As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Need LOLFOX info
Arch
Neat-o, mosquito!Registered User regular
Neat-o, mosquito!Registered User regular
So I am having a rather rational debate with someone over education policies in the US, when all of a sudden he hits me with a (suprisingly well-written and not shitty) FOX news article. Someone else gave him a LOT of shit for talking about Fox news, and he flipped his shit.
I do not like the fact that one person was rather rude about it, without reading the article, but I at least take what FOX says with a grain of salt personally.
What are some links I can use to back up my statement that they have been less-than reputable as of late?
I do not like the fact that one person was rather rude about it, without reading the article, but I at least take what FOX says with a grain of salt personally.
What are some links I can use to back up my statement that they have been less-than reputable as of late?
| Zinnar on most things | Avatar by Blameless ClericPsycho Internet Hawk wrote: »
Arch on
0
Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=277gQDcBtMY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxwHyzHs7Ww&feature=related
Using Fox's shit reputation and complete lack of journalistic integrity to refute someone's point is a fallacy, which is something you should try to avoid.
As for proving that fox is not news, media matters was pretty much created for that purpose, the fox news section having 112 pages.
Sorry- didn't make it clear. I was upset that the only level the third person in the discussion could argue on was OMGFOXLOL. But, at the same time I will not stand by while someone ELSE claims that they ARE a reputable news source.
To the one with the videos- thanks.
And @ scrivener- this is the link in question.
Like I said, the article doesn't seem too bad, which was not my point. My point was that after someone became antagonistic towards FOX (and committed the aforementioned fallacy) the other principle individual in the debate essentially said- "I don't see why you are being so hateful toward them. They are a reputable news source and the number one most-watched news program in America. So that should tell you something"
My response was "McDonald's is the number one fast food chain in America, but I don't eat there everyday, and in fact, tend to avoid them."
But I wanted some hard facts to back up the allegations (which became a separate discussion) I was making.
If the article is well written, its well written. If the facts are wrong, prove so directly.
There is however a distinction between well-written and well-balanced. I would argue, Fox News is neither.
It's the fear mongering that gets me, personally. Otherwise it's pretty tolerable. Just keep in mind all news outlets have an agenda.
"WE'LL TELL YOU WHY YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER OF BEING RAPED IN SCHOOL, TONIGHT AT 11!"
Real headline, I'm not kidding. If my children were in danger of being raped in school, I'd want to know right the fuck now, not 8 hours from now.
Yeah, all the networks use shock shit like that.
"This new product could cause you to die horribly, and it's probably on your dinner table. More at 11!"
There's a theorem in poli-sci that states people find outlets that express their political ideologies. Put another way, if you are left wing biased, you'll go to left wing sources, etc.
So if your friend is ..whatever fox is, then they're mindset is probably along the same lines. I tried to listen to Fox, CNN, NPR, and any other news casts during elections because usually they'll all reveal different facts and different viewpoints.
One thing that annoys me about Fox News Channel is that they seem to purposefully obfuscate the division between opinion and news. The average viewer can't really differentiate between the two, especially when they allow their non-news personalities (e.g. Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck) to portray themselves as objective and fair.
Well, considering 80% of their news programming is these opinion shows, then yes it's fair to judge them on it.
I mean fuck, from the second I wake up to the moment its Fox and Friends. When I get back from work, Glenn "crybaby" Beck is giving me my daily dose of crazy. Then it's something - hannity - o'reilly - rinse repeat.
Again, as mentioned above, people want to watch the things that sync up with their personal politics.
they gunna gitchu!
MOOSLIMS! NOOOO!
anti-christ?
Part 1, the rest of the parts are up on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXNvDD13hoY&feature=related
Twitter
Errrr.... Olbermann actually does something much more similar to 'journalism' than Glenn Beck. The format of his show is basically "Here's a Story.... Here's a journalist to tell us more about the story...rinse/repeat rinse/repeat... Time for Oddball...worst persons... here's a story with a guest that usually a journalist.... sometimes a comedian ocassionally a special comment (He's done like 20)"
In contrast Beck's show is "Crazy nonsense... Follow me... The One thing (extended crazy nonsense)... Chalk Boards for idiots... visual aids because this is really all a show... sometimes a super right wing guest for a pseudo intellectual circle jerk... Good Night America!"
Christ I hate Hardball. Chris Matthews is such an idiot. Hardball is basically a dumb smug fuck who thinks he's a lot smarter than he actually is moderating 3 other mostly dumb fucks talking over each other and reading their various parties talking points off the prompter.
The only time Matthews ever even came close to impressing me was when he called an even bigger dumbshit out on calling Obama(?) an appeaser without even knowing what appeasement was.
The fact is, Olbermann will report on a story, bring an actual journalist to discuss it, and he segments the reporting portion of the show (which is usually about 35-40 minutes) from the "funny" part of the show entirely, and it is evident.
Meanwhile, Glen Beck is just a clusterfuck of gross misinformation without disclaimer.
The biggest difference is that usually when MSNBC attempts to make a factual assertion, they back it up with actual journalistic information, official sources, etc - and if they don't, they usually say so.
Meanwhile, Fox just says whatever the fuck they want without any such context or disclaimer.
As for the OP, the arguer made the mistake of assuming that everyone knows that Fox is a pile of shit. Not everyone knows. In fact, the majority of people don't know, or don't care.
I've traveled to a few places in Europe and lived there for awhile. One thing that was interesting in for instance Spain is the skew their news showed toward Spain's agenda and how they sneakily were able to put down America in their news broadcasts by cherry picking the things they talked about.
After this visit I realized more than ever that news is not a reliable source and wherever you go in the world there is a hidden agenda behind what they are reporting. Regardless of if it is right or wrong.
All i could do was nod
Yes, wouldn't that be great!
While attacking the source (ad hominem) is a fallacy, "I can trust them because lots of other people do" is one as well (argumentum ad populum).