I don't Shakespeare bait you. I wish you'd shut up about him. There's no need to "Shakespeare bait" you when you bring him up every four seconds. I made one, possibly two posts in half a year about his politics in Richard III and the Tudor court and you make it seem like I say it every other post, like you do re: Stalin.

I do enjoy how you scrupulously ignored everything else I said. Because you can't resist the urge to Stalin bait.

And *yawn* at the false equivalence crap that people bring up about MSNBC. MSNBC opinion pundits are clearly opinion pundits, their news people still try to be objective, news people. Fox News news people are clearly Republican propagandists, with the exception of Shepherd Smith. Anybody who has watched 'Fox & Friends', which is supposedly a news program, understands this.

@obi - Only in your mind does militant have a different connotation. Combatant has the connotation of guns and bombs, but militant has now and always has had a connotation that matches the denotation - that is one ready to argue their point without notice and willing to stuff it down another's throat. Militant muslims, militant skinheads, militant atheists, militant "Christians". I'm sorry, but the connotation hasn't changed and is the same as the denotation in this case.

""atheists is at the very least a shared view that a deity or deities are unproven, unlikely, do not exist, should not exist for moral reasons, or some combination of those..."

No, atheism is a belief that no higher power exists, period. You mix agnosticism with atheism. There is no "should not" or "unlikely" in atheism,"

^Well, I was trying to be broad and non-divisive with my example, so "unlikely" I would agree is probably more befitting agnosticism rather than atheism, though I would contend that such an agnostic who views a deity as being not "unknowable" but rather outright states one is "unlikely" to exist would be close enough to that imaginary line between agnosticism and atheism to practically be straddling it.

As for "should not exist," again, trying to be inclusive rather than exclusive with my definition...

I'm taking the "should not exist" (or, rather, perhaps it would be better stated "would be better if one/because one did/does not exist,") as a very-abbreviated form of what Hitchens termed an "Anti-Theist" stance, one he shares (albeit from different argumentative angles) with Nietzsche, and one I myself share (as will likely be evidence by The Great Debate when that comes out.)



So, I agree, a couple of iffy ones there in terms of terminology, I just didn't want to tread on anyone's toes or personal take as to what they feel is or is not part of their own view of atheism...

Again, aside from that one rather obvious stance you have to take, I think it's rather open, and many of its authors and texts are very much take-it-or-leave-it in kind.

Oh, and Obi - The term militant atheism predates 9/11. So live with it. People don't change terms in a decade or so just because *you* have a different view in your mind as a result of something that happened when you were what, nine? Militant atheism and militant feminism. Two terms that have been around since the 60s, obitard.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/10/13/foxs-news-programs-echo-its-opinion-shows-smear/155660

Yes, Putin, most everyone on this thread from both sides of the Aisle admitted that Fox News is niether fair nor balanced, but is actually a Right Wing mouthpiece just as MSNBC is a Left Wing mouthpiece.

"Opinion as fact" was kind of strong with MSNBC, so let me revise. I don't think it's false equivalence to say that MSNBC is the left-FOX in terms of their function - news and opinion marketed to the left, as opposed to FOX being to the right.

The difference lies in the fact that some of MSNBC's pundits actually have journalistic standards. Rachel Maddow is pretty incredible and unmatched by any FOX pundit, definitely the best example. I wouldn't call her work opinion-as-fact. Chris Matthews, on the other hand, I still maintain is the left's Bill O'Reilly. There's significant variation within MSNBC, where FOX is pretty much completely partisan opinion-as-fact, with the exception of Shepard Smith and perhaps Chris Wallace.

So what your saying is one example from MSNBC redeems them but one or even two examples you provide from Fox does not? Double standard there, President Eden? Or maybe I should call you Comrade Janus..

@Eden:

"Obi do you even watch MSNBC? Chris Matthews is as bad as Bill O'Reilly."

Yes, I flip between MSNBC/FOX/CNN for most major news events, including this last RNC.

And I'd...mostly agree, I'd place Matthews slightly over O'Reilly (if only on his previous reputation) but I'd agree, he was nearly or just as bad as O'Reilly this past convention week.

"MSNBC and FOX are opinion-as-fact,"

Agree...

"CNN is a laughably bad attempt to court a middle ground while using the FOX/MSNBC model that ends up being superficial bogus because, in trying to run opinion-as-fact while also trying not to step on anyone's toes, they end up saying absolutely nothing."

CNN is my "go-to" out of the three...in the same sense I suppose a quick and painless death would be preferable to slowly being eaten alive or being tortured for eternity in Hellfire.

Not great, and I agree, it really does often negate itself and come to nothing, but at least it doesn't make me want to toss the remote through the TV the way FOX does or make me feel sick and ashamed to even be Left-of-Center the way MSNBC does sometimes with its own stable of talking head pricks.

ABC...never watch. Three poor networks are too much, 4 just just too much channel flipping for too little payoff.

I'm up at all hours, so I catch BBC World News as it comes on at 2am each morning...

An hour less for sleep, but at least between its substance and CNN's...at least not generally angering me (no matter how ineffectual it is) I get by with that and, of course, this nifty invention called the Interweb and these old-fashioned things called newspapers...though I hear the LA and NY Times are Liberal Media too (though there...yeah, I can't really argue there.) :)

"Like... I'm not even sure what your point is. That there's obvious biases in the media? Stunning."

I agree, as you seem to, there's no such thing as a monolithic "The Media."

But some on here do (I'm thinking of at least one or two in particular) and so I thought I'd package this with the "fundamentalist atheist" bit as a two-fer, as both have been on my mind and sort of both fall under the "double standard" umbrella.

I think you may have misread "best example" as "only example."

OK, I agree, Eden. But you still go on to provide two examples on Fox and then write them off as outliers. Most of the examples on MSNBC are just as opinion as fact as Fox. I've watched both and hate both.

For TV, BBC World is probably the most factual and least opinionated, especially on US issues.

Do you bother reading anymore Draugnar? The difference is the *news* programming on Fox is also Republican hackery while the *news* programming on MSNBC is still news programming. Way Too Early? News show. Daily Rundown? News show. News Nation? News show. Andrea Mitchell? News show. Not partisan hackery.

"I don't Shakespeare bait you."

I'm pretty sure you have...?

"I do enjoy how you scrupulously ignored everything else I said. Because you can't resist the urge to Stalin bait."

Didn't ignore it, but then, as you're not "There is ONE Media" and you're an atheist as well...

We're in agreement there, it seems, so what should I respond to there, if we both agree (mostly) on those two counts as presented already?

Thus I dig at the remaining bit--Stalin--as, well...it's STALIN.

That's sort of a major bulls-eye, Putin, and you can view him however you want--

As I view him as a tyrant and responsible for millions of deaths and was NOT a friend to the Jews, despite your claims (you never answered the Doctor's Plot point raised last time, and as several Jewish societies attest to its validity, and the documents exist proving it, I'm inclined to take their word over yours) your claiming Stalin was one of the greatest leaders of all-time...

That doesn't quite dissipate with me, I'm afraid.

"BBC World is probably the most factual and least opinionated, especially on US issues."

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/tom-mills/under-shadow-of-power-short-history-of-bbc-war-reporting-and-its-failings

If you don't think ending the Holocaust was a good thing, that's your deal. And you ignored my posts about Atheism+, because evidently opposing rape threats is "mission drift".

America's News HQ? News show. America's Newsroom? News show. Fox News Sunday? News show. Fox News Watch? News show. Happening Now? News show.

All on Fox, Putty.

But now I feel like I am defending them when my point was both are utterly disgusting mouthpieces for the Left and Right.

@Obi - Do you know what dissipate means? I somehow doubt you do.

"America's News HQ? News show. America's Newsroom? News show. Fox News Sunday? News show. Fox News Watch? News show. Happening Now? News show."

I just gave you countless documented cases in which these shows repeat Republican talking points. Try reading for once.

When I can actually not draw blanks on examples I'll get back to you on that (and I do see your point that it's not really a strong assertion to say MSNBC > FOX on punditry and then name more good pundits for FOX than MSNBC). The other thing is that I haven't watched the MSM at all for the past couple of years, so I could also be going on dated information.

Putin hit another important point though, the news programming on FOX is of notably lower journalistic quality. Sit down for an hour of FOX programming and see how many times you hear unattributed people "saying" or "claiming" whatever so happens to be the talking points line of the day. Stuff like "Some might say" or "Others would claim," etc. Maybe I just have not caught the bad MSNBC programming but I don't ever recall seeing such vague 'attributions' abused to the extent FOX seems to abuse them on a daily basis.

@Putin - I'm talking about what I watch today. Not exactly a lot of Iraq War news anymore, now is there...

@Draug:

To go your dictionary definition route:

"is·si·pate/ˈdisəˌpāt/
Verb:
Disperse or scatter.
(of a feeling or other intangible thing) Disappear or be dispelled"

A bit awkward, maybe, but the feeling of disgust at Putin's idolizing Stalin/ the knowledge he's a fan of one of the worst tyrants in all of human history and a man who would rival Hitler himself for the Crown Prince of Modern Evil not disappearing or being dispelled fits, albeit a bit figuratively, yes?

*dis·si·pate/ˈdisəˌpāt/

there is no real left winged equivalent of fox, many of the things labelled 'socialist' by americans especially but people in general are not socialist at all/right winged socialism. fox is pure right winged (nonsense obviously), whereas the most left you get in america/uk is centerleft. most of the media, including bbc, are not really objective and report in ways that favour the general views of the country - the general western views we have here - e.g. anti russia, anti gadhaffi, pro rebels against govts we dislike etc, just sayin'

@obi - The definition is correct but the statement "That doesn't quite dissipate with me, I'm afraid." is confusing as fuck. It doesn't dissapear or isn't dispersed or isn't dispelled or doesn't scatter for you? What the fuck? Are you trying to say that Stalin's other actions don't negate his anti-semitic actions to the point of their elimination from the record in your mind?

The real media bias in American journalism isn't left or right; it's pro-establishment. The news is biased toward those with power and influence. Sure, there's lots of in-fighting within this establishment, given that the various factions of the big government/big business ruling class wants to gain power at the expense of its rivals, but ranks close if there's any meaningful challenge to the status quo. The result is that the acceptable range for "serious" dialogue is tiny. Paul Ryan is the supposed radical government cutter in this race, and he voted for the Bush expansions and wars, TARP, auto bailouts, the Patriot Act, and I'm sure a lot more; Obama is the alleged socialist for his pro-business, pro-corporation healthcare law.

American media isn't a tool of the powerful, or a threat to the elite -- it's a parasite, or maybe a symbiote. I don't want to say that there aren't differences in the quality or outlook of the different news sources, but most of the meaningful ideological differences are cultural issues (ideally those in which no big changes will happen in the foreseeable future, like abortion or gun control).

The American media writ large, insofar as it has any common ground to stand on, is a slavish desire to follow the money. In this case, following the money means appealing to petty sensationalism that does it's best to avoid offending the sensibilities of corporate or government power. For evidence of this claim, please look at what laughably passed for reporting during the lead-up to the Iraq war.

MSNBC has managed to thus far avoid both the worst instances of Fox demagoguery as well as remain less ignored than CNN, but I acknowledge the plethora of useless talking heads that get more and more relative airtime.

It's unfortunate but predictable. A large amount of the reason for this isn't just a desire to examine things from an establishment perspective; its the undiscriminating consumer, a problem heightened by the exodus of young people from the television-watching market.

As a result, I'm not too pessimistic. For instance, despite the best efforts of many a media personality, I do not think the public has been sold on the insane notion of an Iran war, and with the migration to alternative news dissemination the most vile of air-time programming becomes less and less relevant. Yay!

In other news, I'm gratified that Putin linked to atheist+, something we happen to agree on. I like the movement, I like the attention being paid to the reams of discrimination within the community. Regrettably my dislike of Richard Carrier's need to craft every single minor issue into a litmus test for good or evil (hint: any disagreement with Carrier is evil and warrants absolute exclusion) apparently disqualifies me from being on the right side of the conflict, but I'm content to be a privilege-undermining partisan behind enemy lines if that degree of exclusiveness is truly deemed to be necessary.

By what standard is NPR "liberal?"