0
   

Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 04:49 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
So you'll be willing to apply that conclusion to your own sources then? I wonder who funds CNS news...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 05:24 pm
Quote:
The Cybercast News Service (also CNSNews.com) is a conservative news website operated by the Media Research Center. It was founded on June 16, 1998 under the name "Conservative News Service"; "Conservative" was changed to "Cybercast" in 2000 after the MRC was unable to trademark the name "Conservative News Service." CNS sees its role as serving an audience which puts a "higher premium on balance than spin" by covering stories that mainstream news organizations ignore.

"In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission. CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues."

Cybercast News Service's leadership consists of President Brent Bozell and Editor-in-Chief David Thibault, who became top editor in April 2005. Its editor from 1998-2005 was Scott Hogenson, who also worked as the chief of radio operations for the Republican National Committee in 2004.

CNS itself has been accused of having its own bias. ConWebWatch, a website set up to challenge possible biases in politically conservative news sources, accuses CNS, among others, of engaging in the same tactics as the "liberal media" they criticize.
" In reality, these sites are no less slanted or arrogant than they accuse the "mainstream" media of being. They demonstrate time and again that, despite promoting themselves with words like "fairness," "responsibility," "accuracy" and "balance," their real goal is to attack and discredit anyone who doesn't agree with them, as well as to promote their own political views -- the same exact thing they accuse the "liberal" media of doing."

Similar to FOX News, CNS trumpets its focus on presenting news in a non-biased manner. CNS's motto is "The Right News. Right now."


Source at Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that Fox "doesn't know" who funds CNSNews, and professes that she believes CNSNews can back up their propaganda better than Media Mattes can back up what she is pleased to refer to as "bile." Bile, when it comes to propaganda . . . excuse me, i meant news sources, is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

I found this intersting because CNSNews originally wanted to call themselves Conservative News Service, and that their motto is "The Right News, Right Now." Gee, i wonder why they emphasize the word right?

Yet Fox considers them a reliable news source. Anybody here surprised?

It is always a relatively easy matter to find out who backs a web site, or who has founded it, or what their bias is. In this case, the Wikipedia article states that they are funded by the Media Research Center. In their article on MRC, Wikipedia writes:

Quote:
The Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative media criticism organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission, according to its website, is "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media", and the MRC catalogs and reports on what it asserts to be widespread liberal media bias in the United States press.

The MRC has received financial support from several foundations, including the Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Castle Rock, Carthage and JM foundations.


CNSNews confirms this at their "about us" page:

Quote:
The Cybercast News Service was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that's ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets - bias by commission and bias by omission - that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."


Once again, is anyone here surprised?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 05:35 pm
Do we really want to get into a discussion about who funds what news source?
We all know that there are left leaning sites funded by George Soros backed organizations,and there are right leaning sites funded by various conservative organizations.

We all should know by now that there is no such thing as an "unbiased source",no matter what that source is.
So,to discount someones source because it is "biased" is to discount ALL sources.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 05:38 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Do we really want to get into a discussion about who funds what news source?
We all know that there are left leaning sites funded by George Soros backed organizations,and there are right leaning sites funded by various conservative organizations.

We all should know by now that there is no such thing as an "unbiased source",no matter what that source is.
So,to discount someones source because it is "biased" is to discount ALL sources.


Sure, but you don't see the Libs going on and on and on and on and on about Scaife, Coors or other right-wing funders. Soros' name is used as a curse word by the Right wing every day here on A2K.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 05:53 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Do we really want to get into a discussion about who funds what news source?
We all know that there are left leaning sites funded by George Soros backed organizations,and there are right leaning sites funded by various conservative organizations.

We all should know by now that there is no such thing as an "unbiased source",no matter what that source is.
So,to discount someones source because it is "biased" is to discount ALL sources.


Sure, but you don't see the Libs going on and on and on and on and on about Scaife, Coors or other right-wing funders. Soros' name is used as a curse word by the Right wing every day here on A2K.

Cycloptichorn


Tell me,exactly how many and what conservative sources are accepted by the left?
While the name Soros has been beaten to death,I have yet to see you or any other liberal on here accept ANY conservative site for news.

Yet,the left on here seems to think that the sites they use for sources are infallible and should be accepted without hesitation.

I am saying that none of the sites either side uses are unbiased,including the major news outlets.

For either side to insist that their sites are infallible makes no sense at all.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 05:56 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Do we really want to get into a discussion about who funds what news source?
We all know that there are left leaning sites funded by George Soros backed organizations,and there are right leaning sites funded by various conservative organizations.

We all should know by now that there is no such thing as an "unbiased source",no matter what that source is.
So,to discount someones source because it is "biased" is to discount ALL sources.


Sure, but you don't see the Libs going on and on and on and on and on about Scaife, Coors or other right-wing funders. Soros' name is used as a curse word by the Right wing every day here on A2K.

Cycloptichorn


Tell me,exactly how many and what conservative sources are accepted by the left?
While the name Soros has been beaten to death,I have yet to see you or any other liberal on here accept ANY conservative site for news.

Yet,the left on here seems to think that the sites they use for sources are infallible and should be accepted without hesitation.

I am saying that none of the sites either side uses are unbiased,including the major news outlets.

For either side to insist that their sites are infallible makes no sense at all.


Personally, I read and post articles from the National Review, RedState, and sometimes other conservative blogs.

No news organization is infallible, but some are more fallible than others. This whole thing started when I said that CNS has a horrible reputation, and it does. It is worse than other right-wing news sources, let alone moderate or left-wing ones.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2007 01:05 pm
Quote:
It is worse than other right-wing news sources, let alone moderate or left-wing ones.

Cycloptichorn


In your opinion!!
I have never looked at their site,so I dont know.

But tell me,isnt "truthout.org" just as biased,except to the left?

Remember,it was truthout that started the story that Rove had been indicted,with no evidence or proof.
The story was made up by them,yet many on the left still swear by them and trust them implicitly.
Why is that?
What about some of the other sites?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2007 02:51 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
It is worse than other right-wing news sources, let alone moderate or left-wing ones.

Cycloptichorn


In your opinion!!
I have never looked at their site,so I dont know.

But tell me,isnt "truthout.org" just as biased,except to the left?


Absolutely.

Remember,it was truthout that started the story that Rove had been indicted,with no evidence or proof.
The story was made up by them,yet many on the left still swear by them and trust them implicitly.
Why is that?
What about some of the other sites?[/quote]

I think you will find that noone links to truthout any longer, as they have lost credibility due to the Rove thing. I think they were probably being used back then; someone was leaking lies to them in order to spin certain stories in the media, and they got burned.

I haven't seen anyone on 'the left' swear by them in a long, long time. In fact, on the biggest Dem websites, they are considered to be unreliable at best.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2007 03:12 pm
Quote:
I haven't seen anyone on 'the left' swear by them in a long, long time. In fact, on the biggest Dem websites, they are considered to be unreliable at best.


Then look at what "blueflame" posts.
He uses truthout and something called "prison planet" almost exclusively as his sources.

As does BBB...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2631871&highlight=truthout+org#2631871

And OE...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2517297&highlight=truthout+org#2517297

There are others,just do a post search for thuthout.org
So,for you to claim that they arent used and considered "unreliable" by the left seems to be false.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 02:44 am
Just catching up…
This was the second quote I grabbed on this point, because the foolishness trumped the first…
snood wrote:
Foxfyre:

Quote:
And I'm guessing you don't have any close white friends, at least any worthy of the name.


Dang, that's gonna be news to the 20 or so who will be at my wedding, and also to my wife and her family.
Laughing

(I thought that surely that would get it done, right?)

snood wrote:
Foxfyre:

Quote:
I'm just saying I've never known a black person who did who saw things quite the way you seem to see them.


If I didn't know who you are on this forum from previous posts, I'd swear you were putting forth some kind of parody of an absolutely clueless, yet arrogantly sure white person, and just laugh my ass off.
Laughing Is it less funny that it isn't an intentional parody? Laughing (Unbelievable)(but, as you said…)(Laughing)









(still Laughing)

Lash wrote:
For the record--for anyone reading keltic's bile--the assertions he makes about me and my views are products of nothing other than his twisted imagination.
I tried, really I did, but if you can say that little, with that many words it becomes impossible for me to finish. I feel dumber for having read what I did manage.

Lash wrote:
They have no basis in fact.
No worries. That's clear to anyone reasonably coherent.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 04:14 am
As far as saying the least with the most words, O'Bill - I'd say you're in the running with that last post...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 04:34 am
Toms, Coons, and Mammy Home Decorating

Doris Moore's first thought probably was it was a joke when she looked at the label on her newly purchased couch. Whatever amusement or puzzlement she may have initially had quickly turned to horror when her 7-year old daughter asked her what the words meant. The tag on the dark brown couch's upholstery clearly read "nigger brown."

Ms. Moore hit the roof. The furniture store, the supplier, the manufacturer, and the shipping company feigned ignorance or passed the buck. Finally, Kingsoft Corp., a Chinese software firm, admitted the error, but loudly protested that there was no racial malice intended. The company blamed the racial slur on a computer glitch.

The tag on the couch may have been a silly mistake, but there's no mistake that swapping, selling and collecting the huge array of racist furnishings and home decorative pieces is a brisk and lucrative business. These items adorn thousands of American homes. There 's a Coon Chicken Inn dinner plate, and a little Black Sambo Block. They sell for hundreds of dollars. An original Aunt Jemima Cookie Jar can net upwards of $2000. There are hundreds of counterfeit jars on the market. They sell for only a few dollars. The original Jolly Nigger Bank made in the early 1900s sells for hundreds of dollars at auctions. The hundreds of fakes of this grotesque little item are sold at swap meets and on the Internet for a few dollars.

Then there's the Sambo Dart Board. The All Metals Products Company, an outfit out of Michigan, originally made it in 1940. Fifty years later the AAA Sign Company, an Ohio company reproduces the item as a decorative tin sign and mass markets it at about $15 dollars. AAA Sign also makes and sells hundreds of wall clocks, ashtrays, and plates that are emblazoned with choice depictions of Sambos, Mammies, Toms and Coons. There's more than one kitchen in America where the cook light ups their stove with matchboxes that have Nigger Head Shrimp, Nigger Head oysters, and Mammy Brand Oranges on the box cover.


The sale in racist furnishings is so good that many other countries have jumped into the business. The fake Jolly N Banks, for instance, are made in Taiwan exclusively for the American market. Japan and Korea manufacturers have also churned out thousands of racially offensive products. The racist couch that shocked Moore was made in China.
These items are more than just historical curiosity pieces. They are almost certainly the butt of jokes, scorn, ridicule, and are used to degrade African-Americans by many that sit, lie, or gaze at these items in private homes. But that's exactly what they were originally intended to do.

The sale of racist collectibles with no disclaimer, or warning, and with no attempt made to sensitize buyers and sellers to the historic damage these items still wreak on African-Americans is a tragic mix of commercial irresponsibility and racially tinged indifference.


It also reflects the dangerous and mistaken notion that racist collectibles that portray the tom, coon, and mammy image of blacks merely reflect a by-gone era when blacks were viciously and publicly racially mugged. A century ago, newspapers and magazines had great fun ridiculing, lampooning, butchering and assailing blacks in articles and cartoons. They were branded as "lazy," "brutes," "savages," "imbeciles," and "moral degenerates." plantation songs, tales, and slave caricatures were wildly popular up until World War II. The Uncle Remus "darky" character immortalized in Walt Disney's classic, Song of the South, was wildly popular on the screen, in tunes, and in stories then, and today as well.

Quaker Oats continued to peddle the bandanna wearing, fat, dark-skinned mammy image of black womanhood on its pancake boxes until 1989. That era is far from past. Legions of college fraternities have been nailed for holding slave auctions, minstrel shows, and displaying the Confederate flag in front of frat dorms, and for their members sporting the flag on tee shirts. A lengthening parade of politicians, sports figures, celebrities, and shock radio talk jocks have been called on the carpet for making racist wise cracks, jokes, tongue slips, and flat out slurs of African-Americans.

Don Imus got the ax after the national furor finally convinced top sponsors to cut and run from the shock jock. That sealed his doom. But the battle against racist stereotypes in TV and films has been brutal and endless.

Museums, art houses, and private collectors, including many African-Americans, routinely buy, sell, and swap racist furnishings too. They use the racist pieces to educate the public about the terror of America's vile, and shameful racist past. They also act as a constant reminder that that past can rear its hideous head time and again. However, thousands of other Americans that plop their dollars down for racist furnishings, as well as the manufacturers of them, aren't interested in their historic value, or in making and using them to educate others on the danger of racial intolerance. They're interested in making a buck even if means demeaning blacks. That can't be blamed on a racist computer.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/toms-coon-and-mammy-home_b_47322.html
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 05:14 am
snood wrote:
As far as saying the least with the most words, O'Bill - I'd say you're in the running with that last post...
Confused That's your misguided sense of loyalty showing.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 05:31 am
What's showing is my failure to comprehend your incomprehensible amalgam of emoticons, sneers and winks masquerading as a thoughtful post.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 05:47 am
snood wrote:
What's showing is my failure to comprehend your incomprehensible amalgam of emoticons, sneers and winks masquerading as a thoughtful post.
Well, gee, don't ever let your own inability to comprehend stop you from insulting out of turn. (Outside of finding KW's mind numbing ass kissing pathetic, I was agreeing with your incredulity.)(and I didn't use that many words. :wink:)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 07:28 am
I love Bill.

In a platonic, motherly type of way that doesn't involve squeezing his package or anything.

(LOL)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 07:45 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 08:52 am
Lash wrote:
I love Bill.

In a platonic, motherly type of way that doesn't involve squeezing his package or anything.

(LOL)


I love Bill too. But I think he's saying that he agrees with Snood that a white person can't have a close relationship with a black person as you and I have described. And he's wrong.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 08:58 am
Well, I don't particularly love Bill but I'm pretty sure that that's not at all what he's saying.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 12:32 pm
Shocked Laughing (spose I better explain those)

Thank you Foxy... makes me feel bad to report that Freeduck is correct. As I read what happened on the thread last week; I stopped at this post, because it struck me as a ridiculous assumption...
Foxfyre wrote:
And I'm guessing you don't have any close white friends, at least any worthy of the name. I'm guessing that if you did, you would have a different perspective.
... and would have quoted it, had your subsequent posts relating to it not been even more clueless. It struck me terribly funny when Snood brought up his bride to be... and you still didn't get it.

I can say:
    I don't think Snood ever said anything quite as extreme as Set saddled him with. I'll usually accept the interpretation of phrases from the person who made them, unless they are in obvious back-tracking mode and Snood has backtracked not one iota... beyond corrections he openly admitted to. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of yours and Lash's tales of what happens when you're among friends. I can't say I'd go there myself, or even that I approve, but mostly I don't think what happens between friends is any of my business. Were either of you foolish enough to continue your banter in front of strangers; I would find you very much in the wrong.
Ps. Foxy, there's a march beginning at the Kravitz Center in half an hour. Care to join me? Razz
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 05:44:12