Good Commentary from Foxnews.com...

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: In answer to JD - you say that the facts are the thing, but if you looked closely through my response it was the author that abused them and he did it right form the get-go. He portrayed the marchers around the worls as marchers for human rights and used this to set up his argument. The fact was that those people marched against war. The reporter chose to set his own version on events in the interests of better portaying his political line. Gah - nuff said - I knew I was prolly banging my head ifn I started t break down th article. Heaven help me if I start in on paragraph 2. Someone please throttle me if it even looks like I am going to start down that path [img]tongue.gif[/img] .

Davros, so in your own mind subsititue "anti war" protesters for "Human rights" protesters. Now does that change the fact that there were no signs about Sodamn Insane? If there were signs then present that fact and refute the facts not the Bull S*** and poetry of ideology. Agrueing the Ideology of a point of view is useless. Because everybody has an ideology wiether they want to admitt it or not! That's why I asked the questions about if William Bennet miss-rersented any facts or not. That's the problem I have with discusing with people that put down an ideology. They condem an ideology WHILE maintaining their own ideology, they become even more guilty of the very thing they claim to be agianst.

[Thoran]

I agree with Davros that there were straw man tactics employed in the article, but at the same time I think the writer has a point regarding the use of Demonstration in western nations. I don't see it as a condemnation of protestors as much as it reflects a certain realism on their part, picking their battles so to speak. It seems to me that demonstration is used predominantly against western countries, almost as if we all know that demonstrating against guys like Saddam is a useless exercise. (demonstrators aren't high on Saddams list of concerns)

IMO what William Bennett is reacting to is the one-sided actions of protestors, which tends to make it look like like AT BEST they're simply acting as inertia in the system (resisting any change in policy). In reality I tend to think most of these people are equally concerned with Saddam, but they know that protesting HIS actions is pointless.

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Davros: [QB]I shouldn't bother to argue it Masklinn - it is evident that IR fails to see the existance of right wing bias on FOX, but there are others here that we would think of as pro Bush and right wing (or maybe right wing moderates) like Thoran and Ronn that acknowledge its' existence. Let's be content with that - not everyone has to agree.

*sigh* Davros have I anywhere in this thread said there is no bias in Fox News? Nope I dont believe I have.

OF COURSE THERE IS A BIAS! . It practicality goes hand in hand with News Media.

[ 03-20-2003, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Davros]

JD I can agree with your logic IF you make the substitution of the truth (war protests) for the fiction (human rights protests). I totally agree that if human rights is what the people had been marching against then it is total hypocrisy not to be also protesting human rights abuses in Iraq. But what you are arguing is that the paragraph makes perfect sense IF we accept this fiction. I instead ask why is the writer exposing us to the fiction? He wants to attack the marchers credibility becuase he has differing opinions, and in adopting the fiction he gave himself a strong basis of logic. To HALE with the truth - he threw that out in the first sentence.