To my mind, of course, Ron.
To my mind, and this is what prompts me to pick my issues, Fox ius an organization that purposefully distorts their information to fit their agenda. I contrast them with many, though not all other news organizations, including many organizations on the Right. I have often mentioned on of my favorites, the extraordinarily well researched right wing English The Economist," but there are others. The more straightforwardly militaristic [i]Jane's would be an example of a narrowly defined but very reliable publication, and there are a number of Military professional journals that do a similarly outstanding job.
They do their jobs by being concerned with the facts, and by building solid cases narrowly built on what the facts mean in pursuit of their points of view. They don't fabricate facts, they use facts to illustrate, which is what careful editing is about. I may not like the conclusions that stories like this come to, and I may have idiological beefs with them, but I don't mind my idiological beefs being challenged. They should be, if my information or my reasoning is wrong. That's how democracies become more solid.
Democracies should turn on facts and discussions of facts. They should even turn on discussions about people's opinions about facts. People's opinions about facts to my mind can sometimes be as important as the facts themselves. When I talk about semantics, it's because semantics is very important to me. Your life experience has centered you, if I understand you correctly — and Lord knows I may not — in Ayn Rand and a lot of her Economic, Philosophic and social thinking. This is a snapshot generalization, and doesn't do justice to a complex guy, but it's the basis of most of what I hear you talk about here, and the rest of what you say isn't as clearly articulated, though it may be just as firmly held. If I'm way off base, please forgive me.
Mine is centered for the most part in something called Constructivism, which is centered in the notion that everybody operates not so much directly on the world, but more on the model that they've built for themselves of the world. Everybody's model makes perfect sense to them because everybody has built their own model. Everybody's model allows them certain advantages and disadvantages over other people.
The model that these right wing journalistic organizations that I mentioned use is very traditional. They want hard data. They want the data confirmed. They have a view of the world. They can't help but see the data in light of that view, but the data is clear and their reasoning is clear as well. If their facts are wrong, you can dialogue about the facts. They are willing to debate opinion, though they are reasonably certain of their opinions, as they should be. They also have clear values that are in the service of their view of history and politics.
Their view of history and politics are, like my own, rooted in democracy. We can talk. They honor the notion of good data and information being important to the democratic process.
Fox News, does not do this. There are other conservative organizations that do, and I have named a few. Fox does not. I have mentioned, in prior postings, examples of where they do not pay attention to the facts and where they distort information.
I am a Liberal Democrat, and am forthright about that. I have also disagreed with my party about some of the things it's done, and I've been equally forthright about that. I try to keep my attention on what I see as accurate information, not on what my party or on what any party says. If you look back over the history of my postings, you can see that I've disagreed with my party and with Democratic Presidents as well a significant amount of the time. I try to keep my loyalties with the information and the facts, as best I see them.
In this case, I see The New York Times and many other Main Stream publications giving a better and more accurate view of the news. They may get the story wrong a significant amount of the time, as in the Iraq situation right after 9/11 and in the says leading up to the Iraq war. But as more and information and more nuanced and accurate information becomes available, they print that as well. It appears their loyalty is toward the information.
The construction that Fox news seems to put on public information seems to be at variance with this construction, and has right along, as I have pointed out fairly frequently.
I would be happy to check into the details of the case further, however. Telling the executives, as Tbear suggested, that the denials that the monsanto executives offered that were, as Tbear suggested, contrary to truth, were not appropriate for broadcast, seems to me to qualify as an example of exactly that sort of thing. You might check my exchange with T-bear above, and his explanation that such comments contrary to truth are in fact pro forma throughout broadcast journalism (imagine my curiosity about that!).
Perhaps you were looking for something even for literal?
Sincerely, Bob Kaven