Newfie Canadian Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Come to think about it, I don't think they intervied a single person from Fox News in the entire piece According to the interviewer, Fox News wouldn't agree to an interview because they were being portrayed as "conservative" media, while they claim to be and would prefer to be labelled as "mainstream" media. I remember him saying that near the end of the piece. For the record, CBS wouldn't agree to an interview either. In regards to Marsden, my first exposure to her was that interview, which didn't leave me with a good impression. Since then, I've checked out her website, and while she has a few valid points, there are also some areas on which she seems to be out to lunch, IMO. She seems to have a habit of injecting her opinion without injecting a lot of facts, empirical evidence or logic to try to persuade me that she is right. I'll say again though, I form this opinion on little exposure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 In a Micheal Moorish fashion. They cut and obviously spliced video tape of Bill O'Rielly to show him in an infavroable light, well showing Al Franken as a victim of the harsh ways of the right...........The piece with Al Franken crying was dreadfull, and unfortanlty, most CBC viewers will likley eat it up. If clips of Bill O'Reilly shouting "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" show him in an unfavourable light, then its Bill O'Reilly who's to blame. His track record of bullying guests and distroting facts has been widely noted. What do potential past personnal mistakes that she might have made when she was younger, have to do with Fox News and it's introduction to Canada? That was in context of questions regarding the glaring hypocricy of right wing commentators (liek Marsden and O'Reill) to attack politicians (ie. Clinton) on personal grounds when their own personal lives are less than savoury. If the sexual prolicivities of Bill Clinton are fair game for Fox, then surely the same can be said of its talking heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 If clips of Bill O'Reilly shouting "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" show him in an unfavourable light, then its Bill O'Reilly who's to blame. His track record of bullying guests and distroting facts has been widely noted. "widely noted"... by liberals of course. The problem is CBC portrays O'Reilly as always being this vitriolic yelling ogre. While it's undeniable that he has his moments, by and large he's usually smiling and giving others a chance to argue their point. He is, by his own admission, pompous and bloviating. That's his M.O. The CBC's one sided reporting takes the incidents out of context and portrays the other guys as inocent victims. Whether you like O'Reilly or not, just admit it, the story was unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 While it's undeniable that he has his moments, by and large he's usually smiling and giving others a chance to argue their point. ...provided they agree with him. I doubt he ever shouts down the likes of Ann Coulter. He is, by his own admission, pompous and bloviating. That's his M.O. So what's unfair about showing O'Reilly as O'Reilly is? The CBC's one sided reporting takes the incidents out of context and portrays the other guys as inocent victims. So you reckon the son of the 9-11 victim who O'Reilly famoulsly shouted down had it coming for disagreeing with O'Reilly? Whether you like O'Reilly or not, just admit it, the story was unfair. Gee, I don't hear you mounting the same criticisms of O'Reilly and FoxNew's unfair and innaccurate reportage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 ...provided they agree with him. I doubt he ever shouts down the likes of Ann Coulter. Perhaps you should actually watch Fox News rather than form your opinions based on clips from biased sources. He actually does disagree with right wingers and critisizes the republicans, including the President. He complimented Moore and Afleck for the way they handled themselves on his show. If people are BS'ing he'll call them on it. Watch the show a few times, not just cut-and-past clips from CBC. So what's unfair about showing O'Reilly as O'Reilly is? Because it didn't show him as he really is. So you reckon the son of the 9-11 victim who O'Reilly famoulsly shouted down had it coming for disagreeing with O'Reilly? Once again you didn't see the whole story. The guy was blaming Americans for 9-11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 If clips of Bill O'Reilly shouting "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" show him in an unfavourable light, then its Bill O'Reilly who's to blame. His track record of bullying guests and distroting facts has been widely noted. As IMR pointed out, O'Reilly yelling and screaming is (from what I've seen over the course of about three weeks) is few and far between. I think since I've seen the show, he's blown-up once on a reporter from the a St. Louis newspaper, who was just grandstanding as opposed to debating. Again, it portrays O'Reilly in a unfair light..........and I even have to admit, O'Reilly is alot more mellow then I expected him to be from all the "negative hype" I've seen about him in the past. That was in context of questions regarding the glaring hypocricy of right wing commentators (liek Marsden and O'Reill) to attack politicians (ie. Clinton) on personal grounds when their own personal lives are less than savoury. If the sexual prolicivities of Bill Clinton are fair game for Fox, then surely the same can be said of its talking heads. Ahh, but there is a difference between Marsden/O'Reilly and Clinton........you see Marsden and O'Reilly didn't lie under oath to a grand jury, added to the fact that niether represents and leads their country. Also, I don't know that any "mainstream media" didn't report the "Clinton sex scandel", so I fail to see the problem with Fox reporting on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Perhaps you should actually watch Fox News rather than form your opinions based on clips from biased sources. He actually does disagree with right wingers and critisizes the republicans, including the President. He complimented Moore and Afleck for the way they handled themselves on his show. If people are BS'ing he'll call them on it ..but moreso if they disagree with him. Once again you didn't see the whole story. The guy was blaming Americans for 9-11. No he didn't. Transcript. As IMR pointed out, O'Reilly yelling and screaming is (from what I've seen over the course of about three weeks) is few and far between. I think since I've seen the show, he's blown-up once on a reporter from the a St. Louis newspaper, who was just grandstanding as opposed to debating. Only once in three weeks? Gosh, the man's a saint. Ahh, but there is a difference between Marsden/O'Reilly and Clinton........you see Marsden and O'Reilly didn't lie under oath to a grand jury, added to the fact that niether represents and leads their country Split hairs much? Also, I don't know that any "mainstream media" didn't report the "Clinton sex scandel", so I fail to see the problem with Fox reporting on it. Let's look at what hese individuals (one a conivted stalker and the other an alleged sex pervert) said about Slick Willy's indiscretions. "The only action Democrats ever gave us occurred in Clinton's pants." -Marsden (date unknown)"Socialists hate the idea of traditional marriage, and prefer the 'common property' model exemplified by Bill and Hillary Clinton. It’s a marriage that "takes a village"--not to raise a child, but to figure out which floozy Bill has been busy banging behind Hillary’s back on his morning McMuffin errands."-Marsden (Dec. 22/04) "There is a strong movement in America to remove any kind of value-based argument. We see this all the time.... Public officials have the right to lie about sex because it is no one's business what they do in private, even if sexual harassment suits are lodged against them, i.e., President Clinton, or even if a young girl disappears shortly after talking with a congressman she was intimate with. Hello, Gary Condit. Many Americans simply cannot or will not make judgments about behavior. And this is a tremendous change in our society. The danger here is that the absence of value-based judgments breaks down justice and discipline." -O'Reilly (7/16/01) The second a public figure criticizes or makes a judgement on another public figure's personal life, then the accusser's own personal history is fair game. In Marsden and O'Reilly's cases, it makes them hypocrites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 The second a public figure criticizes or makes a judgement on another public figure's personal life, then the accusser's own personal history is fair game. In Marsden and O'Reilly's cases, it makes them hypocrites. Ok, but what does that have to do with Fox news coming to Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ok, but what does that have to do with Fox news coming to Canada? Nothing. And everything. The story was about Fox News coming to Canada and concerns that it is biased and a negative influence on the media environment. To back that thesis, it included examples of bias, including hypocrisy such as that exhibited by Fox personality O'Reilly and Fox apologist Marsden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 QUOTE Once again you didn't see the whole story. The guy was blaming Americans for 9-11. No he didn't. Transcript What was that about splitting hairs? Glick's implication was clear. He was blaming Americans for 9-11. I would have been pissed at him too. He had a captious attitude so typical of the elitest left. He dodged the issue by consistently blaming everything on the illigetimacy of President Bush. Nothing too surprising, considering his academic background, except that his father was killed on 9-11. That's why Bill was pissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 The story was about Fox News coming to Canada and concerns that it is biased and a negative influence on the media environment.To back that thesis, it included examples of bias, including hypocrisy such as that exhibited by Fox personality O'Reilly and Fox apologist Marsden. Why then does the CBC have no contention over the Left-wing bias American media that is currently available in Canada (and to a larger audience than Fox)? And for that mater, why didn't the CBC piece examine bias and negative influnence on the Canadian population from the Canadian news media, including the CBC? Wouldn't that have been a more objective documentry? Exploring all avenues? The CBC's critique on Fox News has about as much impartiality as would a quality reveiw done by Ford on General Motors...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 IMR, how is saying: "the U.S. trained the mujahedden, which became Al Qaeda, which carried out the 9-11 attacks" (which was what Glick was trying to get across before he was shouted down) "blaming Americans"? The word "blame" implies an element of calculation and responsibility which no one believes was present in the U.S. policy decisions that led to 9-11. O'Reilly: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians... Glick: By radical extremists who were trained by this government... O'Reilly: Out of respect for him... Glick: ... not the people of America Why then does the CBC have no contention over the Left-wing bias American media that is currently available in Canada (and to a larger audience than Fox)? And for that mater, why didn't the CBC piece examine bias and negative influnence on the Canadian population from the Canadian news media, including the CBC? Well, first you have to prove that the left-wing bias in the rest of the American media actually exists and is not, as prominent conservative William Kristol said "an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” It's interesting too that I've highlghted dozens of examples of Fox's bias in this thread and others, but evidence of a overt and deliberate bias by the CBC has been few and far between. I guess we're to take it as an article of faith? In any case, your argument is weak because attacking the CBC does not disprove any of the points against FOX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 You forgot to add: Glick: The people of the ruling class, the small minority. I wonder if he hangs with Ward Churchill.And that he signed: "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." But what was funny was this: O'Reilly: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this. Glick: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate. How is it that the extreme left manages to tie everything to George Bush. It has nothing to do with the question. Pure comedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Well, first you have to prove that the left-wing bias in the rest of the American media actually exists and is not, as prominent conservative William Kristol said "an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” Which "mainstream media" news Network/Newspaper do you wish me to prove holds a Liberal bias? Here's some Bias at CNN: CNN CNN Read the First Paragraph in each story, Then look at the matching Headline: The poll, released Monday, found that among likely voters, Kerry was the choice of 52 percent and Bush 44 percent in a two-way matchup, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. And the stories Headline: Kerry leads Bush in new poll *Then When the table are turned around: The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that among likely voters, Bush was the choice of 52 percent, while Kerry was the choice of 44 percent and independent Ralph Nader garnered 3 percent. That result was within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. And the story Headline: Bush apparently leads Kerry in pre-debate poll So when Kerry was ahead in the polls, he lead, but when it was Bush who was ahead, he apparently lead........ It's interesting too that I've highlghted dozens of examples of Fox's bias in this thread and others, but evidence of a overt and deliberate bias by the CBC has been few and far between. I guess we're to take it as an article of faith? You can take it however you wish...........again, the CBC bringing up the personnal lives of the "Fox Supporters", the questionable editing of the Marsden interview, the airing of only negative clips of O'Rielly, well showing Al Franken sobing.......etc IMR, how is saying: "the U.S. trained the mujahedden, which became Al Qaeda, which carried out the 9-11 attacks" (which was what Glick was trying to get across before he was shouted down) "blaming Americans"? The word "blame" implies an element of calculation and responsibility which no one believes was present in the U.S. policy decisions that led to 9-11. QUOTE O'Reilly: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians... Glick: By radical extremists who were trained by this government... O'Reilly: Out of respect for him... Glick: ... not the people of America He's not blaming America, but the Bush Administration for training the mujahedden, which in turn became Al Qaeda.......his claim, to be blunt, is retarded. All you need is some basic math and a slight understanding of history....... When did the Bush Administration come to power? When did the CIA supply arms and traning to the mujahedden? How could the Bush government have tranined the mujahedden? If I had of been O'Reilly, I'd be pissed also if some kid came on spouting BS like that.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 You can take it however you wish...........again, the CBC bringing up the personnal lives of the "Fox Supporters", the questionable editing of the Marsden interview, the airing of only negative clips of O'Rielly, well showing Al Franken sobing.......etc Re: CNN. Of course you neglect to mention what immediately follows the headlines: From story 1 But most voters think president will be re-elected and from the "biased" story. President's approval rating highest since January But hey, while we're talking CNN, let's talk about the liberal bias behind their decision to change exit poll results after the election to refelect the final results. Or how about this. At best, I think we can say that a network like CNN will change tack with the political winds. , the CBC bringing up the personnal lives of the "Fox Supporters", Again, you make it sound like they attacked them out of nowhere. There was a context there. the questionable editing of the Marsden interview, How do you know it was questionable? He's not blaming America, but the Bush Administration for training the mujahedden, which in turn became Al Qaeda.......his claim, to be blunt, is retarded. He used the words "this government" which cvan be interpreted as you've done, to mean Bush. Or we can use the logical interpretation, which is that he is referring to the U.S. government. This is supported by Glick's statement (which sent O'Reilly over the edge) that: -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government. Furthermore, if you look a little closer, he ties the mujahadeen to Bush...Bush Sr., that is, who was head of the CIA during the Soviet/Afghan war. Anyway, I came back to this for a reason... Fox isn't a news channel. It's a propaganda channel. It represents the triumph of deconstructionism: the poisonous post-modern philosophy that truth is irrelevant. Fox's purpose is to demonstrate that America, the Republican Party and George W. Bush are always right. Yes, as the Canadian neocons complain, the CBC is "biased," but compared to what? Since I got Fox News two weeks ago, I've seen a shrieking Geraldo Rivera use a dead girl's body as a prop as he pretended he didn't know that the goal of Iraqi insurgents is to drive the Americans out of Iraq. I've heard one anchor insist that Hitler was not democratically elected, and another complain that Iran and Syria are "interfering in Iraq's internal affairs." And that's just a taste of Fox's daily bread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Re: CNN.Of course you neglect to mention what immediately follows the headlines: From story 1 Ahh, but what does the headline imply? How do you know it was questionable? The fifth estate had an hour long interview with her on a wide range of political topics and the media, and all they aired from the interview was a question about her past....... He used the words "this government" which cvan be interpreted as you've done, to mean Bush. Or we can use the logical interpretation, which is that he is referring to the U.S. government. This is supported by Glick's statement (which sent O'Reilly over the edge) that:QUOTE -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government. How is it the logical interpretation? He said: By radical extremists who were trained by this government He didn't say the governments of Carter and Reagan....... He said "This Government", at the time when Bush Jr was president, not Bush sr, Ronnie Ray-Guns or the peanut farmer......... But back on topic. Anyway, I came back to this for a reason...QUOTE Fox isn't a news channel. It's a propaganda channel. It represents the triumph of deconstructionism: the poisonous post-modern philosophy that truth is irrelevant. Fox's purpose is to demonstrate that America, the Republican Party and George W. Bush are always right. Yes, as the Canadian neocons complain, the CBC is "biased," but compared to what? Since I got Fox News two weeks ago, I've seen a shrieking Geraldo Rivera use a dead girl's body as a prop as he pretended he didn't know that the goal of Iraqi insurgents is to drive the Americans out of Iraq. I've heard one anchor insist that Hitler was not democratically elected, and another complain that Iran and Syria are "interfering in Iraq's internal affairs." And that's just a taste of Fox's daily bread. I fail to understand your point. You link an editoral written by a CBC employee, to "prove" the bias of Fox News I guess the Fox News is rotting my brain..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 It seems so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 The fifth estate had an hour long interview with her on a wide range of political topics and the media, and all they aired from the interview was a question about her past....... That's not true: they also roasted her over the coals for her continuing belief in a Iarq/9-11 belief and WMD claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 That's not true: they also roasted her over the coals for her continuing belief in a Iarq/9-11 belief and WMD claims. And yet, Iraq, WMD and her personnal life have nothing to do with Fox News being shown to Canadians........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 And yet, Iraq, WMD and her personnal life have nothing to do with Fox News being shown to Canadians........ From the Fifth Estate web site: THE FIFTH ESTATE(Wednesday Jan. 26 at 9pm on CBC, repeating Thursday Jan. 27 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld) STICKS AND STONES "The United States is in the midst of a very un-civil war. It's a war of words that's pitting conservative against liberal, that's already divided the country into red and blue. The new gladiators are commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter and their forum is the television studios of networks like Fox. It's loud, it's raucous, but does it have anything to do with the truth?" Hmmm...it seems that the story was not about simply about FoxNews coming to Canada, but a wider look at the state of the U.S. media. So, in that broader context, the questions relating to Iraq WMD and Rachel Marsden are quite relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfie Canadian Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) And yet, Iraq, WMD and her personnal life have nothing to do with Fox News being shown to Canadians........ The episode summary on the Fifth Estate website doesn't say the show was about Fox News coming to Canada. It says: The United States is in the midst of a very un-civil war. It's a war of words that's pitting conservative against liberal, that's already divided the country into red and blue. The new gladiators are commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter and their forum is the television studios of networks like Fox. It's loud, it's raucous, but does it have anything to do with the truth? It seems to me that the episode was geared more towards an examination of conservative commentators like Coulter, O'Reilly and to a lesser extent Marsden. they also roasted her over the coals for her continuing belief in a Iarq/9-11 belief and WMD claims.I thought it was interesting after the interviewer pointed out that the Administration gave up on finding WMD, that she then asked for his definition of WMD.What's hers? It seems a little screwy when you've got the Administration itself saying there weren't the WMD that they thought were there, and you've got Marsden still clinging to it. EDIT-Sorry Black Dog, you beat me to it. Edited February 7, 2005 by Newfie Canadian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Ok, fair enough, (I'll rephrase my question) what does the personnal lives of Marsden and O'Rielly have to do with the "un-civil war" in the American media? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Ok, fair enough, (I'll rephrase my question) what does the personnal lives of Marsden and O'Rielly have to do with the "un-civil war" in the American media? We've covered this already. As I pointed out earlier, the right-wing media is very quick to exploit the personal lives of those they oppose (ie. Bill Clinton) for political gain. Look at Rush Limbaugh: railed against drugs and drug users, yet was an addict himself. Bill O'Reilly deplored Clinton's sexual escapades, yet has himself been accused of sexual harrassment. Ditto Marsden. So for them to declare the (unsavoury) details of thier own personal lives off limits is hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 BD, from what I gather here, you have shown that some on the American left do drugs and sleep around and some on the American right do drugs and sleep around. How is any of this relevant to whether Canadians should be able to watch FOX News and whether the CBC was right to air a programme critical of FOX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 How is any of this relevant to whether Canadians should be able to watch FOX News and whether the CBC was right to air a programme critical of FOX? aargh. context (con·text) n. 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.