News source, talking heads, and sound-bites related to them.

**fishjoel** · 02-14-2011

I was thinking about the topic of news sources and "talking heads" for a couple of days. The source were people get their information from seems to be such a concern to some people. I know I'm a conservative but it seems that this is something that is demonstrated by those of a liberal mind more than those of a conservative one. Someone will post w/e story or piece of information and the standard response will not be directed at what the person is saying. This comes in the form of few, fairly cookie cuter, resonses (eg).

"Did you just get your marching orders Glenn Beck/You're just parroting what Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly/"Faux News" talking heads tell you to."

I've been at the recieving end of this even though I don't watch any cable news at all. Additionally, one of my favorite sources of news is NPR. Regardless of that, I've had to deal with these comments even though I've been in Afghanistan since July and I don't even have TV so I couldn't watch any of that garbage even if I were so inclined.

I find liberal sources equally partisan and dishonest when talking about MSNBC or Olbermann.

Here's the thing though....so what? I mean really, what does it matter where the source of information. I don't care if you get your story from a bullshit source like the Huffpo. I don't care if you got it from Olberman. Does that change anything? It doesn't change anything for me. If you say something, that you heard from MSNBC, that I disagree with I'll tell you why I disagree with it or why I think you're wrong. There is not reason for me to waste my time with a non-resonse of, "you're a mindless Olbermann parrot/sheep". I'll state why I think you're point is baseless. You know...have a real debate/discussion.

There is only one reason I can concieve of this type of language being used. This reason is that the person using it doesn't have a valid point. They can't forma cogent thought on why the other person is wrong. They just spout cliche lines that are not designed to be intellectual or informative but to try and discredit and silence the opposition because they can't stand on their own two legs.

In summary, I just want people to actually make an argument and stop using stupid partisan statements that have no value and just make you look foolish and devoid of any and all validity. Really, who cares?

**Sadanie** · 02-14-2011

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I was thinking about the topic of news sources and "talking heads" for a couple of days. The source were people get their information from seems to be such a concern to some people. I know I'm a conservative but it seems that this is something that is demonstrated by those of a liberal mind more than those of a conservative one. Someone will post w/e story or piece of information and the standard response will not be directed at what the person is saying. This comes in the form of few, fairly cookie cuter, resonses (eg).

"Did you just get your marching orders Glenn Beck/You're just parroting what Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly/"Faux News" talking heads tell you to."

I've been at the recieving end of this even though I don't watch any cable news at all. Additionally, one of my favorite sources of news is NPR. Regardless of that, I've had to deal with these comments even though I've been in Afghanistan since July and I don't even have TV so I couldn't watch any of that garbage even if I were so inclined.

I find liberal sources equally partisan and dishonest when talking about MSNBC or Olbermann.

Here's the thing though....so what? I mean really, what does it matter where the source of information. I don't care if you get your story from a bullshit source like the Huffpo. I don't care if you got it from Olberman. Does that change anything? It doesn't change anything for me. If you say something, that you heard from MSNBC, that I disagree with I'll tell you why I disagree with it or why I think you're wrong. There is not reason for me to waste my time with a non-resonse of, "you're a mindless Olbermann parrot/sheep". I'll state why I think you're point is baseless. You know...have a real debate/discussion.

There is only one reason I can concieve of this type of language being used. This reason is that the person using it doesn't have a valid point. They can't forma cogent thought on why the other person is wrong. They just spout cliche lines that are not designed to be intellectual or informative but to try and discredit and silence the opposition because they can't stand on their own two legs.

In summary, I just want people to actually make an argument and stop using stupid partisan statements that have no value and just make you look foolish and devoid of any and all validity. Really, who cares?

I can agree with most of what you are saying. Everyone has the right to select their sources of information and usually will prefer to the sources that are somewhat consistent with their internal beliefs/intuition.

However, there is one problem with this, and it is a problem with both "sides" (Dems and Reps), especially the further away from the center one moves to: both sides have their biased, and that should be accepted as a fact and taken into account. But the biggest problem is accepting "sources" as factuals. . . when they are not!

And there is no doubt that some "sources" are more consistently accurate and factual than others. I agree that NPR tries very hard to present information that is based on facts, and that they usually host people (of various political convictions) who do try to limit their comments to what can be verified.

I also agree that MSNBC is very biased. ALMOST as biased as Fox. . .but not quite. And they do spin their information, but at least the basis of the information is FACTUAL. . . then they spin it to give it a bias.
With Fox News, they too often BEGIN with a misleading information or even an outright lie, and then the spinning begin, driving that misleading information even further from any factual basis, and going viral for people who have a limited ability to use "shit filter!"

**GeorgeLaw** · 02-14-2011

OMG,,Piers Brit-Shit interviewing Donny Deutch-bag , a leftist egomaniac

(ok,redundancy),about his views on marriage,women, fathering,,

totally self engrandisment, totally kissing his own ass, totally the king of nepatism(himself)

how did I reach this low point in television fare?

Where is my remote??????????????

Donny says it is all about "The Brand"....I vomit,,,ughh

But i agree with his take on Sarah Palin.

And he says he is the lovable rougue,,,,,,so am I.

**fishjoel** · 02-15-2011

Originally Posted by Sadanie

However, there is one problem with this, and it is a problem with both "sides" (Dems and Reps), especially the further away from the center one moves to: both sides have their biased, and that should be accepted as a fact and taken into account. But the biggest problem is accepting "sources" as factuals. . . when they are not!

Of course both sides have biase. In that we are in agreement. I'll also agree that the further you move to the fringes the more falsifications are present. I'm not saying that you should accept the source as factual. I'm saying, if it's invalid, prove how it's invalid. Blowing off the point makes no contribution and does not prove the other person wrong or their source being wrong. In reality, the only thing you do is give the source that your are despising validity.

I also agree that MSNBC is very biased. ALMOST as biased as Fox. . .but not quite. And they do spin their information, but at least the basis of the information is FACTUAL. . . then they spin it to give it a bias.
With Fox News, they too often BEGIN with a misleading information or even an outright lie, and then the spinning begin, driving that misleading information even further from any factual basis, and going viral for people who have a limited ability to use "shit filter!"

Again, if a Fox News story is posted that is incorrect, correct it. Me personally, I've don't really feel the need to blow off a source because of the source alone. I don't care if it's coming from the HuffPo, MSNBC, Olbermann, or the NYT. If the source presents information or a POV that I think is false I'll say way it is false. I wouldn't even waste my time responding to a post if the only thing I'm going to write is a statement of dismissal.

Again, I see this as mostly a "lefty" thing. I really don't see righties doing it that much. Sure, I've seen them do it, but no where even close to the same level as those on the left. They aren't even in the same ballpark. There is some kind of visceral reaction, those on the left, feel when a conservative source is quoted. It's as if their emotional reaction renders all their cogintive reasoning drained out of their ears to puddle on the floor. They'll even bring up Fox News, Glenn Beck, O'Reilly (ect.) even if they are not quoted or mentioned at all. The mere postulation holding a conservative POV is enough for people to invoke Fox/Beck, et al, when there is no way of even knowing that person watches/listens to any of them.

Seriously, why does it matter what the source is? Who cares? If the source or the poster makes an invalid post then show them how they are false. It's really not that hard is, if you're being honest, is one of the very basic tenets of debate/discussion.