• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this Media Matters claim fact, or fiction?

Is the Media Matters story below fact or fiction?


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
I mean that there are often no links to a mainstream media source, or the story links only to another MoveOn article, or it links to a separate leftwing blog that links back to MoveOn, or there are simply no links at all. While I think the RW noise machine is a lot louder and more shrill, the leftwing noise machine is pretty damn dumb as well.
I think you mean Media Matters which true, but if you follow those links you can get to the source. If you didn't do it that way, you would end up with a huge document.
 
I think you mean Media Matters which true, but if you follow those links you can get to the source. If you didn't do it that way, you would end up with a huge document.

What about ThinkProgress? She sends me those as well.
 
"Did Moon really own a sweatshop run entirely by 6 year old children?"

Sadly, it's well understood that such a question already plants the suggestion that you did, regardless of how inappropriate or baseless it may be. That's the state of so much journalism today.

On it's own, yes, that statement would be completely wrong, unethical, etc.

However, if I am videotaped saying "I have a sweatshop run entirely by 6 year old children", then it becomes a legitimate question.

I'm sure you see the difference.
 
No, she gets the message Beck is trying to convey. And no, she believes every single word the goof ball says. Millions more are just like her, or he would not have been on a national news network every day. I would be willing to bet you believe almost everything he says, because you are defending him. Just sayin...

So then, when Beck says, "we just don't know", then your mother and all the millions like her that you referred to earlier, will believe it. At least by your own admission.

I don't watch Fox, as I said before, and never watched Beck.
 
Fox intended to mislead. If they had any integrity they would have checked out the story. It is as simple as that.
So showing a video of someone saying something is not presenting a fact? What would you call it then?
 
Fox intended to mislead. If they had any integrity they would have checked out the story. It is as simple as that.

I've asked before, but please provide your evidence that Beck did intend to mislead his audience. You seem pretty sure of yourself, so it should be a simple matter for you.
 
ok sure, I get dozens of emails from crazy RW sites every month, usually from my Mom, but several friends send me emails too. The RW noise machine around here drowns everything else out. I really truly dont believe the lefties have a noise machine, but that might just be becuase of where I live.

The lefties don't need a noise machine, they have the Biased Lame Stream Media (BLSM) that is all too willing to do it for them.
 
On it's own, yes, that statement would be completely wrong, unethical, etc.

However, if I am videotaped saying "I have a sweatshop run entirely by 6 year old children", then it becomes a legitimate question.

I'm sure you see the difference.

The difference is not what I'm talking about, but the principle of how the "just asking questions" tactic excuses lazy or even malicious reporting.
 
The fact that is was on the air is proof.
I've asked before, but please provide your evidence that Beck did intend to mislead his audience. You seem pretty sure of yourself, so it should be a simple matter for you.
 
The difference is not what I'm talking about, but the principle of how the "just asking questions" tactic excuses lazy or even malicious reporting.

But asking questions about a specific, unassailable fact, such as someone's videotaped words, is not the same as "just asking questions" as a malicious tool as you are suggesting.
 
That, and it seems they think a little more for themselves than the RW does. That is why there is no Rush on the left.
The lefties don't need a noise machine, they have the Biased Lame Stream Media (BLSM) that is all too willing to do it for them.
 
I am tired of saying it, why else would they air the story without checking it out if they did not intend to decieve? Back in the old days the RW understood was false witness and lying was. Obvioulsy not anymore.
How is that proof that Beck intended to mislead anyone?
 
That, and it seems they think a little more for themselves than the RW does. That is why there is no Rush on the left.

I would disagree. A number of times it has been attempted to start left leaning talk radio, last experiment I recall was Air America, which collapsed due to lack of income.

The market isn't willing to pay for the privileged of listening to left wing ideas.

The left have to 'sneak' their agenda into legislation, which isn't read by legislators before voting on it, such as ObamaCare. Really, the liberal position on the political spectrum is a minority in the US.
 
But asking questions about a specific, unassailable fact, such as someone's videotaped words, is not the same as "just asking questions" as a malicious tool as you are suggesting.

Don't we already have sites like buzzfeed for recording such "unassailable" facts that nobody could give two craps whether they're confirmed or not? And I didn't say that the "just asking questions" tact is only for being malicious, but for being really, really lazy as well. In fact, I'd say that laziness is the primary motivating factor in most such cases. It's like they say: never assume malice where incompetence will do (although since we're talking about Beck and Media Matters here, it's safe to assume a mixture of the two).
 
I've asked before, but please provide your evidence that Beck did intend to mislead his audience. You seem pretty sure of yourself, so it should be a simple matter for you.
It wasn't just Beck, it was also Greta Van Susteren, Sean Hannity and Karl Rove. The video was NOT shown by their real news people.
 
I have to pick between Glenn Beck and Media Matters? I'd rather kill myself thanks.
You have to pick ... and then MM will carry a story that blames Glenn Beck for your suicide.
 
You have to pick ... and then MM will carry a story that blames Glenn Beck for your suicide.

At which point Glenn Beck will do a report quoting MM, and the universe will cancel itself out and cease to exist.
 
It wasn't just Beck, it was also Greta Van Susteren, Sean Hannity and Karl Rove. The video was NOT shown by their real news people.
Well, we know what Beck said when he included the disclaimer ... as long as you and MM included Greta, Sean, and Karl, can you please produce what each of them actually said?
Oh, and to avoid another 3 pages of peripheral comments, give us what they actually said and the context, not what MM said they said because, you know, MM does tend to edit the daylights outa what they produce.
 
Back
Top Bottom