[speechlesstx]

Can you link us to the actual interview where he says "guerrilla warfare and sabotage"? Thanks.

That would be up to Politico and Media Matters, so what's your point, is Media Matters denying Politicos claims? If Politico is quoting them accurately with no objection from Media Matters, you have no point.

[NeedKarma]

That would be up to Politico and Media Matters, so what's your point, is Media Matters denying Politicos claims? If Politico is quoting them accurately with no objection from Media Matters, you have no point.

Politico article is the only thing being used as evidence that he said such a thing, doesn't look right. Have you researched the veracity of their claims or quotes?

[excon]

And that would be a business decision, not a question of ethics.

Hello again, Steve:

I didn't say anything about ethics.. I was talking about their head being in the clouds... See my thread about the Koch brothers heads being in the stratosphere.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Politico article is the only thing being used as evidence that he said such a thing, doesn't look right. Have you researched the veracity of their claims or quotes?

Have you? You're just trying to distract. If you honestly think if Politico misquoted them with those quotes that Media Matters isn't going to react, you're the one with your head in the clouds. Until they do, until they ask for a retraction I will believe Politico quoted them correctly, that they are engaging in “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. Prove me wrong.

[NeedKarma]

Have you?

Yea I did. I googled "David Brock" + "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" + "interview" and every single article references the Politico article verbatim. It's impossible to find this 'damning' interview anywhere. That doesn't concern you?

[speechlesstx]

I didn't say anything about ethics.. I was talking about their head being in the clouds... See my thread about the Koch brothers heads being in the stratosphere.

Nope, you were offering a possible reason to fire someone.

[speechlesstx]

Yea I did. I googled "David Brock" + "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" + "interview" and every single article references the Politico article verbatim. It's impossible to find this 'damning' interview anywhere. That doesn't concern you?

No. Politico is the source, why should that concern me? Brock talks to Politico, Politico reports it. That's how news works... it's called an exclusive.

[tomder55]

And here I thought 501(C)(3) organizations were barred from partisan political activity... not that I think the IRS or the Holder Justice Dept will do anything about it.

[NeedKarma]

No. Politico is the source, why should that concern me? Brock talks to Politico, Politico reports it. That's how news works...it's called an exclusive.

Interesting that they had an exclusive interview and don't bother publishing the transcript like all other sites do?

Well if Fox is fair and balanced then they have nothing to worry about.

[tomder55]

Hello again, Steve:

For losing half your audience, perhaps?

excon

Doesn't surprise me that Beck ,a one trick pony,is losing audience.

Also not surprising that cable news is having the same problem as other main stream news sources. People know how to get their own news on the web ,and that is hurting both broadcast and print .
Overview | State of the Media

[speechlesstx]

Interesting that they had an exclusive interview and don't bother publishing the transcript like all other sites do?

All other sites? LOL, you're kidding right? I don't know ANY news organization that publishes EVERY transcript of their interviews.

If a "media watchdog" isn't complaining of being misrepresented by the media, that's plenty proof that Politico was accurate.

Well if Fox is fair and balanced then they have nothing to worry about.

I think they'll welcome the war.

[NeedKarma]

All other sites? LOL, you're kidding right? I don't know ANY news organization that publishes EVERY transcript of their interviews.

No but if they base a sensationalistic article on it you think they would considering it's the ONLY source.

Many places do this:

Transcript of the CBC News interview with Obama - Canada - CBC News
News Headlines
Transcript: TIME Interview with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange - TIME
Full Transcript: NPR Interview with President Bush : NPR

If a "media watchdog" isn't complaining of being misrepresented by the media, that's plenty proof that Politico was accurate.

That's your yardstick? If they don't get called on it then it's true? We've come full circle, this thinking is why you defend Fox News.

[speechlesstx]

No but if they base a sensationalistic article on it you think they would considering it's the ONLY source.

There is nothing "sensationalistic" about the article, especially considering Media Matters' standard of 'journalism.'

That's your yardstick? If they don't get called on it then it's true? We've come full circle, this thinking is why you defend Fox News.

Uh, yeah. What exactly are you not getting? The story is about said "media watchdog," you don't think they'd be watching a story about an interview with their own chief? LOL!

[tomder55]

Politico is not what you would call one of those right wing web sites. Oh Media Matters made a big stink about Politico before. Why ? Because President Bush said he liked the publication.
But Media Matters get in a snit whenever a conservative voice gets a forum.They even attacked CNN for hiring RedState's Erick Erickson last year.

Media Matters exists to search the world ,uncover any snippet of what they perceive to be 'right wing bias'. Good for them. Conservatives have similar organizations like Media Research Center .

Of course the big difference is that MRC doesn't cloak itself as some kind of non-profit charity organization, ripping off the taxpayers of America like Media Matters does.
Remove their tax free status and let them do their job in the open market. They can say and do all they want to FOX if it's not on my dime .

[TUT317]

All other sites? LOL, you're kidding right? I don't know ANY news organization that publishes EVERY transcript of their interviews.

If a "media watchdog" isn't complaining of being misrepresented by the media, that's plenty proof that Politico was accurate.

Actually, it is no proof. The absence of a certain type of evidence doesn't mean politico was accurate.

This is also related a situational fallacy of assuming the Politico article is true until someone proves it false.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

Actually, it is no proof. The absence of a certain type of evidence doesn't mean politico was accurate.

This is also related a situational fallacy of assuming the Politico article is true until someone proves it false.

Tut, I don't give a rat's you know about "situational fallacies" and such, I live in the real world. In the real world if Politico is misquoting Brock, the founder of Media Matters - a "media watchdog" - Media Matters would be defending itself.

The only issue here is Needkarma's annoying habit of playing the role of arbiter of approved sources. The only evidence on the table states that MM has declared a campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. MM's body of work supports this claim.

Where is the evidence against this? Thus far there is none.

[NeedKarma]

Tut, I don't give a rat's you know about "situational fallacies" and such, I live in the real world.

Hahaha... I love it when you out yourself. :)

[NeedKarma]

The only issue here is Needkarma's annoying habit of playing the role of arbiter of approved sources.

I was only asking for evidence of something that was posted. I often dig deeper and question articles such as these when they make outlandish claims when they are the only source. You seem to take it as a personal affront.

[speechlesstx]

Hahaha...I love it when you out yourself. :)

You're a very confused man.

[TUT317]

Tut, I don't give a rat's you know about "situational fallacies" and such, I live in the real world. In the real world if Politico is misquoting Brock, the founder of Media Matters - a "media watchdog" - Media Matters would be defending itself.

The only issue here is Needkarma's annoying habit of playing the role of arbiter of approved sources. The only evidence on the table states that MM has declared a campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. MM's body of work supports this claim.

Where is the evidence against this? Thus far there is none.

Hi Speech,


If Politico is misquoting Brock and Media Matters then Media matters would defend itself.

All I am saying is (in this or any other world) is here could be any number of reasons Media matters hasn't defended itself.

You claim that Media matters hasn't defended itself because the quotes are accurate is quite possible. But it is not evidence to support your claim.


Please expand on," MM' body of work supports this claim" I came in on the middle of the debate.

Tut