patrick.net

kentm says

I typically use unbiased or progressive sources for my news and politics,

Everyone THINKS they are using unbiased or progressive sources for their news and politics. I don't think anyone actually sets out to be a conservative cork sucker, or a liberal douche bag.

Point missed.

Did you read the post?

kentm says

Did you read the post?

Believe me, he wouldn't want to comprehend it.

Very interesting post. I always wondered even decades ago how it was that many right wingers would assert how left biased the mainstream media is, but I have never heard compelling facts to back it up.

Especially those who think for example that the PBS News Hour or most of NPR is liberal. I think to some, reality is a vast liberal conspiracy.

I guess depending on where in the spectrum you perceive politically neutral to be it could be argued this is true. If lies and faulty logic are the basis of one's views, then the truth is biased against their perception and beliefs.

Ask yourself this. Which side would have more of a problem with the fairness doctrine coming back ? The right or the left ? Of course its the right, because from their point of view, facts and intelligent arguments are both weapons the left use against their propaganda. I fear it's almost too late for this to change.

We are fucked, because the solution would be to bring back something like the fairness doctrine. The problem is that neither side want to see a full and fair argument based on facts, and even government institutions are getting to where they don't want real arguments. And this is far more true on the right. Who knows, at this point, we don't even have much of a true left that would make arguments that our government wouldn't want the entire world to hear us having.

I did a month-long cross-country round-trip last summer. Every single hotel I stayed in that had a free breakfast gave a generous helping of Fox News at a loud volume, often from multiple sets. By the end of that trip I was actually starting to think those people sounded reasonable. They are glitzy and seductive, but mostly they HAMMER on certain talking points as FACTS when they are not. After a while it soaks in whether you want it to or not.

It is PROPAGANDA plain and simple, not news. There's no need to soft-shoe that point, despite their great packaging and attempts to claim otherwise.

I don't think you can really even view it as a "conservative" vs. "liberal" news position.

The real agenda of the likes of fox news and friends is to promote the continuation of the military industrial complex.

They use "conservative" politics (god, guns, gays, and taxes) as wedge issues to convince ignorant people to support the real agenda.

If "liberal" pols wanted more people to support them, they'd get into bed with big corporations instead of the lawyers, trade unions, and eccentric billionaires that they usually associate with.

I'm pretty certain that fox news is a front for Clairol hair bleaching products.

rowemoore says

I'm pretty certain that fox news is a front for Clairol hair bleaching products.

Wait..... You mean that's not real!

Honest Abe says

I learned about the difference

Honest Abe says

then I learned

Honest Abe says

Then I learned

Honest Abe says

Then I learned

Honest Abe says

Then I learned

Fox news has been learning you good!

I've been reading Patnet long enough to know the Abe NEVER learns and takes pride in his intellectually challenged state.

The propagandists should be so proud. They have gotten the support of the Abes of the world, and simultaneously made them feel (on some superficial level) intellectually superior to those who were always in fact far more intelligent than they were.

It's some kind of weird revenge of the retards.

I guess he has the sense to be on the side of corporate America and the military industrial complex. But his claiming this is the side of all that is right and good tells you all you need to know about how pathetically gullible his type is.

roemoore, with all due respect, none of what I stated above had anything to do with FOX News.

The first lesson stated above was provided by the LA City School System.

I learned much about "gun control" by being a member of "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms".

I learned about abortion killing methods, as well as the laws pertaining to protected species, on Google.

I first learned about the socialistic concept of redistribution in college.

And there you have it, nothing to do with FOX News.

Respectfully submitted by,

Honest Abe

Honest Abe says

I learned about the difference between force and free choice when I was told...

In all fairness, as your reply relates to the topic of the thread, I just have to ask: what the actual fuck? I mean, do you keep that string of words on a constantly saved clipboard, ready to drop into random threads whenever you get drunk enough?

I'm just guessing, and rather rudely I'll admit, but I can't see any other explanation for where you launched that post from.

The topic, I think, was a thesis and exploration of the idea that 'conservative' news threads distort the perspective of the viewer by editing and distorting the content of the messages they send.

Cloud:

Bill Moyers over his long career at PBS has done several "documentaries" on global warming. No conflict there. He is also anti-christian.

So explain to me what's the correlation or conflict between being Christian or not and critically examining global warming theories?

Is Christianity invested one way or another in the acceptance or refutation of ideas about how the earth's weather patterns function? I don't get it, please explain this statement.

Some (wacko) Christians believe that God will keep Global Warming from happening via supernatural intervention.

I think that's batshit crazy.

But ever since Marin Luther stood at the Diet of Worms in 1521, there have been all sorts of wackos starting their own movements. Ever since the Bible was translated into the vernacular, any idiot with a Bible could start his own "church." That's how we got Thomas Muntzer, the Zwikau Prohpets, the Anabaptist wackos, Mormonism, the Millerites, and on and on. And how we continue to get nutjobs like Harold Camping, Fred Phelps, Terry Jones, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, etc etc.

Atheism and Rationalism are all-too-understandable reactions to all of that insanity.

kentm says

Cloud:

Bill Moyers over his long career at PBS has done several "documentaries" on global warming. No conflict there. He is also anti-christian.

What the...

Moyers is obviously very Christian. He was an ordained minister long ago, and if you listen to the guy and the issues he's passionate about it's very clear he's in fact a true Christian (but in no way a corporate or military industrial complex shill)

wthrfrk80 says

Diet of Worms

Ewwwww!

There are unbiased news sources???

zzyzzx says

There are unbiased news sources???

If the homeowner isn't insulted by your offer...you didn't bid low enough!!!

No, but the bias for news sources runs along a continuum of ranging from very little bias at one end, and with FOX "news" and the Chinese government news service on the other end.

marcus says

Moyers is obviously very Christian.

Is the UCC Christian? I'm not sure about that. I think they deny the divinity of Christ. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.

That doesn't mean they are "bad people", but technically Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God (as he claimed).

wthrfrk80 says

Is the UCC Christian? I'm not sure about that. I think they deny the divinity of Christ. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.

That doesn't mean they are "bad people", but technically Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God (as he claimed).

It is my understanding that christian denominations have different takes on the god head, and not all of them believe that christ and god are one and the same.

I think that being a christian is that one believes that christ is a savior of man and follows the teachings of christ.

All Christian churches accept that Jesus was (is) God. I'm not aware of significant differences on this key doctrine among the various Christian denominations.

Denominations like the UCC are pretty far out of the Christian mainstream. They've rejected most (almost all) of the beliefs associated with historic Christianity.

That doesn't mean they are "bad," of course. I just don't understand why the "deeds not creeds" crowd would want to be associated with a religion that is mainly about creeds. At least historically.

leoj707 says

I think that being a christian is that one believes that christ is a savior of man and follows the teachings of christ.

Efforts to equate Christ=God.... this always struck me as a patch.

Old-Testament Jehovah, is a jealous god allowing no worship of demigods. Establishing monotheism requires a certain rigid approach.

And then along comes the New Testament.... Christians spend a lot of time worshipping Christ. Therefore... let's attempt to wave our hands over this and explain it away. I grew up Baptist and am thoroughly steeped in Trinitarianism. And I always found it..... BIZARRE!

Vicente says

And then along comes the New Testament.... Christians spend a lot of time worshipping Christ. Therefore... let's attempt to wave our hands over this and explain it away.

Yes that was a big crisis in the early church. Most definitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

For more, read the Athanasian Creed. Yikes! ;-)

wthrfrk80 says

All Christian churches accept that Jesus was (is) God.

People choose to define christianity in different ways. If for you a requirement to be "christian" is a belief that jesus=god then what about the religions who believe in jesus, yet reject mainstream beliefs on the godhead.

From what I understand the following christ-following bible believing religions all view jesus and a different entity from god.

Christadelphians
Christian Scientists
Dawn Bible Students
Friends General Conference
Iglesia ni Cristo
Jehovah's Witnesses
Latter Day Saints
Living Church of God
Oneness Pentecostals
Unitarian Universalist Christians
United Church of God

Yes, it is a small minority, but are they still christians...?

I'm not saying it's up to me. At least until someone makes me Pope. ;-)

I guess it boils down to the authority of Christ himself, no? Peter confessed that Jesus is God, and Jesus said that his confession would be the foundation of the church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_Peter

I guess I'm guilty of getting us off-topic at this point.

wthrfrk80 says

I'm not saying it's up to me. At least until someone makes me Pope. ;-)

Why wait? Just declare yourself pope of the church of wthrfrk80, and you can come up with any dogma that suits you, or would be the most profitable. You would be following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, etc.

wthrfrk80 says

I guess it boils down to the authority of Christ himself, no? Peter confessed that Jesus is God, and Jesus said that his confession would be the foundation of the church.

I don't doubt that every domination that does not view jesus as god has some convenient explication as to how Peter's confession actually supports their view.

wthrfrk80 says

I guess I'm guilty of getting us off-topic at this point.

Ah, yes, and I am guilty of following.

leoj707 says

Why wait? Just declare yourself pope of the church of wthrfrk80, and you can come up with any dogma that suits you, or would be the most profitable. You would be following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, etc.

Yes that's an unfortunate side-effect of the Reformation and the printing press. Now any wack-job with a Bible can start his own new church. How many Christian denominations are there now?

But anyway, how about those conservative news sources. Is that crazy Glenn Beck still on tv?

wthrfrk80 says

Yes that's an unfortunate side-effect of the Reformation and the printing press. Now any wack-job with a Bible can start his own new church. How many Christian denominations are there now?

I agree, it was much better when only organized whack jobs with tons of money and political power got to do it.

Kevin says

I agree, it was much better when only organized whack jobs with tons of money and political power got to do it.

Good point. ;-)

Although I'm not aware of any of the original Christains having much money and power. Before Constantine, the people with the money and power (the Roman Empire) were doing everything they could to suppress the Christian movement.