1
   

Fox News airs psychic to talk to Terri

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 06:20 am
dlowan wrote:
msolga wrote:
dlowan wrote:
...You have more than 50% sane in the US - most conservatives are not like them!


Of course not, Deb. Goes without saying ... And of course, roverroad was not being deadly serious in that statement, either, I'm sure. Smile Sure the nutters are a minority, but a really scary, ugly minority. It's the combination of religion with hate & patriotism that's really disturbing.


Have you some urls, Msolga? I wouldn't mind a quick look.


Are you kidding, Deb? Confused Surprised I couldn't wait to get OFF those sites, many of them totally irrelevant to the issue we were discussing here, anyway. I tried various combinations of FOX + psychic, Schiavo & FOX, etc, etc, etc ... It took ages, with little success & this site (Media Matters) kept coming up in links on threads I looked at. That simple. I don't exactly fancy the idea of retracing my steps & attempting to revisit those other sites. Apart from being totally offensive, they drove my microsoft pop-up blocker-thingy mad! Riddled with the stuff! Did Spybot & ad-aware scans straight after & discovered a lot of new stuff. Aint going back that way, hell no!
0 Replies
 
Don1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 06:29 am
With all the psychics they have in the USA you would think that the government would have a few on the payroll to tell them when events like the Oklahoma city bombing, and the world trade centre were about to happen.

I wonder why they don't?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 06:31 am
I saw what rover was talking about. I saw it on THE DAILY SHOW. Stewart had a terrific lead in at how all the news outlets were bringing in the "Experts" to make their casethat Shiavo was NOT brain dead.
"Now FoX, that paragon of news accuracy hired an expert, Jonathan Edward, you know, the guy that talks to dead people"

"He could see that Ms SHiavo was fully responsive. If Edward were such a good psychic, how come he couldnt see that his own show was going to be cancelled?"

Stewart did a WHHAAAAA?. on this and had one of his patented incredulous looks that said most of what he needed to say.
I get all my hard fake news from the best of all the fake news shows.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 06:39 am
The Daily Show?????
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 06:53 am
Again, the judgment of what is sane and/or bullshit-free is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

A perusal of the current homepage of http://mediamatters.org/ produces most of the current buzzwords of the American far-Left -- Pat Robertson, O'Reilly (3 references), Jerry Falwell (2), Delay (2), Limbaugh (2), and the ubiquitous array of Fox fixations (Fox News, Fox & Friends, Fair & Balanced, New Fox reporters, etc.)

MediaMatters is more than partisan. It is the rabid wolf attacking the mad-cow afflicted bovine. Determining degrees of sanity would require a finely-tuned proctoscope. Both are simply equally repulsive sights.

(BTW -- the internet makes a respondent's geographic proximity to the United States irrelevant when choosing websites to prove/disprove the credibility/sanity of others' political proclivities. Point & click erases the miles/kilometers.)
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 07:04 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:
Again, the judgment of what is sane and/or bullshit-free is clearly in the eye of the beholder.


This "beholder" does not live in the US & was simply trying to find some information in regard to the subject of this thread. Media Matters, from all the sites that I perused, was actually the most rational & informative. It was also not overly emotive, hysterical even, unlike a number of the other Schiavo threads I had the misfortune to look at. Blame Google, if you like! I sorted through quite a few sites. There's some real garbage out there, let me tell you.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 07:35 am
msolga wrote:
Sure the nutters are a minority, but a really scary, ugly minority. It's the combination of religion with hate & patriotism that's really disturbing.


I don't know why anyone has to be blamed for anything that is on the internet (least of all Google.News), and I'm certainly not assigning blame to anyone for anything. My point is simply that there are "nutters" on both sides and MediaMatters was cited as a rational and informative reference point. It is neither.

The Schiavo case fostered hysterics. Such should be expected in any database searches. It's part of the terrain ... as is the agenda at MediaMatters.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 07:49 am
No no one has to be blamed for what's on the internet. Those ugly sites just popped up during my search for more information. They were ugly, threatening & offensive, that's all.
I didn't see any hysterics at all on Media Matters. That's why I quoted that site. The commentary was objective & mercifully free of emotive appeals, too.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 08:07 am
The scariest site I've ever visited contained quite calm and rational (in tone) postings. Cold hatred is far scarier than the sort of hysterical nuttiness over on Free Republic.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 08:12 am
All I've found so far is the Daily Show reference. Go here and scroll down to the pic of Jon Stewart to see a video of it.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/03/25.html#a2137

(Yes, obviously the site is partisan, but point is that it hosts a video clip. Evidently it's a 5-minute video, the John Edwards part happens about 4 minutes in.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 08:57 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:
Again, the judgment of what is sane and/or bullshit-free is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

A perusal of the current homepage of http://mediamatters.org/ produces most of the current buzzwords of the American far-Left -- Pat Robertson, O'Reilly (3 references), Jerry Falwell (2), Delay (2), Limbaugh (2), and the ubiquitous array of Fox fixations (Fox News, Fox & Friends, Fair & Balanced, New Fox reporters, etc.)

MediaMatters is more than partisan. It is the rabid wolf attacking the mad-cow afflicted bovine. Determining degrees of sanity would require a finely-tuned proctoscope. Both are simply equally repulsive sights.

Again, by going through its homepage, you make a good case on how MediaMatters is selective, and to that extent shows its own bias. I'd admitted that much already.

However, in my (admittedly limited) experience of using the site, it is factual and scrupulous in reporting that which it does choose to report. Thats what I meant by "bullshit-free", and which made it a welcome exception in eg the Google search I quoted.

You are of course welcome to come with any example that does show the site being deceptive. I mean, if you're going to call it the equivalent of a "rabid wolf", you'd better show some example of it posting outright falsehoods, canards, or some such rhetorical nonsense - otherwise you're the one engaging in it.

It's a shame how most sources one comes up with are so partisan. Thats a minus, by itself. But even partisan sites can still be useful, even credible. During the US election campaigns, one of the sites I visited daily to keep track of polls and the like was a conservative blog. The blogger was passionately partisan, but also passionately scrupulous about his data. Partisan does not by itself already establish a source's "rabid wolf" character - for that, you need to come up with a little bit more. I havent seen it for MediaMatters, but I'm willing to be shown.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 09:17 am
What I seem to have gleaned from various sources is that Edward was basically flogging his book on "Fox and Friends". In the course of flogging his book, he was asked about the Schiavo case. Then Stewart took the (genuine) clip and made it into an "expert opinion" 'cause, you know, it's funny. And also makes a point.

But it seems like Edward really was on "Fox and Friends" on March 24th and really said those things (transcript in msolga's link.)
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 09:36 am
nimh wrote:
You are of course welcome to come with any example that does show the site being deceptive. I mean, if you're going to call it the equivalent of a "rabid wolf", you'd better show some example of it posting outright falsehoods, canards, or some such rhetorical nonsense - otherwise you're the one engaging in it.


I never claimed the site was deceptive; that was your choice of words. I certainly do not have to produce examples of falsehoods, canards, and rhetorical nonsense to validate my position that the site is fanatically far-left wing. It's mission statement clearly admits that.

Perhaps you should review my wolf/cow metaphor (which you have selectively dissected) before suggesting I am engaging in "posting outright falsehoods, canards, or some such rhetorical nonsense." I said what I said and that's all.

<<< Quite frankly, I don't appreciate your ad hominem slurs against me. Perhaps you could refrain from this in future posts? Thanks. >>>
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 09:38 am
goodfielder wrote:
The scariest site I've ever visited contained quite calm and rational (in tone) postings. Cold hatred is far scarier than the sort of hysterical nuttiness over on Free Republic.


Uh huh. Hysteria usually runs its course and goes away. It's not hard to recognize, either.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 09:41 am
Whooda, put it this way. Say there are 100 factual news articles. Each of them dispassionate and accurate. 50 of them are right-leaning. 50 of them are left-leaning. If a site (which makes no claim of impartiality) selects only the 50 left-leaning dispassionate and accurate articles to publish, does that say anything about the articles themselves? Can the content of the article be discounted merely because of the partisanship of the site?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 09:44 am
I got out the tarot cards this morning and tossed the I Ching and had several relevations but then the theosophists showed at my door follwed by a pair of mormons on bicyles. I think an omen is near and I may need a tent maker.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 09:49 am
I picked up a cool Terri Schiavo lunchbox at Wal Mart today. Oh the irony.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 09:52 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
I picked up a cool Terri Schiavo lunchbox at Wal Mart today. Oh the irony.

should be just right for headcheese sandwiches.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 09:53 am
sozobe wrote:
Whooda, put it this way. Say there are 100 factual news articles. Each of them dispassionate and accurate. 50 of them are right-leaning. 50 of them are left-leaning. If a site (which makes no claim of impartiality) selects only the 50 left-leaning dispassionate and accurate articles to publish, does that say anything about the articles themselves? Can the content of the article be discounted merely because of the partisanship of the site?


Witness the first line of the mission statement:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

The site not only selects 50 right-leaning dispassionate and accurate articles to publish, but also claims to correct the "conservative misinformation."

That's quite a leap from simply being a partisan site, Sozbe.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 09:53 am
with a side of jello.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2024 at 07:03:28