U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-03-2009, 10:43 PM
 
11,127 posts, read 12,650,790 times
Reputation: 3676

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
More and more Americans sick of being lied to = MSNBC ratings going up
What a steaming load of bovine excrement. You can't even say that with a straight face as the average American so desires diversion, delusion, emotionally driven diatribe, and complete and utter ignorant fluff that he is willing to kill his own fellow man to fill his own head with meaningless emotional drivel.

Most Americans are willing to trade their souls to be lied to, they do not want truth, they most desire happiness and the two conflict more often than not.

If people truly wanted, as you suggest, then they would dispense with the ignorant and inflammatory commercial media and seek an unrepentant truth born in fact as evidenced. If the people were so sick of being lied to, they wouldn't use fellow co-conspirators in which they agree with as the basis of "truth".

People do not want truth, they want sound bytes and things that will make them feel better. People wish not to be uncomfortable or displaced, they are in fact willing to sacrifice just about anything to perpetuate this irrational fantasy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-04-2009, 01:33 AM
 
460 posts, read 711,610 times
Reputation: 267
I genuinely think you're judging your countrymen too harshly. Folks do care, but most don't know where to go for credible info. It's more a function of a substandard education than willful ignorance.

On a lighter note, We also love bunnies!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 04:37 AM
 
4,465 posts, read 6,998,642 times
Reputation: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
More and more Americans sick of being lied to = MSNBC ratings going up
Precisely.

Notice that people who believe Fox is neutral are the main ones bashing MSNBC?

Of course, let's not fall head over heels for what is essentially the merger of Microsoft and General Electric's venue for advancing their corporate interests:

They still routinely lie during their "news" segments.

"The Morning Joke" (Aka: Joe Scarborough, former Neo-Con Rep from Fla, and Mika Brzeznsky (phonetic on her surname), Zbigs' daughter, and sibling of a lackey for Dickless Cheney) still advance the fascist line every morning.

CNBC (sister network) still is there to represent the multinats.

But overall, MSNBC hooked onto the fastest growing (albeit still a minority) of Americans:
Those who understand our media has lied to us, and those lies are exclusively Rightwing in nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 04:39 AM
 
4,465 posts, read 6,998,642 times
Reputation: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
What the hell matter does it make what the sources are if one uses a variety of sources to come to a conclusion?

Are you suggesting that there is some certainly specific news sources that must first be filtered or approved by you in order to constitute tangible news?


Look, if Fox or MSNBC says a plane crashed in NY city, then I believe it. If that same report says that some left/right wing militant was responsible for it crashing, then I might take issue. I don't give a damn who said what, as if it has plausible merit and evidence to support any given conclusion, then it should be taken into consideration. This means that even totally unrepeatable sources of information are capable of providing credible information, even if it isn't their standard bearer.
Not by me, by the factual record as it becomes obvious.

Witness the Oil War we call "Iraq".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
3,562 posts, read 4,948,465 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synopsis View Post
At least we breath out of our mouths and not the poop shoot.

Kinda hard for the libs to do that when the poop shoot is occupied so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 09:52 AM
 
11,127 posts, read 12,650,790 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
Not by me, by the factual record as it becomes obvious.

Witness the Oil War we call "Iraq".
Yes, and as I recall MSNBC was out front promoting the war in Iraq, right along with Fox and CNN.

White House and Pentagon officials decide that using retired military officers as “independent military analysts” in the national media can help change hearts and minds of a reluctant American public in drawing a connection between 9-11 and Saddam in Iraq.

Assistant secretary of defense for public affairs Victoria Clarke, a former public relations executive, intends to achieve what she calls “information dominance.” Her plan to recruit key individuals and in this case former military generals with ties to the defense industry to promote the war.

The largest contingent of analysts is affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the networks with 24-hour cable news coverage.

Quote:
Two of NBC’s most familiar analysts, retired generals Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing, are on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to push for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. [New York Times, 4/20/2008] Additionally, McCaffrey is chief of BR McCaffrey Associates, which “provides strategic, analytic, and advocacy consulting services to businesses, non-profits, governments, and international organizations.” [Washington Post, 4/21/2008]
If in fact MSNBC was this great bastion of Liberal dominated media, I have to wonder why they went to such great lengths to promote the war in Iraq. I still have a stack of VHS tapes showing MSNBC's little flag in the corner of the screen waving and the headline... "March to war".

Truth is, contemporary commercial media got in lock step with the White House and they flat out sold a war to a reluctant American people. This is a factual provable thing by reams of evidence that is still available and easily searchable. For MSNBC to suddenly find a conscious after the fact shows me they lack conviction, fortitude and a spine. MSNBC is little more than ad men ready to sell people the next improved batch of snake oil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 03:39 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 6,998,642 times
Reputation: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Yes, and as I recall MSNBC was out front promoting the war in Iraq, right along with Fox and CNN.

White House and Pentagon officials decide that using retired military officers as “independent military analysts” in the national media can help change hearts and minds of a reluctant American public in drawing a connection between 9-11 and Saddam in Iraq.

Assistant secretary of defense for public affairs Victoria Clarke, a former public relations executive, intends to achieve what she calls “information dominance.” Her plan to recruit key individuals and in this case former military generals with ties to the defense industry to promote the war.

The largest contingent of analysts is affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the networks with 24-hour cable news coverage.



If in fact MSNBC was this great bastion of Liberal dominated media, I have to wonder why they went to such great lengths to promote the war in Iraq. I still have a stack of VHS tapes showing MSNBC's little flag in the corner of the screen waving and the headline... "March to war".

Truth is, contemporary commercial media got in lock step with the White House and they flat out sold a war to a reluctant American people. This is a factual provable thing by reams of evidence that is still available and easily searchable. For MSNBC to suddenly find a conscious after the fact shows me they lack conviction, fortitude and a spine. MSNBC is little more than ad men ready to sell people the next improved batch of snake oil.

First part of your post is in 100% accord with the factual record.

Back in 2003, MSNBC, as did ALL US media supported the lies being spun out of Cheney's office to the ultimate degree: there was, as you noted, the "experts" paraded endlessly in front of the public, experts (retired Brass and other parasitic creatures) which we later found out had FINANCIAL interests in taking this country into a war for oil based on lies, and in keeping this war going ad infinitum.

It had zero to do with "lack of conviction, spine", etc, and more to do with the new reality in our censored media: The "news" branch of the conglomerate was/is supposed to support the corrporate brand.

Look at the events vis-a-vis the timing of Akres V Fox.

In '99, the start of the trial court phase of the case, which Akres won, the multinats were a bit more cautious in using "their" media to tell blatant lies; by 2003, when the Fla Appeals Court reversed the original court's findings, and voided the juries verdict- which non-coincidently coincides precisely with the start of the Oil War, there was no such hesitation, as the sanctions for lying had been removed. From then on, it was news for profit.

ALL US Media did this then, and does this today. It's not about truth anymore, as it was from the 1950's-90's. Instead US media has returned to the 1890's model championed by Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer:

Make the facts fit the business plan. It gave us the far more sucessful (except in the Phillipines) Spanish American War, and the other slime of the "Gilded Age."

So when/why did this change, somewhat, for MSNBC?

Well, as previously stated capitalism: they found a niche market- people looking for the truth, as compared to events unfolding around them. (Hint: a war for oil based on a lie, and a depression are just too big to cover up.)

And, to trace that process in detail, it's necessary to look at the career of Keith Olbermann, as his rise parallels the network's change to a more fact-based approach:

Keith Olbermann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This quite lenghthy, but here are some excerpts:

When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998 The Big Show with Keith Olbermann morphed into White House in Crisis. Olbermann became frustrated as his show was consumed by the Lewinsky story. In 1998, he stated that his work at MSNBC would "make me ashamed, make me depressed, make me cry."[27] Olbermann left MSNBC for Fox Sports Net shortly thereafter.
After leaving Fox Sports in 2001, Olbermann returned once more to news journalism. In 2003, his network won an Edward R. Murrow Award for writing on the "Keith Olbermann Speaking of Everything" show.[36] In addition, Olbermann wrote a weekly column for Salon.com from July 2002 until early 2003.[37], worked for CNN as a freelance reporter,[22] and was a fill-in for newscaster Paul Harvey.[38][39]

Countdown's format, per its name, involves Olbermann ranking the five biggest news stories of the day or sometimes "stories my producers force me to cover," as Olbermann puts it."
During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Olbermann co-anchored MSNBC's coverage with Chris Matthews until September 7, 2008, when they were replaced by David Gregory after complaints from both outside and inside of NBC that they were making partisan statements.[12] As early as May 2007, when Giuliani campaign officials complained about him serving in dual roles as both a "host" and "commentator" had this apparent conflict of interest been an issue.[45] Despite this, Countdown was broadcast both before and after each of the presidential and vice-presidential debates, and Olbermann and Matthews joined Gregory on MSNBC's election day coverage.[46] Olbermann and Matthews also led MSNBC's coverage of the inauguration of President Obama.[47][48]

In January 2007 The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz wrote that Olbermann was "position[ing] his program as an increasingly liberal alternative to The O'Reilly Factor."[52] Media watchdog group Media Research Center (MRC) compiled a list of the recipients of Olbermann's "World's Worst" for about a year from its beginning on June 30, 2005, and reported that, of the approximately 600 recipients, 174 (29 percent) of those fit their definition of "conservative" people or ideas while only 23 (6 percent) were what they considered "liberal."[53] During the 2008 Democratic Party primaries Olbermann frequently chastised presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton for her campaign tactics against her principal opponent, Senator Barack Obama, and made her the subject of two of his "special comments".[54][55] Olbermann has also posted on the liberal blog Daily Kos.[56' "


The above sections point out 3 very important facets of Olbermann vs the corporate media:

1. Note the influence of the right on the media's agenda. Lewinsky is an excellent example of the corporate media trying to make something out of nothing. Note that ALL pundits on the airwaves (except Olbermann) thought that McCain had done well in every debate, until the overwhelming poll numbers showing that he'd lost badly, and that their positions were putting said pundits credibility on the line.

http://themoderatevoice.com/23538/po...how-obama-won/

"We’ve had four debates now, and each time the census from the pundits has been “it’s a tie on points.” But each time, voters have heavily favored Obama. How are so many people getting paid to be so wrong?"

Because they're paid to say "McCain tied", is the obvious answer. To say more would have completely blown their covers.



2. The clashes between Olbermann and GE (or MSNBC, same thing)'s management.

3. The criticism of Olbermann exclusively from the far right, both GOP and Democratic.

Examples: Howard Kurtz, of the liberal (ha!) Washington Post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Kurtz

"Kurtz has covered the press since 1990 for the Post,[2] and is widely read within the journalism business, although some critics feel he has a tendency to be biased toward the political right.[3] Others believe he should not be covering the news business because he has a clear conflict of interest. Mickey Kaus, reporting on and partially quoting from a letter by Charles Kaiser in The New Republic, wrote that Kurtz "has large, non-technical conflicts of interest, since he free-lances and takes money 'from the people he writes about, from Time Warner to Condé Nast.'... The most obvious conflict is that Kurtz co-hosts CNN's Reliable Sources, a gig that rewards him with not only money but national renown."[4]"

The very goofus Media Research Center: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k..._b_120200.html

"The far-right Media Research Center (MRC) has released a new report declaring overwhelmingly positive media coverage of Barack Obama in the network evening news broadcasts. I've scrutinized part of the study and media coverage during one month, and this simple look at reality indicates that MRC is intentionally lying about the media coverage.
According to MRC, in the last month of the primary race, 43% of the network news stories were positive and only 1% were negative. This period covers May 7 to June 3. According to MRC, there were 2.94 stories per day in the final month about Obama, or a total of around 90. This means that according to the MRC, there was only one story in the entire month on all three networks that was negative about Obama. So, out of all of these stories--about Michelle Obama's "proud" remarks, about Obama overwhelming losses in West Virginia and Kentucky, about John McCain and George W. Bush denouncing Obama on Iran and comparing it to appeasement of Nazis, about Michael Pfleger's speech at Obama's church denouncing Hillary Clinton--the MRC claims that only one story was negative.
That's utterly preposterous. So I decided to look at what the real news coverage shows. The best source for this is the Tyndall Report, which documents the network news coverage every weekday. A good sample of the news coverage is Tyndall's daily list of the key news stories and the angle being offered. Here's a complete list of all of them in the May 7-June 3 period, with Tyndall's summary of the "angle" of the report:"

And of course, Hillary Clinton, wife and CFO of Bill Clinton, who engineered a hostile takeover of the once-people friendly Democratic Party by the corporations, circa 1992. (See: NAFTA, PRN, The Enron Loophole, etc)

In your failure to understand these past events, and how they illustrate just how Olbermann has captured audience share for MSNBC (it's now ahead of CNN, although trails Fox, just as Western Mags trailed Pravda in the old USSR) is where your post strays-and strays mightily- from the factual record.

Last edited by Geechie North; 06-04-2009 at 04:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Central Illinois -
21,347 posts, read 14,253,783 times
Reputation: 14456
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
What a steaming load of bovine excrement. You can't even say that with a straight face as the average American so desires diversion, delusion, emotionally driven diatribe, and complete and utter ignorant fluff that he is willing to kill his own fellow man to fill his own head with meaningless emotional drivel.

Most Americans are willing to trade their souls to be lied to, they do not want truth, they most desire happiness and the two conflict more often than not.

If people truly wanted, as you suggest, then they would dispense with the ignorant and inflammatory commercial media and seek an unrepentant truth born in fact as evidenced. If the people were so sick of being lied to, they wouldn't use fellow co-conspirators in which they agree with as the basis of "truth".

People do not want truth, they want sound bytes and things that will make them feel better. People wish not to be uncomfortable or displaced, they are in fact willing to sacrifice just about anything to perpetuate this irrational fantasy.
Now now, not everyone is like your description, and another thing I know is people, even right wingers, know the difference between right and wrong (most of them)

While 1/4 will prefer fascism in ANY type of government, the other 3/4 differ in varying degrees as to their intent to be properly educated on domestic and world events. As this education grows, more and more are voting out of office those who are responsible for the mess we are in today. It is illustrated by the elections of 2006 and 2008.

Much of this country prefers to remain oblivious to its problems but as MSNBC audiences have grown, so have informed opinions across the political spectrum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
20,336 posts, read 13,820,691 times
Reputation: 5220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
You do realize that even avid MSNBC supporters are well aware that presents a liberal perspective, right?

You present this as if this is some "Gotcha!" revelation.

Perhaps the difference is that Fox supporters are in denial of the bias, claiming their network to be "fair and balanced". One need only watch their presentation of the news - the questions they ask - to see how disturbingly slanted Fox is (I'm not talking about the evening commentators, either).

I'm stuck with no valid option but CNN, myself.
It is a revelation, when we have been saying that NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC etc... were all biased for the left, and yet the left has been throwing a hissy fit that they view Fox News as leaning right.

Will the libs all shut up now? Of course not, since Fox news does not have a liberal bias, they are fit to be tied.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 04:44 PM
 
1,469 posts, read 1,932,119 times
Reputation: 22487
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Seriously folks, is this all really a surprise? Do we not all know that MSNBC promotes a contemporary leftist view? Do we not all know that Fox promotes a contemporary rightist view?

Do people believe that there was ever a time in American history that some form of media bias didn't exist?

Here is an interesting google book with a special note on media bias prior to the 1800's and as far back as Jefferson and Washington... oh my.
Political communication: politics ... - Google Book Search

Question: Is there a problem with a media outlet having a given political bias when other outlets offer an alternative?
TnHilltopper raises very good points. Fox News and MSNBC are polar opposites. They are both very slanted. Of course, all media is biased is someways. However, Fox News and MSNBC takes these biases to extreme, and in my opinion --oppressive, levels. That's why I choose not to watch either network.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:05 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top