• 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!

What is wrong with OAN reports of the news?


You guys are losing it.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Like Rachel Maddow you mean?
Click to expand...

You think Rachel Maddow is a journalist? If you do, you probably think Rush Limbaugh is a journalist too. Or Bill Maher or Sean Hannity- you probably call them journalists too.
 
O A N is a Russian owned and operated propaganda organization. For those conservatives with a limited IQ, I suggest this is your cup of tea. You can't handle the truth!
 
WCH said:
Wait...isn't that true for all journalism?
Click to expand...

That's Truthing and liked by a Truther. It's a special kinda stupid to pretend all sources are equal.
 
Realpublicans said:
O A N is a Russian owned and operated propaganda organization. For those conservatives with a limited IQ, I suggest this is your cup of tea. You can't handle the truth!
Click to expand...

As opposed to a *centrist who picks his nose and scratches his ass trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

Welcome to the forum.
 
WCH said:
Especially if they don't jive with your ideology.
Click to expand...

Most people don't consider reality to be an ideology, but who can tell with Truthing.
 
tacomancer said:
Given that this is the Trump administration and it has a less than stellar reputation with the truth, WH credentials are not a meaningful argument right now.
Click to expand...

I think that way when Jim Acosta is in the press meeting with Trump as well as when Jonathan Karl is there. Ambush reporters is all both are.
 
Grand Mal said:
You think Rachel Maddow is a journalist? If you do, you probably think Rush Limbaugh is a journalist too. Or Bill Maher or Sean Hannity- you probably call them journalists too.
Click to expand...

Oh no. I never call Rachel Maddow a journalist . Thanks for running her down.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That it's a blog, has no actual journalists and makes up things to cater to a niche, fringe set of people looking to verify their own previously held beliefs? Nope.
Click to expand...

Please, how does that differ from HuffPo?
 

OANN is openly right wing biased. They slant everything they report. Am I only allowed to look at this single, three minute video that you picked out? If this one video is reasonable, their entire history of bias is forgiven? I don't understand what you're asking for.
 

One of the biggest flags for shoddy journalism, barely worth the name, is when only one side is allowed to speak on a two sided issue. In this video, Republicans are invited to speculate as to the motives of Democrats. But those Democrats are not invited to tell their side of the story. That seems a little fishy, doesn't it? It also violates basic journalistic standards.

They don't tell any explicit lies that I can see. But they do omit things and present them in a way that presents a false narrative. They talk about the Horowitz report and how he was investigating the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign's possible ties to the Russian attempts to interfere in our election. They don't mention that the Horowitz report exonerated Obama of the allegations that he wire tapped Trump tower or interfered with the independence of the Justice Department to order an investigation of Trump.

They allow a Republican to claim unchallenged that the whole problem with the FISA warrants was rooted in the "Obama Justice Department," even though Horowitz concluded that he did not interfere with its independence. The truth of the matter is that FISA started off shady in 1978 and got way worse with the PATRIOT ACT in 2001, and all that Obama did was not fix it, despite pressure from the left to do so. He also did not direct the FBI to use FISA warrants to further his interests by digging up dirt on his enemies. The Horowitz report makes that clear.

OAN is trying to create the impression that Obama eroded the independence of the Justice Department. But in fact Trump is the one who has been doing that, firing one person after another for being insufficiently loyal to him and throwing his weight around in unprecedented ways. He asked a foreign leader for the favor of working with his attorney general and his private attorney to investigate his political opponent. OAN is giving Trump cover by creating the impression that this sort of thing is nothing new. But it's a false narrative driven by omission of the fact that the subject of the piece (the Horowitz report) explicitly exonerates Obama of such allegations.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Why do I care if it is or isn't? Does it change anything I've said? Classic Trump supporter, don't address the topic, attempt a distraction with an attack on something else entirely.
Click to expand...

No for the other half of the argument. Do you consider HuffPo to be reliable? Of course you do, because it supports your confirmation biases. Hypocrisy for thee so on and so forth.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No for the other half of the argument. Do you consider HuffPo to be reliable? Of course you do, because it supports your confirmation biases. Hypocrisy for thee so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

I don't read HuffPo so I have no idea what you're taking about. You couldn't address my actual points so you make up these strawmen. Hard pass, kid.
 
England's The Daily Mail may not be the most reliable media source but they do publish some fun stories.

 

Coincidentally, OANN was the subject of John Oliver's main story Sunday. They're a notoriously intellectually dishonest, right-wing propaganda outfit masquerading as a news organization.

 
Realpublicans said:
O A N is a Russian owned and operated propaganda organization. For those conservatives with a limited IQ, I suggest this is your cup of tea. You can't handle the truth!
Click to expand...

No, they're not Russian-owned. They're owned by a right-wing, San Diego based billionaire, Robert Herring.

As Oliver rightly states, OAN is simply Fox News with less shame and even less scruples!
 
lurchadams said:
Coincidentally, OANN was the subject of John Oliver's main story Sunday. They're a notoriously intellectually dishonest, right-wing propaganda outfit masquerading as a news organization.

Click to expand...

They should be dishonest like Jonathan Karl, Jim Acosta or Rachel MAddow you mean? Clear up why you claim OAN is dishonest? Do you believe Media Matters perhaps?
 
lurchadams said:
No, they're not Russian-owned. They're owned by a right-wing, San Diego based billionaire, Robert Herring.

As Oliver rightly states, OAN is simply Fox News with less shame and even less scruples!
Click to expand...

Because Democrat loyalists say so? Please. I mean sincerely. Can you name a news outlet you believe in other than perhaps Rachel Maddow?
 
Robertinfremont said:
They should be dishonest like Jonathan Karl, Jim Acosta or Rachel MAddow you mean? Clear up why you claim OAN is dishonest? Do you believe Media Matters perhaps?
Click to expand...

Well, Rachel Maddow is a commentator/entertainer and although I don't agree with everything she says, she's honest and intelligent.

I'm curious how you feel Karl or Acosta have been dishonest.

Regarding OAN, did you see how Gray Ledger has encouraged people to defy the government's advice on social distancing and how he lies about his news reports being in the Library of Congress? How about how Ledger ends each of his shows with the catchphrase, "Even when I'm wrong, I'm right"? I'm say that's admitting to spewing right-wing talking points over being correct.

You should watch the video.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Because Democrat loyalists say so? Please. I mean sincerely. Can you name a news outlet you believe in other than perhaps Rachel Maddow?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't believe any news outlet specifically unless they support their claim with quotes or actual history. I don't agree with all Maddow's opinions. If something is represented as, "fact", I feel it best to verify such claims. I hope you agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…