• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Coultergeist

corplinx said:
Their election coverage was laughable. He's moved from the anti-Clinton band wagon to make a buck to the hysterical conservative media conspiracy one.
Click to expand...
Well, you must have enjoyed saying that.

Now, Upchurch has pointed out that though these people have their faults, they provide, not merely quotes, but quotes in context.

You see the difference between you and them?

As for your "media conspiracy" thing, may I be the first to cry "straw"? Obviously it is possible to keep an eye on right-wing misinformation without subscribing to any idea that "the media" is a right-wing conspiracy to spread such misinformation. For example, I try to combat creationist gibble without believing that the American media is a vast sinister machine to propogate it.

Because I am not stark, staring, raving mad.

It is not necessary for the left to imitate the shrieking, twitching paranoia of the right in order to find fault with the occasional right-wing rag, pamphlet, or tirade.
 
Last edited:
Mephisto said:
Yeah, I'll bet they can't find Liberal Misinformation anywhere! Liberal Misinformation would have us believing that evolution is a process proven by science, that Stem Cells won't grow up to vote Republican, that people who have lived in a persistent vegetative state for years probably won't jump out of bed and resume a normal life, that Iraq has no WMD, that the Bill of Rights actually guarantees certain rights and privilages to ALL American citizens, that global warming is a scientific fact, that our government is too slow and too ineffective in response to natural disasters, that public buildings shouldn't post the Ten Commandments out of respect to other religions . . .
Click to expand...

Are you saying that it is a good practice to begin research with a pre-determined outcome? Or are you saying that you have mistaken stem cell research for cloning?
 
corplinx said:
Media Matters is run by a hack named David Brock that used to do hit pieces for "The American Spectator" before he "saw the light" and went out to expose the conservative media.

Their election coverage was laughable. He's moved from the anti-Clinton band wagon to make a buck to the hysterical conservative media conspiracy one.
Click to expand...
Even if what you say is true, that he did it to make a buck, do you think that invalidates his status as a former right-wing insider? He did write those "hit pieces". He probably knows about lots of dirty tricks.

You can suspect his motives all you want, but unless you can show that what he says is untrue, then the "right wing conspiracy" is not just a fantasy of the hysterical liberal media.
 
Upchurch said:
Media Matters has at least one creditable strength: The provide not only the quote and the context, but they provide the quoted person actually saying quote in context.

....usually. Sometimes when they are doing a montage of different clips it does sometimes get a little quick and I sometimes worry about what else was being said that we missed. The more focused articles are usually pretty good, even if they are only reporting on conservative media.

Does anyone know the backstory on the guy who founded MM, by the way? He was on either the Daily Show or Colbert a while back. Interesting story, but who knows how much of it is true.
Click to expand...

There's a bit about him in Wikipedia, which paints him as a former "conservative hit man":
...
Nonetheless, Brock continued to spread such rumors until a 1997 Esquire magazine article titled "I Was a Conservative Hit Man" recanting on his claims. After years claiming controversy, Brock recanted, claiming that the Clintons did nothing wrong. In 1998, he went further and personally apologized. Consequently, Brock was let go from the Spectator and published his 2002 book "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative."[1] In that book, Brock addresses "This continum of Republican attack politics from Watergate to W. is the unacknowledged back story of Brock’s book, which is its own back story to the last third of those three decades."[2] Brock described "Millions of dollars were soon flowing to conservative organizations that vied with each other for the biggest bucks by demonstrating how effectively they could undermine liberals, Democrats and other “enemies.” The tougher the attack strategies, the more likely the organizations would get fat checks from the foundations."[2]
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock
Click to expand...
Side note: Yes, continuum is misspelled. Blame wp not me.

Here is an article indicating the possibility Brock has not changed his ways, just his party affiliation:
...
The left-wing organization Media Matters (MMFA) appears to have been caught red-handed in an ugly and false smear attack against Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media (AIM) and president of America's Survival, Inc. In an August 19, 2005, item entitled, "AIM's Kincaid posted 'letter' from Afghan ambassador thanking him for petition to extradite Newsweek's Isikoff," Media Matters clearly implies that Kincaid fabricated a letter from an Afghan ambassador. However, every indication reveals that Kincaid did no such thing.
...
http://www.themediareport.com/aug2005/mediamatters.htm
Click to expand...
 
Dr Adequate said:
Well, you must have enjoyed saying that.

Now, Upchurch has pointed out that though these people have their faults, they provide, not merely quotes, but quotes in context.

You see the difference between you and them?
Click to expand...


No offense, but some skeptics bother quoting the charlatans. Me? I'm a lazy bastard and I just point at them and say "they're phoneys".

I guess I could post the silly election coverage MMFA did. Oh wait, they deleted it. Nevermind.

MMFA is just another MRC (but with the viewpoint reversed) and just as useless. Oh noes, I didn't provide any quotes either!
 
peptoabysmal said:
Are you saying that it is a good practice to begin research with a pre-determined outcome? Or are you saying that you have mistaken stem cell research for cloning?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be research if you began with a pre-determined outcome, would it? Also, I'm not the one protesting the use of stem cells in research, I'll leave that to the people who want the Ten Commandments in all public buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom