Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[Sisyphus]

I think it's pretty clear that all the hubbub about "czars" is derived entirely from "czar" being a foreign sounding word (a Russian word, no less, for something undemocratic (a monarch), that almost sounds MUSLIM!), and they profit from the continued perception of Obama as foreign and scary. That a)it's just an informal title for an administrator, and b) the convention is as old as the Wilson Administration, doesn't seem to matter.

[Mr Skeptic]

And to get back on topic, this silly czar business is therefore another example of "news" manufactured to promote an agenda.

[swansont]

Here is an original list of the Czars, released (August 2009) by Beck and I doubt you have even seen this list or have been advised of any questionable credentials or the fact none were required FBI security clearances.

 

I'll need a (preferably credible) source for this "fact."

[jryan]

Well, except that it isn't just dumb gullible hicks that fear foreigners that have a problem with the Czar program.

 

LA Times Article

 

Sen. Robert Byrd Memo

 

The Atlantic

The Philadelphia Inquirer

 

And so on.

 

Trying to attribute a general dislike for Czars as people being xenophobic is not really helpful when most of the criticism out there is on a case by case basis, or is a general criticism that has existed on both sides of the isle for longer than Obama's year in office.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My favorite moment of 2009 goes to the Huffington Post, though:

 

“Mary Jo wasn’t a right-wing talking point or a negative campaign slogan....We don’t know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she’d have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history....[One wonders what] Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded. Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.”

— Melissa Lafsky, Huffington Post, August 27.

 

 

.. ummm...

Edited February 16, 2010 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

Here's the White House response to Feingold's objections

 

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/feingoldletter.pdf

 

It includes points I have made : several positions are senate-confirmable, so the objections are moot, and others are for people who already testify before congress and are subject to FOIA.

 

Others fall into the category of senior advisors, permitted by federal statute

 

senior White House advisors, who assist the President in the formulation of Executive Branch policy and exercise no independent legal authority. Federal statute explicitly authorizes the President to employ a limited number of senior policy advisors to "perform such official duties as the President may prescribe." 3 U.S.C. §§ 105-06. All former Presidents have employed similar advisors. In fact, Senator Collins' letter acknowledges that Presidents are "entitled to surround themselves with experts who can serve as senior advisors." These positions fit squarely within this category.

 

If this is a problem, then I have to ask why e.g. the energy policy advisors to Bush/Cheney (the ones whose names we weren't told) weren't confirmed by the Senate.

 

The underlying point here is not whether other people object, it is that Beck is blowing the situation out of proportion, and jackson33's further claim that there is a Constitutional problem here.

[jryan]

Well, we can easily assume a White House objection to the Feingold objection, can't we? I wouldn't imagine there would be a "Now that you mention it... I shouldn't have all these Czars!".

 

Beck, Matthews, Olbermann, Cooper, O'Reily, Maddow, Hannity, etc. are all paid for opinion. I don't really understand the "Oh my gosh BIAS!" thrown at Fox. In reality we are all hard wired to see anything we disagree with as wrong, and attribute wrongness to bias.

 

In reality, as far as news is concerned, the uproar over bias (be it Fox or CNN or MSNBC or CBS etc. etc.) is misguided as News has always been about bias.

 

I wish I had the attribution to the quote, but there was a news editor back in the 70s who once said "There are 4 billion people and only 3 hours of daily news, we can't report on all of them".

 

Bias is present in opinion from Beck's Czar rants to Coopers "teabagger" -- that a few hear ironically repeat while blasting Fox for bias -- to Matthews "thrill up his leg" and Olbermanns... well all of Olbermann -- who is probably the most frothing and hatefull of the bunch. But it also crops up in story selection -- editors pick the stories they find interesting -- and bias is even introduced in the simple process of selecting who will represent each side of a debate during network programming.

 

"Tonight on Hannity we debate health care.... on the right we have Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, a distinguished doctor and statesmen, and on the left we have Al Sharpton"...

 

Or, on the other side..

 

"Tonight on Anderson Cooper we will be debating President Obama's stimulous package... on the left we will speak with Nobel Prize Laureate Paul Krugman and on the right we will have Anne Coulter"

 

And so on.

 

This has always been the case, the only thing that I have seen change in my lifetime is the choice of issues that are pushed from one side or the other.

 

Journalists, like editors, also choose angles on stories that they find interesting. When there is an ideological difference between the journalist and editor the editor wins. Because of this, you will also find journalists gravitating to jobs where they are comfortable and where they feel their voice will be heard.

 

There was a vacuum in the 80s and 90s of outlets for conservative journalists (if a person's first thought is "WELL GOOD!" then they are part of the problem). When Fox News came along there was an expected rush of conservatives to Fox news. While this cranked up the conservative message at Fox it also liberalized the rest of the media even further than it had already been.

 

In 1997, a study done by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found that 61% of print journalists considered themselves Democrats to 15% Republican. This is part of a longer trend.

 

It should also be noted that the trend towards more liberal media seems to have peeked in the late 90s (around the time Fox News was founded) and has been on the decline ever since. The split has gone from 61/15 to 40/25 according to a recent article at journalism.org. Of course there are ample grounds for a comparison of methodology between the two studies, but I would guess that trend is both fairly accurately displayed there and also appeals to our common sense observation over that time.

Edited February 17, 2010 by jryan

[jackson33]

swansont;

 

 

 

Republican lawmakers are pushing for increased scrutiny and perhaps Senate confirmation for presidential "czars" in the wake of the resignation of green jobs "czar" Van Jones.

 

GOP members of Congress have suggested that President Obama's appointment of some 30 czars to handle various policy initiatives have sidestepped the constitutional mandate for the Senate's "advice and consent."[/Quote]

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/57627-republicans-push-for-senate-confirmation-of-czars

 

At worst, it is downright dangerous for the American people. These czars aren't required to go through background checks. Since they "serve at the pleasure of the President," they are immune from Congressional oversight, and according to one legal expert in a recent review of the practical legal issues at hand, existing Supreme Court precedent would even keep these czars from being forced to reply to Congressional subpoenas, since they can hide almost anything under the umbrella of "Executive Privilege." Each Presidential czar therefore has a great deal of power, unprecedented access to official and perhaps even classified materials, yet they are accountable to no one but the President. That is an unacceptable loophole in our government process. [/Quote]

 

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/news-issue/czarist-rule/

 

While no elected official is required a 'Background Check' (take an oath) person serving them, are required an FBI 'Background Check', no different than any person visiting the White House. These in themselves are NOT security checks, nor would they be clear to review any information, not already open to the public.

 

 

sisyphus; Actually, appointment of advisors or czars, opposed to either forming a new agency or incorporating these people into existing ones, is an end around of the Constitution, Checks and Balances. Under 'executive privileges', no advisor can be required to testify in Congress, where appointed and confirmed members of the Departments can be. Said another way, 'czar' is intended to sound socialistic.

 

For instance, the mentioned 'National Intelligence Office', under Mr. Blair, for all practical purposes, should be part of the 'Central Intelligence Agency', they have duplicate purposes.

[Pangloss]

"Tonight on Hannity we debate health care.... on the right we have Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, a distinguished doctor and statesmen, and on the left we have Al Sharpton"...

 

Or, on the other side..

 

"Tonight on Anderson Cooper we will be debating President Obama's stimulous package... on the left we will speak with Nobel Prize Laureate Paul Krugman and on the right we will have Anne Coulter"

 

And so on.

 

Nicely put. And an interesting post in general.

 

In reading your post I'm reminded of Bernard Goldberg's interesting book Bias, which he wrote after being fired from CBS News. His point, if memory serves, was not that the news is liberal is by design but that it is liberal by effect. In short, the preference of the individuals who report it, whether consciously or unconsciously, sometimes distorts the reporting.

 

 

There was a vacuum in the 80s and 90s of outlets for conservative journalists (if a person's first thought is "WELL GOOD!" then they are part of the problem). When Fox News came along there was an expected rush of conservatives to Fox news. While this cranked up the conservative message at Fox it also liberalized the rest of the media even further than it had already been.

 

That's an interesting angle that I haven't heard before.

 

But I think you let Fox News off too easy. It seems more a pattern of design and intent than coincidence. You don't schedule guests in a face-off situation without pondering their agendas, for example, or how they will make you look. Then you have to promote their appearance, too.

[Mr Skeptic]

Beck, Matthews, Olbermann, Cooper, O'Reily, Maddow, Hannity, etc. are all paid for opinion. I don't really understand the "Oh my gosh BIAS!" thrown at Fox. In reality we are all hard wired to see anything we disagree with as wrong, and attribute wrongness to bias.

 

We're scientists. Our job is to objectively find what can be known, and we work hard to eliminate all sources of bias before we reach a conclusion. Someone who intentionally introduces bias is called a fraudster, and might have to forfeit their scientific career, or live the rest of their life under a magnifying glass. So, forgive us if we find bias distasteful, whether or not someone is hired to be biased.

 

In reality, as far as news is concerned, the uproar over bias (be it Fox or CNN or MSNBC or CBS etc. etc.) is misguided as News has always been about bias.

 

Well, there's bias and then there's fraud. Not removing biases, encouraging biases, misguiding, outright lying. At some point here, even non-scientists are going to cry foul. Fox has gone all the way to outright lying; their objective appears to be to promote an agenda rather than to report news. And so, we don't trust them.

 

Incidentally, pretending to be unbiased while doing nothing to prevent bias, is outright lying. We can understand people being unavoidably biased on certain subjects, but if they turn around and pretend that they are being impartial, we will simply laugh at them.

 

I wish I had the attribution to the quote, but there was a news editor back in the 70s who once said "There are 4 billion people and an 3 hours of daily news, we can't report on all of them".

 

And yet, many news sources appear to be grasping at straws to find interesting things to report.

 

In 1997, a study done by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found that 61% of print journalists considered themselves Democrats to 15% Republican. This is part of a longer trend.

 

I suppose the quote, "Reality has a liberal bias" wouldn't amuse you?

 

Although to be fair, the job description for a journalist does kind of scream liberal bias considering the pay and education requirements.

[jryan]

Oh, I'm not saying Fox's bias is coincidence, I think it was specifically founded for the purpose of giving conservative journalists a voice... but I am not demonizing them for it either because in 1996 when Fox was founded it was past due.

 

I don't think it was possible by that time for CNN, the LAT or NYT to self regulate it's increasingly left message. Some have even argued that the conditions at these news agencies were a direct result of the journalism graduates of the heavily liberal 60s and 70s college campuses who were replacing the more conservative editors of these papers in the 80s and 90s.

 

I don't know that it is possible for them to have seen their own bias at the time. Once you and everyone you know are doing it it seems less like bias and more like common sense.

 

I do see, however, to liberal delight everywhere, that the necessity for Fox news is waning. I think that the old guard is actually getting the message hammered home to them on a daily basis in ratings and distribution numbers.

 

But I think those who truly hate Fox news as the bulwark of conservative reporting that it is are really dreaming of a return to the untenable conditions of late 90s news reporting. They will forever fail to realize that the existence of Fox has been a net positive for news reporting in general even if they do not get some stories right, and have an hour a day dedicated to Beck and Hannity.

 

The internet abounds with laundry lists of biases from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, the NYT, the LAT, WashPo, and on and on... but it has always been so. If people want the closest thing to truth that is out there they need to listen to the opposition as well as those they agree with. It isn't all lies and they agree on the specifics more than they don't.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We're scientists. Our job is to objectively find what can be known, and we work hard to eliminate all sources of bias before we reach a conclusion. Someone who intentionally introduces bias is called a fraudster, and might have to forfeit their scientific career, or live the rest of their life under a magnifying glass. So, forgive us if we find bias distasteful, whether or not someone is hired to be biased.

 

And I am saying that for all your self-adulation you are not doing your job as well as you think if you can't see the bias in CNN, MSNBC, The LA Times, the New York Times and so on.

 

Well, there's bias and then there's fraud. Not removing biases, encouraging biases, misguiding, outright lying. At some point here, even non-scientists are going to cry foul. Fox has gone all the way to outright lying; their objective appears to be to promote an agenda rather than to report news. And so, we don't trust them.

 

You mean fraud like the CBS Bush Memo, or like CNN running the picture of the scary "White" Tea Party activist with a rifle... that was actually a black man who's head they had cropped out of the picture? That kind of fraud?

 

Incidentally, pretending to be unbiased while doing nothing to prevent bias, is outright lying. We can understand people being unavoidably biased on certain subjects, but if they turn around and pretend that they are being impartial, we will simply laugh at them.

 

I'm fairly certain that all media outlets believe they are unbiased. I am also equally certain that all media outlets are wrong in that regard.

 

I think what Fox does is closer to hypocritical than knowing lies. But I don't see CNN or MSNBC or numerous other sources stepping up to the plate to claim their own bias so I see no reason to expect Fox to do it.

 

 

And yet, many news sources appear to be grasping at straws to find interesting things to report.

 

They find news that interests them.. your mileage may vary.

 

I suppose the quote, "Reality has a liberal bias" wouldn't amuse you?

 

You would assume wrongly then. I find great amusement in good irony.

 

Although to be fair, the job description for a journalist does kind of scream liberal bias considering the pay and education requirements.

 

As I said, the liberal bias hasn't always been so, and it seems to have peaked some time in the 90s after a 30+ year rise.

 

Level of education isn't a great indicator of political leanings, either. But courses studied sure is!

[bascule]

They will forever fail to realize that the existence of Fox has been a net positive for news reporting in general even if they do not get some stories right, and have an hour a day dedicated to Beck and Hannity.

 

On the contrary, the surge in popularity of the Fox News cable channel pretty much marked the death knell of 24 hour cable news. Other 24 hour news networks like CNN are now so afraid of appearing as if they have a liberal bias they give conservatives carte blanche and often don't question what they say. When Fox called the 2004 presidential election early all the other networks followed suit.

 

Fox News is pretty much the worst thing that has ever happened to cable news.

[Mr Skeptic]

Incidentally, I don't watch any TV news. Have not found any that are any good. The closest I come to that is Daily Show and Colbert Report. These guys are biased, but they admit they are biased, and also frequently point out that they are fake journalists. If I want to find out about a specific story, I find out online from several sources. Written words are much better for killing bias and avoiding pseudoevidence as the writer has more time to think about what they are saying, as does the reader.

[jryan]

On the contrary, the surge in popularity of the Fox News cable channel pretty much marked the death knell of 24 hour cable news. Other 24 hour news networks like CNN are now so afraid of appearing as if they have a liberal bias they give conservatives carte blanche and often don't question what they say. When Fox called the 2004 presidential election early all the other networks followed suit.

 

Fox News is pretty much the worst thing that has ever happened to cable news.

 

Not everyone believes that the moderation of cable news is a bad thing.

 

As the Journalism.org article shows, the journalism field is actually heading to an actual equilibrium as opposed to the 60/15 split of the 90s. I wouldn't doubt that you see that as a bad thing, but not everyone... or even not most see it as you do.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Incidentally, I don't watch any TV news. Have not found any that are any good. The closest I come to that is Daily Show and Colbert Report. These guys are biased, but they admit they are biased, and also frequently point out that they are fake journalists. If I want to find out about a specific story, I find out online from several sources. Written words are much better for killing bias and avoiding pseudoevidence as the writer has more time to think about what they are saying, as does the reader.

 

And ironically they are the least journalistic of all of them and don't count as news.

[bascule]

Not everyone believes that the moderation of cable news is a bad thing.

 

As the Journalism.org article shows, the journalism field is actually heading to an actual equilibrium as opposed to the 60/15 split of the 90s. I wouldn't doubt that you see that as a bad thing, but not everyone... or even not most see it as you do.

 

Judging by the ratings, people prefer their news warped to fit a canned narrative as opposed to getting the closet thing to unbiased reality that cable news can deliver.

 

At this point you can't knock CNN for trying to be impartial and objective, and their reporting suffers because of it. They're overcompensating after years of relentless accusations of liberal bias.

[jryan]

Judging by the ratings, people prefer their news warped to fit a canned narrative as opposed to getting the closet thing to unbiased reality that cable news can deliver.

 

At this point you can't knock CNN for trying to be impartial and objective, and their reporting suffers because of it. They're overcompensating after years of relentless accusations of liberal bias.

 

You do see the irony in this accusation, don't you?

[swansont]

swansont;

 

 

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/57627-republicans-push-for-senate-confirmation-of-czars

 

 

 

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/news-issue/czarist-rule/

 

From jryan's Philly Inquirer link:

 

By one count, Bush had 36 czar posts filled by 46 people during eight years as president.

 

So why wasn't this an issue under Bush? That, plus the aforementioned secret meetings on e.g. energy policy.

 

 

Some of the so-called czars that are appointed under 3 U.S.C. §§ 105-06. It's a federal law.

 

Article II section 2 says

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

So the Constitution explicitly says congress can pass a law to let the president appoint advisors, and they did. How is this a loophole?

 

And I'm sure the president's wife gives him advice. Should she be made senate-confirmable?

 

 

While no elected official is required a 'Background Check' (take an oath) person serving them, are required an FBI 'Background Check', no different than any person visiting the White House. These in themselves are NOT security checks, nor would they be clear to review any information, not already open to the public.

 

Can you restate this in proper English?

[bascule]

You do see the irony in this accusation, don't you?

 

No, perhaps you misunderstood it. To reiterate, nowadays CNN is giving carte blanche to conservatives, often not even bothering to fact check what they say, or even ask questions out of fear of looking liberal. Because of this their reporting suffers.

 

Fox News, on the other hand, just doesn't care.

[jryan]

No, perhaps you misunderstood it. To reiterate, nowadays CNN is giving carte blanche to conservatives, often not even bothering to fact check what they say, or even ask questions out of fear of looking liberal. Because of this their reporting suffers.

 

Fox News, on the other hand, just doesn't care.

 

And again, the irony persists. Your own reporting has a liberal bias.

 

Also it would help if you provide sufficient evidence of the CNN deference toward conservatives to establish your claim of the carte blanche they are supposedly giving conservatives.

 

It is a common misconception for the far right and far left, though. The far right sees anying left of them, even moderate and coservative views, as liberal... and the same is true for the far left.

[Mr Skeptic]

And ironically they are the least journalistic of all of them and don't count as news.

 

And ironically, they call themselves fake journalists. Or, not ironically. As to "real" TV "news", I just can't stand how they feign excitement, or talk as if some silly thing they're reporting on is actually significant. Something statistically significant. But I guess that would be boring to most people.

[jryan]

My point was that you are saying that you watch biased non-news in a thread discuss whether a new organization is in fact news.

 

It would be like me saying I don't read news papers, I get my print journalism from the Onion.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's not that I haven't watched TV news. It's that every time I watch some, I find it extremely disgusting. I know I can't trust them, and they feign interest in, and the importance of, what they are covering... bleh. Never found one with sustenance. I get my news online, and mostly it's limited to science news unless something political catches my interest.

[bascule]

it would help if you provide sufficient evidence of the CNN deference toward conservatives to establish your claim of the carte blanche they are supposedly giving conservatives.

 

Certainly, as I'm not like certain members of this forum who may or may not be quoted in this post right above this sentence and whose nicknames start with the letter after "i" who like to leverage unsubstantiated claims and never provide supporting evidence, here are a few examples:

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/04/sotu.01.html

 

Almost everybody agrees that we can save between $100 billion and $200 billion if we had effective medical malpractice reform. Of course, the other party said no to our amendment.

 

$100-200 BILLION DOLLARS SAVED! Citation free! Much like the overwhelming majority of "arguments" of a certain member of these forums who may or may not be quoted at the top of this post.

 

So what does the CBO say about Jon Kyl's claims?

 

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389

 

CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). [...'] Enacting a typical set of proposals would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly $54 billion over the next 10 years

 

And CNN's response?

 

We will talk more about this as it reaches the floor, I assure you. We're out of time on this day

 

Do you want some more? Well here's some more...

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/29/cnr.04.html

 

And what they're doing is they're trying to do this in increments by -- if they can't do it directly, they'll do it in increments until they finally get us to the point where you're going to have socialized medicine. And if that happens, the greatest country in the world with what I consider to be the greatest health care system in the world is going to be deeply, deeply harmed.

 

America's great healthcare system, destroyed by a slippery slope into oblivion! Will CNN let this blatant logical fallacy stand?

 

All right. And let's leave it there. Senator, we're going to let you get back to your work. We appreciate your time. And come see us again.

 

Yes, yes they will!

 

Another example:

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/18/cnr.04.html

 

If you really begin to break down the 30 million, whatever, the number keeps changing, of uninsured Americans, when you get down to a hardcore number, it's about five million to 10 million, that can't afford health care. I mean, out of a nation of 330 million people, I think that's a very small percentage.

 

Hrmm, CNN might start by asking about the population of the United States (hint: it's not 330 million). And the number of uninsured people in America... it's between 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 people, give or take the value of the original estimate. What?

 

CNN's response?

 

And there's still some debate about whether it's nine million, what the total number, there's some census numbers.

 

Awfully fair of you CNN, when the person you're giving the CNN mouthpiece to just cited a range the size of the lower bound, and misquoted the population of the US by about 25 million people, while at the same time claiming the number of uninsured was a "very small percentage".

 

So what do government statistics say?

 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/Reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm

 

According to the Census Bureau's 2005 Current Population Survey (CPS), there were 45.8 million uninsured individuals in 2004, or 15.7% of the civilian non-institutionalized population.

 

Yes, the "number that keeps changing" is 15.7%, that's a "very small percentage"... and 5-10 million is only off by a factor of 9-18, so somewhere between a smidgin away from an order of magnitude and an order of magnitude.

 

And again' date=' the irony persists. Your own reporting has a liberal bias.

 

[...']

 

It is a common misconception for the far right and far left, though. The far right sees anying left of them, even moderate and coservative views, as liberal... and the same is true for the far left.

 

Great, poisoning the well about my political bias after defending Fox News and lambasting CNN. That's not hypocritical of you whatsoever, jryan. Surely there's no political bias in any of your statements.

 

All pretenses aside jryan: you do the same thing these Republicans are doing. You are unconcerned about facts so much as advancing your narrative. You don't cite reputable sources. You don't defend your claims. You make slippery slope arguments. You make ad hominem arguments. You poison the well. And you don't care.

 

That makes you a troll. I've defended my claims. Please defend yours. Stop using logical fallacies. Cite sources... real sources, not just blogs which echo your own personal narrative. Stop trying to just advance your narrative and be objective.

 

I'd really like to see it but given your history on these forums I sincerely doubt you're capable.

Edited February 17, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

All pretenses aside jryan: you do the same thing these Republicans are doing. You are unconcerned about facts so much as advancing your narrative. You don't cite reputable sources. You don't defend your claims. You make slippery slope arguments. You make ad hominem arguments. You poison the well. And you don't care.

 

That makes you a troll. I've defended my claims. Please defend yours. Stop using logical fallacies. Cite sources... real sources, not just blogs which echo your own personal narrative. Stop trying to just advance your narrative and be objective.

 

I'd really like to see it but given your history on these forums I sincerely doubt you're capable.

 

This is an opinion thread and he is allowed to state his opinion. Having one that's different from yours does not make him a troll. Failing to substantiate his opinion does not make him a troll. Nobody is forcing you to demand that he change his view.

[bascule]

This is an opinion thread and he is allowed to state his opinion. Having one that's different from yours does not make him a troll. Failing to substantiate his opinion does not make him a troll. Nobody is forcing you to demand that he change his view.

 

I guess you don't care about his ad hominems/poisoning the well...

[Pangloss]

I guess you don't care about his ad hominems/poisoning the well...

 

He didn't attack you, at least from what I saw in the bit you quoted:

 

It is a common misconception for the far right and far left, though. The far right sees anying left of them, even moderate and coservative views, as liberal... and the same is true for the far left.

 

That sounds to me like a personal opinion, not ad hominem. I don't care if it's poisoning the well or not; certainly you can challenge him on that, but not with a personal attack.

 

If there are other quotes you'd like to complain about, please report those posts (or the one above if you like) with the little triangle button and we'll get all the mods and admins to take a look at them. Don't just go at the guy because you don't like the way he sneers at liberals. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Thanks.