What do you think? Was O'Reilly and Fox News playing a sly game by mislabeling the party affiliation of Rep. Mark Foley - the page molesting Congressman? Or was it just an accident, a graphics error?
TVNewser | Brad Blog | Posted Wednesday October 4, 2006 at 09:19 AM
It's just a misplaced letter, but what a misplaced letter: Swapping a "D" for an "R" last night, Fox News and "The O'Reilly Factor" labeled disgraced pedophile Congressman Mark Foley, longtime Republican, as a Democrat. Courtesy of TVNewser, here's a clip; apparently it happened a number of times over the course of the broadcast, though they deleted the reference for the rerun (which, let's face it, still gets plenty of viewers). As O'Reilly railed against Foley and his actions — entirely appropriately, and as he has done previously — the visual message to his viewers was that the perpetrator of these heinous crimes against children was a Democrat. This comes at a time when Republicans are desperately fighting the perception that they permissively allowed Foley to go about his business (and his "business") on the hill, and that they are no longer the party of upright moral values.
Now, blaming O'Reilly for this is, of course, ridiculous: During a live show, he is obviously not the one at the controls. However, it's a pretty grave error and one that has Democrats steamed. BradBlog reports that though the "D-FL" was scrubbed for the rerun no explanation was given and, from the screenshot, the actual correction was not made; instead of being designated "R" the screen was left blank. Errors happen, of course; it's how the follow up is dealt with that really shows stripes. How O'Reilly handles this on the air tonight will provide some indication to how "fair" and "balanced" a position Fox is willing to take on this.
I didn't see it, I do not watch Fox news... I dislike it as much as I do CNN (BBC World for me, they seem pretty fair for the most part). But really hard to say... on the one hand, it very well could have been an honest mistake... but it IS an awfully convenient mistake. I would say, could be a sly move, but could be a mistake... though I'm inclined to think the former, especially with upcoming elections. (hehe, almost voted for 3 simply for the humour).
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
I hate the guy and Faux News in general, but that is too obvious. Even a retarded chipmunk that saw any news at all would know Foley is a Republican. It was a glitch.
I don't watch Fox, so am not sure why people have such strong feelings about it -- or why people who hate it watch it enough to have a reason to hate it.
But I take it that Fox has a somewhat right-leaning perspective. So what? It's one voice in a sea of journalism that, in the US at least, is dominated by left leanings. Objective reporting doesn't exist, and nobody expects it. Everyone knows that their news comes from various perspectives, and takes the appropriate grain of salt.
For anyone to get all emotional about it and "hate" one news service or another is a bit of an overreaction. Let the echo-chambers continue to echo, what's it matter to those of us on the outside?
Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots.
I don't watch Fox, so am not sure why people have such strong feelings about it -- or why people who hate it watch it enough to have a reason to hate it.
But I take it that Fox has a somewhat right-leaning perspective. So what? It's one voice in a sea of journalism that, in the US at least, is dominated by left leanings. Objective reporting doesn't exist, and nobody expects it. Everyone knows that their news comes from various perspectives, and takes the appropriate grain of salt.
For anyone to get all emotional about it and "hate" one news service or another is a bit of an overreaction. Let the echo-chambers continue to echo, what's it matter to those of us on the outside?
You are right, hate is too strong a word. I end up watching Fox because it is on the TV in the break room at work and many of my co-workers want to watch it. I find myself greatly annoyed by their perspective which opposes many of my views.
Hmmm... outrage?
Are you that upset over this Fox News error that it has brought you to an outrage level? I sure hope that there aren't alot of innocent bystanders when hear some really horrific report on a newscast!
And hey... if I added a poll for every question that crossed my mind, there'd be no discussion threads for the forest of Polls would be too dense!
Last edited by Maeve_Mari; 10-06-2006 at 05:03 PM.
It's one voice in a sea of journalism that, in the US at least, is dominated by left leanings.
This is a an incorrect statement. "Media" including the movie/music industries may be left leaning but the news media, and especially the television/radio news media is decidedly right of center.
"I cannot ensure success, I can only endeavor to deserve it" - Capt. John Paul Jones
This is a an incorrect statement. "Media" including the movie/music industries may be left leaning but the news media, and especially the television/radio news media is decidedly right of center.
I'm going to clarify based on how I see things. I don't think that the media is left-leaning, but I do think it strives to be "politically correct." Political correctness is anathema to real debate and real political change on either end of the spectrum. This makes it tough for people on the right to say certain things without being labeled sexist, racist, homophobic, or classist. On the other hand, it makes it impossible for me to say on the news (and keep my job, if that were it) that today's war in the Middle East is propagated largely by religion and then take quotes from the Quran and Old Testament to support my thesis. On the news many ideological conflicts just kind of exist, they rarely seem to have causes, or the causes are simplified as to lose all meaning.
The pen may be mightier than the sword, but why pick just one?
This is a an incorrect statement. "Media" including the movie/music industries may be left leaning but the news media, and especially the television/radio news media is decidedly right of center.
How pompous of you. This is his opinion, how can it be incorrect? How is your opinion more correct than his?
I'm going to clarify based on how I see things. I don't think that the media is left-leaning, but I do think it strives to be "politically correct." Political correctness is anathema to real debate and real political change on either end of the spectrum. This makes it tough for people on the right to say certain things without being labeled sexist, racist, homophobic, or classist. On the other hand, it makes it impossible for me to say on the news (and keep my job, if that were it) that today's war in the Middle East is propagated largely by religion and then take quotes from the Quran and Old Testament to support my thesis. On the news many ideological conflicts just kind of exist, they rarely seem to have causes, or the causes are simplified as to lose all meaning.
Political correctness is a liberal (i.e. "left") philosophy which follows the belief that it's more important to avoid offending someone than it is to tell them the truth.
What do you think? Was O'Reilly and Fox News playing a sly game by mislabeling the party affiliation of Rep. Mark Foley - the page molesting Congressman? Or was it just an accident, a graphics error?
Molesting? How do you jump from IMs and emails to molestation?
Nevermind, I forgot who I was dealing with here.....
Political correctness is a liberal (i.e. "left") philosophy which follows the belief that it's more important to avoid offending someone than it is to tell them the truth.
Since we're riffing on personal opinions of definitions, I'll revise that to "'political correctness' is a smear word attached to right-wing parody of insistence on gender and race neutral language'. It was once acceptable in normal public discourse to refer to minorities with demeaning (eg: racist) language; what became subsequently labeled PC was the movement to expunge that. Not that there wasn't risible language in the form of bureacrat-speak and euphemism, but it had nothing to do with not "telling the truth".
Or, said elsewhere "Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid-1980s as part of its demolition of American liberalism....What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism - by levelling the charge of political correctness against its exponents - they could discredit the whole political project."
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
How pompous of you. This is his opinion, how can it be incorrect? How is your opinion more correct than his?
There is evidence out there to suggest that increased corporate ownership of media outlets has resulted in a deliberate increase in conservative-leaning reports. See What Liberal Media? for specifics. Ironically enough, this stems from the perception that the news media is liberally inclined. Because of this stereotype, media services go out of their way to provide a voice to a marginalized conservative perspective.
Example: the global warming 'debate'. Among scientists not funded by oil companies, the debate was over 20 years ago.
Example: the idea that cutting taxes could raise government income. Even Laffer himself says his theory is wrong under most circumstances.
Liberals are sensitive to accusations of bias, because of the fact that liberals rail against bias. We do not want to be seen as hypocritical (which many of us are at times-for instance, the pro-choice/anti-death penalty position most liberals have is prima faecia hypocritical) and so bend over backward to prove ourselves-to the point of contorsionism.
Originally Posted by scrapinpeg 
