Forums | MacLife

So your entire point is that Fox failed to actually use the word, "radical"?

Susie wrote:

O'Reilly is more full of crap than all the septic tanks in Texas combined. He's complaining about other people's hatred? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Are you allowed to post in here?   

resedit wrote:

They did not refer to it as a radical islam school.

Was it a "muslim seminary," or wasn't it?  Whether or not they used the word "radical," they were giving credence to an article that most certainly did make such allegations.

As for the other stuff - they were discussing what was in the article they had read, which they then referenced on the show - and then later in another show, referenced Obama claiming that it was false.

The fact still remains that they did NOT claim he attended a radical islamic school. Therefore, the news sites and blogs claiming they did are factually incorrect, and are making stuff in order to make Fox look bad.

You've got to be smurfing kidding me.  They were saying it was "HUGE NEWS!" that Obama was raised by a muslim and sent to a "muslim seminary."  They called this "news," not alleged facts that FOX had failed to substantiate.  Is it your assertion that claiming Obama attended such a school would not be viewed as negative by many in the United States?

The original article doesn't even claim he attended a radical islam school - and states that they did not know which madrassa he attended.

Therefore - the sites you are linking to are completely factually incorrect from the start and are lying to you.

The original insight article - http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaMa … bama_2.htm - does not claim that he attended a radical muslim school.

Furthermore - Fox News did not claim he attended a radical muslim school.

They are lying to you. They talk about journalistic integrity and then flat out change the facts themselves for the purpose of making fox look bad and themselves look better.

I'm really glad I looked into this - I had never seen the fox report myself, and assumed it was true that they said he attended a radical muslim school. Fox did not, nor did their source. Their source made it clear they did not know which school he attended.

Are your sources going to retract their lies?
I guarantee they won't. They don't care about honesty, they only pretend to.

Res, this is yet another situation in which you don't have a smurfing clue as to what you're talking about.

Many of the articles on this subject in fact focus on the point that it was the Clinton campaign that was also being smeared by this completely false story.  They do acknowledge that the article attributed the story to the Clinton campaign. Do you understand that?  One source passes it off on the Clinton camp, the next passes it off on the first source that passed it off on the Clinton camp....and it's all smurfing bullsmurf.

You would be absolutely enraged if a major news outlet such as CNN was passing off rumor about Huckabee as fact, without substantiating the claims being made.

For you to be lecturing about integrity is truly beyond the pale.  It's as if you're claiming the media has absolutely no responsibility when it comes to reporting unsubstantiated rumor or gossip.  It's as if you have no clue how damaging such statements can be.

I guess it shouldn't be at all surprising that you're holding this up as some acceptable act of journalism.  FOX often uses this "some people say" tactic in order to make unsubstantiated claims (check the film "Outfoxed"...it's well documented).  They obviously have a market in peddling such bullsmurf to people such as yourself, 'cause you're lapping it up.

Is this word part of our vocabulary?

in·nu·en·do      /ˌɪnyuˈɛndoʊ/ Pronunciation[in-yoo-en-doh]

–noun, plural -dos, -does.
1.    an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.

This is not to mention that the FOX show completely failed to pass off any attribution to the Clinton camp.  It embraced the story as "NEWS." 

You're looking for some sort of technical victory over these "blogs."  I don't know what blog you're referring to (you haven't cited anything specifically), but I'm more interested in dealing with the facts.  Why are you always wasting so much time seeking out these narrow 'victories' over someone, anyone on "the left?"

Look where that's lead you here:  Dismissing the irresponsible and scandalous reporting and re-reporting of false and derogatory gossip about an individual....apparently because falsely attributing that gossip to an outside source makes it OK to forgo research or documentation.  But hey....if any BLOG out there claimed the story said "Obama went to a radical school," you WIN because in reality it claimed, in essence, "according to unverified sources, Obama attended a muslim madrassa that might have been radical."



Wow...way to go.  And all it took was throwing any notion of journalistic integrity out the window.  You're actually defending them....and to top it all off, you're suggesting that (without any shred of evidence to support it) perhaps the school did have a muslim curriculum, and perhaps Clinton did plant the story!

Well, I can think of two media outlets out there that would be happy to have you on their team, res.

'Have a nice day.'

Better still, what do Muslims have against bratboy?

sturner wrote:

Better still, what do Muslims have against bratboy?

Probably his orientation - they tend to be even more uptight about that than evangelicals.

resedit wrote:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952216/posts?page=51

Wow.
Did I just find where you guys steal your arguments from?

I forgot to mention this earlier....you clearly didn't read more than one or two posts on this page before linking to it.

Just for fun, go back and read more of them.  "Free Republic" is a conservative site. 

Who is the "hate" really directed at on this page?  I was going to query in the stem cell thread whether or not you were "stealing" your argument from the free republic (lots of the same reactions to the Alzheimer's story there), but I decided against it.

By the way....here is the one site that I've used in researching this incident.

I challenge you to find one "blatant lie" on that site in regards to this story.  Just one.

resedit wrote:

Now it's time for you to be honest about the anti-fox propaganda sites that lie about what fox actually says and does. I suppose you could choose not to be, but then you have no right to ever accuse fox of anything.

I, too, base my opinion off watching Fox News. 

There's bias in Fox News, sure.  But there's also partisanship, dishonesty, misdirection, and misleading.  All poison, and embarrassing for mature people to ignore.



I'm a non-party-affiliated moderate.  I'm more interested in the truth, and what can actually work, than ideological debates.

You seem to be interested in finding biased sources to support your incorrect view of things.  You seem to be interested in ignoring significant flaws of people and groups "on your team," while still supporting them; and finding minor flaws on the "other team" to paint them all with a broad brush....for instance, the stem cell topic you started.

madrassa -- a radical Muslim school

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701260014?f=s_search

They lie about what a madrassa is, specifically using the word madrassa and identifying it as radical, so that anyone who reads the article then assumes that the journalists and blogs were saying Barack went to a radical muslim school, when they didn't.

The article that started it all was more accurate, stating that SOME of the madrassa's in Indonesia were radical, but that their source didn't know if Obama went to a radical one or not.

That sight of your is more subtle about how they do it, but they certainly did it in that article I linked.

Have a nice day.

Last edited by resedit (2008-01-14 7:38 pm)

Oh, and about your selective quoting of wikipedia earlier in the thread:

resedit wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasah

You managed to leave this bit out:

In the English-speaking Western world, the word Madrasah has come increasingly to signify radical Quranic schools connected to Islamist movements, although this — as is made clear above — is far from the meaning of the word. The word madrasah literally means "school" and does not imply a political or even religious affiliation. To say islamic school in arabic the term madrasa islamia is used. For religious school, the term madrasa deeneya is used. A private school is called madrasa ghasa.

Nevertheless, the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization investigated bias in United States newspaper coverage of Pakistan since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and found the term to carry a loaded political meaning:

    "When articles mentioned 'madrassas,' readers were led to infer that all schools so-named are anti-American, anti-Western, pro-terrorist centers having less to do with teaching basic literacy and more to do with political indoctrination."

Additionally, the term has also been used this way by various American public figures, including Newt Gingrich,[13] Donald Rumsfeld,[14] and Colin Powell.[15]

Please try not to subtly 'lie' about information contained within wikipedia in the future.

The first paragraph was there, however (and my point being that it is quite a stretch to accuse someone of "lying" because they assert that the term has a negative implication that is often associated with 'radical' islam).

resedit wrote:

In the English-speaking Western world, the word Madrasah has come increasingly to signify radical Quranic schools connected to Islamist movements

Sure - because the liberal blogs define it that way.
Note that the article that started this all simply defined it as a school, noting that SOME were radical.

Wha??? Examples plz?