posted
Tonight, I was laying on the couch watching a little TV. Channel flipping I found myself watching a program on FOX NEWS called "Heartland", I don't know the name of the host, but he did something amazing.
He told not ONE but TWO people he knew alot more about their country than they did.
The first gentleman was a man who was born raised and still lives in Iraq, he said that the unemployment rate in Iraq was 65% and that the people overall lived a better life when Saddam was in power.
The Host told the man he didn't know what he was talking about and that he knew more about Iraq than he did.
Next, The Host took on a Canadian woman who was sponsering a monument to all the draft dodgers who left America and ran to Canada to avoid the Vietnam war.
He told her that Canada was split, 1/2 of them were America haters, and the other half were conservative freedom lovers.
She corrected him saying "No, most canadians are in the middle."
So he Boldly told her she didn't know what the hell she was talking about and he knew her country better than she did.
She asked him how many times he's been there and he said he visited once.
Mega-right wing Republicans are friggin' nutzo.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fox is a right-wing leaning news organization. I don't know that they are all that far out to the right.
It speaks more to the arogance of Americans in general and certain people within America in particular, I think.
It's also a tactic of the right-wing in this country to assert that everyone else's facts are wrong, then assert the ones that support their case with extra levels of vehemence. Sometimes they are right, and that just makes them more convinced that they are right all the time.
But, on the other side, there are lots of liberal commentators who do play fast and loose with the facts. I heard a guy the other day talk about "thousands of people disenfranchised in Florida's 2000 election." He could describe the general circumstances of that, but he didn't really have any facts or names to back it up. He ended up looking rather silly because his assertions didn't bear up under even superficial scrutiny.
Anyway, I think there's a general problem in this country and it seems to be growing. It's people who don't know the difference between belief and certainty. And the problem is that while it's nice to have people who are committed and act on their convictions, it's another thing to have them defend the validity of those convictions so ferciferously (to use President Bush's coinage from the first debate with Kerry). I think that if people know when they are acting on convictions, they'll also have the ability to rethink things in light of new evidence.
I think people who turn their beliefs into carved-in-stone certainty have undergone a kind of intellectual death. They've decided already. No more data needed, thank you -- call me when you agree with me. Period.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, CStrohman? Your comments about Germany in the Debate thread would be a perfect example. You "knew" all about their level of involvement and were willing to make some very bold statements about it until many other members posted links to verifiable evidence that contradicted you. Had you been speaking to an audience that did not know or care enough to look it up themselves, they would have believed you and gone on to tell other people.
In a message board argument this is just annoying. For politicians and their campaigns, it's (sadly) expected. For someone in the media it's irresponsible and inexcusable.
The difference here is, you admitted that you were mistaken after being confronted with evidence. Many people don't, both right and left wing. There are certainly plenty of left-wingers ready to believe anything bad about Bush no matter how shaky the evidence.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But how do we know the Host wasn't correct? All I have is someone's "spin" on what they saw. Maybe the host was right and had data to back that up.
Perhaps someone could post a transcript of that show so we can judge for ourselves.
And I did post sources on the "germany" thread as well. I admitted I was wrong on certain arguments as well.
Until I see something other than the original poster's opinion. It's just that, an opinion (like mine).
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But neither presented evidence. The host shouldn't believe the callers without proof, but neither should he make his assertions without backing them up.
The point of this thread, IMO, was that according to the description of the show the host flatly declared he knew better and that was it. No attempt was made to prove his point beyond his say-so.
If someone makes a statement that they expect others to accept as fact (as opposed to opinion) they must be prepared to back it up. If they can't, or if they're not willing to amend their argument when presented with contradictory facts, I have no respect for them or anything they've said because I can't trust their words.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add that the host is welcome to do this, since its his show and is apparently not expected to be taken as a "news" show. Opinion shows can say anything they want, with or without evidence. They have that freedom, and more power to 'em. Just as I have the freedom to completely ignore them.
This is why I don't watch anything on FOX News besides the actual news program, and even then I check it out online. Nor do I pay much attention to Sunday morning politics shows or newspaper editorials. I don't listen to Air America Radio or Rush Limbaugh, I don't read books by Ann Coulter or Al Franken or any of the incredible amount of spontaneously-generated political authors that have emerged this year (one caveat: I did buy and read The Daily Show's "America (The Book)"). I haven't seen Farenheit 9/11. I despise campaign commercials. All of them take information or rumors of information and tell you what they think about it, expecting you to accept their opinion as fact. They're propagandists.
The First Amendment protects their expression, but sometimes I wish there was something like a Truth in Advertising law for political shows, speeches and books.
[ October 03, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I would make a post saying what I think but I've gotta agree with Chris here. It's a lot faster to type.
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, you bring up a good point. All of the news channels and radio talk shows have moved almost wholly to this "opinion" talk-show format that excuses them from citing facts: "Hey, that's just my opinion". The tragedy is the perception to less informed and less caring Americans: "Hey, if it's always on [insert News Org. here], then it's the truth!" Does anybody check facts anymore? I'm so glad to see Hatrackers doing it. I feel a pit in my stomach every time I see a seemingly benign email sent to me (and 100 other people) saying "Wow, I had no idea about this... it's totally changed my perception!" Then you read further down about a supposed "study" cited by a law professor or scientists from such-and-such University or think tank that has found unsettling information about the state of America/Middle East today. I said "seemingly" benign because it usually poses to just submit hard facts to people but really its intention is to sway or justify opinion towards the left or right. Then the pit turns ulcerous as people, some of whose opinions I actually respect, start responding: "I knew it! See?" or "Thank you, I'm so happy you sent me this."
I actually take the 30 minutes out of my workday to search Scopes.com for the truth behind the email, then immediately copy and paste the page and send it out to everyone on that list with the words "In today's society, information is power. Be careful where your information comes from. ALWAYS KNOW YOUR SOURCES!"
People write back "Thanks for spoiling the mood."
Such is the state of America today. Perhaps we actually *want* opinion pieces to shape our view of the world. "Let Dan Rather or Rush or Hannity or Savage sort it out for me, I trust them and they're *always* right!"
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and thought "Here's a movie where he is attempting to pass of his "opinion" or "assumptions" on certain facts, as actual facts.
Apparently, alot of people bought into his opinions and assumptions.
I wasn't one of them.
And although I've never seen the show (I refuse to pay for T.V. that has advertising in it) it appears that it is an opinion piece. An Editorial piece like any other show on any other news channel.
20/20, 48hours, 60 minutes, are all editorial/opinion/columnist/slanted programs.
There is no such thing as an unbiased news network. It just doesn't exist.
I would still like to see a transcript of that show....(since I won't be able to watch it)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree...a lot of those shows are very carefula bout checking their facts, adn while it is impossible to counter all bias, a lot of shows are pretty good at showing both sides of the story.
60 minutes has made it's share of mistakes, but they also have taken on some really good topics that no one else was willing to touch.
Remember the tobacco show, where they weren't allowed to even air it? At leat not for years..
Then Dan Rther goes and doesn't check his facts on a major story, ruining it fir everyone.
I think in the long run that might have been a very good thing.
You see, if ti makes people more cautious about accepting "news stories" at face value, then it is a good thing. I always take those shows and then do some more research on the topics that interest me, but a lot of people don't take the time to do so.
So I will keep ion watching 60 minutes because they report on some really good stories, and usually make a good attempt at getting both sides on tape.
But then I will go do more searching on my own, and see if ny opinion changes.
But there are major differences between those types of shows and the completely opinion shows/books of Limbaugh, Moore, and Franken.
posted
Chad, you've described an open market. I'm a capitalist but unfortunately journalism is not my trade. If it were I'd be submitting business plans for the *FIRST* unbiased news station. This makes me hopeful, because usually when I come up with a good idea like this I *always* find out someone else beat me to the punch. So I'm making a plead to all Hatrackers: please tell me if anyone here has found an unbiased news org or website whose specifically stated purpose is to take stories from other news orgs/websites/political advertisements/all other forms of "spin" and sift through the opinions and rhetoric to come up with hard facts.
Every news organization in the world is biased by their own definiton of "What is News".
There is so much news going on in the world it would be impossible to cover it all, so they use their judgement to "pick and choose".
An American being Beheaded is news.
Showing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's going to schools newly rebuilt, etc. etc. is news as well, although you will NEVER see it.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
FOX News is definitely several degrees worse than any of the so-called TV Magazine shows of the major networks, as far as bias goes.
The difference is fairly simple: The major networks TRY to be unbiased, whereas FOX pretty clearly is intentionally biased. That's what the whole premise of the network is - to be a right-wing news network, as opposed to an accurate news network.
Truthfully, though, all these news shows (and especially editorial shows) are really pretty bad when it comes to giving incomplete pictures of things. Usually it is not so much bias as it is oversimplification of everything. There is a reason why the Daily Show has the most informed viewers, rather than the news networks.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: FOX News is definitely several degrees worse than any of the so-called TV Magazine shows of the major networks, as far as bias goes.
I'll disagree whole-heartedly. If you are a liberal then you look at their highest rated news channel in the US as just Right Wing media.
ABC, NBC, and CBS are just as liberally biased the other way.
I can't count the times they put a liberal "spin" on their news stories.
I don't think one is "worse" than another, but just that Fox is one side of the coin and ABC, NBC and CBS are the other.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then its second stated purpose should be to *find* those stories more worthy of news and to publicly ask ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC and CNN *why* they did not run those stories.
There's got to be something already out there. A fact-checker, a non-traditional news organization who doesn't chase the news so much as check the credibility of other news organizations. It would hold politicians to task by airing the facts behind their rhetoric. There must be something already out there. I can't be the only one who's thought of this idea.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what the internet is for. Information and Mis-information.
The individual is really left to themselves to decifer what is fact and what is fiction in the news of today.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I'm can't comment on what evidence was presented by the person claiming that thousands of people were disenfranchised in Florida, but I do know that it has pretty much been established that through a rather convienient "mistake" that was would have been repeated this year had some people been less vigilant, thousands of African Americans in Florida were wrongfully disenfranchised. And that is to say nothing of the gross perversion of justice that is felon disenfranchisement.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually saw the program Thor is talking about. I think the Iraqi interview was different from the Canadian interview. The Canadian interview was very funny though. The host asked how the Canadian would feel if America made a monument to Quebec seperatists. The woman responded that she would befine, but, "you see the thing is, people from Quebec speak French and you Americans don't like foreigners very much."
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The disenfranchisement of African Americans was because of the Felony policy wasn't it?
The whole I thought was that because many Drug crimes are Felonies and there were alot of African Americans who had felony convictions on their records that disenfranchised them from the elections.
I coule be wrong, but that is what I thought it was.
And that assuming that all those felons would actually vote as well...
I think that previous felons should be allowed to vote (not that they will anymore than other convicted criminals) but I don't think they should be allowed to vote while serving their jail/prison terms.
Also, I think they can vote if they take the necessary steps to do so...like filling out the proper paperwork, etc.
I think it's just another way that people that disenfranchise "themselves" through their own actions, cry about the consequences of such.
Again, one of my favorite lines from "Liar, Liar":
"Quit breaking the law ___hole!"
Probably the surest way to avoid a felony conviction.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The woman responded that she would befine, but, "you see the thing is, people from Quebec speak French and you Americans don't like foreigners very much."
So it's not just Americans who think they know other countries better than the citizens of those countries.
posted
I don't consider Fox News as fair and balanced as they claim. But I also don't like the idea that people can accuse Fox News of being maliciously slanted right in their reporting without any feasible proof. The opinion/news variety shows are one thing. Fox News is, I would say, unabashedly conservative in that area. However, their reporting is a different matter.
It goes a bit like this: the news is reported, then a pundit from each side of the issue, whether it be pro-Kerry, anti-Scott Peterson, pro-Michael Jackson, or Pro-Bush, gets a chance to argue his or her case. I would say that's decently fair and balanced.
Again, I'm speaking about the reporting itself, not the opinion/news variety shows. For some reason, everyone from the anti-Fox News camp can't understand the difference. And I know you guys are smarter than that.
Also, feasible proof does not include the political affiliation of Rupert Murdock, unless you intend to also note the political affiliation of Ted Turner, creator of CNN. And the political slant of the opinion/news variety hosts also doesn't count unless you want to include the political slant of almost all journalists, reporters, and T.V. anchormen from mainstream news sources.
I don't think there will ever be a completely fair news source. But just as two people can experience the same event and come out with two different--nearly opposite--impressions of it, isn't this inevitable?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, CStroman, the voter"felony"disqualification list was specificly targeted at AfricanAmericans. Thousands of AfricanAmerican were listed, but only a handful of Hispanics showed up on the list because those who are checked off as "Hispanic" on Florida's government forms are classified as "white" on Florida's rolls. Then they didn't even bother to check whether an AfricanAmerican disqualified for sharing a name on the felon list was actually the same person as the felon. If eg "John Smith" had been on the disqualification list, and if all of people who shared that name had been disenfranchised rather than just the ones who were AfricanAmerican, the resulting furor wouldn't have been so easily swept under the rug.
posted
I can't claim I know your country better than you do, as a matter of facts a lot of people know my country better than I do But as to "not love foreigners", apart from a minority of people while all the problems before the beginning of the Irak war, I've always been welcome here and treated well. So I don't take all this "Americans don't love foreigners" rubbish very seriously. There are as much stupid Americans closed to the outside world than Frenchs behaving like that, IMHO.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee: of course people have opinions about what other countries are like. However, I think that Americans have a particularly bad streak of nationalistic arrogance. We (for a very large part) don't learn other languages, don't bother learning the basics of national geography in further parts of our own country, much less others, don't consider other countries important, et cetera.
Notice, for instance, that people here are talking
Contrariwise, many, and perhaps most, people in many other countries know at least a smattering of another language (typically english), can identify rough basics of non-local geography (illinois is in the middle part of the US), and are painfully aware of how important another country can be, among other things.
Now, a large part of this is because we're the 800 pound gorilla. We don't "need" to pay attention to much else, such as what we're sitting on. Whereas everybody around the 800 pound gorilla is very aware of its presence. Of course, this attitude of obliviance means we perhaps don't notice some gorilla children growing up, such as the EU and the east asian economic combine.
But yes, I would say that Americans tend to be more arrogant and ignorant in our considerations of other countries than vice versa.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, saying "Americans don't like foreigners" is just plain wrong, and is an example of the exact kind of error SBS was complaining about - a person claiming to know a foreign country better than the citizens. And it apparantly happened on the same show as the events that spawned this thread.
quote:It goes a bit like this: the news is reported, then a pundit from each side of the issue, whether it be pro-Kerry, anti-Scott Peterson, pro-Michael Jackson, or Pro-Bush, gets a chance to argue his or her case. I would say that's decently fair and balanced.
It ends up not being remotely fair and balanced, though, because the program and the moderators favor the conservative side of the story and the individual representing the conservative interpretation. The shows seem to do this intentionally - like they are intentionally slanting it conservatively to counter some phantom liberal bias they are afraid the news will have if they present it directly.
Just today another example of the sort of attitudes held there has come out:
If I visited Utah and a Mormon Church once, how absurd would it be for me to claim that I know more about Mormons, Utah and the Culture over somone who had spent their life involved in it?
I'd be frickin' crazy, right?
The host was saying he knew more about Iraq and Canada than someone who had lived there their whole life.
Speaking of not liking foreigners, the host of that show ended with the line "How about this, you stop trying to honor America, and I promise you, we will NEVER honor Canada."
Geez. We wouldn't let our children act like this, so why do we pay grown men $300,000 a year to sit on the TV spewing this crap?
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm, to put the quote in context she was getting pretty pissed at the interviewer and decided to make a verbal jab at America. Of course, I think its pretty arogant to create a monument to people who didn't do anything but break American law.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ummm, to put the quote in context she was getting pretty pissed at the interviewer and decided to make a verbal jab at America. Of course, I think its pretty arogant to create a monument to people who didn't do anything but break American law.
Sure, if that's all they did.
But, apparently at least some Canadians think they did a lot more. Some Americans too.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem comes - from any news source or any country - in thinking we understand the big picture. The variables involved in international affairs are, well, numerous is an understatement. Even the most omnipresent network cannot know everything. Someone living somewhere has a far greater knowledge of the reality of events, but can still be totally oblivious of factors of which he lacks awareness. The best we can do is try to be as informed as we can, without assuming that this makes us any more qualified on an issue than anyone else.
This page has a good listing of links to a variety of news sources. I suggest trying out some foreign news. Major newspapers in other countries usually have an English edition, and you might pick up some insights that (gasp!) neither Fox News nor CBS told you about.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
I mean standing up for a conviction that the war was wrong, giving up loved ones and family to avoid being part of a war that was unjust and incredibly wasteful of human life.
Granted, they did have other choices, but frankly boiling that decision down to "run while others fought" is insulting to anyone who lived through those times. We were grappling with some very serious issues that maybe today's Americans think were simple or have been solved. But at the time they were anything but hard and fast. And, I'll remind you, that many of us today would not support a war like Vietnam had we to do it all over again.
And before you say how horrible it is to the morale of the fighting person, I have to tell you that it is entirely possible to dislike a war, distrust the leaders who got us there and perpetuated it, and still love and honor our soldiers.
You may not think so. Our current administration clearly tries to drum up that kind of patriotic America-with-us-or-against-us mentality. But it's all a crock of bull.
Bottom line, if a war is unjust and person feels that it is better for America and for themselves not to enter into it, then it's the leaders who are wrong, not the people. And going to fight a war under those circumstances anyway might be the best an American can do, but it is not the best that a human being can do.
And I am a human being first, THEN an American.
When America does things that are inhuman, I choose not to go along. If you don't like it, then pass a law that strips me of my citizenship.
Until then, I'll just try to stop my country from doing things that I think are wrong.
And I will understand and even appreciate the stance of those whose conscience leads them to leave the country rather than risk their life for a cause they do not share with leaders whose motives are less than pure.
I think the mark of a true patriot is to make America uphold its own ideals, not to uphold America no matter what it's then-current crop of leaders decides they can get away with.
posted
One man had to Run to Canada to avoid the War, One Man had to pull strings (Dick Cheney "I had better things to do.", one man had to get his father to pull strings to avoid the war.
American law is not fair to the poor and the rich the same.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Christy and Tom! Spinsanity looks great, so does Fact Check. I'm sending those links out to my friends and family.
Bob, I hear you. I find myself saying the same things to some of my relatives whenever they call me a traitor for simply disagreeing with our handling of the war on terror. That "with us or against us" speech was really far-reaching.
posted
Dagonee: Yes, there is at least one person out there from a foreign country who's got Americans pegged wrong. Clearly we can now demolish those impressions we had about every single foreign national having a complete and accurate understanding of america.
posted
Chad: do you have any idea where Nelson is? Do you have any idea what the popularity of the Constitution-shredding Parti Quebecois language laws are in BC? I'd give you a hint, but I think you probably already know the answer.
For those of you who oppose this monument, if Southeastern BC was developed in large part by Russian immigrants fleeing from the war in Afghanistan, would you oppose a monument dedicated to them? Nelson is the town it is today because of the dedication of many of these draft dodgers. When they settled Nelson and the towns around them, they helped create many beautiful and peaceful communities of dedicated conservationists and outdoors people. Their ideals carefully built a future for the region. Regardless of why they came to there, what they have done for the Kootenays deserves recognition. For scores of Americans today to deride and condemn a town they know nothing about for its decision to honour some of its most beloved citizens and immigrants makes the whole nation look arrogant, mindless and vicious. Still, Nelson will continue to welcome Americans who are truly interested in what it has to offer. The people of Nelson know those people will have nothing in common with those beating the drums of war and calling to an end for dissent. The people who visit Nelson are looking for something else. They are looking for the kind of peaceful optimism many thought died somewhere in a swamp in southeast asia thirty years ago.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
