Originally posted by: Druidx
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Druidx
No offense Craig... but you would probably ridicule anyone who posted something from Hannity, Beck or Rush. Olbermann and Maddow or just the other side of the same coin or doing you honestly consider Olbermann a source for news?
Druidx, what if Maddow is a generally credible commentator who sticks to the truth on a reguilar basis, while Beck is a radical who is generally spouting false propaganda?
You don't show any inclination to use any facts in reaching an opinion about that, but I'd say it's the case based on a lot of evidence.
I've had a number of 'random test challenges' in this forum in fact which support that you are wrong,very wrong, about your 'two sides of the coice attack'.
Go shows me three things Maddow has lied about, has been irresponsible about - heck, show me on in the last week.
If you like Maddow, good for you. I've only caught her show a few times while flipping channels. My point is simply this, in general I disagree with people bringing up anything Olbermann, Maddow, Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly or beck says an act like it gospel or unbiased news, because it's not. I'm sure on occasion each ones of them makes a legitimate point but that still doesn't make it news. Each of these people do editorial commentary for entertainment, nothing more nothing less.
You're wrong. A Maddow has high standards for her content - just as a show that talks about man landing on the moon is 'biased' on the 'Moon landing faked' issue because the facts support it, she has a liberal orientation because the facts support it - not the bought and paid for, stretch the truth, propagandistic style typical of the other side. She is not 'just for entertainment' at all - she has a credible current events show discussing the politics and news, interviewing leaders in an informative style, etc.
Rush is just a fat pig, a political version of Howard Stern, says whatever stupid shit will get ratings.[/quote]
I'm not sure how his weight affects his credibility - but I'd say he's worse than a ratings chaser, he's a demogogue pushing one side dishonestly as needed.
Of the group, Beck is the only one I can tolerate in small amounts. While the other come across as arrogant assholes, Beck is more like a whinny kid. Not saying he's right but I think he honestly believes in his spiel, at least more than the others. I really enjoyed Becks interview with Ted Nugent, it was a riot.[/quote]
There's nothing to suggest the liberals don't believe in their spiel as much or more than Beck. But your liking the entertainment value is evident fromthe Nugent comment.
You asked what lies Maddow has said. I'll give you this, there hasn't been very many, that doesn't prove she's as clean as a virgin snow. All it proves is she is the newest kid on the political commentary show circuit, give her time and she will have as many complaints as the next guy.
That's an empty, weak argument, frankly, to attack her with baseless claims she will do wrong.
Is this the kind of stuff you asked about?
Lies about moveon.org[/quote]
Here's a cut and paste of a response to that claim:
They held a contest for private citizens to submit a 30 second ad, anti Bush ads, one of which they would pay to run on national TV if it won the contest.
There were 2 Hitler Bush themed ads submitted by people, the one in the OP was shown on the contest webpage, it was almost immediately removed, it did not win the contest and it was not "run" on national TV during purchased air time.
Moveon did not create the ad.
They did not internally sanction the ad.
They did err by not rejecting it out of hand.
But Maddow is correct and Armey is wrong, Moveon never "ran" the ad.
While the ad has a 'sponsored by moveon.org' visual, that was apparently created by the ad creators for the ad, not by moveon.org.
If the ad *had* been from moveon.org, I'd say it was a 'mistake' by her rather than a lie by her in this case, just as I say you made a mistake with this accusation, not a lie.
Implies Palin is Anti-Semitic[/quote]
I don't see where she said anything wrong here. Unlike the right with Obama and his pastor, she didn't put the words in Palin's mouth.
The topic the mixing of religion with political views, and she pointed out the person who had just preached to Palin as an example of the problem.
Has the wrong facts, then deflects by blaming the people who brough up the mistake.[/quote]
This was an excellent segment; she made one factual error - not a lie, a mistake - in relying on obsolete information that the slimy person who had a long history in Republican Propaganda was involved in this specific issue, when he had left previously - and she corrected the mistake the following night.
Classy site though, sayin Maddow is aired "on the sole basis that she's a lesbian:"
?I apologize for saying that they [Shirley & Banister Public Affairs] were still currently involved in representing Grassfire. They are not."
Rush is dumbass but do you have to lie to make your point?[/quote]
It looks like she made a mistake here,using a quote attributed to Rush on various blogs and temporarily on Wikipedia.
I don't see where she issues a retraction yet, and may drop her a note about it.
(FWIW, the context was Rush's lying about Sotomayor's 'racism', and his lack of retracting errors, though this is unrelated to Maddow's error).
As you say, she has plenty of choices to replace that attack with.
It's patheitic when you have to cite politicalwire.com as a source for her so called news show.[/quote]
The site you attack got the quote right - nothing wrong with the story. But Maddow made an error in reporting it, assigning a quote to McCain that he said, but only in quoting Obama saying it, which Maddow did not say. It ended up misrepresenting what McCain said. Again, I'm not aware of a retraction and it goes with the above mistake.
Overall, I'd say she has a very high level of accuracy and does not intentionally mislead viewers, unlike much or most of her competition on the right.
She does make errors on occassion.
There's no comparison between her standards and those of her competition on the right. Hers are far higher - while you found a couple of legitimate if minor errors.
But it's like comparing Seymour Hersh reporting the My Lai massacre and his including one name in the list of the unit who had left previously, with some right-wing spinner who says that the whole My Lai incident was just a made-up lie by the left to attack the military. The two can't be compared, one a mistake the other a broad lie.
Maddow's standards are just far better, and her show is high quality. The right are basically paid propagandists who need not worry a lot about acccuracy.
Their errors are less the innocent, the detailed, than the big spin lies - take a nugget of truth and turn it into a lie. Like, for example, the Sodamayor example above, when one phrase from one obscure speech was misrepresented to hype it enormously into a lie, not to mention the ignoring of how Hispanics, who she was said to be a 'racist' to rule in favor of, had done in front of her - very poorly, completely DISPROVING their lie far more than their hyped phrase supported their lie.
But we heard the 'racist' lie hundreds of times - or was it thousands?
Facebook
Twitter