abaddon-
but I'm just having fun mate...
glad to hear it.....if i wasnt having fun on here, i wouldnt be here. i was, apparently, under the misconception that you were taking this a bit too seriously...but its good that youre keeping it lighthearted. it is fun, isnt it?
Nor is it manical laughter
actually, i said diabolical. maniacal would carry a meaning closer to "insanity", whereas diabolical is more like "devilish". one definition of devilish: "mischievous, teasing, or annoying." i could see where you would have mistaken it for "maniacal" though, as i grouped it in a sentence that also suggested you were "losing it"....that was my sloppy usage, sorry.....and i was only playing.
although I suppose characterising my amusement with 'maniacal' as distinct from 'mocking' helps fit the cartoon-chacterisation of the 'left' (ooo! scarey tremble quiver!) you seem to hold dear.
why do you think i hold this "cartoon-characterisation" dear? furthermore, it seems to me that youre using a tactic here, as simon and others have, that attempts to paint me in a corner as a "neo-con", or standing firmly on the far right. just fyi, im not against gay marraige whatsoever, im all for legalizing drugs, and im 100% pro-choice. still think im a fascist conservative?
You stated FOX didn't change people's opinions of Saddam when there were stats further up the page showing FOX demonstrably had altered people's opinions of Saddam so that they held a misconception.
alright, due to the fact that you keep beating me over the head with this, im going to go ahead and respond to it. the "stats" that you showed do not in any way "prove" that fox has altered anyones opinion of saddam. with that evidence, you could argue that fox may have influenced viewers one way or the other......but it doesnt prove it, not by a long shot. lets look at your clip first:
For example, 33 percent of Fox News viewers incorrectly believed it was true that the U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; only 11 percent of people who said they relied on PBS or NPR for news got this wrong. Thirty-five percent of the Fox viewers thought that world opinion favored the U.S. invasion of Iraq; only 5 percent of those who get their news from PBS or NPR had this misconception. And an overwhelming 67 percent of those who relied on Fox thought that the U.S. had found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had worked closely with Al Qaeda; if you got your news from PBS/NPR, you had just a 16 percent chance of believing this falsehood.
In Fox's defense, viewers of CNN and the broadcast networks, particularly CBS, were not much better informed. But on three major questions central to the debate about Iraq, Fox viewers were the most likely to get it wrong.
okay, i looked through your links, and couldnt find this particular clip....so youll have to point it out to me to examine further. but, just at first glance, your statement that fox "demonstrably had altered peolpes opinion of saddam" already has glaring holes.
first off, i assume this is survey based info, correct? well, we all know what a survey does, it takes a very small group of people (in this case viewers), and projects their answers on the full viewership, as if it were fact. its not science, but they do work as a gauging tool. notice at the bottom of your clip here, that viewers of cnn and all the other broadcast networks "were not much better informed". what does, "not much better" mean? a percent? again, i dont have the exact info in front of me. and what was the fudge factor of the survey? so far, this is hardly "demonstrable" proof about fox specifically shaping anything.
secondly, have you ever stopped to think that theres a chance the majority viewership of fox is conservative, and therefore less likely to say, be trustworthy of saddam in the first place? perhaps the viewers (that answered the survey) already had these notions before turning on fox news. can you prove otherwise? maybe they have a harder time giving saddam the benefit of the doubt when it comes to terrorism then say, the average pbs viewer.
so, again, you have minute evidence that may or may not show the average "fox" viewer to have this specific opinion of saddam (the al-qaeda ties) as opposed to the average "cnn" viewer. in fact, the evidence you provided indeed also shows the average "cnn" viewer probably has/had these same opinions/"misconceptions". my stance, that the general opinion of saddam has stayed consistant since before fox news existed, can be backed up with much more substantial evidence.
Building on your assertion you've claimed brainwashing theories about FOX were laughable - funny, I never said ANYTHING about brainwashing. I only showed viewers of channel A were more likely to be misinformed than channel b, etc. and asked why this might be. And there hasn't been one real answer yet. Did you think changing my argument to one of "brainwashing" would make things easier for you... old chap?
now im confused. my first statement on the subject, that you responded to, was:
these "fox news is the right-wing brainwashing machine" theories are hilarious, imo.
now, if this idea of brainwashing was so far from your actual argument, then why challenge my statement in the first place? why not correct me with something along the lines of "dubla, im not claiming "brainwashing", not in the least....."?.....and then i could have happily ended the entire argument by apologizing for misconceiving your original premise. due to the fact that you specifically challenged me to back up my statement, i assumed i had it correctly. if i have been way off this entire time regarding your actual premise, then i do apologize.
Despite the fact under most descriptions of the events you would be described as "wrong", you move your position from "FOX didn't change people's opinions of Saddam"
no, i havent changed that.....its still my opinion that fox hasnt shaped anything for saddam, he shaped it himself long ago.
So, if someone has a bad reputation, then we need not be concerned if a news channel distorts facts and gives people misconceptions which might make them support actions they otherwise would not support? Seriously?
well, if we are going by your "stats" from above, they show that cnn must have also given people these "misconceptions", otherwise they would have been pretty close to 100% correct on the question, right? or maybe, just maybe, these cnn viewers had these opinions due to something other than the channel specifically steering them down the wrong path....maybe the fox viewers too. maybe they already had a hatred for saddam, and thus were quick to jump to conclusions that the manical dictator who had slaughtered thousands of innocents was likely to be involved in terrorism.?.
And your fiddle-faddle about you knowing Saddam was once considered a good guy ignores that the ONLY reason his 'classification' changed ten years ago was due to him invading Kuwait. He was a 'good guy' to the USA and some other Western powers when he was violating human rights prior to that point. After that the government HAD to re-classify him as a 'bad guy', as he had outlived his usefulness to the US's strategic interests in the area by going rouge (a democracy supporting and aiding a psychopathically violent and ruthless dictator? What could possibly go wrong?).
What a wonderful view you have from the moral high-ground...
abaddon, seriously, can we quit with the strawman stuff? im not trying to side-step the issue of saddams "good guy/bad guy" switch, and ill be happy to discuss it with you if youd like.....and youd probably be surprised to find out that i actually agree with some of your above points on it. the thing is, this issue has nothing to do with our specific discussion of fox news, which wasnt in existance until 1996......wouldnt you agree? and then you take the opportunity to slam me on a "moral" basis, without even knowing my views on the above.....you are better than that.
WHATEVER the reasons for the current invasion actually were (which I would have supported from the get-go if it had been under the banner of restoring human rights and democracy to the people of Iraq rather than the cover story used at the time), there was a concerted campaign to win public opinion over to back an extra-territorial conflict. Characeterising Saddam as a threat to the USA (when no 911 link existed and no viable campaign to hold stocks of WoMD to threaten external powers existed - by viable I mean 'having enough to pose a real threat') allowed this to happen.
for the most part, i agree with you. i still think that if the wmds werent there, he couldve easily proven it, but ive already argued that one to death on other threads, and we can pick it up on one of those if you get the inclination.
You keep your analysis at a sufficiently superficial level to avoid smelling the stink...It just gets better and better
how so? my analysis of saddam, or my analysis of news reporting?
I couldn't have shown how your concern for truth in news reporting is dependant upon a political agenda if I had tried.
i dont think news reporting is without spin or agenda in this country. i just dont think its quite the mind-bending, brainwashing tool some make it out to be....but you are not one of those "some", as youve already clarified (i think) that the "brainwashing" idea is not one you hold.
im still interested to know what "political agenda" you think im trying to propagate?
Oh: hahahahahaha. I am stroking my pussey and fiddling with my pinkie in the corner of my mouth...
great visual....lol.
aa
