RE: Media and the Oslo attacks

RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 10:49:53 AM)
A drop of 30 in the death toll is very good news.

Fightdirecto -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 11:40:46 AM)
Crooks And Liars: July 24, 2011 05:00 PM quote: quote: Fox News "correspondent" Catherine Herridge: "It's a case of domestic extremism and there do not appear to be any known links to an outside terrorist group. We've had a series of arrests this morning but it really does appear to be an act that was driven by a single suspect or lone wolf operative." Can someone please tell me what a "domestic extremist" is other than a euphemism for Fox News avoiding their responsibility to report the truth to their viewers? Herridge blamed social media, Norway's law enforcement authorities for not monitoring social media more closely for people like this, and just about everything but coming out with the truth: Brevik was not a "domestic extremist." He is a radical right-wing cultural warrior who has been influenced by many different people, including Tim Phillips, director of Freedomworks, apparently... Unfortunately, deluded Fox News viewers will just go on thinking he was some sort of amorphous 'extremist' deluded by social media. Business as usual. Regarding the reference to Tim Phillips and the American Tea Party: Tea Party Heavyweight Tim Phillips Spoke at Norweigan Killer's Political Party Event quote: Anders Behring Breivik, detained in the deadly Oslo bombing and shooting that has left 92 dead, has links to Norway's anti-government political group the Progress Party, according to the LA Times: quote: On social media forums, he claimed to be a disgruntled former member of Norway's anti-tax, small-government Progress Party, according to the Norwegian Nettavisen news service. His postings reflected strong anti-Islamic views and a deep skepticism about the mixing of different international cultures. As it turns out, Tim Phillips, President of the Tea Party group Americans for Prosperity, spoke at a Progress Party event in 2010. According to an article published in the Norwegian paper Aftenposten on April 24th, 2010: quote: Phillips was invited by the Progress Party leadership to talk about grassroots organizing. But he talked mostly about how his organization is fighting for a weaker central government and lower taxes, to health reform and climate change. Moreover, he spoke regularly of Democrats in the U.S. as the "left side". From Brevik's Manifesto: quote: We, the European Revolutionary Conservatives know very well that it will take many years, even decades before we successfully manage to consolidate to a degree where we can seize political and military power in the first Western European country. In the US, the Tea party movement is one of the first physical, political manifestations which indicate that there is a great storm coming.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 1:52:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I also remember listening to a left wing talk radio program after they caught McVeigh where they were telling us that the government had to arrest every militia member in the country and how it proved that we needed to end private ownership of firearms. It seems that everyone "assumed" that Islamic terrorists were responsible. And the closest thing I heard to a retraction was "they were the most likely suspects". Indeed the same happened in this instance where mianstream news outlets from across the political spectrum did the same. In the UK this happened with the BBC, which is regarded as being moderately left-wing, and the Guardian, which is relatively hard left. When an event happens people race to understand who is behind it. Its a normal response.

Moonhead -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 1:55:20 PM)
The Grauniad isn't so much "hard left" as a lot more centrist than the red tops. It's hardly the New Stateman, is it?

Anaxagoras -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 2:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The Grauniad isn't so much "hard left" as a lot more centrist than the red tops. It's hardly the New Stateman, is it? I would think a paper like The Times is fairly centrist while the Torygraph is on the right. I believe the Guardian is relatively hard-left at times when it is at its most strident but yeah its an exaggeration to say it is "hard left" overall. Its more left of centre which is backed up by the phenomenon of the pinko "Guardian Reader". Of all the broadsheets around today its easily the most left-wing.

philosophy -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 5:53:33 PM)
"In the UK this happened with the BBC, which is regarded as being moderately left-wing, and the Guardian, which is relatively hard left. " ...stop using US definitions of left wing. According to those, anything to the left of Thatcher is communist. The BBC is pretty much middle of the road. Every single sitting government in memory has accused it of being too left/right wing, according to what wing they are. As for the Grauniad, it's left of centre.......but only in america could that be described as 'hard left'.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 6:26:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "In the UK this happened with the BBC, which is regarded as being moderately left-wing, and the Guardian, which is relatively hard left. " ...stop using US definitions of left wing. According to those, anything to the left of Thatcher is communist. I wasn't using the US definition of left-wing. I was actually using the European definition. quote: The BBC is pretty much middle of the road. Every single sitting government in memory has accused it of being too left/right wing, according to what wing they are. The BBC is widely acknowledged as being moderately left of centre in its coverage of the news. Peter Sissons who is one of the most famous news anchormen in the UK confirmed that they have a distinct prejudice toward anyone who doesn't have left leaning views. Here is an extract of what he said in his book about the BBC (reprinted in the Daily Mail) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html - I posted it on another thread recently. quote: As for the Grauniad, it's left of centre.......but only in america could that be described as 'hard left'. I said it could be hard-left occasionally but was mainly "left-of-centre" or just plain old "left" as the Daily Telegraph is right. The Guardian is well known to be so. Nothing wrong with it being leftist BTW. I was just making a point that the issue of connecting Islamicists with the Norwegian attacks went across the political divide: quote: Guardian features editor Ian Katz stated in 2004 that "... it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper ...".[1] In 2008, Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley said that editorial contributors were a mix of "right-of-centre libertarians, greens, Blairites, Brownites, Labourite but less enthusiastic Brownites, etc" and that the newspaper was "clearly left of centre and vaguely progressive". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

tweakabelle -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 6:43:46 PM)
Recently we had a thread about Fox-TV's decision not to set up a Canadian franchise as it was unable to comply with a legal requirement that news organisations tell the truth. Wingnuts here defended Fox-TV's 'right' to tell lies. That was the 'theory'. Now we have a telling example of the 'practice'. Wingnuts are now finding excuses to justify various media organisations and pundits (and themselves too!) making complete asses of themselves by prematurely blaming the wrong people for the horrors in Norway. Anyone with a brain should have known to withhold judgement until the facts were known. Instead there was a rush to judgement, a rush that happily ties in with said people's political agendas. All kinds of contrived defences are being advanced for this colossal balls up. It's clearly a case of people's bias running away with itself. There are no excuses. If they didn't know, they really should have kept their big mouths shut. Instead, they elevated their suspicions into facts. How much credibility can we give to people who can't differentiate between the facts of a matter and their own biases? They should have known better. Their agenda and credibility of the wingnuts who rushed to print, and of the deluded fools who defend them, is in tatters and so it should be. Should I lay people 3 : 1 on that? [:D]

lovmuffin -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 8:38:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto If you recall, immediately after White, Conservative terrorist Timothy McVeigh set off the bomb in Oklahoma City, FOX-News reported that the bombing was the work of Islamic terrorists. To date, they have never issued a retraction or correction - they just ignored their previous news story and acted like they never said it. You're making that up. McVeigh set off the bomb in Oklahoma City on April 4th of 1995. The first FOX News broadcast was in October of 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

Aswad -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 9:23:13 PM)
People up here seem pretty pissed off at Fox News. So much so that I had to have a look at what Fox News is saying. I've spent the past half hour since trying to articulate a single phrase about them that does not violate the law in both countries, and I cannot. I am angry. I can't inflect that adjective adequately. I daren't use any others. I hope what I saw was a hoax. Or a sick joke. I advise checking facts. Health, al-Aswad.

popeye1250 -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/25/2011 9:55:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto If you recall, immediately after White, Conservative terrorist Timothy McVeigh set off the bomb in Oklahoma City, FOX-News reported that the bombing was the work of Islamic terrorists. To date, they have never issued a retraction or correction - they just ignored their previous news story and acted like they never said it. You're making that up. McVeigh set off the bomb in Oklahoma City on April 4th of 1995. The first FOX News broadcast was in October of 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel Fightdirecto, do like the Lefties do, just act like you never said that.

Moonhead -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/26/2011 6:48:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The Grauniad isn't so much "hard left" as a lot more centrist than the red tops. It's hardly the New Stateman, is it? I would think a paper like The Times is fairly centrist while the Torygraph is on the right. I believe the Guardian is relatively hard-left at times when it is at its most strident but yeah its an exaggeration to say it is "hard left" overall. Its more left of centre which is backed up by the phenomenon of the pinko "Guardian Reader". Of all the broadsheets around today its easily the most left-wing. Are there any other broadsheets left besides The Times and the FT? Being to the left of those two makes the Grauniad the Evening Star.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/26/2011 6:58:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The Grauniad isn't so much "hard left" as a lot more centrist than the red tops. It's hardly the New Stateman, is it? I would think a paper like The Times is fairly centrist while the Torygraph is on the right. I believe the Guardian is relatively hard-left at times when it is at its most strident but yeah its an exaggeration to say it is "hard left" overall. Its more left of centre which is backed up by the phenomenon of the pinko "Guardian Reader". Of all the broadsheets around today its easily the most left-wing. Are there any other broadsheets left besides The Times and the FT? Being to the left of those two makes the Grauniad the Evening Star. I would see The Times as being roughly centrist although occasionally to the right. The Torygraph is right wing. The "Granuaid" (as I prefer to call it in contrast to the "Eye" norm), Independent and Observer are largely to the left. BTW not all the red tops are right-wing. The Mirror is pretty much left wing, at least it avoids the pretentious tossery of the Gran.

Moonhead -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/26/2011 7:04:54 AM)
Fair point. I'd forgotten the Indie and the Torygraph. (Given the Observer is just the Sunday Grauniad, I'm a bit dubious of claiming that one's a separate paper in its own right, though.) The Mirror has the odd distinction of being fairly reactionary right, and pro labour at the same time. It's a bit depressing as this used to be (as you say) a very left leaning paper, but that's been largely done away with since the Mirror group was bought up by some Australian publisher...

Anaxagoras -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/26/2011 7:19:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Fair point. I'd forgotten the Indie and the Torygraph. (Given the Observer is just the Sunday Grauniad, I'm a bit dubious of claiming that one's a separate paper in its own right, though.) True but I still see the Observer as a separate paper although its been co-opted by the Granuaid. I think it only happened in the early 90's and its a lot older than the Guardian. I think its one of the oldest surviving newspapers in the world! quote: The Mirror has the odd distinction of being fairly reactionary right, and pro labour at the same time. It's a bit depressing as this used to be (as you say) a very left leaning paper, but that's been largely done away with since the Mirror group was bought up by some Australian publisher... Interesting point, I thought they were still left-wing being very critical of Cameron and criticising Clegg for joining the coalition. Do you mean Murdock bought the paper? I must confess I didn't know that!

Moonhead -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/26/2011 7:34:49 AM)
The other one (the one who couldn't swim) bought it, then started steering it rightwards to compete with the NI redtops. I think the Mirror is owned by Trinity at the moment.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/26/2011 7:37:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The other one (the one who couldn't swim) bought it, then started steering it rightwards to compete with the NI redtops. I think the Mirror is owned by Trinity at the moment. "the one who couldn't swim" eh? Sometimes your posts remind me of that song "The Horse with no name" - name the friggin' horse??? [:D]

Moonhead -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/26/2011 7:44:47 AM)
Sorry, that was joke. Robert Maxwell. I thought everybody remembered that he fell off his yacht and drowned back in 1990...

Anaxagoras -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/26/2011 7:51:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Sorry, that was joke. Robert Maxwell. I thought everybody remembered that he fell off his yacht and drowned back in 1990... Thats cool, I was joking too! I remember that but I thought he was as British as kippers for breakfast...

PeonForHer -> RE: Media and the Oslo attacks (7/26/2011 7:59:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Sorry, that was joke. Robert Maxwell. I thought everybody remembered that he fell off his yacht and drowned back in 1990... Thats cool, I was joking too! I remember that but I thought he was as British as kippers for breakfast... Nope. Hence his nickname in Private Eye of 'The Bouncing Czech"

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875