Anaxagoras
Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
|
Thank you for your nit picking response. Obviously you are still sore after our last exchange. How about trying to keep your personal issues out any discussion, eh? No doubt your nonsense will yield a tiresome trading of posts where I have to repeat myself again, and again, and...
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Its telling to list Breitbart amongst two genocidal tyrants,
Fitting dont you think? That a man who murdered peoples reputations without regard for the truth is listed between two men woh murdered peoples bodies...too kewel.
No not in the slightest. Great deal of difference between tyrants who murdered people en masse and harming the reputations of a few people. Its interesting that you fail to see this immense difference. 
quote:
and judging by the reaction of those who tastelessly cheered his death on here (specifically Hippiekinkster and Fightdirecto), thats the light in which they see Breitbart.
That is the light he shown on himself.
No, that is the judgement others passed on him.
quote:
The worst thing he did was strip the context of the footage of Sherrod. An objectionable thing to do, especially when she lost her job but does that make him an evil individual?
Absolutely, glad you noticed.
I would be the first to say he had done wrong, and indeed I pointed that out unprompted.
quote:
No it makes him a pretty average media sort actually.
Average if you are comparing him to rush and hanity...hardly average if you compare him to humans.
Average in terms of the media itself, be it right or left. Its very well known that the media can play fast and loose with the truth but of course it suits you to pretend otherwise.
quote:
The media repeatedly twists and strips comments of their context.
Just the liars.
Perhaps you could post for us the times that npr or pbs "repeatedly twist and strips the comments of their context.
Here you are again trying to get others to do your work for you. I suppose I have to sit through thousands of hours of footage and write a detailed analysis. Neither channel is available in my part of the world so I cannot comment on either source but for your edification here are two articles that cite examples of bias on NPR and PBS: http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/02/01/nprs-bias-against-genetic-engineering/ and http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/04/public-broadcasting-biased/
quote:
I can't say how accurate the article by David Frum is with regard to Breitbart's overall character but his piece exaggerates one point to miss another much more fundamental point. Breitbart seemed to be waging a war against the media that he preceived as prejudiced. If he was economical with the truth
Is "economical with the truth" code for fucking liar?
(I can't say to what extent as I hardly ever looked at his sites)
You state that you do not know what you are talking about but then go to give us your opinion about that which you have stated that you know nothing about.
Perhaps you need to revisit your literacy issues. I stated "if" he was economical with the truth, and then affirmed that I didn't know to what extent he was. Thus I was not giving an opinion on whether or not he was dishonest generally speaking because I clearly stated that I hadn't read enough of his work to say one way or the other.
quote:
then he surely learnt those lessons fom the people he opposed.
If, as you state "I hardly ever looked at his sites" how the fuck do you presume to know what he learned and from whom he learned it
(A) media manipulation is an age old exercise and (B) I have read comments by himself and other commentators on his own intent as have others on here.
quote:
In other words it is absurd to suggest he has had such a gravely poisonous impact on the media and on politics that he changed the character of these respective fields to a significant extent.
This from someone who claims "I hardly ever looked at his sites"...do you even read the shit you post?
I think you really need to grow up and stop taking your ire out on those you disagree with. If you had bothered to follow the argument, you would see that I was responding to Frum's article which made some extraordinary claims about Breitbart poisoning politics and the media when it is clear that the things ascribed to Breitbart's actions were there a long time before he ever made a name for himself a few years back. That point does not require a close knowledge of the content produced on his websites.
quote:
It gives the guy far too much credit IMHO, and excuses how sensationalistic and dumbed down the mainstream media is, and has been for a very long time.
You clearly do not listen to npr or pbs...the question is why. Are they too intellectual for you? Do you need "dumbed down news from rush and hanity?
Ah more personal attacks. If you had any sort of memory to access you would know I don't listen to any of that stuff.
Stop trying to put those you disagree with into little "FOX News" boxes, and actually engage with some intellectual honesty in what is being said whether you agree or not.
quote:
BTW those who celebrated his death actually gave him the kind of response he probably would've wanted...
How do you presume to know what he wanted when you clearly state " I hardly ever looked at his sites"?
You are repeating yourself. He stated that as the mission of some of his sites, and some commentators also attested to that view.
< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 3/5/2012 6:58:16 PM >
_____________________________
"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)
|
RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread