This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Rick Sanchez calls out Fox News lies — Brooklynian

Rick Sanchez calls out Fox News lies

Comments

  • modsquad
    modsquad
    It's an advertisement. I think Rich Sanchez doth protest too much. (with apologies) Nothing like the following:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june03/cnn_4-15.html
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    each day Fox News moves us closer to Idiocracy (a fine film, available via Net Flix.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    modsquad wrote: [quote=whynot_31]each day Fox News moves us closer to Idiocracy (a fine film, available via Net Flix.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
    Speaking of Dumbing down: Linda Chavez
    Dumbing Down Higher Education
    The irony is that the diversity crowd pushing these changes may end up harming the very students they want to help. What good does it do to admit ill-prepared students who then don't graduate? The real problem for many black and Hispanic applicants is that their skills don't measure up — but getting rid of the tests only sweeps the evidence under the rug.

    Dumbing down requirements for admission to the nation's best higher education system helps no one. Worse, it may start a tidal wave to sweep away objective standards in college admissions — and that would be a disaster for the country as well as higher education. The United States has the finest universities in the world. But if we begin to erode excellence by eliminating objective standards for admission, we'll pay for it by destroying the meritocratic system that has served us so well.
    link:
    http://www.creators.com/opinion/linda-chavez/dumbing-down-higher-education.html

    This is totally true, but I don't see the connection with the original story at all, other than the phrase "dumbing down."
  • eggcream
    eggcream
    CABLE NEWS RACE

    Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,039,000
    FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,451,000
    FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
    FOXNEWS GRETA 2,785,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 2,273,000
    FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,201,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,395,000
    MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000
    CNN KING 1,355,000
    CNN COOPER 1,086,000

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    eggcream wrote: CABLE NEWS RACE
    Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,039,000
    FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,451,000
    FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
    FOXNEWS GRETA 2,785,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 2,273,000
    FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,201,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,395,000
    MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000
    CNN KING 1,355,000
    CNN COOPER 1,086,000
    I had no idea so many people were still watching news shows on TV. Makes sense for Fox to be in the lead there, and maybe the last ones standing, as the younger and better educated demographics shift 100% to the internet for news and entertainment.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    doctorj wrote: [quote=eggcream]CABLE NEWS RACE
    Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,039,000
    FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,451,000
    FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
    FOXNEWS GRETA 2,785,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 2,273,000
    FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,201,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,395,000
    MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000
    CNN KING 1,355,000
    CNN COOPER 1,086,000
    I had no idea so many people were still watching news shows on TV. Makes sense for Fox to be in the lead there, and maybe the last ones standing, as the younger and better educated demographics shift 100% to the internet for news and entertainment.

    None of those shows is really a news show. More like political punditry.
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    education stuff now here: http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=632493#632493
  • bohuma
    bohuma
    "Fox" is not a news outlet any more than anything associated with "News Ltd" is a purveyor of news. They are part of a multinational entertainment empire. News, such as it is, is broadcast to be as divisive as possible to ensure a ready audience. Rupert Murdoch cares less about reporting current events than broadcasting controversial opinion pieces that attract enough viewers to ensure regular advertising revenues. I used to think that they were mouthpieces for Rupert's political views, but I no longer think that's true. News does tend to go for the right wing view at the moment, but that's probably because the right is not getting much air time during the current political climate, so Rupert panders to the right to pick up their viewers and the advertisers that go with them.

    All news outlets are about making money, News Ltd. is just a little less subtle.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    My theory is: News Ltd has consistently bungled moves into new media. It's inevitably the more educated and younger who move from old to new media, leaving a more conservative audience with more more money to be made on the right in old media, whether talk radio, tabloid papers, or cable talk shows.

    And to some extent in whichever media it is, there'll always be an arbitrage opportunity between the center-center-left and the far right. Journalistic training is to take a centrist neutral point of view, whereas being educated and exposed to the well-known liberal bias in the facts puts you center-left on average, which leaves a exploitable gap between mainstream media and parroting to a class of frightened less-informed disaffected social conservatives. The gap on the far left would be smaller, younger, smarter, and less monetizable.

    I have to admire Rupert Murdoch though, if only for one thing: renouncing his Australian citizenship.
  • bohuma
    bohuma
    As a legal point, Rupert did not renounce his Australian citizenship, he forfeited it. Under the Australian Citizenship Act at the time (1985) Rupert pledged allegiance to the United States Dollar, adopting another country's citizenship meant you automatically forfeited Australian citizenship. The Australian Citizenship Act was amended in 2002, so that an Australian has to formally renounce citizenship to lose it. An Australian who becomes a US citizen after 2004 does not forfeit Australian citizenship, but could if they wanted renounce it, although neither the US (despite the words in the citizenship oath) nor Australia require it.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    bohuma wrote: Rupert did not renounce his Australian citizenship, he forfeited it. Under the Australian Citizenship Act at the time (1985) Rupert pledged allegiance to the United States
    You're absolutely right. I was using 'renounce' as a sloppy shorthand for forfeit prior to 2004, due to voluntary act of acquiring a different citizenship as an adult. Haven't heard anything about him applying to renew, either.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    doctorj wrote:
    And to some extent in whichever media it is, there'll always be an arbitrage opportunity between the center-center-left and the far right. Journalistic training is to take a centrist neutral point of view, whereas being educated and exposed to the well-known liberal bias in the facts puts you center-left on average, which leaves a exploitable gap between mainstream media and parroting to a class of frightened less-informed disaffected social conservatives. The gap on the far left would be smaller, younger, smarter, and less monetizable.

    Another reason to wish for a viable third party
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    whynot_31 wrote: Another reason to wish for a viable third party
    All but impossible with a winner-take-all first-past-the-post pure representative system.

    Change the electoral system first, so that there's more proportional representation built in, for example via a mixed-member system, and no doubt a viable third and maybe a fourth party will appear (e.g. social+economic conservative; social+economic progressive; social conservative + fiscal progressive; social progressive + fiscal conservative)
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    eggcream wrote: CABLE NEWS RACE

    Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,039,000
    FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,451,000
    FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
    FOXNEWS GRETA 2,785,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 2,273,000
    FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,201,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,395,000
    MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000
    CNN KING 1,355,000
    CNN COOPER 1,086,000

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
    that's like arguing Brittney Spears is a good musician b/c she sells albums.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    bohuma wrote: "Fox" is not a news outlet any more than anything associated with "News Ltd" is a purveyor of news. They are part of a multinational entertainment empire. News, such as it is, is broadcast to be as divisive as possible to ensure a ready audience. Rupert Murdoch cares less about reporting current events than broadcasting controversial opinion pieces that attract enough viewers to ensure regular advertising revenues. I used to think that they were mouthpieces for Rupert's political views, but I no longer think that's true. News does tend to go for the right wing view at the moment, but that's probably because the right is not getting much air time during the current political climate, so Rupert panders to the right to pick up their viewers and the advertisers that go with them.

    All news outlets are about making money, News Ltd. is just a little less subtle.
    what's the old saying? I can either report the news or make a profit, but I can't do both?

    I hate televised news of any stripe.

    hate it.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    doctorj wrote: [quote=whynot_31]Another reason to wish for a viable third party
    All but impossible with a winner-take-all first-past-the-post pure representative system.

    Change the electoral system first, so that there's more proportional representation built in, for example via a mixed-member system, and no doubt a viable third and maybe a fourth party will appear (e.g. social+economic conservative; social+economic progressive; social conservative + fiscal progressive; social progressive + fiscal conservative)

    I'd already thrown out the electoral system in my fantasy.
    The popular vote would determine the election.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    whynot_31 wrote:
    I'd already thrown out the electoral system in my fantasy.
    The popular vote would determine the election.
    Popular vote, ok for president, better if you add instant-runoff. No good for congress.
  • bohuma
    bohuma
    doctorj wrote: [quote=bohuma]Rupert did not renounce his Australian citizenship, he forfeited it. Under the Australian Citizenship Act at the time (1985) Rupert pledged allegiance to the United States
    You're absolutely right. I was using 'renounce' as a sloppy shorthand for forfeit prior to 2004, due to voluntary act of acquiring a different citizenship as an adult. Haven't heard anything about him applying to renew, either.

    Because Rupert forfeited his Australian citizenship, if he wants to return to Australia to live permanently, he can make a declaration to the Minister for Immigration that he wants to resume his Australian citizenship and permanently reside in Australia, and he can get it back. If an Australian renounces their citizenship and they change their minds and want to return, they have to apply to migrate to Australia, which means satisfying the current requirements for migrants - can be difficult. Most countries (including the US) take a very dim view of people renouncing their citizenship or permanent residency and make it very difficult to change their minds. As far as I can tell, Rupe has no desire to return to live in Australia permanently - I guess that 5th Avenue triplex is just too comfortable.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories