Search results

Over 30. Wow. Yeah, that's a lot, if you compare it with... 30. However, if you compare it with the number of whites who have appeared on Fox News, then the term 'token' is a generous one. The "many" becomes the equivalent of an eyedropper drop in Lake Erie. Fox News is overwhelmingly white...

Exactly. When I read that statement, my very first thought was, "Kinda playin' fast and loose with the word "many" aren't ya, Mutt?" Even if he'd have just inserted the word "token" between "many" and "blacks" it would have been eminently more forthright and honorable. Not to mention accurate.

The problem is, even as a concept, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I've given several examples of factually accurate statements which remain factually accurate no matter how many other facts are omitted or included. Just like the Sprinter example I used, now you're getting into a "lie by...

There's a great boobies joke in there somewhere. Happy Birthday, Jenny!

It may be obvious to you that the information came from two sources, but it came from four different sources.

That's what is the most hilarious. The harder he tries to refute most of this stuff, the more he just confirms it. And doesn't even realize it. One of my more recent favorites is where he was instantly prepared, much like the very predictable conditioned response of Pavlov's Dog, and then...

Yes I did say that. And I said that because that's what it says at the Fox News website. That's what "according to the Fox News website" means. AND, like I ALSO said, "If you feel these numbers don't accurately reflect what is on Fox News, then you need to take it up with Fox News directly."

You don't even know who it is, but by gum you're gonna take it with a grain of salt. But no, the information did not originate at Media Matters. What part of "according to the Fox News website" are you having the most difficulty with? Perhaps I can help.

No, I didn't say there was one. You did. You didn't mean to say that. It's not the message you wanted to say, but it is, nevertheless, what your sentence said. Let's look at the sentence again, shall we? "Except the picture didn't have one minority in it, which is factually untrue." OK, so...

Holy crap! That's a lot of wreaths.

Anchors need to be white... they just do. That's the "Santa Clause is white... he just is" argument. "Industry standards" versus "industry norms" and/or "accepted / acceptable practices" could be debated. CNN has 36 program hosts, 9 of which are black. That's 25%, compared to Fox's 2%. On...

What is that, like five? Wow. Be that as it may, like I said, these numbers are according to Fox News' website. If you feel these numbers don't accurately reflect what is on Fox News, then you need to take it up with Fox News directly. Retarded or not, it is, nevertheless, true. There are people...

If you're gonna do this, you really need to learn how to say what you mean. What that sentence says is, it's factually untrue that the picture doesn't have one minority in it, because the picture does, in fact, have one minority in it. It's bad enough to not understand what you read, but you...

I'm not saying anything, I'm just regurgitating some selected, factually accurate, un-omitted facts. :D

No you won't. You'll divert it to something else. Or, you'll assert that a wide aerial shot of the Ferguson protests show thousands of black Fox News contributors. On the Fox News website, they feature photos of their 42 program hosts. How many of them are black? One. That's 2%, just like...

Believe everything you are told by other drivers. They will not lie to you. They will not embellish. They will not exaggerate.

Stop it. Just stop. You don't know what you're doing. That some fact or facts are omitted from anything isn't the litmus test for being a lie by omission. I realize you think "meaningless minutiae" means "really big and important," but it doesn't. The black reporters / contributors on Fox...

It would apply to foreign policy the same way it applies to everything else. It's not a thing. If a statement is made that is factually accurate, the absence of additional facts doesn't somehow alter the factual accuracy of the original statement. A lie of omission is a method of deception and...

Yes, you most definitely have listed some of the omitted facts that are without a doubt critical to the Ferguson case. The problem is, the article isn't about the Ferguson case. Nor do the omitted facts somehow make the stated facts somehow, magically, inaccurate. The misrepresentations and...

The facts you assert are missing aren't in the least little bit critical to the article. You simply want a different story told. Like I said, re-read the article while completely skipping the second paragraph and any references to it, and the subject issues of the article doesn't change. At all...