Monday, October 26, 2009

Balance, False Equivalence, and right-wing circumvention of earned merit.

Nothing quite like having the official guest host of "The O'Reilly Factor" ironically go on to illustrate one of the very reasons why FOX News isn't a news organization.


Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmm. Yeah.

And then sometimes you conceal the race of a man with a gun so you can use it for disingenuous race-baiting.

So MSNBC would be something other than a news organization, perhaps?

...And disingenuous race-baiting? Huh. I'd positively swear that sounds like something that happened around these parts recently...

Audrey II said...

Thanks, Pat, for showing us how Ingraham's argument makes sense and how FOX really is a news organization, all because MSNBC ran a story that you take exception to. Some people might identify that as a rather transparent attempt at distraction and/or relativism, but they'd obviously be being "ignorant" or "willfully dishonest" about how the latter is relevant to the former.

Keep putting that conservative grasp of logical validity on public display!

Patrick Ross said...

Well, Audrey, seeing as how you've put your obtuse talent for missing the point so prominently on display, let's flesh this one out a little better for you.

A lot of people like yourself -- as a matter of fact, a lot of people on MSNBC -- complained to anyone who would listen that Fox News is not a real news outlet, and that they merely acted as a propaganda arm for George W Bush.

Which is actually fair enough, because they did.

But now, let's take a look at the general situation today. Now that Barack Obama is in office, MSNBC is not acting as a news organization. Rather, they're acting as a propaganda arm for Barack Obama, and Fox News is complaining about that.

On each case, I'd actually argue that turnabout is fair play.

I just find it utterly amusing how desperate you actually are to not discuss these issues -- in this case, the media's dereliction of its responsibilities to the American public, on each side of the ideological divide -- as they actually are, but rather only as you want to portray them.

Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't thank me for the "assist".

Audrey II said...

If only we all were honest enough to see the triangles as you do, had the moral integrity of your above admitted "turnabout" relativism, and were successfully distracted by the "issues" that you continually raise when you find the topic at hand a little too inconvenient.

Frankly, I'm quite happy with the contrast between my position on those things and yours, and appreciate the attention that your ongoing replies draws to them.

Look! Over there! A bright shiny object!!!

Patrick Ross said...

So, in other words you're comfortable with the fact that my views on the matter reflect reality, whereas yours reflect an ideological distortion of it.

Fair enough.

Audrey II said...

Once again, Pat, your reading comprehension skill and deductive reasoning ability continue to serve you well.

Patrick Ross said...

And I'm certain that you imagine your disingenuous refusal to address the excesses of your ideological compatriots serves you well.

It doesn't, but I'm sure you imagine it does.

Audrey II said...

Look! Over there! Something Patrick would rather talk about than the topic at hand!

Cheers to that kind of stunning "intellectualism".

If at any point you decide to actually address Ingraham's comments or FOX News programming (as opposed to the usual, grade-school efforts to justify them through relativism or to distract from the topic by tossing out things that have no bearing on an evaluation of either), you'll please let us know. In the mean time, best of luck with your one-trick-pony show.

Sparky said...

Patrick thinks pushing someone off a car is the same as putting a bullet in someone's head.
He's all about the relativism. Is his way.
No surprise (again)

Patrick Ross said...

Well, Audrey, I think we all know you're desperate to avoid talking about how your compatriots at MSNBC have become everything FOX was during the Bush administration.

Doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Unshocking that you don't want to talk about that.

Sparky said...

Yeah, 'cause the MSNBC commenters get their left-wing talking points pushed onto the MSNBC news shows...
Media differentiate Beck's "opinions" from Wallace's "news," but record shows Wallace repeatedly echoes Beck
Oh wait, that's FOX?
Oh right, Patrick makes another false equivalence--unshocking how he does that again.
Wanna back up any of your crap, Patrick? Show how "MSNBC have become everything FOX was"?
Or are you comfortable in making yet another baseless accusation, have it disproven (again) and add it to your ever growing list of wrongs.
You just love being wrong, don't you? You might want to seek help for that.

Patrick Ross said...

And Sparkles the Magical Retard strikes again.

You know, Spark, it's gotta be tough when your own sister network criticizes you for your bias.

Or when your ideological compatriots criticize you for being sexist.

Or when your network denounces Fox for promoting Tea Party rallies -- insisting this makes them "not a real news channel" -- when MSNBC promoted pro-Health Care rallies.

(So thus, by MSNBC's own standard, it isn't a real news channel.)

Olbermann and Maddow: it's OK for us to meet off-the-record with Obama because Fox did it with Bush.

And then there's the response of MSNBC News Anchors (not pundits) to a recent Dick Cheney speech.

Then there's this marvelous little nugget:

"I don't want to just generalize all Fox is biased or that another station is biased."

I'll wait to see if Sparky can figure out who said that.

Sparky said...

So Patrick posts lotsa links that show, what? That MSNBC is exactly like Fox? Hardly. See, Patrick didn't deal with Audrey's original points--just wanted to turn the discussion to something that he might win at. Then, when I actually confront him with even that bit of idiocy, he changes it again so he can 'win'.
Most of Patrick's links refer to MSNBC's opinion shows--something that's consistently referred to regarding Beck, et al--opinion shows are not news and should not negate the 'news' portion of those respective channels.
However, Patrick ignores the actual point--Media differentiate Beck's "opinions" from Wallace's "news," but record shows Wallace repeatedly echoes Beck.
Show me when Olbermann's or Rachel's 'rants' become 'sound bites' in the news.
But Patrick just wants to be right about something.
Moreover, equating MSNBC's news coverage of the heath care rallies to FOX news producers 'inciting' tea baggers for the camera shot is the kind of equivalence we expect from Patrick.
God you're dense.
I wanna see if you can figure that out.

Patrick Ross said...

Actually, Sparky, these show that MSNBC is precisely like Fox, in precisely the way you just tried to insist that they weren't.

Commentary being passed off as news by News Anchors? Check.

Not to mention a ton of other things.

Private meetings with the President by partisan pundits? Check.

Wide acknowledgement of the network's bias? Check.

Promotion of an agenda? Check.

See, Sparky wants to fall back to this position that Wallace echoes Beck -- and, indeed, it seems that he does.

So what does Sparkles have to say about Shuster and Hall clearly echoing Maddow, Olbermann, and every other lefty pundit on MSNBC?


That doesn't shock anyone.

See, folks, Sparky doesn't do terribly well with evidence. When evidence that doesn't support his argument -- or actively defies it -- pops up, Sparky does everything he can to twist that evidence so he can "win".

I'm merely making a point about this issue:

First off, Audrey wants to pick at right-wing news outlets to her heart's content, but can't seem to muster any honesty whatsoever about left-wing news outlets like MSNBC.

Secondly, I take no significant interest in Laura Ingraham. So, while you may like to whine and cry about it, I'll continue engaging you fools on topic that are of interest to me, as opposed to topics that are not.

I think it's very clear at this point that, on this blog, I set the topic of debate. After all, I start taking you on regarding MSNBC, and you answer.

You answer ineptly, but answer nonetheless.

Sparky said...

Yeah, FOX creating the news is exactly the same as MSNBC reporting the news--that's the point that Patrick wants you to ignore yet is the equivalence that Patrick is making.
And with that, the ballgame.
Inept? Keep dreaming Patrick. Is nice to have dreams.
Is very clear, and has been from the moment Patrick stepped out of his little nexus to engage us about triangles, deficits, CO2 emmissions, 'the whole of the blogosphere', 'nothing but' and 'FOX is exactly like MSNBC' that his debating forte is to be consistently wrong.
On everything.
Is what he excels at.
So this begs the question (after all, he himself stated that there were 'hollow victories'--implying that 'others' were actually right--therefore inferring ('cause it needs to be stated for the obtuse out there that lack reading comprehension) he was actually wrong), what has Patrick ever been right about? Every time he posts a comment outside his little nexus he's wrong. You'd think he'd learn by now
Let's watch while he says something else demonstrably incorrect (or inane--that wouldn't surprise me, either).

Audrey II said...

"I take no significant interest in Laura Ingraham"

Of course not. Ingraham's comments and what they ironically illustrate about FOX News is the topic at hand, and you've made it quite clear that you're more interested distracting from it.

Cheers to the the Rhetoric of Assholery: The gift that keeps on giving!

Patrick Ross said...


If you say so.

Sparky said...

Inane wins!
Thanks Patrick!

Patrick Ross said...

I mean, hey. It isn't as if MSNBC never reported False "quotes" from Rush Limbaugh, is it?

Sparky said...

Ooooh... a misquote! That's equivalent to 'making up the news'!! 'Cause not properly 'vetting a quote by Limbaugh is exactly the same as inciting a crowd for a great news shot.
Stop with your false equivalences, Patrick. It just makes you look dumber every time.
I also like how they mention MSNBC but don't link to any article. But I'll take it as true--MSNBC quoted a non-quote. Lower on teh page, there's a link to an aoplogy by CNN for using the quote. I would hope that if MSNBC used it, they would've also apologized.
Furthermore, you equivalent airhead, it wouldn't take much research to find Rush quotes that were and are racist. Or you gonna dismiss all those as well.
And on an aside, let us never forget how Rush had all the sympathy in the world for fellow Canadian Michael J Fox. Oh right, he didn't.
Can you be any more of a hack right now? Appealing to a misattributed quote of Rush to counter a FOX producer inciting a crowd to get a good shot for the news?
False equivalence indeed.

Patrick Ross said...

Well, Sparky, seeing as how you need everything explained to you -- although you're so stupid that you still don't understand, even after having it explained to you -- this would be a clear example of MSNBC "creating the news".

In this case, they created the story of the outrage over Limbaugh, an alleged racist, trying to buy the St Louis Rams.

Sparky, we all know you'll never admit to this.

As for Rush Limbaugh and Michael J Fox, Limbaugh's comments were absolutely disgusting.

But, once again, it seems that Sparky feels himself fully entitled to use tactics of distraction instead of actually addressing the matter at hand.

Ever so unshocking.

And that's the ball game.

Sparky said...

Creating the news... mistaking a racist quote from a racist is the exact same as inciting a crowd...
Nice Patrick.
No, if there's something that's close to MSNBC falsely attributing a racist quote to a racist, it'd be FOX attributing a (D) to republicans involved in a sex scandal
Oh wait, that's not even close. MSNBC made a mistake, FOX, by the looks of it, seems intent on attributing anyone involved in a sex scandal as a democrat.
Distraction? Yeah, if you want to label logically and consistently proving you to be a lying hack, then sure, label it as a distraction.
I'd rather you address Audreys original points before you go ranting about others offering up distractions.
You never even got up to bat, Charlie Brown. Keep living in your little dream world.

Patrick Ross said...


Sparky, you just lost this game.

You want to complain that Fox News "creates the news" as opposed to reporting it -- well, so does MSNBC, to the extent that they're willing to report fraudulent and unsourced quotes in an attempt to create a racial outrage around Limbaugh's attempt to buy into an NFL franchise.

So now you want to treat an attribution error as an attempt to invent the news?

That's about par for the course for you. Simply pathetic.

So, you claim you've "logically and consistently proven me to be a lying hack".

Are you disputing that MSNBC concealed the race of a man with a gun so they could pretend he was white and race-bait?

Are you disputing that MSNBC reported false quotes?

Are you disputing that Olbermann and Maddow had a private meeting with Obama, then justified it by noting that Fox did the same thing?

Are you disputing that CNBC criticized MSNBC's bias?

Are you disputing that MSNBC organized Health Care Rallies (inciting a crowd)?

Where are the lies, Sparky? Where are they?

Sparky said...

Quoth the idiot--"MSNBC have become everything FOX was"
at which point the idiot produces lots of false equivilancies to justify his claim. At which point, I agreed that both stations do many things the same, but, and probably most imporantly, FOX has been shown to deliberately make up news stories and MSNBC doesn't. Patrick tries to obfuscate and introduce fuzzy points to make it look like MSNBC does, but those were all shown to be invalid (and idiotic, as is Parick's wont) a which point I produced yet another FOX news deliberate lie that tyey still continue to do, and Patrick falls back to one misattributed racist quote from a racist.
False equivilance indeed.
Keep going, Patrick. My god you love to lose.

Patrick Ross said...


In the mind of Sparky, any inconvenient equivalence is false.

Unfortuantely for you, Sparkles, the evidence provided here speaks for itself.

But, unsurprisingly, Spanky can't see that for himself. Like I said before, he doesn't do well with evidence.

I'll just go over this one more time: all the things Spanky has just insisted are "lies", but won't refure:

-MSNBC concealed teh race of a man with a gun so they could pretend he was white and race-bait.

-MSNBC reported false quotes in regards to the Rush Limbaugh/St Louis Rams story.

-Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow met privately with Barack Obama, and then insisted that it was OK because Bush had done the same with Fox.

-CNBC criticized MSNBC for being biased.

-MSNBC incited crowds and organized Health Care Rallies.

All of which can be confirmed within this very thread.

That's the ball game, folks. I win. Sparky loses. AGAIN.

Sparky said...

Patrick again posts his deliberately false equivelancies in order to 'win'.
Every point that he made has already been dealt wtih--yes MSNBC is 'guilty' of doing many similar things that FOX did. At no point did I ever say MSNBC wasn't biased or without fault.
Moreover, I actually posted many things that MSNBC does that FOX did. It's not really surprisingat all that Patrick, in roder to 'win' ignored that completely.
However, what Patrick can't get around is that FOX News (and we have to be specific here 'cause that's waht this is all about) made up the news. A news organization making up the news. Deliberate. Moreover, FOX deliberately misrepresenting sex scandaled republicans as democrats--once may have been a mistake but at least 5 times?
Patrick states that I insist there are lies. Well, when Patrick says anything one must be wary. However, that said at least he provided links this time.
Again, however, all the links he provided have already been dealt with. People too lazy to scroll up--like Patrick (who can't remember his various disingenuous yippings from just a few comments ago)
In the final analysis, every news organizxation has been guilty at some time of the various oversights and misrepresentations that Patrick is pointing out. The reason for the abrupt retirement of Dan Rather immediately comes to mind.
Patrick equates that with MSNBC news mistaking a racist quote falsely attributed to the racist, Rush Limbaugh.
It's rather coincidental that Jon Stewart just now was doing a bit about exactly this.
Along with the above points regarding FOX vs MSNBC, he went into details regarding what I mentioned above
Seems that a grade school last feb has a little bit of a sing-sing and one of the songs was about the new president and how he was going to do all these wonderful things.
Well, this gets on youtube and FOX commeters 'discover' this egregious happening last month.
They get the vapourts over it and yammer about indoctronation and such, and then to no ones surprise (well, besides Patrick), FOX news picks up the story and state "there are those that are concerned about what happened in this school!!"
Yeah, those concerned are your very own commenters from, oh, about an hour before.
Patrick--MSNBC is exactly like FOX.
Anyone that has a brain--no, here are some examples where it isn't.
But Patrick will ignore that and go on about whatever he wants to go on about.
THanks for boring me again, Patrick. Wanna try getting up to the plate this time?

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn. Talk about boring.

The "false equivalency" argument (actually not his, he's just parroting this from his personal hero) became boring a long, long time ago.

Jon Stewart had a very illustrative example of what Sparkles is complaining about here, and unfortunately for Sparkles it isn't very different from any other news network.

It works like this: a news network has two different components. It has a news component, and it has an opinion component.

In any news network, it works like this: news anchors report the news, commentators and pundits comment on the news.

Now, in Fox's case, what turns out to be particularly interesting is that nobody knows who the hell their news anchors actually are. They're nobodies.

However, everyone knows who their pundits are. Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Fox & Friends -- they're the marketable end of the news cycle for Fox.

So, as with any other news network (including MSNBC), Fox promotes what is marketable. Like any other network, their news coverage flows into their commentary (after all, news commentary would be empty with no news to comment on), which then flows back into news in order to hook people additional in to watch the commentary, which is where they make their money.

MSNBC does the same thing. For example, when Contessa Brewer (one of their news anchors, and not a commentator, by the way) presented footage of a man with a gun at a Barack Obama event in Arizona, she presented that footage selectively edited from the collar down, and insisted that white people were going to attempt a racially-motivated assassination of the President.

Other coverage of that event revealled something very different -- that the man in question was black.

So, numerous points here.

Certainly, Fox has done things like identify embattled Republicans as Democrats. It's very likely this could be an attribution error or typo. But I myself have some dobuts about that in particular.

I've made myself clear regarding Fox News, and I'm not really here to defend them. I'm here to drop some knowledge regarding MSNBC.

There is no way that MSNBC were making an error when they edited this particular footage. A mistake? Aboslutely. But not an error.

They did two separate things that Sparkles is insisting they don't. First, they're presenting fallacious information (in this case, for the purpose of race baiting). Secondly, they're inventing the story of an impending racially-motivated armed uprising against the President.

That would be inventing the news. As far as inventing the news goes, I'll give Fox this much: at least they seem to draw the line at race baiting.

(See, Sparky, that's what those of us with minds of our own call a home run. Now I suggest you go back to Robbie, promise you won't lose so badly next time, and maybe someday he'll make you into a real boy.)

Sparky said...

Wow Patrick, you reiterated all the points that I made, claiming them as your own, and then conveniently ignoring your very own argument--that MSNBC was exactly like FOX by making a point (very disingenuous--not surprising) that MSNBC isn't like FOX.
Lack of self awareness indeed.
"I'm not here to defend FOX" sayeth the idiot, like that was ever the issue. "Well Patrick, I'm not here to defend MSNBC, either, so there!!" Child's play--That's all that Patrick has. A childs understanding as to how things work the way they do. So thoroughly ensconsed in his own little worldview that he can't, or won't see anything but his triangles.
Go chase your triangles, Patrick. We'll just add this to the ever growing heap of things you were wrong about.
And note at the end of this conversation, Audrey's original points--not addressed at all by Patrick 'cause, well, he can't. No, he'd rather accuse others of ignoring things. Is amazing how thoroughly Patrick projects his own shortcomings on everybody else.
Ya wanna actually show up to the stadium, Patrick? We're getting tired of standing here, waiting for you to show up.

Sparky said...

Since Patrick's all about "hte links"--
Obama Is Right About Fox News
Who owns both the WSJ and FOX? Right...
Triangle away, Patrick.

Patrick Ross said...

Wow, Sparky. That has to be about the most desperate argument I've ever heard out of you -- and seeing as how, to date, you've offered up some real doozies, that's really saying something.

The point is, Sparky, that Fox "creating its own news" is at least originally based on what is usually acual news. (The Obama song outrage was both insipid and old news, but it was actually dug up by Matt Drudge, not by Fox, apparently.)

Whereas when MSNBC creates the news -- as in the Contessa Brewer race baiting episode -- they do it by twisting actual news stories into something they are not. For example, a black man with an AR-15 assault rifle at a Presidential town hall meeting becomes, via selective editing and sensationalist implications, a white man with a gun looking to kill the President.

Who ever said Obama isn't right about Fox news, Sparkles? The point is that his coddling of MSNBC gives him a real credibility problem when he complains about Fox.

Now that being said, Sparky, you've lost this argument multiple times over by now. I know that chip on your shoulder against people smarter than you has got to be nagging at you, but it's time for you to grow up and leave the field with some dignity.

Then again, you never have before. As a matter of fact, I fully expect you to run this comment thread up well past 100 comments trying to distort the results here and eke out what you can call a victory.

I even expect you to wait days at a time in hopes that I'll just forget about this and move on to more stimulating topics.

But you lost this a long time ago. You know it, I know it. Now you need to accept it, grow up, and move on.

Sparky said...

Nice try. Your ever growing list of wrongs is, well, ever growing.
Go peddle your triangles in your little sycophantic echo chamber nexus--there'll be people there that actually believe your lies and hackery. And now that you've wasted all your other ammunition--obfuscations, disingenuous points, projecting, ignoring what's written, and ad hominems, you've resorted to your 'last post' game. My god you're a predictable hack.
Well, the last thread of 100+ comments was for the benefit of everyone else to show without equivocation how big a hack you truly are. Everyone but you understood that.
You bitched and whined when people made their point with 1 comment but you wanted to go on, reiterating your same disingenuous points... and when someone actually decided to see what it's like to take things as far as they would go with you, you bitched and moaned thru the entire thread posting, repeating (suprising no one) your disingenous (and already disproven) points.
Just like here.
Why go throu that again? You've demonstrated your thick headedness no matter what the situation. You've demonstrated your lies, your wrongs, your hackery over and over again.
No need to repeat that at all.
You lost again. You won't admit it, but anyone can see that. You'll go on strutting around, posting disingenuous comments here, there, everywhere regarding what took place... and those that are part of your little 'group speak' echo chamber will believe you.
The rest of us--the ones living in the real world, will just remember triangles, no deficits, CO2, 'the whole of the blogosphere', 'nothing but nonsense' and 'msnbc is exactly like fox', as well as all the other times you were wrong.
Have at it, Patrick. I'm quite content with how things stand at this time.
Oh, and I love the perpetual whiner bitching about my not responding to one of his inanities over a weekend. Good on you, Patrick.
And with that, I'm done.

Patrick Ross said...


Sparky, you're an idiot.

The last thread of 100+ comments, quite frankly, just shows how utterly desperate you were to get the last word.

I mean, I've never waited three days until after someone posted on a topic, posted a weak rebuttal, then jumped up and screamed "win!"

Sparky just doesn't want to admit how incredibly embarrassing l'affaire Ted Kennedy was for him. Not only did he and Audrey demand that the debate be conducted by means of exchanging cherry-picked blog posts (which they knew full well would give them an unfair advantage), but Sparky produced numerous polluted blog samples in order to try to make his case.

Sparky has this hilarious habit of trying to pass off tripe as genius, and expecting other people to clap like circus seals out of ideological solidarity.

When that fails, he falls back into his old, boring, dishonest patterns of flouting ancient half-truths and the hollow "triumphs" of other people, not ever realizing that these things say far more about the inherently petty and vicious nature of Sparkles than they do of myself.

Not to mention speaking to his spectacularly dismal intelligence. After all these years, he still can't seem to figure out that these things don't trouble me one little bit.

Just like today. Sparky can't justify his defense of MSNBC any further, so he's going to envoke these things once again to eke out what he can call a win -- even if he knows he lost.

Personally, when Jon Stewart took both Fox and MSNBC out to the woodshed last night, I felt that he was effectively taking Sparky with them.

Which was fun.

Post a Comment