One more point, Rox. You do realize that the US median falls far to the right, on the global scale, correct? As such, those who lean slightly to the left US style are closer to the middle, and those who lean slightly to the right are leaning out farther on an extreme. Therefore, while neither is accurate, it is much more supportable to call semi-mainstream right wingers 'Fascists' or 'Nazis' than it is to call semi-mainstream left wingers 'Communists' or 'Marxists'. For example, how is is that most followers of the Communist, US hating CNN network also, though only slightly, believed at least one of these pro-US/war misconceptions? How do you figure?
... I don't understand the merits of introducing old news concerning what happened with an opinionated-editorial person such as what Bill said from February...BTW...this was before the find of the WMD shell, which contained Sarin... I don't pay enough attention to him as you seeemingly do, but I surmise this substantial find would have changed the aspects...MacBeth, I am disappointed...I expected better. This hardly supports the blatant misperception you stated in your earlier post... You talk about splitting hairs, but you rationalize accepting incorrect terminolgy, when you absolutely and vehemently will not accept incorrect terminology from those you oppose... Think about your rationale to misperceive, before you condemn others...
The issue in question was media bias, as introduced by DaDakota's comment;" Of course this could be true....and the news stations that don't run it do so because they are leaning heavily to the left." I countered by pointing out that Fox had demonstrated it's own bias, almost certainly greater, as reflected in common misconceptions of it's viewers, all leaning to the pro-war side of things. You asked for proof, I cited the study, and you orginally said that it was endemic, just worse at Fox ( hurrah! debate decided.) but questioned the correlation between where viewers got their information, and what information they believed to be true, sort of a nowhere argument, I think you'll agree. When I questioned same, you responded by asserting, with some merit, that the specific phrasing of one of the misconceptions was a bit off, one was in your opinion off, though I see them as synonomus, and one was accurate. I conceded that the study I showed didn;t accurately reflect the one as phrased, although it did reflect a version of same, and said that you were splitting hairs while avoiding the implications of what it did show, irrespective of my earlier error. ( Different study.) I returned to the argument, having clarified the specifics, and asked you whether or not you conceded what they showed, ie the original argument. As an example of specifc Fox quotes which showed bias, I quoted one of thier leading advocate's repeated demonstration's of bias, and you come back with this? You appear, to me, to be trying to tiptoe ( phrase of the day!) around the actual argument while splitting hairs. For the sake of argument, what does the misconceptions that the study does show, whether or not you think I rephrased them accurately, say about the argument of whether Fox is as or more 'biased' than DaDakota's assertion of the liberal media? And as asked in my last post, if they are biased against Bush, why did most of them still depict pro-war misconceptions to a majority of their audiences at the time? Which bias seems more supportable?
As I stated earlier, but to expand on... I am not entirely convinced the 2 out of 3 misconceptions as labeled is based in total validity, due to the fact that there have been various news reports which contradict the cited report's 2 out of 3 claims as being inaccurate...To that very claim, I find the wording in itself internally vague, and without substantive sources so vital to making such claims substansive and baseful, necessary for a sound report... I appreciate you clearing the misperceptive claims on your part, which are at odds with the actual terminology which you base your reasoning... I feel you believe there is an absolute link which ties misconception/misperception moreso at FOX news than at other news sources, but the misconception exists at all news sources...For this very fact, I am highly suspicious that the 3 issues in itself is suspect for being classified as proven to "inaccurate"...How does the report arrive at this conclusion that the 3 issues is so steadfast in being classified as "inaccurate"... It is so unusual for 80% of Fox viewers, 71% of CBS viewers, 61% of ABC viewers, 55% of NBC and CNN viewers, and 47% of print readers to believe in one or more "proven misconceptions"... Let's lay out these misconceptions for the casual reader to see...Here are the 2 out of 3 "proven inaccurate misconceptions": #1....That they found WMD ...This has already been shown to be a point in fact by the WMD shell recently found... #2....That there was an Iraqi-Al-Qaeda direct link ...There have been reports which assert this to be true... It is inherent to logically ascertain the 2 out of 3 absolute inaccuracies as depicted and labeled by this report is simply: Fallacy by correlation of unfounded conclusion...and with this, it throws your misconception misperceived bias as similar unfounded lackey...
IIRC this connection discredited a while ago, the two men in question have the same name, but are not the same person. The fact that they take the denial as proof is so 1984'ish to be laughable.
