Thursday, November 24, 2011
Say it Often Enough......and, WOW, You're Kiddin'?
Look, folks, I'm not a big fan of Fox News, either (Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, and Fox and Friends, especially). But when Politifact says that Jon Stewart's claim that "Fox's viewers are the most consistently misinformed viewers in the country" is false, then what? Do we simply disregard it, as many on a bevy of liberal sites are presently doing? Or, OR, do we take it up a notch and say that Politifact has in fact become PART of the conspiracy, this grandiose right-wing conspiracy? I don't know, folks, what do YOU think that we should do?.......................................................................................................P.S. Obviously there's a third option. The third option would be for all of us to realize that there is more than an ample amount of sorry shit to go around, and that ALL of us should in fact be better consumers of information (skeptical, in other words) Not that this is a theory that will ever take off, of course.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I have actually seen studies over and over again about how liberals have higher IQs than Conservatives.
I have also seen studies over and over again about how conservatives have higher IQs than liberals.
I know people do honest research and wouldn't lie. Therefore, here is what I have learned:
1. Liberals have higher IQs than Conservatives.
2. Conservatives have higher IQs than liberals.
It is unlikely that someone would do a study like this unless they needed to find a specific answer. They do find the answers they need. Imagine that.
If someone finds a single study or stastic that supports the superiority of their philosophy, they quickly point it out to anyone who will listen and they believe their case is made, because they have found "the facts." Imagine that!
Another post where Will assumes everyone knows what he's talking about (no links, no explaination regarding what Politifact supposedly says).
There is another possibility other than the ones you list... which would be that Politifact is wrong. They were wrong when they said Alan Grayson's campaign ad which claimed that his opponent thinks wives should submit to their husbands was false.
So, without looking it up, I think it's possible they're wrong again.
Will at various times I've read about polls like the one you mention. I don't particuliarly trust Fox News so I don't watch it. The lines between news and and opinion have become blurred. It is up to the individual how he/she consumes news. I do watch CNN and pick at the NY Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and other sources.That approach may in fact be the safest..confirm "fact" from multiple sources...
Stewart's a left-wing partisan (a Limbaugh type person, but on the left), so of course he is going to say something like this of right-wing Fox News.
Will Hart: “But when Politifact says that Jon Stewart's claim that "Fox's viewers are the most consistently misinformed viewers in the country" is false, then what? Do we simply disregard it, as many on a bevy of liberal sites are presently doing … ”
As one of your detractors recently said: “ You ARE what you READ.” A healthy skepticism does not mean ignoring a preponderance of hard evidence and turning yourself into anti-science, anti-intellectual ideologue. You have conveniently dismissed the two studies taken years apart (one at Fairleigh Dickenson University and the other at the University of Maryland) cited by Jon Stewart.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with these incidents as egregious examples of right wing pandering (links included for your convenience):
Man Shoots Two California Highway Patrol Officers:
Accused Gunman Acknowledges Influence of Glenn Beck
Three Pittsburgh Police Officers Ambushed and Killed:
Gunman Posted Glenn Beck Video on White Supremacist Website
Federal Prison for Man Who Threatened House Speaker Pelosi:
Mother of Accused Man Blames Fox News
Glenn Beck Fans Target Legendary Scholar with Death Threats
Death Threats Against League of Women Voters Linked to Glenn Beck
Murders, shooting sprees, domestic terrorism, private citizens hiding in fear, infamous intimidations and provocations broadcast on national television - all linked to Fox News! There is no he said/she said moral relativity, as you characterize it, with regards to what constitutes ethical conduct versus pandering and incitement. You may find Olbermann, Schultz, or Maddow annoying but these journalists do not incite people to acts of violence - or viciously attack the children and spouses of people in the news– or characterize the opposition as a “mental disease” or other examples of eliminationist rhetoric (i.e., the language of fascism) as the right wing media does.
Your motivational bias blinds you. For a backgrounder on the history of yellow journalism and sorry state of contemporary media, I refer you to A Contest of Madmen for the Primacy of the Sewer.
You're right, wd. They could be wrong. Here is the link. Decide for yourself. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/ As for Mr. Grayson, we had this discussion before. He spliced footage to make his opponent seem like he was saying something other than what he was actually saying. That is dishonest and Politifact correctly called him on it. Now, if his opponent had something incriminating in another speech or interview, fine, Mr. Grayson could have quoted those ill-timed words. He didn't, though. He took him out of context from a much more benign speech.
I agree with Octopus.
Motivational bias = Moderate extremism.
Will: He spliced footage to make his opponent seem like he was saying something other than what he was actually saying.
The audio also wasn't "spliced". Webster said husbands shouldn't pray that Bible passage (about wives submitting to their husbands), because their wives should!
The ad was accurate IMO.
After looking at the PolitiFact "debunking" my conclusion is that PolitiFact is indeed wrong. The first three surveys they cite only ask if the respondent knows who the people who hold certain political offices are. Of course if you watch news programs (including Fox News) you are more likely than someone who watches no news programs to be able to answer correctly.
Look at the last two surveys... Fox Nooz viewers rated lower on those.
It appears to me that PolitiFact is going after Stewart to bolster their "fair and balanced" image. Cherry picked surveys which asked general knowledge questions about who political figures are doesn't mean what Jon Stewart said was "false". Jon Stewart was right.
It seems I've forgot....did Grayson win his reelection bid in that central Florida area?
If he did it must have been a landslide victory in his favor seeing how popular his was in his own district.So WD,that AD of his must have turned the race in his favor....smart work on his part.
Hey Octopus, human behavior is exceedingly complex. To say that a singular action by a singular lunatic can be blamed solely on the words put forth by somebody else is absolutely ludicrous. There's a lot that goes into the making of a crazy person and this whole mindset that something specific sets somebody off is borderline Hollywood. And when has it suddenly become the case that a person isn't responsible for his or her actions. I must have totally missed the memo on that one.............And, come on, are you really trying to say that all of the violent/inflammatory rhetoric is coming from the right? ALL of it?............What about Slate.Com's David Plotz? In a recent rant against Wall Street (a very easy target, granted), Mr. Plotz advocates (his tongue firmly in cheek, I hope) that "We should burn them down. We should go after them with pitchforks, knives, guns, clubs we find, mace - anything, because it's appalling.".......................................................................................................Add what about this little blurb by one of Mr. Plotz's colleagues over at Slate. According to one Mitch Deerfield, "Obama needs to break some knee-caps." He needs to "use some of the goons from the SEIU to pressure recalcitrant blue-dog Democrats" and that "You'd be surprised how persuasive brass-knuckles can be when used against Senators and Congressmen who stand in the way of progress and economic justice."............................................................................................................Oh, and how 'bout this one from the normally well-spoken/measured, Roland Martin? On CNN.com, Mr. Martin says that "It's time for Obama to go gangsta' on the GOP. It's time for him to channel his inner Al Capone. Let 'em know that if they aren't with you, then they're against you, and that you'll pay a price."...Like I said, there's more than enough idiocy to go around.
The best course of action for all would be to read Truth 101.
He didn't say it in that speech, wd. He said something considerably more benign and, if Mr. Grayson (who also called his opponent a "draft-dodger") had even a scintilla of decency, he would have acknowledged the dirty trick and moved on. He didn't. The ends justified the means, I'm gathering.
Let's see, Politifact or Think Progress? Yeah, that's a tough one. Mr. Stewart (who I like a lot because he hammers both sides) said that the surveys CONSISTENTLY show Fox News viewers to be less informed. Politifact showed that that wasn't a true statement.
Marcus, Truth, dmarks, you know what I do? I judge each show and each correspondent individually. Like with Fox, I don't trust Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto but I DO trust Shepard Smith and Ed Henry. The same with MSNBC. I don't trust Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow but I DO trust Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell.
I know what you do Will. You hide behind a facade of moderatity to mask your extremist views. You quote everyone in hopes that somewhere you will be able to use a quote to hide your extremist centrisity.
I know I will be on you list of people you half love, half hate now for my assessment of you but it's the truth man. it's time for you to choose Will. Chocolate or vanilla man! None of this neopolitan like em both dude. Strawberry is not an option any more than failure. You're with us or against us. It's time you decided which side of the Mason/Dixon Lone you were on. Chairman Mao or Chiang Kai Shek? Che or Fidel?
What's it gonna be boy. What's it gonna be? No you can't sleep on it.
Will: He didn't say it in that speech, wd.
In a Fox Nooz interview, in response to the Grayson ad, Webster said (ABOUT THE SPEECH)...
"I was talking about the idea of praying for your wife, but don't pray to her the verses that say submit to me because THAT'S HER RESPONSIBILITY. You as a man, as a father, and as a husband have responsibility. So I was saying you focus on your responsibility, not on hers".
Clearly Webster is saying that WHAT HE MEANT was that wives should submit to their husbands. These are HIS WORDS about what he was saying in that speech.
Will: The ends justified the means, I'm gathering.
Nope, you gather wrong. In my book the ends do NOT justify the means. Grayson's ad was a fair representation of what Webster believes, not a "dirty trick".
Will: you know what I do? I judge each show and each correspondent individually.
For some reason I'm not quite buying what Will the Moderate says. Perhaps it's because earlier he said, "Let's see, Politifact or Think Progress? Yeah, that's a tough one". Will is dismissing what ThinkProgress has to say simply because they're Liberal.
Will: Politifact showed that that wasn't a true statement.
They did no such thing. ThinkProgress makes a much better case than PolitiFact, but Will refuses to consider it due to his moderate extremism. One narrative fits with his moderate worldview, the other does not.
Truth: I know what you do Will. You hide behind a facade of moderatity to mask your extremist views.
I think people here are confused. There is a political position that is known as "moderate". But aside from the name, the "moderate" doesn't fit the dictionary definition of moderation. It's just another political position, and, like the others, can be taken to extremes.
Will is an example of someone who does this. PolitiFact's case is weak, but it fits with Will's moderate views, so he accepts it... and dismisses the ThinkProgress article outright.
Will: “Hey Octopus, human behavior is exceedingly complex. To say that a singular action by a singular lunatic can be blamed solely on the words put forth by somebody else is absolutely ludicrous.”
I happen to know a thing or two about human behavior and don’t appreciate condescension.
Language is not harmless, and words are not benign. You cannot fully comprehend a political history of the 20th Century without an understanding of how public opinion is shaped and manipulated. It begins with Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations and the author of Propaganda (1928), Crystallizing Public Opinion (1927), and Public Relations (1945), who says: “The instinctual and primal drives of human beings can be harnessed and channeled by the corporate elite for economic gain” … and by demagogues such as Hitler to mobilize the masses.
Had you read A Contest of Madmen for the Primacy of the Sewer? Inside you will find this comment:
“I'm reminded of William Shirer's account in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich of just how strongly a non-stop stream of propaganda affected his own judgment … he [Shirer] found it hard to discount completely even the sort of offal that his journalistic instincts told him must be false, mainly because it was coming through vital information channels and being repeated by everyone. Amplification and bad argument from authority, in other words, worked together to create a toxic discursive bubble inside of which an entire nation was forced to live and breathe.”
Perhaps you should read George Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language: Politics informs language and language informs thought - “ "to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Perhaps you should read David Neiwert’s The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, which states:
“ … right-wing rhetoric has been explicitly eliminationist, calling for the infliction of harm on whole blocs of American citizens: liberals, gays and lesbians, Latinos, blacks, Jews, feminists or whatever target group is the victim de jour … Eliminationism has always been a signature trait of fascism.”
Will,
It seems you have a lot of opinions but not a lot of knowledge to back them up.
Oh, gee, Octopus, you've read a spate of books which have reaffirmed what you've already considered as gospel. That's impressive, dude. And if you don't like my condescension, boy, you can mozy on back to the hate-filled blog/echo chamber which is Sue's.............Words have consequences? Or do just conservatives' words have consequences? President Obama said that "if they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun." Obama said that, boy, not Sarah Palin. And Markos Moulitsas ran an add of a t-shirt that had Sarah Palin's face in the cross-hairs. There is a plethora of effervescently hyper violent rhetoric on the left but people like you and the media tend to ignore it. You ignore it because you're intellectually dishonest and weak. You need to see the world in clear-cut dichotomies between good and evil and it's pathetic.............And I've read a fair number of books myself, pal. I used to read C.Wright Mills and Jonathan Kozol for frigging breakfast, for Christ. And I read "Blaming the Victim" well before frigging wd was ever born. The world doesn't fit the mold, buddy - not Limbaugh's mold, not Olbermann's mold, not anybody's mold. Be a man for once in your life and accept it.
And this is what the Forbes article stated, the one that said how Fox Viewers indeed WERE the least informed......."The kicker is that MSNBC didn’t do all that much better. In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers.
'Ideological media does a very poor job overall,' Cassino told Forbes. 'They don’t challenge people’s assumptions.'"............Look, boy, I've admitted many times that Fox News is biased. In fact, it was one of the many reasons why I started this enterprise. But for you to come here and say that MSNBC, which from 3 PM to 1 AM is nothing more than pure Democratic propaganda, isn't in fact a rump organization itself, shows just how much of a pseudointellectual shill you are. Yeah, keep on reading buddy. LOL
Will: "But for you to come here and say that MSNBC, which from 3 PM to 1 AM is nothing more than pure Democratic propaganda, isn't in fact a rump organization itself, shows just how much of a pseudointellectual shill you are."
Will,
If you reread all comments left here by me in the past 5 days, you will find NOT ONE MENTION OF MSNBC. NADA. ZILCH. Either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you are being deliberately deceptive and dishonest.
Furthermore, had you read this article, A Contest of Madmen for the Primacy of the Sewer, you would have found source statistics that show ALL CABLE NEWS MEDIA coming up short on scales of viewer miscomprehension (with the exception of NPR/PBS which has the highest ranking in the news segment).
Furthermore, all comments made by me have active links to original citations - all from reliable, trustworthy and non-partisan sources. In contrast, your opinions are unsubstantiated.
Furthermore, this is especially cheap and petty:
Will: "Look, boy ..."
Since you insist on sinking to this level, there is no reason for me to visit this blog any longer. Goodbye.
Damn he deletes another post,
I wonder why?
Will "the moderate" openly censors those he cannot refute it seems.
You're lying, Octopus (and, yes, good riddance). The very post itself sites the Politifact article. Hello! And you've consistently said that there isn't a moral equivalence, MEANING that people at MSNBC aren't as bad as the people at Fox. Reliable, trustworthy sources; "Think Progress", "Media Matters", etc.. LOL
As for you, 37927/asshole, I told you to stay away from here. But, since in fact you are here, I can and DO refute what you're saying. That idiotic October Surprise conspiracy theory that you've been peddling here (for example), I shattered it to hell. Not only did Congressional investigations debunk the mother-fucker, so, too, did the God damned frigging Village Voice" (the fucking "Village Voice", for Christ! LOL)........I was cordial and decent to you, numbnuts. But you ruined it with a series of needless and unprovoked attacks. Fuck you and fuck your family, too.
Oh, and, no, Octopus, I didn't bother to read your fucking essay.
Will: I shattered it to hell. Not only did Congressional investigations debunk [it], so did the... Village Voice
You did? I didn't see that. Actually the Robert Parry article I linked to presented some extremely strong evidence that it did happen. But of course you simply declared him a partisan and dismissed his argument.
As for this "Village Voice" proof that you keep citing... you never provided a link... and I didn't google for, find, and read whatever "debunking" it is you're referring to. I did, however, read the Wikipedia entry for the "Village Voice"... it does not say the publication has superior debunking skills and that everyone flocks to them for their unparalleled ability to uncover the truth. LOL.
Will: F**k you and f**k your family, too.
What the hell does Octopus' family have to do with your dislike of his comments?
Octopus: Furthermore, this ["Look, boy" comment] is especially cheap and petty...
Will likes to condesend to Liberals. It's what moderate extremists do.
#37 claimed, entirely falsely
"Will "the moderate" openly censors those he cannot refute it seems."
Actually, it is the opposite of censorship. It is actually the expression of free speech, a free press. This is Will's forum, not yours. His control over the content of his own forum is no different than the New York Times picking and choosing which letters to print in the Op-Ed pages.
Save the whining about censorship for situations where it actually applies.
This is from Wikipedia, wd......."Retired CIA analyst and counter-intelligence officer Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke, Snepp asserted that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be in Portland, Oregon, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting." He sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone! LOL
Post a Comment