reply to post by ChadAndrewATS
Firstly I do believe the article was made in jest. That is not to say that it sits impotent of further, deeper content of course, we are all aware
that comedy can be very poignant and with the laughter carry political messages. I'm sure many here would point to Bill Hicks or George Carlin as
For my position here though there is no need even for agreement over that, so I will be happy to ignore that possibility. Let us for the moment
simply be content that the accusation was made and bear no mind to the possible reasoning behind it.
You say "I like reporting what I see & hear from reliable sources". In reply to this I would offer the following.
What support does the article have?
Looking around we can see that just as surely as FOX has it's supporters there are many who find it repugnant, I think it fair then to assume then
that such a story would be widespread indeed; where else does it appear then? Can we find this information offered somewhere that does not reference
assimilatedpress as it's source?
Presently (for I am quite prepared for my concerns to be proven incorrect, it would have no bearing on the validity of my point here
answer to the above appears to be no, we cannot find this article on offer anywhere where the source is other than the earliest one we know of here.
That alone is enough to raise concerns over accepting this incident as fact. I find it hard to believe that, if it were true such an event would be
not subject to far more coverage. (It may be of interest to note that in a Google search it appears the second most noted source for this story dated
Monday, September 25, 2006 is this very thread.)
Possibilities do not equal truth.
I happily grant you that it is 'possible'
that the comments in question here were said but then many things are possible. We should not sit
and accept news stories as fact due to the possibilities that may exist in this world. Are we really supposed to say of a report 'Yes, that is
possible.' and with that grant total acceptance and belief? I would suggest this is a scenario that Fox News itself would find most desirable,
even in this instance.
For while leaving ourselves open to happy consumption of any propaganda
we leave ourselves open to all
The result of which could deteriorate to whatever media network offers the slickest, most impressive presentation of their stories
will be automatically accepted as the most legitimate purveyor of factual reporting with no need for concern over the actual validity of the content.
Perhaps the situation might degrade to: Bill O’Reilly screams and shouts, his anger and fury left me gasping in concern for the raging, ageing
gentleman's health! My GOSH - such a passionate display must surely be indicative of truth in his words. That it may be possible
is not a
good argument for acceptance as fact.
While I apologise for repeating myself I would offer the Bertrand Russell again here:
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to
believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on
the slightest evidence.
It appears you immediately exclude the possibility that my questioning of this accusation be open to any other interpretation than that which suited
Originally posted by ChadAndrewATS reply to post by JAK
... you could continue to support & defend Rupert Murdoch & his associates at FOX News
Questioning of the facts does not have to automatically and unequivocally come from a support for FOX.
If, as your words suggest, you find much about FOX News undesirable and you allow your viewpoint to colour my words
I would not be surprised
that through my questioning of the veracity of this accusation I should be seen as 'supporting & defending Fox', and I did wonder when making my
previous posts how they would be interpreted. Instead of grabbing the flag and running with it though, which would be an easier and no doubt more
popular move, (Boo FOX, sucks to you!), I took the stance I did. As I imagined at the time it appears there are those who saw the purpose of those
words to 'support & defend Rupert Murdoch & his associates at FOX News'.
Alternate perspectives should always be of interest when evaluating our thoughts and reasoning though. You mentioned possibilities, look again then
at the subject here, at what I said in previous posts and ask yourself is it possible those comments were not offered in support and defence of FOX
and if so then what?
[edit on 12/5/08 by JAK]