More proof that fox news misleads its readers.

[nygreenguy]

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... nt=671&lb=


A breakdown of the lies:

* 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
* 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
* 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
* 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
* 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
* 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
* 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
* 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
* 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/st ... age=entire

So why does fox news exist if it clearly does a poor job of reporting the facts? Could it be that people care more about hearing what they want to hear vs. what is actually happening?

[WinePusher]

Once again, this is conflating bias or ideology with factuality. FOX has been documented to blatantly lie. So far, nothing approaching the lies told on FOX have been documented by the "MSM" or even MSNBC and certainly not NPR.

Bias does not equal a lack of factuality, no matter how many times people on this thread conflate the two.

No, you simply won't admit that a persons perspective will influence their judgement on what is and isn't considered a lie. Sorry, but every lie you and your like-minded fellows on this forum post can and will be disputed in the same way you try to make excuses for your favored network MSNBC.

[Wyvern]

Once again, this is conflating bias or ideology with factuality. FOX has been documented to blatantly lie. So far, nothing approaching the lies told on FOX have been documented by the "MSM" or even MSNBC and certainly not NPR.

Bias does not equal a lack of factuality, no matter how many times people on this thread conflate the two.

No, you simply won't admit that a persons perspective will influence their judgement on what is and isn't considered a lie. Sorry, but every lie you and your like-minded fellows on this forum post can and will be disputed in the same way you try to make excuses for your favored network MSNBC.

A lie is when you knowingly say something that is not factually true such as when Rush said Loughner had the full support of the democrats. If somebody on the other hand unknowingly states something that is not true then it is just a falsehood. A persons ideology or dogma may convince someone that what they say is true but just because you believe something is true doesn't make it so. It's a strange thing there's all manner of shade of untruth but truth is universal.

Personally if you are earnest in your position of disputing every lie you see on this forum I applaud you. Truth is rarely fashionable or even wanted and it can use every advocate it can get.

[East of Eden]

There is also evidence that fox isnt a news network, rather a political extension of the republican party.

As I would say of much of the MSM, who are simply liberal Democrats masquerading as journalists. They aren't pleased their monopoly is gone.

Talking point memos from republican politicians to fox news have been intercepted and their contents are repeated verbatim on the air.

You mean like this NPR exec caught making Democratic talking points?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/caught- ... ctual-gop/

At least FOX isn't taking taxpayer money as NPR is, for now.

Once again, this is conflating bias or ideology with factuality. FOX has been documented to blatantly lie. So far, nothing approaching the lies told on FOX have been documented by the "MSM" or even MSNBC and certainly not NPR.

Google 'Rachel Maddow Lies' and you'll find this and a lot more:

http://www.globalfinancialmeltdown.com/?p=17700

Once again, what you call lies I would prefer to call legitimate politcy differences or mistatements. It seems to be part of the Saul Alinsky strategy to demonize opponents and criminalize policy differences. "Politician X is not just wrong, he is a bad person." We need to attack ideas and arguments, not people. It is impossible to look in anyone''s head and declare 100% that they knowingly lie. For instance, I hear liberal falsehoods all the time, but many of those people just don't know any better.

[Board]

...We need to attack ideas and arguments, not people. ... For instance, I hear liberal falsehoods all the time, but many of those people just don't know any better.

I agree. Follow your own advice and stop attack people by claiming that they "don't know any better" and start attacking ideas and arguments.

Yet another double standard brought to you by EoE.

[East of Eden]

...We need to attack ideas and arguments, not people. ... For instance, I hear liberal falsehoods all the time, but many of those people just don't know any better.

I agree. Follow your own advice and stop attack people by claiming that they "don't know any better" and start attacking ideas and arguments.

Yet another double standard brought to you by EoE.

That's a darn sight better than calling people liars. Does your side here care to stop doing that?

[micatala]

Once again, this is conflating bias or ideology with factuality. FOX has been documented to blatantly lie. So far, nothing approaching the lies told on FOX have been documented by the "MSM" or even MSNBC and certainly not NPR.

Bias does not equal a lack of factuality, no matter how many times people on this thread conflate the two.

No, you simply won't admit that a persons perspective will influence their judgement on what is and isn't considered a lie. Sorry, but every lie you and your like-minded fellows on this forum post can and will be disputed in the same way you try to make excuses for your favored network MSNBC.

This is incorrect. I reject that notion, implicit in what you say here, that it is impossible, even in the presence of bias, to determine when a statement is true or false. When Bill O'Reilly says no one on FOX said people would go to jail for not buying health insurance, that is out and out undoubtedly false. It is not a "policy difference" or a "difference of viewpoint" or a judgment that is the product of ideological bias.

It is simply false.


Now, did O'Reilly state this falsehood deliberately? I will allow I cannot say with 100% certainty that he did. But I do think it is reasonable to think, given this statement occurred on his own show right in front of his face, that saying he deliberately uttered an untrue statement has a very reasonable probability of being true. The only other explanation is that O'Reilly is completely intellectually incompetent, or astonishingly capable of self-delusion.


I don't recall that anyone on this thread even tried to defend the notion that what O'Reilly said was true. All we get is this continual effort to defect the issue from truth to bias, and continued false claims that I and others are only concluding these statements are untrue because of ideological bias.


I will allow that the truth of some statements, including many on FOX and MSNBC, could be debated and people will have different views depending on their viewpoint.



BUt I again utterly reject the notion, implicit in what Winepusher is saying, that one cannot tell the difference between truth and falsehood in all cases. I utterly reject as false Winepusher's claim that the falsehoods I and others have pointed out on this thread are nothing more than subjective judgments skewed by our ideology.


I also reject as an ad hominem remark that MSNBC is my "favorite network." I have never said such a thing and I have never claimed MSNBC is not biased. I have said I have not found the type of blatant falsehoods on MSNBC that I have found on FOX and I have challenged others to produce evidence of such falsehoods. I see East of Eden has another link and I will investigate this as I have time.



BUt let me repeat, the record shows falsehoods have been repeatedly stated on FOX, and these statements are objectively false, no doubt about it, no spin, no ideology.



False, period.



I will ask WP and E of E. Yes or no. Was Bill O'Reilly's claim that no one on FOX said people would go to jail for not buying health insurance true or false or "something else?"

[East of Eden]

Once again, this is conflating bias or ideology with factuality. FOX has been documented to blatantly lie. So far, nothing approaching the lies told on FOX have been documented by the "MSM" or even MSNBC and certainly not NPR.

Bias does not equal a lack of factuality, no matter how many times people on this thread conflate the two.

No, you simply won't admit that a persons perspective will influence their judgement on what is and isn't considered a lie. Sorry, but every lie you and your like-minded fellows on this forum post can and will be disputed in the same way you try to make excuses for your favored network MSNBC.

This is incorrect. I reject that notion, implicit in what you say here, that it is impossible, even in the presence of bias, to determine when a statement is true or false. When Bill O'Reilly says no one on FOX said people would go to jail for not buying health insurance, that is out and out undoubtedly false. It is not a "policy difference" or a "difference of viewpoint" or a judgment that is the product of ideological bias.

It is simply false.


Now, did O'Reilly state this falsehood deliberately? I will allow I cannot say with 100% certainty that he did. But I do think it is reasonable to think, given this statement occurred on his own show right in front of his face, that saying he deliberately uttered an untrue statement has a very reasonable probability of being true. The only other explanation is that O'Reilly is completely intellectually incompetent, or astonishingly capable of self-delusion.


I don't recall that anyone on this thread even tried to defend the notion that what O'Reilly said was true. All we get is this continual effort to defect the issue from truth to bias, and continued false claims that I and others are only concluding these statements are untrue because of ideological bias.


I will allow that the truth of some statements, including many on FOX and MSNBC, could be debated and people will have different views depending on their viewpoint.



BUt I again utterly reject the notion, implicit in what Winepusher is saying, that one cannot tell the difference between truth and falsehood in all cases. I utterly reject as false Winepusher's claim that the falsehoods I and others have pointed out on this thread are nothing more than subjective judgments skewed by our ideology.


I also reject as an ad hominem remark that MSNBC is my "favorite network." I have never said such a thing and I have never claimed MSNBC is not biased. I have said I have not found the type of blatant falsehoods on MSNBC that I have found on FOX and I have challenged others to produce evidence of such falsehoods. I see East of Eden has another link and I will investigate this as I have time.



BUt let me repeat, the record shows falsehoods have been repeatedly stated on FOX, and these statements are objectively false, no doubt about it, no spin, no ideology.



False, period.



I will ask WP and E of E. Yes or no. Was Bill O'Reilly's claim that no one on FOX said people would go to jail for not buying health insurance true or false or "something else?"

Without looking into it it may be true or false but you have no way of knowing that O'Reilly intentionally lied. From my observation he is good about offering retractions if he does say something false and it is later brought to his attention. What more do you want?

[micatala]

Well, I saw one instance of him making the false statement live. I've reviewed multiple clips of O'Reilly and others making the statement in question. There really is nothing else to say. What should be happening is that people stop obfuscating and admit O'Reilly made a false statement.

You not having checked it out does not make it "true or false."


I will agree O'Reilly does sometimes offer retractions. In this case, he doubled down and when confronted by Senator Coburn, Republican from Oklahoma, about instances of his constituents repeating these lies and inferring they came from FOX, was basically confronted by O'Reilly who claimed people were not hearing that from FOX. This was after the claim had been made on O'Reilly's own program.

If you wish to check it out for yourself, fine. I will see if I can go back through the thread and find the references to it.


I will again repeat I can't say for sure O'Reilly made these statements intentionally. However, due to his adamence in making the claim in contrast to the evidence, I think the only reasonable alternatives are:

1) O'Reilly knows full well he is not telling the truth and is picking this as a battle he will bluster his way through, knowing most of his audience will go with him.
2) He is self-delusional to the point that he cannot even see he is making a false statement.
3) His claimed "research" on what was or what was not said on FOX was incompetent.

I personally think 1) is the most likely option. If someone has an option 4) they can come up with, I am open to considering that as well, but so far no one has done anything on this particular example other than evade the issue.

[WinePusher]

I will ask WP and E of E. Yes or no. Was Bill O'Reilly's claim that no one on FOX said people would go to jail for not buying health insurance true or false or "something else?"

NO, Period. Tell me, micatala, what happens when a person does not obey the law. They will be penalized and will eventually go to jail if they further refuse to cooperate with the law. The mandate hidden within the healthcare bill, that is absolutely vital and the cornerstone of obamacare, is the individual mandate. The name speaks for itself. If a person refuses to cooperate with this federal mandate there will be reprocussions which will ultimately end up in incarceration. So, NO, this isn't a lie. Actually, I'd say it's a lie for liberals to call this a lie.

[nygreenguy]

I will ask WP and E of E. Yes or no. Was Bill O'Reilly's claim that no one on FOX said people would go to jail for not buying health insurance true or false or "something else?"

NO, Period. Tell me, micatala, what happens when a person does not obey the law. They will be penalized and will eventually go to jail if they further refuse to cooperate with the law. The mandate hidden within the healthcare bill, that is absolutely vital and the cornerstone of obamacare, is the individual mandate. The name speaks for itself. If a person refuses to cooperate with this federal mandate there will be reprocussions which will ultimately end up in incarceration. So, NO, this isn't a lie. Actually, I'd say it's a lie for liberals to call this a lie.

you cant send someone to jail for something that isnt a crime. The person would be fined, and if they didnt pay it, it would be included on their taxes. It is not a misdemeanor, felony or any sort of crime punishable by incarceration.

So then yes, it would be a lie to say you can go to jail for not participating.