14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans

[Trident1]

so, should we surmise that people are okay with folks lying to them, so long as its what they want to hear, correct?

I just want to be sure I understand everyone's position

Both sides will want to listen to their own side's pulpit. I repeat both sides.

 

[mindofmindcrime]

when will people realize that ALL national "news" agencies attempt to brainwash people? MSNBC, CNN, NPR... every damn one of them does it...

 

[ragincaucasian]

Both sides will want to listen to their own side's pulpit. I repeat both sides.

and you're okay with it?

what if you don't have a 'side'?
i don't find CNN, MSNBC, NBC, or BOOMERANG to represent "my side"
The closest I can find is Democracy Now.

when will people realize that ALL national "news" agencies attempt to brainwash people? MSNBC, CNN, NPR... every damn one of them does it...

so what are we gonna do about it?

 

[Juliuscaesar]

Pretty much every news source is biased one way or the other.CBS and CNN are lesser versions of MSNBC, but still cousins.Fox is moderate when compared to the Liberal media since they are more towards the center.

Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman Schultz, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Anthony Weiner, Barrack Obama, and the rest of the Liberals in Congress sicken me, but I am always reassured with the knowledge that they will hang themselves with their words sooner or later, all you need to do is let them talk.

 

[Hot Mega]

Both sides will want to listen to their own side's pulpit. I repeat both sides.

Nonsense.

While there are most certainly truth be damned progressives no mainstream media caters to that mentality. And most reasonable, sensible people don't like to be mislead nor do they keep feeding at the trough misleading them once they find out the truth of the intent.

Faux caters to truth be damners... Faux is the only network who's 'followers' trot out panned excuses for their intentional chicanery by persistently and incorrectly trying to paint Faux as the simple opposite to the other outlets.

Faux is not.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

It ain't working...



Nothing in this posts refers to O'Reilly.

.

Oh...christ...

O'Reilly/Fox, Fox/O'Reilly. Are you really this god damn dense?

All you've done is mischaracterize me throughout the entire thread. I am done with you and this thread and trying to infiltrate your head. Have fun on your little charade trying to troll people into your deluded thought process. :wave2:

 

[cindy CD/TV]

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans Post

Whew...anyone have a match??:flame:

Again, Faux is purely and simply in the entertainment business and their audience is the so called conservative. They're in the entertainment business cloaked in the facade of serious news.


They (and those they entertain) have invested years creating the living myth that media is overtly biased using anecdotes and isolated incidents to the effect that it becomes their ubiquitous cover in practicing it.

What happens from this? Whenever Faux is caught spinning, ginning or outright misleading...their audience falls back on the criticism of mainstream media...They WANT the debate over 'news' to digress into the your spin versus our spin.

Point being is they (their audience) don't even want Faux in many cases to give them the straight dope...they expect Faux to create a cover or at minimum a spin.

That is pathetic and if you can't see the numbskullery in that then...well...uh..:o

Allow me to repost my earlier statement because CLEARLY you didn't read past the first line ... typical liberal sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming loudly for an explanation.

Originally Posted by cindy CD/TV
This is exactly the kind of crap that comes out of the mouth of someone who watches a network that gets its ass kicked in the ratings month after month by Fox. All you're doing is reciting the crap that those other networks are saying because they've been getting killed for years. Let me guess ... you watch MSBC, right? Fox gets ripped for being biased, but no one says shit about the official news network for the Democratic party aka MSNBC. So, I assume you get your "serious enlightenment" by reading The Huffington Post and watching Bill Maher's show and Michael Moore movies (oh, sorry, I meant to say "documentaries"). I'm guessing you've never actually watched FoxNews at all have you -- at least beyond the out-of-context clips shown by Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? I watch both Fox and CNN 50-50, and 90 percent of the actual news reported on their respective NEWSCASTS are exactly the same thing. So where's the faux news coming from if they're essentially reporting the same things? The only difference between the networks is the OPINION shows. Trust me, Sean Hannity doesn't speak for moderate conservatives. Neither does Glenn Beck. O'Reilly, for all his bombast, is actually pretty even-handed and spends half his time defending Obama and his incompetence. Talking out of your ass like this just means YOUR skull is as numb as scar tissue.

I noticed that you didn't deny any of this. Because I'm right. Stop being a schill for the left and use your brain for a minute. Just what fucking spin and distortions are you referring to? They're reporting the same news (see the operative word here: NEWS) that CNN does. The same NEWS. If Fox is making shit up, then CNN is making up the same shit. Remember I said NEWS. Not OPINION. You seem to be having a real hard time wrapping your feeble liberal brain around this distinction. Sean Hannity has a one-hour show that is for arch conservatives, and there's no secret about it. That is NOT the sum total of FoxNews. Hell, I don't watch his crap. Rush Limbaugh (the fat prick) has ZERO presence on Fox. Glenn Beck is gone. What about Shepard Smith or Chris Wallace or Brit Hume, three highly respected men in their field? Are they entertainers? Hell, no. O'Reilly is an entertainer? Really. Really? At least O'Rielly donates money from his website to helping our troops. Where does Bill Maher put his money? M. Moore makes a movie ripping capitalism but then refuses to give away any of the profits -- and THEN gets into a legal fight because he didn't make enough money from the deal. He's a fat, disgusting hypocrite fucking asshole. And YOU are talking completely out of your ass about liberal bias. Some news outlets (both broadcast and print) actually admitted being in the tank for Obama in 2008. They ADMITTED it! They admitted they refused to run negative stories about Obama or ask tough questions but did the opposite with McCain. Google it, if you have the balls to stare reality in the face.

Hotmega's BS:

Now for Reagan's numbers;

Unemployment: Jan 1981 - 7.5 pct. / June 1983 - 10.1 pct. Change = up 35%

National Debt: 1981 - $998B / 1983 1.377T....Change = up 38%

Where's the outrage????

--------------------------------------

Ok, first what were Regan's numbers in 1984? Mention those, too. He turned things around quite a bit and he won one of the most lopsided presidential elections in history. That's why there's no outrage, d-bag.

And since we're going back to dredge up shit from the beginning of time, try this on: World War I --Woodrow Wilson; World War II -- FDR; Korean War/China going Communist/Start of the Cold War -- Harry Truman; Bay of Pigs fiasco/Berlin Wall going up -- JFK; Vietnam (full involvement) -- LBJ.

Ending Korean War -- Dwight Esienhower (he had military advisers in Vietnam, yes, but let's face facts, he didn't send full combat divisions there either, so don't go there); Ending Vietnam/Detente with the Soviets/Recognizing Red China -- Nixon; Ending the Cold War -- Reagan & GHW Bush; Ending Iraq -- Not Obama; Ending Afghanistan -- Not Obama; Betraying Israel -- Obama; Starting Libya -- Obama; Not starting Iran -- Obama.

^ In the interest of full disclosure: Iraq -- GW Bush; Afghanistan -- GW Bush
Also forgot to mention: Bringing down Berlin Wall -- Reagan/GHW Bush

Dems make the messes, Repubs clean them up. No spin. History.

 

[ragincaucasian]

^^^you see the reality of the world through your television screen with your codified, one-dimensional interpretations. Its practically impossible to have a discussion when your views are so perverted from reality

 

[Trident1]

and you're okay with it?

As long as you know it's happening you can filter out what's bs.

Nonsense.

While there are most certainly truth be damned progressives no mainstream media caters to that mentality. And most reasonable, sensible people don't like to be mislead nor do they keep feeding at the trough misleading them once they find out the truth of the intent.

Faux caters to truth be damners... Faux is the only network who's 'followers' trot out panned excuses for their intentional chicanery by persistently and incorrectly trying to paint Faux as the simple opposite to the other outlets.

Faux is not.

Meg please give your bias spin machine a rest. It really looks like you're trolling at this point.

 

[cindy CD/TV]

^^^you see the reality of the world through your television screen with your codified, one-dimensional interpretations. Its practically impossible to have a discussion when your views are so perverted from reality


Oh please, don't stop there. Explain to me my "codified, one-dimensional interpretations." Where am I wrong? What did I say that's not true. You liberals play this word association game all the fucking time with the economy and WMDs. I guess it stings when the facts intrude into your peaceful little progressive bubble. Do you even understand those big words you were using? You want to have a historical debate pal? I'm game. I learned my history at Harvard University, I studied primary sources and conducted countless interviews with politicial thinkers and scholars. So go eff your own TV screen. My history I learned from BOOKS, you likely learned yours at Wikipedia. Let's roll.

 

[cindy CD/TV]

how is it that you cannot raise a single critique about one station without people firing off reactionary justifications?


"Hey a new study shows that Big Macs are the leading cause of testicular cancer"

responses...
"Fuck you! Whoppers taste like shit and once raped my daughter!"
"Big Macs are nutritious, this wacko study should examine Wendy's sea salt fries. THOSE are atrocious"
"Lets face it, fast food isn't good for you, but I'm sure all of them give you cancer"


we've turned these ideologies into religions, where we block out all views / facts that would discredit our gods

right to be prayin',
....has lost all its meaning
turn our opinions,
....into religion
we're killing each other...

Well when you have a thread devoted to saying that people aren't thinking for themselves and are being brainwashed by a cable TV station is fucking insulting beyond belief. It's like wrongly labeling someone a racist, which instantly sets off a thermonuclear explosion of "reactionary justifications." Jesus Christ ... I fail to see why you can't understand how this would piss someone off.
So, we have Fox on one side and ALL the other networks on the other, so therefore, there MUST be something really, really wrong with those people who are watching Fox and not one of the benevolent non-brainwashing networks. Geez, maybe those Fox people are just plain dumb, hell, maybe they're being *gasp* brainwashed. :sarcasm:

 

[ragincaucasian]

Well when you have a thread devoted to saying that people aren't thinking for themselves and are being brainwashed by a cable TV station is fucking insulting beyond belief. It's like wrongly labeling someone a racist,

except that it isn't conjecture.

The OP posted an article detailing specific tactics used by a 'news' outlet to pursue a particular narrative.

They routinely engage in all 14 methods on a daily basis. It is a formula for directing discourse.

There is a method for manipulating consumers / viewers / audience to push them into a particular path through Machiavellian means....You aren't denying this facet, and are actually justifying outright lying to people, so long as it serves your purpose. Wouldn't it be correct to assume that people that willfully participate in their own duping be rather 'stupid'?
x

Explain to me my "codified, one-dimensional interpretations." Where am I wrong?

For one, Reagan didn't dismantle the Soviet Union. http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=5438961
Neither were any of those ex-Presidents some single-entity monarch, willing events to unfold.
Secondly, is there a reason you are so emotionally tied to the winner of 'right' vs 'left'? Do you really see the other as an 'enemy'?
You haven't presented an assertion yet to your position / haven't offered one apologia or explanation of your position without first intentionally trying to personally insult a member who doesn't share your opinion. Is that really necessary?

 

[ragincaucasian]

As long as you know it's happening you can filter out what's bs.

so you're okay with it

How do you "filter out whats bs", if the very outlet designed to inform you is the very same outlet feeding you that bs?

If that outlet is feeding you bs, and "you know its happening"....why the fuck wouldn't you disqualify that outlet as a credible news source




.....VERY CONFUSED!

 

[pete rose]

anybody who still thinks fox news is a credible news source is LYING to themselves

here's some supplemental material for those who still think, in the 21st century, that the media is liberal.

 

[Facetious]

Re: 14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans


As compared to Alinsky's techniques used to brainwash the new, hopeful and progressive proletariats of 'merika....:1orglaugh

From the text: ''Rules for Radicals''

Opening page - Dedication





“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

Prologue

"The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, 'Burn the system down!' They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book."

1. The Purpose

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution." p.3

"Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing." p.6

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11


2. Of Means and Ends [Forget moral or ethical considerations]

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26

"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p.29

"The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...." p.34

"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time... Who, and how many will support the action?... If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly..." p.36

4.The Education of the Organizer

"To the organizer, imagination... is the dynamism that starts and sustains him in his whole life of action as an organizer. It ignites and feeds the force that drives him to organize for change....
"The organizer knows that the real action is in the reaction of the opposition. To realistically appraise and anticipate the probable reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify with them, too, in his imagination, and foresee their reactions to his actions....
"The organizers searching with a free and open mind void of certainty, hating dogma, finds laughter not just a way to maintain his sanity but also a key to understanding life."pp.74-75

"...the organizer must be able to split himself into two parts -- one part in the arena of action where he polarizes the issue to 100 to nothing, and helps to lead his forces into conflict, while the other part knows that when the time comes for negotiations that it really is only a 10 percent difference." p.78

"...the organizer is constantly creating new out of the old. He knows that all new ideas arise from conflict; [See Dialectic Process] that every time man as had a new idea it has been a challenge to the sacred ideas of the past and the present and inevitably a conflict has raged." p.79

5. Communication [Notice the emphasis on conflict, dialogue, relationships, etc. Team "service" is essential to building strong relationships through "common involvements"]



"And so the guided questioning goes on without anyone losing face or being left out of the decision-making. Every weakness of every proposed tactic is probed by questions.... Is this manipulation? Certainly...." p.88



"One of the factors that changes what you can and can't communicate is relationships. There are sensitive areas that one does not touch until there is a strong personal relationship based on common involvements. Otherwise the other party turns off and literally does not hear....

"Conversely, if you have a good relationship, he is very receptive.... For example, I have always believed that birth control and abortion are personal rights to be exercised by the individual. If, in my early days when I organized... neighborhood in Chicago, which was 95 per cent Roman Catholic, I had tried to communicate this, even through the experience of the residents, whose economic plight was aggravated by large families, that would have been the end of my relationship with the community. That instant I would have been stamped as an enemy of the church and all communication would have ceased.

"Some years later, after establishing solid relationships, I was free to talk about anything.... By then the argument was no longer limited to such questions as, 'How much longer do you think the Catholic Church can hang on to this archaic notion and still survive?' ...the subject and nature of the discussion would have been unthinkable without that solid relationship." pp.93-94



6. In the Beginning: The Process of Power [Notice the compromise needed to build the power base. Yet, since pragmatism has eroded all values, it's simply a matter of ends justifying means. It's not unlike churches that attract members through the world's entertainment -- then continue to soften or hide Truth in order to keep them happy and lure more. ]



"From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams... only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues.... Until he has those means and power instruments, his 'tactics' are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor Unions, corner gangs, or as individuals."

"Change comes from power, and power comes from organization." p.113

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116

Compare with this excerpts from “Group Decision and Social Change” by Kurt Lewin:

"A change toward a higher level of group performance is frequently short lived: after a “shot in the arm”, group life soon returns to the previous level. This indicates that it does not suffice to define the objective of a planned change in group performance as the reaching of a different level. Permanency of the new level, or permanency for a desired period, should be included in the objective. A successful change includes therefore three aspects:

UNFREEZING (if necessary) the present level...

MOVING to the new level . . . and

FREEZING group life on the new level."

"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises....
"The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict." p.117

"Process tells us how. Purpose tells us why. But in reality, it is academic to draw a line between them, they are part of a continuum.... Process is really purpose." p.122

7. Tactics

"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "Known as the 'father of modern American radicalism,' Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. ... Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work."

Notes from an article by Phyllis Schalfly titled "Alinski's Rules: Must Reading In Obama Era," posted at www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=318470857908277 (2-2-09)

"Alinsky's second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his 'tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends' is: 'you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.' He doesn't ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that 'Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.'...

"The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were:

ego ("reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God"),

curiosity (raising "questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern"),

irreverence ("nothing is sacred"; the organizer "detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality"),

imagination ("the fuel for the force that keeps an organizer organizing"),

a sense of humor ("the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule"), and an

organized personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only "as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved.'...

"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"

:1orglaugh

 

[Will E Worm]

CNN and MSNBC and the rest are all controled and by a few people.

 

[cindy CD/TV]

except that it isn't conjecture.

The OP posted an article detailing specific tactics used by a 'news' outlet to pursue a particular narrative.

They routinely engage in all 14 methods on a daily basis. It is a formula for directing discourse.

There is a method for manipulating consumers / viewers / audience to push them into a particular path through Machiavellian means....You aren't denying this facet, and are actually justifying outright lying to people, so long as it serves your purpose. Wouldn't it be correct to assume that people that willfully participate in their own duping be rather 'stupid'?
x

For one, Reagan didn't dismantle the Soviet Union. http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=5438961
Neither were any of those ex-Presidents some single-entity monarch, willing events to unfold.
Secondly, is there a reason you are so emotionally tied to the winner of 'right' vs 'left'? Do you really see the other as an 'enemy'?
You haven't presented an assertion yet to your position / haven't offered one apologia or explanation of your position without first intentionally trying to personally insult a member who doesn't share your opinion. Is that really necessary?

1) The OP posted an article whose credibility is highly questionable at best, and was contributed to by some people with a decidely leftist agenda -- some of them, like Paul Krugman, are in the very media that you say are "brainwashing" us. I guess you mean that only FoxNews is brainwashing its viewers. All the others are totally fair and impartial. :sarcasm: The article carries no weight because it assumes that we the viewers are so stupid and naive to let our TV control our own minds. Sounds very paranoid to me.

2) You haven't presented an assertion yet to your position / haven't offered one apologia or explanation of your position without first intentionally trying to personally insult a member who doesn't share your opinion. Is that really necessary? Yes it is, actually. The lefties here in this thread started the bomb-throwing. The insults were made against Fox viewers in this thread -- arrogant, belittling comments that I hear on FO all the time and I just had to jump in to help drown out some of the leftist noise. Go back and read the thread. Hot Mega fired the most stinging shots first, and I refused to sit here and let that shit fly without a response. I know a lot of smart, well-educated people who watch Fox and it galls me to hear people call them stupid just because of the TV channel they watch.

3) Do I have a stake in right vs left? Absolutely. I am a member of a tea party in New England -- the tea party is consistently labeled as racists, astro-turf, nuts, irrelevent by the leftwing media. And they're wrong on all counts. But being constantly branded as racists breeds an "us vs. them" attitude, absolutely. The racism attitude we encounter at every turn: Time Magazine, NY Times op-eds, NBC, MSNBC, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, the list goes on and on. Never, ever once has any tea party person that I know of gives a shit about race. It's about the government spending our country into oblivion, regardless of the political party in power. Right now it's democrats. Our opposition exists no matter who is in charge or what color their skin is. If Republicans don't cut the budget, we'll turn against them, too. There's nothing about propaganda in the fact that some people are tired of the government not listening to the people that voted for them. TV news doesn't have shit to do with that. The tea party movement began forming independently when GW Bush was still president and the Dems had just taken control of Congress -- and the tea party will be around long after the 2012 election.

4) Neither were any of those ex-Presidents some single-entity monarch, willing events to unfold. Yeah, no shit, sherlock. I was making a point how the peace-loving liberals always seem to be at the helm when the U.S. goes to war and the GOP successor is the one in charge when it ends -- facts the liberal media seems to never mention. But Reagan's policy of confronting and outspending the Soviet Union DID IN FACT contribute greatly to its collapse. That is indisputable. (And if you're going to quote something/someone to contradict me, please use a real source, not what someone in other FO post said for God's sake. ) Also indisputable is Obama continuing to bypass Congress to keep the U.S. involved in Libya's civil war. We have no business being there. Also a fact, Obama still hasn't pulled out of Afghanistan as promised -- aside from the token $33K that will be taken out in stages over the next year. If you like, we can explore each presidential example that I gave earlier in great detail.

 

[MILF Man]

You're just making shit up now

No, I'm not. It's amazing how quick the cease of these updates and tally numbers happened as soon as B.O. took office. It's as if there were no more military personnel killed in both wars. How many civilians has B.O. now killed? Where are these reports by CNN and CNN Headline News?

 

[ragincaucasian]

look at page 1 of the thread.
There isn't really a mention of people 'picking on FOX viewers', so the assumption that the thread was started to call people robots or idiots is imaginary.
Folks getting defensive and pointing to positive stories about Obama as "media bias"....and any report about "conservatives" when they've done wrong is supposedly "more bias".

This isn't Michigan vs Ohio State. Ideologies of "left" and "right" are actually founded in a world view, not political actors and PAC committees.




http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/american-sauce-remember-iraq/



While I will agree the media is not doing a good enough job to report on the insanity of deploying troops in the ME, CNN hasn't stopped reporting on troop casualties. Its also asinine to suggest there is some grand conspiracy against those wars (when Bush was in office), considering CNN and the like were the MAIN VOICES ADVOCATING THE US INVADE.......

Of course, why let truth get in the way of a perfectly good make-believe session?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda
Fox does not use propaganda


wait ...what?