MediaMatters:"Fox spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam."

[twa]

Not all text is created equal.

.

Obviously not, nor opinions

[aREDSKIN]

Faux News is either Evil or Stupid the choice is yours.

Here's CNN host Rick " The Murderer" Sanchez calling Obama a "cotton pickin" president. Maybe CNN is in the same boat fox is in????

[Bang]

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.

the stuff i am talking about in this thread isn't bias. It's flat out lying. It's straight up obfuscation of fact to push agenda.

Minimizing it won't change what it is. It will only encourage it.

~Bang

[aREDSKIN]

the stuff i am talking about in this thread isn't bias. It's flat out lying. It's straight up obfuscation of fact to push agenda.

~Bang

It's all over the place-

It took a while, but MSNBC President Phil Griffin has finally admitted and embraced his cable network's hard-left slant. He told the Chicago Tribune that he will try to carve out a niche on the left, hoping some day to rival the Fox News Channel's record-setting ratings.

Not so long ago, Griffin insisted that MSNBC was not "tied to ideology" -- unlike Fox, which simply could not be trusted, he claimed. Griffin even knocked FNC President Roger Ailes's business model, criticizing him for "creat[ing] an ideological channel… I give them total credit. I tip my hat to them. They scored. But it was ideological and opportunistic. It was a business plan."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/people/television/phil-griffin#ixzz0y87fCc2O

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's CNN host Rick " The Murderer" Sanchez calling Obama a "cotton pickin" president. Maybe CNN is in the same boat fox is in????

Nah, Sanchez is just an idiot. He's nothing but a talking head who is given too much ad lib time. And he said something completely stupid, not quite the same as the intentional fear mongering and misinformation perpetrated by Faux.

*edit

Oh BTW, I just wanted to let you know that you won.

See when I read what Sanchez said earlier tonight, I knew that one of you Faux defenders would use Sanchez's comments in just the way you have. Honestly, I'm glad it was you as you're one of the Faux News heroes I would have been disappointed if it were anyone else.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's all over the place-

It took a while, but MSNBC President Phil Griffin has finally admitted and embraced his cable network's hard-left slant. He told the Chicago Tribune that he will try to carve out a niche on the left, hoping some day to rival the Fox News Channel's record-setting ratings.

Not so long ago, Griffin insisted that MSNBC was not "tied to ideology" -- unlike Fox, which simply could not be trusted, he claimed. Griffin even knocked FNC President Roger Ailes's business model, criticizing him for "creat[ing] an ideological channel… I give them total credit. I tip my hat to them. They scored. But it was ideological and opportunistic. It was a business plan."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/people/television/phil-griffin#ixzz0y87fCc2O

And if MSNBC has gone the way of Faux News then they too should be rightly condemned and ignored just the same as Faux, and I will be among the first to say so. Now, where is your condemnation of Faux?

[Bang]

It's all over the place-

It took a while, but MSNBC President Phil Griffin has finally admitted and embraced his cable network's hard-left slant. He told the Chicago Tribune that he will try to carve out a niche on the left, hoping some day to rival the Fox News Channel's record-setting ratings.

Not so long ago, Griffin insisted that MSNBC was not "tied to ideology" -- unlike Fox, which simply could not be trusted, he claimed. Griffin even knocked FNC President Roger Ailes's business model, criticizing him for "creat[ing] an ideological channel… I give them total credit. I tip my hat to them. They scored. But it was ideological and opportunistic. It was a business plan."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/people/television/phil-griffin#ixzz0y87fCc2O

Can you please focus on what we're talking about here?

You seem to be totally ignoring this business with Fox and their second largest shareholder.

Yay, MSNBC has a left slant. Who the **** doesn't know that?

Once AGAIN we're not talking about slants.. we're talking about straight up lies and manipulations.

Now stick with the straight up lie and manipulations of Fox that was proven last week about their association with Saudi Prince Walaleed bin Talal. According to Fox, he's a terrorist sympathizer who's Kingdom Foundation funds terrorist groups around the world, yet he's Fox's second largest shareholder.. Please address that.

As it is you're coming off like a kid who flat out refuses to acknowledge his hand in the cookie jar.

Some pages back I asked some direct questions about this issue that I believe should NOT be ignored.

I then predicted it would be totally ignored by the Fox drones.

Now either I'm psychic, or you're bleating the oh-so predictable Fox marching song.

Which is it?

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Can you please focus on what we're talking about here?

You seem to be totally ignoring this business with Fox and their second largest shareholder.

Yay, MSNBC has a left slant. Who the **** doesn't know that?

I then predicted it would be totally ignored by the Fox drones.

Now either I'm psychic, or you're bleating the oh-so predictable Fox marching song.

Which is it?

~Bang

Bang you know exactly what this is, we all know what this is. It's the classic defensive move when someone is faced with the prospect of having to actually admit that the news source they love and adore has acted so reprehensibly that it should cause them to denounce the source and question them as a legitimate source of valid information, and at the same time they don't want to do that. So you make a head nod to the massive 60 car pile up over your left shoulder and then go off screaming about the minor fender bender on the next block hoping that people will think that the two things are actually the same.

Fauxians, I know it's a hard thing to acknowledge that your beloved news source that sings the song the way you want it sung has betrayed you and proven that they are completely untrustworthy. I know it's difficult and challenging to finally admit that everything that comes out of their mouths has to be questioned as if it is the same sort of misinformation campaign. I know it's not easy, but that's what happens when the news source you love completely trashes their own credibility by selling out their integrity. It's hard, but you can do it.

[Burgold]

Asbury,

I don't think they can.

They still believe that Republicans are fiscally conservative... despite 50 years of evidence to the contrary. They've built their walls of delusion so high that even attempting to scale them would cause suffocation.

[@DCGoldPants]

Imagine if the stupid D's had the balls to refer to Foxnews publically as the terrorist owned network. If MSNBC spend hours and hours everyday profiling Alwaleed bin Talal and his ties to terrorism mixed in with pictures of 9/11 and references to his stock in Foxnews.

[Bang]

That would be interesting, except I'd bet the only terrorist ties of his they can find are the ones Fox 'created'.

And if they found ACTUAL ties,, well, that would be a kettle of fish, eh?

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Asbury,

I don't think they can.

They still believe that Republicans are fiscally conservative... despite 50 years of evidence to the contrary. They've built their walls of delusion so high that even attempting to scale them would cause suffocation.

They can, I did, that's what I went through a few years ago. Someone before mentioned that I sounded like a person who was jilted by a lover, and in some ways that's right, one day I woke up and realized that the thing I thought had been trustworthy, and faithful had been lying to me the whole time that my whole history with them was a lie and that nothing they said held any credibility. Yeah, they'll be pissed and in some ways I think they are, but at this point I think they are still the one's in the relationship with the abusive lover, but they can't bring themselves to leave because to admit the reality would cause too much pain. Am I speaking from my own experience? Yes. But, I know in my gut that I'm not the only one.

Imagine if the stupid D's had the balls to refer to Foxnews publically as the terrorist owned network. If MSNBC spend hours and hours everyday profiling Alwaleed bin Talal and his ties to terrorism mixed in with pictures of 9/11 and references to his stock in Foxnews.

Nah with most that would just be more "evidence" of the Left biased MSM.

[@DCGoldPants]

That would be interesting, except I'd bet the only terrorist ties of his they can find are the ones Fox 'created'.

And if they found ACTUAL ties,, well, that would be a kettle of fish, eh?

~Bang

If they have clips from Fox talking about this guy. Then they need to play those over and over and mention how even Foxnews doesn't realize their 2nd largest stockholder is a terrorist.

I know its nonsense. I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

Nah with most that would just be more "evidence" of the Left biased MSM.

Of course that's what some would say. But I'm sure there are plenty of photos of this guy with political and media leaders from both sides. Just show the Conservative ones over and over and over. Have people talking about it who seem scared he's going to fund another 9/11. blah blah blah

[Peeping Wizard]

Media Matters has roughly the same level of credibilty as Newsmax.

[alexey]

Imagine if the stupid D's had the balls to refer to Foxnews publically as the terrorist owned network. If MSNBC spend hours and hours everyday profiling Alwaleed bin Talal and his ties to terrorism mixed in with pictures of 9/11 and references to his stock in Foxnews.

That would really be something, wouldn't it? :fingersx:

[aREDSKIN]

That would really be something, wouldn't it? :fingersx:

It really would, but you know what? Nobody would believe them.

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

[Burgold]

That may be one of the most depressing stats I've read this year... considering how often they've been caught not stretching, twisting, or even biasing a story, but presenting outright fiction.... even on non political stories like the EATR.

The amazing thing I've recently discovered in doing a few science pieces is that scientists seem to distrust FOX even more than liberals and Democratic pundits. They talk with dread and absolute terror about what FOX has done to their stories to sensationalize and distort what they said.

[Predicto]

It really would, but you know what? Nobody would believe them.

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

This is absolutely accurate.

If you tell people what they want to hear, they will believe you, and trust you.

[Veretax]

Actually this mosque story hasn't really lit my needle much at all. What concerns me? Glenn Beck talking about how the country needs to get back to God, yet he's mormon so I'm forced to wonder what God he is referring too, as from what I understand their beliefs are different than most traditional bible believing Christians. (That's not intended as a slap at mormons by the way) I'm actually more concerned about the lack of questions from Fox about things like that, then this mosque thing. To me, the average conservative may not care as much about the Mosque because if you are a small government conservative, you think NY City should decide where they can build the mosque, and if its okay with them, then that's their choice.

Am I wrong on that?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually this mosque story hasn't really lit my needle much at all. What concerns me? Glenn Beck talking about how the country needs to get back to God, yet he's mormon so I'm forced to wonder what God he is referring too, as from what I understand their beliefs are different than most traditional bible believing Christians. (That's not intended as a slap at mormons by the way)

Exactly, what does he mean when he says "get back to God"? Does he mean our economics, politics, what? Is he talking about the conservative Mormon ethic, too much ambiguity there for my tastes. However, given his history I think we know what he means.

I'm actually more concerned about the lack of questions from Fox about things like that, then this mosque thing. To me, the average conservative may not care as much about the Mosque because if you are a small government conservative, you think NY City should decide where they can build the mosque, and if its okay with them, then that's their choice.

Am I wrong on that?

How dare you suggest that small government conservatives might be hypocritical in saying that local government knows best and at the same time scream bloody murder about the Cordoba House!! I am appalled sir!

To quote Rand Paul, "If you don't live here, it's none of your business"

[Baculus]

It really would, but you know what? Nobody would believe them.

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

Wow, you really are the loyal Fox News minion, aren't you?

OK, so let me ask you this: If Fox is so worthy of trusting, why would they outright lie about the Prince Al-Waleed? When would they use him as the unnamed "terror funder"of the "Ground Zero mosque" without mentioning the fact that he is the second biggest stockholder in News Corp? And you appear to have already forgotten (or outright ignored) the original topic of this thread: That Fox News promoted a Tea Party organization that swindled the people who donated to it.

That's the name that you, and its supporters, is the most trusted name in news?!

How ridiculous is that?

[Baculus]

That may be one of the most depressing stats I've read this year... considering how often they've been caught not stretching, twisting, or even biasing a story, but presenting outright fiction.... even on non political stories like the EATR.

The amazing thing I've recently discovered in doing a few science pieces is that scientists seem to distrust FOX even more than liberals and Democratic pundits. They talk with dread and absolute terror about what FOX has done to their stories to sensationalize and distort what they said.

Yeah, that's probably the worst part: They have lied on countless occasions, and yet, they still have loyal fans who'll believe them no matter what. But there's a reason for this, as the following article indicates:

"How facts backfire."

"In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

This, I believe, is particularly true of Fox News viewers, many of whom are Tea Partiers and Republicans. Even when they are faced with a truthful piece of data, they dig their heels deeper, and with more determination.

They seem to be saying, "You are not going to tell me what to believe! Obama is a radical Muslim; the radical health care reform is a power grab to impose death panels; and Dr. Martin Luther King was a conservative, just like Glenn Beck!"

And not only that, but it's well know psychological fact that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it. This, I believe, is one of the more insidious elements of Fox's propaganda -- the repeating, over and over again, of outright falsehoods, to influence the thinking patterns of their viewers, for political and financial gain of News Corp.

[Baculus]

Media Matters has roughly the same level of credibilty as Newsmax.

There is no comparison between Newsmax and Media Matters, and to make this statement shows that you don't know very much about either of these websites.

Newsmax posts conservative articles, many of which are opinion pieces and right-wing news stories. They are basically the conservative version of Huffington Post -- that would be a more accurate comparison.

On the other hand, Media Matters analyzes and evaluates right-wing media. They do this by providing transcripts and direct clips to what these media figures and networks are saying -- they are actual journalists doing what journalists do, which is investigative reporting.

Right-wingers always try to dismiss Media Matters because they can't respond in any other way. They never, ever try to directly respond to Media Matters' articles, because they can't mount an adequate defense when quotes are actually sourced . . . which Media Matters provides for the viewer.

And what's why your assertion is really curious -- it's as if you've never read the Media Matters website in your life.

Here is a suggestion -- why don't you actually check it out for yourself?

http://mediamatters.org/

[Peeping Wizard]

Edited my post

[Predicto]

Edited my post

You didn't respond to his post at all.

Media Matters may have an obvious axe to grind. It may only go after conservatives. It may give liberals a free pass. Fine.

That does NOT demonstrate that what Media Matters says in a particular matter is not 100 percent accurate. As far as I know, Media Matters has never been shown to lie.