Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


BRAVEONAWARPATH

Recommended Posts

In your estimation who is the most credible & effective?

The answer to this is driven by a few factors in my estimation (we are all biased, right?). I consume (or try to at least) news from a variety of sources and all will have their biases (admittedly). I find the Economist (magazine) among some of the best reporting (despite its Euro-centric slant). Realclearpolitics and realclearmarkets are great aggregator sites that will give you choices from across the spectrum of views. You can read to reinforce your views and to challenge your views. I like to attempt to do both. So to answer? The BBC is still credible, the Economist is most credible. The media channels here (that is, the United States) I would rate as effective. Are they also credible? Well, not all the time. It's just the age we live in. You have to delve deeper for real truth. The reality is most people are too lazy to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to this is driven by a few factors in my estimation (we are all biased, right?). I consume (or try to at least) news from a variety of sources and all will have their biases (admittedly). I find the Economist (magazine) among some of the best reporting (despite its Euro-centric slant). Realclearpolitics and realclearmarkets are great aggregator sites that will give you choices from across the spectrum of views. You can read to reinforce your views and to challenge your views. I like to attempt to do both. So to answer? The BBC is still credible, the Economist is most credible. The media channels here (that is, the United States) I would rate as effective. Are they also credible? Well, not all the time. It's just the age we live in. You have to delve deeper for real truth. The reality is most people are too lazy to do that.

Full of truth.

We do have a free press, and we have a great number of sources from which to cull opinions and facts to try and give ourselves the best understanding of the events of the world.

But most people won't do that, or don't want to do that. Too many would rather just belly up to the same trough every day and swallow whatever slop is thrown at them.

And so long as they exist and keep advertisers happy, there's no reason to tell them anything other than what they tuned in to hear.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your estimation who is the most credible & effective?

I'm right in line with the opinion stated above that no single news outlet is enough. Off the top of my head, my usual "go to" news sources would include NPR, the WSJ, the Post, The Economist, BBC, and Al Jazeera from time to time depending on what I want to know. One can learn a lot about the issues and the relevant background info from that list alone.

However the most important thing is that I don't allow my opinion to br formed solely by news reports. Google is an incredibly powerful tool for figuring things out for myself after I've read the media's take on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

earlier this week I mentioned my hatred for Fox in this thread a couple of times...

Here is a great reason why.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/16/uncovered-fox-news-deceptively-used-old-cpac-footage-to-smear-ron-paul/

Uncovered: Fox News deceptively used old CPAC footage to smear Ron Paul

Fox News' Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente told Mediate that the network simply made a "mistake" when it aired old footage of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) being booed.

"We made a mistake with some of the video we aired, and plan on issuing a correction on America’s Newsroom tomorrow morning explaining exactly what happened," he said.

Interviewing Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on his victory in the CPAC 2011 presidential straw poll, the conservative Fox News Channel did something slimy: they cued up footage of the prior year.

While normally this could be passed off as a simple mistake -- the same man presented poll results both years in front of the same backdrop and at the same podium -- something of an editorial edict seems to have emerged.

The key difference between 2010 and 2011: In 2010, the room was full of former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney's supporters, who booed the results. This year, the audience cheered and even began chanting Paul's name (video archived below).

[snip]

I'm no big Ron Paul fan, but this **** is the ultimate disgrace. With each little "mistake" like this, Fox is creates their version of reality, just manufacturing lies. Video of a warm Ron Paul reception at CPAC would open eyes and perhaps open minds among Fox viewers. Not a lot, but a little. But an ascendant Ron Paul is a liability for any Republican frontrunner. So what to do? No problem for Fox, just manufacture a different reality. It truly is disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no big Ron Paul fan, but this **** is the ultimate disgrace. With each little "mistake" like this, Fox is creates their version of reality, just manufacturing lies. Video of a warm Ron Paul reception at CPAC would open eyes and perhaps open minds among Fox viewers. Not a lot, but a little. But an ascendant Ron Paul is a liability for any Republican frontrunner. So what to do? No problem for Fox, just manufacture a different reality. It truly is disgusting.

With Faux it's always a "mistake", problem is that their long line of "mistakes" add up to consistency. So, we're left with a couple things either Faux is inept, or it's intentional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no big Ron Paul fan, but this **** is the ultimate disgrace. With each little "mistake" like this, Fox is creates their version of reality, just manufacturing lies. Video of a warm Ron Paul reception at CPAC would open eyes and perhaps open minds among Fox viewers. Not a lot, but a little. But an ascendant Ron Paul is a liability for any Republican frontrunner. So what to do? No problem for Fox, just manufacture a different reality. It truly is disgusting.

This time around, Liberty movement supporters around the country have been doing our own little "mediamatters" style approach and have thousands ready to catch these shenanigans when they occur (and they occur not just on Fox BTW, there were plenty of times the major networks did crap like this too in '08.

I'm proud to say that it was Paul supports at a Paul message board that put this expose together and sent all the evidence out to the press and force Fox into admission. They are scared to death of Ron Paul and our movement. They thought they could marginalize us and make us disappear but that tactic only made us stronger now. We dont go away, regardless of electoral results. Our ideas WILL be heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really are asinine sometimes. Especially if you somehow can claim the most conservative member of congress is "left" ridiculous neo-con thinking is what destroyed the GOP to begin with.

The guy is not electable. Even 5 watt light bulbs should know this so of course people on the Left would want our candidate to be someone that independents, etc will not support after the Dems start their attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy is not electable. Even 5 watt light bulbs should know this so of course people on the Left would want our candidate to be someone that independents, etc will not support after the Dems start their attack.

So smear him by whatever means necessary?

I must say, if this is how the GOP treats their own, what the hell are they going to do for me?

Oh, wait.

Nothing.

Unless I make a million+ per year.

Keep sloppin' in that Fox trough. And I must say, as someone who sits in the middle, the fact Fox did this makes me even more interested in what Paul has to say.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm right in line with the opinion stated above that no single news outlet is enough. Off the top of my head, my usual "go to" news sources would include NPR, the WSJ, the Post, The Economist, BBC, and Al Jazeera from time to time depending on what I want to know. One can learn a lot about the issues and the relevant background info from that list alone.

However the most important thing is that I don't allow my opinion to br formed solely by news reports. Google is an incredibly powerful tool for figuring things out for myself after I've read the media's take on things.

Some great links, but IMO the most powerful thing we can do is form our own opinion.

Screw any paper or media channel, just go to a persons web site and read up on what they have to offer, or listen to (hopefully a educated) debate between two people from the opposite sides, so you can see where both are coming from.

I grew up being forces to listen to talk radio all the time, and the news was always on. I swore I would never do that when I grew up.....and yet I catch myself watching the news more then anything else.

I thin you also have to call a spade a spade. A lot of these guys (Rush, Sean Hannity, etc) all but admit that they are for entertainment, and they know they have a base that loves to hear the extreme. Perhaps I should not admit this, but I kind of put him in the same boat as The Daily Show, but TDS is definitly one notch above him. I listen to both to get a laugh, and if I happen to get real news out if it then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so who "on the left" is supporting Ron Paul again?

Kind of figured ND wouldnt have the courage to admit he was wrong on this one. (really, who in their right minds would believe that Ron Paul s somehow supported by the left as a tactic to infiltrate the GOP field? asinine at best.)

---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 10:09 AM ----------

So smear him by whatever means necessary?

I must say, if this is how the GOP treats their own, what the hell are they going to do for me?

Oh, wait.

Nothing.

Unless I make a million+ per year.

Keep sloppin' in that Fox trough. And I must say, as someone who sits in the middle, the fact Fox did this makes me even more interested in what Paul has to say.

~Bang

welcome home Bang!!! LOL, in all seriousness, at a minimum, one can respect that he stands by principle over party (often to his own personal detriment) Its a factor about him that makes him easy to like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not hold your breath waiting...seriously I like you and I'm afraid that if you held your breath waiting for ND to admit he is wrong about anything then you might incur some irreversible brain damage.

cant be much worse than the damage I get whenever I read some of his outlandish posts!

I sometimes wonder if he is more of an agent provocateur and is not really right leaning at all. He sure can do a lot more damage to the right by making people think that many on the right behave as he does. It's Neo-cons like him who have severely tarnished the GOP permanently. (and what pushed long term GOP voters like myself away from the party we once felt loyal to)

Most of the time, I tend to ignore him completely, even when we occasionally fall on the same side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

welcome home Bang!!! LOL, in all seriousness, at a minimum, one can respect that he stands by principle over party (often to his own personal detriment) Its a factor about him that makes him easy to like.

Ha! i never left! The GOP just changed all the damn locks so that you have to be a total nutbird to get thru the door.

I do like that about him. Principal is such a rare commodity these days.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cant be much worse than the damage I get whenever I read some of his outlandish posts!

I sometimes wonder if he is more of an agent provocateur and is not really right leaning at all. He sure can do a lot more damage to the right by making people think that many on the right behave as he does. It's Neo-cons like him who have severely tarnished the GOP permanently. (and what pushed long term GOP voters like myself away from the party we once felt loyal to)

OK, so I come back by to take a quick look to see how this thread turned out and I see this...so of course I have to reply. :)

It's been a long time since I actually took Uncle Ruckus's posts seriously. However I have to admit that I never really considered the possibility you proposed. I guess it's a plausible scenario though. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Moore or Ralph Nader noticed the impact of Wacky Ralph and decided to create Navy Dave to do just what you've described above.

Sorry to take so long to get back to this but I just haven't had the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...