Current Events Thread

[catbarf]

No one intelligent uses Fox News as their main source of news, and most people wanting to see how the world truly is, go to multiple news sites.

Intelligent people already know that Muslims aren't out to kill them and eat their babies. They're not the ones that need to be informed.

[zombie_hamster]

No, that's not how it works. Muslims are on TV all the time, but people still act the same way.

[Joest]

He's actually Hindu, ZH.

[Nel]

Intelligent people already know that Muslims aren't out to kill them and eat their babies. They're not the ones that need to be informed.

Maybe you should reread what I said.  The Intelligent part was directed at Fox News, the wanting to see how the world is was directed at watching multiple news sources.

[catbarf]

Yes. There are a lot of idiots that only watch Fox News or CNN and as a result are under the impression that extremists represent all of Islam. They are the ones that need to be shown that not all Muslims are bad.

[me]

While it's obvious (And objective) that they're biased and spout complete bullshit and racism, they are by far the most watched news station. What they say has to be taken seriously because of how powerful they are.

Examples? Help me form a learned viewpoint of my own here.

[Joest]

Here.

Photoshopping pictures to make people look uglier, taking talking points directly from the White House, mislabeling parties (Labeling controversial republicans as (D)), misrepresenting crowd sizes at political events/rallies, editing Wikipedia, showing videos that are heavily edited (Without mentioning of the editing when they have full knowledge that they were edited)...

The list goes on.

[Barbalute]

While I agree that Fox is ridiculous, this is one of those few occasions where you should probably cite something a bit more reliable than wikipedia, especially considering

editing Wikipedia

can go both ways.

[Joest]

While I agree that Fox is ridiculous, this is one of those few occasions where you should probably cite something a bit more reliable than wikipedia, especially considering

Then read the sources. There is 153 of them. If you want to look into something further, read the source.

[Barbalute]

Then read the sources. There is 153 of them. If you want to look into something further, read the source.

It's not on me to provide proper evidence for what you're saying.

I'm not saying it isn't accurate - it probably is - but wikipedia isn't a reliable source when one of the things you're saying they do is edit wikipedia.

[UnInvincible]

Uh Barb, Wikipedia gives links to sources in the article and at the end. Joest is saying to click those links and read the proper articles.

Is it really that hard to click a link within something linked to you?

[Marphy Black]

but wikipedia isn't a reliable source when one of the things you're saying they do is edit wikipedia.

This article looks pretty heavily sourced to me. The sections lacking citations are duly noted. What are you disputing? And if you are disputing something, why not fix it yourself since you clearly free and able and encouraged to?

[Barbalute]

Uh Barb, Wikipedia gives links to sources in the article and at the end. Joest is saying to click those links and read the proper articles.

Is it really that hard to click a link within something linked to you?

I understand that. Is it really that hard for him to link a credible source the first time around?

I understand that all students and internet-dwellers love wikipedia and want to make it an acceptable source, but if he's trying to make a credible point he shouldn't be using it.

why not fix it yourself since you clearly free and able and encouraged to?

Because I don't care  

I'd also like to point out that I'm not contesting his point, I'm just contesting his poor choice of source considering wikipedia is editable and it's absurd to expect anyone to go read 150 sources.

A better choice would have been a synopsis by some neutral source or a couple different examples of proof. These could easily have been harvested from the wikipedia citation section.

[UnInvincible]

Is it really that hard to skim through the article and go "oh hey this is an interesting sentence backing up Joest's point, I'll just click the little number at the end of it and see if the article it comes from seems legit."

Wikipedia is powerful because it's a collection of information from many sources.
If you wanted multiple examples from so called "credible sources" then Joest would just end up posting multiple links to articles that that wikipedia article probably contains already.

[Shadow_Archmagi]

Skimming the article:

1. Polls show people who watch fox up to 7% more likely to be wrong about major issues such as that saddam hussein had anything to do with al qaeda.

2. Fox photoshopped it's opponents to be uglier

3. Fox released an advertisement saying "HOW DID CNN AND ABC ETC MISS THIS?" regarding a tea party protest march. The picture in the advertisement was, in fact, taken from CNN, who ran a full story on it.

4. Fox has a habit of saying things like "Oh man huge numbers of people are in favor of this" and showing a picture of a huge crowd... that was taken several years earlier at a different event. Because in the present, the crowd is NOT huge.

5. Pretty much everyone on the show is nuts.

[sulkdodds]

I was watching Fox News the other day and their top story was that Iran will soon be "launching a nuclear reactor" (as if it was a missile).

But really, don't you remember when Scott McClellan, former white house press secretary, admitted the Bush administration had been feeding talking points to Fox News? McClellan tries to play it down to protect himself in that clip (ctrl+f 'talking points') but I remember Keith Olbermann getting pretty righteously angry about it (as he always is). See also this. And every single episode of the Daily Show.

[Joest]

Examples? Help me form a learned viewpoint of my own here.

You see, dumbname, there are far too many of these cases to possibly claim that these are honest mistakes. Problem is, you live in the south and most people get their news from this news station.

[Killroy]

I am really disappoint that my parents watch Fox News.

Quoth me, "Glenn Beck sounds like a conspiracy theorist most of the time."

Quoth my dad, "Yeah, but when he talks about other people being stupid, he uses their own words."

So at least he knows the man's crazy.

[Shadow_Archmagi]

Now, killroy, go in for the kill by showing him a montage of him saying on thing, and then the exact opposite.

[zombie_hamster]

I don't watch Glenn Beck so forgive how uninformed this is, but isn't Glenn Beck playing a character?
I mean, lets face it, if you dont like him he's hilarious because he's almost like a caricature.