• 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

Tucker

Lion Rampant
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?
Tactics like you just used, you mean? I just read both sources you're citing and there isn't a thing in either one to support your four apocalyptic conclusions.
 

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
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:

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?
Modly Post:

This thread is discussing a news station. Bringing up the subject of other news stations is not offtopic and completely within the rules of MD.

Discussing the debating tactics or posting styles of another member in this thread IS offtopic, and can be considered flaming/flamebaiting and will not be tolerated. They do nothing but lead a thread astray and degrade the quality of discussions in Mature Discussion If you feel that a members post is not satisfactory for a thread, please report it and a mod will deal with it.

If you have any questions regarding this mod post, please send me a PM instead of replying to this post.

(P.S. I wasn't singling you out by quoting your post SS, I was merely using it as an example for the point I was making)
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I replied while you and CO responded. So calm down, skippy.

You're employing these same smear tactics, so is this really something that bothers you or does it only bother you when people you don't like or agree with use it? I say that not to be off topic but because I believe it's relevant. You hear the same stupid argument from red shirts and blue shirts.

"Well the American liberal media is just a big ol' pot of lies and misinformation . . . FOX is the only station brave enough to share the truth . . . THEY DO NOT LIE!"

"MSNBC is a source without bias free of the right wing hate machine and they tell it like it is, just like CNN . . . wait, what does 'bias' mean? Is that a conservative term for hippie?"


Either way, you're looking at two groups of sheeple that are under delusions that their choices are correct because they share a similar opinion to their own. It's a deep seated psychological effect. After all, in this hectic world full of endless information, it's hard to have to criticize those on 'your side' and it's much easier just to lie to yourself for the sake of security and self comfort. There is no denying fact, big news companies actively misinform and lie to their audiences and this includes FOX, CNN, MSNBC and the other big names. Anyone who believes they're not being lied to or being told half or a stretched story needs to lower the dosage of their medication because they're in fantasy land. I think Americans are adapting to this 'fake news' atmosphere and it's quite evident by the booming of independent or reader driven news sources.

Your traditional American still enjoys the pointless and mindless concept of pundits, that one siphon where their preferred slurry is spewed from and fire is shot at the enemy from as well. It's a disturbing trend and it's only wonderful to believe that it will someday stop.
 

qweerblue

Registered Member
A few observations and questions:

I have no problem with any group that is focused on exposing the lies and inaccuracies of any news source, whether it be "liberal" or "conservative"; I do think there's a problem with Media Matters wanting to retain its non-profit status while participating in partisan political activity.

I'm not cognizant of Media Matters' willingness, or any evidence of their willingness, to embrace the tactics of:

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


I hear all the time that FOX, CNN, and MSNBC are all guilty of lying and misrepresenting facts, and I ask this sincerely: does everyone believe that each of these news outlets are equally guilty of lying? I am not looking for the "everyone does it" answer, but for a legitimate, sincere answer--who do you think is most guilty of distorting facts and misinforming the public? And from where do you get your information about these things happening? Is there some group you trust to vet out these things? Could you give me some examples of lying from each of these news sources?

I think it's a shame that we don't have any news source that is considered unbiased and non-partisan, and I think it's deeply problematic that we seem to pick the "news" we listen to based on our political affiliations. I mean, that, right there, kind of flies in the face of what "news" is supposed to be; we should not be able to discern the news commentator's political affiliation just by listening to reports on what happened in our country and in the world on any given day. Wouldn't it be tremendous if there really were a source of news that we all trusted to just present facts, and then we could turn to some of those other shows if we wanted to see debates about what the facts actually "mean" or how they impact us...?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Tactics like you just used, you mean? I just read both sources you're citing and there isn't a thing in either one to support your four apocalyptic conclusions.
Hahahahahahahaha Tuck. I can defend my assertions and I will if you wish to continue the debate. But I don't expect you to reply, so surprise me!

But just for your amusement I will start with number one:

"By any means necessary"

Media Matters is a well known politically liberal organization that misquotes and takes out of context statements in order to twist their meaning and misrepresent conservatives (their political enemies). If they are truly a media watchdog why don't they ever attack liberal media? Why do they dishonestly set themselves up as a non-profit charity when they are clearly a partisan political organization funded by Soros? Why do they resort to the tactics they are famous for? Are you prepared to defend Media Matters? Because I am quite familiar with them and their tactics which are pretty indefensible.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Media Matters is a well known politically liberal organization that misquotes and takes out of context statements in order to twist their meaning and misrepresent conservatives (their political enemies). If they are truly a media watchdog why don't they ever attack liberal media? Why do they dishonestly set themselves up as a non-profit charity when they are clearly a partisan political organization funded by Soros? Why do they resort to the tactics they are famous for? Are you prepared to defend Media Matters? Because I am quite familiar with them and their tactics which are pretty indefensible.
This entire paragraph is completely interchangeable though, depending on your political viewpoint. So with opinions aside, can you agree that both sides are guilty of it? I've never understood the fascination with Soros either, I only ever hear of him on FOX or other right wing outlets, but that's for another topic I suppose.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.
"Guerrilla warfare and sabotage"?!? Can you say "any means necessary"

Media Matters, he said, is also conducting “opposition research” on a dozen or so “mid- and senior-level execs and producers,” a campaign style move that he and Brock said would simply involve recording their public appearances and digging into public records associated with them.
Investigating private citizens who are senior & mid-level execs & producers at Fox in order to threaten, intimidate, and ultimately SILENCE them?!? Can you say "any means necessary"

So Tuck, I find it interesting that you could find nothing in the two linked articles to support my assertions. See how easy it was for me to point them out to you?
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
"Guerrilla warfare and sabotage"?!? Can you say "any means necessary"
I'd like to know where they got these quotes from and how they pulled them out of context since after the NPR video was proven to be heavily edited, it's only natural to want to see some evidence and a full contextual explanation.

Investigating private citizens who are senior & mid-level execs & producers at Fox in order to threaten, intimidate, and ultimately SILENCE them?!? Can you say "any means necessary"
That is nowhere in your quoted text. Did you miss the 'public' parts? You seem to be trying to push this square peg through a round hole so your nightmare will become reality. For all you know, this just means 'stalk their Facebook' which millions of Americans do to each other anyways.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ QB: Glad to see you join in! I'm also glad that we can agree that Media Matters is a liberal political organization that appears to be wrongly taking advantage of tax code that clearly shouldn't apply to them.

I'm also glad to see that you challenge me on my assertions! So I give you this: Media Matters for America

Observe their tactics. One quick example: Hannity a "birther"? Why aren't they calling "tingle up my leg" Matthews a "birther"?

We can take my assertions point by point if you like :) It would be an amusing exercise. Would you concede if I make good points for each assertion?

I think it's a shame that we don't have any news source that is considered unbiased and non-partisan, and I think it's deeply problematic that we seem to pick the "news" we listen to based on our political affiliations. I mean, that, right there, kind of flies in the face of what "news" is supposed to be; we should not be able to discern the news commentator's political affiliation just by listening to reports on what happened in our country and in the world on any given day. Wouldn't it be tremendous if there really were a source of news that we all trusted to just present facts, and then we could turn to some of those other shows if we wanted to see debates about what the facts actually "mean" or how they impact us...?
I don't know about you, but I expect that you are like me and have many sources of information and that we don't exclusively listen or watch only the ones that reflect our ideology. It would be tremendous if there was a single source of only facts and that true journalism still existed. Maybe we should start our own news service based on ethical journalism! I'll bet one would make a killing (or go bankrupt ;))
------
I'd like to know where they got these quotes from and how they pulled them out of context since after the NPR video was proven to be heavily edited, it's only natural to want to see some evidence and a full contextual explanation.
Since the Ben Smith Politico article seems to reference "an interview and 2010 planning memo" with Media Matters founder and chairman David Brock I will assume it is just that. Or may I expect you to post a link to the transcript or other documentation that refutes the quotes attributed to Brock?


That is nowhere in your quoted text. Did you miss the 'public' parts? You seem to be trying to push this square peg through a round hole so your nightmare will become reality. For all you know, this just means 'stalk their Facebook' which millions of Americans do to each other anyways.
So are you defending the investigation of mid-level producers and other Fox personnel? Are you arguing that people poking into your public records is all in good fun and that is not a tactic of intimidation and threat in order to silence those who work at Fox? You are aware of all of the "public" information available on individuals, right? Would you find it unacceptable if I started investigating all the public records I could find about you? How about if I hired a PI to follow you around when you go out in public? How would you feel if you always had to wonder if someone was following you around with a video camera hoping to catch you in a compromising position and using that to defame you in order to discredit your employer?
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
I replied while you and CO responded. So calm down, skippy.

You're employing these same smear tactics, so is this really something that bothers you or does it only bother you when people you don't like or agree with use it? I say that not to be off topic but because I believe it's relevant. You hear the same stupid argument from red shirts and blue shirts.

"Well the American liberal media is just a big ol' pot of lies and misinformation . . . FOX is the only station brave enough to share the truth . . . THEY DO NOT LIE!"

"MSNBC is a source without bias free of the right wing hate machine and they tell it like it is, just like CNN . . . wait, what does 'bias' mean? Is that a conservative term for hippie?"

Either way, you're looking at two groups of sheeple that are under delusions that their choices are correct because they share a similar opinion to their own. It's a deep seated psychological effect. After all, in this hectic world full of endless information, it's hard to have to criticize those on 'your side' and it's much easier just to lie to yourself for the sake of security and self comfort. There is no denying fact, big news companies actively misinform and lie to their audiences and this includes FOX, CNN, MSNBC and the other big names. Anyone who believes they're not being lied to or being told half or a stretched story needs to lower the dosage of their medication because they're in fantasy land. I think Americans are adapting to this 'fake news' atmosphere and it's quite evident by the booming of independent or reader driven news sources.

Your traditional American still enjoys the pointless and mindless concept of pundits, that one siphon where their preferred slurry is spewed from and fire is shot at the enemy from as well. It's a disturbing trend and it's only wonderful to believe that it will someday stop.
I agree with you in that a lot of people see their side or their news source as right and the other side as biased and unfair. I disagree with you that the concept of pundits is pointless and mindless. You're lumping them all together and everything they say together. Pundits serve a purpose. To say that they are all "fake news" is erroneous. Most of them provide valuable insight. I just can't understand reading articles or watching the news which are all biased by the way whether they be from Fox News, The New York Times, The BBC or Al-Jazeera, and not listen to opinion. Most of us are pretty ignorant about say legal issues or military actions, I think it would behoove us to watch a pundit interview a lawyer about a Supreme Court decision or a former military person opine about a military action.

Case in point, the article you posted earlier grossly and falsely reported the Appellate Court decision. Watching or listening to a pundit interview a lawyer whether it be Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow, would shed some light on what the truth really was.
 
Top