Buzz Aldrin and some Fox News moron interview

I personally like Fox News, but don't agree with EVERYTHING they say. Take this for example. Niel Cavuto jumped to conclusions with NASA's new plan. Buzz Aldrin tries to explain, but Cavuto keeps cutting him off. Now Buzz has the right idea, but is the wrong spokes person for the job. In general, most people nowadays have a negative view on NASA.
 
No, but how the journalists report the news is sometimes funny.
 
Fox is NOT news, it is a waterboy for Rupert. I am no fan of Obama, in fact I consider him most likely the most corrupt president we have ever had, but to call the Fox network news is akin to calling The Barnum and Bailey Circus a post graduate university.
 
Star Voyager said:
In general, most people nowadays have a negative view on NASA.
Click to expand...

That's not a new development. Walter Mondale tried to shut NASA down after the Apollo 1 fire. The left-wing was screaming about the country's neglect of the homeless when Apollo 11 flew (even though NASA's budget was less that 1% of HUD's). If NASA had been dismantled and their funding given to HUD, does anyone really believe it would have improved the plight of the homeless? The only measurable result would have been that we'd have never walked on the moon.

The general public seem to be the ones with ADD. They pay no attention to the space program unless a tragedy has befallen the agency (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia, etc). Then you get the inevitable backlash that spaceflight is too dangerous, expensive, insert complaint here...

Yet these are the same people who are using technology made possible by the space program every day of their lives without realizing it.

The space station and Earth orbital flights don't hold their attention because it seems common-place and routine. Even a return to the moon won't ignite much interest because this society has become so jaded that all NASA's going to get for the effort is the "been there, done that" syndrome.

Would a manned flight to Mars interest them? My guess is yes, at least more-so than current programs. But as with Apollo, that interest would fade pretty quickly with follow up missions.

It seems that generally speaking, this nation can't digest more than sound bytes, tragedies or spectaculars (hence the popularity of FOX news). Unless it's Michael Jackson. Who come to think of it, managed to cover all three...
 
Last edited:
I know it's not a new development, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that it has significantly grown.
 
Saturn V said:
It seems that generally speaking, this nation can't digest more than sound bytes, tragedies or spectaculars (hence the popularity of FOX news). Unless it's Michael Jackson. Who come to think of it, managed to cover all three...
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Personally, I've never thought of Fox as a true news channel. CNN - maybe. BBC - yes.
 
Fox News is satire. They just don't know it.
 
While its true, most Americans tend to have ADD towards pretty much everything besides explosions and death which the space program has had, if you live in Florida atleast were I live, space program is actually a big subject mainly because the economy of the state, and the fact its something to be really proud of. Talk to the average adult were I live, including teachers, ask them about Challenger they'll talk about Christa and what they were doing when it happened, first shuttle flight and they'll also talk about what they were doing and a few actually even remembers the crew of STS-1. Even last Wednesday when I-X flew, all the teachers turned on the TV and NASA.gov on their computers and the class watched it go up. The students however...
 
Last edited:
Not only in the USA but also in Germany journalists became more and more arrogant within the last ~25 years. They're not only moderators anymore, they're a kind of themselves-presenter. They're the best. They're the honest humans on the planet. They don't only know everything, and that better than others, they also uncover everything (if true or not, doesn't matter as long as the ratings go up). No, they're in fact impertinently and they get way too much freedom from those who get interviewed, especially politicians. Especially the last chancellor duel in Germany was a presentation of journalists, and not really a presentation of the chancellor candidates.

I remember Klaus Kinski. He certainly was a crazy person but he did treat many journalists how they deserve it. The same fits for the deceased former German politician Franz Josef Strauß for example. But we sadly don't have such persons anymore. Today there is just mishmash, well-adjusted persons who bootlick journalists.

Regarding FOX: this is a psychiatry "on the air".
 
Last edited:
Franz Joseph Strauß was a criminal, I don't think you do him a favor to name him in the same sentence as Kinski, who was crazy, but great.
 
Dambuster said:
Personally, I've never thought of Fox as a true news channel. CNN - maybe. BBC - yes.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that. Till a few days ago, I'd have agreed with you, but after I heard a BBC political dissertation on NPR asserting that George Bush had been forced out of office, their credibility with me went out the window.

I am certainly NO fan of Bush, but the man served two full terms as president (and regardless of whether he hadn't become fodder for the comedians, was constitutionally ineligible to run for a third term).

How can you expect to be taken seriously making a statement like that?

In actual fact, Clinton came far closer to being "forced out of office" (he actually was impeached), but you'll never hear that being bandied about because he was (and still is) a more popular political figure.

Objectivity doesn't seem to exist in the news anymore. Whether it's space, politics, or what have you, they all put their own spin on what you hear or read.
 
Which means we should basically take the comedy option and choose the news channel or broadcast which seems most entertaining to us...
 
Belisarius said:
Which means we should basically take the comedy option and choose the news channel or broadcast which seems most entertaining to us...
Click to expand...

Then I guess I'll be watching the "Weekend Update" segment of SNL more frequently...
 
Saturn V said:
Funny you mention that. Till a few days ago, I'd have agreed with you, but after I heard a BBC political dissertation on NPR asserting that George Bush had been forced out of office, their credibility with me went out the window.

I am certainly NO fan of Bush, but the man served two full terms as president (and regardless of whether he hadn't become fodder for the comedians, was constitutionally ineligible to run for a third term).

How can you expect to be taken seriously making a statement like that?

In actual fact, Clinton came far closer to being "forced out of office" (he actually was impeached), but you'll never hear that being bandied about because he was (and still is) a more popular political figure.

Objectivity doesn't seem to exist in the news anymore. Whether it's space, politics, or what have you, they all put their own spin on what you hear or read.
Click to expand...

Do you have the name of that BBC thing? I'd be interested to read/listen to it.
 
Then I guess I'll be watching the "Weekend Update" segment of SNL more frequently...
Click to expand...

...which is itself hugely slanted to the left by the cast of SNL, but at least it's openly satire. Or you could watch John Steward's Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

My observation of the news agencies leads me to believe the following:

1. There is no such thing as objectivity in news reporting. Any claim to objectivity is either a self-delusion on the part of the reporter or just a lie for deception. I don't mind the fact that Fox News is right-wing, my problem is that they claim to be "fair and balanced", which is bulls*** and they know it. If they would just own up to what they are then at least they'd be honest. Same goes for the left-wing networks, especially MSNBC, which is a complete joke and should rename itself OCN, the Obama Cheerleading Network.

"Objective" news reporting is a product of the progressive era, a foil to get you to believe nonsense. Listen to what Fox and MSNBC and the BBC have to say, but do not take it at face value. Your brain is required for best results.

2. All news agencies that wish to remain relevant or mainstream toe the party line lest they get marginalized.

That is why after 9/11 even the liberal news agencies in the US were beating the drums for war. Arguning against war was not only unpopular, it was also a good way to lose access to the White House and other high-level politicians, which is a career-killer for reporters and a ratings killer for TV shows.

That's why alternative views are shoved under the carpet on TV news, except for the occasional ratings prostitution by being outrageous.

To get a diverse view of news events you have to go online and be inquisitive, and you have to be both active and discriminating. Again, your brain is required for best results.
 
Dambuster said:
Do you have the name of that BBC thing? I'd be interested to read/listen to it.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, no, I don't. I could be mistaken, but I belive it's probably an anthology of BBC newscasts put together by NPR here in the States. It runs from 9-10 AM on the local affiliate and goes by the rather bland title of "Morning News."
 
Urwumpe said:
Franz Joseph Strauß was a criminal, I don't think you do him a favor to name him in the same sentence as Kinski, who was crazy, but great.
Click to expand...

That Strauß, or Kohl was/is a criminal, or that the CDU is a former Nazi party for example, or that Schäuble alias "Rolli" wants the police state and all such things... just is usual left-wing populism.

Kinski was great. Sure. And Strauß even more. Both knew how to treat journalists so that they don't have a chance to appear arrogant in interviews but respectful ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top