Janie, Get Your GunFollow

Remember when Fox News and The Washington Post went out of their ways to point out how many insurgents Jessica Lynch shot when she was ambushed? Ahh, good times.

SpoilerThe real answer was 0.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 4:00pm by lolgaxe

But Fox News has the mostest viewers in the world ever! It's the most popular news for everyone!

I love the conservative dissonance between bragging about how many listeners Limbaugh has or how many viewers Fox has and then the gasping sobs over how mean the "mainstream media" is


Is this another "I don't get my news from anywhere" moment or a joke?

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 7:01pm by Jophiel

I'm sorry. Could you find a quote of me or any other conservative on this forum saying that? I have *never* said that Fox news had the most viewers in the world (or the US for that matter). It is the most viewed cable news channel. Nothing more. But, as I have stated numerous times on this forum, cable news is not even remotely close to the most commonly viewed TV news. The broadcast news shows have vastly more viewers and thus have a vastly greater impact on the opinions of those who view. Far more people get their news regularly by watching whatever evening news show happens to come on after whatever prime time shows they watch than watch any form of cable news.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good strawman.



I honestly don't recall ever hearing/seeing anyone in the media make any specific notice of how many people (insurgents or otherwise) Jessica Lynch may or may not have killed. Hence my response. Perhaps somewhere in the liberal echo chamber someone made a big point of out claiming how much attention certain news sources were giving to this and that's where this idea came from? So I'm going with selection bias on this one. Strange how many things that liberals think conservatives make a big deal about actual conservatives have never even heard of. At some point you might want to question where you're getting your information.

And that's what stuck in someone's mind and created some great scandal about how many insurgents she killed? Seriously!?

I do recall stories about how the rescue of Lynch was gussied up to make it seem more daring and dramatic, but if the one part in all this that stuck in someone's mind was about how many people she may have shot when being captured, I think someone's focusing on the wrong part of the issue.

I do recall stories about how the rescue of Lynch was gussied up to make it seem more daring and dramatic, but if the one part in all this that stuck in someone's mind was about how many people she may have shot when being captured, I think someone's focusing on the wrong part of the issue.

Right, the main part of the issue was the attempt to manufacture action movie heroes to sell a ****** war. The Pat Tillman effect, if you will.

True. I'll stop reading news stories and stuff to learn about the world around me. From what I understand, I'm really just supposed to just make stuff up and declare it to be true and say my awesome powers of logic showed me the light so I don't need so fancy-pants "reporter" to be telling me information about what's in the world..

No, no, no. You're supposed to extrapolate your own personal experience as a 40 something white guy in Chicagoland to any other situation that exists. Was it cold today? Global warming is ********* Ever been pulled over for no reason in a rich neighborhood? No? What's all this racial profiling made up whining about *really*? Do you watch Downton Abbey? Then rich people are benevolent daddy figures looking out for the good of their servants.

Also, Matthew Dies in the finale.

Spoilers behind.

Speaking of which, when is Al'Gorzeera supposed to start broadcasting?

The difference is whether you allow the reporter to interpret the information in the world around you for you, without bothering to think about those facts yourself. I trim out the exaggeration and editorializing and look only at the facts that are presented. Most people read the subtext and suggestion and form their opinions based on that instead. It's why I can come into a thread where 30 people have read a linked article and are discussing how it says X, only to read it, declare "it doesn't actually say X, it says Y", and then all 30 insist simultaneously that they were not fooled by the writing *and* that X is somehow true anyway.

Yeah. Good times. Cheney was involved in the decision to grant Halliburton that contract all along, right? Suckers!

This is getting old.

'Most' people are quite capable of making decisions for themselves about the validity or level of bias in the information they receive. In fact, I'd wager a guess that you're not even up to 'average' in your ability to do the same.

Get over yourself already.

Foreign wizards, according to Osborne's next report.

Haha, just kidding, we both know he's gonna blame it on the snow.

Then why don't they use that capability and perhaps consider the possibility that when CNN or MSNBC runs a story about how much Fox News and the GOP are exaggerating the heroics of Lynch during her capture, that they should not just assume that this is true, but should perhaps actually go look and see how much weight conservatives are really putting in this. It's just amazing to me how often liberals insist that as a conservative I really care more about X, or Y, or Z because that's all conservatives talk about, while I'm sitting there wondering what the hell they're talking about because I don't actually care much about those things, nor do any conservatives I talk to, nor do any right leaning sources I hear/see/read.

It doesn't take long as a conservative to come to the conclusion that liberals really have no freaking clue what conservatives actually care about, what we think, or why we hold the positions we do. Liberal viewpoints are so prevalent in media that conservatives are well aware of what liberals think. But since conservative viewpoints aren't as prevalent (you really have to intentionally go looking for them), many liberals depend solely on liberal media sources to tell them what conservatives think. As you might expect, this is quite often not accurate at all.



And yet, I filtered out media coverage about the details (like whether she shot anyone) of Lynch's capture as unimportant while others thought it was so important that they held onto that factoid all these years and are sure that it was not because they themselves placed too much importance on it, but because someone else (conservatives in this case) did. Which is really really strange if you stop and think about it.

Yeah, except...



Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Because it's one or the other.


EDIT: Extraneous "r".

Edited, Jan 26th 2013 10:32pm by Bijou