Slashdot Mirror
Ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina Hired By Fox News
neutrino38 writes "The International Herald Tribune reports that Fox News hired Carly Fiorina, ex-HP CEO. Such an interesting move will certainly bring support to those who viewed her as the over-hyped CEO who killed the original corporate engineering culture know as 'the HP way.'
The article, off course, does not elaborate on this aspect of things. Slashdot has previously reported her demise from HP and some comments mentioned some HP employee dancing in the cubicles then."
Do you think that the "original corporate engineering culture know as 'the HP way'" is returning or has returned to hp?
Screw up FOX News as badly as she screwed HP, we would be in good business!
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I hope she brings Fox the same integrity and good business sense that she brought to HP.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
... is another organization's treasure!
They should have got her for Surreal Life, but I'm sure Fox News will find something stupid for her to say.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Cue the hordes of political flame-fests in 3... 2... 1...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
In other news, Fiorina will push to aquire the "We Network", rename it to "You" to make it more personal, and later merge it with Fox.
The new network, of course, will be:Fox-You
Coming soon to a boardroo^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcable provider near you!
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Oblig. Final Fantasy 7 reference:
Keep goin'?! Current battle points: 10
Off course! No, way!
I don't see what the big deal is about telling people her role at the company. Its not like there telling everyone her salary even though well all know its well into the 6 figure ballpark.
that is one ugly and evil-radiating bitch to put on camera, drive away viewers for sure.
>"Ms. Fiorina's past behaviour notwithstanding, the story submission is rather incendiary. Surely a more civil account of the situation could have bdeen found?"
Why? This is Faux News we're talking about. You can be sure that everyone over at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, etc., are dancing in their cubicles!
Kevin Smith on Prince
Or will it be someone else pretending to be her, but pocketing the money nevertheless?
I forget the interesting euphemism they had for 'lying' on the phone... anyone remember?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
They are not interesting is differnt views just conferming what they think is right so they feel good.
Ask yourself in an era of declining subscription rates, how is the different from just about any other media outlet? They all try to coddle their viewer/readship and reinforce the worldview that keeps them(the reader) buying the paper/tuning in etc.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
According to this comment, Carly feasted on the souls of thousands of decent tech workers at HP. Where is she going to find a soul at Fox News?
I have visions of her, the arch-liche and Bill O'Reilly, some kind of undead bear, chucking mega spells at each other across the office.
Peter
Funny and the way I looked at it her past behaviour as a evil sith lord in training was all the flamebait needed. I mean its like Faux news and Fionia are made to complement each other.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Would you care to contrast that with the other media outlets who are currently run by major contributors and/or political beneficiaries of the DNC?
Media is the currency by which political capital is exchanged in this country. If you want an informed opinion you have to form your own.
FoxNews was founded to fill an entertainment gap. A news channel with a fundamentally conservative outlook, in contrast to the liberal outlook promulgated by most other outlets.
Thats three typos in two sentences, taking up barely a full line of text. Is that a new record for a lousy summary?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I never said Fox wasn't like the others. NPR does the same thing for the Democrats, sure they change the structure so it makes them feel more intelectual. But other stations try a little harder to be fair. I remember the last time I watch fox news and they were debating the War, They had a well informed Political Analysis to support the war, and a college student half high on pot to support the other side, after that I stopped watching.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Well they weren't...with this development? Who knows what they'll do... :P
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
As mentioned in TFA, Fox is planning to start a new business news channel, to compete with CNBC. Interesting that TFA makes no mention of her anticipated role in the new organization.
The man they hired to run the new news channel, Roger Ailes, also helped start CNBC.
The WSJ has an agreement with CNBC to provide content. The WSJ also just got bought by Rupert Murdoch's empire, which also owns Fox. Ailes says that there won't be a conflict.
Ailes also gives a lot more info here in this interview:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119160938630350371.html
Should be interesting.
Yep, I am sure they are all dancing in the streets with their rating trailing Fox's.
You find me reporters for the non-FNC that are directly affiliated with liberal causes and you might have a point. Most of the talking heads on FNC either identify themselves as conservative or write/appear/work for organizations that identify themselves as conservative.
Would you care to contrast that with the other media outlets who are currently run by major contributors and/or political beneficiaries of the DNC?
Hmmm... Which are the DNC-oriented media outlets you describe? I'm curious; it would be interesting to know how the news I'm seeing is being shaped.
So wait... working for Fox News is supposed to increase her support?
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
"Fox" is just the TV channel that Murdoch uses to promote the same global fascism that his new ownership of the Wall Street Journal will bring to print. The "Fox Business Channel" is yet another face. There's plenty of evil business/political people out there to fill the seats, and plenty of people paying money to get their badly skewed content with which to pay the staff.
What I like is that all of these incompetent liars are accumulating in one place, which makes it convenient to ignore them all at once. Maybe they'll achieve critical mass and collapse into total conversion to whatever negative energy crapons degrade to.
--
make install -not war
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2003/09/15/hp-buys--two-new-gulfstream-vs
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2003/09/20/hp-covers-up-gulfstream-buys
But sadly I can't claim this piece of genius.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2003/10/28/hps-carly-fiorina-hates-fags
-Charlie
"Fox News is just for people want to hear what they want to hear. They are not interesting is differnt views just conferming what they think is right so they feel good."
You can swap out "Fox News" with pretty much any/all "news" media outlets, local, regional, and national. If the news was reporting just facts without slanted commentary, from any side, 6 people may watch the news. People watch based upon their belief system, if Fox fits the bill, they watch Fox, if CNN does it for them, they watch CNN, and so on.
However, trying to tell people to sift all the BS to get to the facts...well...that's too much work for them.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
...she got in a lot of good practice at Lucent Technologies also.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Carly Fiorina is a cunt. It is well known that she pissed away HP. She has been trying to reinvent herself, taking credit for things wherever she can, but the truth is, she ran HP into the ground and destroyed it. HP barely supports their products, and that is the Carly Fiorina way. She's a cut throat cunt, that destroys companies.
Foxnews? She'll fit right at home there.
In the other corner, we have the economic policy that turned $250 billion budget surpluses under Clinton into $300 billion budget deficit in just two years!
While I am not a fan of Bush, the deficit slide can't be blamed entirely on Bushes economic plan. The magnitude, sure, but the slide started long before. The forecasters of the OMB were overly optimistic about the dotcom boom and expected it to last forever. When the bust happened, not only did a lot of money dry up, but the expected capital gains taxes forcast dried up too. That and the balanced budget bill lapsed. Congress started spending. So alot of things happened in the span of a few short years some of which can be blamed on President Bush.
BTW, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World by Alan Greenspan has a pretty good overview of that happened in addition to prividing insight into how the guy got to be so smart. It's good reading.
Except NPR does it on the tax payers dime.
...one of these things is not like the others....
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
"He is gathering all evil to him. Very soon he will summon an army great enough to launch an assault upon Middle-Earth."
It's not incendiary. It's opinionated and sarcastic.
Incendiary would be if it were implied that she and her new employers were going to do something bad to you in the future. Incendiary evokes new negative emotions. Sarcastic just rehashes old ones.
After, this is all just the story of a third rate CEO being hired by a third rate news organization. It's not as if she were being hired by some covert arm of the Republican Party...
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
..wouldn't it? She's good enough to do a lot more for Fox News.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
At least we know that Fox's new business venture isn't going to go very far.
Do you suppose they'll hire someone from Enron to manage programming?
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
Fox news also has Oliver North. Fox news keeps strange company. I question their choice in consultants. I'm glad I do not get my news from Fox.
What could possibly go wrong?
Let's hope she can succeed at running Fox News into the ground. Fortunately, she was unable to do that at HP but if she had stayed any longer, she would have. She can get on the economic segments and tell people how ordering Compaq to fire workers and rehire them at half the pay and no benefits as contractors is a good model for a takeover. And then fired HP employees after the merger, keeping those contractors. She can say how outsourcing is good for the economy as she fired MORE HP workers for those Indian call centers.
Carly, you're a FUCKING BITCH! (and go ahead, moderate me down to a score of zero, I do not care. She is a bitch who destroyed lives and everyone here knows it).
Whew. Now, that doesn't actually make your statement grammatically appropriate, but at least now it can be read.
-knewter
He won't, because he can't. The entire "liberal media" rant, so regularly trotted out by the right whenever they are confronted by actual facts that put the lie to their "fair and balanced reporting", is a myth. Right our wrong, "the media" is, for the most part, television, and broadcast media has been almost entirely subsumed by corporate interests, interests whose political leanings really need no discussion.
When I started at HP they were much like the way Google is described to be now. While I'd have to say that Google is HP on steroids, since HP offered great coffee, tea, and often sweet rolls in the well-equipped snack nooks around the cubical farms, and a well-subsidized cafeteria -- in contrast, Google offers free meals and transportation, among other amenities -- but the idea was the same. HP employees had a lot of freedom towards arranging their own transportation to other HP sites as they determined their requirements to be, specified and ordered their own personal computer equipment including printers, and generally were given a lot of freedom to do their jobs.
Over the next year and a half under Lew, much of that went away in ways that make it clear it would never return. It was belt tightening time, and a lot of it happened in areas like this one, including two job freezes.
When Carley did arrive, she was very warmly received by all of HP. There was great enthusiasm -- and perhaps not too much looking back at what she'd (un)accomplished at Lucient. Right up to the time I left, pretty much everyone was behind her, and much jazzed about having a woman CEO -- and a relatively young woman at that.
Yes things got worse after that in ways are that well known. But in fairness, I saw the first signs of decline before she ever arrived.
Best Carley joke from that era: After she visited our facility (contractors not allowed to attend the actual meeting) we were told that the lovely palm trees in the courtyard were going to be cut down after Carley had found out that they weren't going to meet their 15% growth target for the next year.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
in contrast to the liberal outlook promulgated by most other outlets.
Show me a single news channel half as left-wing as Counterpunch.org and I might believe you.
Oh wait, you can't.
I hope she can get at least $21 million severence pay when she leaves Fox News, sounds like a great retirement plan IMHO
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Fox already has the quality and integrity that HP acquired during her stay.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Fits right in with Oliver North, Mark Fuhrman, Geraldo,etc.
Welcome to the team!
This is no surprise. Having worked under the skank when she was at HP, I'm not surprised she's in league with the slime over at Fox. She was the worst imperial style CEO who--though HP had just inherited several new Gulfstream jets when they purchased Compaq, Carly went out and bought two brand new jets (one which was reserved for she and her husband alone) at the same time that several thousand contractors and employees were getting axed. She was a nightmare.
That's the point silly. They think their ratings won't be trailing after she had been at Fox for a while. They can finally ask for a raise and act like they deserve one for competing with Fox News.
HP now dominates the Windows server space, and is #1 in PC sales and printers. They were #1 only in printers before the Compaq merger/acquisition. Maybe she didn't do so bad by HP in the long run?
She's managed to turn HP from one of the most efficient and highest quality manufacturers of hardware into a cheap crank-out-the-crap shack. Fired all the quality staff and hired clueless wannabes (mostly 'cause the latter are cheaper). Turned slick, quality-driven production into cumbersome, bureaucratic molasses and relied on PR and marketing as selling point instead of quality and integrity.
Maybe she believes in karma and wants to undo in Fox what she did to HP. Because, well, Fox is already where she left HP, what else could she do for the company?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Quote: "... you really don't know much do you?"
SumDumAss, you sound like a typical superior feeling, but ignorant Republican.
Cheney and Bush have wreaked economic havoc on the U.S., and want that to continue. The Iraq war is intended to be exactly what oil and weapons investors want: Destruction of the reputation of the U.S., so that there will be constant war, and huge increases in gast prices.
Who better than Carly?
since she layed off thousands at HP, maybe she'll lay off thousands at fox too and we'll all be saved.
Please, please.....
If she had something else to do, she would be doing it by now. It will be interesting to see if she can use this opportunity to leap back into a CEO position. I wouldn't bet on it, but stranger things have happened.
You might want to fact-check your data there, Mr. Cavuto.
Some people can throw too much emphasis on Carly's involvement with the "Investi-Gate" scandal (where she authorized the investigations to pinpoint who was leaking privileged information to the outside). She may have authorized the investigations, but in a bit of turnabout, she herself became a subject of her own boardroom's paranoia; the actual (mis)handling of the investigation fell largely to Chairwoman Patricia Dunn, who was indicted as a result. (At best, she ended up being a scapegoat.)
From a leadership perspective, I compare Ms. Fiorina with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter: untried, uninspiring, and unimaginative. Her guidance of HP during Investi-Gate at the corporate political level can be compared with Carter's decision-making during the Iran hostage crisis at the government political level. She essentially authorized the board to "do something," and then failed to keep control of the situation and take decisive action when necessary.
Fox News is based on fast-paced, hard-hitting, "damn-the-torpedoes"-style reporting, where journalists try to wrap a riveting story around a collection of often incomplete or unverified facts (and so are most other 24/7 news channels).
Given her otherwise okay but hardly noteworthy performance in leading HP, I'm not sure she's the one for the job...
Yeah, that 6% of NPR's total funding that comes from state and local governments is really a heavy burden on the tax payers.
Media is the currency by which political capital is exchanged in this country. If you want an informed opinion you have to form your own.
FoxNews was founded to fill an entertainment gap. A news channel with a fundamentally conservative outlook, in contrast to the liberal outlook promulgated by most other outlets.
Who modded this guy insightful? Inciteful, perhaps, meaning troll.
Except NPR does it on the tax payers dime.
So does Fox News, just with a level of indirection. You think many of their corporate advertisers aren't sucking the public tit dry? That the farm bill doesn't subsidize ADM, or the perverse medicare prescription policy isn't a handout to Big Pharma, etc.?
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
The Fox Business Channel will give Her Worship the right-wing national audience that she wants in the hope that she can parlay it into a leadership position in the Republican Party and possible future elective office. That would give her the chance to mess up the country the way she messed up HP.
The best counter to the "liberal media" tirade I've seen, shortly after Ronald Reagan died:
Someone linked to NPR (National Public Radio, for the non-American readers)'s story about Reagan's funeral, and said "When Clinton dies, if you can find me a Fox News anchor that describes him as a 'great American', then you can talk to me about the liberal media."
She was hired at the new Fox Business News channel (FBN) not The Fox News Channel (FNC)
There, I fixed your summary for you!
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Everyone is rolling out new business shows again, now that the stock market is on fire. Hopefully they'll last longer than the 2000 round.
I can attest to the OP's statements about the last days of Lew Platt.
For me, the kicker was when HP mandated Drug Testing for Contractors. Heh, what a joke. The top technical contractors won't do Drug Testing. First, there's the invasion of privacy issue. Then there's the cost associated with just one false positive. That will stay on your record permanently, and I can guarantee you that it will cost you work.
There's nothing like driving away the top technical talent like Drug testing. Most (nearly all I daresay) of HP's competition doesn't require it. And so, they drove away their good people right into the arms of their competition.
Personally, I've been absolutely delighted to help HP's competitors. A pity though. HP used to be a good place.
The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey which found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.
The book's most thorough case study involved nuclear energy. The survey of journalists showed that most were highly skeptical about nuclear safety. However, the authors conducted a separate survey of scientists in energy related fields, who were much more sanguine about nuclear safety issues. They then conducted a content analysis of nuclear energy coverage in the media outlets they had surveyed. They found that the opinions of sources who were cited as scientific experts reflected the antinuclear sentiments of journalists, rather than the more pro-nuclear perspectives held by most energy scientists.
The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality. In principle this meant that newsrooms populated mainly by conservatives would produce a similarly skewed perspective toward the political right. Such accusations have been leveled against Fox News. At the time the study was embraced mainly by conservative columnists and politicians, who adopted the findings as "scientific proof" of liberal media bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_media
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Surely Roger Ailes was the head propagandist for Richard Nixon's campaign? The one that designed the non-issues-oriented feel-good ads? The one that combatted Nixon's reputation for being an geeky, aloof guy by putting him into controlled situations where he appeared to be surrounded by ordinary citizens asking "spontaneous," scripted, softball questions?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
It's not as if she were taking a real job away from a deserving person...
rj
Except that Fox News isn't a news channel. Telling the truth, however biased, should be a requirement to be called a news channel. And Fox News have openly admitted that they have no intention of telling the truth.
They are a propaganda/entertainment channel, no more, no less.
Under her reign, HP computers always came loaded with trashy software that would make bile rise up in my esophagus as soon as I saw all the trashware short-cuts on the Desktop of brand new computer. She just doesn't get it, whatever it happens to be.
Freedom is free.
NPR isn't as turbo-liberal as you might believe.
Sure, some stations carry blatantly left-wing programs like "Alternative Radio". But nearly every station carries "Marketplace", a financial news show that takes as an axiom "an unfettered free market is ultimately a public good". That's a center-right position. The news shows (All Things Considered, Morning Edition) tend to be fairly middle-of-the-road, since they mostly just give the news without a whole lot of spin. The few "opinion" segments, by people like Daniel Schorr, tend to be pretty nonpartisan.
...FOX will still take you in.
It warms my heart to know that there are such people out there. Giving second and third chances to high-profile fuck-ups.
God bless them. God bless them all.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
What really kills me about Fox "News" are the deliberate errors... mislabeling a 'bad' republican with (I) or (D), mislabeling a 'good' democrat with (R), and just the complete fabrications. If you actually sit down with a transcript of even their 'news' programs a huge portion of it is factually incorrect.
Just because something is biased doesn't mean it is wrong. You could have a channel that only reported Bush's fuckups, a 24/7 channel in other words, and still have everything you report be correct. It's bad enough to only report what you like to hear, but it's even worse to actually make shit up. And Fox News does a lot of that making shit up.
Commentator on business - her actions at HP speak quite loudly on her business acumen. And Fox News expects me to listen to her for her learned observations and commentary? I have a mute button and I plan on exercising it.
Wow, how clever. Take a broadcast where Mr. O'Reilly refers to NBC and trim out all references then put it up there with a TV capture of the show displaying the Fox News logo.
For what it's worth, I flip around the various news stations. My observation is that many of the commentators on Fox News have conservative/traditional views. What I don't see are commentators going to bat for Republicans acting badly just because they are Republicans. In fact, Fox News is more critical of Republicans than other news organizations, precisely because their commentators tend to criticize non-conservative polices from any candidates, whether they be Republican or Democrat. Also, not every commentator or guest necessarily has the same views. For instance, O'Reilly is really pretty liberal, at least in the more traditional sense of the word. My dad refers to this as "New York Liberal." On the other hand, there are guys on there like Hannity who are very conservative and fairly close-minded about it. Hannity clearly comes off as being a Republican cheerleader although occasionally he makes a good point. I also see quite a number of moderate Democrats as well as the occasional far-left Democrat. And often times, even the far-left Democrats have a well-reasoned point even if I happen to disagree with their conclusion. The moderate ones almost always have a very well-reasoned point.
On the other hand, I can hardly stand to watch MSNBC anymore. It feels like I'm watching a Democrat rally. Any politician who kow-tows to the far left wing of the Democrat party gets a pass. Everyone else gets slandered.
I'll tell you one thing I don't like about Fox News though: Alan Colmes. Not because he's liberal, but because his schtick is to give Hannity a hard time. Half the time I don't believe he even believes what he's saying. He does exactly the sort of Democrat cheerleading that MSNBC does except not as well. I used to watch the program but lately I flip off the TV after O'Reilly. If I want to get a balanced viewpoint, O'Reilly's program is far better because despite claims otherwise, he does give his guests a fair shake.
O'Reilly also serves a good purpose of weeding out the idiots who otherwise look good. Take Ron Paul for instance. Mr. Paul sounds good at first, a libertarian with conservative religious views and liberal social views. Then you find out he's on the "get out of Iraq now, damn the consequences" bandwagon. Well, I'm sorry, but that line of thinking is not what I'm looking for in my next president. Even Hillary Clinton has softened her position on the war to that of a reasoned debate rather than a knee-jerk reaction. I'd sooner vote for Clinton than Paul and I don't like many of Clinton's viewpoints at all.
Of course, the "damn the consequences" viewpoint is very prevalent so I'm sure that Paul's idiocy appeals to a lot of people who are also idiots.
That doesn't make any sense.
> Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
LOL, my thoughts exactly. Fox News is the Colbert Report minus the sarcasm.
Economist held a generally favourable view of her work. Last year it reviewed her book "Tough Choices"... The second link is freely readable by all.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
NOBODY is forcing you to watch or listen to the FNC. There are these little knobs, buttons called channels. I bet you could even block that channel if you want. But, as I suspect, you are an uneducated, or overeducated liberal, who, like most liberals, believes in freedom of speech, as long as said speech is 100% in line with your tilted beliefs. I don't watch or listen to most of the other networks, but, I would fight to the death if someone tried to take them off the air. We are suppose to be a nation of independent thinkers, but, in your "my way or the highway" attitude, you would rather have your socialistic utopia here. After all, socialism and stifling free speech works... it just hasn't been tried by the RIGHT people yet...
So what you are saying is that both NPR and Fox screw the people - NPR more blatantly/honestly than Fox.
NPR is a moderate news post. They piss off both sides. They also deal with many subjects that almost no other news outlet will deal with, as they are not mainstream news (sex, violence, pestilence, gore, ...) If you sit to the right, they look left (so we know where you sit), and if you sit to the left, they look right. That is the way news used to be. Balanced. Maybe not entirely fair, but balanced. I have heard as much news on NPR that was pro-neo-con as I have that was pro-humanity, and normally, those were balanced with later news on the same subject from the other side.
Yeah, I know that many will disagree, but if you are up North, then they are all Southerners. I don't have time to live my life sitting on an extreme side of life waiting for an honest understanding, so NPR is one of my news sources (as the WSJ, Reuters for short tags, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and Google). NPR does better at getting deeper into a story than most do, though in many cases the stories are not interesting to people who are self-centric.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
I'm shocked. A well reasoned, moderate post on slashdot. I really have come to detest the vocal minority on both sides. As for slashdot, it seems like you're guaranteed to be ridiculed if you support fiscal conservatism or religion of any sort. I wish there were more moderate people that were willing to engage in intelligent discussion such as yourself.
I never said Fox wasn't like the others. NPR does the same thing for the Democrats, sure they change the structure so it makes them feel more intelectual.
Laughable. NPR is the closest thing we have in the mainstream to an unbiased news source. If you'd said CNN, you'd at least be in sane territory, but seriously. Their hate mail generally is from both right and left wing extremists about the same freaking stories.
They tend to be easier on the right wing nutters due to that whole nonsense "liberal media" campaign the wingnuts came up with, but they're still far more neutral than any of the other major media outlets.
...I hope she takes all her spies and spy gadgets with her. The Fox people will undoubtedly rue the day they hired her when they find a bug in the men's room. And I don't mean the kind with legs.
Instead of $1000 Billion, we only have to borrow $999 Billion* to pay to get our asses kicked in the desert.
*By the time you read this, the total cost of play-time in the sandbox may have increased as it is on-going.
Blar.
Unlike other presidents, I can't imagine him just ignoring Congress. On the contrary, I expect that he'd prefer for Congress to do its job and legislate, leaving the work of executing the legislature's will to the executive. Crazy thought, I know.
> For instance, O'Reilly is really pretty liberal, at least in the more traditional sense of the word
Funny, I cannot picture Jefferson throwing around the word "treason" to describe his political opponents in every other speech. O'Reilly is basically just a sad old troll there to whip up the faithful, and has no credibility when it comes to actual reporting or analysis. But of course that's because all the other media outlets are full of godless traitorous liberals, right?
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Carly changed HP's motto, apparently, from "Invent" to "Remarket" in selling iPods under HP's name.
Now, apparently after some time unemployed and unemployable after the mess she and her hubris left at HP, she turns up, where? At Fox, the spinmeisters.
They deserve each other.
seems there were some shenanigans at HP that Fiona might have to answer for. Did that all go away?
Maybe you could argue that she was just a stupid, bleached-blond bimbo who randomly stumbled upon the correct course of action, but in fairness to Carly, her vision was correct: Only the large [really the massively, monstrously gi-normous] will survive.
HP's choices were to continue to grow [with the acquisition of Compaq] or to die.
[Cf Tuesday's Register article about Gateway: Gateway failed to grow, and now Gateway is dead.]
And the stocks have proven that she was correct:
At HP, Carly faced two dilemmas:
1) Everyone is in the business of selling commodity computers these days, and only the largest will survive at that game [in particular, HP needed the higher-margin server business which distinguished Compaq from the rest of the competition], and
2) Like it or not [and most Slashdotters aren't going to like it very much], there just isn't any money to be made in the sale of scientific equipment, as the history of Agilent's stock proves.
Now you can argue that it would be really "nice" if a big company like HP could subsidize a bunch of really "neat", cutting-edge research [the way that AT&T used to do with Bell Labs, back when AT&T was a monopoly, or the way that Xerox used to do with PARC, back when Xerox was a monopoly, or, to a lesser extent, the way that Microsoft & Google appear to be doing now, while they are still monopolies], but Carly's duty was not to the scientific community: Carly's duty was to her shareholders, and her vision proved to be correct.
Heck, just compare the results of her vision with the current state of affairs at IBM, whose stock has been absolutely stagnant for the last eight years:
QED.
"A news channel with a fundamentally conservative outlook..."
The word "conservative" should never be used. "Conservatives" are not conservative. Republicans only use that word because opinion testing showed that it tested well with voters.
I don't think there's any big difference between men and women on a biological level. That being said, our culture's climate creates conditions which encourages professional women to be headstrong, illogical, and ruthless. A higher percentile of them simply cannot hold a reasonable, objective discussion without resorting to bickering, circular/evasive arguments, and other "conversational terrorism" strategies (http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html). I finally understand why Nietzsche considered women "contemptuous of the truth." These beings - at least the ones who make it to the professions - simply cannot admit they are wrong when all the facts are against them.
Is this by necessity? Certainly not. I know lots of women who are reasonable and logical beings who are big enough to admit they're wrong. But more often than not, you come to them a whole and honest human being, and they, more often than not, come at you with n years of emotional baggage - the fruit of real or imagined gender discrimination - and drop all that shit on top of your head. This post is in some sense counterproductive, since they are simply passing on their own real or imagined mistreatment, but god damn, I just dread the next time some pushy-ass, powersuited broad tries to tell me that 2 + 2 = 5.
Fox News attracts spectacular incompetence.
I have no idea what Ron Paul would do. I've seen him with my own eyes take the stance that we must leave. More importantly, I watched him fail to enumerate the costs and benefits of leaving vs. staying and fail to provide any concrete reason for leaving. Instead, I watched him attack the Bush administration for making what is in his eyes, and the eyes of many others, a bad decision.
That does not, however, make it a bad decision. There were already clear signs of Al Queda moving out of Afghanistan and looking for a nation in the region more friendly to their interests. Our state department, headed by Colin Powell at the time, made it quite clear to the world that harboring Al Queda would not be tolerated. Bush made a speech containing a severe distillation of this with the phrase "you're either with us or against us." Most nations in the region took heed and decided to make it their national policy that they would not harbor terrorists. Some of them have anyway; sometimes simply because it's nearly impossible to enforce a border. We can relate to that since we can't do it either.
Despite the "with us or against us" comment, simply laying low is and has been enough to avoid getting oneself in our crosshairs. See for instance Syria and pre-Ahmadinejad Iran. But one man apparently felt the need to test our resolve and chose instead to begin welcoming Al Queda into his country despite not aligning with their principle beliefs. In a classic case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Saddam began allowing Al Queda training camps within Iraq. To further test our resolve, he decided to violate the treaties he signed after the Gulf War. That it turns out he did not have any usable weapons does not put into dispute the fact that he violated his treaty to allow weapons inspectors.
Those are a subset of the many stated reasons for using military force in Iraq. They were accepted by Congress when they passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." So it would seem your assertion that Bush has ignored Congress is clearly false. Perhaps though, you mean that he has since then ignored Congress. Of course, you'd need an example for that and unfortunately for you there are none to be found. Congress continues to fund the war and has not repealed the resolution. I don't doubt that you, and probably Ron Paul as well, really believe that Bush went to Iraq and stays in Iraq without Congressional approval. But believing in a falsehood does not make it true.
What Congress should be doing now is letting the President do what he is sworn to do. Congress should also be checking to make sure that he's not failing at what he's doing. Indeed, we see that not even a month ago, General Petraeus gave a report to Congress. Furthermore, he has promised a second report in March. So it would seem that Congress is doing their job and that the President is doing his.
Why is it so hard to understand that our government is working correctly? Is it simply because the result has thus far not been good? Clearly the majority of Congress believes that it's possible for a victorious result or else they'd have already voted for an immediate withdrawal.
FWIW, Roger Aisles, the president and founder of Fox News, is a long time Republican political consultant and operative. That in itself is not damning, although it raises a red flag. It is possible to have been a political operative, but to participate in an institution that people expect to be non-partisan. David Gergen was also a Republican consultant but that doesn't make the Kennedy School of Government a branch of the Republican party.
The question is whether the evidence shows that he is using a kind of institution that people traditionally trust as non-partisan to misrepresent politically slanted messages as fair and balanced. I'll report, you decide.
Fox News exercises much more centralized control of reporting than traditional news media. For example, John Moody, the VP of news, sends daily memos specifying the kinds of language that reporters and commentators should work into their discussion of various issues or people.
It is unlikely that this will come as a surprise if you try watching Fox News over the course of a single day when a controversial news story is in progress, rather than flipping through the channel. Commentator after commentator will not only pull up the exact same tu quoque examples to deflect criticism of Republican officials, they'll use the exact same words and catch phrases. That's basic propaganda: if an opinion is shared by many people, it appears more credible, so the propagandist arranges that his voice speaks through many mouths.
That they sometimes go after Republicans doesn't prove anything. They go after Republicans that don't toe the leadership's line. That's hardly independence.
The same thing happens on left wing partisan forums. You can go onto any major liberal Democratic blog and read scathing criticisms of Nancy Pelosi because she failed to force a confrontation with the President over Iraq. It doesn't mean the people writing aren't Democratic operatives. It doesn't even mean they aren't liberals -- in fact the opposite. The extremity of their views puts them outside the Democratic mainstream, although they're still Democrats. Just like Fox is outside the Republican mainstream, but they still represent the party, only in this case the part of the party that is in control.
It's painful to listen to political opinions that one disagrees with; its comforting to hear your own views repeated. But time after time it has been shown that regular views of Fox News have the most inaccurate factual grasp of current events of any consumers of news. That should tell you something.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This site has nothing to do with "tech"... its all about a club for lost liberals looking to get together and spew their anger, with a healthy dose of back-slapping and self-congratulation. Such an impressive website this is...
Exactly, if the consensus opinion of congress was towards a declaration of war Ron would be a president who would be sure of doing it (per the constitutions definition), I think the view of the grandparent poster represents the immediately dismissive view of Paul as isolationist. This view is rather tired, as Paul's overall position would be one of encouraging relationships other than military relationships with other nations. I'd characterize the immediate withdrawal of troops as essential, and I believe that Iraq would likely (since it has reasonable financial capability) purchase and implement it's own security forces. Why not send Carly, Bill Oreilly, Haliburton and let Blackwater handle the contract they can charge their reasonable rates to Iraq. The great thing about this is that the funds come from a different source than tax revenue. If Iraq wants the bases, we can sell them too, cha-ching.
Then, we start making ethanol out of sugar, and make irrelevant our foreign energy dependence, and be less hated everywhere eventually.
Agilent's stock looks very stable to me, and has a low P/E. Why is that a problem?
Because Carly Fiorina's duty to the shareholders was not to preside over just another player in a stagnant cottage industry.
Look, I will readily admit that 100 GHz digital-sampling oscilloscopes are really, really, really "neat", but, sadly, that's about all they are - there just isn't any money to be made in the business of selling them.
As I said above, the geeks on Slashdot might not like to hear it, you can't get rich selling "neat" stuff - the big bucks are made in selling incredibly boring, run-of-the-mill, prosaic crap, like servers, storage networks, and support contracts.
And since the HP-Compaq merger was announced, on Sept. 4, 2001, HPQ's stock [and gross revenues] have soared, whereas IBM & Agilent's stocks [and gross revenues] have been completely stagnant.
Actually I'm being charitable when I say that - the truth of the matter is that both IBM & Agilent's gross revenues have collapsed:
Mod #20929447 -1 Full of Shit
"Time is nothing; timing is everything."
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Rush's theory is that it is a example of group-think. You have people squished into a room all day. They become friends, etc, etc. They start to use the same language. It's not unnecessarily nefarious. It is just lazy.
Umm...I don't have the exact numbers, but from what I remember, only 2% of NPR's funding is directly from the federal government. Roughly 30% of their funding is from state or local government grants (my local university houses the studios for our NPR station, for instance). But speaking of the local stations, mine recieves about 70% of its funding from listeners. As they say, "its the purest form of capitalism, we give you something and you pay what you think its worth." Hardly liberal bias, except as Steve Colbert has noted "reality has a proven history of liberal bias."
I can see the news headlines now: Carly and Bill O'Reilly announcing the birth of their space-alien love child. He denies the love child is his (but offers money to keep out of court and offers to raise or pay custody for the child), and she spies on him and other boffins at Fox to make sure he doesn't make any other love-children behind her back. Ultimately the love-child rebells, becomes a democrat (although a suspicious one).
Fox News exercises much more centralized control of reporting than traditional news media. For example, John Moody, the VP of news, sends daily memos specifying the kinds of language that reporters and commentators should work into their discussion of various issues or people.
Yes, I think I read that (and actually most of your post) on Wikipedia the other day. Basically, the allegation is that Moody wants reporters to do things like ensure they refer to U.S. soldiers who shoot enemies from a distance as "sharp shooters" rather than "snipers" because the former has more positive connotations. I hardly see how that is going to bat for the Republican party. If anything, it's perhaps a bit jingoistic but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.
While we're on the subject, I happened to note that just tonight O'Reilly referred to our green berets who were repeatedly charged then cleared of wrongdoing as "snipers." Oops, I guess he didn't get the memo?
It is unlikely that this will come as a surprise if you try watching Fox News over the course of a single day when a controversial news story is in progress, rather than flipping through the channel. Commentator after commentator will not only pull up the exact same tu quoque examples to deflect criticism of Republican officials, they'll use the exact same words and catch phrases. That's basic propaganda: if an opinion is shared by many people, it appears more credible, so the propagandist arranges that his voice speaks through many mouths.
I do notice this and it works both ways. Every which way actually. Criticism of Republicans and criticism of Democrats and praise for Republicans and praise for Democrats is generally reported consistently on Fox News. And, indeed, you will notice that the (very rare) praise for Republicans and praise for Democrats and so on and so forth found on MSNBC and CNN and CNBC and everywhere else is also very consistently worded.
I don't believe the idea is to go to bat for Republicans so much as ensure that Fox News presents consistent reporting which makes viewers trust the network more. It's a smart business decision. Fortunately, Fox News also carries several opinion programs where guests of varied viewpoints are invited to speak. One of those is the O'Reilly Factor. Another one is Special Report (w/ Brit Hume). Obviously the formats are different. Special Report is basically a clone of CNN's Crossfire (is that even still around?) The O'Reilly Factor has no analog as far as I know. There's also Hannity and Colmes if you can stand it, but there you just get a looney supposed conservative and a looney supposed liberal. Actually, I don't think they're that bad but I get the feeling that there's a lot of very heavy scripting going on with that show. Alan often espouses Democrat talking points he clearly doesn't believe. Hannity also has a habit of just espousing Republican talking points. He is more convincing though because he comes off as actually believing what he's saying.
That they sometimes go after Republicans doesn't prove anything. They go after Republicans that don't toe the leadership's line. That's hardly independence.
I'm sure it's much easier for you to shoehorn it into that but that is simply untrue. That said, I've seen O'Reilly toe the party line. For example, he supported the immigration bill "compromise" along with all of the Republicans at that point. Meanwhile, nearly every conservative commentator said W.T.F. That wasn't the party line. That wasn't the Bush line. Or maybe it was? I dunno, who was toeing the party line? I'm not even sure what exactly the party line was. The republicans in congress wanted to pass it, their constituents didn't like it. Of course, maybe it was all a conspiracy and the plan was never to pass it but instead to capitulate to the Democrats to gain trust and then bring out the big guns like Rush to make sure the Democrats would wind up with egg on thei
Perhaps that's what he's meant to do. I'm not sure. I'm actually glad that he doesn't seem to believe most of the stuff he says. Every so often he seems to forget the script and make a reasoned argument. Occasionally he does make Hannity look like the trollish buffoon he is. Hannity bothers me because he comes off as actually believing some really asinine things. Alan works precisely because he comes off as scripted.
Say FNC instead had Hannity&Olbermann. Then we'd have two trollish buffoons toeing the party line. That would certainly not help the show at all.
I'll tell you what would be a better show though: a moderate conservative and a moderate liberal. Maybe Fiorina (assuming she's a moderate conservative) and Powers?
O'Reilly regularly hosts a Malkin/Powers debate. Powers always appears very moderate and very reasoned. Unfortunately, Malkin is worse than Hannity. O'Reilly/Powers would be a great combination (and in fact, O'Reilly does sometimes have Powers on one-on-one) but of course O'Reilly isn't going to do a O'Reilly&* show when he's got his own show. Maybe Miller/Powers?
You know, it's problematic that I can't think of any popular moderate conservative commentators other than Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller. Boortz would be a good fit as well but he's really a radio guy. That's not to say that there aren't moderate conservatives. I would say that most of the personalities on FNC are moderate conservatives. But none of them have the personality it would take to do a __&__ type of show.
Is this, then, where Fiorina comes in? Could be.
Too bad their work is exceptionally poor. Their research and book were funded by right wing groups like the Scaife Foundation and the Coors Foundation. Reporters that agreed with statements like "the government should not attempt to regulate people's sexual practices" were counted as "liberal" even though keeping government out of people's lives is supposedly one of the foundations of the conservative movement.
And there's the flawed methodology: The survey which found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters
Operating under the old "Democrat==Liberal" fallacy when the Democratic Party is actually very conservative.
The book's most thorough case study involved nuclear energy. The survey of journalists showed that most were highly skeptical about nuclear safety. However, the authors conducted a separate survey of scientists in energy related fields, who were much more sanguine about nuclear safety issues. They then conducted a content analysis of nuclear energy coverage in the media outlets they had surveyed. They found that the opinions of sources who were cited as scientific experts reflected the antinuclear sentiments of journalists, rather than the more pro-nuclear perspectives held by most energy scientists.
Completely ignoring three facts: the Cold War was still going strong, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. Is it any surprise there was a heightened concern about nuclear explosions/accidents?
The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes
Yes, in the chapter called "Pot calls Kettle Black."
I feel the need to plug my favorite NPR show, On Point Radio with Tom Ashbrook. Each show is an interview of a variety of guests on a topic. He's a brilliant moderator, and the guests are amazing. Not long ago, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer surprised Tom by popping into his studio when they were discussing the Dred Scott case. When discussing Iraq, you'll always have some combination of generals, ambassadors, former secretaries of state, and Iraqi politicians. You owe yourself a listen; I recommend the podcast available in the iTunes store.
Hey kids! Be a criminal and an evil liar and you will get rewarded with a cushy job in the media. Punishment? Responsibility? They don't exist. This is America after all.
As for ignoring Congress, I was talking about the war; I was talking about how US presidents behave as elected kings or prime ministers, not as the executives of the republic. When running for election they promise all manner of things that aren't in their power; when elected they pursue all manner of initiatives which aren't in their power.
The president's job is to approve, veto & execute the laws, negotiate treaties and a few other items (all neatly listed in the Constitution). It's not to lead the country. The country doesn't need to be led: the people send their representatives; the states send their senators (whoops, not since the asinine Seventeenth Amendment); the people appoint a president to execute the law.
The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
Only materialistic liberals believe money is the great motivator of society. Too bad all the free money, housing, and education still hasn't righted all the wrongs in the world. It's unfortunate you began your rebuttal with what is essentially an ad hominem attack.
That's great. You find me the "conservative movement" that holds that view. If you would have read the book, you'd find they aren't making an argument that a particular viewpoint is conservative or liberal, they are assuming that they are for the basis of the study. If I want to figure out what the negative effects of smoking marijuana are, and one of those effects I define as being "apathy", I don't have to make an entire argument that apathy is a negative trait. The author states the viewpoints he believes to be associated with liberalism. That is all that is required. It is not a political treatise, it is a sociological survey.
I live in one of the most liberal places in the United States. I have neighbors who go on vacations to communes, but still are wild eyes liberals who fervently support the democrat party. I can assure you that your viewpoint is shared only by hardened communists. Are you a communist?
Three Mile Island was a greatly overblown event, and Chernobyl is simply impossible in the US. Even today, many if not most environmental groups consider the risk of nuclear energy to be far less severe than the immediate effect of burning fossil fuels. Respected scientists have ALWAY held this view. Your statement only makes sense in support of the conclusion drawn by the book - journalists completely ignored the many positive statements by respected scientists purely because of their own irrational fear of one severe tragedy in a communist country and a sensationalized event.
At least they don't advocate government oversight of media to regulate "fairness" as do democrats.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
An authorisation to use force is not a declaration of war. It should have been, but the US Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. They have not been doing their job.
Yeah, you're right, it should have been a declaration of war. Actually, it should have been a simple one too. Hmm, let's see. We've got members of the terrorist group who attacked us on 9/11 running around the region. We've got a guy who lost a war to us a decade prior telling us he doesn't have to abide by our weapons treaties. We think not only that he's starting to rebuild his weapons arsenal but that he's starting to harbor terrorists.
Should have been a no brainer really. And basically it was, nearly ever member voted for the authorization of force. Why not a declaration of war? Frankly I think it's because wishy-washy language has become the norm these days. That's a whole other topic but suffice to say that I think you're splitting hair and that I also think that Congress votes on resolutions with imperfect language so they have a political out in case things go badly. Oh, and guess what? Yeah, that's exactly what they did. Claims like "Well, I didn't really think it was a war resolution" have actually been uttered by Hillary Clinton at campaign stops. I really only have one response to that: Lady, then you're pretty stupid.
I realize that sounds "harsh" in today's modern say a lot of words but really say nothing culture but I'm really beginning to feel like I'm living with 1984's doublespeak lately.
As for ignoring Congress, I was talking about the war; I was talking about how US presidents behave as elected kings or prime ministers, not as the executives of the republic. When running for election they promise all manner of things that aren't in their power; when elected they pursue all manner of initiatives which aren't in their power.
The president's job is to approve, veto & execute the laws, negotiate treaties and a few other items (all neatly listed in the Constitution). It's not to lead the country. The country doesn't need to be led: the people send their representatives; the states send their senators (whoops, not since the asinine Seventeenth Amendment); the people appoint a president to execute the law.
This is a tradition that goes back at least to Jefferson, the first president to take military action without consulting Congress. Search for the Barbary Pirates. It is true that the President was not meant to be a monarch. There's no question about that. However, what you describe as the presidency is not an executive position, but more like a chairman of the board. We're not England. We don't have a prime minister. We have a president.
Do I also need to point out that it's actually in the president's sworn oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Do I further need to point out that while the Constitution goes into quite a bit of detail about Congressional procedure, it's fairly sparse on what the president may or may not do. Compared to Article I, with its laundry list of dos and don'ts for Congress, Article II is surprisingly sparse and only contains must-dos and shall-dos.
That has historically (except by very recent scholars) been interpreted to mean that the President has a huge amount of leeway. But it's worth pointing out that even though history suggests that Bush did have the power to go into Iraq without asking Congress, he did so only after asking and receiving approval from Congress.
I do, however, note that your quip about "it's not to lead the country" is at least founded in some amount of reason. Indeed, the President's job is to preserve, protect, and defend the country. However, in order to accomplish that, the President will find it necessary most of the time to be a leader who is able to convince the electorate and Congress that he needs to do something in order to fulfill his oath. Thus while his job description isn't to be a lea
Only materialistic liberals believe money is the great motivator of society.
Like all those liberal Republicans in Congress who investigated and re-investigated Whitewater with no probable cause?
Too bad all the free money, housing, and education still hasn't righted all the wrongs in the world.
Red herring.
It's unfortunate you began your rebuttal with what is essentially an ad hominem attack.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
You find me the "conservative movement" that holds that view.
Do you also demand evidence that the Pope is Catholic? If you willfully ignore decades of Republican rhetoric, that's your problem, not mine.
I live in one of the most liberal places in the United States. I have neighbors who go on vacations to communes, but still are wild eyes liberals who fervently support the democrat party.
Yeah? Go and ask one of those "wild eyes liberals" how happy they are over the Democratic leadership caving on the Iraq war, NSA wiretapping, "free trade", etc etc. They'd vote Labor or Socialist but we don't have those parties in the U.S. We have the conservative Democrats and the ultra-conservative Republicans.
Three Mile Island was a greatly overblown event
Why don't you ask someone in the nuclear field how "overblown" they think a partial core meltdown happens to be.
Even today, many if not most environmental groups consider the risk of nuclear energy to be far less severe than the immediate effect of burning fossil fuels. Respected scientists have ALWAY held this view.
How many respected scientists blow off nuclear safety.
Your statement only makes sense in support of the conclusion drawn by the book - journalists completely ignored the many positive statements by respected scientists purely because of their own irrational fear of one severe tragedy in a communist country and a sensationalized event.
Must have been a conservative reaction then, like their modern hand-wringing over the terrahrists.
Either you are a Kool-Aid drinker, or you are a troll.
the democrat party
Suck it biznap. Suck it long, suck it hard.
Like all those liberal Republicans in Congress who investigated and re-investigated Whitewater with no probable cause?
I really don't see how that is related. Whitewater was a criminal conspiracy that resulted in many people being convicted. Enforcing the law is the duty of the government.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
In this case, you appealed to a specific characteristic of the folks who wrote The Media Elite, that they were funded by conservative organizations and thus could not be trusted. Guilt by association could have applied as well, if you had made a more direct claim regarding the sources of the writers' funding. Sorry, you fail it.
Do you also demand evidence that the Pope is Catholic? If you willfully ignore decades of Republican rhetoric, that's your problem, not mine.
You are really not very good at making arguments are you?
Yeah? Go and ask one of those "wild eyes liberals" how happy they are over the Democratic leadership caving on the Iraq war, NSA wiretapping, "free trade", etc etc. They'd vote Labor or Socialist but we don't have those parties in the U.S. We have the conservative Democrats and the ultra-conservative Republicans.
Actually, the green party is quite popular amongst said wild eyed liberals.
How many respected scientists blow off nuclear safety.
Oh, sure, that's what were talking about here....
Either you are a Kool-Aid drinker, or you are a troll.
Oh yeah, another slam dunk! Your mastery of rhetoric is inspirational. I tremble with shame.
Suck it biznap. Suck it long, suck it hard.
Drop 'em big stuff.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I really don't see how that is related.
Well, you are pretty stupid.
Whitewater was a criminal conspiracy that resulted in many people being convicted.
Yeah? Why don't you look up the lengths of the prison terms served by Bill and Hillary over it, and then get back to us.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Absolutely none of which applies to saying "their work was exceptionally poor" or pointing out their partisan ties or their their flawed methods.
You are really not very good at making arguments are you?
Nah, you're just not very good at life. If you don't know about the Republican hard-on for deregulation and "small government" there's not much we can do for you.
Oh, sure, that's what were talking about here....
It's what the press was talking about, yes. Your point?