 |
I find it hard to believe that Media Matters ,being the nit-pickers they are would shy away from taking on Politico over a misquote.
BTW , if what Politico says is true ,then Media Matters come close to criminal 'Tortious Interference' in Fox's business.
So now I call on the Holder Justice Dept to investigate that charge ,and the IRA to investigate violations of the provisions of being a charitable organization under the provisions that allow them to continue to be a 501(C)(3) organization.
Technically, perhaps not. But realistically, absolutely. Media Matters would not as tom said, "shy away from taking on Politico over a misquote."Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Fox is their primary focus, anyone can research their work.Quote:
Please expand on," MM' body of work supports this claim" I came in on the middle of the debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I am not sure what your first sentence is saying. It doesn't seem to say anything. But then again I don't live in the real world.
Again, if you are suggesting Media Matters history is evidence for the quote being accurate then I have already covered this argument.
Tut
Let's put it this way... as I already demonstrated ,Media Matters has often called out other outlets on lesser pretext than a charge against their founder .If he is being misquoted ,I'm sure MM will make as big a case as possible . Politico as a media outlet is as credible as they come .
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Based on the what you have said above Politico's claims are at best probable.
As I said before, the onus is on the person(s) who puts forward the accusations to come up with the proof. In this case it doesn't work like a court of law (innocent until proven guilty). 'Probable' still remains in the realm of theory.
If someone were top come up with some corroborating evidence then that is fine- problem solved. Until that happens it is still a theory.
Tut
Really ? How often do you read a bi-line in the print press where there is no corraborative sourcing ? Often you'll get some nonsense like "a senior adminstration official' said..... .
In this case Politico says Brock stated his plan openly in an interview ,and even showed them the planning memo.
I just checked Media Matters web site. They have done nothing regarding a denial. Now this is a web site that nit-picks to death any story in an attempt to disclose right wing bias ,and yet has said nothing about the Politico report .
Would you like to address my charge that what Media Matters is engaging in is tortious interference in FOX business ,and is also violating the tax code ?
Anyway FOX cable broadcast and all cable broadcasts facve much bigger challenges than MM. They face competition from the Internet that they don't have an answer for .Quote:
Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor.
Wow, the breath of research at http://mediamatters.org/ is astounding, thanks for letting me know about that site tom. It truly exposed the way Fox distorts the news. I urge everyone to check out the site and to even sign up, I am today.
Where is their denial of the Politico story ?
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
As far as corroborating source is concerned I realize that we get the usual line, " A senior officer said...."But I don't think it is too hard to do the research in order to verify the content of a story. The problem arises when we use just one source and say that it is reliable. No source is totally reliable. There is always the element of 'lazy journalism' on both sides of politics.
On this basis I don't see the point of you referring to only one source. No matter how reliable this source is. All sources need verification. For example, Politico says, Brock stated his plan openly... " I think you have undermined your argument in your first paragraph.
As far as lack of denial on the part of MM is concerned, my original argument still stands.
As far as "tortious interference" is concerned I don't have a comment on that because I have not looked into that particular matter. But I can if you like.
Tut
Hi Tom.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If there is no denial then it must be true.
You don't see a problem with that?
Tut
Fox News has not denied any of the hundreds of exposés from Media Matters therefore all Media Matters stories are true. That's quite a track record of Fox mangling news stories to suit their conservative bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I just picked a video clip at random from NK's link to Media Matters.
Glen Beck says:
There is a story today out of New Hampshire, and they have the supreme court. I don't have it- shoot, I left it in the other rooms.
Obviously his first sentence is nonsensical. What he seems to be saying is that the information I have about the court case is in the other room so I will give you what I know off the top of may head.
In other words, if the information I gave you is inaccurate then this is irrelevant. "I am just putting it out there".
Tut
And ? It is no secret that Beck ,Hannity ,and O'Reilly do opinion based shows .
I've yet to hear anyone address my contention that MM violates the law in 2 separate instances.
Because they don't. I find it hard to believe that you know more than the Justice Department. If you do then you're wasting your life here. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Holder Justice Dept would have to choose to pursue it. I think FOX should seek a law suit against them for tortious interference.
Would love to be in the room during discovery .
Considering it has a cabal of lawyers (they went after a tiny little website and they don't seem to be particularly too bright) and the immense resources of News Corp it's a wonder they haven't done so isn't it. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Never have they had evidence of direct interference in their business practice before. Brock disclosed a campaign to undermine Fox ,pressuring advertisers etc.
The other 2 instances you cite were free speech issues.
The C-3 status is a slam dunk,except we know the Obama IRS will not go after them for clear violations of their tax status.
Apparently that is not a fact. BTW people and companies try to undermine businesses everyday, make sure you get out there and post your displeasure of their practices!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
OMG they are underming a business!!!!!
Tortious interference is an actionable offense in court .
Typical examples
1.Tortious interference of business.- When false claims and accusations are made against a business or an individual's reputation in order to drive business away.
2.Tortious interference of contract.- When an individual uses "tort" (a wrongful act) to come in between two parties mutual contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
Brock is threatening FOX by going after their advertisers . He admitted it.
Haha, they went after a tiny little website but not after a website who's sole purpose is the focus on them. It's obvious MM is doing nothing wrong - armchair lawyer is not your thing (I know 'cause I married one). :)
I think it's slam dunk . They haven't gone after MM before because MM never before declared it's sole purpose is to take down FOX .
Since MM hasn't declared that then there is no case. And just saying "my purpose is to take you down" is not actionable.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
He didn't just say it . He showed Politico the internal memo . I'd tie them up in court ,get their emails and all internal correspondence in discovery. Let's see how long their resources last against News Corp .
Maybe Soros will give them another 'charitable ' contribution .
That just shows how vindinctive your ilk is. As Tut demonstrated with steve, logic plays no part in your thinking, you just want the other side to "hurt'. The world needs less people like that, wasting resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Lol ,that seems to be the sole rational existence to MMQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So all news reporting is simply theoretical until someone shows the video, transcript or whatever?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
I guess you're just way too smart for me, dude. I don't find it necessary to over-think and over-analyze everything. When I read an alleged quote by someone who is in the business of "watching" the media, I believe it to be true until they object. That is only logical.
Tut was completely illogical in my opinion, I'm the only one who has presented any real evidence thus far, you two are basing your 'logic' on a lack of evidence to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
As for your absurd accusation that I 'just want the other side to "hurt,"' where's the proof?
Don't you see the important work that MM is doing with your tax dollar ? Their investigators uncovered a memo that references Obama to "socialism, liberalism, Marxism "... ooooooooohhhh!! Breaking News!!
Yep, they do fine work. I can't think of a better way to spend my tax dollars.
Hello steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
YOUR tax dollars?? I thought right wingers believed that if you made it, it was YOURS - not the governments'. You sound like you believe they're spending YOUR money...
If that's so, can I complain about the way your church spends ITS money?? Let me know, cause I WILL.
excon
I'm all in favor of removing the tax break for churches. I think that violates the establishment clause.
When my church violates its tax status feel free to complain all you want.
Hello again, steve:
What makes you think that Media Matters broke theirs?
excon
I believe tom already answered that one.
More importantly, do we have a league yet?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yeah, I missed that part of my own stinkin thread. Getting old, you know.
Yes, we have a league. Haven't you been getting my emails? Draft is TONIGHT at 9 eastern, if I can get the time. But, I just found out we can wait till the middle of April - not that we want to, but I thought we were rushed.
excon
I thought it was the 30th. Either way I'll probably have to set mine to autodraft and hope for the best. Usually works well for tom. Somehow every year he gets Peyton Manning and never shows up for the draft.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Lol... It's how you rearrange the players . (about to give up one of my secrets)
Go to your team and open
Edit Pre-Draft Player Rankings
You can move them up or down depending on your preference and hope no one picks them first .
On Edit Auto strategy you can prioritize by position or stats .
I didn't select Manning last year . I moved Brees up .
I know how to rearrange the draft order, I'm just clueless about fantasy MLB. I'll learn though. :)
The trick in Rotisserie is that it's unusual that you are the best in all the stats . If you are weak in one you can either strengthen your team in that or try to get stronger in other stats.
The biggest challenge is that stats compile daily so you have to keep up moving players in and out of the lineup ;especially pitchers.
And sometimes you get a liberal on Fox that calls other libs on their BS...
Kirsten Powers Takes On Bill Maher: His Comments On Bachmann, Palin Are Degrading To ‘All Women'
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:53 AM. |