Fair and Balanced My A**

[RicoVacilon]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/18/networks-respond-to-false-fox-ad/

Why don't they just admit their entertainment and there'd be nothing to complain about.

[SUPDOG]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/18/networks-respond-to-false-fox-ad/

Why don't they just admit their entertainment and there'd be nothing to complain about.

lOL! NIce reach! No comment on FOX taking down the corrupted ACORN org. eh?

LOL!

[resnor]

Well, I'm pretty sure alot of the criticism has stemmed from the amount of primetime coverage. Also, they did kinda miss the story...they all were squabbling about how many showed...instead of getting into why the people showed. The number wasn't the story...

[RicoVacilon]

Yet again, people going into convoluted logical jumps in order to establish a truth. I got news for you--if you need a philosophy degree to justify your position, you're wrong.

[sanantonio]

lOL! NIce reach! No comment on FOX taking down the corrupted ACORN org. eh?

LOL!

What? :confused: Is ACORN out of business? When did that happen? :p Sup the spinmeister at it again!

[Gtrght77]

An outright lie reported on Fox News?



What is new? They just tell their listeners what they want to hear.

[resnor]

Yet again, people going into convoluted logical jumps in order to establish a truth. I got news for you--if you need a philosophy degree to justify your position, you're wrong.

I disagree with your thinking here. The media got all caught up in the number of people at the rally. That was what was discussed. They didn't really get i to why people were there. So yes, they missed the story.

[SUPDOG]

What? :confused: Is ACORN out of business? When did that happen? :p Sup the spinmeister at it again!

I bet you are rooting for them all the way huh?

You do know that ACORN approves of Little girls being prostituted, right?

[Gtrght77]

I bet you are rooting for them all the way huh?

You do know that ACORN approves of Little girls being prostituted, right?

I guess if they were little boys the Catholics would be on board to? :p

[sanantonio]

I guess if they were little boys the Catholics would be on board to? :p

Oh snap good one. Speaking of which Sup I guess a few leacherous priests indicts the entire Catholic Church right? Pedophiles in glass houses, I mean people in glass houses. :p

So a few bad apples in each organization makes the entire organization bad?

[sanantonio]

I disagree with your thinking here. The media got all caught up in the number of people at the rally. That was what was discussed. They didn't really get i to why people were there. So yes, they missed the story.


Res that's bullbutter and you know it. The ad say's the named stations didn't cover the rally period it has nothing to do with the kind or quality of coverage. Fox just continues to do what they do best and that is to distort and flat out lie.

[resnor]

Res that's bullbutter and you know it. The ad say's the named stations didn't cover the rally period it has nothing to do with the kind or quality of coverage. Fox just continues to do what they do best and that is to distort and flat out lie.

No...it says how did they "miss this story". Like I said, I believe that they did miss the story, as they focused their reporting mainly on the number of people, and not WHY the people were there.

[RicoVacilon]

I disagree with your thinking here. The media got all caught up in the number of people at the rally. That was what was discussed. They didn't really get i to why people were there. So yes, they missed the story.

They dispatched 12 reporters (or something) to count heads? Like I said, that's some convoluted logic you are using.

EDIT: Dude, seriously, did you even read this article? Saying that they were there but only to count heads? Seriously starting to doubt your logic chops. . .


CNN provided live coverage of the rally in Washington on Saturday, dispatching more than a dozen personnel, including multiple camera crews and the CNN Express Bus, to cover the event. Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser was live at Freedom Plaza; Correspondent Kate Bolduan reported live from the Capitol and throughout the crowd; All Platform Journalist Jim Spellman provided live hits all day after traveling for weeks on the Tea Party Express Bus; and CNN Correspondent Lisa Desjardins was live for CNN and CNN Radio from the National Mall.

CNN's Rick Sanchez weighs in on Fox's ad

CNN's coverage also included numerous live reports and interviews with protesters and newsmakers, including rally day speaker Sen. Jim DeMint and activist Art Gerhart, who was on the set with anchor Don Lemon to discuss the event.

In addition, CNN.com provided a live stream of the rally throughout the day.

[theanalogkid]

No...it says how did they "miss this story". Like I said, I believe that they did miss the story, as they focused their reporting mainly on the number of people, and not WHY the people were there.

That's not the focus of the advertisement, it's trying to say that these other news organizations didn't cover the story period, and Fox covers all news. Advertising in the US is pretty much low-context, what's there is at face value.

[SUPDOG]

Oh snap good one. Speaking of which Sup I guess a few leacherous priests indicts the entire Catholic Church right? Pedophiles in glass houses, I mean people in glass houses. :p

So a few bad apples in each organization makes the entire organization bad?

Well, I am sure you could walk into a Catholic church, talk to a Priest, and NONE of them would show you ways in which to molest kids, or open up a teenage girl brothel. It has been proven time and time again that YOUR ACORN is a proponent of this behavior.

The Catholic Church took steps which have all but eliminated the abuse from the evil priests.

The Catholic Church doesn't recieve fed funds.

You loose AGAIN, my ACORN lovin' friend!

[sanantonio]

Well, I am sure you could walk into a Catholic church, talk to a Priest, and NONE of them would show you ways in which to molest kids, or open up a teenage girl brothel. It has been proven time and time again that YOUR ACORN is a proponent of this behavior.

The Catholic Church took steps which have all but eliminated the abuse from the evil priests.

The Catholic Church doesn't recieve fed funds.

You loose AGAIN, my ACORN lovin' friend!

They are still a group that had questionable practices going on in thier organization and could have lost thier exemption to not pay federal taxes. Plus you have no way of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt if there are no priests continuing to molest kids. It's already proven that molestations of this kind don't surface for years so you are the one that fails. No the Church doesn't get federal funds but they do get a federal tax exemption that could be forfited because of such behaviour.

[SUPDOG]

They are still a group that had questionable practices going on in thier organization and could have lost thier exemption to not pay federal taxes. Plus you have no way of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt if there are no priests continuing to molest kids. It's already proven that molestations of this kind don't surface for years so you are the one that fails. No the Church doesn't get federal funds but they do get a federal tax exemption that could be forfited because of such behaviour.

They are federqally exempt because they are by far the most charitable organization that exists. Feed the poor, clothe the poor, minister God's word, etc.

ACORN is a fed funded org that encourages voter fraud and young women to lie about brothels in order to recieve fed funding by bringing in teenage girls from singapore.

Really? You want to have this debate? Wow. Just be quiet now okay? Thanks.

YOu support ACORN

[levdgg]

Have to say, SUP Dog has a point:

Here you have one organization seemingly encouraging bad practices as part of their operation.

The Catholic Church just has a bunch of dudes who molest boys for the fun of it.

We really don't know the breadth of either when it comes down to it.

On the flip side, the Catholic Church's way of dealing with it largely amounted to reassigning the kid touchers. Although, the opinions within the church vary from forgiveness, to prudence to due process.


Either way, one bad does not cancel out another. And the Church really has nothing to do with ACORN. This is why you mofos can't have an intelligent debate on a topic such as this.

[theanalogkid]

ACORN is a fed funded org that encourages voter fraud


I don't know if this is entirely true, because they are required by law to turn in any voter registration form regardless of what it says on it.

[levdgg]

ACORN is a fed funded org that encourages voter fraud and young women to lie about brothels in order to recieve fed funding by bringing in teenage girls from singapore.




Acorn gets the vast majority of its funds from state and local, if you want to be factual.

[sanantonio]

Have to say, SUP Dog has a point:

Here you have one organization seemingly encouraging bad practices as part of their operation.

The Catholic Church just has a bunch of dudes who molest boys for the fun of it.

We really don't know the breadth of either when it comes down to it.

On the flip side, the Catholic Church's way of dealing with it largely amounted to reassigning the kid touchers. Although, the opinions within the church vary from forgiveness, to prudence to due process.


Either way, one bad does not cancel out another. And the Church really has nothing to do with ACORN. This is why you mofos can't have an intelligent debate on a topic such as this.

No Sup doesn't have a point if it's to say a few bad priests does not make a church and that same logic doesn't apply to ACORN. A few bad employees does not define ACORN and there is nothing that says it does. No more so then the pedophilic priests define the church that's all I'm saying. Sup wants to come in here and say Ah ha!! All of ACORN is bad when that is total bullshyt plain and simple and if he believes that then the entire church should be bad by that logic. Reassigining priests? Come on now that alone can be questioned. See Sup is living in a glass house and doesn't even know it.

[resnor]

There is a big difference between someone who represents an organization advocating and helping with illegal activities while on the clock for the organization, and a filthy priest molesting boys on his own time. It would be a similar situation if a priest was acting in his official capacity and doing counseling, and telling a church member how to molest little boys and get away with it.

As far as the ad goes, I'm merely arguing that the ad DOES NOT say that other networks didn't "cover" the story. It says that they missed it, and from seeing the news reports from different agencies, it appeared to me that they focused on the number of people there, and not why they were there.

[levdgg]

There is a big difference between someone who represents an organization advocating and helping with illegal activities while on the clock for the organization, and a filthy priest molesting boys on his own time. It would be a similar situation if a priest was acting in his official capacity and doing counseling, and telling a church member how to molest little boys and get away with it..

Precisely.

[RicoVacilon]

First off, let me say that comparing ACORN to the RCC is silly. But I'll bite.


Well, I am sure you could walk into a Catholic church, talk to a Priest, and NONE of them would show you ways in which to molest kids, or open up a teenage girl brothel. It has been proven time and time again that YOUR ACORN is a proponent of this behavior.

You realize there were multiple ACORN offices that did NOT show the level of corruption seen on the videos, right? But that's boring, so they didn't post them on the web.


The Catholic Church took steps

Let me stop you there, because you're right. And ACORN has taken steps too.


which have all but eliminated the abuse from the evil priests.

OK, here you're wrong. Sexual abuse is still endemic to the RCC.


The Catholic Church doesn't recieve fed funds.

Yes, they do. They also receive tax breaks. Remember Bush's "faith based initiative"? Which I have no problem with. Just sayin. I'm also not an ACORN lover. Merely pointing out your inaccuracies.

[RicoVacilon]

The Catholic Church just has a bunch of dudes who molest boys for the fun of it.

This is a simplistic reading of the situation which you go on the address here:


On the flip side, the Catholic Church's way of dealing with it largely amounted to reassigning the kid touchers.

The sexual abuse problems of the RCC are NOT limited to individual priests. That was the problem. The bad decision making was systemic. This is all, admittedly, a tangent that has nothing to do with Foxnews being lying scumbags.

[SUPDOG]

OK, here you're wrong. Sexual abuse is still endemic to the RCC.



.

WRONG. The Church has taken great steps in preventions of this nonsence. I work many Catholic retreats. Retreats with young people who attend. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES are Priests permitted to be left alone with young people (i.e. for trips, Mass prep/practice, overnight stays etc._, with the exception of confession.

I thought you were Catholic? Why throw out gossip in order to start a fire?

HMMMMM, "liberal Catholicism" at its finest I suppose, eh? :eek:

[sanantonio]

There is a big difference between someone who represents an organization advocating and helping with illegal activities while on the clock for the organization, and a filthy priest molesting boys on his own time. It would be a similar situation if a priest was acting in his official capacity and doing counseling, and telling a church member how to molest little boys and get away with it.

As far as the ad goes, I'm merely arguing that the ad DOES NOT say that other networks didn't "cover" the story. It says that they missed it, and from seeing the news reports from different agencies, it appeared to me that they focused on the number of people there, and not why they were there.

A priest is a priest 24/7 and represents the Catholic Church wherever he's at being on the clock has nothing to do with it. It's to what degree that individual represents an organization. As to how the molestations took place no one knows but it's obvious the priesthood was used in some form or fashion in the acts. There has been talk that some priests have continued thier lecherous ways.

My point is you can use this formula with any group or organization and that is the entire organization/group liable for the actions of a few. I say no to the the Catholic Church as well to ACORN. A few individuals do not categorize an entire group anyone that thinks that is being ridiculous.

[RicoVacilon]

WRONG. The Church has taken great steps in preventions of this nonsence.

Which does not mean sex abuse is extinct. Quit being so absolute.


I thought you were Catholic? Why throw out gossip in order to start a fire?

I said I was Catholic?

EDIT: I'm not questioning your assertion that the RCC has done a lot in the past 8 years to improve on the situation.

[dsteve]

Oh snap good one. Speaking of which Sup I guess a few leacherous priests indicts the entire Catholic Church right? Pedophiles in glass houses, I mean people in glass houses. :p

So a few bad apples in each organization makes the entire organization bad?

as someone rasied catholic, yes, the catholic church is a load of ****. The ones that werent doing it were hiding it and moving priests around so it could be done again. I assure you, what actually came out was way tamer than what was going on.


if you see one cockaroach that normally means theres a couple hundered....

[Nevada_Ballin]

Well, I am sure you could walk into a Catholic church, talk to a Priest, and NONE of them would show you ways in which to molest kids, or open up a teenage girl brothel. It has been proven time and time again that YOUR ACORN is a proponent of this behavior.




You couldn't be more wrong (well, yea, you have been in the past). Here's the thing, ACORN as an organization is not a proponent of that behaviour. In fact, on one of those visits where the one lady told them she'd killed her last husband, the transcript (which was edited out of the video) shows that the lady told them ACORN would be PISSED if they knew she was telling them what she told them about prostitution.

Fact. Deal with it.

Although i still agree they need to be investigated, I'm not willing to say the org as a whole is a bad tree, they just have some bad apples, like any other org could have.

What if a lawyer in Sideout's law firm gave that same advice to someone, would that make his entire firm corrupt - or if it happened where any of us work for that matter? (First thing sideout will say is "no one in my firm would do that, but that isn't the point of my question, the question is "what if")

Supdog is just headhunting, using Fox's jockstrap as slingshot. Too bad he has no real rocks to shoot. :D

.

.

[dsteve]

You couldn't be more wrong (well, yea, you have been in the past). Here's the thing, ACORN as an organization is not a proponent of that behaviour. In fact, on one of those visits where the one lady told them she'd killed her last husband, the transcript (which was edited out of the video) shows that the lady told them ACORN would be PISSED if they knew she was telling them what she told them about prostitution.

Fact. Deal with it.

Although i still agree they need to be investigated, I'm not willing to say the org as a whole is a bad tree, they just have some bad apples, like any other org could have.

What if a lawyer in Sideout's law firm gave that same advice to someone, would that make his entire firm corrupt - or if it happened where any of us work for that matter? (First thing sideout will say is "no one in my firm would do that, but that isn't the point of my question, the question is "what if")

Supdog is just headhunting, using Fox's jockstrap as slingshot. Too bad he has no real rocks to shoot. :D

.

.




anyone that defends acorn is a partisan hack. thank you for showing me what we already know. seriously? a few bad apples? how many states do they have criminal charges in for voter fraud?

[dsteve]

and as for the article which i finally read....seriously? thats all youve got? The other networks didnt cover the real story and when they did attempt to cover it, it came out as them calling people racist, stupid or whatever else. CNN is the only one that even pretends not to be biased, all the others are garbage.

[Gtrght77]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-14-2009/mad-men

[Nevada_Ballin]

anyone that defends acorn is a partisan hack. thank you for showing me what we already know. seriously? a few bad apples? how many states do they have criminal charges in for voter fraud?

Thank you for ignoring some truth of the situation. Typical conservative move there.



.

[RicoVacilon]

You couldn't be more wrong (well, yea, you have been in the past). Here's the thing, ACORN as an organization is not a proponent of that behaviour. In fact, on one of those visits where the one lady told them she'd killed her last husband, the transcript (which was edited out of the video) shows that the lady told them ACORN would be PISSED if they knew she was telling them what she told them about prostitution.

Fact. Deal with it.

Although i still agree they need to be investigated, I'm not willing to say the org as a whole is a bad tree, they just have some bad apples, like any other org could have.

What if a lawyer in Sideout's law firm gave that same advice to someone, would that make his entire firm corrupt - or if it happened where any of us work for that matter? (First thing sideout will say is "no one in my firm would do that, but that isn't the point of my question, the question is "what if")

Supdog is just headhunting, using Fox's jockstrap as slingshot. Too bad he has no real rocks to shoot. :D

.

.

lulz u win the interwebz!!!1!!!!

[RicoVacilon]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-14-2009/mad-men

I haven't gotten comedy central for years--but damn that show is good.

[fatbaby52]

First of all, I'm not a regular poster, so I apologize for interrupting your conversation, but how did you guys get so derailed so quickly? By the second post, you guys were arguing over ACORN and the Catholic Church. For starters, if the topic is whether something is news or propaganda, wouldn't an expose on a political organization be evidence of either?

Further, how misguided are you guys who think that Fox's ad was aimed at people who love dealing with the subtleties of the English language? It said "how did x miss this story?" when x covered the story. That's no different than some jealous teenage girl saying "how come jenny went all the way with steve?" when jenny didn't.

[Nevada_Ballin]

First of all, I'm not a regular poster, so I apologize for interrupting your conversation, but how did you guys get so derailed so quickly? By the second post, you guys were arguing over ACORN and the Catholic Church. For starters, if the topic is whether something is news or propaganda, wouldn't an expose on a political organization be evidence of either?

Further, how misguided are you guys who think that Fox's ad was aimed at people who love dealing with the subtleties of the English language? It said "how did x miss this story?" when x covered the story. That's no different than some jealous teenage girl saying "how come jenny went all the way with steve?" when jenny didn't.

Welcome to the VG reality show called "Town Hall". Continue to tune in and you'll get familiar with the actors as they muddle their way through the precarious situations our government gets us into.

:)

.

[dsteve]

lol what truths? ACORN is socialist garbage. look into the founders and see what their real goals are.



why should my tax dollars go to an organization that only lobbies for dems and their policies? why should they be tax exempt? Forget all the corruptiion, which there is plenty of besides the hooker ****, why do they get money in the first place? don't they have to be nonpartisan?

[fatbaby52]

I'm probably going to regret asking this; I do understand that conversations can evolve, but isn't ACORN totally irrelevant to the original point that Fox is lying with these recent ads? I'll admit that I'm not the brightest person in the world, but I can't see the connection.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

Fox reached on the ad. Not cool, and (unfortunately) not uncommon from all cable news channels. CNN just called out MSNBC for what they thought was a deceptive ad. Foxx has called out CNN for what they thought was a deceptive add. They are all "liberal" with the facts when it comes to bigging themselves up against the competition.

-TS

[RicoVacilon]

And since when did Twitter and blogs become citable sources for news?:confused:

[Gtrght77]

And since when did Twitter and blogs become citable sources for news?:confused:

And Fox news as well?

[theanalogkid]

why should my tax dollars go to an organization that only lobbies for dems and their policies? why should they be tax exempt? Forget all the corruptiion, which there is plenty of besides the hooker ****, why do they get money in the first place? don't they have to be nonpartisan?

You should also ask yourself why does $3 Billion in tax dollars go to Israel.

[Gtrght77]

You should also ask yourself why does $3 Billion in tax dollars go to Israel.

Or a border fence that doesnt work, or a missile defense system protecting us from Cold War Russia.

[resnor]

How did "miss this story" become equivalent with "did not cover this story?" They're not the same. If we were at a shooting range, and you were shooting at the target, and missed it, I could say that you missed the target, but it would be incorrect to say that you weren't shooting at the target. That's what's going on here. Those networks COVERED the event, but they MISSED the story of the event.

[resnor]

Or a border fence that doesnt work, or a missile defense system protecting us from Cold War Russia.

The missile shield wasn't so much to protect US as to protect our ALLY, as I understand it...hence why Poland and others are so pissed right now...

[Gtrght77]

The missile shield wasn't so much to protect US as to protect our ALLY, as I understand it...hence why Poland and others are so pissed right now...

OHH not Poland!!! :p

I am sure everyone is pointed at them.

[dsteve]

You should also ask yourself why does $3 Billion in tax dollars go to Israel.



I'd rather it go to an ally than to a corrupt org like acorn.

[RicoVacilon]

OHH not Poland!!! :p

I am sure everyone is pointed at them.

Gee, how could Poland be scared about getting invaded? Why would Poland think something like that. . . . .

[resnor]

Gee, how could Poland be scared about getting invaded? Why would Poland think something like that. . . . .

LOL

That made me laugh. Exactly...why WOULD Poland be worried? Wasn't it Gtrght who last week or so was talking about how we have to learn from history? Yes, yes it was...guess he hasn't learned all that much from history...

[fatbaby52]

How did "miss this story" become equivalent with "did not cover this story?" They're not the same. If we were at a shooting range, and you were shooting at the target, and missed it, I could say that you missed the target, but it would be incorrect to say that you weren't shooting at the target. That's what's going on here. Those networks COVERED the event, but they MISSED the story of the event.

At the risk of sounding simple-minded... yes they are (the same). Your point is dishonest- I will agree that, at the batting cages (for those of us who aren't Fox fans and don't live at the shooting range), sure, if you "miss" a pitch, you took a swing and missed. So, in that sense, you can "be there" and still "miss". However, in this context, "miss" can mean nothing except for "didn't cover". This is more like saying you "missed" the Cal game on Saturday. If you said that, I would (reasonably) conclude that you were doing something other than watching Cal on early Saturday afternoon.

Finally, what incredibly complex point is there that just went over CNN's head that only the Fox News team was able to decipher and deliver to the audience? There was an anti-big-government protest, and a lot of people showed up. How many more words do you need to understand the story?

[fatbaby52]

Fox reached on the ad. Not cool, and (unfortunately) not uncommon from all cable news channels. CNN just called out MSNBC for what they thought was a deceptive ad. Foxx has called out CNN for what they thought was a deceptive add. They are all "liberal" with the facts when it comes to bigging themselves up against the competition.

-TS

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm just starting an argument, but how do you get to "reached". This seems so black and white. Fox said the other network "missed" something. First question, what does "missed" mean? This is somehow being debated, but I don't think reasonable people can disagree on that point. It's a simple story, so it's either reported on or not. Since there are all sorts of words available to describe the concept of missing the point (like "missing the point"), the choice of "missed" either means what I assert it does, or Fox deliberately misled the consumers of the ad, its own audience.

So, assuming Fox wasn't deliberately misleading, the next step is determining if the other networks reported on the story. They did.

Finally, the last step to avoid this being labeled a lie is the question of if Fox believed that the other networks didn't report on the story, but just missed it. Given that they went to the trouble of producing the ads, I would say that they, at the very least, had the burden of watching the other networks to see if the story was, in fact, reported on.

Sorry for the rant, but Fox didn't "stretch", "reach", or "bend the truth". This series of ads was based on a lie, and there's absolutely no reason to use a softer term.

[fatbaby52]

Also, what do you Fox fans think the network thinks of you when it runs ads like this? I would be insulted, because it seems as though Fox thinks its fans are part of some non-thinking herd that doesn't want to go to the trouble of checking facts, and even if it is confronted with the truth, has no trouble being lied to. What would you do if your wife told you she "missed" the big sale at Macy's and you find 5 bags of shoes, and she responds by saying that she didn't buy anything that was on sale?

[sanantonio]

Also, what do you Fox fans think the network thinks of you when it runs ads like this? I would be insulted, because it seems as though Fox thinks its fans are part of some non-thinking herd that doesn't want to go to the trouble of checking facts, and even if it is confronted with the truth, has no trouble being lied to. What would you do if your wife told you she "missed" the big sale at Macy's and you find 5 bags of shoes, and she responds by saying that she didn't buy anything that was on sale?

I would be pizzed but some on here would just say, "oh".

[RicoVacilon]

LOL

That made me laugh. Exactly...why WOULD Poland be worried? Wasn't it Gtrght who last week or so was talking about how we have to learn from history? Yes, yes it was...guess he hasn't learned all that much from history...

Poor Poland took it from both ends. :(

[Gtrght77]

LOL

That made me laugh. Exactly...why WOULD Poland be worried? Wasn't it Gtrght who last week or so was talking about how we have to learn from history? Yes, yes it was...guess he hasn't learned all that much from history...

And how is that any of our problem? Especially now?

I am pretty sure the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany pose no threat to Poland any longer. :rolleyes:

[RicoVacilon]

And how is that any of our problem? Especially now?

I am pretty sure the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany pose no threat to Poland any longer. :rolleyes:

Pretty myopic imo. Smug =/= accurate.

[Gtrght77]

Pretty myopic imo. Smug =/= accurate.

is that a logic sentence? :p

[conviction]

WRONG. The Church has taken great steps in preventions of this nonsence. I work many Catholic retreats. Retreats with young people who attend. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES are Priests permitted to be left alone with young people (i.e. for trips, Mass prep/practice, overnight stays etc._, with the exception of confession.

I thought you were Catholic? Why throw out gossip in order to start a fire?

HMMMMM, "liberal Catholicism" at its finest I suppose, eh? :eek:

So Catholics should tell other people how to live?

I assume you mean liberal socially

[resnor]

Fatboy, the Cal thing isn't a fair comparison. I didn't see the Cal game, so I'll use a different team. I'm a Dolphins fan, so I'll use last nights game. It would be like a reporter being at the Dolphins game, and instead of talking about the game that they had just seen, with awesome performances by Brown and Manning, they reported on how bad the food was.

Once again, explain to me how "miss" is the same as "not covered". The two things do not mean the same thing.

[fatbaby52]

Fatboy, the Cal thing isn't a fair comparison. I didn't see the Cal game, so I'll use a different team. I'm a Dolphins fan, so I'll use last nights game. It would be like a reporter being at the Dolphins game, and instead of talking about the game that they had just seen, with awesome performances by Brown and Manning, they reported on how bad the food was.

Once again, explain to me how "miss" is the same as "not covered". The two things do not mean the same thing.

"How did [the other networks] miss this story?" is the question that was asked. As a general rule, if you are being forthcoming with a person (or audience), you should use the most accurate language available to you and avoid ambiguity, especially if through ambiguity your statement is likely to be read as stronger than you intended.

In the context of a particular news station's coverage of an event, the word "miss" most logically refers to whether or not the news station covered the event. Maybe that point is debatable, but I don't see an honest position on the other side. Maybe you saw the ad and immediately read it to say that the other stations didn't cover the event in the exact same manner or to the extent that Fox did, but that is a strained reading of the language. In any case, even if you could convince me that your reading is an appropriate one, it is not the most likely or appropriate use of the term.

Considering that Fox chose the language of the ad, and considering that there are plenty of ways to more clearly articulate more subtle points ("how did the other networks miss the point of the rally?"... "How did the other networks neglect to put our particular editorial spin on the rally?"... "How come the other networks only sent one crew of reporters to this event that is a derivative of something that we fabricated months ago and trumpet the importance of on our network?"), and considering the fact that Fox went to the trouble of producing the ad (as opposed to this being something that an individual said off the cuff), means that the choice of language was deliberate. When you consider the inconsequential nature of the point if it means something like what you assert (that the other networks didn't cover the same angles of the story), there's no way that was the message that Fox intended to convey using the language it chose to use.

I would say that using "miss this story" is somewhere on the "lie" side of "deliberately mislead".

[sanantonio]

"How did [the other networks] miss this story?" is the question that was asked. As a general rule, if you are being forthcoming with a person (or audience), you should use the most accurate language available to you and avoid ambiguity, especially if through ambiguity your statement is likely to be read as stronger than you intended.

In the context of a particular news station's coverage of an event, the word "miss" most logically refers to whether or not the news station covered the event. Maybe that point is debatable, but I don't see an honest position on the other side. Maybe you saw the ad and immediately read it to say that the other stations didn't cover the event in the exact same manner or to the extent that Fox did, but that is a strained reading of the language. In any case, even if you could convince me that your reading is an appropriate one, it is not the most likely or appropriate use of the term.

Considering that Fox chose the language of the ad, and considering that there are plenty of ways to more clearly articulate more subtle points ("how did the other networks miss the point of the rally?"... "How did the other networks neglect to put our particular editorial spin on the rally?"... "How come the other networks only sent one crew of reporters to this event that is a derivative of something that we fabricated months ago and trumpet the importance of on our network?"), and considering the fact that Fox went to the trouble of producing the ad (as opposed to this being something that an individual said off the cuff), means that the choice of language was deliberate. When you consider the inconsequential nature of the point if it means something like what you assert (that the other networks didn't cover the same angles of the story), there's no way that was the message that Fox intended to convey using the language it chose to use.

I would say that using "miss this story" is somewhere on the "lie" side of "deliberately mislead".


Exactly what I was trying to convey except your post was more eloquent, very nice.

[resnor]

You have failed time and again to address what I'm saying. I gave you a perfect example that explains what I mean, and shows how you can cover an event, yet miss the story. Once again, the story of the event wasn't the number of people who showed up, it was WHY they showed up. From what I saw, the other networks covered the number of people, and missed the WHY. That is "missing the story" IMO.

[fatbaby52]

You have failed time and again to address what I'm saying. I gave you a perfect example that explains what I mean, and shows how you can cover an event, yet miss the story. Once again, the story of the event wasn't the number of people who showed up, it was WHY they showed up. From what I saw, the other networks covered the number of people, and missed the WHY. That is "missing the story" IMO.

This is devolving pretty fast, but I'll take the bait. First of all, your premise (strained definition of "missed") is based on an exaggeration of the lack of coverage by the non-Fox channels. If you look at the article (which I will concede comes from an interested party in this situation), the organizers said that ABC was fair with the reporting, the other networks had more than just cursory mentions of it, and cnn.com even streamed the event live. Since the WHY is pretty obvious (it's another damn TEA party, they didn't show up because they want more money for their local schools), I can't see the problem. If anything, the important part of the news is how many people showed up, because that speaks more to whether this is a commonly-held opinion or just a bunch of fringe whackos.

[fatbaby52]

And take a humble pill. Your example (using the word in a completely different context to attempt to wrap it into the only non-lie that the network could have told) was not "perfect". A perfect example would be the word being used by someone not associated with Fox news to describe a situation similar to what you describe. Don't be too hard on yourself, though, because such an example does not exist. I still can't believe that you saw that ad and thought to yourself "Well, CNN (and friends) must have reported on the event but they must not have outlined the reasons for having the rally and the reasons that people showed up." instead of "Wow, CNN didn't even report on the rally.. What a partisan bunch of a-holes".

[resnor]

This is devolving pretty fast, but I'll take the bait. First of all, your premise (strained definition of "missed") is based on an exaggeration of the lack of coverage by the non-Fox channels. If you look at the article (which I will concede comes from an interested party in this situation), the organizers said that ABC was fair with the reporting, the other networks had more than just cursory mentions of it, and cnn.com even streamed the event live. Since the WHY is pretty obvious (it's another damn TEA party, they didn't show up because they want more money for their local schools), I can't see the problem. If anything, the important part of the news is how many people showed up, because that speaks more to whether this is a commonly-held opinion or just a bunch of fringe whackos.

How is it a "strained" definition? If you swing at a ball, and don't make contact, you missed it...but you made an attempt. If you shoot at a target, and don't hit it, you missed...but you still shot at it. If you shoot a free throw, and don't make it, you missed it...but you still made an attempt. If you cover an event, but don't report on the main reason of the event, then you missed it...but you still made an attempt. It is not a "strained" definition, it is simply the definition. An attempt was made, but the attempt failed. If Fox wanted it to mean that they didn't cover the event, the ad could have said this: "Why didn't [networks] cover this story?" It didn't say that, however.

[sanantonio]

How is it a "strained" definition? If you swing at a ball, and don't make contact, you missed it...but you made an attempt. If you shoot at a target, and don't hit it, you missed...but you still shot at it. If you shoot a free throw, and don't make it, you missed it...but you still made an attempt. If you cover an event, but don't report on the main reason of the event, then you missed it...but you still made an attempt. It is not a "strained" definition, it is simply the definition. An attempt was made, but the attempt failed. If Fox wanted it to mean that they didn't cover the event, the ad could have said this: "Why didn't [networks] cover this story?" It didn't say that, however.

Res you have turned into Sup before my very eyes literally. Of course the states rights argument should have been a clue for me.

[Gtrght77]

You could put the evidence right in front of Res and it could be indisputable and he will deny it and talk circles. He always spins it to fit his argument.

[fatbaby52]

How is it a "strained" definition? If you swing at a ball, and don't make contact, you missed it...but you made an attempt. If you shoot at a target, and don't hit it, you missed...but you still shot at it. If you shoot a free throw, and don't make it, you missed it...but you still made an attempt. If you cover an event, but don't report on the main reason of the event, then you missed it...but you still made an attempt. It is not a "strained" definition, it is simply the definition. An attempt was made, but the attempt failed. If Fox wanted it to mean that they didn't cover the event, the ad could have said this: "Why didn't [networks] cover this story?" It didn't say that, however.

I think the others have articulated this better than me, but it is "strained" because it is not what a reasonable person would assume the phrase meant. You sound like a bad attorney (and I should know, I'm a pretty bad one myself).

[sanantonio]

I think the others have articulated this better than me, but it is "strained" because it is not what a reasonable person would assume the phrase meant. You sound like a bad attorney (and I should know, I'm a pretty bad one myself).

Not as bad as Sides oh wait my bad never mind he's a para-legal, carry on counselor. :p

[resnor]

I'm simply saying that it is not as cut and dry as you guys are making it out to be. I've given a very valid and reasonable explanation of it, and illustrated how I came to my conclusion. You want tp believe differently? Fine. Just don't tell me that I'm wrong, because, for all you know, I could be right.

Sanan, you've turned from a supposed libertarian to a full-fledged liberal before my eyes...complete with ignoring historical facts, like states rights. Also, I think I am better at articulating my position than Sup, and not nearly as crazy.

However, if you guys want to continue to use the word "miss" as if it was the word "ignore," be my guest. Just realize, you're the ones who are using a "strained" definition.

[sanantonio]

I'm simply saying that it is not as cut and dry as you guys are making it out to be. I've given a very valid and reasonable explanation of it, and illustrated how I came to my conclusion. You want tp believe differently? Fine. Just don't tell me that I'm wrong, because, for all you know, I could be right.

Sanan, you've turned from a supposed libertarian to a full-fledged liberal before my eyes...complete with ignoring historical facts, like states rights. Also, I think I am better at articulating my position than Sup, and not nearly as crazy.

However, if you guys want to continue to use the word "miss" as if it was the word "ignore," be my guest. Just realize, you're the ones who are using a "strained" definition.


You are incredible lol.

[fatbaby52]

I'm simply saying that it is not as cut and dry as you guys are making it out to be. I've given a very valid and reasonable explanation of it, and illustrated how I came to my conclusion. You want tp believe differently? Fine. Just don't tell me that I'm wrong, because, for all you know, I could be right.


Answer this: did you come to your conclusion when you first read the ad, or did you read the ad, read the complaints, and start rationalizing? We're (or at least I am) asserting that you're trying to find vagueness and uncertainty where it isn't to explain away the ad.

[SUPDOG]

I'm simply saying that it is not as cut and dry as you guys are making it out to be. I've given a very valid and reasonable explanation of it, and illustrated how I came to my conclusion. You want tp believe differently? Fine. Just don't tell me that I'm wrong, because, for all you know, I could be right.

Sanan, you've turned from a supposed libertarian to a full-fledged liberal before my eyes...complete with ignoring historical facts, like states rights. Also, I think I am better at articulating my position than Sup, and not nearly as crazy.

However, if you guys want to continue to use the word "miss" as if it was the word "ignore," be my guest. Just realize, you're the ones who are using a "strained" definition.

What are the things that are crazy I might ask?

Hmmmmmm....

Hugo loves Obama....check.

Putin....check

Cadafi....check...

Crazy Iranian guy....check....

All the socialist free world haters are in Obama's court...check...

Obama's anti-Isreal rhetoric is becoming more and more prominent....check.

Obama's death panel prone health care is in the works....check..

Obama loves defending those who kill innocents and would let them die....check.

Obama tried to set up a website that "turns in" those who dissent...check.


Hmmm, these are all supdog predictions, are they not?

One would think the crazy ones would be the ones who deny these realities, no?

In our world "good is considered bad and bad is considered good"....Check (see san an, rico, nevada, etc. defend ACORN )

Sad, I thought you "got it".......

[sanantonio]

What are the things that are crazy I might ask?

Hmmmmmm....

Hugo loves Obama....check.

Putin....check

Cadafi....check...

Crazy Iranian guy....check....

All the socialist free world haters are in Obama's court...check...

Obama's anti-Isreal rhetoric is becoming more and more prominent....check.

Obama's death panel prone health care is in the works....check..

Obama loves defending those who kill innocents and would let them die....check.

Obama tried to set up a website that "turns in" those who dissent...check.


Hmmm, these are all supdog predictions, are they not?

One would think the crazy ones would be the ones who deny these realities, no?

In our world "good is considered bad and bad is considered good"....Check (see san an, rico, nevada, etc. defend ACORN )

Sad, I thought you "got it".......



Sup crazier then crazy.......double check.

If you could come out of the crazy you would see that no one is defending rogue employees but until proven the ACORN organization hasn't broken any laws.

In the mean time Blackwater and the like can't even get a rise out of your crazy behind.