Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Is Fox News right wing?
zander83 Posted: Thu Oct 30 00:17:43 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  NEW YORK (AFP) - Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel threatened to sue the makers of "The Simpsons" over a parody of the channel's right-wing political stance, the creator of the hit US television show has claimed.



In an interview this week with National Public Radio, Matt Groening recalled how the news channel had considered legal action, despite the fact that "The Simpsons" is broadcast on sister network, Fox Entertainment.


According to Groening, Fox took exception took a Simpsons' version of the Fox News rolling news ticker which parodied the channel's anti-Democrat stance, with headlines like "Do Democrats Cause Cancer?"


"Fox fought against it and said they would sue the show," Groening said.


"We called their bluff because we didn't think Rupert Murdoch would pay for Fox to sue itself. So, we got away with it."


Other satirical Fox news bulletins featured in the show included: "Study: 92 per cent of Democrats are gay... JFK posthumously joins Republican Party... Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple..."


While the lawsuit never materialized, Groening said some action was taken.


"Now Fox has a new rule that we can't do those little fake news crawls on the bottom of the screen in a cartoon because it might confuse the viewers into thinking it's real news," he said.


"The Simpsons," featuring the dysfunctional family of patriarch Homer Simpson and his rowdy brood, is now in its 14th year and is expected to become the longest-running situation comedy in US history in 2005.



 
dan632 Posted: Thu Oct 30 05:57:27 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yeah i heard about this on JJJ this morning, i laughed quite hard


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Oct 30 13:04:07 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah sure, fox news, the home of alan colmes (author of clinton, our greatest president) and geraldo rivera, now there's a couple of right wingers for ya !

as long as the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal, any network that gives service to both sides of the story will be considered the enemy.
if you want liberal spin, then watch dan rather, peter jennings, or tom brokaw, or katie couric or any of those other lame-ass talking heads. if you want to see the world as it really is, then watch fox news.
the real barometer for this is the fact that bill oreilly is reviled by as many republicans as democrats.


 
zander83 Posted: Thu Oct 30 13:24:33 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Bush using only partial truth... impossible

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly payroll and unemployment numbers have become the hottest economic data in the presidential campaign. Republicans cite any uptick as a sign of the incipient Bush boom, fueled by the brilliantly calibrated tax cuts, and Democrats tout any payroll decline as further evidence of miserable failure. (In September, for the first time since January, the economy added payroll jobs—some 57,000. Temporary jobs, a potential harbinger of growth increased by more than 30,000.)

But in recent weeks, there's been an emerging campaign, mostly by Bush partisans, to discredit the BLS payroll numbers. It is both a serious economic inquiry and a political effort to distract attention from the ugly job figures.

Last Friday, on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Allan Meltzer, an economist at Carnegie Mellon and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute pleaded: "Don't believe the widely reported loss of millions of manufacturing jobs since the Bush administration took office." Why? "All these alleged facts are either wrong or greatly exaggerated, based on the same faulty source."

That "faulty source" is the BLS Establishment Survey, which provides the payroll jobs number. Instead of relying on the Establishment Survey, Meltzer says, we should pay attention to the BLS Household Survey, on which the unemployment rate is based. "For the year ending in August, the Establishment Survey shows a loss of 463,000 jobs. The Household Survey shows that the economy added 313,000 new jobs in the same period."


Writing on the same page earlier in September, Brian Wesbury, chief economist at Griffin, Kubik, Stephens & Thompson, noted that "the Household Survey shows that 1.186 million new jobs have been created this year," while the payroll data find that several hundred thousand jobs have been lost. The difference, Wesbury says, "can be explained by the fact that sole proprietorships and other small companies are starting up at a faster rate today than they did even in the go-go '90s. They don't show up on the Establishment Survey's radar because they're too small and too new."

And a non-polemical paper issued in July by John Kitchen, an economist with the House Budget Committee, found that, historically speaking, when the economy is coming out of a down cycle, new jobs generally appear first in the Household Survey and only later in the payroll data. In the past, the government has been forced to revise its payroll numbers sharply upward. "The analysis in this paper suggests that nonfarm payroll estimates could be revised up by roughly 500,000 to 700,000," Kitchen concluded.

What gives? It turns out the Bureau of Labor Statistics each month takes snapshots of the labor market using two different cameras. Each ends up photographing slightly different phenomena, and each has its own flaws and quirks.

To compile the Establishment Survey, BLS gathers data from some 400,000 businesses around the country and then estimates the total number of jobs. This survey explicitly does not include people who work in agriculture. The payroll data don't capture the self-employed, newly formed businesses, or domestic employees. For that reason, the survey might be expected routinely to undercount the number of adults who are actually working. In September, it found that there were 129.9 million Americans with "jobs."

By contrast, the Household Survey is based on surveys of individuals in 60,000 households. It includes farm workers, the self-employed, and people who may work off the books, such as nannies. And it has a rather liberal interpretation of what constitutes a job. "If you did any work for pay or profit in their own business, even as much as one hour of work during the survey reference," that counts as a job, says BLS economist Karen Kosanovich. (For a full explanation of how the government calculates unemployment, see here.) In September, the Household Survey found there were 137.6 million Americans with jobs.

That's a big difference—nearly 8 million—especially at a time when the numbers have such large political consequence. So, you can see why Bush partisans might want to boost the Household Survey.

By relying on existing businesses, the Establishment Survey may miss potential growth, especially when a recovery is underway. But it doesn't only underestimate. There are ways in which the Establishment Survey can overcount. Say you work 20 hours at Starbucks and 30 hours at Wal-Mart in a week, you'll be counted as two payroll jobs when you're really only one employed person. There are about 7 million such multiple job holders in the United States. Plus, while it's slow to count new companies, the Establishment is also slow to register dying companies. "The payroll survey probably overstates the weakness in the job market. I just don't think it overstates it by any significant amount," says Mark Zandi, the straight-shooting chief economist of Economy.com.

And even with its flaws, the Establishment Survey is "measurably more accurate than the Household Survey," says Zandi. It's bigger and more comprehensive. BLS says it has become more adept at latching onto new companies, by, for example, checking state records more frequently.

The Household Survey has its share of fuzzy math, too. BLS economists make calculations based on sampling and the census' estimate of population, which is a constantly moving target. One of the reasons the household figures look so good is that a census revision caused it to add more than 500,000 working Americans in January.

It's important to remember that the monthly numbers BLS reports are preliminary and the bureau often revises the monthly data it has already reported. In his paper, John Kitchen suggested that in a period when the Household Survey is rising, we should expect the payroll surveys to be revised sharply upward—in other words, BLS should provide ex post facto acknowledgement that it misread the true health of the job market. But so far in this cycle, that has yet to happen—in fact, BLS is actually revising recent figures slightly downward—suggesting that the Household Survey increases aren't yet as significant as its advocates hope.

The Establishment Survey may not be the best means for predicting job growth in the future. But the Household Survey, it turns out, isn't necessarily a better means for predicting job growth in the past.




 
zander83 Posted: Thu Oct 30 13:25:37 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Lets all grow out of deficits... with tax cuts yay

When he announced the record $455 billion federal deficit last week, Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten reassured Americans that the red ink will evaporate as soon as the economy perks up. In the long term, Bolten insisted, rapid economic growth will generate the federal revenues needed to close the gap.

Bolten's faith in history is charming, but worrisome. His implication is that just as the '90s boom erased the deficit President Clinton inherited, so economic growth will eventually wipe out the deficit President Bush created.


But Bush's own policies make that very unlikely. Even if the economy rebounds, the tax revenue the federal government needs to balance the budget won't return.

Set back the clock to 1993. Marginal income tax rates topped out at 39.6 percent—a result of tax increases by Presidents Bush I and Clinton. Corporate dividends—mostly received by those in the upper income brackets—were taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Ditto for income created by exercising options. Capital gains were taxed at a 28 percent rate.

Plainly, these taxes didn't inhibit hard work, investment, or capital formation since the '90s brought an orgy of wealth creation. People made millions in options income, capital gains, Wall Street bonuses, corporate profit-sharing, and the like. Because the rewards went disproportionately to those in the higher income—and hence higher tax—brackets, government revenues grew at a rate far faster than overall economic growth. (For data on tax revenue growth in the 1990s, click here.)

Total government receipts nearly doubled from $1.154 trillion in 1993 to $2.025 trillion in 2000. President Clinton's strategy of raising taxes on higher earners and (largely) holding the line on capital gains taxes worked. It boosted revenues without stifling economic growth and turned huge deficits into huge surpluses.

But President Bush has redesigned the tax code in the past few years. And the changes, by design, will make it much harder for the government to grow out of the deficit. In 2001 and 2002, marginal tax rates were lowered. They were lowered again this year, dropping the top marginal rate to 35 percent. Long-term capital gains are now taxed at 15 percent, down from 20 percent before. And now dividend income will be taxed at 15 percent—regardless of your marginal income tax rate.

As they did in the '90s, the wealthy will receive a disproportionate share of the reward when the economy and the markets pick up again. But because of these tweaks to the tax code, the government will harvest much less of the windfall than it did during the Clinton years.

For example, instead of taking compensation in salary, those who can will choose to take income in dividends. (By increasing Citigroup's dividend, as he did last week, outgoing CEO Sandy Weill just granted himself an annual stream of income of $32 million that will be taxed at 15 percent. Under the old regime, had he chosen to take that sum via options or a bonus, he would have paid more than twice as much in taxes.)

We've already seen how the tax cuts are damaging federal revenues. Historically, when the economy grows—even anemically, as it has been—so do government revenues. But federal revenues fell 1.7 percent in 2001 and 7 percent in 2002. So far this year, they're down another 3.5 percent. Federal receipts haven't fallen for three straight years since the early 1920s. (The administration claims that the tax cuts are only responsible for about 23 percent of the fiscal deterioration thus far.)

The current budget predicts massive gains in federal revenues down the road—just as the administration's previous two budgets did. The 2004 budget expects (hopes?) that revenues will grow by about 5 percent in 2004, by an impressive 11 percent in 2005 and then by between 5 percent and 6 percent in each of the three years thereafter.

Don't believe it. The Bush administration has been woefully off-base when it comes to projecting federal revenues and expenditures. Even if economic growth meets its expectations, the recovery in federal revenues won't. They have changed the rules too much.




 
zander83 Posted: Thu Oct 30 13:26:46 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Its okay... I'm probably un-american so this isn't true

The Bush administration is finally facing tough questions about its selective use of intelligence in selling war with Iraq. But Americans shouldn't just be skeptical of what the president says about WMD. They should be skeptical of what he says about GDP. In economic policy even more than in war policy, the Bushies have successfully suppressed, manipulated, and withheld evidence to serve their policy purposes.

Of course every administration likes to trumpet its good news and hide its bad, but what's remarkable about the Bush team is its willingness to stifle data that had been widely released and to politicize data that used to be nonpartisan.


The administration muzzles routine economic information that's unfavorable. Last year, for example, the administration stopped issuing a monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report, known as the Mass Layoff Statistics program, that tracked factory closings throughout the country. The cancellation was made known on Christmas Eve in a footnote to the department's final report—a document that revealed 2,150 mass layoffs in November, cashiering nearly a quarter-million workers. The administration claimed the report was a victim of budget cuts. After the Washington Post happened to catch this bit of data suppression, the BLS report was reinstated. (Interestingly, President George H.W. Bush buried these same statistics in '92, also during a period of job losses. They were revived by President Clinton.)

The Bush economic team has snuffed its own reports when they reach conclusions that don't match the administration's rosy scenarios. The administration deep-sixed a study commissioned by then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that predicts huge budget deficits well into the future. As noted by the Financial Times in late May, this survey, which asserted that the baby-boom generation's future health care and retirement costs would swamp U.S. coffers, was dropped from a 2004 budget summary published in February 2003—at the same time the White House was campaigning for a tax-cut package that critics warned would greatly expand future deficits. "The study's [analysis of future deficits] dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington," wrote the FT. According to the FT, a Bush official said the study was merely a thought exercise.

The administration also muffled a customary report whose findings would have forced key corporate supporters to pay more to their employees. The annual Adverse Effect Wage Rate establishes the minimum wage that can be paid each year to about 50,000 agricultural "guest workers" in the H2A Program. From AEWR's 1987 inception until 2000, the Department of Labor released the report in February. But in 2001, DOL withheld the wage figure until August, and only published it after the Farmworker Justice Fund threatened a lawsuit. In 2002, the DOL held up the report until May, again releasing it only after the prospect of legal action. The delays helped big agricultural firms, largely in the tobacco states and the South, by allowing them to pay their field workers last year's lower wages, saving the employers millions of dollars. Among those benefiting politically were Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, whose state relies on several thousand guest workers in its tobacco fields and who receives large contributions from agricultural interests.

Another administration trick is playing with the length of its economic forecast periods, which puts the best possible face on bad news while exaggerating the projected benefits of its own initiatives. For example, to heighten the impression that Social Security is running out of money (thereby strengthening the case for allowing workers to divert money from the system into private retirement accounts), the administration has predicted shortfalls far in the future by relying on preposterously long forecast periods. In a superb analysis of the budget in the June Harper's, Thomas Frank noted that in 2002 the administration declared an $18 trillion shortfall in Social Security and Medicare—about five times the current national debt. Frank notes that in order to arrive at the $18 trillion figure—since Social Security is currently in surplus—the administration used a "cumulative seventy-five-year estimate [Frank's itals] based on extreme long-term projections ... ." Meanwhile, even as it relies on 75-year projections for Social Security, the same document replaces traditional 10-year budget projections with five-year ones, claiming the longer-term numbers were unreliable.

President Bush also politicized the Council of Economic Advisers, which is supposed to produce straight analysis, not administration spin. CEA staffers complained that top Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey, not even a member of the council, encouraged them to produce data supporting the president's controversial tax cut initiatives. CEA chairman Glen Hubbard also pushed staffers to find literature supporting the questionable argument that tax cuts created job growth.

On other occasions, the administration has punished economic officials who didn't follow the company line. Treasury Secretary O'Neill left the administration after, among other fits of candor, he expressed skepticism about economic figures the White House had released and suggested that the tax cut could be better used to buttress Social Security. And before Lindsey was made to take a dive, he predicted that the war in Iraq could cost upwards of $200 billion, a figure that infuriated the White House, which was selling the anti-Saddam campaign as a comparatively cheap victory.

Important economic data that casts a bad light on administration policies has been expunged from government Web sites. The Department of Labor removed a report showing the real value of the minimum wage over time, claiming it was "outdated." With no minimum wage hike since 1997, the Web site would have shown minimum-wage workers faring increasingly poorly under the Bush administration, while their real income went up under Clinton. (Some subheadings from the report: "Real Value of the Minimum Wage Continues Decline"; "Minimum Wage Falls Relative to Average Hourly Earnings"; "Minimum Wage Falls Below 2-Person Family Poverty Threshold.")

Earlier this year, a study predicting mediocre job growth from Bush's proposed $674 billion economic stimulus plan disappeared from the Council of Economic Advisers' Web site. The study forecast an average increase of only 170,000 jobs—0.1 percent of the workforce—every year through 2007. The study was pulled just after a major Jan. 7 Bush budget speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. "In the out years, by their own estimate, their plan is a job and growth killer," says Jared Bernstein, economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "Instead of doing what serious analysts would do and going to the drawing board to re-evaluate, they just took the offending document off the Web site."

Certainly, each one of these Bush team moves can be explained: administrative concerns, government paperwork reduction, outdated material, etc. Cumulatively, however, they certainly look suspect. We've seen the future, and it's been deleted.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Oct 30 14:53:18 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  zander83 said:
>Its okay... I'm probably un-american so this isn't true
>
>The Bush administration is finally facing tough questions about its selective use of intelligence in selling war with Iraq. But Americans shouldn't just be skeptical of what the president says about WMD. They should be skeptical of what he says about GDP. In economic policy even more than in war policy, the Bushies have successfully suppressed, manipulated, and withheld evidence to serve their policy purposes.
>
>Of course every administration likes to trumpet its good news and hide its bad, but what's remarkable about the Bush team is its willingness to stifle data that had been widely released and to politicize data that used to be nonpartisan.
>
>
>The administration muzzles routine economic information that's unfavorable. Last year, for example, the administration stopped issuing a monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report, known as the Mass Layoff Statistics program, that tracked factory closings throughout the country. The cancellation was made known on Christmas Eve in a footnote to the department's final report—a document that revealed 2,150 mass layoffs in November, cashiering nearly a quarter-million workers. The administration claimed the report was a victim of budget cuts. After the Washington Post happened to catch this bit of data suppression, the BLS report was reinstated. (Interestingly, President George H.W. Bush buried these same statistics in '92, also during a period of job losses. They were revived by President Clinton.)
>
>The Bush economic team has snuffed its own reports when they reach conclusions that don't match the administration's rosy scenarios. The administration deep-sixed a study commissioned by then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that predicts huge budget deficits well into the future. As noted by the Financial Times in late May, this survey, which asserted that the baby-boom generation's future health care and retirement costs would swamp U.S. coffers, was dropped from a 2004 budget summary published in February 2003—at the same time the White House was campaigning for a tax-cut package that critics warned would greatly expand future deficits. "The study's [analysis of future deficits] dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington," wrote the FT. According to the FT, a Bush official said the study was merely a thought exercise.
>
>The administration also muffled a customary report whose findings would have forced key corporate supporters to pay more to their employees. The annual Adverse Effect Wage Rate establishes the minimum wage that can be paid each year to about 50,000 agricultural "guest workers" in the H2A Program. From AEWR's 1987 inception until 2000, the Department of Labor released the report in February. But in 2001, DOL withheld the wage figure until August, and only published it after the Farmworker Justice Fund threatened a lawsuit. In 2002, the DOL held up the report until May, again releasing it only after the prospect of legal action. The delays helped big agricultural firms, largely in the tobacco states and the South, by allowing them to pay their field workers last year's lower wages, saving the employers millions of dollars. Among those benefiting politically were Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, whose state relies on several thousand guest workers in its tobacco fields and who receives large contributions from agricultural interests.
>
>Another administration trick is playing with the length of its economic forecast periods, which puts the best possible face on bad news while exaggerating the projected benefits of its own initiatives. For example, to heighten the impression that Social Security is running out of money (thereby strengthening the case for allowing workers to divert money from the system into private retirement accounts), the administration has predicted shortfalls far in the future by relying on preposterously long forecast periods. In a superb analysis of the budget in the June Harper's, Thomas Frank noted that in 2002 the administration declared an $18 trillion shortfall in Social Security and Medicare—about five times the current national debt. Frank notes that in order to arrive at the $18 trillion figure—since Social Security is currently in surplus—the administration used a "cumulative seventy-five-year estimate [Frank's itals] based on extreme long-term projections ... ." Meanwhile, even as it relies on 75-year projections for Social Security, the same document replaces traditional 10-year budget projections with five-year ones, claiming the longer-term numbers were unreliable.
>
>President Bush also politicized the Council of Economic Advisers, which is supposed to produce straight analysis, not administration spin. CEA staffers complained that top Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey, not even a member of the council, encouraged them to produce data supporting the president's controversial tax cut initiatives. CEA chairman Glen Hubbard also pushed staffers to find literature supporting the questionable argument that tax cuts created job growth.
>
>On other occasions, the administration has punished economic officials who didn't follow the company line. Treasury Secretary O'Neill left the administration after, among other fits of candor, he expressed skepticism about economic figures the White House had released and suggested that the tax cut could be better used to buttress Social Security. And before Lindsey was made to take a dive, he predicted that the war in Iraq could cost upwards of $200 billion, a figure that infuriated the White House, which was selling the anti-Saddam campaign as a comparatively cheap victory.
>
>Important economic data that casts a bad light on administration policies has been expunged from government Web sites. The Department of Labor removed a report showing the real value of the minimum wage over time, claiming it was "outdated." With no minimum wage hike since 1997, the Web site would have shown minimum-wage workers faring increasingly poorly under the Bush administration, while their real income went up under Clinton. (Some subheadings from the report: "Real Value of the Minimum Wage Continues Decline"; "Minimum Wage Falls Relative to Average Hourly Earnings"; "Minimum Wage Falls Below 2-Person Family Poverty Threshold.")
>
>Earlier this year, a study predicting mediocre job growth from Bush's proposed $674 billion economic stimulus plan disappeared from the Council of Economic Advisers' Web site. The study forecast an average increase of only 170,000 jobs—0.1 percent of the workforce—every year through 2007. The study was pulled just after a major Jan. 7 Bush budget speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. "In the out years, by their own estimate, their plan is a job and growth killer," says Jared Bernstein, economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "Instead of doing what serious analysts would do and going to the drawing board to re-evaluate, they just took the offending document off the Web site."
>
>Certainly, each one of these Bush team moves can be explained: administrative concerns, government paperwork reduction, outdated material, etc. Cumulatively, however, they certainly look suspect. We've seen the future, and it's been deleted.

and what does any of this drivel have to do with fox news ?
>
>


 
zander83 Posted: Thu Oct 30 15:28:54 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh im on a new subject...


thanks for the compliment and all


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Oct 31 06:47:31 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  In the UK Fox is one of our satellite (sp?) news channels and just about everyone treats it as a bit of a sad joke or calls it the propaganda channel. What is it with you guys and the sudden chicken licken style panics on your news shows? It's amazing to see some of the headlines and poltical stories on the show, and sometimes you can't help but think, are the Yanks having a joke at our expense or is this serious news??


 
keats Posted: Sat Nov 1 15:16:16 2003 Post | Quote in Reply  
  is the pope catholic??


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]