kimmy Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Karl Rove (pictured) is being removed from Fox News by order or Roger Ailes himself, according to this article. Rove, as well as hilariously wrong analyst Dick Morris are apparently not to be on TV unless Ailes says so himself. Rove's time at Fox News will no doubt be best remembered for the segment in which he got clowned by Megyn Kelly and the math-nerds from the back room. Dick Morris is the guy who said the election would be a Romney landslide, then admitted on Hannity that he'd just said that to try to boost the Romney campaign. One assumes that Roger Ailes has come to the conclusion that putting those guys on TV makes the network look like (more of) a joke. After his super-PACs spent $100 million of donor money supporting candidates that all lost, Rove might not be in the super-PAC business for long either. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Bonam Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) The strange thing is how people seem to believe this BS. Even otherwise really smart people. I was talking to 2 guys that are each leading researchers in fusion energy, truly gifted scientific minds, and yet they bought into the whole Romney landslide thing, cause they heard it on Fox News. Edited December 5, 2012 by Bonam Quote
TimG Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 yet they bought into the whole Romney landslide thing, cause they heard it on Fox News. Political partisans are ALWAYS optimistic. And since the US elections require that there has to be one loser and one winner the losers partisans always look foolish. Was it really any different in 2004 with Kerry? Quote
jbg Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 As former British PM Harold Wilson said "two weeks in politics is a long time." Romney's stock soared with the debate performance. A combination of a skillful ground game, i.e. "get out the vote" effort, Hurricane Sandy and a horrible campaign doomed Romney. It was never going to be a landslide either way. I was thinking a narrow Romney win and I was wrong. As for Rove and Morris, they predicted wrong in a field where predicting right is a requirement. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Sleipnir Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Karl Rove (pictured) is being removed from Fox News by order or Roger Ailes himself, according to this article. Finally Fox News is showing some signs of maturing. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
wyly Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Finally Fox News is showing some signs of maturing. never...it'll always be faux news...it's fake news for idiots, there's a market niche of idiots and there's money to be made feeding those idiots what they want to hear... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
GostHacked Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 never...it'll always be faux news...it's fake news for idiots, there's a market niche of idiots and there's money to be made feeding those idiots what they want to hear... All things MSM need to be taken with salt. I find some info on Fox valuable, and some on CNN ect valuable. To me it's opinion talking heads like O'Reily that really screw things up and creates a slant, because he even admits he is biased and claim anything because it is just his opinion. Some take him for his word and at face value, and to me that is reckless. We don't really need opinions, just the solid facts so we can make up our own minds. But the media does not want you making up your own mind, and people end up believing that. Hence the reason why guys like O'Reilly have a place on TV. Marginalize guys like him and just switch the TV off if his face shows up. Quote
Sleipnir Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 never...it'll always be faux news...it's fake news for idiots, there's a market niche of idiots and there's money to be made feeding those idiots what they want to hear... I never said 'complete maturing'. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
wyly Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 All things MSM need to be taken with salt. I find some info on Fox valuable, and some on CNN ect valuable. To me it's opinion talking heads like O'Reily that really screw things up and creates a slant, because he even admits he is biased and claim anything because it is just his opinion. Some take him for his word and at face value, and to me that is reckless. We don't really need opinions, just the solid facts so we can make up our own minds. But the media does not want you making up your own mind, and people end up believing that. Hence the reason why guys like O'Reilly have a place on TV. Marginalize guys like him and just switch the TV off if his face shows up. faux news has crossed a line from news to news/entertainment...I used to enjoy BBC news(haven't had it for years) because it was IMO very neutral in it's approach to reporting the news... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Mighty AC Posted December 6, 2012 Report Posted December 6, 2012 MSNBC seems to be following the Fox business model now. There is money in telling people what they want to hear. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
TimG Posted December 6, 2012 Report Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I used to enjoy BBC news(haven't had it for years) because it was IMO very neutral in it's approach to reporting the news...BBC news is the Fox News for the left wing (albeit with a lot less theatrics). A news source that is truly neutral will be accused of bias by both sides of the spectrum. Edited December 6, 2012 by TimG Quote
Sleipnir Posted December 6, 2012 Report Posted December 6, 2012 A news source that is truly neutral will be accused of bias by both sides of the spectrum. In other words, no such news source exist on Earth. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
TimG Posted December 6, 2012 Report Posted December 6, 2012 In other words, no such news source exist on Earth.Exactly! All media is biased. If you select your media based on what you think is 'neutral' then you are simply choosing media that tells you want you want to hear. Quote
jbg Posted December 6, 2012 Report Posted December 6, 2012 never...it'll always be faux news...it's fake news for idiots, there's a market niche of idiots and there's money to be made feeding those idiots what they want to hear... What's your news source, www.rabble.ca/babble? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted December 6, 2012 Report Posted December 6, 2012 BBC news is the Fox News for the left wing (albeit with a lot less theatrics). A news source that is truly neutral will be accused of bias by both sides of the spectrum. Quote
bleeding heart Posted December 6, 2012 Report Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) BBC news is the Fox News for the left wing (albeit with a lot less theatrics). A news source that is truly neutral will be accused of bias by both sides of the spectrum. The lefties have long accused the BBC of bias, and it reached a head in the Iraq War reporting. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that this connotes neutrality. Edited December 6, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Sleipnir Posted December 6, 2012 Report Posted December 6, 2012 Exactly! All media is biased. If you select your media based on what you think is 'neutral' then you are simply choosing media that tells you want you want to hear. Whether something is bias, I believe, depends on how they're conveying the information or facts to you. If they're emphasizing one side more than the other, that should raise eyebrows. Unless one side is being totally uncooperative and the other side being as cooperative as a yucca plant with a colony of ants. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
TimG Posted December 6, 2012 Report Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) If they're emphasizing one side more than the other, that should raise eyebrows.Bias shows up in the choice of stories and the narrative attached to those stories. It is impossible to avoid since narratives are subjective constructs. People choose media primarily based on whether it provides narratives that re-enforce their existing views. Edited December 6, 2012 by TimG Quote
Sleipnir Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Bias shows up in the choice of stories and the narrative attached to those stories. It is impossible to avoid since narratives are subjective constructs. People choose media primarily based on whether it provides narratives that re-enforce their existing views. Or whoever provides them the largest amount of information as opposed to a two sentences blurb. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
TimG Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Or whoever provides them the largest amount of information as opposed to a two sentences blurb. Not if the narrative used to deliver the information is objectionable to the viewer/reader/listener. Narrative matters and narrative brings bias. Quote
Sleipnir Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Not if the narrative used to deliver the information is objectionable to the viewer/reader/listener. Narrative matters and narrative brings bias. I guess the only way to eliminate narrative is to list information in point forms and let people put it together to form their own narrative, even that could lead to unintended consequences. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
TimG Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 I guess the only way to eliminate narrative is to list information in point forms and let people put it together to form their own narrative, even that could lead to unintended consequences.But the choice of what to include on the list would introduce bias too. There is no way to avoid media bias. But if one is aware of ones tendency to prefer media that uses narratives that confirm one's prejudices one can counter act them. Quote
Pliny Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 I watch Fox News but that's probably not a surprise. I love John Stossel and am glad he has a platform to voice his views! He would never be given the same opportunity in the MSM. I am well aware of the bias in the MSM and stopped watching that quite a few years ago. I am aware of the bias on Fox as well but it is easy to spot. The left-wing bias in the MSM is insidious because they pretend they are not biased in the least. O'Reilly claims to be fair and balanced and to be fair you have to admit he does like to have representation from both sides of an issue but it isn't a secret which side he prefers. He isn't a straight news journalist. He is an editorial journalist. Some people don't seem to understand that his show revolves around discussion from different views. His interviews are tough on both left and right politicians. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Wayward Son Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 I watch Fox News but that's probably not a surprise. I love John Stossel and am glad he has a platform to voice his views! He would never be given the same opportunity in the MSM. That is true. Never. A place like ABC would never give him a platform for 28 years.... Quote
Pliny Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 That is true. Never. A place like ABC would never give him a platform for 28 years.... Yes he did have a career with ABC on 20/20 but not expressing the views he holds today. He wasn't always a Libertarian. What other places has a Libertarian had his own show? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.