The Liberal approach...ban it, boycott it or call it racist

I know you have seen the latest California liberal attempt at Nanny-ism where banning straws wasn't enough. Now kids could soon be barred from having soft drinks or juice at restaurants. Its milk or water.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...dont-like.html

So order a McDonalds (NOT Chic-fil-a) chicken Mcnugget happy meal with fries and a water from an illegal immigrant....mmmmmm. And afterwards mom and dad can go legally smoke an unfiltered joint because we wouldnt want to do anything unhealthy!

Not exactly.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Not exactly.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html

---

I actually read that it was more limited, but it didn't make me feel one ounce better. :)

The country I was taught we were supposed to be is long gone. There is absolutely no basis in anything the Founders created or said that in any way empowers the state to regulate a purely private transaction in this way. It's using the power of the state to enforce "desirable" behavior "for the greater good".

There is a lot of philosophy that supports such an approach, but most of it is German and none of it is consistent with the Lockean basis for our nation.

Besides, in a few years it will be a ban. But I don't blame California, they're out in the lead on this road, but hardly alone on it. Other states and cities are banning sodas that are "too large" for the same reasons, etc.

The main lesson here is that Fox is not news but political propaganda

Funny how you can single out just one. Many fit that description

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

The main lesson here is that Fox is not news but political propaganda

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Not exactly.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html

---

Thanks for the link, and clarification. Guess its sort of like the "Muslim ban" where its not really a ban but only labelled such by those who oppose it.

One thing I did not realize. I didn't know there was a "default" drink on my value meal.

I still stand by my objection though. Why is it the governments job to play daddy? Put the options up there and let the consumer decide. I rarely let my kids have soda when they were kids. If they got a "happy meal", they could so long as it was one refill and no more. The menu gave me the options, and I didn't have to ask for something "off menu" because it wasn't the default drink. IMO I determine what the default is, not some liberal bureaucrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

The main lesson here is that Fox is not news but political propaganda

---

Closer to news than the others. They all have their slant. That much is obvious., What I don't get is how anyone thinks they don't all have one.

Fox clearly is more conservative, so their spin will go that way, but CNN and MSNBC are far more propaganda, and Fox is about as right as the networks are left.

It seems in this country that whatever you agree with is "Facts", whatever you dont' like to hear is "propaganda." I find that fascinating on one level but deeply troubling on another. the truth is every side, every media outlet, they all spin an angle. They all select to cover stories based on their political ideology, and then spin those stories to suit it as well.

Fox is conservative so they cover the arrest of an illegal alien in a homicide, or cover the new very positive unemployment numbers, an MSNBC and CNN don't cover it at all b/c it doesn't suit their agenda. Likewise CNN and MSNBC will cover anti-trump legitimate events really hard where Fox will downplay them.

It's called ratings and money and bias. The combination of them all has driven media from the old days. Ironically we now give out "Pulitzer" awards named for a man who, along with Hearst, built financial empires based on fake news and yellow journalism, and those days haven't changed a bit.

Funny? There is no humor in it at all. Funny is taking it personally.

They are reporters. All three did not overlook the truth of the matter nor did they report it without supervision. It was agenda driven fake news.

To suggest that they should not be singled out when the "fake news" mantra is one of the main talking points on this forum, is extremely disingenuous imo. In reality,, they should be singled out by those who support them as their news source....but that does not happen.

Now as I see it, FOX news is the least credible of any, with MSNBC a close second.
They are the #1 purveyor of "alternative facts" or as I was taught..lies

I spoke the truth. Often the only defense is to mount an offense however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

Funny? There is no humor in it at all. Funny is taking it personally.

They are reporters. All three did not overlook the truth of the matter nor did they report it without supervision. It was agenda driven fake news.

To suggest that they should not be singled out when the "fake news" mantra is one of the main talking points on this forum, is extremely disingenuous imo. In reality,, they should be singled out by those who support them as their news source....but that does not happen.

Now as I see it, FOX news is the least credible of any, with MSNBC a close second.
They are the #1 purveyor of "alternative facts" or as I was taught..lies

I spoke the truth. Often the only defense is to mount an offense however.

---

1) I don't take it personally, that's why I find it funny how people's perceptions work, on both sides of the aisle. If I took it personally I'd take to drinking, b/c it's depressing how easily people believe what they WANT to believe. lol

2) Actually, the defense used so often with CNN Is this: they are not reporters. They are talk show hosts and analysts, and apparently that's different from a reporter. It shoudln't be IMO, but given how quickly those same folks on CNN call a statement by someone a basis for being charged with treason, I see why they make the distinction.

3) You didn't single them out. You drew a conclusion on the entire Fox network from a single incorrect statement by non-reporters on a morning talk show. By any objective standard ALL networks are at least equally guilty of such gaffs, and MSNBC and CNN are far out ahead of them all on that front. They claim outrageous things on their talk shows regularly.

4) You didn't "speak the truth". You spoke the truth as you perceive it. The "truth" is that there is no single "truth" of the universe, nor of political economy nor of philosophy. You can report a simple fact, i.e. "a person died today in a shooting in Florida", but as soon as you start talking about the motives of the shooter, or gun control, or poverty and how that impacted things, you leave cold hard facts behind and become speculation.


For example, I think I'm pretty well educated on these topics, and my "truth" is that Fox, albeit right leaning, is far and away the most "truthful" of the major networks. So how can it be that you, a likewise intelligent and reasonable person, can see it as nearly the opposite?

The reason is b/c there is no "truth" here, just ideology and subjectivity and interpretation.

That's what I find so funny, but not in a derogatory way, that anyone really thinks they or their side or some entity either has a corner on the "truth" or is even appreciably more "truthful" in some way. The very word "Truth" has nothing to do with reporting or politics in that sense b/c it is being used not as "the only logical conclusion one can draw based on the evidence and applying Platonic principles of reason" but rather as "this is a fact, and anything that disagrees with it is denying a basic fact and is thus a lie."

In that context, an alternative view is not a "lie", it is simply looking at different groups and subsets of the large set of "facts", and BOTH sides tend to cherry pick which ones they use. That's why the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics" is so very true even though statistics is mathematically itself pure. B/c you can put into it whatever data you want and get whatever apparently conclusion you want, b/c you get to pick your facts and ignore ones you don't like.

I'm not trying to be insulting or go on offense, but you just suggested one statement by a group of TV beautiful people on one show was proof positive that an entire news network was "propaganda", and then suggest you "spoke the truth" in drawing that conclusion.

Was it "fake news"? Yes it was. No doubt. Does that make it true that Fox is thus "political propaganda" as you suggest? No. Is your conclusion "the truth"? No. It's one truth, your truth, but there is no "the Truth" once you get into these conclusionary statements, on either side.

Again, political blinders are in play with you Kingcat..smh.
They ALL push an angle, an agenda. That still doesn’t make them all leftist pinko commies or right wing propagandists.
They should just report the news and let me make the determination of what I think is right or wrong.
The big problem with your statement is you seem to want to cherry pick one network as being full of propaganda. I can make that statement about nearly all of them about some things they say, report, lead or frame and I’m not wrong in my assertion.
My advice to you is to look at all media with that jaundiced eye you use to look at Fox and you will have a correct view of the media overall.

Fox is right wing news just as MSNBC is left wing. Its like wrestling though, if you enjoy what they offer, you will defend it.
And the defense is always that others do the same. It's only worse when it goes against the narrative you enjoy or which supports your opinion, generally speaking.

Yet for all the attacks on the media which do not support Murdocks tilted view, no one can briing themselves to come out and say..yeah they're all about the same, or in this instance they sure appear to have an agenda or even, yeah, you almost cant trust any of them They are instead defended as making a little mistake (come on now, hehe)

It was an attempt to stir up their viewers and the president's base in the face of current real and unflattering news. As transparent as it gets.

So I maintain there was no mistake made, but that is my opinion. But opinions here are constantly and unfairly measured by what Fox news and other right wing tools present as facts. And never do I see that questioned. Only an increase of offensive fervor.

An old saying fits the bill for both sides of the equation.."Why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye but don't notice the beam of wood in your own eye?"

And I am honestly not trying to make waves or attack anyone. Everyone has a worthwhile opinion.

And Catonahottinroof, I always point out MSNBC as being similar to Fox news.
I must admit I like your post. However I wish I could have penned it for your benefit. :)

I'll back out and let you folks have your say. But if the situations were reversed (which they probably have been before) none would hesitate to be unkind to a dissenting opinion. Yet if you read without political blinders on, you will see I was not disrespectful or stating an opinion held by some small insignificant minority.

"Back at you" arguments should be beneath us. That's never my intent.

Exactly WHO defended their mistake? Those replies must have been deleted because I just reread the thread and don't see a SINGLE POST DEFENDING Fox's error or misrepresentation. So please identify this defense because I'd sure like to see it. Otherwise I'm confused because those who you seem to believe are defending have admitted to a conservative slant.

There was a time when the media was no one’s friend and it needed to be that way. Now it’s let me be soft to gain some access or harsh when I don’t need that access. Be consistent in what you do regardless of who it is. Trump has earned the flack he is receiving. Obama earned it too but the media was more interested in access and kid gloves. Bush lite was given a pass way too many times too.
That is why the media is treated with disdain by the informed public, just as untruthful politicians are.

First I want to make it clear it's no big deal and Im not on some campaign to change anyone's mind. I'm not posting angry in the least.

Doc, you did not defend Fox news, nor did I go off on some rant rebuking them and defending others.
Some of my other friends here point out I have political blinders on and such. But this is not a discussion about the media in general as taking it that direction IS a clear attempt to defend and a common maneuver on slanted message boards. But still, that's not a problem.

I stated this..
"The main lesson here is that Fox is not news but political propaganda"

I received this in reply..
"Funny how you can single out just one. Many fit that description"

But this is a discussion regarding fox news. I implied nothing relative to others.

...and this.
"Closer to news than the others. They all have their slant. That much is obvious., What I don't get is how anyone thinks they don't all have one.

Fox clearly is more conservative, so their spin will go that way, but CNN and MSNBC are far more propaganda"


An opinion I obviously do not share.
And so I responded with more detail, my opinions which are no more than equal to everyone's here in public support and content
In a general sense mine are not far removed from everyone else here. Just slanted a different direction when it comes to now admittedly slanted news sources. (That's a good start)

But that certainly was a defense of Fox news. The lack of critique alone is a glaring one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

There was a time when the media was no one’s friend and it needed to be that way. Now it’s let me be soft to gain some access or harsh when I don’t need that access. Be consistent in what you do regardless of who it is. Trump has earned the flack he is receiving. Obama earned it too but the media was more interested in access and kid gloves. Bush lite was given a pass way too many times too.
That is why the media is treated with disdain by the informed public, just as untruthful politicians are.

---

I agree in large part. As long as it's not that only the dissenting media is treated with such disdain, or that untruthful politicians of a certain political persuasion are not.

Good post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

First I want to make it clear it's no big deal and Im not on some campaign to change anyone's mind. I'm not posting angry in the least.

Doc, you did not defend Fox news, nor did I go off on some rant rebuking them and defending others.
Some of my other friends here point out I have political blinders on and such. But this is not a discussion about the media in general as taking it that direction IS a clear attempt to defend and a common maneuver on slanted message boards. But still, that's not a problem.

I stated this..
"The main lesson here is that Fox is not news but political propaganda"

I received this in reply..
"Funny how you can single out just one. Many fit that description"

But this is a discussion regarding fox news. I implied nothing relative to others.

...and this.
"Closer to news than the others. They all have their slant. That much is obvious., What I don't get is how anyone thinks they don't all have one.

Fox clearly is more conservative, so their spin will go that way, but CNN and MSNBC are far more propaganda"


An opinion I obviously do not share.
And so I responded with more detail, my opinions which are no more than equal to everyone's here in public support and content
In a general sense mine are not far removed from everyone else here. Just slanted a different direction when it comes to now admittedly slanted news sources. (That's a good start)

But that certainly was a defense of Fox news. The lack of critique alone is a glaring one.

---

I'd disagree that the "main lesson here is Fox is not news but propaganda". You might see it as propaganda but I sure don't so its not a lesson for me. I see it as they reported incorrectly....or the liberal response is such that it paints it as incorrect. We will see once implimented whether or not the left or the right more adequately describes the results. The lesson I took is nothing bcause I see no lesson. Nothing was taught to me that I didnt already know. Fox news has a consevative tilt. Already knew that, but at least they present the otherside, although some of their commentators are not objective about it, and usually they bring in fools to present the leftist side. So what. Like Rachel Maddow and Chris Mathews are some sort of impartial presenter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Not exactly.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html

---

It seems reports are accurate that only milk and water are being offered with children’s meals. Other beverages are not offered, but need to be customer requested. Go through the drive thru at McD’s and order a Happy Meal and the employee will ask if you want the various milk/H2O options. This gives the distinct impression to the customer that those are the only options available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

Funny? There is no humor in it at all. Funny is taking it personally.

They are reporters. All three did not overlook the truth of the matter nor did they report it without supervision. It was agenda driven fake news.

To suggest that they should not be singled out when the "fake news" mantra is one of the main talking points on this forum, is extremely disingenuous imo. In reality,, they should be singled out by those who support them as their news source....but that does not happen.

Now as I see it, FOX news is the least credible of any, with MSNBC a close second.
They are the #1 purveyor of "alternative facts" or as I was taught..lies

I spoke the truth. Often the only defense is to mount an offense however.

---

Leaders in false articles include CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, and a number of others.

A recent N.Y. Times article and a CNN report that got a lot of play on MSNBC and CNN claimed Cohen said Trump knew about the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. Lanny Davis said this past week Cohen didn’t know anything about it, and Cohen testified before Congress that he didn’t know anything about it.

The false report by CNN was not corrected by them.

https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trum...p-tower-claim/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Exactly WHO defended their mistake? Those replies must have been deleted because I just reread the thread and don't see a SINGLE POST DEFENDING Fox's error or misrepresentation. So please identify this defense because I'd sure like to see it. Otherwise I'm confused because those who you seem to believe are defending have admitted to a conservative slant.

---

The headline was wrong, but the article itself was correct.

In the latest episode of “Banished!” by the People’s Republic of California, Governor Jerry Brown is likely to sign a bill that prohibits restaurants from offering anything other than milk or water with their kids’ meals, under the pretense of preventing obesity.

Restaurants cannot “offer” anything but the H2O/milk selections, per the proposed law. Customers have to explicitly request other options, such as soda.

The Fox article linked states: Parents are apparently still permitted to order a separate drink but the restaurant can’t market the drink on the kids’ meal.

This is consistent with the text of the bill: This bill would require a restaurant, as defined, that sells a children’s meal that includes a beverage, to make the default beverage water, sparkling water, or flavored water, as specified, or unflavored milk or a nondairy milk alternative, as specified. The bill would not prohibit a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one.

Several of the tweets cited in the article Puma linked did falsely make the leap that if a beverage is not “offered” that it is banned.

FWIW a LOT of media outlets did this with the straw thing too, both left and right.

The truth is a percentage of "fake news" comes from the fact that many if not most reporters are pretty simple minded. They just oversimplify stories to fit a tagline or a tweet, and it ends up removing so much it's inaccurate.

Many overdid the straw thing to call it a 'ban' when it was the same thing, where you had to ask for a straw. and some banned plastic but allowed paper, etc.

A lot of "fake news" is due to bias or ideology, but a fair amount of it in these kinds of stories is just poor reporting.

I have dealt with this over the years more than once, where a reporter was trying to distill things down into X inches of copy, and in doing so really took things out of context or made them just false. Happened to me once in debate where I was interviewed and the reporter cut my quote down in such a way it made it sounds like I was making a claim I never made. I heard about it from multiple people, only problem being I NEVER SAID it. But by cutting it down it gave a wholly different meaning.

Many of them just aren't smart enough to see the distinction. for people who deal with language and communication for a living some of them really don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

FWIW a LOT of media outlets did this with the straw thing too, both left and right.

The truth is a percentage of "fake news" comes from the fact that many if not most reporters are pretty simple minded. They just oversimplify stories to fit a tagline or a tweet, and it ends up removing so much it's inaccurate.

Many overdid the straw thing to call it a 'ban' when it was the same thing, where you had to ask for a straw. and some banned plastic but allowed paper, etc.

A lot of "fake news" is due to bias or ideology, but a fair amount of it in these kinds of stories is just poor reporting.

I have dealt with this over the years more than once, where a reporter was trying to distill things down into X inches of copy, and in doing so really took things out of context or made them just false. Happened to me once in debate where I was interviewed and the reporter cut my quote down in such a way it made it sounds like I was making a claim I never made. I heard about it from multiple people, only problem being I NEVER SAID it. But by cutting it down it gave a wholly different meaning.

Many of them just aren't smart enough to see the distinction. for people who deal with language and communication for a living some of them really don't get it.

---

However its not just simple minded or tag line fitting. I'll go a step farther and compare to the "Muslim Ban", a term that us often used and 100% inaccurate. Be nice to see those who were as concerned about the mis-information associated with the "Soda Ban" go to the same length to correct the mis-information about the enhance background checks for people coming from 7 known terrorist countries, regardless of their religion, and that individuals of the Islamic faith coming from other countries were not denied entry based on religious belief. But I don't think will happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

It seems reports are accurate that only milk and water are being offered with children’s meals. Other beverages are not offered, but need to be customer requested. Go through the drive thru at McD’s and order a Happy Meal and the employee will ask if you want the various milk/H2O options. This gives the distinct impression to the customer that those are the only options available.

---

The headline was clearly misleading. I think the tone of the article was as well. But that’s just me.
As a dad who has ordered kids meals a thousand times, soda has been the “default” drink given with it.
You could get milk, water or juice but you had to ask for it.
This isn’t a ban in any way. It’s simply flipping the default script (which as a dad I am thankful for).
Now when I order, I get asked if I want milk or water. Before they gave me a soda cup without asking.
Neither is/was a ban. Simply a change in default status.
Ps. I rarely read this board. Only caught my eye because it was about my state.
And I only care as a dad. Not because of my politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Leaders in false articles include CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, and a number of others.

A recent N.Y. Times article and a CNN report that got a lot of play on MSNBC and CNN claimed Cohen said Trump knew about the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. Lanny Davis said this past week Cohen didn’t know anything about it, and Cohen testified before Congress that he didn’t know anything about it.

The false report by CNN was not corrected by them.

https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trum...p-tower-claim/

---

I am probably in the minority on either side of the aisle, but I miss the days of the news networks having educated people on both sides of the aisle debate each other. That simply doesn’t happen in a fair way anymore. It used to. There were several decent ones on several networks (Fox and CNN especially actually).
As a certain former President said on a recent interview I watched: we live in an almost completely divided state now. Not just in how we view things but in where we view them. They are bubbles. And have created even greater divide. And it’s now made it impossible for any network to be unbiased. No one would watch. They would be a network without an audience.
The truth is that the middle will still decide the next election (and mid-terms for that matter).
This is in no way scientific, but just as an example:
3 Million people on average watch Hannity (the right).
2.8 million on average watch Rachel maddow (the left).
1 million watch Anderson Cooper (the most popular on CNN).
Those are the most popular shows on the 3 most popular cable news networks.
That’s 7 million people. I get that it’s not the same 7 million but you get the point.
And yet 140 million people voted.
Most voters don’t get their news from any of these networks. Or make up their minds from them. Those are mostly the entrenched on both sides.

Attack everyone as a sexual harasser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Attack everyone as a sexual harasser

---

Attack everyone who disagrees. They're all racist sexist homophobes if they don't think the way you think about everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Attack everyone as a sexual harasser

---

The polar opposite of 'grab them by the P' :trink39:
But I agree, both extremes are deplorable.

The conservative approach is often, lie about it, cover it up, or blame it on a Democrat.

I really think the problem is with all of us.

And in the never ending "if you are not a liberal then you are a racist" approach....... see the FL gobernatorial election where the GOP Trump supported candidate stated that the ecomony was going well and we didn't need somebody coming in and "Monkey this up". Of course the Socialist/Democratic candidate, who is an African American now accused this of being code language, and of course racist.

Just call it Racist. Great strategy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

The polar opposite of 'grab them by the P' :trink39:
But I agree, both extremes are deplorable.

The conservative approach is often, lie about it, cover it up, or blame it on a Democrat.

I really think the problem is with all of us.

---

I don’t. I KNOW the problem and it had its apex so far with the Obama administration.For all Trump’s sexism, the impact on hundreds of Americans from witch hunts on campuses all over this country is real, not rhetoric. I can’t express how important it has been to elect republicans and appoint sane judges snd reverse the damage of the past 8 years. Trumps no more evil in his sexism and cheating than Bill Clinton. But policies and regutions that are socialism and dangerous to our country just are not comparable.


https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/29/b...rocess-college

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

I don’t. I KNOW the problem and it had its apex so far with the Obama administration.For all Trump’s sexism, the impact on hundreds of Americans from witch hunts on campuses all over this country is real, not rhetoric. I can’t express how important it has been to elect republicans and appoint sane judges snd reverse the damage of the past 8 years. Trumps no more evil in his sexism and cheating than Bill Clinton. But policies and regutions that are socialism and dangerous to our country just are not comparable.


https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/29/b...rocess-college

---

So very this.

Still think Fox is on the same propaganda level as CNN?

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...itic-says.html

Granted the link is to a Fox report but its full of non-Fox associated criticism of CNN. There is left leaning and right leaning....then there is flat out dishonest. Being critical or favorable in your opinion or talk show segments is fine but lying or reporting falsehoods in a news story, then finding they are inaccurate and lying about it is a whole diffent level.