Originally posted by joe beyserExactly. The local paper had NOTHING to gain personally by saying there were only 300 people in attendance. The only explanation is that they have an agenda to discredit and dismiss the movement so as to discourage people from participating or even find out what it is all about. In fact, I know a woman in California who had been convinced by her local media that the tea parties were all staged by the RNC and that there was no real public outrage about the governments activities.
That just proves that there is more to what is being reported than spinning the issue for ratings. Why would saying there are less people attending the tea parties make media have higher ratings? It is a deep rooted and ugly game plan by the people that own the media.
Originally posted by joe beyserThis could be one of those cases where the media chose to go with the "liberal spin" angle. Perhaps it was decided here that "liberalism" would sell more papers than "sensationalism".
That just proves that there is more to what is being reported than spinning the issue for ratings. Why would saying there are less people attending the tea parties make media have higher ratings? It is a deep rooted and ugly game plan by the people that own the media.
It's also possible that the guy reporting on the tea party showed up early when only 300 people were present and left before the other folks arrived. It's easy to assume the most sinister motives.
Or maybe the tea parties became yesterday's news once all the town halls got started - so no one really made much of an attempt to cover whodey's tea party. Seems like all the tea parties follow the same script anyway - a bunch of people get together to say bad things about taxes, and enjoy time hanging out with fellow conservatives - a couple cookie-cutter Nazi types show up - but no one ever proposes anything unpleasant like cutting specific government programs - and then it ends. I can easily see the media getting bored.
Originally posted by MelanerpesEither way they are lying the arses off so who the heck cares? You are trying to defend the motives of liar by saying that there are less sinister reasons to lie. Not only do I think you are giving them to much credit, your theory is not even believable to me. In fact, if you look at the polls Obama's numbers have slipped significantly in the polls, which I assume they would have known. If so, then they would know that to sell more papers it would behoove them to speak the truth about the tea parties.
This could be one of those cases where the media chose to go with the "liberal spin" angle. Perhaps it was decided here that "liberalism" would sell more papers than "sensationalism".
It's also possible that the guy reporting on the tea party showed up early when only 300 people were present and left before the other folks arrived. It's easy to assume ...[text shortened]... ific government programs - and then it ends. I can easily see the media getting bored.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe people who regularly consume mainstream media offerings may represent the more liberal half of the public. It would be foolish for a company to rely on a national poll when choosing what products to offer - much more important to consider the core buyers.
Either way they are lying the arses off so who the heck cares? You are trying to defend the motives of liar by saying that there are less sinister reasons to lie. Not only do I think you are giving them to much credit, your theory is not even believable to me. In fact, if you look at the polls Obama's numbers have slipped significantly in the polls, which ...[text shortened]... d know that to sell more papers it would behoove them to speak the truth about the tea parties.
But this brings me to a major criticism I have of the media -- they rely WAY too much on these simplistic polls without trying to decipher what they mean.
For example, if someone wants to see major healthcare reform enacted, he might be very upset over how Obama's been handling it and fears that little or nothing will ever get done. Someone else may generally like Obama overall but just doesn't like his healthcare positions. And others might be upset because they think Obama should be focusing more on other issues like the environment. But who really knows? Nobody ever bothers to find out.
I would like to see a "poll" where they get a random group of say 100 people together, and interview each person at length to get a true portrait of what people are thinking and feeling about Obama (or whatever it is the poll is covering).
Originally posted by utherpendragonyou're just preaching to the choir.
[b]MSNBC edits clip of man with gun at Obama rally to support racism narrative
here is the link, http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/19/unreal-msnbc-edits-clip-of-man-with-gun-at-obama-rally-to-support-racism-narrative/
MSNBC (owned by GE),portrayed a man, legally carrying a gun in Portsmouth, NH outside a town hall meeting, as a "white man" an ...[text shortened]... nk to view, http://www.nowpublic.com/world/msnbc-turns-black-man-gun-obama-rally-white-man[/b]
everybody knows msnbc is biased.
why don't you try a less biased source? I believe the daily show is pretty accurate.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesAs I said,I expect these days to see some spin one way or the other. Some at Fox are right of center.For constitutional freedoms.The right to bear arms,freedom of speech,etc.Conservative in nature. MSNBC is not spinning they are lying.Thats not the same. This country does have a recent history of race riots and to try to encourage that is irresponsible,unethical and reprehensible. Journalism is dead in America.They falsify the "facts".They fabricate.
Keith Olbermann has been doing his Countdown show on MSNBC since 2003, so it wasn't like MSNBC suddenly became "liberal" just because Obama was about to become president.
Now you do mention that GE stands to make billions and billions (my apologies to Carl Sagan) -- perhaps because "liberal spin" is a great way for media outlets to make lots of money? ferings is a good example of some of the limitations of the free market system.
They should have a disclaimer at the beginning of each broadcast stating,"what you are about to hear and see may not be true and we may have just made it up"
Originally posted by utherpendragonI was joking about the daily show (however, sometimes it can be more serious than CNN, which constantly refers to twitter as a source)
You are really beginning to scare me. "The daily show" is satire,not meant to be taken seriously.
but the general message was that everybody knows msnbc is biased, just like Fox news.
Originally posted by utherpendragonSo why did Fox go to court to argue for their right to lie?
As I said,I expect these days to see some spin one way or the other. Some at Fox are right of center.For constitutional freedoms.The right to bear arms,freedom of speech,etc.Conservative in nature. MSNBC is not spinning they are lying.Thats not the same. This country does have a recent history of race riots and to do try to encourage that is irrespons ...[text shortened]... stating,"what you are about to hear and see may not be true and we may have just made it up"
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh please.
So why did Fox go to court to argue for their right to lie?
Media outlets go to court all the time for the right to publish information and protection from government interference and defamation lawsuits, whether the information is true or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkovich_v._Lorain_Journal_Co.
etc., etc., etc.
Singling out Fox News in the long, long line of media outlets demanding the right to be free of interference in their reporting is the height of double standard.
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoa proposal.
I was joking about the daily show (however, sometimes it can be more serious than CNN, which constantly refers to twitter as a source)
but the general message was that everybody knows msnbc is biased, just like Fox news.
We'll have Olbermann do a half hour show, followed by O'Reilly doing a half hour show (or vice versa) -- then John Stewart can follow with a half hour show where he wittily comments on the lies, distortions, and deliberate omissions that were made by both Olbermann and O'Reilly.
After that, we can have an hour of Jay Leno
Originally posted by sh76Don't tell me you take Fox News seriously.
Oh please.
Media outlets go to court all the time for the right to publish information and protection from government interference and defamation lawsuits, whether the information is true or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_M ...[text shortened]... anding the right to be free of interference in their reporting is the height of double standard.
Originally posted by MelanerpesCan you give me a lie from O'reilly?
a proposal.
We'll have Olbermann do a half hour show, followed by O'Reilly doing a half hour show (or vice versa) -- then John Stewart can follow with a half hour show where he wittily comments on the lies, distortions, and deliberate omissions that were made by both Olbermann and O'Reilly.
After that, we can have an hour of Jay Leno