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.
Conservatives do NOT tell people what they should think. In case you never watched Fox News, they report and you decide.
Liberals are the ones who wnat to indoctrinate children, what to make sure THEY spend your money on those who don't work, and wnat to eliminate free speech (examples in recent history: McCain-Feingold and the "Fairness" Doctrine".
Liberals already do not watch Foxnews anyway. They watch the failing NBC, who got WORST ratings during their primetime news hours then Bill O'Reilly did at 4am!!
That goes to show the majority of Americans are conservatives, but they are controlled by a liberal minority. It has been a Liberal goal to ensure the rule of the minorities and they are succeeding (to an extent).
Wrong. Both sides tell you what they want you to think. They give you little choice, from their point of view.
Impossible. Impossible for him to name call every 7 seconds. Even Mark Levin doesn't name call that often. I watch and listen to O'Reilly practically every day and I can say for sure that he does not name call every 7 seconds.
No, only every seven seconds on average. While he himself was speaking. Over 115 shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Come on... your hate for O'Reilly is blinding you. He quickly corrected the mistake he made regarding that award.
No, he didn't. He repeated this empty Peabody Award boast over and over again for a year and a half. Finally, he claimed that he had merely confused a Peabody Award with a Polk Award. Inside Edition did indeed win a (far less prestigious) Polk Award. That came a year after O'Reilly left the show, and for reporting that O'Reilly had nothing to do with.
Bottom Line: This Peabody charade was no simple mistake. It was but a natural part of the personal puffery that makes O'Reilly the blowhard that he is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
It was removed, wasn't it?
Yet again no answer to the question. In last Thursday's show (July 26), O'Reilly claimed that vile speech against Hillary Clinton had been removed from his website. Was that a truthful statement?
Conservatives do NOT tell people what they should think. In case you never watched Fox News, they report and you decide.
No Hannity, O'Reilly Rush, Pat Robertson, etc etc don't tell people how to think. Nah.
Quote:
Liberals are the ones who wnat to indoctrinate children, what to make sure THEY spend your money on those who don't work, and wnat to eliminate free speech (examples in recent history: McCain-Feingold and the "Fairness" Doctrine".
Another bogus talking point with no factual back up and as for McCain-Feingold, not only is it McCain-Feingold, McCain wasn't the only Republican to support it. The Fairness Doctrine is only (and religiously) discussed in the wingnuts circles because they know that their viewers are motivated only by fear, so they bring up this relic.
Quote:
That goes to show the majority of Americans are conservatives, but they are controlled by a liberal minority. It has been a Liberal goal to ensure the rule of the minorities and they are succeeding (to an extent).
They watch the failing NBC, who got WORST ratings during their primetime news hours then Bill O'Reilly did at 4am!!
Oh I forgot about this one. Each of the broadcast networks' evening newscast average millions of viewers a night.... anywhere from 6-12 million a night. And the broadcast evening news are not on during primetime which is when O'Reilly airs (the most watch time in television is primetime).
No, only every seven seconds on average. While he himself was speaking. Over 115 shows.
No, he didn't. He repeated this empty Peabody Award boast over and over again for a year and a half. Finally, he claimed that he had merely confused a Peabody Award with a Polk Award. Inside Edition did indeed win a (far less prestigious) Polk Award. That came a year after O'Reilly left the show, and for reporting that O'Reilly had nothing to do with.
Bottom Line: This Peabody charade was no simple mistake. It was but a natural part of the personal puffery that makes O'Reilly the blowhard that he is.
Yet again no answer to the question. In last Thursday's show (July 26), O'Reilly claimed that vile speech against Hillary Clinton had been removed from his website. Was that a truthful statement?
Yeah, the blow-hard who was significantly instumental in getting Jessica's Law passed in 40 of 50 states and who donates all profits from his Factor gear to charities. I wish more people were as blow-hard as O'Reilly.
Bias leads to disinformation and is closely associated.
Hem. Haw. Bias and disinformation are two different things. Advocacy by definition is the preference of one thing over others that are possible. Disinformation is the purposeful attempt to advance as factual a position that is materially contrary to fact via such means as lies, distortions, misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, and so forth. Some common techniques employed by the disinformer include argument from the outliers, cherry-picking, and Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
When I logged in to MM it was one of the top 3 opening stories. They may have buried it later, but at one point it was on the opening page as a top issue.
That may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
Did I say O'Reilly doesn't lie? Nope.
No, you equated what mediamatters does to what Bill O'Reilly does. As O'Reilly critics have had little trouble in identifying a number of lies that he has told, the question was whether you could do the same with respect to mediamatters. Apparently not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
There is no way to narrow it down into one statement. They are good, just like many liberal and conservative blogs with an agenda. They take an ambiguous statement and turn it into a massive issue and lace it with propoganda and an argument that it was done intentionally and with malice, when there is no proof that it was done for such a reason outside of they are on opposing political teams. Putting malice where there is none or no credible proof other than interpretation is misleading and can easily be considered misinformation.
So in essence once again, you simply don't have an example of deliberately false or misleading information from mediamatters. You simply feel that their leaving open the possibility of malice when their isn't a particular reason to rule on it one way or the other constitutes 'misinformation'. Interesting theory.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,287 posts, read 54,100,737 times
Reputation: 40586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvana-Guy
That goes to show the majority of Americans are conservatives, but they are controlled by a liberal minority. It has been a Liberal goal to ensure the rule of the minorities and they are succeeding (to an extent).
If that's truly the case then maybe ol' Dubya should be trying to make democracy work at home before he goes trottin' half-way around the world trying to spread it, surely a minority does not rule in a true democracy.
What are your opinions on the story of the far-left liberals wing trying to organize a boycott of advertisers on Fox for not admitting to a conserative point of view and, this is the big one, questioning global warming?
In my opinion, it sounds as if this liberal faction is concluding that we poor people cannot make our own decisions about these matters without them telling us what to think as opposed to the conservatives telling us what to think.
This reminds me of the "freedom fries" nonsense executed as a boycott to France by conservatives.
Here's a list of regulars on Fox News that are to the left that I can think of: Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, Kirsten Powers, and Jane Hall.
Considering the other networks, who would you say leans to the right to balance out the perspective of the left?
Disinformation is the purposeful attempt to advance as factual a position that is materially contrary to fact via such means as lies, distortions, misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, and so forth.
Which is what I've pointed out previously and makes me wonder why I get lured into a maze of circular logic with you.
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.
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.
