Fox "News"

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

Well, thank you. Ultimately, I'm just trying to search for truth. Anyone can be empirical and anyone can be skeptical. It's very difficult to be both. I don't like to form or state an opinion on something unless I've actually done a lot of research, then tested it against alternative points of view. I wouldn't say I'm a centrist or agnostic, because I do have opinions on subjects. They're across the entire political compass, and are often dependant on situation and the scale of governance. You have been civil in your arguments, which I appreciate, and it's what we need to get back to in society. If conservatives and progressives could work together towards a certain goal, rather than just opposing each other, things would look a lot different.

Apologies, I initially said "party" agnostic and then said "political" agnostic. I meant "party" agnostic each time. That might still be inaccurate but hopefully closer to accurate than "political" agnostic. 

[caleb1633 1,418]

8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Apologies, I initially said "party" agnostic and then said "political" agnostic. I meant "party" agnostic each time. That might still be inaccurate but hopefully closer to accurate than "political" agnostic. 

That would be more accurate. I just do my best to sideline my human nature of having a pre-established narrative in my head that's based on political affiliation or any other number of factors, then gather the facts that rationalize that narrative. Even when I know I'm doing it, it's tough to not fall into. That's why competing points of view can be so valuable. There's a lot of harm that can come from retreating into an echo chamber *cough* Parler.

[Grumps 3,704]

13 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Believe it or not, you can hear Republicans on CNN too.  Rick Santorum is a mainstay.  Republican politicians and spokespeople for the Trump administration are on regularly.  And the migration from CNN to Fox isn't new.  Fox has been larger long before Trump and "fake news" came around.  If people only wanted the truth, they'd watch the PBS Newshour.  But the facts show that people don't want just facts and truth.  They want to hear things that comport to their world view, facts be damned.

Where you screw up though is conflating debate with truth.  Having Santorum, Brazil, or anyone of their ilk on doesn't make that a news channel.  They are no more news than PTI is for sports.

What I'm talking about is many on the right's rush to embrace outright false news networks like an OAN because it comforts them.  That's dangerous as hell.

I absolutely believe you. But when I have watched CNN there is not as much of the alternative viewpoint. Watching Don Lemon or Chris Cuomo is as bad as watching Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson. I agree that debate does not equal truth, but if you hear two sides you are MUCH more likely to hear some truth. I agree that people don't just want facts and truth. I love to hear some opposing positions because it helps me to determine what I believe to be true.

Remember that my original point is that less people would watch Fox if CNN would tell the truth. I still believe that to be true. When CNN reports things that are OBVIOUSLY intentionally misleading then it makes people who at least pretend to want the truth to stay away from it. I admit to knowing nothing about OAN other than that OK State's FB coach got in serious hot water for going fishing while wearing an OAN t-shirt.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

I absolutely believe you. But when I have watched CNN there is not as much of the alternative viewpoint. Watching Don Lemon or Chris Cuomo is as bad as watching Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson. I agree that debate does not equal truth, but if you hear two sides you are MUCH more likely to hear some truth. I agree that people don't just want facts and truth. I love to hear some opposing positions because it helps me to determine what I believe to be true.

Remember that my original point is that less people would watch Fox if CNN would tell the truth. I still believe that to be true. When CNN reports things that are OBVIOUSLY intentionally misleading then it makes people who at least pretend to want the truth to stay away from it. I admit to knowing nothing about OAN other than that OK State's FB coach got in serious hot water for going fishing while wearing an OAN t-shirt.

Again though, your CNN point doesn't stand.  If people wanted truth and facts, the PBS Newshour would be the highest rated show in news.  People want to hear things that comports to their world view.

And you should educate yourself on OAN and Newsmax.  They are quickly becoming a dangerous force in our society.

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Again though, your CNN point doesn't stand.  If people wanted truth and facts, the PBS Newshour would be the highest rated show in news.  People want to hear things that comports to their world view.

And you should educate yourself on OAN and Newsmax.  They are quickly becoming a dangerous force in our society.

Somebody joked (I think) about something being an REC conspiracy, and I thought of this conversation. It's the exact same thing. So many Auburn fans are quick to blame the REC, the NCAA, Pete Thamel- literally anything other than our own choices and actions- for our football program's shortcomings. And the reaction when you suggest that maybe certain important people on our side just aren't very good at their jobs... well, that doesn't make them feel any better, and therefore it must not be true. 

[caleb1633 1,418]

16 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Somebody joked (I think) about something being an REC conspiracy, and I thought of this conversation. It's the exact same thing. So many Auburn fans are quick to blame the REC, the NCAA, Pete Thamel- literally anything other than our own choices and actions- for our football program's shortcomings. And the reaction when you suggest that maybe certain important people on our side just aren't very good at their jobs... well, that doesn't make them feel any better, and therefore it must not be true. 

"The trouble with conspiracy theories is that, when seen in isolation (particularly without broader context), they follow impeccable logic." - Nassim Nicholas Taleb

[homersapien 11,392]

On 12/9/2020 at 5:01 PM, I_M4_AU said:

The Atlantic? Really, talk about an echo chamber; The 1619 Project is

‘So wrong in so many ways” is how Gordon Wood, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the American Revolution, characterized the New York Times’s “1619 Project.” James McPherson, dean of Civil War historians and another Pulitzer winner, said the Times presented an “unbalanced, one-sided account” that “left most of the history out.” 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-gets-schooled-11576540494

When a fact-checker asked Harris to verify some of the project's statements, Harris "vigorously disputed" the claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a major reason the American colonies rebelled against British rule:

Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies. Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, a British military strategy designed to unsettle the Southern Colonies by inviting enslaved people to flee to British lines, propelled hundreds of enslaved people off plantations and turned some Southerners to the patriot side. It also led most of the 13 Colonies to arm and employ free and enslaved black people, with the promise of freedom to those who served in their armies. While neither side fully kept its promises, thousands of enslaved people were freed as a result of these policies….

Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones' introductory essay. In addition, the paper's characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.

Hannah-Jones has tended to be extremely dismissive of the project's critics, who include The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf and the American Institute for Economic Research's Phil Magness. Perhaps she will have a more difficult time discounting criticism from a historian whose expertise her project drew on.

In any case, these ongoing issues with the project's accuracy are a good argument against school districts' swift mandates that it be taught in seventh-grade history classrooms.

https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/

The left leaning media will no print both sides so Americans can decide for them selves. You have more of a bias than you know.

 

 

Didn't read the article huh?  Guess "The Atlantic" is too biased.

Well here's the original letter  along with the response from NY Magazine:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html

Obviously there were some specific points that were refuted - but are still debatable, but in general even the critics praised the effort in total: 

"We applaud all efforts to address the enduring centrality of slavery and racism to our history. Some of us have devoted our entire professional lives to those efforts, and all of us have worked hard to advance them. Raising profound, unsettling questions about slavery and the nation’s past and present, as The 1619 Project does, is a praiseworthy and urgent public service. Nevertheless, we are dismayed at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process behind it."

And as you will note, the author and publisher welcomed the critiques and committed to addressing them in the pending book:

"This is an important discussion to have, and we are eager to see it continue. To that end, we are planning to host public conversations next year among academics with differing perspectives on American history. Good-faith critiques of our project only help us refine and improve it — an important goal for us now that we are in the process of expanding it into a book......"

In other words, the academic debate taking place is really no different than what occurs with any other major work of history that is published. 

Having specific issues with specific point does not "debunk" the entire work. 

You apparently would like to see the entire worked dismissed as fiction ("debunked") even when it's critics acknowledge the general value of the work.

Why is that?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,861]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

"This is an important discussion to have, and we are eager to see it continue. To that end, we are planning to host public conversations next year among academics with differing perspectives on American history. Good-faith critiques of our project only help us refine and improve it — an important goal for us now that we are in the process of expanding it into a book......"

In other words, the academic debate taking place is really no different than what occurs with any other major work of history that is published. 

Having specific issues with specific point does not "debunk" the entire work. 

You apparently would like to see the entire worked dismissed as fiction ("debunked") even when it's critics acknowledge the general value of the work.

Why is that?

I don’t what the whole thing dismissed as fiction, it can be debated, but to teach this in school while it is still DEBATABLE is not the way you should teach your youth.  You can bring it up as an alternative to what we are taught at a later time, but history is what has been passed down.

As an example; a lot of people have been exposed to Howard Zinn’s view of history that was originally taught history as you and I were taught.  Concepts change as a person gets older, to teach concepts when a child can not understand concepts is detrimental to development.  See parents thinking a 4 year old can decide his/her own gender.

Force feeding that which is not widely accepted is not the way to go.  I hope this helps

[homersapien 11,392]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t what the whole thing dismissed as fiction, it can be debated, but to teach this in school while it is still DEBATABLE is not the way you should teach your youth.  You can bring it up as an alternative to what we are taught at a later time, but history is what has been passed down.

As an example; a lot of people have been exposed to Howard Zinn’s view of history that was originally taught history as you and I were taught.  Concepts change as a person gets older, to teach concepts when a child can not understand concepts is detrimental to development.  See parents thinking a 4 year old can decide his/her own gender.

Force feeding that which is not widely accepted is not the way to go.  I hope this helps

First, the history I was "taught" - in the early 60's - was largely bogus. (See the Dunning school.) The history I have learned since was done on my own by independent reading - including some of the authors who critiqued the 1619 project, especially McPherson. 

Secondly, I can only assume that since the author and publisher have agreed to modifications before publishing the book, similar modifications will be made to school texts.

Thirdly, As long as both sides are presented, I see no reason why children cannot be presented information that is still "debatable".  It would challenge them to consider both sides in their assessment of the "truth".  In fact, one of the purposes of the 1619 project is to present a perspective that has been lacking in our understanding of history. 

Finally, I am glad to see you backing away from describing the 1619 Project as "debunked".

 

[I_M4_AU 7,861]

48 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I can only assume that since the author and publisher have agreed to modifications before publishing the book, similar modifications will be made to school texts.

Great, so why the rush to teach this to 7th graders?  Can a 7th grader be taught both side of this argument and still pass the grade.  Who decides which answer is the correct one to pass the grade?  Where is the Native American prospective and when will that text book be available.  Do you teach all three aspects?  It’s a can of worms.

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I see no reason why children cannot be presented information that is still "debatable".

The biggest reason is the teacher.  Can they be impartial in their presentation of the subject?  Will they let their “truth” leak threw. If there are questions, 7th graders what a concrete answer from the supreme authority over they’re grades and future.  They will demand the “real” answer.  There is time for alternative prospectives later if they are still interested in history, you did it.

I still think it should not see the light of day in a classroom for basic education.

[homersapien 11,392]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Great, so why the rush to teach this to 7th graders?  Can a 7th grader be taught both side of this argument and still pass the grade.  Who decides which answer is the correct one to pass the grade?  Where is the Native American prospective and when will that text book be available.  Do you teach all three aspects?  It’s a can of worms.

What "rush"?

And my understanding it that the 1619 project will be used only as a supplement to existing curricula, not as a replacement. The book hasn't even been produced.

The biggest reason is the teacher.  Can they be impartial in their presentation of the subject?  Will they let their “truth” leak threw. If there are questions, 7th graders what a concrete answer from the supreme authority over they’re grades and future.  They will demand the “real” answer.  There is time for alternative prospectives later if they are still interested in history, you did it.

You seem not to have much respect for teachers or 7th graders.  We are talking about a few specific statements made by the author which are clearly and publicly being disputed/debated. There's no reason to think any teacher would present just one side of the conflict and exclude the other. 

For that matter, the author/editor of the project seem willing to accept challenges to what is essentially a work in progress.  I don't see any attempt by the authors to push their view as dogma in the face of qualified opposition.

I see this as a clear opportunity to draw students into the discussion. It's a means to educate students to how the academic process (of history) works. It's also a way to encourage them to research the issue on their own - or at least to consider both sides of the disagreement and reach their own conclusion, which is far better than insisting they simply accept a particular fact as dogma.  The truth will always reveal itself based on such research.  

I still think it should not see the light of day in a classroom for basic education.  Your opinion is noted. 

To me, it suggests you are prepared to sacrifice the greater benefit of accurately presenting slavery as one of the formative influences that continues to define our country for the sake of a few details, even when the authors are receptive to modifying those details.

And I don't equate a presentation of a native American perspective as creating a "can of worms".  It's part of our history as well.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,861]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

What "rush"?

And my understanding it that the 1619 project will be used only as a supplement to existing curricula, not as a replacement. The book hasn't even been produced.

This is my understanding too,however, if people are mentioning it in articles how fast do you think it will be before it’s in someone’s curriculum?

 

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

You seem not to have much respect for teachers or 7th graders.  We are talking about a few specific statements made by the author which are clearly and publicly being disputed/debated. There's no reason to think any teacher would present just one side of the conflict and exclude the other.

Your assumption about my respect for teachers is way off.  My wife was a middle school teacher for 30 years, so I have a deep respect for what they go through in their professional life.  I also know 7th graders are maturing and their hormones are more important to them than any deep discussion of history.  

 If the curriculum requires a teacher to present both sides it will be done, however, 7th graders are also very perceptive in that they can determine what the teacher’s thoughts (whether correct or not) about a subject is even though the teacher presents both sides.

Teachers are presented with 10 lbs of material to present in a 5 lbs sack. It doesn’t even make sense to expand the curriculum when the subject is, in your words, publicly being disputed/debated.  Settle the subject before adding it to a curriculum. I know you are saying no one has put it in their curriculum, but I think it will be in somewhere soon.

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

For that matter, the author/editor of the project seem willing to accept challenges to what is essentially a work in progress.  I don't see any attempt by the authors to push their view as dogma in the face of qualified opposition.

The authors have adjusted their original wording, but it still pushes their view as a dogma.  The original reference to the “true founding” was subsequently removed to read: “The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”

I’m a little rusty on liberalize; what does this even mean?  Also, what is meant by qualified opposition?

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

To me, it suggests you are prepared to sacrifice the greater benefit of accurately presenting slavery as one of the formative influences that continues to define our country for the sake of a few details, even when the authors are receptive to modifying those details.

And I don't equate a presentation of a native American perspective as creating a "can of worms".  It's part of our history as well.

To me, 7th grade is not the time to present this version of history as it is the authors *truth* (perception/dogma your choice) as to the “very center of our National narrative”.  I don’t see a lot of modifying of details so far.

The *can of worms* comes in when the curriculum is modified to include the 1619 Project and Native American perspective and the teachers run out of time to devote quality time to each perspective.  The student is left confused and just asking *what’s on the test*?

Would you be OK with an alternative perspective of how President Trump’s administration’s accomplishments were the *best since Abraham Lincoln*? 

 

 

[AUFriction 1,179]

There's a lot here already, but I'm just going to respond to the OP. So, sorry if I'm recycling points. 

The rise of Trump was about more than just Fox News. It was partially the entire media. The ONE place I agree with Trump is that our media system is collectively broken. CNN, which used to be a pretty moderate news source, has steadily moved pretty far left. The same goes with a lot of the other formerly moderate sources. At the same time, Fox moved horribly right. While I'd argue that Fox tips the BS meter more than a lot of the other major news networks, all of them have been distorting the truth. They'll take legitimate stories, twist them, and make them sound like evidence that the sky is falling. 

But something else is going on here as well. Ifyou've been keeping up, you'd notice that a lot of far righters are now calling fox news "too liberal" and are bailing for other news networks like OAN, Newsmax, and Breitbart. This to me is more of a sign that it isn't just the media that is shifted. It is society as a whole. The media and the increasingly polarized voting populace have been moving each other farther and farther out to lala land. Finally, a portion of fox news took a stand, and now people are looking for even more extreme news sources. 

It is possible that the media got all this rolling, but this is honestly where I give my one "ThanksObama" moment. I've commented on here before saying that I'm somewhere between a moderate liberal, a libertarian, and a true centrist. I really hated Trump's presidency, but I wasn't exactly a fan of Obama's either. Obama was divisive. Some will say it was all race. That was a part of it, especially for a faction of alt-righters. But, the real place Obama was divisive was in his use of the white house. Obama spent 8 years trying to shove through policies where there was severe disagreement nationally. When he would involve the republican party, he would immediately cut them down saying they weren't moving enough. I remember a moment where my disdain for him was solidified. They had been arguing back and forth over Obamacare. Finally, the republican leaders met with him to findcommon ground. The republicans came out of the meeting saying that they didn't reach acompromise, but they were close. Obama came out of the same meeting and lambasted the republicansfor not bending to his will. Where he wasn't able to shove policy through congress, he severely misused executive orders (which is why it was so easy forTrump to reverse DACA and some other Obama erathings). Executive orders are NEVER supposed to be policy. They are supposed to just provide clarity to federal agencies about how something should be carried out. Obama essentially wrote policies and called them executive orders. Good intentioned or not, this pushing things through and going around congress fired up people, especially politicians, on the right while also making mainstream republicans look weak. So, in 2016, conservatives didn't want a mainstream candidate anymore. They wanted an obnoxious person that would have the same aggressive use of the white house that we saw under Obama (or, as it turns out, even more aggressive) that also would not take any crap from the Democratic Party. Enter Trump, a populist that would end this passive small federal government conservativism as a big statist that would push through a conservato-populist agenda.

So, I think the media was only a piece of what caused Trump to rise. I honestly put more blame onthe last administration. So... Thanks Obama...

 

If you happen to disagree, how about telling me why. Don’t be a wimp and just downvote my post.Let’s have a conversation. 

[homersapien 11,392]

17 hours ago, AUFriction said:

 

There's a lot here already, but I'm just going to respond to the OP. So, sorry if I'm recycling points. 

The rise of Trump was about more than just Fox News. It was partially the entire media. The ONE place I agree with Trump is that our media system is collectively broken. CNN, which used to be a pretty moderate news source, has steadily moved pretty far left. The same goes with a lot of the other formerly moderate sources. At the same time, Fox moved horribly right. While I'd argue that Fox tips the BS meter more than a lot of the other major news networks, all of them have been distorting the truth. They'll take legitimate stories, twist them, and make them sound like evidence that the sky is falling. 

But something else is going on here as well. Ifyou've been keeping up, you'd notice that a lot of far righters are now calling fox news "too liberal" and are bailing for other news networks like OAN, Newsmax, and Breitbart. This to me is more of a sign that it isn't just the media that is shifted. It is society as a whole. The media and the increasingly polarized voting populace have been moving each other farther and farther out to lala land. Finally, a portion of fox news took a stand, and now people are looking for even more extreme news sources. 

It is possible that the media got all this rolling, but this is honestly where I give my one "ThanksObama" moment. I've commented on here before saying that I'm somewhere between a moderate liberal, a libertarian, and a true centrist. I really hated Trump's presidency, but I wasn't exactly a fan of Obama's either. Obama was divisive. Some will say it was all race. That was a part of it, especially for a faction of alt-righters. But, the real place Obama was divisive was in his use of the white house. Obama spent 8 years trying to shove through policies where there was severe disagreement nationally. When he would involve the republican party, he would immediately cut them down saying they weren't moving enough. I remember a moment where my disdain for him was solidified. They had been arguing back and forth over Obamacare. Finally, the republican leaders met with him to findcommon ground. The republicans came out of the meeting saying that they didn't reach acompromise, but they were close. Obama came out of the same meeting and lambasted the republicansfor not bending to his will. Where he wasn't able to shove policy through congress, he severely misused executive orders (which is why it was so easy forTrump to reverse DACA and some other Obama erathings). Executive orders are NEVER supposed to be policy. They are supposed to just provide clarity to federal agencies about how something should be carried out. Obama essentially wrote policies and called them executive orders. Good intentioned or not, this pushing things through and going around congress fired up people, especially politicians, on the right while also making mainstream republicans look weak. So, in 2016, conservatives didn't want a mainstream candidate anymore. They wanted an obnoxious person that would have the same aggressive use of the white house that we saw under Obama (or, as it turns out, even more aggressive) that also would not take any crap from the Democratic Party. Enter Trump, a populist that would end this passive small federal government conservativism as a big statist that would push through a conservato-populist agenda.

So, I think the media was only a piece of what caused Trump to rise. I honestly put more blame onthe last administration. So... Thanks Obama...

 

If you happen to disagree, how about telling me why. Don’t be a wimp and just downvote my post.Let’s have a conversation. 

Obama didn't abuse executive power.  He was forced to utilize executive orders because of McConnell's deliberate and overt obstructionism.

Regardless, the idea that Trumpism was born of Obama's presidency is absurd.

 

[AUFriction 1,179]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Obama didn't abuse executive power.  He was forced to utilize executive orders because of McConnell's deliberate and overt obstructionism.

Regardless, the idea that Trumpism was born of Obama's presidency is absurd.

 

You don't have a lot of conservative friends, do you?

For the folks I know that voted for Trump, Obama's administration was the reason they voted for him. They thought Trump was a bad candidate, but they didn't want 4 more years of (what they thought would be) an expansion of Obama's presidency through Hilary. 

I don't expect you to flip your opinion though. Folks on the left seem to hold Obama to almost saint status. He could stand in the the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone, and he wouldn't lose any support from people that identify as Democrats. Convincing someone like you that there's anything to criticize Obama for is a no-win scenario. 

[homersapien 11,392]

35 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

You don't have a lot of conservative friends, do you?

For the folks I know that voted for Trump, Obama's administration was the reason they voted for him. They thought Trump was a bad candidate, but they didn't want 4 more years of (what they thought would be) an expansion of Obama's presidency through Hilary. 

I don't expect you to flip your opinion though. Folks on the left seem to hold Obama to almost saint status. He could stand in the the middle of 5th Avenue  dand shoot someone, and he wouldn't lose any support from people that identify as Democrats. Convincing someone like you that there's anything to criticize Obama for is a no-win scenario. 

No, I don't many conservative friends.  Most of my family is conservative but like they say, you can choose your friends but you can't choose your family.

I don't hold Obama as a saint.  He made a lot of mistakes.  I have no problem with criticizing him at all.

But please specify what Obama said or did  - other than being black - that inspired so much reaction from MAGAs.  Seriously.  I'll hang up and listen.