Media Reliability: Who can be trusted?

[micatala]

I originally made this post in the 2010 Election thread, but decided to spin it off into a new thread.

My only comment on the reliability of FOX, Michelle Maltkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Bachmann for now is that several people on FOX including Hannity and the latter two all claimed Obama was going to spending 200 million dollars a day and take a huge naval contingent with him on a trip to India.

Same with World Net Daily.


Not a shred of any of this was true, but of course, this did not matter one whit to any of these people. All they care about is whether they can fool enough of their audience and continue to brainwash them and reinforce their anti-Obama, anti-Liberal hysteria.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/02/india/

http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/11/o ... n-per-day/

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-to ... isit-64106

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=223365

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2111901

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011030052



I humbly submit that any one who puts any trust in Hannity, Limbaugh, WND, or Maltkin to tell the truth knowing the above cannot be trusted to discern truth from falsity. I will give some leeway to FOX in general since I think there are actually a few people their who can discern truth from falsity and actually care to do so in most cases.


However, overall FOX has to be considered a propaganda machine. It is simply not a reliable news organization.

Today, CNN has a short article on the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/ ... tml?hpt=C1


Questions for debate:

Is signing on to or endorsing an egregiously false story like this once enough to call into question the credibility of an individual reporter, news host, commentator or pundit?


If one such instance is not enough, how much of a pattern or false reporting or reporting false stories as true because on does not do one's due diligence enough to warrant dismissal of the reporter as reliable?


Should reliability criterion, whatever they are, only be applied to individual reporters, hosts, shows, etc. or should they be applied to the larger organization, network, etc.?


And to get down to brass tacks, which of the following can be considered reliable in the sense that the public can be confident that factual statements which they make or report are actually true?


Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Sean Hannity
Keith Olbermann
Ken Schultz
Michelle Maltkin
Bill O'Reilley
Rachel Maddow
MSNBC
FOX News Network
Huffington Post
World Net Daily
The Drudge Report


Feel free to add others.


I would suggest whenever possible providing quotes from the networks or individuals in question.

For purposes of having a religious aspect to this thread, consider that dishonesty is considered a sin or at least a character flaw in most religions.

[micatala]

31% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41248.html

Whose fault is that? Must liberals consistently push the blame onto others? Maybe 31% of Americans think Obama's a muslim because he doesn't attend a Christian Church currently, and when he did attend church it was lead by a hateful pastor. Maybe, just maybe, it's a Public Relations problem on the part of the Obama admin.

Whatever the reason for the misperception, the fact is that a significant number of the American people have a false understanding of the President's religion. You seem to have lost track of the original statement and are bringing in red herrings here.

Nealy half of Americans believe the health care bill has "death panels"

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/polit ... falsehood/

1) If the democrats had been more transperant like they promised, maybe it would be different.

Please document that the Obama Administration has not been more transparent than the previous one.

And, once again a red herring. What does transparency have to do with the false assertion that the health care bill had death panels? The lack of transparency by itself would not cause these lies to be told.

2) The Death Panels are better known as End of Life Counseling.

Yes, except that you are really gliding over the lie by suggesting there is nothing more to it than a change of name. People mischaracterized the end of life counseling and morphed it into "Obama wants to kill your grandma." That is a lie. Correctly noting what the actual name of the policy was that the lie was based on does not negate the lie.

The American people are smart enough to see what's true and what's false, and if a news network constantly pushes false stories they would lose ratings and views.

Again, the data indicates otherwise. FOX pushed the death panel lie and a lot of people have bought into it, despite the fact that it is false.

Please read the forbes article, you'll see that provisions in the Senate Bill allowed for end of life counseling. And if this is the road you want to go down:

That is true, but again, does not not negate the lies that were told about it. You seem to be saying that since we can identify the part of the bill that was being lied about that it is not a lie.

• The Entire Media has been pushing that lie that the Tea Party yelled out racial slurs at John Lewis with NO tape or audio evidence.

NOt a comparable situation. A lack of hard evidence is not documentation of a lie. I pointed out in another thread that much of this happened in a loud and boisterous environment where those not closest to the "action" could easily have not heard the slurs.

MSNBC pushed the false narrative that the Bush's primary goal in the Middle East was to recover oil.

This would be a fair point. MSNBC is speculating, although they have some support for their speculation.

However, this is not comparable to the blatant misstatements of fact represented by the death panel lie. In the case you point to, we are talking motivation which can have some subjective aspects to it.

Not so with the death panel lie. That is a clearly false statement.

MSNBC said that white's with guns appeared at tea Party Protests when it was a Black man.

I am not aware of this situation, but am certainly willing to believe MSNBC made a mistake on this. However, I would need more to accept that this was a deliberate lie, as the death panel claims were.

Btw, NPR's credibility as been thoroughly destroyed when they fired Juan Williams but kept Nina Tootenburg. They should be cut off from public funding, but then again, if that happened they would probably fail like Air America.

First, firing one guy for failing to follow policy and then making a sweeping claim about credibility is a bit unjustified.

Absolutely wrong. He made no claim, he expressed personal feelings as an analysts on how he felt about Muslims dressed in garb. In that same segment, he went on to defend muslims.

Red Herring. I never said Williams "made a claim", I said he violated NPR's policy. I agree, he was merely expressing his personal feelings. I would even agree that if this was the only instance of a statement that his employers found problematic, their reaction was unjustified. However, that does not seem to be the case.

And your reply is again a red herring. This one instance does not justify casing aspersions on the general credibility of the reporting of NPR. With more instances like this, you might be able to make a case for bias, but again, bias is not the same as lack of factuality.

The Williams case does NOTHING to show NPR's reporting is not factually reliable.

Secondly, you again confuse bias with lack of factual reporting. If we say the Williams firing is evidence of bias, for the sake of argument, that still does not mean NPR cannot be trusted to get the facts right.

This is wrong, in order for a report to be factual it should be objective (free from bias). If NPR fires anyone who dares to deviate from to liberal bias towards Islam, and collects money from George Soros, they should be cut off from public funds.

I am sorry, this is simply incorrect. Free from bias is not the same as free from factual errors. I would grant that, on the average, bias is more likely to result in mistatements of fact.

However, a person can have a bias and still be capable of telling the truth. I think there are people on FOX who have a conservative bias and do tell the truth. I certainly cannot point to any instances of CHris Wallace, for example, or even Bret Baer of stating blatant falsehoods. Such examples may exist, but I am not aware of any.

Hannity and O'Reilly and Beck, however, have made blatantly false statements, sometimes repeatedly and voiciferously.



I will point out that these three are the most highly rated of the FOX shows. This again suggests your contention that people would stop watching shows that present falsehoods does not hold up. If ratings followed truth value, these should be the LOWEST rated shows on FOX.

[nogods]

O'Reilly stands up for the rich and powerful. Olbermann for the weak and poor. It is offensive to make comparisons between the two. If you read those links, it is in fact Fox News and not the commentators which tell lies with no retractions.

I will give you this much, there is not even a fraction of as many "fact check" stories on Olbermann as there is for O'Reilly. However, he is still a commentator. The thread is about journalist integrity...

I understand you don't watch much of Olbermann as he cites his sources and uses film footage as documentation of his facts.

[Grumpy]

I defy anyone to document a single instance where Olbermann, Maddow or Mathews made a single statement which was factually untrue where they did not retract such statements. Not their opinions or interpretation of what the facts mean, but the facts themselves being wrong.

Whereas, it is extremely easy to find copious examples where Fox Republican News made, repeated or insinuated false, misleading statements(Death Panels, Ayers, Birthers, Obama is a Muslim...).

And it is a sign of journalistic integrity that Olbermann was suspended for failure to inform nsnbc prior to contributing to the election of two Democratic candidates while it is a sign of lack of journalistic integrity that Fox was, to all intents, a campaign commercial and fund raising arm for Republican candidates(which ought to be investigated by the FCC for violation of their rules IMHO).

There is no equivalence in integrity between the two.

Grumpy

[WinePusher]

Whatever the reason for the misperception, the fact is that a significant number of the American people have a false understanding of the President's religion. You seem to have lost track of the original statement and are bringing in red herrings here.

And I'm saying that the misperceptions are not evidence of a mob mentality of the American people. The fact is, Obama has contributed much to the misperceptions and has given us good reason to doubt is religious claims.

1) If the democrats had been more transperant like they promised, maybe it would be different.

Please document that the Obama Administration has not been more transparent than the previous one.

You're attributing a claim to me that I never made. The transperancy of the previous administration is not relevant to anything.

And, once again a red herring. What does transparency have to do with the false assertion that the health care bill had death panels? The lack of transparency by itself would not cause these lies to be told.

It's about what the American people believe and don't believe. That's what the issue is, and if the confusions over what's in and isn't in Obamacare might not be because the American people are unintelligent, but maybe because the Democrats tried ramming it through.

The Entire Media has been pushing that lie that the Tea Party yelled out racial slurs at John Lewis with NO tape or audio evidence.

NOt a comparable situation. A lack of hard evidence is not documentation of a lie. I pointed out in another thread that much of this happened in a loud and boisterous environment where those not closest to the "action" could easily have not heard the slurs.

Really!? A person shoots twelve people at Fort Hood, and the Media refuses to jump to conclusions about his religious beliefs and motivations. But allegations are made that Tea Party protestors yelled out racial slurs at Congresspeople, and the Media has no problem jumping to conclusions with NO evidence.

MSNBC said that white's with guns appeared at tea Party Protests when it was a Black man.

I am not aware of this situation, but am certainly willing to believe MSNBC made a mistake on this. However, I would need more to accept that this was a deliberate lie, as the death panel claims were.

First, firing one guy for failing to follow policy and then making a sweeping claim about credibility is a bit unjustified.

Absolutely wrong. He made no claim, he expressed personal feelings as an analysts on how he felt about Muslims dressed in garb. In that same segment, he went on to defend muslims.

Red Herring. I never said Williams "made a claim", I said he violated NPR's policy.

Yes, I misread what you originally said.

And your reply is again a red herring. This one instance does not justify casing aspersions on the general credibility of the reporting of NPR. With more instances like this, you might be able to make a case for bias, but again, bias is not the same as lack of factuality.

It takes only one instance, look at Rick Sanchez. They keep Nina Tootenburg, but fire Juan Williams and take money from a Liberal "Philantropist" who donates money to MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress. Why should we fund them?

The Williams case does NOTHING to show NPR's reporting is not factually reliable.

Shows that they have a bias, and apparently you and others take issue with News Stations that have conservative bias but have no problem with media institutions thta have liberal biases.

This is wrong, in order for a report to be factual it should be objective (free from bias). If NPR fires anyone who dares to deviate from to liberal bias towards Islam, and collects money from George Soros, they should be cut off from public funds.

Hannity and O'Reilly and Beck, however, have made blatantly false statements, sometimes repeatedly and voiciferously.

Which is why they have some of the highest rated shows in the Country. The way a free market works is, if a show does poorly and makes false statements, they eventually fail because they lose viewership. If we apply this to the media, MSNBC has very little viewers compared to Fox, this means that more people trust Fox as a reliable source of information then MSNBC.

If ratings followed truth value, these should be the LOWEST rated shows on FOX.

To you. Could it be that Fox presents a conservative viewpoint, and you take issue with that because you're not a conservative?

[Wyvern]

And I'm saying that the misperceptions are not evidence of a mob mentality of the American people. The fact is, Obama has contributed much to the misperceptions and has given us good reason to doubt is religious claims.

Or it might have something to do with the Republican parties bringing up red herrings such as his middle name and making the association that it is an islamic name so he must be islamic.

It's about what the American people believe and don't believe. That's what the issue is, and if the confusions over what's in and isn't in Obamacare might not be because the American people are unintelligent, but maybe because the Democrats tried ramming it through.

Or again it might be because the opponents of the bill made wild unfounded claims which a certain popular media outlet ran with and spread to their audience.

Really!? A person shoots twelve people at Fort Hood, and the Media refuses to jump to conclusions about his religious beliefs and motivations. But allegations are made that Tea Party protestors yelled out racial slurs at Congresspeople, and the Media has no problem jumping to conclusions with NO evidence.

At no time is it appropriate to jump to conclusions especially unfounded ones however I find it interesting that you defend the unfounded conclusions about Obamas religion or the healthcare reform bill but complain about other unfounded conclusions made against right wing interests.

It takes only one instance, look at Rick Sanchez. They keep Nina Tootenburg, but fire Juan Williams and take money from a Liberal "Philantropist" who donates money to MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress. Why should we fund them?

NPR accepts donations from all quarters especially after nearly all federal funding was cut a few years back. Are you saying that NPR should vet the donations they receive based on what end of the political spectrum they stand on? NPR and PBS are very transparent about their donors and if a report about a donor is aired they normally state up front that such is the case. Would you be equally affronted if NPR took donations from a conservative donor?

Hannity and O'Reilly and Beck, however, have made blatantly false statements, sometimes repeatedly and voiciferously.

Which is why they have some of the highest rated shows in the Country. The way a free market works is, if a show does poorly and makes false statements, they eventually fail because they lose viewership. If we apply this to the media, MSNBC has very little viewers compared to Fox, this means that more people trust Fox as a reliable source of information then MSNBC

I would say more people watch Fox because there are no other conservative biased news media outlets of note, they aren't more trusted it's just that they are the only game in town. So lets rework your statement so it fits into Fox's scheme, if a show does well and makes false statements it will not fail because they are not losing viewers. People watch Fox not because it is trustworthy but because it tells people what they want to hear.

If ratings followed truth value, these should be the LOWEST rated shows on FOX.

To you. Could it be that Fox presents a conservative viewpoint, and you take issue with that because you're not a conservative?

It has been shown that the talk shows on Fox have made repeated lies on air without bothering to fact check their information or make retractions once the falsehoods are made known. Truth doesn't have a bias it just is.

[Grumpy]

WinePusher

And I'm saying that the misperceptions are not evidence of a mob mentality of the American people. The fact is, Obama has contributed much to the misperceptions and has given us good reason to doubt is religious claims.

It is evidence of the dishonesty of the Right Wing spin machine. Obama did not in any way say or indicate he was a Muslim, that was the lies and enuendo of the Fox Republican News, the Tea Party and cinical Republicans willing to say anything to get elected. Obama says he is a Christian, I see no reason to doubt his word.

1) If the democrats had been more transperant like they promised, maybe it would be different.

micatala wrote:
Please document that the Obama Administration has not been more transparent than the previous one.

You're attributing a claim to me that I never made. The transperancy of the previous administration is not relevant to anything.

Then more transparent compared to what?

It's about what the American people believe and don't believe. That's what the issue is, and if the confusions over what's in and isn't in Obamacare might not be because the American people are unintelligent, but maybe because the Democrats tried ramming it through.

No, it's about the disinformation campaign of the right wing and the gullibility of those who will not think for themselves.

Really!? A person shoots twelve people at Fort Hood, and the Media refuses to jump to conclusions about his religious beliefs and motivations.

And not jumping to conclusions is bad because...? And I don't recall anyone denying he was Muslim.

But allegations are made that Tea Party protestors yelled out racial slurs at Congresspeople, and the Media has no problem jumping to conclusions with NO evidence.

Except for the testimony of those who were actually there. We've seen how Tea Party people behave, it isn't outside of the documented misbehavior.

It takes only one instance, look at Rick Sanchez. They keep Nina Tootenburg, but fire Juan Williams and take money from a Liberal "Philantropist" who donates money to MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress. Why should we fund them?

Basically, we don't. NPR's funding from the government was cut to the bone during the Bush presidency. And are liberals not given the same right to contribute to causes that conservatives have? At least NPR's contributions are not secret, as many of the outside advocacy groups for the Republicans were.

Shows that they have a bias, and apparently you and others take issue with News Stations that have conservative bias but have no problem with media institutions thta have liberal biases

It is not the bias, it is the dishonesty and lies Fox perpetrates that is the problem.

This is wrong, in order for a report to be factual it should be objective (free from bias).

Bias has nothing to do with being factual. It isn't the analysis or interpretation that is Fox's crime, it is the lies and ennuendo.

Which is why they have some of the highest rated shows in the Country. The way a free market works is, if a show does poorly and makes false statements, they eventually fail because they lose viewership.

Rush Limbaugh has never met a true fact(except by accident), yet he is very successful. Telling people what they already believe and want to hear is a sure way to success, politicians do it every election cycle.

If we apply this to the media, MSNBC has very little viewers compared to Fox, this means that more people trust Fox as a reliable source of information then MSNBC.

There is one source for right wing propaganda and many sources for rationality. Fox has no competition for spewing lies, the average station is much more factual. And no one ever lost a dime underestimating the stupidity of the masses. Just ask William Randolf Hearst or P.T.Barnum. Tabloids thrive on idiots who think Elvis had a space baby.

To you. Could it be that Fox presents a conservative viewpoint, and you take issue with that because you're not a conservative?

No, it's the dishonesty and outright lies. I don't agree with conservatives but to each their own. But the lies are unacceptable. If it takes lies to support your ideology, it is your ideology that needs examination. And it is not possible to be a Christian and to behave as the Right Wing behaved in this election, spreading lies, demonizing good, loyal Americans and replacing reason with fear mongering. Do you really think Jesus would do the things Fox has done?

Grumpy

[micatala]

Whatever the reason for the misperception, the fact is that a significant number of the American people have a false understanding of the President's religion. You seem to have lost track of the original statement and are bringing in red herrings here.

And I'm saying that the misperceptions are not evidence of a mob mentality of the American people. The fact is, Obama has contributed much to the misperceptions and has given us good reason to doubt is religious claims.

I would agree that it is possible that Obama could take more explicit actions or make more explicit statements on his religion, but on the other hand, he has on a number of occasions alluded to his Christian faith.

Also, I allow there could be multiple reasons 30 or more percent of Americans have false view of Obama's religion.

However, this does not negate that point that the false views exist. That was my original point.



I think it is also worth suggesting that the "Obama's religion" issue would have the same dynamic as the birther issue. No matter what he does, some people will insist on maintaing their false views for other reasons. The evidence does not matter, only maintaining a negative view of Obama. The hardcore birthers are completely unwilling to consider the evidence in anything approaching an objective manner. Some of the them continue to publicize lies, even after having been presented with the evidence.

My guess is if Obama started going to church every Sunday, it would not reduce the 31% number to zero.

1) If the democrats had been more transperant like they promised, maybe it would be different.

Please document that the Obama Administration has not been more transparent than the previous one.

You're attributing a claim to me that I never made. The transperancy of the previous administration is not relevant to anything.

You brought up transparency. I agree, you did not claim Obama is more or less transparent than Bush. Also, the transparency issue is irrelevant to the factuality issue anyway. I made my statement as an implied suggestion that the correct way to look at the transparency issue is to compare to the previous administration, which was the reason Obama made the pledge in the first place. He was trying to make a negative point about the lack of transparency by Bush. If he is being more transparent than Bush, then we have an improvement. Those who are not willing to make this comparison are indicating, in my view, an anti-Obama bias in the sense they are again unwilling to consider all the evidence in an objective manner.


However, bottom line is that the transparency issue you raised is irrelevant to the questions for debate.

And, once again a red herring. What does transparency have to do with the false assertion that the health care bill had death panels? The lack of transparency by itself would not cause these lies to be told.

It's about what the American people believe and don't believe. That's what the issue is, and if the confusions over what's in and isn't in Obamacare might not be because the American people are unintelligent, but maybe because the Democrats tried ramming it through.

There is a difference between what the American people support and what they believe with respect to factual statements.

Also, the process by which the bill was passed is a separate issue from what the bill says, and more importantly, the false statements made about the bill by Sarah Palin, Chuck Grassley, many on FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, etc.

The American people did not get a false impression of death panels because of the actions of the U.S. House and Senate and the Administration, period. They got that false impression because of the lies being told about the bill.


I think we can say the following conclusively:

1) Some people, including many of those named on the right, lie.
2) These lies have an effect, as we can document many Americans believe the lies being told and it is unlikely, even inconcievable in the case of death panels, that they would have come to those conclusions had the lies not been told.

The Entire Media has been pushing that lie that the Tea Party yelled out racial slurs at John Lewis with NO tape or audio evidence.

NOt a comparable situation. A lack of hard evidence is not documentation of a lie. I pointed out in another thread that much of this happened in a loud and boisterous environment where those not closest to the "action" could easily have not heard the slurs.

Really!? A person shoots twelve people at Fort Hood, and the Media refuses to jump to conclusions about his religious beliefs and motivations. But allegations are made that Tea Party protestors yelled out racial slurs at Congresspeople, and the Media has no problem jumping to conclusions with NO evidence.

Yes, really. And it is false to say there is no evidence of racist slurs. We do not have video or tape evidence. That is not the same as saying we have no evidence.

So again, my point stands. The situations you equated are not comparable.

MSNBC said that white's with guns appeared at tea Party Protests when it was a Black man.

I am not aware of this situation, but am certainly willing to believe MSNBC made a mistake on this. However, I would need more to accept that this was a deliberate lie, as the death panel claims were.

I agree, this was poor form on the part of the person commenting on the video at least, and potentially the person who took the video. I would view this as a deliberate distortion, along the lines of what Breitbart and FOX did to Shirley Sherrod.

I would say, howver, Glenn Beck's question "is there a single American" who wishes harm on the President or member's of congress can clearly be answered 'yes." His question is really ridiculous and a clear play to emotion. One can certainly document plots against Obama, including among white racist militias, which have, by the way, multiplied since 2008.

And your reply is again a red herring. This one instance does not justify casing aspersions on the general credibility of the reporting of NPR. With more instances like this, you might be able to make a case for bias, but again, bias is not the same as lack of factuality.

It takes only one instance, look at Rick Sanchez. They keep Nina Tootenburg, but fire Juan Williams and take money from a Liberal "Philantropist" who donates money to MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress. Why should we fund them?

Again, you have not documented any false reporting on NPR. This is a red herring. I'd say start another thread on the funding of NPR. That is a legitimate question, but not really relevant here.

The Williams case does NOTHING to show NPR's reporting is not factually reliable.

Shows that they have a bias, and apparently you and others take issue with News Stations that have conservative bias but have no problem with media institutions thta have liberal biases.

Sorry, false accusation against me on your part. Where have I ever criticized FOX or any other news organization or individual conservative simply for being conservative?

I have taken issue with false reporting and false statements on the part of these folks. I have also allowed the same has happened on the left.

Let me repeat again since you seem to continually conflate the issues.


BIAS DOES NOT EQUAL DISHONESTY

This is wrong, in order for a report to be factual it should be objective (free from bias). If NPR fires anyone who dares to deviate from to liberal bias towards Islam, and collects money from George Soros, they should be cut off from public funds.

Hannity and O'Reilly and Beck, however, have made blatantly false statements, sometimes repeatedly and voiciferously.

Which is why they have some of the highest rated shows in the Country. The way a free market works is, if a show does poorly and makes false statements, they eventually fail because they lose viewership. If we apply this to the media, MSNBC has very little viewers compared to Fox, this means that more people trust Fox as a reliable source of information then MSNBC.

So Hannity and O'Reilly have the highest ratings because they make false statements? This is not what you really meant is it?

Again, we can document that the highest rated shows are not the ones that are the most truthful. If that were the case, Cspan and the News Hour with Jim Lehrer would be trouncing everything on FOX. Also, the network news on CBS, NBC, and ABC are still more highly rated than FOX. Are you really implying you consider them less biased or more truthful or both simply on the basis of the ratings?

I am sorry. The higher ratings equals more reliable equation is simply bogus.

If ratings followed truth value, these should be the LOWEST rated shows on FOX.

To you. Could it be that Fox presents a conservative viewpoint, and you take issue with that because you're not a conservative?

Let me repeat.



BIAS DOES NOT EQUAL DISHONESTY

I have no issue with conservative viewpoints. I have issues with conservatives (or liberals or anyone else) using false statements, demagoguery, and smear tactics to advance their agenda. I especially have an issue when these tactics are employed by people who are in the government or who claim to be journalists or working for news organizations.

I listen to the PBS newshour usually a couple times a week and especically on Fridays when Shields (a liberal) and Brooks (a conservative who writes for the WSJ and the Weekly Standard) give their commentary. David Brooks gives cogent, insightful, and most importantly truthful commentary. Yes, he is conservative and yes he is often critical of Obama and congressional democrats. I have no problem with that.


I do have a problem with people who deliberately tell lies either for political gain or to make money. FOX fits the bill. So do Palin, Bachmann, Grassley and a host of others.

I have several times asked if anyone can document clearly false statements from MSNBC. We now have one example as provided above by Winepusher of what seems to be a clear and deliberate distortion. I would agree this is along the lines of what FOX did to Shirley Sherrod, or what they did in presenting false footage of some Tea Party events (showing a large one in the fall of 2009 as representing a smaller rally held later).



As a side note, I note this was not by any of the mainliners on MSNBC. Hannity and O'Reilly lie. Do Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz or O'Donnell?



The next step, and a difficult one, would be to compare the level of dishonesty or inaccuracy. Finding isolated cases is usually easy. Documenting a pattern can be harder.

[Grumpy]

micatala

As a side note, I note this was not by any of the mainliners on MSNBC. Hannity and O'Reilly lie. Do Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz or O'Donnell?

And the false impression on msnbc was corrected ON THE SAME SHOW. I have yet to see Fox Noise correct any false statement.

And I do not include Ed Shultz as being completely honest, he is too much a cheer leader and does extrapulate beyond what the facts support(IMHO).

Grumpy

[micatala]

micatala

As a side note, I note this was not by any of the mainliners on MSNBC. Hannity and O'Reilly lie. Do Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz or O'Donnell?

And the false impression on msnbc was corrected ON THE SAME SHOW. I have yet to see Fox Noise correct any false statement.

Interesting. So Beck's video on the MSNBC video also engages in distortion by selective editing.

And I do not include Ed Shultz as being completely honest, he is too much a cheer leader and does extrapulate beyond what the facts support(IMHO).

Grumpy

I would largely agree. Schultz likes to play to emotion and demagogue. I also rarely watch him for that reason. After about 2 to 5 minutes, I get disgusted. He often closes with the woman who started Comedy Central which ends up being a mocking session, not unlike what I hear on Beck, especially his radio show, doing to Obama and others. Taking issue with Palin's honesty or her knowledge of the issues is legitimate. Mocking her clothing, facial expresssion, etc. is not.

[micatala]

Lie of the day on FOX, courtesy of Karl Rove on Bill O'Reilly's show.

A close paraphrase: "We know Holder dismissed the New Black Panther case for purely political reasons."

Sorry, we don't know this. Rove is lieing.



This story as part of the spin to claim the Holder justice department is over-politicized, implying much more so than previously.

The comment came up because Holder's Department evidently took issue with $2000 of inappropriate hotel spending by Governor Christie of NJ.

The irony? The Christie issue was mocked as being not worth Holder's concern, which, if things ARE as O'Reilly says, I would agree with. It is trivial.

But the NBPP issue was also completely trivial, which was really why it got dismissed, not to mention that Bush's Justice Department felt much the same way.



It only took me about 6 minutes of watching to get to the Rove lie. Maybe I'll make this a short daily ritual. Watch FOX and see how long it takes before a lie is told.