I originally made this post in the 2010 Election thread, but decided to spin it off into a new thread.
micatala wrote: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.
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.
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.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
micatala wrote: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 lying.
If you are referring to the voter intimidation case dismissed by the Justice Department, we don't know that it was dismissed for purely political reasons, we have good evidence for it though. Maybe it would be appropriate for you to say that Rove is overstating the facts rather then flat out lying.
micatala wrote: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.
Maybe those who hate Fox News so much shouldn't watch it. Usually, when I don't like a television show I try to avoid turning my TV to that specific channel rather then obsessing about how bad it is.
micatala wrote: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 Birther Issue is equivalent to the 9/11 Truther Issue. It is not something pushed by partisan talking heads except for the few extreme ones that exist.
micatala wrote: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.
Really? If there was absolutely no provision fo end of life counseling in any proposed healthcare bill, and the republicans were saying there was, surely Obama Press Secretary and advisers would be able to refute it easily. Or maybe if Congress had read the 2000 page bill there might not be so much confusion amoung its members.
WinePusher wrote: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.
micatala wrote: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.
I bet you can't support the position that the media is justified in jumping to conclusions about the tea party but not in jumping to conclusions about the Fort Hood Shooter.
And if we have no tape or audio evidence, then what other objective evidence is there to go off of? You hear about what CBS planned to do to Joe Miller up in Alaska? Is that what you call an honest MainStream Media?
micatala wrote:So again, my point stands. The situations you equated are not comparable.
Can you back this up?
micatala wrote: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.
Now you're the one making inconsistent comparisons. Do you think MSNBC did not know that man with the gun was black? Do you think Breitbart had the entire tape? I would say MSNBC deliberately distorted the tape with 100% certainty while with Breitbart, there is a possibility that he didn't recieve the full tape and acted impulsively.
micatala wrote: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.
Funny how the left is crying about violence when they were the ones who blew up buildings in the sixties, and did the same things to George Bush.
micatala wrote:So Hannity and O'Reilly have the highest ratings because they make false statements? This is not what you really meant is it?
No, actually you think they make false statements beause they take positions that you disagree with. What you think is false does not constitute falsehoods for other people, just because you say something is false does not make it false.
micatala wrote: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.
Where and When do O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck claim to be journalists?
micatala wrote: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?
I suggest you stop saying they lie just because you think they lie. A lie for you does not equal a lie for other people.
micatala wrote: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 Birther Issue is equivalent to the 9/11 Truther Issue. It is not something pushed by partisan talking heads except for the few extreme ones that exist
You have mentioned that some thirty odd percent of americans are under the impression that Obama is muslim, would you say this part of the public holds extreme views or that they have merely been influenced by talking heads that hold these extreme views?
micatala wrote: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.
Really? If there was absolutely no provision fo end of life counseling in any proposed healthcare bill, and the republicans were saying there was, surely Obama Press Secretary and advisers would be able to refute it easily. Or maybe if Congress had read the 2000 page bill there might not be so much confusion amoung its members.
End of life counseling and death panels are not the same thing and now only after the fact are you actually trying to conflate the two. There was no confusion other than that sown by the opponents of healthcare reform when they started to spread outrageous lies such as death panels.
I bet you can't support the position that the media is justified in jumping to conclusions about the tea party but not in jumping to conclusions about the Fort Hood Shooter.
I find it simply astounding that you can sit there with a straight face and defend jumping to a conclusion in one case but rail against it in another and fail to see the double standard you are using.
micatala wrote:So Hannity and O'Reilly have the highest ratings because they make false statements? This is not what you really meant is it?
No, actually you think they make false statements beause they take positions that you disagree with. What you think is false does not constitute falsehoods for other people, just because you say something is false does not make it false.
If truth itself is subjective as you claim here how can you possibly make the case that morals are objective. If you are not capable of determining what is true how can you determine what is right?
micatala wrote: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.
Where and When do O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck claim to be journalists?
I'm pretty sure they work for a news organization, in effect these people are the op-ed columnists for Fox news. They are not writing news but opinion but even so they still represent the views of their organization.
micatala wrote: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?
I suggest you stop saying they lie just because you think they lie. A lie for you does not equal a lie for other people.
The truth is the truth when we are talking about basic facts. Whether the chicken crossed the road or not is not open for debate, either it did or it did not.
The Birther Issue is equivalent to the 9/11 Truther Issue. It is not something pushed by partisan talking heads except for the few extreme ones that exist
Fox pushed the birther issue, hosted birthers often and insinuated that there was a there there. They cannot avoid responsibility of raising the issue beyond the occasional kook. As they did with the "Death Panel" lie, the "Obama is a Muslim" lie and are currently doing with the "200 million a day" lie. Fox Noise lies every single day.
If there was absolutely no provision fo end of life counseling in any proposed healthcare bill, and the republicans were saying there was, surely Obama Press Secretary and advisers would be able to refute it easily.
End of life counseling is the patients doctor, pastor and family meeting to talk about the best interest of that patient. "Death Panel" are a group of people who are unconnected with the patient deciding when treatment will be cut off. They are in no way related and it is a lie to say "Death Panels" are in the health care bill.
I bet you can't support the position that the media is justified in jumping to conclusions about the tea party but not in jumping to conclusions about the Fort Hood Shooter.
In neither case did anyone jump to conclusions. And that is a good thing. The Tea Party had racist rhetoric and signs, portraying Obama as an African witch doctor or Hitler(as well as many other racist signs, I can post them if you like)was way over the line, the Tea Party condemned themselves by their own actions. And at no time was the fact that the shooter was a Muslim covered up, the determination of his motives was also reported when the authority's investigation released the information about his correspondence, as was proper reporting technique.
No, actually you think they make false statements beause they take positions that you disagree with.
Facts do not change with opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Fox lies about the facts, their positions or opinions are irrelevant.
What you think is false does not constitute falsehoods for other people, just because you say something is false does not make it false.
What is not factual makes it false, not the opinion about what those facts mean. Fox lies about the facts every single day.
Where and When do O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck claim to be journalists?
They present what they say as the truth. It is not, it is lies. An opinion based on lies is useless, dishonest and destructive. They have a right to their own opinion about the facts, they are not entitled to their own facts on which to formulate those opinions. Liberals and conservatives have the same set of facts. It is a fact that there are no "Death Panels" in the health care bill, any opinion based on the claim that there are "Death Panels" is dishonest and useless drivel.
I suggest you stop saying they lie just because you think they lie. A lie for you does not equal a lie for other people.
We are saying they lie because they lie. A lie for a conservative is also a lie for a liberal. Facts are not changed by a difference of opinion about what those facts mean. Opinion based on lies is propaganda, the same technique of the Big Lie practiced by Hitler, Stalin and other despicable liars throughout history. Democracy depends on everyone sticking to the facts, THEN we can argue about the meaning of those facts.
Other lies from Fox and the Republicans...
Obama raised taxes on middle class Americans-Fact- If you make less than $150,000 you are currently paying LESS in taxes than you were under Bush, it was in the stimulus package.
Obama "Paled around"with terrorists.-Fact, Ayers was on a commission that Obama was on, his home was used for a fund raiser, but they are not and never were "pals" and Obama was 9 years old and living in Indonesia at the time Ayers was involved with the Weather Underground and blew up a bathroom in the Pentagon, noone was injured. He subsequently severed his ties to the WU when they started advocating more violence. The FBI gained a lot of their information about the WU activities from Ayers and he payed his debt to society for his actions. Guilt by association is dishonest when the association was so tenuous.
Obama is a socialist-fact-Not unless McCain is also a socialist, the health care bill was virtually identical to that proposed by McCain and several Republican Governors. What is socialism by one is socialism by all.
The Bank and Auto bailouts cost the taxpayers billions-fact, both are being payed back at accelerated rates and both will show a healthy profit for the taxpayer.
Obama is responsible for 10 trillion dollars in debt-fact-When Obama took office the debt was 91/2 trillion dollars and going up fast. Obama actually stopped that rapid rise and his policies are leading us out of the mess made by Bush and the Republicans with their tax cuts, Medicare Drug Bill and wars that were not payed for. In addition, the deregulation and lax enforcement of rules on Wall Street almost crashed the whole economy into another depression. All this after Bush inherited huge budget surpluses from Clinton. Despite the Republican mantra of tax cuts creating jobs Bush presided over the greatest loss of jobs in history, the shipping of jobs overseas and the fleecing of the economy for the benefit of the top two percent and the detriment of everyone else. Not to mention the sleazy situation where the very people who pushed the wars made hundreds of billions of dollars on it, lied about the reasons to invade Iraq and outed a CIA agent in time of war(treason if done by a Democrat)because her husband revealed those lies as false. Tens of thousands of deaths over lies and deceit and yet no consequences, despite impeaching Clinton over an affair just a few years previously.
Are you starting to see a trend here? Yet the Republicans managed to win an election by demigogging fear and hatred,they certainly didn't run on any real issues. So, tell me again about the intelligence of the American electorate, I need a laugh after this crap.
WinePusher wrote:The Birther Issue is equivalent to the 9/11 Truther Issue. It is not something pushed by partisan talking heads except for the few extreme ones that exist
Grumpy wrote:Fox pushed the birther issue, hosted birthers often and insinuated that there was a there there. They cannot avoid responsibility of raising the issue beyond the occasional kook.
Name some hosts or commentators on Fox News who are birthers and have pushed the birther story.
Grumpy wrote:In neither case did anyone jump to conclusions. And that is a good thing. The Tea Party had racist rhetoric and signs, portraying Obama as an African witch doctor or Hitler(as well as many other racist signs, I can post them if you like)was way over the line, the Tea Party condemned themselves by their own actions. And at no time was the fact that the shooter was a Muslim covered up, the determination of his motives was also reported when the authority's investigation released the information about his correspondence, as was proper reporting technique.
The NAACP also has racist elements in it, so does the New Black Panthar Party and Liberal Unions are far more violent then the Tea Party. Is it fair to smear the entire institution has racist because of the actions of a few?
But that isn't the issue, there is no tape of audio evidence to support the claim that the Tea Party called John Lewis a racist term, but the Media has reported that they did. You don't think that's false reporting, or jumping to conclusions?
WinePusher wrote:Where and When do O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck claim to be journalists?
Grumpy wrote:They present what they say as the truth. It is not, it is lies.
Because their political philosophy is different then yours, yes?
Grumpy wrote:An opinion based on lies is useless, dishonest and destructive.
Yes, and the only thing you, micatala and Wyvern have been sitting on is the "death panel" lie. Is that the only thing you have to support your case?
Grumpy wrote:Obama "Paled around"with terrorists.-Fact, Ayers was on a commission that Obama was on, his home was used for a fund raiser, but they are not and never were "pals" and Obama was 9 years old and living in Indonesia at the time Ayers was involved with the Weather Underground and blew up a bathroom in the Pentagon, noone was injured.
Yea, I don't think you're qualified to say whether or not Obama and Ayers are pals. They spent alot of time together and served on alot of commissions together, just because you take issue with the way conservatives worded the Obama-Ayers association as "paling arounding" doesn't mean its a lie.
Grumpy wrote:Obama is a socialist-fact-Not unless McCain is also a socialist, the health care bill was virtually identical to that proposed by McCain and several Republican Governors. What is socialism by one is socialism by all.
I bet you're also furious at Al Sharpton, former Democratic Presidential Candidate, for calling Obama a socialist as well.
Grumpy wrote:Are you starting to see a trend here? Yet the Republicans managed to win an election by demigogging fear and hatred,they certainly didn't run on any real issues. So, tell me again about the intelligence of the American electorate, I need a laugh after this crap.
What I see is that whatever you disagree with you call a lie. Frankly, that's somewhat like denial. You admitted that Obama and Ayers shared a close association, but since conservative pundits are talking about it it becomes a lie in your mind. Is that logical?
The New Black Panther party has what, 3 people in it. It has zero worth as a news item, except to a race-baiting newscaster looking to get get ratings from stupid white people.
Name some hosts or commentators on Fox News who are birthers and have pushed the birther story.
"During Special Report’s Political Grapevine segment tonight (7/14/09), Bret Baier announced, “A U.S. soldier who has been ordered to Afghanistan is refusing to go… (saying) President Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is ineligible to be Commander-in-Chief. A Columbus, Georgia newspaper reports (the soldier) has filed a request in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order on his deployment. (His) attorney is involved in a second case that challenges the legitimacy of the Obama presidency. The Los Angeles Times reports a California judge has agreed to hear the merits of that case.� As a banner on the screen read, “PERSISTENT PROBLEM� next to a photo of Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court, Baier added, “It is just one of dozens of legal challenges to the president’s nationality.�
"But the most egregious example is on Fox’s “fair and balanced� website, Fox Nation. There a headline a reads, “Obama Birth Certificate Challenge Wins Small Court Victory,� once again implying that the claim may have at least some merit. Even worse, above the headline is a large photo of Obama in a turban."
"Sean Hannity presented the same story during his Hannity’s America segment. He likewise failed to note in any way the illegitimacy of the claim, or the availability of Obama's birth certificate. Instead, Hannity characterized the case as “controversial."
"During the 2008 campaign, Fox News hosted WND staff writer Jerome Corsi, who claimed that the Obama campaign "has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website."
There was much more(just Google birther on Fox)but I got tired of posting them.
The NAACP also has racist elements in it
Now it's time for you to document YOUR assertion.
so does the New Black Panthar Party
So? So does the KKK. Relevance? Do you think that if one racist organization exists it legitimises what other organizations do? Answer for the Tea Parties racist behavior.
But that isn't the issue, there is no tape of audio evidence to support the claim that the Tea Party called John Lewis a racist term, but the Media has reported that they did. You don't think that's false reporting, or jumping to conclusions?
Those who were there reported it happened and the hostile behavior of that crowd WAS documented. And it is far from the only such "redneck" moments from the Tea Party...
Because their political philosophy is different then yours, yes?
No. Philosophy has nothing to do with it, it is their lies that is the problem. They are factually inaccurate whether they are philosophical about it or not. What is so difficult about this concept that you need correction with every post? I do not care that they are conservative, but if they must be LIARS to justify their conservative views those views sure don't count for much. There are many conservatives that do not lie, I do not agree with them either, but at least they have integrity and I treat them with as much respect as they show me. Liars deserve no respect whatsoever.
Yes, and the only thing you, micatala and Wyvern have been sitting on is the "death panel" lie. Is that the only thing you have to support your case?
You don't bother to read our posts, evidently. "Death Panels" is simply one of the lies, though one that is easily illustrated, one you have repeated several times. It is a complete falsehood to conflate end of life counseling(involving family, clergy and doctors of the patient discussing how to proceed)with Death Panels(beaurocrats)cutting off treatment for grammy. It was a lie when Republican Politicians said it, it was a lie when Fox Noise said it and it is still a lie when you say it. Period.
Yea, I don't think you're qualified to say whether or not Obama and Ayers are pals. They spent alot of time together and served on alot of commissions together, just because you take issue with the way conservatives worded the Obama-Ayers association as "paling arounding" doesn't mean its a lie.
They, themselves, say they only had passing aquantance, even the fundraiser in his home was set up by a woman who IS a personal friend of Obama's, not Ayers himself. The bolded in your statement above are also falsehoods. They were on ONE community commission(along with many other people), they both say they did not have any outside social contact and DID NOT spend much time together. This is simply a dishonest smear campaign for cynical political gain and thus reprehensible, underhanded and blatant dishonesty(which you, unfortunately, emulate).
I bet you're also furious at Al Sharpton, former Democratic Presidential Candidate, for calling Obama a socialist as well.
Yep. Sharpton is a charlatan(remember Tawana Brawley?), an opportunist and all around despicable politician(again, his ideology has nothing to do with his reprehensible nature).
Besides, America is a socialist nation in many ways, whether you like the label or not.
What I see is that whatever you disagree with you call a lie.
Then you are blind to the facts, just like Rush, Hannity and Fox.
You admitted that Obama and Ayers shared a close association
That is a lie, I said no such thing. In fact they only had a passing aquantance that was only happenstance, involving their work and not personal. You can't even get this fact straight.
but since conservative pundits are talking about it it becomes a lie in your mind.
It is a lie because it is a lie, no matter who is saying it. Stop being so transparently obtuse(look it up).
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.
Or maybe it is the lies of Fox and it's supposed NEWS people, eh?
Deny that if you don't really care about the truth.
The media is as conservative as the corporations that own them.
Big corporations can funnel big bucks into Right-wing whackos that have few listeners or sponsors. SCOTUS ruled money is free speech.
The men the American people admire most extravagantly
are the most daring liars; the men they detest most
violently are those who try to tell them the truth:Henry Louis Mencken: American humorous journalist,
1880-1956
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators� team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story� about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.
FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.�
" The corporate grip on opinion in the United States
is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First
World country has ever managed to eliminate so
entirely from its media all objectivity - much less
dissent." Gore Vidal
