Thursday, July 12, 2012

What the What?

OK. So, this website put up an article about how FOX “News” uses selective editing in the way they manipulate their “reporting.” It was a good article, showing what FOX said and juxtaposing that with the full transcript of the actual interview. Naturally, FOX edited out the parts that contradict the Roger Ailes anti-liberal mandate.

Since I had done a blog post about that very same thing several months ago, I posted a link to it in the comments section.

Then, the troll showed up. Since I often read the comments sections of articles I read, I’ve seen this nitwit before. I think you may have an idea of what transpires next.


Bill Mancuso
FOX lies are an unending source for blogposts:

If you believe they are so constant, why does a blog from 11/06/2011 go back to a chart from July 2010?

I realize Fox is biased toward the conservative side. Now, I am here, reading what can only be considered a radically liberal page. [I thought he was referring to my blog since he just referenced it with the chart comment. Even if he was referring to this web article and not my blog, they were also not “radically liberal.” Pointing out FOX is lying and providing proof does not equate to someone being a radical opponent. The truth is not biased. Even if it disagrees with your opinion.] Why? Because I don't trust ANYBODY to give me the truth. You are biased. I am biased. I realized how biased the "unbiased" news was, when I was listening to NPR news, and the reported stated; "Ever since the Republicans stole back the majority in the house..." STOLE BACK?? So the elections didn't matter?

No matter how hard we try, we put our own spin on things. But I'm willing to be convinced that I am wrong, but I'm not going down easy. Somebody is going to have to convince me that I am wrong, use facts, and logical arguments. Till then, I will state my opinions, and unlike most, listen to what the other side says. It's like the statement above yours "It's been scientifically proven that watching Faux makes you uninformed. Case closed."

Have you seen the study? From the study itself: "..while moderates and liberals who watch Fox News do worse at answering the questions than others, conservatives who watch Fox do no worse than people who watch no news at all." So liberals that watch Fox, do worse at answering questions than people that don't watch news at all.

Also, (this is a honest question), why do you think the survey oversampled Republicans?

Bill Mancuso
You demand to be convinced of the truth with facts and logical arguments?

FOX "News" puts up a wildly distorted chart to present accurate information inaccurately for the sole purpose of making Obama look bad. The chart is so distorted, it would insult a three-year-old's intelligence. In other words, FOX blatantly lied.

Three charts are posted in the blog that present the same exact information FOX used - only the information is presented accurately and unbiased, accompanied by detailed, logical explanations. One of the charts included is from the Conservative website, dailycapitalist, which also presents the same information accurately. This is to show that the information is not Liberally biased.

Your response? You ignore facts and logical arguments and call the blog radically liberally biased because the facts and logical arguments disagree with your obvious right-wing biased, FOX-supporting viewpoint. Then you ramble on incoherently about completely unrelated material for some reason.

You, Sir, are a clown.

However, I will consider that you are not biased and that you simply have a weak understanding of basic math and geometry, which prevents your comprehension of the accurately represented charts.

Also, (this is an honest pair of questions): To what survey that oversampled Republicans are you referring? Do you mean the hypothetical situation that is used as an example of how a biased survey could be used to manipulate a statistic?

If so, I must assume your basic reading comprehension is on par with your basic math and geometry skills.

Yes, it's my reading skills that are substandard. That's why when I was questioning the "study" they mentioned ("It's been scientifically proven that watching Faux makes you uninformed. Case closed." )

I made it pretty plain that was what I was referring. I asked why Republicans were over sampled in the "Study" that showed this. If you read the data on the study mentioned, you can see the data doesn't really support the claim "fox makes you dumber". You see, I keep hoping that someone will be motivated to go look at the data themselves, because if I tell them what it says, they wont go look. They will just claim that I'm a troll, on continue on in their blissful ignorance.

But since you choose to ignore that, feel free to live on in your little bubble of ignoring those that disagree with you, calling them names, and forgoing any chance to converse civilly.

I wasn't arguing the source for the Fox news data, or the presentation. Are you as willing to research the data you see on this website? No, I am sure you don't. If you did, you would find they have more one sided, false, and twisted info than you can see on FOX.

Yep, it's MY reading skills that need help. Keep telling yourself that.

Clown out.

Bill Mancuso
Dear Clown,
Since I never said one word about any "FOX makes you dumber" study, why would you ask me why I thought something I never said I thought? Especially since you had just prior asked me if I even saw the study. You were not "pretty plain" as to what you were referring since the event to which you referred did not happen. Also, the only study that involved any opinion I may have had was in the hypothetical survey in my blog, which is why I was confused by your pointless question. I was not ignoring or disagreeing with you. You proved there is such a thing as a stupid question, and not being prepared for it, it confused me.

As for name calling, why do you feel it's okay for you to do it, but when someone returns your original volley, THEY are the ones foregoing any chance to converse civilly?

As for you claiming to not argue the source or the presentation of the FOX data, I believe you calling my blog 'radically liberally biased' adds 'liar' to your clownish repertoire.

You said, "No matter how hard we try, we put our own spin on things. But I'm willing to be convinced that I am wrong, but I'm not going down easy. Somebody is going to have to convince me that I am wrong, use facts, and logical arguments. Till then, I will state my opinions, and unlike most, listen to what the other side says." You again are lying. You do not listen to what the other side says. You are not willing to be convinced. You do not care about facts. You do not care about logical arguments. All of these tactics were employed when explaining logically, factually and without spin by using unaltered math and geometry why the FOX chart was intentionally misrepresenting the numbers to make Obama look bad. Your mindless, bumper sticker response was that it is a radically liberal blog.

As for your claim that NPR said Republicans stole back the House majority (I can't verify that since you provided no proof, just an unsubstantiated claim), I think you meant that Republicans claimed Obama stole the 2008 Presidential election. Here are just a few articles:

As for your claim that the data in the study (that somebody who wasn't me was talking about) doesn't support the claim that FOX makes you dumber (actually, it's 'uninformed' - you changed it to 'dumber'), your very own quote from the study would state otherwise. You might want to work on those reading and comprehension skills after all.

And here's some fun reading. Feel free to call it radically liberally biased, ignore it, and lie about something else.

[The follow-up study…]

[…to this original study. I did not include this one in the original post. I was trying not to further confuse an already confused mind. It didn’t work. I’m including it now for those who wish to be up to date on things.]:

And just because you personally don't like facts, that does not mean they are "one sided, false, and twisted." That means YOU are "one sided, false, and twisted."

"Radical Liberal"

I didn't say anybody stole an election, and in spite of your valiant effort to show others screaming about a stolen election, what I said was just the opposite. I didn't say anyone stole an election, rather I was surprised that NPR referred to it as stolen. Can you understand that? I was expressing my first realization of media bias. I'm happy you found all the links about stolen elections.

Then I referred to a claim, repeated above your post , as an example of bias. I thought you would be capable of making the connection.

I see you link to a site that refers to the study, I referred to, but not to the original data from the study. That data is what I was questioning. Did you look at that data? I bet you will now, but I also bet you didn't before, you just accepted whatever bias the writer had, and that was the point.

Did Fox show a biased graphic? Yep. Did I ever say Fox wasn't biased? Nope. Ever see a biased story on this site? Duh! [He forgot to add “Winning” to emphasize he is as clear-minded and rational as Charlie Sheen after a few eight balls.]

The whole point was that bias is everywhere, and most folks are more than willing to accept whatever bias is there, as long as it agrees with what they already believe. I am biased, but I am also willing to listen to the other side, and to try and dig down to the original data, and see what it says, not just what some pundit tells me it says.

What the best way to get the other side to stop listening? Calling them a clown would probably be a good start.

Bill Mancuso           
I did not say YOU said somebody stole an election. I said, "As for your claim that NPR said Republicans stole back the House majority..." I'm sure THAT was pretty plain. If it wasn't, just scroll up and re-read the original. Keep working on those reading and comprehension skills, little buddy. You'll get there.

You claimed NPR claimed Republicans stole an election and I pointed out that you gave no proof of your claim. All you gave as your example of media bias is that you said it. I, however, pointed out that Republicans are the ones always claiming elections are stolen AND I provided proof. Can you understand that? I'm happy that you continue to prove me correct by ignoring facts and switching to different lies. At this point, I still don't know if NPR said what you claim they allegedly said because you still have not provided any proof. If you ever do decide to provide proof, I will accept it. I won't call you a radical conservative in a similar fashion to your biased, close-minded response. THAT would be a true example of using facts to convince someone.

Of course, the proof you provide can't be more manipulated FOX horse-pucky. If it is, I will be forced to dissect its contents and expose it for the standard FOX shit it truly is.

Yes, the study says exactly what is in the quote you posted, but you say that it doesn't say what it says. Please read again the quote of the study that you posted. And do try to comprehend its meaning. Also, the information you are quoting is the data from the original survey done by Fairleigh Dickinson University in November, 2011, which I read in a pdf file. The link I posted is a May, 2012 Fairleigh Dickinson University follow-up survey to their original survey. I just posted the most current results. I did look at the data. Apparently, I looked at more data than you, which may be why you are confused.

Did you ever say FOX wasn't biased? No, you just said the facts that truthfully refute their lies came from a radically liberally biased blog.

Your whole point that bias is everywhere falls flat in that my blog was not radically liberally biased, it simply relayed unadulterated math and geometry to prove FOX was lying. Again, just because YOU don't agree with the truth, that doesn't mean they are "one sided, false, and twisted." No matter how hard you want them to be. That means YOU are "one sided, false, and twisted." But then, Republicans view ANY information that doesn't blindly fall in lock-step with them as biased, no matter how neutral it is. THAT is the definition of being biased - which you have admitted to. I'm glad you are forthcoming about the fact that you do not care about facts.

And again, you obviously are not "willing to listen to the other side, and to try and dig down to the original data, and see what it says, not just what some pundit tells [you] it says" because your knee-jerk reaction to the unbiased truth was to call it radical liberal bias.

What's the best way to get the other side to stop listening? Call them a radical liberal. Oh, I forgot, it doesn't count when YOU call someone a name FIRST. It's everyone ELSE who is the problem.

And you didn't stop listening because I called you a clown. You weren't listening long before I typed my first word. THAT is why I called you a clown.

And thanks for bringing to my attention the Fairleigh Dickinson survey that shows FOX viewers are less informed than people who watch Phineas and Ferb marathons all day. I'll be sure to show it to all my other radically liberal friends - and even more radically conservative ones.

I don't have to prove to you what i heard. It was a personal anecdote, from the 1990's. I don't really care if you accept it or not. I didn't say anyone stole an election. I said the phraseology used made me aware of the bias in the reporting.

The study that you now found still says the same thing as before. A conservative watching MSNBC, or a liberal watching Fox, knows less about current events than someone watching either.

As for manipulating facts, if this was to be an accurate survey the demographics would be much better. For example, in the survey, 27% of respondents were over 60, yet in the population, only 13% are over 65. Does this effect the results?

The original question was "Also, (this is a honest question), why do you think the survey oversampled Republicans?"

So, is there a chance you can answer the original question? You have carried on for pages now about how I don't care about facts. Very impressive. So now, again, do you have an answer?

Is this study as accurate as you want Fox to be?

Bill Mancuso           
Why do you demand everyone ELSE must always prove their claims here in the comments section that you haunt, but YOU don't have to? I'm going to go ahead and check the 'hypocrite' box on your ever-growing clown repertoire list. It all comes down to your proud admission of not caring, doesn't it? You have your misinformed opinions and no facts or logical arguments or proof of any kind to the contrary will you ever care about. No matter how much you profess that you do. You will just keep twisting what you said in order to try to wriggle away from being called out on your nonsense. Or you will just ignore facts and switch the topic. After all, it is the Republican way.

Or, am I misjudging you? Do you consider yourself a Libertarian? Most Republicans these days who are so embarrassed to be called one now like to pretend they're Libertarians - ignoring the fact that the two ideologies are very different. (But then there's that 'not caring about facts' thing that Republicans do so well.)

And again, since you've ignored twice now what I said, I'll repeat this slowly enough for you to understand for this third time - I. Did. Not. Say. You. Said. Someone. Stole. The. Election. Here. Is. The. Quote. Again, "As for your claim that NPR said Republicans stole back the House majority..." Do. You. Understand. Now?

And I repeat my answer to the repeating of your honest question: I never said a single word about the survey. Why did you ask me what I thought if I had no thoughts about it? And I STILL haven't expressed an opinion on it. Was the second time explaining this to you enough, or will you be ignoring it again to ask me a third time? They say that's the charm, after all.

Oh, wait, I know. You don't care that I never had any thoughts about a survey that I never heard of until you brought it to my attention. Which is why you ignored that fact and twisted it to make it seem like I was just avoiding your question. You're just trying to score points in some competition you're having in your head. You're not really interested in accepting facts or learning information, are you? (Another Republican past time.)

Also, (this is an honest question), why do you think KC and the Sunshine Band is better than Abba? If you can demand explanations to opinions never expressed, then so can I. So, is there a chance you will answer the question?

And I do apologize for not addressing your very first question, "If you believe they are so constant, why does a blog from 11/06/2011 go back to a chart from July 2010?" Permit me to remedy that right now: It was just one example, Sir. Can you understand this? If you are concerned about the constancy of FOX's lies, go type "fox news edits video" in Google. The results are virtually endless.

Here, let me help you out with just a few (230) examples:

31 examples on this YouTube channel:

185 examples on this YouTube channel:

1 here:

1 here:

1 here:

1 here:

1 here:

6 here:

1 here:

1 here:

1 here:

Happy Independence Day!

And I never heard from him again.

Frankly, I think he gave up much easier than the average right-wing, militant, fact-denier. That upsets me a bit. I do enjoy these little back-and-forths.

Oh, well. There are sure to be others.

No comments:

Post a Comment