California Girl's examples of liberal media agenda

[California Girl]

CG is simply manufacturing a rationale for being able to justify not having to back up anything she claims with actual evidence.

You have to understand that California Girl is intellectually superior to most of us and does not have to abide by the same rules. She is here to teach us not to hear what we have to say

Not to mention...she ALWAYS has the inside track. So she's DEFINITELY a credible source...ALWAYS.

Liar.

Your hysterical left wing rants bullshitting about things you do not understand does not help your reputation as a rational human being.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not to mention...she ALWAYS has the inside track. So she's DEFINITELY a credible source...ALWAYS.

Funny coming from a bunch of moobats that think the huff n' puff post, daily kos and unthink progress are DEFINITELY credible sources...ALWAYS.

So you get what I mean by not accepting the media as a source for accurate information. I'm not surprised. It's a pity that more people don't.... and I mean both on the left and the right. I find, generally speaking, that the media tend to present a biased view of whatever information they are claiming to present. One only needs to analyse their articles to find that out. I'm actually quite surprised that so many people don't see it.

You sound ridiculous. First of all, you never debate with substantiated facts. You never provide links to ANY of these 'superior' sources of evidence you keep lying about having.

Pretty much all you do is snipe at liberals from the sidelines. Which, in and of itself, is fine; we're all here for our amusement (I hope) so how you get yours is yours to choose,

but to blather on and on about how much more knowledgeable and read and informed you supposedly are, how much better researched you are with your facts, on and on and on,

while never backing it up with as much as an iota of substance...jeezus.

You're like that girlfriend of George's, the pretentious red head with chopsticks in her hair in the old Seinfeld episode.

You're a textbook pathological liar.

 

[Qball]

I wouldn't say most networks blatantly lie and manipulate data in order to achieve some liberal media agenda. Given our rapid news cycle and abundance of sources, it would be pretty stupid to try and fool people in such an obvious way when someone will easily prove you wrong.

That said, liberal media bias comes in other, more subtle forms. One of the more obvious ones is how some networks make sure you know when it's a conservative/Republican in trouble, but seem not too keen on letting you know when it's a Democrat. An example: Rep Anthony Weiner: The Picture Was Me And I Sent It. Notice how nowhere in that story do they directly mention he's a Democrat. They don't put "Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)" once. The only time they mention it is in this otherwise flattering paragraph:

Broussard's story had threatened to expose the secret online life of one of the House Democrats' most popular members, and a man many considered a leading candidate for mayor of New York City.

On the other hand, they make sure to note that Andrew Breitbart is a "conservative blogger":

Broussard said she confided about her experiences with several close friends, including one with Republican political ties. The man, whom she declined to identify, encouraged her to share her story with Matt Drudge and conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.

Now, I just randomly Googled "abc" and "Anthony Weiner" to find that story. When I Google "nbc" and "Anthony Weiner", I found this: New York Rep. Anthony Weiner Resigns. Again, note how they never quite associate his name with Democrats except in passing:

In part, that echoed what party leaders have said for days as they pressured him to resign so Democrats could resume positioning themselves for the 2012 election campaign without constant criticism from Republicans on moral grounds.

And again, the only time they do note he's a Democrat is when they're otherwise kissing his ass:

The Democrat's decision to leave Congress marks at least an ignominious pause if not an end in a once-promising career. Weiner ran for New York mayor in 2005, and had talked of seeking the office again.

Oh, and let's not forget to point out "conservative commentator" Andrew Breitbart:

Weiner's problems began on May 28 when BigGovernment.com, a website run by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, posted a lewd photograph of an underwear-clad crotch and said it had been sent from Weiner's Twitter account to a Seattle woman.

Two different networks, two random articles, both doing the same thing. It's obvious there's some liberal media bias going on. If I didn't have to go to work, I'd come up with more examples. But I think that'll do for now.

 

[Qball]

Bump.

 

[blastoff]

One person's name will suffice for one example, by CBS. Dan Rather. If it doesn't ring a bell, Google it yourself.

What did Dan Rather do that would in any way distort or lie about a news story that was politically motivated?

Sorry I missed this first go-round. But you're kidding, right?

 

[Truthmatters]

I don't post you tube clips, except in the music threads.

I don't link to the media - because they are incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion.

You form your own opinions, based on whatever bullshit you want. Doesn't bother me. I will maintain my opinions, based on hard, factual evidence.

I do not waste my time on forum wars. They bore me.... and I'm doing a real job. For which I get paid. You want me to work for you, pay me.

WOW , now that is the weakest load of trash I have ever seen someone pass off as a factual answer.


This just reads "I got nothing".


She is likely quoting the propaganda sites and now realizes they lied to her and there is no evidence for what she claimed after reading them.


Not one shred of evidence and she thinks that is accepable?

 

[blastoff]

If you'd paid attention to her posts over they years you'd know how factual it really is.

 

[MarcATL]

That's quite a remarkable lie, since, just in June, you started this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3715841-post1.html

wherein your OP links to the Guardian.

I'll bet there's an amusing explanation for this LIE.

(see why I call her a pathological liar???)

And yet you clearly miss why I call you an idiot. I don't link to media as a source to back up an argument or opinion.

I linked to a fucking story for a fun topic.

Your obsessive need to choose 'winning' over intelligence or even common fucking sense is impressive.

See, and I can make my points without resorting to attention seeking text.

Loser.

So you want us all to understand that you never have or never will back up anything you claim with actual evidence?

Okay....................

Yep...that's EXACTLY what's happening here.

 

[CountofTuscany]

Hi California Girl. Just in case you forgot, I'm making a new thread just for you to post your examples of where ABC, NBC or CBS has deliberately falsified a story, or manipulated the truth in order to promote a liberal agenda. Please post your video clips here along with related documentation of where this was a deliberate attempt on behalf of the liberal media.

Thanks.

LOL, Butthurt alert.

 

[daveman]

One person's name will suffice for one example, by CBS. Dan Rather. If it doesn't ring a bell, Google it yourself.

What did Dan Rather do that would in any way distort or lie about a news story that was politically motivated?

Dan Rather fell for a planted forgery scheme engineered by Karl Rove.

I have to grudgingly give props to Rove for that one, in the evil genius category.

Retard.

 

[Toro]

Here's an example.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/179434-newsweek-bachmann-cover-for-god-sakes.html