Fair and Balanced News

[andyfox]

Fox (no relation) News trumpets itelf as the fair and balanced news station. As with presidents who look into the camera and claim they did not have sex with that woman (and must specify her name, lest she be confused with others with whom he may indeed have had sex), countries who claim they are peace-loving (as they explain away yet another "unprovoked" war), and poker players who claim they do not bluff (I'll leave it for other to elaborate here), such claims need to be taken for what they usually are: Crapola with a capital "C."

Turn out that an executive memo, written by John Moody, the network's VP of news, is distributed electronically every morning. It addresses what stories will be covered and often suggests how they should be covered, reflecting the well-known rightwingism of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

A couple of examples from those electronic memos:

-On March 20th: "There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people.' One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis."

-Last spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the memo warned that antiwar protesters would be "whining" about U.S. Bombs kiling Iraqi civilians. That day, a producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting because it included a breif shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.

So the fair and balanced new organization sets the tone for the day's news reporting by characterizing the U.N. Secretary General's speech as "incomprehensible" and war protesters as whiners. Shouldn't the news report on Annan's speech and let the viewers decide if it is incomprehensible or not? Should tnt news report on war protesters and let the viewers decide if they are whining or not?

Fair and balanced my ass.

[Zeno]

From AP wire reports: Today, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes issued a joint statement saying that – “The world needs some working over and we believe we have been appointed the task by the supreme Judge of the Universe. Thus, we have declared a Jihad against all other networks and individuals that dare to think for themselves.” “Fox News will be in the Vanguard of our Holy Warriors as they battle the unfair and propagandist style "news" and information that is spewed out by competing networks”, explain Rupert. With Roger at his side, Robert further explained that he plans to purchase media outlets of every kind and place them in the hands of "the people that really know what the truth is and know how to dispense it properly to the throbbing masses." With millions of TV viewers watching, he claimed himself to be the “New Media Messiah for the foreseeable future" and he stated, “the future looks bright.” Roger nodded in solemn obedience. “Blood will be splattered across the land”, he shouted, “ but it will be the blood of saints and warriors that will have bliss eternal in the media paradise that awaits us all.”

[BruceZ]

So the fair and balanced new organization sets the tone for the day's news reporting by characterizing the U.N. Secretary General's speech as "incomprehensible" and war protesters as whiners.

This fails to discredit in any way the claim that Fox News is fair and balanced. Of course no Fox newscast ever referred to war protestors as "whiners" or to anyone's remarks as "incomprehensible", and no memo ever advised that these words be used in a newscast. I don't think that this is what you are claiming either.

You seem to be objecting to an internal memo which suggested these as possible angles for reporters to consider for investigative purposes, or for news analysts to take during news analysis shows. Of course that would not be incompatible with being fair and balanced, unless you are claiming that these were the only views that were to ever be presented. I can assure you that this is certainly not the case. Now if you are arguing that these particular views should never be considered by reporters or news analysts, then you are proposing that Fox should become less fair and balanced than they currently are, by excluding the points of view with which you happen to disagree. By allowing conservative voices to be heard, Fox earns the right to claim that it is more fair and balanced than other news sources which historically have muted these voices.

You conveniently didn't cite a source for your information; however, this claim that Rupert Murdoch controls the content of Fox News to advance some conservative agenda has been the hallmark of far left websites and news sources for a long time, despite refutations by Fox News. These claims by the Fox bashers are wholly unsubstantiated.

The goal of the Fox News channel is to present fair and balanced news and analysis, which means giving equal time to conservative viewpoints, and that stands in sharp contrast to other liberal news sources. You might be surprised to learn that the audiences of some Fox News shows such as O'Reilly are almost balanced between conservatives and liberals. Given their demographics, it would make very poor business sense for them to have an unfair conservative imbalance. Their coverage appeals to thinking people on both sides because it is fair and encourages people to decide issues for themselves. Those who are offended by it are typically those with extreme left wing agendas. Fox generously offers all of its opponents ample time to debate their views on Fox, and most of them decline because their positions are untenable.

You have to learn to distinguish between news reporting and news analysis.

[adios]

"Turn out that an executive memo, written by John Moody, the network's VP of news, is distributed electronically every morning. It addresses what stories will be covered and often suggests how they should be covered, reflecting the well-known rightwingism of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes."

I think you should have a source so we can read it in context if possible but I'm sure you do. Let's move on.

"-On March 20th: "There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people.' One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis."

Uh Andy what's unfair and unbalanced about this? I think it's a relevant question. Again point me to a show on Fox News where only one side of an issue is presented. You can't except maybe the O'Reilly show which I don't watch so I don't know.

"-Last spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the memo warned that antiwar protesters would be "whining" about U.S. Bombs kiling Iraqi civilians. That day, a producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting because it included a breif shot of children in an Iraqi hospital."

So now we're supposed to draw the conclusion that he killed the report because of the hospital scene. How do you know that for certain? Again what programs on Fox News present only one side of the story? Or put in more positive way, how many shows present viewpoints on both sides of an issue?


"So the fair and balanced new organization sets the tone for the day's news reporting by characterizing the U.N. Secretary General's speech as "incomprehensible" and war protesters as whiners." Shouldn't the news report on Annan's speech and let the viewers decide if it is incomprehensible or not?"

So Fox News didn't report on the speech? I certainly wouldn't draw that conclusion from what you posted. What speech are you referring to or what day was it made.


" Should tnt news report on war protesters and let the viewers decide if they are whining or not?"

Not necessarily. Should anyone who protests anything get on TV whenever they protest? Are you stating that Fox News never has covered anti war protests? Ridiculous.

"Fair and balanced my ass."

What you've posted hardly proves that Fox News is unbalanced and unfair.

[BruceZ]

You can't except maybe the O'Reilly show which I don't watch so I don't know.

O'Reilly usually has a representative from each side. Occasionally he can't get anyone from one side to show up because, as he says, "they're hiding under their desks". His show has the most strenuous arguments. You don't get arguments from presenting just one side of an issue.


Or put in more positive way, how many shows present viewpoints on both sides of an issue?

Hannity AND Colmes
Beltway Boys (Fred Barnes - conservative AND Mort Kondracke - liberal)
Special Report w/Brit Hume (panel of liberals and conservatives)
O'Reilly usually
Heartland with John Kasich
Bulls AND Bears
etc.


What you've posted hardly proves that Fox News is unbalanced and unfair.

Absolutely correct.

[Utah]

Maybe Fox is a little slanted to the conservative agenda - although your argument to this is extremely weak if non-existent.

It is hilarious to hear liberals whine about Fox - it drives them nuts because it is the one station that doesn't carry water for the Liberal Agenda.

Before you complain about Fox, you should have some real issues to report. To compare, the reporting is simply shameful and unethical at NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN (and throw in the liberal papers if you like - NY Times, LA Times, etc.). For example, remember the little flap of CNN purposely slanting the story in Iraq (i.e., covering up the regimes atrocities) so they could stay in Bagdad? Think about that - they purposely lied to their viewers as to the news! Shouldn't that alone be cause to shut down the network? Funny though, you don't hear liberals whining about CNN. If you want, you can also look at NBCs coverage of the Juanita Brodrick (sp?) affair, allegations against Arnold?, the coverage of events in Iraq, etc. etc.

[Ray Zee]

none of the tv or newspapers are fair and balanced. that is the way it is supposed to be. it is up to us to read multiple sources and sift thru the junk and draw the proper conculsions. thats what it is all about. the sad thing is that most in the world hear or see things from just one place and form their living guidlines from it.

[daryn]

this is so true. why should everything be "fair and balanced"? if anything, when you try to create a fair and balanced show, you probably lose content, just like when you try to manufacture diversity at a university

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people.' One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis."

Uh Andy what's unfair and unbalanced about this? I think it's a relevant question.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is relevant, but only because it highlights the dishonest nature of the questioner and the enterprise he helps lead.

Here's a likely source of the Annan quote: <ul type="square"> The Secretary-General said his thoughts today were with the Iraqi people, who face yet another ordeal. "I hope that all parties will scrupulously observe the requirements of international humanitarian law, and will do everything in their power to shield the civilian population from the grim consequences of war. The United Nations, for its part, will do whatever it can to bring them assistance and support," he said. "Let us hope the future will be much brighter for the Iraqi people than the recent past, and that they will soon have the chance to rebuild their country in peace and freedom, under the rule of law," he added.[/list]Except for the embarrassing emphasis on rule of law, this statement could have come from Bush, Cheney or Rice or anyone in the U.S. government. But that's the same government that rewarded and helped facilitate Saddam's worst horrors, with aid in the pipeline right up to the Kuwait invasion. Even the Kuwait invastion would have been something we'd condone if Kuwait had been hostile or neutral to US interests (like we did with the invasions of Iran, the West Bank, Timor or Namibia), and even then it was a close call in the early stages. Given the record, anyone who's IQ has a fighting chance at three digits would ignore sentiments like these if expressed by U.S. officials, for the same reason they would ignore them from the Kremlin or Pakistan. Statements like these from less interested observers, and particularly from life-long internationalist liberals like Annan, however, have a least a modicum of credibile sentiment.

Since Fox is a propaganda organ, this is a problem. Fox constantly endeavors to prevent the well-documented and largely inarguable reality described above from seeing the light of day, or at least infecting mass awareness. Instead, it promotes the official line that the US was motivated by enlightened self-interest and that U.S. war and dictatorship amount to "human rights" and "liberation."

Accordingly, because people like Annan tried to improve Iraq's human rights situation while people like those in the Bush White House tried to make it worse, the propagandists must paint the picture backwards. Hence, Annan must be considered "incomprensible," as if his record was something like the U.S.'s actual record. Virtually identical statements by the White House, OTOH, must be broadcast at face value and enhanced by supportive commentary.

Moody probably realizes that most of his intended audience isn't so stupid or uninformed to take him at his word. His more likely purpose is to remind the organization that presenting opposite picures of reality is what Fox is all about.

[andyfox]

The information about the electronic memo was made public by Charlie Reina. He has been in journalism for thirty years, six of them at Fox. He says that he had never worked in a newsroom like the one at Fox, where Roger Ailes's political views were felt as a presence and as pressure to make things come out a certain way.

I don't understand why this comes as a surprise. If, as many on the right suggest, the liberal biases of management at other news organizations manifest themselves in the content of the news reports, why should it come as a shock that the consevative biases of management at Fox manifests itself in the content of its new reports?

The very fact that Fox advertises itself as "fair and balanced" should alert us to the fact that they see other news organizations as somehow not fair and balanced and that they intend to do things differently. That intent is evident from the content of the daily memos, which not only suggest what stories to cover, but how to cover them.

A statement by Kofi Annan is not inherently incomprehensible. Nor are antiwar protestors necessarily whining when they protest. These are editorial comments which end up in the news, as the removal of the report on fighting in Iraq, because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital, demonstrates.

All reports indicate that Roger Ailes runs Fox News with an iron hand, and that he was put in place by Mudoch because of his politics. People at Fox News understand that, to a large extent, the news division is "Roger's Revenge" against what he considers, rightly or wrongly, a liberal pro-Democratic media establishment that has shunned him for years.

BTW, Reina says that he believes Fox's rivals--CNN and MSNBC also air news reports riven with bias.

[andyfox]

The news division should report on Annan's remarks, if it feels they are newsworthy. It should not editorialize that the remarks are incomprehensible. And a suggestion about whether or not to report on the remarks that suggests that they are "utterly incomprehsnible" will color the tone and content of the network's news report.

The information that the correspondent's report on the day's fighting was killed by the producer because of the shot of the children in the hospital comes from Charlie Reina, who was working there when it happened, editing copy.

Again, as I indicated in my reply to Bruce Z., I don't understand why anyone finds any of this surprising. Fox says they are fair and balanced, suggesting that the other news networks are not. (In fact, Mr. Reina agrees.) So they intend to do things differently, and the electronic memos that go out each morning suggest to the producers how to do so. They betray the network's bias, which reflects the political views of management. A benign statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations is characterized as "utterly incomprehensible." And potential antiwar protestors wound soon be "whining." There were not as yet any protestors--the memo predicted they would be whining.

[Roy Munson]

Anything produced by humans is going to have a bias. Everyone knows that Fox's "Fair and Balanced" claim is a joke.

[ACPlayer]

Assuming Andy Fox's information is correct, the troublesome question is whether the management of a news organization should be suggesting to the reporters and analysts the "message" that should should be put out when covering a particular story.

Roger Ailes spinning capabilities and his extreme partisan nature are well known. Fox's reporting, presents facts with a republican partisan lens. If the lens is that of an analyst that is one thing (we know for example that Bob Novak will always be Partisan Republican, so we know where he is coming from); if the lens is that of the management, then Fox is not fair and balanced.

Regarding the so-called debate shows with two sides of an issue being debated. I have two problems with how Fox runs those:

a) The moderator almost always lets his own views be clear. Once the moderator is partisan the debate cannot be fair.
b) More often than not the "liberal" viewpoint is represented by a soft spoken person who has no chance against the aggressive moderator and the aggressive "conservative". Thus the bias of the show appears in the choice of guests.

[Cyrus]

left hand corner of the screen, it's a dead give-away as to the Fox Channel's priorities. They have every right to wanna be the most patriotic channel in the United States and to hoist up flags everywhere but then they try to also flaunt their integrity! It's like the opponent flashing you his Ace and then mysteriously claiming he has no Aces. That blatant a lie.

OK, so when you unmask the true nature of Fox and their ilk (the flag is just one trivial proof), the next line of defense by the Fox acolytes goes something like this:

1. In times of national emergencies, patriotic duty takes precedence over journalistic integrity.
2. A war against terrorism is a national emergency.
3. The United States is right now facing a national emergency.

Which I do accept, as arguments go, (I mean, at least by this, they admit the Fox crap is neither fair nor balanced) even though I am the one who has to point out to the audience the unsaid last point of the argument:

4. The current American war on terrorism will last for a "long time".

Which is bad news (excuse the pun) for fair and balanced journalism.

--Cyrus

PS : I had a bit of tiff a while ago with BruceZ over the small isuue of the flag hoisted up in his posts. But I don't expect impartiality or objectivity from Bruce any more than he expects it from me. However, it's one thing for a citizen/a person to have a flag so far up his posts he can't see straight, and quite another for a news medium to inflict upon us such a malapropism.

[KJS]

For a post that cricized a lack of sourcing for some comments to feature the unsubstantiated claim that "Fox generously offers all of its opponents ample time to debate their views on Fox, and most of them decline because their positions are untenable," seems very odd to me.

Have you met someone who said they were offered ample time to appear on Fox and discuss their views? Did they say they declined because their positions are untenable? Read any such comments? How do you know that people decline participation because they views are untenable?

KJS

[MMMMMM]

excellent point

[BruceZ]

Fox, O'Reilly in particular, often extends invitations to persons who decline to appear, and who have declined to appear for years. This list includes all of the current democratic presidential candidates (except Al Sharpton), Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Bill Moyers, Robert Scheer, Barbara Streisand, and many of the other most vocal critics to O'Reilly and the Fox network. I can only assume that they fail to appear because they believe it would not be in their best interests to do so. If they felt that they could defend their positions successfuly in that arena, it certainly would be in their best interest to do so. Apparently they feel that they cannot defend their postions, hence they are untenable, by definition.

Now for a word on this flag issue. The Fox flag went up shortly after 9-11 to show the network's support for the US in overcoming this tragedy. The one in my posts went up as we were on the eve of invading Iraq, to show my support for the troops. The suggestion constantly made by some of the leftists on this forum, that one cannot display a flag or wish the best for the US or its troops in the face of adversity, and still report the news accurately, is simply erroneous. Those who begrudge this display of the flag demonstrate their true colors as being anti-American traitors.

[ACPlayer]

Displaying the flag should have no correlation to patriotism. Two observations:

1. The rampant display of flags after 9/11 often left me wondering what percentage of the people with flags on their cars, pins on their clothes etc actually bothered to vote in the last election. Democracy and patriotism come not from emotional flag waving but by taking part in the civic functions of the country.

2. Many a family or business with ties to the middle east (Afghan restaraunts, Indian/Pak grocery stores etc) quickly put out the flag, the cynic would view that as simply driven by the fear (of life or business) rather than patriotic fervor.

[elwoodblues]

I trust that you require the same rigorous citation requirements when claims of "liberal bias" are made.

[John Cole]

Bruce,

Sometimes I wonder if you actually watch this stuff. Here's a recent O'Reilly example (hell, it's better than most comedies): two professors are invited to discuss the movies Kill Bill and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. One professor decries the violence and receives laudatory marks from the host. The other proffesor, who could if given the chance, enlighten the audience with an opposing view, gets to say very little, and when he does get to respond amidst the general ranting by O'Reilly, is met with "You, Sir, are an idiot" by the host.

Of course, as O'Reilly often points out, anyone is entitled to his or her opinion, even the so-called idiots.

This is what the audience wants, but to pretend it's fair, and I do think on the whole most media outlets are fair but certainly not objective, and balanced is ludicrous.

BTW, the Chainsaw family, for all their troubles, finds a way to keep from going on Welfare and keeps the nuclear family intact. It's a conservative's dream.

John

[BruceZ]

I saw that interview, as well as virtually all of O'Reilly's interviews. That guest had had an opportunity to express his view, and O'Reilly absolutely did NOT call him an idiot. If you are going to quote someone, you should at least get it right.

[nicky g]

I suspect most of you know this, but just to reiterate for those who don't: Roger Ailes, the Director of Fox News, worked as a media consultant for the Republicans for years, including on the Nixon, Reagan and Bush Snr election campaigns. Nothing wrong with that ( /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) but it seems a dubious qualification for the director of a supposedly "balanced" news outlet.

[nicky g]

Here's a link to a transcript of the show. Indeed, O'Reilly dows not call the academic an idiot, though he does say "You're out of your mind" three times. I assume a lot of the flavour is lost written down.

Partial transcript of discussion (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101333,00.html)

[BruceZ]

Thanks nicky. Notice that the academic was allowed to speak more than the guy who agreed with O'Reilly.

[elwoodblues]

I actually have the transcript from the interview. O'Reilly didn't call anyone an idiot. But based on my reading it doesn't look like O'Reilly gave the guest a full opportunity (in fact he cut him off a couple of times midsentance) nor was he fair and balanced.


Friday, October 24, 2003

O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In THE FACTOR "Follow-Up" Segment tonight, the most violent major motion picture ever made is currently at a theater near you. It's called "Kill Bill." And if you go down to the theater, you'll see kids flocking to see it.

And once they're finished with that, they'll walk over to see "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" which "The New York Times" calls somewhat endearing. And then they'll come home and listen to a number one album, Ludacris with
unforgettable tune "Hoes in My Room." The critics love it.

What's going on here?

Joining us now from Los Angeles, Professor Richard Walter who teaches screenwriter at UCLA and is the author of the book "Screenwriting: The Art, Craft, and Business of Film and Television Writing," and from Grand Rapids, Michigan, Gary Hoppenstand, a professor of American thought and language at Michigan State.

Professor Hoppenstand, we're going to begin with you.

I have in my hand a "Boston Globe" review of "Kill Bill." It says that "the worst thing about the first Quentin Tarantino picture in five years is that, after 93 minutes of some of the most luscious violence" -- luscious violence -- "and spellbinding storytelling you're likely to see this year, 'Kill Bill' ends."

We -- I didn't see the movie, but I sent my spy in, a woman, who, not particularly sensitive, walked out, just said couldn't take any more severed limbs, you know.



GARY HOPPENSTAND, PROFESSOR, MICHIGAN STATE: Yes.

O'REILLY: So why -- I don't care, by the way, if adults go see this movie. If you want to go in and see people get chopped to pieces by a chainsaw or a sword, just don't come over to my house, go see it.

HOPPENSTAND: Yes.

O'REILLY: But, certainly, this filters on down to the children. And it's celebrated by the elite media. So what's going on?

HOPPENSTAND: And that's the critical problem. I mean you've identified the two real critical issues here. First, in terms of how the media responds to films like this.

I mean the films that are made attempt to push the envelope of what is socially or morally acceptable, and, by doing that, what they're doing is they're setting them self up as a kind of new wave or avant-garde artistic expression in terms of doing these films.


The problem is that there's so little art involved. I mean watching someone being dismembered by a chainsaw in slow motion is not an artistic expression.

I'm a fan of horror stories. I've written about horror stories critically, and it's my opinion that these types of stories can be done if they're done intelligently, if they're done with good character development, if they're done with good story development.

But what happens is this is they disintegrate into a kind of titillating pornography of violence that just sort of undermines any kind of quality that you might find in it.

O'REILLY: All right. But my problem is -- and I want Professor Walter to address this -- that I believe we have a numbing going on among children in America...

HOPPENSTAND: Yes.

O'REILLY: ... that they're getting numb, all right.

Now no intelligent adult is going to sit through "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre."
I mean they're just not going to do it.

And "Kill Bill" -- yes, it will get a Tarantino audience in there, but the word of mouth will get out. It's chopsaki, you know, thing that kids love.

But to see this day in and day out on the computer, in the movies, to hear these vile rap lyrics, and -- these kids are now numb. They don't know what's good behavior and what's bad behavior, what's appropriate or what's inappropriate.

Or am I overstating this, Professor?

HOPPENSTAND: No. No, I think...

O'REILLY: No. Professor Walter. Go ahead.

RICHARD WALTER, PROFESSOR, UCLA: Thank you.

I think that you are overstating it. Indeed, of course, you're overstating it. The truth of the matter is that I don't think children should be exposed to this. Parents ought to watch what their children do.



You're talking about a problem that isn't about the art, and, if it's all art, it might be bad art. Professor Hoppenstand is saying that they're lousy movies. I think one of them is a lousy movie, and one of them's a really good movie. But there's got to be room for -- you know, for -- also for bad art.

But the really important point, Bill, is that this kind of fascination with violence has been at the heart of dramatic expression from the beginning of dramatic expression in the Ancient Greek stage.

Madhya murders her children. That sounds contemporary and chilling, doesn't it, and because of her rage against their faithless father, she feeds them for dinner to that same father.

Oedipus has sexual relations with his own mother and then -- after he's killed his father. He pokes out his own eyes.

You know, Macbeth murders...

O'REILLY: But there's a difference.


WALTER: ... his king.

O'REILLY: All of the things that you're citing were marketed to adults in a way that -- you know, Shakespeare and all of these things had a point to them.

Now these movies are marketed, particularly this rap stuff, this Ludacris stuff, "Hoes in My Room" -- now, again, what adult is going to pay $15 to hear a stupid song called "Hoes in My Room," where he says the F word 73 times.

You know, Professor Walter, I think what you're doing is you're rationalizing. You're rationalizing the effect by saying, well, the parents should control it.

Even the parents in this country who try their hardest cannot protect their children from the insidious influences that just surround them. The kids are going to hear it in school, on the playgrounds. They cannot protect them any longer, sir.

And the elite media has a responsibility, as do you, as an academic, to call it the way it is. It -- this is damaging our country.

WALTER: It is not damaging the country at all, and you talk about the elite

media supporting this. The truth of the matter is you're talking about critics in the -- in various newspapers writing about...

O'REILLY: No, I'm talking about Eminem and Elton John being put on CBS in a duet where Elton John jumps on him and gives him a big hug. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about big companies putting out this rap stuff, companies that make a tremendous amount of the money off this.

WALTER: Eminem is a brilliant artist who has written beautiful, beautiful poetry. and you focus upon the ugly and the violence that he's written, which is a field against which the glorious family oriented material that he has created...

O'REILLY: Is that like kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach? Is that the -- is that the family-oriented stuff you're talking about?

WALTER: You want to focus -- you want me to quote from Eminem?

O'REILLY: I can -- every -- you know, every quote you give me, I can give you another one that's insidious.


All right. I'm going to get to Professor Hoppenstand.

(CROSSTALK)

WALTER: ... loving material that Eminem creates, and...

O'REILLY: All right. You're out of your mind. You're out of your mind. You're out of your mind.

Mr. Hoppenstand, do you...

HOPPENSTAND: Yes?

O'REILLY: You can't agree with this, can you?

HOPPENSTAND: No, I can't agree with it. I think -- and, first of all, comparing works of art 500, 1,000, 200,000 years ago, the violent content in that, and comparing it to what's happening today is like comparing apples and oranges. Societies are entirely different.

And the main difference today is that media is so pervasive. Young people in
particular -- and again, what adults engage in, that's their business. I'm a firm believer in the First-Amendment right of the creative expression. But the problem is the accessibility of this stuff and the pervasiveness of this stuff that comes into the household with HBO at 4:00.

Some parents may have the channel lock on it.

O'REILLY: It doesn't matter.

HOPPENSTAND: Other parents may not have the channel lock on it, and...

O'REILLY: The children who are most at risk don't have responsible parents, number one.

HOPPENSTAND: Exactly.

O'REILLY: And, number two, no matter how good a parent you are, it's everywhere, it's in your house, and it's celebrated. Look, the Fox News...

WALTER: But it's clear what you're...



O'REILLY: The Fox News critic loved "Kill Bill." Loved it! Loved it. Raved about it, OK? So I'm saying to myself, look, it's OK for adults, but draw the line down here.

HOPPENSTAND: Absolutely. Absolutely.

O'REILLY: Draw the line down.

WALTER: And you say -- when you talk about...

O'REILLY: All right. I'm going to -- because I came down hard on Professor Walter, I'll give you 20 seconds to wrap it up. Go.

WALTER: You talk about drawing the line. You're really talking about censorship.

O'REILLY: No, I'm not!

WALTER: You say that you're not, but you are.

The movie -- I have to brag that the movie you hate so much, which is "Texas
Chainsaw Massacre," was written by Scott Kosar, a student of my own at UCLA. We're proud of him. We think it's a great movie.

You disagree. So what? The question arises: So what? So there's a disagreement about a movie. One guy likes it. The other guy doesn't like it.

You have a totalitarian and a fruitarian mindset, and you hate American audiences. You say that you love America and Americans, but you clearly hate American audiences. You think they're fools to go to these movies, and your contempt for the country, I think, is apparent and hypocritical.

O'REILLY: All right, Professor. We'll let the audience decide who has contempt for the country, sir. Thank you very much.

Upcoming, a vicious court action against actress Liza Minelli after these messages.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[Gamblor]

Would you care to elaborate on the "fair and balanced" reporting of NPR, the BBC, or any of a multitude of left-wing liberal media propogandists?

There is no such thing as fair and balanced reporting.

Period.

[elwoodblues]

At least he admits right off the bat that he didn't see the movie (rather he sent in a "spy").

[nicky g]

Yes, although O'Reilly does a lot of the talking for the other guy (who just says "yes" quite a lot). Is it "balance" if the presenter openly sides with one of the guests? That's not meant to be a rhetorical question; I'm not sure. But I think probably not.

[nicky g]

Can you elaborate again on how the BBC is biased?

[elwoodblues]

Of course there is no such thing as fair and balanced reporting. Everyone is going to (at least on a subconscious level) bring with them their personal attitudes and beliefs.

The question that I have about either a left or right bias in the news media is whether it is purposeful or not. I see very little evidence of purposeful bias in the news (though, as you would expect, much bias in more "editorial" segments).

As far as subconscious bias: It makes sense on a basic level for me to understand why reporters/journalists might tend to be more liberal than conservative (for one, they are in a field where the First Amendment is absolutely sacrosanct and they believe that liberals uphold the values underlying the first amendment more than conservatives). One oft cited statistic used to "prove" bias is the percent of reporters who vote for democrats...to me this stat means nothing unless you can actually tie their voting behavior to bias.

I would suspect that newsrooms have pulls from both conservative and liberal sides and do their best to maintain balance. The individual reporters/journalists are probably more liberal. The oweners/adverstisers are probably more conservative (or at least interested in protecting business interests more than liberals).

I just don't buy the whole "left-wing liberal media propagandists" stuff. I think it's just the case of if you repeat something enough, people will believe it.

~elwood

[andyfox]

"Those who begrudge this display of the flag demonstrate their true colors as being anti-American traitors."

Another example (along with the president who claims he did not have sex with that woman, the news network that claims to be fair and balanced, and the poker player who claims never to bluff) of the emptiest barrels rattling the loudest.

In America, citizens are allowed to begrudge displays of the flag. Those who would call such bedgudgers traitors do not understand what being an American means and are themselves the epitome of anti-Americanism.

[Boris]

O'Reilly is a self serving buffoon. Ask the editorial board at the WSJ if you don't believe me.

blow hard zone (http://www.patroush.com/children/blowhard_zone.htm)

Or maybe William McGurn has an "untenable position"?

Granted that McGurn accepted the invitation to appear on the O'Reilly factor. But he had an out. He could plead his case in the WSJ. Others can not be guaranteed that luxury and I certainly can not blame anyone who chooses not to appear on the O'Reilly factor, whether their position is tenable or not.

[BruceZ]

In America, citizens are allowed to begrudge displays of the flag.

They're allowed to be anti-American too, so what's your point? If you are offended by the display of the flag, then you are offended by what it stands for. You are offended by America. Hence you, by definition, are anti-American. Period. It doesn't matter what citizens are allowed to do.


Those who would call such bedgudgers traitors do not understand what being an American means and are themselves the epitome of anti-Americanism.

Oh, but in America I'm allowed to make such statements. You just contradicted yourself.

Citizens are also allowed to burn the flag. When they do that just prior to the US attacking Iraq, that gives leaders like Saddam the idea that we are divided and weak, and that he can bluff us, and that we won't attack. It gives the guerrillas the idea that if they keep killing Americans every day, that we will cut and run, like we've done in the past. Those citizens that you mistakenly refer to as "Americans" have blood on their hands. They contribute to the prolonging of hostilities, and they are partly responsible for the deaths of Americans. Their actions give aid and comfort to the enemy in times of war. I do not understand why such acts do not qualify as treason, punishable by death.

[daryn]

whoa whoa.. slow down.. punish flag burners by execution?

i'm not on one "team" or the other here, but this statement is crazy..

once you start executing flag burners the US becomes everything you hate

[John Cole]

Bruce,

Yes, I stand corrected. On the other hand, I think I've captured the basic tone and tenor of the show. Don't you like movies about men with chainsaws?

John

[John Cole]

Bruce,

I love your sense of humor: "allowed to speak" is certainly rich.

John

[John Cole]

Gamblor,

"Left wing" and "liberals" should never be combined. You may hear a few liberals from time to time, but rarely will you hear from the left wing." Certainly the political bent of most every media outlet is towards the conservative, of necessity.

[John Cole]

[ QUOTE ]
They're allowed to be anti-American too, so what's your point? If you are offended by the display of the flag, then you are offended by what it stands for. You are offended by America. Hence you, by definition, are anti-American. Period. It doesn't matter what citizens are allowed to do.

Bruce, can you draw up a diagram of this argument? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

"If you are offended by the display of the flag, then you are offended by what it stands for. You are offended by America. Hence you, by definition, are anti-American. Period."

Being offended by a display of the flag is not the same as being offended by America. All sorts of poeple drape themselves in the flag. The flag is a piece of cloth. America is not about a piece of cloth.

A few people protest or burn flags and this gives Saddam the idea that we are weak? What about the 250,000 troops that had him surrounded? Didn't seem like the war took very long to me.

Those citizens who start preemptive wars based on lies are the traitors to American ideals. People who protest when they disagree on a policy are true Americans. The people with blood on their hands are those that caused the blood to be spilled, not those that tried to stop it.

Quite an America, yours. Protest and be tried for treason and be punished by death. Sounds more like Stalin's principles.

I have no doubt that you do not understand why they are not so treated.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not understand why such acts do not qualify as treason, punishable by death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I submit that treasonous flag burners should have their heads cut off with a chain saw. That, at least, would be very American. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[andyfox]

BTW, I like the Fox talk shows. Much more entertaining than on other stations.

But my beef it with their news, not their debating shows.

Conservatives claim that the liberal media is that way because it reflects the views of senior management. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this is so. So why wouldn't Fox News also reflect the views of senior management.

Murdoch comes from a different place in terms of his previous media experience. His "Fleet Street" journalism is much more overtly opinionated than what is the norm here in the U.S. He picked Ailes to run the new division at Fox precisely because he new Roger wanted revenge.

It would be more unusual if Fox News was not slanted to reflect the Murdoch/Ailes viewpoints.

[BruceZ]

Being offended by a display of the flag is not the same as being offended by America. All sorts of poeple drape themselves in the flag. The flag is a piece of cloth. America is not about a piece of cloth.

Come on. They aren't offended by a piece of cloth, they are offended by what the piece of cloth symbolizes, namely America. What else could they be offended by?


A few people protest or burn flags and this gives Saddam the idea that we are weak?

That, and all the war protests on international television, and the rhetoric that he hears from the peace woosies and Bush haters, and our past history of cutting and running when the going gets tough, as in Vietnam, Beirut, the Balkans, etc.


What about the 250,000 troops that had him surrounded?

We now have evidence that Saddam's advisors didn't tell him he was surrounded, or they greatly discounted the numbers of our troops, and they told him that we would not attack because of domestic pressure. They did this because advisors who brought him bad news tended to have a short lifespan. They told him what he wanted to believe, and our own media helped him to believe that.


Didn't seem like the war took very long to me.

We're still fighting the war! It's you people who keep reminding us that more people have been killed since the "end of hostilities" than during the invasion itself. That's because there were so few casualties during the invasion. The fact that we met very little opposition meant that we also took very few prisoners. Most of the Iraqi army disappeared into the countryside during the invasion, leaving many to reemerge later as guerillas. Kind of like relinquishing the center in a modern chess opening, only to attack it later from the wings once your opponent occupies it with pawns, thus driving him from the center which you can then control permanently with pieces waiting in the wings (government - Saddam). Comical Ali wasn't completely lying when he said that they had us "surrounded everywhere". That gives us some insight into their strategy, albeit almost incomprehensible from our perspective. Some of our opposition still believes they are executing that plan. If someone like Dean gets elected, their plan may still actually work.


People who protest when they disagree on a policy are true Americans. The people with blood on their hands are those that caused the blood to be spilled, not those that tried to stop it.

There's a proper time and place for protest about foreign policy. That time is not after a war is inevitable or already ongoing, and the proper place is not on Iraqi television burning flags. That kind of protest makes Saddam and the opposition forces in Iraq believe that we are playing right into their hands. By exposing our internal divisions, we effectively "bluff" the enemy into prolonging hostilities and delaying the peace because they believe that they can make us fold. But we aren't going to fold, and now it will take a very long time to convince them of that. A long time, and a lot more losses of American lives. Had we presented a strong and united front from the beginning, chances are the war could have been avoided all together. Those that try to stop bloodshed by exposing a weak-tight foreign policy to the world do have blood on their hands, and if they are not anti-American, then they are simply stupid Americans for not understanding that their actions only succeeded in causing much more blood to be spilled.


Quite an America, yours. Protest and be tried for treason and be punished by death.

I never said that was my idea of America. You are not reading with comprehension. I am speaking about a particular form of protest, at a particular time when we are preparing for war, and when that protest is visible to the enemy. I also didn't say that I favored punishing this protest by death. I showed how certain forms of protest give aid and comfort to the enemy, and under our current laws, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in times of war is an act of treason punishable by death. We did not declare war in Iraq, but other acts which help the enemy would still be classified as treason punishable by death, such as the cleric in Gitmo who was caught passing information.


I have no doubt that you do not understand why they are not so treated.

That's right, I don't, because unlike you and most everyone else, I only accept logical explanations, pursued objectively, and unfettered by any preconceived notions about how things ought to be. I've probably thought about this issue a lot longer than you have. I doubt that you understand it any better, but if you do, then kindly explain to me how the above paragraph does not describe an inconsistency in the enforcement of our existing laws.


Sounds more like Stalin's principles.

More like those than yours, yes. I believe the US should be a free, just not as free as some people would like. Actually, Gödel showed that our constitution provides a way for the US to become a military dictatorship, so maybe there is still hope. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
What else could they be offended by?

[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one, am offended by what some people do in the name of that piece of cloth. I am offended by people who wrap themselves in that piece of cloth who then think that they can avoid answering tough questions about what America is doing. I am offended by people who use that piece of cloth as a way of intimidating others into following their viewpoint by labelling them "unpatriotic". I am offended by news organizations that use that piece of cloth for commercial gain --- most of all, I'm offended that this ploy seems to actually be working for them.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a proper time and place for protest about foreign policy. That time is not after a war is inevitable or already ongoing...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to draw absurd conclusions (and I generally don't like it when people make similar statements) but I'm going to anyway...By this logic, German citizens should have just gone along with what their leader did during WWII.

I didn't hear the hue and cry of conservatives during the last president's term decrying people who said that Clinton was "wagging the dog."

[BruceZ]

I, for one, am offended by what some people do in the name of that piece of cloth. I am offended by people who wrap themselves in that piece of cloth who then think that they can avoid answering tough questions about what America is doing. I am offended by people who use that piece of cloth as a way of intimidating others into following their viewpoint by labelling them "unpatriotic". I am offended by news organizations that use that piece of cloth for commercial gain --- most of all, I'm offended that this ploy seems to actually be working for them.

I say you're reading way too much into the piece of cloth. Displaying the piece of cloth only means that the displayer wishes the best for America. If you disagree with him about what is best for America, that is beyond the scope of the piece of cloth. If you begrudge him the flag, you begrudge him wanting the best for America, not any particular policy.

Some people burn the flag in protest to a policy that they disagree with. This is illogical. The flag doesn't represent a policy. It represents a nation, its principles and ideals, and its unity. If you burn the flag, that is what you are burning. If you are offended by the flag, that is what you are offended by.


By this logic, German citizens should have just gone along with what their leader did during WWII.

Yes! They should have, unless their intention was the overthrow of their government.

[Gamblor]

http://www.bbcbias.org
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
http://gandalf.ics.uci.edu/blog/2003/09/beebwatch_bbc_bias_exposed.html

Hmmm.

[ACPlayer]

The BBC news hour is the single best source of news in the world.

NPR ranks a close second.

They are both completely Fair and Balanced. Ideals for all to attain.l

[ACPlayer]

Taking the US to war under false pretences is more treasonous then burning a flag in protest of the same.

Your world views are similar to those of the Mullahs who rule over the Arab snots.

[Utah]

My usual daily reading/viewing/listening - Slate.com, NYT.com (always read Freidman, Krugman-idiot, Brooks, Safire), Foxnews.com, NBC evening news, Brit Humes show, National Review, Weekly Standard, Occasional NPR, Occasional Rurh Limbaugh. And of course the Onion and the Daily Show.

I work at home so I have a lot of time to waste on news

[elwoodblues]

The Onion is the best one on the list...

[BruceZ]

The BBC news hour is the single best source of news in the world.

NPR ranks a close second.

They are both completely Fair and Balanced.

As measured by what standard? The one that is even more fair and balanced than the one that is the most fair and balanced?

[BruceZ]

the Mullahs who rule over the Arab snots.

Just the snots? Not the adults too?

[Cyrus]

"Would you care to elaborate on the "fair and balanced" reporting of NPR, the BBC, or any of a multitude of left-wing liberal media propogandists? There is no such thing as fair and balanced reporting."

The problem with your worldview is you see the world in black and white. It's always Either/Or with you: a classic manichean outlook, totally irrelevant to reality. Beware :

The world is not ruled by absolutes!

There are degrees of integrity in journalism, of fairness and &amp; balance in reporting (as there are degrees of right and wrong in the Israeli and the Palestinian positions in the Middle East conflict). I will never suggest that BBC is bias-free or that it's completely fair and balanced. I will, however, submit that BBC is far, far more fair &amp; balanced than Fox Channel, any time of the day.

Hope this helps.

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

Fair And Balanced should not even be a goal for news reports to aspire to. Accurate and Comprehensive is all that matters.

As for news analysis, that's another matter, and it should be kept strictly separate from news reporting.

[Cyrus]

. . .you. The more you post, Gamblor, the more untenable your "positions" become. Believe me.

Here's the quick down 'n dirty on your "proofs" that BBC is dishonest, which you said was "only a start". (You mean we can expect more? /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

1. BBCbias.org (http://www.bbcbias.org/) is a depository of looney ravings, to the tune of (and I quote) "The European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"! You get the drift.

2. Charles Moore (http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/09/09/do0901.xml&amp;sSheet=/opinion/2003/09/09/ixopinion.html) is a Christian Right ideologue who hates the BBC -- ho hum. As a Jew, surely you have been warned to stay away from his kind. They pretend to be your enemy's enemy but they unfailingly turn anti-semitic sooner or later.

3. The last 'un is a blog (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/) which goes all out to get the BBC's licence revoked. Why the rush? Who knows. The blog's contents are ramshackle smatterings of the usual reactionary froth.

But, listen man : You'd rather watch Fox than BBC, go right ahead! BBC can do lots of things but it sure can't do miracles.

[Boris]

Just to clarify, do you believe the US would be better under a military dictatorship form of government?

[Wake up CALL]

" I will, however, submit that BBC is far, far more fair &amp; balanced than Fox Channel, any time of the day."

Well Cyrus you never cease to amaze me. Next thing you know you'll be posting that your math analysis are accurate and precise as well as fair and balanced! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Pretty amazing what those rose colored liberal eyeglasses do to ones vision.

[John Cole]

Funny, never hear much Lee Wiley anymore; certainly nobody around here mentions here.

[Cyrus]

"You never cease to amaze me. Next thing you know you'll be posting that your math analysis are [sic] accurate and precise as well as fair and balanced! Pretty amazing what those rose colored liberal eyeglasses do to ones vision."

I don't see what my "math analysis" has to do with any of this. Maybe you are confusing me with a notable poster of this forum who claims to be able to solve every political argument through mathematics!

But, honestly, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if you prefer Fox over BBC. If you happen to believe, as Gamblor and BruceZ do, that Fox is more fair and balanced than the BBC, more power to you, gentlemen, I say, truly.

On a completely irrelevant note, every time I set foot inside a casino, there's a reason I am unfailingly polite to all the civilian patrons. Go figure.

[Cyrus]

"The Fox flag went up shortly after 9-11 to show the network's support for the US in overcoming this tragedy. The one in my posts went up as we were on the eve of invading Iraq, to show my support for the troops. The suggestion constantly made by some of the leftists on this forum, that one cannot display a flag or wish the best for the US or its troops in the face of adversity, and still report the news accurately, is simply erroneous. Those who begrudge this display of the flag demonstrate their true colors as being anti-American traitors."


A news network that puts up a flag (and keeps it there two years after 9/11) does not intend to "show support". This is quite simply pandering to the (m)asses. And since when is a news channel supposed to be "showing support" or being patriotic?? The primary duty of a news channel is to report the news and not to provide us with comfort or patriotic lines. And the primary duty of an American citizen, one would say, is to dissent, but then one would have to educate the superpatriotic buffoons on the impossibility of really burning any flag or on the writings of the Founding Fathers of America, a thankless task.

In summary, a poster such as BruceZ, IMHO, can put up a flag up without this implying anything other than that the poster doesn't take too kindly to anti-American criticism -- fair warning, so thanks. But for a news channel?! Can you ever imagine the BBC hoisting onscreen a little Union Jack?

--Cyrus

[BruceZ]

Yes, but only if I get to be the dictator.

[andyfox]

"Come on. They aren't offended by a piece of cloth, they are offended by what the piece of cloth symbolizes, namely America. What else could they be offended by?"

-By how the flag is being used. On Fox, it is used to insinuate that the other networks, bastions of leftism, are not as patriotic as is Fox. I just saw a bumper sticker with a flag on it that said "America, Love it or Leave It." Is that an idea Americans should be proud of, an idea that should be associated with display of our flag?


"cutting and running when the going gets tough, as in Vietnam"

-We didn't cut and run in Vietnam. We supported the French in 1946 and took over from them in 1954. When the Communists almost won again in 1964, we decided to invade. We dropped 15,000,000,000 pounds of bombs and our leaders lied repeatedly about what we were doing and how we were doing it. Then they intended to come back after the "peace" agreement was signed. A criminal enterprise from start to finish, for almost 30 years. Not my definition of cutting and running.


"It's you people who keep reminding us that more people have been killed since the 'end of hostilities' than during the invasion itself."

-Who are "you people." More Americans have been killed by bullets in Los Angeles since the "end of hostilities" than in Baghdad. But that's another story. You use the phrase "you people" as if the recital of facts you don't like to hear must be the work of aliens. Reminds me of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. "You people" weakened a nation today.



"There's a proper time and place for protest about foreign policy. That time is not after a war is inevitable or already ongoing"

-Not in America, my friend. Maybe in Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia. Hitler may have decided that war with Poland was "inevitable" in 1938. Should people have not protested simply because he said it was inevitable?



"by exposing our internal divisions"

We are America, not the Soviet Union. We think for ourselves, we don't accept what the government says as gospel. Internal divisions are what makes us great, what distinguishes us from Huseein's Iraq.

"Those that try to stop bloodshed by exposing a weak-tight foreign policy to the world do have blood on their hands, and if they are not anti-American, then they are simply stupid Americans for not understanding that their actions only succeeded in causing much more blood to be spilled."

Disagrement and discussion are the essence of democracry. You would prefer that we stifle democracy when war is "inevitable." And then you blame those who wanted no bloodshed for the bloodshed. I thought this was 2003, not 1984. War is peace and peace is war.


"I never said that was my idea of America. You are not reading with comprehension."

Here is what you said:
"Citizens are also allowed to burn the flag. When they do that just prior to the US attacking Iraq, that gives leaders like Saddam the idea that we are divided and weak, and that he can bluff us, and that we won't attack. It gives the guerrillas the idea that if they keep killing Americans every day, that we will cut and run, like we've done in the past. Those citizens that you mistakenly refer to as "Americans" have blood on their hands. They contribute to the prolonging of hostilities, and they are partly responsible for the deaths of Americans. Their actions give aid and comfort to the enemy in times of war. I do not understand why such acts do not qualify as treason, punishable by death."

I think my comprehension is good since your writing is so clear. You say that Americans who burned the flag prior to the American attack on Iraq have blood on their hands, are traitors, and should be punishable by death. (No mention of a trail, I note. Just punishment.) You also put the word "Americans" in quotes, stating that I mistaknely refer to them as such. People who disagree with your views don't qualify as Americans I guess.

And then you close by saying that you use only logic and not preconceived notions. Those who disagree, by implication, act from impulse and bias. After all, you've been thinking about these things a long time. Those who disagree obviously have reading comprehension and logic problems.

You may have been thinking about these things a long time but you need to think some more about what America is about. It's not about threatening people with execution for disagreeing with a foreign policy.

[andyfox]

"By this logic, German citizens should have just gone along with what their leader did during WWII.

Yes! They should have, unless their intention was the overthrow of their government."

I rest my case.

[nicky g]

Wow. A site opposing the licence fee, a one-off blog article announcing the ultra-right wing Telegraph is going to be monitoring the BBC from now on (and making comletely unssupported definitions of what the BBC's stance on various matters is), and a shoddy blog site complaining that comedians on the BBC are too left-wing. Jaynius.

How about you find a BBC news article and show us how it's biased, so we can have a proper discussion, rather than a who-can-find-the-most-loony-websites competition?

[andyfox]

"Some people burn the flag in protest to a policy that they disagree with. This is illogical. The flag doesn't represent a policy. It represents a nation, its principles and ideals, and its unity."

If a person disagrees with the policies of a nation, because those policies are vilating the nation's principles and ideals, it is perfectly logical to burn the flag as a protest against that policy.

Most protestors who burn flags are trying to get attention and onto the news. Since this usually succeeds, their logic in doing so make sense. They are not offended by the flag.

[Gamblor]

A start, Cyrus

It seems your campaign to discredit me has not ended. Shame you spend more time attacking your adversary rather than on the issue at hand. Nevertheless, I can play too.

I get my news from the CBC, hardly unbiased, but I've been trained to see through it as much as I can because I know, have been through, and lived what they're reporting on, in some cases.

Having been through articles that say things like, and I paraphrase, "A Palestinian militant was killed today as Israeli soldiers made deep incursions into Palestinian territory."

Of course, having been involved in the "incursion" that went 300 feet over the Green line, having watched the Palestinian be cornered by troops against a wall and deciding to blow himself up right a little short of his target, reminding myself the whole time that there is no such thing as Palestinian territory. There is disputed territory that holds both Arab towns and Israeli settlements. The only time in history that area has been 100% Arab is between 48 and 67, but that would fog any unilateral Arab claim to the Jordan Valley, northern Negev, and southern Gallile, so it can't be mentioned, or the Arab viewpoint is simply accepted as fact.

That's what I mean by bias.

[Gamblor]

Let's go over a few headlines, shall we?

Monday, 7 May, 2001: Israeli attack kills baby girl

Wednesday, 11 April, 2001: Israeli tanks attack refugee camp

Tuesday, 17 April, 2001: Israel turns firepower on Gaza

Thursday, 10 May, 2001: Israel hits Arafat's nerve centre

Wednesday, 16 May, 2001: Israeli launches helicopter attacks

Monday, 21 May, 2001: Israel attacks despite diplomatic push

You'll notice the common theme - Israel commits some violent act.

Now, lets examine the headlines concerning attacks on Israeli civilians...

Monday, 26 March, 2001: Israeli baby killed by gunfire

Wednesday, 28 March, 2001: Bomb stokes Mid-East tension

Saturday, 28 April, 2001: Mortars injure Gaza settlers

Wednesday, 9 May, 2001: Israeli teenagers 'stoned to death'

Friday, 25 May, 2001: Suicide blasts shake Israel

Wednesday, 30 May, 2001: Israeli city hit by blast

You'll notice the common theme - Something bad happened to some people in Israel

Given that the tone of the article is set by headlines, you don't see this as bias?

Why don't the Arabs ever commit violent acts? Its as if the bombs, shootings, etc. simply appear out of nowhere.

Why don't you check out BBC Watch (http://www.bbcwatch.com) . Independent analysis of BBC Bias.

[BruceZ]

By how the flag is being used. On Fox, it is used to insinuate that the other networks, bastions of leftism, are not as patriotic as is Fox.

I completely disagree that this is what Fox's flag represents. As I stated, Fox put up its flag after 9/11 to show support for America in overcoming this tragedy. We are still fighting the war on terror, so the flag remains up. The meaning you attach to it comes from your own mind, not from Fox.


Internal divisions are what makes us great, what distinguishes us from Huseein's Iraq.

When these divisions are kept between us, yes. When the divisions become visible to the world and to our enemies, the divisions make us weak.


Disagrement and discussion are the essence of democracry. You would prefer that we stifle democracy when war is "inevitable."

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. The people have input, but at a certain point, a single decision must be made, go to war or don't go to war. This decision is made by one man, our president, guided by the advise of his staff and other experts in government. Whatever decision he makes will not please all the people. Once this decisons is made, continued dissention by the rabble is not helpful, and it will not change the decision. What it will do, when broadcast to the world, is make us appear weak, and serve to hinder the very purpose for which this dissention is aimed, namely to bring about the quickest end to the hostilities possible, through concerted action, and decisive victory. Now why can't you understand that?


You may have been thinking about these things a long time but you need to think some more about what America is about. It's not about threatening people with execution for disagreeing with a foreign policy.

I am saying that my interpretation of what our existing law says. You have not offered a rebuttal to this, nor has anyone else.

[andyfox]

I did not know we didn't live in a democracy. I thought we were governed by elected representatives. I thought I've heard our leaders tell us we were supporting democracy when they've taken us to war, taht they want to bring democracy to lands where it was lacking.

Your contempt for the "rabble" is evident.

Your definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, I repeat, is one that Stalin would have approved. I say showing what a vibrant democracy we are is the best way to defeat our enemies. To stifle that democracy is to make us just like our enemies. To stifle democracy is to make us appear weak.

The decision a president makes is not to be bowed down to, like in totalitarian states. Presidents make mistakes. They lie and they cheat. To insist that we must obey once their "expert" decision is made, no matter how illegal or immoral their decision might be, puts the principles of America to shame.

[BruceZ]

I say showing what a vibrant democracy we are is the best way to defeat our enemies.

We can do that when we are not at war with lunatics whose entire reason for fighting rests upon their belief that we will give in to internal dissention. Right now Americans are dying every day which may well not be dying were it not for your dissention, and the hope that it gives our enemy that they will eventually succeed if they can pile up enough body bags. You might as well put on a skirt and go be a cheerleader for the terrorists.


To stifle that democracy is to make us just like our enemies.

While it would take an enormous amount more than what I am suggesting to be "just like our enemies", if we pursued our military objectives with 1 percent of the single mindedness of purpose that our terrorist enemies possess, we would have little to worry about, and the threat would soon become non-existent. As it is, the strongest nation in the world can be held in check by a handful of terrorist thugs with box cutters. If we continue to allow ourselves to be vulnerable to assymetric warfare, we WILL lose the war on terror, and there soon will be no more nation to uphold your precious ideals of "democracy".


Presidents make mistakes. They lie and they cheat. To insist that we must obey once their "expert" decision is made, no matter how illegal or immoral their decision might be, puts the principles of America to shame.

They may well do all of those things, but you are unlikely to ever know that until much later. Do you really think that you or the average member of the public can better analyze the threats to our nation than all the experts in government who do this for a living? Do you think you can catch the president in a lie with all those in the government and the press looking for any opportunity to do that every day? Some have said that a citizen's duty is dissention. I say dissention in this circumstance is highly overrated. A citizen's duty is to vote for their leaders. At some point you have to give the leaders you elect the benefit of the doubt, and let them do the job that you elected them to do. There is a time for dissention, and there is a time to rally around the flag, and support your government in the decisions which were democratically made.

Your definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, I repeat, is one that Stalin would have approved.

That may be. Now tell me why the supreme court would not approve of it as well. Certainly it gives the enemy psychological comfort, and the will to continue the fight. Believe it or not, I wish I was not right. It disturbed me when I realized that these acts being committed could be considered treasonous, and that they are not being punished as such. I tried to disprove the logic of this, but I could not. Even the president encourages dissention where I would not. I am not saying that I support the execution of flag burners. I don't even support the death penalty. On the other hand, I would sooner see flag burners executed than even murderers. That's just because it's easier to prove, and my primary problem with the death penalty is that it executes innocent citizens.

[ACPlayer]

When these divisions are kept between us, yes. When the divisions become visible to the world and to our enemies, the divisions make us weak.

Your point, like most you make, is disingenuous, and how exactly can we have this debate and keep it invisible? Like most of the so calle conservatives these days, your idea of conservativism and patriotism is more like kiss the feet of the emperor (who, BTW is naked).

[BruceZ]

Your point, like most you make, is disingenuous, and how exactly can we have this debate and keep it invisible? Like most of the so calle conservatives these days, your idea of conservativism and patriotism is more like kiss the feet of the emperor (who, BTW is naked).

Your rebuttal, like most you make, is non-specific and general in its attacks on "most of the points I make", and as such is useless, like most of the statements you make. Try responding to my statements individually, and then I will tell you why you are wrong.

A way to keep the keep the debate invisible is not to burn flags on CNN, especially when we are at war with middle eastern enemies who value these kinds of symbols almost more than anything else.

[ACPlayer]

You have repeatedly stated that the debate is divisive because it gives comfort. You also state that it is OK to have a debate in private and not let it be known to the enemy. I asked how can you have a debate that is private.

[BruceZ]

I was responding to the "like most of your posts", which you say in many of your posts. It's a cheap way to dismiss a large number of posts in masse, without ever engaging in any specific debate over any of them.

That some debate is made public is probably unavoidable. Debate in congress is public, though perhaps sensitive issues could be debated privately, with the transcripts released at a later date. The 9 guys campaigning for president speak against the war and against Bush. This gives Saddam, if he's alive, great hope that if he holds out long enough, we will leave. We can't just line these guys up in front of an open grave and mow them all down. They are weakening our hand, even as they participate in the democratic process. Freedom of the press demands that editorial writers and commentators be able to criticize whatever they want. Some of the more responsible ones like Alan Colmes have refrained from doing this once hostilities started, and switched over to supporting the troops. This is the kind of responsible behavior I encourage. The most vicious forms of protest, that which takes place in mobs on our streets, and featuring burning of the flag, send a very strong message to Saddam and his ilk about our unity and committment to the war. This message, at the very least, could be avoided, or at least not televised. If people feel the need to protest, let there be establishments where they can meet and do it away from cameras. Or they can use the internet. I doubt Saddam reads 2+2. Then they can even burn as many flags as they want, as long as it is not broadcast to the world. Burning the flag. That's something that takes place in Syria or Iran. It has no place on the streets of America. Those who participate in it should be subjected to a very large fine, and the money should be used to support the war effort.

[andyfox]

"We can do that when we are not at war with lunatics whose entire reason for fighting rests upon their belief that we will give in to internal dissention. Right now Americans are dying every day which may well not be dying were it not for your dissention, and the hope that it gives our enemy that they will eventually succeed if they can pile up enough body bags. You might as well put on a skirt and go be a cheerleader for the terrorists."

-To say that the entire reason for the fighting is because of dissension in this country is to deny that the Iraqis have their own history. Nobody is fighting against the invaders in Iraq because Andy Fox feels the invasion was wrong.

Those who would deny Americans their basic freedoms, as you want to do, are the cheerleaders for the terrorists. They are no better than the terrorists.

"if we pursued our military objectives with 1 percent of the single mindedness of purpose that our terrorist enemies possess, we would have little to worry about, and the threat would soon become non-existent."

-The terrorists indeed pursue their objectives with singlemindedness of purpose. That's how they end up not caring about airplanes crashing into buildings. That's not the kind of singlemindedness of purpose I want for my country.

"They may well do all of those things, but you are unlikely to ever know that until much later"

Hogwasy. There were always sound analysts and readers who could read with comprehension who pointed out the lies and ditortions that led to folly and disaster. Try reading Walter Lippman's early Cold War criticisms, or George Kennan's reservations when his suggestions were read by those who couldn't comprehend or refused to comprehend. Or George Ball's practical criticisms of the Vietnam tragedy. These people were not radical dissenters, but insiders who could see when they were being lied to, when the lies were told, not many years later.

I have no doubt that you would sooner support the execution of flag burners than murderers. And that the ability to dissent is overrated. Yours is a truly unAmerican attitude.

Give our leaders the benefit of the doubt? When they invade another country and lie about it?

America is a great country because you can express, and seek to implement, if you so choose, the views you espouse. It would be a terrible country, if your views became policy. Because then others would not have those rights. And then we'd be no better off than the people who had to endure Stalin and Mao and Hitler.

Shame on you.

[BruceZ]

Nobody is fighting against the invaders in Iraq because Andy Fox feels the invasion was wrong.

No, but they may very well be fighting because Dean thinks its wrong, and because of all of the people out in the street burning flags that think its wrong, and because of the way the US has acted in the past because of people who thought like you.


Hogwasy. There were always sound analysts and readers who could read with comprehension who pointed out the lies and ditortions that led to folly and disaster. Try reading Walter Lippman's early Cold War criticisms, or George Kennan's reservations when his suggestions were read by those who couldn't comprehend or refused to comprehend. Or George Ball's practical criticisms of the Vietnam tragedy. These people were not radical dissenters, but insiders who could see when they were being lied to, when the lies were told, not many years later.

Ah ha! Insiders. That doesn't describe the masses of rabble rousers out in the streets burning flags. I have no objection to qualified people having an avenue to express their opinions directly to those in government who can make a difference, and the government has an obligation to listen to those people.


When they invade another country and lie about it?

You don't know that, and if that happened, it will become apparent, and those responsible will suffer the consequences.


Those who would deny Americans their basic freedoms, as you want to do, are the cheerleaders for the terrorists. They are no better than the terrorists.

America is a great country because you can express, and seek to implement, if you so choose, the views you espouse. It would be a terrible country, if your views became policy. Because then others would not have those rights. And then we'd be no better off than the people who had to endure Stalin and Mao and Hitler.

Shame on you.

The problem with this analysis, and that of other idealistic liberals, is that as soon as a proposal appears to threaten your freedoms in the least, you suddenly start thinking in black and white. Our freedoms are a matter of DEGREE. They are and should be DYNAMIC, with the opportunity to make reasonable changes when extreme conditions present themselves. Now look back at what you wrote, and think about how ridiculous it is to equate me with a terrorist, or to equate our nation with that of Stalin or Hitler, just because I suggested suspending internationally broadcast flag burning during times of war! You are flying completely off the handle. It is people like you who are unwilling to make grown-up decisions about how to protect this country who I perceive as truely unAmerican. Shame on YOU!

[ACPlayer]

Well, there lies the essence of the problem. You see the 9 guys running down Bush doing a disservice, I see them as performing an important function in our democratic system.


A far greater disservive to the nation is not recognizing that this "war" is Bull. Blindly following the leader may be acceptable to an army man, it is not acceptable to the rest of us. This war, one without an enemy, misson or boundaries, my go on for 20 years, not debating the merits or need is stupid.

The republicans, for the most part, have proven incapable of debate on this subject, the democrats must debate it and continue to do so.

I hoist the flag in support of the patriotism of all those who oppose the war.

[ACPlayer]

No, but they may very well be fighting because Dean thinks its wrong, and because of all of the people out in the street burning flags that think its wrong, and because of the way the US has acted in the past because of people who thought like you.

Well, you are partially correct. They are acting the way they are because of the way the US has acted in the past. But you are wrong that it is because of people like Andy Fox. It is more bacause of the "We are right" attitude of people like yourself and because of the exploitative policies of the US.

The guy in Iraq planning the next attack could care less about Dean.
I have no objection to qualified people having an avenue to express their opinions directly to those in government who can make a difference, and the government has an obligation to listen to those people.

Elitist hog wash. The govt has an obligation to listen to the sentiment of the people.

[BruceZ]

A far greater disservive to the nation is not recognizing that this "war" is Bull.

Which war are you talking about, the invasion of Iraq, the war we are currently fighting with guerillas in Iraq, or the war on terror? If you mean the invasion, you could be right. If you mean what we are doing there now, you have to know that it is imperative that we not leave there until we stabilize the government, or else Saddam or worse will move right back in, Iraq will become a mike haven for terrorists, we will have lost all credibility, and we will have greatly increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks at home. So even if you didn't support the war at the beginning, and if you didn't believe it had anything to do with the war on terror, it does now. The war on terror will be fought for another 20 years at least, and that is not bogus.

[BruceZ]

It is more bacause of the "We are right" attitude of people like yourself and because of the exploitative policies of the US.

It may be because of that attitude and those policies, but even worse, it's because once we adopted that attitude and those policies, we didn't act consistently in accordance with them. We are plenty strong enough to have those attitudes and policies and still keep the peace, but once the guys with weak-tight foreign policies get into the mix, all we have is a confused, compromised, and ineffective foreign policy. Walk on the left, or walk on the right, but walk in the middle and you get squashed like a bug.


The guy in Iraq planning the next attack could care less about Dean.

You're naive. That guy planning the next attack could very well be Saddam, and you can bet he's in a hole somewhere listening to what Dean says, thinking he could be the next president, licking his chops, and thinking he just needs to hold out a little longer.


Elitist hog wash. The govt has an obligation to listen to the sentiment of the people.

Oh come on. How is he going to listen to all of the people? And if he does what the "average" person thought he should do, we would all be in deep trouble.

[ACPlayer]

First, most of the peoplel who opposed the war, were opposing the war in Iraq. The rallies across the country were against that war.

Second, it is only an opinion of the govt that it is imperative for us to stay in Iraq to assure our future safety. I, and some of the dem candidates, disagree. We can turn the mess over to the UN and haul ass. However, this govt will not do this, not because it would make America more secure, or give Iraqi's a democracy, but to assure that the Iraqi oil assets are available to us. Americans are dying not to promote democracy and freedom but for our oil interests.

[BruceZ]

We can turn the mess over to the UN and haul ass.

That's a nice idea, but the UN couldn't handle the job in Rwanda, what makes you think they can handle this one?

[ACPlayer]

What makes you think we can do the job ourselves? Our track record of installing regimes in the middle east is extremely weak. It is obvious from the results to date, that our planning for the aftermath was totally inadequate and our execution is full of mistakes.

[BruceZ]

Our track record of installing regimes in the middle east is extremely weak.

That's because andyfox won't let us do the things that need to be done. It's all his fault.

[ACPlayer]

Thanks Bruce, as a punctuation to your rantings, this is priceless.

[nicky g]

"Why don't you check out BBC Watch . Independent analysis of BBC Bias. "

I did and I believe I pointed out how absurd their claims were a while ago.

[nicky g]

"The war on terror will be fought for another 20 years at least, and that is not bogus. "

Does that mean freedoms should be curtailed for the next 20 years at least?

[nicky g]

This is absurd. You can easily play the game the other way around. For example, from last month:

Four Palestinians die in clashes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3202842.stm)

No mention in the headline that they were shot by Israeli soldiers. The point is to read the stories, not the headlines. Try doing your own research, instead of copying stuff off propaganda websites. Again, I suggest, why not take a BBC news story off the web, and analyse it? Then we can have a proper discussion.

[John Cole]

Bruce,

Is there some flag burning channel I've missed? I tend to follow the news as much as possible, but I've yet to see "masses" of people burning flags anywhere. Where has this happened and how often has it happened?

I'd also dispute that such acts give aid and comfort to the enemy. For some reason I doubt the enemy in this instance monitors flag burning.

Perhaps, then, the issue is more symbolic for you. I think flag burning is pretty silly. You take it more seriously. Or, do you simply use flag burning to represent any form of dissent, no matter how well reasoned or formulated? Again, I'm not convinced dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Saying it is so doesn't make it so.

If most US representatives in Iraq are corrrect, and if we believe our politicians, then 99% of the Iraqi population wants us there. These attacks on our forces should, then, begin to be handled by both American and Iraqi forces--and the general Iraqi population, who, it seems, would have a huge stake in stifling that form of internal dissent.

John

[Gamblor]

Simply saying BBCWatch is "absurd" does not make it absurd.

Again, you cannot simply dismiss something as propaganda because you don't like it, and I never agreed with your dismissal of BBCWatch. You have proven nothing at all other than your hatred of freedom.

Propaganda only works on those who already believe it.

But I'll give it a shot.

Lets start with the inclusion of Arabic on the website.

Clearly, there is a significant population of Arab speakers in the UK. Given a requirement to sell as many newspapers, score as many hits on their site, and have as many people as possible watch their news channel, what incentive does the BBC have to provide any sort of partial coverage to the Israeli position?

[nicky g]

"Simply saying BBCWatch is "absurd" does not make it absurd."

No, but I made points that I believe showed it to be absurd. You don;'t agree. I don't see the point in having the same discussion again.

"You have proven nothing at all other than your hatred of freedom."

Wtf are you talking about?

"Lets start with the inclusion of Arabic on the website. Clearly, there is a significant population of Arab speakers in the UK. Given a requirement to sell as many newspapers, score as many hits on their site, and have as many people as possible watch their news channel, what incentive does the BBC have to provide any sort of partial coverage to the Israeli position? "

You really know nothing, do you? Since when did the BBC sell newspapers? The Arabic section is part of the BBC World Service, which broadcasts to all the world. There is no significant Arab or Arab speaking population in the UK; maybe a few tens of thousands in London, out of a population of 60 million. The site has coverage in Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Mandarin, Thai, Romanian, and a dozen other languages. Stop arguing about things you know nothing about.

[nicky g]

"maybe a few tens of thousands in London, out of a population of 60 million"

This is wrong: there are about half a million Arabs in the UK. There are about 400,000 Jews. Nevertheless the Arabic section is quite clearly part of the World Service, and not aimed at the local populations. FOr one thing all it's news is about the Arabic world, not the UK.

[andyfox]

To assume that people in Iraq are fighting, or not fighting, because of Howard Dean, is the height of hubris. The people of Iraq have their own agenda, parts of which may well have nothing to do with America or American politics.

I hadn't realized there was such an epidemic of rabble-rosuing flag burners. And that they were so influential as to effect the course of the war in Iraq.

How will you determine who exactly is qualified to have an avenue to express their opinions? The Constitution insures that all citizens are so qualified.

Your suggestion that we should execute people for treason because they protest in ways you don't like; your belief that we should bow down to our leaders no matter what they do so long as they portray their actions as necessary in emergencies; and your characterization of people with political opinions that disagree with yours as unqualified, and rabble, show how unAmerican your thoughts are. They are diametrically opposed to the principles of our great country. They are exactly how Stalin thought and how the terrorists think. Shame on you.

You may have the last word.

[andyfox]

He's right.

[Cyrus]

Observers have noted with puzzlement the seemingly strange behavior of some animals in situations of conflict or near danger, whereby the animals expose themselves to danger willingly, eg some lone zebra not running immediately away when smelling a predator nearby. The observers have concluded that the behavior is not in any way a sign of capitulation but it is inteded to show strength to the opponent, by intimating overwhelming superiority and abundance of resources. In other words, "I can afford to let you approach so near, because this means I can outrun you anytime! Try to catch me and you will only waste precious energy and may possibly remain hungry the rest of the day!"

I believe that flag burning, when watched on TV screens across the world, and even if the local commentary contains the usual propaganda, is, in fact, and indirectly, quite impressive, if not scary, to watchers of America!

Here is a country that feels so strong that it allows its citizens to hit upon its very symbols without punishing them! So strong that allows dissent in its ranks even at the point when it goes to war!

--Cyrus

PS : The animal behavior mentioned above is also observed, of course, in occasions of sexual approach. But I will not elaborate!...