NewsBusters rules in purportedly "bias"-free Fox Nation
SUMMARY: Fox Nation -- Fox News' purportedly non-"biased" and "fair and balanced" website -- has frequently promoted posts from the falsehood-ridden conservative blog NewsBusters.
Fox Nation -- Fox News' purportedly non-"biased" and "fair and balanced" website -- has frequently promoted posts from the falsehood-ridden conservative blog NewsBusters.org. Specifically, as of 10:30 a.m. ET on June 30, six of the 13 stories that the Fox Nation was promoting on its front-page "Media" section came from NewsBusters.
NewsBusters describes itself as "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias" and is a project of the Media Research Center, a self-described "conservative" media watchdog group. NewsBusters and its contributors have a history of promoting falsehoods and misleading or discredited claims about progressives and Democratic figures.
The following are headlines that appeared on June 30 on the Fox Nation and linked to NewsBusters:
Krugman: 'Politicians From Both Parties Stray, but Dems Punish Theirs More Harshly'
Media Ignore EPA Suppressing Skeptical Global Warming Report
Time Magazine Blames California's Mess on... Low Taxes
Krauthammer on Press/Obama: 'The Hot Sex Is Over. They're in the Cigarette Stage'
Oliver Stone: 'Reagan Was a Dumb Son of a Bitch... and Bush Was Dumber'
Sam: It's Hard to Forgive Bible-Thumping GOPers for Sex Scandals
Media Matters for America previously examined Fox Nation's "Politics" subsection between May 1 and May 15 and found that none of the 15 newspaper op-eds and columns that the Fox Nation linked to were written by a progressive figure or presented a favorable view of the Obama administration. Fox Nation has also frequently mocked and made falsehoods about progressives and Democrats.
Below is the front-page subsection for Fox Nation's "Media" section, taken at 10:30 a.m. ET, with NewsBusters-linked headlines highlighted with a red box:
This is what happens to the critical thinking of the true believers. This is the reason we see that pathetic display in the comments of this website, the conservative who links to (or copies and pastes entire articles from) right-wing opinion pieces to "debate" MMFA items.
Some people have never quite grasped that idea, that one is not entitled to their own set of facts.
Behold the right-wing noise machine!
What is this world coming to?
.... of course it was trason against the planet NOT the United States ....
Just a slight ommission.
Over and over again they push "What if?" scenarios. They use "imagine" more than John Lennon. "Imagine if a Conservative..." etc., etc.
This is not tethered to reality. It has not limit - as it is pure speculation.
1) He was senile, and there fore incompetent. So, not the best president, even in the last couple of decades.
-OR-
2) He was in full possession of his faculties, and sold coke to buy guns to help overthrow a sovereign nation. So, not the best president, even in the last couple of decades.
I won't even go into breaking the PATCO strike, and then having an -airport- named for him. That much irony must be taken in small doses!
But; shouldn't politicians be held to a higher standard? Maybe repubs should consider this.
Media Ignore EPA Suppressing Skeptical Global Warming Report
Well, the media does tend to ignore anything they don't agree with, even though this headline appears to be patently false.
Time Magazine Blames California's Mess on... Low Taxes
Well, heck yeah. If they took in more money than they spent they wouldn't be out of money. Besides, don't conservatives say that low taxes are the answer for everything.
Krauthammer on Press/Obama: 'The Hot Sex Is Over. They're in the Cigarette Stage'
That is just wrong on so many levels
Oliver Stone: 'Reagan Was a Dumb Son of a Bitch... and Bush Was Dumber'
What is your point?
Sam: It's Hard to Forgive Bible-Thumping GOPers for Sex Scandals
See item on: politicians need to held to a higher standard.
only thing missing is the little smiley face.
You've been trying to invent "falsehoods" promoted by MMFA for years now, and as far as I've seen, you've consistently failed. Feel free to correct me if I've missed an incident of you finding misinformation at this site in your hundreds of ridiculous attempts. I'm open-minded enough to look at any examples you can provide.
MMFA and its contributors have a history of promoting falsehoods and misleading or discredited claims about conservatives and Republican Party figures on a daily basis.
Thanks for the laugh.
And by "example", I don't mean one of the countless instances of your comprehension problems preventing you from understanding the topic.
Come on, AA. MMFA does it "on a daily basis". Ante up.
and thanks for the laugh. :)
Speaking of comprehension problems, you take the cake. I ante up my opinions about MMFA and other issues and provide backup for my views on a daily basis. (But you know that.)
Your posts, on the other hand, are simply those of a troll, containing only juvenile invective and vitriolic attempts at putdowns. (But you also know that.) I hope you have enough self awareness to see the difference.
Newsbusters on the other hand is not even comparable on the accuracy level. Maybe it is because newsbusters have a ton of contributors of varying quality and no real emphasis on fact-checking, links to supporting information, accountability or style. Other than that, maybe the two are comparable.
Newsbusters exists to mislead ditto-heads and reinforce their already skewed view of the world. MMFA exists to set the record straight and report the inaccuracies and outright lies that the corporate media and the right-wing promote.
I never go read newsbusters so maybe you are correct.
Sometimes when I am researching an answer here, it pops up on google. If the shoe fits, I use it. That is all.
What I find is that in most cases, people arguing with me attack the source when they cannot answer the content.
I don't mind anyone being critical about my sources. I only ask that they show where it is misleading or wrong or provide their sources in a debate. That makes it fun.
It's like trying to have a discussion with a person who has poured beeswax in his ears. And of course, all the smiley face insults and "have a nice day" stuff.
You're a mini newsbusters site all by yerself...
Sometimes when I am researching an answer here, it [Newsbusters] pops up on google. If the shoe fits, I use it. That is all.
AA in a nutshell. "Researching" translates as Googling a source that agrees with him, no matter how discredited that source, and how flawed the opiniions in it (and they're always opinions, not facts).
If it conforms to his view (i.e. the GOP issued view) , he uses it.
He's just diagnosed his own problem, but I wouldn't bet any real money that he understands that he has.
Thanks for calling me honey. That's better than a lot of things I've been called including some of the names you have called me.
Simply saying others have debunked my arguments does not necessarily make it so. While there are some who do debate, most simply disagree and then mask their lack of sources by making ad honimem attacks at me or my sources.
I find it funny that you think just because I do not fall over in agreement with an opposing point of view that you happen to share that I am the one who has earplug. Obviously the same could be said of most everyone here except that 95% of the people who post here simply parrot the MMFA line. (I have no problem with that.) As I've said many times before, it is the disagreements that make this site interesting.
I do enjoy a good laugh and good zinger now and then, but when I do it, I generally add the smiley face to indicate that it is all in good fun. But you know that. :-)
Have a great day darlin'.
-Sgt. Hulka
:-)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083131/quotes
Sergeant Hulka: I'm getting too old for this s***.
Thought I'd give this a day and check back to see if any of the wingnuts came through.
Looks as if AA has created a fantasy world in which he discovers falsehoods here, and nobody debunks his "research". Now he only needs to cite this long history of his in order to compare MMFA to Newsbusters (the latter a site he never visits).
He'd be rock-solid, if only the rest of humanity resided in that tiny universe between his ears, where facts don't matter, and his figments are real.
MMFA describes itself as "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." MMFA and its contributors have a history of promoting falsehoods and misleading or discredited claims about conservatives and Republican figures.
You, and Anutteramerican, only provide..... well, nothing.
WWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
(Hint: many of us on this site have a wonderful time pulling those very strings, and you haven't disappointed yet.)
Lol. That is so ironic considering when conservative ideas were popular, that seemed to be the line of reasoning most employed by conservatives. Funny how I have not seen a liberal make such a comment around here. Just the poor oppressed conservative. Poor guy. If it is any consolation to your weary soul, just remember - this, too shall pass.
A racist calling me a racist hurts me about as much as a dumb jock telling the valedictorian he's stupid.
At work they call me Dr. Sorry mr union hack, ya got nothing on me.
OK, that was just a one line insult, but only because I've given up on the troll gang contributing anything.
Thanks again for all of the laughs. Now, back in the clown car.
10% of all doctors graduated in the bottom 10% of their class, and at work, people still call them "Doctor."
I think he's jealous that the Colonel is good at it, and POV's attempts fall flat because we recognize the source and its severe limitations.
Interesting how this all started. Barney posted a one line insult (ok, two lines if you count the "hahaha") directed at MMFA, comparing this site to Newsbusters.
I asked for a little substance.
Now we've got a couple of them whining and crying, baseless insults from both, yet still no examples of the things they're claiming.
They seem to think that claiming that they've made good points in the past is as good as if it actually happened.
If I posted an insult, then ipso facto - so did MMFA. I think you and your like minded friends missed that point. But I really didn't and you know that.
You are laughable trying to make the argument "hahahaha" is an insult.
I find it rather amusing that you say MMFA backs up it's points when all it did in this thread is link back to itself.
Gotta love that liberal logic.
So your mind is so completely conditioned against original thought that you can't even counter your barney Fife nickname with something that makes sense? You can't even go to a different TV show?
If I posted an insult, then ipso facto - so did MMFA.
NO, MMFA provided supporting evidence for their claims about Newsbusters. You provided nothing. TRy to understand the difference.
I think you and your like minded friends missed that point.
We in the reality-based community tend to "miss" imaginary points.
But I really didn't and you know that.
Again, you did. PLease stop trying to tell me what I know, especially when it's something in your imagination. I realize this is merely a "delusion loves company" problem in your head, and it would probably make you feel better if I or other sane people "knew" the things you "know", but it's not good for you to assume others suffer from your hallucinations.
If you're just being dishonest (rather than delusional) with this new "you know that" schtick, then it's just a bargain basement version of the begging the question logical fallacy. (and no, I'm not going to provide another link to the definition of that fallacy. I've done that for you several times in the past)
You are laughable trying to make the argument "hahahaha" is an insult.
Really? You don't see how responding with derisive laughter, and no substance to back up that contrived laughter, is an insult?
You don't understand that referring to me as "laughable" when you still haven't supported your original point is an insult?
You don't understand that your expecting others here to believe you've made a point because you type "hahaha" is insulting to their intelligence??.
I find it rather amusing that you say MMFA backs up it's points when all it did in this thread is link back to itself.
As Mary points out, the links to MMFA contain material from the sources in question. That's not really too difficult for you to understand, is it?
Gotta love that liberal logic.
You wouldn't know logic if it crawled up the back of your pants. If you were ever able to shake off your years off GOP brainwashing, to the point where you could understand Liberal (aka "actual") logic, you would love it.
No, not in the snarky, childish, sarcastic manner you use "love" in your post, but the real "love" that non-zombies have for truth.
ok, on to your next embarrassing pratfall, Clown Boy.
You succeeded in drawing me into a discussion that is again fruitless only so you can spew your childish insults.
I can see you are haven't changed. You are the classic troll. You rely on ad honimem attacks with little if any discussion about the issues.
That is why I generally ignore you and why I will do so again.
I don't know what this sensitivity is that you have to imagined "childish insults". It was your baseless, derisive comment that started this whole thing. All I did was ask you for some substance, and you've dodged that by running away to that fantasy world you live in, the one where you provide facts.
I won't explain Ad Hominem to you again, I've done that as many times as I've tried to explain begging the question , but I am happy to see that you've learned to spell it , even if you're still not clear on the definition.
I think everybody, including you, knows the real reason you go through periods of ignoring me. I tend to poke a hole in the little pretend world you live in. And you don't like that.
I'll continue to respond to you when it suits me. You can ignore me until you get your confidence built up a little.Thanks for the laughs.
I get the feeling Barney lives in a small village where misusing Latin phrases is pretty impressive to his slow-witted neighbors.
I've actually tried to help him in the past, linking to definitions of the phrases he has trouble with, including Ad Hominem more than once. He thinks that a rational destroying of his point using logic and facts is an Ad Hominem attack.
That was a long time ago, when I still believed he wanted to have a discussion, or try to learn something. Now I know he's just here as a clownish troll, and I have a few laughs at his expense.
I would rather you'd mentioned that I've been contributing a lot more competently than Pointy. I don't care if somebody's been posting here since day one, or if they registered today, it's about the content of what they post.
It might happen more often if you'd stop your juvenile insults whenever you find someone that disagrees with you.
But he doesn't insult people as a result of them disagreeing with him.
And still, no substance from any of you re: examples of the falsehoods perpetuated by MMFA.
Got anything?
If you disagree, please cite the passage in the article that challenges the veracity of that headline. Thank you in advance.
As OpenMind points out, MMFA didn't say or imply anything about the Stone headline, this is only a listing of links to Newsbusters on one day at Foxnation.
I'll give you credit for acknowledging the accuracy of Stone's statements. Many conservatives, even in hindsight, don't recognize the truth about Reagan and Dubyah.
Here is a link to past Newsbusters on MMFA.
http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/newsbusters
All that aside, you've either missed the point, or are deliberately avoiding it. Pointing out that a particular headline at Newsbusters is accurate has nothing to do with what's being asked for here, examples of inaccurate items at this site.
Of course, most of them seem to misunderstand this "message not the messenger" idea to mean that they can convincingly use opinion pieces from far-right websites as supporting evidence.
MMFA does actual "research" to refute any claims made by those in the media regardless of their personal ideology. It is very vigilant in its fact-checking and backs up fact with sources.
Newsbusters is conservative and it bothers you all that any news outlet (especially Fox) would cite them.
Does it bother any of you equally that news outlets use MMFA (which is admittedly Progressive / Liberal)?
[For those few who have an inability to respond intelligently and just like to respond with personal insults, don't bother]
I'll only speak for myself here.
No, it doesn't bother me when news sources use MMFA. It's a very reliable site, and provides transcripts, audio and video to show everything in context. I disagree with MM's points sometimes, but they always provide the information needed to make that decision.
The problem with Newsbusters is not that they're conservative, it's that they're a faulty source, with a documented history of lousy journalism.
Now, that's not to say that Newsbusters never prints something that is true. (trying to avoid some of the confusion that happened above), and that's not the point of this item.
The point of this item is that Foxnation is relying heavily on one source that is solidly in the same camp as they are, and not very reputable.
I realize everybody has limited time, but I'd suggest reading rather than skimming if you actually have a serious question. It's already been answered here, but thought I'd take the time.
If any part of my post comes off as an insult, it was unintentional. I admit I don't always understand what conservatives consider an insult. It seems to just mean honest observation a lot of the time.
Thanks for your response, no insult taken - probably because I am more Libertarian than Conservative though.
I know my question was a little off topic but my ADD made me ask :-)