I am begging you, think critically. Your Sourcewatch cite in fact relies upon Media Matters, a lefty propaganda organization by any reasonable definition.
FOX news did not start it, but they helped make it bigger, the organizations that started and organized whatever small original protesters wanted are not easy to spot, but it is not impossible to figure out were the funding comes from.
Of course it is not just them, but it was telling to read reports of people that originally protested about taxes only to find that they were props to push climate change denialism, clear evidence that the ones funding the movement got what they wanted, and whatever the original intentions the tea party movement was in the end turned into an AstroTurf movement.
Thinking critically requires to also be skeptical of what the ones pulling strings are telling the tea partiers to do.
After looking at their sources I have to tell you that on this issue, people like **BrainGlutton **are are more on the money on this.
Jerks that agree with the movement are still jerks.
And as you also acknowledge that this was not started or made up by Nazis and Commies, let the swill cites remain uncited, otherwise you are indeed attempting to smear others and claiming that you are not doing it is pushing credulity.
Well, you’d need to define exactly what ‘too much press coverage’ means or is. How do you measure ‘too much’? But I’d say that the answer is ‘no’, depending on how you are defining ‘too much’. It’s getting a lot of coverage because people ARE frustrated, angry and scared, and the movement, as dippy as I personally think it is, resonates with a lot of people…and, basically, the press are in the business of selling such coverage. If it didn’t resonate with people, if people didn’t care and didn’t want to watch the coverage (either to bitch about it or to praise it) then it wouldn’t be covered.
Even if there were ‘only’ 2000 people, that’s still news. And the fact that it’s in a bunch of cities in the US AND even in cities in other countries makes it interesting enough to warrant news. It’s also a bit slow, atm, news wise…nothing major is really happening outside of the continued misery of a world wide economic downturn.
Yeah…that happens to me all the time, since I post almost exclusively from my iPad when I’m on the road (which is pretty much all the time lately). You have to check and double check that the damn iPad spell checker doesn’t change the entire word you are trying to post. I’ve had some rather hilarious transpositions in the past…and some ghastly ones that, thankfully I was able to catch and edit before the timer ran out.
As for thinking critically, what one has to do is to look at the links at check for oneself to see if MediaMatters is not telling the truth, as it turns out, as it is usually the case with Media Matters they do link and post the evidence and do let others judge for themselves.
From the SourceWatch cite one of the MediaMatters links shows the evidence on how FOX pushed the TeaParty movement.
As a test, one should be able to easily find on mainstream “liberal” media sites links to the upcoming OWS events or locations and enthusiastic reports telling viewers where to go, as it turns out, most places like ABC news are typical on reporting how some group’s take on the protesters, but no links about members of the network supporting the protesters or where to go.
MSNBC (that has been mentioned as being more to the left nowadays) currently had no headlines on the main site regarding this.
MediaMatters currently is touching on this subject, but not to point readers and viewers to the protests or where to join, but to concentrate on the smear campaign FOX and others are doing with the protesters.
The point was clear but you refuse to deal with it, one has to check the cites to see if they are truthful, as it turns out, they are so far.
And one of the precious sources was the New Yorker, what I get so clear from you is just wishful thinking that nothing being reported by them is true. No such luck.
By the way, Voyager says the Tea Party was ‘sponsored by Fox’. Sponsored. Not reported on, not Fox opinion/commentators, who have their own opinions (like the Daily Show and Rachel Maddow and etc etc etc)…but Fox News.
Really.
His cite (in post #30) was ‘anyone with a memory’.
I’m waiting for some intellectual honestly among the lefties here. If you don’t have any, then please don’t respond. I have no desire to listen to your emotional claptrap.
That’s the point, son. Either spend just as much time hammering lefties like him, or pipe down and admit you’re a partisan hack with no desire for honest debate, just here to spout lefty tripe and defending kids like Voyager who are on the same side of the aisle.
What everyone can see is that you did not bother to check the rest of the report from the New Yorker:
So quit your condescending act, you are not fooling anyone, you are resorting to insults when others show that you are only willing to follow the points from right wing sources.
I’ll let others judge is that is supposed to be part of an honest debate.
In the meantime, I think you will not have luck looking for an equivalent in the mainstream media like FOX did pushing and telling viewers where to go to protest on their coverage.
From The Hill, it appears that most normal people (ie, not Wall Street Occupiers) think that DC is way more to blame than Wall Street for this country being f*cked.
This bodes very poorly for President Hopey McDowngrade and his current efforts to align himself with the downtrodden Starbucks crowd currently stinking up the city squares.
What I see when looking at that and other polls is that the blame is shared.
Of course when one notices that most politicians are in the pockets of corporations, this attempt at separating blame does look to me as a smoke screen.
Er…they seem to have an internal disconnect as to what they are actually protesting. It’s all very vague and simplistic in my mind.
However, you seem to be confusing coverage and quality coverage. Where there more in-depth coverage I think they would come across much worse than they have so wide but shallow coverage suits them ( as it does most demagogues).
Well, I have found that Forbes does fall for demagogues like climate change denier contributors, but this report was surprising coming from the capitalist tool. (Hey, “capitalist tool” **was **their slogan a few years back)
