Ed Right Wing Watch

[Butter!]

But they do, you see, they have concluded that something is a Hoax and every single they write about it is based on their own premise.

I mean with that kind of lack of objectivity do you really believe that they vetted their sources or ever conducted an impartial analysis?

Of course not, that is why media matters is garbage

I'm still perusing that link for context, so I'll have to hold off on replying on that. You may well be right.

 

[DavidJames]

Just so we are 100% on the same page here. I post something, DavidJames deletes my key point, posts a straw man

My post was directed specifically at the part I quoted. The ongoing attempt to get you to find where MM sourced themselves. I addressed that. See how that works? I don't mean that as a snarky comment. I truly am not sure you understand the concept of quoting and replying to the quote.

As to your "key" point, it was side track, a derail. I didn't respond to it because it was off topic to my point.

As for the straw man...it's telling you didn't quote it.

 

[turingtest]

Just so we are 100% on the same page here. I post something, DavidJames deletes my key point, posts a straw man (along with a snarky comment), I point out that he ignored my key point and

You smugly accuse ME of cherry picking.

That is really unbelievable....

Thanks for weighing in!

"lol! Ok."
And ur welcome.

 

[sunmaster14]

I absolutely refuse to discuss Benghazi, so I am ignoring your second paragraph. Nothing personal.

Anyway, I don't regularly read Media Matters and I don't care too much for Hilary Clinton either, so my questions and complaints are based on pure objectivity. I don't think a site referencing its own previous articles which themselves include links to primary sources is even in the same universe as citing themselves as a primary source.

If you don't agree, fine. We're working from radically different perspectives, I guess.

ETA - I think there's a difference between bias and lies. There's some overlap, sure, but that Venn diagram is by no means an eclipse.

First of all, Media Matters does do their own research. They brag about it. They analyze documents and then draw their own (often unjustified, IMO) conclusions. So what would you consider to be Media Matters citing itself. Ultimately, they will cite some document or person. Even a journalist who interviews an eyewitness is citing that eyewitness as a source. The point, however, is that their analyses are neither independent nor objective, but they routinely cite to their prior analyses.

Regardless, Media Matters is unquestionably a progressive propaganda organ. I don't think anybody here would even deny that. If you want to use it as a tool to find the original, more objective sources for their claims and then cite to those, that's fine. That's generally what I do with right wing sources. Then I can do the analysis for myself and not force people to wade through hyperbolic and partisan spin.

 

[Butter!]

Well, they certainly seem to have made up their minds about Benghazi. But can't that be chalked up to spin? There are plenty of primary sources from which people can make up their own minds.

Also, it seems like when they say "Benghazi hoax" they're referring to a certain version of events ( which they call a "right-wing" version), not calling the incident itself a hoax.

That's as far as I'm delving into explaining my reasoning because I do NOT want to go down the Benghazi road. I'm sure y'all understand.

 

[The Big Dog]

As to your "key" point, it was side track, a derail. I didn't respond to it because it was off topic to my point.

As for the straw man...it's telling you didn't quote it.

I am blown away by the irony in this post.

I post a response to a question by another user.
You ignore the point and post something unrelated.
I point out that you ignored my point
you tell me that my original answer to someone else was a derail.



Unbelievable.... you cannot make this stuff up.

 

[DavidJames]

First of all, Media Matters does do their own research. They brag about it. They analyze documents and then draw their own (often unjustified, IMO) conclusions. So what would you consider to be Media Matters citing itself. Ultimately, they will cite some document or person. Even a journalist who interviews an eyewitness is citing that eyewitness as a source. The point, however, is that their analyses are neither independent nor objective, but they routinely cite to their prior analyses.

Regardless, Media Matters is unquestionably a progressive propaganda organ. I don't think anybody here would even deny that. If you want to use it as a tool to find the original, more objective sources for their claims and then cite to those, that's fine. That's generally what I do with right wing sources. Then I can do the analysis for myself and not force people to wade through hyperbolic and partisan spin.

Just a hunch, but I'd guess almost everyone in this thread basically agrees with this (I know I do). Makes me wonder why the thread even exists

 

[Butter!]

First of all, Media Matters does do their own research. They brag about it. They analyze documents and then draw their own (often unjustified, IMO) conclusions. So what would you consider to be Media Matters citing itself. Ultimately, they will cite some document or person. Even a journalist who interviews an eyewitness is citing that eyewitness as a source. The point, however, is that their analyses are neither independent nor objective, but they routinely cite to their prior analyses.

Regardless, Media Matters is unquestionably a progressive propaganda organ. I don't think anybody here would even deny that. If you want to use it as a tool to find the original, more objective sources for their claims and then cite to those, that's fine. That's generally what I do with right wing sources. Then I can do the analysis for myself and not force people to wade through hyperbolic and partisan spin.

Yeah, no kidding. But they LINK to the original sources, so people are free to analyze them themselves and draw different conclusions.

It's as simple as that.

And yeah, they have a spin. I never once denied that. But a spin along with links to primary sources isn't the worst thing on earth. I personally try to avoid ridiculously biased news aggregators, but I know they exist, and some are definitely less ethical than others.

Which was the original topic of this thread (I think).

 

[turingtest]

...
ETA - I think there's a difference between bias and lies. There's some overlap, sure, but that Venn diagram is by no means an eclipse.

Doing a little quote mining of my own- that last little bit is pure pithy gold. Nommed.

 

[eerok]

Right wing watch is infamous for cherry picking nonsense and presenting it without context for the sole purpose of stirring up the internet outrage machine, and this is another classic example, taken (of course) to the next level by an incendiary headline about "fantasizing" about rape and murder.

Your drama is dramatic. Have you realized yet that the headline that sets you on fire doesn't actually exist? There's no mention of "fantasizing," only of "hypothesizing," which is a fair description, since that's exactly what he did.

Of course the extreme right wing are crazy, and of course they should be watched. Conveniently we have Right Wing Watch to help us do that. Seems like a public service to me.

If you think the weird and hateful nuts they report on are not weird and hateful nuts, then I'd have to disagree.

 

[sunmaster14]

Your drama is dramatic. Have you realized yet that the headline that sets you on fire doesn't actually exist? There's no mention of "fantasizing," only of "hypothesizing," which is a fair description, since that's exactly what he did.

Of course the extreme right wing are crazy, and of course they should be watched. Conveniently we have Right Wing Watch to help us do that. Seems like a public service to me.

I disagree. I think these sites do more harm than good in that they ratchet up availability biases to 11. You can see the problem manifest itself here. In a forum supposedly devoted to skepticism you see that the posters who indulge in these sites generalize Republicans or conservatives as either evil or moronic, or both, and often with the approval of the peanut gallery. Even if causality runs the other way, i.e. the people who already hate Republicans qua Republicans seek out these sites to indulge their hate, it's still a harmful dynamic. Not only do these people sink lower into the abyss of addiction to masturbatory hate, which, although it provides immediate pleasure, probably leads to long-term depression, but it provides them material with which to proselytize and infect others.

If you think the weird and hateful nuts they report on are not weird and hateful nuts, then I'd have to disagree.

Yes, in many cases they have successfully identified weird and hateful nuts, or at least weird and hateful things that otherwise normal people have said by accident or in moments of weakness. But in a country of 315 million people, where video cameras and audio recorders abound, examples will be found daily by those with the time and inclination to look. The deeper meaning is nil.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your drama is dramatic. Have you realized yet that the headline that sets you on fire doesn't actually exist? There's no mention of "fantasizing," only of "hypothesizing," which is a fair description, since that's exactly what he did.

Of course the extreme right wing are crazy, and of course they should be watched. Conveniently we have Right Wing Watch to help us do that. Seems like a public service to me.

If you think the weird and hateful nuts they report on are not weird and hateful nuts, then I'd have to disagree.

Your comment about my drama is noted.

This thread is a split thread from another thread that used "fantasizing."

The remainder of your post is as uninformed as the first sentence.

 

[varwoche]

Oops, with 16.5 making such a big deal about "fantasize", I wrongly assumed it came from RWW.

Well 16.5, your homeopathic tea has been demoted to pure H20. Here we are in a thread about how awful RWW is, and no evidence has been produced. There's been plenty of opinion pulled from dark crevices; I'll give you credit for that much.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oops, with 16.5 making such a big deal about "fantasize", I wrongly assumed it came from RWW.

Well 16.5, your homeopathic tea has been demoted to pure H20. Here we are in a thread about how awful RWW is, and no evidence has been produced. There's been plenty of opinion pulled from dark crevices; I'll give you credit for that much.

well it is a good thing you are the judge and jury of such things

 

[12AX7]

The purpose of the thread is to discuss the liberal attack sites, which are simply the other side of the coin of the right wing side which so many here hold in disdain.

Heck, I understand that many people around here enjoy them. Good for them!

I just hope no one expects skeptics to take them seriously.

Then:

Well considering that the New York Times was the original source for the email scandal scoop, I think they are pretty reliable, don't you?

You do realize the NYT is held in conservative circles as a very liberal source, right? Look into it.

I am not sure I follow. I frequently cite the New York Times lately because they are at the forefront of breaking the Hillary Clinton emails scandal, for example.

If they are a liberal biased source, discussing the malfeasance of liberals, it would seem to make sense to cite them, no?

Really? You don't see what you're doing here?

Seriously?

Maybe it's me. Where's my vodka?

 

[The Big Dog]

Then:

You do realize the NYT is held in conservative circles as a very liberal source, right? Look into it.

Really? You don't see what you're doing here?

Seriously?

Maybe it's me. Where's my vodka?

Yes it is you. Seriously. I am citing a "liberal" source criticizing a liberal.

I trust that you can understand the difference, yes?

 

[12AX7]

Yes it is you. Seriously. I am citing a "liberal" source criticizing a liberal.
I trust that you can understand the difference, yes?

OK.

Take the following quote very slowly:

Ha, that is not my intent.

The purpose of the thread is to discuss the liberal attack sites, which are simply the other side of the coin of the right wing side which so many here hold in disdain.

Heck, I understand that many people around here enjoy them. Good for them!
I just hope no one expects skeptics to take them seriously.

 

[The Big Dog]

OK.

Take the following quote very slowly:

The New York Times is not a liberal attack cite like mm, rrw, etc.