home

Misinformed

Captain Louis Renault: What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?
Rick Blaine: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Captain Louis Renault: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert!
Rick Blaine: I was misinformed.

So Jon Stewart said that Fox News viewers were the most misinformed. The new "fair and balanced" "fact checker" Politifact said that was false, Fox News viewers were not the most "ill-informed." Yes, "misinformed" and "ill-informed" do not mean the same thing. See Media Matters on the success of the Fox News misinformation mission.

Moral of the story? "Fact checkers" are hacks too. Politifact is just the latest. Problem is people like to cite to "fact checkers" when they say what they like. Solution? Stop citing to "fact checkers."

Speaking for me only

< Reaping What They Sowed: Americans Believe Cutting Spending Will Create Jobs | New Jobless Claims: 429K >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Stewart's response to Politifact and Fox (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 07:49:32 AM EST
    Isn't the correct name for the (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by observed on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:49:52 AM EST
    fact-checking industry "Pravda"?
    Isvestia relies on Pravda to get the facts right.

    "Doktor, y menia vzhopu gazeta!"
    "Pravda?"
    "Nyet, Isvestia".

    Round & round (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    Sometimes I think AAA & Slado are right. When the weight of evidence finally overwhelms them, they throw up their hands and say, "o.k, o.k, we're stupid, but so are you." "this one is Right, and that one is Left."

    The thing that almost everyone overlooks, however, is the false notions inherent in that statement. Its not about "Left & Right," its about truth & nonsense. If one side is correct, its correct. Period. (What do mean, "you got to admit the msm leans left?" Who cares how they "lean?" Are they telling the truth??)

    The reason the Limbaugh/Fox DNA-impersonating-Humans have had so much success in shaping policy is because they've been able to brand people into derogatory groups. If Obama discovered the cure for Cancer tomorrow, Glenn Beck would dismiss it, "what do you expect, he's a Liberal." The groveling lap dog followers have been so trained in "group think" that they're incapable of cognitive deduction and would respond with, "Oh, a Libruhl, thought so, screw him."

    My god, man, I just have to chuckle reading these posts, and watching people who know  better trying to convince those who have had the "convince-able" gene ripped from their brains by Roger Ailes about what reality is.

    The fact that many here haven't learned this lesson is no great shakes. The fact that Obama hasn't.....Big, big shakes.

    heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:58:23 PM EST
    The reason the Limbaugh/Fox DNA-impersonating-Humans have had so much success in shaping policy is because they've been able to brand people into derogatory groups. If Obama discovered the cure for Cancer tomorrow, Glenn Beck would dismiss it, "what do you expect, he's a Liberal." The groveling lap dog followers have been so trained in "group think" that they're incapable of cognitive deduction and would respond with, "Oh, a Libruhl, thought so, screw him."

    Before your hypothesis can be checked someone in the groups to be denigrated must do something worth trying to deflect.

    Parent

    The reason Fox viewers are more whatever (1.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:47:27 PM EST
    is there are 10 times as many fox viewers as anybody else so of course they're dumber because they represent a wider spectrum.

    This argument is so tired.

    Stewart was backed into a corner by Wallace and went with the stupid argument which is the last resort in a debate when you're losing.

    Stewart couldn't admit the obvious.  That the MSM is liberally biased.

    Wallace simply asked him to acknowledge that if Fox is biased one way then other media outlets are biased the other.

    It's just as dumb for me to say Fox is fair and balanced as it was for Stewart to deny the obvious.

    Some on this site might think the MSM isn't biased enough but they obviously lean left.

    Once he couldn't concede that point the interview totally broke down and he resorted to Fox viewers are stupid.

    So what?  

    what alternate reality (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 06:45:06 PM EST
    are you living in? the MSM is "liberally biased"? i think not. this would be the same "liberally biased" MSM that supported both the invasion of afghanistan & iraq? that "liberally biased" MSM?

    pretty lame try.

    Parent

    Gee, and here I thought (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 07:06:16 PM EST
    Bush tricked them and now you claim they are not biased towards the Left so does that mean that Bush didn't trick them or that they only lean a little bit when all the Demo leadership wants something they don't really want even though they know that Bush tricked them.

    Excuse me. I need another drink.....of water.

    Parent

    Wow - just read that first sentence ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    ... three times - still makes no sense.

    You sure it's water?

    Parent

    Could be laughing gas if you are (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:54:47 PM EST
    gonna try and make a point.

    Parent
    Second of all that link you posted BTD (1.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    is a partisan hack job as well.

    Hard for partisan hacks to claim partisan hacking when they are hacks themselves.

    This whole post is silly.  Although enjoyable.

    What is exactly are we arguing about here?  That Stewart ( a liberal) thinks Fox viewers who are mostly conservative are misinformed?  shocker.

    Must mean he's right.

    Parent

    But, but (none / 0) (#6)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    Wallace simply asked him to acknowledge that if Fox is biased one way then other media outlets are biased the other.

    I thought Fox was supposed to be 'Fair & Balanced'

    Interesting that Wallace admitted Fox is not F & B.

    Parent

    I think Wallace is part of the (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 07:08:55 PM EST
     "opinion" side.

    As opposed to the "news" side.

    Doesn't everyone know that?

    Parent

    He does interviews (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 07:24:40 PM EST
    don't know if he makes commentary.

    Anyway he was speaking on behalf of Fox News not Chris Wallace.

    Parent

    Interviews are commentary by the (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:01:16 AM EST
    fact that the questions control the content.

    Parent
    So the "commentary" side ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:03:50 PM EST
    ... of Faux news are those shows where they have interviews/ask questions, and the "news" side are the shows where they ask no questions?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Quit putting words in my mouth (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    I didn't say that.

    You know I didn't say that.

    All interviews are commentaries because the interviewer can ask the questions they want. That takes it out of being news.

    On the other hand, all of the cable news and some of the over the air networks have commentary political/cultural programs. O'Reilly, Hannity, Joe In the Morning, 60 Minutes, etc...

    So called hard news programs can be biased in what they report vs what they don't report as well as an emphasis.

    A example comes to mind of reporting that a crime was committed by a black man when the race has nothing to do with the crime. That's bias.

    Parent

    Soooooo .... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    1.  Interviewers control the questions, therefore
    2.  All interviews are commentaries, and
    3.  Commentaries are "part of the opinion side", therefore
    4.  All shows that have interviews are "part of the opinion side", as opposed to the "news side".

    Guess they should change the name of Wallace's show to "Fox 'Part of the Opinion Side" Sunday".

    Heh.

    Parent

    And what the (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 08:56:40 PM EST
    person being interview says may be news.

    I do hope this isn't too complicated for you.

    Parent

    "Complicated"? Nahhhh ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 09:09:36 PM EST
    Convoluted?

    Oh, yeah ...

    Funny, too.

    Parent

    So......Fox viewers aren't dumb (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    It is just that more dumb viewers watch Fox. OK, I agree.

    What pray tell was the point of Wallace spending five minutes proving Stewart is on Comedy Central with some other comedy shows....at the same time arguing with Stewart that he is not 'just a comedian'?

    And Wallace is the smart guy at Fox?

    Parent

    That would be O'Reilly (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    ;-)

    I mean, just ask him.

    Parent

    the media are (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:07:02 AM EST
    Supposed to check facts themselves.

    Too (none / 0) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 04:39:21 PM EST
    many research people laid off to allow massive salaries for anchors.

    MSM is entertainment oriented.  Whatever gets the ratings.

    Fox is different - propaganda.

    Parent