Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Fox News

  1. #1
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    From today's Denver Post...
    Untruths on Iraq widely held
    60% in U.S. believe 1 of 3 errors, poll says




    By Frank Davies Knight Ridder Newspapers
    WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans have held at least one of three mistaken impressions about the U.S.-led war in Iraq, according to a study released Thursday.
    The three common mistaken impressions are that:

    U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.

    People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.- led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

    Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm Knowledge Networks, based in Menlo Park, Calif.




    "While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions," said Steven Kull, who directs Maryland's program.

    In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

    U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percentage points.

    The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, <span style='color:red'>80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.


    The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.

    The reasons for the misperceptions are numerous, Kull and other analysts said.

    They noted that the Bush administration had misstated or exaggerated some of the intelligence findings, with Bush himself saying in May: "We found the weapons of mass destruction and we&#39;ll find more as time goes by."

    The Bush administration has also been a factor in persistent confusion.

    Last month, for example, Bush said there was no evidence that Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attack after Vice President Dick Cheney suggested a link. Cheney, in a "Meet the Press" interview, had described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."


    </span>
    Although I would never accuse any of my fellow board members of being so one dimensional as to only rely on a single news source, I do know that Fox News is a favorite of some (you know who you are). Any comments on how a worldwide news organization can seemingly foster such a gross misperception of reality?
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    Biggles's Avatar Looking for loopholes
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    60
    Posts
    8,804
    I can get that on Sky but I have to say it is a bit weird.

    I know this is a bit shallow, but the newsreaders all have bizarre hairstyles and appear to be reading from somewhere around the camera man&#39;s groin.

    The other really irritating thing about Fox is that 50% of the time I flick through, it appears to be telling me what the temperature is in Chile or Indonesia (I suspect it must have a lot of advert breaks and they just fill the gaps with meaningless weather for non US viewers). CNN is far more professional. I quite like Bloomberg too. It tends to have a financial focus but does cover news quite well. BBC24, with no advert breaks, gives the most in depth coverage.

    I have heard that Fox is bit to the right of Attila the Hun but I honestly haven&#39;t seen enough to determine if that is the case. The little I saw the other day seemed to be giving Bush a hard time over something - although I can&#39;t remember what.
    Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum


  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    I watch Fox news, amongst other sources, and I have no misperceptions about these issues. The problem is not Fox, but the intellectual capacity of the target audience. You simply need to listen and filter. Some people are too busy chewing their cud to listen. Many people also have selective hearing. If it doesn&#39;t fit their agenda, it is simply ignored.

    Fox simply employs the bells and whistles marketing mentality to the business of NEWS, which seems to keep the semi-literate transfixed and dazed. You can still obtain reliable information if you simply pay attention. 1 in 3 Fox viewers also believes in the Easter Bunny.
    Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Clocker-you rang?

    Yes, I watch Fox News.

    No I don&#39;t suffer any of the things mentioned as "misperceptions" in the Knight-Ridder story-I reserve the right to make up my own mind on any and all subjects relative to the Mid-East, but I will address this as it is you who have asked (and so courteously, at that):

    1-I don&#39;t recall Fox News, or anybody associated with it specifically mentioning WMD had been discovered; this, combined with a distinct lack of proof to that effect should have the net effect of discrediting those who swear GWB "owns" Fox News.

    I will stipulate that I don&#39;t watch Fox News 24/7, but will nonetheless state that Fox News suffers this accusation merely for refusing to follow the lead of all other news sources by holding the question of the existence of WMD open.

    The FACT of the matter is, the ultimate disposition or location of any such WMD as Saddam had (another fact: he DID have them, or he had all the current naysayers fooled, too, and all those Kurds just died of some spontaneous and mysterious ailment) cannot be said to be known by ANYONE, not the least of which the naysayers, who, in any case, are not aiding the search effort.

    Their fingers are crossed WMD are not found before the next election cycle.


    2-What constitutes evidence that Saddam aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorists?

    Must money or weapons have changed hands?

    Would Saddam having sheltered them in any way count?

    Would Saddam&#39;s awareness of the plan for 9/11 beforehand count?

    Would the 9/11 terrorists being trained on Iraqi soil count?

    Just how "closely" counts as "close"?

    Here&#39;s my two cents:

    To term the current actions a "War on Terrorism" is to mis-state
    the reality of the situation-"terrorism" is merely the tactic used by militant ISLAM against western "infidels"; that is to say, any militant Islamic group, by virtue of the commonality of their hatred for Israel and the West, IS connected to all other such groups.


    3-I don&#39;t recall Fox News, or any other organization which could be said to be pro-U.S., trying to make the case that 50% (because that is what would constitute an "even split", yes?) of the populations of other countries supported our efforts in Iraq-just that the actual fact was our presence in Iraq was neither entirely unilateral nor totally without international "street" support.

    Basic mathematical odds would dictate we had "some" support, even if nobody asked, and frankly, I don&#39;t remember anybody asking, either.

    One more thing on this point:

    What the hell, exactly, does this mean?

    People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.- led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.


    That half the people were with us, and, of the other half, half were against us, while the other half of the "second" half were for us?

    This is entirely typical of the "hash" the naysayers make of everything; they aren&#39;t even capable of naysaying correctly.


    To all those who hate Fox News for their "conservative" slant: If the mere presence of the conservative viewpoint in juxtaposition to the liberal one (which Fox News also presents) sends you into paroxysms of fear and loathing, there must actually be some weight to the things Conservatives, say, huh?


    Thanks, Clocker-right in my wheelhouse. I think that&#39;s a grand slam: 3 on, right?

    Edit: Gratuitous expression of thanks to my old Clock-building colleague.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    2-What constitutes evidence that Saddam aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorists?

    Must money or weapons have changed hands?

    Would Saddam having sheltered them in any way count?

    Would Saddam&#39;s awareness of the plan for 9/11 beforehand count?

    Would the 9/11 terrorists being trained on Iraqi soil count?

    Just how "closely" counts as "close"?

    Here&#39;s my two cents:

    To term the current actions a "War on Terrorism" is to mis-state
    the reality of the situation-"terrorism" is merely the tactic used by militant ISLAM against western "infidels"; that is to say, any militant Islamic group, by virtue of the commonality of their hatred for Israel and the West, IS connected to all other such groups.

    We&#39;ve been through this before.

    The whitehouses own website stated that the Al Queda camps were in the far North of Iraq....ie the parts controlled by the Kurds, not the parts controlled by Hussain.

    In other words...Al Queda were fighting with the US in the recent war, not against them

    In fact Al Queda were the largest thorn in the side of Hussain; by helping the Kurds and carrying out terrorist attacks within Iraq.

    Al Queda hates Hussain more than the US....he is a "Traitor to Islam" not a mere Infidel.


    What was that being said about selective hearing?

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 October 2003 - 00:37


    Al Queda hates Hussain more than the US....he is a "Traitor to Islam" not a mere Infidel.


    Good news Rat Faced,

    We are not Infidels, we are simply ignorant.

    To be an infidel you must first acknowledge that Allah is God, you must know him. Then you must reject his instructions. Then you are an infidel.


    "You do not know, Allah so you cannot reject him, you are not an Infidel, merely ignorant" said my co-worker.

    So I got that going for me, which is nice.

    Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 October 2003 - 18:37
    Here&#39;s my two cents:

    To term the current actions a "War on Terrorism" is to mis-state
    the reality of the situation-"terrorism" is merely the tactic used by militant ISLAM against western "infidels"; that is to say, any militant Islamic group, by virtue of the commonality of their hatred for Israel and the West, IS connected to all other such groups.

    How about this part, Rat?

    Is this a problem, too?

    Too selective, perhaps?


    Edit: clarity
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    Well, apart from the fact i didnt say that; i was quoting your goodself...

    There are lots and lots of "Fundamentalist" Islamic groups...many of them too busy killing each other, to give a monkeys about the west.


    Just look at the warlords in Afganistan....

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 October 2003 - 13:13
    Well, apart from the fact i didnt say that; i was quoting your goodself...

    There are lots and lots of "Fundamentalist" Islamic groups...many of them too busy killing each other, to give a monkeys about the west.


    Just look at the warlords in Afganistan....
    I realize it is you quoting me (I didn&#39;t realize I had deleted my name, too); my point though, was that this-

    To term the current actions a "War on Terrorism" is to mis-state
    the reality of the situation-"terrorism" is merely the tactic used by militant ISLAM against western "infidels"; that is to say, any militant Islamic group, by virtue of the commonality of their hatred for Israel and the West, IS connected to all other such groups.

    is what connects these groups to Saddam.

    As I remember it, Saddam was himself non-secular until he realized the "benefits" of painting himself as a fundamentalist: Minimally, a passive alliance with any and all of the more "active" organizations (al Qaeda, et.al.), and maximally, a direct connection if he so chose.

    Regardless of the al-Qaeda rhetoric toward Saddam (the tenor of which is less than convincing, I think), the philosophical connection between the two (such as it is/was) was certainly sufficient to cause Saddam to rank much higher in their pecking order.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    Al-Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have reportedly hid in northern Iraq, but in areas beyond Saddam’s control.

    What type of terrorist groups has Iraq supported?
    Primarily groups that can hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say.

    Quoted from Council of Foreign Relations

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •