Fox News is not a news organization

Elitists tend to think they have the moral authority to make choices for others - hence, I don't feel they make good representitives and should not be elected to political office.

But I have only heard lefties called elitists. And I can think of more examples of ideologies from the far right which seek to make choices for others based on a moral authority. no?

But I have only heard lefties called elitists. And I can think of more examples of ideologies from the far right which seek to make choices for others based on a moral authority. no?

I'm not sure what your asking here, are you defending "elitists" in the democrat party because you see the same on the right? Or are you questioning my definition?

I believe the right-leaning side to this is often referred to as the "moral majority". I'm not sure they're "elitists" by my definition, since they are motivated by something other than a perception of higher intellect.

I think there is one key difference you're skipping over though. The elitist position, which revolves around treating the masses like children (or cattle if you prefer) is an unabashed belief engrained in liberal ideology. On the right-leaning side of things, a strong belief in individual freedom tempers the drive for control, except in the case of moral issues driven by religious beliefs.

I would place both groups in the same basket however, neither should be elected to office.

This is why people (for good reason) get so paranoid about socialism, which is elitism, run amuck.

I'm not sure what your asking here, are you defending "elitists" in the democrat party because you see the same on the right? Or are you questioning my definition?

I believe the right-leaning side to this is often referred to as the "moral majority". I'm not sure they're "elitists" by my definition, since they are motivated by something other than a perception of higher intellect.

I think there is one key difference you're skipping over though. The elitist position, which revolves around treating the masses like children (or cattle if you prefer) is an unabashed belief engrained in liberal ideology. On the right-leaning side of things, a strong belief in individual freedom tempers the drive for control, except in the case of moral issues driven by religious beliefs.

I would place both groups in the same basket however, neither should be elected to office.

I'm saying-

In recent times it is the lefties who are called the elites, not those on the right. Your definition of elitist brings into play making decisions for others based on moral authority. But I don't see lefties making decisions for masses based on moral authority. I do however see righties making decisions based on moral authority. So something isn't jiving for me here.

I do acknowledge that a liberal ideology can include making decisions for masses based on a perception of intellectual authority.

I personally prefer elected officials to use smarts for a compass over morals- especially when those morals are really just one brand of organized religion.

If socialism is elitism run amuck then I have a problem with two of your definitions this morning! Haha

I'm saying-

In recent times it is the lefties who are called the elites, not those on the right. Your definition of elitist brings into play making decisions for others based on moral authority. But I don't see lefties making decisions for masses based on moral authority. I do however see righties making decisions based on moral authority. So something isn't jiving for me here.

Democrats don't assert a moral authority when implementing policy? Come on. The basic tenant of social democracy is forced "fairness". Fairness is a moral construct.

I do acknowledge that a liberal ideology can include making decisions for masses based on a perception of intellectual authority.

You've added to my definition there, making it even better.

I personally prefer elected officials to use smarts for a compass over morals- especially when those morals are really just one brand of organized religion.

I would propose that liberals mix moral and intellectual authority evenly in their policy. The only difference in their moral authority is that it doesn't necessarily come from strict religious beliefs. (Really, isn't religion just another form of self preservation? Just because liberals don't believe in God doesn't mean they aren't subject to the same natural impulses.)

The problem as I see it is that liberal ideology in our society lacks something that tempers reach. On the republican side, we have the Constitution, on the liberal side, we have very little. Intellectual or moral authorty can be a very dangerous thing when it's not tempered by a strong conviction in individual freedom.

Democrats don't assert a moral authority when implementing policy? Come on. The basic tenant of social democracy is forced "fairness". Fairness is a moral construct.



You've added to my definition there, making it even better.



I would propose that liberals mix moral and intellectual authority evenly in their policy. The only difference in their moral authority is that it doesn't necessarily come from strict religious beliefs. (Really, isn't religion just another form of self preservation? Just because liberals don't believe in God doesn't mean they aren't subject to the same natural impulses.)
The problem as I see it is that liberal ideology in our society lacks something that tempers its reach. On the republican side, we have the Constitution, on the liberal side, we have very little. Intellectual or moral authorty can be a very dangerous thing when it's not tempered by a strong belief in individual freedom.

Shopper, who says liberals don't believe in God?

How do you explain Buckley...intellectual he sure was; from an elite society, certainly; but liberal, not so much.

Shopper, who says liberals don't believe in God?

How do you explain Buckley...intellectual he sure was; from an elite society, certainly; but liberal, not so much.

I should have added "some" or "most", I was just generalizing for the sake of the discussion.

People like Buckley are good examples of the difference I'm refering to. It all comes down to the core principal of individual freedom.

This thread, IMO, has unraveled from its original title into one much more interesting and useful than the original. The fact still remains, whether you like it or not, that Fox news is definitely a news organization. You may not agree with the way they present the news but it is usually current and factual. It is also often a story you will see nowhere else, at least until two days or so hence, when such an uproar has been created by Fox that the other networks can no longer really ignore it.
30Ashopper, your explaination of the differences between right and left are admirable. They are also very much on point but don't expect those on the left to find them acceptable. After all, they are the intelligent ones and should make decisions and guide the likes of you and me, who are not capable of doing such ourselves.

This thread, IMO, has unraveled from its original title into one much more interesting and useful than the original. The fact still remains, whether you like it or not, that Fox news is definitely a news organization. You may not agree with the way they present the news but it is usually current and factual. It is also often a story you will see nowhere else, at least until two days or so hence, when such an uproar has been created by Fox that the other networks can no longer really ignore it.

Sorry, I don't think any legitamate news organizations "edits out" applause during the President's speech (interesting, see link below...). That is just being dishonest. Their motto should be "If the News doesn't fit with our agenda, change it." There are many other examples, and if you wish I will publish them all.


Fox News Video Omits Applause During Obama's West Point Speech (VIDEO)

30Ashopper, your explaination of the differences between right and left are admirable. They are also very much on point but don't expect those on the left to find them acceptable. After all, they are the intelligent ones and should make decisions and guide the likes of you and me, who are not capable of doing such ourselves.

So you agree that all liberals do not believe in God?

That's the kind of generalization that polarizes us.

So you agree that all liberals do not believe in God?

That's the kind of generalization that polarizes us.

If you will note, in a later post he said "some" or "most". He also stated it was a generalization for the discussion. I sometimes wonder how much of a post some read before they respond. I certainly agree with his posts during the discussion and I think I made that perfectly clear.

So you agree that all liberals do not believe in God?

That's the kind of generalization that polarizes us.

I didn't mean to say all liberals do not believe in God. My point was that liberals enforce moral authority just like conservatives do. They just tend to justify it based on something other than religious belief, or a mixture of religious belief and something else.

(The definition of what's 'fair' according to liberals would be an interesting discussion on its own.)

(The definition of what's 'fair' according to liberals would be an interesting discussion on its own.)

Throw "balanced" in as well. (not "accurate, Tootsie)

I didn't mean to say all liberals do not believe in God. My point was that liberals enforce moral authority just like conservatives do. They just tend to justify it based on something other than religious belief, or a mixture of religious belief and something else.

(The definition of what's 'fair' according to liberals would be an interesting discussion on its own.)

I get your point.

I don't think conservatives always base what they want to enforce on others on religious beliefs, though. Sometimes it feels rather patriarchal, like they would prefer that everyone just accept what is given them and everything will work out (pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!). The liberals on the other hand, can't seem to accept that everything has a cost, and everything has a point at which the cost is not worth the benefit.

I guess my real feeling here is that liberal and conservative are useless labels anymore. Too general - you can't divide voters (even on a specific issue) into two camps.

Libertarians like to portray themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative sometimes - not that I am sure that even fits them anymore.

I read a fascinating article the other day about how the last five Republican presidents could not pass the current "conservative" litmus tests. Too confining.

I find the recent development of this thread interesting because of all of the really interesting (unfair and unbalanced) stereotyping of whole groups of American people. liberals don't believe in God? I've never heard that one. I know very many who do not put much stock in religion, and I've heard many define God in ways outside of any religious picture of God, but I've never heard one say they didn't believe in God. do you have to believe in God to be in a particular political party? some big ass assumptions being made around here today. sounds a lot like Fox, or Rush... to me.

God is really personal. not political.

Elitists tend to think they have the moral authority to make choices for others - hence, I don't feel they make good representitives and should not be elected to political office.

Intellectuals span the gamut of political ideology, and tend to think things out before they act. That can be a bad thing or a good thing, but I'd like to think intellectuals can be reasoned with more so than non-intellectuals or elitists.

okay then how do you make that evaluation and determine someone is elitist? sounds like a real problem on the part of the judger not the judgee.

I watch Fox News daily.
Despite its #1 ranking in the ratings-

Much of Fox's programming is bad for people looking to have a fair and balanced view of the state of our union.

I regularly ponder why so many people are fans. I have drawn the following conclusions:

• They provide a whole lot of material to anyone who doesn't agree with the results of the last election and who is prone to getting angry about it
• They have a lot of unknown but extremely beautiful women reading the news and injecting fed up commentary throughout
• They utilize carefully and consistently placed icons/symbols typically associated with American patriotism and "Americana" and use rhetoric to match
• They make sweeping generalizations
• They demonize democrats
• Their production value, aestheticly speaking, is superior to anyone else
• They regularly quote people out of context
• They no longer shock me but continue to scare me (because they are so far out there sometimes)
• They scare their viewers (to keep them fed up, to keep them watching and as a call to action)

i always enjoy reading your evaluations of FOX news...you must really put in some viewing time to come up with the above opinions... I am glad that FOX scares you because America needs scaring, I'm glad that they demonize Democrats, because some of our elected Democrats need demonizing as well as many Republicans,...now to take on a few of your other evaluations...quoting out of context...HUMMMMM...maybe the report context that they quote would as far as you are concerned be better unspoken, not mentioned, swept under the bed, a rag stuffed in the mouth? Symbols of America, patriots, pride in America...never knew pushing that could be a bad thing...even Obama who first said he wouldn't wear a flag pin, who was photographed not saluting the flag...now does all that...he has numerous flags behind him at his speeches...I think being proud of one's country is a good thing....you judge a news show on being too much of that?

The one statement you made that really got me (guess cause I am a woman, an old one, but still a woman)...is the pretty women who read the news one, perhaps you should look at their professional backgrounds...they just aren't a pretty face reading news, they are REPORTING News, most have degrees that many other news anchors are lacking.

It will be interesting to watch to see how much longer Obama can avoid press conferences, how long he can avoid standing up and facing the oil spill government delays, also how long he can keep underwraps deals made to some to not run for certain offices....for his sake hope that he is innocent on that one.

You have to admit if you are really honest with yourself and others...he really hasn't been all that we hoped he would be, what he promised he would be...he has misled, deceived and has failed to give us the Hope that we were looking for...will give a big fat checkmark for change...he sure has excelled in that!!!!!!!!

I didn't mean to say all liberals do not believe in God. My point was that liberals enforce moral authority just like conservatives do. They just tend to justify it based on something other than religious belief, or a mixture of religious belief and something else.

(The definition of what's 'fair' according to liberals would be an interesting discussion on its own.)

so, you must subscribe to a religion worshipping God in a way that is acceptable, before you can have morals, or morally be able to lead people in a moral way? this is all very confusing.

religion, and God, are both personal things.I'm not sure what this has to do with anything or anyone especially pertaining to this thread.

so, you must subscribe to a religion worshipping God in a way that is acceptable, before you can have morals, or morally be able to lead people in a moral way? this is all very confusing.

religion, and God, are both personal things.I'm not sure what this has to do with anything or anyone especially pertaining to this thread.

Nope. Somehow this got way off topic when I made the mistake of saying liberals don't believe in God. Part of the original discussion Geo and I were having revolved around whether or not liberals apply moral authority when implementing policy.

This is irrelevant in regard to the original discussion - regardless of the authority asserted (moral, religious, intellectual, alien intelligence) what tempers the elitist tendency in both parties? (Elitist being anyone who feels they have the right to treat other human beings as children and make decisions for them vs. letting them make their own decisions/mistakes.)

Conservatives are grounded by a conviction in individual freedom, liberals are grounded by... what exactly? My argument is that this flaw in liberal ideology represent a "slippery slope" that slowly undermines our individual rights over time.

Nobody can argue that this has not happened over the last 100 years.

i always enjoy reading your evaluations of FOX news...you must really put in some viewing time to come up with the above opinions...

I sense you are being sarcastic. Presuming you are, it would be helpful if you would add the .

There are many people on this forum who are critical of things they take no time to first understand. I'm not one of these people.

The fact of the matter is I am a news junkie and I watch Fox everyday along with numerous other networks with content representing differing points on the political continuum.

I am glad that FOX scares you because America needs scaring, I'm glad that they demonize Democrats, because some of our elected Democrats need demonizing as well as many Republicans,...

And I'm glad that fear works for you- I guess that's why you like Fox. I totally disagree that America needs to be scared. If you talk to well balanced, smart, happy, successful people (both dems and republicans) they will tell you that making fear based decisions is a bad idea. Ever heard any great Americans say that the only thing to fear is fear itself?

now to take on a few of your other evaluations...quoting out of context...HUMMMMM...maybe the report context that they quote would as far as you are concerned be better unspoken, not mentioned, swept under the bed, a rag stuffed in the mouth?

If you really need me to, I can provide numerous examples of Fox News quoting people out of context. Lots of other networks do this too and I don't appreciate it. But this thread was about Fox so I only called them on it here. Not really sure what you mean with the last sentence in your paragraph above.

Symbols of America, patriots, pride in America...never knew pushing that could be a bad thing...even Obama who first said he wouldn't wear a flag pin, who was photographed not saluting the flag...now does all that...he has numerous flags behind him at his speeches...I think being proud of one's country is a good thing....you judge a news show on being too much of that?

Yzarctoo, I too believe that being proud of one's country is a good thing. In the post you're responding to I said,

"They utilize carefully and consistently placed icons/symbols typically associated with American patriotism and "Americana" and use rhetoric to match"...

With that statement I did not judge one way or the other as you say I did. I only shared a correct observation. BUT, I am guilty as charged because I do believe it is a bad thing for Fox to drape itself in the American flag while it airs fear based, polarizing, inflammatory, disengenous content. You don't have to have a PhD in psychology or a marketing degree to get it that they are effectively selling to viewers the idea that their message is an American one and that "the other side" is rather unAmerican. I would feel the same way if an over the top left leaning news outlet sold its wares under the guise of patriotism. Watching Hannity with all the Americana graphics and symbolism is, to me, like seeing an ad for a cigarette brand with a cowboy wearing American flag chaps while he takes a drag trying to seduce you into buying into something that can give you cancer.

The one statement you made that really got me (guess cause I am a woman, an old one, but still a woman)...is the pretty women who read the news one, perhaps you should look at their professional backgrounds...they just aren't a pretty face reading news, they are REPORTING News, most have degrees that many other news anchors are lacking.

I get your point about my usage of the word "reading". I would like to revise my original observation substituting the word "reading" with the word "reporting", per your suggestion. See below-

"They have a lot of unknown but extremely beautiful women reporting the news and injecting fed up commentary throughout"...

Better?

It will be interesting to watch to see how much longer Obama can avoid press conferences, how long he can avoid standing up and facing the oil spill government delays, also how long he can keep underwraps deals made to some to not run for certain offices....for his sake hope that he is innocent on that one. You have to admit if you are really honest with yourself and others...he really hasn't been all that we hoped he would be, what he promised he would be...he has misled, deceived and has failed to give us the Hope that we were looking for...will give a big fat checkmark for change...he sure has excelled in that!!!!!!!!

Obama has disappointed me in many ways. But I believe this is off topic. There is a thread about the oil spill being Obama's Katrina and many others where we can and should discuss our POTUS and his shortcomings.

G

Nope. Somehow this got way off topic when I made the mistake of saying liberals don't believe in God. Part of the original discussion Geo and I were having revolved around whether or not liberals apply moral authority when implementing policy.

I am really into the discussion we were having about elitism and the idea of moral vs. intellectual authority.

I believe you've made peace on the misstatement that liberals don't believe in god. So let's keep the best part of that conversation going.

After much thought, I agree with you that liberals do try to make decisions on behalf of others based on moral authority. But generally, I see it different than when it is done by the far right.

I believe that when lefties do this it is based moreso on humanitarianism and giving people something (e.g. wanting to provide healthcare to people who can't get it based on lack of financial resources or bogus insurance practices like preexisting conditions, providing welfare to those in need, amnesty for hard working illegals, etc.).

I believe when righties do this it is largely influenced by religious beliefs and I hate to say it but I believe it often takes things away from others (e.g. outlawing gay marriage, the obsession with overturning women's right to choose, etc.).

I acknowledge that these are broad generalizations but I need to start my end of this discussion someplace.

Your turn. Let me know what you think about these ideas.

G

i always enjoy reading your evaluations of FOX news...you must really put in some viewing time to come up with the above opinions... I am glad that FOX scares you because America needs scaring, I'm glad that they demonize Democrats, because some of our elected Democrats need demonizing as well as many Republicans,...now to take on a few of your other evaluations...quoting out of context...HUMMMMM...maybe the report context that they quote would as far as you are concerned be better unspoken, not mentioned, swept under the bed, a rag stuffed in the mouth? Symbols of America, patriots, pride in America...never knew pushing that could be a bad thing...even Obama who first said he wouldn't wear a flag pin, who was photographed not saluting the flag...now does all that...he has numerous flags behind him at his speeches...I think being proud of one's country is a good thing....you judge a news show on being too much of that?

The one statement you made that really got me (guess cause I am a woman, an old one, but still a woman)...is the pretty women who read the news one, perhaps you should look at their professional backgrounds...they just aren't a pretty face reading news, they are REPORTING News, most have degrees that many other news anchors are lacking.

It will be interesting to watch to see how much longer Obama can avoid press conferences, how long he can avoid standing up and facing the oil spill government delays, also how long he can keep underwraps deals made to some to not run for certain offices....for his sake hope that he is innocent on that one.

You have to admit if you are really honest with yourself and others...he really hasn't been all that we hoped he would be, what he promised he would be...he has misled, deceived and has failed to give us the Hope that we were looking for...will give a big fat checkmark for change...he sure has excelled in that!!!!!!!!

sounds just like a bible toting white southern redneck

Conservatives are grounded by a conviction in individual freedom, liberals are grounded by... what exactly? My argument is that this flaw in liberal ideology represent a "slippery slope" that slowly undermines our individual rights over time.

Nobody can argue that this has not happened over the last 100 years.

Not so fast. I think you've given the conservative ideology a great position and the liberal ideology a lousy one.

You've said that conservatives are grounded in individual freedoms and have the constitution to fall back on but liberals have "???"...

I was going to clown with you and say that conservatives have the constitution and liberals have the constitutional amendment process. But I jest. If only it were that simple.

I believe that neither ideology intrinsically/better defends personal freedoms or is more grounded in the constitution than the other. Are there singular issues where one side does better than the other? Sure.

For instance, strong arguments can be made that liberals better defend individual freedoms of speech and privacy. And strong arguments can be made that conservatives better defend the rights of business owners (insert your better example here).

FoxNews.com edits out applause during Obama?s West Point speech.


Think Progress ? FoxNews.com edits out applause during Obama?s West Point speech.

I think the part that bothers me about that is this:

Media Matters? Jamison Foser asks, ?Now, maybe Fox didn?t intentionally remove the audience applause. Maybe Fox?s video used a direct feed from Obama?s microphone, and it simply didn?t pick up audience noise. But if Fox didn?t intentionally try to make Obama look silly, why did it choose a 2-minute clip ? out of a 32-minute speech ? that portrayed Obama looking silently around the room, seemingly for no reason??

1.) You're from an organization called Media Matters' yet you don't know how sound works? The audio is clearly picking up his echo. If the Mics are picking up the echo then they would also pick up the applause.

2.) The point, IMO, of editing out the applause was to make his point seem like it completely missed the mark with a room full of top military graduates.

3.) The oops defense really doesn't hold water. If that sound person really did accidentally turn off the audio for just that amount of time he should have bought a lottery ticket as the odds are astounding.

4.) News is to be reported good, bad, right, left, democrat, republican, libertarian, christian, jewish, islamic, black, white, straight, gay, but it's only supposed to be reported, not edited, mocked, slanted, taken out of context. Walter Cronkite would drop dead if he wasn't already.