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

In article , dump-on-
says...

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

Well of course!

On 4/9/2012 7:50 AM, X ` Man wrote:


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

54% of your rag's readership has an annual income under 50K.
Only 17% are over 55.
47% are graduates from Kansas Klown Kollige or similar institutions.

Thie exerpt from the mission statement might have been written by HNK
himself. "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, especially “hate talk” media."

This rag is written for young and middle age under acievers.

On 4/9/12 8:09 AM, 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.


It's the deliberate mendacity of Fox that makes me giggle at the network
and its followers, a characteristic shared wholeheartedly by
Mitt Romney.

On 4/9/2012 8:19 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/9/12 8:09 AM, 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.


It's the deliberate mendacity of Fox that makes me giggle at the network
and its followers, a characteristic shared wholeheartedly by
Mitt Romney.

Mendacity of a dope. Read all about it.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45767

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.