Fox News is waaay more extreme than any news channel in Israel. It probably isn't as bad as Hamas-controlled television, but just as misleading.

all media is biased. I find it so easy to get absorbed into BBC news and believe it all, but i gotta snap out of that.

My friend raaja says that Al-Jazeera is the most truthful news channel. erm, not sure about that one.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

or is it just that most other major news agencies are rather off to the left... making fox news seem extreme...:tinfoil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

Everyone who thinks Fox News is a reputable organization should please read that page and the provided references.

Actually the people who don't should too.

Ooh, someone posted all the left wing criticism of Fox News on wikipedia so it's credible now. I mean, seriously, every news organization is going to have criticism of it. I don't off handedly dismiss everything on that page, which I didn't read today but have in the past. CNN has plenty of valid criticism but I don't think that makes them not a reputable organization. As far as main stream american news media goes I think the only two to really fall in the "unreputable" category now are NBC and CBS.



Actually Fox has shifted left and dumbed down some of their programming to appeal to a larger demographic. The other cable news agencies seem to be trying to do everything from shifting right, shifting further left, aging down their reporters, musicing up their shows, etc. To some degree they may be picking up some younger viewers but don't really seem to be making much headway on Fox. Fox will eventually piss off their loyal viewers in their pursuit of more money. Not sure if another network will pick up the viewership or not.

Sorry, the news network aspect of this thread interested me more than another middle east debate. Although we haven't had one in a very long time and this one is pretty good.

The Wikipedia article about Fox News controversies is the most fair analysis of their credibility that I've ever seen. It doesn't even mention the claimed "typographical errors" (like repeatedly referring to republicans exposed as corrupt as democrats) and "unintentional" erroneous comments and stories for which they later recanted well after the damage was done (like airing Onion articles as genuine news or calling Mass Effect virtual porn), because Fox News actually did admit their mistakes and, to be fair shouldn't be dragged through the mud, even though they obviously knew they were lying and did it on purpose just long enough to avoid getting sued.

But alright. Let's ignore the fact that "wikipedia = anybody can edit :downs:" is an uneducated kneejerk reaction. Every single claim, reference, statement, quote and grammatical construct on that page has at least one reference (although most of them have multiple). What this should mean to you is that the Wikipedia editors have delivered approximately infinity times the diligence and fact-checking of anybody who works for Fox News, but I'm sure that isn't important to you or the other Christian Right neanderthals who prefer pandering pablum to having to perhaps think for yourselves and make actual commercially-unprofitable social progress of your own.

In response to Jon'C, the article is full of opinion based on stories from media matters, DNC, competing news agencies, etc. There are some legitimate criticisms in their and I already said I don't offhandedly dismiss the article. I use wikipedia often and would not use any argument that it should be dismissed simply because anybody can edit it. It is a good starting point for most research. I do dismiss your claim that because some wikipedia editors parrot articles critical of fox news on an open forum such as wikipedia makes them somehow infinitely more diligent than anyone who actually works at a news organization.

The Onion article was an embarrassing blunder but there was nothing wrong with the Mass Effect situation. I love how people try to rewrite history and make it seem as if Fox News were the ones that called it an alien sex simulator from the start. I do know that they had a segment featuring the host and two guests, one from a game show that succeeded in setting the record straight. Then, I believe, there was a sort of round table discussion featuring some people who obviously knew nothing of the game talking dribble. While, to me, that group came across as uninformed it was typical of the subject matter and the interview segment prior fairly covered the topic.

The Muslim in the modern world feels that they've been cast aside and taken advantage of by history, and especially the West. It's an inferiority complex. I think Seyyed Hossein Nasr can explain it a lot better than I can (skip to about minute 15).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7163678675859613485

Is that the same Seyyed Hossein Nasr who advised Saudi Arabia not to build a science museum in Riyadh because it would be a "time bomb" that might lead people away from believing in Islam? He seems so eloquent in that video but he's still a bit of a religious nut.

Yay Fox: http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002?f=h_top

(Scroll down for the pics)

Religion is the problem.

Yay Mediamatters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002?f=h_top

(Upset that two of their homies got mocked on Fox)

That's not really a fair criticism though, because Fox & Friends is their comedy show. They aren't representing anything they say on the show as a fact or that any of the images are unaltered.

I'd say that's a pretty good example of what makes Fox so bad, though. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are light-hearted parodies that don't take themselves (or anything else) seriously. Those guys are in it for the laughs. Fox's closest equivalent is venomous and malevolent, taking constant vindictive snipes at their detractors confident while using their laugh track to shield them from litigation.

You know that Fox was literally created in the image of the British tabloid, right? Rupert Murdoch did it to all of the news companies he's ever owned - he loves the stuff because it's inflammatory and phony, just like whatever's causing the dull rattling sound whenever you shake your head to dismiss the "liberal" media.

Oh, you're just so enlightened.

Hmm. What does Fox say the BIGGEST THREAT to YOUR CHILDREN is? [WOOSHING SOUNDS AND DRAMATIC MUSIC]

The LIE-BRAL MEDIA?

....Or the Australian media capitalist trying to tell you about American values?

See, just in case you're confused I have a strong partial hatred of Fox News because I'm a conservative. It's a news network that's supposed to be marketed towards conservatives and carry a conservative filter, but instead it's marketed towards advertisers and it carries a big business filter. It's Murdoch 'n Coulter Brand Pureed Consumerism and Fox is the big funnel shoved down your throat.

You see, I'm a conservative because I think things are generally okay the way they are. I believe in fewer restrictions on the economy, smaller government, decreased spending and taxation. Fox News, however, is an unpleasant reminder that almost every other conservative in the world is only interested in not letting the gays get married. So yes, I'd say I'm pretty enlightened.

I would just leave it at "liberal".

You sure seem to feel a need to explain yourself. And attack. Interesting.

I highly doubt my thought processes are of interest to you or anybody else who pretends they can psychoanalyze someone over the internet.

EDIT: Oh, and sorry for being so grouchy the other day. I wasn't running on much sleep.



What I was saying is the entire Middle East has had very poor success in establishing any kind of modern society. They've been been fighting amongst themselves in little factions under an oppressive religion. I mean modern Muslim nations only manage to govern themselves through oppressive dictatorships. It's a lousy culture because it built on a lousy religion. All I was saying is that, while Israel has done some very bad things, you can't really simplify this into a good vs. bad thing.



The point was that the Middle East was never really able to make it out of the middle ages. Sure the Ottoman empire was pretty impressive, and indicative of the fact that they were more organized than Europe during the 1300-1500s. The point was, it crumbled as the world began to modernize. Could it have happened anywhere? Yes? Does that matter? No.


Precisely.


Whoa, whoa! This is very important. Race and culture are NOT the same thing. Race is a very slight trend in the genetic make up of a persons from a certain region. Racism is the false idea that any particular race is genetically inferior with regard to social aptitude, mental acuity ect.

A culture is the pattern of ideals, values, philosophies that given group of people adopt, and is not defined by a particular race. (Although it may happen to identify with a race.) This distinction is very important. A culture can be bad, and many are. A radical Islam culture where women are treated as sub human is a bad culture, for example. Rampant American consumerism is hurting our culture. But being part of a predominantly bad culture doesn't make you bad. A culture is only a trend. I would go as far as saying that a very large percentage of racism can be attributed to people not making a clear distinction between culture and race.



Yes, but since you believe both of the religions involve are myths, you have no ground which to judge. Please see this thread for a more developed discussion.

http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=50164&page=5

Again there is the big difference between condemning a culture and condemning an entire nation or race. The deleterious effects of violence on the respective nation's cultures are causing more and more individuals to be indoctrinated into an irrational hatred of the other nation. If you had moved to Israel when you were ten, you'd probably be singing a different tune right now.

Actually the social problems in the Middle East were present long before the rise of Islam, but it's a good try. If nothing else the social problems of the Middle East are the impediment to progress within Islam (rather than vice-versa) because its immovable roots in the Middle East are causing a net exportation of ridiculous backwards Arabic culture while less-centralized religions offer more freedom in their interpretation.

For example, in 680 AD Arabic culture it was the duty of the family to off a daughter if she dishonored herself. This is still something expected today. (Any Koran experts know if it even says this or if it's just a bonus prize like all of the catholic sacraments?)

In 1000 BC Hebrew culture you could rape a virgin and get away with it if you gave her father silver. Says it right in the Bible. Try it and let me know how it turns out.

I'm not sure why you're still talking about simplifying this into a good vs. bad thing because I'm pretty sure nobody ever did that.

Alright, so is an anti-semite more angry about the Jewish man's bank or about the size of the Jewish man's nose? Does a white guy from Louisiana now simply have a strong opinion about the quality of rap music?

Think about this. Racism in its modern use is an imprecise blanket term for anything attacking an individual of race or an individual expressing elements of the culture that is typically associated with that race. The difference is purely semantic and the only reason you don't view it as equally severe is because it doesn't carry the weight of the word "racism."

Edit: And just to clarify, I was never debating (or interested in debating) the relative merits of Arabic culture versus any other. What I was saying is that this quote:



...was racist (or something just as good).

Which it is.

Still racist.

I do?

Islam is no more a lousy religion than christianity.
Islam, like Christianity, has been changed since its inception to suite the ideals of individuals.
Many of the more opressive rules actually date back before Islam, back to their tribal nomadic days.
And may i remind you when while we were stuck in the dark ages, the Middle east was a haven of science and reason, even though Islam was peaking in its influence. Only a couple of hundred years after we ruined their sh** in the crusades did they revert to less advance ways.

oh btw, fighting themselves, you think thats just "lousy" muslims?
How many atrocities were commited by Protestants and Catholics in the past millenium?
Thats right, too many to count.

jerk! :saddowns:

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Wow. Let's try this:



:downs:

He has nothing against science. He went to school for physics, originally. His problem with the science museum in Riyadh, as planned, is that it ignored Islamic achievements towards science, and focused only on the West. It's the same feeling that the Muslim world is a stagnated civilization, passed over by modern history. That feeling is the one that makes people willing to fight and die for Islam against the West. Nasr doesn't say it's right, he's just explaining the mindframe of the Muslim world, and how it fits in historically to traditional context.

http://web.mit.edu/mitmsa/www/NewSite/libstuff/nasr/nasrspeech1.html

hahaha

Fair enough. I was reading an essay about Islam and Science by Pervez Hoodbhoy just the day before I read your post and he characterised Seyyed as one of many who felt that science in the Middle East should be conducted in "an Islamic manner" meaning science using the Qu'ran as a reference, leaving a host of phenomena up to Allah etc.

Here's the quote from the same essay which can be found here under another title: http://test.counterpoint-online.org/download/394/Trust-me-I-m-a-scientist.pdf


I just got the feeling that he was part of the problem separating the middle east and the west from understanding each other. He does explain how Muslims feel quite well though. Hoodbhoy could well be completely mischaracterising him.

Christianity/Judaism isn't all that much better. It seems like you can't do a whole helluva lot w/o earning yourself a one way ticket to Hell.

From what I understand, Nasr has both a respect for science (being a very bright student of physics, geology and the history and philosophy of science) and the West (he's lived in the UK and US since the '70s). His main philosophical influence is the German philosopher Schuon. He was expelled from Iran during the Revolution for his views on scholarships, so he is far from a radical. If anything, the focus of his career is to bridge the gap between the Muslim world and the West. I'm honestly not certain what his intentions were with the museum in Riyadh. I might have an overly rosy view of him, since the man I studied Islamic philosophy under (also a Persian) studied under Nasr himself.

Islam has always had conflicting views on science and philosophy. At one point, the Muslim world was once the most enlightened civilization on Earth, but some teachers (e.g. abu Hanifa and al-Ghazali) see philosophy and science as un-Islamic and that all knowledge worth knowing comes from the Qu'ran and Hadiths. Similar complaints have been levelled against Sufism and even Shi'a as a whole. This view is somewhat rational, because just about all Islamic philosophy and science directly from Aristotle. The greatest Islamic philosopher, for instance, Avicenna is best known for his commentaries on Aristotle, which are used even to this day.

geraldo rivera, fox news

*grabs the reigns and throws the train off its tracks* I want to go back to something Fardreamer said that nobody challenged.


Yes. Do you have any idea how far up their *** a soldier's command would be if they even breathed something inhumane? Trust me, the soldiers have been given a very intimate understanding of how the upper echelons will throw them to the wolves if they do anything wrong.

Mind you, I'm not against Israel. I just think American procedure and Israeli procedure are on two different levels, and rightfully so.

You make it sound like the war in Iraq has been made to look out like a rose bed. Bad things happening is sensationalist and sensationalism sells. While the government can regulate if a reporter is imbedded with this unit or that unit, or at all, they can't really control what someone reports if they are there independently. This is especially true with the "information superhighway" and 24/7 media coverage. Even if the government wanted to, they couldn't keep many events and happenings from making it back here.

Trust me, if the government had much control of what the media reported, the whole war would be seen entirely different.

Remind me never to talk about current events on the massassi boards.


Ever.

You're being so incredibly nave. Thinking your military is in someway 'special', gentler and more 'understanding' of the human condition than other armies - gives it legitimacy to continue occupying other territories and imposing itself on other people. Sorry to say you don't know the first damn thing about Israeli mentality and how the fact that the strong focus on wartime ethics and human rights that is part of every training program and mission briefing is precisely what makes the situation absurd - the way moral values become twisted and are applied selectively by individuals when everything around them stops making sense.

But then the media shows how evil everyone is don't they! You also probably think Tel Aviv is a warzone, that I go to class wearing a Kevlar vest and that Ramallah is constantly under heavy artillery. Try to realize your impressions are based solely on what you know from TV and that it actually is possible things are more complicated than TV makes it.

And by the way, I was involved to some degree in several joint US Navy / Israel Navy training drills and the general impression was that the American folks were rowdier, more violent and more eager to 'get into action'.

Um, no. The reason the higher ups will throw clamps down on inhumane behavior is because if they don't, they will get thrown to the wolves. Has nothing to do with being gentler and more understanding. Has to do with saving your own ***. Granted, there do exist those that do it more than for just that, but because they truly believe in winning the hearts and mind. Telling the difference between the two is harder, though.

Do I know Israeli mentality? Nope. Israeli actions? Yup. And judging by actions, I would say Israeli and American forces are not quite on the same level. Israeli actions are more extreme than what Americans have done or are allowed to do.

Nope. I started questioning the media in general a long time ago, if that wasn't evident in my first post. And while sensationalism can cloud things, it's not that hard to look things up for yourself and connect the dots. Do Israeli policies tend to be harsher than American policies? Yes. Necessarily so, imo.

Duh? Bravado is a way of life in the military. The person's true character comes out when an actual bullet goes whizzing past their face. How people are back in the barracks and how they are on the battlefield are by no means the same thing.

yeah, i wasnt actually trying to defend fox news, just saying i dont think it is in any way a true "conservative" news outlet. i guess that just underscores the need to differentiate between "right wing" and "conservative"

Oh, I'm not defending the Israeli government's actions which are often idiotically disproportionate, ineffective and machismo and have political considerations behind them. I blame the Israeli media for constantly feeding Israelis sensationalist horror stories that create a constant edgy atmosphere which is good for ratings and the network's advertisers.

But then I'm also saying that Americans in Iraq, and for that matter occupying armies everywhere, are no different at all and the fact that you and most Americans think they are (even if they have moral quips about the situation) is because the media treats very differently the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the American global "war on terror" (class bully vs. problematic kid as opposed to great superpower trying to bring democracy to the barbaric masses in the desert). America has a little more power and influence on the way it is represented in the media and plenty of atrocities go unreported, including collective punishment and mass imprisonment.

So you know Israeli actions do you? How? Through CNN? Well that's exactly my point. Even though you "question the media" and realize a lot is blown out of proportion, the pervasive representation of events affects the way you judge things. Yes, the images on TV are real, but do they represent a complete, balanced report on the situation?

I'm referring to the battlefield, not the barracks, and I know a thing or two about situations with bullets whizzing past your face.

Our military doesn't choose what countries it goes to. Our government orders it there. Still, in current conflicts it spend an inordinate amount of time and resources on humanitarian related missions.

I would contest that the media treats it both situations the same. It seems to me that the media and the world paints both Israel and America as reprehensible and wrong. America isn't seen as a great liberator bringing democracy to an oppressed people. We're seen as imperialist bullies ran by a psychotic president(even by our own politicians and media). If it was untrue that this is the common conception of America, I'd be thrilled.

Also, having been a component of that "collective punishment and mass imprisonment" situation, it's far from an atrocity. While American policy wasn't abhorrent to begin with, ever since a few individuals at Abu-Ghraib decided to take it upon themselves to be ***hats, things are watched even more closely.

No, it never is complete. Even the most unbiased reporting still puts things through an "Importance" filter, which could inadvertantly leave out significant facts. That is where reading between the lines and reading/watching different news sources helps.

Seeing how someone acts in a training exercise is not the same as seeing how they react in combat.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that. It's true, they don't get to explicitly choose, but when so many soldiers are volunteering to go back, reupping, and professing belief in what they are doing, the attempt to insulate them from the popular dissension towards the war by giving them a victim complex(an unnecessary one imo) rings hollow. It may have worked during Vietnam, but in this case it is by far more difficult to separate the soldier from the war.

On another note, I don't see the humanitarian missions as spending an inordinate amount of time and resources. Just like we should bring a really heavy hammer down on the enemies, we need to play nice with the locals. If not for their sake, then for ours. We should not leave until we've built the people up enough to take control of their own country. Humanitarian missions are essential to this for building trust and confidence. An infrastructure won't work if they aren't going to use it because they're pissed off or scared.

I did not physically take part in combat but my knowledge and experience from service is not limited to training exercises.

I was obviously exaggerating America's image in the media, but I was trying to make a point, which obviously isn't coming across. The point is that no matter how convinced we are that our leaders are doing the best to be humane and rational, military occupation involves racism which leads to gross violations of human rights.

I wasn't referring to your personal combat experience. I was referring to you not having seen the sailors in combat(which in that case, if they're on a ship, they may be participating in a battle, but they aren't in the middle of the combat. Two different animals.)

Should have mentioned racism earlier then. And yes, racism does occur. Or, what I believe to be more accurate, looking down on their culture. I would say culturism, but that just sounds stupid. However, this is usually tempered by the fear of the upper echelon, truly wanting to help the people in the culture to elevate themselves, or simply wanting to deal with them as little as possible. As for violations, punishment is usually very swift, considering how aware the military is of public relations now.