Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Sabrina Holland
812 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
Public Lurker
891 Followers
Mendokusai Daiyo
17822 Followers
ridgerunner5Apr 26, 2011
OMG Fox News is lying, stop the presses!
wilsontristanApr 26, 2011
The sarcasm in your comment is spot on, funny, and unfortunately speaks volumes about a somewhat depressing trend in what we call "reporting" today. The fact that we can even recognize the irony in your post means that its become common, and almost generally accepted for the media to bend the truth.
Sure, some catch the lies in the press, but for the most part, the only corrections we see are on blog posts or the Daily Show.
It seems to me that calling the deliberate falsification of these reports "news" is a largely overlooked case of false advertising.
I won't assert myself as an expert on laws concerning freedom of speech, so can anyone here tell me why reporters or even entire news networks that are spreading false propaganda to the masses (*cough* FOXNEWS *cough*) haven't been shut down legally? Is this not libel? Is this not defamation of character?
schmibApr 26, 2011
There was once something called the Fairness Doctrine that basically said that a news agency can't knowingly lie about the news. Reagan got rid of it in '87 (which may have been his greatest contribution to the continued success of the GOP).
Canada still has the equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine, which is why Fox recently failed in its attempt to start a news agency up there.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada
It would be nice if someone would challenge them in court for libel and slander (no not blood libel Ms. Palin), but given the supreme court's recent decisions (unlimited corporate campaign contributions are somehow free speech), I'm not too optimistic.
isgkApr 26, 2011
No it didn't say basically that a news agency can't knowingly lie about the news. Nothing of the sort at all. You are so wrong you must be an idiot. Really to be so wrong is painful to me.
The fairness doctrine had 2x core requirements (there were some other corollaries but 2x primary parts):
1) Present relevant controversial public topics (can't sweep them under the rug and not talk about them) and provide reasonable opportunities to present a contrasting point of view
2) Provide access reply time to citizens on public issues
Nothing about "knowingly lie" at all. In fact technically I'd say that Fox news probably would pass the fairness doctrine requirements. I don't watch the channel but from what I've seen they do have someone presenting a contrasting point of view. You might argue that there are week people or get talked over but technically they would be in compliance of those two points.
For even more information to counter your incorrect post: In 1984 the League of Women Voters of California (a very liberal group), won a supreme court decision against the FCC which for the most part neutered the Fairness Doctrine. In fact a stafer of the head of FCC told Reagan that the only thing keeping the TV stations from dragging him over the coals was the Fairness Doctrine. (remember this was before conservative talk radio, etc).
And you do of course realise that SunTV is on in Canada today don't you? They were trying to get a class 1 license which would *require* every cable and satellite provider to broadcast them. The government said it would take 3x years for the broadcasters to be ready for that, so they went for a class 2 license instead of waiting so long.
The actual history of the Canadian Fairness Doctrine is that it to was challenged in court. A White Supremacist was prevented from stating that the Holocaust didn't happen. He argued that his right to Freedom of Speech was infringed by the government that went to the Supreme Court. The Canadian equivalent of the FCC (CRTC) was given a mandate 10 years ago by Parliament to determine whether the law violated freedom of speech. Over the past 2x years they had been repeatedly asked to make a ruling on it by Parliament. In February 2011 the CRTC finally made their ruling on it: stating
"If (someone) walks outside right now and says, 'The Holocaust didn't happen,' you're exercising, in theory, your freedom of speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"But, if a licencee, a broadcaster who needs permission and is governed (by regulations) ... publishes the Holocaust doesn't exist, that's a different standard. It's not the same thing."
So in Feb 2011, they made their ruling a month and a half later Sun TV (the one you are saying failed at starting a news station) is on the air and broadcasting.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
schmibApr 26, 2011
Ok. Well I'm not going to get all ad homonym on you, but I will say that it is you who is offbase here.
Several sources say that the Fairness Doctrine required news stations to be honest, equitable and balanced. This didn't mean that it was illegal for a program to lie, but it make it hard.
The doctrine made it so that if a program made attacks on other people's honesty and integrity (such as in this case with Hannity), that program had to give the accused a reasonable opportunity to reply on its airwaves. This meant that if you made an outright bald-faced lie about someone, you would have to let them call your BS on your show, and ultimately lose credibility.
Here is a court case where the Fairness doctrine was invoked that illustrates this http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/freedom-of-expression/red-lion-broadcasting-co-v-fcc/
What the lack of the Fairness Doctrine allows is for Fox programs to make outrageous, bald-faced lies with no opposition, which makes them much more believable. It is much less likely that people will buy BS when someone is there to label it as such.
In this case, there is absolutely no chance that Hannity is going to have these people on his show because they would make him look stupid. He would therefore be in violation of the doctrine. Many Fox programs say things about liberals without providing them the opportunity to defend themselves, although some have a token liberal here and there. That wouldn't have happened pre-1987.
That 1984 women's league decision was in the midst of the wave of deregulation that characterized the Reagan administration, and was the beginning of the end of the Fairness Doctrine. I don't know how that makes my post incorrect.
I admit I was not aware that Sun News is now on the air. All I can say is that it is a complete travesty. Here's a bit more about it, for anyone who's interested: http://bankofamericasuck.com/tag/canada-fox-new-lying
vance9281Apr 27, 2011
But the Red Lion case says nothing about news agencies having to tell the truth. It was a case brought by a radio station claiming their first amendment rights had been abrogated. You just blew up your original argument.
You go on to attack Fox News about their lies "with no opposition." Twaddle. Rachel Maddow & Chris Matthews make stupid claims and statements every day and no one asks the FCC to make it stop.
The right actually has the high ground here: they don't want the government so force the left to shut up. In fact, the right wants the left to keep talking. It is the left that wants to shut up their political opponents and the only way they can do that is with the power of the state.
You should be careful what you ask for, since if the government can force the right to shut up, they can force websites like this to post only things they approve of. Won't that be fun?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isgkApr 27, 2011
Thanks for repeating what I said and what you didn't post originally and are now trying to take credit for hmmmm....
You will need to provide proof that Fox has less of a counter argument on their show then others. In fact from what I've seen on the web (never watched the show), it would seem that he has had way more counter arguments on his show than most others. Do a search and look at the number of people who he gets into a shouting match with on the show. Just last Tuesday Hannity had Congressional Democrat Keith Ellison on, we before he had Congressional Democrat Robert Andrews. From what I can tell, instead of being exclusionary and not allowing people air time it looks like Fox news will pretty much allow anybody on their network at anytime. Can you point to large quantities of articles where people were denied to be on fox news? Please provide proof to your assertion, as I've shown information that refutes your claim. Heck Fox has had President Obama on!
What does deregulation have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that when the liberal group took their fight to the Supreme Court on freedom of speech grounds and won against the Fairness Doctrine that it was because of deregulation? Strawmen are wonderful things aren't they? You tried to tie Reagan as the man who killed Fairness Doctrine as a lone wolf. When in reality it was a liberal group challenging it in the Supreme Court and won on freedom of speech laws. Also in TRAC vs FCC the McLaughlin group on PBS also challenged it, claiming that it should be considered news reporting and exempt and that it was against freedom of speech. District Court of DC agreed that it restricted freedom of speech. Shortly after the FCC losing those cases they revoked it. Hardly any magical tie into Reagan there. Unless you are going to say that Reagan and a cabal of a liberal women's group and a PBS news organization planned years ahead to go against the FCC rule and that for years they would stack judges against it so that it could be declared unconstitutional.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
You're an idiot to claim about that about Fox News. Fox News has their station in Canada you fool!
thisisentirelybogusApr 27, 2011
Fox pulled back because the Canadian government refused to repeal their truth in broadcasting statute. Fox did NOT expand into Canada. They would have to start telling the truth on news programs.
Closed AccountApr 27, 2011
Lies. Lies. LIes.
kaegroApr 27, 2011
huh, no, they don't, you tool.
Closed AccountApr 27, 2011
You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
kaegroApr 27, 2011
Fox airs in Canada, so does a AMERICAN fox news. Sun TV wanted to do something with fox news but they never did. Prove me wrong.
vance9281Apr 27, 2011
The Fairness Doctrine did not "basically" say "...that a news agency can't knowingly lie about the news." My god, can you read a f**king history book?
From Wikipedia: it was a policy "...that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.
This is not about news, per se, but editorial remarks made on the air. It is interesting to me that you talk about a news agency being fair since the general thinking in the 50's & 60's was that reporters were, or tried to be objective. Objectivity was shot down in the 70's & we no longer assume a reporter is doing anything more than expressing his or her prejudices when reporting a news story.
A lot of people would like to see the Fairness Doctrine brought back, but they forget that it would apply to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, & NBC as well as Fox. The goal is to shut Rush Limbaugh, et al, up. The failure of Air American to work commercially has brought the left to the weasel position of using the government to stifle their critics. This, my friend, is fascism.
letherialApr 27, 2011
Its ok that they lie, i dont care. Fact is, i dont listen to fox, not because i fall on one side, but because i dont like being lied to.
What we need is a educated populace, sadly, right wing is trying to take that away as well. To bad the internet is around and the youth uses it, in 20 years, fox and the current right wing will go down the road of McCarthyism; a joke, nothing more.
Closed AccountApr 27, 2011
You guys are f**king idiots. Stop getting your propaganda from MediaMatters. That story was a complete and utter lie. It was about a completely unrelated show/network.
"Fox News Channel is currently offered by Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV. A notable exception is Vidéotron, Canada's third largest cable company, which has not added Fox News Channel to its lineup."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel#Canada
Sure sounds like it's in Canada to me! Or do you mean that because it's not on Videotron it doesn't count?
kaegroApr 27, 2011
Ya, they broadcast American news, not Canadian.
MissionaBlertzApr 28, 2011
Its still broadcasted in Canada though mon frere.
mbostonsApr 26, 2011
People still watch and care about Hannity enough to actually analyze what he's saying? That's the shocker to me.
rblancarteApr 26, 2011
Having one of the larger viewerships of the major news networks, it is important to expose the lies which he pushes at truths. Sad that his followers lap it up like kittens do milk.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
You would think by now that people would just dismiss anything and I mean anything that comes out of the mouth of this opportunist, but no. Instead they sit in front of the TV bemoaning the terrible unjustifiable treatment of their fellow bubba's. Well Beck will soon be gone, so one POS down, miles to go and many left.
markglApr 26, 2011
So should I be watching Maddow? Giggle.
Closed AccountApr 29, 2011
Well as annoying as giggles Maddow is, I don't think she would sit and smile as our country is torn apart by rw thugs with low IQ's and immense ids.
joe7845Apr 26, 2011
There's a reason why trying to show the media has a "liberal bias" would result in something so laughable and deceptive. It's because there's no such thing. The media has a corporatist bias and to some extent a nationalist bias.
shoelessschippaApr 27, 2011
I love how he blamed liberal bias on the most popular cable news sources and most read newspapers in America...doesn't Fox and WSJ try to claim those positions??? I get a headache trying to keep up with these lies!
osceneintxApr 26, 2011
As usual the Moral Majority(TM) is silent.
delphium226Apr 26, 2011
Lol
salbatrossApr 26, 2011
Does it continue to be irony when you've come to expect it?
laurahoustonApr 26, 2011
That is how propaganda works. Fox copies Hitlers propaganda campaign.
kinserApr 26, 2011
Theres a difference between an Editorialist and a Journalist. At fox news, They have Editorialists.
rblancarteApr 26, 2011
But present them as reporters.
huseliusApr 26, 2011
You misspelled idiots.
u2canfailApr 26, 2011
Jon Kyl on Hannities ist? I am sure was at the top list of quotes! Liberal bias to be sure, quoting KYLs office.
djguerrillaApr 27, 2011
This is to be expected. Fox News would plummet in the ratings if they couldn't make up everything as they go along (or as they see fit). "Fear is your only guide on the TV. Now f**k it, turn it off"
cowicideApr 27, 2011
FOX "News" is getting more and more desperate. They better watch out because they'll end up following Beck's lead to where even the dumbest idiots can't believe the horses**t anymore.
tehsilentcircusApr 27, 2011
It's is hard to not be bias against people on the right when they are a group of moronic, hypocritical jackwagons...
atomheartmotherApr 26, 2011
I can't dispute Media Matters' conclusions when it comes to taking things out of context, as they've proven themselves masters of the art.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kamtsaApr 26, 2011
Problem is that after living long enough in the liberal bubble, people starts to believe that MM and MSNBC are unbiased.
darthmeatloafApr 26, 2011
Problem is that after living long enough in the conservative babble, people start to believe that FOX News and Rush Limbaugh are unbiased.
You see? Both sides are guilty. Acting like the group that you identify with is somehow better than the group that you do not identify with just suggests that you are unable to think for yourself.
Read from both sides. Laugh all you want. Try to learn something other than what is being spoon fed to you by the political party that you agree with, and you might see that the whole system is broken.
thisisentirelybogusApr 27, 2011
May I suggest you get a copy of Cass Sunstein's Infotopia. It's a short book on decision research that covers how bias happens in groups. Take the Who Wants to be a Millionaire - the audience has a better record than the aggregate of the experts and it's because on certain types of questions, their probability of being right is quite high. But on other types of questions, they are a bust. If they were allowed to communicate with one another they would probably be quite awful.
atomheartmotherApr 27, 2011
That is entirely bogus.
thisisentirelybogusApr 27, 2011
Why should an innocent suggestion of reading on decision research make you react fearfully? Or are you referring to my characterization of the likelihood of audience decisionmaking?
We have huge volumes of information at hand, but it doesn't seem to make good decisionmaking possible for people. There are several reasons for this and decision research only looks at the interaction of more than one individual. It is an outgrowth of jury theory and most lawyers can tell you about how individual jurors interact and the group dynamics of a jury.
On the individual level, it is obvious that there are lots of people that have no ability to cull junk out fo their information diet. Misinformation becomes integrated into their understanding of the world as radioactive calcium becomes part of bone.
We all make mistakes. It is only bad when we refuse to learn from them. That includes the ability to read a book and learn from it.
atomheartmotherApr 27, 2011
First of all my dismissal of your suggested reading isn't based upon "fear", and that assertion seems a bit ironic in light of the fact that you've really no basis to conclude that it is. I mean, isn't Sunstein's work in large part a criticism of the practice of reaching conclusions which, regardless of their merit, ignore logic and evidence in reaching them?
I'm familiar with the book and with Sunstein's philosophies, as I make it my business to learn about those who attempt to have sway over our lives. But Infotopia in particular isn't some brilliant insight into group-think...this is territory which was covered before, most notably by James Surowiecki in 'The Wisdom of Crowds', written two years before Infotopia. Sunstein's M.O. is to take the thoughts of others, alter them slightly and re-brand them as his own.
That aside, the issue I have with Cass isn't his theories--most are fairly obvious bits of common knowledge themselves--it's with his conclusions, which he's written extensively about. For example, in response to "misinformation", Sunstein has argued that "government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories." He suggested that "government agents might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even actual community meetings....and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."
Add to that the fact that he's compared the treatment of animals in this country to slavery and suggested that they should have the right to file suit and be represented by legal counsel. He has also stated that; “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”
That kind of thinking is borderline Orwellian, and it's clear that Sunstein is a complete nut. Which is fine, until he has any real control over peoples' lives. Then it's not fine.
4Herp2Derp0Apr 26, 2011
When MM, MSNBC, or any other news organization that you think has a strong liberal bias, does *regular* segments, some paid, with all the possible candidates from the Democrat party, then you can move them closer to the same level as Fox.
thorspowerApr 26, 2011
Provide proof of this other wise you comment is worthless.
eviltheturtleApr 26, 2011
He comment is worthless?
atomheartmotherApr 26, 2011
I think you capable to do you own research here. Learn you self.
rblancarteApr 26, 2011
WRONG. That isn't how it goes. Debate is you make a point, then give facts to back it up. You don't make a statement and then tell your opponent to prove it for you.
Either back up your statement or just admit you are wrong.
atomheartmotherApr 26, 2011
WRONG. This isn't a formal debate knucklehead, so I'm not obliged to do anything but comment. I really can't believe there's anyone gullible enough to actually think that MM doesn't take things out of context and twist the truth, but here you are. So Just to humor you (and this took about 2 minutes) here are a few egregious examples:
http://newsoholics.com/2010/08/09/media-matters-context-ordeal/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-matters-shirley-sherrods-glenn-becks-co-hosts-with-edited-audio/
http://www.machelpmagazine.com/1262/2011/03/30/the-era-of-sound-bite-political-warfare-the-daily-beast.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thisisentirelybogusApr 27, 2011
What is that crap you linked to? lmao
darthmeatloafApr 27, 2011
Blogs are not valid sources of information to back up your claims. Find a story on a mainstream media source, if such a story exists, please.
atomheartmotherApr 27, 2011
"Blogs are not valid sources of information"
Oh bulls**t. If the blog isn't an opinion piece and lists sourced facts which aren't in dispute then they're perfectly valid. That is a complete cop out because you can't refute the facts.
shoelessschippaApr 27, 2011
He's a graduate student from the Fox News School of Journalism, give him a break, he doesn't know what evidence or proof is.
His PhD is in spouting talking points and only talking points! Really a stand out student here!
atomheartmotherApr 27, 2011
You may want to take the blinders off and realize that direct quotes which link to recorded statements IS considered evidence. You launch the Fox News crap because you can't refute it.
ellemApr 26, 2011
So Media Matters points out that Hannity isn't a Journalist... yeah... that's pot/kettle
rblancarteApr 26, 2011
Uh, Media Matters never claimed to be journalists.
ellemApr 27, 2011
You don't read so well do you?
kaegroApr 27, 2011
You don't think so well, do you?
arpadApr 26, 2011
Yeah, that's just crazy.
Drawing conclusions from the fact that journalists are members of the Democratic party at a much higher rate then the general public and contribute much more to left-wing Democrats then the general public is just silly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
brewbeauApr 26, 2011
Yes, it is. Especially when you do it like Hannity did.
salbatrossApr 26, 2011
Well to be fair, they tend to be better educated than the general public.
kamtsaApr 26, 2011
Of course it is silly. If they agree with your political opinion they must be unbiased.
bookantApr 26, 2011
Silly is an extreme understatment.
It isn't "silly" it's flat out f**king stupid. You determine if a source is objective or not, and biased or not, by evaluating the *work,* not the people doing it.
agemasyApr 26, 2011
he,....3x
whiteravenApr 26, 2011
Actually, the full context of each story as reported by mediamatters supports Hannity's contention. The point is, the media looks for opportunities to smear anyone that doesn't sing from the progressive hymnal. Couric chirpilly delivers the line "The Gipper was an airhead." and then goes on to say that that was the conclusion of the man hand-picked to write his biography. While she describes the conclusion as controversial, there was nothing the least bit skeptical or disclamatory in her delivery.
The same holds true all thru this article. The so-called discredited claim concerning Niger uranium WAS NEVER DISCREDITED! If Hannity is guilty of anything, it was missing the important parts of the story. In this case, the fact that the media was promoting the notion that the concern that Iraq was shopping for uranium in Africa had been "discredited" was the strongest demonstration of their bias. The fact is, documents showing Iraq's interest in exactly that were seized in Iraq... but the media did everything it could to avoid reporting that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nonmagicalApr 26, 2011
"Actually, the full context of each story as reported by mediamatters supports Hannity's contention."
No. They don't.
whiteravenApr 27, 2011
Care to explain?
nonmagicalApr 27, 2011
Simply because Couric "chirpilly" delivers a line as you claim does not mean she said it was the case, or that she was biased for it. She does go on the say that that was not her conclusion, but that of an author she was going to interview later in the show. If her voice tone is what merits her "liberal bias", then oh lord does Fox deserve to be put under the microscope as well.
And did you read the Cooper quote and its context?
Original: COOPER: A former U.S. diplomat who investigated Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nuclear weapons program now says he is the victim of a Bush administration smear campaign.
Edited: COOPER (CNN host): He is the victim of a Bush administration smear campaign.
Uhh, in what backwards word are you from that this isn't completely "out of context". That's like me saying, "A guy on the street said Nazi's were right." Then you say to me "Hey, did you just say 'Nazi's were right'!?" Yeah, no.
I didn't read the longer quote cause I am too lazy. So if you want to discredit it I can't argue against it (though I'm sure somebody else can). But the first two quotes are clearly out of context, with the second one being quite blatant.
whiteravenApr 28, 2011
Did you read my post? I pointed out that Coopers real sin was in describing the concerns over Nigers uranium as being "discredited" when they were not.
Why wasn't Wilson described as discredited? He's the one that changed his story.
nonmagicalApr 28, 2011
Cooper also did not say the uranium story was discredited. He said "administration officials" said it was. He then goes on to speak about Wilson's point of view.
Is your reading comprehension low? The entire piece (at least as it appears on MM) is objective.
A summary: A former US diplomat said this. Administration says that. Joe Wilson claims otherwise.
No where in there is there bias. He did not say Wilson was right or wrong, NOR did he say the administration was.
nonmagicalApr 27, 2011
I realize you are probably trying to argue that despite being completely out of context, they support the argument of liberal bias. In fact, you probably agree they are taken out of context (I would hope).
So in response to that, there is nothing wrong with a TV personality to use changing voice tones. It's why they are good at being on TV... They aren't dull. A "chirpy" voice tone does not constitute a bias. Perhaps she interviewed the guy and there was an obvious swing to the interview? Maybe. But Hannity should have taken a clip from that then, instead of putting words in Couric's mouth.
And I don't know how you could twist Cooper's wording up to make it sound biased. It's about as objective as it gets. "This man here did this." Cooper never agreed with him that he was a victim, but Hannity edited it to make it seem like he did.
whiteravenApr 28, 2011
No, they were not taken out of context. The material as a whole was consistent with the quoted texts. For example, Cooper presented Wilson's claims as valid. It was *Cooper* that described the intelligence as "discredited" when in fact it was not. The only person that disputed the concern over Niger uranium was Wilson. The so-called smear campaign was no more than the Bush administration reporting the truth... that Wilson was making statements inconsistent with his report.
As for Couric... if you don't understand that selecting that specific quote was done with clear malice there's no hope for you. If you *choose* to be deaf to bias, there's nothing that can be done to make you hear.
rblancarteApr 26, 2011
What color is the sky in your world?
whiteravenApr 27, 2011
It varies depending on weather and the time of day. Would you care to discuss this article or would that require too much effort?
angrycat70Apr 26, 2011
>>>Laughably Distorted Quotes
Liberals NEVER distort things... much
drmangrumApr 26, 2011
I love how whenever the Left gets caught saying something unpopular, their goto excuse is "distortion" or "out-of-context." Sometimes that's the case, like with the Shirley Sherrod scandal, but usually it isn't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
osceneintxApr 26, 2011
Great comment, on an article specifically delineating several quotes that are being distorted and used out of context.
How do you quantify "sometimes" there, dr. mangrum?
usarugulaApr 26, 2011
It's the case in this article.
anomaly100Apr 26, 2011
@Usarugua:
@drumangrum did not mean that to be a factually correct statement.
dwtcApr 26, 2011
It's not the Left, it's everyone who is outspoken in politics. They all accuse each other of doing crappy things, then they do it themselves.
dogtags101Apr 26, 2011
Did you even read the article? or did you just look at the headline and watch the video?
drmangrumApr 26, 2011
I'm not going to read an article from a website whose mission statement is the advancement of liberalism and progressivism when the article is championing the left. It's a HUGE conflict of interest.
And no, I wouldn't read a similar article if it was on Brietbart or BigJournalism either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
"I'm not going to read an article from a website whose mission statement is the advancement of liberalism and progressivism when the article is championing the left."
Translation:I have nothing to dispute the article. So I will just put my fingers in my ears and yell "la la la I'm not listening"
brewbeauApr 26, 2011
Ah, it's simple then. Don't comment.
anomaly100Apr 26, 2011
Exactly. He should just move and bury all leftist subs silently, as he always has done and will do.
Especially if the sub is from Novenator. Frankly, I think he has a bit of crush on Nov.
cold0008Apr 26, 2011
Out of curiosity, how about NBC or CBS news? Reuters? The AP? will you read their news?
drmangrumApr 26, 2011
NBC (not MSNBC), CBS have a liberal spin, but it's not as severe as many other media outlets (blogs). The reason I don't like crap like FreakOutnation, MediaMatters, et al is they post crap like "Republicans hate puppies! They didn't vote for puppy mill legislation!" -- that was just a day or so ago. They don't even attempt to provide analysis on the reasoning behind their votes, they immediately jump to completely off-the-wall hyperbole.
Reuters and AP can be hit or miss. Sometimes they produce something that's fairly unbiased that actually attempts to get to heart of the matter without playing favorites. Sometimes they don't. When they do show bias, it's subtle and not completely crazy like the MSNBC and the radical left-wing bloggers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
murxApr 26, 2011
So to boil it down - when you agree with an article it is because it's unbiased and true...
...and you disagree because it's biased and untrue...
...always...
right?
Just rename yourself to Pinnacle of Biased
superdrew0413Apr 26, 2011
Nothing can be 100% unbiased. A reporters opinion is biased by how he feels about the subject of his or her report. The problem with Fox News is they say that they are "Fair and Balanced." If they just advertised that they were a right-wing conservative news channel I would have less of a problem with them. I'm not talking about Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, or Sean Hannity. They will all tell you that they are conservatives and are there to provide right-wing editorials (aka opinions).
The ones I am talking about are Fox's everyday desk jockey reporters. Its not so much what the reporter says it how they say it.
example:
It is not Obama's approval rating it his DISapproval rating. This is true even if his rating is above 50%. It is implied that if his approval rating is say 57%, that 43% of people disapprove.
Do reporters on MSNBC do it as well? Absolutely. But, they are admittedly "progressive."
drmangrumApr 26, 2011
Murx, you're a prime example of what I'm talking about. You take things out of context, just like the left is accusing of Hannity.
My point is, which you ignored, If i know a source is overtly biased, I tend to ignore them. You know you're only receiving the bits and pieces of information that further a political ideology.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mbostonsApr 26, 2011
Worst...argument...ever...someone twisted the truth and got called out on it. It's not a "HUGE conflict of interest", it's called reality.
usarugulaApr 26, 2011
Hmm, perhaps I should have buried your comment yesterday rather than reading it, asking you for clarification, and then agreeing with you and digging them both.
Your mentality is why America is failing. You delegitimize half its citizenry, then expect them to work together in support of your goals.
darthmeatloafApr 26, 2011
Not being willing to read views that may oppose your own and then commenting on it like you know what you are talking about is far worse for you than reading it and disliking it.
I read stuff from both sides. Some I agree with, most I do not, but the point is that I ACTUALLY READ IT BEFORE JOINING A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
You know - so I don't look like a f**king retard when I'm arguing for or against the merits of the article at hand.
nonmagicalApr 26, 2011
"I'm not going to read an article from a website whose mission statement is the advancement of liberalism and progressivism when the article is championing the left. It's a HUGE conflict of interest."
I can't believe I just read that. It blew my mind. Learning about both sides of an argument is necessary to come to the best resolution. Please, please never get into any kind of position of power.
kamtsaApr 26, 2011
@dogtags101, did you even watch Hanity's show? or did you just read MM opinion about it?
superdrew0413Apr 26, 2011
@osceneintx, because 3 times does not make always. I hate Fox News and they absolutely take many things out of context. Doesn't mean they do it 100% (maybe 90% though, hehe) of the time though. Sometimes even Democrats say stupid things.
drmangrumApr 26, 2011
And MSNBC, MediaMatters, HuffPo, ThinkProgress, Alternet, etc don't?
apokalyps2547Apr 26, 2011
Not like this, no they don't. I DARE you to find a single example as egregious as ANY of the ones cited in this submission.
This is false equivalence BS.
kamtsaApr 26, 2011
And if I will show you one, will this change your mind about those establishments?
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
We're waiting... What are doing - going out and making one up for us?
apokalyps2547Apr 26, 2011
If you show me one, it might give drmangrum and the other FOX apologists an iota of credibility that, so far, they lack.
rblancarteApr 26, 2011
7 hours and nothing posted yet ...
darthmeatloafApr 26, 2011
Did you miss the last sentence in his comment, or did you ignore it on purpose?
osceneintxApr 26, 2011
Man, he can't even be bothered to fully read your comment there, superdrew.
At any rate, my comment was to reflect how he is simply trying to divert attention from this article by stating that it is just an excuse for the remarks that dems make - himself now making an excuse.
superdrew0413Apr 26, 2011
I noticed that. Ironically, he ignored the last sentence in my post, thus taking what I wrote out of context.
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
I love how you can come up with any excuse for Hannity other than "Well they do it too" defense.
So was the use of Couric's quote out of context or not?
drmangrumApr 26, 2011
Really?
Funny how the lefts response to all of Obama's broken promises is "B-b-b-b-b-ut BUSH!"
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
We are talking about Hannity here, not Obama. Stay focused.
Tell us again how you are not the defender of the right.
jaydub99Apr 27, 2011
Are you posting on the correct topic? You are the first person to mention Bush here. Try again.
kaptainsteveApr 26, 2011
"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide." The man who claims to be Barack Hussein Obama - 042-68-4425Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
markglApr 26, 2011
Someone's got their panties in a bunch!
sapana543Apr 26, 2011
Dung for being from Media Matters.
Dung for proposing that there is no liberal bias
caseycooldApr 26, 2011
Buried for writing a stupid comment.
sapana543Apr 26, 2011
How is that a 'stupid comment'. Do you actually believe that Media Matters is credible in anyway?
jaydub99Apr 27, 2011
If there is a liberal bias, it should be pretty easy to show, right? Like, without misrepresenting? Strange that Hannity went this route then.