OCCUPYWALLSTREET REINFORCEMENTS!

[cowboyangel]

The mainstream any part of it left leaning? Give me a fuckin break. Left is as left does. The few outelts that fit that bill are Free Speech TV Democracynow!, Pacifica, Grit.TV..http://www.green960.com/main.html

[cowboyangel]

[youtube][/youtube]

[ygmir]

The mainstream any part of it left leaning? Give me a fuckin break. Left is as left does. The few outelts that fit that bill are Free Speech TV Democracynow!, Pacifica, Grit.TV..http://www.green960.com/main.html

and, that's the answer I'd expect, CA. If you're coming from "the left", you see moderately left leaning things, as "centrist" since, they agree with you.

I guess, I just don't understand, the revulsion and rejection, of a particular news source, for being "right" leaning. The right has every bit the entitlement as the left, to their opinions, and slant on the news.
Much of eplaya here, is "left justified", IMO. As such, you are surrounded by like minded individuals and your slant, is bolstered as such, until you all think, you're "in the middle".

People talk about "radical inclusion" and acceptance of differing opinions.......but, I see many of you, out and out rejecting and vilifying, folks who don't agree with you. Even calling them names........
How fucking open minded is that?

How tough, would it be to admit, news orgs are biased, one way or another, and, accept them as differing view points, and then draw your own conclusions?
Instead, some of you just get rude and closed off, to folks who offer differing views, and shut them down.

Is it not possible, there are more than one solution, to most problems?
Is it possible, someone else's idea, might work better?
Can, you look at them objectively, and even if you don't agree, acknowledge, they might be after the same ultimate outcome, but take a different path, to get there?

[Elderberry]

SOP's post regarding Fox should have answered your questions. It was pretty accurate.

The mainstream any part of it left leaning? Give me a fuckin break. Left is as left does. The few outelts that fit that bill are Free Speech TV Democracynow!, Pacifica, Grit.TV..http://www.green960.com/main.html

and, that's the answer I'd expect, CA. If you're coming from "the left", you see moderately left leaning things, as "centrist" since, they agree with you.

I guess, I just don't understand, the revulsion and rejection, of a particular news source, for being "right" leaning. The right has every bit the entitlement as the left, to their opinions, and slant on the news.
Much of eplaya here, is "left justified", IMO. As such, you are surrounded by like minded individuals and your slant, is bolstered as such, until you all think, you're "in the middle".

People talk about "radical inclusion" and acceptance of differing opinions.......but, I see many of you, out and out rejecting and vilifying, folks who don't agree with you. Even calling them names........
How fucking open minded is that?

How tough, would it be to admit, news orgs are biased, one way or another, and, accept them as differing view points, and then draw your own conclusions?
Instead, some of you just get rude and closed off, to folks who offer differing views, and shut them down.

Is it not possible, there are more than one solution, to most problems?
Is it possible, someone else's idea, might work better?
Can, you look at them objectively, and even if you don't agree, acknowledge, they might be after the same ultimate outcome, but take a different path, to get there?

[Elderberry]

For those of you that don't think OWS is having any effect on anything, here's a news story that broke this morning on a lobbying firm pitching a plan to torpedo OWS to the American Bankers Association.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 1#45366471

[lemur]

so when i ask 'what have you done for me lately'

occupy has .. "we caused some people who oppose us to oppose us!"

[Elderberry]

so when i ask 'what have you done for me lately'

occupy has .. "we caused some people who oppose us to oppose us!"

You arent a very deep thinker, are you?
Never mind, don't concern yourself with it. Go outside and play now and let the grown-ups handle this.

[ygmir]

For those of you that don't think OWS is having any effect on anything, here's a news story that broke this morning on a lobbying firm pitching a plan to torpedo OWS to the American Bankers Association.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 1#45366471

interesting, but, what would you expect them to do?

a note, though, JK:

so you decry folks using Foxnews, as a source. In fact, don't you even question their intellect and humanity, for same?

and yet, you admit, MSNBC, is the same, on the other side:

See what I mean? Those stations, for the most part are "center" and pretty fair and balanced. (pun intended, but still true.) Now if you said MSNBC--well, I 'might' not argue with you, other than extremes.

yet, you seem quite comfortable, using them. (see above)

How, does this align?

[cowboyangel]

ygmir, Any news outlet that is owned by giant corporations isn't going to give you an accurate picture of what's really going on. Do really think otherwise?
When corporate influenced reportage results in deaths, e.g.Bush's criminal justifications for invading Iraq, it's natural that some of us would get very pissed off. Duhhh. Fox is now very dirty because of the phone hacking scandal in Britain...and that reported by former Fox executives! What we have in the mainstream is the illusion of balance. The left does a better job of digging deeper. It's fearless. Take Russ Baker for instance. Read "Family of Secrets" and tell me that Junior's account of the Bush family even comes close in scholarship and depth?

[youtube][/youtube]

[lemur]

why should i need to think deeply to understand what the occupy movement has done (or not) for the common man?

is it because theres no substance ?

'it changed the mindset of the blabhlah'

'the tone on the hill has changed'

'this has set blahblah in to motion'


...that kinda deep speculation? thinking?


what have you done for me lately!!!

good luck getting the every man the occupy movement supposedly represents when you expect people to be a deep thinker to understand the true impact of the whole thing

[ygmir]

ygmir, Any news outlet that is owned by giant corporations isn't going to give you an accurate picture of what's really going on. Do really think otherwise?
When corporate influenced reportage results in deaths, e.g.Bush's criminal justifications for invading Iraq, it's natural that some of us would get very pissed off. Duhhh. Fox is now very dirty because of the phone hacking scandal in Britain...and that reported by former Fox executives! What we have in the mainstream is the illusion of balance. The left does a better job of digging deeper. It's fearless. Take Russ Baker for instance. Read "Family of Secrets" and tell me that Junior's account of the Bush family even comes close in scholarship and depth?

well, no, CA, see I don't really trust any of them, wholly. And, I've never said I did/do.
I distrust Fox. But, as much, I distrust, the others.
With biased reporting, I feel, the best info can be gleaned from listening to both sides, and, (usually) finding "my truth" somewhere in between.
My issue, is, with anyone trying to say one side is better, more accurate, less biased, etc, etc, than the other.
I understand, it's human nature to be biased, and accept that in news orgs. What I don't understand, is the seemingly blind allegiance, to certain sources and/or individuals, as well as concepts.
While, denying same and stating that one person, or persons, are the only ones who are, or can be, correct. And the disrespect and vitriol, at times, aimed at those who disagree, or, see a different path, to the same end.

WE are not on different sides, in supporting OWS.......I support the concept, for sure, even if those involved give me pause.

[Elderberry]

For those of you that don't think OWS is having any effect on anything, here's a news story that broke this morning on a lobbying firm pitching a plan to torpedo OWS to the American Bankers Association.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 1#45366471

interesting, but, what would you expect them to do?

a note, though, JK:

so you decry folks using Foxnews, as a source. In fact, don't you even question their intellect and humanity, for same?

and yet, you admit, MSNBC, is the same, on the other side:

See what I mean? Those stations, for the most part are "center" and pretty fair and balanced. (pun intended, but still true.) Now if you said MSNBC--well, I 'might' not argue with you, other than extremes.

Though MSNBC may slant left, I have never caught them in a lie. In fact, they have fired some of my favorite reporters because they donated money to democrats running for office and not reporting it. Fox doesn't 'slant' right; they just make up the news to fit their agenda.

yet, you seem quite comfortable, using them. (see above)

How, does this align?

[cowboyangel]

ygmir, Any news outlet that is owned by giant corporations isn't going to give you an accurate picture of what's really going on. Do really think otherwise?
When corporate influenced reportage results in deaths, e.g.Bush's criminal justifications for invading Iraq, it's natural that some of us would get very pissed off. Duhhh. Fox is now very dirty because of the phone hacking scandal in Britain...and that reported by former Fox executives! What we have in the mainstream is the illusion of balance. The left does a better job of digging deeper. It's fearless. Take Russ Baker for instance. Read "Family of Secrets" and tell me that Junior's account of the Bush family even comes close in scholarship and depth?

well, no, CA, see I don't really trust any of them, wholly. And, I've never said I did/do.
I distrust Fox. But, as much, I distrust, the others.
With biased reporting, I feel, the best info can be gleaned from listening to both sides, and, (usually) finding "my truth" somewhere in between.
My issue, is, with anyone trying to say one side is better, more accurate, less biased, etc, etc, than the other.
I understand, it's human nature to be biased, and accept that in news orgs. What I don't understand, is the seemingly blind allegiance, to certain sources and/or individuals, as well as concepts.
While, denying same and stating that one person, or persons, are the only ones who are, or can be, correct. And the disrespect and vitriol, at times, aimed at those who disagree, or, see a different path, to the same end.

WE are not on different sides, in supporting OWS.......I support the concept, for sure, even if those involved give me pause.

ygmir................how can you derive balance from any so called " corporate sides" slanted reporting? Qui Bono.....during the Civil War southern ministers justified slavery by saying things like, "the slaves were like children and needed to be taken care of"....Adam Goodheart in "1861"shows us otherwise by enumerating the vast number of slave insurrections and escapes. Corporations do the same thing today...cover their ass and justify the things they do, even if those thing harm people and the environment. Corporate owned news outlets are slaves to their masters. Read Adam's book here http://www.adamgoodheart.com/ The Civil War era is very much like today. Divided opinions, strong feelings, civil unrest...except it ain't working people against working people ( most of the boys who fought the Civil War were from the working class) It's the giant corporations and their 1% owners against the rest of us...that's what's so infuriating to those of us on the left who see you guys who respect Fox and the mainstream outlets buying their stupid arguments, like the one about errant homeowners causing the recession or that deficit reduction is the only way to save the economy, even though past experience shows otherwise. Your spokespeople-Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc are Multi-Millionaires fer Christs sake. They have no idea how the rest of us live and what stress we experience on a daily basis because of Wall St. criminality. Vitriol against injustice is fine and dandy and expect more of it.

[ygmir]

so, do you state MSNBC has never mis-reported, exaggerated, "lied" about anything? Or, are you saying just not that you know of?

I'm not questioning your integrity, I'm just wondering the justification, of your vitriolic rhetoric, as relates to FN, or, anyone who might listen. And, even if it's a matter of degrees, that MSNBC is similar (I'd say the same, and, there are others, I'm sure), that you give them a pass.
Again, I don't even have cable, although I did. I don't watch much MSM, except local news in the mornings.
I just wish, you could be accepting of differing viewpoints and open to discussion, of same.

[cowboyangel]

so, do you state MSNBC has never mis-reported, exaggerated, "lied" about anything? Or, are you saying just not that you know of?

I'm not questioning your integrity, I'm just wondering the justification, of your vitriolic rhetoric, as relates to FN, or, anyone who might listen. And, even if it's a matter of degrees, that MSNBC is similar (I'd say the same, and, there are others, I'm sure), that you give them a pass.
Again, I don't even have cable, although I did. I don't watch much MSM, except local news in the mornings.
I just wish, you could be accepting of differing viewpoints and open to discussion, of same.

who me or Kisha? I think all mainstream outlets are fucked.

[lemur]

slanting in either direction.. left .... or right.. is a lie... did we forget what journalism is about?

you should have more distrust for slanting in your favor!

even the wisest person surely cannot avoid believing bullshit if its in their favor.

its easier to be manipulated when you feel like youre not being done wrong.. and in fact are 'right'


...msnbc, fuck them. they took a turn for the worst when they slanted to a specific direction more openly.. and they never will learn from previous mistakes theyve made with their lineup..




you talk about "favorite reporters' dont you see thats the same type of bullshit that allows people to get manipulated and causes opinion to be spread as news?

you can have a favorite reporter?! really? how should the reporter matter when all youre getting is the facts? straight up facts?

...........i can see enjoying a slant to your preference in an OPINION piece.. but in real reporting?

i dont want a favorite reporter.. i want the facts.




typical garbage! 'i havnt heard them lie yet'

..you need to wait for them to lie to you to realize they are fuckin just as trashy as can be? most of the people 'reporting' the news on any of the 24 hr news networks dont even have as much qualification to report it as sarah palin.. at least she has a degree in journalism..

in fact theres very little reporting done by those 24 hr news stations anyways, its nearly all opinion and shit they picked up off the wire.. from pool reporters and other orgs that have REAL reporters on the ground doing work.. not just showing up with a news truck after the shit already happened so you can have a location backdrop to give your opinions from..(at least the daily show is in on that joke!)

[ygmir]

ygmir, Any news outlet that is owned by giant corporations isn't going to give you an accurate picture of what's really going on. Do really think otherwise?
When corporate influenced reportage results in deaths, e.g.Bush's criminal justifications for invading Iraq, it's natural that some of us would get very pissed off. Duhhh. Fox is now very dirty because of the phone hacking scandal in Britain...and that reported by former Fox executives! What we have in the mainstream is the illusion of balance. The left does a better job of digging deeper. It's fearless. Take Russ Baker for instance. Read "Family of Secrets" and tell me that Junior's account of the Bush family even comes close in scholarship and depth?

well, no, CA, see I don't really trust any of them, wholly. And, I've never said I did/do.
I distrust Fox. But, as much, I distrust, the others.
With biased reporting, I feel, the best info can be gleaned from listening to both sides, and, (usually) finding "my truth" somewhere in between.
My issue, is, with anyone trying to say one side is better, more accurate, less biased, etc, etc, than the other.
I understand, it's human nature to be biased, and accept that in news orgs. What I don't understand, is the seemingly blind allegiance, to certain sources and/or individuals, as well as concepts.
While, denying same and stating that one person, or persons, are the only ones who are, or can be, correct. And the disrespect and vitriol, at times, aimed at those who disagree, or, see a different path, to the same end.

WE are not on different sides, in supporting OWS.......I support the concept, for sure, even if those involved give me pause.

ygmir................how can you derive balance from any so called " corporate sides" slanted reporting?

As stated, CA, I distrust both sides of the news business. so, I try to cover all of them, and, decide "my truth", that which makes sense, to me. Where, if not there and the internet (which I also use), would one garner such information, otherwise?



Qui Bono.....during the Civil War southern ministers justified slavery by saying things like, "the slaves were like children and needed to be taken care of"....Adam Goodheart in "1861"shows us otherwise by enumerating the vast number of slave insurrections and escapes. Corporations do the same thing today...cover their ass and justify the things they do, even if those thing harm people and the environment. Corporate owned news outlets are slaves to their masters. Read Adam's book here http://www.adamgoodheart.com/ The Civil War era is very much like today. Divided opinions, strong feelings, civil unrest...except it ain't working people against working people ( most of the boys who fought the Civil War were from the working class) It's the giant corporations and their 1% owners against the rest of us...

I agree


that's what's so infuriating to those of us on the left who see you guys who respect Fox and the mainstream outlets buying their stupid arguments

I believe, you are making a leap in logic, there, that may not apply, at least, to me. I listen, to all the news outlets. I don't respect, any. But, if information is to be had, one must get it somewhere, no? And, as such, it seems the best way, is to get as much as possible, from as varied sources, as possible, and, extrapolate, what one feels to be "true".




, like the one about errant homeowners causing the recession or that deficit reduction is the only way to save the economy, even though past experience shows otherwise.


I'd say, sure, that's one economic model......but, I do believe in "deficit spending reduction" as in not spending more, or much more, than you (gov) have

Your spokespeople-Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc are Multi-Millionaires fer Christs sake. They have no idea how the rest of us live and what stress we experience on a daily basis because of Wall St. criminality.

again: "My spokespeople"?. No, voices, sure, not speaking for me, by a long shot.
And, how about the hollywood elite, AlGore, etc, (decidedly left wing) fabricating crises, and telling us how to think and what to do? They, are every bit as rich, and, by your logic, every bit as nefarious. I'd submit, there are just as many big money people on the left, as the right. If you're going to cast aspersions, based on wealth, I hope you're choosing your parameters wisely...........IE: world population and wealth, compared to U.S.


Vitriol against injustice is fine and dandy and expect more of it.

[ygmir]

so, do you state MSNBC has never mis-reported, exaggerated, "lied" about anything? Or, are you saying just not that you know of?

I'm not questioning your integrity, I'm just wondering the justification, of your vitriolic rhetoric, as relates to FN, or, anyone who might listen. And, even if it's a matter of degrees, that MSNBC is similar (I'd say the same, and, there are others, I'm sure), that you give them a pass.
Again, I don't even have cable, although I did. I don't watch much MSM, except local news in the mornings.
I just wish, you could be accepting of differing viewpoints and open to discussion, of same.

who me or Kisha? I think all mainstream outlets are fucked.

sorry, I was addressing JK. I agree, with your statement

[Sola Gangsta]

forgetthelabelsandthinkdeeper.jpg

[Ugly Dougly]

+1
Labels make us blind to the actual contents.

[lemur]

so, which third party candidate will you be voting for in 2012?

[cowboyangel]

I like Wavy Gravy's old "Nobody For President" campaign. He had campaign slogans like "Nobody Cares For You", or "Nobody Will Lower Your Taxes".....
I'll take Nobody. But maybe let's just give the governors of every state more voice in how they control money....specifically getting them behind state banks, then it won't matter what dick-wad gets elected because as far as I'm concerned, they are all dick-wads.

[ygmir]

I like Wavy Gravy's old "Nobody For President" campaign. He had campaign slogans like "Nobody Cares For You", or "Nobody Will Lower Your Taxes".....
I'll take Nobody. But maybe let's just give the governors of every state more voice in how they control money....specifically getting them behind state banks, then it won't matter what dick-wad gets elected because as far as I'm concerned, they are all dick-wads.

*high five*

[Simon of the Playa]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

There are some programs on MSNBC that are prone to exaggeration. I have never caught them in any out and out lies. They have mis-reported at times--but they have also made corrections and retractions for those mis-reports. I can't say any of the above regarding Fox. Again, I refer you back to SOP's post on Fox. BTW, I wouldn't consider MSNBC or Fox to be MSM, and I don't consider Fox to be news.

so, do you state MSNBC has never mis-reported, exaggerated, "lied" about anything? Or, are you saying just not that you know of?

I'm not questioning your integrity, I'm just wondering the justification, of your vitriolic rhetoric, as relates to FN, or, anyone who might listen. And, even if it's a matter of degrees, that MSNBC is similar (I'd say the same, and, there are others, I'm sure), that you give them a pass.
Again, I don't even have cable, although I did. I don't watch much MSM, except local news in the mornings.
I just wish, you could be accepting of differing viewpoints and open to discussion, of same.

[littleflower]

lol ........ this is too much.

i totally agree with Yg, i like hearing different points of view. and that includes the opinion of wealthy people, even movie stars ... even movie stars like sean penn (who some people think would be a good POTUS. LMAO) i'll listen to their opinions, and sometimes they even make me think.

the fact that news comes from a corporate source is totally irrelevant, IMO .... that excuse is TOO FUCKING EASY. i know this comes as a surprise, but i genuinely believe that the CEO of GE doesn't have enough time to review all of the news on MSNBC... and even if he/she/it does, we can't know for sure what way said CEO leans. there are plenty of left leaning CEOs running around. plenty. this argument actually supports the idea that the press leans left, if you consider Ted Turner's role in it. unless you claim that he is conservative because he is a billionaire businessman.

speed and profit are the problem with news today as i see it ..... the need to get the most controversial story out there as soon as possible. it's gotten to where i stop listening if i hear the word "controversy." controversy is now more important than fact. and fact .... too often fact sounds like opinion. and why not? there are too many facts these days, too much information, too much information that nobody even has access to... so we have to rely on journalists and editors to sift through it all, feeding us whatever they want, hoping that future info won't blast their current thesis.

i have no problem with bias. i expect it, and enjoy wondering why people think what they do. and i often catch myself re-thinking my own positions based on a new thought or idea. we are all coming from different situations, so why should we have the same ideas about everything??? the important thing is to stay open to the thoughts and ideas of others ... if you don't, you just shut down communication, and nobody will listen to you.

[ygmir]

There are some programs on MSNBC that are prone to exaggeration. I have never caught them in any out and out lies. They have mis-reported at times--but they have also made corrections and retractions for those mis-reports. I can't say any of the above regarding Fox. Again, I refer you back to SOP's post on Fox. BTW, I wouldn't consider MSNBC or Fox to be MSM, and I don't consider Fox to be news.

so, do you state MSNBC has never mis-reported, exaggerated, "lied" about anything? Or, are you saying just not that you know of?

I'm not questioning your integrity, I'm just wondering the justification, of your vitriolic rhetoric, as relates to FN, or, anyone who might listen. And, even if it's a matter of degrees, that MSNBC is similar (I'd say the same, and, there are others, I'm sure), that you give them a pass.
Again, I don't even have cable, although I did. I don't watch much MSM, except local news in the mornings.
I just wish, you could be accepting of differing viewpoints and open to discussion, of same.

really, JK all I'm seein here, is rationalization...........
If you just made a statement like: "I'm ok with the left wing slant of (whatever), and, don't really care to check on their accuracy, BUT, I'll hold Fox to a much higher standard".
at least, it's accurate.
I put media (we can debate "main stream"), in a class with politicians.
I've personally seen, so many times, they (all) take things out of context, and or spin it, for better reading, or emotional response, so as to increase ratings.............

I can see this debate, being moot.

I do respect ya, though.

[Ugly Dougly]

I like this Bernie guy.

[Ugly Dougly]

I've personally seen, so many times, they (all) take things out of context, and or spin it, for better reading, or emotional response, so as to increase ratings.............

Hell, I've done it myself professionally. It's too easy.
And even the best of us make mistakes, the pros double-check their facts. I try not to take an amateur blogger at face value.

[Sola Gangsta]

This tea party patriot proudly wears a pistol holstered on his leg, while misquoting Jefferson. It was a nice try. He actually said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

teabaggers.jpg

And yet, I see no police in riot gear. No use of overwhelming force. Why is it that unarmed protesters are beaten, and those with weapons are allowed to roam the streets freely?