Bill O'Reilly or FoxNews Fans

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, maybe, but I happen to know someone with an IQ in the middle to high genius level who loves FoxNews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever asked him why? I would be surprised if it's the reason you suggest.

[ACPlayer]

.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, maybe, but I happen to know someone with an IQ in the middle to high genius level who loves FoxNews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever asked him why? I would be surprised if it's the reason you suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong, it is precisely the reason I suggest, among others.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, maybe, but I happen to know someone with an IQ in the middle to high genius level who loves FoxNews.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ever asked him why? I would be surprised if it's the reason you suggest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're wrong, it is precisely the reason I suggest, among others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised

[Cyrus]

Hi superleeds.

I see that you have fallen for the old, all-encompassing mathematical explanation of Politics! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Do not be discouraged. Things are not as they appear to be. You should know that a measure of intelligence is a mighty difficult little thingy, and that the so-called "IQ measurement" cannot account for many facets of intelligence.

But, having said that, please understand that, even so, claiming that a person has a high IQ and is also a sucker for FoxNews is like claiming that someone is a vegetarian and also a sucker for big macs.

I will let others elaborate.

Regards,

--Cyrus

[nicky g]

"ven if what you say is true it means that CNN lied in its reporting. It cant be viewed any other way. CNN failed to disclose the brutality of the Saddam Regime. This CNN openly admits. I couldnt give a rats ass what its reasons were. I didnt say CNN painted Saddam in a favorable light. I said they portayed his in a more favorable light. That is a much different thing."

Sorry, but the evidence presented so far doesn;t suggest this. I;ve seen no evidence they lied, and no evidence they painted him in a "more favourable light"; I've seen evidence they did not report on certain stories they could have (in order, according to them to save lives rather than than keep their staff in the country as I remembered, apologies), which is not the same thing as portraying him in a more favourable light (what matters is their general approach.coverage, which noone has suggested was pro-Baghdad) and certainly not the same thing as lying).

On the NYT, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I stand by my comments about the Blair thing. Other than that I don't much care to defend it as as I said I don;t have a very high opinion of it. On the Fox issue: it's not that hard to manufacture a scandal and I think it's silly that you would dismiss an analysis you would otherwise agree with because the British government did so.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen evidence they did not report on certain stories they could have (in order, according to them to save lives rather than than keep their staff in the country as I remembered, apologies), which is not the same thing as portraying him in a more favourable light

[/ QUOTE ]Lets start with the facts. CNN knew about atrocities and it didnt report them. Please let me know if you disagree. That is prima facia evidence that they did not portay the actual news as they understood it. How can that now be contrued as anything but a lie, even if they were justified in lying? Now, did the omission of that news help or hurt Saddam's image?

Now, lets look at the prewar coverage to see why this was important. A nation was deciding whether to support a war with Iraq. There were many who thought Saddam was not a butcher and Saddam was working hard to portay a positive image (e.g., the Dan Rather interview). We had people from around the world going to iraq to act as human shields. Saddam's image prior to the war was an important fact and people's opinions of him were important.

Now lets look at the feeble "people would die" excuse. I do not recall CNN supressing the Abu Ghraib story even though it knew that publishing those photos put americans at risk.

Finally, the man responsible for supressing the story was later fired for making inflammatory and disgusting remarks about the U.S. military.

CNNs actions stunk to high heaven. Let me ask, if Fox knew about Abu Ghraib (and no one else did) and supressed it under the guise of not wanting to risk lives would you have accepted that?? I wouldnt have and the liberals would have gone absolutely nuts on Fox.

[ QUOTE ]
On the Fox issue: it's not that hard to manufacture a scandal and I think it's silly that you would dismiss an analysis you would otherwise agree with because the British government did so.

[/ QUOTE ] I am not sure what you mean? I am simply saying that Fox=No scandals BBC=.001% chance of having had a scandal. Fox is thus slightly more credible. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[nicky g]

"How can that now be contrued as anything but a lie, even if they were justified in lying?"

Because not reporting something you know is not the same as lying. Thousands of potential stories go unreported ever day; they don't each constitute lies. Editors have a judgement call as to what to report, especially when lives may be at stake.

"Now, did the omission of that news help or hurt Saddam's image?"

It did not ( very slightly) further hurt Saddam's image when they could have.

" There were many who thought Saddam was not a butcher"

Hardly, in the West at least.

"We had people from around the world going to iraq to act as human shields."

They were going to protect Iraqi civilians, not Saddam.

" Saddam's image prior to the war was an important fact and people's opinions of him were important."

This would be an issue if the few stories involved would have been decisve in forming his image. They were a drop in the ocean compared to the overall negative coverage of the regime from CNN and everyone else (Halabja, etc).

"Now lets look at the feeble "people would die" excuse. I do not recall CNN supressing the Abu Ghraib story even though it knew that publishing those photos put americans at risk."

There is a massive difference between putting your sources in immediate danger by potentially revealing their identities and putting troops in danger of retaliation for actions of their colleagues that you've reported on. You are seriously reaching.

"CNNs actions stunk to high heaven. Let me ask, if Fox knew about Abu Ghraib (and no one else did) and supressed it under the guise of not wanting to risk lives would you have accepted that??"

The CNN case related to a handful of specific stories regarding a regime that was universally known and reported, by CNN as well as others, to be murderous if not genocidal. The Abu Ghraib story was one of the first to show the occupation forces were up to and was much more informative in that sense, and did not put the lives of any of its sources in danger as far as we know.

[nicky g]

"I am not sure what you mean? I am simply saying that Fox=No scandals BBC=.001% chance of having had a scandal. Fox is thus slightly more credible. "

That's absurd. The BBC was dragged through the mud by a government that regarded some of its coverage as unfavourable, at the same time as Fox was going out of its way to provide as much favourable coverage as possible to the US government. All you're doing is stating where your political sympathies lie.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Because not reporting something you know is not the same as lying. Thousands of potential stories go unreported ever day; they don't each constitute lies.

[/ QUOTE ]Correct. But this was a newsworthy event. CNN never claimed it got cut because it didnt make the grade. The lives thing is just B.S., especially in light of the other actions taken by Eason Jordan.

[ QUOTE ]
It did not ( very slightly) further hurt Saddam's image when they could have.

[/ QUOTE ]So now it is just a question of degree.

[ QUOTE ]

This would be an issue if the few stories involved would have been decisve in forming his image. They were a drop in the ocean compared to the overall negative coverage of the regime from CNN and everyone else (Halabja, etc).

[/ QUOTE ] You are quibbling over degree and effect again. I cant lie and claim its not a lie because it had limited effect and I can not claim its not a lie because I did other good deeds.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a massive difference between putting your sources in immediate danger by potentially revealing their identities and putting troops in danger of retaliation for actions of their colleagues that you've reported on. You are seriously reaching.

[/ QUOTE ]Maybe. But why are you so quick to accept the "lives" argument when it is a more plausible arugment that CNN simply wanted to maintain its unique reporting arrangement. Additionally, it is reported on that Iraqi "handlers" vetted the stories. This erases the "lives" argument. Why was CNN letting a foreign government vet its stories?

[ QUOTE ]
"CNNs actions stunk to high heaven. Let me ask, if Fox knew about Abu Ghraib (and no one else did) and supressed it under the guise of not wanting to risk lives would you have accepted that??"

The CNN case related to a handful of specific stories regarding a regime that was universally known and reported, by CNN as well as others, to be murderous if not genocidal. The Abu Ghraib story was one of the first to show the occupation forces were up to and was much more informative in that sense, and did not put the lives of any of its sources in danger as far as we know.

[/ QUOTE ]I see you have avoided my question 100%.