AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 I stopped watching fox after the 2nd gulf war when they reported Saddam gave the orders to use WMD on our troopsI gradually stopped watching MSNBC after 2004 elections. If it is breaking news i go to headline news or network news What i see with the advent of cable tv is all these political shows right vs left that has divided the country. Both sides spout the talking points of these shows without ever checking out the facts. They seem not to care about the truth rather they seem to care how much dirt they can get on the other side One thing that I've noticed is that actual journalism and the discovery of the truth has been replaced by presenting the talking points from each camp using a professional pundit, that's not the same thing as finding the truth, it's lazy and stupid, but apparently it sells well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Help me out here. News Corp is a publically traded company how can one really "hide" as an investor?? Did Kingdom hide it's investment (ownership) in Time Warner, Disney, Apple, HP, Kodak, Motorola, PepsiCo, P&G, Citibank- all well known "right wing" Corporations. Get your head out of the sand, I cannot believe you're going to justify this. A simple look shows that Faux has been presenting this as a guilt by association with some supposedly nefarious financier with supposed ties to Hamas, and Iran...but they NEVER mention his name....why not? Why don't they mention the man's name? They know his name, they know all about him, as "journalists" why aren't they simply mentioning his name? If it were any other person with actual ties to terrorism you can bet your last dollar that they would have plastered his name and picture all over the place, and yet not one picture, and not one mention of his name as they present this guilt by association game...why is that? You and I both know that the vast majority of people who believe Faux will simply accept what they say and NEVER fact check them...why? Because they still believe that they don't need to fact check a journalistic institution, so this nefarious financier must really have ties to terrorism, and yet it it NEVER revealed that this nefarious financier is also the 2nd largest shareholder of Newscorp stock which owns Faux News. Interestingly enough if their guilt by association game is true and he really is a terrorist funder, then this same terrorist financier has also funded the GOP with the Newscorp $1 million dollar donation to the GOP governor's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 I'll leave ya to The Dailey Show...it seems a good fit:cool: So you're not going to comment on this at all? You're seriously going to turn a blind eye to Faux and give them a pass on their outright dishonesty? Figures. But, seriously don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you are willing to dismiss this garbage from Faux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 At this point CNN is the only reputable 24hour agency. They have seriously softball questions and are slanted reporting depending on the time. But they haven't been caught stooping to the levels of the other two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 At this point CNN is the only reputable 24hour agency. They have seriously softball questions and are slanted reporting depending on the time. But they haven't been caught stooping to the levels of the other two. Sad ain't it. I think the reason their ratings are so low comparatively is due to the fact that they don't stoop to the other two, but what they lack is actual journalism. Research is replaced with airing two people with different sets of talking points. In the end I've stopped watching any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Get your head out of the sand, I cannot believe you're going to justify this. A simple look shows that Faux has been presenting this as a guilt by association with some supposedly nefarious financier with supposed ties to Hamas, and Iran...but they NEVER mention his name....why not? Why don't they mention the man's name? They know his name, they know all about him, as "journalists" why aren't they simply mentioning his name? If it were any other person with actual ties to terrorism you can bet your last dollar that they would have plastered his name and picture all over the place, and yet not one picture, and not one mention of his name as they present this guilt by association game...why is that? You and I both know that the vast majority of people who believe Faux will simply accept what they say and NEVER fact check them...why? Because they still believe that they don't need to fact check a journalistic institution, so this nefarious financier must really have ties to terrorism, and yet it it NEVER revealed that this nefarious financier is also the 2nd largest shareholder of Newscorp stock which owns Faux News.Interestingly enough if their guilt by association game is true and he really is a terrorist funder, then this same terrorist financier has also funded the GOP with the Newscorp $1 million dollar donation to the GOP governor's. Well everyone should know that anybody with a "Saudi" or "Iranian" connection is INVOLVED with TERRORIST activities. Recent history should be the proverbial elephant in the room. To pretend is just ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Well everyone should know that anybody with a "Saudi" or "Iranian" connection is INVOLVED with TERRORIST activities. Recent history should be the proverbial elephant in the room. To pretend is just ignorant. So Rupert Murdoch is INVOLVED with TERRORIST activities? As is Newscorp? Here is your nefarious terrorist financier...maybe Murdoch needs to have his Faux News investigate his potential shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 One thing that I've noticed is that actual journalism and the discovery of the truth has been replaced by presenting the talking points from each camp using a professional pundit, that's not the same thing as finding the truth, it's lazy and stupid, but apparently it sells well. I concur 100% people tune in to what they want to believe not what is true. Both sides also to like to change or distort history I am guilty of that at times. But i will always look at another person views and links..............even on religion. I try to be open minded but sometimes it just hard as our belief system is so en-grained in us from a early age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Got to wonder why he chose to link the thoughts "Saudi," "Iranian," "terrorist," with "elephant"... Freudian GOP slip maybe???? Edit: Asbury's got a good point, coverage through balanced punditry is not good journalism. Sadly though, it's cheap and most people seem to eat it up. That means more profits, smaller newsrooms (which also means more profits) and less discovery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 So Rupert Murdoch is INVOLVED with TERRORIST activities? As is Newscorp? As is Time Warner & Disney and any other type of media organization to the extent they can prevent these types of organizations from investing in their "public" companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 As is Time Warner & Disney and any other type of media organization to the extent they can prevent these types of organizations from investing in their "public" companies. Well Rupert seems pretty cozy with this terrorist. BTW aREDSKIN, do you really think we're stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Well Rupert seems pretty cozy with this terrorist. BTW aREDSKIN, do you really think we're stupid? Stupid??, no, myopic, partisan, sycophantic and less than objective most certainly yes and I know the feeling is in all probability mutual.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Stupid??, no, myopic, partisan, sycophantic and less than objective most certainly yes and I know you'll think the same of me. Think what you will, but I'm not the one defending Faux's misinformation campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 At this point CNN is the only reputable 24hour agency. They have seriously softball questions and are slanted reporting depending on the time. But they haven't been caught stooping to the levels of the other two. Talal owns shares there as well,maybe he exerts better message control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Talal owns shares there as well,maybe he exerts better message control? Or maybe he's not a terrorist financier as Faux and aREDSKIN would have us believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Help me out here. News Corp is a publically traded company how can one really "hide" as an investor?? Did Kingdom hide it's investment (ownership) in Time Warner, Disney, Apple, HP, Kodak, Motorola, PepsiCo, P&G, Citibank- all well known "right wing" Corporations. Fox has tied their fear-based Terror Mosque to this Kingdom corporation with a bunch of "coulda.. mighta" style insinuation reporting. They repeatedly mention this "guy" who they intimate is a terrorist sympathizer who tried to bribe Giuliani into staying in NYC after 9-11.. they tie his organization to other terrorist funding. They never once mention his name. They never once let on that they know who he is, and that he's their second largest shareholder. Let's pretend for a minute that they did not know their second largest shareholder was a terrorist funding operation as they have intimated without using his actual name... First off, :rotflmao: No ****ing way they didn't know. And secondly if they DIDN'T know,, damn are they getting played like suckers... except that SINCE this revelation is now getting on ten days old and they've yet to name this guy.. well that just shows they knew it all along. Or, and this one is most likely.. they know it's a total lie,, a complete fabrication, and willful obfustication of facts to drive fear and anger. (at least it is to people with their eyes open.) This has been all over the news for a week. The fact that Fox viewers either pretend to not know it or truly DON'T know it shows either their tacit complicity in the mangling of facts and manipulation of emotions, or they show how ignorant they've become while sucking at Fox's teat. Obviously one or the other is occuring. As i said to someone else in one of these threads, if you've simply decided that this sort of thing doesn't matter, then there's no way in hell anyone is ever going to convince you to think for yourself. Bury your head in the pillow and pretend it's not reality, but that doesn't actually change the facts. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Faux News is either Evil or Stupid the choice is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Let's pretend for a second that they didn't know this guy they're intimating is a terror funder is their second largest stockholder. Let's also pretend for a moment that they're telling the truth in everything they've said, including being ignorant as to his identity. Why have they not investigated further? After all, discovering who he is should have been so easy that a comedy show could find out about it overnight... oh, they did... yet Fox didn't.. so let's pretend even further that Fox needed Jon Stewart to point out to them who the guy they're intimating is a terror funder is.... so why no investigation? They love America. They have filled themselves with all the self righteousness the flag can offer. Here is an enemy within their midst (or so they'd have you believe) and yet they do nothing about it? Are they complicit in terrorism? Or are they liars mainpulating their viewers emotions? Or are they such a slipshod organization that they really DIDN'T know and have somehow missed it all last week while everyone ELSE laughed at them over it? If there's another possibility, I'm all ears. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Well, there's always the greedy **** option. The "I don't care where it comes from as long I make as much money as humanly possible" option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Talal owns shares there as well,maybe he exerts better message control? I know its "tongue-in-cheek' but i've never subscribed to terrorists owning fox news or cnn or msnbc. That seems a bit 'birther' to me. I prefer to just compare them by made up stories and gaffs... I was going to quote Burgold, but i've agreed with him so much I might as well take the day off.... let him do the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 I know its "tongue-in-cheek' but i've never subscribed to terrorists owning fox news or cnn or msnbc. That seems a bit 'birther' to me.I prefer to just compare them by made up stories and gaffs... I was going to quote Burgold, but i've agreed with him so much I might as well take the day off.... let him do the work. Oh, it's plenty birther.. truther,, whatever kind of nutjob-er you want it to be., and personally I don't believe he is a terror funder... because if he IS,,, that is a level of insanity I do NOT want to try to wrap my head around. I believe the simplest explanation is probably correct.. that Fox is using this shadowy unnamed (and uncorroborated) insinuation to drive fear and anger to help their agenda. They are correct in assuming that their legions will not care to find out they've lied, and will do and say just about anything to make sure they either don't have to face the fact they've been so thoroughly played, or that their team has manipulated their trust, and the evidence of that is pretty much all over this and many other sites that offer people a voice. This shows a complete disregard for anything remotely honest, and also shows an absolute lack of respect for the intelligence of their viewers. ("They'll swallow anything we feed them, no matter HOW ridiculous" is how it reads to me) I believe they use these lies to rile people up so they can then report on it, and thus sell advertising... creating the news.. manipulating the truth for their own gain. The only thing I have with the greed angle is that he's a Saudi prince... he can't be hurting for cash.. however, that certainly does NOT rule it out. In fact, I'd bank that is probably the main reason why he's allowed this.. which makes the other question (why do their viewers accept this) much more valid. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 They are correct in assuming that their legions will not care to find out they've lied, and will do and say just about anything to make sure they either don't have to face the fact they've been so thoroughly played, or that their team has manipulated their trust, and the evidence of that is pretty much all over this and many other sites that offer people a voice.This shows a complete disregard for anything remotely honest, and also shows an absolute lack of respect for the intelligence of their viewers. ("They'll swallow anything we feed them, no matter HOW ridiculous" is how it reads to me) I believe they use these lies to rile people up so they can then report on it, and thus sell advertising... creating the news.. manipulating the truth for their own gain. Which is exactly why I deplore Faux News, I was once one of those who believed their manipulations and lies, they abused my trust and I was stupid enough to buy it hook line and sinker...once I had my eyes opened to their trash I have decided to show them for what they are whenever possible. which makes the other question (why do their viewers accept this) much more valid. Because it's easier to ignore the problem than it is to realize that what they have spent their time believing is an illusion, and that their beloved "news" source cannot be trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 well I guess this means turn off your sets to news channels if they are all biased right? I mean, you can't trust any of the alphabet soup networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 well I guess this means turn off your sets to news channels if they are all biased right? I mean, you can't trust any of the alphabet soup networks. Works for me,the written word is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Works for me,the written word is better Just so long as it doesn't come from Faux News.com Not all text is created equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.