Advice On Electrified Fences

[Joe]

With thousands of acres of pasture to choose from, why would anyone wanna pee on an electric fence? Personally, I prefer a nice oak tree.

[Harry K]

"rite of passage" for country boys :)

Harry K

[NotMe]

}"rite of passage" for country boys :)

Sucker joke for sanctimonious city dogs that come to play in the country.

[trader4]

What he is apparently talking about is that MythBusters claim they proved that you can't get ELECTROCUTED by pissing on a third rail, etc. I saw that one. I don't recall that they said you could not get shocked at all.

[trader4]

Give us a few specific examples of FoxNews misinforming.

[Harry K]

And even there the eletrocution probably wouild work if you were close enought. The stream doesn't brak up into droplets for some distance. I can assure you it for sure works on an electric fence.

Harry K

[Robert Green]

[trader4]

That's like saying because fire trucks are statistically significant with regard to fire scenes, that fire trucks caused the fires. Geez....

Oh, please. THAT is all that you've got? An obvious slip of the tounge, confusing those two, that various reporters from many organizations have done? That's an example of Fox misinformation? Boy, you really are the village idiot.

Yeah, I went and saw the actual video. I'm not sure what went wrong with OReilly there. But I'd not that the atheist lib Silverman apparently didn't know that the moon causes tides either, because if he did, he would have said it to O'Reilly. In short, a tempest in a tea pot. BFD. Of all the things O'Reilly says, that makes the list of misinformation?

Let's look at Dan Rather, how he ended his career making a total ass of himself with the false accusations against George Bush. That wasn't one sentence, it was a whole story based on BS.

Again, I see little dumb things like this everywhere. They happen on CBS evening news frequently. I don't chalk them up as CBS misinforming their viewers because they put up a wrong pic and correct it.

Oh my! Why a geniuine Fox conspiracy! They were misinforming their viewers, who couldn't tell Mitch Daniels from Sandusky. Boy, you are dumb.

BTW, where is your outrage at all the other news organizations who have done deliberate acts of misinformation? Changing things that were not obvious, that viewers would not immediately recognize as wrong? How about NBC editing the 911 call of George Zimmerman, editing out the part of the phone call where the dispatcher asks him to describe the suspect and leaving in where Z says he's black. How about when NBC came up with the voice experts that said Z was muttering "f...ing coons"? Only to have it turn out that everyone now agrees he was actually saing "f..ing cold" or similar. How about that? Now I ask you folks. Which is misinforming? What NBC did to Z, making him out to be a racist, or Fox accidently putting up Mitch Daniels photo instead of Sandusky?

CNN did it too, and yet you bring this up against Fox? If you were there, awake as that verdict came down it was, in fact, confusing. Many news organizations had problems with it for some minutes into the process. BFD. Compare that to what NBC did to Z, where they had hours and days to do what they did.

It figures it would be your favorite. The rest of us that were listening at the time know it was nothing specific to Fox.

That's the only example you've got here. Out of all the baseless accusation, one real thing. And clearly Cocy Willard isn't even at Fox News. He's at Fox Business and not of much importance. I watch Fox News 5 days a week and I've never seen him.

Now, how about going out and finding all the similar things that happen at all the other networks?

If all news organizations make mistakes, then why the accusation that FOX News specifically misinforms? And why the desperate attempt with totally lame examples? THAT is all you've got? Of all of it, you have one FoxBusiness reporter that went over the line. BFD.

[Wes Groleau]

Yeah, that was OBVIOUSLY a calculated move to get people to vote out Daniels. Deliberate misinformation.

And then the disingenuous apology which was also a lie to cover their tracks.

No other network would EVER do dishonest things like putting explosives on a Pinto or saying a berserk gunman was acting for the Tea Party.

[The Daring Dufas]

Which network news program was it that used model rocket engines to set off the Chevy pickup gas tank to create hysteria over Chevy pickup trucks exploding during traffic accidents? Fortunately experts caught them in that con. ^_^

TDD

[Robert Green]

When was the rocket motor case? A long, long time ago. There really aren't very many examples of staged stories that you can point to that are consequential in the face of the 100's of thousands of articles that are written that get *most* of it right.

The people who pulled the gas tank stunt were rightly fired, retired and some are even dead. Nixon resigned the presidency because he staged a break in. Are all Republican politicians now untrustworthy because of the actions of the one or the few? Of course not.

The issue was "does Fox make mistakes?" The implication ("crickets") was that it did not. The real answer is that Fox does make mistakes - and so does everyone else in the news business. Some are more willing than Fox to admit to errors and publish corrections. That's just a fact, easily demonstrable should you care to challenge it. I rate both humans and news organizations based on their over all factualness AND their ability to admit when they've erred.

The studies showing Fox misleads is most likely due to the confusion of viewers who often don't distinguish between factual articles and opinion pieces. Fox has been accused of deliberately conflating the two and making it hard for viewers to differentiate between opinion and reporting. I think that's true but that it's also an unfortunate trend in the entire industry. Editorials are a valid form of journalism, but they lack one important element: objectivism. When people confuse the two, you get exactly the kind of results the survey quoted produced.

Newspapers like the NY Times and the PBS Newshour are about the only reputable organizations that I believe in. FWIW, I think you're being too kind. Most of the TV commentators, especially on both the ultra far right and left sides of the issues, strike me as rabid raccoons.

Especially Nancy Grace. She will be reincarnated as a hyena and gives both journalist and lawyers a bad name. Just like "Empty Sage" Geraldo Rivera, aka Jerry Rivers. This isn't a rant against Fox, just an analysis of why surveys produce the results they do.

I consider PBS and the NY Times to be reputable news organizations that AFAIK, haven't been attaching rocket motors to cars or doing similar stuff. The WSJ used to be reputable, but it's been in a slide since Rupert Murdoch, under intense fire for his reporters breaking into to private cellphone accounts in his English pubs, took over.

The WSJ are also conflating opinion with reporting. They refer to opinion pieces on their website as articles. That's iffy in my book. Murdoch does not seem to be an ethically responsible publisher, especially when his reporters hack into the phones of the parents of a kidnapped child, giving them false hope their daughter was still alive. That scandal went straight to the top and I can't imagine he runs his American publications any differently.

I rarely watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN or any of the others because I prefer to read, not view, information - particularly concerning complex subject matter. I will watch when there's fast breaking news because it's both fun and sad to see how little fact-checking most of them do when they're looking for a scoop. Remember the OJ trial? "We're getting a report that a section of drain line packed with bloody fibers has been removed from Rockingham." The Martin shooting?

When I do watch TV news, it's the PBS Newshour because the provide much more time for each story and work very hard to provide both sides of an issue, which they often cover over several days. I am sure many here will disagree, but I know better than to expect robust mass communication critiquing in a home repair group in a thread about electrified fences. (-:

The "crickets" implication was that Fox didn't misinform. The truth is that on occasion, all news organizations misinform. The faster events occur, the worse they *all* do.

-- Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

More cogent discussion from the village hypocrite. It's so funny to see you chastize KRW for name-calling and then turn right around and do it yourself. Did you get beyond JHS? You don't act like it.

-- Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

People (myself included) tend to select stories for reading/viewing that confirm the beliefs they already hold. Obama-haters are thus drawn to any sort of "Obama Screws Up" sort of story while Romney-haters are similarly drawn to "Romney Screws Up" stories. I have to force myself to read articles that I disagree with but I think it's important to get both sides.

Sorry, but I do rate "reputation" based on whether I see a healthy number of corrections appearing in whatever newspaper I am reading. Lots of news directors/editors feel that too many corrections undermine credibility but I think the reverse is true. Anyone who's ever been written about in a newspaper can tell you how much stuff reporters get wrong, from the spelling of names to the basic facts. I just don't see corrections appearing as often with Fox and the WSJ that I do with the NY Times. I don't believe it's because the Fox/WSJ make fewer mistakes, either.

The news business has changed over the last 20 years. Feedback from readers, something the newspapers/TV news organization used to control pretty exclusively via letters to the editor, is now a very dynamic process and not easily controlled.

Nor should you. News gathering is not a "codified" behavior. It's unlicensed and most anyone with an Internet connection can play reporter nowadays. As the recent scandals about Brit reporters hacking cellphones show, ethics and reporting sometimes are light years apart.

I got in a lot of trouble once talking to a reporter. My bosses didn't agree with what I said. It was truthful, but it wasn't flattering. (-: Best to let someone else take the flak.

I was smart enough to see the handwriting on the wall and get out of the journalism business a long time ago when the downward spiral began. I worked for three very major publications that went bankrupt just after I had moved somewhere else. The editor of the last place I worked for (Dow Jones' National Observer) even remarked "you've been just one step ahead of the bankruptcy courts" when I applied there. Six months later, they folded, too. (-:

FWIW, on election night I recorded Fox and watched MSNBC. Both organizations are slanted, and what I found amusing was that they both tried to *seem* fair by having guests from both sides, but the caliber of the guests representing views "not in line" with the stations was not good for either MSNBC or Fox. One thing that really bothers me about Fox is their treatment of American Idol votes as some sort of legitimate news. That's a major reason many journalists and ex-journalists have an issue with Fox. It's sometimes more infotainment than news.

One of the most serious problems I see in American journalism nowadays is that viewers/readers do not discriminate between opinion pieces and (allegedly) factual "straight up" reporting. I suspect that's one reason Fox gets bashed in studies like this. They broadcast a lot of opinion pieces. I have Karl Rove's election night meltdown on tape. It's a classic. But I digress. From the study's conclusion, it's clear both R's and D's confuse opinion pieces with hard news.

-- Bobby G.

[trader4]

No, that was not the issue, despite your attempts to move the goal posts. The accusation was that Fox misinforms it's viewers. Not that all news organizations make mistakes, which they correct. And the finger was pointed specifically at Fox, with racism thrown in for good measure:

"Want to keep a WASP un informed ... take away his access to FauxNews. Want to keep him mis-informed ... give it back. "

=A0>The real answer is that Fox does make mistakes - and so

I challenged it. So far you've provided NOTHING that shows that Fox doesn't admit to errors, publish corrections any more or less than any other news organizations.

But you did try to drag up Fox accidently putting up a photo of Mitch Daniels instead of Jerry Sandusky for a moment. BFD. As if that is a great example of "misinforming". Lame, really, really lame. By doing so, you've joined your racist friend in trying to smear Fox. Compare that to what NBC did to George Zimmerman, deliberately editing the taped

911 call, taking out the part where the police ask for a description, leaving him saying "he looks black". Now THAT is true misinforming. See the difference? Any fool knows what Jerry Sandusky looks like. But most people don't know the true conversation on that 911 call.

If that were true, you'd rate Fox highly.

The study showed no such thing. You don't understand the relationship between cause and effect. If I find that MSNBC viewers are mostly libs, does that mean MSNBC CAUSED them to be libs?

Oh, those poor dumb viewers. Good thing they have libs like you watching out for them. It's actually very easy to distinguish opinion and news on Fox. And unlike MSNBC, Fox has a substantial amount of time devoted to letting people with lib views come on the air.

=A0I think

Yeah, that figures. How about the numerous outright frauds that have taken place at the NY Times? Where reporters just made up total fiction in story after story and the NY Times published it. Does the name Jayson Blair ring a bell? Now THAT is misinforming. Someome putting up the wrong pic of Sandusky for 5 secs isn't. Capiche?

FWIW, I think you're being too

Check out Jayson Blair.....

The WSJ didn't break into phones fool.

Thank you. The truth comes out. You rarely watch Fox. Yet here you are, telling us all about what Fox does and doesn't do, what goes on there. What a maroon!

[trader4]

There is a difference. You've reached special status and have demonstrated it time and time again. In this case, you jumped in to defend a racist poster that claims Fox News misinforms. He referred to it as Faux News.

And you tried to prove that Fox News misinforms it's viewers by using an example where they put up a pic of Mitch Daniels for a few seconds, instead of Jerry Sandusky, while they were covering the Sandusky scandal. That is so, very, very lame, that it does indeed give you special status.

And if you want another example from today, go back to where you finally tell us that you "rarely watch Fox News". So, here you are, pontificating about what does or does not happen at Fox, telling us that they misinform, and then you finally admit that you rarely watch it. That does indeed make you the village idiot.

[Robert Green]

If I misrepresented you, I apologize. I saw:

That made me assume the silence that seems to imply meant there were no such examples or that the OP could not provide any. Perhaps you can clarify what you actually meant by that comment for me.

I think you can see how my interpretation wasn't outside the realm of possibility but again, since you meant something else, I regret having implied you were saying that Fox doesn't make mistakes.

-- Bobby G.

[bob]

My guess is electric fence need to be always isolated from the ground, even when it rains.

An existing fence may not satisfied this requirement.