• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For all who balsted media matters:

Rightwingnutjob said:
I have to say that I have equal warnings from both conservative and liberal moderators. (1-1 so far)
Click to expand...

Well, this thread isn't about biased moderating, it's about all who balsted media matters. :lamo
 
Grim17 said:
Really... Then why is it, it was directed at me and I was the only name mentioned?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not going to be the one to take it off topic. If the mods have decided the thread stays, we mine as well stick with the topic at hand. The thread isn't about biased moderating, it's about Libloser proving you wrong. I don't think its right, it's very obviously baiting, but that's beside the point. The bad part is she is misleading in her title. She refers to "those who" did something, but in the post itself, calls out a single member. PB, tell me that's not a personal attack and I can sell you a bridge.

You wouldn't want to be guilty of taking a thread made to attack you off topic, would ya? :lamo
 
Last edited:
Media matters certainly has a lot more integrity then the "lame stream" conservative media.. nuff said. (god I feel like whipping myself for using the term lame stream.. uhh.)
 
I'm confused though...

Where was the argument that Media Matters was bad because they said it wasn't posted on the 19th.

From what I remember of the thread Media Matters was panned for two reasons....

1st...that they presented things as a "time line", however the only thing they did not present ACCURATELY in its placement and the only thing they left a time off of, was when on the 19th that Fox placed the report. They attempted to put said report as the #2 thing on the time line, directly after Brietbarts report, and prior to Sherron Angle actually retiring and prior to the announcement of her retirement even though only one of those things is true. They did this in an attempt to portray Fox as having something to do with influencing the Angle resignation by attempting to lie through omission and deception by making it appear on their timeline that Fox publicly acted PRIOR to her actual resignation.

Zimmer even SPECIFICALY denotes their action not as a "lie", but as a "DECEPTION". The only person referencing the notion that it was posted on the 19th as a "lie" is YOU Liblady, as a clear and present strawman argument.

If I say I am posting a timeline and I say the following:

8:35 AM August 3rd - I see your post
8:36 AM August 3rd - I decide to respond to your post
August 3rd - I go to the bathroom
9:00 AM August 3rd - I finish the post
9:15 AM August 3rd - After proof reading I make the post

Then I have presented the information in such a way that it implies to the reader that me going to the bathroom happens between 8:36 and 9:00. This is because I tell them specifically "this is a timeline" and because I'm placing every other item in chronological order. However, if I went to the bathroom at 3:00 PM on August 3rd, I am essentially decieving, or lying through omission, by trying to make it dishonestly appear as if my trip to the bathroom occured far earlier in the day then it did.

That's what Media Matteres did. The deception wasn't that it wasn't posted on the 19th, it was the fact it wasn't posted at such a time that it is fitting for its location on the timeline.

2nd...that they made a claim that their report was no longer available on Fox but was moved to another site. THIS is what Zimmer claimed was the "lie". The only argument I see against this is equivocation that its true because its not the ORIGINAL story because its been updated. However, Media Matters claim was not concerning the original story, simply concerning the report. Reports are routinely "updated" as additional breaking news occurs, sometimes to the point where even the title changes (This actually causes issues in moderation at times so I've dealt with this fact first hand).

I've yet to see anything that actually refutes these two assertions, and its been hillarious watching people who when fox news does similar things jump up and grab the pitch forks and torches trying to continually defend MM here using nothing but blatant and obvious strawmen
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm confused though...

Where was the argument that Media Matters was bad because they said it wasn't posted on the 19th.

From what I remember of the thread Media Matters was panned for two reasons....

1st...that they presented things as a "time line", however the only thing they did not present ACCURATELY in its placement and the only thing they left a time off of, was when on the 19th that Fox placed the report. They attempted to put said report as the #2 thing on the time line, directly after Brietbarts report, and prior to Sherron Angle actually retiring and prior to the announcement of her retirement even though only one of those things is true. They did this in an attempt to portray Fox as having something to do with influencing the Angle resignation by attempting to lie through omission and deception by making it appear on their timeline that Fox publicly acted PRIOR to her actual resignation.

Zimmer even SPECIFICALY denotes their action not as a "lie", but as a "DECEPTION". The only person referencing the notion that it was posted on the 19th as a "lie" is YOU Liblady, as a clear and present strawman argument.

If I say I am posting a timeline and I say the following:

8:35 AM August 3rd - I see your post
8:36 AM August 3rd - I decide to respond to your post
August 3rd - I go to the bathroom
9:00 AM August 3rd - I finish the post
9:15 AM August 3rd - After proof reading I make the post

Then I have presented the information in such a way that it implies to the reader that me going to the bathroom happens between 8:36 and 9:00. This is because I tell them specifically "this is a timeline" and because I'm placing every other item in chronological order. However, if I went to the bathroom at 3:00 PM on August 3rd, I am essentially decieving, or lying through omission, by trying to make it dishonestly appear as if my trip to the bathroom occured far earlier in the day then it did.

That's what Media Matteres did. The deception wasn't that it wasn't posted on the 19th, it was the fact it wasn't posted at such a time that it is fitting for its location on the timeline.

2nd...that they made a claim that their report was no longer available on Fox but was moved to another site. THIS is what Zimmer claimed was the "lie". The only argument I see against this is equivocation that its true because its not the ORIGINAL story because its been updated. However, Media Matters claim was not concerning the original story, simply concerning the report. Reports are routinely "updated" as additional breaking news occurs, sometimes to the point where even the title changes (This actually causes issues in moderation at times so I've dealt with this fact first hand).

I've yet to see anything that actually refutes these two assertions, and its been hillarious watching people who when fox news does similar things jump up and grab the pitch forks and torches trying to continually defend MM here using nothing but blatant and obvious strawmen
Click to expand...

Nice!! Totally crucified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom