quote: even though "fair and balanced" Fox News is probably the least biased (hence highest-rated) news source on the planet.
I don't want to derail this thread, but - as you must know, as an historian, Ron - the fact that a source of information is popular does not mean that it is unbiased.
It often simply means that a lot of people share that bias, or are simply unaware of it because they have no opinion of their own on the subject.
For example - my dad is very happy watching Fox News in the US, because he's not an American and has little interest in US politics. But he gets pretty mad watching Sky News in the UK whenever they try to pull the same kind of pro-conservative tactics, because he is familiar with the politics and he recognizes what they are doing.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was not just one isolated, extremist Imam who said that it is OK for Moslems to lie to non-Moslems. The Koran and other Moslem historical sources also teach this:
quote:Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.” Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.” Ishaq:519 “Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘...I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.’” Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom you have a treaty, retaliate by breaking off relations with them.” Qur’an 8:30 “Allah is the best schemer.” Ishaq:323 “I am the best of plotters. I deceived them with My guile so that I delivered you from them.” Ishaq:365/Tabari VII:94 “Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.’ ‘Say what you like,’ Muhammad replied. ‘You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.’” Qur’an 13:27 “Say, ‘God leads whosoever He wills astray.’ Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’ --link: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070526172805AAeOx3m
Contrast that with the teaching of Jesus: "The truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Also note the Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." (Exodus 20:16)
[ February 14, 2011, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moreover, it is also recorded where God has told someone to lie or deceive. In Exodus 3:18, God commanded Moses to request of Pharaoh permission to worship three days in the wilderness. Clearly, the sacrifice wasn’t the real reason for their leaving, and although Pharaoh refused, it was still obviously a deception. In 1 Samuel 16:2, God instructed Samuel to take a heifer as an offering with him to Bethlehem specifically so that Saul would not suspect that Samuel’s true reason for going was to anoint David as King.
If that’s not enough, there are occasions where God Himself is deceptive! In John 7:2-10, Jesus' brothers suggest that Jesus go to the Jew's feast of Tabernacles so that his disciples could see his works (for they did not believe in him). Jesus said, "My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready. . . Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. . . But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." Also, in Ezekiel 14:9, God says. "And if the prophet be deceived when he that spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him and destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." Similarly, 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 states, ". . . And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: . ."
At what part Ron at the 'Fox and Friends' clip shown in this video is Fox "Fair and Balanced"?
And just to make sure you understand, basically the interviewer gives absolutely no attempt to hide the fact that she has clearly picked a side on the issue.
Merely asking questions from both sides is not the same thing as journalistic integrity.
IP: Logged |
I challenge you to recognize your moral obligation to give me the apology that you clearly owe me for your determined and methodical and continued efforts to slander me, for no valid reason at all--except perhaps for the fact that I maintain an anti-evolution and pro-Creation position which some of you manifestly cannot stand to have anyone champion in an articulate and logical manner.
Or, if you want me to think you credible, you could stop talking out of your hat.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But the history of the Middle East is not encouraging for the emergence of a pro-Western, secular state.
Western powers have a history of imposing and/or supporting their dictators of choice in the region. When the revolution inevitably comes, it's hardly reasonable to expect the resulting government to be pro-Western (see: Iran).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It was not just one isolated, extremist Imam who said that it is OK for Moslems to lie to non-Moslems. The Koran and other Moslem historical sources also teach this:
quote:Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.” Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.” Ishaq:519 “Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘...I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.’” Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom you have a treaty, retaliate by breaking off relations with them.” Qur’an 8:30 “Allah is the best schemer.” Ishaq:323 “I am the best of plotters. I deceived them with My guile so that I delivered you from them.” Ishaq:365/Tabari VII:94 “Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.’ ‘Say what you like,’ Muhammad replied. ‘You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.’” Qur’an 13:27 “Say, ‘God leads whosoever He wills astray.’ Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’ --link: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070526172805AAeOx3m
Contrast that with the teaching of Jesus: "The truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Also note the Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." (Exodus 20:16)
Not a single one of those quotes says its ok to lie to "infidels" specifically or as a matter of course. Also they all look to be taken out of context. Not to mention Yahoo Answers is a horrible source, less credible than Wikipedia and only slightly more credible than Youtube comments.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: When the revolution inevitably comes, it's hardly reasonable to expect the resulting government to be pro-Western (see: Iran).
Or for that matter, if we got a secular and democratic Egypt, I'd chalk that up as a win. I could care less if it's "pro-Western."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, OK, however Wickedpedia is to be spelled. I'll bet I have a lot fewer misspellings than most posters.
Bella, the point of being "fair and balanced" is not that every commentator is neutral, but rather that commentators of both liberal and conservative biases are presented. This helps discerning viewers to appreciate that there is more than one side to an issue--unlike MSNBC and their ilk, who would have you believe that their liberal view is the only view. This is why Fox News is so popular. Fox is not just a conservative viewpoint newssource--it only seems that way, because other newssources are so uniformly biased to the left. Most of them do not even hint that there is a conservative viewpoint.
Mucus, in what way would it be a win if Egypt turns out to be anti-West and anti-Israel, and maybe renews its warfare with Israel? How would it be good for the people to be put on a course that would inevitably lead to major conflict?
As for God being deceptive, you fail to recognize that God frequently accepts responsibility for what He allows to happen (even though it is not His fault)--such as "strong delusion" coming on those who reject the truth. That is what the rejectors of truth have chosen for themselves!
The death of Saul is an interesting example. At one point, it says that God killed King Saul, for consorting with the Witch of Endor. At another point it says that the Philistines killed King Saul. The actual narrative of the event shows that Saul was mortally wounded by arrows fired by Philistine archers, and fell on his own sword rather than fall into the hands of his enemy while still alive. So Saul actually killed himself. But in a sense, all three statements are true.
God told Moses to tell Pharoah to let the children of Israel go three days out into the wilderness so they can sacrifice to God. We can only speculate what might have happened had Pharoah agreed. Remember the principle that many of God's prophecies are conditional--God will revise the fate He promised, based on the behavior of the people. This is fair and compassionate. God did intend all along for Moses to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. But that was because He knew all along that Pharoah would stubbornly resist to the bitter end. God gave Pharoah every chance to make a wise choice. So also Jesus washed the feet of Judas the very night Judas would betray Him, and Jesus knew he was going to do it. He still gave Judas a chance to repent.
Misha, that listing came from similar listings of quotes available on many websites. Now, if you can show that these quotations are false, you might have something.
I think you are not recognizing the clear implications of these passages. I believe they were originally compiled by someone taking issue with the swearing in of a Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison, so they focus on whether oaths are binding for Muslims. But the principle is the same. The honor of one's word does not apply when speaking to non-Muslims. So this has been interpreted by various imams, who know the Koran better than you or I do.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we keep Ron from derailing this thread any further and go back to discussing Egypt...
Doesn't anyone else find it hard to believe that the military will surrender control of the country after 6 months?
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bella, the point of being "fair and balanced" is not that every commentator is neutral, but rather that commentators of both liberal and conservative biases are presented.
List for me please the commentators with a liberal bias. And then explain to me how they balance out the entire cast of Fox and Friends, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Huckabee, and whatever other conservative commentators I'm forgetting.
SoaP -
Possibly not, but in reality, I think the better question is to ask whether or not 6 months is a realistic time frame to complete all the tasks that have to be completed before a civilian government takes over.
They need to write a new constitution, elect a new parliament and end elect a new president. And they need to basically invent a political process for the entire country, from scratch. Does that sound like a realistic 6 month time frame job? Most people are saying it'll take a year.
Do I think they WOULD hand over power? Kind of a crapshoot at this point, but I know that a lot of protesters are refusing to leave Tahrir Square until they do...however many months away that is. But they've already met several key demands of the protesters. There's been a lot of good faith efforts and actions on their part.
The track record for the region certainly seems to suggest that them willingly handing over power is less likely, but, if they hold on too long, there's either going to be a brutal repression, or the people unseat another despot.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to the Egyptian military, you also have to remember its a conscript army. The people are the military, the military are the people- many of those in Tahrir Square have probably already served in it. That military refused to fire on protesters when given the orders to do so by Mubarak. I doubt they'd be more co-operative for another would be despot.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: When it comes to the Egyptian military, you also have to remember its a conscript army. The people are the military, the military are the people- many of those in Tahrir Square have probably already served in it.
Power corrupts.
See: history of USSR. See also: Animal Farm.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sure. And I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I'm saying that so far the Egyptian army (and I mean rank-and-file, not the higher ups) has shown itself very unwilling to do harm to its own people. Any general wanting to become Supreme Leader of Egypt is going to have to figure out a way to persuade soldiers who have already disobeyed shoot to kill orders that they should now murder civilians, and I honestly don't see that happening.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do we actually know the specifics of what the military was ordered to do and at what level the order was refused? I wasn't aware we knew the specifics. I think that'll be fascinating story some day if it's ever told.
I think it's safe to assume that the generals, who are by and large Mubarak clones and appointees, didn't refuse the order.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do we actually know the specifics of what the military was ordered to do and at what level the order was refused? I wasn't aware we knew the specifics. I think that'll be fascinating story some day if it's ever told.
I think it's safe to assume that the generals, who are by and large Mubarak clones and appointees, didn't refuse the order.
quote:Last night, a military officer guarding the tens of thousands celebrating in Cairo threw down his rifle and joined the demonstrators, yet another sign of the ordinary Egyptian soldier's growing sympathy for the democracy demonstrators. We had witnessed many similar sentiments from the army over the past two weeks. But the critical moment came on the evening of 30 January when, it is now clear, Mubarak ordered the Egyptian Third Army to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square with their tanks after flying F-16 fighter bombers at low level over the protesters.
Many of the senior tank commanders could be seen tearing off their headsets – over which they had received the fatal orders – to use their mobile phones. They were, it now transpires, calling their own military families for advice. Fathers who had spent their lives serving the Egyptian army told their sons to disobey, that they must never kill their own people.
Thus when General Hassan al-Rawani told the massive crowds yesterday evening that "everything you want will be realised – all your demands will be met", the people cried back: "The army and the people stand together – the army and the people are united. The army and the people belong to one hand."
quote:Bella, the point of being "fair and balanced" is not that every commentator is neutral, but rather that commentators of both liberal and conservative biases are presented.
List for me please the commentators with a liberal bias. And then explain to me how they balance out the entire cast of Fox and Friends, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Huckabee, and whatever other conservative commentators I'm forgetting.
SoaP -
Possibly not, but in reality, I think the better question is to ask whether or not 6 months is a realistic time frame to complete all the tasks that have to be completed before a civilian government takes over.
They need to write a new constitution, elect a new parliament and end elect a new president. And they need to basically invent a political process for the entire country, from scratch. Does that sound like a realistic 6 month time frame job? Most people are saying it'll take a year.
Do I think they WOULD hand over power? Kind of a crapshoot at this point, but I know that a lot of protesters are refusing to leave Tahrir Square until they do...however many months away that is. But they've already met several key demands of the protesters. There's been a lot of good faith efforts and actions on their part.
The track record for the region certainly seems to suggest that them willingly handing over power is less likely, but, if they hold on too long, there's either going to be a brutal repression, or the people unseat another despot.
What I'm most worried about is the way the military went about their takeover. They simply 'dissolved' the country's Parliament and 'suspended' the Constitution. They essentially have all the power in the country at the moment.
What's most important is that how well they govern during these next 6 months. If they gain legitimacy during that time-span, I think they'll do their best to hold on to as much power as they can, and we can kiss our democracy dreams goodbye.
I just hope the people of Egypt don't settle for another authoritarian regime.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dissolving the parliament and suspending the constitution were two of the demands made by the protesters.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dissolving the parliament and suspending the constitution were two of the demands made by the protesters.
Oh haha, shows how much I know. I just don't like the fact that the only people with any real power left over from Mubarak's old regime are the ones with the guns.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, in what way would it be a win if Egypt turns out to be anti-West and anti-Israel, and maybe renews its warfare with Israel?
a) Many countries are neither "anti-West" nor "pro-Western" b) Many countries manage to not be "pro-Western" yet don't end up shooting at Israel
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
SoaP - I share your concerns about the military, since, in general, militaries are not known for giving up power when they've taken over a country.
On the other hand, who COULD they have picked that you would believe would hand the reigns over? As Rivka points out, power corrupts. I'm not sure there's anyone you really could put in the transitional job that anyone would really totally trust to ever hand power back to "the people".
In this case, the military (so far) seems to be the only force in Egypt with sufficient strength and authority to do the job with any amount of support from the people. So far they've done a reasonably good job of trying to listen to the "voice of the country". So, we'll see how things stand in a year. I don't have really high hopes, but I certainly don't have a better solution either.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I decline your request that I list all the liberal commentators on Fox News Channel. If you want to make a point about this, then the proper way would be for YOU to do the homework, and list the commentators who appear and whether they represent liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, views. I think you might surprise yourself. Whenever there is any issue, Fox News almost always presents opposing viewpoints. See for yourself.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And with that answer, Ron, you have proven all detractors of Fox News correct.
Seriously? You couldn't even think of ONE liberal commentator?
ETA: Okay, I had to run out for an hour. But what I meant to say was - as an historian, you'll know all about this Ron - it's not massively convincing when you just make an unfounded statement, and when someone asks for some evidence for or information about said statement, you reply 'I am correct. Now get your own information.'
That just makes everyone assume that, in fact, you can't back up your ideas because they are groundless.
And what happened to that journalist is just terrible. Poor woman.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, I decline your request that I list all the liberal commentators on Fox News Channel. If you want to make a point about this, then the proper way would be for YOU to do the homework, and list the commentators who appear and whether they represent liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, views. I think you might surprise yourself. Whenever there is any issue, Fox News almost always presents opposing viewpoints. See for yourself.
I'll spot you Alan Colmes, even though I'm not sure how often he's actually on the network anymore.
Other than that, I've got nothing. I think by your rules for this little game, I guess I win.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the times I've seen Alan Colmes (which admittedly wasn't much), he represented the liberal side pretty pathetically.
I'd term him a "professional strawman" based on what I saw. His job was to lose to Hannity in debate, which admittedly was probably pretty hard.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how many of these protests will actually result in a coup. History will look back on this period and examine it quite a bit. It's funny to see how a revolt in a tiny powderkeg country like Tunisia can set an entire region on fire.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are some liberal commentators on Fox News from a quick search:
Juan Williams Alan Combs Bernie Sanders Al Sharpton Bob Beckel Kirsten Powers Mora Liasson Patrick Cadell Dennis Kucinich Charles Rangle
Greta Van Sustren and Geraldo Riveria are also moderate leftists, and each hosts a show on weeknights.
I watch during the weekdays, usually early in the morning, and I can attest that I've seen these commentators on Fox News numerous times.
However, I think anyone claiming Fox News isn't biased is missing the point. They are. But all news will have a slant one way or another, even if the information is relatively accurate, because each news organization can pick and choose which items of news they'll emphasize and which they'll ignore.
I don't have a problem with bias itself. I do have a problem when people won't admit it or get huffy when they notice bias from an opposing viewpoint. It's much, much harder to spot bias when it's snuggled so closely to your side of the issue.
Fox news isn't necessarily fair, but I do think they balance out the left-leaning media to a degree.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dennis Kucinich is a Fox News commentator? Really? In what capacity? I'm not saying he isn't; I'm just astounded to hear that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Are you just listing liberals who have been on the network as guests before? I'm talking about people on the year round payroll with their own shows and mouthpieces. You're talking about hired strawmen.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you just listing liberals who have been on the network as guests before? I'm talking about people on the year round payroll with their own shows and mouthpieces. You're talking about hired strawmen.
I'm talking about regular guests on the channel. Whether or not they are on Fox News's payroll, I have no idea. Apart from Greta Van Sustren and Geraldo Riveria, they don't actually have shows.
I didn't realize you were asking for liberals with actual one hour programs on Fox News, which is an entirely different ballgame, and much easier to figure out for yourself. Just a touch of knowledge about how Fox News actually works would have answered this one for you.
I know of one conservative show on MSNBC, and that's Morning Joe, with Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, and Willie Geist, and an occasional guest spot carved out for Pat Buchanan. It's not really a conservative with a mic and the floor. It's a mixed bag of conservatives/liberals duking it out.
I'm curious to know how many paid conservatives there are at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and the myriad of nationally known papers and news magazines circulating out there.
Despite all the tantrums leftists are throwing over Fox News (and the existence of conservative talk), you still have something of a monopoly on media and entertainment.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not even close. None of them come close to the rhetoric I hear on a regular basis when I am forced to listen to Fox News at work.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
That was so painful to watch. To be fair the State Dept Rep obviously has an official line that he has to stick to, but it was still frustrating as all get out, wanting a substantial response to such relevant questions.
And figures. This illustrates what a short leash he had.
quote:P.J. Crowley is abruptly stepping down as State Department spokesman under pressure from the White House, according to senior officials familiar with the matter, because of controversial comments he made about the Bradley Manning case.
quote:Speaking to a small group at MIT last week, Crowley was asked about allegations that Manning is being tortured and kicked up a firestorm by answering that what is being done to Manning by Defense Department officials "is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid."
quote:I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
