This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I would say that regardless of it being legal in the eyes of the government doing it, those things are murder.
Well, I certainly agree that killing can be held to a higher moral standard than what the government determines. For example, what the government may term "a delightful excursion", the Hague may call "genocide". I also agree that questions of right and wrong are not scientific. However I disagree that determining whether something is a person or not is the only way to determine whether they have a right to life. It's certainly a consistent one, but so is determining whether something has the right to life based on its capacity to feel pain.
But that's a moral judgement, and not a scientific one, hence the stalemate in the debate. We can debate whether or not someone can feel pain, and bring facts to the table. But whether that is a justification for whether or not they have a right to life is based in your moral code.
Post by
MyTie
If a fetus is a person, then the rest of the facts are not in question and it is definitely murder.
It's technically killing. The state determines the difference between murder and killing/homicide. For instance, the death penalty isn't murder because it's permitted by the state. Abortion in countries where it is permitted is always killing, but never murder.
I agree with Elhonna. The state doesn't decide what murder is. It may be able to legally rule on it, but it isn't the authority on moral and immoral actions. Even if it were just "killing babies" and not "murdering babies", then perhaps we should reconsider abortion.
That's....yeah, and people wonder why I dislike Faux News....No link. No logical commentary. Nothing to add. Just what you dislike. Ad hominem. And "faux" news? How old can a joke get before you stop using it? I stopped saying Communist News Network like... 6 years ago. Get something of substance. Just once. I'd love to see it.As an outsider I found
this article
interesting. It's on
Gawker
and professes to have been written by a Fox News employee turned whistle-blower.
In the UK we only hear about Fox News when it's being ludicrous and I'd always assumed that this was just how it goes - only the relatively extreme things would ever make it all the way across the pond so I never really took it to be indicative of the whole but of course did judge the channel based on the sorts of things they allow to be presented in their broadcasts.
I share a guild with several awesome Dutch people and we all found
this video
lots of fun ^_^
edited to use a better, later video from the same Dutch youtuber
I read the whole article. A lot of it is the same opinionated garbage that it accuses Fox of. It leans heavily on the article about Obama's Hip Hop BBQ, and the perceived racism at Fox. I googled the article, and it seems to focus more on the outlandish price of the gig, while the economy is suffering, than it does racism. Actually, it doesn't even mention anything about race, nor even elude to it. I don't know what to say. Fox news has a lot of conservatives and the president is not conservative. Naturally, a lot of the opinion pieces are going to be slanted against Obama. This is unusual from all the other news networks, that hand him fluffy opinion pieces like birthday presents. If you can't handle that, why would you work there?
But accusing Fox News of racism is the big red flag that is going to let me dismiss this article. While I think that Fox is not fair and balanced, I don't think ANY of the news networks are. But to play the race card? Really? I don't buy it.
As for the Amsterdam thing, and factual reporting, and revealing of sources... I don't know. If O'Reily was wrong, he should be able to correct himself. Maybe he doesn't realize his error, or maybe he isn't wrong. The dude certainly isn't perfect. I encourage people to continue scrutinizing him, and really, all news sources. It's too bad liberal commentators go unnoticed while every word this one guy says is picked apart with teasers and a microscope. I have 2 radio stations programmed in to my radio on the way to and from work. I listen to them equally. One of them gives me Rachael Maddow, and the other gives me Rush Limbaugh. I am equally critical of them, in my ear. I hear a lot come out of Limbaugh's mouth that I don't agree with, but Maddow spews more hateful ad hominem illogical nonsense than any newscaster I've ever heard, even more than Savage. Why doesn't anyone get onto her about it?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@MyTie- did you see what Adam was quoting? It was a link about a lawsuit that Fox News won on appeal, by arguing that legally they weren't required to not falsify information in their reports, and as such the employee they fired for not falsifying reports had no reason to sue them. It wasn't an opinion- that was the legal grounds upon which they appealed the decision.
I don't think he needs to provide another link in order to be allowed to comment on a link that was presented.
Post by
MyTie
@MyTie- did you see what Adam was quoting? It was a link about a lawsuit that Fox News won on appeal, by arguing that legally they weren't required to not falsify information in their reports, and as such the employee they fired for not falsifying reports had no reason to sue them.
Yeah I did. But Adamsm is a serial offender of these debates, in the fact that he quotes someone he agrees with or disagrees with, and just says "No" or "Yeah", and doesn't add anything. He's the peanut gallery around here. He needs to start contributing substance with his opinions, or bugger off.
Post by
Adamsm
I didn't realize you needed to add something to everything; I find that sickening that a news network is allowed to lie on air and they can't get in trouble for it, there is that better oh master of the thread? And most of the time, I don't feel like 'discussing' with other users, since it never goes anywhere.
Post by
Azazel
http://www.wowhead.com/forums&topic=110098.69#p3141652
=p
Post by
MyTie
I didn't realize you needed to add something to everything; I find that sickening that a news network is allowed to lie on air and they can't get in trouble for it, there is that better oh master of the thread? And most of the time, I don't feel like 'discussing' with other users, since it never goes anywhere.
That's the point of these, is discussion. I can't count the number of times I've sat down and put thought and research into a post, only to have you post right below it saying "nu-huh", and that's it. If you don't feel like participating in the discussions, then why are you here? Is it to try to personally attack those who you disagree with?oh master of the threadI don't mind you personally being here. I don't. When you discuss, you do a good job. What I, personally, don't like, is when you come into a discussion and have no intention of discussing anything. I don't like it when anyone does that. But, I'm not a mod and I'm not your dad. You wanna be a pointless fixture of 2 cents, then go ahead.
http://www.wowhead.com/forums&topic=110098.69#p3141652
=p
Not the same as Adamsm. I wasn't quoting something just to agree or disagree. That was the middle of a discussion, and Elhonna asked me a question, to which the answer was yes. I then let her finish her logic, then continue the discussion. I'm not saying his posts are too short, I'm saying they don't contribute to the discussion.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
That's actually an interesting topic for debate (Fox News aside)- does a News Program, which presents itself as a news program, have an obligation not to falsify information. I don't mean not to phrase it in whatever way they want, or cover stories and give their opinions about them. I mean do they have some level of accountability to use reliable sources, not make provably false claims, use real numbers, etc., or does free speech cover their right to lie if they want?
If they do have a responsibility to not outright lie, it is a moral one, or should it be a legal one? If all sources of information about world events are privately owned, and allowed to lie, is that a dangerous situation when it comes to a democratic society?
Post by
MyTie
That's actually an interesting topic for debate (Fox News aside)- does a News Program, which presents itself as a news program, have an obligation no to falsify information. I don't mean not to phrase it in whatever way they want, or cover stories and give their opinions about them. I mean do they have some level of accountability to use reliable sources, not make provably false claims, use real numbers, etc., or does free speech cover their right to lie if they want?
If they do have a responsibility to not outright lie, it is a moral one, or should it be a legal one? If all sources of information about world events are privately owned, and allowed to lie, is that a dangerous situation when it comes to a democratic society?
I believe it is their responsibility, but I don't believe it can be forced by government. When government starts to dictate to News organizations on their reporting style and facts, then we get propaganda. It is the consumer's responsibility to fact check the news program. Unfortunately, only one of them gets fact checked. Occasionally something comes up.
Like I showed with Maddow and Limbaugh, Limbaugh makes errors once in a while, or goes overboard sometimes. Every word out of Maddow's mouth is a friggin crazy travesty to reporting. Who do you hear about more often?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I can't count the number of times I've sat down and put thought and research into a post, only to have you post right below it saying "nu-huh", and that's it. And there are a lot of times where I do out right disagree with you, but I don't put on a full response because the thread never goes anywhere when it just drops into the standard arguments/discussions around specific topics.
Is it to try to personally attack those who you disagree with?No; it's just there are times when what is quoted is how I feel and I don't need to add much to it.
That's actually an interesting topic for debate (Fox News aside)- does a News Program, which presents itself as a news program, have an obligation no to falsify information. I don't mean not to phrase it in whatever way they want, or cover stories and give their opinions about them. I mean do they have some level of accountability to use reliable sources, not make provably false claims, use real numbers, etc., or does free speech cover their right to lie if they want?
If they do have a responsibility to not outright lie, it is a moral one, or should it be a legal one? If all sources of information about world events are privately owned, and allowed to lie, is that a dangerous situation when it comes to a democratic society?
Yes; since I never realized that Free Speech meant you could print/say out right lies. But when you have the 'official' news sources spouting lies and half-truths(look at all that crap about Obama's birth certificate), how can you learn anything about the world around you. As for the responsibility; they should speak the truth no matter what happens: After all, if they say some big wig of a company is a corrupt scum bag and can prove, even if they get sued afterwards, it's not like it's that hard to show the truth.
Post by
MyTie
I can't count the number of times I've sat down and put thought and research into a post, only to have you post right below it saying "nu-huh", and that's it. And there are a lot of times where I do out right disagree with you, but I don't put on a full response because the thread never goes anywhere when it just drops into the standard arguments/discussions around specific topics.
Is it to try to personally attack those who you disagree with?No; it's just there are times when what is quoted is how I feel and I don't need to add much to it.Ok. The times where you disagree or agree but don't feel like actually discussing the topic. Those times. Please don't post. I'm asking you nicely. These are discussions. We discuss things. Please do that, or do not do that. I don't think there is much middle ground. It helps prevent flames. It's infuriating to spend a lot of time on a post only to have someone say "you're wrong" and that's it, or have someone come into a discussion only to say "he's right" to your opponent. It really takes a lot of discipline to ignore it. So from now on, please, contribute or don't. This is the last I say on the issue.Yes; since I never realized that Free Speech meant you could print/say out right lies. But when you have the 'official' news sources spouting lies and half-truths(look at all that crap about Obama's birth certificate), how can you learn anything about the world around you. As for the responsibility; they should speak the truth no matter what happens: After all, if they say some big wig of a company is a corrupt scum bag and can prove, even if they get sued afterwards, it's not like it's that hard to show the truth.
Do you feel it goes both ways? How do you feel about the NBC tape editing in the Zimmerman reporting? I have more examples of other news organizations if you'd like, but let's start with this one.
Post by
Adamsm
Do you feel it goes both ways? How do you feel about the NBC tape editing in the Zimmerman reporting? I have more examples of other news organizations if you'd like, but let's start with this one.
Yes it should go both ways; only the truth should ever be released. If someone is found lying, editing, whatever, they should be fired on the spot and the company should make a public apology.
Post by
MyTie
Do you feel it goes both ways? How do you feel about the NBC tape editing in the Zimmerman reporting? I have more examples of other news organizations if you'd like, but let's start with this one.
Yes it should go both ways; only the truth should ever be released. If someone is found lying, editing, whatever, they should be fired on the spot and the company should make a public apology.
How could this be enforced?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Well, lying outright is usually covered by libel laws, it's true. So if they lie about something that affects the reputation of someone in particular, it will cost them money. What I worry about, though, is that does that really undo the damage to groups of people who make all of their decisions based on lies? It may repair the monetary damages that a single company or industry suffers, or award money to someone who was slandered, but does nothing to repair the perceptions of people.
Both sides are totally guilty of this- both outright lying, and creative phrasing that leads people to false conclusions. To give a counterpoint to Fox (which I think has appalling journalistic integrity, but are not lone offenders by a long shot), very often there will be articles on CNN that have big titles "Man tased by Police dies" and "Man who was pepper-sprayed dies" and then you read the article, and the vast majority of the time it's someone who was picked up for acting bizarrely and violently because they had a whole bunch of drugs in their system, or haven't had a tox screen yet, but were arrested in the first place for running into traffic and jumping on top of cars. Then two weeks later, there won't be a followup story on the front cover, but if you google the names you'll find out that the person OD's on whatever drug they were taking, or had a pre-existing medical condition that couldn't be foreseen when they were throwing bricks at people from a rooftop or something. But never as prominently as the original story was shown.
Reporting like that, which tries to spin stories into something they're not, have a huge effect on the polarizing the population. There are definitely cases of police misconduct and brutality, and they're sometimes really disgusting. But in pursuit of ratings, a lot of news organizations tend to make it seem more common that it is. Which is them creating more distrust between the people who help keep society safe from criminals, and the average citizen, because it's worth more money to scare people. That's kind of sick.
Is that kind of damage something that you can put a price tag on, in terms of libel laws?
Post by
Adamsm
Well, this is out there
; but as Fox News showed in the link Elhonna provided, sadly they can get around it. So a new version of the Whistleblower could be drafted to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Post by
MyTie
Well, this is out there
; but as Fox News showed in the link Elhonna provided, sadly they can get around it. So a new version of the Whistleblower could be drafted to make sure that doesn't happen again.
I don't think government should regulate speech as much as it does. I want factual reporting, but I'd rather have flawed reporting than propaganda.
I really enjoyed
THIS
article. A lot... A whole bunch. Loved it.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Do you feel it goes both ways? How do you feel about the NBC tape editing in the Zimmerman reporting? I have more examples of other news organizations if you'd like, but let's start with this one.
Yes it should go both ways; only the truth should ever be released. If someone is found lying, editing, whatever, they should be fired on the spot and the company should make a public apology.
How could this be enforced?
A way to do it without forcing censorship might be an optional third-party auditing system.
In manufacturing, there are companies that exist solely for the purpose of making sure other companies are above board on their safety and quality assurance. They make sure that they are regularly testing food temperatures, using metal detectors, weighing packages to make sure they're not underweight. Violations of health and safety codes and the like are handled by government agencies, but companies that want to prove that they are held to a higher than the bare-minimum standard will elect to get third-party auditing which is much stricter and more regularly inspected. No one is under any obligation to sign up for this, but many larger customers (department stores, grocery store chains, etc.) either prefer or require it from their vendors, because they want a higher quality level than what is just legally allowed.
There could be something similar for news programs. Anyone can call themselves a news program, and say whatever they want. But there could be an independent fact-checking organization that they can choose to seek accreditation by. If they choose to ask for their accreditation, then they'd have to comply with certain standards in return. If they were accredited, they could put a little emblem in the corner of the screen that says it. If they don't maintain those standards, then they lose accreditation, and are no longer allowed to use the emblem. There could even be scores that the companies get in terms of accuracy.
This wouldn't force anyone to use this, and wouldn't allow them to be censored per se. But it would be a way for a News Organization to prove that what they're telling people is not a fabrication. If news organizations don't want to get accredited, then people are at least aware that they're not held accountable to any kind of standard of truth or reliability, and while they may be honest, they may not be.
@MyTie- False reporting to create a specific opinion IS propaganda. That's, like, the definition. It's like saying I'd rather have propaganda than propaganda. Unless you think that private propaganda is superior to government propaganda, which is an opinion you have a right to have.
Post by
MyTie
A way to do it without forcing censorship might be an optional third-party auditing system.
In manufacturing, there are companies that exist solely for the purpose of making sure other companies are above board on their safety and quality assurance. They make sure that they are regularly testing food temperatures, using metal detectors, weighing packages to make sure they're not underweight. Violations of health and safety codes and the like are handled by government agencies, but companies that want to prove that they are held to a higher than the bare-minimum standard will elect to get third-party auditing which is much stricter and more regularly inspected.
There could be something similar for news programs. Anyone can call themselves a news program, and say whatever they want. But there could be an independent fact-checking organization that they can choose to seek accreditation by. If they choose to ask for their accreditation, then they'd have to comply with certain standards in return. If not, they lose accreditation, or their "scores" on the fact checking would be poor and could be publicized.
This wouldn't force anyone to use this, and wouldn't allow them to be censored per se. But it would be a way for a News Organization to prove that what they're telling people is not a fabrication. If news organizations don't want to get accredited, then people are at least aware that they're not held accountable to any kind of standard of truth or reliability, and while they may be honest, they may not be.We aren't talking about food temperatures, which is objective. We are talking about political opinions and biases. Any and every organization out there is biased, to some degree. You can't have an organization, even the general public, do an adequate job of fact checking a news organization. If that organization you propose has a liberal leadership, then Fox will either refuse it, or get a low rating. If the organization is conservative, then Fox will do great and most others will fail, but then liberal groups would attack it for being conservative. Then we would need an organization to fact check the organization that fact checks the news.... do you see where this is going?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.