So the media should just go get those liberals ... it doesn't really matter if they include half truths and lies here and there? Integrity doesn't matters if I agree with your politics?
That's pretty awful Sarge.
 }})
So the media should just go get those liberals ... it doesn't really matter if they include half truths and lies here and there? Integrity doesn't matters if I agree with your politics?
That's pretty awful Sarge.
Sarge
Guest
And yet, here's today LARGE FONT headline on Politico, one of the lefts "objective" news sources
'She's becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition'
Of course, it's about Sarah Palin. This from a publication that had a little club of "journalists" from other leftist "news" sources that got together to bend the news to their (and Obama's) views
1.Spencer Ackerman - Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect
2.Thomas Adcock - New York Law Journal
3.Ben Adler - Newsweek, POLITICO
4.Mike Allen - POLITICO
5.Eric Alterman - The Nation, Media Matters for America
6.Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic
7.Greg Anrig - The Century Foundation
8.Ryan Avent - Economist
9.Dean Baker - The American Prospect
10.Nick Baumann - Mother Jones
11.Josh Bearman - LA Weekly
12.Steven Benen - The Carpetbagger Report
13.Ari Berman - The Nation
14.Jared Bernstein - Economic Policy Institute
15.Michael Berube - Crooked Timer, Pennsylvania State University
16.Brian Beutler - The Media Consortium
17.Lindsay Beyerstein - Freelance journalist
18.Joel Bleifuss - In These Times
19.John Blevins - South Texas College of Law
20.Eric Boehlert - Media Matters
21.Sam Boyd - The American Prospect
22.Ben Brandzel - MoveOn.org, John Edwards Campaign
23.Shannon Brownlee - Author, New America Foundation
24.Rich Byrne - Playwright
25.Kevin Carey - Education Sector
26.Jonathan Chait - The New Republic
27.Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times
28.Isaac Chotiner - The New Republic
29.Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic
30.Michael Cohen - New America Foundation
31.Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic
32.Joe Conason - The New York Observer
33.Lark Corbeil - Public News Service
34.David Corn - Mother Jones
35.Daniel Davies - The Guardian
36.David Dayen - FireDogLake
37.Brad DeLong - The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkeley
38.Ryan Donmoyer - Bloomberg News
39.Adam Doster - In These Times
40.Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly
41.Matt Duss - Center for American Progress
42.Gerald Dworkin - UC Davis
43.Eve Fairbanks - The New Republic
44.James Fallows - The Atlantic
45.Henry Farrell - George Washington University
46.Tim Fernholz - American Prospect
47.Dan Froomkin - Huffington Post, Washington Post
48.Jason Furman - Brookings Institution
49.James Galbraith - University of Texas at Austin
50.Kathleen Geier - Talking Points Memo
51.Todd Gitlin - Columbia University
52.Ilan Goldenberg - National Security Network
53.Arthur Goldhammer - Harvard University
54.Dana Goldstein - The Daily Beast
55.Andrew Golis - Talking Points Memo
56.Jaana Goodrich - Blogger
57.Merrill Goozner - Chicago Tribune
58.David Greenberg - Slate
59.Robert Greenwald - Brave New Films
60.Chris Hayes - The Nation
61.Don Hazen - Alternet
62.Jeet Heer - Canadian Journolist
63.Jeff Hauser - Political Action Committee, Dennis Shulman Campaign
64.Michael Hirsh - Newsweek
65.James Johnson - University of Rochester
66.John Judis - The New Republic, The American Prospect
67.Foster Kamer - The Village Voice
68.Michael Kazin - Georgetown University
69.Ed Kilgore - Democratic Strategist
70.Richard Kim - The Nation
71.Charlie Kireker - Air America Media
72.Mark Kleiman - UCLA The Reality Based Community
73.Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
74.Joe Klein - TIME
75.Robert Kuttner - American Prospect, Economic Policy Institute
76.Paul Krugman - The New York Times, Princeton University
77.Lisa Lerer - POLITICO
78.Daniel Levy - Century Foundation
79.Ralph Luker - Cliopatria
80.Annie Lowrey - Washington Independent
81.Robert Mackey - New York Times
82.Mike Madden - Salon
83.Maggie Mahar - The Century Foundation
84.Amanda Marcotte - Pandagon.net
85.Dylan Matthews - Harvard University
86.Alec McGillis - Washington Post
87.Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed
88.Sara Mead - New America Foundation
89.Ari Melber - The Nation
90.David Meyer - University of California at Irvine
91.Seth Michaels - MyDD.com
92.Luke Mitchell - Harper’s Magazine
93.Gautham Nagesh - The Hill, Daily Caller
94.Suzanne Nossel - Human Rights Watch
95.Michael O’Hare - University of California at Berkeley
96.Josh Orton - MyDD.com, Air America Media
97.Rodger Payne - University of Louisville
98.Rick Perlstein - Author, Campaign for America’s Future
99.Nico Pitney - Huffington Post
100.Harold Pollack - University of Chicago
101.Katha Pollitt - The Nation
102.Ari Rabin-Havt - Media Matters
103.Joy-Ann Reid - South Florida Times
104.David Roberts - Grist
105.Lamar Robertson - Partnership for Public Service
106.Sara Robinson - Campaign For America's Future
107.Alyssa Rosenberg - Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
108.Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network
109.Michael Roston - Newsbroke
110.Laura Rozen - POLITICO, Mother Jones
111.Felix Salmon - Reuters
112.Greg Sargent - Washington Post
113.Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun
114.Noam Scheiber - The New Republic
115.Michael Scherer - TIME
116.Mark Schmitt - American Prospect, The New America Foundation
117.Rinku Sen - ColorLines Magazine
118.Julie Bergman Sender - Balcony Films
119.Adam Serwer - American Prospect
120.Walter Shapiro - PoliticsDaily.com
121.Kate Sheppard - Mother Jones
122.Matthew Shugart - UC San Diego
123.Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight.com
124.Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
125.Ann-Marie Slaughter - Princeton University
126.Ben Smith - POLITICO
127.Sarah Spitz - KCRW
128.Adele Stan - The Media Consortium
129.Paul Starr - The Atlantic
130.Kate Steadman - Kaiser Health News
131.Jonathan Stein - Mother Jones
132.Sam Stein - Huffington Post
133.Matt Steinglass - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
134.James Surowiecki - The New Yorker
135.Jesse Taylor - Pandagon.net
136.Steven Teles - Yale University
137.Mark Thoma - The Economists' View
138.Michael Tomasky - The Guardian
139.Jeffrey Toobin - CNN, The New Yorker
140.Rebecca Traister - Salon
141.Karen Tumulty - Washington Post, TIME
142.Tracy Van Slyke - The Media Consortium
143.Paul Waldman - Author, American Prospect
144.Dave Weigel - Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
145.Moira Whelan - National Security Network
146.Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project
147.J. Harry Wray - DePaul University
148.D. Brad Wright - University of NC at Chapel Hill
149.Kai Wright - The Root
150.Holly Yeager - Columbia Journalism Review
151.Rich Yeselson - Change to Win
152.Matthew Yglesias - Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
153.Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA
154.Julian Zelizer - Princeton University
155.Avi Zenilman - POLITICO
Goaldeje
The Legend
A. While I don't consider myself liberal, I have never gotten my news from politico. In fact, i have never visited that site myself.
B. Even if I did, your argument is that the other side is doing it too, so it must be OK? They started it?
I really ought to let Henry handle these things. My blood pressure is rising. He-man doesn't have to worry about blood pressure, I don't think.
B. Even if I did, your argument is that the other side is doing it too, so it must be OK? They started it?
I really ought to let Henry handle these things. My blood pressure is rising. He-man doesn't have to worry about blood pressure, I don't think.
Goaldeje
The Legend
Besides which:
After liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt," Politico's Ben Smith answered: "Media Matters has a point: ...that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." The other primary editors disagreed with the general accusation for a variety of reasons and some pointed to accusations of a liberal bias from the other side of the political spectrum.[10]
from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico_(newspaper)
Apparently, the left doesn't claim it either...
After liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt," Politico's Ben Smith answered: "Media Matters has a point: ...that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." The other primary editors disagreed with the general accusation for a variety of reasons and some pointed to accusations of a liberal bias from the other side of the political spectrum.[10]
from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico_(newspaper)
Apparently, the left doesn't claim it either...
Sarge, what is absolutely hilarious is your little jab about 'how will they spin this' earlier in the thread, and here you are spinning like a dervish. Apparently it's ok for someone on the right to lie and bend the truth because liberal publications exist? Because publications write articles critical of Sarah Palin?
Oh and that little club to which you refer disbanded, and some of the members lost their jobs, because of what they said.
On the other hand, this kid O'Keefe, now on his second chop-job, serving probation for felony wire-tap ... he's ok in your book. And you think there should be more like him.
Apparently there really are two sets of rules around here.
Oh and that little club to which you refer disbanded, and some of the members lost their jobs, because of what they said.
On the other hand, this kid O'Keefe, now on his second chop-job, serving probation for felony wire-tap ... he's ok in your book. And you think there should be more like him.
Apparently there really are two sets of rules around here.
Sarge
Guest
If you notice, I have yet to comment on the "right v wrong" aspect of things, and frankly I haven't quite decided.
But when you see on display the attiudes and slants of people (at least two, probably more) that work for an organization that is held up by libs as a shining example of "objectiveness", and realize that they are probably passing their views (either intentionally or unintentionally) on to people as "news", then I really don't have a problem with them getting caught with their pants down.
Especially considering the results of the last presidential election, where the media was blatently in the tank for Obama. Maybe incidents like this will give the racist, uneducated people (Otherwise known as most of America) pause, will make them less suseptable to just taking whatever is being said on TV or in the newspaper as the gospel.
And as I posted above, it's not like NPR is the only culprit. Politico and an assload of other "news" sources have "reporters" on that list I posted that got together and pretty much decided how to present the news to the unwashed masses.
So, maybe if the media was actually objective, I'd shed some tears over the "harsh" treatment these guys have received by being exposed.
fansince62
Guest
yes..the Right has been working overtime coordinating shadow collaborative efforts like Journolist. it's not even debatable where the journalism profession falls on the political spectrum and whether...after 60+ years of evidence...those leanings influence reporting.
hurray for O'Keefe!!!!! but he's not very original...he's only following the horrifically F'ed up model 60 Minutes established decades ago for biased/manipulated reporting (ambush interviews, loaded questions, hihgly manipulative editting, half of the story reporting, etc., etc.). O'Keefe's lone failing in this regard is that he hasn't followed the highly editted format this "news" program set the standard for.
fansince62
Guest
just don't tell me you get a quiver up your leg every time you hear a Fox conservative speak!!!!
we can get to what fine Journalism schools like Columbia are teaching their mush for brains students some other time.
and then we can get to Journalism's professional ethics standards...my personal favorite!
Sarge
Guest
I just realized something. The Blaze is a Glenn Beck website. Don't libs think Glenn Beck is a drunken, right wing extremist?
I'm shocked his site would be used as proof to back up a debate position
I'm shocked his site would be used as proof to back up a debate position
Lanky Livingston
Guest
Unbelievable.
This is similar to what those idiots did with footage at ACORN. Completely dishonest edits to portray things 1000x more negatively than they actually are.
So because Sarge and fansince62 think the media is too liberal it's ok if a conservative lies and bends the truth.
I find that amazing, and more than a little disturbing.
Yeah, and if a drunken, right wing extremist can see this and you can't ... that should tell you something.
I find that amazing, and more than a little disturbing.
Yeah, and if a drunken, right wing extremist can see this and you can't ... that should tell you something.
Sarge
Guest
It tells me you all are pretty desparate to justify your viewpoint.
The fact of the matter is there are two unemployed higher ups at NPR this week. I would imagine that if they thought the tapes were doctored/edited/manipulated/taken out of context they would have said so and defended their elitist drones. God knows the media would have suported them in their quest.
But the best they can do is fall back on the ol' "The tapes were highly edited" or "they were taken out of context" schtick
Even if they apply BOTH of those, there are still long, unedited portions were this guy and his female companion insulted a large portion of America.
What's my viewpoint, Sarge?
If an NPR exec got caught saying something inappropriate and he and the President resign as a result of the fallout, so be it. I don't listen to NPR. I don't really care. People say dumb things, they lose their job. Happens all the time. That's life.
Other than to post Burgold's position for you I don't think I've spent a whole ton of time defending NPR here.
The fact is the guy who made the video has a long history of dishonest behavior in his short life. The fact is the guy who made the video cut and pasted portions of the footage to make it appear the NPR guy said things he didn't say, and greatly exaggerate things he did say.
I don't care who does it. I don't like being lied to. I really don't like being manipulated by half-truths and outright lies. When I saw the chop job Michael Moore did on Charleton Heston in Bowling for Columbine I made it a point to never watch another minute of Moore's work. He lost any respect I had for him due to his dishonesty, and it had nothing to do with his politics. I would expect anyone would feel the same way at such a betrayal of trust.
You apparently are ok with lies and fabrications so long as the guy doing it shares your political views. That's the one thing I find troubling in all this. That's my position in this thread. If I'm mistaken now would be a really great time to let me know, because I'm not really trying to justify anything. I'm basically just standing here in abject horror at what you've been posting.
fansince62
Guest
I'll meet you half way: while I agree with many of Hannity's povs...I find his "analysis" so sophomoric at times that I just tune him out. can't take listening to the same rhetoric over and over and over. O'Reilly? eh...sometimes there's more depth there.....but I grow weary of the "cutesy-ness" of his delivery and the self-effacing delivery that at times strikes as too contrived.
I agree with you on both of them. I actually like O'Reilly. When I want the conservative viewpoint on an issue I'll watch his show, because I think he makes an attempt to be fair. For the reasons you cite I find Hannity unwatchable.
But I don't have a specific problem with either of those guys. I don't have a problem with conservative pundits in general. I'm not trying to attack the right wing media in it's entirety.
I'm specifically speaking about this O'Keefe kid, who has displayed on multiple occasions that he has no professional integrity of any kind. It really has nothing to do with what his politics are.fansince62
Guest
I agree with you on both of them. I actually like O'Reilly. When I want the conservative viewpoint on an issue I'll watch his show, because I think he makes an attempt to be fair. For the reasons you cite I find Hannity unwatchable.
But I don't have a specific problem with either of those guys. I don't have a problem with conservative pundits in general. I'm not trying to attack the right wing media in it's entirety.
I understand your feelings on this. I happen to enjoy the service he nevertheless provides. Yea...it borders on entrapment...but...hey...60 Minutes has made a lot of media stars doing just that. point being....the Left/Progressives consistently paint themselves as this ethically superior collection of uber-thinkers...yet...when it comes to the brass tacks of excecution....folks like O'Keefe serve a useful purpose in demonstrating the proverbial "is..ought" gap. Repubs do the same? sure. but the religious Right - which was the main irritant - has been successfully nullified by the Left. It's the Left's turn in the barrell.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sarge
Guest
Again Henry, I'm not arguing the right and wrong. I'm arguing that it's a good thing that this came out on tape so that people may start to wonder if hte MSM is telling them the truth.
It happens on both sides. Dan Rather lost his job peddling forged documents about GWB. All the major networks reported that as "news" until almost everyone figured out that the documents were forgeries. Well, everyone but Dan Rather, who continued to present the documents as "news" almost every night.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12615&only
The Journo list thing I've already brought up
FS62 already brought up 60 Minutes
And now NPR, and two people who quite likely represent the views of everyone that works there.
Goaldeje
The Legend
But the entire point of Henry's link is to show that may not be what he believed. His words were twisted and edited out of order and context to make it appear that is what he believes. Are you comfortable with someone losing their livlihood because it was made to appear that is what he believes?
And are you saying that NPR should lose funding and therefore others lose their jobs because they don't adhere to the same political party that you do?
Sarge
Guest
As I said before, there are plenty of long, "unedited" portions of the tape that show plenty of what that guy thinks.
And evidently NRP is comfortable enough with the pieces of tape and what was said was enough to fire him.
And yes, NRP and the CPB can fund themselves. Afterall, their audience is much smarter than everyone else. They can figure something out.
fansince62
Guest
1) NPR can survive on its own...just like...oh...I don't know...Fox? why a special dispensation for those Soros manipulated clowns?
2) The taxpayer's job isn't to guarantee employment for ideologues at NPR.
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)
You haven't joined any rooms.