-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
White House: "Fox News is not a news organization"
- Thread starter permutated
- Start date
- Status
It's easy for someone debating someone else to criticize someone who's having to debate 5 other people.zoku88 said:It's fine if you don't have any more points to support your ridiculous accusations. You can come out and say it.
I love how you didn't do anything to support your argument in that sentence, btw. Shows that you're a good debater.
LOLWUT? In his opinion is was a flawed comparison, in my opinion, it wasn't a flawed comparison. Ipso facto, thus, because.zoku88 said:
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
:lol I knew the Z at the end of his name was fishy. Nazi fishy.
Yes, it is. Which is how I did it. If you're going to respond, respond with an argument.BowieZ said:
Whether it is really flawed or not is irrelevant. Objecting to a comparison you think is flawed is still not arguing semantics. Which, your post didn't really counter...BowieZ said:
I'm beginning to wonder if you truly do think...
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Dude. You guys almost conquered the world and killed millions in the process. Stop whining.BowieZ said:
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Well you have an a in your name. Then again, i have a capital N.bob_arctor said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Number 2 said:
i have an 'i' .
oh shit!
0_0
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Omg. That laugh chills my soul.BowieZ said:
ViperVisor
Member
Fox News wins either way but the battle the White House wants to win is keeping the idiocy in a cage at Fox.
Jamesfrom818
Banned
There's no possible way this is going to backfire.
Chichikov said:
In all fairness, the majority of "news outlets" throughout the years have been far more politically biased than anything we've seen as of late. Granted, there was a bit of a trend towards a more "unbiased" news reporting in the past 30-40 years, but historically newspapers have been idealogically biased to the extreme.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
You know what's cool? Fox News saying Cnn, msnbc aren't legit news organizations and that the NY Times isn't a legit newspaper. That's cool.
I meant "right" in the "correctness" sense, sorry: the "rightness" of this accusation.zoku88 said:
I am defending his ability to call a tactic Nazi-like because, yes, semantically, it is correct. I presumed Tamanon thought this was a semantically incorrect accusation -- by his post -- but if Tamanon believes it's a semantically correct accusation, then what are we arguing about?
The swirly-grey 'offensiveness' posited by the Nazi comparison? Ooga-booga!
I don't hate Jews. I fucked one last week. He was hot. I don't like any powerful religion. And I question any powerful government.omg rite said:
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
It will but the WH is playing it smart by making it seem like its just trying to point out that it is not a news organization. When an independent or democrat watched fox coverage they will question it. Many conservatives will too. Common people are stupid remember and they believe everything they hear coming from the news. This is smart because it be blown out of proportion because the media loves to do so when there is drama and folks like media matters can show how much garbage of a network it really is...Jamesfrom818 said:
Sure the WH looks petty for a few days but its worth it.
You don't think "right" means "correct"?Tamanon said:
Again, I'll remind you that that minor "semantic" slip-up if you will was the result of having to respond to 5 different people arguing with me. This happens occasionally in PoliGAF when having to face a firing squad of 10+ different people results in me rushing words and phrases and then having to defend those words and phrases for another 10 posts etc etc. Which caused me to get banned that one time.
So, in light of all that, I shall let you guys win this argument and gracefully step aside.
Unless you're arguing by definition, then you can't really say "this definition is correct." If you're arguing by connotation, then you'd have to actually provide evidence of other uses of the term, but since you didn't do that, you must be arguing by definition, which is meaningless and hence there's nothing to debate.BowieZ said:
Btw, that's not how you use the term "right" with that meaning. It doesn't make sense. . "right to accuse..." "Correctness" or any other synonym doesn't fit in there.
Was that 'gracefully' a semantic 'slip-up, if you will'?BowieZ said:
You should really read your posts and ponder what it was that was being argued and why most of your "arguments" weren't actually arguments.
I'm not going to take a stance on whether this was appropriate or not.
But I do have a question for those who feel it was unwise: is there ever a point where this is appropriate? How deceptive, how nefariously deceiving does a purported news outlet need to be before the government should publicly belittle it?
Let's say, as an example, that Fox News came out and stated that Obama had killed millions of innocent US citizens. Obviously a lie, but as Fox News has successfully argued, it is technically legal for news organizations to lie outright. Would that be okay? If not, where is the line?
Also, keep in mind the distinction between banning a news source and simply ridiculing or demeaning it. Obama has done the latter. Similarly, I'd fight aggressively for someone's legal right to call Nancy Pelosi a Nazi, but I would simultaneously work to make sure that person's opinion is given the ridicule it properly deserves.
But I do have a question for those who feel it was unwise: is there ever a point where this is appropriate? How deceptive, how nefariously deceiving does a purported news outlet need to be before the government should publicly belittle it?
Let's say, as an example, that Fox News came out and stated that Obama had killed millions of innocent US citizens. Obviously a lie, but as Fox News has successfully argued, it is technically legal for news organizations to lie outright. Would that be okay? If not, where is the line?
Also, keep in mind the distinction between banning a news source and simply ridiculing or demeaning it. Obama has done the latter. Similarly, I'd fight aggressively for someone's legal right to call Nancy Pelosi a Nazi, but I would simultaneously work to make sure that person's opinion is given the ridicule it properly deserves.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
First Limbaugh gets chumped from the Rams and now this. Next Glenn Beck will admit to doing something he's refused to deny. So sad.
Wonder how Jon Stewart will react to the WH accusation. I'm guessing "No shit, Sherlock".
Wonder how Jon Stewart will react to the WH accusation. I'm guessing "No shit, Sherlock".
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
So the Obama government is now trying to get the media to go along with its boycott of the part of the media that is critical of it. Wow. So unbelievably creepy. Nixon is smiling at this creepy attempt to silence opposition.
I can't believe that people actually go along with these dictatorial KOOKS (and incredible novices) that are running the show in Washington. There have not been such fascists in the white house for some time.
Obama is really frickin' creeping me out now. I think this man is incredibly thin skinned.
BTW, people saying that this strategy of taking on Fox won't backfire...what planet are you living on. Honestly! Fox has a HUUUUUGE microphone. Bigger than Obama's. They have a huge audience, and every time Obama opens his silly little mouth in opposition to Fox he makes their ratings, their viewership, and their profits go up. EVERY time Obama takes on Fox, Fox talks about it incessantly! Why is that? Because it makes their ratings go insanely high every time the novice nincompoops in the white house try this HORRIBLY inept line of attack. It just makes them look so small, so stupid, and so incredibly gullible.
It may make YOU guys feel better, but it hurts him, hurts the office, and elevates Republicans.
Me? I still want the Obama of 2004. You know, the one that promised one America. No red America, no blue America, just the united states of America. I long for those empty words to be true, but it's clear that Obama is the MOST partisan president we've EVER had by LEAPS AND BOUNDS. The man see blue, and lies in purple and red, He reaches across the aisle with a severed arm. He's lost all credibility with the middle and the right...and it is 90% HIS fault. He could have easily reached out to people like me. I don't agree with him on much, but I want us to succeed as a country, and I could have been a small asset to him. Instead, I feel that he just doesn't hear me, doesn't give a shit what think, and only cares about HIM and HIS ideology.
I
I can't believe that people actually go along with these dictatorial KOOKS (and incredible novices) that are running the show in Washington. There have not been such fascists in the white house for some time.
Obama is really frickin' creeping me out now. I think this man is incredibly thin skinned.
BTW, people saying that this strategy of taking on Fox won't backfire...what planet are you living on. Honestly! Fox has a HUUUUUGE microphone. Bigger than Obama's. They have a huge audience, and every time Obama opens his silly little mouth in opposition to Fox he makes their ratings, their viewership, and their profits go up. EVERY time Obama takes on Fox, Fox talks about it incessantly! Why is that? Because it makes their ratings go insanely high every time the novice nincompoops in the white house try this HORRIBLY inept line of attack. It just makes them look so small, so stupid, and so incredibly gullible.
It may make YOU guys feel better, but it hurts him, hurts the office, and elevates Republicans.
Me? I still want the Obama of 2004. You know, the one that promised one America. No red America, no blue America, just the united states of America. I long for those empty words to be true, but it's clear that Obama is the MOST partisan president we've EVER had by LEAPS AND BOUNDS. The man see blue, and lies in purple and red, He reaches across the aisle with a severed arm. He's lost all credibility with the middle and the right...and it is 90% HIS fault. He could have easily reached out to people like me. I don't agree with him on much, but I want us to succeed as a country, and I could have been a small asset to him. Instead, I feel that he just doesn't hear me, doesn't give a shit what think, and only cares about HIM and HIS ideology.
I
I simply choose to not engage in laughter and ridicule and stuff. So sue me. I was merely responding to the first half of Herr Tamanon's post:Opiate said:
Tamanon said:
I realise now that his demand was poorly worded, but I tried to answer that specific question sufficiently, but people are now beginning to say "well, but it's laughable, so it doesn't matter".
You can laugh at anything you want, you can laugh at me. I don't believe in mocking and ridicule -- hell, I may be guilty of it a few times, it's hard not to be -- but if someone asks me to argue a certain point, I will try.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
drakesfortune said:
Next thing you know they'll start trying to take away habeas corpus and tap phones.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
drakesfortune said:
Did Bush creep you out when they did the same thing?
When a news organization is promoting flat out lies.. there is a point when i would say it's okay to fight back. otherwise, it's hard to defend over things that are completely made up.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
That's way too little words in your post. Needs more irrational ranting. Also, since you're into thin skins, make sure to watch Fox News this week in particular.drakesfortune said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
BowieZ said:
i'm not asking you. you are Australian. thus you have no idea what the American mind-set is over these matters.
I AM JOHN!
Banned
I think it's a hard line to walk, but ultimately it's best to just turn the other cheek, at least as far as public perception goes. There's no way to win against these guys unless you don't play, and I'm afraid that by doing this, they're giving Fox even more of the ammunition they need to incite some really reckless shit to go down during this administration. The only way you can really shut these guys up is by tuning them out and giving them as few opportunities to lambast you as possible (e.g., not agreeing to any of their ambush-style, "cut his mic" filled interviews, perhaps even denying them press access to certain events without overtly coming out against them like they've done).Opiate said:
BowieZ said:
That wasn't directed at you specifically: I hadn't read any of your posts in this thread. I read the first few pages. I said it was a general question -- aimed generally at those who disapprove -- and I meant it. It was not a veiled attack on BowieZ.
Since you have responded directly, though: what response would you suggest to people with preposterous claims? Let's say I claim to be a Wizard. Technically, you can't disprove that, since you are nowhere near me and cannot say with absolute certainty that I'm lying.
What is the proper response to such a claim? These are honest questions. I'd be interested in anyone's response.
WHNN is a horrible idea. If there's a scandal brewing that puts a lot of people at the network in a very weird situation.
White House should do something to promote PBS news shows. Give info straight to PBS, that way when the cable news channels are constantly sourcing PBS shows and playing clips from PBS, people will start watching that news more and it can become the de facto political news authority.
This is maybe a terrible idea too.
White House should do something to promote PBS news shows. Give info straight to PBS, that way when the cable news channels are constantly sourcing PBS shows and playing clips from PBS, people will start watching that news more and it can become the de facto political news authority.
This is maybe a terrible idea too.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Timedog said:
it worked for the Bush administration and Fox News. Wasn't revealed that they were giving them talking points and using the channel to promote their agendas? funny, how there was no major uproar over that stuff.
1) Ignore Fox News and the crazy teabaggin' birthers. I would.Opiate said:
2) Appear on Fox News and answer all the criticisms, while repeatedly saying during all interviews how Fox News is not a valid news network. Do this on every network, though. Fox News is the shittest of them all without doubt -- any sane person knows that -- but give smart people the benefit of the doubt that they will understand why the Admin is stating their favorite networks (CNN, MSNBC etc) are "not valid news networks".
3) Ban all 24/7 news networks outright and promote evening news programming and PBS etc.
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
quadriplegicjon said:
Okay, what are the lies? What are they? I don't see them? I merely see Obama lying about his health plans over and over and over again. He can't both have the deficit remain neutral and allow seniors to keep their health plans. The Dems admit this themselves in that they are promising DEEP, painful cuts to medicare (which they'll never implement). So either they are lying about the the painful cuts to medicare, or they're lying about not increasing the deficit. THESE ARE THE NUMBERS! Do you REALLY believe that they can do what they say without raising taxes on us all and without raising the deficit? Are you that naive? They've NEVER been able to do anything like that, and they promise it EVERY TIME!
I'll say this, Bush creeped me out with his huge deficits, but Obama's deficits are epic compared to Bush's. They are so illogical, so irresponsible, and they will ruin our generation. RUIN US! We don't have the money, and it is YOU AND I who will be stuck holding this incredible bill.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
My favorite was inviting all the gasbag conservative dorks like Hannity over for a nice circle jerk. Someone post pics of that. I would but my I-touch refuses to lay a finger on them.quadriplegicjon said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
I see no point in this. Just comes off as whiny and below the White House
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
LiveFromKyoto said:
Right, you mean those same provisions that Obama has supported because he realized that to fight terrorism practicality he needed them? The world doesn't exist in this ideological vaccuum of absolutes that you claim to live in.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
drakesfortune said:
I love this guy.
White house is right... Fox news is biased but that's not the problem. The problem is that, well, they fucking lie.
And we're not talking about forgetting useful facts like information channels usually does, they say full, complete lies. Like when this Bill O'Reilly dude said about French riots that they were caused by muslims, because the government (not giving a shit about the "anarchy that gained the cities") didn't want to attack Iraq.
lul's
And we're not talking about forgetting useful facts like information channels usually does, they say full, complete lies. Like when this Bill O'Reilly dude said about French riots that they were caused by muslims, because the government (not giving a shit about the "anarchy that gained the cities") didn't want to attack Iraq.
lul's
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Too bad the administration doesn't have the balls to take on actual Republicans in the House and Senate. They really need to learn how to choose their fights.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Well, going to bed. Hopefully when I wake up Fox News will either have died in fire or begun their whiny campaign of why us? whining while in a stifly stifle stance.
I do think Fox is a wanna be, if not full on, Republican party machine but I think that's good in a way because they really do break a lot of stories, it's not like Democrats are 100% squeaky clean here, so in a way it's good there's a network basically 100% against them because we get to see things that'd otherwise never be covered.
The other networks, I won't say they're in the bag for Democrats like Fox will but I do think they've lost their bite and aren't a good government watchdog.
None of them would I consider unbiased reporters of news however, but I'll say Fox is the most biased of them all.
The other networks, I won't say they're in the bag for Democrats like Fox will but I do think they've lost their bite and aren't a good government watchdog.
None of them would I consider unbiased reporters of news however, but I'll say Fox is the most biased of them all.
turnbuckle
Member
BowieZ said:
Accusing the administration of being nazi-like? How very Glen Beckish of you. Shades of Taitz.
- Status