Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This is why people don't trust the liberal media

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Two? That's it? CNN has hundreds, if not more. And, it isn't just politics. It's over everything and anything.

    The NYT says it

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/b...-on-trump.html

    The WaPo says it

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-russia-ties/

    https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorize...lse-reporting/

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...eads/94441324/

    https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/med...cle/index.html

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/...the-new-normal

    Hell, there's a wiki page devoted to their crap reporting now.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

    https://www.newsmax.com/Headline/CNN.../20/id/749138/

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/fo...es-cnn-pushed/

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...rnalism-287914

    Blunder, after blunder. False stories. Lies. CNN does it all the time now. It isn't the exception, it's damn near the rule for them.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Massena View Post
      Says one who believes in and promotes conspiracy theories. Give us all a break and don't forget your tin hat.

      Can't you find a credible source? Zombietime? Really?

      And there is a great difference between a mistake and a lie. Apparently you don't know the difference.
      Again you engage classic source bias and would seem to have not bothered to even look. Even a "questionable source" can sometimes yield useful intel, one just needs to engage some sifting and filters, etc.

      A quick skim thru the link SRV Ron provided would show the scores of blue highlighted click links to a range of other MSM sites which could provide clue and source that this all isn't "fake news" out of ZombieTime. The lengthy article is a tedious and detailed read, but it does document that what looks like a hoaxed event was grabbed 'hook, line, and sinker' by much of the MSM anxious for anything to feed their anti-Israel bias (agendas). It's actually a fairly good example of the topic of this thread. (Sort of reminds me of the "fake news" event from several years ago when MSM lied and distorted military records of G.W.Bush's time in Air National Guard.)

      Just for quick reference, an excerpt/quote from the end of the article linked by SRV Ron;
      ...
      + Conclusion: How a Hoax Became News
      Link directly to this section

      So, what really happened? The Lebanese and the global media insist that the ambulances were deliberately targeted by Israel, for the specific purpose of killing civilians and rescue workers -- a serious war crime.

      Israel, for its part, has stated repeatedly that it never intentionally attacks rescue vehicles, but otherwise has stayed mostly silent about the incident, apparently awaiting further information.

      But what would the average reasonable person conclude after reading and viewing all the evidence on this page? What do you think is the truth behind this incident?

      This story, as presented in the media, seems to have more holes than the ambulance roof. Not a single aspect of it holds up under examination. But then what did occur?

      Consider the following scenario:
      Two ambulances that had been somehow damaged long before the July Israel-Hezbollah conflict even began were dragged out of a salvage yard, where they had been rusting for months or years. They were taken to a parking lot and smashed up even more, inside and out. Then fresh gurneys were placed inside one of them. An intentionally amateurish video was then taken of the two vehicles, in order to show the damage. That night, as planned, some Red Cross workers feigning minor injuries rushed into a hospital in Tyre, and recounted a tale of horror: their ambulances had been attacked by Israeli missiles. The media was notified.

      The next day, reporters from around the world interviewed the ambulance drivers as they lay in the hospital sporting prop bandages. The one driver who spoke the best English was quoted the most in the English-speaking press. The journalists, however, were not allowed to inspect the ambulances themselves; instead, the pre-packaged video was supplied to them, freezeframes from which were used as illustrations to accompany the articles. Three patients in the same hospital were identified as also being victims of the attack, even though their injuries had actually happened elsewhere. Every single Western reporter accepted the ambulance drivers' story without question. Emboldened by the media's credulity, the drivers exaggerated the severity of the incident with each new interview, until it no longer even vaguely matched the staged evidence. The story was broadcast to the world, and accepted as fact.

      A few days later, after the Western press had wandered away to find other stories, the damaged ambulances were towed and parked in front of the Red Cross office in Tyre, as a martyrdom exhibit for the sympathetic local press and residents. Few if any mainstream journalists ever attempted to verify any of the claims made by the ambulance crews, despite the seriousness of the charge.

      Could it be that the entire incident is a fabrication? All signs point to "Yes."

      If so, the implications are enormous, both for the outcome of the war and for the credibility of the media. Most analysts agree that Israel was pressured into a ceasefire due to international outcry over how it was conducting the battle. The media informed the public that Israel was intentionally targeting civilians; the public insisted that their governments demand that Israel stand down; international pressure was applied, and Israel caved in. And of all the incidents decried in the media -- taking out infrastructure, destroying Hezbollah-associated buildings that had not been fully evacuated, and so on -- only the ambulance incident could be held up as having no possible military purpose; all the other attacks were pointed out by Israel as being intended to degrade Hezbollah's ability to fight. Aside from a handful of stray missiles and accidents or misunderstandings for which Israel apologized, only this incident was "proof" that Israel was purposely aiming at noncombatants. So reports that an Israeli missile attack destroyed two ambulances played a role in shaping global opinion, which led to a ceasefire leaving Hezbollah intact.

      But if the entire incident turns out to have been an elaborate but clumsy hoax, where does that leave the reputation of the media? Not a single reporter or editor doubted the story for a second. Or if they did, they certainly didn't inform readers of their doubts. Why did the media swallow the story hook, line and sinker? In their zeal to bash Israel, did they allow themselves, consciously or unconsciously, to be duped by Hezbollah supporters into broadcasting propaganda as news? Or is the media so eager to jump on any fresh scandal that they simply switch off their critical thinking and become absolutely credulous of any juicy tale thrown their way?

      It took the blogs and non-professional independent researchers to shine the harsh light of forensic analysis on this case, in the process debunking just about every aspect of the allegations. And this was done merely with the meager scraps of evidence left over by the "professional" journalists, and by squeezing the maximum amount of information out of the subtlest of clues. But if the journalists who were right there on the scene had even the slightest interest in actually investigating the story, they had access to all sorts of information that could have blown the lid off the case. How hard would it have been to go back to the Red Cross office after a few days to inspect the ambulance carefully in person? To look at the hole in the roof, to photograph the rust up close, to search for burn marks or blood on the gurneys, to notice the driver's healthy chin? Wouldn't that have been a scandal worth reporting?

      Is the media that gullible -- or does it have a political bias?

      Either way, its credibility has now been lost.

      (Posted: August 23, 2006.)
      ...

      http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        Are you putting all media together in a competition to see which has the longer list of transgressions?


        I will bite...

        Since you brought wiki, let's compare the wiki pages of one of the more supposedly partisan liberal channels (CNN) to that of the one of the more moderate (supposedly) conservative channels (FOX)

        Here is for the CNN you brought as evidence of your claims


        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

        and here is the one for Fox controversies

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

        Now explain to me in what way FOX controversies are less significant than CNN's
        If anything, FOX list seems to be longer, even though CNN has a MUCH longer presence in media as a News Channel (1980 for CNN compared to 1996 for FOX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cable_news ).

        Now add what I said before about the habit of having FOX clowns push their stories for YEARS without firing people with abysmal performance record (in fact Hannity is one of the stars of the channel), and you may see my point.



        I do not even start a conversation about inforwars
        Last edited by pamak; 14 Jul 18, 17:12.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          Are you putting all media together in a competition to see which has the longer list of transgressions?


          I will bite...

          Since you brought wiki, let's compare the wiki pages for CNN and FOX controversies

          Here is for the CNN you brought as evidence of your claims


          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

          and here is the one for Fox controversies

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

          Now explain to me in what way FOX controversies are less significant than CNN's
          If anything, FOX list seems t be longer. even though CNN has a MUCH longer presence in media Now add what I said before about the habit of having FOX clowns push their stories for YEARS without firing people with abysmal performance record (in fact Hannity is one of the stars of the channel), and you may see my point.



          I do not even start a conversation about inforwars
          Apples to rutabagas... The CNN page is about false reporting, lies, and the like. The FOX page is about their having a political bias towards being Conservative.

          Two entirely different things. Every news outlet has some degree of bias in their reporting. Spin is as old as journalism is. So? That isn't the same as fabricating stories, making stuff up, and stretching facts like rubber bands like CNN does.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            Apples to rutabagas... The CNN page is about false reporting, lies, and the like. The FOX page is about their having a political bias towards being Conservative.

            Two entirely different things. Every news outlet has some degree of bias in their reporting. Spin is as old as journalism is. So? That isn't the same as fabricating stories, making stuff up, and stretching facts like rubber bands like CNN does.
            This is your personal and unsupported with facts claim.

            I just accepted your challenge when you tried to bring links to show that FOX supposedly has just a few examples of controversial stories compared to liberal channels. I demolished your myth by taking your methodology (finding links with lists of controversial liberal stories) and compared the list of CNN's controversial stories (CNN was established on 1980) to that of the much younger FOX NEWS (established in 1996) to show that you have ZERO evidence for your strong claims. On the contrary, the evidence coming from your methodology suggests the opposite; meaning that FOX has created much more controversy during its shorter life and people who regularly promote conspiracy theories for YEARS have become the channel's bigger stars (Hannity and his birth certificate paranoia after Obama's election)...
            Last edited by pamak; 14 Jul 18, 17:32.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #36
              Hell, I don't trust any of them, liberal, conservative, or supposedly neutral!

              Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                Hell, I don't trust any of them, liberal, conservative, or supposedly neutral!

                The latter is even worse. There is no functional democracy without informed citizens. The best solution is to hear both sides of the political spectrum. But REALLY hearing the opposite side is not that easy.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  The latter is even worse. There is no functional democracy without informed citizens. The best solution is to hear both sides of the political spectrum. But REALLY hearing the opposite side is not that easy.
                  I keep up with the news, I have learned to read between the lines!
                  Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

                    I am confused are you saying that people that are accusing Trump of lying on a daily basis are usually guilty of it themselves?

                    That was my first thought also.
                    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Then you were wrong also.
                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Of course and since you say so it must be the truth, because you would never lie…would you.
                        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

                          I keep up with the news, I have learned to read between the lines!
                          Judging from the reading comprehension level I have seen in this forum, it looks like many posters here have mastered the art of literally reading the blank space between the lines. I hope you are not one of them...
                          Last edited by pamak; 14 Jul 18, 22:39.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            Judging from the reading comprehension level I have seen in this forum, it looks like many posters here have mastered the art of literally reading the blank space between the lines. I hope you are not one of them...
                            Why? Because you are afraid he'd be a kindred spirit...?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              Why? Because you are afraid he'd be a kindred spirit...?
                              Leftists temper tantrums directed at the forums merely because that poster has been shown to be wrong and merely because the rest of us have the audacity to disagree with that poster....those are so fun to watch.
                              The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                There is a lack of self awareness necessarily contributing to the absorption of propaganda.

                                I listen to these liberal professors who have become victims of the monster they helped create and it is clear that they do not see the connection between socialism and the lack of individual responsibility. Group identity is not a substitute for individual dignity and consciousness.
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X