The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions by Niki2

Keep the Shiny side up

And of course since Huffingtonpost and Mediamatters are completely, absolutely, totally unbiased...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:52 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And of course since Huffingtonpost and Mediamatters are completely, absolutely, totally unbiased...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hello Geezer,

Please post your top ten from those sources. I'm not familiar with them, but am interested to learn.

What channel are they on?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:55 AM

RIVERLOVE

Media Matters is a committed far-left smear group that has been outed and discredited more times than Marian Barry, unless you consider blatant distortion and mis-representation ok in an attempt to discredit your political and cultural enemies. Huffington Post is generally, well, worse. Arianna, dahling, is one smart lady. She's making mega-millions while she gets her hair & nails done. Zsa Zsa would be very proud.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:01 AM

Hey Geezer, what is "unbiased"?

A) Bush lied about the existence of WMD.
B) Bust was right about WMD, we just didn't find the REAL stash yet.
C) Bust didn't have enough reliable intel to make an intelligent decision in the matter.

A & B are clearly biased. Is C, in your opinion? If not, how would you re-write it to exclude bias? I'm really curious here.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:17 AM

HKCAVALIER

In this case, "biased" means "takes the time to find 10 egregious examples of Fox News distorting the facts to promote their right-wing political agenda in their so-called straight reporting." But "bias," Geezer, is not the issue. A purported "news" agency habitually and quite consistently lying to promote a political agenda, never even making a retraction to cover their ass, is.

Please, stay on topic.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:28 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And of course since Huffingtonpost and Mediamatters are completely, absolutely, totally unbiased...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Are those cable channels?

And I assume you mean that you'd have absolutely no problem with Huffpost or Mediamatters simply inventing "news" out of thin air, or reporting numbers that were off by a factor of anywhere from 10 to 25 times, as Faux did with the tea-bag march on 9/12. Official estimates from the Park Police who oversee such gatherings said that there were around 75,000 in attendance. FauxNews and Glenn Beck claimed TWO MILLION.

I'd say that's a bit beyond "biased", and well into just making shit up to support their interests.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Media Matters is a committed... smear group that has been outed and discredited more times than Marian Barry...

So you're saying that their standards are higher than Fox's, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:37 AM

To ME, "bias" means reporting the facts, and being publically happy or sad at how said facts support or do not support your political agenda(s).
To alter facts in any way for any purpose is just lying. To leave out facts is either unprofessional or LYING BY OMISSION.

Let's call it what it is, K?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Please post your top ten from those sources. I'm not familiar with them, but am interested to learn.

What channel are they on?

Don't be disingenuous, Anthony.

Fox, Huffington Post and Media Matters are all media outlets. They all bias their coverage to appeal to their audience. If you believe the internet, they all also lie. Google "Fox News lies", "Huffington Post lies" or "Media Matters lies" And you can roll up your own top ten list for any or all of them.

Fox News fans choose to un-critically believe Fox news. From the response here, Huffington Post fans tend to un-critically believe Huffington Post. Both sides accuse the other of lying and being biased. I figure they're both lying and being biased until I convince myself otherwise. I have yet to see any convincing evidence.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Dunno but Mediamatters, but Arianna makes it pretty damn clear right up front (or at least used to) that she's not even pretending to be neutral.

Contrast Fox News pretensions to supposed neutrality, in light of even more outrageous slant than you've considered.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

You gotta remember, I've been aware of this game a lot longer than most folk, having grown up in the shadow of Fox's predecessor and mentor, the Sinclair Broadcast Group - who's constant lies, distortions and gamesmanship were a fact of life in my childhood, and being a major factor in how I view mainstream media to begin with.

Of course, I do have the last laugh, don't I now, what with Sinclair sucking on a quarter billion dollar loss and impending bankruptcy as folks turn away from the bullshit shovelled at them by television and print media after too many bald faced lies and the availability of the internet and the powerful lure of being able to investigate that which matters to you personally instead of accepting some media engines backwash.

Long gone are the days when assholes like Hearst, the father of yellow journalism, completely controlled the average americans access to information outside their community, and with them goes the ability to shape public opinion regardless of the facts.

Fox is a dinosaur, an aging, tottering relic of a bygone era which might survive one, maybe two more generations, but in the end is a goner.

The ONLY hope they have to even remain relevant at all given how fully discredited they are by anyone with even half a brain is to push the Gov into strangling the internet, which they'll get more desperate about once it becomes clear even to the ivory tower crowd that they're really only circling the drain, awaiting the inevitable.

And really, that's the only concern whatever I have about em - but because the fools running the place are true-believer fanatics who mostly convince themselves of the shit they're shovelling, that realization is gonna come unto them far too late...

And I'll have the last laugh then, too.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
They all bias their coverage to appeal to their audience.

Back up there, son.

A) Bush was an idiot who probably couldn't tie his shoes correctly.
B) Bush was trying to destroy America.

A is bias, B is lying. When peeps falsify numbers, or change facts, that's not slanting or spinning, it's lying.
Am I wrong here? Is your definition of "bias" more Librul than mine?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:23 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Don't be disingenuous, Anthony."

Hello,

I am actually not familiar with the Huffington Post or Mediamatters. Though I did guess that since I wasn't familiar with them, that they probably were not actually comperable to Fox News.

And if that's the case, referring to them in comparison or contrast to Fox seems...

Well, you know. Shall we compare an AM conservative radio station to CNN next?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And of course since Huffingtonpost and Mediamatters are completely, absolutely, totally unbiased...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Telling that you can't argue with the actual substance, and then must attack the source - who didn't make the videos, btw, just collected them to show the bias.

But nah, it'd be expecting to much to think you might respond to the actual content.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
From the response here, Huffington Post fans tend to un-critically believe Huffington Post.

Really? I don't see anyone really defending them, or saying they're right. Obviously they're biased, but in this case, showing outright lies, while biased, isn't inaccurate.

Yet you seem to be excusing Fox, just because it's a site you don't like that compiled the lies.

Seems maybe you are projecting a bit.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
in this case, showing outright lies, while biased, isn't inaccurate.

I can hover with that take on it!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:36 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wonderful; the minute I read Geezer's post, I had the same thought as most here, and there you all went saying it FOR me.

Bias is one thing...and I agree with the perfect dilenation between the two:

Quote:
In this case, "biased" means "takes the time to find 10 egregious examples of Fox News distorting the facts to promote their right-wing political agenda in their so-called straight reporting." But "bias," Geezer, is not the issue. A purported "news" agency habitually and quite consistently lying to promote a political agenda, never even making a retraction to cover their ass, is.

There's a difference between bias, which can include choosing which stories to present, using slurs, maybe even shading, omitting, etc., when commenting, and so forth. out-and-out LYING is different; it requires actual bending of the facts or totally lying about a story, which is what Faux News does quite blatantly.

I never said either source was unbaised. It's their bias that causes them to hunt UP the examples and put them out there, which in no way changes the facts.

One of the major things that's been so absurd about what's been happening is that I see even such biased sources as MSNBC digging up facts, following the money, putting forward arguments to make their cases, whereas Faux News MAKES UP "facts" and "figures" to promote their agenda. Biiiig difference. I happen to think Rachel Maddow, called a "sick puppy" by G.W., does an excellent job of following the money--she doesn't NEED to lie, all she needs to do is point things out.

Biased? Yes, never said they weren't. Lying? No.

Someone posted somewhere that liberals and dems must watch Faux News because of it's numbers. I repeat: If there are numerous sources from which to get one's news, the population spreads out between same. If there is only ONE source from which to get a viewpoint (and only news if it's slanted the way you want), all those who want same will go there. Given the number of sources available that are less agenda-promoting than Faux News, libs and dems don't have to watch it for it's numbers to soar.

Now, if you take the ratings of ALL the liberal-leaning media and compare THEM to Faux News' numbers, There would be a valid argument. Otherwise: Not so much. Me, I wouldn't be caught dead watching Faux News; the clips I see on other station say it all, and are more than I can stomach as it is.

By the way, personally I don't take what I hear on CNN or MSNBC (or anywhere else, actually) as undisputed fact, or even ALL the facts; I use them as starting point to research on my own. Can the same be said of Faux News viewers? Somehow I doubt it.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:45 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Fox News is an extreme left-wing and extrme right-wing propaganda machine owned by Communist Chinese and Australians of the British Empire.

It is impossible to be more anti-American than Fox "News". Glenn Beck is paid $50-million/year to infiltrate the Ron Paul "Tea Party" Patriot Movement that seeks overthrow of the Kosher British "Federal" Reserve Bank and its unconstitutional IRS collection agency.

The goal of Fox is overthrow of USA, which has been the goal of the British Empire for over 200 years.

The other networks are also owned by those who seek overthrow of USA for the global New World Odor dictatorship, even though they're US citizens.

Independent Media, you're our only hope.

www.piratenews.org/fox-news-owned-by-communist-china.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng

"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."
-Honore de Balzac

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-Famous Dead Guy

"On Earth-That-Was, the two ruling powers were once known as America and China. These two powers, still working in harmony, grew at once into the most populous and advanced civilizations in the new galaxy. The idea was to say that people can make a difference, they can show the wrongs that are being done. Sometimes they can topple governments."
-Joss Whedon, Serenity: The Official Visual Companion

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
When peeps falsify numbers, or change facts, that's not slanting or spinning, it's lying.
Am I wrong here? Is your definition of "bias" more Librul than mine?

Like I said, google "(Choose your media outlet) lies". Huffington says Fox lies. Other folks say Huffington lies. I figure they're both partisan operations and will say what their audience wants to hear. If that includes bending, spinning, or sometimes completely ignoring the truth, they'll do it.

I also figure that folks go to Fox News or Huffington Post for the same reasons they go to church. The sermons reenforce their worldview. They tell them they're right and the heathens are wrong. Everybody there agrees with them. It's comforting. Also, neither side likes atheists; those who say the Fox or Huffington belief system (or both) might all be hooey.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Like I said, google "(Choose your media outlet) lies". Huffington says Fox lies. Other folks say Huffington lies. I figure they're both partisan operations and will say what their audience wants to hear.

You keep missing the point - sure, they say the others lie. But here is a collection of PROOF of those lies, and you are trying to dismiss it just because you don't like the site that assembled the evidence.

I can, and have, googled "Olberman lies", and generally come up with a lot of sites that disagree with what he says - but have little to no proof of actual falsehood - just difference of opinion.

However, you google "Fox News lies" and you get a pretty decent list of verifiable falsehoods.

One is not equal to the other - no matter how pissy you get over the HuffPo.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
verifiable falsehoods.

That goes beyond simple bias.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I figure they're both partisan operations and will say what their audience wants to hear. If that includes bending, spinning, or sometimes completely ignoring the truth, they'll do it.

I'm guessing you say "I figure" because you don't watch one or the other. That's too bad, because if you did, you'd see the difference.

Olbermann, for example, quite freely admits his bias, but also said "There are more actual facts in one hour of this show than in about a week of Fox Noise". It's true. Whatever stories they choose to do, the pundits on MSNBC don't out-and-out lie. Faux News does. I can say that about MSNBC because I DO use them as a baseline, then search out other sources to get confirmation, check their facts, and get further information. I wouldn't even bother with Fox.

The mere fact that they so cheerfully inflated (and repeated, long after disproven) the numbers of the Washington tea party shows it clearly. Many, many other examples can be given, but that one on its own says it all.

Of COURSE they're partisan. Of COURSE they're preaching to the choir. That says nothing about their veracity. I've got nothing against bias that opposes my beliefs, there SHOULD be both sides of any story represented. But I abhor the obviousness with which the Faux Noise people blatantly and openly lie--KNOWING they're lying, planning it--and of course their audience never knows otherwise because they don't listen to any other source.

Also, I have nothing whatsoever against someone saying MSNBC or Huffington are full of hooey. Like I said, I use them as baselines; I also watch them as much for entertainment as news and sometimes giggle at how biased they ARE. Find me someone saying the same of Fox, or even willing to admit Fox is something less than perfect...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:28 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

This time, Fox is jumping on the bandwagon.

Not leading it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:39 AM

Quote:

Like I said, google "(Choose your media outlet) lies". Huffington says Fox lies. Other folks say Huffington lies. I figure they're both partisan operations and will say what their audience wants to hear. If that includes bending, spinning, or sometimes completely ignoring the truth, they'll do it.

Thing is, Geezer, you've been given ten solid, verified examples of Fox doing it, and have yet to offer evidence of even ONE instance of Huffpost or Mediamatters doing what you claim they do. So I have to ask: Are you biased, or are you lying?

Dan Rather was forced out of CBS for his part in a distorted piece on the President, which the "conservatives" got so up in arms about that they raised so much hell that the man was removed from his post and fired from his job. For what was perceived to be ONE "biased" story. So here's Fox, with a list just of their ten WORST examples of blatantly lying, and the conservatives, those bastions of honest journalistic integrity, have nothing to say about it at all, except to offer, "But Huffington..."

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:41 AM

Quote:

I can, and have, googled "Olberman lies", and generally come up with a lot of sites that disagree with what he says - but have little to no proof of actual falsehood - just difference of opinion.

In the interest of objectivity, I *DID* catch Olbermann in an outright lie a while back, when he falsely claimed that one of the town hall protesters showed up with "a machinegun", which was untrue. The man showed up with a semi-automatic AR-15, which is NOT a machinegun in any sense of the word, unless you mean it's a gun that was made on a machine.

So that's one lie.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:05 PM

And I'm guessing, in the minds of some, that one will far outweigh any lies fronted by Fox. Just.... because.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:14 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, media has responsibility to be accurate. But I can't compare the two--if I looked at an AR-15, I'd probably think it was a machine gun, too. You're positive it was a "lie", not a "mistake"?

Which doesn't excuse it, I hold the media to strict standards as far as researching their stuff and presenting the facts, but it still doesn't compare with having a set of facts in front of you in black and white, then deciding you'll actually SAY something different than what they are.

And yes, I'd love to see some verifiable instances of Huffington or MSNBC actually lying. Would be interesting.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:32 PM

Before I had actually handled one, I might easily have mistaken an AR-15 for a machine gun.

Also, since several guys I know who own AR's have converted them to full-auto - one would not be incorrect if they saw those particular guns and assumed they were machine guns.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:18 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
use them as a baseline, then search out other sources to get confirmation, check their facts, and get further information.

All hail the mighty power of the internet by which we can all inform (or even misinform!) ourselves without dependence on some media mouthpiece!

These talking heads are obsolete, and only too late will they realize it.

(Start/Shameless Plug)
And now, young grasshoppers, see the benefit of the one true realm on this earth that is in essence a fully functional voluntaryist anarchy!

Feel the power of the dark side!

(End/Shameless Plug)

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:47 PM

Heh heh, fluid is the truth. HEH HEH!!!

The Yodaisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:04 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
But here is a collection of PROOF of those lies, and you are trying to dismiss it just because you don't like the site that assembled the evidence.

Okay, you're so far in denial you can't even read what I've posted. I don't dispute that Fox lied. I expect that they will. I've said this earlier in this thread. I expect that any partisan media outlet will lie to keep their audience happy. This includes Huffington. This includes a large percentage of the media - print, broadcast, cable, internet, mimeograph, etc. If you want to believe that Huffington, or Media Matters, or MSNBC, or CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN, etc. always tell the whole truth that's cool. I take them all with a grain - nay, a truckload - of salt.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I don't dispute that Fox lied. I expect that they will. I've said this earlier in this thread. I expect that any partisan media outlet will lie to keep their audience happy.

Geezer, your aparrent "bias" against the truth, from whatever source, is what gets you into hot water in these parts.
I *get* you, others won't as long as you play to create discord.

Troublemaker.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:29 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer, your aparrent "bias" against the truth, from whatever source, is what gets you into hot water in these parts.

Huh? I agree with Niki that Fox lies. I just expect that other partisan media, such as Huffington, will lie as well. I expect that any partisan media will either spin, distort, or outright lie. So I'm showing bias against liars?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
uh? I agree with Niki that Fox lies. I just expect that other partisan media, such as Huffington, will lie as well. I expect that any partisan media will either spin, distort, or outright lie. So I'm showing bias against liars?

Yep.
You constantly *SEEM* to side with liars more than truth-seekers, no matter how "biased" those truth-seekers seem to be.
Sorry.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
partisan media

P.S.- there is NO non-partisan media. Filter it, analyze it, & come up with the truth.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 23, 2009 3:22 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yep.
You constantly *SEEM* to side with liars more than truth-seekers, no matter how "biased" those truth-seekers seem to be.
Sorry.

Meaning you consider Fox liars and Huffington truth-seekers? There's plenty of folk out there who believe the reverse. I look at them both with distrust.

Quote:

P.S.- there is NO non-partisan media. Filter it, analyze it, & come up with the truth.

Well, Duh. But there are levels. PN vs. BBC, for example.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 23, 2009 3:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Meaning you consider Fox liars and Huffington truth-seekers?

That's much closer to reality than the reverse.

Quote:
There's plenty of folk out there who believe the reverse.

Poor deluded fools.

Quote:

BBC

I like them.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 23, 2009 3:09 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

No, Geezer, I think YOU aren't reading what others are saying. We got that you accept Fox lies. What YOU're not getting is that Fixed News lies, lies a lot, PLANS to lie, and I for one don't believe it happens anything LIKE as often with other media like Huffrington, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, PR, the networks, etc.

Yes, I believe in taking everything with a grain of salt; but there's a biiig difference between bias and deliberate manipulation of the news so as to be a blatant falsehood--not that "unblatant" falsehoods are any better, but I maintain that, tho' slanted in some cases, deliberate lies aren't part of other media like they are at Fixed News, where they are an accepted staple.

In other words, as you said "PN v. BBC", the point I'm/we're making is Fox News v. EVERYONE ELSE.

If there are plenty "out there" who believe other media lie, I'd be grateful for some cites so I can go and look for myself. I appreciate knowing when a source is deliberately lying to me...but I have a strong suspicion those you hear claiming they lie are Fox viewers, convinced of the fact by Fox.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 23, 2009 3:27 PM

Niki, you're beating your head against a wall here. Geezer *believes* he's being neutral and un-biased, above all such concerns like an alien observer. But his very involvement in our society precludes such Star-Child-like objectivity, and therein lies his disconnect. He means well, he really does, however his sin is PRIDE.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 23, 2009 3:34 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just making a point; how anyone takes it is beyond my responsibility. I have actually agreed with Geezer in the past, but when it comes to the blatant dishonesty of Fixed News, and the effect I think they've had on discourse in this country lately, well, sometimes feels good to just

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 23, 2009 4:21 PM

What I'm wondering is, where are Geezer's cites? If it were ANYONE else posting up that one news outlet or another were nothing but blatant lies, he'd be the very first one to say, "Cites would be nice."

But here's Geezer, saying that it's obvious that Huffington, MediaMatters, etc. all lie, and he hasn't provided anything by way of citation for that, other than "Google it".

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:04 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I like Geezer, but his commentary in this thread has been akin to-

Commentator - "Hannibal Lecter ate 23 people with a side of fava beans."

Geezer - "Well, yes, but my Uncle Jeremy ran over a jaywalker in his car."

Commentator - "What the devil has that got to do with what I'm talking about?"

Geezer - "Well... they both killed people, didn't they?"

Commentator - "By God man, how does your Uncle Jeremy remotely compare to Hannibal Lecter? I've never even heard of your Uncle Jeremy! Does he run over jaywalkers three days a week?"

Geezer - "Shame on you, sir. Now you're just being disingenuous."

Commentator - *sputters* "Me?! I'm being- Jesus Christ. Never mind."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Niki, I love your emotocons, BTW.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:44 AM

Quote:

Well, Duh. But there are levels. PN vs. BBC, for example.

In this examples, FoxNews=PirateNews, and Huffpost=BBC.

A great deal of the "bias" Geezer refers to is in the emphasis of the story's reporting. Whereas NPR or Huffpost might say that the recent Goldstone findings "indicated that Israel may be complicit in war crimes, and called for a further investigation," FoxNews would cover the same story by saying that "Obama Hates Jews!!"

You can see the subtle differences there, I think.

It begs the question: What's worse - lies of ommission, or lies of commission? Is it worse to emphasize one viewpoint while ignoring or under-reporting another viewpoint, or is it worse to just fabricate "facts" out of whole cloth and report them as if they were actual events?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 24, 2009 6:07 AM

HKCAVALIER

With Geezer it's not a matter of cites--it's a metaphysical certainty. At least here in cyberspace, his world view skirts dangerously close to the sort of assumptions that put fascism on its feet and give it traction in the world: all reality is only opinion and usually it's the meanest, ugliest opinion that wins. Cynicism is not a political ideology, but when it's used as such, fascism is where it leads.

Speaking of dinosaurs, this kinda thinking is dying out because of the Internet. Lying is just getting harder to do! We're all our own credible news gathering agencies now. At a click of the mouse and a little looking, we can have access to most of what the MSM uses as primary sources.

I don't read Huffington Post. I think this is the second link to that website I've followed. But when I see them posting primary sources as they do here, there's no reason not to take 'em seriously. Another prerequisite for fascist thinking: always discredit the messenger--always, always, always! In such a world view, a broken clock is NOT right twice a day, because it is a disreputable source; and merely associating with such an untrustworthy clock implies YOU are also disreputable in some way.

To paraphrase Senator Lindsey Graham, Geezer is not aligned with fascism, he's aligned with cynicism. And nobody ever lost an argument on the Internet by being too cynical.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
What YOU're not getting is that Fixed News lies, lies a lot, PLANS to lie, and I for one don't believe it happens anything LIKE as often with other media like Huffrington, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, PR, the networks, etc.

Did I ever say they didn't? I don't follow Fox News, so I don't have any basis for judgement, but if you say so, then sure.

I have read a few articles from Huffington, usually from cites here, and they do seem to me to have a pretty strong bias.

Hmm. Interestingly, at least the first four "Distortions" on Huffington are actually copies of MediaMatters videos.

At least one of them, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_3
27140.html?slidenumber=2#slide_image seems to be reaching a bit, since Pres. Obama is obviously reading a question off the monitor he's pointing towards.

Edit to add: Hmm, upon further review the Huffington article is pretty much a re-formatting of the MediaMatters article, same videos and almost word-for-word reposting of the text. But no attribution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:31 PM

Seems as though reposting things without attribution or fact-checking might be a little more common than we'd like to think. Latest victim? Rush Limbaugh, who went on for more than half his show railing about "Obama's thesis" in which he disses the Constitution. Only problem? It was a hoax, a joke posted by a blogger with no sources cited nor any kind of evidence behind it.

The funniest part is Rush's reaction when he finds out he's been had, and has just spent the first half of his show prattling on about something that just never happened. His "apology"? He said that even if these weren't Obama's writings, "I know he thinks it." And then went off on a tangent about how Dan Rather said that he didn't care if the documents were forged, that it didn't matter, which I certainly can't remember him ever saying. Did Rush just make that up, too? Or does he know that Rather thinks it.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93122?fp=1

Listen here:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910230019

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thanx, Chris; I love 'em too. One of the original fontaholic emoticonaholics, that's me. Got a library of 'em on Photobucket that would choke a horse. Sometimes a picture can replace an entire typed concept...and they're funnier to boot.

Mike, you got it:

Quote:
In this examples, FoxNews=PirateNews, and Huffpost=BBC.

Whereas NPR or Huffpost might say that the recent Goldstone findings "indicated that Israel may be complicit in war crimes, and called for a further investigation," FoxNews would cover the same story by saying that "Obama Hates Jews!!"

It begs the question: What's worse - lies of ommission, or lies of commission? Is it worse to emphasize one viewpoint while ignoring or under-reporting another viewpoint, or is it worse to just fabricate "facts" out of whole cloth and report them as if they were actual events?

I LOVED the "Obama hates Jews" thing--that could be straight out of their kind of "coverage". Tho' I wouldn't give Huffpost the even-handedness of BBC, nor Fixed News quite the insanity of PN, the corollary is close.

Quote:
Speaking of dinosaurs, this kinda thinking is dying out because of the Internet. Lying is just getting harder to do! We're all our own credible news gathering agencies now.

But the other side of that is that there are more nutbags on the internet than there are credible sources. Ergo, Fixed Noise can claim there were two million at the march, and enough people post it on the internet that you really have to wend your way through to find truth.

One side can bury Google; I tried to find the numer of days Obama has taken in vacation so far to contrast it to Dumbya; three or four screens into my search engine, all I was finding were articles about the amazing number of days Dumbya took, and nothing on the actual NUMBER of days Obama's taken. That's an example from the "other side", but most often what I see are rants and posts reflecting right-wing anger and quoting the Fixed Noise "facts". (I am sure it represented the opposite when Dumbya was in power, I'm not saying left-wing nutcases are any better.)

When enough "verification" is found that there WERE two million, as was said by one pundit, the media takes it up, it smothers the internet, and somewhere down the line it might actually be ACCEPTED.

And yes,

Quote:
At a click of the mouse and a little looking, we can have access to most of what the MSM uses as primary sources.

Very valid. As I've said, if interested in something, I use MSNBC as a starting point and research further on my own; but sometimes it can take a LOT of looking to find a relatively unbaised source; if I just looked casually, often all I can find is the same things I heard on MSNBC...and that might well be a case of the above.

I don't read Huffpost either; they show up on MSNBC and CNN often enough to get their bias, same for The Nation. BUT, I discount what they report from The Nation because it is, in my opinion, as slanted as they get. Yet MSNBC uses both sources extensively, so I need other sources to be convinced. As Geezer said:

Quote:
upon further review the Huffington article is pretty much a re-formatting of the MediaMatters article, same videos and almost word-for-word reposting of the text. But no attribution.

All too often the case; nonetheless, my research has shown that, tho' they are biased in their reporting, and sometimes uderreport or omit the other side, there is no comparison whatsoever with the kind of out-and-out lying of Fixed Noise.

The example Mike gave of Limbaugh is exactly what I see in videos from "ClusterFox", as I've heard it called. Anything from anywhere that fits their agenda (or twist or make it up), then take that and blow it out of proportion; found to be wrong, they sidestep and go on ranting. I appreciate that Maddow, when found to be wrong, puts a clarification up on her show and apologizes; of course, she then often follows it up with something that makes the same point using another example, but nonetheless: when is the last time anyone heard any of the Fixed Noise pundits actually apologize for getting something wrong? (By the way, Mike, I remember that instance; made me giggle.)

Mike, you must watch a lot of MSNBC, at least Olbermann and Maddow. I do too; I'd like to think you research beyond what you hear to sift out the bias--tho' I've rarely caught them at an actual LIE (tho' a few mistakes), I don't take them at face value. I try to take NOTHING at face value, even if it's repeated on several media sources; everyone has their bais.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:30 AM