7/7/09 9:15 AM

Fox Haters Week in Review

UPDATED! Obama, ACORN, and George Tiller all co-star in the latest fun-filled edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!

Fact-Check Follies
One of the oldest bromides in journalism is about fact-checking. "If your mother says she loves you, check it out!" However this step is often seen by the Fox haters as an unnecessary complication, bringing us to another familiar concept: the story that is "too good to check". Its truthfulness is less important than its propaganda value. This might explain the writings of "well-known Trinidadian" Wayne Brown, who informs us:

More than one Fox News commentator denounced Obama for never mentioning “democracy,” a startlingly malevolent lie, as Obama’s Praetorian Guard at MSNBC, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, promptly demonstrated by replaying the four sections of the speech in which he did.
So who were these "Fox News commentators"? Mr Brown, who now monitors the eeevils of Fox News from Jamaica, mon, doesn't tell us. This might just be because that "startling malevolent lie" wasn't from Fox News at all. It was from The View! Oops. Was this story too good to check? Or was there no need to check because they just made it up out of thin air? We report, you decide.

An Abundance of Ad Hominem
Sometimes the insightful geniuses of the newshounds find themselves in a little over their heads (like whenever they start typing). When that happens you know the personal smears and name calling will not be far behind. Stories daring to report about ACORN almost invariably get the bassets barking, even when Queen Bee Ellen farms the work out to a purported "guest blogger". "Julie" tells us:
There we go again, those Foxettes and their “voter fraud” allegations. Read my lips, gals: It's voter registration fraud, not voter fraud. Mickey Mouse, in fact, didn't cast any votes in the last election. Of course, with Fox News it's the blind leading the blind – on March 18th, Fox News had on its website an article on ACORN and the Census entitled, “ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census - The U.S. Census Bureau is working with several national organizations to help recruit 1.4 million workers to produce the country's 2010 census, including one with a history of voter fraud charges: ACORN.” (Emphasis mine). Read my lips, people: Voter. Registration. Fraud.
Another classic incorrection. Julie invents the notion that "voter fraud" and "voter registration fraud" are mutually exclusive. But voter registration fraud is a type of voter fraud, just as manslaughter (or murder) is a type of homicide, just as there are dozens of different crimes that are all "larceny". Julie linked to a discussion of the Nevada laws--we checked the statutes and found Julie's pet phrase "voter registration fraud" isn't even used! Various forms of fraud or other illegalities are all included under the heading: "Elections: Unlawful Acts". Of course, "voter fraud" is a common layman's term, which may be why it is used by the Associated Press to describe precisely the Nevada crimes that Julie insists Shannon Bream got wrong.

And that's another thing. Isn't it a bit much for some semi-educated whelp to be throwing around sleazy terms like "Foxette" to demean a professional woman? And there was more:
Ewww. I thought some of the other Foxettes were lightweights (okay, they still are), but Shannon Bream seems to have cornered the market on being Fox-News-style interchangeably pretty and vapid with bad linguistic skills.
For the record, Dr Bream has journalistic experience with affiliates of all three major broadcast networks, has covered the Supreme Court for nearly two years, and holds a JD degree from the Florida State University of Law. Now Julie, since you find her to be vapid, perhaps you will lay out for us your experience and educational background. Then we can make a comparison. We're not holding our breath, since you aren't even courageous enough to use your last name.

Faking It
Priscilla (again no last name from this heroic harrier) finds a golden opportunity to attack Megyn Kelly:
Megyn Kelly, In Discussion Of Tiller Murder, Uses O’Reilly Smear Video...
Now what, you may ask, is an "O'Reilly smear video"? It turns out to be an interview with a girl who, pregnant at the age of 13, was given an abortion by Dr Tiller. As you watch the video, ask yourself the question: Just how is this a "smear video"? What exactly about it was defamatory? Your hair will hurt if you try too hard to figure that out. It's a "smear video" because Prissy says so, based on exactly nothing!

But wait, there's more. Desperate to come up with something substantial to rebut what is a fair and balanced edition of Kelly's Court, Priscilla did what she does best:
Wohl stated that Tiller admitted to performing abortions on women who had been raped and "that’s outside the law." This provided Kelly with grist for yet more “pro life” Tiller myth: “Probably lots of those people were under age and some of those girls were reportedly between the ages of 10 and 14 and he wasn’t reporting those rapes to authorities.” (As an attorney, one would hope that Kelly would avoid this type of speculation!)
Once again, Prissy making things up. There was no speculation by Ms Kelly, because the failure to report the rapes was established from the records according to the state's Attorney General. But if it wasn't speculation, then why did Megyn say "Probably"? The answer should be obvious: she didn't. Priscilla doctored Megyn's words to fit her charge of "speculation". The actual statement:
KELLY: Well, the problem is a lot of those people were underage...
This is is what some would call Another Hound Lie.

Spot something you'd like to see in the next Fox Haters Week in Review? Send us an email!

UPDATE: Priscilla of the newshounds responded in the comments thread:

There was nothing "established." Any records introduced (Dr. McHugh's observations) did not substantiate any finding of illegal activity regarding underage girls. I will correct Kelly's statement to read "the problem is" but that doesn't change the reality that her statement, "a lot of those people were underage" was unfounded. As a Juris "Doctor" you should know that.... Megyn Kelly was lying about Tiller not following the law regarding reporting of underage abortions - or the fact that Tiller's abortion practices were "waaay outside the mainstream."... I've got better things to do than argue semantics with a Perry Mason wannabee. Seeya, wouldn't want to be ya! Hey Koldys, was it just an oversight that your blog isn't one of the 100 most influential? Huh?
We will try to respond on the same elevated intellectual level that Priscilla has brought to the discussion. She is correct that some charges about underage and late-term abortions in the specific instances investigated were dismissed, because of a legal technicality (jurisidictional disputes) not on the substance of the matter. As for Ms Kelly "lying", Priscilla bases that on Megyn laying out arguments that could be raised in the forthcoming trial--precisely the subject matter of the segment! Ms Kelly was careful to distinguish fact from allegation, clearly stating that some girls were reportedly between 10-14. Then when talking about the charge that he didn't properly report rapes, another possible trial issue, she says: "he wasn't reporting those rapes to authorities or so the story goes." Priscilla left out that part, all the better to accuse Megyn of "lying", and we fell for it! But one must double- and triple-check everything that comes from the kennel, and a new look at the video revealed that this was just more quote-doctoring from Priscilla. (Further details on all this in the comments thread.)

We had hoped that Prissy would explain to us why she thought the 14-year-old girl in the video was "smearing" Dr Tiller, but she chose not to explain that aspect of her perceptive insights.




Fox Fan
Beautifully written, rock-solid proofs of anti-FNC lies from the usual gang of dim-witted suspects.  
 
It's good to read the oddballs you toss in there like Mr. Brown too- that was a funny response you got a while back from the guy who called you a racist after his anti-FNC writing got exposed as lies.  
 
Nice job, once again!
June 7, 2009, 8:58:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Guest
Outstanding.
 
It's just unbelievable how those hounds can lie.
 
J$ - once again, nice job. Thank you for laying out the truth, clearly and logically.
 
Score:
 
......J$.........Hounds
...3,098...........0
June 7, 2009, 9:20:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
The savant Julie has simply outdone herself with the voter fraud vs. Voter registration fraud ("read my lips, people"...) harangue!  
 
A treat, Johnny! Thanks!
June 7, 2009, 10:31:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jamie in Las Vegas
I understand why people hate FOX "News". . .I'm one of those people. What I don't understand is why anyone would be moved to defend them. Individual programs or personalities, perhaps, but a corporate entity?
 
I happen to be a fan of a couple of MSNBC programs, but I feel no need to defend the entire network, NBC, Universal, or GE. I feel no kinship or responsibility to go to bat for them.
 
What motivates people to champion Rupert Murdoch?
June 8, 2009, 3:24:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
The Lovely Looney Ladies of the Hideous Hen House have once again been smacked down.
 
I'll keep saying it over and over. These people are the worst kind of liars. They have one agenda. They hate Fox and they don't hide it very well.
 
They screech about "Fair and Balanced" and then post their own unfair and unbalanced distortions.
 
Of course their way out is that "we don't claim to be "Fair and Balanced".  
DUH!!! We already knew that. Now, at least make an effort to be truthful.
 
p.s. I have it on good authority that Julie's motto is "How I became ignorant by reading News Hounds".
June 8, 2009, 8:16:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
I think "smear" is the only word the Hideous Hens know. They use it quite frequently and it usually turns out to be untrue in the context of the garbage they write.
June 8, 2009, 8:40:12 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
I see the hounds are basking in the glory of making the top 100 list of the most "influential" blogs.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere could I find anything about influential as being a criteria for making the list.
June 8, 2009, 9:23:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
What motivates people to champion Rupert Murdoch?
Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.08.09 - 3:29 am | #  
 
Free ice cream.
June 8, 2009, 11:13:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
What motivates people to champion Rupert Murdoch?
Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.08.09 - 3:29 am | #
 
You just said that you "hate Fox News. Then you said you didn't understand why someone would "hate" Fox News.  
 
Perhaps you could elucidate for us.
June 8, 2009, 11:17:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
"Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison (D) on Tuesday in a letter to  
"There was no speculation by Ms Kelly, because the failure to report the rapes was established from the records according to the state's Attorney General"
 
But..
 
"Pedro Irigonegaray, the attorney representing Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said he has ended the investigation against a clinic operated by the organization in Overland Park, Kan., for allegedly performing illegal late-term abortions, the Kansas City Star reports (Carroll/Klepper, Kansas City Star, 6/26)."
 
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_Reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=45890
 
There was nothing "established." Any records introduced (Dr. McHugh's observations) did not substantiate any finding of illegal activity regarding underage girls.
 
I will correct Kelly's statement to read "the problem is" but that doesn't change the reality that her statement, "a lot of those people were underage" was unfounded. As a Juris "Doctor" you should know that.
June 8, 2009, 12:08:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> "a lot of those people were underage" was unfounded
 
Really? Where's your proof? Are you claiming few or none were underage? Aren't the ages of the patients conclusive on this point? On what do you base your claim that it's "unfounded"?
 
It's so nice of you to condescend to publish what Megyn Kelly actually said, instead of your doctored version, rewritten so it would fit your "speculation" charge. But it would've been nice if it weren't necessary again to have your doctored quotes exposed for all to see to get you to tell the truth.
 
Thank you for reading J$P.
June 8, 2009, 12:17:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
Tiller Case  
Morrison spokesperson Ashley Anstaett on Wednesday said that 15 of the 30 charges filed by Kline last year against Tiller were based on incomplete and substandard information, the Kansas City Star reports (Klepper, Kansas City Star, 6/27). Kline charged Tiller with 30 misdemeanors for allegedly performing 15 illegal late-term abortions in 2003 on women ages 10 to 22 without properly reporting the details to the state. Kline hired attorney Don McKinney to be special prosecutor in the case. Morrison -- who defeated Kline in the November 2006 election -- fired McKinney in January, and Morrison's office asked the state Supreme Court to dismiss McKinney's appeal. Morrison has said he is conducting his own investigation and will decide whether to reinstate charges against Tiller (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 6/14).  
 
According to the Star, 15 of the charges filed by Kline said that Tiller relied on inadequate diagnoses to justify late-term abortions that otherwise would be illegal, and the other 15 charges alleged that Tiller did not properly report the procedures on mandated state health forms. According to Morrison's office, Kline mixed up copies later used for four of the charges. In addition, Anstaett said Kline withheld from court documents a statement from a state health official that Tiller completed the forms. The statement should have been submitted to the judge before Kline filed 11 of the charges, Anstaett said (Kansas City Star, 6/27).
 
Kline said Morrison's "depiction is false." Tiller attorney Dan Monnat said Morrison's investigation will show that Tiller is following state law (Hanna, AP/Forbes, 6/27). According to the Washington Post, a decision on the other 15 charges is expected by the end of this week (Slevin, Washington Post, 6/28).
 
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_Reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=45890
June 8, 2009, 12:19:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Fact - Priscilla from the newshounds deliberately doctored a quote in order to mislead her reading audience.
 
That's what makes her a good newshound.
 
Thanks J$ for exposing their lies.
June 8, 2009, 12:21:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
After she obtained the dismissal of the indictments, Foulston conducted her own investigation of Tiller. She found that Tiller had properly reported all abortions on underage girls among the fifteen abortions investigated by Kline.  
 
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:NkPABAm8DfsJ:www.dr-tiller.com/nola-foulston.htm+tiller+did+not+perform+abortions+underage+girls&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 
Per Megyn Kelly the "girls were reportedly between the ages of 10 and 14 and he wasn’t reporting those rapes to authorities.” Per the law, Kelly's statement is false. Kelly was just mouthing more anti abortion Tiller agitprop.
June 8, 2009, 12:26:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
Ashley | 06.08.09 - 12:26 pm
 
I didn't deliberately "doctor" it. I hear dit that way. I was corrected and now I have changed it. It still doesn't change the fact that Megyn Kelly was lying about Tiller not following the law regarding reporting of underage abortions - or the fact that Tiller's abortion practices were "waaay outside the mainstream." His procedures were safe, legal, and the type of procedures done by og-gyn's in hospitals. Kelly was slanting her coverage for the anti choice crowd. Big surprise? Not!
June 8, 2009, 12:30:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"Kelly's statement is false"
 
It's false to say that reportedly the ages were 10-14 and some rapes weren't being reported? Do you even know what the word 'reportedly' means?
 
Oh and by the way, I can't tell you how impressed I am by the Foulston web site you provided. Now there's a beacon of impartial--and highly professional--reportage. Kind of gives the newspooches a run for their money!
June 8, 2009, 12:30:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
"I happen to be a fan of a couple of MSNBC programs"
 
Shocker!
June 8, 2009, 12:35:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"Megyn Kelly was lying about Tiller not following the law regarding reporting of underage abortions - or the fact that Tiller's abortion practices were "waaay outside the mainstream.""
 
This is what makes your writing so recklessly unreliable. If someone offers an opinion you don't agree with--they're "lying". Kelly says there were reports that he wasn't reporting the abortions...SHE'S LYING! Kelly opines that the practices (which only four other doctors in the country also engage in) are outside the mainstream--SHE'S LYING!!
 
Just like when you claim the O'Reilly interview with a Tiller patient is a "smear video". Because you don't like what she said. I guess we should be grateful that you didn't accuse the girl in the video of LYING!!! as well.
 
It's repellent crap like this, on top of the continual penchant to rewrite and doctor what people say, as has been documented over and over, that make what you people write an embarrassment to sentient carbon-based lifeforms. It would be a joke, if it weren't so mean-spirited and corrosive to logic and truth.
June 8, 2009, 12:40:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
"The problem is a lot of those people were under age and some of those were not being reported and some of those girls were reportedly between the ages of 10 and 14 and he wasn’t reporting those rapes to authorities.”
 
a) How does Kelly know that "a lot" were underage and that "some were not being reported?"  
 
b) Yes, the girls were "reportedly" between 10 and 14; but how does Megyn get off saying that "he wasn't reporting those rapes to authorities."
 
The bottom line is that none of that was proven so why did Kellly have to use it in her presentation unless she's just reinforcing anti choice propaganda. Once again, the [expletive deleted] charges made by the anti abortion crowd didn't stick. Should we say that they should be inaddmissable. Jesus, no wonder you're [personal attack deleted] I've got better things to do than argue semantics with a Perry Mason wannabee. Seeya, wouldn't want to be ya!
 
Hey Koldys, was it just an oversight that your blog isn't one of the 100 most influential? Huh?

Edited By Siteowner
June 8, 2009, 12:42:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
"I didn't deliberately "doctor" it. I hear dit that way. I was corrected and now I have changed it. "
 
So, in your effort to promote the truth, you placed a quote around a set of words not spoken by Kelly but attributed them to Kelly anyhow because you chose, for your own reasons, not to confirm the facts.
 
"I was corrected and now I have changed it."
 
Repeat after me:
 
Johnny right? Priscilla not.
 
Kelly was correct in her statement.
June 8, 2009, 12:47:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
"b) Yes, the girls were "reportedly" between 10 and 14; but how does Megyn get off saying that "he wasn't reporting those rapes to authorities.""
 
J$, you don't need my help but I cannot stand by and listen to Priscilla's crap.
 
Priscilla's own link and cut and paste from her earlier post says "Kline charged Tiller with 30 misdemeanors for allegedly performing 15 illegal late-term abortions in 2003 on women ages 10 to 22 without properly reporting the details to the state. "
 
Reportedly - Allegedly.
 
Kelly right. Johnny right. Priscilla - not so much.
June 8, 2009, 12:51:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
"I hear dit that way. "
 
I wonder how many other quotations in prior Priscilla writings were written after hearing them with the same ears that heard what Kelly "said".
June 8, 2009, 12:53:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"b) Yes, the girls were "reportedly" between 10 and 14; but how does Megyn get off saying that "he wasn't reporting those rapes to authorities."
 
Well that's because once again Prissy did a little selective editing. In addition to using the word 'reportedly' in the first part of the sentence, Megyn said something else that qualified the comment, only Prissy just happened to conveniently leave it out:
 
"... and he wasn’t reporting those rapes to authorities or so the story goes.”
 
With the word 'reportedly', and 'or so the story goes' (which Prissy just happened to leave out), it's even clearer that Megyn wasn't making claims of fact, but rather citing the arguments that could be raised in the criminal trial--which, after all, was the subject matter of the entire segment!
 
I blame myself for not catching this bit of Priscilla quote-doctoring in the main article, but her obsessively desperate attempts to defend herself just brought it to my attention.
June 8, 2009, 12:54:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Priscilla | 06.08.09 - 12:47 pm | #  
 
The prickly Priscilla does it again.
 
Does lying run in here family?
 
She still doesn't get it.
June 8, 2009, 12:55:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
"Seeya, wouldn't want to be ya!"
 
Hmmmm - it appears she may be a Patrick wannabe when it comes to debate.
June 8, 2009, 12:58:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Hey Koldys, was it just an oversight that your blog isn't one of the 100 most influential? Huh?
 
Edited By Siteowner
Priscilla | 06.08.09 - 12:47 pm | #  
 
They finished in the BOTTOM third of the top 100 based on a link that may or may not be used by an internet user.
 
Well, I guees it beats finishing in the bottom third of an ugly contest.
June 8, 2009, 1:06:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"Seeya, wouldn't want to be ya!"
 
You know, that's what makes it so special when newspoodles venture over here to comment. They always bring their special brand of intellectual probity to the discussion.
June 8, 2009, 1:08:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Don't you just love it when one of the News Hound Honey's comes over here to justify their biased actions and then says "I've got better things to do....."
 
Like what? Create more lies and distortions?
June 8, 2009, 1:16:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Hey Koldys, was it just an oversight that your blog isn't one of the 100 most influential? Huh?
 
Edited By Siteowner
Priscilla | 06.08.09 - 12:47 pm | #  
 
Good lord, their own headline on the story says  
 
**********
"We're One Of The Top 100 Most Influential Political Blogs!
Reported by Ellen - Sat 10:29 AM"
 
ABC News published Wikio.com's list of top 100 most influential political blogs.  
******************
 
The post links to ABC news which links to Wikio.  
 
From Wikio - the ranking is described as "You will find here the monthly rankings for the most widely referenced blogs"
 
Other than the ABC article written under the column "The Note" which has the slogan "The Note
Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet", no where in the ABC article the hounds link does it say "Influential". Nowhere on the Wikio site does it claim the listing is on "Influential". Where did they get "influential"?
 
They made it up!
June 8, 2009, 1:21:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jamie in Las Vegas
"You just said that you "hate Fox News. Then you said you didn't understand why someone would "hate" Fox News."
 
No I didn't. Yes to the former, no to the latter. How did you get that out of what I said?
June 8, 2009, 1:31:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
Nowhere on the Wikio site does it claim the listing is on "Influential". Where did they get "influential"?
 
They made it up!
Ashley | 06.08.09 - 1:26 pm | #  
 
My point exactly, in an earlier post I made.
June 8, 2009, 2:44:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
And in the interests of journalistic objectivity, shouldn't Kelly have added, after her little "reportedly" screed, that the investigation ended with no charges filed? Her editorializing that Tiller's procedures were "waaaaay out of line..." isn't accurate. According to the state of Kansas and the AMA, his procedures were fully in line with the law and proper medical practices. In fact (and the Kaiser link should be legit, Johnny Boy):
 
Morrison in the letter to Irigonegaray wrote, "Our investigation is now complete, and we have found no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by your client." He added, "As a result, we will not be filling any charges against your client." PPKM officials subsequently released the letter during a news conference, the AP/Topeka Capital-Journal reports. Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of the organization, said the letter confirmed that the clinic provides high-quality medical care and complies with state law (Hollingsworth, AP/Topeka Capital-Journal, 6/26).  
 
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_Reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=45890
 
But as I noted in my post, the whole point of Kelly's presentation was to present the late Dr. Tiller as "extreme" - a talking point used by the rabid anti choice crowd - the kind of talking point that leads to abortion clinic murder and vandalism by home grown American Christian terrorists - probably even Fox fans.
June 8, 2009, 2:54:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


2008
"I will correct Kelly's statement to read "the problem is" "
Priscilla | 06.08.09 - 12:13 pm | #  
 
LOL!!!
 
Wow.....How big of you claudo......err....'Priscilla'
 
I have warned you for years about your incessant lying ways and just how they will come back to haunt you. Johnny caught you in yet another obvious fabrication and your response is as predictable as it is pitiable. Your mendacious commentary holds no water here champ. You're much more in your 'element' spinning your distortions to the unquestioning sheep that inhabit the dog pound eh?
June 8, 2009, 3:02:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
BTW, Marky, you and your acolytes do seem to take pride in the intellectual level of your blog. Certainly nothing prurient here - as opposed to the decadence over at News Hounds. However, I did note that on one of your threads, there was some banter about wheter a red headed Fox pundit's "carpet " matched the "drapes." Getting a bit kinky, aren't we!
June 8, 2009, 3:04:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
"And in the interests of journalistic objectivity, shouldn't Kelly have added, after her little "reportedly" screed, ..."
 
Interesting, Pris actually has the cajones, as someone who fabricates quotes and does not grasp the meaning of the word 'reportedly', is lecturing Megyn Kelly on journalistic objectivity,
June 8, 2009, 3:29:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Priscilla | 06.08.09 - 3:09 pm | #  
 
Well Pris - regarding the use of the word "carpet", when you folks at NH use the "C word", you folks use the "C word".
June 8, 2009, 3:31:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Getting a bit kinky, aren't we!
Priscilla | 06.08.09 - 3:09 pm | #  
 
Jealous???
June 8, 2009, 3:39:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
But as I noted in my post, the whole point of Kelly's presentation was to present the late Dr. Tiller as "extreme" - a talking point used by the rabid anti choice crowd - the kind of talking point that leads to abortion clinic murder and vandalism by home grown American Christian terrorists - probably even Fox fans.
Priscilla | 06.08.09 - 2:59 pm | #  
 
No, Einstein, the whole point of Kelly's presentation was to illustrate what will doubtlessly be the defense presented for Dr. Tiller's killer.  
 
THAT is the context for bringing up the old charges against Tiller.
 
As for the other, that Dr. Tiller did practice the sort of abortions that though legal, are "out of the mainstream" is established fact. As Kelly said, ANY qualified MD can and will perform a late term abortion if the mother's physical life is in danger. They can do that in ANY state of the union. What made Dr. Tiller unique and "one of four" was his willingness to perform them under the aegis of a LEGAL interpretation that defines "life" to include the mother's psychological status. Performing late term abortions for that sort of reason is NOT common practice.
 
Kelly's guests included a man who argued the case from the point of view that she predicts will be the murderer's defense, and included a woman who rebutted those arguments. Kelly's summation at the end was captioned in LARGE LETTERS as her "OPINION".
 
Now you've been guilty of quoting Kelly erroneously and of abridging her comments. Johnny has illustrated that with the video.  
 
So in the process of being proved careless (and that's the kindest interpretation of it) in relating the words of others, and obtuse in grasping the context of both Dr. Tiller's practice and the Kelly's Court segment, I would have thought even you would have at least stopped short at doing the very thing you've accused Kelly of doing, in your attempt to smear us as extremist by linking us with a murderer.  
 
Evidently, it's not enough for you to to show yourself untrustworthy, dense, and possessing the gravitas of a teenager.
 
You simply had to go show yourself to be absolutely shameless as well.
June 8, 2009, 4:33:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
BTW, Marky, you and your acolytes do seem to take pride in the intellectual level of your blog. Certainly nothing prurient here - as opposed to the decadence over at News Hounds. However, I did note that on one of your threads, there was some banter about wheter a red headed Fox pundit's "carpet " matched the "drapes." Getting a bit kinky, aren't we!
Priscilla | 06.08.09 - 3:09 pm | #  
 
Just one more example of the cement block for brains mentality previously illustrated in the "lying"as defined as any statement she doesn't believe, regardless of its context. The occasional risque' joke among adults here, is the equivalent of all the cascade of filth ala Patrick and Claudo.
June 8, 2009, 4:46:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
"You just said that you "hate Fox News. Then you said you didn't understand why someone would "hate" Fox News."
 
No I didn't. Yes to the former, no to the latter. How did you get that out of what I said?
Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.08.09 - 1:36 pm | #  
 
sigh...
 
Because it's illogical for you to say that someone hating something is understandable, but conversely, someone loving that same thing, is unfathomable.
 
If you're not a News Hounder, I recommend them. You'll fit in well there.
June 8, 2009, 4:53:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Cecelia | 06.08.09 - 4:38 pm | #  
 
CotD.
 
But after reading it a second time...
 
CotM
 
Absolutely.
June 8, 2009, 5:30:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jamie in Las Vegas
I guess what I'm getting at is that FOX "News" is unique among cable news channels for having a legion of "fans." That's bizarre for a news channel. MSNBC does not have an equivalent to a "FOX Fan" nor does it have a base of defenders against "MSNBC Haters."
 
I dislike FOX "News" in general, because I do not consider it to be a legitimate news outlet, and is infinitely more biased than they accuse others of being. I think they're dangerous if they go unchallenged. So, I will speak out against them on my blog and elsewhere.  
 
What I can't quite grasp is what would motivate a person to care enough to DEFEND not just, say, Bill O'Reilly out of fandom, but the entire network. Why on earth would you care if I don't like FOX? I'm motivated by what I see as a problem. What motivates a "FOX Fan?" Just the fun of arguing?
 
I can't get behind the mindset of "Yayyy! Fox wins the ratings again!" I guess it must be like sports fandom, and I don't like sports either. Anyway, whatever. As you were.
June 8, 2009, 5:37:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Ashley, thank you!
June 8, 2009, 5:44:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> FOX "News" is unique among cable news channels for having a legion of "fans." That's bizarre for a news channel. MSNBC does not have an equivalent to a "FOX Fan"  
 
Really? I can think of two CNN fan sites off the top of my head, and a very active MSNBC fan site in the MSN discussion area. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
 
> Why on earth would you care if I don't like FOX?
 
I couldn't care less whether you or anyone else doesn't like Fox. But I do take exception to people who have to lie about Fox to convince people how eeevil it is. If it's as bad as the haters say it is, I just don't understand why it is necessary to make up stuff.
June 8, 2009, 6:11:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
MSNBC does not have an equivalent to a "FOX Fan"  
Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.08.09 - 5:42 pm | #  
 
Perhaps you ought to contact this guy, he didn't get your memo.
 
http://twitter.com/MSNBCFAN
June 8, 2009, 6:42:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Greg Gutfeld's lost houseboy
Didn't look very hard, did you, Jamie?
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27405079/
 
7 Maddow Fan sites (advertised on MSNBC's site)
 
http://olbermann.org/ko/
 
http://www.cnnfan.com/
 
If you call this a fan site, isn't News Hounds by the same token a fan site of sorts?
"We Watch Fox News So You Don't Have To"
Awesome, people don't trust anything Fox says, yet are willing to trust a blog with a tagline like that?
June 8, 2009, 7:12:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
"What made Dr. Tiller unique and "one of four" was his willingness to perform them under the aegis of a LEGAL interpretation that defines "life" to include the mother's psychological status. Performing late term abortions for that sort of reason is NOT common practice"
 
Cecelia | 06.08.09 - 4:38 pm  
 
I would be curious as to what you are using as your source for this information as I don't believe that state reporting requirements would include listing why the abortion is obtained. In the case of a late term abortion, there are certain legal requirements (which Tiller followed) but which, again, might not be noted in any statistical data base. But this information would be interesting. Perhaps you have something from Guttmacher, the CDC, or an article from JAMA - and not the tripe that's written by the anti choice zealots. And BTW, Megyn Kelly's premise was valid; i.e. a possible defense strategy for Tiller's killer. Her spin, however, was straight out of the anti choice bible. And spin, like position, is everything, ma cher!
 
I did find this from Newsweek:
 
Are women stretching that physical and mental health clause "to mean almost anything," as McCain put it? Looking at the numbers, it would seem that few women--if any--are doing this. The only cases that would require a woman to get an exemption would be if she needed a late-term abortion. According to Centers for Disease Control statistics, only 1.4 percent of abortions took place after 21 weeks in 2004, the latest year for which data are available.
 
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164301/page/2
 
Megyn's "waaaay out of the mainstream" comment, especially after the "heart wrenching" video of a supposed Tiller "victim", didn't apply to statistical rarity. It was meant to show that Tiller was doing things that weren't appropriate - an opnion not shared by the state of Kansas and the medical community; but held as a sacred cannon of the anti choice cult.
June 8, 2009, 7:17:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I thought the whole "no other network has a fan site" thing has been rehashed several times here.  
 
I know one Fox Fan very well who isn't a "home grown American Christian terrorist". Great made-up term for the what, 1 or 2 cases of it in history?  
 
Tiller's murderer isn't a terrorist, he is a murderer. You could call a murderer a terrorist, but then you're back to square 1 and home base as a NH.  
 
Lying.
June 8, 2009, 8:15:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
I understand why people hate FOX "News". . .I'm one of those people. What I don't understand is why anyone would be moved to defend them.-Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.08.09 - 3:29 am |
 
"Hate" is such a strong word. I don't understand why anyone would "hate" a cable news channel. Speaking only for myself, though it is my opinion that I'm not alone, what I find being defended here is the truth, as is clearly stated at the top, "Your source for the truth about Fox News, with exclusive videos and the latest cable news links!"
 
(tbc)
June 8, 2009, 9:48:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jamie in Las Vegas
"Really? I can think of two CNN fan sites off the top of my head, and a very active MSNBC fan site in the MSN discussion area. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?"
 
Ahhhh, well I guess you got me. Nope, don't make it up as I go, just honestly never heard of or have seen an "MSNBC Fan" page. I've seen lots of FOX fans and references to FOX haters. So, OK, they exist. I don't get them either.
 
Maddow fans are a different story. I completely understand being a fan of a show, or a personality. Though honestly, I don't quite understand working oneself in a lather in the effort to DEFEND such a personality.
 
Anyway, as I said it is unimportant I guess. Defend away against them danged "FOX Haters." I guess I don't care. I just don't get why you do.
June 8, 2009, 10:04:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
I dislike FOX "News" in general, because I do not consider it to be a legitimate news outlet, and (sic) is infinitely more biased than they accuse others of being. I think they're dangerous if they go unchallenged. So, I will speak out against them on my blog and elsewhere.-Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.08.09 - 5:42 pm | # 
 
I understand how you feel, knowing what little I know about how you perceve the world.
 
You "dislike," or even "hate" FOX News "BECAUSE" you "DO NOT CONSIDER it to be a legitimate news outlet, and (sic) is infinitely more biased than they accuse others of being." 
 
I'm not clear as to what you mean by "a legitimate news outlet," but thanks to the Constitution, your considerations carry all the weight of a gnat's whiskers. Regarding your consideration that FNC "is infinitely more biased than they accuse others of being," EVERY independent study that looked at political media bias came to the opposite conclusion: FOX News is less biased than any other network, broadcast or cable.
 
The press is the ONLY non-governmental group that is guaranteed special protection under the Constitution. As such, they have a special responsibility, often referred to as The Fourth Estate, to be the people's watchdog of the government. If you can find "a legitimate news outlet" that is doing a better job of keeping a watchful eye on the current government than FNC, then God bless ya'.
 
A news organization can be dangerous-dangerous to corrupt politicians, dangerous to law-breaking companies, dangerous to liars and hypocrites and bores, oh my!
 
When FOX News makes a mistake, misquotes, misrepresents or misinforms, I, and I believe others here, point that out. When others distort, misrepresent, misquote or lie outright, about FOX News Channel, or FOX personnel, or commenters, or whomever, I and others here, point that out and will defend the truth.
 
At ease. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
June 8, 2009, 10:41:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ashley
Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.08.09 - 10:09 pm | #
 
Do you hate Osama Bin Laden?
 
If so, do you hate him more or less than you hate Fox News?
June 8, 2009, 10:42:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
"I just don't get why you do." -JiLV
 
This is why you'd make a great NH. Godspeed, JiLV.
June 8, 2009, 10:49:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Damail
'...your blog isn't one of the 100 most influential..."
 
Yawn. Newsbusters is #16, and Michelle Malkin clocks in at #7. Newswoofs squeaks in somewhere in the 80's.
June 9, 2009, 12:52:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
"I think they're dangerous if they go unchallenged."
 
Let me guess...you're an olbermann fan?
June 9, 2009, 1:27:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mark
Isn't it interesting that the newshounds will come to this site and post comments that they don't allow, and delete on their blog?
June 9, 2009, 10:16:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Priscillia,
 
What? You think it takes a medical journal reference to figure out that Dr. Tiller was doing a task that is not widely done, when his clinic has been copiously sited as being only one of four that make this procedure easily available?
 
What good is siting medical journals or news articles, Priscilla, when don't seem to be able to make logical deductions from any references you read.
 
We know that the Supreme Court has ruled that second and third trimester pregnancies may be aborted based upon the health of the mother. We know that "life and health" may be defined as mental health as well as physical and that decisions on both this and viability are placed in the hands of physicians (not legislatures).
 
It's not like other clinics, hospitals, equipped doctor's office, do not have the leeway in the end to do them, regardless of the hassles of scrutiny that any an unfriendly state legislature might try and place.
 
That late term abortions ARE statistically small (when compared with the number of first trimester abortions) only speaks to the fact that it takes a Dr. Tiller...
 
It doesn't take a JAMA article to know that there isn't a obstetrician ANYWHERE who would not be willing that a fetus be aborted if it truly WAS endangering the physical life of its mother. They've have it done in a heart beat.
 
It doesn't take JAMA to know that in THOSE cases there is NO obstacle to having the abortion performed and that such abortions ARE performed all over the country PERIOD.
 
What makes our "only four clinics" special (and worth siting in all the news articles) is to perform late term abortions for reasons women have trouble getting other physicians to go along with.
 
The reasons that physicians won't do particular late term abortions may be because it won't make them very popular in their community (late term abortion doesn't poll well in the majority for a reason you know...), it may place them under the scrutiny of state legislatures, it grabs the attention of protesters (and worse), it violates their individual code of ethics.
 
ALL logical reasons that show the procedure to be unpopular and controversial-- outside of the norm with the vox populi.
 
To buck all that is to be on the extreme from majority opinion, regardless of anyone's personal opinion of the necessity and validity of the service performed. That characterization was perfectly logical of Megyn Kelly to make.
June 9, 2009, 11:20:59 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Vegas, 
 
That's some argument you've got there.
 
What you feel towards FOX makes sense-- is understandable and therefore shouldn't be questioned by anyone here, conversely what FNC fans feel IS questionable and makes it okay for you to pop in here and question everyone else.
 
Nice reasoning there... You've certainly given...eh.... YOURSELF... every benefit of the doubt...
June 9, 2009, 11:25:51 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Jamie in Las Vegas
Coming here is always a little bizarre. The comments that ensue come from a totally different place than I expect, rendering arguing. . .baffling.
 
You guys around here probably hate MSNBC (or dislike it a lot), right? I can get that. I don't much like to watch Spike TV, or LifeTime either. I don't like FOX News. So, all of that I get.
 
I can see being a big Rachel Maddow fan, or (shudder) Sean Hannity fan, and being vocal if you feel they're unfairly attacked.
 
But being a "FOX Fan" (or for me, heretofore unheard of "MSNBC Fan") seems weird to me, like those people who will buy anything and everything from Hallmark. I don't know what motivates a person to champion a corporate entity. Or for them to deny that there would be any conceivable reason for someone to dislike that entity.
 
I didn't actually think my thought would create much of any stir, and I'm not really trying to make one now. And for all the back-and-forth, nobody's really said why they're a "FOX Fan," which was the only thing I was really wondering about.
 
But it doesn't matter! You exist, OK I don't have to "get it."
June 9, 2009, 1:43:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
"ALL logical reasons that show the procedure to be unpopular and controversial-- outside of the norm with the vox populi"
Cecelia | 06.09.09 - 11:25 am
 
Late term abortions are legal, with limitations, in 36 states so "outside the mainstream" - not so much. Tiller's surgical practices were no different from those performed, as you note, in hospitals. But as he operated a clinic, accessed by those without the means to have a nice, quiet abortion in a hospital setting, he was the target of radical anti abortionists who sought to shut him down - and they did. What he did was fully legal - despite "vox populi" which forms the basis for legislation that, in the case of Kansas, allowed late term abortion. Apart from the braying and praying of the "right to life" groups, late term abortion is not an issue in many areas of the country. Thus, if Kelly were identifying it as "out of the mainstream," she was referring to a specific socio-religious subset. Here's her quote: "Dr. Tiller’s abortion practices were waaay outside the mainstream by any“standards.” The key word here is "practices." And in 36 states, this "practice" is done by doctors who have the protection of a hospital. Sadly, there are areas of the country (red states) where there are few doctors who perform routine abortions; but that doesn't mean that those who do are "waaaay out of the mainstream." Once again, I congratulate you on defending "right to life" propaganda - just like Megyn Kelly whose spin on this issue, like Bill O'Reilly's, is sure to warm the cockles of the Fox anti choice audience. 
 
And:
"The reasons that physicians won't do particular late term abortions may be because it won't make them very popular in their community"
 
Right, they and their family/property are at risk from anti abortion terrorists who truly are "outside the mainstream."
June 9, 2009, 2:21:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Priscilla
One more thing, Cecelia. If the "vox populi" were more educated about the medical reasons for late term abortions, perhaps they wouldn't be so adverse to them. And thanks to Fox News, they will remain unenlightened. But then it's easier to sell wedge issue zealotry than science!
June 9, 2009, 2:28:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.09.09 - 1:48 pm | #
 
Why don't you address some questions asked of you?
June 9, 2009, 3:02:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Jamie-
I don’t know if your intention was to be sincere about this subject, or to just stir up trouble… but from reading your posts, I’d like to believe you were being sincere. You must understand, of course, that there are so many people who irrationally hate FOX News and hate all their personalities, that the folks around here can be a little tender when someone starts in with their criticism. Very few people stop by J$ to “talk” when they dislike FOX… only to complain, insult, mock, and get angry when people prove their wild accusations false.
 
Anyway, to answer you question… people can like FOX (or any other network) for a variety of reasons: they like the talent, they like the presentation, they style, the slant, etc. Often, if you someone can find a few people or programs they like, they can grab onto the whole network. For example, someone who likes watching America’s Newsroom in the morning, Special Report in the evening, and The Factor and Hannity at night, can grab onto the whole network, because they feel they like a lot of their programming.
 
This isn’t necessarily unique to news channels… the same can be said for other channels: I like the Food Network because I watch Rachel Ray, Emeril, Alton Brown, and Iron Chef; I like Nickelodeon because I watch Sponge Bob, Sponge Bob, and Sponge Bob. It’s not necessarily the corporation (although that can be applauded to… management style, corporate approach, customer interface, etc.), but enough programming time to make the “fan” feel that it’s more than just a few shows, it’s the network as a whole.
 
This isn’t even unique to television… the same can be said for food brands, computer brands, or even styles of music. I can proudly say that “I like classic rock,” but to be perfectly honest, I don’t like every artist or every song… but I’ll defend classic rock against people who say “techno is the best.”
June 9, 2009, 3:11:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
That's some argument you've got there.
 
What you feel towards FOX makes sense-- is understandable and therefore shouldn't be questioned by anyone here, conversely what FNC fans feel IS questionable and makes it okay for you to pop in here and question everyone else
 
Nice reasoning there... You've certainly given...eh.... YOURSELF... every benefit of the doubt...
 
Cecelia | 06.09.09 - 11:30 am | # 
 
One thing about this place that I find odd, is that every opinion by an alternative view is taken not only an argument, but as an attack.
 
I don't see where Vegas really made an argument of any kind . She apparently thinks that love of fox or msnbc even, makes no sense, stated her opinion and asked why those on this blog care enough to defend fox. 
 
Instead of responding with why you like fox and why you are here, or not responding at all, you respond with anger and even a bit of an attack. How dare she come into a free an open blog and not express undying devotion to fox news. 
 
Also I find the rage bizarre, in that it is often so inaccurate. Where for example, did she say it was not okay to question her reasoning in not liking fox? She didn’t. An yet you attribute that argument to her as evidence of contradictions. 
 
She said she doesn't like fox, and it doesn't make sense to her why you would spend time to defend it. 
 
I have to fess up to the fact that I actually thought Johnny Dollar's reply made sense. Basically, arguing, that one's opinion on fox was one's purgative, and that he only objects to what he sees as falsehoods. the reply makes sense in that it is a contextual response. not a response to things the poster never said or even implied.
June 9, 2009, 3:39:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Actually, Priscilla, the phrase "scope of practice" includes medical decision making by the physician. 
 
The Supreme Court has left questions of viability and medical necessity up to the individual physician, which means that such issues are naturally part and parcel with the procedure, just as medical decision making is ALWAYS part and parcel of every other medical art.
 
Vox populi and its influence on legislatures didn't set the parameters for late term abortions. The Supreme Court did.
 
That Dr. Tiller's clinic was only one of four that offers late term abortions, when as you say, late term abortions are performed and ARE legal in every state of the union, means that the physicians in these clinics were willing to define medical necessity more broadly than is the norm among who practice this type of medicine.
 
It's irrelevant why YOU think the public regards late term abortion as unsavory in cases that define "medical necessity" as something outside the parameter of catastrophic physical consequences to the mother. 
 
That they do, and that there are four rather than fifty such clinics like Dr. Tiller's in the USA, justifies Kelly's characterization of Dr. Tiller's practice, regardless of the legality of the procedure, your own feelings about the reasons why this is so, and your feelings about Tiller's caliber of service.
June 9, 2009, 3:48:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
But then it's easier to sell wedge issue zealotry than science!
Priscilla | 06.09.09 - 2:33 pm | # 
 
Isn't it pretty for you to think so....
 
The science practiced in neonatal units sells itself.
June 9, 2009, 3:50:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
But it doesn't matter! You exist, OK I don't have to "get it."
Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.09.09 - 1:48 pm | # 
 
Now we're seeing eye-to-eye...
June 9, 2009, 3:54:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
BTW-- has anyone seen ANY cable channel "educating its viewers" on the medical reasons for late term abortions having to do with the mental health/life of the mother?
June 9, 2009, 3:56:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
She said she doesn't like fox, and it doesn't make sense to her why you would spend time to defend it.
 
shizzle | 06.09.09 - 3:44 pm | #
 
Actually, Vegas flatly stated (let alone implied) that while it made sense for her to dislike Fox News Channel for various reasons that she mentions, it makes no sense to her that anyone would defend a network -- a "corporate" entity-- rather than just defending the individual talent appearing on the network.
 
That's a bit different from your formulation of her remarks.
June 9, 2009, 4:25:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply


cee
"The science practiced in neonatal units sells itself."
 
Now that comment is a keeper.
 
Science is an amazing thing and since "health of the mother" is such an exact, "scientific" entity, I suppose the debate over the application and ethics of some procedures, like those done by Dr. Tiller, could be deemed as unnecessary.
 
I can assure the readers here that my community's respected OB/GYN colleagues do not take display a supercilious attitude towards such procedures as Priscilla would imagine.
 
Good, objective coverage of this heart-breaking issue would get such broad opinion but the left seems happy taking the ignorant, intolerant and arrogant position of the pro-choice zealots.
June 9, 2009, 4:26:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
"Actually, Vegas flatly stated (let alone implied) that while it made sense for her to dislike Fox News Channel for various reasons that she mentions, it makes no sense to her that anyone would defend a network -- a "corporate" entity-- rather than just defending the individual talent appearing on the network.
 
That's a bit different from your formulation of her remarks."
 
No it is not. First of all she never said as you claim, it makes sense to dislike fox. she said she understood those who did not, and stated she did not. 
 
She did not however, present her statement as objective truth as you charactorize it, but rather she put it forth as her subjective viewpoint. Saying she "stated it flatly", is inaccurate.
 
Nor did she come right out and say it makes no sense to dislike Fox as you claim she said.
 
She said she does not understand what motivates a person to defend fox. Again the crucial difference being between, presenting something as though it were objective truth, versus presenting something as a subjective viewpoint.
 
Basically for reasons I don't quite get, you seem to have extrapolated a person not liking fox, as meaning you are stupid for doing so.
June 9, 2009, 5:32:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Basically for reasons I don't quite get, you seem to have extrapolated a person not liking fox, as meaning you are stupid for doing so.
shizzle | 06.09.09 - 5:37 pm |
 
Really? You don't understand why? Really?
 
With Newshounds, KOS, MSNBC, about a billion blue-blue bloggers, and another million "objective" journalists and media people all stacked up AGAINST FNC... you're surprised that FNC fans might be a little defensive? Really?
 
When the people with some pretty loud voices all seem stacked against you, and when no lie, half truth, or smear is too good for them to publish... perhaps we've earned the right to be a little skeptical now and then.
 
When Newshounds starts allowing dissenting opinions, perhaps we won't be so testy towards an admitted hater. That said, Vegas seems to want to have a legit discussion… and that’s fine and welcomed. However, that puts her at odds with most of the other haters who frequent this site. Wouldn’t you agree?
June 9, 2009, 6:12:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
My describing Vegas as having frankly stated her opinion is NOT an accusation that she believed she wasn't stating something subjective, but rather proclaiming objective "truth". One can "flatly" state something that is sheer opinion, as well as anything else.
 
Again, Vegas said more than merely "I don't like FNC and I can't immediately ascertain why anyone else would" or "I think FNC sucks, you don't think they suck. Why?", as your formulation suggested.
 
What SHE said was that it's "bizarre" and "weird" to be a fan of .... to "champion a corporate entity" rather than an individual and to 'defend Murdoch'. And that she found it puzzling to do this by "denying" that there could be "any conceivable reason for someone to dislike that entity."
 
SHE formulated her premise of our being fans of a "corporate entity" rather than fans of tv news celebrities, because otherwise the discussion WOULD have been of the "I can't understand why you like broccoli (Megyn Kelly)" vs. "I can't fathom why you love turnips (Tamron Hall)" variety. And THAT formulation would have made our thinking a bit less bizarre and weird... THAT would have been an even playing field -- all a matter of opinion.
 
Now, if you would have reacted in a manner less defensive at being treated thusly, good for you. However, seeing as to how you think she's been treated brusquely after having trotted in and laid several less than flattering assumptions at our feet, my guess is you wouldn't have behaved any differently had it all been suggested of you.
June 9, 2009, 6:33:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
vegas finds it odd we "defend Fox" and I find it odd schnitzel defends vegas! :lol:
June 9, 2009, 6:43:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jamie in Las Vegas
OK, first I'm a guy, not a girl. Second, I tired of this discussion quite a while ago.
 
You guys go right ahead and slobber on FOX and slay anyone who doesn't. I'll sit back and QUIETLY ponder to my self your motivations, and not bring them to your attention again.
 
Every once in a while, I dip a toe in this site, and every time, I'm feasted on by sharks. I wasn't even trying to be provocative. Bored now.
 
I'll close by saying FOX News is neither fair, nor balanced. Discuss. . .
 
See you in a few months.
June 9, 2009, 7:17:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzel
“Again, Vegas said more than merely "I don't like FNC and I can't immediately ascertain why anyone else would" or "I think FNC sucks, you don't think they suck. Why?", as your formulation suggested.”
 
That is exactly what she said. Exactly as I formented it. Here is the quote:
 
“I understand why people hate FOX "News". . .I'm one of those people. What I don't understand is why anyone would be moved to defend them. Individual programs or personalities, perhaps, but a corporate entity?”
 
“What SHE said was that it's "bizarre" and "weird" to be a fan of .... to "champion a corporate entity" rather than an individual and to 'defend Murdoch'. And that she found it puzzling to do this by "denying" that there could be "any conceivable reason for someone to dislike that entity."
 
I do agree she said that it is bizarre for fox to have a site dedicated to it and she doesn’t understand how anyone could think it is so odd that someone would dislike fox.
 
“SHE formulated her premise of our being fans of a "corporate entity" rather than fans of tv news celebrities, because otherwise the discussion WOULD have been of the "I can't understand why you like broccoli (Megyn Kelly)" vs. "I can't fathom why you love turnips (Tamron Hall)" variety. And THAT formulation would have made our thinking a bit less bizarre and weird... THAT would have been an even playing field -- all a matter of opinion.”
 
Well This is a site dedicated to defending fox, a corporation, and she thinks that is odd. I don’t think that is all that insulting. It seems you are taking the comment to mean that as a member of the site you are bizarre. If this is an insult directed at you Then virtually everyone who has posted has insulted me and probably Vegas as well.. 
 
“Now, if you would have reacted in a manner less defensive at being treated thusly, good for you. However, seeing as to how you think she's been treated brusquely after having trotted in and laid several less than flattering assumptions at our feet, my guess is you wouldn't have behaved any differently had it all been suggested of you.”
 
Well by the standard you are using Cee has called me arrogant, intolerant, and ignorant. I have not responded angrily. Anyway, I think I’m gonna call it a day. 
 
Best
June 9, 2009, 7:41:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzel
OK, first I'm a guy, not a girl. Second, I tired of this discussion quite a while ago.
 
My bad.
June 9, 2009, 7:42:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
My apologies for assuming you were a "she." No offense was intended.
 
I would, however, care to hear you respond to MY comment about why people are fans of FOX as a corporation... if you are still around, that is.
June 9, 2009, 7:58:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzel
"When Newshounds starts allowing dissenting opinions, perhaps we won't be so testy towards an admitted hater. That said, Vegas seems to want to have a legit discussion… and that’s fine and welcomed. However, that puts her at odds with most of the other haters who frequent this site. Wouldn’t you agree?"
 
I have no idea what news hounds does. I read the site on occasion, but I have only posted there once, I think. However, if they are not allowing dissenting opinions, is it your goal to emmulate them? 
 
When someone voices an opposing opinion in an attempt to have a real discussion are you honestly saying that that one should expect an attack from you because there are lots of blue blogs that don't like fox? That is like me justifying the beating of a conservative because George Bush ordered bombings that killed children. They are unrelated.
 
Oh and I might add it is not like you are alone. You have fox news, half the media, wizbangblog, newsbusters, this site, olby watch, red-state and so many others defending fox and attacking MSNBC. I don't buy that that gives me the right to call you Hitler for disagreeing with me on a blog like say crooks and liars.
 
Anyway. I don't think you are going to change your mind. So, I'm going to go do some other stuff for a while.
June 9, 2009, 8:01:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Richard
But Jamie...we will miss your great insight about a News network you must not watch.
 
Fox News IS.....Fair
Fox News IS Balanced
 
and best of all....FOX NEWS IS #1.......MSDNC.....not so much!
June 9, 2009, 8:25:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I didn't see anyone try to call you Hitler, sniz. You are flat-out demonstrably wrong if you think half the media is red. You probably also aren't familiar with the many studies that prove FNC as being the most fair and balanced in terms of programming and viewership (more dems watch FNC than any other cable news!).
 
That said, I think you have gone above and beyond in your comments today to explain your views in a fairly civil manner. Vegas, not so much. 
 
Cheers to all on both sides, unless you're rooting for the Penguins tonight!
June 9, 2009, 9:22:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
"Well This is a site dedicated to defending fox, a corporation, and she thinks that is odd. I don’t think that is all that insulting. It seems you are taking the comment to mean that as a member of the site you are bizarre. If this is an insult directed at you Then virtually everyone who has posted has insulted me and probably Vegas as well.."
 
Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say Vegas was merely saying "I don't like FNC. You do. Why?" AND also admit that he had had indeed argued that being fans of a cable channel constitutes a "bizarre" and "weird" form of corporate cheerleading. 
 
Thanks very much for finally coming around to THAT reality. Whether or not you agree with Vegas' summation or whether you would or we should find THAT assumption insulting, is immaterial to the fact that you had mischaracterized Vegas' statements as being less complex than they were.
 
Putting aside the faulty premise, that being a fan of a "corporate entity" [FNC] is somehow bizarre and unusual in the way that hating a corporate entity is not, if you go back and read, you'll find there were no insults issued to Vegas that were more inflammatory than his assumptions about weirdness or bizarre behavior or our "denying that there could be any conceivable reason" for someone to dislike a corporate entity [FNC...].
 
I don't give a damn that Vegas is an FNC anti-fan. What I object to is his wish to suggest that fans of the network are something more (or less, really...) than HIS mirror image. Whether THAT is phrased as an opinion or couched in a question, it's reasonable that it would bring skepticism of his motives and a hardy defense.
 
Perhaps truly being cordial and truly being well-intended would be for both you and Vegas to honestly admit to something as basic as THAT.
June 9, 2009, 9:26:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
"However, if they are not allowing dissenting opinions, is it your goal to emmulate [sic] them?"
 
No, they do not allow dissent... they simply delete the comments. J$ only deletes comments (or portions of comments) when they violate the rules of the site... not when they disagree. There's a difference between "not allowing dissent" and "reacting to dissent."
 
"When someone voices an opposing opinion in an attempt to have a real discussion are you honestly saying that that one should expect an attack from you because there are lots of blue blogs that don't like fox?"
 
First off... no, not from me... and I challenge you to point out where I did that. But, speaking on behalf of whomever I feel like... you must understand that very rarely on THIS WEBSITE are there people who dissent calmly, clearly, and without resulting to "FOX News is a bunch of terrorists" screeching. So forgive us if the one person who happened along here in who knows how long, who happened to talk about how much hated FOX, but wanted to have a real conversation about WHY people liked a corporation. Of course the question was somewhat of an attack too... but I'll pretend like I didn't recognize it, and say that Vegas was just trying to "dialogue."
 
Is it right? Meh... probably not. Is it understandable... absolutely. Fool me once, and so on.
 
"That is like me justifying the beating of a conservative because George Bush ordered bombings that killed children."
 
So you DO read the blue-blogs... which have said pretty much this exactly... in addition to, of course, murdering FNC talent and personnel.
 
"Oh and I might add it is not like you are alone. You have fox news, half the media..."
 
Half the media? HALF?! What parallel universe do YOU live in, and how do I get there? What "half" are you talking about?
 
"I don't buy that that gives me the right to call you Hitler for disagreeing with me on a blog like say crooks and liars."
 
Me either.
 
"Anyway. I don't think you are going to change your mind."
 
Maybe... maybe not. But honestly, are you going to change yours?
June 9, 2009, 9:32:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Oh and I might add it is not like you are alone. You have fox news, half the media, wizbangblog, newsbusters, this site, olby watch, red-state and so many others defending fox and attacking MSNBC. I don't buy that that gives me the right to call you Hitler for disagreeing with me on a blog like say crooks and liars.
 
Shizzel | 06.09.09 - 8:06 pm | # 
 
Going a bit over board, aren't we...
 
No one here called Vegas anything resembling "Hitler". The worst that was said is that his reasoning is of News Hounds caliber.
 
And yes, it makes perfect sense to bring up anti-FNC sentiment both here via pop-in FNC haters AND the web at large in the context of a discussion where Vegas has asked "why" someone would be what he suggests is, at bottom, a corporate cheerleader.
 
Blue rationally answers Vegas' question -- why do you weirdly go to bat for a corporation.
June 9, 2009, 9:44:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
>Half the media? HALF?! What parallel universe do YOU live in, and how do I get there? What "half" are you talking about?
 
me:You are flat-out demonstrably wrong if you think half the media is red. You probably also aren't familiar with the many studies that prove FNC as being the most fair and balanced in terms of programming and viewership (more dems watch FNC than any other cable news!).
 
>Me either.
 
me:I didn't see anyone try to call you Hitler, sniz.
 
Hah! Excellent points, INB! 
June 9, 2009, 10:07:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzle
"Going a bit over board, aren't we...
 
No one here called Vegas anything resembling "Hitler". The worst that was said is that his reasoning is of News Hounds caliber."
 
Well there was a little bit worse for example this:
 
"Do you hate Osama Bin Laden?
 
If so, do you hate him more or less than you hate Fox News?
ashley | 06.08.09 - 10:47 pm | # "
 
However, certianly neither you nor blue engaged in any name calling at all. I don't even think the above is all that bad, but it is quick on the trigger.
 
Blue, you and Cecelia, brought up some good points that are worth responding to. I am short on time right now so I might not be able get to them today, but I'll try later.
June 9, 2009, 10:19:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Did vegas ever address or mention if it was "weird" to have an anti-Fox site or was he only concerned about it being "weird" to have a "pro" Fox site:?: Just curious.
June 9, 2009, 11:05:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jamie in Las Vegas
"But Jamie...we will miss your great insight about a News network you must not watch.
 
Fox News IS.....Fair
Fox News IS Balanced"
 
I do watch it, though not as much as I used to. I don't believe in its fairness nor its balance. The pro-conservative bias is always in evidence--on the occasions I have watched. Any mention of the current president is practically met with a sneer by the host(s).
 
I'm going back to "lurk" mode, not going away from reading. I find this site highly entertaining, even if my arguing skills tend to get thwarted here. And only here.
 
I've been a participant in online discussions since way back when we didn't know what the internet was. But I'll be honest. Only here at J$ and at OlbermannWatch have I been met by counter-arguments that scramble my brain.
 
I don't believe that I've been "defeated" exactly, only confused. I'll make a statement, only to have it pounced upon from a direction I didn't see coming. Maybe that is defeat, I don't know.
 
But it is telling that most "FOX Fans" are conservative. That "fair and balanced" thing seems kind of odd when none of the counter-arguments or defenses come from a liberal.
 
Seemingly. Once again, if I'd left that statement alone, I'd be assailed by the lone arguement from a liberal "FOX Fan." 
 
You need armor around here, huh?
 
I'll close with this observation. Not all news stories require balance. Cold-blooded murder is wrong. There isn't an opposite view. Attacking a defensless kitten or beating a woman is wrong. No opposite view is necessary. Gravity happens, there is no counterpoint. But cable news often feels the need to present balance in EVERY news story. Congressman X says "blah." Congresswoman Y says "blah." You decide.
 
Such balance often equals lousy reporting when objective facts are present. MSNBC and CNN are guilty of this sort of news presentation. So is FOX, though they are often tilted quite far to the right.
 
Back to my original point, from a personal perspective. I am a fan of Olbermann and Maddow. I don't always agree with either of them, and both have their faults. But I wouldn't take it upon myself to defend either of them as a "fan," unless I thought somebody was being profoundly unfair. And I wouldn't spend much time defending their network at all.
 
I just wondered--in my original post--why people feel the need to leap to the defense of FOX News at every and any criticism.
June 10, 2009, 2:08:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
"Do you hate Osama Bin Laden?
 
If so, do you hate him more or less than you hate Fox News?
ashley | 06.08.09 - 10:47 pm | # "
 
However, certianly neither you nor blue engaged in any name calling at all. I don't even think the above is all that bad, but it is quick on the trigger.
 
Blue, you and Cecelia, brought up some good points that are worth responding to. I am short on time right now so I might not be able get to them today, but I'll try later.
Shizzle | 06.09.09 - 10:24 pm | # 
 
Oh, please. Vegas had made a distinction between what he says is the understandable (to him) hatred of FNC (for the reasons he mentioned) from what he felt was puzzling "rah rah" fan devotion of the cable channel.
 
That using a strong term like "hate" (we HATE terrorists and injustice, etc.) for network is arguably no different from Vegas' characterizations of our feelings, was the point.
 
In a discussion where someone has made the point that aversion to something is understandable for a list of reasons, but allegiance to that same thing carries with it a puzzling emotionalism better suited towards people rather than corporations, Ashley's was an apt point, that had NOTHING to do with questioning Vegas' national allegiance.
June 10, 2009, 9:02:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Back to my original point, from a personal perspective. I am a fan of Olbermann and Maddow. I don't always agree with either unless I thought somebody was being profoundly unfair. And I wouldn't spend much time defending their network at all.
 
I just wondered--in my original post--why people feel the need to leap to the defense of FOX News at every and any criticism.
Jamie in Las Vegas | Homepage | 06.10.09 - 2:13 am | # 6
 
Frankly, Jamie, you don't "wonder" about our feelings. You wish to make a point that FNC fans defend FNC and even Rupert Murdoch...because unlike other cable outlets, the corporation and its on-air staff and programming is inveterately and institutionally conservative through and through. That FNC is this where other cable channels only have particular INDIVIDUALS who are ideological.
 
THAT is the point you wish to make.
 
If it was not then you'd have no trouble extending to us the same sort of motives you apply to yourself when it comes to mounting a defense against "profoundly unfair" criticism. You'd say, I don't think FNC is unfairly criticized, but they do--- rather than your making a point that what you see as our advocacy is something weirdly above and beyond the normal feelings that people would hold for individuals rather than news networks.
 
Maybe you don't have the same problems with this sort of stuff at other sites because people just hop into justifying themselves to you rather than calling you on all the premises your "questions" assume.
 
Rather than feeling attacked, you should thank us. Frankly, that's a challenge we here present to you that could only do you some good.
June 10, 2009, 9:22:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
"Only here at J$ and at OlbermannWatch have I been met by counter-arguments that scramble my brain."
 
That's the fun part! And personally, it's why I enjoy when some of the rational haters... or "dislikers" show up, because healthy debate is... um... healthy... if that makes sense.
 
"But it is telling that most "FOX Fans" are conservative. That "fair and balanced" thing seems kind of odd when none of the counter-arguments or defenses come from a liberal."
 
Well... I look at this two ways. One, FOX News has a rather diverse (politically) audience as all studies have shown, but you are probably more correct when you say the "Fans" (as in people who would frequent a site to talk about FOX) are more conservative. But is that really surprising? FNC is the only station who gives equal time and/or a voice to conservatives... so sure, the more involved fans would be more conservative... just as MSNBC has more "fans" who are liberal. I don't think this is all that surprising, really.
 
"You need armor around here, huh?"
 
Commenting on blogs is like playing "DOOM." You're not going to get through it without a healthy dose of body armor. (My apologies for referencing "DOOM," I fell off the video game scene a while ago)
 
"I just wondered--in my original post--why people feel the need to leap to the defense of FOX News at every and any criticism."
 
In short... because 9 times out of 10, a criticism of those people, or the network isn't just an attack on them... it's an attack on the idea they represent, and the people who agree with that idea. So when some loony NH-er attack O'Reilly... he's not really attacking "Bill," he's attacking people who agree with his POV... and that can stir up some pretty strong emotions.
June 10, 2009, 11:06:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
vegas....selective responder.
June 10, 2009, 12:52:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
"Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say Vegas was merely saying "I don't like FNC. You do. Why?" AND also admit that he had had indeed argued that being fans of a cable channel constitutes a "bizarre" and "weird" form of corporate cheerleading. "
 
Uh, why? There is no contradiction at all there. One can acknowledge that he dislikes fox while acknowedging that you like it, all the whle thinking it is bizarre you choose to defend it .There isn't even a hint of a contradiciton in that.. I like beef, my sister hates it. I also think that is bizarre. again no contradiction. 
 
",I please. Vegas had made a distinction between what he says is the understandable (to him) hatred of FNC (for the reasons he mentioned) from what he felt was puzzling "rah rah" fan devotion of the cable channel."
 
I don't see your point. How is this an an attack or even an argument? If it is do you think I should be offended for being characterized as arrogent and intolerent?
 
"Someone has made the point that aversion to something is understandable for a list of reasons, but allegiance to that same thing carries with it a puzzling emotionalism better suited towards people rather than corporations, Ashley's was an apt point, that had NOTHING to do with questioning Vegas' national allegiance."
 
You are saying the point Ashley was trying to make is that there is moral problem in liking a person (Bin Laden) over a corparation (fox news). That could be. Ashley didn't quote him though. So I think we should ask. Ashley if you are reading this, what was point exactly with the Bin Laden reference? 
 
Blue:
 
"In short... because 9 times out of 10, a criticism of those people, or the network isn't just an attack on them... it's an attack on the idea they represent, and the people who agree with that idea. So when some loony NH-er attack O'Reilly... he's not really attacking "Bill," he's attacking people who agree with his POV... "
 
Well sure, and then surely you understand why those on the left would be offended by a post that attacks the ideas the left holds to be true and that in attacking Keith you are attacking people who agree with his POV... 
 
So now what? are we doomed to just feel attacked and is discussion flat out impossible?
June 10, 2009, 1:34:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
"EVERY independent study that looked at political media bias came to the opposite conclusion: FOX News is less biased than any other network, broadcast or cable."
 
Hey Ramjet what studies are those? I'm actually curious btw, I don't mean this to be a "prove it" post. I just want to read some of them. My perception of Fox is one of bias, but I'd be curious to see what the studies you indicate say.
June 10, 2009, 1:37:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
"Uh, why? There is no contradiction at all there. One can acknowledge that he dislikes fox while acknowedging that you like it, all the whle thinking it is bizarre you choose to defend it .There isn't even a hint of a contradiciton in that.. I like beef, my sister hates it. I also think that is bizarre. again no contradiction."
 
And here I thought you had finally grasped that Vegas was NOT merely asking a question based upon the premise that we are his mirror image ("I like beef, my sister hates it" or 'You say tomAto, I say tomAHto...') and I see now that you still have not.
 
So it follows that since you have yet to grasp what Vegas was saying about misplaced "weird" emotionalism (being a cheerleading fan of a corporations, rather than being a fan of an individual 'talent'), you have also failed to understand Ashley's point about "hating" both FNC AND OBL.
June 10, 2009, 2:23:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
So now what? are we doomed to just feel attacked and is discussion flat out impossible?
shizzle | 06.10.09 - 1:39 pm | # 
 
What do you think you've been engaging in?
 
If by your question you are asking if someone like Vegas is going to be able to come here and ask questions based upon illogical premises and not be called on it, yeah, that plan is doomed...
June 10, 2009, 2:29:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Richard
"But it is telling that most "FOX Fans" are conservative. That "fair and balanced" thing seems kind of odd when none of the counter-arguments or defenses come from a liberal."
 
Well here’s a shock for you.....I’m a liberal who voted for Gore....Nader and Obama...in fact I voted for Obama 4 times as I live in IL.....and I love Fox news! It’s the only one where I can get BOTH sides on the news networks and still know I’m getting the truth.
 
Not only Cons watch Fox....in fact every liberal I personally know here watch’s Fox news at least some.......of course we also watch other networks....many love KO on MSNBC. I can’t stand him since I’ve caught him tell lies about things and I find his show dumb not unlike Ed's show.
 
Also I watch Fox News….but rarely shows like O”Rielly….as I can tell the difference between news shows and commentary.
 
I have also seen polls that show Fox get ALL people and not just cons.
June 10, 2009, 3:06:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
"And here I thought you had finally grasped that Vegas was NOT merely asking a question based upon the premise that we are his mirror image ("I like beef, my sister hates it" or 'You say tomAto, I say tomAHto...') and I see now that you still have"
 
Ahh, I see, you say his premise is not what I say( even though his exact quotation backs me up and disproves you) and therefore that makes it a contradtiction. And here I thought a contradiction was an assertion of the opposite. 
 
"So it follows that since you have yet to grasp what Vegas was saying about misplaced "weird" emotionalism (being a cheerleading fan of a corporations, rather than being a fan of an individual 'talent'), you have also failed to understand Ashley's point about "hating" both FNC AND OBL."
 
What point? He asked a question here is how you can tell, at the end of what he wrote he put one of these: "?"
June 10, 2009, 4:41:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
I have also seen polls that show Fox get ALL people and not just cons.
 
Do you happen to know which polls? I am googling for it.
June 10, 2009, 4:52:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Let me save you the trouble:
 
http://tinyurl.com/b2hqln
June 10, 2009, 4:57:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Let me save you the trouble:
 
Thanks I appreciate it.
June 10, 2009, 5:02:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
Hey Ramjet what studies are those?-shizzle | 06.10.09 - 1:42 pm 
 
2003 through 2009 THE STATE OF THE NEWS MEDIA from the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism
~~~~~
 
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. ///snip///
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
 
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
~~~~~~
http://www.journalism.org/node/13437
 
OpEds: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/11/12/fox-news-and-media-bias.html
 
There's more......
June 10, 2009, 5:03:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Cool, I also found this. it's just a link to media watchers and activists. Both the left and right. neither you nor newshounds are on there though. So it might be a bit dated. 
 
http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/media/mediawatch.html
June 10, 2009, 5:09:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Richard
Thanks $ you beat me to it.
June 10, 2009, 5:13:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Shizzle, I said he did not "merely" say what you're saying.
 
I also said that he said something more complex than your formulation.
 
Again, in formulating Vegas' statement as merely being "I hate FNC and think it's weird ya'll like 'em. How come ya'll do?", you've virtually ignored everything more that he said. And you've done this in order to argue that the reaction he received is unjustified.
 
Again, Vegas didn't NOT merely argue that we are JUST his mirror image, the way people who don't like beef are the mirror images of those who do like it. His characterization of our weirdness did NOT solely come from our liking a channel that he thinks sucks, or from our thinking balanced a channel that he believes is not balanced. No, our weirdness comes from defending and being a fan of a "corporate entity" which is which is how he has presumed to define being a fan of FNC.
 
Your formulation of Vegas' comments does not reflect the entirety of what he said and is therefore wrong.
 
I'm sorry you can't grasp that. I'm certainly done repeating it.
June 10, 2009, 5:21:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
What point? He asked a question here is how you can tell, at the end of what he wrote he put one of these: "?"
shizzle | 06.10.09 - 4:46 pm | # 
 
Oh good... So you don't think Ashley was making a point or implying something insulting by his question?...
June 10, 2009, 5:31:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Cecelia | 06.10.09 - 5:36 pm | # 
 
To paraphrase Haggis, your analysis is spot on.
June 10, 2009, 5:56:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Oh good... So you don't think Ashley was making a point or implying something insulting by his question?...
 
I think only Ashley knows. That is why I asked him.
June 10, 2009, 5:59:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Again, Vegas didn't NOT merely argue that we are JUST his mirror image, the way people who don't like beef are the mirror images of those who do like it. His characterization of our weirdness did NOT solely come from our liking a channel that he thinks sucks, or from our thinking balanced a channel that he believes is not balanced. No, our weirdness comes from defending and being a fan of a "corporate entity" which is which is how he has presumed to define being a fan of FNC.
 
I'm sorry but his statement did charecterize you are his mirror image. He dislikes Fox, you like it. He then went on to explain why he found your viewpoint strange. Because Fox is a corparate entity. This in no way way changes the fact than your viewpoints are the converse of each other. 
 
To use the beef analogy again if you like it and I dislike it. this fact is not altered by my saying "I find it stange you like food processed on a corparate farm." And that certainly doesn't contradict the fact that we have alternate views on beef nor does it anyway seem to warrent an angry response.
June 10, 2009, 6:19:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
To paraphrase Haggis, your analysis is spot on.
 
So since you are here and reading this, what was the reason behind your question?
June 10, 2009, 6:19:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
I guess that secret is go with Ashley to his grave.
June 10, 2009, 7:09:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I think only Ashley knows. That is why I asked him.
shizzle | 06.10.09 - 6:04 pm | # 
 
Actually, you had already decided that Ashley statement (complete with question mark...) WAS a shot at Vegas:
 
"Well there was a little bit worse for example this:
 
"Do you hate Osama Bin Laden?
 
If so, do you hate him more or less than you hate Fox News?
ashley | 06.08.09 - 10:47 pm | # "
 
However, certianly neither you nor blue engaged in any name calling at all. I don't even think the above is all that bad, but it is quick on the trigger.
 
Shizzle | 06.09.09 - 10:24 pm | #
June 10, 2009, 7:16:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Actually, you had already decided that Ashley statement (complete with question mark...) WAS a shot at Vegas:
 
And then you offererd an alternative hypothesis which I agreed was possible, and then I asked Ashley for clarification. He has, as of yet, not replied to either inquiry.
June 10, 2009, 7:41:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
To use the beef analogy again if you like it and I dislike it. this fact is not altered by my saying "I find it stange you like food processed on a corparate farm." And that certainly doesn't contradict the fact that we have alternate views on beef nor does it anyway seem to warrent an angry response.
shizzle | 06.10.09 - 6:24 pm | # 
 
Oh really. So if you ever tell me that you like the taste of Pizza Hut pizza and I say I don't and then tell you that your liking it is tantamount to a brooking no criticism corporate cheerleading of PepsiCo, you'll be sure to consider my whole formulation as merely saying that you like Pizza Hut's tangy sauce, but it doesn't happen to suit my taste buds...
 
SURE...
June 10, 2009, 8:00:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
And then you offererd an alternative hypothesis which I agreed was possible, and then I asked Ashley for clarification. He has, as of yet, not replied to either inquiry.
shizzle | 06.10.09 - 7:46 pm | # 
 
Leaving aside that you are unaware that there is a whole genre of what's called the "rhetorical question", seeing as to your earlier assumption about Ashley's meaning, don't you now owe me an apology for the hypocritical little lecture about question marks?
June 10, 2009, 8:04:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I don't see where the confusion is here. Ashley asked a couple of questions, sniz's ego got bruised. Sniz, instead of the brouhaha and begging for sympathy why not just say, "No Ashley, I don't hate Fox News more than Osama." 
 
It's honestly that easy. You could even counter with a question, "So Ashley, do you hate Obama more than Osama?"
 
(no offense Ashley, playing devil's advocate here)
June 10, 2009, 8:20:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzle
"Oh really. So if you ever tell me that you like the taste of Pizza Hut pizza and I say I don't and then tell you that your liking it is tantamount to a brooking no criticism corporate cheerleading of PepsiCo, you'll be sure to consider my whole formulation as merely saying that you like Pizza Hut's tangy sauce, but it doesn't happen to suit my taste buds..."
 
Uh No. I would take your formulation to mean that you do not like pizza hut pizza, because of their corparate policy. which would be the reason you gave. if you had said eating pizza hut pizza was tantamount to eating mushed rotten tomotoes mixed with doggy doo, I might then deduce it had to do with the tangy sauce. However, again this does not matter, where we mirror is that you dislike the pizza and I like it. Reasons for the dislike are irrelevent.
June 10, 2009, 10:02:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzle
"Leaving aside that you are unaware that there is a whole genre of what's called the "rhetorical question", seeing as to your earlier assumption about Ashley's meaning, don't you now owe me an apology for the hypocritical little lecture about question marks?"
 
Actually I'm perfectly aware, there is a whole genre of whats called the "rhetorical question" However you may have noticed, that the last post Vegas wrote before Ashley responded, never mentioned anything about corporations. Nor did Ashley quote what he was responding to. So it is perfectly reasonable to not think he was making the point you seem to claim he is, because in response to vegas’s last post it made no sense. 
 
All I had to go on was what he wrote which he ended with a question mark, and no context at all to show it was rhetorical and about the defense of corporations.
 
So it is logical to assume at that point that he was asking a sincere question. or to wonder if he was hurling an insult.
 
Now since What I wrote about the question mark was in response to you condescendingly claiming I didn't understand what you say was the point Ashley was making (after having said it back and acknowledging it as possible) 
 
Wouldn’t you agree you owe me an apology for condensation instead?
June 10, 2009, 10:32:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Pizza Hut is low quality, just above Little Caesars. I'm sure you take the anti-PH stance with CC and me on that.
 
That "tangy sauce" you describe, I'll pass.
June 10, 2009, 10:42:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
"Wouldn’t you agree you owe me an apology for condensation instead?"
 
CC needs to get herself into my Guiness if she's condensating. More bubbles, please!
June 10, 2009, 10:47:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
Shizzle.
 
1455 1624 7825 16..
June 10, 2009, 11:04:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Uh No. I would take your formulation to mean that you do not like pizza hut pizza, because of their corparate policy. which would be the reason you gave. if you had said eating pizza hut pizza was tantamount to eating mushed rotten tomotoes mixed with doggy doo, I might then deduce it had to do with the tangy sauce. However, again this does not matter, where we mirror is that you dislike the pizza and I like it. Reasons for the dislike are irrelevent.
Shizzle | 06.10.09 - 10:07 pm | # 
 
Uh... the point is that I'd be saying something MORE complex than "where we mirror", and I'd be making some pretty presumptuous characterization of YOU based upon MY particular feelings about a corporate policy.
June 10, 2009, 11:26:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
"No Ashley, I don't hate Fox News more than Osama." 
 
I think there's a reason schnitzel won't answer the question...
June 10, 2009, 11:27:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Now since What I wrote about the question mark was in response to you condescendingly claiming I didn't understand what you say was the point Ashley was making (after having said it back and acknowledging it as possible)
 
Wouldn’t you agree you owe me an apology for condensation instead?
Shizzle | 06.10.09 - 10:37 pm | # 
 
So in other words, you chided me for doing exactly what you had done (coming to a conclusion on what Ashley had meant) only after you felt slighted at being told that your restatement of my conclusions was in error.
 
Nice...
June 10, 2009, 11:47:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Reasons for the dislike are irrelevent.
Shizzle | 06.10.09 - 10:07 pm | #
 
Perhaps you should have said told Vegas that from the outset. 
 
You'd have saved everyone some time...
June 11, 2009, 12:07:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzle
"Uh... the point is that I'd be saying something MORE complex than "where we mirror', "and I'd be making some pretty presumptuous characterization of YOU based upon MY particular feelings about a corporate policy."
 
If you consider puzzlment about vehemntly defending pepsi co because you like their pizza as "presumptious", than you are far to sensitive IMHO. And if that is a negative characterization of you then I should be quite offended by characterizations of me by the regulars here as being arrogent and intolerent. I assume you would defend me if I make a harsh response. 
 
' "No Ashley, I don't hate Fox News more than Osama." 
 
I think there's a reason schnitzel won't answer the question...
Olby Sucks | Homepage | 06.10.09 - 11:32 pm | # '
 
Looks like I'm not the only one who didn't see a rhetorical question right Cecelia? Are you sure that is how Ashley meant it? The other regulars don't seem to think so. 
 
"So in other words, you chided me for doing exactly what you had done (coming to a conclusion on what Ashley had meant) only after you felt slighted at being told that your restatement of my conclusions was in error."
 
Uh, no. I chided you for being condescending. Not for being mistaken. 
 
"Perhaps you should have said told Vegas that from the outset. 
 
You'd have saved everyone some time..."
 
You really missed the point here. It doesn't matter in relation to YOUR point, which was that vegas was not asking a question based upon the premise that you are his mirror image. 
 
The reasons for his saying what he said have nothing to do with whether or not his question was based on the idea that you are his mirror image. 
 
it seems you have lost track of the conversation. Here is what you wrote:
It's what we have been arguing about. 
 
"And here I thought you had finally grasped that Vegas was NOTmerely asking a question based upon the premise that we are his mirror image ("I like beef, my sister hates itor 'You say tomAto, I say tomAHto...') "
June 11, 2009, 12:53:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzle
" I don't see where the confusion is here. Ashley asked a couple of questions, sniz's ego got bruised. Sniz, instead of the brouhaha and begging for sympathy why not just say, "No Ashley, I don't hate Fox News more than Osama.'"
 
Damn, Everyone missed The rhetorical question Cecelia. I told you Ashley should have cut and pasted what vegas wrote, then there wouldn't be all this confusion.
June 11, 2009, 12:57:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzle
The moderator must have went to bed.
June 11, 2009, 1:05:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
That's must have gone to bed.
--Grammar Police
June 11, 2009, 1:18:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Shizzle
That's must have gone to bed.
--Grammar Police
 
I hate it when when I make mistakes like that. I'll endeavor to be more careful.
June 11, 2009, 1:34:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Well. it's unanimous. Schnitzel hates Fox News more than osama!
June 11, 2009, 1:55:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
"You really missed the point here. It doesn't matter in relation to YOUR point, which was that vegas was not asking a question based upon the premise that you are his mirror image.
 
The reasons for his saying what he said have nothing to do with whether or not his question was based on the idea that you are his mirror image."
 
Well, if that's the case then you've belied your entire argument, because my ascertaining why Vegas doesn't like something has been the sole consideration in your book. It's been THE only thing important to your point of saying that I should understand and not be insulted when he projects his particular reasoning onto me.
 
example:
 
If Vegas says he doesn't like Pizza Hut because of their corporate policy, I shouldn't be insulted if he decides that my liking it is not merely a matter of how it TASTES in my opinion, it's a matter of me being a cheerleader for the entire PepsiCo corporation! 
 
To you, it's not important that Vegas has made presumptions and judgments about me that go well BEYOND his saying "you're my mirror image in that you like this particular pizza, I don't". It's only important that I understand where HE is coming from so that I not be insulted when he then asks why I harbor the reasoning that he, himself, had ascribed to me.
 
Now this "logic" of yours, makes the whys and rationales behind Vegas' likes and dislikes important in ANY context. 
 
The argument you have made has been based upon NOTHING else.
June 11, 2009, 2:07:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
" I don't see where the confusion is here. Ashley asked a couple of questions, sniz's ego got bruised. Sniz, instead of the brouhaha and begging for sympathy why not just say, "No Ashley, I don't hate Fox News more than Osama.'"
 
Damn, Everyone missed The rhetorical question Cecelia. I told you Ashley should have cut and pasted what vegas wrote, then there wouldn't be all this confusion.
Shizzle | 06.11.09 - 1:02 am | # 
 
So what do FF's or OS's remarks have to do with your misstating my interpretation of Ashley's comment and then chiding me for something that you had done too, because I told you that you had misstated it?
 
And how do their remarks buttress the notion that Ashley was questioning Vegas' patriotism?
June 11, 2009, 2:16:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
BTW-- let's take it for granted that Ashley was implying that Vegas may hate FNC more than he hates a terrorist.
 
So? It's Ashley's opinion that people who hate FNC think this way.
 
Ashley is an FNC fan. Vegas has said he is one of those people who hates Fox. Therefore based on Ashley's assumptions, he logically asks Vegas if he hates Osama more or less than he hates FNC.
 
Why should Vegas be insulted over this? At bottom, rather than it being Ashley projecting a type of thinking on Vegas that Vegas does not possess ( AND implying a little something about Vegas' character in the process) it's merely a matter of opinions, tastes, druthers...Of Ashley seeking to understand the motivations of someone he views as his mirror-image... 
 
Ashley has issued NOTHING more complex or inflammatory than THAT.
June 11, 2009, 3:48:02 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
You still begging for sympathy sniz? Sheesh, Ashley must have broken rather than bruised that fragile ego.
June 11, 2009, 7:13:26 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
This is my last point on the matter.
 
I PROMISE, folks...  
 
------
 
Vegas said: 
 
"I guess what I'm getting at is that FOX "News" is unique among cable news channels for having a legion of "fans." That's bizarre for a news channel. 
 
MSNBC does not have an equivalent to a 
"FOX Fan" nor does it have a base of defenders against "MSNBC Haters." 
 
"What motivates people to champion Rupert Murdoch?"
 
"I don't know what motivates a person to champion a corporate entity. Or for them to deny that there would be any conceivable reason for someone to dislike that entity."
 
-----------------------------------------------
 
If it is a logical presumption/theory for Vegas to say that being a fan of FNC, and having a blog dedicated to the channel, reveals inordinate brook-no-dissent corporate cheerleading (rather than it being the equivalent of enjoying ABC News programming and news talent; enjoying that network's weeknight
line-up; or having a fan blog dedicated to ABC soaps), THEN:
 
...logical too is Ashley's (supposed for the sake of argument) presumption/theory that Vegas reveals an inordinate emotionalism towards a corporation that most people exhibit towards people-- such as terrorists. 
 
Ashley argues that Vegas reveals this by his repeated negative blogging about FNC at his own blog site and by Vegas going so far as to come to an FNC fan site in order to question (and to characterize) FNC fan tastes. 
 
Thus the "logic" of Ashley's question to Vegas-- "Do you hate him [Osama Bin Laden] more or less than you hate Fox?"
 
Now why in the world should Vegas EVER be offended by Ashley's logical presumptions about the likihood of his being softer on murderers than he is on a cable news channel? 
 
Why would Vegas (or you, Schniz) take the SLIGHTEST issue with Ashley then asking questions predicated on THAT summation? 
 
Why too would anyone presume that Ashley is NOT NOT merely suggesting that Vegas is his (Ashley's) mirror-image in a matter that SOLELY concerns subjective taste? 
 
Why would anyone ever imagine that Ashley has instead projected something far more complex about Vegas' mindset AND his character? Something which puts Vegas on a DIFFERENT playing field than Ashley, rather than on an equally subjective "mirror-image" one?
 
On the contraray to those deductions Schniz, by your arguments, I think it's quite logical that based upon the converse (the "mirror-image") of VEGAS' own criteria (let alone Ashley's criteria...) for what constitutes inordinate emotion towards a corporation, that YOUR own disapproval of 
"Murdoch" (Fox News), reveals an intensity of negativity for a corporation that most people harbor towards evil individuals.
 
With THAT presumption in mind, I'm just sincerely asking you to explain to me what would motivate YOU to have the softer-on-terrorism-than-you-are-towards-a-corporate-entity mindset, that I have ascribed to you.
 
Now why, oh, why.... would anyone take an iota of offense to that?...
June 11, 2009, 12:03:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Well. it's unanimous. Schnitzel hates Fox News more than osama!
Olby Sucks | Homepage | 06.11.09 - 2:00 am | # 
 
See Cecelia  Everyone thinks Ashley was being inflammatory. Thanks for helping me out in the argument OS
June 11, 2009, 12:08:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
You still begging for sympathy sniz? Sheesh, Ashley must have broken rather than bruised that fragile ego.
Fox Fan | Homepage | 06.11.09 - 7:18 am | # 
 
The best part is, how much you have completly missed the point. 
 
Luckily for you you don't mind looking foolish.
June 11, 2009, 12:09:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Well, if that's the case then you've belied your entire argument, because my ascertaining why Vegas doesn't like something has been the sole consideration in your book. It's been THE only thing important to your point of saying that I should understand and not be insulted when he projects his particular reasoning onto me.
 
example:
 
If Vegas says he doesn't like Pizza Hut because of their corporate policy, I shouldn't be insulted if he decides that my liking it is not merely a matter of how it TASTES in my opinion, it's a matter of me being a cheerleader for the entire PepsiCo corporation! 
 
So you are saying I should be offended here at you and the rest of the regulars for the abuse and direct insults that you have hurled at both me and vegas. I think you should apologize for that. 
 
"To you, it's not important that Vegas has made presumptions and judgments about me that go well BEYOND his saying "you're my mirror image in that you like this particular pizza, I don't". It's only important that I understand where HE is coming from so that I not be insulted when he then asks why I harbor the reasoning that he, himself, had ascribed to me."
 
Doesn't matter at all whether you understand where he is coming from. I said it is not important to YOUR argument which you have graciously admitted was flawed that he is not saying he is your mirror. And of course as usual you are adding far more to what he said (I find interesting how much of a reductionist you become when it is your side and how open for interpretation everything is when it comes from another side. ) Vegas said. he said he doesn’t understand why you would defend a corporation. You are the one that assigned a value to the statement that means you are a corporate shill. Maybe he thinks you defending corporations is just weird, because corporations don't have feelings to get hurt. 
 
Now this "logic" of yours, makes the whys and rationales behind Vegas' likes and dislikes important in ANY context. 
 
Actually my logic has been sound. You are the one arguing on the one hand that one can read into what somewhat wrote (vegas) but it is illogical to do so for someone else (Ashley)
 
Fine standards of consistency you got there. As always.
June 11, 2009, 12:24:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
So what do FF's or OS's remarks have to do with your misstating my interpretation of Ashley's comment and then chiding me for something that you had done too, because I told you that you had misstated it?
 
And how do their remarks buttress the notion that Ashley was questioning Vegas' patriotism?
 
Because obviously it isn't clear as OS and FF seem to have drawn the same comclusion I did. (of course it is possible they are just unaware of a thing called the rhetorical question right Cecelia?)
 
And you demonstrated nothing you merely stated your opnion on what he meant. Which given the fact that Ashley didn't quote vegas, and the previous post Vegas wrote had nothing to do with your interpreation, it really makes no sense. Ashley could put it to rest by stating what he meant, even though that won't change the fact that he didn't bother to make it clear to begin with, but he can't be bothered.
June 11, 2009, 12:27:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
See Cecelia Everyone thinks Ashley was being inflammatory. Thanks for helping me out in the argument OS
shizzle | 06.11.09 - 12:13 pm | # 
 
Or was OS making a statement about any illogical assumption that would suggest that by NOT answering a question you are admitting to... something--- anything?
 
example:
 
QUESTION:
 
Ashley, did you mean what I thought that you meant by your question to Vegas?
 
RESPONSE from Ashley:
 
silence
June 11, 2009, 1:00:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
The best part is, how much you have completly missed the point.
 
Luckily for you you don't mind looking foolish.
shizzle | 06.11.09 - 12:14 pm | # 
 
We know by what seems to be FF misunderstanding that Ashley asked YOU "the question", that he missed some of the conversation too.
 
Which begs the question of why you have suggested that FF's response bolsters your assumptions about what Ashley meant by that question (mark?)...
June 11, 2009, 1:07:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
This is my last point on the matter.
 
I PROMISE, folks... 
 
I intend this to be my last as well. 
 
Vegas said: 
 
"I guess what I'm getting at is that FOX "News" is unique among cable news channels for having a legion of "fans." That's bizarre for a news channel. 
 
MSNBC does not have an equivalent to a 
"FOX Fan" nor does it have a base of defenders against "MSNBC Haters." 
 
"What motivates people to champion Rupert Murdoch?"
 
"I don't know what motivates a person to champion a corporate entity. Or for them to deny that there would be any conceivable reason for someone to dislike that entity."
 
-----------------------------------------------
 
"If it is a logical presumption/theory for Vegas to say that being a fan of FNC, and having a blog dedicated to the channel, reveals inordinate brook-no-dissent corporate cheerleading (rather than it being the equivalent of enjoying ABC News programming and news talent; enjoying that network's weeknight"
 
I’m sorry but you are adding meaning that isn't there. First off he never, ever hinted, implied, or claimed you were guilty of "a no-dissent" brand of cheerleading. He doesn't understand why you care to defend a corporation or even Rupert Murdoch. You are attributing to him reasons for his puzzlement (e.g. he wants to call you a corporate shill, but wants to do it in a sneaky underhanded way, so you won’t know you’ve been called a corporate shill.) and you are taking it as a grave an insult as is possible. You also, didn't bother to seek clarification from vegas before being offended. The fact is, he was puzzled about why you would defend Murdoch or a corporation. That is all we know for sure. And there could be a multitude of reasons why this seems odd to him, and yet you automatically assume it is the worst. 
 
“Thus the "logic" of Ashley's question to Vegas—‘Do you hate him [Osama Bin Laden] more or less than you hate Fox?’”
 
Which again makes no sense taken completely in isolation (no quotes of what vegas had written) and taken as possibly a response to the last thing vegas wrote (Which did not fit the above interpretation.) It is of course perfectly natural for one to have missed this possible meaning as Olby Sucks and Fox friend have helpfully proved. 
 
"Now why in the world should Vegas EVER be offended by Ashley's logical presumptions about the likelihood of his being softer on murderers than he is on a cable news channel? "
 
Well he never responded to that one, so I'm not sure how he feels about it. However, when I saw it (Again without referencing what part of what vegas wrote he was responding to, and with his reply making no sense as a response to the previous post Vegas wrote) I assumed it was a typical you love Osama reference that regulars on this site make all the time. As Olby Sucks has again helpfully proved. However, when I read into something, when a possible alternative was pointed out, I asked for clarification, you are just automatically; with full religious zeal assuming you are right. Even if Vegas told you that is not what he meant, you wouldn’t believe him. You would argue that in essence you know what he meant better than he did. 
 
“With THAT presumption in mind, I'm just sincerely asking you to explain to me what would motivate YOU to have the softer-on-terrorism-than-you-are-towards-a- corporate-entity mindset, that I have ascribed to you.’”
 
Well I don’t have a softer-on-terrorism-a-than-a-corporate-entity mindset. So I really don’t feel a need to explain it. Nor do I think Vegas probably does. However, you are automatically assuming vegas’s puzzlement over the defense of a corporation is due to his implying corporate evil, when again it could have a different meaning (as in corporation has no feelings.) Even if one decides that point of view does not make sense to you, Because you see the corporation providing a valuable public service and think attacks that you view as false a hurt its mission, I think you are way jumping the gun in assuming he was assuming you are a corporate shill.. 
 
He expressed his view that he doesn’t like Fox, that you do, but he doesn’t get the defense of a corporation. Some explained to him, why they choose to defend Fox, some ignored it, and in my opinion you got angry prematurely. 
 
Anyway snark aside, we have both spent over a day on this and as neither of us have budged on our views perhaps it is time to move on? Believe it or not, while I do think you are wrong, and at times sarcastic (as I am as well) I do think you are very smart, and I enjoyed debating with you. Keep this quote you can use it next time I imply the opposite.
June 11, 2009, 1:13:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
Or was OS making a statement about any illogical assumption that would suggest that by NOT answering a question you are admitting to... something--- anything?
 
example:
 
QUESTION:
 
Ashley, did you mean what I thought that you meant by your question to Vegas?
 
RESPONSE from Ashley:
 
silence
 
Who claimed that not answering meant you were admitting to something? In a debate between two people about what a third said, If the third doesn't clairify, all it means is that the matter is not settled. it was not put forth as proof of my position.
June 11, 2009, 1:50:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzle
"We know by what seems to be FF misunderstanding that Ashley asked YOU "the question", that he missed some of the conversation too."
 
Or maybe they just misunderstood everyhting they read. That is another possiblity, and one that wouldn't surprise me.
June 11, 2009, 1:52:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Thank you, Shizzle. I think you're smart and I enjoyed arguing this with you too.
June 11, 2009, 2:16:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
shizzle | 06.11.09 - 12:13 pm | # 
 
Please, don't ever put words in my mouth. Since you seem to know vegas so well and have spent days defending him/her, why don't you answer the question :?: 
 
Do you both hate Fox News more than obl :?:
June 11, 2009, 2:53:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
"We know by what seems to be FF misunderstanding that Ashley asked YOU "the question", that he missed some of the conversation too."
 
Or maybe they just misunderstood everything they read. That is another possiblity, and one that wouldn't surprise me.
shizzle | 06.11.09 - 1:57 pm | #
 
------------------
 
Thank you CC, sniz was correct that I thought Ashley's comment was directed at him. As someone who is only home a few hours a day I honestly can't read ALL of the comments. He is also correct that I now feel foolish!
 
I'm glad that CC and sniz kissed and made up. Sniz, I think I've said before that I appreciate your input here. I reserve the right to disagree and I'll occasionally be wrong, but at least I'll admit it when I am.
June 11, 2009, 8:27:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
shizzle | 06.11.09 - 1:57 pm | # 
 
Perhaps I ought to rephrase my original question to the other poster.
 
Here it goes.
 
Do you hate NAMBLA (The national man-boy love association), the association of child predators?
 
If so, do you hate NAMBLA more or less than you hate FNC?
 
I hope that clarifies everything.
June 11, 2009, 8:37:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Ashley | 06.11.09 - 8:42 pm | # 
 
Crystal clear!
June 12, 2009, 12:44:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply