Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 A sometimes stand in for the usual female Anchor for Fox and Friends, made a statement that one could almost miss.When will such bigotry end? Fox News Anchor says Romney is not a ChristianThis is not about Romney or politics, it is about us; so no politics please.
fatherofone Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 A sometimes stand in for the usual female Anchor for Fox and Friends, made a statement that one could almost miss.When will such bigotry end? Fox News Anchor says Romney is not a ChristianThis is not about Romney or politics, it is about us; so no politics please.thats funny, that anchor needs to do her homework, romney belongs to "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintsJesus Christ=Christian....
phaedrus ut Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 Whether or not someone is a Christian is a subjective definition in the opinion of the individual. I've seen the church and it's members object when Fundamentalist LDS groups refer to themselves as Mormons. Whether or not someone is deserving of a particular title is ultimately subjective. I used to find statements like this offensive and would argue with Christians whether or not LDS church members were Christian. Now that I understand it more it's a non issue for me. Phaedrus
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 Whether or not someone is a Christian is a subjective definition in the opinion of the individual. A news anchor (if indeed that's what she was) has a professional obligation to appear objective and refrain from such unattributed and inflammatory assertion.If she was a commentator expressing an editorial opinion, that's another matter, though such an assertion would certainly be debatable.
Jeff K. Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 Considering how many other newscasters lambast the church with all kinds of inaccuracies, I think this one, regarding what might have been a personal slip of the tongue is more of a tempest in a teapot. While it doesn't make me happy, it seems significantly than some of the other things I have heard.
phaedrus ut Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 A news anchor (if indeed that's what she was) has a professional obligation to appear objective and refrain from such unattributed and inflammatory assertion.If she was a commentator expressing an editorial opinion, that's another matter, though such an assertion would certainly be debatable.This is Fox and Friends which is basically like Regis and Kelly. But I've seen some in the news playing fast and loose with facts when it seems to make for good TV. In fact a Fox News anchor was fired when she refused to broadcast news that was knowingly false and she sued Fox. Fox News actually went to court and argued that "under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves". The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fox News. Phaedrus 1
fatherofone Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 This is Fox and Friends which is basically like Regis and Kelly. But I've seen some in the news playing fast and loose with facts when it seems to make for good TV. In fact a Fox News anchor was fired when she refused to broadcast news that was knowingly false and she sued Fox. Fox News actually went to court and argued that "under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves". The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fox News. Phaedrusthat is sad....guess you never know what news is actually news then
Jeff K. Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) This is Fox and Friends which is basically like Regis and Kelly. But I've seen some in the news playing fast and loose with facts when it seems to make for good TV. In fact a Fox News anchor was fired when she refused to broadcast news that was knowingly false and she sued Fox. Fox News actually went to court and argued that "under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves". The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fox News. PhaedrusYou cavalierly toss out fact not in evidence. I would like to know which reporter was fired in order to judge for ourselves whether or not you simply tossed out your own somewhat biased charge or if there is some truth behind the story.Consider it a CFR Edited July 18, 2011 by Jeff K.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) I just viewed the YouTube video.The off-hand way in which she tossed off the comment ("And Romney, not being a Christian...") makes me think it was an error of ignorance more than intent.It is still unprofessional for a news person to be that ill-informed yet be speaking publicly about it, but it is not as offensive as if she had said it with the full knowledge that Romney does indeed claim to be Christian. In short, it would be an error vs. a lie. Edited July 18, 2011 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) This is Fox and Friends which is basically like Regis and Kelly. But I've seen some in the news playing fast and loose with facts when it seems to make for good TV. In fact a Fox News anchor was fired when she refused to broadcast news that was knowingly false and she sued Fox. Fox News actually went to court and argued that "under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves". The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fox News. PhaedrusI know there's a CFR on the table. But assuming the above account is true, such behavior would still be regarded as ethically unacceptable under the canons of professional journalism. I tell you this as a working journalist.Respectable news organizations live by their reputations for credibility. It is their stock in trade. Edited July 18, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Jeff K. Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) In 1997, Wilson and Akre began work on a story regarding the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a milk additive that had been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration but also blamed for a number of health issues. Wilson and Akre planned a four part investigative report on Monsanto's use of rBGH, which prompted Monsanto to write to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel, in an attempt to have the report reviewed for bias and because of the "enormous damage that can be done" as a result of the report.[4]WTVT did not run the report, and later argued in court that the report was not "breakthrough journalism." Wilson and Akre then claimed that Monsanto's actions constituted the news broadcast telling lies, while WTVT countered that it was looking only for fairness. According to Wilson and Akre, the two rewrote the report over 80 times over the course of 1997, and WTVT decided to exercise "its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause,"[5] and did not renew their contracts in 1998. WTVT later ran a report about Monsanto and rBGH in 1998, and the report included defenses from Monsanto.[4]Following Wilson and Akre's contract not being renewed, the two filed a lawsuit concerning WTVT's "news distortion" under Florida's whistleblower laws, claiming their termination was retaliation for "resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the Monsanto recombinant bovine growth hormone story."[6] In a joint statement, Wilson claimed that he and Akre "were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story," and "were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto (the agriculture company that makes the hormone) and also ... by members of Florida’s dairy and grocery industries."[7] The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425000 and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission.An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[6]The 2003 documentary, The Corporation, featured Wilson and Akre discussing their battle with WTVT, with Wilson claiming that the jury "determined that the story they pressured us to broadcast, the story we resisted telling, was in fact false, distorted, or slanted."[4][9] Project Censored called their story one of the "Most Censored Stories" of 2003,[4] claiming that the "Court Ruled That the Media Can Legally Lie."[10] Robert F. Kennedy Jr. later quoted Wilson in his book, Crimes Against Nature, with Wilson asking "[W]hat reporter is going to challenge a network ... if the station can retaliate by suing the reporter to oblivion the way the courts are letting them do to us?"[11] Wilson and Kennedy both failed to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the suit.[4] Following the story, Akre and Wilson won the Goldman Environmental Prize for the report,[1] as well as an Ethics in Journalism Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.[12] The two continue to challenge WTVT's license, the last such challenge coming in 2005.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_AkreFrom my standpoint your facts are more biased than you seem to know.If you know bovine growth hormone to be dangerous, then you might have a point. Trouble is there isn't a scientific study out there that supports such a view. Otherwise I can guarrantee you the lawsuits would be flying and hitting Monsanto like a cigarette suit in California. However if the facts are discussed and they originally show was as slanted as the statement given, then it would behoove a local news company to state that "there is no breakthrough journalism". In other words, the argument wasn't about a right to lie, but a right for a company to say no to a story they did not feel was relevant.It seems the facts aren't as clear cut as you might think they are. Certianly not as you presented them. Edited July 18, 2011 by Jeff K.
Storm Rider Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 A sometimes stand in for the usual female Anchor for Fox and Friends, made a statement that one could almost miss.When will such bigotry end? Fox News Anchor says Romney is not a ChristianThis is not about Romney or politics, it is about us; so no politics please.Dollars to donuts the bleached blond bimbo belongs to one of those EV mega-churches. In her mind she is saved because she walked the aisle; her behavior and unChristian actions and stupidity are meaningless. This is not an error of ignorance, but is the result of this sect's conscious desire to destroy the LDS Church. I would hope that this kind of stupidity happens a lot more often; it only makes them look more and more stupid. And that is my Christian lovin' for today.
Jeff K. Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 Regardless of her beliefs, I think it is just a slip of the tongue. I do not believe her entire news story discussed the context and it was a one liner without explanation. It was an error in my view, and probably a personal belief. But not with malicious intent.
cinepro Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 thats funny, that anchor needs to do her homework, romney belongs to "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintsJesus Christ=Christian....Well, to be fair, I have it on good authority that she also doesn't think Tom Cruise is a scientist. 4
bluebell Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 Dollars to donuts the bleached blond bimbo belongs to one of those EV mega-churches. In her mind she is saved because she walked the aisle; her behavior and unChristian actions and stupidity are meaningless. This is not an error of ignorance, but is the result of this sect's conscious desire to destroy the LDS Church. I would hope that this kind of stupidity happens a lot more often; it only makes them look more and more stupid. And that is my Christian lovin' for today.Isn't it a big ironic for someone who's upset about not being considered a Christian to call someone else a 'bleached blonde bimbo'?
Storm Rider Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 Isn't it a big ironic for someone who's upset about not being considered a Christian to call someone else a 'bleached blonde bimbo'?The feminist comes out swinging; unfortunate. Do you read my entire post? Please tell me how you could miss the last comment that frames the entire post as gest and the fact that my post was un-Christian. Here is some advice, you are taking this forum far too seriously. However, if you want to argue for argument's sake, what do you call a woman with blond hair and dark roots? Now, what do you call that woman when all she utters is either stupid or ignorant? Alas, if the shoe fits, (s)he should wear it.
Jaybear Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 Regardless of her beliefs, I think it is just a slip of the tongue. I do not believe her entire news story discussed the context and it was a one liner without explanation. It was an error in my view, and probably a personal belief. But not with malicious intent.I am guessing that a good portion of her viewing audience had no idea she said anything wrong or offensive.
altersteve Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 Well, to be fair, I have it on good authority that she also doesn't think Tom Cruise is a scientist.That cracked me up. Well done.
bluebell Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 The feminist comes out swinging; unfortunate. Do you read my entire post? Please tell me how you could miss the last comment that frames the entire post as gest and the fact that my post was un-Christian. Here is some advice, you are taking this forum far too seriously. However, if you want to argue for argument's sake, what do you call a woman with blond hair and dark roots? Now, what do you call that woman when all she utters is either stupid or ignorant? Alas, if the shoe fits, (s)he should wear it.Wait.Did you just accuse me of being a feminist because i don't like it when someone calls someone else derogatory names? That's embarrassing for you on so many levles.Are you unaware that when you call a woman a 'bimbo' you are implying that she is a willing sex object or has loose morals?"Hahah, i was just joking" is a lame excuse for treating any woman in such a way..... 1
BCSpace Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 A sometimes stand in for the usual female Anchor for Fox and Friends, made a statement that one could almost miss.When will such bigotry end?While I personally consider (mostly) anyone who claims to be a christian to actually be a christian, this doesn't seem any different than us claiming to be the only true Church. It was also a truthful political analysis. Many dollars will be going to the other candidate instead of Romney because of religious views which are a valid, logical, and reasonable test for any candidate administered by the conscience and intellect of any voter.It IS true that for this test to be valid, we educate ourselves about the religion we oppose. For we LDS, this merely signals that we have not got our message out. And the fact of the matter is that no matter how much we educate, many are still not going to be convinced.So if I were Romney, I would ignore it and simply answer in the affirmative if one asked about his status as a christian.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 While I personally consider (mostly) anyone who claims to be a christian to actually be a christian, this doesn't seem any different than us claiming to be the only true Church. Actually it is quite different. But to discuss it would probably derail this thread.
Xander Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 This is hardly "bigotry". Can't someone express a personal opinion that disagrees with Mormon agendas without being called names?What I find odd is that most Mormons get all up in arms about this but the same people will insist that certain people not be called Mormons. They'll fight tooth and nail to insist those RLDS and fundamentalist groups not be considered Mormons. Why? For the same reasons most Christians do not want people confusing their religion with Mormonism.I have no problem calling Mormons Christians, but I understand why some choose not to. There truly are significant differences in LDS and traditional Christian theologies.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) This is hardly "bigotry". Can't someone express a personal opinion that disagrees with Mormon agendas without being called names?It wasn't framed as a personal opinion. It was tossed off as though it were a given by someone who is supposed to be a professional journalist.It would be as though a news reporter were to assert as though it were an axiom that there will always be a disparity in school testing scores because members of racial minorities are inherently less intelligent than white people. Edited July 18, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
BCSpace Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 While I personally consider (mostly) anyone who claims to be a christian to actually be a christian, this doesn't seem any different than us claiming to be the only true Church. Actually it is quite different. But to discuss it would probably derail this thread.Seems perfectly on topic. The subject of the OP is "When will such bigotry end?" So discussion as to whether or not this is an example of bigotry in the first place is perfectly cromulent.
maklelan Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 This is hardly "bigotry". Can't someone express a personal opinion that disagrees with Mormon agendas without being called names?What I find odd is that most Mormons get all up in arms about this but the same people will insist that certain people not be called Mormons. They'll fight tooth and nail to insist those RLDS and fundamentalist groups not be considered Mormons. Why? For the same reasons most Christians do not want people confusing their religion with Mormonism.I have no problem calling Mormons Christians, but I understand why some choose not to. There truly are significant differences in LDS and traditional Christian theologies.I don't believe members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have exclusive rights to the term "Mormon," just like I don't believe traditional Christians have exclusive rights to the term "Christian." It's true that there are significant differences, and I don't mind that being pointed out, but saying Latter-day Saints aren't Christians is to reject their religious self-identity because of nothing more than petty sectarianism. If traditional Christians bothered to think critically about it, they'd find they cannot find a definition of "Christian" that excludes Mormonism and does not beg the question, exclude the earliest Christians, or both.
Recommended Posts