logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> "The alternate, self-contained right-wing media universe", Factual, or unfair?
Raptavio
post Nov 5 2010, 11:03 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Last night on what may be the last time I watch MSNBC (for unrelated reasons -- that should be fodder for another topic) Rachel Maddow posed the notion that the right-wing media is a self-contained universe where grossly distorted and outright false news items germinate and find circulation, insulated from fact-checking because they turn to each other for validation and not without:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBxzMMCokpI...player_embedded

She cites the recent false story of the US spending $200 million a day and using a full tenth of the Navy fleet for the President's state visit to India, and how it was repeated uncritically by virtually every major right-wing media source, and at least one very prominent Republican member of Congress. And then she lists a number of other examples.

Questions for debate:

Is Maddow's analysis of the right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking fair and accurate?

Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.

What are the implications of this on the media in America?

What are the implications of this on American electoral politics?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
BoF
post Nov 5 2010, 11:53 PM
Post #2


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 5 2010, 06:03 PM) *
She cites the recent false story of the US spending $200 million a day and using a full tenth of the Navy fleet for the President's state visit to India, and how it was repeated uncritically by virtually every major right-wing media source, and at least one very prominent Republican member of Congress. And then she lists a number of other examples.

Before we get too deeply into this story and some of our more right-wing members start defending the $200 million a day story, here is how Fact Check.org exploded this misinformation.

http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/

This post has been edited by BoF: Nov 5 2010, 11:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 6 2010, 12:13 AM
Post #3


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Questions for debate:

Is Maddow's analysis of the right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking fair and accurate?


What exactly is the “right wing media”. Are they the opposite of say the “left wing media” as amply represented by Maddow and MSNBC? Where some clowns like Olbermann get caught - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=131104660


Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.

Since the majority of the media leans left I would say the majority of distorting (or just not covering stories) is from that direction
What are the implications of this on the media in America?

Business as usual.
What are the implications of this on American electoral politics?

None. There is lots of diversity and hundreds of outlets. Gone are the days when individual talking heads like Dan Rather ruled the evening news.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Nov 6 2010, 02:30 AM
Post #4


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 5 2010, 04:03 PM) *
Last night on what may be the last time I watch MSNBC (for unrelated reasons -- that should be fodder for another topic) Rachel Maddow posed the notion that the right-wing media is a self-contained universe where grossly distorted and outright false news items germinate and find circulation, insulated from fact-checking because they turn to each other for validation and not without:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBxzMMCokpI...player_embedded

She cites the recent false story of the US spending $200 million a day and using a full tenth of the Navy fleet for the President's state visit to India, and how it was repeated uncritically by virtually every major right-wing media source, and at least one very prominent Republican member of Congress. And then she lists a number of other examples.


Questions for debate:

Is Maddow's analysis of the right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking fair and accurate?
Yes and it's shameless and endless. The continuous across the board rejection of AGW by republican politicians and presumably their constituency would be an example.

Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.
Not as much from the left but it does have its kooks. The most notable example is a considerable minority of both left and right, but more left, adhere to a view that 911 was an inside job despite the evidence.

What are the implications of this on the media in America?
Since media is shifting more and more to advocacy journalism rather than pure reporting it means that the partisan believers will be more reinforced particularly on the right and the critical thinkers will become more and more skeptical of anything the media offers.

What are the implications of this on American electoral politics?
We've seen the implications with the rise of mediocre clueless tea party candidates being elected to office.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Nov 6 2010, 02:36 AM
Post #5


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Is Maddow's analysis of the right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking fair and accurate?
Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.

I'll answer both these together. You can find an echo chamber for just about any ideology you can conceive of -- liberal, conservative, Christian, Muslim, conspiracy theories, veganism, animal rights, New Age, etc. Most of these self-contained universes are limited to the internet and niche publications, though. Yes, there is the liberal MSNBC-DailyKos-CrooksAndLiars-HuffPo circuit. However, the right-wing echo chamber has spilled out into the mainstream and reached epic levels of moonbattery. I wouldn't be surprised if the John Birch Society has planted some of its members at Fox and in Congress. The Glenn Beck-ing of the mainstream right-wing media is reaching a fever pitch.

This board needs a spit-take smiley to accurately convey my reaction to that video. Renting out rooms at the Taj Mahal?! MexAmeriCanada?! Come on, Amero conspiracy theories are so 2007. And Bachmann even made a veiled reference to FEMA death camps, something that even Glenn Beck himself retracted and spent a whole show debunking! (See my conspiracy theory thread for more information than you will ever need about FEMA camps.) So when is Alex Jones going to be cohosting with Glenn Beck?

Seriously, though, as someone who leans to the right and likes to get news from a broad range of sources and perspectives, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find thoughtful, perhaps even sane, commentary on the right. This was kicked around in the more level-headed portions of the right-wing blogosphere before Maddow got to it. Here's an article on what was known as the "Great Epistemic Closure Debate" between commentators including Douthat, Manzi, Sanchez, Millman, and Frum with links to their articles.

Here's a particularly salient example from conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett, who made a statement critical of the GOP and Bush administration (back in the day) that appeared in the New York Crimes, er, excuse me, the New York Times:

QUOTE
A few days after the article appeared I was at some big conservative event in Washington. I assumed that my conservative friends would give me a lot of crap for what I said. But in fact no one said anything to me--and not in that embarrassed/averting-one's-eyes sort of way. They appeared to know nothing about it.

After about half an hour I decided to start asking people what they thought of the article. Every single one gave me the same identical answer: I don't read the New York Times. Moreover, the answers were all delivered in a tone that suggested I was either stupid for asking or that I thought they were stupid for thinking they read the Times.

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce...istemic-closure

For the psychology behind this, see confirmation bias.

What are the implications of this on the media in America?

See the 2010 midterm elections.

There's a nice old man who lives down the street from me. Once Obama got elected, he went off his rocker and now all he talks about is how Obama is directly related to Malcolm X, how he's going to institute death panels, etc.

What are the implications of this on American electoral politics?

Once again, see the 2010 midterm elections.

Just think about the people who voted for Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle. Now stop thinking about it, quick! The stupid, it burns!

QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 08:13 PM) *
What exactly is the āā‚¬Å“right wing mediaāā‚¬¯.

Uh, you do live in the same America I do, right?

This post has been edited by Belshazzar: Nov 6 2010, 05:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 6 2010, 03:14 AM
Post #6


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 07:13 PM) *
What exactly is the “right wing media”. Are they the opposite of say the “left wing media” as amply represented by Maddow and MSNBC?

Did you sleep sleeping.gif through the lesson DTOM taught this morning, Ted? I thought so. down.gif

Here's a refresher course.

QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Nov 5 2010, 11:45 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 12:24 PM) *
If they continue to insist on the far left agenda and continue calling Republicans the “party of no” then they will fill that description perfectly - and nothing will get done.


There's something I've been curious about for quite some time. You bandy about the term 'far left' nearly every time you speak about the Democratic Party, and do so in a way that makes you appear oblivious to a 'far right'.

Can you illustrate the difference between 'far left' and anything else left of center?


This post has been edited by BoF: Nov 6 2010, 03:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 6 2010, 03:40 AM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I'd like to address a few points made by a few in the thread, but first I would like to ask my fellow ad.gif ers to, as Ted's response to the original post was almost entirely unresponsive to the questions for debate, to not assist him in drawing the thread off-topic.

QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 5 2010, 09:30 PM) *
Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.
Not as much from the left but it does have its kooks. The most notable example is a considerable minority of both left and right, but more left, adhere to a view that 911 was an inside job despite the evidence.


I have never seen 9/11 trutherism take hold anywhere in the left-wing media. I've never seen MSNBC tackle it, it's a forbidden topic on Kos, and I've never seen it on HuffPo. Yes, there are those on the Left who believe that nonsense, but I was more focused on the apparatus of the media in particular.

QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Nov 5 2010, 09:36 PM) *
Is Maddow's analysis of the right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking fair and accurate?
Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.

I'll answer both these together. You can find an echo chamber for just about any ideology you can conceive of -- liberal, conservative, Christian, Muslim, conspiracy theories, veganism, animal rights, New Age, etc. Most of these self-contained universes are limited to the internet and niche publications, though. Yes, there is the liberal MSNBC-DailyKos-CrooksAndLiars-HuffPo circuit. However, the right-wing echo chamber has spilled out into the mainstream and reached epic levels of moonbattery. I wouldn't be surprised if the John Birch Society has planted some of its members at Fox and in Congress. The Glenn Beck-ing of the mainstream right-wing media is reaching a fever pitch.


That's an interesting take from someone who considers himself conservative. So there is the liberal circuit, agreed. As a denizen of one of the nodes of said circuit, I may be blind to levels of self-perpetuating false narratives in that circuit. Could you point me to any?

QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 5 2010, 09:30 PM) *
Is Maddow's analysis of the right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking fair and accurate?
Yes and it's shameless and endless. The continuous across the board rejection of AGW by republican politicians and presumably their constituency would be an example.


Actually, I would say AGW denial doesn't qualify for the kind of thing Maddow describes. AGW theory is a set of conclusions scientifically derived from the data. Owing to the nature of the science, it's easy to dismiss the conclusions as premature at best. It's a very different thing to invent a narrative wholecloth (FEMA death camps ZOMG!) and run with it, or to grossly distort facts to draw completely bogus conclusions.

One AGW-related bogus story was the so-called "ClimateGate", where even more intelligent conservatives (hi, akaCG!) were suckered in by it and began to accept the absolute myth that the emails demonstrated that scientific data gathered related to AGW was fraudulent, when of course they demonstrated no such thing. This was a narrative in the right-wing media that briefly spilled out into the mainstream media. But I would say that overall, anti-AGW positions, as foolish as I think they are, aren't really what Maddow was talking about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Nov 6 2010, 04:08 AM
Post #8


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 5 2010, 11:40 PM) *
I'd like to address a few points made by a few in the thread, but first I would like to ask my fellow ad.gif ers to, as Ted's response to the original post was almost entirely unresponsive to the questions for debate, to not assist him in drawing the thread off-topic.

QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 5 2010, 09:30 PM) *
Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.
Not as much from the left but it does have its kooks. The most notable example is a considerable minority of both left and right, but more left, adhere to a view that 911 was an inside job despite the evidence.


I have never seen 9/11 trutherism take hold anywhere in the left-wing media. I've never seen MSNBC tackle it, it's a forbidden topic on Kos, and I've never seen it on HuffPo. Yes, there are those on the Left who believe that nonsense, but I was more focused on the apparatus of the media in particular.


Well, there was Rosie O'Donnell's rantings on The View, but she got canned soon after. So, yeah...

QUOTE(Raptavio)
QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Nov 5 2010, 09:36 PM) *
Is Maddow's analysis of the right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking fair and accurate?
Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.

I'll answer both these together. You can find an echo chamber for just about any ideology you can conceive of -- liberal, conservative, Christian, Muslim, conspiracy theories, veganism, animal rights, New Age, etc. Most of these self-contained universes are limited to the internet and niche publications, though. Yes, there is the liberal MSNBC-DailyKos-CrooksAndLiars-HuffPo circuit. However, the right-wing echo chamber has spilled out into the mainstream and reached epic levels of moonbattery. I wouldn't be surprised if the John Birch Society has planted some of its members at Fox and in Congress. The Glenn Beck-ing of the mainstream right-wing media is reaching a fever pitch.


That's an interesting take from someone who considers himself conservative. So there is the liberal circuit, agreed. As a denizen of one of the nodes of said circuit, I may be blind to levels of self-perpetuating false narratives in that circuit. Could you point me to any?


I don't know if I could be considered a conservative as such. Probably closer to libertarian as I am hard, hard left when it comes to social issues, but I'm not conservative enough on economic issues to be a true libertarian (although I was at one point). I'm completely disenchanted with the current right-wing movement in our nation right now, but that's a rant that could fill its own thread. As Diogenes said, "other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them."

But in regard to your question, I can give a few examples. Huffington Post is extremely guilty of giving a sounding board for a lot of hacks and quacks. I find that I can't turn to left-wing blogs for unbiased reporting of genetically modified (GM) food (or "Frankenfoods," if you will). One myth that gets repeated in a lot of the liberal blogs is that Monsanto (or "Monsatan" as they are often called in the comments section) is forcing Indian farmers to buy their seeds and that Bt cotton led to mass suicide. See some examples of this spin here at HuffPo and DailyKos. HuffPo is a repository of quackery and pseudoscience, like anti-vaccination crankery and Big Pharma conspiracies. Dear god, whatever you do, do not take any advice from the Living section of HuffPo. (I know I'm beating up on HuffPo here, but I can dig up some other examples if you'd like.)

Like I said, though, I can't pretend that's anywhere close to the batguano crazy stuff coming out of the right-wing media these days. William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 6 2010, 05:14 AM
Post #9


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 08:13 PM) *
None. There is lots of diversity and hundreds of outlets. Gone are the days when individual talking heads like Dan Rather ruled the evening news.


True. Now Fox and AM radio hacks have MSNBC to call them out on their hyping of Internet frauds as actual news. Kudos to Maddow for jumping on this right away. Raspberries to Fox & Rushie for touting yet another fraud, thus exposing once again that their heads are squarely where the sun does not shine, ever.

She had it correct. This right wing echo chamber lives in its own little world devoid of facts or information worthy of anything but a hearty laugh. One big repeating joke.

The question is how long can this continue. Got the House but not all of Congress, which could have happened if they had just let it be. Doesn't seem to be working. It's costing a lot of money. Nope, the grand experiment at propaganda fell flat in a free society.

But hey, thanks for the big influx of fat cat money into our economy! Great redistribution of the wealth plan. Keep up the good work there. The MSM thanks you very much. Starving actors thank you very much. The commercial artists thank you very much, and I bet a few freelance writers were in there too. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Now do it again for 2012. We know you can!

Huh, come to think of this, the redistribution of wealth could go on forever. Wow. Fool + money = soon parted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Nov 6 2010, 07:07 AM
Post #10


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



I'm not a big fan of Maddow or Olbermann -- I try to stay away from cable news in general so as not to rot my frontal lobe -- but at least I can watch their shows without having my intelligence insulted and they do have some degree of wit unlike the humorless Faux Noise pundits. Here's a video posted to Maddow's blog earlier on the Olbermann suspension that made my irony meter explode:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010...-cable-not-news
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Nov 6 2010, 08:57 AM
Post #11


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Nov 5 2010, 09:36 PM) *
However, the right-wing echo chamber has spilled out into the mainstream and reached epic levels of moonbattery.

ahhh, point of order, if I may.

"Moonbattery" is a LEFT-WING phenomena. The term you are looking for is "Wingnuttery". tongue.gif Keeping the nomenclature straight helps target the mud more accurately. thumbsup.gif

QUOTE
I wouldn't be surprised if the John Birch Society has planted some of its members at Fox and in Congress. The Glenn Beck-ing of the mainstream right-wing media is reaching a fever pitch.
Speaking of moonbattery... whistling.gif

Ted actually asks a reasonable question. I only say this because you can find examples on this board accusing all of the broadcast networks of being "right wing media", which if one has Pacifica Radio as one's reference point, would make sense. laugh.gif

So what's the reference point? wink2.gif

I think it would be fair to cast most of political talk radio as being "right wing", plus there's some magazines (National Review is the most significant), and a wide range of websites, (Townhall.com, HotAir.com, WND.com, FrontpageMagazine.com, NationalReviewOnline.com, JewishWorldReview.com, etc) and blogs, lots of blogs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Nov 6 2010, 09:22 AM
Post #12


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 5 2010, 08:40 PM) *
I'd like to address a few points made by a few in the thread, but first I would like to ask my fellow ad.gif ers to, as Ted's response to the original post was almost entirely unresponsive to the questions for debate, to not assist him in drawing the thread off-topic.

QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 5 2010, 09:30 PM) *
Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.
Not as much from the left but it does have its kooks. The most notable example is a considerable minority of both left and right, but more left, adhere to a view that 911 was an inside job despite the evidence.


I have never seen 9/11 trutherism take hold anywhere in the left-wing media. I've never seen MSNBC tackle it, it's a forbidden topic on Kos, and I've never seen it on HuffPo. Yes, there are those on the Left who believe that nonsense, but I was more focused on the apparatus of the media in particular.

Mea culpa. I segued to the left in general and did not have the media other than the world of forums and blogs in mind.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 5 2010, 09:30 PM) *
Is Maddow's analysis of the right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking fair and accurate?
Yes and it's shameless and endless. The continuous across the board rejection of AGW by republican politicians and presumably their constituency would be an example.


Actually, I would say AGW denial doesn't qualify for the kind of thing Maddow describes. AGW theory is a set of conclusions scientifically derived from the data. Owing to the nature of the science, it's easy to dismiss the conclusions as premature at best. It's a very different thing to invent a narrative wholecloth (FEMA death camps ZOMG!) and run with it, or to grossly distort facts to draw completely bogus conclusions.

One AGW-related bogus story was the so-called "ClimateGate", where even more intelligent conservatives (hi, akaCG!) were suckered in by it and began to accept the absolute myth that the emails demonstrated that scientific data gathered related to AGW was fraudulent, when of course they demonstrated no such thing. This was a narrative in the right-wing media that briefly spilled out into the mainstream media. But I would say that overall, anti-AGW positions, as foolish as I think they are, aren't really what Maddow was talking about.

I think it absolutely applies to what Maddow is talking about. If you have 97-98% of the peer reviewed climate scientists affirming AGW plus affirmation from practically every scientific organization around, the media position should be to a high degree at least favorable to the likelihood of AGW. Faux News, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk plus practically the entire Republican hierarchy treat AGW as a fraud, not simply a matter that deserves further study and their consistent distorted reporting has been reflective of that. I can't think of any other issue that shows such long term resistance to and lack of honest critical thinking about it. Heck, even O'Reilly acknowledged invading Iraq was a mistake. It perfectly illustrates Maddow's point of a "right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking."

Going beyond Maddow I would be interested how much of the media's RW distortions are ideology driven and how much is simply throwing WWE type fantasies to their listener/viewers to attract an audience that will then bring in the big advertiser bucks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 6 2010, 02:15 PM
Post #13


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.

Here's an excellent example of what makes Fox News so different from MSNBC:

Fund Raiser versus News Outlet

Maddow again nails it right square on the head. The crooked pseudo-news is on the right hand side of Lucre, god of greed. Try that at MSNBC and you get suspended. Well, for private donations made without prior executive permission. Do what Fox does and you're going to get canned -- at MSNBC, not Fox.

Heh, it's almost as if Olbermann set this up to make a point. Nice play!

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Nov 6 2010, 02:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Nov 6 2010, 04:01 PM
Post #14


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Nov 6 2010, 04:57 AM) *
QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Nov 5 2010, 09:36 PM) *
However, the right-wing echo chamber has spilled out into the mainstream and reached epic levels of moonbattery.

ahhh, point of order, if I may.

"Moonbattery" is a LEFT-WING phenomena. The term you are looking for is "Wingnuttery". tongue.gif Keeping the nomenclature straight helps target the mud more accurately. thumbsup.gif


Wouldn't wingnuttery apply to both sides of the spectrum? Either way, it's burning stupidity inspired by rigid ideology.

QUOTE
QUOTE
I wouldn't be surprised if the John Birch Society has planted some of its members at Fox and in Congress. The Glenn Beck-ing of the mainstream right-wing media is reaching a fever pitch.
Speaking of moonbattery... whistling.gif


Have you heard of exaggeration for comedic effect?

It doesn't stretch the imagination too much, though, when the biggest name in the Republican Party says harassing Obama for his birth certificate is a "fair question to ask," that he is "palling around with terrorists." There's Rand Paul drawing comparisons between climate scientists and Osama bin Laden and his NAU comments in the video in the OP. There's Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment solutions." And the continued accusations that Park51 (the Ground Zero Mosque) would be a "command center" for radical Islam. I won't even get into Glenn Beck. Not to mention that the JBS was a cosponsor of CPAC 2010.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 6 2010, 10:15 AM) *


Sorry, I beat you to that one. mrsparkle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2010, 03:13 PM
Post #15


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Nov 6 2010, 11:01 AM) *
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Nov 6 2010, 04:57 AM) *
QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Nov 5 2010, 09:36 PM) *
However, the right-wing echo chamber has spilled out into the mainstream and reached epic levels of moonbattery.

ahhh, point of order, if I may.

"Moonbattery" is a LEFT-WING phenomena. The term you are looking for is "Wingnuttery". tongue.gif Keeping the nomenclature straight helps target the mud more accurately. thumbsup.gif


Wouldn't wingnuttery apply to both sides of the spectrum? Either way, it's burning stupidity inspired by rigid ideology.


Conventional usage is that we lefties are "moonbats" and righties are "wingnuts." Though you have a fair point in that the terms should be interchangeable for all their intentions.

QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
I wouldn't be surprised if the John Birch Society has planted some of its members at Fox and in Congress. The Glenn Beck-ing of the mainstream right-wing media is reaching a fever pitch.
Speaking of moonbattery... whistling.gif


Have you heard of exaggeration for comedic effect?


There are some on this forum who cannot distinguish between humorous exaggeration and earnest polemics.

QUOTE
It doesn't stretch the imagination too much, though, when the biggest name in the Republican Party says harassing Obama for his birth certificate is a "fair question to ask," that he is "palling around with terrorists." There's Rand Paul drawing comparisons between climate scientists and Osama bin Laden and his NAU comments in the video in the OP. There's Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment solutions." And the continued accusations that Park51 (the Ground Zero Mosque) would be a "command center" for radical Islam. I won't even get into Glenn Beck. Not to mention that the JBS was a cosponsor of CPAC 2010.


Those are all excellent examples of the lunacy that infects the right-wing media universe. As with 9/11 truthers, those on the Left positing things that ridiculous (and by ridiculous, I mean that make serious accusations with zero evidence) are laughed off the mainstream and left-wing media. Witness Rosie O'Donnell spouting 9/11 trutherism -- nobody credible sprang to her defense, and most people on the Left regarded her remarks as a fart in an elevator -- they pretended nothing happened and walked away as quickly as possible.

In this I think Maddow has a strong point. The most extreme I've ever seen the left-wing media get was a demand for investigations of war crimes committed by the Bush administration (sometimes echoed even today) -- and at least those demands are supported by solid evidence of the same being committed (torture, for example, in direct violation of American law and treaty).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 8 2010, 03:41 PM
Post #16


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Rap
In this I think Maddow has a strong point. The most extreme I've ever seen the left-wing media get was a demand for investigations of war crimes committed by the Bush administration (sometimes echoed even today) -- and at least those demands are supported by solid evidence of the same being committed (torture, for example, in direct violation of American law and treaty).



How about when liberals (and their media) like Maddow demand that Telecom companies be punished for helping the government after 9/11?

Or when they decide that AZ should just suck up the illegals and their cost. Or that we must pass the “Public Option”. Or that its ok to have “Sanctuary Cities” that invite criminal illegal aliens in. Higher Taxes, bigger government, more bureaucrats etc.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5113894-503544.html

You could go on and on here. It’s a matter of perspective.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 8 2010, 03:53 PM
Post #17


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 06:13 PM) *
Where some clowns like Olbermann get caught - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=131104660

Your glee is short lived, Ted.

He’s back.

If you need help finding a rock to sulk under, let me know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2010, 04:04 PM
Post #18


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 8 2010, 10:41 AM) *
QUOTE
Rap
In this I think Maddow has a strong point. The most extreme I've ever seen the left-wing media get was a demand for investigations of war crimes committed by the Bush administration (sometimes echoed even today) -- and at least those demands are supported by solid evidence of the same being committed (torture, for example, in direct violation of American law and treaty).



How about when liberals (and their media) like Maddow demand that Telecom companies be punished for helping the government after 9/11?

Or when they decide that AZ should just suck up the illegals and their cost. Or that we must pass the “Public Option”. Or that its ok to have “Sanctuary Cities” that invite criminal illegal aliens in. Higher Taxes, bigger government, more bureaucrats etc.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5113894-503544.html

You could go on and on here. It’s a matter of perspective.


None of those things are matters of easily disprovable assertions of fact, nor are they accusations made without evidence.

Please, Ted, if you cannot speak to the topic, do not post in it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sleeper
post Nov 8 2010, 06:31 PM
Post #19


********
Who dat!

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,692
Member No.: 386
Joined: January-17-03

From: Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 8 2010, 09:53 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 06:13 PM) *
Where some clowns like Olbermann get caught - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=131104660

Your glee is short lived, Ted.

He’s back.

If you need help finding a rock to sulk under, let me know.



Nice PR stunt by MSNBC, I bet the viewship will spike for his return to see what he has to say.

I'll bet the 213 people who watch the show on a regular basis are relieved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Nov 8 2010, 07:03 PM
Post #20


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



How about some on-topic posts? (Feel free to start a topic about Olbermann's suspension if you're so inclined to discuss that).

DEBATE:

Is Maddow's analysis of the right-wing media's propensity for creating or distorting false stories in an insular media "universe" inured from fact-checking fair and accurate?

Is this a phenomenon exclusive to or predominantly in the right-wing media, or does this occur to a comparable extent in the left-wing or mainstream media? If the latter, please provide examples.

What are the implications of this on the media in America?

What are the implications of this on American electoral politics?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 5th, 2021 - 11:39 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.