NCAAbbs

How is this shocking? It's been widely known for some time this was happening.

Ok, so a "conservative" white house gave info to openly conservative hosts (Hannity & O'Reilly) information for them to say? Why does it even surprise anyone? How is giving information to people on your side a big deal? I'm sure that Bob Beckel and others don't get any inside info from their friends in the Democratic party.

The fact that Olbermann and Maddow are the two people discussing it also shows exactly how slanted MSNBC is.

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:How is this shocking? It's been widely known for some time this was happening.

I never learned how to use the sarcasm font...

Two points:

1. Anything Keith Olberman says, I just treat it like I would if I heard it coming from a 3 year old with Tourette's. I don't really mind liberal people in the media, but this guy is a nothing but a lunatic hack. To him, everything a republican does is directly contributing to the downfall of society.

2. Do you have any idea what some of you would say if a conservative on this board posted a video from Fox News on here. The howling and shreaking could be heard for miles around. What a joke.

BatesUAB Wrote:Two points:

1. Anything Keith Olberman says, I just treat it like I would if I heard it coming from a 3 year old with Tourette's. I don't really mind liberal people in the media, but this guy is a nothing but a lunatic hack. To him, everything a republican does is directly contributing to the downfall of society.

2. Do you have any idea what some of you would say if a conservative on this board posted a video from Fox News on here. The howling and shreaking could be heard for miles around. What a joke.

Olbermann wasn't so much the person who was saying it. He was merely the middle man. It was more the former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan. But I guess you've got some reason to not believe a word he says either.

More evidence of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!

The World would be so much better a place if we all just endorsed Communism, stopped eating meat, let our hair grow out, moved to Oregon, and started crafting objet d'arte from hemp 'n stuff.

No, I believe this goes on. But, like dfarr said, do you really believe that republicans are the only ones who do this? Surely you can't be that naive. Well, maybe you can. It's politics, plain and simple. This is a non story that people are trying to grow into some big conspiracy (see BlazinGoat's post)

Are you ready to be SHOCKED?

One McClellan apology down.
Are other corrections to follow?
Could it be SCOTT is not telling the truth, but just trying to sell his book?
He's given me ample reason to not believe everything (maybe anything) in his book.
I'm SHOCKED, NOT.

In regards to msnbc, there are reasons very few watch.
Olbermann and Matthews are two of them.

Ok, how about another story that came out a month or two back that never seemed to gain much traction. A number of the Fox News analysts are ex-military officers. You know them on sight, something happens in Iraq and they trot out a couple of retired colonels or generals who speak wisely and knowledgeably on the subject of the day and enlighten the rest of us.

It seems that many of them were being paid by the Pentagon to pass on the designated talking points and spin on the issue of the day. Keep in mind that these guys are paid by the news network to be news analysts, to give the opinion that their expertise in the field offers. They are also being paid by the government (with our tax dollars I might add) to not tell the truth, instead to say what they are told to by their former military superiors. This boils down to fraud committed against their employer, Fox, who pays for truthful analysis not spin (I never ever thought I'd write those words about Faux News). It is an even bigger fraud against the news viewers who look to the news network for a unslanted view of the days events. This went on at all the networks to some degree although Fox was a focal point.

There is a word for a government putting out untruthful news that advances the government's agenda. They call it "propaganda", and it is being used on the American people by our own government.

oldblazer79 Wrote:In regards to msnbc, there are reasons very few watch.
Olbermann and Matthews are two of them.

"MSNBC NOTCHES DEMO WIN OVER FNC IN PRIMETIME

"Countdown" Out-Rates the "Factor" for First Time Ever

NEW YORK - June 10, 2008 - MSNBC continued its ratings surge last week, with viewers flocking out of the "No Spin Zone" and to "The Place for Politics." For the first time ever, MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was the #1 show at 8 p.m., out-drawing Fox News's "O'Reilly Factor" head-to-head among Adults 25-54. This is the first time since June 2001 that MSNBC has out-rated "The O'Reilly Factor" at 8 p.m.

Excluding Tuesday's primary coverage, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" averaged 477,000 A25-54 vs. 472,000 for the "Factor."

You people kill me w/ your Faux news stuff. Wasn't is CBS that got busted fabricating stories a few years ago? Wasn't there a NYT journalist who got busted making up by lines? Just because Fox doesn't slant to the left like every other network out there doesn't mean that they make up all their coverage. It's only the brain-dead libs who can't see the hypocrisy in their "faux" outrage.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:

oldblazer79 Wrote:In regards to msnbc, there are reasons very few watch.
Olbermann and Matthews are two of them.

"MSNBC NOTCHES DEMO WIN OVER FNC IN PRIMETIME

"Countdown" Out-Rates the "Factor" for First Time Ever

NEW YORK - June 10, 2008 - MSNBC continued its ratings surge last week, with viewers flocking out of the "No Spin Zone" and to "The Place for Politics." For the first time ever, MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was the #1 show at 8 p.m., out-drawing Fox News's "O'Reilly Factor" head-to-head among Adults 25-54. This is the first time since June 2001 that MSNBC has out-rated "The O'Reilly Factor" at 8 p.m.

Excluding Tuesday's primary coverage, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" averaged 477,000 A25-54 vs. 472,000 for the "Factor."

talkin' about these ratings http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/arts/t...8rati.html which appear
to be boosted by the protracted demo primary contest.
I'm not surprised libs. watched cnn and msnbc in droves during this time.
And even with the bump, Fox still outdrew each overall by a significant margin.
On the bright side, when one adds cnn and msnbc viewers together the balance will now be greater than Fox.

try these Nielsen ratings http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/11/ore...ly-10/4393

dfarr Wrote:You people kill me w/ your Faux news stuff. Wasn't is CBS that got busted fabricating stories a few years ago? Wasn't there a NYT journalist who got busted making up by lines? Just because Fox doesn't slant to the left like every other network out there doesn't mean that they make up all their coverage. It's only the brain-dead libs who can't see the hypocrisy in their "faux" outrage.

CBS does not show a picture of OBL and caption it Obama "by mistake". They don't show a picture of Larry Craig, the Republican restroom toetapper with the caption "Larry Craig, (D), Idaho".

Besides, theres not a word in there about paying news analysts to lie. With tax money.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:You people kill me w/ your Faux news stuff. Wasn't is CBS that got busted fabricating stories a few years ago? Wasn't there a NYT journalist who got busted making up by lines? Just because Fox doesn't slant to the left like every other network out there doesn't mean that they make up all their coverage. It's only the brain-dead libs who can't see the hypocrisy in their "faux" outrage.

CBS does not show a picture of OBL and caption it Obama "by mistake". They don't show a picture of Larry Craig, the Republican restroom toetapper with the caption "Larry Craig, (D), Idaho".

Besides, theres not a word in there about paying news analysts to lie. With tax money.

So are you going to accuse Ted Kennedy of some funny business since he called Obama Osama about 4 times during one press conference?

I remember watching MSNBC during the whole Elliot Spitzer stuff and they conveniently left his party affiliation completely off. Must be the vast left wing conspiracy at work!!

BandDad, you have twice said that military analysts on Fox are being paid by the government to lie. Do you want to share some evidence of their being on Pentagon payroll to put out info to back up your claims? And don't say "they draw military pension," because that doesn't count.

BatesUAB Wrote:BandDad, you have twice said that military analysts on Fox are being paid by the government to lie. Do you want to share some evidence of their being on Pentagon payroll to put out info to back up your claims? And don't say "they draw military pension," because that doesn't count.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washin...erals.html

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:

BatesUAB Wrote:BandDad, you have twice said that military analysts on Fox are being paid by the government to lie. Do you want to share some evidence of their being on Pentagon payroll to put out info to back up your claims? And don't say "they draw military pension," because that doesn't count.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washin...erals.html

come on GN, you can do better than this.
You cite a NY Times article? The same NYT of Jayson Blair, Judith Miller and Rick Bragg fame.
The newspaper that issued 3,200 corrections to its' own reporting in 2004.
The media outlet that refused to print McCains' op-ed, even after endorsing him as the Republican Party presidential nominee.
This Times http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1
The NYT has become nothing more than another left wing mouthpiece, almost reduced to a [very large] blog.
The report could be 100% accurate, but coming from this bunch I have reason to doubt.
The fact no other news agencies (most of which are left leaning) hardly gave this report a sniff
tells me something about the credibility of the article.
Well, maybe you can't do better than a story which has no legs.

as to the extent of cbs news credibility, three words..................................................











Dan Rather biased

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:

BatesUAB Wrote:BandDad, you have twice said that military analysts on Fox are being paid by the government to lie. Do you want to share some evidence of their being on Pentagon payroll to put out info to back up your claims? And don't say "they draw military pension," because that doesn't count.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washin...erals.html

Umm, they had stills from these analysts on every major network, not just Fox. Will you now bash all the other networks as well? Oh wait, all the other networks are bastions of impartiality, but Fox is evil b/c it actually has conservatives on the air.

OK, here are some more sources, since the New York Times is considered lower than the National Enquirer by some of you (and for the record, I'll believe anything the NYTimes prints before I'll believe anything the White House says):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...d=90111757
http://www.historycommons.org/context.js...ystpayback
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/20/beh...ary-a.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/19/pent...ng-points/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive..._pentagon/
http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archiv...58477.aspx
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/835...e_thought/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/11...yst-story/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc...15393.html
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8400/

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:OK, here are some more sources, since the New York Times is considered lower than the National Enquirer by some of you
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...d=90111757
http://www.historycommons.org/context.js...ystpayback
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/20/beh...ary-a.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/19/pent...ng-points/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive..._pentagon/
http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archiv...58477.aspx
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/835...e_thought/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/11...yst-story/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc...15393.html
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8400/

DA#N, you rely on a lot of left-wing blogs for your information.
And I'm certain they're ALL truthful with no agenda, NOT.
Nine of your ten references are just that, left-wing blogs. I've researched each.
I've researched the allegation as well. The left blogs are the only ones running with the [apparent] agenda driven story.
The left has to do what is has to do, I guess.

I couldn't determine what boingboing does, so the jury is still out on them.

btw,
I'd be more likely to believe the National Enquirer before any of these.

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:(and for the record, I'll believe anything the NYTimes prints before I'll believe anything the White House says):

based upon your political leanings, I'm not surprised by this statement. It seems to be a basic philosophy of the left.

First off, dfarr is right. I saw shots from Fox, CNN, NBC and MSNBC at the head of that article. This thread was started about Fox news in particular, when in reality the sacred cows of liberal media are just as guilty. That being said, the point that was made was that these analysts are employed by the pentagon to put the information out there.

Here is what Banddad said:

Quote:It seems that many of them were being paid by the Pentagon to pass on the designated talking points and spin on the issue of the day....They are also being paid by the government (with our tax dollars I might add) to not tell the truth, instead to say what they are told to by their former military superiors.

This NYT piece does not bear that out. It is saying that they are employed by defense contractors as lobbyists, consltants, etc. They may be getting some of our tax dollars, but indirectly. They ARE NOT on the pentagon payroll, which is what I wanted evidence of. They are going on the news channels talking up the administration's side of the argument because they felt it will help them rake in the dollars for their contractor employers, thus making themselves money. So, their motives are not to prop up the pentagon's agenda for the sake of the pentagon and the administration, but for their own sake. This doesn't make it any better (assuming that it is true), but it shoots holes into your argument that the administration is sending out it's minions to do it's bidding. I would call what some of you are doing either bending the truth to try to further your own agenda, or just flat out lying.

oldblazer79 Wrote:

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:OK, here are some more sources, since the New York Times is considered lower than the National Enquirer by some of you
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...d=90111757
http://www.historycommons.org/context.js...ystpayback
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/20/beh...ary-a.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/19/pent...ng-points/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive..._pentagon/
http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archiv...58477.aspx
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/835...e_thought/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/11...yst-story/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc...15393.html
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8400/

DA#N, you rely on a lot of left-wing blogs for your information.
And I'm certain they're ALL truthful with no agenda, NOT.
Nine of your ten references are just that, left-wing blogs. I've researched each.
I've researched the allegation as well. The left blogs are the only ones running with the [apparent] agenda driven story.
The left has to do what is has to do, I guess.

I couldn't determine what boingboing does, so the jury is still out on them.

btw,
I'd be more likely to believe the National Enquirer before any of these.

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:(and for the record, I'll believe anything the NYTimes prints before I'll believe anything the White House says):

based upon your political leanings, I'm not surprised by this statement. It seems to be a basic philosophy of the left.

Do you REALLY think the right-wing publications would report this? That would eliminate their sources. And their "insider" status with the Bush administration.

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:

oldblazer79 Wrote:

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:OK, here are some more sources, since the New York Times is considered lower than the National Enquirer by some of you
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...d=90111757
http://www.historycommons.org/context.js...ystpayback
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/20/beh...ary-a.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/19/pent...ng-points/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive..._pentagon/
http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archiv...58477.aspx
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/835...e_thought/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/11...yst-story/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc...15393.html
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8400/

DA#N, you rely on a lot of left-wing blogs for your information.
And I'm certain they're ALL truthful with no agenda, NOT.
Nine of your ten references are just that, left-wing blogs. I've researched each.
I've researched the allegation as well. The left blogs are the only ones running with the [apparent] agenda driven story.
The left has to do what is has to do, I guess.

I couldn't determine what boingboing does, so the jury is still out on them.

btw,
I'd be more likely to believe the National Enquirer before any of these.

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:(and for the record, I'll believe anything the NYTimes prints before I'll believe anything the White House says):

based upon your political leanings, I'm not surprised by this statement. It seems to be a basic philosophy of the left.

Do you REALLY think the right-wing publications would report this? That would eliminate their sources. And their "insider" status with the Bush administration.

I would expect other media outlets [besides a waning NYT with questionable cred. and left-wing blogs] to give this some play in order to impart some semblance of credibility to the charge. People, even most on this board, denounce blogs when they report negatively on UAB. But some of you will take anything these left leaning blogs write as gospel. If I came on this forum and used Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity as my sources, what would be said? I question everything I read in regards to print and electronic media.
This story does not pass the test [for me] because it's only being played by one side.
If you want to get riled about it, go ahead.