Love Jon Stewart, Love Colbert. Watch every night.. but in order try to be unbiased I also have to force myself to watch fox, CNN and the like just to make sure they really are that moronic.
N_Fiddledog
CKA Uber
Posts: 26145
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:40 pm
OK, so here's the way I understand it. Here's what Fox noticed.
They say, "Hey, look at the similarity there". Whatever the full context of the comment was I don't know, and the "fishwrap of record" (the New York Times), won't tell you.
However Fishwrap does tell you, that according to Jon Stewart, before you make a comment like that you have to check with the Whitehouse for the official explanation. So he does. He gets a reply saying the logo is based on the Neils-bohr model of an element, which as far as I know genrally looks something like this.
That's kinda past the larger point. The point Stewart makes is that FOX didn't even bother to do the easiest thing (call the WH and ask); rather they saw that logo and put up alongside it other flags with crescents on them and asked their highley educated and tolerant viewers to make their own minds up.
N_Fiddledog
CKA Uber
Posts: 26145
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:09 pm
Yeah, because Stewart he always double-checks with the source he's cracking on to make sure their side is represented, right? Not.
Come to think of it, where's Fishwrap's double-check with Kelly?
Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BeaverFever
CKA Uber
Posts: 15244
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:19 pm
why would any credible journalist even say "hey, look at this" over something so stupid? Its obviously to egg on the "Obama is a secret muslim desciple of bin Laden" crowd.
sandorski
CKA Uber
Posts: 11362
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:28 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Yeah, because Stewart he always double-checks with the source he's cracking on to make sure their side is represented, right? Not.
Come to think of it, where's Fishwrap's double-check with Kelly?
Protip: The Daily Show is not a News Program. Fox News is *allegedly* a News Organization.
Learn the difference.
N_Fiddledog
CKA Uber
Posts: 26145
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:42 pm
As usual Sandy...you are incorrect. The show where Megyn was commenting was not a news show. Unless you're considering something like Regis and Kelly to be a news show.
I finally tracked down the original Megyn Kelly comments. See, here's why you need context.
It's not a news format. It's kind of a morning show format where they look at different blog, news, political, entertainment, and opinion pieces, that are popping up in the media, then make comments.
They're talking about somebody's claims. The story they're commenting on is not a Fox story. They're not making claims. Kelly says words to the effect of, "I don't know. You check it out, and you tell us what you think."
It's no different than something Regis, or those women on the View might do. None of them are famous for double-checking with interested parties in a story bit.
No claims are made. It's just something that popped up somewhere, and somebody - not even Megyn - says something like "this is interesting".
Fox news is... news? I thought it was infotainment, people don't take that stuff seriously do they? God help us.
sandorski
CKA Uber
Posts: 11362
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:45 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
As usual Sandy...you are incorrect. The show where Megyn was commenting was not a news show. Unless you're considering something like Regis and Kelly to be a news show.
I finally tracked down the original Megyn Kelly comments. See, here's why you need context.
It's not a news format. It's kind of a morning show format where they look at different blog, news, political, entertainment, and opinion pieces, that are popping up in the media, then make comments.
They're talking about somebody's claims. The story they're commenting on is not a Fox story. They're not making claims. Kelly says words to the effect of, "I don't know. You check it out, and you tell us what you think."
It's no different than something Regis, or those women on the View might do. None of them are famous for double-checking with interested parties in a story bit.
No claims are made. It's just something that popped up somewhere, and somebody - not even Megyn - says something like "this is interesting".
Read Protip, learn it, love it, see how it changes your life.
N_Fiddledog
CKA Uber
Posts: 26145
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:07 pm
What's that? Like a note to self. Are you commenting on my protip to you showing you how wrong you were? I'm not sure why you'd be sharing your epiphany with me, but good idea. You hang in there, you'll get it eventually.
Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
N_Fiddledog
CKA Uber
Posts: 26145
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:30 pm
Scape Scape:
Fox news is... news? I thought it was infotainment, people don't take that stuff seriously do they? God help us.
It depends. I take a Megyn Kelly morning infotainment show about as seriously as I take Regis and Kelly. I take opinion shows like Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity about as seriously as I take other similar such as Sanchez, Maddow, or Tingles. I take the evening news on Fox as seriously as I take any evening news - which is less than you might think, but I prefer to start with Fox, because they cover stuff the others don't.
One should consider the format, and the context, then double-check the facts. Within those guide-lines there was nothing wrong with the way Kelly, or the others on the Fox morning show panel presented the story the one guy had read on the similarity of the Nuclear Summit logo to Muslim iconography. Within the morning show format, and the context of the story they were no more required to background check with the whitehouse, than Stewart was required to background check with Kelly on whether or not she believed something notorious was afoot. She made no such claim.
I would take what those site have to say ANYDAY over any of the current selections offered. That being said when there is serious journalism being pursued like when Maddow did the "McVeigh Tapes" I will pause and take what they have with a bit more focus. When they do the research, show the work and explain the sources at length it adds weight to what they are saying. That gravitas is sorly lacking with Fox and with all the major media news outlets that decided to use failed tabloid talk show formats like A current affair where the sizzle is more important than the steak.
Don't get me wrong, when TMZ breaks when Jackson died I trust them more because that is their forte. I even understand when it is the National Enquirer breaking the Edwards affair because of the tawdry nature but so many times the media has made mountains out of mole hills because their op eds are feeding the news cycle. It is that break down that makes me distrust entirely anything Fox says until I can verify it elsewhere by at least two different sources. They have cried wolf for political reasons far too often to be seen as anything but tainted. If it was the occasional misstep I might be given pause but when it is repeated over and over again and show to be systematic then the onus is upon them to unsully their brand.
When a comedian can call them out as routine and people laugh because it is true they have a serious problem.
N_Fiddledog
CKA Uber
Posts: 26145
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:16 am
Scape Scape:
That being said when there is serious journalism being pursued like when Maddow did the "McVeigh Tapes" I will pause and take what they have with a bit more focus. When they do the research, show the work and explain the sources at length it adds weight to what they are saying.
I was just reading about the Maddow thing on McVeigh today. Naturally, where I was reading it, it was heavily critiqued. Stuff left out. Stuff stressed. Partisan point of view. That sort of thing. Nevertheless, I'd like to see it. Gotta link?
This might shock you. You know who else does that exact same thing? Documentary specials with all the good stuff you mention, and all the bad stuff I heard the Maddow one on McVeigh accused of. (Let's be honest, they're both guilty). It's Glenn Beck. Yeah, I know, heresy right?
But no if you open your mind, on occasion he does these researched, yet admittedly partisan documentaries that compare to the best of that ilk anybody does. I'm anxious to see if the Maddow one is as good. He did a good one on Muslim extremism when he was at CNN. Recently at fox he did one on the dark side of the Left throughout history, called The Revolutionary Holocaust. It was a big ratings winner. I think it was # 1 on cable for that time slot. Not cable news. Cable. I'll show you the first bit where he goes into that old question of Hitler - left, or right? Guess what side his documentary comes out on.
If you want to see the whole thing where the documentary goes into Stalin, Mao, Che, and such there's links here.
You should really watch the whole thing though. My big critique of critics of Fox news is they've never seen anything more of it than 3 minute sound bytes, and editorials, then they represent themselves as experts.
Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Active Member 
Not.
