mediamatters.org: FOX NEWS INSIDER: “Stuff Is Just Made Up”

[Predicto]

I wonder why one assumes that an orgainzation dedicated to correcting conservative media misinformation is lying? Sure, they are biased in that they are not focusing on their "own" side, but that is not the same as being dishonest.

Let's put it this way. I have read literally hundreds of Media Matters entries over the years, and I am still waiting to see any evidence what they are saying in those hundreds of specific entries isn't 100 percent true.

[Teller]

But feel free to continue defending that gargantuan pile of steaming refuse.

I don't seem to recall ever defending FOX around here. I simply made the point (and you SEEM to agree, despite the diatribe) that if you're not going to buy one set of unsourced BS, you probably shouldn't buy another set. Pretty simple.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I wonder why one assumes that an orgainzation dedicated to correcting conservative media misinformation is lying? Sure, they are biased in that they are not focusing on their "own" side, but that is not the same as being dishonest.

Let's put it this way. I have read literally hundreds of Media Matters entries over the years, and I am still waiting to see any evidence what they are saying in those hundreds of specific entries isn't 100 percent true.

Oh no Predicto, the Right wing Faux Phaithful will never, ever question the shrine of all things GOP, instead of actually saying, "Yep, Faux is crap" they will instead attack whatever source reveals a truth about their beloved source. Faux MUST be DEFENDED!

[NavyDave]

No one....and I repeat no one with a shred of integrity takes Faux News as a credible source for actual news...no one.

Again I repeat no one with any integrity takes them seriously.

When did this guy No One become a Far Left wing nut?

Is No one a listener of NPR, a viewer of MSNBC, registered on the huffington post, and subscriber of the NY Times?

[Teller]

Oh no Predicto, the Right wing Faux Phaithful will never, ever question the shrine of all things GOP, instead of actually saying, "Yep, Faux is crap" they will instead attack whatever source reveals a truth about their beloved source. Faux MUST be DEFENDED!

Fair enough. As long as ANY story with an unnamed source that proves you "wrong" will be met with the same response you have to this one.

I mean really. "Conservative attack dog cites unnamed source to disparage liberal news outlet" probably won't get the same response from you.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't seem to recall ever defending FOX around here. I simply made the point (and you SEEM to agree, despite the diatribe) that if you're not going to buy one set of unsourced BS, you probably shouldn't buy another set. Pretty simple.

I've got Faux as my source, what this "un-named" source says only affirms what I've seen and heard for years. My guess is that if Media Matters reports an "un-named source" as saying that Obama is the current President of the United States of America that source cannot be trusted because that source is presented through Media Matters. I also have had it confirmed to me by an "un-named source" that 4+4=8, but you're right we cannot trust "un-named sources".

[Mad Mike]

Not that I'm defending Fox News, but FYI... mediamaters.org is a left wing propaganda machine that puts their own slant on everything they produce.

My guess is that while there may be some truth here, it has been exaggerated by a disgruntled employee with a willing audience.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Fair enough. As long as ANY story with an unnamed source that proves you "wrong" will be met with the same response you have to this one.

I mean really. "Conservative attack dog cites unnamed source to disparage liberal news outlet" probably won't get the same response from you.

You're right it won't because Faux News is so bad that they compensate to the Right the collective weight of the rest of the entire "Left leaning" media, they are THAT bad. 50 years from now students will study propaganda and Faux News will be a main case study.

[Bliz]

Seriously ASF, it's time to drop the whole "Faux" thing. If you can't come up with any other clever put down (I'm partial to Fox "News", myself) just call it Fox and be done with it. "Faux" is severely played out

[Teller]

You're right it won't because Faux News is so bad that they compensate to the Right the collective weight of the rest of the entire "Left leaning" media, they are THAT bad. 50 years from now students will study propaganda and Faux News will be a main case study.

Oh good Lord. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

[NavyDave]

I wonder why one assumes that an orgainzation dedicated to correcting conservative media misinformation is lying?

Because the big 3 ABC, CBS and NBC, liberal news rags and the liberal cable misinformation channels would have used them as a reputable source to destroy FNC by now.

Mediamatters where if you tell half truths / lies enough times some 5 watt light bulbs will believe its fact.

Sure, they are biased in that they are not focusing on their "own" side, but that is not the same as being dishonest.

. Yeah no one will accuse them of being fair or balanced.

[aREDSKIN]

You're right it won't because Faux News is so bad that they compensate to the Right the collective weight of the rest of the entire "Left leaning" media, they are THAT bad. 50 years from now students will study propaganda and Faux News will be a main case study.

I sincerely believe you are have FNDS. That is Fox News Derangement Syndrome. You admittedly cannot form an objective opinion of Fox because of your past history of falling for their spiel. You need to learn not to fall hook line & sinker for these media outlets. They sell. Pretty simple really.

[NavyDave]

Oh no Predicto, the Right wing Faux Phaithful will never, ever question the shrine of all things GOP, instead of actually saying, "Yep, Faux is crap" they will instead attack whatever source reveals a truth about their beloved source. Faux MUST be DEFENDED!

Yeah because we would never vote our own out of office as we did in 2006 and 2008 or demand Craiglist guy to resign (naw he did that with out a push).

[AsburySkinsFan]

I sincerely believe you are have FNDS. That is Fox News Derangement Syndrome. You admittedly cannot form an objective opinion of Fox because of your past history of falling for their spiel. You need to learn not to fall hook line & sinker for these media outlets. They sell. Pretty simple really.

Actually it has been diagnosed as TPUWFS syndrome, "Through Putting Up With Faux's _____".

Oh and Bliz, I don't do "Faux" to be funny, I do it because that's the only way I can refer to them in text without laughing. Maybe Fox :ols:News:ols: will suffice, but alas its too long to type every time.

[Predicto]

Because the big 3 ABC, CBS and NBC, liberal news rags and the liberal cable misinformation channels would have used them as a reputable source to destroy FNC by now.

Mediamatters where if you tell half truths / lies enough times some 5 watt light bulbs will believe its fact.

Yeah no one will accuse them of being fair or balanced.

Again, I ask... do you have any ACTUAL examples of this, or are you just assuming that Media Matters must be dishonest because it has an unhidden agenda of pointing out dishonesty by "your" side?

One of the funniest things about this conversation is the conservatives complaining that criticism is not coming from an objective source. Conservatives don't believe that there are ANY objective sources. Every mainstream source is biased against them. None of them can be trusted... therefore, right wing media doesn't have to acknowledge any criticism from ANY source.

[Teller]

Again, I ask... do you have any ACTUAL examples of this, or are you just assuming that Media Matters must be dishonest because it has an unhidden agenda of pointing out dishonesty by "your" side?

One of the funniest things about this conversation is the conservatives complaining that criticism is not coming from an objective source. Conservatives don't believe that there are ANY objective sources. Every mainstream source is biased against them. None of them can be trusted... therefore, right wing media doesn't have to acknowledge any criticism from ANY source.

I watch NBC's Nightly News just about every night. But I'm assuming once again, Obi Wan, "This is not the conservative you're talking about."

[Predicto]

I sincerely believe you are have FNDS. That is Fox News Derangement Syndrome. You admittedly cannot form an objective opinion of Fox because of your past history of falling for their spiel. You need to learn not to fall hook line & sinker for these media outlets. They sell. Pretty simple really.

This may be true. Maybe we do have FNDS.

But where would you suggest one go to find an objective analysis of Fox, or an objective comparison of, say , Fox and CNN? Do you think one exists?

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 11:51 AM ----------

I watch NBC's Nightly News just about every night. But I'm assuming once again, Obi Wan, "This is not the conservative you're talking about."

Nope. Once again, we must note that every conversation in the Tailgate is not necessarily about Honorary Hog.

[Teller]

Nope. Once again, we must note that every conversation in the Tailgate is not necessarily about Honorary Hog.

If you say "conservatives," you are addressing me. Like if I say "lawyers," I'm addressing you. If I want to clarify that I don't mean ALL lawyers, I'll say something like "some lawyers," or maybe even "many lawyers." But if I make a statement about just "lawyers." I'm inherently talking about you.

But the way you choose to argue is to lump us all into a pile, and when we call you on it, you fire back with "oooohhh....not you. I meant all the other ones." It's pretty disengenuous when you get right down to it.

[Bang]

I sincerely believe you are have FNDS. That is Fox News Derangement Syndrome. You admittedly cannot form an objective opinion of Fox because of your past history of falling for their spiel. You need to learn not to fall hook line & sinker for these media outlets. They sell. Pretty simple really.

I don't really think they "sell" what ASF bought.

They do sell, and the problem isn't the selling. it's the gobs of idiots who lap it up.

They've purposely allowed themselves to be deluded.

And it doesn't matter whether or not the other side does it or who funded what or who sourced what.

All those counters do is excuse it, and it shouldn't be excused.

~Bang

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 05:56 PM ----------

I watch NBC's Nightly News just about every night. But I'm assuming once again, Obi Wan, "This is not the conservative you're talking about."

OK< an aside.. I do too.. now, this American Granny that was holed up in Egypt last week.. you been seeing her?

This 71 yr old woman supposedly in the middle of it locked in her apt?

Man, part of me thinks that she's just some "wag the dog" character. Is she real?

I figured it was a pretty convenent story,, they never could get to her,, and when they had her on she had on this awful wig... it made my eyebrow pop up, i must say.

~Bang

[Predicto]

If you say "conservatives," you are addressing me. Like if I say "lawyers," I'm addressing you. If I want to clarify that I don't mean ALL lawyers, I'll say something like "some lawyers," or maybe even "many lawyers." But if I make a statement about just "lawyers." I'm inherently talking about you.

But the way you choose to argue is to lump us all into a pile, and when we call you on it, you fire back with "oooohhh....not you. I meant all the other ones." It's pretty disengenuous when you get right down to it.

Put your poor bruised sensibilities away for once and try not to derail yet another conversation with this. I admit to using a generality. When I said "conservatives" I should have said "ideological conservatives who defend Fox and claim that Fox is not biased and/or claim that all media is biased the same way blah blah blah..."

I didn't do that. I shorthanded it. Sorry, ok?

Any comment as to the substance?

[Teller]

Any comment as to the substance?

All of 'em, prior to your generalization.

If one sides unsourced BS sucks. So does the other's.

[Mad Mike]

I wonder why one assumes that an orgainzation dedicated to correcting conservative media misinformation is lying? Sure, they are biased in that they are not focusing on their "own" side, but that is not the same as being dishonest.

Let's put it this way. I have read literally hundreds of Media Matters entries over the years, and I am still waiting to see any evidence what they are saying in those hundreds of specific entries isn't 100 percent true.

I know you are not that naive so I'm assuming your own bias has disrupted your cognitive abilities.

Maybe it's just me but I don't trust anyone with such a specific agenda. As a lawyer, I'm sure you know the difference between a "truth" presented in unbiased form and one couched in bias and presented with an agenda. It's not just what they say, it's how they say it. I don't care if it is right or left. If it comes from a bias source, I take it with a grain of salt.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I know you are not that naive so I'm assuming your own bias has disrupted your cognitive abilities.

Maybe it's just me but I don't trust anyone with such a specific agenda. As a lawyer, I'm sure you know the difference between a "truth" presented in unbiased form and one couched in bias and presented with an agenda. It's not just what they say, it's how they say it. I don't care if it is right or left. If it comes from a bias source, I take it with a grain of salt.

Aren't lawyers by the fact that they are being paid to represent a client biased by default?

[Predicto]

All of 'em, prior to your generalization.

If one sides unsourced BS sucks. So does the other's.

Fair enough. Here is a video of former Fox employees (some open some anonymous) saying the exact same thing 5 years ago, with copies of internal Fox memos. (Warning, it starts out with excessive Bill O'Reilly).

http://www.noob.us/miscellaneous/fox-news-exposed-by-employees/

Of course, it has only gotten more blatant since 2007.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 12:18 PM ----------

I know you are not that naive so I'm assuming your own bias has disrupted your cognitive abilities.

Maybe it's just me but I don't trust anyone with such a specific agenda. As a lawyer, I'm sure you know the difference between a "truth" presented in unbiased form and one couched in bias and presented with an agenda. It's not just what they say, it's how they say it. I don't care if it is right or left. If it comes from a bias source, I take it with a grain of salt.

What source is unbiased when it comes to media criticism? If there is one, is it a source that typical conservatives will accept as being valid?

[Destino]

Remember "Terrorist fist bump"

Still the most astonishing statement I've heard on a news show ever.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 06:22 PM ----------

All of 'em, prior to your generalization.

If one sides unsourced BS sucks. So does the other's.

This is argument you are making is both stupid and beneath you. What you are doing is this:

Fox is partisan and lying.

Other media is partisan as well.

Therefore other media must also be lying.

One can be partisan and not part of a fiction machine that manufactures beneficial news and then broadcasts and references it repeatedly to create credibility. Partisanship and bias do not equate to dishonesty. I can present an argument for or against deregulation without lying my ass off. I can do the same dishonestly by simply making **** up and calling people communists or fascists.