NationStates Jolt Archive

From that site's front page:


"Iran Threatens West With Homicide Attacks

Tehran says 40,000 bombers are ready to hit 29 U.S. and British targets if its nuclear program is attacked

Video
•Iran Threatens Homicide Attacks
•Iran Nuke Standoff at a Boiling Point"

You have to wonder if any of their 'editors' will catch on to how inane the headline is.

Apparently not the thinking man's source for news.

What's a homicide attack? :confused:

Isn't that tautologous?

What's a homicide attack? :confused:

Isn't that tautologous?


Fox company refuses to use the term "suicide bomber" for some reason, so they always replace it with "homicide bomber."

It helps them dumb-down their tv shows and further muck up the idea of reporting things truthfully or straightforwardly. Spin for spin's sake, dishonesty for dishonesty's sake.

I guess by their logic, if a suicide bombing is a homicide bombing, then a suicide attack is a homicide attack.

*Clearly* not the thinking man's source for news.

Fox company refuses to use the term "suicide bomber" for some reason, so they always replace it with "homicide bomber."
That's just retarded. :confused:

That's just retarded. :confused:

I think thats Fox's unofficial motto...

I think thats Fox's unofficial motto...
:p

"Fox News: Yes, we are just retarded."

All news corporations do it. You only laugh at Fox because it actually has a right-wing bias.

All news corporations do it. You only laugh at Fox because it actually has a right-wing bias.

Nobody does it like Faux though.

All news corporations do it. You only laugh at Fox because it actually has a right-wing bias.
Really? I haven't heard it on CNN.

Really? I haven't heard it on CNN.

I believe he refers to "dumbing down" as mentioned in an earlier post.

:p

"Fox News: Yes, we are just retarded."

"Fox News: Patriotism For Dummies"

"Fox News: Patriotism For Dummies"

Patriotism is always for dummies.

Patriotism is always for dummies.

I've often wondered about that. Obviously nationalism and jingoism are idiotic, but why cannot one be proud of the country they are in? Not in a "We're better than France, u suk, we had to save ur frog arses in WW2" Daily Mailesque way, but rather a "I'm rather proud we got the 2012 Olympic Bid" way? I know one cannot chose which country you are born in, but why can't you have a modicum of pride about your country?

All news corporations do it. You only laugh at Fox because it actually has a right-wing bias.


I think something like "homicide attacks" is less indicative of any sort of political bias than of a pathology of method in terms of reporting.

From that site's front page:


"Iran Threatens West With Homicide Attacks

Tehran says 40,000 bombers are ready to hit 29 U.S. and British targets if its nuclear program is attacked

Video
•Iran Threatens Homicide Attacks
•Iran Nuke Standoff at a Boiling Point"

You have to wonder if any of their 'editors' will catch on to how inane the headline is.

Apparently not the thinking man's source for news.

Do all these Fox News people have erections with 'Iran' written on them?!?


Have any of them actually pried their lips off the GOP's butt long enough to actually look at what's happening in Iraq, a country about 1/3rd as dangerous? :confused:

"Hhomicide attacks"? Some one is certifiable.

Do all these Fox News people have erections with 'Iran' written on them?!?


Have any of them actually pried their lips off the GOP's butt long enough to actually look at what's happening in Iraq, a country about 1/3rd as dangerous? :confused:

I'm surprised that this actually made much news. Because, you know, it's unheard of for a country to defend itself against attacks.

Why do they expect(or even think that it would be justified for that matter) that Iran would just role over and accept that it was attacked? If you read, not even carefully for that matter as it states it obviously, that Iran would only bomb those installations if Iran itself is attacked. What's so unreasonable about that? Man, does Fox not understand how war works? We attack them, we better expect them to attack us.:rolleyes:

fox: "feeding the fires of prejudice"

fox: "feeding the fires of prejudice"

And don't forget:

"Dousing the flames of basic intelligence with the refreshing waters of ignorance."

Fox company refuses to use the term "suicide bomber" for some reason, so they always replace it with "homicide bomber."
Stupidity, perhaps?

Strange that they talk about suicide bombers, but refuse to write those words on their webpage...

"Fox News: News for a special kind of people" ;)

From that site's front page:


"Iran Threatens West With Homicide Attacks

Tehran says 40,000 bombers are ready to hit 29 U.S. and British targets if its nuclear program is attacked

Video
•Iran Threatens Homicide Attacks
•Iran Nuke Standoff at a Boiling Point"

You have to wonder if any of their 'editors' will catch on to how inane the headline is.

Apparently not the thinking man's source for news.
First off: I'm not defending Fox. I agree that they are biased. However, I personally prefer the term "homocide bomber," and wish that everyone else would pick up on it. Think about it, what do you think a terrorists goal is when he blows himself up? Is he thinking "my life sucks, I want to die," or is he thinking "I must kill the zionist scum!" A terrorist isn't looking to commit suicide, he's looking to commit homicide. Suicide is simply seen as an acceptable side effect. To call them "suicide bombers" makes it sound like the bomber should be pitied because he commited suicide. On the other hand, the term homicide bomber gives the correct effect by making you realize that, while the bomber did die in the explosion, one or two (at least) innocent people were also killed.

First off: I'm not defending Fox. I agree that they are biased. However, I personally prefer the term "homocide bomber," and wish that everyone else would pick up on it. Think about it, what do you think a terrorists goal is when he blows himself up? Is he thinking "my life sucks, I want to die," or is he thinking "I must kill the zionist scum!" A terrorist isn't looking to commit suicide, he's looking to commit homicide. Suicide is simply seen as an acceptable side effect. To call them "suicide bombers" makes it sound like the bomber should be pitied because he commited suicide. On the other hand, the term homicide bomber gives the correct effect by making you realize that, while the bomber did die in the explosion, one or two (at least) innocent people were also killed.


The reason that what you're saying is wrong, ill-conceived and injurious to the notion of honest, straightforward reporting is that "homicide bombing" doesn't describe what a suicide bombing is.

A suicide bombing is different than other sorts of bombings (all of which are homicide) in that someone commits suicide in the process.

Journalism's aim is to report facts, and factually speaking, a bombing where someone blows himself up is distinguished from a bombing where he does not by the fact that in the first instance he commits suicide.

If this sort of anti-factual impulse were taken further, people would only ever be "charged with a crime" or "convicted of a crime," the specifics of the crime being unreported.

The reason that what you're saying is wrong, ill-conceived and injurious to the notion of honest, straightforward reporting is that "homicide bombing" doesn't describe what a suicide bombing is.

A suicide bombing is different than other sorts of bombings (all of which are homicide) in that someone commits suicide in the process.

Journalism's aim is to report facts, and factually speaking, a bombing where someone blows himself up is distinguished from a bombing where he does not by the fact that in the first instance he commits suicide.
Beat me to it... And I agree with you. ;)

From that site's front page:


"Iran Threatens West With Homicide Attacks

Tehran says 40,000 bombers are ready to hit 29 U.S. and British targets if its nuclear program is attacked

Video
•Iran Threatens Homicide Attacks
•Iran Nuke Standoff at a Boiling Point"

You have to wonder if any of their 'editors' will catch on to how inane the headline is.

Apparently not the thinking man's source for news.
I love how Fox is the only news agency in the world who refers to suicide bombings as "homicide attacks" I guess they think suicide bomber is too nice, so they use homicide attack will make they people do carry them out look really bad.:rolleyes:

Its stupid because not only does it show a pro-Israel slant but also discredits them somewhat as a objective news agency

First off: I'm not defending Fox. I agree that they are biased. However, I personally prefer the term "homocide bomber," and wish that everyone else would pick up on it. Think about it, what do you think a terrorists goal is when he blows himself up? Is he thinking "my life sucks, I want to die," or is he thinking "I must kill the zionist scum!" A terrorist isn't looking to commit suicide, he's looking to commit homicide. Suicide is simply seen as an acceptable side effect. To call them "suicide bombers" makes it sound like the bomber should be pitied because he commited suicide. On the other hand, the term homicide bomber gives the correct effect by making you realize that, while the bomber did die in the explosion, one or two (at least) innocent people were also killed.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :headbang: :headbang: jesus h christ

I've often wondered about that. Obviously nationalism and jingoism are idiotic, but why cannot one be proud of the country they are in? Not in a "We're better than France, u suk, we had to save ur frog arses in WW2" Daily Mailesque way, but rather a "I'm rather proud we got the 2012 Olympic Bid" way? I know one cannot chose which country you are born in, but why can't you have a modicum of pride about your country?
way to rub in how you beat out New York 2012:p

The other thing they lose sight of, is only in America is murder called homicide. It's murder everywhere else, and there are all sorts of languages with their own words. A "murder bombing" in any language, sounds stupidly ass lame. "Suicide bombing" is the correct description, as it states what sets apart the act from others.

40,000 bombers huh. Iran must know of Fox's gullibility or their glee at trying to frighten Americans. Who knows but people should really shut up about Iran. Giving their leader all this press only encourages his blustering.

Fox company refuses to use the term "suicide bomber" for some reason, so they always replace it with "homicide bomber."

It helps them dumb-down their tv shows and further muck up the idea of reporting things truthfully or straightforwardly. Spin for spin's sake, dishonesty for dishonesty's sake.

I guess by their logic, if a suicide bombing is a homicide bombing, then a suicide attack is a homicide attack.

*Clearly* not the thinking man's source for news.

I remember somewhere that they are doing it because they felt suicide brought attention to the killer as in some kind of "aww poor guy" response.

It's retarded and sounds stupid.

They shouldn't be called Suicide bombers or Homicide bombers. They didn't call the Japanese suicide attack pilots of WW2 “Suicide Pilots,” they had a name the Kamikaze name, which means "Divine Wind" in Japanese. It’s what they were called and everybody knew what it meant.

The suicidal people bombers today, (kamikazes without the planes) should be called something like Allah's Retribution or Jihadades :p ... That or just morons with explosives. What do they call themselves in Arabic?

They shouldn't be called Suicide bombers or Homicide bombers. They didn't call the Japanese suicide attack pilots of WW2 “Suicide Pilots,” they had a name the Kamikaze name, which means "Divine Wind" in Japanese. It’s what they were called and everybody knew what it meant.

The suicidal people bombers today, (kamikazes without the planes) should be called something like Allah's Retribution or Jihadades :p ... That or just morons with explosives. What do they call themselves in Arabic?
Suicide bombers.

First off: I'm not defending Fox. I agree that they are biased. However, I personally prefer the term "homocide bomber," and wish that everyone else would pick up on it. Think about it, what do you think a terrorists goal is when he blows himself up? Is he thinking "my life sucks, I want to die," or is he thinking "I must kill the zionist scum!" A terrorist isn't looking to commit suicide, he's looking to commit homicide. Suicide is simply seen as an acceptable side effect. To call them "suicide bombers" makes it sound like the bomber should be pitied because he commited suicide. On the other hand, the term homicide bomber gives the correct effect by making you realize that, while the bomber did die in the explosion, one or two (at least) innocent people were also killed.

Homicide bomber:
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/content/5_16_3.jpg

Suicide bomber:
http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9903/08/kubrick.obit/strangelove.jpg

A suicide bomber is when the bomber kills himself in the process of blowing something up. A homicide bomber would just be when the something was blown up but the bomber survived.

They shouldn't be called Suicide bombers or Homicide bombers. They didn't call the Japanese suicide attack pilots of WW2 “Suicide Pilots,” they had a name the Kamikaze name, which means "Divine Wind" in Japanese. It’s what they were called and everybody knew what it meant.

The suicidal people bombers today, (kamikazes without the planes) should be called something like Allah's Retribution or Jihadades :p ... That or just morons with explosives. What do they call themselves in Arabic?


Martyrs, shahid, istish-haad

The other thing they lose sight of, is only in America is murder called homicide. It's murder everywhere else, and there are all sorts of languages with their own words. A "murder bombing" in any language, sounds stupidly ass lame. "Suicide bombing" is the correct description, as it states what sets apart the act from others.

And the thing you loose sight of is the fact FOX news doesn't speak for everybody. A tiny amount of the people will call it homicide bombings. Not even all Fox News viewers(which I am not) call it that.

Now do you understand the difference between a murder and homicide?

Homicide bomber:
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/content/5_16_3.jpg


Ahh but what if the attack doesn't kill anybody?

Ahh but what if the attack doesn't kill anybody?
Then they're just bombers?

Ahh but what if the attack doesn't kill anybody?

Then I imagine you'd make a completely useless post.

Then I imagine you'd make a completely useless post.
Pretty much like this thread?

Pretty much like this thread?
Well, if you go down that road, you might as well kill yourself right now.
Ultimateley everyting is useless.

Well, if you go down that road, you might as well kill yourself right now.
Ultimateley everyting is useless.

Why not?

We are all going to die someday so why not kill ourselves?

Ahh but what if the attack doesn't kill anybody?

depends on if they intended to kill anybody. if yes, then they are just unsuccessful homicide bombers. if no, then they might just be a demolition crew.

Pretty much like this thread?


Was what happened here merely a threadjacking, or deliberate self preening over terminology? A potential problem is mentioned and rather than that subject being addressed, some very important folks decide that lanquage is the issue, rather thatn the issue being the issue.

All news corporations do it. You only laugh at Fox because it actually has a right-wing bias.
No they don't. Only Fox is stupid enough. It's suicide bomber on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Headline News, The LA Times, The NY Times, The Chicago, Tribune, etc..., etc...,

Just went to the Fox website and its true, they called the attack in Tel Aviv a homicide attack:eek: ...on a side note I feel so dirty for going to that site:(

No they don't. Only Fox is stupid enough. It's suicide bomber on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Headline News, The LA Times, The NY Times, The Chicago, Tribune, etc..., etc...,
Yes, but you see they're all the liberal media. [/snark]

It's a good point though, what do you call a "homicide bomber" who failed to kill anyone but himself? He didn't commit "homicide".

First off: I'm not defending Fox. I agree that they are biased. However, I personally prefer the term "homocide bomber," and wish that everyone else would pick up on it. Think about it, what do you think a terrorists goal is when he blows himself up? Is he thinking "my life sucks, I want to die," or is he thinking "I must kill the zionist scum!" A terrorist isn't looking to commit suicide, he's looking to commit homicide. Suicide is simply seen as an acceptable side effect. To call them "suicide bombers" makes it sound like the bomber should be pitied because he commited suicide. On the other hand, the term homicide bomber gives the correct effect by making you realize that, while the bomber did die in the explosion, one or two (at least) innocent people were also killed.

Actually, a terrorist suicide bomber is looking to commit suicide. The term that they use for themselves is "martyrs." Dying in the process is as much their goal as killing as many people as they can. In fact, it isn't even uncommon to hear of terrorists blowing themselves up in such poorly planned bombings that they don't actually kill anyone except themselves. I read about suicide bombers blowing themselves up every day in the Ha'artez without even killing people. If homicide, rather than "martyrdom", was their primary goal, they would simply place bombs efficiently rather than make sure they were blown up along with them.

:p

"Fox News: Yes, we are just retarded."

I watched it intermittently for two weeks in the USA, and by gods it is moronic. The newscaster used the term French riotees. Inspired.

It's a good point though, what do you call a "homicide bomber" who failed to kill anyone but himself? He didn't commit "homicide".
Inept?

No they don't. Only Fox is stupid enough. It's suicide bomber on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Headline News, The LA Times, The NY Times, The Chicago, Tribune, etc..., etc...,
The really fun part is that Fox are inconsistent in their usage of the terms. If you watch the videos on the website (nauseating, I know...) you will hear them use the terms interchangeably.

Homicide Bomber Kills 8 in Tel Aviv
Monday, April 17, 2006

TEL AVIV, Israel — A Palestinian homicide bomber blew himself up outside a sandwich shop in a busy commercial area near the central bus station in Tel Aviv on Monday, killing eight other people and wounding at least 49.

...

A Hamas spokesman called the suicide bombing the direct result of "Israeli aggression." But Palestinian lawmaker Saeb Erekat of the rival Fatah Party condemned the blast.



Tehran Threatens West With Homicide Attacks
Sunday, April 16, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation’s nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action.

Ah, Fox News... :D

It's shocking how much you lefties hate Fox News... ya just can't handle the existence of ONE right-leaning television medium.

Go watch your CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC...

But you see Fox viewers have the attentionspan of a goldfish. So anything beyond a headline and they tune out.

as for the logic of calling someone who blows himself AND FIFTY OTHER PEOPLE UP a homicide bomber:

Suicides classically only kill themselves.

These people are committing mass homicides (At least many of them do).

...suicide AND homicide.

Since there are more homicides than the one suicide... why not call it a homicide attack/bomber?

I like it because it takes some of the "honor" away from it... a "suicide" bomber could be rationalized (by some sick minds i suppose) to have sacrificed himself... while with "homicide bomber" the person is seen as he should be -- a criminal.

But you see Fox viewers have the attentionspan of a goldfish. So anything beyond a headline and they tune out.

ROFL

...and all lefties make moronic blanket statements...

It's shocking how much you lefties hate Fox News... ya just can't handle the existence of ONE right-leaning television medium.

Go watch your CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC...

I don't think anyone would object to Fox News if it broadcasted at a level of intelligence above that of a catfish.

It's shocking how much you lefties hate Fox News... ya just can't handle the existence of ONE right-leaning television medium.

Go watch your CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC...

so the options are either official republican propaganda shills, or corprorate propaganda shills who also typically shill for the republicans?

It's shocking how much you lefties hate Fox News... ya just can't handle the existence of ONE right-leaning television medium.

Go watch your CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC...
That's not it at all. What we really dislike is the complete and total dishonesty with which Fox News and most of their viewership act as though Fox is, as their slogan claims, "fair and balanced." Obviously, you don't fit that group, since you acknowledge that bias (although you do pull the bullshit "everyone else is liberal" card, for which you ought to be slapped for sheer stupidity).

If Fox were honest about their leanings, there wouldn't be any controversy.

If Fox were honest about their leanings, there wouldn't be any controversy.

except over the sheer stupidity of the things they say and do

I am a libertarian, and I hate Fox news because it is fascist, not conservative. As for the other networks, they just do some occassional CYA for Democrats. This doesn't make them intelligent alternative news sources.

except over the sheer stupidity of the things they say and do
Well, there is that. But frankly, Fox is far from alone on that front. Most of the shit that gets passed off as news on tv is embarrassing.

as for the logic of calling someone who blows himself AND FIFTY OTHER PEOPLE UP a homicide bomber:

Suicides classically only kill themselves.

These people are committing mass homicides (At least many of them do).

...suicide AND homicide.

Since there are more homicides than the one suicide... why not call it a homicide attack/bomber?

I like it because it takes some of the "honor" away from it... a "suicide" bomber could be rationalized (by some sick minds i suppose) to have sacrificed himself... while with "homicide bomber" the person is seen as he should be -- a criminal.
But there is something special in the case where people are willing to die trying to kill/hurt others.

I like the way it was put on Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber)
With the exceptions of Fox News Channel and the New York Post (both owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation) the phrase is not used. The argument can be made that "homicide bombing" is a misnomer since "bombing" already implies the intent to kill so the adjective "homicide" adds no information, yet dropping the adjective "suicide" omits information about the specific tactic employed by the bomber.

as for the logic of calling someone who blows himself AND FIFTY OTHER PEOPLE UP a homicide bomber:

Suicides classically only kill themselves.

These people are committing mass homicides (At least many of them do).

...suicide AND homicide.

Since there are more homicides than the one suicide... why not call it a homicide attack/bomber?

I like it because it takes some of the "honor" away from it... a "suicide" bomber could be rationalized (by some sick minds i suppose) to have sacrificed himself... while with "homicide bomber" the person is seen as he should be -- a criminal.
And that's the stupid reason Fox does it. They seem to think that calling someone a suicide bomber somehow confers some honor to the act. I don't know anyone who thinks it's honorable to be a suicide bomber. Calling someone a "homocide bomber" is redundant. All bombers are homocide bombers. Timothty McVeigh was a homocide bomber. The Unabomber was a homocide bomber. What makes certain bombers different than others is that some of them intentionally kill themselves when they do it. That's not honorable in anyway and calling them suicide bombers is not some sort of celebration of the act. It is not in any way equivalent to the term "martyr." It is simply a descriptive term for what they are. If you are going to call people homocide bombers than pedestriand should be walking pedestrians and drivers should be driving drivers and students should be learning students, etc...

And I don't hate Fox. I read Fox news everyday so I can get a balanced perspective on my news.

Well, there is that. But frankly, Fox is far from alone on that front. Most of the shit that gets passed off as news on tv is embarrassing.

indeed. where they got the idea that,
"scientists say 'the sky is blue', republican political consultants say 'more of a neon green'"
is a good way to write stories, i have no idea.

I guess by their logic, if a suicide bombing is a homicide bombing, then a suicide attack is a homicide attack.

*Clearly* not the thinking man's source for news.
Surely any effective attack is a homicide attack.

indeed. where they got the idea that,
"scientists say 'the sky is blue', republican political consultants say 'more of a neon green'"
is a good way to write stories, i have no idea.
It's the result of decades of the right-wing working the refs, claiming bias where there was none, to the point where editors are now gunshy, and they look for balance where balance isn't possible. On-the-one-handism isn't balance--it's intellectual dishonesty most of the time.

All news corporations do it. You only laugh at Fox because it actually has a right-wing bias.
Not quite, it's just that Fox makes it so obvious.

To call them "suicide bombers" makes it sound like the bomber should be pitied because he commited suicide. On the other hand, the term homicide bomber gives the correct effect by making you realize that, while the bomber did die in the explosion, one or two (at least) innocent people were also killed.
The problem with the the term "homicide bomber" is that it neutralises the purpose of the term suicide bomber (a term which has never evoked sympathy in me). Any bomber who kills someone is a homicide bomber. The term suicide bomber was invented to categorise those so fanatical in their desire to kill people that they sacrifice themselves to do it.

as for the logic of calling someone who blows himself AND FIFTY OTHER PEOPLE UP a homicide bomber:

Suicides classically only kill themselves.
Homicides classically only kill other people.

These people are committing mass homicides (At least many of them do).

...suicide AND homicide.

Since there are more homicides than the one suicide... why not call it a homicide attack/bomber?

I like it because it takes some of the "honor" away from it... a "suicide" bomber could be rationalized (by some sick minds i suppose) to have sacrificed himself... while with "homicide bomber" the person is seen as he should be -- a criminal.
I've never believed that suicide bombing is honourable, admirable, or deserving pof pity or sympathy. If suicide bombing is homicide bombing, what do you call the bombings in which case the perpetrator does not die with his victims?

I'll admit that Fox needs a "un" prefix to "Fair & Balanced". OTOH, CBS needs to drop its first letter.

Fox lies.

I never go on its website. I think we sgould all boycott those retards.

I wish a link was posted to the article, goddammit


In agreement w/ most you folks, any bombing can be considered a homicide bombing, it's the suicide element that sets it apart... thus I agree that suicide bombing is the appropriate term to differentiate it from other bombings.
"Homicide bombing" is a retarded term for a suicide attack.
That's like saying "homicide shooting" instead of a "murder suicide," which are clearly two different things.

Blah. Back to studying French. Stupid French.

I'll admit that Fox needs a "un" prefix to "Fair & Balanced". OTOH, CBS needs to drop its first letter.

so that leaves you. . .

abc - we put tonnage on the port side (figure it out)
nbc - someone watch us! wait, we have the AFL!
wb - they have news?!?!

well, i guess if you read both fox/cbs, you learn how to spin like a top.

Personally I think watching any TV news is worthless. I read all my news. You just can't get the info from a 20 second sound bite that you get from an article.

as for the logic of calling someone who blows himself AND FIFTY OTHER PEOPLE UP a homicide bomber:

Suicides classically only kill themselves.

These people are committing mass homicides (At least many of them do).

...suicide AND homicide.

Since there are more homicides than the one suicide... why not call it a homicide attack/bomber?

I like it because it takes some of the "honor" away from it... a "suicide" bomber could be rationalized (by some sick minds i suppose) to have sacrificed himself... while with "homicide bomber" the person is seen as he should be -- a criminal.

The reason that what you're saying is wrong, ill-conceived and injurious to the notion of honest, straightforward reporting is that "homicide bombing" doesn't describe what a suicide bombing is.

A suicide bombing is different than other sorts of bombings (all of which are homicide) in that someone commits suicide in the process.

Journalism's aim is to report facts, and factually speaking, a bombing where someone blows himself up is distinguished from a bombing where he does not by the fact that in the first instance he commits suicide.

If this sort of anti-factual impulse were taken further, people would only ever be "charged with a crime" or "convicted of a crime," the specifics of the crime being unreported.


And on the blah-blah-blah liberal blah-blah you were spamming the thread with: This thread addresses something specific and gives specific reasons. None of them are on the order of your blah-blah-durn-libruls-blah-blah. If you aren't going to contribute, dont post.

so that leaves you. . .

abc - we put tonnage on the port side (figure it out)
nbc - someone watch us! wait, we have the AFL!
wb - they have news?!?!
.what is wb?

Fox lies.

I never go on its website. I think we sgould all boycott those retards.

No, let's go on their site hundreds of thousands of times, deleting out temp. internet files and then refreshing, as to bankrupt FOX - brilliant, no?

That's not it at all. What we really dislike is the complete and total dishonesty with which Fox News and most of their viewership act as though Fox is, as their slogan claims, "fair and balanced." Obviously, you don't fit that group, since you acknowledge that bias (although you do pull the bullshit "everyone else is liberal" card, for which you ought to be slapped for sheer stupidity).

If Fox were honest about their leanings, there wouldn't be any controversy.

do i have to drop the UCLA study on you again?

did you not read it the other three times?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664


Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Date: December 14, 2005

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

MS580

point being, it's not stupid, per se, to claim that most media lean to the left (american left, i should say)... left of the average ADA score in Congress (50.1).

point being, it's not stupid, per se, to claim that most media lean to the left (american left, i should say)... left of the average ADA score in Congress (50.1).


You forgot to append: "In terms of how they cite policy groups and think tanks, in comparison to how politicians cite policy groups and think tanks in their speeches" which, according to your article, was the only thing looked at in the study.

Not all that compelling.

the fact that they go to certain think tanks instead of others (they have choices) should point to bias... because different think tanks have different motivations going into a study, motivations which lead to expected or desired results, which will necessarily skew findings.


this study was done with an equal number of repubs and democrats (couldn't be any better than that -- equal number)... they didn't take any outside aid... etc.
----------------------

Suimocide bomber

hehe

the fact that they go to certain think tanks instead of others (they have choices) should point to bias... because different think tanks have different motivations going into a study, motivations which lead to expected or desired results, which will necessarily skew findings.


this study was done with an equal number of repubs and democrats (couldn't be any better than that -- equal number)... they didn't take any outside aid... etc.

There are three basic flaws with the study you cite.

1. The methodology used for assessing the ideology of think-tanks is not correct and reliable.

By definition, an objective assessment is one in which we would need to actually read through the think tanks policy briefs and compare the details in those briefs to a fixed definition of what is considered liberal, centrist or conservative (one can pick a reference like the ADA if one wishes, but the reference needs to be fixed). That is not being done here because the think tanks ideology is being derived by using a (weighted) metric of who cites the think tank and how often.

2. The methodology used for assessing the ideology of the media is not correct and reliable.

The authors are assessing "media bias" by extracting adjusted ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for media outlets by comparing their think-tank citations to those of the legislators whose adjusted ADA scores are independently estimated using voting records, regardless of whether or not the media article disagrees with the think tank or not.

3. The definition of media bias used by the authors is not correct and reliable.

From the study: Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference...In contrast, other writers, at least at times, do define bias as a matter of accuracy or honesty. We emphasize that our differences with such writers are ones of semantics, not substance. If, say, a reader insists that bias should refer to accuracy or honesty, then we urge him or her simply to substitute another word wherever we write “bias”. Perhaps “slant” is a good alternative.

cool. slant, then.
-----------------

Sumocide

You forgot to append: "In terms of how they cite policy groups and think tanks, in comparison to how politicians cite policy groups and think tanks in their speeches" which, according to your article, was the only thing looked at in the study.

Not all that compelling.Particularly considering that mentions of a think tank are, in the media, not always positive mentions. Neocons are always happy to mention the NAACP in a negative light, for example, or the ACLU.

This methodology produces noted errors with regard to what is considered conservative or liberal. The ACLU is identified as a conservativeorganization by the study, for example - a sign suggesting something is amiss, given how negatively the ACLU is portrayed by conservatives. The WSJ is identified as the most liberal media outlet, with an ADA rating roughly identical to the average Democrat in Congress. This, in spite of the fact that the WSJ is commonly identified as a conservative newspaper (virtually all other news organizations score between the average Democrat politican and average Republican politician, incidentally, making them "moderate" by definition.)

Both these points indicate problems - citation patterns aren't everything, and there are serious problems with the correlation of citation between media organs and political organs.

However, that's not the only problem. The baseline is skewed. The ADA rating is not an absolute measure of liberality.

I would also suggest (incidentally) that lawmakers tend to be right of center, on the whole, as a product of the establishment.

An ADA score of 60 sounds moderate to me, particularly given that (a) Congress is currently dominated by the conservative faction, to a greater proportion than the population (amplification through districting effects) and (b) average a score of 50.

Take the Senate. Democratic Senate candidates received 50.8% of the popular vote in 2004, while only 44% of the Senate is Democratic. Similarly, House Republicans received 49.2% of the popular votes, but hold 53.3% of the seats last I checked. "Correcting" the ADA factors to account for Congress being noticably more conservative than the populace as a whole, we find that the media reflect quite closely the political opinions of the populace.

The study gives "average" Democratic and Republican figures about 70 ADA points apart. Given this, a "corrected" estimate of the average figure for the population based on the relative under and over representation of the parties, I can calculate the "average" American - presuming they vote, on average, for candidates who match their views - as having an ADA rating of 54.5.

Thank you all for pointing out the multiple egregious problems with that so-called study. I have little doubt that Frangland or some other "liberal media" believer will pull it out again in the future. I was off turning my students into communists or I'd have pointed out those errors myself. :D

Neocons are always happy to mention the NAACP in a negative light, for example, or the ACLU.




Its not the neoconservatives who are opposed to the ACLU and the NAACP, its the traditional conservatives.

Neoconservatism is mainly concerned with foreign policy, opposition to gay marriage, secular government and civil rights are parts of the traditional conservative movement.

Its not the neoconservatives who are opposed to the ACLU

so i've been dreaming all these action alerts from the aclu to oppose the various and sundry neocon-backed civil rights abuses?

so i've been dreaming all these action alerts from the aclu to oppose the various and sundry neocon-backed civil rights abuses?

The ACLU is certainly opposed to some of the methods that have come to be associated with the bush government, primarily torture. In this I agree with them completely.

I dont know that the ACLU really concerns itself with neoconservative foreign policy though, at least not the foreign policy actually advocated by neoconservatives.

Make no mistake though, neoconservatives advocate a pretty narrow set of policies, and they all concern defense spending and foreign policy geared towards american hegemony and security.