Slashdot Mirror

Clip from the show

There's a video of the actual interview here

Rush Limbaugh: Democrats "have reformatted the [economic recovery] bill -- they've made it a PDF file when they posted it. ... And, so, you can read every page, but you cannot keyword search it. It's not a text file as legislation normally is as posted on these public websites. They don't want anybody knowing what's in this." http://mediamatters.org/research/200902130016

The constitution says people cannot be coerced into signing a contract. By anyone.

Which is why you can receive a subsidy to purchase insurance if you can not afford it or "opt out" by paying a fine. Moving on...

Do some simple math! If you have a system that's already out of money, and you take more money from it to start a similar system, more than triple the number of people receiving benefits, it's going to cost more not less!

Unless you are simultaneously reducing costs for Medicare by similar amounts or funding the proposals in other ways (i.e. the "Cadillac" plan tax and Medicare tax increase.) Please read the CBO report, which is party-neutral and sanctioned by both parties to do its analysis.

Keep in mind that in 1965 lawmakers* predicted...

*(not professional governmental accountants or the CBO) Your point? Long distance forecasts are entirely less than accurate. Which is why they call them "official estimates." There are also provisions within the bill to take steps to meet the necessary reductions should the plan not work as intended. Next?

Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada...

Who have a single payer, government run system entirely unlike what is proposed in the bill?

The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that a full 1/3 of doctors will "QUIT PRACTICING MEDICINE" if the bill passes...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003190027 The "estimates" you refer to were not "conducted, commissioned or published" by the NEJM.

We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die, instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors. A healthy 19 yr/old kid, who hasn't put a dime into the system will be placed higher on the list than say a 60 yr/old man who has paid into the system his whole life. In essence the 60 yr/old man worked his whole life paying into a system that will deem him unworthy and spend his money on someone whom he has never met while he suffers and dies while younger "more economically viable" people will get treatment first. In the existing system, the same 60 yr/old man would be able to do whatever it takes for him to get his liver (insurance,debt,sell car/house etc.)

Really? Your example truly shows the lack of understanding and confusion perpetrated about this bill. Please cite to me the section within either bill that states a government panel will hear cases on liver transplants and decide their validity, expediency, etc.

...the feigned outrage at %3/yr is totally false when the alternative they suggest is higher.

Comprehensive Medicare reform is not the core of this bill. However, cost-saving measures that will affect Medicare are included in its provisions. Will it solve the Medicare crisis? No. Will it provide health insurance to the uninsured? Yes.

Obviously neither of you use google much. He didn't post any links because he is lazy, not because liberal sites don't report on the matter:

Huffington Post - "Obama's Broken Promise: Federal Agencies Not More Transparent Under Obama Administration"
Media Matters - "Andrew Malcolm's opaque transparency attack"
Politicususa - "How The Huffington Post got it wrong about Obama and Transparency"

If you want to find a news source that only reports news from one perfectly biased perspective, look no further than FOX, the propaganda arm of the ultra-conservative movement.

The point of this article is to discuss the reform in a constructive manner, not to bash entire ideologies just because they are not your own.

Obviously, you've never seen a single hour of Fox. Imagine several schizophrenic paranoid white men, who are afraid of gays, Mexicans, muslims, the poor (that's code for minorities), hate equality, love war, and instead of using a values system as a starting point for their worldview, they start out with a worldview and then selectively apply their values system in nonsensical rants. Give them an audience and editors and producers that only care about ratings and pushing ideology handed directly to them from GOP and other ultra-conservative sources.

Now pretend that it's news so people think they are using journalistic standards, when in fact they are simply opinion shows.

All of the media outlets are rather stupid. Fox News is dangerously delusional.

Um, health care reform? Don't ask, don't tell? Closing Guantanamo? Helping Haiti quicker than Bush helped New Orleans?

here's a hufpo article on his first hundred days:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

Here's a Media Matters article: http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270003

Denver post: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14226357

I'm no fan of the man myself, and I agree, he could do a lot more. If only he really were the socialist some right wing loons claim he is. But he's not, he's a center-right politician.

But I am interested, what harm do you think he has done?

One thing is to use your freedom of speech to oppose the government and another is to push for a coup, that is what those tv companies did. Even in the USA, if you publicly express your desire to kill the president you could end with a visit from the US Secret Service, and you could bet that if a TV station repeatedly called for the overthrow of Bush on his time or Obama now, they would end with their broadcasting license revoked by the FCC.

Glenn Beck seems to still be ok and he calls for secession and rejects the governments authority.
Bachmann hasn't been arrested despite her belief that Washington is "enemy territory".

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200904140032

In any case the website in question did none of those things: some forum users posted a rumor that some ministers had been assassinated.
That isn't calling for the overthrow of the country or the murder of chavez.

He still has not denied it!

You expect a man who can't remember what he said an hour ago to remember if he raped and killed a girl in 1990? Guess he climbed on that wagon a little too late:

Beck "hacked off" by RNC memo, claims America is looking for "someone that is not going to play on our fears"
Beck: "We are sitting around and we are watching the systematic destruction of everything we hold dear by thugs"

He still has not denied it!

You expect a man who can't remember what he said an hour ago to remember if he raped and killed a girl in 1990? Guess he climbed on that wagon a little too late:

Beck "hacked off" by RNC memo, claims America is looking for "someone that is not going to play on our fears"
Beck: "We are sitting around and we are watching the systematic destruction of everything we hold dear by thugs"

Wow, and I thought that horse was dead, beaten, cremated and recycled into cinder blocks already. Hell, even Newt Gingrich admitted Gore's role in advancing the technology: http://mediamatters.org/items/200705230008

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't make it obscure. Tens of millions of Americans still can't find Iraq on a map - doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't "mainstream".

And, at least one major "mainstream" US news network can tell Egypt from Iraq.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907270040

  Caché / MUMPS is heavily used in Healthcare and Finance.
Your life and your financial future may well depend on apps that run on them.

Just because something isn't incessantly hyped by egocentric CEOs doesn't mean it's not dependable, versatile or worthwhile. If you're Joe Couchsitter waiting for the next big thing to break down your door, then, okay, you probably would never had heard of a databases besides Oracle and its closest competitors ( or maybe DBase if you're above a certain age).

But, getting on this newfangled Internet thingie and using an obscure tool called a search engine would have given you lots of alternatives to ponder, at any time in the last decade.

Why not? I'm in a photojournalism class which is unable to teach photo manipulation techniques because of a shortage of computers.

and this is a bad thing?

All of the things you have mentioned have been explained by scientists. The logic and reasoning are sound. Feel free to read the papers.

AGW could easily be falsified by showing that CO2 doesn't have a greenhouse effect. Or by showing that an increase in CO2 doesn't effect the overall greenhouse effect. Or any number of things.

Also, Phil Jones' comments were taken WAY out of context by parties trying to make a story out of this.

Amazingly, it gets worse:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002150015

You know, I'll admit that I don't spend a whole lot of time these days debating global warming deniers, so I'm a bit taken aback at how amazingly unskeptical they seem to be of anything that support their "position," no matter how unsavory and disreputable the source. Then again, this is a classic wingnut characteristic, and many of the same folks occupy the two camps, so perhaps I shouldn't be.

My goodness. When I said you should have fact-checked your article before you posted, even I didn't realize how embarrassingly bad it would get for you.

Media Matters just eviscerated your article:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002150015

It's plain the article you posted didn't just get things wrong: it's an out-and-out libel. Perhaps you'd care to salvage a little bit of your credibility by admitting it?

I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this. After all he is a kinder genteeler constitution shredder... From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights": "[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted." http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021 The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control. Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.

the second one with crappy environmentally friendly tile modifications was most definitely caused by NASA management listening to environmentalist dipshits instead of the experts.

What exactly are these "tile modifications" you refer to? The fragile thermal tiles played no part in the Columbia accident, which involved a chunk of foam insulation from the external tank impacting the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge of the orbiter's wing.

And before you try to backpedal, and trot out the old right-wing canard (originated by Rush Limbaugh) 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://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL1/PART01.PDF
http://mediamatters.org/research/200508090007
http://www.sts107.info/kooks%20and%20myths/kooks.htm#EPA

...and sources a relevant picture.

Or fake/altered photos/videos - if you're Fox News...

• Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters
• Fox News caught red-handed (again) doctoring video
• Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg
• Behind the scenes video at 9/12 protest shows Fox News producer coaching crowd
• The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions (VIDEO)
• ...etc...

...and sources a relevant picture.

Or fake/altered photos/videos - if you're Fox News...

• Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters
• Fox News caught red-handed (again) doctoring video
• Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg
• Behind the scenes video at 9/12 protest shows Fox News producer coaching crowd
• The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions (VIDEO)
• ...etc...

...and sources a relevant picture.

Or fake/altered photos/videos - if you're Fox News...

• Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters
• Fox News caught red-handed (again) doctoring video
• Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg
• Behind the scenes video at 9/12 protest shows Fox News producer coaching crowd
• The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions (VIDEO)
• ...etc...

...and sources a relevant picture.

Or fake/altered photos/videos - if you're Fox News...

• Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters
• Fox News caught red-handed (again) doctoring video
• Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg
• Behind the scenes video at 9/12 protest shows Fox News producer coaching crowd
• The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions (VIDEO)
• ...etc...

Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts. The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business. People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.

Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts. The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business. People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.

Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts. The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business. People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.

I watched that entire 6 minute and 24 second youtube clip. Not once did he say or elude to that statement. What gives? Why did you make such a public and false statement here on Slashdot?

If you want it easier to digest for yourself, here's a nice link to get you started. I know, if you visit mediamatters.org, your head will explode. As a self-professed dittohead, you must have already written them off as irrelevant. But the clip is quite clear -- Rush did exactly what spun claimed he did.

You asked for cites. Here ya go:

September 12, 2005 - Robertson not so subtly implies that hurricane Katrina was God's wrath for legalized abortion.

Sure, if you read his exact words, you could interpret it to mean something other than "Katrina was God's wrath," but given his numerous other warnings about various disasters caused by God, and his far less subtle comments about the 9/11 attacks (see below), and now the Haiti earthquake, it's pretty clear what his not-so-hidden message was when he made his Katrina comments.

September 13, 2001 - Robertson and Falwell say that America's liberal, secular society is to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I

Here's the transcript (scroll down): http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm

Of course, Falwell later tried to backpedal and state that he did not believe that God caused the 9/11 attacks, but rather he "lifted the veil of protection," thereby allowing the attacks to occur. Read the transcript. It's clear what he (and Robertson) meant. He said America had made God "angry," clearly implying that this was God's wrath.

June 8th, 1998 - Robertson warns Orlando that their "Gay Days" celebration might cause earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, and even terrorist bombs.

Or, in Robertson's own words "I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. ... [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."

A meteor? WTF? Really? He probably just got done watching the trailer for Armageddon (note the release date in the IMDb link and the date of his Orlando rant).

Oh, and just for good measure, here's a couple more. Apparently, he also blamed Ariel Sharon's 2006 stroke and the death of two people in a Sedona, Arizona sweat lodge on God's wrath.

If this does not convince you that Pat Robertson believes this crap, just hop on over to YouTube, and you can find a few dozen videos where you can see and hear him spewing it right out of his own mouth.

You asked for cites. Here ya go:

September 12, 2005 - Robertson not so subtly implies that hurricane Katrina was God's wrath for legalized abortion.

Sure, if you read his exact words, you could interpret it to mean something other than "Katrina was God's wrath," but given his numerous other warnings about various disasters caused by God, and his far less subtle comments about the 9/11 attacks (see below), and now the Haiti earthquake, it's pretty clear what his not-so-hidden message was when he made his Katrina comments.

September 13, 2001 - Robertson and Falwell say that America's liberal, secular society is to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I

Here's the transcript (scroll down): http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm

Of course, Falwell later tried to backpedal and state that he did not believe that God caused the 9/11 attacks, but rather he "lifted the veil of protection," thereby allowing the attacks to occur. Read the transcript. It's clear what he (and Robertson) meant. He said America had made God "angry," clearly implying that this was God's wrath.

June 8th, 1998 - Robertson warns Orlando that their "Gay Days" celebration might cause earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, and even terrorist bombs.

Or, in Robertson's own words "I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. ... [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."

A meteor? WTF? Really? He probably just got done watching the trailer for Armageddon (note the release date in the IMDb link and the date of his Orlando rant).

Oh, and just for good measure, here's a couple more. Apparently, he also blamed Ariel Sharon's 2006 stroke and the death of two people in a Sedona, Arizona sweat lodge on God's wrath.

If this does not convince you that Pat Robertson believes this crap, just hop on over to YouTube, and you can find a few dozen videos where you can see and hear him spewing it right out of his own mouth.

What? You don't think Fox fakes video?

Or it gripes you to admit it?

Why?

Because they admit they intentionally deceive their viewers, and they fund and promote anti-democrat political protests.

Should anything the New York Times reports on a Republican also be assumed to be false?

Only if you can show any evidence that they intentionally deceive their readers, and have funded anti-republican protests. I await your citations.

And OF COURSE, /. forgets to add "D-Fla" to the Reps name.

Anyone think, even for a second, if Grayson was "R-Fla" that it would have been missed?

Yeah, didn't think so.

This is what conservatives and libertarians mean when we are talking about "liberal bias" in the media. Those soft, subtle things used to quietly tweak the story to emphasize or de-emphasize precisely the point of view the writer wants his or her readers to end up with after reading the story.

Interestingly, TFA is from Fox News, which pretty much NEVER fails to note the party of a political official in a scandal, regardless of the party they are in, including this one.

Nice omission there /.

Are you fucking kidding me? Fox 'News' can be relied on to mislabel a Republican involved in a scandal with a D almost every time the story breaks.

Actually, Fox News does occassionally omit the partisian labels, and even switches them (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906240026 - assumedly this is inadvertant, although folks more suspicious than I tend to infer malacious intent). That doesn't make the omission here any better, of course.

It's fair to say there has been a severe lack of civility on both sides of the aisle, highlighted mostly on the Republican side, I think (Cheney telling Leahy to Go F__k himself, the rep who shouted "you lie" during the presidential address, etc), although Rep. Grayson clearly enjoys lowering the standards himself.

Interestingly, TFA is from Fox News, which pretty much NEVER fails to note the party of a political official in a scandal, regardless of the party they are in, including this one.

Right, Fox News just lies about what party the scandal-ridden politicians belong to.

Seriously, after they repeatedly represented scandal-ridden Republicans as Democrats, and misrepresented footage from previous events as being from more recent ones (tea parties, Palin book signings) to make crowds look larger than they actually were, I don't know how anyone can hold up Fox News as a paragon of journalistic integrity anymore. And please don't trot out the old tired argument that "everyone else is just as bad or worse". The fact is Fox News routinely does this sort of thing, and acting like they're in any way "fair and balanced" is just absurd.

I think having millions more people making 10-12 million a year would be much healthier for the country than a few dozen making billions of dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

Clear enough?

I think having 1% of the population owning everything and getting a majority of the income is destabilizing and sets us up for a violent, bloody revolution.

---
However...
http://mediamatters.org/research/200801060004

In fact, contrary to Gibson's suggestion that $200,000 is a typical, middle class household income in the United States, the U.S. Census Bureau's data for 2006 -- the most recent year available -- place the median household income at $48,451, and the mean household income at $65,527. According to the Census data, only 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more.

3.4% is getting into outlier territory. So compared to most americans, they are wealthy. Not fabulously wealthy or millionaires but it's hard to say they are middle class.

Edwards said..
EDWARDS: Thank you. What you see happening in America today -- if you're president of the United States, and you're looking at this from altitude -- is you see very few Americans getting wealthier and wealthier. You see the biggest corporations in America, profits through the roof. Exxon-Mobil just made $40 billion -- record profits. All of that happening at the same time that we have 47 million people with no health care; 37 million who will wake up in this country tomorrow worried about feeding and clothing their children.

---

Arguing about the tiny percentage there at $200,000 is the conservative version of "protect the children and save the old people" game by the liberal side. The fact is the folks making $200,000 are a tiny slice and just past them, there is a population of people who are taking all the wealth of this country. Whose income has gone up 20 to 30 times since the 90's while the other 99% of the country (including the $200k slice) suffers a slow death of a thousand cuts. While bread, gas, housing have gone up 200% to 400%, the other 99%'s wages have only gone up 50%.

The wealthy have successfully propagandized a large block of the poor to voting against their own interests and voting for the interests of people shipping their jobs overseas. I'm not sure how much longer this will go on before folks wake up. I get the impression they are starting to wake up in Michigan at least.

Let's apply a bit of research to that John Kerry quote, turns out he just boffed a joke, the copy of his written remarks that was handed out to reporters before he made the speech had this sentence at that point: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

Something that the youtube sound-bite has conveniently edited out is the fact that he was clearly beating up on Bush at that point, to take his statement the way you have is to completely ignore the context and assume he just decided to make a random comment about the military in the middle of a totally unrelated discussion.

I can't really blame you for doing that, the republican party is so highly skilled at doing the faux outrage act, its no surprise millions of people are suckered in by it. However, I do blame you for citing Murtha - how does accusing someone of murder equate to thinking that they are dumb or poor? Since when do only dumb or poor people commit homicide? Sounds like you may be a classist. And, you didn't even get that one right either, Wuterich is still charged with negligent homicide.

So, in summary you have completely failed to support your claims that Murtha or Kerry have a "desire to paint the military as a bunch of dumb poor people."

Now, lets take on the general perception that poor and uneducated people end up in the military...

99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree."

You just kicked the crap out of your premise with that one.

let's compare:

Bachelor's Degree:
enlisted force: 4.7%
us population: 16.7%

Master's Degree:
enlisted force: 0.7%
us population: 5.9%

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_009.asp

And don't even try to point at the officers - a bachelor's is a requirement to be a commissioned officer, having a degree gives you options. This is about the military being the employer of last resort for a lot people. If that were not the case, we would not have seen the number of conduct waivers double over the last 5 years - the people with options have been going elsewhere.

about medial matters

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

(emphasis mine)

No one is pretending media matters is neutral - anyone is free to start up their own service fact checking liberal media outlets - which is far from perfect. But you can't defelct criticism by your work by complaining that they're only looking at you - that may be true, but if the work were any good there wouldn't be any criticism.

As for Olbermann - he's a commentator, not a newscaster - you'll note that none of those links I gave singled out Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity - who are also not news men. (the first link about Jennings starts with Hannity, but then details the falsehood in "straight" newscasts.)

First, I disagree that either CNN or MSNBCs inserts opinion into their news shows, and second, Fox is much worse about just plain making shit up

First, I disagree that either CNN or MSNBCs inserts opinion into their news shows, and second, Fox is much worse about just plain making shit up

First, I disagree that either CNN or MSNBCs inserts opinion into their news shows, and second, Fox is much worse about just plain making shit up

Actually the raw data has not been destroyed. Only these specific scientists' copies of it. The raw data still exists, at the various meterological services which originally recorded the data.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

Oh, I did not watch Tuesday's The Daily Show until now, so I missed this clip, which is extremely relevant to our discussion. Hannity's clip can be found on FOX's website. The switch starts at 1:30 (watch the foliage and the amount of people).

Let me paraphrase you:

So the question becomes: Why did FOX's editing room use footage of a DIFFERENT event? The answer becomes obvious when you listen to the overvoicing (sic) from the host and a guest that appears regularly in FOX's programs - the previous event had a higher turnout, closer to the numbers claimed in the voiceover.

That's reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.
- They didn't blatantly lie. [or did they?]
Instead they distorted the truth, with creative video edits and voiceovers.

Now, you may claim that Stewart is "accusing FOX of a distortion that is not a distortion. HE'S the one who is deliberately not telling the truth." In other words, that TDS did a creative video edit to make it seem like FOX did something that they didn't do.

Unfortunately for you that's not the case. The situation was so clear and embarrassing that Sean Hannity had to acknowledge it on air. He says that it was "an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless". I hope that you are not so gullible as to think that it was indeed a mistake. This was as much a mistake as MSNBC cutting the footage to conceal a man's skin color.

But of course distorting the truth in this way is not new for FOX. Here you have a brief compilation of several other instances in which FOX clearly used deceptive techniques such as "creative video edits and voiceovers" to push their agenda, every one of them as egregious as MSNBC's sleazy trick you linked to. Except that the main message in that case was true (white men with guns, one with an AR-15, were at the event), while in most (all?) of these cases the main message is the deceptive one (e.g., the event had a far less turnout than what the commentators claimed and the images showed).

Of all the media in the present-day USA, FOX is the one that most frequently resorts to tactics reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.

I would love to see how you rationalize everything you said in your posts now. Really. I expect an answer from you.

Oh, I did not watch Tuesday's The Daily Show until now, so I missed this clip, which is extremely relevant to our discussion. Hannity's clip can be found on FOX's website. The switch starts at 1:30 (watch the foliage and the amount of people).

Let me paraphrase you:

So the question becomes: Why did FOX's editing room use footage of a DIFFERENT event? The answer becomes obvious when you listen to the overvoicing (sic) from the host and a guest that appears regularly in FOX's programs - the previous event had a higher turnout, closer to the numbers claimed in the voiceover.

That's reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.
- They didn't blatantly lie. [or did they?]
Instead they distorted the truth, with creative video edits and voiceovers.

Now, you may claim that Stewart is "accusing FOX of a distortion that is not a distortion. HE'S the one who is deliberately not telling the truth." In other words, that TDS did a creative video edit to make it seem like FOX did something that they didn't do.

Unfortunately for you that's not the case. The situation was so clear and embarrassing that Sean Hannity had to acknowledge it on air. He says that it was "an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless". I hope that you are not so gullible as to think that it was indeed a mistake. This was as much a mistake as MSNBC cutting the footage to conceal a man's skin color.

But of course distorting the truth in this way is not new for FOX. Here you have a brief compilation of several other instances in which FOX clearly used deceptive techniques such as "creative video edits and voiceovers" to push their agenda, every one of them as egregious as MSNBC's sleazy trick you linked to. Except that the main message in that case was true (white men with guns, one with an AR-15, were at the event), while in most (all?) of these cases the main message is the deceptive one (e.g., the event had a far less turnout than what the commentators claimed and the images showed).

Of all the media in the present-day USA, FOX is the one that most frequently resorts to tactics reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.

I would love to see how you rationalize everything you said in your posts now. Really. I expect an answer from you.

Sigh, really?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160001
Conservatives who have cited Mao

And that piece on Van Jones? Play a lot of spooky music, put a grainy filter on the videos, and take a couple of quotes from an angry and radicalized past (if you had been arrested for protesting social injustice Im sure you'd be mad too) and somehow link them to the man's current line of work. Also, keep emphasizing that he was arrested at protests like it was because he was in the wrong, ignoring that lots of people are falsely arresting during protests because of our police-lite-state

I didn't know anything about Van Jones before watching this video and to me he seems like a stand up guy who is a very ardent and very vocal supporter of human and civil rights.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200611150004

Go on, justify it.

I watched the video of her delivering the speech, and it's perfectly plausible that her explanation is true. "...two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa" has all the hallmarks of a poorly delivered joke.

...and then there's the fact that republicans often quote Mao too.

This also means that other news outlets cannot display clips of Glenn Beck saying foolish things or fact check a FoxNews story...Then, when Fox News describes their reporting as fact checking, then it becomes a story of "he said/she said".

How you get this to 2% for "Scandinavia" is beyond me.

No no no, those are the statistics for the individual countries. I don't think you understand how statistics work. When you add the populations together, it's a bigger number, and--Hold on, I'll let Bill O'Reilly explain it:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907270052

- RG>

"About The AP The Associated Press is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased news from every corner of the world ....

Written by AP no doubt. Someone should show this to their editors, AP has been carrying Republican water for years.

Can you point to one or several Fox News stories that are absolutely false...?

Google is your friend.....

Fox News: We Report — Even If We Know It's False
Fox News Sinks to New Low, Repeatedly Reports Parody Story as Actual News
Anatomy of a False Story
Dobbs, FOX News, and Drudge Report Push False AP Story
Countdown: Fox News Caught Creating False News
Of Mice and Misinformation: Sammon Joins Other Fox News Personalities in Spreading Stimulus Falsehood

That's just from the first page of results.