[Big Mac]

I just finished watching on Netflix a terrific documentary, Media Malpractice by John Ziegler. (I wanted to bump the thread on here by the same name as the film, a thread that even predates the film, but of course it was too old.) I had never heard of Ziegler before, and my brother turned the film on while we were working. While I don't agree with every point made, I think it's a powerful indictment of the mainstream news media that essentially unlocked the doors to the White House for President Obama. In an ideal world it would be required viewing for all voters prior to the next election and every election thereafter because the general theme and lessons taught should be applied to all future elections.

Obama supporters please watch Media Malpractice with an open mind and let us know what you think. Obama opposers please also watch the documentary. Everyone needs to see this film!

[BadKosh]

You mean the MSM has LIED TO US!!!

[OldManMac]

Speaking of media malpractice;

Scary: People Who Watch and Trust Fox News Will Surprise You | Media | AlterNet

[ebuddy]

An assessment of Fox News provided by... AlterNet. Do you really trust AlterNet OldMan? I understand the need to get news from the Daily Show and Colbert Report because they're putting the medicine in candy for you, but let's see what else is going on over there @ AlterNet today:

• The Shameless Right-Wing Lies that ousted an NPR CEO (you mean, the video evidence of a Dem shill selling his soul to supposed Muslim Brotherhood representatives for a shitload of money? Yeah... buh-bye)
• Drinking from the White Fountain: Tea Party Candidate Herman Cain Turns His Back on the African-American Community. (the folks at AlterNet wouldn't know any African-Americans, they're nestled away in their white-bred gated communities in Massachusetts) The left proves time and again that they have no problem exploiting race for a political agenda. They are the most prevalent, worst kind of racists in existence. Not unlike folks here who champion gay rights while using homosexuality as an insult against others or those who espouse blatant sexism and racism whenever a black or woman dares to disagree with them philosophically or politically. Spare me.
• Goon-Squad Politics: How the Wisc GOP Trampled Democracy to Appease Wealthy Backers. (mmhmm, pay no attention to the men behind the curtain. There's no money in the Union... nope... move along... move along...)
• Michael Moore to Rachel Maddow: "This is Class War" (wow, a carnival of stupidity all in one place for the slobbering left-wing baby-boomers to meet over a latte and talk about the ills of poverty and the mean-spirited right-wing. Lucky for me, on their About AlterNet page they provide their readership demographic - almost 40% of readership with income over $100k. )

This is no more useful than Star Magazine questioning the integrity of the National Enquirer and of course, you lap it up like it's gospel.

[andi*pandi]

Frankly, I have doubts about the gospel.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

An assessment of Fox News provided by... AlterNet. Do you really trust AlterNet OldMan?

Vastly more so than Faux News.

[Big Mac]

Are you so childish, OldMan, that you insist on calling it Faux News? You know, when I was younger I used to write Microsoft Windows and Windoze, as was the custom among militant Apple youth of my day. But at a certain point I matured and realized that Windows has its uses. I realized that even though I strongly dislike its origins and more importantly many aspects of its design that I view as inherently inferior to OS X, I realized that Windows has strong points in certain areas that absolutely outdo OS X, and in addition to that Windows 7 is a decent OS on its own and especially in comparison to Microsoft's previous efforts. So I stopped writing the name as Windoze because it seemed childish given what I had come to realize about the OS.

I think you can see my point: Are you really such a childish partisan that you have to call the Fox News Channel Faux News? It speaks volumes about your political immaturity, level of ignorance and susceptibility to leftist propaganda IMO. FNC isn't a perfect network. It makes mistakes at times, and sure you can bash Glenn Beck because of his antics if you want to ignore and trivialize his message. But it's the only TV network that I know of that has a mixture of straight journalism and editorial content from both the right and the left. Sometimes I have to turn Fox News off because they have some obnoxious leftist spouting ridiculous and insulting propaganda. (Thankfully now when that happens I can just flip one channel up to Fox Business when that happens, and vice versa.) Now are you ever annoyed by conservatives in the same way from your favorite sources? I somehow doubt the sites and networks you get your "news" from have much of any conservative counterpoint (although I will give the Huffington Post very limited credit for occasionally posting a conservative editorial). Also, Ronnie Maddow, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher don't count as sources of factual news or opinion in any universe I know of, just so you know.

[OldManMac]

^^^You see the world one way, I see it another. I guess I'm childish!

Your statement that Fox is the only channel you know that has a mixture of straight journalism and editorial content from both the left and the right says volumes to me about how much Fox you really watch.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you really such a childish partisan that you have to call the Fox News Channel Faux News? It speaks volumes about your political immaturity

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Ronnie Maddow

[besson3c]

The MSM sucks because it is infotainment based. You can't present good information this way whether biased to the left or right, or neither.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

QFT.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Verily dost thou layeth down the smack.

[The Final Dakar]

As much as I appreciate the ye olde speak, I loathe the smackdown bullshit people used to perpetrate here more.

[subego]

Ouch... Twice.

[SpaceMonkey]

Smackdowning the smackdown.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Smackdowning the smackdown.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But it's the only TV network that I know of that has a mixture of straight journalism and editorial content from both the right and the left.

Ugh, you had me thinking this thread wouldn't turn into another one of your usual rants about how much better your side is.

Fact: All MSM outlets are are full of BS and hyperbole as the next, and your preference of Fox News only reinforces the stereotypical right wing Fox News viewer.

Not that I watch any of these chuckleheads, if I wanted biased rhetoric-laden opinions on the news I'll just come here.

Edit: That said, if this documentary is truly unbiased (and not some attack on how the media 'won' the election for Obama) then I'll check it out.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Edit: That said, if this documentary is truly unbiased (and not some attack on how the media 'won' the election for Obama) then I'll check it out.

It's not. It's whining about the fact that the media, flawed as it may be, is actually capable of sniffing out batshit.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Hate to say it Big Mac, but fair is fair, you were totally busted on that one!

...and yeah, most of the media blows. What we have in this country is probably as bad as Pravda was at the height of the Soviet system- only it's mostly voluntary state run media that tows the huge out of control government line, and that fawns over and hero-worships certain politicians. That makes it much worse in the 'they should know better' sense. The Soviet government had to threaten jail or death to get such toadyism from its media- ours gets it from useful idiots for free.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Vastly more so than Faux News.

or, you could be smart and say, "no, I don't trust either of them", like any sane person would.

[BadKosh]

I'm sick of teh MSM and the liberal bias (which IS obvious). The problem is that the MSM is reporting fiction. They see people as stereotypes, and situations as soap opera plots. They put everything into that mold and spew it out to all the emotion driven liberals who lap it up. If the facts contradict their spin, the facts are left out. They give us their flawed opinions stated as fact. The last presidential contest was reported in just that style. As it turns out Obama wasn't so smart after all. Either was Biden. We got radical leftist politics that the MSM characterized as 'progressive'. The track record of most all the MSM is hideous. (Think Dan Blather) Why do you think folks are tired of teh MSM in the first place? How many times will you be lied to before you don't go back?

[lpkmckenna]

I could not possibly consider something titled "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected And Palin Was Targeted" to be a serious documentary. He's just another talk radio spouting head.

Ziegler is a raving loon. Listen to him exaggerate and holler at a guy 2 feet from him. He claims the media distortion was "exponentially worse" than the Fox audience believes. Given the hostile attitude of Fox viewers towards the rest of the media, this is a moron's exaggeration.

Sarah Palin's credibility was destroyed by her own words and behaviour. Blaming the "librul media" is a pathetic joke.

So I went to howobamagotelected.com. After shaking my head at the site's sleazy presentation, I watched the embedded video. Apparently, he interviewed voters leaving the polls, then selects only the Obama voters, then selects only the stupid ones, and uses that as a demonstration of what all Obama voters believe the media told them.

The self-promoting Zeigler even describes his own film as what "everyone will be talking about." Shameless much?

Judging by the embedded video, this documentary is nothing but a long whine by Palin. "Something big went on in the media ... we're gonna seek and destroy this candidacy of Sarah Palin ... because of what she represents." No, you vapid twit, you did it yourself. And the only thing you "represent" is the most narrow-minded reactionary views.

[lpkmckenna]

[deleted]

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Shameless Right-Wing Lies that ousted an NPR CEO (you mean, the video evidence of a Dem shill selling his soul to supposed Muslim Brotherhood representatives for a shitload of money? Yeah... buh-bye)

Woah, you actually believe that crap? Your hero, Glenn Beck, destroyed that documentary. NPR thanks Beck.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Given the hostile attitude of Fox viewers towards the rest of the media, this is a moron's exaggeration.

Sure.... It never happens in the opposite direction. The MSM is only repeating what the White house wants. They even use the same catch phrases from network to network, illustrating the orchestration of the lies, fabrications and mis-characterizations. That FOX is telling a different story than the rest is probably a good thing.

[andi*pandi]

Fox uses catchphrases too though. One of Jon Stewarts ongoing gags is finding clips of them all using the same catchphrase. Like there was some sort of instruction from the top corporate level to push certain agendas and misinformation.

I think we can blame the 24 hour news cycle for this though. It's odd that as we have more time to fill with news, there is less detail on any channel.

Unless you watch CSpan, that's unbiased, right? And boring.

[BadKosh]

Is that 24 hour news cycle a product of newsreaders short attention spans or the viewers?

[andi*pandi]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[Big Mac]

If you guys think me poking fun at the androgyny of Maddow is equivalent to OldMan calling Fox News Faux News, you guys fail at the precise use of analogies and really don't understand the point at all. Those are two very different kinds and levels of insults, and the only thing similar about it is the practice of renaming something you're not fond of. They're not at all equivalent in purpose nor in scale. OldMan is trying to delegitimatize an entire network, while I'm only poking fun at a single commentator (and only in a cursory way that doesn't even speak to her political bias). But I won't bog you guys down with fine points that you clearly can't handle or ruin the fun you have with the kettle-teapot graphic. Man, at times it really feels like a middle school atmosphere around here, but then again that shouldn't be too surprising to me. I should always keep in mind that this is the MacNN Forums PWL, not the London Debating Societies.

For those who challenge my assertion that FNC is the only news network that offers a mixture of straight journalism along with opinion from the right and the left, either give me reasons why you don't believe that's an accurate description of FNC, or come up with another network that rivals FNC in delivering those things. I don't think you can do either. It's really much easier for you guys to attack a message with a critique that doesn't really apply or to attack the messenger than to offer any critical thought pertaining to the subject.

[AKcrab]

I don't make it a point to watch fox news, but the times I've ended up there I've never witnessed anything with even a remotely left slant. The only time I see something from the left is when they are being browbeat or badgered and not being allowed to even state their opinion.

Like I said though, I'm not a fox watcher.. Can you point me to some programming that gives the left a fair shake?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

I don't make it a point to watch fox news, but the times I've ended up there I've never witnessed anything with even a remotely left slant.

Then you obviously haven't watched for any substantial amount of time. On its news shows FNC constantly has left-wing pundits and politicians on. O'Reilly for a long time now regularly has a segment with Alan Colmes. The only show on Fox News that doesn't give any time to the Left is Glenn Beck. Even Hannity often has a left-winger on his "Great American Panel" like Bob Beckel. Juan Williams gets a lot of air time and is pretty far-left (except when he fills in for O'Reilly and plays Juan O'Reilly).

Is there a prominent left-wing show host on FNC? Well, Geraldo has a show on the weekend, and he's certainly no conservative. Does the network skew Right? Absolutely. But to claim it doesn't give time to the other side is a falsehood. In my opinion it gives far too much time to illegitimate leftist propaganda.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you guys think me poking fun at the androgyny of Maddow is equivalent to OldMan calling Fox News Faux News, you guys fail at the precise use of analogies and really don't understand the point at all. Those are two very different kinds and levels of insults, and the only thing similar about it is the practice of renaming something you're not fond of. They're not at all equivalent in purpose nor in scale. OldMan is trying to delegitimatize an entire network, while I'm only poking fun at a single commentator (and only in a cursory way that doesn't even speak to her political bias).

The fact that you think there's a difference is scary.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The fact that you think there's a difference is scary.

Don't worry, Laminar. There is a difference, but I don't want you to strain yourself trying to figure it out. Just because you lack the mental capacity to understand the difference doesn't mean there isn't one, I assure you.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Then you obviously haven't watched for any substantial amount of time. On its news shows FNC constantly has left-wing pundits and politicians on. O'Reilly for a long time now regularly has a segment with Alan Colmes. The only shows on Fox News that doesn't give any time to the Left is Glenn Beck. Even Hannity often has a left-winger on his "Great American Panel" like Bob Beckel. Juan Williams gets a lot of air time and is pretty far-left (except when he fills in for O'Reilly and plays Juan O'Reilly).

All right, then. By that measure, Bill Maher's show is 'fair and balanced' too. He often has Republicans/conservatives on his panels. Good to know.

[CreepDogg]

never mind

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

All right, then. By that measure, Bill Maher's show is 'fair and balanced' too. He often has Republicans/conservatives on his panels. Good to know.

Nice try, but Bill Maher has a token Republican on who mostly gets shouted down by Maher and his slavish, mindless audience of drones. FNC usually gives substantial time to the leftists to get their points out, and there isn't an audience backing up the host with applause on cue in response to whatever the host says. Not at all equivalent. But I'll give you credit, Creep, that lame attempt of yours is the best your side has come up with thus far in this thread.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Nice try, but Bill Maher has a token Republican on who mostly gets shouted down by Maher and his slavish, mindless audience of drones. FNC usually gives substantial time to the leftists to get their points out, and there isn't an audience backing up the host with applause on cue in response to whatever the host says. Not at all equivalent. But I'll give you credit, Creep, that lame attempt of yours is the best your side has come up with thus far in this thread.

Well, if you want good answers, then you need to clearly define 'Big Mac's Rules for Fair And Balanced Reporting'.

Now that we know that 'no audience laugh tracks' is part of the rules, well, I also see Republicans on panels and interviewed on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. So I guess they all fall under the 'fair and balanced' umbrella as well. Feel free to keep moving the goalposts to suit your agenda, though.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you guys think me poking fun at the androgyny of Maddow is equivalent to OldMan calling Fox News Faux News, you guys fail at the precise use of analogies and really don't understand the point at all. Those are two very different kinds and levels of insults, and the only thing similar about it is the practice of renaming something you're not fond of. They're not at all equivalent in purpose nor in scale. OldMan is trying to delegitimatize an entire network, while I'm only poking fun at a single commentator (and only in a cursory way that doesn't even speak to her political bias).

I must have forgotten about how your hobby of poking fun at Rachel Maddow has nothing to do with your opinion that she is "a shill for the Democratic Party that is actively destroying this country." Wait, no I didn't.

It's really much easier for you guys to attack a message with a critique that doesn't really apply or to attack the messenger than to offer any critical thought pertaining to the subject.

It's incredibly easy to attack the messenger when you fall right into the same "middle school atmosphere" that you claim to decry.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Now that we know that 'no audience laugh tracks' is part of the rules, well, I also see Republicans on panels and interviewed on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. So I guess they all fall under the 'fair and balanced' umbrella as well. Feel free to keep moving the goalposts to suit your agenda, though.

CNN rarely does real news nowadays. As for the major networks, their news hosts are all left-wing as far as I can tell; I rarely see conservative pundits on those shows. Again, nice try but no cigar.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I must have forgotten about how your hobby of poking fun at Rachel Maddow has nothing to do with your opinion that she is "a shill for the Democratic Party that is actively destroying this country."

That's a different thread. The comment I made about Maddow in this thread was a side remark that you and others seized on because you have such weak arguments against me. You don't want to have a substantive conversation and that's understandable. You'd lose. But let's call it what it is: Pure middle school debate tactics. It's fine if you want to engage in that juvenile crap too, SpaceMonkey, but don't take on the Obama pose of being an elevated, enlightened figure above it all when you're engaging in exactly the same stupidity.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

CNN rarely does real news nowadays. As for the major networks, their news hosts are all left-wing as far as I can tell; I rarely see conservative pundits on those shows. Again, nice try but no cigar.

That would be a good point, if it had any modicum of truth to it. Let's take a gander at the guest lists for a common NBC newsmag (generally bottom of link). Heck, they even had Michelle Bachmann on a couple eps ago!

Meet the Press

Nice try, though. Any time you want to deal in facts, and not just your preconceived notions, come on back.

[Big Mac]

Bravo. You've found an exception of sorts: Meet the Press is a decent example of a reasonably balanced show on the mainstream media. It still has a left-wing host, and it's just one single program, but I'll grant you Meet the Press as a week counter-example.

[kido331]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sarah Palin's credibility was destroyed by her own words and behaviour. Blaming the "librul media" is a pathetic joke.

Hey, this seems like an excellent way to put this issue to the test. For those who agree with this take on Sarah Palin, list the top 5 moments in which she destroyed her credibility without using google or other sites for a reference - just list what immediately comes to mind.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Bravo. You've found an exception: Meet the Press is a decent example of a reasonably balanced show on the mainstream media. It still has a left-wing host, and it's just one single program.

Well, the media all copy each other, so there are many similar shows: 'This Week', 'Face the Nation', etc.

Also - to be clear - I'm not claiming that any one of these is any 'better' than another. They ALL suck. And they ALL pander their biases to their audiences to sell ads. Yes, even Fox. That is all.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by kido331 

Hey, this seems like an excellent way to put this issue to the test. For those who agree with this take on Sarah Palin, list the top 5 moments in which she destroyed her credibility without using google or other sites for a reference - just list what immediately comes to mind.

That's an easy thing to do if you go by the image created of Palin by the mainstream media. The image of her created by attack journalism and deceptive editing of interviews by a media that had already crowned Obama king.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's an easy thing to do if you go by the image created of Palin by the mainstream media. The image of her created by attack journalism and deceptive editing of interviews by a media that had already crowned Obama king.

I never saw an image or characterization of her that was materially different than the one she created herself in her speech at the RNC.

[kido331]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I never saw an image or characterization of her that was materially different than the one she created herself in her speech at the RNC.

So, off the top of your head, what were the 5 things she did/said in her RNC speech which caused her to lose credibility in your mind?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by kido331 

So, off the top of your head, what were the 5 things she did/said in her RNC speech which caused her to lose credibility in your mind?

I'd like to hear 5 things she did/said that inspired someone who supports her, but here you go, in no particular order:

1) Her smarmy attitude/delivery that reeked of overcompensation
2) Her propensity to focus more on putting down her opponents than addressing her qualification/ability (which was already in question almost universally)
3) (and when she did focus on her qualifications) Her outlandish claims about her time as governor (state plane on eBay, bridge to nowhere, etc.) that set off many peoples' BS-o-meters, and later proved to be exaggerated at best, blatantly false at worst (so, clearly overcompensating)
4) Her transparent populism and 'folksiness'
5) Her obvious cluelessness about a scalable energy policy

Everything I saw was only confirmed in later interactions with the media.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Those are two very different kinds and levels of insults, and the only thing similar about it is the practice of renaming something you're not fond of. They're not at all equivalent in purpose nor in scale. OldMan is trying to delegitimatize an entire network, while I'm only poking fun at a single commentator (and only in a cursory way that doesn't even speak to her political bias).

Oh come on.

I was hoping you'd just shrug it off and admit you couldn't resist the jab at Maddow to the point of derailing your own point after spending an entire paragraph saying how mislabeling things was childish. It's okay- everyone does the old 'foot in mouth' now and then.

(For the record, I couldn't care less about name-calling of these sorts, but in keeping with the context of your post, hence: pot/kettle/black).

Two different things? True- but exactly in the opposite way.

Children name-call each others choice of news networks?
Eh. No.

Children name-call based on gender, weight, looks and all sorts of other cursory (your word) traits?
Yes.

So, being honest- which of the two things is more childish again?

Lefties think it's clever when they do the same thing against Ann Coulter and other women they don't like. I've always thought such a low blow was borne out the left's insane obsession with talk show hosts, and the fact that they can't stand free speech that disagrees with them.

But It baffles me why anyone on the right would feel the need to take such a low shot against a leftwing talking head. Is she actually saying something that makes enough sense to frighten you, hence rather than just dismiss her ideas as crap, you go for the low blow out of fear or frustration? Just curious, cause otherwise I don't see where it's worth the effort.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Lefties think it's clever when they do the same thing against Ann Coulter and other women they don't like. I've always thought such a low blow was borne out the left's insane obsession with talk show hosts, and the fact that they can't stand free speech that disagrees with them.

But It baffles me why anyone on the right would feel the need to take such a low shot against a leftwing talking head. Is she actually saying something that makes enough sense to frighten you, hence rather than just dismiss her ideas as crap, you go for the low blow out of fear or frustration? Just curious, cause otherwise I don't see where it's worth the effort.

Maybe you're starting to understand that just because you can point out mouth-breathers on one 'team' doesn't mean that there aren't any on the other 'team'. Believe me, they come in all shapes and sizes. And news networks.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

^ Yeah I know that. But for the record I've never found Big Mac to be one of the mouth-breather types. I don't get what it is about Maddow specifically that brings out such hostility. (And yes, I think it's pretty hostile, even vicious for a grown male to make fun of a woman's gender based on her looks.)