House of Eratosthenes

Students in a political science class at West Liberty University were given an assignment recently to keep a “politics journal” in which they would record their reactions to various articles they had selected.

The instructor at the West Virginia public institution included some possible news sources, such as The Economist, BBC, CNN and The Huffington Post. But the instructor also specified that two sources could not be used. One was The Onion, which the assignment notes “is not news” and “is literally a parody.”

The other barred source is the one that got the instructor — Stephanie Wolfe — scrutiny this week. She banned articles from Fox News, writing: “The tagline ‘Fox News’ makes me cringe. Please do not subject me to this biased news station. I would almost rather you print off an article from the Onion.”

Information as a contaminant.

Anti-science.

Don’t have too much more to say after those. Many people walking around among us, who seem to think you’re wiser when you take in less information.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Update: The college president confronts the issue head-on, without ducking it. That’s good to see. Hat tip to Fellowship of the Minds.

You would make poor Stephanie cringe? You meanie.

I was impressed with how well the university president handled it. When was the last time you saw one do that? No crawfishing, no mealy-mouthing, no “I’m sorry if anyone was offended by something that you had no right to object to.” Just: we didn’t have any way of knowing she would do it until she did it, and when we found it we fixed it immediately.
- Texan99 | 02/17/2013 @ 06:40
While Fox News is a highly partisan news source, it certainly met the terms of the assignment, which was to watch or read the news everyday and keep a journal.
- Zachriel | 02/17/2013 @ 07:04
Do you have a point?

No, seriously: Is there a point to that comment?

You know, there are lots of good OCD treatments on the market these days.
- Severian | 02/17/2013 @ 08:27
It might have been an attempt at humor. I mean, the professor’s swipe at Fox. Odds are she figured nobody was going to use that source anyway, since everyone in the world thinks the way she does, so she was just trying to get along or something…

In way though, that’s even worse. Higher education should be a mind-broadening experience, and it should at the very least put on the pretense of attracting people who are into that kind of thing…
- mkfreeberg | 02/17/2013 @ 09:58
Severian: Do you have a point?

Yes, we were agreeing with the original post that Fox News shouldn’t have been excluded from the assignment, even though it is a consciously partisan source.
- Zachriel | 02/17/2013 @ 10:13
There is a point to Zachriel’s comment, just perhaps not the one he wanted to get across. Most human experience is a matter of contrast. While Fox news is quite mainstream, it does appear partisan compared to the actual partisan “Main Stream Media” (the MSM has had to make a LOT of corrections over the past few years. Can you name one that favored the Conservative? Anything close to Rathergate or the John McCain adultery smear? For all the talk of “Faux News”, the only thing that comes to mind is the “Balloon Boy” silliness, which, of course, was not political at all.). What we need to calibrate Zachriel and his ilk is something like the Ann Rand News Network. Nothing like camping in ten below to make fifty feel real warm. Sigh. I would pay good money for the ARNN…………..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/17/2013 @ 10:21
Robert Mitchell Jr: While Fox news is quite mainstream

Internal memos from management at Fox News make clear that they set an explicit agenda for slant of the news.
- Zachriel | 02/17/2013 @ 11:20
And, that slant could be an un-slanting, depending on your perspective. A “balanced approach,” as it were.

But I’m more interested that, here, you can acknowledge the academic discipline can be carried out incorrectly (albeit by a temporary prof. who obviously is not in the best graces with her employer). In other threads, you belabor the science-is-settled approach, providing your multiple citations, repeating ad nauseum that the maximum of future warming could go anywhere but the minimum is concretely established. You take umbrage with my pondering about whether the “science” we’re looking at really is science, incorrectly calling this an ad hominem attack — when, in fact, it is the correct sequence to evaluate the evidence.

Science, both the real kind and this faux kind, is carried out by flawed humans. Humans can be biased. You’ve admitted to this much. Now we see one of these flawed humans completely bolluxing things up. How could we not wonder about what else is fubar’d? This, to me, is just the logical next question to ask.
- mkfreeberg | 02/17/2013 @ 11:28
I’m with you, RM. I’d pay a premium for a news/finance channel that specialized in “Wall Street Journal Editorial Report,” Rick Santelli, and Brit Hume 24 hours a day. Not even I can stand 95% of what airs on Fox, though of course that compares very favorably with the 99.99% of content that I wouldn’t be able to stomach on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or MSNBC. (But what’s good about the latter group is that they never get caught on tape or in writing setting an explicit agenda for slanting the news, so maybe I’m being too hard on them. :-))

Much as I appreciate the video component of news, I’m pretty much stuck getting my information from written sources; most of the on-air personalities are too maddening. It’s sad to think of college students trying to study TV news for any other than cautionary purposes.
- Texan99 | 02/17/2013 @ 11:36
mkfreeberg: And, that slant could be an un-slanting, depending on your perspective. A “balanced approach,” as it were.

When the management explicitly tells their reporters to push a story for political purposes, then the news reporting can be justly said to be slanted.

mkfreeberg: But I’m more interested that, here, you can acknowledge the academic discipline can be carried out incorrectly (albeit by a temporary prof. who obviously is not in the best graces with her employer).

Of course it can, as we’ve explained many times.

mkfreeberg: In other threads, you belabor the science-is-settled approach, providing your multiple citations, repeating ad nauseum that the maximum of future warming could go anywhere but the minimum is concretely established.

We avoid the term “settled” because all scientific findings are considered tentative, no matter how well established. On the other hand, some findings are “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

Future warming can’t go just anywhere. As we said before, runaway climate change is not considered a plausible scenario. That’s different than saying there’s a tipping point, where the climate moves from one equilibrium point to another. Anything much less than 2°C for climate sensitivity is very unlikely in light of the evidence.

mkfreeberg: You take umbrage with my pondering about whether the “science” we’re looking at really is science, incorrectly calling this an ad hominem attack

It is perfectly reasonable to examine the methods used to reach scientific conclusions. But what you did was question our own motives (#10, #12), which are irrelevant to the independent evidence we provided. The Earth still moves regardless of Galileo’s failings.
- Zachriel | 02/17/2013 @ 11:46
You misunderstand what our host is saying, Zachriel. All of our “news” organizations have a “voice” that they try to maintain. The question is “how are they slanted”? CBS, ABC, CNN, etc are slanted to the far Left, which they maintain by their editorial policies and employment practices. Fox tries very to be centrist, and that requires extra oversight because all the “talent” comes from a far Left labor pool. But all of them do it, witness the attempted suppression of John Edwards affair, http://blogging.la/2008/07/25/tony-pierce-muzzles-times-bloggers-over-john-edwards/. You only think Fox is partisan because there is no news agency on the far Right, something I or Texan99 would watch. Again, I note, you seem unable to give us a moment where Fox committed fraud, as ABC, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times have all been caught doing, but only for the benefit of the Left. Once Fox is caught blowing up a car to make the Democrats look bad, you will have an easier time selling “Faux News”…..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/17/2013 @ 12:43
Robert Mitchell Jr: All of our “news” organizations have a “voice” that they try to maintain.

Sure.

Robert Mitchell Jr: The question is “how are they slanted”?

The difference is that Fox News pretends to be “fair and balanced”, but internal memos show that they purposefully slant the news.

Robert Mitchell Jr: But all of them do it, witness the attempted suppression of John Edwards affair

The reasons were clearly stated in the memo, they didn’t trust the source, and wanted additional confirmation.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Again, I note, you seem unable to give us a moment where Fox committed fraud, as ABC, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times have all been caught doing, but only for the benefit of the Left.

Didn’t say they committed fraud. But while we’re on the subject, their viewers are among the most consistently misinformed viewers.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements

One of their most effective propaganda techniques is the hack posing as a question.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420540/october-24-2012/nonstop-libya-gate-questions
- Zachriel | 02/17/2013 @ 13:54
I’ve dealt with that already.

http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/on-that-study-that-says-fox-viewers-are-misinformed/

But it’s nice to know you get your “news” from the Daily Show.
- mkfreeberg | 02/17/2013 @ 15:27
Well, Zachriel, if Fox wants to be “Fair and Balanced”, and their competitors are all doing propaganda for the Left, then by definition, they are going to have to slant the news, to “balance” it (Oh! Just like their motto!). And, really? No examples of fraud or “premature” stores? Just a complaint about their motto? Kind of sad that that’s the best you can do……

The memo didn’t actually say they wanted additional confirmation, did it? No, and it certainly didn’t give anyone permission to find any “trustable sources” either. Nope. Real clear that there was not going to be anyone talking about it though. But it still might have been a viable excuse, if only we hadn’t seen the Press tell us that Bush, McCain, Cain and many other Republicans had affairs, only to see the stories implode, to the point that the New York Times had to settle out of court, lest they loss a slander suit. And that’s hard to do.

To further develop the adultery memo, this is one of the things that so spins up many of us. It’s one thing for Fox news to decide to cover other stores then the MSM (Slanting the news in your vision), it’s another thing altogether to help the Democrats cover up real news, like Clinton’s, Edward’s, and multiple Kennedy’s actual affairs, while creating faux news like “Toe Tapping” or the smears against Bush and McCain.

Daily show? Colbert nation? Really? And you have no idea how well their propaganda has worked on you. Sigh.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/17/2013 @ 17:32
mkfreeberg: I’ve dealt with that already.

The questions in the survey had demonstrable answers. Your questions were ambiguous, arguable or have loaded premises.

mkfreeberg: But it’s nice to know you get your “news” from the Daily Show.

It’s called satire.
- Zachriel | 02/17/2013 @ 17:49
Robert Mitchell Jr: Just a complaint about their motto?

You were provided multiple examples of uncorrected misstatements.

Robert Mitchell Jr: The memo didn’t actually say they wanted additional confirmation, did it?

From the memo: “Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations.” There was only one source, a source with a spotty reputation.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Daily show? Colbert nation? Really? And you have no idea how well their propaganda has worked on you.

That’s funny.
- Zachriel | 02/17/2013 @ 18:04
Ah, Zachriel, you didn’t provide any example of uncorrected misstatements, you provided a link to a satire show making use of a very biased website. Levels of fail. Misstatements are a fact of life, got any Lies? Satire show? We have all seen that little dance, “Huge lie, whoops, called on it, Just Kidding, can’t you take a Joke?”. Quoting Politifact? Gosh, if Fox has such a problem with “misstatements”, then your little comedy show shouldn’t need someone else to dig them up, huh? Note that I did not have to quote Rush paraphrasing Ann to bring up the McCain adultery smear or the Exploding car fraud, for these things actually happened and matter, as opposed to your Fox “they said 1866, when everyone knows it was 1867! Fraud! Lies! Dooom!” “misstatements”. Again, have you got anything close to Rathergate?

Ah, no, there were multiple sources, who when to the National Enquirer when the MSM refused to deal with them, and, of course, the National Enquirer actually has a better reputation for adultery reporting then the New York Times (The National Enquirer got burned once in a Slander case, and they know they are low hanging fruit when it comes to lawsuits, and got their act so together that they are now better then any of the MSM when reporting about real people. Funny how a hanging and money lost just motivates organizations. Hey! Another argument for vouchers! Thanks.). And, of course, the stories about Bush’s and McCain’s “affairs” didn’t even have one source, once we heard from the source, which didn’t stop them from being national “news”. Might want to try a different tactic if you are trying to convince people that Fox is biased and dishonest, and the MSM just honestly reports the news……..

It is funny, and maybe one day you will see with eyes unclouded by hate, and laugh as well……
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/18/2013 @ 11:49
Robert Mitchell Jr: Ah, Zachriel, you didn’t provide any example of uncorrected misstatements, you provided a link to a satire show making use of a very biased website.

Conveniently, not liking the source means you don’t have to respond.

“Joseph Stalin without the bloodshed”
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/jon-stewart-fox-news-most-slanderous-lies-about-president-barack-tose-intolerance
- Zachriel | 02/18/2013 @ 16:01
I did respond. You can repost the link all you like but I don’t see any lies or even misstatements there. The whole list is difference of opinion, if not statements of fact. Obama is at the very least a Socialist, formally since he took over GM, for example. These are your complaints? Compared to WaterDrinkingGate? Some of us are actually bored enough to click and read the links you throw out like a squid’s ink. You have no succor there. Why don’t you tell us about Fox’s “lies”? Should be easy. If you can’t come up with anything better then “I don’t like using the dictionary definition of “Socialist””, then maybe you have been sharked by Mr. Steward’s propaganda………..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/18/2013 @ 17:28
Robert Mitchell Jr: Obama is at the very least a Socialist, formally since he took over GM, for example.

Yes, Obama is just like ““Joseph Stalin without the bloodshed”. Heh.

Sorry, but taking over GM does not make Obama a socialist. Governments take over control of assets all the time during bankruptcy, for instance.
- Zachriel | 02/18/2013 @ 18:31
In what way do you think is not like “Uncle Joe” without the bloodshed? This is your “lie”? Alas, at best, you have a difference of opinion, and an easy one to argue. Heck, given President “Death From Above”, you can make an easy argument that Obama is worse then Stalin. Stalin at least paid serve to the Law, had (Yes, show) trials. Something Mr. Deathlist can’t be bothered with…….

Um, yes, it does. You confuse the Executive branch with the Judicial branch. It is socialism when the Executive branch takes over a “command” company, and is completely different then the Judicial maintaining a business until all the debtors are correctly paid, in accordance with the law, which, I note, was not followed when GM became Government Motors. Did you miss the part where Obama ran roughshod over the Law, shafting the bondholders in favor of the GM unions? Yes, under a Socialist system, political need trumps economic sense and the Law. Never works out well. One of the reasons Socialism has such a poor reputation in these times……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/18/2013 @ 19:52
Robert Mitchell Jr: You confuse the Executive branch with the Judicial branch.

So it’s only socialism when the executive is involved, but when the judiciary takes over the economy, it’s not? Sorry, that is not correct. If the government owns the economy, it’s socialism, whether it’s run by President Pot or Chief Justice Mao or Speaker of the People’s Assembly Stalin.

Robert Mitchell Jr: In what way do you think is not like “Uncle Joe” without the bloodshed? This is your “lie”?

It’s propaganda. It’s too ridiculous a comparison to merit the distinction of a lie.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 06:15
Actually, Jon Stewart’s answer is better: “With all due respect, Joseph Stalin without the bloodshed—really not the same Stalin. I mean, the bloodshed was his thing. Without that he might as well just be, I don’t know, Gary Stalin. He’s just like Scooby Doo but he can’t talk or solve crimes. Well then he’s just a f**king dog with a snack habit!”
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 06:32
But Jon Stewart doesn’t count. You said his show is satire.

On another note, I’d sure like to know why I have to keep moderating these. I’ve checked the blacklist for the word “socialism” and it’s not in there. But the moderation queue acts like this is a potty-mouth word.

I’ll continue to look into it.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 07:30
mkfreeberg: You said his show is satire.

Satire is social criticism in the guise of humor. We didn’t cite the Daily Show as a news source, but as an aggregator of particulars.

mkfreeberg: But the moderation queue acts like this is a potty-mouth word.

Thought it might have been “President Pot” a.k.a. President Marijuana. (This is a test.)
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 09:31
No, Zachriel, when the government takes over the economy, that’s Communism. Socialism is when the government takes over “key” industries. There are many who would say that is what Obama is trying to do via regulation, but they would be incorrect. That is more correctly called Fascism, not that’s it’s a big difference. You are still confusing a caretaker role (courts administering a bankrupt property while dealing with the law) with taking over, such as Obama did when taking over GM. If a court ignored the Law like Obama did, or forced the company to create new product, like Obama did with the GM Volt, then yes, that would be Socialism.

Is it propaganda? Maybe. Or perhaps it is where Jon Steward and the MSM put the “speaker level (This one goes to ELEVEN!)”. Do you not remember how W was treated by them? In an environment where giving people a quick bath is Torture, and pictures of pants on head are War Crimes, Calling Obama Stalin without the blood is not propaganda, if anything, it is understatement, for Obama has got the blood thing going, doesn’t he? I see you had nothing to say about old Deathlist, so your only complaint would seem to be that while Obama might claim for himself the same power of life and death that Stalin did, he hasn’t murdered as many people (You can make a solid argument that Obama is more a murderer then Stalin, for Obama’s kill orders are, thanks to modern technology, far more direct then Stalin’s.), and we are not to say anything until the numbers exceed what exactly?

One of your core problems is that many on the Left seem to see their little troubles like a movie. “Bork must be Stopped! No Matter The Cost!”, so we get “Robert Bork’s America” speech. Worked too. And then it turned out not to be a movie, the reel kept going, and there were, alas, other nominees, and it turned out the Republicans were quick learners and could play that game too. Turns out, if you want Obama treated with respect, you should have treated W with respect. Whoops! Who could have predicted that MAD applied to politics? (Other then all those conservatives who kept telling the Democrats that “What goes around comes around”……..)

So, again, any actual Lies from Fox? Everything you have shown us so far has only proven that Fox is the most honest of the sideshow barkers out there, the most fair and balanced of an industry defined by extravagant claims (“Is your sofa killing you? Tune in at 11!”) and unspeakably corrupt business practices (For any other industry, taking a twelve hour interview and turning it into a ten minute hit job would involve jail time. For the MSM, just another example of Dowdifying………).
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/19/2013 @ 09:37
Maybe “f**king dog”.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 09:39
Nope. That got through too. The gods of the Internet are fickle.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 09:47
We didn’t cite the Daily Show as a news source, but as an aggregator of particulars.

Yeah, there are many rules that have to be followed to make these ideas look like good ones. Take this show seriously in this context over here, but not so seriously in that context over there. At least with Fox News, I know there is a consistent attempt to be serious, and I can take what’s offered seriously — then, examine other bits of evidence, looking for a contradiction. Working across multiple disciplines or something…but it starts with being able to take the assertion seriously. Can’t even get that far with The Daily Show.

So the counter-assertion ends up looking like this: Daily Show viewers are better informed, because they’re given these ideas which, half the time, they shouldn’t really be taking seriously.

Just dissolves in a puddle of nonsensical, anti-logical goo, under its own weight.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 10:03
Robert Mitchell Jr: No, Zachriel, when the government takes over the economy, that’s Communism.

Socialism defined:

Merriam-Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Encyclopedia Britannica: social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

Investopedia: an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production.

Robert Mitchell Jr: That is more correctly called Fascism, not that’s it’s a big difference.

Oh, gee willikers. Fascism defined:

Oxford Dictionary: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Wikipedia: Fascism is a form of far-right authoritarian nationalism. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 10:47
mkfreeberg: Yeah, there are many rules that have to be followed to make these ideas look like good ones.

Stewart detailed a multitude of uncorrected misstatements by Fox. Colbert demonstrated how Fox News uses questions to smear.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 10:49
Alas, Zachriel, you haven’t actually shown us any “misstatements”. Again, this is a medium that has a problem with Lies, misstatements shouldn’t even be on the board at this point. As to Colbert, what did he show, other then how all the media operates? 60 minutes is notorious for that, and lying about it to boot, to the point they had to settle out of court a couple of times. What has Fox done that the MSM doesn’t do, and in vastly larger amounts?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/19/2013 @ 11:04
What has Fox done that the MSM doesn’t do, and in vastly larger amounts?

Well, that one’s easy. See, when some Dem politician looks like an idiot on “Faux News,” it’s because some hack “reporter” ambushed them with an invalid question, and his response was deceptively edited to cut out the 99% of pure Solomonic wisdom that suffused this noble public servant’s every other utterance.

When Sarah Palin looks dumb on CBS, by contrast, that’s because she really is an idiot. The just turned on the cameras and said “go,” and the stupid just started spilling out. Tragic, but unavoidable, since even the pillars of probity in the editing room can only do so much with an obvious mouth-breather.

Same with CBS’s decision to go with the Rather Memos. “Fake but accurate,” you know. This is, at worst, an “uncorrected misstatement,” not a deliberate attempt to swing a presidential election. That’s the kind of unprincipled behavior only Fox would stoop to!

[Damn, it sure is easy to win arguments when you’ve established all the conclusions beforehand. I really should start doing that more!]
- Severian | 02/19/2013 @ 11:20
Robert Mitchell Jr: Alas, Zachriel, you haven’t actually shown us any “misstatements”.

Per the five citations we provided, you misstated the definition of socialism and fascism.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Alas, Zachriel, you haven’t actually shown us any “misstatements”.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements

Robert Mitchell Jr: As to Colbert, what did he show, other then how all the media operates?

Colbert provided specifics.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 11:38
Severian: [Damn, it sure is easy to win arguments when you’ve established all the conclusions beforehand. I really should start doing that more!]

You’d do better by making sure you have the facts first.

Severian: Same with CBS’s decision to go with the Rather Memos. “Fake but accurate,” you know. This is, at worst, an “uncorrected misstatement,” not a deliberate attempt to swing a presidential election.

CBS admitted to the mistake. CBS then established a review panel which criticized CBS for their actions, including their early defence of the story. The producer, Mary Mapes, was terminated, along with several others involved. Dan Rather resigned.

In other words, this was not an “uncorrected misstatement”. People were held accountable. And the underlying story, that a rich kid got preferential treatment during the Vietnam War? What a shock!
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 11:52
I’m going to watch CBS from now on.

When they present fraudulent documents, and deliberately sidestep the authentication of the documents because they want to get their political propaganda out there, at least they admit the mistake later. And heads roll! When they’re caught at it. Now that is a trustworthy news source.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 13:23
Severian: Same with CBS’s decision to go with the Rather Memos. “Fake but accurate,” you know. This is, at worst, an “uncorrected misstatement,” not a deliberate attempt to swing a presidential election.

This was directly contradicted by the information we provided above.

mkfreeberg: at least they admit the mistake later.

Yes, that’s right. It is important that people and organizations admit errors, and that people be held accountable.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 13:31
Politifact? Stewart is relying on Politifact?

The ones who awarded their 2012 lie of the year to a statement that turned out to be true?

And an intent to deceive is perfectly fine as long as it’s the one-in-don’t-know-how-many that the bosses find out about, and start lopping off heads over…when they’re forced to.

And a source you say I shouldn’t be taking too seriously because “it’s called satire”…should be taken seriously.

What other rules do we need to accept, uncritically, in order to make these ideas seem sound? Something tells me I should be starting a list.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 13:55
I’m guessing their rules are something like this (from your link):

1.What was the speaker trying to imply?
2.What would it take to state things accurately?
3.How much would accuracy damage the speaker’s point?

By which metrics Mother Jones concludes that “Romney’s ad rates about 9 out of 10 on the deceptiveness scale.”

One is tempted to look back through Kevin Drum’s archives to see what he said about President Obama’s oft-repeated assertions that ObamaCare would actually lower the deficit…. by which I mean one isn’t tempted at all, because one knows exactly what one will find.*

Now, I’d expect this kind of hackery from Mother Jones, since they’re filthy fucking commies who cheerleaded for the Soviet Union almost past the fall of the Berlin Wall. But I wouldn’t expect it at all from Jon Stewart, fearless nonpartisan truth-teller and the guardian of journalistic integrity. And I certainly wouldn’t expect it from the Zachriel, those paragons of science who insist on strict adherence to nothing but the facts….

*and because one can only refer to oneself as one so many times without wanting to punch oneself in one’s own face.
- Severian | 02/19/2013 @ 14:21
Zachriel, what CBS was guilty of was not an “misstatement”, it was attempted fraud, and would have been found such if it had gone to court, which is why CBS (for once) cleaned house, and even then, they did so as slowly and reluctantly as possible. Perhaps next time you can find an example we didn’t all watch happen in real-time. Still haven’t see you show us any actual misstatements by Fox. Given your obvious hate of them, and the number of years they have been in business, you are doing a marvelous job buffing up their reputation………
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/19/2013 @ 14:55
mkfreeberg: The ones who awarded their 2012 lie of the year to a statement that turned out to be true?

Instead of looking at the specifics, you sideline the discussion. Romney: “I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state Jeep — now owned by the Italians — is thinking of moving all production to China.” That claim was false, and Romney should have corrected it rather than running a misleading ad pushing the narrative.

mkfreeberg: And a source you say I shouldn’t be taking too seriously because “it’s called satire”…should be taken seriously.

We didn’t say The Daily Show shouldn’t be taken seriously (or unseriously for that matter)—it’s social commentary, but that it wasn’t a news source. Still, Stewart corrected his previous misstatement, when he said that Fox News scored at the bottom for how well viewers are informed. Turns out that was only true for only two of the three surveys. In one of the surveys, they were only near the bottom.

Here’s that list of misstatements on Fox again.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 15:39
Robert Mitchell Jr: Zachriel, what CBS was guilty of was not an “misstatement”, it was attempted fraud, and would have been found such if it had gone to court, which is why CBS (for once) cleaned house, and even then, they did so as slowly and reluctantly as possible.

Regardless, you said it was an uncorrected misstatement, and that wasn’t true.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 15:44
No, Zachriel, I did not. All I did was give as a metric by which to measure Fox’s possible crimes or errors, which you have still failed to supply. Rather my point. I can show you multiple actual crimes committed by your benchmark, the MSM, and you can’t give us one actual example of a “uncorrected misstatement” by Fox. All you can give us is third hand links to sources which don’t actually have any misstatements once you deny them to define the world to their liking. How about you, not a second hand source, but you, Zachriel, give us an example of a “uncorrected misstatement” by Fox that rises above the level of typo?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/19/2013 @ 16:01
Cool, we got ourselves another rule. “Attempted fraud” — which is exactly what it was — isn’t so bad, so long as it’s corrected. By the higher-ups. Once it’s caught.

Can you give us an example of a “uncorrected misstatement” by Fox that rises above the level of typo, as Mr. Mitchell asked?
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 16:13
Robert Mitchell Jr: No, Zachriel, I did not.

You are correct. That was Severian’s uncorrected misstatement. You did, however, misstate the definition of socialism. We provided several citations for your edification.

Robert Mitchell Jr: you can’t give us one actual example of a “uncorrected misstatement” by Fox.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 16:19
Alas, Zachriel, I did not misstate the definition of Socialism, and you provided no citations proving otherwise. I guess that means you are in the same box you think Fox should be put into, and we should no longer listen or respond to you………

Again, I deal with that link, destroying in force the lead example, the “lie” that Obama was Stalin without the blood. You had no counter argument, so it would seem The Daily Show is in error in it’s list. The rest of the list was also flawed. Can you, Zachriel, give us an example of a “uncorrected misstatement” that rises above the level of typo. Not second hand, not third hand, this is the age of the Internet, the raw footage on youtube or similar. You have proven how good Mr. Steward and Mr. Colbert are at propaganda. Now can you show us that you are capable of seeing the world with eyes unclouded by hate?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/19/2013 @ 17:12
Robert Mitchell Jr: I did not misstate the definition of Socialism, and you provided no citations proving otherwise.

Just to clarify, then you agree with the accepted definitions of socialism and fascism?

Merriam-Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Encyclopedia Britannica: social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

Investopedia: an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production.

Oxford Dictionary: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Wikipedia: Fascism is a form of far-right authoritarian nationalism. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Again, I deal with that link, destroying in force the lead example, the “lie” that Obama was Stalin without the blood.

That wasn’t on the list, but was an example of Barack-tose Intolerance. That’s so silly as to not even reach the level of a lie.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 17:57
Well, no. All this definitions cover Communism, including the Wikipedia “definition” (save that it is far-Left, of course. Actual far-right, is of course, Absolute Monarchy, from the French Revolution, from where these terms come from, before the Left redefined far-right to mean “Anything we don’t like”). Total political control of the economy, as in the Soviet Union. Socialism is political control of the “important” industries, as in the Socialist state of Post War England. I am an Eagle Scout. I know what these terms mean. It’s why Socialism is so often called a step on the way to Communism.

Gosh, it was on your list, but since you can’t defend it, new rules. Perhaps you can explain why it’s so silly? You have signed off on the idea that Obama can kill anyone, anywhere, and being an American is no protection. At least Stalin pretended to follow the law………

Again, any actual misstatements that rise above the level of typo? Behold a post on this blog, posted today, where the A.P. reversed the meaning of a Republican’s quote by deleting words. Anything? Are you unable to act without John Stewart telling what to do and think?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/19/2013 @ 19:12
Robert Mitchell Jr: Well, no.

So you reject the standard definitions per the Oxford Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica. That’s very curious. You do realize terms are defined by general usage, not by idiosyncratic opinions?

Robert Mitchell Jr: Actual far-right, is of course, Absolute Monarchy, from the French Revolution<

Correct. The left advocated greater égalité. The right supported the Ancien Régime. See,
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html

Robert Mitchell Jr: Total political control of the economy, as in the Soviet Union.

We often refer to the Soviet Union as communist as, ideologically, they saw their version of socialism as a precursor to true communism. Communism and socialism are distinct. Socialism is the state controlling the means of production. Communism is an ideal where the state withers and everything is owned by the community, and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

Robert Mitchell Jr: I am an Eagle Scout. I know what these terms mean.

Heh. But for some reason, Merriam-Webster and Britannica are confused.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Gosh, it was on your list, but since you can’t defend it, new rules.

Here’s the list:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements

Robert Mitchell Jr: Perhaps you can explain why it’s so silly?

Jon Stewart: “With all due respect, Joseph Stalin without the bloodshed—really not the same Stalin. I mean, the bloodshed was his thing. Without that he might as well just be, I don’t know, Gary Stalin. He’s just like Scooby Doo but he can’t talk or solve crimes. Well then he’s just a f**king dog with a snack habit!”

Robert Mitchell Jr: Behold a post on this blog, posted today, where the A.P. reversed the meaning of a Republican’s quote by deleting words.

They were quoting a Fox News transcript, which had a typo. A.P. found the error and retracted the story. That would not be an example of an uncorrected misstatement.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 08:27

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Professor Bans Fox NewsSunday, February 17th, 2013

Professor Bans Fox News
Sunday, February 17th, 2013