FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Rick Sanchez.....maybe you lie too. Or don't check facts...





Alaskacameradude
Rick Sanchez, the anchor who denounced Fox for lying......well it appears he has
done the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpVbOKYDkos&feature=player_embedded

There he is at 1:14 making a claim that Rush Limbaugh said something about slavery
'building the south' and that it 'had it's merits'.

Apparently he got his fact from Wikipedia.....hmmm.

Now this is out:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/10/13/cnn-reads-limbaughs-denial-alleged-slavery-quote-doesnt-retract-use

Now I'm not saying Rush doesn't say some things that are incendiary, and all. But it seems that
that a guy who made a big deal of telling Fox News that they lied, might think about doing a
better job of making sure what he reported was true if he didn't want to expose his own biases.
deanhills
First of all, I really like the idea of newsbusters. I'm going to have a closer look at this blog from now on. When I was listening to Sanchez during his CNN interview with Mercury Morris I was totally unimpressed with Sanchez, but very impressed with Morris who he had interviewed. Now that is a guy I'm sure one would be able to learn plenty from. I liked the way how he distinguished between a "racist" and "racist remarks". Back to Sanchez, I thought it was both undignified and dumb for him to discredit Rush Limbaugh the way he did. I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, he in fact irritates me even more than Sanchez did, but quite often when we sling mud, some of the mud clings to ourselves, and I think this is true in this case. I don't know what Sanchez's objective had been with the mud-slinging but it looks as though it had worked to Limbaugh's advantage and Sanchez's disadvantage.

With regard to lying, I sometimes wonder what the definition of a lie really is when it gets to subjective interpretations of "racism". That is why I liked Morris's differentiating between "racist" and "racist remarks". I find Morris much more articulate and soberminded than Sanchez. Out of the whole of that interview, Morris had been the "gem" for me. I wish we could have heard more from him though as I get a sense of that he had plenty soberminded thoughts to contribute but never got a chance to do that. Sanchez continuously interrupted him. I was equally impressed that Morris never got ruffled as a consequence. This guy definitely has style.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
First of all, I really like the idea of newsbusters. I'm going to have a closer look at this blog from now on. When I was listening to Sanchez during his CNN interview with Mercury Morris I was totally unimpressed with Sanchez, but very impressed with Morris who he had interviewed. Now that is a guy I'm sure one would be able to learn plenty from. I liked the way how he distinguished between a "racist" and "racist remarks". Back to Sanchez, I thought it was both undignified and dumb for him to discredit Rush Limbaugh the way he did. I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, he in fact irritates me even more than Sanchez did, but quite often when we sling mud, some of the mud clings to ourselves, and I think this is true in this case. I don't know what Sanchez's objective had been with the mud-slinging but it looks as though it had worked to Limbaugh's advantage and Sanchez's disadvantage.

With regard to lying, I sometimes wonder what the definition of a lie really is when it gets to subjective interpretations of "racism". That is why I liked Morris's differentiating between "racist" and "racist remarks". I find Morris much more articulate and soberminded than Sanchez. Out of the whole of that interview, Morris had been the "gem" for me. I wish we could have heard more from him though as I get a sense of that he had plenty soberminded thoughts to contribute but never got a chance to do that. Sanchez continuously interrupted him. I was equally impressed that Morris never got ruffled as a consequence. This guy definitely has style.


Here was something I read earlier today on the subject.

Quote:

The Rush Limbaugh media lynch mob

Which public figure can be quoted as having said something bigoted and disgusting and it doesn’t matter whether he did or not because he might have? Who can Big Media brand a racist without checking the facts? Who has to prove he did not say something racist, rather than the accuser proving he did?

A pat on the back for anyone who guessed the answer: Rush Limbaugh (OK, the blog headline was a clue). From CNN to MSNBC to ABC, it’s been put about that Limbaugh said this:

Quote:
I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.


It’s also been spread around that he said this, about the death of the man who assassinated Martin Luther King:

Quote:
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.


Here’s CNN’s Rick Sanchez baldly stating at the 1.14 point that Limbaugh made the slavery comment:

Video Here

Trouble is, he didn’t say either of these outrageous things. And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here. They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. Both quotes ended up in this book - a hit job that doesn’t cite any sources. They’re also included in this internet list posted a year ago and endlessly ripped off ever since.

The irony is, of course, that the people reporting this as fact are the same types who are always denouncing bloggers and the internet as forces of evil intent on destroying proper journalism – proper journalism being the kind that involves checking facts. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, however, it seems to be enough that the intention (i.e. to show the talk radio host is a racist) is considered pure.

Even those who have been primary movers in spreading these malicious falsehoods – which would lead to payouts of hundreds of thousands in British libel courts if lawsuits were ever filed there – are brazenly unapologetic.

Thus, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell pens this column containing the slavery quote and then follows up with another column with a kind-of-sort-of-well-not-really-at-all mea culpa in which he states that the quote seemed “so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn’t verify it beyond the book”.

OK, so it sounded right and it was on the internet or in a book or something so it was fine to just go ahead and print it as stone-cold fact without any attribution? I wonder which journalism school teaches that?

And Burwell caps it off by implying – nudge, nudge, wink, wink – that Limbaugh’s really lying: “Fine, let’s play along for the time being and take him at his word that he was inaccurately quoted in the Huberman book.” I’m no fan of British libel laws but, again, if that had been printed in the UK it would have led to a hefty payout for aggravated damages.

Limbaugh is, understandably, on the war path because the smear of racism is one is very, very difficult to wipe clean:

Quote:
When race is brought into it, that you can’t let stand. I mean, if you, if people are trying to destroy your reputation and your credibility, your life, and your career by attacking you as a racist, then you have to stand up and, like that.

Now we are in the process behind the scenes working to get apologies and retractions, with the force of legal action, against every journalist who has published these entirely fabricated quotes about me, slavery, and James Earl Ray.

I never said them. We have tracked them. We know where they came from. We don’t know the identity, but we know where they came from – a single blogger who posted the stuff on my Wikipedia page and Wikiquotes, unsourced.

Wikipedia says, ‘Well, this is in dispute.’ It’s not in dispute. They were never uttered. I never said them. And I’ve even told reporters I never said them.


As Mark Steyn points out, in this instance it’s for Limbaugh to prove the negative – an impossible task. And Dan Calebrese asks why if Limbaugh really is a racist then it takes bogus quotes to “prove” that he is?

What’s the term for those who are setting about “racist” Rush Limbaugh right now? Ironically, it seems to be “lynch mob”. And they’ve succeeded – word is that Limbaugh’s been dropped from the consortium seeking to buy the St Louis Rams.

Source = http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100013647/the-rush-limbaugh-media-lynch-mob/
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
First of all, I really like the idea of newsbusters. I'm going to have a closer look at this blog from now on. When I was listening to Sanchez during his CNN interview with Mercury Morris I was totally unimpressed with Sanchez, but very impressed with Morris who he had interviewed. Now that is a guy I'm sure one would be able to learn plenty from. I liked the way how he distinguished between a "racist" and "racist remarks". Back to Sanchez, I thought it was both undignified and dumb for him to discredit Rush Limbaugh the way he did. I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, he in fact irritates me even more than Sanchez did, but quite often when we sling mud, some of the mud clings to ourselves, and I think this is true in this case. I don't know what Sanchez's objective had been with the mud-slinging but it looks as though it had worked to Limbaugh's advantage and Sanchez's disadvantage.

With regard to lying, I sometimes wonder what the definition of a lie really is when it gets to subjective interpretations of "racism". That is why I liked Morris's differentiating between "racist" and "racist remarks". I find Morris much more articulate and soberminded than Sanchez. Out of the whole of that interview, Morris had been the "gem" for me. I wish we could have heard more from him though as I get a sense of that he had plenty soberminded thoughts to contribute but never got a chance to do that. Sanchez continuously interrupted him. I was equally impressed that Morris never got ruffled as a consequence. This guy definitely has style.


I agree with what you said, Morris was a good interview and I'd like to hear more from him too.
My only point was that Sanchez had chosen a quote that has been falsely attributed to Rush
and used it as FACT.....WITHOUT checking to see if it was actual fact. The mainstream media
ran with this story WITHOUT checking it, and now a bunch of newspapers are pulling the quote,
as they continue to try to check it's accuracy. (USA Today, St Louis Dispatch, Detroit Free Press
among others)

The most disturbing thing to me is this, which a columnist (Bryan Burwell) HIMSELF says

'That particular quote was reported in the 2006 book by Jack Huberman, "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America." I repeated it in a column last week. The quote was so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn't verify it beyond the book.'

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/9AF899FB9806F64E8625764F0014626D?OpenDocument


More here:

http://newsbusters.org/people/radio/rush-limbaugh
Ophois
That's why I try not to use Wikipedia as a source when I cite stuff. It's Ok on some things, but it's too easy for Wiki to be mutated by it's users.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
My only point was that Sanchez had chosen a quote that has been falsely attributed to Rush
and used it as FACT.....WITHOUT checking to see if it was actual fact. The mainstream media
ran with this story WITHOUT checking it, and now a bunch of newspapers are pulling the quote,
as they continue to try to check it's accuracy. (USA Today, St Louis Dispatch, Detroit Free Press
among others)

The most disturbing thing to me is this, which a columnist (Bryan Burwell) HIMSELF says

'That particular quote was reported in the 2006 book by Jack Huberman, "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America." I repeated it in a column last week. The quote was so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn't verify it beyond the book.'

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/9AF899FB9806F64E8625764F0014626D?OpenDocument

More here:
http://newsbusters.org/people/radio/rush-limbaugh

Right, it was almost the equivalent of the pot calling the kettle black (to pardon the pun). Thanks for all the additional links. Limbaugh claims he lost the bid to purchase the team, because of the "smear campaign". Do you think this has anything to do with it? I would have thought that one would like the owner of a team to be at least apolitical and an astute business man. I don't know much about his business acumen, but he seems to speak his mind more often than could be good for the team?
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
My only point was that Sanchez had chosen a quote that has been falsely attributed to Rush
and used it as FACT.....WITHOUT checking to see if it was actual fact. The mainstream media
ran with this story WITHOUT checking it, and now a bunch of newspapers are pulling the quote,
as they continue to try to check it's accuracy. (USA Today, St Louis Dispatch, Detroit Free Press
among others)

The most disturbing thing to me is this, which a columnist (Bryan Burwell) HIMSELF says

'That particular quote was reported in the 2006 book by Jack Huberman, "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America." I repeated it in a column last week. The quote was so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn't verify it beyond the book.'

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/9AF899FB9806F64E8625764F0014626D?OpenDocument

More here:
http://newsbusters.org/people/radio/rush-limbaugh

Right, it was almost the equivalent of the pot calling the kettle black (to pardon the pun). Thanks for all the additional links. Limbaugh claims he lost the bid to purchase the team, because of the "smear campaign". Do you think this has anything to do with it? I would have thought that one would like the owner of a team to be at least apolitical and an astute business man. I don't know much about his business acumen, but he seems to speak his mind more often than could be good for the team?


That's it exactly, pot, meet kettle.

As for Limbaugh losing the bid because of a smear campaign,.....I don't think there would have
been a smear campaign if he didn't speak out so loudly. A business person often times has
to 'bury' his political feelings for the good of the business. I mean, would you as an owner
of a restaurant kick out someone because they had different political beliefs? So it's not
hard to see WHY this happened,.....not sure if I agree with it or not, BUT, business brings all kinds
of hard choices about politics. For an example, I know a businessman from Alaska.......he became
a state legislator, and then mayor of one of our cities. He is a Republican. However, he was one
of the keynote speakers at the Democratic National Committee after they had nominated Obama...
because he was supporting Obama. The city he was mayor of is conservative. Two days ago,
I heard the bank is repossesing the building his business was in.....the ad agency I was talking to
told me that the people of the city had 'voted with their dollars' and would no longer give him business....as they did NOT like Obama. So his business is pretty much done.....
That's the kind of thing you have to be worried about when you are a business owner who gets involved in politics.....or a political figure who gets involved in business. Sure it can happen and does. But sometimes it doesn't work either.....because as a business owner you want to
'serve everyone' or 'sell to everyone' in general. As a political figure, you are likely going to
piss off half the population at any given time.
handfleisch
This whole thread is because Rick Sanchez supposedly made a mistake? That's it? He has admitted to the mistake, by your own source. So what? Limbaugh is one of the most rank examples of moral depravity on the airwaves, spewing lies and hate for years and years. That's a real issue. How about a thread on that?

Here's a short list of the race baiting and other things on race the creep has said. In skimming them, it seems clear that Limbaugh's intent is to stir up racial trouble and racial bad feelings in his listeners and especially racial prejudice among white people. I can see no other reason for such remarks, except maybe that he doesn't have a clear reason, and his words are just the kind of spontaneous eruptions that would come from a drug-addicted, viagra-popping, sex-tourist physical wreck, full of spiteful prejudice and perhaps self-hate.
Quote:
* We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black."
* "I do believe" Obama is an "angry black guy."
* "[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."
* "Obama's entire economic program is reparations."
* Obama is "more African in his roots than he is American" and is "behaving like an African colonial despot."
* Obama is "Halfrican-American."
* "Obama has disowned his white half ... he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side."
* Sotomayor "a reverse racist" appointed by Obama, "the greatest living example of a reverse racist."
* Obama "wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya" and "wants to be the black FDR."
* Latching onto LA Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro."

* "God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama"; Obama "has yet to prove he's a citizen."

* Limbaugh on Gates controversy: "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman."

* Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he'd known they were "actually young, black Muslim teenagers."

* Limbaugh suggests Democrats, media believe "you can't criticize the little black man-child."

* "The government's been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives."

* "The days of [minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry."

* "[M]inorities never do anything for which they have to apologize."

* Limbaugh: "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."
* Limbaugh says "NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips."

* Limbaugh declares basketball "the favorite sport of gangs."
* Limbaugh invented "racial component" to Hackett's decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race.
* Limbaugh on Survivor series: "African-American tribe" worst swimmers, Hispanics "will do things other people won't do."
* Limbaugh suggested Colin Powell only supported Obama because of race.
* Limbaugh: Gates is an "angry racist."
* Limbaugh called illegal immigrants an "invasive species."
* Limbaugh repeatedly calls Native Americans "Injuns."
* Limbaugh says Democrats' interest in Darfur is securing black "voting bloc."
* Limbaugh says that if "feminazis" had remembered to oppose "affirmative action for black guys ... they wouldn't face the situation they face today."


http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200910140029
liljp617
Limbaugh is a racist. Not KKK-esque racist, but it's plain nonsense to pretend the guy hasn't and doesn't show a racist side more often than he should (which is never).

Rick Sanchez needs to think more. Maybe he and Rush could take a class together on shutting their mouths and thinking occasionally.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
This whole thread is because Rick Sanchez supposedly made a mistake?
Alaska can probably give you a better explanation about the "whole thread", but from my vantage point, not only did Rick Sanchez act unbecoming as a news reporter (i.e. not only did he not check up on his facts, but he tried to discredit someone without a real factual basis - i.e. create bad stuff), but he was really bad at it too. He could have done what he did in a far more subtle way so that people would have come to their own conclusions. Instead he tried to hammer home the obvious to the equivalent of trying to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer. Not only that, he barely gave his star guest a chance to say anything, in fact, he tried to lead Mercury Morris in the discussion, which Morris did not fall for as Morris is much too subtle and savvy for that. Maybe Sanchez could have learned something from Morris but I wonder whether he would have, as to me it would appear that he rather likes to listen to his own voice, that has been carefully pre-staged, than really listening or being sincerely interested in what Morris had to say.
Alaskacameradude
handfleisch wrote:
This whole thread is because Rick Sanchez supposedly made a mistake? That's it? He has admitted to the mistake, by your own source. So what? Limbaugh is one of the most rank examples of moral depravity on the airwaves, spewing lies and hate for years and years. That's a real issue. How about a thread on that?

Here's a short list of the race baiting and other things on race the creep has said. In skimming them, it seems clear that Limbaugh's intent is to stir up racial trouble and racial bad feelings in his listeners and especially racial prejudice among white people. I can see no other reason for such remarks, except maybe that he doesn't have a clear reason, and his words are just the kind of spontaneous eruptions that would come from a drug-addicted, viagra-popping, sex-tourist physical wreck, full of spiteful prejudice and perhaps self-hate.
Quote:
* We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black."
* "I do believe" Obama is an "angry black guy."
* "[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."
* "Obama's entire economic program is reparations."
* Obama is "more African in his roots than he is American" and is "behaving like an African colonial despot."
* Obama is "Halfrican-American."
* "Obama has disowned his white half ... he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side."
* Sotomayor "a reverse racist" appointed by Obama, "the greatest living example of a reverse racist."
* Obama "wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya" and "wants to be the black FDR."
* Latching onto LA Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro."

* "God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama"; Obama "has yet to prove he's a citizen."

* Limbaugh on Gates controversy: "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman."

* Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he'd known they were "actually young, black Muslim teenagers."

* Limbaugh suggests Democrats, media believe "you can't criticize the little black man-child."

* "The government's been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives."

* "The days of [minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry."

* "[M]inorities never do anything for which they have to apologize."

* Limbaugh: "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."
* Limbaugh says "NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips."

* Limbaugh declares basketball "the favorite sport of gangs."
* Limbaugh invented "racial component" to Hackett's decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race.
* Limbaugh on Survivor series: "African-American tribe" worst swimmers, Hispanics "will do things other people won't do."
* Limbaugh suggested Colin Powell only supported Obama because of race.
* Limbaugh: Gates is an "angry racist."
* Limbaugh called illegal immigrants an "invasive species."
* Limbaugh repeatedly calls Native Americans "Injuns."
* Limbaugh says Democrats' interest in Darfur is securing black "voting bloc."
* Limbaugh says that if "feminazis" had remembered to oppose "affirmative action for black guys ... they wouldn't face the situation they face today."


http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200910140029


So change the subject to what Rush does or doesn't do? This is about Sanchez and the fact that
he made a big deal about Fox News lying....and then he went right ahead and did it himself. If
you want to try and start a thread about Limbaugh, by all means, go right ahead, but this one
is about Sanchez. And he didn't 'really' admit to making a mistake. Here's what he said

'On Tuesday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Rick Sanchez read Rush Limbaugh’s denial that he ever made a quote attributed to him in which he praised antebellum slavery, but added that the denial “that does not take away...that there are other quotes...which many people in...minority communities do find offensive” [audio available here]. Sanchez broadcast the quote yesterday without any source, and made no retraction of it.;

Made NO retraction.....does NOT sound like he admitted to making a mistake, or lying.
My purpose was NOT to praise Rush or even to say that he did not do things which could
get people to try to keep him from buying an NFL team. This was about Sanchez who is
coming across as said above....the pot calling the kettle black.
Alaskacameradude
Update....

Sanchez has apologized....well sort of....via twitter

http://twitter.com/ricksanchezcnn/status/4901464014

'I've know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he's right tho. we didn't confirm quote. our bad.'

Ya your bad for sure.......People who live in glass houses......


Tim Graham of newsbusters has this to say

'Rich Noyes noted earlier that CNN's Rick Sanchez stated via Twitter what he couldn't say on the air because of the overdone "Balloon Boy" fracas. He was sorry he aired fabricated Rush Limbaugh quotes:

i've know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he's right tho. we didn't confirm quote. our bad.

Our bad? How about "I was inexcusably reckless in airing fabricated quotes?" But this is at least the third time in the last year that Sanchez has required a retraction when attacking a conservative or Republican.

Two months ago, Matthew Balan of NewsBusters forced Sanchez to retract his claim that Sen. John McCain said Republicans needed to recruit "competent" Hispanics, which inflamed CNN analyst Roland Martin. McCain never used that word.

It might go without saying, but "competent" Hispanic anchors don't require regular retractions.'
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
This whole thread is because Rick Sanchez supposedly made a mistake? That's it? He has admitted to the mistake, by your own source. So what? Limbaugh is one of the most rank examples of moral depravity on the airwaves, spewing lies and hate for years and years. That's a real issue. How about a thread on that?

Here's a short list of the race baiting and other things on race the creep has said. In skimming them, it seems clear that Limbaugh's intent is to stir up racial trouble and racial bad feelings in his listeners and especially racial prejudice among white people. I can see no other reason for such remarks, except maybe that he doesn't have a clear reason, and his words are just the kind of spontaneous eruptions that would come from a drug-addicted, viagra-popping, sex-tourist physical wreck, full of spiteful prejudice and perhaps self-hate.
Quote:
* We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black."
* "I do believe" Obama is an "angry black guy."
* "[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."
* "Obama's entire economic program is reparations."
* Obama is "more African in his roots than he is American" and is "behaving like an African colonial despot."
* Obama is "Halfrican-American."
* "Obama has disowned his white half ... he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side."
* Sotomayor "a reverse racist" appointed by Obama, "the greatest living example of a reverse racist."
* Obama "wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya" and "wants to be the black FDR."
* Latching onto LA Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro."

* "God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama"; Obama "has yet to prove he's a citizen."

* Limbaugh on Gates controversy: "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman."

* Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he'd known they were "actually young, black Muslim teenagers."

* Limbaugh suggests Democrats, media believe "you can't criticize the little black man-child."

* "The government's been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives."

* "The days of [minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry."

* "[M]inorities never do anything for which they have to apologize."

* Limbaugh: "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."
* Limbaugh says "NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips."

* Limbaugh declares basketball "the favorite sport of gangs."
* Limbaugh invented "racial component" to Hackett's decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race.
* Limbaugh on Survivor series: "African-American tribe" worst swimmers, Hispanics "will do things other people won't do."
* Limbaugh suggested Colin Powell only supported Obama because of race.
* Limbaugh: Gates is an "angry racist."
* Limbaugh called illegal immigrants an "invasive species."
* Limbaugh repeatedly calls Native Americans "Injuns."
* Limbaugh says Democrats' interest in Darfur is securing black "voting bloc."
* Limbaugh says that if "feminazis" had remembered to oppose "affirmative action for black guys ... they wouldn't face the situation they face today."


http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200910140029


So change the subject to what Rush does or doesn't do? This is about Sanchez and the fact that
he made a big deal about Fox News lying....and then he went right ahead and did it himself. If
you want to try and start a thread about Limbaugh, by all means, go right ahead, but this one
is about Sanchez. And he didn't 'really' admit to making a mistake. Here's what he said

'On Tuesday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Rick Sanchez read Rush Limbaugh’s denial that he ever made a quote attributed to him in which he praised antebellum slavery, but added that the denial “that does not take away...that there are other quotes...which many people in...minority communities do find offensive” [audio available here]. Sanchez broadcast the quote yesterday without any source, and made no retraction of it.;

Made NO retraction.....does NOT sound like he admitted to making a mistake, or lying.
My purpose was NOT to praise Rush or even to say that he did not do things which could
get people to try to keep him from buying an NFL team. This was about Sanchez who is
coming across as said above....the pot calling the kettle black.


Point is, those pushing the whole "liberal media" crock take a microscope to any small mistake they can play "gotcha" with, while totally ignoring glaring, constant counter examples. If your aim is to show inaccuracy, mistakes or bias in the media, why don't you start a thread on those?

Today's example: On CNN, a regular commentator on health care reform turns out to be paid by the private health insurance lobbyists that is throwing around million$ to stop reform. Much more significant that Sanchez's little gaffe.

Quote:
CNN Admits That On-Air Commentator Has Ties To Insurance Industry, Promises Full Disclosure

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/cnn-admits-that-on-air-commentator-worked-for-insurance-industry-promises-full-disclosure/
Alaskacameradude
handfleisch wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
This whole thread is because Rick Sanchez supposedly made a mistake? That's it? He has admitted to the mistake, by your own source. So what? Limbaugh is one of the most rank examples of moral depravity on the airwaves, spewing lies and hate for years and years. That's a real issue. How about a thread on that?

Here's a short list of the race baiting and other things on race the creep has said. In skimming them, it seems clear that Limbaugh's intent is to stir up racial trouble and racial bad feelings in his listeners and especially racial prejudice among white people. I can see no other reason for such remarks, except maybe that he doesn't have a clear reason, and his words are just the kind of spontaneous eruptions that would come from a drug-addicted, viagra-popping, sex-tourist physical wreck, full of spiteful prejudice and perhaps self-hate.
Quote:
* We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black."
* "I do believe" Obama is an "angry black guy."
* "[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."
* "Obama's entire economic program is reparations."
* Obama is "more African in his roots than he is American" and is "behaving like an African colonial despot."
* Obama is "Halfrican-American."
* "Obama has disowned his white half ... he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side."
* Sotomayor "a reverse racist" appointed by Obama, "the greatest living example of a reverse racist."
* Obama "wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya" and "wants to be the black FDR."
* Latching onto LA Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro."

* "God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama"; Obama "has yet to prove he's a citizen."

* Limbaugh on Gates controversy: "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman."

* Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he'd known they were "actually young, black Muslim teenagers."

* Limbaugh suggests Democrats, media believe "you can't criticize the little black man-child."

* "The government's been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives."

* "The days of [minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry."

* "[M]inorities never do anything for which they have to apologize."

* Limbaugh: "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."
* Limbaugh says "NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips."

* Limbaugh declares basketball "the favorite sport of gangs."
* Limbaugh invented "racial component" to Hackett's decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race.
* Limbaugh on Survivor series: "African-American tribe" worst swimmers, Hispanics "will do things other people won't do."
* Limbaugh suggested Colin Powell only supported Obama because of race.
* Limbaugh: Gates is an "angry racist."
* Limbaugh called illegal immigrants an "invasive species."
* Limbaugh repeatedly calls Native Americans "Injuns."
* Limbaugh says Democrats' interest in Darfur is securing black "voting bloc."
* Limbaugh says that if "feminazis" had remembered to oppose "affirmative action for black guys ... they wouldn't face the situation they face today."


http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200910140029


So change the subject to what Rush does or doesn't do? This is about Sanchez and the fact that
he made a big deal about Fox News lying....and then he went right ahead and did it himself. If
you want to try and start a thread about Limbaugh, by all means, go right ahead, but this one
is about Sanchez. And he didn't 'really' admit to making a mistake. Here's what he said

'On Tuesday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Rick Sanchez read Rush Limbaugh’s denial that he ever made a quote attributed to him in which he praised antebellum slavery, but added that the denial “that does not take away...that there are other quotes...which many people in...minority communities do find offensive” [audio available here]. Sanchez broadcast the quote yesterday without any source, and made no retraction of it.;

Made NO retraction.....does NOT sound like he admitted to making a mistake, or lying.
My purpose was NOT to praise Rush or even to say that he did not do things which could
get people to try to keep him from buying an NFL team. This was about Sanchez who is
coming across as said above....the pot calling the kettle black.


Point is, those pushing the whole "liberal media" crock take a microscope to any small mistake they can play "gotcha" with, while totally ignoring glaring, constant counter examples. If your aim is to show inaccuracy, mistakes or bias in the media, why don't you start a thread on those?

Today's example: On CNN, a regular commentator on health care reform turns out to be paid by the private health insurance lobbyists that is throwing around million$ to stop reform. Much more significant that Sanchez's little gaffe.

Quote:
CNN Admits That On-Air Commentator Has Ties To Insurance Industry, Promises Full Disclosure

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/cnn-admits-that-on-air-commentator-worked-for-insurance-industry-promises-full-disclosure/


I don't know that I'd agree that it is 'much more significant' than Sanchez's 'little' gaffe. I WOULD
agree that it IS significant for sure. The whole health insurance thing is crazy, and although
I really don't support a government run system, I also do NOT think that insurance companies
should be getting rich off of people's health problems. I personally think that a 'non profit' type
company might be one idea I'd go for.

But, the point of this thread was NOT one isolated incident of media bias or inaccuracy. The reason
it was a big deal, was not so much that he made a big bo bo.....or even that he has had three
retractions about conservatives in the last year. To me, the big deal was, that this was the same
anchor who called out Fox News for being 'liars'. When you do that, you are painting a big target
on yourself and you better be sure you are accurate.....
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
But, the point of this thread was NOT one isolated incident of media bias or inaccuracy. The reason
it was a big deal, was not so much that he made a big bo bo.....or even that he has had three
retractions about conservatives in the last year. To me, the big deal was, that this was the same
anchor who called out Fox News for being 'liars'. When you do that, you are painting a big target
on yourself and you better be sure you are accurate.....

But Sanchez isn't exactly alone in claiming to be telling the truth and to be calling out others when they lie. FOXaganda's entire false premise is "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide". Limbaugh and all of them pretend to be telling the truth and pointing out lies. And by the way, you haven't shown Sanchez to be a liar as much as sometimes mistaken (can you back up the three retractions in the last year?) So my point still stands -- it's a bit odd to shine a searchlight on Sanchez for this little gaffe when the paradox of a commentator or news person telling a lie or making a mistake while claiming to reprove others happens drastically more often with precisely the people Sanchez calls out. If simply calling attention to this paradox is the intent, then fairness and honesty would require about ten threads a day on FOX, Limbaugh, etc.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
And by the way, you haven't shown Sanchez to be a liar as much as sometimes mistaken

Interesting how false reporting becomes a 'mistake' now, but if the other side does it, it would no doubt be an outright lie.

Both sides make such 'mistakes', and far more often than that, they show their bias more subtly by what they put emphasis on, and what they ignore.

(Before handfleisch starts an extended argument with me, I'll point out that this person is simply guilty of repeating a lie, not of fabricating things himself. I'd like to think that a self-respecting journalist would use transcripts of actual Limbaugh footage for quotes rather than relying on second-hand quotes though-- especially when digging for controversial quotes. Heck, even I look up the original source when quoting people, and I'm just an amateur.)
Alaskacameradude
handfleisch wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
But, the point of this thread was NOT one isolated incident of media bias or inaccuracy. The reason
it was a big deal, was not so much that he made a big bo bo.....or even that he has had three
retractions about conservatives in the last year. To me, the big deal was, that this was the same
anchor who called out Fox News for being 'liars'. When you do that, you are painting a big target
on yourself and you better be sure you are accurate.....

But Sanchez isn't exactly alone in claiming to be telling the truth and to be calling out others when they lie. FOXaganda's entire false premise is "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide". Limbaugh and all of them pretend to be telling the truth and pointing out lies. And by the way, you haven't shown Sanchez to be a liar as much as sometimes mistaken (can you back up the three retractions in the last year?) So my point still stands -- it's a bit odd to shine a searchlight on Sanchez for this little gaffe when the paradox of a commentator or news person telling a lie or making a mistake while claiming to reprove others happens drastically more often with precisely the people Sanchez calls out. If simply calling attention to this paradox is the intent, then fairness and honesty would require about ten threads a day on FOX, Limbaugh, etc.



Well in the same vein, it's also a 'bit odd' for you to talk about Fox lying, yet defend Sanchez when
he does the same thing. And do YOU have any proof that this 'happens more often' with
the people Sanchez calls out, or is this just another of your claims that we are supposed to believe?
As for me backing up my claims of three retractions in the last year:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/10/15/cnn-anchor-rick-sanchez-assembling-pile-retractions

And lastly, your examples of the insurance industry being involved, while that cuts both
ways as well......see here:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/10/16/msnbc-promo-narrator-also-does-work-pro-obamacare-group
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
But, the point of this thread was NOT one isolated incident of media bias or inaccuracy. The reason
it was a big deal, was not so much that he made a big bo bo.....or even that he has had three
retractions about conservatives in the last year. To me, the big deal was, that this was the same
anchor who called out Fox News for being 'liars'. When you do that, you are painting a big target
on yourself and you better be sure you are accurate.....

But Sanchez isn't exactly alone in claiming to be telling the truth and to be calling out others when they lie. FOXaganda's entire false premise is "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide". Limbaugh and all of them pretend to be telling the truth and pointing out lies. And by the way, you haven't shown Sanchez to be a liar as much as sometimes mistaken (can you back up the three retractions in the last year?) So my point still stands -- it's a bit odd to shine a searchlight on Sanchez for this little gaffe when the paradox of a commentator or news person telling a lie or making a mistake while claiming to reprove others happens drastically more often with precisely the people Sanchez calls out. If simply calling attention to this paradox is the intent, then fairness and honesty would require about ten threads a day on FOX, Limbaugh, etc.

As for me backing up my claims of three retractions in the last year:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/10/15/cnn-anchor-rick-sanchez-assembling-pile-retractions

And lastly, your examples of the insurance industry being involved, while that cuts both
ways as well......see here:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/10/16/msnbc-promo-narrator-also-does-work-pro-obamacare-group


Actually all these links confirm my point, that the right wing goes into hissyfits for the tiniest things they can dig up, while ignoring the same things when they do it to an overwhelmingly larger degree. The Newsbusters big expose on Sanchez were things like an arguable paraphrasing. That's it, that's his big "retraction"? It's so small as to be funny. Same goes for the example cited of a narrator on a short promo ad for MSNBC having once done voiceover work for a health care organization. That is pretty silly. A professional narrator once did voiceovers for a pro-reform healthcare group, then did a voiceover for an MSNBC ad, and that's supposed to be a scandal? Narrators don't even write content. And it doesn't remotely compare to having an expert on night after night talking about and against health care reform while he is directly being paid by an anti-health reform lobby, without disclosing that inconvenient fact of paid propaganda.

As for this
Quote:

Well in the same vein, it's also a 'bit odd' for you to talk about Fox lying, yet defend Sanchez when
he does the same thing. And do YOU have any proof that this 'happens more often' with
the people Sanchez calls out, or is this just another of your claims that we are supposed to believe?

Really? I would think any semi-informed person would know of FOX's tsunami-like problem with twisted facts and bias. Glenn Beck alone probably has three glaring lies per week if not per hour (compared to the three trivial things in a year laid against Sanchez), same goes for Limbaugh, and if we started counting all of FOXagitprop programming, my god the number would make these trifles against Sanchez disappear altogether in comparison. Don't get me wrong, I don't watch Sanchez and it is disappointing for anyone to be using wikipedia for any research that goes into news or a news opinion piece, but some perspective has to be maintained here.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Really? I would think any semi-informed person would know of FOX's tsunami-like problem with twisted facts and bias.

Yes, every semi-informed person is aware of that. And every fully-informed person knows that both sides do it. The right (fox) does it to a worse degree, while the left (other media outlets) do so in greater bulk, through their greater numbers.

Could we please stop trying to excuse all excesses of the liberal side of the media by saying "But FOX is worse!"?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Really? I would think any semi-informed person would know of FOX's tsunami-like problem with twisted facts and bias.

Yes, every semi-informed person is aware of that. And every fully-informed person knows that both sides do it. The right (fox) does it to a worse degree, while the left (other media outlets) do so in greater bulk, through their greater numbers.

Could we please stop trying to excuse all excesses of the liberal side of the media by saying "But FOX is worse!"?


Too bad I didn't say that. Scroll up, read, take a deep breath and try again.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


Actually all these links confirm my point, that the right wing goes into hissyfits for the tiniest things they can dig up, while ignoring the same things when they do it to an overwhelmingly larger degree.


Quote:
know of FOX's tsunami-like problem with twisted facts and bias. Glenn Beck alone probably has three glaring lies per week if not per hour (compared to the three trivial things in a year laid against Sanchez), same goes for Limbaugh, and if we started counting all of FOXagitprop programming, my god the number would make these trifles against Sanchez disappear altogether in comparison.


Sure sounds like 'but FOX news is worse!' to me...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:


Actually all these links confirm my point, that the right wing goes into hissyfits for the tiniest things they can dig up, while ignoring the same things when they do it to an overwhelmingly larger degree.


Quote:
know of FOX's tsunami-like problem with twisted facts and bias. Glenn Beck alone probably has three glaring lies per week if not per hour (compared to the three trivial things in a year laid against Sanchez), same goes for Limbaugh, and if we started counting all of FOXagitprop programming, my god the number would make these trifles against Sanchez disappear altogether in comparison.


Sure sounds like 'but FOX news is worse!' to me...
My take on it too. Especially the portion about tsunami-like problem with twisted facts and bias. For me one wrong does not make another wrong right. Even when that "one wrong" is preceived to be a greater wrong.

This style of debate seems to be prevalent all over the politics forum however. To show how good Obama is, let's keep on harping on how bad Bush has been. If Obama has slipped up a little, or is perceived to have slipped up a little, let's show something that Bush did that must have been much worse. I'm beginning to wonder whether if Bush had not been so bad, Obama could not possibly have got as many accolades as he did.
Ophois
So my take on it is this:
It looks more like he didn't check his facts like he should have, which is an amateur mistake for a major network anchor like him. It is embarrassing on his part, mainly for the fact that he recently called out FOX for what was, in my opinion, either blatant lying or complete stupidity. I know it seems biased to call what FOX did "lying", while saying Sanchez merely "didn't check his facts", but you have to admit, the two mistakes are quite different in nature.

In Sanchez's case, he used a really flaky source to quote a person, which many many people thought was an actual quote. It was like those urban legends that everyone believes because they get repeated so much. It was a horrible, naive, rookie mistake, but it was far from being an outright lie. When it was brought to his attention, he made a retraction, albeit a crappy one. He should have said it on air, if he had any balls. His credibility definitely takes a hit on this one, but not a major hit. And it shouldn't take a major hit either, most news stations fail to fact check from time to time, so it's rather 'par for course'.

On the other hand, FOX won't take a big hit to their credibility either, and they actually should. What they did, was knowingly tell a lie in order to falsely accuse CNN(and others) of failing to cover a major story, when in fact, they had to know CNN was there. After all, O'Reilly made fun of them for "running into a little trouble" during one of the rallies. So there's no way in hell you can convince me that FOX simply didn't know CNN was covering the Tea Parties, which is what they said CNN wasn't doing. That's what differentiates the two mistakes. FOX knew what they were selling was bullsh*t, and sold it anyway. Sanchez thought he had the 'real deal' on the Rush quote, and admitted to being wrong about it after the fact. Any word on FOX's retraction yet?

I'm not saying FOX's wrong negates Sanchez's wrong, but to downplay a blatant, accusatory lie from FOX, while making mountains out of Sanchez's mole hill of a fact checking faux pas is completely unfair. It would be a totally different story if Sanchez or his boss at CNN completely made up the quote from Rush, they way FOX completely made up the lie about CNN not covering the Tea Parties. Then I would put Sanchez in the same boat with the FOX crew. As it is, he is a crappy journalist who sometimes doesn't check his sources, while FOX knowingly sells lies.

In the end, Rick Sanchez and FOX both got called out for saying something which is not true. Sanchez retracted his statement, FOX did not. So the questions are - Will Sanchez do a better fact checking job from now on? Will FOX news make a retraction, and not make any more false accusations?
handfleisch
Ophois wrote:

I'm not saying FOX's wrong negates Sanchez's wrong, but to downplay a blatant, accusatory lie from FOX, while making mountains out of Sanchez's mole hill of a fact checking faux pas is completely unfair. It would be a totally different story if Sanchez or his boss at CNN completely made up the quote from Rush, they way FOX completely made up the lie about CNN not covering the Tea Parties. Then I would put Sanchez in the same boat with the FOX crew. As it is, he is a crappy journalist who sometimes doesn't check his sources, while FOX knowingly sells lies.

In the end, Rick Sanchez and FOX both got called out for saying something which is not true. Sanchez retracted his statement, FOX did not. So the questions are - Will Sanchez do a better fact checking job from now on? Will FOX news make a retraction, and not make any more false accusations?


Yes, this is what I have been trying to say, too. Mountain and molehill, or to use another metaphor and make it as simple as possible: If some organization or some person is looking into the haystack of mainstream broadcast media lies, distortions, misleading reports, and overt political partisan cheerleading, the overwhelming amount of the hay would be the right wing sources like FOXaganda, Limbaugh, right wing talk radio and that ilk. There would also be some needles in the haystack from the other side like this dumb Sanchez gaffe. Any organization or person that is supposedly looking at the haystack of media lies and bias, and only points out the needles, is either seriously distorting the reality of the situation or is suffering some form of blindness.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
In the end, Rick Sanchez and FOX both got called out for saying something which is not true. Sanchez retracted his statement, FOX did not. So the questions are - Will Sanchez do a better fact checking job from now on? Will FOX news make a retraction, and not make any more false accusations?
I think perhaps if you would have read all of Alaska's postings in great detail, you may have come to a different conclusion. This was not about Fox, but about Sanchez, and Sanchez having been outspokenly critical of Fox, and then doing exactly the same as what he had accused Fox off. His methods were as "underhanded" as he had accused Fox. Regardless of the character that he was smearing. I believe at the time when the thread was started that he might not have retracted his statement, but then I don't see how much difference it would have made anyway.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
I think perhaps if you would have read all of Alaska's postings in great detail, you may have come to a different conclusion.
Nope. I read it all and came to my conclusion.
Quote:
This was not about Fox, but about Sanchez, and Sanchez having been outspokenly critical of Fox, and then doing exactly the same as what he had accused Fox off
Wrong. Sanchez didn't do "exactly the same" thing as FOX. Sanchez failed to check facts, while FOX knowingly told a lie. HUGE difference there.
Quote:
His methods were as "underhanded" as he had accused Fox.
He used an unreliable source to quote Rush. Stupid? Yes. "Underhanded"? Not quite.
Quote:
Regardless of the character that he was smearing. I believe at the time when the thread was started that he might not have retracted his statement, but then I don't see how much difference it would have made anyway.
The retraction makes a big difference. It shows that he realized he had made a mistake, and apologized for it. It could have been a far better retraction, but it was there. On the other hand, FOX has not made a retraction for using a lie to make an accusation.

I don't know how you can even equate the two, or say that this isn't about FOX at all. It certainly is about FOX, because of Sanchez's idiotic maneuver of pointing a finger at FOX about their inaccuracies, and then getting called on his own. So when you examine the two inaccuracies, and find that Sanchez just used a crappy source, whereas FOX knowingly lied, how can you possibly think the two mistakes are in the same league?

I'm not playing favorites here, I don't watch CNN or FOX, and I have NO party affiliation. I don't care which station pushes what agenda, politically. This is about the difference between a rookie mistake made by a second rate journalist, and a lie used for the purposes of accusation made by a major network. They both said something that wasn't true, but one was known to be a falsehood by those who wrote it before it was aired, and has yet to be retracted.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Ophois wrote:

I'm not saying FOX's wrong negates Sanchez's wrong, but to downplay a blatant, accusatory lie from FOX, while making mountains out of Sanchez's mole hill of a fact checking faux pas is completely unfair. It would be a totally different story if Sanchez or his boss at CNN completely made up the quote from Rush, they way FOX completely made up the lie about CNN not covering the Tea Parties. Then I would put Sanchez in the same boat with the FOX crew. As it is, he is a crappy journalist who sometimes doesn't check his sources, while FOX knowingly sells lies.

In the end, Rick Sanchez and FOX both got called out for saying something which is not true. Sanchez retracted his statement, FOX did not. So the questions are - Will Sanchez do a better fact checking job from now on? Will FOX news make a retraction, and not make any more false accusations?


Yes, this is what I have been trying to say, too. Mountain and molehill, or to use another metaphor and make it as simple as possible: If some organization or some person is looking into the haystack of mainstream broadcast media lies, distortions, misleading reports, and overt political partisan cheerleading, the overwhelming amount of the hay would be the right wing sources like FOXaganda, Limbaugh, right wing talk radio and that ilk. There would also be some needles in the haystack from the other side like this dumb Sanchez gaffe. Any organization or person that is supposedly looking at the haystack of media lies and bias, and only points out the needles, is either seriously distorting the reality of the situation or is suffering some form of blindness.

Yes, we know FOX is worse. It just gets tiresome to see every discussion that mentions the media end on that same note.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
Wrong. Sanchez didn't do "exactly the same" thing as FOX. Sanchez failed to check facts, while FOX knowingly told a lie. HUGE difference there.
This is not my take on the interview I listened to. There was a complete attempt to discredit Limbaugh. Sanchez was even trying to lead the person he was interviewing to back him up in saying that this is a totally inadequate person to be buying the Football Team. I.e., how can you have a racist buying a Football Team? This was not only about facts that had been wrong, but about publicly discrediting a person.

Ophois wrote:
The retraction makes a big difference. It shows that he realized he had made a mistake, and apologized for it. It could have been a far better retraction, but it was there. On the other hand, FOX has not made a retraction for using a lie to make an accusation.
I doubt Sanchez's retraction had anything to do with seeing it as a "mistake". He obviously had to do the politically correct thing for his station. I can imagine he had to convene with his management, they worked with a bunch of laywers, and then he was asked to say what he said. Ditto FOX. FOX may feel they were right in their points of view and their management supported them in that. If they should retract anything, that would not make it any more or less meaningful an act to me.

Ophois wrote:
I don't know how you can even equate the two, or say that this isn't about FOX at all. It certainly is about FOX, because of Sanchez's idiotic maneuver of pointing a finger at FOX about their inaccuracies, and then getting called on his own. So when you examine the two inaccuracies, and find that Sanchez just used a crappy source, whereas FOX knowingly lied, how can you possibly think the two mistakes are in the same league?
Has it been proven that FOX knowingly lied? Is there evidence for it?

Ophois wrote:
I'm not playing favorites here, I don't watch CNN or FOX, and I have NO party affiliation. I don't care which station pushes what agenda, politically. This is about the difference between a rookie mistake made by a second rate journalist, and a lie used for the purposes of accusation made by a major network. They both said something that wasn't true, but one was known to be a falsehood by those who wrote it before it was aired, and has yet to be retracted.
Neither am I playing favourites either. Like the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both news stations have agendas. At least we know FOX for what it is as it is open about where it is going, but CNN and all the others are doing pretty much the same thing, but under a pretense of being objective and unbiased. To me they all are pretty much the same. I don't trust any of those stations for the reason that news only sells when it is dramatic, as it is only the dramatic that gets the ratings to go up, and ratings keep the stations alive. For me the other stations are even more dangerous, as the presumption of being more biased and objective, sets you up to trust them more, and to be duped more by implication. At least when one watches FOX, you know exactly what to expect and to take it with a pinch of salt.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Has it been proven that FOX knowingly lied? Is there evidence for it?

I'm sure there are cases. (Though it is hard to prove the 'knowingly' part.)

Watching FOX is a great way to find out about the stories that more liberal news outlets are inclined to ignore or de-emphasize, but you have to be skeptical when watching it (which I would advise you to be when listening to anyone, but especially FOX). It can be useful, but for the country's sake, don't take their word for it; use them as a source of pointing things out for you to research yourself, and to provide an alternate viewpoint to other news outlets.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Has it been proven that FOX knowingly lied? Is there evidence for it?

I'm sure there are cases. (Though it is hard to prove the 'knowingly' part.)

Watching FOX is a great way to find out about the stories that more liberal news outlets are inclined to ignore or de-emphasize, but you have to be skeptical when watching it (which I would advise you to be when listening to anyone, but especially FOX). It can be useful, but for the country's sake, don't take their word for it; use them as a source of pointing things out for you to research yourself, and to provide an alternate viewpoint to other news outlets.
Totally agreed. But then when the presumption is that other television companies are more objective and less biased, you may set yourself up as well, perhaps more so, as with FOX you know who you are dealing with, but with the other television companies facts may be dressed up as unbiased, but perhaps it is just much more subtly biased.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Totally agreed. But then when the presumption is that other television companies are more objective and less biased, you may set yourself up as well, perhaps more so, as with FOX you know who you are dealing with, but with the other television companies facts may be dressed up as unbiased, but perhaps it is just much more subtly biased.


They are less biased, though they still retain their biases. Instead of making blatantly obvious political assertions, they tend to be more subtle and subdued, doing things like delaying the reporting on inconvenient news until it is already old and uninteresting. (Where FOX, in the same situation, would not only ignore an inconvenient piece of news, but try to dig up something that contradicts it, or try to spin it in a way that reduces its negative impact.)
Ophois
ocalhoun wrote:
Yes, we know FOX is worse. It just gets tiresome to see every discussion that mentions the media end on that same note.
I know, and it's unfortunate that it happens like that.
deanhills wrote:
This is not my take on the interview I listened to. There was a complete attempt to discredit Limbaugh.
There's no doubt about that. He definitely showed his political bias, and it was based on a false quote and existing prejudices.
Quote:
I doubt Sanchez's retraction had anything to do with seeing it as a "mistake". He obviously had to do the politically correct thing for his station.
Most certainly. But he did retract it, and until we find out otherwise, it just looks like he used a bad source.
Quote:
Has it been proven that FOX knowingly lied? Is there evidence for it?
Here's the thing. Bill O'Reilly, who works at FOX, did a piece on a CNN reporter getting her feathers ruffled during one of the Tea Parties that FOX claimed CNN was never at. If you watch the Sanchez video of him calling out FOX, you can see O'Reilly saying that very thing. So the conclusion is that either FOX lied, or O'Reilly is the only one at FOX who knew CNN was at the protests. Which one seems more likely?
Quote:
Neither am I playing favourites either. Like the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both news stations have agendas. At least we know FOX for what it is as it is open about where it is going, but CNN and all the others are doing pretty much the same thing, but under a pretense of being objective and unbiased.
I mostly agree. CNN and most other news stations do have their own amount of political bias. But I disagree that FOX is open about it, after all, their tag line is "Fair and Balanced". I don't trust most broadcast news, as I stated long ago, they are all owned by a handful of corporate masters, of which the boards of directors are like a billion dollar game of musical chairs.
ocalhoun wrote:
Watching FOX is a great way to find out about the stories that more liberal news outlets are inclined to ignore or de-emphasize, but you have to be skeptical when watching it (which I would advise you to be when listening to anyone, but especially FOX). It can be useful, but for the country's sake, don't take their word for it; use them as a source of pointing things out for you to research yourself, and to provide an alternate viewpoint to other news outlets.
That, to me, sums up just about all the major news networks. And as long as they are owned by corporations who have a stake in politics, this will never change.
Quote:
They are less biased, though they still retain their biases. Instead of making blatantly obvious political assertions, they tend to be more subtle and subdued, doing things like delaying the reporting on inconvenient news until it is already old and uninteresting. (Where FOX, in the same situation, would not only ignore an inconvenient piece of news, but try to dig up something that contradicts it, or try to spin it in a way that reduces its negative impact.)
The sad thing about this, is that the more subtle biases are almost more dangerous. At least with blatant prejudices, you can point them out and see them for what they are. Whereas with the subtle ones, it comes across as more legit, thus lulling people into a position where they can be more easily lied to. It's like with violent lunatics: loudmouth a-holes are annoying, but don't usually pose much of a threat. It's those quiet guys who are subtle about their anti-whatever views that end up blowing up buildings and gunning down schools.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Totally agreed. But then when the presumption is that other television companies are more objective and less biased, you may set yourself up as well, perhaps more so, as with FOX you know who you are dealing with, but with the other television companies facts may be dressed up as unbiased, but perhaps it is just much more subtly biased.


They are less biased, though they still retain their biases. Instead of making blatantly obvious political assertions, they tend to be more subtle and subdued, doing things like delaying the reporting on inconvenient news until it is already old and uninteresting. (Where FOX, in the same situation, would not only ignore an inconvenient piece of news, but try to dig up something that contradicts it, or try to spin it in a way that reduces its negative impact.)
Totally agreed with that, but what I really meant was that your intelligent person would take anything from Fox either as entertainment or "pinch of salt" variety. And have much more confidence in the news reporting of the other stations. Yet the other stations may have subtle assertions, and since it is subtle, one is much more likely to be duped by them, than the station you obviously clearly understand is "duping" people. So probably one should be much more on your guard with those "subtle and subdued" stations than the one that you clearly know where it is coming from.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Totally agreed. But then when the presumption is that other television companies are more objective and less biased, you may set yourself up as well, perhaps more so, as with FOX you know who you are dealing with, but with the other television companies facts may be dressed up as unbiased, but perhaps it is just much more subtly biased.


They are less biased, though they still retain their biases. Instead of making blatantly obvious political assertions, they tend to be more subtle and subdued, doing things like delaying the reporting on inconvenient news until it is already old and uninteresting. (Where FOX, in the same situation, would not only ignore an inconvenient piece of news, but try to dig up something that contradicts it, or try to spin it in a way that reduces its negative impact.)
Totally agreed with that, but what I really meant was that your intelligent person would take anything from Fox either as entertainment or "pinch of salt" variety. And have much more confidence in the news reporting of the other stations. Yet the other stations may have subtle assertions, and since it is subtle, one is much more likely to be duped by them, than the station you obviously clearly understand is "duping" people. So probably one should be much more on your guard with those "subtle and subdued" stations than the one that you clearly know where it is coming from.


Though FOX has distinguished itself by inventing and reporting whole-cloth lies as news, it is not really about bias, having an opinion, or whatever. It is that FOX is an organization focused on fighting against the current leadership of the federal government. They actively promoted the tea parties, the so-called 9/12 rallies, and their other activities still in the workds. This makes them not a news organization, but a political advocacy group. They should register themselves as one, or as a lobbyist, and then get in line with all the other such groups. They cannot be expected to be treated as or considered to be a news organization.

Watch Rachel Maddow for a rational and calm explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LUid0IZ2w
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
This makes them not a news organization, but a political advocacy group. They should register themselves as one, or as a lobbyist, and then get in line with all the other such groups. They cannot be expected to be treated as or considered to be a news organization.

Those labels don't quite work. Political advocacy groups and lobbyists don't report on news stories, nor do they run television networks...
Here's the definition that works just fine: Heavily biased news organization.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Though FOX has distinguished itself by inventing and reporting whole-cloth lies as news, it is not really about bias, having an opinion, or whatever. It is that FOX is an organization focused on fighting against the current leadership of the federal government. They actively promoted the tea parties, the so-called 9/12 rallies, and their other activities still in the workds. This makes them not a news organization, but a political advocacy group. They should register themselves as one, or as a lobbyist, and then get in line with all the other such groups. They cannot be expected to be treated as or considered to be a news organization.

Watch Rachel Maddow for a rational and calm explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LUid0IZ2w
So are you saying that FOX is part of a conspiracy against the present Obama Administration?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
So are you saying that FOX is part of a conspiracy against the present Obama Administration?

Conspiracy? no. Collusion? yes.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So are you saying that FOX is part of a conspiracy against the present Obama Administration?

Conspiracy? no. Collusion? yes.
How is that possible when hardly anyone is taking them that seriously? News is not really news, but more like sit-com entertainment serials?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So are you saying that FOX is part of a conspiracy against the present Obama Administration?

Conspiracy? no. Collusion? yes.
How is that possible when hardly anyone is taking them that seriously? News is not really news, but more like sit-com entertainment serials?


They're one of the most watched news networks in the US, and I really do believe a majority of their viewers are a legit demographic for them.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So are you saying that FOX is part of a conspiracy against the present Obama Administration?

Conspiracy? no. Collusion? yes.
How is that possible when hardly anyone is taking them that seriously? News is not really news, but more like sit-com entertainment serials?


They're one of the most watched news networks in the US, and I really do believe a majority of their viewers are a legit demographic for them.
So now I'm really stuck with the math of working this one out. Obama got elected by an overwhelming landslide majority. Obama is to the centre, but quite a large number of his Party are to the left. So if Fox has the highest number of viewers, does this mean that there are not many people in the United States who are checking up on the news, or that a large number who voted for Obama like to watch Fox news as well?
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
So now I'm really stuck with the math of working this one out. Obama got elected by an overwhelming landslide majority. Obama is to the centre, but quite a large number of his Party are to the left. So if Fox has the highest number of viewers, does this mean that there are not many people in the United States who are checking up on the news, or that a large number who voted for Obama like to watch Fox news as well?
All it means is that those who watch FOX, and regard it as a credible news source, watch it all the time. They don't necessarily have more viewers, just that they are watched more often, and that makes a huge difference. People who don't take FOX seriously, tend to "channel surf", filtering the news as they see it. But people who are on the fringe right keep FOX tuned in all the time, because it speaks to their ideals, fears, prejudices, and morals. For all the talk of "vast left wing media", there is no major outlet that panders to the far left as much as FOX panders to the far right, so for the lunatic fringe on the right, FOX is the gospel. That's why they they are the "most watched". That doesn't necessarily mean "most viewers", it just means that they are getting more airtime amongst the people who do watch them.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So now I'm really stuck with the math of working this one out. Obama got elected by an overwhelming landslide majority. Obama is to the centre, but quite a large number of his Party are to the left. So if Fox has the highest number of viewers, does this mean that there are not many people in the United States who are checking up on the news, or that a large number who voted for Obama like to watch Fox news as well?
All it means is that those who watch FOX, and regard it as a credible news source, watch it all the time. They don't necessarily have more viewers, just that they are watched more often, and that makes a huge difference. People who don't take FOX seriously, tend to "channel surf", filtering the news as they see it. But people who are on the fringe right keep FOX tuned in all the time, because it speaks to their ideals, fears, prejudices, and morals. For all the talk of "vast left wing media", there is no major outlet that panders to the far left as much as FOX panders to the far right, so for the lunatic fringe on the right, FOX is the gospel. That's why they they are the "most watched". That doesn't necessarily mean "most viewers", it just means that they are getting more airtime amongst the people who do watch them.
Maybe I did not explain it too well. If you look at the news ratings, Fox's ratings are through the roof in comparison with other news stations. I understand that those who do not favour Fox, may be watching it while they are surfing news, but then the ratings should reflect that however? Would it be completely true that all of those who are choosing other news stations are also "surfing" FOX? As opposed to not "watching" FOX news?

What I'm trying to get at is that FOX news is not necessarily only viewed by your rightist groups only. People seem to get lots of entertainment out of the news programmes as well. They love to hate FOX. So when you hate it, and want to talk about how much you hate it, you have to view the programmes?
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
Maybe I did not explain it too well. If you look at the news ratings, Fox's ratings are through the roof in comparison with other news stations. I understand that those who do not favour Fox, may be watching it while they are surfing news, but then the ratings should reflect that however? Would it be completely true that all of those who are choosing other news stations are also "surfing" FOX? As opposed to not "watching" FOX news?
Actually, I think it is I who did not explain myself so well. So let me give an example:

Person A - Screwy Fringe Right Wing Douche - He keeps it on FOX all the time, because all other news is "liberal propaganda".
Person B - Average person of Left or Right leanings with half a brain - Sometimes watches FOX, but can't deal with the insanity for so long, so he "surfs".

Now, there are more of "Person B" in this country, but they don't stay on any given station too long, because they like to see the news from many different sources, and develop their own opinions. Whereas "Person A" is almost always on FOX, because it speaks to them, personally, like a televangelist.

So FOX gets more "view time", making them #1. They also have more actual viewers because the people who watch other media outlets tend to "surf", so FOX reaps the rewards of ignorance, while other people are 'shopping around' for their information.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Maybe I did not explain it too well. If you look at the news ratings, Fox's ratings are through the roof in comparison with other news stations. I understand that those who do not favour Fox, may be watching it while they are surfing news, but then the ratings should reflect that however? Would it be completely true that all of those who are choosing other news stations are also "surfing" FOX? As opposed to not "watching" FOX news?
Actually, I think it is I who did not explain myself so well. So let me give an example:

Person A - Screwy Fringe Right Wing Douche - He keeps it on FOX all the time, because all other news is "liberal propaganda".
Person B - Average person of Left or Right leanings with half a brain - Sometimes watches FOX, but can't deal with the insanity for so long, so he "surfs".

Now, there are more of "Person B" in this country, but they don't stay on any given station too long, because they like to see the news from many different sources, and develop their own opinions. Whereas "Person A" is almost always on FOX, because it speaks to them, personally, like a televangelist.

So FOX gets more "view time", making them #1. They also have more actual viewers because the people who watch other media outlets tend to "surf", so FOX reaps the rewards of ignorance, while other people are 'shopping around' for their information.
This does not make sense to me. You are saying that FOX should in essence have the smaller number of ratings of all the news stations as the "surf and click" guys should not be added to their ratings, yet those same guys would also be surfing and clicking on the other stations too? It would make sense for me for the "surf and click" guys group to balance itself out in the ratings, i.e. equal amount of clicks all over the stations. So there will still be a majority or ratings that remain with Fox.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
This does not make sense to me. You are saying that FOX should in essence have the smaller number of ratings of all the news stations as the "surf and click" guys should not be added to their ratings, yet those same guys would also be surfing and clicking on the other stations too? It would make sense for me for the "surf and click" guys group to balance itself out in the ratings, i.e. equal amount of clicks all over the stations. So there will still be a majority or ratings that remain with Fox.
No, I am saying FOX actually has a BIGGER ratings number, because the people who watch FOX tend to view it as gospel, and don't watch anything else(thereby staying on FOX and boosting their numbers). Whilst the majority of people watch a few minutes of this and that, making it look like the other stations are not getting as much 'steady' listeners.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
This does not make sense to me. You are saying that FOX should in essence have the smaller number of ratings of all the news stations as the "surf and click" guys should not be added to their ratings, yet those same guys would also be surfing and clicking on the other stations too? It would make sense for me for the "surf and click" guys group to balance itself out in the ratings, i.e. equal amount of clicks all over the stations. So there will still be a majority or ratings that remain with Fox.
No, I am saying FOX actually has a BIGGER ratings number, because the people who watch FOX tend to view it as gospel, and don't watch anything else(thereby staying on FOX and boosting their numbers). Whilst the majority of people watch a few minutes of this and that, making it look like the other stations are not getting as much 'steady' listeners.
You have me completely confused here. Fox deserves the ratings it has. Let's say those who stick with Fox are A and those who click around are B, so all other stations would have their own dedicated viewers PLUS B, the same B that Fox has. Fair and square. All "clickers and surfers" would be cancelled out in the calculation of the ratings. You will also find dedicated listeners in the other stations who stick only with their "one" stations, or they may "click and surf" only among the other stations.
jmi256
I just saw this on the Huffington Post. Is it true? Did Rick Sanchez really murder someone while drunk behind the wheel?

Quote:
Glenn Beck Radio Show: Rick Sanchez Can't Say Beck Responsible For Murder Because Of DUI

Earlier this week, CNN's Rick Sanchez accused Fox News -- namely Glenn Beck -- of creating an environment of fear and distrust that has led to a surge in gun violence, in particular tying last week's Pittsburgh shooting to "Fox News and right wing radio."
On Beck's radio show Thursday, Beck and staff lashed out against Sanchez, calling Sanchez "the one guy who shouldn't accuse other people of being responsible for murder" over his 1990 drunk driving incident, in which Sanchez struck a pedestrian who would be paralyzed and later die from injuries sustained in the accident.

"Maybe if you're one of the very few people in our society that has actually been responsible for killing someone," Beck's producer Stu Burguiere ranted, "maybe you should be the one guy who shouldn't accuse other people of being responsible for murders."
Beck attempted to slow Stu down but he continued:

Quote:
"Maybe you should be the one human being on earth who should not be attacking another personality for killing people, because of the fact that before you worked at CNN, you worked in Miami, and you ran over a person, and that person died. Maybe YOU should consider that before speaking on every occasion. Every time you let words out of your mouth, you should make sure you remember that day."


"Who hasn't gotten drunk, got into a car, and ran over someone?" Beck asked. "That happens all the time!"

Source = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/11/glenn-beck-radio-show-ric_n_185857.html
deanhills
Wow! Beck really plays dirty. If it is true, I really feel sorry for Sanchez. If not, Beck may be in serious trouble and has a good chance of facing a defamation of character charge.

I did some searches and only got info in blogs and such like, not other bona fide TV stations or newspapers. Will be interesting though to find out how true it is. I guess the media must be checking this out "as we speak"?
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
If it is true, I really feel sorry for Sanchez.


why would you feel sorry for him?
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So are you saying that FOX is part of a conspiracy against the present Obama Administration?

Conspiracy? no. Collusion? yes.
How is that possible when hardly anyone is taking them that seriously? News is not really news, but more like sit-com entertainment serials?


They're one of the most watched news networks in the US, and I really do believe a majority of their viewers are a legit demographic for them.


Yes, unfortunately, despite being totally discredited to reasonable people, they are a very popular and influential disinformation network.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If it is true, I really feel sorry for Sanchez.


why would you feel sorry for him?

Being falsely accused of killing a person while driving drunk? On national TV?
As long as the accusation is false, that's worth feeling sorry for, no matter who is being accused.

If the accusation is true, however, then it really was a bit disingenuous for him to accuse 'his rival' of indirectly killing people, when he has directly killed someone.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If it is true, I really feel sorry for Sanchez.


why would you feel sorry for him?

Being falsely accused of killing a person while driving drunk? On national TV?
As long as the accusation is false, that's worth feeling sorry for, no matter who is being accused.

If the accusation is true, however, then it really was a bit disingenuous for him to accuse 'his rival' of indirectly killing people, when he has directly killed someone.


Uh, I don't have a dog in this fight, but the police investigation shows that the victim, drunk, jumped in front of the car and was killed. The driver's state of inebriation was not a contributing factor or else he would have been charged with that; instead he was just given a DUI. The victim would have been killed whether the driver was sober or not, apparently.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
The victim would have been killed whether the driver was sober or not, apparently.

True, or just another case of a celebrity getting off the hook?

^.^
It does have some nice parallels to what he's accusing Beck of, though!
In both cases, they killed someone inadvertently through their own actions, because of the independent actions of someone else.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If it is true, I really feel sorry for Sanchez.


why would you feel sorry for him?
There could be a chance the advertisers may ask for his dismissal from CNN? No one will be interested in hiring him again. It will be the end of his career. Provided the allegation is true of course. Right now it just looks like ugly mudslinging.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If it is true, I really feel sorry for Sanchez.


why would you feel sorry for him?
There could be a chance the advertisers may ask for his dismissal from CNN? No one will be interested in hiring him again. It will be the end of his career. Provided the allegation is true of course. Right now it just looks like ugly mudslinging.


I think I misunderstood what you were saying. You were saying that you felt sorry for him if the allegation that this was fabricated was true, but I thought you meant that you felt sorry for him if he really did kill someone while driving drunk. I understand what you were saying now.

I haven't been able to find the actual police report (if someone has access to it, maybe they can post?), but what I've been able to glean from a sundry of websites and posting is that Sanchez was driving drunk and struck a young man, who was also drunk, with his car. Sanchez then fled the scene and was arrested later due to eye witnesses. The young man was paralyzed and in a coma due to the accident, and eventually he died from his injuries. It appears Sanchez's attorney argued that when Sanchez fled the scene he then went home and had a few drinks, and maybe that is why he wasn't charged with more. Sanchez may have dodged the homicide charges because the young man wasn't killed right away too. (not sure how long he survived). Being a 'celebrity' may have had something to do with it, but I don't think that happens as much as some people believe. Either way, it appears this happened a while ago before he was at CNN. Here in the US, drunk driving is a serious offense and it's not uncommon for those convicted of this crime to spend time in jail. So when CNN did a criminal background check of him (I'm assuming they did. Most large organizations do.), this would have come up, but they decided to hire him anyway. If CNN would now turn around and use this as a pretense to fire him, that would be very dishonest of them (again, assuming they knew).
Alaskacameradude
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Maybe I did not explain it too well. If you look at the news ratings, Fox's ratings are through the roof in comparison with other news stations. I understand that those who do not favour Fox, may be watching it while they are surfing news, but then the ratings should reflect that however? Would it be completely true that all of those who are choosing other news stations are also "surfing" FOX? As opposed to not "watching" FOX news?
Actually, I think it is I who did not explain myself so well. So let me give an example:

Person A - Screwy Fringe Right Wing Douche - He keeps it on FOX all the time, because all other news is "liberal propaganda".
Person B - Average person of Left or Right leanings with half a brain - Sometimes watches FOX, but can't deal with the insanity for so long, so he "surfs".

Now, there are more of "Person B" in this country, but they don't stay on any given station too long, because they like to see the news from many different sources, and develop their own opinions. Whereas "Person A" is almost always on FOX, because it speaks to them, personally, like a televangelist.

So FOX gets more "view time", making them #1. They also have more actual viewers because the people who watch other media outlets tend to "surf", so FOX reaps the rewards of ignorance, while other people are 'shopping around' for their information.


In the past, Neilsen ratings were based on a 'self report' that people would write down....
the hours per day that they watched a particular program. I have heard that recently they
HAVE been sending out an electronic device to connect to your TV so that they could actually
measure what you watched and for how long, not sure how sucessful that has been for them.
Also, they are not sure how to take into account the 'DVR' factor which is when people 'time
delay' a program and watch it later....because this does NOT show up on their device.

All this is to say, I'm not really sure how accurate 'ratings' are. I DO think it is safe to say that
there are a lot of people who watch Fox News.
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
I DO think it is safe to say that
there are a lot of people who watch Fox News.


Unfortunately true.
jmi256
Well, it wasn’t making up sources, lack of journalistic integrity, making false allegations or even his history of bias and attacks that finally caused CNN to fire Rick Sanchez. Rather it appears that his latest bigoted rant against “The Jews” did him in. I wonder what’s up with the Left’s recent preoccupation with Jewish people. First Helen Thomas disgraced here long and otherwise noteworthy career by launching into her rant against the Jewish people and now Sanchez with his latest “mistake.” I wonder where he’ll turn up next.

Quote:
Rick Sanchez FIRED From CNN

Rick Sanchez has been fired from CNN following his controversial comments on a radio show Thursday.

"Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well,' a CNN statement said.

Sanchez did not appear on the air Friday.

Appearing on "Stand Up with Pete Dominick" Thursday, Sanchez called Jon Stewart a "bigot" and said that CNN and the other networks are all run by Jewish people.

Discussing Stewart with radio host Pete Dominick, Sanchez said that the "Daily Show" host has a limited worldview, and called him a "bigot."

The conversation began with Sanchez decrying "elite, Northeast establishment liberals" who "deep down, when they look at a guy like me, they see a guy automatically who belongs in the second tier, and not the top tier.

"I think to some extent Jon Stewart and [Stephen] Colbert are the same way. I think Jon Stewart's a bigot," he said. "I think he looks at the world through, his mom, who was a school teacher, and his dad, who was a physicist or something like that. Great, I'm so happy that he grew up in a suburban middle class New Jersey home with everything you could ever imagine."

When asked who Stewart is bigoted against, Sanchez said "everybody else who's not like him."

Sanchez would eventually retract the "bigot" claim, settling instead on calling Stewart "prejudicial" and "uninformed."

But he made a larger point when Dominick suggested that Stewart could understand being part of an oppressed minority group because he is Jewish.

Sanchez scoffed at the claim, snickering and suggesting that CNN and the rest of the media is run by Jewish people (from the "Stand Up with Pete Dominick" blog):

Quote:
Very powerless people... [snickers] He's such a minority, I mean, you know [sarcastically]... Please, what are you kidding? ... I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they -- the people in this country who are Jewish -- are an oppressed minority? Yeah. [sarcastically]





Listen to Sanchez talk about Stewart, Jews and the media:
{THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN REMOVED BY YOUTUBE}



Source = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/01/rick-sanchez-fired-from-c_n_747607.html[/youtube]
deanhills
@jmi. Will be interesting to see what his next move may be? Maybe writing a book? Or joining a Political Party? .... Smile
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
@jmi. Will be interesting to see what his next move may be? Maybe writing a book? Or joining a Political Party? .... Smile


Inferring from his political slant and comments like the ones above I would suggest he's already joined a political party, the Democrats. If you mean running for office, I think that would prove difficult because while he has been involved in politics and punditry for years, I see him more as a political novice when it comes to campaigning, fundraising, etc. Policy and governing don’t really seem like his strong suite, and he seems more like he’s better suited as a flamethrower.

Writing a book is always an option, but I don't think his viewership has been all that high and therefore some publishers will shy away from investing in a book that may not sell well. On the other hand, there are always publishers who like to offer books that cater to fringe opinions and views (more of a long tail strategy), so I wouldn't count that out. He could also self publish. If I had to speculate, I would guess he would lay low for a little, then make a mea culpa round of interviews/stories/press releases, while also starting a blog or some other kind of newsletter or something to keep his name in the public arena. He’ll most likely be picked up by a lower-tiered agency (probably 1-3 months after the elections) to work on revitalizing the Democrat base for 2012.

While I don’t like the guy personally, I detest even more the idea of letting the “thought police” dictate what views can or can’t be aired. Instead, I would rather someone be fired for failing to produce (low ratings, poor quality of work, etc.) than because of a view he holds. On the other hand, CNN has a reputation/brand they are trying to uphold, and while its credibility and brand promise as “America's Most Trusted News Source” is consistently damaged by the slant of its reporting and by the bias displayed by its reporters and editors, they probably felt that blatant displays that embarrass the network, such as this one, had to be addressed. As a privately held company (owned by Time Warner I believe), they have every right to make their own personnel decisions, however.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
and he seems more like he’s better suited as a flamethrower.

Perhaps he could go be a left-of-center version of Rush Limbaugh?
Related topics
Which is better, DS or PSP?
i was an extra in the two towers
Titanic 2
Nine Inch Nail
The Middle East Conflict
Movies youve finally seen
How to build PHP mail form with Spam protection
Google Page Rank
Bush's Last Press Conference
Writing a book (stages)
Left-Wing Extremist Media
Black Tea Party Protesters
Mysql and PHP separately to work on windows 7
help convert this to oracle function [SOLVED]
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.