Monday, September 24, 2007

Fox's poison pen

Welcome Fox trolls!

Fox "News" is a propaganda outfit, as everyone knows. The wingnutosphere denies it because Fox presents them the world as they want it to be, without the confirmed liberal bias that facts bring. But the wingnuts continue to lap up Fox's slant as avidly as addicts.

Here is a case in point. The "reporter" uses the classic Fox "some say" technique - keep the focus on the liberals, not on their conservative critics. They hold Columbia as a whole responsible for an inconsistency between the university administration and the CPU, a student-run political discussion group. They bury President Lee Bollinger's list of issues with which he will confront Ahmadinejad in his introduction. And they helpfully send their frothing readership to fill up the CPU's blog with a whole raft of semi-distinguishable, often semi-literate ditto-head comments.

All that said, someone at Columbia should get Gilchrist on campus for an event and assure that he does not get shouted down. Then the only people suppressing speech will be the Fox dead-enders.

Update: Read and learn. How many of the liberals at Columbia agreed with Ahmadinejad? Looks like ... zero.


tchite said...

Wingnut. You know I actually like the appellation. I'm going to get some t-shirts with WING-NUT printed in large letters.

Perhaps I should ask for some advice here. I'm planning to visit a friend who lives near CU. If I'm wearing my WING-NUT t-shirt and I'm walking near the campus should I wear a good pair of sneakers in case I have to run like hell? Might a can of mace be a sensible precaution?

lovable liberal said...

Tom, good business idea, but I recommend you sell to both sides, so you'll need some moonbat T-shirts, too. And, how about a couple modeled on the old standby that says "I'm with stupid"? The arrow for "I'm with the moonbat" should point left, natch, and of course the arrow for "I'm with the wingnut" should point right.

Mace optional...

Anonymous said...

You’ve not addressed anything this is about though. You’ve ignored some very good points that have been brought up. So, what student groups were consulted that led to retraction of the Gilchrist invitation? Were these same groups consulted and did they approve of the Iranian presidents’ invitation? Why not name these groups? How can you allow this person to speak under the banner of “Free Speech” but not allow other groups the same privilege?


Also, just an FYI on your little blog where you say that Fox has ignored what Bollinger is going to ask Ahmadjinejad. It’s there and you link to it. You have to scroll down and read, it’s in a nice bulleted list. You make one good point in saying that Gilchrist should be allowed to speak. Also, I disagree with you where you say Fox is a propaganda network. The pundits Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity have Democrats on every night. You can’t say the reverse is true for Keith Olberman.

Anonymous said...

(You know I did wonder my way here from FOX's evil web page of Rightwing Lies, I guess that makes me a Troll.)

Here is what I don't understand. Why is it that when it comes to free speech Liberals and Conservatives are a demonstration of the pot calling the kettle black? Truthfully the Pres. of Iran should be allowed to speak. His obvious lies should be paraded for all to see. However, what strikes me as curious is why the student body of an University wouldn't allow the Minuteman leader to speak. What is the student body afraid of? How does shouting down any speaker that you (meaning the student body of Columbia)don't agree with bring you credit? Also, if this is how the pinacle of the intellectual establishment behaves why wouldn't I dismiss Liberal College Professors and students as hypocritcal? After all if Conservatives display this kind lack of open mindedness why would Liberals want to emulate it?

lovable liberal said...

probie, please check your reading comprehension. My first comment at CPU says that they should try again to get Gilchrist to come. So, your '*crickets*' rejoinder doesn't makes sense. Is the problem that I didn't say it LOUD enough?

It was your wingnut friends who missed the Bollinger list, evidently because it was buried (I didn't say omitted) at the end of the story. They pilloried him for something he didn't do, which is typical of the frothing right wing. But then, you all failed to read the fact that two different groups are responsible for the differing decisions. Fox buried that, too, way below the lead.

Fox "News" is built to reinforce a conservative viewpoint. It's basically your Pravda. There is no one on it who has a liberal show; the lineup is all conservative. And don't talk to me about alan colmes and the various other Fox Democrats who pose as opposition but who are really just foils for the stars. If someone comes on who's really strong, the bilious Bill O. cuts their mikes.

Have you watched Countdown for more than a few minutes? Keith Olbermann does have conservatives on, even though he leans to the left. And, on the MSNBC lineup, there are lots of conservative shows. CNN is more like Fox - no liberals, though at least CNN has a few factual reporters.

lovable liberal said...

john, please read my original comment again. I, too, think Gilchrist should have a forum at Columbia and not be shouted down, and that is obvious from what I wrote. Should I have called the students juvenile names like the rest of the Fox flamers?

Anonymous said...

I think you need to learn to read. I posted that you made a good point in that Gilchrist shoul d be brought back. You still didn't answer any questions I asked though.


Anonymous said...

I'll post them in a more friendly format:

So, what student groups were consulted that led to the retraction of the Gilchrist invitation?

Were these same groups consulted and did they approve of the Iranian presidents’ invitation?

Why not name these groups?

How can you allow this person to speak under the banner of “Free Speech” but not allow other groups the same privilege?

lovable liberal said...

A couple of items that shouldn't a surprise:

- The President of Columbia U. is not a "student group".
- He, not a student group, invited Ahmadinejad.
- He strongly criticized Admadinejad when introducing him, to the point that Ahmadinejad felt insulted (whoop-de-doo).
- The CPU is a student group and consulted with other student groups.

This one might be a surprise, despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest the contrary:

- I am in no way associated with Columbia or with the CPU.

Thus, I cannot answer questions that assume I am. I can however point out that:

- I already gave my opinion in favor of free speech right out of the gate.
- Since 'student group' is not equal to 'President', I don't think there's any hypocrisy here, just the old story of shouting down Gilchrist, which I responded to in the first place.

So, who needs reading lessons here?

Anonymous said...

I guess you are just going to ignore the questions. I dont believe I said anywhere that the Iranian president shouldn't be allowed to speak.

I'm asking for information about why Gilchrists' invitation was revoked. This is a quote from the blog that brought me here.

"Up until last night, The Columbia Political Union had been considering putting together an event with Jim Gilchrist. We had hoped that it might be possible to have him and others involved in the events of last October on the same stage, engaged in a civil but challenging discussion. Aware that this is a complex issue, about which many people feel strongly, we felt that it was necessary to consult with other student groups and individuals on campus before making any decisions.

After several productive conversations with other student leaders and our advisors, and after lengthy discussions among our Executive Board members, it has become clear that this event cannot take the form we had originally hoped it would and could not effectively accomplish the goals we had hoped it might.

The CPU Executive Board voted last night not to go forward with this event."

This says right here that other groups advised the CPU Executive Board and then they voted against letting him speak.

Also, lets just end the "reading comprehension" crap and keep this civil.

lovable liberal said...

I did respond to your questions! I told you that I can't answer them since I'm not at Columbia. You didn't get that?

The press release did give me enough information to know that two different groups involved. You have no evidence otherwise, just your assumption that it has to exist and that I have to prove it doesn't.

So, probie, you training to be a firefighter or Coast Guardsman? Both of those groups do good work...

Anonymous said...

I’m in school getting my bachelor degree in information systems. I got to do something after my legs were shredded in Iraq. I got wittle bitty legs now.

lovable liberal said...

I honor your sacrifice, though I would only have asked you to risk it in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.