FOX TN NEWS RATED # 1 For Truth by Americans.

[Pogo]

Okay if you say so

What Fox Sells is an alternative to the decades of Leftist Brainwashing being hammerred into the American Psyche by Socio-Fascism . The Socio-FascistElite ,and their usefulidiots, folks such as yourself rabidly foam at the mouth and vomit out Pea soup whenever Fox is mentioned - and that's why I defend it and will continue to do so. It's time Big Brother got a boot up his ass instead of the ass kissing and bootlickering from useful idiots who run around calling themselves "Liberals"

How's it Feel being a useful Idiot ? You don't like it when the vomits aimed at you -do ya ?

What a witty retort. A Gif of projected puke. And you want to see others as "foaming at the mouth".

You've just proven my point; you're melting down here like your daughter's honor has been attacked. That's because, again, what Fox sells is emotion, and you bought it. When you have an emotional relationship with a TV channel, it should be telling you something about what's going on psychologically.

Nobody ever made a profit disseminating the news, and Rupert Murdoch, who made his fortune on sleazy gossip tabloids, knows that as well as anyone. News is expensive. You need lots of reporters with travel expenses; you need camera crews and satellite phones and foreign news bureaus. Murdoch came in and rather than deal with all of that, plunked down a crew of angry white guys who, rather than gathering and reporting the news, would sit and pound a table in a garishly pastel-colored studio with visual shifts that go whhoooosh and a steady stream of suggestive screen crawls, to talk about the news that was already out. The actual news it carries is confined to dayparts that don't affect the bottom line; the character, the game face, the essence of Fox Noise (as opposed to Fox News) is completely built around emotion. All of the above are emotional hooks designed for that purpose. And in recent years they've added sexy short-skirted bimbos to join the angry white guys pounding on tables.

Basically the same thing as the sleazy gossip tabloids do, this time using political celebrities instead of movie celebs -- otherwise the same thing.

News isn't emotional. News is dry, straightforward facts of who-what-where; there's no judgment in it. That's not what Fox is there for because that doesn't sell. If you're watching straight news on NBC and the channel happens to drop off the air, you just shrug and go to ABC -- that's an unemotional relationship. If you melt down because somebody posted studies suggesting Fox Noise is noise, well that's when you have an emotional relationship. And that's what they want.

Why do they want that? Because a loyal emotional relationship keeps you coming back, and that means audience, and audience means ratings and ratings means advertising dollars. The more they can polarize you with an "us against them" mentality, the more they get to portray themselves as "us" and include you in their little club. That's a personal relationship. And it's deliberate, and it's engineered and it's calculated. It's there to manipulate you into an emotional relationship for the same reason sugar is added to your groceries -- to get you addicted. To this end it will polarize, sensationalize, overemphasize, demonize, marginalize and ultmately capsize the news so that you're drowning in a sea of implied bullshit with them -- the TV channel -- representing your lifeboat. Like a little secret club, a grownup version of the tree house with a sign on the outside that says "No Girls". Us versus Them. Personal emotional relationship.

Television itself is by nature a hypnotic propaganda tool, nothing more, and what Fox Noise does is simply exploit that flaw as far as it can be exploited. You're being manipulated plain and simple. Ideology isn't the point; that's just the tool of the trade, used because it works as manipulation.

That's why all those studies show what they do -- because accuracy is not the objective. Fear is the objective. Emotion sells, and no emotion sells like Fear. Fear the climate warnings. Fear the healthcare bills. Fear the political party. Fear the black man. Fear da liburruls. Fear the President. Fear the women. Fear the minorities. Fear The Gay. Fear the communists/socialists/whateverists. Polarize, polarize, polarize. Fear the shit out of these things and we'll be back to tell you how we're looking out for you and five more things to fear, right after these words for car insurance and Viagra. Don't change that channel, or you'll never find out what your next fear is. You will obey us.

It's entirely a personal relationship. Notice they don't talk about politics; they talk about politicians. Personal level. Let's not about the effects of this or that policy; let's about the personal agenda of this guy or that guy. Forget the boring revenue numbers; we're here to talk about evil and how it's out to get you.

You're being manipulated. Your getting emotional over a TV channel tells us they're winning. Broadcast ratings don't measure agreement; they measure attention. And Fear generates attention. It always has.

I "thanked" your response , mot because I agreed with it - in fact I didn't even read the whole thing [Yet] - perhaps tommorrow when I have a tad more leisure time. What I did read was ...

Television itself is by nature a hypnotic propaganda tool, nothing more, and what Fox Noise does is simply exploit that flaw as far as it can be exploited. You're being manipulated plain and simple. Ideology isn't the point; that's just the tool of the trade, used because it works as manipulation.

My question to you is -If "ideology isn't the point" -why is Fox "Noise" as you like to call them, any different than the Leftist media that has dominated the screen since the mid 60s

Reading the whole post might have answered this but I'm happy to take it separately.

What made Fox different? When Fox arrived in 1996, News was still basically News, meaning objectively factual information reporting done by boots on the ground. What Fox did was create a channel called a news channel that was really a gossip channel about the news. More correctly, about people in the news. That's how they made it personal, which is how they make it emotional, which is how they get loyalty and ratings (see previous post).

Other channels that had been doing legitimate news (i.e. CNN) found themselves losing ratings to the circus at Fox and, to their discredit, started mimicking the same LCD approach in an effort to "compete" -- which should never be a factor in news reporting, but then at this point we have left the domain of real news. Later, MSNBC (which had tried several different approaches), also went down the same path with the "anti-Fox" format, which it's still doing.

So in effect, what Fox Noise did was lower the bar for news standards.

One other point: the existing media (that existed before Fox) has never been "leftist". That's a propaganda myth put out by the same emotional blackmailers we've been pointing out. Corporate media is corporatist. The overwhelming majority of it is owned and operated by a handful of giant multinational megacorporations (NewsCorp being one of them). What that means is a couple of things: for one thing it means when General Electric owned NBC, that network wasn't about to run stories critical of defense overspending or nuclear power, things that GE was heavily invested in.

The other thing it means is that when a single corporation owns TV outlets everywhere AND movie production houses AND book publishers AND sports teams AND newspapers, that single corporation can actually dictate what the news is. So far from toeing some leftist or rightist line, the mediagolopoly decides on its own what the news is. They lead the information -- they don't follow somebody else's line. And what they lead with will be what sells. That's why we have to sit through endless weeks of how Michael Jackson died. This myth about "liberal media" is just another puppet show, another emotional hook -- and when these mythmakers say "liberal" media, they mean "leftist" media. We've never had a leftist media. If we did, you would have heard a lot different stories about OWS, for instance, and a lot more of them. What you get is what Corporate Media decides to sell you, and nothing more.

And Fox is as much a part of that as NBC or Time Warner. It owns hundreds of newspapers, television stations, a book publisher, a movie production house and I believe even a sports team. It's no different than any other giant media corp. It dresses up like a puppet that's somehow opposed to the other puppets but it's all coming from the same puppeteer. It's all a show. And the myth of "liberal media", the myth of "us versus them", all of that, is just part of their shtick. Part of the manipulation.

 

[Pogo]

it's simply hilarious; watching left-wing nutjobs make fools of themselves

one is here deluding himself that liberal cable news' low ratings mean they are somehow more trustworthy than Fox News.
isn't it just like the Left to ridicule anybody who dares hold different views?

Uh --- where do you see ridicule? Aside from your own post above?

Ratings have nothing whatsoever to do with "trust". Ratings measure attention. That's it. They're used to set ad rates, and that's all they mean.

apparently huge swaths of Americans trust Fox News to present what they see as truth

So sez the OP, with no reference, no link, no documentation at all...

 

[GreenBean]

What a witty retort. A Gif of projected puke. And you want to see others as "foaming at the mouth".

You've just proven my point; you're melting down here like your daughter's honor has been attacked. That's because, again, what Fox sells is emotion, and you bought it. When you have an emotional relationship with a TV channel, it should be telling you something about what's going on psychologically.

Nobody ever made a profit disseminating the news, and Rupert Murdoch, who made his fortune on sleazy gossip tabloids, knows that as well as anyone. News is expensive. You need lots of reporters with travel expenses; you need camera crews and satellite phones and foreign news bureaus. Murdoch came in and rather than deal with all of that, plunked down a crew of angry white guys who, rather than gathering and reporting the news, would sit and pound a table in a garishly pastel-colored studio with visual shifts that go whhoooosh and a steady stream of suggestive screen crawls, to talk about the news that was already out. The actual news it carries is confined to dayparts that don't affect the bottom line; the character, the game face, the essence of Fox Noise (as opposed to Fox News) is completely built around emotion. All of the above are emotional hooks designed for that purpose. And in recent years they've added sexy short-skirted bimbos to join the angry white guys pounding on tables.

Basically the same thing as the sleazy gossip tabloids do, this time using political celebrities instead of movie celebs -- otherwise the same thing.

News isn't emotional. News is dry, straightforward facts of who-what-where; there's no judgment in it. That's not what Fox is there for because that doesn't sell. If you're watching straight news on NBC and the channel happens to drop off the air, you just shrug and go to ABC -- that's an unemotional relationship. If you melt down because somebody posted studies suggesting Fox Noise is noise, well that's when you have an emotional relationship. And that's what they want.

Why do they want that? Because a loyal emotional relationship keeps you coming back, and that means audience, and audience means ratings and ratings means advertising dollars. The more they can polarize you with an "us against them" mentality, the more they get to portray themselves as "us" and include you in their little club. That's a personal relationship. And it's deliberate, and it's engineered and it's calculated. It's there to manipulate you into an emotional relationship for the same reason sugar is added to your groceries -- to get you addicted. To this end it will polarize, sensationalize, overemphasize, demonize, marginalize and ultmately capsize the news so that you're drowning in a sea of implied bullshit with them -- the TV channel -- representing your lifeboat. Like a little secret club, a grownup version of the tree house with a sign on the outside that says "No Girls". Us versus Them. Personal emotional relationship.

Television itself is by nature a hypnotic propaganda tool, nothing more, and what Fox Noise does is simply exploit that flaw as far as it can be exploited. You're being manipulated plain and simple. Ideology isn't the point; that's just the tool of the trade, used because it works as manipulation.

That's why all those studies show what they do -- because accuracy is not the objective. Fear is the objective. Emotion sells, and no emotion sells like Fear. Fear the climate warnings. Fear the healthcare bills. Fear the political party. Fear the black man. Fear da liburruls. Fear the President. Fear the women. Fear the minorities. Fear The Gay. Fear the communists/socialists/whateverists. Polarize, polarize, polarize. Fear the shit out of these things and we'll be back to tell you how we're looking out for you and five more things to fear, right after these words for car insurance and Viagra. Don't change that channel, or you'll never find out what your next fear is. You will obey us.

It's entirely a personal relationship. Notice they don't talk about politics; they talk about politicians. Personal level. Let's not about the effects of this or that policy; let's about the personal agenda of this guy or that guy. Forget the boring revenue numbers; we're here to talk about evil and how it's out to get you.

You're being manipulated. Your getting emotional over a TV channel tells us they're winning. Broadcast ratings don't measure agreement; they measure attention. And Fear generates attention. It always has.

I "thanked" your response , mot because I agreed with it - in fact I didn't even read the whole thing [Yet] - perhaps tommorrow when I have a tad more leisure time. What I did read was ...

Television itself is by nature a hypnotic propaganda tool, nothing more, and what Fox Noise does is simply exploit that flaw as far as it can be exploited. You're being manipulated plain and simple. Ideology isn't the point; that's just the tool of the trade, used because it works as manipulation.

My question to you is -If "ideology isn't the point" -why is Fox "Noise" as you like to call them, any different than the Leftist media that has dominated the screen since the mid 60s

Reading the whole post might have answered this but I'm happy to take it separately.

.

What made Fox different? When Fox arrived in 1996, News was still basically News, meaning objectively factual information reporting done by boots on the ground.

WRONG : The Objectivity and Left Leaning Manipulation was in full swing when Fox came on the scene. I could sight thousand of examples,if I had the time - I'll give you one for now and see if you can digest it.

The Wall Within
Vietnam Veterans - Invented Story / Bogus Vets

In June 1988, CBS presented an hour-long special "CBS Reports: The Wall Within" . The show was praised by critics, the Washington Post called it "extraordinarily powerful" One Vet Terry Bradley, told Rather he had tortured and skinned alive whole Vietnamese families, 50 men, women, and children in a single hour. George Grule claimed he was stationed on the U.S.S. Ticonderoga off the Vietnamese coast during a secret mission. Grule claimed to have witnessed a friend walk into an airplane propeller which turned him into mincemeat and sprayed Grule with his blood. Coaxed by Dan Rather, Steve Southards, vividly described slaughtering hordes of Vietnamese civilians, and blaming the North Vietnamese. "... you went into the village, killed people, burned part of the village, then made it appear that the other side had done this?" Rather replied. Grizzly fantastic horrifying tales, ALL FABRICATED - NOT OF IT EVER HAPPENNED ---


B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley, in their book *Stolen Valor : How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History*, claim that they had obtained the service records of all six soldiers, documenting where each was stationed throughout the Vietnam War. Only one of the men actually served in Vietnam; he claimed he was a Navy SEAL, but the records contradicted his claims and listed him as an equipment repairman , the other 5 never even set foot on Vietnamese soil. I can understand and possibly forgive One charlatan slipping through, but not 6 !!!!

A similar incident occurred In 1998, apparently CNN took lessons from the same folks who controlled Dan Rather when they ran a report that the 1970 Operation Tailwind used Sarin gas to kill American defectors . The Pentagon denied the story. Skeptics proved it extremely improbable that such an atrocity went unnoticed , and CNN had no facts or viable witnesses to offer the slightest bit of credibility to the story. After a short inquiry, CNN red-faced - issued a retraction Dan Rather

That's just one of many similar stories , and many others that were never exposed -with Fox on the scene it has become more difficultfor the left toperpetrate this Bogus BS

What Fox did was create a channel called a news channel that was really a gossip channel about the news. More correctly, about people in the news. That's how they made it personal, which is how they make it emotional, which is how they get loyalty and ratings (see previous post).

WRONG: ... Well ... somewhat wrong anyway ... What Fox did was imitate the existing networks and slant it to the right instead of the left. They didn't make it personal - it already was personal - they didn't make it emotionial - it already was emotional . They get loyalty and ratings by offerring viewers an alternative to the socio-fascist vomit that has been passing for News for the past several decades.

Other channels that had been doing legitimate news

WRONG : See Above

(i.e. CNN) found themselves losing ratings to the circus at Fox and, to their discredit, started mimicking the same LCD approach in an effort to "compete" -- which should never be a factor in news reporting, but then at this point we have left the domain of real news.

Okay -I'll buy that

Later, MSNBC (which had tried several different approaches), also went down the same path with the "anti-Fox" format, which it's still doing.

MSNBC Started in the cesspool and has been crawling throuigh the sewer pipes and up the anus of lefties like you ever since . ... The Daily Caller in 2012 published an expose that revealed the extent to which MSNBC was dictatied to re: the content of their so called NEWQS. Newspapers such as the NY Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times all took dictation from Media Matters . The Caller reported that by 2008, "Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls [and orders]" "We were pretty much writing [MSNBC's] prime time,... But then, virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff" stated one former Media Matters employee. -Daily Caller Article

So in effect, what Fox Noise did was lower the bar for news standards.

WRONG; They were already pretty damn low - What Fox News did was offer a balanced playing field and broke the Left Wing socio-fasicst Monopoly .

One other point: the existing media (that existed before Fox) has never been "leftist". That's a propaganda myth put out by the same emotional blackmailers we've been pointing out.

WRONG: Scroll back up

Corporate media is corporatist. The overwhelming majority of it is owned and operated by a handful of giant multinational megacorporations (NewsCorp being one of them). What that means is a couple of things: for one thing it means when General Electric owned NBC, that network wasn't about to run stories critical of defense overspending or nuclear power, things that GE was heavily invested in.

Okay [News Flash GE does not own NBC, although they once did.]

The other thing it means is that when a single corporation owns TV outlets everywhere AND movie production houses AND book publishers AND sports teams AND newspapers, that single corporation can actually dictate what the news is.

This is true to a certain extent , in fact 6 Corporations own 90% of the media
You've got Disney, CBS, Time Warner, Viacom and Comcast on the left
You've got News Corp. on the Right

News Corp. [R. Murdoch] owns FOX and the NY Post -looks like they're outnumbered 5 to 1

This myth about "liberal media" is just another puppet show, another emotional hook -- and when these mythmakers say "liberal" media, they mean "leftist" media. We've never had a leftist media. If we did, you would have heard a lot different stories about OWS, for instance, and a lot more of them. What you get is what Corporate Media decides to sell you, and nothing more.

Highly opinionated, somewhat unsubstantiated but a very viable theory - so how about some case examples .

Oh , and by the by OWS / Occupy Wall Street was covered and covered and covered and re-covered . It was a flop , a bucn of little rich brats trying to be quasi intellectual modern day hippies - it was good for a laugh - but it fizzled once the novelty wore off - Now the Tea Party ..... Me thinks King George best be wary

And Fox is as much a part of that as NBC or Time Warner. It owns hundreds of newspapers, television stations, a book publisher, a movie production house and I believe even a sports team. It's no different than any other giant media corp. It dresses up like a puppet that's somehow opposed to the other puppets but it's all coming from the same puppeteer. It's all a show. And the myth of "liberal media", the myth of "us versus them", all of that, is just part of their shtick. Part of the manipulation

Well here is where we might have some common ground - What's your theory on who the pupeteers are - Corporate America , Illuminati , Aliens

 

[Pogo]

This is starting to get mega-long. Think I'll chop it up into bite-size morsels...

I "thanked" your response , mot because I agreed with it - in fact I didn't even read the whole thing [Yet] - perhaps tommorrow when I have a tad more leisure time. What I did read was ...



My question to you is -If "ideology isn't the point" -why is Fox "Noise" as you like to call them, any different than the Leftist media that has dominated the screen since the mid 60s

Reading the whole post might have answered this but I'm happy to take it separately.

WRONG : The Objectivity and Left Leaning Manipulation was in full swing when Fox came on the scene. I could sight thousand of examples,if I had the time - I'll give you one for now and see if you can digest it.

[quote doesn't show up]

That's (number one) not a news story; based on the description it's a documentary. And (number two) it's not a left-or-right issue anyway. In fact assuming it's true it's obviously badly sourced (and you don't go into detail about how the producer got the story) but it just bears out what I'm describing about media. I don't have the time to investigate whether this is a real case, let's for the moment stipulate that it is as described...

Mass media does not care whether it's presenting an issue favorable to the left or to the right; mass media only cares what sells. Commercial media is by definition a profit-taking venture; that means it's in its interest to purvey what will make it the most money. There's nothing to be made by leaning a story this way or that way in political ideology. What you can make money on is a salacious horror story of war atrocities (or who the father of this child is, or how this celebrity got caught soliciting hookers, or some hero-figure in fake wrestling). What sells, again as always, is emotion. That's exactly why you can't tune in the Weather Channel in prime time and get weather -- instead you get hyperdramatized horror stories of the evil tornado wiping out innocent people. It sells. It's the nature of television -- that is, it's all the medium is effectively capable of; good vs. evil dichotomy fables. Nothing deeper. Suggestion and superficial innuendo. That's why it's so good at its main function: advertising. It's not an avenue of information; it's an avenue of suggestion and emotion.

Which way that emotion swings politically is irrelevant, and it's nothing but paranoia to pretend it takes ideological "sides". It really couldn't do that if it wanted to.

For example -- pop quiz: Who freed the Iran hostages in 1981?

Several times on this forum I've corrected people who believe Reagan did it. I had to actually bring links and newspaper articles about the Algiers Accords and Warren Christopher securing the release for the Carter Administration. But it's a common misconception that Reagan freed the hostages. Why is it a common misconception?

Because that so-called "liberal media" ran endless video juxtaposing Reagan taking the oath of office with shots of a planeful of freed hostages taking off from Tehran. That media never actually SAID Reagan freed them -- it just left the implication sitting there. And it did that over and over and over. And when you have a medium using passive viewers playing sponge to whatever images the box chooses to feed, the image becomes the message, whether articulated in the lyrics or not.

Why did it do that? Because it sells that way. It's a feelgood Hollywood story. It simply sells to the heartstrings better to imagine that a strong powerful figure has the power to intimidate a foreign government by simply showing up (cue Mighty Mouse theme: "Here I come to save the dayyy..."), than the reality story that three months of tedious negotiations across the ocean, finally hammered out an agreement.

Diplomacy is boring; but Hollywood $ells.

The media loved Reagan for that reason; his hero-character sold. That's why he has the image he's left with today and his failures are all but forgotten. He was the "Teflon President" because that's the way the media sold him.

The media sells negatives too, as it did with Michael Dukakis in the tank or Bill Clinton fending off sex stories. Again, whether either one was of any import on an election was irrelevant; what was important was that they could be milked for advertising dollars.

Your basic premise is inoperative, that is, that television media sells ideology -- it doesn't. It sells sensationalism. It sells heartstrings, it sells Hollywood, it sells simplistic morality plays. It sells scandals and the entire concept of heroes and villains. That's not the way the world works, but that's what television portrays, because it's all it has the capability to do. And this is what Fox is doing too, portraying the world as an endless stage of heroes and villains, and we're on your side, and they're the evil bad guys. As far as "left" and "right" media -- it exists, but certainly not on television, which is unfortunately the dominant medium.

"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have asked. ... For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." (Pat Buchanan)

"I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." (Bill Kristol)

Never forget -- the bottom line is money, not ideology. Ideology doesn't sell. That's how corporatist media -- as opposed to independent, decentralized media -- will always act, by definition. All this malarkey about "this media goes left and that media goes right" is just that -- malarkey. A puppet show to keep the plebes interested. A soap opera drama full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Pogo]

MSNBC Started in the cesspool and has been crawling throuigh the sewer pipes and up the anus of lefties like you ever since . ... The Daily Caller in 2012 published an expose that revealed the extent to which MSNBC was dictatied to re: the content of their so called NEWQS. Newspapers such as the NY Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times all took dictation from Media Matters . The Caller reported that by 2008, "Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls [and orders]" "We were pretty much writing [MSNBC's] prime time,... But then, virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff" stated one former Media Matters employee. -Daily Caller Article

Color me unimpressed with a story based on "sources said", "according to MediaMatters staff" and "according to a prominent Liberal who was there". Nobody will speak on the record at all, and when they do it's to deny the whole thrust of the story? That's no more "journalism" than that CBS Reports war story you cited earlier. And an investigative report from a known right-wing troll site doesn't exactly inspire credibility.

MSNBC Started in the cesspool and has been crawling throuigh the sewer pipes and up the anus of lefties like you ever since

I believe MSNBC was a conservative channel at one point, hosting Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, John Gibson and Tucker Carlson, speaking of the Daily Caller's resident troll, so if you want to stay with "started in the cesspool" I won't argue. I didn't watch it then and I don't watch it now. Why would I even own a TV, having said what I've said about the medium?

WRONG; They were already pretty damn low - What Fox News did was offer a balanced playing field and broke the Left Wing socio-fasicst Monopoly .

Already addressed previously. This is more of the puppet show you think is reality. It isn't. There is no "socio-fascist monopoly", there is no "liberal media" and there aren't "monsters under the bed" or "communists behind every bush". Try to understand when you're being played.

Okay [News Flash GE does not own NBC, although they once did.]

It's an easy example. GE was and is heavily invested in defense contracts and nuclear power, and at the same time owned a broadcast network. That should immediately raise red flags all by itself. On the smaller scale the Time Warners and the News Corps and Disneys simultaneously own multiple media companies (television, radio, movies, newspapers, book publishing) that enable them to make their own news. That author you see on Fox TV promoting his new book -- well guess what, it's published by HarperCollins, which NewsCorp also owns, and the movie coming out is prouced by 20th Century Fox. The Machine doesn't need to find out who's making news -- the Machine dictates who it is.

To quote what one Fox executive said to his own reporters "We'll tell you what the news is -- the news is what we say it is!"

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3hCR_yCvkk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3hCR_yCvkk[/ame]

This myth about "liberal media" is just another puppet show, another emotional hook -- and when these mythmakers say "liberal" media, they mean "leftist" media. We've never had a leftist media. If we did, you would have heard a lot different stories about OWS, for instance, and a lot more of them. What you get is what Corporate Media decides to sell you, and nothing more.

Highly opinionated, somewhat unsubstantiated but a very viable theory - so how about some case examples .

Oh , and by the by OWS / Occupy Wall Street was covered and covered and covered and re-covered . It was a flop , a bucn of little rich brats trying to be quasi intellectual modern day hippies - it was good for a laugh - but it fizzled once the novelty wore off - Now the Tea Party ..... Me thinks King George best be wary

Case examples given previously. As for OWS, here's what bears out my point:

OWS / Occupy Wall Street was covered and covered and covered and re-covered . It was a flop , a bucn of little rich brats trying to be quasi intellectual modern day hippies - it was good for a laugh - but it fizzled once the novelty wore off

Again, as in the Reagan example above, what you're quoting is the image the Media sold you. If we actually had a "leftist" media, "flop" would not be your impression at all (and the tiny leftist media we do have certainly didn't present it that way). But OWS was a threat to the established order and was never going to be portrayed any other way by Corporatist Media -- which, along with Wall Street, IS the established order. Did you know the city of New York settled and paid up for false arrests recently? Didn't get a lot of splash if you heard it at all, did it? Of course not -- that doesn't fit the narrative of "a flop".

Once again here's what you're consistently missing:

"Consider the source".​

And consider it as a whole. The truth is Fox Noise has by nature a lot more in common with the alphabets, CNN and MSNBC than it has differences with them. There's a good reason you find the same people working for multiple entities that are supposed "mortal enemies" (Ann Coulter on MSNBC; Keith Olbermann on Fox; Glenn Beck on CNN)... it's because they're all part of the same machine.

And Fox is as much a part of that as NBC or Time Warner. It owns hundreds of newspapers, television stations, a book publisher, a movie production house and I believe even a sports team. It's no different than any other giant media corp. It dresses up like a puppet that's somehow opposed to the other puppets but it's all coming from the same puppeteer. It's all a show. And the myth of "liberal media", the myth of "us versus them", all of that, is just part of their shtick. Part of the manipulation

Well here is where we might have some common ground - What's your theory on who the pupeteers are - Corporate America , Illuminati , Aliens

I leave that kind of dramarama to the Conspiratists. It says here I give orders to the Illuminati but I've never met them. I don't imagine some great Hall of Oz where one guy is behind a curtain pulling levers planning out the next news drama. I just think commercial media is made up of opportunists who will sell anything they can to line their own pockets, whether that means a President portrayed as powerful, a President portrayed as a philanderer, a "liberal media" myth, fake wrestling, flood drama or a fire destroying an apartment in a section of town you never even heard of. It's not that complicated and need not be coordinated; the simplest explanation is the most logical.

One more quote to illustrate this point:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" -- H.L. Mencken

That's what they live by. We haven't had a national TV network go broke since the Dumont Network. Do the math.

 

[GreenBean]

MSNBC Started in the cesspool and has been crawling throuigh the sewer pipes and up the anus of lefties like you ever since . ... The Daily Caller in 2012 published an expose that revealed the extent to which MSNBC was dictatied to re: the content of their so called NEWQS. Newspapers such as the NY Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times all took dictation from Media Matters . The Caller reported that by 2008, "Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls [and orders]" "We were pretty much writing [MSNBC's] prime time,... But then, virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff" stated one former Media Matters employee. -Daily Caller Article

yada yad yada

MSNBC Started in the cesspool and has been crawling throuigh the sewer pipes and up the anus of lefties like you ever since

Already addressed previously. This is more of the puppet show you think is reality. It isn't. There is no "socio-fascist monopoly", there is no "liberal media" and there aren't "monsters under the bed" or "communists behind every bush". Try to understand when you're being played.




It's an easy example. GE was and is heavily invested in defense contracts and nuclear power, and at the same time owned a broadcast network. That should immediately raise red flags all by itself. On the smaller scale the Time Warners and the News Corps and Disneys simultaneously own multiple media companies (television, radio, movies, newspapers, book publishing) that enable them to make their own news. That author you see on Fox TV promoting his new book -- well guess what, it's published by HarperCollins, which NewsCorp also owns, and the movie coming out is prouced by 20th Century Fox. The Machine doesn't need to find out who's making news -- the Machine dictates who it is.

To quote what one Fox executive said to his own reporters "We'll tell you what the news is -- the news is what we say it is!"

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3hCR_yCvkk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3hCR_yCvkk[/ame]




Case examples given previously. As for OWS, here's what bears out my point:



Again, as in the Reagan example above, what you're quoting is the image the Media sold you. If we actually had a "leftist" media, "flop" would not be your impression at all (and the tiny leftist media we do have certainly didn't present it that way). But OWS was a threat to the established order and was never going to be portrayed any other way by Corporatist Media -- which, along with Wall Street, IS the established order. Did you know the city of New York settled and paid up for false arrests recently? Didn't get a lot of splash if you heard it at all, did it? Of course not -- that doesn't fit the narrative of "a flop".

Once again here's what you're consistently missing:

"Consider the source".​

And consider it as a whole. The truth is Fox Noise has by nature a lot more in common with the alphabets, CNN and MSNBC than it has differences with them. There's a good reason you find the same people working for multiple entities that are supposed "mortal enemies" (Ann Coulter on MSNBC; Keith Olbermann on Fox; Glenn Beck on CNN)... it's because they're all part of the same machine.

And Fox is as much a part of that as NBC or Time Warner. It owns hundreds of newspapers, television stations, a book publisher, a movie production house and I believe even a sports team. It's no different than any other giant media corp. It dresses up like a puppet that's somehow opposed to the other puppets but it's all coming from the same puppeteer. It's all a show. And the myth of "liberal media", the myth of "us versus them", all of that, is just part of their shtick. Part of the manipulation

Well here is where we might have some common ground - What's your theory on who the pupeteers are - Corporate America , Illuminati , Aliens

I leave that kind of dramarama to the Conspiratists. It says here I give orders to the Illuminati but I've never met them. I don't imagine some great Hall of Oz where one guy is behind a curtain pulling levers planning out the next news drama. I just think commercial media is made up of opportunists who will sell anything they can to line their own pockets, whether that means a President portrayed as powerful, a President portrayed as a philanderer, a "liberal media" myth, fake wrestling, flood drama or a fire destroying an apartment in a section of town you never even heard of. It's not that complicated and need not be coordinated; the simplest explanation is the most logical.

One more quote to illustrate this point:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" -- H.L. Mencken

That's what they live by. We haven't had a national TV network go broke since the Dumont Network. Do the math.

Color me unimpressed with a story based on "sources said", "according to MediaMatters staff" and "according to a prominent Liberal who was there".

You would be "colored unimpressed" on anybody, anything , source , site or quote that doesn't fit into your narrow world view.

That's no more "journalism" than that CBS Reports war story you cited earlier. And an investigative report from a known right-wing troll site doesn't exactly inspire credibility.

Wrong. - The CBS Story was blown out of the water - The material was proven false and staged . The Daily Caller Article was not and can not be - your issue with it , is that it simply doesn't conform to your narrow world view, so you challenge the source - but offer no proof , as there is no proof to back your suspicons. So you basically are making unsubstantiated allegations .

I believe MSNBC was a conservative channel at one point, hosting Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, John Gibson and Tucker Carlson, speaking of the Daily Caller's resident troll, so if you want to stay with "started in the cesspool" I won't argue. I didn't watch it then and I don't watch it now. Why would I even own a TV, having said what I've said about the medium?

Well you believe wrong - Coulter was a legal correspondent for them in the 90s, and twice fired because she refused to tow the official party line . They had correspondents of both persuasions , they were never conservative .

As for the remainder of your Post - there's nothing there for me to argue with - you answered the initial question I presented you "Corporate America, the Illuminati or Aliens" and you are a conspiracy theorist who lays all the blame on Corporate America and capitalists . Now given that you are by far the highest caliber I've yet to encounter on USMB , highly intelligent and skilled at wiggling off the hook - lets try one more question if you wouldn't mind humoring me - Lenin is quoted as having said that the capitalist would even sell the marxist the rope needed to hang himself . You seem to believe that capitalists are funding and profiting from the advancement of an ideology that seeks to destroy them - do you believe Lenin was right ?

 

[Pogo]

MSNBC Started in the cesspool and has been crawling throuigh the sewer pipes and up the anus of lefties like you ever since . ... The Daily Caller in 2012 published an expose that revealed the extent to which MSNBC was dictatied to re: the content of their so called NEWQS. Newspapers such as the NY Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times all took dictation from Media Matters . The Caller reported that by 2008, "Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls [and orders]" "We were pretty much writing [MSNBC's] prime time,... But then, virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff" stated one former Media Matters employee. -Daily Caller Article

yada yad yada







Already addressed previously. This is more of the puppet show you think is reality. It isn't. There is no "socio-fascist monopoly", there is no "liberal media" and there aren't "monsters under the bed" or "communists behind every bush". Try to understand when you're being played.




It's an easy example. GE was and is heavily invested in defense contracts and nuclear power, and at the same time owned a broadcast network. That should immediately raise red flags all by itself. On the smaller scale the Time Warners and the News Corps and Disneys simultaneously own multiple media companies (television, radio, movies, newspapers, book publishing) that enable them to make their own news. That author you see on Fox TV promoting his new book -- well guess what, it's published by HarperCollins, which NewsCorp also owns, and the movie coming out is prouced by 20th Century Fox. The Machine doesn't need to find out who's making news -- the Machine dictates who it is.

To quote what one Fox executive said to his own reporters "We'll tell you what the news is -- the news is what we say it is!"

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3hCR_yCvkk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3hCR_yCvkk[/ame]




Case examples given previously. As for OWS, here's what bears out my point:



Again, as in the Reagan example above, what you're quoting is the image the Media sold you. If we actually had a "leftist" media, "flop" would not be your impression at all (and the tiny leftist media we do have certainly didn't present it that way). But OWS was a threat to the established order and was never going to be portrayed any other way by Corporatist Media -- which, along with Wall Street, IS the established order. Did you know the city of New York settled and paid up for false arrests recently? Didn't get a lot of splash if you heard it at all, did it? Of course not -- that doesn't fit the narrative of "a flop".

Once again here's what you're consistently missing:

"Consider the source".​

And consider it as a whole. The truth is Fox Noise has by nature a lot more in common with the alphabets, CNN and MSNBC than it has differences with them. There's a good reason you find the same people working for multiple entities that are supposed "mortal enemies" (Ann Coulter on MSNBC; Keith Olbermann on Fox; Glenn Beck on CNN)... it's because they're all part of the same machine.



I leave that kind of dramarama to the Conspiratists. It says here I give orders to the Illuminati but I've never met them. I don't imagine some great Hall of Oz where one guy is behind a curtain pulling levers planning out the next news drama. I just think commercial media is made up of opportunists who will sell anything they can to line their own pockets, whether that means a President portrayed as powerful, a President portrayed as a philanderer, a "liberal media" myth, fake wrestling, flood drama or a fire destroying an apartment in a section of town you never even heard of. It's not that complicated and need not be coordinated; the simplest explanation is the most logical.

One more quote to illustrate this point:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" -- H.L. Mencken

That's what they live by. We haven't had a national TV network go broke since the Dumont Network. Do the math.

You would be "colored unimpressed" on anybody, anything , source , site or quote that doesn't fit into your narrow world view.

That's no more "journalism" than that CBS Reports war story you cited earlier. And an investigative report from a known right-wing troll site doesn't exactly inspire credibility.

Wrong. - The CBS Story was blown out of the water - The material was proven false and staged . The Daily Caller Article was not and can not be - your issue with it , is that it simply doesn't conform to your narrow world view, so you challenge the source - but offer no proof , as there is no proof to back your suspicons. So you basically are making unsubstantiated allegations .

Wrong. "World view" ain't got squat to do with it. I could land on a spaceship from Jupiter and see that there's nobody quoted in this article. Anonymous sources just don't cut it. That just ain't journalism. It's hearsay. If you have a legitimate story, you have people quoted on the record -- not "a prominent Liberal who was there" and "staffers say". That's absolute bullshit.

I believe MSNBC was a conservative channel at one point, hosting Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, John Gibson and Tucker Carlson, speaking of the Daily Caller's resident troll, so if you want to stay with "started in the cesspool" I won't argue. I didn't watch it then and I don't watch it now. Why would I even own a TV, having said what I've said about the medium?

Well you believe wrong - Coulter was a legal correspondent for them in the 90s, and twice fired because she refused to tow the official party line . They had correspondents of both persuasions , they were never conservative .

Well no, you're wrong...

>> During the day, rolling news coverage continued with The Contributors, a show that featured Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, as well as interactive programming coordinated by Applegate, John Gibson and John Seigenthaler. << (Wiki)​

(The same page notes later the launch of Tucker Carlson's program on the channel in 2006. Other conservative hosts on the channel included Alan Keyes, Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan. Also Joe Scarborough, who last I heard is still there.)

As I said -- whatever sells.

As for the remainder of your Post - there's nothing there for me to argue with - you answered the initial question I presented you "Corporate America, the Illuminati or Aliens" and you are a conspiracy theorist who lays all the blame on Corporate America and capitalists . Now given that you are by far the highest caliber I've yet to encounter on USMB , highly intelligent and skilled at wiggling off the hook - lets try one more question if you wouldn't mind humoring me - Lenin is quoted as having said that the capitalist would even sell the marxist the rope needed to hang himself . You seem to believe that capitalists are funding and profiting from the advancement of an ideology that seeks to destroy them - do you believe Lenin was right ?

You don't read real well. I specifically stated I do NOT believe this is all some kind of coordinated conspiracy, but simply the nature of the beast. I also made the point -- over and over and over and over -- that ideology is NOT part of what television media dabbles in. I specifically said it doesn't even have the capability to do that.

Perhaps you read too fast.

And PS:
YOU WILL NOT edit my posts with "yada yad yada" just because you find it inconvenient to your worldview. You will leave my writing ALONE and INTACT.
Got me?

 

[GreenBean]

Blah Blah Blah

POGO: Wrong. "World view" ain't got squat to do with it. I could land on a spaceship from Jupiter and see that there's nobody quoted in this article. Anonymous sources just don't cut it.

It's done all the time, by both sides of the political spectrum. But I find it highly unlikely that you would even raise an eyebrow were it done by a Liberal Hack. Terms such as "confidential sources" , "informant" , "speaking off the record" and so forth.

In legal lingo it's called Journalistic Privilege.

right or privilege of reporters
1. to not reveal the identity of a confidential source
2. to be free from turning over published information or unpublished work product
3. to be free from testifying at judicial proceedings.

People usually ask for confidentiality because they are afraid of other people finding out they gave you information. There are all sorts of reasons why they need confidentiality:

The words "confidence" and "confidentiality" are based on the Latin word for trust. When you are given information in confidence, this usually means that you promise that you will not tell anyone else where you got it from. Your confidential informant trusts you to keep their identity secret. Agreeing to accept non-attributable information is the most common example of confidentiality.

Chapter 60: Sources & confidentiality

POGO: That just ain't journalism. It's hearsay.

Then you sir - do not understand the true nature of Journalism, journalistic privilege, or journalistic confidentiality. It's very basic, something that's taught in any introductory Journalism Class . But then of course - certain facts that do not conform to your narrow world view seem to slide right by your intellectual gravity field unfetterred .

POGO: Well no, you're wrong...
>> During the day, rolling news coverage continued with The Contributors, a show that featured Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, as well as interactive programming coordinated by Applegate, John Gibson and John Seigenthaler. << (Wiki)
(The same page notes later the launch of Tucker Carlson's program on the channel in 2006. Other conservative hosts on the channel included Alan Keyes, Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan. Also Joe Scarborough, who last I heard is still there.)

I'll give you that one [Actually I'm not giving you anything -you took it] I'll concede that MSNBC upper management has no scruples or ideology - but the flunkies who dictate the content most certainly do - so long as they maintain profitability [which is eroding rapidly, if ratings are any indication]

POGO: As I said -- whatever sells.

Sometimes

You don't read real well. I specifically stated I do NOT believe this is all some kind of coordinated conspiracy, but simply the nature of the beast. I also made the point -- over and over and over and over --

Yes, and you also continuoslly blamed what you perceive the beast to be Capitalism and Corporate America . Corordinated Conspiracy - Perhaps Not - but that still leaves you in the same Genre as comspiracy theorists [And myself as well]

POGO: that ideology is NOT part of what television media dabbles in. I specifically said it doesn't even have the capability to do that.

WRONG: Allthough the corporatists may not dabble in ideology as per your stated opinion - that is the realm of the minion as per your opinion. The minions being the leftist ideologues who've wormed and bamboozled their wayinto the system and commandeered the content over the last several decades.

You can't swing a dead cat in Tinseltown without hitting a left wing ideologue -and you'd be severely hard pressed to find a sitcom screen writer for any major studio who isn't a pervert or a leftist.

And PS:
YOU WILL NOT edit my posts with "yada yad yada" just because you find it inconvenient to your worldview. You will leave my writing ALONE and INTACT.
Got me?

I edited both our posts - it got to the pont where one exchange takes an entire page, which I feel is unfair to others engaging in conversations here as well.

But I'll tell you what - instead of Yada Yada Yada how about Blah Blah Blah ?

 

[IchKampfe]

Popular opinion does not determine how "true" a certain media outlet is. Ultimately they share the same goals: spread the news they want you to hear, when they want you to hear it, and when it fits their agenda.

 

[Pogo]

Blah Blah Blah

POGO: Wrong. "World view" ain't got squat to do with it. I could land on a spaceship from Jupiter and see that there's nobody quoted in this article. Anonymous sources just don't cut it.

It's done all the time, by both sides of the political spectrum. But I find it highly unlikely that you would even raise an eyebrow were it done by a Liberal Hack. Terms such as "confidential sources" , "informant" , "speaking off the record" and so forth.

In legal lingo it's called Journalistic Privilege.

right or privilege of reporters
1. to not reveal the identity of a confidential source
2. to be free from turning over published information or unpublished work product
3. to be free from testifying at judicial proceedings.

People usually ask for confidentiality because they are afraid of other people finding out they gave you information. There are all sorts of reasons why they need confidentiality:

The words "confidence" and "confidentiality" are based on the Latin word for trust. When you are given information in confidence, this usually means that you promise that you will not tell anyone else where you got it from. Your confidential informant trusts you to keep their identity secret. Agreeing to accept non-attributable information is the most common example of confidentiality.

Chapter 60: Sources & confidentiality

Then you sir - do not understand the true nature of Journalism, journalistic privilege, or journalistic confidentiality. It's very basic, something that's taught in any introductory Journalism Class . But then of course - certain facts that do not conform to your narrow world view seem to slide right by your intellectual gravity field unfetterred .

You are *COMPLETELY* full of shit here. If the world actually worked that way, nobody would ever be quoted at all and everything in existence would run on hearsay. The standards referred to here are for the protection of the source ... they DO NOT and CAN NOT validate the content of the story. Ever.

You have a bullshit article that can't quote anybody. You can make any claim you want without attribution. You can call a press conference and announce that New York City has fallen into the Atlantic Ocean, "according to unnamed sources", but until you document it your story remains full of shit. What you suggest is absurd.

Yes, and you also continuoslly blamed what you perceive the beast to be Capitalism and Corporate America . Corordinated Conspiracy - Perhaps Not - but that still leaves you in the same Genre as comspiracy theorists [And myself as well]

Once again -- horseshit. There is no conspiracy absent coordination. It's what the term means. Do you even understand English? The term "coordinated conspiracy" is fatally redundant. There is no such thing as an uncoordinated conspiracy. If it's a conspiracy, it has to be coordinated. Period.

POGO: that ideology is NOT part of what television media dabbles in. I specifically said it doesn't even have the capability to do that.

WRONG: Allthough the corporatists may not dabble in ideology as per your stated opinion - that is the realm of the minion as per your opinion. The minions being the leftist ideologues who've wormed and bamboozled their wayinto the system and commandeered the content over the last several decades.

That doesn't even make any sense. First you concede my point, then you pretend you didn't. "The realm of the minion as per your opinion"?? Cute poem but has nothing to do with the topic. I spoke nothing of "minions" directly or indirectly.

You can't swing a dead cat in Tinseltown without hitting a left wing ideologue -and you'd be severely hard pressed to find a sitcom screen writer for any major studio who isn't a pervert or a leftist. .

I'll just let this one sit there and shoot itself in the foot. Doesn't need my help.

I think this meltdown is complete. Auto destruct in progress.

And PS:
YOU WILL NOT edit my posts with "yada yad yada" just because you find it inconvenient to your worldview. You will leave my writing ALONE and INTACT.
Got me?

I edited both our posts - it got to the pont where one exchange takes an entire page, which I feel is unfair to others engaging in conversations here as well.

But I'll tell you what - instead of Yada Yada Yada how about Blah Blah Blah ?

Then just USE YOUR HEAD and do what I did -- take a point at a time. But you WILL NOT replace my words with "yada yad yada" -- or anything else.

• Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box. (USMB Rules and Guidelines)

 

[Pogo]

Popular opinion does not determine how "true" a certain media outlet is. Ultimately they share the same goals: spread the news they want you to hear, when they want you to hear it, and when it fits their agenda.

Point well taken. We see that error made constantly here, somebody will post the soaring ratings of their favored "news" channel or the sinking ratings of their unfavored, and pretend it's got something to do with the content therein. I keep telling them ratings measure attention, not assent. People slow down and gawk at traffic accidents too, doesn't mean they agree with the idea of traffic accidents.

Welcome to the site, Ich.

 

[NLT]

NEW POLL RATES FOX TN NEWS RATED # 1 For Truth by Americans. I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT.

No...maybe top cable news...but not even close to the top three networks CBS, NBC, and ABC.

Link or you are lying...again

 

[Pogo]

NEW POLL RATES FOX TN NEWS RATED # 1 For Truth by Americans. I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT.

No...maybe top cable news...but not even close to the top three networks CBS, NBC, and ABC.

Link or you are lying...again

We all told him that when this thread started. Rather than come back with one he bailed out.

 

[Impenitent]

Mark Furman's felony perjury conviction might make him ineligible to be a policeman again, but he is still very qualified to tell the "truth" at Fox.

 

[GreenBean]

yada yada yada -blah blah blah - etcetra and so froth

You are *COMPLETELY* full of shit here. If the world actually worked that way, nobody would ever be quoted at all and everything in existence would run on hearsay. The standards referred to here are for the protection of the source ... they DO NOT and CAN NOT validate the content of the story. Ever.

They canand they do - every day -in the LiberalMedia - yet noone bats a eyelid because that's what Liberals do - thats what is expected of them - twist, distort the truth and lie. Yet let a conservative use the term "confidential source" and your panties get all ruffled.

You apparently understand nothing about Journalism - Real Journalism - Not the yellow journalism you were force fed most of your life.

You have a bullshit article that can't quote anybody. You can make any claim you want without attribution.

And you have a bullshit opinion that continuosly makes abominable claims without a factual basis.

You can call a press conference and announce that New York City has fallen into the Atlantic Ocean, "according to unnamed sources", but until you document it your story remains full of shit. What you suggest is absurd.

Actaully a press conference to announce that NYC fell into the Ocean is absurd - and you are getting to that point also . Stop clutching at straws It takes a big person to admit when they are wrong, you may be an intelligent one - but apparently you are very small person.

Once again -- horseshit. There is no conspiracy absent coordination. It's what the term means. Do you even understand English? The term "coordinated conspiracy" is fatally redundant. There is no such thing as an uncoordinated conspiracy. If it's a conspiracy, it has to be coordinated. Period.

The word Conspiracy isinuates collaboration, be it willful collaboration or collaboration by default. Not that it's extremely urgent to the topic at hand - but yes there can be such a thing as an uncoordinated conspiracy - and that is what your theory of capitalist and corporatism implies - an uncoordinated conspiracy - where the conspirators are well aware of the goal and work together to achieve it -be it an ideological or monetary goal - there is no secret dog whistle to signal them when to act or what to do - but there is a most certainly - in your stated opinion - an uncoordinated conspiracy .

That doesn't even make any sense. First you concede my point, then you pretend you didn't..

I concede your point to a point - get my point ?

"The realm of the minion as per your opinion"?? Cute poem but has nothing to do with the topic. I spoke nothing of "minions" directly or indirectly

I honestly couldn't give a Rats ass whether you used the word "minions" or not -I used it - and it has everything to do with the topic . You stated Modern Journalism was simply an evil capitalistic venture - devoid of any ideology other than the almighty dollar - I conceded that to a certain extent, and at a certain level that is somewhat true in some cases - but that the actual business of slanting the News, as well as all media is perpetrated by ideologues with an Agenda . Get my Point Minion.

GreenBean: You can't swing a dead cat in Tinseltown without hitting a left wing ideologue -and you'd be severely hard pressed to find a sitcom screen writer for any major studio who isn't a pervert or a leftist. .

POGO: I'll just let this one sit there and shoot itself in the foot. Doesn't need my help.

I think this meltdown is complete. Auto destruct in progress.

When you Auto-Destruct - Don't worry- I'll be glad to edit it for you with some blah blah blah and yada yada yada

Actually Translated - what you stated is that my facts are true and can't be negated or berated - so put up or shut up pogo because you've been deflated.

Then just USE YOUR HEAD and do what I did -- take a point at a time

.

Stop flaterring yourself douchebag - you didn't come up with the method of tackling one point at a time in seperate quote boxes, selectively quoteing -I've been doing for some time , as have others.

But you WILL NOT replace my words with "yada yad yada" -- or anything else.

I'll do as I damn well please, unless told otherwise by someone in Authority - which certainly isn't you.

Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box. (USMB Rules and Guidelines)

yada yada yada and blah blah blah - do not change the context - nor do emoticons

 

[GreenBean]

Mark Furman's felony perjury conviction might make him ineligible to be a policeman again, but he is still very qualified to tell the "truth" at Fox.

Fuhrman serves as a forensic and crime scene expert - which he is
He is also a Racist - but your attempting to use himm to discredit Fox is a typical Textbook socio Fascist technique known as Jamming

The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of racism, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone, or anything [In this case Fox] whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .

Jamming is basically psychological terrorism intended to silence expression of or support for any dissenting opinion. Jamming employs the science of Direct Emotional Modeling and Associative Conditioning. In the context which you are using it it is Associative Conditioning - Associate FOX with a known racist and thereby via default label FOX as Racist .

Now what network is Sharpton on ? LMAO

 

[Impenitent]

Mark Furman's felony perjury conviction might make him ineligible to be a policeman again, but he is still very qualified to tell the "truth" at Fox.

Fuhrman serves as a forensic and crime scene expert - which he is
He is also a Racist - but your attempting to use himm to discredit Fox is a typical Textbook socio Fascist technique known as Jamming

The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of racism, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone, or anything [In this case Fox] whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .

Jamming is basically psychological terrorism intended to silence expression of or support for any dissenting opinion. Jamming employs the science of Direct Emotional Modeling and Associative Conditioning. In the context which you are using it it is Associative Conditioning - Associate FOX with a known racist and thereby via default label FOX as Racist .

Now what network is Sharpton on ? LMAO

Now I know my mother was jamming me when she told me "I would be known by the company I kept."

I didn't accuse Furman of racism, latent homosexual tendencies, or bigotry (though I could.)

But I do reserve those accusations for other Fox contributors that we might discuss in the future.

Black Santa Claus?

 

[Pogo]

yada yada yada -blah blah blah - etcetra and so froth

You are *COMPLETELY* full of shit here. If the world actually worked that way, nobody would ever be quoted at all and everything in existence would run on hearsay. The standards referred to here are for the protection of the source ... they DO NOT and CAN NOT validate the content of the story. Ever.

They canand they do - every day -in the LiberalMedia - yet noone bats a eyelid because that's what Liberals do - thats what is expected of them - twist, distort the truth and lie. Yet let a conservative use the term "confidential source" and your panties get all ruffled.

You apparently understand nothing about Journalism - Real Journalism - Not the yellow journalism you were force fed most of your life.

You don't have the vaguest clue what my background is, so

Reality doesn't work that way Gummo. Regardless whether you're making a case for the left, the right, or no politics at all, you don't make a point with anonymous sources. This is basic fucking logic. Just as this very thread made no point since it makes a completely undocumented statement with no link. The net content is ZERO. You don't get to change simple laws of existence.

And you have a bullshit opinion that continuosly makes abominable claims without a factual basis.

Again -- gainsaying. Zero point made. The fact is they're using anonymous sources, nobody's on the record, and therefore they make the same amount of point you just did: ZERO. Like it or lump it.

Actaully a press conference to announce that NYC fell into the Ocean is absurd - and you are getting to that point also . Stop clutching at straws It takes a big person to admit when they are wrong, you may be an intelligent one - but apparently you are very small person.

Just big enough to make you look like the idiot you are by tossing your own logic back in your face. How's it taste?

The word Conspiracy isinuates collaboration, be it willful collaboration or collaboration by default. Not that it's extremely urgent to the topic at hand - but yes there can be such a thing as an uncoordinated conspiracy - and that is what your theory of capitalist and corporatism implies - an uncoordinated conspiracy - where the conspirators are well aware of the goal and work together to achieve it -be it an ideological or monetary goal - there is no secret dog whistle to signal them when to act or what to do - but there is a most certainly - in your stated opinion - an uncoordinated conspiracy .

Bullshit.

Merriam Webster:
con·spir·a·cy noun \k&#601;n-&#712;spir-&#601;-s&#275;\
: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal

: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal

You can't "conspire" without a plan, dumbass. And there is no such thing as "collaboration by default".

I honestly couldn't give a Rats ass whether you used the word "minions" or not -I used it - and it has everything to do with the topic . You stated Modern Journalism was simply an evil capitalistic venture - devoid of any ideology other than the almighty dollar - I conceded that to a certain extent, and at a certain level that is somewhat true in some cases - but that the actual business of slanting the News, as well as all media is perpetrated by ideologues with an Agenda . Get my Point Minion.

This is once again you plugging in content to my posts. Where did I use the word "evil"? The rest of this drivel is you trying to have it both ways; first you agree that commerciality trumps ideology -- then you come back and say the opposite. One of you is right.

When you Auto-Destruct - Don't worry- I'll be glad to edit it for you with some blah blah blah and yada yada yada

And you'll get reported if you do, trust me.

Actually Translated - what you stated is that my facts are true and can't be negated or berated - so put up or shut up pogo because you've been deflated.

Danth goes desperate. Poster please.

Stop flaterring yourself douchebag - you didn't come up with the method of tackling one point at a time in seperate quote boxes, selectively quoteing -I've been doing for some time , as have others.

Right here, DUMBASS. First freaking line.

But you WILL NOT replace my words with "yada yad yada" -- or anything else.

I'll do as I damn well please, unless told otherwise by someone in Authority - which certainly isn't you.

Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box. (USMB Rules and Guidelines)

yada yada yada and blah blah blah - do not change the context - nor do emoticons

Site rules, Home Skillet. You WILL follow them or you'll be nailed. Once again, your pissant position is so weak, not only do you have to edit other people's posts, you even purport to make your own rules about it? Yeah good luck with that one, kid.

 

[HenryBHough]

Full of sound and fury and signifying no more than we have come to expect. Move on. Nothing to see here.....

 

[initforme]

I don't watch MSNBC or fox. Both are nauseatingly biased and I can't find one host I could sit down and like or relate to. I could better everything I own that the truth would be hard to find on either channel.