Honest Media?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I will admit, my wife and I run a business that bears her name.
I have a different last name, so I make the political contributions, she does not.
She makes more of the donations though, as does our company.

Sneaky. Maybe. But, there are a few of our clients that may not like our political contributions.

Interesting way of going about it-very sneaky indeed :wink:. I'd be willing to bet quite a few businesses do things that way.

The clients are a touchy spot-on the one hand, if your company as a whole endorses some political views the client doesn't support, they're free to take their business elsewhere. If they don't want to bend to your views, you shouldn't have to bend to theirs, either. On the other hand, that could hurt your business, especially if your clientele isn't very large and your business is rather specific.

If a business can manage to keep the political contributions separate from the work their business does, then hey, that's fantastic and I don't see it as a problem then. But I do understand why the laws exist, because it can be a bit of a minefield sometimes.

Angela
 
If you participate in your local Chamber of Commerce they will support the GOP overwhelmingly, the majority of the time.
 
At least Maddow is smart, assured, and her smarmy attitude as a commentator comes off as well-informed

Maddow is informed? Did you see her Friday night, in response to Olbermann's suspension, ripping on Fox News because Hannity has spoken at GOP fundraisers and because *gasp!* FNC allows politicians to promote their websites? Any research or honesty whatsoever would reveal that Ed Schultz has been the featured speaker at multiple Democratic fundraisers, and MSNBC also allows politicians to encourage website donations.

YouTube - Rachel Maddow Blasts Fox from her Glass House at MSNBC!

And if I can say so, I've lately been finding Maddow more obnoxious than even Olby. At least he's upfront about his hatred and dishonesty and bias. Maddow tries to hide behind acting silly and being funny and sarcastic.
 
And if I can say so, I've lately been finding Maddow more obnoxious than even Olby. At least he's upfront about his hatred and dishonesty and bias. Maddow tries to hide behind acting silly and being funny and sarcastic.

May I ask why it is that you watch either of them when they bother you that much?

I can't stand Fox News, so I don't pay for it and don't get it on cable. Actually I don't get MSNBC either. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, so I'd never be compelled to listen to his show. I'd probably feel sick in less than 3 minutes. Same goes for Sarah Palin's reality show, and so on.

Change the channel from MSNBC and enjoy your life.
 
May I ask why it is that you watch either of them when they bother you that much?

I can't stand Fox News, so I don't pay for it and don't get it on cable. Actually I don't get MSNBC either. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, so I'd never be compelled to listen to his show. I'd probably feel sick in less than 3 minutes. Same goes for Sarah Palin's reality show, and so on.

Change the channel from MSNBC and enjoy your life.

I listen to The Stephanie Miller Show every morning on the radio. They are mainly a political show, but they do plenty of Hollywood BS reporting and other stupid morning show type stuff, which I enjoy.

I never watch Fox News. I never watch MSNBC. I never listen to Limbaugh or his ilk.
Why put yourself through anything that's not enjoyable by choice?
 
Maddow is informed? Did you see her Friday night, in response to Olbermann's suspension, ripping on Fox News because Hannity has spoken at GOP fundraisers and because *gasp!* FNC allows politicians to promote their websites? Any research or honesty whatsoever would reveal that Ed Schultz has been the featured speaker at multiple Democratic fundraisers, and MSNBC also allows politicians to encourage website donations.
I'm not going to get into a debate about or start defending political commentators on the horrible bog-hole echo chamber that is US cable news entertainment.

Given a choice between pseudo-political blowhards like Olby, Beck, Hannity, etc, I usually find Maddow more palatable. That's really not saying much if you look at it, though.

At the end of the day, though, I think anyone watching cable news commentators is probably looking to have his opinions reinforced or validated by saying "oh my God what an idiot this guy/gal is".
 
I listen to The Stephanie Miller Show every morning on the radio. They are mainly a political show, but they do plenty of Hollywood BS reporting and other stupid morning show type stuff, which I enjoy.

I love Stephanie Miller's show. Gets my day off to a great start, laughing!

Speaking of the media, I found a great piece on HP written by Bill Maher about Jon Stewart's Sanity Rally. I have to say I love them both, but I agree with Bill here.

Take a look at the video.

Bill Maher vs. Jon Stewart: Maher Takes On Rally To Restore Sanity (VIDEO)
 
Olbermann is an obnoxious fool. They should suspend him permanently. And take him off football too.

I don't watch MSNBC or Fox and I agree-why watch things that annoy you if you don't have to?
 
I love Stephanie Miller's show. Gets my day off to a great start, laughing!

Speaking of the media, I found a great piece on HP written by Bill Maher about Jon Stewart's Sanity Rally. I have to say I love them both, but I agree with Bill here.

Take a look at the video.

Bill Maher vs. Jon Stewart: Maher Takes On Rally To Restore Sanity (VIDEO)

i got about half way through the video and turned it off. let's just say i lean more towards stewart than maher on this one. both sides are nuts.
 
Bill Maher would be dangerous if he cut out the lame jokes. He nails so many issues and skewers the hypocrisy of the Right (and often the Left).
But of course, then he wouldn't be Bill Maher.
 
Bill Maher would be dangerous if he cut out the lame jokes. He nails so many issues and skewers the hypocrisy of the Right (and often the Left).
But of course, then he wouldn't be Bill Maher.

Yes, Bill is a comedian first and foremost and I know humor is subjective.
I enjoy his hilarious comments, just like I enjoy Jon and Stephen. :D
 
I never watch Fox News. I never watch MSNBC. I never listen to Limbaugh or his ilk.
Why put yourself through anything that's not enjoyable by choice?

I'm not going to get into a debate about or start defending political commentators on the horrible bog-hole echo chamber that is US cable news entertainment.

Given a choice between pseudo-political blowhards like Olby, Beck, Hannity, etc, I usually find Maddow more palatable. That's really not saying much if you look at it, though.

At the end of the day, though, I think anyone watching cable news commentators is probably looking to have his opinions reinforced or validated by saying "oh my God what an idiot this guy/gal is".

Olbermann is an obnoxious fool. They should suspend him permanently. And take him off football too.

I don't watch MSNBC or Fox and I agree-why watch things that annoy you if you don't have to?

i got about half way through the video and turned it off. let's just say i lean more towards stewart than maher on this one. both sides are nuts.

As has been said so eloquently in the past few days by both Maher and Maddow, a lot of people like to say, 'oh, Fox, MSNBC, they're all the same', but it's not true. It's just not.

It's not true, because in 2006, MSNBC didn't start giving (then) past/future presidential candidates - Obama, Edwards, Clinton, etc - their own shows, the way Fox has given Huckabee, Palin, etc their own shows between 2008 and now.

It's not true, because MSNBC, to my knowledge, has never given a Democratic political operative as powerful and influential as Karl Rove is a Republican political operative, a job. Fox has. Fox is an arm of the Republican party. MSNBC, while obviously liberal, is not an arm of the Democratic party.

It's not true, because while MSNBC the network might try to pretend it's balanced like Fox does, its liberal primetime hosts - Olbermann, Maddow, O'Donnell - never pretend to be anything but the liberals they are, whereas Fox's hosts - O'Reilly, Hannity, etc - have always maintained the "Fair and Balanced" mantra.

And it's not true because people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh(I know, he's not on Fox) spend an inordinate amount of time making shit up. Olbermann, Maddow, and O'Donnell don't.

So please, do not, do not, do not, say 'oh, they're all the same'. It is a false equivalency.
 
So please, do not, do not, do not, say 'oh, they're all the same'. It is a false equivalency.


Really? Your first point concerns Palin's and Huckabee's shows? I haven't seen or heard a thing about Palin's show in months- it could be off the air for all I know- and Huckabee's once-a-week show dedicates very little time to politics. He interviews celebrities and plays music and does comedy pieces. If that's supposed to be a launching pad for 2012, then fine- guilty.

And please. "Making shit up?" You honestly think Olby and Maddow and Schultz and O'Donnell don't? Really? I'd love to provide examples, unless you want to rethink that one, which I highly suggest you do.

I'd also rethink your "MSNBC is not an arm of the Democratic Party" line. The week before the election, Pelosi and Reid came out of hiding to give interviews to Olbermann and Schultz. The Vice President of the United States recently asked Olbermann for advice. Their election night was anchored by 6 known liberals (at least one of which is a self-described socialist) and 0 conservatives or moderates.

Look at the lineup. At six: Special Report with Bret Baier- a hard news program. On at the same time? Ed Schultz. Seven: Fox Report with Shepard Smith- a hard news program featuring zero political pundits. On at the same time? Chris "thrill up the leg" Matthews. At eight, who is more likely to feature a range of opinions and arguments- O'Reilly or Olbermann? Same at ten- Greta or Larry "I am a socialist" O'Donnell?
 
At eight, who is more likely to feature a range of opinions and arguments- O'Reilly or Olbermann? Same at ten- Greta or Larry "I am a socialist" O'Donnell?

O'Reilly deliberately puts the most extreme left wing types on his show to knock them down. He will find some obscure law professor who has written a book defending Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or whatever and then bring this information out so he can turn around and tell his audience "see -these liberals are crazy!" Effectively these people serve as useful idiots for the Fox agenda. He generally cops out of debating with well-informed, non-insane liberals.
 
Their election night was anchored by 6 known liberals (at least one of which is a self-described socialist) ?

If it is true about the socialist, that reflects well on the channel, not badly as you seem to think. The US corporate media in general allows only an extremely narrow range of voices to be heard. It usually censors out dissenting voices, except to knock them down, a favoured trick of O'Reilly's as I already mentioned. (Virtually all the US corporate media is blatantly and overwhelmingly biased towards Israel, for example). The reality is that millions of Americans would actually vote socialist if there were credible socialist candidates running, particularly in the current environment (not that I personally agree with them).
 
financeguy, I think your statements on only a narrow range of opinions being voiced is reflective of the two party system, for better or for worse. Mostly worse. The fact is that the two major parties in the US have legislated out any other viewpoints from being largely heard. Ross Perot was such a gigantic anomaly, and I don't see it happening again soon.

I don't think the US will see the degree of political change that groups such as the Tea Party (or folks in Vermont) want to see until there are more than two directions to drive the car in, to use the metaphor of the day.

I'm not really trying to push a multiparty system as being perfect, because it's hardly that. The real change would come from extensive campaign finance reform, but thanks to the Citizens United decision and the lobbying culture in Washington that seems like a faraway dream.
 
GrammarNaziCat.jpg
.
 
Please do. I'd like to see them.

Some of my favorites:

November 2009: In a segment on Sarah Palin, Dylan Ratigan uses multiple clearly-photoshopped pictures of her, including the one of her in a bikini holding a rifle, passing them off as completely real.

January 2010: Keith Olbermann lies saying O'Reilly hasn't dedicated even one segment to Haiti, when in fact he had featured multiple correspondents and relatives of people in Haiti.

January 2010: Olbermann lies saying that the beating of Kenneth Gladney by SEIU members is not real, despite videotape and multiple arrests proving the contrary.

January 2010: Olbermann calls Scott Brown an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees." As fun as it was to watch the veins in Keith's head, I'm pretty sure very few of those things are true.

November 2010: Dylan Ratigan and a guest talk about the potential need for a violent revolution. While not a "lie", I suppose, it seems to be a lie whenever some other MSNBC personality gets outraged for a conservative bringing up that notion yet having no problem when it comes from one of their own.

November 2010: Rachel Maddow criticizes Fox News for the fact that Sean Hannity was the keynote speaker at at least one Republican fundraiser, while not mentioning at all the fact that Ed Schultz has been the keynote speaker at multiple Democratic fundraisers. Dishonest.

I forget exactly when this was, but how about all the completely untrue quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh when he was trying to buy an NFL team? Not a single video or transcript was provided, but MSNBC and others ran with the quotes as fact.

October 2010: Rachel Maddow lies saying that a Republican member of Congress got advanced notice that the Oklahoma City bombing was going to happen. When called out on it, she "apologized" in her typical sarcastic manner, seeming to mock the people who corrected her, apparently oblivious to the fact that there are some people who might get a little upset over the slight error of confusing "before the bombing" and "after the bombing."

November 2010: Olbermann lies saying that FNC's Brian Kilmeade said that "all Muslims are terrorists" when in fact he said no such thing. I'll let the videotape speak for itself.

YouTube - Watch: Keith Olbermann Smears Brian Kilmeade with a Lie!

And finally, one of my favorite displays of downright stupidity. On Hardball, Chris Matthews played a clip of Alaska's Joe Miller being interviewed via satellite by someone in New York. Any intelligent person would realize that there would be a slight delay in the communication between the two people. In the clip Matthews played, Miller was asked if he thought Sarah Palin was qualified to be President. As a result of the delay, it appeared Miller took a second or two before responding- as he did for every single question he was asked. Yet after playing the clip, Matthews said something along the lines of "What was with that awkward pause? It's like he didn't know how he should answer the question!" That's just pathetic. That's as straight-up dishonest as it gets. For someone who has been in television for years and done thousands of interviews, he knows damn well that it was a delay, yet he tried to pass it off as something that it clearly wasn't.

All this from the network where Olbermann has said "I have never knowingly reported anything false and we correct our mistakes," and Larry O'Donnell says "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."
 
I think why our news networks are collectively sliding in the direction of becoming mere propaganda mouthpieces, and why we passively accept it, is a far more interesting and urgent question than which one told 756 lies last year as opposed to 624.
 
As has been said so eloquently in the past few days by both Maher and Maddow, a lot of people like to say, 'oh, Fox, MSNBC, they're all the same', but it's not true. It's just not.

It's not true, because in 2006, MSNBC didn't start giving (then) past/future presidential candidates - Obama, Edwards, Clinton, etc - their own shows, the way Fox has given Huckabee, Palin, etc their own shows between 2008 and now.

It's not true, because MSNBC, to my knowledge, has never given a Democratic political operative as powerful and influential as Karl Rove is a Republican political operative, a job. Fox has. Fox is an arm of the Republican party. MSNBC, while obviously liberal, is not an arm of the Democratic party.

It's not true, because while MSNBC the network might try to pretend it's balanced like Fox does, its liberal primetime hosts - Olbermann, Maddow, O'Donnell - never pretend to be anything but the liberals they are, whereas Fox's hosts - O'Reilly, Hannity, etc - have always maintained the "Fair and Balanced" mantra.

And it's not true because people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh(I know, he's not on Fox) spend an inordinate amount of time making shit up. Olbermann, Maddow, and O'Donnell don't.

So please, do not, do not, do not, say 'oh, they're all the same'. It is a false equivalency.

so it's false because fox does a better job at getting more dynamic people to spew their bullshit than MSNBC gets to spew theirs?

got it. check.

:sigh:
 
Huffington Post

Michael Moore appeared on Keith Olbermann's first post-suspension episode of "Countdown" on Tuesday and, after discussing the economy, turned to the subject of former President George W. Bush. Bush has been on a major publicity swing in the past week to promote his new memoir, "Decision Points." Among other things, he gave an hour-long interview to NBC's Matt Lauer.

Bush writes about Moore in the book, even comparing him to Osama bin Laden. He says that bin Laden "sounded like he was plagiarizing" Moore when he released a video in October 2004 deriding Bush's initial response to the 9/11 attacks, where he sat, stony-faced, in a classroom for minutes. Moore's dissection of that moment became one of the more famous passages from his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," also released in 2004.

On Tuesday, Moore struck back. He told Olbermann that he wished "NBC itself had a little more balance" instead of giving Bush so much one-sided airtime. Then, he offered to help the network out.

"I will give them, for free. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' to run on NBC as balance to all this publicity they've been giving him on NBC," he said. "I hope we never forget what this man did."

Moore also told Olbermann he was glad to have him back on the air. "Please don't leave," he implored.
 
Back
Top Bottom