(dumb?) Fox News Host says Stupid Things to Scholar Who Wrote About Jesus

by fulltimestudent 31 Replies latest social current

• 

  Band on the Run

  The author prob. signed over power over the title. All books have attention grabbing titles now. It is marketing and grabbing your eye if you happen to just walk by the place the book is.

  When I first read law review articles, the titles described the contents of the article. The titles were boriing. I took a brief break and law review titles were transformed. Rather than a list of boring titles that accurate, I saw a whole bunch of sexed up titles from Madison Avenue. They were provocative. Clueless me thought that law review articles had changed, too. I could not wait to print the articles and read them. My printer could not work fast enough. I was jumping up and down with excitement. What a bummer!

  Serious books by true scholars now have National Enquirer headlines as titles. I would die if I spent time researching, writing a book. Publication is not only a major victory for you but for all the people you cared about who suffered while you were writing and selling the book. Zealot is so funny. In another sense, though, it makes his main point about Jesus in one word. Jesus was radical and very human.
• 

  Resistance is Futile

  That was simply unprofessional behavior by the Fox anchor. Fox News needs to revamp their whole organization. Their motto of "Fair and Balanced" is insulting to viewers intelligent enough to see the blatant and regular spin they put on news.

  The irony is that Fox's practice of spinning news towards the far right might actually be bad for the Republican Party and their desire to win national elections. Fox undoubtedly has enormous persuasive powers over a certain segment of the electorate. I personally know several people that essentially get no other news about the world other than what they procure from watching Fox News on a regular basis. When your party becomes filled with extremists it alienates moderates and independents. However, Fox's descent into what can only be likened to "tabloid journalism" and borderline political propaganda might actually be good for their business model. Turning news into infotainment increases viewers. Viewers who would likely be otherwise bored at a straight reading of the news of the day. Delivering the news with political spin equates to increased revenue for Fox from advertisers.

  Fox News is also capitalizing on the Republican Party losing national elections. Now bear with me, but having the Democratic Party in control of the Executive Branch allows Fox to perpetuate their particular brand of "outrage news" which keeps many tuning in. If Governor Romney had won the last election, Fox would have less to protest about, i.e., they would lose viewers. It makes good business since for Fox to play to and increase the partisanship of their viewers. Fortunately many Republican politicians are realizing that going further and further right is a poor, shortsighted strategy to appealing to a majority of voters.

  Violia, I would agree with you that MSNBC is a very biased organization with a clear agenda. Nonetheless, that doesn't excuse Fox News from having to hold themselves to certain journalistic standards. I can't truly justify my poor behavior by finding someone else committing what I feel is worse behavior to point fingers at. If Fox wants to be taken serious as a news organization they need to hold themselves to a higher standard, not point fingers at extremists on the left (MSNBC) and cry, "Look, they're spinning the news too!"

  It looks like this interview has brought the author great advertising for his book. Albeit at the expense of Fox's credibility.

  The anchor's argument had one giant, glaring flaw. The premise of her critique was that as a non-Christian the author would be unable to give an accurate, unbiased account of Christianity or Jesus of Nazareth. However, by that logic the majority of Fox broadcasters should be unable to give an opinion of Obama or any other news issues pertaining to the Democratic Party. As obvious Republicans, they would be unable to give accurate information concerning Obama or his policies. You can quickly see how faulty the host's reasoning is.
• 

  mP

  If you know FOX is a waste of time why keep them alive by watching them ?
• 

  adamah

  BOTR said-

  Zealot is so funny. In another sense, though, it makes his main point about Jesus in one word. Jesus was radical and very human.

  That's interesting, as I find Jesus to be a bit mundane, pedantic, or even milktoast; he strikes me as the perennial outsider who didn't align himself with any sectarian group, and wasn't even invited; he was locked out of the game, since he wasn't a follower, but wanted to call the shots and be a big fish in his small group of fishermen. He seemed frustrated as a result of being a talented guy with a brilliant mind, but just didn't have the social connections to influence Pharisaic policy while alive. His most notable success came only after his death, due to his seeming failure. Massive amounts of rationalization and excuses for failure are not exactly new things to Jews, even not to a splinter group that eventually turned into Christianity.

  The reviewer who wrote the HuffPo article (a NT scholar) agrees that labelling Jesus as a zealot is a bit much (i.e. he was not preaching violent overthrow). Bar Kokhba was more of a man of action who came closest to becoming a successful Jewish Messiah, but that didn't exactly end well for Bar Kokhba, the Jews, or Rabbi Akiva (the rabbi who famously endorsed Bar Kokhba, only to be martyred by the Romans after Bar Kokhba was killed, and the revolt was squashed).

  Wikipedia has a list of failed Jewish Messiah claimaints, both before and after Jesus:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants#Jewish_messiah_claimants

  RIF said-

  Their motto of "Fair and Balanced" is insulting to viewers intelligent enough to see the blatant and regular spin they put on news.

  Allow me to reword that, as it applies to JWs:

  Their motto of "Truth That Leads to Eternal Life" is insulting to readers intelligent enough to see the blatant and regular spin they put in their publications.

  To which mP responded:

  If you know FOX is a waste of time why keep them alive by watching them ?

  Which can similarly be translated into JW terms:

  If you know going to KH is a waste of time why keep them alive by supporting them ?

  They've virtually interchangable! Both groups are examples of the same phenom (just different flavors), since both groups are comprised of die-hard adherents to a particular ideology and are locked into a bubble of their own choosing.

  Adam
• 

  William Penwell

  Its FOX news what do you expect?
• 

  mP

  Adamah

  The reviewer who wrote the HuffPo article (a NT scholar) agrees that labelling Jesus as a zealot is a bit much (i.e. he was not preaching violent overthrow).

  mP:
  Jesus was connected to those rebellious parties. Judas Iscariot is obviously a pun on Sicarri, many scholars agree on this. The sons of thunder moniker is another reference to another rebel leader. The main apostles share names with the leaders of the largest groups rebelling against Rome. The story of jesus having two other crminals beside him is a retelling of a similar story by Josephus where he runs into three former friends all being crucified for their rebellion. He asks Titus to let them go which happens but only one survives with the help of doctors. Joseph of Arimathea is of course a pun on Jospehus full name in Hebrew.
• 

  TimeOut

  It doesn’t matter Aslan, a Muslim has written a book about Jesus. If it is written using well documented research.

  Unfortunately, like many here the interviewer did not do her research and ask the right questions. Searching the web one learns he does not have a PHD in religion, while he does have a PHD.

  He does not teach religion, he is an assistant Professor of Creative Writing at University of California, Riverside.

  He is founder of a media company, specializing in Middle East media.

  Do a search yourself, (while I found many of his writings appear to have been scrubbed there is still much out there) and decide, can a person who misrepresents his own background be trusted to present accurate information.
• 

  cognisonance

  Unfortunately, like many here the interviewer did not do her research and ask the right questions. Searching the web one learns he does not have a PHD in religion, while he does have a PHD.

  He does not teach religion, he is an assistant Professor of Creative Writing at University of California, Riverside.

  He is founder of a media company, specializing in Middle East media.

  Do a search yourself, (while I found many of his writings appear to have been scrubbed there is still much out there) and decide, can a person who misrepresents his own background be trusted to present accurate information.

  I'm not so sure he misrepresented himself. He has a PhD in Sociology of Relgion.

  Additionally, as regards being a professor/historian of religion, here is a comment defending Aslan's credentials on the First Thoughts article that questions them:

  Mark Juergensmeyer July 29th, 2013 | 9:19 pm Since i was Reza’s thesis adviser at the Univ of California-Santa Barbara, I can testify that he is a religious studies scholar. (I am a sociologist of religion with a position in sociology and an affiliation with religious studies). Though Reza’s PhD is in sociology most of his graduate course work at UCSB was in the history of religion in the dept of religious studies. Though none of his 4 degrees are in history as such, he is a “historian of religion” in the way that that term is used at the Univ of Chicago to cover the field of comparative religion; and his theology degree at Harvard covered Bible and Church history, and required him to master New Testament Greek. So in short, he is who he says he is.

  The original source is his tweet and comment:

  I explain Reza Aslan's relig studies credentials in a comment I've posted at the end of the First Things piece. http:// bit.ly/16uDYH4
• 

  RubaDub

  I like to watch reruns of her on Bonanza. But now trying to be a "journalist" she leaves a lot to be desired.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  Band on the Run

  The problem is not Fox News. Rupert Murdoch is one component. The New York Post was better than the New York Times in many ways. He bought the paper and overnight, it became NY's worst newspaper by a huge factor. People were reeling. How can this happen in New York? Well, because of my devotion to all things Beatle, I read some British newspapers and traveled to London. My expectation was that they would be so much more literate, sophisticated and overall better than NY and DC newspapers. Well, my eyeballs popped out at the sight of them.

  The other component is the Kardashian factor. Murdoch laughs all the way to the bank. His family must, too. His demise might not bring change. Journalists who once worked at Fox News during an economic downturn for a few weeks to pay mortgage and tuition, food, and utilities are so embarassed it happened.

  I saw conservative GOP Senators in off public areas. The hotheads are not as stupid as they sound. Some leading Dems are not as stupid as they sound. It is mostly performance for cameras. Once I had to call the New York Times about something important. The New York Times would cease to exist if certain people did not turn to them to air certain pet peeves. When they report a story that you happen to be doing in life and they are so far off the scale that you may never read the paper again, they need to be told their sources could dry up.

  There are other, better sources for conservative and wacko ideas. Fox News tittilates for ratings. They made a business decision to get the ignorant right vote. There are large numbers of educated and sophisticated right voters. Fox does not want that crowd. If you study the commercials that air on Fox and the other stations, I suspect there will be major differences. People who know Murdoch in professional and private life never reveal anything that intrudes his privacy. The reporters Fox News accuse of liberal bias love Murdoch the person. They hate what he does for the profession. He is nothing like Fox News.

  What annoys me so much is why people dumb down because all Americans are so stupid. I don't believe it. We are not stupid. If no one translates what happens in government, we are not stupid. We are misinformed. Americans are not stupid. And if certain Americans are convinced we are the stupidest people on the globe, what is the solution? I don't see making a personal fortune as the answer to stupidity. How about going out and explaining to people? Supreme Court justices and federal judges are now blocking off many hours to meet ordinary Americans. Fundamentally, the Supreme Court is being dragged down to a low level in the average American's mind. Lawyers are signing up to go to junior high schools and fairs to do well planned curriculum that is fascinating and easy to understand. I've heard them. They had to learn to not dumb down but explain the essence of the problem in simple terms.