Fox News Attacks Environmentally Conscious Games

[poleboy]

Maybe all games and books and movies should have a sticker that says: "DANGER: Fiction may challenge your world views." Would that help?

 

[jmarquiso]

I believe that Red Eye is their best and funniest program.

Anyway. I'm really rather appalled at the responses of some of the people on this site. "I don't like what they say, so they should burn/die/dissolve/go away." Seriously? Just because someone or some people don't say things you agree with? If you don't agree with it, how about instead of crying "BANKILL!", just don't watch it. You're saying you'd like to do with Fox News what they say they'd like to do with GTAIV, or whatever. How can you NOT see the hypocrisy?!

And no, I don't agree with them on this point, but I definitely don't want to shut them down because of what they think.

Also, I love that song. I first heard it in AP European History, and now it's on my Phone

I believe the issue is more that they pretend to be a news organization, and editorialize more often.

 

[Anodos]

This is morning news show, these kind of guests and uninformed opinions are hardly exclusive to Fox. The way gamers chase Fox around is crazy, but I guess we're just not mainstream enough without their acceptance, or something.

- snip

- snip

- snip

...
Dont forget my favorite, YOUR favorite, EVERYBODYS favorite....

Did you know that we cant explain how tides work?


And many many more. Like I said, people see them do it all the time. Thats why its divided between the dieahards who believe anything they say, and well, the people who dont like lying.

I don't believe you understood the context of him saying "tides comes in, tide goes out". Notice that he didn't say that the mechanism which creates the tide is unknown. Rather what he means is that the complexity of how we're arranged is too coincidental for him not to ask the reason, "why?"

I do believe thats not what he said at all. "The tides go in, the tides go out. Never a miscommunication"

 

[Clonekiller]

You kidding? lol Thought it was well known.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lJIWl6Nf30


This is a channel pretty much documenting the lies Fox news tells every week. Like trainspotting, lol

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer


Dont forget my favorite, YOUR favorite, EVERYBODYS favorite....

Did you know that we cant explain how tides work?


And many many more. Like I said, people see them do it all the time. Thats why its divided between the dieahards who believe anything they say, and well, the people who dont like lying.

There are a couple problems with your first example: It's done by an MSNBC pundit (who is in direct competition with Fox News, making his neutrality on the subject questionable), said pundit is the host of an opinion show (meaning he has no obligation to present full-on facts), & the "lies" he points out are taken from the opinion shows on Fox.

Problem with your second example: the incriminating video is from Fox & Friends, which is an opinion show which derives nearly all of it's information from guests.

Problem with your final example: It's the O'reilly factor, which is an opinion show.

I'm asking for credible lies that they have broadcast as part of their news programing. If they only feed lies and misinformation, there should be tons of examples that do not involve opinion shows. Surely there's something along those lines that you can show me.

Nope. Many bigots and arseholes love it, too.

Fox News is basically proof positive that behind the veneer of golf courses and investment banks, (conservative) America is basically Afghanistan with F-150 pick-up trucks. Its main purpose, as far as I can discern, is to embarrass those Americans that have been abroad, speak more than one language and do not ask Dutchmen whether they have electricity in their little country, and to vindicate everybody else's feelings of superiority towards the parts of America in which the earth is 6,000 years old and family trees are circular in shape.

Perhaps you'd like to join in on my little challenge. I'm asking for definitive proof that Fox News lies, assuming the proof involves either a reporter or news anchor. Opinion shows & guests don't count. If you can do that for me, I'll gladly overlook your bigotry.

 

[RDubayoo]

Indeed i do. Good thing i dont INHALE alot of it, or I will die. Basic chemical fact. Why do you think you EXHALE it?

Same with carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and various other things you eat and breathe.

Who cares what "environmentalists" say? What about, i dont know, the people who actually know what theyre talking about and research the science and then publish their science for all to see? And unrelated scientists peer reviewing it? Or are you one of those people who think all scientists are lying?

Yes, you will die if you inhale too much carbon dioxide, but that's not because it's toxic. It's because your lungs can't do anything with it. You'll suffocate. If that's your definition of "toxic" then, er, okay? I guess I should avoid putting my head underwater--I might get poisoned if I say under too long.

As for your environmentalist researchers, their results have been predetermined. If their research did not conclude that carbon dioxide is causing a radical shift in temperatures then they would not receive their precious grants. Nor have they even done a good job of conducting research. Very recently I saw an article stating that scientists have just now realized that cosmic rays from the sun affect the climate, as if that shouldn't be freaking obvious! Yes, that's right, folks, our mighty global warming scientists with their peer reviews forgot that the sun affects the climate!

And no, I don't think all scientists are lying. Just the ones who come to certain conclusions because politics and money insist that they do. But then again, at this point it's clear that you yourself don't understand the issue as well as you ought to and I'm basically wasting my time trying to convince you.

 

[Clonekiller]

Haha.

First, being called a "bigot" by somebody who watches the most hateful liars on Western TV is one of my proudest moments. It's like being called an "idiot" by a tea-bagger.

Next, we are criticising the network in toto. If, say, a news story breaks, then they may even "report" on it for a few minutes - but nobody watches cable news stations for the news. They are not what give Fox News or MSNBC their high profile. What we are saying is that Fox News may even show, say, a story about Michelle Obama's initiative to get kids to eat healthier food; but the second the "news" are over, Cavuto, Hannity, O'Reilly, the women forced to play Stepford ditzes etc jump on it and rant for hours about how such an initiative is Mao-style Muslim fascism or something, and move right on to applaud some tea-bagger city councilman for installing soda pop vending machines in his city's schools: yay free markets!

Your defence attempt of something as reviled by all actual civilised people as the Khmer Rouge is the silliest thing that I've seen in my life. So we should disregard all the hate-mongering, bigotry, fascism, cronyism, lying, hypocrisy and idiocy which makes up most of their programming because they actually report "President Obama held a speech before Congress today" instead of saying "that uppity foreign negro unbeliever insulted our proud republican Congressmen with his communist lies again"? That's your defence? "Only the opinion shows - which make up the lion's share of the network's high profile programming - are liars, demagogues and hypocrites, but the news tickers running underneath their fat faces declaring Obama the Anti-Christ are more or less objective, so LEAVE FOX ALOOOOOONE"?

Seriously?

Lol.

I love people like you. Proof positive that all those conspiracy theories your buddies like Glenn Beck harp on about are rubbish: one can brainwash tens of millions with the simplest and most blatant of lies.

For the record, I don't watch any of the shows on Fox News that aren't news shows. They are lopsided and don't report anything accurately. If someone relies on an opinion show for news, (Bill O'Reilly, Chris Mathews or John Stewart) they are a fool. Opinion shows have never reported accurate news.

Interesting attempt to deflect the original point though. I ask for solid proof that Fox News lies, and I get I huge tirade about how obviously stupid and bigoted I am. Guess what? Despite the fact that the internet is massive beyond all reason, I have yet to receive any convincing evidence that shows blatant lies and hate speech from Fox. Instead, I get video links to opinion shows that are in direct competition to most of the stuff on Fox. Since that seems to be all that anyone can manage to muster, I must assume that people hate on Fox News because their chosen form of media TOLD them to. PROVE ME WRONG.

P.S. Bigotry is when someone creates a category that they put people into without getting to know them. Example, assuming all conservatives are gun-totin, bible-banging, f150-drivin morons is about at bigoted as you can get without referencing skin color. And when someone comes along to challenge that belief, like me, you attempt to cram them into that category, regardless of their personal beliefs and arguments. And when someone points that out, the inevitable response is to launch personal attacks.

P.P.S. On a typical week day, Fox News broadcasts about 8 hours of opinion shows. As a 24 hour network, the other 16 hours are devoted to news shows. I seem to recall "lions share" meaning vast majority.

 

[Anodos]

Indeed i do. Good thing i dont INHALE alot of it, or I will die. Basic chemical fact. Why do you think you EXHALE it?

Same with carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and various other things you eat and breathe.

Who cares what "environmentalists" say? What about, i dont know, the people who actually know what theyre talking about and research the science and then publish their science for all to see? And unrelated scientists peer reviewing it? Or are you one of those people who think all scientists are lying?

Yes, you will die if you inhale too much carbon dioxide, but that's not because it's toxic. It's because your lungs can't do anything with it. You'll suffocate. If that's your definition of "toxic" then, er, okay? I guess I should avoid putting my head underwater--I might get poisoned if I say under too long.

As for your environmentalist researchers, their results have been predetermined. If their research did not conclude that carbon dioxide is causing a radical shift in temperatures then they would not receive their precious grants. Nor have they even done a good job of conducting research. Very recently I saw an article stating that scientists have just now realized that cosmic rays from the sun affect the climate, as if that shouldn't be freaking obvious! Yes, that's right, folks, our mighty global warming scientists with their peer reviews forgot that the sun affects the climate!

And no, I don't think all scientists are lying. Just the ones who come to certain conclusions because politics and money insist that they do. But then again, at this point it's clear that you yourself don't understand the issue as well as you ought to and I'm basically wasting my time trying to convince you.

You guys really need to look at facts yourself instead of letting other people tell you waht to say. Ive heard this before. That study has nothing to do with climate change. They did the study to see if cosmic rays can affect seeding of clouds. As of yet, NO, it has nothing to do with climate change. Since youve always known that, why dont you let them know your findings? The lead author on the study himself heard about the lies you people have been spreading, and corrected everybody. But maybe you can correct HIM, mr wizard. or maybe you dont understand it and all you hear is "HERP DERP SUN AFFECTS WEATHER!"

Its also a known fact that carbon dioxide can cause acidosis and increases calcium deposits in soft tissue. It is toxic. That is the definition of toxic. But i forget you are mr wizard, why dont you correct the entire world that all those affects of carbon dioxide poisoning are just "all in their heads", or whatever.

Also, how can you say scientists are lying for grant money, and then "quote" a scientist to back you up?

Anything else you care to make up?

 

[RDubayoo]

And another thing...

What we are saying is that Fox News may even show, say, a story about Michelle Obama's initiative to get kids to eat healthier food; but the second the "news" are over, Cavuto, Hannity, O'Reilly, the women forced to play Stepford ditzes etc jump on it and rant for hours about how such an initiative is Mao-style Muslim fascism or something, and move right on to applaud some tea-bagger city councilman for installing soda pop vending machines in his city's schools: yay free markets!

Well, that was one of the silliest and most insane rants I've seen yet, and naturally it was about Fox News. And by the way, the reason those pundits were upset about Michelle Obama telling people what to eat is that she and especially her husband aren't practicing what they preach and basically eat whatever they want. Barack Obama himself is particularly notorious for chowing down on greasy hamburgers at diners. But hey, I guess once you enter the ranks of the elite you can dine on what you wish and the rest must eat what the elite say they can, right? Oh, that, and putting fruit and vegetables in liquor stores is a moronic idea. It may not have been Michelle's idea, exactly, but she did praise the practice, which makes her a moron, too.

In your failed attempt to mock Clonekiller you've only proven his point for him. You have no reason to hate Fox News, and you do so only because you have been brainwashed into doing so by repeated hit pieces decrying them as some kind of satanic news organization and the end of all things. Yes, it is regrettable when Fox News commentators put down videogames, but they are hardly the first nor even the last news organization that will do so. Collectively, you Fox News haters need to take a massive chill pill.

 

[RDubayoo]

You guys really need to look at facts yourself instead of letting other people tell you waht to say. Ive heard this before. That study has nothing to do with climate change. They did the study to see if cosmic rays can affect seeding of clouds. As of yet, NO, it has nothing to do with climate change. Since youve always known that, why dont you let them know your findings? According to scientists, no, it has nothing to do with climate change. But hey, maybe you can correct them, mr wizard

Its also a known fact that carbon dioxide can cause acidosis and increases calcium deposits in soft tissue. It is toxic. That is the definition of toxic. But i forget you are mr wizard, why dont you correct the entire world that all those affects of carbon dioxide poisoning are just "all in their heads", or whatever.

Oh, no, acidosis and calcium deposits! It's going to kill us all! Okay, fine, so a high concentration of carbon dioxide can be harmful (though it's not exactly nerve gas). Thing is, according to the same Wikipedia article you probably read, the side effects begin at a 1% concentration. Normally, that concentration lies around 0.036% and 0.039%. So if I was a miner or a submariner or something I'd probably have to worry about that, but are you seriously going to tell me that carbon dioxide emissions will eventually become so great that we'll all start suffering side effects? Because if you are then I'm going to call you a liar here and now. We aren't even close to approaching that point.

And sorry, you're wrong about cosmic rays. According to this report:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

From the article: "t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone." Nothing to do with climate change, huh? Doesn't sound like it to me. The only reason this isn't being held aloft as the true cause of climate change is because CERN's Director-General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told their scientists to present their findings, not interpret them. In other words, he doesn't want them to pronounce the overturning of anthropogenic global warming BECAUSE OF POLITICS.

Turns out, I am Mr. Wizard.

Anything else you care to make up?

Al Gore's farts increase the global temperature. How's that? Anyway, now that I've won both sides of the argument I think I'll take my leave of you, now.

 

[SickBritKid]

Meh, this is Fox & Friends. They tend more toward the extreme side of the conservative scale.

I'm a fan of Fox News and I despise Fox & Friends. But anyone who judges all of FNC's programming just based on Fox News is spreading their own misinformation...

 

[Anodos]

You guys really need to look at facts yourself instead of letting other people tell you waht to say. Ive heard this before. That study has nothing to do with climate change. They did the study to see if cosmic rays can affect seeding of clouds. As of yet, NO, it has nothing to do with climate change. Since youve always known that, why dont you let them know your findings? According to scientists, no, it has nothing to do with climate change. But hey, maybe you can correct them, mr wizard

Its also a known fact that carbon dioxide can cause acidosis and increases calcium deposits in soft tissue. It is toxic. That is the definition of toxic. But i forget you are mr wizard, why dont you correct the entire world that all those affects of carbon dioxide poisoning are just "all in their heads", or whatever.

Oh, no, acidosis and calcium deposits! It's going to kill us all! Okay, fine, so a high concentration of carbon dioxide can be harmful (though it's not exactly nerve gas). Thing is, according to the same Wikipedia article you probably read, the side effects begin at a 1% concentration. Normally, that concentration lies around 0.036% and 0.039%. So if I was a miner or a submariner or something I'd probably have to worry about that, but are you seriously going to tell me that carbon dioxide emissions will eventually become so great that we'll all start suffering side effects? Because if you are then I'm going to call you a liar here and now. We aren't even close to approaching that point.

And sorry, you're wrong about cosmic rays. According to this report:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

From the article: "t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone." Nothing to do with climate change, huh? Doesn't sound like it to me. The only reason this isn't being held aloft as the true cause of climate change is because CERN's Director-General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told their scientists to present their findings, not interpret them. In other words, he doesn't want them to pronounce the overturning of anthropogenic global warming BECAUSE OF POLITICS.

Turns out, I am Mr. Wizard.

Anything else you care to make up?

Al Gore's farts increase the global temperature. How's that? Anyway, now that I've won both sides of the argument I think I'll take my leave of you, now.

You didnt win anything, jackass. Yes, the gas is toxic. You said it wasnt. And then you put words in my mouth "but its not a nerve gas, therefore, i win the argument" when the hell did i ever say it was a nerve gas? Nice strawman.


Oh, and as so many people have explained to you, as it says IN THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO ME, that solar rays only account for one part of climate change. (no duh) The rest are, gasp "volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components." Otherwise known as HUMAN CLIMATE IMPACT. Try reading your own article. And also, it says they are not concluding anything until the affect is actually MEASURED, not POLITICS.

So your saying that volcanoes are emmiting cosmic rays? Yeah, im going to call you a lying jackass on that one. I like how you cover up that fact by being a dick on the internet. Wow, you are king of the internet NOW!

 

[joemegson94]

In "Flower", players can hire a prostitute, have sex with her... and beat her to death with a baseball bat!

 

[Kinguendo]

Meh, this is Fox & Friends. They tend more toward the extreme side of the conservative scale.

I'm a fan of Fox News and I despise Fox & Friends. But anyone who judges all of FNC's programming just based on Fox News is spreading their own misinformation...

But... thats not what we are saying. We are saying this stupidity is just one more example of the entirety of FOX "news"' bullshit.

And... wait. Anyone who judges all of FOX "news" Channels programming based on... FOX "news"?

So, anyone who bases their opinion of me just based on my actions are not being fair? That seems... not quite right.

EDIT But then what do I know, I am just one of those silly Liberals spreading my agenda by being nice.

 

[Kinguendo]

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but for once I think Fox News has a point.

Simcity Societies was an interesting game concept that got hijacked in development and became nothing more than an advertisement for British Petroleum. See, early in the game's development BP approached Tilted Mill Entertainment and offered a substantial sum of money for the developers to include an "environmental mechanic." Essentially, all industry built in Sim City Societies will cover the landscape in thick clouds of smog, kill tons of plant life and make everybody unhappy. Unless you build Environmentally safe factories and power plants, all of which just happen to have the BP logo on them.

Simcity Societies came out before the Gulf Oil Spill and playing it today is hilariously ironic. The environmental mechanic is really obnoxious, it dominates the game and squeezes out more interesting aspects of designing your society and the only way to fix it is to sell out to BP.

The same people who dumped umpteen billion barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, yet here they are beating you about the head and neck with how environmentally conscious they are.

Oh the Irony.

Right... but the Gulf Oil Spill wasnt a result of an environmentally safe facility so its not really ironic, its actually proving the game correct because animals did die, the area was polluted and people were unhappy.

Thats like saying: This guy said we was going to beat me in a race by 10 seconds... then he beat me by 10 seconds, oh the irony.

Its not ironic, the description matched the event.

 

[Baneat]

Fox says something stupid, no one surprised.

We could just do away with these articles and just show 'FOX IS FUCKING STUPID' every now and again, it would save a lot of effort that, frankly, Fox isn't worth.

Yep, stop reporting on them, please, all you do is hand them more traffic >.<

 

[arealperson]

This is morning news show, these kind of guests and uninformed opinions are hardly exclusive to Fox. The way gamers chase Fox around is crazy, but I guess we're just not mainstream enough without their acceptance, or something.

- snip

- snip

- snip

...
Dont forget my favorite, YOUR favorite, EVERYBODYS favorite....

Did you know that we cant explain how tides work?


And many many more. Like I said, people see them do it all the time. Thats why its divided between the dieahards who believe anything they say, and well, the people who dont like lying.

I don't believe you understood the context of him saying "tides comes in, tide goes out". Notice that he didn't say that the mechanism which creates the tide is unknown. Rather what he means is that the complexity of how we're arranged is too coincidental for him not to ask the reason, "why?"

I do believe thats not what he said at all. "The tides go in, the tides go out. Never a miscommunication"

Okay, that's a good point, I was a bit sloppy in taking a 'gist of it' approach.&nbsp; But the "[n]ever a miscommunication," still bears further investigation into 'what did he mean by that?' than simply 'lol, he does not know science.'&nbsp; Here's a blog post about the issue that makes a pretty good attempt at an objective approach (no intention to advertise, mods): http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/never-a-miscommunication-bill-oreilly-on-the-moon/

I apologize for any further sloppiness, due to health issues I have some trouble focusing currently.

 

[Anodos]

This is morning news show, these kind of guests and uninformed opinions are hardly exclusive to Fox. The way gamers chase Fox around is crazy, but I guess we're just not mainstream enough without their acceptance, or something.

- snip

- snip

- snip

...
Dont forget my favorite, YOUR favorite, EVERYBODYS favorite....

Did you know that we cant explain how tides work?


And many many more. Like I said, people see them do it all the time. Thats why its divided between the dieahards who believe anything they say, and well, the people who dont like lying.

I don't believe you understood the context of him saying "tides comes in, tide goes out". Notice that he didn't say that the mechanism which creates the tide is unknown. Rather what he means is that the complexity of how we're arranged is too coincidental for him not to ask the reason, "why?"

I do believe thats not what he said at all. "The tides go in, the tides go out. Never a miscommunication"

Okay, that's a good point, I was a bit sloppy in taking a 'gist of it' approach. But the "[never] a miscommunication," still bears further investigation into 'what did he mean by that?' than simply 'lol, he does not know science.'  Here's a blog post about the issue that makes a pretty good attempt at an objective approach (no intention to advertise, mods): http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/never-a-miscommunication-bill-oreilly-on-the-moon/

I apologize for any further sloppiness, due to health issues I have some trouble focusing currently.

I dont think he proposed that argument on purpose. lol He only brought up "then how did the moon get there?" AFTER people told him how tides work.

Actually, i know the real reason he said that. He wanted the atheist to say something like "Thats stupid. Youre an idiot!" and then Oreilly would say "So all Christians are idiots?!?!?! GET OUT!" but he didnt fall for it. So Oreilly deserves all the laughter he gets for trying such a scummy move.

Or he literally didnt know the tides did that, lol. Imagine the world you live in, if the ocean moved in, and moved out, and you think noone knows why. As if god himself is reaching down and moving it, or the ocean is ALIVE! Make a good fantasy novel.

 

[tomtom94]

I hate this word "agenda". Whether it's the "gay agenda" or the "liberal agenda" or more increasingly the "black agenda" (wtf?), everything that has anything that isn't 'normal' HAS to be propaganda for one group or another this days.

What happened to creativity and freedom of artistic expression, and why is a word that implies necessity ('Agenda' literally means 'things that must be done') attached to decisions that are often superficial at best?

 

[Kuroneko97]

Fox News: There a whole bunch of violent and destructive videogames, which we would have at least a 1% chance of lashing out at logically, BUT LETS LASH OUT AT THOSE GAMES WHICH TEACH KIDS TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS IN A TIME IN WHICH HUMANITY IS DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!

 

[monfang]

tl;dr anti-Fox dribble.

I decided to give Escapist the benefit of the doubt on the subject. I had a feeling they would be anti-Fox the moment I saw the title but I do know that often the more elder of the correspondents have been a bit uneducated on the subject (See O'Reilly on Mass Effect but don't change the subject). So, I'll watch the video and comment on each thing I hear.

0:20; One part of the Sim City games is that you are fined if your city isn't 'eco-friendly'. Now, in the real world there are fines for being anti-eco. That is polluting. But I can't find laws stating that a city has to be eco-friendly (Planting trees and enacting clean air ordinances and car emissions ordinances.) That's called a nudge and I don't like that.

1:00; The game apparently pushes planting soy farms and alternative energy sources as apposed to Nuclear plants. I'm sure it doesn't explain that not all people like soy and that alternative energy sources at the moment are not as efficient in land and materials needed compared to Nuclear plants. At least James Lovelock believes so. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-is-nuclear-energy-our-best-hope

1:40; the point made there is one that I always use. Parents should screen their games. Sit in for the first hour, read the reviews, watch the Lets Plays before you let your kid loose.

For the rest of the video, the guest pulls back as apposed to what some of you believe. He doesn't say there is a liberal agenda, but they are pushing things that parents might not agree with. Do I believe that often things are pushed that I don't agree with? Of course. I don't think God is in enough games but that's just me. I still play them and as often as I can, I go against what they set up for me.

I might just get Sim City just to make one of the most wealthy cities in the world with the lowest poverty rate without alternative energy.