Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

George Soros and Media Matters have gone unhinged

Page 4 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Mar 2011, 1:15 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.


If you ever watched Glenn Beck, you would know that he cites sources and not only that he provides links to said sources. If you ever read a book by Sean Hannity you would know he cites sources. So really, all you have proved skafather84, is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.


Al Franken and Michael Moore also cite sources but I don't look to them for raw fact. You seem to miss the point that Wikipedia is a source that prides itself and works toward accuracy while commentators aim toward their own personal ends and manipulate their sources in between.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

29 Mar 2011, 1:19 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.


If you ever watched Glenn Beck, you would know that he cites sources and not only that he provides links to said sources. If you ever read a book by Sean Hannity you would know he cites sources. So really, all you have proved skafather84, is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.


Al Franken and Michael Moore also cite sources but I don't look to them for raw fact. You seem to miss the point that Wikipedia is a source that prides itself and works toward accuracy while commentators aim toward their own personal ends and manipulate their sources in between.
Yeah it's not a matter of whether or not they cite sources but how they present and interpret em.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Mar 2011, 1:20 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.


If you ever watched Glenn Beck, you would know that he cites sources and not only that he provides links to said sources. If you ever read a book by Sean Hannity you would know he cites sources. So really, all you have proved skafather84, is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.


Al Franken and Michael Moore also cite sources but I don't look to them for raw fact.


I actually find that surprising because you often seem to parrot them.

skafather84 wrote:
You seem to miss the point that Wikipedia is a source that prides itself and works toward accuracy while commentators aim toward their own personal ends and manipulate their sources in between.


I would argue that Wikipedia does the manipulation you say, and there is a reason why I backcheck what commentators like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck says so I know they are on the up and up. I don't take what anyone says for granted.

Speaking before The New York Press Club, Times editor Bill Keller said: "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair & Balanced.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/t ... anet-earth



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Mar 2011, 1:23 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I would argue that Wikipedia does the manipulation you say, and there is a reason why I backcheck what commentators like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck says so I know they are on the up and up. I don't take what anyone says for granted.

Speaking before The New York Press Club, Times editor Bill Keller said: "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair & Balanced.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/t ... anet-earth



A) Not everything is a liberal conspiracy. Take off the tin foil hat once in a while.

B) What's wrong with what Bill Keller said? It is an absolutely cynical slogan to anyone who has more than 2 brain cells firing simultaneously.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Mar 2011, 1:24 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I would argue that Wikipedia does the manipulation you say, and there is a reason why I backcheck what commentators like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck says so I know they are on the up and up. I don't take what anyone says for granted.

Speaking before The New York Press Club, Times editor Bill Keller said: "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair & Balanced.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/t ... anet-earth



A) Not everything is a liberal conspiracy. Take off the tin foil hat once in a while.

B) What's wrong with what Bill Keller said? It is an absolutely cynical slogan to anyone who has more than 2 brain cells firing simultaneously.


If you read the article you'd find a more cynical slogan.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Mar 2011, 1:29 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I would argue that Wikipedia does the manipulation you say, and there is a reason why I backcheck what commentators like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck says so I know they are on the up and up. I don't take what anyone says for granted.

Speaking before The New York Press Club, Times editor Bill Keller said: "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair & Balanced.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/t ... anet-earth



A) Not everything is a liberal conspiracy. Take off the tin foil hat once in a while.

B) What's wrong with what Bill Keller said? It is an absolutely cynical slogan to anyone who has more than 2 brain cells firing simultaneously.


If you read the article you'd find a more cynical slogan.


It's from an opinion piece and I don't give a s**t about ORLY's opinion.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Mar 2011, 1:33 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I would argue that Wikipedia does the manipulation you say, and there is a reason why I backcheck what commentators like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck says so I know they are on the up and up. I don't take what anyone says for granted.

Speaking before The New York Press Club, Times editor Bill Keller said: "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair & Balanced.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/t ... anet-earth



A) Not everything is a liberal conspiracy. Take off the tin foil hat once in a while.

B) What's wrong with what Bill Keller said? It is an absolutely cynical slogan to anyone who has more than 2 brain cells firing simultaneously.


If you read the article you'd find a more cynical slogan.


It's from an opinion piece and I don't give a sh** about ORLY's opinion.


Facts are often used to form opinions.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Mar 2011, 1:36 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I would argue that Wikipedia does the manipulation you say, and there is a reason why I backcheck what commentators like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck says so I know they are on the up and up. I don't take what anyone says for granted.

Speaking before The New York Press Club, Times editor Bill Keller said: "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair & Balanced.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/t ... anet-earth



A) Not everything is a liberal conspiracy. Take off the tin foil hat once in a while.

B) What's wrong with what Bill Keller said? It is an absolutely cynical slogan to anyone who has more than 2 brain cells firing simultaneously.


If you read the article you'd find a more cynical slogan.


It's from an opinion piece and I don't give a sh** about ORLY's opinion.


Facts are often used to form opinions.


It's an opinion show, not meant to be representative of Fox's "Fair and Balanced" programming...which is why it's an absolutely cynical slogan: because it is absolutely not "fair and balanced" and most people are morons like you who don't get the difference between opinion pieces and legitimate news and facts.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

29 Mar 2011, 1:39 pm

Media Matters would not exist without Fox, and Fox reaps great benefits from having such a perfect (it's even actually Soros backed!) bogeyman literally "declaring war" on them to point to when they claim the liberals are out to get them. It almost makes me wonder if Soros has some Newscorp stock squirreled away somewhere, or if Rupert Murdoch quietly funnels money to MMFA... Is that too cynical of me? :D


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Mar 2011, 1:45 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Media Matters would not exist without Fox, and Fox reaps great benefits from having such a perfect (it's even actually Soros backed!) bogeyman literally "declaring war" on them to point to when they claim the liberals are out to get them. It almost makes me wonder if Soros has some Newscorp stock squirreled away somewhere, or if Rupert Murdoch quietly funnels money to MMFA... Is that too cynical of me? :D


It wouldn't surprise me. In a class war, keeping the underclasses not only ignorant but violently ignorant is a good thing. Seeing legitimate information like Media Matters could seriously hurt the class war and empower the citizens again rather than the aristocrats.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Mar 2011, 1:46 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Media Matters would not exist without Fox, and Fox reaps great benefits from having such a perfect (it's even actually Soros backed!) bogeyman literally "declaring war" on them to point to when they claim the liberals are out to get them. It almost makes me wonder if Soros has some Newscorp stock squirreled away somewhere, or if Rupert Murdoch quietly funnels money to MMFA... Is that too cynical of me? :D


Why would Murdoch waste the money when Mediamatters is already going loco at no cost to him. :lol:



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

29 Mar 2011, 2:11 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Media Matters would not exist without Fox, and Fox reaps great benefits from having such a perfect (it's even actually Soros backed!) bogeyman literally "declaring war" on them to point to when they claim the liberals are out to get them. It almost makes me wonder if Soros has some Newscorp stock squirreled away somewhere, or if Rupert Murdoch quietly funnels money to MMFA... Is that too cynical of me? :D


Why would Murdoch waste the money when Mediamatters is already going loco at no cost to him. :lol:
ROFL



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

29 Mar 2011, 2:19 pm

skafather84 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Ah, but Inuyasha, do you not see that wikipedia is on precisely the same level as your beloved commentators?


Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.

Anyone can edit wikipedia. That means there are far more people correcting algorithms and are ready to squish any attempts to post made up stuff without sources or use sources from dubious places.

Only Glenn Beck can "edit" his stuff before releasing them.


_________________
.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

29 Mar 2011, 2:24 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Ah, but Inuyasha, do you not see that wikipedia is on precisely the same level as your beloved commentators?


Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.

Anyone can edit wikipedia. That means there are far more people correcting algorithms and are ready to squish any attempts to post made up stuff without sources or use sources from dubious places.

Only Glenn Beck can "edit" his stuff before releasing them.


Back in the young days of Wikipedia, I was a bored teenager, and used to love editing articles in creative ways that would mislead people but look like factual, accurate information. Nowadays it is hard to do this, but I am still hoping somebody out there actually believes some of the s**t I edited, Lesson? Check the sources at the bottom of the page, anything not cited could have been put there by a bored teenager out to confuse you :wink:


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

29 Mar 2011, 2:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Why would Murdoch waste the money when Mediamatters is already going loco at no cost to him. :lol:


If there was no Media Matters, it would be in his interest to create one; it's possibly the best form of advertising if you're going after an ideological market. The only people who are going to take Media Matters seriously are people who are already inclined to hate Fox and the conservative viewpoint in general, it doesn't hurt Fox one bit. On the other hand, Fox benefits greatly when it's attacked by liberal groups, if reinforces the conservative narrative of a hostile liberal media trying to silence their voices and further entrenches their viewer's loyalty to the network.

Think of it this way; when it comes to politics, a negative endorsement can be more valuable than a positive one. Depending upon the target, a denouncement by Olberman may be better than an endorsement by Limbaugh.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Mar 2011, 6:27 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Why would Murdoch waste the money when Mediamatters is already going loco at no cost to him. :lol:


If there was no Media Matters, it would be in his interest to create one; it's possibly the best form of advertising if you're going after an ideological market. The only people who are going to take Media Matters seriously are people who are already inclined to hate Fox and the conservative viewpoint in general, it doesn't hurt Fox one bit. On the other hand, Fox benefits greatly when it's attacked by liberal groups, if reinforces the conservative narrative of a hostile liberal media trying to silence their voices and further entrenches their viewer's loyalty to the network.

Think of it this way; when it comes to politics, a negative endorsement can be more valuable than a positive one. Depending upon the target, a denouncement by Olberman may be better than an endorsement by Limbaugh.

Essentially the opposite phenomenon of "damning with faint praise." We need an idiom to express this notion. Any ideas?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH