Fair and Balanced?

Fair and Balanced? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> Fair and Balanced? (11/24/2007 9:25:48 PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9C0jdU-Hg4 "I read parts of the book..."

Real0ne -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/24/2007 10:48:15 PM)
Naomi Wolfe: Rules Fauxs ass!

velvetears -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 6:53:32 AM)
He never let her speak he obviously didn't agree with her but at least if you are going to have her on let the woman say her piece - he looked like a rude asshole

farglebargle -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 6:59:45 AM)
It is a perfect example of 2 people whose cognitive frames don't line up, trying to discuss a serious issue. He had to do whatever necessary to preserve his worldview, and the idea that the US could be on a WELL DEFINED AND UNDERSTOOD PATH to totalitarianism just conflicts too much with the USA-USA-USA mantra he's internalized.

GentleLee -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 7:03:27 AM)
Wow... what a waste if time.. He just invited her on his show to tell her she was a bad person and out of line? Or were they actually supposed to talk about her book? His questions wern't even on topic?

Level -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 7:23:23 AM)
His questions were in line...... and she knows they only have a couple of minutes, and she did not do a good job of answering him. Having said that, I agree totally with fb about "It is a perfect example of 2 people whose cognitive frames don't line up, trying to discuss a serious issue." Both have valid points. Neither wants to yield any ground to the other. Not an ideal scenario.

Real0ne -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 7:32:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level His questions were in line...... and she knows they only have a couple of minutes, and she did not do a good job of answering him. Having said that, I agree totally with fb about "It is a perfect example of 2 people whose cognitive frames don't line up, trying to discuss a serious issue." Both have valid points. Neither wants to yield any ground to the other. Not an ideal scenario. The problem with faux is they put people on then try and beat the fuck out them and make them look stooopid. She went on to get a message out and did not let faux control the conversation and drag her into a 5 second debate no where. In fact he couldnt even get in the last word as they always do! Hence she made HER points and fuck faux! 2 points for naomi! You go gurl! Oh yeh and I especially like where she said "oh i will be happy to come back and discuss it in detail if you like"! (or something to that effect), and he was left speechless,

farglebargle -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 7:36:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level His questions were in line...... and she knows they only have a couple of minutes, and she did not do a good job of answering him. Having said that, I agree totally with fb about "It is a perfect example of 2 people whose cognitive frames don't line up, trying to discuss a serious issue." Both have valid points. Neither wants to yield any ground to the other. Not an ideal scenario. Here's the problem. As an INTERVIEWER, it's assumed that they, and their PRODUCER have done their homework, and would have something more meaningful than, "You don't mean to compare GITMO with Soviet Gulags", missing the point that BOTH had "Secret Prisoners detained extra-judicially". And as an INTERVIEWER, it's sort of his job description to realize when he's run aground and move forward on his topics. I look at this as another example of the shitty production practices you see all the time over there. I guess when you're preaching to the choir, the standards aren't so high. And maybe that's what the Fairness Doctrine is really about. When you're NOT just preaching to the choir, you NEED higher standards. Responsible Parties with Opposing Views being given time for rebuttal used to be a good way to run things. Point/CounterPoint was the best format ever. Now, all we get is Point/Point, and the opposing views get what? 6 minutes out of a month of broadcast time?

Real0ne -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 7:45:05 AM)
Those littel interviews are not meant to do a subject justice they are strictly to pound out the media view, nothing more than a hit piece that backfired. I hope she set s a trend. If everyone did that and blew em away like she did maybe they would get some sensible discussions going.

bipolarber -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 7:50:57 AM)
Easy enough to compare and contrast. Since she's on a book promotion tour, she'll be appearing on any number of other shows to hype her book. Google those up, and see how they compare to the Fox hatchet job. See which ones actually inform and educate, and which ones are just using it as a springboard for an agenda.

Level -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 8:00:15 AM)
I would imagine she'll be on C-SPAN, that's the best place to see reasonable conversations, and/or uninterrupted speeches.

TheHeretic -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 8:54:14 AM)
How about a little reality check here, Fargle? How about we look at the fact that Fox News actually put the author of a book that runs deeply counter to their editorial worldview on the air? That they do that all the time? Now if you want a piece of attack/hack journalism, Google up the CNBC piece with Bernard Goldberg on Donnie Deutsch 7/22/05.

Sanity -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 9:49:21 AM)
Damn, RealOne - they put someone on who says the things that you want said, a hero of yours, they help her to sell her book - and you rip them for it. He shut up and let her make her points for quite some time. She wouldn't answer his questions even though it was supposed to be an interview, and so he had every right to try to pin her down on at least one question. This clip proves that FOX lets everyone speak... maybe that's why the extremists hate them so much? quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Level His questions were in line...... and she knows they only have a couple of minutes, and she did not do a good job of answering him. Having said that, I agree totally with fb about "It is a perfect example of 2 people whose cognitive frames don't line up, trying to discuss a serious issue." Both have valid points. Neither wants to yield any ground to the other. Not an ideal scenario. The problem with faux is they put people on then try and beat the fuck out them and make them look stooopid. She went on to get a message out and did not let faux control the conversation and drag her into a 5 second debate no where. In fact he couldnt even get in the last word as they always do! Hence she made HER points and fuck faux! 2 points for naomi! You go gurl! Oh yeh and I especially like where she said "oh i will be happy to come back and discuss it in detail if you like"! (or something to that effect), and he was left speechless,

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 10:06:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic How about a little reality check here, Fargle? How about we look at the fact that Fox News actually put the author of a book that runs deeply counter to their editorial worldview on the air? Yes, a reality check is in order. They clearly wanted her on the show in an attempt to discredit her. On the All Spin Zone you have to be rude enough before an audience of presumably millions to actually talk over the voice of the show's host or be made a fool of by the time the segment time has tolled. So you can clash swords with the host or just be ridiculed and demeaned on national (international?) TV. Under the theory that no publicity is bad publicity, I guess it's smart to appear on the show no matter what happens. But that doesn't mean that the show doesn't have a pointed agenda; it just means that some of the show's viewers might watch because they want to hear the heights of idiocy to which their political opponents ascend.

TheHeretic -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 11:35:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro They clearly wanted her on the show in an attempt to discredit her. Yes. It is always possible to plainly discern clear motives if you never deviate from the holy writ of "Conservatives Baa-aaad." They could have just as easily needed to fill three minutes. Tell me, Sugar, when CNBC reaches out to Ann Coulter in a desperate attempt to get somebody to watch, are you as offended by how that conversation goes? You're damn right she showed up to try and sell some of her fear-mongering books. Most conservatives would love a chance to try and sell theirs on one of the networks you find more in line with your political paradigm. There is no such thing as bad press after all. At least Fox is willing to give some to ideas they don't subscribe to.

farglebargle -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 11:53:25 AM)
"You're damn right she showed up to try and sell some of her fear-mongering books." The hallmark of Fear-Mongering is the presentation of discreditable, mis-representative information. Please share with us the content in "The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" which, in your opinion, meets that standard.

TheHeretic -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 12:17:16 PM)
Haven't read it, Fargle. I'm not going to. Starting out comparing our POW policies (on detainees the Geneva Convention says we are free to execute) with the Soviet Gulags is right up there with comparing the B-25 crash at the Empire State to 9/11. At that point, I'm done. SHE discredited her book. I'm noticing that nobody wants to address the simple fact that Fox gave views so out of line with their editorial stance studio time, during hours when people might actually be watching. Maybe they really are fair and balanced.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 1:11:14 PM)
I don't really watch TV - it is the modern arena for morons. I watch some clips here and there if they come up on internet forums or conversationally. As to Ann Coulter, I make a point of ignoring her. At some point she made some comment or other and lost all credibility for me - it's not that I disagree with her, I am just no longer convinced that even she believes the things she says as it has become some form of info-tainment to make people dislike her. It has all become so unintelligent. So she's on a mental block for me. I don't know and and don't want to know about her. She's just another idiot not worth wasting another on. You know, like about 25% of the people that post to this forum. A total time suck.

farglebargle -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 1:44:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Haven't read it, Fargle. I'm not going to. Then the rest of your commentary is unfounded and we can dismiss your commentary on her work henceforth as simply parroting the "Talking Points" you've gotten elsewhere. I understand that her parallels are disturbing, but sticking your head in the sand isn't the way to address her legitimate observations. quote: I'm noticing that nobody wants to address the simple fact that Fox gave views so out of line with their editorial stance studio time, during hours when people might actually be watching. Maybe they really are fair and balanced. If Fox was Fair and Balanced, wouldn't Klein have a regular seat on their morning show? I mean, it's not "Balanced" if her viewpoint gets .000001% of the time. "Balanced" means that ALL views get EQUAL time. For every Hawk, they need a Dove. For every Totalitarian, they need a Libertarian.

TheHeretic -> RE: Fair and Balanced? (11/25/2007 2:18:24 PM)
Nonsense, Fargle. I'm sure she worked very hard to conjure those "disturbing parallels," but the parallel she's trying to sell the book on here is bullshit. If she has such a great case to make, why is she leading with an insult to my intelligence? Why should I pay for that? I can get it here for free.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125