George Soros and Media Matters have gone unhinged

Page 4 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Mar 2011, 4:46 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
the only reason people would be buying it would be to look at topless women and not to read the articles...



Pretty much fits the News Corp modus operandi. Not literally with the topless women part but the effect of pushing material for people to gawk at slackjawed rather than to actually enlighten them.


That tends to not work, all you do is boost sales, it wouldn't have that much effect from a political standpoint.


Sorry, I had a bit of a brain fart before and lacked the actual work I wanted to use: sensationalism.

Sensationalism is what News Corp thrives on. It's why they hire the Op-Ed people they do for the TV shows and why those shows are so invested in selling gold.

As far as effectively politically, you essentially prime your audience to view the news in a biased way for when they do actually show the news and the audience only sees what they're primed to see from news reporting that is already very skewed.


Makes me wonder how bad the other media outlets in the UK are...


About as bad. News Corp has a reputation for setting how low the bar is.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

28 Mar 2011, 5:00 pm

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/

Sensationalism is the word i'd use. They draw their readership in with tits, celebrities, really emotive stories about paedophiles and murders to get people angry about these things rather than the bigger political news and then inbetween that they have right wing rants from the likes of Richard Littlejohn and John gaunt who are like the UK's answer to right wing talk radio hosts. Also a lot of coverage of allegedly patriotic topics, They are the first to favour sending a solider to war but then they run campaigns like "help for heroes" to make sure their patriotism is unquestioned. Then after they've subjected you to that mindf*ck of propaganda and shiny celebrity they tell you to go off and vote conservative at the end of it all and most of their readership does.

What was it Solzhenitsyn said when he got to the west? Something about our propaganda being much more subtle than the soviets but because of that it's a lot more effective.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

28 Mar 2011, 5:07 pm

Those are nice boobs and all, but can we try not to make PPR non-safe for work/family moving around while you are reading it?


_________________
.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Mar 2011, 5:13 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
the only reason people would be buying it would be to look at topless women and not to read the articles...



Pretty much fits the News Corp modus operandi. Not literally with the topless women part but the effect of pushing material for people to gawk at slackjawed rather than to actually enlighten them.


That tends to not work, all you do is boost sales, it wouldn't have that much effect from a political standpoint.


Sorry, I had a bit of a brain fart before and lacked the actual work I wanted to use: sensationalism.

Sensationalism is what News Corp thrives on. It's why they hire the Op-Ed people they do for the TV shows and why those shows are so invested in selling gold.

As far as effectively politically, you essentially prime your audience to view the news in a biased way for when they do actually show the news and the audience only sees what they're primed to see from news reporting that is already very skewed.


Makes me wonder how bad the other media outlets in the UK are...


About as bad. News Corp has a reputation for setting how low the bar is.


Actually, I was going to say it looks like News Corps has higher standards, if they have that much influence over elections in the UK.

Getting back to mediamatters, their campaign is off to a pretty sad start considering they are already looking at tax fraud.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

28 Mar 2011, 5:19 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
the only reason people would be buying it would be to look at topless women and not to read the articles...



Pretty much fits the News Corp modus operandi. Not literally with the topless women part but the effect of pushing material for people to gawk at slackjawed rather than to actually enlighten them.


That tends to not work, all you do is boost sales, it wouldn't have that much effect from a political standpoint.


Sorry, I had a bit of a brain fart before and lacked the actual work I wanted to use: sensationalism.

Sensationalism is what News Corp thrives on. It's why they hire the Op-Ed people they do for the TV shows and why those shows are so invested in selling gold.

As far as effectively politically, you essentially prime your audience to view the news in a biased way for when they do actually show the news and the audience only sees what they're primed to see from news reporting that is already very skewed.


Makes me wonder how bad the other media outlets in the UK are...


About as bad. News Corp has a reputation for setting how low the bar is.


Actually, I was going to say it looks like News Corps has higher standards, if they have that much influence over elections in the UK.

Getting back to mediamatters, their campaign is off to a pretty sad start considering they are already looking at tax fraud.



Yeah thats a real high standard of publication that dedicates one of its pages exclusively to tits. Good job the US has jerry falwell or newscorp would probably do the same over there. Actually they did run constant stories about anna nicole smith for months and i've seen celeb stories on o'reilly or hannity quite a bit. So they do use celebs to draw viewers in the same way The Sun does.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

28 Mar 2011, 5:22 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Makes me wonder how bad the other media outlets in the UK are...


It's really quite simple, Inuyasha:

Quote:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country should be run by another country
and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is.
...
Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.

---Yes, Prime Minister by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Mar 2011, 5:24 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Makes me wonder how bad the other media outlets in the UK are...


It's really quite simple, Inuyasha:

Quote:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country should be run by another country
and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is.
...
Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.

---Yes, Prime Minister by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn


:roll:

That still doesn't explain how they supposedly have so much influence over the elections in the UK.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

28 Mar 2011, 5:35 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Makes me wonder how bad the other media outlets in the UK are...


It's really quite simple, Inuyasha:

Quote:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country should be run by another country
and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is.
...
Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.

---Yes, Prime Minister by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn


:roll:

That still doesn't explain how they supposedly have so much influence over the elections in the UK.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)

the 1980s
The Sun's sales grew during the 1980s and the paper became increasingly brash under the editorship of Kelvin MacKenzie. Bingo, introduced in 1981, was a key driver of the circulation rise.


The torpedoing of the Belgrano was celebrated on the front page of the British tabloid newspaper The Sun
The Sun became an ardent supporter of Margaret Thatcher and Conservative Party policies and actions, including the Falklands War. The coverage "captured the zeitgeist", according to Roy Greenslade, Assistant Editor at the time though privately an opponent of the war, but also "xenophobic, bloody-minded, ruthless, often reckless, black-humoured and ultimately triumphalist."[15] One of the paper's best known front pages, published on 4 May 1982, appeared to celebrate the news of the torpedoing of the Argentine ship the General Belgrano during the Falklands War by running the story under the headline "GOTCHA".[16] The headline was changed for later editions when the extent of Argentine casualties became known.[17] Sunday Times reporter John Shirley witnessed copied of this edition of The Sun being thrown overboard by sailors and marines on HMS Fearless.[18]
There were many vitriolic personal attacks on Labour leaders by The Sun during election campaigns, such as in 1983 when The Sun ran a front page featuring an unflattering photograph of Michael Foot, then aged almost 70, claiming he was unfit to be Prime Minister on grounds of his age, appearance and policies, alongside the headline "Do You Really Want This Old Fool To Run Britain?"[19] A year later, in 1984, The Sun made clear its enthusiastic support for the re-election of Ronald Reagan as president in the USA. Reagan was two weeks off his 74th birthday when he started his second term, in January 1985.
On 1 March 1984 the newspaper extensively quoted a respected American psychiatrist claiming that British left-wing politician Tony Benn was "insane", with the psychiatrist discussing various aspects of Benn's supposed pathology.[20] The story, which appeared on the day of the Chesterfield byelection in which Benn was standing, was discredited when the psychiatrist quoted by The Sun publicly denounced the article and described the false quotes attributed to him as "absurd", The Sun having apparently fabricated the entire piece. The newspaper made frequent scathing attacks on what the paper called the "loony left" element within the Labour Party and on institutions supposedly controlled by it, such as the left-wing Greater London Council and Liverpool City Council.
The Sun, during the Miners' strike, of 1984–85 supported the police and the Thatcher government against the striking NUM miners. On 23 May 1984, The Sun prepared a front page with the headline "Mine Führer" and a photograph of Scargill with his arm in the air, a pose which made him look as though he was giving a Nazi salute. The print workers at The Sun, regarding it as an attempt at a cheap smear, refused to print it.[21] The Sun strongly supported the April 1986 bombing of Libya by the US, which was launched from British bases. Several civilians were killed during the bombing. Their leader was "Right Ron, Right Maggie".[22]
In January 1986 Murdoch shut down the Bouverie Street premises of The Sun and News of the World, and moved operations to the new Wapping complex in East London, substituting the electrician's union for the print unions as his production staff's representatives and greatly reducing the number of staff employed to print the papers; a year-long picket by sacked workers was eventually defeated (see Wapping dispute). That year, Clare Short attempted in vain to persuade Parliament to outlaw the pictures on Page Three and gained approbrium from the newspaper for her stand.
During the 1987 general election, the Sun ran an extraordinary mock-editorial entitled "Why I'm Backing Kinnock", by Joseph Stalin.[23



It demonised the left with its daily coverage and won votes for the right by doing so. I think at its peak the readership was over ten million.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Mar 2011, 7:40 pm

If wikipedia is your star witness, your case is in serious trouble.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Mar 2011, 12:38 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
If wikipedia is your star witness, your case is in serious trouble.


Ah, but Inuyasha, do you not see that wikipedia is on precisely the same level as your beloved commentators?

The selective use of sources is as much a fault on the part of right wing pundits as it is on the part of left wing scriveners. The issue is not having sources to back your position up, it is the bias inherent in selective use of sources.

The difference between mediocre undergraduate work and publishable graduate work is that the former relies on selective research to support a preconceived thesis. The latter begins with a thesis, but the thesis changes as unbiased research influences it.

If you start from the premise, "All left wing media is guilty of irresponsible journalism," it is simple enough to cull anecdotes to support your argument. But if your research reveals that right wing media is also guilty of irresponsible journalism, what do you do? Do you change your premise? Do you ignore the conflicting research? To my way of thinking, it is better to start from the question, "to what extent is media guilty of irreponsible journalism?" and allow the research to answer that question in an unbiased way.


_________________
--James


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Mar 2011, 12:44 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Ah, but Inuyasha, do you not see that wikipedia is on precisely the same level as your beloved commentators?


Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Mar 2011, 12:55 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
If wikipedia is your star witness, your case is in serious trouble.


Ah, but Inuyasha, do you not see that wikipedia is on precisely the same level as your beloved commentators?


Nope, they are not even remotely the same. Anybody can edit wikipedia to say whatever they want. So while it is a good for a quick reference, it is not a valid source.


skafather84 wrote:
Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.


If you ever watched Glenn Beck, you would know that he cites sources and not only that he provides links to said sources. If you ever read a book by Sean Hannity you would know he cites sources. So really, all you have proved skafather84, is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Mar 2011, 1:15 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.


If you ever watched Glenn Beck, you would know that he cites sources and not only that he provides links to said sources. If you ever read a book by Sean Hannity you would know he cites sources. So really, all you have proved skafather84, is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.


Al Franken and Michael Moore also cite sources but I don't look to them for raw fact. You seem to miss the point that Wikipedia is a source that prides itself and works toward accuracy while commentators aim toward their own personal ends and manipulate their sources in between.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

29 Mar 2011, 1:19 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.


If you ever watched Glenn Beck, you would know that he cites sources and not only that he provides links to said sources. If you ever read a book by Sean Hannity you would know he cites sources. So really, all you have proved skafather84, is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.


Al Franken and Michael Moore also cite sources but I don't look to them for raw fact. You seem to miss the point that Wikipedia is a source that prides itself and works toward accuracy while commentators aim toward their own personal ends and manipulate their sources in between.
Yeah it's not a matter of whether or not they cite sources but how they present and interpret em.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Mar 2011, 1:20 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Not really. Wikipedia actually cites sources.


If you ever watched Glenn Beck, you would know that he cites sources and not only that he provides links to said sources. If you ever read a book by Sean Hannity you would know he cites sources. So really, all you have proved skafather84, is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.


Al Franken and Michael Moore also cite sources but I don't look to them for raw fact.


I actually find that surprising because you often seem to parrot them.

skafather84 wrote:
You seem to miss the point that Wikipedia is a source that prides itself and works toward accuracy while commentators aim toward their own personal ends and manipulate their sources in between.


I would argue that Wikipedia does the manipulation you say, and there is a reason why I backcheck what commentators like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck says so I know they are on the up and up. I don't take what anyone says for granted.

Speaking before The New York Press Club, Times editor Bill Keller said: "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair & Balanced.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/t ... anet-earth



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Mar 2011, 1:23 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I would argue that Wikipedia does the manipulation you say, and there is a reason why I backcheck what commentators like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck says so I know they are on the up and up. I don't take what anyone says for granted.

Speaking before The New York Press Club, Times editor Bill Keller said: "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair & Balanced.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/t ... anet-earth



A) Not everything is a liberal conspiracy. Take off the tin foil hat once in a while.

B) What's wrong with what Bill Keller said? It is an absolutely cynical slogan to anyone who has more than 2 brain cells firing simultaneously.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson