Thank goodness for blogger fact checking...

Mainstream media is going to have to get cleaned up..

from JoeUser Forums

If we learned anything last year with regards to the media and bloggers, it is that the days of ideologically driven "mainstream" reporting are numbered.  When CBS tried to smear Bush with blatantly phoney National guard documents it blew up back in CBS's face as Internet users posted on-line how the documents were obviously forged.

Conservatives have had to grin and bear it for years as the mainstream media, led by the New York Times and followed by the network news stations, had a virtual monopoly on news distribution.  NBC anchors could casually say "If we could get the NRA out of the way we could have a decent civilized discussion on the 2nd amendment" as if this were an established fact.

Books like Biased have warned for years that there was a serious slanting in the news - something most conservatives were painfully aware of.  Unfortunately there was nothing they could do about it. If ABC's Nightline wants to run a full show smearing Pat Buchanan as being anti-semetic without any real evidence, what could he really do? What could anyone do?

And conservative statistic freaks could notice that stories on homelessness and the AIDS epidemic seem to greatly increase when Republicans are in office but die down if a Democrat is in office (apparently AIDS and homelessness went away during the Clinton administration but boom, now it's back with a vengeance and it's undoubtedly the fault of the "smirking chimp").

I am sure the folks in news rooms across America wish for the days when the only opposition to their ideological positions came from a fat man on AM radio.  Now they not only have to deal with AM radio (gasp) but also cable news such as FOX and now the Internet.

Funny thing about the blog sites, the most popular blog sites are conservative. Not even a close call.  There are a limited number of viable theories for that and none of them favorable towards liberals (a: Conservatives are more interested in discussing real world issues on-line or b: Conservatives don't find enough conservative info through traditional outlets are the two Occam's razor answers).

And so as we head towards 2005, I am very thankful that, at time goes on, the mainstream media won't be able to pass on poorly researched ideological bombs as facts and history as they did in the past.  What happened with CBS this Fall wasn't unique, it was just that critical moment when the Internet had reached critical mass to be able to get the truth distributed out to counter the lies.

politics
22,899 views 73 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently the press has decided that they would rather be more like a blogger or talk show host than reporters or journalists. Getting out the facts means nothing to them anymore. I know, in my experiences, everytime I have been interviewed by reporters I was either taken out of context or outright misquoted.

During Desert Storm there were a few reporters wandering around Logistical Base Charlie (Northern Saudi Arabia). I asked one of them what he would do if he saw me and my patrol walking into an ambush. He told me that it would be against all journalistic integrity for him to warn us or affect the story in anyway. He said that journalists were there to document and report the war as it happens.

I told him, ok, fair enough. When we get back to the world, if I see your mother or your sister getting raped, I'll make sure I write it all down and get plenty of pictures, so I can report the attack to you as it happened.

From what I have seen, Journalistic Integrity is an oxymoron; and the only difference between bloggers and reporters is, with bloggers you have a 50-50 chance of what is written being true.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's funny to argue with liberals who do nothing but bash Fox news and then claim there is no liberal bias. Great article.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I told him, ok, fair enough. When we get back to the world, if I see your mother or your sister getting raped, I'll make sure I write it all down and get plenty of pictures, so I can report the attack to you as it happened.

Excellant analogy.  I gather the reporters supported you in your decision?

The Days of Murrow are long gone.  instead today we have a bunch of mental midgets that only reportt the news that fits their idealogy.  And as we saw, and Brad pointed out, they often manipulate it to support their views.

What I find funny Island Dog, is that they claim Fox is conservative, when they cannot name one instance when fox slanted news to pomote a conservative agenda.  Anything not blantantly liberal, must be conservative.  They live in a monochromatic world!

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Expect backlash...

For every blogger that is responsible and checks his facts there are innumerable "bloggers" that post decades-old paranioa from both the right and the left, most of which has been soundly refuted time and time again. We see it here a lot when items are almost instantly refuted by a quick google or a check at snopes.com. Often we are faced with statistics that are twisted or totally made-up, and second hand expose' that is taken for fact and passed on without ever even KNOWING the original source.

If I had to put on my Nostradamus hat, I would predict that within the next year, or at minimum before the next election, there will be an "expose" on 60 Minutes or one of the other TV news "magazines" about blogging as a tool of misinformation. Honestly, I expected it to come before the election was over during the Swift Boat Vets furor. Pro-Democrat bloggers and messageboard enthusiasts purposely spread lies about Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, using well-planned tactics for doing so. It would be insanely easy for them to do a bi-partisan piece on the excesses of blogging.

The only option these news agencies have is to discredit blogging as a source of information. There is ample material there for them to do it. There's no way that the mainstream news will pass the opportunity to smear the people they are being scooped by and compared to so much these days.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Who cares what 60 Minutes or whatever thinks at this point? Their credibility is on the wane. It's useless for resist the inevitable.

You can't believe everything you read on the Internet, that's for sure. But intelligent people can use the Internet as a tool to help find the truth on a variety of matters just as they can use other sources as a tool as well. And the Internet is proving to be as reliable if not more reliable than TV network news and the like.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Often we are faced with statistics that are twisted or totally made-up


75% of statistics cited are made up on the spot...

The other 25% are people quoting the first 75%!!! ;~D
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
There are a limited number of viable theories for that and none of them favorable towards liberals


How about the theory that conservatives only want to hear their own slanted views repeated back to them. Perhaps only liberals really care about the truth and don't need Fox news, Ann Coulter or slanted blog.com to reassure them.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps only liberals really care about the truth and don't need Fox news, Ann Coulter or slanted blog.com to reassure them.


In my experience, many liberals only really care about the "truth" if it supports their side of the story. Other facts are either distorted or outright ignored.

I don't trust statistics at all, and never have. Numbers can be manipulated to mean virtually anything.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
In my experience, many liberals only really care about the "truth" if it supports their side of the story. Other facts are either distorted or outright ignored.


Replace the word "liberals" with "conservatives" and the statement is still just as valid. Replace it with "people" for a good general view of how the world operates.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about the theory that conservatives only want to hear their own slanted views repeated back to them. Perhaps only liberals really care about the truth and don't need Fox news, Ann Coulter or slanted blog.com to reassure them.


That would be another possibility, if not for the fact that I doubt most people can honestly say that CBS, the New York Times, and the retired Dan Rather are any less slanted than FOX News.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top


Reply #7 By: whoman69 - 12/27/2004 9:33:47 PM

There are a limited number of viable theories for that and none of them favorable towards liberals


How about the theory that conservatives only want to hear their own slanted views repeated back to them. Perhaps only liberals really care about the truth and don't need Fox news, Ann Coulter or slanted blog.com to reassure them.


Sorry but the liberals are no better than conservatives on this.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
or there useless meaning less stats like " 75% of the people make up 3/4ths of the worlds total population"


funny how you just happened to pick the % of Bush supporters who believe that Saddam had ties to 9/11 and that Iraq had ties to terrorism
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, December 27, 2004Often we are faced with statistics that are twisted or totally made-up75% of statistics cited are made up on the spot...The other 25% are people quoting the first 75%!!! ;~D


or there useless meaning less stats like " 75% of the people make up 3/4ths of the worlds total population"

I call that media elitespeak
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The MSM still don't "get it" and even some bloggers don't.

Ana Marie Cox, who apparently is now interested in being considered mainstream, but who blogged as the Wonkette about DC politics for almost 2 years, had this to say in a Newsweek interview (last issue) about the bloggers' role in the Rather business:

"I think they did a disservice to the debate because they made the debate about the documents and not about the president of the United States. There was another half to that story that had to do with verifiable events of what Bush may have been up to."

Another half to that story? May have been up to? Excuse me? If she has that big an intellectual blind spot, I'm glad I've never run across her blog.

I agree with BakerStreet that an organized attack on the reliability & integrity of all non-MSM is coming - the MSM have no other option but to discredit their competition. When the "arrogant dismissal" tactic didn't work, they realized they had a fight on their hands. What they don't yet realize is that it's a fight they can't win. Their biases are too entrenched, their methods too rote, their minds too closed to reality. Sure there are nut cases blogging away about the secret political prison on the moon, but Drag is correct that reasonable, intelligent people can sort things out. There is a reason solid, fact-checking bloggers have achieved recognition. Having more raw data and information sources cannot, in the long run, hurt us, though the MSM will struggle mightily to regain or assert control again - it's tough to see power you've had so completely for so long get snatched away from you so unexpectedly. Their arrogance will, however, be their downfall; if they stick to their habitual ways, they'll become largely irrelevant at best.

Cheers & Happy New Year,
Daiwa
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, it's so in vogue to kill the messenger.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
stevendedalus -

That comment puts it all in a nutshell, if you ask me - the delusional conviction that the message of the MSM is pure, just unappreciated.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have to agree with that. I even think liberals would agree and wouldn't say that FOX News isn't at fault in any way for what they report or how they report it. So indeed they are MURDERING the messenger.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Look I know I don't live in the USA so I don't see all your news, but it amazes me that no conservative joeuser seems to be aware of the existence of Fox News. Unlike Australia, you actually get some balance there. If you want to hear more than one perspective, watch CBS then switch over to Fox. Then make up your own mind. That's what democracy is about.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #18 By: Champas Socialist - 12/29/2004 2:20:36 AM
Look I know I don't live in the USA so I don't see all your news, but it amazes me that no conservative joeuser seems to be aware of the existence of Fox News. Unlike Australia, you actually get some balance there. If you want to hear more than one perspective, watch CBS then switch over to Fox. Then make up your own mind. That's what democracy is about.


I've been aware of Fox News for quite some time now. But everytime I quote them on something, I get shot down and am told that they are biased to the max and as such are unreliable.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Replace the word "liberals" with "conservatives" and the statement is still just as valid. Replace it with "people" for a good general view of how the world operates.
---cithellion

No, I must respectfully disagree....despite the fact that I am a conservative, I must say that cons are much more concerned with the truth of the facts they cite than many, many liberals I've encountered on quite a few forum sites and in everyday life, to my neverending frustration.
Liberals, for the most part, seem to be more content to spout the rhetoric spoon-fed to them by their media and are very often not willing to give in on their views. There's also very often an "I'm right and you're wrong and if you don't like it, too bad" arrogance to liberal views.
Cons, on the other hand, seem to be more willing to think for themselves and seem more flexible and willing to cede their points if faced with strong enough evidence to the contrary. There are always exceptions, of course.....there are conservative zealots on here just as there are lib zealots. They're everywhere, and they're all nuts.

"I think they did a disservice to the debate because they made the debate about the documents and not about the president of the United States. There was another half to that story that had to do with verifiable events of what Bush may have been up to."
Daiwa, quoting A. M. Cox

When you're talking about documents or "information" that turns out to be completely fabricated and yet is presented as cold fact by a major media outlet, there's no question where the debate should lie.
What the President did or didn't do becomes irrelevant in light of the greater betrayal of trust by the media.

Reporting lies as the truth....hm.....isn't that pretty much what they so snidely accuse GWB of doing?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
To bash is human.....so....

Bash lawyers; bash doctors; bash the rich; bash the poor; bash corporations; bash employers; bash unions; bash welfare recipients; bash politicians; bash other races; bash other religions; bash athiests; bash the media.

Just make sure to blame anyone or anything but yourself for your problems. Never, ever, take responsibility. It's so much easier to get through life that way.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just make sure to blame anyone or anything but yourself for your problems. Never, ever, take responsibility. It's so much easier to get through life that way.


To bash is human......................

To bash bush is devine.

Fact is, bush has never, ever taken responsibility for anything he's ever done (Iraq debaucle comes to mind). Never. It's so much easier that way.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just make sure to blame anyone or anything but yourself for your problems.


But when you bash yourself all you get is accusations of trolling for sympathy!! ;~D
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we learned anything last year with regards to the media and bloggers, it is that the days of ideologically driven "mainstream" reporting are numbered. When CBS tried to smear Bush with blatantly phoney National guard documents it blew up back in CBS's face as Internet users posted on-line how the documents were obviously forged.

CBS was dead wrong to use these documents. However, the facts were correct. Bush did get in and out of the guard with the help of his family contacts; he did not take a required physical that resulted is him being grounded (he was commissioned to be a pilot); he did not attend drills for 6 months in 1972. It is also likely that he went into the guard to avoid service in Vietnam. It is a fact that in the late 1960's that guard units did not go to war unlike today. Please do not respont that this is Bush bashing. Everything in this reply is 100% true!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please do not respont that this is Bush bashing.


Not "Bush Bashing" but pretty much irrelevant. Any vet can think of people who they served proudly along side, but wouldn't vote for if they ran for dog catcher (much less President and Commander in Chief). Furthermore, at least for myself, I can think of guys who (as an NCO) I helped drum out of the service who I'd vote for in a second. They weren't bad people, just weren't up to the standards of military life.

During the rhtetoric of this election I heard a lot of people say that no one in the Alabama Air Guard could remember a Lt Bush drilling with them. Well, I know I've drilled seperately with probably a half a dozen or more units. If anyone from either of those units remember me now, I would be surprised. I can't name many of the troops from other states who showed up for a few drills with my Guard units either.

One thing I did get a kick out of during this campaign was, finally hearing the anti war crowd refer to the Vietnam war as "service to America". Of course, now that it doesn't further their agenda, they'll probably go back to making a point of disrespecting Vets in general and Vietnam vets especially.