Fox's "Muslim Against NYC Mosque" is a Christian

Originally posted by Retseh
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

The irony here is that you are quoting and linking Media Matters, an organization that is dedicated to attacking conservative spokesmen.

The frequent inaccuracies perpetrated by MSNBC and CNN are never touched, just Fox and other conservative commentators, of which there are a precious few.

Just for giggles I did a search on Media Matters for Joe Scarborough MSNBC and got 10 pages at roughly 30 items per page where they corrected him or took him to task.

You can search by any news org and any talking head...try it....the truth is a wonderful thing.

Your statement above is untrue.


[edit on 27-7-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11


Thanks. Sometimes it's hard to convey something like this to those unfamiliar with a site and its track record. I used to research everything myself and come to many if not all the same conclusions MediaMatters comes to...that and they're very good at counting things like minutes of coverage of a story and doing timelines...all very time-consuming work, but all work that checks out far more often than not.

I think it's extremely disingenuous of those who are not familiar with a site and its work and history to summarily dismiss it based on virtually nothing but who backs it?

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Prove that Media Matters spin lies and falsehoods, talk about your easy assignments, here you go - a tiny selection:

They were caught in a lie regarding their attempt to quell the birther controversy:

24ahead.com...

They attempted to smear Cliff Kincaid and their report was exposed as a blatant lie:

www.themediareport.com...

And they were caught by an independent Canadian media outlet when they lied about the GM CEO firing:

canadafreepress.com...

Then they posted lies about the Gaza flotilla:

codepink4peace.org...

Not to mention their disgusting attempt to twist the truth regarding the "Phoney Soldiers" controversy which actually saw liberals take up the cause on behalf of Rush Limbaugh:

en.wikipedia.org...

So to my point - again. You are using a leftist propaganda machine whose only purpose is to smear conservative media outlets as the arbiter of truth in the media, when it can plainly be shown that they are little more than liars with a leftist agenda who source their funding from the extreme fringes of the radical liberal community.

Let me know if you want any more, there's lots more if you're still in denial.

reply to post by Retseh


Birthers
Birthers make my head hurt, sorry, so I'm not even going to your link. But I will go out on a limb here and saying that based on the remainder of the items on this particular list you have posted here in this thread, you probably didn't even read the body of knowledge on this subject and certainly not the Media Matters article. You probably stopped your Googling of "Media Matters lies" when you found this link...just like you did for the Code Pink one.

Phony Soldiers
Ah...I remember this one very well. The very transcript in the article you linked shows Limbaugh clearly saying phonysoldiers...plural. He says phony soldiers more than once very
clearly in context. He also says that it was actual people who joined the military. Hardly phony soldiers.

His backtracking to attempt to say he meant a specific person doesn't fool anyone. He didn't even discuss MacBeth in this call. So what part swayed you? The part where he donated money?

Cliff Kincaid
A little followup might have served you well on this one.

Kincaid denounced "false" Media Matters item but failed to point out a single falsehood

Gaza Flotilla
I believe you misread the headline on this article and also the preface, or first line: "Great piece by MJ Rosenberg at Media Matters to counter misinformation about the flotilla raids."

So what is your point here about how Media Matters lies?

Wagoner Firing
Ummm...did you even READ, the MediaMatters article? Didn't think so. It goes into far greater detail, with supporting documentation, than that one small paragraph the Canada Free Press pulls out to fulfill its apparent agenda of slamming Soros. Here is the entire article. Please point out the "lies."

Fox Business' Varney mischaracterizes Wagoner's departure

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems you may be trapped here in that box of looking for and reading only what you want to read and taking in no further.

See, when I use the tool called MediaMatters, I also follow the links they provide and find my own too, so I have no qualms about using this filthy leftist organization's work if and when it also corresponds with what I have already seen and found independently and AFTER I consider how logical and feasible what they have to say and how well summarized and checked it is. In fact, I have often linked to an article for just a particular portion of it with a disclaimer if I didn't find something that was correlated or that I felt was pure speculation or opinion. I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I don't think I'm the one in any kind of "denial" here.

In case you're into the labeling game, please note that I'm also not a "leftist." I simply find Media Matters fairly balanced and a crack and thorough team...far more thorough than any of the "sources" you've posted here hands down and far more thorough than many others who attempt this mission in general.

You are more than welcome to keep trying, but I will tell you this. In all my many years of working with Media Matters, they've not been successfully debunked very many times at all. They're actually careful about what they post.

[edit on 7/27/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
right VS. left...
conservative VS. liberal...
moderate VS. extremist...
patriot VS. communist...
muslim VS. non-muslim...
christian VS. atheist...

DIVISION and DISTRACTION!

[edit on 27/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Here's what I don't get about your comments...these comments are reflective all over these political boards...hell i've even been guilty of saying them myself.

Why is it if someone attacks an idiot conservative, they're automatically a "liberal", or if they attack an idiot liberal, they're automatically a "conservative"?

Ever hear of a "free thinking" individual? Yes, they're sparse in your day to day activities...but this site is a beacon for them...so you'll find them much more densely populated here.

Its bad enough to have a real "idiot vs idiot" my team politics fringe movement on this site, without adding a third party of "Derrrr, im going to mirror comments i see that get stars in hopes of stars of my own".

The OP has been critical of both sides of the aisle based on other posts i've seen.

Seriously, do your research before you barge into a conversation that you only know part of the story.

Yes, I show no mercy with my criticisms. Some glaring stories are just easier to find than others.

I have a list of mega-beefs with the liberal media longer than the dictionary going back to just 2008 about the way they supported the hope and change BS and also lacked the critical analysis and reporting we so desperately needed to avoid exactly what we're facing today...more of the same BS. Most are backpedaling big time now, but the damage as far as I'm concerned was done. And they in this case (the election) probably did far more damage than FoxNews. If I were assigning points that is....

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by Snarf
Here's what I don't get about your comments...these comments are reflective all over these political boards...hell i've even been guilty of saying them myself.

Why is it if someone attacks an idiot conservative, they're automatically a "liberal", or if they attack an idiot liberal, they're automatically a "conservative"?

Ever hear of a "free thinking" individual? Yes, they're sparse in your day to day activities...but this site is a beacon for them...so you'll find them much more densely populated here.

Its bad enough to have a real "idiot vs idiot" my team politics fringe movement on this site, without adding a third party of "Derrrr, im going to mirror comments i see that get stars in hopes of stars of my own".

The OP has been critical of both sides of the aisle based on other posts i've seen.

Seriously, do your research before you barge into a conversation that you only know part of the story.

Read between the lines. Look at what I was emphasising. People will pick a side and try their best to smear the opposing side INSTEAD of using combined knowledge to examine the conspiracy! This has happened and continues to happen all across these boards. This was not directed at the OP specifically but all those who get caught up in the DIVISION and DISTRACTION game.

You should refrain from judging other people and what you perceive are their motivations until you have comprehended what their message is. It is clear you did not understand the message being sent, so therefore are not in a position to judge what was stated.

[edit on 28/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Absolutely. We lose sight. The bickering (distracting and deflecting) element always existed at ATS, but never to the extent as we're seeing lately, which we have to assume is just mirroring the country.

It's increasing in proportion with the influx of people who really do have huge agendas and don't seem "get" certain things about ATS...one being that we have to make every attempt set aside BS labels and stories to get to truths...and don't seem to be willing to learn them.

To me, ATS is not just another platform for ANY political agenda, and if you attempt to bring it into the conversation, don't expect to have it taken in the way you expected it to be taken. We ANALYZE those here...we don't take them at face value, so expect a lot of criticism and questioning.

And that fact that your cliques may form of like-minded individuals, and you may thereby assume what you're doing is "working," doesn't mean it is.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Let me try a different tack with you here because evidence and common sense plainly aren't working.

The conservative equivalent of Media Matters is The Drudge Report, or at least as conservative a media outlet as we currently have.

Their "news stories" consist of largely anti-liberal opeds, for example Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal after the liberals at Newsweek famously declined to report it.

The stories on Drudge are obviously newsworthy in their own right, they brought down a president after all - but if he ever strayed into the realm of accusing liberal outlets of spinning the truth, I would laugh.

With Media Matters you have the same, but in reverse, some of their stories are newsworthy, but to use them as the scales of justice in reporting media accuracy and fairness is ridiculous, if only because of their massive pro-liberal bias.

Are you picking up what I'm laying down?

do real muslims who follow the quran and the words and teachings of their prophets have a word in this?

if the prophet muhammed was alive i'd bet he would deny this mosque because new york is unclean for a muslim mosque.

the true muslims are the shia who forbid suicide bombing, in fact it is the shia muslims who are being bombed by wahabi extremist sects from saudi arabia.

reply to post by Retseh


No. Not at all. Sorry, no Your 'everything is the same' doesnt work in the real world.
Media matters ignores unfriendly info, while it pumps out liberal nonsense and misinformation without merit while domonizing the very existence of opposition. Far more pointless and blatently false crap comes out of media matters than right media and actually tries to silence competint media, and while media matters demonizes other for lapses of integrity it itself has, it ignores it's own problems.
So sorry, no, I for one want to know if the president is a letcher and security risk even if you dont think it matters. And there''s the difference, one side wants dialogue and the other wants supression.
Big difference

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by mordant1

Originally posted by RizeorDie
do real muslims who follow the quran and the words and teachings of their prophets have a word in this?

if the prophet muhammed was alive i'd bet he would deny this mosque because new york is unclean for a muslim mosque.

the true muslims are the shia who forbid suicide bombing, in fact it is the shia muslims who are being bombed by wahabi extremist sects from saudi arabia.

Now dont you be so taquii. yah ach.
Mosque is a de facto political embassy on occupied and held territory. If you were honest you'd admit that is your culture and the intent of the NY mosque
Real muzzie? One that reads the queeran, all of it? Dont make me laugh. Druhze, shia, sunni and even suffi all see the other as apostate and worthy of slaughter and it has not to do with the queeran writings but the so called succession of ownership of the top spot of the political arm of the political state that is islum

[edit on 28-7-2010 by mordant1]

you obviously think bush is like a saviour and that 9/11 was planned by bin laden and was commited by extremist muslims. get you're head out of my a**hole please.

reply to post by RizeorDie


I dont seem to find any reference by me regarding things you assign to my motivation. Youre not qualified and youre not right and your distraction and stupid ASSumption is not going unnoticed by anyone reading your tripe my taquii little habib

Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by RizeorDie

 

I dont seem to find any reference by me regarding things you assign to my motivation. Youre not qualified and youre not right and your distraction and stupid ASSumption is not going unnoticed by anyone reading your tripe my taquii little habib

I didnt bother to respond to you're earlier post because it was full of insults even though you had a good point and I would have liked to discuss it with you, but the insults were uncalled for. habibi ya sharmoota hahaha

so what is a taquii, is that supposed to be some arabic word you heard?

kos omak, respond please!

reply to post by RizeorDie


google is your friendly habib.
Awfwan

reply to post by Retseh


A different tack because why? No thanks. I'm good.

Originally posted by Retseh
So we continue to argue about the color of the bird while it continues to crap on our head?

Building a mosque at ground zero is an affront on a scale so massive that even discussing it borders on the offensive. The US was attacked by fanatical Muslim extremists, something they have been doing all over the world for some time now, and now that same religion wants to build a showpiece mosque at the site of the attacks, seriously?

Only airheaded ATS cuckoos would miss that and focus on some trivial spin at Fox News.

Freedom of religion is a great thing, and one of the things that makes this country great.

reply to post by TheFinalTruth14


Islum is a political system masquesading as a religion.
A country cannot maintain two systems of justice, law and interpretation and compare the domination in all things by written muslim doctrine on nonbeleivers and beleivers alike. A religion is what you do at home, not what you make others do against their will, that is theocratic politics.