• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

The politics of personal destruction

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
This is how they operate:

By any means necessary
The end justifies the means
Lie and smear those with whom they disagree
Whatever it takes

Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

I wonder how it will turn out when their tactics are use against them?

Do you find this method of operation acceptable?
------
Have they crossed the line?

Is Media Matters breaking the law in its 'war' on Fox News? | Mark Tapscott | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
No I don't find this kind of operation acceptable. I think Media Matters is a joke and for the most part contributes to the dumbing down of America. By that I mean what they do is like a magic trick, slight of hand if you will. Instead of discussing an issue and countering points made they smear the messenger, thus the focus is taken off of the issue itself and the focus becomes how credible the source is. I see this sometimes even when the facts of the issue aren't debateable. I liken them to pundits like Ann Coulter, attack the source rather than address the issues presented. It's for the mentally weak.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
This is how they operate:

By any means necessary
The end justifies the means
Lie and smear those with whom they disagree
Whatever it takes
Well if we want to be specific, FOX actually won a lawsuit arguing that they're allowed to lie to their audience. Of course that means all news outlets can lie, but there's something oddly coincidental about FOX being at the center of it. It's one of the reasons I've always been skeptical of FOX and continue to distrust them. The problem is the newsmedia as a whole (be it internet or TV or not) has simply become a game of insults. Americans clearly don't want the news anymore, they want to see a fight. They enjoy flamethrowing pundits and news dipped in their favorite sauce. They don't like objective, truthful reporting and neither do news companies because it doesn't sell.

Do you find this method of operation acceptable?
Absolutely not. It's why I no longer watch TV and why I surf at least four to five different sites when reading about a particular story. This methodology has become the standard of American 'journalism' and from my personal experiences, our newsmedia tends to frighten foreigners. The people I know seem completely floored that we allow such bias news, hateful speech, and divisive rhetoric on our airwaves and intertubes.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Well if we want to be specific, FOX actually won a lawsuit arguing that they're allowed to lie to their audience. Of course that means all news outlets can lie, but there's something oddly coincidental about FOX being at the center of it. It's one of the reasons I've always been skeptical of FOX and continue to distrust them. The problem is the newsmedia as a whole (be it internet or TV or not) has simply become a game of insults. Americans clearly don't want the news anymore, they want to see a fight. They enjoy flamethrowing pundits and news dipped in their favorite sauce. They don't like objective, truthful reporting and neither do news companies because it doesn't sell.
You have to remember something, the intial jury found that the story was false, that is it was a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. In other words, the jury found that the story was false, distorted, OR slanted (emphasis mine) and also found she was pressured to air the information. Thus there was evidence on both sides and the jury was swayed one way. I wasn't at the trial and didn't hear or see any of the evidence and how it stood up to cross-examination and thus won't comment on it, but obviously the trial court believed the plaintiff's version at least to some extent. The jury system isn't perfect. I've seen juries come back with something that isn't close to being backed up by the evidence before.

This appeal however was not the court said it is ok to lie as this "blog" or "article" or whatever it is suggests. What the Fox News attorneys argued was not that it is ok to lie, the argument is even if you find we lied, you can't recover because of the First Amendment. It seems this article has created more spin that it pretends to abhor.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
CO, I've yet to find a link that isn't from FOX itself that really shows that that wasn't exactly how FOX argued the case. Personally, I think they just wanted the legal right to lie. Hell, they got denied a broadcasting license in Canada under their policies a news station cannot be misleading or lie to its viewers.

By the way, it was easy to find out what "it" was. It took me one mouse click and four seconds.

We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable company, incorporated in the State of New Jersey
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
CO, I've yet to find a link that isn't from FOX itself that really shows that that wasn't exactly how FOX argued the case. Personally, I think they just wanted the legal right to lie. Hell, they got denied a broadcasting license in Canada under their policies a news station cannot be misleading or lie to its viewers.

By the way, it was easy to find out what "it" was. It took me one mouse click and four seconds.
And Canada's politiocs don't have anything to do with that? All news sources lie, it just seems many pick and choose who they call liars.

I can't for the life of me imagine any lawyer choosing as his strategy "we want the legal right to lie". The argument would be "even if there is a finding of something not being true, you can't recover for it because of the First Amendment". It's called an affirmative defense.

My point though is juries make erroneous findings all the time. It's why some on death row shouldn't be there and why OJ Simpson was found not guilty. It's why a lawsuit against Vioxx in one county can go for Vioxx and there's a finding of no negligence and in another county they award the deceased family $20 million dollars. In other words, a jury finding in a civil case doesn't mean its for certain, only that a jury believed the evidence is likely to be certain. So I don't see the argument of "it's ok, we want to lie" but under an affirmative defense of "while there may have been a finding of a lie, you can't recover for it". You have to remember, this lawsuit wasn't about Fox News lying, it was about them firing the employee who argued the story was a lie. The verdict was for wrongful termination based on pressure for her to run a story. Thus the affirmative defense is it isn't recoverable. The thing is, this certainly isn't exclusive to Fox News.

Anyway, I do think we're going a little off topic. I agree with you in substance, the politics of personal destruction bothers me to no end. I'd rather see the issues debated honestly instead of what we see currently.
 
Last edited:

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Typical of Merc's "arguments": don't discuss the subject at hand, bring up something completely different and try to argue that!

OP about Obama, Merc writes about Bush. OP about Media Matters, Merc writes about Fox. Not only that but he misinterprets the story, which is so difficult to find, so here you go:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

Notice the section "whistle blower lawsuit". It would seem that Ms. Akre sued because she was dismissed, that the defendant was local affiliate WTVT (not Fox), and that they did not run the story. So the whole distortion that "Fox actually won a lawsuit arguing that they're allowed to lie" is patently false and a lie in and of itself.

So now can we get back to the OP where a not-for-profit company, who is legally barred from partisan politics by their tax filing status (as if that "matters" since that is the entirety of what they do), is now going to investigate private citizens with the expressed purpose of destroying them in order to silence them politically. Guerilla warfare? Is that the type of civility we can expect from the left?
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Thanks SS, I hate researching things on the internet and glad you found this and posted it.

This is what I was alluding to:

Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[
It's legally called "Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". In other words, the technicality of whether it was a lie or not is irrelevant, what was relevant was did she have a claim under the Whistle Blower Act, and the Appeals court ruled she did not. I stand by my assertion that the previous link was nothing but spin, and is guilty of falsification itself. Which is so ironic.

EDIT: this also goes towards my claim of what the legal arguments were.
 
Last edited:

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Believe what you want, I'm not buying it.

I'm just interested in how Media Matters is getting picked on and no one else. I agree that their little vendetta against FOX is a bit much but let's be honest, we see a lot of misinformation on TV these days and we also see a lot of blowhards getting face time.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Believe what you want, I'm not buying it.
Of course not, why be swayed by facts when there is spin to hang your hat on! :lol:

I'm just interested in how Media Matters is getting picked on and no one else. I agree that their little vendetta against FOX is a bit much but let's be honest, we see a lot of misinformation on TV these days and we also see a lot of blowhards getting face time.
Media Matters is getting "picked on" :lol::lol:

Media Matters is a 503c "charitable" organization which is barred from partisan political activity. They have a special tax situation which they are obviously abusing and they have stated their intent to inflict tortious interference with the business of another company. Furthermore they have threatened the employees of that company and their privacy.
 
Last edited:
Top