Honest Media? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-10-2010, 12:08 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,253
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
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.
I'll agree. I was just responding to the idea that Fox lies and MSNBC doesn't, and I was asked to provide examples.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 12:39 PM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,885
Local Time: 04:32 PM
That just confirmed my belief that MSNBC is to the left what Fox News is to the right. I really dislike Keith Olbermann.

I still somewhat trust CNN, although they're still pandering to the right way too much.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 01:26 PM   #63
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:32 PM
I think here is the difference between MSNBC and Fox. Conservatives will defend Fox tooth and nail, they see it as their only beacon of light and it employs many of the major players that run the ultra right machine.

How many in here defend MSNBC with that much energy? How many in here worship Olbermann?

The right need their news to pander to them.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 01:35 PM   #64
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,426
Local Time: 04:32 PM
which is why, perhaps, it's time for legislation about news media. journalistic integrity is dead. our main sources for news are simply television networks looking for the highest ratings and advertising dollars. there's something inherently wrong with that.

i don't know how to change it, but something has to change.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 06:16 PM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
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.

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.
Before reading this post, I had never heard of Dylan Ratigan. I've never watched his show in my life and, if he did these things, I don't think I'll be starting.

Quote:
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.
He was probably referring only to the first day or two after the earthquake. He's not the only one. Here is a different source saying essentially the same thing, and Olbermann is not mentioned at all(except by some people in the comments section):

O'Reilly ignores Haiti to cover whaling, wild horses and Jon Stewart | Media Matters for America

Quote:
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.
Apparently there was some footage of Gladney in a wheelchair, unable to talk on one network and footage of him walking and talking the day before on another network, or something like that, and that raised some eyebrows. But, that's purely speculative and not enough to base those comments on, so, yeah, Olbermann probably shouldn't have said that.

Quote:
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.
There's definitely a good deal of exaggeration and spin there, but no outright lies. Here's a nice point-by-point analysis that appears to be fairly objective - in fact, the author set out to disprove Olbermann, but ended up not really hating on him that much and in fact admitting that a good chunk of this is true, even if Olbermann did exaggerate some things:

Keith Olbermann ‘Proves’ His Case Against Scott Brown | Mediaite

Quote:
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 believe the hosts are contractually bound from criticizing other hosts on the same network on the air - it's why Maddow's reference to Joe Scarborough was so veiled, she wasn't allow to refer to him by name. For all we know, she might agree that Shultz shouldn't have done that, but she's not allowed to really say so on the air.

Quote:
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.
I don't know anything about this - what was said, and how do you know it to be untrue?

Quote:
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."
This was unfortunate; I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt that she made an honest mistake[i.e. she may have meant that the congressman in question was notified of the bombing after it happened, but "in advance of" the press being all over it], because I think she is trustworthy(moreso than Olbermann, in fact). I really hope it was an honest mistake/misunderstanding.

Quote:
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!
I'd never heard about this, but somebody in the comments section of that video had this to say:

"Funny how olbywatch doesn't use the original clip of Keith Olbermann calling Brian Kilmeade an unAmerican baster, the clip that Jon Stewart used at the Rally. That's because in the original clip Olbermann did NOT showed that short Fox News TV clip of Kilmeade that olbywatch showed, he used a Fox News RADIO clip of Kilmeade. olbywatch is the one who is doing the smearing."

I know, I know, youtube comments section is hardly a reliable source of information. I don't know what's in the radio clip in question, but until I do, I'll reserve judgement.

Quote:
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.
If Matthews really did that, then yeah, that's stupid. No argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I think here is the difference between MSNBC and Fox. Conservatives will defend Fox tooth and nail, they see it as their only beacon of light and it employs many of the major players that run the ultra right machine.

How many in here defend MSNBC with that much energy? How many in here worship Olbermann?

The right need their news to pander to them.
There are plenty who defend, perhaps not the whole network, but some of its hosts. Look at dailykos.com.
__________________
namkcuR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 06:57 PM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
There's definitely a good deal of exaggeration and spin there, but no outright lies. Here's a nice point-by-point analysis that appears to be fairly objective - in fact, the author set out to disprove Olbermann, but ended up not really hating on him that much and in fact admitting that a good chunk of this is true, even if Olbermann did exaggerate some things:

Keith Olbermann ‘Proves’ His Case Against Scott Brown | Mediaite
Not to mention, when called out for going a little too far in his attacks on Brown, Olbermann did apologize. I do remember that clearly.

I know there was talk of Limbaugh possibly trying to buy the Rams last year (I recall it being the Rams because I know my dad wasn't too thrilled at the prospect of Limbaugh being associated with his favorite team ), and some people were up in arms at that idea because of Limbaugh having a history of saying some things that some people have seen as coming off racist in regards to football players and the like. I'm guessing those are the "untrue quotes" being debated here? Feel free to clarify that for me, 2861U2.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 07:30 PM   #67
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
which is why, perhaps, it's time for legislation about news media. journalistic integrity is dead. our main sources for news are simply television networks looking for the highest ratings and advertising dollars. there's something inherently wrong with that.

i don't know how to change it, but something has to change.
Breaking up media monopolies would be a good start.
(Hell, breaking up any monopoly would be shocking--I'm not sure the last time that was done in America.)

Three things off the top of my head:

1. Limit ownership of media outlets--both in the percentage of stations owned in a single medium (such as radio), and across the media spectrum (such as owning multiple radio, TV, billboard outlets in the same market).

2. Price the licensing of airwaves accordingly. The American public owns our airwaves (and if they can extend that to satellite transmissions, all the better). The airwaves are one of the public "commons" that we all own, and the government lets broadcasters continue to license them for a song (kind of like how we let oil companies drill in public lands and then don't charge them a fee).

3. Supporting "Net Neutrality." It's bad enough that big conglomerates can own financial companies AND media companies, but letting companies decide what you get to see when you search for something online is criminal.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 10:16 PM   #68
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:32 PM
How sad is this tool?

Tucker Carlson Sent Emails Posing As Keith Olbermann
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 10:25 PM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Wow. That's incredibly immature. Someone's got a bit too much time on their hands.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 10:36 PM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,885
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Tucker Carlson is a little shit.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2010, 01:52 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
which is why, perhaps, it's time for legislation about news media. journalistic integrity is dead. our main sources for news are simply television networks looking for the highest ratings and advertising dollars. there's something inherently wrong with that.
Unfortunately, even folks who are for less partisan politics and honest media (there are a ton of decent people who are libertarians), it would just get played off by the Right as "Big Guv'ment Trying to Regulate Mah Fur and Balanced News".
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2010, 01:55 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Tucker Carlson is a little shit.
Yep he's a little fuck, which is why watching John Stewart eviscerate him on Crossfire was so amazing. Man that was the media moment of the 00s for me.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2010, 08:17 PM   #73
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
Yep he's a little fuck, which is why watching John Stewart eviscerate him on Crossfire was so amazing. Man that was the media moment of the 00s for me.
For old time's sake:

YouTube - jon stewart on crossfire
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 02:38 AM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,885
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
Yep he's a little fuck, which is why watching John Stewart eviscerate him on Crossfire was so amazing. Man that was the media moment of the 00s for me.
The producer in his ear by 4 minutes in telling him "Interrupt him before he makes a point!" ruins the whole clip for me. Stewart was ready to NAIL them to the cross, and he never got the chance because Carlson kept going off topic. "What it would be like to have dinner with you?" That question is the only question in world history that made me want to punch a hole through a computer.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 02:44 AM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 03:32 PM
I don't believe I caught that part. I'll have to watch that again.

I actually just saw that full thing for the first time recently. Jon (and Stephen) really know how to make the media squirm sometimes. My favorite part is seeing the crowd shots when the camera pans to them-they have this amusingly stunned look on their faces like, "Oh, my god, is this really happening? What's going on?"

Did anyone catch Jon's discussion with Rachel tonight? Very interesting stuff.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com