it's obviously over-the-top in a few ways, namely in the presentation, but am i drifting really far to the left if i think it raises some really legitimate points about the function of the right-wing media under a left-wing president? this was never how msnbc or cnn operated on a fundamental level under bush, right? i mean, maybe he was an exception because he was reviled across all mediums, but its been shown numerous times how foxnews has obviously set a double-standard for conservative and liberal administrations, and they seem to be the ones that continually stoke the coals. i dunno, i dont consider myself in anyone's "camp" as it were, but this seems like a decent talking point anyway.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Regardless of how it's presented, the question with a watchdog site like Media Matters is "Are their facts true, accurate, and complete?" On rare occasions they may be incomplete, but I think they are always true and accurate, so yes, I think they can be trusted.
To anyone who might say, "Well, they only ever attack right-leaning media outlets," that may be true. But is what they are saying true, accurate and complete? They are not claiming to be balanced. Their mission is to show that outlets that ARE claiming to be balanced ARE NOT.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Regardless of how it's presented, the question with a watchdog site like Media Matters is "Are their facts true, accurate, and complete?" On rare occasions they may be incomplete, but I think they are always true and accurate, so yes, I think they can be trusted.
To anyone who might say, "Well, they only ever attack right-leaning media outlets," that may be true. But is what they are saying true, accurate and complete? They are not claiming to be balanced. Their mission is to show that outlets that ARE claiming to be balanced ARE NOT.
I agree with PD here. While they may be overwhelmingly going after right-leaning sources, there is no law that requires them to fact-check both sides, and so long as they are open about sources and methods I don't see what room anyone has to complain.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
It depends on what you mean by trusted. I tend to agree with PD and Broken Iris here. I studied Robert McChesney's work in college as I am fairly interested in Media Agenda Setting Theory and I think he's done some excellent work. Obviously his political leanings are on the liberal side of things as are most of the media and college professors in general but I don't think his work is without merit. Even if you disagree with some of the content I think the process of investigation has merit. Everyone everywhere has their own agenda and everyone is essentially trying to make money so we do have to remember it's a business too.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
