#ABC descending to partisan sleaze levels of Faux News?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
ABC uses Fox tactic to make Stewart seem like climate change denier
By David Edwards and John Byrne
Thursday, December 10th, 2009 -- 9:08 am
Has Fox News met its match?
Last night, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann reported on a segment in which ABC
used a clip of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart to make him look like a
climate change denier. But in fact, the full clip shows that Stewart was
arguing the opposite.
Olbermann names ABC News producer David Wright "Worst Person in the
World."
"This is the sound bite they played in Mr. Wright's report tonight,"
Olbermann began.
Stewart: "Poor Al Gore, global warming completely debunked via the very
Internet you invented. Oh!"
Story continues below...
Olbermann then played the full clip.
"Poor Al Gore, global warming completely debunked via the very internet
you invented. Oh!" Stewart mocks. "Oh, the irony. The iron-y. Actually,
the real story is not quite that sensational. Now, does it disprove
global warming? No, of course not!"
"No, of course not, unless you have, at a, no journalistic
qualifications, b, no journalistic ethics, or c, you are falsifying the
news to fit a personal political agenda," Olbermann remarks. "At Fox when
they do, they make an excuse. At The Wall Street Journal, they don't even
bother to do that. At ABC when they do, they're supposed to fire
somebody. Might have been a producer, but the piece has his name on it.
David Wright of ABC News, until we hear otherwise, today's 'Worst Person
in the World.'"
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>http://rawstory.com/2009/12/abc-uses-fox-tactic/
>
>
>ABC uses Fox tactic to make Stewart seem like climate change denier
>
>By David Edwards and John Byrne
>Thursday, December 10th, 2009 -- 9:08 am
>
>Has Fox News met its match?
>
>Last night, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann reported on a segment in which ABC
Is olbermann still on the air? How can that be when he has so few
people watching him.... Hahahahahahaha
P. U. Stinkly
Your inability to address the facts is noted.
Steve
But did you note the "Hahahahahahaha" at the end?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
>
>You aren't expecting TRUTH from a 'news' agency, are you ?
Certainly not an American one. News on a "for profit" basis isn't
going to be news. It's going to be a combination of pandering and
shopkeeper propaganda.
>
>That hasn't been their job for a long time now. Somewhere
>during the 60s the 'news' biz became the *entertainment*
>biz ... and the proliferation of competitors thereafter
>simply accelerated the transition.
>
>So now, whether its corporate or govt-run 'news', Job #1
>is telling the people exactly what they WANT to hear in
>the most entertaining means possible. All propaganda
>all the time - that's what *pays*.
>
>(And, of course, there's the issue of "truth" to
>contend with as well. What *is* "true" ? It's
>more than just factoids, but how you look at
>them, how you present them, what you suggest
>doing with them - the subjective aspects)
>
>(And then there are even heavier philosophical
>issues undermining the very idea of objective
>'truth')
P. U. Stinkly
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:19:13 -0500, "P. U. Stinkly"
> <stin...@gop.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:09:59 -0600, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09"
>>> <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://rawstory.com/2009/12/abc-uses-fox-tactic/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ABC uses Fox tactic to make Stewart seem like climate change denier
>>>>
>>>> By David Edwards and John Byrne
>>>> Thursday, December 10th, 2009 -- 9:08 am
>>>>
>>>> Has Fox News met its match?
>>>>
>>>> Last night, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann reported on a segment in which ABC
>>>
>>> Is olbermann still on the air? How can that be when he has so few
>>> people watching him.... Hahahahahahaha
>> Your inability to address the facts is noted.
>
> But did you note the "Hahahahahahaha" at the end?
I took it as a sign of idiocy. I see I was correct.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:52:10 -0500, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You aren't expecting TRUTH from a 'news' agency, are you ?
>>
>>Certainly not an American one. News on a "for profit" basis isn't going
>>to be news. It's going to be a combination of pandering and shopkeeper
>>propaganda.
>
> And non-profit, ie 'Government', news is gonna be propaganda.
BBC?
liberal
> You aren't expecting TRUTH from a 'news' agency, are you ?
>
> during the 60s the 'news' biz became the *entertainment*
> biz ... and the proliferation of competitors thereafter
> simply accelerated the transition.
>
> So now, whether its corporate or govt-run 'news', Job #1
> is telling the people exactly what they WANT to hear in
> the most entertaining means possible. All propaganda
> all the time - that's what *pays*.
>
> (And, of course, there's the issue of "truth" to
> contend with as well. What *is* "true" ? It's
> more than just factoids, but how you look at
> them, how you present them, what you suggest
> doing with them - the subjective aspects)
>
> (And then there are even heavier philosophical
> issues undermining the very idea of objective
> 'truth')
Curiously, those news agencies are owned by the über wealthy...the
folks you take great pains to protect and defend.
Maybe you need a "time out" in order to review your philosophy and
what it leads to.
liberal
> "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:19:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:52:10 -0500, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>You aren't expecting TRUTH from a 'news' agency, are you ?
>
> >>>Certainly not an American one. News on a "for profit" basis isn't going
> >>>to be news. It's going to be a combination of pandering and shopkeeper
> >>>propaganda.
>
> >> And non-profit, ie 'Government', news is gonna be propaganda.
>
> >BBC?
>
>
> Don't doubt it a minute.
"Doubt"??? As in the "certainty of belief"??? What *YOU* believe ain't
necessarily the truth. See, if you *KNEW* the BBC is a British
government propaganda vehicle, you'd have claimed having "knowledge."
And maybe offered an instance of proof. But no, you just asserted your
lack of "doubt."
Hmmm, maybe "doubt" isn't what you lack, maybe something more
"organic"?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Black likes to pretend that government would use media for propaganda,
but that outfits like Disney, or News Corp., or GE wouldn't DREAM of
using their pet media to advance their own interests.
Oddly enough, he opposes regulations that would limit how much of the
media any one individual or entity could control.
As long as his information source is owned by a for-profit corporation,
he knows he can trust it.
liberal
Yet at the same time he rails against a lack of rational regulation of
businesses. Protecting his investments is high on his list of "Must
Do", protecting the truth and access to it...not so much. He's happy
with reichtard propaganda....he repeats it so often. Did he ever
condemn the Washington Times and FOX Spews pro-Bush 1/2 propaganda.
Not a once, as I recall.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
At least he doesn't pretend Air America is a failed business model but
the Moonie Times isn't.
But yeah, he finds it impossible to see the world through the Invisible
Hand.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> I've never seen a government NOT use 'news' for propaganda purposes.
>
> Corporates, on the other hand, everybody *expects* them to tilt
> things a bit to serve their interests so it's not a bad.
Then you shouldn't have any problems showing examples of such propaganda
from PBS, or CBC, or BBC.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> So long as it's not severe, or TOO sneaky, no.
>
> At least their 'spin' is about money ... not about pushing weird
> sociopolitical initiatives. Between profit motive and political
> motives, 'profit' is actually the 'cleaner', safer one.
>
> And, of course, in a competitive private 'news' environment, if you
> don't like CNN you can switch to FOX or the Beeb or al-Jaz or
> whatever.
I don't like CNN, which I consider vacuous garbage, and switched to BBC
years ago. Al Jazheira is also a good, unbiased source of news. You be
interested to learn that outfits like al Qaida hate it as much as right
wing morons in the US do, and with much stronger reason: Al Jazheira
reports honestly on them, too. Nitwits suckled on Faux News just hate it
because it is Arabic, and therefore must be bad.