• 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!

What is wrong with OAN reports of the news?

Some hard core Democrats media says OAN is kicked out.

But OAN itself has not reported this. Seems like they would.

Also, when it was Acosta booted out, why all the support for that scum?

Finally, I would be shocked if the left wing media, Democrats I mean, did not ban reporters covering the news. So long as their media hates the reporting, simply ban the news.

You guys are losing it.
 
Like Rachel Maddow you mean?

You think Rachel Maddow is a journalist? If you do, you probably think Rush Limbaugh is a journalist too. Or Bill Maher or Sean Hannity- you probably call them journalists too.
 
O A N is a Russian owned and operated propaganda organization. For those conservatives with a limited IQ, I suggest this is your cup of tea. You can't handle the truth!
 
Wait...isn't that true for all journalism?

That's Truthing and liked by a Truther. It's a special kinda stupid to pretend all sources are equal.
 
O A N is a Russian owned and operated propaganda organization. For those conservatives with a limited IQ, I suggest this is your cup of tea. You can't handle the truth!

As opposed to a *centrist who picks his nose and scratches his ass trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

Welcome to the forum.
 
Especially if they don't jive with your ideology.

Most people don't consider reality to be an ideology, but who can tell with Truthing.
 
Given that this is the Trump administration and it has a less than stellar reputation with the truth, WH credentials are not a meaningful argument right now.

I think that way when Jim Acosta is in the press meeting with Trump as well as when Jonathan Karl is there. Ambush reporters is all both are.
 
You think Rachel Maddow is a journalist? If you do, you probably think Rush Limbaugh is a journalist too. Or Bill Maher or Sean Hannity- you probably call them journalists too.

Oh no. I never call Rachel Maddow a journalist . Thanks for running her down.
 
That it's a blog, has no actual journalists and makes up things to cater to a niche, fringe set of people looking to verify their own previously held beliefs? Nope.

Please, how does that differ from HuffPo?
 
Though OAN has not been my go to news operation, I hear bad stuff about them from Democrats on the forum.

I will present one of their reports and see how lousy this is for democrats. It exposes Nadler a lot but so what?

We learn here that Jim Jordan is working to get Inspector Horowitz to step forward to be examined and that the Democrats block this man.

So what is the complaint?

[video]https://www.oann.com/rep-jordan-demands-doj-inspector-general-appear-before-house-judiciary-panel/[/video]

OANN is openly right wing biased. They slant everything they report. Am I only allowed to look at this single, three minute video that you picked out? If this one video is reasonable, their entire history of bias is forgiven? I don't understand what you're asking for.
 
Though OAN has not been my go to news operation, I hear bad stuff about them from Democrats on the forum.

I will present one of their reports and see how lousy this is for democrats. It exposes Nadler a lot but so what?

We learn here that Jim Jordan is working to get Inspector Horowitz to step forward to be examined and that the Democrats block this man.

So what is the complaint?

[video]https://www.oann.com/rep-jordan-demands-doj-inspector-general-appear-before-house-judiciary-panel/[/video]

One of the biggest flags for shoddy journalism, barely worth the name, is when only one side is allowed to speak on a two sided issue. In this video, Republicans are invited to speculate as to the motives of Democrats. But those Democrats are not invited to tell their side of the story. That seems a little fishy, doesn't it? It also violates basic journalistic standards.

They don't tell any explicit lies that I can see. But they do omit things and present them in a way that presents a false narrative. They talk about the Horowitz report and how he was investigating the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign's possible ties to the Russian attempts to interfere in our election. They don't mention that the Horowitz report exonerated Obama of the allegations that he wire tapped Trump tower or interfered with the independence of the Justice Department to order an investigation of Trump.

They allow a Republican to claim unchallenged that the whole problem with the FISA warrants was rooted in the "Obama Justice Department," even though Horowitz concluded that he did not interfere with its independence. The truth of the matter is that FISA started off shady in 1978 and got way worse with the PATRIOT ACT in 2001, and all that Obama did was not fix it, despite pressure from the left to do so. He also did not direct the FBI to use FISA warrants to further his interests by digging up dirt on his enemies. The Horowitz report makes that clear.

OAN is trying to create the impression that Obama eroded the independence of the Justice Department. But in fact Trump is the one who has been doing that, firing one person after another for being insufficiently loyal to him and throwing his weight around in unprecedented ways. He asked a foreign leader for the favor of working with his attorney general and his private attorney to investigate his political opponent. OAN is giving Trump cover by creating the impression that this sort of thing is nothing new. But it's a false narrative driven by omission of the fact that the subject of the piece (the Horowitz report) explicitly exonerates Obama of such allegations.
 
Why do I care if it is or isn't? Does it change anything I've said? Classic Trump supporter, don't address the topic, attempt a distraction with an attack on something else entirely.

No for the other half of the argument. Do you consider HuffPo to be reliable? Of course you do, because it supports your confirmation biases. Hypocrisy for thee so on and so forth.
 
No for the other half of the argument. Do you consider HuffPo to be reliable? Of course you do, because it supports your confirmation biases. Hypocrisy for thee so on and so forth.

I don't read HuffPo so I have no idea what you're taking about. You couldn't address my actual points so you make up these strawmen. Hard pass, kid.
 
England's The Daily Mail may not be the most reliable media source but they do publish some fun stories.

EXCLUSIVE: A changed name, an alleged fraudster dad and a VERY questionable resume: So how did Donald Trump's favorite White House correspondent pass security checks to become the social-distancing-defying briefing-crasher?

  • Chanel Rion is the pro-Trump journalist for conservative network OAN, which was removed from White House briefings for her refusal to socially distance
  • She was promptly re-invited by then press secretary Stephanie Grisham and Trump again invited her to ask a question - and has been back twice since
  • DailyMail.com reveals new questions over how the 29-year-old is allowed into the White House
  • She was born Chanel Dyan-Ryan and only changed her last name legally last year when she applied for a 'hard pass' for the White House
  • For years she had no obvious employment but posed in designer dresses and at expensive vacation venues
  • She describes herself as a Harvard graduate but actually enrolled in Harvard's Extension School where entry requirements are much lower
  • She claimed to be part of Trump's 2016 campaign but a senior Republican told DailyMail.com they had no memory of her
a DailyMail.com investigation has uncovered serious questions over One America News (OAN) White House Correspondent Chanel Rion's background, finances, and how she obtained security clearance to be in the White House.

In fact, DailyMail.com can disclose that Rion changed her last name before applying for White House security clearance last year and that until becoming a correspondent for the conservative network last May, she had no obvious source of income, despite a social media profile filled with designer dresses and vacations in upscale hotels.

The 29-year-old has now flouted the White House Correspondents' Association repeatedly after it had OAN removed from the rotation of reporters allowed in the briefing room for Rion's refusal to follow social distancing guidelines.

Her latest appearance was on Wednesday, when once again she turned up at the back of the briefing room, defying the WHCA guidelines, and once again was invited by Trump to ask a question.
 
Though OAN has not been my go to news operation, I hear bad stuff about them from Democrats on the forum.

I will present one of their reports and see how lousy this is for democrats. It exposes Nadler a lot but so what?

We learn here that Jim Jordan is working to get Inspector Horowitz to step forward to be examined and that the Democrats block this man.

So what is the complaint?

Coincidentally, OANN was the subject of John Oliver's main story Sunday. They're a notoriously intellectually dishonest, right-wing propaganda outfit masquerading as a news organization.

 
O A N is a Russian owned and operated propaganda organization. For those conservatives with a limited IQ, I suggest this is your cup of tea. You can't handle the truth!

No, they're not Russian-owned. They're owned by a right-wing, San Diego based billionaire, Robert Herring.

As Oliver rightly states, OAN is simply Fox News with less shame and even less scruples!
 
Coincidentally, OANN was the subject of John Oliver's main story Sunday. They're a notoriously intellectually dishonest, right-wing propaganda outfit masquerading as a news organization.



They should be dishonest like Jonathan Karl, Jim Acosta or Rachel MAddow you mean? Clear up why you claim OAN is dishonest? Do you believe Media Matters perhaps?
 
No, they're not Russian-owned. They're owned by a right-wing, San Diego based billionaire, Robert Herring.

As Oliver rightly states, OAN is simply Fox News with less shame and even less scruples!

Because Democrat loyalists say so? Please. I mean sincerely. Can you name a news outlet you believe in other than perhaps Rachel Maddow?
 
They should be dishonest like Jonathan Karl, Jim Acosta or Rachel MAddow you mean? Clear up why you claim OAN is dishonest? Do you believe Media Matters perhaps?

Well, Rachel Maddow is a commentator/entertainer and although I don't agree with everything she says, she's honest and intelligent.

I'm curious how you feel Karl or Acosta have been dishonest.

Regarding OAN, did you see how Gray Ledger has encouraged people to defy the government's advice on social distancing and how he lies about his news reports being in the Library of Congress? How about how Ledger ends each of his shows with the catchphrase, "Even when I'm wrong, I'm right"? I'm say that's admitting to spewing right-wing talking points over being correct.

You should watch the video.
 
Because Democrat loyalists say so? Please. I mean sincerely. Can you name a news outlet you believe in other than perhaps Rachel Maddow?

Well, I don't believe any news outlet specifically unless they support their claim with quotes or actual history. I don't agree with all Maddow's opinions. If something is represented as, "fact", I feel it best to verify such claims. I hope you agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom