong "liberal" media bias. When I mentioned that Diane was a second generation republican, a speech writer for and long time friend of President Nixon who privately defended him after Watergate and coordinated the Frost interviews in 1977, that information changed the opinions of both people at the table. That information changed the perception of bias.

So if you haven't listened, then you don't know do you? Why then do you have such a strong opinion about this subject? An uninformed opinion isn't worth much to others who are looking for insight. Much of what you say merely sounds like a rant.

I would bet any sum of money that if I asked a conservative they would say "MSNBC opinion is incessantly dishonest, lacking facts, and fallaciously reasoned, while FOX opinion is generally fact-based and logicially reasoned."..... That is to be expected. You are to the left and you will find more facts, logic, & reason on MSNBC, which is normal. I have two liberal friends who actually get mad just watching FOX. Same thing happens when conservatives watch MSNBC. People don't like to watch programs that challenge or contradict their own pre-established beliefs. People immediately assume that views that challenge their own are false. Politics is the new religion that people follow with blind faith.

What difference does it make what some class of people say? What is true is all that matters. Any decently objective, educated person—liberal or conservative—can watch Fox opinion programs and see they are patently dishonest and logically depraved.

In case you think my opinion is majorly skewed, I would actually love it if an honest and reasonable conservative channel existed. That's because I don't believe either a liberal or conservative viewpoint, standing by itself, yields a good philosophy. I will offer an analogy.

One philosophy about how to raise children, let's call it the Father philosophy, is that children need guidelines, limits set, and to learn how to take responsibility for their own lives. Another philosophy, the Mother philosophy, is that children need love, support, to be happy, and to have freedom to explore and discover. If either the Father or Mother philosophy alone dominates a household, there usually are clear signs of which philosophy isn't strong enough (or is too strong). The solution, BTW, isn't that Father and Mother compromise so there is a little Father and a little Mother (i.e., mediocrity), but rather the solution is that both influences need to be there in full force.

In a way, conservatives are like the Father side of things, and liberals are like the Mother side. And just like in a family, if one side refuses to cooperate with the other, demanding it is his way or the highway, and even trying to eliminate the Mother influence altogether, that is going to result in a sick situation. Of course, there always seems to be people, fed up with the dysfunction, who blame both sides equally. It's like finding two people fighting, and blaming them both equally without taking the time to find out that one guy is trying to rob the other.

Nobody is forced to watch either FOX or MSNBC. If people are tuning in it is because they find value in, or they connect with the opinions and comments that they are hearing. The people watching FOX believe they are hearing the "truth" just as the people who watch MSNBC, but not because FOX/MSNBC says it is true. They believe it is true because it fits with what they want or need to believe.

Not everybody thinks they are hearing the "truth" when they check out opinion media . . . personally I think it is weak-minded to do so. But I would also say that nobody watches Fox News regularly unless they want to be deluded, or (like me) they want to observe the kind of stuff Fox News puts out in order to speak with authority if they choose to say that whatever Fox is serving up to its viewers, it isn't cogent, practical conservatism.

[jeffkrol]

On a related note.....................

How Fox News Created a New Culture of Idiots | Alternet

Cable news has created an entirely new breed of blowhards -- and the style has infected banking and even the arts.

And everytime I hear stuff like this:

ot everybody thinks they are hearing the "truth" when they check out opinion media . . . personally I think it is weak-minded to do so. But I would also say that nobody watches Fox News regularly unless they want to be deluded, or (like me) they want to observe the kind of stuff Fox News puts out in order to speak with authority if they choose to say that whatever Fox is serving up to its viewers, it isn't cogent, practical conservatism.

it somehow reminds me of the mother of an aquaintence of mine who asked her son "Dear are you sure you are in LAOS since the president said we have no troops there"......................

W/ power comes great responsibility .. to be honest...

[Winder]

So if you haven't listened, then you don't know do you? Why then do you have such a strong opinion about this subject? An uninformed opinion isn't worth much to others who are looking for insight. Much of what you say merely sounds like a rant.

Do you have any idea how many studies have been done on political bias in the media and the viewing habits of Americans? Not only do you not have to watch TV to have a really good understanding, you are probably better off it you don't. People tune in to programs that reflect their own taste and opinions. I don't need to watch FOX or MSNBC to have an understanding or opinion of what people watch or why.

What difference does it make what some class of people say? What is true is all that matters. Any decently objective, educated person—liberal or conservative—can watch Fox opinion programs and see they are patently dishonest and logically depraved.

What difference does it make what some class of people say? In a system that is designed to be democratic in nature it happens to be pretty important. I'm sure you don't mean for this to be an elitist statement, but I'm not sure how you mean it. You don't write off a "class of people" off because you think they are wrong or disagree with them.

And conservatives make the same charges against liberals and networks like MSNBC. The hand fighting among liberals and conservatives can be pretty entertaining.

In case you think my opinion is majorly skewed, I would actually love it if an honest and reasonable conservative channel existed. That's because I don't believe either a liberal or conservative viewpoint, standing by itself, yields a good philosophy. I will offer an analogy.

I did not say it was "skewed" I said it was normal for someone who identifies with the "left" of center to say exactly what you have said.

Not everybody thinks they are hearing the "truth" when they check out opinion media . . . personally I think it is weak-minded to do so. But I would also say that nobody watches Fox News regularly unless they want to be deluded, or (like me) they want to observe the kind of stuff Fox News puts out in order to speak with authority if they choose to say that whatever Fox is serving up to its viewers, it isn't cogent, practical conservatism.

Not everyone does, but the majority of viewers do. You might think that "nobody watches Fox News regularly unless they want to be deluded" but the media studies would prove you wrong. People watch programs that they relate to and agree with. Yes, some people may listen to both, and some people may listen the opposing view just to know what the other side says, but that is not the norm. The majority of viewers will tune into the network that re-enforces their own pre-conceived paradigms. People feel uncomfortable when challenged.

[jeffkrol]

I always felt that the fact the Fed doesn't have to tax to spend pretty well showed the "bias" present in every part of our society..............