Merged Interesting Analysis of Changing Media Attitudes toward 9/11 Alternative Theories

I have to say I went and checked it out and I agree. That post specifically does everything Metamars(I think?) asked and he completely ignored it. Basically, he gets frustrated because this new audience won't validate the paper.

Red, any thoughts as to why Meta would have ignored that post?


Probably for reasons similar to why RedIbis is ignoring my post you quoted as well as your question here.
 
And what do you make of Aggle's hardly humorous description? Do you think that's furthering a productive discussion?

GIGGLE!

Hey Red, I found a truther web site post talking about a thread on Digg talking about the Student newspaper article talking about the "alternative newspaper" article talking about the truther web site article talking about the media talking about the Truth Movement!

And people say that the truth movement is hardly making a dent. hee hee!
 
By "nothing novel", are you referring to this being the standard view of CTists by the mainstream media?

Hmm...

No. The media is not a monolith. If the prevailing attitude used to be one of scorn among the many media reports, this attitude can slowly change, perhaps averaging out the coverage among the many stories that are published.

Here's a good example, this is coverage on a right wing media site of Jesse Ventura's appearance on NBC, discussing his new conspiracy theory book. The point of this example is not Ventura's credibility on this issue (though I'm pretty sure that's what debunkers will want to seize upon), my point is illustrated by a quote in this article:


Incidentally Ventura received a less skeptical and friendlier treatment than Karl Rove did from Curry's colleague Matt Lauer in the half-hour just before his segment.
 
No. The media is not a monolith. If the prevailing attitude used to be one of scorn among the many media reports, this attitude can slowly change, perhaps averaging out the coverage among the many stories that are published.

Here's a good example, this is coverage on a right wing media site of Jesse Ventura's appearance on NBC, discussing his new conspiracy theory book. The point of this example is not Ventura's credibility on this issue (though I'm pretty sure that's what debunkers will want to seize upon), my point is illustrated by a quote in this article:

Seriously? Red, no offenese but when did you stop getting it? I mean WTF?

The Right Wing media site as you call it was pointing out that "liberal" NBC was nicer to an absolute crazy nut than to Karl Rove.

Red, this is easily your worst thread in the history of this forum.
 
I'm disappointed that RedIbis and Profanz have ignored my posts, as if they are afraid to address it as it will quash any arguments they have.
 
Seriously? Red, no offenese but when did you stop getting it? I mean WTF?

The Right Wing media site as you call it was pointing out that "liberal" NBC was nicer to an absolute crazy nut than to Karl Rove.

Red, this is easily your worst thread in the history of this forum.

So what does that say about NBC?

I'm sure you don't like this thread as any normalizing of 9/11 questioning in the media is your worst nightmare.
 
So what does that say about NBC?

I'm sure you don't like this thread as any normalizing of 9/11 questioning in the media is your worst nightmare.

It says that the right wing blog thinks that NBC is part of the "liberal" media. I mean do I really have to spell this **** out for you?

Normalizing? You posted a student newspaper article about an insignificant alternative paper. Your definition of media is delusional.

You **** the bed on the washington times, on your claim that public protests are "hardly" the way to get people's attention, your ridiculous posts to insignificant papers, and now in the height of idiocy to a right wing blog calling NBC liberal, as if that proves anything.

Damn son, keep posting!
 

Back
Top Bottom