Slashdot Mirror

conservatives oppose regulations

Pull the other one!

but their news reporting is no less accurate than WaPo.

Yeah... I remember how they accurately reported the space shuttle re-entering the atmosphere at 17 times the speed of light too. Anyway... since you couldn't be bothered to google for some non-editorial examples of Fox News 'facts', here's what I found just punching in "fox news facts" into _google image search_.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20110725-ss-facts.jpg

http://isviral.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Fox-News-Chuck-Norris-facts.jpg

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/cowboy3.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D ...

I could do this all day, but I hope you get my point. There's plenty of websites out there about how skewed their productions are. Even Colbert had a good laugh at their expense, dedicating not one, but six shows to showing off how shoddy their reporting is. But I mean, hey... if you want to say that they're being unfairly targeted for being 'conservative', hey, that's okay I guess. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. I just draw the line at people passing opinions off as facts, that's all.

but their news reporting is no less accurate than WaPo.

Yeah... I remember how they accurately reported the space shuttle re-entering the atmosphere at 17 times the speed of light too. Anyway... since you couldn't be bothered to google for some non-editorial examples of Fox News 'facts', here's what I found just punching in "fox news facts" into _google image search_.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20110725-ss-facts.jpg

http://isviral.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Fox-News-Chuck-Norris-facts.jpg

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/cowboy3.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D ...

I could do this all day, but I hope you get my point. There's plenty of websites out there about how skewed their productions are. Even Colbert had a good laugh at their expense, dedicating not one, but six shows to showing off how shoddy their reporting is. But I mean, hey... if you want to say that they're being unfairly targeted for being 'conservative', hey, that's okay I guess. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. I just draw the line at people passing opinions off as facts, that's all.

Before you spout off about the ET insulation foam having been reformulated without CFCs, try reading the CAIB report (volume 1, Page 51), which specifically states that the portion of the foam that broke loose was the OLD CFC-based formulation.

http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/pdf/vol1/full/caib_report_volume1.pdf

The story about the reformulated foam causing the Columbia accident is largely the doing of Rush Limbaugh, who seized on a lie from one of his typically ill-informed listeners, and kept repeating it until it became accepted as fact by everyone on the right.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200508090007

Then may I present to you http://newsbusters.org/ http://www.aim.org/, http://www.cato.org/, and http://nlpc.org/.

Never heard of most of those, but I'm sure there is no immediate bias at http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ and even liberals deny being tied to http://mediamatters.org/ .

Gees numb nuts, I don't have to read those crappy News Corps rags everyday, or watch those crappy Fox not-News channels everyday, there are a whole range of web sites that do it for more and show the highlights 'er' lowlights. You know, I don't have to hit my head with a hammer to know it will feel good when I stop, I don't have to walk with my shows full of rocks to know it will feel better when I stop, I don't have to starve for days to know it will feel good when I eat, I don't have to eat chemically laden artificial junk food to know I well feel better when I eat fresh organic and of course my mind doesn't have to wade through cruft http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cruft day in day out to know I will be far more intellectually satisfied when I obtain my news from better sources.

The crazy idea that I need to read News Corp rags and watch Fox not-News everyday just to appreciate how bad they really are, seriously WTF. I have only got so may free hours in the day for news so I simply go to better sources , now that's common sense. As for the News Corp and Fox not-news lowlights, I wag my head in disbelief and thank people for doing the hard yards of wading through that cruft for me.

Here allow me to save you the pain, you obviously seem to be suffering http://www.newshounds.us/, http://www.fair.org/index.php, http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/, http://mediamatters.org/, http://www.prwatch.org/ ;D.

And the ranking means what?

I'd say this ranking means as much to you, as the S&P/Moody's credit ratings mean to countries outside the US.
Question : How coverage did you see on SOPA/PIPA in the "news"?
The answer is none.
How does such a dramatic proposed change to the social, cultural, and economic landscape of a nation get utterly ignored by its "news"? One possible reason is because that nation once measured 27 on an index whicht measures these things, but has now fallen to 47.
Personally, I think you are asking all the right questions, but of all the wrong people. But good on ya' mate, keep treddin'...

I'm amazed - even with the extremely visible 'net protests - that they're covering it.

Because as of a week ago, absolutely no MSN prime time news broadcasts had.

I wonder if American "news" will finally start reporting on SOPA, and use this as the context to frame SOPA in a "necessary" light?

Link from TFA:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201050008

The people aren't hearing about this because those who benefit most are also the keepers of the majority of the nation's information.

Write to your senators, your representatives! Tell them you oppose this bill!

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/new?bill=112-h3261&position=oppose

Tell your family, friends, even the guy at the gas station to do the same!

This bill WILL get passed if we don't make our position clear to elected officials!

There's a reason the guy at the gas station hasn't heard about SOPA yet. I can't help but use quotes when I refer to American "news" agencies. We used to make fun of the USSR for this crap.

By the way, MSM LOVE SOPA.

Pick your favorite: MSNBC, FOÐ¥, CBS, ABC, NBC - they don't talk about it, they only call Ron Paul a 'kook', while Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate in the elections who is talking about actual issues (and I mean he is the only candidate, regardless of the 'party' denomination), be it the Patriot Act, NDAA with the indefinite detention of civilians by military based on POTUS's request provision (so think concentration camps not just for funny looking foreigners, but for your own citizens).

CNN devoted an evening to mentioning SOPA.

Judge Napolitano on Fox Business talks about it often.

But that's it. Where do you think the MSMs of the world stand on the entire Internet idea? They fucking HATE IT. They can't control it, it cuts into their BULLSHIT that they are spewing and it cuts into their bottom line as few people are watching.

The only reason for SOPA not to pass is because of-course there is a lot of money on the other side of it as well, but even given Google, Yahoo, Facebook, whatever Internet company/provider/content provider, eventually in USA laws like SOPA and PIPA (and maybe these very laws) will pass, it's not a matter of 'if', it's just the question of 'when', and the 'when' will hit hard IF something happens and Ron Paul becomes too popular all of a sudden during these elections going further on and even if he doesn't win (which is most likely), to prevent anybody like that from competing with the establishment power in the future, the government will see that it is necessary to prevent people from being able to do their own 'congress' on line and to prevent any rise of popular candidates that will take the country on the course of liberty, they will build in every possible thing into the system to shut down the Internet and throw whoever they see as dangerous into their newfangled military ran concentration camps, and deny them any rights (the real name of NDAA that passed should be "Repeal the 4th Amendment Act").

Daily Mail has been lying to you since pretty much forever, and this one is no exception.

You want to get your hair cut, you must go to a licensed barber or hairstylist.

You don't have to. You can buy a kit and do it yourself (or get a friend/relative to do it). My mom cuts my dads hair in their kitchen.

We pay taxes to support government workers' lavish pensions. These are people who don't work. This is an artificial cost.

The "lavish" pension system for federal workers was replaced with a much more modest one in the 80s. Most state and local governments have followed suit. Yes, you'll occasionally see abuses of the system, especially on the local level. Vote next time. Or run for office yourself.

We pay enormous amounts to non-government workers to retire at 65. Many could easily continue until 68 or 70. This is an artificial cost.

Social Security retirement ages have been rising. If you start taking Social Security at 65, you'll get a fair bit less benefits than you would if you took it at 69. The biggest cost for it was that it had to pay for all the workers that were retiring just as the system came out who did get pretty much a free ride on it. Well, that and Congress raiding it like a piggy bank to fund wars, tax cuts, and pretty much everything else.

We build roads and other public infrastructure projects with rules requiring a "prevailing wage" (a union wage) be paid. This makes every government project artificially more expensive, so fewer projects are built. This is an artificial cost.

Those evil unions. Wanting to be paid a livable wage. What assholes. If you really want to complain about artificially expensive government projects, take a look at the private military contractors that we've been using as mercenaries over in the Middle East. Or the major bailouts. Or the fed's current lending practices, where it's basically giving 0% loans to banks and letting those same banks deposit that same money for interest.

We have environmental laws that protect animals and hurt people. This creates a lot of artificial costs.

They're costs to prevent companies from dumping all their external costs onto everyone else. Personally, I like not having to worry about rivers being so polluted that they catch on fire.

We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world,

Effective tax rates and statutory tax rates are two different beasts. The reality is that US tax rates are in the middle of the pack of G8 nations.

and our system creates a huge incentive for multinational companies to invest foreign profits anywhere but the US. This is a huge artificial disadvantage and a huge artificial cost.

Uhh, the reason corporations don't want to invest foreign profits in the US is because they keep hoping that they'll get the same kind of tax breaks for doing it that they did in 2004. Breaks that incidentally did absolutely nothing to help employment, yet sure did enrich a few at the top of huge multinationals.

It's just a transfer from producers to the less productive and unproductive.

I can think of nothing more unproductive than the investment bankers, hedge fund managers, CEOs, and trust fund babies who have done nothing but manipulate our economy for personal profit.

The Lord's Resistance Army is a fine, upstanding Christian organization.
It's right there in the name.

proof that drugs are bad and drug addicts should be safely locked up where they can't harm society.

Several reports would disagree with what you observed. For example: http://mediamatters.org/research/201107140013 There are others.

Media Matters. Yea, that's credible.

Several reports would disagree with what you observed. For example: http://mediamatters.org/research/201107140013
There are others.

As a viable forum for dialog, Slashdot is among the weakest.

I would cite Media Matters as regards ACORN (viz: http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=ACORN&x=0&y=0). You would cite RedState (viz: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=013850339485084395743%3Aernse1bcnr0&ie=UTF-8&q=acorn&sa=Search&siteurl=www.redstate.com%2F).

You would argue that Clinton started it all. I would claim that the economy burnt out during Clinton's era, and we started with NAFTA to export US jobs, causing a slow meltdown that caused housing prices to devalue. That never happened before.

The war on Afghanistan had a bit of justification, as Al Qaeda at the time was thought to be sheltered by the "Taliban". The war in Iraq was strictly about pissing off GB and oil. All else was a red herring. There were no WoMD there; never were.

The "war on terror" was a method to constrain the populace against a tiny faction of highly effective terrorists, all while gaining the enmity of much of the Islamic world. The oil, and the money, was burning thru the fingers of government, and contractors like Halliburton.

The banks, feeling an uptake in the economy, made obfuscating tradeable instruments, while pumping mortgage money out like it was made of thin air-- and it was. Now that the music has stopped, the banks have gotten off largely free from prosecution.

That congress was duped into one war, and underwent a siege mentality for the war on terror, doesn't forgive their actions. The Libyan action is wrong, too, IMHO.

If the intolerable hyping and biasing of the Casey Anthony trial in complete disregard of the defendant's right to due process isn't enough, there's that whole ordering people to tell lies about science to bias legislation thing.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475823/death-panel-deception
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475253/death-panel-comeback
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4313344/first-sign-of-death-panels
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/beck-has-happy-fearmongering-session
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac3_1251310849
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSI4RTWRTxo
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475784/return-of-death-panels/?playlist_id=87937
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101020001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkbzoGZTelU
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101060003
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/glenn-beck-ny-times-vindicates-death-panels-foxnews-2010-10-04

You were saying?

Do you want more? Because I can show you a lot more death panel videos from Fox.

Oh by the way, you might find this interesting:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/110179/memos-reveal-how-fox-news-spun-the-health-care-debate/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475823/death-panel-deception
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475253/death-panel-comeback
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4313344/first-sign-of-death-panels
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/beck-has-happy-fearmongering-session
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac3_1251310849
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSI4RTWRTxo
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475784/return-of-death-panels/?playlist_id=87937
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101020001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkbzoGZTelU
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101060003
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/glenn-beck-ny-times-vindicates-death-panels-foxnews-2010-10-04

You were saying?

Do you want more? Because I can show you a lot more death panel videos from Fox.

Oh by the way, you might find this interesting:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/110179/memos-reveal-how-fox-news-spun-the-health-care-debate/

At no point in time did anyone in the Bush administration insinuate that Iraq was involved in any role (direct or supporting) in the 9/11 attack.

You watch too much Fox News. They specifically did just that.

You are using the anonymity of the Internet

Google "int19h", and you'll find out all about me that you would possibly want to know.

to spread lies about policy which you don't care to characterize accurately in order to smear an administration which you don't like viscerally.

I believe I have already given a perfectly accurate characterization of Bush administration. If it wasn't clear enough, let me try again: the administration of president Bush Jr - himself included - consisted of liars, fraudsters and war criminals, and engaged in blatant violations of US constitution. There is ample evidence for all four points. I don't know how it can be any more accurate.

Do you know what proven actually means? Nothing has been proven or dis-proven

Funny, according to Rush, a *single* snow storm clearly disproved Climate Change.... linky

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F02%2F09%2F143289%2Ftea-party-islamophobia%2F&rct=j&q=tea%20partiers%20obama%20muslim&ei=1hf2TaLBO6f00gGLpvzsDA&usg=AFQjCNHmffrP1DXzniaMkuqXqmLW6o2QdQ&cad=rja

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/odonnell-aide-obama-is-secret-muslim

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fspectrum%2F2010%2F08%2F20%2Fone-fifth-wrongly-think-obama-s-muslim.html&rct=j&q=conservative%20poll%20obama%20muslim&ei=Thj2TcbZKMLr0gGJjeGwAg&usg=AFQjCNEvsTsTQELKHv91pHTgfjEKret-Mg&cad=rja

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008190061

Now go fuck yourself.

Point is, more anti-Obama crap, same as the anti-Bush crap but from another direction.

Originally from here - http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/4/

Then here - http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/05/skulking-towards-bin-laden-obama-overridden-by-military-and-intel-officials-in-takeout-of-obl.html

It's been bouncing around since at least the 4th of May - http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105040021 and the original author is known to make up stories for pageviews in the past.

http://ulster-man.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105040021

Point is, more anti-Obama crap, same as the anti-Bush crap but from another direction.

Originally from here - http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/4/

Then here - http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/05/skulking-towards-bin-laden-obama-overridden-by-military-and-intel-officials-in-takeout-of-obl.html

It's been bouncing around since at least the 4th of May - http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105040021 and the original author is known to make up stories for pageviews in the past.

http://ulster-man.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105040021

Seriously? Dan Rather is your big bogeyman from one mistake that he apologized and quit over vs hours and hours PER DAY OF COMPLETE DISINFORMATION on Fox?

Hannity and the rest weren't birthers? Err, they played up the hysteria quite well. I love how guys like you excuse them from playing up both sides. They'll legitimize it and then wash their hands of it when it gets too hot to handle. Here's Hannity loudly and childishly demanding the birth certificate. Conservative pundit Lou Dobbs went full retard with the birther nonsense that his boss had to make him stop. Sure Dobbs isn't Fox, but he's the conservative voice of CNN. These are two well known pundits. Here's conservative darling and occasional fox news commentator Sarah Palin legitimizing the issue.

And its not just the birther crap. Its the other conspiracy theories. A few years ago it was "Iraq is out to get us with WMD." Now its Obama wants our guns. Healthcare is going to send us to death panels, etc. Whatever gets the GOP base excited. Yet, they're all conspiracy theories. See, once you live in a bubble of disinformation its easy to start believing that the president isnt an American.

The real issue isn't bloggers vs mainstream press but learning how to recognize the ownership and bias of the established media outlets. Fox is a great example because its such a shitty and biased network that it perfectly illustrates why people should be skeptical of the media. The problem is that most people skeptical of the media do so because they think its liberal and see Fox as the alternative, when it reality, the news is fairly even-handed and pro-corporate, and its Fox that's the ideological nightmare.

Seriously? Dan Rather is your big bogeyman from one mistake that he apologized and quit over vs hours and hours PER DAY OF COMPLETE DISINFORMATION on Fox?

Hannity and the rest weren't birthers? Err, they played up the hysteria quite well. I love how guys like you excuse them from playing up both sides. They'll legitimize it and then wash their hands of it when it gets too hot to handle. Here's Hannity loudly and childishly demanding the birth certificate. Conservative pundit Lou Dobbs went full retard with the birther nonsense that his boss had to make him stop. Sure Dobbs isn't Fox, but he's the conservative voice of CNN. These are two well known pundits. Here's conservative darling and occasional fox news commentator Sarah Palin legitimizing the issue.

And its not just the birther crap. Its the other conspiracy theories. A few years ago it was "Iraq is out to get us with WMD." Now its Obama wants our guns. Healthcare is going to send us to death panels, etc. Whatever gets the GOP base excited. Yet, they're all conspiracy theories. See, once you live in a bubble of disinformation its easy to start believing that the president isnt an American.

The real issue isn't bloggers vs mainstream press but learning how to recognize the ownership and bias of the established media outlets. Fox is a great example because its such a shitty and biased network that it perfectly illustrates why people should be skeptical of the media. The problem is that most people skeptical of the media do so because they think its liberal and see Fox as the alternative, when it reality, the news is fairly even-handed and pro-corporate, and its Fox that's the ideological nightmare.

You refer to far, far left activity that has no bearing on the political climate in the US. Mainstream politicians on the right make plenty of incitements to violence on what is unfortunately a mainstream news channel. I don't see people who you'd consider left-wing making such extreme comments, but since I'm sure you do, would you care to cite some examples of left-wing politicians or their supporters inciting their audience to violence on a mainstream news outlet?

Fox News showed a map of the nuclear power plants in Japan. On that map, there was a suspect nuclear plant named "Shibuya Eggman". Turns out that's the name of a nightclub in the Shibuya area of Tokyo.

Fox news is hardly known for it's geographical accuracy

The original clip did not contain the context, which they acknowledge: "The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error."

That is an error, but is not quoting out of context, and does not in any way affect the substance of the reportage.

So when MMfA makes a mistake, it's an "error" but when Glenn Beck makes a mistake, he's propagating lies, is that it? I'm perfectly fine with people making errors, I'm not fine with people who expect others to be perfect when they have clearly demonstrated over and over again people, including themselves, aren't. I'm not fine with an organization that jumps on errors just to misconstrue the argument, while themselves making the same exact errors. MMfA refuses to see that and instead will spin stories whichever way they have to: What other reason would they have for the massive attack over a spelling mistake: Beck's "questions" about Obama spell "OLIGARH" [sic] Beck says his "OLIGARH" misspelling proves "you can't spell 'oligarch' without the czars'" Olbermann on Beck: "'Oligarhy'? Did Obama steal the letter 'C'? "

Again over the Muslim thing, the fact of the matter is they want to shine him as both hateful of Islam (I bet it's because he denounces stoning of homosexuals, oh the horror), and tolerant of it. Based on MMfA you would never guess that he often has invited Muslim guests to talk about dangerous sects of Islam, such as the "twelvers" that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in (that we need to create a bloodbath and absolute chaos on Earth, not a commonly held belief but a ). This is the straw-man arguments and out-of-context material I refer to.

As I've said when it's convenient for them they simply don't refute the evidence, they just post it and assume no one would check their facts, like the fact that "Early 20th century progressives" Beck blames "American progressives" for the Holocaust, eugenics is in fact correct. Even more amusing is if he admits that's not a commonly held belief by mainstream America (which of course, they leave out), why would they still care to post the quote, unless it's to misconstrue his beliefs to push such people as "extreme"? And similarly, Beck calls Charles Darwin "the father of modern day racism", where they are misconstruing a second long statement without respect to the context.

There is no empirical or logical evidence that one person has created a gold bubble, i.e. an unsustainable rise in prices, nor does the author even attempt to offer any. The value of the dollar has fallen massively, so of course it's dollar-price would increase. By extension Beck and company is responsible for the fall of the US dollar, right? What about an "Oil bubble?" No, of course not. If there's a rise in prices it means many individuals had to increase the relative value they place on Gold as compared to the currency they normally hold. Since when did we demonize any person who actually puts their money where their mouth is? Beck canceled a multi-million dollar contract with GM over the bailout, but if I understand correctly, since Goldline is a sponsor he's never going to cancel them... wait what I'm not following that argument? The one possibly good argument I've heard is Goldine charges about 20% over the melt value for what turns out to be their antique gold coins. Wow, I wonder how much I can get if I melt down an original Apple for it's metals, etc. From the article, let's also demonize any person who points out gold and silver are the only constituti

The original clip did not contain the context, which they acknowledge: "The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error."

That is an error, but is not quoting out of context, and does not in any way affect the substance of the reportage.

So when MMfA makes a mistake, it's an "error" but when Glenn Beck makes a mistake, he's propagating lies, is that it? I'm perfectly fine with people making errors, I'm not fine with people who expect others to be perfect when they have clearly demonstrated over and over again people, including themselves, aren't. I'm not fine with an organization that jumps on errors just to misconstrue the argument, while themselves making the same exact errors. MMfA refuses to see that and instead will spin stories whichever way they have to: What other reason would they have for the massive attack over a spelling mistake: Beck's "questions" about Obama spell "OLIGARH" [sic] Beck says his "OLIGARH" misspelling proves "you can't spell 'oligarch' without the czars'" Olbermann on Beck: "'Oligarhy'? Did Obama steal the letter 'C'? "

Again over the Muslim thing, the fact of the matter is they want to shine him as both hateful of Islam (I bet it's because he denounces stoning of homosexuals, oh the horror), and tolerant of it. Based on MMfA you would never guess that he often has invited Muslim guests to talk about dangerous sects of Islam, such as the "twelvers" that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in (that we need to create a bloodbath and absolute chaos on Earth, not a commonly held belief but a ). This is the straw-man arguments and out-of-context material I refer to.

As I've said when it's convenient for them they simply don't refute the evidence, they just post it and assume no one would check their facts, like the fact that "Early 20th century progressives" Beck blames "American progressives" for the Holocaust, eugenics is in fact correct. Even more amusing is if he admits that's not a commonly held belief by mainstream America (which of course, they leave out), why would they still care to post the quote, unless it's to misconstrue his beliefs to push such people as "extreme"? And similarly, Beck calls Charles Darwin "the father of modern day racism", where they are misconstruing a second long statement without respect to the context.

There is no empirical or logical evidence that one person has created a gold bubble, i.e. an unsustainable rise in prices, nor does the author even attempt to offer any. The value of the dollar has fallen massively, so of course it's dollar-price would increase. By extension Beck and company is responsible for the fall of the US dollar, right? What about an "Oil bubble?" No, of course not. If there's a rise in prices it means many individuals had to increase the relative value they place on Gold as compared to the currency they normally hold. Since when did we demonize any person who actually puts their money where their mouth is? Beck canceled a multi-million dollar contract with GM over the bailout, but if I understand correctly, since Goldline is a sponsor he's never going to cancel them... wait what I'm not following that argument? The one possibly good argument I've heard is Goldine charges about 20% over the melt value for what turns out to be their antique gold coins. Wow, I wonder how much I can get if I melt down an original Apple for it's metals, etc. From the article, let's also demonize any person who points out gold and silver are the only constituti

The original clip did not contain the context, which they acknowledge: "The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error."

That is an error, but is not quoting out of context, and does not in any way affect the substance of the reportage.

So when MMfA makes a mistake, it's an "error" but when Glenn Beck makes a mistake, he's propagating lies, is that it? I'm perfectly fine with people making errors, I'm not fine with people who expect others to be perfect when they have clearly demonstrated over and over again people, including themselves, aren't. I'm not fine with an organization that jumps on errors just to misconstrue the argument, while themselves making the same exact errors. MMfA refuses to see that and instead will spin stories whichever way they have to: What other reason would they have for the massive attack over a spelling mistake: Beck's "questions" about Obama spell "OLIGARH" [sic] Beck says his "OLIGARH" misspelling proves "you can't spell 'oligarch' without the czars'" Olbermann on Beck: "'Oligarhy'? Did Obama steal the letter 'C'? "

Again over the Muslim thing, the fact of the matter is they want to shine him as both hateful of Islam (I bet it's because he denounces stoning of homosexuals, oh the horror), and tolerant of it. Based on MMfA you would never guess that he often has invited Muslim guests to talk about dangerous sects of Islam, such as the "twelvers" that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in (that we need to create a bloodbath and absolute chaos on Earth, not a commonly held belief but a ). This is the straw-man arguments and out-of-context material I refer to.

As I've said when it's convenient for them they simply don't refute the evidence, they just post it and assume no one would check their facts, like the fact that "Early 20th century progressives" Beck blames "American progressives" for the Holocaust, eugenics is in fact correct. Even more amusing is if he admits that's not a commonly held belief by mainstream America (which of course, they leave out), why would they still care to post the quote, unless it's to misconstrue his beliefs to push such people as "extreme"? And similarly, Beck calls Charles Darwin "the father of modern day racism", where they are misconstruing a second long statement without respect to the context.

There is no empirical or logical evidence that one person has created a gold bubble, i.e. an unsustainable rise in prices, nor does the author even attempt to offer any. The value of the dollar has fallen massively, so of course it's dollar-price would increase. By extension Beck and company is responsible for the fall of the US dollar, right? What about an "Oil bubble?" No, of course not. If there's a rise in prices it means many individuals had to increase the relative value they place on Gold as compared to the currency they normally hold. Since when did we demonize any person who actually puts their money where their mouth is? Beck canceled a multi-million dollar contract with GM over the bailout, but if I understand correctly, since Goldline is a sponsor he's never going to cancel them... wait what I'm not following that argument? The one possibly good argument I've heard is Goldine charges about 20% over the melt value for what turns out to be their antique gold coins. Wow, I wonder how much I can get if I melt down an original Apple for it's metals, etc. From the article, let's also demonize any person who points out gold and silver are the only constituti

The original clip did not contain the context, which they acknowledge: "The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error."

That is an error, but is not quoting out of context, and does not in any way affect the substance of the reportage.

So when MMfA makes a mistake, it's an "error" but when Glenn Beck makes a mistake, he's propagating lies, is that it? I'm perfectly fine with people making errors, I'm not fine with people who expect others to be perfect when they have clearly demonstrated over and over again people, including themselves, aren't. I'm not fine with an organization that jumps on errors just to misconstrue the argument, while themselves making the same exact errors. MMfA refuses to see that and instead will spin stories whichever way they have to: What other reason would they have for the massive attack over a spelling mistake: Beck's "questions" about Obama spell "OLIGARH" [sic] Beck says his "OLIGARH" misspelling proves "you can't spell 'oligarch' without the czars'" Olbermann on Beck: "'Oligarhy'? Did Obama steal the letter 'C'? "

Again over the Muslim thing, the fact of the matter is they want to shine him as both hateful of Islam (I bet it's because he denounces stoning of homosexuals, oh the horror), and tolerant of it. Based on MMfA you would never guess that he often has invited Muslim guests to talk about dangerous sects of Islam, such as the "twelvers" that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in (that we need to create a bloodbath and absolute chaos on Earth, not a commonly held belief but a ). This is the straw-man arguments and out-of-context material I refer to.

As I've said when it's convenient for them they simply don't refute the evidence, they just post it and assume no one would check their facts, like the fact that "Early 20th century progressives" Beck blames "American progressives" for the Holocaust, eugenics is in fact correct. Even more amusing is if he admits that's not a commonly held belief by mainstream America (which of course, they leave out), why would they still care to post the quote, unless it's to misconstrue his beliefs to push such people as "extreme"? And similarly, Beck calls Charles Darwin "the father of modern day racism", where they are misconstruing a second long statement without respect to the context.

There is no empirical or logical evidence that one person has created a gold bubble, i.e. an unsustainable rise in prices, nor does the author even attempt to offer any. The value of the dollar has fallen massively, so of course it's dollar-price would increase. By extension Beck and company is responsible for the fall of the US dollar, right? What about an "Oil bubble?" No, of course not. If there's a rise in prices it means many individuals had to increase the relative value they place on Gold as compared to the currency they normally hold. Since when did we demonize any person who actually puts their money where their mouth is? Beck canceled a multi-million dollar contract with GM over the bailout, but if I understand correctly, since Goldline is a sponsor he's never going to cancel them... wait what I'm not following that argument? The one possibly good argument I've heard is Goldine charges about 20% over the melt value for what turns out to be their antique gold coins. Wow, I wonder how much I can get if I melt down an original Apple for it's metals, etc. From the article, let's also demonize any person who points out gold and silver are the only constituti

The original clip did not contain the context, which they acknowledge: "The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error."

That is an error, but is not quoting out of context, and does not in any way affect the substance of the reportage.

So when MMfA makes a mistake, it's an "error" but when Glenn Beck makes a mistake, he's propagating lies, is that it? I'm perfectly fine with people making errors, I'm not fine with people who expect others to be perfect when they have clearly demonstrated over and over again people, including themselves, aren't. I'm not fine with an organization that jumps on errors just to misconstrue the argument, while themselves making the same exact errors. MMfA refuses to see that and instead will spin stories whichever way they have to: What other reason would they have for the massive attack over a spelling mistake: Beck's "questions" about Obama spell "OLIGARH" [sic] Beck says his "OLIGARH" misspelling proves "you can't spell 'oligarch' without the czars'" Olbermann on Beck: "'Oligarhy'? Did Obama steal the letter 'C'? "

Again over the Muslim thing, the fact of the matter is they want to shine him as both hateful of Islam (I bet it's because he denounces stoning of homosexuals, oh the horror), and tolerant of it. Based on MMfA you would never guess that he often has invited Muslim guests to talk about dangerous sects of Islam, such as the "twelvers" that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in (that we need to create a bloodbath and absolute chaos on Earth, not a commonly held belief but a ). This is the straw-man arguments and out-of-context material I refer to.

As I've said when it's convenient for them they simply don't refute the evidence, they just post it and assume no one would check their facts, like the fact that "Early 20th century progressives" Beck blames "American progressives" for the Holocaust, eugenics is in fact correct. Even more amusing is if he admits that's not a commonly held belief by mainstream America (which of course, they leave out), why would they still care to post the quote, unless it's to misconstrue his beliefs to push such people as "extreme"? And similarly, Beck calls Charles Darwin "the father of modern day racism", where they are misconstruing a second long statement without respect to the context.

There is no empirical or logical evidence that one person has created a gold bubble, i.e. an unsustainable rise in prices, nor does the author even attempt to offer any. The value of the dollar has fallen massively, so of course it's dollar-price would increase. By extension Beck and company is responsible for the fall of the US dollar, right? What about an "Oil bubble?" No, of course not. If there's a rise in prices it means many individuals had to increase the relative value they place on Gold as compared to the currency they normally hold. Since when did we demonize any person who actually puts their money where their mouth is? Beck canceled a multi-million dollar contract with GM over the bailout, but if I understand correctly, since Goldline is a sponsor he's never going to cancel them... wait what I'm not following that argument? The one possibly good argument I've heard is Goldine charges about 20% over the melt value for what turns out to be their antique gold coins. Wow, I wonder how much I can get if I melt down an original Apple for it's metals, etc. From the article, let's also demonize any person who points out gold and silver are the only constituti

How many more do you want?!?

"More"? You've yet to provide any. Here is what is required to demonstrate that MM is taking Beck our of context: a pair of links, one to a MM story quoting Beck, and another to a reliable source giving a more extensive version of the quote showing that MM is quoting out of context.

I'm assuming that you understand what "quoting out of context" means. If you don't, the wik's artcile on the subject is a good place to start.

Glenn called the housing bubble and the current gold prices

The housing bubble was evident to anything with a functioning central nervous system. And Beck helped create the current gold bubble.

So because someone reverses their position, very openly, they are no longer correct?

I can't parse the tangled grammar of this question.

Assume that proposition X is true. If someone claims that X is true, and reverses their position, they are no longer correct, and their credibility decreases. If someone claims that X is false, and then reverses their position, they become correct, but their credibility may increase only marginally, or not at all, depending on how long they argued that X was false and how blatant the truth of X was.

yet Media Matters can't seem to cite their own sources correctly, misattributing Neil Cavuto's hour long program to Glenn Beck:

The segment is correctly attributed to Cavuto; they apparently misstated which show he appeared on. That is an error, but is not quoting out of context, and does not in any way affect the substance of the reportage.

Perhaps you want to explain away the "Olbermann killed people" quote: Media Matters Gives Glenn Beckâ(TM)s Co-Hosts The Shirley Sherrod Edited Audio Treatment

That's the headline, not the quote. MM's site has the clip in its entirety, including the "hey, we've being sarcastic!" bit. And as is noted in your own link, MM posted a correction to clarify the headline. (From the comment thread on the MM page, they seem to have posted that by the next day at the latest.) If they had not done so, you'd have an example of a poor headline, still not one of MM quoting out of context; with the correction, you don't even have that.

No, I would say it has more to do with things like consistently misidentifying scandal-plagued Republicans as Democrats, using footage from the wrong year showing CPAC delegates booing Ron Paul (which just coincidentally portrays him in a bad light) or studies showing that Fox viewers tend to be less well informed than viewers of other networks.

You're just taking apart my arguments but it fails to demonstrate that MMfA is justified in making them. You can't find any articles that have no explanations or refutations attached to them? Have you read any of the articles? Here's another one without any explanation whatsoever attached to it: Beck: "You're About To See This President Start Embracing The Uprisings In This Country".

Still no examples provided.

How many more do you want?!?

And both these are different from attacks on credibility, a perfectly legitimate form of rhetoric where one argues "Beck was wrong about X and Y and Z and P and D and Q, and therefore we ought not to accept that A is true based on his testimony." MM is attacking Beck's credibility, and this is valid.

So because someone reverses their position, very openly, they are no longer correct? Media Matters has tried to pin Glenn when criticizing the Bush and Obama stimulus and bailouts, for once merely implying TARP was good because "it would land the plane in a forest instead of the side of a mountain" even though three days after that statement he very openly and critically opposed it saying it was corrupting and would actually be harmful (A corrective recession is the best cure, etc) - you can Google this for yourself at your own convenience. What about everything they were correct on, since the economy is a fairly objective example, Glenn called the housing bubble and the current gold prices, saying get out of the stock market, attributing it to destruction of the rule of law because of unpredictable changes in regulations, by both Bush and Obama.

Here's another great one from their front page: Beck Follows Goldberg In Cropping Quote About Mussolini, Misattributes It To NY Times yet Media Matters can't seem to cite their own sources correctly, misattributing Neil Cavuto's hour long program to Glenn Beck: Cavuto: "Cut" Blumenthal "a break," he "stumbled," attacks are "nonsense"

Take a more obscure form of taking things out of context and guilt by association: Former Bush Official: Beck Criticism "Absurd" is nonsense because Glenn was one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, over foreign policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, the PATRIOT act, they can't seem to grasp the fact that he doesn't care about party affiliation.

Perhaps you want to explain away the "Olbermann killed people" quote: Media Matters Gives Glenn Beck’s Co-Hosts The Shirley Sherrod Edited Audio Treatment

For the sake of time I'm not compiling every single error they have ever made, I'm recalling off of memory. Perhaps you want to cite primary sources and specific examples in your own refutations like I at least attempted to do. Unless you're going to follow your own standards I'm done.

You're just taking apart my arguments but it fails to demonstrate that MMfA is justified in making them. You can't find any articles that have no explanations or refutations attached to them? Have you read any of the articles? Here's another one without any explanation whatsoever attached to it: Beck: "You're About To See This President Start Embracing The Uprisings In This Country".

Still no examples provided.

How many more do you want?!?

And both these are different from attacks on credibility, a perfectly legitimate form of rhetoric where one argues "Beck was wrong about X and Y and Z and P and D and Q, and therefore we ought not to accept that A is true based on his testimony." MM is attacking Beck's credibility, and this is valid.

So because someone reverses their position, very openly, they are no longer correct? Media Matters has tried to pin Glenn when criticizing the Bush and Obama stimulus and bailouts, for once merely implying TARP was good because "it would land the plane in a forest instead of the side of a mountain" even though three days after that statement he very openly and critically opposed it saying it was corrupting and would actually be harmful (A corrective recession is the best cure, etc) - you can Google this for yourself at your own convenience. What about everything they were correct on, since the economy is a fairly objective example, Glenn called the housing bubble and the current gold prices, saying get out of the stock market, attributing it to destruction of the rule of law because of unpredictable changes in regulations, by both Bush and Obama.

Here's another great one from their front page: Beck Follows Goldberg In Cropping Quote About Mussolini, Misattributes It To NY Times yet Media Matters can't seem to cite their own sources correctly, misattributing Neil Cavuto's hour long program to Glenn Beck: Cavuto: "Cut" Blumenthal "a break," he "stumbled," attacks are "nonsense"

Take a more obscure form of taking things out of context and guilt by association: Former Bush Official: Beck Criticism "Absurd" is nonsense because Glenn was one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, over foreign policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, the PATRIOT act, they can't seem to grasp the fact that he doesn't care about party affiliation.

Perhaps you want to explain away the "Olbermann killed people" quote: Media Matters Gives Glenn Beck’s Co-Hosts The Shirley Sherrod Edited Audio Treatment

For the sake of time I'm not compiling every single error they have ever made, I'm recalling off of memory. Perhaps you want to cite primary sources and specific examples in your own refutations like I at least attempted to do. Unless you're going to follow your own standards I'm done.

You're just taking apart my arguments but it fails to demonstrate that MMfA is justified in making them. You can't find any articles that have no explanations or refutations attached to them? Have you read any of the articles? Here's another one without any explanation whatsoever attached to it: Beck: "You're About To See This President Start Embracing The Uprisings In This Country".

Still no examples provided.

How many more do you want?!?

And both these are different from attacks on credibility, a perfectly legitimate form of rhetoric where one argues "Beck was wrong about X and Y and Z and P and D and Q, and therefore we ought not to accept that A is true based on his testimony." MM is attacking Beck's credibility, and this is valid.

So because someone reverses their position, very openly, they are no longer correct? Media Matters has tried to pin Glenn when criticizing the Bush and Obama stimulus and bailouts, for once merely implying TARP was good because "it would land the plane in a forest instead of the side of a mountain" even though three days after that statement he very openly and critically opposed it saying it was corrupting and would actually be harmful (A corrective recession is the best cure, etc) - you can Google this for yourself at your own convenience. What about everything they were correct on, since the economy is a fairly objective example, Glenn called the housing bubble and the current gold prices, saying get out of the stock market, attributing it to destruction of the rule of law because of unpredictable changes in regulations, by both Bush and Obama.

Here's another great one from their front page: Beck Follows Goldberg In Cropping Quote About Mussolini, Misattributes It To NY Times yet Media Matters can't seem to cite their own sources correctly, misattributing Neil Cavuto's hour long program to Glenn Beck: Cavuto: "Cut" Blumenthal "a break," he "stumbled," attacks are "nonsense"

Take a more obscure form of taking things out of context and guilt by association: Former Bush Official: Beck Criticism "Absurd" is nonsense because Glenn was one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, over foreign policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, the PATRIOT act, they can't seem to grasp the fact that he doesn't care about party affiliation.

Perhaps you want to explain away the "Olbermann killed people" quote: Media Matters Gives Glenn Beck’s Co-Hosts The Shirley Sherrod Edited Audio Treatment

For the sake of time I'm not compiling every single error they have ever made, I'm recalling off of memory. Perhaps you want to cite primary sources and specific examples in your own refutations like I at least attempted to do. Unless you're going to follow your own standards I'm done.

You're just taking apart my arguments but it fails to demonstrate that MMfA is justified in making them. You can't find any articles that have no explanations or refutations attached to them? Have you read any of the articles? Here's another one without any explanation whatsoever attached to it: Beck: "You're About To See This President Start Embracing The Uprisings In This Country".

Still no examples provided.

How many more do you want?!?

And both these are different from attacks on credibility, a perfectly legitimate form of rhetoric where one argues "Beck was wrong about X and Y and Z and P and D and Q, and therefore we ought not to accept that A is true based on his testimony." MM is attacking Beck's credibility, and this is valid.

So because someone reverses their position, very openly, they are no longer correct? Media Matters has tried to pin Glenn when criticizing the Bush and Obama stimulus and bailouts, for once merely implying TARP was good because "it would land the plane in a forest instead of the side of a mountain" even though three days after that statement he very openly and critically opposed it saying it was corrupting and would actually be harmful (A corrective recession is the best cure, etc) - you can Google this for yourself at your own convenience. What about everything they were correct on, since the economy is a fairly objective example, Glenn called the housing bubble and the current gold prices, saying get out of the stock market, attributing it to destruction of the rule of law because of unpredictable changes in regulations, by both Bush and Obama.

Here's another great one from their front page: Beck Follows Goldberg In Cropping Quote About Mussolini, Misattributes It To NY Times yet Media Matters can't seem to cite their own sources correctly, misattributing Neil Cavuto's hour long program to Glenn Beck: Cavuto: "Cut" Blumenthal "a break," he "stumbled," attacks are "nonsense"

Take a more obscure form of taking things out of context and guilt by association: Former Bush Official: Beck Criticism "Absurd" is nonsense because Glenn was one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, over foreign policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, the PATRIOT act, they can't seem to grasp the fact that he doesn't care about party affiliation.

Perhaps you want to explain away the "Olbermann killed people" quote: Media Matters Gives Glenn Beck’s Co-Hosts The Shirley Sherrod Edited Audio Treatment

For the sake of time I'm not compiling every single error they have ever made, I'm recalling off of memory. Perhaps you want to cite primary sources and specific examples in your own refutations like I at least attempted to do. Unless you're going to follow your own standards I'm done.

Um, the statement this article refers to was only made this morning on the radio program.

He's been wary of the NSA before, in particular Google and the NSA "in bed", and is that a bad thing? It's the very thing the EFF has been screaming about for a while now.

Either way, your timing is badly off.

Hmm. I thought the date on TFA said Feb. 14th. It still says that at this writing, but I'll concede that the NSA may have rigged it so that the wrong date is on the web site. I didn't actually watch the video because I was already farting around too much while at work.

FWIW, the paranoid component of my personality is very cognizant of the possibility that government agencies have their tentacles firmly entwined into the search engines and social media. Glen[n?] Beck, however, is not a trustworthy messenger in my book.

Media Matters uses ad hominem arguments like I've never seen, attacks on character. The World As Seen Through Glenn Beck's DVD Collection. They routinely take him out of context without providing any explanation, to the extent if I didn't know better I would think they are endorsing his positions. Glenn Beck failed his 40-Day Challenge

Several times they have directly contradicted themselves in selectively interpreting what he has said to further their own goals: In 2006 they tried to frame him as "smearing" Imam Rauf (Good Morning America welcomed "talk-radio host" Glenn Beck to discuss Islam, didn't mention Beck's history of smears) but then 4 years later tried to frame him as congratulating the very same in the very same interview! (FLASHBACK: In 2006 joint appearance, Beck appeared to call Imam Rauf a "good Muslim")

It appears they scrubbed the story after Glenn criticized it though it was up for at least a week, when rest of the radio show staff (Glenn was out) was satirizing Media Matters itself and saying "what if we blamed Keith Olbermann for the Discovery Channel hostage situation" (and similar situations caused by leftists) THEY TOOK THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AS IF THEY REALLY MEANT IT (little realizing that they do the same thing, blaming Glenn for the "murder" of a census worker who in fact committed suicide to cash in on two life insurance policies, by writing FED on himself, and hanging himself). Glenn returned the next day and to joke about the stupidity of the recent Shirley Sherrod firing, "fired" his staff. Speaking of which, they have repeatedly tried to contradict the fact he was one of the first people to ask for the full context of the clip before ever discussing it on air, only citing his previous business with Andrew Breitbart so "of course he believed it" or similar. They have also tried to claim that he was endorsing the FEMA camp conspiracy theory by taking a show to debunk it. Huh?

They routinely selectively publish "research" without providing context. For instance, saying FNC is "biased" by taking out of context a single viewpoint in a two- or three-part clip examining multiple arguments, this happened numerous times when they were reporting on the executive and Congressional response to the "Don't ask don't tell" policy change. When they have said FNC is "fundraising for Republican candidates" they point to clips interviewing candidates talking about where to find more information about their campaign (again, out of context, where the opposition too did the exact same thing!)

I don't set myself up for straw-man arguments by taking clips out of context, I only go straight to the source and comment on what I see. Unless you're actually watching Glenn Beck every day you aren't in a position to be saying what he's doing wrong. I don't watch MSNBC commentators, I don't happen to follow Think Progress or such, so you won't find me refuting what they say, but I do happen to follow Media Matters, and so I would say I am in such a position to refute that.

Media Matters uses ad hominem arguments like I've never seen, attacks on character. The World As Seen Through Glenn Beck's DVD Collection. They routinely take him out of context without providing any explanation, to the extent if I didn't know better I would think they are endorsing his positions. Glenn Beck failed his 40-Day Challenge

Several times they have directly contradicted themselves in selectively interpreting what he has said to further their own goals: In 2006 they tried to frame him as "smearing" Imam Rauf (Good Morning America welcomed "talk-radio host" Glenn Beck to discuss Islam, didn't mention Beck's history of smears) but then 4 years later tried to frame him as congratulating the very same in the very same interview! (FLASHBACK: In 2006 joint appearance, Beck appeared to call Imam Rauf a "good Muslim")

It appears they scrubbed the story after Glenn criticized it though it was up for at least a week, when rest of the radio show staff (Glenn was out) was satirizing Media Matters itself and saying "what if we blamed Keith Olbermann for the Discovery Channel hostage situation" (and similar situations caused by leftists) THEY TOOK THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AS IF THEY REALLY MEANT IT (little realizing that they do the same thing, blaming Glenn for the "murder" of a census worker who in fact committed suicide to cash in on two life insurance policies, by writing FED on himself, and hanging himself). Glenn returned the next day and to joke about the stupidity of the recent Shirley Sherrod firing, "fired" his staff. Speaking of which, they have repeatedly tried to contradict the fact he was one of the first people to ask for the full context of the clip before ever discussing it on air, only citing his previous business with Andrew Breitbart so "of course he believed it" or similar. They have also tried to claim that he was endorsing the FEMA camp conspiracy theory by taking a show to debunk it. Huh?

They routinely selectively publish "research" without providing context. For instance, saying FNC is "biased" by taking out of context a single viewpoint in a two- or three-part clip examining multiple arguments, this happened numerous times when they were reporting on the executive and Congressional response to the "Don't ask don't tell" policy change. When they have said FNC is "fundraising for Republican candidates" they point to clips interviewing candidates talking about where to find more information about their campaign (again, out of context, where the opposition too did the exact same thing!)

I don't set myself up for straw-man arguments by taking clips out of context, I only go straight to the source and comment on what I see. Unless you're actually watching Glenn Beck every day you aren't in a position to be saying what he's doing wrong. I don't watch MSNBC commentators, I don't happen to follow Think Progress or such, so you won't find me refuting what they say, but I do happen to follow Media Matters, and so I would say I am in such a position to refute that.

Media Matters uses ad hominem arguments like I've never seen, attacks on character. The World As Seen Through Glenn Beck's DVD Collection. They routinely take him out of context without providing any explanation, to the extent if I didn't know better I would think they are endorsing his positions. Glenn Beck failed his 40-Day Challenge

Several times they have directly contradicted themselves in selectively interpreting what he has said to further their own goals: In 2006 they tried to frame him as "smearing" Imam Rauf (Good Morning America welcomed "talk-radio host" Glenn Beck to discuss Islam, didn't mention Beck's history of smears) but then 4 years later tried to frame him as congratulating the very same in the very same interview! (FLASHBACK: In 2006 joint appearance, Beck appeared to call Imam Rauf a "good Muslim")

It appears they scrubbed the story after Glenn criticized it though it was up for at least a week, when rest of the radio show staff (Glenn was out) was satirizing Media Matters itself and saying "what if we blamed Keith Olbermann for the Discovery Channel hostage situation" (and similar situations caused by leftists) THEY TOOK THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AS IF THEY REALLY MEANT IT (little realizing that they do the same thing, blaming Glenn for the "murder" of a census worker who in fact committed suicide to cash in on two life insurance policies, by writing FED on himself, and hanging himself). Glenn returned the next day and to joke about the stupidity of the recent Shirley Sherrod firing, "fired" his staff. Speaking of which, they have repeatedly tried to contradict the fact he was one of the first people to ask for the full context of the clip before ever discussing it on air, only citing his previous business with Andrew Breitbart so "of course he believed it" or similar. They have also tried to claim that he was endorsing the FEMA camp conspiracy theory by taking a show to debunk it. Huh?

They routinely selectively publish "research" without providing context. For instance, saying FNC is "biased" by taking out of context a single viewpoint in a two- or three-part clip examining multiple arguments, this happened numerous times when they were reporting on the executive and Congressional response to the "Don't ask don't tell" policy change. When they have said FNC is "fundraising for Republican candidates" they point to clips interviewing candidates talking about where to find more information about their campaign (again, out of context, where the opposition too did the exact same thing!)

I don't set myself up for straw-man arguments by taking clips out of context, I only go straight to the source and comment on what I see. Unless you're actually watching Glenn Beck every day you aren't in a position to be saying what he's doing wrong. I don't watch MSNBC commentators, I don't happen to follow Think Progress or such, so you won't find me refuting what they say, but I do happen to follow Media Matters, and so I would say I am in such a position to refute that.

Media Matters uses ad hominem arguments like I've never seen, attacks on character. The World As Seen Through Glenn Beck's DVD Collection. They routinely take him out of context without providing any explanation, to the extent if I didn't know better I would think they are endorsing his positions. Glenn Beck failed his 40-Day Challenge

Several times they have directly contradicted themselves in selectively interpreting what he has said to further their own goals: In 2006 they tried to frame him as "smearing" Imam Rauf (Good Morning America welcomed "talk-radio host" Glenn Beck to discuss Islam, didn't mention Beck's history of smears) but then 4 years later tried to frame him as congratulating the very same in the very same interview! (FLASHBACK: In 2006 joint appearance, Beck appeared to call Imam Rauf a "good Muslim")

It appears they scrubbed the story after Glenn criticized it though it was up for at least a week, when rest of the radio show staff (Glenn was out) was satirizing Media Matters itself and saying "what if we blamed Keith Olbermann for the Discovery Channel hostage situation" (and similar situations caused by leftists) THEY TOOK THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AS IF THEY REALLY MEANT IT (little realizing that they do the same thing, blaming Glenn for the "murder" of a census worker who in fact committed suicide to cash in on two life insurance policies, by writing FED on himself, and hanging himself). Glenn returned the next day and to joke about the stupidity of the recent Shirley Sherrod firing, "fired" his staff. Speaking of which, they have repeatedly tried to contradict the fact he was one of the first people to ask for the full context of the clip before ever discussing it on air, only citing his previous business with Andrew Breitbart so "of course he believed it" or similar. They have also tried to claim that he was endorsing the FEMA camp conspiracy theory by taking a show to debunk it. Huh?

They routinely selectively publish "research" without providing context. For instance, saying FNC is "biased" by taking out of context a single viewpoint in a two- or three-part clip examining multiple arguments, this happened numerous times when they were reporting on the executive and Congressional response to the "Don't ask don't tell" policy change. When they have said FNC is "fundraising for Republican candidates" they point to clips interviewing candidates talking about where to find more information about their campaign (again, out of context, where the opposition too did the exact same thing!)

I don't set myself up for straw-man arguments by taking clips out of context, I only go straight to the source and comment on what I see. Unless you're actually watching Glenn Beck every day you aren't in a position to be saying what he's doing wrong. I don't watch MSNBC commentators, I don't happen to follow Think Progress or such, so you won't find me refuting what they say, but I do happen to follow Media Matters, and so I would say I am in such a position to refute that.

No, he's selling books and getting ratings and a lot of money. Folks who think Beck is crazy are just as bamboozled as any of his fans. It's really hilarious.

Anyone who sacrifices their honor and dignity, and encourages others to not just abandon rational thinking but to engage in acts of violence, all in order to pad their bank account, is crazy.

In other words, Beck has to be one sort of crazy (some sort of personality disorder) in order to pretend to be the sort of crazy (sort of paranoid schizophrenia) that he does.

Oh..well, I see. As long as Mediamatters.org says it's true, then it must be true. how silly of me.

Methinks you drinkith the kool-aid.

No, he's selling books and getting ratings and a lot of money. Folks who think Beck is crazy are just as bamboozled as any of his fans. It's really hilarious.

Anyone who sacrifices their honor and dignity, and encourages others to not just abandon rational thinking but to engage in acts of violence, all in order to pad their bank account, is crazy.

In other words, Beck has to be one sort of crazy (some sort of personality disorder) in order to pretend to be the sort of crazy (sort of paranoid schizophrenia) that he does.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/fox_news_channel

I half agree with you. I've attempted to talk to conservative relatives about global warming, and gotten no where.

But when I talk to conservatives about reliance on foreign oil, the answer is always 'drill locally baby drill'. If global warming is real, then staying on oil, be it locally produced or foreign, isn't going to help us.

When I talk to them about pollution, I usually get responses along the lines of: "Yeah, it would be nicer if cars were cleaner. But that will just happen over time, the free market will make it happen in its own time, no need to regulate or force it."

I do not have much hope that I can change their minds, giving the obvious bias of their favorite news source