MSNBC's "creative editing"

[kochman]

There is only one "right wing news channel". And it obviously lies based on hundreds of documented cases. Even you admit it.

OTOH the same is obviously not true with MSNBC, or any other legitimate news provider, despite the incessant whining of the "far-right" to the contrary.

I would say that both MSNBC and Fox have clearly allied themselves to a political side.

I still would think that the way Fox News promoted and advertised themselves to the TEA party for instance shows their level of activism is far greater than MSNBC's who's display of bias is of a more passive variety, but still journalism-unworthy.

And here we see the difference between a foaming at the mouth partisan, and a person who is awake to reality... and I don't think Ziggy would deny being to the left on the "American" slide scale of political insanity.

I would deny the more passive bias claim, since when I stopped watching those channels, in the 2008 Election, between Matthews and Olberman MSNBC showed they were aligned staunchly to the left.

Honestly, I don't watch either channel. I see, on a weekly basis almost, claims about each of them being deceitful. Some of the claims are unsubstiated, based up what I turned up while following up on what was said, but enough of them are true that the two channels are, as Ziggy said, journalism-unworthy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

"Foaming at the mouth partisan"? I would daresay that the vast majority of people fully understand the difference between biased legitimate news organizations like MSNBC and Fox News. Even Mobboss agrees with the former:

Anyways, just like in the other thread, despite this (and other examples), I still regard MSNBC as a valid news media source. And as I mentioned in that other thread, sometimes these are simple mistakes and sometimes not. I get the vibe that this one was a lame attempt at humor gone wrong, but thats just me.

Emphasis mine.

Is he also a "foaming at the mouth" partisan for merely disagreeing with your personal opinion?

 

[Leonel]

Well to be fair those machines are pretty cool since you can just press a button, although I don't like how they have the potential to make the personal cashier obsolete. I mean that's one less customer who doesn't have the money to buy a sandwich because an automatic machine took their job.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sadly, that is likely at least part of why Romney thought they were so great. After all, he accumulated much of his own personal wealth by doing just that.

 

[amadeus]

Well to be fair those machines are pretty cool since you can just press a button, although I don't like how they have the potential to make the personal cashier obsolete. I mean that's one less customer who doesn't have the money to buy a sandwich because an automatic machine took their job.

Neo-Luddism makes me .

 

[kochman]

"Foaming at the mouth partisan"? I would daresay that the vast majority of people fully understand the difference between biased legitimate news organizations like MSNBC and Fox News. Even Mobboss agrees with the former:

Emphasis mine.

Is he also a "foaming at the mouth" partisan for merely disagreeing with your personal opinion?

It isn't for disagreeing with me... which Ziggy and I do often, for example. I have nothing to do with you being foaming at the mouth, I am just calling you out for it.
It is for your frequent absolute statements like only FN lies, etc. I could spend the time going over about a thousand other posts of yours that show this trend, but it's a moot point.

Btw, citing MobBoss agreeing with you doesn't mean you aren't a zealot, for the record... just as I don't make you a zealot because you disagree with me...

"Look within yourself Luke, you know it to be true."

 

[warpus]

I would say that both MSNBC and Fox have clearly allied themselves to a political side.

I still would think that the way Fox News promoted and advertised themselves to the TEA party for instance shows their level of activism is far greater than MSNBC's who's display of bias is of a more passive variety, but still journalism-unworthy.

It blows my mind that there are people out there who consider either to be a "reputable news source"

It's news entertainment, not news

 

[DinoDoc]

Right. Because it has apparently happened once at MSNBC and occurs regularly at Fox News, they are just the same. Again, bias is not the same as deliberately lying and propagandizing no matter how frequently the are conflated.

Zimmerman 911 edits?

And Romney did have an exaggerated reaction to Wawa (not Wawas as Romney called it) having a touch screen entry system available to customers instead of employees, which is quite typical. Her point that he is completely out of "touch" with reality still holds. That really had nothing to do with the context of his remark.

Andrea Mitchell’s Wawa comment is ill-informed

 

[cegman]

You're right they aren't biased or anything</sarcasm>

http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2012/06/daily-show-msnbcs-3-stages-of-grief.html

Formy I read through the other thread. I kinda wanted to turn the page on you. If you notice one of the first post is on this thread "Fox does it too". But if someone defends Fox by saying "MSNBC does it too" you consider that to be an illegitimate post.

Mobboss like me thinks that these News outlets can have legitimate news on them. If you watch multiple news sources then you can consider the bias of each. Maybe you can get some news from each. Some things MSNBC covers Fox doesn't cover and some thing Fox covers is CNN doesn't cover and some things CNN covers MSNBC doesn't cover.

 

[JollyRoger]

Is Romney so out of touch that he doesn't realize a change of address involves a postcard?

 

[cegman]

Is Romney so out of touch that he doesn't realize a change of address involves a postcard?

Are you so out of touch that you don't realize he is talking about a Medicare form. The one for doctors. I've been to a DMV I don't find it hard to believe that a Medicare address change for service suppliers involves a lot of paperwork.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Zimmerman 911 edits?

Again, that was NBC, not MSNBC. They really have nothing to do with each other. And that producer was fired after NBC apologized for the mistake.

You see, that's how legitimate news organizations operate.

 

[JollyRoger]

Are you so out of touch that you don't realize he is talking about a Medicare form. The one for doctors. I've been to a DMV I don't find it hard to believe that a Medicare address change for service suppliers involves a lot of paperwork.

Ten minutes of research found that it involves retrieving a blank of the form you previously filled out, inputting basic identifyng information, checking two boxes, and filling in your new address. Would be pretty standard for a similar change with a private insurer.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Now we need a third thread.
Comparative creative editing between MSNBC and FN.

That sounds like a liberal arts course at the U. Watchtoomuchtv

 

[Formaldehyde]

Formy I read through the other thread. I kinda wanted to turn the page on you. If you notice one of the first post is on this thread "Fox does it too". But if someone defends Fox by saying "MSNBC does it too" you consider that to be an illegitimate post.

How is responding to Kochman mentioning Fox News "turn the page on" me? And it has nothing to do with it being "an illegitimate post", whatever that means. All news organizations make mistakes all the time. The issue is how they react to those mistakes.

In this particular case, MSNBC apparently doesn't even think it was one:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/06/andrea-mitchell-airs-full-romney-video-126639.html

On her show today, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell responded to criticism of the network's decision to run an edited tape of Mitt Romney's remarks about the Wawa convenience store chain, but the network has not clarified why it ran the edited version of the tape.

"We ran clips of Mitt Romney in Cornwall, Pa., talking about his trip to a Wawa," Mitchell said. "Well, the RNC and the campaign both reached out to us saying that Romney had more to say about that visit &#8212; about federal bureaucracy and innovation in the private sector. We didn't get a chance to play that, so here it is now."

Mitchell's response did not satisfy many critics, especially those on the right, who saw it as a non-apology.

Meanwhile, MSNBC did not respond to requests &#8212; before and after Mitchell's segment &#8212; for an explanation as to why the network aired the edited tape.

(Also on POLITICO: MSNBC mischaracterizes Romney remarks)

UPDATE: An MSNBC spokesperson emailed the following at 4:30 on Tuesday afternoon:

&#8220;MSNBC did not edit anything out of order or out of sequence and at no time did we intend to deceive our viewers.&#8221;

They seem to think it was a quite legitimate edit. YMMV.

Editing is something that editors do all the time. Hence, the name.

Mobboss like me thinks that these News outlets can have legitimate news on them. If you watch multiple news sources then you can consider the bias of each. Maybe you can get some news from each. Some things MSNBC covers Fox doesn't cover and some thing Fox covers is CNN doesn't cover and some things CNN covers MSNBC doesn't cover.

I think Fox News does as well on most occasions. I even frequently quote them in this forum when I think their coverage of a particular story is OK.

And I just made the same comment about how easy it is to spot bias in this very thread.

You apparently don't understand my position at all. Let me restate it yet again. Fox News is not a legitimate news organization because they rarely retract any remarks, much less fire people for them. Some legitimate news organizations do this rarely, as some might think MSNBC apparently just did. But they are the exceptions instead of the rule.

Fox News stands relatively alone in the US in this regard, as well as frequently engaging in propaganda and intentional deceit. But apparently it is a hallmark of all Rupert Murdoch-owned media organizations. You really can't compare them to any other "news" organization, even MSNBC which has largely decided to be just as biased in the exact opposite direction. It is apples and oranges.

Personally, both networks are far too biased for me to watch with rare exception. I couldn't really stand Olbermann's incessant rants, although I don't find Rachel Maddow too bad. And I've always liked Cenk Uygar, but he is no longer associated with them anymore. Ironically, he left because they told him to "tone it down" because "he was too combative towards 'those in power.'" I take that to mean he was too frequently critical of Obama and other Democrats.

Ten minutes of research found that it involves retrieving a blank of the form you previously filled out, inputting basic identifyng information, checking two boxes, and filling in your new address. Would be pretty standard for a similar change with a private insurer.

And this puzzled an orthodontist for 3 hours. No wonder Romney thinks the government should "automate" like Wawa has. No, he isn't out-of-touch at all, which was Andrea Mitchell's whole point which has been repeatedly made by numerous others.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the bigger problem which lies at the foundation of the bias of both channels is that bias is dead-easy and it sells. Plus, the left vs right divide is the easiest one to exploit since there's a lot of infrastructure already in place. Easiest one to create and report on conflicts as well.

Now a couple of years ago MSNBC wasn't as biased as it became when they tried to emulated Fox's business model. They saw they ratings plummet, and thought it would be a good idea to place themselves on the opposite side. In which I think they completely missed the reason why Fox was so successful. They have the clearest narrative and it's presented with a passion. The opposite to Fox, and now MSNBC is having a channel that also is passionate and has a clear narrative but doesn't fish in the left vs right waters, but in another pond which also appeals to many, and also has a great potential audience. The corrupt vs the non-corrupt. The dishonest vs the honest.

A channel that would put it's passion into exposing corruption through real investigative journalism instead of ready-mate same old same old would answer a large portion of the market who feels abandoned by the 24-hour news networks. There's a reason people voted for the Daily Show as one of the most trusted sources of news. Because they recognise the narrative as their own. The narrative being how fruit-loopy and shamelessly awful these news stations have become.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The problem is that too many people watch either of them, which actually isn't all that many at all. Less than one percent of the country watches either one on a given day. And in the case of Fox News, the average age is over 65. But it is enough for both of them to continue to make enough profit to continue.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Ah, but the difference here is that Romney Inc is a political organisation, while MSNBC is supposed to be journalism.

illegitimate black child ?
Iam actually surprised that Democrats havent tried to emulate this very effective tactic.

But yes, the fourth estate should be held to a high(er?) standard, its a sad state of affairs all round.

 

[MobBoss]

Even Mobboss agrees with the former:

Ease up there bub, before you go quoting my opinion. I also think Foxnews is quite legitimate.

You see, unlike you, I dont really care about bias in the news, as humans themselves are all biasd as well, its nigh-near impossible to eliminate it or to even try. Why not just recognize it as such and move on without all the weeping and gnashing of teeth crying 'propaganda' like some people cry 'attica, attica'!!!

I mean for heavens sake, let it go for once. There is an absolute difference in actual 'news' and the op-ed programs that everyone complains about. None of the media outlets in question are defined by their op-ed programs, nor should they be.

That sounds like a liberal arts course at the U. Watchtoomuchtv

Hmm. How many in this thread have a liberal arts degree?

Fwiw, I wish Foxnews actually had some competition for the conservative side of things. I think if they actually had less of a market share it would probably tone things down a bit.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ease up there bub, before you go quoting my opinion. I also think Foxnews is quite legitimate.

I never claimed you didn't. Now did I? That pretty well goes without saying given how vociferously you defend them no matter what they do. Now doesn't it?

You see, unlike you, I dont really care about bias in the news, as humans themselves are all biasd as well, its nigh-near impossible to eliminate it or to even try. Why not just recognize it as such and move on without all the weeping and gnashing of teeth crying 'propaganda' like some people cry 'attica, attica'!!!

How many times do I have to state that I don't care about bias in the news before you understand that is actually my opinion?

Why do you continue to manufacture my opinions for me when I make them so clear, even in this very thread?

There is no doubt that MSNBC is highly biased on the opposite side from Fox News. Virtually any news organization is biased at least to some extent. But it is clearly not the same as lying and propagandizing.

I really have no problem with bias. It is easy enough to detect by anybody who gets their current events from more than one source.

Emphasis added.

Perhaps you should actually read my posts before frequently accusing me of having opinions I obviously don't have.

I mean for heavens sake, let it go for once. There is an absolute difference in actual 'news' and the op-ed programs that everyone complains about. None of the media outlets in question are defined by their op-ed programs, nor should they be.

Only the "news" in the case of Fox News is no better in many cases, as the video I posted earlier clearly shows. That is just an absurd myth that their deliberate lies and propagandizing is limited to the "op-ed programs".

How many legitimate news sources do you know that got the courts to rule that they had the right to lie and be deceitful on their news shows if they wanted to do so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

The 2003 documentary, The Corporation, featured Wilson and Akre discussing their battle with WTVT, with Wilson claiming that the jury "determined that the story they pressured us to broadcast, the story we resisted telling, was in fact false, distorted, or slanted."[4][9] Project Censored called their story one of the "Most Censored Stories" of 2003,[4] claiming that the "Court Ruled That the Media Can Legally Lie."[10] Robert F. Kennedy Jr. later quoted Wilson in his book, Crimes Against Nature, with Wilson asking "[W]hat reporter is going to challenge a network ... if the station can retaliate by suing the reporter to oblivion the way the courts are letting them do to us?"[11] Wilson and Kennedy both failed to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the suit.[4] Following the story, Akre and Wilson won the Goldman Environmental Prize for the report,[1] as well as an Ethics in Journalism Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.[12] The two continue to challenge WTVT's license, the last such challenge coming in 2005.[4]

Perhaps you should take your own advice. You continue to try to defend the indefensible.