Why isn't conservative media held to account for their lies?

because it has been proven that the accusation he lied about it was a politically motivate lie itself. In fact the guy spreading the lie was discredited immediately and he hid like a frightened school girl.

 

that could be because the only lies about that disgrace were perpetrated by representatives of the current administration.

 

There used to be a time when people didn't condemn the people who expose the corruption of government.

 

Why isnt liberal media held account for their lies? Because dur dur dur thread is dur dur dur.

 

"Why isn't conservative Media held to account for their lies? For the exact same reasons the liberal media is not held to account for their lies.

MSNBC is by far the most radical news commentary group. They twist facts better than any news Commentators I have ever encountered.

You think the conservative media lies and I think the liberal media lies. They say as they want as they are providing Commentary on reported news not reporting the News. Big difference.

News reporting is based on confirmed facts, commentary is not.

 

I can agree with some of that. However, now days if one wants news reporting based on just facts without editorial comment, one must go out and find it. The mainstream "news" is all tainted by a political agenda.

 

Are you referring to " Hands Up, Don't Shoot" ?

 

No one with an IQ above 80 could confuse what OReilly does with straight news.

To the topic, OP offers no examples and then when pressed for one links a 15 minute youtube video that didn't present any evidence of any lies in the first 5 minutes. Sorry, do better. Post the SPECIFICS, not 15 minute blathery videos. Moreover, Levin, like OReilly, Hannity and Bill Maher, are entertainers. The term "journalist" is stretched and vague. Have seen Oprah Winfrey called a "journalist," but no one watching her show could every possibly mistake it for "journalism" unless they were on drugs. Same for OReilly, whom I don't like myself.

 

I see, so the guy who writes "The Straight Dope" is a "journalist" too. The very existence of the phrase "no spin zone" disproves your point. Straight journalists and straight news don't position themselves in such ways.

 

If you had said 90 or 95 IQ I could have agreed with you.

I have known people with IQs of 80 and 70.

The 70 IQ person was a fan of "Wheel of Fortune."

The 80 IQ person literally watched movies or TV serials to obtain pointers on how to deal drugs.

People with an 80 IQ have very limited if any grasp of logical thought, and if any it is only a one step process. They cannot follow a logical chain of reasoning. If a person is in a suit and on TV looking like a newsman, that is how they will be taken.

Additionally, I suspect that many with higher IQs but little education also do not distinguish between talk show hosts and newsmen.

It is brainwashing to people like this.

Furthermore, by repetition and twisting almost anyone can become brainwashed eventually, even fairly intelligent people.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=brainwashing


Here's a link given by another poster on another thread explaining brainwashing, etc techniques as used on Russian television. In my opinion much of it is also occurring on US TV, especially FOX.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/putin-russia-tv-113960.html#.VSdfNdzF8YS

 

The thing is that we have seen evidence of the so-called liberal media holding their people accountable. That is the point of the thread.

Prove this statement. Go on show me one twisted fact from the last week where they changed the meaning of the words so much it changed the story.

So prove it.

yes but in some cases they claim to break news. The difference I see is when one uses journalism to back up the story and the other just rails and rails.

An news analysis explains said facts. Which is legit journalism, even if there is a bias, if you don't like.

Think about this.
Rachel Maddow reported through local New Jersey newspaper reporters about bridge gate. Those journalists discovered the email that basically called for the lane closures coming from a member of Gov. Christie's staff. She explained in detail how this could have worked. Until that time this would have been a non-story because there was no link and the Christie was denying everything. After that Christie had to admit his staff was involved, claimed ignorance and even today is dealing with the fall out.

1. Maddow would likely have no pursued the story if this had been a Democrat. That is her bias, but I can't be sure.
2. Nothing Maddow reported or explained was false in the above scenario.

However Maddow did speculate on reasons that Christie might have wanted a particular community hit and that, while not lies, was not fully based on facts. It was drawing inferences. Which is reasonable to do for a pundit. But people could think it is news.


Now let's take a look at Sean Hannity.

In 2012 the CBO reported that if nothing changes in the coming fiscal year there would be a 30% increase in revenue at the Federal level. This was part of a 10 year projection on the economy. They went on to say that this was do to tax laws expiring and a change the how taxes that are calculated. All of which was current law including the Bush tax cuts that were set to expire. What did Hannity do. Said if the President got re-elected there would be a 30% tax increase. See the difference? If you don't then please stop posting on topics that you can't understand.

 

Why hasn't Obama been fired for lying about keeping our Doctors? Hes the President! But for some reason you are more concerned with an entertainer lying right? Do you stay up at night worrying about if Justin Beiber lies too?

 

B-But FOX!!! That says it all, really. It's already been repeatedly established that Williams as a freaking anchor and representative of the broadcast networks traditional news network is quite a bit different from the position held of a PERMANENT news COMMENTATOR on Fox; a massive difference existing between an anchor and an editorializer. Next it was definitively established that first, the network knew long, long ago that Williams was a liar and they concealed this until finally they realized that it was coming to the public's attention despite their best efforts; and only then did they officially notice what they'd known all along. On the other hand even O'Reilly's former (NBC mind you) producer has repeatedly confirmed that the Fox News host wasn't lying.

The upshot is that we have a known ROTTEN apple of network HARD news division being compared to a merely ripe orange of cable channel editorializing host nature and the comparison is being made exclusively because leftists have had their feeling hurt to have it confirmed that a traditional broadcast network has been sheltering a liar for over a decade and so they tried to create a false equivalency on the Right in order to lessen their own agony and then of course it is also rank, gutter-level politics. Nice!

 

O'Reilly is a clown, and his show is not a "news show", it's an "opinion show".

 

I recognize the difference between news and entertainment.

 

Not to mention how many years passed before they finally decided to complain about Bill Oreilly? Now NOW its a problem what an entertainer says. LOL

 

So you are angry an entertainer says something 30 years ago but *gasp* people decide for themselves what to watch on TV at night?
Lets test if you know better. Did Obama lie when he said we can keep our Doctor?

 

Indeed. Nobody listens to O' Reilly (unless Fox Has drastically changed) for actual news. They listen to him for news commentary. It's weird but illuminating that the average leftists seems incapable of comprehending that there is a difference between REPORTING news and commentating (editorializing) ON news. It says a great deal about them, actually.

 

They are still confused despite being told the difference multiple times. Actually they aren't confused, its what happens when you have absolutely no argument.

 

I think accusing the media of "lying" is too easy. everyone imagines evil people sitting behind their computers and making up lies. journalists need to be neutral and it goes against the human nature to be completely neutral so I think sometimes news come across differently than intended just because people don't know enough about a topic and based on the experiences of the journalist. MOD EDIT>>RULE 15<<<

 

You are being too kind to them. I mean from your perspective they are intelligent but lack the ethics to embrace what they know to be the truth, whereas I consider them to be so lacking in common sense they they are inherently incapable of separating fact from need to embrace feel-good fantasy. So in my estimation they are essentially a party of clowns picking and choosing among fantasies for the one that makes them feel best about the world in which they live. Most sheep have a more solid grasp on the nature of actual reality than do the bulk of these leftist sheeple. But then I am a baaaaaaaaaaaaad man . . .

 

First it would be hard to defame Lew Rockwell, he does a perfectly good job of that all by himself. 2nd being fired by a conspiracy theory Radio station actually increases his credibility in my book.

 

I didn't know that Obama was a Journalist, can you show me where that occurred?

 

Is that so?

Then why does Fox describe O'Reilly's program as "hard hitting investigative journalism"? And why does O
Reilly himself continue to refer to himself as "your humble correspondent".

We know that he is neither, just as many people understand that Fox is not a real news organization.

They specialize, along with a lot of other right wing media, in appearing to be news. They're selling a message and raising money from their audience with the product.

That isn't news.

 

Here's a good one.

The narrative is a good study in the way right wing media works, too!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/01/10/mark-levin-hoax-callers-death-panel-lie-sets-of/186005