WTF Fox News

Let's put his in some sort of complete context then.

There is a noted bias AGAINST Fox new in these forums. That being said, anything reported by that network will be heard and interpreted with a jaded ear by most forum readers - right?

The news story is a hot button issue for many people - involving moral, religious and cultural value systems that are not shared 100% by any two individuals anywhere, much less here in the forums.

Babies are "innocents".

Killing is wrong.

Killing babies is not just wrong, it's EVIL.

The history of Europe includes occupation by the Nazis.

The Nazis DID engage in a euthanasia progam - in addition to killing Jews, mental retardates, political prisoners and others.

Nazis are reviled by most people; that is, Nazis are EVIL.

Ergo, it is not unreasonable that people will conflate all of the above and come to some along the lines of the following conclusion:
--The MostEvilNewsNetworkInTheWorld (because it's owned by a NeoCon [omg not THAT]) reports a story on euthanasia. It must be a faith-based (omg, Christian-right zealots!) story that ignores other people's beliefs. As such, it is EVIL, written with EVIL intent, believed by other EVIL people, and deliberately inflicted upon other people - who will also become EVIL if they even listen to the story, much less believe it.
Oh, and any reference to any country in conjunction with the word Nazi means that the speaker is calling the citizens of that country Nazis? Right!?!?!?

Actually, that does sound kind of unreasonable, doesn't it?

Korg,

I read the links you provided.
ABC and CNN are right in their coverage. They tell the facts.
Grandforks is mostly right, although they refer to Nazi Germany. What the Nazis did is considered murder over here. So don't call that "euthanasia". They also quote some spokespersons of institutes I never heard of. It's always to find some small institute that shares your opinion.
The Weeklystandard.... ok, I wont swear here... but comparing this to the Wannsee Conference where the Nazis decided to kill all the jews... geez man! Are you seriously considering this a site where you get your news from?
And then "but it covers any child up to age 12." Yes! And why? Because we already DO have a law for euthanasia for people age 12 and older. But they don't mention that.

Let me try to give an example. In the USA it's easy to get a gun, if I'm right. What if I would say "Man, these Americans are out of their mind! Now you can buy a gun. What's next? Allow anyone aged 18 or over to buy an atomic bomb on every street corner? Even in Nazi Germany they didn't sell atomic bombs! Don't allow guns in the Netherlands, before you know it kids will have nuclear weapons"

Would you laugh at that idea? Would it make you mad?

And, as I said: I'm only talking about the TV news report I saw.

[edit: I wrote this before Korg's last reply. I have to learn to write faster in English... Ill have a look at his last respons tomorrow. 1:15 am here. Got to get some sleep]

eu·tha·na·sia
The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

gen·o·cide
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.



So the Nazis were practicing mercy killing, right, got it.

You apparently do not know much about the history of the Nazi euthanasia program. It was relatively widespread and far exceeded the category of being Jewish.

I could care less what actual report you saw. I provided information that I found to be available.

I still have Dutch friends from 25 years ago... and we have exchanged visits as I moved around the world.

As for your example, I would think, "This person doesn't know what the hell he's talking about" and dismiss it. I would assume most rational people would also dismiss it as the idiotic rationale that it is. Consequently, I might laugh at it because it strains the imagination to believe that anyone I respect would accept that argument.

In your case, as far as the story being about your home town, guess what? I deal with that all the time. New Orleans, my former home town, has a reputation that is long-standing and fairly derogatory with respect to its citizens. Do I cringe when I hear the slams and slanders against my friends and relatives still there? Sure. But I know the truth about my friends and relatives who DO live there. So it doesn't really bother me - instead, I try to point out the error and then I move on.

I didn't see a factual error in the Fox stories based on what was written in the other stories. I don't care if you don't like the experts they drummed up. That's the "game" in the media. I found numerous similar stories in English papers concerning their own debate on the subject.... and experts on both sides.

Get upset or don't.

This really is not about Fox, or so it seems to me. It's about feeling you were slammed by a network whose bias you don't like --- even thought they really didn't seem to stretch the truth here much at all (to me at least). I have seen much more biased stories on Fox and elsewhere.

Last time I checked, retarded people, political prisoners and the like are not terminaly ill.

I am very aware myself of what the Nazis called it btw, it isn't that tough to decipher propagandist techniques.

That FOX anchor was apparently equating what that hospital is doing with the Nazi "euthanasia" program. If you google 'Nazi Euthanasia' The word 'euthanasia' usually appears in quotation marks, indicating that it was an improper use of the term.

Nolan... this is not a slam.

You are mixing two separate prorams carried out by the Nazis.

The euthanasia program was not part of the genocide - it include non-Jews/full-blooded Germans.

Sorry... but you really are wrong here.

Check this link
T-4 Euthanasia Program

*wanders in, finds a sofa* Any other lurkers out there? This one sounds interesting! *pulls out the popcorn and tactfully watches from the sidelines* Sometimes I need to tag the threads that I read so I know where I last left off in reading--don't mind me.

yes, I know, that is why I added the second post. I didn't make my point properly in the first one.

In either case it was not a literal use of the word. It was a bullshit use of the word to make it seem nicey nice for the Europeans of the day, if I remember correctly, it began in '39.

Euthanasia should be legal in the States...in my opinion but whatever. I dont care to discuss it cause I dont care. Blah!

If you google it that way.. as in "Nazi Euthanasia", of course you will get a warped set of results.

If you google it as '+"Third Reich" +Euthanasia' you will get different results... including less biased ones that probably will not show up in the results of the first search.

The point is... euthanasia is seem as "evil" by many people for moral and religious reasons.
It involves killing.
It often involves "innocent/defenseless" victims.
The rhetoric surrounding it often gets wrapped up in the moralistic mumbo-jumbo and that obscures the argument being made.
Listeners bring their own biases to the table when hearing the term.

Thus, I am not surprised the original poster is somewhat upset - yet, it is easy to see why a news organization would slant the story towards sensationalism to gain the attention of the audience - especially a core audience. That, theoretically, is what this thread is about.

Don't forget we have a similar debate going on in Oregon. That one doesn't involve children, but does the age of the one being killed really matter if you decide to allow the killing/withholding of medical treatment from anyone?

I didn't encapsulate the terms in quotes when I googled it, that was for the sake of the post only. When I did so and subsequently perused a few articles some of them did use quotes around the word euthansia with regard to the Nazi program. That indicates to me that the authors also see it as incorrect usage, i.e., propoganda.

As far as the rest of what you are saying I agree.

Here is where I think Riffey is getting upset:

What the Nazis did in these cases was not euthanasia, it was in fact murder neatly cloaked in another word, they did this routinely with many, many other actions as I am sure you know, such as "reeducation" and the like. Those folks were no more being "reeducated" than the folks who were murdered were being "euthanized".

Now, when a news anchor compares a misued word as in the case of the Nazi use of "euthanized", with the real meaning of the word, I am not suprised that some folks would become alarmed. Not to mention that it sounds like the anchor is somehow blaming the Netherlands for the fact that Anne Frank was killed by Nazis, when in fact they were hiding her from them.

Uh... look at my posts. I said pretty much the same thing as you Nolan... a bit more abstractly however.

However, in this case, the word is not misused... and in the beginning of the T-4 program, it was NOT associated with genocide. So, I don't think the Nazis misused it, except in a limited sense.

Something else to consider...while most Westerners want to believe that most of Europe was anti-Nazi, there were a large number of Nazi-sympathizers throughout Europe - and in America for that matter.

That some people choose to associate any same-sentence reference between person/group/nation and Nazi as meaning that someone is calling anther person a Nazi... well, that's really not my problem. It's pretty silly to be upset about it - at least to me. I got called baby killer - can't get more personal than that. I knew the truth and just laughed at them; but I did I slug a bitch in the face for spitting on me.

Yep. I agree. I have a long family history in which my family was persecuted, run out of Prussia, run out of Russia after Catherine the Great promised them tolerance, and then had to flee southern Germany, prior to WWII. My grandparents were on a list here in the US because of their background. They spoke to us at length about this as did my great-grandparents. I also had a neighbor as a child whose family was Hungarian Nazi sympathetic (he did not sympathize, and as a result was pegged for arrest but was hidden by another Hungarian family of whom one of their daughters he married and moved to the US with after the War) and he talked about it quite often. So I am familiar with the mindset of a lot of Europeans at that time, and a lot of the events and politics that led up to WWII. As you know that cauldron was bubbling LONG before WWII began.

Rupert Murdoch is a conservative Catholic. It makes sense his network would oppose any right-to-die.

Not if you believe that a news organization has an obligation to be unbiased.

There's a movie out atm called 'Outfoxed' and it's actually pretty interesting as it breaks down a lot of how they go about things.

*ALL* TV News in the US at them moment has a corporate bias. It's about making money for the parent company - and they are all guilty of this. It's no longer a matter of crossing the line, but by how much you cross the line - and how 'hands on' your parent corporation is with your station, and how 'hands on' the partnered network is with it's affiliates.

It's about money - pure and simple. And despite Murdoch's uber-hands-on approach, if noone watched it, the programming would change..

I know a lot of people working at Fox here in Vegas - I'm headhunted 2 - 3 times a year by people at that station. The folks themselves (the ones who actually make things happen) are pretty good folks - folks I'd go drinking with. They are just able to go a lil further over the line for the paycheck than I personally want to go.

I currently work for NBC affiliates - and it's not all sweetness and light here either - idiot producers regurgitating the AP, stripping the facts for a little sensationalism - 'Breaking News' that happened 2 days ago 'First Response Team Coverage' of a washed out street.

But it comes down to it being in my comfort zone... It's not whether you're going to be a whore in T.V. news - it's how MUCH of a whore can you be and still look in the mirror after getting a paycheck.

The oft misquoted passage of 'Generation of Swine' by Hunter S Thompson leaps to mind, as it becomes more and more true with each passing year - and each corporate takeover:



I think that sums up TV News in a nutshell.

Siggy.

I don't want to flare up an argument over this as it's probably a little off-topic to this thread, but I cannot believe that you had any family who lived or served in Nazi Germany.

What happened in Nazi Germany and to the families living under said conditions is a painful memory for many. Is it evil to follow your orders and do your duty to your country?

Read up on Milgram's Study of Obedience to understand how it's possible for someone to commit heinous acts almost guilt-free. It's not because there is such thing as good and evil -- those are personal qualifications.

The same reason why US soldiers can kill Iraqi's indescriminately is how any soldier in any army in the world has killed another human being. No matter how heinous, it's a rare thing for a person ordered to kill another by a superior to just walk away and refuse.

So while you may think Nazi's are EVIL... and many people do; I think your statement would be more appropriate and less ignorant if it were stated as an opinion.

Euthenasia? Killing fatally deformed or ill children who will die before they reach a mature age and will never be able to be completely self reliant to breath or keep a steady heartbeat... is a matter of opinion as to wether it is evil. If the parent gives consent, what is evil?

If there is even a 5% chance that the child may overcome their deformities or illness by the time they begin to mature, then yes -- give them the chance.

But believe it or not, there are just some birth defects and illnesses that will kill 100% of the time.

Korg, please tell me you arn't defending Fox News. Not even you could go THAT low.

Icon, I think you took my post a bit out of context.

I laid out a line of argument... that line about Nazis being EVIL is an opinion held by many today... just an opinion and certainly a prevalent one.

I didn't say that Nazis ARE Evil...

I happen to have Jewish blood but do not identify myself primarily AS Jewish (it is not my primary identity). As a matter of fact, my family on my father's side comes from the Alsace-Lorraine region.. with both Jewish and non-Jewish relatives. Interestingly, to me at least, I have a couple relatives who were Nazis.. and don't hesitate to admit it to family but deny it to non-family. OTOH, I also have relatives that are no longer here -- having gone to the chambers.

So, my personal perspective is kinda different from most people's it seems.

Consequently your own statement "I think your statement would be more appropriate and less ignorant if it were stated as an opinion. " is pretty arrogant and senseless to me.

At the risk of sounding like a record - reread the post you reacted to. It has to be taken in the context of the entire sequence of posts I have made in this thread.

I don't have to defend them.

OTOH, I will challenge anyone who says they are any worse than any other network - especially those who think it is the "work of the devil".

You have to keep in mind that the Nazis in Germany developed a lot of their ideas on Race and Eugenics from sources right here in the USA. Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, strongly favored and promoted the practice of Eugenics and the forced sterilization of anyone considered to be lacking, genitically. It was very common to sterilize the retarded, children of mixed race, the mentally ill and for some crazy reason, homosexuals for over fifty years here.

Somehow I missed this... that was said in response to <<Originally Posted by Chase Rutherford.....Rupert Murdoch is a conservative Catholic. It makes sense his network would oppose any right-to-die.>>

Uh.. Chip.. you are technically correct. I think that you single sentence post implies that you believe that is th ewas it should be... or am I infering your meaning here?

If the former, I don't accept the premise --- I used to, but no longer do.
If the latter, please clairfy.

I do believe they should be. I do of course realize that it's utopian and a rather quaint notion now. I agree with Siggy's post entirely. What I dislike about Fox is that they don't even bother to pretend to be unbiased The idea that integrity is more important than ratings died at least twenty years ago.

So you would rather be "Rathered"?

You ARE kidding, right?

No, not really. I'd rather be Cronkited