The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 216

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-28-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Perhaps their slogan should be "more fair and more balanced than the other guys".

When they ran Mark Foley's name with a (D) next to it for numerous days, was that an example of being "more fair" or "more balanced"? Seems CNN was able to get it right.

scaeagles · 01-28-2007, 08:42 PM

Well, when CNN "accidently" flashes red "X"s in front of Bush (more than once), this is an example of high standards and fairness?

We can all point to anecdotal evidence forever and never change the opinion of each other.

Alex · 01-28-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

When they ran Mark Foley's name with a (D) next to it for numerous days, was that an example of being "more fair" or "more balanced"? Seems CNN was able to get it right.

Unless I am completely forgetting the details it was twice in one episode of The O'Reilly Factor.

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-29-2007, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Unless I am completely forgetting the details it was twice in one episode of The O'Reilly Factor.

Nope, your memory is accurate. My mistake. For some reason, I recalled it was a few days before it was removed.

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-29-2007, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, when CNN "accidently" flashes red "X"s in front of Bush (more than once), this is an example of high standards and fairness?

Actually, I couldn't find a cite of that ever happening. I did find something about Cheney and a black "X" though...It happened once. CNN swears it was a computer glitch but I suppose it could be more sinister.

Fox, by the way, refused to offer a public explanation for the (d) next to Foley's name.

Geez, your memory is as good as mine.

scaeagles · 01-29-2007, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Nope, your memory is accurate. My mistake. For some reason, I recalled it was a few days before it was removed.

Now, MBC, my memory is often lacking. I am wondering why you thought this, though? My guess is that you want to believe it and read sources that claimed this was the case.

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-29-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I am wondering why you thought this, though? My guess is that you want to believe it and read sources that claimed this was the case.

Well, I think I would reverse the order. I read the information and obviously trusted the source, which turned out to be misinformed. Considering that there was proof that Fox had made the error the first time around, I assumed that whoever implied that it had happened more than once over a period of days was basing that on similar evidence. My assumption was wrong, but it was based upon Fox's prior history, not simply because "I wanted to believe it".

I would rather be well informed and try my best to do so. Just as, I'm sure, you would rather not go around saying that CNN put a red X over Bush's face when it never happened.

Alex · 01-29-2007, 10:54 AM

So, now that we've settled the specifics.

What do you to feel is the significance of:

1. Flashing X over the face of the vice president.
2. Text party misattribution (verbally he was correctly identified as a Republican by O'Reilly) for Mark Foley during one episode of The O'Reilly Report.

Do these instances specifically demonstrate slant by the networks involved? If one but not hte other, what distinguished them?

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-29-2007, 11:07 AM

Well, as #2 occurred shortly before an election, I think the potential exists that someone might believe what they saw on the screen and vote republican, thinking that it was a democrat that was in trouble. I would like to believe that people are more informed than that but I have my doubts.

#1, on the other hand, didn't carry the same potential. I don't think that Cheney with an X across his face is going to sway anyone's opinion of the man.

scaeagles · 01-30-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I read the information and obviously trusted the source, which turned out to be misinformed.

Words are a great thing. Sources of incorrect information we like are "misinformed". Sources of incorrect information we don't like didn't do their homework.

But Alex is right. It matters not in either instance, really. Having that D next to Foley's name only meant it would be shouted from the mountain tops that he wasn't (which is fine), and the X over the VP (my source was misinformed) matters not in the grand scheme of things (though I have a hard time imaging it was a computer glitch).

01-28-2007, 08:42 PM	#2152
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Well, when CNN "accidently" flashes red "X"s in front of Bush (more than once), this is an example of high standards and fairness? We can all point to anecdotal evidence forever and never change the opinion of each other.
	Submit to Quotes

01-29-2007, 10:54 AM	#2158
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	So, now that we've settled the specifics. What do you to feel is the significance of: 1. Flashing X over the face of the vice president. 2. Text party misattribution (verbally he was correctly identified as a Republican by O'Reilly) for Mark Foley during one episode of The O'Reilly Report. Do these instances specifically demonstrate slant by the networks involved? If one but not hte other, what distinguished them?
	Submit to Quotes

01-29-2007, 11:07 AM	#2159
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	Well, as #2 occurred shortly before an election, I think the potential exists that someone might believe what they saw on the screen and vote republican, thinking that it was a democrat that was in trouble. I would like to believe that people are more informed than that but I have my doubts. #1, on the other hand, didn't carry the same potential. I don't think that Cheney with an X across his face is going to sway anyone's opinion of the man.
	Submit to Quotes