Why I don't watch...listen to......

[oshunluvr]

lol, no doubt!

[GreyGeek]

Today, if one in the U.S. want to know what's going on here, look at the news reported on us by foreign sources.

And add to that the local news outlets near a major story, and blogs of citizen journalists who witness and report events, especially with video. That's how I watched the Ferguson riots. The difference between the citizen videos and the "news reports" by CNN, NBC, Fox, etc., were like night and day.

I was first made aware of news slanting in the 1980s when I was installing satellite dishes in remote locations and farmsteads. On one occasion I was adjusting the aim of a dish pointing at WestStar IV, which had the private cable feed of ABC news (this was before encryption) which Harry Reasoner and Max Robinson were using to view live/raw video and also discussion how to present certain articles. I heard "Hail to the Chief" and moved around the dish to see the monitor. Pres. Reagan was walking on stage at the NOW convention. He got a 10-15 minute standing ovation. During his 30 minute talk he told about a dozen jokes, as his custom was, to illustrate points. All the jokes but one got rousing laughter from the audience. At the end of his speech he got another 5-10 minute standing ovation. That was what I saw. Then I started watching Reasoner and Robinson discussing choices of words to use which would give the flavor of the report they wanted to give. I ignored that and went about my business of aligning the dish.
When ABC's evening news began the lead store was "Reagan's mixed reception at the NOW conference". Mixed? I was stunned. They started off with a clip showing the ONE joke that the audience didn't laught at and then went immediately to Elenor Smeal (sp?), letting her rant for 1 minute and 42 seconds about how Reagan was going to grab women by the hair and drag them back into the stone age. There was absolutely NO correlation between that piece of agiprop and what took place at the convention.

Most people in the fly-over states got their first cable TV via 8' dishes and they also got unencrypted news feeds and could see for themselves the difference between what the MNM reported and what actually happened. The MNM caught wind of it, about a year after rural dish use reached a peak and complainers to news stations reported that they saw the real event live and the reporter's version was in error if not made up, and forced satellite receiver makers to put encryption chips into their receivers. For a while this prompted a small black market is chips which could replace the encryption chips. But, after a couple years, the feds cut off the out of country sources.

But, they can't cut off the foreign news sources, which are usually more accurate and more detailed than the MNM reports.

EDIT: Example. Think the "Young Turks" is an independent show? I didn't know that NBC owns them and told the host what to say:

[woodsmoke]

Thanks GG........

Back at Castle Cops we had.......shall we say.............. various tools at our disposal........and a lot of that kind of stuff was posted.........but......it was always......from the "liberal" viewpoint........

WHAT THE LIBERALS.......never think about........

but the conservatives KNOW about.......is "the other side completely controlling the message"....

And liberals should just THINK about the possibility that somehow the conservatives get a President elected AND keep both houses in the U.S. ......THINK about that.......

THAT is what the liberals want........THEY want the President and both houses to be "liberal"....

SHOULD EITHER........"philosophy" control the message in the U.S.?

REALLY.........should EITHER SIDE.......completely control "the message" in the most powerful country in the world........

when the "jv" team...........slammed three airplanes into the U.S.?

just sayin......

again........thanks GG, for confirming what I have often said...

woodsmoke

[anika200]

......THINK about that.......

woodsmoke

I am slightly amused by your liberal bashing which pretty much ensures a one way one sided conversation and as you correctly note is not a great way to conduct business in a democracy or anywhere else for that matter.

[vsreeser]

Thanks GG........

And liberals should just THINK about the possibility that somehow the conservatives get a President elected AND keep both houses in the U.S. ......THINK about that.......

THAT is what the liberals want........THEY want the President and both houses to be "liberal"....
.

woodsmoke

There have been liberal controlled congress and presidency a few times. Most recently 2008-2010 Obama and 1992-1994 Clinton. When the republicans took control in 1994, Clinton shifted to the center The two sides stated what they wanted and they found a viable compromise. This type of cooperation will have ot happen now or it will be 2 years of the pres and congress butting heads and not much really getting done. Compromise means both sides give up something

[anika200]

SHOULD EITHER........"philosophy" control the message in the U.S.?

woodsmoke

Right, the idea that someone should control the message is bad.

See, its the middle way that will prevail.

[GreyGeek]

I am slightly amused by your liberal bashing which pretty much ensures a one way one sided conversation and as you correctly note is not a great way to conduct business in a democracy or anywhere else for that matter.

Liberalism has been hijacked by the Left wing, which is rewriting history to vilify the founding fathers. They are even rewriting the Bible with their "Historical Jesus" propaganda. It's all part of a movement to replace "that little book", which Piers Morgan liked to call the Constitution, with a socialist manifesto supporting a one world government.

My my idea of a Liberal is the writer of The Decaration of Independence
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy

[SteveRiley]

Give me the facts and I'll make up my own mind

If you're searching for facts, then you don't really need to go the extra step of making up your mind. Facts are facts, no matter what your opinion of them

[SteveRiley]

EDIT: Example. Think the "Young Turks" is an independent show? I didn't know that NBC owns them and told the host what to say:

Jerry, take another look at the video. Cenk Uygur used to work for MSNBC. He quit that network and started Young Turks when MSNBC told him that he needs to be more "pro establishment."

[kubicle]

If you're searching for facts, then you don't really need to go the extra step of making up your mind. Facts are facts, no matter what your opinion of them

Well...he probably didn't mean he is making his mind about the facts themselves, but rather how he feels about them. Let's say one fact is that inflation is slowing down. It's still a matter of opinion whether you think it's good (prices aren't rising) or bad (it slows economy), for example, or what (if anything) should be done about that (pure facts are usually fairly useless).

Otherwise, I'm leaving the thread alone

[GreyGeek]

If you're searching for facts, then you don't really need to go the extra step of making up your mind. Facts are facts, no matter what your opinion of them

Replace "opinion" with "hypotheses" and the statement is valid. Replace "fact" with "assumption" and the statement is valid.

Often, one man's fact is another man's opinion, such as the "Appeal to Experts".

Even data isn't necessarily factual, especially if it has been cherry-picked, trimmed, cooked or made up out of thin air. For example, the Piltdown Man was portrayed as a missing link which proved that man evolved from primates. Over a period of 50 years the skull was presented as proof and several people earned PhD's adding to the strength of that proof. A few researchers objected but their arguments, and their careers, were marginalized. Then it was revealed as a hoax. Over the next twenty years or so the opinions of those few scientists were trotted out to "prove" that the Piltdown skull was "never really accepted" by the "main stream" scientists, thus the hypothesis of human evolution from primates was rehabilitated.

The institutions which granted the PhDs based on the Peltdown Skull never revoked them nor did the recipients recant them.

We are witnessing the exact same phenomena taking place with the AGW fiasco and its "settled science" arguments. One only has to consult the data, leaked by someone with access to the data servers, on which the "hockey stick" graph was based and read the researchers own opinions about the quality of that data, recorded in the HARRY_README.TXT file, or read the emails they exchanged discussing their work or, even more damming, their contracts with the IPCC in which they promised to deliver at regular milestones (their words) "proof" of AGW. For money, of course. AGW is all about money and politics. NO honest scientist can guarantee proof of an hypothesis, they can only offer a null-hypothesis test for it.

[GreyGeek]

Jerry, take another look at the video. Cenk Uygur used to work for MSNBC. He quit that network and started Young Turks when MSNBC told him that he needs to be more "pro establishment."

Your right. My error.