Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Just for kicks and grins, Media Research Center is what again?
Bill O'Reilly
- Thread starter m_huber
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bill o'reilly
Just for kicks and grins, Media Research Center is what again?
m_huber
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 828
So, just for clarity's sake, how are we defining "conservative" and "liberal" and "right" and "left?" Are these terms that really mean "Republican" and "Democrat," and if so, do they also mean "Evangelical" and "Anti-Religion?" It seems like there are some pretty objective ways to criticize the Bush administration and praise the Clinton years, mainly about the economy and war/lack of war (though it is true, these can both be attributed to other causes, but they did occur under the watch of the respective men). Similarly, there are ways to praise the Bush administration and criticize the Clinton administration, though these seem to rely more on personal values.
So, there seem to be 3 relevant questions:
1) Do news services report the news accurately?
2) Do news services report all of the relevant facts?
3) Do projections from news sources honestly reflect real possibilities? (this is where most bias can enter)
In the case of BillO, he fails on all three counts. What about the general Fox news? What about other news services?
So, there seem to be 3 relevant questions:
1) Do news services report the news accurately?
2) Do news services report all of the relevant facts?
3) Do projections from news sources honestly reflect real possibilities? (this is where most bias can enter)
In the case of BillO, he fails on all three counts. What about the general Fox news? What about other news services?
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
1) No
2) No
3) No
Actually, I'd include all broadcast news sources anyway. There is always going to be bias, what we need is to be sure the public understands that the bias is there. But also, I find it very disturbing that someone like Rupert Murdoch can actually acquire multiple news outlets and then purposefully manipulate the content to literally broadcast his personal and very insidious propaganda.
2) No
3) No
Actually, I'd include all broadcast news sources anyway. There is always going to be bias, what we need is to be sure the public understands that the bias is there. But also, I find it very disturbing that someone like Rupert Murdoch can actually acquire multiple news outlets and then purposefully manipulate the content to literally broadcast his personal and very insidious propaganda.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Says who?
You might think so, and that is fine. I don't. Do you remember what day it was? Shoot, I don't even remember what YEAR it was.
"Historic"? Nonsense.
More to the point, _I_ am supposed to decide what is historic and what isn't. At least that is Fox News's credo. Yet, they have the audacity to tell me that this was a "historic" event?
And you have just made the case that you are a bigger idiot than I thought.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Rupert Murdoch
You seem terribly confused.
I regard Media Matters as a leftwing advocacy group, because that's precisely what it is.
I heard a representative of the group describe it as an objective watchdog group. He was wrong.
Do you have any idea of where you're going?
Last edited:
Bill O'Reilly, I keep repeating, is not a news anchor. His show is an opinion show. The problem with the N.Y. Times is not the extreme liberal slant of the editorial and op-ed pages; it's the ideology that creeps into the reporting.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Well, there is Lowry Mays, founder and chairman of Clear Channel. He's a friend of both President Bushes and was named to the Texas Technology Council when the younger Bush was governor.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
I think we can leave left/right bias out for a moment... Bill O'Reilly has a bias against facts, and against anyone who disagrees with him, who he refers to as pinheads. He's mostly got a lying problem, though... Peabody awards and lesbian street gangs with pink guns are funny lies, but his lies while criticizing politicians and his attacks on victims like Shawn Hornbeck are not.
I feel sorry for people who are so blinded by their adherence to right-wing loyalty that they lie to themselves to support people like Bill O'Reilly, who tells them what they want to hear whether it is true or not. It seems to be a form of mental defect or delusion, and in all seriousness I wonder how people can live like that.
I feel sorry for people who are so blinded by their adherence to right-wing loyalty that they lie to themselves to support people like Bill O'Reilly, who tells them what they want to hear whether it is true or not. It seems to be a form of mental defect or delusion, and in all seriousness I wonder how people can live like that.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
You are avoiding answering the question.
So you say. Prove it.
Yep. I'm trying to decide if its worth my time to show you the wonderful world of critical thinking. If you refuse to answer a basic question or are unable recognize your own double standard, there isn't much to work with.
Over seven million voters risk their lives to cast ballots in what was once a fascist police state and your lunatic thesis requires pretending that it wasn't a historic event? I think you're embarrassing the other lefties with such silliness.
Shall I attempt to acquire transcripts of every edition of Hannity & Colmes in the last four years? How do you propose I prove it? You're trying to argue that a representative of Media Matters did not describe the group as an objective watchdog group? Is this what this foolishness is all about?
Here is an excerpt from an article by Jacob Laskin on David Brock, founder of Media Matters, although I don't believe that Brock was the guy on Hannity & Colmes:
"Spreading misinformation is precisely what Media Matters does. To hear Brock tell it, Media Matters is a dispassionate tribune of media inaccuracies. “We’re focused on the media and pundit class, Brock told an interviewer in May of 2004. “And our work is rooted in fact, not bias and commentary.”
But the reality is altogether different. Fiercely partisan, Media Matters routinely smears conservatives as “liars” or worse for presenting views at odds with Media Matters’ “progressive” political orientation. In this, it merely echoes the refrain of Brock, its President and CEO. Conservatives, according to Brock, “are simply willing to lie.” By impugning the motives of conservatives, Brock and Media Matters endeavor to discredit conservative views generally. More grandly, Brock sees his organization as an essential component in a vast “communications infrastructure” whose creation is vital to disseminating a leftwing political agenda – more left evidently than the New York Times, the Boston Globe, theLos Angeles Times and other mainstream media run by Brock’s sympathizers and friends. Not that Brock is honest about his partisan agenda. “Reporters, commentators, pundits and columnists know that we aren’t here to impugn their motives, but to correct misinformation in the media,” Brock incomprehensibly insisted in a May 2004 interview—a claim that does not survive a cursory review of Media Matters’ content or its creator’s view of his organization’s role. "
Last edited:
An examination of the quality of analysis found on Media Matters:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={696CA889-F4D5-4D76-8946-87DF3C47EB33}
Update: the link appears broken. To read the article, visit frontpagemag.com and search for
Media Matters’ Attack on The Shadow Party By Richard Poe
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, October 30, 2006
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={696CA889-F4D5-4D76-8946-87DF3C47EB33}
Update: the link appears broken. To read the article, visit frontpagemag.com and search for
Media Matters’ Attack on The Shadow Party By Richard Poe
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, October 30, 2006
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Yes, how do you manage that? Are you just daft or is it cognitive dissonance coupled with confirmation bias? A blow to the head, perhaps? I find it ironic that the biggest hypocrites are always the first to notice it in others.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
This "foolishness" is about being able to back up your claims. If you can't, then it's worth no more than any other piece of anecdotal evidence: very little.
I don't have to argue that a representative of Media Matters did not describe the group as an objective watchdog group. I'm not making the claim, you are. The burden of proof rests on you.
And, yet again, I notice that you have avoided answering my question:
Media Research Center is what again? Not a "far-right advocacy group"? Not "hopelessly unobjective"?
Media Matters provides as much documentation as Media Research Center. However, Media Matters also supplies the the actual video, audio, and/or link to the original article, which Media Research Center does not. You cringe at finding a particular episode of a particular show, try finding an MRC reference. They provide no way to verify if what they are saying is true. Media Matters, on the other hand, does.
Even though Media Matters expresses its opinion, they provide enough transparency so that you can draw your own conclusions. MRC doesn't, especially not in that Notable Quotables section.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Probably cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Extremist right-wingers have issues along those lines. The question is whether those mental defects cause them to seek out right-wing extremism, or if it is the root cause of the extremist right-wing position, or both?
When unedited video of someone lying doesn't convince someone, they may in fact be beyond help.
You're being remarkably silly. I told you that some guy representing Media Matters on a Fox show (I think it was Hannity & Colmes) described the group as an objective watchdog group. Why not haul out Old Reliable and call me a liar?
(From Richard Poe's blog)
"The bloggergate scandal has spewed forth a new culprit — David Brock’s Media Matters for America. Brock’s group, which poses as a non-partisan media watchdog, has been implicated in payoffs to leftwing bloggers."
We get the idea that however many times I answer your question, you will continue to make a fool of yourself by acting as though I haven't. Media Matters is a far-left advocacy group. I suppose you can cut-and-paste the previous sentence the next time you repeat your inane question.
Try reading the article I referred to in post #373.
Last edited:
Frankly, I've had enough of this nonsense:
E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version
October 8, 2007 12:00 AM
Media Matters: We’re Not Political
That’s what they say. But a look at the record shows otherwise.
By Byron York
Last week, covering the Rush Limbaugh “phony soldiers” controversy, I described Media Matters, the liberal media watchdog group, as an “avowedly political institution.” Media Matters quickly took issue; a few hours after my article appeared on National Review Online, a posting on the group’s website declared, “Media Matters is not, as the National Review claims, ‘an avowedly political institution,’ but a nonpartisan, progressive nonprofit that is unaffiliated with any political party or candidate.”
E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version
October 8, 2007 12:00 AM
Media Matters: We’re Not Political
That’s what they say. But a look at the record shows otherwise.
By Byron York
Last week, covering the Rush Limbaugh “phony soldiers” controversy, I described Media Matters, the liberal media watchdog group, as an “avowedly political institution.” Media Matters quickly took issue; a few hours after my article appeared on National Review Online, a posting on the group’s website declared, “Media Matters is not, as the National Review claims, ‘an avowedly political institution,’ but a nonpartisan, progressive nonprofit that is unaffiliated with any political party or candidate.”