Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Ironically I was just reading an article on Infowars today ripping a piece on the Huffington Post regarding the JFK assassination.

Wow, that could be the invention of the decade there. I hope it catches on!

Yeah, I am very interested.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Funny thing, Infowars was a lot of the reason I began re-examining my political views this past November, since I watched one of their documentaries around that time (Fall of the Republic) and it scared the hell out of me. Then I began cross-checking some of their claims in that vid and saw that they were not only exaggerating but flat-out lying in some cases, which made me feel manipulated, and therefore pissed off.

Even if InfoWars/PrisonPlanet/AlexJones/etc happen to be on the 'right side' of the current debate, their deceptive tactics and utter rabidness make them barely a step up from FOX in my opinion because it seems like they're in it more for profit and self-aggrandization than to actually do any good for America. You don't need to be a manipulative asshole to show people how screwed up the establishment is. That's what evidence is for.

I really don't see how you can read all that shit and not be bothered by the bias in your sources. The facts of our current political situation speak for themselves, they don't need an accompanying paranoid rant to get the point across. A spin piece every now and then can be eye-opening, but ultimately it should not be the primary basis of your views.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I like the above post.

 

[Matt]

I know this is going to sound incredibly biased and leftist of me, but after watching CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, I have concluded that MSNBC is the best. Clearly liberal, but they usually don't lie or twist stories like FOX does every time they cover something. They also never hesitate to criticize democrats when they do/say stupid things. On FOX, that rarely happens.

Also, Keith Olbermann is hilarious.

 

[Dak]

I mainly use infowars and a couple of more or less similar sites for article sourcing more than anything else.I am aware of the bias on those sites as I am aware of the bias on all news sites, and this happens to have the opposite bias of establishment media, who only benefits the big money behind them.

Tinfoil hat rants benefit the food and camping/paramilitary gear and precious metals companies that support them, but at least the consumer gets something tangible in return with a long term usefulness instead staying mired in a dead end, debt based, wall-street-casino, consumeristic, false reality.

I am interested on the information that was lies in Fall of the Republic, and what you used to cross-check said information.

 

[Dak]

I know this is going to sound incredibly biased and leftist of me, but after watching CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, I have concluded that MSNBC is the best. Clearly liberal, but they usually don't lie or twist stories like FOX does every time they cover something. They also never hesitate to criticize democrats when they do/say stupid things. On FOX, that rarely happens.

Also, Keith Olbermann is hilarious.

Keith Olbermann is like the MSNBC version of Bill OReilly. Equally biased and full of bullshit.

Edit: The purpose of all MSM talking heads is to push the two party bickering and keep people distracted from actually researching and trying to put the best candidate into office, instead dividing them on petty partyline issues and popularity politics.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I know this is going to sound incredibly biased and leftist of me, but after watching CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, I have concluded that MSNBC is the best. Clearly liberal, but they usually don't lie or twist stories like FOX does every time they cover something. They also never hesitate to criticize democrats when they do/say stupid things. On FOX, that rarely happens.

MSNBC is the best of those three, sure, but they're still largely worthless puppets of the two-party system who are more about entertainment than information. I don't really believe your claim that they "never hesitate to criticize democrats", but it is clear that they don't hesitate to censor criticism of themselves:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/fox-news-shuns-obama-qa_n_447537.html

 

[Matt]

Well, I wouldn't have too happy about that, either...

And yeah, Olbermann is obviously biased, I don't think he ever claimed not to be. But he's just smarter and funnier about it.

 

[Dak]

Well obviously having a superior grasp of humor makes you a superior source of information.

I can't stand any of the network talking heads, I'd like to take OReilly and use him as a club on the rest of them. Glenn Beck wasn't as bad at CNN, but as soon as he switched to Fox he became OReilly Jr or something.

I miss Lou Dobbs.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I mainly use infowars and a couple of more or less similar sites for article sourcing more than anything else.I am aware of the bias on those sites as I am aware of the bias on all news sites, and this happens to have the opposite bias of establishment media, who only benefits the big money behind them.

Tinfoil hat rants benefit the food and camping/paramilitary gear and precious metals companies that support them, but at least the consumer gets something tangible in return with a long term usefulness instead staying mired in a dead end, debt based, wall-street-casino, consumeristic, false reality.

I am interested on the information that was lies in Fall of the Republic, and what you used to cross-check said information.

The one I remember off the top of my head was that they claimed it was illegal for Obama to chair the UN Security Council, citing this bit of the Constitution:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Which is hilarious because even when they've taken the passage out of context it's clear that it has nothing to do with the incident they're talking about. The U.N. isn't a "foreign State"

I have some notes on the documentary at home, so if I remember (or am reminded) later I can dig up more. I know there were plenty of exaggerations, though I don't remember any other clear lies.

At any rate, you still don't seem to get my point about the underground media bias since you again frame it as a choice between that or "MSM". There are honest news sources out there that aren't run by assholes, dude. If you were to cite them instead of tinfoil hat blogs when you argue politics with people, they might actually take you seriously. Spin stories are counterproductive to the national debate regardless of whether they're pro or anti establishment.

 

[Dak]

Suggesting that taking a title granted outside the sphere of the United States government is fine merely because the bestowing body doesn't fall under all available options at the time of the writing of the Constitution is weak. The UN can be considered a foreign state, since it is composed overwhelmingly by foreign dignitaries and is a (although thankfully handicapped) attempt at a global governing body.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

It is capable of military action, etc. I think it is not a stretch at all to define it as a foreign state. Just because it is a collection of states bestowing a position instead of just one doesn't suddenly make it ok.

I also don't remember posting any political blog information in a while.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Please don't ever become a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Dak]

So I can assume you don't see the problem with organizations like the UN or the EU?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No, you can assume I don't interpret the Constitution like it were a fucking Picasso painting.

 

[Dak]

Actually we are disagreeing on the interpretation of the term "foreign state".

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Find me an official definition of "state" that applies to the U.N. and you might have almost half a case.

 

[Dak]

I'll get back to you on that one. In skimming the Huffington Post I see pretty standard problems:

Exhibit articles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/moment-of-truth_b_470870.html

Nothing about whether the federal government should be involved in this or not, or whether or not this is a major win for Big Insurance. No, it's a Obama "celeb" and two party distraction piece.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/its-time-to-enact-health_b_470805.html

Similar piece.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-dyson/lessons-from-black-histor_b_471930.html



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/a-good-week-for-science_b_470500.html

While this piece had some good information buried amongst all the biased bullshit, it attacked so many things it could be considered a bomb approach instead of "multi-pronged".

It attempted to paint anyone with strong convictions into a "caveman corner" while touting feel-good unsubstantially liberalism with no more of a foundation to back up the positions other than to basically say "hey it's not being a conservative stick-in-the-mud.

To be fair, I did find this piece, which isn't bad:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marshall-auerback/memo-to-greece-make-war-n_b_471902.html

But it's got more to do with them probably perceiving it as an attack on the market in general rather than specifically on a corrupt bank, and doesn't really address the fact that the debt European countries have accrued is due mainly to socialist programs (while quick to point out elsewhere how much money we blow on our imperialistic world policing, which is of course all the Republicans fault, which it isn't)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yes, they have a few softball/filler stories (keep in mind, they also have a reputation and funding to maintain, unlike bloggers). But they also have some great stories, like the following:

Top Bailout Recipients Spent $71 Million On Lobbying In Year Since Bailout
Priceless: How The Federal Reserve Bought The Economics Profession
Bank Lobby On Course To Gut Bankruptcy Bill
10 Years Ago Today, Congress Allowed For "Too Big To Fail"
The Cost of Corporate Communism
Fed Beaten: Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle
William Black: Geithner "A Disaster," Has Been "Wrong About Everything In His Career"
Plain Sight Corruption: Senator Burr and Rape Victims
...and of course the one I posted earlier today:
Fox News Shuns Obama Q&A, MSNBC Gets Snitty When He Encourages Senators To Turn Off TV

Many of which you'd never find on a MSM site. If you follow Ryan Grim's articles, you should see a lot more of the stuff you are expecting to find.

Plus, Arianna Huffington was recently on ABC speaking against the two-party narrative. Seems like a pretty good news company to me, even if the average article may not be as 'hard-hitting' as you want. They do have to present multiple viewpoints on an issue to be perceived as credible, you know.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So, I think I may have finally found the story that will get my right-wing fundie stepdad off of Fox News. Apparently a Saudi prince who funds Palestinian suicide bombers is News Corp's 4th largest shareholder.

http://www.dcbureau.org/20100203319...ox-news-cant-upset-murdochs-saudi-prince.html

 

[Dak]

Yeah I saw that on a another site but I couldn't find a more reputable place with the information.