What's new
By:

What is slander? Why isn't Harry Reid guilty of it?

SaltyDawg said:
So can you give some examples of where she spread false information and didn't issue a correction?
Click to expand...

That is not the way this works. She has to prove her innocence like Romney has to prove his.

Edit: Reid will not be guilty or even charged with any slander because then politicos would be falling left and right to that charge. The majority of them will say anything (see Grayson, Pelosi, Beohner, Biden, Huckabee, Romney, Obama...) to get into power and keep it.
 
SaltyDawg said:
So can you give some examples of where she spread false information and didn't issue a correction?
Click to expand...

Whether a side is left or right slanted, each has its own spin and opinions within the facts. Even if both said only things that were unable to be deemed unfactual, each would sound completelt different. Neither party nor slanted media network is innocent of this. Only those that are overly married to partisanship carry such disdain for a particular network when most are just as guilty as another, imo. All a matter of perspective.
 
Stoked said:
That is not the way this works. She has to prove her innocence like Romney has to prove his.
Click to expand...

Well (unlike Romney) all of her news stories are released to the public already. So if someone is saying one is false, they should be able to point out which one. And then we can look and see if there was a correction issued fur any story that had false information.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Well (unlike Romney) all of her news stories are released to the public already. So if someone is saying one is false, they should be able to point out which one. And then we can look and see if there was a correction issued fur any story that had false information.
Click to expand...

Honest question...

If a person repeatedly spreads false information due to a personal bias and then apologizes but has shown over their career that they repeatedly do so and will continue to do so would you still consider them a factual source?
 
PKM said:
Whether a side is left or right slanted, each has its own spin and opinions within the facts. Even if both said only things that were unable to be deemed unfactual, each would sound completelt different. Neither party nor slanted media network is innocent of this. Only those that are overly married to partisanship carry such disdain for a particular network when most are just as guilty as another, imo. All a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

That generality didn't address the claim though. I said Rachel Maddow leans left, but sticks to facts and issues corrections when she is wrong. Someone else replied that they thought it was a joke.

If she makes a habit of lying, I'm unaware of it and would love it if someone could point out a few for me please.

I remember Jon Stewart proving Hannity had lied a couple years ago. There are many websites listing various Hannity lies. It's pretty easy to prove he's more of a propagandist than journalist. If Rachel Maddow is on that same level, it shouldn't be hard to find some examples.

Here's a decent one on Hannity (first Google link that comes up):
https://foxnewslies.net/?cat=11

Looks like they have some integrity on that site and aren't just trying to bash him without merit. They actually update their posts with corrections after Hannity issues them.
 
Stoked said:
Honest question...

If a person repeatedly spreads false information due to a personal bias and then apologizes but has shown over their career that they repeatedly do so and will continue to do so would you still consider them a factual source?
Click to expand...

Of course not. And I don't think Rachel Maddow does this.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Of course not. And I don't think Rachel Maddow does this.
Click to expand...

She is one of the worst on the left. You might as well call her Mrs. Shawn Hannity with how guilty she is spewing partisan crap. If you cannot see that then there is no point continuing this discussion.
 
I can't stand Rachel Maddow, her manner of speaking seriously annoys me, and she makes a big deal out of trivial points, I think, um , not really sure about the last part, because of the first part.

...not sure why, maybe its because she's always smiling so hard... I would prefer someone who cries and yells more.
 
Maddow is a serious person pretending to be silly.

Hannity is a silly person pretending to be serious.

Doesn't really matter though. Both have opinion shows - they're supposed to be slanted.

The real debate is the political slant of their respective hard news shows. I wouldn't know. Other than breaking news or live events, I haven't watched television news in years. It's a complete waste of time.
 
Stoked said:
She is one of the worst on the left. You might as well call her Mrs. Shawn Hannity with how guilty she is spewing partisan crap. If you cannot see that then there is no point continuing this discussion.
Click to expand...
Again, can you cite some instances where she gave false info and did not correct it? There is a long list of times Hannity did it (and I posted it) so to say they are the same is just wrong.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Again, can you cite some instances where she gave false info and did not correct it? There is a long list of times Hannity did it (and I posted it) so to say they are the same is just wrong.
Click to expand...

Go read her articles for yourslef and she the personal attackts that she makes ont he right. That right htere, by itself, disqualifies her as a "news source" in my opinion. As does Hannity.

Also I find it interesting that suddenly the burden of proving innocence should not be applied.
 
Stoked said:
Go read her articles for yourslef and she the personal attackts that she makes ont he right. That right htere, by itself, disqualifies her as a "news source" in my opinion. As does Hannity.

Also I find it interesting that suddenly the burden of proving innocence should not be applied.
Click to expand...

What burden of proving innocence? You said she was as bad as Hannity and I disagreed. I posted several examples of Hannity "reporting" blatantly false info, many (most) with no correction from Hannity.

To my knowledge, there are no examples of Rachel Maddow blatantly "reporting" false info. I knew she has been wrong about some things, but she always issues a correction.

If you're talking about her proving innocence like Romney, her info (reports, broadcasts, etc) is already released to the public. That's all anyone is asking from Romney, just release the stuff and let the public decide for themselves.
 
Don't know if its been posted, but Reid's comments are legally protected from slander/libel because he made his statements on the Senate Floor, constitutional immunity which is granted to those speaking in the confines of that room.

That is why what he did was a particularly douche-y thing to do.
 
Revolution 9 said:
First can we get the guy who screamed out "liar" during a state of the union.

Give me that clown, and we'll talk.
Click to expand...

Saw Pearls response

Even if the President was lying (I am not saying he was or is) you do not shout like that in the middle of his speach. Televised or not. Get your crap together and act like a mature adult.
 
Coloradojazzfan said:
Don't know if its been posted, but Reid's comments are legally protected from slander/libel because he made his statements on the Senate Floor, constitutional immunity which is granted to those speaking in the confines of that room.

That is why what he did was a particularly douche-y thing to do.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't have been slander anyway.

He said he heard from a source, not he knows for a fact.
 
why can't we all get along and realize that our mainstream media, in general, is broken?

(Stoked, you're looking bad here, hombre.)

(Also, I'm starting to understand that PearlWatson must be a funny alt account, cuz his **** is repeatedly lol-ridiculous. UGLI Baby? Franklin?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top