On Monday, April 9, 2012 8:09:15 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 07:50:47 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:



http://www.alternet.org/media/154875...t_misinformed/

Since I don't believe that FOX even tries to be news, as defined in
the dictionary, this becomes a horse and cart issue.

From their website:
"AlterNet has developed a unique model of journalism to confront the failures of corporate media, as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media..."

Fox is no model of unbiased journalism, but neither is alternet. At least they're somewhat honest about their "mission".

On 4/9/2012 8:18 AM, wrote:
On Monday, April 9, 2012 8:09:15 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 07:50:47 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:



http://www.alternet.org/media/154875...t_misinformed/

Since I don't believe that FOX even tries to be news, as defined in
the dictionary, this becomes a horse and cart issue.

From their website:
"AlterNet has developed a unique model of journalism to confront the failures of corporate media, as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media..."

Fox is no model of unbiased journalism, but neither is alternet. At least they're somewhat honest about their "mission".

I made reference to the same line before I read your post. The
biographies of the sites Krause points to are more fun to read than the
articles he points to.

On Monday, April 9, 2012 8:50:22 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:18:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

vitriol and disinformation

If they are against "vitriol and disinformation," I'll at least listen
to what they say.

The rest of that quote was "of right wing media". That means that they are also delivering a product that is designed for a particular audience. Now, if they also went after the slant and bias of the main-stream liberal media, that would be quite admirable. As it is, they are telling a group of people what they want to hear, but not the whole truth.

On Monday, April 9, 2012 10:46:51 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 06:17:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, April 9, 2012 8:50:22 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:18:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

vitriol and disinformation

If they are against "vitriol and disinformation," I'll at least listen
to what they say.

The rest of that quote was "of right wing media". That means that they are also delivering a product that is designed for a particular audience. Now, if they also went after the slant and bias of the main-stream liberal media, that would be quite admirable. As it is, they are telling a group of people what they want to hear, but not the whole truth.

All you see is "of right wing media".

I see they are against "vitriol and disinformation." I'm good with
some bias, if they just deal with the facts.

If they cherry-pick the "facts" with a bias in mind, then their readers are still being led by the nose, just in another direction. They told you this, but you choose not to see it.

Eh, mox nix to me.

On 4/9/12 1:23 PM, wrote:
On Monday, April 9, 2012 10:46:51 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 06:17:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, April 9, 2012 8:50:22 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:18:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

vitriol and disinformation

If they are against "vitriol and disinformation," I'll at least listen
to what they say.

The rest of that quote was "of right wing media". That means that they are also delivering a product that is designed for a particular audience. Now, if they also went after the slant and bias of the main-stream liberal media, that would be quite admirable. As it is, they are telling a group of people what they want to hear, but not the whole truth.

All you see is "of right wing media".

I see they are against "vitriol and disinformation." I'm good with
some bias, if they just deal with the facts.

If they cherry-pick the "facts" with a bias in mind, then their readers are still being led by the nose, just in another direction. They told you this, but you choose not to see it.

Eh, mox nix to me.


As anyone can tell from several posters here, Fox News exploits ignorance.

On 4/9/12 8:50 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:18:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

vitriol and disinformation

If they are against "vitriol and disinformation," I'll at least listen
to what they say. I wish FOX news would take a stand to report the
truth and stick by that position.

Fact is, though, they are an entertainment corporation and their
"news" is designed to entertain their audience and thence return a
profit. The sadness lies in the fact that the audience would rather be
entertained with something that feels good to them, rather that deal
with the truth that might be a bit less fulfilling.

One of those stock tried and true points of mis-information has been
to treat PBS as their whipping boy. I'll ask this again: Has anybody
heard ANY misinformation from PBS concerning this Trayvon Martin mess?

That ought to tell you something.


The rights' dislike for PBS is the latter's penchant for producing and
putting on the air *long* segments on issues, sometimes controversial
issues, that should be of importance to the majority of Americans. If
you watch these segments, you learn a lot about the reality of the
issues. That sort of educational process does not play well with
right-wing media, which is more into the divisive sound bite approach to
serious issues.

On 4/9/2012 10:13 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/9/12 8:50 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:18:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

vitriol and disinformation

If they are against "vitriol and disinformation," I'll at least listen
to what they say. I wish FOX news would take a stand to report the
truth and stick by that position.

Fact is, though, they are an entertainment corporation and their
"news" is designed to entertain their audience and thence return a
profit. The sadness lies in the fact that the audience would rather be
entertained with something that feels good to them, rather that deal
with the truth that might be a bit less fulfilling.

One of those stock tried and true points of mis-information has been
to treat PBS as their whipping boy. I'll ask this again: Has anybody
heard ANY misinformation from PBS concerning this Trayvon Martin mess?

That ought to tell you something.


The rights' dislike for PBS is the latter's penchant for producing and
putting on the air *long* segments on issues, sometimes controversial
issues, that should be of importance to the majority of Americans. If
you watch these segments, you learn a lot about the reality of the
issues. That sort of educational process does not play well with
right-wing media, which is more into the divisive sound bite approach to
serious issues.

"The rights' dislike"?