How many ‘wtf’ moments are republican political candidates allowed before being branded too stupid to breathe? Michelle Bachmann must be getting super close to the limit by now. I’m not really sure what to do with this level of intellectual bankruptcy on her behalf. Coupled with the puerile servitude of fox news, its almost too much to stomach in one sitting. It is chilling to see that this level of incompetence is allowed anywhere near a position of political power.
Making stuff up on during a televised debate and advocating for torture are apparently okay, small bumps in the road on the campaign road I guess.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
22 comments
November 24, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Bleatmop
There’s that liberal bias on MSNBC again. How dare they are tough questions aimed at informing their audience of a conservative politician!
LikeLike
November 25, 2011 at 9:22 am
Vern R. Kaine
That’s why I watch a multitude of networks/programs. Each side has their own set of hard and softball questions for each guest/candidates and you never seem to get all of them asked in one place.
That’s the problem when entertainment takes priority over news, I guess, and really, it’s just “placating” anyways rather than “informing” – the networks figured out their is big money in validating what they know their audience already thinks and feels. Proof: Fox pays Palin $1m/year, MSNBC just hired Chelsea Clinton for what I’m sure is a sweet paycheck as well.
Does anyone think that money’s being spent on either side for “information?” ;)
LikeLike
November 25, 2011 at 4:49 pm
bleatmop
I’m probably going to sound like an unrepentant lefty here, but I have to say that the reporting of the news from particular viewpoints (conservative and liberal sources too) as saw on MSNBC is nothing like the propaganda spin machine that is Fox.
Take for instance Rachel Maddow, the right’s favourite whipping girl for just how biased and lefty MSNBC is. I’ve not saw any unfair questions by her, and I’ve watched her show quite a bit. Now compare that to Hannity on fox asking “Is it that you hate this president or that you hate America?” I mean, say what you want about MSNBC and Maddow, but their would put up with such blatant jingoism. They certainly got rid of Olberman for much less.
You point is well taken though, as triangulating information is the sign of critical thinking which is always a good sign. I would use just about any news source except Fox. To use an allegory, you would search for high quality fine dining by going to the local dump and hoping to score a nugget of goodness; just like you wouldn’t got to Fox news and expect to find highly accurate information.
LikeLike
November 26, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Unrepentant leftie”. Haha! All good. :)
I like Maddow – she’s actually who I watch on that network. She asks great questions. I didn’t like Olbermann for a number of reasons and I’m not a fan of O’Donnell for similar reasons.
An example of the bias I’m referring to: regarding the Solyndra loan/bankruptcy, I recall Maddow and O’Donnell saying how the right was up in arms over the loss of $500 million, how government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers, etc, etc. etc., This is true – they were points that were definitely coming from the right. Here’s the thing, though – the bigger issue with the right was two things: 1) the fact that the government was pushing for this deal saying it had no idea that a bankruptcy would happen when emails by a number of people involved proved this to be false, projecting almost to the day when a bankruptcy would in fact occur, and 2) the fact that an Obama bundler got a sweetheart deal that put him ahead of the taxpayers (to me, this point is by far the bigger issue). I could be wrong, but I didn’t see any coverage of that beyond a quick mention of the bundler’s association with the Democrat party. Instead, it was just a sort of “here’s all the oil projects the right wants invested in and out of that we get things like the BP spill which cost more than half a billion”. This is the chickenshitism and “can do no wrong” attitude that I can’t stand on either side.
I think Fox was right to focus on the bundler and their sweetheart deal, and on the question of why the Administration would continue to go forward when people were saying it was a certain loss and I think in the interests of being Pro-Obama and pro-left, MSNBC backed off this aspect of the issue. On the other hand, MSNBC had way better coverage of why the BP disaster happened than Fox did, but Fox had way better coverage of the corruption behind ACORN. I think it will always be that way, so if people don’t watch either network, why complain about it?
Here’s where FOX deserves credit, though, in my opinion: they’ll at least bring on a Juan Williams, or a Geraldo Rivera (yikes), or a Bob Beckell on and give them serious airtime to defend the other side. Rivera’s views of Occupy, for instance, belong more on MSNBC. Fox anchors will even argue amongst themselves when they disagree (ex: Cavuto & O’Reilly over oil speculation), and they’ve been the only ones I’ve seen who will go after idiot judicial decisions that let molesters (for instance) go free. I never see Maddow or O’Donnell have panels like the Fox people do which have at least some substantial representation of the opposing or unpopular view. A
Either way, for anyone watching FOX to assume those singular views are truly representative of the left is mistake. just as I think anyone thinking MNSBC has a true grasp on the right’s perspective is a mistake also.
And you’re right – Hannity is extremely bad with his bias, and personally I don’t care for his anti-everything-Obama stance, but that’s his schtick. There’s a reason why O’Reilly and Van Sustern get the guests they do and why Hannity gets his.
LikeLike
November 26, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Vern R. Kaine
I’m not asking this as a champion of Fox, just as a matter of perspective: in Canada I know Fox News is a special order channel. How many people who are against it actually have it?
LikeLike
November 26, 2011 at 1:54 pm
The Arbourist
Here’s where FOX deserves credit, though, in my opinion
The initial mistake is comparing Fox News to any other MSM news corporation. Fox is consistently duplicitous, malicious and lacks many aspects of journalistic integrity; in other words Fox News is not a reliable news source. Just because they share the airwaves with other news sources, their being ‘on the air’ and popular does not make them credible.
LikeLike
November 26, 2011 at 3:43 pm
bleatmop
“I’m not asking this as a champion of Fox, just as a matter of perspective: in Canada I know Fox News is a special order channel. How many people who are against it actually have it?”
I would wager a lot. On my satellite pack, if I want MSNBC I have to also get Fox News and Sun Media News. I also get bloomberg and a couple others. Everything is sold as a package of 6 – 8 channels.
LikeLike
November 26, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Fox is consistently duplicitous, malicious and lacks many aspects of journalistic integrity;”
As is/does MSNBC. The popular “angry white guy with a machine gun” cropshot is easy proof. Do you consider MSNBC “mainstream” news? I consider all the cable networks to be primarily commentary, perhaps with the exception of CNN.
Fox is going to be in the tank for ANY Republican candidate, just as MSNBC will be for any Democratic candidate. Water’s wet, the sky’s blue. :)
LikeLike
November 26, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Was just curious. A lot of the anti-FNC stuff seems directed at the entire network based upon a Hannity, O’Reilly, or (formerly) Beck’s programming. Commentators like Cavuto and Van Sustern have a more appropriate view on things in my opinion (or even Gutfield!)
Re: tv packages, i’ve got Bell when I’m up here and I get FNC with one of their news packages. I had Sun News for a few days, but it seemed to be the equivalent of reading Canada Free Press online so I didn’t pay it much attention. The other package I get is the Canadian HBO. What a hack job! What idiot thinks that interjecting multiple showings of crap Canadian movies like “Gunless” was a good thing. ;) Reminds me of when they tried to force-feed us Mike Bullard over Jon Stewart on the Canadian version of Comedy Central.
… but I digress…
LikeLike
November 27, 2011 at 1:53 am
bleatmop
Ah yes… The ill fated Mike Bullard show that just about suck that network (in my mind at least). I had forgotten about that until you brought it up. I couldn’t imagine anyone less funny to give that show to. His idea of comedy was to make a stupid joke then smile directly at the camera. Kinda creeped me out.
LikeLike
November 27, 2011 at 9:02 am
The Arbourist
Arb: “Fox is consistently duplicitous, malicious and lacks many aspects of journalistic integrity;”
VRK:As is/does MSNBC. The popular “angry white guy with a machine gun” cropshot is easy proof. Do you consider MSNBC “mainstream” news?
Did you see what you did there? I’m curious :) Because what happened is that I said fox is mendacious. And then you say, oh – well so is MSNBC? LoL…whut? MSNBC has nothing to do what we’re talking about, nor does MSNBC have an atrocious, documented record like Fox has of being misleading and inaccurate.
So, the original argument stands. :>
LikeLike
November 27, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Vern R. Kaine
A few people I know actually saw his stand up and they said it was just as bad. Multiple failed attempts at one-line “zingers” that just simply weren’t funny to begin with.
Overall, though, I’ve found Canadian comics to be more funny than American ones overall. I know I’m biased, but I think it also has to do with two things: 1) the fact that nothing is truly sacred with us – we can make fun of anything and everything, and 2) we seem to have more insight into other cultures and other places in the world.
LikeLike
November 27, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“MSNBC has nothing to do what we’re talking about”
Maybe not with what you were originally talking about with reference to Michelle Bachmann, but certainly what we – Bleatmop and myself – were talking about when he immediately brought up media bias in the first reply to your post. That later progressed into how the networks portray their favorite candidates, talking about the softballs they deliver them, which comes back to the title of your post that mentions the candidates’ “PR”, in Bachmann’s case being Fox News. Maybe trying to insert all those big University words like “mendacious” is actually distracting you from the conversation going on, Arb? ;)
If this dialogue is supposed to be strictly about Bachmann being stupid or a nutbar, I agree, by simple fact of the “gay curer” husband that she chose to marry. Beyond that, however, and in reference to the title of your video clip obviously she didn’t mean that the ACLU runs the CIA literally, it’s just a figurative statement to try and score political points like when Biden says more rapes will happen if a jobs bill doesn’t pass.
“Nor does MSNBC have an atrocious, documented record like Fox has of being misleading and inaccurate”
Haha! OK, this never happened, then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UYKQJ4-N7LI. (Hint: watch any other network than MSNBC and you’ll find out the guy with the guns was black). I’m sure you don’t find spinning facts on pepper-spraying a bunch of students to be far more “atrocious” than promoting racism, yet that’s what “your side” does and 10 times or a hundred times, your side still does it.
Back to Bachmann again, the Republican candidates are far from anything to brag about, and even Republicans will tell you that. Then again, though, Dems had Kucinich up on their stage talking about UFO’s and you also had more than just one of the major networks backing off the story of its favorite VP candidate at the time (Edwards) who was having a love child with another woman while his wife was in the hospital dying of cancer.
This is part of the network “PR” I believe Bleat and I were speaking of, saying specifically that because it’s more entertainment than news, one needs to “triangulate” (as Bleat put it) different networks to get to what’s actually true.
The documented fact is that your beloved networks “lie”, spin, and distort, too. Care to look at CNN’s coverage of the Tax Day protests? Or CBC’s coverage of Harper? Or an Ed Schultz or Cenk Uygur or a Keith Olbermann from MSNBC? Don’t think we’re going to find any “lies” there? We can ignore that, apparently, because Fox News does it “more”? Guess it all cancels out making Fox News the liars and your networks “truthful” then. Haha!
If this is really about how much Fox News “mendacious-ness-es”, then go nuts, but at the end of the day I don’t think there can be any actual point to that argument. If you’re trying to claim Fox is the only one that does it, you’re wrong, and if you’re trying to claim that Fox does it the worst, who cares? Who here or on any other blog associated to here says that Fox News doesn’t spin? Water’s wet, the sky’s blue, let’s move on. You’ve got one network that spins to the right-wing point of view versus 6 others that spin to the left, so I’d say your side of things is represented just fine, and that we all can just let FOX be without anyone losing sleep worrying about the universe supposedly unraveling due to how they might be representing a candidate of their favored party.
LikeLike
November 27, 2011 at 3:33 pm
The Arbourist
Maybe trying to insert all those big University words like “mendacious” is actually distracting you from the conversation going on, Arb? ;)
The point being addressed, was in your reply to me. A separate thread from the discussion between you and Bleat. If I’ve derailed that conversation, I do apologize as it was not my intent.
Haha! OK, this never happened
For purposes of this conversation, no it has not. Answering an point of contention with oh well you(r) side does it too does not qualify as a counter argument. It fails to address the point of the multiple document occurrences in which Fox News simply fabricates, stretches and mangles news stories. I provided a link to Liberal Viewers youtube video list if you wished to peruse the many instances of Fox News making stuff up.
So for purposes of keeping our thread focused on the issue here is my original argument.
“Arb:The initial mistake is comparing Fox News to any other MSM news corporation. Fox is consistently duplicitous, malicious and lacks many aspects of journalistic integrity; in other words Fox News is not a reliable news source.”
So, to counter this argument reasonably you need to a) Prove the conclusion wrong or b) Show how one of the premises is false. That would look like this if (a) was false.
Fox news is a reliable news source because of (insert justifications, or premises x,y,z here).
Or if there was issue with my premises (b) That would look something like this:
Fox has a proven track record of being accurate or at least moderately accurate when reporting news, liberal viewer has misrepresented and/or not backed up his assertions with evidence and fact here is where he is wrong ( insert examples of where LV has made a mistake/wrong as it is the evidence I am using to make my claim).
Here is what you do not do:
Claim because you did it support it, then your position is false/wrong. This is fallacious arguing because it speaks to the character/preferences of the character rather than the argument being presented. Allow me to illustrate:
“VRK:The documented fact is that your beloved networks “lie”, spin, and distort, too. Care to look at CNN’s coverage of the Tax Day protests? Or CBC’s coverage of Harper? Or an Ed Schultz or Cenk Uygur or a Keith Olbermann from MSNBC? Don’t think we’re going to find any “lies” there? We can ignore that, apparently, because Fox News does it “more”? Guess it all cancels out making Fox News the liars and your networks “truthful” then. Haha!”
Everything above is not answering the original assertion but rather saying…oh…oh..your team does it too, therefore your argument is wrong. It is irrelevant to the initial claim, even if MSNBC/whomever was as an atrocious news source as Fox News is.
VRK:If you’re trying to claim Fox is the only one that does it, you’re wrong, and if you’re trying to claim that Fox does it the worst, who cares?
The point is that making the initial assumption that Fox is a credible news source is wrong and even placing them on the spectrum with the rest of the “credible” MSM media is a mistake.
You’ve got one network that spins to the right-wing point of view versus 6 others that spin to the left,
This is categorically, another argument, and one that we have discussed before as the idea that there is a liberal mainstream media, or liberal bias in media is patently false.
LikeLike
November 27, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“The point is that making the initial assumption that Fox is a credible news source is wrong and even placing them on the spectrum with the rest of the “credible” MSM media is a mistake.”
First of all, Fox News is not considered “mainstream”, nor is MSNBC. The commentary is hugely different from that which you find mainstream, even between NBC and MSNBC. Note the Pew Research study:
“The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News.”
Second, FOX News, as a cable network, is largely “tilt”, or commentary. If someone wants to argue that it is disingenuous for them to have the word “News” in its name then fine (I’d likely agree), but at the end of the day it’s mostly semantics and I don’t care if their name was Fox News or Fox Noodles – I simply don’t get that bent over a TV channel.
Third, you are stating your argument using terms that are highly subjective and relative to an individual observer, and more than that, basing it on a whole bunch of liberal viewpoints who wants to waste his time (my subjective argument!) nitpicking FOX News. Just because he hasn’t done the same thing with MSNBC doesn’t automatically mean that MSNBC doesn’t “lie”, it may just mean that people don’t get as bent over a TV network as liberals do, or that conservatives simply have better things to do with their time than post YouTube videos all day.
Either way, you’re challenging my opinion of FOX News’ “credibility”. Credibility, by definition, is something “Able to be believed” which is entirely relative to the person observing what’s being proposed. Same with “a mistake” – that’s relative to the user’s perspective as well. You’re also talking about whether Fox is a “reliable” source – again, subjective and relative.
Nevertheless, I reject your premise that FNC “lies” for a number of reasons: one, I reject your implicit statement along with it that the other cable news networks do not. Second, there are a large number of instances where MSNBC has been caught in a “lie” just as FOX has. Third, there are a vast number of things that Fox does report on daily which are in fact true. For instance, FOX reports on Michelle Bachmann running for the GOP nomination. That’s true. It reports that the Dow fell last week, and that’s true. They also report that Wade Rathke, formerly of ACORN, was allowed to break the law and get away with it, and that was true. They also reported that ACORN’s new front organization was shredding documents recently trying to eliminate links between them and Occupy. That was true.
The fact that FOX does report news truthfully to at least some degree leaves your argument to only two questions: 1) do they do it less/more than the other cable networks, and/or 2) do they do it often enough to your liking
If FOX News lacks any and all credibility with you, and that it’s a mistake to consider anything that comes from the network as “true” or to even consider it news to you, that’s fine. That’s your opinion.
Here’s mine: I don’t feel threatened by a TV network, and I believe by offering a non-mainstream perspective, FOX News adds – however much or little – to the spectrum of information available on a particular topic because there are things that Fox News will report on that the other CABLE news networks won’t. It’s also my opinion that anyone who flat out refuses to watch a network for fear of it conflicting with their own bias is no less a bigot than the person who watches that network exclusively. My criticism for someone who “loves” FOX would be the same for someone who “loves” MSNBC if either were trying to tell me one either all-out “lies” or “tells the truth” because both statements are bunk.
But let’s get back to your so-called “documented facts”.
My premise: FOX News lies no more than MSNBC does.
1) Rachel Maddow ‘lies’ about Bush never giving the NYT interviews.
“http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/27/rachel-maddow/president-bush-new-york-times-interviews/
2) Rachel Maddow “lies” saying that FOX News stated that the Black Panther Party Won the Election for Obama”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/09/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-fox-news-said-new-black-panther/
3) MSNBC: Joe Radigan “lies” about racial slurs made by Rush Limbaugh
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/10/16/msnbc-admits-unable-verify-false-limbaugh-quote-no-retraction-or-apolo
4) Ed Schultz outright “lies” when he claims Sen. Landry receives $1.8m from BP
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/14/ed-schultz/schultz-claims-landrieu-got-18-million-bp-pac-and-/
I could go on and on and on. The point here is show me 100 videos from “Liberal Viewer” illustrating FOX’s lack of credibility re: its commentary and I’ll show you 100 from MSNBC just the same. Even LV’s clip re: the UC Davis protestors – spin, yes, a “lie”, no – or at least, not in my opinion, since “lie” is a totally subjective word and speaks to intent, which neither of us can verify. All O’Reilly and Kelly are doing is giving their opinions just as a Maddow or O’Donnell would, and pandering to their audience accordingly. To me, there is no difference.
Now to the next mental masturbation… ;)
“Everything above is not answering the original assertion but rather saying…oh…oh..your team does it too, therefore your argument is wrong. It is irrelevant to the initial claim, even if MSNBC/whomever was as an atrocious news source as Fox News is.”
My argument here is that your “initial claim” is disingenuous. The intent is the usual “Fox Hit Piece” and a lie by omission that creates a false comparison. LV does a very good job of backing up his arguments. I would therefore find him to be “credible”, but no more credible than the FactCheck.org’s, MRC’s, Politifact.org’s, or others out there who fact check what we see in the media.
This comes back to my initial argument – all the cable networks spin, distort, or even “lie” when it comes to their commentary because it’s more about providing agreement and validation to their audience than it is about reporting ALL the facts. Therefore, I think anyone is talking out their ass when they try and act like one cable news network is more “credible” than the other when these cable networks’ whole raison d’etre is to provide OPINION rather than fact, and that “credibility” then becomes entirely subjective to an automatically narrower amount of information being presented than likely what exists as a whole. When’s the last time you actually fact-checked MSNBC, or have you ever?
Here’s the other issue I have re: “credibility” – the dictionary definition clearly shows that it involves perspective, and you repeatedly show that the only perspective you can have or care to have is that of your side. You can never once seem to acknowledge any wrongdoing on the liberal side of any issue, and you always steer around it like you once again did with the “Tea Partier with a gun” piece MSNBC did.
Although I hate arguing with Megyn Kelly (haha), put any FOX News report up that’s false and I’ll easily acknowledge it. You? Doesn’t happen. You won’t admit the fact that MSNBC deliberately lied about the black AZ man to suit its “racist” piece on the Tea Party, and instead seem to try and misdirect into the academic mechanics of debating. Of course then you’ll probably ask me to “prove” that MSNBC deliberately cropped the shot and that nowhere did they say the man wasn’t black, therefore accusing them of dishonesty with lack of a written confession on their part is in itself a :”lie”, or as you put it, “it doesn’t exist”.
You asked if you butted into a conversation between myself and Bleat. Never! (Besides, it’s your blog!) :) To that point, however, I’ll add that if I’ve in fact “butted in” on another liberal “share n hug” over any and all points that validate the liberal position, then I’m the one that will apologize.
I’ll say (again) though, that those kind of love fests breed the same kind of “filter bubble” you guys supposedly hate on the other side, so I’d be careful of a “liberal only” perspective. All it can do is breed misunderstanding which can never lead to change. Then again who knows – maybe we’re all hopeless on our respective sides.anyways? ;)
LikeLike
November 27, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Vern R. Kaine
By the way, you might find this site helpful on the media debate:
http://www.politifact.com/subjects/pundits/
110 pages – enjoy! :)
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 6:05 pm
bleatmop
Oh ya! I forgot about how he used to laugh at his own jokes all the time too. He’s be chuckling up a storm as the audience would sit there in dead silence.
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Come to think of it, that was the only thing that was funny about the guy, watching him crack “jokes” to what might as well have been crickets in the audience! Too bad that was the joke! :)
LikeLike
December 1, 2011 at 1:09 am
bleatmop
Neat web site. Interesting to investigate certain claims, but I wouldn’t take their numbers as a guide as to how truthful in general each of these reporters are. Nor did I see in any of their write ups as to whether the pundits issued retractions to said mistakes. I know Rachel Maddow has issued a few, and that’s just the ones that I’ve saw (and I don’t watch her show every day).
Also, I checked, and O’Reily’s claim that “Tide goes in, Tide goes out; you can’t explain that” wasn’t on there. That would qualify for another pants of fire rating imo. The point being that the lists certainly are not exhaustive.
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Reneta Scian
Grand Solution/Position with Media:
1. Use media networks as a flag that something happen, and research it yourself if it really concerns you. If you take everyone at their word of course you are going to buy their party line. The best way to not have the wool pulled over your eyes is to be a skeptic first.
2. All positions other than the facts and just the facts are opinions, and as such subject to bias. Eliminating bias which is human nature is IMPOSSIBLE. Everyone’s reasonable assertions will vary based on the same evidence. Speaking from evidence; however, overrules any argument from hearsay.
3. Any person who suggests that torture is a good idea needs to be tortured before they can attest to it’s legitimacy. If Bachmann wants to water-board people she should also be water-boarded for several days on end, then formulate her opinion about how “harmless” it is. She is the Queen Fucktard of the Republic of Retardabad “Land of illogical stupidity”.
4. You ought to watch the videos of Jon Stewart on Fox News talking to for a little piece about why Fox News is truly twisting the truth beyond simply “party line bias”. Jon Stewart is apparently worried about what is in his coffee cup. http://video.foxnews.com/v/1007046245001/exclusive-jon-stewart-on-fox-news-sunday
5. Media bias is just how it goes. It is on each person to understand the facts, sort out opinions and make up their own minds based on that evidence. However, as I said, there is a fine line between “your point of view” and lying. Fox News routinely crosses that line, reiterating the Fox News exclusive as well of tons of evidence of such. Media sensationalizes, that is how media is in a drama driven culture of mainstream media.
Personal Note:
I understand various “talking heads” have a slant on the news that produces different point of views, but lying and deceit should catch our scorn. I talk to many people who believe at face value what Fox News says when they clearly mislead people in incredulous smear campaigns. It is a problem in our culture, and it doesn’t fall on entirely on the media networks to provide knowledge on a silver platter. It’s also up to you to take the initiative to know for yourself, and demand better. Ignorance and laziness go hand in hand. There is a fine line between bias and propaganda, your protection from such lies in separating fact from fiction. Opinions are as good as false to a skeptical person, lest they have their own evidence about why it is true.
LikeLike
December 3, 2011 at 12:31 am
Vern R. Kaine
It’s certainly at the discretion of poltifact’s writers what comments get up there or not, but either way I think it shows that anyone in cable news is guilty of “lies” on some level.
At the end of the day, however, I don’t trouble myself with it enough to support some cable network with the same passion as I would a sports team. To me being “anti” some particular network is as goofy as being “for” it. Makes people sound religious (haha!)
LikeLike
December 3, 2011 at 12:32 am
Vern R. Kaine
All good points. :)
LikeLike