Fox News Attacks Environmentally Conscious Games

[Beryl77]

Meh, just the usual idiocy. I do wonder though, how some people take them seriously and think that they're only reporting facts.

 

[hexFrank202]

So... nobody is going to respond to my post? XD

Edit: Excuse me somebody DID respond, it just didn't appear in my inbox! Let me read it now.

I demand the federal government bring back the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. Yeah news will be boring as hell, but at least you get to hear both sides of story!

You particularly need to read my post.

 

[hexFrank202]

People resent the network because most of their programming distort statistics,

How many distort statistics? Did you get statistics on this?

use inflammatory language,

What shows use inflammatory language?
I'm sure some nasty comments have surfaced sometimes, but can the home of MovieBob and Yahtzee really be preaching the gospel of clean tongues?

and sometimes outright lie about many things.

What are some of their outright lies?

Having some perceivable Lefties does not change the fact that the network is incredibly biased and has a very great deal of sway with their audience.

It doesn't change the fact that FN is biased? Okay, prove that fact to me in the first place. Show me a list of all the things Fox does recently. Prove to me that the right-wing people significantly outweigh the left-wing people.

They promote harmful stances, such as anti-environmentalism,

What exactly is the definition of 'environmentalism' here?

I'm not against any political view,

Except for anti-environmentalism.

and are part of the horribly misguided Right Wing of American politics...the polarized, stagnant, ineffectual state of affairs in America are harming the rest of the world, and Fox is a part of that.

So what you're saying is, Fox News should not present extremely right-wing ideals or give them any voice at all. Or at least very little? What about extremely left-wing ideals?

 

[Monsterfurby]

I am still confused by the American use of "liberal" and "conservative". Around here, the so-called "liberals" are way further right-wing than the "conservatives".

I can't be sure, but I'm guessing you're from Australia? Perhaps?

Liberal is a very messy and broad term, but in most cases around the world, when applied to politics, it means 'progressive' (ie, supportive of changing things up to improve them, rather than thinking things are fine as they are. Say, legalizing same-sex marriage).

Germany, but I think it's more of a European or European-influenced thing.

I would say the political cultures of the US and Germany just judge liberalism from different viewpoints.

In the German interpretation, liberalism stands for deregulation and a clear focus on individual freedom, as contrasted with the other end of the spectrum, socialism, being total government regulation. One could argue that the German political spectrum is defined by the aspect of individualism, starting with The Left (propagating quasi-socialism), the Social Democrats (supporting government responsibility and welfare), the Christian-Democrats/Conservatives (supporting a strong government with major economic freedom for its citizens) and the Free Democrats/Liberals (supporting deregulation above everything and often regarded as siding with "big business" against the welfare state).

As for the US, I can only guess for the most part, but since there is little to no social democrat tradition and a strong sense of moralism throughout major parts of society (which some label the "Puritan tradition", at least there was when these designations developed), the main focus for considering a party "conservative" or "liberal" are morals. Conservative obviously standing for the traditional values as observed and propagated by the GOP/Republicans, while Liberals are generally considered to be more, well, liberal in the observation of "traditional" morals and allowing greater "moral" freedom.

It is interesting, though, and probably owed to the political spectrum extending way further left in most of Europe. Though the designation "socialists=liberals" as found in some more conservative US media is pretty wrong due to the aforementioned reasons. Communism, on the other hand, would be pretty close to what "true" liberalism aims for.

 

[Clonekiller]

The study covers general reporting. On another note, have any videos not done by a comedian, who makes a living off of context corruption? (Context corruption: When you take what someone says out of context, making them say what ever you want them to say)

Show that what he said was taken out of context. It doesn't seem like he was. And where has he taken people out of context before?

"It doesn't seem like he was". That's the point. That's the point of context corruption, to make someone say whatever you want them to say, so that your audience will believe it. That's part of the humor value, since "omg-i-cant-believe-he-said-that-lol" is a pretty standard reaction to his kind of show. Unfortunately, proving this style wrong is rather difficult, since I would need a copy of the original broadcast that Pat was quoting.

As for telltale signs, Pat uses lots of incomplete quotes in his show. If I were to go on national television and say something like this: "Believing african americans are stupid is idiotic. African americans are very intelligent people." If Pat decided he didn't like me, he could trim the video so that the only remaining quote was "african americans are stupid". The result is obvious, taking a statement that was originally an advocation for equal rights, and making it a highly racist statement. If you didn't have my original quote, and you took Pat's word for it, you would think I was an uber racist. There are a lot of incomplete quotes in that show.

Unfortunately, the only way to check the context is to find the original show and check it against what Pat says. That would take much more time than I am willing to spend, so I can't provide proof. However, if it's that big a deal to you, you could probably do it yourself.

 

[SimpleJack]

It's almost as if they've run out of video games to argue about, and now they're picking on the games that have done nothing wrong.

I was sort of impartial towards fox until now, but this is disgusting.

 

[ww666]

That's it, they are officially idiots.

They were officially idiots already, now they are just showing off.

 

[conflictofinterests]

O_O

Now, like many I'm no fan of FoX News, but this must be the single most ludicrous thing they have ever reported on.

Fox Is now officialy agains games in wich you shoot stuff AND games in wich you don't.

They're actually on the "You can't have fun unless you're rolling a hoop with a stick" platform.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Well, (A) The key word was "underfunded", (B) Even without leaks, it's still a terrible idea for many reasons, and (C) That "minor problem" gives people cancer and utterly destroys everything it touches for more than a few seconds.

Oh, and since Sim City is just being built up, so it is just starting on nuclear technology. I don't remember any nationality attached to Sim City.

That's just it though: you're judging by amateur nuclear technology which can also be kept at a safe (but greater) distance. No, it's not just that; you're blatantly exaggerating the dangers of nuclear waste considering nobody in the field is dumb enough to leave it around just anywhere. And I figured that it would be implied that a city of all things could be started at any time during a country's development; why isn't the player given the choice of a few starting technologies?

OH MY GOD, IT'S A GAME.

Nobody took these facts into consideration when they were making it. I'm almost entirely certain hardly ANYONE took these facts into consideration when they were playing it. If they did, they probably weren't having any fun, and should probably go back to reporting on Iran or North Korea or something.

 

[snave]

What is funny is that Fox is behaving as cartoonishly as those strawman villains on captain planet.

This pretty much sums up my reaction exactly. I love the credentials the hysterically laughing clown has ("parent" ie: none).

 

[notedwordsmith]

It mentions children crying about virtual polar bears.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

You...

I fucking love you.

That is all.

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it. Changing the media one charity spoof at a time.

 

[Max_imus]

Well, obviously Fox News is making a valid point: no media should advocate a political agenda.

The logical conclusion: shut down Fox News.

 

[Andrew_Eisen]

Can't stand Fox News, eh?

I locked a bunch of mothers in a room and forced them to watch the segment. Conclusion?

Your Mom Hates Fox News Too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RsDobH64tc


Andrew Eisen

 

[Clonekiller]

"It doesn't seem like he was". That's the point. That's the point of context corruption, to make someone say whatever you want them to say, so that your audience will believe it. That's part of the humor value, since "omg-i-cant-believe-he-said-that-lol" is a pretty standard reaction to his kind of show. Unfortunately, proving this style wrong is rather difficult, since I would need a copy of the original broadcast that Pat was quoting.

As for telltale signs, Pat uses lots of incomplete quotes in his show. If I were to go on national television and say something like this: "Believing african americans are stupid is idiotic. African americans are very intelligent people." If Pat decided he didn't like me, he could trim the video so that the only remaining quote was "african americans are stupid". The result is obvious, taking a statement that was originally an advocation for equal rights, and making it a highly racist statement. If you didn't have my original quote, and you took Pat's word for it, you would think I was an uber racist. There are a lot of incomplete quotes in that show.

Unfortunately, the only way to check the context is to find the original show and check it against what Pat says. That would take much more time than I am willing to spend, so I can't provide proof. However, if it's that big a deal to you, you could probably do it yourself.

Why do you keep calling him Pat? There's no one on the show named Pat. But show me a specific instance where he took someone out of context. Using incomplete quotes is not proof that he did.

As I said, he gives off signs that that's the case. However, I cant prove it without spending a bunch of time doing so. Ergo, I wont. Just pointing out, using this guy as a source is about as reliable as using Glenn Beck.