Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Liberal media? What liberal media?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   7/23/2012, 6:38 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Never mind,what other reaction should I have expect from someone who also minimizes child molestation allegations like in the Zimmerman case. Sleep

[b]Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".
That attitude worked out real well for Penn State,didn't it? Not so much for the victims though. Evil or Very Mad It's people like you that allow these monsters to continue victimizing their prey.

Actually, I have nothing whatsoever to do with allowing “these monsters to continue victimizing their prey”. I said quite clearly:

happy jack wrote:
If it is shown that any laws were broken in this case, then Zimmerman should be charged and tried accordingly.

Now, are you finished making things up?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   7/23/2012, 8:22 pm

These pricks just can’t help lying, can they?
Hey, Artie, you should see if they’re hiring – you’d fit right in.




http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/holmes-mother-suggests-abc-news-mischaracterized-her-129835.html

Holmes's mother suggests ABC News mischaracterized her statement

Arlene Holmes, the mother of Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes, has suggested that ABC News mischaracterized her when it reported that her initial statement to the reporter, "you have the right person," was a reference to her son.
"This statement is to clarify a statement made by ABC media. I was awakened by a call from a reporter by ABC on July 20 about 5:45 in the morning. I did not know anything about a shooting in Aurora at that time," Holmes said in a statement this afternoon, read to the national press by attorney Lisa Damiani. "He asked if I was Arlene Holmes and if my son was James Holmes who lives in Aurora, Colorado. I answered yes, you have the right person. I was referring to myself."
"I asked him to tell me why he was calling and he told me about a shooting in Aurora," she continues. "He asked for a comment. I told him I could not comment because I did not know if the person he was talking about was my son, and I would need to find out."
In the first paragraph of its initial report on Friday, ABC News reported that it had identified the correct James Holmes because his mother "told ABC News her son was likely the alleged culprit, saying, 'You have the right person.'"
If Arlene Holmes' latest statement is true, it means that she did not tell ABC News her son was likely the alleged culprit, calling into question the reporting of a network that has already been marred by one inaccuracy.
In the very same article, published on Friday, ABC News initially suggested that the suspect might have connections to the Colorado Tea Party Patriots. The report, based off a single web profile of a man with the same name, was inaccurate. ABC News and one of the reporters, Brian Ross, later apologized for the "mistake" in a statement that now tops the very same article in questsion.
Sources tell POLITICO that on an editorial conference call this morning, ABC News SVP James Goldston said the network is taking steps to ensure that incorrect reports such as Ross's do not happen again.
A spokesperson with ABC News told POLITICO that it will address Arlene Holmes' statement in a forthcoming blog post later this afternoon.
UPDATE: ABC News is standing by its reporting and rebutting Arlene Holmes' claim in a new article about the family's decision to stand by its son:
[ABC News reporter Matthew] Mosk said today that he awoke Arlene Holmes and informed her that a man, he believed was her son had been arrested in Aurora and asked to confirm their relationship.
"You have to tell me what happened… You have to tell me what happened," the woman on the phone said, according to Mosk. Mosk said he told her that ABC News had learned the 24-year-old had been identified by police as the lone suspect in the mass killing in Aurora, Colo and that the details of the events were still taking shape.
"You have the right person," was her response, he said. "I need to call the police. I need to fly to Colorado."
Just prior to the press conference, Damiani contacted ABC News to determine whether there existed a recording of the pre-dawn conversation between Mosk and her client, according to Mosk.
One hour after learning there was no audio recording, Damiani held the conference and read Arlene Holmes' statement.
Mosk's version of events contradict those of Arlene Holmes, who claimed not to know about the shooting prior to stating, "You have the right person."
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   7/23/2012, 8:35 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Never mind,what other reaction should I have expect from someone who also minimizes child molestation allegations like in the Zimmerman case. Sleep

[b]Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".
That attitude worked out real well for Penn State,didn't it? Not so much for the victims though. Evil or Very Mad It's people like you that allow these monsters to continue victimizing their prey.

Actually, I have nothing whatsoever to do with allowing “these monsters to continue victimizing their prey”.
Now, are you finished making things up?

Your exact words:
happy jack wrote:

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   7/23/2012, 8:59 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
Your exact words:
happy jack wrote:

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".
If and/or when the "allegations" become "facts", then the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law. But for now, they remain "allegations", and no one should be punished for allegations made against them.
What are you having trouble understanding?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   7/23/2012, 9:16 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Your exact words:
happy jack wrote:

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".
If and/or when the "allegations" become "facts", then the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law. But for now, they remain "allegations", and no one should be punished for allegations made against them.
What are you having trouble understanding?
That's not what you said,is it? What you said is
happy jack wrote:

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
You still don't get it,do you? Allegations of child abuse are serious and should not be minimized. Doing so helps these monsters perpetrate their crimes by intimidating victims from coming forward and into believing that no one will take them seriously.

Why not just admit that you're wrong instead of trying to spin your way out of it?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   7/24/2012, 9:49 am

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Your exact words:
happy jack wrote:

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".
If and/or when the "allegations" become "facts", then the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law. But for now, they remain "allegations", and no one should be punished for allegations made against them.
What are you having trouble understanding?
That's not what you said,is it? What you said is
happy jack wrote:

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
You still don't get it,do you? Allegations of child abuse are serious and should not be minimized. Doing so helps these monsters perpetrate their crimes by intimidating victims from coming forward and into believing that no one will take them seriously.

Why not just admit that you're wrong instead of trying to spin your way out of it?

Child abuse is very serious and should not be minimized.
But allegations are not facts. Allegations should be investigated in order to determine whether or not they are factual, but they are, in and of themselves, not necessarily factual.
So I will not demand that someone be punished for merely having had allegations made against him.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   7/24/2012, 9:58 am

Quote :
Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
Hey, that's what Joe Pa did.
Quote :
Child abuse is very serious and should not be minimized....Allegations should be investigated
Good one
jack is starting to sound like Willard
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   7/24/2012, 6:57 pm

Dumbfux still haven't learned that blatant lying is counterproductive.




http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/abc-president-ross-report-hurts-coverage-129940.html

ABC President: Ross report hurts coverage

By DYLAN BYERS |
7/24/12 2:44 PM EDT

ABC News president Ben Sherwood told staff today that last Friday's incorrect report by Brian Ross detracts from the network's otherwise excellent coverage of the Colarado theater shooting, network sources tell POLITICO.
Sherwood's remarks, made on the network's daily editorial conference call, came the morning after Ross's report was picked up by late night comedians John Stewart and Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central, both of whom used Ross's erroneous suggestion of a Tea Party link to the Colorado theater shooting as fodder for their Monday night routines.
On Monday's conference call, ABC News SVP James Goldston also commended the staff for its work, noted the incorrect report, and said that the network was taking steps to ensure it did not happen again, sources told POLITICO yesterday.
A spokesperson with ABC News said the network does not comment on editorial conference calls.
In addition to Ross's report, ABC News now faces a conflicting claim from the mother of Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes. Arlene Holmes issued a statement yesterday alleging that ABC's Matthew Mosk mischaracterized her when he reported that she had identified her son as the alleged shooter. On Monday evening, ABC released a new article with details about Mosk's call to the mother and announced that it was standing by its initial report.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   5/27/2016, 9:10 am

Perhaps this lying twat should apply to NBC for a job editing 911 recordings.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/\\

Audiotape: Katie Couric documentary falsely depicts gun supporters as ‘idiots’
By Erik Wemple May 25

It looks as though Katie Couric stunned her interviewees. Knocked them out with a bombshell inquiry: “Let me ask you another question: If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Now check out the blank stares:



Nearly 10 seconds of silence, as if no one has an answer to Couric’s rather straightforward question. The scene comes from “Under the Gun,” a film written, produced and directed by Stephanie Soechtig and narrated by Couric, the global anchor for Yahoo News; Couric also serves as executive producer. The session depicted in the video above features Couric and members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a group whose motto is “Defending Your Right to Defend Yourself.”
And to hear the VCDL tell the story, those awkward seconds are a fabrication, a byproduct of deceptive editing. To prove the point, VCDL President Philip Van Cleave has released an audiotape of the session, which is available on the site of the Washington Free Beacon as part of a story by Stephen Gutowski. In that recording, the question from Couric is a bit different from the one in the video. She says, “If there are no background checks, how do you prevent — I know how you all are going to answer this, but I’m going to ask it anyway. If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from walking into, say, a licensed gun dealer and purchasing a gun?”
On the audiotape, a reply comes immediately from one of the VCDL members: “Well, one — if you’re not in jail, you should still have your basic rights.” More chatter follows.




In an interview with the Erik Wemple Blog, Van Cleave said, “My teeth fell out of my head when I saw that.” The result of the editing, he says, is that folks who view the documentary are “going to say these people are idiots. It affects all the gun owners.” Other scenes in the documentary, says Van Cleave, “accurately” represent the input of his fellow gun owners. But not the exchange on background checks. “This was beyond the pale.” Van Cleave says he has audio of the entire interview with Couric — a backstop against bogus editing that he learned from his dealings with the media. “I do that as a matter of course when I’m doing things like that,” says Van Cleave. “It has saved me a few times.”
After he saw the finished product, Van Cleave emailed his concerns to Kristin Lazure, a producer at Atlas Films. “Well, that was interesting. So a ‘balanced’ piece gives 15 minutes to the pro-gun side and 1-1/2 hours to the opposition? I had no idea that was the definition of ‘balanced,’ when I was approached about this.”
Then he bored into the integrity matter:
On the question where our members were asked, “So without background checks, how do you keep guns out of the hands of felons?”: it shows our members just sitting there and then one looking down. The editors merged some “b-roll” of our members sitting quietly between questions, followed by Katie asking the felon question. I have the audio of that entire interview and I know for an absolute fact that our members immediately jumped in to answer the question and did NOT just sit there quietly. To the person watching the video, it gave the intentionally false appearance of no one in our group having an answer. Am I supposed to think that is good journalism, Kristin? I hope that in your heart of hearts that you are at least thinking to yourself, “no, it is not.”
Here’s how Lazure handled that concern: “I’m truly sorry to hear you were disappointed with the final product. We knew when we set out to make a film on such a divisive issue that we weren’t going to make everybody happy. However, we have heard from many gun owners following our screenings and the television premiere who felt we gave the issue a balanced look and reflected their views accurately.” That response, of course, doesn’t address the issue raised by Van Cleave, which he noted forcefully in his reply: “It’s not a ‘feeling’ – the 8 seconds of silence from gun owners shown after the question about felons is inexcusable. Within 1 or 2 seconds members responded to that question – like I said I have the proof. That edit actually changed the answer members gave to the question. Worse, that deception was intentional.”
This brand of defensiveness appears widespread among those associated with the documentary. Moments ago, the film’s people released this statement from Soechtig:
“There are a wide range of views expressed in the film. My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.”
Here the Erik Wemple Blog stroke our gray beard and reflect: In the years we’ve covered and watched media organizations, we’ve scarcely seen a thinner, more weaselly excuse than the one in the block above. For starters, it appears to count as an admission that this segment of the documentary was edited. The artistic “pause” provides the viewer not a “moment to consider this important question”; it provides viewers a moment to lower their estimation of gun owners. That’s it. As far as the rest of the statement, adults in 2016 may no longer write the phrase “apologize if anyone felt that way” and preserve their standing as professionals. To compound matters, here’s the accompanying statement from Couric:
“I support Stephanie’s statement and am very proud of the film.”
That, from the Katie Couric of Yahoo News, of “CBS Evening News,” of “60 Minutes,” of the “Today” show and so on.
Many of those who sampled the discrepancy between the video and the audiotape were already enraged by the depiction of these gun owners. The statements from Soechtig and Couric will surely intensify the backlash, as well they should. An apology, retraction, re-editing, whatever it is that filmmakers do to make amends — all of it needs to happen here.


Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   5/27/2016, 9:31 am

happy jack wrote:
Perhaps this lying twat should apply to NBC for a job editing 911 recordings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/\\

Quote :
“This was an unnecessary mistake,” the individual told TheWrap. “It did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided,” he said, adding: “This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

http://www.thewrap.com/katie-couric-under-the-gun-documentary/

Love seeing you gun nuts getting all riled up about nothing. Katie Couric appreciates the free publicity you lunatics have provided.
Carry On cheers
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   5/27/2016, 11:06 am

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Perhaps this lying twat should apply to NBC for a job editing 911 recordings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/\\

Quote :
“This was an unnecessary mistake,” the individual told TheWrap. “It did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided,” he said, adding: “This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

http://www.thewrap.com/katie-couric-under-the-gun-documentary/

Love seeing you gun nuts getting all riled up about nothing. Katie Couric appreciates the free publicity you lunatics have provided.
Carry On cheers

Quote :
“This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

Yeah, it involves silence where there was originally no silence. This is deceptive journalism at its most blatant.
Can’t say that I’m surprised that you don’t see anything wrong with it, though.  Next to your usual dishonesty, almost anything appears legitimate.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   5/27/2016, 12:35 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Perhaps this lying twat should apply to NBC for a job editing 911 recordings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/\\

Quote :
“This was an unnecessary mistake,” the individual told TheWrap. “It did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided,” he said, adding: “This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

http://www.thewrap.com/katie-couric-under-the-gun-documentary/

Love seeing you gun nuts getting all riled up about nothing. Katie Couric appreciates the free publicity you lunatics have provided.
Carry On cheers

Quote :
“This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

Yeah, it involves silence where there was originally no silence. This is deceptive journalism at its most blatant.
Can’t say that I’m surprised that you don’t see anything wrong with it, though.  Next to your usual dishonesty, almost anything appears legitimate.

Yeah. Well I have to agree with you on this one, jack.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to call Katie a "twat," but the video was clearly deceptive.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   5/27/2016, 2:44 pm

happy jack wrote:

Can’t say that I’m surprised that you don’t see anything wrong with it, though.  Next to your usual dishonesty, almost anything appears legitimate.
[/b]
Says the troll who has no problem when wingnut right to lifers edit videos and lie about Planned Parenthood.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   5/28/2016, 12:29 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Can’t say that I’m surprised that you don’t see anything wrong with it, though.  Next to your usual dishonesty, almost anything appears legitimate.
Says the troll who has no problem when wingnut right to lifers edit videos and lie about Planned Parenthood.



For the record, Liar Boy, this is what I said about the Planned Parenthood video situation:

happy jack wrote:
 
I for one welcome this lawsuit. Watching the dismemberers trying to explain and justify the legal technicalities of using FedEx to ship baby heads on ice should be quite the eyeopener.  

happy jack wrote:
So, I say bring on the lawsuit and let these “fairy tales” become part of the court record.

happy jack wrote:
   
So, once again, I say bring it on.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   5/28/2016, 12:32 pm

Scorpion wrote:
   

Yeah. Well I have to agree with you on this one, jack.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to call Katie a "twat," but the video was clearly deceptive.



Oops! That was a typo; what I meant to call her was 'agenda whore'.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   5/28/2016, 1:39 pm

Of course, the far bigger issue is that the gun loving fanatics of America simply don't care to keep guns out of the hands of gang members, terrorists, and murderers.  Answer left in or out, the point is exactly the same. That terrorists know to take advantage of our laughably lax gun laws isn't an issue so long as it doesn't interfere with their masturbatory fetish for firearms.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   6/6/2016, 1:18 pm

‘Guns Everywhere’ Trolls Miss the Mark on Katie Couric Documentary

Quote :
We are gun owners, and we were forced to confront the infuriating truth that our daughter’s killer was able to build an arsenal for his slaughter simply by going online and ordering over 4,000 rounds of metal-piercing ammo, tear gas, body armor, and a 100-round magazine without even showing his driver’s license. We believe the easy accessibility of firearms in America played a critical role in our daughter’s death.

...

Again, we are gun owners; we believe in the Second Amendment right to own guns. We also believe, as Justice Scalia reasoned in the Heller decision, that the Second Amendment supports longstanding prohibitions on gun ownership by dangerous people, such as felons, fugitives, and the severely mentally ill; and that the Second Amendment also allows reasonable restrictions on carrying guns in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision undercuts the fallacious “guns everywhere” mentality pushed by the corporate gun lobby.

But some trolls spoon-fed on NRA propaganda don’t listen to reason, don’t respect the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and sometimes make up their own conspiracy theories and pretend they are factual.

...

And now I’m watching the same kind of conspiratorial nonsense and hyperbole flung at the filmmakers of Under the Gun, Katie Couric’s documentary film about gun violence, directed by Stephanie Soechtig. We appear in this film and find it to be fair-minded overall and factual about our experience, despite the controversy over an eight-second pause after Couric asked whether a terrorist or felon should be able to own guns. She has since posted the transcript of that exchange with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, in which one man ignored whether a terrorist should be able to buy guns, but responded, “If you’re a felon and you’ve done your time, you should have your rights.”

In our opinion, that eight-second pause saved the dignity of “guns everywhere” proponents. To us, it made them seem more human and thoughtful. After listening to the tape, we were not surprised to hear the NRA bumper sticker mythology that they regurgitated in response.

We do find it amusing that people who believe the big lie “more guns make us safer” had such a huge problem with an eight-second pause that kept them from making mythological statements that we could refute with the facts and data from years of research from respected researchers. The truth is the filmmakers didn’t have to edit Under the Gun to make “guns everywhere” proponents look silly. They do that on their own every day! The filmmakers could easily have made caricatures out of them, but they didn’t. They tried to offer viewers a look at multiple varied, nuanced and opposing perspectives on the debate.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Liberal media? What liberal media?   

Back to top Go down
 
Liberal media? What liberal media?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: