It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Maddow displays the PROPAGANDA they are! MSNBC Lies!

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The truth of the matter is, There is no law, rule, regulation or policy that says news sources must tell the truth.
It has already been settled in a U.S. court of law.

Most politicians lie through their teeth and make empty promises , why should our news sources be any different?




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Like they had to tell us they are not partisan? Lol.........I don't think they understand what that means.

I used to like Keith Olbermann, because I agreed with a lot of what he said about BUSH. Then I found out he only got it right when talking about Bush/Republicans. Imagine my dismay when I realized he was just a rabid Democrat apologist, because he basically defended all the same stuff he ranted about when Democrats were doing it, instead of Republicans.

And I don't like Rachael Maddow AT ALL.....as a matter of fact, the first time I saw Elena Kagan, I wondered if she might be Rachael Maddow's big sis.

Course, I don't like Fox News or BillO either. As a matter of fact, I don't like anyone with radical ideology on either side.

And don't get me started on "Lean Forward"!!! Is that just another subtler way of saying "Bend Over"?

edit on 2-2-2011 by sezsue because: to show my "non-partisanship"



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


I always thought these two were siblings. Notice the the ridiculous Flow-bee haircuts.







Just sayin...........................



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
* Sigh *

How anyone could suggest Maddow a legitimate source of information is beyond me? Granted, no " news " station is legit anymore, but some are far worse off than others. Maddow, well...being laughable at best clearly shows herself as a teleprompter reader, who couldn't make an accurate depiction of anything she would see first hand!

Like I said, laughable at best!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Maddow, well...being laughable at best clearly shows herself as a teleprompter reader, who couldn't make an accurate depiction of anything she would see first hand!


Pardon me but I must voice extreme disagreement with that assessment of Ms Maddow's journalistic skills. I think she did an admirable job covering the BP Gulf Oil Disaster. She was in the field reporting rather than "reading a teleprompter" from the studio as you so claim. Have you EVER seen the likes of O' Reilly or Beck out in the trenches covering a story? Doubt it, they are in their comfy studio blathering lies flanked by their teams of private security.

Case in point:


That "first hand" enough?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Being on the scene, and reporting what she is told to report is hardly journalistic favor? Do you honestly believe, that her alleged investigating and reporting was on the up and up? Surely you can't be that naive?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I think it illustrates how far standards for "journalism" have fallen. It used to be journalists reported the facts of a story, unbiasedly, and let people form their own opinions. Now, it seems to be find facts that supports your bias on a particular issue and report it as fact. Then, if your caught, your employer will publish a tiny correction somewhere in the paper or on their website, and life goes on. This happens on all sides of the media spectrum.

This is very similar to what has happened in the sciences. Instead of finding facts and using them to develop a hypothesis that can be tested, scientists now seem to be making hypothesis and then finding facts to support it.

I think this also is an illustration of how nowadays younger people can't critically think for themselves and can't tell (or were never taught) the difference between a real newscast (if there are any, maybe the local stations) and a satirical representation of a newscast (ala Weekend Update or the Daily Show). I think its quite possible the staffers had no idea the Onion was satire, and that the idea of finding additional sources to prove a stories validity is non-existent in today's "journalism"



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Haha.. oh man. It's really not that shocking, I mean, they are talking about Palin so a fake story about her saying something stupid isn't even clever satire as it could have very well happened.

HOWEVER I got one better for you, fox new has done the same thing but so much worse, and their fool readers believed it (an absolutely ridiculous story).

www.rawstory.com...

Edit: Ah.. i see someone posted about this incidence already. Can't hurt to point out again though I guess.
edit on 3-2-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


They already did. They posted an onion article as real.
See my above post ; )

Edit: btw Fox just pulled the article and never made a retraction so they left thousands of their readers thinking this was a true story. IMO this is a much worse case than the one you have posted here.
edit on 3-2-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join