When you're the party that wants to educate people, it's not that hard to 'control the school system'.
That's clever, my friend. Not so much on the substance, but heavy on the style for sure.
FWIW, I would prefer to let students have self-guided instruction. But if you want to promote an agenda then you can't let them do that, sadly. For example, you can't really let them investigate The New Deal, you have to have a state-approved message that helps further the Newer Deals.
I mean, if one accepts your premise as true (Fox is the only right-biased news station and everyone else is biased to the left) then people who are looking for left-biased news can go anywhere, whereas the people who want the right-biased news pretty much only have Fox.
Does Fox total viewership > all the other networks combined? Like, if it does, you've got a point here.
The last poll showed most of america is right of center. not a lot but still most people lean more right of center.
Ratings are based on viewer ship. nothing else. i posted the ratings on the 2nd page.
While other news station cnn, msnbc, cbs have all lost major ratings for their time slots.
as for more viewers in total eh depending on the day not sure. as i said i can't find the monthly ratings which would give a broader picture the only think i can find is daily ratings.
Really the only news i watch is local news.
When you're the party that wants to educate people, it's not that hard to 'control the school system'.
Education or Indoctrination? that has been a major arguement. teachers more so public school and educations systems are not suppose to impose their political view points, However that hasn't stopped some of them.
That's clever, my friend. Not so much on the substance, but heavy on the style for sure.
FWIW, I would prefer to let students have self-guided instruction. But if you want to promote an agenda then you can't let them do that, sadly. For example, you can't really let them investigate The New Deal, you have to have a state-approved message that helps further the Newer Deals.
I don't understand your latter statement. Self-guided instruction? For elementary/jr high/high school? I can only assume that you are joking, because that would accomplish a fat lot of nothing other than kids sitting around talking to their neighbors.
And there is plenty of substance behind what I am saying. I can't find the study now, but the last time I looked at it, 8 of the top 10 states, in terms of education, were 'Blue states', and the bottom like..15, I think, were all red states. I don't think that you can just write this off as a coincidence. But then I might be biased somewhat, because I live in AZ, which is A)an overwhelmingly red state and B)the worst state in the country in education rankings.
@mystery: I can only laugh at someone that has previously argued in favor of Christianity being taught in schools accusing liberals of 'indoctrination'. Give me a break.
@mystery: I can only laugh at someone that has previously argued in favor of Christianity being taught in schools accusing liberals of 'indoctrination'. Give me a break.
I don't think i have ever argued that. what i have argued is that it if schools are going to teach other religions that it should not be excluded.
I have argued that students should be given an option between evolution and creationism and let them decide.
maybe some of my early early posts but the things change over time.
there is a difference between the two of them. one of them allows for free thought (education). the other says you have to believe the way i believe and what you think is wrong (indroctrination).
ex: the school teacher that raged on that student and started cussing at him simply because he said that obama was a bully when the teacher was going off on romney.
unfortuantly that school system is allowing this teacher to keep her job.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Christianity is literally the embodiment of indoctrination. Not only does it say 'you have to believe the way I believe and what you think is wrong', it goes beyond that and says 'if you don't believe like I do, your soul will burn in hell for all eternity'.
Schools should not teach any religion/religious beliefs. Well, not young kid school at least..learning about the history of religions etc. when you are in college and are choosing which courses you take is totally different. But grade schools etc. should not teach anything religious. Giving them 'the option' between evolution and creation seems like nonsense, because their parents would decide, and parents are frequently the problem in Christian situations.
I did read about that teacher, and agree that she should be fired with prejudice. Not particularly surprised that she's not being fired, considering that this took place in GA, one of the most ridiculous states in the US.
Education or Indoctrination? that has been a major arguement. teachers more so public school and educations systems are not suppose to impose their political view points, However that hasn't stopped some of them.
Doesn't really matter since there's teachers on BOTH sides of the political spectrum that do it. Almost every professor I had in college was EXTREMELY conservative. Only my Psych professor bucked the trend for the one's that made affiliation obvious.
Anyone who complains about "media bias" is either too stupid to see that it comes from both sides or is too entrenched in their ideologies to acknowledge it.
And shame on you, mystery45, for generalizing about America's educators. You see what you want to see, making broad assumptions based on anecdotes, hearsay, and outliers. Shame on everyone who thinks that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A tier 3 Legacy deck was named after me. What have you done with your life?
That video exposes quite a bit about the liberal media bias, too. Why didn't you mention that?
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
All they did with there "study" was cherry pick a series of questions they knew would prey on conservative bias you can do the exact same thing to a MSNBC viewer no doubt.
The intelligence test here is figuring out what BS there "study" is!
All they did with there "study" was cherry pick a series of questions they knew would prey on conservative bias you can do the exact same thing to a MSNBC viewer no doubt.
The intelligence test here is figuring out what BS there "study" is!
Or maybe it's to know the difference between their, there, and they're.
It seems like you should watch that video again, because it doesn't prey on conservative bias. And it is also critical of the extremely left news sources such as MSNBC. But none of the news sources were as bad as Fox.
Also: Glad you admitted Fox is biased.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
All they did with there "study" was cherry pick a series of questions they knew would prey on conservative bias you can do the exact same thing to a MSNBC viewer no doubt.
What they did was show Fox's bias with real examples. The verifiable facts as presented are that Fox is extremely biased (to the point of simply making things up and trying to pass it off as news) and people who watch it are more uninformed than people who don't. Trying to point a finger at MSNBC is just deflection—it still doesn't absolve Fox of spewing the sensationalist, oftentimes factually incorrect nonsense they pretend is news.
What they did was show Fox's bias with real examples. The verifiable facts as presented are that Fox is extremely biased (to the point of simply making things up and trying to pass it off as news) and people who watch it are more uninformed than people who don't. Trying to point a finger at MSNBC is just deflection—it still doesn't absolve Fox of spewing the sensationalist, oftentimes factually incorrect nonsense they pretend is news.
showing bias with bias doesn't prove anything. the same way stacked hypotheticals are not an arguement nor do they prove anything.
so claiming they are facts is hardly true.
you again are confusing opinionated shows with the actual news programs. there is a difference.
It isn't deflection at all. MSNBC clearly doctored a video on purpose. The same way Dan Rather tried to push off a doctored military paper against bush. Only he ended up getting fired for it.
this isn't the first time MSNBC has been caught doing this either.
They tried this when Zimmerman got arrested and they doctored the phone calls he made to 911 to try and show it was a racial matter. when the real phone call was released 5-10 people got fired.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
showing bias with bias doesn't prove anything. the same way stacked hypotheticals are not an arguement nor do they prove anything.
so claiming they are facts is hardly true.
you again are confusing opinionated shows with the actual news programs. there is a difference.
It isn't deflection at all. MSNBC clearly doctored a video on purpose. The same way Dan Rather tried to push off a doctored military paper against bush. Only he ended up getting fired for it.
this isn't the first time MSNBC has been caught doing this either.
They tried this when Zimmerman got arrested and they doctored the phone calls he made to 911 to try and show it was a racial matter. when the real phone call was released 5-10 people got fired.
Editing for time or space constraints is not doctoring something. Its editing. They do it in papers too. They do it on the internet also.
This practice is not only done with political people, its done in sport and local news too. Pick up a local paper and see the retractions or corrections on the 2nd page of the paper(at least mine).
What else is there to explain the huge gap between them and all the other news networks.
If there were, say, 5 liberal-biased networks and one conservative-biased network it seems quite reasonable to expect each individual liberal network to have about 1/5 the viewership of the conservative network. Wouldn't you agree? Does that mean conservative views are roughly 5 times as common as liberal views? No.
Also, there is a trend of increasing conservatism as people get older. Older people tend to get their news from TV, younger people not so much. It follows that conservative TV news would get higher ratings than all liberal TV news combined even in a 50/50 split in the population between liberals and conservatives.
Based on those things I don't really think viewership rankings of Fox News is an accurate indicator of the will of the people. Would you agree?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Editing for time or space constraints is not doctoring something. Its editing. They do it in papers too. They do it on the internet also.
I hope that you realize that there is a difference between the two of them. Editing is to fix a mistake.
Doctoring is to try and make something look like it isn't.
Based on those things I don't really think viewership rankings of Fox News is an accurate indicator of the will of the people. Would you agree?
I can agree with this and i can say that fox news dispite what people claim appeal too more people than the others.
most young people don't care about the news. just as they don't care about voting etc ...
by the time they do as you said their views have changed.
What about Skynews? They seem to be international enough to not care so much about the local purposes of 'selecting' news.
the issue is more with cable news networks vs say local news stations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rasmussen did a poll.
36% of the polls said fox news was neutral. it also said that 37% of NPR was neutral and that 32% of CNN was neutral.
(i tried to pull the actual poll but it appears that rasmussen is now requiring you to join or subscribe. yes i realize that the numbers above are >100% yet that is what the site said. i am sure that it is different catagories but those weren't listed.)
scroll down a little and you'll see the image of the fox news window that was terribly misrepresented.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
I hope that you realize that there is a difference between the two of them. Editing is to fix a mistake.
Doctoring is to try and make something look like it isn't.
Editing is not fixing something when it comes to putting an article into print or in the case of a news clip the sound bite you hear. The editor/producer of the show gets some information they want to add to the next paper/news hour and they have to squeeze it into a set space, whether it be set number of words, or a time frame. If the piece goes over those parameters they have to whittle it down to fit. Some times this causes what was said to look different then it was. It happens all the time in TV news, news papers, and on the internet. Thats why I am giving the benefit of doubt to who ever did the cutting and they felt the time cut was the least important.
Now you are correct in saying they doctored the clip IF, intentionally trying to make the person say something they didnt. You normally see doctoring on Cobert or Mad TV not news shows. Thats just bad editing.
ed·it
[ed-it] Show IPA
verb (used with object) 1. to supervise or direct the preparation of (a newspaper, magazine, book, etc.); serve as editor of; direct the editorial policies of.
2. to collect, prepare, and arrange (materials) for publication.
3. to revise or correct, as a manuscript.
4. to expunge; eliminate (often followed by out ): The author has edited out all references to his own family.
5. to add (usually followed by in ).
Most TV news shows have a video editor to fit sound bites into time allotted.
When you're the party that wants to educate people, it's not that hard to 'control the school system'.
That's clever, my friend. Not so much on the substance, but heavy on the style for sure.
FWIW, I would prefer to let students have self-guided instruction. But if you want to promote an agenda then you can't let them do that, sadly. For example, you can't really let them investigate The New Deal, you have to have a state-approved message that helps further the Newer Deals.
The last poll showed most of america is right of center. not a lot but still most people lean more right of center.
Ratings are based on viewer ship. nothing else. i posted the ratings on the 2nd page.
While other news station cnn, msnbc, cbs have all lost major ratings for their time slots.
as for more viewers in total eh depending on the day not sure. as i said i can't find the monthly ratings which would give a broader picture the only think i can find is daily ratings.
Really the only news i watch is local news.
Education or Indoctrination? that has been a major arguement. teachers more so public school and educations systems are not suppose to impose their political view points, However that hasn't stopped some of them.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I don't understand your latter statement. Self-guided instruction? For elementary/jr high/high school? I can only assume that you are joking, because that would accomplish a fat lot of nothing other than kids sitting around talking to their neighbors.
And there is plenty of substance behind what I am saying. I can't find the study now, but the last time I looked at it, 8 of the top 10 states, in terms of education, were 'Blue states', and the bottom like..15, I think, were all red states. I don't think that you can just write this off as a coincidence. But then I might be biased somewhat, because I live in AZ, which is A)an overwhelmingly red state and B)the worst state in the country in education rankings.
@mystery: I can only laugh at someone that has previously argued in favor of Christianity being taught in schools accusing liberals of 'indoctrination'. Give me a break.
I don't think i have ever argued that. what i have argued is that it if schools are going to teach other religions that it should not be excluded.
I have argued that students should be given an option between evolution and creationism and let them decide.
maybe some of my early early posts but the things change over time.
there is a difference between the two of them. one of them allows for free thought (education). the other says you have to believe the way i believe and what you think is wrong (indroctrination).
ex: the school teacher that raged on that student and started cussing at him simply because he said that obama was a bully when the teacher was going off on romney.
unfortuantly that school system is allowing this teacher to keep her job.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Schools should not teach any religion/religious beliefs. Well, not young kid school at least..learning about the history of religions etc. when you are in college and are choosing which courses you take is totally different. But grade schools etc. should not teach anything religious. Giving them 'the option' between evolution and creation seems like nonsense, because their parents would decide, and parents are frequently the problem in Christian situations.
I did read about that teacher, and agree that she should be fired with prejudice. Not particularly surprised that she's not being fired, considering that this took place in GA, one of the most ridiculous states in the US.
Anyway. That was off-topic a bit, sorry.
Good lord, at least people riding Tracy Morgan's ass about his gay ranting jokes make sense.
Doesn't really matter since there's teachers on BOTH sides of the political spectrum that do it. Almost every professor I had in college was EXTREMELY conservative. Only my Psych professor bucked the trend for the one's that made affiliation obvious.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
That's because you have no grasp of science.
Also, the only teachers I knew who openly talked about politics were rabid conservatives.
Fox is worthless.
MSNBC is worthless.
Anyone who complains about "media bias" is either too stupid to see that it comes from both sides or is too entrenched in their ideologies to acknowledge it.
And shame on you, mystery45, for generalizing about America's educators. You see what you want to see, making broad assumptions based on anecdotes, hearsay, and outliers. Shame on everyone who thinks that way.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
All they did with there "study" was cherry pick a series of questions they knew would prey on conservative bias you can do the exact same thing to a MSNBC viewer no doubt.
The intelligence test here is figuring out what BS there "study" is!
Source? Are you referring to the fact that reality has a liberal bias?
Or maybe it's to know the difference between their, there, and they're.
It seems like you should watch that video again, because it doesn't prey on conservative bias. And it is also critical of the extremely left news sources such as MSNBC. But none of the news sources were as bad as Fox.
Also: Glad you admitted Fox is biased.
Look at the questions yourself!
That's kind of what I was asking for- I haven't seen the questions.
What they did was show Fox's bias with real examples. The verifiable facts as presented are that Fox is extremely biased (to the point of simply making things up and trying to pass it off as news) and people who watch it are more uninformed than people who don't. Trying to point a finger at MSNBC is just deflection—it still doesn't absolve Fox of spewing the sensationalist, oftentimes factually incorrect nonsense they pretend is news.
showing bias with bias doesn't prove anything. the same way stacked hypotheticals are not an arguement nor do they prove anything.
so claiming they are facts is hardly true.
you again are confusing opinionated shows with the actual news programs. there is a difference.
It isn't deflection at all. MSNBC clearly doctored a video on purpose. The same way Dan Rather tried to push off a doctored military paper against bush. Only he ended up getting fired for it.
this isn't the first time MSNBC has been caught doing this either.
They tried this when Zimmerman got arrested and they doctored the phone calls he made to 911 to try and show it was a racial matter. when the real phone call was released 5-10 people got fired.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Editing for time or space constraints is not doctoring something. Its editing. They do it in papers too. They do it on the internet also.
This practice is not only done with political people, its done in sport and local news too. Pick up a local paper and see the retractions or corrections on the 2nd page of the paper(at least mine).
If there were, say, 5 liberal-biased networks and one conservative-biased network it seems quite reasonable to expect each individual liberal network to have about 1/5 the viewership of the conservative network. Wouldn't you agree? Does that mean conservative views are roughly 5 times as common as liberal views? No.
Also, there is a trend of increasing conservatism as people get older. Older people tend to get their news from TV, younger people not so much. It follows that conservative TV news would get higher ratings than all liberal TV news combined even in a 50/50 split in the population between liberals and conservatives.
Based on those things I don't really think viewership rankings of Fox News is an accurate indicator of the will of the people. Would you agree?
I hope that you realize that there is a difference between the two of them. Editing is to fix a mistake.
Doctoring is to try and make something look like it isn't.
I can agree with this and i can say that fox news dispite what people claim appeal too more people than the others.
most young people don't care about the news. just as they don't care about voting etc ...
by the time they do as you said their views have changed.
the issue is more with cable news networks vs say local news stations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rasmussen did a poll.
36% of the polls said fox news was neutral. it also said that 37% of NPR was neutral and that 32% of CNN was neutral.
(i tried to pull the actual poll but it appears that rasmussen is now requiring you to join or subscribe. yes i realize that the numbers above are >100% yet that is what the site said. i am sure that it is different catagories but those weren't listed.)
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
you, and anyone else who is responding to my post.
all that comment was meant to imply was that the daily show is a fake news show.
---------------------------------
if were gunna talk about how terrible fox news is, remeber how bad this was?
http://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/four-dead-in-toulouse-school-shooting.1918294/page-4
scroll down a little and you'll see the image of the fox news window that was terribly misrepresented.
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
that isn't the point of this thread there are only the same few people that are doing this. this isn't a debate/arguement thread.
simply pointing out that i in general think media bias as gone way to far.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
On the edit, Huff post has both edited and unedited video in one spot of the event for people that care: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/msnbc-romney-edit-andrea-mitchell_n_1609298.html
Now you are correct in saying they doctored the clip IF, intentionally trying to make the person say something they didnt. You normally see doctoring on Cobert or Mad TV not news shows. Thats just bad editing.
Most TV news shows have a video editor to fit sound bites into time allotted.