GarfieldJL's Newsbusters Headlines Thread

[GarfieldJL]

Newsbusters, has caught the AP at engaging with class warfare. Now this wouldn't be that big of a deal, except this involves 3 families with total of seven children none of whom older than nine years of age, dieing in a plane crash.


Newsbusters has sourced the articles in question and I've had a look at those articles myself, and I have to say I'm disgusted but not particularly surprised.

(Sorry if some of my spelling is off, I haven't had much sleep these last few days)

[True_Avery]

Ultrarich? Good job guy.

But, while that was tactless, I also find slapping "but it was 7 children!" onto everything to be just as tasteless. The families of the deceased are probably having a hard enough time without the faces being posted online and throughout the news.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by True_Avery

Ultrarich? Good job guy.

But, while that was tactless, I also find slapping "but it was 7 children!" onto everything to be just as tasteless. The families of the deceased are probably having a hard enough time without the faces being posted online and throughout the news.

They got the picture from a news source as well, Newsbusters covers how news organizations report things and/or what they choose not to report.

[ET Warrior]

This is the one of the least newsworthy things I may have ever read about ever.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

This is the one of the least newsworthy things I may have ever read about ever.

It's how the AP covered the story that makes it newsworthy, class warfare anyone?

[True_Avery]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Class warfare anyone?

Simple comment blown out of proportion anyone?

There are better things to bicker about.

[Rogue Nine]

Yellowstone Club files for Bankruptcy on Nov 10, 2008.

This is not the first time Matthew Brown has referred to this club as 'for the ultra-rich'. Why didn't Newsbusters make a stink about this back then?

Because they're blowing this out of proportion to further more fearmongering from tin foil hat-wearing conservatives, that's why. Pathetic.

[RoxStar]

Originally Posted by Rogue Nine

Because they're blowing this out of proportion to further more fearmongering from tin foil hat-wearing conservatives, that's why. Pathetic.

Check and mate.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by Rogue Nine

Because they're blowing this out of proportion to further more fearmongering from tin foil hat-wearing conservatives, that's why. Pathetic.

^I wanted to make sure everyone got this, in case you missed it the first two times.

_EW_

[On_Your_Six]

I'm sorry, there's no way someone who has defended O'Reilly's reporting can possibly jump to the next topic and comment on what is really despicable reporting. Especially when it's grounded in a made up semantical context. Carry on.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Rogue Nine

This is not the first time Matthew Brown has referred to this club as 'for the ultra-rich'. Why didn't Newsbusters make a stink about this back then?

Because they're blowing this out of proportion to further more fearmongering from tin foil hat-wearing conservatives, that's why. Pathetic.

People didn't die in the Club going bankrupt, the story Newsbusters is talking about did. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that fact is your problem.

Originally Posted by On_Your_Six

I'm sorry, there's no way someone who has defended O'Reilly's reporting can possibly jump to the next topic and comment on what is really despicable reporting. Especially when it's grounded in a made up semantical context. Carry on.

Mr. O'Reilly doesn't go around bashing the recently departed dead, seriously can it with the derogatory comments...


@ RoxStar

You can argue about it being a check, but it was as sure as heck not mate.

[On_Your_Six]

You clearly don't watch his segments.

And in no way was I ever derogatory there, friend.

Though I would become highly derogatory with you if you continue to defend O'Reilly after watching this.

Now, I'm kind of disappointed that alot of Sustren's (whom I hate anyways) has been annotated, but whatever, the point is clear.

Worse yet, he was completely unapologetic about his words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi42d3dKDsE

[Rogue Nine]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

People didn't die in the Club going bankrupt, the story Newsbusters is talking about did. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that fact is your problem.

It is not I who isn't acknowledging this fact, it's Newsbusters. Yes, people did not die in the Club going bankrupt, but Matthew Brown did refer to it as 'ultra-rich'. He also refers to it as 'ultra-rich' in this most recent story. So what?

In the story you and your tinfoil hat cronies are getting your panties in a twist over, Matthew Brown simply repeated what he called the Yellowstone Club in a previous story. Given the fact that the Yellowstone club has an exclusive invite-only membership that includes some of the richest names in America like Bill Gates and Dan Quayle, the 'ultra-rich' qualifier is definitely warranted.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Mr. O'Reilly doesn't go around bashing the recently departed dead, seriously can it with the derogatory comments...

False. And I like listening to Bill O'.

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by On_Your_Six

You clearly don't watch his segments.

And in no way was I ever derogatory there, friend.

Though I would become highly derogatory with you if you continue to defend O'Reilly after watching this.

Now, I'm kind of disappointed that alot of Sustren's (whom I hate anyways) has been annotated, but whatever, the point is clear.

Worse yet, he was completely unapologetic about his words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi42d3dKDsE

Wasn't someone from an NBC affiliate sued by John Gibson over a doctored video that ended up on youtube, seriously I watch O'Reilly rather frequently and he isn't nearly as bad as you say he is.


@ Rogue Nine

My problem is the fact he brought it up in a story where people died in a plane crash. Maybe you don't care because these people weren't living in a slum somewhere, but in my opinion they were people and you don't go trashing the recently departed.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Wasn't someone from an NBC affiliate sued by John Gibson over a doctored video that ended up on youtube, seriously I watch O'Reilly rather frequently and he isn't nearly as bad as you say he is.

How the **** is that relevant? That has nothing to do with this video, which is obvious in its point. Way to commit a Poisoning the Well Fallacy and completely negate your argument.

Originally Posted by Garfy

@ Rogue Nine

My problem is the fact he brought it up in a story where people died in a plane crash. Maybe you don't care because these people weren't living in a slum somewhere, but in my opinion they were people and you don't go trashing the recently departed.

Did you watch the YT vid?

_EW_

[Rogue Nine]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

My problem is the fact he brought it up in a story where people died in a plane crash. Maybe you don't care because these people weren't living in a slum somewhere, but in my opinion they were people and you don't go trashing the recently departed.

Please identify the language in the article that 'trashes' the recently departed family. You can't because there isn't any and you're just reading into a pair of words to encourage fearmongering and ridiculous political posturing. Nowhere in that article does it say 'haha, a bunch of rich people died, let's all laugh now.'

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

How the **** is that relevant? That has nothing to do with this video, which is obvious in its point. Way to commit a Poisoning the Well Fallacy and completely negate your argument.

No, I'm asking who compiled the video. And quit swearing...

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Did you watch the YT vid?

Yes, and I think there is some stuff missing that changes the context of what was said, now I'll need to look at it again from home, but that's my initial impression since I watched O'Reilly and Greta talk about that kid.

@ Rogue Nine

Then why did he bring it up?

[Rogue Nine]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Then why did he bring it up?

Because he's called it that before? Because it's an accurate description of the Yellowstone Club?

[On_Your_Six]

Originally Posted by Garf

Yes, and I think there is some stuff missing that changes the context of what was said, now I'll need to look at it again from home, but that's my initial impression since I watched O'Reilly and Greta talk about that kid.

No, absolutely nothing changes the fact that O'Reilly suggested that it must've have been fun enough not to go to school to remain with the kidnapper and suffer sodomy and various other abuses.

Now, I'm sure you're not rushing out to get the unedited version of that clip to even make a fair statement, because you can't. You simply can't.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by On_Your_Six

No, absolutely nothing changes the fact that O'Reilly suggested that it must've have been fun enough not to go to school to remain with the kidnapper and suffer sodomy and various other abuses.

Ever hear of sarcasm, Mr. O'Reilly uses it sometimes, that's something people who don't usually watch the Factor tend not to understand...

The segment had to do with Shawn suffering from psychological abuse, and quite frankly there are other times Mr. O'Reilly points out what other people would argue (such as what you're claiming he was saying about Shawn).

Originally Posted by On_Your_Six

Now, I'm sure you're not rushing out to get the unedited version of that clip to even make a fair statement, because you can't. You simply can't.

Since I didn't get home until after midnight, of course I didn't look for a tape online, I went to bed I have class you know...

Originally Posted by Rogue Nine

Because he's called it that before? Because it's an accurate description of the Yellowstone Club?

If it was that big of an issue for him he could have left it out of the article because it wasn't relevant to the news story. It's an obituary for goodness sakes.

[On_Your_Six]

Originally Posted by Garf

Ever hear of sarcasm, Mr. O'Reilly uses it sometimes, that's something people who don't usually watch the Factor tend not to understand...

So, that makes his reporting not despicable how?

Amazing how you can take something so small from an AP article and blow it out into some inhuman tabloid garbage, and yet remain stubbornly blind to sources you respect.

Seriously, you lost this one.

[Rogue Nine]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

If it was that big of an issue for him he could have left it out of the article because it wasn't relevant to the news story. It's an obituary for goodness sakes.

No, it's a news story. If it was an obituary, it would be in the obituary section. And again, Brown had established that the Yellowstone Club was an exclusive resort for rich people in a previous story, so it makes sense that he would mention its status in this story as well.

It's really pathetic how conservatives latch on to those two little words and turn it into a whole uproar on 'class warfare'. Personally, I think this is more insulting to the families of the dead than the article was. Using their deaths as a platform for political pandering and frivolity. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

This is the one of the least newsworthy things I may have ever read about ever.

QFT

Originally Posted by Rogue Nine

Personally, I think this is more insulting to the families of the dead than the article was. Using their deaths as a platform for political pandering and frivolity. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves.

Could not agree more.

The very superficial study of journalism stresses the importance of who, what, when, where, why and how. Since most readers of Mr. Brown’s article are not privileged enough to be familiar with a club exclusive as the Yellowstone Club. The description of the club as “for the ultra-rich” clarifies the where in as few words as possible without talking away from the bulk of the story which is the who and the how, not the where.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

No, I'm asking who compiled the video. And quit swearing...

No, I don't think so. The purpose of the language filter is to stop the actual words. I'm not circumventing the language filter, and I've been told before by mods that there is no rule against it. As long as I'm not cussing at a member in a way that constitutes flaming, I have every right to do so.

So ****ing **** **** ****.

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-wa...ure-cop-killer

Basically the New York Times tried to generate sympathy for a man that murdered two police officers in cold-blood during a routine traffic stop. Then he killed two SWAT team members in the shoot-out that occurred afterward.


I'm completely disgusted, but I'm not particularly surprised, no wonder places like the New York Times are trying to get a bailout. Thing is, they should go bankrupt due to their shoddy journalism.

[True_Avery]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-wa...ure-cop-killer

Basically the New York Times tried to generate sympathy for a man that murdered two police officers in cold-blood during a routine traffic stop. Then he killed two SWAT team members in the shoot-out that occurred afterward.

Sorry, but I'm not someone who labels someone evil right on the spot so I fail to see how talking about this mans life is bad journalism. It is better than "man kills two cops" on front page. Least NYT's tied to explore the humanity of the situation instead of the "This guy was so evil that he made evil scared!" which is frankly childish journalism.

Sorry, NewsBusters, but there is no such thing as a clear-cut case. NYT's does not need to apologize or retract any statements when they delved into a story and told a side that was not being reported. To suggest this was clear-cut is to show the ignorance of Newsbusters and how little they understand about actual journalism and how far down they are willing to go to pick at scraps.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

I'm completely disgusted, but I'm not particularly surprised, no wonder places like the New York Times are trying to get a bailout. Thing is, they should go bankrupt due to their shoddy journalism.

What shoddy journalism? There was a story, they explored it, and then they published it. They told a side that was not being expressed and acknowledged that the shooter was still a human being. While the man ruined his life and the lives of others, at least he got someone to try to look through his eyes no matter how muddy they may have been.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Ever hear of sarcasm, Mr. O'Reilly uses it sometimes, that's something people who don't usually watch the Factor tend not to understand...

Hahaha, yeah! Sodomy and abuse is funny! [/sarcasm]

For someone who bottom feeds for sarcastic remarks to make threads about, you are awfully easy when someone on your side of the table makes a funny. It wasn't a tasteless joke or anything, it was a funny!

Disgusting.

[Astor]

Garfield, there's two sides to every story. The NYT decided to look into the other side, seeing as people were already looking at the 'evil' part of it.

Seems to me that you're just trying to make out that any news organisation that doesn't follow the same, tired, conservative standpoint to be a threat (Hardly surprising, though).