Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-23-2012, 06:09 PM
Gerald II Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 400
Rachel Maddow provided a timeline of the Fast and Furious story implying it was manufactured by a rightwing blogger and FOX News only when CBS broke the story and was provided with those documents.

Rachel Maddow claimed Fast and Furious was a continued Bush program which it wasn't.
  #152  
Old 11-23-2012, 06:30 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald II View Post
Rachel Maddow provided a timeline of the Fast and Furious story implying it was manufactured by a rightwing blogger and FOX News only when CBS broke the story and was provided with those documents.

Rachel Maddow claimed Fast and Furious was a continued Bush program which it wasn't.
the gunwalking scandal started in 06.

fast and furious was a portion of a program that has been going on for 3 years at that point.
  #153  
Old 11-23-2012, 10:25 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald II View Post
Rachel Maddow provided a timeline of the Fast and Furious story implying it was manufactured by a rightwing blogger and FOX News only when CBS broke the story and was provided with those documents.
Good heavens. She didn't say the blogger made up the fact that Fast and Furious existed, she said he made up the story that the motivation behind it was to undermine the Second Amendment.


Quote:
Rachel Maddow claimed Fast and Furious was a continued Bush program which it wasn't.
She said that it was a continuation of a Bush strategy of selling guns to criminals in the hopes of tracing them to druglords. I agree she could have been more clear that it was not the exact same program, but that is only a very minor detail to anyone who doesn't think that the motive behind it is to confiscate everyone's guns.

Last edited by TonySinclair; 11-23-2012 at 10:27 PM.
  #154  
Old 11-23-2012, 11:03 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald II View Post
December 7th 2011 CBS news story

I can't find the original forum thread where the CBS story I originally came across was at, but after googling it, I think that may be the same story. I'll come back later to verify if that was the same article.
If you are saying that CBS "broke" the story in December 2011, the only thing I can think of to make sense of your claims about Maddow lying is that you are under the impression that she was claiming the story about the alleged conspiracy had just come out, which is ridiculous.

If you look at the dates on the documents she shows, the allegation from the Alabama blogger is dated March 8, 2011, and the Fox News article identifying the blogger as "an authority on the Fast and Furious investigation" was dated Sep 9, 2011.

So I really doubt that she was sneakily covering up CBS "breaking" the story in December 2011, or trying to make anyone think that the conspiracy theory was a new development. The new development, and the reason she reported on the story the day she did, was that Issa's committee had just voted (along party lines) to charge Eric Holder with contempt of Congress for invoking executive privilege.
  #155  
Old 11-24-2012, 03:49 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Good heavens. She didn't say the blogger made up the fact that Fast and Furious existed, she said he made up the story that the motivation behind it was to undermine the Second Amendment.
Yeah, I don't understand this at all. She clearly blames the Conspiracy Theory that many on the right bought into regarding F&F on the blogger, not the whole damn thing. And she is not wrong about this.

Oddly enough, the Right is not learning their lesson from F&F as they are repeating their past behavior with regard to Benghazi, led on by the Benghazi Cheerleading Network, Fox News. More on that in my next post...

Quote:
She said that it was a continuation of a Bush strategy of selling guns to criminals in the hopes of tracing them to druglords. I agree she could have been more clear that it was not the exact same program, but that is only a very minor detail to anyone who doesn't think that the motive behind it is to confiscate everyone's guns.
Yeah, it's a fine distinction but she is not factually incorrect here as far as I can tell. Certainly if this is the smoking gun that Maddow is not trustworthy, I am pretty content using her as source for commentary.
  #156  
Old 11-24-2012, 04:13 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,457
Fox News is doing it again, screaming "Benghazi" over and over again until their faces turn blue. They do this a lot: Pick on something by themselves that is at best based on dubious facts and at worst loony tunes tin foil hat brigade conspiracy theory nonsense and beat it to the ground until viewers decide that it's a fact, other mainstream media outlets feel forced to comment on the story and even politicians buy into it.

Here's an editorial from The Washington Post that touches upon this:
Quote:
SINCE THE Senate is solely responsible for the confirmation of Cabinet officers, it’s not often that members of the House of Representatives jump into a debate about the nomination of a secretary of state — particularly before there has been a nomination. That’s one of the reasons a letter sent to President Obama this week by 97 House Republicans, challenging his potential choice of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for the State Department job, is remarkable.

Another is blatant disregard of established facts. Drawn up by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), the letter alleges that “Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public” about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But as congressional testimony has established, Ms. Rice’s comments on several Sunday television talk shows on Sept. 16 were based on talking points drawn up by the intelligence community. She was acting as an administration spokeswoman; there was nothing either incompetent or deliberately misleading about the way she presented the information she was given.

Though the Benghazi attack involved clear failures of U.S. security, Republicans have concentrated on a dubious subsidiary issue: the alleged failure of the administration to publicly recognize quickly enough that the incident was “a terrorist attack.” In fact, Mr. Obama has acknowledged that “the information may not have always been right the first time.” But if there was a White House conspiracy to cover up the truth, Republicans have yet to produce any evidence of it — much less a connection to Ms. Rice, who had no involvement with the Benghazi attack other than those television appearances.

The oddity of the Republican response to what happened in Benghazi is partly this focus on half-baked conspiracy theories rather than on the real evidence of failures by the State Department, Pentagon and CIA in protecting the Benghazi mission.
Needless to say, Fox News Is Leading The Attack Against Susan Rice.

The tragedy here goes beyond the four dead Americans. The tragedy here is that in a quest to pin those deaths on Obama personally, and allow truth to be a fifth casualty in order to do so, the ability to investigate what actually happened and make sure it doesn't happen again will become secondary and could get lost in the hubris.

There should be an investigation into what happened in Benghazi. But Fox News is not trying to figure out what happened. They are trying to pin it all on Obama and anyone close to him (David Petraeus, Hilary Clinton and now Rice... Who next, the White House janitor who has a cousin who once visited Benghazi?) rather than push for a simple investigation.

And once again, Republicans are letting Fox News lead them by the nose. They never learn, do they...
  #157  
Old 11-24-2012, 09:09 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,427
I decided to engage in some schadenfreude on the afternoon of the seventh, because we were at my aunt's house, where the have a faux news channel. Watched a bit of this angry, depressed round-table program, heard one of the talking headless make a comment to the effect that since Obama had been re-elected, the caribou would now be free from having to contend with the Keystone Pipeline. I wanted to gloat, but gloating should not be painful. That is the calibre of people newscorp employs, either in terms of mental capacity or of ethical capacity, or maybe both.
  #158  
Old 11-25-2012, 02:07 AM
Locrian Locrian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 3,888
I think I'll find a partial transcript from the 700 Club, Joel Osteen, and Hannity or other FOX news programs. I doubt most would guess which network is which.
  #159  
Old 11-26-2012, 12:47 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,427
Fox News is a wing of the Republican Party, you heard it right on Fox. All pretense is done, they have as much as admitted it.
  #160  
Old 11-26-2012, 01:03 PM
zoid's Avatar
zoid zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 9,757
Fox didn't admit it. A guest made the accusation.
I'm as disappointed as anyone, I thought they might just be willing to tell the truth, but alas it was not to be.
  #161  
Old 11-26-2012, 03:24 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
Fox didn't admit it. A guest made the accusation.
Unfortunately, this is true. Still, the clip was hilarious. Makes me wanna buy the dude's book.
  #162  
Old 11-26-2012, 03:29 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,829
The amazing thing is that Ricks isn't a lefty, at all. He was a slobbering fool for Rumsfeld. But the Republican Party (and Fox News) have apparently swept past him, leaving him outside the bubble to the point where even he can see what an evil bouncy-house of hot air Fox is.
  #163  
Old 11-26-2012, 03:36 PM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by For You View Post
Fox News is a wing of the Republican Party, you heard it right on Fox. All pretense is done, they have as much as admitted it.
That was hilarious. But Foxnews did not admit to anything - you'll have to go to the cite in John_Stamos'_Left_Ear's post for that.

However they did cut their guest off early because he was not parroting their talking points.

Funny stuff.
  #164  
Old 11-27-2012, 02:28 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Fox News is doing it again, screaming "Benghazi" over and over again until their faces turn blue.
Just ran across a great editorial at the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution which says this better than I can (and did):
Quote:
For at least a few conservatives, Election Night opened eyes about the danger of confining yourself to the right-wing information echo chamber. Because out here in the real world, as opposed to ConservaWorld, it turned out that the polls weren’t skewed, Mitt Romney wasn’t surging and a majority of the American people really did want to re-elect Barack Obama as their president.

Those who had relied on Fox “News” for their information were prepared for none of that.

To my mind, though, the utter collapse of the Fox narrative regarding the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi should be at least as instructive for those who are willing to see things as they are, rather than how they wish them to be. For more than two months, the network and those in Washington who follow its lead tried to create a firestorm of controversy regarding Benghazi, but time and again, as facts came to light, each right-wing claim about Benghazi was exposed as false and inflammatory.

Let’s review the litany, shall we?

“It never would have happened if consulate security had been bolstered as requested!”

No feasible level of consulate security could have saved the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team against an assault by 50 to 100 armed attackers.

“This only happened because under Obama, nobody is afraid of us anymore!” As Charles Krauthammer slickly phrased the argument on Fox, “these are the fruits of apology and retreat and lack of confidence in our own principles.”

Under President Bush, seven U.S. consulates or embassies were attacked, including those in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria, with considerable loss of life. But unlike Benghazi, none of those attacks became the pretext for crass partisanship.

“They refused to bring in the AC-130 gunships that could have saved the ambassador.”

The closest AC-130 was 2,500 miles away, in Afghanistan.

“They had Special Forces units sitting there in Italy ready to intervene but instead the cowards just watched our people die!”

The Special Forces units in question did not arrive in Italy until several hours after the attacks had ended, and were never in position to have played a role.

“UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied to the American people, and by doing so disqualified herself from consideration to become secretary of State.”

Rice accurately communicated to the American people the best, most current information as assembled by our intelligence community. There is no evidence that the intel assessment was altered for partisan political reasons, and former CIA Director David Petraeus and current Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper have informed Congress of that fact.
  #165  
Old 11-27-2012, 02:40 PM
chargerrich chargerrich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
This is false and dumb.
You're arguing that most media outside of Radio is not liberal? Wow, I was pretty sure that was something most would agree on.

Guess it is a case of seeing things through different color glasses.

Are you going to also argue that Rachel Maddow is not far left?

As a moderate, I like to think I am more without bias than most but maybe in reality she is fan of trickle down economics.
  #166  
Old 11-27-2012, 02:46 PM
markdash markdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
You're arguing that most media outside of Radio is not liberal? Wow, I was pretty sure that was something most would agree on.

Guess it is a case of seeing things through different color glasses.

Are you going to also argue that Rachel Maddow is not far left?

As a moderate, I like to think I am more without bias than most but maybe in reality she is fan of trickle down economics.
Rachel Maddow is NOT far left, she is a solid liberal however.

Trust me, I live near Berkeley, I know what far left looks like.
  #167  
Old 11-27-2012, 02:50 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
You're arguing that most media outside of Radio is not liberal?
Of course because it's a myth. I suggest you start a thread about it if you care to actually learn about this because that's a whole other ball of fish.

Quote:
Are you going to also argue that Rachel Maddow is not far left?
No, actually I said she is biased to the left. However she is not indicative of "most media outside of radio."
  #168  
Old 11-27-2012, 03:52 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
You're arguing that most media outside of Radio is not liberal? Wow, I was pretty sure that was something most would agree on.
And that's a perfect example of how Fox News viewers think that their right-wing views are actually mainstream, and that everyone but the kooky fringe left agrees with them. Not even the bucket of cold water in the face from three weeks ago can penetrate the tin foil.

The major media outlets are owned by huge corporations. They were cheerleading for the war in Iraq, and pretty much acted as stenographers, rather than investigative reporters, for whatever Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld said, even when it should have been obvious they were lying. The NYT's Judith Miller breathlessly reported every WMD "find" on page 1, and every time (giving them the benefit of the doubt), some intern wrote a two-line retraction on page 23 a couple weeks later. But all Fox News knows is that Dan Rather once got a source wrong, and therefore, to this day, anything that CBS reports is rejected out of hand as "liberal media bias."

All the networks, including PBS, have shows devoted to big business and investing. Some, including NBC, even have 24-hour channels devoted to it. When was the last time you saw a show about labor, except in the context of a strike hurting business (or in the case of teachers, our children), or in the context of labor unions having the temerity to support the candidate who has not made the destruction of unions one of his campaign promises?
  #169  
Old 11-27-2012, 03:57 PM
chargerrich chargerrich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
And that's a perfect example of how Fox News viewers think that their right-wing views are actually mainstream, and that everyone but the kooky fringe left agrees with them.
I do not for even a moment think Fox news is mainstream. I would even go so far as to say that CNN is less biased than Fox. That said CNN is biased and I would posit that EVERY news organization is biased to some degree and that the majority of television news media is liberal.

Not saying that is bad, just an observation.
  #170  
Old 11-27-2012, 04:00 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
I do not for even a moment think Fox news is mainstream. I would even go so far as to say that CNN is less biased than Fox. That said CNN is biased and I would posit that EVERY news organization is biased to some degree and that the majority of television news media is liberal.

Not saying that is bad, just an observation.
And on what specifically are you basing this observation?
  #171  
Old 11-27-2012, 04:06 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
Are you going to also argue that Rachel Maddow is not far left?
Is she agitating for the workers to seize the means of production and hang bosses from street lights, or suggesting it as a historical inevitability ? Perhaps does she support popular armed insurrections, and massed disobedience by enlisted soldiers ? Would she hypothetically be in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat ? Does she advocate enforced equality of income/means, or the abolition of personal property ? Has she ever uttered the phrase "property of use" or "squatting rights" ? Maybe she's all hopped up on smashing the institutions of government, particularly the federal one, to be replaced by self-determined micro-communes ?

If the answer to any/all of these questions is "no", she's not far left.

Last edited by Kobal2; 11-27-2012 at 04:07 PM.
  #172  
Old 11-27-2012, 04:07 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
I do not for even a moment think Fox news is mainstream. I would even go so far as to say that CNN is less biased than Fox. That said CNN is biased and I would posit that EVERY news organization is biased to some degree and that the majority of television news media is liberal.

Not saying that is bad, just an observation.
during the election cycles, after the first debate, every news station gave a majority negative overview of obama while giving a generally positive overview of romney, something like 2:1.

while we can say MSNBC is the counter-lever to Fox, most others try to be actually journalistic and report things as they are. my stats are from a pew study, and i just find it hard to believe if they are all left-leaning that they'd give more favor to romney, which they did.
chart.
  #173  
Old 11-27-2012, 04:16 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
That was hilarious. But Foxnews did not admit to anything - you'll have to go to the cite in John_Stamos'_Left_Ear's post for that.

However they did cut their guest off early because he was not parroting their talking points.

Funny stuff.
Addendum to this funny story:
Fox News Channel executive vice president Michael Clemente on Monday responded to the much-discussed interview with Tom Ricks, claiming that the Pulitizer Prize winner apologized privately for criticizing the network's coverage of the September attack in Benghazi, Libya. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Clemente accused Ricks of using the interview to generate publicity for his new book, The Generals. Clemente also seemed to take exception to the lack of public contrition from Ricks.

“When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself -- and his book," Clemente told THR via email. "He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly."

But that's news to Ricks, who told THR in his own email that he never offered an apology to Fox — privately or publicly.
  #174  
Old 11-27-2012, 05:18 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by For You View Post
Addendum to this funny story:
Fox News Channel executive vice president Michael Clemente on Monday responded to the much-discussed interview with Tom Ricks, claiming that the Pulitizer Prize winner apologized privately for criticizing the network's coverage of the September attack in Benghazi, Libya. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Clemente accused Ricks of using the interview to generate publicity for his new book, The Generals. Clemente also seemed to take exception to the lack of public contrition from Ricks.

“When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself -- and his book," Clemente told THR via email. "He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly."

But that's news to Ricks, who told THR in his own email that he never offered an apology to Fox — privately or publicly.


Bee-bee-b-bebeep, This Just In.. Fox "News" now claims that "Many People" heard him apologize..
  #175  
Old 11-27-2012, 05:57 PM
Gagundathar Gagundathar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: East TN Mtns USA,NA,Sol3
Posts: 4,101
In answer to the OP: Yes.
  #176  
Old 11-28-2012, 12:24 AM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Liberal South
Posts: 14,266
Rachel Maddow does have Republicans on her program. And she is forever trying to persuade others to come on her show. They seem a little hesitatant to show up. As have others here, I have heard her make corrections when she said something that was in error -- even things that seemed to have no real significance.

"Smarmy"? Oh, please. She has got to be one of the coolest and most unfront commentators on television. I also Tivo Maddow. And I add an extra hour to catch "The Last Word" With Lawrence O'Donnell. Are these commentators liberal? I would think so, but they talk about facts and data. They don't make blind accusations. The producers do their homework. It was MSNBC, by the way, that had a Republican on their panels for the debates and I believe election night coverage, also.

I have to laugh at their being called "the far left." Please find another news source than Fox. You (generally speaking) will be better educated for having a better grasp of political terms.

Meanwhile, most Americans depend on such socialist organizations as the public libraries, the United States Mail, police departments, fire departments, highway departments, and public schools.

People who just watch Fox News for information probably don't understand what the word "socialist" means. That is why I hate Fox News (except for the entertaining madness). Fox leaves people ignorant of facts.

How did that Fox News Commentator come out on that naughty sex scandal of a few years ago? I'm surprised that he didn't bite the dust then. He did walk out on an NPR interview once. Now THAT is smarmy. Just go to Bill's webite and count the number of times you can see his name at one time. (I haven't checked in a while, but it certainly used to cover everything.)

Remember, when Cheney wanted to tell his story of the shooting accident, he made himself available only to Fox. That says a lot.
  #177  
Old 11-28-2012, 09:46 AM
chargerrich chargerrich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
during the election cycles, after the first debate, every news station gave a majority negative overview of obama while giving a generally positive overview of romney, something like 2:1.

while we can say MSNBC is the counter-lever to Fox, most others try to be actually journalistic and report things as they are. my stats are from a pew study, and i just find it hard to believe if they are all left-leaning that they'd give more favor to romney, which they did.
chart.
I have a hard time using the first debate as a litmus test for any level of bias. Who could of possibly said with a straight face that Obama won the first debate?

He was listless, uninspired and was clearly beat. That said, the arguments were split over whether Romney won it or Obama lost it, but to state any outcome other than the obvious would have been too transparent for any bias IMO.
  #178  
Old 11-28-2012, 12:06 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
I have a hard time using the first debate as a litmus test for any level of bias. Who could of possibly said with a straight face that Obama won the first debate?

He was listless, uninspired and was clearly beat. That said, the arguments were split over whether Romney won it or Obama lost it, but to state any outcome other than the obvious would have been too transparent for any bias IMO.
i'm not sure i follow. the debate was just a point in time, from which a shift in the general complexion of each candidate came. it isn't as if the media all felt obama lost so they'd better talk only about that from there on, regardless of anything else. it's not as if they all agreed "he lost, so we need to at least feign negativity towards him for it."

remember he won the next 3 counting Biden's, yet the trajectory of pos/neg remained the same as after the first. for that reason, i see it not as bias GENERATED nor quelled by the first debate, but merely as a point in time. if mainstream media was all that biased left, the second obama won a debate, general favor would have swung back positively. but for some reason it remained negative.

the only take-away i can come up with is that any way you slice it, they clearly aren't too bias left. otherwise the data would track in that direction.
  #179  
Old 11-28-2012, 12:08 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,065
^^also, i think part of why the GOP was so convinced Romney might win was due to this PEW-confirmed media portrayal favoring Romney.

in most metrics, he seemed to carry the "momentum." the general climate of the media was more favorable towards him than towards Obama and the total lent itself to a "gut feeling" that he was carrying sway. for a while, a lot of polls even tracked his way.

i guess what i am saying is it's hard to build a case the whole of the media was proboama and antiromney. that's simply not the case.
  #180  
Old 11-28-2012, 12:12 PM
Bosstone Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
I have a hard time using the first debate as a litmus test for any level of bias. Who could of possibly said with a straight face that Obama won the first debate?
Fox would have said Romney had won if Obama's and Romney's attitudes had been reversed. You know they would have. That's what bias is.

Last edited by Bosstone; 11-28-2012 at 12:12 PM.
  #181  
Old 11-28-2012, 02:44 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
The major media outlets are owned by huge corporations. They were cheerleading for the war in Iraq, and pretty much acted as stenographers, rather than investigative reporters, for whatever Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld said, even when it should have been obvious they were lying.
Here is one particular example of that: how major news organizations forgot their own investigative reporting on the subject of the spying by UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. As a result, most Americans thought that Saddam had used some pretext to kick the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in the late 90s, which made it look like he really had something to hide. The actual fact is that the inspectors were not kicked out but left when the U.S. and Britain were going to do military strikes...These military strikes were admittedly in response to Iraq being uncooperative with the inspectors but that lack of cooperation was because of factually-true gripes they had that inspectors were indeed serving as military spies for the U.S. and Britain.

This is why the fact (that we learned after the 2003 Iraq war) that Saddam ended up not really having anything to hide turned out to be such a surprise to most Americans except the few of us on the Left who read FAIR for actual reality-based reporting.

Quote:
The NYT's Judith Miller breathlessly reported every WMD "find" on page 1, and every time (giving them the benefit of the doubt), some intern wrote a two-line retraction on page 23 a couple weeks later.
And, worse yet, Dick Cheney then noted on TV that even the New York Times is saying this, when of course, they were both getting the same information from the same lying source.

Last edited by jshore; 11-28-2012 at 02:48 PM.
  #182  
Old 11-30-2012, 09:08 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,865
Here's another example from FAIR from just the past couple of days of the "Left-wing media". It's kind of amusing. (Worth reading this take on it too.)

One wonders why AP / USAToday would not bother to get any sort of expert opinion on this. I am a physicist but my specific knowledge of nuclear physics is about as low as one could possibly imagine and it took me well less than a minute to find the error in the graph (admittedly once I had read that there was an error).
  #183  
Old 12-01-2012, 10:29 AM
Patty O'Furniture Patty O'Furniture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bangkok/52/Male
Posts: 8,870
Interesting article about the uncomfortable relationship that the GOP suddenly finds itself in with FOX News:

The nightmare free market scenario the GOP faces: They're a very bad investment.
__________________
Join Date: May 20, 1999
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Posts: 8,870
  #184  
Old 12-07-2012, 08:39 AM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,768
Hey, the unemployment numbers are out and they look very promising. Beat expectations and down to the lowest rate in years. This is important news regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on.

My cite is to look at the lead story of every single news organization (except Fox, which isn't reporting this anywhere on it's front page for some reason).
  #185  
Old 12-07-2012, 09:28 AM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
...
My cite is to look at the lead story of every single news organization (except Fox, which isn't reporting this anywhere on it's front page for some reason).
This is terrific evidence. I've been looking for support. Even the Washington Times, an extremely conservative newspaper, has the unemployment rate story prominent on its home page. Likewise the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando sentinel, two other conservative papers. And of course ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and almost every major paper I looked at, has the story.

Who doesn't? Fox News and the New York Post, both Murdoch properties.
  #186  
Old 12-07-2012, 10:02 AM
Happy Fun Ball Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,111
What's even funnier is that the only jobs related story on the front page is that planned layoffs are the highest since May. Are they talking about the post holiday layoffs? Ridiculous, I don't know how anybody can defend them.

Last edited by Happy Fun Ball; 12-07-2012 at 10:02 AM.
  #187  
Old 12-07-2012, 10:25 AM
Skammer's Avatar
Skammer Skammer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Music City USA
Posts: 14,129
Ha! I just looked on the foxnews front page for the jobles numbers.

It's not the mainheadline ("FEMA Workers Told to 'Sightsee' For Days as Sandy Victims Struggled"). It's not listed below that as one of their three "Exclusive" stories.

Found it! In the next section of their homepage, listed under "Latest News," it is listed in the 16th and final position behind "George Zimmerman sues NBC over edited 911 call," and "Michigan GOP approve right to work amid protests."

But here's the kicker, the actual link to the jobless rate story: "Jobless rate dips to 7.7 percent, economy vulnerable". Love it.
  #188  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:36 AM
GreenElf GreenElf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molesworth 2 View Post
I've read quite a few online stories like yours about people who just don't bother going home for Christmas or Thanksgiving because they know that the whole experience will be ruined by fierce arguments due to Fox News propaganda.

Fox News not only poisons political discourse in the US, it also drives a wedge between family members.
We had relatives stop in during Thanksgiving, and my cousin who always has had nothing but kind words for my elderly mother repeatedly told her that she was stupid and brainwashed because she voted for Obama.
  #189  
Old 12-12-2012, 12:58 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D. View Post
What's even funnier is that the only jobs related story on the front page is that planned layoffs are the highest since May. Are they talking about the post holiday layoffs? Ridiculous, I don't know how anybody can defend them.
Dropped on their head as an infant? Oxygen deprivation in the womb? High fever during childhood?
  #190  
Old 12-20-2012, 01:44 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,653
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/2...r-on-fox-news/
  #191  
Old 12-31-2012, 05:02 PM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,306
Not sure if this one hit one of the first four pages.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...X?detail=email

Anne Coulter's big mouth:
Quote:
But that is something they have STRENUOUSLY denied over the years. Everyone from Roger Ailes to Hannity to O'Reilly to Wallace to the FOX and Friends on the couch crowd have ALL, at various times, denied they were really mere partisan Republicans. They knew that was a damaged and discredited brand. They knew letting folks in on the joke would crush their ratings among the masses of low-information voters. No, they were better than that. They were CONSERVATIVES. That was the all-important identifier. Everyone else was that ignominious thing known as "liberal."

How ironic this happens at the hands of She Who Foams at the Mouth. In her moment of rage, Ann has summarily stripped Hannity of that fig leaf. AND HE AGREED WITH HER. Listen to the exchange again. When she says:

THERE IS NO POINT TO YOU DOING YOUR SHOW.
Hannity replies:
I AGREE WITH YOU.
Game. Set. Match. Ding dong, the witch is dead.
  #192  
Old 01-04-2013, 08:10 AM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,768
Jobs numbers out again. Nice, but not as fantastic as the last month's numbers, which Foxnews.com saw no need to report on. But, still a top story on every news site.

Fox, at least this time because it is somewhat less rosy, is actually reporting it (at the bottom of their news, with an small headline that reads "Unemployment rate steady at 7.8 percent in December" without noting that 155,000 jobs were added).
  #193  
Old 01-08-2013, 08:50 PM
Hottius Maximus Hottius Maximus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 497
I've said it before and I'll say it again: FOX News and Talk Radio NEVER would have gained the following that they have if the Mainstream Media had done its damn job and simply reported the news instead of slanting it and disguising left wing editorials as news. Fox News commentators are no worse than liberal commentators, are they? That being said, if nobody believes me about the left wing bias, then I cannot convince anyone although I do suggest that you read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Yes I know that he is a Fox News contributor but he worked at CBS for 15 years and saw it all.
  #194  
Old 01-08-2013, 09:00 PM
zoid's Avatar
zoid zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 9,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hottius Maximus View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again: FOX News and Talk Radio NEVER would have gained the following that they have if the Mainstream Media had done its damn job and simply reported the news instead of slanting it and disguising left wing editorials as news. Fox News commentators are no worse than liberal commentators, are they? That being said, if nobody believes me about the left wing bias, then I cannot convince anyone although I do suggest that you read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Yes I know that he is a Fox News contributor but he worked at CBS for 15 years and saw it all.
Bullshit.

Every

fucking

word.

Complete bullshit.
  #195  
Old 01-08-2013, 09:45 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
Bullshit.

Every

fucking

word.

Complete bullshit.
Not true. He was correct about Goldberg being a FNC contributor.
  #196  
Old 01-08-2013, 10:10 PM
zoid's Avatar
zoid zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 9,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Not true. He was correct about Goldberg being a FNC contributor.
Agreed.
I stand corrected.
  #197  
Old 01-09-2013, 09:06 PM
Hottius Maximus Hottius Maximus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Not true. He was correct about Goldberg being a FNC contributor.
And the evidence you have that Goldberg published "Bullshit" is...?
  #198  
Old 01-10-2013, 08:33 PM
Hottius Maximus Hottius Maximus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
Bullshit.

Every

fucking

word.

Complete bullshit.
And the hard evidence you have supporting your statement is...?
  #199  
Old 01-10-2013, 10:56 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hottius Maximus View Post
And the hard evidence you have supporting your statement is...?
Your post consisted entirely of unsubstantiated opinion (except for a factual statement about Goldberg). zoid's response can be viewed in exactly the same vein, pure opinion. Because "liberal bias" is itself a biased judgement, an opinion. We have no rigid metric for defining "liberal" (some people have even started to claim that it is actually a sort of synonym for glibertarian), so whatever you perceive as a bias is absolutely nothing more than what you perceive.

Media is a business, working for businesses (advertisers). The fundamental agenda of business does not coincide with what most would consider a "liberal" (left-ish) agenda. Hence, it is illogical to imagine that the media business would have a bias that conflicts with their fundamental agenda, suggestions that it would have a conflicted bias simply sound delusional.
  #200  
Old 01-11-2013, 06:01 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NASHVEGAS TN.
Posts: 11,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hottius Maximus View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again: FOX News and Talk Radio NEVER would have gained the following that they have if the Mainstream Media had done its damn job and simply reported the news instead of slanting it and disguising left wing editorials as news. Fox News commentators are no worse than liberal commentators, are they? That being said, if nobody believes me about the left wing bias, then I cannot convince anyone although I do suggest that you read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Yes I know that he is a Fox News contributor but he worked at CBS for 15 years and saw it all.
In many regards you're comparing apples to oranges. There's no real comparison between conservative talk radio and the misnamed Mainstream Media. Is there liberal bias? I think so, because journalists tend to be liberal more often than not and personal preference will influence content. There 's also the issue of media outlets , being concerned about profit, doing lazy, superficial, contrived conflict and sensationalism rather than informative relevant journalism. The issue is IMO, that Fox {or conservative talk radio} didn't come along to present an honest alternative and conservative view on events. There agenda was to distort and offer propaganda from the beginning. They've done so consistently , not to inform thier viewers but to pander to thier insercurities and conservative views with dishonest and emotional content.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017