Captain's Quarters -

Interestingly enough, there's a paucity of outrage over Fox News comparing Democrats of many stripes to terrorists and Al Qaeda in particular, a not-uncommon occurance.

I think it's entirely fair to say that Fox News legitimizes some of the most hateful and virulent viewpoints in American politics today, and gives a voice to those who would seek to actively deny reality. When polled, regular Fox News viewers are the least well-informed about world events, and many times cannot make critical distinctions between, say, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, or Osama Bin Laden.

Olbermann was was exaggerating; Fox hasn't lynched anyone. But they do give a legitimate voice to those who would seek to increase divisions within our society, in my opinion, and champion the cause of War above all other peaceful solutions. There's very little difference between FNC and a state-run Pravda channel.

In other words:

"US-based AQ Spokesman: Fox News Is More Dangerous Than AQ"

Olbermann's statement was, perhaps, overly hyperbolic, but I take his point. Fox News is nowhere near "Fair and Balanced" in its news segment, and if you include people like Sean Hannity, who poisons the well of public debate in exchange for a paycheck, you truly do have a dangerous network. There is simply no equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.

Use the Google: there are numerous examples of ex-Fox employees testifying as to the lengths Fox mgmt went to to ensure that each day's stories had the proper spin.

Does Olbermann have an axe to grind? Of course. But while I may watch Countdown and hear something with which I disagree, I never watch it and think "Well, that's just flat out not true." Hannity spouts outright untruths every few minutes.

And Ed, please: "Al-Qaeda ... seeks to impose a radical Islamist Caliphate on the entire world." That's the type of fearmongering rhetoric that disturbs Olbermann, and myself, so much. I may desire to impose the Birkenstock and Tie-Dye Caliphate on the entire world. Would you report that as a dire threat as well? Yet I have about as much chance of succeeding.......

Interestingly enough, there's a paucity of outrage over the MSM comparing Republicans of many stripes to fascists and Nazis in particular, a not-uncommon occurance.

I think it's entirely fair to say that the MSM legitimizes some of the most hateful and virulent viewpoints in American politics today, and gives a voice to those who would seek to actively deny reality. When polled, regular MSM viewers are the least well-informed about world events, and many times cannot make critical distinctions between, say, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.

Olbermann was exaggerating like any good journalist would; the MSM hasn't lynched anyone. But they do give a legitimate voice to those who would seek to increase divisions within our society, in my opinion, and champion the cause of surrender and appeasement above all other effective solutions. There's very little difference between the MSM and a state-run Pravda channel.

Master Shake,

Can you link to a couple of examples of the 'MSM' comparing Republicans to Nazis and Fascists? Specifically, please.

I assure you that the opposite can be done with ease.

I used to watch MSNBS from time to time...but not any more...any time one news "anchor" smears another news channel, it's time to stop watching that news anchor or his sponsoring channel..here's the copy of my letter to MSNBC...

Dear Sir,
I am deeply distress about Mr. Olbermann's comments concerning FOX News...with all the problems facing America today for someone in his position to make the statement:

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was"

...is more than unsettling. Attempting to silence another network (no matter what your personal views are) is the worst form of censorship and a clear violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. I will not watch MSNBC or NBC news ever again.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Vail, Ph.D.
Baltimore, MD USA

The only thing I've deleted was my address and phone number...

I'm tired of the BS propoganda being spouted by NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN...

My Sunday nights are doing just fine since I refuse to watch any football game on a network that allows this booble-head doll to ruin the pregame.

Blabberman is a fool off the deep end.

and large percentages of the left feel that the govt had something to do with 9/11. Many even believe that the govt blew up 6 WTC and the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane.

As far as Sadaam involvement with Al Qaeda, er, check back to 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq because of collaboration with Al Qaeda (amongst other justifcations). this was during the whole wag the dog brouhaha. But the linkage between iraq and Sadaam was not invented by the Bush administration. Maybe you missed the idea that Iraq was a pretty bad place, because you were watching the other network CNN which admitted to deliberately whitewashing its reporting so that it could maintain access to the regime.

Also, I'd like to see some of these polls to check the veracity. If I'm at all typical I'll watch fox and also other channels like MSNBC and channel surf. So by what basis are they determinining how well informed viewers are, and determiniing the exclusivity to which they watch one or more channels. Also, what percentage lower is it depending on network,and on what questions are people informed or uninformed. And who did the study?

Finally, are you suggesting that the left has, with its allegations that Bush knew of 9/11 has hyped every threat for politcal purposes, taht the neocons are the most evil scum to ever live, that the only reason for a war was to enrich bush and his buddies that somehow these are not virulent viewpoints, or that they are at all seeking inclusion and understanding?
Are you kidding me? The rhetoric from the left makes stuff like blood libel and Mccarthyism pale in comparison.

And Ed, please: "Al-Qaeda ... seeks to impose a radical Islamist Caliphate on the entire world." That's the type of fearmongering rhetoric that disturbs Olbermann, and myself, so much.

Um, that also just happens to be exactly what al-Qaeda stands for. Take a look at the transcript of the last OBL video, or better yet, read Sayyid Qutb. The goal of the radical Islamist movement is to combat what they call "jahiliyya" or pre-Islamic consciousness and replace it with Islam.

Fox News is no more biased to the right than most news networks are biased to the left - and there is empirical evidence to support that contention - see (http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm)

"When polled, regular Fox News viewers are the least well-informed about world events, and many times cannot make critical distinctions between, say, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, or Osama Bin Laden."

What poll? If you are going to site polls please provide a link or shut up.

Cycloptichorn says:
"..and champion the cause of War above all other peaceful solutions."

What "peaceful solution" did you have in mind with Al-Qaeda?

And libs wonder why Petraeus didn't want to appear on other networks...

I'm shocked that you're defaming the Weekly World News by comparing it to Olbermann, Ed. Keeping up with the exploits of Bat Boy was the sort of news coverage of which Olbermann has proven himself unworthy.

I'll miss the WWN. When he eventually skulks off the stage, I won't miss Olbermann.

Lets's be perfectly clear here. If Olbermann is claiming that through propaganda, that Fox has indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, then it should be made clear that by protecting the interests of terrorist organizations like the "Saddamites" prior to the UN-and-Congress-approved Iraq invasion, and subsequently AlQ., Hesb., etc., and by not instilling in our enemies an accurate representation of this nations' general repugnance with and opposition to terrorism, and in failing to do so have emboldened those enemies to believe that by continuing to practice terrorism they will force our withdrawal from the conflict, that Olbermann and his like networks have DIRECTLY caused the deaths of ten-thousands of people worldwide, and have contributed with similar responsibility to the deaths of American Troops.

"Finally, Sir, have you no shame?", this time, used appropriately.

Per Drudge: Rupert Murdoch is in business to make money. And, it seems in the courtyard of the dying legacy media, the sounds of the cash register frightens the ghosts.

Oh, and I also heard, in passing, that Catie Kuric; (whose had a very bad year at CBS), could land on Larry King's whoopie cushion.

Ya know, even the dead can be moved around. As we're learning from this "haven't seen him alive, lately, Osama videos.

Olbermann just proves you need good looks to be an airhead with a TV show.

That's why I think Larry King gets replaced, soon, by Kuric. If this was musical chairs; it does seem one chair has been removed.

Oh, and it explains how Geraldo Rivera still gets a show.

Whad'a show, folks.

Shows ya,spouting stupid stuff on TV made for happy Monty Python stuff. But when Olbermann does it, it loses something in translation.

Does it matter? Do we have to wait for the accountants to show up and spell out the reality in red ink?

In the long run, probably not.

From a research study done by the Program on International Policy Attitudes done by the University of Maryland:

“The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.”

Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.”

Every time I post a link here, my comment gets held for moderation and never appears. So I would suggest Googling the phrase 'fox news viewers least informed' and then picking the top result, or any of the results you like, really.

Remember, Olbermann used to work for Fox News. He held John Gibson's post before jumping to MSNBC.

So if Murdoch = Bin Laden, what does that make Olbermann?

"I think it's entirely fair to say that Fox News legitimizes some of the most hateful and virulent viewpoints in American politics today, and gives a voice to those who would seek to actively deny reality...But they do give a legitimate voice to those who would seek to increase divisions within our society, in my opinion, and champion the cause of War above all other peaceful solutions. There's very little difference between FNC and a state-run Pravda channel."

"Fox News is nowhere near "Fair and Balanced" in its news segment, and if you include people like Sean Hannity, who poisons the well of public debate in exchange for a paycheck, you truly do have a dangerous network."

So much for "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism".
Conform.
Erase divisions.
Conform.
Be of sterile opinion.
Conform.
Agree.
Conform.

I don't have the link but I remember the poll 'proving' Fox news watchers were the least informed. The problem with the poll was it was performed with an obvious bias and essentially took the left talking points as gospel.

It had questions like "Were any WMD's found in Iraq" Fox watchers tended to answer yes, while others answered no. "No" was the answer they considered correct although at that point several small stockpiles of nerve gas (classified as a WMD by almost any definition) had already been found (some still active some degraded) so technically the answer should have been "Yes" or if you'd prefer, a "No" with a qualification that you would only consider large stockpiles as WMDs.

Other questions all followed that same type of logic. Ask a 'gray' question, accept only "White" as the correct response and then denounce those who chose "Black" as uninformed.

It follows much the same procedure as all those liberal/conservative studies out of UC Berkley which amazingly, even when no conservatives take part, seem to 'prove' liberals are just smarter than their ideological opponents.

Cycloptichorn: The problem with the PIPA study is that the questions asked were flawed. The questions were whether Iraq had WMDs, whether Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda, and whether there was international support for the war. (I'm paraphrasing the questions here, the specific wording was a bit more narrow.)

The problem with declaring positive answers to all those as being "false" is that they are not true/false questions. Some WMDs were found in Iraq, mainly CW shells from the original Gulf War. There is some considerable evidence that Saddam Hussein did have ties to al-Qaeda, although not operational ones. As for international support, the governments of many countries provided either direct aid to the invasion of Iraq or approval. For example, the PIPA survey asks whether Iraq had "stockpiles" of WMDs, which is an ambiguous term. We don't know whether Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs at the outbreak of war because we've never found any evidence that they were destroyed. (And absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Iraqi generals have come forward and said that WMD materials were removed to Syria prior to the war, and it is not in any way irrational to believe them and it is in no way impossible for such a thing to have been done.) Assuming that the only valid answer is "no" is introducing bias and ambiguity, which is not valid for such a survey.

The PIPA study declares only one position to be the "correct" one and ignores the fact that the questions asked are more nuanced than that. The PIPA study has no real legitimacy because its underlying assumptions are flawed.

Bic,

Perhaps you could provide me with a link to either a substantive attack on the original poll, which clearly showed Fox News viewers to be the least informed on a variety of topics, or to any study from UC Berkeley showing that liberals are smarter then conservatives. I have been unable to locate either one.

RE: From a research study done by the Program on International Policy Attitudes

The analysis of the University of Maryland was in error on factual grounds - in other words it misrepresented the results to get the result it wanted.

1) Chemical weapons were in fact found in Iraq (albeit in small quantities, as were chemical protective suits and antidotes for use by the Iraqi army). The Iraqis sure as hell though Saddam had chemical weapons. As did plenty of Democratic politicians before the war. In any even Hussein did not comply with the UN inspection routine. Allegations that large stockpiles were removed prior to the war have credence with some observers.

2) Saddam gave money to terrorists (as in suicide bombers in Israel) and allowed Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal to live in Iraq. For many folks that seems enough of a proxy for AQ. Fox viewers may have trouble sorting all the groups out, but to say Saddam didn't support terrorists is just wrong.

3) As for Iraqi involvement in 9-11, my sense is that is not the case based on unclassified evidence produced to date.

Personally I'd need quite a bit more time looking at the study and how it was designed to prove to my satisfaction that it wasn't rigged to produce just such a result - i.e. use of scalar answers, exact wording of questions, etc.

Olbmermann is a deranged, unfunny, unethical, amoral, lying clown.

He is just plain awful on the NBC-NFL halftime show. I feel sorry for the guy.

Besides, who cares about cable TV news?

Sorry, but anyone who gets their news from cable TV ain't too bright to begin with, so what does it matter?

Anyone with an IQ above 100 can read in five minutes on the internet, what it takes two hours for cable TV news to spew.

Jay,

How does that explain the large discrepancy between Fox viewers and those of other networks? If what you say is true, and these are truly ambiguous questions, then there should be similar responses across the board. There were not. Please don't play games; Saddam didn't have 'stockpiles' of WMD. He wasn't connected with 9/11. There was no majority of 'world opinion' supporting our invasion of Iraq. These are not ambiguous statements, they are facts. I completely understand how Fox viewers were confused, as these are presented as ambiguous statements regularly on Fox. It's right up there with their penchant for putting a (D) behind the name of disgraced Republican politicians, just as they did with Foley and Craig.

And, if you seriously want to push the 'WMD moved to Syria' line, I'd happily file you away with the 9/11-nuts.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 10, 2007 6:05 PM

From a research study done by the Program on International Policy Attitudes done by the University of Maryland:

“The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news.....etc...etc...etc..

Check out the sponsors of the "Program on International Policy Attitudes @ the University of Maryland"

* Rockefeller Foundation
* Rockefeller Brothers Fund
* Tides Foundation
* Ford Foundation
* German Marshall Fund of the United States
* Compton Foundation
* Carnegie Corporation
* Benton Foundation
* Ben and Jerry's Foundation
* Americans Talk Issues Foundation
* Circle Foundation

Cyclops:

All you had to do was present us with this list and I could have told you what PIPA's conclusions were going to be.

Try a "non-partisan" source if that is possible.

"Remember, Olbermann used to work for Fox News. He held John Gibson's post before jumping to MSNBC. So if Murdoch = Bin Laden, what does that make Olbermann?"

al-Zarqawi? only, ummm...a little more together.

Oops, there I go again. Comparing a fellow American to a terrorist.

I remember after the Oklahoma City bombings, I think some prominent Democrat (maybe it was President Clinton himself) came out and said that it was talk radio's fault. And by talk radio he meant the Rush Limbaughs of that world. So Keith's view is hardly original and certainly not new.

I wonder if Keith will be sharing this sort of "wisdom" on his new football show? Or will he stick to talking about those amazin' Patriots (the football playing types, not the flag waving ones).

Hugh,

It's immaterial to me if you wish to Shoot the Messenger. Your committing a Logical Fallacy is neither a knock on myself or the quality of the information presented.

I'd be somewhat suspicious regarding the bias of the research done by an entity that calls itself the "Program on International Policy Attitudes". Tell me what these "misperceptions" were.

Misperceptions as in not knowing that "Bush lied, people died; Cindy Sheehan is a well respected figure in international relations; Ward Churchill is a well respected figure in academia; and other such dribble spouted on NPR and PBS? Frankly, the idea of using those two sources as the font of knowledge for the "research" pretty much says it all.

How does that explain the large discrepancy between Fox viewers and those of other networks? If what you say is true, and these are truly ambiguous questions, then there should be similar responses across the board. There were not.

That is incorrect. If there's a diversity of opinion, there shouldn't be a diversity of responses.

Saddam didn't have 'stockpiles' of WMD

Yes, he did. The question is when he had them and what happened to them. We know he had materials after the First Gulf War, because UNSCOM tagged them. We don't know what happened to them after UNSCOM was kicked out in 1998. We know some of it was destroyed, some of it may not have existed, but we have no accounting of everything, and such an accounting may have never existed.

He wasn't connected with 9/11.

He was, however, at least tenuously connected with al-Qaeda. There are well-attested connections between Iraqi intelligence officials and al-Qaeda, and we know that several al-Qaeda operatives were in Iraq with the knowledge of the Hussein regime.

There was no majority of 'world opinion' supporting our invasion of Iraq.

Which again, is ambiguous. Whose opinion? Dozens of nations provided support for the invasion. There is no "world opinion" about everything because such a concept has no real meaning. "World opinion" is dictated on who you survey, not on some firm meaning.

And, if you seriously want to push the 'WMD moved to Syria' line, I'd happily file you away with the 9/11-nuts.

GIve me a break. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that at least some WMD material was sent to Syria. Such a thing was quite possible. I don't claim that it happened for a fact, but there's no reason of physics or basic logic that prevents it. The 9/11 "Truthers" arguments defy basic physics and logic, which is why they are crackpots. There's little evidence for Iraqi WMDs ending up in Syria, but that lack of evidence doesn't mean that it's impossible.

The PIPA survey was still flawed. It's assumptions, especially at the time, were not empirically provable. It proves nothing, and trying to argue that its biased presumptions constitutes evidence doesn't make it any more true.

Did he say this today ? Today, as in the day AFTER he hosted the NFL on NBC ?

He honestly wants credibility as a political rant-artist when he is so craven for cash that he subverts his own credibility to give NFL highlight play by play commentary for nothing more than the good old US dollar.

He is the absolute worst form of cynical, opportunistic, unprincipled loudmouth willing to say whatever the crowd wants to hear.

It's usually considered good form to shoot the messenger if that messenger is citing polls with ambiguous questions, heh.

I should point out that I find the defenses of Fox news to be as hilarious as they are pathetic. The questions were not at all ambiguous; at least, if you don't get your news from pro-Republican party sources.

Is there any one of you who honestly, deep down believes that Fox News isn't an arm of the Republican party, that they do not put a right-wing slant on news (intentionally and blatantly, I might add) and that their hosts do not regularly denigrate other news networks? O'Reilly (who I must say, I like - he's the best on Fox) regularly slanders and compares to Fascists and Nazis both MSNBC in general, Olbermann in particular, and online organizations such as MediaMatters - where is the criticism of him for doing so, amongst the right-wing? Nowhere.

Jesus, Cyclops.

The PIPA poll was meant to be a fixed game from beginning to end. You ought to throw yourself off the Empire State Building for even citing it.

Look at who funded the PIPA poll!

Gosh, Cyclops, suppose I want to take a "nonpartisan" poll on, say, the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. Suppose I want it slanted a certain way. I could set up a front group at say, the University of Maryland.
If I got backers from the following organizations:

*the ODESSA
*the Saudi Royal Family
*the bin Laden family
*the Revolutionary Guards Corps Pension Fund

-do you think I could get a desired result?

Yep.

Please don't think you can flash the Poll of the Month and expect that to win an argument. Most polls are crap, and the PIPA poll is a standout con.

As for Olbermann, he's just O'Reilly without O'Reilly's ratings. When you don't have O'Reilly's ratings, you have to go on the air and say outrageous b*******t that your writers came up with so you can get written about on the Blogs and on Page Six the next day.

Really, I don't know why Conservatives fall for the scam that Keith is running. The minute that Keith used Edward R. effing Murrow's "good night and good luck" farewell line for his pathetic show, in an effort to pose as the intellectual heir to Murrow, is the minute that honest liberals should have turned Olbermann off.

But then, that would have required character and a sense of honor on the part of liberals. Liberals would much rather be themselves.

"O'Reilly....regularly slanders and compares to Fascists and Nazis both MSNBC in general, Olbermann in particular, and online organizations such as MediaMatters - where is the criticism of him for doing so, amongst the right-wing? Nowhere."

I notice you left out Moveon.org. Where is the criticism of this anti-American organization amongst the left-wing, especially after today's shameful ad in the NYT, another arm of the left-wing moonbats. The silence from Clinton and Obama is deafening.

A search of 'fox news viewers least informed'
leads to one of the polls published in Oct. 2003 that lead to the fox news viewers conclusions.

THE PIPA/KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS POLL
MISPERCEPTIONS, THE MEDIA
AND THE IRAQ WAR
pg. 1
While administration figures have talked about a purported meeting in Prague between an al-Qaeda member and an Iraqi official, this does not constitute evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaeda and, in any case, this purported meeting had been discredited by the US intelligence community during the period of these polls.

According to the 9/11 commission,
"These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001."

Thefore, the meeting has never been discredited, it hasn't be verified. That is a significant distintion. Since the pollsters are unable to make an accurate assessment on this one fact, why should we believe their subsequent assessments leading to the conclusions of their poll?

Capt. Ed says:
Equating Fox News to AQ or the KKK demonstrates a seriously deranged sensibility, and clearly one resulting from a love affair with his own voice.

Eric says:
Even worse, it displays intolerance for other opinions and a lack of intellectual objectivity. It's hate speech.

If Cyclops is willing to concede that the New York Times (thus too the Boston Globe) is the policy/propaganda arm of the DNC; that Media Matters is a subsidiary of the Hillary Clinton campaign and that Reuters, the BBC and CNN International are propaganda arms of the UN....

I'll concede that Fox News leans to the right.

Cycloptichorn says:
When polled, regular Fox News viewers are the least well-informed about world events, and many times cannot make critical distinctions between, say, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, or Osama Bin Laden.

Eric says:
In otherworlds, we don’t agree with you, so we must be dumb. Another powerful argument made by the left. Thanks Cyclo.

By the way, produce the poll.

Cyclops paused between sips of Kool Aid to say:

"When polled, regular Fox News viewers are the least well-informed about world events..."

I won't bother to discuss your reliance on a biased poll that others here have already debunked. I'll just give you another more recent poll from the left-leaning PEW organization that blows the "poll" you cited to pieces:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

Montesanno says:
"Al-Qaeda ... seeks to impose a radical Islamist Caliphate on the entire world." That's the type of fearmongering rhetoric that disturbs Olbermann, and myself, so much.

Eric says:
It's their (Al Qaeda)words...not Fox news. It has been repeated 100 times by them. OBL just repeated it in his latest video.

Cycloptichorn:

You should have said this:

Is there any one of you who honestly, deep down believes that MSNBC isn't an arm of the Democrat party, that they do not put a left-wing slant on news (intentionally and blatantly, I might add) and that their hosts do not regularly denigrate other news networks? Olberman (who I must say, I detest - he's the worst on MSNBC) regularly slanders and compares to Fascists and Nazis both Fox News in general, O'Reilly in particular, and online organizations such as Townhall - where is the criticism of him for doing so, amongst the left-wing? Nowhere.

Now that would have been credible.

PS, Cyclops

One of the sponsors of the organization that did the "poll" you cite is "Tides Foundation". That would be Teresa Heinz Kerry's group.

One more nail in the coffin...let us know when you can prove PEW, who did the poll I just cited, is "right wing" LOL.

I do find quite amusing the level of vitriol displayed today in the commentary. It's a sad comment for the right wing, that in the face of evidence which challenges the accuracy of reporting by one of their cherished icons, they tend to resort to personal insults instead of factual rebuttals; and, even those who present attempts at factual rebuttal just can't seem to resist the personal insult.

Del Dolemonte,

You have provided what is, without a doubt, the most hilarious moment of the entire conversation. It is purely obvious that you didn't even attempt to read the link that you posted, or you would perhaps have noticed the graph labeled 'Knowledge Levels by News Source.' A perusal of that graph will show you that the only group of people who are LESS informed then Fox News Channel viewers are Local Morning News viewers! CNN, NPR and the Daily Show knock the pants off of Fox News viewers.

My argument was good before you came along, but hey - I appreciate the support! :)

Cycloptichorn says:
"..and champion the cause of War above all other peaceful solutions."

Still waiting on your peaceful solutions for Al-Qaeda.

Objectively speaking, I would say FOX has earned the right to declare itself "fair and balanced" far, far more so than any other news outlet I can think of.

NBC? What a joke. Olbermann and his barely coherent anti Bush diatribes, Brian Williams and his nightly dead soldier/Katrina marathons parroting DNC talking points

CBS? Two words: Dan Rather

NY Times? LOL!!!! Dowd, Krugman, editorials on the front page disguised as "news", clear pandering for Kerry and Hillary

CNN? Yeah. Real objective. They wouldnt report positive news from Iraq if it slapped them in the face.

FOX has Juan Williams, Allan Colmes, Neil Gabler, and a variety of Dem strategists on a nightly basis. NONE of the other networks can claim that type of balance for the right.

FOX- Fair and balanced. The rest? Not so much.

Cycloptichorn, do you have a comment on liontooth's post above?

It points out that the 9-11 Commission report also answered the poorly written question in the affirmative.

Which suggests to me that the real finding of the poll is that leftists are significantly more likely to misperceive the content of the 9-11 Commission Report.

Keith Olbermann is described - and describes himself - as an objective news anchor hosting a news program. He repeatedly has stated (google it) that he is non-partisan, that his program has no agenda and that he views and covers news events much like he covered sports events. He doesn't care, he says, who wins and who loses.

He is not - so he and NBC says - an analyst or opinion maker. He is - so he and NBC says - a news anchor offering news.

In light of this, his analogy of Fox to the KKK or al-qaida is especially appalling and is really indicative of the utter lack of professionalism as well as class that he displays nightly.

He is an embarassment to journalism. And that's a shame; because despite all of the criticism that the Left and Right direct at the press, there are a lot of very hard-working and professional folks in the media.

SMG

Cyclops is a Fox News viewer. Otherwise s/he wouldn't know the content of Fox News, and thus wouldn't be able to judge whether or not the channel is an "arm of the Republican party," or a leg, or an ear.

Since Cyclops is a Fox News viewer, s/he is therefore less informed about world events, so his/her opinion can be safely ignored.

Can't have it both ways, Psychlops.

Cycloptichorn, I understand where you are coming from...you are a Socialist. The Socialist Doctrine holds no tolerance for a dissenting viewpoint thus your antagonism towards and paranoia about Fox News. It's simple, you being a Socialist, knowing that you have MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, CBS, NBC and ABC following the Leftist agenda of reporting news, you are not content with that. Your doctrine simply compels you to rid the masses of the dissenting view, namely Fox News in this case. So yes, I understand your objections here.

As for montysano, you stated:

" And Ed, please: "Al-Qaeda ... seeks to impose a radical Islamist Caliphate on the entire world." That's the type of fearmongering rhetoric that disturbs Olbermann, and myself, so much. I may desire to impose the Birkenstock and Tie-Dye Caliphate on the entire world. Would you report that as a dire threat as well? Yet I have about as much chance of succeeding....... "

That really is a peach, monty. My response? You sir, have not studied islamofascism, you have not researched Al Qaeda's goals, you simply cannot see past the tip of your nose. Some of us really are willing to fight submission to the islamists - we have paid notice to the happenings in Algieria, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Spain, Morocco, Turkey, Thainland, The Philippines, Afghanistan, Kosovo, ....well, you get the point. And the crystal clear message you send here is that although you may not agree with my resisting the submission of the caliphate, you already have.

I love how the left likes to focus on Rupert Murdoch.

Meanwhile, look at Ted Turner: Stark raving moonbat, dumb as a box of rocks. He's the guy the left looks to for their "news"? LOL

Jeff says:
Cycloptichorn, do you have a comment on liontooth's post above?
It points out that the 9-11 Commission report also answered the poorly written question in the affirmative.
Which suggests to me that the real finding of the poll is that leftists are significantly more likely to misperceive the content of the 9-11 Commission Report.

Eric says:
This is the best statement so far. Basically, you’re saying, “who determines the truth?” And I think that is exactly on point. The polling group determines the truth, and if they don’t like the answers provided by the right, then those answers are wrong. And in this case, the Government bipartisan commission that studied 9/11 didn’t answer correctly because the polling group didn’t favor their reply.

Jeff,

What he quoted from the 9/11 report is immaterial to the conversation. Neither that sentence nor any other in the 9/11 report gave evidence that Hussein had operational connections with AQ; in the absence of evidence it is quite safe to say that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, which is the question that significant portions of Fox News viewers could not correctly answer.

I'm sorry, but this isn't an ambiguous question or subject. Black Swan arguments are typically not considered to be serious arguments.

Nobody has successfully challenged the actual data of either the originally reported study or (Thanks Del!) the Pew study. Why the difference in responses, and such a marked one, between viewers of Fox News and almost any other channel or news source? Occam's razor tells us the simplest solution is that Fox has questionable accuracy in reporting - and they err on the side of Republicanism, without fail.

Cyclocoptorn says:
I do find quite amusing the level of vitriol displayed today in the commentary. It's a sad comment for the right wing, that in the face of evidence which challenges the accuracy of reporting by one of their cherished icons, they tend to resort to personal insults ….

Eric says:
In other words, you don’t agree with me so you must be dumb and vitriolic. Another powerful argument from the left. Thanks cyclo.

By the way, produce the evidence.

I live in a quiet neighborhood. So I don't hear much, in the ways of noise. I don't put on the TV. So I don't see the lies flying, either.

But I went to Little Green Footballs, today. And, wouldn't you know it; there was a 9/11~Troofers parade in San Francisco. So somebody (with a camera; or a cell phone. Whatever) ... got there early. No crowds. Waited around. Ditto, pretty sparse pickings. Took photos of the surroundings. Just to prove it's hard to draw crowds. Really, it is. I found that to be a great post! Oh, yeah. With pictures. Very informative, too.

If you want to see this for yourselves, go look. Pictures show ya that the crowds stayed home. Not even coming out for Ron Paul. Who had a single sign carrier. A lady lugging a table. Hey. Nobody came over! Not to "halp." Not to take a flyer. No one "mingled" with her. (You thought Ron Paul was so popular he's contesting for the @1 spot?) Polling data can fool ya, huh?

Here? It's the same. Very few real leftists show up. There aren't enough of them to form a crowd. But you get fooled. The media also plays the same tricks. Camera angles. And, choosing what to cover.

Don't let it frustrate ya. There's no tug of war.

Yes, there are clearly two sides. One gets to lose. Today. And, t'marra. They lose if they can't sell their ideas to lots of others.

That's why I mentioned the loss, in numbers, for the crowds that used to show up for parades, in San Francisco.

When that happens in San Francisco, folks, it's a loss of prestige to the side that calls that shit hole, home. (Diane Feinstein's and Barbara Boxer's home turf.) Perhaps it portends something?

Since most of us pay attention to politics; eventally, we'll all see how the votes turn out. These pieces, so far, are just parts. Pieces of a puzzle. Shift them around. It might indicate direction? (Well, Indians used to know if you hoofed it over, or not. By the way the blades of grass reacted with feet. Most of us? Wouldn't know the difference. Which is why pundits came along to tell ya stuff.) Ah. Till some of you felt fooled.

Hard to regain old customers, my mom would say. In trust, there's loyalty.

And, the good thing about coming here? The Captain makes the ride easy. And, ya know what? None of the passengers are gonna blow the next presidential election off course. (Today, we might have even seen it saved for the Iraqis, too.) And, me? I wouldn't even be surprised if Iran's gonna get a good quick kick in the pants. That nutty "dinner jacket" may need to go to the cleaners.

No. I'm not an oracle. I'm just happy to wait.

Eric,

The 9/11 report, while it could not 'absolutely rule it out,' did not find an operational relationship between the two; therefore, it is inaccurate to say that:

"And in this case, the Government bipartisan commission that studied 9/11 didn’t answer correctly because the polling group didn’t favor their reply."

The 9/11 commission, while being an unreliable and exceedingly political document, does not in this case differ from the reply favored by the polling group.

The idiot Cycloptichorn [to Del Delmonte: It is purely obvious that you didn't even attempt to read the link that you posted, or you would perhaps have noticed the graph labeled 'Knowledge Levels by News Source.' A perusal of that graph will show you that the only group of people who are LESS informed then Fox News Channel viewers are Local Morning News viewers! CNN, NPR and the Daily Show knock the pants off of Fox News viewers.

Uh-oh! Now look who didn't bother to read the poll carefully! Notice who else appears with CNN, NPR and The Daily Show?

WhyThe O'Reilly Factor, which appears on (drum roll, please):

The Fox News Channel!

I also note that the top tier included (choke) Rush Limbaugh!

Ooops! Now I didn't read carefully: O'Reilly and Rush actually BEAT viewers of CNN.

Oh, you're quite right: Fox News Channel IS right down in the basement... with people who read blogs or watch evening network TV programs. Weird, huh?

Cyclops:

If you hurry, pull up a chair, have a nice cold one, you can watch the Petraeus exlusive interview with Brit Hume on FoxNews in 3 minutes.

Cycloptichorn says:
Jeff,
What he quoted from the 9/11 report is immaterial to the conversation.

Eric says:
In otherworlds, what the 9/11 commission said does not agree with what I think and therefore it’s dumb and immaterial. Another awesome argument from the left. Thanks Cyclo.

Cyclops - The problem with thestudy you cited is that inmany instances it counted Fox News viewers asuninformed for having a differing OPINION from the researchers even though they were not mistaken as to the facts.

Doc,

The results of the study don't lie. I do agree that O'reilly has a high rate of knowledge amongst his viewers; you may note above where I wrote that he's my favorite on Fox News.

Eric,

The evidence was produced earlier in the thread. I suggest that you attempt to read the thread in order to find out what evidence was presented, before complaining that people have not presented evidence. Subsequently, Del provided another study which showed Fox News viewers amongst the most uninformed of all news viewers.

Cycloptichorn says:
Eric,
The 9/11 report, while it could not 'absolutely rule it out,' did not find an operational relationship between the two; therefore, it is inaccurate to say that:
"And in this case, the Government bipartisan commission that studied 9/11 didn’t answer correctly because the polling group didn’t favor their reply."
The 9/11 commission, while being an unreliable and exceedingly political document, does not in this case differ from the reply favored by the polling group.

Eric says:
In otherworlds, since these documents do not agree with me, they are dumb, inaccurate, unreliable and exceedingly political. Wow! Yet another powerful opinion changing argument from the left. Thanks once again cyclo.

Eric,

You state

"
In otherworlds, what the 9/11 commission said does not agree with what I think and therefore it’s dumb and immaterial. Another awesome argument from the left. Thanks Cyclo."

I neither disagree with the 9/11 commission report on this subject, nor do I think it is dumb. But that section is immaterial to the conversation, b/c it does not provide any positive evidence or reason to believe that there in fact was a relationship between the two.

I'm honestly puzzled as to how you could have come to such a conclusion, from reading my post. I would appreciate if we could have a serious conversation about the subject, but your answers have been highly Unserious.

Cycloptichorn says:
Doc,
The results of the study don't lie. …

Eric says:
In otherworlds, the points that I agree with are obviously true because I’m an intellectual. Thanks again for setting us all straight cyclo.

Cyclo,

Go back and re-read your post. You are insulting. We are not dumb and I'm just trying to point that out to you.

KM,

In specific, which questions referred to opinions which were not shared by the respondents and the pollers? Which facts were not inaccurate?

I ask, because I haven't been able to find evidence of questions they asked which were, in fact, opinion based.

Cycloptichorn says:
I'm honestly puzzled as to how you could have come to such a conclusion, from reading my post. I would appreciate if we could have a serious conversation about the subject, but your answers have been highly Unserious.

Eric says:
In otherworlds, since you don’t agree with me, you’re not serious. (unserious is not a word.)

RE: Cycloptichorn (September 10, 2007 7:27 PM)

"I do find quite amusing the level of vitriol displayed today in the commentary. It's a sad comment for the right wing, that in the face of evidence which challenges the accuracy of reporting by one of their cherished icons, they tend to resort to personal insults instead of factual rebuttals; and, even those who present attempts at factual rebuttal just can't seem to resist the personal insult."

Your constitution has been upset because some "right-wingers" rebutted the veracity of a "study" financed by institutionalized liberalism? And such is considered vitriolic in a thread introduced to us by the keen insights and context of Olbermann where he blesses us with this gem:

...Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was...

Eric,

"Go back and re-read your post. You are insulting. We are not dumb and I'm just trying to point that out to you."

I would begin by asking, which post in specific do you find insulting?

I would also add that I do not personally consider you, or any Fox news viewer to be 'dumb' and never said anything of the sort. Merely uninformed on some issues. You and others have accurately pointed out that other groups are also uninformed on similar or other issues; does that make them 'dumb?' Nope.

Back to the original topic - there's little doubt that KO is off-base when he says that Fox is 'worse then the KKK.' But I still contend that they provide a comfortable home for a particular form of vitriol which is generally unseen elsewhere in modern media; I would say that a recent example of this would be Geraldo Riviera's comments about Michelle Malkin, Fox news host and deeply, truly horrid person.

I see a fine crop of sockpuppets has blossomed on this thread.

University of Maryland
Tides Foundation
Ben and Jerry's Foundation

3 strikes you're out.

Agenda polling.

Maybe I can get the Hoover Institute to give us a non-biased poll on the world view of NPR listeners?

I don't watch TV and don't miss it. It is far more enlightening and fun to get the news from the internet. However,IMO, the anger at Fox is because they are an interloper in the eyes of the MSM. They came in and gave people an alternative choice and in doing so stripped away viewers (and money and influence)and succeeded in a way that gags the MSM and their followers. The MSM has had to temper their views in order to keep from bleeding totally away. Olberman has the smallest audience of all the cable hosts and the way he keeps the small group of devoted viewers that he has is to radically attack and appeal to their virulent hate of Fox and its hosts. However, I am as tired of some of the FOX hosts as I was of Olberman but if Olberman were on opposite anyone I would pick anyone, any time or turn off the TV completely if I had no choice. Thank goodness for the internet and choice.

And to think NBC actually put Olbermann on their Sunday Night NFL pre-game show. It wasn't all that hot last season, but with Olbermann inflicted upon it, well, I'd rather watch a Rosie O'Donnell Maxim magazine photo shoot than have to buy an axe and an endless supply of plasma TVs.

If we still had such things as honor duels these days, the sale of handguns would skyrocket - and ol' KO wouldn't be so eager to have a high profile.

Cycloptichorn,

In all un-unseriousness. I’ve been kind of hard on you tonight, but I challenge you to understand that some of us have a dog in this race.

You write with a negative voice that is hard to read without invoking anger. You present our opinions an inaccurate, immaterial, of no importance, while everything you say is to be taken as law. You prose has a stained aura.

Posted by Bill M | September 10, 2007 8:16 PM

I see a fine crop of sockpuppets has blossomed on this thread.

Eric says:
Is that what I'm doing? Is that called sock-puppets? That's awesome. I like it!

Hugh,

Shooting the Messenger is a poor form of argumentation. If we are willing to say that, say, reports underwritten by the AEI or other right-wing outfits shouldn't be discounted merely from that sponsorship, we should say the same with other outfits.

Eric,

I have always found that that which makes me the most angry, is that which has a nugget of truth within it. Those topics which are either inconsequential or ridiculous, we laugh about rather then grow incensed.

I will say that I do not, as many of my brethren on the left do, wish to see and end to the Fox News channel; I bear them little ill-will, for there's nothing wrong with making a buck by serving the population who will give you that buck, and their reporters in many cases take a skeptical eye to news stories which I wish other channels would do.

But, it does allow, well, let's say some extreme opinions on board from time to time. As I said in the first post of the thread, O'Reilly and other Fox hosts compare the Dems to Terrorists, or say all sorts of negative things about the Demorcatic party, with regularity. Nobody is immune to this sort of thing, and let's not forget that MSNBC, FOX, CNN - all they care about at the end of the day is money. Conflicts bring ratings, ratings bring money.

Cycloptichorn says:
Hugh,Shooting the Messenger is a poor form of argumentation.

Eric says:
In otherwords, hugh, I don't like what you said, so it's a poor form of argument.

JASmius says:
If we still had such things as honor duels these days, the sale of handguns would skyrocket - and ol' KO wouldn't be so eager to have a high profile.

Eric says:
It might shut cyclo up too. Let's bring back the duels.

If we were in a bar watching a football game (I know, Cyclo, football is for the violent proletariat,) Cyclo would have been beaten up about 1100 times.

First they attacked the troops in front of the enemy.

Then they emboldened the enemy by attacking our leaders.

Then they took up the same goals as the enemy, indistinguishable from their rhetoric.

Now they've surrendered Iraq to the enemy and want us to do the same.

When do we finally start considering them to BE the enemy?

Cyclop,

That which makes me most mad is that which has no grain of truth. I'm not mad -- I'm just having fun at your expense and you keep rearming me.

Cyclo says:
But, it does allow, well, let's say some extreme opinions on board from time to time. As I said in the first post of the thread, O'Reilly and other Fox hosts compare the Dems to Terrorists, or say all sorts of negative things about the Demorcatic party, with regularity. Nobody is immune to this sort of thing, and let's not forget that MSNBC, FOX, CNN - all they care about at the end of the day is money. Conflicts bring ratings, ratings bring money.

Eric says:
Oh. Okay, you're right. Sorry for all the negative comments.

Eric,

"I know, Cyclo, football is for the violent proletariat"

See, that's the thing. You DON'T know. I'm sitting here watching Chad Johnson win my week for Fantasy football.

References to physical violence of the sort you describe are in poor taste, to say the least. It is immaterial to me if you want to say insulting things or attempt to opine about either my physical status or my political views - but please, don't insult my love of football. That's low.

As someone who watched Olbermann in one of his many stints as a sports reporter, all I can say is that Eastern Elites are easily pandered to.

IIRC, Keith has been run out of town from his sports gigs so many times he has a shoe endorsement contract with Nike.

Posted by Lightwave | September 10, 2007 8:41 PM

First they attacked the troops in front of the enemy.

Then they emboldened the enemy by attacking our leaders.

Then they took up the same goals as the enemy, indistinguishable from their rhetoric.

Now they've surrendered Iraq to the enemy and want us to do the same.

When do we finally start considering them to BE the enemy?

Eric says:
Way ahead of you. I started hating the MSM quite awhile back (Fox news gets a pass on this -- I like them, and the WSJ.)

“It seeks to impose a radical Islamist Caliphate on the entire world.”

The best way to find out what OBL’s motivations are is to listen to him. Here are some quotes from “Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden”, by Bruce Lawrence. He doesn't talk much about Caliphates, but talks a lot about occupation:

“The enemy invaded the land of our umma, violated her honor, shed her blood, and occupied her sanctuaries. This aggression has reached such a catastrophic and disastrous point as to have brought about a calamity unprecedented in the history of our umma, namely the invasion by the American and western Crusader forces of the Arabian peninsula and Saudi Arabia…”

“…the greatest disaster to befall the Muslims since the death of the Prophet Muhammad – is the occupation of Saudi Arabia,,,”

“…the people became aware that their main problems were caused by the American occupiers and their puppets in the Saudi regime…”

“our main problem is the US government, while the Saudi regime is but a branch or agent of the US.”

“We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is injust, criminal, and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous, and criminal, whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Land of the Prophet’s Night Journey. And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq.”

“A reaction might take place as a result of the US government’s targeting of Muslim civilians and executing more 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians.”

Q: “Will the end of the United States’ presence in Saudi Arabia…end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US?”
A: “The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the aggressive US policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So the defensive jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula; rather, it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims throughout the whole world.”

“The US today, as a result of its arrogance, has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist. It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, install collaborators to rule us with man-made laws, and wants us to agree on all these issues. If we refuse to do so, it will say we are terrorists.”

Q: “Lets go to the bombings of the United States troops in Riyadh and Dhahran. Why did they happen and were you and your supporters involved in these attacks?”
A: “…the purpose of the two explosions is to end the American occupation [of Saudi Arabia]. So if the US does not want to kill its own sons who are in the army, it has to get out.”

“A man with human feelings in his heart does not distinguish between a child killed in Palestine, in Iraq or in Bosnia. So how can we believe your claims that you came to save our children in Somalia while you kill our children in all of those places?”

“…for over seven years America has occupied the holiest parts of the Islamic lands, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its wealth, dictating to its leaders, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors and turnings its bases there into a spearhead with which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.”

“…the time has come for Muslim peoples to realize after these attacks that the states of the region do not have their own sovereignty. For our enemies are disporting themselves in our seas and on our lands and in our airspace, striking without anyone’s permission.”

“I say that there are two sides in the struggle: one side is the global Crusader alliance with the Zionist Jews, led by America, Britain, and Israel, and the other side is the Islamic world. It is not acceptable in such a struggle as this that he [the Crusader] should attack and enter my land and holy sanctuaries, and plunder Muslims’ oil, and then when he encounters any resistance from Muslims, to label them terrorists. This is stupidity, or considering others stupid. We believe that it is our legal duty to resist this occupation with all our might, and punish it in the same way as it punishes us.”

“America won’t be able to leave this ordeal unless it pulls out of the Arabian peninsula, and it ceases its meddling in Palestine, and throughout the Islamic world. If we gave this equation to any child in any American school, he would easily solve it within a second.”

Cyclo,

Now I know how to hurt you...let's call a truce.

Cyclops condescendlingly lectured me thusly:

"Del Dolemonte,

You have provided what is, without a doubt, the most hilarious moment of the entire conversation. It is purely obvious that you didn't even attempt to read the link that you posted, or you would perhaps have noticed the graph labeled 'Knowledge Levels by News Source.' A perusal of that graph will show you that the only group of people who are LESS informed then Fox News Channel viewers are Local Morning News viewers! CNN, NPR and the Daily Show knock the pants off of Fox News viewers.

My argument was good before you came along, but hey - I appreciate the support! :)"

LOL. Brilliant satire, Professor (just curious, what university has you locked in their Ivory Tower?)

Please, do give a university honor student a little bit of leeway. I wouldn't have posted the study without reading it first.

As others have already mentioned, you ignored that a "Faux News" program (O'Reilly) was near the top of the list. I notice how you didn't try to spin that the brainless Rush Limburger people were also up there. But that's not what I was getting at when I posted the link.

And instead of using the standard elitist leftwing tactic of trying to personally insult me in the very first sentence of your response, why not address the fact that the only group "lower" than Fox in this study are in fact the people who watch ABC, CBS and NBC morning news shows, each of which get many time more viewers on a daily basis than the hated Fox News gets?

On a good night, Fox News gets 1 to 2 million viewers when O'Reilly is on, and maybe a million for the later shows. Other than that, they get zilch.

On the other hand, the morning news shows, which according to the PEW study have even less informed viewers than Fox News, daily get the following number of viewers (as of August 27 2007, via Media Bistro)

NBC Today Show: 5,053,000
ABC Good Morning America: 4,373,000
CBS News This Morning: 2,507,000.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/morning_show_ratings/default.asp

At the same time the Fox News morning show gets 769,000 viewers. Which means that there are 11,933,000 morning news viewers who are LESS educated, according to the PEW study, than the relatively paltry 769,000 watching Fox at the same time.

You do the math.

Captain - I assume you will take the same stance with Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson et al...?
Since O'Reilly equates Daily Kos with the nazis, and we constantly hear how people who don't support the war are traitors... Will you please take the same stance? Otherwise it just seems hyper partisan hypocritical BS...

Del,

I completely agree with you that network morning shows are terrible. They present, in many cases, the least in-depth coverage of events possible, and there's so much trash and human events stories mixed in, it's surprising they can find the time to talk about real news at all.

I don't really consider affiliation with the light, morning news shows to be a badge of honor. You, it seems, do?

Can you link to a couple of examples of the 'MSM' comparing Republicans to Nazis and Fascists? Specifically, please.

I assure you that the opposite can be done with ease.

Gee, is that why you included so many (oops, zero) links to back up your idiotic rant? Or is it so easy that a caveman can do it, but you didn't have a caveman handy? And you eventually mentioning a poll from a left-wing organization doesn't count....

PS, Cyclops:

You also claimed:

"A perusal of that graph will show you that the only group of people who are LESS informed then Fox News Channel viewers are Local Morning News viewers!"

Uh, read the PEW link again. The "local morning news" viewers are above Fox. The NETWORK morning news viewers are at the very bottom. And as I cited, they have 12 times as many viewers combined as "Fox and Friends", or whatever they're calling it these days.

By the way, all three of the Alphabet Nets' morning shows echo DNC talking points, amply documented at www.newsbusters.org. And unlike Media Matters, NB doesn't need a "corrections" page...

Captain:

Don't get yourself in a lather.

It all has something to do with Keith Olbermann's current state of pen*s envy.

Del Dolemonte:
O'Reilly viewers (who unfortunately I am one of - they force us to watch it at work) are sort of high up there... But they are beat out by two comedy shows, all major newspaper website readers, and the news hour with Jim Lehrer.

Fox news finished a miserable 2nd to last (only beating the morning shows)... Morning shows aren't necessarily news shows... They are usually crap tv that shows you how to cook, clean, be happy and more crap... It's funny how you tried to spin that though... good job...

Del Dolmonte -
You are wrong in your very last post...
There is no "local morning show" category... That was local news... So actually they guy you said was wrong, was right, and you're wrong... Fess up

Del Dolemonte,
Is cyclo really a professor? He misspells a lot for a professor. I’m guessing he’s a professor at an air-conditioning repair school.

Truce is off! Dog pile on cyclo! He’s a Bengals fan!

Olberman, MoveOn, etc, all are showing us what happens when we are so spineless as to "politely decline" to call their initial treadings into Treason what it really is - you simply encourage the rotters to keep increasing their perfidy until you have no choice.

The difference is, in the beginning stages, a little light prosecution in strategic incidents will stop it - wait long enough, let it invade deeply enough, and you have a civil war, instead.

ck,
You make a better argument. It's wrong for the MSM to mislead us whenever it happens. It’s never right, no matter which network does it.

That said, Fox does it less. I wish they did it never, but they don’t. KO and MSNBC does it most.

ck,

I do believe he was correct - I should have said 'network morning news' instead of 'local morning news.'

Eric,

Fantasy football is weird - I hate the Bengals. But I love Chad Johnson's 7-10 fantasy points each week.

I mean, jeez. Did you see the 'interview' with Petraeus tonight? From a synopsis:

'Hume opened the interview by asking Petraeus to give a “synopsis” of his testimony before the House today. Petraeus then proceeded on an interrupted 16 minute soliloquy, turning the Fox News “interview” into a powerpoint presentation on national TV. While Petraeus was presenting his charts, a Fox chyron read “A briefing for America.” After taking a commercial break, Hume allowed Crocker to give his own 10 minute uninterrupted speech. Hume never asked a critical question of either Petraeus or Crocker.'

Not too much healthy skepticism present there. Maybe you can see why people get the wrong impression.

Rose says:
Olberman, MoveOn, etc, all are showing us what happens when we are so spineless as to "politely decline" to call their initial treadings into Treason what it really is - you simply encourage the rotters to keep increasing their perfidy until you have no choice.

The difference is, in the beginning stages, a little light prosecution in strategic incidents will stop it - wait long enough, let it invade deeply enough, and you have a civil war, instead.

Eric says:
In the old days, the media edited themselves. Can you believe that most Americans did not know that FDR was in a wheelchair? The media felt that it would be harmful to our war effort for that to be known.

Today, the MSM would disclose the password to the Pentagon Computer System if they knew what it was. If it would sell one paper, they would print the news – doesn’t have to be true.

How about this – the tabloids have become more believable than the networks! I at least know that when the tabloids tell me that J-lo and whomever are getting a divorce, it true. The MSM – nothing is true anymore.

I fear that your point is valid.

Cyclop - Del Dolemonte was correct that it was network morning shows and not local, but was incorrect stating that local morning shows are rated above fox... It was actually local news shows (not local morning)... And as everyone knows how bad local news is, that's not a good thing for fox.

Cyclo,

Uninterrupted is exactly the right approach. We CAN think. We will form opinion based on the info.

More of the uninterrupted, opinion free journalism. Less of the opinion based journalism. This is how it used to be. Just let them talk.

ck,

Local news is the only valid news on TV today. It's actual news.

Eric -
You have to be kidding me! Local News??? First of all, they don't do any in depth international news... The international news they do is from the parent network...
Second of all, do you really think hearing about the dog house that got ran over, or the murder on the south side, or whatever else they come up with is going to enhance your knowledge of current events better than a newspaper or the internet or whatever else? No way...
Finally - They base local news on about a 3rd grade level... They talk down to people and really only spend about 5 minutes on actual news... the rest is traffic, sports, and their little segments about local crap that not too many people care about...

And as the chart showed, people who rely on that as their news sources are some of the LEAST informed people around... Only Fox and morning show viewers are less informed.

ck,
I mean to say that it is largely old school journalism -- free of opinion. It may not be exciting, but it's actual reporting.

If a murder occurred, report it. If we’re at war, report that too. Don’t editorialize every story. The locals follow this more closely than the networks (at least in my locality.) Be patient – this will end.

Typical liberal hyperbole, even their analogies don't make sense -- except in their dreams. But for the type sees Hitler and a Swastika in anything politically inconvenient, its par for the course. When Achmedinajad says he wants elbowroom, they sigh like he’s Conan O’Brien.

Posted by Jay Reding | September 10, 2007 5:44 PM ...

Fox News is no more biased to the right than most news networks are biased to the left - and there is empirical evidence to support that contention - see (http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Not at all true - to say the LEAST!

Fox News has done counts on the bias of their stories and still runs a majority of LEFT-LEANING articles over Right-Leaning.

The MSM such as CNN and NYT, and the 3 alphabet gruels offer no such NEAR contest of having any significant minority of Right-leaning articles, and seek instead to call their Left-wing extremism THE MIDDLE ROAD.

What bald-faced balderdash, i.e. their slant on the War on Terror, and Global Warming, and refusal to cover the scandals PAST AND PRESENT of the Clintons, etc.

Who do you Liberal Stalinist Socialists think you are fooling???

You think when you start your balderdash, such as the importance of protecting (non-native to Texas) Golden Cheeked Warblers in Texas over the needs of human beings to be able to cut down scrubby oaks which guzzle water at a rate like 4 times other trees, even orchard trees...the need to protect Texas from those who would harvest CACTUS for city dweller's rock garden landscaping, and the need to protect Texas water FOR BLIND SALAMANDERS - that all TEXAS doesn't see through you, WITH OR WITHOUT Fox News and MSM propaganda, that this is "ALL FOR THE SAKE OF THE ENVIRONMENT? And you do this is EACH SECTOR of the USA - and pretend you are fooling anyone??? With your PROPERTY RIGHTS-DESTROYING agendas???

And you imagine to yourselves that people hate you because of Conservative PROPAGANDA???? As if we were all born under a rock YESTERDAY?

No wonder the Left is the champion of EUTHANASIA for the elderly - so you can work up to calling all who disagree with you in need of a "deep and long rest" - just like Hitler did.

You think those of us down in the grass roots of places like Texas, like Chicago and Massachusetts, who know first-hand of people visited in the night before Elections, to be "counselled and tutored, privately" on voting techniques - exclusively a province of Democrats!

This is FIRST HAND GRASS-ROOTS knowledge - NOT THE STUFF OF ANY MEDIA, FOX OR CNN OR NYT.

Down here in the sparsely populated small small towns.

YOU think WE can be influenced by PROPAGANDA???
NO! YOU THINK NOTHING OF THE KIND, IN POINT OF FACT! YOU HATE US BECAUSE YOUR PROPAGANDA DOES NOT SELL!

Cycloptichorn says:
"..and champion the cause of War above all other peaceful solutions."

Stll waiting....peaceful solutions with Al-Qaeda...you do have a peaceful solution for dealing with terrorists that doesn't involve a white flag,right?....sure would like to know what that would be...

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Eric,The 9/11 report, while it could not 'absolutely rule it out,' did not find an operational relationship between the two

That wasn't the point of the quote. Whether their was a link or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the 'fact' as stated by the pollsters. The pollsters incorrectly stated that fact.

If the pollsters can't make an accurate distinction on one fact, why should any distinctions they would need to make in a poll be treated reliably?

Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 10, 2007 6:35 PM

Hugh,

It's immaterial to me if you wish to Shoot the Messenger. Your committing a Logical Fallacy is neither a knock on myself or the quality of the information presented.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

You are entirely right! Your Stalinist material speaks volumns for itself.

Sure - hunt them down, capture them when possible, kill when impossible to take alive. It may surprise you to find out that very much of this can be done without war, and at a lower cost then we are currently paying.

Cyclo,
Not too much healthy skepticism present there. Maybe you can see why people get the wrong impression.

Eric:
Let us form our own skepticism without opinion. This is how it used to work and it actually did work. Do you know that 40 years ago, the media was one of the most respected and believed institutions? Now it ranks with politicians and lawyers. (Lawyers and politicians don't necessarily deserve their reputation, but the media does,) at the very bottom of American opinion.

In fact, media ranks way below the popularity of the President. Way below the popularity of the war. It’s battling it out with Congress to become the most hated of American institutions.

I'm sorry, Liontooth; let me clarify my position.

It is a fact that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with the planning or execution of 9/11. The poll question was entirely accurate, and the quote immaterial.

Specifically, what 'fact' do you think the pollsters got wrong? You haven't been clear. I presume you are saying that it isn't a fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11; is this what you are alleging?

Survey questions must be chosen with great care to produce any kind of valid result. If possible, they should be absolutely black and white. Did Japan attack Pearl Harbor without military provocation? Yes, the U.S. had not, in any way, militarily attacked Japan. Was the Pearl Harbor attack, as claimed by Roosevelt in his famous speech to Congress, an unprovoked attack? Well, any number of leftist, revisionist academic hacks would argue (and have) that the U.S. put tremendous, virtually intolerable economic pressure on Japan during the two years preceding the Pearl Harbor attack. However true, any sane American realizes that Japan was the “evil empire” of its day and was in the process of raping China as well as overtly threatening the “western world” in the Pacific, including U.S. possessions, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc. Today, informed Americans could care less about esoteric analysis concerning the unprovoked nature of Pearl Harbor. We did the right thing! Only leftist madmen, blinded by their visceral hated of all things American, would argue such questions. A leftist orientation is basically anti-American and can seldom be overcome in the face of all evidence. I remember, as a student in Phoenix in 1962, attending a speech by the then fabulous old socialist, Norman Thomas, not to long before his death. A few of us simply stated to him that, whatever intellectual arguments might be put forward, the fact remained that socialism, as an economic system, simply does not work. However, our friend Cycloptichorn is a true believer and, as Bill O’Reilly would have it, is strongly into the Cool Aid. Give it up, Cycloptichorn, the Soviets lost. As the Nazi’s used to say, “ for you, zee var is over.”

L88SS454: you want to know the peaceful solution... You want to know the easiest most efficient way for them to stop attacking us? Are you sure you're ready for it?

Ok here it is:

Have our troops leave Saudi Arabia (Muslim's holy land) and stop giving Israel billions a year in support. Or if we give Israel all that money, then give the same amount to Palestine.

That's it. No more 30,000 U.S. Troops getting killed or murdered; no more bankrupting our books to keep the war going; no more stretching the military too thin; no more fighting between dems and repubs over how to conduct the war; no more leaving our infrastructure crumbling; more money for schools; more money for libraries; more money for research...

All we have to do is take our troops out of Saudi Arabia and stop giving so much money to Israel. That's all...

You might call that a white flag... I call it making sense.

I meant to say "no more 30,00 U.S. Troops getting killed or maimed" (not murdered)... 30,000 US casualties in Iraq so far I believe

ck,
I call it suicide.

If it's his ratings that he is referring to then he is correct!

How... how can you rationally say that by taking away the main reasons they hate us, it's suicide?

If we had Iranian troops in Ohio, and they refused to leave, would you not hate them for that? Can't you see it from their point of view at all?

...O'Reilly (who I must say, I like - he's the best on Fox) regularly slanders and compares to Fascists and Nazis both MSNBC in general, Olbermann in particular, and online organizations such as MediaMatters - where is the criticism of him for doing so, amongst the right-wing? Nowhere.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

O'Reilly has more critics on the right than on the left - but when O'Reilly is correct, we have no call to criticize him for speaking Truth.

FACT: Communism, Nazism, and Fascism are all different nations' political parties of the Socialist political philosophy of Karl Marx.

American Liberal Democrats are the Stalinist cells of Socialism:

Joseph Stalin: "America is like a healthy body, and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we (communists) can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."

Communist Goals (1963)

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

Karl Marx - The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.
Karl Marx- My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
--Norman Thomas in 1969, former U.S. Socialist Party Presidential Candidate
*************************************
*************************************

Your links to Socialists whose fealty has been openly and proudly given to a Joseph Stalinist goal of destruction for America has no credibility, here!

Ck,
If you’re right about Iraq, and I’m wrong, then we always have the ability to change to your opinion at a latter time. No harm, no foul.

If I’m right, and you’re wrong, and we follow your plan, it’s the end of our existence. Game over.

I don't think they are as gentle as you might believe.

Eric,

Specifically, how would our existence end?

I hadn't heard of the Al Qaeda Doomsday weapon, but it sounds like a real doozy.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 10, 2007 7:13 PM

If Cyclops is willing to concede that the New York Times (thus too the Boston Globe) is the policy/propaganda arm of the DNC; that Media Matters is a subsidiary of the Hillary Clinton campaign and that Reuters, the BBC and CNN International are propaganda arms of the UN....

I'll concede that Fox News leans to the right.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

In spite of the FACT that a STATISTICAL COUNT of the articles of Fox News gives a majority of LEFT LEANING articles over RIGHT leaning articles....you will concede to one of their lies if they confess to several of their lies?

That isn't good progress.

Eric,
Sorry you make no sense...
You never explained why it would be suicide...
And NO, hundreds of thousands of lives are being destroyed and lost while we fight in Iraq. Those lives don't get to see another day... And your attitude is keeping them in harms way.

If I'm wrong about Iraq (which I don't recall bringing up btw... I was talking about terrorists attacking the U.S. - not the iraq war) then another strong arm dictator will probably take control of Iraq and calm it down by using violent means. The violence might be less than what would have happened if we stayed or it might be more. But we won't die because of it. I can't think of any rational way you could say we would die because of it.

If I'm right, though, then we save money, lives, our military, improve schools, roads, research and maybe even get a tax break...

Earth to Cyclops and ck:

Nice try at trying to change the subject, but let's get back to how the "uninformed" people who watch network teevee "news" in the early morning hours pan out.

As I said, there are 12 times as many people watching ABC/CBS/NBC morning shows than people watching the Fox News equivalent.

Yes, believe it or not, millions times more Americans stumble out of bed and switch on Charlie Gibson than whomever is hosting the morning cable news shows these days. And they're doing it to get their NEWS.

It's been that way since the early Today Show (anyone here remember Dave Garroway and J. Fred Muggs?)

As I said, www.newsbusters.org has plenty of documentation on the DNC mouthpiece aspect of the network morning shows. Katie Couric's bias whilst on in the morning has been well-documented, as well as many others, including Matt Lauer, Ann Curry, Miles O'Brien of CNN, CBS's Harry Smith and Hannah Storm (the latter being a former sportscaster, making her highly qualified to interview military leaders) and many others. If you can name us one conservative or Republican who is a cast member of one of the ABC network morning news shows, I'd love to see it.

Since the ABC Networks reach many millions of times more viewers than "Faux News", your fear of said network is sheer paranoia. If FNC was in fact as powerful as you people claimed, their viewers' party would control all 3 levels of Government. They don't.

If I were you people, I would be more worried about what would happen if we bailed out of Iraq and the bad guys followed us home.

Remember, you're not personally sacrificing anything in this war. You're not having your food or gas rationed, and you haven't been drafted because there is NO draft. All of the people who are fighting this war decided to sign up of their own free will.

What is it about those simple concepts that you cannot understand?

Posted by ck | September 10, 2007 10:30 PM

How... how can you rationally say that by taking away the main reasons they hate us, it's suicide?

If we had Iranian troops in Ohio, and they refused to leave, would you not hate them for that? Can't you see it from their point of view at all?

Do you think it becomes you to ignore significant history in your revisionism and distortions?

http://www.tacticalathlete.com/jefferson.htm

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."

It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim Book of jihad.

Rose, it wasn't Jefferson!

It was our 4th President, James Monroe. Who went to war. And, that was in his 2nd term. Before that? Oh, about 1.5-million-white guys were captured by the "musselmen."

And, yes, Congress had to learn to build a navy. At first? They kept refusing. Fearing the Federal government. Which means that since it began, our folks sent to DC, had a learning curve problem.

Jefferson paid the ransoms! And, undercut those who wanted to fight. Jefferson had friends in high places in France. So duplicity wasn't something "new" ... And, the Europeans felt it was cheaper to pay the "tribute."

Wars are, in fact, bloody, and expensive. Also, necessary.

What also "pushed it" was a grab made by Napoleon, in the Caribbean. Oddly enough he thought his ships could defeat our patrols. Napoleon loses ALL sea battles. Right out from under his arse, so to speak. Had the same loss against Wellington. In Eygpt. That's why the Rosetta Stone is in the British Museum.

But I digressed. Basically, our first 6 war ships were built. And, got a workout sinking Napoleon's ships in the Caribbean. After our navy proved their worth, James Monroe ordered them to go to the Mediterranian. Where they cleaned the clocks of the mullahs. From Algiers to Tripoli.

We were young, babes in the woods at the time. But the europeans noticed.

Nothing like humming From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.

The monster we're dealing with now, grew in strength when OPEC flexed its muscles in 1974. The city we lost? DETROIT. But we're a BIG country. Believe me. We've seen the unions die before. So, I think we've got a fighting chance against the affirmative action crew.

As to Oprah? She wants REVENGE. Because her auntie had to be a maid for white people. And, didn't live long enough to see Oprah become a billionnairess. Who fits right into the crowd that hates America.

Who knew? With wealth, Leona Helmsley wasn't the only one who is stupid. (Ah. But her dog can't be buried where she wants! Can't mix dog remains with humans. So says the cemetary.) Wonder who wins that brawl? When the time comes. Of course.

Roger Ailes always laughs at liberals as he points out that they cannot make distinction between news, such as the Brit Hume's show (not the panel at the end) and new analysis or opinion such as The O Factor. For those that want to read about bias, try this paper out http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

The authors point out that the news side of Fox is actually quite near the middle, slightly right while CNN is slightly further to the left.

James Madison was the 4th President. The First Barbary War was fought during Jefferson's 1st term and the Second Barbary War was fought during Madison's 2nd term.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Specifically, what 'fact' do you think the pollsters got wrong? You haven't been clear.

First of all, this wasn't one of the pollsters' questions. In describing their methodology, they stated on page one,

While administration figures have talked about a purported meeting in Prague between an al-Qaeda member and an Iraqi official, this does not constitute evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaeda and, in any case, this purported meeting had been discredited by the US intelligence community during the period of these polls.

In order for the US intelligence community (in Aug. 2003) to have 'discredited' the allegation, there would need to be evidence disproving that the meeting occured.

When the 9/11 commission issued their report the next year (2004), they stated,

"These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001."

Since the 9/11 commission could state it cannot rule it out, it means there is no evidence that 'discredits' the claim. If the US intelligence services had discredited the meeting, the commission couldn't make that statement.

That doesn't mean the meeting did happen. The commission even said there was no evidence to support the allegation. But what it means is it hasn't been disproven.

There is a subtle distinction there. The same distinction as to say O.J. Simpson was found innocent (false), when he was found not guilty. They are not the same thing.

If pollsters who are going to be posing questions and interpreting their results can't make this distinction, I have serious reservations on results they would obtain.

Del Dolemonte -
"Earth to cyclops and ck" -- Is that your version of liberals starting off their posts with an insult?

I have to start with your last line: "Remember, you're not personally sacrificing anything in this war. You're not having your food or gas rationed, and you haven't been drafted because there is NO draft. All of the people who are fighting this war decided to sign up of their own free will.

What is it about those simple concepts that you cannot understand?"

------

I understand that you apparently have no empathy whatsoever... A trait commonly associated with Down Syndrome (btw - that was my attempt at slapping you down in a condescending way)... Just because I don't feel the war directly (which actually we all do) does NOT mean I will ever accept thousands upon thousands of people dying for something I think is wrong! How dare you even ask that... Maybe you only think of American lives, but I think of lives in general... If an Iraqi 5 year old gets shot in the head, I'm as upset as if one of our own soldiers gets shot in the head! I don't like murder.

The whole idea that bad guys will follow us home is not based in logic. It's a fear tactic that seems possible, but in reality the longer this war goes one the better trained the other side's fighters will be... So if you really want to prevent anyone from having a good shot at attacking us, then leaving sooner rather than later is the best way to help that.

As far as the morning shows go... Once again, they are not news shows, and most people probably just turn it on while making breakfast without really watching it. 90 percent of a morning show is dedicated to fluff, not news. You cannot compare a station that people tune into to get the news, to a program people watch while still groggy in the morning getting ready for work. They don't match no matter how badly you want them to...

The funny thing is that the information people are uninformed about is not liberal propaganda... It's the white house and fox news' talking points... explain that one away...

The Opinionator:
Wow - If anyone else uses that damn "study" to try and prove anything... well... I guess I won't do anything, but it will be irritating.

First off, look at what they describe at bias... It's so waaaaayyy off its laughable... The study is crap. pure and simple.
And what's another way to figure out its crap? Maybe because the two authors are former fellows at conservative think tanks that they actually claim to be liberal. They received funding from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.

The "study" is a joke, and they don't have a clue how to actually measure bias...

But keep citing it since it seems to share your viewpoint... But in reality, you've been had, again...

btw - Who cares what Roger Ailes laughs at... The main thing is that Fox viewers think the opinion is actually news... and who can blame them, they do have the "FOX NEWS" graphic constantly at the bottom of the screen...

ck said

"I understand that you apparently have no empathy whatsoever... A trait commonly associated with Down Syndrome (btw - that was my attempt at slapping you down in a condescending way)... "

No, my pathetic smirking friend, your cretinesque statement above is a total failure at an attempt.

You're absolutely sad, and not worth any more of my time.

Go back to your own planet.

Ha.. take this, ye CNN, MSNBC lovin' liberals...

Fox News Channel was again the No. 1 cable news network for the August ratings period.

In primetime, FNC averaged 1.43 million viewers and 356 million in the news target demo of 25 to 54-year-olds, according to Nielsen - followed by CNN averaging 967,000 viewers and MSNBC averaging 512,000 viewers.

An averaged of 1.43 million viewers, versus 967,000 and 512,000 respectively - puts MSNBC sucking hind tit. They came up with a whopping 34% increase - to make it to third place. Poor rabid babies... maybe they can get Olbermann to report in his birthday suit, hoping to make second in September.

any empathy for the untold numbers who will be killed/tortured by AQI if the US picks up and leaves?

oooh... good one... I'm pathetic because I attempt to throw in a humorous insult (because I think you said all of us liberals always start our posts off with an insult)... So now you won't talk to me, and instead throw your own insults out... hypocritical? yes. Uber Sensitive? Yes. Lack of an answer to the comments? Yes...

Have fun pretending to end this conversation because I insulted you (even though I made sure the insult was known to just be thrown in their for your appeasement)... So, I guess I win... =)

Anyway, I had to look up cretinesque... It's not a word, but apparently I'm kind of like someone with severe stunted physical and mental growth... That would be wrong though, I'm 6'1" 185 lbs... not stunted at all... don't be jealous.(I'm not sure how cretinesque is any less insulting than down syndrome... but I guess you like to be mad)...

RonC - That's funny considering half of this thread is about how uninformed Fox new viewers are... So thanks for pointing out how much dumber america is getting thanks to fox...

Chas: Got any facts to back that up...
Let's see... Why don't you go ahead and compare terrorist related deaths, to the Iraq War related deaths... I'll even give you the whole decade to use for terrorist related deaths... Go ahead and compile those numbers and then come back with some relevance... Too bad you won't come back after you figure out this war has caused 400x more damage than terrorists... And no, we didn't attack Iraq because of the terrorism problem, so don't try to bring that into the equation.

i'll use SE asia after we left vietnam as my proof. you think all will be fine if we pull out now? that peace will instantly spring up?

"..thread is about how uninformed Fox new viewers are." - ck

In yer dreams - that bit of tripe was debunked, and the truth is Fox viewers are probably smarter than all others combined. (Besides, the lefty-comments on this very thread proves them deficient beyond all doubt - as so demonstated by the right-majority here.)

So, we are down to various moral and intellectual pygmies obsessing over the fact that thousands of civilians are dying in Iraq. These are the same individuals who weep over the estimated 600,000 German civilians killed in the allied bombing during WW II. Forget the fact that the Germans were, at that time, slaughtering 6 million Jews and millions of other innocent civilians. Forget the fact that the ghastly Iraq regime, which we deposed, was killing not tens, but hundreds of thousands of its citizens! And, of course, we are not killing thousands of Iraq citizens, they are being killed by their own crazies. Of course, if we leave, it will not be tens of thousands killed, but once again, hundreds of thousands. To date, the most realistic estimate is that approximately 70,000 Iraq citizens have been lost during the war. That is less than one month’s civilian losses during the six years of WW II. Yes, the leftist, adolescent young adults that pass as U.S. citizens today would really have held up well during WW II, wouldn’t they? If these fools and poltroons had been around at that time, today we would all be in Nazi slave labor camps.

James Monroe. And, the MONROE DOCTRINE. I got the right president.

"Addressing Congress on December 2, 1823, President Monroe prohibited furher European intervention anywhere in the "New World."

Sadly, for Jefferson, he set out on a two-pronged approach; which he undercut. Because he back-channeled with the french. AND, PAID THE TRIBUTE.

The sea battles were won by Stephen Decatur. And, here's a good quote from Michael Oren's book Power, Faith & Fantasy:

"From his hilltop estate at Monticello, the aging Thomas Jefferson followed the news of Decatur's victories in North Africa and the fall of the Barbary corsairs. Restoring ties with his old friend and nemesis John Adams, Jefferson wrote of his pride in the U.S. Navy, which he called America's "wooden walls," and its commitment "to keep the Barbary States in order." In spite of bitter opposition to its construction and setbacks in its early engagements in the Middle East, the Navy had emerged as a world-class fighting force. The Mediterraneans Squadron was, in fact, on permanent patrol at the time of Jefferson's and Adam's almost simultaneous deaths, on July 4, 1826, America's 50th birthday."

For what it's worth, history is an adventure worth reading.

President James Monroe was our 5th president.

Washington
Adams
Jefferson
Madison
Monroe
John Quincy Adams (which was hanky panky stuff)
Andrew Jackson (winning again, and again)
And, then a whole bunch of losers till we come to Lincoln.

CK wrote:
All we have to do is take our troops out of Saudi Arabia and stop giving so much money to Israel. That's all...

You might call that a white flag... I call it making sense.
CK, er why did we have troops in Saudi Arabia again? Oh yeah, didn't it have something to do with containing Iraq? Wasn't it the left that was saying we didn't need to go to war because containment of Iraq worked? So then how can you argue that contaiment worked on one hand but also that its wrong for us to have troops in Saudi Arabia. How do you propose we contained Iraq without having a presense there? Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you suggest that containement was necessary as an alternative to war with Iraq then you have to allow for the mechanism wherby we maintain containment. And that requires troops on the ground (and no fly zones, and inspection teams and sanctions etc etc etc etc.) All require a massive presence by us and the UN in the middle east.

Second you say this:
How... how can you rationally say that by taking away the main reasons they hate us, it's suicide?

If we had Iranian troops in Ohio, and they refused to leave, would you not hate them for that? Can't you see it from their point of view at all
Who is they? CK are we occupying Saudi Arabia, or were we when we had a large number of troops stationed there? No. We in fact were invited in. So then if the Saudis see fit to allow us to have people stationed there how is your comparison to Ohio at all comparable. Further, and more importantly why is Osama Bin Landen's grieveance more relevant than Saudi Arabias agreement to our terms? Does Osama Bin Laden run Saudi Arabia, or any country for that matter? Why does his grievance whether its for our involvement with Israel or us having troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia matter at all? Who's he? And how do you balance out the various parties and their grieveances versus their interests? For example, we got involved with Iraq and set up containment because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Kuwait was more than happy to get our assistance to help expel Iraq. Iraq, not wanting to be expelled has a grievance against us for being forced to leave a country it had invaded. Osama bin Laden has a grieveance against us because, in order to maintain a containment program we station troops in the region. So then we have some parties who are happy for us to be there and some who are angry that we are there and for different reasons entirely. Why does OBL's anger at us having troops there outweight Kuwaits desire to have have troops there so as to prevent Iraq from invading again. and if SA has an interest in allowing us to place troops in the region, how again is OBLs grievance able to outweigh SA's interest?I don't thik you know who "they" are when you mention "they" because clearly, "they" are a lot of people with a lot of different interests, many of them competing. And its the same with the argument that they "hate us for our policies". Who's "they" and what policies in quiestion are you referring to?
But fundamentally, why does a terorrist organization that has no qualms about destroying the WTC, has no qualmsabout chopping off little kids heads, about going into varous countries, like Iraq and trying to impose some draconian version of ISlamic law on the populace, who has control over no countries, signs no treaties, and obeys no rules of war, why are they the ones in your mind that gets to dictate the terms.

Finally, I love how your notion of peace requires us to throw Israel under the bus. That will produce peace? Why are we not allowed to intravene and assist an ally in the region, but the palestinians are allowed to get assistance from Syria, Iran, and every other country in the area that wants to drive israel in the sea? And if you're going to say that Israel's claims on its land are invalid, why for example is Jordan's claim valid? Why is Iran's claim on its land valid. Jordan is a country thats barely older than israel (that in fact was carved out of a region that was 80% of what was originally considered Palestine - thus Jordan is already a Palestinian state) and is ruled by Hashemites. How come the borders of Jordan are not similarly open to interpretation and you lefties arent suggesting taht Jordan has to give up its claim on its land (and incidentally, when the state of Israel was intially being planned out they were supposed to get all of Israel, but also all of Jordan. Israel lost 80% of the land that was planned for israel, yet I don't see Israel demanding that Jordan give up its borders or hashing endless wars against Jordan). And what about Iran. Iranians are not Arab. They are Persian. Last I heard, the Ottoman empire fell, and the ME was reshaped after WWI and WWII. Why of all the countries reshaped after WWII the only one in contention for you is Israel? And what about Syrias occuptation of Lebanon for 30 years? How come there was nothing but silence from the left about that?
All this talk about grievances and why they're mad at us and how we should understand. What about our grievances towards them? What about Israel''s grievances towards Iran, syria, Jordan. What about Lebanon's grievances towards Syria and Iran. For any country, like say Saudi arabia that is targeted by OBL and his band of thugs, what about their grievances. It seems like in your mind the only people who even have grievances are the terrorists,and their grievances are completely reasonable, and the only course of action is to accede to their wishes. But again, why are they the ones dictating the terms? Is there a statute of limiations on grievances. For example, Al Qaeda is pissed off that Islam no longer controls Spain. Is that still a legitimate grievance?
Your mindset is utterly simplistic. America bad. Israel bad. If terrorists act like ruthless thugs well they have grievances, therefore their actions are justified.Further, the terorrists are the only ones who can even have grievances, therefore the only course of action is to abandon allies, and let the terrorists get whatever they want. and then they wont hate us any more. Terrorists meanwhile can meddle in the affiars of countless countries and blow up trains and terrorize people and chop off people heads in any country because they have grievances. Terrorsts can ignore the rules of war completely because they have grievances.

Democrats are more likely to believe that 9-11 was an inside job, a belief that is so absurd on its face that it disqualifies the believer as a serious thinker.

That fact alone tells you that on the question of which party lacks critical thinking skills the debate is over. It's the democrat party.

Come on Captain. It's business. TV business. The ratings game. Advertising revenue. It's not personal. It takes a really big mouth to eat into a BS artist like Bill's share. These are very intelligent people inserting fire crackers in your shorts. Don't let it get to you. Of all the guys around here your BS filter should be fine tuned to the max.

Anyway you know in your heart that Saint Rupert of Sydney is going place his chips on Hilary. It's business Captain, just business.

These statements have no intellectual defense.

Sure they do. Read what Colin Powell recently said:

"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"

Now, if you believe that Fox News is a leading cheerleader of this administration, and you believe that actions of this administration have changed our DNA (government superseding the 4th amendment behind closed doors, government implementing a pre-emptive foreign policy -- then botching its first field test, among others), then you can make a case for that outlet being more dangerous to America than terrorists.

That poll cited earlier is important. It shows that people watching Fox News were greatly misinformed in the lead up to war. (more so than the rest of Americans -- other news outlets didn't do their job either) That kind of thing is more dangerous to America than terrorists attacking us. The ramifications are much greater. Just look at the ramifications of that one attack on 9/11. Two wars, the Patriot Act, the NSA program. The reaction is can be more dangerous than the action.

Fox News has not been a journalistic entity but a mouth-piece for this administration and its policies. When a so-called journalistic entity acts like that, especially in a build-up to war, then yes, they are more dangerous to America than terrorists.

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

Fox News does not act as a free press should, and when it leaves it's viewers with a false impression in a lead up to war, it hurts our security and our identity. It allows us to be hoodwinked and support a war because of fear and based on false premises. THAT'S more dangerous than al qaeda.

""What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"

Now, if you believe that Fox News is a leading cheerleader of this administration, and you believe that actions of this administration have changed our DNA (government superseding the 4th amendment behind closed doors, government implementing a pre-emptive foreign policy -- then botching its first field test, among others), then you can make a case for that outlet being more dangerous to America than terrorists."

Actually, you would then be making the case that Powell was wrong, and that terrorists had changed our way of living.

"Fox News has not been a journalistic entity but a mouth-piece for this administration and its policies."

Because it doesn't put up frothing spastic ranters like Olbermann? Because it's never forged documents against Bush (CBS), leaked Top Secret documents on how we catch terrorists (NYT), ordered its news department to cooperate with anti-American dictators (CNN), never told its newsteam to work harder to "balance" Bush's effectiveness against his political opponents (Halperin of ABC)?

"When a so-called journalistic entity acts like that, especially in a build-up to war, then yes, they are more dangerous to America than terrorists."

Glad you see the light regarding "60 Minutes"!

""The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491 "

Read that again, and again, and again, and again, until you understand it. A press must be FREE. It must be PERMITTED to be FREE. A free press produces AGITATION--it does not heal divisions or conform smoothly with a central wire service.

"It allows us to be hoodwinked and support a war because of fear and based on false premises. THAT'S more dangerous than al qaeda."

Maybe you watch too much CNN, but the rest of us know that everything Bush was saying in 2002 about Iraqi WMD, had been declared TRUTH by the Senate in 1998. Under Democratic majority during the Clinton Administration.

People like to say "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." If so, "propriety" is their first ditch. The idea that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Fox because they don't use it "properly". I guess "All speech is free, but some speech is more free than others."

Yell,

Never said the first amendment didn't apply to Fox News. Lots of straw men thrown at me lately on this site...

What exactly in regards to 60 Minutes are you referring to in the build-up to the Iraq war? As I recall, they were one of the groups that did some good reporting on it.

In fact, 60 Minutes is responsible for some of the best examples of journalism out there. Particularly the summer 2001 report on the danger bin Laden and al qaeda posed to the US.

In regards to the Jefferson quote, free press was yes meant to act independently -- of the government. Fox News did not do that. they pushed the governments agenda. The press has an obligation to question the government -- especially in times of war. The US press -- and FOX News in particular -- failed to do so.

And the fact that you say everything Bush said about Iraqis WMDs was true, just shows how either dishonest or uninformed you are. It really doesn't matter what Clinton said... he was wrong too. But he didn't base an invasion on these claims. Bush did. He's responsible. What he claimed was NOT TRUE.

Actually, you would then be making the case that Powell was wrong, and that terrorists had changed our way of living.

No, our reaction to terrorism changed our way of living.

Jr565:

Does Osama Bin Laden run Saudi Arabia, or any country for that matter?

No. The US does. That is the problem. Occupation does not necessarily imply physical occupation by another nation’s military. Have you heard of the word “puppet”? Instead of the analogy of Iranians in Ohio, picture our government as being completely beholden to the Iranians, and acting mainly in the interests of Iranians. Would that make you any less upset than an actual military occupation?
Maybe you can use your defense mechanisms to claim that nations such as Saudi Arabia are not our puppets. It is easy for people in your position to delude yourself, but people who live in these countries know what the situation is. OBL knows, as you can see from the quotes below. You would feel the same if the US government was a puppet for another nation.

“…the people became aware that their main problems were caused by the American occupiers and their puppets in the Saudi regime…”

“our main problem is the US government, while the Saudi regime is but a branch or agent of the US.”

Q: “Will the end of the United States’ presence in Saudi Arabia…end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US?”
A: “The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the aggressive US policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So the defensive jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula; rather, it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims throughout the whole world.”

“…. dictating to its leaders....”

“…the time has come for Muslim peoples to realize after these attacks that the states of the region do not have their own sovereignty…”

“America won’t be able to leave this ordeal unless it pulls out of the Arabian peninsula, and it ceases its meddling in Palestine, and throughout the Islamic world. If we gave this equation to any child in any American school, he would easily solve it within a second.”

"Never said the first amendment didn't apply to Fox News."

You do when you refer to them as a "threat" to America. Remember the old saw about yelling fire in a theater?

"It really doesn't matter what Clinton said... he was wrong too."

That's his Legacy in a nutshell, ain't it?

The Senate called on Clinton to overthrow Saddam because his WMD were intolerable. The fact that Clinton didn't rush off his rear end to do anything about it doesn't eradicate it as definitive US policy, a policy Tom Daschle was insistent Bush allow Democrats to rubberstamp anew in October 2002 by voting for war in Iraq.

"In regards to the Jefferson quote, free press was yes meant to act independently -- of the government. Fox News did not do that. they pushed the governments agenda."

No, they have refrained from fraud and what is basically espionage. They get higher ratings by letting Administration figures talk. You watch Fox and you know what Cheney thinks. You watch CNN and you know what Cheney's enemies think. What's more essential to Jefferson's theory of the role of the free press, that it demonstrate the activities of the powerful, or of the resentful?

"The press has an obligation to question the government -- especially in times of war."

Nope. The ideal of wartime reporting is Ernie Pyle submitting his reports to censors, not Geraldo drawing maps in the sand.

"In fact, 60 Minutes is responsible for some of the best examples of journalism out there."

They are examples of the worst reporting in the world. For instance, they like nothing better than to interrupt a recorded interview to bring in footage of a third party who rips into the unsuspecting target without rebuttal.

WALLACE: Do you think Joe Schmuck is a murderer?
"EXPERT" JOE SCHMUCK NEVER HEARD OF: Yes.
ticktickticktickticktickticktickticktickticktick

"In fact, 60 Minutes is responsible for some of the best examples of journalism out there."

Does nerve gas - Vietnam - Peter Arnett ring a bell? I stopped watching many years ago.

JR565,

Bravo! Slam Dunk!

Governments decide -- not interest groups, or terrorist groups. That's why we have governments.

It would be hard to believe that anyone could have watched Petraeus' "interview" on Fox News last night, and then come back here and still argue that Fox is truly practicing journalism. Did Brit Hume ask a single penetrating question? No, he didn't. Were Petraeus' feet held to the fire in any way? Not at all. This is a man who is asking for another year's worth of American blood and treasure, yet he was given a free pass.

And to the commenter way back up top, responding to my doubts about an Islamic Caliphate: yes, I realize that bin Laden expresses a desire to see such a caliphate come to reality. My point: no serious person could take this as a real threat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296394,00.html

HUME: You have said, by the way, today that you thought that they believe that a stable, democratic Iraq was in their interest. And at the same time, though, you said that if it all went to hell over there, that it would be — that they would be, as you put it, a big winner. Which is right?

...Nouri al-Maliki, the man the president of the United States says he has confidence in and thinks is the right man for Iraq, but he's become a whipping boy in Washington, and perhaps elsewhere as well. And when you look at the progress on the legislative benchmarks that have been set by the U.S. Congress,it's not hard to see why. Only a handful have really been met.
Depending on whose count you read, it's still, no matter how you shake it, it's less than half have been fully met.

And you said today, Ambassador Crocker, that the Iraqi leaders have the will to do what needs to be done. And yet, these benchmarks, if achieved, would be so helpful to their cause because it would solidify or at least help to solidify the support they so obviously continued to need from the United States. So what is wrong there? What is the problem there?

...Yet we thought they could be done quickly, didn't we?

HUME: How do you assess Maliki as a man?...Really?
...General Petraeus, has he held up his end of the deal militarily, in terms of what he was supposed to do to help with his part of the military plan?

...Both of you described today and asserted today that the situation in Iraq, if we fail there and it all goes to hell and we leave, as one that would be very much to the disadvantage of the United States of America and to the region and so on.

But what about success? What is the great reward of this undertaking?
Which, even if we go forward with what both of you are hoping to achieve there, would mean the cost of much treasure, still many American lives, many Iraqi lives, as well, for a situation which is not likely to be — no one at least now seems to be saying it's not going to be a great beacon of democracy, as it's once been hoped. There were no weapons of mass destruction, which was originally — what, briefly, General, is the payoff here?

************************************************

Granted, he doesn't tell them what Kennedy or Reid or Hillary had to say and ask them why they aren't listening to their betters...but that interview doesn't sound like a Soviet-style propaganda play to me...

"Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Excuse me, but when has Fox News openly called for the deaths of Americans, or the lynching of Blacks? When has Fox News conspired to attack Americans "where ever they are" or made plans to strike military and civilian targets, or has called for a one race America?

Just how has Fox News harmed America as any American is free to turn to MSNBC any time they want? There are no Fox News Re-education Camps, there are no Fox News Detention Centers (unless they are part of the WalMart Detention Center, I guess), and there are no Fox News Brownshirts running around smashing the windows of the competitors during a Night of the Long Ads. Fox News reporters don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Fox News reporters don't strap on explosives and blow themselves up in public areas. Fox News reporters don't kill people for disagreeing with them. And Fox News doesn't recruit others willing to do the same. Anyone claiming this is ether stupid or insane.

Also, anyone who thinks that people who watch Fox News are "less informed" are truly less informed about the fact that most cable viewers have this thing called a remote control and are free to watch any news program they wish. There are several cable news channels available and any one can them watch all, if they so wish. The days of only 3 or 4 news programs and 1 or 2 newspapers and news magazines are over, there are far more sources of information today then in the history of the world. How much more informed can we be?

This is just one man's pinning for ratings and is nothing more than slander as a means of gaining notiriaty, something HIS news program has failed to provide.

Here's a screen capture of Olbermann's "news" program.

Aside from ideological and competitive reasons, Olbermann has another reason to attack Murdoch in particular: he's a former Murdoch employee. He burned his bridges at ESPN and left for Fox Sports, where his career as a sports commentator/anchor slid quickly into obscurity. Think he holds himself responsible for that rapid decline, or do you think he's worked out in his mind some way that Murdoch and company are?

dave--
Out in public you believe America to be the greatest source of evil, do you? You should be more forthcoming in private.