Impassioned Opinions About US News Channels et al

[Scrooge]

quote:Originally posted by hackneyguy
quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
Me thinks that might not be such a great publicity coup.


Yeah maybe but I am not aware of anyone that actually watches Fox 'news' [:?]


Except the majority of Americans, it is the most popular news channel, with as already stated a heavy right wing leaning.

quote:Originally posted by tontybear
He's probbaly in intensive care (fully insured) after having a siezure due to news of President Obama's Nobel award !


Isn't that the truth [:p]

quote:Originally posted by Scrooge
quote:Originally posted by hackneyguy
quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
Me thinks that might not be such a great publicity coup.


Yeah maybe but I am not aware of anyone that actually watches Fox 'news' [:?]


Except the majority of Americans, it is the most popular news channel, with as already stated a heavy right wing leaning.



Fortunately for me - not the Americans I mix with professionaly then [y]

It's just that all the networks in the States are so Left they seem Right.

Fox is now nothing more than the research arm and mouthpiece for the Republican Party. O'Reilly is one of their major presenters. Be happy if you don't know who he is, too many Americans get mis-informed by this rabid merchant of mis-truths every week.

quote:Originally posted by narikin
Fox is now nothing more than the research arm and mouthpiece for the Republican Party. O'Reilly is one of their major presenters. Be happy if you don't know who he is, too many Americans get mis-informed by this rabid merchant of mis-truths every week.




What utter rot.
Perhaps you are happy with the rabid Socialist rantings on MSNBC, but I know many Americans and Britons by the way, who support Fox News as the only news channel prepared to show up Obama and his Socialist Czars for what they are.
Acorn anyone?

Thank GOD for people like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, plus the other sound reporters on this channel.
Funny isn't it that more people watch Fox news than MSNBC?
Funny how Obamas Czar wants to silence alternative views, well, not funny at all.
As for being a research arm for the Republicans, they have also been pilloried on Fox news for some of their actions, something that the 'liberal' press would never do to Obama and his bunch of Socilists. Where was their reporting of the TEA parties?

[Decker]

Hiya Alan, welcome back.

Well by definition on any normal curve the unintelligent are going to be more predominant than the intelligent so it is hardly surprising that Fox commands a larger audience surely? [;)].

Looking forward to a civilised debate though we may have to split off into an OT shortly...

quote:Originally posted by Decker
Well by definition on any normal curve the unintelligent are going to be more predominant than the intelligent so it is hardly surprising that Fox commands a larger audience surely? [;)].

Elitist...? [:w]

quote:Originally posted by Decker

Well by definition on any normal curve the unintelligent are going to be more predominant than the intelligent so it is hardly surprising that Fox commands a larger audience surely? [;)].

Looking forward to a civilised debate though we may have to split off into an OT shortly...

exactly... and what a disaster it is for the US that this is the case.

Glen Beck - are you kidding me ? he's dumb as heck and many sandwiches short of a picnic.
another fool in the court of Murdoch, who wants his snout deep in the trough.

Please don't bother banding 'Liberal' or 'Socialist' terms around - it doesn't work in Europe like it does on Fox in the USA. 'Socialised Medicine' is not a dirty term in Europe - it keeps everyone alive and in good health, paid from their basic tax, not just the wealthy who can afford it. Why should some lobbyists, insurance companies and shareholders make money out of you having cancer, or otherwise getting sick? (and then try to wriggle out of it if you pay them, and are unfortunate enough to need it). I've lived in both and paid in both, and can unequivocally say that the 'Socialised Medicine' model is far superior.

oh, and MSNBC is no more 'Liberal' or 'Socialist' than the BBC is. But maybe you think that of them too?

I'd suggest taking this topic offline.

[Decker]

Remember peeps keep it civil and no personal attacks but feel free to disagree with each other. Do try and advance arguments rather than polemics.

[Decker]

quote:Originally posted by Bill S
quote:Originally posted by Decker
Well by definition on any normal curve the unintelligent are going to be more predominant than the intelligent so it is hardly surprising that Fox commands a larger audience surely? [;)].

Elitist...? [:w]


Moi? [:o][;)]

quote:Originally posted by Decker
quote:Originally posted by Bill S
quote:Originally posted by Decker
Well by definition on any normal curve the unintelligent are going to be more predominant than the intelligent so it is hardly surprising that Fox commands a larger audience surely? [;)].

Elitist...? [:w]


Moi? [:o][;)]

Vraiment!

But by definition the normal curve will have exactly the same numbers above the mean as there are below.

Are you suggesting that intelligence follows a skewed curve or do we get into a discussion of latent variables?

Now if Fox is more for the 'right' wing of politics and, as you would seem to suggest, is also for a larger audience of 'unintelligent' masses, could we not infer that the 'left' is clearly more intelligent?

So are the majority here on this site followers of Gordon Brown or are we of lower intelligence? [}:)][}:)][:w]

Or do you just claim to be different on the east side of the pond? [;)][:w]

[Decker]

I did actual consider the bell profile of a normal curve and decided that the distribution here would actually be a lot steeper than a normal curve - and in any case people with an IQ of 10 aren't, well... so I'd expect more of a drumlin style curve for intelligence TBH.

Previous outings on politicalcompass.org have clearly indicated that the site demographic is liberal/anti-authoritarian with a few notable exceptions who still fit in stunningly well at social events.

http://www.v-flyer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=25859

[/quote]

Glen Beck - are you kidding me ? he's dumb as heck and many sandwiches short of a picnic.
another fool in the court of Murdoch, who wants his snout deep in the trough.

Please don't bother banding 'Liberal' or 'Socialist' terms around - it doesn't work in Europe like it does on Fox in the USA. 'Socialised Medicine' is not a dirty term in Europe - it keeps everyone alive and in good health, paid from their basic tax, not just the wealthy who can afford it. Why should some lobbyists, insurance companies and shareholders make money out of you having cancer, or otherwise getting sick? (and then try to wriggle out of it if you pay them, and are unfortunate enough to need it). I've lived in both and paid in both, and can unequivocally say that the 'Socialised Medicine' model is far superior.

oh, and MSNBC is no more 'Liberal' or 'Socialist' than the BBC is. But maybe you think that of them too?

I'd suggest taking this topic offline.


[/quote]
Glen was for years on CNN, That would be Time Warner AOL. If it wasn't for Glen we still would be blind to ATLAS, ACORN and a host of other issues. Looking at just Cancer, Socialized Medicine (at least in the UK) has a 16 to 24% lower survival rate than the US.
I had to laugh at your Insurance statement it shows you've swallowed the line from the media. Part of the reason are insurance is so expensive is they're required to carry coverage for procedures that shouldn't even be included from Chiropractic care to colonic flushes. How much would your auto insurance be if it was required to cover oil changes or tire replacement?
And finally it was the BBC along with Reuters who announced they would now longer use the term 'Terrorist'. A recent poll of journalist at NBC viewed themselves as not moderate but of the left of center. So they have said that of themselves.
You can't drop a stink bomb and then say Maybe we should take this off line. So Typical.

Originally posted by erii

quote:
I had to laugh at your Insurance statement it shows you've swallowed the line from the media.


When did Glen Beck free himself from being part of the 'the media' exactly?

quote:
And finally it was the BBC along with Reuters who announced they would now longer use the term 'Terrorist'. A recent poll of journalist at NBC viewed themselves as not moderate but of the left of center. So they have said that of themselves.
You can't drop a stink bomb and then say Maybe we should take this off line. So Typical.


I wake up to BBC Radio 4 every morning. I have not noticed any reluctance to call a terrorist a terrorist. Or perhaps I'm not listening carefully enough.

Funnily enough I've just watched 'Network' again. Excellent film, and 30 years ahead of its time.

Paul

quote:Originally posted by narikin

Glen Beck - are you kidding me ? he's dumb as heck and many sandwiches short of a picnic.
another fool in the court of Murdoch, who wants his snout deep in the trough.

The only one few sandwiches short of a picnic is nancy pelosi!

quote:Originally posted by narikin
Please don't bother banding 'Liberal' or 'Socialist' terms around - it doesn't work in Europe like it does on Fox in the USA. 'Socialised Medicine' is not a dirty term in Europe - it keeps everyone alive and in good health, paid from their basic tax, not just the wealthy who can afford it. Why should some lobbyists, insurance companies and shareholders make money out of you having cancer, or otherwise getting sick? (and then try to wriggle out of it if you pay them, and are unfortunate enough to need it). I've lived in both and paid in both, and can unequivocally say that the 'Socialised Medicine' model is far superior. .

I do not know where on earth you think that Socialism is not a dirty word in europe, indeed has been the destroyer of good society for decades.
As for socialised medcine paid from basic tax, well, no, not true, paid for by a special Insurance contribution in the UK, PLUS paid for out of basic tax and paid for out of Corporation tax, high taxation of other means as well. In other European countries it is also paid for by private insurance schemes and by the individual paying a contribution when visting the Doctor.
In addition to that certain basic requirements are paid for by the person at point of use (Dentists, prescriptions etc)
For that we get a very poor health service with a 'nanny knows best' attitude from the government who makes judgements based upon postcode (Zip code) lottery, a shadowy bunch called 'NICE' and a cost against death formula. Add to that the removal of giving patients a choice (the MMR vaccine a case in point), poor serviced, old hospitals with out of date equipment where fundraising has to be done by the local people to pay for new equipment, the closing of local hospitals to be replaced by worse than useless mega hospitals far away from your door, the poor results from the national(ised) health service, the whole thing needs closing down and starting again.

quote:Originally posted by narikin
oh, and MSNBC is no more 'Liberal' or 'Socialist' than the BBC is. But maybe you think that of them too?


The BBC is known for its liberal(Socilist) leanings, its not called the Bolshevick Broadcasting Corporation for nothing! its on a Par with My Socialst NBC and Chicken Noodle News
At least in the USA you currently (though one of Obamas unelected Czars wants to stop that)have a choice of views to watch, we have a far less choice, either the BBC 'PC' brigade or the Sky News tabliod press style.

quote:Originally posted by Bill S
[Vraiment!

But by definition the normal curve will have exactly the same numbers above the mean as there are below.

Are you suggesting that intelligence follows a skewed curve or do we get into a discussion of latent variables?

Now if Fox is more for the 'right' wing of politics and, as you would seem to suggest, is also for a larger audience of 'unintelligent' masses, could we not infer that the 'left' is clearly more intelligent?

So are the majority here on this site followers of Gordon Brown or are we of lower intelligence? [}:)][}:)][:w]

Or do you just claim to be different on the east side of the pond? [;)][:w]


or, Bill on the same theorum, the fact that Obama had the majority of votes, the dumbasses voted for him? [:p][:p]

[RichardMannion]

quote:Originally posted by Decker
Previous outings on politicalcompass.org have clearly indicated that the site demographic is liberal/anti-authoritarian with a few notable exceptions who still fit in stunningly well at social events.

http://www.v-flyer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=25859


I'm dropping down the scale though (4.38/0.26 now) - I blame you lot at the socials! http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Alan, who would you have voted for at the last US Election then? McCain/Palin?

[Scrooge]

Just to point out, in the US you do not need to have the majority of the votes to win the presidental election.

AlanA

There are so many of your inaccurate points in your post about the NHS that I could respond to but I will concentrate on NICE.

NICE is far from 'shadowy'.

It publishes the list of drugs and treatments it is reviewing on its website (www.nice.org.uk). It goes to great efforts to consult with a wide range of people on these. That includes charities and patient groups for people with the particular condition - often the guideline groups have representatives from these bodies as members.

Every response to its consultations is responded too and are published on its website. As is the membership of each group and the minutes of their meetings and the evidence (subject to commercial confidentiality) submitted to it.

It has an almost perfect record in defending its recommendations in court and its systems of consideration of evidence are clearly set out and have become a model for the rest of the world.

NICE looks at the clinical effectiveness of drugs based on the evidence the drug companies present to it. Often that evidence does not justify the claims made for it.

Some very expensive drugs and treatments have been approved because they have been shown to work and to be effective. Sometimes a drug will be approved for a specific group of patients because it works for them but not for others with the same condition.

It does not operate on a blanket if a drug costs more than x then it wont get approved basis.

The work of NICE is often misunderstood. Would you rather there was no body that looked at the effectiveness (as opposed to the safety) of drugs?

[RichardMannion]

But tonty, that is far too justified to ever appear in the Daily Mail.

quote:Originally posted by AlanA

a shadowy bunch called 'NICE'


'Shadowy' ? This is the same NICE that featured in a programme entitled 'The Price of Life' in June of this year shown on the BBC earlier this year. It was a difficult programme to watch, because it was clear that not everyone who requires treatment will receive it, particularly at the cutting edge and expensive end of the treatment spectrum. It did however attempt to present a rounded view of the arguments, taking in the perspectives of the drug companies, the patients who would benefit from the treatment and the NHS managers who would then ultimately have to fund that treatment at the cost of services to other patients.

When did Glen Beck free himself from being part of the 'the media' exactly?
quote:


He has never said he was part of the media. He makes a point of telling everyone this.



[/quote]
[size=1]
I wake up to BBC Radio 4 every morning. I have not noticed any reluctance to call a terrorist a terrorist. Or perhaps I'm not listening carefully enough.

Paul[size=1]
[/quote]
The BBC's Guidelines State 'The word Terrorist itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term with attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.'

This was in Jul. 2005 when the BBC pulled the word after the london attack. It was first used and then later changed to Bombing.

So, Fox New Channel isn't part of the media?

As to the point about the the BBCs use of the term terrorist. I must have been confusing my ability to make a judgement about an event with my duty to receive an opinion about the same.

Paul

quote:Originally posted by pjh
So, Fox New Channel isn't part of the media?


There's a school of thought that they aren't [:)]

To be honest, given what they show most of the day, it's hard to characterize them as media in the BBC sense. Their aim is squarely to maximize audience, they have picked mostly one side in doing so, but one should not forget that Murdoch is not shy about changing sides if it will get him ahead. It's just that, in the US, there's no denying pundits are vastly more entertaining on the right, just like comedians tend to be so on the left.

What they self-evidently don't care about is reporting. It's hard to fill 24hrs with reporting, so they don't. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and the strategy is very successful. So much so that MSNBC have decided to go the other way, and become the strident beat of the left. They are about 10/15 years behind on this one, and still haven't found the kinds of personalities that grip an audience the way O'Reilly and Beck grip theirs. I'm sure they will get there. Which is all well and good, if you want reporting, with opinion on the side clearly delineated, buy the NYT or the WSJ. Or - maybe - watch CNN. Personally, I get just as irritated by vacuously invalid inferences on MSNBC as I do on Fox News; a healthy, if marginalizing, attitude.

quote:Originally posted by MarkedMan
To be honest, given what they show most of the day, it's hard to characterize them as media in the BBC sense. Their aim is squarely to maximize audience, they have picked mostly one side in doing so, but one should not forget that Murdoch is not shy about changing sides if it will get him ahead. It's just that, in the US, there's no denying pundits are vastly more entertaining on the right, just like comedians tend to be so on the left.


Interesting point. Broadly true in the UK too, though there are a couple of left leaning pundits (Marks Steel and Thomas, Marcus Brigstocke) who are entertaining...but then again are often positioned as 'comedians with an opinion' and just occasionally do come across a little on the preachy side.

quote:Originally posted by MarkedMan
What they self-evidently don't care about is reporting. It's hard to fill 24hrs with reporting, so they don't.


I hate 24 hr rolling news, particularly the on screen ticker tape. I can never tell whether the atrocity at 12 is the same as the atrocity an 6 or another one.

quote:Originally posted by MarkedMan
Personally, I get just as irritated by vacuously invalid inferences on MSNBC as I do on Fox News; a healthy, if marginalizing, attitude.


I can get my Who, What, Where and When from just about anywhere. For me the Why and the How requires analysis of multiple sources.

Paul

Postscript: The BBC used the 'T' word this morning at 06:59 on the Today programme on Radio 4...